Datasets:

huuuyeah

/

meetingbank

like 5

AS AMENDED a bill for an ordinance amending the Denver Zoning Code to revise parking exemptions for pre-existing small zone lots. Approves a text amendment to the Denver Zoning Code to revise the Pre-Existing Small Zone Lot parking exemption. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 2-14-17. On 2-27-17, Council held this item in Committee to 3-20-17. Amended 3-20-17 to ensure that the parking exemption is applied for all uses. Some parking requirements are calculated based on gross floor area while others are on number of units and not explicitly for gross floor area, to further clarify the legislative intent of the proposed bill to emphasize the city’s commitment to more comprehensively address transportation demand management strategies in the short term, and to require a Zoning Permit with Informational Notice for all new buildings on Pre-Existing Small Zone Lots that request to use the small lot parking exemption; Enables all expansions to existing buildings to receive the full parking exemption; and clarifies at what point an “existing building” is considered

DenverCityCouncil_05012017_17-0161

Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments to council as a whole and refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilwoman Gilmore, will you please put Council Bill 161 on the floor? Yes, President Brooks, I move that council bill 161 as amended, be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved and seconded. Councilman. Clerk, go ahead and offer your motion to further amend. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 161 as amended be further amended in the following particulars on page five, line one, strike 13 .1.9 and replace with 13 .1. ten on page five. Line three strike 13 1.9.3 and replace with 13 one dot and four. Add a new section to the bill which reads as follows Section six A except as otherwise provided in Section six B of this ordinance. With respect to certain site development plan applications, the amendments to the Denver Zoning Code adopted by this ordinance take effect on May five, 2017. B Notwithstanding Section six A of this ordinance, if requested by an applicant, a pending formal site development plan application may be processed under the provisions of the Denver Zoning Code concerning the small LA parking exemption prior to the adoption of this ordinance. The prior small loft parking exemption. If CPD receives a complete application for a mandatory concept review pursuant to section 12 .3.2.2 of the Denver Zoning Code, which was submitted in advance of a required site development plan per section 12 .4.3.3 on or before August 26, 2016, and such application sought to use the prior small loft parking exemption . Great. It has been moved only a second. Great. It's been moved. And second, it comes from members of council. Councilman Clark. Thank you, Mr. President. This amendment updates the zoning code reference that changed as a result to the passage of Council Bill 17 0311. Additionally, it establishes an effective date of May five to mirror the effective date of Council Bill 17.0311. Lastly, it provides clarity that certain applications were not subject to the moratorium on small light parking exemption enacted last August, and those applications may continue to use the small shop parking exemption as existed prior to this proposed text amendment. We had a number of projects that were in the pipeline and the moratorium clearly set forward that they could remain under the rules that under which they had applied. And we just missed that. I think in the bill, I believe the intent was always to allow those to continue progressing, not to progress, and then all of a sudden have the rules changed on them. And this fixes that for the projects that are in the pipeline. And I would ask that all my colleagues please vote to further amend this amended bill. Thank you, Mr. President. Great. And I'll further explain. And I'm looking at CPD. I believe there are 11 projects in the current pipeline that have been talked about and agreed with with the community even before we started this process. So. That's why we're doing that. Everybody in the public, we did not want to change the rules, whatever we did on people who had projects in the pipeline. So thank you, Councilman Clarke, for bringing this forward. Councilwoman Sussman woke up, she. I said, that sound like Councilwoman Sussman. And sure enough, it is. You look really good. Okay. All right. Madam Secretary Rocha. Clark. Right. Espinosa. I. Flynn. I Gilmore. I Cashman. I Lopez. I knew. Ortega. I Sussman. Well, I better not vote because I'm not sure what we're voting on. You can abstain. Oh, they keep the pipeline. Okay. I just flew in from South Carolina. And, man, my arms are tired. Yes, I had studied this and know this, so I'm going to vote II black. All right. Mr. President. I police voting and as results. 11 eyes. 11 eyes. Clarks amendment to keep the folks who had prior projects out of the pipeline for these amendment changes passes. Okay, Madam Secretary, do we need to vote on 161 or do we want to wait till the public here? No. You want to open the public hearing? Great. All right. The public hearing for Council Bill 161, as amended, is open. May we have the staff report? Jeff Hart. Oh. Champagne. Good evening. My name is Karen Champagne. I'm the director of Planning Services and Community Planning and Development. I am sharing in this presentation this evening just to provide a broader context for the staff recommendation. So CPD recommends denial of this text amendment to the Denver zoning code. And in a few minutes, senior city planner Jeff Hertz and then zoning administrator Tina Axelrod will provide a lot more technical analysis and details to explain that position. However, just please understand that despite a recommendation of denial of this particular text amendment, no, that we are committed and we do share in the concerns about the issues of parking management in our neighborhoods. We want to make sure that that's important and underscored with this discussion tonight. That is why we are committed and want to state tonight that we're committed to working with our colleagues in public works in the mayor's office and of course, with the community to take a further take to do further analysis of the bigger picture issues in the bigger picture parking management challenges, and explore more holistic common sense solutions which are relevant to a variety of contexts and lot sizes throughout Denver. And to effectively explore the concerns raised during this process, we want to step outside the narrow scope of this particular text amendment, which only addresses lots that comprise 1% of our city. We are committed to near-term solutions and answering tough questions, and that includes how can we promote and expand transportation demand management and integrate TDM programs into private development and strengthen partnerships with existing transportation management associations that are already in place? They're great resources for us. We also want to help answer the questions of how do we better implement Denver's strategic parking plan throughout it, through innovations in pricing and regulations to better balance parking supply and demand. And another hard question that we want to tackle is how do we pay for major improvements to our multimodal network? So fewer people, people are taking trips by car and households can choose to own fewer cars. So in addition to a lot of these really important short term strategies that we're committed to solving, we also have Denver rights, our community driven process that will take a longer a longer term look at advancing these policies. And we are and we, of course, encourage engagement in that process. So we just want to give a little bit of that context. And I'd like to introduce Jeff Hertz, senior city planner for a staff report. Thank you. So Jeff Hurt with CPD. So why are you skipping ahead here? So the scope of this tax amendment before you tonight relates to the section of code on the screen, which is a fairly short, discrete section of the Denver zoning code that essentially says that all preexisting zone lots that are less than or equal to 6250 square feet and zoned mixed use commercial do not have to provide any parking. So this is the baseline we're working with today is a full exemption on these lots. This exemption has been in place since 2006 and it originally applied to the Main Street Zone districts, with four primarily concentrated on Colfax. And the primary purpose of that of that bill, among other purposes, was to encourage redevelopment of these small lots without assembly into larger lots. So in this image up here kind of highlights what we're talking about, this smaller pattern of development, typically 50 foot wide by 125 foot deep. And I'll talk a little bit more about that. And then in 2010, the exemption was expanded citywide to all mixed use commercial districts. I think with the recognition that these small lots of the same challenges, regardless if they're in a, you know, on Colfax or anywhere else in the city in these mixed use commercial areas. And then, of course, last year, last August, Council approved a seven month moratorium to study the issue further. And during that time, Councilman Brooks convened a steering committee of about 13 people across different disciplines affordable housing, historic preservation, community activist developers, others. And during that time, I believe they met five times over the course of late 2016, they developed a series of recommendations and input that informed Councilman Brooks's proposal that he brought to the Planning Board in February of this year. And so that proposal was for all of these preexisting small, zoned lots for the first three stories of any new buildings on these lots to be fully exempt from parking, provided that they're in what we're calling transit shared or transit rich areas. And I'll talk a little bit more about what that means here in a minute. And then all other preexisting zoned lots outside of these transit areas, the first two stories are exempt and then further existing buildings would be fully exempt. So this is the prior proposal. Planning Board voted on that proposal on February 1st of this year, 8 to 1 to approve it with the condition that city council not require any additional mandatory parking as the tax amendment advanced. And so following planning board, the Liberty Committee met three times on this issue. And then you all know the moratorium was extended by 60 days. During that time, several amendments were proposed by Councilman Clark. And that gets us to where we are today. So the current proposal that's on the books or in front of you tonight is for, again, preexisting small zoned lots, zoned, mixed use commercial, all new buildings for all new buildings. The first two stories would be exempt in these transit rich areas and for all other new buildings on other preexisting small zoned lots. The first one story is exempted. So it's a reduction in the number of stories by one under these amendments. And then additionally, for all new buildings wishing to use the exemption, they would be required to go through what's called a zoning permit with informational notice. And we'll talk a little bit more about that here in a minute. And under this amended bill, all existing buildings are also fully exempt, but further are allowed to expand up to kind of what the zoning allows a number of stories and get a full exemption. So that's the components of the bill that is before you tonight. And just a real quick overview. I know some of you have seen this before in terms of the scope of where these lots are in the city. They are less than 1% of the city's land area. There's about 3400 parcels that meet this criteria. We unfortunately don't map zone lots, so it's a big approximation, but about 3400 parcels may be eligible for this exemption, and it's actually a fair amount lower than that. When you look at the individual developer ability of these lots and whether or not they could actually use the exemption. 64% of this universe of small lots are in these newly fine transit rich areas that are in the text amendment, and about 90% of them have maximum height entitlements per their underlying zoning of greater than or equal to three stories. And they are concentrated. And we'll look at a map here in a second. They are concentrated along the city's commercial corridors all over the city, really, Colfax, Broadway, South Pearl Morrison, Road and Tennyson, others all around the city. And here's I don't want to belabor this, but if we want to come back to it, this shows the transit rich areas or transit shared areas that are defined by the text amendment before you tonight, which essentially says that if you're in these areas, you get a greater exemption. And that would be if you are within a half a mile of a rail transit station and a quarter mile of a high frequency transit corridor with with, you know, the best bus service in the city. Essentially, the public input we've received on the bill has mostly been on Councilman Brooks's bill, the prior bill that had an increase in the number of stories and different components to it. So we haven't gotten a lot of public comment at least through CPD on the current amended bill, although I know some comments came in over the weekend on this. So staff's analysis focuses on the three criteria, and the Denver zoning code were tasked to look at and reevaluate text amendments. And I'll go through each one of these briefly. Note that the the evaluation and the recommendations were based on the amendments because the staff did do an analysis and make a recommendation on the prior bill, Councilman Brooks's bill. So we're focusing the analysis on the amendments themselves. There's more detail in your staff report, certainly, but these are the three criteria we look at in terms of consistency with adopted plans. So looking at the First Amendment that's on the table, which is the reduction in the number of stories eligible for the exemption. City staff finds it's inconsistent with citywide plan policies to reduce parking requirements near transit because it would result or is resulting in an increase in mandatory parking on these lots, which staff finds is inconsistent with these policies here and others in the staff report and blueprint differ in the plan. Further on this amendment regarding the number of stories staff finds, it's inconsistent with citywide plan policies to maintain value development patterns. And I'll talk a little bit more about what that means. But we're essentially referring to the smaller development pattern and that kind of increment of development, that rhythm of development that's common on a lot of the city's commercial corridors. And the concern about sort of a threshold or a tipping point where once you start requiring mandatory parking above a certain amount, it may encourage developers to start to look at loft assembly into larger developments that perhaps break that pattern. So this is just a few slides that we have to illustrate the issue. And I don't think these are new slides for everyone that has looked at this. But essentially what we're talking about when we talk about a, you know, the space constraints that these lots have and that tipping point, what we're looking at here, I want to pull up my little laser pointer. So what we're looking at here is a is an illustration of a common small pattern. You see in Denver, I'm looking at three preexisting small zone lots, 50 foot wide by 125 foot deep. And the the image on the top or on the right shows that for most of these lots, which are primarily alley access, you could only physically fit five parking spaces. Once you get above that five parking space threshold, then you start to get into the space constraints where you're essentially mandating unless there's some other really creative way that no one has been able to figure out that we haven't seen yet. You're essentially mandating a different form of parking with tuck under parking or structured parking, because now you have to accommodate the space of the additional parking spaces and the adjacent drive aisles going into them. So there's a number of issues with that. One is that, you know, you're obviously eating into the buildable square footage of these on these lots on the first floor significantly. And then to just looking at the cost per space, that's typical of a parking space. Surface parking, like the ones in the example to the right are going to be far less expensive than structured parking that you would see at the tuck under parking scenario. So just to highlight the scenario and how it plays out with the different sort of components of the bill and the amendments to the bill and that related to the number of stories. So looking at the the prior bill, which had an exemption for the first three stories for any new building, and these are assuming that this scenario would be in that transit shed. And looking at the C.M. Zone District in this scenario, which is a very common, I believe, the most common zoning that these this universe of parcels has the prior proposal would have would have allowed zero parking would have gotten full exemption because it was three stories in the transit shed. And when you look at the the amended bill, it goes up to eight spaces. In this scenario, there's a number of scenarios of different development types. This scenario has a three story mixed use building where you have ground floor, commercial and upper floor residential. And so there's all kinds of ways to slice and dice the course. But looking at a common scenario, this is sort of what the the change in the number of stories might do to a project and kind of kick it into that that threshold of requiring more parking and creating challenges. So for the for the Second Amendment regarding the zoo, Panama, I'll let Tina Axelrod, our zoning administrator, speak to that briefly. Thanks, Jeff. Tina Axelrod with KPD Development Services and the zoning administrator for the city of Denver. So I have overview of all of our permitting staff who would have to implement this tax amendment. And we appreciate the opportunity to talk about this one particular element of the bill that will affect the everyday life of the permitting staff , and that is the introduction of a zoning permit with informational notice process attached to a determination of whether new buildings on existing small lots will get the exemption or not. Generally, staff has looked at this quite deeply and seriously, and we find that it's inconsistent with a couple of key citywide goals. One is creating a predictable zoning process, and the other is where a process is put in place with public participation that that parties and participation be meaningful. And we're finding that in this case, we can't find that that exist. We believe that the Zipkin process, the way it's structured and the amendment does not give any guidance or criteria to staff to use during the process, as the plan involves a staff review after several steps of notification to the public and an invitation for public comment to take all that information and decide whether one the request is meeting the requirements of the code. So in this case, is it a new building and is it on a small lot that should be easy enough? And then the additional criteria of whether the proposal will have adverse impacts on surrounding properties that cannot be mitigated. And it's that part that's going to be unpredictable for applicants. There's no guidance for staff as to what those impacts are that we should be looking for. Generally, the types of impacts we hear about is on the public right of way and the impact of on street parking, which zoning does not have jurisdiction over. So we couldn't condition an approval to provide more on Trey Parker or to mitigate that impact. Similarly, on the public engagement, the invitation of public comment, what we've seen mostly again address a lot of issues that zoning doesn't have jurisdiction over. If there's an impact. On the demand for on street parking, we can't really address that. That's kind of embedded in the amendment itself that there probably will be some impact if you don't provide it on site, maybe people will need it off our site. And that creates perhaps a false expectation to the public that their comments and complaints will affect an outcome that might already be pretty straightforward otherwise. So together with that, I'll turn it back to Jeff, and I'm happy to answer any questions about that. So here's just a couple of the the citywide planning policies pointing to the discipline issue as well. So the second criteria, so there's first the consistency with adopted plans. The second is regarding public health, safety and welfare. On this criteria, State finds the proposed amendment does not further the public welfare. On balance, with looking at all these issues, because, one, it increases the challenges to redevelop small zone lots, especially those in transit rich areas. Two, that the small pattern is a valued community attribute and the proposal may lead to increased assembly of small lots. And third, by making the redevelopment more challenging on these lots, it will likely detract from the city's goals to build more affordable housing. And the last criteria uniformity of district regulations and restrictions, fines. This is consistent because it will result in new regulations applied consistently across preexisting small zone lots zone mixed use commercial. So CPD does recommend denial of the bill, finding that two of the three text amendment criteria are not met. In addition to the inconsistency with the with the Planning Board's recommendation and the steering committee process as well, but mainly the text amendment criteria. I'm glad to answer any questions. All right. Thank you. We have 22 speakers this evening and I'm going to ask that we reserve this front bench. Even staff of the staff can sit right over there and we can get all the folks on this firm. But first five to call you up right now. Margie Valdez, John. Ricky George, male. And Joe Berrios. Let's see. One, two, three, four. And Sharon Nunnally. Five. First up is going to be Margie Valdez. You have 3 minutes. Thank you. Good evening, Council. I am pleased to speak before you tonight in support of the adoption of Bill 17 161. I speak on behalf of Inter Neighborhood Cooperation and the Zoning and Planning Committee, which I am the Chair of December 3rd, 2016 32 to 0 at the zoning and planning meeting. Proposed language for small parking exemption. Language presented by CPG was confusing and members could not approve the proposed zoning amendment. That vote was 32 to nothing. On January 14th, 2017, the vote at the delegate meeting, the delegates voted 42 nine to extend the moratorium. March 2nd, 2017. Zoning and Planning Committee Members voted to support. Councilman Clark's amendment. The vote was 27 nine. April 3rd, 2017. Delegates were advised to that I would be sending thank you letters to both President Brooks and Councilman Clark for their leadership with regard to the small to the small lot exemption and appreciate all the effort that they have put into this. I and C is most appreciative of the Zoning Zep pen process. We understand we don't. Neighborhoods are not going to be able to have a veto process, but it gives us an opportunity to engage in conversation with the developers and to hopefully mitigate some of the impact to the neighborhoods. But we do understand we do not have veto power in our opinion. The proposed ordinance balances the concerns of the neighborhood and the developers. It takes into consideration the impacts to the neighborhood, and it is a win win solution. It supports the ordinance adopted by this Council last week. Concerning environmental issues which impact this precious planning. We urge Council support for a bill 17 161 the the intent of i n c that has always been to support the proposed ordinance of Councilman Clark. And we have never wavered in our support of that proposed ordinance. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Valdez. John Rickey. Hello. My name is John Ricky. I live at 945 Washington Street in Mr. News District. I'll start by stating stating a simple fact. If council votes to increase parking minimums, it is voting to increase housing costs, whether affordable or market rate or luxury. There will be fewer new units on small lots and they will be more expensive. Every dollar spent housing cars is a dollar not spent on housing people. Every dollar spent on unneeded parking is a dollar not circulating among local business. Every dollar spent to store a car is a dollar not spent buying shoes or eating out or paying for medication or being saved for retirement. Adding parking requirements, by definition, adds to the cost of living in Denver and reduces our quality of life. Council has repeatedly stated its preference for less driving and more walkability in our neighborhoods. But here council is focusing solely on the desires of homeowners to protect their use of the commons for their car storage. All other citizens. Those too young to drive. Those too old. Even the working poor. All their needs for affordable housing, safe streets and walkable destinations within their neighborhoods are being put aside to protect the parking privileges of a few lucky property owners. Why is council considering a vote today to protect a preference for free street parking over the need for affordable housing? Why is space for parking cars more desirable than space for small neighborhood businesses? This isn't just unfair, it's bad economics. Even The Economist magazine, which is no bastion of lefty urban utopianism, recently ran an article decrying the damage done to cities by parking minimums, respected academics, authors and city planners from Donald Shoup to Jarrett Walker to Charles Miron have all pointed out the increased cost and decreased livability that comes with parking minimums. I call on you not to let the potential scarcity of parking determine Denver's future. We deserve better than that. I urge you to remember the pictures of downtown when parking was considered more important than people or places. Denver deserves better than that. If we prize parking above affordable housing, more than walkability, greater than the needs of small business, and consider it more important than the livability needs of our youngest, oldest and poorest citizens, then we are not looking to the future and we are not building an equitable or sustainable city. Don't vote for increased housing costs. Don't vote to subsidize car ownership. Don't vote to continue the failed transportation policies of your predecessors. Don't vote for this amendment. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Ricky. George. Male. Good evening, city council members, and thank you for allowing us to have this opportunity to address this issue. My name is George Male. I reside at 1075 South Garfield Street in beautiful Corey Merrill, District six. I'm going to cut to the quick. All of you were apprized of the results of the i.n.s. citywide survey. Encompassing all the major concerns of your constituents. All of you were met privately on the results of that citywide survey. And if you'll recall in that survey, the number one issue was extreme, unbridled development. And if you recall, all of you solved this on your meeting with the ANC representatives on this survey, 70% of constituents noted unbridled. Concerns on that. Also the number four pick. Was parking. You all remember this, don't you? From. From the meeting we all had. So bear that in mind. What you decide here will have ramifications that will affect the city for generations. And all indications are that the automobile will still play a part in that. Unlike past city councils, we, the voting citizens of Denver, hold you responsible now for the protection of residential neighborhoods and smart development. You are accountable to us, not CBD, not excise and licensing. You're accountable to us. And we will remember every vote that is cast that does not take into consideration the protection of our neighborhoods. You. Your respective council districts have spoken in regards to their concerns. It is up to you to leave them of those concerns here today. Now, I have spoken to you before about perception of developers having sway in this city. But we have the votes and we will get the votes. It's time for you to tell your constituents, we hear you, we agree with you, and we are going to do what's right for you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Joe Berrios. Hi. Oh, good evening, City Council. So I was here seven months ago now, I guess when we introduced the moratorium and I talked about this various quantities. No, just. Just say your name. Oh, okay. Residents for. Joe. Berrios and I now live at 1131 28th Street. Okay. Do I get a restart now? All right. Okay. I'll give you a couple more. Seconds. There. So I was here a couple months ago and I talked about how important this decision was to my family. So I just want to catch you up. What's happened with my family since then? So we were living at 1950 Logan Street in a one bedroom apartment that cost us 1300 dollars we were renting. We needed a bigger place because we were having a baby. And so we started looking. We couldn't afford anything in that neighborhood. And so we moved to another neighborhood. And then that same apartment rented for 1700 dollars, and it went in one day. So it just. Just think about that. For one, it went up $400 and was gone in one day. And so when we talk about this parking exemption, there's no decision that you make that's in a vacuum. So if you think that this doesn't affect affordable housing, please think again. I received a response when I emailed a few of you that this is considered a false narrative because developers aren't required to provide affordable housing as related to these exemptions. But that negates a basic supply and demand principle, right? If they're required to provide parking, the cost of their projects goes up. They pass those costs along to the customer, which in this case is the renters, and then we end up paying for that cost. So our costs as families, as workers go up. Now, I've heard a lot of you talk about sustainability. And transit and pedestrians and. Workers and families. This is a decision that affects all of those. You cannot make this decision in a vacuum. So while some folks here are defending their right to park their car, I'm here defending my right for my family to be able to afford where we live. Those two shouldn't be the same. So I ask you to please consider what you're doing to the housing costs when you make this decision. Don't forget about us. We may not be as important as somebody's car. That. I hope that's not the case. Thank you. Thanks, Ms.. Barrios. Sharon Nunnally. Good evening, council members. My name is Sharon Nunnally. I live at 1643 North Humboldt Street. I have been involved with many boards and commissions in this city and I was on the planning board when the current code was adopted. The zoning code is a fluid document that sometimes requires. Adjustment for real issues in real time when the code was being rewritten. Throughout the process. The public and property owners were reassured that they would have an opportunity to address things that might become problems in the future. Things that were not working, things that might never work. So I think that that was a very particularly important process, part of the process, and it made people feel more comfortable about the code since it was really different from Chapter 59. One of the things, though, that I am really happy about is that the process of yes, we are going to look at things is indeed working. The planning staff has a very hard job. I understand it and I know that is hard to get to some form of compromise on complex issues like this one. This is not just about people wanting to quote unquote, keep parking. That is not the issue here. The issue here is how do we move forward in this city and bring good development? We can do it with limited parking, but we do still have some challenges. Our transit system is not there yet and we've got a long ways to go with that. And unfortunately, the city does not control our transit system as it exists right now. So we have come to you with an amendment that I think has been vetted with the appropriate agencies, with council. Is it perfect? Not by a long shot. However, we have to start somewhere and do something. The beauty is that if this doesn't work, we can still work on it. And that is critical. It will not cause developers to build more or less housing that's going to be affordable, but I certainly believe that it will cause them to be more creative in getting us to some more and better housing. I urge you to support Councilman Clarke's amendment. Thank you very much. Thank you, Miss Lenawee. All right, Ben Gerhart, I'm sorry. Going to call the next five up. Mr. Rickey, you can head back. Ben Gerhart, Craig Damon, Charlie Bosch, David Engel in two, three, four and Gertie Grant. Mr. Gerhart, you're up first. Good evening, Ben Gerhart. I live in District one at 3931 Julian Street. And just wanted to thank counsel, really. I'll be short and sweet for making that amendment on projects that were. Submitted prior to the moratorium. Appreciate it. We move forward with good faith and knowing that you guys supported that. So that's it. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Mr. Craig. Good evening. I'm Craig Deming and I reside 1744 Vine Street. I'm here to speak on behalf of the Uptown Urban Design Forum. As most of you know. The forum includes representatives from Kaiser Permanente, National Jewish and St Joe's Hospitals, Presbyterian Saints, Luke's Hospital, Children's Hospital in Denver, and various registered neighborhood associations adjoining them, including San Rafael and Whittier Neighborhood Association, at the forum meeting last week. The representatives present voted unanimously, unanimously to have me represent them at this public hearing and to request your vote in favor of the small text amendments you have before you. In doing that, we would like to express, on behalf of the Forum our gratitude for your long and careful deliberations and the shape you've given to this text amendment language. Excuse me. Over the past 12 months, the forum has several times voted and sent letters of support. First, for the small lot moratorium, which you passed unanimously in last August, and then for development in various committees and in council of the Text Amendment language you have before you. We feel it goes a long way in providing a fair balance between the hospital's own neighborhood and developer interests. When Reform first began consideration of its importance. One thing that stood out for our representatives of our medical care institution was the growing importance of the many new and diverse 17th Avenue restaurants and businesses which are at the point of an important amenity for our patients, family and staff. The residents, particularly on Humboldt, Franklin and Gilpin Streets, provide essential overflow parking support for those restaurants and businesses which do not have parking lots themselves. We welcome your votes in favor of this balanced language text amendment, which will help to maintain the success of that mutual support between our health institutions, with their patients families, the excellent diversity of our 17 avenue businesses and our neighborhood residents. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.. Charlie Bush. Hello. And thank you. My name is Charlie Bush. I live at 715 South Sherman Street, which is one quarter mile less than a quarter mile from the I-25 and Broadway station, about a half mile to the Alameda station and one block from the zero and zero L line. I live right smack in the middle of all these big transportation quarters you're talking about, with the exception of Paul Lopez. This is a pretty new council and I've been gone for a couple of years. So let me give you my credentials. I have been working on transit oriented development and parking and traffic issues since 2005. I have worked on the first three of four transit oriented developments in the state in in the city in county of denver. I know more about traffic and parking than any i.t. Geek ever really wanted to know. And i say this just because of that. You know, i'm not just somebody trying to protect the parking in front of my house. I mean, looking at this large the larger picture for a long time, i'm in support of this bill with its amendment, even though it will further crush my area of my neighborhood. I don't think this bill and the amendment go far enough. I see it as a first step. You know, I've been hearing the ongoing thinking push by developers that just if you just don't build parking, then people will get there and they won't use their cars. I keep hearing about the strategic parking plan and that millennials won't own cars because they're a different generation. Supposedly by now, we should have been all driving bicycles, scooters and skateboards. This makes me very weary. Let me tell you about my corner of near I-25 and Broadway. I live on one of those little blocks that has a bungalow every 3700 or. We only have 37 feet on the front. I have 18 different little townhomes along exposition between Lincoln and Logan. In addition, we back to Lincoln and there are a bunch of formerly illegal bungalows that were illegally put into smaller and smaller and smaller units. And guess what? They mirror exactly what you're talking about. Lots of little units with no parking. And you know what? They're all millennials and they all have cars and they all try to park on our street. We already have heavy parking issues with this. Then RTD took out the Alameda parking and said, Oh, don't build the parking. They'll find other ways to get there. Yeah, you know how they get there? They park on our streets and then they go to I-25 and Broadway. The last zoning code provided mixed use combined and consolidated parking, which was supposed to be up and down Broadway. It has never happened. Responding to the request, all of the neighborhoods. We did do a parking plan from Alameda North to try to alleviate some of the parking of all of those businesses into the neighborhoods. It has provided a little relief, but according to people there, not much. We haven't had anything from Alameda South. What we are experiencing is an increasing incidence of violence in the parking area. So far it has only been property damage. You might not hear about it because right now it's just taking the form of nails in tires and keys on cars. I've had both. Now, for me, it doesn't matter that much because my car has sat outside for 20 years and doesn't have a whole lot of paint on it. You know, so that big scratch that I now have down the side of my car. You know, they had to work pretty hard to put it there. The last time that I had to fix a tire because I had to park a street over and I had to leave it there for three days was just three weeks ago. And I'm hearing the same thing up and down. Sherman and Sherman and Grant all the way to Alameda, especially around Alameda. Don't swallow the pill that says if you don't build that, everybody will take transit. I'm not seeing it. And I've been doing this for 12 years. It's getting worse. It's getting vicious. And it's getting dangerous. Again. I do support this bill and the amendment, but please take it as a first step. Please do not swallow the pill. If you don't build it, everybody will take transit. It might happen 20 years in the future, but it's not happening soon. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Mrs. Bush. Uh, David Engel can. All right. I'm sorry. Let me see here. Gurney Grant. Good evening, council members and thank you very much for the opportunity to address you tonight on this issue. My name is Gertrude O'Grady. Grant and I live at 242 South Lincoln Street in Denver. I've lived there since 1997. I'm on the board of the West Washington Park Neighborhood Association, the boundaries of which are I-25 to Speer and downing to Broadway. And I'm here tonight to tell you that by a vote of 12 to 0 two zero between Wednesday, April 26th and Saturday, April 29th, the board voted by email, pursuant to our bylaws, to approve a motion to support the compromise ordinance, amending the zoning code to provide. The off street parking. Exemptions for preexisting small lots. We've been discussing this for over a year and a half on our board and on our zoning committee. And we recognize that this is a compromise. It's not what everybody wants, but it's a whole heck of a lot better than it was before it before this amendment. Personally, while I completely support the admirable goal of reducing auto use and encouraging everybody to use alternative ways to get where they want to go, one major alternative for people in my age bracket is public transportation. And to call it enhanced transit doesn't make any sense to me when I'm standing there in July with ice. Cream dripping out of my bag waiting for the zero bus to go home from the supermarket. Denver doesn't have what I would call an enhanced transit zone. Secondly, many of my children's friends who have moved to Denver for job opportunities came not only for jobs, but because there's recreation in the mountains. And guess what? You can't get there on a bike, at least not. Within a day. And you can't. The only way you can get there is a car. So they save their money and they buy a car. They want cars to get to the mountains. We don't have a transit system. Not only within the city of Denver, but enough to get people up to one of the main reasons that people have moved here, which is recreation. So I urge you, please, to support the ordinance amending the Denver zoning code to revise the parking exemption for preexisting small lots. Thank you very much. Thank you, Ms.. Grant McCall. The next five up. Bob Heckman. John. Joseph Nieman. Tricia. Hutch. Joseph. Chip. Capella and James Davis. Bob Hickman. You have 6 minutes. Good evening. Council President Bush, Brooks and council members. I'm Bob Hickman. I live at 291 South Kilbourne Street in Denver. Tonight you have before you a bill born of the moratorium molded by the small committee, chiseled by the original bill brought by Councilman Brooks. And polished by the subsequent amendments brought by Councilman Clerk. It seems to me there are two choices this evening pass this bill, or practically speaking, the moratorium will end and small lots are back to a full parking exemption. This bill is balanced. It most likely doesn't satisfy any interests entirely, but it does represent the best approach for an interim solution while a citywide transportation and parking management plan can be developed and implemented. This balanced bill weighs several major interests. It does require less parking than for small lots than would be required for a typical larger lot a step towards fewer cars and less car ownership. The bill provides significant developer relief from parking constraints inherent in small lots. It encourages a developer to actively engage in the parking solution for their project, such as providing minimal parking and taking advantage of existing reductions, like a 25% reduction for being in a transit area. 20% for building affordable housing, a five for one trade off for car share, five spaces, one car share. These are significant things that a developer can pursue to reduce his parking requirement and help that project get built. It provides neighborhood relief from parking being forced to the streets where they live. It also provides notice to potentially impacted neighborhoods for a given project. And very importantly, it sets up a scenario that will provide incentives for all interests to engage in finding a better transportation and parking management plan as we move forward. We will all have a stake in making sure this process is undertaken efficiently and expeditiously. On the other hand, if this bill does not pass, the moratorium will expire. And we are back to the language allowing a full parking exemption. All the issues from projects that spawned the moratorium are still in place and could be repeated hundreds of times throughout Denver, including those of, quote, unintended consequences, unquote. No neighborhood notice is required. No process is established to arrive at a solution with greater emphasis for all projects, not just those on small lots. There are exciting and far reaching mobility issues, solutions in our future, whatever they may turn out to be. It will be several years. Further effective implementation prototypes will be developed and tested. Refinements will be made with retesting. Impacts will be measured. But we will get there. Probably not in my lifetime. But we will get there. As I've stated to you before, I believe in balance. And even more firmly, I believe in evolution, not revolution. Let's prepare a thoughtful plan and move forward to its goal in a measured way, step by step. I urge you to pass this bill this evening, and thank you for allowing me to speak. Thank you, Mr. Hickman. John Joseph Neiman. Yeah. My name is John Joseph and I live at 2786 South Wolfe Street. Denver, Colorado is my home. I'm a native. I've seen the way our city is changed. And what I want to talk about today is a bit about the process that you guys have gone through in order to come to this bill and show some appreciation for the work that you've put into taking what was kind of came about suddenly and turned it into an opportunity to talk about one of these big issues in our city. As George May alluded to, parking and density are some of the major concerns of our neighborhoods, and those concerns have been talked about at length in the formation of this amended bill. And I think that process was worthwhile. And bringing this bill to city council tonight was worthwhile. So what I'm asking as a citizen and also as the president of the Denver Neighborhood Cooperation is that you guys respect the amount of time and effort that community has put in to discussing this and that you guys have put into discussing and coming up with a better solution short term and allowing for an opportunity for us to become better at managing parking long term. So I really commend us for taking this small exemption in a small way and turning it into a bigger discussion and one that I think has benefited the city and benefited neighborhoods as far as I can tell. So thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Newman. Tricia Hook. Sorry if I mispronounced that. Good evening, Councilman. President Brooks Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Tricia Huth. I live at. 1633 Humboldt Street. I would like to speak to the conversation that's been going on that was addressed in the Denver Street Blog's article, and it's it was entitled Simple Data Shatters. There Is No Parking Myth. The article says that there's an average of 187 spaces available in a three block radius of 16th and Humboldt. The numbers are from a parking inventory by public works and are a snapshot of three times of the day 5 a.m., noon and 7 p.m.. The respective totals of available parking are 256, 168 and 138. Really. I live right in the heart of this and I have never. Seen anything like that. A couple of problems with with this citation. First of all, there's no description. Of what the actual. Area was. Is the radius based on north south blocks, which are. Considerably longer. Or east west blocks which are. Shorter? There's no description of the actual total spaces. There's no way to calculate the percentage of spaces occupied. And is the three block radius a reasonable distance from a parked car to a residence? I can tell you from where I live, I'm locked in by a three lanes of one way traffic on 17th Avenue and four lanes of two way traffic on Colfax. So if I go three blocks in either direction, I would have to. Cross one of those main, main areas. And we did our own survey over the course of dates from from April 9th to April 29th. And we sampled for four blocks, a stretch of two blocks each, making a total. Of ten blocks. There were 11. Samples taken in the early morning, late morning, early afternoon and evening and 10 p.m.. And the average availability in those eight square blocks was nine spaces. How much time do I have left? I raised my children in this neighborhood. It's always been an issue. When I would pull. Up with groceries and children in car seats, it was it was always this weighing, do I take the children in first? Do I take the groceries in first? It's only going to get worse. It's going to be very. Very difficult for. Families to live in these conditions with this parking deprivation. So I am asking you to vote in favor of this bill. Thank you. Thank you. Most of all right. Joseph Coppola. Coppola. Thank you. My name is Chip Coppola. I live at 1410 South Pennsylvania Street. I was on the steering committee, as you know. Councilman Brooks and Councilman Cashman for the old South Pearl Street area of Platt Park. I'm here to support the bill as amended. If the bill hadn't been amended, I would not have been able to stand up here and say I support it because the changes in particular the Z pin and lowering the height were so critical to what we believe in. Our neighborhood is necessary. We have on the 14 and 1500 blocks, we have 11 restaurants. We have a 16 unit micro building going up. And I know that the merchants there are wondering, what are we going to do? Where are we going to go? We just went through with Cindy Patton and staff a two year process of trying to figure out the parking in our neighborhoods. And it's because of amendment that we can support this and would look forward to it. And we hope that you would adopt it. One thing I would just like to point out, having to do with Mr. Hurt's presentation about what you can do on this size lot here and there. We have one double lot that is under development right now on Pearl Street. That is 16 units and they're providing either seven or eight parking spaces. I'm a real estate attorney. I have a client that's going through the process and she's putting eight units with eight parking spaces on a double lot. Economically, it's still works. You just don't need to be greedy. So thank you very much for your support and all your hard work. Thank you. Thank you. Ms.. James Davis. Good evening. How you guys doing? It's good to see you. I want to thank you for your time. This has been a really engaging process. I've been watching at home. As I did it, I knew it. Thank you for stopping me. James Davis. 2380 Ivanhoe. Street. I told myself it wasn't. Going to do it either. I told myself and there I go. 2380 Ivanhoe Street. I'm a millennial. I sold my car when I moved here. Hey, Kendra, it's nice to see you. I sold my car when I moved here. So we're going to talk about actual experiences. You know, anyone cases? I am. I am that person that those developers point to who rides his bike every day and makes 60% of his trips via bicycle. So we do exist and we may seem like unicorns, but we are out here. We're right here. But on a more serious note, you know, as somebody who was raised by a single mother, somebody who was raised in a low income household, I always ask myself the question. How does this impact working people? How does this work impact people that are of the working poor who are trying to make it in Denver? You know, and identify one key area where this is important to them. And that's in the affordable housing domain. You know, we've talked a lot. We talked a lot. A lot of people have brought this up. But I really wanted to talk about that in the public record, because I think it's really important to note that when you require more parking, it does make developed more expensive. It makes it harder to develop affordable housing. The recent Obama administration report that I sent to all of you today via email, the housing development tool kit look in your emails, it's all in there. One of their key strategies is to reduce on excuse me, reduce off street parking requirements because it has the cost of that parking makes it very, very difficult. It just increases, you know, costs of housing in general. You know, it's a it's a simple thing. The even the Urban Land Institute also chimed in on this. That's another report I sent along to you all. They also said that one of the key strategies to increasing the affordable housing supply is reducing off street parking requirements to reputable organizations. Please peruse those reports at your leisure and feel free to contact me if you have any questions about them. The empirical evidence backs this point. It's a very simple point that when you reduce parking requirements, it makes things more affordable. They've done this in Seattle. There's great anecdotal discussion in that report. The White House Housing Development Toolkit that talks about Seattle's experience of this, they actually talk about Denver and point out Denver and their recent work to reduce parking requirements in their zoning code as a best case. I want to echo something that Councilman Brooks said in this process. He said no other city is doing this across the country. No other cities are adding parking requirements. Let's keep moving in that direction. Let's keep moving in a direction where everybody can live in Denver and people aren't priced out and forced to drive 45 minutes to an hour just to get in because they don't make enough money. Let's live in a Denver where everybody can get around and has options to bike, use, bus or walk or use car. Okay, you got it. Just in time. Thank you, Mr. Davis. All right, I'm going to call up the next five. Paul Davison, Sue Glassmaker, Eileen Feldman, Barbara Stockland Staley and Doug Geddes. All up, all to the front, please. Paul Davidson. You are first. Thank you. My name is Paul Davidson. I live at 3230 Arapahoe Street. I am in Curtis Park. I serve on the Curtis Park Board, although I'm speaking as a citizen here. And I was a member of the steering committee with Councilman Brooks and Cashman, where I opposed the original decisions in the bill. But first. I just want to thank you for your deep consideration and openness. Emails are read and responded. To and it's a testament to. Your passion. I was stunned when I heard about this parking exemption. I thought because it was about 300 feet from my house, which was an 1891 rowhouse that. Did not have alley access where I lived for 15 years. And I thought, how is this possible and why would they have this exemption in the neighborhood? I wondered why Xp-Pen Xp-Pen would not be required or it would be required for greater than 50% reductions in parking requirements, but not required for a 100% parking exemption. Why wouldn't they tell. Us about this? I wondered why would the developer claim that the people that would stay there would be car free when that's demonstrably false? Even in Capitol Hill, where there's nearly one car per household, I wondered why would large developments be allowed to take this parking exemption when it was clearly intended for small developments and then side by side, 50 units, side by side? I wondered why was it implemented on East Colfax, but never used anywhere else or never used on East Colfax? And then in 2010 expanded to citywide. For these laws that are so varied and so abnormal that even in Curtis Park, the two that are right next to each other, a completely different types of lots. Where. One really requires this exemption and the other one can take a few parking spots so long as the developer did it. And they did it by working with the city, with the neighborhood. I wondered why make claims about affordability when they're actually being sold at market rates and when micro units actually. Go for more per square. Foot than typical units? That's not true. Affordable housing. I now understand the nuances and I believe that what we're looking at tonight is a good, balanced and interim solution. And I hope that the team process will will look closely at the issues that I feel don't totally get addressed, which are retaining the existing buildings and keeping our neighborhoods character on South Coast and South Pearl and Tennyson and encouraging commercial use on the first floor to ensure that our Cemex areas are truly Cemex areas. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Davidson. Sue Glassmaker. I'm Sue Glass Maker, and I also live in Curtis Park. I think this bill is mediocre at best. It's not. It's what we have to work with and what was given to us. And but it has something going for it. It does the job. It slows things down enough so that we don't. Create a problem and we can work on everything CPD talked about. I think there are a lot more things that we could do on this small lots and it's it just needs more study and you can change this bill. You can overwrite it just like you did with affordable the portable housing bill. We changed that drastically. So you can change this again when we have something better. But for now, it's a conservative approach in that. You're not letting you're not just saying. Go, go, go do it and do it all. And then saying, Oh, we created a problem. So let's take this a little bit slower. In times. Of this unprecedented. Development and growth that we have. Let's be a little thoughtful. Now, the other thing is it's only 1% of the lots. My councilman pointed that out to me. And if it's only 1% of the lot, how is how is 1% of the lots going to fix the affordable housing problem in Denver? I don't think it's going to be that 1% that really makes the difference. And I don't think it's going to hurt the development community that 1% of the lights cannot be maximized to the absolute highest level. So I don't think there is a problem passing this bill, and I would encourage us all to continue and do better . And I do think there is better out there. But I also don't think it's going to hurt us to pass this and it will help us. And I thank you very much. Thank you. Ms.. Glassmaker, Eileen Feldman. Yes. Hi, my name is Eileen Feltman. I also live in Curtis Park and I am up here to say support the zone lot parking exemption amendment as it was presented by Councilman Clark in Detroit. Quite truthfully, I don't think it I think it's a decent compromise. I don't think it addresses all the things that are important. But it's a great start. And I urge you all to do the same and support this. You know, I know we all want greater opportunities with with regard to affordable housing, attainable housing, neighborhoods, sensitive and responsible development, and of course, a significant reduction in the use of car ownership and usage. However, the elimination of parking requirements at this time will not do this. Not right now. Denver is not there yet. We have a lot of things to work on. With the exception of the East Colfax corridor, we do not have in Denver other high frequency transit opportunities for citizens. Even on Welton Street. It's a little short rail line that goes to nowhere, that runs infrequently for people to be able to get to work, to school, whatever. It's not there yet in Denver has the opportunity to let this be a place to start. Um, one of the things that I've noticed is in fact with each regional train addition, teams like local bus service is eliminated. That actually puts low income people at reduces opportunity for getting to work, getting to school, whatever the responsibility is, and actually makes people more car dependent. So I think what we need to do is pass this and as Sue and other people pointed out, this can continue to be a work in progress along the lines. I think that Denver really needs to take the opportunity now to really start looking at a really comprehensive city bus service as RTD continues to become more regional in less and less serves the inner city population and is where we really need to make some of these parking exemptions really contingent on true affordable housing opportunities. Quite frankly, developers are just using too many developers are using the opportunity to max out their build. When you have 350 square foot market micro units going for close to $1,000, that's not affordability. That's exploitation. So let's slow this all down. This would be a really good place to start. And we have opportunity to have more conversations and to refine this further. Thank you. Thank you. Ms.. FELBER. Barbara Stockman. Celia, I think I've seen you before. Hi, I'm Barbara Stockman. Celia, I live at 1003 Emmerson Street in Capitol Hill. Good evening. Members of the City Council. I am here representing Goddess. And he was when I left the city about a year ago. I was he was one of my first clients and I was hired to help him through the landmark and the neighborhood processes. He is the developer of D Line, which is 3148 Stout and 3021 Downing in the Curtis Park historic district that uses the smallest parking exemption. And just I just want to give you a brief snapshot of what this process is look like for for him. He purchased the property and fall of 2015. These were lots that were not being snapped up. They were they had a lot of issues. They had were in poor condition with semi abandoned buildings. He worked on them and filed for concept review in June of 2016. There were a lot of neighborhood and landmark commission issues because it is in the Curtis Park historic district. So he worked with the neighborhood, went many rounds with the neighborhood, and LPC resubmitted his concept on August 24th, 2016, got the landmark commission first round of approval in September of 2017. Continue to work through building fire code issues as well as additional landmark and neighborhood issues. Eventually got the landmark second approval on February 21st just this year, filed for site development plan in early March, got comments back in April and is slated to log in for permits this week, May 3rd. All of this. This has been nearly a year since the first concept review, but we greatly appreciate the public and design review process. I think it's made the project better and it's going to be compatible and a great addition to the Curtis Park neighbors. Having said all that, we greatly appreciate Councilmember Clarke's amendment added to the. Today to allow applicants such as the goddess who are midstream in the development process to operate under the existing zoning code. If this bill passes tonight, this amendment would allow developers who have been operating in good faith under the process to move for and not have to circle back and be subject to a new set of zoning rules and processes. Additional Process. While we have no comment or opinion on the bill, we greatly appreciate your support for the May 1st Amendment. If the bill is passed tonight, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Steel, and come visit us again. All right. Doug Harris is not here. The last two, Keith Pryor, John Hagan. Come on up to the front. Good evening. Keith Pryor, 2418 champion Curtis Park. One staff does not support this. That's a huge red flag to me. Huge red flag. You've done a lot of work. There's a lot more work that needs to be done. Most of the speakers said that this is a great first start, but it needs to be amended. There needs to be more things done to this to actually make it work for our city. People have talked about affordable housing. Well, it may not necessarily be related to the parking issue. You only have so many mixed use districts in this city currently, and as a result, everyone wants to live in them. Guess what? Your price goes up in those desirable, walkable, mixed use neighborhoods. We need to create a lot more of those, which by having this go and past today, you're denying those opportunities to create other desirable areas in the city to help combat our affordable housing crisis because only people want to live in mixed use areas that are walkable. It doesn't matter if you have a car or not. This is where we want to be. It's clear. And if you're telling me that Colfax Morrison are not appropriate places to have mixed use development, where is clearly a lot of residents are concerned. They're adjoined to mixed use districts and that putting a lot of parking pressure on them. Why are they living there? It's a mixed use district. There's going to be tradeoffs. And so really, we need to be focusing on this particular bill to address the issue. You're not requiring or incentivizing mixed use products. You're saying this can be a one use product. Sure. You're going to have a lot more parking if it's only micro units because you're not having this bill include or incentivize because the banks are only going to lend on basic, surefire things. And so unless the city is requiring the developer to do it, the bank is definitely going to go with the least risk and only lend on things that are a sure fire piece. So you need to be pushing the pressure on the developer to do what's right to help affordability, to create these mixed use districts throughout our entire communities. Let's see here. So that's one piece of it. Deal with the existing zoning in these neighborhoods. Clearly, we have a lot of neighborhood plans. We're working on new neighborhood plans. If this is an inappropriate zone, if the heights inappropriate, then let's let's work on that. Let's not sit here and talk about parking. Obviously, if the mixed use district is not appropriate and again, most of these lots fall within existing mixed use places. So they're clearly appropriate. So I don't think that this particular bill is addressing the issue and really needs to have a lot more sustained, sustainable piece on what's going on. So I oppose this. I think that staff red flag, we need a lot more work on this and I think it should be done. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Pryor. John Hagan. Hello, counsel. Thank you very much for your consideration tonight. My name is John Hayden. I am the president of Curtis Park. Neighbors, you've heard a lot from our residents tonight who have worked very hard on this because of the D line project that was proposed in our neighborhood. And I'm very proud of them for the work that they did. And actually over a year process, bringing us a development that that ultimately will get built, will be complementary to the neighborhood and will provide, I hope, affordable housing with fewer parking spaces. So that that actually ended up being a win. And I would like to say very clearly to those who are concerned about all these people coming to Denver and that that's going to make the city worse, I believe it's going to make our city better. The people coming here, the diversity of the people coming here is fantastic. And we need places for them to live and we need places for them to live where they don't need a car to access everything, which is the one thing Curtis Park Neighbors Board decided not to take a position on this amendment, on this amendment. And the reason was because it didn't it neither of the bills or the amendment fundamentally address what we believe is essential as you move forward to address, and that is that we need to have diverse, mixed use communities. In order for our city to be sustainable, people need to be able to access services by walking and biking and transit. That means that we need to have mixed use districts. What the amendment before you what that does not do is make any requirement that there be any kind of mixed use in our mixed use zones. So that's that's a big miss in our opinion. And so we did not decide to support or oppose it because we think it just missed the boat. So as you move forward, we hope that that will be something that city council can work on, that we make sure that we preserve our mixed use districts so that people can walk to services and that within those districts we have affordable housing. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Hayden. All right. This concludes our speakers and our time for questions by members of council. Councilman Castro. Thank you, Mr. President. Anybody from CPD that would like to. To talk? I have a few questions. Let's see here. So the the project that brought this to everybody's attention up on Humboldt Street, that is going to be about 104 units on two lots. Correct. Something of that nature. It sounds sounds right. Don't have the exact unit count. Okay. So and they had zero parking requirements because they're under the old. Ordinance, correct? Yes. They've been approved. And is that affordable housing? I don't believe it's needed as affordable housing, but they are small units. They're all. But they're not. It's not an affordable housing project by any definition. The city has. There's no tax credits. It's not being sold at less than market value. Not that I'm aware. Of, no. Okay. So I'm wondering, do we have evidence that shows that if we don't build parking, that developers are going to become kind hearted and sell their units at less than market rate? Or is this a supposition? I think the supposition is that surface parking on us, you know, a 60 to 50 lot takes up a lot of space, one in costs, you know, as a significant cost. And so when you factor those things together, you know, it trickles down to the affordability issue. But I can't I can't say I have specific statistical evidence that. I agree with that. The. The original bill was written in 2006. There is no way that bill could have envisioned 54 units on a lot. Right. I mean, is there any part of you that thinks that they planners were thinking about that back then? I think it's evolved in the last ten years and there's a lot of unintended consequences. Right. So as that being a baseline wouldn't make a lot of sense for the reality that we exist in today. I don't think. So I hear a lot of concern from CPD about how this affects affordability. So when this council. Passed the zoning for I think it's about 100 acres of Arapahoe Square. Without any affordable component in downtown. As as fine a transit location as you could find with CPD concerned about affordable housing then. I can't speak to that. Sorry. And I also would like to stand up straight and. Um, I may have one more. So and this bill, as I understand it, makes no requirement on any developer to provide. Car share. Transit passes or anything of that nature. Correct. Those incentives are already built into the code for for parking reductions you can get. So so they're already there. But that's not a mandatory thing with this bill as it's not mandatory now. And my understanding is that Denver's single occupant. Vehicle ride share has gone up the past two years. Am I remembering that correctly? Not sure. I see. Harris nodding. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Those are my questions. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cashman. Councilman Cashman. And I just wanted to jump in on the wrap Hull Square piece. And, Sara, I'm a look at you, but we have no parking requirements in the proposed square, new zoning, because that issue came up. I was talking about parking requirements and housing. I just wanted to give further context. And in our zoning to date, we don't have a mechanism for affordable housing, but it's coming up at 30th and Blake. So stay tuned. I like your. Questioning. It's a large part of this discussion, so I wanted to do drive it. That's good. I see it. Councilman Clark. Thank you, Mr. President. Jeff, that can be. And sorry I can't find the presentation that you had in our system. I'm sorry if I. If I misspeak, you can bring up the slide. I don't know if it's still in there or not, but I just want to. So. So CPD supported Councilman Brooks Bill before my amendments were adopted, correct? Yes. But is now opposing it because of my amendments? Correct. Yeah. I mean, that's essentially it. Yeah. So on the slide and since it's up here, we can bring it up. The justification for opposing, at least on one of the conditions was that it was not consistent with adopted plans because it increased the level of parking. Correct. Now conveniently, the slides after that showed one example that would have still been zero with Brooks Bill and would have been eight with my amendments. But add another story to that building. Add two more stories to that building. And Brooks number is not zero anymore. So there are circumstances under Brooks Bill that would have added parking, correct? That's fair. Yeah. Yeah. So I that's it's it's the tipping point and sort of that threshold, which is not, you know, you can't get at a specific number. This isn't super scientific, but but it did reach a critical sort of tipping point from our perspective. Okay. So talk to me about that tipping point, because I don't see where you have outlined in a plan that it says adding parking is okay up to a tipping point. I see that it says adding parking is not consistent. They both added parking. That's a little bit more parking. But that seems to me to be a very subjective decision that staff has made on what that tipping point is. Yeah, I think it's the tipping point and part, which is a you know, it's based on there's any number of scenarios you could look at for how many parking spaces would be required depending on number of unit square footage. So it's that sort of threshold that we looked at one but then also the, you know, the planning board process and recommendation and the steering committee process and recommendation that represented a compromise which wasn't, you know, it was added parking to what we were sort of working with our baseline now. But, but at least from our perspective and others, feel free to jump up. It was all of those things combined in terms of the process leading to a compromise and our analysis of of, you know, how many additional parking spaces would be required if you take off a story. And we're not digging into all that right now. I just I took particular issue, I guess, with the slide that said that you were opposed because my amendments added parking and I just wanted to clarify that I hadn't missed something. Councilman Brooks proposal also added parking, but a subjective decision was made on staff's point that cannot be directly linked to any adopted plan that tells us what that tipping point is, or that even makes mention of a tipping point. Yeah, I don't think we have any plans that I would get into that level of detail at all. So no, we don't. So again, I guess on this not getting to planning, we're not getting anything else if there is no adopted plan. That says that or defines a tipping point. But South has made a decision. To oppose based on a tipping point. But then claiming that it is because of adopted plans seems to me like a little bit of a stretch. There's also the VPN component as well. Yeah, we'll get to that one. I'm just talking about opposing due to my amendments adding parking. When Councilman Brooksville also added parking and that was under the slide specifically saying that it is inconsistent with city wide plans, which means that somehow Councilman Brooks proposal was consistent with those same lines. Sure. So and I do think the zipline component is important that Jeff was going to talk about since you were talking about this particular topic. The only point I wanted to add, I think everything Jeff said was very on point. I guess two things. One is just to clarify, you know, is the the process to even look at amending this exemption to begin with was initiated by Council on the moratorium. And CPD has been trying to provide a technical lens throughout the process. And when it comes to and analyzing where the current amendment is, I think the tipping point that we're talking about is I think we'd agree with you. I wouldn't necessarily call it subjective. I think we're trying to make it as objective as we could based on actually looking at parcels and what you can build on them. But where the tipping point really comes in and the plan analysis is also about preserving the pattern of small lots. And our concern is that the tipping point that's being reached will encourage a lot assembly and go against our adopted planning policies of preserving that pattern and a kind of cherished attribute of the community. And I think we we definitely agree with you that there's not a bright line or a clear objective. If there was, we probably wouldn't have had to do this process because everybody would have been able to say, Oh, if we just apply this formula or follow the science, then we know the right balance. To make sure these lots can still be developed is x number of stories get exempted and you know, X number don't we don't have something that clear but our analysis was trying to get at when do you reach that tipping point where we're afraid that the lots will not be able to have enough flexibility to redevelop and therefore we lose the pattern of those small lots? I guess still confusing because that analysis never said once you reach this number, so it should be added parking. But at this number there are instances even under bricks proposal with the certain number of stories that would have exceeded that. But you guys weren't opposed to that. So anyway, I think we've hashed that one out. Getting to the zipline and maybe if Tina can come answer a few questions about that and then Jeff, if you want to jump in back to that. But so are there is there anywhere else in the code where your staff is required to review something that calls for less parking than would just be allowed? Yes. Yeah. So there are other places where staff is making a decision on how deep the discount or the reduction in parking should be beyond. City Council says yes to this and no to that, or our rules say yes to this notion there somewhere else where there someone is, there. Is an existing provision that's been in the code. Since before 2010, it came into play in the nineties. I think that requires essentially a Z pin process. If a combination of asked for reductions exceeds 50% of the required to carry over, if I had to redo it today, I'd. Say. For the state. On the books right now, somebody could walk in tomorrow with the proposal asking for a reduction in or below 50% per those rules. Nothing to do with my lights and your staff. We you know. It's not an all or nothing game. I mean, here you don't get anything until you go through the Z process. And then somehow we're supposed to come up with the number. It's it's if you all or nothing, you either get the exemption or you don't. But if you want less than 50%. But if I get less than 50%. Gotten 50%. Off, reduce through. The code, and it's a lot easier to understand the underlying intent that this had to be something pretty extraordinary to get more than 50%. We don't have that kind of direction here. It's do you get the exemption or do you not? And somehow this EPM process is going to tell us that we don't think so. We could make that decision upfront if you would just make them subject to the exemption or not. Okay. All right. Those are my questions for now. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Clark. Let's see. We had Councilman Lopez pop out. Councilman Flynn was first. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. President. And actually, I want to thank Councilman Clark, because he asked almost all of the questions that I had about the inconsistency of recommending one, but not recommending the other when they both were apparently inconsistent. But one other thing, maybe, Athena, to expand on the the rec the recommendation that we deny this also because it provides for zip in, because it creates a false expectation for public input or whatever it was, the slide said. Can you talk about that a little more about why letting the public know what's going on in their neighborhood is, well, something that's going to create a problem? Sure. There's no problem in letting people know. And we always encourage developers to do their their part to let the neighborhood know what's coming and be a good neighbor. Whether you do it or not, there's no code requirement for it. The zip bin. It's not just that. It's asking for public input. It's a lot of steps, a lot of processing, a lot of resources to put out there, an opportunity to make comments to the city. And we're supposed to take those comments and somehow use them together with the criteria in the code and come up with that decision. We don't use the zip pin process to let people know about a project that something else. So we're using a zip pin. From what I can tell, to give notice that this project is happening. But the zip code is supposed to be more than that. So it's a bit of a misuse, I think, of a process without a lot of value added back. Okay. And I had a question for Karen, but maybe Tina, you can answer it since Karen's all the way in the back. But if we vote no, if we follow your recommendation of vote no, then effectively we go back to total parking exemption. Correct? Okay. Thank you. All right, Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Yes, thank you, Mr. President. Cindy. I don't know if you can. Come to the front. I. I just. I have a question. This may be planning in public works, and I just wanted to ask the status. So we talk about mass transit, modern day transit system, moving people. I know that we had. Discussions. And there's just a lot of different ways and a lot of different plans that are out there that we're working on a new No. One intimately. There's just so much that goes by. I kind of. Forget where things are right now. And I was wondering if you can give us an update on the bus, rapid transit, the BRT plans today. Kind of an update on where that is on Colfax and if and if. And I don't want to just I'm not just trying to put you on the spot. I'm just trying to get a little bit more information about where we're at there. And I don't know if CPD has been working with you to. Yeah, I'm by no means the expert. Hi, everyone. Cindy, Pat. Just generally just generally. Speaking, manager parking and mobility services in public works. And that is it's not one of my projects, but in general, the conversation about. BRT Uncle VACS has been in progress for quite some. Time right now. The project is funded. For design, I believe, and is moving through that process, looking at environmental impacts and those types of things. Also looking at configurations and how the, the the transit service will most efficiently operate on Colfax. There's, as you. Know, a go bond process happening right now talking about funding of different transit opportunities. There's a number of different transit enhancement options on that list and that that list will continue to be reviewed as it moves. Through the go bond process all. The way until you all refer that list to the ballot in July, I believe so. Does that help? It does, aside from I know that we have, you know, some funding on Colfax on the bond. Should it, you know, move on to voters and be absorbed. So I definitely understand that piece in term and I really appreciate the update. But have we added any additional length because right now it goes from Yosemite? No or no? I'm sorry. It goes all the way from two to to 25 or something like that. And it stops at federal. The Denver portion. The Denver border. But it goes all the way to I mean it basically goes. To 20 to extend is certainly there but it's related to the the funding and our partnerships with other jurisdictions. Cindy, we haven't added any funding to go further west right to this date. I haven't that I don't. I don't believe so. Okay. I just want to know if we made any progress, because this is something I brought up a year ago, and I'm not trying to put you on the spot. You're just the messengers. I don't want anybody to think that I'm trying to give her hell. I just the idea. I just want to know if we made any progress since our last discussion. And I know that there's other folks that it's their baby that they're working on. So now I appreciate the the the answer that you have for me. Cindy Yeah, Mr. President, I just wanted to ask where we were, if there was any new plans or anything else because I. We can. Get you instantly been trying to ask for it to continue down to the other side of the city. We can we can have ask Gaby in the mayor's office to get you some information through public works and CPD on that, folks who are working on that. Okay. Thanks, counselor. Olympic Council Lopez and Cindy, who works in parking. Oh, let's get Councilman Espinosa. I actually didn't have any questions until all the questioning started. So question. For staff. Did staff steer the task force away from or diminish the request to add to add xp-pen did diminish a request by members of the task force to add zip in language because of policy. Yeah. You know, that was Councilman Brooks's committee. We weren't in a position to do anything steering. Were there more from technical. So. So I can I can answer that. I think the conversation did come up and in all honesty, I think staff did push back and said this would create some issues for A, B and C reason. But the committee did have that conversation. Okay. When engaging the public for input and having community input on zoning challenge changes, the CPD policy framed the discussion. If so, God help us on anything. On what makes the Blueprint Council recommendations or what gets me followed through on by the agency? Is this a question or is this a comment? Yeah, we have policy and I have seen this happen before, which is there might be a good suggestion, but it's not consistent with policy, not the law. The ordinance, my new policy. So our our staff is reviewing this task force recommendation and what gets printed and shared with the public. Same with the you know, larger issues is policy driving what is and isn't basically put out there for public consumption and consideration. Well, the only policy we have to stick to the Tex amendment criteria and in the code and and that does point to citywide policy. So that's the only policy we're really looking at. When we were making our recommendation. We're talking about change, changes to adopted ordinance. And when we when we open a task force out to to both developers and the community and we get this this thing, and we try to achieve consensus, the idea is, is that we open it up completely. And if that means depend, what, like it or not, we should be considering that, shouldn't we? I think that all options are on the table. Okay. So, you know, we're talking about 11 small parking exempt projects in eight months. The public expectation is that the zoning administrator is comfortable enough customer and competent enough to make a decision regarding the impact of development on existing context. Council Knowing the skills of our staff. Councilman the people up to the task and the 11 projects were prior to. This process even starting. So please keep it to two questions. You got plenty of time and comments. Councilwoman Sussman. Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to ask Joel Noble to come up. I have some questions. But he should. You know. Thank you, John. As you as you know, I have a lot of concerns about this. These bills, not the least of which is concerns about developmental on Colfax and how much we're trying to support new neighborhoods serving development, but also in federal and other places are Main Street places. Can you address what you think this amendment might mean for the sort of the small lot, the concepts that we're trying to promote? Or I guess it was more that we heard it was that for small, smaller patterns. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for inviting me up. I wasn't planning to speak tonight. I'm happy to speak to you on my own behalf, my own opinions. I do serve on the Denver. Planning Board, but. Based on the Denver Planning Board bylaws, I can't speak on their behalf. So. Right. But I'd welcome your opinion. Okay. I try to listen pretty carefully to public sentiment. What are people interested in? What are they interested in preserving? What are they interested in defending against? And in the zoning code update process that I followed very closely with Councilwoman Madison. I heard a lot of people in the public concerned about preserving the pattern of small lots of small buildings, whether they're new buildings or old buildings. That character along the street and this parking exemption as a tool prototyped on Colfax to preserve that by not requiring more parking than can actually be fit on the sites was viewed as pretty successful just a few years in. And the zoning code the zoning code update process extended it. And when we look today about frustrations that we hear in the public, one of the frustrations we hear is we're losing the character. People say things are ugly and new development is too big. It's out of context. It's changing the character. So it's been of particular surprise to me throughout this process that there hasn't been more discussion either in the public or, frankly, at council about preserving that small character. Instead, we have a proposal here that while talking about parking and whether we believe people will have a car or not. And talking about supply and demand, fundamental supply and demand issues. If you produce more housing, then there's more supply and the price should come down for a given amount of demand. Nobody's really talking about the preserving the small lot character. I brought with me CPD produced an analysis on a sample project, the same sort of sample project they showed earlier of the amount of parking spaces that would be required for a sample project under various scenarios, how much is exempt, etc.. And in nearly all the cases in the scheme, zoning, which is the Emacs, is the most common of any of the zoning that any of the small lots have. Far more parking is required that can be fit on the site. 16 spaces, eight spaces, 2448 depending on the mix here. So it's obvious that if something can't fit, it won't be done. If if you can't fit 24 spaces on one of these very small lots, you're not going to you're going to do one of three other things. You're going to let it go. And we don't get revitalization. Things stay dormant. And that's a problem we have on Colfax quite a bit. And throughout the city, you're going to tear down every other building, right? So redevelop this building. Redevelop this site. Tear down the one next to it. To park it. Because I've met my parking requirements. And I got to tell you, when that happens, the public isn't happy because they're like, what happened to the character of the street? We have these parking lots, every other one, or you're going to assemble several lots together and do a much bigger building. That means you have enough space to provide all the parking. And then the public is going to say, what happened to the character of our small lot pattern. So I really regret the way this conversation is going because I was part of the conversation leading up to 2010, and I know that people who think about design and regret the changes they see happening in the city are going to regret the inevitable either lack of preserving the small lot character or stagnation or the missing teeth . The fact that we're going to get if this passes. Thank you. I was going to use that missing teeth analogy, too, because I hear it from developers. And when you have the missing teeth along a street, it discourages any new kinds of concepts going on. I appreciate and thank you very much, Joe. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Councilman Espinosa. You have a question? Yes. Jones, come back up. Since. Since Mary Beth put you on the spot and might as well ask you the question related to what was already discussed. If the if the recommendation of the task force and I mean, are you from. Let me first ask are you familiar with were you here for the entire staff presentation today? Yes. And then are you comfortable and familiar with the proposed text amendment that's on the table today? I'm familiar with it. Are you asking if I'm comfortable with it? No, I'm familiar with the actual language. Yes, yes, yes. So if that language were the recommendation of the task force and presented to the planning board, given the criteria of planning board. Is there any reason why Planning Board would not have recommended approval? Again. I can't speak to Planning Board, but I'm happy to talk about the topic of the criteria because a couple of months ago, when the moratorium was going to be extended, a comment that you made about the criteria of who caught my attention, you said that the criteria that the staff report was reviewing and the planning board reviewed is different than the criteria the council reviews, which actually is not correct according to the zoning code, the criteria is exactly the same. It wouldn't make any sense for planning, board or staff to to weigh in on criteria different than the criteria that you're analyzing. So the key criteria in a lot of these things is consistency with adopted plans. And if you read the staff report and you read the the letters that were sent in from the people who did speak to that, including Ken Triple A, professor of Urban Planning. It goes point by point through all the things in Blueprint Denver that argue for the kinds of diversity you can have when you lower the parking requirements. And I couldn't find anything in my analysis for the planning board work that argued for increasing parking requirements. And so today, you've got staff saying to you that they don't find this proposal consistent with adopted plans. A planning board we had to look at, okay, how inconsistent is it versus other goals? And the recommendation of the task force for me and I can only speak for myself that very, very popular three storey zoning, very neighborhood compatible, keeping the small lot character at the three story zoning was the tipping point to Councilman Clark's comment. The fact that Councilman Brooks proposal, when it's near transit one, is that the places that can best support people's ability to live a car for your lifestyle if they choose to. And if a developer chooses to provide that product, that was a good tipping point to say we're providing a diversity of options, meeting all the goals and blueprint Denver well enough because you can still build that very popular three story product on the three story zoning, which I think is the most common zoning where these small lots are found. When you go beyond that and to your point, if if today's proposal had come to planning board, I can't speak for anybody else, but I would be very challenged to find it consistent with Blueprint. Denver That's interesting because most of my point when I spoke at the planning board were on the the argument about density and units per acre that are very much part of Blueprint Denver But nowhere in our code which this does not go to to addressing which has dramatic impact because 54 unit project on a seventh of an acre is 240 units per acre, which is not at all representative of single family duplex zone districts that are areas of stability where the councilman. So to that, I asked you to sort of consider the language it by itself and all you did was a comparison which that in fact occurred at planning board as well. Because Councilman Clark's proposal was mentioned in the the comments from Planning Board were very clear to sort of put, put put down that suggestion. But I'm asking is if if this if this this still represents a reduction in parking requirements over any base zone district. So is the criteria that is met. I mean, that needs to be met in order to get planning board approval is the criteria met by this ordinance or we now. So if we approve it, are we in violation of our own criteria? I probably can't do any better than planning board itself did. And because Planning Board recommended of the original approval of the original proposal approval with a condition that the parking requirements not be further increased because in my opinion it would reach this point where achieving the goals and blueprint Denver of having a variety of housing options and having a variety of being able to live with or without a car would be compromised. Staff's staff's report today, I think, emphasizes that. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you, gentlemen. As soon as was Councilwoman says. Yes, sir. Mr. Hickman, I have a question for you. If you could come to the podium. Mr. Hill. Yes. I notice that you've been attending our geo open transportation and mobility meetings and very grateful for that. And in all of the volunteering you have done on this issue. Well, I attended one this last. The last one, which was a very important one that's. Stimulating. That's for sure. And we had many we had several speeches by the can travel that was mentioned. And Jill Lo can talk about our need to consider how much we subsidize cars and particularly single occupancy vehicles and how the experts and the people who are studying this says we have to think very, very difficult situations about are not subsidizing car use as much as we do. And as I was watching you, I was wondering, I wonder what Mr. Hickman is thinking about this in terms of the small parking exemption issue that I know you've been promoting. Wow. Do you really expect me to answer that? Yes, I. Do. By midnight? Well, maybe in about 2 minutes. 3 minutes. Thank you. The issue, of course. Is that anything we do? Needs to be weighed against the resources that we take to do it. Okay. At the root of this issue, I think, is the fact that people still own cars. We hope, and I'm one of them. We hope that people will own fewer and fewer cars in the future. I think I said that earlier tonight. But meanwhile, the reality is people have cars. We have to store them somewhere. And our streets have only so much capacity for anything. And I think one of the last things. That we need to do is to use that right of way. That was discussed a lot in that meeting. For more parking that right away is there for other uses that would be much more beneficial and advantageous to the citizens of Denver? Does that does it help? That's a really good and I appreciate that response and I thank you for attending. So thank you. Thank you. Do you have time for a small joke? No, I think that's only in common. I will. Yeah, I'll answer for no, she doesn't right now. Councilman Lopez. This is mine. It's my. Got it. Did you have did you have some. You know what, my. I do, but for the next four comments. Okay, great. I'll make my comments. Great. Couple questions. I think we. First of all, let me just ask. Just raise your hand if you are a developer in the room. Okay. Great. And the deadline, folks, that they leave already. Okay. That's unfortunate. Okay. We'll go on to common sense. Let me. Where's my. Oh, there's my gavel. Okay. The public hearing for 161 is now closed. We're going to comments. Councilman Clark. Thank you, Mr. President. This has been a long haul, and we've been beating this one up a lot. You know, I'll start with once again thanking you, Mr. President, for taking this on and for also being open to disagreement and conversation and evolution and and and helping me along the way with how I worked things that that you didn't agree with. And so I think that is an important part of our process up here. Councilman Hurd did not hear what he always says. We can disagree, but that doesn't mean we have to be disagreeable. And I think I take that with me and I just really appreciate how you have led us on this issue . I also want to thank staff sitting here in the front row tonight. I know it's not easy dealing with us up here, and we're a cagey bunch of crazies. You quote me on that one, and I just want to say thank you again. We get heated, we get into this, but at the end of the day, you guys have the hardest job in the world trying to balance all of this and all of us who have very different feelings. You know, a couple of things that I just want to say that I think that, you know, very quickly to go through the stuff that I touched on in questions, I was asking questions about if you want to develop on a small lot with no exemption, there's no zip in. You can go to vote if you want the exemption, there's zip and that gets you down to a very low percentage of parking. If you're on a bigger lot and you want to develop without going below 50%, there's no zip in the joint, less than 50%, there's a zip. And it sounds to me like a very similar process. I am eager and I wish that, you know, I hope that we can we can move forward. And if there are ways for us to define it more down the line, that makes it easier for staff. I would be happy to take that on, too. I wish that, you know, somebody from from the zoning administrator's office might have reached out and said, what would that have looked like? Rather than just you're not doing it? And so it's hard. So for me, that to me, Xp-Pen is so important to this. And to me it doesn't seem that out of line with what we already do. It's new and different territory here, but that doesn't mean that it's a bad thing. You know, I also, again, want to point out what I pointed out a lot of times, that my bill isn't the only bill that adds parking. The bill that was put on the table added parking. And I do think that that tipping point is is tough. And so I guess I'm not saying that I think CBD necessarily should have supported the bill as amended, but I'm just not also sure that you should have supported Brooksville based on the same some of the same criteria that you looked at on mine. What's really important to me at the end of the day is that support or not support. We've had a really robust conversation and we moved something forward that can be good for the for our communities. I also, you know, understand that this bill, as amended, does make CPD and public works and everybody a little bit nervous. And honestly, I think that's a really good thing right now because since we doubled down with our second vote on these amendments a couple of weeks ago, I have had more awesome conversations with staff about how we are going to move very quickly on TDM and and you know all the things at the very beginning that were said about parking management and TDM and all these great things. And so I think that this puts us in a place where it's not perfect, but it does put us heading in the right direction. I wish that tonight we were talking about a bill that was all about TDM and multi-modal improvements and parking management. I wish we would have been talking about that since the beginning of this process. Not getting really excited about at the end when we're getting nervous about what's going to happen. I wish that we were talking about incentivizing mixed use as part of this. I wish that we were talking about context, sensitivity and what works in downtown might not work in the highest point in Denver and District two. And to be very clear, I don't love this bill. This bill is not my baby that I am so excited about. I think we have a lot of work to do. I don't think this is a perfect solution, but I do think it's a good start and I think it's a good start that brings the neighborhoods, the ones who are experiencing this firsthand and not theoretically and not from a book, but in real time, in real life in the world that we live in today, not the future condition. It brings them to the table to say, this isn't perfect, this isn't what we wanted, but it's a compromise we're willing to start with. And I think some I can't remember who said it. I'd give you total credit, but somebody said, Well, you know, if everybody in the room, there's nobody in the room who is really like, yeah, this bill, right? That means we've probably landed at a pretty good place for compromise. I feel like this is a good start. It's a good compromise. It's much better than a full exemption, which is where we are going tonight with the no vote, no vote go takes us back to full exemption. And so I sincerely hope that this is the start of the conversation, not the end of it. And I would ask my colleagues to please vote yes on this good compromise so that we can start the process of moving forward. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, President Pro tem clerk. And I'm just going to go down the line because we we got them lining up, you all. And I don't know how you came in. So. Councilman Espinosa. Thank you, Mr. President. I second Councilman Clark's comments for working with this body and allowing us the space to voice and address the concerns of our constituency, especially those impacted as yours, mine. And Councilman Clark's is speaks well of your leadership. And thank you. We are not listening. So I can tell you all that this that I don't have consensus support of even this amended version for my R.A. It still doesn't get there. As many of your comments mentioned, no consideration for true mixed use development, transit alternatives or affordability, but it's a good compromise and hammered out amendment. And so with that I'll be supporting it. But I wanted to speak to a few things here. A speaker mentioned how they're already built. Existing unit went from 1300 dollars a month to 1700 dollars a month after she moved out. In one day. It was it was re rented. The cost of that building did not go up because of the parking requirement on that project. It was an existing building. The rental market isn't being driven by parking. Ironically, the new zoning code has always had parking reductions for projects with affordable units, given the expressed difficulty demonstrated by staff to capture some of the required parking. Maybe, just maybe, savvy developers seeking square footage for development would look to those affordability reductions or reductions for alternative transit to resolve design challenges as they meet on these small lots to council and clerk's observations. In the Q&A, staff claimed that the amended amendment is inconsistent with Blueprint Denver requirements related to parking. Mind you, at the time that that was adopted 15 years ago, all areas were subject to Chapter 59 zoning regulations. At the time of Blueprint, Denver Tennyson Street was zoned before that, zoning would require multifamily development to provide one space per dwelling unit. The impact is easy enough that impact is easy enough to figure out. However. If one wanted to build a structure for a brewpub, an eating place or retail, the parking requirement would be required at a rate of one per 200 gross square feet. That is. Is. It's the fourth category. Sir, if anyone is interested in chapter 59. The entire first floor in and of in our current amendment, the entire first floor is exempt over 6250 lot which remains exempt with this amendment. And we're one of those commercial uses on in that old chapter 59 zoning code that's 31 required spaces. That's now exempt. We had mapped. Had we mapped to mass or zoning without small lot exemption, we would have been consistent with Blueprint Denver then. That is a massive reduction and we are now period. If the recommendation of President Brooks's task force were the language we have today. The criteria of the planning board would in fact be met. And would be recommended for approval. There is nothing in this amendment that doesn't meet that criteria despite what is being said on the city staff. So I'm disappointed that the director of CPD has wasted so many precious staff resources defending the President's text amendment on a fraction of 1% of the developable land in this city. Those are resources that could have been working on helping fund transit through development of transit demand management policies or land value capture. We could and should be 60 days into that future. Mind you, I now know that we are in fact, working on that. Thank God. But I've been talking about that specifically to the managing director of CPD almost since the day I got here. So I wish we were voting today on TDM Inland Value Capture because those are the tools we were presented long ago. The case was made that when we re zoned in 2010, we did not have restrictive enough basis zoning. So some of these assets that we're trying to make are going to be harder and heavier lifting because we have already massively reduced the parking requirements in this city. That is the model that other communities are looking at. Our base zoning without exemptions. In fact, to the point about cities not making parking, increasing parking requires Boston, South Boston just three months ago increase their parking requirements from 0.9 units per I mean point nine spaces per unit to 1.5. Why? Neighborhood preservation. So there is a give and take here. I'm totally on board with getting zero mean 100% parking exemption, but we need have to have the tools and the keep and skills adopted by this city and put in place so that we can get there in a more managed, thoughtful way. And so with that, I will be supporting this amendment because I think it's as good as we can do right now. Thanks. All right. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. First of all, let me just. Let me thank you for all of your work. Also. You are very passionate. You stayed on top of this. You. Convene a lot of people. And I, you know, in the light, the last vote that we had on this bill. You know, I. I saw the disappointment that you had. I don't want you to think for 1/2 that this is a critique of your work or your work ethic or your leadership. I think, you know, I say this and I know my my colleagues and the folks around us know how hard you work. And I wanted to commend you for that on the floor. This is a tricky issue. And why. You know, I kind of felt conflicted going back and forth. And what it did is. For me, it's allowed me to take a look at how this would apply to them. To my area a little bit. A little bit more. And I cannot. So I did. I was able to engage with more of my constituents, with folks across the city and kind of compare the two. And I know this song and I feel like the Rolling Stones I need to sing sing the same song with the same kind of excitement as it did the first time. Right. So it's a little tricky, but it comes across it actually is pretty, pretty good. I'm looking at Paul Cashman and I know he's looking at me real skeptical. I think I want to poke fun at the Stones. I'm not. So that's how it comes across. I'm glad you're laughing. So. So is laughing at my joke. So I say this because. I the the woman that got up, I don't know if she's still here, but she got up and said, you know, these are family grew that child and they're looking for a place that was like 1700 a month. I can't help but think. Come West. There are some places in Barnum and we'll park in our neck of the woods on the west side that are that are about that budget. And you're going to get a good a good unit. I mean, you'll get three bedrooms with your own driveway and your own yard for about that much. It's still expensive, still absolutely expensive to live in Denver, no matter where it is. Everybody's getting squeezed out. I. I paid a lot of attention to her because I'm wondering why she hasn't come west. And when I ask people, well, why out here? Well, it's not as connected. And it's the same answer I've gotten. It's not as connected. And then I go back into my neighborhoods and I don't need to go back. I mean, I'm from the neighborhood, I. Eat, sleep. And I mean, JJ is man, I was a pitcher. He was a third baseman. We were on the same team, literally in Little and Little League. Not much has changed on our side of the river. And even with plans. And I wanted to make sure that that that. Cindy didn't feel attacked when I said this. I just was honestly looking for an update. Cindy's an amazing visionary over our public works. You are. But it goes back to American if we were. So there's two ways this is framed. One is affordability, the other is mass transit. This whole argument for or against? And this is why I'm going to tell you why I'm supporting this bill. I supported this amendment because. If we were so engrained in wanting to make this happen in multi-modal city happen. The BRT would be without question. On the West Side. It's not even funded going past federal boulevard. We had to fight for it just to come across the river. I was told a million times you couldn't put it on Colfax or the Hill. It's heavy, you know. Well, they usually there's trains in San Francisco, so. If a kitchen can exist in San Francisco over on a on a steep grate again in Denver. And then. Just the planning and we are looking at. West Side kind of the neighborhood plans and bringing him up to speed. And these are plans that were done that were created all about the car and it was all about just driving everywhere. These are plans from the eighties and nineties. They're not going to get touched until 2019 according to the phasing that that they're working on in CPD. I won't even be a councilman. And we're all about it. We want to start now, but we just don't have the capacity to to do it. We don't have the staff to actually get it done. So that and then, you know, I came to this council a year ago with a simple amendment to the budget to ask for to for a block of sidewalk. On South Florida, on the west side, southwest Denver. $170,000. I mean, it's not it's not cheap, but it's also not going to break us. That request was denied. I couldn't get more than four votes for that. So where is this multimodal city? I've been hearing about. Not in the West Side. Now we've been pushing to give some folks in credit. We've been pushing. But the bike boulevard that we needed implemented. They said we're going to implement of Denver's first bike boulevard four years ago. We still don't have it. I'm seeing it all built out and striped all over this place down here. We're not getting it over there. So I don't buy this thing about well, we want to make it so that you can get anywhere. Well, apparently not in the West Side. That's what we're fighting for. And look, I'm not it's not a critique on our staff. It's not a critique on the people that make it work. It's the critique on our priorities as a city, in our budget, what we're not willing to fund. The other thing is affordability. I don't think this this isn't an issue about affordability, folks. Seattle. Portland. People that are kind of there with it. They still have an affordable housing crisis. You look at other cities with equivalent or higher parking requirements that are more affordable. Denver. Phenix. Albuquerque. Salt Lake City. Dallas. Columbus, Ohio. This exemption has been around for 6.5 years. You think that's made a dent in our affordable housing crisis? It hasn't. And also go take a look at some of these micro units. Column. Pretend your. Your. Your. I'm trying to be cool, like. Get in there and be like, hey, I want I want a unit and I don't want to share anything. I'm a millennial, whatever. Right? Well, I want to share everything. I'm millennial. I want a small unit. IKEA couch, whatever you call them. Asked what the month to month rent is 1300 dollars for 400 square feet. Are these really affordable? Are these families? And if that's what we're incentivizing. On these in these locations and. How is this going to increase affordable housing? And, you know, one of our to give to give is to bring something out and don't want to be to I don't belabor and I'm sorry, but I really need to make this point because last time I was conflicted. Somebody on our council said, Well, why don't we? Why don't we all walk or bike or transit for a whole week? To work. For Joel. That was you that said that for Joel and John's the guy that has taken all the heat saying the call in the parking council. I mean, he's the only one biking down here. All right, I'll tell you what I would, but I have a daughter to pick up after school and take to her after school program. I have a mother to go leave dinner for who lives outside of Denver. I got to do that every single day. I can't do it on a bicycle. I can't do it on the 16. And let's try. You know, this is fine and dandy when it's when it's warm outside. But what happens in the winter? So this is why I supported the amendment and this is why I support this moving forward as until we are there. I'm not there. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Councilman Lopez, Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. And what a joy this meeting is. And if you want to get up and stretch your drinks and poison whatever it would take to make you feel better, please feel free. So you know what? I've said this before, so excuse me if you've heard this before, but when people ask me what is my biggest surprise since taking this job, I always tell them two things. I tell them that my biggest surprise is how competent city staff is. By and large, I mean, when I was just another citizen out there at home reading the paper and watching TV and thinking people are idiots. They don't know what they're doing. They don't care. And you see that once every how many years exposed because some poor parks worker was overtired and took a nap in his truck. And so everyone thinks everyone's sleeping through the day. And you get you get inside the process a little bit and you realize how competent and how hardworking these people are. And people ask me about my council colleagues and I tell them, you know, we're we're obviously 13 different people, and it ranges from fairly conservative to fairly liberal . But we're a very collegial group. I mean, we work together well. I think Councilman Brooks does a wonderful job as a whole as our leader this year in facilitating that collegial atmosphere. And the reason I bring this up is I don't think any of us have done our best work on this process. You know, I think as as we've gotten into it, the topic has revealed itself to be more complicated. And I think it deserved more time and more more time in the weeds to I don't know, you know, I believe that the staff is having fits over the idea of CPM. I believe they are. They're seeing some real problems with it. And I think with more time, maybe it would be a different kind of pain and it would have different types of of of processes. But I believe we can make it work. You know, and I think, you know, we're looking at these maps with the quarter mile, half mile areas around transit zones. I'm thinking, why are we getting off the transit corridor? Maybe we stay on the transit corridor. I'm concerned about Councilwoman Sussman and her concerns about Colfax. There are areas that I think we really need to pay attention to. But I for me, I'm just very clear what my constituents want. Want in or out of this process. You know, I think we've made some fairly mediocre sausage. You know, if I were ordering breakfast at Sam's three and this was the sausage, I'd probably either ask for bacon or some cottage cheese on the side. We need to continue working on this. And also, I mean, I need to just reiterate, I mean, where people are sitting here with, oh, my God, you're changing the world as we see it. It's 1% of the lots in the city. Okay. 1% of the lots in the city. That's not saying I'm satisfied with this. I think I've been clear. We need to keep working on this. No one's happy with this. This is not doing what anyone wants. And, you know, affordable housing. Please, please, please. You know, I can get an affordable meal at the Brown Palace at Ruth's Chris. At the fanciest restaurants in the city. If I want to go eat a potato and go home and call that a meal. That's not to me, a meal. And a thousand 1213, 1400 bucks for 400 square feet is not affordable housing, you know, I mean, it's it's just not my definition of affordable housing. So I will. I'll be supporting this sausage. You know, and Councilman Clark and I sat down with the director of CPD just because we wanted to exchange ideas and look for ways that we can figure out these remaining gaps. How do we get development on Colfax and protect the neighborhoods that I believe deserve being protected? I my my friend Espinosa, Councilwoman Espinosa said a few meetings ago that and I definitely empathize with this. There are people in these neighborhoods who have been building these great neighborhoods for decades. So let's give them a wee bit of slack because they don't want 104 units dumped on their block with no parking. I get I get I get the argument against. I'm concerned about the argument against. I always keep in mind when I'm assessing these issues and I get to the point where I believe what I believe. I always keep in mind I might be wrong. You know, I might be wrong. My vote might be the wrong vote. But this is the way I'm seeing it today. Thank you, staff, very much. I think you're all incredibly talented people. So we're at odds on this one. So be it. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Cash. Councilman Neal. Thank you, Mr. President. I echo the thanks to Councilman Clark and Counsel Brooks and also to Councilor Cashman. He filled in while Counsel Brooks was out and carried the ball initially, and it was part of the all the discussion with the group. So thank you for all your leadership on that. I also want to thank all the residents, you know, Bob and David especially and Margie. I mean, the analysis y'all did were just unbelievable. Every time you come in my office, you bring out some new analytical report and data that you accumulated. And it was so thorough and professional. I just really appreciate you helping us. Understand all the issues. That were around your mind and what was important to you and and your neighborhoods. I really appreciate that. I got really excited when City Pan came up because I thought City was going to lay out a transportation plan for us. But, you know, but but I knew she she was going to do her best to answer Paul's questions. But we still don't have that plan, and we hopefully will have it soon and look forward to it. I was I was glad when Councilwoman Sussman called up Joel. Joe, such a smart guy. And, you know, the planning board and and his kids comments about character are right on target with Colfax. We've been talking about that quite a bit for the last year or so, but I think it's going to come down to a discussion about character and density. When we get to Colfax, it's all going to be about affordable housing and density and and what's going to happen to Colfax and Transit going down to the heart of Colfax. So it's going to be a very interesting discussion. I really wish that we had that transportation plan and I really wish we had Councilman Sessions. Transit agency that she's been talking about so fervently so. And she's right on target. The city has got to have a transit agency to help implement that plan and and take control of our transportation system. So and if we had that plan and that agency, I think today would be a totally different discussion. We wouldn't be talking so much about parking. I think we'd be talking about and developing and moving people around and possibly even getting people out of the cars. So so maybe that maybe that'll happen one of these days. But I think what the alternate animated approach is a balanced approach. And so I can't imagine it's going back to to the old ordinance and and being totally exempt. So I think in my my constituents believe that to you know, I do surveys on all the major issues with all my constituents and I get about 800 to 1000 residents giving me feedback. And this was the highest I've ever had on a survey so far in my two years. And 85% of my Rosa said no to the exemptions. And but if they had a choice between three and, you know, council clerk and councilman Brooks it was council was Clark was the amendment they preferred so so I'll vote yes tonight and I'll encourage my colleagues to do so. And and like everyone said, you know, we got to keep working on this. We were this was just the start of this whole thing. And we've got to get transit and transportation solved and implemented in our city to become a great city. So thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Now, Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. I also want to thank not only my colleagues, Councilman Brooks and Councilman Clark, for their work on this. I want to thank city staff and folks from the neighborhoods on both sides that were. Passionate in bringing forth various points of views that helped us get to something that I think is an even better compromise. You know, over the years, as I have been involved in the land use process, city council clearly is is responsible for this. And it is not unusual to have a recommendation come out of the planning board that is not supported by city council. So, you know, and again, this is part of the deliberative process that we go through in listening to community and making sure that we're trying to find that that, you know, important balance between the very and various points of view. You know, I can remember back when the chamber took a large group of people to Vancouver. And everybody came back excited about wanting to see more density in the city of Denver. This was before 2003 when we had, you know, ten members of city council leave. That's when we started talking about density. And everybody kept saying, where we see density, we're going to see affordability. Well in our large development, that hasn't translated to affordability. So where you would think in large scale developments. Where we're we're, you know, seeing massive units being developed. We should see affordability, but that hasn't been the case. So to expect that in small unit developments, you know, doesn't mean that's going to translate either. The other thing I think is important as we talk about the need for transit management a TDM for the core of the city, you know, we've got a great one out at Stapleton that's doing great work. They've got businesses providing discounted passes for their workers. But guess what? RTD just did away with that discounted bus pass. So how do we make sure that there's equity in the kind of work that we're talking about so that people who are the poorest among us could afford to ride public transit there , the people who need it the most, and by and large end up paying more. Because when you look at, you know, the fact that, you know, government employees, the city discounts that pass for for for city employees. You know, there are other programs. But when it comes to folks who are at the bottom of the pay scale, they're the ones that get hit the hardest with the affordable housing, the highest transportation cost. So we got to find something that works for everybody and doesn't create this push out effect that says, you know, geez, your city, that we just can't accommodate you. So you got to go somewhere else that you can afford. And that's that's the wrong message. I think we as a city should be working to address. So I'm going to be supporting this amendment tonight. Again, I think the deliberations that have taken place have been an important part of the process. And I appreciate the work that everybody has done on all sides of this issue. Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilwoman Sussman. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm afraid I'm not part of this Kumbaya group. I'm going to probably be the first one to speak against support of this bill. It's I I feel like Councilman Cashman does that. We are a very, very collegial group, and we do work well together. But we've had the leader of this bill say it's not a good bill, but I'm I'm going to back it anyway. We had Mr. Cashman say it's mediocre sausage, but I'm going to vote for it anyway. I just don't know if that's a sustainable way in which to vote to. Let's not let's make bills that we don't like, but let's vote for them anyway. I think that. Well, first of all, we're putting a lot into 6250 square feet. And it seems actually it's a small thing, but we have to maintain our principles and our vision and our ways for transforming our city. I think making decisions like this puts us on the wrong side of history. This bill moves us one step, a little step backward. We've had taken great strides. Couple of steps forward. But we have to keep. Pure to our ideas of what it's going to take. To really turn around this city and get and reduce the amount of single occupancy vehicles. And there is lots of research out there about how to do that. We want a walkable, bikeable, transit rich city. Neighbors are concerned about congestion in the top three issues in my district are traffic, traffic and traffic. The only way you can move forward on something like this is to make really hard decisions that are unpopular with some and popular with others. But we have to stop subsidizing car use. With low gas prices. Low gas tax. Roads that are built primarily for cars that have for generations had the right of way before all people, these £3,000 things. And the other thing is parking requirements. It's a huge subsidy for car users. Huge. We all feel like we deserve a free parking space. Our cars deserve a free parking space. Where did where did that come from? There is so much research out there how minimum rear parking requirements and the other subsidies are a major part of our problem with congestion. And to say it isn't so. I'm going to just be kind of harsh here. Sounds like science deniers. You can say, okay, this is what they're saying in the science, but I really don't want to do that. There. There's just no evidence otherwise and that we have to reduce our subsidy for cars and the way in which our our country is. And and I'm making all these, you know, grandiose statements on a little thing, you know, whether three stories get exemptions or two stories get exemptions. It's a really small thing. But when you've got a plan and you have a transformative vision and you have a goal, you can't let the little things slip by you. You can't do that if you're compromising your principles. The other principle that I believe in, too, is community input. Councilman Brooks ran a very comprehensive community process at looking at all the issues related to this, and they made a plan. I'm not sure. I wouldn't have supported the original. Parking exemption for small lots. For all of the reasons that CPD did and the planning board did. But at least we had a community process and I know those people who were on that project or one are feeling like they were unheard. Where did their recommendations go? Why were they unheated? Why? And then I've even heard one say, why participate if you're not heeded? I, I just wish that, you know, and I wanted to say our, our CPD leader took the time and our CPD people took the time to look at this because we asked them to we put a moratorium on this. And so they had to spend their time and resources on this because the council asked them to. And TDM is an important issue. I'm glad we're talking about it, but it's not just CPD, it's public works, it's housing, it's it's all of the agencies in our city. This particular 6200 feet, 60 to 50 feet has a lot to do with my Colfax issues and federal. It has a lot to do with affordable housing. It has a lot to do with the way we want our city to look. And it has a lot to do with equity in the ways we move around that. Pedestrians, bicycles and cars should have equal access to our right of way. They should have equal access. And that's an important value. It's probably not. As popular. But it is the science and I won't be voting for this change. Thanks. Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Councilwoman Black. Thank you. I hate it that I'm next because I am so wavering. This has been the best public comment. Everyone here has had a very persuasive argument. And I really appreciate you all being here and being here so late. I'm very tired and I'm sure you are too, because I have a much more comfortable seat and thank you CPD. I'm very dismayed because I feel like there's a lot of misunderstanding about the original parking exemption, which actually was about neighborhood preservation, and it was about small scale and historic buildings. And it does it dismays me that now it's it's if you're support the exemption that you're against neighborhoods because that's not what it is. Just as Councilwoman Sussman just said. I also I feel like it's turned into now a fight over who owns the street parking. And and that's not what it was ever intended to be. And I also think it's it's not right that it's somehow a developer against neighborhood, because that's not what it is either. It was it was intended to preserve small scale buildings and not tear them all down and build a giant monstrosity like we have on South University in his district. Anyway. That said, the both the exemption and both of the compromises, the Brooks compromise and the Clark compromise were well-intended, incredibly imperfect, have unintended consequences. And they don't necessarily solve the problems that they intended to solve. We need a much more pointed and neighborhood specific solution, as John Hayden, I think he already left and others suggested. Every part of our city is unique. There's only one part of my district that has small lots. The rest of my district has more parking than we could ever fill. In fact, if you want to park in my district and I take the light rail into town, you should do it in. The one neighborhood that is impacted, however, is in undergoing incredible change and densification right now. And they support Dolan's bill and have asked me to support it. Councilman Susman is right. Nobody is excited about it. Sue Glass Maker said it's mediocre at best. Keith Pryor said this particular bill is not addressing the issue. We need to look at better ways to preserve small lots and encourage affordable housing and mixed use. I've wavered if I'm going to support it or I'm not going to support it. I think it's going to pass. My I told you, my R.A. has asked me to support it. I. I don't think the exemption has been successful. It hasn't I don't think it's resulted in affordable housing. I think there's been unintended consequences, Sharon Nunnally said. We can still work on it, and that's that's the spirit I like the best is that whatever we had wasn't what we needed, but we need to all get together and find a better solution. So I'm still pondering this, but thank you. How could you be pondering after all this time? Okay. So. Councilwoman Black, thank you for your great comments. Council it, Councilman Flynn. Thank you. Sorry, sir. Thank you, Mr. President. I think I'm most distressed to hear that Councilwoman Sussman is going to destroy the Flynn corollary that I developed back in the eighties and nineties over at the press table that the longer we debated and talked and commented is seemed, the more unanimous the vote would turn out to be. So another another one bites the dust. All 13 of us up here, those who are present and the three who are absent tonight, have free, reserved private parking in the most transit rich. Node in all of Colorado. And to my knowledge, only Councilman Clark and I frequently use alternative modes, councilman bicycles, although he has that power assist battery. That's really kind of cool. It's a cheat. It's a cheat. And he's a young guy. He's a young guy despite looking as old as he does. But and I take light rail, but I have to drive to Englewood because there's no reliable transit for me to get to Englewood Station to come in. And and as Councilman Lopez mentioned last week, I did email all of us and said, why don't we try to use alternative mode to come here in last week to see. Yeah. To get some appreciation for it. No one took me up on the offer and I regret to say that I couldn't do it any day either because of the demands of my schedule to be here and there at certain times. I wish that we could be nuanced enough and nimble enough so that we could address the very legitimate concerns that I share with Councilwoman Sussman and along Federal Boulevard to try to maintain the character and the small parcels. I wish that we were nimble enough to to be able to address those without also suffocating the bungalows of Platt Park in West Wash Park by straight jacket ing them with the exact same one size fits all jacket. It seems to me that sometimes we argue for strict uniformity of regulation because we like predictability and certainty when it suits our ultimate philosophical purpose. But then when it doesn't, we like to be context sensitive. I wish we had a context sensitive solution to this. I'm going to obviously vote yes for this, but I will work with every other member and with CPD to try to find a more flexible and nimble solution so that what works on Colfax but doesn't work in Platt Park can still. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. All right. Councilman Cashman and Lopez. I'm going to go to Councilwoman Gilmore just to give since you guys already won. Okay. Lean forward to lean back. You got to lean back in that comfy chair there. Okay, Councilman Gilmore. Thank you, President Brooks. You know, listening very thoughtfully to all of the public comment and all of the the great conversation by my colleagues. The one thing that. Either. Bill really highlights is our enormous gaps in transit in the city. And it's unfortunate and an equitable I think to pit affordable housing against. A failing transit system. When we're also trying to maintain the character of our neighborhoods, because I think there's a much broader and bigger conversation that we need to be having. And as it's been said time and time again. It's not a perfect solution. But Councilman Clarke's amended bill is a compromise and what I hope is an interim solution. To this issue, but that we're going to have to come back and address it again and again and again. The one thing that we haven't necessarily talked about. In an intentional way is the equity question that this brings up, especially for my family who resides in the Monticello community. And I would love to take Councilman Flynn up on his, you know, challenge to take transit, to come to the city and county building. That's not a reality for me. I have children who are in school who need to be there at a certain time. They need to be picked up midday. And so I just hope through all of the conversation that we've had here tonight, that we can elevate the conversation to one that looks at transit and affordable housing and a team plan from an equity lens, so that we're making sure that we're not only addressing certain parts of the city, but that we are truly being inclusive and including Councilman Lopez's district and my district and all the people in in Denver. And that to have the privilege to utilize transit. You live in certain areas of the city, and unfortunately, that doesn't always cover all the communities of color in the city. And so I hope that we can work more to broaden the conversation where it needs to go so that my three kids can choose if they want to own a car or not, that it's not a necessity for them to own a car. And so that being said, I'm going to go ahead and support Council Bill 161. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman. All right, Council Councilman Cashman. And thank you, sir. I will keep this brief, but I had to answer a couple of things. Look, I take this job very seriously. I don't set out in the morning to make legislation that I'm not proud of. If it wasn't clear enough, I support what I consider a mediocre bill because I consider the alternative poisonous. To go back to go back to a place with no parking restrictions, I think makes no sense at all so that the inference that somehow people are satisfied with mediocre legislation, I couldn't let sit and to infer that we're somehow science deniers. When this entire council. Placed as its number one budget priority, increased mobility and transportation. And then on this one issue that affects 1% of the lots in the city. We disagree. Makes no sense to me. I mean, Brother Murray has already tweeted out my sausage comment. You know, it makes and it makes an easy headline. I had done the same thing when I was writing, so. No offense taken, John, but yeah, I mean. Well, what I said before about the fact I don't think we worked well together. You know, you have the legislative and the executive branches and there's separation of powers. But we need to partner better sometimes. And I'm seeing another situation evolve that I'm interested in. Where I'm seeing silos when they are sometimes don't serve us real well. So we need to work better at that. You know, I sit with the SAT, with Councilwoman Susman, with the mayor, urging him to form that Department of Mobility or Transportation or Transit, whatever whatever you want to want to talk about. So I think we have 13 people up here who are very clear on the need to improve transit, to improve mobility options, to provide affordable housing. And we're just differing on this one tiny part of that discussion. So thank you and good night. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman Lopez. You know, I realized I forgot a couple of things and I'll be quick. I forgot the thing, Jawn, as well, too. Councilman Clark and Councilman Brooks. You know, for both of your work and your advocacy on that and just just on that tip. Councilman Cashman, look, the one thing I did not say, I mean, we complain about the sausage. But we don't talk about how to make it better sometimes. So here are if you really want to go after affordable housing. Give somebody a living wage so that so rent doesn't become an issue, for crying out loud. Let's pay somebody a fair wage so that, you know, one month to the other they don't get kicked out because they can't make rent. Wages are still low and we have an opportunity to make that happen. And we we really have to put a dent in affordable housing that way. And just think beyond micro units. There are families. I want families to get on a transit route. I want families to bike together. None of us up here believe in a 1980s Denver where, you know, we're pumping crude and filling up at the tank and the gas station and just driving around just for the sake of it. But we want to see this multi-modal Denver, but we want to see it equitably. Fully fund the BRT on Colfax. Playboy calls it the longest, wickedest street in America. That alone would be an awesome Ryan pundit. Right. Funny sidewalks. And not just with bond money, but it's upon us. It's our it's us as council to say this is these are this is the money that we want to put towards our priorities. We can't just make it a priority and a plan and have our awesome staff work on it are awesome, awesome city employees work on it and not fund it. We have the funding, right? That's where. That's where. Let's put our money where our mouth is. The second thing and Councilman Brooks, you're going to probably censure me after this. I was going to do that. But Denver's Brooklyn Bridge, that Colfax Viaduct, and you cannot bike across it. Well, you cannot walk across it. Well, let's transform it. It's the one thing that has kept the west side and the east side from not being one city. That's the biggest problem. Let's fix the core facts via diet. You can bike, walk and drive and maybe even take the train across it to Bad Colfax being the longest street in America. The only way you can do it is driving. Let's fix that. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. I think it's the first time Playboy's ever been quoted in a in a council meeting. All right. Read the articles. Council. Councilman Espinosa. Hopefully you won't take off this time when I praise you. You'll have to rewind the tape there. That's all I'm going to do right now. And doesn't necessarily need to be said, but. This is, you know, councilman or President Brooks. You heard your constituents. Express this concern. You took action. You led this moratorium process, you led that discussion. So it's this is your bill. And you may not agree with the text amendments, but these words are your your words, you know, and you put this out and that directly in response to what you heard. And so it needs to be noted that this is not mean that that that is that is you doing your job, representing your constituents and us doing our job representing our constituents, trying to, to, to put this forward. So I whether it feels like it or not, I see this as the the the Brooks. Brooks Brooks. Clarke. Bill, because you got us here to a point where we're talking about things and moving forward on that TDM discussion and all these things because we recognize that we don't have the tools that we actually need to make. Denver This sort of pedestrian bike transit city that we know it needs to be. And so I just want to say that, you know, thank you for listening to those concerns because it would have been possible to not. And the fact that we're here today, I just want to thank you topics. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. All right. We got some others up, Councilman Flynn and then Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. Just a brief note, because no meeting would be complete without some pointless historical trivia from me. But just to follow up on Councilman Lopez, the Colfax Viaduct originally was built with the Larimer Viaduct in an open in 1916, was built for Denver Tramway at a total cost of $715,000. Thank you. Built for transit, not for automobiles. Okay. Thank you, Councilman Flynn, for that. How much or how. Much concrete. History. Councilwoman Ortega. I'll be really brief, and this is probably for a different conversation. But can we talk quality design? I think we should be ensuring that we have units that are going to last for generations into the future and not units that are going to be, you know, falling apart, that need to be replaced in, you know, five, ten years from now. So different conversation for different time. But it's a missing part of the overall big picture conversation. Thank you. Thank you. In a plug for council. Councilman Espinosa's urban design deal happening on Wednesday. If you're if you're not available to attend, send somebody who can. It's a it's a pretty interesting conversation at 12:00 in the committee. Okay. I'm going to be going to be the last one to speak is one of the privileges that you get as president. And this is a bill that I've been a part of. Councilman Clarke, thank you so much for working hard. It's it's as you can tell, we're friends, frenemies in our district and we're friends. And it's it's it's so great to have very different perspectives on this small piece of legislation, folks, you know, come together and figure out a way forward. So I really appreciate you on that. STAFF Thank you so much. I know you've been through a lot and you've been great and you've provided some incredible information. And Ryan Winsberg, wherever you are in Portland, appreciate you to the committee that serves. Some of you guys are here. Some of you left this conversation a long time ago and when you started getting emails from people because people can be a little harsh and not realize the time that you put in. And so I just want to thank you all from for walking through that process. Councilwoman Jeanie Robb, who originally took this up in 2011. Thank you. And then to all the people who are still here at 915 when you can be doing a million other things, you are here because you love this city. Thank you. You went through security. Some of you pay for parking. And you're sitting in hard, hard seats. And we really appreciate you. And we always respect the right for you to petition your government. It makes us better. So thank you, George. Mail. I want to respond to you. We are not having a conversation really with developers, and I will respond to a lot of emails that I've received that this is mostly developers and neighbors. I can count the number of developers who have been a part of the conversations in the last. Nine months. And it's really neighbors and neighbors, neighbors that have a certain opinion around transportation mobility, neighbors that feel like we're not getting there yet on transportation and mobility. So this is actually a very tough, complex issue because you can't just make it black and white and make a quick decision. So I just wanted to say that Councilwoman Ortega is she drove home. My point and I appreciate you bringing in the urban design. I think that and I counted that's the 11th topical issue that have been thrown onto this very little bitty deal called 60 to 50 lots. It's less than 1%. Just so you know, not more not one less than 1% of our overall make up of 151 square miles. And I get it. There are a lot of issues in our city, but I believe we try to solve way too many things. And it got very confusing. We have parking issues in our city. We have urban design issues in our city. We have affordable housing issues in our city that won't be solved with 60 to 50 square lot exemption. It won't. But you've helped us to say we need to have outlets on urban design. We need to have outlets on affordable housing. We need to do this. We need to do that. We need to do TDM. You've helped us, but this isn't, this isn't gonna solve it. So. The last piece of this? Well, not really the last piece, but. I do have to point out something real quick because we had the affordable housing and folks got pooh poohed. And, you know, this is not affordable housing. Yes, it is. You know, all this conversation according to HUD. Income limits for 80% AMI units. Do you know what the price point is? Anybody want to know? $51,176. Most of these micro units are actually identified as 80%. Am I? So I'm not trying to drive home anyone's point. I just I think it's important to know that standard that if you're at an 80% AMI, the max rent that you can charge in the city is $1,176. Okay. So the city of Denver, we pride ourselves, all of us, to putting forward, you know, progressive legislation and leading the nation in certain issues. We definitely do that socially. We rarely do that from a transportation mobility perspective. I think we're starting to, which is really exciting. Unfortunately, both groups in the social justice part and even in the transportation mobility justice and and just they don't talk. They don't connect. And this is very apparent during this conversation. I feel like. We as a city can be doing much more progressive things around our transportation mobility issues. And it's one of the things that have that has really come clear to me and have in this conversation and pushed me in some areas that I must be much more progressive in the way that I think around this . But I'll be making my decision tonight on two things fear based over data driven analysis. I want to know what is the the 6250 development that has been built in this city. That is causing anxiety. We don't have one. Now, there are some suppositions that could happen when one comes and we're thinking about, Well, this will happen, but we really don't have a development before. So we can study it and analyze and say, okay, because of this, we know that, and now let's make a decision. My bill didn't do that. Council. Councilman Clarksville didn't do that. And I can't support that. I think we need to go back to the drawing board. I love where Councilman Clarke is going and the team, but over. The conversations that I've had from both sides of my neighbors. I do think we need to go back to the drawing board. What that would mean is today if we voted this down. The moratorium. May 26, May 26. The moratorium is up. And we can have a conversation about where we go from here. But I'm just saying. I'm not going to put my name on this because I just there's too many questions. There's too many unanswered questions around it. And with that. Madam Secretary, roll call. Clark, I. Espinosa I. Flynn I. Gilmore, I. Cashman. Lopez. I knew. Ortega I. Susman. No. Black. I. Mr. President. No, please close the voting and announce the results. Sorry. I'm just making sure Black didn't vote. Hmm. It's in the system. There we go. Oh, my. Is it working. Or is, isn't it? Shoes. Shoes. I need to wear this. Okay. Nine two. That's correct. Yeah. Nine eyes, two nays. Council Bill 161 has passed as amended, seeing no other business before this body. We stand adjourned. Thank you, everybody. Through the process of awaiting the issuance of a license, they would not be able to expand their hours to 10:00 until they are granted a license and shown they are in full compliance with state and local laws.

AS AMENDED a bill for an ordinance amending the Denver Zoning Code to revise parking exemptions for pre-existing small zone lots. Approves a text amendment to the Denver Zoning Code to revise the Pre-Existing Small Zone Lot parking exemption. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 2-14-17. On 2-27-17, Council held this item in Committee to 3-20-17. Amended 3-20-17 to ensure that the parking exemption is applied for all uses. Some parking requirements are calculated based on gross floor area while others are on number of units and not explicitly for gross floor area, to further clarify the legislative intent of the proposed bill to emphasize the city’s commitment to more comprehensively address transportation demand management strategies in the short term, and to require a Zoning Permit with Informational Notice for all new buildings on Pre-Existing Small Zone Lots that request to use the small lot parking exemption; Enables all expansions to existing buildings to receive the full parking exemption; and clarifies at what point an “existing building” is considered

DenverCityCouncil_04102017_17-0161

An assessment has called out council bill 161 for an amendment. Madam Secretary, will you please put 161 on the screen? Councilman Lopez, will you make a motion to take 161 out of order? Want to remind everyone this motion is not debatable. Thank you, Mr. President. I move to take Council Bill 161 series of 2017. Out of order. All right. It's been moved the second it. Madam Secretary, roll call. SUSSMAN All right, Black. CLARK All right. Espinosa. Flynn. Gilmore. Herndon. Cashman can eat. LOPEZ All right, new. ORTEGA Hi, Mr. President. I. Close voting announced results 13/39. That's the second third of America's 13 ice. All right. 13 ice caps. Well, 161 has been taken out of or kills for Lopez. Will you please put counsel BELL 161 now on the floor. For publishing. Are we putting it into final consideration? You can just put it on the floor. There'll be no vote. Just put it on the floor. Replace it to be amended. Okay. All right. Are. Mr. President, I move that council bill 161 to 2017 be placed upon the floor. Final consideration to pass. It's been moved and. I need a second grit. It's been moved and seconded. Councilman assessment. Go ahead and offer your motion to amend. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 161 be amended in the following particulars on page three. Line eight. Strike the number two. Strike two and replace with three. All right. That's the only change. Okay. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council Councilwoman Sussman. Thank you, Mr. President. I know that we've seen this bill a couple of times, and I want to thank Councilman Brooks and Councilman Joe Allen, who worked on this bill so diligently and continue to do so. I'm bringing what I hope is a friendly amendment tonight that retains some of the work that Councilman Brooks did and some of the work that Councilman Clark did. It retains the definitions of a transit corridor as a quarter mile and retains the definition of a station corridor, train station corridor as a half mile. It retains the lower exemption for development outside of these corridors to the first floor. It's only changes to return to the three storey exemption for development within transit and train corridors. Change two three from the two story exemption. One of the big concerns that I mentioned about the lowering of this exemption within our corridors is the effect it could have on our efforts to revitalize Colfax and other of our main streets . Such as federal and Broadway. Lowering the exemption can frustrate our efforts to preserve the environment of our main street corridors where there are stores on small lots. On Colfax, we have the added barrier. Of lots that have very little depth. To meet greater parking requirements. We are incentivizing the preferred development that retains that Main Street feel of small businesses along what we hope will become even more pedestrian friendly streets. Development with this may have to create assemblages of several lots to meet the parking requirement and thus may be building larger structures that thwart the esthetic of these unique streets. We're working hard on Colfax, many of us, to bring more neighborhood serving businesses to the street. Requiring more parking just makes that effort more difficult. I understand that people are going to come with cars. But I feel confident that we can leave the parking requirement to the market. People won't rent or buy apartments if the lack of parking is a concern. And development will adjust to the market demand. Remember that we are not setting maximum parking requirements. Only minimums. The three story exemption is a significant departure from the original zoning that exempted all development on these small lots. Significant. For us in the communities who are seriously concerned about our dependance on cars and our city, state and countries. Historic practice of both subsidizing and incentivizing car use. I think the decision to lowering the parking exemption even further is antithetical to what our council has been encouraging for the six years I've been on council, and that is better pedestrian bicycle access and greater transit use. This is really a small change, but because of its considerable discussion and work. I believe it has big significance for what we stand for. And the significance to our work on transit oriented development. I asked my fellow council members to consider what it means for at least a good effort to be responsive to those special corridors in our city that we want to see retain their main street feel and meet some of our goals for a more livable city. I therefore urge everybody to pass this amendment. Thank you, councilman. Assessment. Councilman Clark, I see you logged in some just. Okay. Councilman Clark. Thank you, Mr. President. You know, I feel like we're having a little bit of deja vu, because last week I read strike three and replaced with two. And so I'm you know, I think that we've hashed this out. We've had this conversation. The will of the council last week was to move from 3 to 2. And I guess I don't see this as an amendment, but as a repeal of most of the work that was done last week. And that amendment I don't want to get back into the all the reasons that I said I was bringing the amendment forward last week again, other than other than to say that, you know, in large part for me in my district, the zoning in these transit corridors is three story zoning. And having three floors exempt means that that's a full exemption. And that was not why I supported the moratorium, was to take a look at this. You know, this this bill is far from perfect and has been, you know, a work in progress. But I feel that that going from 3 to 2 was a good compromise. And I stand by that. I would encourage my colleagues to to reinforce what we voted last week and defeat this repeal of the amendment that was offered last week. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Yeah, I would like the city attorney just for the viewing public, because this is already posted and we keep making amendments to explain to the viewers how it continues to be acceptable that we keep modifying things that will definitely impact communities within the posting period. Mr. President, you want me to answer? Yes, David. You can try to answer. David. Bravo, assistant city attorney. The there is no council rule that prevents you from revisiting and re debating something even when you voted on it once. In other words, you don't have anything like a settled question rule. So the motion is in order to to go back and revisit the issue of two stories versus three on the issue of publication and posting. I've consulted with the other city attorneys in our office and consistent with prior advice we've given. You can stick with I believe it's a May 1st hearing day. Do I have that correct? You can stick with a May 1st hearing date, even if if the motion is successful and is modified again to return to the three stories, it will not require reposting. Because traditionally we have advised that if in between first and final on a zoning a an amendment is proposed to make the regulation stricter, then you need to repost and move out the public hearing. But if an amendment makes the restriction less strict than current law or than the current proposal, then you don't need to repost. So it'll be possible if council chooses to pass the motion and to stick with the May 1st date and then the public hearing will occur on the proposal as amended. Great. Thank you for that. So then. Well, that's that's my only. Question or comment. And we're. Both. So there's only. Thanks for the clarification. The only other things I wanted to sort of point out is that the an even less restrictive law has been in place on Colfax for 11 years. And so if the goal is to now make this an additional change that is still more restrictive than what has been in place for 11 years, more restrictive sort of debate, the validity of that. But that said, again, I go back to having a third of these parcels in my district and the fact that this half mile transit corridor definition largely affects, you know, the bulk of it in my district is along the I-25 corridor, which isn't a high frequency transit quarter, but that's where the rail system is that serves District one. It's on the other side of the railroad tracks and the other side of the highway. And I only have five crossings to get from District one to that rail. And of those five crossings, only two would sort of well, one pedestrian and one bike would sort of satisfy any sort of modicum of what is a desirable way of crossing the highway. It's not 23rd Avenue that's never been safe, but we've worked as a community time and time again to increase the rail height, to add guardrails , to to dedicate some bike portion. It's only 15th Avenue and 15th Street and the pedestrian bridge. But the rest of my district is cut off, severed by physical impediments to getting over to the high frequency transit. And so when we do this sort of blanket definition of TOD as being this half mile radius, we're not actually articulating what areas are truly accessible to those. Tods In the way that I think is desirable, a number of minutes traveled how safe that access is and what not. And so I've always articulated this should have been a mapped boundary where we made this exemption in this this without negatively having potential net negative impacts to communities that are very real and very present. And so, I mean, I've articulated that time and time again in different ways. So once again, I'm just trying to get would like my colleagues to recognize and understand that there are very, very real consequences to making this change to areas that are not truly served by high frequency transit corridors, but yet fall in the as the crow flies mapping of it. So I would encourage everyone to vote. No, thank you. Okay, Councilman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. I was pretty quiet last week when this came up. I didn't make comments, but I just first want to thank you and Councilman Clark for initially working on this issue and Councilman Susman for attempts to try to, you know. Address it once again. But I guess what I want to say is that in this city, as we're seeing development pressures all over the place. We are not a city that has addressed first mile and last mile connections. And until we do that, people will still drive their cars. Yes, we should do as much as possible to try to encourage people to get out of their cars and use transit. And if we were really serious about that, we would not be building a 22 lane I-70 corridor. But I'll put that aside for a minute. So I think that as long as people continue to drive their cars, as they move into this city or already live here, they're going to use their cars to go to the mountains. You know, if they can't get to transit and I've talked to a number of people in Councilman Flynn's district who, you know, may live half a block away from a bus stop. But that bus doesn't get you down to transit to any of our train lines that could afford them the ability to get downtown. So we need to address that first mile last mile issue in order to encourage people to get out of their cars. I had an opportunity to go to Seattle to take a look at some of the micro-housing units that were being built there. We had met on numerous occasions with the developer of that project, who is also interested in doing development here in Denver. And, you know, their focus was attracting millennials to their development because they don't own cars. Well, when we went and met with some of the residents, what we learned was a good number of them owned cars , and they were challenged with where to park them if they did any grocery shopping. When they came home, they had to walk three or four blocks away because there was no place in the immediate area to park. So as much as we want to get people out of their cars, it's a reality that we are dealing with and it's an impact that is imposed on the adjacent neighbors. So I think the the request that. Was put on last week that amended this bill. Is reasonable. And so I am going to continue to support that particular amendment that was made to this bill. And my hope is that's what we have the public hearing on. So for all those reasons, I will not be voting for the amendment tonight. Okay. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega, a jump in because this was my bill that presented for. No, it's Clarke's bill. This has been this has been we've talked about this a lot. And there's a lot of issues around this. And I really respect Councilman Clark in the conversations we've had around this and the folks that he's representing on this very important subject. And I just see councilman new poppin. Go ahead, Councilman Neal. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Sorry not. To. Press the wrong, but I really appreciate what Councilwoman Sussman is talking about, because we've been working hard on Colfax redevelopment, and I'm looking forward to seeing that prosper and be a wonderful street that's going to be full of affordable housing. And people won't need a car. But I'm also worried a little bit that we haven't had enough discussion about this whole issue. You know, I think we extended the moratorium and was hoping that we'd have a little more discussion because I'm still getting a lot of feedback from our residents about the provision of the bill that's talking about the exemption and other new developments that are beyond their the quarter mile. And in in areas of the neighborhoods and especially got an area in Congress Park the 12th Avenue this you know it's about a half mile from. It's not a rail station, but it's it's a corridor. But maybe it's walkable to transit on Colfax. But again, there's mixed use there, small or large, that they could be developing and may not be good for the character of that neighborhood. So I'm really concerned about about this sort of support, the three stories for Colfax, but I'm not sure that's good for the whole city. So I'm really torn from from what all my constituents are telling me about the need for less exemptions from parking. So I look forward to hearing more discussion and I hope we'll have more discussion about this. And unfortunately, I think I'll have to vote against the the amendments. And I. Okay. Thank you, Councilman New. I'll just say that I think Councilwoman Sussman brings up an important conversation around this around our transit corridors. It's not just Colfax, but it's it's many corridors within our city that that are affected by this from federal, colorable, a ton of corridors that we have in the city. And so I think it's important that we look at it. I think it's in a compromise of the compromise of the compromise. And it looks at just transit corridors, not the other part of this bill, which is outside of the transit corridor. So I'm in support of this. You know, this this council, the city has talked about the importance of affordable housing. And one of the things we did in the discussions, the nine months of discussions we had around this is talk about, you know, what is the actual cost of one parking spot and how does that actually affect housing prices? How does that affect the cost of overall development? And we know that it is higher costs. We know that any parking spot now on a on a lot to create, it is between 20 and $35,000. And so when we add this, we are adding costs to our residents for the particular services they're looking for. So I will be supporting councilwoman assessments amendment moving forward. So it's been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call. SUSSMAN I black? Clark No. Espinosa No. Flynn No. Gilmore I. Herndon High. Cashman can eat. Lopez No, no, no. Ortega No, Mr. President. I. All right. Madam Speaker, I'm sorry. Close voting announced the results. Six, eight, seven, eight. Six, eight, seven nays. The amendment to council Bill 161 has failed. Madam Secretary, we're just going to move on to the next item if everything is right. Okay, great. Okay. All other bills for introductions are ordered published. We're now ready for the block vote on resolutions and bills for final consideration council members. Remember that this is a consent or or block vote and you will need to vote otherwise. This is your last chance to call an item for a separate vote. Councilman Lopez, will you put the resolutions for adoptions and the bills for final consideration on final passage on the floor? Thank you, Mr. President. I move that the following resolutions be adopted. So I'm sorry. Our series of 2017. This is 365 337 363 360. Three 7408. Yeah. All right. All right, Madam Secretary. Two weeks. There's more. There's bills on final. Yep. The bills on the. Final bills are fine. I still use the paper. Yeah. All right. In the bills for final consideration. 338. 330. 331. 332. 333. 343. 29. 352 Oh, right. It has been moved and seconded. Ma'am. Secretary, call black clerk. I Espinosa. I Flynn. I Gilmore. I Herndon Cashman. Kenny Lopez. I knew Ortega. I assessment i Mr. President. I Please go to the voting announce results 3913 ays the resolutions have been adopted in the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass since there are no public hearings, and if there are no objections from members of Council, we will not take a recess in other business before us.

AS AMENDED a bill for an ordinance amending the Denver Zoning Code to revise parking exemptions for pre-existing small zone lots. Approves a text amendment to the Denver Zoning Code to revise the Pre-Existing Small Zone Lot parking exemption. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 2-14-17. On 2-27-17, Council held this item in Committee to 3-20-17. Amended 3-20-17 to ensure that the parking exemption is applied for all uses. Some parking requirements are calculated based on gross floor area while others are on number of units and not explicitly for gross floor area, to further clarify the legislative intent of the proposed bill to emphasize the city’s commitment to more comprehensively address transportation demand management strategies in the short term, and to require a Zoning Permit with Informational Notice for all new buildings on Pre-Existing Small Zone Lots that request to use the small lot parking exemption; Enables all expansions to existing buildings to receive the full parking exemption; and clarifies at what point an “existing building” is considered

DenverCityCouncil_02272017_17-0161

I Please close the voting. Announce the results. Nine Ice nine Ice Council Bill 153 has been ordered publish Madam Secretary, put the next item on our screen, which is one I believe is 161. I move that council bill 161 be held in committee and brought back to the floor of council on Monday, March 20th, 2017. It has moved it. It has been second it comments. So. Members of the public council. We had this discussion about the small lots conversation, 60 to 50 lots and trying to figure out a compromise on these. And we heard from several council members and folks in the public that there was just not enough time to consider these two competing bills put up put forward by me and our president, pro Tem Clark. And so what I am asking is that, one, we delay the first reading of this bill to March 20th, and we also extend the moratorium, and the moratorium will be voted on in a block its it's council bill 277 until May 20th. And I wanted to give everyone May 26. I want to give everyone a new date calendar of which things will take place. So tonight we will be filing a 60 day moratorium extension February 27th, on Monday, March 20th. First reading will be of the small parking lot text amendment and that it will be the second reading for the 60 day moratorium extension because you'll need 30 days there on April 17th. Second reading of the small lot parking text amendment will happen and that will also be the public hearing. And then May 26, the moratorium will expire. So that's what I am proposing to members of Council to give us about 60 more days to have conversation. We will have this in committee, in the luti committee, unfortunately. Councilwoman Sussman and Councilman New will not be available, but I can chair that committee and we will have a longer discussion on small lots. If that is acceptable, please vote in favor of of Council Bill 161. It's been moved in second. Any more comments? Madam Secretary, roll call. Clarke I. Flynn I. Gilmore I. Cashman I can eat. Lopez I knew with black eye. Mr. President. I was wondering as a. Result. Nine eyes. Nine eyes. Constable 161 has been held in committee till Monday, March 20/20, 2017. Okay, this concludes all the other items that need to be called out and looked down to make sure we got it right. All right, Councilman Clark. Yeah. That's all the items. Okay. All of the bills for introductions are order published. We're now ready for the block. Votes on resolutions and bills on final consideration. Council members, please remember that this is a consent or a block vote and you will need to vote. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilman. Clerk, will you please put resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on floor? Yes, Mr. President, I move that resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration be placed upon final consideration, and do pass in a walk for the following items. 147 154 164 165 166 146 157 158 134 and 123. All right. It has been moved in second it matter. Secretary Roll Call. Black Eye Clerk I Flynn. I. Gilmore I Cashman I can eat. Lopez I knew Mr. President. I please close voting in US results. 99 ays resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass since there are no public hearings tonight, I heard somebody say, Hey man, there are no objections from members of council.

Recommendation to respectfully request City Council approval of the 2017 Federal Legislative Agenda as recommended by the Federal Legislation Committee.

LongBeachCC_03072017_17-0161

Motion passes. Hey, thank you very much. Now we're moving on to item 22. Communication from Vice Mayor Richardson recommendation to request City Council approval of the 2017 federal legislative agenda as recommended by the Federal Legislation Committee. There's a motion and a second Vice Mayor. So just a few updates here we have. So we met in November on November 15th to review staff's recommended recommended changes for the 2017 federal legislative agenda. The committee made some fairly substantive changes to the agenda last year when we were reorganized and consolidated some of the statements that may have been repetitive in years past. And because we made so many, so many changes in the last update, and as the new presidential administration gets up and running, the first large committee will be focused on protecting existing revenues that the city current receive currently receives from the federal government, such as the Housing Choice Voucher Program, commonly known as Section eight, CDBG, other HUD programs. We're also going to take a look at workforce programs and supporting those as well. And our existing legislative agenda already empowers us to do that. The committee heard that, you know, the committee may have heard that there's one particular area of the of the legislative agenda, legislative agenda that could use some additional language. That's the area of violence prevention and services to stem the homeless crisis in L.A. County. And because of all of our work, our mayor, city council, city staff have done around violence prevention staff recommended that we add language in the public safety section to support federal legislation that would assist with the implementation of violence prevention programs and in the area of homeless prevention. Staff recommended that the City Council support the city, support federal assistance toward establishing substance use treatment facilities in the region. Language to support mental health services is already existing there. Our committee voted to receive a file. All of staff's recommended and recommended changes and for those to the City Council for Adoption tonight. Since our meeting in November, a number of executive orders signed by the new president make it so that we need to update an existing statement in our in our agenda supporting the expansion of dockets. Read one that reads supporting federal legislation that maintains existing allowances for undocumented immigrants to who qualify for the DOCA program to remain in the United States, as well as being as well as any legislation that protects safety and well-being of all Californians by ensuring state and local race resources are not used to support deportations, collect information about individuals or religious beliefs or affiliations that ultimately hurt California's economy. Specific to the DOCA program, we're talking about immigrants who enter the U.S. before the 16th birthday and before June 27 are currently in high school or high school graduate honorably discharged in the military under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012, and have not been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor or other or three other misdemeanors otherwise pose a threat to national security. So these recommended changes come because there's been, you know, since these executive orders, a number of bills that have come out. And we wanted to make sure that our language and our letter agenda is wide and comprehensive enough to support different bills, whether it's, you know, Feinstein's bill or other other people's bills that go forward, it still maintains the intent to support the DOCA language. And so that is sort of a highlight on what we're doing tonight on the failed agenda. Thanks. Thank you, Councilmember Yuri. Councilmember Gonzales. I'll defer Gonzales first. Councilman Gonzales. Q I don't know what's going on, Mayor. I'm sorry. No. It's it's Election Day. I know. That's okay. I just want to say thank you to Diana and to Vice Mayor Richardson. And now we have Councilmember Saranga that will be joining us at our next Fed. Federal legislation relation trip. And so I think vice mayor reiterated many of the new actions that we'll be taking when we go to D.C. and also here on the dais when we're discussing Long Beach initiatives. But the things that kind of pop out in my mind, the items, of course, are immigration issues related to DOCA and the new executive order, specifically with the ban on predominantly Muslim countries environmental protections, which I know we'll have to really look a little bit more into, and then securing our major capital projects like many of the initiatives that we have citywide. I want to make sure that we're securing those and that funding is going through us as we see fit. So thank you very much for your work and I look forward to working with you all again. Thank you. Councilmember Ringo. Thank you, Mayor. It's going to be my first year on this committee and I'm looking forward to it. It's going to be quite a challenging year. Obviously, we've had a change in in our presidency and a different focus. And so I'm looking forward to advocating for the city on behalf of a Long Beach. Thank you. Councilmember Pearce. Yeah, I just want to say, you know, I took the time to read through everything on the agenda and I just it made me really proud to be a part of this council and to look at everything from immigration to gun control, violence prevention, affordable housing. A lot of the things that we aspire to do that sometimes are challenging and tough. And I know that we can't do it all, but I just really thank you for making sure that this is comprehensive and that we, despite what's happening at the federal level, are continuing to advocate and protect those that live in our communities here. So thank you. Thank you. Any public comment on this saying please cast your votes. Councilman, your anger. Motion passes.

AS AMENDED a bill for an ordinance amending the Denver Zoning Code to revise parking exemptions for pre-existing small zone lots. Approves a text amendment to the Denver Zoning Code to revise the Pre-Existing Small Zone Lot parking exemption. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 2-14-17. On 2-27-17, Council held this item in Committee to 3-20-17. Amended 3-20-17 to ensure that the parking exemption is applied for all uses. Some parking requirements are calculated based on gross floor area while others are on number of units and not explicitly for gross floor area, to further clarify the legislative intent of the proposed bill to emphasize the city’s commitment to more comprehensively address transportation demand management strategies in the short term, and to require a Zoning Permit with Informational Notice for all new buildings on Pre-Existing Small Zone Lots that request to use the small lot parking exemption; Enables all expansions to existing buildings to receive the full parking exemption; and clarifies at what point an “existing building” is considered

DenverCityCouncil_03202017_17-0161

All right. Pursuant to Council Bill 3.7 consideration of the Council, Bill 285 will be postponed for one week until Tuesday, March 28th. No formal motion or vote is required. Madam Secretary, can you now put up Council Bill 161 on a screen? Because from where you put Council Bill 161 on the floor. Yes, Mr. President, I move that council bill 161 be ordered published. All right. It has been moved and seconded. Council. Councilman Clark, is this. Is this one of your. Why are we doing the this other amendment before my. Yes. Council secretary. Mm hmm. The ghost. GROSS. Hmm. Oh, yes. Okay. Thank you. From CPD. The gross. GROSS floor area. Yes. Okay. So this is a technical amendment to the the small lot proposal that we're bringing forward. And this this has no major concerns over it. But I want to read it and we can get comments from members of council on page two. Line 16 strike the gross gross floor area of colon on page two. Line 18, strike two. The gross floor. Area of and and replace with all colon on page two lines 2021 strike the gross floor area of and replace with the uses in house in an on page two line 25 strike the gross floor area of and replace with all and on page four line four strike the gross floor area of and replace with all. It has been moved by me. Second, about Councilman Herndon. You know what? I'm going to call up a representative from CPD, Jeff Hart, to explain this amendment that we needed to get it done for the gross floor area on these small lot plants. Yes. So Jeff Hurt with CPD. So this is an amendment. It's more of a technical clarification. The purpose of the amendment is that the original ordinance was drafted specifically relating to gross floor area of buildings per as it relates to the minimum parking requirements. And we had an issue raised from our staff, which is that some of the parking requirements are not linked to gross floor area other based on number of dwelling units. So it's just more of a clarification where we were concerned that there might be sort of a loophole where if it was an exclusively residential project, then there would be kind of an omission with the text amendment that says it's based on gross floor area, whereas it's based on number of dwelling units. So it's the the the quick answer is it's a technical fix that doesn't change any of the substance of the amendment. It just makes it more clear. Excellent. And in comes questions by members of council. All right, Madam Secretary. Councilman Espinosa. Said. Actually, you've confused me more by the answer on the confusion and dwelling units, and I apologize for not having the full text in front of me and let me put up here. So give me that explanation one more time. So if you look at the ordinance. Let's see if you look at Section two to the A3 where it says exemption allowed. All of the language says that. So depending on where the exemption applies, it says the gross floor area of all uses housed in those floors. And so we have struck the language that says the gross floor area and just says all uses housed in those floors, which has the same effect. But by excluding those floor area, it sort of eliminates that potential loophole where when parking is not calculated based on gross floor area and by number of units. It's a very it would be a very strict interpretation, but it could happen. So we wanted to make sure we close the loophole before it was exposed, I guess, as well. All right. Thanks for the slow reading. I appreciate. Thank you, Jeff. Thank you, Councilman. All right. As we move in second, Madam Secretary, roll call. Clark i. Espinosa. I Gilmore, i. Herndon, i. Cashman Can each. Lopez Hi, new. Sussman I black. I Mr. President. I. Please close the voting. Announce the results. 11 eyes. Okay. 11 eyes. This technical amendment has been passed, but we're hearing that our attorneys believe we have the wrong information. Is that true? That we read the wrong information into the. Adam Hernandez. Adam Hernandez, Sun City attorney. One of the amendments you made, the last one said on. Page four. Line four, strike the gross. Floor area of and replace with all that should have been on page. Line three, line three, page four. Line four does not contain that language. Okay. So in the future, Adam, when you hear that, if you could pop up a little sooner so we don't vote on it, it would be helpful. Madam Secretary, what would you like us to do? Would you and the correction just be made in the record? Mr. President? David Broadwell, assistant city attorney. I see people looking at me now. So I'd recommend you remove it with the correct the correct line number and page number and and voted again only to read the whole thing again. Just to have. Somebody move a corrected motion. Okay. So we're going to move. I move that we have men council bill 17 161 especially on on page three line three strike gross gross floor area of and replace with all. It has been moved and seconded. Mr. BROUGH Well, is that okay, sir? Sounds good. Okay, great. Let's move the second amount of secretary roll call clerk Hi. Espinosa. Hi, Gilmore. Herndon Cashman. I can eat Lopez. I knew Susman my black eye. Mr. President. I please close voting. Announce results. Espinosa. Espinosa. Hanging, firing. Is it frozen? There we go. Thanks. 11 eyes. Okay, 11 eyes. That technical amendment has passed. That's why you pay lawyers to be in the room. All right, Councilman Clark, you can go ahead and read your amendment. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that health bill 161 be amended in the following particulars on page one after line 15, add the following. Whereas the City Council recognizes that a comprehensive citywide program is desired to manage demand for vehicle parking and to further citywide objectives to promote the use of multiple modes of transportation. And. Whereas, the Department of Public Works, the Department of Community Planning and Development, City Council and other agencies have expressed a commitment to pursue a comprehensive citywide program with the purposes of managing demand for vehicle parking and reducing vehicle trip generation. It has been moved in second. It comes from a member of council. Councilman Clark. Thank you, Mr. President. This amendment is in the preamble language. It doesn't do a lot, actually, legislatively, but kind of captures the intent that we've been talking about at all of these meetings that I think is widely shared by council, that we are kind of having a big conversation in a little box. And really what we need to be working towards is a smarter ordinance, a transportation demand management ordinance. This kind of captures that in here to allow us to express that intent and continue pushing and working with staff across agencies to get that work done because it's going to take something great. And as someone proposing Council Bill 161 I've been working on for the last nine months, I would say that this is the area most of us on city council agree on, that this is the direction we want to go in. Right now we are talking about probably an 18 month fix with this bill. But the hope and the overall transformation that we're looking for is a transportation demand management system that many cities have has instituted, and the last one being San Francisco. We think this is the right thing to do. And I'm just so excited because Councilman Clark is going to be leading this two year effort with CPD in public works. And so this is something that I'm really supportive of. Councilman, Councilwoman, can each. Oh, thank you, Mr. President. Actually, I think you may have answered my question since this this stated that these departments have committed I just wanted to clarify that they were in the room, that that was accurate and that indeed, there is a commitment to establish a policy. And if there's not, then I would ask them to come forward and clarify, because I would like to know that before I put it into the preamble. Thank you. Yes. And I think folks from CPD are they're happy to come up here. But we've had many discussions with Brad Buchanan, Jose Cornejo, the current director of public works around this. And Councilman Clark, I know you want to jump in as well, who have stated their intent to move forward with this ordinance. Yeah. And anybody who wants to come up, feel free. But there is an RFP that's going out on the street soon to start that process, engage with a consultant to look at the beginning steps of that. So I think it's already starting and in motion this is reaffirming the. Yep. Thank you. Good evening. Sarah Showalter from CPD and the citywide planning supervisor. I just wanted to clarify, we we have been working really close to public works, very committed. But the RFP that's being discussed that's going on streets would be focusing on two D areas and downtown. And so we just wanted to emphasize, depending on resources and what this looks like, we don't know exactly what the program's going to be. And it is going to be a huge resource conversation, especially because the only way these programs work is if you can effectively administer them over time. So looking at our peer cities that have these, as the council president mentioned, there's a lot of them that do. They have staff that are making sure that developments that have committed to do these TDM strategies are doing them, you know, years and decades into the future. So there's a lot of different pieces we have to figure out, but we're definitely committed to the concept and continuing the conversation for sure. Thank you, Sarah, for for bringing that up. And I think it's important that this body who approves the budget every year, think about that as part of giving resources towards that. Councilwoman Sussman. Thank you, Mr. President. I think that it did happen. I wanted to let people know that what we are talking about is transportation, demand management. A lot of people know it as TDM. And while the preamble doesn't doesn't say that specifically, that is what it's about for those who who are familiar with that language train. And glad to see this. Thank you very much, Councilman. Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman, Councilman Espinosa, I see you in there. I apologize. I'm sorry. I was like, keep fun in there yet get kicked out. Maybe somebody is working the monitor behind the screens. You know, I lost my train of thought, actually. I want to thank Councilman Clark for making for taking this on and making it a point, because I well, I'm sure this study would have been financed or funded. I think his leadership has moved it forward or higher on the queue, but is absolutely critical that we get these two independent agencies working together on this and talking about CPD and public works because there's a huge gap here where our city, our zoning and what we allow in this form based, context based zoning and what goes on in our right of ways serving those properties or they are not speaking to one another in a in a way that is that works uniformly. What I mean by that is that there is a plan, review process and for a lot of for probably 95% of the cases in Denver, that's going to be perfectly fine . But as you're finding in the TOD and in downtown and there are other areas, so I wish you'd be open to having counsel sort of inform where we have this sort of disconnect between conditions on the street and the zoning that is that is being put in place. We can also then sort of inform these other areas that are critically important that need additional scrutiny. And what I mean by this is if we take where one bit of disconnect is, and I hope your study covers this is let's take the 1600 Humboldt example that has already been part of this whole small lot exemption process is our current process would allow that. I mean, it is they can build it tomorrow. It's a use by right situation and permits already been approved. And that'll be 100% residential construction on two parts to 6250 lots, 108 units. And that would not be subject to the residential permit process. Why? Because we don't pit residents versus residents. When we do that impact. But as far as zoning is concerned, completely immune or agnostic to what that uses in a mixed use zone district. That could be 100% commercial, 100% retail, or 100% residential. And the difference is, is in the case of the 100% commercial redevelopment, in the same exact parcel, the same exact square footage, public works would do a residential parking permit process, the IRP process, and whereby they both would have impact on the right of way. Somehow we need to get public works and CPD sort of using the same sort of logic. And I don't mean it in that I don't want public works to to not start looking at any of these things the way we've done it. CPD and say I actually want CPD to two. Well. I almost lost my train of thought. Well, the point being that they're both a structure of that size, regardless of what its uses, will have impact on the public right away. The comments that that Councilman Clark keeps expounding upon. And so we need to have a better way of addressing I mean, looking at the situation, being proactive in the process and responding to it during the during the review process proactively. I think one way we can do that and I'm talking about these other areas that don't necessarily fall in the Todd's is we already have this process of the 5 a.m. sort of surveys that public works where they're going around at 5 a.m. and looking at the right of way utilization and it's over 75%. It's a heavily impacted area, whatnot. Those are areas where, you know, there's a lot of on street residential parking and so why not? Compel in certain set such scenarios, compel that survey to process to be done. And if a certain level of congestion is already found in the right of way, why not then use that as one of the things that informs the tier, the team process, so that you're you're compelling. A developer who wants to get to these minimum parking requirements to deliver on actual alternative means of transit is a part of getting there. And so my whole point is, is that I am encouraging this language because we need a tool. We've needed a tool for the last six years. And if it takes two years, so be it. But we need a tool to be able to look at these things, these situations on the ground. The conditions that are zoning has set up so that we're actually working proactively with public works and compelling developers to address these transit needs for these on street parking needs, these right away needs and in the public realm. Thanks. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Clark. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to jump in on the beginning of where Councilman Espinosa started and offer my also my thanks to you, Mr. President, for leading this effort. Leading this conversation, I think we've had such great conversations. And as we as we face the intense growth that we're having and, you know, I know we get a bill up here and start talking amendments, but really, I feel like, you know, the council as a whole has come from the very from the very same place, the same place of caring about this community. And sometimes, you know, in the details, we get disagreement. But you've just had such an open door policy to me as I've explored this in my possible amendments. And I don't think we would be having this conversation or the team conversation at all had you not taken this on. So I just want to say thank you before we got too far into this thing. Thank you, Ms.. Clarke. Councilman Neal. Sarah, I just had a couple more questions, please. Just for the public. We hear a lot about the Denver ride and the transportation strategic planning going on there. How does that relate to the tedium? Could you explain that? Sure. I think it's a great question. So particularly for Blueprint Denver, which is the land use transportation plan that's part of Denver. Right. That is the document that sets the policy for everything related to our land use regulations and the connection to transportation, which is really a lot of what this is about. And I think there's a great opportunity through that process to explore some good policy guidance on some of these tough issues to talk about, you know, how much we want to try and accommodate off street parking needs versus allowing flexibility in the market to set that. You know, there's there's a lot of different opinions out there on this topic. So Blueprint Denver in particular is part of Denver. Right. Is a great way to plug in and start shaping, giving us some better policy direction on these topics. Right. And I just miss the team program that we're proposing. It is funded. Right. No. My understanding is that they're right now Public Works has actually been taking the lead on this. So I am. This is why I'm hearing second hand. We were looking at potentially under our toady manager within CPD, sharing the costs with public works. And public works is still trying to identify in this calendar year, this budget year, where they would be able to find money. So they're working on an RFP, trying to get it out, but trying to identify the money now. The last I heard, they were still trying to find that. Half. The agency was committing to provide the other 50%, and that would just be for phase one. I understand correctly, which would be a first study. So it would help identify additional resources we might need. Like I mentioned, like how do you establish the program and make sure you have enough resources to have it be successful administered over time? So I would not say at this point that we have all the resources we need. Then what about an estimated timetable to complete the project? Yeah, that's a great question. I think you could easily spend a couple of years doing a project like this. Thank you. Yeah. Good questions. Councilman, new councilman Espinosa. See you back up. Yeah, I'm just doing the math here. Tonight's agenda. Over $12 million worth of appropriations and the $50,000 we need to do this study. I'm asking the mayor's office. You're here. Find the money. I mean, this is 50 million. $50,000 is nothing in our budget. If you can't move forward on TDM, you're showing that you're not committed to doing smart, responsible transit and compel developers to be part of the solution and not part of the problem, not just part of the problem. So thanks. Thank you. Councilman Clark, I. Just wanted to jump in and I had some conversations just this morning, and I believe that those dollars have been identified. So I think we're you know, we've got a long road to go. And I think we're going to have to prioritize this as council as we go through the budget season. But I do think and I want to thank staff for, you know, reacting to this process, too, and on a short string coming up with moneys to get this thing started. And for council again, we approved the budget and we're memorializing this, which is an indicator in support of how we can, you know, set money aside in this upcoming budget. And so I hope that we will remember this conversation. Councilman Clark, I trusted you're going to make sure that we remember this conversation in September to make sure it's included in the 2017 budget. Madam Secretary, roll call. Clark. All right. Espinosa. Gilmore. Herndon. Cashman. Kinney. Lopez. All right. New Sussman. Black. Mr. President. I was voting. And as a result. Your vote is. I'm an I. Sorry. 11 Eyes. 11 eyes. The preamble language including TDM, passes into the amendment. Okay into the bill as 161 councilman clerk your next amendment. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 161 be amended in the following particulars on page two, lines 17 insert the phrase including any modifications, alterations and expansions after the word building on page to strike the existing language on lines 18 through 22 and replace with the following. Any building located on a small zone lot that is voluntarily demolished shall not be considered an existing building. Voluntary. Voluntary demolish shall have the same meaning as the term demolition. Voluntary defined in Article 13, on page two, line 23. Other words new buildings on before the word small zone lots located within proximity to transit service. On page two line 28, replace the word shall with May on page three, line two other words new buildings on before the words all other small zones on page three, line five replace the word shall with May, and on page six after line eight, add the following. Section five. Section 12 .4.2.2 of the Denver Zoning Code dealing with the applicability of zoning permit review with informational notices amended by the addition of a new subsection D that reads as follows The construction of any new building on a small zone lot that includes a request for parking an exemption in accordance with section ten .4.5.1.8. All right. It has been moved and seconded. Hasn't been seconded yet. I have a second. Okay. It has moved second to now. Councilman, catch. Councilman Clark. Thank you, Mr. President. This amendment requires that a zoning permit with informational notice for all new buildings on preexisting small zoned lots. That request to use the small loft parking exemption enables all expansions to existing buildings to receive the full parking exemption and clarifies at what point an existing building is considered a new building for the purpose of applying the small parking exemption. That is voluntary demolition. We talked a lot in committee about the difference between new construction and this rise in micro apartment construction and also trying to get the levers as as right as we can to not incentivize the demolition of existing structures. And so I think that part of this is that commitment to try not to incentivize demolition of existing structures unduly. And also adding the zip notification was something that a lot of the neighborhood groups had come and asked, said, hey, if this is going to happen, the potential impacts for us on the street of, you know, 108 units with zero parking are considerable. Could we have notification that gives us time to sit down with a developer and talk about what's your plan to mitigate for those parking? How is this going to work? And while it doesn't give a lot of control to the neighborhoods, it does allow that space and time for a conversation to be had between the neighbors and the developers and for the neighborhood to know what's coming so that they can decide if they want to have those conversations and engage in that with the property developers. So that's this amendment. Happy to answer any questions anybody has that didn't get answered in committee. Thank you, Mr. President. Great. Thank you. Councilman Clark, any. Any questions? Remember, as a council. You have a comment? Okay. Councilwoman come. Councilwoman Black. I. I am supporting this because I think it's really important that neighbors are informed about what's happening in their neighborhoods. The microphone. Two concerns. One that Councilman Clarke alluded to is that Xp-Pen doesn't actually give the neighborhood any power over what is going to go there. It gives them information and an opportunity to provide input. And I'm just concerned that people might think that it gives them some kind of power over the project. So I think it's very important that neighbors know that. My other concern is that our zoning administrator and her department could possibly be very overburdened. So it it is sort of an unfunded mandate and I feel for you. So just wanted to say that I had those two concerns. Right. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Black. I have a couple of comments. So in our so folks understand, Councilman 161 came out of a working group that met five times that has professional leaders all over the city of Denver. And this topic came up and the group decided not to support it because it takes away from the predictability. And then it came before the planning board, and they decided not to support it because it also takes away from predictability. You know, in the planning board, the purview is pretty centered on the zoning code. And they do not have the the purview that we have on city council where we have to balance neighborhood interests, notification and things like that. The other thing that they don't have is an understanding of what has happened with some of these current projects. And most of these larger projects are in Council District nine. And I've seen firsthand that when neighbors can talk with a developer, there are some changes that happen in the neighborhoods favor. And so a case in point on on the Humble Project 16th in Humboldt, after a long conversation, we had the developer supply a parking not structure, but a parking lot adjacent to the property, which will alleviate some of the concerns on 16th and Humboldt. So I am even though CBD cannot support this, I'm going to support this because there's been so much consternation in neighborhoods and I do believe in the opportunity for people to sit down, talk and come up with reasonable solutions. So I'll be supporting this as well. Any other comments? Questions for members of council? All right. Seeing none. Madam Secretary Rocha. Clerk. Hi. Espinosa. Hi. Gilmore. I. Herndon. Cashman. Carnage. Lopez. All right. New assessment. Black eye. Mr. President. I. Lebanese. All right. Thank you. 11 eyes. The zipping motion passes. Councilman Clark, want to offer another amendment or. Thank you, Mr. President. I did have another amendment that we've been discussing a lot in committee, and I will not be offering that tonight. I'd like to have that debate with the full council, if possible. And so I'm going to look at see if there's a date where we can have that debate and continue working on that . That being said, I will be voting to move this forward as amended, but without my my my planned Third Amendment with hopes that I can at least have that conversation in front of the the full council before we get to the public. Okay. Thank you, Councilman Clark. All right, Councilwoman. Councilwoman, can each we have now amended this puppy. We need a motion to order published as amended. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that 161 be adopted as amended. No order publication. Ordered. Published as amended. Thank you. It has been moved in second it comments by members of council. I'll just make a quick comment. We we again started working on this bill or this conversation. And in October, September, October. What makes this process great on city council is the input from your colleagues and the input from the public. And I think the amendments that Councilmember Clark and others who've worked with him has made this bill better and more palpable for for folks in the community, even though we're talking about it. And I want to make sure we're talking about a very small percentage of lots in the city of Denver. I want to keep saying that, but I think this makes it a little bit more palpable. And so thank you, Councilman Clark. It's been great to work with you. I know you still got another amendment coming up at some point, but these ones I can support, it's been moved in second it to be order published as amended . Madam Secretary, Raquel Clark I. Espinosa Flynn Gilmore I. Herndon Cashman. I can eat. Lopez All right. New assessment. I'm black. All right. Mr. President. I was wearing nice results. 11 eyes. 11 eyes. Counselor 161 has been ordered. Published as amended. All right. Madam Secretary, is there any other. Than Mr. President? All right. All other bills for introduction are order published? We are now ready for the block. Votes on resolutions and bills for final consideration. Council members. This is your last update. This is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote I. Otherwise, this is your last opportunity to call on an item for a separate vote. Councilwoman Kinch, will you put the resolutions for adoptions and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor, please? Yes, Mr. President. I move that the resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration be passed, placed upon final consideration, and do pass in a block for the following items. 288 to 80 9 to 70 9 to 90 5 to 90 6 to 80 6 to 80 7 to 7148. All series of 2017. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, Roll Call. Black I Clerk I Espinosa, i Gilmore, i Herndon, i Cashman. I can each i Lopez. Hi, new Susman. Hi, Mr. President. I 11 i 11 ays. The resolutions have been adopted and bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass tonight. There will be require a public hearing on Council Bill 84. Change the zoning classification from 1 to 1 five zero East Andrews Drive and a required public hearing on Council Bill 277, providing an extension of approximately two months of an existing

AS AMENDED a bill for an ordinance amending the Denver Zoning Code to revise parking exemptions for pre-existing small zone lots. Approves a text amendment to the Denver Zoning Code to revise the Pre-Existing Small Zone Lot parking exemption. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 2-14-17. On 2-27-17, Council held this item in Committee to 3-20-17. Amended 3-20-17 to ensure that the parking exemption is applied for all uses. Some parking requirements are calculated based on gross floor area while others are on number of units and not explicitly for gross floor area, to further clarify the legislative intent of the proposed bill to emphasize the city’s commitment to more comprehensively address transportation demand management strategies in the short term, and to require a Zoning Permit with Informational Notice for all new buildings on Pre-Existing Small Zone Lots that request to use the small lot parking exemption; Enables all expansions to existing buildings to receive the full parking exemption; and clarifies at what point an “existing building” is considered

DenverCityCouncil_02212017_17-0161

11 Eyes, Resolution 109 has been adopted as amended. All right, Madam Secretary King, please pull up 161 on small lots. All right. Comes from Sussan. Will you please put council bill 161 on the floor. I move that council bill 161 be ordered published. All right. It has been moved. And second, if I move the council bill 161 be held in committee and brought back to the floor council on Monday, February 27th. And I want to give a couple reasons for this and having this conversation with many council members. In talking to Councilman Clark, we're hearing a lot of folks need some time to really review some of these amendments, but more importantly, the public needs some time to review. So here is is my thought in this is that we would postpone this bill for one week. And on Thursday, I would file an extension of the moratorium for 60 days. One of the reasons we wanted to file an extension again is for more public commentary on the amendments that is being put forward by Councilman Clark and Councilman Espinosa. And others have said, you know, there's folks in our district who has not who have not had a chance to really go through this particular proposal and see how it affects them. And so we're going to do that as well during that time. And so we thought this would be appropriate, obviously, just to let the general public know we set this moratorium, I believe was in August for nine months and March 27th, 31st. March 31st is the date that the moratorium will be up. And so we're running against the clock here and folks aren't getting the time that they need to fully understand how the moratorium affects them. And so we thought it important to give a little bit more time and to be very clear that we intend to lift the moratorium and have a conversation going forward on what the proposal will be and vote on council. Councilman Clark. Yeah, I just wanted to thank you, Mr. President, for bringing this word. I think more time will add to the great dialog and debate that we've been having in committee. And I just really appreciate you putting this on the floor. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Similarly, I'd like to express my appreciation and the prudent sort of amount of time. I think that's that that's more than enough to sort of get the adequate input from District one constituents. So I truly appreciate it and thanks, Council. Councilwoman Canete. Thank you, Mr. President. I will vote to support the one week delay. I guess I had one question. I do not serve on Ludy. I'm doing my best to stay up when I can attend and to read materials. But one item that I did ask for from some of the zoning staff and I see we have a couple of folks, but I'm not quite sure who the staffer is for this. Particular proposal that Jeff heard is an audience. Thank you. Mr. Hurd, if you could, please, I would love to see an analysis of how many of the parcels are in commercial areas. So much of our debate has focused on residential, but some of these lots are in areas that are either, you know, solely commercial or primarily commercial. And so I just would be very helped if you could share that information prior to, you know, when we're it sounds like with a 60 day delay will will be a ways out from debating it, but that's some information that would be helpful to me. Thank you. And Jeff, I think we have a lot of that information in the percentages that my proposal or our proposal would affect some of these lots. And so we'll get that right over to you. Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Since we're. Making suggestions. I would like to hear from historic Denver, and I'd also like to hear from some affordable housing advocates and how they think this might impact that discussion one way or another. Great. And we have two representatives. We had an Annie Levinsky, which was on our stakeholder committee, and also had a affordable housing representative as well. And so we can get both of those folks to testify as well at the hearing so that you can hear their analysis of what they think about this. Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. While we're giving out, thanks for the process and I echo what's been said before, I just want to add my thanks to the neighborhood representatives who have really, I think, been the moving force from the beginning about bringing this to council attention and for just pushing for council to do a thorough job on assessing all opportunities to get these lots developed with a minimal as minimal an impact as possible on surrounding neighborhoods. We have some representatives over here and thank you all for coming tonight and for the work you've been doing all along. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Councilman. Councilman Cashman. I'll just make one more comment in in conjunction with Councilwoman Sussman in the next month, we can kind of talk about what needs to have other further conversations in committee, if you'd be open to that simply. Okay. And on next Monday, we'll give you all a full schedule of how we intend to proceed, as well as the moratorium bill. That will be a moratorium extension that will be filed on Thursday, and then we'll be talking about it on Monday. So the folks are clear, you know, when the exact meetings are, when they can come to public hearings and things like that, if there are no other comments. Madam Secretary, Roll Call. Clerk Hi, Espinosa. Hi, Flynn. Hi, Gilmore. I question. I. Can each. Lopez. I Ortega. I Sussman. I Clark. Mr. President. I please call the voting list, close the voting and announce the results. 11 Eyes. 11 Eyes Council Bill 161 has been held in committee till Monday, February 27th and come back to the floor. All right. This concludes our items being called out. All other bills for introductions are to publish. We are now ready for the block votes on resolutions and final consideration. Council members, please remember that this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call on an item for a separate vote. Councilwoman Sussman, will you please put the resolution on the floor for adoption and the bills for final consideration for final passage on the floor? Yes, Mr. President, I move. The resolution has to be adopted, and bills on final consideration be placed upon final consideration and do pass in a block for the following items. Resolution. So far, all of them of 2017. Resolution 86, 87, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101 102 103 104 105 106 119 120 127 128 118 124 one 3121 126 129 one 3382 All changed over to bills also of 20 1782 one, 11, 79, 80, 81, 83 and that looks like it. Good job. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary. Roll Call Black Eye Clerk by Espinosa. Hi Flynn. Hi. Gilmore I question I can eat I Lopez All right. Ortega, I Susman I Mr. President. I please cause of very nice results. 11 eyes.

AS AMENDED a bill for an ordinance amending the Denver Zoning Code to revise parking exemptions for pre-existing small zone lots. Approves a text amendment to the Denver Zoning Code to revise the Pre-Existing Small Zone Lot parking exemption. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 2-14-17. On 2-27-17, Council held this item in Committee to 3-20-17. Amended 3-20-17 to ensure that the parking exemption is applied for all uses. Some parking requirements are calculated based on gross floor area while others are on number of units and not explicitly for gross floor area, to further clarify the legislative intent of the proposed bill to emphasize the city’s commitment to more comprehensively address transportation demand management strategies in the short term, and to require a Zoning Permit with Informational Notice for all new buildings on Pre-Existing Small Zone Lots that request to use the small lot parking exemption; Enables all expansions to existing buildings to receive the full parking exemption; and clarifies at what point an “existing building” is considered

DenverCityCouncil_04032017_17-0161

Council is reconvene. We have one final vote to take on a previously previously amended council bill 161. Councilwoman Ortega was correct. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. We need a motion from you to order published council Bill 161 as amended. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 161 be ordered, published as amended. It has been moved and signed it. I will not let any comments or questions be made on this. Madam Secretary, Roll Call Clerk Espinosa. I Flynn. Are Gilmore. Herndon Cashman. I can eat. Can each name Lopez? I knew Ortega. Sussman? No. Black. Mr. President. I. I. Okay. Council Bill. 11 I's. Thank you. 11 I's two days. Council Bill has been ordered publish as amended. Final consideration of Council Bill 161. Public hearing will be Monday May days May 1st. So want to let the public know for the new council bill as amended, 161 will be May 1st.

Report of the City Clerk on the Certificate of Sufficiency for Initiative No. 134, concerning approval voting for Mayor, City Attorney, and City Councilmember primary elections.

SeattleCityCouncil_06282022_CF 314495

Councilmember Peterson has items four, five and six, and Councilmember Nelson has item number seven in Casper. Mosqueda as matters agenda items eight, nine and ten. Madam Clerk, will you please read item one into the record? The Report of the City Council Agenda Item one Clerk File 314495. The report of the City Clerk on the Certificate of Sufficiency for initiative number 134 concerning approval. Voting for Mayor, City Attorney and City Council Member Primary Elections. Thank you. I apologize for that brief moment there. So this item is coming from the council president's office. And I will go ahead and read for the record what I need to say legally so we can move this item forward. Clerk File 314495 is a notice. That initiative 134 has sufficient signatures to go to the ballot, according to the city charter. The city clerk has 20 days from receipt of this notice from King County elections to file the notice with the city council. This starts a 45 day clock for council action on the initiative. In order to provide my colleagues with additional time to consider the initiative. I'm recommending that we hold this notice for one week. As a reminder, the city's election code sale when you spill code 2.04.300 prohibits elected officials and city employees from using their office for the promotion or opposition of any ballot measure. According to the code, we should refrain from discussing the merits of the initiative until we are actually voting to support or oppose the ballot proposition. That will occur at a future meeting. At a future meeting, excuse me, within 45 days of the clerk file within that filing. I'm sorry. 45 days of filing the clerk file 314495. I recommend that council members restrain from refrain from discussing this initiative. Today I move to postpone the clerk file 314495 to July 5th, 2022. Is there a second? Okay. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded to postpone the clerk file. The clerk? Says the clerk, PHIL But I think you mean file the clerk file 314495 will appear on every agenda until the City Council determines what action will be taken in response to Initiative Number 134. The Clerk Please call the roll on postponing clerk file 314495 until July 5th. Councilmember Peterson? Yes. Councilmember Salant. Yes. Councilmember Strauss. Yes. Councilmember Herbold. Yes. Councilmember Lewis. Yes. Councilmember Mosquera. Councilmember Nelson. I. Council President, whereas I. Thank you. Seven in favor of men opposed. Thank you. Should have waited for them. The motion carries and the clerk file is postponed to July 5th, 2022. Let's move on to item number two. This will be Councilmember Lewis's legislation. Madam closely, please read item number two into the record. Agenda item two Council Bill 120. Excuse me, three or four to an ordinance authorizing Seattle Parks and Recreation to enter into an agreement with Seattle Repertory School to replace the Montlake playfield and continue an ongoing relationship in the Montlake community consistent with

A bill for an ordinance vacating a portion of the right-of-way adjacent to 2099 Chestnut Place bounded by West 29th Avenue and Chestnut Place and Division Street, with reservations. Vacates a portion of the right of way adjacent to 2099 Chestnut Place, bounded by West 29th Avenue, Chestnut Place and Division Street, with reservations, in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-13-19.

DenverCityCouncil_10282019_19-0776

All right. Seeing done council members Monday, November 4th is the last night to offer amendments. Then on Tuesday, November 12th, Council will vote to either adopt or reject the mayor's proposed 2020 budget. Councilwoman Sandoval, will you please put Council Bill 776 on the floor? Yes, I move that council bill 0776 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved and seconded. The continued public hearing for Council Bill 776 is reopened. Since this is a continued hearing, there will not be additional public testimony, nor will there be an opportunity for written information to be provided to supplement the record other than what council has requested. We will proceed with questions from members of Council. Councilwoman CdeBaca. Can I can I make a statement? I think we are going to get questions officially closed the hearing, and then we'll do a comments and statements. So at this point, it's just if there are clarifying questions still outstanding that anybody has. Before we get to comments. So no questions, council? No. Okay. Councilman Hines. Thank you, Mr. President. May I ask Mr. Pazienza to come forward, please? Thank you, sir. Couple questions for you about your testimony on a month ago. You had mentioned that an and it's been a little bit so I'm dusting the cobwebs off. I might ask you a couple of questions. You're on the board of the R.A. in question, correct? The. Actually, I was. And I'm sorry to say that I. Was I resigned in the last month. From the. Board. I was located for the last four years. Three years. Well, that's another question. So you were on the. You were on the board was. Yes, I. Was. And the last time we we talked about this in this room. You had mentioned that there was a vote of the board, and it was three members of the board voting in favor and two abstentions. Is that right? Correct. Did you vote in favor of the. No. So you were one of the abstentions? Correct. Can you talk a little bit about how that vote came about and why you abstained? Well, it I found out about it. And it was 15 minutes late from the phone call. I got a phone call and we said, we're voting in 15 or we were voting. And I went to my voicemail and I didn't I didn't get it. So I was out of it. I wasn't part of the vote. Does the neighborhood organization have any bylaws that require there to be a minimum time of notice? We have no. It's an R.A.. We started it four years ago, and there are no official bylaws at this point. You know, as of that day, we had adopted, you know, processes. We followed what rules were published. Whenever you whenever you read the the Denver Public Code or whatever. Kiawah I think it's a state. Law to do it. So, you know, we tried to follow normal processes, said majorities and in in that unique. But it was it was a board meeting it was it was a it was not a R.A. meeting. I mean, it was not a vote. The neighborhood has never we haven't had a neighborhood meeting on this for the last two months. Okay. Okay. Fair. Fair enough. So you're no longer on the board? Why? Why are you no longer on the board? Well, I was I was very uncomfortable with having the board make the decision for the neighborhood by themselves with on their own personal with their own personal opinions, reluctant. The board was not was not willing to enable us to to get more feedback from the neighborhood. They push back on on getting sending letters out and getting writing up and getting all the votes. They were reluctant to have another meeting at the general meeting before they made a decision where if they made a decision today, I heard that there was a decision, but I wasn't going to do that just as a board myself . I just was unable to do. Did you feel to do that attenuated? Did you feel like you could not express your I mean, it's this is what I'm and what I'm hearing. You didn't you could not express. I or my opinions, but they were voted down in in the board. And and I just I wasn't going to be part of that. I was just not not willing to to I don't think that's a correct way for the board of board of to operate in an R.A.. Okay. I think we should be listening to the neighborhood. Thank you, sir. May I speak with someone who's currently on the board? Is there someone whose would either of you come forward? And will you state your name for the record and for those watching on television? Of course. My name is Mark Wallwork. I'm a vice president of the board of the I.R.A. and I am on the board. I've lived in the neighborhood for 16 years. Okay. Mr. Holick, who who entered said there was a development agreement that that we received just before this meeting here on the board. Did you vote to enter into this development agreement? We did. Okay. And did you. Can you tell. Can you tell me a little bit about the the process that you used to engage the neighbors, if that existed, to help the board come to this decision to enter into the agreement? Certainly, there were several neighborhood meetings, so we did have neighborhood meetings that were sponsored by the developer, and I believe I attended all of them are two of our other board members attended most of them, if not all of them. George may have made one or two. He made a couple. So we did attend those. All of us were very skeptical and asked hard questions to the developer. We also were very the board members, Elaina, Aiden and I, we listened very closely to the residents who were voicing their opinions in those meetings. So there were 3 to 4 of those meetings, and we were listening and jumping in and answering questions where we could where we felt like we could answer for the neighborhood, those of us who had been engaged. Okay. There has. And were you here when we discussed this last? I was not here last month. That's fine. Were you nerdy enough to watch it? I was nerdy enough to watch. Okay, well, fair enough. So one of the things that we talked about last the last meeting was that there was a vote of the members of the R.A. and though that vote seemed to be pretty heavily against this vacation request. But then the board voted in favor of the vacation request. Can you provide some context as to I mean, did did you take a different vote or. Sure. Would you mind repeating the two pieces there? The first one was. The members of the organization, as in the the R.A. members as opposed. To the board? Yep. Yes. Okay. Sure. Just a little bit of clarification. George had asked the board how we felt about the vacation of the right of way. Up until that point, we. Had tried to be. We had tried to send to the board, which was not centered at the time, and we were maintaining a very neutral stance. Aiden, Elena and I. Okay. George wanted to know how we felt. So we met. We tried to incorporate George. Schedules did not work out. We were able to incorporate George. And for clarification, there were not two abstentions. There was only one abstention. And that was George's. So we had no no votes. We had three yes votes, and we had one abstention. At that time, I made it clear, and I believe that Aiden and Elaina were in agreement that we had no inclination of publicizing that. That was simply a moment for George as president to get an idea of where we stood as board members. I made it very, very clear that we had no intention of publishing that, vocalizing that in any way. George did that on his own last month, which we're fine with. But I just wanted to clarify that. Okay. And what about the the the vote of the members, not necessarily the vote of the board. So that as I understand it, I think, Mr. Pazienza and you are both aligned that that the vote was three yes and no. No one against. Correct. But can you reconcile that vote of the board versus what we've seen a month ago was a pretty heavily against vote of the members of the R.A.. Sure. I would love to speak to that. It's a great point. I think that what you're referring to is metrics that George presented. It was not a a vote of the neighborhood, so there was not a coming together of the neighborhood to raise our hands. Hey, do we support the right of way, vacation or not? George had compiled information using multiple sources, and I believe that's what you're referring to, where you have a number of people who say they are against the right of way vacation, meaning a number of residents who are against the right of way vacation. And then comparing that to this sort of private vote to get a feel of how we as board members felt and we were all obviously in support. Okay. I hope that's helpful. It is. Okay. Thank you, I. And do you do you know who currently? I don't know if you're the right person to answer this or not. Do you know who currently owns 2099 Chestnut? The 2099 the the actual right of way or the the. The the if we were to vacate this that well, I guess the city owns the 2099 but the adjacent property. Right so it's my understanding there is only one adjacent property owner and her name is Lorraine. I forget her last name. I do not know her personally. I almost met her once. Fair enough. Thank you. And. And I have no further questions for now. Thank Government Councilman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. My questions are for the city attorney in the document. Oh, and I see he has stepped up. Okay. So you tell us your name. MARTIN Play with city attorney's office municipal operations. So, Martin, have you seen the developer agreement that was shared with all of us today? No, I have not. And based on my understanding, developer agreement is a term of art. In the city. Attorney's office. A development agreement would be something that the city may enter into. As I understand it, this is a good neighbor agreement and this city does not enter into good neighbor agreements. So then there would be no reason for me to say it. So I want to read you one of the statements that's in here. It is. On Page four and its effective date and binding nature of the agreement. It says the agreement and each of the provisions hereof shall become effective upon its execution and shall be binding on all the parties. And assigned to this agreement shall be assigned by any owner of the chestnut property and the vacated right away to a subsequent buyer of the Chestnut property and the vacated right away. And such buyer shall assume the obligations of the MDI herein. So this is the MDI is listed here as the name of the company who's doing business. Under the title, you know, the developer for the project. So my question to you is hearing that statement, is it your understanding that this would then apply to anybody else if this. Property owner decided to sell the land to someone else. I can't answer that definitively without looking at the agreement. I'm sorry. Possibly, but I can't say with certainty whether that. Okay. I would have to review the entire agreement. Okay. I reviewed it with Troy earlier, so I'm going to ask Troy. If you would. This is Troy Broughton from the city attorney's office. I agree with Martin without reviewing the entire document. I mean, the language that you read does seem to mean that it would apply to future owners as long as that last clause and that last sentence in the provision doesn't apply. So, yes. Okay. And the last clause in the provision is, if MDI does not acquire both the chestnut property and the vacated right away and the city does not approve both the ordinance and the application, this agreement shall be no and void, and none of the parties shall have any rights or obligations hereunder. So that's the part you were referring to. Right. Okay. Last question is actually, this is not for the city attorney. It's for someone who is part of the R.A. currently. Can you. What have you come up? Tell us your name. Hi. My name's Elena. Baroni. Elena is the R.A.. Registered as a501c3. I would have. To defer to my board member. Yes, we are. I don't know. You got to come. To the right sort of. Things. Comment on the record. We're in. Process. Pardon me, Marc Horlick. I don't remember all the numbers that are at the end. We are registered. We are incorporated as a nonprofit. But no, no, the answer is no to your question. So you have you applied for your final 23, then? We have not. Okay. You're incorporated, but you're not a nonprofit as of 501 C3. That's correct. Okay. Okay. So I was just trying to to understand if it's considered a legal entity in order for, you know, there to be this formal agreement that sort of applies to the whole neighborhood. So that's your interpretation based on the negotiations that you all did. With our understanding that is that we are indeed incorporated as a nonprofit. With the secretary of state. The secretary of state? Yes, ma'am. Got it. Okay. Those are the only questions I have for now. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Torres. Thank you so much. Actually, folks, would you mind coming back? I just have a couple other questions just on the R.A. piece, because and thank you for being here. My question is largely around the statistical neighborhood that the R.A. covers, because the property in question here is in the Five Points neighborhood and not Union Park. I'm sorry, Union Station North. Can you describe for me the boundaries of your R.A.? I might be able to count on this. It is correct. We are part of five points, and I forget what the terminology is for that particular designation. A statistical you. We are within five points. As an R.A. called Union Station North. But you do have boundaries. What are they? Do you know? I do. Basically railroad tracks before the loss or the other side of the flour mill lofts. So we're on on this side of that, we have 20th Street and we also have Dell Gainey. However, the K.C. apartments are not included and are somehow they got scooped out before or after they were built. Okay. The thank you so much. My second question, thank you all is actually for public works. And you might want to just get comfortable in this front. We have a lot of people in the line, so you might just stay up here. Good evening, Jason of Denver Public Works. Hi, Jason. Just a couple clarifying questions because there were a number of justifications that were sent to us in letters of support or opposition that I just want to make sure I understand and that those requesters understand the parcel that is designated as the right away right now that the city owns and operates. At any point, can anything be built on it? Currently, under our guidelines, no. Currently, right now it is considered right away. We always do enhancements to different roadways throughout the city like green infrastructure and those type of things. Not as requested in the past hearing, which was a pocket park or something of that matter. But we do stuff like that. But currently, no, as it stands, we can't actually build something on this roadway based off of law that says this is right away. It needs to be have a utility or a mobility use to it in order for us to not vacate or okay. One of the equivalent or what was being proposed is an equivalent circumstance was mentioned a plat plat street area, kind of a right of way in between two major building sections. How is that different from what we're talking about today? Right. So that's a plaza that is between the Plaza Street and the pedestrian bridge that's across the South Platte River. And what that is, is an actual area that we put in green infrastructure whose we, the city or other people, we work with it now. We didn't actually put in there's a proposed green infrastructure that is going to go in there. And the difference between this area and the land that we're talking about tonight, which is 2099, Chestnut Place, is the developer who who built right there on the plaza and is asking to put a $1.7 million investment to put green infrastructure . We work with developers throughout the city to try to enhance green infrastructure. This is an actual park and it won't prohibit the utility or the walkway that the plaza is meant to do to get people from Platt Street to the pedestrian bridge. So in those scenarios we do it all the time. We have an entire green infrastructure group with the city and county that works with developers to try to enhance these sidewalks, to have more trees and plants and those type of things throughout the city. And in that circumstance, it wasn't a city owned parcel. It was already owned by one of the adjacent property owners. No, no, it's right away. And this is just like anywhere else where we put planters or we put trees or anything else. And right away it still belongs to the city. But we work with developers as they develop our sidewalks and those type of things to put in more green infrastructure, which is just an enhancement that we all enjoy in these scenarios versus in this scenario. We would have to do the investment because there isn't somebody who's developing there to put in something. So we wouldn't put in an investment in something that could be vacated because the only guidelines we have is public works. See that that there is a two requirements, mobility and utility requirement. If those two things are not met, then we are to go through the vacating process. There is no carve out in state law that says if we put in $1,000,000 investment into a pocket park, that we get to deny a vacation based off of that. So we wouldn't put an investment into an area right away like that and then possibly lose it to a vacation. Okay. Thank you, Jason. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman Calvin Black. Your speaker's not on. You might also get comfortable up here in the front row. Yeah. I'm very interested in the legal aspects of this vacation. I wasn't here for the previous hearing, but we vote on these every week. We vote when developers dedicate land to the city, and then we also vote on vacations. And it's my understanding that there are more square feet of land that is dedicated to this city than we vacate. Is that correct? Historically, yes. We have far more dedications, and some of these dedications are quite big. We just had one two weeks ago, they went through there was roughly 20,000 square feet of dedication, which included streets, sidewalks and a lot of amenities that we agreed to. And historically, yes, the vacations are far less than the dedications we receive. This year alone, we've only had ten vacations go through city council where we are, you know, anywhere between 50 to 100 every year of dedications, depending on what's going on in the city. So it's state law that governs this. It governs the relationship between dedications and vacations, because state law essentially from public works view, sees it as we don't want to make up. We don't want to have to buy dedications because it enhances mobility throughout the city. It makes it where we can get around as as as citizens and be able to get to point A to point B. We also on the flip side, we want to pick a process that goes forward that allows us to vacate land and not. And then the city makes a profit off that. A lot of land that we vacate was at some point dedicated to us. So to make a profit off it would be unfair. So the state tries to guide us to make sure that we don't require dedications and then later down the line make a profit off it when it's requested to be vacated. So it seems like we're sort of trying to balance a common good, I guess. Absolutely so. I know in a lot of new developments the developer is is dedicating land that then are big five foot sidewalk separated with the tree line that are adding to our mobility. Right. So in this particular one, I don't know if you've seen the development agreement. Of course we got it at 437, but it says that it it will complete 4500 square feet of usable open space with benches, trees, etc.. New and larger sidewalks, new signage and signs will be designed with R.A. involvement and some other stuff. But so if they're going to build new and larger sidewalks, then would they then dedicate that back to the city? I can only speak to what the requirement from the city would be in these would be that the if there is a build on this property, there will be dedication of of sidewalk to make it where people can get around. That's just the relationship we have with development throughout the city to make sure that people are able to get to point A to point B and safely. So in this case, for this parcel and probably the other sides of it, ultimately there will be land dedicated back to the city. Where this sidewalk and in different parts of those. So it's really unusual that we have this multiple hearings and we've never had them before. Since I've been on council and in previous vacations, I had talked to our city attorney and asked if this was something that could be used to negotiate with. And I was told no. So I'm I'm just I know I wasn't here for the last hearing, but I'm a little perplexed that. That we're having this hearing and wondering if, you know, if the city didn't want to vacate it and the city wanted to widen the street, for example, using that land, would we have a hearing ? I guess I'm asking you two questions at the same time. But so the hearing on this vacation was a request from city council. So we went through this process. But when it comes to widening roads, we look at that because we look at mobility options that are not just happening now but happening future mobility options that could be in the area. So we we kind of based off our knowledge of what we think is going to happen with growth in the city and everything else. We take all that into consideration before we actually do the vacation. I get that there's things that can change, development can slow down or increase rapidly based off economic things, but this is the best estimate we have. And based of this particular vacation, the city is comfortable with, vacating it with and still keeping our mobility goals. Okay. Thank you. And then I just have one question for the neighborhood or people. Sorry for. Us. Yeah. So I just sort of read what was in the agreement, just a few things. And is that your understanding of it? 4500 square feet of usable open space. And which page are you on? Well, it's actually in there. In the exhibit. Yeah. So benches, trees, larger sidewalks, signage, lights, and then the design would be finalized with your involvement. I just wanted to clarify that. That is correct. Which exhibit page are you on? This should be in a one through four, maybe. It was just sort of the summary. Sure. That yes, basically that is our understanding. I was trying to reference that, but I guess I don't need to. And that we would have input. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Councilman Herndon. He was present, I don't think my colleagues, because they have asked a lot of the questions that I was going to. So I just have one. And I'd like to call Jim Johnson to the podium. And Jim, if you could just give your name and background so that. Oh, sure. Jim Johnson. I am an attorney representing the developer under the development agreement. And I spoke with you at the last about a month ago, at the last hearing. And so you helped draft this agreement? Indeed, I did. Okay. So you would be an expert that you could say, is this because we asked our city attorneys and they were not privy to the contract? I am sure you have since you're a party of this. Is this a in your legal opinion, you could certainly be wrong. Do you believe this is a binding agreement between the developer and the registrant? I believe it is a binding agreement, and that was certainly our intent. And in part part of the reason that we we delayed the decision on this matter until this this time was so that the R.A. could go get incorporated and actually make themselves a legal entity so that they could contract and have some enforcement rights there. And both parties have agreed to this agreement. Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Herndon, Councilman Sandoval. Thank you, Mr. President. So I have a question. The Sage George and the R.A. representatives, are there any other members in the audience who live in the in this boundary? Can you please stand up? Can you please come to the front? Can you all just please quickly state your name, whether you own or rent, and whether you're for or against this? Ali This right of way. Stephen Barry I own and I'm against. And how long have you lived in the neighborhood? Two and a half years. Thank you. And Sophie Barry also owned with Stephen Barry and also object. Thank you. David Kleckner. I object. 12 year resident. Thank you. Oh, sorry. Owner. Resident. Thank you. Margaret Pazienza. I'm an owner and I object. And I've lived there since 2013. Thank you. I'm Kim White. I'm an owner for about 11 years, I think. And object. Thank you. So for the R.A., can I have a couple of questions for the vice acting vice president? Yes. So do you have the bylaws? We do now have bylaws, yes. When as as of our incorporation prior, we do. Form those bylaws. We used a template that we received from our attorney. He recommended them. And who's paying for the attorney? I am. Okay. And how long have you lived in the neighborhood? And do you own or rent? I rent and I have been there for 16 years with my husband. Okay. And then do you have like a database or list served? Like so like the registered neighborhood organizations in northwest Denver have a listserv, right? And they send out the agendas and they send out their monthly notifications. So do you have something like that? We do have a global email. We have our own email address. George resigned nine days ago and we are trying to pick up those pieces. He was controlling those items. So we are just now new to getting a hold of those that email system. But yes, we have had that since we are since we became an R.A.. And in the past, have you had monthly meetings? Do you have monthly meetings or how do you function as an R.A.? Because a lot of our owners have monthly meetings and then they have agendas. And tell me your experience as the vice president. Sure. My experience with the R.A. is that we have maintained an annual meeting for the neighborhood. I think we followed that because that's what was required by the or by the city and county as an R.A. And then we would add ad hoc, if we found an issue, would come up both for the neighborhood and for the board. That has always been the way we have run on an ad hoc system. We've never had anything more than an annual meeting. So we are. You were voting in these meetings. I feel that sometimes representatives vote on these. R.A. Did you ask, did you take a straw poll of the members of your R.A. or did you just vote based on how you felt like did you take like a majority rules type thing? Or was it just you and a couple other people voting because you represent these other people? Correct. So how did you come to the conclusion that you were voting in favor of it? Are you talking about the on this specific item? So on this specific item, how we how the board came to a vote on whether we support the vacation of the right of way or not was brought about by George Pazienza, our former president. He wanted to know where we stood, and so we did that. And did you ask your neighbors, you specifically have did you go around knocking doors and asking your neighbors how they felt about this? That's a great question. I did not literally, obviously texting and running into folks in the hall. J.D. and I are very neighborly people and we know a lot of people, and we would see them at the developer meetings and we would say, Hey, how do you feel? We would hear folks get up and speak at the developer meetings, the ones that were coming along every week or so. And sometimes I would be surprised that someone would say one thing when I thought they meant another, so I would seek them out after the meeting and speak with them. I did that on multiple occasions. Okay. Thank you. Sure. I have a couple of questions. For public works. So in your statement just now, when you were answering, Councilman Black, you talked about parcels needed for mobility, correct? Correct. So this could this pass will be used for mobility in the future? In our assessment, no. So it can be used for any type of bike station like it is now. It can't use be used for scooter parking. So absolutely. And there's several places within the area that we have assessed. It could also use those there to move it. And I know there was an agreement with the current base B cycle and the developer to actually keep it on the property. But there's other places that we identified that we can do and still meet. The needs of the of the neighborhood. Could be used or not. Yet it is currently it does currently have a B cycle station on it. So is public works working on a policy called transportation demand management? Yes. And within the transportation demand management, are you not going to require future development to have transportation demand management plans? Correct. So if you look at this map, I don't know if you have one, but there's a 813 bedroom apartment slated for construction and then a 13 story tower apartments slated for construction. Do you feel like these? I can't remember all the triggers for transportation demand management, but I believe that these would trigger them, correct? I believe so. Under the current plan we are trying to put forward, remember, the plan is still being put forward. So depending on when this actual development takes place, whether it will be before we actually have this plan in place or not, the time which you're talking about. Yes. So if the 813 bedroom construction went online and transportation demand management was also a policy, could they put some of their scooter parking there? Could they use part of that area because it's right away to help ease the ingress and egress of this area. So in when it comes to Treme, just a little bit backwards is we don't we won't require somebody to have parking for scooters. Scooters is provided by a private sector who are working in relationship with us to use the right of away to make parking stations themselves. We wouldn't lean on developers to have to provide parking for them, but TDM is mostly to give the tools to these developments to cut down the SUV, SUV, which is the single occupant vehicle being used by 50%. These tools are far greater than scooters or any of those type of things and we wouldn't have those requirements in TDM. We are trying to figure out ways to get people to transit into and out of the single occupant vehicle, which could be scooters. But scooters as being a private sector mobility option would have to work on getting their own areas to put scooters. Okay. So when Councilman Terrace was talking about Klatch Street and you kept talking about we, how much money has public works invested in the $1.7 million by unico developer into that right of way to make it the green space it is like how much has public works invested? None. This is a private option that they requested and felt that the option of investing this $1.7 million was worthwhile. To be able to create green infrastructure in the plaza, which they can put tables out and chairs out for everybody in the community to enjoy. This is a this is the type of relationship we tried to build throughout the city on green. Infrastructure. And. To minimize our investment. In new started in public works. But just fancy me this question. Were you here when Unicode put in that way to vacate that area? Were you in your position? Okay. And then do you know how much the developer has paid in permits to get the $1.7 million invested? But the permit process that they've also had to pay. I do not know offhand, but I can definitely get you that information. Okay. And then I have one question for the lawyer who put together the proposal. Yes. Tim Johnson. Thank you, sir. Thank you for being here tonight. My pleasure. So I have a question for you. How besides saying that this that you all signed off on this development agreement or in other words, a good neighbor agreement saying you're part of the the side your developer doesn't follow through. How do. What recourse does the neighbors have to come and find you? Would they have to get a lawyer or would they come to the city or what? What recourse does the then neighborhood organization have to make sure that you follow through with the the agreement and and codify it like you have said? So that was one of the big concerns that the that the neighborhood organization had when we were talking about this agreement. And actually the first version of this agreement that we put forth had a much more, I would say, traditional arrangement where they would where they were the R.A. would have to get a lawyer and there would be there's an arbitration process based on their comments, on the R.A. comments. We we very much streamline that process. And so now there is a there is a very quick process to get to an agreement. Essentially, the R.A. there's there's two different stages. So there's during construction and then there's after construction because there's some obligations in here that the that they're really actually three pre-development during construction and after construction and so. During pre-development and construction. There is contact information in here for somebody directly at the construction company that can that anybody can call this person and say, we have a problem, that you're not adhering to the provisions of this agreement. There's a 24 hour provision there, 24 hours to to resolve the issue. And if that's not resolved in 24 hours, and there's like I believe it's a three day time frame for the R.A. to come to arbitration, put present whatever information they want. And actually, the developer is responsible for. Paying up. To a certain amount of the costs of the R.A. to do that. So there's no lawyer's required, and it's intended to be a very quick process. So but the. So if they had to come to arbitration there, it would be on the owners of the registered neighborhood organization. That's that's correct. And so in in your experience. Registered neighborhood organizations, Jorge just resigned and now we have a new vice president. What happens if the vice president who's signed the document isn't here? Six, six, ten months during construction? 22 months. What happens then? Who carries this document forward? That's the reason that it was critical that they be incorporated, that they are no be incorporated in sign off and become an entity and registered under Secretary of State, because then there's ongoing requirements for that entity to have perpetual existence. And so whoever is in whoever's managing that company, it would be like any other any other company out there, as opposed to just a registered neighborhood organization that didn't that didn't have independent kind of viability. So we're making a registered neighborhood organization become incorporated, take legal action, and make sure that they're following through when it's all volunteer to follow through to make sure that your good developer agreement gets followed through on. Is that what I'm hearing. That that is? That's one way to put it. But this arrangement is not unusual in Cherry Creek, Cherry Creek Neighborhood North Organization is the same way they're incorporated there. 501c3 And they have the same kind of model and perpetual existence. And so it's not it's not kind of a new idea that we're trying to do here. It's something that's that's been replicated in other areas of the city. And way I would I guess I would caution you not to call it a good neighbor agreement. In my opinion, at least a good neighbor agreement is where there is some kind of aspirational element to it. And there's an acknowledgment that there's really not an entity there that can enforce the obligations. And then the ones I've been associated with are typically we're going to respect certain construction hours. We're not going to respect certain noise that maybe is above and beyond what the city would otherwise require. And this agreement, there's an obligation that that the developer is going to process an application with the city that's consistent with with things that that the developer that the that R.A. has requested, things like the open space in the and the improvements to the corner and step back requirements and brick veneer requirements, things like that that I've never seen in personally never seen in a good neighborhood agreement. There's there's there's this is a beefier and much more, I would say more traditional kind of develop agreement, development agreement, not in the in the municipal sense. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. All right, councilmembers. We have a lot of people in the queue as people jump in back in the queue for a second time. And we certainly can debate this all night. We've kept this hearing open for a long time. I will just ask, if possible, please keep your questions concise and keep them to information that hasn't been presented, things that will help you make your decision if you already have your decision made. Let's get two comments so that we can get this one resolved once and for all. Tells me Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. So, sir, the attorney. And we had, I believe, two delays of this project, of this decision extending over several weeks. And I'm wondering why we got this agreement. Minutes before the meeting with no time to really consider it or evaluate it. I I'll I can say as I apologize for the timing of that I can't give you an answer to that. I don't know. I was not part of actually getting the document signed up or any any of that. So I don't know why you got it when you got it. I don't know. Is there anyone. Here that can answer that question? Yes, sir. If you have an answer. Tabor Suite with Mortenson Development. The R.A. was actually incorporated on Thursday. Yes, the R.A. was in corporate on Thursday, so they couldn't execute prior to that. We got the signed agreement on Friday morning and then candidly, we're a very big company and signatures don't come very quick. So we did our best. And I'm sorry that it was last minute, but it was just a more of a function of getting the right person. In the right room to execute on our side. I. Difficult the weeks that we set this back. My other question is for Troy. Thank you, Mr. Shrimp. When we're addressing rezonings, we have specific criteria we're legally obligated to assess by what. What are our obligations in this case? Well, I would defer to Martin, the city attorney, but in my mind, it's it's a legislative decision. It's a it's a vote. Yes or no. Sir. Martin played assistant city attorney, meaning ops choice. Correct. It's a legislative decision. There are no criteria. There is a statutory criteria that government cannot vacate. Right of way, if it will leave a property landlocked. That is the only requirement and that's not here. So really, with it being a legislative decision, it's does city council feel that the city needs the right of way now or in the future? Right. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Gilmore. Thank you, Mr. President. One of the representatives from the. Reno Police. Force. So I got a little confused around. Well, could you clarify, are you an LLC that is registered with the secretary of the state, or are you a501 C3, which would have to go through the IRS, the secretary of state, and then the local municipality? We are not the second one. We are definitely not. You are not a51 C3 because that's a nonprofit organization. So an an LLC. Correct, for profit. So which are you? So we when we incorporated, we were able to select nonprofit and we made that selection. It's fairly streamlined online. So you registered. With the Secretary of State, correct? So you have not thus far then filled out the federal IRS. Councilwoman, can I have one C3? Sorry, I don't want to interrupt. I just want to make sure it's clear that you can be a nonprofit without being a501 C3 and registering through the IRS. There are mechanisms through the Secretary of State's office to become a nonprofit without necessarily dealing with the IRS and those tax implications. So can you clarify if because this is new information to me, because. I founded and ran a. Nonprofit for 20 years and was fully compliant with all the federal and state and local regulations. So if you file with the Secretary of State's office as a nonprofit, can you accept tax or not or. With. Charitable contributions? Right. So that's where the tax implications come on when you are accepting charitable contributions and how those are taxed. But you can register to become a nonprofit without without any tax repercussions with the IRS. So are you going to operate and accept charitable donations? We have elected not to take any moneys, no clues, no contributions. Correct. Okay. So what the Mr. Johnson, I believe, said and to Councilwoman Sandoval's questions, if there is a dispute or the developer in this developer agreement that I believe they wrote and crafted, if there's an issue, you're not going to have any funds to hire a lawyer to make sure that they are complying with what they wrote in the developer agreement. So how are you proposing that you're going to legally represent the R.A. to the full. Extent of the law. We negotiated? I totally get what you're saying. It was one of the first questions that I had. Basically, our hands would be tied. It was incorporated into and negotiated into the developer agreement as best as we were able to, to alleviate that, to make it so that we would not need to pay any moneys. But to answer your question, if it were to come to that, it would be difficult. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. And then, Mr. Johnson, I have a question for you on and that we did get this very late, but I've been trying to review it really quickly on page four of the agreement. Number six, it says that the attorneys fees or talks about attorney's fees and says within five business days following the execution of this agreement, MDI will pay the Arnaud's reasonable attorney's fees in connection with negotiation and execution of this agreement, which the parties agree is $3,000. So. So you crafted this document. They're going to sign it, but then you're going to turn around and pay them $3,000, is that correct? Yes. And that's really not unusual. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Cannick. Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to just bring Jason Gallardo, Fleurs Gallardo, please. Sorry. My my mouth is failing me. No problem. And ask you to clarify and perhaps just give you a chance to clarify something. Councilman Sandoval asked you a few questions about your conclusions and public works about the site. So as I understood it, you do not need or have plans for this site, for transportation infrastructure right now, is that correct? That's correct. And secondly, you've identified other locations where you could put transportation infrastructure. Yes. But for the bicycles specifically, we talked about the bicycles specifically was in the agreement that we know about between the developer and them. But we also have identified other areas in the in the in the area that we could have put a bicycle if necessary. Okay. Where I think things got muddy is though she asked you whether it could be used in the future. And I want to be really clear. Did you conduct any analysis that indicated it would be infeasible, i.e., not physically possible to utilize this for other types of transportation in the future? Because. Sorry, no. Yeah. As I stated before, there is obviously different things that can happen with more development in those type of things that that we are just based off of our assessment that we use for every vacation we use throughout the city. Didn't see a use for this in that process. So what I'm asking you and I'm I'm going to be asking really specifically, did you conduct any analysis that term and it was infeasible, impossible or otherwise, not ever possible for this site to be used for transportation in particular. I know you don't have plans. Yeah, I know you don't want it, but I'm asking you if you made a technical determination. Right. So you're asking me, is there is there just to clarify, is there no possibility whatsoever that we would use this for. I'm not talking about possibilities. I'm talking about technical feasibility. Did you analyze this and say definitively, no, it could not ever be used for transportation infrastructure? I'm asking a technical question because that's the role you guys provide in this system. Right. And so that's why I'm trying to pin you down more specifically, because I feel like what you want it for is not the question that I don't think Councilwoman Sandoval was asking. And it's not the question I'm asking. I don't want to give you a false answer here. So I don't know the entire of the process goes through. I believe it's. 31 days of us going through and analyzing this with over 30 agencies internally and externally. We're from the city to see if this is the proper direction to go or not. But I don't I don't think I can give you a definitive answer without asking, you know, Matt Brown or something else to be able to tell you definitively that that process was 100% to your your question. Let me ask can I try asking the question one other way, and then I accept is the answer is this you're not sure? I totally get that. That's what I'm saying. So to the extent others have identified potential future uses that this land may have for mobility purposes, have you done any analysis that specifically disqualifies or refutes those things that folks have identified as potential future uses of this. From the protests that we received? You mean. Any. Yeah, the protest or testimony in this or testimony in this chamber. There have been numerous emails. So so I'm not sure, you know, but if you if there are, generally speaking, been some ideas thrown out of things, this right of way could mean needed for in the future. Did you do any analysis that says those things are definitively not true? Yes, we had 42 protests that were received through the process that we have, and all 42 were deemed lack of technical merit on on our standard based off the analysis we made at Denver Public Works. Okay, we're tot work we're not connecting here in the question. Okay. Thank you very much for trying. Thank you, counsel. All right, round two. You know, I ask that you be as quick and concise as possible. Councilman Heights. Thank you, Mr. President. This is a my my questions now are about the R.A. that was or excuse me, 19 Chestnut Place was just created last Thursday. So. I guess. Mr. President, may I have you come up? Yes, it appears in our audience we have to pass to people who are residents in the immediate area who are in favor. We have seven, six people who are in present who are against who live in the immediate area. What's to keep you from forming an R.A. that appears that would then appear to represent the majority of the people in this audience? That that is that is the question. I agree with you wholeheartedly. We counted Councilwoman CdeBaca. Totaled up the objections that she's received in the last since we started the delay the deferrals of the and the question for the initial voting that we had that was done by people sending emails back and saying I'm for it or against it was about 80% for objections. Now there's I think 63 have come in emails of commend recently, and 80% of those emails are objecting. I can tell. You. Right. Okay. Thank you. And I thank you for your time. I have a question for perhaps one of the attorneys, city attorneys in the room. This legal entity was created on Thursday for an R.A. that didn't have standing, but now does. What's to keep this legal entity from no longer being a going concern in a year when it's time to renew the secretary of state? Like, I'm I'm trying to understand the enforceability of this agreement that I still haven't had time to read because we just got it less than an hour before this meeting. But like. Like Kirkuk North, which was the other example, has been a going concern for a long time and is in perfect ten. Thank you Cherry Creek North people watching. But I guess I'm trying to understand like, ah, is this a lot iron clad, you know, can I put this in an ironclad lockbox next to Social Security and Medicare and, you know, those sorts of things? Or do you know what? Do you get the nature of the question? Yeah, I'll take a stab at it. Troy Bratton from the city attorney's office. Councilman Hines, I mean, I guess I don't know how to answer the question there. They are incorporated, nonprofit. That is a legal entity. Things are going concerns until they're not. I mean, I can't say how long they will be, but I can say that they are now. And I haven't reviewed the entire agreement. But it sounds to me like they are a registered nonprofit and they are incorporated as of right now, so. Okay. Fair enough. Thank you. One last question for Mr. Gallardo. Welcome back. So public works won't improve the property because it may be vacated at some point in the future. And that totally I mean, this is these are taxpayer dollars. So I totally understand that. Can the neighborhood improve the property? No. I mean, there's there's always options to be able to do these type of things. I don't know that there's a direct pathway for us to say that a neighborhood can give the city money in there because it's an investment that they would be making on something that could also be vacated in this situation. So I don't know that the city would get involved in an agreement that would allow somebody to invest into it, putting a park, green infrastructure or those type of things on this land, and then still be guided by state law that says it would be vacated if it doesn't have a mobility or utility use. I just don't know that there's a process for that. So. Okay. Would public works. Issue. Assistant Dismissed order. If, say, the immediate neighbors just decided, hey, we're just going to spend money and we totally understand that it might it might be wasted. But, you know, maybe they want to put on or patch grass or I don't know. That might be a better question to be asked to the city attorney's office. But. Okay. And this is my last question, Mr. President, would your city attorney please answer that? Thank you. Martin play municipal operations city attorney's office. Citizens can apply for an encroachment permit to place things in the right of way. I would say it's possible that someone could apply for an encroachment permit to put. Something in the right of way, like in private with grass or I don't know. I think it actually has a sidewalk and maybe some trees there now, but I'm not 100% sure on that. But yeah, I think there is a process involved, but that goes through public works in terms of the approval process. And if it's a Tier three encroachment, then it actually comes to the city council. So there isn't anything explicitly in your knowledge or legal opinion that would keep the city from telling them, No, you can't build something on. If they applied for an encroachment. Permit or whatever. I think that's a fact specific question. Okay. Fair enough. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Catherine. Councilman Black. I apologize for asking more questions, but I'm going to try and be quick. Mark Pollock I just found your email. Someone was asking you a question or Councilman Hines is asking questions about the status of your R.A. So how long has R.A. been around? I believe it was 2016. Okay. So you've been around for a while? A little while. You didn't file with the secretary of state? Correct. A legitimate R.A. for several years. Correct. And how many people live within the R.A.? I believe it's about 3500 people. 500? It's a large number. We're pretty we're pretty pretty significant. Okay. So it's a very, very, very tiny minority of people who are here tonight. So I just. It's like less than half a percent of the people who are here tonight. So I just it's important for us to remember that everyone who is here is not sort of representing the entire neighborhood. And then can I. George, I'm sorry. I don't know how to pronounce your name. That's it's a cool last name for patients. So I'm really curious what you object, what you are. Are you objecting to the hotel? And what would you like there? And are you not okay with what they're proposing? The 4500 square feet of open space with benches and all that. Okay, we are objecting. We actually we're all fine. And building the hotel, that's that's fine. And we understand they're going to be developing what we're objecting to. What I've learned is that most of the people in the neighborhood are objecting to is giving up the open space. The that right of way is on the corner and it's at the entrance to the neighborhood. So that that will be even though there's some of that that's coming back, there's there's a you know, there's six or seven stories of the hotels going to be put over top of it. So the people are objecting to giving up that one third of their property, that that is the right of way. That is the objection. Nothing to do with the hotel. The hotel I think they'll build if they're going to build a good hotel and a big lot of other good hotels in the small lot. So even though if it's not vacated, the city's not going to make it something, a plaza or anything like that. Well, now there is there's you know, what you're talking about is encroachments. That's what was done at this over by on Platte Street. That was an encroachment. And, you know, that's something we didn't know about. But there's certainly been a lot of discussion among the houses and businesses in the area about doing an encroachment, probably not a million and a half dollars and encroachment, but you can put flour boxes and, you know, we can make that continue to make it look better, which is what the Griffis did. It used to be sky. When they when they built that, they put the concrete in the trees that are in there now. They installed that there. That was an encroachment. They paid $200 a year for it. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Councilman Ortega. Okay. Two very last questions. The first one, Mr. Johnson, if you could come back up, did you in the neighborhood talk about putting a covenant on the property to insure specifically on this right away property, to ensure that all of the things that are committed to in the agreement are even more solidified? So I would say that the agreement is in the nature of the covenant is in the nature of a covenant. And specifically, it has the language that you talked about earlier in terms of passing it on to those who who own the property in the future. We did not talk about binding it with the covenant specifically because my client doesn't own the property. Okay. And they couldn't do that at this point. Okay. And I'm not sure you're the right one to answer this next question, but what what about this right way property? What is it about this property that makes the hotel work at this location? I think this might be a question for Mr. Sweet. Okay. Mr. Sweet. Thank you. Taber Sweep with Mortenson Development. Councilwoman The I think if you remember the last time we. Had put out some images, I think to you guys in a package. So this particular. Right of way. Is important because we are going to be, as George described it, going. Over, but we're going to be cantilevered a piece of the. Building over the right of way. So what's really crucial for us. Is where those columns. Come down on to what is. Now the right of way, which. Will then become privately owned. We can't cantilever. A building above. You can't do that. With a type two encroachment or anything like that. It has to be owned. And so that allows us to create the hotel that we've designed and submitted for, for planning approval or for SDP. So what, what portion of the building then? Occupies this space because I've been hearing that part of the expectation is that it would continue to remain open space. Yeah, there's only a very small sliver of building that actually. Occupies part of the right of way on the very eastern sorry western edge. The remainder of it is actually open to automobile traffic. And then a piece of the. Plaza which we've dictated into that development agreement. There's an exhibit as well that we're going to create. We're going to incorporate that in our in our easement back to public works. So the plaza area. Although it's underneath the. Overhang, will still be a public space. So some of the discussions about bicycle or scooter parking or whatever it needs to be, that will still be public use in perpetuity. We're not trying to stop anybody from using that. They can use it as they do today, along with the existing right of way on the corner. So you're saying there would continue to be an easement on the property? That is, is it deeded back to the city? Help me understand, Jim. I'd have to give you the correct. Terminology, but. We are providing an easement back to public works for the storm line that. Is there. And we will expand, correct? Jim, correct me if I'm wrong, they'll expand the rights of that easement to include that plaza area to the west of that storm line. All but four where those columns come down. Got it. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. I have no further questions. Thank you, Councilwoman. All right. At long last, the continued public hearing for Constable 776 is officially closed. Comments by members of council, Kallstrom said. Welcome. Thank you, Mr. President. This land vacation is on it. On its face should not be granted. There's indeed technical merit as it's currently being used for transportation use. Just because transportation is evolving from car supremacy to multi-modal forms of transfer tation does not mean that we should isolate our own understanding of transportation use to be the equivalent of car use. Additionally, this land vacation has been wildly opposed by the surrounding neighbors and others. Originally, public works pulled all 21 adjacent property owners and 71% objected in total since the first time we heard this request. Our office has has received 63 on duplicated opinions and 49 were against or opposed, which is 78%. We've had only 14 support and only four who have since changed their minds since the last time we heard this. The last the land vacation will increase. Chestnuts, places land by 50%. Yes, the city gains land through dedications and trades off through through land, vacations all the time. But it's not appropriate in this case, as this developer is not asking for a corner or an alley to be vacated. It is manipulative to suggest that this is for a common good when this is very clearly a developer windfall. They are increasing buildable square footage from 12144 to 18094 square feet in one of the most expensive commercial and residential neighborhoods in our city and Union Station. We all know what it looks like. What they're describing looks like when you go to a hotel and pull in under under a structure. It's not. It's not public or open space. There's approximately 6000 square feet of free land for a one time fee of 1600 dollars. This developer has manipulated the process to isolate and alienate its neighbors and has still failed to convince a substantial number of residents to change their mind about their opposition. Three people made a decision for an entire neighborhood and are speaking as the sole authority being recognized as the community. We we say we care about ADA access. We say we care about multimodal transportation. We say we care about climate action and reducing congestion. Congestion. What we have an opportunity in front of us to prove it. Neighbors want to see us dedicate modern transportation docking stations to areas that do not inhibit ADA access. Areas exactly like this can serve this purpose. Yes. Public works cannot lean on developers to to provide transportation support. Yes. Current public transportation, including scooters, is being provided by private corporations. Yes. Private corporations owning bike and scooter share programs are currently monopolizing any and all other public right of way without being required to designate docking stations in areas that make sense. None of that excuses public works from its poor stewardship. Again, this is currently being used for public transportation, regardless of who has taken on that responsibility in absence of our leadership. I had from my colleagues I heard from my colleagues in the previous hearings that we recognize the ability to exponentials and extract profit from any land left in the city. Preservation happens in a multitude of ways, and preserving public ownership of the right of way for the evolution of transportation is in itself preserving the opportunity for transportation in an overdeveloped area of town. The bottom line is that if we can walk on it, bike on it, scoot on it, then it meets the criteria to remain in the hands of the public and not a private developer who will extract value from it at our expense. Please vote in a way that shows our residents of Denver that we truly and meaningfully want to reverse the patterns of car dependency and supremacy while also being a good steward of public land and the planet generally. Nobody is telling the developer what to do with their land at this point. We are simply saying that they cannot also do what they want with public right of way without regard for all of the people who live in this community and have very clearly made their voices known. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Cannick. Thank you, Mr. President. I have been very quiet during most of this debate, just asked a couple of questions and have relied mostly on the testimony in the hearings and probably wasn't going to speak. But I have a couple concerns I need to. On the record with my vote. So first, how am I going to vote? I think this is a very dense area and I think in this area and others like it, we're having a lot of conflicts between transportation users and a lot of risks that those transportation users experience because of those conflicts. I did not I know that my question perhaps I should have shared it with the department had a time, but I didn't think of it beforehand. But in spite of their decision that there was no technical merit, it's my experience that usually technical merit is things like if I grant this right of way vacation, then I won't be able to get out of my garage or my property will be impeded. What I don't believe that that technical merit analysis includes is a feasibility for future transportation, and that is for me. I am concluding that it is feasible for future transportation purposes, and that's important. So what am I weighing that against and weighing that against the community need for additional hotel rooms, basically. I will share that. We had a very similar debate a few months ago where there was an R.A. that negotiated a good neighbor agreement and then there was other neighbors that did not support that agreement. And they were, in that case, going to build some very modest increased density that's in line with the plans we've adopted. And in my mind, the housing need of our city outweighed it. So for me, it's not about, you know, I'm not choosing one side or another. I'm trying to weigh these things. And in this case, I don't think the the needs of additional hotel rooms weigh more heavily than the potential future use of this site for transportation. So I'll be voting against the vacation tonight based on that weighting. But why am I weighing in? I do want to say that I think it's really important. There's been a lot of concerns hurled at the Register neighborhood organization. And I just want to share for the record that I think it's very difficult to generate engagement with registered neighborhood organizations before a controversy exists. You flier, you invite people, you email, people say they're going to come. It's very difficult to get people engaged. And so then an organization does the best it can in a situation where they are not in control of the result. They are not in control of whether this vacation happens or not. And so they decide to either put all their eggs in the basket of trying to kill it or to try to negotiate something to make it better should it pass. So I want to ask that maybe as this neighborhood heals after this experience, we think a little bit about the value of trying to negotiate for something rather than let it being, you know, an ugly overhang with concrete underneath. So whether you agree or disagree with the vacation, I see some very good intentions that the I.R.A. had. And having worked with R.A. for almost a decade or more, if you count my time before a council, I think they're not in an easy position, given how difficult it is to get people to engage until a moment like this. So I think they made a good effort, and I hope that there can be some healing that recognizes that. The other concern I have is just that there was a lot of it's clear my colleagues had a lot of concern. And in the heart of that concern, there started to be a lot of potentially messages or questions that really potentially undermined the potential strength of neighborhoods, the value of good neighbor agreements, the enforceability. And I guess I just want to say I'm a little nervous. What is the incentive to the extent that neighborhoods have used these tools, frankly, very effectively? I don't have a long list of failed and unenforced good neighbor agreements. Frankly, in my time in office. I think that they generally work well, they're generally followed. There's been very few examples I've heard of of them not being enforced. So when we spend a lot of energy talking about how unenforceable and unreliable they are, what we are doing is we are reducing the incentive of neighbors to engage in dialog and we are reducing the incentive of developers to commit to some changes and adjustments . And that worries me. I don't want neighbors to have less ability to negotiate directly for things that are important to them. The test for our land use decisions can never be unanimous support, right? Some folks want to have a clear a majority, a majority of those responding. We're never going to probably know the majority of folks who live in an area because we can't survey them all. But I just want to say that I am voting against this vacation tonight. But I still think these are important tools and I hope that we don't find our way to undermining them to the point that they are no longer a tool that can be effective. And I'm a little nervous about the outcome of my vote because of that. But I think that if we keep talking about it, perhaps we can find a path where we can support these tools while still having the vote of conscience that we need, rather than thinking we have to attack the tool to justify our no votes. So with that, I'll be voting no, but with a lot of respect for those who tried hard in this case. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Herndon. Mr. President, I share Councilwoman Kennedy's concerns. I just come to a different conclusion. I'll first say that I will support the vacation, and here are some reasons why. One, I trust the work that the analysis that Public Works has done. As it was stated earlier, there were numerous objections to this vacation. And as Jason said, he went through the, I think, tireless process to make sure that each of those objections didn't did not have merit. So I trust that you did your due diligence in ensuring that you were making the right decision, saying that we don't have a use for this land. I do think, though, if we follow the notion that if you could there ever be a time that we could possibly use this land, then sure, and we shouldn't vacate anything. And there might be some people on council who support that notion. That's just not something that I do, because for us to hold onto the land when we didn't pay for it and as we've had conversations about this before, that doesn't seem fitting to me. So that that is so I believe and that's usually where the vacation stop with the analysis. But we have gone above and beyond when it comes to this. Councilman Black made the comment, why are we here? And I feel responsible because I was the one that requested the delays. And so as the chair of Ludie, when I when this first came to committee, there was a concern from the developer, like, hey, we know there's we know the community has some concerns and we would like to sit down and have that conversation with with the community, which I felt was noble. Let's let's sit down and see if we can we can hash out our differences, which is why there was the first request for a delay, because you want the parties to come together. So we as a council don't have to be that body that chooses winners and losers. As I bring back Councilwoman Jeannie fights. And so when we were here three weeks ago, we recognized that the Arno was not registered with the state, which causes a problem and doesn't allow you to sign a contract agreement if you reach one, which brought us to the second delay to where we are now. So for me, the question was if we can reach a place where the R.A. and the developer can come to an agreement, I believe we're in a good place and that's where we are today. And so that's another reason why I support this. I absolutely want to commend you all for being a part of an R.A., a volunteer board, because as a person who was on Stapleton, United Neighbors, the Sun board, I know the pain that you go through where people say you're hiding and you don't know and you readily publish it and you encourage your neighbors to come for whatever reason they do or don't. And so thank you for volunteering to be a part of that. And I would also say to the people in Union Station North, if you're not in support, join the Arno George. I'm sorry, I'm I didn't want to ask the questions because we've been here long enough. But why you chose to step off? Because then you lose your opportunity to be the voice as a member of the Arno Board. And so for the other people that are here and say, I object joined the board, that's what that's how you can make sure that your your voice is being hard. Because when we look we can't look to a community of 3500 our different neighborhoods. We look to the people who say, I'm going to step up and I want to be as a voice of the board. So thank you all for doing that. And as Councilwoman Kennedy talked about, the the hard the difficulty of doing this concerns me as well, because we have an Arno board that I said, yes, we have an agreement in place and this council might very well say no still. And that could send a message to future Arnaud's. Why would we go through this process if we agree? The two parties agree and council still says no. We have that prerogative and that's why we're here. We make the difficult decisions. I think in this case, this wouldn't be a time to make that decision. You and as I trust, the binding, the validity of the agreement. So I don't see any reason to think that that cannot be enforceable. And so from the parties involved have always been willing to come together. So this is why I will be supporting the vacation. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Hines. Thank you. Sorry. Thank you, Mr. President. So I'm still new here. I can't use that for much longer, but. But certainly, as we continue to grow as a new body, we learn things. We look, we gain wisdom. I'd like to think I'm an intelligent person, but. But I don't have a lot of wisdom through which I can make this decision. So I want to thank my colleagues for their patience as I asked a lot of questions which may have seemed silly, but it helped me understand more about this issue, but also more about the Arno process, about vacations. And I feel like I need a vacation after all this talk about vacations, but I'm still like I when we were here three weeks ago, I said, I'm confused. I just I can't reconcile, you know, some of the some of the things that we're talking about. And I still am unable to reconcile some of the some of the concerns about, you know, the vote of the board, which is three members, versus what seems to be the concern of the neighbors. And and so I talked a lot about over the last year plus about values. I think it's important for us to have elected officials that have a value system through which we use those values to guide, guide our decisions. So I talked about housing, transportation and representation again and again and again over the last year. And so let's talk about housing. I think, you know, it's already it's already been discussed. This is hotel space, not housing. And so it really isn't part of that. You know, the value that I used that I said again and again and again was important to me. And I'm here because of the things I said. Hopefully I told the truth. I meant to tell the truth, but that's what I said a lot of times. And I don't see how this fits into the value of housing, this transportation. I firmly believe that we should encourage more non car transit. The the artist rendition that I saw was a driveway. I don't want more cars going through what is already a very dense neighborhood and and an already an extremely walkable area of town, probably the most walkable in the state. So that's that's a little frustrating to me as well. When we're giving we're theoretically potentially giving up non car transit access representation. So if I'm going to vote against this, which by the way I'm leaning towards no and that that will ultimately be my vote, why don't I vote in favor of yet another delay from three weeks ago to today? Well, because I believe we all deserve to be heard. We all deserve to have our conversation be heard as long as we can. And here we are. And I wanted to give people the benefit of the doubt and give people time. I think it was a little frustrating three weeks ago that we got a bunch of information about an hour before our council meeting, and I had to try to digest that at the last minute. And I'm frustrated again tonight that we got a whole bunch of information less than an hour before. I can't I can't read a legal document in 40 minutes and do some other things that I'm trying to do last minute to prepare for this meeting. So just so I recognize also, I think that, you know, something that I said over and over again, that I one of the highest compliments I had was someone repeated this back and didn't know that I said it. So I thought that was really cool. Development should happen for the city, not to the city. And I'm I don't I don't see how this really is making the neighborhood a better place. I don't see how this is this is doing something that will make the neighbors a, you know, a more whole community. And and so I also recognize that we've had, you know, some concerns about Arnaud's. Does this undermine the Arno process? I think that's a reasonable concern. I think another reasonable concern that people have had is, is that some feel that the R.A. system, as it is now already doesn't represent the neighborhood. I think that some RINO's are better than others. I'm not saying that just we have you know, we have a lot of Arnaud's and and so I'm not you can't judge them all the same. I think they have their own personality because they're comprised of their own sets of people and some are more indicative than others. I would say I recognize that there's a concern and I recognize Councilman Kenney, just thoughts about the R.A. process. And I want to say that we're already considering, you know, revisiting the R.A. process. And I think that this is a this could be used as a case to make sure that we we use this in our consideration to make sure that we empower our nose to be a full, fully representative of the people that they're supposed to represent. So I'll be voting no. Thank you so much for everyone who's here and for my colleagues for allowing us to have this extended conversation. I certainly intend for other conversations to be quicker because we spent more time vetting out some of the ideas tonight. So thank you. Thank you, gentlemen. Haynes. Councilman Torres. Thank you, Mr. President. So in this process, I think a number of things have been highlighted for me, and I'm growing appreciative of. The complicated. Subjects we've been taking on as a council in the past three months. But nearly all of the emails of opposition that were forwarded to me focused on an argument of open space. I don't fully accept this argument as a singular cause for denial. Residents in the area, especially from this particular spot, are within a ten minute walk to a multi acre park of commons coronavac a variety along the South Platte River. That said, I initially kind of entered into this discussion thinking vacation requests were pretty cut and dry and that it was largely a process dictated by state requirements. But even the language that we put on our public site emphasizes that there's a number of factors that weigh in to approval, and those include impact and effect . And specifically, we say there's no guarantee the request will be approved. A thorough understanding of the need to vacate. Combined with the support of all adjacent landowners and members of the public who may be affected by such an action is important before beginning this process. That that piece, I think, is, is one. Of the things that's. Moving me on this because of how complicated this has become. My difficulty. With this is whether or not. A neighborhood supports the proposed project. And we have put the R.A., the the Union Station, North Reno, in the spotlight to fast track becoming a nonprofit, to becoming an entity with the singular purpose of entering into this agreement, which we asked you to do. And I feel like that's been problematic of our process. Additionally, find it problematic that this isn't the only R.A. that covers this particular property. The ballpark collective also geographically covers this property. Whether or not they're active, I don't know. I don't know how long they've been involved. But this is not singular to Union Station North to this particular R.A. and the fact that this is actually the Five Points neighborhood. So when we're talking about the neighborhood supports, the neighborhood does that hasn't been mentioned at all in in the language, in the process and or by the folks that have reached out to me. I feel like that. Has been forgotten in a lot of ways. I think we there has been. This is a muddied process. And because this is a particular area of emphasis, even in our own language, to the public on what's involved in a vacation request. I don't think we've done justice to a public approval process for this to move forward. So I'll be I believe I'll be. Opposing this request. Thank you, Councilwoman. Towards Councilman Black. Thank you, Mr. President. This is a really tough one. I see both sides in my almost four and a half years on council. We have never voted against a vacation or a dedication, so or even had anyone express an opinion. Well, that's not true. What former Councilman Espinosa did all the time. But the rest of us didn't. But so this is new to me and. And I'm I'm a bit tormented about it because we have approved so many. And I like to follow the law and I like to be consistent in my votes. And it's very hard for all of us to sit up here and have people who are so passionate that they sit on those horrible seats and listen to all of us talk way too much until 9:00 at night on a freezing cold night. And so we are swayed by all of you and we really appreciate your passion. But in the end, I always feel like I need to go back to that legal advice that I have gotten a lot of times from our attorney about this and about one that's in my district. And then to respect the the analysis that public works did. I am going to I am going to vote for it. I don't think it's going to pass. I appreciate your work in the development agreement. I think it looks cool. I mean, my district doesn't have anything like that. That's that cool. But also, George, what you said was another option. You know, also might be a good way to go. But just to be true to who I am, I, I like to stick with the advice I get and be consistent in my votes. I am going to vote no. Thank you, councilman. Black councilman said I'm sorry. I'm voting yes. See how tormented I am? Thank you, Councilman Black. Councilwoman Sandoval. Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. So in northwest Denver, vacations are a hot topic because we have what's called carriage lots, and a lot of them are owned by the city and county of Denver. And so you had a city square block, and in the middle, in the back, you had a square that were actually used for carriages and horses. And so Northwest Denver has been the hotbed of I'll Ride Away vacations. And actually one time I was a council aide to Councilman Espinoza. This body did vote down an alley vacation because of all the work that we had done in the office. And to Councilwoman CNOOC's point about undermining the process of a good neighbor agreement. In my opinion and in my personal time as a council aide since 2012, and I used to work for the councilmember who represented Ball Park Neighborhood, I would say 80% of the time good neighbor agreements work out. The only time that they have never worked out for me is in a right of way vacation. And it's so sad to see. I hated it. I hated having to go through a whole mediation process and having the neighbors get together and have a mediator go through the process. And the developers say they were going to do something and then the city council voted to allow it and then it didn't fall through. And all of the agreements and all of the time that the neighborhood had put into that work wasn't followed through on. And for me, that was very personal because it was on the block that I grew up on, under the carriage lot that I played on as a little girl. And I was just working for Judy and I didn't even understand this process. I was very new to it. So I just want to say thank you all for your work, even if this is democracy at its finest, right? If being able to disagree and being able to have a vote. But also I hope my hope is that you as neighbors can, once this is done, that you all go back to being neighborly because that's what makes Denver great, is that if you all can use this, I believe that on the other side of conflict that you can actually grow if that's what you choose to do. And I think that's what we have to do up here as people who vote is that I have to take my other colleagues votes and I have to think about them and understand why they voted that way and not hold it against them and wash ourselves clean of this tonight and learn from the process. And through this process, I will just say that I during the research and meeting with the neighbors, this that this city of Seattle actually had to come up. It was brought to my attention that the city of Seattle actually came up with a right of way policy that was adopted in May of 2018, because they were having these same issues that we were in Denver. They didn't know how to vote on them. There was no legal authority over them, there was no criteria on them. And it kept going back and forth. It was this real gray area. So I'm just going to say that I'm one to as a council and as a council person, I want to bring these policies into Denver so that the next time they come forward, we actually have a criteria to talk about this situation because we, as Councilman Cashman mentioned, when we do rezonings, we have five criteria. We know what they are. We're very well versed on them, and here we're all floundering. And so I would like to give us more tools in the toolbox. So thank you for bringing this to my attention during this work. And ultimately, I will just be a no vote and I'm not a no vote just because the R.A. was incorporated last Thursday. I'm not a no vote just because it doesn't feel like it's rep reflective representation, even though I know it's really hard to get an R.A. going, I just don't believe that there is clear guidance, like the guidance that on the Public Works website with on the landing page, when you go to an alley vacation or right away vacation, bullet point three and four. Talk about your adjacent neighbors and their objections. And for me, I have to be have reflective representation. And if this was in my district. And there were people who sat in these chairs. When it says on public works, landing page bullet three and four that your voice matters. Your voice matters to me tonight. So thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Sandoval. Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. I really appreciated having this delay, because when we were last here, I was very much up in the air trying to weigh things. But for me, it I've never had a call in four years of someone begging me for a hotel room. Just seriously, it's just not the case. But I get calls almost every day or every discussion I have, whether it's at a neighborhood meeting or at breakfast with friends, about the need for for affordable housing. And that's at all levels. That's not just 0 to 30. That's that's up to 120% of area median income. It's difficult to live in Denver. We all know this. You know, I think many of us, if not all of us on the dais, have gotten involved in discussions with developers on different projects and where they'll say, well, you know, we really you need to give us the zoning that we want or we're just going to have to build crap, or we'll will build we'll just take the existing zoning and just max that out. And what what I would say in this case is give me a project that truly addresses our city's critical need. I'll talk to you about the vacation. I mean, I have concern physically about, you know, I drove this area several times the way the proposed extra 63 rooms, I think that would stick out into the right of way would close in that intersection. I have concern about that. But if this were really a high community value, I'd be willing to talk about that. Not saying that it'd be a guaranteed. Yes, but I'd be willing to talk about it. So. That's that's what I'll be basing my no vote on. And I'm smiling because I just have to add this. If you talk to my kids, they'll tell you the one sin is. Don't bring me last minute stuff. Don't. And I don't I would just be serious about that for a second. You know, we've had a month at least to deal with this. And I think to bring this council a document that could have been so important at the last minute, I think is playing a little fast and loose. And so. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilwoman Sawyer. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to say that I think that, you know, Councilman, can you just point and Councilman Hines point earlier is so very important for those of you who are here tonight, who live in this neighborhood, get involved in your I.R.A.. I mean, I ran for city council because I felt like my R.A. was not representing me in my community. I literally am sitting here today because of a development that I did not want to see in my community that drove me to run for city council. Get involved in your R.A. That is your option. Participate in the process. This is this is how this works. And and, you know, it seems likely, based on the response of most of my council members, that this vacation is going to fail tonight. And I just want you to know that that is not a reflection of you. It's not a reflection of the work that you are doing as the leader of your R.A.. We have had a lot of discussion as council members about how we can better support you as R.A. leaders, because we need to do a better job of that as a city. It's something I want you to know that we are looking into. Councilman Cashman and I have talked a lot about it. I think, you know, it's something that's very it's very difficult job to be an R.A. leader. There are a lot of Arnaud's in the city, and there are a lot of rules. There are a lot of in order to to faithfully represent your community is a very difficult thing. And, you know, to to fairly take a vote is a very difficult thing. Everyone will always question everything you do right. And so there have got to be better ways for us to make sure that community members who can't get to a meeting because they have kids or because they've got to work or whatever, you know, that we can include their voices and there's got to be a way that we can better support our R.A. leaders and better support our community members to make sure that they can participate in the R.A. process better to make sure that this works better for everyone. Otherwise, our R.A. process simply isn't working. It's not reflective of our community as a whole. I know it because that's why I am literally that's why I'm sitting here today. So I just wanted to thank you for your work. I wanted to thank all of the community members who are here speaking out. All of you. I know this is so difficult. I know it's a long night. And I truly just want to impress upon you how important it is to get involved in your community organization and be a part of the voice of the community. Because if you feel like you're not being represented fairly, then you you've got the opportunity to change that. So please do. And with that, I also I'm going to be of a no vote tonight. So thank you very much. Thank you, Councilwoman, to our Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. I'll try to be short. A lot of my comments have already been made. I drive this area quite routinely. I live in northwest Denver and drive through that area as a shortcut to get on to. To get over to the Globeville neighborhood or other areas of downtown. And it is congested as hell today. Right. And and as we as a city start moving more and more towards requiring areas to have transportation demand management, we have to have that infrastructure in place to deal with all the different components that make it work so that people are not having to own a car to move around the city. And we know that scooters and bikes have played a big role in part of that process. Right. So when we take away a location that has been serving that function, it it sort of negates the the the direction that we have been moving to as a city to try to address some of these issues. We're dealing with this same challenge with the 41st and Fox station area, where we're seeing a lot of new development coming in and we're, you know, saying you have to have a team plan. We're capping the parking. Actually, we're we're doing that through a different tool, but it's the same effect will reduce how many parking spaces people can have in that area. But you need the infrastructure in place for the different components of this to work. And in this case, this was a site where you could do is pull up the maps and you see the the docking station for the bikes right on the on the maps. So, you know, I routinely patronize the King Soopers in the area. There's a lot of pedestrian traffic that crosses 20th Street trying to get back and forth. Not only their Whole Foods is is just the next block over. And and so I'm concerned that we're taking every little nook and cranny and trying to do everything, you know, vertical. And yes, we have been intentional in this city about looking at where we want vertical development. But does that mean every little corner has to be as dense as as possible? So my concerns are more about the logistics of the site as much as some of the other issues that have been expressed by by my colleagues. So I will also be voting no on this site tonight. I appreciate all the work that everybody has done on both sides, trying to find some middle ground on on, you know, being able to negotiate something that that can be workable. But. You know, unfortunately, it looks like the votes are not there for this to move forward tonight. So I'll will be a no vote. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you all for sticking with us this late into a cold evening on hard benches, it is finally time to vote. Madam Secretary, roll call. See tobacco? No black. Flynn. No. Gilmore. No. Herndon. I had no Cashman. Kenny. Ortega. No. Sandoval. Sawyer. No. Torres. No. Mr. President. No. I'm secretary. Please close the voting. Announce the results. 11 days to ice. 11 days to ice accountable. 776 has failed. On Monday, November 4th, Council is scheduled to sit as the quasi Judicial Board of Equalization to consider reduction of total cost assessments for local maintenance districts. Of the 27 local maintenance districts, letters of protest were only received for two of the districts. Thus, on Monday, November 4th, Council will hold a public hearing on the Phase two West 38th Avenue, pedestrian mall, local maintenance district and the Golden Triangle Pedestrian Mall Local Maintenance District. Since no written protest of assessment were filed with the manager of public works by the deadline of September 26th, on October 17th for the remaining 25 districts , Council will not sit as the Board of Equalization for the following local maintenance districts. 15th Street Pedestrian Mall. 20th Street Pedestrian Mall Consolidated Larimer Street Pedestrian Mall. Santa Fe Drive Pedestrian Mall C St Luke's Pedestrian Mall Del Gainey Street is 13th Avenue Pedestrian Mall South Downing Street Pedestrian mall Tennyson Street to pedestrian mall west 38th Avenue pedestrian mall phase 1/44 Avenue and Elliott Street pedestrian mall, Greektown Pedestrian Mall, West 32nd Avenue Pedestrian Mall, 32nd and lower pedestrian mall Broadway Pedestrian Mall Park Broadway B Pedestrian Mall Phase two Broadway Pedestrian Mall, Broadway Viaduct Pedestrian Mall 22nd and Park Avenue West Pedestrian Mall Consolidated Morrison Road Pedestrian Mall South Broadway Streetscape, Arizona to Iowa South Broadway Streetscape Wesley to Yale South Broadway Streetscape, Iowa to Wesley Tennyson streetscape portions of 30th to 44th Skyline Park. See no other business before this body. This meeting is adjourned.

Report of the City Clerk on the Certificate of Sufficiency for Initiative No. 134, concerning approval voting for Mayor, City Attorney, and City Councilmember primary elections.

SeattleCityCouncil_07052022_CF 314495

Agenda item two. Clip 4314495. Report of the City Clerk on the Certificate of Sufficiency for initiative number 134 concerning approving approval. Voting for mayor, city attorney and City Councilmember. Primary elections. Thank you. Clerk file 314495 is notice that initiative 134 has sufficient signatures to go to the ballot. According to the city charter, the city clerk has 20 days for receipt of notice from King County elections to file the notice with the city council. The city clerk filed her report and the certificate of sufficiency with the council before this clerk file on June 28th. This action started the 45 day clock for council action on the initiatives. In order to provide my colleagues with additional time to consider this initiative. I'm recommending holding this clerk file for another week. This clerk file will appear on every agenda until the City Council determines what action will be taken in response to initiative number 134 134. As a reminder, the city's election code C-11 is for code 2.04300. Prohibits elected officials and city employees from using their office for the promotion or opposition of any ballot measure. According to the code, we should refrain from discussing the merits of the initiative until we are actually voting on legislation to support or oppose the ballot proposition. That will occur at a future meeting and within 45 days of the clerk file of this clerk file being filed with the council. I recommend that Council members refrain from discussing this initiative today and until the Council considers legislation supported or opposing this ballot proposition. I move to postpone clerk file 314495 to July 12. Is there a second? Second. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded to postpone the Clarke file. Will the Clarke please call the roll on postponing of Clarke file 314495 until July 12th. Council member silent. Yes. Councilmember Strauss. Yes. Councilmember Herbold? Yes. Councilmember Lewis? Yes. Councilmember Morales. Yes. Councilmember Nelson. Yes. Councilmember Peterson. S Council president worries high it in favor and unopposed. Thank you. The motion carries the clerk file is postponed until July 12. This item will appear on every agenda until the City Council determines what action will be taken in response to Initiative 134. Madam Clerk, we go on to item number three.

Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing, and grant an Entertainment Permit with conditions on the application of Shamrock Hospitality Group, LLC, dba Muldoon's Saloon, 5646 Paramount Blvd., for Entertainment Without Dancing. (District 8)

LongBeachCC_09182018_18-0820

Motion carries seven zero. Thank you. Hearing number three. Hearing Item Threes Report from financial management. Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record concluded the public hearing and grant an entertainment permit with conditions on the application of Muldoon Saloon, located at 5646 Paramount Boulevard for Entertainment Without Dancing. District eight. And it does require note. Thank you. Mr. Modica second reading. Please raise your right hand. You in each of you do solemnly state that the testimony you may give in the court now and pending before this body shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God. I do. Staff presentation will be done by Brett Jockeys and Emily Armstrong from the Business Licensing Division. Honorable mayor and members of the City Council tonight you have before you an application for Entertainment Without Dancing for Shamrock Hospitality Group LLC doing business. As Muldoon Saloon. Located at 5646 Paramount Boulevard operating as a bar tavern lounge in Council District eight. All of the necessary departments have reviewed the application and have provided their recommended. Conditions as contained in the hearing. Packet. I, as well as the police department, stand ready to answer any questions Council may have. And that concludes Stout's report. Thank you. Councilman Orson. I'd like to hear from the applicant first. Okay. We're opening up the option for the applicant to say a few words. See. I can hear. Please come forward. Thank you, counsel. My name is John English Modern Saloon, North Long Beach. But we're still here. We appreciate your consideration for our opportunity to provide a safe environment. For our. Mostly millennials up there that want a place to hang out. And we. Thank. All of the different departments of the recommendation and approval on their side. That being said. We look. Forward to. Many years of entertaining and servicing the community. Do you have any questions of me? That'll be okay. Just the comment is perfect. Thank you so much. Is there any other comment? And public comment as well. So if you have public comment, please line up right now. Although Council of the City of Long Beach. My name is Patrick Coughlin, co-owner of Muldoon Saloon. And yeah, we had a rough start at Muldoon Saloon, but I just want to let you guys know that we've been pretty concerned about the community. You know, we've been helping cleaning up the neighborhood in various ways. And I hope that's considering, you know, the goodwill that we've had in the community or the goodwill that we're building up in the community is taking in consideration for live entertainment. So, yeah, no further for the government. Thank you. And any other public comment on this. Sir, please come forward. Anybody? This is our last call. So. So we are last public comment on this hearing. Go ahead. Is a gentleman at City Hall? My name is Roger James Smart, and I've been living at 2712 East 56 way for 40 years. And I party that more, do it for 20 years. But they've changed owners in the last couple of years, in the last seven months. They started this live entertainment. Right. And they get three bands come that three man tonight, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday right. From ten Sunday. They they set up out there right in front of my house, play the drums. Annoying right doorstep. Play loud music. They drink out. They hang out. The drinks turn to people. Every night they later they piss in the yard. They put down the block. Church, right? The music just bothered me. I've been going crazy. I have called the police many, numerous times on record. They came up there in module I kid I they picked me up so much, I throw the ball at him. I had a gun out of him. Well, sir, sir, sir. Okay, sir, I'm going to. I think that's not appropriate to say, sir. Okay. So that's a that's a threat. We're going to we're going to go ahead. And I think you're. Sir, look, finish up 200. They're not even there at nighttime. Can you address? You can address. Address me. And I'm right, sir. And I ask members of my family to come with me, but they're so embarrassing me, you know, being a. A maniac towards these people and I hate him nightly. And they hang out. They hang out to three or four in the morning in the bar parking lot right there, riding skateboarding stuff. Sure. I'm not judging you. It comes right in my window. Thank you very much, sir. My window. And I do not like it. Thank you. Big. Can't count on Austin. Yes. Well, I want to also get us we heard a staff report her from the public. And I want to just say to the the ownership, I appreciate their attempts to raise the standards of the bar. However, I do have some serious concerns about approving approving an entertainment permit at this time for a number of reasons. First of all, my staff reached out to the neighbors of Muldoon's this past week to see if they there were any thoughts about an entertainment permit. Our office spoke with it and heard back from several residents on 56 way and other blocks where well done is located. And of the residents we contacted, several of them were strongly opposed to the city approving the entertainment permit. One person had no opinion. One person was very supportive because they said their brother was a patron of those who were opposed. The concerns were consistent about the public nuisances that they'd have to deal with on a regular basis. These ranged from loud noises, trash bottles left in yards that they can hear music from the bar until late at night and other disturbances coming from the bar. Secondly, Muldoon's has really not shown a willingness to comply with the existing city laws and regulations to date. I'd just like to confirm before I go further with city staff with the question has more done Saloon received any temporary permits for live entertainment prior to tonight's hearing? No, they have not received any temporary entertainment permits. Have they requested any? Not that I'm aware of. Okay. In my staff, also check with special events the Office of Special Events, who also indicated that they have not issued any occasional event permits to models yet. Models has consistently hosted live bands at the bar without an entertainment permit. They even have a banner outside their building promoting live entertainment for several months. According to their Facebook page, they have had live bands perform on at least 26 different nights within the first nine months of 2018. In my opinion, this shows a complete disregard for our permit process. One that we just had a great big conversation about. Finally, I like to take into account the owner's own words about the conditions at his bar. He's contacting my office and Mr. Conlin, who's contacted my office on multiple occasions about bad elements in the neighborhood that he was having to deal with at his bar, which he's attributed to other businesses in the area. On May 2nd, 2017, just over a year ago, he came right here to city council and even addressed our council and spoke about the problems that he stated even his security could not handle at the bar. And I think we have a clip. Low technical difficulties. And you're speaking to. Come on, forward. Go ahead and take me. Well, yes. We are. This is not. This is incorrect that we fixing this tech textbooks call. Hello? Yeah, hi. My name is Patrick Common on a modern saloon in North Long Beach. And I took over modeling. Saloon. Last August, and we cleaned it up quite a bit since we were there. It was not really a notorious bar, which is low profile, but it had a lot of, you know, bad things happening there. Ever since I've taken over the Bible, I've always had this problem with a bar called Daly's cocktails across the street. And there was kind of a lull period where I didn't have as much of a problem with them. But for six months just because, you know, I just got there. CROWD Not to go in. But ever since it started getting warmer, the temperatures started getting warmer. I'm getting more and more of this crowd coming into my bar. And, you know, I never really needed security in the beginning and now I have security. But the problem is, you know, the problem is so bad that security's not going to solve it, where if you have like 20 guys that are packing heat, you know, rolling up to your bar sometimes, you know, for, you know, get out of prison party, you know, it's not, you know, I kept my security can't handle that. And, you know, I and I did some research on the dunes. I mean what happened was last. Thursday the incident on my. Well, I think you get the picture. And so so I'm not only her. And furthermore, I got an email just less than two months ago. He said he's trying to eliminate all of the drug fronts around the bar. This is problematic with issuing an entertainment permit. So I've only heard from this applicant applicant about the problems that he's having at his bar. And I've never actually heard from him about the application for entertainment permit, which is also concerning when and based on these factors. I would not I would be inclined not to support this application today, however, before making a final decision, I like to be fair and to allow some more time to give the owner an opportunity to become a better neighbor, to demonstrate an ability to comply with the city's laws and regulations, which includes not having unpermitted entertainment or other violations. And with that, I would like to make a motion that we continue the hearing and understand that we need to provide a date certain for the continued hearing. So I'm thinking about 120 days, which would put us on January 22nd, 2019. In the meantime, I will request the police department to monitor for any violations, and we'll check back with the neighbors before the next hearing and to see if the notices, if they notice improvements. And they would encourage the the bar proprietor to reach out to his neighbors and build some some goodwill, because there are some some serious concerns from those who live close by. Then at that time, we'll consider the entertainment permit as appropriate or if any conditions, additional conditions are necessary. So my motion is to continue this hearing to January 22nd, 2019, and I ask my colleagues for their support. That's the motion and the second members, please go ahead and cash for votes. Motion carries seven zero. Motion carries it's. The motion is continued. Next up is a consent calendar. Please think of motion in a second for the consent calendar. Was there any public comment on the consent calendar? CNN. Please cast your votes.

A bill for an ordinance amending section 8-67 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code requiring a provisional breed-restricted license for owners of pit bulls. A bill for an ordinance amending section 8-67 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code requiring a provisional breed-restricted license for owners of pit bulls. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 1-22-20.

DenverCityCouncil_02032020_20-0071

Nine eyes, four days. Resolution 108 has been adopted. Madam Secretary, if you'll please put the next item on our screens. And Councilmember Flynn, please put Council Bill 71 on the floor. And move the council bill 20 dash 71 be ordered published. Thank you. Councilmember has been moved and seconded. Councilmember Herndon, your motion to amend. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 20-71 be amended in the following particulars. Number one on page five after line 27, insert the following in quotations six proof that the animal has been stayed or spayed or neutered. And then number two, remember subsequent subsections accordingly. Thank you, Councilmember. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council on this First Amendment, which I think we're calling amendment a. Councilmember Herndon. Thank you, Mr. President. And I just want to give a quick, quick background. There are two amendments. I'll just say this the one time why this is happening. Council Bill 20.71 If you're not familiar deals with creating a breed restricted license for the three terrier breeds that are currently not allowed in Denver. We had a very robust conversation. I believe 11 members of the city council came to committee last Wednesday, and in hearing conversations during the committee as well as conversations afterwards, I wanted to make these two amendments. The first one that is currently before us deals with. Mandating spayed or neutered. Previous bill, as written, would allow terrier owners to get an intact permit. But hearing some questions from my colleagues and we went ahead and I agreed to move forward this bill excuse me, this amendment allowing taking that off the table. So spay and neuter is mandated to get the breed restricted license. And this is on first reading. So this is publication. Councilmember Flynn, as you heard, requested a one hour courtesy public hearing. So I hope that these amendments could go by swiftly tonight. And then we will have a full, robust conversation on the complete bill, as well as hearing from the public next Monday. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilmember Councilmember Kasich. Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to thank Councilman Herndon for this amendment. I think I'm one of the folks who is raising questions. And I did hear from one veterinarian who said that the scientific research indicates that there may not be quite as much of a correlation between spaying and neutering and behavioral issues or, you know, behaviors of concern in the most recent research. But it's been a very long consensus in the veterinary community that, you know, spaying and neutering does, you know, reduce some some negative behaviors. And I think it's appropriate to air on the side of caution. And I also think that the goal here is to go slow. And so I certainly don't think that we want to become the center of breeding of of pit bulls during a period of time that we are adjusting to this new license. So I really for those two reasons, you know, think that this is the appropriate and more cautious course. And I want to thank Councilman Herndon for bringing this forward. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember. All right. So, you know, other questions or comments on this amendment, Madam Secretary, roll call on Amendment A. Black eye. CDEBACA Abstain. Flynn Hi. Gilmore. Herndon I'm sorry. HINDS Hi. Cashman. Hi. Kenny Ortega. Right. Sandoval. I swear, I. Torres, I. Council President. I. I'm secretary. Please close voting ring the results. 12 Eyes, one abstention. 12 eyes, one abstention. Amendment A has passed. All right. Councilmember Herndon, your second motion to amend. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 2071 be amended in the following particulars. Number one on page six, line 33, strike number five, and replace with the number two. Right. It has been. Moved. I need a second, I think, on this one. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of council. Councilman Hern, did you have. You want to talk on the phone? Just one more, Mr. President. In those conversations, they and my colleagues felt five years with too lengthy of a period. So we we shorten that time period to hear back from the data that Denver animal protection will be collecting from five years to two. Thank you, Councilmember. All right. See no other questions or comments on this amendment, Madam Secretary. Roll call on Amendment B. Black I see tobacco stained Flint High. Gilmer. I Herndon. I Hinds. II Cashman. I connect Ortega. I seen the wall. I. Sawyer, i. Torres, i. Council President. I. Madam Secretary, please. Because I've only announced results. 12 Eyes. One abstention provides one abstention. Amendment B has passed. All right. Are there any questions or comments by members of Council on the bill as amended, with the reminder that we are having a public hearing and robust conversation next week? Councilmember Gilmore. Thank you, President. Clerk. This evening I voted in favor of Councilman Herndon's amendments to this legislation and I appreciate his work, his many years of work on this issue. I've asked for a separate vote because unfortunately, I will be out of town for next week's meeting and I am not in favor of the bill in its entirety . We struggle to get compliance in my neighborhoods along the lines of registration, microchipping, vaccinations and our current animal protection laws such as animals on leash. I'm concerned that this will further compound the compliance issues we currently already have and I will be voting no tonight. Thank you, President. Clerk Thank you, Councilmember Councilmember Ortega. I'll be brief. Similar comments. The input we're getting in my office is 2 to 1 in opposition of changing or repealing the ban. And I think that we should be looking at reporting or information within a six month time frame that people get permit so that we have a way to look at data immediately. I was around when this was adopted. I'll save the rest of my comments for next week, but I will not be supporting the bill tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Councilmember Sawyer. Thank you, Mr. President. I will be voting yes tonight, not because I'm sure whether I'll be voting yes next week or not, but because Councilman Flynn has requested a public hearing for next week. And I think it's really important that the public have the opportunity to come and speak and share their opinions on this bill and on Councilman Herndon's proposal. So I will be supporting it this evening, although I'm not sure whether I will be supporting it next week or not. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember. Councilmember Hines. Thank you, Mr. President. I am also going to vote in favor of this tonight. Colleagues, this just means that we're moving it forward to next week. Unless, of course, you're not here next week. And I totally understand your position. I will be voting in favor of this next week, too. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember. All right. See no other questions or comments on this one. Madam Secretary, roll call on 71. Herndon. I black. I see tobacco. I. Flynn. All right. Gilmore. Hines. I. Cashman. I can each i. Ortega. Sandoval. Sawyer. I. Torres. I. Council President. Hi, Madam Secretary. Please cause voting in no results. You have a nice too nice. 11 days to nays council bill 71 has been ordered published final consideration with courtesy public hearing will be next Monday, February 10th. That concludes the items to be called out this evening. All other bills for introduction are ordered published to council members. Remember that this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote. Otherwise this is your last chance to call an item out for a separate vote. Councilmember Flynn, will you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor? Yes, Mr. President. And I wait 13 weeks to do this, and I have like five items. So I'm going to I'm going to make the most of it here. I move that the following proclamation and resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration be placed upon final consideration and do pass any block for the following items. Proclamation 110 Resolutions 57, 5866 and Council Bill 39. I think that is all. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. As a technical correction, it's every 12 weeks. So it's coming sooner than you think because because I don't get to do this work. It's been just doing math. And I hope that that makes you feel better. It does. It's very consoling. Mr. President. This has been moved and seconded. And Madam Secretary, Roll Call. Black Eye. CdeBaca. I Flynn. All right. Gilmore, I. Herndon, I hate. All right. Cashman. All right. Kenny Ortega. Sandoval. I swear, I. Torres, I. Council. President. Hi, Madam Secretary. Please call the voting. Announce the results. 1339 is the proclamation. Proclamation and resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Tonight there will be a required public hearing on 1361, changing the zoning classification for 4338 Lappin Street and a required public hearing on Council Bill 1363.

A bill for an ordinance vacating a portion of the right-of-way adjacent to 2099 Chestnut Place bounded by West 29th Avenue and Chestnut Place and Division Street, with reservations. Vacates a portion of the right of way adjacent to 2099 Chestnut Place, bounded by West 29th Avenue, Chestnut Place and Division Street, with reservations, in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-13-19.

DenverCityCouncil_09232019_19-0776

And Councilman Flynn has called out Council Bill 921. Did I miss anything? All right. Under final considerations are insiders when called out and pending no items called out. So, Madam Secretary, will you please put the first item on our screens? And Councilwoman Suarez, will you please put council bill seven, seven, six on the floor? I move that council bill 776 be ordered published. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council Councilwoman CdeBaca. Thank you, Mr. President. This is on first introduction today, but it was actually postponed back a month ago. And so I'm urging my colleagues to vote no on this vacation. A little bit of background. Is that the fee? There's a fee for 6000 square feet of land, which is 1600 dollars. The plan for this location is an eight story hotel. You all might have gotten notice of the issue in the media. I believe one of the news outlets reported that public works gets between two and three dozens of requests like this per year. Some are tiny, others are thousands of square feet. So according to state law, if the right of way is not being used for transportation or other factors, an adjacent property owner can request that the city vacates the area. The Department of Public Works oversees these requests, charging. 1600 dollars in fees. For review. Public Works pulled all 21 adjacent property owners asking if they objected to the vacation request. 71% objected and 42 total objects objections were submitted from the neighborhood. This will increase chestnut place the developers land by 50%, increasing buildable square footage from 12144 to 18094 square feet. While DPW states that none of the protests have technical merit, I believe that the protests, in fact, do have technical merit. It is currently being used for transportation as there is a bike docking station located there. I believe as we meet our modern transportation goals and get more people out of cars, transportation uses will be much different than they have been in the past, and they will have to accommodate our different uses of transportation, including walking, biking and scooters. That area specifically is the only public space where bikes and scooters can be parked without blocking access for people who are mobility impaired. As we grapple with the scooter issue, I don't think it would be responsible for us to relinquish an area that can become a docking area for modern transportation uses. And therefore I urge you all to vote no on this developer giveaway of 6000 square feet for less than it costs to live in 800 square feet apartments for a month. I urge you all to think of our climate and transportation goals and have the prudence and foresight to hold on. To land. For our current and future uses of transportation. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Herndon. Hey. Thank you, Mr. President. I have the honor of chairing the Land Use Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, where this right of way vacation came to committee about six weeks ago or maybe two months ago. And I was the one that requested the for the four week delay as the applicant approached me and said, hearing all the concerns about the right of way vacation, we wanted to reach out to the community. And so I actually would like to have the applicant come forward just to hear the progress or the applicant representative, excuse me, to speak to what has happened over the course of the four weeks, just so that council could be made aware of how the conversations have moved forward. And while he's coming forward, I would also like to invite my colleagues. We'll be having a conversation on the right of way in general. I believe that's going to come the last week in October so that council members can share their concerns and hear the reasons that we do move forward in the direction we do with right away. But if you want to come on forward, say introduce yourself. And if you could just speak to what has happened over the past four weeks during the course of this postponement we had earlier. Thank you, Councilman Herndon. My name is Steve Ferris, and since we you last consider this, we have met with the neighbors three times with with this input. We have developed a plan for this area that we sent you in a video earlier today. This takes a bear and patch of land with a bike docking and moves it to a location that works for the neighborhood and creates an attractive place in this with this right of way land. This will be locked up in a neighborhood agreement this Wednesday. In a meeting, we're meeting again with the neighbors. We believe we have support from the neighbors and the neighborhood VPP from their neighborhood organization. Mark, homework is here tonight. If to speak to that, if you want him to. So really, our ask is simple tonight. Don't kill this tonight. Give us time to make this neighborhood proud. We can and will improve the right of way with the neighborhood input. And just a little time from you. Thank you. And Steve, just so I make sure you've had you said over the course of the past four weeks, you've had three meetings with the neighbors and you have scheduled another meeting on a Wednesday. And what is this? What is the purpose of that meeting? We are presenting a good neighbor agreement that will commit to the plan that we have sent around and shared with them to date, which involves improving the right of way in the intersection of Chestnut and 29th to such an extent that it opens up public space and allows people to mingle and enjoy that area and keeps attractive and busy. Okay. Thank you, Mark. Colleague, I say that. Could you come forward with. You came and spoke during the public time, but I want to afford you the opportunity. If you could just introduce yourself and say your connection to this parcel right away. Sure. My name is Mark Hall. I'm a board member of Union Station North and a resident. I've been there six years. Okay. So you've been a part of these conversations over the past four weeks with the applicant? I have been involved. Okay. So would you say that the applicant is interested in hearing the concerns of the community and and whether we agree on the right away vacation or not? There have been over the past four weeks that you have there have been conversations and there's a meeting on Wednesday to discuss a possible good neighbor agreement. Yes, that's my understanding. There are two more meetings scheduled. Okay. And you said this during public comment, but I want to make it a part of the record. It's something that you would wish council would allow to happen. I think for the benefit of the residents in our neighborhood, I would recommend more time for them to figure out what it is that they truly think. We've had a lot of people flip and it's been impactful. Okay. Thank you. Sure. And I would just say this to my colleague, I'm not here to speak to the spirit of the ride away. Whether it's appropriate or not. However, four weeks ago, we agreed to allow more time to be done. And this is billed as on first reading. So the question tonight is, should we publish the bill, not do we vote on the merits of allowing the ride away to happen or not? So if we were to vote down the Bill of the day, what was the point of allowing the four week delay? Because next week, next Monday, it's going to come right back to this body. We can look to the applicant. We can look to the the board and say, do you have an agreement? And if there's an agreement, we can have a conversation about that. And if there's not, we can have a conversation about that as well. But to not allow this to move forward so that a scheduled meeting for Wednesday, to have a possible good neighbor agreement, which would tell me that the community is in support of it, I think would be unfortunate to not allow that to happen. So I'm not speaking on the merit of the ride away, but I want to speak to the spirit of allowing an applicant and the community to have a conversation. And I would hope we would allow the bill to be published so that can continue and then discuss the merits a week from today. Thank you, Ms.. President. Thank you, Councilman Herndon. Councilman Hines. Thank you, Mr. President. Is there anyone here tonight who is opposed to the 2999 chestnut vacation? So we do have at least one person. I don't necessarily want to hear from you right now. I do want to the applicant's representative, would you come back for a moment? Thank you. And I apologize. I didn't. I didn't get your name. I'm terrible with names. Steve Ferris. Of course. Which makes me even more embarrassed. But anyway. At any rate. So I'm assuming that in those meetings that you had with the neighbors, they were they weren't 100% in agreement or disagreement. That's correct. Is it would you say that you had a reasonable conversation, that there were people who were for and against and they were, you know, having a like a reasonable discussion in general sometimes. Yeah. I guess just answer that question. Yes. There was a lot of reasonable discussions. People felt strongly in some cases, other people volunteered right away to say, I'd like to retract my initial opposition. It was an ongoing back and forth. Is there more than one person who is opposed to the to the the vacation? Yes. I mean, we don't have exact counts, but we. You know, I guess. Yeah. And thank you. I guess the nature of my question or the line of question is if we allow this to continue, I think that there are some people who are expecting to come to speak, probably in favor, but also in opposition. And they were not expecting to come tonight to speak in opposition. They were expecting to come next week or, you know, the 30th. The 30th, which which is next week. So, at any rate, I think that I would agree with Councilwoman CdeBaca on her points. I would also say that I'm somewhat frustrated by state ordinance or state law excuse me, state statute. That kind of makes it more difficult, as I understand it, more difficult for us to make decisions. But I would be in favor of letting us hear this next week so that we can have more people opposed and, you know , voice their thoughts if they want to. So thank you for your time. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Sawyer. Thank you, Mr. President. Is there anyone here who can just explain a little bit about the state. Law and and what that does. To play into this just in a little bit more kind of clarification. On that if. We're looking for public works staff or legal staff. Congratulations, Jason, again. Thank you. Hello. Jason Gallardo, Denver Public Works. Yeah. So state law kind of controls how we deal with dedications and vacations because it's it's kind of tricky. You don't want to require when a permit comes through for us to be able to require them to dedicate a right away to us and then turn around and sell it back to them for, you know, whatever market value. Would be for that square footage of. Land. So vacations come. In and we. Vacate it if we don't have a utility use to it or a mobility use to it. So we try to balance it's kind of a system to watch vacations on their own, doesn't do the whole system. Servicers, dedications and vacations eventually vacation. I mean, a dedication could be required to be vacated. And we don't charge they don't charge us for the land they're dedicating, nor do we charge them if there's no utility use or mobility use to it for us to vacate it. So that's kind of the process that the state laws hovering over us to make sure that cities don't try to make profit off of these type of agreements back and forth. So is there any. Kind of policy. Discussion around. Not being in this situation again in the future. Happening right now, or is. There? I think there there is. We're having internally write down. And I think that, you know, as Councilman Herndon stated, that we're going to have a more broader with city council as well. But I also want to make it clear that the dedication and vacations are just always going to be a part of this. You know, when we we we lean on developers who are developing an area to be able to make a sidewalk. And that's a good thing for the city. It's an asset that we get to use going forward. So it is complicated. And this particular vacation is about 6000 square feet, as Councilwoman CdeBaca stated. But it's also we get, you know, dedications that are just as big as well. You know, we've had dedications that have come through that have been upwards to 20,000 square feet. So it's it's kind of a we win in some areas in as you feel you're losing in an area right here. But the reality is is is this is how the entire system works so that we can continue to dedicate in and vacate. And like you said, we only do about a few dozen dedications, I mean, vacations at hubs every year, so. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. I find myself agreeing with Councilman Hines and with Councilwoman CdeBaca and and actually also with Jason in that I believe that we should give this due course and move it forward to publish it. But if there is no agreement next week, I will vote with Councilwoman CdeBaca to to kill it if there is an agreement that's acceptable to the neighborhood and it involves the transportation aspect, the in the video that was forwarded to us, we we saw the relocation of the cycle dock and in a public plaza in green space that I think we need to give it the chance to move forward. But just to expand on what Jason had to say, we require a subdivide ers when they plat land to convey to us for free the public rights of way. And so the principle in in a vacation is that we don't sell it back to them because we didn't buy it in the first place. And the 1600 dollars is basically the the the processing fee. I noticed that tonight we're also doing a dedication of a right of way on is it rain or Utica or. Xavier Xavier a down by a down by Lakewood Gulch. And and so I looked up the subdivision and that area has never been subdivided. So I have no idea how we had the right to pave it in the first place because it was never conveyed to us as right of way. But that that illustrates the give and take that Jason was talking about. But when this first came along and I saw that it was a 6000 foot vacation, my first thought was that's that's an awful big plot of land. And it reminded me of some of the Mid-Block Alley vacations that have occurred up in District one over the years that former Councilman Espinosa used to be so concerned about. We wanted to talk about it then and resolve it, and we did not. So now it's back on our plate and I'm glad we'll have the opportunity to do it again. But agreeing with Councilman Hines, I believe that we should move it forward to see if the neighbors and the property owner can agree. And if they do not, then I would agree with Councilwoman CdeBaca and kill it. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilman CdeBaca, you back up? Yeah. Just wanted to thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to really highlight some of the calls that have come to us about the persuasion tactics in trying to flip that 70% that was opposed. I think that dragging this process on puts. The neighborhood through the undue persuasion tactics. And I would I will work really hard to make sure that they come and expose what has been. Going on throughout. This process. But I think that right now, if we know that on principle, giving away 6000 square feet of land when it is being used for a transportation use and it falls into the technical merit, it has technical merit. I think dragging it on is not necessary. But I understand where my colleagues are at. So thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to ask one of our city attorneys if you could just clarify if state law totally prohibits us from being able to, you know, extract anything from these parcels. In terms of, you know, market value of the land. I understand, you know, we ask developers to dedicate land that oftentimes is used for additional, you know, curb cuts or for sidewalks or whatever that, you know, oftentimes that's land they give to the city, if you will. But when we have a parcel and, you know, we have various types of of ways that some of these parcels come into our coffers, it's not all from, you know, landowners dedicating the land to the city. And we've had this issue with some of our alleys, for example, where in throughout northwest Denver, we've got a lot of carriage lots. And we saw one in the Jefferson Park neighborhood where that land was actually given to a developer that furthered the ability to demolish a historic property and add a lot more density to the area. So there's there's again, different ways we acquire or they come into our city coffers. But on these types of parcels, are there restrictions from the city being able to sell the land? For the record, Martin Plate, Assistant City Attorney, Minneapolis. The answer is yes, there is. The state statute deals with vacation, and the statute states that when a local government no longer needs right of way, that there is a process for relinquishing, if you will, or vacating that right of way. And it does not include the ability to sell the land. Do we know the reasoning behind that? I don't. But I know the vacation statutes that are around since the early 1900s, possibly before that. Okay. I saw state senator two weekends. I was in the audience and wanted to acknowledge her. Maybe this is something some of your colleagues would be willing to help us take a look at, please. Thank you for answering that question. I want to request that I'm in agreement, that I want to see if there is actually an agreement that's been worked out and if it has not. I'm not sure I would be willing to support this moving forward, but I want to request a public hearing. And it is not unusual for this body to have had public hearings on vacations in the past. So I want to request that when the bill comes back to us next week. Thank you, because I. Will support it moving forward for publication. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. And that is actually something I was going to point out. But should this move forward? No one has requested that and yet and it is not required. So thank you for getting that checked off because I know earlier there was some talk about work to come back, people coming to speak, and that does require someone to request it. So thank you. Councilman Hines, you back up. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Oh, louder now. I also wanted to acknowledge Senator Gonzalez. She is my state senator. And and one other thing that I want to do. I mean, just because she came in after I started speaking. The other thing that I would say is I think this might be interesting for us to ask our state legislators to review before we continue to grant vacation requests. Should there not be a compelling story next week that that that includes a good neighbor agreement and and strong agreement from the neighbors. So. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Councilman Hines, Councilwoman Sandoval. Yes, thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to speak up because in northwest Denver, we've had many Ali vacations come through and we've had many good neighbor agreements come through. And the good neighbor agreement puts it on the owners of the neighborhood. And I just want you to know that we were here. I was here in 2015 as a council aide working for Councilman Espinosa. We had a Ali vacation come through. We took it through. We took it through this process. We had a good neighbor agreement come up. And I got a phone call last week that that good neighbor agreement is null and void. Nobody is enforcing it on the city site because the city is not part of the good neighbor agreement. So I just want to bring that to everyone's attention that as good of intentioned as these are, they are not enforceable by the city and county of Denver. And so for years here I am as the councilperson dealing with a good neighbor agreement on alley vacation in Julian. And so if you need more information on any of these, I have been working on these alley vacations since June of 2012 when I started as a council aide. One of my first assignments as a council aide was to go to mediation, get a good neighbor agreement for an alley vacation around the corner from the house I grew up on. So. And I've talked to Senator Rodriguez about looking at this on the state side and actually part partnering with Senator Rodriguez, because this needs to stop and this needs to actually be fixed at the state level. So look forward to that coming up. This is something that I've had a conversation with him about a couple weeks ago. So thank you all. Thank you, Councilman Sandoval. Councilman City barking back up now. That was earlier. One of those earlier on. All right. So seeing no one else. I'll just add that, you know, I've had some concerns about the technical merit of this. That from committee. I share a lot of what councilwoman said. Like I said earlier on that that being said, you know, I do I personally prefer when we take things through the process, order it published, give it time. And especially now with Councilman Ortega requesting a hearing to have a chance for us to to have democracy at work here and hear from people. So I would ten I think I'm going to lean towards supporting this to move forward. But I have serious concerns even if an agreement is reached on the technical merits of the future transportation use that I'm you know, I'm going to have to let sit, I think, well, we will this one carries over for a week for me personally. So with that, Madam Secretary, roll call. See tobacco. No black eye. Flynn. All right. Herndon, I. Hines All right. Cashman Can each. Ortega. Sandoval, I. Sawyer, I. Torres, I. Mr. President. Madam Secretary, please. Because voting in the results. You live in is one. Name. 11 Eyes one day Council Bill 19 0776 has passed. Madam Secretary, if you please put the next item on our screens and Councilman BLOCK, go ahead with your comment on 914.

A bill for an ordinance designating 4345 West 46th Avenue as a structure for preservation. Approves an individual landmark designation for property located at 4345 West 46th Avenue in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 9-10-19.

DenverCityCouncil_01212020_19-0913

Thank you very much. I'll do a quick recap under resolutions. No items have been called out under bills for introduction. No items have been called out under bills for final consideration. Councilmember Sandoval has called out Council $19 0913 for a vote under pending. No items have been called out. All right. I don't think I missed anything. Madam Secretary, if you please put the first item on our screens and Councilmember and of all your motion to take out of order. I move that. I think we need your microphone on there. Thank you. Thank you. I move that council bill 19 0913 be taken out of order. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council Councilmember Sandoval. Thank you, council president. Since a public hearing is not being held on this item tonight, we need a vote to take this item out of order on the agenda so that we may take an action on it tonight. May take an action on it now. Thank you. Seeing no other comments, Madam Secretary? Roll call. Sandoval A. Black eye. Flynn All right. GILMORE Herndon. Hines All right. Cashman I can eat. I Ortega I swear, I Torres. I council. President Hi, Madam Secretary. Please go to the voting. Announce the results. 12 eyes 12 eyes counts below 0913 may be taken out of order. Kels Miriam Cashman, will you please put Kels below 0913 on the floor? Yes, sir. I move that council bill 19 0913 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council Councilmember Sandoval. Thank you, Mr. President. At the request of the applicants, the landmark application has been withdrawn as a part of an ongoing process. To find a new owner, I am asking my colleagues to vote no to defeat the bill. So just a little bit of background. This was an application brought forward by the community against a potential buyer who is buying the property. And I sought out both parties and asked them to go shoot and they had a couple facilitated conversations and actually came to a negotiation and now the property is under contract with a new buyer. So this is a good outcome for District one. We did not want this to come to council by not having a non owner historic designation. That's a very challenging situation. So I appreciate my colleagues votes to vote no and work this out on behalf of my community. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Sandoval, seeing no other comments from Secretary Raquel Sandoval? No. Black. No. FLYNN No. Gilmore No. Herndon No. Hines No. Cashman No. Kenny Ortega No. Sawyer No. Torres No. Council President. No. Madam Secretary, please. Because voting announced results. 12 Nays. 12 Nays Council Bill 0913 has been defeated. That concludes the items that are called out this evening. All bills for introduction are ordered published. Council members remember that this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote I. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call an item out for a separate vote. Councilmember Cashman, will you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor? Yes, sir. And these are all series of 2020, unless otherwise identified. 003000310025002600270028 and 19. Dash 1379 and back to Series 2020 002300901001101201301401500 119. Dash 1340 720. Dash 008 19. Dash 1376. And that covers them all. Thank you, Councilmember Cashman. Your motion has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call. Black Eye. Flynn Hi. Gilmore I. Herndon. Hines All right. Cashman. I can reach. Ortega, i. Sandoval, i. Sawyer. I. Torres. I. Council. President. Hi. Madam Secretary, please. Because the voting announced results. 1212. I as the resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Since there are no hearings this evening, Council will not take a recess. On Monday, January 27th. Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 1364, designating 4431 East 26th Avenue as a structure for preservation.

Recommendation to adopt Specifications No. RFQ PW14-033 and award a contract to HDR Engineering, Inc., a Long Beach-based business, for engineering and architectural design services for the final design bid documents, construction bidding and support for the Shoemaker Bridge replacement project, in an amount not to exceed $4,700,000, for a period of three years, with the option to extend the contract for two additional one-year periods; and authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary to enter into the contract, including any necessary amendments thereto regarding the term and/or scope of services. (Districts 1,2)

LongBeachCC_06092015_15-0522

Councilmember Richardson Andrews. Okay. It's. Motion carries 7 to 20. Item 20. From the Office or Department of Public Works and Financial Management. Recommendation to award a contract to HDR Engineering for Engineering and Architectural Design Services for the Schumaker Bridge Replacement Project in an amount not to exceed 4,000,700. Districts one and two. Councilman Gonzales. I want to first think that the dynamic threesome over there, which is are a million Derek Leask and Keiko Andersson for their very hard work on this project. I know every meeting we talk regularly about the updates for Shoemaker Bridge, and I'm always asking for updates and they're always gladly providing that. So I really want to thank your diligence in your hard work. I truly mean that in all of this. This has been a long time in the making, and I know that we're finally here at one point. And it's a it's a very large priority for the west side of the city and also for the district residents in the first district. I know the more that we connect and redesign the bridge to the park project, this will greatly benefit and contribute to the sustainability for our downtown and West Side residents. As I mentioned, for many reasons for safety, beautification and functionality, including green and open space, bike patters, bike and pedestrian paths. And and, you know, I couldn't be more proud of this project and what it will become hopefully done in the future. And I know this is only about a third, about 30% of the funding needed for the design portion. But we're looking for future collaborations with the public with public works and our government affairs director who's been wonderful as well, donating to find other funding streams. I know we went to D.C. a few months back to the Department of Transportation. We talked to them about what we could do. And I also want to think I would be remiss if I think or mayor as well, because he's the one with all these great ideas. And so I'm kind of finishing the times of great ideas. Yes. And so it's great to have that collaboration. So thank you very much for bringing this forward. Thank you, Councilmember Ringa. Yeah. There's also been a lot of discussion and the 710 committee that both leader and I said, well, you I used to sit on it. Lena sits on it now. And it's very important not only for the community of Long Beach in West Palm Beach, but also for the lower end of the 17 freeways as it transitions into the city. So looking forward to this development, finishing up. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Austin. Yes, I'm in full support of this. And also, I sit on the Gateway Cities Caucus of been a priority of that body as well. I did have a question. I know this is the initial study will be will be used with the funding with early action funds. And I wanted to know from Derek if if other early action items would be funded in this first round as well. Mayor, members of the City Council Council member Austin. Currently Shoemaker. Bridge Replacement Project is one of two funded early action projects. We anticipate more in the future as funding becomes available. There is 590. Million available over a 30 year period for the 710 corridor early action projects. However, the majority of the funding. Is in the what they call the second decades, which starts in 2019 is the second decade, and we anticipate a large chunk of funding at that time. Okay. I know that the the sound walls along the 17 Metro Blue Line near Los Cerritos were part of that early action request. Is that in the first decade or second decade? That's an excellent question. Let me be clear. The two projects I just mentioned are the two where the city of Long. Beach is the lead agency. The other early action project that is very important to the city of Sound Wall, but currently Metro as the lead agency are the sound wall projects. Those are broken up into freeway and non freeway sound walls. Council Member We've talked about what they call the non freeway sound walls in your district. The currently we're still in the inverter. Metro is still in the. Environmental phase and they anticipate that the actual design process will begin this year and construction is anticipated to begin as soon as funding is available within the next two years. Thank you for that clarification. Just just to compliment on Derrick's comments, there's a total of $10.8 million dedicated for the design of the sand walls for the entire corridor. But the most of the sand was in the city of Long Beach. So hence the city of Long Beach will benefit from majority of these sand walls. And as soon as a 710 environmental document is released, then the boundaries of the sand walls will be will be clear at that point, and then they can finish the design and the construction immediately following that. That's welcome news to many of our residents. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Supernova. Yeah. A question is brought up about the support structure for the new bridge. And would you have to take out the old bridge to accommodate for that? I guess it relates to maybe displacement of water or impeding the flow of water. And do you have a response to that? Absolutely. I have a small presentation if you have the appetite for it at this time, but we have a part of our design is to repurpose the existing bridge. And because of that we're going to leave the existing bridge in place and modify the, I would say, the West End to allow for a bike lane to connect the east side to the west side because of that and also because of army course requirements that hydro hydraulic calculations have shown that putting anything in the river will increase the hydraulic grade line or will cause the water line to exceed its that the dam at this point. So we probably will have to design a bridge that is a simple span spanning the entire span of the river without any supports. So even if the existing bridge remained or it did not remain, the new bridge had to be designed to be spanning over the entire span of the river. But also, if we want to have a signature bridge, we do want to have some kind of a stay cable state design that will be a signature to the entrance or the exit to the city at that point. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Or did you have any anything that you wanted to show the council briefly on? I have a presentation. It depends if you want to see it or not. If there are any questions, we can answer it. That's amateur. We'll in pleasure. And you have the presentation at your disposal in front of you. Okay. So I think, Councilman, did you did you want to go through. There's just some highlights that you'd like to point out just to get the the. What? Okay. Why don't you briefly go through it? I know it's a project of significance, so you can just take the council really quick through it. Absolutely. Oops. Okay. This is basically a site plan that shows the location of the project in reference to the overall IE 710 corridor and specifically the location of Shoemaker Bridge. This aerial photograph shows the location of the Shoemaker Bridge in reference to the other bridges, the Anaheim Bridge and Ocean Boulevard Bridge. As you can see, this is the third bridge from the mouth of the river. And it's. And it said the next slide will give you a little bit more history. This this bridge was designed and constructed and opened in 1959. It was the longest bridge span in that time. It was named after the chief harbor engineer, Robert R Shoemaker. And it connects the 710 to downtown Long Beach. This bridge is approximately 1300 foot clear span. The new bridge will be 1300 foot span spanning over L.A. River. It's 200 foot longer than the Gerald Desmond Bridge. I'm having some technical difficulties. Here we go. In 2000. In 2000, US City of Long Beach got into a milieu with the CTSI. Basically, the decision was at that time to relinquish the Tie Freeway to City of Long Beach and Caltrans will take over the the ownership of Shumaker Bridge. Deserve comparison between the I7 ten. The purpose and need and compare the shoemaker. Basically, you'll see there's a lot of similarities between the two projects, with the exception that Shoemaker Bridge now has to connect to Cesar Chavez and Direct Park Master Plan and also be part of the park expansion and re-use of the existing bridge is considered in this in this proposal. This is to define the project vision. We're basically trying to connect to downtown. Esthetically, it has to be a significant and a signature gateway to Long Beach. My comments have been to the consultants and to city staff that I would like to see this bridge on a U.S. stamp one day as far as it has to be sustainable and it has to have the safety elements that the current bridge does not have. These are our current partners and stakeholders. We have about 40 stakeholders and partners that we will be dealing with planning. Parks Harbor Department I 710 Esthetic Committee, the Willmore City Heritage Association. Caltrans Metro Gateway called the LBA and numerous other partners. The project goals are to create an extraordinary entrance to the city, enhance and improve green and open space. Preserve and repurpose the existing shoemaker bridge. Improve safety and calm traffic at entering downtown. This is just a picture of the two parks and how this bridge will be part of the the combination of these two parks and how we can combine them and create create a master park. This was a this is a picture or concepts of how the existing bridge can be repurposed and used for park and other recreational purposes. Going really fast. Basically the selection process we had so queues and RFQ sent out about May of 2014. A team which I'll tell you who they were before, are selected for firms that pre-qualified them. We ask them to to to bring their projects. We interviewed them and unanimously the team selected the HDR engineering company. The team was comprised of city managers, office and different departments, COG and Metro. Highlights of the HDR team's work in the city of Long Beach that are a local business. I'm kind of excited also that the structural consultant is Thailand International. They are very famous in designing long span bridges and they have designed the bridge at Hoover Dam. If you've seen the new bridge connecting it, that's part of that that work. First, look at the project schedule. We're hoping that by if you're gracious enough to allow this contract to move forward tonight, we will be able to have 30% design by mid 2017. With having more funding. We should complete the design of the bridge in 2018 and pending funding start construction in 2020. Potential cost for the bridge is between 130 to $200 million. That includes the repurposing of the existing bridge. And we estimate that this bridge construction will generate about 800 local jobs. It will require significant state and local funding and local funding. These are the coordination with the future. Future coordination as there are needed with a 7 to 17 corridor improvement project director Chavez and park master plan planning peer be with with the port they'll be must which is another public works project for municipal urban storm water treatment plant Yellow River Master Plan Improvements. I just conclude this report. If you have any more questions, you're more than welcome to ask. Thank you very much. Good report, Councilman Richardson. I just want to take a moment and say, you know, I've heard about this project for a long time. I know how important this is to the council districts wanting to congratulations. I think it's encouraging when you have a big vision. I know, Mayor Garcia, you worked on this a long time as well. I know when you have a big vision and you want to go for it and sometimes you might not have all the funding, but you want to shoot for it. Eventually it comes around. So congratulations. This inspires me to think even bigger in North Long Beach. So congratulations. I can't wait to see this. This park. Thank you. See? No other comment. Any public comment on the item? Senior public comment. Members, please go ahead and cast your vote. Motion carries nine zero. Thank you. Next item. I am 21. Communication from City Attorney Recommendation to declare ordinance amending ordinance number c-6646 Providing for a change in establishing an IT and advisory body. Read an adopted as read citywide.

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_08242015_15-0522

Could you please have 522 placed on final consideration and do pass? I move that council bill 522 be placed on final consideration and do pass. It has been moved and seconded. Comments. Councilman Flynn. 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. Thank you, Councilman. Any other comments? 522. Scene nine. Madam Secretary, welcome. Flynn. Now. Gilmore, I. Cashman I can eat. Lopez. I knew Ortega I. Susman, I. Black I. Clark by. Espinosa No. Mr. President, I. Councilman Cashman waiting on your vote. Got it. Thank you. Madam Secretary. Please close vote to announce the results. Ten eyes to name tonight. 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? I move that resolution number 555, five, 57, 568 and 558 be ordered. Published.

A bill for an ordinance approving Service Plans for the creation of six (6) Title 32 Metropolitan Districts, the Loretto Heights Metropolitan District Nos. 1-5 and the Loretto Heights Programming Metropolitan District. Approves six separate Service Plans for the formation and establishment of six Title 32 districts: Loretto Heights Metropolitan District No. 1, Loretto Heights Metropolitan District No. 2, Loretto Heights Metropolitan District No. 3, Loretto Heights Metropolitan District No. 4, Loretto Heights Metropolitan District No. 5 and Loretto Heights Programming Metropolitan District, in Council District 2. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 7-30-19.

DenverCityCouncil_08192019_19-0745

12 eyes, one nay accountable. 744 has been ordered published. All right, Madam Secretary, if you please put the next item on our screens. And, Councilwoman Canete, will you please vote? Council 745 on the floor. Yes, Mr. President. I move that council bill 1907 45 be ordered published. It has been moved and seconded. We're going to do you have questions on this one or just a comment again, Councilman CdeBaca? Just a comment for my colleagues. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. President. This this request is asking us to have to approve certain deviations from the city's model service plan, including maximum debt service mills and maximum operation mills authorizing 85 mills for debt. And I am encouraging my peers and people in the audience who will be testifying the next time to dove deeply into what that means. Deviating from the city's standard or model service plan is very problematic because Mills will fundamentally change who can live in those spaces. And so just wanting to give people a heads up on research. My goal here is to make sure that the public is learning how to participate in learning how to do the research. And so this may feel premature for some of the incumbents, but this is my way to inform community as many times as I have the opportunity. So thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman CdeBaca. See no other questions or comments? Madam Secretary, call. See Tobacco. No. Black. Flinn Art. Gilmore High. Herndon High. Hinds. High. Cashman. Kenny Ortega. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Torres. I. Mr. President. Hi. Madam Secretary, please close voting in the results. 12 eyes, one nay. 12 Eyes, one nay. Council Bill 745 has been ordered published. Madam Secretary, if you please, with the next item on our screens and before we go, because I'm going to put an amendment, we'll put this one on the floor, too.

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_08102015_15-0522

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? Yes, Mr. President, I move that council bill 522 be ordered published. 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. Thank you, Mr. President. I move the council bill five two to be held in committee to Monday, August 24th, 2015. That has been moved and seconded now. Time for comments, Councilman Flynn. 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. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilman, new. 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. Thank you, Councilman. New Councilman Ken each. 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. 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. 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. 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. I'm all right. You got the gist. 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. 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? 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? I suspect so is the first reading tonight, isn't it. Yeah. Yes. 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. Does this if it's postponed two weeks, does it give enough time for them to do this before the lease is up? 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. 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. Yeah, a different facility. But it was what they were paying back in 2013. Okay. Thanks very much. You're welcome. Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Councilwoman Ortega. 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. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Espinosa. 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. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. All right, Councilman Flynn, you're up. 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. 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. 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. 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. I understand that. 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. That's a different figure than than I was told. Came from venue. Yes. 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. 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. Right. And they will do that. I mean, they've already exercised that well. 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. And what is the annual rental that the downtown Denver partnership is paying for the rest of the building there? They are paying a dollar a year and they're paying operating expenses. Okay. They're paying a dollar a year? That's correct. All right. Thank you. That's all, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilwoman. 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. Thank you. Councilman Cohen, each Councilwoman Sussman. 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. 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. Flynn. I Gilmore. No Cashman. I. Can eat. Lopez I knew. Ortega Hi. Sussman No black eye. Clark, I. Espinosa, I. Mr. President. I. Madam Secretary, please. First of all, you know the results. Ten Eyes. Two names. 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? Mr. President, I just had a question. 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. 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

On the message and Ordinance, referred on February 9, 2022, Docket #0259, Amending City of Boston Code, Ordinances, Chapter XV, Section X and Establishing the Boston Fair Chance Act, the committee submitted a report recommending the Ordinance ought to pass in a new draft. The report was accepted; the Ordinance was passed in a new draft.

BostonCC_03092022_2022-0259

Dawkins 03550356 will be placed on file. Matters recently heard for possible action. Mr. Clerk, please read Docket 0259. Number 0259 An Ordinance amending City of Boston Code Ordinances Chapter 15, Section ten and establishing the Boston Fair Chance Act. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilor Arroyo, Chair of the Committee on Government Operations Council of Rail. You have the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. Yesterday, March eight, the government operating committee held a hearing on docket number 259, an ordinance amending the City of Boston code ordinances. And Chapter 15, Section ten that establishes the Boston Fair Chance Act. This docket is sponsored by Councilor Me and myself. The ordinance would amend existing language in the Boston City Code establishing a chief affirmative action officer instead of instead creating the Boston Fair Chance Act. The Fair Chance Act would formalize the position of the Chief Diversity Officer who would provide oversight of the city's nondiscrimination, equal opportunity and affirmative action policies. This ordinance would also require regular updates on progress made regarding diverse hiring. Would 1/2 just make sure I'm where I am in promotions and require that the Chief Diversity Officer work with officers to make sure there are fair hiring practices and policies in place for family members of current employees. I want to thank my co-sponsor councilman here for introducing this legislation as well as my council colleagues for joining Council President Ed Flynn, Councilor Rosie Louie and Councilor Erin Murphy, Councilor Kenzie Bok, Councilor Kendra Lara, Councilor Liz Braden and Councilor Brian Root. I also want to thank members of the administration for their attendance and participation, and I finally want to thank the advocates who took the time out of their workdays and showed tremendous courage in their testimony yesterday and sharing their experiences. I'm looking forward to getting to work on the specific language in this ordinance, and as Chair, I recommend that this docket remain in committee so that we can have some working sessions on it. Thank you. Thank you, Counselor Arroyo. The chair recognizes counsel here. Counsel, meet me here. You have the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you to my co-sponsor, Counselor Arroyo, for. For chairing a great hearing. And I just want to take a quick moment to thank all the panelists and members of the public who took a big risk showing up at yesterday's hearing and speaking up about the injustices that they face here every day. We have heard from so many other people who experience the same workplace problems but are too afraid to speak up because they fear retaliation. But let's be clear it should not be a punishable offense for any employee to try to make a workplace better and friendlier to people from all backgrounds. That is, in fact, actually exactly what our ordinance is designed to do. We are incredibly grateful to receive testimony from mary i mary a generally solace severa from the mayor's administration. In addition to our panel of advocates Dennis Boneham, Daryl Higginbottom, Jerome Hagle and Jeff Dr. Jeff Lopes. We've learned a lot about their personal and professional experiences dealing with workplace discrimination, and I look forward to continuing working alongside each of these amazing advocates as we move towards working in our working sessions and eventually towards passing this ordinance. Finally, I'd like to say and to thank Jasmine from Castle Royal's staff for helping us pay all of this hearing and and moving this work forward. I just want to quickly say that, you know, over the last year or so, we have heard from so many people who were afraid to even meet with me in public because they didn't want to talk about this. And so it took a lot of courage for people to step up and share their personal journeys. But I think this is a call to action. It is if we're really serious about really looking at the systemic racism that exists and continues to prevent black and brown people from moving up . We need to make sure that we're leaning into this conversation and ready to roll up our sleeves to do right by so many employees who have been passed up for promotions that they were well qualified for and oftentimes are training their white counterparts to do the work that they should be doing. So I'm hoping that as we continue to move forward with the working sessions, that we come ready to do the work that it's going to take to bring justice to the folks who have been waiting for far too long. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, councilman. Here. Thank. Thank you, counsel. Royal docket 0259 will remain in committee. Mr. Clerk, please read docket 0272 and 0273 together. Docket numbers 0272 message. In order for your approval, in order to reduce the fiscal year 22 appropriation for the reserve for collective bargaining by $2,016,409 to provide funding for various departments for fiscal year 22. Increases contained within the collective bargaining agreements between the City of Boston and senior docket number 0273 Message in orders for a supplemental appropriation

Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing, and grant an Entertainment Permit with conditions on the application of Shamrock Hospitality Group, LLC, dba Muldoon's Saloon, 5646 Paramount Blvd., for Entertainment Without Dancing. (District 8)

LongBeachCC_02192019_18-0820

With that, we do have a couple of hearings. And so, as everyone knows, we're going to be doing the hearings first and then after the hearings will go into the start of the meeting and and go from there. And so with that, let me begin. We have hearing number one, which I will have the clerk read. Hearing item one is a report from financial management. Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record. Conclude the public hearing and grant an entertainment permit with conditions on the application of Muldoon Saloon. 5646 Paramount Bulwer for Entertainment Without Dancing District eight. And it does require an oath. Anyone wishing to testify regarding this item, please stand and raise your right hand. You in each of you do solemnly state that the testimony you may give in the court now and pending before this body shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help you God. Okay. Well, thank you. I'm going to go and introduce our assistant city manager, Tom Modica. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We will have a staff presentation on this given by Emily Armstrong from Business Licensing. Good evening, honorable mayor and members of the city council. Tonight you have before you an application for Entertainment Without Dancing for Shamrock Hospitality Group LLC doing business as Muldoon's Saloon located at 5646 Paramount Boulevard operating as a bar tavern lounge in Council District eight. This application originally came before you on September 18th, 2018. The hearing was continued to allow the business the opportunity to address concerns from the community and the counsel office. The application then came before you on January 22nd, 2019. The hearing was continued for an additional 30 days to research a potential ownership change of the business. The 30 day continuation period has now concluded all of the necessary departments are recommending approval of the entertainment permit, subject to the conditions as contained in the hearing packet. I, as well as the police department, stand ready to answer any questions Council may have, and that concludes staff's report. Thank you. Can we go to public comment first? Can public comment, please, on the hearing in front of us? If you'd like to make a comment. At the time. Seeing no public comment on hearing number one. Let me go to Councilman Braxton. Okay. Well, thank you very much. So council public, when this hearing first took place in September, I had expressed several concerns. At the time. There were numerous cases of unpermitted bands performing and other issues raised by neighbors. I asked my colleagues to continue the hearing for four months to give the owner ship an opportunity to address the issues. I met with one of the owners in Mr. English shortly after September's hearing, and he made assurances that he would work to address many of the concerns that were raised. One of the representations that he made was that he had bought out the other owner of the business, Patrick Coughlin, who who many of the issues were attributed to just prior to January's council meeting when this item was continued to be scheduled to be heard. Mr. ENGLISH And further informed my office that he was actually selling the business and that it was currently in escrow. Councilman Orson Just 1/2. In talking to the city attorney, I know I called public comment and no one came forward, but just to make sure the applicant does not want to say anything, is that correct? Does the applicant want to say anything? I heard that it was approved. Okay. So. Well, nothing. Nothing is approved. I just want to make sure that I call public comment and the applicant is not interested in making any comments. Is that correct, sir? Okay. Hi. And so just prior to the council meeting, I was informed that the the the the current owner was in the process of selling the business and was currently in escrow. I felt was best continue the hearing for an additional 38 days to sort out the information we had just received and hopefully have a chance to meet with the new owner at this point. I do have a few questions on regard to staff in regards to our modules. First of all, two, PD, does the police department have any information as to whether there have been any changes in the ownership of modules on the state's ABC license since last September? Honorable mayor, respective city council members, Commander Rudy Comisar representing the police department. According to my research, per ABC contact today, there is no pending transfer of ownership with the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control at this time. Can. Does the police department have any information as to whether there are any pending applications with ABC to change the ownership of the ABC license? No, not at this time. Okay. So is Mr. Patrick Collins still listed as the managing member of Shamrock Hospitality Group, the owner of Modo Saloon and Art? And are there any pending applications with ABC to change that designation? No. There are no attempts right now to change that. As far as any research that I was able to find in referencing the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control License CORI System as of February 18th, 2019, Mr. Patrick Conlin is listed as one of the owners managing member and there are two additional owners listed on the application with California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. And to your knowledge, has business licensing received any applications or inquest inquiries from a potential new owner about an entertainment permit for modern saloon? No, we have. Not received any communications from any. New owner. And if the business is sold with the new owner, how to apply for a new entertainment permit regardless of the council's actions today. Yes, entertainment permits are not transferable, so any new owner of a business would need to reapply for an entertainment permit. Okay. Thank you. So since the January hearing or item was before us. My office has not heard anything from any new potential owner of Muldoon's. Although Mr. English has indicated to my office that the escrow is supposed to close this week for the sale of the business. I appreciate the work that has been done to address the concerns raised by the community back in December and that he is now in the process of selling the business. However, considering that the entertainment permit is specific to the applicant and the new owner would have to apply for a new entertainment permit based on Mr. English's representations to my office about the status of the sale, and that the new ownership would take ownership as soon as this week requiring a new entertainment permit application, and considering that despite representations otherwise last September, there have been no indications of any official change of the current ownership structure in either the city's or state's records. To address the concerns that have been initially raised, I would have to move to support received the supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing and deny the entertainment permit for Shamrock Hospitality Group doing business as Muldoon Saloon. So moved. There is a motion and a second. Councilmember Austin. Remember your range. I read Austin twice on my list. Did you have any comments? No, but just for clarification, so to get this straight is that this current application is under review and it is a possibility that the owner who originally applied will not be the owner of record. Right. Thank you. Seeing no other members of the council have any other comments. We have a motion and a second. I'm going to go out and close this public hearing and I've the members to please cast your votes on the motion by Council Member Austin. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Let me where. There's been a couple of requests on moving a couple items. So is is there a hearing? There's a hearing. Two and three and. Correct. We withdrew hearing two. Is that correct? I'm quick. Okay. So we're going to move over to item 16 and 17. I think both have folks here, some large groups. So I want to get to those two items. So we're going to do 17 and then 16.

A bill for an ordinance amending section 8-67 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code requiring a provisional breed-restricted license for owners of pit bulls. A bill for an ordinance amending section 8-67 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code requiring a provisional breed-restricted license for owners of pit bulls. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 1-22-20.

DenverCityCouncil_02102020_20-0071

11 eyes comfortable. 1381 has passed. Ah, right. Councilmember Ortega, will you please put Council Bill 71 on the floor? Mr. President, I move that council bill 20 0071 be placed on final consideration. Do you pass? Thank you. It has been moved. Can I get a second? Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. The courtesy public hearing for Council Bill 71 is open. Before we jump into the overview, I will announce again that unfortunately our fire code does not allow anyone to stand in that back row, so you'll need to either find a seat here or right next door. We have this on TV so you can watch and wait for your name to be called if you're here to speak, but you can't stand in that back row. We have to keep that open for people getting in and out of of the room. So thank you very much. Councilmember Herndon, are you going to give us a quick overview? Yes, Mr. President. And we are going to I want to make sure that we get the presentation up so all of those can see. To it. I see it on that screen, but I do not see on big screen. If Stacey could. Come. Thank you for that. Though I am sure most are familiar with what this is. Really? All right. So what I have before us on second reading is a proposal to update our Denver animal ordinance, and that's going to be through creating a proposed breed specific license. So you go to the next slide to own a pit bull. And for the remainder of the night, when I say pit bull, I'm actually referring to one of 3b1 of three breeds, the American Pit Bull Terrier, the American Staffordshire Terror and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. So currently they're not allowed within the city and county of Denver. Should this pass, we will create a breed restricted license for those owners who have those dogs within the city and county of Denver. The license application will require name and address where the dog primary resides to emergency contacts, an accurate description of the animal and annual fee, which Denver animal protection will speak to that in a little bit. Proof that the animal is microchipped, receive current rabies vaccination and must be spayed or neutered. Next slide. Other conditions of ownership. A maximum of two per household must notify Denver animal protection within 8 hours if their dog escapes or does bite. Most notify Denver animal protection within 24 hours of the dog dies. Or if the owner moves. If the dog is on the Denver Animal Protection Registry and there are no violations of Chapter eight for 36 consecutive months, never animal protection may remove the requirement for a breed restricted license, and then the owner would then license their dog under the same requirements as in any other dog that's currently allowed within the city and county of Denver. Next slide cover highlights of the proposed changes. Denver Animal Protection is the only agency that can provide the pit bull breed assessment that's valid in Denver. Denver Animal Protection may hold transport and adopt any pit pit bulls adopted from Denver. Animal protection will receive the Retrievers restricted breed license upon adoption. Also important to note, any Humane Society license and registered by the city may hold transport in adopt any pit bull. One example would be Denver Dumb Friends League. A new owner must obtain the restricted breed license from Denver animal protection after a two year period. And this was a change that we had earlier. Denver Animal Protection will review the current data and report the findings back to City Council and to let us know if there are any recommendations to move forward and what has not been said. I want to make sure this is important to note. If approved tonight, this will take effect in 90 days after passage. There needs to be a runway period where Denver animal protection can do a messaging campaign as they get ready for these animals to come forward. So should this pass, it does not take effect for 90 days. I believe there's one more slide. The current law, the three breeds, are currently not allowed. What happens if an owner doesn't apply for a breed restricted license? Denver Animal Protection is going to speak to that later during a question and answer period, but they will be subject to administrative and or criminal penalties. What happens should these animals bite? We currently have a potentially dangerous dog ordinance that's been on the books for the past two years and they will go underneath that potential ordinance. And if there was a violation during the 36 month period, restricted license period, depending on what happens, Denver Animal protection can make a recommendation to either take the dog off or let it move forward, depending on what the violation is. Thank you, Mr. President. That concludes the staff report. All right. Thank you, Councilmember. We have quite a few people signed up to speak this evening and we have a one hour courtesy public hearing. So I am going to ask a couple of things so that we can get to as many people as possible tonight. First of all, again, I'm sorry if you didn't hear when I first announced, but we can't have anybody standing in the back because we have to have fire, ingress and egress. So you either have to grab a seat or there is an overflow or this is being televised next door that you can watch and wait for your name to be called. I'm going to call five people up at a time. We have we're going to keep this first bench right here clear for have one speaker. And if the other four can kind of squeeze together on that bench, I'm going to call you up then so that the shuffling of getting out of the seats that you're packed in, we can get everybody kind of lined up in time to get it. And I ask that when I call your name, step right up to the microphone. We're going to start your time right away. The other thing that I'll ask is if we get near the end of that hour and somebody has already said all of the things that you wanted to say, you can say, I second this thing and I second that thing. You don't have to give us the whole thing to make sure that we have room for the next person if they have something new to say. So thank you very much for anything that we can do to make sure that we get to as many people as possible. So the first five people, if you could come up, Michelle Larson, you'll be at the microphone. Connor Stephenson, Paul Verandahs, Marta Garbo Ski and Reginald Norman. If you could grab a seat in that front bench and Michelle, you are up. Michele Larson is intending to be someone. Who will speak. In. Response to questions from the council. And I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. Great. You are. Michele Larson, are you not? Okay. She's on her way. She's representing the Colorado Veterinary Medical Association. Okay. So thank you very much. We could put her in a different pile. That would be great. Okay. Thank you. Connor Stephenson. Okay. Thank you, council members. I am a constituent from District seven. I live at 793 South Downing Street and I recently moved from District one. I believe that this bill is the best compromise for improving Denver's public safety and replacing a policy that has euthanized thousands of great dogs since its inception. Breed specific legislation is an issue of large national interest and not confined to our community. As such, there's a great deal of information and research surrounding breed bans. While Denver is the city that I am concerned with. I want to use my time tonight to read a few conclusions from reputable national organizations and scientific studies that have examined the issue. I also want to and if I have time with a brief anecdote about a pit bull that made a big impact on my life. So an article published by the American Veterinary Medical Association's Task Force on Canine Aggression states that, quote, Singling out one or two breeds for control can result in a false sense of accomplishment. Doing so ignores the true scope of the problem and will not result in a responsible approach to protecting a community citizens. Likewise, an article published by the Animal Law Coalition states that, quote. The CDC has since. Concluded that their single vector epidemiological approach did not identify specific breeds that are most likely to bite or kill, and thus it is not appropriate for policymaking decisions related related to the topic. Finally, the National Canine Research Council states no national no major national organization endorses BSL, including the American Veterinary Medical Association, the Centers for Disease Control , the Humane Society of the United States, the National Animal Control Organ Association. The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Best Friends Animal Society. I find the consistency of their agreement. To be a very compelling. Finally, I would like to end by talking about my beloved key to bear, an unlicensed pit bull that I lived with when I first moved to Denver. In that house, I experienced a very emotionally challenging domestic situation, but without fail. When I was at my lowest points, Quita would be right by my side, pushing her snout into my face in an attempt to deflect some of my pain. Me, Quita and her owners would often spend evenings in the living room dancing to Lou Reed's vicious, lambasting her public reputation and celebrating her. Enthusiasm and boundless love. Despite the ups and downs in that house. Those nights were among the happiest. I've had in Denver. I would love other Denver ites and their pets to be able to safely experience that same sort of love and connection. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Paul Prentice. And if we could. Sorry, I'm going to make another request. If we can keep the applause and the cheering, make it a safe place for people on both sides to present. And also it helps us speed and stay on time. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Paul Francis. I live in Lowry and District. Five and I'm the parent of a two year old and five year old. Thank you for hearing me tonight. I am open to a collaborative approach to reintroducing legislation of pitbulls in Denver. However, I am against this bill and we ask you to. Vote no for three main reasons. First, public safety. Second, lack of data. Third, the impact on marginalized Denver rights. The number one. Problem with this bill is its failure to address pitbulls and public safety in a nurturing environment. Pit bull behavior may. Be no different than any other dog. However, many pit bulls do get cared. For differently, which is why reports show that they are involved. In a higher level of violent attacks. Reintroducing pit bulls in Denver should address both. Nature and nurture. Unfortunately, this current bill would provide all Denver rights the privilege of. Owning a pit bull without any consideration as to their ability to do so responsibly. Can we do better? Absolutely. For example, we don't provide driver's licenses. To all people who want them, but. Rather a minimum. Level of. Competency. Needs to be first proven. The privilege of owning a pit bull should be granted only to those people who we think will be responsible owners. The second problem that I have with this bill is lack of data. This bill does not have any data accompanying it for the public to review. This leaves me with more questions and answers. Questions like What are the current and projected levels of dog bites? One disturbing data point is the estimated 20% compliance rate on existing pet registration laws. Don't you think the fact that 80% of pet owners are not following current laws indicates that our priority should be to drive compliance to existing laws before we extend additional privileges? Finally, the third problem that I have with this bill is its impact on marginalized citizens. I was surprised to hear that a lot of pit bull complaints in Denver have been coming from some of our poorest citizens. It made me pause to think, Why are they having so much trouble with dogs? What is going on in these communities to cause this? And most importantly, what impact is this bill going to have on these citizens of ours? I don't have the answers to these questions, but I'm very concerned that no one else here tonight does either. When we are crafting a law that disproportionately impacts the marginalized group of people, we should be going into these neighborhoods and having these conversations, especially when it's a matter of public safety. Without easy answers, I don't believe we have enough information on this topic to move forward. In closing, the issue of reintroducing pit bulls in Denver is a complex, multi-dimensional, high stakes issue. This bill oversimplifies the process of this reintroduction without addressing public safety. Outcomes data to support or engagement with the most marginalized group of Denver writes on a matter of life and death. There is nothing urgent about. This topic that requires it to pass tonight. I ask you to vote no on this bill tonight and put a plan together that truly hears the voice of the people to come up with a good compromise. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Martin Garbus key. Hi. All right. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to discuss this bill. My name is Martin and live in District four. I'm very glad that he brought up some of these points because I want to talk about them as well. I'm actually going to change my speech a little bit because I want to talk about his stuff first. Implementing this amendment will actually give us the data that we need for all of his concerns. We are looking to find out if pit bulls are actually dangerous animals. Obviously, I don't think so. But this will give us the data that we need, the data that we have all across the United States right now. Doesn't have good information on this. This. Denver will be one of the first cities that will actually track and know exactly what is causing dog bites, what's causing violent attacks with animals. Okay. Now back to the other stuff. One of the things that we do have statistics from is dog bites or eggs or Wikipedia. People are always citing the statistics and if you actually delve into the information behind them, there isn't enough factual data from them. They're not peer reviewed sites. They're just written by regular people with news articles as their basis. We don't know if these dogs that are attacking people are pit bulls or they're a breed that looks like pit bulls or are mixed. Again. Denver will give us the opportunity to learn about these things and make sure that if a pitbulls in an attack is actually a pit bull. Um. The other thing I want to bring up is. The leash laws that a lot of people brought up concerns with at the last hearing as a pit bull owner back in 2003. My biggest fear was another dog running up to my pit bull. My dog was always on a leash, but if a dog ran up to my dog, I would be the one at fault because I owned a pit bull. Granted, I didn't know pit bulls were illegal in Denver at the time and we moved out two years later. But my biggest concern with any dog is that it's off the leash and it's going to run up and it's going to attack or start a fight with my dog. I know that you guys are concerned with pit bulls being off the leash. As an owner, I think more pit bull owners are worried that other dogs are going to be running up to their dog off leash and causing a bite. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Reginald Norman. And then I'll ask if you've already spoke. If we can clear that seat for the next five, I'm going to call up Laurie Brown, Larry Murray, Dr. April Steele and Caryn Norman, if you can make your reps bench, go ahead. Good evening, members of council. My name is Reginald Norman and I reside in the Montebello neighborhood of Denver. My wife and I walk a seven mile circuit around Montebello in the morning for exercise. Over a ten year period. We were attacked three times by stray dogs, and two of those attacks were by two dogs. Two dogs. So I carry a three foot section of shovel handle to protect myself. I don't have a strategy to deal with pit bulls, and I don't have a strategy to certainly deal with two pit bulls at one time. This concerns me. Stray dogs are out in these communities, especially my community, and getting attacked is an eye opening experience. I guess I'll have to develop a strategy to deal with pit bulls if this bill passes. So I echo the sentiments of Paul Farinas. This doesn't have to pass tonight. There are studies out there that may be anecdotal, but they do point that pit bulls are disproportionately responsible for attacks on individuals deaths as well as serious and which serious techs. So please do not visit this plague upon the citizens of Denver. Please allow us to have some sanctity in our communities without having the need to fear for our. Lives by being attacked by. Pit bulls. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next up, Laurie Brown. Good evening. My name is Laurie Brown and I live in Denver, District seven in the Baker neighborhood. I'm a homeowner of a master's degree in vertebrate paleontology, and I'm a former pit bull owner. Here to voice my support for the ordinance. Adopted my lab, Sharpay, mixed puppy Milo when she was three months old and immediately started her in obedience classes and structured socialization. Of other dogs. I purchased pet. Health insurance and I brought her on all my outdoor adventures when she was two. A friend mentioned to me in passing that Miller was a pit bull, and after I took an objective look at her, I realized he was right. The inability. Of most people to positively identify a dog's. Breed. Is well documented and has been shown to falsely inflate statistics of pit bull bites. With regard to Milla, though, it wasn't something I at first gave much thought because just as I don't judge people on their skin color and outward appearance, I don't judge dogs on the reader outward appearance either. Like people, each dog is an individual and should not be stereotyped based on their appearance, but on their individual personality and demeanor. I quickly learned there are many who don't agree with me, so I arranged my life in such a way as to keep me safe, which meant a long commute to Denver for work. Unfortunately for Denver, that meant its businesses and economy were unable to benefit from my contribution to the thriving and lucrative pet care industry. Mill was my best friend, a companion for many years after my father passed away, she not only provided emotional support, but also made sure I got outside every day. As Coloradans, we know the significant benefits of the outdoors for both physical and emotional health. Dogs have in fact been proven to reduce both high blood pressure and obesity. Neal was, however, a terrible guard. Dog and once even welcomed an intruder into my backyard, giving him kisses and happy tail wags as he stole my lawnmower mill ultimately succumbed. To a rare autoimmune. Neuromuscular disease. And my heart has never been the same since before rescuing first a pit bull and. Then a German shepherd. I never thought much about Breed. Except for the fact that I was attacked by a. Cocker spaniel. As a child. Both of my dogs have been drowned in love, had rigorous obedience training, were socialized in Spain as puppies, and have never been exposed to any negativity. I fully attribute their. Sweet and loving personalities to. These non breed related factors which have been proven key to a dog's behavior and temperament. The American Veterinary Medical Association's Task Force on Canine Aggression and Human Canine Interaction has determined that a dog's tendency to bite depends on heredity, early experience, later socialization and training, medical and behavioral health and victim behavior. Time and again, peer reviewed scientific studies have proven that BSL is ineffective and has no scientific basis. They've also proven no differences in temperament between, quote, dangerous band breeds and golden retrievers. And I have a list of peer reviewed articles and in case anyone is interested in therefore I believe the new ordinance is a safe, science based , cost effective compromise. And as a Denver resident, I would love the opportunity to rescue another pit bull. So together we can be an example to the community. With responsible dog ownership and the elimination of breed discrimination, pit bulls can thrive in our community as members of our families, just as they do in the rest of the state . Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Larry Murray. Good evening, council members. This is sort of an emotional plea. And thank you for the opportunity. Let the people decide. Let the people decide. There are three dogs breeds I would like to highlight to our childhood friends I grew up with. You may know them. Rin Tin Tin. U.S. Cavalry mascot. German Shepherd. Lassie. Collie story about a farm dog. And a farm boy and his dog howler. Colorado Avalanche mascot. Saint Bernard. My point is, people don't seem to fall in the above category for Hollywood and the Pepsi Pepsi Center. What many in the community desire is a sense of security. This may seem senseless to some council members, but the ban on pit bulls provides that sense to many residents in the Denver since 1989. Are the reasons for providing rather a councilman. Hurt invalid enough to make the sense that sense of security. A way to take it away. To take that sense away. I simply say give the people of Denver a direct. Voice in the decision to change the status quo. With this issue, no amount of statistics. Will lie the fears of the citizenry. Citizenry. But I speak for myself here. I will abide by the will of. The people on this. Not just the council. The people. Let them decide. Thank you. Could you. Could you state your name for the record? Oh, I'm sorry. Lansbury, Montebello resident. Thank you very much. Dr. April Steele. Good evening, Mr. President and council members. I am Dr. April SEAL. I am a veterinarian and I am the CEO of the Dumb French League located in Councilman Cashman's district. The Dump Brands League is the largest animal welfare organization in Denver. We receive over 20,000 animals annually, and it is an. Unusual day that. We don't receive at least one pit bull. Councilman Herndon's proposal is a reasonable approach to an emotional debate, and the dump frenzy encourages you to support this policy because it's not only humane, but we believe it creates a safer community for our citizens. The prohibition on pit bull ownership in Denver was implemented with the goal of keeping people safe from dangerous dogs. For many reasons, we believe that implementing a managed path to ownership of pit bulls will actually create a safer community. We know pit bulls are already living in Denver. However, pit bull owners in Denver report they are not seeking out vital behavioral or veterinary services because they are fearful of having their pet confiscated. Looking specifically at behavior, we know that if any dog begins to show fear or aggression. There are behavior modification tools that are often successful in resolving that behavior, particularly if implemented early. The period of time that dogs are in socialization ends around 14 weeks of age. Any policy that diminishes the opportunity for these dogs to learn that people, cats, other dogs are normal parts of their world will lead to an adult dog with greater behavioral challenges. That certainly isn't what we want for any dogs in our community. However, that is often the unintended result of bans on pit bull ownership at the dump frenzy. We take the safety of our community very seriously. We have a team of eight full time behavior specialists, and they ensure that any dog that shows signs of aggression or fear is evaluated, has appropriate behavior modification and is placed up for adoption only if they don't pose a known risk to the safety of our community. We have many social and well-behaved pit bulls that fall into this category at our shelter on any given day. We also have many patrons looking for a family dog who would gladly give one of these well-behaved pit bulls a good home. But they live in Denver. They can adopt the not adopt this family pet and thus these dog stay kennel in our shelter much longer than other breeds. Our animal welfare community is ready to come together to offer resources for spaying and neutering these dogs, as well as to provide behavior support. We believe that our communities must be as safe as possible, and we believe that most pit bulls make wonderful pets. This change allows a legal path for pit bulls that are great dogs to be adopted into families who are committed to the breed, which is much safer than what can happen when people must find other sources to obtain these dogs. Sources that rarely have behavior professionals on staff. Sources that do not spay and neuter, and sources that aren't compelled to follow city ordinances. Thank you. Thank you. Next at the microphone is Karen Norman. And if shira harold, pam joyner, scott ross and tom moore jr can come to the front bench, please go ahead. Good evening, everyone. And city council members. My name is. Karen Norman and I live in Denver. I have been power walking for five days per week, year round for over 30 years in Montebello. I represent the people who walk outside for whatever reason and the children who walk to school or play outside. I am adamantly against Councilman Chris Herndon's new pit bull law for Denver. The veterinarian behaviorist from universities and pit bull advocates confidently tell us that pit bulls are no more dangerous than any other dogs. They inform us they have. Scientific data to back them up. I have read. Numerous articles, viewed many horrific graphic videos and. Seen TV stories. News TV stories from across the country about pit bulls who have viciously attacked and severely disfigured or killed children and adults. Pit bulls will even attack their loving owners. There is scientific evidence to back me up, but I really don't have time to get into that. Pit bulls with their microchips will be roaming Denver free to bite and attack adults and children. When I am walking outside, I carry a metal stick and spray for dogs to defend myself. I have used them on several occasions. I have been aggressively ground at, barked at and charged my dogs who are not on. A leash. Being walked by their owners. My husband, Reginald and I were attacked on three separate occasions by two dogs. We had to defend ourselves with sticks and dogs spray. I know these tools will not defend me if I am attacked by one. Or two pit bulls. I am extremely concerned for my safety and the safety of everyone who walks outside. If Councilman Herndon's new bill is passed. City Council members. I am sincerely asking you to please protect our public health and our public safety. And don't pass this new bill. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Sheera Herold. Thank you, city council. My name is Shira Harold. I reside at 6897 Newcomb Street in Arvada. Last year I lived in District ten. I am co-leader. And co-founder of the Community Grassroots group Replace Denver BSL. My co-leads, Quinn Piggott. From District six. And Mara de. Penna from. District eight. Are also present along with. Many of our community supporters. I am not an expert. However, I am an analyst and I know how to distill facts and expert advice, especially in such an emotionally charged issue. And the facts. And the experts tell us that this proposed. Ordinance will make Denver safer. Our breed. Specific. Legislation has not worked. It is seen as a preventative measure. Yet Denver still sees a. Large population of barely under the radar pitbulls and bites by pit bulls. Worse, the pit bulls currently in Denver are. In inherently more. Dangerous situations. Kept under wraps. They can't receive. Proper veterinary care, socialization or training, and owners are hesitant about seeking. Their own medical care. In the event of a bite. More damningly, we see level five ice, the most severe bites by a variety of other breeds of dog, such as Labradors, Australian shepherds and boxers. This is not. To condemn any breed, but to highlight that BSL has not removed the potential. For severe bites. Nor, according to the most recent study by Denver University, even reduced the potential for severe bites. So why will this ordinance. Improve public safety? First, the new ordinance. Will drastically increase licensing rates, at least by pit bull owners. Current owners of pit bulls hiding out. In Denver will leap at the opportunity to. Legally own their dog. This ordinance. Will bring owners out into the open where. They can take more responsible. Care of their dogs. And Denver animal protection can better track responsible ownership. Second, for those who are concerned that license rates under the new ordinance will be similarly low compared to. Current licensing. Rates, we must bear in mind that this licensing program will be monitored. And delivered. In a markedly different way than DE Peers standard approach. It will be much more hands on with a strong focus. On enforcement and high penalties for unlicensed animals. Which will lead to much higher licensing rates. This ordinance is a brilliant compromise. Replace Denver BSL initially plan to. Push for a full repeal on a ballot vote. Which we had and have the community's support for. Instead, we first chose this slower, circumspect route. It will allow Denver. Animal protection to. Better track data from this ordinance and provide city council with. Recommendations down the line that are based on fact and experience. Rather than fear, myth and emotion. It's high time that. Denver update this outdated law. We deserve a more progressive and above all, safer city. That's what this ordinance promises. And that's what your yes vote can deliver us tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Pam Jenner. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Pam Joyner. I live at one, two, two, one, one East 52nd place in Montevallo. Tonight I stand here as a co-chair of my brother, 2020. I also coordinate and run a program called Mom. Bella walks in, walk in our community, getting our seniors out in our communities, get in our children out in our community for life stake in health reasons. We are faced with a number of animal threats in our community. And it's not just, you know, dogs running wild. It is specifically pit bulls. Pit bulls attack fences and they they jump on top of the sheds and stuff and they're really, really threatening. We have owners who walk through the community with their puppy pit bulls, not on leashes, and they just laugh at these dogs as they frighten children. Children are running around their parents screaming and grabbing and trying to climb up in particular communities. Pit bulls are trained to be vicious. They are fed hamburger meat with gunpowder in them. They are chained up. They are not treated with love. And they are not fed properly. And that's why they are so vicious in particular communities. I am here to say, please do not lift this ban on pit bulls. There are hundreds of pit bulls in my community that are not registered and I don't believe people are going to come out and register their pit bulls because you lift the ban. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Scott Ross. Good evening, City Council. My name is Scott Ross. I'm a District nine resident at 13, 16, 29th Street. I'm the owner of Chiller Dog Training. I'm a certified trainer through the Certification Council of Professional Dog Trainers. I spoke at the previous hearing and I'm here again because of the proposed breed specific legislation. Update is an important step forward for Denver as we are making our city and county a more inclusive and enjoyable place to live. Now, one of the primary pillars of my training and dog behavior modification business is working dogs through serious aggression issues. At this point, I've spent hundreds of boots on the ground hours solving aggression cases using incredible, dramatic and life changing results. You can even go check my Google reviews if you don't believe me. I'm not saying this to boast or I'm simply doing my best to convey that I first rate applied knowledge of the causes and remedies for aggressive behavior. And as a Denver citizen whose personal safety depends on this far more than most. I fully support the proposed updates to breed specific legislation, and here's why. My profession grants me access to an advantage viewpoint on this matter, as I have the pleasure of working with many dogs and owners from every one of Denver's represented districts. Through my work, I've gathered robust sample of breeds and behavior issues throughout the country. What I have not found is that any of the pit bull breeds are characterized by some sort of general hostility. In fact, the vast majority are extroverted and sociable. I pity cases tend to be focused on teaching owners how to train a sturdy, enthusiastic and sometimes more assertive dog. I don't find these cases are disproportionately focused on human or dog aggression. In fact, cases involving aggressive tendencies are rare compared to many other breeds, some bigger and stronger that aren't affected by the law. Next. Focusing on breed instead of behavior misdirects our resources, which we've talked about, including our attention that otherwise could be identifying and dealing with dogs that are potentially hostile and dangerous. I think that kind of addresses what we've been hearing from the folks here is that there are some dogs that are problematic in particular areas, and by implementing this law, we may be able to specifically address those specific dogs that need to be addressed. As owners and pet parents. We should be looking out. We should be on the lookout for progressive behaviors and recognize more management and training are needed. Progression is often more subtle than growling and snarling and can manifest as hard stares and prolonged sidelong glances, curled lips raised hackles and so on. Also, dogs of any breed can also escalate to aggression quickly if other dogs, especially less familiar ones, treat them unfairly, although maybe not aggressively. And they can escalate over food and toys when they're present. A trainer specializing in aggression and behavior modification can often make a major difference. As a member of the public, we'd be wise to avoid eye contact, close range situations with unruly or intense looking dogs, regardless of breed. If you're in that situation, I'd suggest doing what you're already doing. Prepare yourself to walk through a neighborhood that is more challenging. If that's the type of thing that's going on there, I don't think a restriction really adds any additional safety. I'm sorry, but your time is up. Okay. Thank you very much. Next up at the microphone is tom moore jr. And if lindsey graham, joni caldwell, caroline smith and vernon york could make your way up to that front bench. Go ahead. Hi. My name is Tom Moe Junior. I was assistant city attorney in the prosecution and code enforcement section from 1982 to 1993. Good to see a familiar face. And so I was one of the primary writers of the pit bull ordinance in the eighties. I know a lot of nice things, but there are a lot of bad things in Denver. Pit bull attacks and puppy mills. There were not just two pit bull attacks. There were 20 in a five year period. Maybe you're familiar with two of them, the Salazar case, just the dog pit bull involved in that case killed a three year old boy in his own home because he got too close to a dog dish. And then the Reverend Billingsley case, an older gentleman walking down an alley, had to deal with a pit bull that chewed through a fence, attacked him. The attack lasted several minutes. A neighbor came out, beat him with a two by four. It did nothing. So the neighbor had to come out to and use a gun to stop the dog from Billingsley. Besides suffering for a good ten or 15 minutes, had 70 dog bites and a hundred stitches, and both his legs were broken by the pit bull. This AVMA review of controlled studies conclusion is not supported by the facts cited or footnotes listed in its own report. Thus, the first of all, the basis for the law change is unfounded. And just to be specific, the relevant study cited its own report document. The pit bulls are disproportionately dangerous compared to other dogs and even point to the Denver Pit Bull Ordinance as being successful. As an example, it cites a long list of hospital studies, severe, severe attack studies and fatalities all over the world. And eight of the nine that deal with severity list pit bulls. Every appeal of the Denver's pit bull ordinance has been overturned by Denver and Colorado courts. Courts have ruled that pit bulls are different than other breeds. It's law, athletic ability, way of biting, destructiveness, fighting ability, killing instinct, frenzy game this difficulty in managing strength, pain, tolerance , unpredictability. This combination of characteristics only exists in pit bulls. Therefore, elimination of requirements for adult ownership, liability insurance, spare neuter requirements, secure enclosure requirements, signage and all the things that this bill you talk dealing with tonight eliminate only increased public safety concern for people in Denver and their pets, as well as pit bulls. And I wish I could say more. I'm sorry, but your time is up. Bill, thank you very much. Next up is Lindsey Graham. Not for the people. Thank you. Thank you. Hi there. My name is Lindsey Graham and I live in District nine. I've grown up with people as I know them my whole life, and I know them to be a docile, loving and protective breed. On a Tom's point of their strength and their frenzy. These dogs don't want to fight. There have been people in the past, especially public figures, that have trained these dogs to fight because they are strong. But that is not what these dogs do. It's not what they want to do. They want to love. They want to be a family member. They want to sleep on the couch with you. And that's, you know, the people that I know. So I am a volunteer for two blonds, all breed rescue. My primary job within the rescue is to assess incoming dogs to our boarding facility. I tests things such as human interaction, dog interactions, and just like overall demeanor. I have worked with hundreds of dogs and I do not see any difference in pit bulls and other grades, other breeds regarding personality or aggression. The severely dated in the city, the severely dated ban in a city that we pride as progressive needs to go in the rescue world. You know, I work with all of these pit bull breeds. But today I want to talk about one in particular. This year, the rescue saved this dog, Barney, from a horrific fate that she would have had added to at a Texas kill shelter. Barney is about three years old and has been over bread her whole life. She has signs of carrying multiple litters, signs of being abused and obviously been thrown away when she no longer served a purpose. Barney came to Colorado for a chance, but space fully on her looks were able to place her in Denver. This has nothing to do with how common sweet her temperament is, how neutral she is around other dogs, how much she wants to sit in your lap and be loved all day. It has nothing to do with how much she deserves a home. It is just based fully on her breed. This ban isn't about a dog's temperament. The ban, or in fact, it has never tested a dog's temperament is never tested within the ban. Judging a book by its cover is not keeping the city safe. It's just causing people to hide and fear the fate of their family pet. So please vote yes in this ordinance and let's create a safe environment. Will pitbulls can come out of hiding and be licensed and socialize and receive adequate health care? Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Joni Caldwell. Good evening. Thank you for having me. I totally agree with Paul Maness as well as Tom Moore. I believe, if our community had more information concerning this. Detrimental. A position that is is placing on our commit on our community. Perhaps we might have a better background of knowledge that we could draw from that would allow us to make the decisions or sound decisions that perhaps other people are looking for. Unfortunately. We are not. There was a reason for this ordinance. And since there was a reason for the ordinates. Putting on other provisions that you list here. That will be employed to determine whether or not the new process works. Didn't we ever think about this process before? What happened? Is it not enough mayhem there have been placed on our citizens without adding more? Have we not learned enough from the past? That we must be destined. To repeat it. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Caroline Smith. Hi. My name is Carolyn Smith. I'm ten years old and I live in Denver, District eight. I am speaking in support of Councilman Herndon's bill to allow pit bulls back in Denver. My mom and I volunteer with Hobo Boxer Rescue. Some of the dogs with Hobo are boxer pit bull mixes. They can't go to foster homes in Denver and they end up living in the shelter for way too long. They're alone in a kennel and scared. I walk these dogs with my mom and all they want is love and snuggles. They're so affectionate and gentle with me. It breaks my heart knowing that they don't have the loving home that they deserve. When the walks are done. They are so sad and scared to be put back in their kennel and some of the dogs cling to me. We adopted our dog Canelo three years ago. He's my best friend. He's a boxer, bulldog, pit mix. And he came to live with us. And three old pugs. My mom taught me how to be even more gentle and calm, not because of his breed, but just because he is a bigger dog. It's important to teach kids how to act around bigger dogs. I've always felt so safe and loved around Canelo. Our our pug in heaven named Maynor was 15 when Canelo joined the family. He was paralyzed but still happy and Canelo was so gentle with him. Sometimes man would get stuck on laying on his side and Canelo would put his big ole head under Maynard and turn him back on to his tummy. They were so sweet together. The ban in Denver doesn't make heads safer. It just teaches kids misinformation and makes kids only think one type of dog could bite and doesn't help them learn how to be safe around all breeds of dog. If you care not just about dogs but about kids like me, please consider getting rid of the blan ban. Please give these dogs a chance to prove how sweet they really are. Thank you so much for letting me have this opportunity to speak. Thank you. Thanks to. Next up, Vernon York and Stephanie Klatt, Sharon Farghalli and Nikki Gwinn and Richard Poole could work their way up to the front bench. Go ahead, Councilman. My name is Vernon York. I'm a resident about below. And the reason why I'm going I would like this being not to be passed is because a pit bull bit my daughter. A pit bull came at me when I was trying to check my mailbox. So I stand with the Normans and I votes to not pass this ordinance. Thank you. Next up, Stephanie Klatt. Thank you for allowing me time to speak today. I'm Stephanie Klatt. I am a resident of Frederick, Colorado. I was born in Denver in 1979 and have lived in or around Denver for the past 40 years. I do not currently live in Denver due to the fact mostly that I am a mom to four pit bull type dogs that have all come to me through rescue. I am a vice president of my fairy dogma, the rescue, which is a foster based all breed rescue that operates throughout Denver and the metro area. My fairy dog, when the rescue adopts out approximately 50 to 75 dogs to Denver families every year. What we have found is that Denver residents want the ability to adopt the type of dog they desire, which most definitely includes dogs that are considered pit bull type dogs. Even though we clearly state on our website that we will not adopt out our pit bull type dogs to areas with breed specific legislation, we consistently receive at least one, if not more, applications to adopt one of our pit bull type dogs from Denver residents. When we notify them that they are unable to adopt this dog because of BSL, we find out that they are often people who have moved to Denver within the last ten years and either do not realize there is a breed ban or most often they are shocked to find out that Denver still has a breed ban. Denver has grown into a modern, progressive city, and to continue to have such archaic legislation in place in a city like Denver does not align with the open mindedness of its residents. Denver residents want these dogs because they are loving and loyal companions with playful and silly personalities. Since I began working in Rescue, I have personally fostered over 30 pit bull type dogs and have been successful in finding them loving homes in Arvada, Centennial, Inglewood, Littleton and other cities that surround Denver. Denver residents want the ability to choose their canine companion in the same way that residents of other Colorado cities are able to. Over the past 30 years, the stigma and false narrative about these dogs has been exposed in other cities, some here in Colorado. These dogs are therapy dogs. Canine police. Dogs, and most often couch potatoes that are absolutely loved by their families. We know the breed man has deterred many people from moving, visiting or working in Denver because they love their dogs. I would urge the council to allow its residents the same opportunity as residents of Westminster, Lakewood and now Castlerock and other Colorado cities, and give them the opportunity to provide loving, responsible homes for the dogs that are just like any other dog. And I feel like if you want an example of there are thousands of pit bulls living in Colorado, in cities that neighbor Denver. And if you want to see what happens, but nothing. They live happy, lives with their families. They're not attacking people. They're not hurting people. Dog bites do happen, but it happens with any breed. And there are lots of pit bulls around the city that don't do anything wrong. So thank you. Thank you. Next up, Sharon Fire Gala. Hello and thank you for having me. My name is Sharon Farr Gala. I live in the city and county of Denver in the Green Valley Ranch area. On a daily basis, I see stray dogs, stray cats. I see people running, looking for their dogs and cats. Just because you have a pit bull doesn't necessarily mean that you he won't get away from you. Some people say in other states and other cities that they have pit bulls and there's no problems. A lot of those places don't have the backyards like we have. They had their more built up apartment buildings where these animals can't get out of the house and run astray. But I live in a residential area and I go on the Facebook page for my area and they've always got dogs out there, not necessarily pit bulls. But the rule was made for a reason. I wanted to say also that children and seniors, which I'm a senior myself, when I see a dog, it bothers me. It brings up an anxiety in me. I should not have to go through that because somebody wants to have a loving animal to pet. There are foster children that need somebody to love them. Did you give yourself a challenge to get one of these foster kids to show some love, too? Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Nicky Quinn. Hello. My name is Nikki Gwynn. I was born in Denver in District one. I'm the director and founder of my three dog Mother Rescue. We adopt out up to 175 dogs per year. At least half of our dogs are placed in the city of Denver. As you know, the ban has. Been, in fact, in. Effect for 30 years. In my opinion, it is archaic and it doesn't. Coincide. With the changing and progressive nature that is presently happening in Denver. If revisions were made. To the current law. We would be able to place pit bull type dogs in loving, stable Denver homes. And this would not only help the dogs, but the humans that adopt them as well. Not to mention, by replacing the ban, this would allow the local animal shelters to place their pit bull type dogs rather than having to transfer them to another city shelter or to euthanize them. Our city is chock full of animal loving citizens that also want to be law abiding. A repeal would allow them to make a difference in the lives of this great breed. Thank you so much for your consideration today and for giving. Us all the opportunity to talk. I would also like to second what Shira said, what Stephanie Klatt said, and also my new. Personal hero, Carol, I. Thank you. Next up is at the microphone is Richard Poole and have Megan Shane Lee, Jessie Pierce, David Smith and chairman CQ could come up to this front bench. Thank you very much for this opportunity. I am a resident of my village. I have lived there for 49 years and this current controversy reminds me of a history professor I had on 55 years ago. And in his class he. Said something that I've seen throughout my life. The one thing that history teaches us is how easily people forget this law. This ordinance was enacted because of vicious attacks that have been stated earlier in this hearing in 1988. Prior to that enacted in 1989. And now we're coming back trying to. You know, to extinguish this ban, which was put in place. For a very positive reason to keep pit bulls from killing people. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Megan Shane, Lee Shanley. Hello. Thank you all for having us here tonight. My name is Megan Shanley. I live on 195 South Pennsylvania in District six. I believe the pit bull licensing is a safe, effective compromise. To repeal the ban. I've grown up. With pit bulls my entire. Life in Illinois. When I moved to Denver, I was devastated to find out I could not. Bring along my beloved dog. There's no scientific basis for breed specific legislation, and I believe that pit bulls should be allowed in our community. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Jesse Paris. Jesse Paris represented for Denver Homicide, Loud Black Star, a. Movement for Self-defense, Positive Action Come in for social change. As well as the Unity Party of Denver, Colorado. And Mile High News. And I'll be running to be your next mayor in 2023. I am against this ordinance, which we seem to care more about animals than human beings. We have a ban currently right now on human beings to reside in the park. These U.S. parks that you say that you're scared and afraid to walk in because of pit bull attacks. In my personal experience, pit bulls have not been less any more dangerous than any other dog. I've personally haven't owned a pit bull, but I've known people that have owned pit bulls. And as on the owners, I've known bad owners and I'm no good owners. The good owners, I've never had an issue with their dogs. The bad owners. Yes, I've had issues with their dogs, but I've never been personally attacked. But I've seen them attack people. I've seen people with, as previously stated, laugh about it. So, yes, all this is true. These dogs get a bad rap. Kind of like my people, black people. We get a bad rap and one one bad apple spoils the whole bunch. The pit bulls in general are not bad dogs. I would like to know the data on how many pit bull attacks compare to other dog breed attacks such as German shepherds, rock whalers and Dobermans, other so-called violent and vicious dogs. I would like to know what the data is on that, so please vote no on this. This is going to affect black and brown communities in a exponential way. And it seems to me that you care more about dogs than you do people with your urban camping ban. Thank you. Next up, David Smith. Evening. My name is David Smith. I live in Denver, Colorado at City Park. 80205 Denver should update the law and make the thoughtful changes proposed tonight. The current ban is financially irresponsible. Hurts Denver's reputation as a humane community. Does nothing to ensure the public safety and marginalizes underserved communities. Someone already mentioned the Denver University study and they talked about that. It found that there was no change in safety in Denver, and that's true. But in addition to that, it identified that Denver spent at least eight $5.8 million enforcing this legislation. And additionally, there was an economic impact estimated that by itself resulted in approximately $107 million in lost direct and indirect economic activity related to pet care revenue. The current ban also makes us a bad neighbor because what we do is we put more work on to neighboring rescues and shelters and other communities to support animals that we transfer. That is cost our neighbors more than $1,000,000. It's not very nice of us. And those billions in tax revenues and the other costs that we identified from due could be spent building our capacity to support residents and caring for pets, identifying expanded pet support infrastructure such as behavior services, implementing robust non breed specific dangerous dog laws as you're doing with the changes here. And working with the underserved communities most affected by this outdated law. BSL has created a brand equity issue for Denver as well. Our national reputation. Reputation is not well received in the pet owning community in the US. About 67% of all households have pets. And in Colorado, that number is likely higher. BSL is being overturned in communities across the United States. It was just overturned in next door in Castle Rock a few months ago. I urge you to update this law. It's financial. The current law is financially irresponsible, hurts Denver's reputation as a humane community, does nothing to ensure the public safety and marginalizes underserved communities. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. They could exit the microphone. And if I could have David Walsh, Tom Sisk and Jody Villanueva come up to the frontpage. My name's Chairman Sekou. Well, and on this issue, I'm not going to speak in relationship to any organizations that I represent and none of that stuff. I'm just coming from here and from experience. My family breeds pit bulls. In South Carolina. And they're hunting dogs, boarding dogs, gambling dogs. We have legalized bites. We're pinball pit bulls. And we train. We train like you train a boxer like Muhammad Ali. All right. And contrary to the popular stories that we hear, pit bulls are not Scooby Doo. So we can stop all of that. Two. If you notice, white boxes for pit bulls, black folks, they. Two different experiences, and this ordinance doesn't even considered that. And then, last but not least, new breeding dogs. Pit bulls. You can have two and you're going to breed. You have to have a male and a female. They are not homosexuals. You need one other. Male. Female. But what happens to the puppies? If you're going to have two dogs, you end up with a litter, a six. Does that mean you're in violation of the law and you've got to do something with the six? What does what did puppies go? Say. And now you're talking about economic incentive to breed dogs. Who can be. Killer dogs. You have no budget or enforcement for implementing the law and making sure the people abide by it. Because in this room, you got people who live in the city county of Denver. They've got pit bulls. How did that happen? Say. And then you want me to cosign on your illegal behavior? That's like me having a gun to some license. And it's okay because I got it in my house, so. But if I get pot caught, I go to jail. Jack. Straight up. Ain't no administrative costs on that. And then when we talk about what do you do with this dog that's eaten up your children in your house, which is the reason why our one reason why we do this thing one day as a dog trainer, the dog is go beat the dog. Because that is nature and you cannot prevent that. So we have an awesome responsibility here today, and I'm betting on the side of the life of the vulnerable. I'm not mad and no pit bulls, but I would be willing to vote with conscience that I'd rather you not have. A dog does go into my body up. And I voted for that so I can sleep at night and say, no. I'm sorry, but your time is up. Thank you very much. David Walsh. Thank you. Memories of I'm not a resident of the city in coming to Denver. I was born here. Rose. I grew up in Park Hill. Spent time with my uncle. Sorry, my father. On weekends out Montebello. You guys do take out of my check so that I'm up here talking to you today. My main focus in all of this is Animal Rescue. I mainly operate as a transporter, and for anybody that doesn't think that pit bulls exist in the city and county of Denver, you know, can come along any of the times that have picked up dogs at the Denver animal shelter and moved them to other locations all the way up to Canada. And unfortunately, I'm in a in an odd position. Right now because I'm forced to agree with the chairman. There is a certain cultural and social economic difference that probably needs to be explored a little bit more. But I do support the repeal. I think licensing and keeping track and creating a statistical database for the rest of the state and surrounding municipalities to focus their future lives on. This may not be a bad idea. And again, there are pitbulls in the city and county of Denver, you know, and for the people that are owning them illegally but unknowingly, illegally, this gives them an opportunity to have their animals be registered, licensed, make sure that everything is okay, and also helps provide another source of revenue for Denver animal protection, the Denver animal shelter and the city itself. So I'm not going to take up a whole bunch of time like everybody else. But I think that passing this particular. Revision to the municipal code makes sense for the city and county of Denver and for its residents. Could you state your name for the record? Oh, my apologies. It is David Walsh. Thank you very much. All right. Thank you. Tom Sisk. Hello. I'm Tom Sisk. And thanks for having this hearing tonight. A lot of. Emotions on both sides. I'll just be short. I've got some of the information that Jesse we're. Going go right. There are some of the information he asked for. It's kind of interesting. Over a. 13 year period from January 1st, 2005. To December, the 31st, 2017. Dogs killed 433. Americans. During that period, interestingly enough. And it's not looking good for pit bulls. 65% of those deaths were caused by pit bulls. In second place, you 10%, you have Rottweilers. 4.6% of that was German shepherds and so on down. I don't know how I really can debate it past that. I mean, there was a reason we did this in 1988. Pit bulls are dangerous. These stats bear that. I'm sure there's good ones and there's bad ones. And I know a. Lot of people. Here. They love their pit bull. And I get that. I understand that. But that said. These are pretty bad statistics and it doesn't look good for the pit bulls. I'll leave it at that. Thank you. Next up, Jodi Villanueva. A lot of emotion here tonight. Oh, my name is Jodi Villanueva. I am a color native and currently a Lakewood resident. And due to the Denver Pit Bull Ban and I have had family in District one specifically for 75 years. First off, I wanted to say thank you to Councilmember Christopher Herndon for leading this charge on this proposal. It means a lot to me and it hits a lot of emotions. I personally. Strongly support. And believe that this breed specific license program will be beneficial for the city of Denver and all of its residents. This movement will allow us to make data informed decisions, especially after the two year review. And that's very important for all of us to remember right now. Breed specific legislation, not only perpetuates perceptions of pitbulls, but it fails in Denver in four primary ways. One, it fails to prove public safety. Two, it wastes your tax dollars. Three, it violates your property rights. And four, it rejects evidence based solutions. There are so many statistics about dog attacks that we can continue and continue to talk about tonight. But I want you to share the rest of this time with my personal experience with pit bulls. I first found love with this breed while I was volunteering at a local animal shelter. If you've ever been to an animal shelter, you will most likely see more pit bulls than any other breed. So when you volunteer at an animal shelter, you're bound to spend time getting to know this breed. And that's what I did. I fell in love with one of the many pit bulls that I worked with whose name at the time was Picasso. Picasso was a ten month old pit bull boxer mix who had come in as a stray and had been at the shelter for six months. It's an extremely long time for any dog, especially for a pit bull to be in a shelter. When I found that there was a time and date for Picasso to be euthanized, you better believe that I went home with that dog. The first thing I did was change that goofy name of Picasso to Chauncey. Yes. After Mr. Big shot himself, Chauncey Billups. This coming Friday, Valentine's Day will be 44 years since I rescued Chauncey, and this has truly been the best decision I have ever made. Chauncey is not only like my best friend, but he's one of the most important parts of my life. You almost likely never have a conversation with me without bringing up Chauncey or showing him pictures of him. At least ten at least. Sorry for that. During these four years of having this people, I have come across many obstacles when it comes to having this dog and being able to bring him to many family occasions, being able to bring him over to my sister's house, who lives in District one, who travels for work constantly going over to my 95 year old grandmother's house, who also lives in District one for over 75 years and allowing to have my parents dog sit him. I'm sorry about your time. Thank you very much. That concludes our one hour courtesy public hearing. I want to say thank you to everyone who came down here. I apologize that we couldn't get to everybody in that hour. And I really want to say thank you to all of you. This is obviously something that is very emotional and that people are very personally invested in. And I appreciate all of your work to create a safe place for our democracy to thrive and let everyone have their 3 minutes to tell their truth and their story at the microphone in front of us as we deliberate. So thank you all for that. We are going to transition now to questions from members of council. Councilman Herndon, your first. Name is president. I got two people that I want to ask to speak. And I'll start with Dr. Ariel Fagan. If you could come up and Alice from Denver, animal protection will be second. And as Dr. Fagan is coming up, I just want to read her bio so you know where she is. Her background. She's a veterinarian. A veterinarian behaviorist. She graduated from Tufts University Come in School of Veterinary Medicine 2013. She went on to complete an intensive, one year rotating small animal internship at WI Ridge Animal Hospital in 2017. She completed a three year residency in the American College of Veterinary and Behavior at Behavior Vets of Colorado and Florida Veterinary Behavior Science. In 2018, Dr. Fagan became a diplomat of the American College of Veterinarian Behavior, the highest level of veterinary behavior, specialty degree possible. This makes her one of 85 people of the most highly trained veterinary behavior specialists on the continent and one of two veterinary behaviorist in the state of Colorado. And so I just want to one just thank you. It's everything I said. True. Great. Because my horse was great. 186 Okay. So we, we have thrown out a lot of statistics, but I wanted to have someone who I believe is an expert come and speak. And so a few questions that I have for you, if you could just speak to one, are the three terror breeds more dangerous than any other breeds? One you could speak to. Two, I've heard the wasn't specified. There was a comment about the dogs latch on and don't let go, which more commonly referred to as lockjaw. If you could have the ability to speak to those two issues first. Yeah, sure. So lockjaw is a myth. There is no such thing as a locked down jaws. Pit bulls have the same construction as the rest of the dog breeds and very similar to us in terms of dangerousness. So I suppose danger could be defined by both severity and frequency. So when we look at severity, we the most recent data that I was able to find on all of this and just to make it clear that what I'm trying to do for you guys today is present the data, the information, not try and present my personal opinion on this. So what I can tell you is that in 2018 there was a systematic meta analysis done, particularly of facial dog bites published in the journal Pediatric OTU Rhino Wearing Gallagher So this was human doctors, doctors that treat humans. 43 studies were reviewed, accounting for a total of 26,000 dog bites. They did look at frequency of dog bites, but it is noted that there was some bias in the reporting of breeds, which is something else we can talk about if you'd like. But when they broke it down, in terms of of the 40% of the bites where some sort of specific in breed indication was given the it broke down to pit bulls at 22. Point 5% mixed breeds at 21.2%, German Shepherd dogs at 17.8% as the top three others below that. And then the rest were kind of unknown. Now, what I'll point out is that with those percentages, that includes the bias in reporting on breeds. Then tissue analysis was also performed separately on 240 by injuries to look at kind of the severity of the bite. And in order again this is with the bias in the reporting on breed the breed with the highest damage per bite reported was mixed breeds. Then Great Danes, then pit bulls, Labrador Retrievers, St Bernards and Akita is hovering around the same place than Bulldogs, Huskies and Chows. So that's the perspective from that particular study. There's when we look at kind of all of the studies together are about the the breeds and the bites. No studies that look at breed propensity have good quality evidence that pit bulls are more likely to bite. So that that has not been established in the scientific literature. And then what I can also talk about is kind of jaw strengths and bite severity from more of a physics perspective. So when the skull of a dog is looked at two different times, types of dogs are shown to have are predicted to have the biggest bite severity. One would be dogs that way between 66 and £100. And then dogs with a break is the phallic head shape. So that is a shape, the squishy knows shape. So dogs that are breaking so phallic and above £66 would likely have the highest bite severity. The factors involved in bite severity include so the dogs size their physical health, their motivation, the learned bite inhibition that they have, the speed the human and the dog are moving. And then how the human is acting as well. Additionally, the head shape is important. So they've kind of done some analysis of the skull shape and there's different aspects of bites that can cause a dangerous bias. So we can look at the anterior mechanical advantage versus the posterior mechanical advantage. So the anterior mechanical advantage is basically the strength of the bite at the front of the mouth versus the the hind of the mouth. And that strength of the initial bite force is correlated with the anterior mechanical advantage. In this study, the skulls that they looked at and I will note that they did not look at pit bulls out of like the 60 plus breeds that they were looking at. Pit bulls were not in that last. The strength of the initial bite force was highest in the boxer breed. For the post here mechanical advantage. The Saint Bernard had the highest bite force. The Condit layer offset ratio can be looked at. So that is basically the condyle or process is basically a bony protrusion at the back of the mandible. And they're measuring basically how tall it is in comparison to the lowest point of the jaw. The higher that ratio is than the more parallel of a closure the dog's mouth will have. The lower that ratio is, the more scissor like of a closure, the dog's mouth will have that scissor like action. What we worry about is a slicing motion. The skull shape that was the most problematic for that was the Chihuahua, the loading capacity. So this is the amount ability of the jaw to withstand pressure once it has bitten. So the ability to exert that pressure once it's bitten. And then the dogs that basically had the tallest jaws were the ones that had the strongest loading, loading capacity. So that was the Boston terrier. We can also look at the length of the to throw, and that has to do with the ability of the dog to hold its prey, the contact surface, the length of the molars, which obviously can pertain to puncturing damage. And then also we look at the size of the measured, massive Terek fossa, which represents basically how much musculature that the dog has. So looking at all of this, I know that there were no pitbulls involved in that. I think that we can conclude that it's complicated. Thank you. I appreciate that. And I know, Mr. President, you've got other people in the queue. So I want to ask two more questions for Dr. Fagan and then I will go to Alice. So you mentioned the dog bias, pit bull bias. Could you just talk about and tell people bias breed identification because we have heard like 60%. Could you speak to what is the standard or science of breed identification? And then my second question is, I know you're giving facts, but I think most people can hear would agree you're an expert. I would like to get your opinion on breed specific legislation. Okay. So let's start with visual ID of dogs. So the moral of all of this is that visual identification of dogs is really, really hard. There's a couple of studies that I'll give you some information for. So study number one showed that 87.5% of dogs that were ID by an adoption agency, a specific breeds, did not have all of those breeds on DNA analysis dog professionals. So we're talking about veterinarians. Trainers, breeders, animal control officer, shelter workers. When they tried to do a visual ID match for the predominant breed. It was only successful and 25% of the dogs that they looked at. Another study looked at 120 dogs. The staff in that study added 52% as pit bull type. When they looked at the DNA, only 21% had pit bull DNA in them. There's another study that was done that looked at a ratio of how much pit bull is in the dog and does that change our ability to identify it ? They did find that if there is more than 50% pit bull in the line, that it is easier to identify a dog as a pit bull. But in this study, they looked at shelters in Kent and in California and Arizona. They looked at 919 dogs and only 18.7% of those dogs were there. Only one or two breeds mixed in there. The rest of them were three plus. So all of those dogs would have had a poor ability for breed identification. I have more numbers, but do you want more than me? And lastly, Dr. Fagan, I would love to get your opinion on just breed specific legislation in general. Yeah. I mean, after thoroughly reviewing everything before coming in here today, the I, I believe that legislation should be driven by science. And I don't believe that there is the science to support breed specific legislation. I do believe that there is science to support education, responsible ownership, leash laws, etc.. And so I think we should follow the science. Thank you, Dr. Ragan. Alice Nangle from Denver. Our protection. Thank you. And briefly, I want to I want to applaud them, Ralph, but I can just quickly state their recognition that you all just got from the AP. The recognition from the animal, the American Animal Hospital Association. Yes. Yes, we were just our veterinary clinic in our shelter was just accredited by the American Animal Hospital Association. We are one of three shelters and the municipal shelters in the nation who have achieved this accreditation. Thank you, Alice. And congratulations to your team. So thank you. Recognizing that this is not past and we still don't know if that's going to. But you are you have started to do some homework on what this would look like should this pass. So I am. My question is, has your policy team because one thing that's not in this ordinance deals with the actual cost of the specific license and what would be the process if you come across, Terry, owners who are not in compliance. And so I wanted to give you the opportunity just to speak to. Okay. In your initial findings, what do you believe this fee would be moving forward and then coming across and actually how the person would you could walk us through the process if you've gone that far. If not, I totally understand. But also more importantly, what would be some of the punitive issues? Because if people are fearful that people aren't going to register their terriers, what is going to be that recourse? Did you come across owners who are choosing not to comply? Okay. So we as Chris Herndon has discussed, we are in the process of exploring what our implementation of this program would look like, what our fee structure might look like. I've mentioned before that the Department of Public Health and Environment reports to a board for a fee setting, so we would go to that process to set the fees. In the meantime, we look at what is reasonable and what is what fees are available or what fees are already out there. Currently, there are not many programs that have a restricted breed licensing program or permit process that we can find in the nation. And so we are looking to our current licensing program. Our license fees for an annual fee is $15 a year. And so we are looking at somewhere between 30 and $50 for a restricted breed license and that is double the cost plus a little, which is where we think is reasonable and more strict. Again, we are in the process of evaluating that and bringing the recommendation to our board in terms of how we would implement this program, which I believe is another question you just asked out of many. We currently have a licensing program I think is a I need to make it very clear that we do not intend to deliver a restricted breed licensing program in the same manner as our current licensing program for the general dog population. And that is because we are looking at the restricted breed license as more of a permit process than really a license, even though it's called a license. So they're really two different programs. Our current licensing program for the general dog population that we have in place is a program where as a citizen or a pet owner, you can go online, you can upload a spay neuter, proof of spay neuter, proof of vaccination, your name and your address, breed and age and the sex of your dog. And you will we will deliver a license to you if you are out and about and we find that you don't have a license with a general population dog, let's say a Chihuahua. We will write an administrative citation for your fine that you will be required to pay, and then you will. If you don't pay that, you go to collections. We don't do a follow up process that it has any significant follow through for that. So you're going to go to collections in the restricted breed program that we are implementing or would implement should this pass, the requirements for the restricted breed are laid out in the proposal. So you must show proof of spay neuter, you must be vaccinated, you must have a microchip and you must have photo evidence of the animal, and you must complete a breed evaluation through Denver animal protection. In addition to those, you must also complete an application. And the application requires your name and address and the breed and sex of your animal and the age. But it also requires two alternate contexts for us to be able to reach you should we have your dog and you're not accessible? And it also requires your veterinarian's name and contact information. And so it's really more we want to get more information so that we can find you and be sure that we have you. And again, as I stated in the proposed language, the license would be at the higher rate with these requirements for three years. Every year would need to be renewed and every year you would need to prove or at any time should your dog be in violation, then your time clock for the three year program resets. So if you're found off leash you would reset to 36 months so that the programs. Structure if you are discovered without a license, a restricted breed license, after you have received the license from us, after going through all of that upfront process, if you if we find you and you do not have a restricted breed license and you are in violation of, say, an off leash, off leash violation, then we would likely write you a general violation, which is a criminal citation as opposed to administrative citation, which we do in the general population licensing program. And that would require a compliance timeframe and a court date. We would also then follow up with you at your home within ten days, which is generally our compliance timeframe for our general licensing program . So for the restricted read program differently than the regular license program, we will do an in-person follow up to your home to determine that you are in compliance. If you're not in compliance, you will get a ticket. If we didn't already get you a ticket with a court date and then you would be subject to the court determination and fees set at that time. That was good. And, Mr. President, I am. I'm wrapping up. I know this is my colleagues. My apologies. I normally am quiet, so I'm talking a whole lot for all the time previously. You saved it all for tonight. Save it all for today. So it's safe to say that this is a much more stringent follow up when it comes to an administration administrative citation. If it was just your regular labradoodle versus a general violation. From this potential potential perspective. Restricted free license, correct? That's correct. And the last question now that I have for you, this was stated during committee, but I just want to reiterate it for the general public. The current law, in effect, that we have with our breed ban, you gave a statistic four years worth of data of calls that Denver animal protection has received to pit bulls in neighborhoods . And so I just wanted you to be able to speak to, again, to those number of calls and then the response rate and the measures of success for that. You are responding to those kinds. I want to give you the opportunity to speak to that again. Yeah. In the four year period that councilman heard in his referring to, we respond responded to roughly 2200 calls. That's a little over 500 calls a year for pit bull, only calls in responding to those which includes a visit to the home and a verification of the animal, the dog in front of us. Only 5% of those calls resulted in a dog being ordered in to have a formal breed evaluation. So 2200 calls, 5% were actually validated? That's correct. So our Denver animal protection officers, 95% of the time, over four years, they're going out and wasting their time following up on the call that we know that turned out to be incorrect. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilmember Councilmember Torres. Thank you, Mr. President. Councilman Herndon actually led with the question that I was hoping to lead with as well, because that struck me as one of the most shocking, the 5% turnout. Can you remind me where half of those calls came from? Yeah. Roughly 50% of those calls were from the 8021980 239. An 80204 zip codes. And two of those are my district eight or two or four and eight or 219. I'll comment on that later, but I think that's a pretty striking piece. What's the criteria in testing? Are you testing for full breed? Any measure of the three breeds partial. How do you how do you determine what is a pit bull? Yeah. I'm going to ask Lieutenant Rolfe to answer that question. Hello. My name is Joshua Roth. For those of you who don't know me, but I'm pretty sure all of you do. So how do we determine what a pit bull is in a city? We have three people who are certified to assess an animal's breed. Look at the dog independently of one another. They judge about 36 different characteristics on the dog, and they're trying to determine whether the dog has predominantly physical characteristics matching one of the three restricted breeds in the city. In order for the dog to be considered illegal, all three evaluators must unanimously agreed that the dog is one of those three breeds. Is it becoming harder to determine based on mixed breeds? I would say that there's some level of. Ambiguity and in the process where when you have a mixed breed dog as. The experts were showing there's it's harder to tell what you have mixed in there. And certainly there's a lot of dog breeds that have similar physical characteristics to pit bulls. Okay. So the 2200 calls, these were people who called in having seen a pit and you arrive at an address to investigate. This isn't dogs that were found loose on the street, right? That's correct. That's dogs at people's homes. Can you or Alice describe for me how the AP would handle a similar call if this proposal goes through? So it's not a loose dog. It's not a dog that has bitten somebody, but it's being called into animal protection. Would you conduct the same assessment or would you just be looking for licensure? What would you determine? What would you use to determine which ordinances it fell under? I think that's that's something that's still under discussion a little bit, but I don't see the process straying too much from where we're currently at. It's worked for us so far. And and I don't see a compelling reason to to change it. There may be opportunity to do assessments at people's homes. We just have to take a look at our staffing and what would happen. So you would still go through assessment, even if it is licensed or unlicensed? We would have to determine in some way what dogs need to be licensed through this process and what dogs get a regular animal. Okay. What steps have you taken to increase licensure in the city and in my district in particular? So our licensing program is, as has been mentioned, around 20%, which is the national average for licensing programs. I'm sorry, was your question what how to increase licensing in which to breed? What steps you've taken to increase licensure in Denver. For the general population currently today? Yes. So we we contracted with a vendor to do or help us with our licensing in 2014. And through having an expert who dedicates their time solely to that, as opposed to our staff who's doing multiple things. We expected to see an increase in licensing and we actually have seen an increase of 14% licensing through the time that we've had this vendor from the time we started. So we we are improving through there, through multiple renewal notices that we send out to all of our pet owners that we know of. We know we know that we are also reviewing our opportunity to either send more notices, more renewal notices, or whether or not we right now rely a lot on the citation just going to collections as opposed to going to try to find the individual either through the mail because going back in person is resource prohibitive to encourage more compliance in that manner? Okay. One more question. The inquiry from Councilman Herndon about what kind of citation would be issued for a pit bull under this ordinance? Is there any circumstance under which the the dog would be taken or confiscated? Would you like to respond to that? Sorry for ping pong him back. That's okay. So there there could be a situation where the dog could be taken away from the owner. And what comes to mind is if there was a serious attack or bite incident in the community from one of these dogs. Certainly the court has that authority to take the dog away or to request that it be surrendered to an animal shelter or euthanized. And that exists currently as well as under the new proposal. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember. Councilmember Sawyer. Thank you. Is there anyone here from Parks and Rec? There is. Oh. Great. So I just have a couple of questions about off leash tickets and sort of. The challenges that come with. That. Thank you. Something. Council members. Mr. President, my name is Lisa Holtz. I am the assistant director for the Park Rangers for Denver Parks Recreation. Thanks for coming tonight. So the park rangers are the ones who actually give the tickets for off leash dogs in our parks. Right. Yeah. Sometimes the animal protection agents will as well. But generally, yes, it's the park rangers. Okay. So if like a resident calls 311 and says. There's a bunch of athletes. Dogs hanging out in the park across from my house, it's. Usually. It's going to be my team. The team and. And our work is very complaint driven. Okay. So how many. So. So how many. On a monthly basis can you just estimate sort of like how. Many tickets or how many complaints you receive of off leash dogs in our parks? So I actually don't have that information. I can get that for you. What I can tell you is that we use a progressive. Compliance model where we will do education, we do what we call pop ups, where we'll go to a park, talk to people about why it's important. Alisha Dog Then we go to warnings, then we go to tickets. So we try to do progressive compliance. We are complaint driven. The other. Important part. That's the important part of your question is that in. 2019. Dog off leash tickets were our highest. Ticket for park. Rangers. Of all the tickets that we wrote, we wrote more dog off leash tickets than any other ticket. So we take it really seriously. We want dogs and people to be safe in the parks. Okay. So do you. And if you can't answer this. Not you personally, but Parks and Rec. When I ask this question, so does Parks and Rec have any concerns about potential about the potential for pit bulls and pit. Bull breeds coming back into our parks, given. The number of off leash dog tickets that were. Written in 2019? I don't know that I can answer that specific question, but I will tell you that whatever. Council decides, we will work to. Enforce the revised municipal code as it's written. And our highest priority is the safety of. Park patrons and dogs. A leash dog is less likely to be injured, to injure wildlife, to injure another dog. And so we take it really seriously. Okay. Do you. Enforce or. Or do you give tickets if they're off leash dogs on like sidewalks? Or is that a different agency? Is that you guys? That's you guys. Okay. So maybe my next question is then for you. Thank you very much. Thank you for the questions. Thank you all. So my question while you're coming up is. Just do you often get complaints or reports. Or write tickets for off leash dogs on sidewalks? Is that is that a concern in Denver? Yeah, we get quite a few calls for loose dogs. For loose dogs on sidewalks. I'm assuming you're talking about an owner walking down the street. Which is. Exactly not like a dog that's. Escaped, obviously. But, you know, an owner who's walking, who's choosing to walk their dog without a. Leash down the street. We do get those calls. They're fewer than the calls we get about dogs that are just loose and unattended. But we do get calls for that and we do write tickets for that. Okay. And do you know by any chance, off the top of your head how many maybe you wrote in 2018? My my response would just be anecdotal. I don't have that specific number. That's okay. Thank you. Do you think that. There will be any. Challenges that arise from the if we were to choose to overturn this ban tonight. Do you think that there would be any challenges or differing. Challenges that would arise from having pit bulls and pit bull breeds back on the streets? Given the number of people who choose not to leash their dogs, even though we have leash laws in the city of Denver. I think that's a difficult question to answer, I would say. You've heard from a lot of people, owners in our community tonight. And I heard from one person who said that they think that pit bull owners would be more likely to keep their pets on a leash and they're afraid of other dogs coming up to their pets . I, I don't know that I can answer it better than what the community members are saying. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember. Councilmember Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. I have a few questions for different people. So let me first start with Dr. Steele with the Denver dam princely. You know, I'll just start asking my question as you come up. How often does the Denver Temperance League adopt out, adopt specifically this breed outside of Denver or even any of the other breeds ? So they're not just Denver residents coming in and and adopting the animals. They are adopted out to anywhere. Correct. Correct. So we only adopt out breed restricted breeds to people who do not live in areas that have restrictions. So we would not adopt a pit bull to someone who lives in Denver with the current ordinance in place. Okay. We do adopt out to all the surrounding areas almost on a daily basis a pit bull to any area that does not have legislation. Okay, thank you. And then let me ask Alice from our animal shelter, what do we do with the pit breeds that are brought in? What happens to them? In Denver, animal protection. We have a philosophy. We do not. We do not euthanize for time or space or breed. When we get pit bulls into our facility or a restricted breeds, we treat them as any other breed. If they are a stray and do not have an owner. We will put them once we own them. When there is a law that says after five days they become our property. Any stray animal that does not have an owner becomes our property after five days. And so we treat a restricted breed the same way we treat a cat or another breed of dog, or any further pig or goat, which we get as well. So we have medical evaluations. We, of course, look for owners and we have a breed sorry breed evaluation. A behavior evaluation. The behavior evaluation consists of multiple observations, both in the field. Should the animal have been brought in through our field officers or over the counter, or if at home history and observations from the shelter. If we determine that that dog, the restricted breed, is adoptable from our perspective, but we can't adopt those dogs in Denver and or transferable, which is a different criteria we have. We will look to our partners like Dumb Friends League and many other partners that we have in the front range and other communities in Denver, in Colorado to transfer that dog to another jurisdiction. If somebody is coming in wanting to adopt, then you verify. That person is from outside of Denver if it's one of these breed specific animals. We do not currently adopt out restricted breeds from our Denver animal shelter. So you partner with the other? Yeah. We will transfer them to other facilities. Got it. So let me ask you a question about staffing. If this were to pass tonight, what additional staff would be needed? I heard that you have three individuals that can look at an animal and determine, you know, whether it meets this criteria and all three have to agree. But if we significantly increase the population of these animals in the city of Denver, then what kind of staffing is going to be needed to do the overall enforcement? We have we believe that we will need one more animal protection officer and one administrative staff member. And we believe that that's what we'll need, even though we think that our call volume will shift. We do expect that we will still be potentially even delivering evaluations at homes. Now, should we be able to? Should this pass? And our legal team acknowledges that we can change our model from three evaluators to perhaps two or one, depending upon the legal determination of that. Regardless, we think that there will be an influx of, you know, a certain percentage more evaluations that we will need to do from the ones that we're currently doing. And so that's why we think we'll need that staff. The administrative person would be in the lobby to handle the scheduling and the volume in the back of the House transaction. We would need that individual also to help monitor the violation and the follow through that we're talking about in the implementation of the program as well as the officer to deliver that out in the field. So if someone wants to have two animals, are you going to be looking at whether there's a same sex, different sex? And where I'm going with this is how will you all be? How will you deal with litters? Because people cannot have more than two of these breed specific in their homes. So help me understand sort of how you would look at that. Under the current proposed language. The before you can get a restricted breed license, you must be spayed or neutered. And so there will not be an opportunity for this. Anybody with a restricted breed to get an intact permit, which you can do for the general population breed so male or female would not matter because they will be spayed or neutered before they can acquire the license. Have you all come upon any letters of these breed specific in Denver during this timeframe that they've been outlawed from Denver? We have encountered litters, yes. And when that happens, you just take them and then try to work with other organizations throughout the Denver metro area. Is that correct. Now? Correct. And I can let Lieutenant Ralph speak to the specifics of how we enforce that. But if you have, you would still be subject to the current pit bull rules as an owner and would be. Required to have your pitbulls removed from Denver. Okay. Um, I think I have maybe just a couple more questions. I don't know. You've got other people in the queue. Do you want me to just give you a quick couple? Yeah. You just want to wrap up. David Smith, are you still here? You had talked about a cost of enforcement of the legislation. Where did you get that figure from? You were talking about $5.8 million in enforcement of today's legislation. And I'm not sure if you're talking about our vicious dog ordinance. It was actually Denver University did this study last year. So it was that study you referred to. And it was $5.8 million and total cost to be of enforcing BSL. Since you've been there, it was over 100 million and direct and indirect loss of revenue for pet care. Okay. And I was just trying to understand the source of that. And let me see if I can have one last one. Um, I think that's it for now, Mr. President. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Councilmember Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. David, you can stay at your seat, but just not. That was the due study that costs. That was a cumulative total over the life of the ordinance that was on an annual figure or anything like that. Okay. Thank you. That that's what I thought the. Dr. Fagan was it? I'm sorry, I didn't I didn't actually catch your name, but I heard you say that. All right. Great. Thank you. I want to make sure I heard correctly the first set of statistics or study that you read was human doctors. Mm hmm. Who were treating severe bites or a level five, was it? And you gave a total percentage of the the breeds that were able to be identified. And I understand in a lot of attacks or in a lot of cases, breeds aren't readily identifiable. So we don't always have consistent data. But where we have identified them, what the pit bull breeds were like 20 something. Could you read that again? Yeah. So this was it was a meta analysis of facial dog bites. So this doesn't include any bites that occurred to other parts of the body. Okay. Let me interrupt you said you so you said it was a meta analysis. So it took a number of other studies and combined them. For three studies, accounting for 26,000 dog bites. Okay. Thank you. And so of those, only 40% of the bites, there was any breed indication given at all. And then of the 40%, the top three from a breakdown perspective was pit bulls at 22.5%. Mixed breeds at 21 and 22.5. Yep. Okay. Mixed breeds at 21.2%. And then German Shepherd dogs at 17.8%. What the numbers specifically don't reflect on, though, is that there's a lot of bias in reporting as to what breeds are are responsible for these. So reports are coming from people that are getting bad or neighbors that died or or animal control officers that just like with the visual identification problems that we saw with all those studies, we have laypeople kind of saying it was a pit bull and then that's reported. They're also taken taking some of those breed identifications for media reports as well, which has been established in the science to be biased as well. Okay. And do you have any or I don't know if if you have this, but just for Denver. But nationally, Dr. Fagan, do you have any is there a reliable estimate of what percentage of the population is represented by the pit bull breeds? The I guess the three most often, no. And this is part of a really, really big problem is that when we're looking at all of our numbers is that we don't know out of what the population is. So if, you know, 200 dog pit bulls are biting and there's only 250 dogs in the state, then that is obviously a huge percentage. But if there's, you know, 5 billion pit bulls in the state, then that's a really low percentage. And we don't have any great way of getting those actual numbers because not every dog is registered and even if they are registered, they might be registered as a reported breed and the owner may not actually know what the breed is because most owners are not going to get that name. Alice, do. You have any idea in Denver? Because I've seen a figure of around 6 to 10% in Denver. I don't that wouldn't necessarily translate to what you call true. Excuse me. What's true? Nationally, we do not have a figure of what what our pit bull population might is. Currently, we have played around with a number of what it could be based on national percentages, but they would be truly based on national percentages. Okay. Do you have a range for that? For national percentages, we expect. Well, we see nationally 3 to 6% of dog population tends to be a pit bull. Okay. Does this correlate? Who? Your answer to Councilwoman Torres. And by the way. 80219 is in my district as well, too. When you go out and do investigations, only about 5% of. So that would indicate that it's a pretty small part of the population. Yes, correct. And I have another statistic, if I can find it here that we since 2015 overall, we've done 4700 plus breed evaluations, and those are the formal rate evaluations with the three evaluators. And 17% of the dogs that were evaluated were evaluated as pit bulls. Out of how many? 4700 over four years. Okay. And how much? What? A percent? 17%. Okay. Thank you. Dr. Fagan, one more question. You indicated on the phone a kind of interesting about the parallel on the scissor bite. And you said the Chihuahua is. Yeah. So they in that study, they controlled for the size of the skull. And they were just looking at the different mechanics based on how short, how squat, how tall the controller process and all of that. And of all the breeds that they looked at, the the Chihuahua happened to have the most scissor like of a. Okay. Is that the most dangerous type of bite as opposed to a parallel bite? They didn't comment on that. Just the the only thing that that was a separate study than the facial trauma study. So the information from the facial. Okay. And I guess this falls into the category of when you're sick, when you don't feel well, don't ever go online and Google your symptoms. So and I think a lot of us up here probably have done a lot of Googling for, you know, preparing for tonight. And I just I've looked at dog attack fatalities and I've heard both advocates and opponents say that the other side's data is unreliable. But given the scissor bite and that a Chihuahua is more likely to bite. Have you ever come across a human fatality caused by a Chihuahua? So I don't have any statistics that say that Chihuahua is more likely to bite. I don't have that written down in any way. That is like in a good quality report. Okay. I don't of of everything that I read, I never saw evidence of a Chihuahua causing death. There was a report of a dachshund causing death. Mm hmm. Okay. Thank you. That's all, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilmember. Councilmember Cohen. Each. Thanks very much. I think most of my questions are probably for Alice or your team. Lieutenant Roth. So I want to just review the question that was raised about what what is our sense of security and what what what are we providing as a sense of security here? So I just did the math on the 4700 at 17%. At least 800 pitbulls since 2016 have been found in the city and county of Denver. So the ban is not kept them out. So the sense of security might be false if the assumption is that the security is. By keeping the dog. Out. The second question then becomes what about danger? So I want to just go through what I heard before was that safety mechanism. Number one, is that this is a proactive pursuit of individuals to drive enforcement. Did I understand that correctly, that this is not passive licensure? This is not we hope you go online and license. This is any indication you get. From any contact you are proactively pursuing, including potential criminal ticket, court date, home visit. Correct. So there's three particular steps there. And to Mr. Vernice, we've had a good dialog, this word about driving compliance. We've got three mechanisms drive compliance. The second thing that we haven't talked about in this public hearing much, so I want to get you to talk about. It is. The dangerous dog ordinance so an indication of aggression? I'd like to know how the ordinance is working since it's been adopted. Do we have dogs in the program? And if you can review what that sense of security looks. Like in terms. Of what its what how many dogs are participating, what its success rate is. I'll hand that to the general. Thank you. Thank you. To to recap your question, you're asking about the potentially dangerous ordinance and how many animals are in that program and what the success of the program is. Right. Just how it works and how it might be. One of the things our community tonight, some folks are asking us, what will we do to ensure safety in this new regime? And so I think I want to talk about how this ordinance might fit. In the other things. You've had to theorize. How they're going to work in this case. You've got something that's already working. So I just want to hear about that. Sure. For the ordinance, just so everybody is aware, that ordinance was revised in July of 2018. And since then, we've had 23 dogs that have been classified as potentially dangerous animals. The recidivism rate or the the amount of those animals that are causing problems since they've come under the potentially dangerous animal permit is zero. Okay. And just can you give us a few just a snippet of what an owner, a dog or an owner family might go through if they're participating in that? What what's driving those outcomes? Sure. They're required to apply for a permit with us with very similar. Characteristic, says the proposed ordinance here today, where they have alternate contacts, they have a notification requirement if the dog gets loose from their care or if it bites or attacks somebody, they have to call us immediately. And they also are required in many circumstances to build enclosures to keep the animal contained on the owner's property, or if the dog's being walked in public to have it walked on a leash or muzzle. So the opportunity for the dog to cause issues is drastically decrease if the owner's complying with those provisions. And do you have to wait until the dog bites to get owners into a higher level of compliance or proactive steps with their pet or a dog that's busted through, threatened, you know, torn through a fence and, you know, cornered someone? Are there do you have to wait for a bite to engage in these types of or other mechanisms you might have that aren't under this ordinance? Sure. The short answer is no. The bite ordinance that the city has doesn't really differentiate between an attack or a bite. It includes both with the same level of penalty. To a dog owner, should that happen from that animal. And so cornering a person or jumping the fence and chasing somebody is given the same weight under the law as a bite is. There's differences in that, additional penalties that can come from that. When you're talking about a potentially dangerous animal violation or a dangerous animal violation, that does take into account the severity of the incident. Great. So so just to summarize then. This idea that we have to wait. Til a dog hurt someone is is a false assumption. The law allows us to take action when there's warning signs that. That's right. And then another topic that came up is this question about dog fighting and the reality that we have. We have folks who've described two situations, which is home owned pets that are getting the appropriate care and treatment and the fear and the concern that some dogs are not in that experience. And so can you talk with me about what our enforcement looks like for dog fighting? Sure. The state of Colorado makes dogfighting a felony. And so we and Denver police take that very seriously. We have responded to fighting incidents in the city mostly or exclusively in the past several years. It relates to cockfighting with chickens and not dogfighting. So have we had incidents that you have been investigating of dogfighting in the recent history? Not to my knowledge, no. May I ask just how long you've been in the job, and is that a decline from the era, perhaps when this ordinance was first adopted, was it a more prominent issue in the past? I've been with Denver animal protection since 2010, and I don't know that I'm qualified to comment on whether it's in decline in our community or in the country. But I, I do know that the data supports that dogfighting is mostly in rural areas, especially professional dogfighting. Thank you. A little easier to hide, perhaps. May I ask one more question, Mr. President? So the question about what type? You know, again, from my great dialog with Mr. Ryan is this question about what type of socialization or lack of might make a dog more at risk. So again, to this question of what are the systems, we have to minimize the risk of socialized dogs coming into the light, but they're still in socialized. So things like a dog that's chained and left outside all the time might be more at risk if and when they. Escape. Because they haven't been properly socialized. So tell me about the tools we have for that circumstance. If you would. Sure. A large number of our calls result from welfare investigations, which is what you're pointing to when you talk about a dog being tethered out. And our approaches is often education in those circumstances. We are an agency that promotes pet responsibility. And to the extent that we can, we we like to lead with education, conversation and a ticket will get you sent to court. And you may have fines and penalties associated with that, but it doesn't necessarily teach you to be a good dog owner. And can I. Can I sneak in one more? Sorry. You can put me at the back of the queue. No, go ahead. So I just. Every dog that is licensed under this program will be seen by a human being who works for our program. Is that accurate? Under this proposal? By multiple individuals. Rights? By multiple individuals. So which is something no other dog licensed in the city will have? If you experience a dog that exhibits aggression during that process, it's not an it's not a behavior evaluation. It's a breed evaluation. But if he bites the evaluator, if there is some warning sign, do you have the power you need in this ordinance to take action or address that? Not specifically with this ordinance, but we do have programs in place to proactively try and curb an animal's behavior. So we might put that dog on what's what we call an animal of concern agreement with the owner and and tell them, we would like you to take X, Y and Z steps in order to. Help mitigate whatever behavior we might be seeing in the dog. So can I just clarify? Nothing in this law prevents you from seeing what you see and taking proactive action. If there is some warning sign when you see this dog. Correct. You don't you're not barred from doing that by this ordinance and other other ordinances are what you're following, but. Okay. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilmember Councilmember Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. Alice, please, you you said that since we got our contracted with a specialist to boost our licensing, it went up by 14%. We're now at about 18%. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. Yeah, I should be specific. It increased 14% from where it was to where it is today. Yes. Right. Okay. So just trying to be sure I was adding. Right. And the other thing I just wanted to ask, Mr. Moore gave us a statistic of 20 serious pit bull attacks over five years preceding the implementation of the ban. Do you argue with that number? Is that. I'm afraid I don't have any data preceding the ban, so I can't argue or support. Thank you. That's all I have, Mr. President. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Councilmember Hines. Thank you, Mr. President. I have some questions about service dogs. Um, is there anyone here who could speak to service dogs? So. Thank you. The first question is, does Denver allow service dogs? Absolutely. Do you track service dogs in Denver? No. Well. Not explicitly, no, but they still fall under the same rules that any other dog has. So they are required to be licensed like other pets and we offer free licenses to service animals. Okay, service dog are legislation the legislation that creates a service dog that's a federal law, is that correct? Yes, sir. ADA and BSL is a Denver law. Is that correct? That's correct. How does how did how did the two intersect? What about service dogs and and pit bulls? How does that work in Denver? Sure. Federal law supersedes state or city law. And so if somebody has a pit bull that is a service animal, they're allowed to be in the city. Are there any pit bulls in Denver that are service animals? Yes, sir. We have a gentleman in the back who is saying, I guess, that he has a service dog that is a pit bull, so. Okay. Is it possible? Given our current law, is it possible for someone to claim that their dog is a service dog, a pit bull, and or let's just say, in general, is it possible for someone to claim that their dog is a service dog and not actually be a service dog? I think the potential for that is fairly high. I think it's very kind of you, sir. So how can we. Ensure that a pit bull that an owner claims is a service dog is actually a service dog and not just someone trying to circumvent the law. As you know, there's a loophole. Yeah. The ADA limits pretty much everyone's ability to impact that in a meaningful way. And most people are only allowed to ask two questions Is the animal a service animal and what task is it trained to perform? And just by the nature of the questions, you can't really get to the heart of of that issue. Is it state law, Colorado state law that makes it illegal to have your dog masquerade as a service dog? Yes. Yet. It still happens. Yes. In your professional opinion, of course. So is it possible that there is there are people who have legitimate needs for service dogs, and yet there are also people who have a are using service dogs as a loophole. So that they can have their pet is that that both of those can possibly be true in the city of Denver, right? Yes. And so I guess the last question that I have just to drive the point home is, doesn't that hurt people who have legitimate service dogs that we have pets masquerading as service dogs in the city? Probably, yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember. All right, go. Going back around, Councilman Herndon. Thank you. I have two questions. One for Alice or one for Dr. Fagan. So whoever wants to step up first. Alice, there was a do you have the data? Because as one Councilman Sawyer was talking about parks you are dealing with aggressive animals in parks. Do you have a data for what percentage of calls do you have to deal with or a number of aggressive animals in parks? I think our statistic is less than 1% of the calls that we respond to in parks are aggressive animals. Okay, great. Thank you. And Dr. Fagan, for you. When you were at Councilman Flynn made me think about this. When you were giving the statistics about the first day, 22.5% are bites from pit bulls, reminding people that these are three breeds. And so is that broken down by American pit bull terrier staffers or terrier or Staffordshire bull? No, it was not broken down. And I'll just say that that was just one study that I mean, it was a big study, but it was just one study. Okay. Thank you for that. And actually, if I could if that goes to the comment, I'll stop. Mr. President, I have one more question. We had 16 people, I believe, did not have the chance to speak. So I'm just curious if just by a show of hands of the people who signed up to speak and who did not have the chance. Raise your hand if you're in support of the bill. And you did not have the chance to speak. Don't cheat. I'm not counting. But I trust anyone who did not have the chance to speak. That was in opposition. Please raise your hand. Okay. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilmember Councilmember Ortega. I just have to ask questions. The first one, we had a number of people from the Montebello community who have had a very organized walking effort. And I know there are a number of trails in the community. So I appreciate you coming out and in sharing those concerns about. Experiences that you've had. And so just by a lot of heads of those of you who spoke from the below area. Have you seen numerous times where just kids who may not have had a stick or something to fend off a vicious animal regardless of the breed where they were by themselves and could be at greater risk . Can can you just nod your head? Or is it typically adults walking and walking with kids? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for that. And then I wanted to ask Tom Moe, if you wouldn't mind coming up to the microphone. You were the primary crafter of the original ordinance. Yes. And I can remember the room being equally as full back then as it is tonight. And so couple of questions for you. Have have you heard anything different tonight that did not come up 30 years ago when city council adopted the ordinance? Well, not really. There are some studies, of course, that have come up since then that we didn't have access to then. Especially the ones the veteran veterinarian was talking about, but pretty much the same arguments tonight as there have been, you know, a lot of people, you know, saying they've have nice pit bulls and, you know, a lot of people feeling like there shouldn't be discrimination against breeds. Sort of an equal protection argument that's not really recognized. So do you remember a question about violating property rights coming up as part of that conversation? Violating property. Rights. That was mentioned by somebody. I think so because dogs are property under the law. And so there were arguments about, you know, can can you do this to my dog? Of course, there are regulations for dogs of all breeds, for all kinds of things. And then what about if. Do you recall when this was adopted, the issue of dog fights that was talked about earlier, if we saw sort of a prevalence of dog fights that were going on around the city. Um, yeah, there were, there were problems with it, although in my experience, both as a prosecutor and dealing with dogs since I was, I worked in environmental court for a long time. And during the time of discussing the original ordinance, frankly, most of it was apocryphal. We did get some information from the Denver animal shelter, but there was a lot more investigation then for that kind of thing than there is now. So I don't know. I just don't. I know it still exists. I can't I can't speak to whether it exists more or less now in Denver or even the metro area. That it does, but it still exists in this country. And then I just wanted to ask if you recall any other compelling issues that were not mentioned here tonight that justify counsel moving forward, you know, based on on public testimony. 30 years ago when it was adopted. Well. I brought up that in the eighties we not only were dealing with pit bull problems and pit bull attacks. But also puppy mills. And some of it had to do with the puppy mill problems. Some of it was crossing. And I, I fear one of the things I did not get to bring up is in going through I spent a couple of nights once I heard about this about a week ago, just sort of going through all the information out there. And I ran across an article that based on a TV investigation in Las Vegas, a breeding of pit bulls. And what was going on is. Breeding had reached a point where it seems fitting for the 24, 20, 20 and even the 20 tens. It's reached a point where there are now designer dog breeders. And these are breeders that are trying to take a breed and. Make sure that it fits a classic profile for that breed. So in the case of of pit bull breeders, they're trying to create classic pit bulls. And there's a line in the article about well, let me just grab it real quick if you have. Dogs are just dogs. So we put them into breed. Here. So it says dog breeders are playing God when it comes to designer dogs. No expense is spared from choosing and shipping dog semen to artificial insemination and even C-sections. They're investigating. They're investing thousands of dollars to create unique breeds. And one of these breeders says they do look like a pit bull on steroids. Says Brown. His business partner started Fort Bully Kennels in Las Vegas several years ago. And they breed the American bully. This is a dog breed that the UK see kind of invented some suspect to hide. The fact that it was a pit bull and it's developed as a according to this article is a natural extension of the American Pit Bull Terrier and was subtly influenced by the infusion of several other bleeds breeds, including the American Bulldog. It's a fairly new breed that started in 1990s, and now of course, everybody wants the new thing and a lot of them can't do natural breeding. They've spent up to $15,000 on a pregnancy. One of the things that happens is they're breeding a dog because there's a larger head than usual that a female dog can't normally deliver . So they're starting to do basically C-sections on pit bull mothers to develop these dogs because their heads are too large. So and when all these costs add up, they're starting to sell these dogs. They can go anywhere from 2000 to $5000 in in the range, and people are willing to pay for a breed. It says in the article with pit bull blood specifically I thought was so one of the things I fear is, you know, considering the growing population in Denver, the density, the fact that there's a pretty high median income here. Designer dogs may be a trend here as well. If we open it up to pit bull breeding. So let me let me just ask you one last question, and I'm done, Mr. President. There were some money raised. The question about whether or not we might see a court challenge if we were to reverse the position of the city on this dog specific breed. Yeah, that's a strong possibility because as I've said, so the first the first time it got tested, there were a bunch of organizations, including the American Pit Bull Breeders, but also the Uki and AKC. I think at least one of them was involved. There are about four different organizations, so a lot of evidence is presented on both sides. Hours and hours. The judge decided with some modifications to the ordinance that it was constitutional. It went it was appealed again all the way up to the state Supreme Court. State Supreme Court found it constitutional. A lot of the others in my testimony, I mentioned all the characteristics of pit bulls. Supreme Court agreed that that made them more dangerous and sort of ordinance was constitutional. Then it got challenged again when Colorado, the state of Colorado, said that it was their purview, not the localities, to decide whether there could be breed specific legislation. And so, once again, Corey Nelson, who saw the city attorney's office handled that. And once again, the district court, I think, came out of district or Supreme Court, but again, they upheld the ordinance. One of the dangers that I see here is that all this law indicates that pit bulls are a dangerous dog, that they have the higher, higher propensity to inflict severe bites, not not number of bites, the severity of bites. It's been supported in a lot of other places. So given that if we pass this ordinance and somebody gets attacked. They could sue the city and based on the law, if the city is viewed as reckless. Then the recklessness pierces. Hold on just a minute, Councilwoman Ortega, if we could kind of wrap this up. If you're if you're watching, if you could please not comment on someone else's. That's my phone. Thank you. That the recklessness pierces the governmental immunity that protects the city from being sued and allows somebody who is a victim of that to sue the city and get taxpayer dollars as a result of that suit. All right, gentlemen, thank. You so much. I'm done. Thank you very much. All right, Councilmember Flint. Thank you. Tom, could you go back to the microphone? Tom Foreman, thank you. 30 years ago, Councilwoman Ortega was sitting there and I was sitting over where a station is sitting there covering it for the newspaper. That's why I have a I have a very vague memory of it lost in the ether. To a great extent. But I do recall that the the ordinance allowed for grandfathering of anybody who owned a pit bull at the time it was passed. It did. And I don't know if you could you recount what that entailed. There had to be a special license then also, correct? Well, it was it was not. And quickly. Chris and I'll do this quickly. But it required insurance that required a specific enclosure. It had required that what the fence should be like, it required muzzling when in public. It required that the tags had to be on the dog, not just when it's out like this proposed ordinance is, but also, well, it's in to make sure that it's always on there. So there were a lot of requirements. It also said that they had to be spayed or neutered, so they weren't producing any puppies. If they did, they had to be okay. Okay. So that was 30 years ago, so. Right. Alice. Thank you, Tom. Alice or Josh, do you have any data from back then as to how that performed? All those dogs would not. None of them would be around anymore. But for how long? We had those grandfathered dogs. And do you have any data that shows. What happened? Yeah, no, we we have very little data about this regulation until about the mid 2000s. Okay. Thank you. Councilman Herndon, can I ask you a question? Sure. The reason I asked those questions about the current ordinance and the grandfathering is we amended this last week to have a report in two years rather than five on how it's going. And just supposing, for example, that in two years or five years, it shows data that has a future council sitting here saying, we made a mistake tonight in adopting this and we should reimpose it. Your bill doesn't have any provision as to how we should treat that. Have you given that any consideration? No. And it's intentionally ambiguous because I want the data to drive that conversation and let well, in two years this council will still be in effect. But five years, for example, from the original. I want that. I want that council to base that decision based off of the data that's presented to them. Okay. Thank you, Mr. President. ALL Thank you, Councilmember Hines. Thank you, Mr. President. Director Nangle. I don't. Do you. Are you familiar with the. The history behind dog breeds? I know there's a little bit outside of animal control or excuse me, animal services. Animal protection. I think you something with the animals. I almost got it right. So that there was a comment, Amerigo, about designer dogs and and breeding a new super pit bull. And I wanted to. I guess the the question that I have for the concern or the I guess the line of questioning that I have is are all breeds designer dogs weren't dogs originally just dogs. And we now hang on. I again ask the audience, please, I know it's been a long night and everyone's very emotional. Please keep the comments and the applause down. So the I guess where I'm trying to go with this is that we as humans created breeds like my service dog here is a lab because we called him a lab and then we bred him to be a lab. And and we have detailed records on his lineage five generations back. So I know he's a lab, but I don't have to do a DNA test. But I the the nature, the, the what I'm trying to get at is we created dogs. All breeds are designer dogs. Is that right? Do I have the thought process correct? I am not qualified to answer that question, but I bet that there is a veterinarian or someone else and he. She just had to leave, I think it was pastor. Oh. Ooh. Okay. That's right. I'll throw that question to Dr. April Steele. Thank you. I think it's obvious. Yes, that is true. And we breed for specific traits and we're creating new breeds all the time. And what we used to call as a mutt is now a labradoodle. So. So you actually, you said breed for specific traits. Was a pit bull bred to bite or have a lockjaw or have pound for high pound force of biting? You know, it's really interesting. There's no such thing as lockjaw, so. No. And there are different antidotes about what. Pit bulls were bred for and one of them has to be nanny. So it depends. You know, pit bull is not a pit bull is not a pit bull. And some pit bulls are these little £30 things and thumb or some are these £60 things. It's really hard to say what they came from in the first place anymore. They're very different than the what the animal was 30 years ago. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank council member. Council member. Herndon, you back? Yes, Mr. President, one question. These are for the lawyers because they've been very quiet this entire time. So is there any do you have any concerns with this bill passing then the city and county of Denver being sued because of it? No, no, no. That's for the attorneys over there. All right. Those are. Citizens. Yeah. Kirsten Crawford, legislative counsel. We we see a lot of lawsuits all the time, so it's quite possible we could see a lawsuit. Do I think that our code provision is defensible? Yes. You know, some of the comments we made that I think I. Could maybe clarify. There's no obligation for. A city to to ban. A breed specific. Animal. Some cities have done. That and some have repealed their bans. Certainly your determination. As to whether there is a safety reason to do so. The other thing I would just say is that when it comes. To the issue of immunity, the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act only waives certain enumerated things. And in this particular situation, to the extent. You know, in the very unfortunate situation. That someone would be injured. You know, this is not a waived area. So the city is. Still immune from liability. Thank you. Thank you, Ms.. President. Thank you, Councilmember Councilmember Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. As soon as I said I have no more questions, I realize I forgot to ask one councilman Herndon had asked the folks who didn't get to speak. There were 16. Are they still here? And they raised their hands. Okay. Because I was keeping track of the folks who did get to speak. And so keep your hands up. And if you currently live in Denver, keep your hand up. If you don't live in Denver, Denver, put your hand down. How many of those? Know if you don't live in Denver and maybe the maybe the Fifth Amendment will apply here, but of those whose hands are still up, you currently have a pitbull in Denver. Okay. Alice? Alice. Josh, don't look. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember. Quickly, Alice or Josh to Dr. Fagan's. Some of those studies that show that visual inspection of animals can be extremely unreliable and actually determining or discovering breed. Have we ever done any sampling of what are three people who are testing what their determination is on breed versus DNA testing to see how accurate our testing is? No, we haven't. Not compared to date. I'd be very interested to see at a future thing what the cost involved with something like that would be to see where we're at, because it is then feasible or within the realm of possibility that we have told people they can't have a dog in Denver that was not actually a pit bull based on our our visual inspection. It's possible. Yeah. And if someone were to call me, they're having been told they couldn't have that animal in Denver now or under this new saying you need a special license. If they were able to produce DNA evidence, do we then change our decision? I think that if the law changes, people's right to own their dog in the city changes. What what would we do today if we had told someone, you can't have that dog because it was pit bull and they did DNA testing and showed that our determination was incorrect? Oh, they have the right to challenge that in court. Okay. Okay. Thank you. All right. That concludes the question portion of our meeting today. So I'm going to. And the public hearing for counsel, 71 is now closed. And we are going to move on to comments. Thank you all for staying. I know those chairs are super comfortable out there and I'm guessing you're going to be here for a little while longer with lots of people who want to jump in and comment. Councilman Herndon, this is your bill. Would you like to kick us off? Yes, thank you, Mr. President. And I appreciate my colleagues here as we sit there and go back and forth all this. Thank you all so much for all your comments and passions. And I wanted to first say, Carolina, you here you are. You are my hero. You're a rock star. She's playing now. Okay. I was looking for you, Caroline. You were? I don't I try not to pick favorite speakers, but you by far are the best. So I just want to commend you on that. He did a great job. So thank you for coming tonight. So let me first answer this question, because I find it I find the conversations that I have had about this, this is one of my funniest conversations. People say, well, how many pit bulls are you on? None. Never on the pit bull. But I believe that our bills should make sense. Our laws should make sense. And when I was trying to have this conversation, I knew that the emotions would ring, go really high. So over the course of this time, what I try to do is prevent present as much data as possible. And so when we came to committee, I had the Colorado Veterinarian Association. You had you had the Denver Down Friends League. We had a Northfield veterinary business owner. I mean, we put statistic after statistic after statistic. I brought you here today, a veterinary behaviorist. She's one of 86 people certified in North America. One of two in Colorado. And they're all standing in front of you saying these dogs are not more dangerous than any other breed. What you've never heard me say is a pit bull is not going to bite. And I've never said that all dogs bite. And my heart goes out to any family member who has had an incident with a dog. I'm a father. I have a five year old. And I heard people about young children. It it rips at my heart. And to think that I would bring something forward that would make our communities left say less safe is absolutely not true. I would never do that. Our communities are not safe with this very specific legislation, organization after organization, study after study. The Obama administration came out and said very specific legislation is ineffective. So let's take the opportunity to look at the actual data. Dr. Fagan here even gave when she talked about just the 43% that's identified. Yes. You say 22.5% are pit bulls, but guess what? That's three breeds. Break that down. Is it the Staffordshire bull terrier at 10% and the other two breeds at 6% that get you to 22? Well, that's actually lowest lower German shepherds 21.5. Raise your hand if we should ban German shepherds. You've heard about St Bernards boxers. But what we do have on the books is a potentially dangerous dog ordinance. And as they talked about, 22 dogs since 2018, 0% recidivism. We have measures in place to protect our communities, to make sure that they are safer. So when the question came about safety, we have the measures in place right now. But I can tell you right now, we know these dogs are in our community. I want to thank my colleagues for bringing them up. Where are they? We don't know. Are they getting the pet care? We don't know. This measure passes. We know where they are. We know they're vaccinated. We know they're spay and neutered. And studies will tell you spay and neuter lowers the probability of something that can happen, something that can, something that can occur. And I am not faulting the reasons that the decision was made in 1989, but I do find it interesting. In 1989, we still grandfathered pets. Still saying they were dangerous, but yet we could still have pets in the city and county of Denver. Let's do the reasonable, responsible thing. But you know what, I. I firmly could stand before you. Anything I believe and outright repeal would be acceptable. But for the people who have the concerns. I hear you. Which is why I came for what I believe is a middle ground. Let's create a compromise that let these animals come out of the shadows that we know are here. And let them demonstrate actual data. So if you don't believe any study, you don't believe any experts, look at the data that's going to happen over the next two years. So there's no reason we should question that data. But even if you have an issue with all of those things, the current law right now has a 5% success rate. When our animal protection officers are doing wild goose chases or wild pit bull chases. Imagine that any other department, if Denver firefighters, 95% of the calls they respond to aren't fires. Think of the resources we are wasting right now. That's not making our neighborhoods more safe. It's not. Let's give this bill a chance. Because even if we don't pass this tonight, we need to change something. And I'd be welcome to help have a conversation with any council person. But I believe looking at the actual data. During the 90 days. So we could do a aggressive marketing campaign because there's this fear that no one's going to license their dogs. As a pet owner, I have a I have a Bernese Mountain Dog mix. He's licensed, by the way. But if I if he was not. And I couldn't take him to the dog park. I couldn't take him to doggie daycare. And all I had to do was bring him in to get a pay $40. I would absolutely do it. So this belief that is not going to happen. I don't agree with that. But we've got an aggressive campaign in place that will encourage people to do so. And I want to thank them for animal protection for doing that at a greater level so that we can ensure we have compliance. Because right now, the compliance for these terror breeds is zero. So these will definitely up our numbers. So I appreciate the time that we took to have this conversation. I hope that my colleagues give this a chance. I think the studies have demonstrated that vessels broken and we can find a compromise to move forward, to take these dogs out of the shadows and create neighborhoods that are more safer. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilmember Councilmember Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. So I'm the only one here that was around when this was adopted from this body. And back then, we heard a lot of the same input. We actually had people here testifying who had their children killed by other individuals who had been attacked and seriously injured by this breed, which is part of why city council moved to adopt this legislation. There are more than 937 cities across the U.S. that have breed specific legislation, and there are a number of countries that have breached specific legislation. So we are not unique in this. We're not the only city who has acknowledged that this breed specific legislation is important to protect human life. When I see efforts across our city around trying to make people in our communities healthy and having walk groups like what Montebello has in various neighborhoods across our city, oftentimes people are walking their dogs off leash, and that's that's concerning, especially when you have small children just out playing and dogs are off leash. The concern about the propensity for an attack to happen, I think is is real and and very concerning. I think the most compelling argument about why I voted for this back then and will vote to keep this in place today is. The severity of the injuries that are caused to people that are attacked by a pitbull animal. And. I believe that the majority of the people in this room tonight are responsible animal owners who take very good care of their animals. And the speaker who talked about ensuring that you've got the right environment for the animal is is what is is really important and not addressed as part of this conversation here tonight. Because that that makes a huge difference. And I just think that. It's. It's not broke, so why fix it? I mean, I understand that some of you that don't live in Denver would want to live in Denver. Some of you live here and have your animals here. But I believe that this has been something that has worked. We have not seen the kind of data around attacks and concerns with this breed specific animal. Yeah, it has happened with other animals. I agree with that. And we heard the testimony from our our animal control folks. But I just believe that this is a piece of legislation that has worked. It's withstood all of the court challenges. And I believe it's something that we should keep in place. So I am going to be voting against Councilman Herndon's proposal. I appreciate his efforts that he's put into this, but I just don't think this really addresses the heart of some of these issues that are critical to justifying making this change. So thank you, Mr. President. Council member or council member Sawyer. Thank you, Mr. President. I also am torn on what to do tonight. I think that, you know, it's pretty clear, based on all the testimony and all of the information we've been given tonight that breeds suspicions, breed, breed, specific legislation doesn't work. I don't think that that's. Really and truly the issue that is. Up for debate here this evening, because it's clear that it doesn't work. It's clear that there are pitbulls in the city of Denver. It's clear that they are in the shadows. It's clear that we don't have. The data that we need. To talk about that because they are hidden right. Now. So breed specific legislation is not the answer, and that is absolutely 100% true. The question. Is whether we have been providing and will continue to provide the right kinds of resources to. The community and to our Parks and rec. Department and to our animal control departments so that they can enforce whatever laws they need to enforce in order to keep our community safe. Because at the end of the day, our job as city council people is to care for the health and safety and welfare of our communities. And that I don't think we're doing that. I don't see as the second piece of this law. I don't see where we are providing additional resources, additional people. Additional funding. To help support our law enforcement. And. Whatever that looks like in Parks and Rec and in animal control enforcement officers so that we can. Manage. The situation when pit bulls come out of the shadows and back into our parks and back onto our streets in a different way. And so that's where my concern lies. And so I'm really torn on what to do here. But I think that I am going to have to vote no on this tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Councilmember Catherine. Thank you, Mr. President. I have concerns as well. I haven't read as much literature, pro or con. I've gotten a million emails, phone calls. The people are divided. I totally get where the position that those who love and own pit bulls are in. But I'm looking at some of the things. We're 18% licensed. I don't believe we're 720,000 people right now. There are cities all over Colorado that have gotten rid of breed specific legislation. There are two cities in Colorado with more than 200,000 people. One is Aurora. The other is Colorado Springs. And they're not really close to the size we are. As has been said, there is not just in this room. There's hundreds of thousands of pet owners responsible. Probably 100,000 little more responsible pet owners in the city. In a city this large. There's many, many irresponsible pet owners. Concerns about this bill is there is no requirements for training. There's no requirements for behavioral evaluation. And I agree, I had had the same thoughts as Mr. Venice that it to me, it is like if you want a driver's license, you go to the Department of Motor Vehicles, you show them your birth certificate, and they give you a driver's license. There's no requirement that you can prove you learned how to drive a car or display that. I know this is not a game for either side. I'm well aware of that. I, I very much appreciate Councilman Herndon trying to come to a middle ground. But with all due respect, I'm not convinced of the ability of Denver animal protection to do what this bill would would require to bring our community the comfort level that it deserves. We our office gets constant calls on on off leash dogs. We, as has been stated, we are a complaint driven city. It doesn't matter whether it's dogs, broken sidewalks, weeds too high in your lawn. You know, we don't have inspectors going out roaming our streets to see if if our city is in order. We wait until something wrong happens and then we address that. So. I don't see anything in the bill or our ability to control it, to manage this bill and protection of public health that would justify adding additional complication to pet management in Denver. So unfortunately, I'll be voting no on this tonight. I think. Councilmember Cashman, Council Member Sandoval. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you all for sitting in those pews on a cold Monday night and sharing your views with us. That's representative democracy, right? You all voted 13 of us to make this decision. So with that, I just want to say thank you. I really appreciate it. And thank you for all of the people who called out my office. I got. And like. Between January 11th and February 10th, I received 42 phone calls about the pit bull ban between the same amount of time. I received 102 emails. So that's almost 150 odd. Some of you who called my office. So I also sent out a survey because I did not know what to do. 114 people in Council District one took it and support the repeal of the ban or changing the ban. 92 Don't live in Council District one but still support it. 28 Didn't really know. So as I sat here, I had to vacillate. I'm just going to be honest. I had to really vacillate. I had not really given breed specific legislation, very much thought. I've given zoning a lot of thought. I've given homelessness a lot of thought. I've given education a lot of thought. I've given transportation a lot of thought. And so what I ask all of you is give those things as much attention as you have given this honestly. Because if I come up here and I sit up here and we're talking about repealing the camping ban and all of you are not in those seats, I'm going to get really frustrated because I believe that those issues are just as important as our dogs. And trust me, I have had had dogs my entire life. My entire life. My kids are at home, sitting at home right now watching this. Sending me pictures of our dogs waiting for me to come home. So I do not take this lightly, but I just want you all to understand that I have been in a council office since 2012, and I've hardly seen these type of numbers on the issues that we're running up here. So I really need everyone to start paying attention on some of the other issues that we're running up here. So that that's me on my soapbox. So second of all, I do understand what it feels like to be bitten by a dog. I have been bitten by a dog. My son was viciously attacked at my brother in law's house and he ended up in the hospital with major stitches. My nieces have been bitten dog by a dogs and it is scary. It really is scary. Now, do I believe that pit bulls are more dangerous than any other dog? No. I have a I had a Labrador who is the most. He would have loved my kids. I mean, my kids could stick pinto beans up his nose and he wouldn't do anything. We take him skiing and he goes after another man who was coming close to my daughter. It's true. And he was in a loving environment. He had never been hurt. He had been a great dog. So do I think that breed specific legislation is making Denver safe? I don't. What I do think is making Denver safe is making sure all of you walk your dogs unleashes. That's what's making Denver safe. So I would just ask all of you who are here tonight, I really believe in the power five. Every time I was on the campaign trail, I asked one person to tell five people if they could do something, if they could show up at an event, or if they could pass news. So I need all of you here to tell five people to start walking their dogs unleashes and not letting their dogs off leashes in the park. I need all of you to start doing another type of robust outreach, because if you all are here tonight talking about this on a cold night and it's 934, obviously you have a lot of passion. So use that passion in helping get compliance because as my colleagues have talked about up here, 18% of us are in compliance and have licenses for our dogs. So I don't think that licensing is working. It doesn't work. People are not going out and showing up to the the animal control and saying, here, give me my dog license. They think they have to get spayed or neutered and then walk them on a leash. So let's use all of this energy that we have tonight to talk about other. Issues that. Denver's facing. And let's talk about actually making sure that we're in compliance with the books and the ordinances that we have. Because I will tell you one thing. Before I started at the fight, before I started a council, I worked for the fire department and Councilman Herndon made a comment about what if firefighters don't go put out fires? Guess what? 85% of the calls that Denver fire does deals with aren't fires. They really aren't. They're homelessness people. They're homeless. They're drug overdoses. They're people who are stuck in their wheelchairs. So that already happens. So we're already paying for services that aren't in compliance. So I'm not interested in hearing about that tonight. I'm interested about using this energy that you all have in here, sitting here to advance other things and make sure that we're all talking about the ordinances and the dog compliances. And in two. Years, when this comes back. You all better be here with me sitting here. Talking about this. And if the data shows something different, then you all will have to. That's what democracy is. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Hines. Thank you, Mr. President. Councilman Ortega. It is broke. So for many reasons, I'll be voting in favor of this ordinance. And I want to make sure that my constituents realize that this is a thoughtful decision, not just something that's flippant. This is a conversation much like religion. People have strong feelings on each side of the argument, just like people feel strongly about, you know, about religion. It finally clicked in my head because one of my constituents shared that, quote, Justified or not, people fear pit bulls. I get that. I mean, literally, I get that because people who come into my office are afraid of my dog. This guy who's, you know, hiding behind a desk, asleep, but. It's about the owner. It's not about the dog. We want to legislate on making people actually safe, not just making people feel safe. Yes, it's also important to make people feel safe. But we but one, we already have pitbulls in the city. I went by two on my blog in the last week and I asked them both, Well, what are your thoughts about BSL? And they said, Well, I'm sure hope we could have our dogs in out in the open. It's right there. He's right. No, but anyway. And to banning certain breeds because they are unsafe actually makes us less safe because then it promotes the unsound assumption that we've gotten rid of all the unsafe dogs. And and we've seen we've heard a lot of statistics, you know, people, dogs, untrained dogs, humans make mistakes. All living beings make mistakes. Dogs make mistakes. And even labs bite. People are Chihuahuas are dashboards. Here's just one example. Some people have said that the pit bulls jaws are better designed to bite than other dogs, but measured in pounds per square inch, none of the breeds commonly referred to as pit bulls are in the top 12. While science refutes that fear, people have the fear nonetheless. Pitbulls are not an actual breed. And people have called that animal, you know, whichever animal is feared at the moment, a pit bull because it's convenient for the story. We've talked about that, too, and received we received one email from a District ten constituent with multiple photos of a dog that it's clearly not a pit bull. Yet the fear this constituent described is real. So one other thing. Every animal rights organization, every not every but most major animal rights organizations support an end to BSL nationwide American Veterinary Veterinary Medical Association, the Association of Professional Dog Trainers, ASPCA, the American Society for Protection of Cruelty to Animals, the Humane Society of the United States. The American Kennel Club. The National Canine Research Council. The American Bar Association supports the repeal of BSL. The only notable exception I found is PETA Cats. Well, that's interesting, but I went I want to read in for the record. This is from the PETA website. So if you go to Peter dot org. PETA advocates for a ban on breeding all dogs, including pit bulls, as breeding any dog should be illegal as long as millions must be euthanized in animal shelters every year. Well, that makes it all right. Hang on. That makes sense. I mean, at first I was like, ahead. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. But yes, while any dog is getting put down and no dog should be bred, I think that is in in in line with PETA's values and maybe in line with my values , too. But let's we've also talked about the financial implication of BSL, according to a 2019 study led by the University of Denver. And these statistics were cited as well, an economic assessment of BSL. It identified that the city and county of Denver have spent at least $5.8 million on enforcing the legislation. Additional economic analysis and estimating that BSL resulted in approximately a $107 million in lost direct and indirect economic activity related to lost pet care revenue. An estimated $1 million has been spent by shelters and surrounding communities to care for the pit bulls that were transferred as a result of BSL. And then the same study did a survey. And so the public perception on pit bulls that again this is a do you study that is so fresh that it hasn't even been officially released yet. But we got an advance copy apparently, but 19.4% of people responded and they're just certified Denver residents or excuse me, surveyed Denver residents . 19.4% of people responded that Denver's breed ban positively impacted their perception of Denver. 80%. It's that's not the case. 24.6% said. Denver residents said that the breed ban makes them feel safer. So 75% of residents, the breed ban does not necessarily make them feel safer. It's not that the converse is necessarily true, but I think that's important, important information because it's fresh. A fresh survey from the city of Denver by the University of Denver. Also BSL impacts the credibility of legitimate service dogs, which is something that no one, no one mentioned tonight but is particularly important to me because we have all the pit bulls that I found that are service dogs. And there's one gentleman in the back who apparently up to okay, we were up to two of the pit bulls that I found in my neighborhood that people have claimed have service dogs. They don't exhibit the same characteristics as my dog. And it's true, Ada is it's very difficult for 88 for someone to to discern a legitimate service dog from a pet because of the way ADA legislation works. And we tried to fix that a little bit at the state level, but it's very difficult because as was stated, federal law trumps state law, state law trumps local law. So we're kind of in a conundrum. But while we're in this conundrum, people are using the loophole of my pet is owner or actually he's not a I know he's a pit bull, but he's not a pet. He's a service dog. So I would say two other things now. I'm most. My mom was hit by a pit bull once. She almost lost her eye and had to get stitches around her eye socket, except that it wasn't a pit bull at all. It was a Chihuahua. Every pit bull in my life has been sweet and kind, and the last thing I'd say, I'm almost done. Let's spring all dogs in Denver, including pit bulls, out of the shadows and into our registry. Let's ensure that we know where they are and track down can track them. Let's hold all dog owners accountable, regardless of breed, when they don't see the signs and aren't keeping their pets in a responsible way. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilmember Councilmember Taurus. Thank you, Mr. President. I first want to thank the 28 speakers that signed up, and we had time to hear from the additional 16 folks who are still in the room waiting to hear this decision. It takes a lot to come out. And to that point, I also echo my fellow Councilwoman Sandoval's sentiments that there are a lot of issues that are really important in this city, and we need all of you to come out and talk about your opinions about them and where you sit. It is not just how does this affect me scenario. This has to do with all of our neighborhoods. I want to thank Denver animal protection, Alice and Josh in particular. The work that you do and that your teams do. You've shared with me that District three has the most animal protection calls in the city, and this is for everything, not just dangerous animal calls or pit bull calls. But that statistic was stunning to me when we heard it in committee, that of the 2200 calls that you've gotten over the last four years. Half of them have come from my zip codes and District three and Bella's zip code. This is where half of the calls are coming from. These are not were half of the pit bulls are. This is where half of the calls reporting suspected dogs are. I have a friend who has a sharp mix that is constantly confused for a pit bull. What this tells me is not just that our legislation or what we're trying to do here affects poor communities. What this tells me is that we are also overregulated and overpoliced in many cases, so that you're spending 95% of your time out chasing leads that do not result. Vast majority of that time in an actual pit bull means we have more fear of just large dogs that look scary than actual scary. Dogs are my neighborhood. Anecdotally, I see more chihuahuas on the loose than I do large animals. And now that I know that they have scissor biting capability, I'm a little worried. But I do worry about the animals that are under the radar that where owners don't feel like they have any option but to keep them there. And I want to remove that. But I think we're also carrying forward perceptions and fears that I hope some of the animal professionals have busted tonight. But I know that. We care deeply about our fur babies in our homes and in our neighborhoods. Please, please keep them on leashes. Please obey the rules. I have seen more small dogs attack big dogs that have been leashed because the small dogs were off leash in our in Barnum Park in Lincoln Park. These are things that we have to be very vigilant about because larger security issues are at stake. So I will be voting in favor of this and really hoping to see in two years a marked difference. If we can see over a period of time, 14% increase, increase in license. Sure. Because of the hard work that general animal protection is doing. I want to see that number much bigger if it is anywhere near a decrease. We're going in the wrong direction. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember. Councilmember Flint. Thank you, Mr. President. I am really glad that I asked for this hearing, and maybe those who are sitting on those hard seats aren't so happy about it. But this has been very, very helpful for me because this is one of the most difficult votes that I've been asked to make. And I had lunch today with Estaban over there at the press table, and we were talking about this and said, I have no idea how I'm going to vote tonight. Over the last couple of weeks. Thank you, Councilman Herndon, for for presenting a regimen that or a compromise or a middle ground that is that is reasonable and is very worth looking at. And I went back and forth over the last couple of weeks. One day I would wake up and say, I'm going to vote now, and the next day I would say, I think I could vote yes. Then I'm back to no and yes. I had a lot of input in at the last minute today from some constituents that I have worked with over the years. And and I'm grateful to them for that as well. And thank you again as Council Councilwoman Sandoval and mentors and others have said, for all those who came from outside of Denver, but also from Green Valley Ranch and Montello, which is probably farther away from where we're sitting right now. And, you know, it's snowing out and it's going to be a difficult drive. So stay safe. And thank you for sitting here and coming out and being so passionate as I told to stay on during lunch. A lot of our votes are they're binary. We have to vote I or nay. You don't get to vote maybe. Or you don't get to vote. You know, 52%. Yes and 48% no. It has to be a yes or no and. There have been votes where I didn't know until the roll call what I was actually going to say on some really controversial things, because there is merit on both sides of this argument. There really is. The data may be unclear and it may be in dispute. But one thing that is clear to me is that the damage caused by pit bulls as opposed to a Chihuahua biting the eye socket is disproportionate to their numbers in the population. And. And even though the data may be in dispute or cloudy, that gives me pause and and has me leaning toward voting no on this. But I do think, Councilman Herndon, for bringing it forward and putting us through this debate, it was worth having. And it was very helpful to have all of you come down here and speak to this on both sides. So I appreciate that. So with that, Mr. President, I will be joining those who are voting no. Thank you, Councilmember. All right. I, I don't see anybody else. So that leaves you with me. And then we are going to vote. I want to say thank you to Councilman Herndon for all of your work on this and for, you know, being willing to work and come forward with something that wasn't what you had initially wanted . I think to come forward with I just want to say thank you, thank you. Thank you to all of you for everything that you did tonight to make me so proud of our democracy. I grew up in Denver, born and raised here, and I grew up afraid of pit bulls in the city. And when Councilman Herndon and a group of my constituents on different occasions first came to me with this, my knee jerk reaction was, No way. But I committed when I ran for this job that I would listen to everyone, especially those who disagree with me. And above all, I'm committed to facts and to science and to making sure that I lead from those facts and from that science, even when and maybe most importantly, when it's the hard thing to do and. It took me a long time to change the emotional response that I had and to look at the data that was there and look at the science that was there to get me to where I am tonight. But I do believe that the science is clear that breed specific legislation is not effective and it is not best practice. We've already enacted our dangerous dog ordinance prior to this to make sure that we do have dog laws that are based on best practice and are based on science to enable something like this to some of my colleagues who have said, hey, you know, maybe, but we need more resources for this. And to that, I agree. We need more resources for our dogs and our humans who take care of those dogs. We need more resources for enforcement. We need more resources for licensing. We need more dog parks. We need legal places where people can let their dogs off leash for a city that now has more dogs. I've been told by an article in one of the media outlets more dogs than children in our city. We desperately need more dog parks. Dog parks in every community. But none of that changes the fact that that if we need more of these resources, we need them for all dogs, and that there is a difference based on breed. And for me, none of that changes facts. None of that changes the science. And for that reason, at a time where I think that has never been more important for us as a city, for us as a state, for us as a country to lead and to legislate based on facts and based on science. I will be voting in support of this bill tonight. Madam Secretary, roll call. Herndon. I. Black. I. Flynn No. Hines. High. Cashman. No. Kenny. I. Ortega No. Sandoval. Sawyer. No. Torres. I. Council. President. I. I'm. Secretary. Please close the voting. Announce the results. Seven. Seven. I heard seven eyes and four days. Council Bill 71 has passed, having no further business before this body. This meeting is adjourned.

A bill for an ordinance designating 4345 West 46th Avenue as a structure for preservation. Approves an individual landmark designation for property located at 4345 West 46th Avenue in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 9-10-19.

DenverCityCouncil_09162019_19-0913

No items have been called out. So, Madam Secretary, if you please put the first item on our screens and Councilwoman Sandoval, please go ahead with your comment. Thank you. I just wanted to provide an update on this landmark application that is moving forward. It came to Count Committee last week on the Land Use Committee. And at that committee meeting, we had both stuck both parties at the table. And for those of you who may not know, this is a designation in North Denver where it's non owner opposed. So the applicant is the community, although the owner does not want the landmark designation. So I should have started with that. And right before council started, probably 25 minutes ago, I had confirmation that both sides, the applicant and the owner, have agreed to a 60 day pause. So tomorrow at the Landmark Preservation Commission meeting, this will be on the agenda and all sides will be there. And hopefully what we get is the Landmark Preservation Commission in proposing that or voting in favor of the 60 day pause. So the 60 day pause brings this back November 18th. So I just wanted to make sure that everybody knew this because this will publish it for a public hearing, which then we need to postpone the public hearing once that goes from the Landmark Preservation Commission tomorrow. But that process needs to happen first. So if anyone has any questions, please feel free to contact my office.

Report of the City Clerk on the Certificate of Sufficiency for Initiative No. 134, concerning approval voting for Mayor, City Attorney, and City Councilmember primary elections.

SeattleCityCouncil_07122022_CF 314495

The report of the City Council Agenda Item one Quick File 314495. Report of the City Clerk on the set of the on the Certificate of Sufficiency for initiative number 134. Thank you. CLERK 5314495. As notice of Initiative 134 is sufficient signatures to go on the ballot, according to the city charter. The city clerk has 20 days from receipt of notice from King County elections to file the notice with the city council. The clerk city clerk filed a report and certificate of sufficiency with the Council via this clerk file on June 28. This action started the 45 day clock for council action on the initiative in order to provide my colleagues with additional time to consider this initiative, recommending holding the clerk file for another week until Thursday, this court file will appear on every agenda until the City Council determines what action will be taken in response to initiative number 134. As a reminder, the City Council City's Election Code, SC 2.0 4.300 prohibits elected officials and city employees from using their office for the promotion or opposition of any ballot measure. According to the code. We should refrain from discussing the merits of the initiative until we are actually voting on the legislation to support or oppose the ballot proposition that will occur at a future meeting and within 45 days of this court file 314495 being filed with the Council, I recommend that councils refrain from discussing this initiative today . And until the Council considers legislation supporting or opposing this ballot measure ballot proposition, I move to postpone clerk file 3144952 July 14th. Is there a second second? It has been moved and seconded to postpone the clerk filed with the clerk. Please call the roll on postponement clerk file 314495 until July 14th. Councilmember Herbold Yes. Councilmember Lewis Yes. Councilmember Morales Yes. Councilmember Mosqueda i. E. Councilmember Nelson I. Councilmember Peterson Yes. Councilmember Sawant. Yes. Council President Pro Tem Strauss. Yes. Eight in favor and unopposed. Thank you. The motion carries a quick vote is postponed to July 14, 2022, and this item will appear on every agenda until the City Council determines what action will be taken in response to initiative ember 134 Item number two Will Clerk please read item two into the record. Agenda Item two Union Council Bill 120363. An ordinance relating to prosecuting violations of domestic violence and other protection orders to make the Seattle Municipal Code consistent with state law. Amending Section 12 .8.09.020 about Seattle Municipal Code.

Approves the sale of city-owned land for $500,000 to Recreation Equipment Inc. (REI) which has been leasing the land at 1416 Platte Street in Council District 1 for parking since 2000. The purchase price is based on an appraisal (FINAN 201523366-00). (FINANCE & SERVICES) Approves the sale of city-owned land for $500,000 to Recreation Equipment Inc. (REI) which has been leasing the land at 1416 Platte Street in Council District 1 for parking since 2000 (FINAN 201523366-00). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 12-21-15. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 11-19-15.

DenverCityCouncil_12072015_15-0868

And they are willing to enter into a deed restriction for for the purchase which restricts any. Above ground. Can we can we insert that into this bill? Let me. I think Mr. Broadwell read in. So we ask Mr. Broadwell to address that. Yes. Quickly, David Broadwell, assistant city attorney. Jumping ahead a little bit on tonight's agenda. If the amendment occurs, the bill will have to be republished and what you'll actually be voting on the merits of the bill and the transaction until next week. What Mr. Eisen just described will give us that opportunity between now and next week to produce to you the additional covenant which will seal that question in terms of clarifying that indeed the limitations on construction on the parking lot property will carry forward with this transaction and they'll reiterate some of the things that were done 15 years ago. But but you won't be voting on the merits of the transaction tonight. Instead, just the technicality is by charter. Every time there's a change to the title, it has to be republished before it can be adopted. And just a little further clarification, the conservation easement on the RBI parcel does not cover most of the fact any of the parcel that we're conveying in the sale. Our Kennebec Conservation Easement on the RCI property. How can that encumber a completely separate property from vertical construction? Because it says that RCA is not permitted to build any structures that would block the southern side from. From the park. Right of way. Right. And but if that parcel were sold to someone else, the parking lot, which is not in the conservation easement, could they? And this is related to the amendment because we're redressing the property. I know that's a stretch, Mr. President. But I mean, at this point, the city already has an option to purchase the property under their lease agreement, and they've exercised that option. So selling to someone else isn't really an alternative. And just for clarification, so that I'm very clear when they say the southern facade of the building, you're actually talking about the one that faces the west, the the long portion of the building and not the the portion of the faces, the river. The parking portion that faces the parking lot. Okay. Okay. Most people most people call that the West facade. Thank you. It's it's referred to in the documents. Okay. But this would certainly be spelled out very clearly in a deed restriction. Right. That that that they have no problem with. Thank you very much. That's all. Thank you. Councilman Espinoza, you have any comments or. Yeah, no comment. Just to clarify what is being said, because I think it's been somewhat unclear the. The conservation easement is to the grantor, which is RPI, but that's for their property. They own a significant amount of property along that facade. And so it actually has a boundary of where that conservation easement applies, meaning you cannot build something in that area to block that southern facade, but that this property wholly exists outside of that boundary. Is that correct? That's correct. It does, however, say in the conservation easement that they can't build on adjacent properties. I think Section 3.1 of that easement doesn't permit RTI to build on anything adjacent that is not specifically described in the legal description. So that would prohibit them from from building. Correct. So then the but there is existing CMCs five zoning unencumbered by height. And so the contract with RTI says that it should be sold for the appraised value, but it was appraised with encumbrances that don't exist. Is that correct? No. Is that an encumbrance does exist and RTI would not be permitted to build on that property by virtue of of. But we could sell it to somebody other than RCA if I chose not to have this option, which they actually let sunset. What, in 2003. But you extended it for. They they the option that expired was at a set price in 2003. They've always had the option. It's been continuous all this time. It was exercising it before December of 23 would have been at the 403,000. After that it was at then the appraised value. So we time after that. APPRAISER Not of the value to somebody other than RPI but only as as it would be conveyed to Aria. Wow. I guess. Why don't we do this? Why don't we do this? Because we're talking about the amendment, and the amendment is what's up right now. Right. Well, you'll have that opportunity to ask that. What we need to do is just speak to the amendment, and then once it's published, that's going to be coming and we'll have the opportunity to address those questions and go into those further details. So, you know, definitely hold on to those questions. Thank you for those answers. Think you'll be prepared to do that? All right. Or when it's published. So are there any other accounts? Are there any other comments on 868? Right. Madam Secretary, roll call on the amendment. Gilmore by Cashman. I can eat new Ortega. Sussman Black. Brooks Clark, I. Espinosa, I. Flynn, I. Mr. President. I. Secretary. Please close the voting and announce the results. 12 eyes. 12 eyes. 868 has been a minute. Councilman new. We're going to need a motion to order 868 published as amended. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. Move the council. Bill 868. The order published as amended. Right. It's been moved. We just need a second. Second is Ortega comments by members of council. All right. Madam Secretary, roll call. All right. One woman. It's okay. It's not. Giving you that option. Take your time. We're going to try one more time. Someone's liking it. Thank you. Okay. The movers knew in the seconds when. Gilmore. I. Cashman I can each. I knew Ortega Sussman, Black Brooks Clark. All right, Espinosa, I. Flynn, I. Mr. President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting. Announce results. 12 Eyes. Right. 12 Eyes Council Bill 868 has been ordered published as amended. And just to the note. Final consideration will be Monday, December 14, at which point we can talk about it further. All right. Are there any other bills I'm going to just kind of sweep through? Councilman, if I'm wrong, I don't think there's any other bills that need to be called out, which means it's time for the block votes. We are now ready for the block votes. All other bills are ordered published. Councilman Louie, please put the resolutions on the floor for adoption. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that following resolutions be adopted in block eight 7899 894 907 910 677 856, eight, 95, eight, 96 and 957. All right. It has been moved and seconded. Madam President. Raquel Kenny. I knew. Ortega and. Susman. Black Guy. Brooks Clarke. Espinosa, I.

A bill for an ordinance amending section 8-67 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code requiring a provisional breed-restricted license for owners of pit bulls. A bill for an ordinance amending section 8-67 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code requiring a provisional breed-restricted license for owners of pit bulls. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 1-22-20.

DenverCityCouncil_02242020_20-0071

Thank you, Madam Secretary. The communication regarding regarding the veto of Council Bill 2271 is received and filed. All right, Councilman Herndon, I understand that in on this issue, you have a motion to override the veto. On Council Bill 2071. Yes, Mr. President, I move the Council Bill 20 20071 passes, notwithstanding the disapproval or objections of the mayor. It has been moved and seconded. We will do questions and comments combined on this. So questions or comments, you can go ahead and chime in on Council Bill 2071. Councilman Herndon. Mr. President, I was going to allow my colleagues to ask any questions if they wanted to go first. And then once all the questions were exhausted, I would just leave with the comments. So if anyone, I do not have any questions, but if other colleagues did, I wanted to allow them the opportunity to ask before I went to my comments. I don't it doesn't look like. Councilman Ortega, do you have some questions? I do. My question is for Councilman Herndon. I'd like to know how many community meetings were held citywide to talk about this issue before this was brought forward. I was not aware of any that were held, and I think that is a concern that I heard expressed across the city from different neighborhoods in a lot of the communication that I received. And so I wanted to ask that I understand you've been talking about this for quite some time, but the first I heard about it was, I think the week before you filed the bill, you brought the information to me, gave me a copy of the bill. But prior to that, I was not aware that there had been any meetings held in the community. So. Correct. I did not hold any community meetings. Okay. Thank you. All right, Councilmember. Sorry. Thank you, Mr. President. Well, first, I want to thank all of the members who I have reached out to over the course of the last week and all of the members of the community who have reached out to me to urge me to look into this further. And, you know, I've spent a lot of time talking to Councilman Herndon about this in particular. Sorry for all the emails, Chris, but I. I do just want to say, you know, that this is a really difficult decision. And, you know, because I, I, I definitely feel for a pit bull owners. I feel for you guys. And after watching the Beyond the Myth movie last night, which was a total tear jerker, I it was really awful to watch and so difficult. I was truly in tears last night watching it. So, you know, this is a really difficult decision. And in all of the research I've done, in everything that I have looked into, I keep saying the same thing, which is I need to have some there has to be some factual difference. There has to be a factual change that would make me change my vote in some way. And at the end of the day, that factual change just hasn't come in in District five. The number one complaint that we receive when it comes to animals is off leash dogs in parks, and that is managed by parks and Rec . And there are 20 Parks and Rec rangers who manage that during the off season and 50 who manage it during the season. And they are not planning on asking for more in support of that. And it's not enough right now based on the number of of complaints that we receive. And so, you know, unfortunately, as much as I feel for, you know, all of the pit bull owners in the city, and as much as I hear you guys and as much as I hear you on breed specific legislation not working, this law is still breed specific legislation. So I think that, you know, given that the mayor has vetoed this and given that the community has, it doesn't seem that far apart. Right. The the the advocates for this and the people who are really concerned about it, the bridge the gap between you, it seems like it's not that far apart, like there's a real possibility to find some consensus here in our community. And so I think that the real solution here is to send it to the community and to have a real community discussion about this, because I think that we could come to something even better than what we have come up with at this point. And so I think that the real solution here is to let the community use its voice to, you know, send it to the ballot. We don't have to send it to the ballot if the community can between now and November, come to some sort of consensus that makes sense and bring it back as an ordinance. Let's do it. Let's do it and let's put it on the ballot as a backup if we need to. But I think that that's where this needs to go from here based on where we are right now. So thank you, Mr. President, and thank you, community and two council members for everything and all of this important discussion over the last couple of weeks. I think we will eventually come to a better place as a community, although we're not there right now. Thanks. Thank you, Councilmember. I just want to check in with you. That last one was comments or doing questions. Comments together give you one more chance as the making the motion. Did you want to go or you want to wait? Yeah. Did you want to wait? President, I appreciate. Thank you, Councilman Sawyer. And all the I see we got a few council members in the queue. I just want to explain why. I was at a community meeting and someone said to me, you know, why are you doing this now? And my response back was, we should have been doing this years ago, because here and when you're having these conversations, no matter what side of the aisle you're on, you can find facts to support your opinion. And so I want to take away dog bite numbers because those numbers are one, you don't know if that's an actual breed. And it's just it's really ineffective. But I think here are some facts that people can't argue with. So if you look nationally, subject matter experts, organizations that deal with animals have come out in force overwhelmingly to say that breed specific legislation doesn't work, and I'll just name a few of them. The American Animal Health Association. The American Bar Association. The American Dog Owners Association. The American Kennel Club. The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The American Veterinary Medical Association. The American Veterinarian Society of Animal Behavior Association of Professional Dog Trainers. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Humane Society of the United States. International Association of Canine Professionals. National Association. Control Associate National Animal excuse me. Control Association. National Canine Research Council. Any Obama Administration 2013. So and I'll just quote a couple of paragraphs from the Obama administration. We don't support breed specific legislation. Research shows that bans on certain types of dogs are largely ineffective and often a waste of public resources. They later conclude that as an alternative to breed specific policies, the CDC recommends a community based approach to prevent dog bites. And ultimately, we think there's a much more promising way to build stronger communities of pets and pets owners. But let's say for a second, you just don't believe those national organizations. Okay, fine. What are other cities doing? Since 2012, cities large and small have repealed their breed specific legislation. Cincinnati, Ohio. 2012. Halsey, Missouri. 2014. Montreal, Canada. 2018. Castle Rock, Colorado 2018. Yakima, Washington 2018. Prairie Villa Candies 2020. Junction City, Kansas. Last week, 2020, there was an article that came out that Aurora is considering repealing their pit bull legislation. And I read that being from Kansas City, Missouri, the state of Missouri is going to consider doing it. So if you don't believe the national organization, so be it. Look at some cities like size it in smaller that are doing it. And I'm not aware of any city that has since repealed their breed specific legislation that they have turned around and said, whoops, we made a mistake and if you find one, please let me know because I'm still trying to do my research. So if you don't believe national organizations, you don't believe other cities. What is happening here at the state and city? We've had experts since this since this conversation became public that came to committee. Dr. April Steele, Denver, Dumb Friendly AG from the Colorado Veterinary Medical Association. Dr. Ariel Fagan, who's a veterinary behaviorist, one of two people in the state who have that certification. We heard from one expert today. Thank you, sir, for coming this year. They're all saying the same story. Breed specific legislation doesn't work. These dogs do not bite at greater offenses in others. The severity Dr. Fagan was here is not as a greater offense than others. So if you have these three, three different levels of experts, okay, so now I'm going to get into some data, but how about some data that comes right here from the heart of heart of Denver? Denver. Department of Public Health and the Environment. The decade study of all the dog bites that they had, 4.4%, I believe that was percent was from pit bulls, 4.4%. So I'm getting to a point where I'm running out of sources, large and small, to say this is why we should be doing that. But you know what? I still hear you for the communities in Montebello that have concerns about walking from the individuals that have concerns, because what we have before you, I don't believe, is an outright repeal. We may disagree on that, but we're telling these dog owners that you have to go above and beyond than what a regular dog owner like myself has is a way to find a middle ground. Take that new data in two years. Let's come back and see what that looks like. I cannot think of a better approach that we can hear from both sides of the issue and then say, This is why I'm doing this. These are the reasons behind it. I've reached out to Parks and Rec and they they request Parks Rangers every year in the budget process. Sometimes they get them. Sometimes it's not we as the authority, we approve the budget. So if we had issues with the number of park rangers that are in the budget, then let's make sure seven or nine of us agree to add more park rangers to deal with these dogs. Denver Animal Protection. Should this move forward, have the ability they're going to get to full after fees to help move forward with this because remember this doesn't take effect for 90 days because we. You need to have a ramp up period. We do need to have a community engagement period. So this is why I believe that this was the right decision to move forward a compromise. And while I respect the mayor's opinion, I have just listed a ton of resources and subject matter experts. And I have to admit I'm disappointed because there are not this entire conversation, not one time to the third floor, come to me and say, let's have a conversation. Multiple colleagues on this chamber came to me say, Hey, Chris, I have a conversation about a spay and neuter. I have a conversation. I have a concern about the five years. That's how the process should work, not just have the bill come to your desk and sign a veto five days later. That's what the most disappointing about it. Not that he vetoed it. He has that authority. He has that ability. But I would have preferred to have a conversation with him so that we don't have to come now and decide whether or not we're going to override the mayor's veto. So that's why I'm moving forward. That's why I'm asking for this vote to override the mayor's veto. If this is not if this is not successful, I will certainly have more conversations with my colleagues. I don't think we should do a ballot measure. I think this body, the majority elected by the city and county of the people of Denver, a majority of us felt this way. That's what we should move forward. But, you know, I believe strongly from all the reasons that I just listed why this is the direction to move forward. So I would ask my colleagues to consider. But if not, we'll certainly look at other ways to take these dogs out of the shadows and make our community safer with a more responsible dog ordinance. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank, Governor. Ladies and gentlemen. Ladies and gentlemen. Ladies and gentlemen, I will ask, as I asked last time, and I really appreciate it, I held this up as a shining example of how our democracy can work. We are trying to get through lots of people. This is very emotional on both sides. This is not a competition for who can cheer louder or who can make the other side feel like their thoughts and their feelings are not as valid because they're not cheering as loud. I will ask you to hold your applause, so hold that in check while we go through this. This has been a very difficult and very emotional process for people on both sides, and that does not help. So I will ask you this one time, please keep those. You're cheering the noise down in this chamber while we go through our democratic process and allow everyone in this room, whether they're sitting up here and having to voice that in front of all of you, knowing that they're disappointing a lot of people in the room, no matter what they say or if they're sitting in here feeling very emotional right now about a pet that is family to them or a family member who they're worried about, that this is a safe place for our democracy to work and for everyone to feel. So I would ask that you please keep that down. Council member can each. Thank you, Mr. President. Pardon my voice. Next up, Kathleen Flynn. Where you first? Did you get skeptics? When I was actually. I will defer to Councilman Flynn. Oh, sorry about that. I'd had Kenny. Councilman Flynn, you are correct. I'm sorry. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. President. Given the last couple of speakers, I had a chance to talk with a number of constituents in my district on both sides, and it's apparent that an override vote will fail. It will. It would fail 8 to 5 if we put it to roll call right now. And that means the bill would die. I know that there is an effort by folks on both sides. Paul I emailed with Paul Brandus to try to work on, try to get the communities together to work on something that they could then bring back to us. In light of that. Mr. President, I would like to move on to Rule 6.3. That item 20 dash 71 be referred to committee with the possible outcome that would be referred to the ballot, but invite the community to participate in that and reframe it and not let this bill die right now. I am looking at our table over there with legal and ah, Madam Secretary, for some guidance. Under Rule 6.3, that motion takes precedence. We have two lawyers checking on me now. But. I know that. Excuse me. Kirsten Crawford, Legislative Council. Councilman Flynn, that is not my reading of the rules. I think the motion that is standing takes precedent here and needs to be acted on first. All right. May I disagree? Mr. President, the rule says when a question shall be under debate, no other motion shall be entertained except the following procedural motions, which shall take precedence, and ab item F is to re referred to committee. That it always takes precedence. Our read on it is that as 7.8 special parliamentary role and as such, we are given only three options to do anything regarding Rule 7.8. So we have to operate under 7.8. All right. I'm going to go I'm going to continue on for a second. I see that our legal has given us a determination. That's what they're there for. So I'm going to move on to our next speaker and councilman. You can if you would like to go over there and chat with them, then you can. Councilmember, connect your next up in the queue. Are you ready? Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. Pardon my voice. I wanted to I didn't speak last week about my vote in favor of the ordinance, and so I will be voting to override the veto tonight if that vote proceeds. So just wanted to put on the record, I think the main reason why in noting the mayor's letter, he he mentions the low rate of licensure in the city. And that was the question we at council asked at several points. And what was very clearly laid out during the public hearing last last I guess it wasn't last week last time when that when that public hearing took place was that the process for licensure in this ordinance is totally different, that in this case there will be a summons to court issued to someone, and if they fail to do the licensure, there will be a home visit to go and take action with the dogs. So that I think I don't know if the mayor was briefed on the very different follow up procedures that were described to us last week. But that, in my opinion, is very factually different information. So we we all many of us had that same question, but we had a very thorough explanation that in this case, we do have very strict follow up and very strong assurances that any individual will license their dog because they will have both a court summons in a home visit. Neither of those things occur with a standard license today. So in my opinion, the mayor's letter does not adequately reference the record or the process that it was established under this ordinance and his veto message. And I'm disappointed that he missed that. And in his message, I believe that is the persuasive difference. I will I could call up the department and asked him this question, but I know what the answer would be. Can we guarantee that under the law we have in place now that no one will be hurt by a verbal . Well, no, because it has happened. Pit bull bites have happened in our city under the ban. So when folks say to me the ban works, I disagree, it's not working. There are bites that occur. So if that's the case, again, the second piece of the mayor's message is that we are safer with the ban than we would be with this alternative approach, given the fact that there will be court summonses in person evaluations of the dog's breed. If a dog is evaluated for their breed, they will be seen by someone. And if they are aggressive during that l'évaluation, that information can be taken into account and an action plan can be put into place. And so, in my opinion, I don't I don't believe the evidence points to less safety. I believe it points to more. I can't say to the community that if I if I say no to override his veto, that you're somehow safe. That's a false sense of security. So in my opinion, I have to go with both the procedural rigor that will be put in place with this ordinance that was not that was not properly documented in the mayor's letter. And then, secondly, the fact that the current ban has not been able to guarantee the safety that our community seeks. I don't know that any community can guarantee safety in either case, but I believe we maximize it with dogs being seen with court summonses and the follow up that occurs far, so far more so than we do now. So I will be voting to override the veto tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember. Councilmember Hines. Thank you, Mr. President. I, too, will be voting to override the veto and partly because of the d d e information, but also the University of Denver did a study here in Denver that was just Denver came out in 2019. And and it also talked about the the the ill effects of BSL. It talked about the economic impact of initiating the breed ban of over $100 million we talked about we've also heard sorry, we've also learned about bite strength and how pit bulls are not. They have the strongest bite strength that there are many breeds that have stronger bites than than the breeds colloquially identified as pit bulls. BSL negatively impacts service animals, including port those right here. BSL creates a false sense of security because it makes people feel safe because the city has gotten rid of all the bad breeds. But in reality there are still unsafe dogs that are labs that are huskies that are causing are golden retrievers and German shepherds that are still going around our city. So that gives us a false sense of security. The also, what about all of the groups that Councilman Herndon mentioned that are against BSL and then the 20% statistic or 18% currently 0% of pit bulls are registered in Denver. They're pit bulls in my building. They're pit bulls on my block. They're pit bulls in my neighborhood. They're all over. And this would create a legal. For pit bull owners to register their dogs. In other words, if you take zero and add one, then we're getting a better a better approach than if we have them hide in the shadows. I'm assuming that there would be more than one pit bull registered in the city of Denver, but it creates a legal path for people to register their dogs. And and I think that that's important. And then finally, some of the language used in the mayor's veto like the risk to severe injury or make our neighborhoods safer or the risk to public safety. I hope we think about that in everything we do. Let's ban all cars in Denver. So the pedestrians don't have to fear for their safety. You know, to me, as a pedestrian, I don't have to worry about getting hit and killed by cars. That would reduce traffic fatalities by more than 90% in Denver. Well, let's ban all oil and gas in the city of Denver because we're seriously worried about climate change. And that would and I'm I'm afraid of it. And and it is against public safety. And so I think that there are a lot of things that we could do in addition to overturning BSL that would fit within the mayor's spirit of the ban and or excuse me, of the veto. But but I will be voting to overturn the veto. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilmember Councilmember Gilmore. Thank you, President Clark. I have been talking with a lot of folks in my neighborhood. I've lived in the Monticello community for over 25 years. Montebello is the only community that I have ever seen across the country, in the city and county of Denver, that our residents walk with sticks, with golf clubs, with broomsticks. Grown men and women who walk to protect themselves against dogs in our neighborhood. I agree with my colleagues. We should have been doing this years ago, but we should have been doing education and outreach. How are you, a responsible dog owner? What does that look like? How do you take care of your dog, especially if it's a member of your family, which a pet should be? How do you socialize it? How do you make sure that it has immunizations, vaccinations, microchipping? The due study mentioned a lot of great indicators to bring in revenue to our city. I have never seen a dog groomer come out to our neighborhood, Montebello or Green Valley Ranch, to throw a free seminar to make sure that folks who are maybe struggling to stay in our city financially but have a pet to make sure that they have some emotional support and help for them. I've never seen those resources. I've never seen dog groomers, veterinarians, other than what has been provided by the city boarding dog trainers. This should have been done years ago, but we need help from the industry, from professional associations, expecting a community that for decades folks have had dogs for protection. To all of a sudden flip on a dime and say, oh yeah, sure, repeal it. Whatever parameters you have in wool, believe that that's going to work when we don't have more than 20% of our population currently in Denver registering their pets, how do we start to drive up that registration and then also offering microchipping vaccination, vet care, dog training classes? We need those resources. I was elected to protect the citizens of Denver to make sure that their welfare was taken care of. And I don't see any way that the way that this ordinance is written. That I can support it. And beyond that. We need to make sure that we're talking to the very citizens who walk with sticks, golf clubs. Broomsticks to protect themselves. If you haven't been to our community, if you haven't talked to residents, you don't know and you don't understand. And so I would ask that this huge community, please come forward and be part of the solution. And if this is going to become a ballot referral, if this is going to be referred back to committee, I would ask that you allow community members to share their perspectives and their ideas to amend this legislation so that we can really accomplish what we want to accomplish at the end of the day. And that truly is holding pet owners responsible for the actions of their pets. But right now, at this point in time, I don't see us with a path forward around compliance and enforcement to ensure that the community members in my neighborhood are going to be able to have the same freedoms that others have in their neighborhood to walk freely and feel safe in our community. Thank you, President. Clerk Thank Council Member Councilmember Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. First of all, we've all received lots of emails, phone calls, communication from from folks on both sides of this issue. And I want to thank everybody for reaching out and sharing all of their information. The reason I will not be voting for this override tonight is because, number one, this is an unfunded mandate that is not in our 2020 budget. We heard at the public hearing that there would be a need for two additional staff people. I don't think that is sufficient to deal with enforcement of the current ordinance. There was no public outreach for my question in the answer earlier. When we all engage in something that has citywide implications. We all expect of one another to do broad community outreach, and that didn't happen. There was an advocacy group involved that, I guess convince Councilman Herndon that this was the right time and the right issue to bring forward. But typically, we have conversations with inner neighborhood cooperation, which represents all of our registered neighborhood organizations across the city. None of that happened. And I think for anything different to be brought before this body, it requires much, much broader input from our community on trying to find any kind of solution that deals with our current ordinance before I think we expand it to look at anything beyond that. All the data that I looked at and we all were inundated with data and I got a list, you know, that I can read off as well. It's a full page of of citations that show that, you know, this isn't just about dog bites, this is about Mullings. And that's the difference between this breed specific and all of the data. And I can read through them, if you want to hear them, show that this specific breed causes far more harm, especially to children, because children can't get away. They can't climb and jump a fence like in a video that I saw or a man ran on top of a fence to protect himself, and he stayed perched on top of this tall fence until the owner was able to pull its dog down. And this was a pit bull dog. A children, small children can't get away like that. Approximately a thousand citizens in the U.S. and a thousand cities in the U.S. and 50 countries have freed specific legislation. Less than 2% pet owners have obtained license. 20%, sorry, in in the city of Denver in 2009, the U.S. Army and the U.S. Marine Corps banned dangerous dog breeds from privatized housing domestically and abroad. And in 2012, the U.S. Air Force enacted a similar uniform policy. I believe that in the last 30 years this has worked because we have not seen a death. From pit bulls in this city. Do they exist in our city? We know that people people have them illegally in our city. And, you know, obviously, we're being lobbied to try to allow them back in. And here's the reality. We're spending more time on this issue than we've actually been spending in addressing a serious issue going on in this city of homelessness, where we actually have people dying in our streets from exposure that are sleeping outside, which is critical . And this is an issue that I would love to see you all engaged in as well, and as passionately as you are about your animals. I'm not going to read through the list of citations. I do want to read a statement from an ER doctor from Children's Hospital that has worked in seven regions in the past 16 years and personally witnessed the impact of vicious dogs on children. She's. Saying she's taken care of. Children with missing body parts faces, severe brain and head injuries. Some of who were near death from pit bull attacks. The bites from shit shoes and Chihuahuas are nothing compared to the severity of injuries occurred from pit bull breeds. She goes on to just talk about the impact to two children, especially so. I think, again, if this is something that the votes are there to have a broader conversation, I'm happy to be part of that conversation. But I believe we've got to deal with today's ordinance and look at how we address some of the vicious dogs . You know, and it's not just pit bulls, it's other animals that run loose. We have people throughout my neighborhood who never have their dogs on a leash. You know, that's kind of what our our dog park survived. Right. And we've got more dog parts in this city than we've ever had. So I think these are issues that we need to work with and address. And I personally want to thank the mayor for vetoing this because there's much, much more work that needs to be done on this before I would be ready to vote for approving something that I think, again, this this ordinance has protected for the last 30 years. Thank you, Mr. President. Councilmember. Councilmember CdeBaca. Thank you, Mr. President. Can you hear me? Thank you, Mr. President. Our office received 3000 replies in regard to this legislation. 411 came specifically from our district, and they were supporting. 385 were supporting the veto. While I personally believe that this effort in particular is breed specific policy. And I. I've heard over and over that breed specific policy does not work. I will be supporting an override of the mayor's veto. I do encourage people involved in this effort to really consider the fact that this is breed specific policy. And if we do put something to the voters, I would recommend a full repeal. I think that we have to recognize that this kind of legislation was designed to target people of color. The mayor's decision is really an illustration of his disrespect for council's power. And in a heavy mayoral control city, it's very important to take note of when this is done and what it's done for. And the language that was used in the justification for this veto is incredibly problematic, along for many of the reasons stated by Councilman Hines. I think that if we are making policy that is specific to exceptions to the rule or one incident and not making policy around things that we know have wild implications on our health and safety, that's problematic and backwards. I also think it's important to continue fighting for the repeal, but also recognizing that we need to test our mayor's commitment to public health and safety. If the mayor does believe that he cannot in good conscience sign this bill because of the potential life that would be lost. I think we need to hold him to that. When we talk about other repeals and so we are all fighting for a repeal of a ban on humans in this city, a ban on impoverished humans. And I cannot imagine that the mayor's veto justification will be acceptable in that conversation. And so I encourage you all to stay involved, to recognize that the use of a veto and the need for a supermajority always silences the minority. And that is something that transcends this moment and this issue. And we need all of you to stay engaged, to stay active, and recognize that if you're not happy with how people up here are voting, you need to be involved at the local government level to making sure that people up here are listening to you all. So stay tuned because I know everyone wants to leave after this issue. If you're here for pit bulls. But we've got bigger conversations tonight, including rules about how you all are allowed to engage with us. And I encourage you all to to stay engaged. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember. Councilmember Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. I was going to play a hand raising game, but I'll say this all the time and let you know what my observation has been over these past two weeks of hearings. I think a large. Number. Of people who are here in support of overturning the pit bull ban, which I don't think is an unreasonable position. I think either we're not living in Denver in the mid 1980s or we're very young. And it's not that if you're young, you're not bright. But what my belief is that a large number of people who object to the pit bull ban were older in the mid 1980s. And I disagree with my colleague. I don't believe this ban was put into place, had anything to do with with putting down communities of color. We had a real problem in the mid eighties. The attorney who wrote the ban spoke of 20 incidents of severe attacks which are animal protection officer was was not familiar enough with to be able to dispute we had a serious problem here. And so that's where that. Ban came from. I've seen all the lists of all the cities across the country that have overturned the bans. The vast majority of them, the vast majority of them are. Nowhere near. As large city as Denver. Some are, but the vast majority I had one proponent of overturning the ban. Send me a list I think was like 67 cities. One of them was Denver size. The vast majority are small areas. Why does that matter to me? Okay, we're 720,000 people in this city. There are tens of thousands of of devoted, wonderful dog owners. In a city this size, there are going to be hundreds, if not thousands of irresponsible bad dog owners. So. With promises of a more aggressive licensing system and promises of more aggressive public information and training. My preference is I'd like to see those numbers of registrations go up. First, I'd like to see a public relations campaign and education campaign on responsible ownership. First, I told Councilman Herndon last week, I. Can't imagine that there's not a path forward with this. My preference would be to see it go to the ballot to see what really is the community will on something like this. What else? Yeah, that's. As I said, I mean, I was here in the eighties. I was a journalist at the time. And I. Remember. The concern in the city. It was real. I understand. That. The. The. Vast majority of. Animal rights organizations talk against breed specific legislation. Again, that makes sense to me. But we have as I'm not talking about studies and where do you got 103 million? I don't know that I care about the dollars. It's about public safety. But I think we have work to do first. This is a real city with a real number of people, with real issues to be faced first. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilmember. Councilmember Sandoval. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to start by saying thank you to everyone who's sitting here and thank you for having reflective democracy. I know this is an emotional topic, and I too, would hope that this goes to the ballot. I don't think that it's our job often to send things to the ballot. I think that's what we have elections for, is so that things don't go on the ballot. But in this particular instance, it is a really emotional topic. And the fact that there's more dogs in Denver than there are kids in DPS schools right now is obviously is a main concern. And so for me, when we are updating our schools, we go to the ballot because they are our kids. So obviously we mean it. Maybe need to change that and have dog issues go to the ballot because they're so emotional. So with that, I will not be changing my vote from how I voted two weeks ago. But I do agree with the fact that this should go to the ballot. And thank you. Thank you, Councilmember. All right. As I'm not seeing any other comments. So first, I'll say thank you to all of you. Thank you for, you know, listening to my plea. And I appreciate once again you creating a safe space for democracy to flourish on a really, really tough issue. I will not go in depth because I said my piece last week or two weeks ago. I echo a lot of what Councilman Herndon, Councilman Kennedy, Councilman Hines and others have said that because I was going down my checklist as they were got there, got to a lot of the stuff that I was going to say. So instead, I will just say this before we vote. I am disappointed that the the mayor decided, although well within his purview to veto this and veto a majority will on the council and my plea back to the third floor, because it does not look as if this is going to have the votes tonight for us to override that veto is twofold is number one, everything that's in that letter about public safety, we have people walking around Montebello today with this legislation in place carrying things to protect themselves from dogs. If if this mayor is serious and I believe that he is from his words in his letter about public safety when it comes to dogs, then resources have to be deployed immediately to address that. This this legislation staying in place is not making. That community safe or safer. That is a problem right now under this legislation. And just simply by vetoing our legislation, which I do believe makes us a safer community, does not solve that. So those resources need to be deployed immediately. Also, we had two different experts last week testify about the inaccuracy of identifying dogs that have the blood that this veto seems to imply. They cannot escape the genetics that they cannot escape. And yet we had experts say that when scientifically tested on whether you can visually identify the genes in a dog, it is inaccurate. 75% of the time, it is completely and totally irresponsible for this city to continue to uphold something that I believe is not based on science, but to at least say what we believe and going to take a stand with a veto. That the science says that if it has this gene, if it has this blood, then it's dangerous. And then to potentially be turning 75% of dogs that do not have that blood and do not have that gene. And telling dog owners that they cannot keep their family member, their pet based on a visual identification, that is wrong. At a minimum, we need to deploy immediately the resources to test genetically. Every single dog that this city is saying does not belong based on this legislation until a point where we are confident that our system somehow outcompete the other systems that have been scientifically tested. And we can 100% of the time identify this evil gene that somehow exists or we need to. And if we can prove that our system does that, then we can stop genetically testing, I guess. Otherwise, it is my belief that every dog needs to be genetically test before the city has any authority to ask an owner for that dog to be removed from the city. If it is the intent of this mayor to continue to fight this hard on keeping a piece of legislation that I don't believe works. But if it is, then at a minimum, resources need to be deployed to keep people safe today. And resources need to be deployed immediately to prove that when a dog is being kicked out of our city and told that it can't be here when it has no history. We have aggressive dog ordinance now that protects our citizens better from dogs of all breeds that are aggressive. But this dog that has no history of any of that being told, you can't be here because you got the wrong genes, you've got the wrong blood. Then we better be sure and be able to show through science that that blood and that gene is in fact in there. Or I believe that is an overstep of the enforcement of this ordinance and should not be allowed with that. Councilmember Councilmembers This is a reminder that nine affirmative votes of council will be required for the adoption of this motion to override the veto. Madam Secretary, roll call. Herndon. I black. See tobacco? I went. No. Gilmore. No. Hinds. High Cashman. No. Kenny Ortega. No. Sandoval. Sawyer. No. Torres, I council president. I. I'm secretary. Please close the voting. Announce the results. Five knees, eight eight eyes motion fails. Five nis eight eyes. The motion to override the veto of Council Bill 22, 71 has failed. Council Bill 2271 has successfully been vetoed. We are going to continue with the rest of our meeting and as my colleague invited you. We always invite you here tonight and every Monday night to participate in our democratic process. But I also understand that many of you may want to leave at this point, so we're going to give you a minute to do that as quickly and quietly as you can so that we can continue with the rest of our meeting . Thank you. All right. We are going to continue long. There are no proclamations this evening. So, Madam Secretary, will you please read the bills for introduction.

Recommendation to declare ordinance relating to the temporary limitation of certain construction and development activities in the R-1-L zone in the Los Cerritos and Virginia Country Club areas of the City in order to foster and promote neighborhood character stabilization in said area; declaring the urgency thereof; and declaring that this ordinance shall take effect immediately, read and adopted as read. (Ordinance No. ORD-15-0024) (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_09082015_15-0868

Item 21 Communication from City Attorney. Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record. Conclude the hearing. Declare ordinance relating to the temporary limitation of certain construction and development activities in the r1l zone in the Lo Cerritos and Virginia Country Club areas of the City of the City read adopted as red and laid over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for final reading, declaring the urgency thereof and declaring this ordinance shall take effect immediately citywide. Mr. MESA. Anything to add to that? Not unless someone would like a further staff report. We did amend the ordinance to reflect the action of council on September 1st, which was basically to provide an exemption for those folks that were able to get a an application approved application on file basically by close of business today, September eight. And other than that, the moratorium language remains basically the same. During the moratorium period, there will not be any construction permitted in excess of 1500 square feet, whether that's new construction on a vacant lot or additions to existing buildings, those folks that got their applications in by today would be exempt from the moratorium and can move forward with their project of now. They can answer any questions anyone might have. Thank you. I think we're going to have a couple of motions. Their motion. But I think if I had seen one. Councilman Austin second. Right. Councilman Richardson, is there any public comment before I close to hearing. CNN counterpoint. Also do have any other additional comments or what sort of a vote? Okay, great. Let's go and go to a vote. And just to be clear, the vote includes the voting, a separate vote on the urgency of the ordinance. So that will take effect immediately commencing today. So, Mr. Mayes, you want to take a different a second vote right now? Okay. Separate a separate vote. So we'll take the second vote on the urgency. We have a motion by Councilmember Austin and a second by Councilman Andrews. Any public comment on the second than the urgency? Okay. So none. Gordon, cast your votes. Motion carries. Thank you. Item number 13, please.

A bill for an ordinance designating 4345 West 46th Avenue as a structure for preservation. Approves an individual landmark designation for property located at 4345 West 46th Avenue in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 9-10-19.

DenverCityCouncil_09232019_19-0913

If there are no objections from members of council, we will not take a recess. All right, Councilwoman Torres, will you please vote council bill 913 on the floor. And move that council bill 913 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved and seconded. Councilwoman Sandoval, your motion to postpone? Yes. I move that final consideration of Council Bill 19 does 0913 with its public hearing be postponed to Tuesday, November 12th, 2019. Thank you. Are there any comments by members of Council or Councilwoman Sandoval? Yes, thank you. So this is a bill for a non owner historic designation in Council District one on 46th and Tennyson. And the owner and the applicant have found a compromise to come to a 60 day pause to find a buyer for the property. And I'd like to honor the work of the neighborhood and ask that this ask my colleagues to please vote in favor of this postponement so that the neighborhood continued to seek other alternatives for this site. Thank you, Councilwoman. With that, Madam Secretary, roll call. Sandoval. I black. See tobacco, I swear. All right. Herndon, I. Hi. Hi. Cashman Clinic. Ortega. Hi. Sawyer, I. Torres, I. Mr. President. Hi. I'm secretary. Please voting in US Results. 1212. Outcomes. Well, 913 with its public hearing has been postponed to Tuesday, November 12th. We have do have an executive session tonight. So I will move that council enter into an executive session session for the purpose of receiving legal advice.

Recommendation to declare ordinance relating to the temporary limitation of certain construction and development activities in the R-1-L zone in the Los Cerritos and Virginia Country Club areas of the City in order to foster and promote neighborhood character stabilization in said area; declaring the urgency thereof; and declaring that this ordinance shall take effect immediately, read and adopted as read. (Ordinance No. ORD-15-0024) (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_09012015_15-0868

Hearing one recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record. Conclude the hearing. Declare ordinance relating to the temporary limitation of certain construction and development activities in the r1l zone in the low Cerritos and Virginia Country Club areas of the city read adopted as red and laid over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for final reading, declaring the urgency thereof and declaring this ordinance shall take effect immediately. Citywide Communication from the City Attorney. Thank you. I'm going to turn that over now to Mr. City, attorney. Mayor, members of the city council at your meeting on July 21st, 2015, pursuant to Chapter 2150 of the Long Beach Municipal Code. The City Council voted to direct the city attorney's office to prepare a moratorium ordinance on certain residential construction in the R-1 flood zone. That ordinance is what is before you tonight. And in essence, if you pass it as written, it would create a one year moratorium period against certain large residential construction in that area of the city, which is primarily or exclusively in the eighth Council District. It would be a moratorium for a one year period. There would be certain exceptions to the moratorium, which would allow folks to do construction during the moratorium if the total amount of the construction did not exceed 1500 square feet, and there could be either new construction or an addition to existing construction. The item is here for first reading tonight, and if you have any questions about the ordinance, I'll be happy to try to answer them. Okay. Thank you. I know we have a a motion and a second already on the floor. Let me. As per per hearings, I'm going to take city comment and we'll go back to the deliberations. Any public comment on the hearing? Please come forward. Hello? Yes. My name is Polly Thomas. I live at 4121 Cedar Avenue in the. Virginia Country Club. Area. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to you in opposition. To this. Ordinance. There are several points I'd like to make. The ordinance states one of its. Purposes is to. Promote neighborhood character. Stabilization. I'm not sure what it is you're attempting to stabilize, I guess its size based on what. The city attorney just spoke. The Virginia Country Club and the lower Cerritos areas are eclectic neighborhoods there. This is part of their charm. They have modern homes next door to Tudor homes, Spanish next to traditional and Mediterranean, right next to a California bungalow. The homes are custom homes that were built in the twenties and. Thirties, and. Some have been. Rebuilt in the seventies. Just recently. Our business corridor is also eclectic with the signage, different buildings, different make up of the buildings. And even the buildings are painted different colors, neon green. This again, is, from my perspective, enhances the charm and uniqueness. Of the Virginia Country Club and the Lowe's three Rose area. Moving to Virginia Country. Club in this area is not for everyone. It doesn't appeal to everyone. It is unique and it is an. Eclectic. Neighborhood. The urgency you speak of in this ordinance. I'm not sure why it is urgent. Are there projects that are pending or in the middle of being built? I can attest to the fact that there are a number of building regulations already in place that can adequately deal with the concern for overbuilding. All it needs to be done is enforcement of. Those regulations by the Planning Commission instead of granting a variance. Mr. Mays, the assistant. City attorney, was present at a meeting before a planning commission where several. Such ordinances were sought by my neighbors. And despite the objection of myself and my husband, these variances were granted five of them, and one of them. That was denied has since been granted. Or a variation thereof. The moratorium. Why not conduct a study without the moratorium? If homeowners have permits pending, then perhaps a reminder. Of the Planning Commission to not approve variances. Unless there is some compelling reason for health and safety. Would be enough in the interim. The Manson ization. Which is supposed to be. Of the utmost concern. Let me. Yes. Think that your time is up 3 minutes. Oh, I'm. Sorry. I thought there were lights. Oh, no problem. Right up there. But it's okay if you have a closing sentence. Go ahead. Well. Hypocrisy is defined as a pretense of having a virtuous. Character that does not one does not really possess. The very individuals that are behind. This ordinance are the same ones that have been. Granted. Variances of their own have built very large homes. Thank you, ma'am. Time to time is up, so we've got to wrap it up, please. Oh, and. We just want other people. The opportunity to. Come into our neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you, ma'am. Next speaker, please. My name is Richard Ivey. I'm a board member of the Las Vegas Neighborhood Association, and I would like to express my support for the moratorium and the amendment which preserves the spirit and intent of the neighborhood. As amended. Thank you. Thank you. Any other public comment? Please come forward. Hello, Mr. Mayor. Council members. My name is Edward Bullion. I am an owner of the architectural engineering firm of Guerlain Design. We submitted plans on a home in this area about a month ago. Little more than a month ago at 46, 71 North Virginia Road. I partially support this this moratorium, but I also agree with Ms.. Thomas's comments. It is an eclectic area and it's very unique. And by saying that is there's there's separate areas of this area. There's the General Bixby Knolls area, which I call this is that little Cerritos area and which is affected by homes being built too tall and to too much density. And then there's an area where ours is being built, and that is on the golf course. We're down a private road about a half mile away from the general area of the neighborhood. There's nine lots in this little tract and we are the furthest north. The lot that we're building on is like three quarters of an acre. It's 25,965 square feet. The home we're building is 6380, which is only 24% of the floor area ratio when you're allowed in 60. So after extensive research, I never got any kind of word from the city that this was going on until the 11th hour when they were checking our plans. And they called me and told me that nothing over 1500 square feet can be built on three quarters of an acre. That's kind of a postage stamp. After my client had just put a lot of his eggs into this basket, basically 2 million of his eggs. So but the height we're doing, you know, you're allowed 25 feet. We're going one story which is going to be about 15 feet. The lot coverage is allowed 40%. We're only going 18%. The usable area is 23%. And we're we have over close to 80% of open area on this lot. So we're well below the radar. We're trying to build something that's going to fit into this area. So all I'm asking you my question after this long is to allow us to continue with our project since we are following the guidelines that I feel are going to be acceptable for this area. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker, this is our final speaker, my closing to close the hearing. Go back to the council. This will be our final speaker. Good evening. Mayor and city council. I'm Barbara Schrag, 4120 Locust Avenue. We've lived in. Our home in the Virginia Country Club area since 1972 and love the neighborhood. My understanding is that there were two exceptions to the rule, which will be in an amendment tonight. And the party that just spoke. And another one. Will be excluded from. The from the moratorium because of the amount of work that's been done, and they're already in the planning department. So my I would urge you, with those two exceptions, to pass the moratorium and to preserve the wonderful character of our neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you. With that, I'm going to turn this back over to the council to deliberate Councilmember Austin. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I want to thank all those who took time out to come out and speak on this issue. I really appreciate the residents of the Lawson Widows neighborhood who have worked hard, gathered signatures and met with me and my staff and city staff on this issue, as well as the assistance of our development services staff and the city attorney's office. The temporary moratorium before us will provide our planning staff the opportunity to work with the community and develop recommendations of any changes to the current standards for the R-1 zone that will help maintain the character of the Los Cerritos neighborhood. I expect the planning staff to work diligently to get this done in a timely manner. In the meantime, anyone who wants to make an addition to their home up to 1500 square feet, which is a significant addition most average home in Long Beach, I think, has about 1500 square feet. We'll still be able to apply for permits to do so. As I stated when this item was before us in July, it was my intent also to not penalize current property owners who have invested significantly in their plans and were ready to submit plans. And I believe it's only fair to those who have been working under those rules, the current rules, and and have a complete set of plans to be able to proceed with those plans, provided that the proposed plans are. This thing with the character in the neighborhood and preserve the large lot sizes. Therefore, I'd like to make a motion to amend the ordinance to allow those applications that are already that are ready to submit. We'll still have the opportunity to do so while including the safeguards that the proposed homes are consistent with the neighborhood. I believe this is a win win solution for the entire neighborhood. So I moved to receive the supporting documentation into the record. Conclude the hearing and amend the ordinance as follows In return the amended ordinance for the first reading. I'd like to amend Section four of the ordinance to include the prohibit the prohibition. I'm sorry. The prohibitions contained in the ordinance do not apply where an application for said development or construction is on file and deemed complete by the Department of Development Services by September eight, 2015. And that application, number one, does not include any lot mergers to does not exceed a floor floor area ratio of 35%. And three does not require any standards variances for new construction. And then obviously. There's a there's already a second on the motion. Okay. Do you want to speak to your second council member or am I going to the vice president for. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to ask staff and this may have been made clear earlier, but do we have any 1500 square foot residences such as the law's going in downtown that may that may be impacted by this ordinance? Vice Mayor Lowenthal. No, this would only apply in the r1l, which is residential large lot zones. And that zone, as per my understanding, is only in the eighth Council District. Perfect. And we had clarified that the last time or the first time this came up. And so thank you for the confirmation. Thank you. There's a motion and a second on the floor for the hearing. I'm going to close this hearing. And counsel, please take your vote. Motion carries nine zero. Thank you. Second hearing, please.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to increase Munis Contract No. 3190000026, formerly Blanket Purchase Order No. BPLB19000026, with GSSi, Inc., dba General Security Service, of Wilmington, CA, for providing security guard services, by $454,500, with a 10 percent contingency of $45,450, for a revised total contract amount not to exceed $999,900, and extend the term to March 9, 2020. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_08132019_19-0745

Motion carries item 15 from the consent calendar. Please report from Financial Management Recommendation to Increase Munis Contract with G SSI Inc. For providing security guard services by 454,500 citywide. There is a motion and a second, Mr. Andrews. Yes. Yes, I would I would hope my colleagues would back me on this, because the fact is, I would like to move this back a week, because I don't think we had enough time to do an evening on this, because I'm looking at the price in here and the outside sources in which is being sent out to I would just like to get another week so I can do a little more venting on this if that's possible. So there's a so there's a motion to hold this over to the next meeting? Yes, please. Is your public comment on holding this over to the next meeting? I don't see any. So we will go ahead and take a vote. Motion carries.

A bill for an ordinance amending article XI of chapter 24, D.R.M.C., to ban the sale of flavored tobacco products and accessories. Amends Article IX of chapter 24, D.R.M.C., to ban the sale of flavored tobacco products and accessories. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-17-21.

DenverCityCouncil_12062021_21-1182

Ten Eyes Council Bill 21 Dash 1388 has passed. Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screens. Councilmember Kinney, will you please put Council Bill 1182 on the floor for final passage? Yes, I move that council bill 21, dash 1180 to be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council on Council Bill 1182. Councilmember Black. Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to call this out for a separate vote tonight so it wouldn't be on consent. Last week I said my piece about the bill, but I hope that my fellow council members will consider defeating this bill because it will not prevent kids from getting their hands on vaping products, but it will shut these businesses down. They have leases, they have employees, they have bills, and they are willing to come to the table to work with us to address the real problem. So I encourage. People to. Vote no. Thank you. Councilmember Black, we've got Councilmember Clark. You're up next. Thank you, Madam President. I voiced last week my disappointment that we were not able to find a way to use more of a scalpel when dealing with this issue, especially as it came to finding a way to allow for stores to operate with real controls around 21 and over. We found a way to navigate that with marijuana, and I do believe that we could find a way to do that when it comes to tobacco as well. I want to express my thanks to the sponsors for all the work that went into getting us here and doing this and taking it on and the approach that they took, I think I wish we would have tackled. We have a lot of holes. I think this has made clear in our tobacco licensing, our tobacco, the penalties around what happens when this does get from retailers into the hands of kids, which I think we all are very committed to resolving. And so it is my sincere hope that we will continue to tackle those issues, that we won't just leave that on the table and say we have seen these holes in these gaps and we need to close them. We need stiffer fines, stiffer regulations around licensing when it comes to selling to minors and continue to work on those things because those things are are not getting fixed by this. Right. Those things will still exist. And all of the retailers who will can sell tobacco products with almost no consequence compared to marijuana, virtually no consequence. It just can't be flavored tobacco. So we still have huge gaps. If what we're really committed to is keeping tobacco out of the hands of kids and keeping kids from getting addicted to nicotine. And so I sincerely hope that we will continue to tackle those and in so doing, start to create the framework that didn't exist enough for enough council members to be able to see a pathway, I believe, for how we could regulate and have stores responsibly serving 21 plus. And so I think I believe we can get there. But I also believe that not enough people saw that pathway with we were close, but not enough people saw that pathway with the other things unresolved and that maybe if we can resolve those things, then we can get just one or two more people to the point where they can see that, okay, with these penalties, with this threat of loss of license, then there is a pathway to create. What does that look like when it comes to entry into stores? ID check and keeping and keeping kids safe while also allowing adults more choices. And so it is my sincere hope. Again, I think we missed an opportunity to do all of that. But that's it's a lot. There's a lot to bite off what you bought off already, but it is my sincere hope that we will get there. What I think we have to get there on the rest of closing those gaps. If we're really committed to, you know, serving our kids and protecting our kids best because those gaps are still there. This does not fix that. And it is my hope that through that, that we can really see a way to create that framework where we can get to the amendment that didn't pass when it comes to 21 plus stores. So I know that this is a big vote and there is this moment. This is also now, thanks to the amendment that Councilman Cashman brought forward and this body approved, not going to be implemented until June, July. Sorry you even told me beforehand and I messed it up again. July of 2023, which also provides some time. Right, that even if this passes and I believe that the votes are there to do that tonight, it was pretty clear from the voting last week in terms of the amendments that the votes are there to pass this . And so there are two different ways you could say, well, we really need that in there, so let's vote no on this and then let's solve that, and then we can vote yes on it once we've solved that. It would appear that the will of this body is to approve this and then put time in and is my hope that in that time that we can solve that because I think it can be solved is going to take some hard work and lots of people at the table, not just at city council meetings, but, you know, really working through what does that look like. And and I do think that the the intent and the heart of what this bill is getting at is really important. And I think that all of us agree about that. And Brian, almost everybody out here to agrees to that. And so I would have preferred to do it the other way. But I do believe that the heart, the intent is there. And thanks to the amendment, time is built in with the ticking clock that I think is is going to keep a lot of people in this room hot on our heels to try to solve those other problems and see if we can get if we can get to a place where we could pass an amendment that does carve out a place for responsible owners, true protections, real consequences that allow the door to be opened for adults and close to kids. So that's what I hope we will do that hard work between now and July of 2023. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilmember Clark. Councilmember Keech. Thank you. Council President. I know most of my colleagues made their extensive comments last week, but it was getting late. And so I did not. I want to just, I think, respond to some of the final communications that I've received from folks and just explain why I'll be supporting this bill tonight and some of my fears or concerns. I guess the first thing I want to point out is that, you know, the conversation that was led by the sponsors, I think, used a very particular frame in emphasizing stores and purchases to use. But that was never intended, I don't believe, to be the sole purpose of the entire bill. It was a point that was being made and I think very early in one of this, you know, first or second committee meetings, I raised the fact that there is this point here about access because a market has. Is flooded with attractive products. It's not just about where youth are purchasing their tobacco. And I think the sponsors themselves shared additional data on the fact that these products are being accessed in many places, not just at the retail place, and that this is about restricting access to these products in the markets. And I know that those that are opposed have stayed very stuck on the fact that this is about buying it at stores. So limiting purchases at stores to those who are 21 and over may limit some access to those at stores, but it will not limit the accessibility of these products in the overall market, which is what the legislation really and truly I think is designed to do. And then the second piece is it's designed to make this very addictive, very expensive product less appealing. And I will get back to that point later. But I do think that that is why, for me, this bill is not just about kids, and it's not just about the purchases they make in stores. It's about how appealing we want to make highly addictive profits, products, you know, to profit major corporations. And whether we want to give people an easier path towards moving away from those products by making them less appealing. And I think there is a public health benefit to our youth, to our adults, as well as to our overall health care system. I've made those points previously in terms of the costs that we all bear. So if you're more likely to keep smoking because a menthol cigaret is more appealing to you, then we are all more likely to keep paying the health care costs for your smoking related illnesses through higher insurance or if you're uninsured, through uncompensated care. That's just a bit of a review of the things I've shared previously that this bill, I don't believe, was ever only about purchases by youth in stores. And therefore, to me it is about a much bigger set of public health impacts that a yes vote is going to provide tonight. I want to respond to those who've written to me about Prohibition. This is not prohibition. If you take your tobacco through cigarets, cigarets will remain available. If you take your tobacco through a vape product, that products will still be available. This is about restricting a particular type of product. And, you know, the marijuana comparison is an interesting one because, yes, marijuana is legalized, but our legislature has passed bill after bill about potency , about, you know, product type, about limiting certain things. And I think that that is an example of regulating a product. I agree that prohibition is not an effective strategy. And if this were prohibiting either of these products, then I would agree. But they are not prohibiting them. They are saying that we are making a public health decision to reduce the attractiveness of these products. And I will say that another difference is, you know, marijuana users are not pretty much, you know, using a product designed to create cancer, the number of chemicals. And I will just say that, you know, I know we've talked about vaping as a harm reduction claim, but there are still multiple chemical products in in vaping products. And we did have vaping related illnesses prior to this pandemic. And so there's there's I think the research is not quite clear yet that there are no health impacts from vaping in particular. You know, I've seen counter evidence. So, so I just want to be clear that I am not voting for prohibition tonight. I'm voting for product limitations, just as we have voted for product limitations for other types of products in the state of Colorado. I want to just comment really quickly. I'm disappointed that the extension passed, perhaps if it had been shorter. But what it was interesting is the sponsor of the amendment for the extension presented it as a proposal to allow businesses more time to adjust. I'm concerned that I now hear about the timeline being provided as one to go back to the drawing board and have the same conversation over again. And that would be, I think, a poor use of our public policy resources. And so I am concerned about that mixed message. Right. Is this about more times for businesses to adjust or is this about we're going to spend millions more dollars lobbying from large tobacco companies who, by the way, are funding a massive amount of lobbying here? And and are we going to just, you know, debate this again? I hope that that's not the case. And, you know, I think that, you know, encourage those who, you know, they counted the votes. The votes were not there to take a different path. Let's not make this a campaign issue. Let's not let's not extend the. Certainty of this, right. This is a definitive vote today and it means that these products will become legal on a date certain. And that is what we should be planning for. Our agency should be planning for it. Businesses should be planning for it. So I'm just I'm deeply concerned to hear that this timeline is about taking additional bites at the apple. That's not how it was presented last week. So with that, I want to just say that the bill may not be perfect. It does have a timeline that I don't agree with. It's a little longer than I think it needs to be. I don't appreciate the differentiation between different types of cigars, but in net this will reduce the attractiveness of these products and access to these products will, you know, will measure over time and we'll see. I also think that we will see additional communities continue to debate these issues and perhaps the state of Colorado. And so I welcome this step forward in reducing access to cancer, causing addictive products in various forms, be they smoked or vaped. And I am thankful to the sponsors for helping bring a complex conversation to the Council, and I hope that my colleagues will join me in voting. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Each Council. Part time tourist. Thank you, Madam President. Just a really quick. Comment about. Why I'll be voting in. Favor of. This proposal tonight. It really is about public health. And we make those kinds of decisions not based on positions of. Power or who contributes to the tax base. It really is about. Harm and. And what we can do at a local level. To chip away at that harm. Communities across the country are doing this. Will it happen at the state? Likely. This conversation isn't bound. To end here. But our kids aren't. Property. Owners. They're not business owners. But they are the ones who are also telling us we need to make this less accessible to them. They were the ones who came to us about changing it from 18 to 21. And it's part of my. Responsibility as well for West Denver. To make sure. That I'm hearing that and responding to that. So I appreciate everybody's commitment and passion to this. This is incredibly complicated, but public health decisions tend to be. As we've. Experienced over the last two. Years. So thank you all. So much for your input, for attending meetings. For emailing us and I look forward to voting in support of the bill tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Counsel Pro Tem Torres. And I'll go ahead and round out with my comments before we before I call the vote. This has been quite a process, and I really want to thank both of the bill's sponsors. I share some of the comments of Councilman Clark around. I would have preferred us to look at a regulatory path first instead of going right to the end market. We have successfully in Denver regulated marijuana and alcohol and we want to keep kids safe, but we also want to allow adults to be adults. If we're talking about the public health risk. Then I think every food article that we possibly could consume could become part of a ban at some point in time if we really want to talk about the broad public health concerns. And so with that, you had to really think also about addiction and recovery. And if anybody knows, if you're a good addict, you're going to find your drug of choice. You're going to figure out where to get it. It might not matter how much it costs or if it's too expensive. You might take other means to acquire that. And I'm concerned about that. I'm concerned that we have an exemption for one product, but we didn't do an exemption for another product. And we don't have to rehash that entire conversation from last week. But it is concerning and especially when folks can go to Aurora or Commerce City and buy products and what's to stop them from bringing them back in to Denver and selling them at a park? And then what are the other unintended consequences from what we're doing tonight? What is that going to look like from a broader vantage point? And so I have a lot of unanswered questions. And so with that, I will be a no on this tonight, because I think that we do need to look at the regulatory path and fix that and then really delve into the unintended consequences as well. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 1182, please. Black No. CdeBaca I. Clark Now. Hines Hi. Cashman Now. Kenny Ortega. I. Central. I swear. I. Taurus. I Clark. I'm sorry, Madam Secretary. Usually we can see the vote tally. What is the vote tally? That if. You're not. I have three knees. I. Madam President. May, Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce results. Three nays, eight US. Ayes Council Bill 21 Dash 1182 has passed. That concludes the items to be called out this evening. All bills for introduction are ordered published. Council members remember this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote I. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Council Member Canete Will you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor? Yes, I knew that resolutions be adopted and bills and final consideration be placed upon final consideration and do pass in a blog for the following items. 21 Dash 1418 21 Dash 1419. I'm going to just say the numbers 1391, 13, 92, 13, 93, 13, 94, 13, 96, 1404, 1409, 14, ten, 14, 13 1373, 1374, 1378, 1385, 13 , 86, 14, 21, 13, 70, 13, 87, 13, 55, 13, 89, 1390 0999. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Kinney. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call. Black eye. CdeBaca. I can't. All right. Hi. All right. Catherine. All right. Kenneth, i. Ortega. I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Torres. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, close voting and announce results.

A bill for an ordinance vacating a portion of the right-of-way adjacent to 2099 Chestnut Place bounded by West 29th Avenue and Chestnut Place and Division Street, with reservations. Vacates a portion of the right of way adjacent to 2099 Chestnut Place, bounded by West 29th Avenue, Chestnut Place and Division Street, with reservations, in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-13-19.

DenverCityCouncil_09302019_19-0776

12 hours. Council Bill 914 has passed. Councilwoman CdeBaca, will you please put Council Bill 776 on the floor? I move that council bill seven seven, six be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It's. Same for technology to catch up. It has been moved and seconded. The courtesy public hearing for Council seven seven, six is open. Do we have a staff report for this one this evening? I think we have. Jason coming up, going to give us a quick, quick overview before we jump into our speakers. I think this is the most talked about vacation in the history of city council, so I'm sure you're all aware. Jason Clare of Denver Public Works. I just give you a little rundown that it's 6000 square feet at 2099 chestnut that an applicant requested that the property be vacated. It did not meet a utility need or a mobility need for the city in county of Denver. So the application was granted and we are here today to hear from those the applicant and those who live in the neighborhood and happy to answer any questions, if you have any. Thank you, sir. I think at 9:00 at night, nobody's going to complain about that. That length of staff report here. All right. So we do have seven people who are signed up to speak. I'm going to call the first five if you'll come up to this front bench, Steve Ferris, Jim Johnson, George Pazienza, Taber Sweet and Margaret Combs. If you can come up to the front seat and Steve Ferris, you're up first. Good evening. I'm Steve Farris and I'm representing the applicant. As we get into what's happened since we talked to you last week. I just wanted to give a quick overview that we as the applicant, the landowner next to the site are very proud of the work Mortenson has put into this project. They've really reached out and addressed the neighborhood concerns, and they did that because of your input and your concerns. And I think you'll like kind of what they're presenting and what's been done to date. I think this could be a model for future right away vacations, since there has been some serious concerns raised with all vacations. But because we're here only to talk about a vacation of land and not a project. I want to make a few observation. Many of you have questioned the state law around vacations, and there's a few observations that I wanted to make about that. One, you know, one thing we have to think about is that if this was just a vacation and there was no project and a few neighbors hadn't come up to object to the project, would you be treating this vacation the same way? And it's just I know some people think saying yes and some people know, but it's it's a question to think about because most vacations do come in completely separate from a project. Second, I want to note that, you know, right away, vacation requests do get refused by public works. I worked on one in Councilwoman Sandoval's district about a year ago that got shot down. I'm still perplexed why public works wouldn't allow it to proceed, but that does happen and you do not see this those situations. So I think in that context, it's good to remember public works does apply some evaluation and measures of these things . Finally, I wanted to note that we requested some information from public works about the total amount of vacations and dedications in the last few years. We found this data since 20 and this was provided by Public Works since 2014. 15.9 acres have been vacated, of which 9.5 acres were subject to a reservation or 6% of the total. The average size of that vacation was 6000 square feet. By the way, this vacation is actually 5074 square feet. For what it's worth now and the dedication side, the land that's been given free of charge from development. This is since 2015, so one year less. The city has acquired 26.1 acres at no charge. So my point here is to bring up that right away is always fluctuating in the city based on demand and needs in certain situations, and this is just another one in that whole scheme. So in some I just want, you know, that these circumstances do exist and this is simultaneously a typical right away vacation and yet it's a unique one. And I think because of your input, it's become a success story, which I'll let Mortensen and others. I'm sorry, but your time is up. Thank you very much. Next up, Jim Johnson. Good evening, Mr. President and council members. My name is Jim Johnson. I am here on behalf of the developer, Mortensen. To talk a little bit about what's happened since first reading and the our efforts to reach an agreement with the community. So since first reading, we put together a draft agreement excuse me, and we circulated that to the camp, to the community members, and we met with them on this past Wednesday to discuss the agreement and what they wanted to see in it. We had some serious concerns and we heard those concerns and we incorporated, I think, all of their requests into a revised document. But what we're dealing with now is actually an issue that that Councilwoman Sandoval raised at the first reading, and that is enforceability. And the issue she raised, I think, is that the city doesn't have the ability to enforce these. So I approached the city attorney's office and asked if the city would be willing to be a signatory to the agreement so that they can enforce that. And that was rejected soundly. The second thing that that I've done is I put in the agreement third party beneficiary status so that the city actually could enforce the obligations of the developer without being a party to the agreement. So since the city is not a party to or won't be a party to the agreement, I expect we intend to leave those provisions in there. But more importantly, actually is an enforceability on the other side. We're dealing with a registered neighborhood organization which actually has not been set up and established by the Colorado secretary of state's office. So it's not actually an entity like, for instance, the Cherry Creek Neighborhood North Association is a is a nonprofit corporation and can sign a document and bind the entity itself. And we don't have an entity on the other side. So I think one of the things you'll hear from actually a representative from Mortenson here in my client later this evening is that we'd like a little bit more time to actually assist the community in forming that entity and finalizing this agreement. So thank you very much. Thank you. Next up, Jorge Pazienza. Hello. My name's George Pazienza. I'm the. You're in two roles. One is the Union Station. Ah, no president. One as the inker 29 brownstones h0 a president. So I'll split my comments as the ah no president. The neighborhood's sediment is obviously divided. Residents are supporting the vacation request. They're willing to give up the open space for a nice development. The residents that are opposing the vacation request are willing to risk what will happen to the dirt lot if we don't approve it. And they but they really don't want to give up the open space. The Arnaud's approach to this was to ask the highways to provide input on the objections and support from the community. This was somewhat successful. The Orono board did vote yesterday and by a 3 to 2 majority voted to support the vacation request. The hard data. In the spirit of transparency, the hard data that that was collected during this process did not outweigh the board's summary decision. The data showed that there were, as of this morning, 52 responses objecting from people that were hard data and six are supporting the vacation. Now, they were. Councilman CdeBaca His office provided some numbers this afternoon. She got another 24 objecting and seven supporting. So there's still a large number of the community that does not support this vacation request as a and I can answer questions about that later. The Inca 29 brownstones is is the president of that organization. There's 29 homes there. Our board officially objects to this. Then 79% of our owners object. The main issue there is access in the open space. The reason that we're bringing this up here and what our point is, is that those in CA 29 brownstone. Owners are 17 of the. Of the 20 adjacent landowners that the city defined as part of the process to create objections. So we have almost all of the adjacent landowners as defined by the city. And I want to bring up that there are guidelines. The only guidelines that are posted or available for evaluating this are state a number of issues in addition to it being available from a transportation viewpoint. Those issues are one of them is the adjacent landowners must agree those words and they don't they're limited or no impacts to the communities access services and enjoyment that has been that is we we don't agree with that this is not this is not an alley. I'm sorry, but your time is up. Thank you. Next up is Taber Sweatt. Thank you, Councilman. So my name is TAVR, unlike the tobacco. Ah, that Councilman. Flynn was. Referring to earlier. So we're clear. I want to give everyone a little bit of background. So I started out my career as a land planner, landscape. Architect and urban designer. And when I look for opportunity and I look for sites to build on, I look for gaps in the urban fabric. And so that's what drew us to the site originally. I have trained, studied in Italy, studied in Denmark, Copenhagen. And you fill the urban fabric. And we feel like we have done just that here. I think some of you know, but I'd like to bring it up that this this site actually is is heavily encumbered by a stormwater line right down the middle of it. And so we have reached agreement. The public works. Public works has determined that none of the objections had technical merit that they received and that this storm line. I bring it up because not. Only does it greatly impact whatever a market value assessment might be for this property, but anything that you put on this property is subject to be removed and not replaced. So if public. Works has to come in and replace the storm line or service it, they restore the ground to level condition and they pay for it, period. And so there's a lot of risk that we were taking on to to do this, these enhancements that we're proposing. Another thing that I want to touch base on is that in our. In our discussions with the neighborhood, there's been a lot of concern and I've heard it here in council last week about future transportation, future transportation modes. And, you know, part of our proposal here is that we would actually create an easement for some of that right of way that would be vacated and donate it and grant it back to the city. So bicycle scooter racks, bicycles, scooter racks, parking, whatever need be. But we're more than happy to to accommodate that. As Steve said, it's a 5000 square foot 5074. Square foot, right of way. Our plan is to heavily. Enhance 3700 square feet of that with the remaining sorry, 37 square feet of heavily enhanced pedestrian improvements that could be selected and designed by the neighborhood. In total, we're proposing. To improve 7100. Square feet of right away. I want to bring it up because I think it's relevant. The hotel rooms that would go over this right of way. There's about 62 keys that we would be able to fit. Over the right of way. And I know this is a discussion about right away, but the taxable value on those 62 keys. Is roughly $1,000,000 a year. If the hotel is stabilized, so a $3 million overall project tax availability, and if we reduce the available land, we would we would reduce the. Taxes available are coming to the. City by about $1,000,000. So. More importantly, though, I want to ask everyone to do the right thing. You've asked us to come to an agreement with the city. We've worked very hard with two of the three main. Active board members. I feel like that we have made tremendous grounds in getting an agreement in place and I want to see this get built with community input and I want to see this happen with neighborhood support and feedback. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Margaret de Combs. Hi. My name is Margaret Dickens. I am here on behalf of ordinary people who take transit. I'm a multi-modal transit advocate. I specifically look at transit as it relates to human rights issues, disability and systemic racism, sexism, etc., etc.. I'm encouraging. You to vote. No on the vacation based on its technical merits because the parcel adjacent to 2099 Chestnut is already serving as a multi-modal transit hub, and it's necessary for current and. Future transit. There are no other. Areas in the neighborhood currently where transit needs can be met. For anyone who hasn't been in the neighborhood. It is packed and most of the. Streets do not go through to anywhere. So there are lots of trips that are under 1.2 miles, which it turns out is when people will forego car trips. Right. So this is why we've seen this rise in popularity among scooters. Bikes, ride sharing, all these sorts of activities. And right now, that plot adjacent to. Chestnut Place caters to those activities, and market based transit modes will use the space according to function. Right now in that neighborhood, bars and shops are at the intersection of 29th and Chestnut. That's where that plot of land is. And so that serves as the place for wagon walkers, joggers, people walking, other animals, anything that's wide. The sidewalks in that neighborhood. Are fairly narrow. There's sort of a standard. If you block them, they're blocked. I mean, access is done. And, you know, we've talked a little bit about future use. I know in the Land Use Transportation Committee, you talked about, well, where we're going to need it for the future or not. And the reality is probably right now that neighborhood is brand new and. There's a ton. Of people who are needing to get into town, into downtown. So things like expanding the 17th, 18th commuter bus line, that's the only place in that neighborhood you could turn a bus around or put a bus station that doesn't have to. Go all the way through. And I'd like to point out that although technically this neighborhood meets ADA requirements from a functional standpoint, anything that is removed from that corner quadrant ends up blocking sidewalks, other places. And like I've said, the sidewalks are not wide. They're tree lined for anyone who has been down there. So if it's if a scooter or bike is parked adjacent to one of those trees, it blocks the sidewalk and it's not accessible. I know that I can't walk through that neighborhood with my dog frequently because then the areas during high. Peak. Hours are blocked. Luckily, during most of the day they aren't blocked right now. But you can be sure that these really high use periods are going to be, I'm sorry. Your time is up. Sure. Thank you very much. All right. Our last two are Oscar Hernandez and Bernard DeWitt. If you want to come on up. And Oscar Hernandez, you're. Hi. Good evening Council and thank you for taking your time to listen to us. So I live, I'm sorry to say, Oscar Hernandez I live on 29/16 Street. So just down the street from where this development will be done, I'm here to speak in favor of it. I think as has been said before, we really need more time to work with the developers. We've come a long way. They've had several meetings with us. We've come a long way from what they originally presented to where we are now. A lot of things that, for example, are no is actually not officially incorporated. So it's something that we also need to build as a community to just get that together and be able to actually work on the final agreement. There are a lot of points. I agree that that is one of the last open spaces that we have in the neighborhood. But at the same time, if we vacate this road to the hotel, they were actually going to incorporate that and make it a more valuable space for the community and the hotel guests in general. Right now, I think a lot of the opposition that we've we've felt from the neighborhood has been in the concept that a lot of people just feel like if we don't vacate, they're not going to build anything. And that is not really the case. We really know that that is a very valuable property. It's very close to Union Station, so we know that one way or the other something will get built there and at least with them we have the opportunity to work with them and really come together and find something that'll be valuable for both of us. I think the last point that I really like about the if we give them the row is that the. Entryway will actually face where the rest of the businesses are in. The current neighborhood. If we do it the other way around, least based on the designs that we've seen, the entryway to the hotel will actually face a parking lot and it won't really feel like it's part of that corner in the community there. Plus, the current traffic design system, if the vacated row is provided, actually makes the traffic flow a lot easier. Without that, all the traffic will have to come in and out of the same way as opposed to looping through with the vacant design. So thank you very much. Thank you. All right. So one last point. Thank you, Taber. We do have a neighborhood meeting set for October 16th to talk about the next steps to really incorporate our and get on the bylaws officially designate a board and move forward. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Bernard to it. He's gone. Oh. All right. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of council? Councilman Hines? Thank you, Mr. Chair. You have public works. Come forward, please. Jason Miller of Denver Public Works. Hi. Thank you. Thank you for coming. Mr. Hernandez, who just testified, he mentioned that something will if if we choose not to vacate, that something will be built on this property. Question for you. As I understand it, the vacation can only be granted to an adjacent property owner and there's only one adjacent property owner. Is that other than the city, is that correct? That is correct. And I guess I asked two questions. So there's only one adjacent property owner, correct? That is correct. And you can only vacate two adjacent property owners? That is correct. Okay. So if we say no to this vacation, then this property or this. Sorry, this. 5000 or 6000 square foot, roughly, would just stay there as it is. That is correct. Okay. Do you are you familiar with the ADA, the pedestrian access in that area? I mean, not entirely. I do know that for that is under consideration when we talk about mobility. When we look at a whether we're going to be able to vacate something or not. That's why it was it was part of the bigger picture of, you know, whether it was needed for ADA issues or was it needed for mobility issues like bikes or anything else. So that that was all taken into consideration when it went through the process at Denver Public Works. That's why they still came up with this, the understanding that it was okay to vacate the 29 nine chestnut because it didn't meet any of those concerns. Okay. I mean, that's obviously a very busy area of town. Absolutely. And it was developed. I mean, there would also probably be another way where we would have to have sidewalks around there again and everything else, which means a dedication would probably have to come in form one way or another to make that capable. Okay. Good information. And, you know, obviously, I. Care a bit about it? Absolutely. Let's see the. Apologize. I guess it's getting late, and I can't read my own handwriting. That's. That's it for now. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Kennedy. Q Mr. President, one quick legal question. I was trying to look up, trying to find the state statute, but I'm sure someone is faster than me. Thank you. This question that was raised by one of the speakers about adjacent landowners, I think some people think of the word adjacent, like nearby, but I'm guessing the law is more specific. So when it says in the law that it has to be with the agreement of adjacent landowners, what does that mean versus what our prior speaker thought it might mean? For the record, Burton played assistant city attorney. With municipal operations. Are you? Yeah, I guess I'm a little confused by the question because we heard about we had an agreement with. So Mr. Pazienza. And he said that you have to have the agreement of adjacent landowners, according to the to the statute. Yeah. And he counted all of the buildings that were in the, you know, across the street as adjacent buildings and said this cannot he implied or the question was that this can't be granted because it violates the statute. So I need you to walk through what the word adjacent means in the statute compared to how a layperson might use it, like you or I, if we're just chatting. Yeah. A little bit. A little background. Well, Mr. Pansy, Enzo's referring to is not state statute. Okay? Where he's referring to is a document that's on the public works website. And he's referring to a section that says important issues that must be considered before submitting an application. They're not criteria. They're not standards. They're just factors to be considered before an applicant submits an application for a vacation. Got it. State statute requires. State statutes has codified that when a road or a right of way is vacated, the right to the title to that right away vests in abutting property owners, i.e.. Touching, touching. Touching, touching the site in question. All right. Thank you. Correct. I think that probably clarifies it. So so the idea that someone else is touching the property, like where the hotel might be, the land that the hotel developer already owns or someone who's, you know, just across the street, the next property over doesn't count in the state statute. In state statute. That's correct. And then can you just clarify, is the language being quoted, as does the language in the public works sites say must agree? Is that a quote that's accurate? Uh. Yeah. That is a quote. The property owners are sorry. Yeah, property owners must agree. And then it goes on to say to all adjacent property owners, agree to vacate the right of way. If not, expect the process to be much longer, more expensive, and ultimately may not be approved. Okay. So the context is a little different. It doesn't say must agree or vacation will be denied. Exactly. Because it's the context of the quote matters. Okay. And it's not a criteria. Again, the. Big picture, I know what we're telling the public and what we're not telling. The sentence doesn't end Ms.. Degree or the vacation. I just want to clarify. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Sandoval. Thank you, Mr. President. I have a few questions, Jason from Public Works. So according to your the documentation online for an Ali vacation, it says it was updated in March of 2017. Can you tell me the last time the fee structure for Alli vacations or right away vacations was updated from public works? Offhand, I don't know the exact date, but I think it was 2012. And we only do the fee structure to cover the cost of processing the request. Okay. And then according to the Public Works website, when it talks about vacating right away, it says some things to think about before proceeding with the vacation request. On bullet point number four, it says there must be limited or no impacts on the surrounding community or public at large. Right of way in the city is generally part of a roadway, network or grid that provides benefits to the public at large, including not limited to efficient access to various destinations. Removing a piece of that grid from public use could have various negative impacts for the community's access, service and enjoyment. The city will consider these factors before approving any request to vacate the right of way. So that's on your website, huh? And my question for you is these negative impacts. So I'm just going to ask you a question since 2012, and I know you haven't been here for 22 since. So I'll get you slack and your fee structure with updated in 2003. Okay. That's a you know, it wasn't updated in 2012. There have been numerous negative impacts when it comes to vacating right of way in northwest Denver. I'll just speak for myself and I think this has a negative impact for this community. How come that is on your Web site and how come that is not part of your PDF documentation online when it when you somebody would go to vacate and out alley right away. I feel like that that sentence should also be part of that PDF. Understandably so. So Councilman Sandoval, Jason Glare of the Public Works our process at Denver Public Works. We try to keep it very in the utility aspect of it and the mobility aspect of that right away when it gets into the other stuff that we're we're giving this information to them that they need to consider because this has to come before city council. And city council will make a political question on this. This is not what Denver Public says when we actually want to vacate or two to allow a vacation to go forward. This is a question that will be asked you. And we are prepping them on the website, which it says important issues you must consider before submitting an application, including several things, because there are things that they're going to have to work through with the community and with city council. All right. Thank you. So can I have one of the property owners come up? Yes. Thank you. Yes. Hi. Can you tell me when this property was purchased? Actually, I cannot I understand it was part of a trade in the early 2000s, but I don't know the exact date. It involved negotiations with the predecessor of the Central Park Ballet Development. So you you're representing the owner and you have no idea when they purchased this real estate property? I don't. There's an engineer for the owner. We could ask him here. He might know. Jim Fitzmaurice with engineering representing the applicant. Our understanding is pretty much what Steve said, that it was involved in a trade for some property that somebody else near to Platte Valley wanted to buy, and this was a property that they traded as part of that transaction. I believe that she's owned it at least 15 or 20 years, but not exactly how long for sure. Okay. So the reason I'm asking is when this came to ludi, a lot of times what I'll do is I'll go to the the property record. Right. And there's no in Denver you can find the chain of title. This property has no chain in title. And so I brought that up during the Ludi committee and I asked act during the Ludi Committee if somebody could come back and ask that group, get that question to me about when this property was bought or when this LLC 2999 chestnut was formed. And I still don't have the answers. So I find that concerning that. I asked that months ago about ludi and here we are tonight. We've postponed this and I still don't have an answer. So just in the future, if we could have those questions answered, it's really helpful when we're up here making those decisions. Yeah, apologies. I wasn't at that meeting. We did do a survey on it and I think the LLC is 1917. Chestnut, I believe, is the ownership name. I can look at my ALTA survey in a moment. I've got it with me. I can take down the Denver Property Records. It's 29, 20, 2099 Chestnut. I believe that's the address of the property. I think the LLC is a different number. It says Owner Chestnut Place, LLC. Okay, let me. Look at my survey. We did I know we did a survey and had a title for it. I may be able to give you a little more information. I didn't know that was a question until just now. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. Either Jason or the city attorney. So I'm interested. Drove by the site again today. And there is a B cycle station on there. Were the mayors committed to 125 miles of bike lanes in the city in the next five years. To me, it's a clear form of transportation. I'm just wondering how we get to where that. Doesn't meet the definition of a transportation. Usage. When it comes to a bike or bike ramp that's movable and we can put it in the area to still fill the needs. And we don't consider that as the, you know, the stake that says this is used for transportation. So, for example, if we had a bike rack that was there that we could also put into another part of the neighborhood that would be useful for the surrounding neighborhood in the same effect. Then we don't require that as the the the reason why we would deny a vacation. Okay. Thank you. Sure you have one. Dad, son. I wanted to ask. If you'd step up to the microphone, please. Again? Taber Suite with Mortenson Development as part of our. Site development plan process as well. On this. The representative from B cycle also was involved on relocating the bicycle rack and it was part of. I would say, the requirement for a site development plan. So they were including that B cycle station to be there. In perpetuity, which we obviously agreed to. Right. Thank you. While you're while you're up, you're going to have to stand up again. I don't know how good. All right. Don't know how good it feels. Good. So as as your current design is set up. You want to put some pillars. On the. Area you would like vacated. And what, another 62 rooms would overhang that area? Correct. Okay. How moving past that out into open space, how much space would would that plan leave uncovered? I don't have the exact number on uncovered. What we show is kind of the overall heavily enhanced plan, if you will, is about 3700 square feet. I off the top of my head, I don't know what of that is covered. My guess is going to be it's about 800 square feet maybe. So. Whatever you do. On that parcel, all that would be left uncovered for the community is. 800 square feet. No, no. No, no. The part left uncovered is probably closer to 33,000 square feet. On the immediate corner. On the very. Hard corner itself. Part of our discussions with the neighborhood has also been the realignment of the curb on Chestnut and to push that curb out a bit, which I think there are some diagrams in the in the package we sent you. So all in all, it's a and I believe it's about 3100 square feet on the actual corner itself. Right. Yeah. And the the the. Roadway the elevated. Roadway there. The 20th Street. Right? Yep. That runs right by there. How far will your building be set. Back away from that roadway? We're going to be about 15 feet set off the face of that road. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman CdeBaca. Thank you, Mr. President. Councilman Cashman asked my big question, but I do want to ask some more questions of Mr. Pazienza. I'm curious about. So I'm hearing for the first time about this new R.A. that's not officially an R.A. with less people than required by your typical R.A. process, and then hearing from multiple associates or representatives of the developer and the project, but not specifically from any of the residents who were of the 71% as close to as Jason as possible. Do you are you aware of any of those those surrounding 71% that flipped out? Who can you tell me a little bit about what's been going on? So the there is part of the process that the Department of Public Works goes through whenever they ask for objections is they have a category of they call them adjacent landowners within 200 feet. And you know, the difference between a budding and adjacent, what I've been told is abiding means that has to touch an adjacent means there can be a river or right away or something between that those two properties. But at any rate, they sent out special letters to 21 people. Now, one of them was a double and it's part of our organization. I'm also one of the adjacent landowners. I am also representing the board is part of one of the adjacent landowners. None of those, Jason. Well, to say. They haven't changed their mind is not correct. More of them object now than. Objected when this process started. All of the objections have increased. There have been more. We've gotten more. Letters in terms of support through our organization. We've asked to be copied and tell us what's going on. But we, you know. The adjacent landowners, I mean, we read that document. It's got a name and got a number. It's, you know, words have meaning. That's I don't I don't know. I guess in law, words are supposed to have meanings. They have all these libraries and books. And that's you know, you saw what the word said. And we objected. And we object because we think that it creates utility value, transportation, as we've talked about. And it also, you know, is part of that enjoyment. But, you know, if those words on that document that has a number by the city don't really mean anything, I don't you know, that's our fault. I guess we shouldn't have. Thank you. Quick question for Mr. Gallardo. So you you say that this bicycle does biking fits as part of our multimodal transportation and our transportation goals. It's currently being used for a bicycles station. I'm curious about how the city decides to make these accommodations with developers. We made the effort to figure out how to relocate of bicycles station for a developer. What what triggers that process? Um, let me see if I understand your question. Jason Miller of Denver Public Works. You're asking what triggers the. What process for us to remove something? What triggers our attempts to accommodate a developer? It feels like the immediate checkboxes that you would go through for technical merit would be is this currently used as a for transit purposes checkbox? Yes. You don't go further than that. What triggered CPD to go further to figure out how to relocate this bicycle station? So. So DPW in the. So what happens is there was an agreement that was done that I didn't speak to before with the developer and b cycle to continue to have it in the area it was going to be permitted through them on their I think it's on private property that it will be on. And so when that agreement was made, it's no longer an issue for that to be part of the process of saying they were going to lose that aspect. That aspect was going to stay after the development occurred. So they weren't going to actually lose the cycle there. And when it comes to bike ramps and stuff like that, those are movable. And we're able to see in different areas of how we can make it work for the entire community. So so in that. Area, in all vacations, just sorry to interrupt. All vacations are not developer's vacations. Vacations happen from private homeowners as well and everything else. We make those same accommodations across the board. So with all of the constraints that were mentioned tonight about that area of town, the smaller sidewalks, the limited walk space, the limited space for docking scooters and bikes, where are we thinking? Why would we give up space like that? So I think that there is a bigger question you're asking there that we do not ask that public works. And when it comes to a specific piece of land, that's something that I think that is the reason why it goes through this process so that you guys can have this conversation and discuss the whether we should vacate it or not. But for for us, the Denver public works. We look at a right away and say, does it have a utility need or a mobility need? And if it doesn't, if the adjacent or the budding property owner requests for a for us to vacate it so that they may develop it or do something else with it, then we we consider it under those guidelines only the rest of those questions are questions outside of our scope, because there's it's a hard question to answer. We've been here for three nights because it's a hard question to answer, and I get it. But that's not something that would be part of our process on that. That's, I think, more in the hands of city council and the neighborhood and whoever is asking for the vacation. Yeah. Thank you. I appreciate you passing the ball to us. But this could have simply been taken care of by checking off that first box because it is used as a current transportation access or use. So thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Hernan. Hey, Mr. President. I was the one who asked for this first delay, and I might be regretting that decision. Now, I say that. And just so my question first, public works is, Jason, is there any expectation that public works that this vacation is denied, that public works will do any improvements on this parcel? At this time. We in our current system and our current guidelines that guide us for right away. No. Okay. But that. Many things have happened. But no, I. Understand you can be encouraged to do so. Okay. Oscar. You said this at the very end. What is happening on the 17th? So Oscar announces again on the 16th. We're going to have a general meeting for the neighborhood to incorporate the actual R.A. At the moment, the R.A. has been working unofficially. There is no actual incorporation. We have no bylaws. We don't have any terms for the board of directors or anything like that. So as part of this process, we found that out. Several members of the community found this out. And so that's why we were asking for more time, so that we can get to that. And whether we vacate or not, at least we get the opportunity to have that discussion as an official board internally for our community and which are now just so the Union Station north of the Union Station, Arno. So this so that I will use the word. Arno recognizing that you're not official yet. So you have been the ones that have been in conversations with the adjacent property owner from the very beginning of when the first delay was made, these conversations. So I believe Georges, as the has has started that process, I only got involved a little bit later, but then through that process is when we found out that it wasn't officially incorporated. Got it. So, George, a question for you. So you have you have been a part of these conversations so you can verify there is another meeting on the 16th or 17th that you incorporate as Nana. I was not aware personally of a meeting. On the 16th or 17th. I have been part of this process since Tabor. We met in January. So it's been going on for quite a long time. Okay. So, Steve, I'm just going to pull different people up. We we published this last Monday, and so there was a meeting on the following Wednesday last week. What happened at that meeting? Steve Erskine. Well, there was a presentation by Taber and his team to the neighbors again, and they talked about they gave him a draft agreement early on, I think it was Tuesday, and that was discussed in more detail on Wednesday. And there was essentially a understanding that their general idea of the agreement was, okay, I want to paraphrase here, but they wanted more details to be resolved on the Good Neighbor Agreement. I understand. And so there is we have two people say there is there is a meeting, again, that you were going to be a part of. I'm assuming that there's going to be another meeting in October because we're not in October yet. Yes. Okay. So in essence, the conversation is still continuing. That's a fair summary. I would ask Taber if he wants to embellish that further, because they're the actual people working with the neighbors on the agreement. And I represent the landowner and they're the developer working on the agreement. Okay. I'm good. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, gentlemen. I'm going to skip to some people who I don't think have been up yet. Councilwoman Torres. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Two questions probably for Jason. Public Works. What was the conversation in public works that no future need for utility or transportation would be required in this neighborhood? And I'm just figuring that has seen pretty rapid growth and expansion that you wouldn't need that land. Was that part of the conversation? Or is it only are we currently using it for that use? No, it's a future. Need is is part of the conversation. We do look at the property that is in question and determine whether is currently being used for mobility or if it had a future need for mobility based off of our current understanding of which direction we're moving. Obviously, that can always change and these aren't perfect guidelines, but that is the guideline we use. Yes. And then if it does not get vacated, what can the city do on it? Right now, nothing. There's no pathway or process for us to do something different than leave it as right away. So I can only speak of to the what kind of process we have in place right now. It would stay right away. So how is a B cycle installation? It was only through the funds of B cycle itself that actually installed the station there. Yes, they were probably permitted in a process. I'm not totally sure on how that process ended up. There you. Okay. So it can't look any different than it currently looks right now. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Flint. Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to look at a couple of different areas as quickly and concise as possible, maybe for the attorney. And to follow up on Councilwoman Conchas question. Now, this the right of way is not technically city owned real estate. It's a dedication. Of all of a public passages that basically were dedicated right away as. Martin played the city attorney, city attorney's office. Yes, the right of way is not like your typical real estate. It's not like a city park. Exactly. When the city has titled two Right of Way, it has a limited interest. And that interest is that the city holds title to the right of way in trust for the benefit of the public for right away use. Right. So essentially George Hoyt and William Robinson in 1871 platted this area. And what they did was they laid out the streets and this is part of the intersection of what was Hertford. Now Chestnut Division Street and Stanton Avenue, which is now 29th Street. And that is how it came to be part of the street system of the city. And it was taken from the adjacent parcels. This gets the councilwoman each his line of questioning. He was parceled out half and half from the adjacent parcels. So if this corner is to be vacated, it can only be returned to the property from which it was parceled out in the first place. Yes. And that's what's codified in the vacation statute. And that is that is why we don't charge my market rate or anything like that. We were given this as a dedication. And if we don't use it anymore, our obligation is to give it back. But we charge a processing fee of $600. Yes. In Colorado, courts have held that the city doesn't hold the right of way for profit. Right. Okay. Okay. The let me ask one of the owner representatives. I don't know if it'll be Steve or Taber, but on what was shown to us includes what was shown to us today. And as part of this agreement that you're negotiating with the neighborhood is you would build over part of the existing right of way. You have to leave the big swath in the center because there's a six foot storm drain buried underneath it that you can't build over. And and part of the building would then be canceled, not cantilevered, but would be supported around the perimeter, but not all of it. About 3000 some odd feet would be delighted. And I'm just making sure I understand this correctly. And again, maybe one of you could stand at the microphone. So this looks like a question. And it is and it is a question. What I saw in that in that document was that you would then rededicate part of what is being vacated would be rededicated back as part of the public right of way. In other words, you would extend the curb to narrow and channel traffic more efficiently or effectively or safely and slowly, we hope correct to come around and then enter through a portico, share sort of arrangement on at the hotel that would use part of this right of way. Correct. Okay. I just want to make sure I understand. And now let me ask either Oscar or George, because this is confusing to me. And that's the last the last thing is rather Union Station North is not registered with the secretary of State, but I don't I have RINO's and my council district that are registered to the Secretary of State and I see that you are registered. Union Station North is a registered neighborhood organization in Denver and Mr. Pazienza is listed as the contact here. So I'm kind of confused with why. Explain to me why this meeting is coming to involve a filing with the Secretary of State. Why that's necessary. Because you are in Reno right now. Oscar. And and this again. Thank you. Yeah. So what we came to find was that, yes, it is registered. We found it on the website as well. George is listed as the president. However, it is not officially incorporated. So when it comes to making the agreement with the developers on what we decide if it is vacated, we don't have any legal standing. Or you don't have legal standing to sign a document. Right. That's the crux of it. Okay, I get it. But what we have here is we have the makings of an agreement with the neighborhood. Correct? We are working with. Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Hines. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Gallardo, I chat with you again for a second. I think I heard someone say this earlier. I just wanted to make sure I heard it right. The hotel rooms. If this were to be approved and developed as is conceptually designed, there's an elevated roadway. Is that right? No elevated roadway. No elevated roadway that I know of. Next to it. Oh, you mean. Oh, yes. You mean the train? Oh, there's elevated train tracks. You guys can't speak to that more. Please. If you're in the audience. The councilman call on who he would like to answer. I could. I could definitely get somebody for you to answer that question better than. Okay. Yes, I apologize. Okay. Let me let me just. Is there a bus stop on this vacation? No. There's currently no. Yes, there's no bus stop there. Google Maps shows that there's a bus stop on that. No. No. Okay. No, Buster. And I think to your comment earlier, I think basically what you were saying is that public works is purview is more narrow than city council's purview in this situation. Okay. Let's see. Mr. Pazienza, may I? Ask a couple of questions about so. The Arno. How many? Approximately how many members are do you have in your Arno? Well, the no, we think there's about 3500 people in the neighborhood. Okay. And in one of your meetings you found, can you go back over the number of HANO members that voted for and against? It's like 130, 170, something like that. No, no, no. There were a total, if you include what was passed on to Councilwoman CdeBaca is 76, objected and 13 supported. And the R.A. board also took a vote. Is that correct this morning? Is it? Yes. The board made three members of the board voted. That I thought five members of the board voted in favor. Two against the two members did not. They were not available and abstained. So three members voted for the for the to support the vacation. So there are three members on board members and support and no one opposed and two abstained. Correct. Well two weren't. You know, that weren't there. Okay, that's fine. I don't want to dig too much into your business. I guess I'm a little confused as to why if you surveyed the members and it was overwhelmingly negative, why the board would then vote in support, I guess. Does the board have information that the that the members don't have? Not to my knowledge, no. Okay. Um. Thank you. From the developer. A developer representative. Would you answer the same question? It does. So there was a board vote today which seemed to be counter to the vast majority of the of the members. So does does the board have information? Did the board have the information this morning that the members did not have? I can't speak to this precise information that a board member may or may not have had. But I can tell you that the other members that Mr. Pazienza were referring to had been at all the meetings, and Mr. Pazienza has not. And those other board members have been fully engaged in trying to negotiate the developer agreement. And Mr. Pazienza has not. Okay. Um. So I don't know if that gave them more insight, I guess is my point, councilman. Okay. Fair. Fair enough. And. You're Mr. Sweet, correct? Correct. TAYLOR But the good tipper. Okay. The earlier in your when you came up before, you'd mentioned that you had come to an agreement with two of the three board members. I'm guessing that those two were voted yes today. Correct. This morning. Okay. And also I again, I think I caught this, but I wanted to make sure you mention that there is that you talked about how the developer is taking a lot of risk because you may have to return. The VA vacation back to its existing. You know, you might have to do because of this five foot storm drain you might have to. Rip it back out. Correct. And put it all back. Yep. Okay. Thank you. That's all I have. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. All right. Seeing no other questions, the public hearing for Council Bill 776 is closed and we're going to move on to comments by members of council. Councilman said Abarca. Thank you, Mr. President. Again, I would like to thank all of you who spoke tonight and encouraged my colleagues to vote no on this vacation. I stress last week some of the manipulation that was happening. And we have we have received a steady flow of people who continue to be opposed to this project and are refusing, as Mr. Pazienza said, to attend these meetings where they feel that they are being coerced to support it when they've already expressed their discontent and disapproval. We've heard tonight that this is very valuable land according to what square feet of land are going is going for here in Denver right now. This is worth over $2 million of land. We recognize that it is currently being used for a transportation use and could potentially be used for other different transportation uses and transportation uses that are in alignment with our mobility goals. And so I don't think that it makes sense when 71% of the surrounding neighbors oppose this to to approve it. There is technical merit. And I believe that it should remain a right of way. And we should vote no on vote no on it. So thank you all. Thank you, councilman. Councilman Herndon name is president. I am. I'm sitting here with a struggle because the initial reason for the delay was for the to the different parties to come together and have this conversation. I feel as if we're not there yet because there is a meeting that's going to happen in a few weeks so that the Register neighborhood organization can be official and sign a document that would take the two parties. It would be an agreement. So it seems that we though. Though I'm I'm past comments so I'm not going to comment. I don't know if that's going to be able to happen in one meeting. So I am I am torn on that. But I will just say, it seems as if you have an option of allowing the community to have a voice and a parcel of land and one option which the conversations that have moved forward. But it also seems as the vacation is denied, then they're the property owner. We'll just move forward with the development on their own parcel and the neighborhood won't have a voice in that conversation. And then the reason what was important to me, because I'm curious if DPW would develop this parcel in any capacity and the answer is no. And if the right away is going through, the community is going to get this integrated into the a part of their community. So I will be interested in seeing other colleagues speak up how they feel about a potential delay so that we can get past this October meeting that the Union Station, you are official. You have the capacity to sign a document and you can speak for the you can say, hey, we have a we have an ironclad agreement that if you have to move forward in this capacity, that to me seems as if that would be the end of a smart way to move forward. But I will certainly be interested in hearing how some of my other colleagues feel. Thank, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman. Thank you, Mr. President. I I'm in some ways the same situation as my colleague, Councilman Herndon. It's the Chris effect, maybe. But part of what factors into my confusion or my quandary, I suppose, is, you know, Councilman Sandoval asked for information in Luti and didn't get it. And I asked for it again tonight and and didn't get it. So that makes it a little tougher for me to say, Oh, we've got all our questions answered. Another quandary that I have is the Erno Ford says yes, but the Arno members say no. And that's confusing to me as well. And it's difficult for me to reconcile that to Mr. Sweet's comment about, well, we've come to an agreement with two of the three board members. We did what you want. Actually, I remember last week saying that I wanted a good neighbor agreement and I wanted there to be some document commemorating it, commemorating the relationship between, you know, what the neighbors wanted and. And I don't see that. And I recognize that there's also some work on a developer agreement which requires a legal entity. So I recognize that that's also a challenge. But that's, again, the quandary that we're in. Another quandary is we've already delayed this a month and. You know, whatever tonight is like today's the 30th and we delayed it until the 30th and and we deleted a month. And so I'd be okay with another extension. I'm a little frustrated that we're. Already delaying, and we're delaying more. I just don't want to. Yeah, it's it's just a little disheartening that we knew that we were going to meet today, and we're still not. I don't think we're quite there yet. Um, I also unfortunately had a meeting with one of my state contacts that had to get rescheduled when I was going to ask about the state statute. And that's totally my, that's, that's not anything that would happen here. But, but I wanted to learn a little bit more about the vacation process and the thought process as well. So I would likely be a no just because there are a lot of a lot of moving parts that just I can't reconcile right now. And and so I'm just sharing my thoughts. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Flynn. Thank, Mr. President. In response to Councilman Herndon, I'd be willing to entertain another delay to allow this to occur, because it seems to me we had asked for not just a good neighbor agreement, which is unenforceable, but a development agreement which is enforceable. But that requires this meeting to take place. If that meeting takes place and the neighborhood organizers and they say no, then we can vote no. And if they organize and they sign the agreement and say yes, then we can say yes. And but I think to just outright kill it tonight before we get a chance for this to happen, which is what we wanted to happen, is is not what we want to do right now. So I would support another delay. Thank you. Councilman Flynn, Councilman Herndon, you back up? Okay. Well, we can just see how this goes. I so my understanding is there's a meeting on the second week of October, the week of the 13th. If we delayed for three weeks, I would go until October 21st. But I think maybe the prudent thing would possibly give them an additional week. And so I before I say this, you have heard the questions that council has asked, and there really is no reason to not have council and council members ask this. But so I will I will make this and we will see how the will of the body goes. Mr. President, I move that final consideration of Council Bill 1977 six to be postponed to Monday, October 28th. A check in with our Madam Secretary and see if the councilman has followed the protocol needed to make that motion. Absolutely. And let's see it on our screens and we're going a little off script here. So if someone want to verbally second that or. I didn't show up. Oh, there we are. Thank you. So that motion has been moved and seconded. Are there comments on the motion to delay, Councilman CdeBaca? Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. I think that we've delayed once we've had this discussion last week, and we allowed it to move forward from last week to give them the time to go through the typical process anyone else would go through. I think we've heard community's voice and we're not listening to communities voice. There are several documents uploaded in your files of people who are protesting this. You're not talking to the same people. We're talking to an a three member faction of this group that has. Somehow. Commandeered this process. And we're waiting for these three people to establish, establish themselves, to sign for an entire neighborhood that has already spoken up that we are choosing to ignore. And so I don't think that this motion is appropriate. I think that this is a slap in the face to their participation. If this were a rezoning, this is beyond the 20% that would be required to protest a rezoning. And so we're we're really. Changing the rules and moving the target here with our threshold for community participation. And we're deciding which community. Members we want to listen to. And I don't think it's appropriate to listen to. We only saw one. Representative here who said he is making a decision for a group that the other representative who opposes. Is the president up. So it's. Very confusing. It is really. A testament to what I mentioned last week about the manipulation involved in this. Process. And I don't think it's appropriate. I think we've given enough time. It's run its course. It's followed the typical process. And I think we should be voting on this tonight, not delaying it any more. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. All right. Seeing no other comments, we are voting on the delay. Madam Secretary, roll call. See tobacco? No. Flint. I Gillmor. I heard it. I hate cashmere. I can eat. I. ORTEGA Hi. Sandoval No. Sawyer No. Torres No. Mr. President. No. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and note the results. Six eyes, five knees. Are we missing somebody? That's only 11. Ortega. Okay, you. Just let me vote right now. I was looking. For a good design. Seven eyes. Five knees. Seven eyes. Five nays. Uh, council bill seven, seven, six has been delayed. So I think that anything else we need to do, do now and then. All right. Seeing no other business before this body, this meeting is adjourned.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3901 Elati Street in Globeville. Approves an official map amendment to rezone property at 3901 Elati Street from I-A, UO-2 to C-MX-20 (industrial to commercial, mixed-use) in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-7-18.

DenverCityCouncil_09172018_18-0820

Okay. Thanks. 11 a council bill. 944 has passed. Councilman Flynn, will you please? What council? Bill? 820 on the floor. Yes, Mr. President. I move that council bill 820 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved. If I can get a second. It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council Bill 820 is open. May we have a staff report? Thank you, Mr. President, and Council Scott Robinson with Community Planning and Development. This is a request to rezone 3901 L.A. Street from au0 to two C Amex 20 properties located in Council District nine in the Globeville neighborhood. It's at the northwest corner of 39th Avenue and L.A. Street in the 41st and Fox Station area properties about 30,000 square feet and is currently vacant and used for parking. The request is to rezone from au02, which is light industrial with the billboard use overlay to see Annex 20, which is urban center neighborhood context mixed use with a 20 story maximum height and that billboard use overlay would be removed. The applicant is requesting the rezoning to facilitate the redevelopment for the development of the property. The property is surrounded by that IAU oh two zoning. Although as you can see in the map, portions of the 41st and Fox stationary have already been zoned to mixed use. Some CM x 20 CMS 12 and S.R. x 12 are already in the area. As I mentioned, the property is currently vacant, but you can see the surrounding uses a mix of industrial multi unit, residential, single unit, residential, commercial office, a little bit of everything in the area. You can see the subject property in the top right photo. Just to the east of it is the Regency student housing across a lot of street in the photo just below it and then some of the other development around there in the other photos. This went to the planning board on July 18th, where it received the unanimous recommendation of approval. No one from the public spoke on the application sent to Luti on August 7th, and we have received no other public comment on this application. In order to approve a rezoning, the city must find that these five criteria have been met. The first criterion is consistency with adopted plans, and there are four plans that apply to this property. The first is Comprehensive Plan 2000. As described in the staff report, Steffes found the proposed rezoning consistent with these six strategies from Campaign 2000 as the relating to infill development and mixed use development near transit or transit oriented development, which is consistent with the proposed Annex 20 zoning in this area. Blueprint Denver from 2000 to as a concept land use for this property of transit oriented development, which calls for a mix of uses and mid to high density development. Again, what would be allowed with the proposed TMX 20? Zoning is also an area of change and both 39th Avenue and a lot of street are designated locals which are intended to provide access from properties or developments to larger streets half a block to the west as Fox Street, which is a mixed use arterial. And then a block south of 39th is the intersection with 38th Avenue, Park Avenue and the I-25 interchange. All major arterials serving this area. The third plan is the 41st and fox stationary a plan from 29. The land use map in that plan designates this for mixed use office slash residential 3 to 20 stories consistent with the next 20 proposed zoning calls for high intensity developments and it calls for. Allowing the tallest buildings around the sort of edge of the development along I-25, serving as a buffer from the highway and providing views to downtown. So this location is appropriate for that highest height designation of 20 stories. And the fourth plan is the global neighborhood plan from 2014. Mostly just reiterates the recommendations in this area from the 41st and Fox stationary plan, calling for transit oriented development around the area. So staff finds the first criterion met. The second criterion is uniformity of district regulations. The proposed rezoning would result in the uniform application of the sea annexed toe zone district. The third criterion is to further the public health, safety and general welfare of the city. Staff finds that the proposed rezoning would do so by implementing the city's adopted plans and facilitating the development of a currently vacant parcel. The fourth criterion is justifying circumstances that finds that the proposed rezoning is justified by the Globeville Neighborhood Plan, which has been adopted since this zoning was put in place. The zoning was put in place in 2010. The plan was adopted in 2014 and also justified by the recent investment in the area. There's been some new investment, commercial development in the area and then with the G line, which will hopefully open soon. A significant public investment in the area justifying the rezoning. And then the fifth criterion is consistency with neighborhood context, zone, district purpose and intent. The proposed rezoning would facilitate facilitate the development of the 41st and Fox stationary into an urban center, consistent with the plans as described earlier and consistent with the description of an urban center neighborhood in the zoning code. And then you see Annex 20 is specifically intended for areas or intersections served primarily by major arterial streets where a building scale of 3 to 20 storeys is desired. As I mentioned, the property is at the intersection of two local streets, but there is a an arterial a half block way connected by the local streets and then a further block south or a major arterials of 38th Avenue and Park Avenue and I-25. So the area is served by major arterials and consistent with the purpose and intent of the city. And next toe zone district staff finds all five criteria met and recommends approval. I'll be able to answer any questions. Thank you very much. We have three individuals signed up to speak this evening, so if you've signed up for this item, please come to the front bench. I'll call your name, step up to the podium and begin your remarks as time will start elapsing. First up, we have Isaiah Salazar. Good evening, council members. I'm here on behalf of the ownership group Fox reinvestments here to answer any questions. Could you say your name for the record? Isaiah Salazar. Thank you very much. Next up, we have Jesse Pearce. Jesse Paris. Black Star Action Movement. Self-defense. Denver Homicide. Lord, I had two questions. I wanted to know what was going to be the residential am I for this possible redevelopment? It's a very congested area. So what's going to happen with the parking over here? Yeah. So somewhat to answer those questions, I would greatly appreciate it. All right. Thank you very much. Next up, Chairman Sekou. Good evening. When he was chairman, Sekou found the organizer for the Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense. Representing poor, working, poor homeless students and senior citizens. We support this zoning change. Because of what is right for this to happen. In addition to the five criteria which. It obviously qualifies for. There is a piece in this that represents hope for the people that we represent. There's going to be a lot of job opportunities present and the possibility that instead of being historically ignored, we will be concerned. And we know that part of the caveat for all of this is pretty much after these only requests are approved. Most of the time it falls by the wayside. And there's no follow up about whether or not these things are going to be made so that all the citizens can participate. We kind of leave that over to the developers and then you vote. I am, I am. I excuse me and know the aspects will seriously impact poor people. And as we continue on doing these things. In Michigan when I land. So you have development driving these areas who have been historically in the Gulf neglected. And yet there's nothing in place to ensure that the human rights of the citizens of the city county in Denver are going to be. Adhered to and promoted. So the caveat becomes how do we continue doing what we're doing and then justify that in the name of established rules and regulations and laws? Well, we know laws aren't necessarily set up to protect the poor. The oppressed. The Exploited. Like slavery was like. But it wasn't necessarily a good thing for black people. So the struggle continues and we'll be monitoring the projects. We would like to hope and also be present at the table so that when these things are happening. I'm sorry, but your time is up. Thank you very much. That concludes our speakers. Are there questions for members of council? Councilwoman Ortega. I would like to ask the question about. Whether or not the owner of this property is being asked to participate in the next step study for this area. Mr. SALAZAR Can you come forward and the next step study was being done? It was, I think, partially financed by the Denver Post site, looking at that intersection of 38th Avenue, Fox 25 and Park Avenue. And Fox really is the only road into this site. And I have discouraged our folks from the planning department from trying to look at the road that goes over 44th Avenue into the Globeville neighborhood from being considered as one of the access points. Those neighborhoods are being inundated with traffic. And so they have asked the Denver Post Project to do this study that looks at the infrastructure improvements that are needed. And I believe that includes drainage because as you know, that 38th Avenue underpass floods. So have you all been asked to participate in that next step study in helping finance any of the costs of that? Or have you been alerted that whatever the improvements are going to be required, that somehow you all may be asked to participate in that? Yeah, we were involved in the presentation that CPD put on, I think at the end of the summer, informing us all the property owners, kind of what the next steps are happening and the next step studies and we'll be a part of that as well. Okay. And can you talk a little bit about what it is you're looking at doing with the site other than rezoning it? Currently, we have no immediate plans whatsoever to do any development on the site. We are kind of waiting around to see wait for the light rail station, open up, really wait for the neighborhood to develop a little bit more to kind of see what comes of the neighborhood and what our needs of the neighborhood. Myself, my family, we we own quite a bit of property in the neighborhood where the owners and developers of the Regency Student Housing and we've been very excited for the light rail station and been teased with that for many years. So as of now, we're really happy with the operation of the student housing and the car share program that we have kind of working on there with our shuttle service that we provide for the students and more. Want to see what kind of comes out of some of the other big properties. The Denver Post site, uh, another site where the power rental site was as well to kind of see what is needed with the neighborhood, what residents. Kind of see a need for before we kind of pull the gun and start developing anything right now, especially on that site. But you're looking at a mixed use development. And we see a version, a mixed use. And would you all potentially be the developers or would you sell it to a developer to build? No, our ownership group looks to develop it. Okay. Okay. Thank you. I have no further questions. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. See no other questions. The public hearing for Collinsville 8 to 0 is closed. Comments by members of Council. Councilman Brooks. Yeah. Looking at the criteria, this completely meets it. I'm glad that some of our family is involved with the conversations. Love to get your input on the. You know, some of the parking solutions that we're looking for. I mean, I know that's a quite an investment, but we're really concerned about mobility in this area. And so I would invite you to continue meeting with the community, meeting with CPD and meeting with our office as we start to look at mobility options for this area. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Brooks. See no other comments, Madam Secretary, roll call Brooks. Espinosa. Flynn, I Gilmore. I heard. Did I? Carnage. Lopez. All right. Ortega. I assessment black eye. Mr. President. I am secretary. Please, because voting announced the results. 11 Eyes. 11 Eyes Council Bill 8 to 0 has passed. Councilman Flynn, will you put Council Bill 866 on the floor, please?

A bill for an ordinance designating 4345 West 46th Avenue as a structure for preservation. Approves an individual landmark designation for property located at 4345 West 46th Avenue in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 9-10-19.

DenverCityCouncil_11122019_19-0913

Council is reconvened. We have one public hearing this evening. Speakers should begin their remarks by telling the council their names and their cities of residence and if they feel comfortable doing so, their home addresses. If you are here to answer questions only when your name is called to come to the podium, state your name and note that you are available for questions of council. Speakers will have 3 minutes. There is no yielding of time and on the presentation monitor on the wall you will see your time counting down. Speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing and must direct their comments to the council members. Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments to council as a whole and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. First up, we have our hour one that we are delaying. Councilman Ortega, will you please vote? Council Bill 913 on the floor. Mr. President, I move that council bill 19 0913 be placed on final consideration and do pass. It has been moved and seconded. Councilwoman Sandoval, your motion to postpone. Thank you, Mr. President. I move into final consideration of Council Bill 19 0913 with its public hearing be postponed to Tuesday, January 21st, 2020. The motion to postpone has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council Councilwoman Sandoval. Thank you, Mr. President. I would just like to call to everyone's attention that this will be the second time that I asked for this to be postponed. As I mentioned on the first time, we have a landmark preservation application and the parties are trying to facilitate a third party buyer. So we need time to do the due diligence for that. And we believe that January, the end of January can get us to what we are trying to accomplish. So I would love everybody support this evening to postpone the motion. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. See no other comments, Madam Secretary. Roll call. Black. CdeBaca. I. Flynn. I. Gillmor. I. Herndon. Hines. Cashman. Kenny Ortega. I seen the ball. I. Sawyer. Torres. Hi. Mr. President. Hi. Madam Secretary, please. Because voting in the results. Eliminates. 11 days. Uh, final consideration of Council 913, and its public hearing has been postponed to Tuesday, January 21st, 2020. Councilwoman Ortega, will you please wait? Council 1177 on the floor.

Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the hearing and grant an Entertainment Permit with conditions on the application of Parq Hospitality LLC, dba Playa Amor, 6527 E. Pacific Coast Highway, for entertainment without dancing. (District 3)

LongBeachCC_10042016_16-0898

Thank you and congratulations. And thank the AM as well. And. With that will go to item. I'm sorry. There's a there's a hearing and then item 14. Report firm financial management recommendation to receive supporting documentation and to the record conclude the hearing and grant an entertainment permit with conditions on the application of Blackmore, located at 6527 East Pacific Coast Highway for Entertainment Without Dancing. District three This hearing requires no. Let's go and take the oath, please. Please raise your right hand. You do solemnly state that this testimony you may give in the cause now pending before this body shall be truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help you God. Okay. Thank you. With that, I'm introduce Mr. Modica. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Members of the Council. The staff. Report would be given by Brett Jacobs, our business services. Officer. Good evening, Mayor. Members of the City Council tonight have before you an application for Entertainment Without Dancing for Park Hospitality LLC during business hours. Playa Amore located at 6527 East Pacific Coast Highway. Operating as a restaurant with alcohol in Council District three, all of the necessary departments have reviewed the application and have provided their recommended conditions as contained in the hearing packet. I, as well as the police department, stand ready to answer any questions Council may have, and that concludes staff's report. Thank you. With that, I'm going to first are any public comments. So, you know, public comment and they closed the comments and go back to the hearing. Councilwoman Price is the is the owner operator of. Do you guys want to say anything? Hello. My name is Thomas Ortega. This is my partner, Todd Fujioka. I'm the chef and owner as well as my partner Playa More. We also have two other restaurants, one Cerritos called Amore Tacos and one in Redondo Beach called Ortega 120. First and foremost, we are a modern Mexican restaurant, farm to table. We are food driven. We do 70% food sales. That's. That's what we're about. During our. Temporary license, we've. Had a solo guitarist come in and play. People love it. We have it on Sunday, Sundays from 6 to 9. Excuse me. And he's done a very good job. Everybody loves it. You know, that's pretty much what we have on our grand opening. We had some. Mariachis. Typical stuff. That's all we're really looking into doing it here at Playa More in Long Beach. I can answer any questions if you have any. Thank you. Well, I want to welcome you. I've heard nothing but really great things. I haven't made it over there yet. But everybody raves about you and. And the restaurant and the service and the quality. It's a great addition to that shopping center. So welcome. I fully support this application. Thank you so much. Thank you. And hey, I'll show you guys. I've been to your place a couple of times. Awesome food. I love Mexican food. I think. I love the twist you guys put on it, which is a kind of very different twist on Mexican cuisine. Thank you. You've got a great, you know, bar and got a great server the first time I went in the second time as well. And so you guys are doing a nice job there. Thank you so much. And our chef actually has worked for me for five, six years. He's sitting up here behind us, Mikey Gonzales, he's actually lived and grown up in Long Beach, went to Wilson High School. Just wanted to put that out there. Great. Well, good, good, good job. A nice addition. Thank you, guys. Councilman Gonzales, with you on the second. Just want to say congratulations. You know, welcome to Long Beach again. And it's really great to have more Mexican amazing food here. Thank you so much. Councilman Pierce. I had no idea that the owners of Ortega 120 had a place in Long Beach is one of my favorite places. My staff and I just did a four day retreat and ended it at Ortega 120. Thank you so much and so welcome to Long Beach and I can't wait to get over there. Thank you. Yeah. Or Ortega is going to be this next coming up. We're almost at ten years, so. Yeah, pretty crazy. It's so good. Thank you so much, Councilmember Ringo. How's your Chile? Ready. Is it hot? Nas, it's perfect. You need to come try it. Yeah. Yeah. I will hold you today. Thank you. Congratulate you so much. Great. Thanks again, guys. Good. Good food and good service there. Thank you, guys. Okay. There's a motion in a secondary closed common hearing. Part of the hearing. Members, please go ahead and cast your votes. Motion carries. Great. Thank you. And now we're going to go to item 14, please.

On the message and Ordinance, referred on February 9, 2022, Docket #0259, Amending City of Boston Code, Ordinances, Chapter XV, Section X and Establishing the Boston Fair Chance Act, the committee submitted a report recommending the Ordinance ought to pass in a new draft. The report was accepted; the Ordinance was passed in a new draft.

BostonCC_04132022_2022-0259

So I can number 0259 An ordinance amending City of Boston Code Ordinance Chapter 15, Section ten and establishing the Boston Fair Chance Act. The Chair recognizes Council Royal Chair of the Committee on Government Operations Counsel. Royal. You have the floor. Thank you. We have a hearing. Mr.. Thank you, Mr.. Chair. The Committee on Government Operations had a working session on Tuesday, April 12th, on docket 0259, an ordinance amending City of Boston Code Ordinances Chapter 15, Section ten, and establishing the Boston Fair Chance Act, which was sponsored by Councilor Julie McGee and myself. I'd like to thank my council colleagues for attending Councilor Julie me here, Councilor Rosie Lui, Jen, Councilor Candelaria, Councilor Kenzie Bok and Councilor Ed Flynn. I also like to thank Chief Solis Rivera, Chair McKenna and the Human Rights Commission and get Abby and the advocates for the purpose and councilor flying with you to remember those ongoing attacks . Now, this ordinance would amend existing language in the Boston City Code and establish a chief diversity officer who would provide oversight over the city's nondiscrimination, equal opportunity and affirmative action policies. This ordinance would also require regular updates on progress made regarding diverse hiring and promotions and require that the Chief Diversity Officer work with officers to make sure that there are fair hiring practices in place for family members of current employees. During the working session, the committee heard language suggestions on and speaking to collective bargaining agreements, which would not be subject to this ordinance at all. All collective bargaining agreements supersede this. There was further discussion regarding the duties of the Chief Diversity Officer and the language suggestions on how covered employees would receive a promotion, upgrade or reclassification. The committee is working to get information on the city's current job posting policies while we wait to receive those specific language amendments from from multiple parties that we discuss at the working session, I'm going to recommend that this remains in committee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Counsel Royal. The Chair recognizes. Counsel me here. Counsel me here. You have the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you to my co-sponsor counsel for chairing such a great working session. We received a lot of great feedback from the administration and from our advocates and our colleagues here. So I'm the counsel and that we feel like we are really moving this work forward and making the ordinance stronger to best fit and serve our city workers. And a special shout out to Councilor Bark for a lot of great ideas that you shared in that space. Really do appreciate you. And one thing that I will just say is that I also want to uplift a lot of the workers that reached out to our office over the summer talking about the issues that they were experiencing. And it was because of their courage and their leadership that we are here in this moment addressing this issue. So I just want to uplift the workers who who literally came out of the shadows to talk about the discrepancies in in promotional practices here in the city of Boston. And I'm hoping that we can move this along quickly so that we can take it up for a vote of. Okay, thank you. Thank you, councilman here. Would anyone else like to speak on this matter? Talk of 0259 will remain in committee. Mr. Clerk, please read docket 0265, please. 0265 In order authorizing the City of Boston to accept and expand a grant funded through the coronavirus, state and local fiscal recovery fund. C o. F. R f. In the Treasury of the United States, established by Section 9901 of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, a r awarded by the United States Department of the Treasury.

A bill for an ordinance designating certain property as being required for public use and authorizing use and acquisition thereof by negotiation or through condemnation proceedings of fee simple and other interests, including any rights and interests related or appurtenant to such property, as needed for the National Western Center Project. Adds two land parcels inadvertently omitted from the legal description in the Land Acquisition Ordinance passed in December 2015, granting authority to acquire them as needed for the National Western Center redevelopment in Council District 9. The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 11-7-16. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 10-4-16.

DenverCityCouncil_10312016_16-0898

I have a comment by Councilwoman Cranitch each. 898 I'm sorry, that's a bill for final consideration and then under pending, I have no bills. Is that correct? All right, Madam Secretary, can you pull up Council Bill 898. And Council mechanics. Would you like to this? Thank you, Mr. President. It is my hope that we can put this on the floor, and I will once again be offering a motion to postpone final consideration to November 7th. The mayor's office wanted a little extra time to meet with some of the landowners involved in this bill, and we delayed it last week. But they would like a little more time. So I'm going to ask for another postponement to Monday, November 7th, once we put this on the floor. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Our table, will you put Council Bill 898 on the floor? I would be happy to. Do we believe that that's going to give adequate time? I would have to defer. Gary, can you answer whether or not that's going to be an adequate amount of time? Gaby Krieger Mayor's office. I understand that that would be enough time and that I think that there might be a need to amend it further on the floor next week, but not to postpone it and then would allow you guys to vote on it next week. Great. Mr. President, I move that council bill 898 be placed on final consideration and do pass. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. That's right, Councilwoman. Finish your motion to postpone. I move that final consideration of Council Bill 898 be postponed to Monday, November seven, 2016. All right. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of council. All right, Madam Secretary, roll call. Can each. Lopez I. Knew. Ortega Assessment. Black eye. Clark All right. Espinosa I. Gilmore, I. Herndon. Cashman. Hi, Mr. President. Hi. Close the voting, announce results. See Black. Espinosa. Espinosa's. Espinosa. Oh, sorry. Yeah. Choice. 12 Eyes Council Bill 898 has been postponed. All right, let's see. Let me make sure we have everything. Okay. We're ready for the black votes. All other bills for introduction has been ordered. Publish council members. Please remember this is a council consent or block vote and you will need to vote by otherwise. This is your last time to call out an item for a separate vote. Council Member Tagle, will you please read the resolutions for adoption and the bills for final consideration for final passage on the floor? I would be happy to, but may I make just a very brief comment? I didn't call the bill out on Council Bill 985. Okay. This is a bill that the auditor's office is bringing forward and is a change to the prevailing wage ordinance. And I just want to thank him for his work in reaching out and including both industry partners as well as labor unions. And the fact that all sides agreed and, you know, supported this bill moving forward. I just want to say thanks for for that work that was done on this particular ordinance that we're not going to call out and discuss tonight. Okay. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thanks for being here. Mr.. I move that the following resolutions be ordered published in a block vote resolution 955 956 957 958 nine 6962 963 965 966 968 nine. 7976 1061. 928. 964. 977. And 1969. Again area was. Yes. Yeah. Okay. You look like you missed the bills on final consideration as well. Okay. So we're doing them all together. All right, so including. So those were the resolutions. Yeah. So we're including the bills for introduction, which is 979. On a note, all the introductions have been ordered published, so we just need the bills on. Final and final. Okay. I'm sorry that we get to that. It's easy for me to do it on here. All right. So the following bills also in a bloc vote on final are. 876 877, eight, 78, 79, eight, 88, 81, eight, 86, eight, 87 excuse me eight, 88, 88, 89, eight, 98, 91, eight, 92, eight, 93. Excuse me. 894. Eight, 95. Eight, 96. 936 and 936, all in a blog post. Okay. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary. Oracle Black Eye. Clarke Espinosa Gilmore I Herndon Cashman. I can. Eat Lopez. All right. New Ortega. I Sussman. All right, Mr. President. I please close voting now. Results Total vice to advise. The resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed on final consideration to pass since there are no public hearings and if there are no objections from members of council, we will not take a recess this evening on Monday, November 7th.

A bill for an ordinance amending article XI of chapter 24, D.R.M.C., to ban the sale of flavored tobacco products and accessories. Amends Article IX of chapter 24, D.R.M.C., to ban the sale of flavored tobacco products and accessories. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-17-21.

DenverCityCouncil_11292021_21-1182

I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. When they told us. 12 eyes count the bill 21 dash 1352 has passed, and now we can release the folks that were seen here for that hearing and the others. We are now on to our final hearing of the evening. Councilmember Ortega, will you please put Council Bill 1182 on the floor for publication? Absolutely. This is the one many of you have all been waiting for. Madam President, I move that council bill 21, dash 1180 to be ordered published. Thank you. And we've got a motion. And the second. Councilmember Flynn. Your motion to amend. Thank you, Madam President. So, just so folks know, there will be a public hearing before there's a vote on this amendment, but we're making the amendment first. So you know what you can comment on. I move that council bill 21, dash 1182, be amended in the following particulars. One on page two, line 28, ad or menthol. After other. Than the taste or smell of tobacco. Two on page two, line 30, strike menthol. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council on the amendment. Councilmember Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. This amendment leaves menthol flavored tobacco products out of the. Out of the tobacco. The flavored tobacco ban. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. Councilmember Black. Thank you, Madam President. It's my intent to bring forward a Second Amendment tonight that would exempt specialty basic shops and tobacco stores from the flavor ban. All right, thank you, Councilmember Black. Councilmember Cashman. Thank you, Madam President. It's my intention to bring forth an amendment tonight that if the flavored ban bill passes, that the date of implementation be changed from July 1st of 20 to to July 1st of 2023. All right. Thank you. Council member Cashman. The 30 minute courtesy public hearing for Council Bill 1182 is open. Speakers may address the bill as well as any or all of the offered or intended amendments tonight. And we'd like to have the staff report and we will have Councilmember Sawyer. Go ahead and give the presentation. Thanks, Madam President. Due to the fact that we have done three community outreach meetings, three committees, 20 meetings with councils, with council members, and at least 40 meetings with the members of the public, small business owners, lobbyists, etc.. We're just going to go ahead and skip that tonight and move on. Thanks. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer. And this evening, we have scheduled a half an hour, 30 minutes for speakers. We have 41 individuals signed up to speak tonight. And so I would ask that if you don't need to use your 3 minutes for your comments, that you be brief and allow others to use that time as well so that we can hear from as many speakers as possible. Let's see, we are going to go ahead and start now and we have in chambers Brian Fertik. If I mispronounce your name, you can correct me, Brian. Thank you, Madam President. My name is Brian Voytek. I'm a Denver resident speaking on behalf of the National Association of Tobacco Outlets and hundreds of Denver member stores. Youth smoking and smokeless tobacco use have been declining for decades. Both are at historic lows. Recently released, FDA data demonstrates that youth vaping has declined 60% over the last two years to levels lower than 2014 seven years ago. Paid advocacy groups are attempting to use legitimate concern about youth vaping to ban thousands of products that youth are not using that have nothing to do with vaping. Additionally, majority of independent convenience store and gas station owners are women, immigrants, people of color, and people for whom English is not a first language. These businesses have experienced significant losses in fuel and in store sales. These women and minority owned businesses that were essential in Denver in 2020 should not be forgotten in 2021, according to the National Youth Tobacco Survey Survey. 86 to 90% of the time, youth do not acquire products from retailers, but from older family members and friends. There's no rational basis to believe this ordinance will reduce youth access. It may actually increase it, and the effort has failed everywhere it's been tried. Even more concerning are three recently published peer reviewed studies demonstrating that when enacted, these flavor bans have resulted in increased smoking among youth and young adults. That would be a horrible outcome from a public health perspective that will fix anything, only make things worse. This ordinance will result in local women and minority owned businesses closing. That will result in businesses leaving Denver. It will result in Denver ites losing jobs and it will be a windfall for retailers located outside Denver. It is our hope that the city council rejects this massive expansion of the failed deadly war on drugs. We hope that instead of pursuing bans that don't work, the council instead focuses on age verification, compliance penalties and on multilingual education for retailers and stops crushing minority owned neighborhood businesses. This ordinance is patronizing and elitist. Adult African-Americans and Hispanics in Denver do not need a nanny and city hall. We believe that people of color are capable of thinking and making decisions for themselves, and they should be allowed the right to do so legally. It is our hope that reasonable members can come together and at least mitigate the damage this ordinance will cause, particularly to people of color in Denver. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker in chambers is Mary Zamora. And then our next speaker in chambers is Scott Alderman and then Alberta Simmons. So that you can get ready. Go ahead, please. Thank you, Madam President. And thank you, counsel. My name is Mary Zama. I'm with one of the owners of Smoker Friendly. We're a fifth generation Colorado family owned business. We have six locations here in Denver with over 30 employees. This proposed ordinance has had many has many flaws. And it's very disturbing the way the process has gone through, being jammed down our throat as business people. I was here three times to speak at the committee hearings and. Finally got to speak tonight. So thank you for that. I didn't get to speak at any of those. I just have a couple of things because I've written to you all a few times, but today. I wrote you kind of. A detailed note. But I, I want you to know that this type of ordinance does have a financial impact on both your city and your retailers and the employees of those retailers. Denver has not provided a full financial impact study, which I think is irresponsible, to say the least. As a retailer, I can tell you each of our stores sales will plummet. We will have to pull over 1000 products off of the shelves if an ordinance like this was passed. We have a case study because we have a store in Glenwood Springs. And after a similar ordinance was passed in Glenwood Springs, our location sales are down by 72%. We've laid off four of our six employees, and quite frankly, the only reason the store remains open is that our landlord made us a great deal on rent and begged us to stay so that he didn't have an empty spot. So we will stay through the end of the lease. But I just want. You do know that this is a truthful, real world case study that happened within an ordinance just. Like you're looking at. Tonight. With that, I'd be happy to answer any questions, but I don't want to take more time. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Scott Alderman. Good evening, city council members. My name is Scott Alderman and I am the District One Director for the Denver Public Schools Board of Education. I'm delivering the proclamation from the Board of Education that received the unanimous support of the full restrictions on flavored tobacco at our November 18th board meeting, the proclamation reads. Whereas the Denver City Council's voting to amend ordinance Article nine, Chapter 24, the RNC to restrict the sale of flavored tobacco products. And. Whereas, flavored tobacco products are on the rise and have created a youth nicotine addiction epidemic. And. Whereas, tobacco companies in recent years have significantly stepped up the introduction and marketing of other flavored tobacco products, particularly e-cigarettes and cigars, as well as smokeless tobacco and hookah. And. Whereas, flavored e-cigarettes are undermining the nation's overall efforts to reduce or reduce youth tobacco use and putting a new generation of kids at risk of nicotine addiction and the serious health harms that result from the tobacco from tobacco use. And. Whereas, tobacco companies, market products and many kid friendly flavors such as gummy bear, berry blend, chocolate, peach, cotton candy, strawberry and grape. And. Whereas, flavors play a major role in youth use of e-cigarettes because they match the taste of tobacco and make it easier for new users to initiate use. And. WHEREAS, the campaign to the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids States, a 25.9% of Colorado high school students accuse e-cigarettes. In 1400, students become new daily smokers each year. And. WHEREAS, Published research studies have found that kids are twice as sensitive to tobacco advertising as adults and are more likely to be influenced to smoke a cigaret marketing than by peer pressure. One third of underage experimentation with smoking is attributable to tobacco company advertising. Now therefore be proclaimed. The Board of Education for Denver Public Schools supports ending the sale of all flavored tobacco products in all locations in the city and county of Denver. I also want to mention the DPS Healthy Kids Colorado survey provided by our Superintendents office. So first, there has been a large increase in vaping among DPS students the past eight years. In 2013, 11.5% of our students had tried vaping in 2019. That is that number is now 39.9% regarding smoking. 6% of DPS high school students have smoked cigarets in the past 30 days. Of the of the students who have smoked in the past 30 days. 35.6% have used menthol cigarets. And I have been instructed to emphasize that the City Council should not make an exemption for menthol in their flavor ban. Thank you for doing the right thing for our youth by ending the sale flavored. Ticketed free speaker. Next up, we have Alberta Simmons, followed by Philip Goren and Arthur Way. Good afternoon. Members of the City Council. You know, politics is one thing, but life is something else. And. Last week. This time I buried my brother. And today I found out that my sister passed. So. And I want you to know that both of them signed the petition that says do not put a ban on menthol cigarets . At some point. City council. You all are going to have to come to the realization that black folks got all my we can think we're not going to give people of young people cigarets or cigars or anything. You have them like zipped premium cigars, which all white men with money smoke. You have this hoopla by calling it a courtroom thing. But you are fighting the exemption for menthol, which is also a cultural thing because 90% of black people, men and women, smoke menthol cigarets. What are you going to do? You go. Next thing you go do chores. As black people, we can't eat collard greens because that's a cultural thing. I mean, at the end of the day, you talk about fairness. You've got to be fair. You talk about equity. You've got to be equitable. You've got to treat us as if we are equal, both as we as black folks, as we are. Our constituents get treated like you do when you come to our community and ask for our votes. You got to treat it the same way. And at the end of the day, all we ask is that you do not ban menthol cigarets let us choose as black people. Let us choose what we want to do as adults. But we certainly don't want kids smoking cigars, cigarets anything like that. I agree with you on that. But I also agree that you've got to give us leave us with our choice. And our choice is to give out menthol cigarets menthol products a chance. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker in chambers is Phillip Goren, followed by Arthur Wei. And then we're going to move online to Dr. Dimmer is the first person online. Go ahead, please. Thank you, Madam President. And thank you, esteemed members of City Council. I appreciate this opportunity to speak until green. I own mixed up on Ivy and Colfax. I have been in business in Mayfair for 29. Years and. That is a lot of paying taxes. I want you to know that I'm proud to be from Denver, born and raised, same neighborhood. My I'm proud to be a father to my 11 year old daughter. Goes to the same school that I went to. I'm also proud that I've helped thousands of people stop smoking cigarets. I'm also mostly proud that kids don't get. Vapes from mixed up. From me. We all agree that children should not vape. I think that more should be done at home and in the schools. Things should be enforced. Things should be a lot stricter. There's a lot of things in the world that in the adult world that kids should not take part in. And bad words is one of those things. That's why movies and videogames are age restricted. I've heard a lot of horrible responses about what we're trying to do to stop kids from vaping in the bathrooms, in schools, and from the council itself. And honestly, I went to Emmanuel High School and hearing that they took all the stalls out of the bathrooms and it hurts my feelings like in a in a serious way and like we can do better for our kids. And this ban doesn't fix that. I've heard from the council that we want to lead as a city. Then let's not follow San Francisco. Colorado has always been somewhere geographically between Texas and California. And Coloradans, we know. We're like a mixture of Texas. And Colorado. And that's what makes us the coolest state in the union. A dodgy flavored vape products. To quit smoking. Cigarets. I've smoked. Cigarets. I have vague. Sometimes you get an urge for a cigaret. Maybe it was something you drank. Maybe something that you ate. Maybe it's something you remember. And instead of smoking a cigaret, I have the choice as an adult to use a flavored vape product. And I like flavored vapes. I don't like tobacco flavor. A ban would have a huge negative impact on our community. Everybody's heard of loosies. The police have choked people to death for selling loosies loose cigarets. If you think loose these were a problem, imagine the problem on the streets. With vapes and then your kids will be getting these things. From. Dealers and peddling things that are not safe. We're proprietors. We we are the centurions that look out for our communities. We're the ones that make sure that kids don't have these products. History has taught us that bands don't work. And this is just one more example, and I don't want to hear that vapes are the gateway drug to Cigarets. That's ridiculous. That's what they told. Us about marijuana. And every single study has proven that wrong. And they we legalize marijuana. And actually the voters did that, not city council. And it was the right decision. Please. No ban. Thank you. And I'd ask. You end up taking time from other speakers if we have folks clapping. So I'd ask that you not do that so that we can hear as many members as we can in our half an hour. Arthur Way. Thank you. Council President Art Wei, Drug Policy Consultant I've spoken to many of you on behalf of clients within the marijuana equity space. I want to thank you for your positive votes there. I've also spoken to you all for clients regarding this issue of flavored tobacco bans. Based on my experience, 15 years as a drug policy reformer, police accountability advocate. These type of bans bother me for three specific reasons. First, and specific to menthol, Cigarets is patronizing. There's no other way around it. What we're basically saying is if you came to this habit from the Marlboro Man or from Camel Joe, the cartoon or from the beautiful skinny white ladies of Virginia Slims, we're not worried about you. We think you can handle your health. But if you came to this habit, do a Billy Dee Williams or Miles Davis in a Newport ad. We need to intervene because you're just a consumer and you have no idea how to take care of yourself. And it's disrespectful to a certain extent and to a large degree, and it's bothersome. I know proponents will say that, well, menthol is the starter and it's harder to quit. But that data is weak that that that is seriously weak and just not as strong as the data that shows that these bans create more problems than they're worth. I'll remind you all that the broader health care inequities that the black community faces is problems that I wish the African-American public health people who are behind these bans would instead deal with, instead of dealing with the results of the broader determinants of public health that my community faces. The second problem I have with these things is they are a typical drug war soccer mom, knee jerk reaction. The focus is only on the supply and does not for the demand at all the places where these things have passed. There are no provisions to do anything for the users. It's all about how can we punish the sellers? And in this case, the sellers that you're punishing are the mom and pop tobacco harm reduction, just that, a settlement based in the local Denver economy. You're not punishing big tobacco with these bans. They're going to make their money whether their product is sold legal or illegal. Lastly, if you want to really lead on this issue, you will dove into the issue of marketing and promotion. That's why we're here in the first place, right? We're mad at the way big tobacco marketed and promoted their products. If you want to lead on this issue, see what you can do about further restrict the marketing and promotion. See if you see if you could get $1,000,000 earmark from Michael Bloomberg, who's funding these campaigns to put into our communities and specifically educate our communities about how the tobacco industry has been. There are other ways to lead on this issue. Many of you all are better than this. This is not a way to lead. Thank you so much. Thank you. Our next speaker, we're going to go online. We've got Dr. Demeure online and then Angela Garcia, followed by Sarah Barnes. Good evening, everyone. My name is Dr. Timothy Dimer. Tonight, I. I'm here as a pediatric specialist with Kaiser Permanente. As a black woman. And as a mother. I'm here to provide and highlight some information that I think we all know. And then as grown adults, we can make a decision for our community. So as a pediatrician, I can attest to the youth e-cigarette epidemic that the U.S. surgeon general identified just a few years ago. The tobacco industry has done a fantastic job making kids believe that there is nothing harmful in e-cigarettes with enticing flavors like watermelon, raw, cotton, candy and bubblegum. For many children, this appealing flavors and the abundance of variety of flavors might be the only reason they actually vape. With this innocuous flavors. It's no wonder that when I learned from my patients, children, about the deadly carcinogens in the flavored vapes, they're smoking, they're completely unaware and astounded. And this is even more true of mental flavored cigarets. For decades, the tobacco industry intentionally targeted communities of color, which has resulted in disproportionate tobacco use and adverse health outcomes. Menthol is a key tool that big tobacco is used to make this happen. African-Americans only make up 12% of the US population, but account for 41% of smoking related premature deaths. Tobacco companies know that almost all tobacco users begin their addiction as children, and menthol flavors help menthol masks the harshness and irritation caused by tobacco smoke, making it easier for kids to experiment with tobacco use and become addicted. About half of all. High school smokers use menthol cigarets. Preference for Newports, which is the menthol Cigarets, stands for and is even higher among black users because of predatory marketing. As the gentleman earlier mentioned, the prevalence of mental use is highest among black smokers. In the 1950s, less than 10% of black smokers use menthol cigarets. Today, after decades of tobacco industry targeting, that number is 85%. We cannot afford to wait for what will likely be years before the FDA finalizing implements the necessary regulations around menthol and flavored tobacco products. The inevitable tobacco industry lawsuits could even cause more delays. All the while, black lives continue to be exploited for profit. So as. A mom. And a physician, I ask you to. All do the right thing. I think eventually we're going to have to stand up to the tobacco industry because they purposefully tried to hook children. All the children in our communities to an addictive substance. So thank you for your time. Then consider voting yes in favor of the ordinance to restrict the sale of flavors tobacco, including menthol. Number. We'll go to Angela Garcia online. Sarah Barnes online. Thank you, Madam President, and council members. My name is Sarah Barnes, and I'm the manager of. Special policy initiatives at the Colorado. Children's Campaign. The children's campaign supports the ban of flavored nicotine products because Colorado's youth vaping rate continues to be. Very high in relation to the rest of the country. And we. Know that flavored. Products, including e-cigarettes and cigars, are appealing to and highly utilized by youth. 81% of kids who've ever used. Tobacco started with a flavored. Product, and youth overwhelmingly. Cite flavors as a major reason for their tobacco. Use. This includes menthol flavored products as nearly. 50% of. Youth, ages 12. To 17. Who smoke traditional cigarets use menthol. In addition, because youth often get access to nicotine products through an adult who purchases for them, it's important that flavored nicotine products also be banned and age restricted stores banning the sale of nicotine products as a critical way to reduce the youth use of nicotine, which negatively impacts their health and. Also harms their developing brains. We urge your support of this policy, and I thank you for your time. We'll go to Hyman out in my online. We'll go to Kailash Karki online. Now we'll go. To Terry Richardson. In chambers. Thank you. Members of the council. I'm Dr. Terry Richardson, an internal medicine physician. And the vice chair of the Colorado Black Health Collaborative. And I'm passionate about health. And achieving health equity. Some of what I'm going to. Say you've heard already. But I'm going to say it again. I'm here today to support the ordinance ending the sale of. All flavored tobacco products, including menthol. Menthol, as you know, makes it easier to start smoking and harder to quit. But menthol and other flavors are especially. Appealing to youth. These products, while they may. Mask the harsh. Taste of nicotine, are not sweet. They are highly addictive, especially for youth and people of color who are heavily marketed by big tobacco, menthol, tobacco and other flavored products should be banned, so they are no longer used by tobacco companies to lure. African-American and other children to become lifelong smokers. This ordinance gives our youth a chance to. Be tobacco free and healthy. Bar flavor. Should be. Banned to prevent. Disproportionate disease and death attributable to long term use of these cancer states. And I did that because people were being rude. So anyway, let me go on. There are some that would like to exempt menthol from the flavors ban. This whole debate on exempting menthol products is not about doing the right thing. It has nothing to do with choice. Everyone knows that banning menthol is the right thing to do. But the issue is that profit. Is being put before people in public health. Big Tobacco has spent decades pushing these products on young, black, LGBTQ and other marginalized communities. Menthol, tobacco and other flavored tobacco products should be banned so they no longer can be used to lure African-American and other children become lifelong smokers. Also, I think it's important to note that menthol tobacco is not a part of black culture. This misperception was created by tobacco companies that use black smokers as guinea pigs to protect their products and marketing strategies. And I want to dispel another myth Black people will not be arrested for smoking menthol products once they are banned. The players ban ordinance is not focused on individual consumer possession. Black people are profiled and stopped by police due to the color of their skin, not because the brand of the tobacco product they may be smoking. CPAC has heard from our community and will continue to advocate and fight on behalf of the community to ensure that flavored tobacco products, including menthol, are banned. Saving lives. Truly saving lives is the end game. Please put people and public health before politics and profit. Let us do the right thing and save lives. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Our next speaker in chambers is Joe Miller. Maloney. And then we have Raymond Smith and Cornelius Wright. Madam President, esteemed members of the Denver City Council, John McCloskey, former Colorado Democratic state representative and current consultant. To 21 mom and pop. Small, responsible vaping stores that truly have helped thousands of adults wean off smoking more harmful cigarets. I pass out a presentation. I'd like to. Briefly review some interesting pieces of background information first. Did you know there's about 7000 chemicals in a single cigaret? About 93 of which are known carcinogens like. Charcoal and tar in the vaping. Products that my 21 small business stores in the city and county Denver sell. There's about 12 major ingredients, no charcoal and no tar. We've helped thousands of adults not be part of the deadly statistic. We're 480,000 Americans die in the United States of America through cigaret smoking. 96% of our sales are to adults with flavored vaping products because it helps them forget the disgusting cigaret smell. If you remove 96% of the company's profits, they would definitely go bankrupt and out of business. On Slide four, the presentation I sent you. On the left. Side, we sell the large, bulkier, more. Expensive open tank devices, not the small, discreet dual devices that you'll see in schools. The next few slides go through how 14 highly respected international and domestic health care organizations have all. Acknowledged the research, the websites and white papers that flavored vaping products have helped adults wean off smoking more harmful cigarets. There's numerous differences between the products that my 21 client small business stores sell and what George sells. When you walk into one of our stores, we start you at 25 milligrams of nicotine, half the amount. Of what George sells. We wind you down to eight, nine, six three, even zero. Milligrams of nicotine. One third of our clients have zero milligrams of nicotine and the average age is 42. The next few slides talk. About economic impact as well as about the ISO safety standards that we employ. As well as all of the. Regulatory standards to make sure you still access our products. But I'm telling you, go to any resource officer at any Denver high school or junior high where they hold up the oversize Ziploc bag of confiscated vaping products. Those aren't my clients products. It's interesting. On November 17th, we had a lot of debate about people passing on from smoking cigarets and I thought a lot about my uncle Norm, who smoked 31 years in Michigan and died of heart failure and many of the tragic situations that the council president and Councilman Sandoval talked about, their loved ones. And I really believe that if vaping products would have existed for adults years. Ago, he'd be alive today. We have to meet people. Where they're at. It's why Great Britain and other countries have utilized flavored vaping. Help adults wean off smoking more harmful cigarets. I encourage you to vote for the age restricted amendment and thank you for your time, Counsel. And thank you. And our next speaker in chambers is Raymond Smith. Raymond Smith. Okay. Cornelius Right. Good evening, City Council. I'm Cornelius. Right. And I own a cigar. Lounge in the great district in Chris Hines. And I'm here today because I understood that there was an amendment for cigars. And with that, I could just go my way and say thank you. But I keep hearing menthol, menthol, menthol. And it just it just kept me up at night because I remember as a child growing up in an inner city, and I remember asking my father, Why don't you just buy a house over there? Today, those houses are worth a lot more. He looked down at me and he said I couldn't buy a house over in that area during that time. Engage me, if you will. A person that's been in Park Hill his entire life paying taxes. Walks into a convenience store. Followed by any person of any other race who probably is visiting Denver, Colorado. That person goes in. 80 to 90% of the time, the cigarets that they want are on the shelf. 80 to 90% of the time. The African-American will be told. That. You have to go. Over to another. County to get your cigarets. There's something about that that just isn't right. An adult has the means to make a choice. And I understand when it comes to health. Well, if that's the case. What about the rest of the cigarets? I know we're not having that conversation today. What about the rest of the cigarets that are on the shelves? Do we move on to the health food? No, we don't. So if this is not a targeting, if this is not something that focuses on the African-American community. Then let's make it about youth in my business. We are responsible. We have a new Denver and county license now. We have to abide by the penalties are raised. There's also. Training. All of my employees go through it. I think we should put the safety. Of the youth in the forefront and not expound upon a race. Conscious element. Thank you. Thank you. We're going to go ahead. We've hit our 30 minute mark, but I'm going to go ahead and go through the short list of speakers in this in this tranche of folks that we have here in chambers. And then we'll go ahead and have council members ask questions and we'll continue with the hearing. Next up, we've got Raymond Smith. Raymond Smith. All right. Sharif Saleem. Sharif Saleem. Monica Van Drew Scott. Correct me if I mispronounce your last name. Hello. My name is Monica Vandross. I'm a small vape shop. Owner here in Denver. I'm 38th between. Navajo and Mariposa. It has become clear to me that some may see the lives of vapers as expendable. But I don't. But I want to assure you that is not true. Each one deserves the right to less harmful alternative to Cigarets. It's people like my husband, my mother, who has been a closet smoker for over 30 years, and the customers that I have had a rough year asking us for help when they went back to smoke. All our valuable people who quit smoking using flavored vapor products. And these are the only people who are going to be affected. Without the age restricted amendment. It does nothing to stop the Snapchat bathtub manufacturers. It does nothing to stop adult only products from showing up in the mail over a year and a half after statewide sales. It does nothing but leave responsible business owners like me with no history of selling to miners out of business. You said that you put all these new measures into place to help miners stay off of Combusts or stay off of vaping products. You took my money for licensing. You refused to enforce these new laws. And your only solution? The solution is to ban me out of business. It's completely unacceptable. It's unacceptable to stand in the way of adult smokers who want to quit using flavors. It's unacceptable to say that the gum with a 6% success rate or patch and a 9% success rate is a viable option for smokers and then ban flavored vapor that is at least twice as effective. It is unacceptable to say this leaves room for a sensation when this legislation is written in a way that requires vapor products to go through just double jeopardy process. It is unacceptable to imply that my business plan includes a 90 day closure, a $5,000 fine just to sell my Myers, which is the furthest thing from the truth. I've heard the phrase selling to minors to the next generation. Too many times to count. If you walk into any vape shop and ask the owner that something doesn't even make sense. Not for a second. There is no next generation. There is only smokers. The 4080 480,000 people who die of a year of smoking to start big tobacco, but without a strict amendment for shops. Big tobacco is going to be the only one left. No more independent vape shops. More often we have a lot of reach speaker. Thank you. Thank you. All right. I really appreciate everybody. Appreciate everybody's patience with the hearing and the amount of time that this has taken. We want to I'm just checking on something here. All right. We're going to go ahead and go. I'm going to take a point of privilege here, because we want to make sure that there is fairness in the pro and the for and against. And so I'm going to go ahead and skip back here in chambers and we're going to have Joi Walker be the next speaker here in chambers. Do we have Joy Walker with us? Yes. Okay. We're going to go ahead and you'll be our final speaker tonight and then we'll go ahead and have questions from members of council. Go ahead, please. Ray, if you remind everyone introducing yourself. Pardon me. Introduce yourself. Please. Yes, ma'am. Joy Walker, Denver resident. First, I oppose the proposed menthol ban. Menthol ban? Why? It's offensive to me as a black woman. Not only am I a black woman, I'm a black woman that has multiple sclerosis. So banning things that I use to help me definitely throws me off. It's offensive to some of us in the black community that this bill banning vapor flavors has been rewritten to allow exemptions for hookah bars and high end premium cigar bars. But menthol cigarets and lower cost flavored cigars mostly consumed by people that look like me. Black people, respectfully. They aren't exempt as well. They are not exempt as well. Some people might say the hookah exemption is appropriate because it's a cultural experience. Some might say high in price. Cigars should be exempt because kids won't get their hands on them. Black adults are capable of making choices and living by those choices respectfully. For my part, we don't need the city council. To help keep these products off the black out of the black community. We are adults. We are capable of making our own choices. If you are. Truly acting with equity in mind. It should be across the board, wouldn't you say? Wouldn't that be fair? Kind of across the board there. Not pick and choose where we want to go with. All right. Okay. So, again, you know, I appreciate you all hearing me speak. I have been waiting a long time for this. And again, banning these products used mostly by black people is an equity issue. And I am a black woman standing before you today. I use these products. I'm not a criminal. I'm a taxpayer. I own property. You know, just those type of things. We want you to know that. We keep hearing everyone say the children, the kids, the kids. This isn't about the kids. You police your children at home. That's your job. Not my job. No disrespect. No disrespect, however. Two more seconds. Thank you for you all time. Thank you for letting me be a black woman in 2021 and actually making some decisions that affect me in my household. I'll keep an eye out of my kids. I promise. Thank you. All right. We are going to go ahead here and. That concludes our speakers this evening. We're going to have questions from members of Council on Council Bill 1182 and or the First Amendment. And I again, thank everybody for their patience. I thank you for your passion. We want to make sure that we're able to hear what everybody else is saying and the conversation here. And another quick reminder, we do have a face covering mandate in Denver. And so really appreciate folks complying with that as well. And so questions from members of council. I know that we've already got folks queued up here. We've got council member Sawyer, your first. Thanks, Madam President. I appreciate that. I wanted to ask Joe McCloskey, do you have a cease and desist order against you that has been served by you, by organizations to you to stop using, to stop representing that vaping saves lives? Now. Can you commit to that? You're going to have to come up to the podium and we ask that you again, introduce yourself before you answer the question. Madam Council President and Councilwoman. So, you know, the only letter was the CDC use of the logo, which we stopped using. The rest of the 14 health care organizations that were quoted all have citations from peer reviewed research websites and white papers. Okay, great. And before you go, has the FDA approved any flavored products for smoking cessation? 4.6 Madam President. I yes or no. Question Has the FDA approved any flavored products for smoking cessation? Madame Council President and Councilwoman Sawyer 4.6 million adults. I'm sorry. That was a yes or no question. 4.6 million adults have used flavored product. I asked you to quit smoking. More harmful cigarets. Thank you, Councilman Sawyer. I'd ask. That means I'd ask that folks who are called up answer the question. But I also want to have patience from our membership as well. If there's further information, we want to hear that information, too. So, Councilmember Sawyer, do you have anybody else you'd like to call up? I do. I want to ask Jody if you Jody Radtke, if you could come up. Yes. Thanks. Can you introduce yourself for the record? Yes. My name is Jodi Raad Kim, the regional director with the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. Okay. Thank you, Jody. Have you are you aware of any flavored products that have been approved by the FDA for smoking cessation purposes? No, there has not been any approved submitted application from the vaping industry as approved cessation product to date. Okay, great. Thank you. And can you just please remind me while you're up there how many what the percentages of youth smokers and vapers who are using menthol flavors? About a third, I think, director alderman testified earlier as well. Over a third, about 36% of Denver students currently use menthol and other vaping products and other tobacco products. Menthol is a second flavor of choice. Okay, great. Thank you. And can you just one last question. Refresh my memory on the, uh, on what we learned in, I guess, Minneapolis and Saint Paul regarding 21 plus stores and the efficacy of the, the ban with that exemption. So there have been a couple communities that have since gone back to either strengthen their policy or close their loopholes based on the way that the vaping and tobacco industry have navigated or attempted to navigate around it. They have done things like create stores inside of stores and they have created greater problems for their councils where they've gone ahead to strengthen it over time. But the problem is a lot of these stores started investing in some of these modifications that their counsel had requested. And so they are trying to really inform major municipalities across the country to learn from their mistake and to learn from their error. And so I believe Council member Prince Jean Prince had sent a letter to all of you talking to you about the direct problems that they experienced. Oakland experienced similar problems and many more. They had about 5 to 6 stores across the city, which quickly proliferated to over 60. And they have since gone back this last year to close that loophole. And they no longer allow. Age restricted facilities to sell. Great. Thank you very much for that information. Really appreciate it. And I am not sure if Director Balder Min is still here. Oh, hi. I just have a quick question for you. I'll ask it while you're walking up, if you can just re-introduce yourself for the record, but wanted to just ask for a little bit of information and feedback on the kinds of issues that DPS is seeing with youth smoking and vaping in the schools. So skateboarder and on the DPS board and I mean, we were definitely seeing a lot of behavior issues in school right now. And we've we've seen an uptick in in vaping, vaping, related issues, smoking. We've had smoke alarms going off in George Washington High School. I'll speak for my own son who is talking about how they have. It asks the members of the audience, Please refrain from speaking so that we can hear the speakers. Go ahead, please. It's just really disruptive. I mean, we're coming out of COVID right now trying to focus on learning and teaching. And there are many distractions. And this is one of of many, but definitely disruptions and others. I'm going to talk about my son how a Graham middle school they are they were doing a festival on a Friday afternoon and some of the kids were not were not able to participate because they had rules around vaping and smoking that prevented the kids from participating. It was just it was a new thing for me as a as a father of a middle school kid, to have to have these conversations with my son. And, I mean, it's very real in our schools. And the statistics I mentioned earlier, eight years ago, we had 11% of kids that have tried vaping and we're now almost at 40%. It's a huge jump. So it it is it's very disruptive in our schools. Great. Thank you so much. Thanks, Madam President. Thank you. Councilmember Sawyer. Councilmember Hines. Thank you. Council President Moretti. Mia, have you come back up for a second. Please? So I have two questions, both FDA related. Can you tell me a little bit about what the FDA, uh, they, they made a, um, announcement or something in 2009 about the products. Can you tell me a little bit more about what the FDA has said regarding these products? Yeah, I think I may understand your question. If I don't, please clarify and I'll try to answer it as directly as I can. So in 2009, federal legislation was passed that removed all flavored cigarets from the market. The only remaining flavor at the time that was left was menthol. They did not have jurisdiction over cigars or vaping products at that time. That authority was added in 2016, and it also added cigars during the 2009 legislation. It was made clear to the industry those who work within the industry as well as a few other public health, that the removal of flavors, including menthol, was essentially imminent. So when cigars and vaping products and other the others were added within the deeming rule, really the industry was put on notice in 2009. So if they essentially decided to open a store or a business that sold only those products, they were really taking rolling, taking a really big chance in doing so. Yeah. And thank you for the correction. You're you're right. I was incorrect in saying flavored vape products, so thank you. I can understand why you were. Anyway, the so they in 2009. Four. Flavors said that this was something that the FDA was no longer going to support is that that I'm just going back to what what specifically they said as opposed to the implications of of the ruling in 2009. So in 2009, again the flavored all flavored cigarets. So there used to be some of you may remember a number of cigaret flavors that were very similar to what we see, not in the same quantity, but very similar to what we see in the world of vaping. So there were vanilla, there were cherry, they came in fruity flavors and colors very much like we see today. At the time, a task force was they were charged to put together a task force to further study menthol and to come back with their recommendations. And the task force was very directive and what those recommendations were. And that's where you seen some of the activity recently, especially in this last year, about the FDA starting to take action now around removing menthol from the market. And there's very solid, substantial evidence for why they're doing so. Okay. So. So that actually was my second question about FDA was I think in 2009, they made an exception for menthol. And and as you're saying, there's a conversation more recently. Is there is there also is is there some legal action against the FDA for their menthol carve out? Now, there's been several lawsuits for the inaction that has there's been a significant delay in the FDA taking action. So there's been a number of lawsuits filed against the FDA to prompt that action. The most recent being from some partner organizations, American Medical Association names we know and respect that are credible. And the African American Tobacco Control Leadership Council and Ashe Action on Smoking and Health filed a lawsuit against the FDA based on the subsequent delays and not taking action around menthol. And so now we are seeing they are in the rulemaking process and so that is moving forward and as a few things. And if you think things move slowly at the state level or at the city level, we all know how slowly it moves at the federal level, but that is definitely in action currently. And the nature of that is that there are the idea is to ban flavors and then menthol is also a flavor. So how can you not if you're banning flavors, you're blame banning flavors. It's not new banned flavors except for this one is I think that's the nature of the lawsuit. The lawsuit was specifically named menthol on behalf of the plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit around the an action that was taken with the FDA. So it was specifically spoke to menthol in that lawsuit. And so that's what's being responded to. And then the FDA is also taking further actions around removing flavored cigars from the market as well. Thank you. Thank you. Question is that answer your question. Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Hines, Councilmember Black. Thank you, Madam President. Councilwoman Sawyer, I think you asked both Joe McCarthy and Jody Radtke if. The FDA had approved flavored e-cigarettes as a cessation advice. And I think that the answer was no. But I just wanted to point out, I have an article from The New York Times from October 12th of this year. That said, the Food and Drug Administration for the first time on Tuesday authorized an electric cigaret to be sold in the United States in green lighting a device and tobacco flavored cartridges under the brand name. Beause the agency signaled. That it believed that. The help. Certain vaping devices offer smokers to quit traditional e-cigarettes is more significant than the risk of ensnaring a new generation. The statement concluded, the FDA determined that the potential benefit to smokers who switch completely or significantly reduce their cigaret use would outweigh the risk to youth. So I just wanted to clarify, I think your question was specifically about flavored vaping products, but according to the article in The New York Times. Madam President, can I respond? Sure. Just a minute. Are you finished, Councilman? The BLOCK. Go ahead. Councilmember Zoya. Yes, that's correct. Councilwoman Black. And also the bill specifically exempts any products that are approved by the FDA for smoking cessation. Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Sawyer, Councilmember Black, did you have any other questions? Not right now. Thank you. Okay, great. Thank you. Councilmember Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. I like to call Arthur way up the figure. I was intently listening to your three minute testimony. I wanted to get your reflection, if you could please, one on something that hasn't yet been addressed by those who would support my amendment. And that is the issue that the black community surely prefers. Menthol Cigarets. I've heard that for three hearings now, but what I'm being told is that we need to adopt this ban because you have been targeted by predatory marketing. Now, I kind of feel like Captain Renault in Casablanca saying I'm shocked, shocked that a mass marketer would determine what its market is and advertise toward it. And maybe we'll go after Chivas Regal next. But could you tell me your reflection and your opinion on whether you as whether your community has been unfairly targeted by predatory marketers any more than, say, a Virginia Slims smoker or the Marlboro Man that might target white smokers or cowboys? You know, I was I remember being upset as a as a teenager when I started to see McDonalds commercials where, you know, a bunch of hip hop music being played and it seems like our culture was put on display in order to sell their product. You know, this is nothing new for the black community. And more than anything, I don't know anybody in my neighborhood that that smokes menthol anymore. I couldn't say that 20 years ago. Over the last 50 years, 33 million fewer cigaret smokers exist in this country than in 1970 and our population has doubled in that time. And black people are. Rates have gone down, maybe not as much as white people, but the fact that our smoking rates, given the structural inequity and the health care inequity that we deal with, are similar to white folks. I think that's a victory. You know, when you look at the smoking rates of the Native American community is ridiculously high. And I know tobacco has a long history within the indigenous culture here in this country, but I think their smoking rates really reflect the amount of poverty and structural inequity that they're dealing with. And despite, you know, Newport and everybody going at the African-American community, we've seen it all before. We know how to deal with it. And I just want to remind you all that. You know, there's a difference between deaths that are caused by smoking and smoking related illnesses, our smoking related illnesses and the disparities that we have in regards to our smoking related illnesses. Primarily tracks back to the disparities that we face within the health care system when it comes to access to health care, when it comes to standard health care being lowered and what our white counterparts face. So, you know, the fact that marginalized communities who deal with a lot of structural inequity on a day to day basis may have a harder time quitting than other communities, I don't think should surprise no one. And I think that would be the case, whether we smoked menthols or Marlboro Reds. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilman Hines. Thank you. Council President. Mr. McCluskey, will you? I think it's only fair if I asked Miss Radtke the question. Would you also be willing to it? The question that I asked earlier was about the FDA in 2009 and the action that they the determination that they took and also regarding their lawsuits on menthol products. If you'd be willing to address that, that would be great. Madam President and Councilwoman. Hines, thank you for the opportunity to speak about this. There's two interesting deets about the FDA that provide context. First is the famous 2009 legislation that President Obama signed. What's also interesting is about late 2018, early 2019, there was an FDA decision that basically being flavors in small, discrete dual type vaping products, but allowed flavors to exist in large, bulkier, more expensive open tank products like the ones I described on Slide four of my presentation earlier. And this next, that's really, really key. From 2009 to 2016, youth vaping didn't exist. It wasn't an epidemic. These thousands of stores, there's 14,000 stores in nine states of America that are small mom and pop, about average 650 square feet with eight employees. They have a 41% market share. They peacefully coexist. And people like Amanda Wheeler and by the way, her husband Jordan are here on their sixth wedding anniversary tonight. They flew in from Phenix because they feel so strong. They have stores throughout Colorado and they started in oh nine because they wanted to quit smoking cigarets. It was only in late 2016. Early 2017 is when RJR and Altria and these massive international tobacco companies poured tens of millions of dollars into Jewel and Blue. And that's when you saw the youth epidemic. They've ruined it for us. We've existed. Helping millions of Americans adults wean off smoking cigarets. Those two key dates are really important. The lawsuits are 16 hour conversation that would take up the rest of the night. But I wanted to talk about those two key dates. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Council President. Thank you, Councilmember Hines. And looking here, we don't have anyone else up in the queue for questions and so want to give it a moment. Then I didn't miss anybody. All right. Councilman Herndon. I thought I. Was all right. I was. I was just. Then. I have. Waited as long as. I know. I think. Mizrachi could I have a couple of questions for you if you could come up? And so you are obviously in support of this bill. The bill that we have before us. And my question, though, is you've been supportive throughout the entire time. Even with the exemptions of hookah and cigars, your organization is still in support. Correct? That's correct. Now, here's the unfair question. If menthol was exempted, would your organization still be in support? We would not support the ordinance. You would not support the idea because menthol helped me understand why. Mental is then largely targeted over decades two African-American, LGBTQ, US and our Hispanic Latino communities. It is also the second most predominant choice among our kids, which has grown exponentially over the last couple of years. People tend to think or say or refer to menthol as being an adult flavor, which is simply unfounded and then factual. If you look at the data here in state, that is also true. Okay. So menthol menthol is your line in the sand. So would you would you would you believe that? So you're suggesting that the bill with the menthol exemption does not meet the spirit of reducing teen vaping within the city and county of Denver? Can you repeat the question? So I'm asking is you in support of the bill now? We exempt mental. You are no longer in support. My understanding. Let me know. This is incorrect that the purpose of this bill is to reduce teen vaping within the city and county of Denver. So if I'm going to attest that you're no longer in support, then you believe that the bill does not meet the spirit of that of its intent. That's correct. We're going to tell this widely, again, used by kids. But our intent is not solely to prevent kids from using the products. Our intent is to protect the public. Health. Of our community. And here in Denver, which includes both kids and adults, menthol, most of our adult tobacco users started at the age of 13 and they become addicted very quickly. Addiction is not a choice. So oftentimes you'll hear this being referred to as multiple choice. But addiction is not an adult choice. At age 13, your physiological pathways are changed. Menthol makes it much more palatable to use the product. It also makes it harder to quit long term. Here in Colorado, the rates. I'm sorry. I don't I don't want to interrupt everyone. I know we're getting late and we have other amendments. I want to go back to the statistic that you said earlier, that you said a third of youth are using menthol. I want to make sure I heard that statistic correct when you threw that out. A third of Denver kids that smoke are using ventilated cigarets. That's correct. And that's from the Healthy Kids Colorado survey data. And when was that survey done? And the last it's done every two years. And the last survey data were reported in 2019. Current data is being collected for 2021. Okay, I had one more question. My apologies, Madam President, and just escaping. Okay. Thank you. And Director Bald. I mean, could you come back up again? Appreciate it. Thank you for being here. So I just wanted to go back to what you were talking about with. And actually, I have the same question. The school board is in response to the unfair question. We exempting who? We're exempting cigars. Do you believe and you can give me your personal opinion, if we exempted menthol, this would no longer DPS would no longer be in support of this bill. I can't speak for the Board of Education or our policies prevent me from speaking on behalf of the board. But as a as an educator, you were speaking to the challenges you were using, the examples of vaping and all the challenges in school. By exempting menthol, would we no longer meet that spirit, in your opinion? So we have a whole department or we actually have somebody. I want to I want to figure you're going to ask me a question. So I wanted to pull up the information from our. Michael Holden is our substance abuse prevention program. He's the head of that department and he's the one that has done all the research on this and provided the information. I'm the messenger on this. So I'm actually not an educator. I'm just a parent. But he's the one that gave me the information in the statistics and was the one that emphasized the importance of including the the menthol. And phone it. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Mackey, I remember the question. My apologies. The FDA has not authorized flavored tobacco as a cessation. You can come on up and ask the question so you can be quicker. And I agree with that. They have not. So do you not believe that flavored tobacco can be a cessation technique? I believe that the vaping industry, if they believe their product, has the properties that it claims to have, that there is an application process through our federal government that they should go through in order to submit their product to be studied, for its efficacy, to determine if it. Is indeed a. Successful FDA cessation approved product, in which case they would be doing that recognition. So you do not believe that. As as Councilwoman Sonya said, it was kind of a yes or no question. So do you not believe that it cannot be used? Can flavor tobacco be used as a cessation to smoking? There. What? There hasn't been one submitted yet for that. So you do not believe that then, and that's fine if you don't. I just want to know if your organization believes that. Thus. Far the studies indicate. No. That flavors are not required to assist with cessation. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Herndon. The public hearing is now closed. The First Amendment is on the floor. Comments by members of Council on the First Amendment. And we want to go to the sponsor of that amendment. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. We have heard through the course of the various committee meetings and tonight a lot of testimony that conflicts from the same community, the same communities. We've heard communities of color who want us to adopt this ban entirely. And we've heard from communities of color that want us not to adopt it entirely. So it's a very difficult position for me, a person who looks like me to be in right now. So we've gotten an outpouring of e-mails on this issue over the last couple of months. And among them, we have emails that say don't put any loopholes in the ban. And I just wanted to say push back a little bit on that. I don't consider this amendment to be a loophole. I consider the ban to be an overreach and that this amendment slightly pulls back and allows adults, whether they're black, LGBTQ and Latino or white, to make their own damn up, to make their own decisions. Excuse me. About what they want to use. And Madam President. So that's why I brought it forward. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. And I just wanted to remind folks that we are talking about the First Amendment that Councilman Flynn offered the menthol flavored tobacco product exemption from the flavored tobacco ban. Next up, we've got Councilman Cashman. Yeah. Thank you, Madam President. White people smoke menthol. Cigarets. Black people smoke cigars. We have a lot of race issues in this country. I think they're misplaced in this particular discussion. I'm going to go to the side briefly, Madam President, and that I made a mistake in bringing forth my cigar ban because I used a word that came out of California, which was premium cigar, when what I meant was a natural hand-rolled cigar that. Doesn't have a tip or a filter. So I ask the sponsors to change the wording from premium to natural. I'll spare you reading my list, but I have a list of about 15 cigars costing $3 or less. My father worked six days a week and smoke cigars. He didn't smoke expensive cigars. This is not a race issue. The other thing that and this is just in my mind, most of the people I know today that smoke cigarets. It's not a matter of freedom of choice. Most of the people I know today that smoke cigarets do not wake up in the morning thinking, oh, I don't need a cigaret today. Maybe I'll go for a run. Most people smoke and cigarets today that I know are addicted to cigarets. They do not have a choice. So as far as menthol being a choice, I don't look at anything to do with Cigarets nowadays as a choice. That's just my view of things. So as far as. Targeting Black people's freedom of choice or their ability to make decisions as far as smoking goes. And if you're smoking today, I'm sure there are some of you out there that smoke cigarets occasionally. Maybe after a good meal or with a glass of wine or something. Most people that I know smoking nowadays, it's not a matter of choice. So I don't do this that way. And I have other comments, but I'll save those for other amendments. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Cashman. Councilmember Black. Thank you, Madam President. I do support this exemption simply because I don't think banning menthol cigarets is going to prevent anyone from smoking menthol cigarets. They can be purchased in all of our neighboring cities. The stores that sell them in Denver will lose out on that business. We've heard from small mom and pop convenience stores that rely on people who come in and maybe buy a pack of cigarets, menthol or otherwise, but they also pick up a few groceries and they'll lose that business. And I really care about those small businesses in our community. I come from a small business family and they employ people and they pay rent. And I don't think we should have a policy that punishes them and also will not work. It won't prevent anyone from smoking menthol cigarets. So I am very interested our way. Great ideas. Let's talk more. Let's as a council and a community, talk about other ways to address reducing smoking and preventing youth use. But this is not going to work. I also want to point out that it's not going to prevent anyone from buying a pack of girls or buying marijuana or buying alcohol. And so we 20 people who are 21 and older are responsible and they should be able to buy what they want and. Cornelius Right. I love your name. I what you said you go to the shop in Park Hill and if you want the menthols, they send you packing. So I just it's, it's not effective. So I support the menthol exemption. Thank you. Councilmember Black. Councilmember can each. Thank you. Council President. I guess that I just want to observe that the conversation in this chamber is has played out with a narrative about small business and choice. But, you know, the lobbyist registrations for this issue, you know, include Altria, which is the largest seller of Cigarets in the United States, whose website begins with We're Moving Beyond Smoking, the largest cigaret smaller seller in the United States. You may know them better as Philip morris. R.J. Reynolds is lobbying on this bill. I feel sad that our community is divided in a racially charged debate with humongous national corporations who stand to profit, and only the users of these products suffer the cancer and the effects of addiction. Right. So these products, this is all proven. They were designed to be addictive, designed, perfected, tested. And they profit multibillion dollar corporations. So. I have to put that on the record, because if you were to listen to this debate, you would not know that fact. You would not know the facts that big tobacco is funding lobbying efforts on this bill and big tobacco benefits from every sale of a menthol cigaret. I will acknowledge that no public policy is perfect. But to be a leader is to take the right stand for the health of our community. And the difference with this type of a situation is the health costs are borne by our community. We give tens of millions of dollars each year and your tax dollars to Denver Health to treat smoking related illnesses. All of us, if we are insured, pay higher premiums for that insurance because of the effects of smoking. So the cancer and the, you know, other lung related diseases and other things that come from menthol cigarets. May be born first by an individual. But the costs to all of us in society and so forth. So I want to just be clear that we are being divided today by mass corporations making billions and trillions of dollars in profit. The second thing I need to put on the record is that we are here today because of failure of our federal government's product protection. Right. This is the level of government that is supposed to make policy in the interest of public protection. My colleagues are right that we'll have a patchwork in Colorado if this measure passes, but that I've never seen with climate. I've never said, well, the federal government failed to act for four years and in fact made things worse. So we in Denver should sit back because our part in climate change is too small. I've never sat back and said that we can't control, you know, what happens in in other jurisdictions with respect to wages or with respect to other things, where businesses could choose to change sides of the region and move to a different region because our wage is higher. No, we did what was right. So for me. Every time we make this product less attractive, we give folks an opportunity. They have an opportunity to smoke another product. Maybe that product's less desirable. Maybe it gives them that opening to quit. But if not, we are filling in the gap with what we believe is best until our federal government acts in the way that it is supposed to. So I do not feel that we are divided as a community on our own. We are being divided by a federal government that is reneged on its responsibilities, and we are being divided by corporations making billions of dollars off these products. And so, unfortunately, we'll have a divided vote tonight. And fortunately, we have folks with different opinions leaving this chamber tonight. But it is important for us to remember who really is benefiting and who's really behind this. So I will not be supporting the amendment tonight for these reasons, but it's not because of lack of respect or lack of listening to those with different perspectives here tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Koinange, Councilmember Hines. All right. Thank you. Council president, I have other comments not to the amendment, but I'm going to limit these to the amendment. They I want to make sure that I make decisions here in this seat, because I inhabited only for a limited time. But I want to be as determinate and transparent as I can. And if we are interested in banning flavored nicotine products, then we should ban flavored nicotine products and not make a carve out for one flavor different than other flavors. So I will be against the amendment because it is counter to the intent, as I understand, of the bill. Thank you, counsel. Prisoner. Thank you. Councilmember Hines. Councilmember Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. I don't know if you want to go to Councilman Herndon ahead of me since I want to. I'm sorry. That's right. This is your amendment. Councilmember Herndon thinking that I'm president. Well, to my colleague, Councilman Hines, I thought this bill was about teenagers smoking, not banning flavored tobacco. I think the messaging has been has the goalpost has moved a couple of times with this. And I will just say I agree that yes. Cigar cigaret and and I don't smoke and never smoked. I wish people didn't. But I also believe that you should have that choice. As someone who has worn a uniform for the freedoms of our country, that is me personally. But sidebar there are health effects of cigarets. Absolutely. But you know what? Their health effects of premium cigars. Their health effects of hookah. So how this body has exempted those and then suddenly chosen to effect menthol. And I will not get into the argument about whether it's cultural or not, but if it's impacting one segment greater than others, we should acknowledge and have a conversation about that. And so I think people are frustrated because of the mixed messaging that this council is bringing forward with exemptions for some and not for others. And if this is about teens again, which I believe that's what this was, then I am supportive of this amendment because I believe it's consistent with other amendments we have previously in this bill. So I'll be in support. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you. Councilmember Herndon Council Member Cashman, you're back up and then we'll go to you, Councilmember Flynn, for the final. Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to emphasize that as far as what my goal is, is to do everything possible to keep tobacco out of the hands of kids while not taking away items that aren't used by kids. That's that's what I want with the cigar piece, because I don't know kids walking around with those. Nasty old stogies. Like I said, my father smoked them all my life. I wouldn't go near one no. Inches. So that that's just my point on that. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Cashman. Councilmember Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. I just want to make it clear on the record that that the tobacco industry is not the only lobbyist here, that this is part of a national campaign by Bloomberg Philanthropies to eradicate vaping and e-cigarettes. And they've they announced about two years ago that they would go on this campaign. We have the lobbyists from that that side here also. So it's not David versus Goliath. It's Goliath versus Goliath. And it comes into cities all around the country. And I think Bloomberg, the news report I saw was he put $160 million into this effort two years ago. So I just want to make sure everybody knew that this is there are lobbyists, well-funded on both sides here. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Flynn, Councilmember Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. Nobody is on this council. It was here when the youth from West High School came into this chambers, and along this wall here lined up all the different products, the chemicals and carcinogens that are in tobacco. And they pleaded with the city council at that time to bring forward legislation that banned the placement of products, as well as the outdoor advertising that specifically targeted communities of color, both black and Hispanic communities. And that was then followed by those same students going to Washington when R.J. Reynolds and other tobacco giants were brought before Congress . And there were memos that were produced that were that showed that young people were being targeted and they were expected to be long term consumers of tobacco products. That was over 20 years ago. And we're still having the same conversation in these chambers. And the focus has always been protecting health. We start with protecting youth, and they no longer become the lifelong consumers that the tobacco industry relies upon. And they knew that if they continued to find other ways to target youth. That's exactly what we're experiencing today. It's different types of products, but with the same the same type of addictive components that are designed to create those consumers that will continue to come back over and over again buying the same products. So I am not supportive of this or any of the other amendments tonight. I'll make my comments now on the entire bill. But the focus has always been protecting the health of our community, starting with our kids. And if we can protect our kids at the same time, we're protecting adults. I understand people want to have that choice as an adult, but adults do have the ability to order their product online or to go across a county line. But in Denver, we have always been unafraid of taking the lead, just like we did on the 16th Street Mall when we stopped the tobacco industry from distributing free tobacco , free, free samples of cigarets and cigars. We stopped the ban of advertising at our National Western Stock Show in other venues owned by the city when there were concerts and other things being held. And this is another opportunity for us to look at how we protect our youth and at the same time is protecting our adults who have been historically targeted. Going back to the 1990s, when the tobacco industry admitted before Congress that they were targeting kids to be their lifelong customers. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Ortega. And not seeing anybody else in the queue. I'll go ahead and share my comments on the menthol on the menthol exemption. And I think as everybody up here and as you sitting out here and thank you again for your patience tonight. I've gone back and forth. I mean, I would love if people weren't addicted to nicotine. I would love if folks weren't addicted to flavored vape. There's a lot that goes into what makes up addiction. I think we've seen pretty clearly that by removing something doesn't cure somebody's addiction. And it was troubling to me where we were exempting, you know, the natural cigars. And I think we've heard tonight and through your emails, there's a whole population of folks who are menthol smokers. And by trying to roll menthol into this bill. Are we going to accomplish our goal at the end of the day? And I went back and watched the first committee meeting, and it was around reducing the access for youth in vaping. That was the intent. And I think in a lot of ways well intentioned, it has morphed in a different way and. I'm frankly very concerned about the unintended consequences. But we haven't fully explored and dug into as a council when we're trying to take action on something that would only affect the city and county of Denver. There is nothing in this legislation that would stop somebody from going to Aurora or Commerce City and buying menthol cigarets and selling them in a park in Denver. And I mean, you know, there's maybe different restrictions that we could create, but we're really trying to change the the end outcome. Instead of going to the manufacturers instead of going to the powers that be to hold them accountable or to help people in addiction recovery and not have to spend their dime on these products that we know have been strategically and very intentionally marketed to certain communities. And so I am in support of this amendment tonight because, again, if we're exempting natural cigars, if we're exempting hookah, I want to make sure that we're being equitable and then we're not creating a system that has really deep unintended consequences . And so I will be supportive of this First Amendment tonight. Madam Secretary, roll call on the amendment to Council Bill 1182, please phone. I know. Cashman. Right. Kenny Ortega. Sandoval. No. Sawyer. No. Torres. No. Black. Hi, CdeBaca. No. Clark, I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced results. Eight nays. Five Eyes. Eight nays, five eyes. Council Bill 1182. The amendment has failed this evening. Councilmember Black. Your motion to amend. I move that council bill 21 dash 1180 to be amended in the following particulars on page three Line 24 Add Specialty Retail Tobacco Store means a business operating as a tobacco business as defined in c r s 25 Dash 14 Dash 203 18 that sells, gives, delivers or furnishes tobacco products to a user or consumer and prohibits under the age of 21 from entering or being present in the store. Unless the individual enters solely for the purpose of providing a service to the specialty retail tobacco store, including making a delivery three letter, subsequent subsections and on page four after line 24, insert online three flavored. Tobacco products sold in specialty retail tobacco stores. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Black. It has been moved. And second to questions or comments by members of Council on the Second Amendment. Councilmember Black. Thank you, Madam President. This amendment exempts bait shops and tobacco stores from the flavor ban, but requires them to be treated like marijuana stores, meaning that one has to be 21 years or older even to enter the store. We have 21 small businesses in Denver. Some of you are here tonight that are vape shops. And we have heard from the sponsor and from others that kids don't actually use these large tank open vaping device. That are sold in those stores. And they also sell liquids that have nicotine and some don't have nicotine, but these are not products that kids use. Without this amendment, if this bill passes, these stores will likely shut their doors. And I know many of you have leases, you have bills to pay, you have outstanding debts, and you have employees. And so I think if we allowed you to stay in business, I think that as your council members up here, that that we should not shut you down, especially when this. Bill is about kids. And it's about smoking and what you are selling. You're not selling it to kids and people are not smoking. So that is why I am proposing this. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Black. I don't see any other folks in the queue. I knew as soon as I said it, we'd get a few. Council member Sawyer. Thanks, Madam President. I absolutely appreciate why this recommendation and amendment is coming forward. I understand why there are council members who support it. We have seen in other cities that this legislation doesn't work. We know that reducing access to these products reduces usage by a few because 40% currently of our retail stores are selling to minors. But in addition. Excuse me, I am speaking. You had your turn. Please allow me to play away. Please, please. Let's allow folks to use their time. We waited and heard from everybody. Go ahead, Councilmember. Thank you. So if 40% of our retail stores on in the current round of checking by age are selling to minors. And then we know that the second most popular place that minors get these products are from 21 year old to purchase it for them, whether it's a family member or a friend, whether it is someone that they hands that cash to, that goes into the store and buys it for them and then hands it to them. That is how our kids are getting these products. Those are the two largest ways in the city and county of Denver that our kids are getting these products. And so a 21 plus amendment is not going to achieve the goal we're trying to achieve, which is to stop tobacco and vaping usage in kids under the age of 21. And so that's why I'm not supportive of this amendment. That's why we have put a an annual reporting requirement into the bill so that enforcement will have to come to council once a year to report to us on the effectiveness of this, so that if in the future we need to make changes, we can. But we know kids are going to access these products, whether it's because they're getting given the products by someone who is an adult and purchasing them legally, or whether they are going to a store that they know is non-compliant and they're buying them on their own. And if the goal here is to stop youth vaping and tobacco product usage, then this amendment undermines that goal and I cannot support it. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer. And just a reminder to folks, I know it's getting late in the evening, but the more than I have to remind you then, the more we hear from folks and the longer it takes us. And I'm sure you all want to get home here at some point. So, Councilmember Clark, you're up next. Thank you, council president. First, I want to thank the sponsors of this bill for taking so much time and really digging into this. I know it's easy for me to sit here and play armchair quarterback and say, hey, I would have done it this way, but I want to acknowledge that I did not take this on. I'm not leading on this and you all are. And so I really appreciate the work and the effort, and I want to be clear about that. That being said, had I had I had my my way. You know, I think we have a lot of holes in how tobacco is managed and regulated in our city. I huge. And I think that this has put a spotlight on that. And I hope that this is, you know, as much as I love late night city council, I hope this is not the end of how we continue to tackle tobacco. I would have started on the other end where I really feel like we should have gone after stricter licensing, stricter enforcement. Really tackle that piece first and see what results we get. With that we have, that is how our marijuana system is set up. And if we can do that with marijuana, I believe that we could do that with tobacco instead of coming at this this this way. Right. But that again, I didn't take this on. I didn't I didn't write it. And and I appreciate the work that went into it. I do think that this amendment gets us a little closer, that it still doesn't do the work that we need to do around licensing and around enforcement and around ID checking and the things that are in place for marijuana and the fines. I was you know, it was shocking to hear the difference in fines between selling to someone underage for marijuana and for tobacco. Those are gaping holes that we need to fix. I think how do we fix those first? And we can really look at this issue and what the right thing is. But I do believe that this amendment takes us back and starts to address some of that and gives us the space to come back and come and hit on those harder things. So for that reason, I think that this is a really good amendment. I am very supportive of this. I struggle with the bill as a whole without this. And so it is my hope that this passes because I really I do. Want to be a yes on this bill. And I think that this is that piece that really for me allows me to really fully get there. So I'm really hoping that this this one comes together and I am supportive of this one. Thank you. Council President. Thank you. Councilmember Clark. Councilmember Cashman. Yeah, thank you, Madam President. I have I've struggle with I've spoken with the sponsors. I struggle with with the bill overall in that, as I said, I don't I want to limit the collateral damage from keeping tobacco away from kids, I think. The ideal. I think Councilman Clark and I are on a similar page to the ideal situation, which would be a 21 and over there works that would have something to do with enhanced verification. Increased Penalties for selling to minors. I have no sympathy to anyone who sells to a minor. Increased licensing fees to fund inspectors for a Department of Public Health and Environment. And perhaps additional licenses so we can get into what is a tobacco store as opposed to, you know, the convenience store at your local gas station, all that type of stuff. This amendment doesn't do that. What what I'll be bringing forward next is an amendment to delay the date of effectiveness if the bill as it moves forward and passes. If this amendment passes, it would give time to tweak that and tighten it up to where it might actually be effective. If if it doesn't pass, it gives. And if the bill ultimately goes as is councilmembers, Sawyer and Ortega have presented it gives businesses additional time to reassess their their business model, to deal with leases and so on that have to be dealt with. Now, I continue to be concerned about the collateral damage. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman Flynn. And thank you, Madam President. I support this amendment for several reasons, not least of all, is the situation that council president brought up. The fact that we are are in the middle of a huge metropolitan area and that access to any of these products, if none of these stores in Denver can survive. This is quite my my district in southwest Denver borders seven other jurisdictions, all within most likely walking distance in most cases from many of my many of my residents. So not allowing this exemption and saying that we are going to prohibit all sales to willing adults who want to choose to buy these things. It's sort of like prohibiting or banning the presence of water in the middle of a bathtub. I mean, I could lift a bottle, a bucket of water out of a bathtub, but it's going to fill in again from the sides. And so I think that this is a way to more effectively control to the council. And Cashman's point are Councilwoman Black and I are discussing an amendment to the tobacco ordinance that would increase fines for sales to minors, including revocation of licenses by all sellers, not just not just the folks represented here, but by convenience stores and by King Soopers and Safeway and everyone else. Greatly enhance those penalties, frankly, because I wish that No. One, I wish that no one smoked. But I see this amendment as providing a a much more equitable and fair way to to establish the to continue the fight against youth vaping and and smoking by having a system where adults can go in and get them because they'll be able to get them in Englewood or Lakewood or. Madam President, your district in Commerce City or Aurora, as you mentioned. But stiffen the penalties and stiffen the fines so that they have they have their entire business at stake if they if they mess up. So I would support this amendment, Madam President. Thank you. Councilmember Flynn. Councilmember Black, we had you speak to explain the the amendment. Is it okay if I go to Councilmember Hines first? Okay. Councilmember Hines, go ahead. All right. Thank you, council president. First of all, I want to say thank you to my colleague from Park Hill. I tried too hard to limit my comments just to the amendment. And so it's totally a fair, fair comment about why are we here. So I apologize for that. The the main reason why I wanted to ask about the FDA decision in 2009 is, is because they they put the industry on notice federally and back then and. I agree with Councilmember CNOOC's comment about, boy, it would be great if we tackled this from a federal level, but we're we're moving too slowly as from the federal level. We've got the the comments from 2009. We have a process to create authorized devices through the FDA. And I believe that there are products that are underway right now. And and I would encourage people to if you want to if you want to sell a product that FDA knows way more about , making sure that we have appropriate products out there then than what the city of Denver can can do. Our FDA has way more resources than than the city of Denver does. And so while I would love for this to be a national topic that's tackled nationally, we in the city of Denver have to do something to protect our public health, safety and welfare. And that is a core charge of what a city does. So I, I won't be supporting this amendment either, predominantly because I want to make sure that that we do this the right way. Thank you. Council President. Thank you. Councilmember Hines. Councilmember Black. Thank you, Madam President. I was just going to remind everyone which Councilman Flynn already did that. Councilman Flynn and I have been talking to many of you about a separate bill that would increase penalties for businesses that sell to people under 21. So I think we've talked to most of you, but we will we will be back with that. And then I also just wanted to remind everyone that this exemption is really about these small vape shops and the products that they sell are not the products that that kids are using. They're not those small, discrete projects of products. So when you're voting, just please remember that. Thank you, Councilmember Black. And I've learned a lot more about vaping than I ever knew before. And it's been a huge education. And, you know, these are specialty tobacco retailers who are 21 and over. We've got plenty of liquor stores all over the city that are 21 and older. And we know that young people get access to alcohol as well. But we're not looking at. Banning them from our city, that that's not the intent. And so I'm going to be a yes on this amendment tonight, because I've heard from many businesses that they would go out of business. And these are businesses that are employing individuals who are city and county of Denver, residents who are, you know, spending their paycheck in our city. They're residing in our city. And to do something that, again, I think has unintended consequences, that we're not looking at a regional approach for this. And so, again, we're creating a patchwork of legislation and we're creating issues, I think, for these small businesses. But then also. Just somebody being able to go to Aurora or Commerce City. I just can't believe that other municipalities are going to follow suit on this. We're going to really need some action at the state level or where we can make sure that the fines are a place where, you know, we're going to put these folks out of business that aren't going to comply with the regulations that are, you know, that they have to comply with. So I will be in favor of the Second Amendment. Madam Secretary, roll call on the Second Amendment to Council Bill 1182, please. Black. I see. Tobacco pass. Clark. I. Flynn. I. Herndon. Hines. No. Carson. No. Cliques, no. Ortega No. Sandoval No. Sawyer No. Torres. No. CdeBaca. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announced results. Seven days. Six and. Seven days. Six eyes. Council Bill 1182. The amendment has passed. So we've got that one passed. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. We've been doing this a long time. It failed. I am so sorry. So sorry. It's been up here a long time, so. Got it. That one has failed as well. Councilmember Cashman, we are to the Third Amendment tonight. Would you please make the motion to amend. The Council bill to. I don't think your speaker's. Mike is on, sir. And those who are pearls, so to speak, in there. I move the council bill 21, dash 1180 to be amended in the following particulars. One on page six Line 15 Strike July one, 2022 and replace with July one, 2023. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded questions or comments by members of Council on the Third Amendment. Councilman Cashman. Yes, Madam President. And as I said, if the bill passes and will impact a number of stores in our community and I think an implementation date of July one of 2022 is is two too quick and doesn't give people adequate time to react. I was in a position a number of years ago where changes in my industry took place and fortunately had a little bit more time to plan my next move. So I would hope my colleagues could support this. Thank you, Councilmember Cashman. Councilmember Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. I think this is a fair amendment. If, in light of the failure of the prior two amendments, we basically just gave a death sentence to the businesses that are sitting out here. I think it's only fair that we give them more than six months to deal with whatever the fallout is should the bill pass. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Flynn. Councilmember Sawyer. Thanks, Madam President. I have been thinking about this all afternoon since I learned about it this afternoon, and I do think it is a hard one. The reason that we chose the implementation date of July 1st of 2022 was to give at the very least. And remember, we started this conversation with one committee that we went to with multiple meetings, but then one committee that we went to on October six. Right, it's now November 20, I don't know, nine, eight, something like the 29th. So, you know, by now that bill would have already passed if it were going to pass, except that we extended committee to extra times. So while I understand the impetus to extend the date for implementation, I'm curious how many kids are going to get addicted to cigarets and vaping during that extra year? I'm curious how how businesses that have known since 2009 that the FDA was going to move to pull these products from the shelves. Are asking for one more year to make more money before they if they are going to close. Close. And frankly, when I spoke to the mayor of Colorado Springs I'm sorry, not Colorado Springs. Glenwood Springs, when they implemented this law, they have not seen a single store closed. There were two that left voluntarily before it went into effect. But in Glenwood Springs, where this business exists or where this law exists, they have seen zero businesses close up to this point. So while I understand the impetus to want to extend the period of time for the bill. She has told me that if this bill passes, they will execute it and begin enforcing it on July 1st, 2022. That's enough time to inform businesses. And so I am not going to be supportive of this tonight. Thanks. Thank you. Councilmember Sawyer. And seeing no one else in the queue, I'll go ahead and comment. I want to try to give businesses a little bit more time to figure out what the next steps might be. And so I will be in support of this amendment tonight. Madam Secretary, roll call on the Third Amendment to Council Bill 1182, please. Cashman, I. Can eat? No. Ortega No. Sandoval. No. Sawyer. No. Torres. I black. I see tobacco. I. Clark. I Flynn. High. Herndon. No. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. Five names, eight eyes. Eight Council Bill 1182 has been amended. Councilmember Ortega, would you please put Council Bill 21, dash 1182 on the floor as amended? Madam President, I move that council bill 21, 82, 21, 1182 as amended, be placed on the fourth floor and do this working tonight. Sorry to be published as amended. Yes. Wonderful. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 21, Dash 1182 as amended. Councilmember Sawyer Thanks, Madam President. I want to thank everyone who has come out tonight, everyone who has come out every single time for the last six months, eight months that we have been talking about this bill. I want to thank you all for the conversation. This is difficult conversation, but it's important conversations to have. Obviously, I'm still supportive of this bill. The process has occurred and more than seven council members said that they want to extend the time to July 1st, 2023. Great. I'm still hugely supportive of this bill. I disagree, but I always say we can disagree without being disagreeable. And I think that that is a very important point to take home today. So I am still very supportive and very happy with this bill being implemented on July 1st, 2023. I am so thankful to everyone who helped us go through the process of this. There is not a single, you know, person who can say that we didn't do our job and we're not fair and ears open and had thorough conversation about a lot of different potential options with an issue, with a lot of different moving parts and very, very passionate opinions on all sides. So thank you to the entire community who is here tonight and has sent us emails, participated in town halls, had these discussions, lobbied. I really appreciate it. I'm I would ask my council, my fellow council members to respect the process as well. And who supports publishing this bill tonight and approving it next week? Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Sawyer, Councilmember Sandoval. Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to thank Dr. Terry in the back. Your comments were struck home to me tonight. And as a doctor, I have asked several of my nurse friends and sometimes I get stuck in politics and politics are messy. And so sometimes I have to go outside of my circle and go to doctors. And I just want to thank you for your service and think all the industry of doctors right now, because the pandemic has been hard. And not only has it been hard on you, it's been hard on your families, and it's been hard on everyone. And the smoking epidemic has been four years hard. And so I just want to thank all of our doctors and our health care professionals who came out to give us information. And in a time where the United States is so divided, whether you're vaccinated or not vaccinated, I think our council president had to remind this chamber five times tonight that the city and county of Denver had a mask mandate on five times. I've never heard that before in ever. Sitting here, people just put the mask on. But we're divided over so many certain things. And I just want to say that although I may not have voted the way you may liked, I do stand in solidarity with all of us during this really challenging time as we go into the solstice. Some dark days, literally dark days. The sunset at 430 tonight and our meeting started at five. So we've been here in the dark. And although I may not have voted the way you felt I should have or the way that I was reflective of your representation, I just want you to know that I do respect all of you as humans and all we mankind has gone through in the past year and a half. And I just had to call out Dr. Perry, because thank you so much for your comments. They helped me stay steadfast in my decision to. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilmember Sandoval. Councilmember Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. I want to. Hearken back to the next to the penultimate speaker here, or the first speaker, rather. Councilwoman Sawyer. She is exactly right that this is how we legislate and we can disagree on things, as Councilwoman Sawyer said, without being disagreeable. As a matter of fact, although we have opposed each other on aspects of this bill, Councilwoman Sawyer and I are working together with Councilwoman Black on another project, and that's how the process is supposed to work, and I respect that. The other co-sponsor of this bill sits to my left here. Councilwoman Ortega. Councilwoman Ortega and I have been acquainted very favorably for nearly four decades now, and I have complete respect for her as well through this process, even though we don't agree on this bill. And so having said all that, Madam President, I will vote in favor of publishing the bill and moving it forward to a final passage and and look forward to the resolution of it. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Flynn. Councilmember Black. Thanks, Madam President. Just for those of you who aren't familiar with the process of the city council tonight, we are just voting to publish the bill. So the final vote won't be til next week. And we almost always vote to publish the bill. And so I will be voting to publish the bill, but I will not be voting in favor of the bill next week. But I just wanted to explain to you. Why I. Would be voting yes tonight. And we usually have the hearing and all the comments on the the second reading on for the final vote. But because we've had so much tonight, I'm going to say my piece tonight and then I'm not going to say anything next week and I'm going to repeat some of the things I said the whole time. But. I believe. I believe in them. So anyway, we all agree that kids should not use tobacco, and we all agree that smoking is bad and kills people. However, this is not a good policy from the public health angle because it will not prevent people from smoking and it will not prevent kids from getting vaping products. As we've all said, people can get them and online they can get them in our neighboring cities. And then, of course, unflavored products are still available in Denver. So it's not going to prevent anyone from using the products. We've also learned that some people actually use vaping products to stop smoking. And so why would we take that option away from people who are trying to quit? We've also heard tonight this is very paternalistic. Why should 13 of us here tell someone who is an adult what they can and cannot buy, that they can buy a pack of camels, but they can't buy menthol, or they can go buy a wide variety of marijuana products or alcohol products. But for some reason, we're not going to let them have that. Skoal chewing tobacco. I've already made the point that it's it's a bad policy for small businesses. And I'm very sorry. For all of you. I think it's terrible what is going to happen to your businesses. Some people have talked about sending a message. I don't think sending a message is a good policy when it doesn't achieve the desired outcome, which is preventing kids and adults from smoking. It to send a message at the expense of these businesses, I don't think is good policy if if the goal is a state or national prohibition. Prohibition doesn't work. We had national prohibition of alcohol. It did not work. The unintended consequences were a black market and a rise of organized crime. It did not end the production of alcohol or the consumption of alcohol. Marijuana was prohibited for many years. Everyone could get their hands on marijuana, which is why we have legalized it so our way. Everything you said tonight, I agree with. We do know what works in reducing smoking and its education. Fewer people smoke today when they than they did 30 years ago. And we have way more people in our country. So we need to invest more in education. And several people up here tonight talked about, I think, Clark and Councilman Cashman about looking at this from a different angle. What is the problem? And let's dig in and find some other solutions that will actually prevent kids from getting their hands on it and. Get adults. The help that they need. So, as I said, Councilman Flynn and I are working on something about for increased penalties. I do think we need to look to the FDA. To ban products. And I would love to talk with some of you about some of your ideas. So our way, I think you're tired, but you need to you need to send your ideas our way. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Black. Councilmember Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. I also want to express my appreciation to everybody who has not only been here tonight, but has reached out throughout this timeframe on all sides of this issue. I think we all learned a little bit more about the industry through this this process. But I want to say a special thank you to my colleague, Councilwoman Sawyer, who did the heavy lifting in. Bringing. This legislation forward and to the team of people that worked with both of us on trying to craft something that we thought would get us there. Obviously, through the process of going through multiple committees, I was not really supportive of either of the two amendments that were passed, but we're trying to find a way to ensure that we had legislation that didn't completely gut the entirety of what we were trying to do, and the two amendments tonight would have done that. So I appreciate the fact that we have a bill that will move forward that still retains the basic elements of moving towards protecting our youth, while at the same time, I believe protect our adults as well. Interestingly. When we had the CIA great hall contract come forward. 34 year contract, multimillion dollars, one pass through committee. And this has been to committee on multiple, multiple occasions. So it just shows you like the interests that we had in this issue. And I think the fact that there were lobbyists on all sides of this issue also brought out a lot of interest as well. I look forward to seeing a new language that would be brought forward that deals with enhanced penalties and and stricter enforcement so that we continue to not see these products in the hands of our kids. I think, again, we started with the health of our kids. But at the same time, in what we're doing, I think it protects adults as well. So thank you, Madam President. Thank you. Councilmember Ortega, Councilmember Clark. Thank you. The President. Well, I am certainly disappointed that tonight that we weren't able to use a little bit more of a scalpel to really get at, you know, kids versus adults and and allowing adults to make decisions for themselves even when we don't like those decisions. It's disappointing that I just want to echo again a thanks to the bill's sponsors. And, you know, we saw amendments tonight. There were also amendments that the sponsors did include from all of that committee work and spent a lot of time with me personally. I know with other members of council and with the body and really taking time with all of us to hear us and to again say these are the things that we're willing to and honestly, that the the body is willing to amend and not amend. And so I just really appreciate that. I echo what others said that I believe that lots of hard work and with our process that there's definitely deserves to be published. And yet on the second reading, I will personally be grappling with that lack of finding that right scalpel for the 21 and up between now and then. But I but I will be voting tonight to publish it and take that decision on to second reading. So thank you, council president. Thank you. Councilmember Clark. Councilmember Herndon. Thank you, Madam President. I'm out of town next week, so I'm as vote no tonight and I'm going to say why. Here's my problem. What this was about initially is not where we got to. And Councilman Ortega just just kind of said that it protects the bill as well. This was never about protecting adults, as we said. This was in the spirit of protecting our youth, which as the father of a 17 year old daughter and a six year old son, I absolutely agree. And I do not believe that this bill will prevent any youth in Denver from not smoking or having access. Every neighborhood I represent Park Hills, Central Park, Montebello, East Colfax. They all touch another community. All of our districts minus one. My colleague to my right borders a neighboring municipality. A student in all of our districts, I imagine, can get somewhere out of the city and county of Denver in about 10 minutes. So the idea that this bill is going to prevent that, I just believe is a fallacy. And I wish in that the the the lobbying efforts for this. The idea that is, I feel has come across as disingenuous because it's not about kids. If you have a bigger agenda that I want to make this tobacco free, just say that so we can have a conversation about those merits. Don't cloud it with this is about the kids when it's not it's illegal right now. By the way, if you're under 20 to smoke flavored tobacco, let's just enforce the laws. I think you can also make sure. Thank you, Councilman Clark, for the scalpel, because that's what we should be doing. This is a sledgehammer. We're adding the law on top of the law. One law doesn't work with. Create another. Let's find out how we can fix our laws. That's the way that we should and want to make important policy for that. And I appreciate Dr. Richardson and I say, Dr. Rosen, I know you as Terry, but you are not doctors. Right. So I was gonna say I love you disagree on this one, but I appreciate all that you do. And you know that that we disagree on that. So let's let's do that. Let's have that conversation. And I just this is and I will throw out this last anecdotal thing. No, I told you about my 17 year old daughter when this conversation started a long time ago. I can't even remember. But I pulled her aside. One day I was like, Hey, you know, friends that vape. She's like, Of course. And I said, Why do they vape? And she listed off a bunch of different reasons. And then I looked at her. I said, Do they do it because of the flavor? And she looked at me, she said, no. And I just thought that was interesting. Speaking to a 17 year old senior who we want to talk about, this is who we are impacting. This is just one conversation. But I thought that was I thought that that was very telling. And I asked you right there, sir, I agree with you and any ways that I can help you as well as continue to do so. But let's like let's make meaningful policy. Let's stop our kids from doing it. And unfortunately, I don't believe this is going to do it. So can't vote no next week, but vote no this week. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you. Councilmember Herndon and I will go ahead and make my comments so we don't have to belabor it next week either. I have struggled with this clearly, and it's been helpful to hear the intent of the co-sponsors, council members Sawyer and Ortega. I really thank them for taking up this topic. I would have liked to, like Councilman Clarke, seen us move towards the regulatory side of it so that we're going after the bad actors and penalizing them for that. And I think this is an opportunity for us now as a council to have an honest conversation about what addiction really is and what are those mechanisms through legislation, if there are any, to help and support people in the path to recovery versus creating patchwork legislation that we're hopeful that other municipalities might pick up. But we're not assured of that. And all the while, creating more hardship for the city and county of Denver residents that want to acquire these products legally and again, go after the bad actors. And so I will vote in favor of it tonight to have it ordered published. I'm still struggling as to where I will be on my final vote next week on it. But I again thank the public for being here with us, staying with us, those online, following us. You all got to see a little demonstration of my dyslexia tonight as well. I'm glad I've got a lot of good crew up here that helps out with that. But I appreciated the conversation and Mr. Way Art, I think what you said was spot on and I really look forward to figuring out how we can do better around this topic going forward and not creating that patchwork. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 1182 as amended, please. Ortega. I. Sawyer. I. Sandoval. I. Torres. I. Black. CdeBaca. I. Clerk. Flynn. I. Herndon. Hinds. All right. Cashman. Can I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. One May 12. 512 Eyes Council Bill 21 Dash 1182 has been ordered published as amended there being no further business before this body. The meeting is adjourned.

Report of the City Clerk on the Certificate of Sufficiency for Initiative No. 134, concerning approval voting for Mayor, City Attorney, and City Councilmember primary elections.

SeattleCityCouncil_07142022_CF 314495

Excuse me. Agenda item one clerk file 314495. Report of the Senate on the Certificate of Sufficiency for initiative number 134. Concerning approval. Voting for Mayor. City Attorney and City Council Member. Primary Elections. Thank you. Since this is my matter. Clark, file one hour. Three one. I'm sorry. Four, four, nine five is notice that initiative 134 has sufficient signatures to go on the ballot. The Clark File is on the agenda today for the city council to now determine what action will be taken in response to Initiative 134. I move to file Clark file 314495. Is there a second, second, second. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded to file the Clark file. The Clark please call the roll on the filing of Clark file 3144952. Number Herbold that's. Councilmember Lewis. Yes. Councilmember Morales. Councilmember mosqueda i. Councilmember Nelson. I. Councilmember Peterson, I. Councilmember. Silent? Yes. Councilmember Strauss. Yes. Council president was high nine in favor and opposed. Thank you, Madam Clerk. The motion carries and the clerk file will be placed on file. Let's move to item number two with the clerk. Please read item number two and to the record agenda.

A bill for an ordinance designating certain property as being required for public use and authorizing use and acquisition thereof by negotiation or through condemnation proceedings of fee simple and other interests, including any rights and interests related or appurtenant to such property, as needed for the National Western Center Project. Adds two land parcels inadvertently omitted from the legal description in the Land Acquisition Ordinance passed in December 2015, granting authority to acquire them as needed for the National Western Center redevelopment in Council District 9. The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 11-7-16. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 10-4-16.

DenverCityCouncil_11072016_16-0898

The first meeting in 2017 will be on Monday, January 2nd. Okay, Madam Secretary, can we please pull up Council Bill 898. Let's see here. Councilman, can each honorable fund consider, as you've called out, 1898, would you like to do with it? Thank you, Mr. President. I will be offering an amendment to delete reference to the condemnation of property currently owned by the Denver Public Schools. Negotiations for acquisition of the DPS property are ongoing. That's right. Councilman Lopez report. Please put 898 on the floor. Yes, Mr. President, I move that counts. 898 of 2016 be placed upon final consideration. Do pass. Councilwoman, can each your motion to amend? Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 898 be amended in the following particulars on page two line 47 after the period ad colon. Lions 23 through 47 constitute the deepest parcel on page three, line 22 after the comma ad, but not the DPS parcel. Okay. It's been moved in second and comments by members of council. Because when Ortega. I just want to ask a question. So this is to deal with the actual giving giving authority for them to proceed with the acquisition. Correct. Kelly or someone? Yes. Yeah, I think I think we have real estate. So typically the deal is already worked out before they're brought before us. I don't know if the only sticking point was the reference to condemnation, but if that is not the only sticking point, why are we moving this forward before the deal's been pretty much worked out? Hi, Councilwoman. I'm Jen Wellborn with the city attorney's office. This is actually consistent with the way we've done big project acquisitions, which is that we have brought forward a bill to you all to authorize by negotiation or condemnation any of the any of the parcels required for that project. My office went back and looked, I think when the PDP ordinance came before you all, and I think it's been since about 2008 and at least eight different ordinances where we've done this for where we have multiple parcel assemblages for a four road project or in this case for National Western, where we have done an ordinance that allows us to acquire any of the parcels that are laid out in the legal description or or in this case within a boundary. And we did that for National Western in December of 2015. There were two parcels inadvertently left off. It's because they're east of Brighton and the surveyors just missed it. We are. The purpose of this is just to add those parcels in the same way that we have added all of the parcels and treat them consistently with the way we've treated every other parcel in this project and frankly, every other assemblage project that we've worked on in the last many years. So in this case, where when you have when you have one off acquisitions for a specific purpose, that where you're only buying one parcel in many cases, that's that's exactly the case, Councilwoman, where we bring an ordinance to you and it has the actual contract in it in this case with these kinds of assemblages. That's not what we've done for the past eight or ten years. Okay. Does that make sense? Does that answer your question, Council? It does. Okay. Seeing no other comments or questions, Madam Secretary. Recall can each by Lopez write new Ortega assessment by Black Clerk. All right. Espinosa. I. Flynn, i. Gilmore, I. Herndon, I. Katherine. Hi. Mr. President. I call Madam Speaker, close voting. Announce the results. 3913 eyes. Constable 898 has been amended. Councilman Lopez, please. We need a motion to pass as amended now. Mr. President, I move that council bill 898 series of 2016 be moved and be passed on final, final consideration as amended. Okay. It has been moved in second. It comes from members of council. It comes from our take as this from the prior. It was just hasn't gone away. All right. Madam Secretary, roll call. Can each I. LOPEZ All right. New ORTEGA High Assessment by Black. Clark by Espinosa. FLYNN Hi. Gilmore I Herndon. I Cashman. Hi, Mr. President. I Please close the voting and ask for results. 3913 Eyes Council Bill 898 has passed as amended. Okay, just want to make sure looking down the road, make sure there are no other items that need to be called out. We're ready for the block votes. All other bills for introduction are order published. We are now ready. So council members, please remember that this is a consent block vote and you will need to vote. Otherwise this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate votes. Guzman Lopez, will you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills for final consideration for final passage on the floor? We put them both at the same time. Yeah. The read through. That's what we did last week. Yeah. And it's easy if you do it from the screen. All right. I motion to approve the consent agenda. So the motion would be. No. No, do I. Do I run through all those resolutions and bills? Yep. Just all of them at once. Yep. All right. Back in my day, we brought it on. Oh, I'm just kidding. All right, Mr. President. Okay. I move that. Our series of 2016, the following resolutions 1000 982 998, 1000 to 8, 79, 33, nine, 34, nine, 92 and 93, 96, 99, 1003. And the following bills for consideration to series at 2016 979 nine 8947 nine 5959 961 974, nine, 75 and 85 831 972 973. And 1978 be released upon. Of do pass in block. Okay. Madam Secretary, I think he got all of them. Yes. Would you concur? Okay, great. Rook for. Black Eye Clerk. By. Vanessa Flynn I. Gilmore, i. Herndon, i. Catherine Kennedy I. Lopez I knew Ortega i susman i. Mr. President. I 3939 resolutions have been adopted and bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass tonight. Council is scheduled to sit as the quasi Judicial Board of Equalization to consider reduction of total cost assessments for the one local maintenance district.

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_08172015_15-0522

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. 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. Madam Secretary, Councilwoman Ortega's back. Thank you, Ortega. 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. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 522 be ordered published. It has been moved and seconded. Now time for comments. Councilman Flynn, you're up. 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. Thank you. Councilman Flynn, in the comments. 522 Councilwoman Ortega. 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. Councilwoman Ortega, Councilman Brooks up. 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. 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. Thank you. You probably want to stay close because there are some more people in the queue. I'm going nowhere. Councilman okay. Thank you. Councilman Brooks. Councilwoman Canete. 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. 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. Be a left hand, right hand situation. Another piece I am has to. Answer that question. Because it did come up and I believe my colleague actually had a conversation about it. So I guess it did. Sky Stuart Mayor's Office and we had an internal. Conversation about this that as Kent points. 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. Go into the general fund where they can match up with the facility, that's the. Agency that's responsible for maintaining that facility. Makes more sense to us that. We have a source, multiple sources. For capital maintenance at the arts complex for those facilities. 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. 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. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Espinosa. 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. 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. 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. Apologize for that. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Flynn. 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. Got you. We got one more councilman. Councilman Brooks. 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. 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. All right. Any other comments or questions? 522. Mr. President, just a quick question. Do the ballet and the opera have office space at Deepak? They do not. Like. That's why they're not paying your rent. They don't have an office space there. 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. Kathryn Lopez, Europe. 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. Thank you, Kathryn Lopez. All right. Any other comments? 522 C None, Madam Secretary. Rubio? Flynn. No. Gilmore, I Cashman know. Can each Lopez. Pass. New Ortega? A reluctant AI. Sussman. AI Black AI Brooks. AI Clerk AI Espinosa. AI Lopez. AI. Mr. President. I got him. Madam Secretary, please, cause very nice results. 11 eyes, two face. 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. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that constable 553 be ordered. Published. It has been moved and seconded. Just about everybody wants to speak. All right, Councilman Flynn. 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

Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing, and grant an Entertainment Permit with conditions on the application of Shamrock Hospitality Group, LLC, dba Muldoon's Saloon, 5646 Paramount Blvd., for Entertainment Without Dancing. (District 8)

LongBeachCC_01222019_18-0820

Okay. Now we're going to go back to hearing number one, which you do quite well. Craig, would you please read the item as the oath? Item one is a report from Financial Management recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record. Conclude the public hearing and grant an entertainment permit with conditions on the applications of Malden's Saloon. Five six. Four six. Pair my boudoir for entertainment without dancing. District eight. And this require an oath. Those wishing to give the testimony. Can you please stand and raise your right hand? You and each of you do solemnly state that the testimony you may give in the court now and pending before this body shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help you God. You. But we must have presentation of this place. Yes, Mr. Vice Mayor. The staff report will be given by Sandy Palmer from Business Services and Emily Armstrong. Good evening, honorable vice mayor and members of the city council. Tonight you have before you an application for Entertainment Without Dancing for Shamrock Hospitality Group LLC doing business as Muldoon Saloon located at 5646 Paramount Boulevard operating as a bar tavern lounge in Council District eight. This application originally came before you. On September 18th. 2018. The hearing was continued to allow the business the opportunity to address concerns from the community and the counsel office. The 120 day continuation period has now concluded. All of the necessary departments are recommending approval of the entertainment permit, subject to the conditions as contained in the hearing packet. I, as well as the police department, stand ready to answer any questions Council may have. And that concludes staff's report. Thank you for the staff report. I'm going to turn it over to council member Austin. Yes, I want to first of all, thank Mr. John English, the proprietor of Muldoon's saloon. He came here four months ago. We continue the item as a result of some community concerns that that were brought to the attention of my office. And I think he's done a good job of improving, building his relationships in the community and being a responsible business owner. And so. Mr. English, thank you for being here. However, since the the the item has come to us, it was also brought to my attention recently of some new developments related to a potential change in ownership . This property is currently, as I understand, an escrow. And so because there there are some some questions related to as to how this this transaction could affect the entertainment license. I am respectfully requesting that this item be continue for an additional 30 days to this hearing, be continued for an additional 30 days to February 19th. So we can work these things out. I can speak with Mr. English, the new potential new owner, as well as the city attorney's office. And so that is my motion and ask for your support, counsel. Thank you. When you radio. Fine. Okay. Any public comments on this here? Would you please come down? You know, that's fine to do it in the month. That's very positive for me and thank you very much. Coutts Marston and also Jonathan, your Chief of staff, have been fabulous helping me through this meeting with the community, resolving any issues, planning the future and how it's going to resolve. So by the next meeting, escrow will either close the fallout, you know, that goes and then we can get it one way or the other next month. So thank you very much. Thank you. Oh, and I'd like to see if we have a Sunday night opera with Darrell. Yeah, I get the entertainment. I get joked, you know, the animal can come in and decide who she please come down to. Yeah. I was here last time. I got a little violent. Right. But I don't know if it was appropriate or not, but. I live in Modell's parking lot where. All the noise come from. It is on Paramount Boulevard, but the parking lot were already. Bad and everybody. Is on the pergola. When my husband like read where you guys are parking, right? You guys want to listen to music? Blade in your house. You can hear your TV. Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, from 10:00 to 1:00 in the morning, and it won't end at 1:00 because Johnny English is not there. There's Ned Barton. They hang up. I've called up. I've called 9911 on them 40, 50 times. I'd call them human nine when they told me, come out there. Number one, don't come to me. Hanging out at 330, riding, skateboard, doctor party. I'm still here. He put on new concrete under the aggregate. You know how when you put a skateboard down the concrete. Now they get their wall right here in the Wall Street, you know, in a French wall, right echo right in here. Even the wind, when everything goes in, turn directly, it comes right out. You let go and it comes right. In my window. I have no problem. I'm not that guy in the world, but, you know, I'm just. What? To be fair, you know? You know, I'm going to go and start the entertainment thing and. Disturb the neighbors. You know, I. I told you. If we put them some kind of. Something to bury while rector, I'll try to put it in. I have no problem with it. You know, I was talking to a neighbor I've been living over. I've been there 40, 40 years or. The last three years. I'll get all the. You know it. For five nights. He didn't just have to plan tonight. He had five or four or five. They stay for two or 3 hours in, you know, bands. Do they got you got people that fall behind him, right. They got 30. I'll tell you, sometimes 30, 40 people, you know. And they have. Have you ever been involved nowadays to import, embody, drink? And it's like $9. We're short of Jack Daniel's. Yeah. So they're lucky they don't buy beer in there. They go to the liquor store next door ready to go to liquor store and buy the booze. And they come up and hang out in front of my house next door. Neighbors house and party and talk and. Ha ha ha ha. Yeah. You know. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Thank you very much. You know. Okay. It's really watery to me, you know? Thank you so much. Okay. But he had he had. To resolve it. So I don't know what you guys talk about. He. Thank you. You're doing a good job. Thank you, sir. I will go with you. Okay. Thank you. Long. Take care. That problem. All right. We have a vote on this vote. The agreement.

A bill for an ordinance amending article XI of chapter 24, D.R.M.C., to ban the sale of flavored tobacco products and accessories. Amends Article IX of chapter 24, D.R.M.C., to ban the sale of flavored tobacco products and accessories. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-17-21.

DenverCityCouncil_12132021_21-1182

The communication regarding the veto of Council Bill 21 1182 has been received and filed. Councilmember Sawyer your motion to override the veto on Council Bill 21, Dash 1182. Thank you. Council President I move that council bill 21 dash 1182 passes notwithstanding the disapproval or objections of the mayor. It has been moved and seconded. Questions and Comments on Council Bill 21, Dash 1182 Council Member Sawyer. Thank you, Madam President. Given that we've been having these discussions for a year and between Councilwoman Ortega and myself, have held almost 100 meetings with stakeholders, community members, business owners, council members, city officials, lobbyists, tobacco companies and countless others. I don't think we need to rehash all of the issues tonight. It really comes down to priorities. Do we as a council want to override this veto in the name of public health? Or do we want to let it stand in the name of profit? Councilman Ortega and I brought this. Bill because we truly believe in prioritizing public health and we have. The support of over. A hundred local institutions and organizations in this work. We have the data to show that reducing access reduces youth usage of tobacco and vape products. Denver has the opportunity to be a leader in fighting this epidemic. As we have always. Said, we. Agree with the mayor's office that this should be. Done on a state level. And if this veto override fails tonight, we're. Committed to continuing these discussions. But we have seen that when Denver leads, others join us. Look at the tobacco 21 law. Denver did it first and then the state changed the age to 21. What about the COVID mask mandates? When Mayor Hancock announced that he was requiring masks, even though Governor Polis hadn't, he was making the decision to prioritize public health, even though it was controversial. And what happened? Governor Polis announces statewide mask mandate. That's what we're talking about tonight. Denver has an opportunity to lead this conversation and prioritize the public health of our kids. No legislation is perfect. And all legislation has consequences. Intended and. Unintended. But this legislation is narrowly tailored. Includes exemptions for things like harm reduction. And we've worked hard over. A year to incorporate much of the feedback. That we've heard. I believe truly that imperfect action is. Always better than perfect inaction. I want to be the kind of politician that finds solutions to the. Challenges that face our residents. So I'm going to urge my colleagues to join. Me in voting to override this. Madam President. Thank you, Councilmember Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. Pro tem. First. I want to share that. It's it's been an honor to work with Councilwoman Sawyer on this project in trying to ensure that we are prioritizing public health as we have done and have led on tobacco issues in the past . I am tired of seeing big tobacco using millions of dollars to hire. Minority individuals from our community to defend their efforts, meaning big tobacco, to continue to target our communities and especially our communities of color, to ensure that they grow and maintain their lifelong customers. Who become addicted to these products. And then you heard how we as the public pay for the additional costs in our increased increases to health care because of so many people whose lives are being impacted and these are preventable deaths. This has always been a public health issue that we have focused on by bringing this issue forward and targeting our kids, especially. But at the same time, we're protecting adults. And make no bones about it. The tobacco industry has continued for many, many years to target children. And minority communities to be their lifelong customers to continue to pay the increased costs in tobacco products. But they're paying with their lives, and that's what we're trying to address. So I would just plead with my colleagues to allow this law to be overridden. The veto to be overridden allowed the law to stay in effect. And then the work that some of my colleagues talked about addressing the enforcement side and sadly, I'm I was surprised last week that. So much focus was on the enforcement when we could have been having those conversations at the beginning of this effort. When we started this over a year ago. But those came up on the back end of this process, and they should have been part of the discussions that we were having on the front end. So I just again will be supporting the move to override the veto and hope that my colleagues will support that. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Yes, thank you. Madam President. Pro tem. I made my vote last week without. Meaningful comment, so I think it's important that I make comment this week. I have struggled more with determining which way to vote on this bill than I have with any but a very. Few other issues. That I've been faced with in my time on council. The considerations. That have found their way into this discussion are. Varied and complex, and the competing issues hit very close to home for me. I was a small business owner who worked with. Other small business owners. For the better part of four decades. I'm intimately familiar with their. Bedrock contribution to our economy, as well as the pressures that these entrepreneurs face under the best. Of daily circumstance, no less when shifting. Economics or government regulations add more complexity. To their day. That's why I proposed the amendment to delay implementation of this bill should it pass. By a full year from July of 22 to. July of 23. For just over five decades, I have been a parent for the past, nearly to a grandparent, and I've watched my kids, my grandkids and their many friends try to make their way through the minefield of challenges thrown at them, not just by the natural unfolding of life, but by companies who make their living offering products tobacco, alcohol and marijuana among them. Whose presence in the marketplace, I believe, presents more of a threat to my loved ones ultimate well-being than a benefit. Whatever challenges to clarity the above elements to the debate have presented for me, I am crystal clear that we. Have a responsibility to do our best to provide safe passage for our children. I believe good parenting and good government both have a. Role in that effort. This bill was presented to me by the sponsors at being aimed at keeping. Tobacco out of the hands of kids. And it is that focused context that I have. Considered its merits. What I like about this bill is that it reduces the availability of the smaller flavored smoking devices. Menthol cigarets and flavored tipped cigars that are. Appealing to young would be smokers. They would not be available in Denver. My concern about the bill is all of those. Products will remain easily. Available across our borders and many through online retailers with a few quick keystrokes. I'm also concerned that this bill would impact retailers selling larger vaping devices that these discussions have revealed are not particularly attractive to youngsters and that some folks use as a way toward smoking cessation. I would be very pleased with a statewide policy or a federal mandate that we have been told for years is. Coming eliminating flavored to make tobacco products. Excuse me. As we know. Should this bill pass? It does not provide any kind of silver bullet. Excuse me. Should the bill pass. Be it local, statewide or national? It's not a silver bullet to keep kids off tobacco. However, the vote goes this evening. We must work in partnership with our Departments of Excise and License and Public Health and Environment to increase the team of inspectors that are available to enforce the requirement that tobacco products of all sort be available only to those 21 and over. We must insist that anyone wishing to be licensed to sell. Tobacco products in Denver. Be required to employ enhanced verification techniques to reduce the opportunity for those under 21 to take fake I.D., to purchase tobacco. Products. And we must dramatically increase the penalties. For those selling to those under the age. Of. 21 or in any way enabling the transfer of tobacco products to those. Beneath legal age. We must redouble our educational. Efforts to make it ever more clear the harm the consumption of all tobacco products does to young bodies and minds. What don't we know about the impacts of the mayoral veto. Of 21 Dash 1182 was upheld. We don't know how many more kids will go into Denver stores with fake IDs to purchase these products. We don't know how many adults will purchase these products in Denver and pass them. On to underage. Individuals to begin or deepen their tobacco habit. If the veto is overturned in 21, dash 1182 passes into law. We don't know how much tax revenue that previously came into our coffers from flavored tobacco sales will go elsewhere, and we don't know how many businesses will relocate. We don't know how many of the retailers that. Will be restricted from selling flavored tobacco will find. A new business model with which to move forward. We don't know to where and in what numbers kids will. Go elsewhere to find. These products. We don't know what form of underground. Business might spring up to meet the new. Denver need for products that the bill would ban. We also don't. Know. What other municipalities will be encouraged to join Denver. In finding ways to discourage teen tobacco use. Further limiting the supply of kid friendly products. So what it has. Come down to for me is I have no faith that big tobacco that lied to us for so long. Will suddenly develop a social conscience and join in real. Partnership to reduce tobacco use and children. I have no faith that the action from Washington that we've awaited is soon to come. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported a decline in high school students current use of e-cigarettes down from. 27.5%. In 2019 to 19.6% in 2020. However. An overwhelming majority nearly. 85% of high school students who used e-cigarettes in 2020 reported they use flavored e-cigarettes. My faith is not high that if 21 dash 1182 does not pass, that a second effort will produce a bill with as strong a commitment to keeping flavored tobacco. Out of the hands of kids. While I recognize the. Challenge this puts on retailers, Mayor Hancock, while expressing his concern. For affected. Businesses, did not say we should not limit supply. He said it would be more. Effective if we. Did it on a metro wide or. Statewide level. I think our chances of leading the way to a positive. Outcome for our kids is to do just that, be among those who. Are leading the way. With that in mind, Madam President, pro tem understanding. That we have other work to be. Done to keep kids from getting hooked on tobacco. I think this bill will do more to lead us in the. Right direction than if we turn it away. I reversed my position. From last week and will vote to support the implementation. Of 21 Dash 1182. Thank you for your patience with my comments. Thank you, Councilman Clark. Thank you, Madam President. I know I did articulate last week that and shared my concerns with the bill that we passed, ensured my preference for what I thought would have been a better path. I continue to really believe that we need to firm up enforcement, significantly, raise the fines for selling anyone who is selling to kids and and really be aggressive and make it a lot easier for the folks who do enforcement to take away and for businesses to lose their license for selling to kids. I believe in that framework. I believe that there are are a lot of people on all sides of this who are very supportive of that. Right. And I just want to say, you know, I've got a world of respect for the folks that I sit up here and serve with. And we don't always agree. We don't always come to the same conclusion. But I believe that everyone up here is committed to keeping tobacco out of the hands of kids. It's a question of how we think we best get there. And I think that there are a lot of, you know, small business owners who believe strongly in that and want that regulation and that control and that enforcement and that accountability. And so. You know, I said last. Week that I really felt like we should tackle that and then we should implement a flavor ban where appropriate within that framework. And that it was I was disappointed that the amendment. To create. A carve out for stores that were 21 plus didn't pass. And I thought that it didn't pass because there. Was that lack of faith. In our current fine structure and our enforcement and and in the ability to take license away. We have found a way to make 21 plus stores work for marijuana to to keep kids out of those stores and to keep kids from accessing marijuana through those stores. And I really believe that if we could get if we can get the enforcement and the fines. And. Taking away of licenses there, then we can also create a pathway for 21 plus tobacco stores. But that's that. That wasn't what made it into. This final bill. So there didn't last week for me there didn't. Appear to be a pathway. To that end to what I thought was a better way. Was a more tactical. And I think I said to the that this issue needs a scalpel to use that scalpel. To really carve this out, protect our kids without, you know, as much of a blunt instrument. But we it does make a difference. And I do think that there is a pathway. I have talked I spoke with the mayor. I spoke with other members of this body and feel that the mayor has taken steps to start working with excise and license and the city attorney's office. To that end, I believe that we. Can tackle this issue with the scalpel that it deserves and protect our kids in a more meaningful way if we take that route. I'm. I'm remain very open to conversations about flavor bans where appropriate as we move forward and solve the problems that I think led to the 21 plus amendment not going through. And I and I hope that we can get there. And I think that this is a this is a better path to that end that I was looking for last week. And so I will be switching my vote and I will not be voting tonight to support the override. Thank you, Madam President. Seeing no one else in the queue. Council members just remember that nine affirmative votes of council are required for the adoption of this motion. Madam Secretary, roll call, please. But. Sawyer I. Black Knight. CdeBaca, I. Clark No. Flynn No. Herndon. No. Hines. All right. Cashman. Can I. Ortega, i. Sandoval. I. Madam President, I. Eight eyes, four nays. The motion to override the veto on Council Bill 21, Dash 1182 has failed. Council Bill 21 Dash 1182 has successfully been vetoed. There are no proclamations.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to increase Munis Contract No. 3190000026, formerly Blanket Purchase Order No. BPLB19000026, with GSSi, Inc., dba General Security Service, of Wilmington, CA, for providing security guard services, by $454,500, with a 10 percent contingency of $45,450, for a revised total contract amount not to exceed $999,900, and extend the term to March 9, 2020. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_08202019_19-0745

I did not to put. And today's report from Financial Management. Recommendation to increase Munis Contract with GSI or providing security guard services by 454,500 city. Vice Mayor. Yes. Yes, ma'am. Thank you very much. You know, I put this out there because, you know, I was somewhat disappointed in the contract because probably our analysis made a lot of assumptions. I'm not comfortable, you know, sourcing out for public safety service unless extremely necessary. Also, it was shameful that we are having to have a discussion on contracts so close to the expiration date. Long Beach have always had employ a dedicated workforce and a special security office to protect us. Civic facilities have done and continue to do an outstanding job. I'm hoping to meet. I'm hoping to meet and confer a process. We work with them and find a way to bring these jobs back to our city employees. When the contracts conclude. With that, I would like to make a motion to approve this contract. But the clause that our city manager worked to the best ability to find a solution that will restore the majority of these positions back to the city employees when this contract terminates. And that report, the city and we put it back to the city and return with a plan before the end of the year. I'm hoping I can get a second. And thank you very much. You have you have a second there. There is no public comment on this item. Councilman Pierce. I'm sorry. Country Ranga. Thank you, Mayor. I'm very. I'll be happy to second that motion. One of the things that I think that we're missing here is the fact that when you do a Prop hour study, it's not only about finding out whether we need the services at all, but whether we need to hire more staff. And I think that this approach that we're having, the way we're looking at this is is reversed. We're looking at the fact that the services that we need are to cover positions that we don't have. And we need the supplemental services provided by this agency, when, in fact, we should probably be looking at creating more positions that our city employees can provide because those are continuing services as we go, for example, security at the library, that that would be something that's in part of our internal service that we should have as city and have city employees provide that service as opposed to a contract service. So that's, I think, the essence of of of what we're what the motion is trying to to present here is the fact that we need to have a review. Whether are we are we properly staffed in in our security services classification to provide the services that are needed on a on a continuing basis and not have to rely on contracts to provide that service. Thank you. Councilmember, there's a motion and a second. Please go ahead. And Castro votes. Councilmember Pearce. In public. There's no public comment. Look. Motion carries.

Recommendation to receive and file a report on the Clean Pathway Community Partnership between the City of Long Beach and Southern California Edison. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_11092021_21-1182

Will answer the motion in this case. I'm not really I'm 58. I'm 58. Is a report from Public Works recommendation to receive and file report on the Clean Pathway Community Partnership between the City of Long Beach and Southern California Edison Citywide. There's a motion in a second place. There's no public comment. We have two. Dave Sugar and Tiffany Davey has come forward. Dave Sugar. Aren't I commenting after a presentation? What am I commenting? Mr. Mayor, we do have a presentation. We've invited S.E. to be here to give this presentation about greenhouse gas emissions reductions and all the partnerships that they've been working with, couldn't it, at Long Beach? And Eric. Go ahead. Thank you, Tom. Honorable mayor, members of the city council. We'll go through our PowerPoint pretty fast. But we did think it was important to highlight a lot of the work that has been happening and our our how much progress we've made in this clean pathway, our community partnership with Southern California Edison. As we make as we get closer and closer to the Climate Action and adaptation plan and really making the improvements that are needed to meet the goals that that are outlined within the plan. We're working behind the scenes on partnerships like these to really position ourselves and be able to to do more. So I'm going to pass it over to George Cadenas, who's going to go through the PowerPoint. But I did wanted to point out that Edison, Southern California Edison is where they're we're their biggest customer in the area. We've been working with them on major initiatives in the past, highly successful ones. Just a couple of them include the LED streetlight conversions, many solar and battery storage installations, a lot of energy efficiency improvements at facilities, and then most recently, the installation of EV charging stations throughout the city which continues to pick up steam. And we continue to do more and more in that area to get ready for the continued electrification of our transportation system. So with that, I want to turn it over to Dr. Deena, who's going to walk us through the presentation. Honorable mayor and council members. Thank you for having us today. So my name is George Godinez, and I am the contracts and grants officer for the Department of Public Works. I'm joined and also joined here by Vic Noel and Bryan Bustamante from Southern California, Edison. And we're here to provide information on the joint initiative referred to as the Clean Pathway Community Partnership Program. The first will touch on the partnership timeline, discuss the mission, vision and values. Then we'll discuss the initiatives and achievements to date. Benefits and next steps. Finally, our partners are here to give an overview of their commitment to the community. In March of 2019, the City Council studied the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, also known as the CAP, with the primary purpose to provide a framework for the Long Beach community to reduce the city's greenhouse gas emissions and prepare for the impacts of climate change. In August 2020, as part of action related to the city's consideration of forming a community choice aggregation entity, the City Council directed staff to strengthen the city partnership with sea with an eye on raising awareness of both existing programs that provide the community with options to purchase a greater mix of renewables and information related to more efficient energy use. In November 2020, the city and city officially formed a collaboration by developing mutually agreed upon efforts to further sustainability and meet capped targets and goals. The pathway development phase took place in January of this year and resulted in a guiding framework agreed and including an agreed upon mission, vision, values and key objectives. The Partnership's mission is to implement a framework that execute sustainable, affordable and reliable energy improvement opportunities. The vision is to serve as a collaboration model to support a sustainable, reliable and affordable energy future. And we really feel that this will set the example for other cities to follow as they launch similar partnerships with See . The partnership is guided by six values, including accountability and commitment, alignment of mutual priorities to deliver positive outcomes, maintaining an equity lens by promoting resources to community members with historical roadblocks, organizational knowledge sharing, transparency by understanding organizational processes and communication. By promoting open exchanges to build meaningful relationships. The Partnerships Organization includes subject matter experts from several city departments with one city and city staff member designated as team lead for each of the four key objectives. Team leads meet biweekly to discuss, troubleshoot and report on developments. And while the largest group, the larger group meets bi monthly. So the partnerships for key objectives are made up of several initiatives. Here we have the clean energy transition objective, whose goal is to increase public awareness and participation in existing C program and offerings through joint advocacy efforts, public awareness campaigns and community engagement partnerships. Achievements so far include implementation of the first collaborative social media campaign focused on C green rate program. And then we also obtained funding, AB 32 funding in FY 22 to support commercial and residential greenery adoption. The funding will go towards programmatic efforts, including marketing at potential customer rebates, while ensuring alignment with CARB regulations. We also have an internal working group of staff from the city manager's office, public works, development services and Energy Resources working, working on these efforts. Finally, we leverage the city's utility billing to provide the community with sustainability messaging and worked with you to include power options information in the 2022 city utility calendar. The Energy Solutions goal is to provide solutions and technologies that enable the community to manage to better manage their water, natural gas and electric energy usage while saving money. This year's annual events include the execution of an SC corporate giving grant to fund $40,000 for a tree planting program in disadvantaged communities along the 710 corridor and working with Bombay's Conservation Corp. to implement the program. The program kickoff meeting occurred last month and we're targeting for planning to be completed by the end of this fall season. We're also engaging with the Office of Sustainability to address concerns related to ongoing maintenance. The Technology Innovation Objective seeks to improve the development, acceptance and implementation of emerging energy technology strategies in support of the city's renewable energy goals. This objective is focused on valuing resiliency provided by solar and battery energy storage systems to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and improve city facility energy efficiency. So far, we've identified solar city facilities using diesel backup generators and developed a draft analysis framework and process to assess facilities and determine areas of focus for comprehensive solar and battery cost benefit analysis. The Transportation Electrification Expansion objective focuses on investment, emerging technology acceptance and streamlined processes to further electrification, reduce GHG emissions and achieve air quality goals throughout Long Beach and surrounding communities. These initiatives mainly focused on EV adoption. Achievements include initial meetings to discuss possible project projects and the application process and working with the new City Fleet Acquisition Manager to develop fleet strategy. We also submitted over 29 applications to SC for their Towards the Ready program that has a potential to add over 500 plus new EV charging ports at public workplace and fleet locations. So the benefits of this partnership are numerous. By improving our communication, we've been able to increase the speed, effectiveness and action between both organizations, along with improved internal alignment. We are also building an environment based on shared accountability and a strong ongoing commitment for achieving tangible results. Most importantly, we're improving our alignment of environmental priorities. By 2030. His goal is to provide 80% carbon free electricity to meet its 2030 cap GHG reduction target. The city will need over 192,000 metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent GHG reduction. Stationary energy, including all fossil fuels used in electricity generation and makes up 49.2% of the city's total emissions. So the city's ability to reach its 2030 cap GHG reduction target heavily depends on C as the city's electricity provider meeting its own 2030 goal. Ultimately, 98% of the target reduction will come from the 2030 goal and 10% voluntary participation in the green rate program. Similarly, his goal of 100% decarbonization by 2045 will be a significant contributing factor to the city's 2045 carbon neutrality goal. For next steps will continue and expand on our implementation efforts. With recent developments revolving around the infrastructure bill, we anticipate this partnership will play a key role in the implementation of the bill's objectives, especially those focused on EV chargers and renewable energy. We also plan to foster a culture of continuous improvement by consistently assessing partnership results and looking for areas for improvement. So now I'll hand it off to Vic and Brian to discuss his commitment to the community. Thanks, George. Good evening, America. And city council members. My name is Becnel. I'm Southern California, Edison's government relations manager for the city of Long Beach. Part of my major responsibilities. And that role is to be the liaison between the company and elected officials like yourselves in your offices. I work closely with a lot of your staff to help resolve constituent issues and whatnot, but I wanted to also let you know that please do not hesitate to reach out to me directly if you should ever have any questions regarding our policy priorities or or operational issues and concerns. Uh, as George mentioned, as he is committed to the community. Using shareholder funds from our parent company, Edison International. We. Support local nonprofits across our service territory, both big and small, in Long Beach. I'm particularly proud of our community giving. In 2022, we provided over $900,000 in philanthropic support to a variety of Long Beach serving organizations, such as the Aquarium of the Pacific Boys and Girls Club of Long Beach and many others. Digital equity. Enhancing digital equity. Just recently, we provided $150,000 in grants to be divided among a handful of Long Beach organizations to support and enhance digital equity, such as Centara Shore and Long Beach Math Collaborative, among others. And. Just to put in a plug on a current opportunity that we have is our Edison Scholars program. Each year, Edison gives 30 $40,000 scholarships to high school seniors across our service territory who want to study STEM in college. I've reached out to many of your offices to help promote that program. The application period is still open and is open through December 13th. If the public should be interested in applying, they simply need to go to Edison Scholars dot com for that application. Thank you very much. Right. Hi. Good evening. My name is Brian Bustamante. I'm the senior adviser supporting the city of Long Beach. I help support a lot of the business operational needs on the day to day basis. So in terms of strengthening our electric grid and creating a clean energy future, I'd like to touch on improving reliability and really focus on , you know, how we're transitioning into this sustainable future so as to not only track reliability each year, but we produce a publicly available report to every city tribe within our service territory, including the city of Long Beach. Estes reliability and Long Beach specifically continues to not only be good overall, but also have some of the best reliability within our company. It continues to be a focus for us. In terms of investing in our infrastructure, we're continually investing millions of dollars into projects and upgrades in Long Beach to continue to improve this reliability. These projects include grid modernization across the city, extensive system and improvements in the underground network around downtown, a rebuild of our substation in North Long Beach. And we also recently began work on a battery storage project on the East Long Beach substation. As part of it and in relation to time of use in managing our GHG related emissions as part of a statewide initiative to use more renewable power, our customers will be gradually transitioned over to a time of use base rate plan. These plans encourage customers to use energy at the times of day when renewable energy like solar and wind is most abundant and at the lowest cost. Sustainability. Energy efficiency will continue to be an item that supports the citizen. We are currently actually working through supporting our terminals at the Port of Long Beach monetarily through an energy efficiency rebate to implement high mast led lighting. Finally electrification. As we continue down this clean energy path with the city, we also we will also continue to look for opportunities to partner with the city. The couple electrification to drive down these greenhouse gas related emissions. The C e charger 82 and charged transport programs are good examples of this. And George touched on earlier how the city has participated in these programs. It will continue to be a focus for us to support the infrastructure upgrades around the city as necessary and also including with the port, the work at the port as well. I'll turn it over to George to close us out. Thank you. In conclusion, I'd like in conclusion, I'd like to re-emphasize that he has selected Long Beach to develop this partnership as a potential model for other cities in the future, which means I anticipate many emails from other cities in the future asking us about how this program went and being an expert in the field. And also, I'd like to give a thank you to all the departments who have been involved in the partnership as well, which include City Managers, Office, Public Works, Harbor Development Services, Economic Development, Financial Management, Energy Resources and water. It's really been a team effort. So thank you again, Mayor and council members, for having us here today. Thank you so much for that presentation. I just have a few thoughts. So first, I'm happy to support the Clean Pathway Community Partnership. I remember the genesis of the context of the conversation on the CCI. Prior to that, I also remember the City Council having, you know, very stern conversations with Southern California Edison about the downtown outage , the major downtown outage and the need to invest in infrastructure here locally, have more local discussions about what the condition our infrastructure, the resilience of that of that infrastructure looks like. I also know that we're at the precipice of a major transition in our ports, and we have to make sure that our city is a part of that. Just one clean zero emission electric truck could be a megawatt of power and that this will require significant investments into charging and enhancements to the grid. I'm particularly interested in this. I think the federal infrastructure bill will make investments toward that. The ports are looking toward the future. We have to make sure those investments help create living wage jobs as well as the major transitions. I think that's something that's important. I like Mr. Lopez that you mentioned the electric vehicle charging infrastructure for commuters in our city. I think that's a big opportunity, too. But we have to make sure that we're really looking at it with an equity lens. Areas that are a lot of times right adjacent to the freeways already, Bill, and breathe poor air and they oftentimes they're not in a place where there's infrastructure in place for them to even, you know , participate in work in an electric vehicle. We participate the programs we offer are sometimes the only thing they have access to in order to have an incentive to buy something or install it at their home or have electric charging in there in their area, in the electric vehicle charging stations that we do have, or a lot of times there are 110 right there. You know, you can sit down and eat lunch at Uptown Commons and after an hour, you've only added maybe five miles to your car. Right. So we have to think about where the Superchargers are. If you have Superchargers, people will drive and support that business and eat lunch at that place simply to get an hour on a supercharger. So it's an economic development opportunity and that's a supercharger. And so that those are certainly things we should look at. And the last thing I would say is, as we explore this partnership, some of our open space plans are directly related to the availability of Edison Raceway. And in the areas that have the least open space, some of the only opportunities they have are the Edison right away. Historically, Edison Edison's real estate folks have been very aggressive about monetizing those, prioritizing leasing to anything like a nursery or whatever it is, and have been resistant to open space. But that's some of our last opportunities on the West Side and North Long Beach for open space. And so I hope that as we look at this partnership, we think about reprioritizing the values in particularly in areas that lack open space or partnerships that can be mutually beneficial for the development. Open space cities need time. We need to note that that parcels available so we can write the grants and do the designs. It could take five years to develop a apart. If you don't have that type of partnership, it's very difficult to do so. So those are the things I would submit to say we should think about as we move forward. So it's really a truly beneficial partnership that advances equity. Councilman Austin. Councilwoman Allen. Yeah. Thank you. Um. I want to just first say it. Thank you, Eric, for your introduction and George for your presentation. You know, it's important and we're going to need to use every tool in the toolbox to reduce emissions and speed up our transition to clean energy. And as Southern California Edison's largest customer. We have a significant influence and our partnership with them. We need to find the funding to buy 100% green energy. And we need more residents and local businesses to make the commitment to 100% green energy as soon as possible. So I look forward to the a report coming back in December. I do have some questions with regards to our what outreaches on Southern California Edison doing to prompt residents to switch to the green rate. So in the partnership, we've actually been working collaboratively, collaboratively with Etsy to promote the green rate. So what we've done is we've tried to be more more mindful of of using our own social media accounts. What we've done is we recently we actually worked with ASEAN to develop that social media campaign. They pushed it out on their channels, and their channels reach more of a regional level. We then collaborated with them to use our own channels to then post that information to our residents. We also collaborated with them to leverage their next door account to focus green rate program messaging, specifically in the Long Beach area. And then we also have ideas, especially with the funding available now in FY 22 for maybe 32 to work more collaboratively, collaboratively on possibly more multimedia type efforts to promote the program within the city as well. Okay, great. And then my next question is, how much progress has Southern California Edison made on the charge ready 2.0 program implementation? Because I know, like our high rise is low income family buildings older than 20 years old weren't built with wiring for EV charging. So I know it's been slow, but it's going to be key for expanding to zero emission vehicles, especially to our renters and condo owners. So the program just opened up in July. And we're our goal is to get 38,000 charging stations out within the service territory over the next five years. That being said, we, the city of Long Beach has the most applications out of any other city within our service territory by far. And I think it's a symptom of the collaboration and the fact that we're looking at everything possible. We are completely open to exploring additional sites. It's just. At this point. There's about 29 applications in even just since July. So it's moving very quickly. So if you have any recommendations, will gladly take those. Perfect. Thank you. And also, I have another quick question for you. Has Southern California Edison invested in any might microgrid projects locally here in Long Beach? So where there has been some conversations about a looking at a microgrid in the the port area that's still a work in progress in terms of doing a specific microgrid here a lot of those projects at this time are customer driven. However, we are looking at opportunities to maybe couple some of those technologies, which is what I, I touched on a little bit in terms of the battery storage projects at some of our substations. So we're exploring it, but it's kind of a new piece for us. Okay. And then also has with regards to your Southern California Edison's fleet. Is there a timeline or what's the plan for that going 100% emission. Their omission. Are you are your is your fleet currently. So like our fleet of. Okay. So at this time, we do have a plan to do that. However, we're not currently retrofitting our approach from a utility standpoint as it's hard because these are big, heavy duty vehicles. We're not taking the approach to retrofit them. We want something that's sort of built for our industry. So it's definitely something that's on the horizon for us. But we're we're trying to get the market to catch up with what we need. And then one last question. Are there any, like, simple, straightforward opportunities for local property owners to invest in solar, solar cooperatives? I'm sorry and sell it back. Are there any opportunities for business owners or or property owners to invest and sell solar and then sell it back? So we have solar rates. The rates the goal really isn't so they can sell it back. It's really to be net neutral within the our tariffs, but there are opportunities for compensation back, but it's not necessarily a retail rate back. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Sabrina. Thank you. And thank you, folks for the presentation tonight. Great job. I want to speak off topic here for a little bit so much the work the council offices that they micro-level a street later a small power outage. So as long as it is here tonight, I wanted to commend Vic North for just providing a superior level of customer service to our office. I think you've been here less than a year, but it's been quite noticeable and we will feature the Edison Scholarship in this Friday's newsletter and continue to do so through December. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Mongo. Thank you. I also want to commend your office on the additional support my team has built, better supported, and we appreciate that. There's nothing harder for a family that either has an infant or a senior citizen than when a family member doesn't have power. And so those updates on your website and the regularity of which they can be updated and the ability to reach out to Vik or whomever from my team is really critical. I will say, though, that this year we had the least number of power outages in a very long time. And I think that that has a lot to do with a lot of the VoLTE upgrades that you've done. However, as the city embarks upon what I know Erik is so excited about, which will be a record breaking infrastructure decade, we really need support in staffing up your ranks to be able to support the planned changes and checks that are necessary to implement the EV charging stations, the VoLTE upgrades, all of those things. And I know you're struggling to get people just like the city is qualified. People are very hard to come by. But there has to be a solution. Otherwise, these major infrastructure projects across our city won't be able to move forward because we as a city have made a commitment that if we're going to have a street, we want to give you that opportunity in advance to fix all the things that are underneath that street before we pay for it. And I know that we've had some challenges with Volt locating and fixing and those timelines. And I know that they're they're not unusual challenges, but we do need to plan. The region will be getting significant federal funding. We're looking at some bond options. And we need you to be prepared to support us on that because the residents can't move forward and we're going to have some strict timelines. So I want to thank you for the work today and know that more needs to be done. And then I appreciate the the movement towards green energy, but I also want to speak on behalf of our senior citizens. Our senior citizens are experiencing 40% increases in grocery costs and gasoline cost 15% increases in some grocery needs and necessities. And energy is a place where they just can't take anymore increases. And so I would love to see an option that allows people opting in to the Green Plan, which I think is a great idea, but pacing ourselves and recognizing that our senior citizens are on a fixed income and their Social Security is not increasing at the same rate as inflation is. And so we need to really think about the ways in which you have supported our low income communities very, very effectively. And communities that are not typically considered low income are going to be experiencing some some pinching of their their pocketbook as all these costs have increased and their income has not. And I know that I've talked to a lot of seniors recently that are trying to figure out how that $800 a month or 1200 dollars a month that they live on can stretch further than it's ever had to stretch before. And I know you're a big part of that, and I appreciate your partnership. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Zendejas. Think you raised me. I just wanted to thank you, Eric, George, Vic, all of you guys, for the presentation and for your continuous partnership and willing to work with us and for your excellent customer service. I know I've email you in panic that late at night and you and your team have really come through and really helped out my residents in times of need. And I just wanted to publicly thank you for for that. And I look forward to the continuing building of our partnership. Fantastic. Thank you. And as we conclude and go to public comment, I just want to echo and say, Vic, you're doing an incredible job. We love your service. And Larry and Kiana have been very thoughtful and responsive, not just here, but across the region as very public comment on this item. Yes, we have to. Dave Shukla and Tiffanie Davey, come forward. I mean, we know who the public comment is. We can just come on at this point. That's good. Come on. I mean. What am I doing here? Um. I couldn't help but laugh a couple of times during this presentation. Southern California Edison is one of the primary reasons why the state of California can't yet meet its climate goals. You have been holding the entire fucking state back. AB 1139 this year. Do you have any idea how much of my time wasted and for what? To take away the net metering, the battery storage and the solar panels that my neighbors have had for ten years. You asked Councilwoman Allen if there's a possibility of an electricity co-op that could get money back if they're producing an overage with their solar panels. Every car in the state has a program like that. The only people who don't want you to have net metering so that you can know how much you're sending back to their grid. Are these folks. I've been seeing it for ten years. I've also been a rate payer of Southern California Edison for the past 24 years. So for the entirety of my adult life, I've been watching this city make the wrong decisions since the O'Neill administration. The city of Long Beach could have created something like L.A. DWP back in the nineties. We didn't. And that's why the port had to bail us out of the recession in the nineties. The building that we're sitting in. This was paid for by the port. As a result of those decisions. We know from the M.W. analysis that if we had implemented a CPA, it would already be making money for the city today. By the end of the decade, we're talking about a couple hundred million dollars per year. A way to optimize across all the oil abandonment costs when they say they want to gradually work people in to the green rate or whatever it's called. What they're trying to do is figure out how to hold on to really bad contracts. Case in point horrible project the city is responsible for. I grew up across the street from the East Point and Studebaker. Project shouldn't have been rebuilt and you shouldn't have slapped 600 megawatts up to 300 megawatts right now. Right. A battery storage across the street from my mother's bedroom. We, the fire department, doesn't even have that much baking soda for an electrical fire. Um, but more importantly, it's because of contracts like that that have grown there. Delta has been basically making chumps out of you, and the innovations in the electricity markets have been one of the most fascinating things where you feel a graduate student study. If I didn't have to come home and help out here. The key discussion needs to come back. This is a fucking slap in the face. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Okay. I'll make my comment rather brief. Timothy Davie, District President Speaking in opposition of this item for a number of reasons, but I only highlight one, which is accountability. But I'm going to walk back to one of the items we discussed earlier this evening about mental health, and we've been very concerned with the pandemic since the beginning of the pandemic. In my partnership in assisting landlords and renters in the city, one way, perhaps, we could have been supported. But many other utilities did actually had a header, something close to our humanity about the impacts. As I was helping residents receiving bills upwards of 20 $500 past due. Disconnection. Disconnection. Disconnection. They're already stressed. But let's focus back. Let's go back to 2015. Those 30,000 customers that were affected, the cpu c0i results were what, 15 million? We supported SB 174 to have 4 million allocated back to the city. Granted, there were many items addressed so that we did not incur those same damages again. Insert 2021. Continued explosions underground. And then let's just go to the last weekend or exactly one week from when we passed today, where the same security and enforcement division issued an MCO in the amount of $550 million for his wrong and lack of. Accountability in the right. Myers in liberty, Thomas and Woolsey fires. Just want to go over that damage. That was 385,000 acres damage and destroy nearly 3000 structures and five fatalities. 550,000,375 million of which they can not step away from. So who pays for the future cost incurred in future disasters? We can almost assuredly be assured will occur. Thank you, members. Please cast your vote.

A bill for an ordinance vacating a portion of the right-of-way adjacent to 2099 Chestnut Place bounded by West 29th Avenue and Chestnut Place and Division Street, with reservations. Vacates a portion of the right of way adjacent to 2099 Chestnut Place, bounded by West 29th Avenue, Chestnut Place and Division Street, with reservations, in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-13-19.

DenverCityCouncil_08262019_19-0776

I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting. Announce the results. 3939 as Resolution 882 has been adopted. I will ask that if you are not sitting around for the rest of our meeting, we do have a packed agenda. So if you could Exodus quietly as possible and leave those doors closed as you get into the hallway so that we can move right along. If you're watching in overflow and you came for something other than what we just voted on, there is lots of room open in chambers now. And so you're invited to come join us in chambers. Now, Madam Secretary, if you could please put the next item on our screens. And Councilman Hines, will you please put Bill seven, seven, six on the floor? Councilman Hines. Oh. Could you put seven, seven, six on the floor, please? I guess. Mr. President, I move seven, seven, six for adoption. I budget. This one's ordered published. If I. You know what? I want it published. Thank you, Councilman. It has been moved and seconded. Councilman Herndon, you have a motion to postpone. Why don't you go ahead with your motion? Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. I move the council bill 19 0776 be postponed to Monday, September 23rd, 2019. All right. We have a move and a second, Madam Secretary, on that motion. We good to go. Okay. So, comments by members of council. Councilman Herndon? Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. I assumed everyone was in chambers about this vacation. I'm just kidding. So vacations are rather mundane topics where adjacent property owners have the opportunity to take right of way that's next to their processed process. If the city does not deem it has a city use and the rather mundane, as I said, and this is the first opportunity that came in to the full council when we heard this two weeks ago. But to ensure two interesting things happen and when I as I have the ability, the honor of chairing land use and transportation and infrastructure. First was a lot of my colleagues had concerns about the overall vacation process in regards to why we are beholden to certain rules. And I wanted my colleagues to know we couldn't have a full conversation that night. That day, excuse me, but we will be bringing vacations back to the council for a full discussion. So I wanted to make sure I put that on your radar so that you have the ability to come and learn more about that. If there's a will of this council to even ask the question, should we have vacations at all? Because that question came up. But more specifically to the vacation that hand that's before us. During that time, council members had some serious concerns about the size of the vacation that was moving forward, the community concerns about how what is the currently used for right now. And they brought those concerns up during the committee that I thought was that were very well said. Well, over the course of the two weeks, the applicant moving forward about the vacation heard some of the concerns that council and the community had and is requesting a four week postponement because they would like to revisit their plans should this vacation go through. And so I believe that since the applicant hearing what concerns council members have community and wants to revisit their plans for week. The four week postponement certainly seems appropriate. And just to let my colleagues know the postponement in no way beholden to them to supporting the vacation, that's absolutely not the case and just allows the applicant to have more conversations with the community and revisit that. So I, I would encourage my colleagues to support this four week postponement. And then we'll have an opportunity to look at the merits of the updated vacation on September 23rd. Thank you, President. Thank you, Councilman Herndon, Councilman Hines. Thank you, Mr. President. Procedural question for week postponement, that is. And I know that sometimes we have 30 days to vote where it's automatically adopted. I just want to make sure that we still have the opportunity to deliberate and vote as we would today. Yeah, I will defer to our legal counsel, but since this is not a contract certification, I don't believe that is bound by any shot clock. Kirsten Crawford Legislative. Council. And that's correct. So, yes, we retain all rates. Thank you, Ms.. Crawford. And thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. Any other questions or comments before we vote on the postponement? All right. None. Madam Secretary, roll call on the postponement. Herndon I. Black. I see tobacco I. Flynn I. Gilmer I. Hinds High. Kashmere High. Kenny Ortega High. Sandoval, I. Sawyer, I. Torres, I. Mr. President. Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close the voting. Announce the results. 13 eyes. 13 eyes. Bill seven. Seven six has been postponed to September 23rd. Madam Secretary, will you please put the next item on our screens? And, Councilman Hines, will you please vote council vote 803 on the floor.

A bill for an ordinance designating certain property as being required for public use and authorizing use and acquisition thereof by negotiation or through condemnation proceedings of fee simple and other interests, including any rights and interests related or appurtenant to such property, as needed for the National Western Center Project. Adds two land parcels inadvertently omitted from the legal description in the Land Acquisition Ordinance passed in December 2015, granting authority to acquire them as needed for the National Western Center redevelopment in Council District 9. The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 11-7-16. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 10-4-16.

DenverCityCouncil_10242016_16-0898

All right. I don't see that we have any items called out except for there's one item, and I apologize for the couple of minutes that we started, but some last minute information came in to me. So I'm going to ask Councilwoman, if you could put I believe it's 898. Is that the correct? If you could put 898 on the floor for final consideration and passage and then we'll get some description of what's going on and put it to a vote after we do that. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 898 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. We have. Moved. We need a second. Thank you. All right. It's been moved and seconded. I'm going to turn it over to our assistant city attorney, David Broadwell, to give us a little recap of of the situation. Thank you, Mr. President. David Broadwell, assistant city attorney. We're going to be asking that you do a new motion to postpone this to a date certain being next week's meeting at the request of DPS. One of the parcels referenced in this land acquisition ordinance is actually a DPS owned parcel. And negotiations have been ongoing regarding a negotiated purchase and sale agreement between our US and our friends at DPS. But there are some issues that they want to talk through further and perhaps communicate to council, and we need to sort things out for a week more, perhaps at their request, before having council action on this acquisition ordinance . So if you'd be so kind to move to postpone until next week, we will no doubt come back to you next week with more information about that negotiation. Thank you. Are there any questions before we do that? All right. So do we. Are we? Oh. Councilman Flynn, do you have a question? Yes, I do. Thank you, Mr. President. David, does is it necessary to acquire that parcel and the other one? For the National Western Center project. Through this ordinance. In other words, do we have to do this ordinance one way or the other? Well, an ordinance has required to go forth and acquire property per year per the charter. But do we have to designated as we do through this as a parcel for acquisition? Yes. In general, there's a finding of need for the acquisition that's reflected in the ordinance itself. But the actual the whys and wherefores of why the property is included is what I think we probably need fuller discussion on. Okay. In response to your Q&A next week. But there are people in the room who could talk about it tonight, if you like, but again, at the school district's request. So just asking for a little more time for us to organize our messaging, our joint messaging on the status of the negotiations and so forth. Okay. Any other questions? All right, Councilwoman Candace, would you make the motion for us? I move that Councilor Bill 898 be postponed and reconsidered on Monday, October 31st. Second. Looks like it's been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary Rogoff. Black eye, I. As Flynn. I. Cashman. I. Can eat. Lopez All right. New Ortega I. Sussman, I. Mr. President, I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. Nine eyes. Nine eyes. We will postpone that until next week. Thank you very much. All right. Any other bills that we missed that are getting called out? All right. Seeing another, no others. All of their bills for introduction are ordered published. We're now ready for the block vote on resolutions and bills on final consideration. Council members, please remember that this is a consent or block vote and you'll need to vote. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilwoman, can you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills for final consideration? On final consideration for final passage on the floor? Thank you, Mr. President. I move the final following proclamations be adopted. 785 929 nine 3841 868 869 923 924 935 792 926, nine, 27, 931 And then the following bills on final consideration be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Bill 540. Bill 905 Bill 903 823 844 845 and 848. Right. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary. Rocco. Black eye. Flynn I. Cash in. I can eat I. Lopez All right, you. ORTEGA All right. SUSSMAN Hi, Mr. President. Hi. Madam Secretary. Please close the voting and announce the results. Nine eyes. DANA As the resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Tonight there will be a required public hearing on the mayor's proposed 2017 budget. Anyone wishing to speak on this matter must see the Council Secretary to receive a speaker card to fill out and returned to her during the recess

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Use District Map of the City of Long Beach as said Map has been established and amended by amending portions of Part 5 of said Map from Park (P) to Belmont Pier Planned Development District (PD-2), read and adopted as read. (District 3)

LongBeachCC_02042020_20-0071

Motion carries. I'm 30, please. Report from Development Services recommendation or declare ordinance amending portions of part five of the use district map from Park to Belmont Pier Plan Development District Red and Adopted Red District three. There's a motion and a second is I don't see any Christians in here. Okay. Please come forward. Speaking of this. I gave you guys two papers from two different groups. I'm not going to read those, but I just want to enter into the record of what I am going to do is read this way and I just have to get it in order. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to be out of order. Okay, here we go. Partly because it's we're honoring Black History Month tonight here at the council. I decided to include this piece of history. But first to the BBC. Long Beach has adopted a healthy communities policy to reverse the inequitable distribution of public recreational facilities. And yet we now intend to build the Belmont Beach, an aquatic center, a poster child for racism so ingrained in the local public consciousness that it can be hidden in plain sight. A century ago, a small band of Long Beach residents stood up against racism at the pike. In late June of 1919, Alija Blain, who lived at 506 Locust Avenue, stood before the all white city council bearing a petition signed by 20 of the city's 120 42 black residents asking that a popular game on the pike midway be shut down. Lane argued that drown the N-word created race prejudice. City attorney George Hood Hooter Pyle explained that they knew of no legal method of prohibiting the game unless it could be shown that the sport created rheumatism, in which case the Humane Society might have it discontinued. The petition was referred to a committee. The game continued to be played up into the 1950s. Elijah Blaine, who I really think deserves a spot on the walk, was just a working class guy who risked everything he had and everything he was. At a time when blacks could only live in select parts of town, when the local KKK had more than 10,000 members locally, and when Beaches and our beloved Pike Plunge were for whites only. The rules may have changed, but are we still playing? A version of this scheme. The target is no longer a black man seated on a diving board, assaulted by numerous whites whose success in hurling the victim into a pool of water was cheered on by a crowd of their peers. Now it's drowning, not dunking whole communities, not single individuals that is perpetuated by those who look away from the victims and cheer on a status quo in which minorities and poor whites continue to be denied and denied an equal opportunity to learn to swim and to participate in aquatic recreation and sports. So we are 75% minority community. We have 225 meter pools built in 100 years. We have one Olympic pool. We are now going to have two Olympic pools. Look at the demographics, look at the economics and look at the demographics and ask yourself, you know what? What do you. Think? Thank you very much. There is a motion and a second. Please cast your votes.

A bill for an ordinance approving Service Plans for the creation of six (6) Title 32 Metropolitan Districts, the Loretto Heights Metropolitan District Nos. 1-5 and the Loretto Heights Programming Metropolitan District. Approves six separate Service Plans for the formation and establishment of six Title 32 districts: Loretto Heights Metropolitan District No. 1, Loretto Heights Metropolitan District No. 2, Loretto Heights Metropolitan District No. 3, Loretto Heights Metropolitan District No. 4, Loretto Heights Metropolitan District No. 5 and Loretto Heights Programming Metropolitan District, in Council District 2. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 7-30-19.

DenverCityCouncil_08262019_19-0745

Tunis Lebanese Council 744 has passed. Councilman Hines, will you please put comfortable 745 on the floor? I would love to. It's somewhere I move. Bill 745 for adoption? Yes. One final consideration. Yes. I would love to place it on for final consideration and do pass. All right. Thank you, Mr. President. It has been moved and seconded. The required public hearing for Council Bill 745 is open to me. We have the staff report. Well, good evening, everyone. I'm very pleased to be here. I get a chance to stand up for a while and I'm going to be giving you the staff report for Council Bill 745. My name is Andrew Johnston. I'm with the Department of Finance. Council Bill 745 is an ordinance approving six service plans for a new metropolitan district supporting redevelopment of the former Loreto Heights campus in the southwest Denver area. The districts are Colorado height metropolitan districts 1 to 5. And then there's also a sixth district that's called the Loreto Heights programing Metropolitan District. Together, the service plans are being submitted for City Council approval on behalf of ACM Loretto six LLC pursuant to the requirements of the Special District Act, Sections 32, Dash one, batch 201 and more, particularly 30 2-1, Dash 204.5 of the colorized Colorado Revised Statutes. The service plans contain the District's purpose, powers, requirements and financing plan. The district shall be responsible for compliance with the city's municipal code. Rules, regulations and policy and all other applicable law districts shall ensure that the District's public improvements are designed and constructed in accordance with the standards and specifications of the city and other governmental entities having jurisdiction. Tonight's public hearing is about the service plans for the metropolitan districts. It is not about the the small area plan that is also concurrently happening and will be at land use and land use. Transportation Infrastructure Committee tomorrow and at a public hearing next week, September and September 16th at city council. The the plan for the the area illustrates a mixed use mixed income multigenerational hub for the community serving both existing neighborhoods as well as for any future residents and new businesses located at the redevelopment site. The development plans include a variety of office retail, diverse resident and diverse resident. Residential uses, affordable housing, multimodal options, open space, historic preservation and the adaptive reuse of buildings are also top priorities in the plan. In fact, the plan Creation Hall is slated for adaptive reuse to create 69 affordable housing units for residents that are 30 to 80%. A area median income, additional affordable and attainable housing options are expected as well. The small area plan's commitment to affordability, connectivity and community is is the culmination of a year long process of listening to the registered neighborhood organizations, neighborhood citizens, local community leaders, historic Denver, Denver Public Schools, Loreto alumni and the former property owners, the Sisters of Loretto. The community led process involving over 1300 participants yielded an outcome with significant community assets, which would need to be developed and maintained through time. The communities desired improvements and the basic infrastructure and utilities totals nearly $97 million. Part of the answer to support the desired outcome is the creation of multiple districts with specific purposes and enough financial capacity to provide the opportunity to fund upfront construction costs plus the associated maintenance of the improvements through time. While the small area plan approval is not up for approval tonight, the City Council is being asked to consider approval for the service plans for the Loretta Hite Metropolitan Districts, which will assist in the implementing of the small area plan as approved by as proposed for City Council approval in the upcoming weeks. The metropolitan districts are an implementation tool and approval of the service plan does not approve or affect any zoning or land uses. The six proposed metro. Out in districts organized to work efficiently together are being organized to work efficiently together to enable financing, construction, ownership and maintenance of certain public improvements at the site. The districts will have three different areas of responsibility is anticipated. District number one will be the management district responsible for coordinating the previously mentioned activities for for the site and districts. Two through five will be the taxing districts, generating revenue to pay for cost of installing and maintaining public infrastructure. Arrangements for financing, acquiring, constructing, operating and maintaining public improvements will be created among the districts after creation. The sixth District is a programing district which will overlay the entire inclusion area and specifically assist in the programing of activities and facility maintenance of community assets on the site, including, but not limited to the plazas, the Grand Lawn and the campus quad, as well as the following structures currently known as the Administration Building, the MAVEN Stanton Theater, the indoor pool, the former campus library, and the preservation of a historic cemetery as potentially open space. The new metropolitan districts will be responsible for coordinating the financing, acquisition, construction, completion operation and maintenance of all public infrastructure and services within and without the services area, including without limitation street and sidewalk improvements, parking infrastructure, water, storm drainage detention and sanitary sewer improvements, landscape and irrigation. A public plaza and traffic and safety controls and improvements. The new metropolitan districts will have the power to raise revenues pursuant to the Authority's grant by the Special District Act up to the following aggregate limitations. Districts one through five can impose up to 50 bills for debt, up to 15 mills for operations and maintenance. And then separately, the programing district will have ability to impose up to 20 mills for programing and maintenance, specifically for the community assets called the Plazas, the Grand Lawn, the campus quad, the administration building, the Maven Piece Theater, the indoor pool, and the former campus library. The current programing district is not authorized to issue any debt. The total estimated cost of the public improvements necessary to serve the contemplated development are approximately $97 million. However, the district financing model does not achieve all the project funds required to cover the project cost of the nearly $97 million worth of improvements. The basic infrastructure of roads, utilities, drainage. Supporting the proposed development is estimated to cost about 43 million, while the costs of realizing the community hub as recommended by the community process is estimated to cost an additional 54 million. The outcomes desired by the community support the outcomes desired by the community. Support the concept of the mill levy parameters that are greater than the model service plan parameters in order to provide flexibility to future residents and constituents of the districts and provide the level of infrastructure, public services and programing desired by the community. The service plans include an increase to the maximum debt service melody and an increase to the maximum operations, maintenance and levy. Under the service plans, the change is to increase from 40 mills to 50 mills for debt. And. An increase of from ten mills to 15 mills for the maximum operations and maintenance melody. In addition, a separate programing district will be created to provide a mechanism to maintain and activate the community assets through time. Ultimately, these increases alone are not enough to meet the capital requirements of the community assets. So an application for tax increment has been submitted to Daera seeking further support for the community assets. Additional financing tools will be required to cover the project cost gap or a reduction in the desired community. Assets will need to be considered. The city views the metropolitan districts and additional financing tools as a successful approach to achieving neighborhood and citywide goals of affordability and equity. Without such tools, development projects often result in higher purchase prices and lack of public amenities. Approval of the service plan establishes the following There is sufficient existing and projected need for organized service in the area. The existing service in the area is inadequate for present and projected needs. The districts are capable of economically providing sufficient service to the area within the proposed boundaries. The land and proposed development to be included does and will have the financial ability to discharge proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis. The facility and service standards will be compatible with the facility and service standards of the city. Once again, the approval of the service plan does not approve or affect any zoning or land uses. City staff recommends approval of the service plans. And with me tonight is the applicant and representative Mark Wicker. Wick I always your name sorry mark with two quick events and I'd like to invite him up here just to give a quick statement. Well, I think we have you signed up on in our public speaking. Oh, you. Do? Yep. Okay. Okay, then that is the end of my staff report. Okay. Thank you very much. We have 13 individuals signed up to speak this evening. First is Mark were Cavic, if that's what it says right here. So I'm hoping that. That's right. Go ahead. Thank you. And yes, it is Mark Wood Cabbage. And good evening, President Clark and members of Denver City Council. My name is Mark Wood Cabbage. I am a partner at West Side Investment Partners. We are the owner of the Loretto Heights campus at 33,001 South Federal. Tonight, as Andrew mentioned, the Metro District's service plan is in front of you for approval. That is all just as a little background here. West Side purchased the property of the campus in the summer of 2018. Since that time, we've been on a holding pattern very intentionally. And the other thing that I want to point out to the council is that we only decided to purchase the campus after an exhaustive search was performed to try and maintain the campus as an educational facility. So we are stepping in only after that occurred. But since that time, we have been working in collaboration not only with the community but also with the city on an area planning process. And although that's not in front of us tonight, there has been an extensive and exhaustive outreach to the community as far as trying to find collaboration for the future of this project. And as Andrew mentioned, that does include about 1300 different participants in ten different steering committee meetings and four different public hearings. And there were also two online surveys. You know, unfortunately, we understand the trend in the in the city of Denver right now is a lot about mistrust. And that's precisely why we took out a practice for a letter for Loretta Heights to have a genuine community outreach program. In my opinion, the program that has been set forth is the gold standard for what the city should be expecting from all developers as they're reaching forward to other development projects for years to come. Councilman Flynn has reminded me on numerous occasions that Southwest Denver has been overlooked on many occasions in the past, and it's been far too long since anything great has happened in that side of town. It's also clear that the community in southwest Denver is seeking a place to call their own. The community envisions a mixed use. Mixed income, multi-generational development that honors the spirit of Loretto, embraces the campus characteristics and preserves the historic structures, while at the same time the community is not seeking a high density development. To breathe. New life back into the historic campus require a huge lift, and I underscore the word huge. The Loreto Heights Metropolitan District is just one of many, and I underscore the word many tools that will be required in order to make this campus great again. But without the tools like the Metro District, there's no chance of bringing the community vision to reality. In the case, the campus will either rot or be forced to be developed under the current zoning, which neither will bring many community benefits to Southwest Denver. I can stand here in front of you with whole heart and tell you that West Side. I'm sorry, but your time is up. Thank you. All right. And I neglected to call the first five up to the bench, so I'm going to do that now. Megan Bettcher, Lacy Knowles, John Henderson, Maribel Gage and Karen Calamity. If you want to come up to the front and Megan better, you are a first. Good evening, council members. I'm Meghan Becker. I am general counsel for that applicant and I'm just here to answer questions tonight. So thank you. Thank you very much, Lacey Knowles. Good evening to the council as well. Only signals with the Davidson we're. Providing investment. Banking services to the metropolitan district. And I'm also here just to answer questions. Tonight as well. Thank you, John Henderson. Good evening. It's been a marathon, and I'm glad you're still here. I want to talk to you a little bit about special district abuse. I've been spending the last three years struggling with special district abuse, reading, learning everything there is to know. And now I'm sharing the information to try to educate city councils like yourself throughout the front range in the Denver City area. Our experience, we are spending $57 million, $57 million in interest on $7 million worth of pipe on the ground. The bonds that were paying interest on. Explained to the bond investors how excited the community was about spending all of this money and spending all this money on interest. What they failed to say in the bonds is that the election that took place to authorize that debt took place in 2006. The people who voted for that bond debt were eight people who were employed by the developer. The bonds do not explain. That the developer at the first election, which is the TABOR election referenced in the special this in the service plan the first thing they're going to vote on is removing eliminating the right of future residents to vote on their own taxes and their own bond debt. We didn't wake up to it until 11 years had passed. I've heard others say they didn't wake up to it until after 20 years passed. In our case, all of the public elections were canceled for 11 years. Because the developer and it says it in this service plan. Told our residents, you won't be able to vote. You won't be able to serve on the board until we're about 75%. They don't say 75% in the service plan, but they say eventually the residents will get around to being able to vote and serve. That is simply false. Under the statutes, as soon as someone has a contract to purchase property, they have a right to vote and serve on the board. I'm running out of time. I'm asking you all to step back from this. You need two other documents, and you need a better service plan. You need to know what the ballot issues are going to be because when you vote. If you vote to approve this tonight, you are voting to eliminate the right of the future residents to vote on future debt. You need disclosures. I'm sorry, but your time is up. Thank you. Next up, Maribel Gage. Thank you for the opportunity to be able to speak to you. I am a sister of Loreto for 51 years and an alumni of Loreto Heights. College. And a classmate of President Clarke's mother, Janna Maya. And Amanda Sandoval's mother, Mary Helen Donnelly, singer. I have three points I wish to bring to your attention. The first one is the symmetry. There is a symmetry on the northwest part of the campus, about a third of an. Acre. Where 62. Sisters of Loretto are buried from 1912 107 years ago through 1969, when the last burial. Took place. 50 years. Ago. That plot in the. Northwest section of the campus is a sacred space. Of historical. And cultural. Significance. That requires perpetual care. Fortunately, Loretto is involved in conversations with the West Side regarding the future of the cemetery. Part of that discussion will be whether or not the cemetery is to be included or excluded from the metropolitan district. Point two. Above the main. Entrance to the dominant structure, the administration or the Academy Building is engraved. The motto Fridays mores at cultural phase goodness and beauty. As you. Evaluate the redevelopment. Of the campus. May these values inspire you. Does this enhance. The faith. Life of our community? Will this promote goodness within our community? Beauty. Does this plan provide for ample views of this long, beloved bell tower and the. Totality of the administration building. And the chapel, as well as views of the Majestic Mountains to the West? I'm sorry for your time as a. Space. That will allow Mother Nature to nurture all. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Karen. Calamity and I'll call the next five up. Paul Fisher. You know Christine O'Connor. Sochi. Sochi. Gaetan, Kate Kitten. And Jesse Paris and Bonnie Gilbert. Go ahead. Hello. My name is Karen Calamity. I actually was invited to hear about Loreto. Highlights from Sister Mary Nell. At an event we call Wasted Fridays, where a lot of historians and political people meet and talk about what's happening in Denver and the area. And that was about two years ago. And as a person who grew up in Denver, I was born in Denver in 1957. And I've spent a lot of time in Denver. I I've remembered I've known about Loreto Heights. For years and years. And it's a. It's a very iconic site. It's a beautiful building. And set of buildings on. A on a hill there, the highest point in Denver. And it's got a lot of. Greenspace, which is in short supply. Now, I've had my experience with bad development just. In my own family, and. I've been very concerned about the potential for bad development. On this site. And the metropolitan district in the first place. Is the cart is the cart before the horse. The design has not been really finalized or perfected in a way that would warrant trying to finance it at this point, much less. It was based on this small area plan, which I did not feel was as inclusive as a lot of people are saying it was. We have an instance where this is a beautiful green site, one of the few green sites left 72 acres of green and beautiful architecture. It's not like a, you know, a parking lot that we were hearing about before, you know, terrible situations where it's abandoned buildings. I mean, these are older buildings that are empty now, but they're not not derelict buildings. These are beautiful architecture, beautiful landscape. And I don't see the plan respecting the one of the few places in Denver that has this green space that we need to keep intact with the. Animals, with. The right for people to have bike trails and pedestrian trails and take advantage of the green space. It's heavily dominated by residences and high density buildings, and it just doesn't seem right. Thank you. Next up, Paul Fiorina. Good evening. Thank you, President, and welcome new members. Listen, Loretta Heights is a big part of me as well. I my career started there. I was singing. There with Dr. Brecker. Back in the day. I was. My daughter was born after a performance in 85, after that show. And so I come to to, again, support the fact that this is a pioneer property. This is Denver's highest. And oldest property. This is a property that not only has an educational institution. But a campus. And let's call it what it is. This is our opportunity to step up. And. Make this a campus for the. Arts and humanities. Denver is now and Colorado. Is. Number one in arts participation in the nation after 12 years. Of fighting. Tooth and nail. And, you know, every one of you know that this is your battleground for our nuns, for our Loreto nuns who have come to Colorado first. Established St Mary's Academy then built this place. Now we have an opportunity and this owner has a right of first refusal. Are you familiar with that? There's a statute r0fr right of first refusal. It's time for City Council to pick that up and look at it. This is an opportunity to buy this property as is. With the new money we just got from our Parks and Rec. This is a Parks and Rec issue. This property needs to be transferred. To a51. C3 nonprofit organization. A consortium, if you will. To have at least two of you on the board directing this particular development. And not having become divided. And conquer. That's what's happening here. Dammit! Could you please watch your language in our chamber? And could you please state your name? I've had it. Could you state your name for the record? Okay. I'm sorry. I didn't. Mean to. Sir, could you please state your name for the record? Your name? My name's Paul Fiorina. Thank you. Sir. Anderson Heights is your battleground right now. Right here. All right. Next up, Christine O'Connor. My name is Christine O'Connor. I do not live in the Laredo Heights area. I know some people have been talking about the plan, but you yourself talk nothing. The owner is not going to talk. About the comments to council, not. To talk about the service plan, because and I read it and I have it open here if people want to ask me questions. But I want you to turn this down today for many reasons. First of all, this is self-serving by the developer who will be able to issue bonds in a huge amount that will be paid back by the developers. I know that you all are thinking about the recent audit that O'Brien did about the homeless affordable housing program and all the mistakes that are made and buyers who are buying property without being in that category. I think you would agree with me that prospective homebuyers and future Denver ites need to know what they're getting into here in the service plan. At a minimum, city council should reject this service plan, require the owner to file a new one. That one includes a homeowner buyer home buyer form with large font include specific timeline regarding when the future prospective residents get these disclosures. Spells out what specifically will be disclosed. Some of the things that should be prominently disclosed. One The home's annual property taxes, including the metro district taxes and how it compares to a similarly valued Denver home outside the District two, a breakdown of how much debt residents will pay to finance infrastructure, administration operations, maintenance and programing in the district. Three A prominent statement explaining that no future resident, except possibly if they get on the board, will ever have the right to vote on taxes and debt. And fourth, information that residents will have the right to serve on the district board as soon as they enter a contract to purchase property. Second, I would like you all to turn to Article two, Part six, the district rationale in the service plan. I'm not going to read it because I always run out of time. But basically it's a statement that says We need to form this structure. It's necessary for the public improvements. First of all, it's just pro forma language. It's a recitation that they need. Where's the proof? There's no proof in the service plan or in any documents that I've seen. First of all, this didn't even come to anybody's attention until July 30th. All the outreach that was done on the plan had nothing to do with the district, the service plan. It had to do with the area plan. So I'd like you to read that and say and require that the people here representing the developer get up and give you that proof today that no, no other way exist for this to be done. Third, I ask you to ask if will be sorry, but. Your time is up. I can't be. Up. Yep. Sorry. Thank you very much. Next up, Sochi Gaytan. Hi. My name is Sachin Gaitan. I'm president of Hip Co. The Harvey Park Community Organization Hippo voted to oppose the Loreto Heights area plan and the Metro District Service Plan. We informed City Planning and Councilman Flynn of ZIP Codes five Concerns of the area plan one It must be a landmark historic district designation. Two We need strong language around indicating that Dartmouth Avenue will not go through traffic taking traffic into the elementary school. Three Mitigation of traffic must be stronger language for other streets and avenues heading in the southwest direction for maintenance of the pond. Waterways and wildlife in the southwest region have been nearly ignored. Five Limiting building heights to five storeys and not going higher because we lose adequate view planes of the admin clocktower building. We all know that the higher the building, the higher the penthouse, the higher the penthouse, the higher the prices, hence causing gentrification and unaffordability. We oppose the Metro District Service Plan due to the important components in state law, Title 32 that have been ignored in the last decades. One boundary City Council should require that the developer tell you what those improvements should be, and there needs to be a notice to new property owners telling them what will be spent outside of the boundaries. Two purpose You should have a clear understanding of why this special district is created. It's simply for the bottom line of the developer. Three Who and how is this being paid for? Feature residents will pay double the property taxes of those outside of the district. Over 50% of the financing debt from the entire metro district will go to renovate the theater, the garage and the admin building. And it should only be for infrastructure, not for private properties. Four There should be a detailed ballot initiative that should be attached to this. It will help you determine whether you oppose, approve or disapprove this service plan itself. Special districts are required to comply with TABOR. However, in this case, the developer is going to eliminate TABOR for the residents of the district through the election. So why not? Then, instead of placing metro districts in our communities in order to avoid Tabor, he put more effort into reforming TABOR. The scam is that the developer issues bonds with interest, that these future residents will end up paying $4.9 billion with no oversight. This plan is a poster child to these abuses. You are giving power and latitude to the developer, forcing the gentrification sweep. Developers have had this playbook since the eighties. Bond investors, developers, special district management companies run these special districts. They benefit and push us out. Black, brown, indigenous peoples and working class whites out of the sky. But your time is up. No, thank you. Next up, Jesse Pierce. Jesse Paris, represented for Denver, home of Salau Blackstar, some movement for self defense and positive action committed for social change. And I was on top of the ballot for city council at large, almost 15,000 votes this past May 2019 election. We are against this for the reasons that were already previously stated. It seems Denver is up for grabs to the highest developer. You give developers full rein to do whatever they want to do in this town and nobody is holding them accountable for what they do. We don't need any more unintended consequences. We already have enough it out with Stapleton. Stapleton is a metropolitan district, which is the exact same thing that you're trying to do, Loretta Heights. Now, I went to school for like six months at Loretta Heights back in college. I had to take some Romanians for math. So I'm kind of familiar with this campus. And I was there this past campaign season for one of Flynn's events. Kevin Flynn, councilman for the District. So I'm kind of familiar with this area. So, yeah, I wanted to know, are you going to do a traffic study for the reasons data is Dartmouth's going to be redirected to go all the way through to the school. What's going on with the campus itself? Is this still going to be an educational institution? Are you going to try to turn it into a health campus? Are you going to try to mix it all up? What's going on with that and then what's going on with the housing? Ah what kind of housing are you going to be providing here and what am I levels that are going to be because there's nothing I'm going to tell you that's going to make you not approve this tonight because it's just going to be business as usual. You have made it apparently clear that developers have bought and sold you. Thank you. Next up, Bonnie Gilbert. Hi. I'm Bonnie Gilbert. I live have lived in Harvey Park for the last 30 years, fairly close to Loreto Heights. I have many concerns about the Service Metro District plan, which includes the lack of community input. When the plan was being developed. The how much. Affordable housing will there be and the likely, likely gentrification in the surrounding areas. I am disappointed that the community was not made aware of and included in the process of the Metro plan. When asking and asking questions about the development, the community have been told over and over that certain topics would not be addressed because it was too soon in the process. Then we found out by accident that a metropolitan plan, which included answers to many of our questions, had been released. One week. After the end of the area. Plan process would have helped our understanding of the project if the Service Metro Plan had been discussed previously and in-depth with the community. The plan being voted on tonight will increase property taxes dramatically for those who move onto the former campus compared to those currently living in similar home in the neighboring communities. There's no indication under this plan how much desperately needed affordable housing there will be on the former campus. With taxes so high with the new development, it will likely make much of the housing unaffordable. Another consideration is gentrification in the surrounding areas because of the apparent lack of affordable housing, residents who have lived in the area for decades may be forced to leave the no longer affordable area. The service district plan should have been made public much sooner so that the plan could be studied. Specific questions could be answered about the districts and the community could give more input once the plan was made public. We in the community. Should have been. Notified of the plan because there was not enough time to thoroughly study the plan and get more public input. I have serious concerns about the taxation of residents, lack of affordable housing and gentrification. I request that you do not pass this service metro plan in its current form. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Gregorio Alcala. It. Thank you, members of the council. I am sixth. Generation Denver, right. My family came. Here over a hundred years ago, lived in the area, was one of the 400 families displaced. The 200 businesses displaced my life and many lives were formed by master plans policies. However. I come here tonight in hopes that we can learn from past, from debt, from urban renewal, mistakes, and some of the successes we've had in historic preservation in the city, in the. State and in the country. What we have here is a gateway to Denver's past. And architectural past, an incredible site that does not exist anywhere left in our city boundaries. The highest point of open space that evolve through a whole different process of systems coming here and developing it. But we do not have. And we have not had. Plant designers and experts involved. In this so-called community process. We have had professional engineers, landscape architects, historians. Ecologists, theologians, geographers that have been excluded to share free of charge. What alternatives we can do through a design. Process. With respect to the planners in our city, we have here a different language. We don't have. Designers representing the people. They use different languages, programs, tools. We are also talking about a democratic. Process that is at risk here. We have professionals in our community, in our. State that can demonstrate alternatives, that will benefit developers. But also think about we talked about sustainability 50 years from now. Cultural landscapes. Environmental integrity that has not been addressed, that has not been part of a base map that we've been asking from the very beginning to have a cultural, historical, environmental base map created an inventory and an analysis to present to the people of Denver, to the community. Through the working class, through indigenous people, people of past, present. And future cultural perspectives, to understand how great this site is and what it could be. It's not about prohibiting profit. It's it's about not imposing limitations for how great this site could be. And we will provide examples, concrete examples, using technology of historic sites in Denver, Colorado, the state, and across the country and the world of how this could be a great site if we. Give an extension. It's way too fast. We have ignored basic protocol, basic processes. I'm sorry, but your time is up. Thank you. Next up, Jim Gibson. Good evening. I'm Jim Gibson. I live at 2787 South Stuart and I'm representing the Loreto Heights Community Initiative. First and foremost, developers should pay their own way. A service metropolitan district plan is simply not necessary for improvements. Like every other owner, the developer should get his own private financing to pay for his own improvements. Why should the developer, which is the same thing right now as a metro district, get a taxpayer handout more than doubling of property taxes on the future residents of the district. This service plan is not ready for prime time. It's a blank check and should be rejected by council this evening. If council still believes that the taxpayer should subsidize this developer, at the very least, he should say no tonight and demand a version that holds the developer more accountable and protects future homebuyers. Similar to other service plans around the state, the master developer keeps a small parcel of land, which will be the operating district. That way, he'll be able to control the five. Taxing districts indefinitely, keeping residents in debt. And their property taxes high. Please see page B one of the service plan. The second version of the service plan should not include this small parcel of land and should include a limit on the total of an amount of debt that can be incurred to pay back this debt. Future owners and renters will pay in property taxes up to an additional 90 mills. More than double what other Denver homeowners have to pay is shared by the city administration in the Finance and Governance Committee meeting on July 30th. Tonight's request represents the highest additional property tax millage increase for a metropolitan district in Denver ever. The doubling of property taxes on homes within the district will make the availability of additional affordable housing very difficult, if not impossible. This huge increase in property taxes will inevitably result in higher priced homes than the surrounding neighborhoods to. The north and east of the. Site. The result will be the gentrification of those communities and many displaced working class and senior residents to protect residents. Service Plan 2.0 should include the language of the measures that will be on the November 2019 ballot, when the district would be created. Similar service plans around the state suggest that, among others, this list of ballot measures are most likely to include the election of district board members, all of which will be the developer's people, because no one owns property there right now. An exemption from TABOR requirements, including eliminating the future residents right to vote on bond debt and taxes. Those decisions will be left up to the developer control district, board members and a waiver of term limits for district board members to further ensure long term developer control of the site. Please say no to this service plan. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there questions for members of Council on this issue? Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. Andrew, could you come on up? Good evening. Hi. Do you know how many metropolitan districts there are in the city at the moment? City and county. Denver's been has a lot of metropolitan districts. I think we're well over 80 metropolitan districts right now. Okay. And when I downloaded the data from our map data website actually counted about 120 or 130. Is that because some of them like here, also include districts that come under a management district like being proposed here? Yeah, correct. And so you're right, there's probably about 120, but not all of them are active. And so is a statutory thing where they called inactive status, where maybe they were approved, but there's no purpose for them and they are under like a management construct. So for instance, like in this case with Loreto Heights, you'll have the management district. No, that's number one. Our district, district number one and district's number two through five may actually be inactive until such time that there's actually development on the site. Okay. So a number of them have the 50 mil maximum for debt, correct? That is true. Okay. Because I think someone had said that 50 mills was was hired by was higher than but a good number according to the list we were provided that have that for debt. Right. And there are a couple of metro districts out in northeast Denver that are higher than 90 mills at the moment. Is that correct? There are some metropolitan districts that were created many years ago, probably even earlier than 1990. And when those service plans were put together, those service plans did not even contain military caps, which the service plan does. And as such, they have the opportunity to have rather high mle levies if they're listed as unlimited. Yeah, and they are unlimited. Okay. And the table that we were provided showed that some of them have had or two of them have district levies that total over 100 mils. Correct. Okay. And that some of those districts have management district structure with several taxing districts coming under them, correct? That is true. Do you recall the last time? And if you don't just say so, when was the last time that the city came in and constructed streets, water, sewer, drainage and other improvements for private development? And I I've been with the city for about 12 years or so, and I do not recall any instance where I've seen that. Okay, in those 12 years, how many metro districts have gone forward? Um, I don't know, but quite a lot. Fernald and Green Valley Ranch, I think, is one of the oldest. The Ebert District in 1973, I think was the date on it. Correct. Okay. And a couple of the new ones would be what? The Navajo Market in in my district, we have Granite Ranch. We have Union Station and a couple of other. Yeah. Just last fall, we did a series of districts. We had a one called Hurley Place. It was in the Reno neighborhood. Yeah, we had one called the River Mile, which is a similar structure. And so those are some of the other examples. Okay. To be clear now, the mill levee that we're being discussed that we're discussing here applies only to the real estate and improvements that are on the property now owned by West Side and not to any property outside the campus boundaries, including the number of public schools, DST, school on the campus, but is completely encircled by West Side properties and the Catholic Charities Mount Loretto Apartments off to the side. That's correct. That is correct. The it's called the service area and inclusion area and the DPS and I I'm not sure about the second building, but I don't believe that second building is in the inclusion area. No, that's okay. Thank you, Mark. We have each. What does the metro district provide for in terms of the cemetery? We heard Sister Mary now talk about the future of the cemetery. What are the provisions in the service plan for dealing with the cemetery, understanding that it may be excluded at some point and that's still being talked about? Sure. That is being talked about whether the district would perform any work on the cemetery. But if it were to perform work on the cemetery, it would be performed landscaping and open space type work. Okay. Now, one of the speakers mentioned or several mentioned open space in the service plan. There appears to be more open space than was recommended by the community in the area plan process that will be seeing her next month. What are the plans for open space that are funded by the Metro District? Parks, plazas, trails? What exactly does it consist of? All the above, sir. Okay. And there's. These are subject to change, of course. But I think the area plan will recommend the standard 10% seven acres. The diagram in the service plan shows significantly more. But you don't really have a a fixed number on that yet. I don't have a fixed number on that, Councilman Flynn, but I can tell you that the objective is to well exceed the city standards. Is to want. To exceed the city standards. Okay. What measures does the metro district intend to use for to ensure transparency for purchasers? Sure. That's a great question. I'll answer part of it, but I'm going to also ask my legal counsel to come up and answer sectorial the rest of it. By statute, there is disclosures that you have to be included. There are opportunities that are recorded against the property. And I if it's okay with you, I like Megan to explain that a little bit further. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you. To answer that question, Councilmember Flynn, the transparency comes on all different levels. Statutorily, this is a local government, so the district must comply with all of the same disclosure requirements public records, public meetings, audit audit laws, budget laws, election laws, construction, bidding laws. Anything that relates to a requirement of a local government within the state, the district must comply with specifically relative to disclosure to purchasers. Statutorily, there are several notices that are required. There is a notice that is required to be recorded against the property within the boundaries of the district. In addition to that, the order and decree creating the district will be recorded against the property. So there's disclosure at that level. There are annual transparency notices that must be submitted to essentially a public repository, which may include a district website and or the Special District Association website. So that is available. There is an annual reporting requirement directly to the city, so the district will be selling information annually to the city, which is obviously also available to the public. So on several levels. All right. Thank you, Mark. The $96.9 million in identified public improvements in the metro district plan. Of course, not all of that can be funded by the mill levy. And you're pursuing other avenues, like through borough, through grants, through like tack five funding and tax credits, historic tax credits and things like that. Is that correct? That is 100% correct, sir. Okay. Of that, 96.9 million. My math. And it's always dangerous to do math on the fly there. 53.9 million of that is in the community benefits portion, the theater restoration, the academy building, etc., as opposed to the traditional infrastructure of the streets, the sewers, the water, the drainage, the traffic control, etc.. So more than half in the community benefits. All of those items were requested and put in the area plan by the community, were they not? Yeah. That is a true statement, sir. I'm. The just pull out the street improvements. 20.4 million was the tentative price tag on street improvements. If the metro district model were not being used here, how much would those street improvements cost? There would be no change in the cost, sir. Okay. So the way that we finance it doesn't affect the capital cost. It affects the repayment cost. That's a true statement. Okay. So I won't go through all of them one by one. But but all of these recommendations are consistent with what the community process came up with over the past year, correct? Yes. Okay. Did you explore the alternatives that were mentioned, for instance, private obtaining, private financing? And what was the analysis? What did you decide would be the effect on affordability if you were to obtain private bank financing, to build the streets, etc., to do the theater instead of doing metro district bonds? Sure. That's a great question. Can I tell you that I specifically explored private financing for the roads and streets on this particular project? The answer is no, but in historical respects I can tell you the answer to that question from other projects. The one of the luxuries of using public financing, such as a metro district to do capital improvements for public improvements is you're able to get much better economic rates, as an example, from a bonding capacity than you would if you privately financed it. And to be honest with you, I'm not sure this is even privately financeable, but if you were able to find financing dollars for it, it would be very expensive money. Similarly, if you were if we were to go out hypothetically and go out and privately finance this, there's still a cost to doing that. The cost still has to be capitalized and it has to be repaid. Rather than having bonds issued, which could be paid over a long period of time, that cost would have to be recouped immediately upfront. So what would be the end result of that? The end result of that would be literally the house would cost more money. Those that are leasing either apartment spaces or office spaces, the lease rates would be higher. And because of all that, everything that would happen on the campus would cost more. For an example, that hot dog or that cup of coffee. But further, we haven't actually answered all the questions. And you didn't specifically ask this question, but I'm going to explore it for you. If we go in and we put in infrastructure and we privately finance finance it, what happens from the maintenance? Operation standpoint, there still is grass that needs to be cut, snow that needs to be plowed, and there's plants, flowers that need to be planted in order to achieve the vision that the community is asking. That would be that would be on the order of, say, a nature way that would have fees that would do something like that. Yes, sir. In the alternative. So just to summarize, what you're saying is that the bond financing, which probably likely is obtainable at a lower interest rate, would result in lower lower costs for housing rentals , commercial than borrowing upfront at bank rates and having to recoup that cost right away. Yeah, because the cost that you would have to pay for is not only the bank rate because you would never, ever get 100% financing on this. You would have to go out and raise private equity to build the other half of it, which would be very expensive capital. Final question, Mr. President. Thank you. You sat in on all the area plan meetings with the community. Is the density that is being recommended in the plan sufficient to leverage private financing for this? I'm not following your question 100%. Can you rephrase it? The density that is being recommended, the low density on the Irving Street side, the the medium, the low medium, and then the high medium up on the south end and up along the north end. Is that density sufficient to produce leverage that would leverage private financing as opposed to the metro district? I think what you're asking the question is if we had high density, all high density on this, could we do this without metro district financing? Maybe. I don't know the answer to the question. And I honestly didn't even explore it because it's not what the community is asking for. All right. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilman Black. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Henderson, I had a clarifying from you. I feel like I read an email from you and I can't find it in my email, but you live in solitary or something like that, is that correct? Correct. There was an article in the newspaper. I wrote a commentary. It wasn't an email, but it told told the story. Okay. And where is that located? That's in Lakewood. If you know where Dinosaur Ridge is, it's directly across the a470 from Dinosaur Ridge. Okay. So I just I'm trying to get from Meg in to address your concern about the elections not happening. So. How does that work? She was nodding her head when you were talking about that. So if you wouldn't mind, Megan, can you address that and how that would be different here? And then while you're at it, Ms.. Gaitonde had some additional legal concerns about boundaries, TABOR and oversight. So I think all those things are probably related. If you want to discuss that, I'll stand up here for a little bit. Okay. Thank you. Relative to the question on elections. So as I mentioned previously, elections are is ah, it's late. I apologize. One of the requirements of districts is local governments. So we follow the same election cycles, the same election requirements as all other local governments in the state. So relative to director elections, currently those director elections are held in May of every even year. So next elections will be 2020 in May. There is a statutory provision that indicates when there are not more candidates than seats available, the election may be canceled. That's the instance when an election may be canceled in the theory they're statutorily legislatively. The history is if you have two seats open and you have two candidates need not go through the entire expense and cost of an election when you have two people for two seats. And so I can only presume that perhaps that was the circumstance that occurred with Mr. Henderson. That is what is statutorily authorized. To the extent there is more candidates and seats available, the election must be held. One of the questions that was raised, I think by several individuals was who's entitled and qualified to be an elector and therefore take and have one of the seats on the districts. It is any individual that is over 18 and registered to vote in the state of Colorado, who is a resident of the district for more than 30 days, or who owns property they and their spouse within the boundaries of the district or has an interest in real property via a contract whereby they're obligated to pay taxes. And so any of those individuals at the time of election, in accordance with the election requirements, would be considered an elector able to sit on the boards. Okay. And one of the concerns was about oversight. Sure. So oversight in each district, these districts will each have a board of directors. That is the governance board. Again, in all of the requirements relative to open records, procedures, open meetings, just like the city council here is run by a board of directors. The board of directors must be registered electors of the district in the same manner that I just described and compliant with all of those statutory requirements. And that also relates to the transparency with all the, you know, requirements relative to the recorded disclosures, the annual budgeting auditing requirements that that are associated with that. So the directors would oversee sort of high level financing decisions, as well as hiring someone to play as the board. To that end, yes. So decisions are made by the board. Just just like the city council makes a decision, a majority vote. The district would retain consultants to assist with compliance of all of these matters. So there are managers, legal accountants or rather legal advisers, accountants, engineers, construction advisers, project managers, just like, you know, the city. It takes a village. The same is true with the district, and the district and board can approve entering into engagements with all of the appropriate and requisite professionals necessary to ensure compliance with all of the statutory, regulatory and all other requirements the district must comply with. Then all of that information is public. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman CdeBaca. I'd like to bring back up socially Guyton and Mr. Henderson. Mr. Henderson first. You didn't get a lot of time to explain the 57 million on the 7 million. Can you explain how that financing and paying back the debt works? Of course. Of course. And it's it's it's not everywhere. This is not unique. And it'll happen here, too. What the developer is saying to you all in the service plan is he's going to loan the cost of the infrastructure to the future residents. I've talked to many developers. I've represented them as well as citizens and engineers. And they have uniformly said. The most expensive way to build and finance infrastructure is through these special districts. Because here's what's happened. They take the actual cost. They had a profit. Pick a number. There is no accountability. And that's why you all are so important, because you all are the only check and balance in this process until we get all the residents in the community. You are it. And the statute gives you the power to require more information to call them in on the carpet. And if they're not doing what they supposed to do, you can dissolve the district. So we start with the actual cost. You add profit. Pick a number. There's no accountability. Then because it's a loan, you take that cost and the profit and you add interest. The interest in our case, $21 million. So that's $7 million worth of pipe in the ground. That's the first one. The second loan is because the residents can't pay all of that. Says the developer. The developer is running the boards. This first election that they're going to have here in a couple of weeks. The TABOR election is going to take away the power of the voters to vote on bond that and give it to the boards which are going to be exclusively, exclusively the developer for at least ten, in some cases 20 years. And that board is going to then say, okay, we're going to. Issue bond debt to pay off the loan. So now you have the interest on the loan, $21 million. And then you have the interest on the bonds. Another 37.6 million. Add those two up, we're paying $57 million in interest for $7 million worth of pipe in the private. This is a way to generate another profit center for the developers. I've talked to the special district attorney. They say it's just the name of the game. Go along to get along. Can you can you talk about those documents that you were saying should be coming first? You got cut off? Yes. There's there you have the service plan. There are defects in the service plan. Even our service plan tells us how much we're paying. It says you cannot pay more than X number of million dollars in principal. This service plan leaves open, it says will close to 96. No, you all need to set limits. If there's no limit, there's no control. It's a blank check. So the first document is to tighten up the service plan. The second document. This is the most important one. The ballot issues. You never you've never seen them. No city or county in the front range has ever seen them. The ballot issue, the eight, in our case, the eight employees of the developer are voting. To eliminate the right of future residents to vote on bond se and they give it to the developer boards. You all should have that in front of you. You should know that when you're voting on this, you're voting to eliminate the right of future residents to vote on the bond. But. The the the other piece of information in that ballot issue that you need to be aware of is they don't put it in the service plan or in the ballot issue. They're going to establish a maximum amount of financing. They said it would cost $27 million to build our infrastructure. You all are talking about 96. The financing for that, in our case, just one. $27 million of infrastructure. $4.9 billion. And that becomes important when they issue the bonds because the bonds have a limit. They say, okay, they can only pay 50 mils. But the debt is higher. They can't pay it off. So the interest keeps rolling. And what happens is you don't pay off that bond. You don't pay off that debt until you hit $4.9 billion. That number is important. You need to know what that number is and you aren't going to see it unless you get the ballot issues. You should have that in front of you before you vote on this. The third set of documents that are important are the internal agreements. They reference them in their in the service plan. Why do you have all these separate districts? And then there's one management district. Think back to Western civilization course, right? Feudalism. You have a small parcel that no residents are going to live in. In our case, it was ten square feet. In this case, it's 1/10 of an acre. Because no residents live there. The developer controls it. And that's the management district. That's the one that makes all the spending and taxing decisions. These other myriad districts. They just provide the money. They want to keep control over the taxing and spending, and they do it by living in this district. So these two agreements are important. The third area of agreements, the first agreement is all those other districts, the three or four or five, seven, how many, however many there are in our case? Or three? They all agree. It's a tax themselves and pay all the money to the First District blusher. The second agreement is the first District flusher agrees to pay all the advances of the developer. I guarantee you it'll happen here. It's happened in every special district I've looked at. It happened in hours. Let me clarify. So you're saying that the coordinating district could basically decide to impose the mills on the other districts and not itself? Excellent point. It import imposes the the mill rate the tax. But because it's so small. And nobody lives there. They don't pay. Anything. Got it. The developer doesn't pay anything. They're totally fine. And the important thing. The signatures on all those agreements, it's all the same person. Got it. It's the developer saying I'm going to pay myself. And. The developer of the first District, then paying the developer. So it's a wonderful it's a wonderful operation. I've talked to developers in other parts of the country and they said, Oh my God, that's fantastic. We wouldn't have we don't have spent any money. I have gone through the details in our in our area and talked to other developers about it. And this is the most expensive way to do it. There are alternative ways and all I'm suggesting and as I peddle this this around the state. Number one disclosures. Tell the residents when they walk in to buy that house. Here's how much interest you're going to be paying over the life of your special district loan. Here's the total amount of money that you will be paying in principal. And by the way, as soon as you sign that contract, you have a right to vote and serve on the board. And if anybody tells you different like they did in our community for over 11 years. You just do it. And. But the residents here in our state know more about financing the purchase of a used car than they do financing a house in a special district. And that's wrong. And you all are in the best position to require those disclosures. Thank you so much, Mr. Henderson. So, Chief, can you talk to us? I heard some concerns about outreach and how there were there was outreach, but not necessarily regarding the financing structure. Can you tell me a little bit more about some of the challenges there? Yeah. Yeah. Thank you for asking, Councilwoman. So the baca. My apologies to. I'm very tired. I usually go to bed early, so I got a little boy I take to school really early in the morning. But yeah, the I'm a Spanish speaking indigenous Latina and city planning nor Councilman Flynn's office nor the developer ever reached out to me as a Spanish speaking leader in our community to bring folks into this Spanish speaking community wide meeting. And only ten or 12 Spanish speaking folks showed up to that meeting. And that's it. 10 to 12 people representing our Latino community to me is very inauthentic and not true community outreach and engagement for this process. And that was for the area plan process. And those folks were also not informed of the Metro District plan. So they didn't have that information when they were making the decisions. And was the financing structure something that was explained to you in the English version of community engagement? No, as a matter of fact, it was might have been mentioned once. I don't know if it was by the developer or by Councilman Flynn. It was mentioned once as a possible tool for financing and it was mentioned once early on and never brought up again at all. So it was never defined during the area plan process. And Jeb Gibson, who is was our representative for Hip Cove, our primary representative, could share more with you about that question about historic district status. So I've heard it come up from multiple people, the the desire to protect the historic nature of this process, of this property. Did anyone pursue historic designation? If not, why not? You know, that's a little more difficult for me to answer. I can bring Jim Gibson up or our representative that can share more with you. But for us, it's for hip. It was it's uber important that that happens on that campus. There's a lot of historical buildings that we want to be protected and especially the view planes of those buildings. So we're very, very concerned about the view planes. Would you like me to bring Jim Gibson up if he's still here? Jim, is he still here? Gentlemen, I just want to check in there. You're going after this question from on the metro district, not from the neighborhood plan perspective, because we will be taken out of next week, September and Louie coming up. So you're doing a. Story district. Historic district through the lens of this bill, not the next one that's coming. Yeah, because it feels like I mean, this entire thing feels like putting the cart before the horse. And so I think this would have been the first step or conversation to have. And so I'm curious about even how these pieces got out of order to begin with. But your question, counsel. Was his. I heard a lot about historic status, historic preservation of the area. Why was this not pursued? Was this a part early part of community conversations? Yes, that's a great question. And it it speaks right to the way the area plan process was conducted, because essentially when I when I first entered this process, I assumed that, you know, issues would be put on the table. We would wrestle with them, we would work through them and then come to some sort of rough consensus. That's not the way it worked at all. What happened was you we planning would put up some slides on the board and they would say, okay, what do you think of this? What do you think of this? What do you think of this? We'd have maybe 5 minutes of discussion. They'd go back and interpret what they thought the consensus was. And their version of the consensus was much different than my version of the consensus, as well as other steering committee members. And we were told only towards the end of the process that we were merely advisors, just advisors. So that meant they could pick and choose the advice they wanted to take from the community. So to say that it was totally community driven is just a misrepresentation. Thank you. I can't remember your name, sir. The developer, Westfield. Mark, can you come up real quick? You mentioned something about if this doesn't go through or if you didn't get the financing, we'd have to deal with the current zoning. What exactly would the current zoning allow? The current zoning doesn't allow the community vision. It allows for its campus zoning currently today. It allows for educational uses. And you could put residential on there as well. So the current zoning allows the landmarks to stay in place. The zoning doesn't speak to landmarks, the zoning just speaks to uses, and the uses would be educational, campus or residential. And the greenspace would be preserved. The zoning doesn't speak to green spaces. It speaks to those uses, which, again, is educational or residential. Thank you. Yeah. You're done. Council. Councilman Hines. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Markovich, may I also ask some questions of you? Does anyone live on this property today? No, sir. There are actually no occupants on the property today. So does the campus have a use today? No. It is currently vacant and we have security monitoring the property from any more destruction that's been happening out there. Sorry. Any more destruction? Sure. We've had lots of vandalism since we've on the property and where we're forced to put 20, 24 seven security on it to prevent any more damage from happening. Okay. When was the last time this location was activated? I believe the last classes were in 2017, if I remember. Right. Okay. Um, if no one buys a home, does that mean no one services these bonds? No, that's not true. Okay. Bonds can be serviced by any of the uses that will ultimately put on. Their bonds are repaid through the property taxes. Okay. If no one purchases property in this special district, then you would be holding the bonds and no one would be paying you that. Well, we wouldn't be holding those bonds. Those bonds would be sold on the market. And then we, as the owners of the property, would would ultimately be responsible for paying back the debt, for sure. Yeah, I guess the nature I guess part of my question is if you price yourself out of the market, you're the one who's screwed. I mean, I'm sorry. You're affected. Negatively affected. Is that. Fair? I mean, I suppose that could be a true statement. Okay. Do. So I'm. I'm new here. Do service plans change the zoning or. Or do you plan? No. Service plans don't do anything. In fact, only just because a service plan is approved. I can't put a shovel in the ground. I can't go out and sell bonds because I won't have infrastructure to build because I won't have a site plan that's approved. But word. Well I'm not on luti but council as a body is going to be discussing that tomorrow in committee. Is that correct. Tomorrow in your land use committee. Those that are on it will be discussing the area plan. No, not a site plan. Just the area plan. Okay. Can you tell me about the rehabilitation that's necessary? Is there? I think I recall there being asbestos in the in the buildings. I mean, is there I want to also say that I recall a like a number of $63 million or I don't know, maybe I just pulled that out of thin air. It is late, after all, but there's a significant investment required for anyone to take this property or this campus. Is that correct? Yeah, absolutely. Actually, you may or may not remember, but Metro State did look at actually acquiring the property when it was closing down, before it was being considered a sold to a developer. One of the reasons why Metro State decided not to purchase it was because of the cost of putting in the necessary infrastructure and updating the buildings to a standard that they thought that they needed. Was that they were offered to buy it for dollars or something. Right. There's a I. Can't speak as a matter of factly on that. There might be others in the room that could speak to that. But I do believe it was economic. And maybe I can someone else can clarify. Okay. I'm curious about voting rights for residents. It's been mentioned a couple of times about how the voting rights are given to a management district in them and that no one, no residents get to be to participate in that management district. Can you tell me about. If I were to buy a home or where to purchase property in the district, what would I somehow be precluded from voting? That's a great question. And just because it's a very technical question, if that's okay with you, I'd like Megan to answer it. Sure. So relative to the district structure and the coordinating or managing district in taxing district structure, the and stepping back a little bit the reason for so many districts in this circumstance and relative to developments like this, we do have a unique circumstance where this is going to be a multi use development. We're going to have commercial users, retail users, residential users in order to recognize that and the potential for differing needs and interests in the future. That's why we have so many different taxing districts proposed, because it's likely that commercial owners will be interested in other things than single family residential owners. And we want the opportunity to recognize that in the future the relationship between the districts will be recognized, obviously not only in the service plan, but contractually through intergovernmental arrangements. And those intergovernmental arrangements between those districts say essentially in the beginning we need some efficiency because some of the infrastructure that's going to be installed obviously is going to be community wide infrastructure. So the coordinating district is going to assist with that as the property builds out and the uses are finally determined through the zoning and ultimate site development plan approval processes, property will be included in the appropriate and requisite district. Agreements will be entered into whereby in each district there will be a board of directors that can be represented, will be represented by constituents of that district. So each of those districts will have their own board that can be filled with constituents of that requisite district. The agreements that are entered into these days have provisions and recognize that interests change over time. So they're determinable and ultimately if one does, if a district. So we have all of these districts are a party and one residential district determines that they want more control over their own destiny, not as a part of the larger group , but they say we can do this more efficiently ourselves and we'd like a little bit more control rather than being part of the larger group. The agreements and their position in them are terminal so they can control their operations. Now, to the extent there is existing debt outstanding that they've agreed to pay, that obviously can't go away. But to the extent they want to make future decisions and have a hard time in doing that, the agreements do allow for that. So it's really a structure to recognize the need to have the development be developed in an efficient, coordinated manner. But it also recognizes that things change over time. Okay. So I haven't run a metropolitan district or six. I have in addition to being on city council, I have the lovely opportunity to be on the board of my HRA. And if we want to change that and I do that for free, I'm crazy. If we want to change something in our governing documents or declarations or bylaws, we have to get 75% of all homeowners to agree to that, which is we can't find 20% to get quorum. So getting 75% is effective. I mean, it's it's it's a it's a percentage, but it is effectively impossible is I want to I don't know how you can really as an attorney say it's effectively impossible. But I want to ask this question anyway, because it seems like the that's the nature of what I've heard a couple of people say tonight is that it would be effectively impossible for someone in this property to to do it, you know, do it, do their own thing. There would be. Effectively required by the developers into perpetuity to do whatever the developers want. Do you have any thoughts or comments on that? Well, what I can say is those requirements and provisions relative to highways don't apply to districts. So again, we're purely in the local government statutes. So the requirements relative to constituents or electors getting positions on the board, not until your 75% built out or frankly, I don't even know what the requirements are because it is factual and statutorily required that once you are an elector, once you have those interests we've discussed before, you're eligible to be a board member irrespective of what's happening in the development. If you live within the boundaries of the district, you're a resident of what I said. So those provisions don't apply to these districts. Okay. So what is there? I'm having trouble reading my own writing. Will there be an H away as well? Potentially. Or is that like, oh, I see what I was. Well, these properties have fees. So in addition to servicing will there the the bond and property taxes, will they also have fees? You know, at the end of the day, that that actual answer isn't known for 100% certain, but the thought process was we wouldn't need one because the infrastructure would be in. And then the district, through the maintenance and operations mills, would be able to take care of what the FHA would normally take care of. Oh, there was a comment earlier about putting the cart before the horse. Do you have any comment on are we putting the cart before the horse? And if so, why? I think in a perfect world, Councilman Hines, we would have the area plan and a lot of things, you know, done already. Unfortunately, the way the statutes written, it requires, you know, elections. And as you know, at the state level, there's only certain times of the year when that's allowable. So if we were to and we worked on the area plan as quickly as we could, understanding that when we started and we bought the property, we immediately, you know, started working with the city on how to do a rezoning. And if we would have just gone forward with a straight rezoning without doing a small area plan and we could have potentially of gotten community, community consensus, you know, through just a rezoning, normal process rather than doing an area plan. You know, we could have had an area plan approved already by now, hypothetically, you know, and then we could be sitting in front of you today with this metro district. You know, getting this approved in the car wouldn't be in front of the horse. What we tried to do is the right thing on this project and completely hit the pause button for over a year. I mean, we bought the property in July of 2018 and we've been working, you know, as closely as possible with the community. So in a perfect world, would it be nice, you know? But at the same token, I think we have community consensus. This service plan, as has been said on more than one occasion tonight, doesn't approve any zoning. All it does is put the tool, so to speak, in the toolbox so we can deliver what the community is asking for. Okay. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. Let me start with you first, Mark, if you don't mind coming back up. No problem. Do you all plan to be a master developer or do you plan to own many of the structures that. Both. Existing structures, but any of the new ones that will be built on the site as well? Yeah, that's a great question. And we've been asked that question a lot of times. I can tell you what we do, what we do well, and I know what we don't do. We are not a residential home builder. So as it relates to the street residential, we wouldn't be doing that. But when we start talking about the mixed use commercial aspects of the property, there is a high likelihood that we will be developing those ourselves. And we continue to own. This structure is possible for sure. Okay. Tell me a little bit about the open space. And I don't remember. What's the total number of acres on this site? 70, 70 acres. So how much of that will be open space? You know, at this point in time, I can tell you that the city requirement is 10%. I can tell you that with site planning that we are considering for the the project it's in, it's in far excess of the 10% at the end of the day. And I'm going to stand here and promise you that it's 20%. I'm not going to do that. But I am going to tell you it's going to be well north of 10%. So within the Metro District Service plan, does that include maintenance of the open space? Sure does. Okay. And is that sort of built into the project over the term of the debt being collected? Two different topics. The debt being collected and repaid is for the initial bonds that are issued. That's the 50 mills. Right. The operation and maintenance is up to and again, that's up to the 50 mills. The operation and maintenance is up to the 15 mills. And until we have a final plan, as far as what it is that we're going to be completing out there, it's hard to say exactly what that what the mills are going to be as far as the operation and maintenance. And it also depends on what kind of open spaces there are, you know, fallow grass, you know, has a different cost, you know, versus, you know, hardscape, you know, plazas as an example. So has there been discussion with the City Parks Department about that open space eventually being turned over to the city to be a city park? Or is that intended to be under the control and ownership of the entire development? Sure. Great question. In there having conversations that we've had with the Parks Department, we are also going through the LDR process just starting as well. Initial conversations with the Parks Department are the they don't have the capacity or the financial wherewithal to manage and operate the parks. So they think the best hands for the parks operations would be within the district. For you to continue to control it. The district to control it. Okay. I guess that's what I mean when I say you all as opposed to the city or the department. Okay. So housing is a big part of the discussion and affordable housing has been part of that commitment. Has there been any discussion about the phasing of that? Absolutely. And I'm proud about this, actually. One of the things that I can tell you is that we heard loud and clear from the community that affordable housing was important. We've heard from Denver that affordable housing is important. We also heard that, as some people have mentioned tonight, that some of the historic preservation is very important. There's a particular building on campus. PANCRAS The Hall, which was built in 1929, which was a dormitory. When you talk to the building, it actually wants to continue to be residential. Clearly, if you are saving a building, you're not going to move the building. And if we're talking about, you know, doing affordable housing as an important element, community benefit, we saw no reason why we shouldn't just tell everybody that pancreas a hall is going to be an affordable housing project. In fact, we are very proud of what we're what's transpiring there. It will be 68 units, I believe, of the 30 to 80% AMI. There are three bedrooms there. I believe there's 17, three bedrooms that are going to be inside of that project as well. And is that the only affordable housing or will there be more than that? I think you know. I think you know the answer to that question. But I will answer it for, you know. Okay. Let me move on to my next couple of questions and I wanted to ask. Let me ask you this question and I'll call someone else up. So the expectation is that we're talking about 97 mils total on on the entire project. Right. 90. 90. Okay. I don't know where I got 97. Maybe I was looking at the 96.9 on the cost. And that's an up to number. Sorry to interrupt. I guess what I'm trying to get at is. The long term existence of the metro districts. I know. Not long ago there were some changes at the state legislature that pretty much allows them to exist in perpetuity. And I. I don't know if the expectation is that they will exist beyond the time frame of paying back the debt. So how how is that how are you looking at structuring this in terms of the the long term existence of the metro districts? There's two questions there, actually. There's one question as it relates to the debt. Right. And then there's the other question that relates to the operations and maintenance. And then actually a third question as it relates to the programing of that 90 mills that you're referring to, 20 of those mills are being held aside for the opportunity to use them for programing, whereas 15 mills are being used potentially for the opportunity for maintenance and operations, and then the 50 mills would be used for up to 50 mills be used for the debt services. Once the bonds are retired, it would be up to the board to make a decision on whether or not they would want to issue new debt. Maybe there might be a a rec center or something that they would want to build as a public amenity. And that could be an opportunity. So because these operate like a independent unit of government within the city and county of Denver, they can continue to issue debt after that. I mean, I believe that that is a true statement. And I look at my attorney to nod yes. Yup. And she nodded. Yes. Okay. So. If we set limits at 50 mills, what would what would be compromised in the in the project. If we set it at 50 mils. Oh, meaning that 50 total for debt service operation and maintenance and for programing. Yeah. Well, I mean, it just, you know, whittles away tools in the toolbox, you know, as it relates to, you know, bringing forward to southwest Denver, a place I don't know if it's sustainable or not. I can't really I haven't explored that model. We were looking for the optimistic side that we would be able to move forward, you know, with a tool in our toolbox that can be fully utilized. So the hope and expectation is that if you get the total 90 miles. If I'm hearing you correctly, that's what allows you to be able to meet the community benefits and the commitments that were made to the community through the planning process. No, that's actually not what I said. Of the 90 mills, only 50 mills, up to 50 mills that can be utilized for debt services, for infrastructure installation. The other 40 mills, which goes to 15 for operations and 20 for programing and five to the regional mills, you know, could be determined otherwise. Okay. Let me just look to see if I have one last question here. I guess I just want to ask her attorney. So what's what's the incentive for any of the districts to expire after the debt is paid? Or is there? So. Kirsten Crawford, legislative counsel and I'm here with Dianne Feinstein, who's really more of the special districts expert. But I just want to make a couple comments because there's been a lot. Of. We've we've jumped around a lot tonight in I think so many things probably needs and deserve more explanation. And the first thing I want to just confirm is that both with when it comes to the Urban Renewal Authority and to the special districts under Title 32, these are crazy governmental entities. They have certain powers. They're separate and different. From. A home rule municipality. And their powers are very limited. So special districts have enumerated in their statutes certain powers. There is absolutely credibility to the debate that has been ongoing for for many years, not just here tonight at council about the virtues and the pros and cons of special districts. But I want council to understand that that is a debate that has to occur at the state level. And the only reason this comes to council tonight is for approval of a service plan. And it's a pretty narrow opportunity to council for council to approve or not approve the service plan with respect to incentive to retire the debt. I don't know, Joann, if you feel like you can answer that from a legal perspective. But the one thing that I want to just say with respect to Councilwoman Ortega's question is that any additional debt that would be sought after. Have would have to. Go out for an additional vote. But would that have to come back to this body? They would just go. Would it have to come back to this body to be approved, to be put on the ballot to go out to a vote? It depends. Okay. Clarify that. Debt is. Well, I think you you asked and said a couple of things. What I was going to address initially you were talking about the termination of a metro district that they are they do have a perpetual existence, just like any municipal entity. And it is to some extent, it's up to the board of directors at that time to say, do we want to continue or do we want to, you know, do we want to try and terminate the. It's not a good word, but and the special district, number one, they would need to be debt free to be able to shut down essentially or make other arrangements to retire the debt. But the debt is not the only reason for the special districts, in my view. As Megan Becker was saying that in and as Mark said, they will have lots of maintenance responsibilities and that is an ongoing function. And is Kirsten was saying that. I mean, this ties into another question that came up earlier. I think that if the district is really going to change dramatically, it is considered a major modification in any metropolitan district within the city and county of Denver would have to come back to city council to. Really change your alter the service plan in terms of what they can do and the service plans that that we have approved recently talk about a maximum mill levy and the election would cover the maximum amount of debt. So whether they could issue debt later depends on two factors. One, the length of time and I'm not the bond financing expert, but the authorization will expire at some point in time. So that's one issue. And the other one would be the amount has the maximum been issued. And if that was the case, then the district would have to go to an election of its. Eligible electors if they want to try and issue additional debt. So join in your experience, at what point in time does the city in these districts begin to assume responsibility for city services? Trash pickup. Street sweeping, snow removal, that kind of stuff. Well. My understanding is that the metro districts typically provide a higher level of service in certain areas than city services. I don't think it's necessarily a replacement for city services and perhaps I don't know Megan or Mark, you. Mark, you want to help out with this one? I might be able to help out a little bit on this one. You know, as you think about like city services, there's the service services aspect. And then there's also one of the responsibilities of the district is to provide that infrastructure, like the roads and the sewers and the waterlines. And each of those have a warranty period based on each jurisdiction. And each of those responsibilities sometimes is 2 to 3 years. And then when they get after the warranty period, it's gone by and they've built it to the standards of each of those jurisdictions. They get then transferred over to like, say, the city for the roads or Denver water for the water pipes. And at that point, then those infrastructure pieces become a part of that organization's maintenance. But, I mean, we look at the OEM pieces of the of the metropolitan district. What we're looking at is like common area maintenance is like parks, open spaces, not necessarily the roads anymore. As like all the other public entities that manage the roads or the water lines take on that responsibility. So the 15 mills of our operations and maintenance would really be part of the what I'll call common area maintenance and even sometimes replace as a highway style activities. So just to be clear, though. Once the roads are are constructed. Is it assumed then that those are city streets and the city is responsible for snow removal? Street sweeping, you know, trash pickup, all those all those services that are provided to every other neighborhood across the city. Sure. The the answer is, of course, it depends. The what if the city like streets, for instance, if the streets are built to the city standards, then yes, they would be after a warranty period, they would be handed over to the city and we would be doing all the snow removal and replacement of any potholes or patching of potholes or problems with the roads. But if they were not built to those city standards, like sometimes they're just a little narrower than what we would normally accept as a city street. They were staying there. The it's the streets that do not meet the city's standards would be retained by the metropolitan district and it would be a metropolitan district responsibility for operations. So in our review and approval of these districts, as are brought forward to us, are we not dictating certain standards that we expect? I mean, if the streets are too narrow in any of these developments, you want to make sure your, you know, emergency vehicles can get through there. Sure. I that you do want to have safety for everyone and the standards are important. But the metropolitan district itself is a financing tool, and the standards for the streets and whatnot are not dictated in the metropolitan district. Where is that done? Go ahead. Is it? Yeah. So let me explain further. The the roads and the standards that the roads are built to are approved in the site plan of the project. They're I think what Andrew was trying to explain is that there could be some roads, especially at Loreto, where we're trying to create some of these public places that may be unique and unique. What is an example of that? Like, for an example, there could be a street that doesn't have a curb. Why would you want to have a street without a curb? So you could close the street down and you can make it more of a festival street. The city may not want to have that particular street that wouldn't impact, you know, the flow of traffic on the site. But it might be a special place, you know, on the property. What Andrew was explaining is if that case were to exist, it would still have to meet standards as it relates to emergency type things. But the district could own them. Okay. All right. That was a helpful explanation. Thank you. Thank you. I have no further questions. Thank you, counsel. All right. A few people up for a few follow ups. Councilman Flynn. Thanks for has just had a few follow ups for me. Let me start with Megan. When Mr. Henderson was talking about the experience, etc., and then his other research, you were nodding your head this way quite a bit and I wanted to find out why was that? What were you taking issue with? I think what I want to make sure that everyone understands and it's, you know, based upon some of the comments of your attorneys, these districts are quasi governmental entities. So there is transparency, there is accountability. We have to follow the statutes. We have to follow the Constitution. We have to follow the election laws. Everything is publicly available. And can I say that there haven't been circumstances in the state of Colorado that have not followed all those rules? There have been. But it's absolutely true that these districts must follow all of those open records, open meetings, transparency. So there is accountability. There is transparency. And it's our intent and our goal to ensure that that does happen, not only in accordance with statute, but in accordance with what the community desires. So. Okay. Andrew, just to follow up on that, real briefly, have any of the metro districts in Denver had those issues? Lack of transparency, fraud, abuse. I imagine I'd like to say no, but I'm sure at that point that you don't know they would come up with one, but I'm not aware of one. All right, Mark, during the area planning process, the use of metropolitan district was always on the table from the very first draft, was it not? Yeah. If you look at the first draft of the area plan that came out in June, one of the tools that was noted, I don't remember what page, but there's a page in there that talk specifically about metro top metropolitan districts as a financing tool. It was in the first draft and in the second draft. Okay. And then the planning board draft is absolute third draft. And it's you had your staff at every meeting. And the the area plan steering committee is not a site planning committee. That is correct. It is absolutely the site plan. So when the service plan comes out for the metro district and it implements pretty closely the guidance you were hearing from the community, what you know, what would you say about that? I think my team did a good job listening. Okay. Can you are there any areas where you where you might have deviated from the guidance? I didn't see any myself. And probably unfair to ask you, but. No. I mean, I think the area plan the area plan is a document that sets up the visioning statement for what the property wants to be. But it's not a site. Plan, not a site plan, you know, inside of the service plan. We are required to put as attachments, illustrations to what, what, what, what, what the project is going to be. And that's simply what's in there are illustrations. Thank you. Dr. Aguilar, could I ask you a couple of questions? As the head of the Neighborhood Equity and Stabilization Team, I've heard it said that metro districts are absolutely the worst way to do a project like this, with the exception of all the other ways of doing it, because they all cost money and they all have their impacts. And from the southwest, Denver is pretty high on our inequity index or pretty low on the equity index would be the proper way to say what concerns do you have about the financing here and the potential impacts that the mill levy might have on affordability and on one on the development of the site, if any ? I actually am more concerned if we don't pass this. I think it was alluded to here this year because. Six 0 million six. $0 million right. Take Tokyo was going to donate. Yes. The property to and. They could not afford the money to make it usable because of the asbestos and the lack of wiring in it. And I in the interest of full disclosure, my property is across the road from the right of heights. And when Jeff Romaine was selected economists, he would torment me by saying they're never going to be able to afford to fix that and they'll be living across in a by a blighted, vandalize piece of property. Really. And and so I'm hoping you will prove him wrong. But but it is beautiful. And there's a lot of open space. And I'm very excited about the vision of preserving the quadrangle. I think it's ambitious to try and preserve that theater, although like the whole community, I would love it. I, I think we're in a little bit of a catch 22 because the plan as is being developed really limits heights and limits density. And without that, I don't know how you pay for it. So I'm a little concerned about that. But I think that what's being proposed is the the best we can expect for this level. Mark has asked sometimes me and Melissa has had from housing about what kind of housing will expect from him for affordability. And we've warned him more than he'd like to give us. And but I think that he listens very well to the people there who really wanted a parkway facing the grand entrance. He really wanted Dartmouth not to go all the way through. Who really wanted the quadrangle preserved? He's working with his district in hopes of preserving the theater. I have my concerns about whether that's still going to be possible, even though, of course, I would love to. Have you toured the theater with Kimberly Desmond as well. I. As well there because I saw it as a potential neighborhood equity initiative because we don't have that level of arts in southwest Denver. And there's actually a lot of open space on the lower level. And I thought it could be a great nonprofit space. But the financial evaluation that you had done came back pretty daunting without even considering that it needed a new roof and you needed parking for it. And so so I have in my heart a line in myself to the possibility we won't have that. But I'd love to not have a blighted area there, and I'd love to see that administrative building being used again because it's really gorgeous. Okay, I'll take this opportunity then to remind everybody in case the mayor is still up and watching that. At the last community meeting, Mayor Hancock made the announcement that we will save the theater. So I asked him at my next occasion, okay, how do you plan to do that? So we'll find out. And selfishly, I'd love to see that, but I. I would like to see us invest in more affordable housing there. I mean, we have to pick priorities. We don't have enough money for everything. And it's a beautiful opportunity. And I do want to apologize. So we we were involved in trying to make that Latino town hall happen and the mayor's office fired. We went to Southwest Community Coalition and talked about it. And Alves Rubio, who is our West Denver neighborhood representative, went out and met with his contacts in the area and we still got really poor attendance. And it was really quite a humbling experience to think about what is. There was childcare. There was food. It was held completely in Spanish and we still could not get the community to come out. And so I apologize. We did make an effort to have the Latino community in particular there. Do you recall that successful recall. Senator, that way or. Dr.. What I call what do I call you now? I mean. Do you do you recall also that our DPS representative yeah, we did backpack fliers from college view and. We did we sent local fliers home, we did everything we could. And it was really unfortunate that we just could not get the population to come out for this. Okay. And it was held offsite. It was held. It all started. All Saints Church. Yeah. You went for the Catholic route. It's. That didn't work. All right. Thank you, friend. That's all. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. All right. I'm not seeing anybody in the queue. Still on questions, so I'm going to go ahead and close. This public hearing for Kels was 745 is closed and we're moving to comments by members of council. Councilman Flynn. Thanks, Mr. President. Just to quickly repeat what I said during the questioning earlier, that metro districts are often remarked to be the absolute worst vehicle for doing things like this except for all the others. And it's a hard choice to make. The fact is the city doesn't go in any longer. And build roads for developers. We don't build sewers and water and drainage. We don't do any of that anymore. We used to two decades ago, I think the first special district I became familiar with when I moved to Denver almost 40 years ago was one that was in place for 60 years and and built one of the most well-known public infrastructure projects that was privately owned. And that was the Moffitt Tunnel District. And they taxed the homes and businesses and property of of thousands of residents from what was then Denver at the time, all the way up through Jefferson, Boulder, Grand, all the way, I believe, to Craig to Moffat County. And and that was that's now owned by Union Pacific. So there's a long history of successful use of special districts as a as a vehicle for accomplishing what private financing and what other methods of getting that infrastructure done is simply worse than a worse option than what we're looking at tonight. This is an opportunity to get something done right. Not only in southwest Denver, but in the city. We have an iconic. Site. It is among the highest points in the chart, the highest point in a city. But it's it's darn close to it. And and this is a chance that to build something that in 50 years through the use of this vehicle and others, because this doesn't provide enough capacity to build something that when someone comes here 50 years from now, they will know that this was a campus. This is a different place. This could be southwest Denver's living room or family room. And we want to make sure that it's done right. We want to make sure that the streets, the public works understands that this is going to be a place we want people to come to and not pass through. We don't want it to be porous. We don't want Dartmouth to go through and siphon traffic into the neighborhoods off of off of Federal Boulevard, because this is a campus and we want it to remain a campus. It's a sacred site, if I can even use that word, as Sister Mary Nell said about the cemetery, I would apply that to the entire campus because for almost 130 years, when Sister Pan Croatia first designated that site as the future home of an extension of Saint Mary's Academy, it's it's been a revered site in southwest Denver. Not the oldest fort Logan beats it by a few years. But this is our chance to get it right. And this is. Probably the worst vehicle to do it other than all the others. And so I asked my colleagues to consider that, to consider the track record in Denver of special districts being successful and and vote to approve this tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Are there any other comments? All right, I am going to. I'm sorry, sir. You can take a step outside, or you can wait for us to deliver it. So, sir. I'm asking you to please stop or to take your comments outside. We have closed the comment period and now we're deliberating. On campaign funds should recuse themselves from this trade. All right. So, you know, other comments, I will finish this out before we vote and just say, first of all, thank you to Councilman Flynn. You know, this is right at the edge of my district, technically in Councilman Flynn's district, but a place that is very, very near and dear to me. As you heard earlier, my mother is what brought her to Colorado was to go to school here. My parents celebrated 50 years of being married this year in January. And we went driving through what is a very sad campus right now because there is no use, I mean, other than people throwing rocks through windows and breaking things because we have a developer who didn't charge through and say, I'm going to go build, I'm going to go build. But I will take a pause to meet with community and understand what the community wants and develop that. But we took a drive through to, you know, got to hear my dad talk about those are the steps where I fell in love with your mother. And, you know, my mom lived in pancreas a hall. And to hear plans for that building, you know, not the historic of our name, the historic landmarked administration building, but plans to retain that and bring people back to living there. And all my mother's stories about party line phone, only one phone for the whole dorm. And you had to wait in line to call home the history of that area. And, you know, I, I know that we're just talking about the metro districts. I'm not trying not get to astray, but also my constituents on my side. You know, again, college view, literally, a neighborhood is named for its view of the college. And I'm Claire Harris, also a graduate of Loretto, who was probably the most skeptical person in the city when this site was purchased and walked out of this community process. As one of the staunchest advocates to say, okay, hey, we had a voice at the table. Now go find a way to deliver on this dream and vision. And this is a tool, you know, to get us there and to deliver on something that is, you know, not just another development. It is a special place, a sacred place for our city. And so I will also be supporting this site. And I want to say thank you to everyone who put the work in to try and get this right, despite the fact that it has, you know, been hard to watch that site sit and see the things that people do and you don't have any activation on it. But I think we're getting closer to a day where we can all be very proud of of what's here. So with that, Madam Secretary, roll call. Flynn. Hi. Black. I see. Tobacco. No. Gilmore, I. Herndon, I. Hines. I. Cashman by. Kenny Ortega. I. And I just want to say a quick thank you all for your patience and sitting through this long night. Sandoval. Sawyer. I. Torres. I. Mr. President. I. Madam Secretary, please trust voting in those results. One 911 eight. 111 nine Constable 745 has passed and yes, thank you, Councilman Ortega. Thank you all for sticking it out on this late night, seeing no other business before this body. This meeting is adjourned.

On the message and Ordinance, referred on February 9, 2022, Docket #0259, Amending City of Boston Code, Ordinances, Chapter XV, Section X and Establishing the Boston Fair Chance Act, the committee submitted a report recommending the Ordinance ought to pass in a new draft. The report was accepted; the Ordinance was passed in a new draft.

BostonCC_02092022_2022-0259

Lucky Number 0259 Council on Me here in Arroyo offered the following an ordinance amending City of Boston Code Ordinances, Chapter 15, Section ten, and establishing the Boston Fair Chance. To be chair. Recognizes Councilmember. Here, Councilmember. Here you have the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you to Kelso Arroyo and his staff for co-sponsoring this docket alongside of our office, the city of Boston employees, nearly 20,000 people to do all sorts of jobs, from parking attendants to EMS workers to sewer workers and more. There are a few things in our city that aren't made better by the work of our city employees. We saw during the last storm how essential our Boston Public Works employees really are. And for many of them, this isn't just about collecting a paycheck. Their jobs aren't just what they do. It's who they are. Over the past several months, I have been in deep communication and meeting with these workers to learn about their experiences working for the city. In each meeting, we heard the same story. Workers of color, some who have been city employees for nearly 30 years, have been routinely denied opportunities to advance their careers to obtain higher wages. A quick look at the city's employment dashboard reveals this to be true. According to the Demographics dashboard as of January 2022, while white employees made up 48.9% of the total workforce, they disproportionately represented 61.6 of employees making over 80,000 a year. Even in departments with large percentages of employees of color, the top earners are predominantly white, such as the Department of Public Works, where black and brown employees make up nearly half of the total of the workforce. But only 10% of the top ten earners. We have heard from workers of color who have been tasked with training newer, less experienced, predominantly white employees for positions above them, meaning that they are somehow experienced enough to train management but not experience enough to be management. We have also heard from qualified city employees who sought to seek higher levels of employment, only to be passed over for a buddy or a relative of a hiring manager. In hearings, we have asked questions to numerous departments as to why they do not have a more diverse workforce. Each time we ask this question. We hear a similar response that the talent just isn't there. After meeting with countless workers of color, each of whom have demonstrated their expertize, their passion and their commitment to the city, it is clear that the talent is there, but we're just not utilizing it. This is why we are failing. The Boston Fair. Chance at the Fair Chance Act formally codifies a chief diversity officer position who will work with all city agencies to develop a detailed plan for hiring minority employees, women employees, LGBTQ plus employees and employees with disabilities. A detailed plan for promotion of State Employees. A detailed plan for improving work place culture, preventing harassment, intimidation and bullying. And a detailed plan for disseminating this information to covered employees. The Chief Diversity Officer will also take the steps to ensure that opportunities for nepotism or workforce discrimination are eliminated. We have the capacity in Boston to create a workforce that is representative of our communities and representative our commitment to economic empowerment. I look forward to this conversation and to strengthening this ordinance alongside my colleagues. You know, I just have to say, in being in deep community with a lot of our city employees, many of which were even afraid to speak up, it just goes to show that the volume of importance that this particular conversation has in this moment in time to ensure that we're moving the needle when it comes to ensuring that all people have the opportunity to rise up. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Here. The chair recognizes Councilor Arroyo. Counsel Arroyo, you have the floor. Thank you, Mr. Gray. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Heath, who summarizes really well. What I'll just add to this is I think it's incredibly, incredibly important that as a city, we ensure that residents are qualified to get employed, are promoted, get a fair chance at doing so. And my hope is that these changes help make a fairer and more just process when it. And frankly, a more transparent process when it comes to how we decide and make hires and promotions in the city of Boston. And so I look forward to working on this with council, and I'm grateful to councilman here for for our work in this. Thank you. Thank you. Council Royal. Is anyone else looking to speak on this matter? If you are, can you. Can you raise your hand? I don't see anyone wishing to speak on this matter. If you would like. If you would like to add your name, would you please raise your hand at this time? Mr. Clarke Can you hear it? Councilor Fernandez Anderson, Council LRA. Councilor Murphy Council of Rate and Council Lodging Council where. Council of City Council a block. Please add the chair. I don't see I don't see anyone else's name. Anyone else's hand. Docket 0259 will be referred to the Committee on Government Operations. Mr. Clerk, please read docket 0260, please. Lucky numbers 0260 Council plan all for the following resolution in support of each 3115 enact and in ensuring equitable representation in the Commonwealth.

On the message and Ordinance, referred on February 9, 2022, Docket #0259, Amending City of Boston Code, Ordinances, Chapter XV, Section X and Establishing the Boston Fair Chance Act, the committee submitted a report recommending the Ordinance ought to pass in a new draft. The report was accepted; the Ordinance was passed in a new draft.

BostonCC_06292022_2022-0259

Dawkins 0259 Ducky Number 0259 The Committee on Government Operations, to which was referred on February 9th, 2020 to Dr. Number 0259 in ordinance amending City of Boston Code Ordinance Chapter 15, Section ten in establishing the Boston Fair Chance, he submits a report recommending that the ordinance ought to pass in a new draft. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Council Royal Chair of Government Operations Council. Royal, do you have the floor? Thank you, Mr. President. The Committee on Government Operations held a hearing on March eight, 2022, and a working session on April 12, 2022. On Docket Number 259. An ordinance amending City of Boston Code Ordinances Chapter 15, Section ten and establishing the Boston Fair Chance Act, which was sponsored by Councilor Julie McGee and myself. I'd like to thank my council colleagues for attending. That would be counsel to the councilor. Do him here. Councilor Rossi and Councilor Candelaria. Councilor Kenzie Bok. Council President Flynn. I think Chief Solace SEVERA Chief McKenna from the human rights commission. The advocates for their participation. Did I miss any councilors maybe have in either one of those sessions. This ordinance would amend existing language in the Boston City Code and establish a Chief Diversity Officer who would provide oversight over the city's nondiscrimination, equal opportunity diversity equity inclusion plan policies. Based upon information gathered at the hearing and the working session, the docket is amended to include consistent language, as well as jurisdiction and coordination under the Office of Human Resources. The amended docket allows for more flexibility regarding who is in charge of diversity and brings the position to a cabinet level. Also requiring regular updates on progress made regarding diverse hiring and promotions, and will require that the Chief Diversity Officer work with officers to ensure there are fair hiring policies in place for family members of current employees. To be clear, this ordinance does not supersede any collective bargaining agreements. However, the ordinance establishes procedures for developing processes and plans through the Chief Diversity Officer, an Office of Human Resources to implement fair recruitment and employment practices as well as a uniform complaint procedure. Additionally, this ordinance goes further to provide a transparent hiring process for disclosures, notifications and recusal practices are required when family relationships exist as required by state ethics law, and will eliminate conflicts of interest in hiring and promotional practices in the city by establishing standards to ensure fairness and opportunity in the hiring of promotional practices of the city. As Chair of the Government Operations Committee, I recommend that this docket ought to pass in a new draft. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Counsel Arroyo. Counsel Arroyo, the chair of the Committee on Government Operations, seeks acceptance of the committee report. Passage of Docket 0259 in a new draft. All those in favor say aye. Aye. I oppose say nay. The ayes have it. Docket 0259 has passed in a new draft. Mr. Kirklees redacted. 04350435 the committee in government operations, to which was referred on March 30th, 2020 to Duncan, number 0435 petition for a special law regarding an act authorizing the city of Boston to grant four additional license licenses for the sale of alcoholic beverages to be drunk on the specified premises, submits a report recommending that the home will petition to

Approves the sale of city-owned land for $500,000 to Recreation Equipment Inc. (REI) which has been leasing the land at 1416 Platte Street in Council District 1 for parking since 2000. The purchase price is based on an appraisal (FINAN 201523366-00). (FINANCE & SERVICES) Approves the sale of city-owned land for $500,000 to Recreation Equipment Inc. (REI) which has been leasing the land at 1416 Platte Street in Council District 1 for parking since 2000 (FINAN 201523366-00). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 12-21-15. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 11-19-15.

DenverCityCouncil_11302015_15-0868

So I understand that sort of general practice is to to dispose of properties that are, you know, disposable. Is there a reason why in a situation where we have a lease arrangement and we're basically probably generating revenue, why wouldn't sort of maintain and hold that relationship? Ari, I had the option from their original lease to purchase the property and it was based and then we allowed that option to continue and further amendments and it would be based on an appraised value. And so from the very beginning. When the lease was. First negotiated, they had that option. Okay. And then what was the appraised value? $500,000. $500,000. Okay. So I had heard otherwise I didn't get an actual copy of the appraisal. Can you send that one? Absolutely. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa, Councilwoman Ortega. So, Lisa, my question for you is, should this is the law adjacent to their property and thank you for an across the street. Correct and thank for is still owned by the city as well. Correct. Correct. But thank you. Let me clarify this. And we thought we had it changed. Inspire it is adjacent to 1460. It is. We are not selling 1460. The property does not have an address. We're selling it by the legal description. Okay. So we continue to own the property across the street. This is the this is the parking lot to RBI. Okay. And so my question is about a discussion that we've had at several committee meetings. I think it may have come up in some of our council meetings as well about and I don't know that we are scheduled to to look at this, but there have been conversations about what the city's master plan is for disposing of city assets. And I know that there is a process in place that's being put together right now. So that's not scheduled as of yet? No. Okay. I think that's going to be really important as we continue to have requests brought forward so that we have an understanding of what that big picture looks like. Sure. No. And we've been working on the draft, so there should be something coming to you shortly. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Flynn, you're up. Thank you, Mr. President. At least just a quick question. We talked about this last week, and I did think it was going to be reworded to say adjacent to 14, 16. And I don't know if that. Means the council. So I'll follow up and make sure that that is corrected for final. Yes. Okay. I don't know if we need to do an amendment on that since it's been introduced. Does that require an amendment, Mr. Attorney? It sounds like it might require a little more investigation just to see what needs to be done, but it can be amended on second if that's what you need to do. And I think we can let that folks figure out what needs to be done. And we may have something on the floor for you to act on next week. Okay. And the assessor in his records does have that partial list of his 20/314 Street. Would that not. Be? The title company is not showing it that way. And like I said, so we will transfer the property based on the legal description, not an address. All right. Thank you. That's all. Thank you. Councilman Flynn, Councilman Espinosa. So on the contract, the trigger, I mean, was RBI essentially allowed to do that at any time or was there a window that they had to do that in? There had been a window, and then we had renewed it to allow them to have it at any time. Okay. And when did that sunset originally. Honestly, I would need to go back and look at the document. I don't remember, but I can get that for you as well. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Clark. Thank you, Mr. President. Do you know, does this property include any of the property that the Platte Valley Charlie operates on? No. And that is why there's been a little bit of a time lag between the appraisal and wrapping it up now, because we made sure between the work that's going on along the river for the dedication of the park and the trolley. It took us it was very complicated as it related to the legal descriptions over there. And so we made sure that we worked with both RBI surveyor and our own surveyors to get those legals right so that we carved out a parcel for the part, the trolley. And then the plaza is remains public to all of the paved area where the train track. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Clark. In the comments. Questions 868. All right. Thank you. Thank you. It is on the floor to be published. Madam Secretary, roll call. Espinosa No. Flynn I. Gilmore I. Cashman, I. Kinney. Lopez, I. Ortega Sussman. Hi, Black. Brooks Clark. Hi. Mr. President. Hi. Councilmembers. Lopez Ortega. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Please cause very nasty results. 11 eyes, one knee low. Nice. One day 868 has been ordered published. All right, leave the last one. 892. Councilwoman Canete, would you like for us to do this? Just a comment, Mr. President. Go right. Ahead. Thank you. It's six. I'm sorry. Eight. Nine two is a new policy that the city and county of Denver is proposing for haulers of waste. As everyone knows, one of my favorite topics talking about trash, composting, recycling.

A bill for an ordinance establishing the Office of Climate Action, Sustainability, and Resiliency. A bill for an ordinance establishing the Office of Climate Action, Sustainability, and Resiliency. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-13-19.

DenverCityCouncil_08262019_19-0805

11 days to nays. Bill 803 has been postponed to June 1st. All right, Madam Secretary, if you put the next item on our screens and Councilman Hines, will you please put Council 805 on the floor? Mr. President, I move that we take Bill 805 out of order. Thank you, Councilman. It has been moved and seconded. So this is just a vote to take it out of order. Madam Secretary. Rocco. Black Eye CdeBaca I. Flynn High. Gilmer I. Herndon High. Haynes Cashman. Connect. Ortega I. Sandoval, I. Sawyer I. Torres, I. Mr. President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting. Announce the results. 13 Eyes. 13 Eyes. Counsel zero five has been taken out of order, and I will now move that council zero five be postponed to Monday, November 3rd, 2019. It has been moved and seconded. I'm Secretary Roll Call. Black. I see tobacco. I. Flynn. I. Gillmor. I. Herndon. I. Hinds. All right. Cashman. Kenny Ortega. Sandoval, I. Sawyer? No. Tourist, I. Mr. President. I am sorry to lead because the voting announced results. When they 12 hours. 12 hours were nay constable 805 has been postponed to November 3rd. That concludes the items to be called out this evening. Other bills for introduction are ordered, published and were now ready for the Bloc vote on resolutions and bills on final consideration. Council members remember that this is a consent or bloc vote and you will need to vote i. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilman Hines, will you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor? Mr. President, I move 799800793. And it's deciding not to move. 794554726775795700768771772773781782766784 and 7804 adoption. And just to be clear, that was resolutions for adoption and bills on final consideration for the passing of block. Yes, Mr. President, thank you. Thank you, Councilman. It has been moved and seconded. And, Madam Secretary, roll call. Black. I see. Tobacco. I flinn. Hi. Gilmore. I. Herndon. I Hines. I Cashman. Kenny Ortega. I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Torres, i. Mr. President, I am. I'm secretary. Please close the voting. Announce the results. 1313. As the resolutions have been adopted and bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Tonight there will be a required public hearing on Council Bill 744 approving the East Colfax Quarter Urban Redevelopment Plan and the creation of the East Colfax Corridor Urban Redevelopment Area and required public hearing on Council Bill 745 approving service plans for

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3201 Curtis Street in Five Points. Approves an official map amendment to rezone property from PUD 379 to U-MX-2x (planned development to mixed-use) located at 3201 Curtis Street in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 2-25-20.

DenverCityCouncil_03232020_20-0161

Hi, Madam Secretary, please. Because voting in those results. 9898. Council bills one two, five, one, two, six and one or seven with their public hearings have been postponed to Monday, May 11th. Madam Secretary, if you please put the next few items on our screens and Councilmember Herndon, in your motion to take out of order. Yes, Mr. President. I move the council bills a whole series of 2020 01610162 and 0201 be taken out of order and a block. Thank you. Councilmember has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council Councilman Herndon. No comment there. No, not at this point. And again, for anybody watching along, we're doing a lot of procedural stuff, but we're moving things that have required public hearings based on the recommended recommendations to to avoid or possible unnecessary congregating for things that can be delayed on our land use agenda. Madam Secretary, roll call. Black eye I see tobacco. I. Flynn. I Gillmor, Herndon High Cashman. I can. Torres, I council president. Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close the voting. Announce the results. 9898 Council voted 161 162 and two or one may be taken out of order. Council Member CdeBaca Please put Council Bills 161, 162 and 201 on the floor. I move that council bills 161, 162 and two one be placed upon final consideration and do pass in a block. Thank you. Councilmember Herndon, your motion to postpone. Yes, Mr. President. I move the council bill series 2020 01610162 and 0201 with their public hearings be postponed to Monday, June 1st, 2020, in the block. Thank you. Councilmember has been moved. Can I get a second on the post? Thank you. It's been moved and seconded comments by members of Council. Councilmember Herndon. Yes, Mr. President. The applicant of these items and counsel have all agreed to move the hearings to June 1st. We just need the formal vote to do so. Thank you very much. Madam Secretary, roll call on the postponement. Black Sea Tobacco. I. Flynn. I. Gilmore. I Herndon. I Cashman. I Carnage. I Torres. I Council President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting in those results. 9898 counts will 161 162 and 2a1 with their public hearings have been postponed to Monday, June 1st. Unless I miss something, Madam Secretary, that concludes our items to be called out. All right. All bills for introduction are ordered published. Council members remember that this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call an item out for a separate vote. Councilmember CdeBaca, will you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor? Yes, I move that resolutions and proclamations be adopted and bills on final consideration be placed upon final consideration, and do pass in a block for the following items. 299 to 20 2 to 20 9 to 30. 89 to 30 3 to 30 4 to 30 5 to 30 6 to 22. 23 to 97 306 to 80 to 9098 174 176 179 180 2032061 98 to 11 to 12 to 13 and that is it. Thank you very much. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call. Black CdeBaca. I. Flynn Hi. Gilmore. Herndon Hi. Cashman. Hi. Ken. Each Torres I Council President. I am secretary. Please close voting in notes. Results nine eyes nine eyes. The resolutions and proclamations have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Council will not take a recess this evening. Council members say to Barker, Will you please put council bills 130 and 131 on the floor.

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_03312015_15-0056

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. Thank you, Mr. President. I move. That we make phone calls. On my. 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. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. You gave your comments. Were there any other comments you want to add, Councilwoman? No, thank you. Have any other comments from members of the Council on the Motion to continue seeing? None. Madam Secretary, roll call. Sussman. Hi, Brooks. Hi. Brown. Hi. But I can eat. Lehman, I. Lopez. Nevitt Hi. Ortega. Hi. Shepard. Hi, Mr. President. Hi. Madam Secretary, please call the vote to announce results. 11 Eyes A. 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. Denver eight TV. Your city. Your source. Denver. Eight on TV and online. Stay connected to your community, your city, your source. You are watching. Denver eight TV's. Your city, your source.

Recommendation to adopt Specifications No. RFP AP18-033 and award a contract to Swinerton Builders, of Los Angeles, CA, for the design and construction of the Phase II Terminal Area Improvements at the Long Beach Airport, in the amount of $58,809,490, authorize a 15 percent contingency in the amount of $6,450,000 (based on construction value) for a total contract amount not to exceed $65,259,490; authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary to enter into a contract, including any necessary amendments; and Increase appropriations in the Airport Fund (EF 320) in the Airport Department by $32,572,824, offset by funds available. (District 5)

LongBeachCC_05082018_18-0394

Motion carries. Thank you. Next up, please, is item number ten. Report from Long Beach Airport and Financial Management Recommendation to award a contract to Swinton Builders for Design and Construction of the Phase two terminal area improvements at Long Beach Airport for a total amount not to exceed 65,259,490. District five. Mr. West. Mr. Mayor. Council members. This is phase two of our airport improvements. Some time ago we completed phase one. That was the parking garage and the brand new terminal. Mr. Roemer, our airport director, is going to walk us through the phase two projects and what that entails. And this has been a long time coming, a long time in the making. And we're very, very proud of what these improvements could turn out to be. Just. Thank you, Mr. West. Good evening, Mayor. Vice Mayor, council members. We are going to get into a slide deck here. But before we do that, I want to just do a set up here to get a summary overview of what the project will entail. It is in the staff report. Just a reminder that this is comprised of nine components as part of the phase two best estimated base cost of $58.8 million, with a contingency that takes it up to a possible total of $65.2 million. Key features of this project include a new enclosed ticketing lobby, a new open air consolidated baggage claim area, new relocated in-line TSA checked baggage inspection system and bag maker facility as well. There are six other components that will help enhance both the wayfinding as well as traffic features of the airport, as well as providing a new avenue for rental transactions to occur inside of the historic terminal. The delivery method for this was procured through a design build, meaning there will be more efficiency through integrated coordination and contractor responsibility. This aspect of the project has been achieved through a competitive request for proposal process for proposals were submitted in response to the RFP that was put out on the street after a technical review and interviews . Three of those firms moved on to an interview for analysis of a cost component. So based on the panel's overall review of that, Swinton Builders was unanimously selected to be the best value overall for the city. It is important to note, and it'll be in the slide deck, that the earlier limitation relating to allowable square footage was abided by in the overall net new square footage. And it is within actually it is under the previously approved council limit. From a funding standpoint, this project will be paid for with airport cash and an amount of about $23.3 million passenger facility charges in an amount of about 20 and a half million dollars customer facility charges which are received through rental transactions of $7.6 million. And lastly, a TSA grant amount of $7.3 million. So before we get into the slide deck, I do wish to thank our engineering group that's headed by RB three. They've done a great job. It's been a heavy lift to get it to this point. Stephan Lum, who's the senior civil engineer. I've asked him to come up here with me in the event that there are some questions after the presentation that he may respond to. And Stefanie, going to one presenter is also been integral to this project. Our in or our contract consultant Jacobs Engineering and CG also have helped to get this project to this point. So I'll go ahead and get into the slide deck. So as Mr. West explained, you know, this phase one was completed in 2012 and comprised of improvement and development of a passenger concourse, the TSA screening facility, passenger screening facility, and the construction of a parking structure B, which folks will know from the main parking structures, are entering the airport off of Lakewood Boulevard. Phase two envisions us to really continue that enhancement. In the travel experience, we will be renovating and simplifying the security check in process through the new ticketing lobby. We will also rehabilitate the historic terminals, timeless and beauty, and restore its original functionality. In addition to some mechanical and building upgrades, we will be relocating the car rental transactions into this building. This was this process really involved in required us to engage with the community to make sure that this space was reused appropriately. Again, the what are the main goals for the terminal it's a historic criminal is to revitalize and streamline pedestrian and vehicular access in and around the terminal area. We did consider as paramount importance of the airport priorities. And of course, as we said, we wanted to make sure that this project was within the certified E.R. and then subsequent council approved limit of 89,995 square feet, which this is well within that limit is one of the mayor's eight by 28 projects for the Olympics initiative. This project itself accommodates existing activity, meaning that it's really to help the experience, the customer experience, the passenger experience for those coming to the airport, it's already a great airport. This will just take it to another level. There is no impact to the general fund in terms of expense for this project. And as a matter of fact, we will not be using any debt financing for this. It it'll be fully paid for through cash in fees that are collected at the airport. And really important for the community as well is this will not result in any additional flights as a result of undertaking this project. So this slide here shows an overview of the existing site plan for the terminal area. You can see there on the lower portion that is currently parking structure. And to the left is the rental car rental return, which is where possible. Our customers will pick up a drop off rental vehicles directly above that. Around the middle of the slide is the historic terminal, and immediately above that is the existing screening facility for checked bags. A little bit above that and to the to the left is the passenger screening facility, which was developed in 2012, along with the concourse areas which are at the upper part just below the the aircraft parking positions. The large rectangle to the right is where we will redevelop and have I mean, right now it's the valet storage and aircraft parking that will be redeveloped. It will show you that in the next slide here. So this one here shows in the after condition once this project is completed. So these are some of the big changes of note. As you know, the terminal facility itself will open up into the plaza because we will be relocating and constructing the baggage screening baggage facility that will be off to the west and to the south, along with the new ticketing lobby there as well to the to the south of the terminal, the consolidated baggage facility I'm sorry, consolidated baggage claim, which is now currently three, will be consolidated into one facility there to the to the north of the checked to the security passenger security area and then the new rental car storage, which will be service storage and ready return. So the function that currently takes place in the the parking lot right across from the terminal will move over to the north. And that area, which is currently part of the ready return, will be reprogramed and repurposed into a ground transportation center where we will have the taxicabs, rideshare companies like Uber and Lyft, as well as other commercial carriers that they will stage in there in being one location that's convenient to the terminal complex. So the following slides were really show kind of before and after what we're envisioning. And this right here is a shot on the left is the current or the existing historic terminal where people will check in and either get their boarding passes or check their baggage before they go out to be screened in. Going on to the concourse area, you can see that it's a very compressed and tight space during peak times. It's actually much more crowded than this. So what we're envisioning through the new ticketing lobby is a much more open space. There'll be much more opportunity for folks to use the self-check in kiosks, of which we have a few, but we will see many more deployed in the new facility. This is an elevation showing the western side of the historic terminal. So on the left, you can see it at the bottom of the terminal elevation there, the screened area, which actually hides the checked baggage facility building that was put in there, I think 2006. So on the right shows that it's gone. And it shows that open flow from the plaza so that folks are deplaning and heading out toward either to rent a vehicle or going out to be picked up, that they'll be able to go straight into the historic terminal. This is another view here on the left that shows that it's looking southeast and shows a portion of that fence that that that hides the the checked baggage facility. And on the right where it's removed, that that will become seating area. And again, to make the plaza much more inviting for builders and greeters, as well as anybody else who works at the airport and wants to relax and hang out in a nice space. This next one here shows the rendering of where we envision to be the the baggage claim facility. So on the left recurrently, it's just a wall that hides some areas behind that, which are our staging areas for for airlines. And on the right, you can see the left or the left part of that rendering shows the baggage claim carousel and to the right of that, some concession space that we expect to develop. So this is a view again. This is the historic terminal on the left. And part of our plan is to repurpose it and have the rental car companies do their transactions in the space. So this is a view looking to the south. It's the same terminal building. There are that left photo. Again, it's a very tight compressed space. And what we will do is open it up and relocate counters and make it much more friendly so that people who are coming in from flights, they can go directly into this building and transact and with their preferred rental car company . And this is just another view that shows looking to the West again, that this really highlights that opening out into the plaza area, so that one of the features will be that you could actually go from the front of the curb, straight through the doors, main doors in flow, if you want to go straight out into the plaza. And one of the components we talked about here, this is an overview showing on the left is the existing ready return or the car rental operation there where folks will both rent their vehicles as well as return and pick those up that will be relocated to the north. And then this space will be converted into the ground transportation center, which will have basically staging for cabs, shared ride busses and other commercial operators. Project entitlements again, going over that, you know, we went took this through a process. We were very mindful to engage the community. We had outreach sessions so that we could make sure that people understood what it is that we were attempting to achieve, which again, is overall an improvement to the facilities and not an expansion of the airport. On April 5th this year, the Planning Commission approved the addendum to the previous IIR and they also approved Phase two site plan review. On April 9th this year, the Cultural Heritage Commission approved and issued a certificate of appropriateness for the renovation of the historic terminal building. And then the table below really just shows what the council originally approved as part of the IIR 97,400 545 square feet. It was later reduced down to 89,995. So the post phase one square footage resulted in 70,000 square feet or thereabouts. And with phase two, with the reduction of some space and an addition of some space, you could see that results in 89,929 square feet. So that's well within the envelope of what is what is permissible in the air. So tonight, as we said earlier, we're we're requesting council approval. This is a design build contract in an amount of up to $65.2 million, initial funding to support the major three components that we would like to deliver within the next 12 to 18 months. 32 million. 32. 32 and a half million dollars. Those will include the ticketing lobby, consolidated baggage claim and the in-line screening facility. As I said earlier, funding sources for this or airport cash that we have on hand. Passenger facility charges, which are those fees that are attached to tickets for people who are departing the airport, customer facility charges, which are fees that are attached to rental transactions and a TSA grant that we applied for and have been provisionally awarded by the federal government. It stays progression that our overall goal will be to maintain airline passenger operations throughout the term of the construction and control of the contract may be terminated at any point. Should financial conditions or anything else emerge that we would have to take pause and rethink the route, the balance of the project. So with that, that concludes the presentation, and we're here to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. And a very impressive presentation from the staff. And you guys did a really, really great job. I know this is a long time coming and an important improvement that the community has been asking for at the airport. Let me first turn this over to Councilman Austin. Thank you. I only have a couple of questions. This is a it's a very impressive presentation. And and I'm glad to see that it's stays within the parameters of the air that was approved by council before us. That that said, when how long do you foresee this project taking? I'm not sure if I heard that in the press. Yes, I'm sorry accounts, but this is a program for a three year period. So from the commencement of doing the work, which we expect, I mean, to commencing the work which we expect to be later this year, probably in the in the beginning of the fourth quarter of it, we would expect it to take three years to complete. Because their priority in terms of what projects will go first. Yes. As noted on one of the slides, you know, the the the priority projects include the new ticketing lobby, the new TSA bag screening facility and the baggage claim device. And this project does fall under the project labor agreement. Is that correct? Yes, it does. All right. Thank you so much. Looking forward to it. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Mango. Thank you. I just want to thank the airport staff and the community for this great opportunity. We've come together and it will be amazing. And so it will continue to be the best airport in America. Thank you, Vice Mayor Richardson. Thank you. I just wanted to congratulate you on a great design, I think. And what I noticed about the new terminal versus the old terminal is how bright it seems when you walk outside. There's like outdoor firepits and it's bright inside the actual was that concourse or whatever it is and the original building seems a little dim , has always seemed dim to me. You walk in at the original building, goes from daylight to dimness, and then a scene here is much brighter. So I guess my question is, what are what are they? What do we did? We did they add more lighting? Did they open the windows or something? The rendering looks very, very bright on the inside. How do we do that? Well, I'm going to take a stab at it on a high level. Then I'm not turn to Mr. Lum to give more detail. But, you know, one of the main features is, as we pointed out, is the restoration of the doors leading out on the western side of the building. I think that's going to help quite a bit in the fact that the the existing ticket counter areas, those will all be removed. I think the lighting that that exists beyond behind that through the windows would probably help quite a bit. But Stephan, is there anything else I'm missing? Jess You're correct. The back side or the whole west side face of the building, it's actually has a whole bank of windows that are currently blocked by the airline offices and in front of that, the ticketing counter. So when we renovate the first floor, all that will be cleared out and and opened up into a more open environment. Great. Thank you. Let me just say two comments. The first is that, of course, I think this is really impressive. I'm very excited about these improvements. We've been talking about them for a while and the second piece gestures to make a note for your team. Two things I've mentioned before I just want to reiterate publicly. One is we need to please look at the possibility of the parking lot for the transportation plaza and or other opportunities that are outdoor for solar. I think what I think, you know, Cal State, Long Beach has set a great model on their parking lots and how they're using solar to power the facility. And so at least we should at least explore that as an opportunity. And then I just want to make sure that part of this improvement that we don't forget, of course, the lighting that I'm talking about to make lighting, just to make sure that as we're that we bring in a expert in night lighting and so that we are appropriately lighting the historic terminal as well as the rest of the facility in a way that is more interesting than what we currently do, which seems a little bit hokey sometimes. So I look forward to that lighting plan. Any public comment? This is certainly a commendable project. Really the lighting. It's a shame, though, that the one drawback is that people come into this city. And I'm sure in time, particularly when in the next year or so, two years or so, they'll realize they're coming into a venue, a city where it has one of the most corrupt mayors in the history of Long Beach and. Excuse me in this state. And all they would have to do is look at the tape of the comments of the mayor less than 10 minutes ago when I referenced the fact that he will be spending time in prison. And he mocked that by saying, well, I have been saying mayors have been corrupt in this city for 24 years. I have lived in the city. I think it's 40 years and never once, never once, never once. Have I ever said we had a mayor that was corrupt? We have some that were dubious in terms of projects and mental capacity, but none were dishonest and corrupt, as is Robert Garcia. And that and even that I haven't been saying it for his full term. That corruption started a little over three and a half years ago with the criminal complicity of raising the Marine Stadium support structure to its period. The tape of this meeting, of course, will go to the U.S. attorney's comments. In fact, I sent you a memo of that just now. An email will go to the U.S. attorney tomorrow morning. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. should here. I'll be happy to send the tape myself. Area of in a second. Please go ahead and cast your votes. Motion carries. Great. Excellent. Good work. Next up is item 12.

AS AMENDED, a bill for an ordinance amending Article V of Chapter 2 of the Revised Municipal Code pertaining to financial disclosure. Revises the Denver Revised Municipal Code regarding financial disclosure including eliminating the requirement that candidates for municipal office make financial disclosures, modifying the definition of “gift”, “immediate family” and “officer”, modifying the date for submitting the annual financial disclosure statement for city officers, requiring semi-annual gift disclosure reports by officers and annual gift disclosure reports by employees, modifying reportable gifts and increasing the reporting threshold from $25 to $50; making the financial and gift reports of officers publicly available online and the gift reports of employees publicly available on request, and modifying the remedies for violations of the ordinance. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 11-29-16. Amended 1-3-17 to remove the minimum $50 threshold for reporting gifts in the covered categories, resulting in the reporting of all gifts received in the designat

DenverCityCouncil_12192016_16-0919

Nine eyes, two abstentions. Resolution 1324 has been adopted. Madam Secretary, if you could please put the next item up on our screens. Councilwoman Canete, you've called out comfortable 919 for a comment. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. President. Council Bill 918 is a bill that originated with the clerk's office, and she had been working to really modernize some of our areas of code that do transparency and reporting. Two of the bills, one is on lobbyists. The one that I called out is on financial disclosures, where we as councilmembers and other city employees file if they've received gifts that relate to the work that we do with the city, and then also where we report on, you know, some of our own financial interests so that the public may know if we have interests in the things that we're legislating on. And, you know, I want to there's sometimes more is more. And so there's a couple of changes in this bill that I think are really good, which is that it will be more frequent reporting. So twice a year instead of once a year. So there's less of a time lag before the public is able to see the reports. And also the reports will be available online. So in this case, I think the bill represents more is more one council change that we made in committee to the bill, which is a little bit about less being more, is that we think that the gifts the city is most interested in, our public is most interested is seeing, is those that have any relationship to our duties here. So we narrowed the group of people. So, for example, I don't know that the public has a strong need to know if my neighbor gave me a sweater for Christmas. They have they do no business with the city. And it created confusion, the fact that there were no limits on who you reported. So we narrowed who you're reporting to. And I think that's good. At the same time, we raised the threshold from $20, $25 to $50 at in committee. At that time, I was supportive of that change. And it made a lot of sense because, you know, Councilman Brooks, for example, was recently ill and people gave him flowers that might have been valued at more than 25. And and again, to have, you know, hundreds of flower bouquets reported. And his financing report might not have been the best use of of transparency in terms of helping to understand the city. But as we've proceeded, this bill is moving forward, and I'm going to vote for it tonight. But there's a similar bill dealing with some other issues in the code that Councilman Flynn has been working on. This has been a great example of really doing work in committee where we talk about all the details. But what it means is we're going to discuss his bill again tomorrow. And depending on how his bill goes, I may suggest that because we've narrowed who we are reporting to, that we should really report any meals, tickets that we get from those covered individuals. So I, I very likely will be bringing an amendment forward on this bill, maybe with others, maybe co-sponsoring with Councilman Flynn. But I just wanted to let folks know because I always feel like it can be very surprising if you see nothing on first reading and then maybe have changes on second. So I want to let folks know that I wanted to wait and see how the committee conversation went tomorrow. But it's my belief that if we very much are narrowing who we're reporting on, that it's maybe important to report all of the things that we get, especially since we're reporting twice a year. The threshold used to be if you've done some things that you know, collectively result in a certain amount throughout the course of the year, now that we're reporting more frequently, it just makes sense to report more everything so that people can really see between a first half of the year and a second half of the year what it adds up to. So with that, it is just a heads up to the public and a heads up to my colleagues and fully supportive of this did not pull it out for a vote. But we'll see how committee goes. And we may want to, you know, make a reconciliation on on second reading. So thank you, Mr. President.

AN ORDINANCE relating to fireworks regulations; amending Ordinance 3139, Section 601, as amended, and K.C.C. 12.86.500, Ordinance 4461, Section 2, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.22.040, Ordinance 10870, Section 331, as amended, and K.C.C. 21A.08.040, Ordinance 10870, Section 548, as amended, and K.C.C. 21A.32.110, Ordinance 13332, Section 43, as amended, and K.C.C. 27.10.360 and Ordinance 17682, Section 48, as amended, and K.C.C. 27.10.580, adding a new chapter to K.C.C Title 17, repealing Ordinance 6836, Section 1, and K.C.C. 6.26.010, Ordinance 6836, Section 2, as amended, and K.C.C. 6.26.020, Ordinance 6836, Section 3, as amended, and K.C.C. 6.26.030, Ordinance 6836, Section 4, as amended, and K.C.C. 6.26.040, Ordinance 6836, Section 5, and K.C.C. 6.26.050, Ordinance 6836, Section 6, as amended, and K.C.C. 6.26.060, Ordinance 6836, Section 7, as amended, and K.C.C. 6.26.070, Ordinance 6836, Section 8, as amended, and K.C.C. 6.26.080, Ordinance 6836, Section 9, and K.C.C. 6.26.090, Ordinance 6836, Section 10, and K.C.C. 6.26.100, Ordinance 6836, Section 11, and K.C.C. 6.26.110 and Ordin

KingCountyCC_02172021_2021-0057

And in as I said, we'll put that on consent. So it should be on a larger agenda for for councils is the approval on regular schedule. Thank you so much. And that brings us to item seven. This is this is ordinance 2021, 57 that would establish a new regulations on the use and sale of fireworks in unincorporated King County. You may recall that the council received briefings on the executive executive's proposed fireworks legislation, as well as a conceptual striker in early 2020. The proposed ordinance before us today is a reintroduced version of that fireworks legislation, which includes the conceptual, striking changes that were reached previously. The item is up for discussion today, and I will call on Jake Tracy to give the briefing and then as prime sponsor would make a few comments and we'll take up and then take up discussion. Mr. Tracy, the line is yours. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Jake Treacy, council staff. The materials for this item begin on page 15 one five of your packet. Proposed Ordinance 2020 10057 would prohibit the retail sale and discharge of fireworks, as defined in the revised Code of Washington and unincorporated portions of King County, and would establish standards for public displays of fireworks in unincorporated King County. As the chairman mentioned, there were a couple of briefings on this last year under proposed ordinance number 2020 0109. So Washington state law does allow for the retail sale of consumer fireworks with the state license and also allows persons 18 or older to purchase and use consumer fireworks without the need for a permit or license . The handout on page 54 of your packet shows these legal consumer fireworks under state law. Examples of similar fireworks that are legal for sale in Washington state include Roman candles, reloadable mortars, parachutes, wheels, cone fountains and others. Trick and novelty devices such as toy caps, party poppers and snap and pops. Under state law, do not rise to the level of these consumer fireworks and then other fireworks such as bottle rockets skyrockets. Missiles and firecrackers are illegal to sell by state law except on tribal lands. State law does allow for the retail sale of consumer fireworks only from June 28th to July 4th and December 27th to December 31st of each year. And states the consumers may only discharge fireworks from June 28th to July 5th and December 31st to January 1st of each year. Display fireworks of consumer fireworks. Display fireworks, on the other hand, are large fireworks that exceed the requirements in the definition of consumer fireworks. A public display of fireworks, as the name suggests, is the use of display fireworks where the public is or could be allowed to view them. Such displays require a state license and a permit from the local fire marshal. Cities and counties are allowed to adopt more restrictive regulations on what's allowed by state law. But there is a required one year waiting period between adoption of such regulations and the regulations being effective. King County Code currently allows fireworks stands and the Regional Business, Community Business, Neighborhood Business Office and industrial zones for up to 30 days each calendar year without the requirement for a temporary use permit. A temporary use permit would be required in other zones. As previously stated, actual sales of consumer fireworks can only occur during those periods prescribed in state law. The fire marshal is charged with issuing permits and conducting enforcement activities for the storage, retail sale and transfer to fireworks, as well as for the discharge of fireworks that exceed the definition of consumer fireworks. There's currently no limit in the code on the number of public displays of fireworks that can occur on any given property in any given the amount of time. So as I mentioned, this proposed ordinance would prohibit the retail sale and use of consumer fireworks in unimportant incorporated portions of the county. Fireworks could still be sold at wholesale, not direct to consumer in the industrial zone. And this prohibition on discharge and retail sale would not apply to tribal lands. The penalty for violating fireworks regulations would remain a misdemeanor, and the maximum penalty would increase from $250 per day to $1,000 per day. The proposed ordinance would remove existing regulations relating to fireworks, including standards for retail sale, consumer use and public displays from Title six of King County Code. And those regulations for public displays and prescribed penalties would move to a two Chapter 17 of the code, which is the fire code. As is required today, a permit from the fire marshal would be required for any public display or fireworks. Subject to a permit application and review fee. Proposed ordinance would remove detailed guidance on the applications and requirements and instead allow the fire marshal to determine what information should be included in the application. The code would mandate that traffic control and crowd policing plans, crowd control policing plans would be part of that application. The proposed ordinance would remove public displays of fireworks and allow as an allowed use in all zones and state. The temporary use permits cannot be obtained for these displays. So what that means, those two things working together is that the any individual property could have no more than two public displays of fireworks and any 365 day period . And just to give a little context based on data provided from the executive in 2019, for instance, probably the last normal year of fireworks usage, there were six applications for public displays of fireworks, all on separate properties. The proposed ordinance would remove detailed technical language and definitions, instead referencing the requirements and definitions in state code and the International Fire Code. And so that is kind of a brief overview of the ordinance. I can talk a little bit about process or I can pause for questions there. Let's pause there. And at this point, I will offer some as first and comments as prime sponsor, and then we can take up discussion and process conversations. This is this is one of the pieces of legislation we take up and consider as a county council where we're really serving as a local government. Fireworks are currently banned in 25 neighboring cities parks, national forests that surround unincorporated King County. Yet in this occasion, we have the ability to legislate for unincorporated King County, where we are indeed their local government. Unincorporated King County relies on us for their public safety, for health and welfare. This legislation will advance that. We've heard testimony about risk and injury. But let me point out, the United States Consumer Safety Commission says that, quote, On average, 180 people go to the emergency room every day with fireworks related injuries in the month around the 4th of July holiday. And we've seen this tragically in our own communities, though, in the 20 years I've represented fashion in White Center, both in the legislature and in the county council, I've heard repeatedly concerns about fireworks. It was the death of Senate Kennedy in White Center in a house fire started by fireworks that has prompted me to advance this legislation . His widow is one of the correspondents who sent in written testimony. That stuff was emailed us earlier today and people testifying have already mentioned that two houses were completely destroyed and 12 residents were displaced by fire that year. And in addition to injury risks, fireworks can also have a negative impact on health as well. Fireworks caused air pollution in a small amount of time. Maybe medical metal particles, harmful chemicals and smoke in the air for hours and even days. And the smoking particle pollution poses a health risk, particularly to people who already suffer from pulmonary issues, including asthma. We know that while King County has some of the highest outcomes, health outcomes in the county. In the nation. We also have some of the greatest disparities in health outcomes within our county. And in fact, some of the lowest health outcomes come in unincorporated King County in areas in South King County. The overlap to our ability to address these health concerns is correct today. And regarding the environment, in the last few years, we've watched forest fires spread quickly, threatening everything in their path, including homes, wildlife and firefighters. The horrific 2017 Eagle Creek Forest fire in Oregon was caused by safe and sane fireworks. A smoke bomb, according to news reports. The fire burned over 50,000 acres over three months before finally being contained. And then. There's the effect on pets and wildlife as well that PETA's trapping from paws is spoken to. And we have written testimony in our packet from Heidi Wills with PAWS. And I look forward to a conversation with my colleagues today about. Taking this action and how to develop the proposal before us and look forward to advancing it next month to full council where Mr. Tracy will speak to in a moment. I believe a would be more than a month from committee action, given the requirement for a 30 day notice of a hearing in full council. With that. That concludes my remarks and questions of myself for Mr. Tracy at this point in time. So. Councilmember Lambert. Thank you, Mr. Chair. There are so many aspects to this, and so I'm glad that we're having lots of opportunities to ask questions. So I have a couple questions on page 16. Help me understand the paragraph. It says that state law allows retail sale of consumer fireworks from June 28th to July 4th and then December 27th to July 31st. That consumers may only discharge fireworks from June 28th, July 5th and December 31st to January 1st each year. And unincorporated in Connecticut only allows the discharge of fireworks on July 4th and does not allow retail sale of fireworks during the December period. So you still could let off the fireworks in December for New Year's Eve, but you would have had to have purchased them by July 5th. Is that correct? So my understanding is that the state law allowing for the December period came in after King County had adopted their fireworks code so that the state law supersedes the. The count is interpreted to supersede the county's allowance and that so the county does allow for those December sales. But I would ask Jim Chan of the permitting division to confirm on that. Good morning. Council members to chair. A provision director for for permitting. What Jake just said is correct. That is confirmed. Okay. So let me say that back. I'm sure I got it. So you would have to buy it by July 5th because that's the last day legally. Sara And then keep it until New Year's Eve so you can let it off on New Year's Eve. Is that right? That is correct. Okay. So I have a little bit of concern about having fireworks in your garage that long. So, anyway, that was one question I had. And then on the public displays, I, I want to know a little bit more about how much the permit would cost. It sucks in here someplace about the idea that if your application is incomplete more than 20 days before that, you would be dismissed. You know, if you're not used to making applications to government or you don't speak the language very well, you know, you may not make it correctly. So how is that going to work? But, you know, if a application comes in and it isn't made properly, will we get on the phone and have them complete it? Or will we just say, too bad? So is the question, how much would a display fireworks permit cost? And if the application is incorrect, how would they correct it? Okay. So we have a fee ordinance that lays out all of our fees for permits on our website, including fireworks display permits. That information is available and is updated with every fee ordinance so they can look at that and pull that information off if an application comes through and it's incorrect. We will reach out to those individuals and make those corrections, help them guide them through making those corrections before we we process the application. So one of the things that I think is in everybody's best interest is that we have a few days as possible. So. For them to be going on for all the reasons we heard today, from pets to people to fire damage, all of that. So getting the cities to have the large so is important. But as I remember, the permit was fairly expensive. It was like a couple of hundred dollars. Do you remember what the permit cost is? I have that here. I had the application fee for a special event or a fireworks display. Under the current code and this proposal remained the same as a $250 for the application fee. And the inspection fee is $412 per site visit. Okay, so it's $650. And for the little city, so say Skycom is $650 is a lot of money. And I would rather that the city do it and not have, you know, 50 other people doing it. So. I think we need to look at that in light of this to make sure that we are encouraging the cities and not making it more difficult for them to do that. I do want to say that was a little surprised. You know, everything that we've been doing for equity and social justice has been to reduce fines. And then here we're quadrupling it. 100% increase. So I thought that was interesting that the amount proposed that increased fine is so huge, which is the dichotomy of what we're doing and other things. So I'm glad we'll have more time for discussion, but those are my questions. Thank you. Hello. As members. Hello. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Most of my district is in Seattle, but I do have an unincorporated part of my district in the southern end called Skyway. And I've heard from a ton of residents about their desire to ban fireworks. So I want to thank Councilmember McDermott for bringing this forward. It is a public health issue. It is an environmental health issue. On the other hand, I've also heard from a lot of constituents who are worried about, as Councilmember Lambert mentioned, increasing fines and fees on low income communities. And, you know, when I see $1,000 per day, that's that seems super aggressive. I've also heard from people who are concerned about increasing law enforcement interactions with communities of color. I've heard about ending income streams for churches and nonprofits. I've also heard about, you know, interfering with people's cultural celebrations. And so for a long time, I've been grappling with these competing interests. It's really hard to weigh them against one another because they're so different. And in my attempt to grapple with it, I called up some of the people who I've heard from who were opposed and said, you know what would be something that you would support? And unanimously, everybody's saying that, you know, if we're talking about the big firecrackers, the eighties, the things that make your cars shake, the things that make dogs go wild, those things we're all against, the things that we don't want to ban are, you know, the celebratory ones that don't make that much noise, the roman candle, the sparklers, the wheels. So I was thinking about what would it look like to have that kind of compromise? But then I got confused by Jake's presentation earlier because it sounds like the firecrackers are already illegal everywhere. Is that right, Jake, that those big ones that people hear all the time are already illegal, even in unincorporated Kane County? Yes. Statewide firecrackers, bottle rockets, that sort of thing are illegal except for on tribal lands. They can be sold and used there. Okay. So we are really just talking about the ones that are sounding like grenades. The ones that are sparklers and wheels and and colorful things that aren't super loud. Is that what this ordinance is doing? I couldn't speak to the relative loudness of them, but the the things that are shown on page 15 of the packet that are those are not page 15, I think it was 54 of the packet. Those are the things that are currently legal that would become illegal under this ordinance. You said page 1554. Sorry. Okay. All right. I'll add second page 50. Page 55 shows the ones that are currently illegal for all of Washington state except for tribal lands. Great. So I'll look more into this and do some research. Thank you. Thank you for sharing that. That's. Yeah. You know, I want to make sure that we're doing what we want to do with this. I think it would surprise a lot of people in unincorporated King County that I've been hearing from that the ones they're complaining about, at least that they're complaining about to me are already illegal. So that's just the interesting point. Thank you. Council members, council members. And I if I may, part of part of the motivation in a complete ban is to draw a bright line, because enforcement is terribly challenging. If some fireworks are legal and some are illegal, if a neighbor is letting off something that is legal. But maybe if the measure is volume allowing loud but not quite loud enough or is intended to be on the ground that bounces, you know, aerial generally being illegal that it was it's the brightness of legal or illegal that when I was working on this in preparation to introduce last year was a key point, not only in some of the communities that have been disturbed by fireworks, but particularly in law enforcement. One in the bright line and not the ambiguity of what might be discharged. Thank you, Mr. Chair. If I can. This is Jim Chan, if I can add a couple comments. Mr. CHEN. Yes, just to clarify a couple of points on the penalty. So the ordinance as currently written allows up to $1,000 in maximum fines. That doesn't mean that we have to assess $1,000. We can assess anything up to $1,000 per state law. And in terms of the displays in other cities, our ordinance would not affect the the the cost or the displays that are outside of unincorporated King County. They can continue to permit and do their own display methodologies and permits. And then lastly, on the consumer fireworks to respond to Councilman, bizarrely, the sparklers are one of those consumer fireworks that you can buy off of fireworks fans. And those are one of the most dangerous and types of fireworks that is that you wouldn't necessarily be aware of. They burn up to 2000 degrees. They can melt metal and lots of cases. Those are causes for significant fires. So it's not just the noise, it's also the type of fireworks and the temperature in which they burn. Just wanted to share those comments. That's really helpful, Jim. Thank you. You bet. Cast member Belushi. Yeah. I just. Not a question, just a comment. I signed on to this as a co-sponsor. Primarily because I'm coming from an urban, suburban, incorporated area where this kind of a restriction has been in effect for many years for the reasons that you listed. There are some reasons why unincorporated and rural areas are actually at higher risk because they're harder to respond to if a fire does start and we don't have to reinvent the wheel here. There's a lot of experience in a lot of communities implementing something just like this. And I think that I support taking time to make sure everybody understands what we're doing. There are some deadlines that would be important to meet if we're going to enact this this year, we should enact it prior to the fourth so that it is effective prior to the fourth because of the rules about when it can take effect. And I support getting answers to everyone's questions, but this is not, in my mind controversial or challenging or really all that unusual. We're just an outlier in this regard where we don't regulate the way most incorporated jurisdictions do for safety reasons. And the story that members of the public share that you shared, Mr. Chair, about that family that lost their home and, you know, family member, it's just we should never, ever allow something like that to happen without doing what we can to to regulate as a government. I believe that's within our police powers, which are our obligation to the public safety of the community that we represent. So I feel very strongly about this, and I thank you for bringing it forward. Thank you. Mr. Tracy, did you have a process to speak to? Yes, if I may, Mr. Chair, please. So the executive has completed a superb review of State Environmental Policy Act review, or the previously proposed Fireworks Prohibition Ordinance, the one that came up in council last year. And that super review considered the potential impacts of all policy changes that are in this proposed ordinance, as well as a number of councilmember amendment concepts that were that came up in discussion. So the executive issued a determination of non significance through the super process on April 15th of last year and the amendment concepts that were provided to the executive in addition to the ones that are in this proposed ordinance. I'm just going to list them off quickly. Those were making changes to the civil and criminal penalties for violation of fireworks regulations to either decrease or delay effectiveness of the penalties, limiting the fireworks prohibition to urban areas and basin Maryland, and continuing to allow fireworks sales and use in rural areas other than downtown Maryland. Requiring that the ordinance not take effect until the executive is signed an agreement with all tribes and city and King County that do sell fireworks, that prohibits the tribes and cities from selling to individuals that live in unincorporated King County and continuing to allow the use of sticks and sparklers in unincorporated King County. And so all of those amendment concepts were considered in the executive analysis. If there were other amendment concepts that came up that come up outside of that. Those may require additional analysis. This legislation does require a 30 day hearing notice before being heard in full council. And so any amendment concepts that I didn't just list would need to be communicated to council central staff no later than the Friday after the committee action in order to be included in that 30 day notice that goes out prior to the public hearing in full council. And that concludes my remarks. Thank you. Member Council member Lambert. Just to make sure I heard what you just said. Did you just say that one of the potential things that was analyzed was that tribal, that the tribes couldn't tell me what you said about the tribes not being able to do that? Yes. This the amendment concept. That was communicated to staff was that the ordinance could not take effect. This prohibition could not take effect until the executive had signed an agreement with all the tribes and cities and King County that still sell fireworks. And that agreement would say that those tribes and cities could not sell fireworks to people who live in unincorporated King County. Oh, I think that that could be a amazing concept, because that's where they're getting the ads and the things that aren't legal for us to sell. And and I think that that would separate where it's being done. If they said that nobody that doesn't live on tribal land or is a tribal member could buy, would that fit under that amendment? For SIPA. So this I think the scope of this ordinance would only be able to affect. So. I would have to get back to you on that. Okay. Because that makes a huge difference, because the concern that I'm hearing you is that people are saying people from other parts of the county are coming out and making messes and leaving them and, you know, not taking and having the bucket of water in the hose and all the things necessary in case of an emergency. And so if nobody could buy the illegal things, that would make it much easier. So if you check into that, that was interesting when you just said that. Thank you. All right. Here. Nothing further. I want to thank Mr. Tracy and the public for coming to testify and for their comments today as well. And we will list this item for discussion in potential action at our next meeting.

On the message and order, referred on March 2, 2022 Docket #0314, for your approval for a short term extension of nine (9) of the fourteen (14) remaining urban renewal plans in Boston, the committee submitted a report recommending that the order ought to pass in a new draft. Councilor Baker moved for substitution. Motion prevailed.

BostonCC_03302022_2022-0314

Thank you. Dockets 0434 will be referred to the Committee on City Services, Innovation and Technology Reports of Committee. Mr. Clarke, please read Docket 0314. Duncan Number 0314 The Committee on Planning, Development and Transportation, to which was referred on March 2nd, 2020 to docket number 0314 message in order for your approval, in order for a short term extension of nine of the 14 remaining urban renewal plans in Boston, submit a report recommending the order ought to pass in a new draft. Thank you. The chair recognizes Councilor Baker, chair of the Committee on Planning, Development and Transportation Counsel. Baker, you have the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. I am going to read this committee report if people will just stick with me here. The Committee on Planning and Development in Transportation was referred the following docket for the consideration docket 0134 in order to beginning the process of sunsetting urban renewals in the city of Boston until December 34th, that's actually wrong. It's supposed to be March 30, but that's the original. This is the original. I'm okay. This matter was sponsored by Mayor Michel will win first committee on March 2nd, 2022. The committee held a hearing on Tuesday, March 22nd, 2022, and testimony was presented by Boston Redevelopment Authority officials included Director of Real Estate Devin Quirk, Urban Renewal Manager Chris Breen, Chief of Staff Heather Sarno, and General Counsel Eileen Brophy. The summary is in 2016, the Boston Redevelopment Authority doing business as a BDA, requested approval for a ten year extension for the 14 active renewal plans that were set to expire on April 30th, 2016. The BPD urged the City Council to pass this order that will protect the community development tools that will continue to cultivate vibrant neighborhoods around the city. After extensive deliberations around the use of eminent domain power, trust inequity issues and the lack of accountability and access to the BPD in the past, in the past and procedural changes moving forward, the City Council agreed to grant the approval of a six year extension of the 14 urban renewal planned areas, which is set to expire April 22nd, 2022. This request was subject to subsequently approved by the Department of Housing and Urban Development in 2016. Devin Quirk gave a historical look back on the negative impacts of urban renewal tools used in the past that cause irreparable harm to neighborhoods across the city, particularly the West End and other parts of the city. He explained that the BPD was operating in a new era of transparency and accountability. He explained that the BPD position is that authorization of this order will allow them to continue important work and spur economic development in partnership with public and private investments. Community stakeholders, and in working with the Boston City Council that is focused on the future development that addresses equity, displacement and building affordable housing for the residents of Boston . He highlighted that the administration is looking at development from the lens of equity and inclusion, community and community development. Mr. Quirk highlighted that by using these urban renewal tools, the BPD has effectuating great change in the city's central business district in neighborhoods, creating new opportunities for affordable housing, to solidify units for low and moderate income residents, and build new parks and public facilities and more. Mr. Quirk explained that since 2016, since the 2016 extension BPD, in the spirit of transparency and accountability, has facilitated a community engagement process that has garnered input on the future of urban renewal and has made relevant urban renewal documents accessible to the public through zoning viewer. Administration officials testified that the BPD reviewed the program and looked at the ongoing use of the urban renewal tools within the existing plan area to determine the future of BPD urban renewal polls in the city of Boston and to begin the process of sunsetting urban renewal. The BPD is seeking approval for a short term extension of the NAC. Extension of nine of the 14 remaining plans. In the Boston. In Boston that are set to expire December 31st, 2022. BPD officials noted that they plan immediately to sunset five of the 14 urban renewal plans on April 22nd, 2022, as the original intent and purpose of these plans have fulfilled. Mr. Quirk said that they intend to return to the Council with the plan moving forward. That requires further extension of some of the plans in order to wrap up ongoing community centered efforts. BPD officials further noted that the importance of the use of urban renewal tools in recent decades, which has resulted in the creation and preservation of nearly 10,000 units of affordable housing creation and protection of open space, provided new opportunities for many Boston residents, enabled public private partnerships and increased planning initiatives. Mr. Green presented a PowerPoint explaining BP's analysis and review process that helped to determine the reasons to allow the five urban renewal areas to sunset on April 22nd, 2022. The Five to sunset. That's what they presented the five parcels, including the following urban renewal areas. Brunswick King Urban Renewal Plan. Central Business District. Boylston Essex Plan Central Busy Business District School. Franklin Plan. Kittredge Square Urban Renewal Plan in Park Plaza Urban Renewal Plan. The extension of the nine urban areas through December 31st, 2022, included the following parcels Central Business District, South Station, Urban Renewal. Fenway Urban Renewal Plan. Campus High School. Urban Renewal Plan. South Cove Urban Renewal Plan. Charlestown Urban Renewal Plan. Downtown Waterfront Faneuil Hall Urban Renewal Plan Government Center Urban Renewal Plan. South End Urban Renewal Plan in Washington Park Urban Urban Renewal Plan. It was reported that as identified over 1300 parcels with existing land disposition agreements liaise that are tied to urban renewal power, some of which provide protection for affordable housing, open space and other other land use provisions. BPD officials explain that this request, if approved, will provide the BPD with additional time to set a plan for potential state legislation to transfer or protect appropriate provisions. Council has expressed reservations around extension of timeline of December 31st, 2022, as this will not allow BPD enough time to radically, adequately review and analyze all the Leah's LDA parcels in their inventory. Councilors discussed the impact on the owners of these properties relative to potential tax increases in the possibility of giving developers an edge in acquiring these parcels for market rate development. If these parcels were to expire without notice to the general public, discussions included the goals and responsibilities of BPD to use the urban renewal tool to shape and promote economic development throughout the city in a way that supports public good, particularly for the residents living in marginalized communities. Council stated that their focus is to protect the residents who were impacted by the urban renewal strategy in the past and most and most importantly, are looking to protect residents who will be impacted by the sunsetting of these parcels moving forward. And recommended that the BPD institute a longer time frame of sunsetting the nine parcels that would include a six month check in with the City Council during that time period. Cognizant of the trepidations and for the necessity of the BPAs role in future community development, the City Council felt vigorous. Meaningful discussions were necessary in a respectful public process that engages the residents impacted by the Urban Renewal Project's still going. Katzenbach and Flynn requested that Park Plaza Urban Renewal Plan be added to the nine parcels that were extended to December 30, extended to December 31st, 2022, in order to address. The building height issue in the area council were later requested that the Brunswick King Urban Renewal Plan also be added to the nine parcels in order to allow more time for to address residents concerns. Councilor Fernando Sanderson requested to add Kittredge Square Urban Renewal Plan to the nine Parcels Council has discussed and weighed ramifications of taking no action on the order and it allowed the renewal areas to sunset on April 22nd, 22, 2022. BPA officials explained that allowing the urban renewal parcels to expire will also cause the expiration of elders deed restricted provisions that include the protection of affordable housing and protection of open space and other land provisions. Councils expressed concerns in connection with eight month extension for aforementioned urban renewal plans, including the lack of information regarding BPD, a complete list of LDA inventory to date. They indicated that in order to mitigate the potential future harm posed to residents moving forward, it was determined that further analysis and review of the proposed nine current LDA zones and other BPD a LDA is necessary. The Council discussed extending the requested time period from December 31st, 2022, to March 31st, 2023. For the urban renewal decisions that wouldn't immediately sunset. The City Council also requested that the BPD do a six month check in with the body to provide updates on their progress. Following the hearing and additional consideration. The Committee recommends the following that the the following urban renewal renewal areas be allowed to expire first in its central business district, Boylston Essex Plan and Central Business District School Franklin plan that the following urban renewal areas be extended until March 31st 2023. Central Business South Station Urban Renewal Plan. Fenway Urban Renewal Plan Campus High School Urban Renewal Plan. South Cove Urban Renewal Plan. Charlestown Urban Renewal Plan Downtown Waterfront Faneuil Hall Urban Renewal Plan Government Center Urban Renewal Plan South End Urban Renewal Plan Washington Park Urban Renewal Plan Park Plaza Urban Renewal Plan Brunswick King Urban Renewal Plan. Ian Kittredge Square Urban Renewal Plan in recognition of City Council Authority in connection with the aforementioned Urban Renewal Plan changes, the City Council and the BPD director agreed to implement a series of procedural changes with respect to the number of legitimate concerns discussing discussed at the hearing following the City Council approval, the BPD will seek approval from its agency Board of Directors, Mayor and Department of Housing and Community Development for extension of the plans. As Chair of the Committee on Planning, Development and Transportation, I recommend moving the list docket from the Committee to Full Council for discussion and formal action. At this time. My recommendation to the Full Council will be that this matter ought to pass in a new draft for the reasons stated above. Thank you, Mr. President. And I'd also like to have Counsel Earl or Councilor Anderson or Councilor Balk would like to speak. I'd like them allow them to turn. And also thank you. Thank you, Councilor Baker. At this time, I'd like to recognize Councilor Balk Council. You have the floor. For speaking substantively. I just wanted for a point of order perspective to suggest that we take a vote, that the count, that the new language is properly before the council. Just because there's a the the committee report that the chair read reflects an update to the order and and specifically that it turned out the updated version on the order accidentally had Brunswick came twice at the end and not square. So what councilors are holding in their hand that you have is the actual order that we were voting on. And I think we should probably make sure that this updated language that the chair is proposing is before it properly before the body. Thank you. Council blocks would be a motion to substitute seeing and hearing no objection. The language of the committee report would be. Substituted. Well, Mr. Clarke, we'll take a vote on that. Any objections? No objections to the language. The new language will be added. And then go ahead, cancel a book. And with that, I would just say briefly because the chair covered it very exhaustively that I think this is a a I think the council talked a lot about the fact that we want to make sure this is a thoughtful process. It's really important to our constituents. And each of us as district councilors have very specific district issues with each of these. And we want to make sure that we've got time enough to learn them and process them. So I appreciate the chair's recommendation that we extend that time period a bit. So it's not hitting us at the exact same time as a crunch on all other legislation and that we move a few of the districts that have some outstanding questions into that bucket for study over the next year. So thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Counsel. BLOCK Would any other counsel like to discuss this matter? Thank you. Councilor Baker, the chair of the Committee on Planning, Development and Transportation, seeks acceptance of this committee report and passage of Docket 0314 in a new draft. All those in favor say I am opposed. Say no to other. Things because it's. Okay at this time. Mr. Clarke, would you take a roll call vote? Roll call vote on number 0314. Councilor Arroyo. Yes. Councilor Arroyo. Yes. Councilor Baker. Yes. Councilor Baker. Yes. Councilor Book. Councilor Book. Councilor Brady. Council of Great Neck Council. Edwards. Council. Edwards. Yes. Councilor Fernandes. Sanderson. Councilor Fernando Sanderson. Yes. Council Clarity. Council Clarity. Yes. Councilor Flynn. Yes. Councilor Flynn. Yes. Councilor Lara. Councilor. Yes. Councilor Louise. In conclusion. Yes. Councilor and Media. Council and Media. Yes. Councilor Murphy. Councilor Murphy. Yes. And Council. World Council. World. Yes. Unanimous. Thank you, Mr. Clarke. The docket has passed. I just want to say, on behalf of our colleagues, thank you to Councilor Baker. Thank you to the BP team for working on this important matter. Mr. Carr, please read DAWKINS 0312.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 4201 East Arkansas Avenue in Virginia Village. Approves an official map amendment to rezone property located at 4201 East Arkansas Avenue, 4040 East Louisiana Avenue and 1380 South Birch Street from CMP-EI2 and S-MX-5 UO-1 UO-2 to S-MX-8 UO-2, S-MX-8, S-MX-5, S-MX-3, and S-MU-3 (campus, various districts, to suburban, mixed-use various heights), in Council District 6. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-9-18.

DenverCityCouncil_12032018_18-1075

12 hours. Council Bill 1164 has passed. Councilman Flynn, will you please put Council Bill 1075 on the floor? Yes, Mr. President. I move the council bill 18 dash 1075 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council Bill 1075 is open. May we have. The staff report? Good evening. Excuse me. Andrew Webb here from Community Planning and Development to present this proposed rezoning of property at 4201 East Arkansas Avenue from two existing zoned districts c MPI two and S-Max 5ur1 you oh two to a mix of or to s-max eight you oh to s-max 865 S-Max three and SMU three. This proposal is in Council District six. It's in the Virginia Village neighborhood near the intersection of Louisiana and Colorado. This is a an approximately 13 and a half acre property. That is the was the former headquarters of the Colorado Department of Transportation, which vacated the site last year and has moved to a different location in Sun Valley . It's currently has a3124 story office structures built since the 1950s. The proposal here, as I mentioned, is within the suburban neighborhood context and it is for several Emacs or mixed use districts in a range of heights from 3 to 8, and then another zone district within the suburban neighborhood context, the multi-unit district for the property down at the at the southeast corner of the site. This is a this is was project was begun by the city which took an opportunity to to participate in the acquisition of and transfer of the site to a developer. When Scott announced that they were planning to vacate it, a purchase and sale agreement was approved by the council in late 2017 and the goals of the project were to establish or obtain 150 units of affordable housing on the site, 150,000 square feet of commercial space and employment opportunities, among other objectives. The rezoning is recommended by CPD in combination with the development agreement. This was recommended as an alternative to a general development plan. In this case, it actually achieves similar and in some cases additional objectives than a than a GDP would. The development agreement was approved in late October. It does require language. Language in the development agreement requires 150 units of affordable housing on site available to residents earning up to 60% of area meeting. Median income requires provision of open space, either publicly accessible private open space or dedicated spark parks based on a minimum of 10% of developable developable land on the property and that is consistent with the GDPR standard requires multiple traffic and transportation commitments, including a traffic study on and off site infrastructure improvements to go along with development, transportation demand management strategies for individual developments on the site, etc. It requires a drainage master plan and an open space plan. It requires the assignment of a construction manager as a single point of contact to address issues with the community or with the council offices as as issues come up during construction, and it requires a public meeting to present drainage, open space, concept, site plans and the traffic study. So as I mentioned, the existing zoning primarily for the core of the site is CPI two. That is a campus zoned district intended for educational and institutional uses. There's also a parcel up at the northwest corner of the site that is zoned Smc's find that suburban mixed use with the uo one and uo two overlays you will one is the adult use overlay you oh two is the Billboard overlay. The Billboard overlay is proposed to be retained at the site surrounding zoning ranges from a mix of Smc's and SMU zoned districts to the north west and southeast and southwest of the site. Transitioning to SMU and our three former Chapter 59 multi-unit zoned district and said a single unit zoned district as you move to the southeast part of the site and into the Virginia Village neighborhood. So the existing zoning, as I mentioned, is intended for education, institutional or office campuses. And I've tried to highlight a few details here to to get out in front of some of the questions that I've received through this process. The copyright item zone district does permit residential, including multi-unit uses, it permits office uses and eating and drinking uses. It does not allow retail sales, the CPI to permit the maximum height of building, height of 150 feet or 12 storeys, and does have provisions limiting height to 75 feet within 170 feet of a protected district such as a single unit zoned district. And then heights are further limited by the bulk plain standards, which limits height along a 45 degree angle plane that begins ten feet above the street, any adjacent street. Mid midline setbacks in the CPI to district are 20 feet at the at the primary street and 7.5 feet for side streets and side interior. In comparison to the Smic's district, the SM zone districts have a minimum setback of 0% or of zero feet at the primary street, but and 7.5 feet similar comparable for side streets inside interiors. SMU zoned district has a five foot side street setback. I didn't noted here, but it also requires a seven and a half foot setback adjacent to a protected district. And I would also highlight one detail here is that in the two zones and for residential uses, the off street parking requirements are 0.75 parking spaces per residential unit compared to the in the suburban neighborhood context, 1.25 spaces are required per unit for off street parking for residential uses. Existing land use is on the site. Our data shows them as primarily office, obviously, as you can see. Here. The the parcel at the northwest corner of the site is undeveloped and has been used to train Citroen employees on water quality techniques. And then the personnel at the far southeast corner at the. I guess that's the northeast corner of Arkansas on Birch has been used for parking and container storage and other uses. Surrounding uses include a mix of office, commercial and multi-unit residential and some of what our system refers to as industrial. That's an auto body shop directly north of the site. There's more intense uses are generally northwest and southwest of the site with multi-unit and single unit residential uses as you get south and east of the site. This this land or this. Another land use map here shows the site somewhat zoomed out so you can get a feel for how the how this development integrates in the scale the site integrates with the neighborhood and with the Colorado Boulevard corridor. And so you can get a feel for some of the other land use types in the area. You can see Glendale there at the top, the interchange of Interstate 25 and Colorado at the South End there, and Ellis Elementary as a landmark just to the southeast of the site. This aerial photo shows gives a feel for the intensity of of development along the Colorado Boulevard. Corridor. And for the scale of buildings and density of development in the area, these photographs show. These are images of of development on the site itself. At the top left there is the water quality training site at the north west corner of the site, the main headquarters, a former headquarters office building for CDOT, is shown there at the bottom left behind. It is the Hyatt in Glendale. In the middle there, at the bottom and top right are the smaller office buildings on the east side of the site, as well as the existing microwave communications tower. I should note that the the communications tower and approximately 8000 square foot parcel of land surrounding it are not part of this proposed rezoning and will remain under the ownership and operation of CDOT. And finally, the bottom right there shows the the parking lot at the northeast corner of Birch and Arkansas. These photos show development to the north and east of the site, including higher density, residential and commercial uses to the north. Lower intensity multi-unit residential units uses to the northeast and single unit residential uses to the to the east. These photos show development on the at the top left here, development directly west of the site abutting Colorado and then directly across Colorado. At the bottom left there is the is Arkansas street and the middle photo is sort of the current kind of front door to the property from Arkansas. And finally, the the photo at the bottom right there shows multi-unit development to the south of the site. As I mentioned, this proposal is for two different zone districts, the SMU three district, which promotes higher density housing in a suburban context and smacks three, five and eight, which is intended to promote mixed use developments that allow for the convenience of walking to and from services, jobs and residences. These districts are appropriate along corridors for larger sites and at major intersections. As I mentioned, the applicant proposes to retain the you o to existing you o to overlay district at the Northwest Parcel. Staff has no objection to that. There are no adopted plans that we're aware of recommending removal of the you or two overlay in this area. There are two existing billboards in the area which would have to be taken into consideration under the Denver Zoning Codes Cap and Replace program. Were new Billboard B to be proposed for the site. In terms of process, CPD sent out the informational notice of receipt of this proposal in early June. Since then and actually proceeding that, the applicant has held seven meetings with community members to present the project, starting with kind of a visual preference surveys early on and then moving forward into getting more specific about proposals, providing information about how feedback has been incorporated. And I believe the applicants are here this evening and will be able to speak more to that process. The CPD written notice of the planning board hearing went out in late August and the planning board hearing was in September. There was a recommendation of approval with the further recommendation in this case that a development agreement be approved or executed concurrent with this MAP amendment to guide future development at the site. Ludy considered this proposal on October 9th. The first reading was November 5th, and here we are at the final hearing on December 3rd with regard to registered neighborhood organizations and public comment. As of application, there were two neighborhood registered neighborhood organizations that considered the site to be within their boundary. The Virginia Village Ellice Community Association is currently not operational. It's our understanding that they have they have dissolved due to lack of membership and other issues. The Inter Neighborhood Cooperation or I.N.S., also considers this to be within its boundary. Both have received notice multiple times throughout the process, but prior to the Planning Board hearing, we did receive written comment from the Virginia Village Ellice Community Association indicating that the the R.A. was neutral about the proposal. We've not heard from that organization since. In terms of written comment from stakeholders, we've received approximately 60 letters, emails and other documents from community members and other stakeholders as of the deadline, which is last was last Thursday at noon. Of those 18 were opposed to the proposed rezoning and 42 were in support. With regard to stakeholder concerns, I'm going to highlight just a handful of the key issues that the key themes that came up and and note some some ways that those might be mitigated. A major concern is is increased traffic at the site. The applicant's kind of baseline analysis of existing uses and existing zoning and proposed zoning found that under existing or under or under the proposed or potentially under the existing zoning, there could be an estimated 10,000 trip per day increase. This is proposed to be mitigated by several things in the several components of the development agreement, including requirements for the traffic study, infrastructure improvement and transportation demand management, which aims to reduce the number of individual trips in motor vehicles and encourage other modes of travel, such as use of transit. Additionally, staff would note that mixed use developments can help spread trips throughout the day and reduce the impact on peak hour congestion versus a single large office or residential use. Another key concern that was raised was was height and transitions into the neighborhood. The original proposal that came in from the applicant did propose to keep some of the current 12 storey entitlement on the site. They did later revise that to a maximum height of eight storeys in the sort of northern northwestern part of the site. They also proposed a unique system of. Right zone districts. To illustrate a step down into neighborhoods with building heights with which do result in lower heights at the edge of development and what could be done under the current zoning. Other concerns we've heard about are the potential for gentrification with new development, environmental concerns and others. And many of these are addressed both in the development agreement and in the purchase and sale agreement and further detailed in the staff report. In terms of support for the project, we've heard quite a few neighbors speak to the opportunity for creating a sense of place at this location along Colorado Boulevard, which is mostly in this area, especially characterized by auto oriented strip development and excitement about the possibility of destinations and retail that people could walk to. We've heard support for 150 units of housing, which, as we heard from the principal of Alice Elementary, could help stabilize the student population at that's at that school by allowing families to stay in the neighborhood as housing prices increase and then generally sustainability, you know, infill development as an alternative to sprawl, to meet housing demand in places where there is already existing infrastructure, re-use of an underutilized site and addition of new residents and households along transit routes which can help increase ridership and thereby support improvements to the transit system. With regard to the criteria for rezoning, as you know, the Council must find that a proposed rezoning meets these five criteria from the Denver zoning code with regard to consistency, with adopted plans, to plans. In fact, this site, the Denver Comprehensive Plan and Blueprint Denver with regard to the Comprehensive Plan, this proposal would support multiple strategies and objectives aimed at redevelopment of underutilized land and obtaining or encouraging quality, infill development and providing a variety of housing opportunities. With regard to Blueprint, Blueprint identifies the parcel at the far northwest corner of the site as commercial corridor for a as a as a future concept of land use and identifies it as an area of change. The majority of the site, the core of the site is identified as for a future concept land use of single family residential and is that identified as an area of stability. Future street classifications include the commercial arterial and enhance trans enhanced transit corridor designation along Colorado Boulevard. All other streets in the area are des own designated locals according to Blueprint, although I should note that Public Works does consider Louisiana to be a collector at this location. And all of these all of the local streets here in Louisiana and Arkansas do provide Signalized access to Colorado Boulevard without passing through residential neighborhoods. And this is comparable to block design along Colorado and other corridors where side streets from the kind of major arterials serve several blocks in some cases of of commercial and mixed use development . This the land use the future concept land use designation did present some challenges for the analysis of plan consistency. One of those is that it's not clear how this designation came to be in the first place. These images actually show a comparison between the existing land use on the site there on the left and the blueprint concept land use map. From Blueprint. As you can see, there are commercial and multi-unit, residential and other higher intensity uses not only at the site but surrounding the site that have been designated as single family residential in in blueprint. Despite the fact that those developments existed at the time of Blueprint's adoption when it was adopted, the former Chapter 59 or five institutional zoning on the subject site didn't actually permit single unit residential uses. This was a key topic of the planning board discussion as the board grappled with whether, you know, too broad a brush had been applied here with Blueprint. And as we considered it, we we looked at several factors, including the low likelihood of single unit development at this location. Given the surrounding context. We did look at the existing zoning. We considered the developer's commitments to address some of the traffic concerns via the development agreement. And then finally, we looked at other tools in the plan in blueprint, which does provide language to address unique situations like this, including the designation or the identification of committed and reinvestment areas in areas of stability. Acknowledging that there may be cases where, even in an area of stability infill, a redevelopment project may be appropriate, especially where it can provide services and. Employment for neighborhoods. And then the blueprints toolbox for areas of stability also identifies several tools that are consistent with this proposal, including ensuring that commercial development is not impeded but provides appropriate transitions into neighborhoods. And this proposal does attempt to very graphically illustrate the transition into neighborhoods and then the use of public private partnerships to to obtain affordable housing. Redevelopment of brownfield sites. And to promote business growth and job retention. And finally, leveraging redevelopment opportunities to obtain new open space and improved pedestrian realm and other amenities for neighborhoods. With regard to other criteria, with regard to the uniformity of district regulations, this request will result in the uniform application of the Max Zone District's building form, use and design regulations. It will further a public health, safety and welfare by providing jobs and housing near high quality transit. It will result in a pedestrian friendly mix of uses at the site and a clear transition of building scale. With regard to just justifying circumstances. The applicant proposed several, including the growth of population in the city and the well documented need for housing, as well as the closure and vacation of the site. And finally, with regard to the fifth criteria and consistency with neighborhood context, zone, district purpose and intent, CPD finds that this is. This proposal is consistent as further detailed in the staff report, but specifically as mixed use. Districts are intended to enhance the convenience of walking, gathering and shopping within and around the city's neighborhoods and are they are appropriate along corridors and for larger sites and ensure that new development contributes positively to nearby residential neighborhoods and character. So with that, CPD recommends approval in combination with the development agreement that will address certain issues relative to the redevelopment of the site. Based on a finding that all these review criteria have been met, I am happy to stand for any questions. Thank you very much. We do have 53 individuals signed up to speak this evening. So I'm going to ask if everyone sitting in this front row could please move to another seat so that we can make room for the speakers as they're coming up so that we can effectively and efficiently get through this. So if you're sitting in the front row, if you could please find another seat. But until I call the first five. So we're going to call five at a time to sit in a front row. Mr.. CQ Dan, could you if you could clear out that front bench? Thank you. Thank you, sir. All right, so I will call five at a time. I do apologize if I get your name wrong when I call you, if you could come up to this vacated bench so that you can be ready to step right up to the podium as soon as your name is called. So our first five are Jimmy Bill Office, Stacy Weekes, Stuart Anderson, Chris Vickery and Sean Maley. If you want to come up and Jimmy gloves, the microphone is yours. Good evening, City Council. My name is Jimmy Office and I'm principal and co-founder of the control group, the local real estate development company chosen by the city of Denver for the Mixed Use Project we're addressing tonight. My parents immigrated from Greece to Denver more than 50 years ago. We gave our company the name Cointreau because it's the Greek word for center, referring to the core of the community, the intersection of families and culture, commerce, the place where we live and grow and raise our children. The Castro group is a company of firsts with a 15 year track record from seeing early potential on Colfax to bringing the first Trader Joe's to Colorado. We also hope to be among the first to create a livable, walkable, vibrant community in southeast Denver, not far from where I grew up. The Colorado Boulevard corridor has always been exciting. As kids, we saw movies at the Cooper Theater and ball at Celebrity Lanes. Today, I take my kids to the IMAX theater on South Colorado Boulevard, and then we hit the Dairy Queen. Restaurants, retailers and friendly neighbors make the corridor a lively north south artery. We plan to create a walkable main street environment where people can live, eat, shop and enjoy the culture, community activities right outside the front door. Together. We need to build a city that's equitable, affordable and attainable. Since the start of the project, we heard from teachers, moms, social workers and others who reported they were being pushed out by increasing prices, home prices and rentals. Rental car rental places. Please know that we are fully, fully committed to 250 units of affordable housing associated with development. Recently, the city announced the 150 units are the reason the city announced a goal to build 2000 affordable units over the next six years. This project alone meets 45% of anything, any single year target. We recognize that the city's affordable housing now is now, not in six years. We have listened to the neighbors, have shared their have shared with us throughout a series of community meetings. As a result, we reduced the building heights and provided a better transition to the adjacent neighborhood. In a development agreement, we recommitted to to the affordable housing units, set aside 10% of the property for open space and so much more. We also developed a good neighbor agreement to address additional community preferences relating to building design, mature tree retention and traffic data. In the last 11 months. I shared more pizza with Virginia Village neighbors than anyone else, and I'm pleased to consider members of the community as friends. And it's these neighbors that I like to think. First, they offered invaluable input in the face of community changes which appear intangible and foreign. We hope to continue to earn their trust and maintain just as we hope to meet the city expectations moving forward as we ask for your support for the project tonight. Also, thanks to many people who worked diligently alongside to get us to the vote. Council Member Cashman All the city agencies are interesting, ranging from CPD Public Works in the Division of Real Estate to the city's attorney office. Thank you for your cooperation. I have colleagues follow me to address other. I'm sorry. Your time is up. Thank you. All right. Next up, Stacey weeks. Good evening, Mr. President. Council members. I'm Stacey Weeks with North Design 11 zero one Bannock Street. I'm serving as the planning principal for the project, and the redevelopment of this property is an exciting opportunity for the community, community and city, an important property to bring reinvestment to the city along the Colorado Boulevard commercial corridor and Virginia Village, redevelop the city fabric and connect the neighborhood. We envision an integration of multifamily, housing, retail, commercial and office in a suburban mixed use context to make a place a place to grab coffee, have lunch and dinner, provide housing for teachers, for retail employees, for medical test technicians and families to become part of the Virginia Village neighborhood. The planning process started with the acknowledgment that there's change for this property. See that transition from this key property that they occupied for 65 years? Blueprint the zoning code. The comp plan provides strategies and tools to accommodate change and reinvestment. Our application is before you with staff and Planning Board recommendations for approval after extensive review, review and the rezoning does meet the city adopted plan criteria for rezoning with suburban type uses in the surrounding area location near Transit City served by two active bus routes and adjacency to Colorado Boulevard commercial corridor. The request builds on three powerful tools and blueprint regulatory tools, public infrastructure tools and partnership tools provided in the toolbox of areas of stability. And Chapter seven Shaping Growth in Chapter three, Blueprint provides guidance and strategies in the areas of change in Chapter three is high density reduces land consumption. Blueprint States for redevelopment has transportation benefit when it's paired with a land use mix that provides destinations with convenient walking in areas that have access to transit and transportation corridors and areas at St Patrick's that are interconnected with developed sidewalks. In addition, the rezoning is consistent with the city's zoning code for all of all criteria rezoning, including 12 .4. ten seven day consistency with adopted plans. The proposed official map is consistent with the city adopted plans or the proposed rezoning is necessary to provide community need, which was not anticipated at time of adoption of the city's plan . We say yes to both and after 11 months, eight public meetings in attendees and support this evening, it's clear demonstrated community need including affordable housing. The neighborhood neighborhood transition. We proposed three stories, which is a sizable benefit adjacent to the single unit residential. There's also the existing residential that's that's adjacent to the protected district, which we have currently 75 feet and five storeys allowed. But we are proposing three stories. We also have the upper story setback with the zoned districts and we eliminate 12 stories from the site entirely. Goods and services integrated greenspace and streetscape improvements for north south connections and pedestrian amenities. All this is a reduction of down zoning from the current CPI to. It started the process to move to a Suburban. I'm sorry, but your time is up. Thank you very much. Next up, Stewart Anderson. Hello, I'm Stewart Anderson, 1041 Marion Street, Denver. I am the executive director of Transportation Solutions Foundation. We are a not for profit that has been operating for 21 years in southeast Denver. Our primary goal is to create an environment that supports multimodal travel and minimizes the use of the single occupant vehicle. We were obtained by the control group to look at developing a transportation demand management concept level plan. And and we have gone through that effort and have spent the last four months working on a variety of strategies that will make the pedestrian the priority and the bicyclist a priority. And to make transit users our priority, there will be cars. They always come. But we're going to try to maximize a multimodal environment and try to create a sustainable environment that will last over time. Some of the strategies that are included in the concept level plan are a neighborhood mobility hub that will be located on the east side of this property, which would centralize a variety of transportation options, including car share, bike share and connections to the rail station at Colorado station. Also, we are looking at enhanced pedestrian facilities and in particular safe crossings. We are also looked at connectivity to the bike network. Currently they're working on a bike facility along Florida. That would be the closest facility that we would connect to. Also, the fact that there is mixed use zoning built into that, that's one of the best production elements that we have. It not only spreads the peak travel over time, but it also will capture trips by providing different types of amenities such as stores, dry cleaners and others onsite to eliminate that. One of the things that we also discussed was how can we make this a part of that community, not an island, but actually one that is fluid and would allow people, pedestrians and cyclists to take advantage of this facility? We do not take a position on any development project, but I can say that the control group in good faith has worked with us on this concept level plan. They have made commitments that we feel are core to reducing trips and maximizing multimodal travel over time. We also found that they are willing to discuss innovative transportation strategies and new technologies that we think will be part of the future of our transportation here in Denver. We feel that this development will complement that over time. Thank you. Thank you very much, Chris Vickery. Good evening. I'm Chris Vickery, director of development for the Control Group at 1509 York Street. Since the beginning of this project, we are looking for another tool to go along with the rezoning application. Since we're so early, we're at step one of the redevelopment. So as Andrew mentioned, we put together a development agreement that put in city priorities and neighborhood priorities to make it a better place. We held a public meeting on November 14th with the neighborhood to really discuss any questions they may have on that, as it's been posted to our website and the city's websites. Those top priorities that I really want to focus on tonight is, one, is affordable housing. I think with all their outreach we've done is the most important thing here on the site is units not paying a fee. So we've committed to build those units 150, 60% and my or less on this site. We have selected a partner. They're actually here. Luxton McDermott. We're moving forward with a chapter we've made. We're going to make our application in February just to Jimmy brought up this point, but just to bring it back is this is making up 45% of the annual goal of the 2000 inclusionary plan, which is a good step. The next one I think that everybody has heard about is traffic. Traffic is going to change on this site with the zoning or the proposed rezoning as it's going to get developed. We understand that and we want to minimize that impact as much as we can to the surrounding areas. The zoning helps with that. We're looking for potential heights. We're going to bring retail, which has passed by rates that are higher than multifamily. Also, it will encourage live work play development agreement. We're doing a full traffic study. We've already done current counts, level service. We've expanded our scope as per all of our neighborhood meetings. We're being proactive. We've had two traffic public meetings that are outside of the eight that we've had. We've already got a protected left turn on Louisiana and Colorado heading southbound. We're going to provide a North-South connection which will reinsert the grid, which will allow more options for people to get in and out of the site. We're going to do the TDM and implement those as a part of our development plan that Stuart discussed and we felt like we hired the best guy to come up with that concept. Other notable items is containment, continued neighborhood engagement, construction manager, open space requirement, drainage study and subdivision requirement. Along with this, if the neighborhood priorities that couldn't be put into the development agreement, it's not a city related item. We were open to a general agreement, which is a good neighbor agreement. The R.A. isn't currently functioning, but we've had countless neighbors that took time out of their days, came up with great ideas, and we're going to commit to doing those items. And those are design. We said the metro district to enforce those design criterias, additional neighborhood meetings, tower, beautiful location, which is the microwave. If that if that remains, if we can't get it beautified, we're going to keep the line of sight as outlined in our contract for it to have continuous operations. I'm sorry, but your time is up. Thank you very much. And then, Sean, if you want to come up, I'm also going to call the next five. So if you guys could vacate that and I apologize, I'm not sure how this is over. Fox, Curtis Row, Sarah Murphy, David Browning and Denise Cheeky. If you could make your way up to this front row. And Sean, you have the microphone. Good evening. Mr. President, and members of council. My name is Sean Maley, Sierra Associates, 1660 Lincoln Street. I wanted to speak about the 11 months of outreach control group has been formed as I believe it sets a new standard and pioneers some new ground for how an owner and developer engages with the neighborhood. The eight public meetings that we've held on the site sets a high mark for me personally, and adding to these eight meetings, we've convened dozens more special issue meetings with the community regarding traffic, environmental cleanup, with the City Task Force, the. Neighborhood Zoning Committee. Who sent us written memos and exchanged neighborhood priorities, and countless other individual meetings, coffees and house visits, and referring you to the letter control group sent City Council on November 27th. That's included at the front of the packet we handed you tonight. I wanted to draw your attention to the first page in a short list of agreements that Castro has made throughout this process. For an important site like this, with a lengthy process with the neighborhood. We want council to know that this process has yielded a lot of positives that go beyond the existing zoning scenario. Affordable housing, as you've heard tonight, open space, ongoing public engagement. We've included in the DEA a process and structure for ongoing public meetings tied to key project milestones after the rezoning. If at this past lowering heights and neighborhood transition, the application lowers heights on the interior and exterior of the site and goes below the city's zoning regulations for development adjacent to protected districts like the Sue and. Zone districts. TDM As you've heard from Stewart extending the timeframe, we've pushed our application timeframe as much as possible to allow for maximum dialog with the community. And at first reading we agreed to push back our hearing by an additional two weeks to allow for more time for the Community and Council to review the development agreement. We held our eighth public meeting during this time frame for public notice. We distributed fliers, posted signs on the property, create an email database with over 300 neighbors who were repeatedly sent emails asking for their questions and concerns. Built a custom project website where we posted all neighborhood presentations, information and key documents. And there are countless other items I could list, including, but not limited to preserving the mature trees along the Arkansas Avenue, closing Arkansas Avenue, east of Birch Street, and many more. I believe this hard work is reflected in the amount of support that is included in the staff report and package before you. If you see these letters, they're in tab four of the binder we prepared. In closing, I would like to thank city staff for their dedication, time and effort. Councilman Cashman and all of City Council, but in particular, Councilman Cashman for appropriately and persistently pushing all parties for a robust and productive dialog. And most of all, the neighborhood great projects require the community's voice and input. Great development is a two way street. We are inspired and honored by the amount of time, dedication and intelligent and thoughtful ideas that have been given to this project. Thank you. Thank you. Next up for Fox. That's what came through on our system of there. A zoo. Last name Fox. Okay. Last name Fox seems correct. I'm not sure what happened to the first name here. Go for. My name is David Fox. I'm a staff representative here for. I'm just here to answer any questions about the transaction if those come up. Thank you. Curtis Roe. Good evening. My name is Curtis. True. I work with Kimberly Hahn Associates. I'm a traffic engineer and I am also here to answer any questions regarding traffic engineering. That may. Come up. Thank you, Sarah Murphy. Good evening. Denver City Council members, I'd like to introduce myself. My name is Sarah Murphy and I reside at 4622 East Colorado Avenue in Denver, Virginia Village neighborhood. I've been a resident there for 12 years. I'm a licensed architect in the state of Colorado. I hold a bachelor's degree from the Frankfurt School of Architecture and a master's degree from Montana State University. I was on the Virginia Village board from 2011 to 2013, and I'm here to say that I think that the current zoning change pushes that the mass update stories across from residential homes to the sidewalk edge. I think that we have the opportunity to create a party for the site that would prescribe, form, use parking as well as other standards across the site. The images that the developer has presented show a generic form and does not mention parking or how it's meeting at street level. And they see that it's walkable, but it's not greeting the street in a certain way. And I think that's critical. This is a prevents a little bit to no transition. And like they've said, they've scaled it down. But that transition goes to straight to some single family homes on the southeast side. A beauty for the site would help address the concerns raised by the community. This unique zone would allow the district to maintain a maximum flexibility during the planning stage, an assurance that what's proposed is actually being developed. The site is going to impact our community for decades, the community, the city and the site itself. And we deserve the best solution. Not necessarily. It was proposed in the zoning change. An example of this is on the eastern edge of my street, Bel-Air and Colorado Avenue. There's tall, multi-story office buildings at the street level. They are 20 feet setback from the street level. But there are trees and lush landscaping that brings that scale down, which is the current zoning for the site that's being proposed. I think that this would match a similar context and allow us to keep the zoning as proposed or something different. I'm an architect, so I understand that the development is going to happen and that we are going to have to have this for generations. But it's smart development that we need to look at and how it affects Virginia Village as a whole. We want something that will make us proud, and that's something that's rushed through. I understand that there's been a lot of public meetings, but some of those meetings have been open house style, where there's not a general progression of comments coming forward to the council or to the council, to the developer, so that the community is not hearing what other concerns on that is going to be. It's just dialog. Another concern that I have is that the communication has been very digital and a lot of the people in our neighborhood have historically been there from the time that the homes are built in 1950s, those people do not necessarily have communication by email. I personally do not get fliers on my door notifying me of the meetings, and I know that my neighbor next to me does not have email or, you know, internet access in his home. So that's one of my concerns as well. I'm against the rezoning as requested, and I ask that it be denied, tabled or continued until a more appropriate plan can be developed. Thank you for your time and I'm here for any questions, if you have any. Thank you. David Browning. Hi. My name's Dave Browning and. I live at 933 South Milwaukee Way, which I understand to be in the stakeholder area. I'm also here as a residential realtor. Four or five years ago, I was on the Mayor Hancock's Affordable Housing Task Force Committee with Councilwoman Kanis. And during that. Time, boy, we struggled with the affordable housing. Inventory in Denver. We lost a lot of affordable housing units to foreclosure and the 2007 to 2010 period. I think this project just seems like a great way to start to back up that affordable housing. Inventory. Again. Also, as a residential realtor, I've been on the board of directors for the Realtor. Association for more than eight years, and we. Are always in favor of projects that put people closer. To man mass. Mass transit, as it's just more as it's environmentally friendly. Gets people closer to the city center and the light rail. I also want to talk about in my career as a realtor, I have worked in the past in residential real estate with the group that's proposing this project. And I worked with a. Lot of people who did a lot of redevelopment. And I always told people that this is the group that you want to be buying homes from just because of the pride. They took in their work. Just being earnest and. Talking when they didn't need to talk to you about how proud they are of the community and how they want to do a good job and have the people who live there be prideful and the product that they were producing. So just to sum up, I love the affordable housing aspect. I like the environmental impact of it to the point where it's close to light rail. And I think anyone who may be worried about the group doing this, I don't know what the alternative would be, but it would be hard to find a group that would be I would think it would be just about impossible to find a group that would take pride in the development that I know this group would. What's not to like? Thank you. Thank you. We are to our last person in this group. So if we could free that bunch. And Denise Cheeky, you're up at just a second. Let me call the next five. Diane Walter, Nancy Schuetz, Trustee, Frank Pinkerton, Bill Berger and Kristen Jones. If you could make your way to the front and I'm sorry about the last name. That's all right. Go ahead, Kelly. Denise to Kelly. Hi, I'm Denise, too. Kelly, I live in the neighborhood at your door in Mexico for the last ten years. And what drew me to the neighborhood was community appeal, the connection that Susan, who spoke earlier about her neighborhood, was talking about. I wasn't prepared to speak tonight. I thought we could yield our time and found out when I got here, we could not. So please excuse me. I'm terribly nervous. Let's see. On my immediate block, as someone else had just mentioned, most of the homes have been owned by my neighbors for ten, 20, 50 years. Three immediate neighbors are in their nineties. We have an amazing neighborhood. It's so great. The Castro project does scare me a little. The only information I have seen as limited and I recently received a flier from a neighborhood committee. So I know how easy it is to get information out because this was like neighbors put this together. So and I do want to say that our association didn't that I know of didn't it wasn't a membership problem. What happened was it was hijacked by real estate developers and they didn't pay attention to the bylaws that were necessary through the state. And because of that, it's disbanded and it's currently being rebirthed. So hopefully we'll get that to help with this situation. Well, okay. So the Castro project seems to be very dense with multiple large structures. The project also seems to lack conformity with the existing neighborhood. Although I did hear some of the things you mentioned and they did sound very positive, but that's the first I've heard of it. And the project will create an enormous traffic and profit and parking problem with no current provision for resolution. I heard the not for profit person who also was impressive, so those actually were a little hopeful for this project. The court was only a 1 to 2 story building with a lot of parking and a lot of availability. That didn't create any traffic problems that I'm aware of. And I live south of what we're talking about. And so even though there are large structures to the north, everything to the south, if you looked in that picture . Was single dwelled dwelling units. The redevelopment of the project is acceptable, but I would like to see it tabled for the moment until more neighborhood representation is considered. You know, 30% to me is kind of a large percentage, which was the 18 people that the person spoke about earlier. I'd really like to see a really good committee put with a lot of the neighbors participating. I think they would like to participate. I think I, I just wanted to also mention that, as I mentioned, elderly and and younger children, there's lots of younger children with those 25 mile an hour signs. And, you know, I'm. Sorry, but your time is up. Thank you very much. Diane. Diane. Walter. Hello. I'm Diane Walter. Good evening, counsel. I must ask you, where is the proper justification for this particular zoning legally? You must look at the evidence presented tonight and during your quasi judicial and this 18 page comprehensive analysis that was submitted to you all by Tim Karr last Monday points out at least 20 ways in which the rezoning request does not meet specific criteria. This is an attempt to shoehorn in something that is oversize and largely inappropriately zoned for this residential neighborhood. Our neighborhood is one of front lawns and quiet residential streets. Yes, we all want cute retail shops and the affordable housing to be built. But this plan is to dance for the area. Staff has selectively identified plan objectives, strategies and recommendations to support justification for the rezoning. But there are six areas of noncompliance with the Denver Comprehensive Plan listed on page three. Additionally, staff has ignored at least six of the basic principles and recommendations identified in Blueprint Denver. The proposed zoning districts will have adverse impacts on adjacent single family residential development, primarily one story, and will increase traffic congestion, noise and the quality of living in the surrounding area, thus conflicting with the intent of a rezoning that protects the public health, safety and general welfare, staff's assertion of a justified reason for the rezoning is subjective at best lacks foundational facts that demonstrate either demand or need within the community. The idea that this rezoning will be down zoning from the current permitted uses fails to consider the impact of large retail uses and high density residential development on the site of again, quiet neighborhood residential streets. Colorado Boulevard has been mentioned an awful lot here tonight. This is two blocks off of Colorado Boulevard and it's a mile and I'm 1.1 miles from the light rail center. So this is not an actual hub of multimodal. This it's a hub of residential homes. Impacts to the existing road systems will be substantial. A proposal on Louisiana Avenue, for instance, which they're deeming a collector street, is a stretch. It's a two lane street, residential, just like the other streets surrounding this on three sites. And it only runs about three quarters of a mile from Holly over to the other side of Colorado Boulevard. So I'm asking you tonight to either table this or vote no. It just doesn't have all the requirements needed to protect the neighborhood. Again, the neighborhood's not against it. It just needs to be better. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Nancy. Q t I'm sorry. It's sushi. Sushi. It's Hungarian. So I'm Nancy Sushi and I live at 1395 South Grape Street in Virginia Village. And so Denver is changing. It's changing very quickly. And for some of us who have been long time residents, it's hard to say. It's hard to sit in traffic. It's hard to just look around and see things that are so unfamiliar than the way they used to be. But I'm here to speak in favor of this new development and this new zoning, because I believe that we need to embrace change and do what we can to ensure that all Denver residents, the new and the old, have safe and affordable places to live. Now, I believe affordable housing means 30% of am I not 60%, but it sounds like the plan is for more like 60%. But affordable housing reduces stress. Toxins and infectious diseases leads to improvements in physical and mental health. Children in stable housing do better in school and are less likely to drop out. Parents who are less likely to worry about foreclosure and evictions lead to more job and income stability. Affordable housing is critical to Denver's success on a global economy as Denver becomes more economically powerful and essential, the demand for housing increases. We need to support the local workforce so people can live closer to their jobs. Shorter commutes allow workers to spend time with families rather than on long commutes. Construction of affordable housing stimulates economic growth, and a healthy mix of housing options ensures opportunities for all individuals to improve their economic situation and contribute to their communities. Having housing and commercial interest close by the walkability of the neighborhood. Canning. Chris, and make it a more attractive place to live. For me, the bottom line is we need more housing in Denver. People who work here need to be able to live here. My expectation from what I've read and from the presentation tonight is that Cantrell will keep their commitment to make affordable housing along with commercial. And I really fear what would happen if this was opened up to the highest bidder. Thank you. Thank you. Frank Pilkington. Pilkington. Thank you. My name's Frank Pilkington. At 1375 South Claremont Street, my parents bought a house at 1580 South Bel-Air in 1954. I've been a member of this neighborhood since then. I still own property in this neighborhood. My heart is there and I really like this neighborhood a lot. It's been a great place to bring up kids. I was raised there myself. I'm not against the project. I'm not a NIMBY, but I'm literally right behind the SMU three. If you could refer to the map that was presented, it's a small section at the southeast corner. Which is zoned to be 35 feet high. My single-family house there is 12 feet high, eight foot ceiling and a 12 four roof. And when I go out the back door and look up at 35 feet and see three stories, it's going to be a little shocking. I can get over it. But the point that I want to make about that small parcel of land in the southeast corner at Arkansas and Birch, is that as proposed, there are 120 low income or affordable housing units built in that specific spot. Now, as Castro has introduced their plan, they are going to have 450 housing units here. If 120 of those, or approximately one third are located in that small section of SMU three. That's affordable housing segregation. I'd like to propose that those affordable housing units are integrated throughout the entire project rather than separated into one small section at the corner. I don't think the affordable housing should be distinguishable from the rest of the housing and the development. So many points to make in 3 minutes. You know, when the investors come in and a lot of these other 300 units are going to be bought up as rentals, and that does not fit the model of homeownership . At least we can have 150 homeowners right there. So are we going to want all of those low income people to be located in the same exact little corner of this development? The control group has done a nice job presenting some good plans and it has great potential here. This piece of land is really a gem in the city of Denver, but I would hate to segregate the low income people from the rest of the housing development. Thank you. Thank you, Bill Berger. Thank you. I'm Bill Berger. I live at 1585 South Grape Street. I moved to Denver in 1972, so I've been here for 46 years. That entire time I've lived and worked in the city and county of Denver, and now I live in Virginia Village. I'm against this rezoning for a number of reasons. Mostly, I believe. Overwhelming negative impact to our neighborhood. I've observed. Much a great deal of positive. Growth in Denver for the 46 years I've lived here. But in the recent. Years, I've I've observed some really negative development taking place. I've observed, in addition to a lot of this development, being just plain ugly. It's been ultra-high high density minimum, minimum building setbacks, lack of adequate, adequate parking, no new parks throughout the city, negative impacts on the character of neighborhoods, and worsening traffic congestion, especially on Colorado Boulevard. And this rezoning has every. One of. These negative characteristics associated with it. So I ask, who will. Benefit from this redevelopment? Certainly wealthy developers. Wealthy consultants working. For the developers, wealthy attorneys working for the developers, and local. Politicians seeking higher. Office. And who will pay for the costs of this redevelopment? Well, the Denver taxpayers, the citizens throughout the city and county of Denver, homeowners like me. Normal working men and. Women throughout the city and neighborhoods through additional congestion, traffic and all of these other negative impacts. I believe that someday all of this crazy. Redevelopment throughout the city with all of these negative characteristics. Is going to. Go too far. And I think this development is going too far. I think we've reached that point. This is a rare opportunity for a large. Parcel of land to be turned into a park. The city has not added park land for ever. And this is our opportunity to do this. And I think it would be a much better use of this space. Thank you very much. Thank you. And Christine Jones, your next if you want to get ready. But hold on just a second when I call the next five up Liz over Bo loyal Merrick Jacob Graham James or Donny and Bill James. If you could make your way up to the front row, go ahead. Hi. My name is Kristen Jones. I live at 1798 South Eudora Street in Virginia Village. I'm also part of a neighborhood task force that reviewed Kendra's proposal earlier in the year and gave feedback. I'm supportive of this proposal because we need more affordable housing in Denver, and I think this is our best shot to get it in our neighborhood. I'm proud to be among the neighbors who pushed Kendra on affordable housing. We wanted them to commit to building 150 affordable units on site, not to pay to set the fee and not to put it somewhere else. And I'm gratified that they agreed to do that. I also think that 150 affordable units is not enough and 60% AMI is not affordable enough. Like my neighbors, I'm concerned about preserving the character of the neighborhood. To me, the character of the neighborhood that's most worth preserving is diverse, welcoming and family friendly. It really is a beautiful place. It's it's been very welcoming to me and my family. We have two small kids. We have a beautiful park, a community garden. Our elementary schools is a place where you can walk down the hall and hear kids talking to each other in Arabic and Spanish and English. But Denver's housing housing shortage has made Virginia Village whiter and wealthier. Our school is emptying out because families are getting price down. And that, to me is not family friendly. The stress hurts our neighborhood kids, and it's bad for all of us who want our community to be welcoming to everyone. I know that that affordable housing here means increased density, and that doesn't worry me at all. In fact, I would have liked to see Castro go for more density because that would have meant more housing. I also don't like the idea of a lot of big, unsafe parking lots that are going to be difficult for me and my family to navigate. I would have liked to see urban zoning here, not suburban zoning. I don't like sitting in traffic any more than my neighbors, but I also know that if we don't build density in the city, we will have to sprawl out. And that's going to be mean worse traffic for all of us at the same time. When my neighbor Diane said that that it's not a transit hub, that's true. It's very hard to get on a bus from Virginia Village to downtown. It takes forever. It's not back close to the light rail and there aren't nearly enough bike lanes. So keep working on that. Guys. I also want to point out that the demographics of the people who are speaking tonight don't match the demographics of our neighborhood. You're hearing from a lot of white homeowners, and that is not our neighborhood. We are. Our elementary school is about 80% people of color. And so I want to urge city agencies to do a better job in reaching out to the entire community. This is a great place to live. I look forward to welcoming our new, new neighbors, and I hope Kintore will build something we can all be proud of. Thanks. Thank you, Liz. Over both. Good evening. I'd like to share a letter that my neighbor Margaret Bob wrote to Paul Cashman on November 18th, and she's be unable to be here tonight. But I thought it was well-written and certainly represented. It represents the concerns of our neighbors on 1533 South Dexter Way and perhaps the neighborhood at large. Dear Mr. Cashman I'm very concerned about the direction that the redevelopment of this court property has taken. A flier received, received on my door alerting me to this shows that the redevelopment is not what was was is not what was presented to the community at a meeting at Elm Ellis Elementary School. My address is about one quarter mile from the crash site, and having walked the streets of this neighborhood for 35 years, I value the character of our modest neighborhood. I live at 1557. South Dexter Way have lived here since 1984 and try to be a responsible, participatory citizen. Within the past year, I attended one of the developer led meetings about the redevelopment. The meeting I attended was at Ellis Elementary. I paid close attention to the description of mixed use, business and residential. The drawings of the proposed development, the impact on traffic. The amount of open space, and the requirement for affordable housing. At that meeting, I was very satisfied that the redevelopment seemed balanced. Certainly it would bring a higher density of housing and certainly it would bring more traffic. But population growth is inevitable and development is inevitable. And a plan presented seemed balanced and responsible. The drawings presented showed significant open space. The buildings in the diagram seem to be at varying heights, with an attractive profile and diversity. I am all for affordable housing. Thumbs up on that. I received more notices of more meetings but chose not to attend as I was satisfied that the redevelopment was responsible and balanced. Now the flier I've received showing exhibit number 14 S stack de. S Stash mix and s stash m building envelope study does not match what was presented to me at the community meeting I attended. I am shocked and dismayed. I see an illustration of a massive block of three eight story buildings. I see all of the buildings squeezed together with no open space. The flier I received indicates that a rezoning vote is required. Honestly, I don't know what zoning changes are specified. Maybe the original plan I saw months ago requires the same rezoning vote that you will discuss at the December 3rd public hearing. I simply want to convey to you that I feel horribly misled by the developers. As their city councilman who must balance development and quality of life, mitigate and hold this developer, mitigate this and hold the developers. But your time is presented. Thank you. Loyal MCC. Thank you for your time. City Council. My name is Lyle Merrick, and I live in Virginia Village. I'm one of the new homeowners, and my son spent years sitting over there. He's a little guy that likes riding his bike in the neighborhood and doesn't like to get run over by cars. Okay. We don't like our homes getting broken into. And that happens a lot because in fact, there is a lot of affordable housing that totally surrounds our neighborhood. And this is just going to add to that problem. And speaking of traffic, it's had about 10,000 trips a day. He is kidding me. 10,000 trips a day. Like how many people are going to go on their bikes? Like five people are going to use a bike. Traffic studies, traffic studies going to do, that's not going to fix anything. There's way too much traffic on Colorado Boulevard and through our neighborhood right now. Right now it's intolerable. I wouldn't walk more than five blocks. I'm afraid of getting run over all the time. It's already ridiculous. And you can add 10,000 more trips. The scale is absolutely ridiculous. This this does not make sense for our neighborhood. It doesn't make sense for a neighborhood. Things are already. Ridiculous. And no traffic studies are not going to change the basic fact that there's so much space on the road. No new roads are going to be made, no viaducts are going to be made, no underground subways are going to be made. Everything's going to be basically the way it is. We're just stacking tons of people on that spot and we're all going to have to live with them and we're all going to resent them forever. That's it. Thank you. Next up, Jacob Grimm. My name is Jacob Grimm. 1750 South primary way I actually hold a not that amount of people hold a master's degree in real estate and. Real estate and development from University of Denver. So I kind of understand the complications of development. It's got to make sense for a developer to in a way, we can believe that things are going to be easy, that you can do it. However, everybody needs to make sense financially in a way as well. So I support this. I also want to add that I, I am from Norway, so I'm actually one of those minorities we talk about, but I might not look that way. Growing up in Oslo, Norway, we have the best public transportation per capita in the world. But also being a European, I understand that for public transportation to work, you have to have density. Consider a popular belief in this country. Sprawl is the enemy of traffic, not density. Density does the opposite with density. We can figure out how to transport more people efficiently than the way we've done for the last 50 years in the United States of America. We drive. The reason why we're coming back to cities is because people are tired of spending two to 4 to 6 hours on the road to get home. And by building more units, I don't care if you call it affordable or whatever. More housing and a more diverse housing stock. We provide homes for people that don't want to live 2 hours away because that's where they can afford to live. We have to have more diversity in our housing stock to have more diversity in our city. And that's I think people fail to see being a European again. I know that we have density, more density in most places in the United States. I lived in Manhattan. The traffic in Manhattan doesn't come from Manhattanites. That comes from everybody else that travels into Manhattan every day. Manhattanites take trains for public transportation. It's the only way to get around. Anybody who's been there will know that. So if you want public transportation to work, we need density. If you want more affordable housing in Denver, we need density. So. I think this is a great way to solve parts of our problems in Denver. Thank you, James or Danny. James Zanoni I live at 1568 South Fairfax. I've been a member of that community, Virginia Village, since 19 early 1969. The question before the council this evening is one that I think involves the issue of virtue, and by virtue I mean knowing the difference between good and bad and choosing what is good. And I'm asking you, council members, whether or not this proposal before you, in approving this massive change that occurs in southeast Denver is good for the people who live there. I've heard any number of speakers this evening address the issue of affordable housing. And I ask the question, what is affordable? Affordable to whom? Millionaires. Those that have only $100,000. Or those that have only $5,000. The issue is never addressed. Really. There is an immutable law of physics and there is an immutable law of economics as well. And the law of economics applies to some of the issues before us this evening. Subsidies. Subsidies are nothing more than a redistribution of wealth. City councilman or any politician and elected officials in any case cannot call themselves charitable by giving away someone else's money and think that that's compassionate. It isn't. That's taxpayers money who you're giving away. Subsidies are wrong. And we, the city of Denver right now is on a long and dangerous path, in my opinion, providing subsidies to all different kinds, both commercial as well as individual subsidies. We're not headed in the right direction, folks. And I wish you would evaluate your stands on some of these things. As for the citizens who live in Virginia Village, there's a double, double whammy that's put upon them today, because no one is mentioned thus far this evening about the other development of C Dart along South Hawley. That's going to monumentally increase the traffic on that already overdriven thoroughfare. Colorado Boulevard is the most heavily traveled the road in the in the entire state, I believe. I see my time is expired. Thank you very much. Next up in this round is Bill James. And if you hold for just a second what I call the next five up, Kate Adams, Kelly Dufner, Karina Santini, John Strafford and Nicolas Lundberg. If you could make your way up to the front, draw them like volunteers. Good evening, council members. Excuse me. I'm Bill James. I live at 1145 South Glencoe Street in the Virginia Village neighborhood. I'm here to support the application for this reason. As you know, a few years ago I was on the board of directors at Regional Transportation District, and since then also I've been elected to the board of the House in Colorado. And since 1997, excuse me, I've been a board member of Stuart Anderson's Transportation Management Association, Transportation Solutions. I'm here as a citizen of the neighborhood, but I have a perspective from my practice of as a commercial real estate appraiser and consultant and who specializes in transportation oriented development and affordable housing properties as well. The most dramatic change which may result from the application is as approved as reduction of the maximum building height of the interior of the property from by four stars, from a maximum of 8 to 12 storeys to the on the edge of the site to a maximum of two stories from 3 to 5 stories. So there's a significant reduction in the. Density that. Would be with the proposal from what would be permitted by other developments. So the. Density is. Actually being reduced from a as a potential. The as you know, the control group has engaged transportation solutions to conduct a transportation demand management study for the site. I know from my many years on the Board of Directors of Transportation Solutions that such a study can significantly reduce the signal to see the single occupancy vehicle trips, and that will reduce the traffic congestion considerably. In addition to other transformational changes. That are happening in the transportation industry of which you're aware, I'm excited about the potential this site holds for multimodal transportation opportunities because of its proximity to Florida station. Colorado Center station. Sorry, I believe the requirement for the reason application for affordable housing will also benefit the area, particularly if substantial senior component is included there, and make it so that those who are growing older in the neighborhood can remain in the neighborhood. It is clear that many in the community agree with the developer that affordable apartments on the site will benefit the neighborhood. I applaud Cointreau's commitment to this area be another element of the. The reason that will take place is the permission of retail use, which is not permitted by the existing zoning. The the opportunity for placemaking to make the this site has the opportunity to be a center for the community and with it takes a neighborhood oriented retail type uses in order to make that. Sort of thing possible. For developers and to create combined with the open space. I'm sorry, the place your time is equal to two hour lift. Thank you very much. Next up, Kate Adams. Good evening. My name is Kate Adams and I live at 1392 South Edison Way. I'm asking each of you to vote in favor of the Virginia Village community, which, in my opinion, means to. Oppose. The rezoning of 4201 East Arkansas. It seems the city has allowed or made up a process, so we don't know what will actually be developed except density and an increase in traffic, which seems to be a theme without a soul in Denver these days. As was observed at Planning Board, this is a process turned on its head. If this were a GDP, the community would have had input on areas of open space, streetscape roads, access points, connection to surrounding areas, character and building design. As I have said before, we are being asked to sign a blank check not only by Castro but by the city of Denver. The zoning request does not follow current zoning code or current plans. Arkansas birds in Louisiana are local streets. Only MH three is permitted. If Louisiana is considered a collector, it would be Amex five, not Amex eight. In current plans, this is an area of stability. This is not modest infill. This is an area large enough to qualify for a GDP. As part of this transaction, it appears the city has made exceptions to the documented rezoning process. I cannot find a process in the code that does not offer a conceptual plan, site development plan or active community involvement in a rezoning to know what will be developed. This is not a small impact on Virginia Village. It is major. The fact that there is a development agreement that may possibly will try to address some neighborhood concerns after rezoning. It should not take the place of a GDP. This is the final buzzer in this lead them to believe game planning board and the land use committee were led to believe the full community participated in the development agreement. In fact, it was four people on the zoning committee with no community meeting for discussion. The divide and conquer approach and the community meetings will be continued. A public review for the conceptual site plans will be within 45 days of the submittal, not allowing community input before submittal and the construction manager will address concerns and. Questions on a case by case basis, just like. They have done in the rezoning process. Tonight we get the answer to Planning Board. Statement Council may say this doesn't meet plans, but do it anyway. How is a Denver neighborhood supposed to participate in major change when the city has rules but makes exceptions to benefit its desires over the well-being of a community? I quote Councilwoman Ortega from Denver, right? If we can keep the density downtown, hopefully we don't have density overtaking our neighborhoods. We will hear this very loud and clear. In the next election cycle. Neighborhoods fighting to protect their residential community. Please protect Virginia Village. Thank you. Thank you. Kelly Dufner. Kelly Dufner. All right, Karina Santini. Hello. My name is Carina Santini. I live in Virginia Village and am a longtime resident of the city of Denver and have several concerns regarding the proposed rezoning request. The last time I had to deal with an issue like this was when I lived close by in the Hilltop neighborhood. In January of 2016, macKinnon proposed that the zoning be changed at the existing church lot on Colorado Boulevard. They initially proposed a five storey building with retail on the ground floor and a 105 unit apartment complex. However, when the neighborhood R.A. fought the plan, developers in 2017 scaled the project back to just 54 units or about half the size. However, even in that case, they were turned down by city council by an 11 to 0 vote. As of January 2018, the project had been scaled down to 22 duplexes with a maximum height of 35 feet. Developers obviously needed to work with residents on getting the project to a workable scale, which illustrates how community involvement should work. And how it is a critical component of successful rezoning. Why am I mentioning this case? This has nothing to do with Virginia Village right now because there are common denominators between these two neighborhoods being they both are connected to and located directly east of Colorado Boulevard. Both neighborhoods deal with the transition space between commercial development and a quiet residential area. One difference is that the area mentioned in Hilltop is actually designated an area of change for Blueprint Blueprint Denver. While the area being considered for rezoning and Virginia Village is designated an area of stability, taking into account that areas of stability include stable residential neighborhoods where no significant changes in land use are expected over the next 20 years. How is the proposed rezoning? An enormous development project may have no issues being located directly in my neighborhood. Why was the much smaller development at Hilltop opposed until further refinement? While the much more aggressive development of Virginia Village may go through in a post, the central plan is a much more aggressive development aimed at slipping by the neighborhood in order to move the project into the area without proper procedure and disclosure. And I'd like to state that I tried to contact the Virginia Village registered neighborhood organization on three separate occasions since mid-summer and received no emails or calls back in response to questions I had, or about my request to know when any R.A. meetings would be held. There was zero information. In short, there is no way to get in touch with the answer. R.A. And it was very clear that neighbors neighbors did not know how to get involved. This is a far cry from how the transparent to the press. I'm sorry, but your time is up. Thank you very much. Next up, John Strafford. Good evening, Mr. President and council members. My name is John Stafford. I live at 1907 South Leighton Street as a part of the. Virginia Village neighborhood. I'm a professional civil engineer, and I've been. Involved in a significant. Amount of redevelopment projects in the Denver metro area. I'm excited. For the opportunity to finally be speaking in support of a development as a. Neighbor within the Virginia Village instead of as a. Professional. To start, I'd like to commend the transparency Kentaro has provided. Like a lot of neighborhood, like a lot of the neighborhood over. I have a young. Family and a busy job that has hindered me from attending any neighborhood meetings. A simple Google search led me to the East, our Kansas control. Website, where all the neighborhood meeting. Notes, development agreement, neighborhood agreement, among. Other documents, were available. I'm excited. To hear the reason reduces the potential height and density of what is. Currently zoned, as well as ADD retail and. Restaurants as a potential use. I'm glad to hear Castro has committed to it conduct a transportation management demand study, which is different than your typical traffic impact study. Transportation Management Studies. Demand studies provide recommendations on. How to provide. To make a development more pedestrian friendly and how to take vehicles off the road. This is this particular area. Virginia Village is not very. Pedestrian friendly and I. Suspect after this redevelopment. It will be. I also commend control for. Going above. And beyond with working with a neighborhood on a. Good neighbor agreement. I assure you. This is not a typical offering from most developers. I understand the multiple concerns any given development presents traffic, utility capacities, esthetics to name a few. It is important to note that all of these concerns are required to be addressed throughout the rezoning. And entitlement process, and any deficiencies found will require improvement. I trust the City Review Engineers will work with the redevelopment to ensure the infrastructure well will accommodate. Bottom line is this. Parcel is going to get redeveloped. I just assume it be redeveloped by a local developer. That's willing to listen to the neighborhood, which I believe Castro is willing to do. Thank you. Thank you. Next up is Nicolas Lundberg. And but before you start about to call the next five up to the front row, both Beth Fine, Silver, Florence Seaburn, Gerald Walsh, Wil Carpenter, Nancy Barlow, if you could come to the front and Nicholas, my crunchers. Thank you. Council president and honorable council members for the opportunity to speak at this this meeting. My name is Nicholas Lundberg and I reside at. 1595 South Claremont Street. I have lived in Colorado for 23 years of that 15 in. Denver and of that 1511 in Virginia Village where I bought my first home as a home buyer. About myself, I have a bachelor's degree in. Accounting from Brigham Young University, and I, most of my career has been in the waste management and recycling industry. I'm here to present on an aspect of the rezoning process. The aspect is the process which affords affords real property owners within 200 feet of the property to have a unique, unique voice in this process, a voice that would require a city council supermajority vote on this Rees own matter, the voice that may or may not have been known to available to them excuse me, a voice in something that will directly impact them as they live or own property. Right on the perimeter. Of the zone site. The purpose of of a circulation of the signature gathering process was twofold to inform the property owners within 200 feet of their only opportunity address City Council. By virtue of this meeting tonight, many of the property owners and ranchers we contacted were not aware of this December 3rd opportunity second to present a petition for signatures to sign if they so choose. That would for city council in a supermajority vote on this rezoning matter. The signature properties process had a very short window per the rule as the clock started on Tuesday, November 6th, the day after the the the city council first reading and ended on noon on Monday, November 26th. Coupled with the Thanksgiving holiday, the actual window of opportunity was much shorter than the 20 calendar days, as the signature process is a face to face in-person informational discussion process, many property owners were simply unreachable on multiple attempts. The rules of the signature gathering process required getting signatures of property owners totaling 20% of the square footage within 200 feet of the proposed rezoning property. We successfully gathered 20 signatures from 14 properties, a mix of single family homes for plex's and commercial property, but fell short. The 20% threshold was 100. 78,000 square feet. We reached 150,000 square feet with our signatures, a 3.1% shortfall, a 16.9% success rate. Everyone in the Virginia Village community should be afforded the opportunity to have their voice heard, whether it is in support or opposition. We are not against development. We are not against rezoning. We are against this rezoning as presented. Either deny this rezoning proposal has presented or consider tabling or continuing this matter so that Virginia Village community can. Cooper elaborate to support the right type of. Job from this site. I'm sorry your time. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Beth finds over. Hi. I am Beth. Fine. Silver and I live at 1445 South Elm Street as a third generation Denver. I am 36 year resident of Christina Park. I have a vested interest in my neighborhood and my community. I love my neighborhood. That's an. I take great interest in the redevelopment of the court property. I am in favor of the rezoning. It is a given that this large parcel of land will be redeveloped. It is my hope that the community will continue to play an active part along with Centro and the city of Denver, in how this large parcel of land will be zoned and redeveloped. I have attended many of the community meetings held by Cantrell in the last 11 and half months. I appreciate Castro's willingness to have these meetings almost monthly and to be proactive in staying involved with the neighborhood as this project begins to take shape. I have also met with them to voice my questions and concerns, and in both instances I have found the members of the Centro excuse me, the Centro team to be communicative, open to answering all questions, willing to consider suggestions and ideas, and to talk about their visions for the redevelopment of this property. I understand that it is still very early in the process and that not all questions can be answered at this time. It will be impossible to please everyone. I have had many questions, as have many neighbors, as to the size and density of this project. What I understand. About the proposed. Rezoning and the reason I am in favor of it is that in addition to other elements, it will decrease the height of some of the buildings, establish setbacks, establish open space, add retail to the mixed use, include lower income housing, and that there will potentially be a decrease in the amount of traffic overall compared to that of current campus zoning because the traffic flow will be spread out over more hours. The development has the potential to benefit both the surrounding neighborhoods by creating walkable meeting areas, including retail shops, restaurants and open spaces for which the neighbors have wanted for a long time. I am hopeful that with the development agreement and the Good Neighbor Agreement in place, comprised in part from over aforementioned meetings, the city of Denver, Kentaro and involved and concerned neighbors will be able to work together into the future on the design and development of this property. Castro has a huge and exciting opportunity to make their mark locally and nationally in creating an innovative, exceptional and neighborhood supported development. Kentaro has gone beyond my expectations. To work with our community. As. I'm sorry, but your time is up. Thank you very much. Florence Seaborn. Good evening and thank you very much for hearing all of our comments tonight. My name is Florence Seeber and I'm at 1140 South Fourth Street. I was born and raised in Virginia Village, and for the last 26 years I've been raising my own family there. A total of 47 of my 57 years have been happily spent in Virginia Village. My background is in administration and parliamentary procedure. I'm a former multi term officer of the Virginia Village Ellis Neighborhood Association, and I very much appreciate objective foundational processes which allow for analytical discussion. My main concern for this proposed rezoning is the lack of compliance with existing norms. The Comprehensive Plan and Blueprint. Denver. I spent countless hours giving input into both of these documents because I believe the community in part is important. I believe that we who live in the neighborhood know the neighborhood best, and I believe my elected council members. When you assure us that adopted plans will be properly applied and adhered to, fully three quarters of this area to be zoned is a defined area of stability. The defined goal for an area of stability is to identify and maintain the character of the neighborhood while accommodating some redevelopments. Only a small part of the of the area to be rezoned lies within a defined corridor area which is used to support higher density. The proposed rezoning. Would drastically alter the character of our neighborhood and destabilize it with traffic, light and sound pollution and unwarranted density. Colorado Boulevard is already gridlocked in that sector. The anticipated tens of thousands of car trips per day does not make logical sense. The 60% am-I affordable housing that is being touted requires a $23 per hour wage. That doesn't sound very affordable to me. I echo the statement of the councilman from District one during the Ludie committee meeting. This is a radically different from anything in Blueprint Denver. It's far more intense. It's a huge ask and a slippery slope. Please assist our neighborhood in maintaining what generations have worked so hard to build. As quoted by the councilman from District six in a 2015 Denver Post article. About Virginia Village. He also noted that the neighborhood has been almost immune from the development craze sweeping the city. He said the neighborhood architecture mostly has been maintained. Virginia village else is kind of one of those largely undiscovered jewels in the city, he said. It hasn't been swallowed up by gentrification. Please deny or to table this particular rezoning request. It's simply not a good fit for the neighborhood. Thank you again for your time and kind consideration. Thank you. Next up, Gerald Walsh. My name is Gerald Walsh. My wife and I live on South Elm Street between Louisiana and Florida. About five blocks east. Of the current city property. We enthusiastically support this rezoning request and the proposed redevelopment of this site. The proposed zoning is not only appropriate for this site, but is vital for the redevelopment project planned by Castro. Castro's proposal will deliver the new housing, retail spaces and amenities that are much needed on the east side of Colorado Boulevard . For those of us that live in this neighborhood, Colorado Boulevard. Has always been a physical barrier. To the amenities. We need. Almost always requiring a car to traverse the proposed new retail. Mixed zoning will allow for Castro to create a space in our neighborhood that. Is accessible by foot. Or bike, with many options for dining, entertainment and other services that we are currently lacking. I've been particularly encouraged by Castro's willingness to engage and include the community through their many neighborhood meetings and outreach. It allowed us as a community to share our concerns and make sure Castro are aware of the things that are important to us . As they finalize their proposal for this site. For example, as an avid cyclist, I talked about the importance of creating cycle friendly development with safe entry and exit points and secure bike lock and parking areas. Kentaro has been very receptive to this feedback and have been very honest with respect to what realistically would work for this site . I was very encouraged when I learned that he had engaged a multimodal transportation firm to consult on the overall trend transit strategy for the development and its potential impact on the neighborhood. Finally, I'm heartened by Kendra's commitment to build affordable housing on this site. The lack of affordable housing is a nationwide problem that has become more and more acute in Denver over the last few years. We all say we want to be part of the solution as a community. The way we show that support is by supporting developments like this. If not in our backyard, then where? Control is a local company that has clearly demonstrated their interest in creating vibrant and engaged communities that all levels of the socio economic divide get to participate in. I want the entry level teacher to be able to live in the same neighborhood as the kids they teach. I want the service industry folks that I engage with every day to be invested in the community in which they work. Please approve this zoning request. Thank you. Thank you. Will Carpenter. Good evening. My name is Will Carpenter. The house on the corner of or excuse me, on the street of 1365 South Claremont. My next door neighbor is Frank. I would love to hear this proposal being either tabled or turned down, at least at this time. Again, my name is Will Carpenter. Nick or excuse me, Jimmy from Castro. I'm right here. I've never met anybody from Central. My backyard is about to the. What's currently the storage container area. I was informed by Florence who was able to find me. I'm not hidden anywhere. She was able to find me so that I could come and participate and listen to what's going on. I'd love to have more information so I could be more informed as to how this process. And how it's going to continue to go. At this time. Like I said, I'd just like to see it tabled or denied for this evening. Thank you. Nancy Barlow. And well, Nancy, if you're holding for I can also I can pull the next five up. Rebecca markham, Russell Welch, Annette Carpenter, Mark Sharon Maker and Tim Karl, if you could make your way to the front bench and go ahead, Nancy. You can go ahead. I can go ahead. Good evening. My name is Nancy Barlow. I live in southeast Denver. Within this corridor that this development is in. Most importantly, I'm here tonight because I'm the president of the East Evans Business Association. And I would like to. Read a letter that the board drafted for our membership and our. Membership approved. The RBA board would like to express its support of the rezoning application for. From control group. For the vacated set up property located. Located on East Arkansas. In the past year, control group has been proactive about connecting with the EPA to. Ensure that they are including. Business owners from the community in their outreach. Efforts. They have led to discussions with the. EPA members in which they shared their proposal for the redevelopment of the now vacated set up property on East Arkansas. These conversations provided opportunities for our members to ask questions about the proposal and to consider. The broader implications. On the business community. Based on these discussions with Control Group, the EPA Board is in support. Of the rezoning because it is in. Alignment with our mission statement. We aim to recruit, retain and grow the local businesses as well as bring investments into our community. The approval of a mixed use zoning code. Would open up the possibility to completely. Re envision a commercial retail space that could provide net new business opportunities for owners looking for. Alternatives to the limited real estate. Available in them in our corridor today. It also has let's see, it has the potential to create a strong sense of place. That could rival other well-established. Destinations in other parts of Denver, and it would potentially provide affordable housing. For the employees of the businesses. Within our corridor. We hope to see the City Council approve the zoning application so that our members can continue their discussions with Castro and to shape the development into an asset that supports. The stability and growth of local Denver business owners. Thank you. Thank you. Rebecca Markham. Rebecca. Mark, I am. Right. Russell Welch. Good evening. My name is Russell Welch. I'm a 1964 South Pontiac Street, and I'm speaking tonight in favor of the redevelopment. I really think it's a thoughtful solution to the redevelopment at this property. And I've set back over the past year and really watched what Kentaro has done and I'm really impressed, quite frankly. We've had eight separate meetings to get the public's input and it's been very thoughtful. There's been concerns about massing and density, and I've seen the density drop from for the size from from 12 storeys to eight storeys. And it's really refreshing, ideal pretty regularly with developers in the commercial construction world and in the ever increasing desire to increase densities to meet performance, they're doing exactly the opposite. They're trying to be thoughtful. And I'm really struck by the affordable housing component that is extremely important to me and my family. We want to. Have a well-rounded community. And I really think that does that 150 units. That's incredible. And so, you know, the other piece is the retail. There's so many great components, which, of course, somebody mentioned previously the existing zoning doesn't allow for retail. So again, I think what Cointreau has done here has has been really thoughtful. And again, these guys are local and that means a lot to me. I face a lot of out-of-state developers and they don't necessarily care about my needs, about my family's needs. They're into to develop their project and move on. Ken chosen the neighborhood. Kensho has done several developments on Colorado Boulevard and in the surrounding community. I fully trust that they'll do the right thing and they have my unwavering support. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Annette Carpenter. Good evening. So thank you for listening. I am a property owner at 1365 South Claremont and I'm reading from it because it's actually a rental property. My husband and I who spoke earlier, purchased the property four years ago and I happen to live in kind of a blocks district now, but a rental property is there and we made a thoughtful purchase of a property because we know what Denver what's happening in Denver with housing prices made a thoughtful price. So I'm nervous. We made a thoughtful purchase when we purchased in that neighborhood thinking that our kids could move back to that house when they graduate from college or when my husband and I retire. We mow, we fertilize, we do all the right things. We try to be a good neighbor. We've owned a rental property in the city and county of Denver for the previous ten years. We rented to only Section eight tenants. That was tough. We did it. We support affordable housing. We decided as we were getting older or careers were getting broader, that we would scale back and rent to one family, not four. So again, we take care of the property. Are property in that map that was up there, we sit within the 200 foot, what is it called, proposed amendment. So our neighborhood or excuse me, our backyard backs directly to that area where they're holding the storage containers. Again, we have tenants in the home. They communicate with me regularly. I had no idea until 45 days ago when Florence and Nicholas stood on my front porch and talked to my 17 year old son and then came back two weeks later to track down my husband and I that this development was happening. Right. I knew I'm not dumb. I knew that Scott had moved out, but I search city pages trying to find out what the development plan was. Couldn't find anything. Like I said, didn't know anything, hadn't received a flier, hadn't received anything in the mail until the two stood on my front porch. So I'm in support of affordable housing. I said that earlier. I'm in support of a rezoning because I know that that space is not going to sit empty. Not that silly, but I think there could be more thought. And so I'm asking for it that we deny or that you deny or table this rezoning application. Again, I haven't had enough time to research. My husband hasn't had enough time to research. The last plans I saw show the building sitting right on the sidewalk. I don't understand where parking is. They're promises that Castro's made about mass transit are driving accessibility to mass transit. I know we're. The. I'm sorry about your time. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next up, Marc Schaaf and Acre. Hi. My name is Mark Charpentier live at 1302 South Harrison way. Last ten years. First thing I want to do is thank Councilman Cashman for all his facilitation of all these discussions between the neighborhood and the developers. It's been very impressive. I'm here to support the vote to rezone. I had things I could say. You've heard them all. Thanks for your patience. Vote for it. Thank you. Next up is Tim, Carl and Tim. If you'll hold for just a second, I'm going to bring up the next five. Nick Troiano, Jesse Paris, Eric Everett, Mike McDaniel and Don Gorsuch. If you could come to the front row and Tim. Thank you, Mr. President. Council members. I do have a couple of slides that I'd like presented as part of this discussion, and they were given to the Secretary, as I understand. With that in regard, let me introduce myself again. I am Tim Karl. I'm a resident of Virginia Village and have been so for 23 years. I am very privileged to also tell you that I have a strong background in planning. I worked as the planning director for Jefferson County for several years, was the development director and have spent 30 years of my life in planning. And while I appreciate very much all the comments that have been shared and they are very passionate and a reflection of our community, I really want to make sure that we understand for everyone that's present that this is, in fact, a discretionary decision that you're making. That means that ultimately when you make your decision, you have to look at a series of components before you ultimately decide if this is appropriate. And if you consider the facts of the comments that have been made, you think about the adopted plans that we're looking at, a comprehensive plan blueprint. Denver And the fact that as a community, we took our time and presented to you a 20 page document that outlines specifically where there is noncompliance. We ask you to take that into consideration. I want to thank council member from District One who identified in context of Blueprint Denver that the impacts on traffic, on character of area in terms of the zoning are substantial. While we certainly support the effort that staff has taken. Ultimately, in the end, if you make a decision to approve this, this is vested with the land it runs in perpetuity. We as a community will not have a say once the land use is in place. We must rely on the fact that the zoning will exist, and what we ask of you in that situation is to consider the impacts that this has on us. The character of the area. You've heard discussions around traffic impacts, studies indicating that up to 11,000 average daily trips on top of the already 58,000 average daily trips that exist on Colorado right now will have a significant impact to all of us. I don't think there's a person in this room that couldn't tell you about the challenges we face on dealing with traffic on Holly or Florida, etc. The impacts are substantial, and when you consider some of the statements related to the fact that we are single family, low density residential development, looking at the potential impact of three storey rowhouses, that's a considerable impact. Please, as a community, we ask you to be clear, specific, and do the right thing, either deny or if appropriate, table, or continue the matter. Thank you for your time tonight. Thank you. Next up, Nick Troiano. Good evening, everybody. Nick Troiano at 1798 South Eudora Street. I was speaking in favor of this rezoning for three reasons. Number one, I think the switch to to the mixed use gives us greater flexibility to adapt to economic changes that are sure to occur as more and more people move to the Denver area. Number two, affordable housing is critical for schools like the Alice Elementary, where I plan on sending my two boys to be able to to not only retain students, but also retain the funding that is so vital for that for the schools that attempts its turnaround. Number three, that the the greater density and public transportation, in my opinion, will actually facilitate improvements in traffic over the long term if we're willing to undergo a little bit of short term pain to get there. So to my first point about flexibility, I point to the big box retail model. It's clearly under threat from e-commerce that exists all over Colorado Boulevard. You got these huge retail stores with giant parking spaces. It's an eyesore to look at. It's not safe for children. I took my kids over there and tried to get across to the Safeway. It was the last time I attempted any type of walkability with my family in the neighborhood. I now I guess my better judgment and I'm driving. So I think we need a new type of retail model that emphasizes open spaces, walkability, access to public transportation. I think it's vital for the future of this community as we as we transition to the next level. Comments about Alice Elementary. As I mentioned, it's the place that we're probably going to send my two boys. We visited. We love the diversity that's in there. You hear the kids speaking different languages. It's an open and, well, welcoming community. I love it. I think the principal is doing a wonderful job. They're trying to turn it around. But in order to turn it around, they're going to need the funding. And if we keep losing students because they can't afford to live in the neighborhood, we are we are going to lose funding. And and families like myself are going to send kids to other schools in the neighborhood. So I think it's vital that that that we have this affordable housing and that to keep people in the neighborhoods where they're working. Lastly, regarding transportation, in order for for in order for public transportation to take off, we need greater density because we're going to need the demand that that requires. And so I am willing you know, I'm not speaking here from the ninth on the golf course. I'm sandwiched in between I-25, Colorado Boulevard and Evans. I know all about traffic, trying to make that right on average to get over the highway to drop my kid off at school is is challenging but I'm willing to undergo some short term pain to get longer term benefits. And I think we need greater density as Denver becomes a destination for families across the nation. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Jesse Paris. Good evening, members of Council. My name is Jesse Paris. I reside at 2842 Josephine Street and Albert Brooks District District nine, and I'm also now large candidate for City Council at large in 2019 and I speaking for Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense. Denver Homeless out loud in Community Positive Action. Commitment for Change. We are in favor of this. I actually started my academic history, if you will, at Alice. That was actually the first school I attended back in 1990, 1991. So, yeah, I'm familiar with this area. My whole concern is the people of this neighborhood and the people of the city in general are upset and fed up with the ways in which council goes about ushering in these zoning rezoning classifications. You claim that you have reached out to people, but I've heard many testimony today this says otherwise that they were not approved and they were not notified of this in time. They were not given an ample amount of time to decide if they wanted this for them. I support affordable housing if you didn't already know. But 60% AMI is not affordable housing. We have a housing crisis in the city. 60%. am-I is not addressing that at all. 150 units out of a need it. 26,000 units is not addressing the problem at all either. This is just a Band-Aid, and it's going to cause more traffic congestion in an already highly traffic congested area. And people that stay on this street in Arkansas were complaining about traffic already. It's only going to get worse. So I think you need really you need to take their best interests in mind and do further study on this project. I see that you have mentioned that you are going to do a traffic study, a drainage master plan. I had two questions. I wanted to know who were the 18 people, 18 letters opposed to this and. Exactly the amount of people that will be residing at this property. Thank you. And what the demographics of that would look like, because I heard earlier that Virginia village is pretty diverse. But when I look into this audience and see the people that have spoken and the testimony of this, it is all whites. So I'm tired of being the only fly in the sea of buttermilk. Thank you. Thank you. Next up. Eric ever. Hello. My name is Eric and I live at 4702 East Arkansas. Two blocks east of this development. I want to speak in favor of the rezoning of the property at 4201 East Arkansas. This is a property in a project that directly affects my family and the families that live in my community. Our neighborhood needs goods and services, including restaurants that are within a walkable distance. We do not want to always have to get into a car to get to our goods and services. I have been an active participant in the meetings concerning this rezoning application and attended the planning board meeting. I'm a member of the Virginia Village R.A. Zoning Committee now dissolved. There has been a lot of hard work in meetings, in discussing the wants and needs of our community with control through these discussions and meetings. I believe Cantrell, along with the city of Denver, will be able to create a true asset to our neighborhood. Though there are items that the city did not want added to the development agreement, Kendra has written and committed to a good neighbor agreement, making this rezoning project something that will benefit this community for years to come. I cannot ignore in the recent days a group of people who have decided that now they want to make their voice against this project. It is our privilege as Americans to disagree and voice our opinions. However, I do not believe in doing so. Using false information and bullying tactics are the given rights. I have spoken with many people who do not agree with the redevelopment, but I have done so at public meetings and were able to have productive conversations with all parties. However, to have people deliberately trying to sabotage the hard work of community members and not want to participate in open public discussions is wrong. I hate to think that deceitful and intimidation tactics will be considered as true testimony and use as a voice for my family. I am a husband and a father of two great young children that are also active in our neighborhood. My family deserves the ability to live in a community that is prosperous, vibrant and active. This is what I. This is what I believe this rezoning can offer. And because of this, I am in favor of the rezoning. Thank you. Thank you. Mike McDaniel. My name is Mike McDaniel, and I'm here as a close neighbor of the project. I appreciate the opportunity to lend my voice in support of this rezoning application. From my perspective, the opposition to this project generally has little to do with what is currently allowed on the site under existing zoning and even less to do with what Cantrell proposes to do under their proposed zoning. Rather, the opposition is based on a more visceral objection to the realities of a growing Denver. But growing it is, and I see no practical options to halt that reality. Nor would I want to. I'm of the mind that Denver is already too crowded for its current infrastructure. Anyone traveling on Colorado, Colorado Boulevard would likely agree. However, we seem to be not quite big enough to justify the bold steps that would make it more livable for all residents. For example, back to Colorado Boulevard. What would travel look like if there was a streetcar or a bus? Rapid transit and dedicated lanes connecting the same at Colfax and Evans, etc.. I would use it in a heartbeat, as would many others. Others would still drive, but every one of us who did not drive would be one less car on the road. Currently, this site is on the RTD 46 bus route, which offers a short ride to the Colorado Light Rail Station. Similarly, from an affordable housing point of view, every worker who can afford to live near their jobs in the city has likely one less single occupancy vehicle traveling in and out of the city from the more affordable suburbs. The future demands that we move away from our current car sector. Drive it til you qualify. Paradigm as a chicken and sweetheart. Arkansas represents a rare and valuable opportunity to do exactly that. In regards to the affordable housing component. What I'd like to see more and a lower AMI Absolutely. But I recognize under our current economic systems that people willing to build things need to be able to make money. And there are far less sensitive ways for a developer to make money on this site. Additionally, many of the commercial options being considered at this site, such as grocery, daycare, restaurants and the sort add to the already underappreciated but surprisingly strong walkability and bankability of this part of town. All of this adds to the potential of creating an excitingly more human friendly and rich pocket of Denver. Finally, I wanted to share that I find the outreach by Councilmember Cashman, Centro and various neighbors to be quite thorough with every single resident of the area, asked personally for their opinion on the issue. No, but such is the nature of this sort of process. Over the last many months, many attempts to bring the voice of the neighbors were made. It's unfortunate that not everyone stays informed or chooses to not engage, but subterfuge is not to blame. Besides offering a really compelling opportunity to explore lighting powered by canine generated methane, there are options available to developers under the current zoning for the site, which create more problems than solutions. Then the project proposed by Cantrell. I would prefer more density and less parking. I believe it would be a shame if that's what we end up here as another. I'm sorry, but your time is up. Thank you, Don. Don Garcia. Don Gorsuch. I live at 473 East Arkansas Avenue, approximately four blocks east of the site. First, you know, I've never attended a council meeting before. Thank you for what you do for us. As an 11 year Virginia Village resident, I am in support of the proposed redevelopment zoning application of this site at 4201 East Arkansas Avenue, as presented by the control group. I appreciate the thoughtful approach and concern for the impact on the neighborhood I have experienced through numerous meetings these past few months. I want to thank Kensho for working with See Dot. I feel like we're already seeing benefits of that affiliation. I look forward to saving trees along Arkansas. They know that's one of my perspectives, but I really appreciate these guys. I understand this is a rezoning. Process and specifics. Are not yet determined. People purchase homes in our community because they're relatively affordable. And they're close to convenient services and quality. Schools. There's transportation and we. Have a really strong sense of neighborhood. I feel the 4201 East Arkansas, the redevelopment and proposed zoning changes have been thoughtfully presented and envisioned and they honor the interest of the neighborhood and the greater Denver community because we are part of the community. It is a priority for me that we have affordable housing and that it's included in the plan. I look forward to all the retail, the restaurants, the services and the transportation, and I'm proud to say I do use the transportation, both light rail and the bus system. It's not that far a walk. I remodel my home because I'm going to retire here. So this is a long term investment for me. The Virginian Village neighborhood is already walkable, and we have such a mixed and interesting mix of people. Our diversity is based on age, income, race, ethnicity. There is just so many things that work in our community. Denver is growing and I smart. I really support smart growth to meet the future needs of all of us and we can't predict them. So we need to present something that makes sense over time. I want to quit driving my car. I'm really proud of Glendale. I think they're doing a good job, and I want us to do a better job than they are. I think that we have a lot of potential on this proposed site, and I think it's inevitable that we're going to do a good job because of your leadership. And I want you to approve this rezoning process. And I've attended probably five of the last eight meetings. I was notified numerous times and all of us talked at our at our neighborhood picnic. There has been so much information. Thank you to all of you for doing this and listening. But I think you next five or Debra Powers, Montee Powers, Adam Astrof, Sujit mudd, Jude Ma and Robert Fisher and Debra Powers, you are first up. Hi. I'm Debra Powers. I live at 4503 East Arkansas Avenue. I'm a Denver native. I was born at Denver General. My best friend in junior high lived on East Wyoming place. I spent weekends at her house enjoying movies at Century 21 and Continental movie theaters. We hung out at the Celebrity Sports Center. We cruised Colorado Boulevard with her older sister. You could say that I have some history and fond memories in the neighborhood. 31 years ago, I purchased my house on the corner of Claremont and Arkansas, just around the corner from where my best friend lived. It's a short plot to the side up property from my house. Development is not new to the neighborhood. Nothing has remained the same. Change is constant. The control group made communication a priority. I have attended seven out of eight meetings. They asked for feedback. We talked. They listened. Sometimes spirited conversations took place. Of utmost importance was the character of the development. Overwhelmingly, neighbors wanted a main street feel with walkability to amenities that are included in the rezoning application. We understand it's going to be offices, commercial, apartment and retail. Affordable housing is very important. I've learned what an envelope drawing is, and I've watched these drawings change over time. I've seen the height of the building envelope drop from 12 storeys to eight. They listened when we asked for a step down in height. As the development neared our single family homes, my husband and I were approached by a group to sign a protest petition. I had a problem with that. The information that we were given said that 800 cars per hour would be driving by our house from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. daily. I know a traffic study hasn't been done. They also said we could lose their property to eminent domain. The value of our property would go down as a result of this development. These are a few of the statements they made and quite frankly to me, they're outrageous statements. The conversation was divisive and a subtle form of intimidation. I understand that this is a complex project with complex processes and multiple phases. It will take several years to develop the property. The city will require development reviews. My understanding of the next step in this process is the rezoning hearing today, and then the planning framework can be executed around what is approved. It's a partnership with the City Council Control Group and the people who live in this neighborhood. We can define a neighborhood that considers the people who live and work here and make conscious decisions for quality of life that will outlive all of us. Please vote for the rezoning tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Monte Powers. Hi. My name's Marnie Powers over there. My address is 4503 East Arkansas Avenue. Uh, my neighborhood is becoming more vibrant and diverse as time goes on. I believe this development will serve to enhance that vibrancy and diversity. Over the past year, I've attended eight meetings hosted by the control group. I've learned a lot about the redevelopment process at these meetings. The control group is proposing to rezone former secret headquarters at 4201 East Arkansas Avenue. I believe the control group will give my neighborhood an awesome development. Given rezoning permission by city council, I embrace a change of zoning from Campus 12 to suburban mixed use. I don't want a hole in the ground because construction stopped. I don't want an empty parking lot. I don't want Campus 12 zoning approval that will leave several 12 story buildings on a 13 acre lot. I understand dissension is voice with a project like this. Some of my neighbors have legitimate concerns. However, false information given to me by fair developer Virginia Village makes me question their motive and not trust anything they say or do going forward. Please vote for rezoning 4140 201 East Arkansas Avenue from campus 12 to Suburban mixed use. Keep my neighborhood vibrant and diverse. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Adam Astrof. Hello, counsel. Thanks for letting me speak. My name is Adam Astrup. I live at 1801 chestnut place in District nine, and I am here as part of the Yimby Denver Group. I support this project, particularly because of the affordable housing that is going to be a component of it. And I want to credit council the neighbors in Virginia Village and Castro for putting it on site and not taking the opt out with the fee. And I also believe that this neighborhood, Main Street and adding retail is going to be very forward thinking. There are a lot of other great mixed use areas in Denver. South Pearl, 12th Street through Congress Park. And I believe that this can be another great art for a really great neighborhood, Virginia village. The additional density will also enable, you know, better transit options and connections. The Colorado Light Rail Station, which will allow people to get into downtown more easily. And I think all of these things will just be a great part of the project to keep us moving forward for the next 50 years. I know that Denver I'm a Colorado native. Denver didn't have a lot of population growth from 1960 to 2010. The last eight years have been very striking. And so I really hope you guys will approve this rezoning and continue improving our city for the next 50 years. Thank you. Thank you so much, madame. Sorry if I got that wrong. We're very close. Thank you, everybody, for your time. Good evening. My name is Sushi Majumdar. I live in a Cary Merrill neighborhood, approximately point four miles from the proposed development project. I want to speak in favor of this rezoning application for a variety of reasons. Number one, Cointreau. Is a local developer. Trust, integrity and transparency should be part of any developer's values and based on the process and communication that control group has proactively undertaken. I feel like they've embodied those values. I have known Jimmy Bill Office, one of the principals of Control Group for the last nine years, and I believe that they want to be successful not only on this project, but multiple projects in the future. And they have a vested interest in making sure that this is done with excellence. Second of all, secondly, objectively and practically the components of the rezoning application and development agreement that are part of this deal, namely affordable housing, retail development, open space reduction of height on both the interior and perimeter of the project and a proactive neighborhood partnership are key characteristics of winning a deal for neighborhood residents in the city of Denver. I also want to point out that while I know everybody does not have access to high speed Internet or technology, when you Google for 201 East Arkansas, the results that come up are two MapQuest listings and the third is a PDF. With all of the information related to this project, the rezoning development that is on the central website. So I believe that there's plenty of information available to those that want to be informed. The combination of having a local. Developer. With its principles, having longstanding Denver routes, and a very fair deal that appears to offer terms and conditions far superior than the alternatives make me strongly supportive of this zoning proposal. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next up is Robert Fisher and I'm going to call the next five to the front row, Maureen Welch to see Denny's. Caitlin Murray, chairman, say COO and Bill Parkhill, if you could work your way to the front. Go ahead. Yeah, hi. My name is Robert Fisher and today I am representing the Colorado Cross Disability Coalition to Seek D.C. office is located at the corner of Louisiana Avenue and Colorado Boulevard to see CDC supports the rezoning of the old headquarters because Denver needs density and Denver needs housing. The 2017 Un-Habitat three conference, the Urban Agenda, states the population of the world's urban areas will double by 2050, the HUD Habitat three report says. By 2050, 75% of the population growth in the U.S. will be in urban areas and urban sprawl. HUD is calling this the century of cities. Denver's population is expected to reach 1 million by 2050. Where do we go from here? Denver needs to embrace overpopulation. Denver needs housing. Almost all the housing in Denver being built or for those above 60%. Am I 100%? 120%? Am I? According to a 2018 Urban Institute report, I've been speaking to Mr. Sean Maley and he assured me that Cantrell will be building the 150 affordable units that will be for families at 60% AMI for a family of two, that's an annual income of about $43,000. And for a family of four, that is an annual income of about $54,000. Control group has done what it can to be a positive community neighborhood partner. They have held eight public taskforce meetings and they have listened to and addressed concerns of the neighborhood control group has reduced the allowable height from 12 stories to eight stories and they have adopted a good neighbor agreement. I have spoken, spoken with Mr. Sean O'Malley and I have given him some ideas on how to improve his neighborhood. Good neighborhood agreement. Please vote for this amendment. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Maureen Welch. Maureen Welch. All right. Until I see Dennis. Good evening, counsel. My name is Attila. Denis, my wife, Amy Rubin. I live at 1360 South Broad Street. And her parents. Actually purchased that property initially in 1947. So as a family, we have 70 years of investment in the community. We're here in support of the rezoning. We're probably more directly affected by this application than many others in that our lot not only is directly across the street from the court complex, but also directly abuts the parking lot of the northeast corner of Arkansas and Byrd. So we've faced the redevelopment on two fronts. The we've attended several of the control group's meetings from the outset and have been very impressed by their transparency and willingness to engage with the community. I know that emotions are very high around this issue and we certainly respect that. But at the end of the day, something is going to happen to the property in question. We believe that Kendra's proposal is reasonable and appropriate. There have been questions raised about the transparency of controls proposal. A lot of these questions have been raised by people who are, I believe, very well intentioned and very passionate, but frankly, live several blocks away. And I'm not sure. That they have quite the level of involvement that those of us. Directly across the street would share. We simply do not agree that control has been anything less than completely transparent in this process. You know, to be quite honest, we'd prefer, as you get down to the nitty gritty, that we not have a three storey apartment complex directly next to our property. But that's probably more fine detail than the council is really considering this evening. We believe that the proposed development will, on balance, be positive for the city and for our neighborhood, and we would recommend approval of the application. Thank you. Thank you. Caitlin Murray. Good evening, counsel. My name is Caitlin Quander Murray. I live at. 1967 South Locust. Street. In the Virginia Village neighborhood. Initially, I want to disclose that I'm an attorney. That's not the disclosure. But I'm aware that my law firm, Brownstein Hyatt, Farber Schreck, has performed work on the proposed project. It's a large firm. I did not. Perform any of that work. And tonight I'm here to testify and support as a resident of the neighborhood. My husband, Dan and I have owned our home in the Virginia Village neighborhood for over a decade. We're raising our two young children here. We love the neighborhood parks and playgrounds. We ride our bikes with our kids regularly in the area. My husband helped organize the annual neighborhood 4th of July parade at Cook Park. We've seen the neighborhood change in the last ten years with a number of redevelopments and existing homes being sold. We believe that this changes. For the better, bringing a greater sense of community and encouraging. Interactions between neighbors that didn't previously occur. The proposed rezoning and redevelopment at 4201 Arkansas Avenue is another example of this momentum. The prior set out site has had little to no interaction with the neighborhood itself. This redevelopment has the opportunity to enhance the neighborhood and bring a mix of uses, incomes and backgrounds to an already thriving community . The current campus zoning restricts potential development and leaves the neighborhood with a lot of unknowns. The City of Denver and Country Group have worked closely with the neighborhood to reach a mix of zoning designations that acknowledge neighborhood concerns about overall height down from 12 storeys, maximum to eight storeys, with some areas limited at three stories on the neighborhood perimeter. And we also believe it promotes a mix of uses and multimodal neighborhood center that's appropriate in this location. We hear the outcry for more affordable housing throughout Denver, and we've seen home prices explode in our neighborhood, too. We believe that our neighborhood needs to be part of the solution to this crisis as well. We support the opportunity for good urban design and inclusion of affordable housing at this site, and we encourage you to vote in favor of the rezoning. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Sekou. Yes. My name is German Sekou, representing poor. Voiceless. Oppressed. Broke. Disgusted. And don't trust none of your. As the next mayor of the city, county and. These are the challenges which our city is going to be faced with in terms of what are we actually committed to? And then do that. Stop playing games. Stop using words that you don't mean and just be, do you? Because I'm telling you straight up. This has always been a white, only segregated neighborhood. Tell me. I'm like, I grew up here. We come from over, man. You go play at that night court behind the police station in Glendale for $100 a game against the team that played for Thomas Jefferson. Them and then come back and do that every day for the summer. And that was our summer jobs. We made money on segregation. We got no problems with it. We went back to our neighborhood. We had a life. We had a community. We wasn't interested in being around folks that didn't want to be around us without full self-esteem going in our neighborhood. Well, let's do some training. We can work it out. I don't want to be around. No. Folks that don't want me in their neighborhood. I don't. I want my own neighborhood. I don't want to develop the way we develop with peace, harmony and diversity among my own people. I've got white. Folks that are black folks. Chairman Sekou, if you could just adjourn Caldwell, could you please address the council, not the audience? Well, why didn't you? So as we go through this thing, let's stop playing. I want fair trade. I want jobs. I want housing. I want my people to be invested. That means we want ownership of the housing and we want all of it because we not. And we've got nothing to lose to go head to wear and tear it down. Mr. Sekou, please check your language. Now you can play. And there's the go explore and you grab another Ferguson. And the more you cut us out, we come and go. The last. Word. Chairman Say, do you have some? Thank you. Good work. Next up, Bill Parkhill. And then I'm going to call. We're almost there. Thank you for sticking with us. We only have three more to call up instead of five Aaron Varnum, Frederick Mackey and Jeff de Hardy. If you could come up to the front bench. Go ahead. Thank you. My name is. Bill Parkhill and I reside at. 631 High Street. I am the principal of Tributary Real Estate. We are a real estate asset investment company and we own the property at 4100 East Arkansas. At 4100 Arkansas, East Arkansas, which is directly south of the subject property. It is the triple play of Colorado building that it was there for 60 years and that's what you probably know it as. We purchased that building in 2017. We transacted a 20 year lease. We intend to hold that property as it is. For the next 20 years. Our tenant currently has 225 employees with six full time employees on the site and 665 employees. That rotate through once a quarter. We are here in support of the Cantrell project. First of all, we think it's an asset to our building and to our employees. We think it actually will cut down on traffic because it will give them opportunities without having to get in the car and drive for lunch, for breakfast, for dinner . As real estate professionals, we find that the. Thoughtful approach that they've used to combine the tools of several zone lots development agreement and a good neighbor agreement to create bulk plain density step downs. Add in a retail mixed use component, creating onsite and open space. All has been a creative use of tools. Finally, what I like to say is. We have known the control group and the office family for many years. We consider them both peers and competitors. And we are here to tell you tonight that they are the highest character and one of the best partners that the city can have, one of the best partners the neighborhood can have. They do great work. They do exactly what they say. And we're proud to have them as a neighbor. So thank you. Thank you. Eric or Erin Varnum. Hi. I'm Aaron Varnum. I live at 1500 South Street, about two blocks south of the property. I'm here in favor of the rezoning. Most importantly, I think we we need new and updated retail in the area that's walkable for the neighborhood. Currently, we'd have to cross Colorado Boulevard by foot, and that's not really feasible with the traffic on the highway there. So what we end up doing is driving or taking Ubers to other Denver neighborhoods like the Gaylord Street, Cherry Creek or the Highlands. So we're really excited about something within our own neighborhood. I also think that the control group has been very helpful throughout this process. We we've attended several meetings with them. I think as a local developer, they're they're committed to the neighborhood. And I think with the affordable housing, that just demonstrates that commitment. For those reasons, I think the council should vote yes in favor of this rezoning. Thank you. Thank you. Frederick Mackey. Hello. My name is Frederick Mackey. I live at 1650 South Albion Street, apartment 207. I'm a renter and I live three blocks away. I'm here to support this project because I think it's a great opportunity for the city and county of Denver to kind of right some of the wrongs of the past 56 years in. Zoning. And get this. Opportunity to. Make. Some improvements. I've watched the control group do several projects over the years and I've seen them improve each one by listening to their neighbors. And I believe they'll do the same at this project. One of the things that the city has stated as a goal is to improve transit ridership, and this project is basically on Route 40 and 46. And I believe that actually being such close proximity to those two bus routes will actually help lessen some of the traffic impacts of this potential project. I also think. This is just a. Unique opportunity to help a local. Developer because we all know that if a out-of-state company came in, they would go with whatever the zoning is already there and build something that we would probably think is even worse. So for those reasons, I support this and I urge your your support as well. Thank you. Thank you. And our final speaker tonight, Jeff Tardy. Good evening. My name is Jeff Hardy. I was at a 1970 South Clayton Street as a fellow resident within District six. I am speaking with you tonight in support of the proposed rezoning for control group at the former secret headquarters. The Castro group has a solid reputation and that is a local developer and owner of commercial real estate that is critical to my support. Alongside with his successful track record as a willingness to engage multiple community meetings alongside implementing a good neighbor agreement. I think any good developer will say that the development process is iterative and that in nature and only with critical input and thought, well, the development output truly maximize the benefit for the community. Specific components that I am encouraged by are the fact that Castro group was selected by the city and county of Denver with strings attached to adhere to some of those in the development agreement, which I am encouraged by specifically are the ability and the requirement to add jobs, 200 permanent jobs, 150,000 square feet of commercial retail. Increasing our sales tax base. Furthermore, when we look at what the property tax revenue is for this site, c docked is sometimes exempt in their tax base. If there is a ticks tive component to this project that is utilized, that phases out. Keep that in mind. So we're building revenue base for our public components to utilize beyond reduction from the current zoning. They've been thoughtful and tasteful in their development approach. I've been at these community meetings with them. While I do emphasize emphasize with the adjacent neighbors who are concerned about increased traffic in construction. I believe a successful rezoning for the former C. That site will provide thoughtful redevelopment that greatly enhances the community experience in the neighborhood by providing a wonderful gathering space. In my opinion, a wonderful gathering space is the core of creating vibrant neighborhoods. Please consider an approval vote for the rezoning request of the rezoning request. But let's not stop there with this critical step. Forward. And let's hold the Castro group accountable, accountable for the development agreement and the good neighbor agreement. Thank you. Thank you. I just want to thank everyone for taking time to come down here to the building and to come speak and to stick with us on this late night. That does conclude our speakers. Are there any questions from members of council? Councilwoman Black. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Virginia Village Neighbors, for being here until 9:00. You know. I know those benches are hard and uncomfortable and the lights are really obnoxious. So thank you for being here. I have three questions. My first is for OED, someone from OED. I'm curious about the development agreement and the 150 units of affordable housing that they are going to build. I'm curious about you may not know this offhand, but maybe, you know, a ballpark of of the new developments. You know. That have been constructed since we passed that affordable housing linkage fee. How many of them have paid the linkage fee versus actually building the units? Hi. Hi. Melissa Tardy, denver, oed. I don't have that on hand, but i could find out for you. Okay. It is my understanding that that the majority of the projects have actually paid the fee and not built the unit. So I would be interested to hear that. But I think it's great that as part of the development agreement that they are going to build 150 units and that is actually quite a lot of units compared to other projects that we've seen up here. Also, I'm interested if anyone knows if if there wasn't a development agreement, what would the linkage, Phoebe, for this project? Does anybody know that? No. Okay. All right. So my next question is for maybe you, Chris Vickery. One of the things we're hearing from a lot of the neighbors is that they don't want density there at all. But the zoning that is already in place actually would allow for much more density than this proposal. So it's my understanding that this application is actually a down zoning. So can you explain to me why you all are doing it down zoning? Why didn't you just use the zoning that was in place and not have to go through this lengthy, yearlong process and have to come to a city council meeting? Why didn't you just use that existing zoning? Yeah. So Christmas party control group is a reminder. So as a part of our PSA, it laid out that we need to go through a rezoning process. I think as we've kind of gotten under the wing of the redevelopment and looking at what potential could come here, we were retail specialists. We think retail in this area is going to be great. And as we mentioned earlier, campus doesn't allow retail. So I think for us, it's a balance between getting the retail that we know will help make this a destination and be great for the neighborhood and help with units and affordable housing and creating this neighborhood in itself and balancing out reducing the density. We think there's a balance between those two things and that's where we felt we pushed down as low as we could with the economics that we're paying in and the city while still providing a great amenity for the area. So the reason you did it was because with the existing zoning, retail could not have gone in. Correct. But you could have done 12 stories with office and residential. Those two uses. Yeah, that is primary for office. But you can do a residential there. 2 to 12 stories in those steps down to like a pyramid as you step in. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. My last question is for Stuart Anderson. So I have the pleasure of knowing Stuart Anderson and I serve on the board of his organization called Transportation Solutions and Paul Cashman. And I had the pleasure of working with you on some other Colorado Boulevard issues, mainly around the Colorado station at Buchtel and Evan's. And I can attest to your knowledge and your expertize, expertize and the results that you got from that study. So thank you very much. So I'm really excited that you're involved with this. It is so centrally located, but it is a little over a mile to Colorado station. I know the Cherry Creek probably is maybe just a little over a mile to the north. You know, Cook Park is a little bit to the east, you know, wash parts a little bit to the west. So if. I think about living there myself and I like to ride my bike. Those are the places where I would want to go. So when you are thinking about what you're going to propose there, are you going to be looking at enhanced cross crossings across Colorado Boulevard and as far away as Monaco and getting people to car station and getting people to the Cherry Creek Trail? Yes, Stewart Anderson. Yes. That that project actually falls within the realm of the of a study that we did a year ago on the stationary master plan for Colorado's station. And we are looking at access to that station. Currently, the 46 bus is on the east side. The 40 is on Colorado Boulevard. We have been in conversation with the city of Glendale of potentially adding services that connect to the station that would go by this property. We're looking at other methods to connect to the station. The the issues right now we're connecting to the bike system is that there are the facilities are pretty poor east of Colorado Boulevard. And while there are improvements along Florida, we feel that there is a need for greater improvements from a safety perspective. We also feel that the pedestrian environment really needs to be improved, the area especially connecting to Colorado Boulevard. Currently, if you look at where this property is located and imagine yourself walking to Colorado Boulevard, crossing the street and taking the 40 bus, it's not very appealing today. And so one of the other elements we have is an upgraded bus, a bus stop along Colorado Boulevard that would provide shelter and information for the users in looking at a variety of different modes. Okay. Thank you. I look forward to seeing what you come up with. Thanks. That's all right. Next up, we have Councilman Cashman. Espinosa. Oh. Nope. We've got you up next, sir. Councilman. Thank you. Andrew Webb. It's okay. Andrew, let's start with the plans and the development agreement. I think a drainage plan and open space plan, etc.. Remind me all them, all of the plans. And at what point do they go for public comment? When when the planning manager essentially determines that they are that they are complete is when the requirement for a public meeting is triggered. So complete. That means there that the application is complete, not that they've been accepted or finalized. That's correct. Okay. And what what is are there multiple meetings, one meeting? What's that process? It could vary depending on whether all of these were done at the same time or if they were produced in a in a staggered fashion. But it could be it could be one meeting, as is the case with the general development plan system, which requires one. A single applicant led meeting upon completion of the application. Okay. And explain what is allowed. Some. Some. Some retail is allowed on that site. Right. Food and beverage. And what what all does that include? Food and beverage services. So sold for consumption on site prepared food and beverage sold for consumption on site, which is a complicated way of seeing restaurants. Restaurant, brewpub. That's right. Bar. Fast food. That's correct. All that's possible. The way we've heard from a couple of people that controls engaged a traffic demand management study. Is there anything in any document that requires any implementation, not not of any particular item, but of transportation demand management principles. So the the development agreement does go into some detail about how transportation demand management principles or studies and implementation need to apply to each component of the development. But I think I may suggest you ask the applicant a little bit more about, well. First, I'm interested in what the development agreement actually says here. You. So it essentially requires that a master transportation demand management study be provided to the city for review and approval early on. And then each concept site development plan for an individual parcel of development within the property shall submit a letter identifying the transportation demand management practices utilized and let's see which. And then each each development within the property has to provide a traffic memorandum to the city showing conformance to the master traffic study. Okay. And those. That's all for you. Someone from Kentaro. I'm wondering, as far as the 150 affordable housing units, 1 to 3 bedrooms studios, what are these envisioned as? What do you know at this point? Christmas card again. Right now, we're still working through those details. I think there is a focus on family. We obviously know that, you know, the community and the schools population is decreasing and family is very important to this area. So there's going to be a component of family and then a mix of ones and studios. But the big key to this is we know it's a family year and we need to deliver family units and we're still working out the unit mix at this point. Okay. And one more, if you don't mind, Mr. President, and not for you. Have a seat. Melissa's still there yet? Misstate, I presume, Melissa, since they're still in the planning. What what would you normally expect? What's what's a normal mix for the affordable programs that we've seen recently? Can you shed any light on that? Yeah, sure. So, Melissa Tardy, Denver, OPD, it really varies depending on the projects, the different financing terms that are used throughout the project. And I do want to make one clarifying point that hasn't been made tonight, which is that the development agreement says a maximum affordability restriction of 60%. Am I. So it means it could be lower. We're not saying all of the units would be at 60%. In terms of bedroom sizes. You know, some weigh heavily on the on the family size units. It sounds like that might be something that would be considered here. Okay. That's all for right now. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Cashman, Councilman Espinosa, you're next stop. All right. A question probably for OED and I apologize because this just struck me tonight, the lowercase p versus the capital projects and previous readings of the developer agreement in item 12 of the developer agreement is the affordable housing section. It states the project shall be exempt from the link from the project shall be exempt from payment of the linkage fees in connection with the issuance of any building permits for structures in the project. Small P in the first project. Large P in the second, meaning that linkage fee will not be generated from any of the structures developed on these parcels, not just the affordable housing structure. Is that correct? That's my understanding. Okay, great. Questions for Andrew. Thank you. Andrew. Sorry, I don't know. There's this thing. What is the numerical designation called that differentiator between SMC'S eight, five and three? That last number. What do you guys call that? Oh, gosh, I'm. Not sure if it if it has an official name, but it refers to the number of stories permitted. So it's essentially the the height limiter. Height number. We'll call the height, as you know, as as you know, I was both confused and intrigued by this notion of banding heights within a particular zone district using that height number. Yeah. Is it fair to say that this banding effectively results in deeper upper story settlement step backs than would be required by Smc's eight zone district alone? That's a that's a great question. So let me if you don't mind, I'm going to pull back to the map really quick. That actually shows the banded zoning here. Okay. And so I have my zoning code here. So let's see. In the Smc's eight zone district. There is a. If you're adjacent to a protected district, which can mean which essentially is as a single unit zone district or a low intensity residential zone district. I'm just want to make sure I'm giving you the correct answer here. There is a 20 foot upper story set back above 27 feet. So these bands of zoning are essentially within the actual property itself. The Band of Smokes three begins, of course, at the street at the midline of Arkansas, but has an impact on the actual property back of curb of approximately 20 feet. And then the second band that is illustrated there also has a impact of approximately 30 some feet. Perfect. And that's just the Arkansas side, which wouldn't necessarily be it's only partially a protected zone district. That's correct. But you have an effective upper story, deeper upper story. Step back on that east side, do you not? On the east side, yes. The the proposed smokes three there where it directly is across the street from some some zoning is closer to 200 or so feet there. Is this being done to transition the mass and scale from the commercial environment of Colorado Boulevard to the lower scale single family neighborhood adjacent to the eastern half of the property? I think that's a that's a fair assessment of what the intent is here. The depth of this transition area on the East End is approximately a half a block. Is this an appropriate amount, a step back for a transition from an eight story down to a three story? Well, the I mean, you there are places in in the city and even near here where there is eight storey zoning directly adjacent to single unit zoning. And so in those cases, the the building the upper storey setbacks would apply for four, six, eight, four, eight storey or above. So effectively, more transition is being provided here or proposed here than would be required by something that is directly abutting or a giant across the street from an SUV zone district. I know. It's more bummer. I was hoping you'd say yes, but thank you. All right. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Neal. Mr. Stewart, can you come up? I know you've been dealing with that with different transit alternatives, trying to improve, you know, the whole situation on Colorado Boulevard and the immediate effect of this property. Can you describe a little bit about, say, the New York City shuttle that myriad that how it seems to be testing out and and how it's work to do you and how it could be also be an application maybe for camera? Yes. Stewart Anderson, we recently launched a micro transit service between Cherry Creek and downtown, and we're monitoring that service we launched. Want to do you station as well. The one at Deuce Station has been there since July 9th. It's exceeding its expectation as far as performance. This property actually sits right on one of the proposed lines that we have for micro transit. That would be a first and last mile service into Cherry Creek, the going up birch and cherry through Glendale and into Cherry Creek. So this would be a service that would benefit this property significantly in connecting to the station. But right now, that's speculative. There's there's no basis for that other than let's watch what happens with our first line. Compared to other transit opportunities is much less costly and probably easier to implement. So if it works out favorably, it could be something that could be helpful. Yes. When fully implemented, it would come out at about one third. The normal cost of transit and the current bus line that's there is the 46. It has one of the highest public subsidies in the city right now. It has low ridership. It needs to be replaced with micro transit, it would say dollars, and it would be more efficient in getting people around. I have talked to a control group about this and I've asked whether or not they would participate if we did create a line along there and they are very interested in that. I actually even took them out to see the electric driverless shuttles and talked about how that might work. No commitment in that. It was just come and see. So we actually went out and it last week rode one of those. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Traffic engineer, if I could ask you questions. I notice on the map that maybe there's a connection of the street going across the property. And I guess it is the the exit and entry ways to the to the site will be the affected by that maybe. Can you describe how that traffic is going to flow around that area? And and if there are any kind of improvements that you're thinking about? Yes. Hello again, Curtis Roe with Kimberly Horne. You're correct. The plan is to connect Belair Street through the property. However, any access or anything else with the specific development hasn't been planned yet. You know, obviously, this is in a preliminary stage right now, so we don't know exactly the access. However, you know, the connection of Bel-Air through the property will provide a good connection to the North because Bel-Air connects up to Mississippi and so it'll provide traffic in and out of the development from that direction. We have good connection to Colorado Boulevard. Through both. Arkansas and Louisiana. And so those will be the. Primary directions of travel. There will be some traffic, obviously expected to travel Louisiana to the east. Over to Holly. Okay. And you'll be working with with the public, with the residents as you're going forward with that mitigation plan, right? Yes, absolutely. And I have. Enjoyed working with the public thus far on this process. All right. Thank you very much, Andrew. QUESTION One question. There have been several issues tonight about some kind of zoning violations or maybe some misunderstandings about the zoning or something. Do you know anything about this? Zoning is can you discuss it or address it at all or. I'm sorry. I'm not sure I quite understood the question. I was sitting my code down. Several residents have mentioned that this project was violating zoning or or blueprint in or in Ridge. Can you sort of clarify who? Sure. Thank you for for clarifying. So as as mentioned in the in the presentation, the the future concept land use proposed for this site by by blueprint is single family residential. And we we noted in our analysis that, you know, it's hard to understand exactly why that was applied in this area because this site and multiple surrounding sites all had higher intensity residential, commercial and mixed uses at the time of blueprint's adoption. And yet many of those did receive that same that same future concept land use designation. So the analysis had to take that into consideration and, and look at how blueprints, language addresses, unique situations like this where you may have a redevelopment opportunity to, you know, in a or abutting, in this case, a residential neighborhood. But I believe that is what some some commenters. Were, which is just more and more of a change in zoning rather. Than. Do you think that's inappropriate? Well, you know, I think we we leave it up to the discretion of the council to decide if, you know, if they find that the proposal meets the criteria. The staff reports the staff report sets forth CPD's argument for for why it does meet the criteria. So thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Councilman and Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a couple of questions. The first one is for Jeff Steinberg, if you wouldn't mind coming up to the podium. So, Jeff, if city council were to pass this tonight, what would be the next steps with this property? I'd have to say that that depends. The fact of the matter is that there is a contract in place. Control could elect to develop the property under the existing zoning. They could sell the property to another developer that could develop it under the existing zoning. The city would not close on the property if control did not close on the property, and that at that point said it would likely go out for a sale to another developer. Thank you. So my next question is for Mr. Bill office, if you wouldn't mind coming to the microphone. To be able to do the affordable. Are you looking at accessing Colorado housing finance tax credits to be able to meet the emission levels that you're looking at? Yes. So we're going to put an application in February with Schaefer. And so we we. Understand that affordable. Housing needs to work with subsidy subsidies. And so we you know, we're not an expert in it. And that's why we're doing a joint venture with McDermott. And so they're going to be our partner. It's a 5050 joint venture, and they're kind of kind of lead the way with us and teach us the ropes. And we hope, you know, from this project we can become an affordable housing going forward. And is that application intended to be phased out, or are you looking at submitting an application for the entire 150 units you're looking at? You know, we. Want to deliver 150 units. So I feel, you know, we're going to try. We're going to try to do it all together. Okay. Thank you for that. And then, Andrew, I had a question that was similar to the one that was asked earlier. So the site today has the campus zoning. That's right. And. You know, as as if the development moves forward, what are the protections for the single family character of the adjacent neighborhood? You know, looking at the zoning, we do have some sites directly across the street from the site that are not single family zoning. They may be single family properties in some cases, but the zoning is not entirely single family all the way around this site. But as you get, you know, further into the fabric of the single family character of the neighborhood, what are the protections that would kind of ensure that we don't see development just begin to happen as we've seen across the city with so many of our neighborhoods? You know, my neighborhood being one of those in the Highlands community. And are you thinking about this in terms of development on the site itself or development? I'm talking about the development that would happen here would then attract more people to want to develop in the neighborhood. We saw that occur in Cherry Creek. You know, as we started seeing single family homes being acquired, we saw duplexes going in. We've seen that in the slow slate neighborhood in my neighborhood of Lower Highland. So what are some of those protections for the neighborhood, which is really kind of independent of the project, but may be a result of the investment in this site? Sure. So the the pseudo zoning, which is what the. Which is the primary single unit zoning that exists to southeast the southeast of the project site does have does have standards for, you know, site design. The in the suburban neighborhood context, you have higher lot coverage or lower lot coverage allowances. Deeper residential setbacks. So those are the types of, I guess, development standards that would would control development in the neighborhood resulting from change on this particular site. One thing I would note is that the study zone district does have a 30 foot maximum height. So there currently is not something that would prevent somebody from adding another story or or a story and a half on to the, the, the onto their home or to build a new home that is of that height in this zone district. So let me ask the question in a different way. One of the criteria that is used by the planning department is changing conditions that justify a. New rezoning application in the single family fabric of a neighbor. Okay, I. See. And so I guess that's sort of the impetus behind my question about how do we protect the single family character. Okay. And just one point that I think is really important to make is that as we see the changes coming forward to the Denver Rite process, we completely get away from the terminology of neighborhoods, of protection, of stability and changing neighborhoods, neighborhoods. So that would be an analogy. But but my concern is that as we see the verbiage changing, does that create the I don't know, the sort of assumption across the board that if we no longer have neighborhoods of stability, that they're they're all open for, you know, three free games, if you will. Understood. And I'm sorry if I misunderstood your question the first time around. So I can't speak specifically to the proposed new blueprint plan because it's, you know, not adopted yet and still under review. However, under the existing system, it would be very difficult to to change the zoning of a single unit, of a property that has a single unit zoned district in a neighborhood where there is not an adopted plan of some sort, calling for a major change in youth types to a, you know, row house or something like that. So in other words, the current blueprint and I expect the new blueprint under development right now will contain those types of protections where neighborhoods can work as part of a community effort to to consider things like accessory dwelling units or or other perhaps targeted changes in density. But there are, you know, blueprint and and neighborhood plans and other kind of policy documents would make it very difficult to do a radical up zoning of a single property in a single unit zoned district. Okay. Thank you. I have no further questions. Thank you. Councilman or Councilman Herndon. Mr. President, I'm good. Thank you. Councilman Herndon. Councilman Flynn. Thanks, Mr.. President. Andrew, I have a bunch of questions for you, and maybe I'll break it up and get. Back in line. But short answers, please. Just real quickly, what happens to the parcel that has the communications tower on it? That's not part of the rezoning that would remain then campus? That's correct. Which seems a little ridiculous, too, because it's not a campus at that point. Is that acceptable to CPD? That that that that remain? Well, you know, because they didn't apply to change it. I don't believe CPD really takes a position on that proposal. So it's just sort of an oddity that's leftover of the. Okay. Is it. Necessary. For a rezoning application to be consistent with every strategy and comp plan 2000? Or is it possible that because we've dealt with a lot of rezonings and obviously we don't address all the strategies, does that are we to read into that that the applications are are benign as far as how they relate to all the other strategies and we're just picking out the strategies that justify the rezoning. Typically in early review, we might look at it, take a wider look at at all of the strategies. You know, it's usually obvious pretty, pretty quickly if something is completely inappropriate with regard to adopted plan policy. But generally speaking, the goal is to to further or be consistent with policies relevant on a case by case basis to the proposed rezoning. Okay. What happens when CPD identifies an inconsistency with a strategy and income plan or or one of the items in blueprint with an application? And if there were a preponderance of of of that type of scenario, then we would work with a potential applicant kind of in the Pre-Application stage to look at a more appropriate proposed zone district. Okay. So you do deal with inconsistencies that that you identify? That's correct. How does the density that's available right now with the campus to zoning, how does the density that's possible there now compare with what's requested here? It is it's challenging to make a like for like comparison. But generally speaking, the the the height allowances under the CPI i2 zone district are taller than by several. Hundred and 50. Feet. That's that's correct. And what is proposed here are 12 storeys versus a maximum of eight stories. And then. Density is also driven by a number of factors, but they can includes required off street parking on a site because that takes up space on a site and the CMP zoning has less park off street parking required than the Smc's eight and SMU three zone districts. Okay, so I let you draw your own conclusions there. But but I think generally speaking, there is perhaps less possible overall density allowed by what is proposed than what could be possible. But then here's here's a real, I guess, the foundational question I'm trying to deal with as I listen to the testimony from the public and from the applicant. And that is, you know, under blueprint areas of stability, areas of change. Much of this site is within an area of stability. That's right. Does an area of stability imply that if that parcel is underutilized as far as its existing entitlements? If it fully developed those entitlements and greatly increased its density. Does that does anything in Blueprint say that that changes our consideration? And that's you know, that's not an area of stability anymore. If if an owner has developed his full entitlements. Not specifically. Not in so many words. But the but blueprint does provide in in in the text as talked about as discussed in the staff report and more briefly in the presentation, where situations like this arise if the property were to be redeveloped under its existing zoning in a future past. At assessing future concept land uses and current land uses the we would hope that the that the existing land use at that time would be taken into consideration. Okay. Well so in other words, developing a parcel with the existing entitlements in an area of stability is consistent with the blueprint. Denver not inconsistent. If it has existing entitlements. Yes. Okay. All right. Thank you, Mr. Read. I'll ask a few other questions afterward. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilwoman Gilmore. Thank you. President Clarke. I think my first question will be for somebody in the control group. So there were some residents who were here tonight who spoke and said that maybe their property were they were abutting the new development and didn't know anything about this process. And so I just wondered if if somebody could come up and share a little bit to their outreach and education process, please. Certainly. Councilman Gilmore, Sean Reilly, Sierra Associates. We're helping Castro with the public outreach. You know, we tried extremely hard to reach as many. Residents as possible. Like like we said, we. Held eight meetings. We flier the neighborhood three times at a radius of 2000 feet from the site. That is ten times the city's mailed requirement, which I believe is 200 feet. We posted signs on the property. We know that city council sent out e blasts we sent out. I don't know how many emails I sent out a lot. I walked the. Neighborhood within the legal protest area. We delivered. A dear. Neighbor letter that we posted on our. Website. We made a lot of attempts, and we apologize to anybody that did not find out about this, and we'll pledge to continue working with them. Thank you. My second question is, and it might be for Stewart Anderson, folks that also testified were very concerned about traffic and the increase in traffic. Could you talk a little bit about, you know, if this is approved tonight, what that would look like with trips spread throughout the day versus morning and evening? It's adjacent to Stewart Anderson. It's adjacent to a very heavy traffic corridor. Recall, Erato Boulevard. So there's extensive traffic there. This would definitely increase the amount of cars that would come from the facility. But we're trying to mitigate that through mixed use first, as well as promoting all forms of transportation, looking at getting car share, bike share on site, looking at capturing trips within the site, improving the pedestrian environment, the general areas characterized by what I would call Hollywood sidewalks. It's not the easiest place to walk around. And I think that this project will actually improve this. We've looked at three places where we want to install enhanced crosswalks. That would be a benefit to the surrounding neighborhood, in particular with the students. The school students would be walking. Louisiana is not a safe street to cross currently. And what we've talked about is, is creating that broader environment, including going beyond this property and looking at connecting the Florida for the bikeway. Okay. All right. Great. Thank you. Thank you, President Park. Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilwoman Sussman. Thank you, Mr. President. I just thought maybe it might be helpful to for folks to understand what am I is and the 150 units. But if I could ask you questions, can you tell us what am I stands for? Area median income. Area median income and what is the area median income of Denver? Oh, gosh. Put me on the spot D $2,760. Yes. So that's 100% of the area median income. So at 60% am I your target audience is people who make. We want to know that number to $37,600. That's your target. You have 150 residences for people that make $37,000. Do you know what the average fire fireman's pay is in Denver? More than that? Actually, no. What? It's $34,860. And do you know what the average server in a restaurant makes? Much less. $30,000 is the average median income. So this this probably means that those homes are for people who work nearby or in the city. Right. Absolutely. Okay. Thanks. I thought to be helpful to talk a little bit about what am I means and what 60% of I am. I mean, thank you for doing that. Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Councilman Cashman and Councilman Espinosa. Okay. If I go to Councilwoman Kennedy because she hasn't had a chance yet. All right, Councilwoman Cannick. Thank you. Just to follow up questions, the first was Councilwoman Ortega was asking about protection for single family areas. And I didn't catch a mention, but I thought we were pretty close to the Christina Park Overlay District, which has some design standards and things. So can you just tell me if my geographies correct in that? There is. There is. And it's not just that, it's some zoning. There's also a pretty significant overlay protecting some of this area. Yes. Thank you for reminding me of that. There is an overlay district to the to the east of the site. It doesn't directly above the site. It's a it's it begins a couple blocks east. But if you think about the question about what's happening, what how does a development change the next sets of areas, which I think is an important question. Absolutely. There is some protection in one of those outer rim circles. Okay. The second question was, and I think this may be more for the team, but for anyone, I guess is about I heard a number of residents say that they saw images and were concerned about buildings that went right up to the sidewalk, right up to the sky, you know, with the full height. And I wanted to ask if someone could talk a little bit and I don't I guess we're beyond the math point, but about the residential neighborhood transition area that looks like it goes along, Arkansas and Birch, all of Arkansas, a good portion of Birch. And just talk a little bit about what that is. Sure. And I will I'll ask the applicant perhaps to add to this. But any any zone, district or higher intensity zone district is bound to the requirements of the protected the protected district standards and the zoning code, which typically impact any development within 175 feet of a protected district, which essentially in this case begins at the midpoint of Arkansas South and at the midpoint of Birch and for a short distance east. And in that area, heights are typically limited in the code. It's limited to 75 feet in this proposal there. So that's about roughly five stories in this proposal. They're further lowering that at the street edge or at the edge of development to three stories. But what is being illustrated as a neighborhood transition area is, I believe, a response to the protected district standards in the code, and I think perhaps some additional efforts to try to address community concerns that have been expressed. Great. Oh yeah. Please, can I add one thing? Christmas party with Control Group. If you go to the exhibit that we provided you, if you go to the the page right before two, it kind of shows the the massing that in the envelopes that we kind of talked about, we never really got into buildings because we're just not there yet . So we're really talking about these massing. But I think this does a good job to show existing campus the transition from our first proposal, which was in May, and this was after getting shaped many times for a public meetings and then our final application that you're looking at today, so you can see the progression as you get closer to that single family housing. We really tried to push that house down as much as we could. And then I think one more thing. When you when you start developing and we start going through our type process, we're going to be delivering amenity zones. So it won't be right to the edge of the property. It'll be you've got an eight foot tree line and a five foot sidewalk that's going to be installed that isn't there today. So it's going to really help that street presence and it's not going to feel like the buildings on top of you if we build right to that sidewalk. Great. If I may ask one more follow up question, which is I heard mention of some tree saving and I didn't know if those trees were on the perimeter. Yes. So it's on the south side of the site along Arkansas, mainly in front of the main building. There's there's many trees that are along that side. So it's a part of our development agreement. Public works was willing to potentially flip flop the amenity zone. Typically, it's that eight foot tree line I talked about and the five foot sidewalk. In this circumstance, we were able to flip it because those trees are actually about 13 or 14 feet away. From the street where it lies today. So if the goal is to preserve, preserve. So I just want to just close this out by saying, to the extent someone saw a picture that had a building up to the street edge with no greenspace, no, you know, no alterations, that that picture was probably not an accurate representation of what would be required. Yeah, we haven't we haven't gotten deep enough in detail to show what that street level experience would be. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilor McKinney. As we head to a second round of questions for folks, I'll just remind us that it is nearly 10:00 and ask those asking and answering questions to be as clear, concise and quick as possible. Councilman Cashman I think I'd be frivolous for a little bit to say I'm enjoying sitting here. Let's see. I'd like to ask either Jeff Steinberg or Roe mine. The question being, I need you to opine. This is a 14,000,000 million piece of property, I believe. I'm assuming whatever is done on it will be millions of dollars in site preparation. What I'm asking is what might happen to this site? I mean, could it be a park? Could could it be single family homes? Give me your thoughts. Jeff Steinberg, director of real estate for the City. The what you come back to is at this point in time, Seawright owns the property and they have an obligation to sell the property at the highest value that they can. The way we got into this deal to begin with was they have the opportunity to offer qualifying government agencies to have a first crack at it. And since we had an objective of creating jobs and creating housing, we took that. It's been a two year process since the court put the market put the property on the market. My sense is, is that they would probably go out and get a new appraisal of what the value of the property is and market it at that number, which I would assume would be a higher number, number one. With regard to the question of a park, I mean, it comes back to this. If there were monies available where folks would come in and pay that value for the property and decide to make a park out of it, they could do that. I know that in working with parks, when we were looking at another area of a one acre parcel, so forgetting the cost of the acquisition of the real estate, but the cost to activate one acre of land to have it become a green area park, it was about $5 million. So when you talk about making it into a park, it depends on how you make it into a park. But the land would have to be acquired first and then everything associated with the irrigation and activation of the real estate to make it a park would have to be funded as well. Then the next question, I can only answer it on the basis of 20 South Holly. That site was looked at. It was a similar site in size, but it was about 40% of the cost. And when the MRI levels were looked at that were natural for the neighborhood and single family residences being developed on the site versus multi-family, it turned out that you couldn't build a multifamily site on that property even at 40% of the cost because the numbers wouldn't work for the development. So if you apply some of those principles over to this property similar size, but about two and a half times more expensive, it would be very difficult for single family residences to be built on this site at the price that is being proposed. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Ball. Office, real quick, if you don't mind. Two questions for you, sir. My understanding is you've delayed closing on the property till the end of February. Is that correct? Yes, we we were planning to close the earlier the later of demo. Completion. Or March 29th, which has a hard date that they need to sell the property by. Okay. And why the delay? Why the delay? We just the demolition has taken a little bit longer. We are we started specifying abatement a little bit later than we thought. And we need a debate about this before the building comes down. Are you doing the demo or is that c. C that's doing the demo. Okay. And so the next question is, so if this zoning fails, what are you going to do with the property? Right now we're thinking of this plan A, we've focused on just, you know, buying it and going with the the proposed zoning. We we have a lot of time and resources spent in it. But right now, it's plan A and plan A includes the zoning. Thank you. That's all, Mr. President. Thank you. Councilman Cashman, Councilman Espinosa. Quick question for you just on assignment. It says The assignment of the I mean, my question is, the assignment of the agreement of obligations involves only Castro transferring the obligations and providing a copy to the city. We have recent history of not monitoring obligations such as these. What mechanism is in place to assume, I mean, is to assure that Castro or any of its societies are following will follow through. You know that that's something I need to happen to the city attorney's office with. The reality of the matter is, if there's a contract in place that deals with the acquisition of the real estate and there is an assignment done, all the provisions of the contract would go along with that assignment. Well, sort of. The problem is in that same assignment section, it basically says that if if if the assignee doesn't follow through, we can't hold control responsible for that. So if we don't monitor the assign E, who assumes that we could be left holding the bag? I mean, you know, awkward space again. And so how to I'd much rather us have the mechanism in place to make sure that whoever's developing on these parcels is developing consistent with this developer agreement as opposed to what happened in Green Valley Ranch and finding out sort of after the fact that now we have to litigate or do something else. So is it does anyone have a plan for that? Good evening, Counsel, Navy Services and City Attorney. Councilman Espino, just just to clarify, are you talking about the assignment provision and the development agreement? Correct. Okay. And that particular provision expressly says that the assigning will take over the obligations of this development agreement. So the development agreement only comes into effect if this rezoning passes, otherwise the agreements void. With that being said, the agreement will be recorded at some point after the after the zoning passes. So again, that's that was the problem, right? On our problem, on the northeast section of town was all of those things were deed restrictions, covenants on the title. So they were recorded, yet they were overlooked. So it says specifically in that assignment section that it says and the so it says the express assumption of any of care obligations under this agreement concerning the property and rights and duties subject to assignment by its assigning or transferee, shall therefore be relieve care from any further obligations under this agreement, which is appropriate and shall release the city from further obligation to care with respect to the matter. Soon care of shall provide the city of copy. Okay. Wait. I'm sorry. In no event shall a default by any such as assign with respect to the obligations assumed by this assignee, affect the rights or obligations of care of or any other assigning under this agreement that were not assigned or assumed by such defaulting. Assigning. So. So yes, somebody will assume that responsibility if they acquire land subject to this agreement. How are we making sure that these terms are going to be followed through in real time? So the development agreement will be maintained by city staff and administered by city staff. So there are other provisions within the agreement when it talks about site development plans and the construction manager. And so those things will be put into place and and administered by the city so that those things don't fall through the cracks. Okay. I wish I had some confidence there that somehow city staff, when these drawings come in for a site development plan review, that there is some acknowledgment somehow that there is these there are these obligations that they should be looking for. Because I have recent history where we've put waivers on a on a property. So the zoning has that labeled and somehow a project went all the way almost to to to permitting without anyone recognizing that it was not an allowable form. So this is this is this lives in that gray area. And I don't see anything special being done to make sure that this is followed through. Other than that, a lot of watchful eyes. So. So. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Flynn. Thanks, Mr. President. I have just two quick questions to clarify some of the neighborhood impacts. And the first one is maybe Mr. Anderson or Mr. Tuscany or. Well, maybe those two the adjacency to the single family neighborhood. My understanding is that I want to deal with what is right now. It's largely underutilized and mostly I don't want to say vacant parcel, but not very highly developed. But it has entitlements that allow significantly more development. So I want to deal with what's possible without the rezoning versus the rezoning as being requested, so adjacent to the single family areas on Birch and Arkansas. Right now, my understanding is under campus zoning, a 75 foot structure could be built right across the street from a single family from single family homes with a 20 foot setback from the street. Is that the Zacharek? And Andrew, if they give a wrong answer, let them know. This is Chris. Andrew will correct me if I'm wrong. So, yeah, that is correct. In addition, the site to the east, that's also campus E2, so that one could also go 75 feet. So in both of those circumstances, one, the stuff of West Birch in Arkansas that's getting stepped down. The other side would get stepped down. Plus a change in use wouldn't allow commercial. That's what that's what I'm getting at now. And especially with that parcel that you say is on the other on the east side of birch although a 20 foot setback on all on on the on all four sides would might mitigate that a little bit. You have a little point tower maybe. Now but with the. IMU has a 20 foot setback against protected districts and that's different than AMEX. Okay. And now with the requested zone, you would that that adjacent parcel could the maximum height would be, what, 40 feet, 35 feet. Of 45 feet in residential. And residential? Okay. And then last question. What is the process in a development agreement? There is a or there is a provision for closing Arkansas Avenue east of Birch to the alley pending a traffic study. What are the specific? Do we have specific triggers for that? Because that's kind of a very undeveloped little strip of asphalt. Yeah, it's interesting. That was, you know, one of the the bigger comments that we received from the neighborhood is what was this? Was it an alley? Was it a street? Right. So public works is open to exploring that. That's what you've you've seen in your development agreement. We met with Public Works actually this week to kind of talk about what those trigger points are. Okay. And I think what they're looking for from Curtis and I is some concepts of what that might be. I think we've been talking about really just closing it off for cars and it would be more of a pedestrian bike kind of connection, then maybe you would be able to connect down to Florida on the new bike route that the city did. So the next step, I think, from our perspective, is providing some high level concepts of what that might look like and how that could be designed and then start working through public works. Okay. Thank you, Mr. President. That's all. I. Councilman Flynn, Councilwoman Gilmore. Thank you, President Clark. Jeff Steinberg, could you come back up? I just want to clarify something for the public record. I believe you had said that to build one acre of parkland, it was $5 million. And I just want to make sure and clarify with Hugh that that's the correct number, because a lot of the parks that we're getting in the far northeast are between half a million and a million an acre, not 5 million acres. So what I referenced specifically was a one acre parcel of land that Parks and Rec was looking at acquiring. So there was a cost associated with that and that property also for it to be activated, to have irrigation dropped in and be excavated, everything that needed to be done, it was going to be $5 million to activate it. I would venture to say that it depends on what irrigation and how it's being activated. If it's being purely done up as as pure grass, that is fields versus mixed different aspects of what it is and where they have to bring irrigation in from. What I can tell you that that one specific parcel which was in the Golden Triangle, the cost was $5 million for the one acre. Hmm. Well, because in the far northeast, we need all the infrastructure put in, and you're talking about a built environment. And so I still am not totally along with that. But if somebody could follow up with me on that, I'd be very interested because 5 million for a one acre park is just. That's. Yeah. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilwoman Ortega. I just have one last question, and it is probably for someone on the development team, and it's about the edge along Louisiana. Just ensuring that you all are looking at it being in the shadows where during snow time, you know, you have ice. And that's always a concern of neighborhoods. So will there be proposed setbacks from the Louisiana side? I know you don't have that level of detail now, but in the conversations you've been having with the neighborhood, is that one of the issues that you've been asked to address? Chris again? Yes. In the first few meetings, I think that was a some questions that came up. I think, you know, when we're talking about eight stories, that doesn't mean that's what it is exactly getting built up to the edge. I think for a good development and a cohesive development, people need to be able to get in and out and get in and out safely. So I think actually having a a robust development and, you know, people wanting to come here, we've got to make sure all these components work. And I think in regards to ice, I mean, I think it's a safety issue and making sure there's ice, sand and salt. And we set up a metro district on this site really specifically to not capitalize it, but really for certain things such as design and cohesiveness and maintenance and to really make sure everything's happening on the overall development, not just in little pieces. All right. I appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Seeing no other questions. The public hearing for Council Bill 1075 is closed. Comments by members of Council. Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. First, let me start by thanking everybody who came out tonight and who has played a role in the evolution of this rezoning process, from the neighbors to the city staff to my staff to the team at Castro Group. While there have been some challenges and some unfortunate community disharmony along the way, it has largely been a positive process with much good debate. For four decades, I have watched similar rezonings unfold and have watched council members sit at this dais struggling to fairly evaluate complex situations in their district with loud voices on both sides trying to gain the upper hand. Tonight, it's my turn. I have never spent more time evaluating any topic that has come before me, either in my career as a journalist or during my time on council thus far. A constituent wrote me recently urging me to stick to my guns tonight and not give in to please people. And I had to laugh at that. And no matter which way I vote tonight, I'm going to make a bunch of people very unhappy. This is about a legal obligation to evaluate this project according to the criteria discussed earlier in the staff report. Pleasing people is a not part of the formula, and b it's impossible anyway. The community is divided on this issue, as we've heard tonight and as I've heard in recent months, I have neighbors on Louisiana, on a handful of blocks from the site on the same side of the street that are diametrically opposed. One one feels this will be a great development that will enhance the community, the other brought to tears by fears of traffic, noise and safety. Some value, the promise of affordable housing and the possibility of restaurants and retail closer to home. Some aren't willing to make the trade for tall buildings and increased traffic. We've got the right developer and we've got the right concept for me. We've got the wrong zoning. The proposed plan allows for a level of density that I do not believe the infrastructure in the area the roads can can handle. We need to take a step down in density and a step up in open space and we need to be more prescriptive in the zoning. Perhaps a peu de style approach. I know we all need to carry a bit of the growth, the load in accommodating our city's continuing growth. But the roads servicing this site are not up to the load and I fear they will lead to cut through traffic on neighborhood streets that the neighborhood can't tolerate. This site is over a block off of Colorado Boulevard, not accessed by the arterial itself, but by local street, Arkansas, and a low level collector, which would be Louisiana . That ends at Holly Street. CPD has been unable to find me another such access challenged property with density akin to that proposed here. This property will develop C that is selling the land. The value of the land would indicate it will become considerably more active and dense than when c dad's headquarters made its home there. Much has been made of the fact that the existing zoning would allow considerably more density than the proposed plan. This may or may not be true. The microwave tower on the east side of the site limits building heights to some degree. The State Office of Information Technology and C++ are currently in negotiations around that issue of what can be built on the site. Now, I have no knowledge of those negotiations. They could limit building height or agreement could be made to pave the way to allow for the full 12 storeys permitted under campus zoning. As has been said at this rezoning fails throw could back out of the deal. They could build under campus zoning. They could close on the deal and sell to someone else. Building under the existing zoning does not have open space requirements, does not require affordable housing, allows for a bit of increased height and areas along the border . My guess is that anyone coming in to this site will need TIFF funding to make their project work, and I can't imagine approving a project without many of the elements. Castro has agreed to. My preference would be that either Kentaro hangs with the project and comes back with a less overwhelming proposal. Where the city takes control of the land, initiates a more formal community, community based planning process, and creates something that would truly enhance the community. I would love to be in a position to enthusiastically support a TIFF application that facilitates a true community partnership. I can write you a script where if this rezoning fails, we get a much better project that is more fitting for a Virginia village than what is proposed here. And I celebrate taking this position and I can write you a script where we get something worse than what is proposed, and I sadly regret my vote. I have run those scripts over in my mind. Night after night till the wee hours. But I am not here to predict the future. Nor am I able to. Or to pick the lesser of two evils. I'm here to evaluate this application according to the criteria. And with that in mind, as I said above, I cannot say confidently that this application meets the third criteria of being protective of the public health. We answer calls daily about traffic concerns. Already, without this development factored in, though, Denver has sworn its commitment to Vision Zero, traffic related deaths in our city continue to rise. Since first hearing about this proposal, I've struggled with this proposed density and in response have struggled to improve the plan as best I could in case it should pass this Council. I unsuccessfully urged a substantive reduction, further reduction in density. What I did achieve was meetings between Denver traffic engineers and control consultants to take preemptive looks at what improvements might be made to attempt mitigation of the expected traffic increase. Further, I urged Cantrell to consult traffic demand management professionals to begin looking at options for reducing the number of auto trips from the site, which, as you've heard , they have done. I have received a written commitment from the Mayor's Chief Projects Officer to facilitate periodic meetings between my office, the developer, neighborhood representatives and the Departments of Community Planning and Development and Public Works throughout construction should the project proceed? I was also an early and insistent voice saying that I couldn't imagine approving a development on the site that included a buyout option in place of construction of affordable housing. As we've heard, the buyout no longer exists. Whatever happens tonight, we are not done. We will be facing years of development, review and construction planning in one form or another, whether it's the Castro group and this iteration or someone else with whom we're dealing. I am ready for either. It is, however, essential that the community pickets are now up off the floor as soon as possible, dusted off and get back to the business of serving the neighborhood and serving the city. I look forward to facilitating that revival in any way I can. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilwoman Black. Thank you. I jotted down some notes during all the comments today, and I just want to address some some of them. So a wise former Denver city councilwoman who was also the director of public works advised me when I first became a council member that all the decisions that I make as a council person should be for the future and should be for the next generation. And I feel like that's what we're doing tonight. We're talking about the future of Denver. And like many of you here tonight who came to public comment, I am a Denver native. I went to celebrity, the Cooper Theater, the ah, the Century 21 theater. And I've lived most of my life in southeast Denver. Denver has changed a lot. It's changed a lot very recently. And it continues to change really before our eyes. It is remarkable. Month to month, it changes. So now I'm going to respond to some of the concerns that people expressed tonight. One is about ugly development. And I agree there is a lot of new ugly development, but there's also a lot of ugly old development. And Colorado Boulevard, quite frankly, is one of the ugliest streets in Denver. And if I have people visiting here from other cities, I avoid Colorado Boulevard. I find it embarrassing. It's a bunch of strip malls and parking lots. I think we're just used to it, but I think it's unfair to imply that somehow we're going to be losing something of beauty on Colorado Boulevard. I don't I don't think that's true. And I'm hopeful that can grow. I think it's great that your local and your design team will design a project that is esthetically pleasing and that is going to include green spaces and preserving those trees. Affordable housing. First of all, I'd like to respond to someone who came up to the podium and implied that people who live in affordable housing are somehow connected to crime in the area. I find that very offensive, as I'm sure everyone up here does. We do have a housing crisis in Denver and it's something we all talk about every single day. Housing is extremely expensive in Denver and we have a lack of supply. And so the answer to that is to build more housing. And I sometimes talk to people who don't seem to understand that basic issue of supply and demand. So we need more supply. And the only way we're going to get more in Denver is through density. Denver is landlocked, and we need density in Denver, and density is the opposite of sprawl. Diane Zuhdi, if you're still here, she had some great comments about sprawl also. Jacob Graham I think that was his name, the guy from Norway. Sprawl is really bad and when you have suburban sprawl, people get in their cars in Douglas County and drive into Denver in one car, in one person. That is the that is what traffic is caused by it is caused by sprawl and people being in their cars, having density in Denver, having less places to shop, places to work. That is how you get people out of their cars. So. I just wanted to clarify that. I, I think a lot of people would like to just see what is at sea that stay that way, which it's essentially some grass in a parking lot and some buildings. That's not going to happen. Beth Fine. Silver, you said it's a given that it will be redeveloped, and I think that is accurate. It's not going to be developed into single family homes. If if they were, they were going to they would be $2 million houses. You can't spend that kind of money on the land and clean it up and redevelop it. They would not be affordable. They would be multimillion dollar houses. I had a similar situation on a much smaller property a couple of miles south in my district where a developer wanted to put lower place duplexes and couldn't get this part of the neighborhood. And now they're putting in eight one and a half million dollar houses, which is not helping our housing crisis. I often quote a bumper sticker. Many of you have heard me say this, but it says you are not in traffic. You are traffic. Traffic is caused by everyone here tonight who drove here in a car by yourself. I did. I'm guilty, Stuart. You probably did it, but Jolan probably didn't. But that is the cause of traffic. We are the cause of traffic. It's not somebody else. And so if more people move to Denver, traffic is going to get worse. And so the way you address it is that you you live in a city and you don't drive. You take the bus, you take the light rail, you take the chariot, you take a scooter, you take your bike, whatever. And multimodal options are those solutions. So I'm really excited that you guys have engaged with transportation solutions. So those were just kind of my responses. I think it's very clear that a more dense development could go here that wouldn't have some of the neighborhood uses that community members would like to have, like the retail. I think this is an improvement over the existing zoning and I will be supporting it. Thank you, Councilwoman Black Councilman, New Yorkers, I'm just really so proud of all the residents who participated in this whole discussion and the outreach programs. There's nothing more impressive, I think, to all of us on council when we see active participation by all the resources in a community about a project, especially an important project like this. So all your involvement is very, very important. I'm so proud of Control and the outreach. They did all the meetings and the information they shared and and being willing to to negotiate and improve a project. And I have to say, I'm really proud of my colleague, Councilman Cashman, for stepping in there and and actually helping with discuss this important project and trying to make all of this all those parties working to try to find out what is the best solution for this community. And I think we're coming to it. I'll say a word about, you know, ugly Colorado Boulevard. It's supporters of my district, too. And it's the busiest street in all of Colorado, the busiest street. And we all have our problems with Colorado Boulevard. But I can assure the residents here, somewhere down the road, the transit alternatives for the city are going to be implemented in Colorado. The car boulevards can be at the heart of it. So I think the things you heard tonight about transit improvements in Colorado are going to happen. It's just a matter of time and money and we'll all be pushing to make sure that happens this area. I mean, so as Paul mentioned, I mean, you know, see, I mean, you just know don't the area it looks terrible and so so this development will make a great improvement and also really reinforce to the residential aspects that it didn't have. Now it's just a governmental use now that that now can be really improved. And so I see this as really a positive step in and I can see why Denver said it was stable. They said, oh, well, see, you know, don't never move. Well, I'll just be stable. Well, everything changes. And so this region blueprint, Denver is being updated now. So I think it's going to be a positives, though. And the one thing I'll finish comment on is one thing come is I heard tonight, you know, had several people mention what was important to them was having a local respected developer and we have one and given all of us and control. So I think the residents can be assured that we're going to create that and what will be created here will be a very valuable asset to me to work with you to make sure that it meets the needs and minimum. Ours is the traffic and, you know, all the improvements that are desired. And I think you'll you'll be pleased with the end result. So I'll be supporting this tonight. And I would like to thank all the participation in this whole discussion. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. New Councilman Espinosa. Yeah. So thank you, Kristin. And the residents for supporting the elimination of the opt out on the affordability that was never acceptable. Tim Karl, thank you for the comprehensive assessment. I wish I had had it earlier because I think there are enough unique circumstances the advancement of a State Department headquarters, a brokered sale of state land through the city. I believe a solid case could be made for a tool that is less blunt than what is being proposed. And I guess I have been told I guess I have been told no to custom zoning enough that I thought never that the thought to recommend it had never crossed my mind. Thank you, Sean Maley, for highlighting how much further your team went beyond the zoning the city's minimal zoning requirements to transition into protected districts and how honored you were to work on this transition because it's a good one. Kentaro, thank you guys for hearing some of the community and council's concerns and compromising with the community in this unique, unique set of circumstances. I will say that I still believe the scale is tipped in your favor, so I continue to maintain that it is on you to exceed expectations. Thank you, Andrew, for your answers to my questions. In my judgment, this negotiated transition is closer to the appropriate depth to transition from 8 to 3, let alone one story. Like many of the homes that flank the property than the base smacks step of her story, step backs. I continue to hope that your agency becomes more mindful of the deficiencies in its current both definitions. In relation to so-called protected districts and where area plans call for transitions in scale. This city needs to recognize that this type of transition, this type of transition is more consistent with the layperson's understanding of the transition in mass and scale. It's critical that this transition was codified in zoning. It is. It's critical that this transition was codified in the zoning. For me to at all begin to find this map amendment appropriate, because based upon reviewing the application, I would have been tearing into the actual 71 page rezoning application that is only a partial page on the consistency with adopted plans and oddly leans heavily on Denver write language a plan five months from adoption and not at all intended to be used this way. I raised this issue because that aspect is bothersome to me and dubious given community concerns about Denver. Right. The Denver right places map and recommendations being used for zoning. I recognize that the bulk illustrated is highly unlikely to be built, but development need not be that massive to be disruptive to our sense of a quality public realm. Many can recall the abruptness that came with a much smaller mass on the west side of Colorado at Ninth Boulevard. I mean, Colorado Boulevard at night. One thing is certain, a full buildout and full buildout. The on street parking and traffic volumes will be far different from the years as pseudo headquarters, where many of the car trips were limited to the workday and had no on street overnight parking need. Once again, this highlights the persistent disconnect between land use infrastructure and soon to be mobility operating in silos in this city. All these concerns are familiar to me because I represent a part of town where projects like those feared are shoehorned into areas with even less capacity than this area to withstand the substantial impact maximum development would have on community and infrastructure. However, like some of the speakers, I'm inclined to support this application because the table is set for a potential catalytic success. Success which would mean redevelopment that would offset hassle with convenience. My reservation isn't a dense placemaking project. My concern is that market forces in the area would result in something far less dense and more transient and lacking any sort of destination aspect. But both outcomes are possible in the zone. And while the fewer car trips associated with fewer units and lower scale may sound ideal, there are considerable downsides to that outcome. The potential positives that have been mentioned by proponents come with the critical mass. The move toward walkable communities require more households proximate to those amenities. This rezoning doesn't compel any outcome, but the combination of the MAP Amendment and the developer agreement respond to real concerns. Should the maximum development be achievable? Councilman Cashman You've done yeoman's work trying to get something workable in an area that hasn't seen anything but car centric development that makes Colorado Boulevard miserable at times. Density along that corridor will create opportunities that can benefit and preserve by supporting the viability of the adjacent single family neighborhoods in the proposed zone district or in some other. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to. Just. Appreciate everybody that's stuck. Stuck through. I mean, 1030 is not the latest we've been here, but it is rather late. You know, I like. Folks who have. Spoke before. I'm also a native. I think, you know, I've seen Colorado Boulevard change, but then I really haven't thought too much. I think there's a lot of that that parking lot is a lot of the the strip malls. It's very much like like like like some of our areas just west on South Federal Boulevard. We see that and it becomes a challenge because you don't have that depth becomes a challenge because you don't really have the opportunity for that density to move through without and at the same time have transit nodes. We have to go in and rebuild it. We got to go in and redesign it. And that's tough because you're looking at three decades before you even touch anything, before it actually starts to take place. Denver's growing and we have to figure out how to accommodate that growth before we're all priced out of the neighborhoods that we grew up in. Before. We won't be able. To jump in a car and get. From point A to point B on time. Problem isn't necessarily the roads is that we haven't we haven't designed or thought anything other than just roads. Right. We really we don't think of Denver as that transit city, but we have to we have to think about how to do that. Congestion isn't going to just go away. It's getting worse. I used to be able to brag that I get here 5 minutes from my place on on on the west side here. 5 minutes. I don't know who told all these folks. About these shortcuts. Well, I'm not happy that you all told. Anybody about shortcuts because there. Are no shortcuts in Denver anymore. I used to say 15 minutes. I'm there. Not anymore. We have to accommodate that. There's always something that's missing in zoning and by charter. And by our criteria, we really can't go off of looks about what is that you're going to build? We can't mandate that folks come up to us and say, I want to. Is this going to be brick? Is it going to be nice? Is it going to be a setback? Are you going to build the above plane? Our zoning for is prescriptive. Is it can be. It isn't right. It's still form based, but it isn't to the point where somebody can show you a rendering and say, this is exactly what's going to happen now. If I was somebody who was in front of this council, I would actually do that. There's nothing to stop you either. And I think in these chambers, I have seen people who just come up and I was not too far away from this site quite actually people to say, well, I'm just zoning it because I can't. And we've to our frustration to the frustration of so many people in in these chambers over the years, they've done that. And it really doesn't create an opportunity for us to. To build that trust. Establish that trust, however. That's up to a well-organized community. That's up to the councilperson in the area, and that's up to us to follow that lead. I think I would like to see something great for the neighborhoods out there. I look at that neighborhood and I think of Barney the very much it's very, very similar. It's still very working class. I think a lot of people don't realize that these neighborhoods over here, just because they're on the east side or the south side, they're not working class. They are. That's why we got to do it right. At the same time. As we grow and as we look at how we design some of these parcels, it's hard for us to be able to get to get a hold of land like this. Now, I come from the perspective where I do think it's the role of county and municipal government to be able to landbank for the future. We didn't do that when we needed to. So the fact that we have this opportunity is great. That means there's going to be public accountability. Not just somebody who's who, who bought it straight outright, has no accountability to the public, but there's going to be accountability on us. And I say as I say everybody we get the shape that. Winick So I understand and, you know, these neighborhoods, including mine. It's hard to believe. I live right on the cusp of Barnum and Bailey Park. It's hard to believe that there were ever suburbs. They were they were built like it. They reflected it for a different Denver. Those aren't suburbs anymore. You've got to look beyond the city, beyond our boundaries and realize, oh, man. When did all these folks back here come? Where did what you look at that Denver metro area, it's huge. It is sprawl. And they're not growing out there. The fight against density, the fight against vertical development out there is even stronger than it is here. You mention affordable housing and some of these other outside counties and cities outside of Denver. All hell breaks loose. We get it in Denver. We're a little bit different and we are the capital city and we are the center of the metro region. We can't just say over there. Every zip code. Every zip code. People should be able to live in every zip code and afford to be able to live in every zip code. A teacher, a police officer, a firefighter man, if that's what they're doing on the fire department, $37,000 a year, that's embarrassing. We've got to do better, right? We have to. And. A teacher, a firefighter, a police officer, someone who's who's working on their masters and pouring coffee, trying to make a living, trying to get by an honest living should be able to live in any zip code in our city. And we have to be able to create that opportunity. So with that, I think, you know, I do think futuristic. I do think this is you know, it's a conversation. You this isn't going to happen just overnight. I would encourage folks who those of you who stuck it out late at night, there are more people that are going to care about this. So continue that conversation. Councilman Cashman's, a great representative. He's a great councilman. He's somebody that that I really look up to on this council in terms of his approach and how how he's always listened over the years. So with that, you know, I am supportive. Of this moving forward. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. Councilman Lopez. I'll be happy to show you some of the shortcuts that I still have in my back pocket. Don't say it publicly, because they're known for. Not not giving it away here. Mr. President, I'm supportive of this application. I find that it meets all of the criteria to justify the rezoning. And in fact, I regard this as a down zoning, because people are so used to seeing that old city property in which I spent many, many hours covering and writing about sweetheart projects , and they see that as all the open space. But the fact is that the underlying zoning allows much, much more deleterious impacts on the neighborhood should it remain in place than the requested zone class. The impacts on the single family neighborhood will be less. The impacts on dense total density are less. And the addition of the amenities that I think some of the neighbors have expressed an interest in as far as additional retail, beyond what ancillary retail is allowed in the campus zone, which is quite, quite limited, are a benefit to the neighborhood. And so I find that it actually meets all the criteria to qualify for rezoning and I'm happy to support it. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Flynn, Councilwoman Gilmore. Thank you, President Clarke. First and foremost, I have great respect for Councilman Cashman. And I know that this process has been a long road that has been a struggle because we are growing and changing as a city. And it's hard because you're representing your constituents at this point in time and looking at a rezoning such as this . We truly are looking forward to the next hundred years of the site. And it's difficult because we are changing as a city, but based upon what has been presented tonight at this hearing. I think it does meet all of the criteria for a rezoning. The majority of speakers who are here tonight were in favor of the rezoning. And just a quick snippet of some of the things folks said. You know, they're ready to have short term pain for long term benefit, keeping the neighborhood vibrant and diverse. They want to be part of the solution in Denver. Forward thinking, thoughtful, re-envisioning, this area. And then on the flip side, some of the concerns that people brought up were traffic density and affordable housing. But through the conversation and through the questions and the presentations, 150 units of affordable housing that will help stabilize the elementary school that is on this or near the site. And we need to make sure that we're keeping the the diversity that we love as our city. And we're encouraging folks who would have maybe never looked at this site as an opportunity for them to reside and live. They might now have this opportunity. Density creates conservation and sustainability for us as a city. Just last Wednesday, we had a sustainability summit here in the city, and if we don't have that density, we're not able to conserve water, heat, all of the things that we need to do better at as a city. On top of that, having parks and open space, a good neighbor agreement and that retail. What I wouldn't give to have somebody ready to bring in a main street, fill grocery, daycare, workforce opportunities and then layered all on top of that is the multi time mobility piece. This site is primed to be a model project for different transit transportation solutions, multi mobility. What could we do with autonomous vehicles like we're testing right now at Panasonic at 61st and Pena? This I see is really the future of the city. And I just think all of the speakers who were here, all the folks who emailed and the real time and intentional process that I felt this rezoning has taken on. I didn't feel like it was rushed, like it was pressured. It was very, very intentional. And I think we're going to get the best outcome. And so I am in support of this because I believe it fits all of the criteria and I will be voting in favor of it tonight. Thank you, President Clark. Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore, Councilwoman Cannick. Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you. What a thoughtful discussion tonight. And my colleagues as well. I really appreciated all of your comments. In looking at the criteria, I spent a lot of time looking at the staff report on the conformance with plans in terms of reinvestment areas and making sure that the conformance to plans was criteria was met. And I felt like the staff report, which did not mention that overwrites, I don't know if that was the applicants or someone else, but the staff report does not mention it. Anyway, I thought it was very persuasive. You know, I had to think a little bit after hearing your comments, Councilman Cashman, about the public health and safety criteria. And it's interesting because just to put my law school hat on for a minute, I mean, the origins of the public health and safety criteria was about public nuisance. Don't put a hog lot next to a water source. Don't put a, you know, a school next to a factory that, you know, had toxic lead. You know, it was about separating users. I mean, we didn't have great sanitation, right? It was just kind of coming into to to to form a zoning. And so I think about that as a really old criteria that kind of doesn't acknowledge the ways that we've created, for example, environmental standards. So why can you have, for example, a mixed use area with with some light industrial? Because we have clean rooms that didn't exist. And so some of the things about that and but does that mean it doesn't matter anymore? I don't think it means that. But I think it's interesting to think about what's the definition of the criteria for public health and safety today. And so, I guess, you know, you think about the idea of of of a walkable space, right? So so we could put in a less dense development that was simply parking lots and that would not encourage walking. And so, you know, so you could have less density and have less health because people would be not walking in and out of the space or using the green space that'll be created. You know, I think about traffic and this is may not going to be a popular statement, but there are less traffic deaths where there's more congestion because when people aren't going quickly, it's harder for I mean, the injuries are less severe when you're going at a low speed. So if this is a heavily trafficked area with a lot of cars coming in and out, probably not going to see as many fatalities as if people are continuing to to breeze through at high speeds because, hey, there's not there's not that many cars. So it's interesting how, you know, one of the traffic calming measures that we we do is to kind of narrow streets and cut out lanes so that cars are a little closer to each other. They got to pay attention. So I guess and the other challenge I had kind of understanding or trying to think about how to apply the criteria, the way you defined it in future cases is if more cars is by definition not supportive of the health and safety. I don't know what rezoning could ever meet the criteria. Right? So if more cars than see. So what's the magic number of cars? You know, if one more car is one more risk of someone getting hit, then I just don't know how you'd ever meet the criteria. So I don't. So I think that there is something about the modern interpretation of health and safety that we have to grapple with. But I just am not sure that I can agree with that application as described because of some of the things Councilwoman Gilmore mentioned and and others. And, you know, in terms of safe and sanitary housing, that was another reason for zoning was to create more safe and sanitary housing. And certainly we have that happening here. And we do have homeless people who are not living in safe and sanitary conditions. So for me, I, you know, thought a lot about it in the last 10 minutes since you said it. But I do feel like I still see that that criteria is met by virtue of, you know, the walkability, the open space, the fact that it's creating safe and sanitary housing and it is not next to or near any dangerous uses. There are some environmental questions on the site and improving and cleaning those up is an is is a safety benefit. So to me, putting something to residential standards that right now may or may not be at them as you go on with your environmental reviews is a net positive. So it meets the criteria. The, the next thing I just wanted to comment on a little bit is the question of what happens if this doesn't get approved. So that's not a relevant criteria. But we're all trying to figure is what what will happen. I mean, many folks know I spent many years advocating for in negotiating with and, you know, some would say squeezing developers for things that they maybe didn't think they wanted to give in the initial stages of their development. And, you know, one of my jobs in that case was to communicate with the community and describe that there's not an infinite possibility. There is a point at which you hit the tipping point where the developer can't do it all. And there, you know, it might not be the community benefit that you've negotiated. It may be the economy in the gates rubber factory. Councilman Cashman. And I remember. Thing about it is a great example. It's not a safe and sanitary condition when in a location can't be developed and it sits there vacant. Someone died in a derelict building and on the Gates site. There were numerous graffiti, all kinds of criminal activity. Vacant buildings are not good for neighborhoods. And I will say that there is you know, there's some costs involved in this project. And there is a tipping point at which if you don't have the density to support the retail, if you don't have the density or the open space, then you can't build it. And I think that tipping point is real and I think the density is relevant to that. So I just got to say that, you know, and this comes from someone who's an advocate for community benefits. I don't think you can get more open space, less density and guarantee that this can weather what is I mean, we're in the strongest economic period we're in and it's not going to get stronger. I think, you know, every economist predicts some form of a slowdown. If we're fortunate, it's not a serious one, but it's going to be harder in the next five years when this project's trying to develop. So I will just throw that out there. In terms of how you're weighing the risks, I weigh the risks a little heavier than you, my, my, my friend, because I feel that I've seen projects not happen and I've seen what it does to communities. Last point I'll make on affordability. I so appreciate the really great dialog we had and from from folks on both sides about how much you value affordability. Just two quick comments. We have more than 3000 severely cost burdened households in this am I level in the city? So is there a need for housing at this level? Our data says yes. Thousands of families are spending more than half their income because they can't find a unit at 60% of am I. Councilwoman Sussman did a great job identifying some of the occupations that those folks are in. So I also am an advocate, though, for deeply affordable housing. And one thing I would like to just share is the fact is that as a condition of any of our housing investments and how these things work, folks are required to accept vouchers from folks who may have vouchers from the housing authority or the Veterans Administration. And so in many of the projects priced at this level, you will find residents that have, you know, 0 to 30% of income because they come with a voucher. So this project, if our rules are in place, Melissa, today somewhere, they would be required to accept those vouchers. And you could, in fact and hopefully will see a number of residents at lower AMI. So I hope that most folks feel a little better that you might see a mix of incomes with that. I'll be supporting the zoning tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Kennedy. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. I first want to thank everybody for their thoughtful engagement in this entire process. I had the benefit of being able to sit through a couple of the meetings. I went to observe the process and hear the concerns and hear some of the commitments that were being made to the community and just appreciate the time that everybody put in to, you know, getting to a point. And, you know, we don't always get everything we want out of a process when we engage in that. But a couple of things I want to highlight. First of all, I've seen some of the work that this team has done across the city, and I know that when they make a commitment, they're going to do something. They will follow through in the fact that they're a local developer. They have a reputation to protect, and I can't see them making commitments to this neighborhood they're not going to follow through with. So I think that's important. This project actually has way more details than this Body Accounting Council normally sees on developments. When we went from the previous zoning that I probably am the only one on this on this day is who actually worked with the old zoning code where before we we changed it to a form based zoning. We used to get all the details on how many units, how many parking spaces we'd see the traffic studies done , a lot of that kind of information as part of the zone application that was brought before this council. So the neighborhoods had a clear understanding of what they were getting. I think there was a little bit more predictability for the developers because now they go back and continue to deal with the planning department on more of the details that have to be put into the project that otherwise were done on meaning. Much of that was done on the front end. So just seeing some of the level of detail and commitments that were made in the development agreement with the community is is a big deal. You know, on the west side of town, we're going to see over 300 acres that are being proposed for redevelopment from the Denver Post site to Elegies to Mile High Stadium, parking lots to Sun Valley. And not before long we'll see the Burnham Yards, which is the railroad land just on the west side of Denver water. And we have to be thoughtful as a city about how we're going to look at the impact to the adjacent neighborhoods, look at the impact to the infrastructure, very similar to what this project was trying to do. And, you know, we'll be seeing some of those rezoning applications coming before us. And I am hopeful that we are as thoughtful with those neighborhoods and those big projects as we are with this one to ensure that we're doing right by all of our communities across this city and looking at the impact and making sure that we are getting some affordability in trying to meet the needs of so many people that are struggling in this city to afford to even stay here. I would just challenge the neighborhood to stay completely engaged in ongoing dialog with the control group around the the additional, you know, details that will move the project forward. I would also encourage you to advocate that in the Denver write process to be arguing, we need to keep the verbiage neighborhoods of stability in there. Because I'm concerned that by removing that, it sort of gives the message that we no longer have stable neighborhoods that are worthy of protecting across this city. And I don't know how many people across the city have really paid attention to the details that are in that document. Lots of people have attended meetings, but that doesn't represent, you know, broadly across the city. The. You know, the depth and the breadth of the people that live within this city. Lastly, I just want to really thank the the administration for their sort of thoughtfulness in looking at taking advantage of this first. Right. Of refusal with this court property to try to. Figure out where across the city we can garner affordability. And it is important that we have affordable housing across the city and not just in certain neighborhoods in the city. And I think this the fact that we'll have 150 affordable units in this development is is really a big deal. And it's really important and for lots of different reasons that have already been articulated. And so the last thing I want to say is. We have neighborhoods in the city that are screaming for some of the neighborhood services that will be at the site for a grocery store, for restaurants, for a dry cleaning facility. Some of these services that neighborhoods across our city get to enjoy don't exist in many of our neighborhoods that are adjacent to industrial areas. And the fact that you already have a lot of those kinds of things in your neighborhood is is great, but you're going to get more that you can walk to. So I think and the fact that we do have some of those protections and we do have an overlay to the neighborhood immediately to the east of this site is important for for the adjacent community. So for all those reasons, as well as the fact that it meets the criteria and all of that, I will be supporting this application tonight. And the very last thing I will say sorry is, you know, just down the street, we went through a very lengthy process with the ninth and Colorado site. And what's going in there is blending in very well with the entire community. And it will serve not just the new development going in there, but some of the commercial that will be there will be serving the entire community. So I'm a yes vote tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega, Councilwoman Sussman. Thank you. So, so many people on the States have said such wonderful things about this project. I'm just so happy about Denver and its neighborhoods and how they engage. I mean, our neighborhoods do get involved very well and they study the thing very well and have come to us and let us know what their perspective is. I'm also very happy to be with this group of council people because you can tell from their discussions how much they study these things. They don't just take it lightly. This is mainly what a council does, is land use to decide about land use and it is so important. And you can hear too that neighborhood neighbors and council have learned a great deal about what density means and what it means to reducing our car traffic and and its benefits to a call to the environment and it, you know, creating walkable spaces and how important that is. I don't think, you know, 20 years ago that most of the people I knew and certainly I didn't understand what that means, you know, how to how to best improve our environment. And I particularly liked the little history that Ms.. Santini brought about the, uh, the church that we had on South Colorado Boulevard. Yes, we turned it down at first, not so much because of the number of homes, but because the number of homes would have created an enormous difficulty of being able to get around that property. I mean, it was it was it's simply the the the density of it. It was like that density would support that one acre facility. So and that was neighborhood involvement. And sure enough, they came back with something that was going to work for a one acre property. And I, I think that what the neighborhood has been able to craft with the developer and what the developer has done is, is in keeping with what we know about providing enough homes for people. If we don't provide enough homes for people, they move to the suburbs. And as somebody has said, that's where most of our traffic comes from. But if we can keep them in the city, then we have a chance to provide transit and reduce our number of cars. But we don't have any other chance but that one. But we also need to keep them in the city for our workforce. If our workforce moves out of the city, we don't have anybody that can do the jobs that a city needs just to survive. I looked up because I was asking about the Americas, the average median income, and you know what 60% am I meant. And that would be a $37,000 income. Well, the median income of Virginia Village is $40,000, so just $3,000 more. These are homes that are going would be affordable to the people who live in Virginia Village and they would be affordable perhaps to. The more. Children that are just newly married or your seniors that want to look for a new place to live that would be affordable for them. So I also will be voting in favor of this project. Thank you for all of the neighbors, for all the work you did on this. Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Seeing no other comments, I'll just end by saying thank you to everyone for coming and for sharing your opinions and sharing your stories. There are a lot of people tonight who talked about either growing up here or how long they lived in the community or, you know, when their parents bought the house and the community. And as someone who also grew up here, it is hard not to be an installed fix for Sunday night or multiple people bring up celebrities or anything is officially the Celebrity Sports Center. Which boy what I would give to bring that back and be able to take my kids to celebrities. They can't even begin to communicate how special that place was for me growing up. And it's hard also not to be afraid of turning around and losing the city that we grew up in or the city that we've been in for how many years in the city that we love. And these things are hard and I appreciate everyone taking time. And as Councilman Cashman said, you know, at the end of the day, it comes down to a yes or no vote. And there can be some people who are upset and and feel like this is not in line with their their hopes and dreams. I'll say that. And in my district, there's been a lot of development and a lot of people who are angry and a lot of people who are struggling with the changes in the. Our community. And the hardest ones of all of those are the ones that are used by. Right. Those are the developments that don't have or notify a neighborhood association. I don't even know about them until somebody says, hey, why this fence go up? Because they don't come through city council. There's no development agreement. There's no design guidelines. There's no negotiations. And they build to the maximum. And, you know, I think that that often we see things and then people say, I want it to be what it is or I want it to be what the you know, the the the plan shows it as as an area of stability in a single unit. But the zoning on it allows for 12 storeys and that is the use by right. That people can build do and there's no no community engagement. I mean buildings popping up in my district where the community has never even notified that they're doing anything. And those are really, really hard. And so, you know, I would say that looking at this, there are there's a lot in here that goes a lot further than what is used by right. Development could be. And I know we can't predict the future and there are a lot of things that go into that. But somebody could develop on the site with no open space, no affordable housing on site to a much higher height. A lot of those things could happen. That's what's happening in my district. And so it's it's often hard to marry those two things of what I wish it would be a park or single family homes with what someone already has a right to do on that property versus what we might negotiate through a process that is messy and hard and takes community work like this. And so at the end of the day, I do think that this is in a much better place than what the existing zoning would allow to happen. And for that, I am glad at the real end of the day, this comes down to the legal criteria for the rezoning and I echo what many of my colleagues have said and thank you to staff for putting together the presentation that I think clearly shows that this does meet the legal criteria. And this is at the end of the day, what that decision for us is isn't about what we like or what we miss or what our vision is, but does it meet those criteria? And I believe that this does on top of that, I think that this is a much better outcome than the use by rate development that is on it. So for those reasons, I will be supporting this tonight. Madam Secretary, roll call. Cashman. Black Eye. Espinosa. Bess Flynn, I. Gilmore, i. Kimmage. Ivan Lopez. I knew Ortega I. Susman, i. Espinosa, I. Mr. President. I. I'm secretary. Please close the voting. Announce the results. You have 11 eyes one day. 11 eyes, one knee accountable. 1075 has passed. Thank you all for sticking with us late into the night, seeing no other business before this morning. This meeting is adjourned.

A MOTION requesting the executive establish an equitable development initiative and prepare an implementation plan.

KingCountyCC_03022022_2021-0467

Okay. Thank you. I write with that to our last item on the agenda is what we but we already mentioned and that is the FDI legislation. A motion introduced by Councilmember Dombroski, along with council members and me requesting the executive to establish a town wide, equitable development initiative with a priority on unincorporated area communities. And we've already been briefed on this twice the last two meetings. And we do have a new striking amendment that she was sent last night. And we have a central step, and I'm not sure that's an honest answer, Wendy, who we're going to turn to or Andy, but we will have a short briefing on this item, as well as the striking amendment before us and several line amendments. So with that, whoever our staff has been briefed is pleased. Please read it. And we do have Karen, Gil and I believe Kelly Rider with us as well from the executive branch. All right. Good morning. And all the council staff, Wendy Sue, who is also here to correct me if I get anything wrong. Sorry for the second string staff today. Jenny is out sick, so we're going to do our best. But we might have to refer to our notes a little bit more than she would have to. And I do also apologize. There are some errors in the document that were sent out as well as pointed out to you and as we'll become clear in a little bit. So the staff report is in the main packet. I'm not going to go through it. If there's questions, I probably can't answer them. But I will go through that packet which you were emailed by said at 612 7617, something like that. There is a striking amendment S-4 in the packet as mentioned in the packet, the amendment packet on page ten, there's a comparison matrix that compares the underlying motion to S-4 and the differences are shown with a highlight on that language and summary. And before you go on, I'm not sure if everybody is familiar with how it got to us. This is the S-4. We had S-1 that was presented to us earlier, and then as two and as three, I believe were being worked on by council members dombroski and up the group. But as for this represents a collaborative work and agreement. Is that correct? Anyway, I just wanted to point that out. Go right ahead. So escort would refine the scope of the initiative. Previously, the motion stated that the initiative is county wide in scope but should prioritize. Unincorporated area communities under arrest for the initiate would still be county wide in scope, but the planning group would make recommendations on how to prioritize unincorporated area communities. As for also the appointments to the planning workgroup, whereas the underlying motion is silent on appointments. Appointments are to be done by the executive in consultation with the Council through an open application process and consideration should be given to individuals with experience or expertize. Next S4 would include language stating that any new focus and framework principles of the motion would not apply to the Best Start's capital grants program. The Work Group and Executive are requested to recommend how the initiative, if adopted and implemented, would be informed and made collaborative with the Capital Grants Program. Escort would revise the requirement five, which is regarding identification of new and existing funding sources that could support anti displacement efforts, including community driven play space or cultural investments. Esper would revise the requirement to say that the. Executives should identify potential funding options for the initiate. A score would also revise a plan requirement to propose strategies to coordinate across county agencies and programs by removing language from the underlying to remove the specific references to BSA and the zero program score would revise the language regarding recommendations for a permanent advisory board. The underlying language specified determining policy and funding decisions as well as membership of Bipoc leadership. Do you have a graphic representation including unincorporated Kane County? Or would revise the requirement to state of the board, which should be a compromise of 13 representatives for select by the Executive and one by each council member or each council district. The escort also says that the appointment should emphasize emphasize bipoc community and those impacted by displacement pressure. And finally, as for revises the deadline for phase one, the phase one report from June 30th to August 31st of 2022. Let me I can go into we can answer questions now on the striker maybe, or I can go to the line amendments. Yes. Please let us sit there and questions from our council members. Apparently not. So go right ahead. I'm the one and only. I'm sorry, Madam Chair. Oh, I'm sorry again, Sue. I'm not sure who raised her. McDermott. Okay. No, I mean, earlier, Councilmember Perry also has a question about her council member, McDermott. Thank you. I'm just not too quick on the draw because I'm catching up to here for this morning. And was calling up the doc once when we were already. And so I'm playing catch up. Speak to me review for me again the the advisory committee make up in from the original language instructor for. Let me pull it up. But maybe one of the sponsors wants to speak to the attorney. We have a councilmember Dombroski. I can try on that, Madam Chair. Customer McDermott Thank you. Recall that there are kind of two groups envisioned by the motion. The first is the planning work group, and this Stryker for amendment accepts recommendations from a number of council members with the goal of getting that group formed so it can make recommendations fairly expeditiously. There's an interest in the community to, you know, get this program launched perhaps in time for some work later this year in the budget. So with respect to the work group, this I'm getting some feedback and maybe on your sharing that's okay. Maybe or maybe not there. But the work group would be appointed by the executive in consultation with the Council. There would be a lived experience and expertize requirements and it would be an open application process. Councilmember Perry So there's that. And again, the goal there is to have experience, have an open process and get it up and running relatively quickly in consultation with members on the permanent work group. It is recommended in the Stryker that we have a 13 member group for by the executive, nine selected by the Council, one each member. The appointment should emphasize Black, Indigenous and people of color and those most impacted by displacement pressures. There would be a compensation for their work. So we've gone, we've looked at a whole bunch of different models. My personal view is there isn't necessarily a white answer, just is that where members want to be on that, that's what the striking amendment recommends. I think the rationale for that comes from McDermott, if I can. It wasn't the prime promoter of this country. We're up the if he wants to speak to but the nature is of the of the legislation is that it's county wide in scope. But there are certain folks we want to make sure who are doing our work. And those are the folks with experience and impact from the bill that we're trying to address. So that proposed structure tries to to it to achieve a panel ultimately that that responds to those goals. My proposal earlier on in a prior striking amendment, I've lost track of which number it was, was to let the workgroup come to us with a recommendation on how the permanent group should look. Consistent with the philosophy of co-creation and empowering the community. You've been in this business a long time. Legislation is a is a compromise exercise. And so this is a compromise, Stryker, that puts together recommendations from a number of folks. That's how we got here. There are some thoughts on I hope that's helpful. Councilmember Tomasky It is, if I may ask, though. When? We talk about consulting with community and and involving community in the in the appointments to the advisory board has community had a chance to review this and what are their what are their thoughts and comments? I didn't hear testimony about Streicher for at all. I wouldn't speak on behalf of community. I although I think it's fair to say they probably would prefer to have a stronger voice in proposing to us. What the permanent panel would look like is my sense, to quote our chair, and this isn't even an ordinance. But those things. What do you think? Like anything we break with an ordinance we can fix with an ordinance, right? So I would say this is today's proposal. We're a long way from a permanent one. And there's always, as we just did with our I keep in mind, our public defense advisory board, you know, we set that up a few years ago. We've had some experience with it. We recently changed how we appoint members to that same on the Public Safety Advisory Committee. So I don't know that that's my long qualified answer to your direct question comes from McDermott. Thank you. And just to respond to that as well, this is the third time we've met this measure. And there have been a lot of there's been a lot of work in between the three movements. And I commend Councilmember Dombroski and Councilmember Up the Grove in particular, because they had them the most disagreement. I believe when we started off this process. And so we've had a lot of meetings and working with staff and trying to refine the proposal as we've gone along. My intention is to have this on tape is to have action taken on this measure today. We can either do it with recommendation or without a recommendation to the Council, but that's where I am right now and I think we've come up with a good place. There are some amendments to the striking amendment and of course there would be opportunity for further ones at the council meeting. Councilmember Giovanni thisCountry would like to know to Councilmember McDermott's question and then we'll go to council member parents. Question. Thank you, Madam Chair. No, I think it's important to note we have two different work groups, and as Councilor Dombrowski noted, one of them remains the same with executive appointees so that it can be done quicker. The other one is a mix of executive appointees and council member appointees. And in both cases, they're encouraged to work with the community and follow many of the same guidelines. So it fundamentally is a difference in whether it's the executive or the council that appoints certain positions. And because there's more time to set up that advisory committee, I thought it was appropriate. And I actually felt strongly that if we're going to get to a point where we find new money and we're going to delegate the authority to appropriate significant funds to some appointees, then we ought to those of us who are the budgetary branch of government, I think it makes sense to have a direct say in helping select the community members, you know, using our judgment and trying to support the criteria established in here. I think we end up with something that is more directly accountable to the community and sort of it comes around the definition of community. You know, I really view my role as representing everyone in the community center, my work and communities of color and immigrant and refugee communities, and certainly intend to should this pass. And as a councilmember, get to have a direct say in suggesting someone tend to follow the criteria spelled out in here. But I think folks in the community have to go through a very formal process to select nine people to be their voice and vote. And I think if we're going to delegate that, I think it makes sense for us to play a role in that. Otherwise, we risk our constituents and our community broadly defined, not having as directly a voice in the policymaking. So that was previous work. That was kind of my thinking on why I brought some different ideas forward. I think the council member of the government, just as a reminder, this is a two step process and we have a working group, an advisory working group or I'm sorry, planning work group that will take part in making recommendations to the executive and to the Council for determining the comp, determining who will serve on the advisory board , which would be the permanent. Group. Community group. Okay with that, Councilmember Perry. You're still muted. So. There. Oh, we still can't hear you. And you hear me now? Yes. Well, that's interesting. Okay. So I just had a couple of questions before talking about the amendments. I feel very strongly about the power of community and the respect of giving the power to the community in these situations. We got here because we haven't done that as well as we could. And so this is an attempt to do that outside of the controls in our hands, so, so overtly. I'm wondering if this prioritizes unincorporated Phil or no. Aaron. I didn't understand from the striker. Can I. Wonder if I answer. That? I'm sure. Yes. And this has been a continuing issue. And there are some of that is at least a couple of amendments that they are concerned about this. This is kind of one of the ultimate parody. Thanks so much for the question. I think it's a good one because one of the key issues we've been trying to work through and there's a lot of different views on this. You will recall that the original motion as introduced and a language I would call it fairly strong language that would prioritize our unincorporated area communities, even though the initiative is county wide in scope. This striker. The language that I have suggested here is that get in line two on the comparison. I'm using the chart a line to but it's paragraph a three in this shall be countywide in scope. And that's because to a large degree, the challenges we're trying to address here are countywide, but they are more concentrated in certain areas. And I think this tries to strike that balance in addition to acknowledging and standing up our obligation as a government with local responsibility to the unincorporated. So the language here says the planning worker was requested to make recommendations to the executive council regarding how to prioritize the initiatives work in unincorporated area communities, particularly historically marginalized communities consistent with King James responsibility as an unincorporated local government accountable. Rizal I was trying to honor by keeping that word in there something I think that you cared about the prioritization of unincorporated communities. And I, I that's that's that's is that's where we are on it trying to hold that notion that we are the local government. We do have responsibilities. Ask our workgroup in the spirit of co-creation, to talk to us about how we should prioritize. I think there may be amendments on this language. I can't recall to to modify that. But Councilmember, as all I was is an original sponsor, that was an important part of his work. He can speak for himself, but I hope that I'll get a shared reminder. And so I was trying to be true to and honor that for him as a co-sponsor. And it's a little softening. It's a little broadening from the original language. But that's that's that's where this Stryker. Thank you, counsel, and maybe even more of a response. Councilmember Perry. I would. Right now we're we're asking questions of staff or other council members, and then we'll go on to know about that. The other question I have was whether the permanent group also had an open application process. That wasn't clear to me if that was removed or not or added. It's not in the language in S4. Thank you. This could be included in the recommendations. Okay. Are there any other questions now of staff or of our sponsors, council members online? Thank you. Chair Caldwell. The unincorporated priority. So maybe it's just the understanding question. But when we say we're asking the advisory committee or or is the planning group trying to remember which one it was? Plan planning the plan of what? We ask the planning group to determine how to how to prioritize unincorporated King County. When I read that, that sounds like we are not directing them to prioritize on an Inc. King County. It almost sounds like it's asking whether to prioritize unincorporated King County. But maybe it's just a semantics question. When we say how to prioritize unincorporated King County, are we saying, yes, it is a principle of this motion to prioritize unincorporated King County. Now tell us how to do it. Or is it saying. Whether to prioritize at all. I think I'm just not understanding the the reading of it public. Councilmember. Madam Chair, may I respond to that. As. The word I chose? Councilmembers on Hawaii is the phrase I chose is how to prioritize, not whether and to do it consistent with our responsibility as a local government in the unincorporated area. I think whether to to to prioritize has an entirely different meaning. How presumes that we want to and we're asking them how to do it. Okay. So that's I think that's the point that I'm trying to clarify. Councilmember DEMBOSKY, when you say how to prioritize, does that already presume that we want them to prioritize? I guess it's just the English language question for me. I don't know. The answer is yes. Okay. Thank you. Are there any other questions as for a staff or other council members? Okay. And would you please go ahead now and brief us on the line amendments. Sure the line amendments in the packet. Certainly looking at the PDF files Amendment ten by Councilmember Perry would revise the Planning Workgroup and Permanent Advisory Board composition to have equal geographic representation and adds consideration for individuals with lived experiences and expertize relevant to the initiative. Are there any questions there? Dombrowski. Huntsman of Denver in the starting line. So could you just help us understand what the process would be and how it would be different under this amendment if adopted versus the structure for. The Hummingbird Group under the Stryker is appointed by the executive in consultation with the Council of that remains. I'm sorry. On the previous question in S4, it does say there's an open application process for the planning worker. Correct. But the S4 says. It should be. The planning group is comprised of community membership emphasizing bipoc leadership and broad geographic representation and the. The Amendment Ten says that the executive strives to appoint an individual from each council district who is from the Bipoc community and has lived experience expertize relevant to the initiative or issues leading to displacement . So this amendment only pertains to the first group, the planning workgroup? Yes. Okay. Right? Yes. Yeah. But does it include consultation with the council? Yes. Yes, it does. Okay. But I just want to clarify. Madam Chairman. Yes, go ahead. Thank you. So the summary says, yeah, the summary of the amendment says revises the planning workgroup and the permanent advisory board composition. So I think it's it's related to both. Is that right? The language doesn't actually change the permanent advisory board. Okay. That is a that's amendment five. Oh, okay. Yeah. Okay. Skipping number line amendment 24. I mean, I'm sorry, Councilmember McDermott. And on something. Thank you, Madam Chair. The. I'm sorry. Maybe I was reading the wrong one. I was reading the summary, and then I go find the page itself and I'm not seeing the same thing. The summary is wrong. So the text is right. The summary is wrong. The summary order. Thank you. Summary on the amendment tracker or the summary on the page. Who's fighting, by the way? Yeah. Sorry, the tracker was wrong. The summary on the tracker is wrong. Don't look at the tracker. Okay. And count towards the top on Amendment ten, where it says Planning Workgroup and Advisory Group. If the actual language only applies an amendment to the Planning Work Group as the effect statement that accurately says. And then. I'm sorry, I'm not sure what I'm trying to ask a question about. Amendment 20 oh 20 oh oh. I'm sorry. We've been taken. I'm sorry. You're right. We're I'm ten. We're doing great. So the information, the summary on page one out of just six pages is incorrect. On amendment number ten, in that it includes the composite composition of the permanent advisory board and that is not included in the actual amendment. You might look at the summary that is on page 14, the effect statement, and that pertains to what is an amendment number ten. I'm reading the actual text of the amendment on page ten now, not the effect statement. And then amendment number ten is on page 14. Yes. Okay. So with this in front of me, please remind me how many members are part of the planning work group. As remote. Under the striking amendment, the size of the planning workgroup is not set forth. Amendment ten, as I read it, would have the executive strive to appoint an individual from each council district. So that gives you some. It doesn't require it, but there's a striving. Got the right customer. Very. So I think. That's going to be a big challenge. May I speak to the Madam Chair? Me chair calls me to speak to them. Of course. So it's intention. Thank you. Circle Wells. The intention of this is to recognize that this is a county wide focus as opposed to Seattle. This intends to be EDA for King County. So the intention is that there is representation from the Bipoc community, lived experience expertize in these areas from each of the nine districts, and that that would be done in consultation with the count, with the Council, with that exact and and that that part holds the intention of the community itself representing the full breadth of the county for decisions that the workgroup is making about the toward the permanent group. So in the inception of this together that we have as many representatives from a representative from each district. But in the initial setup of this feels that it is in keeping with the. Intention of of of keeping the power in the work group and that the voice is throughout the county. And then the emphasis is whatever that workgroup determines to be the best emphasis given their priorities. Having vague language. Vaguer language runs the risk of defaulting to what we've always done. Frankly, Councilmember Karen. Councilmember McDermott, did you have anything else? Thank you. Councilmembers thoroughly. Thank you. Charcoal wells. Can somebody remind me how this amendment compares to what's originally in the motion around the Planning Workgroup Planning Workgroup originally has the executive appointing everyone in the planning workgroup. Is that right? And this one says the executive has to appoint one person from each district. Strike two. Yes. Strikes to. The. But the underlying and as for talk about having geographic representation, including unincorporated in Canada. So this just strengthens that language to strive to make it specific. And yeah, I'm going to be a no on this amendment just because I don't think it needs to be that strict around one for one for each council district think there's a way to get geographic representation and making sure that we're having equitable representation in areas from areas that are at high displacement risk. And I just don't think it needs to be that coordinated for 1 to 1 representation from each council district. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Belgium. Thank you. I think I answered my own question. I was having a hard time, along with others, tracking what each amendment actually did. And I think it's I think I'm just I'm repeating something you already talked about, which is that the summaries in the chart don't seem to match the actual, but the summaries on the individual amendments seem correct. Yeah. It's not as you sort of. Thank you. That's why I suggested you look at page 14 for Amendment number ten. Okay. Are there any other questions to staff or new in a House? An amendment number ten. And we will, of course, have time for the sponsors of the amendments, including the striking amendment to to give back comments. But this is more just questions on what the amendments entail. Okay. Let's because. It has to do with the advisory board. And let's skip to amendment number 25. Okay. Amendment 25 the links on page 16 of the PDF Packet. It revises the plan requirement regarding recommendations for the Permanent Advisory Board. To include the recommendation would include for compensation, duties and responsibilities, job application process, appointee selection process compensation and other considerations, and should account for the county wide scope of the initiative that considers appointing representation from bipoc communities with experience or expertize. And as far as I can tell, Aaron, there's no discrepancy between what is in the effects on page 16 and what is in the list of the amendments on page one. Excellent. One last thing. I have to apologize, but that's okay. Are there any questions of Aaron on this amendment? DEMBOSKY Councilmember DEMBOSKY, thank you. I'll set this up with a quasi statement. As I understand the effect of this. It would take out the ability of each council member to make one of the nine council district appointments and achieve that goal with them with a deferring to the planning workgroup to tell us how to do that. Right. And in group, yeah, they would give the planning group more power in. There. Recommending how the permanent advisory board should be staff. Members that should have it. Would it still require that their recommendation include a way to have representation from each council district, as I'm kind of reading on lines eight nine. Yes, occupation should account for the county wide scope, including representation from each council district, from bipoc communities without experience or expertize. And these are recommendations that would be made. That's true. And that's the case for Oscar as well. Okay. Any other questions. So staff. Council member, Perry. Thank you chair call. Well, so this this is was there an open application process for the permanent work group or does this establish that? That's correct. This. Your limit what is correct during the process? Yes. Your your amendment adds the open application process, which is not called out in the in the striker. For the. Advisory group. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other questions customers want? Aaron. First of all, sorry to keep putting you in the hot seat with all your questions, but can you remind me in the original legislation, I know we had included overall priority for unincorporated King County, but in terms of the planning groups and the permanent advisory board, were there. Was there anything spelled out in there with respect to unincorporated King County? The underlying motion references geographic representation, including unincorporated King County. And look at these 13 of the pdf, you can see the Aboriginal language. Okay. It's line 18. Yeah. Okay. And so the this amendment no longer references unincorporated King County. Is that right? That is correct. Okay. So this amendment. Councilmember Perry. Charcoal. Well, all right. Thank you, Taco Bell. Thank you. It was intending to so very that that didn't happen. I thought that it was already referencing unincorporated King County and that this was tightening other areas. But the assumption was that it would that unincorporated King County was already referenced in the permanent work group. But that is not the case of that area. That's right. Well, that's unfortunate. From. Thank you. Councilmember Dombroski. I was just going to say, there's there's always time for refinement between today and two weeks from today or three weeks plus. But. Are there any other questions? None of. Okay. And again, we're holding our comments and efforts and persuasions until after we go through just the staff briefing and what is actually in the amendment. So not let's now go to amendment number 20, which I have sponsored. Okay. Amendment 20, which is on page 15 of the media. This is from Councilor Wells. And it would mark what's about the scope of the initiative and require that the planning group, it changes it from how to prioritize the initiatives work in the unincorporated area communities to setting a rules on the extent to which the initiatives work will focus on these two. Thank you. And are there any questions to bear on this amendment? Councilmember Salam. Thank you. Charcoal Wells. I don't think I understood what the amendment does. You can repeat that there may be charcoal wells. If you could speak to the intent to maybe that would hurt. And I would put a to and if I don't have the wording quite radically. And we can of course suggest that. But first of all, this amendment recognizes something you brought up councilmember satellite earlier, and that is semantics. And in each of the previous two meetings of the committee, we discussed this issue of what does priorities mean, what does prioritization mean? And we best KIRN and Kelly about this. But to me that's been a confusing term. And so this amendment keeping in line with what you referenced so it's a how to not of whether or not there is any special consideration for unincorporated areas of the county. But this amendment, instead of saying how to prioritize the initiative is work and unincorporated and you know these would ask the working group, the planning and work group to come back with recommendations on the setting of goals and the extent to which the initiatives work will focus on these communities. So instead of saying prioritize it, saying to what extent will this focus on unincorporated income, I think that makes a lot more sense. It's still a recommendation to the executive and to the council, but I think gives more leeway to the planning workgroup to come back with a statement, a recommendation. So what should we do in terms of making sure that unincorporated King County has the focus? And it's a little looser language, but I think prioritizing is a term that just is not clear at all. So it's semantics. Thank you. You're welcome. Are there any other questions of staff and this amendment? And again, it's found on page 15. Councilmember Sally. Turquoise. Will we be able to ask about prior amendments or are you only looking for Amendment 20 questions right now? Oh, well, this right now is for amendment number two, certainly. But first, let's see if there are any other questions on amendment number one. Okay. Councilman Masala, you have a question on another amendment. Yup. Thank you. Going back to Striker S-4, there is a portion that says the unincorporated focus and framework principles of the motion would not apply to the best starts for Kids Capital Grants Program. I'm fully on board with the unincorporated focus, not applying to the BSC, and I'm actually going to propose likely a verbal amendment later on that would just have a simple amendment that says the unincorporated focus will not apply to the BSC Capital Grants Program. But I had a question about that. And here it says Unincorporated focus and framework principles of the motion would not apply to the BSA councilmembers. I'm sorry to interrupt, but which page are you looking at? Oh, sorry. I'm just looking at the. The striker. Sorry. The amendment summary list no less, which I think I was told not to look at your. Guidance on page one. Yeah, it was on on page one. If you look at age 11, you can see the language there at the top of the page as well. Perfect. Okay. So. Page 11. In focus or framework. Principles adopted by this motion shall not apply to best starts for Kids Capital Grants Program. So again, I'm on board with the unincorporated focus not dictating how BSC is distributed. But can somebody speak to any new focus or framework principles? I'm assuming that concept is not related to just unincorporated, but I'm reading it as saying none of the frameworks or principles in this entire motion will go on to determine how the scale is dispersed. Is that an accurate reading? To be. Able to help on. This. Yeah. All right, then. And give me just a minute here. In the best starts for kids Levy, we included a capital grants program. The capital grants program is delineated what its goals are, how it will be distributed is delineated in the best outcomes for kids implementation plan. And it's actually quite specific, customizable in terms of its goals and the types of projects that are prioritized are all set forth there. And of course that went through the Regional Policy Committee and of course the levy was approved by the voters. So at the very end of the work of the Best Arts for Kids Implementation Plan section there, it says if the county adoption EDI, it may inform and collaborate. Those are kind of the two words with this capital grants program. So in this motion, which is not adopting an idea, it asks the executive to propose one. This motion does include some framework principles to be consistent with the language that is in the Best Start's for Kids Capital Grant Implementation Plan. It went through the whole council process, Regional Policy Committee process. What the language and score does is say, Hey, you can't use this motion. And the framework principles enumerated here to guide the best decade capital grants program is over there. In that implantation plan, we said it has to be an EDI, not a preliminary motion, but we asked the work group to look at that language over there in the best capital grants and tell us how this initiative, if adopted, would inform number one. That's the language again we're picking up and how it would collaborate with those two things. So we are trying to in this language, I am trying to not add new layers or new requirements to the be a state capital grants program, but be true to the signal it sent. If we do and EDI to do the two things, inform and collaborate. This language is carefully crafted to do those things importantly. They became capital grants program. I think the language is, if you look at it, those moneys will be distributed through escape capital. It is not a funding mechanism for the for this new FDI initiative. They they are envisioned to work together in in information, in informing and collaborating. But one main thrust or thrust of this idea initiative is to get permanent, sustainable, adequate funding for it. And we asked them to do that. So that's a it's a complicated area. It's taken a lot of work to kind of basically look at the language and to to get to this position here. And that's kind of the best I can explain it. Thank you. I guess going back to a semantics question again, which is how can best capital grants program be informed by and made collaboratively with a county EBI program while simultaneously rejecting any new framework or framework principles that come from that TBI program? Good question. And I didn't explain it. Well, clearly, this language says any new focus or framework principles adopted by this motion, and this motion doesn't establish any program. So there are some framework principles up in the motion. What we're saying is, hey, don't, don't apply these over to be okay. But if we go proceed and adopt the E.D. program, it may have some principles, it may have some frameworks. And those should, quote, inform the break up of that program, because that's what we asked that it do over in the back half of that program. Gotcha. So once the executive. Branch does what we're asking them to do, which is implement an EDI program, then that EDI, I would go on to inform and be made collaboratively with the BSC funds. But you're saying at this preliminary stage as just a motion asking the executive branch to create one? At this stage, any principles or frameworks that we're implementing at this stage should not. Fine. The best. Is that right? That is correct. With the slight modification that it may require council approval to ultimately establish the idea. But the timing is exactly right, Councilmember Sala. Are there any other questions? And the amendments. I would like to point out one thing and look at page one, which is the tracker chart. And for us for the second part or a dash of them, it's incorrect. And it's actually the running, which is actually my reflex, my amendment amendment number 20. So that just write that up. Cancel it out doing that. That's. Is that correct? Yes, it is. Yes. Okay. Don't use the tracker. Right. Okay. Are there any other questions? Aaron. I would like to hear from either or both Con Gil or Charlie Ryder and start having questions when I see that Mr. Hashimi is on with us as well. If anybody has some questions of them and then we'll give the opportunity if they were want to ask questions and comments. Any of our council members or committee members have questions of them. Councilmember Thomas councilor was all. I had his hand up first. I'll follow. Him. Oh, I'm sorry. I went to the next. House on the screen. It's all good. Rod, please feel free if you want to. Now you. Jump in. I to me. All right. But I have kind of a complicated question for Karen Baena, but hopefully not putting you too much on the spot. But one of the big concerns that I have with an FBI motion that removes an explicit priority for unincorporated King County, is that an edict without an explicit priority for unincorporated King County? Or maybe a soft and one could disrupt all of the great work our executive branch has been doing lately in unincorporated King County. You know, it feels like there's been a lot of momentum in the past couple of years to actually do the great work we need to do around and tie displacement measures in the neighborhoods where we have land use and zoning power in neighborhoods that have been disinvested from for a long time. And so we have sub area plans going in places like White Center and Skyway. We have this suite of anti displacement initiatives coming from DHS at the moment. We have made some investments in the past couple of years, so feels like there is really a lot of momentum around keeping these neighborhoods, these communities intact in the places where we have land use and zoning authority in areas that have been disinvested from for a long time. Do you think current that if we put forward a motion and any motion that softens or removes unincorporated priorities, does that threaten any of the work and investments that we've been doing around unincorporated areas, anti displacement efforts? Thanks. Thanks. Councilmember Gringo from the Executive Office. I don't believe so. Councilmember Kelly, I don't know if you want to add anything on that from. The amputation side, but I don't believe so. Sure. Thank you. Kelly Rider, government relations manager for the Department of Community and Human Services. It certainly would not threaten our goals of implementing our commitments to stay way west on our line. I think the one tension that the department will continue to face is that this equitable development initiative effort is being stood up prior to funding for the program, which means that our staff does not have a dedicated team that can be committed to implementing this authentic community engagement work, as well as the work to develop and devise a program and funding model. And so the tensions of our staff's timelines and commitments is the one piece that we will be tracking closely and how to make sure that we are meeting the Department's many commitments to many different priorities. We'll continue to be a challenge that we want to talk with community and council about to be able to achieve all of the things that we have set out to do, including commitments to unincorporated Canyon. Thank you both. And 2 minutes, I'm sure this minute her anything she would like to add. No. Nothing else for me. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Who just spoke? Dombrowski. Councilmember Dombrowski. Thank you. In the form of a colloquy to make a legislative record with respect to intent in response to council members. On the last question, Councilman Brazile, I view this as additive to the overall word and and offering additional support to the unincorporated communities. Frankly, it's why I've kind of held on to that prioritized word. I knew it was important to you. And even if that doesn't stay in, if Councilmember Cole Wells's amendment were to be moved in, adopted. I still think, given the language regarding our responsibility as a local government, that this will continue to be additive no matter the form it comes out of here. And so, Kelly, thank you for those comments. I think that was a gentle way of saying our $50,000 that our office requested in the budget for a consultant to help do this work with community may need a little juicing. And we can we can work on on that in the event that that this proceeds. Very much as a member here in Boston, i would like to echo that. I totally agree with what Councilmember Dombroski about the language being added to the whole purpose of this. One of the main purpose of the evening is to have funds and go to the unincorporated parts of the county. And that is why I saw Guyana's response to the shelter, to the motion, and also our foot in this amendment, number ten. I think it will just give us a little more clarity, but it's all within the lines of having having focus on the unincorporated parts of the county. Is there anything else, Councilmember Perry? Go to her. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Jericho. Well, they appreciate that regard to the funding of it again, 60, 62. Can you help me understand, is it the intention that this EDA be funded through previously designated or previously designated funds within the King County budget, or that these funds come from outside of King County private, public, private partnership? Or where do we see these funds potentially coming from? And would you like to respond to that? Or should we have Councilmember Dombroski as the lead sponsor do that? I think the motion calls for the executive to make recommendations on the funding. You know, line 14 from the chart. We've simplified the language in Stryker for to say, identified potential funding options for the initiative that could be county money passed through money from the feds or state level money or public private partnership money. My goal there was to take the handcuffs off, explore all options. Very good. Thank you very much. Are there any other questions of anybody I can or minor or Kelly, do you want to make comments about what we are discussing now in the way of S-4 and the amendments? Can I see your immediate? Sure. Thank you, Madam Chair. Colonel Gill, again from the exact office. Are this all. Workable from an implementation perspective? The only. Thing we'd add is that we'll be. Well in the March final. Passage, so the current August 31st. Timeline is likely going to be extremely challenging. So we'll just keep communicating with counsel as. We get closer to that date. And may need to request an extension and make sure. We get this important work with community done right. So I just wanted to throw that plug in there. Thank you. Thank you. Do you see anything problematic outside of that date and then ask for and or the amendment line amendments. Not from an implementation for effective councilmember? No. Okay. I'm telling you, you're going to need to come up with that. Is there any other question? And then we'll get into comments. I would appreciate having a motion made to move Cuoco's motion 2020 10467 consolidate the basket. And move adoption with a do pass recommendation of 20 1046702. Thank you. And would you like to make a motion to move striking amendment? Yes or yes, ma'am. Move S-4. Yes, ma'am. I just feels like I better say that at this. Point in my life that I. Not I'm not to get busted. Okay. Thank you. And we would well, I guess we'll go right to the line amendments unless you want to have been stolen. Let me just set a few mugs out, Madam Chair, start by saying how much kind of fun this is. Frankly, from a legislator's perspective, to see all of our colleagues engaged with seriousness and sobriety, reflection and deep, you know, focus on the words here in this legislation and the goals that we're trying to achieve. And and kind of the importance of this. Let me start big picture, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, the First Amendment, the Bill of Rights talks about a fundamental right being the right to petition the government for the redress of grievances, the right to petition our government for the redress of grievances. This legislation got started because community members came forward to petition the government to say, Hey, King County, we've got a grievance. For a long time, folks without power, without money, haven't been at the table adequately. And some stuff going on in our community and we fear more things are coming with respect to displacement, limited opportunities and lack of affordable housing that we're very concerned about as this region grows in wealth and grows in population. And we've seen it happen in other communities and we'd like some tools from the county to help combat it. I thought that in public testimony, Maria Guadalupe Biggs from the Boulevard Park neighborhood said it pretty well. Councilor McDermott, I think one of your constituents when she said we've looked at our community from the developer's perspective and we don't like what we see coming, that they have their own ideas about what they want to see in our community, in international law. Councilmember Cole Wells And you're a somewhat of an expert on international and human rights law. There is the principle of self-determination. This legislation to me at its core is about King County partnering with community that has come forward to empower them. To make in their own way with self-determination principles, a map and a vision for what they want their community to be, to how they want it to grow. And so one of the principles is co-creation here. And you heard another presenter in the testimony talking about doing things a little a little differently and granting power to community . And that's the big picture thrust of this. We've seen some examples at our Seattle partners where they have a done this work and are standing it up with some good results, early results with folks being able to buy buildings and keep community organizations in place. We heard from Ceasar Garcia, who runs the Lake City Collective up in my district about what it meant for them as a very small Latino community group representing a growing and diverse Lake City population, to have a little help from the city of Seattle to get a space. And I've been there multiple times and seen the power of that space to collect and gather people and to be a center for conversation and visioning, for improving a little ballpark, for hosting vaccine events or getting books out to little kids so they can read to distributing masks and the growing economic opportunity. This legislation is brought forward in that spirit to partner with, but more importantly, to empower community. With self-determination principles and some money to achieve that vision, hopefully. How do we get there? Well, these are serious conversations. And if you have a serious program, it takes some time and some work. One of things I learned when we were working on establishing the Immigrant and Refugee Commission from my chief of staff, Christina Logsdon, who's worked really hard on this, was I don't always get to decide. I don't always get to do what I want to do. I said, why can't we just establish the commission so that. That's how it works? Ask the committee to tell you what to ask the community, to tell you what they want in a commission. And we did a two step process there. We had a workgroup. The workgroup came forward with recommendations. Today, we have a very strong King County Immigrant Refugee Commission that's helping us work through policy areas there. This legislation follows a similar process. The community has come to us with a need. We're trying to respond in our response. We're asking them to help us build a system and build a structure and build an initiative that is responsive to their needs. So we have this workgroup. We want to get it going. We want to have a broad participation. We want to have equal opportunity for folks to apply. We want to have them have experience and expertize. I think this legislation in its current form, or maybe even as modified, gets there, we give them some money. It's already in our budget. We may need a little more. Kelly, thanks for letting us know about that. But there's some money for consulting to do that. And we ask them to come back with some recommendations on what a permanent, equitable development initiative might look like, what its principles would be, how it would be funded, and where it would do its work. I really, really like seeing everybody participating here to get them to bring forward their ideas and bring forward their suggestions. One of the reasons this has taken some time is because there is a lot of interest and there's a lot of different perspectives. And I think on the whole, that's good. And so I thank you all. I hope we can advance this. I don't think there's necessarily right or wrong answers to a lot of the questions. But I think the big picture to keep in mind is that this is an important obligation that I think King County putting on our equity and social justice lens here to this work. We have an obligation, I feel, to be responsive when we've been petitioned for a redress of grievances from redlining to institutional racism to structural racism, to frankly, you know, just a lot of power differentials that have that have accumulated with some adverse results. This is not a solution or a tonic to all of that, but it is a piece of the response. It is a piece of the response. And I'm optimistic and hopeful that we'll be able to advance it in one form or another and some good work will come out of it. So I think the folks who came to us, they've worked very hard with great intention and I thank my colleagues for their hard work on it. Councilman Raquel Wells As Chair of this committee, I thank you for doing what you always do so well, bringing us all together, making us me, making this work through the issues in the legislative process and seeing if we can advance it. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Dombroski. So the motion has been made to move the striking amendment. And we heard Councilmember Dombroski is, I think, willing extending comments about what was the mother's intent behind this suspension and what it can accomplish. We do have three amendments to this striking amendment. Councilmember Cleary, would you like to move your amendment number ten? Thank you. I love Amendment number ten. Thank you. Councilmember Perry, would you like to speak to it? Thank you, Chair Colwell and committee members and all participants. I am interested in doing whatever is possible in our end to the extent that we have that opportunity to build the community voice collectively. And to that extent, I would encourage everybody to consider the opportunity to have an open process where everybody participates in each district throughout King County, not just a wide geographic. If we are left to their own devices, we are not as apt to find a current course that is comfortable for us. And so having an opportunity to have being spelled out as councilmember. So I mentioned really emphasizing unincorporated can have an effect in how we think and emphasizing somebody from each district, from our bipoc and communities have lived experience or expertize in this area that there is a really strong advantage to that collective powerful conversation in this conversation, in this work group. And so to have the opportunity for everybody to feel like they are their voices is will be considered as part of this workgroup and that they have the same opportunity as all districts. And then together they form the priority of where they are looking. The emphasis is not intended to to distribute the focus, but to consolidate the community power of this. By having broad representation defined as representatives from each of our districts. I hope that that will be something that will be considered by by the folks here today. And and that it is in keeping with building that strong, powerful community throughout King County and starting this work group together toward the permanent work group. Thank you very much. Councilmember Pare, are there any comments concerning this amendment? Now I'm all in favor of amendment number ten, please. So I. I suppose so. Learn it. You may. The amendment has not been adopted. Want to? I'd like to have a motion to move. Amendment number 25. Councilmember up the growth. I'm sorry. I'm not seeing amendment. I see Amendment 25 as Perry. Okay. You're right. I skipped that. One. Maybe less, and it would. Be happy to move that as a courtesy for you, Madam Chair, I move adoption of Amendment 22. Council member up to go, and I am offering this amendment in the spirit of making sure that there are efforts among the planning worker to communicate to the Executive and to the Council and importance of ensuring that the unincorporated area is included in terms of the goals of the initiative. So this is a matter of semantics. And as I mentioned earlier, I think the term priority means prioritization is an not one. It is for me and everyone I've spoken with said the same thing. How is that translated? How is that implemented? This still gives the opportunity for the planning and work group to provide the input, setting goals and also the extent of which the initiatives work will focus on unincorporated areas of the country. I am a sponsor of the legislation that is the decree in support of it. So this is really is so a minor way to try to perfect the language. So with that, are there any other comments on this amendment? Consumer attention. It's a question, not a comment. There's been a lot of really good discussion here today. And I just want to be clear that I am focused on this point in this moment when we're about to vote. So could staff remind us what the current version of lines 63 through 67 saying that has been replaced by this language. I just don't have my documents up to like where I can quickly go to this case, which is that there is a strengthening script from the striker, from the striker or from the underlying. What we would adopt if we didn't adopt this amendment. So the striker striker presumably presuming the striker is going to be adopted. But yeah, let's start there. The striker says that the planning group is requested to make recommendations executive and council regarding how to prioritize the initiative's work in unincorporated area community. I got it. Thank you. That's super helpful. Thank you, Manager. And. Are there any other questions or comments? Customers are like. Thank you, charcoal wells. I really appreciate the desire for more clarity. I'm going to be a no on this amendment just because personally I feel like prioritized is a little bit stronger than the extent to which we focus on an area. I do agree that there is room for interpretation on the word prioritize and hopefully the planning group will come back and let us know what that means or how they want to implement it. But just because of the word prioritized, in my view, feels stronger than extent to which we focus. I'm going to be a no at this time. And to actually cut some of this. Hello. Are there any other questions or comments about the Grove councilmember to go? Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, there's I know these are all very similar amendments. I think I'm more comfortable with this one. And ideally for the same reason my friend is doesn't like it probably. And that I've always thought one of the concerns with the word prioritize is that by definition it's one over the other. And so it sort of can be read as prioritizing other areas and setting goals for achieving our responsibilities in unincorporated areas through this initiative strikes me as a way that is more positive without being negative towards the others, if that makes sense. And so I also, you know, and I'll be candid, I've been upfront, my preference is the whole thing be targeted based on need, not geography. But I think this is an elegant attempt at trying to find a path forward. And so I thank you for the time it took to bring it forward and I support it. Thank you, Councilmember. Any other comments? With that all in favor of amendment number 20 and so on. All right. Any oppose? Say my name. I'm not certain. Division. We'll have a division. Madam Chair. Madam Kirk, would you please call the roll for this amendment? Yes, Madam Chair. Doesn't anybody know? Councilmember DEMBOSKY. Oh, no. Councilmember Dunn. I. Councilman McDermott. Now. Councilmember Perry No. You can sum up the growth. I can't remember Brundibar. I. Councilmember Sala. I know. I'm sure you have final three i's price and you has failed. I would like to ask now for council member third to move amendment number 25. Back to move on amendment number 25. Thank you, Chair. Cobra, certainly the amendment has been very good to get to speak to it. Thank you, Chair. This amendment is important to me because I want to encourage in this conversation as much. Power for the group is possible. So again, all of King County represented means the opportunity in the permanent work group to have somebody from each of our districts in the conversation and that it be an open process. Right now we do not have an open application process in the permanent workgroup, and that is very important. And in terms of funding as well. I have been elected as 30 years as an executive and fundraiser, raising $50 million. And I am aware of opportunities and how some of these come forward. And in this case, if you have people from each district that are from our bipoc communities are impacted communities bringing this powerful conversation together across King County, there's more opportunity for investment in the private public partnership, and there's more opportunity to consider supporting these initiatives from people that are within this district. Even though the focus may be a different area than that particular district. They're supporting the folks that are involved in that conversation, in that initiative. And I think it raises that awareness. It raises the opportunity for more people who want to support this great work. And there are many who do to feel invested from different areas that they may not be directly. You know, if they are more removed from from areas, they may not be as committed if they don't have folks in their own district involved in that as well. So for that reason and others, I encourage our good folks here today to vote for this amendment. Thank you, Councilmember Perry. Per other comments, Councilmember Girls. Thank you, Madam Chair. And it's never fun to speak against a friend's idea. The fundamental difference I see between this and the underlying striker is whether the executive will select the appointees or whether it's a mix of executive and council member appointees. And I think. Every step we take to. You know, let me rephrase that in the positive. I think, number one, if we're going to delegates and I'm going along here with delegating to appointees, potentially our budget authority, I think it ought to be us, not the executive who. Decides who we're going to delegate that to. And the reason being is. I think any time you have appointees versus elected officials, it is less democratic and less accountable. And you shut out members of the community. I think by having council members rather than the executive make some of the appointments, we make sure that we don't have a group that thinks alike, looks like, and instead we can truly reflect the diversity of ideas and thinking. And I think most importantly, it can build confidence in that process for us to do what I think we're all interested in doing, which is further empowering a diverse group of people, of different people, you know, coming up with a different group of people to make those funding decisions. So at the end of the day, I think I don't know about each of you, but when I have an opening where I have a responsibility to nominate or appoint someone, I often do public promotion in my district. There's nothing that keeps any of us from having an open and transparent process to solicit nominees. I know I'll work my butt off to find the the try to find that perfect person who brings that right mix of experience and background. And and I, I guess I trust us. I trust myself. I trust others. Not I don't trust Dallas, I don't trust our county executive. But I think we get a a truly more diverse group that's more reflective of all the community when we when we allow ourselves rather than the executive to make some of the appointments to the board. So I encourage a no vote. McDermott Council member, I think. McDermott And then I saw that earlier and then Belgian government had come to agreement. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a question from his audience, if I may. In and that is. Coming from the remarks we just heard is it does would this either in the advisory group or in the permanent ongoing work group? I may have my totals wrong. Cede the Council's appropriation authority to another group or with decisions, always come back to the Council for us to adopt, appropriate or enact. Well, as you know, this is a motion. So it doesn't have the it doesn't have any legal force and certainly does not delegate any authority to foreign corporations which still are required to be done through appropriation ordinances. Thank you. I just need to emphasize that we aren't ceding our budgetary authority, our operational authority to another entity that continues to reside here in the council and to urge members not to understand. That's what's before us today. And you may have to make some of those decisions when I'm back here. Council members done a lot. Thank you to our callers in terms of just broader context for full transparency. Councilmember DEMBOSKY has convinced me on every element of S-4 from unincorporated priority to the BSA framework, all of it except my one hang up is on how much power or how we empower these the community members to form what the planning group and the advisory group. That's my one hang up. So I'm looking to see if this amendment does that give more power to the community groups to make decisions? How is it relatively to the striker? Which one provides more power for that for those groups? So I guess that's is that a clear enough question? I'm trying to just compare what the Stryker says to what this new amendment from Councilmember Perry does with the lens toward are we empowering impacted groups to make decisions like board composition and other recommendations? Go ahead. Would you want me to respond that? I'm sure. I think that's fine. And I guess we were. All like, thank you. I think the answer is maybe next. The developed we. I, I took a substantial portion of Councilmember Perry's requested and suggested language with respect to kind of the qualifications of of the of the board in terms of emphasizing black indigenous people of color and those most impacted by displacement pressures. I think that was your language because. Well, Gary, really good and appreciated and that's in there. I certainly if we needed to add a open process, you know, that I would be supportive of. I. It's the legislation is a compromise certain members feel very strongly customer is actually about having a council voice and I understand that in terms of standing this up and I actually think it will build more institutional support for the initiative and robust funding for it to then let it let empower the community to go do its work . It's somewhat counterintuitive by having, in my view, some voice from our council here established at this stage and making sure that the panel has the voice of the legislative branch and the executive branch. So as the striking member, this is now before us, the executive would have four members council would have nine one per district for a total of 13 council member. Perry's amendment is less specific and does not ensure council members power, if you will, to appoint a person to understand it. It just says that there's let me let me get it correct here, that the workgroup is asked to recommend how to form it, including representation from each district. So two, in one way council members I like this amendment at the early stages empowers the community to self-determine and make a recommendation to us about what they want the permanent group to look like. It gives them that agency, if you will. The striking amendment makes the decision. And says we're going to have a 13 member permanent panel with a four. We could end up at the same place if Councilmember Berry's amendments adopted and the workgroup comes back and says, yes, set it up that way. One way or another, I think we are going to have to decide one way or another. We as a council will legislatively decide what the permanent panel looks like. And move this forward with broad support? Or do we defer it? This was a compromise. From my perspective, I had I had earlier thought we should ask the worker to make a recommendation, but I see that this has some merit as well. And I would like to remind everybody that, again, we have two groups. We know that. But the first is the planning work work. And the second one, the permanent one is the advisory board where we've all been using different terms. So I just want to make sure we're all on the same page. And this and this amendment addresses the permanent or not the title. Exactly. I'm sorry if I'm stuck on that, but. Okay. Council Member I'm not sure who is next though. We've had, I think councilmember about due to what's next and then we'll go to Councilmember McDermott. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. So I've been pretty quiet, but I've been listening closely to the public comment and all of this discussion. And as I said at the previous meetings, part of the reason that I'm sort of taking a listening role here is that I don't have any expectation that this effort will immediately appear in my district. And so I'm intentionally letting those who have more of a stake take the lead, which I think is kind of a model for what the community is talking about they want. They're asking us to let those who have more of a stake and have ideas about how to, you know, advocate for their state, take the lead. But I think that if I will say I'm hearing everybody trying to seize this opportunity to build investment and power in areas of our county that are underinvested in, that have been challenged by economic forces, especially this placement. It is something that's come up in our affordable housing. Mark over and over again. Around issues of displacement. This has been a successful model in other governments. I have no doubt that it will be a successful model here and I'm happy to launch it. I think that when this ultimately stands up and when it is ultimately a success, I hope it provides a template that will show up in my district at some point in the future, and I know that there's hope with that. And so I'm very happy to support it. I generally think that when we're starting new programs like this, flexibility is a watchword. So to be as as as light of a touch in terms of directing what the outcome of the advice and recommendations of these bodies are would be, I think, good. And so balancing these two these two principles that I brought into this one is I really want to respect the folks who have taken the laboring or the closest to it. And so I'm going to support the Stryker. I hope that we will say, if not require that if the advisory group that's doing the planning, the first group has any recommendations for something they think they would like to see changed. After adoption. I hope they will feel free to tell us those things. I don't think we have to tell them to tell us. I think they can just tell us. They can say, you know, you said 30 members. We think that's too small, too big, you know. And so I just want to lay on the record that I think we should verbally, if not legislatively, empower the advisory group to come back with any recommendations they think will make this a success. And so I support the compromise position that was worked out and a lot of labor, as I understand, by the sponsor co-sponsors. And so I'm going to support that. I'm not going to support this. But that's not to say I think that ultimately the permanent body could look different. It could. So I just felt like it was important to say something rather than sit here quietly, the whole thing. Thank you, Madam Chair. And Council member about ditching Council Member McDermott. Nothing. Nothing. Okay. Is there any other. I think the chair. Of the group. Some member of the gallery here. Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to clarify for our budget chair. I, i my intent was not to imply that we were delegating something here. The point I was making is that I think we're going to get to a point where we may want to, if we find money somewhere appropriate, some money to this entity. And I think at that point, my point I was making was having some good, broad based confidence in the entity that's doing that. So I didn't want you to think that I was implying that this motion delegates into appropriation at all. I think you're absolutely correct in your assessment. And I was clumsy in how I how I made my argument there. My thought was that when the time comes, I have a hunch this body will want to appropriate to this purpose. And so how once that appropriation is made, how the moneys divide divided up, what that process looks like, who is at the table, I think becomes important. So that was I just wanted to clarify the point I was making there. Thank you. Any response, Councilmember McDermott? Okay. Is there anyone else who would like to make a comment on amendment number 25? All in favor of the amendment. Amendment and the based on. I. And others in opposition say, no, no, the amendment is not adopted. With that we have before us striking amendment S-4 and before we have a roll call vote, is there anybody who would like to make any comment? Madam. Councilmember McDermott. Thank you, Madam Chair. You heard me at the beginning of the meeting, remarked that, you know, be flustered for a minute, need to find my place because I didn't realize there wasn't a striking amendment for until after the meeting had started. But because we've had a thorough conversation through it, I've been able to follow the changes in four that we have before us now as amended with comparison to as three. As two. And the underlying legislation itself. And I have to say that I would have preferred as to and it's because of the question I asked earlier in our discussion of ask for the striking amendment now before us about the voice of community and how we've heard from the community. I prefer the stronger involvement of the community as I see in announced for I'm sorry in as to that is not before us. I had anticipated supporting not today but in this vote for striking amendment. As for as amended, I will be a no vote because I want to uphold the value of hearing from community directly and that voice. Thank you. Thank you. And Council Member McDermott, there was an email sent out with Striking Amendment four and the amendments last evening that I had sent. I think Wendy had sent out an email earlier with my recommendation that we could. My determination that people could still send in amendments. That was earlier in the afternoon. I think we had given until 3 p.m. yesterday. Madam Chair, I don't. I received the email after six last night. I'm not questioning that. It was senator that I had it. I personally just didn't have a chance to review it. And in fact, I wasn't aware of of having received it until the meeting. But but I did receive it last night. Yes. I just didn't have a chance to review it or wasn't even aware of it. I can relate to that as in other circumstances. Council members. Hello. Thank you, Chair. Well, first of all, I just want to thank your new chair, Cole Wells, Councilmember Dombroski and Up the Grove for coming together and finding a compromise striker. I'm pretty astounded that you all were able to land where you did in terms of all coming because people were really far apart. And I also especially want to thank Councilmember Dombrowski, because you articulated a lot of these really complex and nuanced differences very clearly, clearly enough for me to understand and for the most part, support. Like I mentioned before, I got there with you on the unincorporated piece, I got there with you on the Vsco piece. The only hang up that I have, as I mentioned before, is taking power away from the community groups and the planning group to make decisions around a future advisory board composition and around some other decisions. I completely appreciate Councilmember Up the road's philosophical position about, you know, where the elected officials we shouldn't actually. Let me not mischaracterize your position Councilmember of the Grove. But I get where you're coming from. At the same time, I think in some limited, controlled environments, it is okay and beneficial for us to cede power. You know, we have going on right now the participatory budgeting group, and that group fully gets to make decisions around a specific, discrete pot of money that will go and fund really important capital projects in our unincorporated areas. And I think that's important because these types of. But. When we're able to cede power like that, we can cede power to groups of people who don't have power, who are far this removed or furthest removed from power, who who understand the issues that they are going through, who understand their communities intimately, and who should be able to, you know, be empowered to make those decisions. And so for that reason, I'm going to vote no on this striking amendment, because I think it. Takes power away from these planning groups, from these community groups of people who represent communities most at risk for displacement. And I would be willing, though, in the interim, if the striker were to fail, which it's not seeming like it will, if it does, to support everything else in the striker and then work through something that reverts that power back to those planning groups. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmembers. Who are anybody else who would like to make a comment? Councilmember Pare. Thank you. Well, I think I'm particularly sensitive to this right now because I I'm hoping that I can keep my staff because we're working very, very hard. Everything's very busy right now, and I'm aware of it. And so I'm thinking of an initial conversation that happened when I first came in to the the council where we were giving our staff just a procedural comment, giving our staff time, you know, that we would have amendments end by Thursday of the week before, so they'd have time. And in this particular thing, because of all of the activity, we have had an incredibly undue impact on the collective staff schedule because of how we have chosen to handle this in this time frame. So I'm just checking on what we agreed to do with the intention of that and then what's actually happened in this space . That coupled with not really understanding how much notice public needs, when we do have a final striker like this, is it okay that it goes out the day before? Is there an intention that you have more time to have more breathing space for consideration, for full consideration and comments from the community? I just that's just a comment. I'm not sure about the procedural about the processes here. And it feels like we were trying to do one thing. And then we've gotten into a space where we've actually had an undue impact on staff. And it's been a pretty remarkable way these last couple of days. And and then also not being able because of that to provide timing. But I don't know what the standard of timing is that we are striving for in this. So I just want to make that statement. Thank you. That's the reason I get that is a very important question. And it's, I think, been awkward for me as chair under our council rules that we adopted a couple of months ago, I believe. And last month, we had set the various established timeframes to get directions to staff for preparation and then couldn't striking amendments, but with an exception for the chair of the given committee to change that time frame. And as much as I do not like to do that, I thought it was necessary. On the one hand, we have this time frame, as Gil reminded us of, for when the work should be completed by the executive. But the requirements of this motion, on the other hand, there's been a lot of controversy and issues with this particular proposed motion. I sent out an email last Friday giving a more latitude because I did not want to lose the efforts that were underway by the sponsors and especially Councilmember Grove, who had a different view. And for me, it's better to try to come up with a consensus that that means a more striking amendment. But under the rules of the Council, we couldn't do that. So with the authority I have as chair, I sent out an email Friday to relax those time requirements, to give them more time to work on this. And then, as it turns out, the efforts were really making progress underway. And that's why staff on my behalf sent out the email yesterday afternoon saying there would still be time opportunity for members to submit amendments. But I think it was 3:00 yesterday. Council Chair Bell did she did the super brief. I don't want to expand this meeting any more than I have to. I think this is a discussion well worth having in a different forum when we're not like having, you know, a vote right in front of us. But it's been an evolution from not having really much structure to having probably too much structure where we really ran into some very serious conundrums over the last year or so and to now this new flexibility that's been granted to chairs. This is, I think, the first time we've really used it, but it's just it's just a moment for us to sort of think about how and when do we use it. And there's a little bit of just councilmember to councilmember discipline, like setting our own deadlines and and sticking to them that we need to commit to. But thank you. Thank you for bringing it up and thank you for this conversation. And Councilmember Coles, thank you, as always, for being the pioneer. Seems wherever you go, you get the big the big workload. So thank you. All right. Well, again, it's been an interesting one, but I think it's been very fruitful and productive. And I'm so. Been on your staff? Councilmember Perry I think it's happened with many of our staffs as well. But we have a time crunch and we also have the process going forward. And I did announce that my intention was to take action on this today. This would go if we approve the strike and then going to do recommendation to the proposed motion as a as amended would go to the full council, I believe, on February, March 16. Is that correct? March 15, Council meeting. Yes, March 15. With that, are there any other comments. In Dombrowski. Very enthusiastic about this proposed motion that I signed on as a co-sponsor. I would have liked to have gotten totally there by today, but I would like to go ahead with the vote. Councilmember Dombroski. Unless someone else has wished just to make closing remarks, I oral vote on the striking amendment. Well, I want to check in here given what I've heard and see where we're at. I, with respect to Councilman McDermott and Czar Allies remarks is as was noted by Charles McDermott, I had announced too, which really gave more authority to the recommend, you know, to the planning workgroup on the final structure. But I will say I'm not ready to proceed today in support of this. If on the final vote as amended councilmembers online McDermott are not supportive and I would table right now so I heard them addressing the Stryker. And I'm a little confused because Councilmember Perry had an amendment that would have undone the the nine plus four, which. Wasn't supported by my two colleagues there. It would have been part of the group. So I'm I want to understand where my colleagues are if, say, the striker is if they're willing to share adopted. Are they interested in proceeding here? I you know the starter and have everything I like in it isn't isn't what I wrote that was more pretend to ask too but in the effort to kind of move this forward. Compromises are there and I get that my colleagues don't like a couple of those compromise. They want to vote no. But big picture, I'm interested. Does this thing more work here? Should we be done with this? Are we going to move it forward? Help me understand where people are. Big picture, if you're willing. A legitimate question whether either council member Zara McDermott or both like to comment. It looks like council members are voting. I would be supportive of working between now and full council to propose something that looks like conceptually what I want to see in terms of giving the planning group more authority. And to Councilmember McDermott. Without committing my vote at full council, I would. If S4 were adopted, I believe I would be a no vote today to encourage the work that to move closer to S2 as I spoke to earlier. So I believe I will be a vote of no one asked for. I believe I will also be an know. I'm final passage in committee today, hoping that between now in full council we would do that work. If it helps my. Concern. And now I'm going to mix up which amendment I'm in. Seating people, own committees. Whether. I want to make sure we have a broad complement of skills and abilities in voices that. I don't believe we always get it when nine council members make appointments because then I look for the best person to bring the voice I'm interested in. We each do that and we don't have an eye to the overall set of talents, voices and perspectives then come to the table. And so that's why today and in many occasions I might balk at. It counts member making appointments, if that's helpful. And if not, have just further muddied the waters. To go ahead companies. And I would like to remind people it's 1212. Just to clarify my position, I would be a no on us for a yes on final passage and then work on an amendment before full council that gives more authority to the planning group. And. To council members who are and council members. I'm going to turn to Europe because we could have changed this amended to the final passage to without recommendation. It's another option. You are the lead sponsor and I'm looking to you as to what you prefer. Well, that's helpful. And based on customers, it's expression of support for moving it forward today with a dubious recommendation, with the understanding you may or other to bring forward some fine tuning, which again, just for the record, that's kind of where I was. But it's we're making some legislation and sausage here. I felt that those issues were important, should not rise to the level of stifling and stopping this important work. And and and to me, I see a number of models that work with respect to, you know, panels and boards. And I don't think there is one right answer. So I think, you know, we can have a reasonable disagreement on that. But I I'm heartened to hear that that that their support to move this forward today, even if there's some, you know, disagreement on the specific make up. So, Madam Chair, I'll rest on my opening remarks on this floor about the right to petition your government guaranteed by the United States Constitution, our First Amendment, the human rights principle of self-determination. And I think on the whole, this legislation is a local exemplification of of those principles of empowerment and redress through our to our system of government. And I hope members will support it today and move the initiative forward. Thank you, Councilmember Maskey. And there are a number of members who have not weighed in on this at all. But at this point, unless there are any other comments anybody wishes to make. We have a striking amendment as support for us all in favor indicate by saying I. Any pros say. No? No. It appears that the striking amendment has been adopted. With that, madam, could you please call the roll and proposed motion 2020 10467 as amended. Thank you, Madam Chair. A I council member. DEMBOSKY, I. As a member. Done? No. Anthony McDermott. No. Councilmember Barry. Councilmember Barry. All right now. I'm sorry. I can't hear that phone. No. Did you hear that? Yes. Thank you. Yes, thank you. Sorry about that. Councilmember at the ranch. I don't remember. Van de Boer. No. Councilmember SA. Hello. I. Madam Chair, I avoided five eyes or not in my shoes. Thank you. With the vote we have has given a cast recommendation to proposed motion 2020 10467. And we'll send this motion to the March 15, 2022 council meeting, where we likely will have amendments offered, and that includes the action items on our agenda . And Madam Chair, I believe there were all members voted. This was the only vote. So that is correct, Madam Chair. That's right. So with that, there is no further action on our agenda. There is no other item on our agenda.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute contract amendments with Anthem Blue Cross, the City’s third-party administrator for the Preferred Provider Organization (PPO) and the Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) group health plans, and Medicare Supplement Plan; UnitedHealthcare Medicare Advantage PPO Plan; Scan Health Plan for the Medicare Advantage Plan; and Vision Service Plan (VSP) for the vision plan; CVS Caremark as the Prescription Benefit Manager (PBM) for the Prescription Drug Plan for the PPO and HMO plans; Delta Dental for the fee-for-service dental plan (DPPO) and Delta Dental USA (HMO plan); The Standard Insurance Company for employer-paid life insurance, voluntary life insurance, and short- and long-term disability insurance; Union Mutual Life Insurance Company (UNUM), through Larry Lambert & Associates Insurance Services, for long-term care insurance; and implement a contractual agreement with Carrum Health as a third-party administrator for eligible surgeries to be performed through a Centers of Excellence facility; and, any subsequent amendm

LongBeachCC_09072021_21-0924

Motion is carried. Thank you. Let's have 24. Please report from Human Resources Recommendation to execute contract amendments for health, vision, prescription dental, life and disability insurance to maintain current benefit levels and remain in compliance with state and federal laws and all plans city wide. Thank you, Mr. Miller. Could you give us a brief update on what this is? Sure. Every year we go through our health insurance and we work collaboratively with our employer organizations, they sit on an advisory committee. Our health or human resources department did an amazing job in keeping costs low. This is about a three and a half percent increase. It's important to compare that to annual averages in the industry, which is 7.7%. So there's a number of changes here, if you'd like specifically the detail, we can get into those with any questions, but we're recommending approval and any public comment on this item. There's no public comment. Thank you. Members, please cast your vote.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to approve Long Beach Energy Resources spending authority on Long Beach Water Department Specifications WD-03-19 with Sully-Miller Contracting Company, for street repair services, in an amount not to exceed $1,000,000, for a period of one year, with the option to renew for two additional one-year periods, subject to a maximum increase of 10 percent for each renewal period, at the discretion of the City Manager. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_01152019_19-0029

Motion carries. Now we will move. Now we will move to item 12:00. Please read the item. Report from Energy Resources Recommendation to approve Long Beach Energy Resources Spending Authority on Long Beach Water Department Specification WD 0319 with Sally Miller Contracting Company for Street Repair Services in an amount not to exceed 1 million citywide. Yes, I see. We have a first and second unit. Mrs. Price, would you like to speak on that? No, thank you. Fine. Mrs. Pierce. Okay. Fine. Is. Do you have a safety plan in place? We sure do. Bob Dole, our director of energy resources. Good evening, Vice Mayor, members of council. The item before you tonight seeks approval for Long Beach energy resources to add on to the Water Department's contract that was approved in November of this past year by the Water Water Commissioners and authorize the general manager to execute a contract with Kelly Miller. Contracting for street repair services in an amount not to exceed 3.5 million for one year. Long Beach Energy Resources has coordinated with the water department to share this contract and gain favorable pricing through economies of scale. As such, the contract was bid to allow $1 million in cost to be allocated to the Long Beach Energy Resources Department . That concludes my report and I'm available for any questions. Thank you. Is there any public comment on this item? Is there any council comment? If not, would you please cast your vote? Now we have our second public comment for those who address the city council and not agenda items like. Cast your vote. Okay. If you'd like to speak on this, please come forward. This is for the second public comment. This is. Okay. Okay. Any councilman like to do any comments on the closing comment?

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending Sections 8.63.020, 8.63.030, 8.63.050 and 8.63.070; all relating to prohibiting the use and sale of single-use food and beverage containers, packaging and food service ware made of expanded polystyrene (EPS) foam, rigid polystyrene #6, and non-recyclable and non-compostable material for prepared food distribution, and the distribution of plastic for bio-plastic straws, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_02182020_20-0112

K. There's a motion. Can I get a second, please? No public comment. Please cast your votes. Motion carries. A 22. Adam, 22, is communication from City Attorney Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code relating to prohibiting the use and sale of single use food and beverage containers read and adopted as read city citywide. Seamus is a First Amendment control. Hello. My name is Seamus Ennis. I live in the art craft manner district within the fourth district. I'm the chairman of Long Beach chapter of the Surfrider Foundation, and our chapter has been working on this polystyrene plastic pollution issue since 2006, about ten years before I started wearing glasses, which has also been a long time ago, but we've been working on it long term. We realized that you guys, the council members and staff are responsible for all these ordinance amendments, and we really appreciate it. We love them. We support them. The the agenda item and the ordinance amendments. You've done a great job. And this sends a great message to other. Cities upstream that can learn from Long Beach. And when we look to them and try and get them to do the right thing, we can say, Hey, look at what we're doing. We're doing our part. Now, you guys, not only other cities. But other states and other countries. We can finally look to China and the Philippines and tell them to do their part. So, goodjob, you guys. Thank you. Thank you very much, Miss Cantrell. Good evening again. And I. And very glad that you're doing this. It's kind of ironic that on the same night that you are banding banning plastic straws, which are. Hazard in the environment that you would approve putting plastic fields in Eldorado Park. As Charlie Moore emailed today, and I'm sure you are aware that he is the person that discovered the plastic gyre in the Pacific Ocean about 25 years ago and is going all around the world telling people about the dangers of plastic. His comment about these plastic fields is that the children are going to be inhaling. Plastic residue. From these fields. Which is much more dangerous to them than eating out of a polystyrene take home package. Both of these are dangers to the environment, but you are adding to it with this. Plastic field. These fields only last 5 to 7 years. I have pictures here of the field. Stick to this topic, which is the poorly staring ban on food products, please. I'm talking about the dangers of plastics and. Disposing of these fields. This is the field in. Hawaiian Gardens, only six years old, and it's already got all this rubber exposed because the plastic shreds. I hope you don't stop with single use food and beverage containers, packaging and plastic straws and get rid of plastic everywhere in Long Beach . Thank you. Thank you so much. And you there don't see any public. Public speakers. Please cast your votes. Ocean cares an exciting place. I think that's. It. I think I had. Okay. Then I do have. Is Gerry Glenn Thomas here? Please, sir, come forward.

Petition for a Special Law re: An Act Granting the City of Boston the Authority to Provide Legal Voting Rights in Municipal Elections for City of Boston Residents Aged 16 and 17 Years Old.

BostonCC_06152022_2022-0185

Dawson 0185.0185 Petition for a special law regarding an act granting the City of Boston the authority to provide legal voting rights in municipal elections for city of Boston residents age 16 and 17 years old. Thank you. The Chair Recognize this council? Arroyo Chair of the Committee on Government Operations Counsel, Royal U of the four. Thank you, counsel. President Flynn. The Committee how the working session on June 13, 2020 to this home rule petition to authorize the City of Boston to allow any individual age 16 or 17 who is a resident of Boston to be able to vote as long as they are eligible under state law for all other qualifications other than age, and to be clear, to vote in municipal elections. These individuals would be added to a list of voters established maintained by the Board of Election Commissioners and would be allowed to vote for local offices and ballot questions. This would be done by having them fill out an alternative registration form. The Board of Elections would be responsible for the associated costs. The petition would also grant the board the authority to implement regulations associated with this Act when the individual turns 18. They would be removed from the separate list and informed that they must register to vote in accordance with state law. We were informed during this process that they can pre-register, and so it's possible that we can make that one smooth process. I would like to thank Councilor Maria and Councilor Brock for sponsoring this matter, as well as my council colleagues who joined us, Council President Flint and Councilors Murphy, Flaherty and Lui Gen. I'd also like to thank members of the administration. Anita Tavares, Commissioner of the Election Department, and Marta Crilly, archivist for reference and outreach at Boston City Archives. During this working session, we were able to gain clarity around the pre-registration process. For 16 and 17 years old, residents in the city of Boston and efforts of having a simplified process that would limit a burdensome effort on the elections department. The committee also discussed specific language changes that would ensure a more gender neutral version of this formal petition, as well as ensuring terms such as local voter were consistent with language already written by the Commonwealth. As we await more specific language changes from the original sponsors of this home roll petition, I recommend that this docket ought to remain in committee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, counsel. While. Dr. zero 25 will remain in committee. Motions, orders and resolutions. Mr. Clerk, please read Docket 0767 Police.

A bill for an ordinance making a supplemental appropriation from the General Contingency Fund to purchase property at 700 West Colfax Avenue. Approves a $3 million supplemental appropriation from the General Fund contingency to purchase property at 700 West Colfax Avenue in Council District 10. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 7-31-18.

DenverCityCouncil_08132018_18-0746

And so just a wonderful visual example of kind of the way that you have involved folks and created beauty for the community at the same time. So congratulations and good luck. Thanks. Thank you. All right. That concludes us on this item. Madam Secretary, if you put the next one on our screens, and that is Bill 18 0746. And Councilwoman Sussman, will you put 746 on the floor for publication? Yes, I move Bill 746 be placed on final consideration and do pass. I think this one has just been published. First reading. Oh, published. It's just published. Yes. But then I move that it be published. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Questions and comments by members of Council Council one take it to. The. Same comments that applied to the previous one. So nothing further. All right, Councilman Flynn. Thanks. I just want to point out that if we were to postpone this or vote it down, the purchase and sale agreement for the property that this is meant to fund is in the black vote and has not been called out. So we would still have a resolution next week that we would have to deal with for which we have no funding. So I just wanted to point out that. Semi interesting sort of situation that if we were to vote this down, it would gives us a resolution next week. They would then we would also have to vote down. All right. Seeing no other questions or comments. Madam Secretary, Raquel. Ortega SUSSMAN. No. I mean, I saw Black Eye Brooks. II. Espinosa. Epstein. Flynn. I Gilmore. Herndon. Cashman Canete, New. Mr. President. Madam Secretary, please close the voting. Announce the results. Tonight. One day, one abstention. Ten eyes. One nay, one abstention. Council Bill 746 has been ordered published. All right. All other bills for introduction are ordered. Published. We are now ready for the block vote on resolutions and bills on final consideration. Council members remember that this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote I. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilwoman Sussman, will you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor? Yes, I will. I move that the resolutions they adopted and bills on final consideration be placed upon final consideration and do pass in a block for the following items. Item 820 9815 821. Two 825 825 826 827 684 800 819 eight 3831 895. 766 all series of 2018. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call black. Right. Brooks. Espinosa. Flynn, Gilmore. Herndon, Cashman. Can each knew Ortega by Susman? Hi, Mr. President. Madam Secretary, please close voting. Announce the results. 12, 12 hours. The resolutions have been adopted and bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Tonight there will be a required public hearing on Council Bill 797 approving six separate service plans for the formation and establishment of six Title 32 districts and a required public hearing on

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2000 Blake Street in Five Points. Approves a map amendment to rezone property from PUD 329 and B-8 with waivers, UO-1, UO-2 to C-MX-8 (planned development to mixed-use, 8-stories), located at 2000 Blake Street in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 12-7-21.

DenverCityCouncil_02142022_21-1455

13 eyes. The resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass this evening. Council will not take a recess. Councilmember Flynn, will you please put Council Bill 21, Dash 1455 on the floor for final passage? Yes. I move the council bill 21, dash one four or five five be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Councilmember Herndon, your motion to postpone. Yes, Madam President. I move that final consideration of Council Bill 21, Dash 1455 with this public hearing be moved to March 21st, 2022. Thank you. You've got the move, the motion, and we need the second. Madam Secretary, roll call on the postponement of Council Bill 21, DASH one four, five, five. And before we do that, roll call. Councilmember Ortega, did you have a question? Madam President, I just wanted to ask if this is being done at the request of the applicant. Correct. Okay. Thank you. All right. Great. Thank you. Councilmember Ortega. Madam Secretary, roll call. Please see the baca. Right. Clark, my. Friend. I. Herndon. I work for Cashman. Right. Kenny Ortega. I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Torres. I'm glad I. Madam President, I. Madam Secretary. Closed the voting and announced results. 13 of 13 I's Final Consideration of Council Bill. 20 1-1455 with its public hearing has been postponed to Monday, March 21st, 2022. Councilmember Flynn, would you please put Council Bill 20 2-0003 on the floor for final passage?

A bill for the Council of the City and County of Denver, sitting ex-officio as the Board of Directors of the Denver 14th Street General Improvement District, making certain findings and approving the issuance of $4 million principal amount of Refunding Revenue Notes; and approving and adopting a supplement to the Work Plan and Amended Budget for the 2017 fiscal year. Approves the issuance of $4 million principal amount of refunding revenue notes, imposes capital charges, and approves and adopts an amended budget for the 2017 fiscal year by City Council sitting in its capacity as the ex-officio Board of Directors of the Denver 14th Street General Improvement District in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 7-25-17.

DenverCityCouncil_08072017_17-0809

Can we give it up to our Secretary General? Wish you could have the night off after that, but we still have a lot ahead of us. Council members councils now convene as the board of directors of the Denver 14th Street General Improvement District Bills for Introduction. Madam Secretary, will you please read the bill for Introduction. For Finance and Governance? 809 Bill for the Council, the city and county of Inner City Ex-officio of the Board of Directors of the Denver 14 Street General Improvement District, making certain findings and approving the issuance of 4 million principal amount of refund of revenue notes and approving and adopting a supplement to the work plan amended budget for the 2017 fiscal year. Councilwoman Gilmore, where you make the motions for us this evening. Yes, Mr. President. Since we are sitting as the ex-officio board of directors of the 14th Street General Improvement issue, we will need to consider this bill per a separate vote to be ordered publish. Councilwoman Gilmore, will you please put Council Bill 809 on the floor for publication? Yes, Mr. President. I move that council bill 809 be ordered published. All right. It has been moved. And second, it comes for members of council. All right, Madam Secretary, roll call. Black eye. Clerk. I. Espinosa Flynn, I, Gilmore, i. Herndon, I. Cashman, I. Carnage Lopez. All right, new Ortega. Susman. Mr. President. I please cause voting in US results. So once again, they're not filled in 13 eyes. All right. 13 eyes control. 809 has ordered publish council is now reconvene into its regular session customers. It's your last opportunity to call out an item. I'll do a quick recap on the resolutions. Councilman Flynn has called out Council Resolution 806 regarding Hong Kong Call Contract with Meet and hunt for comment Council Resolution 822 regarding Denver International Airports. Great Hall Proposal for postponement. Councilman Cashman has called out Resolution 807 approving the Contract with Paradise. Um, and at Denver at 1217 for a comment, Councilwoman Canisius called out Resolution 811 approving cooperation agreement with Denver Renewal Authority and Emily Griffith for postponement. Councilman Espinosa has recently just caught a council. 825 Zephyr. QUESTION Just for question. QUESTION Great. And then council and Councilman Espinosa has also called out 823 824 826 for a vote and postponement. Is that right with everyone? Okay. I just want to make sure on a bill for introduction, as has been called out in front of consideration of them being called out and under pending. Nothing has been called out. Madam Secretary, please put the first item on our screen.

Recommendation to Accept a Report on the Appointment of a Member to the Open Government Commission. (City Clerk 10022020)

AlamedaCC_10192021_2021-1221

All right, Councilman Knox, wait. Thank you. So I just wanted to both announce that Miss Montgomery, who I am nominated and will be appointed to the LGC tonight, was on is unable to attend the meeting due to a last minute family issue that came up. But I. So while she doesn't get her chance to introduce yourself and whatnot, I just wanted to take this time to quickly share my appreciation for her stepping up. I've gotten to know her over the last two and a half years. She has shown herself to be someone very interested in caring about the the business of the city and making sure that people are informed and involved and engaged in the work that we do. And I just wanted to honor honored that before we had the chance to vote, since she's not here to introduce and tell you why she's fabulous. So thank you. And we'll look forward to her having another time to do to do just that. But for now, we need to we need to vote on her appointment, the appointment of Melody Montgomery. Okay. So. And we, Madam Kirk, do we vote or do we do okay? Okay. And Councilmember Herr Spencer is at a motion you're making. I'm happy to move the item, but member Knox may want to add and I'll have a second. Why don't you go ahead. And move a second. We've got a motion. We've got a second. Any further discussion? Seeing, hearing. Then may we have a roll call vote, please? Meredith. I like her. Spencer, I. Knox like. I avella. I mayor as he ashcraft high that carries. By five. Thank you, everyone. And so the city clerk will make arrangements to square Ms.. Montgomery in, and then we will make arrangements for her to come in and do that brief intro that we've been doing with our nominees, which is just a really nice way for the council and staff and the public to get to know them. And I will tell you that there's one other nominee who wasn't able to make it tonight either. So Will. But take care of all that. Okay, perfect. Well, we are moving right along. So now we come to item. Well, we don't have an item six because we don't have any anything continued from the previous agenda. So now we have we moving into our regular agenda. And the first item is item seven. Madam Clerk.

A bill for an ordinance extending the existing .12 percent sales and use tax (the “Denver Preschool Tax”) through December 31, 2026 and increasing the rate to .15 percent, dedicating the revenue derived from the tax to fund the Denver Preschool Program, subject to the approval of the voters at a special municipal election to be conducted in coordination with the state general election on November 4, 2014; and making certain changes to the Denver Preschool Program. (GOVERNMENT & FINANCE) Asks voters to reauthorize the Denver Preschool Program for 10 years, increase the sales and use tax supporting the program by .03 percent, and approve specified programmatic changes. The last reguarly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 8-25-14. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 7-17-14.

DenverCityCouncil_08042014_14-0574

Tonight one nay, one extension. Council Resolution 647 has been adopted. Madam Secretary, we please take the next one. What should be four bills for introduction? 574 and we add three council members call this out, Fats Brooks and Lemon. I should ask Councilwoman Fox, is this for a vote or for a comment? Vote a vote. And I council members, brooks and layman comments or votes as well. Responding to that. Grab that councilman Lyman. That's fine. Okay. Councilman Lopez, will you please put 574. Ordered, ordered, published, please. Mr. President, move that council 547 series of 2014 be ordered published. 574. 574. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. It has been moved and seconded comments from members of Council. Councilwoman five Thank you, Mr. President. This is an ordinance that would refer a tax increase to the voters. It concerns the preschool tax. Now, since the July 16 government and finance meeting. I expressed many of my concerns about this program and tax increase. I made it clear that I'm a fan of preschool and an enthusiast about other currently existing programs through the state that target at risk children. I refer you to the committee discussion for my thoughts on a preferred solution. That was July 16th. But tonight, let me acknowledge, first of all, the passion of many of my colleagues for this program. Nonetheless, here's why I'll be voting no. Number one, it is a tax increase. It raises about $4 million more a year totaling there, $20 million annually. Number two, this proposal allows for higher administrative costs, which are already drastically understated. Stated administrative costs can go from 5 to 7% under this new proposal, but there's already another 10% in the budget amended from the legal definition that most of us would consider administrative costs. So from my perspective, I'm looking at do I want to raise administrative costs from what's in the what's in the ordinance from 5 to 7%. But I actually see it more as from 15 to 17%. Three, it extends the base program, which doesn't expire until December 2016, which is another ten years. Now, if this tax and this administrative increase fail, the program doesn't end. Preschool officials can bring reauthorization of the base program to people again next year. But you can go for another tax increase if they wanted to do it. But it doesn't end the program. What we're really voting on is higher administrative costs, higher taxes. The last concern I have is one that may be a little more subtle. But I went through this in other programs when I was at the state level. I believe subsidizing a program so heavily pushes the costs up. And this is one of the reasons I believe Denver has some of the highest preschool tuitions in the nation. So I am voting no on this, voting no on the tax increase, and I'm voting no for higher administrative costs. Thank you, Councilwoman Fox, Councilman Brooks. Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to bring everybody's attention to 574. This is a bill which I'm on the board of the different preschool program, and I'm bringing this initiative forward to refer it to the ballot before us tonight as an ordinance and also ballot language. And this is first reading, and we'll get a chance to go over this again on second reading, have a courtesy public hearing. Thank my co sponsor, Peggy Layman, as well. Wow. In 2006, Denver decided to fund the preschool program after three tries and getting it right and figuring out the right amount and how to really go after preschool in the city of Denver. One of the things that we've learned is this. This is not just the city of Denver issue. This is a national issue as we look at education reform. Most individuals say that you have to start with early childhood education and the data supports that. The data shows in this program that 31,816 young people, four year olds, have gone through this program. 31,816 folks who would not otherwise have if we wouldn't had this program in place. The data also shows that for those individuals that go through this program, they are kindergarten ready and they're outperforming their peers who would not be in this program. When I say kindergarten ready, let me be specific. 89% of 2% of them are have receptive vocab. 98% are our grading proficiency in literacy and 99% in math. This is this is a program that's proving its effectiveness and readiness in in the city of Denver. I want to address a couple of reasons of of why we're looking at the increase as a board. When I first came on as a board, all we were looking at was this sunset date, this this program's sunset meaning is over in 2016. And we wanted to see the appropriate time to go to the ballot. And through going and doing a poll and going in the field and looking, we believe that this is the appropriate time. One of the things that we've been looking at for the increase is the continue or the funding for summer programing. We know that there is a summer learning loss for all of our kids, but it's incredibly important that we fund that summer programing to keep that going. That's not free. You know, this also adds to the demand of full day preschool. Most of our folks who are in who are single, single parent families or like my family, where both parents are working, don't have the opportunity just to put their kids anywhere. They want to begin having a full day programing. And also, we are not just seeing an increase in preschool costs in the city of Denver. We're seeing it all throughout Colorado. And for these reasons and many more, we we believe that this is going to be a successful program. Also in a state we're going from 0.012% to 0.015. That puts our sales and use tax at 3.65. That's still very competitive regionally and also nationally. And so for these reasons and many more, I hope that my colleagues will be supporting this. Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Councilwoman Lemmon. Thank you, Mr. President. Councilman Brooks did an excellent idea recitation of why this is a good program. And I'm just going to reiterate why I really think that I'm proud to co-sponsor this. It serves young children. And we know from research of very recently, even over the many years, that the better foundation you give children, the better they do as they continue through the school grades. Secondly, we're not just giving money to. Children to go to preschool. We are looking at what. Schools. They go to and we work with. Those schools and we rate those schools. So not only. Do we evaluate the child, but we're also evaluating and being sure that they go to well trained teachers and good. Schools. And then again. It saves money in our future when we have citizens that can get through high school and then. College and then jobs. They are the ones that contribute to our budgets. So I am a strong for those reasons and many that Councilwoman Brooks reiterated, I am a strong supporter of this program. Thank you, Councilwoman Lehman. Councilman Merritt. Thank you, Mr. President. I always resist the the the urging that government should be run like a business. But that doesn't mean that government shouldn't think like a business when we're spending the people's money and that the the expenditures we make should be thought of as investments, and investments should deliver a rate of return. I think it's rare that we have an opportunity to make an investment that delivers a higher rate of return than this one. The the the data is in the impact of preschool on the life chances of kids is enormous. The return on investment is not just on the order of percentages, but of multiples of the money that we put in. And the impact is particularly powerful on the most at risk kids. So not only are we improving their life chances and improving their ability to earn a good living in the future, we're also avoiding potential costs in the criminal justice system. So again, I don't want to think of government's business as a business, but think of it in a business frame of mind. We're making an investment here. This isn't this isn't about the children whom we should bring our hands about, and we need to help the children. This is an investment in the future, and you don't even have to care about kids. This is returning a serious return to the taxpayers in future earning earning potential mitigated costs in the criminal justice system. And I think I'm voting in favor of us making this excellent investment in our future. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Nevett. Councilwoman Sussman. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm sort of reiterating what others have said, but I just want to add my $0.03. This is a $0.03 on $100. It is, as they have said, the best expense for my and your taxes that we could ask for, particularly for the investment potential for this. In fact, we have a number of people who, with backgrounds in education on this council, Councilman Novick, Councilwoman Fox and myself and I think a few other teachers, Councilman Layman. So we know where of we speak about the importance of preschool education. So important that Councilman Councilwoman Fox didn't actually mention it tonight, just asked to take a look at her meeting. I totally support what her idea was. Preschool education is so important that we might want to think about starting a dialog and a discussion to change our public education mission from K-12 to P11. There is evidence that the senior year may not be as effective and efficient, and there is conversation throughout higher education and in K-12 education about the effectiveness of the senior year. But we do know the effectiveness of the preschool year and how important it is and what an interesting idea that we might put our resources into P11 instead of K 12. And I just had to call you let people know about your mention in committee. Councilwoman Potts. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Councilman Lopez. Thank you. I'll be brief. I have no idea why society and. The city would not want its citizens educated from day one. That's why I'm supporting this. All right. Thank you, Councilman Lopez, Captain Shepard. I will be supporting this tonight. And I just want to share a personal story. I have a six and a half year old son. Our family would not meet the traditional definition of an at risk family. It's a two parent earning household. My husband holds a master's degree. My son hears well over a thousand, thousands and thousands of different vocabulary words on a daily basis at home. Yet despite that, at a very early age, my son was diagnosed with special needs and required therapy for the first several years of his life. He was not very good, didn't have very much vocabulary. You only had one word in 18 months. He did start receiving therapy very early on, and we did participate in this Denver preschool program. When Councilman Brooks was talking about how well this prepares children for kindergarten. I can personally attest to that because my son kind of floundered in the early childhood portion of his education. But since he was able to avail himself of this program, by the time he got to kindergarten, kindergarten, he really flourished. I mean, I just saw him blossom in the first few months, started battling like crazy, you know, and really, you know, really made tremendous, tremendous progress. And then so much so that towards the end of the first term, the teachers were saying that he had become a leader and a model for others in his classroom on various levels. So, you know, when we talk about the benefits of this program, I mean, it really has many benefits in many different situations. And for my son, he needed that extra special attention to get him to the place that he is today. And I was so glad in the last couple of weeks because he's been writing little stories and he's very excited to go back to school now. The words are not totally correct or in order or spelled right. But I mean, I'm just, you know, for a kid that had one word at 18 months old, I just could not be more more overjoyed about where we are today. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Sheppard. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. I won't repeat what all of my colleagues have already stated. I just want to add that 80% of a child's brain is developed in the first three years of life. And by being able to ensure that kids have the opportunity to be exposed to a larger vocabulary and other just being able to interrelate with other kids when they start school, they'll be so much better off. And we know that for kids who have been in some kind of preschool program prior to starting kindergarten, they have a 15,000 word advantage. So to know that kids who have not had that are starting school at a disadvantage and by being able to refer this to the voters, they get to decide. But I think we have seen tremendous, tremendous benefits from this program that has been in place for as many years as it has has been here. And I just want to say a special thank you to Sue Casey, who served on this city council and was somebody who had really done a lot of the research and worked with many of the providers out in the community to bring this forward the first time around. And to ensure that we were successful in getting it supported and funded by the taxpayers, I think we're going to see tremendous benefits from it. And my hope is that we continue to see improvements in our public education system so that that transition gets to move all the way across as they move to be graduates of our education system. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Brooks. Sorry, Mr. President, but I had to take this moment to just point out to folks who are sitting in the audience because, you know, I. I got on board with this because it's the right thing to do with this. Smart for a city, but then you get inspired by some folks. And so and and Joe Heinz, the legend of early childhood education in Denver. Can you just stand up and just say hello? Yeah, yeah. And then Jerry Grimes, who is also a legend in northeast Denver. And all three of my kids went through Hope Center. So thank you so much, Jerry, for all your hard work for pushing. Right. Thank you. Councilman Brooks, do we have any other questions or comments from members of council seen on Madam Secretary? Roll call. But no. Can each layman. Yes. Lopez Yes. NEVITT Hi. Ortega Hi, Rob Frye. Shepherd Sussman. BROOKS For sure. BROWN Hi. Mr. President. I would say sorry. Madam Secretary, please. Because the vote and the results. 11 eyes one Nay. Lebanon is one. A country of five. 74 has been ordered published. I'm sorry, can you t of the last two and it's 563 and 564 caught out by myself. We can do both of those in a block and this these two bills and I have a question I'm just giving a preface these two bills we had a

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 5611 East Iowa Avenue in Virginia Village. Approves an official map amendment to rezone property located at 5611 East Iowa Avenue from S-SU-D to S-RH-2.5 (suburban, single-unit to suburban, rowhouse) in Council District 6. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 7-10-18.

DenverCityCouncil_08272018_18-0705

Nine ice nine as council bill 848. Has passed. Councilman Cashman, would you please put Council Bill 705 on the floor? Yes, Mr. President. I move the council bill 18 dead 0705 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved. Can I get a second? It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council Bill 705 is open. May we have the staff reports? Sorry. It's asking me to sign in. Yeah. Activate office. You just get my. Sorry about that. Thank you. My name is Chandler Van Skog. I'm from Community Planning and Development. As you know, this is for an official map amendment 5611 East Iowa AB from sued to SRH 2.5. The subject's eight 5611 East Highway AV. Is located in Council District six in the Virginia Village neighborhood. The lot is approximately 14,191 square feet or about a third of an acre and is currently vacant. Again, the proposal is to rezone this lot from SUD to as RH 2.5 to allow redevelopment of the parcel with two duplexes for a total of four units. So the requested zone district suburban stands for suburban neighborhood Context Rowhouse, a 2.5 storey height limit. So that's RH 2.5. As a multi-unit district, it allows suburban house duplex and row house building forms up to two and a half storeys in height. So a bit about the existing context. So the subject site, as you know, is currently zoned SUD. It is adjacent to several other zone districts to the north. You have some ex to to the east, you have more as a said to the west across Holly Street and there is some zoning as well as SRH 2.5. And to the south it's said. In terms of land use. As I mentioned before, the subject site is currently vacant and has been for as long as we have records surrounding properties and include a variety of uses to the immediate north. There is not a repair shop across Holly. To the west is our town homes and then single family dwelling units are adjacent to the lot on either side. Further to the north, south of the border, and there's an insurance office, gas station and a retail store. So in terms of the building form and scale, these are some pictures of the existing context. Starting from the upper left, you can see the existing townhomes across Holly Street. On the upper right is the existing auto repair shop that's adjacent to the site to the north. The bottom right picture shows the subject site currently in it's vacant state. And then down to the left is a single family home across the intersection there, which is representative of many of the other homes in the area. And so a bit about the process so far, this item on the planning board on June 20th, 2018, our planning board voted unanimously to recommend approval. That was five zero with one abstention. And it went to Luti on July 10th. And today it is here before you council. In terms of public comment, prior to the planning board hearing, staff did receive three letters of opposition which were forwarded to the board. On that planning board, a member from the R.A. spoke in support and several neighbors were there to speak in opposition to the proposal. Since then, the applicant has signed a good neighbor agreement with the R.A. and the R.A. has provided a letter of support. Both of these are included with your packet. So jumping into the review criteria. Proposals for rezoning are reviewed against these five criteria. So the first criteria required or criterion requires consistency with adopted plans. In this case, the Comprehensive Plan and Blueprint Denver are the two adopted plans that apply. Staff has found that the proposal is consistent with several strategies listed in the comprehensive plan. I won't read all of them, but generally these strategies are centered around promoting quality, infill development, increasing densities in appropriate locations, creating a diverse mix of housing types, and supporting addition of housing, particularly in infill development. In terms of the consistency with Blueprint Denver and this is a land use designation map showing that the subject property has a a land use concept of single family residential. This land use concept anticipates single family homes as the predominant residential type. It's worth noting that the historic development of this block north of Iowa has a lot of properties that are designated single family residential. But the development of this block does not reflect the underlying designation and blueprint. Denver does address this to an extent, and that it mentions that land use building block boundaries are not fixed and some areas are in a state of transition. Another aspect that we look at here is whether it's in an area of change or an area of stability. In this case, the lot is in an area of stability. The purpose of areas of stability are to maintain the character of an area while accommodating some new development and redevelopment. So there is a very unique character, this area between Iowa and Florida. It's worth noting that the existing Townhomes, Auto Body Office use and retail have all been there for 50 years or more. So in that sense, they are very much a part of the existing character on this block. And that was really what staff took into account when deciding that this was consistent with the area of stability designation. In terms of future street classifications, East Iowa, ATVs and designated local. So that is tailored to providing local access primarily at slower speeds. South Hadley Street is a residential collector. This is intended to balance transportation choices with land access without sacrificing on mobility. These are generally designed to accommodate more trips per day than local streets. And the staff found that SRH 2.5 is consistent with the street classifications because the zone district enables low intensity and low scale multi-unit residential uses along streets designated for residential purposes and traffic levels. So step KPD finds that the rezoning is consistent with both the Comprehensive Plan 2000 and Blueprint Denver Criteria two and three have also been met criteria and to requires uniformity of district regulations. So in this case, the request is consistent. There are no waivers or special exceptions being requested. It also furthers the public health, safety and welfare by implementing the city's adopted plans and allowing development of an underutilized infill site consistent with the existing residential character in the area. Criteria. Number four requires justifying circumstances. In this case, the proposal was found to meet change or changing conditions in a particular area or in the city generally. So as outlined in the staff report, there's been significant new development at the Colorado station area as well as on the Colorado Boulevard corridor. Also, in terms of citywide changes, there's been an increased demand for housing. This rezoning would facilitate the provision of additional housing, again, an underutilized infill site. And then the fifth criterion requires consistency with neighborhood context, zone, district, purpose and intent. So the zone district purpose itself doesn't specify too much, but there is some language in the suburban neighborhood context definition which works well here. So the suburban neighborhood context is generally characterized by single unit and multi-unit residential. Multi-unit building forms are typically separated from single unit residential and consist of row house and occasional mid and high rise apartment building forms. And perhaps most importantly for this proposal. Multi-unit, residential and commercial uses are primarily located along arterial and collector streets. So staff finds that it meets criteria number five and that it separates. It keeps essentially the multi-unit and single family generally separate in terms of character. And it is located along a collector street, which is designed to handle slightly higher traffic levels. So in closing, I see that he recommends approval of application 2017 I 190 based on finding that all review criteria have been met. Thank you. Thank you very much. We do have three individuals signed up to speak this evening. I apologize if I get your name wrong. When I call you up, please step up to the podium and your 3 minutes will start. First up, Andre Pavilion. If. Thank you, counsel. Thank you, Mr. President. My name is Andre Coogan to eight, nine, nine North Sphere Boulevard. I'll keep this brief. Just wanted to say, you know, we've been working on this with the community for quite a while now. We actually met with the park or the Virginia Village Neighborhood Organization on Valentine's Day night with Council Cashman, Councilman Cashman present. And I've been working on it since then. We actually then realized we needed to move over and be talking with the Park Neighborhood Organization. And as as Chandler said, we have come to a good neighbor agreement that has been signed with them. It is SRH 2.5. But our our intent was to build duplexes, not to do townhomes. That was, I think, a good portion of the neighborhood concern in the previous public forums. Just very quickly, the the good neighbor agreement that we've signed stipulates that we are going to use the duplex form. Of the Rowhouse District. Which limits it to which limits any development to the same building height, the same lot coverage, the same setbacks in the same book. Playing requirements that are required under single family are under SUD, which is the current zoning. Literally, we are just asking for two more front doors. I ask for your support in this? I think, as Chandler pointed out, I think the increased density without it being harmful to the neighborhood that blueprint Denver and the comprehensive plan both call for I think are applicable here in the vacant lot, being on a collector street, being close to a neighborhood center and be the presence of that zoning district across the street. Thank you for your help. Appreciate it. Thank you. Next up, Kelley Smith. Thank you. Kelly Smith, 1864 South 18th Street. I'm here representing Cooke Park Neighborhood. If there's any questions. Thank you. And last up, Keith Niland. Hello. Thanks for having me. So my name is Keith now and I'm the owner of the lot at 5611 East Iowa Avenue. Personal addresses for two. Well, excuse me, 43, South Gilman Street in Denver. And I'm here to just answer any questions you guys have as well. Thank you very much. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of council? Yes. Uh. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Chandler. I'm sorry. Councilman Cashman. Have questions first. Okay. In the staff report, it says that the public comments, including letters of opposition, were included. But they're not on the attachment that's been uploaded here in our system. Could you describe what the what the opposition was in the staff report? It says there were two folks who who opposed the rezoning unless there was a good neighbor agreement which has subsequently happened, but that there were three people who said they were against it, regardless of whether there was a good neighbor agreement. What was the opposition based on? So I think initially the opposition was based on the allowable rowhouse building form of the district. Right. Because the suburban context, it doesn't have a two unit zone district. This is the next step up essentially from single family. So when the proposal came in for RH 2.5, people kind of saw that. I think there is. It allows ten units per 6000 square feet. So the lot theoretically, although I don't know how you would fit, it could have 20 units on it. So I think there was an initial kind of scare with people that that's what they were proposing to build. So that's kind of where the Good Neighbor agreement came from. And then the people who showed up, the people who were kind of conditionally opposed, I guess you could say, were those who spoke at planning board. And they kind of expressed concern with the potential to have 20 units, but they said that they would be less concerned if some sort of agreement was reached to limit it to duplexes. Okay. And the subsequent specifics of the good neighbor agreement are what. The specifics of the good neighbor agreement are, that they will build two duplex units. They're limited to four units total. And that and the code kind of already requires this anyways, but also that they will meet the setback building coverage, building height and bulk standards for single family dwellings. And the code requires that anyways, but it's just kind of laid out in the Good Neighbor Agreement as well. Oh, and there's one more piece which I don't I believe this that has to be listed for sale for a minimum of six months. The units. 90 days. Mm hmm. Okay. Could could you explain why I believe that neighbors were concerned about them just becoming rental properties right off the bat. So, yeah, so they're they have 90 days to sell them and then if they're unable to sell them, I think there's a clause that allows them to rent them at that point. Ah, thank you. That's all, Mr. President. Thank you. Councilman Flynn, Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. Andre or Keith? Some specifics about what you're planning. I believe the neighbor is it the neighbor to the east had an easement across the north portion of the property. What is the status of that easement? I'll address that. So the easement is recorded and is, you know, a public document and will be will certainly be observed regardless. It's his access easement to his garage off of Holly. But we also included it in the Good Neighbor Agreement that, you know, it will not be. It will not be blocked or, you know, nothing. Nothing will prevent him from being able to use to use his garage during construction or once the project is completed. Great. Regarding what you're planning on building, which we describe as two duplexes, give me an idea about what size are you envisioning? What price point are? Is parking garage part of the project? What do you envision? Well, so I'll I'll let Keith. We haven't actually started design yet. And I can tell you that each duplex will have would have its own two car garage. I'll let Keith address address the rest of that. Thank you. So we're looking at building two duplexes that would both face Iowa, the front doors, and then use that the alleyway that he has deeded access to. That's where we would put detached garages in the back so each duplex would have a two car garage back there. And we're probably looking at depends on our price point, but probably around the 6 to 700000 per unit in roughly about 2200 feet per unit above grade with an unfinished basement. That's kind of what we're looking at. So this thing, like you said, the single family structure that we could build in that envelope, just adding that extra door, it's the same size structure. We're just putting the wall down the middle for each of those units. Okay. Thank you, Chandler. As you know, my heartburn was not so much about these duplexes as as more so being. Does this now signal that this ACA neighborhood is now wide open for duplex development? Is there is there something unique about their property that might not? That makes it a unique choice for this opening where the next door neighbor or the guy across the street might not be. Yes. As I as I tried to kind of outline on the staff report, I think a big part of it is support for this comes from the the unique character between Florida and Iowa. Essentially, you have the neighborhood center that's at the intersection of Holly and Florida and that's, you know, designated neighborhood center and Blueprint Denver. And kind of extending from that, it's more of a mixed use context than the rest of the neighborhood. So when we're looking at a site and looking at the existing context and the surrounding uses, you know, this is a pretty unique site and that it's on a collector. It's been vacant forever and it has a gas station next to it on one side or an outer repair shop next to it on one side. It's immediately across the street from one single family home and then a townhouse development. So the way that we were looking at it, you know, the adjacency is much more of a mixed use context, whereas if you cross the street or go immediately east or west, then lots no longer have all of those qualities. They're either not on a collector or they're not adjacent to mixed use context. So in that sense, this is a very unique lot. Right? So the next door neighbor, even though he might say, well, hey, my neighbor has duplexes, he doesn't meet those unique criteria of being on either a collector or being adjacent to commercial property. Is that correct then? I mean, I can't say 100%, you know, without seeing an application whether or not we would we would make the finding that it met the criteria or not, but just kind of at first glance from a very high level. No, the other lots in that neighborhood would not have the same strength in our view. Okay. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Counsel CASHMAN Seeing no other questions, the public hearing for House Bill 705 is closed. Comments by members of Council Councilman Cashman. Yeah, thank you, Mr. President. As I mentioned, when this was first brought up, I was concerned about that that firewall. This is a single family, a neighborhood, and we have this unique property on the corner. But there's that concern about does does this open the door as a kind of a de facto zoning change, a legislative rezoning for the entire neighborhood I've spoken with? Chandler several times about it. I spoke with Sarah Showalter this afternoon about it. And I'm confident that, as the staff report states, that this parcel has unique characteristics, that the others next door, across the street, down the block don't don't present. So I'm comfortable in approving this. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Seeing no other comments, Madam Secretary. Raquel. Kathryn can each new black high brooks. When I. Gilmore i. Herndon, I. Mr. President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. Sorry. You have to find one more. 9898705 has passed. On Monday, September 10th, 2018, Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 880, approving the service plans for the creation of 40 2001 Arkansas Metropolitan District Number one and 4201 Arkansas Metropolitan District number two and a required public hearing on Council Bill 881 approving the service plan for the creation of the 2000

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by adding Chapter 16.60, relating to the payment of living wage to workers at the Long Beach Airport and the Long Beach Convention Center, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_01212014_14-0070

And 21 is an ordinance from the city, the office of the city attorney with the recommendation to declare the ordinance amending the municipal code relating to payment of living wages to workers at the Long Beach Airport and the Long Beach Convention Center. Read the first time and laid over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading. There's been a motion and a second. Any public comment on the item? Case? None. You know, there was. Actually a counselor. JOHNSON Well, thank you, vice mayor. I mean, I heard from some members of the community, some of the folks who are advocating for this, that there was some concern about definition of, I think, retail worker. And I don't know, I hadn't heard much more than that. But as you may hear from the state attorney's office, as that concern being addressed or some policy questions for the council to look at, or are you aware of this concern? Mr. President. Vice Mayor, members of the council with Councilmember Johnson. I have not been made aware of a specific concern regarding the definition of the concession worker. We did meet with some of the union groups that were in favor of this, and they had reviewed the language and had had no comments regarding that. So as of as we sit right now, I'm not aware of that. As an ordinance, if as adopted by the council, if there was a change that was desired by the council at a future date, it could be amended on a Tuesday to if there's clarification necessary. Okay. Well, certainly if there's anyone here in the audience who'd like to offer a clarification, I'm happy to hear it. If not, this will come before us in second reading. Is that correct? So if there is an issue, please voice that concern. I think the council has to make sure there's no ambiguity. Thank you, Constable O'Donnell. Yeah, I think the concern was to add retail that there was a concern. So this is first reading. So it would have to come back for a subsequent first reading or would this be a a non substantive change so that it would not come to that for a first reading and come back for a second reading? Vice Mayor Members of the Council. Councilmember O'Donnell. That that would be a substantive change. And so if you I think your options before you tonight are adopted as it is, we could continue the item if if there was direction to change it and bring it back to you for first reading at a later date. Or if you adopted it as it is, it would come back, I think, in two weeks to the next council meeting for second reading. And then at any time subsequent to that, it could be amended to a to add additional to retail workers if that was the desire of the council. That is my desire. So what I'll do is I'll. Make a motion to I do we have a motion currently we do make a substitute motion to add retail workers to the to the ordinance and city hall level for first reading. I believe next week we need to do it two weeks of I'm sorry, two. Weeks and we'll have to come back for first reading with that with that change of the retail component is that. That is correct. Okay. And Mr. Parking just so that we're we're clear are you understand what a comfortable bonus talking about as far as the convention work go to include the retail piece, correct? I yes, I believe. Okay. I understand that. Okay, great. So there's the we have a first and second on the substitute motion, which is Councilmember Patrick O'Donnell's motion. Councilmember DeLong. City attorney, could explain for me so which workers would be included under the new arrangement that weren't previously included. My understanding, we would expand the definition to not only include the concession worker, which would be the food and beverage individuals, but also those working in retail stores or shops at those two facilities. Okay. I guess the one concern I will mention is that, you know, we've we've kind of patted ourselves on the back with one of the accomplishments at the restaurant was that you get street pricing for the food, that you wouldn't pay any more at the airport than you would at a restaurant in Belmont or downtown. I would tell you, if we increase the cost of the operation, then that's going to change and the airport will become more like a standard airport where you pay a premium price. But we could certainly go in that direction. But that will be one of the downsides. Okay. So no other council comment on this. I had called for public comment, didn't hear any. So what the motion on the floor is, which is a substitute, is to have this come back in two weeks. Mr. City Attorney, with the change on the retail component. Please cast your vote on that motion. Motion carries nine votes. Moving on to the next item, we're going to do 13 and then go back to the regular agenda.

On the petition, referred on December 1, 2021, Docket #1221, for a special law re: An Act Regarding the Disability Pension for Scott O’Brien, submits a report recommending that the home rule petition ought to pass in a new draft.

BostonCC_12152021_2021-1221

Docket number 1 to 2 zero the Committee on Government Operations, to which was referred on December 1st, 2021. Docket number 1220. Petition for a Special Law regarding an Act regarding the Disability Pension four Richard Santillo submits a report recommending the The Home Rule petition pass in a new draft and docket number 1 to 2 one. The Committee on Government Operations, to which is referred on December four as 2021, docket number one 2 to 1 Petition for a special law regarding actor going the disability pension for Scott O'Brien submits a report recommending that the home rule petition ought to pass in a new draft. Thank you so much. The Chair recognizes Councilor Edwards, chair of the Government Ops Committee. Tickets are consistent with several of the rockets we have done before and with police officers who as a result of an injury, have been decommissioned or unable to perform their duties. They were sponsored by Councilor Sobhy George and similar to the deep conversations that we had before when it came to the other dockets we went through and made sure that they were consistent in language. We removed things like Sirius and really made sure we were talking about firearm injury. We wanted to make sure that while that they could have additional income and we increased that income to $100,000 versus capping it at $15,000, I was one of the biggest concerns and also made sure that the there were certain outdated language that if a spouse got remarried somehow, some way, she should lose her benefit. That has been removed as well. So we made this consistent after a deep back and forth with the retirement commission and with other law enforcement individuals from prior hearings. So based on what we did before, this is consistent with that. I wanted to acknowledge also the service of these individuals. I know two of them were shot in East Boston. And so I did want to acknowledge that, um, that trauma. And how what they must have gone through in their families as well. And I would be remiss without acknowledging the leadership and the definitely the coming through of of council clarity on so many of these dockets as of late and as well as Christine O'Donnell for her shepherding so much of this as well. Thank you, Christine. So I want to now turn it a with your permission to Councilor Sabi George, who is the lead sponsor of the three dockets. Thank you so much. The chair recognizes Councilor Sabi George. Councilor Sabi. George, you have the floor. Thank you very much, Madam President. And thank you to the chair and to the Vice Chair for their work to ensure that this could be before this body today. I do want to echo Councilor Edwards. Thanks for Matthew Morris, Richard Santillo and Scottie O'Brien for their service to our city. And through this ordinance, through this work, I believe we will make these officers and recognize their service, will make them whole and recognize very formally their service to our city. They all three have sustained tremendous and significant physical injuries as well as will have forever some emotional scars that will remain with them forever. So just grateful for their service to our city and look forward to an urge, passage and acceptance of these three dockets. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you so much, Madam Clerk. We're going to take these dockets separately in terms of our votes, beginning with Docket 1219. Oh, sorry. The chair recognizes Councilor Raul Castro. You have the floor. So I wanted to start by thanking these officers for their service and also pre facing this by saying that I'm going to vote for this. I continue. And the reason I am going to vote for this is because we've created a standard now. And the previous the previous three, I think it was that we did this, we created this new sort of standard and formula. And so I'm going to vote for this because it's now part of what we already do as a set standard. I will just continue to uplift that. My concern with it is not the service of these gentleman or their injuries. As somebody whose grandfather was injured on the job as a police officer and had disabilities, I do have concerns about the council having different sets of standards for different for how you receive your injury rather than what the injury you have is. I do believe that, frankly, and thank God most of our officers did not receive their injuries through shootings. They receive their injuries in other ways. And I don't want to create a system where we are prioritizing how you received your injury rather than the severity of your injury, even if they are the same injuries. And so I know that we have a new standard that I will down vote to approve this under that, because that's been set up. But I do want to just voice that concern because I don't want officers or firefighters or other folks coming in with the same injuries in a different way that they've received them and receiving different treatment or different standards. And so I would like us to have some thought about in the future how we make this a uniform process for all. And that is all. And again, thank you for their service. They all were injured in really heroic ways, frankly. And so I will be voting for this today. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Arroyo. Madam Clerk, we're going to take each docket separately, beginning with 1219. Can you? Councilor Edward seeks acceptance of the committee report. Passage of Docket 1219 in a new draft. Could you please call the roll? Thank you. Docket 1219. Counsel. Arroyo Yes. Counsel. Arroyo Yes. Counsel. Baker. Counsel. Baker, I counsel. Counsel. BLOCK I counsel. Brady Counsel. Braden I Counselor. Campbell Counsel. Campbell Years Counselor. Edwards Counsel. Edwards Yes. Counselor Savi George Counselor Savi George's Counsel of Clarity. Counsel of clarity as counsel Flynn Counsel Flynn yes. Counselor. Yes. Counselor. Genius. Counselor. Me here. Counselor here. Counselor Murphy. Counselor Murphy. Yes. And Counselor O'Malley. Counselor O'Malley. Yes, Madam President. Docket number 1219 has received a unanimous vote. Thank you so much that I could 1219 has passed and in a draft we will now vote on docket 1220. Madam Court, could you please call the roll? Thank you. Docket 1220. Counsel. Arroyo. Yes. Counsel Arroyo. Yes. Counselor Baker. Counselor Baker. I. Counsel. BLOCK counsel back I counsel Braden. Counsel Braden I. Counselor Campbell. Counselor Campbell. Yes. Counselor Edwards. Counselor Edwards. Yes. Counselor Sabi George. Counselor Savi George's. Counsel of Clarity. Counsel Clarity as counsel Flynn's counsel Flynn years. Counselor. Yes. Counselor. Janie. Yes. Counselor. Me here. Counselor. I'm here. Yes. Counselor. Murphy. Counselor Murphy? Yes. And Counselor O'Malley? Yes. Counselor O'Malley? Yes, Madam President. Docket number 1220 has passed unanimously. Thank you so much. Docket 1220 has passed and in the draft we'll move on to docket 1221. Madam Court, could you please call the roll? Thank you. Docket one, 2 to 1. Counselor Arroyo? Yeah. Counselor Arroyo? Yes. Counselor Baker. Counselor Baker. Counselor. Counsel Barchi. Counsel Brady. Counselor Braydon I. Counselor Campbell. Counselor Campbell. Yes. Counselor Edwards. Counselor Edwards. Yes. Counselor Sabi George. Counselor Sabi George is counsel clarity. Counsel of clarity as counsel Flynn. Counsel Flynn yes. Yes. Counselor Janey is counsel me here. Counselor me here? Yes. Counselor Murphy. Counselor Murphy? Yes. And Counselor O'Malley. Counselor O'Malley? Yes, Madam President. Docket number one, two, two, one has received a unanimous vote. Thank you so much. Docket 1221 has passed and a new draft. Before we move on, I just want to acknowledge that we are joined by former City Councilor John Tobin. Thank you so much for joining us. Thank you. Madam Court, could you please read docket 1239?

A proclamation designating May 18 through May 24 as "Public Works Week in Denver" and congratulating the Denver Public Works Department's ten employees of the year.

DenverCityCouncil_05192014_14-0441

Thank you, Mr.. I have another proclamation. This one is going to be read by Councilwoman Robb. Councilwoman, will you please read proclamation number four, four one. Thank you, Madam President. I'd be happy to. Proclamation 441 2014 Designating May 18 through May 24th as Public Works Week in Denver in congratulating the Denver Public Works Department's ten employees of the Year. Whereas Denver Public Works through its employees consistently delivers safe, high quality, cost effective services to the citizens of Denver. And. WHEREAS, Denver Public Works enhances the quality of life in our city by managing and maintaining the rights of way, streets, alleys, drainage ways, sewers, bridges, traffic signals, street markings and signage and manages contracting, procurement and cash sharing programs that meet the needs of the public. And. Whereas, Denver Public Works makes significant contributions to our built environment managing the planning, design and construction of public infrastructure and multimodal transportation options. Whose efforts contributed to Denver receiving a gold designation this year as a walk friendly community and the city being selected in the intensive two year People for Bikes Green Lane Project, which provides technical assistance in the installation of protected bike lanes. And. Whereas, Denver Public Works is committed to continuous improvement, organizational development and strategic planning and is coordinated the training of nearly 300 public works employees through Peak Academy, identifying 36 innovations with an average savings of more than 10,000 and dollars cities. And. Whereas, Denver Public Works is focused on sustainability and clean air and water with its annual street sweeping program that removes more than 42,000 cubic yards of debris and dust from Denver streets each year. And by expanding its use of alternative fuels, by purchasing compressed natural gas refuge vehicles and opening a CNG fueling station for use by city vehicle operators, and by expanding the city's composting program and pursuing funding to transition more homes to a more efficient, cart based trash collection service that reduces illegal dumping. And. WHEREAS, designating May 18 through May 24th as Public Works Week in Denver acknowledges the important services provided by the 1100 employees of the department. And. WHEREAS, The Council specifically recognizes and congratulates the Denver Public Works Employees of the Year for 2013 for their achievements. And would you stand as I read your names, Jason Winokur Capital Projects Management. Chloe Thompson Finance and Administration. Adrian Coleman Fleet Management. Luis Gallardo Right of way enforcement and permitting. I may have mispronounced his name so much he didn't recognize it. Jeremy Hammer. Right of way services. Cindy Patton Policy Planning and Sustainability. Patrick Quinton of Solid Waste Management. Jesse Contreras Street Maintenance. Ron Smart Traffic Engineering Services. And Moon Pan Wastewater Management. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council and of the City and County of Denver, Section one, that the Council designates the week of May 18th through May 24th, 2014, as Public Works Week in Denver and congratulates the Denver Public Works 2013 Employees of the Year for their outstanding contributions to the Department and City and Section two that the Clerk of the City and County of Denver shall attest and fix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and the copies hereof be forwarded to Denver Public Works and the ten public works employees listed above. Thank you, Councilwoman Robb. Your motion to adopt. Thank you, Madam President. I move to adopt proclamation 441. Thank you very much. It's been moved and seconded. Comments by Council Councilwoman Robb. I always enjoy doing this proclamation. I think it's wonderful that when street sweeping starts again and when we get so busy on our street paving program, when even more people are biking and walking on our sidewalks and bikeways, that we really celebrate the. People who make all of that happen, and I'm glad to do that tonight. I am very proud of the employees of the year. That is an outstanding achievement. And I'm saying this to anyone who is here or is listening because there are 1100 employees in public works in there are only ten of you. So that's huge. Maybe this is making your career, as Jim McIntyre talked about, there just so many things that the department does. And I know many of my colleagues will probably want to chime in, but I don't think a day goes by that we are not calling public works. Talking with Nancy Cohn. Talking with George Delaney. The proclamation lists a lot of this. Do I need to mention also the bond program and all the implementation of that program? So I'm happy to do this. And I want to give a special nod to Cindy Patton, who works in my district all the time. I know she works in many of yours. She should be cloned. I don't know some of the other recipients as well as I know Cindy. But if you're as amazing as she is, you should be clone, too. And then we could have more public works employees, which would be good. So thank you, Madam President. And I know my colleagues will support this proclamation. Thank you, Councilwoman Robb. Councilwoman Kennish. Thank you, Madam President. And I want to thank my colleague, Councilwoman Robb, for congratulating and recognizing this department as a self-described policy wonk. Before I got elected, I thought I would be focusing on really the sexy departments in the city, you know, be about economic development and human services. And I have been surprised by how integral the work that I have done to fight poverty, build communities has brought me working so closely with your staff. And so I'll give my quick highlight list. Regional Policy. You know, we are passionate on this council about pedestrian safety and walkability and multimodal transportation in the regional conversation. Sometimes those things are harder to achieve as folks want to build more lanes on roads. And so I rely so closely on the policy team and some of the experts in the public works department to think about how we talk about those issues regionally and really make the whole region work together. And so you guys staff us at a on a well daily basis probably. And that work, my work to create a open space. Caswell, Monteiro and I work together in an area of Globeville. And, you know, we think of it as a park, which is really something very sexy, but there's so much public infrastructure in terms of stormwater and in terms of even getting down to curb and gutter, which I'm sure you're going to help me pay for. But those pieces, having public works at the table to create an open space out of a blighted area and all the way through the other pieces of the city's work. So so I've been surprised and delighted by what I've learned from working with you, by what I've gained, by having you at the tables that you've been willing to participate in. And I thank you for that broad reaching approach, which isn't just how do we build or maintain infrastructure, but how do we achieve goals for people in ways that infrastructure can support them? And that's that's cool. And I appreciate it. And I know it extends to all of the divisions that I represented today with the priorities. So thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Carnation. Councilman Neville, if you don't mind, I want to riff off of that. I'll give you the last word. I'm not exactly a policy wonk, but I am a city nerd. And Public Works gives me the opportunity to talk about things that bother my friends, sometimes street paving and sidewalks and traffic lights and urban drainage. I can talk a lot about urban drainage and gutters and sewers and and finally, they have taught me how to talk trash. And I could talk trash in a very polite way. And I have enjoyed working with public works so much. It just feeds my inner nerd so well. And this is well-deserved. Councilman Levitt. Thank you, Madam President. Does that make me a policy punk? I don't mean perhaps. Going with the theme. This along with the the hepatitis C proclamation is a is a perennial, but one that I'm always happy to see because it's an opportunity to celebrate the department and its employees who don't often get celebrated. Public Works is is the atlas that holds up the world. So, you know, we spend a lot of time being excited about the world, but we don't give proper credit to the atlas that holds it up and public works does that in. A thousand different ways that are rarely recognized. So it's great to have public works week and to be able to recognize public works for all they do. It's like the the bottom of the food pyramid. Nobody, you know, gets excited about, you know, the whatever the hell is on the bottom of the food pyramid, but nobody gets excited about it. But it's, you know, it's the pyramid that holds up the rest of it. And that's what public works does for us, holds up our world. And thank you for doing it. Thank you, Councilman. It looks like Councilman Lopez going to get the last word. Oh, great. Thank you. I well, I also wanted to to publicly thank the Department of Public Works. You do so much in our city, and I know we are constantly calling the department and in public works is just the department of many different departments. It is the, you know, the quintessential bare bones minimum of the city. If there is one thing we do, it is the work that we do in public works. And if there's one thing that best defines the role of government in the whole purpose of government, to do the things for the many that we can possibly do for the individual right. Public works and public works achieves that right. If you drive down a street, you may hit some potholes, but chances are in Denver you don't. Why? Because they do such a good job. They do such a good job. They did it in a district that I represent. And for 25 years. Some people may laugh about it, but for 25 years nobody had touched it. And because of the leadership in public works, because of the men and women in public works, you won't find a pothole in Villa Park. You won't find a pothole in some parts of Westwood now. And instead, you find neighborhoods that look built right, that are created right and that are built to last. And you see bike lanes on Morrison Road and Knox Core, right? You see different things that are just happening in our city. And this is all done by the hands of the people who call the city home, who happen to work in their public works. I happened to work on West Alaska Place in the Westwood neighborhood while we were paving. We go out every year and think folks are paying pass out Gatorade and and water. And lo and behold, one of the people who was paving the street actually lived on that street and grew up on that street. That's what makes this department so special, right? This year we may talk trash once in a while, but a manager got an AHA. You run a very good shop with a great manager at his helm. So thank you. Thank you, Councilman Lopez, Councilwoman Monteiro. And thank you, Madam President. I also want to take the opportunity to extend my appreciation. I wish I knew all 1100 employees. But here's what I do know that public works does everything from Keep Denver Beautiful this far as graffiti, graffiti removal all the way to major projects. I'm very mindful of the role that Public Works played in the redevelopment of Denver Union Station and the work that you're doing currently regarding I-70 and the National Western Stock Show. And we couldn't we couldn't do wouldn't be responsive if we didn't have the help of solid waste. Also, permitting and enforcement have worked with a lot of people, their street maintenance. And then of course, Nancy, I have an inbox of a lot of emails that you and I have, so I'm going to have to start deleting some of those. I also want to extend my thank you to host Cornell for all of the work that you do and that and for your steadfast, steadfast leadership. And also to George Delaney, who you're there when Jose is away from the helm. And I really appreciate that. So congratulations again. Let me see if I got these names right. Jason, Chloe, Adrian, Luis, Jeremy, Cindy, Patrick and Ron. So I hope I got everybody's name. Thank you. Thank you, Counselor Monteiro. All right. Looks like we're ready for the vote. Rob, I. Shepherd, I. But I. Herndon, I can eat lemon. Lopez All right. Monteiro I love it. Hi, Ortega. Hi. Madam President. I am close to voting out the results. 11 eyes. 11 eyes. The proclamation is adopted, Councilman Roberts or somebody would like to call up to the podium. Yes, Madam President, I expected my colleagues to support this, but I hope no one out there was sort of insulted with some of the comments. I would like to call up the interesting, sexy, cool and strong executive director of the Public Works Department, which is an interesting, sexy, cool and strong department. Good one. Councilwoman Rob. Cook. I'm single network secretary, director of Public Works and I want to thank on behalf of Public Works this proclamation. It is truly an honor to be part of this organization and work with these 1100 people that I would say are fully committed not only to the council priority by the mayor's priorities, but also the stakeholders priorities, and be able to mix all these priorities together and come up with public works priority, which is to create a smart city, meaning a sustainable city, a city that provides mobility in a safe way and attractive city resiliency, and also a process to be the most transparent process that we can deliver. Somebody says, I was reading this book the other day. Somebody says that the public space is the the visible face of society. And I do believe that. I think that that's how we judge cities when we go around the world and come back. I like to talk a little bit, spend a little bit of time talking about the ten employees that we're honoring tonight, because I think it's very important to mention exactly what these employees have been working and being part of. Jason Rediker from Capital Management recently designed two very critical storm sewer projects. One of them have been in neighborhood. And the other one is at first and university, which is under construction in your district. Chloe Thompson from Finance Administration. She is one of our first black built from the academy. She has worked very hard to improve and develop new models for for the financial track in streamlining contracts, contracting and putting in place a more efficient procurement process. Adrian Goldman from Fleet Management. Adrian was very close with our fleet technicians downloading software that helps to better diagnose vehicles and speed up the repair process. Lewis Gardner From Right of Way Enforcement in permitting, Lewis is a very diligent vehicle investigator who goes above and beyond to assist not only the public but also the the in the agency. He volunteers to maintain city's vehicle inventory and has taken the lead role a role a role in making sure that the motors workshop is free of hazardous materials and and mark problems. Jeremy Hammer from right of way services. He's our lead on floodplain issues. He's responsible for very complex flood floodplains and drainage issues. He works very closely with urban drainage, FEMA, Corp of Engineers, etc., to ensure that our flat maps are up to date. Cindy Patton, a very dedicated senior planner who has been instrumental in the implementation of Denver's Strategic Transportation Plan, as well as developing new programs, ordinances and policies to balance the supply and demand of parking in our city. Patrick Quintana. From sort of way. Paddy squeal automated barrel truck driver who continues to contribute to agency success. Paddy is a member of Solid Waste Eating a member of the Supervisory Mentor Program. This is a very successful program in which we are training our staff to become supervisors and at back has been instrumental in mentoring some of these future supervisors. Jess Contreras from St Monans Jessie has been with ST Maintenance for ten years. He made it a personal goal to learn all areas of his department and has been very successful in doing so. Jesse takes pride in the fact that he loves to share his knowledge with other co workers, and recently he was promoted to equipment operator, a specialist. Now in April 2014. Runs Smart from Traffic Engineering Services. He's responsible for replacing all the crosswalk in the south east quadrant of the city. I'm sorry, south west quadrant of the city. He has replaced replace over 75% of the criss cross work with permanent marking since 2011. And he's the person responsible for the green stripes that you see on St Patrick's Day and purpose stripes for the rookie opening. And last but not least, this one being from wastewater management. Moon really enjoys working with the wastewater lab. She's always willing to go above and beyond respect, patient and responsibilities to ensure that the work in the lab is done accurately in support the Mayor's 2020 sustainability goals. So I really want to thank the staff and the 1100 employee that provides work for the city every day. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Say. Hey, we're moving right along. Resolutions. Madam Secretary, will you please read the resolutions.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary to enter into Contract No. PS5862300LBPD24750 and any amendments thereto, with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, to provide Law Enforcement Services, in an amount not to exceed $30,074,628, for a period of five years; and Increase appropriations in the General Fund (GF) in the Police Department (PD) by $5,459,271, offset by contract revenue. (Districts 1,2,6,7,8)

LongBeachCC_03072017_17-0156

Okay. And now we're going to do we'll come back to 16 in just a minute. We are going to go ahead and do item number 24. Believe it is. Hold on 1/2. It is. Yep. Item 24. A report from the Police Department recommendation to execute all documents necessary to enter into a contract with L.A. Metro to provide law enforcement services in an amount not to exceed 30 million districts one, two, six, seven and eight. Okay. Think you're going to make some some comments and then I might turn this over to our our chief of police to also make some some comments. So I want to, first of all, obviously thank the Lombard City Council for their unanimous support of doing this contract with with L.A. Metro. That happened, I know, a few weeks ago. As we as we now know, L.A. Metro has contracted with the Long Beach Police Department to for the first time be able to patrol our own metro system. The blue line here in Long Beach beginning this summer. The Long Beach Police Department will be transitioning into full jurisdictional control of the Long Beach Blue Line and all eight stations, as well as the the route between each station across the entire city of Long Beach, from old from north Long Beach, all the way through until the downtown. I want to just note that this is an incredibly significant moment for the city of Long Beach. We are not only gaining a $30 million contract, which which is obviously exciting, but this will be 30 approximately 30 new police. FTE. Personnel added to the Long Beach Police Department. And it's not every day that this council will get to vote on adding 30 new police officers to the Long Beach Police Department. These 30 officers will make up what will be a Long Beach metro detail for the city of Long Beach. And there will they will be assigned to the the Metro Division. We know I certainly know as a councilman that there are a lot of challenges on the blue line. It is not a safe experience for for most folks that that choose to write it. There's both a problem of safety and a problem of perception of safety when it comes to the Long Beach blue line. And so I know that our Long Beach police officers, our chief, are going to do a fantastic job of not just patrolling the blue line, but the synergy that will be created, as are patrolling the areas up and down. The blue line is going to be something that is going to be pretty great to see. And so I want to I want to ask the chief to say a few words. And I also ask the chief to invite his team that helped work on this. This was a incredibly difficult effort. A lot of manpower went behind this on from the chief's team. This was not an easy to get to. To get to the vote and where it went. And so I want to congratulate our chief of police for his leadership on this issue. And I want him to also introduce his team who did a fantastic job. And so let's give our chief of police and his team a big round of applause for their work. And, Chief, congratulations. You've just expanded both your force and your area of patrol. So, Mr. Chief. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and members of the City Council. Any time something of at this level happens, it's so great. It is a team effort and it does start with all of you back there. There's so much work that was done to get us to where we're at today. And it's not every day that we can talk about adding approximately 30 officers to our police department. And for all of you who are sitting back there, you know how impactful it's been over the years in reducing our police department. But we're turning it around between Measure three and this blue line contract, if you guys approve it tonight, what an excellent opportunity for the city. And the city has been asking for this. There's many places I've gone our constituents, our community, our stakeholders, our business community. Everybody wanted the Long Beach Police Department to acquire this contract. And that's exactly what we did. So what I wanted to do is give credit where credit is due. And over my right shoulder is more of a law school. She is our financial our chief financial officer. And standing next to her is Brandon Walker. And both of them started this venture back in December. It was a very lengthy process going back and forth. There were a couple of times where, frankly, we were told the sheriff's department would retain this contract. As you're aware, that did not happen. So a lot of paperwork, a lot of planning, a lot of research. And throughout this process, I was contacted by several people who worked at Metro who continuously stated that the the request from the city of Long Beach was so much better than the one received from the city of Los Angeles and the sheriff's department. So I'm very proud of the paperwork that was done, the contract requests from Mara and Brandon. And then now we start transitioning into actually working if you guys approve this tonight. Now the operational part of this starts and standing over my left shoulder is Deputy Chief Mike Beckman, who runs our support bureau and Commander Joe Cook. And they'll be in charge of the daily operation of what I think is going to be one of the best well policed transit systems anywhere in the country. And they're responsible for it now. They've been working their tails off, putting plans together. So the team standing before me is what did it. Mara and Brandon will continue to work on it for the next five years and the 34 years that we have. Please remember that a couple of weeks ago, all of you voted on another measure re staffing proposal to upgrade our Academy staff. What you and in essence did is you assisted us in recharging our recruiting and hiring and training efforts. And that's how we're going to get there, where we hire the additional staff not only for the thefts we're talking about, but the other 17 for measure. So, yeah, good times. I think congratulations is in order for all of us. It was a excellent team effort and I'm really looking forward to this opportunity. Thank you very much for recognizing the people behind me. They truly worked their tails off and they will continue to do so. So thank you very much. Thank you, Chief. And congratulations again to to the team. You guys did a fantastic job. I know that our our management team also were very active in this whole process. I wanted to also just think I wanted to thank I asked Sharon Weisman, who's behind me to come down. Sharon is my new transportation deputy metro, and she spent a lot of time working with all the other board members and staffs of all the other board members just to ensure that they have the information and to me, to ensure that we would end up with a unanimous vote, which is which is what we did. And it wasn't going to be, I will tell you that for sure. But I think once the writing was on the wall of where it was going, everyone else came on board. And so Sharon behind me. Sharon, I wanted to thank you, too. Thank you for your work on this. Give a round of applause. And, Mayor, if I may, you're right. The city manager's office was instrumental in this. And financial management working from a city perspective, just working out the numbers so that everything would go our way, was very instrumental in getting this done. So I didn't want to forget about them. Great. And let me go to let me go to the Long Beach City Council, Councilmember Pearce. Oh, I'm sorry. Count's embarrassing. Well, it's okay. I could have gone after Councilmember Pearce, but I wanted to just take this opportunity, Chief, to congratulate you and your department on this new responsibility. I think it's great for the city of Long Beach. I think it's more of a congratulations to the residents in the riders of the Blue Line. Yes. Because this this this agreement will make our blue line, I believe, much safer. I think one one key point that was raised that was pretty compelling is that how response times will be improved from having local police department patrolling and assigned to the blue line. Response times will be cut from 15 minutes to 5 to 6 minutes, and I think that is a a number that is very, very compelling and and one that we should all look forward to to see it. It will speak to a real change and a much safer experience on the blue line. I also want to remark on just our mayor and Mayor Garcia and his his work. Early work on the on the MTA board on this this agreement came about I think he was he had been on the board for maybe a month, a little over that. These conversations obviously were being had prior to his joining the board. But I think it speaks to having a seat at the table and the importance of having a seat at the table. And for those of you who know me, for a long time, I've been a strong advocate for a Long Beach, having a seat at the MTA board. And so I'm glad that we finally have a strong leader there to speak for Long Beach. And obviously he's yielding great results immediately. And I honestly think that there are still great announcements ahead of us and the best is still yet to come. Again, congratulations to everybody involved here. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Councilmember Councilwoman Gonzales. Yes. Thank you, chief, and to all of you for being here and for your hard work. I know the next five years is going to be we're going to have a great start. It will be a lot of work. But I really do believe that having our own Long Beach Police Department, enforcing on the blue line and hopefully just being there, of course, as a positive element to the riders along the blue line, especially when they come into the Grand Prix and they're coming here for amazing events that they'll be able to see. Our own police department there is going to be fantastic and thanks for Mayor and Supervisor Horn as well. I know that they were integral in that this whole situation happening and this is a huge, huge win for downtown, a huge win for the city. So thanks again. Thank you, Councilwoman Councilmember Pearce. Well, now I'll start everything that I needed to say. And I'm kidding. I do want to just congratulate you guys and congratulate the mayor and everybody that worked really hard on this. I know seeing something turn from a maybe to a big victory with a unanimous vote is really important. And I was honored to speak at Metro that day, and it was only a minute which maybe we need. No kidding. It was really hard to speak for only a minute, but the one thing that I think was really enlightening is that our response times are going to change. As Councilmember Austin mentioned, I think it's, what, 7 to 10 minutes difference, which can be really important for people riding the metro, riding our blue line. And as someone who's written that for many years, I know how important that is. I listened to the comments that were made at Metro that day, and I just want to say that I'm really proud to have our PD on our metro line. I think that the training that we're doing, the equity lens that we're talking about, the investment that you guys are making in the community to be able to have that throughout our entire city on our metro is really exciting. So I just wanted to make sure that I mentioned how proud I am of all the work that you guys are doing. I did have one question that I probably could've asked offline, but when tickets are given on the Metro, where where do those dollars go? They do go to the county. We in the past, when we've given very Bayesian tickets, it now is change where it's a civil action and it's all done within the county. But there is going to be a process that we're following where Metro wants to do a different job, or they want to approach fare evasion in a very different way. But I think one of the things that we're very attractive to them is we have an outstanding juvenile diversion program. So it does involve juveniles. We can enter them in a diversion program that we have here in the city with our private partners. You know, maybe we should look at free rides for youth. I don't know, Justin, but just thank you for the information, guys, and congratulations. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Price. Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. And a big congratulations and appreciation to our mayor. Like everyone has said for leading the effort on this, I think this is fantastic. And Chief, there is a few questions that we are getting from the community as we're out there. And I thought this probably would be a good time to ask you about it right now. One of the things that we've been telling the community is this is this is a great development for the blue line in our ability to enforce in those areas. But in addition to that, it's going to relieve pressure citywide for the police department. And that's something that we've heard. Can you speak to that a little bit? Yes. When we have more uniformed presence along our corridors, which would be primarily Long Beach Boulevard in Pacific, if you can picture at least a half a dozen more officers per shift in those areas. That improves the visibility, which in turn will have a positive impact, we believe, on crime and the quality of life. We're going to have to work up to those numbers, of course. But when we get there, when you're adding 30 new officers to our department, how can you go wrong? And that's what we're really looking forward to. Now, will these officers also be available to respond to citywide emergencies or things that may be called upon for their services and their assistance? Absolutely, yes. On both ways, when we need help anywhere in the city, they can respond. And when Metro needs help, we respond just like we currently do with any contract that our police department serves now. Well, that's fantastic. I think it's a win win for the whole city. So thank you. Congratulations to your department. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Ringo. Thank you, Mayor. I want to add my voice to the kudos that are being distributed here today, especially through the great staff work that was done today by not only your command staff, but also by your civilian staff as well. And I think that the AKUTAGAWA in this whole thing was getting the mayor on the MTA board. And I will congratulate you, Mayor, on your efforts on making sure that this happened. Good job. Thank you. Councilman Andrews. Yes, thank you, Mayor. Also, I want to congratulate everyone you know who has been able to make this contract happen. But most of all, I want to thank the mayor for you and your hard work and efforts on the board, you know, being a board member. And thank you, too, for the Long Beach Police Department, you know, able to embark on this process. You know, public safety, the metro line is important, I think, to all of us and the residents who rely on public transportation, and they deserve to feel very safe and free. And I know you individual will be the one that makes that possible. So I'm glad that the city is able to provide this type of service to our residents and everyone is playing on right on, you know, our metro. So thank you guys again and keep up the good work. You haven't started yet, but I'd tell you to keep up the good work because you have to start somewhere. Thank you, Councilman Orson. Yes, I did have a quick question for the chief, more of an operational type of question. I rode the blue line just the day before yesterday, a couple of days ago downtown, and there were several announcements being made. I was reading some of the signage in the blue line. Some of the signage said, it's okay if there's a problem, contact the sheriff's department at this number. Will there be a pass through for those that information for for Long Beach PD on the metro train? Will people have to contact the sheriff's department to get to Long Beach PD or will there be something specific for for us, for for our city? Or have we worked those details out yet? Yeah. We're still in the process of working all that out. That's part of the next several months where the L.A. County Sheriff's Department is demobilizing what they're doing. Then figure out exactly how our system's going to integrate with them. But I anticipate that whatever model we come up with is going to be a whole lot better than what they had. Well, it's important to note that that currently to boot that line runs through several jurisdictions. And so. Correct. That's one of those issues that need to be worked out. Thank you. Vice Mayor Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just want to chime in and say congratulations to everybody. This is. We shouldn't sort of we should be reminded of how difficult this actually was. A number of people in the county did not think this was going to happen. And, you know, I had conversations as early as recent as last week with, you know, different folks on supervisors that they didn't believe this was going to happen. And, you know, having this this seat on the MTA board had a real a real shift in the attitude about this this proposal. And then I would say, you know, the blue line, you know, cuts west and north. Long Beach doesn't connect the blue line. But we border Compton, Bellflower, Lakewood, Paramount. We we travel east, west plenty off pretty often. And we pick up a lot of times we pick up at the Compton station. And so our colleagues in Compton, they're actually really excited about this. And I think it really says something for North Lambie's residents. When they do hop over to a different city, they're going to be greeted by a friendly face. They're going to see that Long Beach PD is, you know, from that Compton station, you'll sort of have some kind of seamless connection there to make it a little bit less forum for our local riders. So congratulations to everyone. Welcome and keep up the good work. Thank you. Great. Thank you. And I think, you know, Mr. West, I'm trying to remember, but the last time that we added 30 cops, it's got to be not even with. It's got to be 20 years more. I don't know. I mean, it's been a long time. It's been a long time. So. Okay. Congratulations, Chief. And to the longest PD. Any public comment on this item? Of course, Mr.. Good to you. Come on down. Very good. Clark has the address. As I said last week, there's probably 3 to 4 people, none of which are in this room that has more experience with the blue line in mass transit. This is an absolute disaster, period. This will take the police. And you laugh, sir. But you don't understand the death rate now. In the city. Is equal to that, the shooting rate of the city of Chicago. The Long Beach Police can't do that. Period near the council. The public has been used to seeing disingenuous members of this council go in different directions. To back programs that make little sense. But wasn't. What was surprising last week is the number of people that are there are not elected officials. Our representatives as a city that disgraced themselves. By the hue and cry. All our visitors coming to Long Beach need that are the restaurant patrons the Grand Prix people. The mantra for the and the understanding that's come out of the visitor and convention bureau is that what everybody knows is is the truth. The delivery comes to Long Beach. To fill our coffers, we need filled in terms of entertainment, in terms of restaurants and hotels that ride the blue line. The only mass transit use is the Grand Prix when it is so packed. That there's no criminal activity because there's not enough room for it. And they know that. Period. What you're doing is taking the officers away that would be otherwise patrolling and keeping a lid on the shootings and killings. In your own neighborhood. Nobody comes to a downtown restaurant. A five star hotel riding on the blue line. When I say nobody. Probably less than one half of 1%. Period. This is a money grab. You haven't even and so long as this line has been over the able to negotiate a deal with Caltrans to green light trains period that's very simple to do. You could reduce the travel time by some 22 minutes if they didn't have to stop at every red light. But you sat with your head up your rear ends for 20 some years, as long as the blue eye has been there. Watch and compare the death rates. And when your neighbors ask why the police aren't there, well, tell them they're on the blue line. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Good here. Again, I want to thank you for making the personal trek down to Mexico to speak out against the city, hiring 30 more police officers like you did a week ago as well. And again, this is 30 new police officers on top of the budget officers we have currently that we didn't have before . So thank you for coming down to meet you. I appreciate that. Next Speaker Yes, sir. Hello, Mr. Mayor. City Council members. I think this is a great opportunity. I think it's a great opportunity to integrate the police department, have them follow the traffic that comes in and out of the blue line and have more control over the city. So I think this is a great thing and I'm really happy to hear it. That's it. Great. Thank you. See no other public comment. Well, go ahead. One more condenser. Good evening. My name is Joe Collins. I was here on a completely different issue. I think it's a great idea. I don't know if they're going to take the the blue line to a hotel, a five star restaurant. But I do know from. Experience that with law enforcement officers around that area, they will make contact with citizens. They will have a better handle on gang members. They will see them. Coming and going. And this particular apparatus is kind of like an artery. Which brings people in that maybe you don't. Want in you need to keep an eye on. So I think it's great that you have 30 extra officers. That you can bring into the department. And train them up and move them on. And I think at the end of the day, it was the right decision. Thank you. Thank you. With that members, please. Gordon Castro votes. Councilwoman Mongo. Motion passes. Okay. Thank you. And congratulations to Long Beach Police Department. And now we're moving on to item 18.

A resolution approving a proposed Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Frontier Airlines, Inc. concerning a use and lease agreement which includes the preferential leasehold of 14 gates at Denver International Airport. Approves a use and lease agreement with Frontier Airlines, Inc. for rates and charges and for 10 years for preferential leasehold of 14 gates at Denver International Airport in Council District 11 (202055453). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 5-9-22. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 4-6-22.

DenverCityCouncil_04182022_22-0375

Thank you, Councilmember Cashman. And we're going to go ahead and move on then. Madam Secretary, would you please put the next item on our screen and we're going to go to Council Member State Abarca. If you go ahead with your comments on Resolution 375, please. And and is it possible to just lump these two together? Three, seven, five and three seven, six? There? Yes. Okay. Several comments. Yes. Catalina. Just a couple of questions I had asked in an email about if the new expansion plans for Frontier took into consideration the ACL lawsuit, that alleged or settlement that was won because Frontier was not providing lactation opportunities, lactation rooms to their pilots and flight attendants. And you said in the email that we don't have to build for Frontier, but you said Frontier was trying to build special units. Can you Tom, can you explain a little bit more how they're addressing the settlement and how will be kept up to date on how the plans evolve to make sure that they meet those requirements ? Sure. Carolina Flores, manager. Of legislative affairs at an. International airport. Thank you for those great questions. Dunn is not in charge of compliance on behalf of the airlines. However, I did note in my email that Frontier will be building out two nursing spaces for nursing mothers and their space in addition to the seven public facing areas that are available to anyone. So is Dan aware of the details in that case? I think that the issue in that case was that flight attendants and pilots who are between flights don't have enough time. Our airport is huge. They don't have enough time to get to the lactation rooms that exist and get back to their flights. Is then actually taking a look at how we create facilities that don't create that problem. That is a great question. And I. Will bring up our senior vice. President, of course, expansion. Awesome. I just want to make sure that we're very, very attentive to that, because as we try to diversify the workforce, we want to make sure that we're being considerate in that way of different needs. So thank you. Good evening. Stu Williams, senior vice president of airport expansion at Denver International Airport. Councilwoman Diaz, answer your question, especially as we've gone through the expansion phase. We have worked to get lactation rooms or nursing rooms closer to where their operational space would be. So in the case of Frontier, specifically, as it will be voted on later and what we've displayed to council, we're building a significant back, a house space for their operation. And nursing lactation rooms are actually within the area of all their other backhouse space and only minutes from their gates. Awesome. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Stu, for the answer in Carolina. And we're going to go ahead and move on. Thank you, Councilmember CdeBaca, for those questions. Madam Secretary, if you would, put the next item on our screens. Councilmember Sandoval, would you please put resolutions three seven, seven through 380 on the floor for adoption?

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending Chapters 5.81 and 8.68, relating to electronic cigarettes and similar devices, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_02112014_14-0123

Item 17 is an ordinance with a recommendation to declare an ordinance amending the municipal code relating to electronic cigarets and similar devices. Read the first time and laid over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading. Come again this over to the City Attorney. Do you have any thoughts in the comments? Mr. Andrews. Mr. ANDREWS. Okay. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You know, one of the fundamental principles of medicine and developing good public health is that above all else, we should not harm the public. It has taken us a decade to evaluate young people about the harm of smoking, and there is no doubt concerning the negative about the fact that smoking has no has on the public. While doctors of the fifties in the sixties claim that smoking causes no harm to smokers or people subjected to secondhand cigaret smoking, the millions of premature deaths and families that claimed the lives of mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers. It was proven otherwise after the numerous tragedies. Well, prematurely by cigaret we have in recent years started to see a slight decrease in new smokers and improvement in overall public health facts. Nicotine juice use in e-cigarettes is not regulated and does not have any and unformed ingredients. This inconsistency means that there can be no claim that the ingredient in the product is safe. Facts. There has been an increase in the amount of conversations and alibis in schools and in Long Beach. Young people are getting their hands on and use these addictive devices. Facts. In a recent Long Beach Post article promoting the e-cigarettes stated in e-cigarettes have no health risk and causes no major health concerns. While health concerns regarding e-cigarettes may be lesser or difficult than those associated with cigarets and a simple pack, I agree with the safety statement released by the e-cigarette promoters. Nicotine is still being used in e-cigarettes. Studies have also shown that the harm the human body doesn't have a reaction to the vapor, to the vapor. Inhaling for the e-cigarettes. Increases airways resistance for 10 minutes. In addition to creating the airway resistance, nicotine is a known contributor of health diseases. The e-cigarette companies may state that e-cigarettes are safe, but the fact of the matter is that there is no proof without substantial and reputable, reputable scientific evidence. That these. Addictive devices are free of any sort of safe and effective toxins. The use of e-cigarettes in public vapers should be monitored. These companies triggered it, and people who are nonsmokers by marketing fruity flavors and advocate and addicted and their promises of new safe and fun activities. Unless the safety of e-cigarettes have been well documented, it is our duty to ensure that the public is know it. It is not surrounded with these devices unnecessarily. Let's make sure that we learn from mistakes and support this responsible policy. It is a good first step in protecting our public health, and I'd like to move to approve this item. Second, get this promotion. And a second. Let me go ahead and open this up to public comment. Please come forward to start off by stating your name for the record. My name is Michael Shaq and I am the owner of E-Cig City of Long Beach in downtown Long Beach. Is my first time in one of these. Hearings, so excuse my jitters, but I believe from personally that e-cigarettes have saved my life as many as well as many others. They've provided an alternative. And I believe that there's a lot more research to be done before we go ahead and start demonizing those who are using electronic Cigarets. I do also believe there needs to be restrictions and regulations like anything else. I mean, if done appropriately, electronic cigarets can help fund everything that we've been talking about in this unsafe building and building the libraries, but it needs to be done correctly. And the city of Long Beach, I believe, has the has the the need to be the city to set the. How do you say set the bar over how regulations of electronic cigarets are going to go? Because so far every city has been taken the coattails of everybody else and is banning them. I'm too scared. I don't know what's going to happen. Well, why not? We have the places to research. We have colleges here. We have Exxon Mobil that have nothing but biochemists running around here, getting drunk up and down pine. I know this because I live right off of pine as well. I believe that if we do a little bit more research that it's not the same. Because you know what? I light a cigaret using one of these. Right. I cannot light a cigaret using a lithium ion battery which has been certified. So with the regulation that's been proposed, and from what I understand that we want to make electronic cigarets the same as tobacco. It's not doing anybody justice. You're sending your addicts back into the den. They are now going to be triggered with the same oh, I want a cigaret again. It's not the same. I'm not saying that they should be allowed to be smoking and there needs to be regulations 18 over away from schools. But us as adults. Why do we need to have something that tastes like crap? Excuse my language. Once again, what's wrong? That if I want to smoke on something that is like cherry or bubblegum and it's not marketed towards children. I believe that it's an old school stigma that needs to be broken by a new generation that will be taking your seats one day and that technology, outdated tradition. So with that said, I believe that this motion needs to be reconsidered, revised by not only the public health and safety. I've spoken with Linda Vu, with the city attorney. I've spoken with Nelson Kerr over at the Health Board, and I've even cornered Mr. Robert Garcia once in a while, see if I can press him a little bit, because he works at ITI right across the street. But I do believe that the city of Long Beach needs to look more. Thank you for. Your time before making loss. Thank you. Thank you so much. Next speaker, please. Go ahead, sir. Honorable Vice Mayor and City Council, thank you for this opportunity. I am Father Jack Kearney and at 3230 Clark Avenue, just across the border in Lakewood, where I'm on the board of the California Association for Alcohol and Drug Educators. Or Kitty Kitty is a group that certifies. The highest level addiction counselors in California. We also train them and. We accredit colleges. And universities in California, Nevada and Arizona at the highest possible standards. We are in one of those schools, by the way, as Long Beach City College, which you should be very proud of for the addiction studies program, that we are the experts in addiction. We know about electronic cigarets. I teach addiction studies at Cal State Fullerton and at Loyola marymount University. I am because I teach the pharmacology of substance use disorders. I have become a nationally recognized expert on electronic cigarets. And I'm here to tell. You, Mr. Andrews, the questions you've asked have been answered. I have the science. Right here of chronic cigarets do not harm. They save lives. They help people quit smoking. Millions of people have quit smoking because of electronics. Or if they do not harm. The science is in. I think you read an old statement that was written probably by the tobacco industry or certainly the pharmaceutical industry, because they're the ones who have the most to lose. By the success of e-cigs, they have been proven. There is enough science to say they're 100 times. Safer than cigarets and. Are by far. Our most effective tool for helping people quit smoking. So we got to go with the most current research. So you have a choice here. You can you can go to press releases from the tobacco and the pharmaceutical industry, or we can go with science and clinicians like me. Who actually help. People on a daily basis quit smoking. Electronic cigarets work. But they are not being marketed to children. The flavors are intended for adults. It is illegal. Already to sell. Electronic. Cigarets to people under 18. That's already been taken care of. We're doing all more research and we'll continue to do so. So I ask you to at least. Postpone or stop this legislation. Which will hurt the people of Long Beach. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please leave. Can I leave science with you? Actually, the clock over here. Next speaker. Good evening, Vice Mayor and council members. My name is Paula Wood and I am a resident of District seven and I am currently the co-chair of the Tobacco Up in Smoke Free Long Beach, along with Pete Flores. We're deeply concerned. First of all, we'd like to commend the council for moving this issue forward and dealing with it tonight. And we hope that you will vote in favor of this. We have a deep concern about what's going on with the e-cigarettes and the paper products. We notice that many of these or these these these these stations or these stores are cropping up in our neighborhoods. And we're concerned about, even though there may be they're not legally be able to being able to be sold to the young people there on the campuses. We have teen groups. I've talked to our young people and they're telling me they're all over the high school, they're available and the young people are attracted to them because of the colors and the just that it's something new. And so they are in the hands of our youth and we're deeply concerned because this is new and we know that there is tobacco and nicotine involved, and we're concerned that this is creeping up all over the city and there's no regulation. And we support the council in their effort to regulate these and treat them the same as Cigarets. And we ask you to support this tonight on behalf of the coalition of a smoke free Long Beach. Thank you. Thank you, Nick. Speaker, please. Hi. My name is P floors were from Paula Woods. I am a co-chair for the Long Beach Coalition. Mayor and councilman, this is actually my second time being here, observing you guys and all that. And I, I really just wanted to say with this being a co-chair and, and also. I am a. Coordinator for Project Greater Southern Cal that we deal with educational to youth. And I go to car shows and I educate the youth about smoking and e-cigarettes. Now we revise our our surveys with the youth because we had to put in with the e-cigarettes and the vapes. So I know that this is a ongoing battle. It's been ongoing for a long, long time. And I just wanted to I just want to go forward with this with you know, with the council of hoping to go ahead and go forward with this. And again, thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Vice Mayor Garcia. Council members, thank you for bringing this forward. I think there must be a misunderstanding on the part of either Jack. This does not this ordinance does not prevent people from using e-cigarettes if they feel it helps them stop smoking. What this does do is put nicotine charged, electronic cigarets in the same category as far as preventing the smoking in public places. The gentleman in the plaid shirt gave us a distinct opportunity to understand what happens. We're used to this council not having smoking, but all of a sudden there was this puff of smoke in the air . And I could smell it. And you could. And you don't know what's in it. There's formaldehyde, there's benzene. There have not been complete studies to know what we're breathing from secondhand smoke. So we're asking that the electronic cigarets be treated like tobacco cigarets. The FDA is working on a regulation because of the need to understand better what the health aspects of this are at the Center for Disease Control over two years. The 2011 2000. 2012 found that twice as many teenagers have taken up e-cigarettes. So it went from like 4% to 10%. My neighbor came home and found her son, who was that totally non tobacco smoking youth sitting with an e-cigarette and thinking that that was a glamorous thing to do. So we asked that you pass this so that those of us can go to a public place and find that we're not reading some chemical we know not what coming from one of the electronic cigarets and that our tobacco retail permit process. Watch over these sites so that we know what's happening there and we urge you to pass this. And thank you very much. Thank any of the public speakers up here. Yes. Frances and Frances Emily Tyson Harris and I reside in District one. This is a very controversial matter and I agree on both sides. There are series of facts in. And when I made that comment I'm making in the sense that they're serious, the facts that can affect your health in terms of smoking cigarets which are known to have formaldehyde and all kinds of other things in regards to and cause cancer, you know, aggravate people to have asthma attacks, etc.. That in terms of the e-cigarette, I look at it more like a evade hearing. I'm not 100% familiar with the whole thing about the e-cigarette, but I can say that I do have friends and I know people that smoke and they smoke and they changed to using the e-cigarette and they were able to cut down tremendously in regards to smoking and quite a number of them actually have quit and they feel so much more better. Now I look back at the matter regarding interest in marijuana have could affect you and all of the things about what the federal government thought in the state and everything else. And when I'm hearing everyone and what they're having to say, the federal government, I understand, is in the process of determining something about this matter and how it should be addressed. Well, I kind of wonder if it may not be a bad idea to put this matter off to find out exactly yay or nay what's happening in terms of the e-cigarette. I don't think it's something that has to be addressed right now, this moment, because to me matters that need to be looked at to know exactly, you know, what's happening here. And I do appreciate Lambie's being smoke free. I think it's absolutely essential. I feel there should be regulations in terms of the use of this product. I'm deeply concerned by young people getting their hands on it, but I'm hearing all of these matters and to me there's too many unanswered questions and matters I feel that need to be addressed in order to be able to move forward without coming back and having all kinds of problems on your hands. I think if you get the answers more find on this matter, I think you'll be able to move forward in a matter where it's not going to be so many stumbling blocks. Thank you very much. Thank you. Any other public comments after after unexpectedly other public comments came at a good cause, a public speaker less piece. A Roseanne Lamendola. Again, I hope you follow your commonsense and avoid any. Extra additional smoking venues in the city of Long Beach. If anyone is considering this as a a negative move, if your support of e-cigarettes, please look what happened to cigar smoking. A business decision was made to allow cigar smoking within the shops, and somehow that evolved to smoking again in public areas, exposing everyone to increased health risks. So if you are in favor of e-cigarettes, please contain it inside. Do not let it evolve to the point where it has. With our outdoor cigar lounges, there are many young people, young adults in their twenties, male and female, who think it's very hip and cool to smoke a cigaret when again we know this is a documented hazard to your health. Thank you. Thank you. We're going to get behind the council controversial scheme. Yes. Mr. Perkin, in reading the ordinance, is this specific only to e-cigarettes that have a nicotine, that utilize a nicotine product or are all e-cigarettes? It's the direction given on the December 3rd meeting of the City Council was all cigarets, not just limited to nicotine legally. I'm wondering, can we do that and classify the non nicotine non tobacco product as a under the rubric of our tobacco ordinance about candy. Yeah, I'm going to and about the candies. We have followed. Yes, we've followed other jurisdictions and looked at other cities who have adopted these ordinances and I believe were consistent with the other cities where we have been asked to regulate those products as in the same manner as we are currently regulating tobacco products. So the restrictions would be the same as a CIGARET product, so wouldn't be able to be consumed inside an enclosed space. That is correct. What about the issue of the what they call the Candy Cigarets? In fact, we got a letter from the American Lung Association regarding the fruit or candy flavors such as Captain Crunch, Gummy Bear, cotton candy, atomic fireball and Froot Loops. Like a fireball. Yeah. I'm sorry if it's a question. No, what I'm asking those are if they do not have nicotine in them, then they're going to be precluded from selling any product that. It does not preclude the sale. Again, they can that the cigarets we're not banning the cigarets we were regulating them similar to Cigarets. So by definition the electric cigarets we've added those definitions and it is not exclusive to those products containing nicotine. Okay. And then how are we regulating the the shops as we do with the tobacco shops right now? I believe our health department. I may be wrong, but I think our health department goes out and verifies whether or not under the I think our Smokefree Coalition about whether or not that they are displaying appropriately, are they under the same regulations then as the tobacco shops about how they can promote and put advertisement at a certain level and making sure they don't sell to kids? That is correct. The regulations and the the way we've amended the ordinance in two separate chapters, 5.81 and 8.68. We have we have added to the definition section to define the electronic cigarets and then made all of the applicable regulations regarding tobacco products applicable to them. So if it's covered in 5.81 or 8.68, it would be now applicable to electronic cigarets or vaping. And if I recall, under the ordinance regarding tobacco shops, you're not allowed to unless there is a we don't have the cigaret lounges. I thought we. Yeah. The cigar lounge but I don't think you have the cigaret lounges correct. That's correct. I believe there's eight currently allowed cigar lounges. But so if people purchase this product at these tobacco shops or whatever the e-cigarette shops, they would not be allowed to sit on the premises and, and, and use them outside. That. That is the well they would be allowed to use them. When you say outside it, meaning. They couldn't sit in chairs and and use the product because I understand that's our tobacco ordinance. That is correct. You would not be able to consume the product within the within the business or within so many feet of the entrance of the business, similar to the way that Cigarets are currently regulated. And do we have any idea when FDA is like maybe this company could answer that when we think the FDA might be coming up with some kind of recommendations? I know that they're looking at it, but is there any kind of indication when we'd get a report. And I don't know when that would be the status currently moving forward? It's passed the Senate and it's sitting at the assembly and they're looking at a statewide conversation that looks. Exactly like this one. All right. Thank you. We can't we can't we can't do it. We can't ask questions. Sorry that way. But counsel worships with you all. Any other comments? Oh, I do have a I do have a quick question also for for the city attorney as far as the ordinance. So it's my understanding that there there is a difference. All right. As far as on the the vaping cigaret, there are those that have nicotine and then those that do not. Is that correct? That is correct. It's the so the e-cigarette is a device essentially that you can drop with whatever you. Want it to do and uses a vapor. So you can. You can easily use a nicotine product. You can use a non nicotine product, you can use THC, you can put whatever it is you'd like to in there. And it depends on whatever is being sold. And yes, so there are some that are that do not have nicotine in them. Okay. And then those are the four the cities that have done regulation. Have any cities actually separate those categories out? I'm just curious, or is it all been one size fits all? I'm not sure, but I'm not sure about that. I don't believe so. In fact, a number of people, a lot of cities around the area have said we're just going to ban them for a year until we figure out what's going on so that the others that I know of have treated it exactly as it as they would a tobacco product. Okay. And that's consistent with our research on other cities. Where if we pass what we passed tonight, the retail establishments that have opened would still be allowed to be in place, correct? They still be able to sell the products that they're currently selling, but they would not be able to. But establishments or businesses would not be allowed to or wouldn't wouldn't be able to allow people to smoke the vaping cigarets. Correct. If I understand, you're correct. Yes. The stores would would not be closed. They would just not be allowed to consume the product inside of the establishment. Okay. So there are currently 18 shops that have been. That are currently doing business as vapor only shops. So, you know, I'm just going to close my comments here. I completely understand where where this is coming from. I understand the concern. And for me, the only part that's difficult for me to to get over is I have a couple of friends and family members that have particularly one that's been smoking for 35 years and has destroyed his lungs and he's never been able to quit, tried everything in the book and now he has been he has tried to e-cigarette and he's actually been able to quit. And I certainly don't know all the science behind what's in that cigaret, but I couldn't imagine it being, you know, obviously worse than nobody was putting in his lungs before. But but I understand that this essentially is is really about the public. And that's I think what I'm trying to to understand is this this would not outlaw the sale but would just outlaw the use of it as we do for Cigarets. And it would be consistent. With his usage for the last 35 years. That's correct. We have before us. Does this have a one year kind of review as well or a review process? It does not. But at any Tuesday, the council could come back and amend or tweak this ordinance if there was a further desire to do that. And if there is if if tonight if we wanted to put in a, let's say a ah review of this policy, it at six months or a year, would that mean another reading or could be could we add that in if if if the council member agreed to that. The the ordinance is here this evening for first reading so it would not become final until after a second reading. And then 31 days after the mayor signs the ordinance, at which time then you would have your ordinance is in effect with no review, period. But if there was the council's desire to revisit this at some time, they could ask staff to come back at a certain at a future date if in fact it is passed tonight. But if we. If we put a review period in it tonight, would we have to come back for another first reading or could it passed as a first reading? It would need to come back for first reading again if you're making a change of the standards of nature. Okay, Councilor Johnson. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I think you have a good point. I think no one here wants to ban e-cigarettes. We're not banning e-cigarettes. I think that's simply what we're trying to do is treat them like regular cigarets. And certainly if science comes out and there are turned out there are problems with e-cigarettes or they're less than we expect because certainly change the ordinance and that we have the power to do that. So I think we're open to the science. One thing I want to bring up is I think the vice mayor had a good point about, well, what about if they have nicotine in them or they don't have an equity in them? But the problem there, I think, practically speaking, how would the store owner ever know the difference? Right. So if you're seeing someone vaping, you really are in a position to know, is there a THC in there, nicotine in there, or is it just water or whatever? So I think as a practical matter, I do think it's rational for us to treat all vaping the same because we don't want people to be put in a position of, well, let me vape off of that myself to see what's in there or something like that would be kind of an absurd result. So I do think it's appropriate treat all vaping the same way, you know. So I just want to defend the audience in that way. Any other council comment? See? None. So this is a vote on a first reading will happen and will come back for coming back to council for an additional reading before we move forward on it. Is that correct? That is correct. So, Members, please go ahead and and cast your vote. Vice mayor. I got him in. Motion carries five votes. One vote no. Believe we're now going to move. On to new business. New business. Councilor O'Neill. Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor.

A bill for an ordinance making supplemental appropriations from the General Contingency Fund to the General Government Special Revenue Fund. Approves a $4 million supplemental appropriation from the City’s General Fund Contingency to the Office of Economic Development to support the Business Incentive Fund’s support of a general merchandise mass retail store on the 16th Street Mall at 1601 California Street in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 2-21-17. This bill was approved for late filing by Council President Brooks.

DenverCityCouncil_02272017_17-0156

161 Bill for an ordinance of the Denver Zoning Code to revise parking exemptions for preexisting small zone lots to 77 bill for an ordinance providing for an extension of approximately two months of an existing moratorium enacted by Ordinance 20160498 series of 2016 prohibiting the use of the Denver zoning code. Preexisting small zone lot parking exemption for certain projects. All right, Councilwoman, can each. We need a motion to suspend the rules on council to allow for the introduction of a late filing. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that the rules of procedure be suspended to allow for the introduction of Council Bill 156 approving a $4 million supplemental appropriation to the Office of Economic Development to support the business incentive funds. Support of a general merchandise small retail store on the 16th Street Mall at 1601 California Street. All right, it has. It's been moving second it. Thank you. Councilwoman Denise, do you want to make comments? And I'm happy to make comments as well. Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. I am making this motion as chair of the Finance and Governance Committee, where this bill moved through with our intention that it be on the floor today. Due to staff miscommunication, it was not filed in time, but I believe it was the committee's intent that it be on the floor tonight. And so that is why I'm making this motion count. Very well done. Councilwoman Camille, I think, summarized it. This is just a mistake. And it was a council's full intention in the Finance Committee to make sure this was on the floor. And so we need a unanimous vote to suspend these rules and make sure that we can have the conversation on the floor right now. So it has been moved. And second, I say, Councilman Flynn, you're up. Thanks, Fred. Just a quickly, could you tell us what the mistake was or what occurred and how that can be avoided in the future? Because these these kinds of votes are very rare. Yeah. So I believe this is between OED and the Department of Finance. And one department didn't know when the other department was supposed to file and not file. So this is actually coming out of the Department of Finance. However, the bill is located in OED. So they they know they've apologized. And so we're moving forward with a thank you, Councilman Flynn. All right. It's been moved and segmented. Okay. So we put resolutions 163. It should be 156. Yes. Okay. This should be resolution 156, for the record. There was a mistake on a typo on this and it is correct on our screens. 156 So, Madam Secretary. Mr. President. Point Are we, we're voting on suspending the rules right now. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Yep. Okay. Council members, again, this is Council Bill 156 and we're voting on suspending these rules has been moved and seconded. Secretary Roll Call. Can each. LOPEZ All right, new black clerk. All right. Flynn I. Gillmor I heard in. Cashman. I Mr. President. I please close the voting, announce the results. Nine eyes. Nine eyes. That Resolutions 156 may be introduced. Madam Secretary, you will read the resolution title. From Finance and governance 156 Bill for an ordinance making supplemental appropriations from the General Contingency Fund to the General Government Special Revenue Fund. All right, councilmembers, this is your last opportunity to call it an item. Councilman Clark, will you please make the motions this evening? Yes, Mr. President. All right, I'll do a quick recap. Under resolutions. Councilman Flynn has called out Resolution 163 for a comment. Is that 163 or 156? Okay. All right. For comment under Bill for introduction, I've called out Council Bill 153 for a vote. I've called out Counsel Bill 161 to hold in committee for one week until March six under Bill's for final consideration. We have nothing under pending. We have nothing matter. Madam Secretary. Mr. President, I apologize. I would like to have 163 and 156 for a vote. They could be together in a block. And I because of making the late filing motion, I kind of forgot to do the link through them, and I apologize for that. If we need to vote on them separately, that's. Yeah. Madam Secretary, can we put 156 and 163 in a block, please? Yes. All right, great. We'll make a note of that. Okay. Madam Secretary, please put up the first one. 163. Councilman Flynn, go ahead and make your comment. Thank you, Mr. President. 163 is an agreement between the Office of Economic Development and a development entity on the 16th Street Mall to develop or redevelop the old California Mall property right at 16th in California. And I remember it as the old food court. You go up to the second floor, and when I saw this come across, it gave me a lot of heartburn, Mr. President, because it would bring a new a very good tenant to the mall, one that I think it would be great, wonderful addition catalytic to what I call upto our sort of answer to LoDo. This is up doe and but it was target and I have nothing against Target Corporation. Personally I shop there on occasion, but as some folks may recall, Target had a very wonderful outlet in my district at Sheridan and Evans. And when when Target opened in Belmar, in the Belmar redevelopment in Lakewood, they closed the Target in my district. That alone doesn't give me the heartburn because that's a business decision. But when they left and sold it to an operator who now operates a 99 cent store there, I say we don't even get a dollar store down in my district. We get $0.99 store. They put a deed restriction on the property that it could not be used for 20 years for a general merchandise retailer of 50,000 square feet or greater. And I know from my predecessor, Councilwoman Jeanie Fox, that on at least three occasions a national retailer has looked at that property and has walked away from redeveloping it because of the deed restriction. However, in the in the course of dealing with this, I was able to meet with guard properties, which is the owner of the California Mall and would be the actual entity with whom we're partnering here, not Target. And I'm very happy to say that they've genuinely outreach to us and they have helped us down in southwest Denver to do market research, to identify potential retailers and possibly even to look at the property as a potential redevelopment. So for the first time in the five or six years since Target left there, we have some we have some interest. I understand the property may also even be on the market now. So given the genuine promise to continue working with us. Mr. President, I will vote yes on this and and plan on that cooperation continuing. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman. Thank you, Mr. President. I have been very aware of how hard the downtown community has worked to attract retail to this location. It has been a conversation as long as I have been on the council. Not maybe not this particular location, but the vicinity of the 16th Street Mall. And so I don't take lightly the concerns about how to make downtown an attractive destination, to fulfill the needs of the residents and the workers who are downtown. And, you know, I have not, without some consternation, supported some types of redevelopment assistance in this city's history that have involved retail. And, you know, particularly with tax increment financing, it's never been easy. Each deal I take one by one. But overall, I have great concern when we are using city dollars to subsidize retail. It is a non economically sustainable job in our city. For the most part, the average jobs at this site will be 25 hours a week, which is not a full time salary. So even if the wage is slightly above the minimum wage, when you add up the hours, it will keep most families below the poverty line. And we as a city end up having to step in then with childcare assistance and health care assistance and other things. And that's not unique to this location and it's not unique to this retailer. But I do have concerns about using the Business Investment Fund for this purpose. The city has been very disciplined in using the business investment fund, almost with the exception of one other retail job, a retail investment for jobs that are higher than the median wage. And I've appreciated that discipline. It is what kept me supportive of this fund for the period of time. I really struggled with this one and really looked at each a piece of the deal. And I, you know, I would have maybe almost gotten there, but the fact that this agreement is not directly with the retailer and does not give us any privity of contract with them, we do have a history of retailers.

A resolution approving a proposed Design Services Agreement between the City and County of Denver and RS&H, Inc. for professional design and engineering services. Approves a contract with RS&H, Inc. for $2,637,093.94 and for one year for professional design and engineering services including the redesign of Washington Street from East 47th Avenue to East 52nd Avenue, improvements along Washington Street from the South Platte River to East 47th Avenue and the Globeville Landing Pedestrian Bridge over the South Platte River as part of the Elevate Denver Bond Program in Council District 9 (201948451). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 7-15-19. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 4-2-19.

DenverCityCouncil_06242019_19-0296

Ten eyes, one abstention. Resolution 318 has been adopted. Can you put the next item on our screens, please? Councilman Ortega, you have a question on 296? Yes, I do. And I'm not sure if it's somebody from Public Works or Parks and Recreation that can address my question about why we have the Globeville landing pedestrian bridge in here. Because I went through the list of bond projects that were submitted to us before they went to a vote of the people. And the only thing I find in here that is somewhat close is Globeville, Elyria, pedestrian connectivity, improvements. And I know a big part of that was to do the 47th in York, but it was my understanding that everything at Globeville Landing Park, which included the pedestrian bridge over the river, was supposed to be done with the $300 million plant to Park Hill drainage project that included City Park Golf Course was supposed to include the improvements at Park Hill, the 39th Avenue Channel, and the improvements at Globeville Landing Park. So I'm I guess I'm just baffled why that is part of a Bond project. And it wasn't part of the funding that was included in the PDP $300 million project that we were asked to approve that ended up being part of the M0 U between Denver and C that for all those drainage improvements. I see. Jason. And we did put a call in to Leslie. So I'm sorry that Jason, you didn't get the call trying to track this one, so. No, no problem. And I see Parks and Rec folks here, they may be able to answer it because I know this was part of their project as well. Yeah, I. I can tell you that. I don't know that answer offhand. I can definitely get you the answer to that, though. Jason Glare of the Public Works. I apologize. They don't have that with me. This was, like you said, a complex project between both agencies. But I could definitely get that for you as soon as possible. All right. Anybody from Parks and Rec have any updated information? Because I'm I'm somewhat compelled to just hold this one. And I don't really want to do that, because I know we've been working to expedite the Washington Street improvements, which is tied to this same contract. So anybody at Parks and Rec. Okay. I don't really want to do this, but I think I'm going to just hold this one for a week under our rules that we can do that until we get that information to really understand why global lending pedestrian bridge is part of this project and why it wasn't funded already with . Resources that we had already earmarked for Global Lending Park. So under our rules. Mr. President, I'm going to hold this for one week. Madam Secretary, do we need a formal action or just a request from the Council? Just a request for a one week postponement under rule 3.7. All right. The has been requested for a one week postponement under 3.7. Thank you. Okay. Councilwoman Sussman, did you also have something you wanted to call. Just for a comment? The 529 Bill. 529 529. Madam Secretary, can you put 529 on our screens? And, Councilwoman Sussman, go ahead with your comment.

A MOTION relating to identifying the future allocation of Puget Sound Taxpayers Accountability Account proceeds to priority educational areas and requesting the executive to develop plans to allocate proceeds within the priority educational areas.

KingCountyCC_07012019_2019-0245

Thank you. Anyone else? All right, then we'll close the public hearing. And that takes us to item six, which is the framework motion that I've introduced. Motion 2019 to 45 making allocations for the Puget Sound Taxpayer Accountability Act funds coming to King County. We've put a lot of work into the decisions and framework about how we're going to proceed and where the investments should go. And in doing so, we've heard a lot about and important ways the kids are and are not being supported. I'm hearing King County and how that has a real impact on their ability to succeed in school and life beyond. I want to offer my appreciation to the people across the county who've put such work into informing our work on the past of funds through public testimony, letters and emails, small group conversations, the community engagement meetings that we have sponsored and participated in helped to organize in a lot of ways. This won't be the council's masterplan plan. It will be the community's positive plan. Mr. Mom to do plan. Did you have a staff report or information to work through or are you just making yourself ready for questions and. Ready for. Questions? That's what I assumed I was going to check, though. We the there is not a striker ready to come forward today. And so this is another opportunity for for the committee, for the full council to have a conversation among yourselves about what are our priorities, how we might see the money split up, what strategies in particular are important to individual council members so that we can hear that and make sure it's reflected in the strategy that I would intend to bring to full council, to the full committee on July 15th and to set the stage, I will offer some of my own thoughts, and then I would invite my colleagues to follow suit. What I'm looking for out of this work is investments that will have a long term positive impact on individuals and communities. Priority setting that reflects the things that people have told us are important things like resources for youth to support their out of school lives. We heard some particular testimony about that today so they can focus and be successful and in school itself to focus on outcomes as a measure of success, including resources for evaluation and opportunities to allow for innovation. Also recognizing that we should evaluate the program as it proceeds over its 15 years and have ample opportunity to adjust our invest particular investments to make sure that the programs we're investing in are having the intended effect in outcome. And we've heard and testimony and public comment and our own work and a value from for mine going forward would be to honor that consistent thread of equity and social justice driven decision making in organizations. The funds were awarded to and particularly the youth and students that the funds would serve. There's a lot of attention to the three buckets and how much of the funds might go into early learning K-12 and post-secondary. And I understand that emphasis. But also, I think it's important to remember that the goal is long term success for all four students, particularly those we have identified as vulnerable, vulnerable populations throughout that entire spectrum. And want to be able to underscore the county's work in our Youth Action Plan that starts for kids and zero youth detention. The policy statements we've already adopted for how we want to interact and support youth in students in our communities. I think this is another opportunity to complement and support those goals as well. With that, I'd welcome conversation questions and dialog with within the committee councilmember up the growth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Some of this may be repetitive from last week, but I thought I'd reflect on some of what I've heard and what some of my thinking was and some of my interests. As I think through this one, as was noted before, there is some uncertainty. This is time limited funding that needs to be appropriated regularly by the legislature. And there's a risk that we don't get it all because of that. One time funding is more attractive than setting up and starting programs for which we don't know that the funding will be able to continue. Capital funding is attractive to me because of that. I'm interested in us making some decisions in this legislation. I would like to see us do more than just pick three categories and defer to the executive branch. I feel like the legislative branch has had a very, very rigorous process. We've led in terms of hiring a consultant and having community outreach, that we shouldn't be afraid to identify specific strategies with dollar amounts in this legislation. If we can reach agreement on that, that's one interest. Second interest is in making sure that the funds are effectively hitting the target groups called out in the legislation. And certainly that we have rhetorically talked about and I'm nervous a little bit about about that. I've been very interested in early childhood capital funding, but I want to see a specific commitment to ensure that those dollars are going to serve the target population to a large degree. I'll just give you an example. If half the kids and these aren't these are sort of just made up numbers for illustrative purposes. If we were to give half that illustrative purposes here, if half of the funds, 50% of the funding were to go to early childhood facilities and half the kids served were low income or kids of color. That means 25% of our funds are going, in essence, to support kids that aren't part of the targeted population. So I would like to see some firm commitments in the legislation not worked out later by stakeholders, but what our expectations are about the population serve so that we're focusing in, as we heard today, on dual language. So we're focusing it on traditionally marginalized communities, kids in foster care, students with disabilities and particularly low income population. Does that be 100%? But we ought to be able to put have an understanding. I think the same goes with each age group, the formerly known as the King County Promise. I know it's meant to target those margins, those kids who are most struggling, but making sure that the language in our appropriations ensures that a couple other small interests I had I'd like to see admin costs no more than 5%. I'd like to see 1% set aside for technical assistance for smaller organizations with less experience to assistance in applying and navigating the system. I'd like to see us have a specific carve out for our own facilities in King County. We we have incarcerated young adults, and I'd like to make sure that we provide support, even though there are people under 18 at the RJC, get students up to age 21, are eligible for education support. So I'd like to see those young people that are in King County's custody get a direct allocation in some way, shape or form. I've met with the Sound Alliance folks a couple of times, and the equity in making sure of equitable access to physical education across all of the age ranges is a it's appealing. Figure out how we weave that in is something of interest. And I think those were some of my areas of interest and I think there should be a meaningful contribution to all all ages along the continuum. And that's my $0.02. Thank you. I appreciate all of that and particularly would be interested in working with you on the idea you surfaced. You did, in fact, surfaced last time the committee met about making sure that investments, particularly in your example, early learning that those facilities are supporting the vulnerable populations we've identified in the language in how do we find a way to do that? Look, I would like to work with you if you have any thoughts to share them. Now, we're on or between now and the next meeting about how we can best do that. Please. I forgot something. Thank you. I look forward to work with everyone on that. As part of that, I you know, we have a lot of immigrant and refugee families in low income families in South King County and probably throughout the county who receive child care through home based programs. And I'd like to make sure that we have some mechanism to provide support for those providers, whether it's through a grant program or something like that. I think in terms of our neediest kids and where we get the most bang for the buck, there ought to be some way to reflect that so that there's some opportunities there . Another idea to kick around. Thank you, Councilmember Balducci. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I really appreciate this opportunity. And thank you for giving us this opportunity to have this open conversation with the public here and with all nine of us here. One of the things I think this may have seemed like an extremely slow and deliberate in some ways process. But I think that one of the things I've liked about it is the fact that we've sort of brought people along and everybody's been able to engage and have have their their voice heard, which I think will make the ultimate recommendation, the ultimate decision, more understandable and more justifiable. So thank you for taking this time. I agree with a lot of what's been said. I'm just going to emphasize the things that are most important to me. To add to the collective conversation you've had with Mr. Chair, with the idea of having a long term positive impact. I think one of the key principles that we have put out in every one of the the conversations and motions that we have had. And it's just so exciting, actually, to see people come lobbyist with their own words. That's super cool. I recognize those signs is that we wanted to make sure with this it's short term money. It's not it's not an insignificant amount of money, but it also could disappear very, very easily. It's an amount of money that if we spread it out in small chunks to lots and lots and lots of different types of things could easily disappear and not have the kind of impact we want to have. So I continue to be very, very supportive of the idea. As difficult as it is to narrow our focus on strategies within the three eight levels of education that have the deepest possible impact. We've put a lot of time and effort, as has been said, into studying what types of strategies have the greatest long term educational outcomes positive and serve the most young people. And I think that we should see that study reflected in our proposal when when it comes. I think that we should go where the information leads us, including listening to what the public has said and we have our community input summary. We've heard a lot from people about what works for them. We need to take that into account and that needs to be demonstrated as well. I agree completely with councilmember of the group and with what we heard here and at the last meeting in in one of the motions, I think it might be in the second motion for some reason, the target priority populations that have been called out from the beginning in the legislation from Olympia only showed up in one of the three educational categories. It didn't show up in K through five. It showed up and it didn't show up in pre-K. It showed up in K through 12 and it didn't show up in post-secondary. I don't think we intended that. Certainly, I think it's important that the priority populations be the focus of every level of education. And so to the extent that was a mistake, I guess I will just say it was a mistake. And I think what we intended to do was to focus this money as much as possible on the places where it is needed most, because that's where we can have the most impact. What else? It's important that we set an evaluation period. It's important that whatever we do, this is 15 years worth of funding, that we set a time as if it's a levy, that we're going to evaluate the programs we're investing in between now and the end of that time period. And then we take it up as a county again and see whether we're having the impact we want to have and adjust accordingly. We do that with all of our funding levies for best starts for kids and vets and human services. And I think we should do that with this as well. I think I've covered what I wanted to say. Oh, I will say this. I'm going to turn to the public and say this. You all are making incredibly compelling cases for all the needs that you are speaking to. And we hear you. And as a mom of of a young man who's 13 now, I guess I can't call him a little kid anymore. I we want to do for all of it. But when you have a group of people asking for 60% of the money and another one asking for 40% of the money, and a third group, somebody is going to be disappointed. So I just we we have to figure out a way, I think, to give a strong rationale for why we're investing, where we're investing. But I don't know that all everybody is going to be happy with the percentage. Number. So I hope that you will bear with us and work with us and help us to figure out a way where we can make a fair level investment that has the best outcome for the most young people from pre-K all the way through post-secondary. So thank you for just kind of asking for your indulgence a little bit as we work through this and thanking you in advance for that. All right. Thank you. Councilmember Lambert. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, I agree with what we heard from the last speaker completely, but I'd like to add a couple of things. First of all, I agree with what Councilmember Avakov said about us being the policy branch and that we have spent a lot of time and a lot of hours read, a lot of reports . And so I think we should be the ones making the decision on how the money is distributed to go out. 15, 25, 25, 25 is peanut butter. And I think it's more important to me that we do something meaningful transformation, transformational, powerful, ongoing changes. And one of the things that I was talked about about earlier was that we might have a little evaluation money in here and that might be something we can do. There are many buckets of money and we need to be sure not just this bucket, but all of our bank and others to be sure that the needy all across the county are being served because there are pockets where there's really high needs and there's pockets where there is not quite so many in need. But every district has people that are in needs. So I think it's important for me that we be really aware of Aces and making sure that we get to the children as early in life as possible so that they're on the right track as early as possible. And that the Women's Advisory Board has done a lot of work on this over the last couple of years. I met with several people and one of the people told me that the data we've been looking at was on subsidized youth only, that the data was only for that category as they had read it. Originally, I was thinking it was all eligible youth across the county, and so even the numbers that we're using are a smaller section of the pie than all of the need. And so I asked the Women's Advisory Board to go back and give me some more information. And basically what they said was, even if we did a whole lot of money. Again, this is a hypothetical. Even if we went as high as 85% going to facilities for small children, it would only cover 73% of the subsidized eligible youth. So even if we went that far, we're still not getting the whole pie, but we're getting a very large percentage. And so I think as we look at each of the percentages, we need to look at what percentage of the problem are we solving and try to get the problem solved. The last thing I want to say is that, you know, there are two things left over from my days in the legislature that I still have have pain about, and neither one of them are solved. And it's been 18 years. So it's it's hard for me when those two topics come up because back then I was very concerned that they won't be done right. And it turns out they still haven't been done right and we're still dealing with them. And one of those is foster care. The Brame decision, or Brom, depending on how you pronounce it, was settled two years ago by the court, and that is for foster care kids. And one of the rules around foster care kids and so two years ago after gosh, I guess it was like 18 years of negotiating and saying , do this, pretty please do this. You're still not doing it right. Was the mess for over 18 years and even two years after the final negotiations. They are still not clients with the new agreement two years ago. So the foster kids in this state are still not being treated with the care and concern that I believe they deserve. These are people who have nobody but us. And I know with my own children, it doesn't matter whether they're 18 or 21 or 25 or 30 or even 40. There are times when they come back to mom and say, Can you help me with X, Y or Z? And for us to have expectations that a child at 21 or 25 is not going to need anybody to turn to is something that's very painful. So I think we really need to do something with our foster care kids and to make them a huge priority. So those are my priorities. Thank you. Thank you, colleagues. Councilmember Gossett. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I generally concur with a lot of the points that my colleagues have made. I thought the government about the issue was particularly perceptive when she noticed that we didn't have direct criteria for K 0 to 5 and post-secondary. And actually some of the people that testified said we want we want this money to go to all the children that want to go to college or we want it for all the child care centers. I think it's absolutely imperative that we have targeted criteria for money that's at 0 to 5 K-12 and post-secondary if we end up having funds in all three, and that it has to explicitly say what's in the state legislature, legislation that went to sound transit, and that is that their beneficiaries be low income youth, youth of color, child welfare system recipients, foster care kids and those involved in the criminal justice system. All those are disproportionately African-Americans and other youth of color and poor people in general. They are married. When he first took over as mayor, I don't know, five or six years ago, he said he was shocked when he found that in Seattle, Washington, that 55% of all black kids, 18 and under, live in households that are below the poverty and the corresponding figure for white youngsters is 5%. He said, I just didn't know, Councilman Gossett, that the inequality was that great. And, you know, it's a it's a major challenge. So I think and I think if you look at what happened the last three weeks, the overwhelming majority of the population of folks that provided input to us here clearly were saying when they came up in big groups that they want k 12. Yes, it's true that they want various aspects of K 12 from it, but I just don't think that that's political criteria that's coming from residents that say that the focus has to be on 0 to 5 or both secondary and the most critical need is in K 12, because no matter what we've done over the years, the categories that we're focusing on low income youth, youth of color, child welfare and foster care kids are consistently doing extremely poor. We can't solve all of it with $300 million, but we can target a few programs like Dr. Juneau, who's the superintendent of schools now, told the Breakfast Group, which is a black man's social group, that I'm a part of, that she was shocked to find out that 64% of all black third graders in the Seattle Public School still today, despite whatever existed in the past, are are reading at below many far below third grade level, third and fourth grade level. So we can target third or fourth grade or we can talk target cultural enrichment for our high schoolers, or we can target curriculum change for teachers that we test and evaluate to see if it makes a difference for our public schools. I know we can't run everything, but I think that in each of the three categories we have to target. I agree with Councilmember of the girl. We need to be the ones to be more prescriptive than the County Council usually is by coming up with the criteria and pushing and encouraging the executive staff to go along with it. And then we put a little bit in there for evaluation. But we have targeted focus areas of K-12, post-secondary and zero to try and 0 to 5. My problem with going forward in 50% and three out of five per capita is that the examples that I have to draw from , from the County Council, when we've made money available just for capital in the past, we have not done very well. Even when we say, Oh, we want our fair share of it to go to the poor because the poor are not able to put together proposals to say, well, we got to put 10% of the money into the project, or 15%. An account only has to put in 70% was no real for growth. Given the statistics I gave you all the earlier that our ten 15% extra point for capital moneys are based on the incentives and incentives are going to have to be non-financial. We're going to have to put this criteria in there and we're going to be vigilant and looking at it. I just think in closing, Mr. Chair, that we have to just choose targeted program areas in each of those three categories, but particularly K-12, that we focus the money. I agree with members who say, Well, we just read it all over. We're not going to have anything resolved. We got to be proscriptive about what it is we find, how we're going to evaluate it, and why it is that we think by putting money in these categories, that's going to make a big difference for low income kids, kids of color, those on child welfare, those in foster care, and those that are involved that are involved in the juvenile justice system. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Council Member Wells. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a question of jobs and then I would like to make a couple of comments. Jeff, and in my incorrect here, am I correct that in our motion that we approved two years ago and in the motion that's before us now, we do not differentiate between any of the three buckets early learning , K-12 post-secondary in terms of only one having the priorities to reach children and youth of color, those in low income families, children of youth who are homeless and the foster care system or in the child welfare system, or involved or potentially involved in the juvenile justice through criminal justice system. I thought those those were for all three groups. In the motion before you. There's there's sort of two sections. And in section A, it's sort of shorthand for the different educational areas. But then in section B, it calls that it says for all of this, for everything you do, focus on these kids. And then when and then in section see it asks the executive to come up with an implementation plan, and part of that is to make sure that it hits those priorities that are in Section B. So that's it. It's certainly could be more clear in Section eight, but the mechanics of what's before us, honestly, I have to go back and look at the the last meeting and I haven't and it's not top of mind right now. But my understanding is it's not that these targeted efforts go on solely in K-12. It's across all three areas. That's correct. Okay. What's unclear, I find, is when criteria are mentioned for the executive to come back, it's relating to the process of allocating the funds. But still, all of these mentioned targeting will go on in all three, as we've called them buckets. Yeah, I think that's how the, the, the report is structured. So. Mr. Chair, I have a lot of mixed thoughts here and we've all commented on this before. It's so compelling to hear from the people who've engaged in public comment, who've emailed us, who've called us, have spoken out at the many listening, listening sessions around the county that were held by the consultant. And I mean, my heart goes to this one and that one and the third one, because they're all so compelling. And one thing that is really important to me is that or a couple of things that are really important to me is that we look at this holistically. Children, young, very young children, school aged children, youth who are going often to some type of post-secondary program or potentially would, you know, are real people. They're not just like segmented that they're people when they're only in your early learning and that's when they should get all their attention are in K-12 or in post-secondary opportunities. And for me, it's looking at that whole person and what's going to be best to work out for them regardless of the age span in which they are. And in fact, I see that all three of these age areas have overlap. I mean, there's certainly a lot of overlap between early learning and K-12. It's essential to get kids engaged with education. Passion and opportunities and love of learning and so forth when they're really young. And we do not have a sufficient number of child care centers throughout the county, let alone ones that parents can afford to have their children there. This is a fabulous opportunity to expand what we have in some communities with Headstart and eke out, but we're just not able to keep up with it all. But there is that overlap with the K-12 program, and the more we can do in early learning, there's a better opportunity for individual kids to be able to have a meaningful education while in the K-12 systems, and especially when we're talking about the the at the ethnographic and demographic areas since we've included. But there's also obviously a huge overlap between K-12. Keeping kids in school, keeping them engaged and not dropping out of school, not getting involved in the juvenile justice system, especially for kids who are in the foster care system or the child welfare system and so forth. So to me, I look through about as I look at all of this holistically, I see some appeal to looking at those linkages too, and not having three discrete systems that we're dealing with. And with that, I would like to remind everybody, I'm sure you all know it, but in the last legislative session session when we had the clarifying legislation come through, that we can use the funds for Capital One time expenditures. We also were informed that we cannot bond the funds that we receive, but we can use the funds to create endowments in all three of these buckets, so to speak. And I'd like to suggest to my colleagues that we really look at having some some percentage of what we do go into creating endowments, which we could then have longer term effects than otherwise. So I haven't decided where I am here on which percentage for each group, but those are some of my thoughts. Mr. Chair, thank you. Thank you. I want to share your interest in breaking down some of the barriers between those buckets, if you will, and recognizing, particularly in some of the work that we're hearing about and in pondering in K-12 and post-secondary, that if you're going to help students succeed and Kate, in 9 to 12 in high school, that is going to project them into some sort of post-high school work in most cases, and sort of not see that as a graduation, as a D marker, as a hard deadline, an endpoint in start point. And then also recognizing that a lot of the work we hear about the Promise program, if I could, and sort of from a scholarship , perhaps it starts before you're in school, starts with the application and the financial applications and such that again starts before high school graduation. And so recognizing that lines between buckets may blur and we may need to be explicit about that or wherever that is, we we make funding decisions. With that, I want to acknowledge and thank my colleagues. It is unusual for us to have a discussion among ourselves on TV with an audience. But it is the way we can have such a discussion with all nine of us. Being part of it is to do it in public as a as a full committee. So I want to thank you for sitting through our conversation. And more importantly, I want to thank my colleagues for having a conversation that is somewhat unusual to not be debating the fine points of legislation and offering motions and amendments, but talking about our interests. That will then help inform the striker that I expect you will be in committee. You will see before, but will be in committee on Monday, July 15th, when we take this issue up again. And with that, we are adjourned.

Recommendation to receive a report and consider amendments to the Cultural Heritage Commission Ordinance as recommended by the Cultural Heritage Commission (Version A); or as recommended by the Development Services Department (Version B); Request City Attorney to draft an ordinance amending Long Beach Municipal Code Chapter 2.63 related to the Cultural Heritage Commission (Version A or Version B), and amending Long Beach Municipal Code Chapter 9.65 related to Administrative Citations and Penalties; and Increase appropriations in the General Grants Fund (SR 120) in the Development Services Department (DV) by $69,000. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_08182015_15-0811

24 is a Cultural Heritage Commission ordinance. So why don't we do 24 since I know there's people here for that and and then we'll go from there. So, Madam Clerk, item 24. Item number 24, report from Development Services Recommendation to receive a report and consider amendments to the Cultural Heritage Commission Ordinance as recommended by the Cultural Heritage Commission VERSIONE or as recommended by the Development Services Department. Version B Request City Attorney to draft an ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code related to the Cultural Heritage Commission. Virginie Irby and amending Long Beach Municipal Code related to administrative citations and penalties and increase appropriations in the Development Services Department by 69,000 citywide. Okay. Vice Mayor Lowenthal. There's a motion and a second. Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Thank you. I had a couple of questions. One. I know the staff report acknowledges the use of other cities in forming this policy amendment. If you can tell me, your staff can tell me what do the cities of Los Angeles, Pasadena and Glendale say about property, property owner authorization? The staff member answering these questions will be our development services. Manager, Linda Tatum. Continue. Good afternoon. Members of the council. Mayor, in response to the question about the city, specifically the cities of Los Angeles, Glendale and Pasadena. Of those three cities, the one city that does require owner notification prior to a landmarking process is the city of Glendale. The other two do not require owner authorization. Okay, I appreciate that. And the second question I have is from my staff. I know they asked about the policy in other cities in Southern California, such as Claremont, Sierra madre and Santa Ana. Do you know if they have a similar ordinance and what it requires by way of owner consent? Yes. I have the list. 1/2. We'll get the list. Yeah, we have that list as well. We did look at all of the cities in Los Angeles County that do have these types of ordinances, and it's about 5050 as to whether they actually require owner consent or not, specifically for. Claremont. Owner consent is not required. Okay. Uh, what were the other cities? Santa Ana. Sierra madre. Santa Ana is not on here because we only looked at Los Angeles County, and, uh, Sierra madre does require owner consent. Okay, so it is. It is a mixed bag. 5050. And, Mr. Mayor, I apologize. I'm sure staff has a proper report, and I should have waited till the end, so thank you. No problem. We'll go. We'll come back to you, Vice Mayor, as soon as don't we go to the staff report on this and then we'll come back to the to the council. Okay. Back in early 2015, our the development services staff was we began initial discussions with Long Beach Heritage regarding the process to designate some of the city facilities with the landmark designation. And as a result of that list and looking at the process, we realized that the process was fairly cumbersome and lengthy and there was some redundancy in the process. As a result, staff requested our historic preservation consultant, Galvin Preservation Associates, to to work with staff to come up with a recommended way to streamline the ordinance, to make the process a little bit more straightforward and a little simpler and more efficient. So working closely with that staff, we did with staff. The consultant looked at other ordinances in Los Angeles County. We also got feedback from Long Beach Heritage and from of the some of the historic districts in the city over based upon our annual meetings with those groups and based upon our experience with the process for previous historic preservation designations. So as a result, we came up with a recommended ordinance and you see that in your exhibit. And I'm just going to briefly tell you some of the changes to the ordinance. We added some definitions that were recommended by our consultant to clarify some of the terms that were contained in the ordinance. Really importantly, we simplified the designation criteria. We narrowed it down from, I think it may have been 11 or so criteria down to three. And the important component of that designation is that those criteria are now consistent with the State Office of Historic Preservation, as well as the federal regulations. So the benefit there is that once a designation is made at the local level, it can can go forward to the state and the national level a lot more simply and consistently. We also streamlined the application process. We made it less cumbersome. It now goes directly from the Cultural Heritage Committee, directly commissioned directly to the City Council, rather than the intermediate step of going through the planning commission. The other thing that was really important in this process, in terms of the recommended process, is that we we feel that it enhances the credibility of the designation with the process that we now have in place. Because for every application, whereas in the past, the application, along with whatever documentation, would go forward without any additional staff analysis or assessment of the application in the material submitted in the application, the city will now with every application that we receive for designation, either for an individual property or a district, the the city will pay for a consultant to do a much more thorough assessment of the property and do a proper survey. This was based upon some of the concerns that some of the current designations did not have a very thorough vetting based upon their current designation. So we wanted to remedy that. And the city will contribute resources to make sure that that occurs and that process would occur prior to it being taken forward to the CHC for a recommendation. The other items that we did was establish a process to either rescind or amend the designation that was not previously included in the process . And lastly, we took out some of the redundancy by the leading the the section that addressed the publicly owned resources because when city properties are involved, the city had the right to to go through the existing process. So in addition to that, the less what we think was a really significant change to that process is that we added provisions for administrative citations. Currently, the code enforcement staff does not have a way to cite property owners for making additions or changes to historic designations. And the change that we're recommending with this adoption is a change to add citation provisions or administrative citations to Chapter 9.65, the administrative citations and penalties section of the code entitled to the Long Beach Municipal Code. So with that, that's an overall summary. So what? You see in your packet, there is a an exhibit A which is a CHC recommended ordinance and staff and the CHC agreed on all of the components of the ordinance with all of the changes to the process and the additions of the citations. But you also see in your packet a version B, which is the staff recommended ordinance. And the one difference between the two ordinances is that staff is recommending that we get owner consent as a part of the application packet. The Cultural Heritage Commission did not agree with that direction or with that recommendation, so they recommended that the owner, the language that does not require the owner's authorization, which is not in the current code, that that the current language remains. And in the staff report, we've provided more specific details of that language. The last component that I bring your attention to is the fact that this ordinance is also looking at the fiscal impact, and that impact is approximately up to approximately $70,000 each year because staff, as we said before, the recommendation is that the city fund full assessments of any applications that come before the city. The thought being that we want to make sure that the city's resources are being wisely spent as a part of that process. And we feel that the recommended ordinance, which includes the owner authorization before a process is going will essentially it's a good balance, we think, between the private property rights of the owner too, because the designation will affect the the owner's property and it will indeed establish some limitations on their property. And we felt that the owners informed consent to go forward with that process was an important consideration for the city to make, especially given that the city will be committing resources to have these properties fully vetted and that that commitment of resources is not to be taken lightly. And that concludes staff's recommendation or its presentation, and we're available to answer any questions you might have. Thank you. I'm going to turn this back over to Vice Mayor Lowenthal. That's all I have right now for questions. Thank you. Okay. Then I mentioned this over to councilman. Now, just to be clear, is there is there a motion on the floor or. No. There is a motion for option A. Is that how we're doing this? Well, there's two there's two versions. So there's version. Version. A, which is the recommended Cultural Heritage Commission version. Correct me if I'm wrong. Ms. BODAK And then there's version B, which is the staff recommended version. So the motion I'd like to make is for version A. Which is the cultural heritage recommendation. Yes. Okay. And Councilman Richardson. Okay. So there's a second by Councilman Richardson. So that's the motion on the floor. Councilwoman Gonzalez. It's so good. Okay. So I had a couple of questions. So is it possible I know we had just mentioned, Linda, that research within city staff would be about $70,000. Is it possible for us to do some sort of outside research, maybe using Long Beach heritage or using an outside group to be able to do this research that would show that that that amount. We actually did some preliminary research on a list of properties that were being considered by Long Beach Heritage. And we actually used a member of Long Beach Heritage to reach a certain point in that research. So we did have the benefit of that, and we do expect to be able to rely on those research capabilities. But beyond that, we still need to have them in a professional form and do a bit more research than I think volunteers are capable of. So it also would not necessarily be staff costs that are incurred, but actual outside consultant costs that we would we would incur in order to move those nominations forward. We did provide you a maximum. The $70,000 is a maximum, assuming that we have a very, very robust landmarking program and we're moving forward with multiple designations in the course of a year. Thank you. And then I know, of course, many people are afraid that if we go ahead with owners property rights, that it could potentially lead to demolition of these potentially historic buildings. So is there a way I mean, how do we I know that's difficult because we still need to do research, but is there an answer for that or is there a way to minimize that risk? And certainly, I think the issue before you today is is really an issue of a matter of trust. And we have not had an active historic preservation program for at least ten years in the city. And with the addition of Linda Tatum and with the addition of our advanced planning officer, Christopher Coons, and the addition of a of a historic planner funded by the city council during this fiscal year 15 budget, we do have a renewed emphasis on a historic preservation program. Linda and her staff have put together a work program that is actually presented to the the Cultural Heritage Commission. And that work program should hopefully demonstrate a renewed commitment to historic preservation that also includes the landmarking process. In this instance. The difference is that that we want to be able to work with the property owner ahead of time and make sure that the property owner understands what they're getting into and the potential impacts to the private property owner rights. With a landmarking designation, however, if a if an owner chooses not to landmark, we are fully informed and we have a lot more resources in place than we ever did before, that we know that that property is potentially historic. We now have those properties identified through surveys which we currently previously did not have. We now know that those are potentially historic properties and can put them in the computer system so that when an applicant comes forward and wants to demolish a building or a house, a commercial building or a house, it's in the computer system that gives us a warning that says we can't just automatically issue them a demolition permit. And I think that there has been have been cases in the past where that has occurred. And so there is a legitimate fear that there is that opportunity that a new property owner could come along and just ask for a demolition permit. I think we've put safeguards in place and that we have the programs in place now to prevent that from happening. If a private property owner says, I want to demolish the property and we know it's potentially historic, we have an obligation under secure to to look into that analysis and to actually complete a square review before we issue the demolition permit. That's a big change from the practice and the protections that we've had in the past. So I don't see this as weakening our ability to stop an unintended demolition from from occurring. I think that the protections that we're putting in place and the renewed focus on historic preservation will will provide us those protections that the preservationists are looking for. Thank you. And I just think your commitment and I thank you for bringing that forward, because I know you did speak at the Banbridge House to the Cultural Heritage Commission and some members there as well. As, you know, we had a great historic forum and we got I felt like there was a renewed sense of that as well. So I thank you for bringing that up. So appreciate it. I'm gonna go. If there's a Lester's any objection, I'm gonna go to the public comment, and they will come back to the councilmembers. So public comment on the item. Please come forward. Any public comment on a cultural heritage item? Nope. There's one come forward and they're going to move on. Good afternoon, Mayor. Vice Mayor, City Council. My name is Lee Fukui. I'm a sixth district resident. I'm a member of Wrigley's Going Green, Wrigley Clean, team member of L.A. Conservancy and Long Beach Heritage. Basically, I'm a local volunteer and architecture geek. Overall, I think the language of the ordinance is great. Especially with version A. It gives better. Enforcement in protecting Long Beach landmarks. I have great concern with version B, but it's a deciding factor with potential landmarks, you know, solely dependent on property owners. Even though we have the computer survey. And. Those protections in place, mistakes can happen. I'd prefer someone to. Be to double check, go on. Site. And and see. The site in particular, you know, up front and physical, because I know mistakes do happen. And with whatever survey you have, once, once a demolition goes through, that's it. You're not going to get that landmark back. And for example, the press telegram building is not landmarked, but it was fortunate to have Molina health care come in and adaptively reuse that building. But what would happen if Molina decided to sell that building and a new owner wanted to tear down under version B? That could happen and it would be a dramatic loss to the city. Um, as a council, all of you have historic landmarks or future landmarks in your districts. We've all seen positive transformations in areas like East Village Arts District, the art theater on Retro Row, the insurance exchange, and American hotel buildings near the promenade. These landmarks helped energize and encourage investment in your communities and the city overall. It makes Long Beach unique, and these places matter. This Council as a governing body should have the final determination on what is best for this city. This decision is far too important to let property owners. Have the last word. Please vote for CHC. Recommended version A and keep Long Beach a landmark. Destination. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. We think we've got three speakers. I'm going to if there isn't any warm closing the speaker's list of the three and then we'll go back. Yes, ma'am. He's with me. Oh, together. Then you're the last speaker. Go ahead. Hi, I'm Mary Vaux. I'm the executive director for Cure VI, which is the Community Foundation for the Preservation of the Iris Queen Mary. I have a few comments related to the current item. As a community based 501c3 nonprofit for the preservation of the Queen Mary. We're kindly asking City Council and the mayor to please consider postponing the vote of the recommended R 24 amendments to the Culture Heritage Commission ordinances to allow the community and Council members ample time to consider the cultural aspects and the possible outcomes they might have on historical properties and those yet not designated by the City of Long Beach as a historical landmark. I gave a few examples, one being the Queen Mary. It's been a long time intention by local preservationists, Long Beach Heritage and Termite to have the Queen buried designated as a city of Long Beach landmark. The Queen Mary was added to the National Register of Historic Places in April of 93 and remains recognized as a significant landmark around the world today. The possible outcome of these proposed amendments will directly affect the long term preservation opportunities for the Queen Mary. Also taking into consideration the mayor's newly formed Queen Mary Land Task Force, these proposed changes could interfere with national community preservation efforts of the Queen Mary. I gave a copy of this letter to each of you, and I'll hope that you'll take a minute to read it. Some of my points aren't directly related to this particular item, but I guess what my main concern is is we're in favor of option A. We would like the Cultural Heritage Commission to be as involved in the preservation of the city and the Queen Mary as possible, because right now we have no oversight or policy in place . Anything can be done to the ship. Right now it's being done and the city and city council has allowed it. So I would just urge you to read the fine print. Thank you. Thank you. Sir. I Makaurau. Kill my secretary nonprofit Long Beach. While sitting here. I came up with a couple of questions. I just want the the council to consider and the staffers. You mentioned streamlining the process. The one question I has is let's not streamline history. Once you demolish history, it's gone. It's just gone. The the projected penalties and fees that you that you put into their proposal. I completely am in favor of that. Was there any. Projections made of what that revenue. Source would would create. To offset the costs, you know, the. $70,000 that you mentioned? When you talk about property owners, does this include long lease, long term lease holders? Let's say if somebody has a 20 year lease, 50 year lease. Does that fall into that. Category as as a property owner? We're obviously in favor of version A. You mentioned trust. That's a tough one to swallow sometimes. So. I would I would trust the CHC on their opinions more than anything right now because they they've been they've been the constant with preservation in Long Beach. So I would trust their opinion and their their recommendation. Thank you. Thank you. I take this back to the to the council. I know. Uh, Vice Chair. I'm gonna get back to you, Councilman Austin. Thank you. And let me tell you, I don't feel very strongly one way or another on this particular item, version A or version B, I got to tell you, I am a bit concerned about, you know, the ethics with property rights here in the conversation. They're seeing that this is not a time critical issue. I feel a lot better if we we have some time to talk to the Cultural Heritage Commission and the commissioners. I haven't had any meetings with anybody regarding this matter prior to reading it over over the last few days. It would it would make me feel a lot better if we would continue this item for for 30 days or so to allow us to study this a little bit more, because obviously this is a decision that is going to be a significant decision. I did so. So I'd like to put forth a substitute motion to continue this item for 30 days if there's any appetite or will or the council to do so. And. I don't hear any. So we can no motion. Okay. Well, you want to. That would be be something that I'd like for this council to consider this evening. I did have a question regarding the volume of applications for cultural landmarks or historic landmarks that we actually get as a city. And maybe that's more appropriate for staff. Can anybody answer that question? Uh, Councilmember, we have not had an active request for landmarking status in in the last several years. This conversation really started with our renewed partnership with Long Beach Heritage and their request for us to consider a potential list of properties to consider potentially landmarking. That list has maybe eight or 11 different properties on it, three of which are city owned assets. The commitment that we were talking to with Long Beach Heritage was that we would look at the city assets first because that would be easy since we knew the property owner and we wouldn't have to have the discussion, the difficult discussions with the property owners if they chose not to move forward with landmarking. So I'd say that in the next two years or so, there's probably a minimum of three, but upwards of maybe ten or 11 properties that we would look to be landmarking. I do want to correct something. For the record, we are not talking about imminent demolition of any buildings. We're actually not talking about erasing history when we're talking about improving the process. The ordinance, as it is currently written, is so incredibly cumbersome that I don't even know if we could actually landmark a building if we actually followed the process. And the criteria that is used for the city of Long Beach does not match the criteria that is used by the state. We would like our criteria to be simplified to actually match the state criteria, which we think would actually make it easier to landmark properties. So I just want to correct a couple of those issues for the record. So when was the when was the last time we actually did land a property? We landmarked a building that I don't know the name of it. You might remember it. It's the the emancipated youth facility on Anaheim. The Hotel Pacific. Hotel was on it. Council members who were not. Are you referring to the Palace Hotel? Yes, it's the Palace Hotel was landmarked in order to assist it in getting historic tax credits and in order to allow that building to be rehabilitated. I'm going to say that building was probably landmarked in, you know, 2005 ish, somewhere around there. And that was probably the last building that has been landmarked. And I'll just like in with the statement, again, I'd like to know more and learn more about this. But if I can recall, when there was a debate to build a new North library, there were several people who were in opposition to doing that because of the historic value of the theater there. And had we had this kind of provision in place, we may not have a north library under construction as as is today. Martin. Before we go on, I have a couple more council members. I just want to just remind everyone that I think it's really important. There's been a lot of work that's gone into getting us to this point. And I just want to be clear that the commission and staff agree on probably 95% of the document coming forward. And so there is a disagreement on one item, which is the notification piece. But I just want to also just refocus that on a vast majority of the items in that are in discussion. There is agreement. And so a lot of work has gone gone into it's important that we update our codes and our audiences here. So it's good to have a debate about this one issue. It's an important issue. But I also want to just make sure that that everyone knows that were generally in agreement on where on where this is going. Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think you covered it for the most part and misspoke. I want to thank you for correcting some of the misnomers that were stated here. I think typically. We would like to have a suspicion that the city and municipal government are not interested in preserving history, but that's an anathema to who we are . I think that is exactly who we are in Long Beach and we are not raising history or demolishing anything. If anything, I think the staff's work and the Cultural Heritage Commission's work leads us down a path where we can actually landmarked something. So, Miss Burdick, if if you could give us some examples, for instance, of the 8 to 10 potential properties that were mentioned and what the ownership would be, I would appreciate that. Certainly one of the ones that come up. Off the top of my head is the Alamitos Branch Library on Third Street near Cherry. It is a city owned facility that is a beautiful Spanish Mediterranean facility that is very qualified to be a landmark but has not been considered as a landmark. An example of a potential private property is a beautiful craftsman, a two storey single family home in Virginia Country Club that was constructed by famous architects Green and Green Brothers. That is a private property that the property owners have spent an incredible amount of money restoring to the version of the Green and Green Brothers that that it was originally intended to be viewed as. But that house is not a landmark. And so, you know, one of those could potentially be a landmark. Another one is the community center at Highland Park. We've had discussions with Councilmember Richardson about that. It is not designated as a landmark now that the has the Long Beach Heritage Association pointed out their concerns, along with the Cultural Heritage Commission, that the building was not landmarked and may be potentially considered for demolition in the Highland Park master planning process. We talk to the council member, we talked to the city manager, we talked to Parks and Rec. We made it clear that it had value as a resource. They all agreed and that building will not be subject to demolition as part of the master plan, but will actually be incorporated as a master plan even though it is not landmarked today. So I think that in particular shows that we have a willingness to work with the preservation community to meet their preservation needs while still meeting our facility needs, particularly on city property, and that we are willing to have those conversations and not just consider demolition. I appreciate that. So also. So for the most part, I think it's safe to say we will have examples where the city of Long Beach is the property owner. And I should have clarified earlier when I made the motion to support version A that I do believe for the most part we would be the property owners. And so and I think when there is a private property owner, you will find an example such as the one that Ms.. Murdock elaborated on with the green and green home. You have invested owners who are already investing in preserving the historic aspects of their home. And a landmark status process is not cumbersome. And Ms.. Burdick, remind me, when we were working on activating the Jurgens tunnel, the Jurgens Trust at one point was on some registry, and we had looked into opportunities to possibly designate the tunnel as a landmark status. Is that something that the Cultural Heritage Commission has looked at? The Cultural Heritage Commission has not looked at any of these properties. We haven't gotten that far in the process. I don't believe the Jurgens tunnel was on the initial list that the Long Beach heritage provided to us, but we can certainly look at that as an option. Related to the initial list, I would say it's somewhere around eight or ten properties in length. I can recall three properties at a minimum were city properties and the others were private properties. Okay, thank you, Miss Burdick. So I recognize and understand that there might be some interest in delaying this item. But what I don't want to do is call the good men and women of our community to participate on our commissions and have them spend an exorbitant amount of time doing so and staff putting that work into it and cause unnecessary delays on our part. I'd like to emphasize to my colleagues that the motion I had made for version A is one that is fully vetted by the commission that we charge with these with these items. And it's also been vetted by the staff. And as the mayor said, it is identical. The two versions are identical except for the consent by the property owner. And for the most part, I think we can assure everyone that we would be the property owners city of Long Beach. And so with that, I urge my colleagues to support version eight. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Councilman Andrews. Yes, thank you, Mayor. You know, I want to thank the staff for their hard work on this item, but I also want to acknowledge the success. A resident emailed me on this concerned about this item. You know, as we have presented these two choices today, I can see that there may be a chance of losing some of our city heritage, which makes Long Beach a very unique place. And I just have a question that I'd like to ask Mrs. A anybody. I have a question for the staff. If it goes to option B and the property owner decides not to sign off on the property to become a landmark. Which option is there for the public to pursue landmark status? So in option B and the city, you know, we approach a property owner. The property owner says that they're not interested in landmarking the property and they're not interested in doing anything with the property at this point in time. The public frankly, it the property stays in in situ. It just its status stays current. However, what is known is that it has a it is a potential resource. It gets logged in to our system as a potential resource and a demolition permit or an adaptive reuse permit or a building entitlement permit will not be issued on that property until we have that discussion. Two years go by, three years go by, the property owner decides to sell or the property owner decides to do improvements to the property. At that point, we can then have the discussion with them about potential landmarking, particularly if the property owner is interested in receiving discretionary entitlements. We do have the ability to make it a condition of approval at that point in time that that they are required to landmark it. So we do have the opportunity to do that. And Option A does not wipe that opportunity off the map. Or option B excuse me, option B does not wipe the opportunity to landmark off the off the charts, I should say. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. You know, I'm kind of inclined to think that time is of essence really with this. And I would like to kind of I would like to see a little more time because I really haven't had that much time to really go. And I think 30 days or 60, what it would take in order to get this right, because this is something that would be extremely unique for the city and for, you know, people who in the city of Long Beach, when we talk about historical, you know, venue. So I would really like to kind of wait. And if we could get that, I would like to you know, if Mr. Armstrong is willing to make that motion, I don't know what it would go, but I would go with it. Yeah. You want to for any emotion, I like to ask, could we get it from the emotion to maybe for 30 days or more? I think the the friendliest asked the maker of the motion to move this move this a 30 days. I decline that. Okay. Okay. Okay. Councilwoman Mongo. I think that first, I want to thank so many people that worked so hard on this. And again, I know I say this often, but not each and every person is here every week. I really appreciate the written testimony that comes in in advance because it gives us an opportunity before Council to really go through the deep questions. And I think that the part that has had some concern with neighbors and I think that Ms.. Bodak and Vice Mayor Lowenthal, you've done a great job of really outlining some of the details, is that there's a fear from property owners that they will be forced to be a landmark. And the current document that I read from President Perry related to that the record owner may petition to withdraw from designated status. Really seems reactionary to me more than proactive in in reaching out to them. And so I'd be open to maybe instead of prolonging it 30 days to just give a direct result that it meets the concerns that I've heard, which would be that before. That the owner is involved before designation. Can can Steph maybe weigh in on that? We thought we had done that with version B. So we version B does not require the property owner to come before the city council after the property has been designated and ask for that designation to be withdrawn. So I think I'm asking for something slightly different. I think what I'm asking for is before it becomes designated that the property owner is reached out to and given the opportunity to speak with their council member to potentially prevent it from becoming designated. If they feel that they have cause. To maintain its current status. Vice Mayor. Mr. Mayor, if. I could. Understand this a little bit better. I think what Councilwoman Mungo is asking us to consider is more along the lines of the level of involvement we're. Yes. So Maverick, while version B approached it from that aspect, I do think there's an opportunity in version A to keep that in tact, but ensure that the property owner has the opportunity for a greater level of involvement in the process so it doesn't appear or in reality feel as though they are not in control. And again, I have to reiterate, for the most part, almost always there is cooperation because it is in everyone's best interest to go through this process. So if I could get some direction from the city council, that would be greatly appreciated in understanding it. At what point in the process would the property owner involvement be required? Would it be before it goes to the Cultural Heritage Commission, or would it be after the Cultural Heritage Commission has made an initial recommendation, but before it gets to City Council, or is it at the City Council? So my friendly would be that it would be before it goes to the Cultural Heritage Commission so that the owner could be there and present and present information should they request not to not receive that designation. And I think that it's important, again, a majority of the properties that are currently under consideration are owned by the city and are all in agreement. But when we legislate at this level, we really need to think of the potential unintended consequences 30, 40 years from now. And so if we could out of friendly that the property owner would be notified in advance of it coming to the Cultural Heritage Commission that would give them the opportunity to be present and a part of that process. Vice Mayor. I would accept that. Okay. So there's a motion on the floor with a friendly amendment. Councilman Austin I'm satisfied with that. Okay, then. Mr. Mayor, may I just ask one clarifying question, which is important to us, that this would occur before it was even scheduled for CHC hearing, or would it be at the CHC hearing? Before. Before. Excellent. Thank you. Thank you. We're very satisfied with that resolution. We do think it still balances A and B. So if that's the will of the city council, we would be pleased to implement that. Great. And before we go to a vote, I just want to because I've been hearing some of the I've been getting the emails and the had had some conversations. I just want to also just say that there is no question that when the city had a recession and an economic downturn, that there was definitely the level the level of commitment the city had to start preservation as far as having a dedicated staff member. There's no question that that suffered. I think everyone on this council recognizes that. Well, I think everyone has in their hearts wants to preserve and want to preserve our history. I think the city did slip a little bit when it came to having a commitment that was consistent. And so I think I want to I think it's important that we recognize that and the community understands that. But I'm also hopeful that now we can all move forward together, realizing that we have great new, new planning staffs on board that has this expertize, new historic preservation planner and new director of planning in Ms.. Tatum, and that we move forward with trust because we're all on the same page. We're all on the same team. We want to preserve our buildings. We want to make sure that there's trust that's there. And certainly that to me is important, I think, to this to this council and certainly to staff who's working very, very hard to ensure that we have a strong historic preservation program. And so with that, there is a motion on the floor. Please cast your votes. Motion carries eight zero. Thank you. I'm going to go. We're a little bit behind on doing the budget, but there's there's been a request to hear Ms.. Ridder. So I think Kimberly Ridder here in the audience, if we can have Ms.. Ritter, please come forward and know she has a few folks here in the room to go straight to the budget so we can have the budget. Folks, please start setting up. We're going to go into the budget after this.

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by adding Chapter 18.30 establishing a Proactive Rental Housing Inspection Program, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_06232015_15-0492

Communication from City Attorney Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by adding Chapter 18.30. Establishing a proactive rental housing inspection program. Read an adopted as read citywide. Thank you. There's a motion and a second. Any public comment? See? None. Please cast your vote. And also, Madam Clerk, Councilman Richardson has been cleared from the last few speaking slots, as we know. So cash votes. Both Alonzo. Motion carries eight zero. Okay. Now we are going to item 20. Five. And Councilwoman Gonzalez. Well, before we got to 1825. Go ahead. Just have to recuse myself. I'm a full time employee with Microsoft. Okay, I'll just move it. Oh, okay. Item 25. Do you want to read the item?

Recommendation to refer to the Economic Development Commission the issue of marketing the OpenCounter software for consideration and recommendation.

LongBeachCC_05192015_15-0356

Item 12 Communication from Councilwoman, Mango, Chair, Economic Development and Finance Committee Recommendation to refer the Economic Development Commission. The issue of marketing the open counter software. Councilwoman Mongo. Yes. I am so thankful to the work that our city staff have done to make business easier in Long Beach for those of you who had not seen the presentation. Are we doing a self-report on this? Are we riding on the coattails of the Enough Staff report? Before I say what's in it? We're ready to self-report. We don't need. Okay. I don't know that we need a staff report. I don't see the nods of the council that we do. I think many of us are pretty informed on what this program is. And at the end of the day, what I think we all know it is, is a tool to make it easier for businesses to find locations and locate in Long Beach and to go through the process knowing and understanding the costs ahead of them, the timeline ahead of them, and what they can expect when they do business. With Long Beach, we are making great strides to move towards being a more business friendly city, and I know that this is going to be a huge step in the right direction. So thank you to staff and all the work you've done and the presentations are on line from the EDF committee, and I hope that my colleagues will be supportive. Thank you. Councilmember Richardson, to your second. Yeah. Was a call for the question. Okay. Actually, I wouldn't have one council call me. Let me just get. Okay. See, no public comment on this. No public comment. Please cast your votes. Motion carries unanimously of 13. Communication from Councilman Austin. Chair State Legislation Committee Recommendation to adopt. And support position as position SB 16 bill, a state proposal that will provide a new temporary funding source for state and local, street and road projects.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification of 1901 Wazee Street in Union Station. Approves an official map amendment to rezone property from I-MX-8 UO-2 to PUD-G #19 (industrial, mixed-use to planned development), located at 1901 Wazee Street in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-2-18.

DenverCityCouncil_11192018_18-1006

Hi, Madam Secretary. Please. Because the voting announced the results 12 hours, 12 hours. Resolution one, two, four, six has passed. Council is now reconvene. Council will resume its regular session. Councilman Cashman, will you please put Council Bill 1006 on the floor? I'm working overtime here, Mr. President. I move the council bill 18, dash 1006 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. We appreciate your hard work. It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council Bill 1006 is open. May we have the staff report? Good evening, council president and members of council. I'm Liz Weigel with Community Planning and Development and I will provide the staff report. This is an official map amendment for 1901 wasI Swasey Street from IMX 802 to Pdg 19. It is located in Council District nine in the Union Station neighborhood. The the subject site is bounded by 19th Street wasI Street and 20th Street. It's currently occupied by a surface parking lot and a walkway that we will be referring to as Wynkoop Promenade. The rezoning from I am x eight, which is an industrial mixed use district with a billboard use overlay to plan unit development 19 would facilitate development of the site with mixed uses. As I mentioned, it's currently zoned I am x eight to surrounding properties include the downtown lower downtown district. Light industrial zoning over Coors Field and adjacent pods. As I mentioned, the subject site currently has surface parking on it. Surrounding properties include the baseball stadium office, commercial mixed use and multi-unit residential uses. This is an image of the site looking southwest towards downtown. The site is outlined in yellow and these images show the site itself in the center at the top and the mix of buildings and building forms around the site. The purpose of a planned unit development or APD, is to provide an alternative set of regulations to a standard zoning district and unique and extraordinary circumstances. It allows for more flexible zoning than what would be achievable in a standard zoned district without putting in place multiple variances, waivers and conditions. In this case, the Pdg 19 is proposed to address several unique circumstances, including the site's location. In the downtown context, its adjacency is to lower downtown and to the baseball stadium. The site configuration, including the lack of a street connection along Wynkoop Street, the lack of an alley, and the grade change along 20th Street. Given the site's unique conditions, the PD uses the downtown Arapahoe Square 12 plus district as a base district with tailoring and incorporation of Cemex 12, which is our urban center context regulations as appropriate. Key elements include tailoring of the primary building form standards, alternatives and exceptions, including a height transition from 19th to 20th streets. The provision of wynkoop promenade as a pedestrian access through the site. The establishment of primary and side streets on lot lines, including the treatment of Wynkoop Promenade as a primary street. The provision of 20% private open space. Administrative design standards and guidelines, which are largely based on downtown Arapahoe Square and maximum vehicle parking. The public process is listed here on the site on the slide. The planning board heard this application on September 5th and recommended approval. We also have letters of support from the Downtown Neighborhood Association, the Downtown Denver Partnership and the one Wynkoop Plaza Condominium Homeowners Association, which is included in your in the staff report and also in speaking in support at the planning board. The Rocky Mountain Warehouse Lofts Homeowner's Association also submitted a copy of a memorandum of understanding that they have come to with the developer. In addition, the applicant also hosted a number of community meetings both before and during the application process, which is outlined in the application for the in terms of the rezoning criteria and the Denver zoning code, there are standard review criteria for all non legislator on legislative rezonings and additional criteria that I will walk through for a Pudi district. So first, the standard rezoning criteria of which we have five. The first is consistency with adopted plans, of which we have four in this area. First, staff finds that the application is consistent with a number of comprehensive plan 2000 strategies, and most of which deal with promoting infill development, mixed use and transit oriented development in Blueprint, Denver 22 The land use concept here is downtown and an area of change downtown is described as the centerpiece of the city where we want to direct growth and mix of uses. Also, we're looking for high quality urban design and to have special design standards in place. Blueprint Denver also speaks to the use of a planned unit to. It's generally discouraging them because they complicate administration over time and they are not very flexible over time. But it does say that they should only be used in extraordinary circumstances and in this case. Would you feel that this Pudi meets the requirement of these being extraordinary circumstances of the downtown area plan from 2007 includes this site in the lower downtown district. Most of the guidance in the plan for this area speaks to the historic district itself, but it does call out this site as an opportunity, say it recommends a priority, pedestrian connection through it, and encourages neighborhood serving retail. There are also a number of general recommendations in the downtown area plan of which this application is consistent, including prioritizing pedestrian, strengthening connections, encouraging active ground forces, expanding housing opportunities, improving our design guidelines and zoning to realize the desired character of downtown, and enhancing the public realm to provide venues for outdoor activity. The Central Platte Valley Comprehensive Plan Amendment from 1991 also applies to this site, and this plan gave guidance around the redevelopment of the valley itself. This area is called our is general mixed use and specifically called out as an area where light industrial usage should not be allowed. It's also identifies it as part of what's called the mid-rise heights in the plan. There are not specific heights called out in this plan, but it points you to an appendix that talks about a height of about 140 feet that was discussed during steering committee meetings. This plan also calls out a priority pedestrian access point along the wine coop alignment, which is consistent with the proposed pedestrian access in the PD. And then lastly, this area is within what's called the upland area of this plan amendment, which said that new buildings should respect the scale and character of the downtown and provide or improve pedestrian and bicycle access and provide open space. So staff does find that the proposed idea is consistent with adopted plans will also result in uniform application of zone, district, building, form, use and design regulations. It will further public health, safety and welfare through implementing our adaptive plans and also encouraging a pedestrian friendly environment. Open space amenities in an appropriate use list of the application identifies and staff agrees that there has been significant development in around Union Station neighborhood that are justifying circumstances for the rezoning. And also the PD is consistent with the downtown neighborhood context as it uses the downtown Arapahoe Square 12 plus as a base with tailoring to ensure neighborhood compatibility. So now I will walk through the specific rezoning criteria of which there are five. The first is that the Pudi is consistent with the intent and purposes of Pdes, which are stated in Article nine of the zoning code. I'll walk through these. As I mentioned, unique and extraordinary circumstances is one of those criteria. We do feel that that given that the plan guidance for this area recommends the downtown context, but we do not have an appropriate downtown zone district at this pudi is appropriate. Our closest fit would be Cmax, which is the Urban Center District, but this would not address the lack of a public right of way or as an extension of Lincoln Promenade. It would not address the downtown location and regulations that we have in place for other downtown districts. And it also does not address the immediate context of the lower downtown historic district. So the Pudi uses our most recent downtown district, which is D as 12 plus as a as a base, together with urban center regulations as appropriate to address the site's unique features. The next criteria is that it should not be as few do. You should not is not intended to so solely as a veto vehicle to develop a site inconsistent with the applicable neighborhood context or to enhance economic feasibility and staff finds that, as I mentioned, the Pudi G 19 is consistent with the downtown neighbor could context and character and it is actually intended as a mechanism to ensure that development is consistent with our adopted plans. The beauty criteria also speaks speaks to the fact that in exchange for flexibility, there should be significant public benefit, which we do find that the beauty does provide, that first being the provision of one who. Promina and again, that would be a pedestrian public access way through the site. Along that the alignment of Wynkoop Street, the transition from 19th to 20th Street that addresses that LoDo adjacency, pedestrian friendly design and building forms. A provision of 20% of the site is private, open space and maximum vehicle parking requirements. We also find that the PD complies with all standards and criteria stated in Division 9.6 and that the beauty is necessary because there is no standard zone district available that applies downtown appropriate standards to this unique location and addresses the site's unique configuration with regard to Wynkoop, Promenade and 20th Street and not lastly to Moore. The PD establishes permitted uses that are compatible with existing land uses adjacent to the subject property. There are no use related changes proposed, so we'll use the D as 12 plus zone district use list. And then lastly, the PD establishes permitting building forms that are compatible with adjacent existing building forms. And again, we, the PD, will be using the DS 12 plus general with height, incentive building form and the CRM X12 General Building form with tailoring to vary heights from 19 to 20 20th Street and apply standards to the Wynkoop promenade to treat it as basically as a primary street in terms of its build to its transparency and its active uses. And the PD incorporates administrative design standards and guidelines that will ensure that it's tailored and addresses the LODO adjacency. So with that finding that all review criteria have been met, CPD recommends approval of the Map Amendment application. Thank you. Thank you so much. We have eight individuals signed up to speak this evening, so if you wouldn't mind coming up to this front bench so we can get through everyone quickly and efficiently. As soon as I call your name, step up to the podium as your time will start to elapse. First up, we have Hal Roth. Good evening, Mr. President, members of the council. My name is Hal Roth and the chief financial officer of the Colorado Rockies Baseball Club 2001 Blake Street, Denver. I'd tonight I'd like to explain to you why we are undertaking this project. When we were negotiating with the Denver Metropolitan Major League Baseball Stadium District here and after Stadium District on a new lease for Coors Field, the biggest issue was the capital needs of the stadium going forward. We had two separate engineering studies done, both of which came back that we would need $200 million over the next 30 years to keep the stadium in the shape that it is now. This is such things as replacement of steel, concrete seats, a lot of infrastructure, equipment, similar things that you deal with on city business buildings. The issue is that the tax that established Coors Field had expired. So there's still public money left. So one of the ideas of the stadium district was to go out with a request for proposal to developers, got back five proposals from the developers. They offered a 99 year lease from the stadium district and the problem with their proposals were in the first year they'd pay, as I recall, about two and a half million dollars. In year 99, it was 18.6 million. And we said, Well, gee, that's all good and great, except we need it in the first 30 years. So we came back with the proposals, the Rockies. What happens if we pay an amount over the first 30 years that exceeds the present value of what the developers offered? So we have agreed to pay 125 million for this ground lease, which we will then sublease to develop an entity. Many of the members of the development entity will be similar to the owners of the Rockies. So that's how we were going to proceed to provide the capital funding for the stadium. And I would like to thank the city, the city planning department, and particularly to Liz Weigel for all our hard work on the pad. I'd like to thank our neighbors and the neighborhood groups that have worked with us in planning this project. And finally, I'd like to thank City Council for your consideration tonight. Thank you. Next up, John and Shuki. Good evening. My name is Johnny on a shoe ski. I'm with Stantec Architecture, the architects for the project and we are at 1050 17th Street, Denver. When we started working with the Rockies in the neighborhood group we always start our project was trying to define a vision. Where does everybody want to be when we're done? And this was fairly unique vision that the Rockies had because they wanted to know what the neighbors thought and what the neighbors believe was the next best thing for Denver. And we kind of identified four big areas. Denver's next great, next, great place is where the biggest bang for our buck was no different than Union Station in Larimer Square that we wanted this area to be relevant year round. Right now it's relevant 81 days of the year. And every time you go down there, especially now, there's nothing going on. So we wanted it for family friendly and safe, and we want it to be a neighborhood gathering spot. So with all those criteria, we looked at the current zoning, which is IMX eight, 750,000 square feet. You could build within that envelope, but that envelope didn't accommodate the forms that we were looking for to really take action on those relevant goals. So we went the pod pulled out with the city and we kind of set up certain goals within the city that work not only with our design but within the city envelope of what we can create with the PD. One of those goals was to created something that fit into the downtown context but related to lower downtown. And how did we do that and how do you step up from lower downtown to the stadium side? And we did that within the PD with limiting at a setback that happens at eight storeys, which is typical for lower downtown, limiting everything along 19th street to 11 storeys and then working our way up to 20th Street where we can do 13 stories for the hotel and a residential. The project is currently said the way it works now with the neighborhood at about 660,000 square feet, so 90,000 square feet below the use by Wright that we had originally. So all we're doing here is looking for a massing change to accommodate all the goals that we're trying to get. The other goal we wanted to do is activation along line coupe. Right now, there's no activation on wine coop. It's a dead zone in the city. Anything that goes in there usually fails. And so the idea is to activate that no different than a public street. And we've accomplished that within this new duty. We also wanted to create a content plaza no different than Rockefeller Center in the center of this plaza. In order to do that, we looked at open space requirements within the zoning and none existed. This will have open space of over 20% and over 50,000 square feet. When you combine the two plazas, which will be a certain placemaking effort within the city, that it doesn't really exist within that neighborhood. And last but not least, relating back to the ball park and the LoDo context with site specific design guidelines, heavy articulation and masonry. Thank you very. Much. Thank you. Next up, Sean Reilly. Good evening, Mr. President. Members City Council. My name's Shaun Maley, CRL Associates 1660 Lincoln, Denver. We've been working with the Rockies and the architect on the West Lot PD and wanted to just briefly go over a few items from our public outreach process and work with the community. So starting in August of 2017, we started working with the neighborhood and community and having meetings with the RINO's and Archways was in the area. We held a span of neighborhood meetings, six in total where we talked about the project, its relationship to the ballpark, as Hal explained, and some of our initial goals and visions for the sites, we also presented a number of different public venues, including boards, ah, snowboards, Urban Design Committees, Public Realm Committees and quite a few others. We're honored to have support from the surrounding community here tonight, including the Lower Downtown Neighborhood Association, Downtown Denver Partnership, One Wine Coop Lofts and the Rocky Mountain Warehouse Lofts. Some members of the community are here tonight, and I want to thank them for taking time out of their personal schedules to attend this hearing. The process has been iterative and fortunately occurred at a time when we could make significant changes and include certain items within the party. That's before you. I want to thank all the neighbors for their time they've spent with us and meeting. And their openness to this site's redevelopment in a positive and transformative matter is critical to us being here tonight. Lastly, I also want to thank community planning development staff, in particular Liz Weigel, who spent a lot of time and helped us with guidance on the PD lessons, is an exceptional planner and want to thank her and all her colleagues at CPD. Thank you so much. And we're here to answer any questions. Thank you. Next up, Jerry, aka. And good evening. My name is Gerry aka. I live at 1863 Swazi Street and I'm the president of the Rocky Mountain Warehouse Lofts Homeowner's Association. Our building is directly across the street from this project on the 19th Street frontage, and I am here in support of the project and the proposed rezoning. We have had numerous meetings with representatives of the Colorado Rockies for more than a year now. They have consistently sought our input and have responded favorably to the majority of our issues. We have signed with the Rockies a memorandum of understanding which declares that there will be no outdoor speakers on any part of the building or on any of the businesses in the project that front on either 19th Street or Swasey Street. This document, along with the continued good faith efforts of the Rockies to work collaborative with the Neighborhood Lead us to conclude that this project will be of high quality, will be an asset to the neighborhood, and will be well received by those living around it. Therefore, as I said earlier, the Rocky Mountain Warehouse Lofts Homeowner's Association is pleased to support this project and the proposed rezoning. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Andy Davis. Hi there. My name is Andy Davis. I live at 1801 chestnut place here in Denver. I'm the president of the Lower Downtown Neighborhood Association. Or LaDonna, as many of you know, I'm here on behalf of our organization to lend our strong support both to the rezoning as well as the project as a whole. And a big reason for our. Enthusiastic support is, is. Because of the process that we've been engaged in. As Sean mentioned, starting back in September of 2017, the Rockies reached out to La Dona, to the surrounding archways and other LoDo stakeholders for more than a year to engage us in an ongoing discussion about their plans. They weren't required to seek our feedback, but they did. They actively engaged all of our organizations, regularly start our feedback and integrated it in meaningful ways. So just to kind of elucidate that a little bit, we would get together. They kind of laid out their original plans. We provided some feedback. We get together maybe a month or two later. They demonstrate how they integrated, integrated that feedback from Here's what we heard, here's how we integrated it and then saw our reactions reacted to that next version. And then two months later we met again. That went on for several months. As Sean mentioned, we met over six times that that collaborative process produced some really important outcomes at the publicly accessible plaza. The cut through that goes from 19th and Wynkoop to 20th. And while C, which better connects the pedestrian traffic from Wynkoop to the stadium and now better addresses the service and delivery truck traffic in and out of the building, which was a concern of our our neighbors, takes into account the 50 to 80 loop and integrates it into its plans and again maintains the context and materiality of LoDo and the surrounding area. As Jerry mentioned, it's important to us too, because we were a cosigner to the memorandum of understanding which addresses the neighborhood noise concerns and requires that any commercial tenants or businesses applying for liquor license that they abide by the same. The Rockies could have pursued a very different project if they wanted to, but it was important to them to seek the feedback of local stakeholders and create a project that all of us could support. They made good on that that commitment with a thoughtful and deliberative process, and the project is better because of it. Not all projects work this way, and not all organizations engage our community in a way that the Rockies did. And frankly, what they did was is a model for community engagement, and they deserve to be commended for it. That active communication hasn't stopped the Rockies committed to maintain consistent communication throughout the construction process, and we've already met once since the construction started and they've put us in direct contact with Hensel Phelps, the general contractor. And we're actually they're providing us monthly updates that we're including in our lower downtown neighborhood newsletters. So given all of that, we lind our enthusiastic support to the project, to the rezoning and the project as a whole. Thanks so much. Thank you. Next up, Rick Newman. Good evening. My name is Rick Penniman. I live at 1735 19th Street. I am here representing the One Wynkoop Plaza Homeowner's Association. I'm the president of that association and wanted to speak on behalf of the individuals who reside in our building and will be directly affected by this project. If you're not aware, our front door is directly next to Hollow at the moon, which is an auspicious occasion on its own periodically. But as we step out this front door, we are looking forward to seeing the project that is being proposed this evening. We are here. I am here along with the others representing our building and showing our support for the project and specifically for the process. It's been incredibly collaborative, as has already been stated. I think that the organizations involved have gone above and beyond what is normally required to engage in a project like this. The changes we recommended were taken to heart and considered, and if they weren't able to be put into process as part of the project, there was a great explanation as to why this is going to have a tremendously positive effect on our lower downtown community. In listening to the the dreams that the Rockies have for this site, they want it to be the first place that people come when they step off the train from the plains and come to our cities. They want to come to this project and be part of the lower downtown facilities on a year round basis. It's going to maintain, if not improve, the esthetics of lower downtown. They've gone out of their way to make sure that it looks like many of the other buildings in the area. And it's going to be drawing more families to lower downtown. This is going to be a family friendly environment. One of the things that we noticed as after we moved to lower downtown is there's just not as many strollers as there are other neighborhoods. And I think this project will change that. The Rockies in this project. Wanted to enhance the value of the stadium and. Which has been the cornerstone. And we. Believe. That this project. Will not only enhance. But actually propel the lower downtown area to be the number one draw in Denver. And so with that, we give our support to this project and look forward to seeing it develop. Although the dust might get to us for the next three years or so, but otherwise it's going to be a great event in our city. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your service. Thank you. Next up, Chairman A. Slapstick. I was Chairman Sekou the extraction movement for self-defense. Mayor. Candidate. City County of Denver, 2019. First of all, we want to congratulate the Rockies organization for bringing vibrancy and. Economic viability and also jobs. Two poor people in this town. So we support this because they're one of the few organizations that actually do outreach to help poor people in terms of being a part of the concessions in the town. Also, we're getting vendor space also helps high school teams to raise money for their teams in our neighborhood so that they can buy uniforms and shoes and stuff like that. And so they've been a good neighbor. They've been a very good neighbor. And. I am. I hated that I got gentrified out my neighbor. I live on 25th and Chavis Street and. I'd leave my neighborhood because the rent was too high, went from $600 to 1800 dollars overnight, and my Section eight wouldn't cover. And they told me that I wasn't wanted. And it was a 12 step program brought in by a Christian organization about building who said it wasn't going to do that, but they did it anyway. So it's okay. So I was born and raised here five points, six, seven years. We'll celebrate my birthday on Friday and I would be remiss to say that I forgot. I want to apologize for my tone and manner. My family want me to come down here because I just buried my wife on Saturday. And they think it was a good idea for me to come down here. And I told him that the only thing that helps me deal with my grieving is I get to get back to work. You know, because she's good to go. You know, I'm the one is in trouble. So thank you for putting this on the agenda at this time because I really need a break from the nine. I really did. And this one is really a no brainer. We're all in for it. And I love the city. I love the Rockies. And. Good luck. Thank you. Next up, Jesse Paris. Jesse Paris. Black Star Action Moment for Self-defense. Denver Homicide Law and Community Action Committee for Change. And also At-Large candidate for Denver and 2019. We are against this. This is just more planned gentrification in an already rapidly gentrified city. All parts of the city are being gentrified and there seems to be no stop in sight. By allowing this ordinance change, you are just filling the problem and not addressing the crisis at hand, which is homelessness and affordability in the city and county of Denver. This neighborhood in question is no no where by any means affordable. My question is, what is the army level going to be for this plan development? And who is going to occupy this plan and development. Because I've been in a movement profession for the past three years and I've moved several gentrifiers into these properties and into these areas. So I know firsthand this has become an all white enclave with no end in sight. You have to have big dollars to live, play and occupy this space. This public plaza is not public, especially if you are homeless. I would like to see a study done on how many tickets, how many harassments and how many arrests occur in this plaza. Denver. We have a crisis at hand. It's even bigger than the opioid crisis. It's the fact that people cannot afford to live in this once affordable town abode city. You want to turn this into a New Amsterdam? That's really what it boils down to. In the cities in these studies. Are all predominantly white. You want to keep this an all white enclave? There's nothing has changed except a year. This is a modern day Jim Crow. The people are support of this are part of the problem. They have funded and fueled the urban camping ban, which was passed in 2012 that members of this council approved on. So, yeah, this is not helping anybody except to openly rich and those that can afford to live and LoDo around the stadium, around Coors Field. Yes, I am a Rocky fan, but I am not a supporter of this. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of Council Councilwoman Ortega? Thank you, Mr. President. I first wanted to ask about the open space, and I'm not sure, Mr. Young, to see if you're the best person to address that. What what that looks like, how that will feel to the. Not just the. Development itself, but for the public. Can you just speak to that? So again, part of the idea was to have a content plaza. Again, as I said, similar to Rockefeller Center, where it's not a really about the buildings in this project, it's about what's between the buildings. And so in order to get an area of about 25,000 square feet in the center of this block, we carved out an area for this content plaza. And within doing so, we had to reallocate some of that square footage. And the idea for the Content Plaza is to be a counterpoint to what's happening on the plaza at Wynkoop. So we have all this activity. Think of the activity in one as a stream and the Content Plaza ad is eddy off the stream and this eddy is there for neighborhood gatherings. It's there for performances. It's just another way to showcase what Denver has, but do it in a relevant year round format. That'll be a benefit to the city. Thank you. I'm not sure. Maybe, Mr. Roth, you might be the next best person to address whether or not there is any proposed city resources expected to go into the development. Is there a look at tax increment financing or any other public financing tools to help make this project become a reality? We've established a metro district actually to I am plan to use the bonds that will be issued under that Metro District districts to improve the Wynkoop walkway and also the improvements to the sidewalks on 19th NYC. Okay. Thank you. I have no other question. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Brooks. Yeah, thank you, Mr. President. Liz, quick question. There was a one lone one no vote opposed. Can you explain their planning board? Yep. The concern there was with the height that's allowed in the powder and whether that was consistent enough with the LoDo adjacency. So the PD allows from 110 at 19th street it goes up to 150 and then 165. So one planning board member had concern about that. But that's it's consistent with the Arapahoe Square. It's so the only high guidance that we have is from the CPV Amendment Plan, which is from 1991, that talks about mid-rise heights that didn't have a specific allotment for that. But we do feel that that is consistent in terms of making that transition together with the design standards and guidelines that come along with the pad of making sure that it's addressing LoDo appropriately. Interesting. All right. Can you can you talk about parking demand again? This says this is a parking demand site. What is the do you have the ratio for retail in the. So there are no minimum parking requirements. So that's consistent with our downtown standards. But you have. Maximum. There's a maximum. What we did was establish a maximum number overall for the site, for the ease of administration. You don't have administering that. We do have ratios that are I can pull them up that we use to get to that number. But we felt that for administration over time it would be complicated to put the ratios into the paddy itself and that we established. Okay. I'm going to ask a couple of other questions for you just to look at those real quick and then tell me and then Sean, may I just have a quick question for you? Obviously, it sounds like a lot of the neighbors concerns were met. There is one around, you know, affordability in the neighborhood. You this is under under the linkage fee. So what is the amount that the linkage fee will contribute to our housing fund? Yeah, I just checked with how we're off on that and it's approximately 1.13 million. Okay, great. Does that give you enough time list. So that the ratio that we use to get to the maximum was one space per thousand for commercial uses? Okay. And there's 107 condos. I believe so. And it's we use 2.8 per residential unit for that. And this maximum though in the PUTU can be used for any of the uses and it's a number overall that they can get to. Wow. Okay. That's a good number. All right. Mr. President, I. I just have one more question, Liz. I just want to make sure. Last one. You didn't get any letters of opposition from any neighbors? No. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Brooks. Councilman Flynn. And famous for president. Mr. Roth, maybe you be the best person to address this in capturing the amount of value that you are over the 99 years and your capturing it in the first 30. The stadium, I'm assuming, will need some attention in years 31 through 16. Have has the team or the district thought ahead as to how to capture any value afterward? No, councilman. The the main issue is to solve for 30 years. The question is then the stadium will be 52 years old. Will will still be viable, you know, hopefully. So we can point to a couple stadiums. And I know you're a fan that have like Fenway and Wrigley in Chicago that have lasted that long, but those are the only two out of 30. So I hope my successors can keep that going. And but we'll need a new funding source at that point in time. Okay. Thank you. Because it does seem like we're going ahead to your 99 and capturing that value and bringing it into the first 30 years. Yes. Just for the West slide. Yes, it's the 99 years. And then after 30 years, you know, obviously the stadium district, I should say, the taxpayers will still own the land and the stadium. Of course. And then you also have the lots to the east and it. Right? Yes, sir. And one other question that John, maybe you could address this, Mr. Jankowski. What is the what is the plan? And forgive me if I missed it since the last time you're in committee, what is the plan for relocating the artwork, the evolution of the ball? Where is that going to end up? Sure. It was complicated. The we have dismantled the arch right now currently and it's stored in at the Rockies lot. What we're going to do next is in order to kind of solve a lot of problems for a lot of people, we had to move it because of the fire access issues that we had around the building and to keep fire all access all the way around the new complex. Since it's just a parking lot now, it's not an issue with buildings there become an issue with the fire department. And then the next thing we wanted to do was put it in the entrance way to the bridge. And so that's where it's going to locate. It's going to move about 20 feet towards the field and be the archway that would be over the bridge. And in order to accomplish that and keep the Rockies mass from coming through the bridge and not necking down too much, we're going to stretch the arch slightly. So it's the same width of the bridge. Okay. It's because it was kind of at the threshold of the bridge already, but it was in the it was on your on your property. Correct. This is actually going to be in the right of way because it's right right now it's on the property and it's right on the edge of the property. In order to get it out of the fire zone, we have to move it into the right of way. That'll be the right at the entrance to the pedestrian bridge as it goes over 20th. I'm looking at it here. Okay. Thank you very much. That's all this president. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Seeing no other questions. The public hearing for Council Bill 1006 is closed. Are there comments by members of Council Councilman Brooks Yeah. I would love to make a comment, Mr. President, if that's okay. You go right ahead. Thank you so much. You look you look good today, by the way, I am excited about this because I feel like this is this is textbook of how you bring a community together and do it right. I think at a time when we are at a height in growth, in activity and people getting really concerned about construction activity all over my district, but especially in the center of it right here. You know, the Rockies had a plan and decided to spend the time necessary to do it right. And I just really want to thank you all for doing that. And I think the neighborhood for engaging and, you know, I think, you know, going to some of these meetings when you're not getting paid to do it is really tough and it's very complicated. And this is not just a, oh, we're going to put some condos up. This is an entertainment development and it's very complex. But talking to the neighbors, talking to the Rockies team, all the suggestions were taken in and really changed. I mean, from the ingress egress of the trucks, which is really important, this the speakers, the lights, all of these folks who've invested a lot of money in their lives right there are all supporting this. And at a time when there's a lot of controversy over Larimer Square with the same neighborhood, this neighborhood is getting behind it and supporting it. And so I'll just let you know that it was a good move and great relationships. I I'm always concerned about affordability in this city, you know, not just not just folks who are low income or or poor, but folks who are working and actually making $90,000 a year. They can't afford to buy a house anywhere around this area. And so it's a real challenge to address this issue. And I'm grateful that in 2016, we passed an ordinance to make sure that developments like this invest into the future of our city. And and a $1.1 million is a lot of money to invest in this area. And so I'm I'm excited about that. And I'm you know, you see the Rockies have presented what this would look like. And I just can't wait to see it, because if you all have not seen the design, you have to, you know, and the other thing I would say is take money for being a part of this whole process. He's not here tonight, but I think that's big. To have the owner at the meetings sitting down with neighbors is really big in his vision. He gets a lot of respect for me because sometimes the vision, the visionary doesn't want to do the hard work to get in the rooms with the people who actually live in the neighborhood. And he did it all. So hats off to everybody involved. This is a successful project. Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Seeing no other comments. I'll just add quickly. I think you do staff for the great presentation. I think this clearly meets the legal criteria for rezoning. And happy to support tonight. Madam Secretary, roll call. Black. Hi, folks. Hi. Espinosa Hi. Flynn Hi. Gilmore. I Herndon. I. Cashman can h. Lopez All right. Ortega, I. Susman All right. Mr. President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting, announce the results. 12 hours, 12 hours. Total Bill 1006 has passed. On Monday, November 26, the Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 1208, designating 2600 Milwaukee Street, the Henderson House, as a structure for preservation. On Monday, December 17, Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 122, two to create a new zone districts in the downtown context and

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3225 Denargo Street in Five Points. Approves a map amendment to rezone property from I-B, UO-2 to C-MX-16, DO-7 (industrial to mixed-use), located at 3225 Denargo Street in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-27-20.

DenverCityCouncil_12142020_20-1159

As such, Blueprint Denver directs the majority of growth to key centers, corridors and high density residential areas served by transportation options as applies to Tanaka market. The subject property falls within the plans growth strategy area of high and high medium residential areas in D and C contexts, which anticipate 15% of new housing and 5% of new employment by 2040. For this growth strategy to be effective overall, the city needs to channel housing and jobs into appropriate places such as this to achieve other plan goals. Now moving on to the River North Plan, which city council adopted in 2003. The subject property falls within the plan areas southwest corner as outlined in the yellow triangle. In this area. It specifically calls for redeveloping Tanaka Market into a mixed use community with pedestrian oriented transit supportive design. The proposed CMC 16 zone district and the design overlay would help achieve this plan's vision by continuing the build out of an urban center with a compact, mixed use and pedestrian friendly environment. The requested zone district already meets the required criteria for consistency with adopted plans without additional support from housing and inclusive. Denver. The city's plan that outlines strategies to create and preserve strong and opportunity rich neighborhoods with diverse housing options that are accessible and affordable to all Denver residents. Nevertheless, the proposed rezoning, along with the aforementioned Affordable Housing Agreement, helps implement a key recommendation of the plan to promote affordable mixed income and mixed use housing. Now when we consider whether the rezoning meets criteria too, we have to assume that future development proposals will follow the proposed Cinemark 16 zone district regulations if they're approved. If they don't meet CMC's 16 regulations, then developments won't be permitted in regards to the third criteria. If the rezoning is approved, the proposed development would introduce the first affordable housing and commercial space and jobs to Tanaka Market. It would also improve the streetscape, adding a detached sidewalk where none exist today, adding new trees and replacing streetlights. The project would also comply with the Green Building Ordinance by providing green space on site and 5% greater energy efficiency than the building code requires because the project provides those health and safety benefits. We have to answer yes to the question about whether it also meets Criteria three. Justifying circumstances for the rezoning request include changing conditions and adopted plans. Recent physical changes near the subject site includes several new apartment buildings in the generico market area. Reconstruction of Brighton Boulevard. The addition of bicycle and pedestrian connections through the area and a new neighborhood park. In addition, the city has adopted the comprehensive plan blueprints on borough and housing and inclusive tender since the approval of the existing IAB Euro two zone district. As stated throughout this presentation. The proposed rezoning meets the intent of these plans. Overall, the proposed MAP amendment is consistent with the neighborhood context zone, district purpose and intent statement for the CMF 16 End Design Overlay District. Greater detail can be found in the staff report. Finally, CPD acknowledges that this rezoning will facilitate significant change in the area. But based on our objective analysis, we've determined all the review criteria have been met and we are recommending approval. Besides myself, several city staff and applicant representatives are available for questions. Thank you, Libby, for a great staff report. And just to let my colleagues know, if you check your email, we had some difficulties loading the PowerPoint presentation onto Granicus. And so it's been emailed to you as well and reloaded on to the city system. Tonight Council has received 26 written comments on Council Bill 1159. There were four submitted comments in favor of the application and 22 submitted comments in opposition of the application. All members of Council that are present have certified that they've read each of the submit and submitted written comments to any members need more time in order to read all of the written testimony that was submitted. CNN council secretary let the record reflect that all written testimony in favor and in opposition of Council Bill 1159 has been read by each member of Council, and all written testimony will be submitted to the official record of the hearing. We have 39 individuals signed up to speak this evening and we will go ahead and get started. And just a reminder to folks, we are still having Spanish translation. And so if you might slow down your comments a little bit so we can make sure and get everything translated, we'd appreciate that. Our first speaker up is Chase Hill. Good evening, City Council and thank you for your time this evening and for your public service. I'm sorry. Silver, Cypress and I live about a mile from the site. 2924 1.8211. Cyprus originally acquired the northern markets back in 2007 and to date has built to products in the area is currently building a third. We've also been active in the broader market for close to 20 years and in just the last 18 months we've signed three voluntary affordable housing agreements with host committee to a combined 168 affordable units, which puts us near the top or at the top of the list for the most inclusionary affordable units offered by a private market rate developer. Slide three My presentation shows that aside from our substantial commitment to providing affordable housing, Cyprus is also committed to socially responsible and environmentally friendly development. Through socially conscious and environmentally sustainable planning and design, we strive not only to improve the quality of life of our residents, but of the communities we develop in as well. Just months ago we delivered a product in Denver that is MGB Screen Certified. We've also delivered leads project in local markets. We're currently a member of the U.S. Green Building Council and we always strive to reduce the carbon footprint of our residents. We're also at the forefront of developing inclusionary zoning, driven, affordable housing and often build well beyond the minimum required affordable housing imposed by local municipalities. As we have committed to here, Slide five on our presentation shows that within a couple of blocks of the subject site, there are currently three sites highlighted in green that are zoned for 180 to 220 feet, as well as another see 16 sites in addition to several eight and 12 story sites. As explained by Libby, this area is also designated as high residential by Denver Blueprint, which is the highest density designation for residential within that plan and is currently consistent with the 16 zone. Slide six shows our site plan and here are the highlights. It's a six story project with 326 units will include 49 affordable units or 50% of of the total 33 units day of stay in line 16 at 16. It will also include 6000 square feet of retail, which would add to the 7000 square feet we're currently building across the street will provide nearly 15,000 square feet of much needed retail to help significantly improve this messy, mixed use district that we started many years ago. The target market has been labeled as close to everything but next to nothing, and we're determined to change that. These latest projects, in addition to all this, we will also deliver nearly 10,000 square feet of private and publicly accessible open greenspace. And lastly, we'll provide electric vehicle charging stations within the project, and we're working on an RTD bus stop. We also have reached out to 13 different autos. Of the 13. We reached out to eight groups engaged or willing to be with us. Of those eight, seven issued letters support the most time are spent with the Gas Coalition, where we unfortunately cannot commit to their 50% affordable, 30 to 50%. But we did increase our offering many times, including a 50% increase in affordability from 10% to 15% at 1680 AM. Thank you for your time and I'm here for questions. Thank you. Next up, we have Justin Croft. You're muted, Justin. Good evening, members of City Council. Thank you for your time today. My name is Justin Croft. I live in the Cole neighborhood and work in the Renner neighborhood. I was also the Rainbow Bid president for its first five years, my term ending just this past June. I was one of the handful of community representatives who worked closely with KD to craft the requirements and language of design a really seven runner design overlay. I was actively involved also in helping to craft the affordability overlay or the incentive height and affordability overlay at the 30th and Blake Station and surrounding area, which was intended to be a density bonus. In other words, a greater height adjacent to the transit station provided to ostensibly take advantage of transit and reduce automobile dependance. This would be a lot of developers provided housing for the community already in place rather than new community members at a price point that was affordable for those community members. For this reason, I support the push to have this project include affordable housing and I appreciate the work that has been done to encourage that. Today, I'm here to underline the importance of adhering to the spirit as well as the requirements of the seven, the runner design overlay. And I would call on the City Planning Department to take another look at the Dennard on market area. It's no longer one large pad as it once was, and it should connect people to Brighton Boulevard, to the South Platte River Promenade, to the Rainbow Park and all the other public improvements that have taken place. All public spaces should receive the same attention to detail as minor design overlay seven did. The city should match the requirements that we hold our developers to. And because this will be the first time the design overlay seven has been met in the general market area, this developer has an unusual challenge in trying to provide active ground floor space in a neighborhood that didn't previously require that with apartments at the ground level as well as above. So I call on the city to support those efforts to support the developer, hopefully working in good faith to meet both the legal requirements and kind of the spirit of activating that part of the city. And again, I do support the inclusion of affordable units in this project as well. I am also available for questions. All right. Thank you, Justin. Our next speaker is Nolan McDowell. Thank you, President Gilmore. My name is Nola Miguel. I'm the director of the GSA Coalition. The Globally Responsive Coalition. Facilitates. A committee called the Development Committee. It's comprised of neighborhood residents and three neighborhood renos, which include the first, the Elyria, Swansea Neighborhood Association and the Illyria Global and Swansea and Partners. And two nonprofit organizations, including that are community driven, including the Coalition and the Center for Community Wealth Building. Each of us focus on different aspects of equitable development. Tonight, we will strive to show counsel that this proposed use of land does not meet the criteria of furthering health, safety and well-being in our area and does not meet the planned guidance. As far as the nine equity goals and 23 strategies that are in the comprehensive plan 2040. The key equity concept that guides blueprint Denver committed to reducing inventory to. We hope that you have our letter in your records to review from our committee that provides written documentation of our arguments and some data. You've gotten calls to your offices. And tonight, you'll hear from neighbors impacted by displacement, concerned neighbors and neighborhood groups, allies and other neighborhoods that worry about a precedent being set for large scale growth on the backs areas facing displacement without protections and equity measures in place. Urban Council members, we come to you with an ongoing conundrum around development and growth in Denver and how and where to do it in an equitable manner. We continue to come to you in desperate need of the dire impacts hitting the communities where neighbors are an ongoing threat to involuntary displacement, facing rent and property taxes, and extreme threats to the health right now. During the COVID 19 pandemic, we're not here tonight or our prophet or her minor concerns. We're here tonight to defend the survival and basic well-being and health of ourselves and our neighbors. We opposed the 16 storey reason at 32 to 25 DeMarco. We do not believe this land use promotes health, safety and well-being of the area and in fact, quite the opposite. We believe an ongoing use of light industrial would support the need for jobs in the community and IT growth and residential mixed use happen here. It's happen incrementally and equitably. Prevent involuntary displacement. I with my screen. No. No. The sight like an elephant. All right. Thank you so much, Nola, for your comments tonight. We really appreciate it. Next up, we have Kevin MATTHEWS. Hi. My name is Kevin MATTHEWS. I live at 1020 Madison Street in Denver, Colorado. I'm also on the board of Unity, Denver. I just want to read something. This is a study by several authors James Ryan, James Asquith, Evan Mast and David Read. And this is a combined study from the Upjohn Institute for Employment Research and the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia. A major obstacle to new housing construction in gentrifying neighborhoods is the fear that new units will induce additional housing demand, increasing local rents and fueling further gentrification. Although this is counterintuitive, there are many plausible mechanisms by which an increased concentration of wealthy households could make a neighborhood more attractive to other wealthy households. However, there is little to no empirical evidence on this topic. We study induced demand for new apartment complexes in gentrifying areas, using listing level data on rental prices from Zillow and exact household migration data from in future preliminary results. Using the spatial difference in difference approach suggests that these induced demand effects are overwhelmed by the effect of increased supply in neighborhoods when new apartment complexes were completed between 2014 and 2016. Rents in existing units near the new apartments declined relative to neighborhoods that did not see new construction until 2018. Changes in in-migration appear to drive this result. Although the total number of migrants from high income neighborhoods to the new construction neighborhoods increases after the new units are completed. The number of high income arrivals to previously existing units actually decreases as the new units absorb a substantial portion of these households. On the whole, our results suggest that on average, in the short run, new construction lowers rents in gentrifying neighborhoods. I would like to add that this is not the only study available. I could have used a few others, and I would like to also add that there's some people that will say that adding some fly is not enough to solve the issues at the lowest end of the income scale. This is, of course, correct, but adding supply is going to be a necessary precondition in preserving those affordable units that already exist. And when you consider that this project has 49 affordable units, that is an extra bonus. Gentrification is simply a symptom of population and job growth, outpacing the housing stock. If you don't build homes in one area, those needing housing will build up the available housing in another. The solution to this are actually pretty simple. Zoning wealthy areas, especially those zoned for only single family homes, increasing number of units per square mile in urban areas, and abolishing wasteful zoning regs like parking meters. Thank you, Kevin. That's the time we have allotted. Next up, we have Jesse Paris. The counselor that I was watching at home. My name is Personal Representative Muhammad. Now Blackstock, a move for self defense, positive action for social change, as well as the party of Colorado. And my move and I will be the next November in 2023. I would like to read a brief statement from the Yes Coalition enables a fight with bipartisan global various ones here about this new tonight. The GSA coalition neighbors the fireplace global where I was once the assembly impacted communities stand in opposition of this rezoning tonight by Texas based developer Cypress Real Estate Advisors for a pair of 16 storey high and finished luxury apartments at 30 to 35. We ask that neighbors across our communities and across the city to stand in solidarity to help us deny this rezoning request for the better part of a decade. Denver Communities of color, made up of majority of low wage workers and renters, have faced a new wave of extreme displacement pressures driven by development and investment, compounding these devastating impacts to family and community help, our neighbors, who have long breathed life into our communities, are now pushed out of them. There is a very visible pain in our communities, a constant worry with stomachs full of anger. When we see our city government in partnership, in sponsorship, for profit developers who have given the profit motives and the legality to take all we have built away from us. This extractive model of development is building a timber that is unaffordable to most, while holding historical disparities and inequalities that target low income. And communities of color, the high risk of housing instability and displacement join us in our collective effort to push Denver to create a new standard of development in our communities. We have a right to stay in our homes. We have a right to not be priced out of our communities. We have a right to lead equitable processes and influence major developments in our communities that have massive impact on us all. We have a right to demand at the city government, work for the House the stability of everyone instead of exploiting profit motives for the benefit of developers. In conclusion, this area was just swept three weeks ago. I was at the suite, Don house the suite. And across North America, adjacent to the proposed sites. Instead of addressing our own house neighbor problem, you better sweep it out of sight, out of mind. Tonight, city council. You have to make a. Jesse, are you the time we have? Next up, we have David Pardo. Hello. City Council, this is David Pardo. I currently live in the Highlands neighborhood, but for six years I lived downtown both in the central business district and next to train tracks in the Union Station neighborhood. I support this project. The production of 326 apartments as well as some. Absolutely. Needed commercial space in this neighborhood. It fits with the plan for this area. It's something that will provide housing for 400 people, at least with construction of a building that size. Who will not be buying in places like Globeville and Alegria, Swansea, and instead will proceed to rent in this new building, assuming it's built. This is critical for promoting the connection of Denaro to the rest of the city. Right now, everybody who lives there has to drive because as people said earlier, it's next to everything and it has nothing. Producing this building will mean that the area will likely get better transit, it will absolutely get better pedestrian infrastructure and will promote the increase in the amount of green space that's provided in the area. And in reality, as somebody who lived in an area that used to be effectively derelict Union Station and then was developed, it has the potential to help promote the production of a vibrant neighborhood in a place where right now there are a number of apartment buildings and a number of industrial buildings that don't provide all that many jobs. We as a city have a shortage of housing. We don't have. Enough places for people to live. That's why there are homeless people on the streets. There are people like me who have a moderate amount of income who can afford the rent, the rising rents. And that inherently pushes people out of the places where rents used to be low. If we produce buildings that provide some affordable housing and also additional market rate housing, that decreases the likelihood that people like me will end up displacing those with low incomes. To me, this building could potentially be my home when it's built, and if I live there, I won't be displacing some homeowner or some renter who is living in the Highlands or who's living in Greece. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, we have Terry Bowen said. And Evening Council members. I'm Terry. Burnside. I'm a resident in District six. I'm here to speak against the request for a zoning change at 30 to 25 Tanaka. I'm speaking in support of the GSA Coalition, a community effort of residents in Globeville, Luria, Swansea and the Five Points neighborhoods to stop yet more development. That prices them. Out of the neighborhoods. In the process, we've all come to know as gentrification. The Texas based Cypress Real Estates Advisors is the force for gentrification that is requesting the zoning change in this case and that the GSE. Foolish Coalition and I oppose Globeville. Elyria, Swansea and Five Points are all traditionally communities of. Color and less often emphasized. They're all. Traditionally working. Class communities. In the general comments session. Tonight, we heard many citizens speak against the funding of top tariff and in favor of treating our houseless neighbors with simple decency. At long last, it's clear that the housing crisis and cop terror both are exacerbated by the development that prices people out of their homes and neighborhoods and vice versa. As the Gas Coalition can tell you better than I, every time the developers come around to lap up and another opportunity for profit in the housing industry, they always promised to devote a substantial portion. Of their projects to low income units. And it never seems to quite happen. Certainly not to the degree that meets the needs of the working families in the cities, the ones that make the city run. So I'll just reiterate the yes coalition proclaims the following. They say, We have a right to stay in our homes. We have a right not to be priced out of our communities. We have a right to lead equitable processes and influence major developments in our communities that have a massive impact on us all. We have a right to demand that the city government work for the housing stability of everyone instead of exploiting profit motives for the benefit of developers. The US Census tells us that in the last decade of apartments built in this city, 51% were luxury units, 32% were market units and 17% were low income units. That makes 83% of apartments at market rate above. And if we wonder why the suffering of our houseless neighbors is so widespread with residential space that might house them sitting empty. This is a major reason not to mention that outright homelessness is not the only consequence of gentrification. The cohesion of neighborhoods suffers where fragmentation also means the continued segregation of lived experience. Housing justice. Is crucial to racial justice, and both. Are necessary for. Any hope of class justice. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Alfonso Espino. Well, thank you, counsel. I would first like to state that I am. A organizer for the Gas Coalition standing in opposition of this proposed reason. More importantly, I lived and I was born and I was raised all 24 years of my life so far. Thankfully, in the Elyria, Swansea community, I can still not afford to move out. So the problem is not a supply and demand issue too, because there's plenty of housing in. Last year, supply and demand was the issue. Why has the problem not been solved? It's because we keep building what is not needed. If we you just heard 51% of the units built in the last ten years. Partly you do because of such dramatic changes in land you use. Our luxury units. We've seen the reports out in Denver's media that suggest that they are mostly vacant and I house we have also submitted a document with a lot of other information related to involuntary displacement. I would just like to start off with the most grotesque when. Now for the period between 2008 and 2020, there was a 470% total increase in average property values in our communities. 470%. And people still have the audacity to come on here and suggest a building. More of this is going to solve the problem. How does any of this align with anything that's equitable? None of it does. In Olivia, in Swansea, since 2010, the rent has the median. GROSS rent has increased from $817 to about over 1105 points. That has gone from two 737 to 1245. Now it's over that in Globeville, it's it's gone from 839 to over a thousand as well. And people still have the audacity to sit here and tell us that building more. Same of the problem. A 470% increase in total property tax values in the span of under two decades is traumatizing to a community. And if city council cannot understand that and finally change the tide in Denver's housing crisis, then when will it ever start? If now they're demagoguing on January 1st, when the eviction moratorium ends, millions of Americans, thousands of Denver ites, will be left out on the streets. And people are still here talking about building more luxury and market rate units. Furthermore, the proposed affordable units, the rich real estate has. Offered voluntarily, though, are not affordable in our community. The maximum that a person can afford currently in Denver's rental market is under 50% AMI. None of these units can accomplish that. None of these units are actually affordable. You. That's your time. Next up, we have Darryl Watson. Madam President and members of Council, thank you for your service to the city and county of Denver. My name is Darryl Watson. I'm a 30 year resident of District nine. I'm a former president of the Wichita neighborhood, R.A., former co-chair of Denver Game Plan for a Healthy City and a former member of the Land Use Transportation Advisory Committee. My engagement in supporting Denver parks and land use spans over two decades. I'm here to express why you should vote yes on changing the zoning classification for 30 to 25 to narrow street from industrial to mixed use. My rationale. Is as follows. The exhaustive three year community engaged process to develop the land use recommendations within Blueprint Denver, including the review criteria used by council and considering zoning changes, supports this zoning change. This parcel bordering Globeville but in Five Points, is. Currently surrounded by apartments of similar height. And density. This private development, unlike those aforementioned market rate apartments, provide for 15% affordable units, with some units at 60% of AMI. Preventing displacement in District nine is a priority for Denver City Council and for residents of the city at large. This development on an industrial parcel will not directly create displacement. It will provide a measurable increase in affordable housing units providing the dignity of housing for many who would otherwise not be able to afford to live in Denver. It will create needed jobs, good paying, immediate jobs through construction. The planned retail space will also create longer term, necessary employment. Cyprus properties demonstrated. Their interests in a constructive two way conversation by engaging the discussions with Denver City Council, denying neighbors and other interested community members. Those collaborative discussions with an eye to an equitable outcome. What a catalyst for Cyprus to increase the. Percent of affordable housing from the initially. Proposed 10% to 15%, which is above the historic norm of 8 to 10% for similar developments not only in D9 but across the city. I understand that these decisions are not just a matter of data. Your decision will impact people. And for some, this. Development impacts their sense of what Denver is, as well as a sense of place. It is important that you that you hear those voices. The decision in the end is yours to make in these emotional circumstances. I encourage you to look to your North Star blueprint, Denver and Denver Comprehensive Plan 2040. These pivotal documents will lay bare any conscious or unconscious biases. They provide a clear, consistent, fair and. Equitable process that all Denver neighbors can. Rely on as we collaborate on imagining and building an accessible city for all. Thank you for voting yes on this proposal. Thank you. Next up, we have Dianne Thiele. And Diane, you might need to unmute yourself. I am speaking against the. Rezoning request for 3225 an hour ago. It's almost ten years past time for our city to fundamentally change its process for property development. So we make Denver a city for. People of all incomes. Not just a gentrified city. We need to protect the neighborhoods of people of color. Neighborhoods where immigrants live. And low income neighborhoods. The residents of these. Heavily. Impacted neighborhoods should be. Safe and secure in their homes or apartments. But instead land in their neighborhoods is constantly appropriated by developers with support from the city. The existing. Residents end up not being. Able to afford to live in their homes or rent the apartments the developers build. They are forced out. What needs to change? Personally, I want the city to stop approving any zoning variations for luxury apartments. Townhomes and condos. And luxury mixed use development for ten years. Developers could build these projects only where the proper zoning already exists. During the first six months of that ten year period, the city was. Council. And community input should rewrite the current linkage policy that allows developers to offer a small number of units at the high end of affordability in return for government subsidies and zoning variances. Instead, the city's new guidance should require private multi-unit developers to make a. Minimum of. 25% of their housing units attainable for people in the extremely. Low. Income or low income. And my. Brackets. The big luxury and market rent apartment developers may refuse to build in Denver that would lower the cost of land. The Denver Housing Authority. Local land trusts and nonprofit groups might have more development sites to. Choose from to build low income housing. And money. From this year's homeless housing ballot. Initiative would stretch further. We're told we will not be returning to the old normal after COVID 19. We are about. To hit eviction hell. Come January. People don't have jobs or have been forced to become gig workers, slaves to billion dollar companies. We need to live in the new reality. Protect our communities of color around the city and house people of all incomes. Thank you. Thank you, Diane. Next up, we have Adam Astrof. Oh, you're on mute out of. Hey, Denver City Council. My name is Adam Ashraf. I live at 361, a lady in the Baker neighborhood and I'm also on the board of BE Denver. I am speaking in favor of this rezoning tonight because the reality is, is we're really talking about whether we're going to approve or deny 45 affordable units. Currently, city council doesn't have the authority to mandate affordable housing in our projects. And though we hope that's something the legislature changes and Denver will be advocating for that, it's just not the case right now. 15% is probably 15 to 20% is what you'd be getting with an inclusionary zoning policy. So this is something that we believe passes muster. But I think it's also important to note that, like here we are again having a really contentious rezoning about, you know, multi-unit development and folks from who live in big mansions on the white side of the red line to communities that have been really harmed by displacement, really focus on these. But these are under these are around 20% of the units in Denver. They're only buildable on 20% of the land in the city of Denver until city council takes seriously single unit zoning, which covers 80% of the residential land in our city and is the real driver of displacement by forcing all growth into communities of color. And, you know, these industrial sites, you know, you're just not taking this seriously. And you didn't with the EPA amendment where you kept single unit zoning language in the plan. And I really hope you pass this because, you know, this is 374 homes, 50 of which are affordable for workers in Denver. But this is a crisis. You're hearing the pain of people in gas and it's not a time to be concerned about angry emails or reelection. It's a time to take on a zoning policy that was put in place explicitly for raises purposes that still segregates our city today. The problem here is that building more apartments, it's that we have single unit zoning in our city. So please approve this rezoning and then really take strong action to address the housing crisis and open up development in neighborhoods not facing displacement. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Helen Tekle. I'll let you correct me, Helen, if I pronounced it wrong. It's okay to take a taxi. Thank you. Hi, everyone. My name is Helen, actually, and I'm the business organizer for the East Colfax Community Collective. I'm here speaking on behalf of the collective and the ease and the community of East Colfax to urge you to oppose the rezoning of 3 to 25 De Niro Street in five points. The development will set a concerning precedent that prioritizes the needs of developers over the needs of our local communities. And we stand solidarity with our. Brothers and sisters at G as coalition. Asking you to reject this of zoning changes. Neighborhoods at risk of displacement, such as East, COVAX and Global will require a different set of standards and equity analysis when looking to the development process. As community members, we are told that developers will be forced to provide community benefits to mitigate the impact on displacement. And in this case, this has not happened. Despite good faith attempts by GSS to enter into community benefits agreement, the developers have only offered 5% units in 60% and 10% of units and 80%, and both of which are higher than the aim high level of. In this type of development were to be proposed in the East Colfax. We would oppose it with. Everything we have as d. As has done, because it is clear that this type of development is not being built to support the community that currently lives in that area. Along the majority of market and luxury apartments, building into the communities that are already under pressure of displacement will only increase the pace at which we are losing our community members. We should not develop just for development sake. We should not oppose such a large scale project if they are not being offered significant, affordable units. If the city can be clear on proposals that come forward and that are not serious about creating affordable options will be approved. We can send strong signals to developers that our first priority in building for residents of our local neighborhoods, which are a heart of our heart. And soul of Denver, will put. Denver as states to achieve our vision for Equitable City with the promise of opportunity for all. Their rights. We must focus on the needs of our most vulnerable residents. This has not happened in this case. It is not enough for CPD to engage with local communities to then proceed to ignore their recommendations. We urge you, I council members to be more fierce in defense of our equity and prioritizing the risk and communities and reject a proposal of rezoning. Of 3225 Durango Street. Thank you, guys. Thank you, Helen. Next up, we have Ty Bell, doc. Good evening, council members. My name is Taobao Alcott. I live in Whittier and I own a. Business that's been in Reno for 21 years. And I was also a former. Member of. The. Business Improvement District. I wanted to take this. Opportunity to ask the council members to consider. A more balanced approach to engaging. Our peers. I feel that it's counterproductive to be both pro affordable housing and yet remain anti-development. You must recognize that affordable. Housing needs private funding. Under the current economic crisis, and with our city's budget falling short by a $190 million, we can no longer afford to alienate. Those who have the means to help. Just as the members of City Council are held. Accountable to their. Constituents. Developers are also. Held accountable to. Both equity partners and the banks to fund their projects. If there is a developer. Like Cypress willing. To bring more affordable units to the table, then I urge. You to listen and negotiate. Terms that are win win. For both parties. If you can't do this, I fear that. Denver will become known as a city unfriendly to. Developers. We are not the only city with a housing crisis and developers do have options. This is not to say. That we should be held hostage, but maybe it is time to rethink our strategy. I do not expect the members of City Council to be. Completely versed on all the intricacies and costs associated with development. But I believe it would be in our city's best. Interest. For each of you to have. Solid resources on both. Sides. In order to better understand. The challenges involved. In bringing a housing project. Out of. The ground. Affordable housing must be. Approached from both in social and an economic perspective. One will not work without the other. Today, you have an opportunity to see the advantages that could be gained. By a partnership with a socially. Conscious developer. I urge you to see the power by voting for. Crew threes on their. 3225. In Arco and. Thank you. Our next speaker up is Maria Elena Jimenez. And we're going to also have translation services. That will rise. When I start this miembros circle. Good evening. Members of the Council. I know your cattle just. Are you the love of sonification? I am against the reunification mes bingo those puntos game crocus on bald eagles. I have no valid points. Number one is il and in case then mirando a said well, maybe physiology as you say. E must be must cambios in this area when they are making open. One is that they. Are making a 16. A building with 16 floors and 16 floors and changes in that area. And one of the things that I'm concerned about. Is any given rocket lab, lab, Papunya. The answer let us get started. This idea is that they're going to get. Rid of a company that that makes salads in that area. Maybe the occupation vessel as it is companhia. As adult tobacco, various personas gave even an globule. And my concern said. Is that they have given they. Are getting rid of that company. That has given jobs to people that live in global areas. Once you. Judgment this, most of it I'm glad is because I'm tobacco. I can think of even that and give us give us the answer the global daily like once you and if we really trust something. And if we really take a look. At that, we're. Going to find very few companies that hire residents that are from global areas. Once. Yeah, and for me that is concerning. And does the system allow other causes that get instant broadband access even if Barack in. Seven Perfect Samantha Piano Sutras and a lot of other. They love you already as one example. And they're not all the symbols. Not for the most part, that it's a center for the soul and one. So my other. Concern is that they are saying that they're making affordable housing, but for who? They well know that people who live in global areas once you cannot pay a 60% ami. You know, Solomon and Estacada as you know tambien and see Capone tossing coal and weed out. And so those are some regard as some folks look, whether or not they saw them. Okay. Some of what I see in my book does the does it dampen when we see them on that was the Canadians you'll say but they love Colosseum they just want to see more negotiation going gonna be more simpler because of llamas that can be natural. I'll ask you that. The Los Puestos proposal that I said must be accessible if you cannot carry on an example. In some instances, yeah it is. Look at get in. I say Solomon de la Lazaro, you'll get get it. And I said, but, but compromising little paracetamol isn't what I meant. There's that baby. And by myself, that's when I said available. So this the. It's not affordable to any of the communities in the surrounding areas. It's not. Affordable to. Five points. Calderwood, Whittier There are very few. People that can afford that, that type of housing. And besides that, when we were in negotiations with them, I'm also a gas member, we asked them that why didn't they ask for tax money from the city? And they said that they didn't want to participate in those in that function. In those negotiations. So who are they making this for? It's not it's not for the people who need it. Does this GOP insulted like it? Because that gave us an album. We ran Dick above it and that's what I look kind of even in Australia. No, sorry. Look at some of the elements of other this are local. He probably meant the most idea that I said indicate this almost as much as they indicate this. Because some people want government, they love rentals. Announcements are lost in Brussels castles, one woman said but I don't know men total time but I don't problem at all but and people who are. Saying that this is going to be a benefit for communities they don't know they don't know what the situation is in our communities because they don't live in our areas. What's really going to happen is, is that this is going to cause displacement in our communities. It's going to make another. Group of it's going to make a lot of. Us become homeless. It's going to increase the rent and increase the tax. So it's not going to help. Boehner says GOP welcomes. They hope that considera Puntos Générale meant that freedom mucho signals the start. But the jungle consists of animals. And I really meant the case that you really meant they like you, that most of them Australia is all I can say. I get considering eagerness up again. I never stop at this. You'll get no LA no laws if they're not approving for I meant there are some girls that Kendall that closer. So I. Am asking city council to please consider these points that I've talked about and for them to consider each each one of the things that I've said and. To consider equity. Equity does not exist in our community. Please consider that and. Don't accept it. I'm asking city council to not accept and and. Not. Not give into this, please. And thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Gail LaRue. My name is Gail LaRue. I'm at 4676. Lincoln St 80216. This zone change classification. Will add to the. Destabilization. Of five points Globeville, Elyria and Swansea neighborhoods and undermines our access to equitable housing. Opportunities. This zone change will add. To the. Removal of. People of color from their homes and communities. By increased taxes, increased rents and mixed uses, but not. Mixed. For youth. Of existing residents. Enough is enough. I have lived through this through North Denver. Please don't. Out prices out of the last affordable. Neighborhood in Denver. We can do better. We ask that. This zone change. Request be denied. Let's keep it industrial. Let's look. For industrial partners to. Bring manufacturing back to our inner city. Let's preserve inner city industrial zoning. This property is on a major transit route close to. Rail. Yards and the air park. So the location is perfect for. Creative small. Manufacturing, new inner. City industrial. Space micro enterprises, which will encourage local entrepreneurism but more importantly. Bring back jobs to the community. Empty shop tops are a thing of the past. The zone change is easy and lazy. Let's get creative. These four neighborhoods are original. Live here. Play her work here. Neighborhoods. I, for one, enjoyed walking to. I used. To work at Asarco and I used to love walking to work each. Day. And I believe. We have the opportunity to do something. Creative at this. Location before another easy rubber stamped rezoning. I'm asking you to look. Outside of the luxury apartment blocks and ask. Yourself, is this. The right thing to do? I also ask that we take a look how this process is done. I believe that host is out of touch with neighborhoods needs and. This zone change will put further stress. Upon our community. And please, I ask you to look at our neighborhood, get to know our neighborhood before we add any. More of these. Luxury apartments. To our. To our neighborhood were so fearful. Of being displaced. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Liliana Flores Amaro. Hello, council members. Thank you for having us this evening. My name is Liliana Flores. Amado, and I am a neighbor. And guess in Swansea I live at five 5079 St Paul Street of two and six. I'm also a member of the GTS Coalition and I am asking you to oppose the 16 storey rezone proposed for 3225 ten Argyle Street. It's an extreme change in height and use that merits a critical and creative look at equity and urban development in this area, which it currently is not. The development agreement gives the impression that that we're getting some affordability or equity, but that is not the case. The affordability that that the developer is providing is not relevant to this area. It doesn't meet the needs and it was not agreed to by the community. And so if the city just accepts whatever the developer is giving without pushing back, we will never be able to get to those equitable outcomes that are outlined in all the plans that we've been working on. And we know that the developer did increase the number of units from 10 to 15%. However, it's still just simply not enough. It's not enough units, and it's not enough affordability at 60 and 80%. My equity means should mean that this development process recognizes past harm and does something about that. Equity has to be a lens by which all the aspects of development are examined, and we need longer community engagement processes that involve the the developer and the community directly, as well as changes at the city level to make that to support those processes so that we get to real conversations and not just surface level conversations or a couple of meetings. And then and then we're stuck with these with these timelines. These developments are taxing on residents. We have to be on the defensive with project after project coming in and around our communities. We need the city to stand up and protect its most vulnerable citizens, not the folks who can afford luxury homes and apartments. Our communities. Sorry, it goes to big screen in my notes. When you go to the chamber, our communities and communities across the city will be watching this reason to see how council will continue to depend on extractive land use to obtain development or if it if it decides to protect its citizens. Growth needs to be across the city and not on the backs of our most vulnerable residents. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Shannon Hoffman. Hi. Good evening. My name is Sheehan and Hoffman. I live at one, two, two, six North Pearl Street. I am here tonight to stand in opposition of this zoning request and to stand in solidarity with the neighbors of Five Points Globeville, Larry, Swansea, who want to stay in their homes and their community without the fear of being priced or pushed out. This rezoning is not consistent with comprehensive plan. With the Comprehensive Plan and blueprint, Denver plans that outline equity as a top goal. Now, let me be clear with you all about who I am. I am a white, middle class woman who moved to Denver three years ago. And what I see is that this city operates like this place is the playground of people who meet my profile. And I reject that notion. I reject the inherent white supremacy in that notion. And I ask this council to reject the white supremacy that is baked into zoning policies that systematically push black, brown and indigenous people out of their communities. This Arapaho, you and Cheyenne Land was recently home. This area about an hour ago was recently home to 300 souls who have been pushed out of their homes and pushed around by the city and not provided any support or housing. And I. Is it a coincidence that you swept them right before the zoning request? I think not. I I How dare you sweep 300 people from this area? And then in the middle of a global pandemic and economic downturn, allow an apartment, a luxury apartment building to be built that will push even more people out of their homes and communities and potentially into also being unhoused themselves. There are no justifying circumstances for this reason. And I ask you to oppose it tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Alma Urbana. Good evening, members of City Council. My name is Ahmed one. I am here speaking out against that in our rezoning request. I am here as an individual and a staff member of Project Voice, a nonprofit Century Youth organization in Denver. I am a resident of Swansea and I work near the proposed location of the site in Globeville, also called River North on V Court. I asked city council members to recognize the impacts housing insecurity has cost to our communities and how these impacts will stay with us for generations. I have seen just how resilient, powerful our community mutual aid has been, and at the same time, we have also seen how our youth go from motel to motel with younger siblings trying to do virtual class and also with elders with health concerns trying to survive. How can we there ask a 14 year old to log into virtual school if their families are searching for a warm roof while they are themselves working two jobs? Our families brown, black, essential workers are not going to benefit from a 16 storey luxury building, threatening to sweep them like trash, as someone else said about homeless people , since they will be unlikely to recover by 60%. And my affordability. They don't make this much. These developers offers to offer for how much our generations are worth is an insult. This many units in this building is expensive and it will cost us our lives. The De Nada proposal does not align with that comprehensive 2040 plan that contains nine goals and 23 strategies around equity issues. This project ignores the equity as given the ratio of luxury units and, says the president of the city only cares about developers in that the constituents in our streets and neighborhoods. Equity means more than barely. It means leveling the field for our most targeted end points families. Let me remind you that families have the highest rates of COVID, especially birth rates. Equity means supporting our 30%, EMI and 20% in my vulnerable communities, not 50% and my hand outs. This year, the pandemic has resulted in unprecedented results. These impacts require unprecedented solutions. Let's get us on a community ground and support and ask for pass in redirecting effort these resources. Any chance we do not seek at least 50% affordable units in any building is a missed opportunity and a threat to us all. We will be watching this vote across all communities in Denver and the rest of Colorado and beyond. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Tanya Cohen. Hi. My name is Tanya. I live at 1111 Osage and District three. I'm here to say that I strongly oppose the rezoning of the previous Arkansas Court House encampment, the site of another brutal sweep last week of 300 people from their homes to make way for the 16 story high end luxury apartment building, an apartment building that is overwhelmingly market rate. I mean, how out of touch are we? Denver now ranks second in the nation, only behind San Francisco. Oakland as the most gentrified city in the U.S., according to the 2020 Metro Denver Homelessness Initiative's State of Homelessness report. Why does the city no longer care about trying to support those diverse, historic, working class families and communities there that are predominantly of color that have called Denver and Colorado home for decades? Those who have contributed greatly and made Denver what it is today. Why have they been abandoned over the past few years? And why is that our priority? Just mainly developers and young white transplants to Denver that can afford these places that are just flooding Reno like we need anymore? According to the same report, the leading cause of homelessness in this region around the country is a lack of affordable housing. This plus racial inequities, stagnant wages and affordable health care, to name a few, create economic conditions in which many among us are unable to secure and maintain stable housing. So Denver's history of diverse and vibrant communities of color who've been abandoned are basically the same houseless people that we are sweeping just a little further down the gentrification line. And we know that native and black people play a profound part in Denver's history, but are disproportionately represented among the houseless as well. How many of us know a friend or family member or acquaintance who has been bankrupt by a health condition that derailed their family for life? I do, and I bet you do, too. Those are probably many of the people that are being swept today. Well, we know they are. I am seeing someone every day in dire need of a donation to prevent them from falling through the cracks in Denver. So at a time when many businesses have closed permanently, temporarily or severely restricted people losing jobs and income, when we should be honoring and showing some loyalty to Denver's historic working class, middle class roots, our communities of color are native communities. By building real, affordable, low income housing and finding ways to support our homeless in that location by building more S.O.S. sites, tiny home villages, or just letting the people stay there and make it a resource rich environment which the new S.O.S. site is. Please. Let's just stop the greed. Enough is enough. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, we have Laird Haugen. Hi. Thank you. My name is Laird. Horrigan and I live in District 94126 Clayton Street. I stand in opposition of the proposed rezoning a 3225 ten Argo Street as part of Build 20 1159. This rezoning request is very similar to a request the City Council approved at 2535 East 40th Avenue. In this case, the developer requested to rezone and propose city council to make a decision very quickly. The developer stated it was costing them money not to have the property rezoning. And by condensing the timeline for rezoning, there was insufficient time for the community to work with the developer to come to an equitable agreement. Two years later, the property currently sits vacant while scrappers are breaking in and stealing whatever value is left. And that's clearly an indication that this timeline was not urgent and that the developer dictated the conversation in that case and not city council. In this case, the developer is from out of state and pushing for a reason to 16 stories of primarily luxury apartments. This is not what the city needs. We have been let down by CDP and host as far as pushing this project through without proper analysis of the impacts and not working with the community. The city needs to do more to structure the development. These development plans to require affordability. To lead the conversation when it comes to reshaping our city. Currently the city is not doing enough to protect the interests of its most vulnerable residents. The city lets these developers push their interests. Instead of the council standing up and fighting for the interests of its residents. The conversation shouldn't be happening between developers, residents and Arnaud's. The city needs to step up and be part of the conversation and dictate what defines affordability in these development plans. I ask that you listen to the people of the city instead of outside interest in development. I ask that you reject this zoning request and be part of the conversation to structure what affordability looks like going forward and how we can have an equitable housing plan for our city. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Angelina Torres. Taurasi. See me. I'm recycling that. Always play miembro de ideas. Beyonce wants you. Hi, my name is angelina torres. I am a member of s and i live in 20th. When I noticed Miembro del Consejo. Good evening city council members Estonia in opposition that they sooner than they those might be cynical their then their goal and I am and I am against the zoning the reason ification of 3325 didn't our goal. But not in Iraq, for your sake, that the most community areas, because they don't have. The support that is. Equitable for the community. We're stuck in office. Okamoto ne aquellos democratico because it was not done with vote and agreements that are democratic. Get okay. Fajardo Nuestro Miembros del Consejo And I believe that our city council. Members have failed. We're stuck in this temperature mirror. I went there. Because they are here to serve the people. Ian dances is there but Joyce there is Thomas up in under the guest then it's a sauna. It's industrial. And we we are giving our opinion that that. Zone is an industrial. Zone. Yes. Eloqua let's look at some of the handy work, the IEEE, the evening news does Familias Nuestras Vecinos. And we are. Defending the zone because that is where. Our. Families and our neighbors make. A living. EOP. And in this Wolfgang, Nancy, are they supranational? And that is where they obtain their earnings for their jobs. Get a gram of a cool stock. Let's keep them sauce. So Strava, what with Amazon ignoring the problem of alcohol, we will see whether we believe that. It is unjust for. Them to lose their jobs because we are in a pandemic. Of COVID 19. Eloqua listed, which has been listed as Comunidad. This little vecinos is on the same level. In which a lot of our the people in our communities, our neighbors are unemployed. Estamos pasando algo dificil parochialism or sobre la loss was. And we are living through. Something that is very difficult. But at the same time, we make this easy. And sentences if they get them off game, keep on going, mash up and see how it goes. Young Cousteau, who saw Columbus on that trabalhadores essentials. And so what we are doing is we're asking you to be just to be just with the essential workers. Working together must be very acting with the community at this. Because we. Want to live. Here in our communities. And, you know, certainly not I'm not going to camp, as Bebe emphasized the marginal but we are must content. Those is the problem as they tend to trafico. Yeah that I we now. Realize that we. We used to live in our communities and we were marginalized, but we were living happy because we were. Not exposed to so much traffic that we now have. Was there enough having illustrated Gaga, Morgan Doc, Red Mosque Fahrenheit Guide Ivan Watson trailer bilodeau alive or le Carré not having gunman was anti-Muslim sentiment. You don't know how we feel when we're trying to cross the street and you see a trailer. That's so long that it goes from one end to the. Other and we're trying to cross. You don't know how we feel. We feel. Nothing. Nothing. The most is the Middle East. That is not how they lost the security of their own lives. All created a lot Arab with the nosotros mes mothers, the forbidden city. Anything, something. We feel bad. We don't know if we should rent to one side or rent to the other. And we feel really bad. We don't know what to do at that time. Right at that instant. Get out, get out. Get them on to the farrugia. I left construction as the long over the far right you'll see inside it in common loss theme of think with them whilst they English former pharmacist there are two and they currently the only our truly they gave ethicists a rather WannaCry days earlier parallel otro lado within those having common Nazareth prior so. So I think that you're just bringing upon all these constructors and. Developers without knowing how we live, without knowing how we feel when we're trying to run from one side to the other. When we. Feel, ah, the stress. You don't know what. It feels like to be in this situation. No photos, almost based as the majority of. Then they went there and you'll see this in your business. Well, my son, Sienna, skin cancer trust, even my skin with them being and I thought that was and we are seniors that are above we are older. People that are older than 50. And we see people that are older than us that are also living tormented. Kate. I'm being I was a little person saying, oh, they suggested to me that I was going through Fiona's gaydar and just almost grandfatherly with the construction. Get in. Most of them walk away, thankfully, that they pass and people say, Oh. How I wish that this was. Over that others construction with lives over that we just want to live a little. Bit of peace and quiet. And you, so much for your comments tonight. Our next speaker is Yadira Sanchez. Hi. Good evening. Council. City Council. I don't have a camera that I can print on, so I apologize for that. My name is Oliver Sanchez. I have been a struggling neighbor from the Diaz community for. Over 18 years. I live at a heavy point construction due to the I-70. I have seen many people leave. Due to the rise of rent in our area. Changing our diversity in our communities, and seeing the struggle on those who stay and make ends meet. I oppose the zoning change because this will continue to add more displacement in our communities that already have been sacrificed to the new market value homes that I have note that have no room for those who work, for those who work who are working class families or families that all. And make it even harder to home during this pandemic. With rents over 2500. This will soon not be my home. Allowing the zoning to be changed at any time to any new development that will come. I oppose the rezoning. 3225. Not go and ask that you consider. And take into consideration. The displacement that is happening all around Colorado. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, we have Benjamin Denning. Good evening. My name is Benjamin, darling. I live at 1027 26th Street in District nine. I have been a resident most of Denver for most of my 57 years. I've been in Denver long enough that I remember when we call, when we when around here the bears met baseball at Mile High Stadium. The Rockies met hockey at McNichols Sports Arena. And the basketball was red, white and blue at the auditorium arena. It looks like we are building a city for people that don't live here. And we've been here for a long time. Luxury apartments again. 87% of the renters in Denver make $35,000 a year or less so at 60% AMI, which is only a portion of this particular project. Those folks are are rent burdened to start. Why aren't we building projects that meet 90% of what the ranchers in Denver make? How long are we going to allow developers to tell us what is affordable? Now let's consider wages. This is being built in a light industrial area. What they're promising is just a few jobs at the retail level. How do retail jobs pay in terms of wages compared to light industrial? Not very well. So you already have a depressed community that you're bringing in low paying jobs and high paying rents. That doesn't make any sense. You add into that? On December 26th, the federal moratorium on evictions ends now in Denver. City and county proper, we have some. As of December last year, 2019, we had 320,500 and some odd housing units. That's everything. That's people who own houses. That's people who are renting properties, were renting apartments and own townhomes and everything. Been reported in the news since the summer that we have 100,000 evictions waiting for us. That's almost a third of the properties that are about ready to be empty if this comes to pass. Now, how can real estate developers afford having a third of their properties empty and then being willing to build more? Well, one of the folks that was testifying earlier, it's not about the renters. It's about property value. 400% in the last however many years that was for property taxes. Easily a doubling of property values in the last ten years. They're just going to wait for the property value to double and then sell it. They don't care if anybody's there. And then we keep building stuff that people can't afford. You think there's a lot of homelessness on the streets right now? You just wait till after the first of the year when the eviction moratorium ends and they start processing those evictions. We haven't seen anything yet. Just more empty luxury apartments. I'll be available for questions. I have other data that I wasn't able to get to during the time. Thank you, Mr. Dunning. Next up, we have Ruben Sanchez. Good afternoon, counsel. Can everyone hear me? Mm hmm. Go ahead, Reuben. All right. My name is Robinson Jones. I have lived in the area for about 17 years, and I have seen firsthand the constant changes occurring around us. I remember the way my old neighborhood used to thrive before the destruction of the neighborhood due to increasing construction and gentrification. I understand that change is always going to come, but I also know that we have the power to get to decide what gets changed and how it changes. I am speaking out against the zoning classification for 3225 ten Argo Street. The five point area has already changed so much, and allowing the change that the building can be raised to 16 storeys is nothing more than a gateway to more gentrification and terminating the ability for low income members of the community to afford living there. I believe that the Five Points area and other nearby low income neighborhoods of color shouldn't change so that more luxurious than high end living pushes out the people already there. The Denver area and neighborhoods surrounding the get of it. Like Globeville, Elyria and Swansea have already seen many of its deeply rooted people disappear because they can no longer afford the ever increasing cost of rent. We are tired of having to leave our homes and neighborhoods so that we can move to areas where we can only afford to survive. I oppose the zoning classification and don't believe that the height limit should be raised to 16 stories. Tall buildings belong downtown. Let five points be five points and leave the tall buildings of central downtown. Thank you so much. Thank you. Next up, we have Carrie Joy. Good evening, members of the council. My name is Kerry. I am a resident of Swansea in District nine. I am asking that you vote no on Bill 20 1159. The city of Denver through host is being negligent by going into negotiations in agreements with developers that focus on negotiation, negotiating profitability on behalf of the developer, instead of negotiating for affordability on behalf of Denver constituents who they are supposed to be representing. The fact that the voice of the developer was prioritized over the native community when the representative for this district asked to delay the public hearing is appalling. The city is the city is nothing without its people. The people that live here, the people that keep the lights on, quote unquote, that financially support you as public servants. And we implore you, listen to the people. We are already in the middle of a housing crisis. Use this zoning tool to prevent more homelessness. These are human beings. The gayest neighborhoods have the highest concentrations of family within the city of Denver. What about these children? Host implied. Host tried to imply that their strategy is solid by arguing that adjacent properties are being negotiated at different levels as far as affordability is concerned. They have failed them and CPD have failed to do an analysis on vulnerability to displacement, a clearly stated goal in COP Plan 2040 and Blueprint Denver in the surrounding area. Any extraordinary ask for a rezone should be. Justified with an extraordinary. Benefits package to the surrounding communities. Similar developments and investments to this project have skyrocketed. The rent gap and. Property tax is more than. 500% in global area and Swansea has said since 2007 more than three times the grade. The the average of the city. Exacerbating historic racial health disparities near at 84% Latino community and in a historically black community that has experienced rapid gentrification through thoughtless zoning and as we see a shortfall in our city. We also see that the residents of this city, not necessarily the private the private donors, have been bearing the greatest burden, especially through proposed mill levies directly through property taxes or passed down to the renters. It is decisions like this that puts Denver on the map as the fastest gentrifying city in the country for Latinos. So as a city declared racism a public health issue, it is your responsibility in this moment to prioritize affordability and equitable planning. The well-being and stability of our neighborhoods matter and this and the well-being and stability is a part of our safety. So since this project seems to exacerbate the problem, I am completely opposed to this rezoning. Lastly, this is not a matter of supply and demand because our behaviors and priorities are what informed the market. But even if this was about supply and demand, I ask you recognize that the majority of people living in the city are demanding affordable, accessible housing, and I don't mean accessible to those applying it, supplying it. I mean accessible to those who are demanding it. That is true democracy and representation. We do not have a shortage in housing in Denver. There are over 20,000 vacant units in our city. What we have is a shortage in accessible housing in the city and what we see is a history of multiple. Times. Interest. We have before we have housing stock ladies, we are on Gonzalez perpetuating preventable displacement. Next up, we have Mercedes Gonzalez. And we're going to have translation services as well. The potassium. We have Mercedes Gonzales. You'll have to unmute. Methodists are not supporting us and more support of our okay to say them part of our. I said this. Okay. Maybe we'll try to get Mercedes on here in a second. We'll go ahead and go to our next speaker. Mr. Cummings, my question. Oh, there we go. Okay. Is the winner, not. Just the little man in Brazil, Consuelo. Good night. Two other members of the council. City Council. Mercedes Gonzalez. My name is Mercedes Gonzalez. I am part of the coalition of chiefs. Represent the global leaders once a year. I represent global Elyria and Swansea is billion. This up would look on to this. Are you. There? The I guess you say people. I am in disagreement with the development of of the market street. Ebola a combative me testimonial a is much a story upbeat always that book all the okay okay so trust me no those that the ample. And I'm going to share my testimony there's a lot of history but I realize I only have a limited time. Job portability Tristan Jones is the in being Juninho. In three in single puntos. For 23 years I lived in the five points area. With Espn+ Harbor. I see the business. I was displaced three years ago. It's soy madre. Yeah, abuela. I am a mother and a grandmother. That is huge. On the business. Of 18 grandchildren and great grandchildren. The letter said, Either. I am a woman of the Third Age. So let me for our media, for this plaza are different. This area is the last year that. All of my family was displaced to different areas of the city. In our demand service plus harbor we must is the mi esposo or nico ego. And the last ones of my family to be displaced was me and my husband and one of my sons. One of Guillermo's displays shadows job to illustrate the onset California three. When I was the last time I was displaced, I lived on 3011 California Street. If we're done. Really? Not. This is parenting. I was so desperate and it was so horrible. In a photo market. When was this this place that was. In the way we were evicted. We must attack those. These groups, these criminal, those. We were discriminated. We were discriminated again, discriminated against because of the language. And we were attacked. For 11 months. Because of our language. Welcome. Palabras of NC Boss Jaco Particle Bueno. There was an assault and with offensive language on behalf of the owner. Departamento and Marla's condition. And the apartment was in bad conditions. Albania, Libya, in Istanbul. The landlord, of course, lived in a different state. Now we see losses. In Asia. Kabul, the lose apartment. The the office of the apartments. They took care of the apartments, of the maintenance. And where did you go to redecorate. The when he came to live in Denver. Be no problem. So we no problem. That's when the problems began. L estava the sandals in the departamento? No departamento. He was there every day at the apartments. I go stand on those. Saltiness. Verbal stratus. Or mistreating us. People knows about Inglis. And because we didn't know English. Animals the Rachel Orcas and Serena Regulus forget almost. Mexicano. We had no rights for arrangements to be made because we were Mexicans. But I mean, with that almighty Santa. For me, it was very pragmatic. L knows there's a local community. He forced to forcibly evicted us. In focus this. In just a few days. Well, now, this aspiration can also be almost gave us a sore throat. It was such a desperate time that we did not know what was going to happen. We would did not know what would happen to us. Not just in the medium. We spend nights without sleep given. Most are sad, but I don't know, Ramos said. Where shall we go? What are we going to do? With caramels. He was caramels in Encontramos went in, slugger. We looked and we looked. And we could not find affordable rent. In their neighborhood. Mazara ra tanto de natal by rapport. There are deposits. Don't you rent them? How were we able to get so much money to pay for the deposit and the rent? I'm innocent, a.k.a. the Ebola Virus 43. And I say he would take us to court. An impact of what several. The impact was severe. It's not me. Of course. You know, SARLO meant that either proceeding. This caused in me mental health problems and depression. Yes. William Morris. Then there was Camille. We heard rumors of new changes. MP Rotem, you want those illegally stolen marijuana. But the situation got worse when marijuana got legalized. To go into the state. We saw people come in from other states. I saw it as Alta Vista. And there were is where the high rents began to take place. It is into. And the displacements. Our I think Tristan is maybe in influence. Yes. Now, I have three years living here and once you. Will come your drastic apparent me. And it was the drastic change for me. They had never seen that your Amistad is business. I left my old neighborhood, my friends, my neighbors. That's the time we have available. Thank you, Ms.. Gonzalez. Next up, we have Harmony Cummings. Harmony, you might have to unmute. Oh, it looks like you're still on mute, Harmony. We're not able to hear you. Harmony. We're going to. I'm not sure if Harmony can hear us here. So. I think we're going to go ahead and we'll go to our next speaker and see if we can get harmonies, auto, audio. Figure it out. We've got Tess Dougherty. Go ahead, Tess. Okay. Do you hear me? Oh, yep. Now we can. Hi. I'm test. Hi. And I live at 1801 chestnut place. I oppose this rezoning at 3225 DeNardo Street. And as a special education teacher in Denver, Public Schools at Colt Arts and Science Academy for five years, I stand in solidarity with the Cole and surrounding Five Points Globeville and Elyria, Swansea and neighborhoods and residents. As the city presented, the developer has voluntarily agreed and included in their zoning request beyond what is the minimum affordable housing required by the city, but with over a third of residents having trouble paying rent and that was in 2019. So that is well beyond now. What is considered affordable housing and how we define affordable housing and how we zoned for it needs to be. You know, we need to we need to we need to change that. I mean, how are we defining, affordable? And for who? For whom and and. And what you know, what the minimum requirements are in a in a housing crisis, in the midst of a pandemic, with people on the streets every night and being swept by the city, we have to change the minimum. That's that that's you know, we have to start at but in Denver we are in the top ten cities in the US for income to housing access disparity. And so, you know, I, I don't I don't use the word I don't use the term rhino to describe any neighborhood in Denver. Let's call it what it is. It's five points. It's the historically black neighborhood that helps shape this vitality, the vitality of the city. And until we have new zoning requirements for what constitutes affordable, we are not going to be able to solve this this crisis, according to a report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics that was updated on December 9th, 2020. The report looks at the average consumer expenditure in the areas of health care, personal insurance and pensions, food, transportation and housing. So I think it should be relevant here in all areas of average annual spending. Denver is above the national average, yet if we look at the average hourly wages provided in the same report for the most common occupations, we fall not even on par but below the national average. When we look at how Denver compares to the US average on on a weekly wage earner bolt on weekly wages, the US is 1188 on average, and in Denver is 1350, which is a difference of only one $162 per week. I don't think that $162 per week is going to make anyone that is experiencing housing displacement be able to afford the 60 or 80% that this development proposes as affordable housing. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, we have Katy Blakey and Harmony. If you want to log out and log back in, that might help your audio problems. And we're going to go ahead and go to Katie Blakey. Hello. My name is Katie Blakey. I live in District ten and work in District nine. I used to rent in Reno but moved to District ten because I could get a monthly mortgage payment that was cheaper than rent. Please vote no on this rezoning because as you saw from CPD's presentation and from previous speakers, community based organizations and residents strongly oppose this agreement. This rezoning will exacerbate gentrification in the area. All those who spoke against this rezoning before me said it much better than I ever could. So I'll leave it at that. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, we have David Hagan. Hi. Good evening. Can you hear. Me? Your name. In the spirit of white supremacy. And gentrification, I'll just say that I live. About a driver seven iron away from this property and I oppose this like everybody else has said, it seems ridiculous to me that we are using rules. The rules of the game are different than what is actual reality. The reality is. 80 and 60%. Is not enough for affordable housing. 49 units should be at 20% because the reality is something like 44% of Americans don't make more than $80,000 a year. I don't know what the percentages are here in Denver, but I'm sure they're probably right on par with that. So what are we doing for those 44% that can't afford to live at 60 and 80% or the 1300 or whatever I employed? And for the developer to rescind his request to go back and meet with the community and do something to help out the community and come back with a better plan, a plan that is equitable to all, not just the people with money, not just white people. That's all I have to say. Thank you. All right. Thank you, David. That concludes our speakers for tonight. Questions from members of Council on Bill 1159. Just questions or questions and comments. We're right now in the questions portion. And so we have Councilwoman Torres up. Thank you, Madam President. A. Libby I think my questions are probably for you, and I'm just trying to get to my notes. Is Libby still on? You should be. Absolutely. I'm still here. Okay. Thanks. Hi, Libby. So I'm curious about some of what I read in the Rhino plan. And the Rhino Plan was one of the plans that was brought up in terms of guidance. Right. Yes. That is the applicable malaria plan. Okay. So what I'm trying to understand a little bit more because it was pretty specific about how many units stand to be developed in that district. Do you have any sense of how many housing units have been built in? What is the Rhino District since this plan was adopted? I did allude to it in my presentation. See here. And I'm looking at for the plan, page 37 that says and just let me know if this is. Your recollection as well that there's market support for nearly 900 single family attached units and 675 multifamily units to the year 2022. Okay. So we're close to that at this point. In the 13 years since the narco market began developing, there's already been 980 apartments developed and 337 more are under construction. 337 are currently under construction. And then this would add 326. And then I'm not as familiar with what's proposed on the vacant land north of Delaney, but I believe that's looking at probably another 1000 units or so. Okay. And I'm not sure if you have this information, but I'm curious because the plan also alludes to this how and how much of that housing stock has been developed under 50%. Am I? So that could be host projects. Denver Housing Authority projects. And I'm. Just not familiar. With the district enough, so I'm trying to get a sense. Of. What affordability has been developed. And. And this is. I'm sorry. Who are you looking at? The entire area that falls within the Rainbow North Plan. Or are we just looking at it in our goal. Market? I am looking at. So it looks like this alludes to the entire. The entire area. I think it's looking largely at underutilized land area. But what it's telling me and this is page 70. Four of the plan. Let me get over there. Okay. So. This is referencing. Different opportunities. And I think it's looking largely at the Todd areas. But what it's talking about is. Under the section create a compact, mixed, used, pedestrian friendly. Todd Is this area fall within that TODD area. I just thought this plan. So this does not fall within your 40th employee of Todd districts. Okay. This is pretty much on the opposite side. And I think back then, that was referring to what would now be like 30th and Blake. But this is in that far southwest corner. Got it. We're looking at that. Actually, the plan does reference to narco market. And does it reference for dinner, though? Let me take a look here. What specific is in the Todd area? It does reference very specific affordability goals. Do you recall if the dinner go section referenced anything like that? I don't recall offhand, but it was. Fairly vague on just wanting to increase that intensity and mix of residential and commercial uses in the area. It also did not address how tall those buildings should be. Right. Okay. Okay. I'm finding it here. So in there, create a compact, mixed use. Pedestrian friendly development. It says encourage a mix of uses, including residential, retail and office uses. Provide a range of housing options, including workforce options in terms of site type and size, both sale and rental. Okay. So it doesn't have any metrics in the same way that the total area does. Okay. Have we tracked overall how many? Affordable units have been developed in the Reno area pursuant to the plan goals. We do not have those numbers. We did look around at some affordable housing agreements in the area. The nearest you to nahco market is in city gate. It's just kind of southeast across Brighton Boulevard and that has 25 units at 80% i. But we don't have a full analysis, you know, and the totally there are various developments that have been built over the last 10. To 15. Years that include a few units at a variety of levels. But. I don't think it's anything that's getting around 50% and there's been nothing so far developed and that's a narco market immediate area. Okay. Thank you so much, Libby. Those are all my questions for now, Madam President. All right. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Black. Thank you, Madam President, and thank you for the great presentations, CPD and for all of our speakers who are here tonight. I have some questions for CPD and a couple for host and a couple for the applicant. And for a CPD after evaluating the criteria, you're recommending approval of this, but planning board also voted to approve it . But tonight we have another rezoning on the agenda that neither CPD nor the Planning Board are recommending. Can you please help explain how CPD decides whether or not to recommend a rezoning and what kind of way that recommendation carries? So first off, as far as how we recommend a rezoning that's analyzing again our four criteria with consistency with the plans and for the start up in front of me. Which we place a lot of weight on, especially with Blueprint Number and the comprehensive plan having been adopted just last year after extensive public input. And then we look at whether or not it will also be uniform with the district regulations of that new zone district that's being proposed. And then also considering the public health, safety and welfare and whether or not the proposal will further those the justifying circumstance, there are several that we can look at, but for this one, it came down to the fact that this neighborhood has already changed significantly and the comprehensive plan and blueprint number were adopted after this I.B. Zone district was in place. And then furthermore, we consider whether or not the proposal is consistent with the neighborhood context that is on the list of purpose and intent. And in this rezoning, we found that this did meet all of these criteria. I did not manage the other project that Sarah Carson will be presenting later tonight where we're recommending denial. But it did not meet the. Criteria for. Various reasons. So the fact that you are recommending that this does carry a lot of weight. I mean, in my five years on council, I've never seen one come to us that you didn't recommend, except for the one that's later this evening. So it does meet all of the criteria according to your evaluation of it. It does. And as I mentioned, we don't consider whether or not this project is perfect or might be better, but we try to be as objective as possible in comparing this with all of the applicable goals and strategies in those plans. And I do want to point out to you, because a lot of folks reference the number of goals and criteria in these plans, and we acknowledge that a particular zoning project isn't going to meet every single one of those goals and strategies, but we consider those that are most applicable, and a lot of them also fall upon the city's responsibility to implement. So it's not on the private sector to implement. Every single one of these goals and strategies. Thank you. I appreciate the analysis that you've done. So a couple more questions. Do any of Denver's plans call for this parcel to remain industrial? No. And what does Blueprint Denver recommend for this parcel? If you could remind us, please. The future place type for this is higher residential area where commercial uses are prevalent and buildings are generally the tallest of residential places and it falls within the urban center neighborhood context that again anticipates a high mix of uses good street activation and taller multi-story buildings. So using that criteria, that's how you came to support this particular rezoning. It just sounds like that's exactly what you're describing. And on slide ten of your presentation. It shows different heights and it shows this as 16 in there. Are all of those already rigzone on that slide 16. All of those are outlined within the dashed white line are being proposed as another project that's actually going to the planning board tomorrow night where they're signing some of the Chapter 59, as well as industrial zones in order to better specify what's allowed in these areas. And so if that's approved, that would also result in some taller buildings. Although it should be noted that the existing pads. Also envision some buildings around 200 feet. Tall. Okay. All right. That's all I have for you. And Madam President, I have a few more questions, if you don't mind. Thank you for hosting. I have a few questions. One of the speakers tonight referred to unmet promises made by developers to build affordable housing. Can you tell us about any agreements that developers have made that they did not follow through with? Uh. Hi there. This is Andrew Johnston from the Department of Post. There's. A lot of agreements that the city enters into with developers. I'm not aware of any off the top of my head that where a developer has failed to meet their obligations. Usually if they fail to meet their obligations. It's before the project's finished and we engage in a conversation with them. To rectify the situation. Is that what you're. Does that answer your question? Yes. Because someone. One of the speakers. Allege that that it's a common thing and I'm not aware of it. So I just was wondering if that is something that's happened. Deborah, did you have something to say about that? No, I just wanted to say. Not to my knowledge. And I also wanted to just mention that Andrew has been in this position for less than six months, and I'm coming up on a year. So to the extent that there is any any other projects that have occurred prior to our employment in host, we're not aware of them. We're happy to check and let you know. But I have not heard of any. Okay. And we recently just received the 2019 report from hosts. Can you please tell everyone who's watching how much was expended in 2019 on newer and preservation of units as well as support services in 2019? I know that in combined in 2018 and 19, I'd have to look to get a breakdown by year. But I know that as part of the housing and inclusive Denver, we've expanded $112 million creating units. And in those in that, we've created 2500. And 80 affordable units. And I can give you a little bit of a breakdown on the income levels that that were addressed through that, because we have actually 51% of what we have that what we have funded serve households at 30% and below of area median income, including a high percentage for homeless. I can go on if you want anything more specific. And in that category we've spent. A total of 86, about 57 million for households at 30% or below. Okay. Well, thank you. I just wanted to make the point that that the people of host are working very hard to create new housing units for people at all income levels and to preserve housing and to provide services for people in need. So I just wanted to make that point because I feel like a lot of people come to our council meetings and they don't think we're doing anything. But actually you are all are doing quite a lot. I also know that in 2020, in this extraordinary year we're having, you know, we're spending, you know, $15 million of carers dollars to help people experiencing homelessness and to try and get people into hotels and shelter. So contrary to what we might hear, you all are doing really tremendous work out there. So thank you. Okay, two more questions. Madam President, if you don't mind, I'm making up for the last few months when I've only said here and I . I have some questions for the applicant, Mr. Hill. I have a few questions for you. So you're agreeing to build 49 units of affordable housing that will remain affordable for 99 years. If you had not agreed to this under the current law that the Denver City Council passed a few years ago, how many units would you have to build? Oh, you're on mute. I apologize. Thank you, Councilwoman, for your question. We would be required to build zero affordable units within the project under current law. Instead, we would be required to pay an affordable linkage fee of $1.50 per square foot, which on this project would be about $600,000. Okay. Or you could build five units, right? Oh, yes. In lieu of linkage feed, you could build five units instead of the 49 year old. Correct. And how much will it cost you to build 49 units? Well, it's a great question, Councilman, because of the construction type, which is high rise, concrete and steel. These units cost us $400,000 per unit times 49 units. You're talking about $20 million of affordable housing that we're voluntarily building. So under the law, though, you'd only have to pick and read thousand dollars. $800,000? That's correct. Okay. And earlier this year there you brought a different project to us that council did not approve. How many units were in that project? How many affordable units were how many total units and affordable units were in that? Yes, Councilman, to be for your question. So that reason for shut down in May of this year was a 625 unit project also. That was 12 stories, also high rise, 625 units. We were proposing 63 or 10% affordable at 80%. And that was rejected 7 to 6 of the council. Okay. And my final question is, do you own the property now for this rezoning? No, ma'am, we do not. The current owner that operates the the distribution facility on the site is actually retiring and shutting down the facility, which is why he came to us. So so there will be no jobs remaining on site, whether we like it or not. Okay. But if you if this does not pass, are you still going to buy it? No, ma'am, we will. All right. Thank you, Mr. Hill. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Madam President. I have questions for Mr. Hill. She is still with us. And if you could save me some research, I don't have your materials up from the file. How many? Two bedroom. Apartment three. Are you building as part of this? A minimum of 20% of the of the affordable units will be two bedrooms. In total in the project. It's also 20%. So our our affordable unit mix is proportional to our market rate unit mix. The price will be 20%, two bedrooms across both market rate and affordable. And how how large are your two bedroom apartments? About 1200 square feet. Of 1200 square feet. And you said something about that. You had built 168 affordable units in. Where are those? Sure. Good question, Councilman. We have committed we've signed three host agreements today. The first one we signed about 18 months ago was at Colorado and Athens, near near the Colorado station light rail stop, just south of the Ford dealership. We're under construction on 360 units. 36 of those are affordable and merely adjacent to that. We have a second phase. It's 200 units. 20 of those will be affordable that we're committing to 49 affordable units here. And the remaining 63 to get the 168 was what we committed to and assigned to be reserved earlier this year, but was shot down. Okay. Thank you. The 10,000 square foot green space you talked about on this project is that one chunk of land that. Could be a Frisbee space. Or is this? How's that? What are we doing? Great question, Catherine. So we are adhering to not only the Denver Green Building Ordinance, but also the rhino design overlay. Those two things are the driving factors that are leading us to take the option to do 10,000 square feet of ground level, publicly accessible, private, green space. And it's a combination of additional setbacks along really a runway frontage, which is on the nado. So the right of design overlay requires additional setback of 40 feet. And then we're also providing a pocket park, if you will, about 5000 feet in a triangular shape at the southeast corner. Of this tank. And my let's see. Oh, why did you opt to build this without going for government tax credits? It's a great question, Kathleen. The primary reason is that a project of this size and scale for 2002 door, 300 units to $120 million project, the subsidies that are available to us in the form of tax credits and low interest loans are really not meaningful. It's very small dollars, unfortunately. We're building 20 million square feet of the housing with the 49 years. I believe the budget for affordable housing for 2020 dedicated to actually building for the housing is 30 million. So we clearly they can't give that all to us. So it's not usually material. It's also it slows down the process. We don't know what we're eligible for and we're not. And really, to be honest, because we're market rate developers, we are private market developers, we do not have experience building separate, affordable housing, tax, credit, housing. It's all inclusionary for rising. We do it. Okay. My last question. Just another. Detail. As I remember, you're building parking for, I believe, 360 cars. Is that correct? They're about? Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. That's all. Thank you, Mr. Hill. Thank you, Madam President. Councilman. Councilman Cashman. Councilwoman Ortega, you're up next. Thank you, Madam President. Some of my questions have been asked, but I wanted to kind of hone in on some of the comments that have been made about the fact that there are 20,000 vacant units in the city. And I wanted to ask Deborah or someone from Host if you can verify that and identify how host is looking at those vacancies. I know that some of the rents have started to come down on market rate housing in our city and wondering is there some solution that the city is exploring to figure out how to access those units? Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Since I'm on the production side, I'm also on the preservation side, I should say, but I personally do not know how many units there are at this present time. I know that in the past we have worked with VHA to identify market rate units that were that we felt were being underutilized and created a whole program around that. It was not terribly successful, to be honest with you, and it didn't result in the people taking advantage of those units. That program that was started by Eric Sullivan. Yes. You're referring to. Yeah, I think it was called. Were those all just concentrated on downtown or did any of them look at, for example, some of the affordable units in Councilwoman Black's district? I think to my knowledge, I think it was everywhere. I think they were working to identify units everywhere, and they were working with employers to try to identify people to occupy those units. And there was a whole subsidy set up for two years and and everything, but it was not wildly, wildly tapped into. Okay. Thank you for addressing that. Certainly. I'm going to move on with my next question. And this is to actually partially it's true host, but it's it's really targeted to CPD and. Libby. I don't know if. Anybody else is on representing the upper management of Canada. But I want to know in. In the zoning process. What specifically is being done per the, you know, updated? You know, blueprint Denver plan. That that looks at how you will address zoning applications that are in neighborhoods that are already experiencing displacement. Do you just rely on hosts to play a role, or is there something more that you all do or are looking to do in the process? So let me give you an example. So when the Cedar Site was being looked at as a redevelopment site, I know Councilman Cashman played a big role in making sure that there was a very robust community engagement process that took months and months. Lots of meetings that took place at the school I attended several of them and staff from from CPD were involved in that process, you know, along with the developer who would bring updated details of what was being proposed at the site that required a rezoning. We've had lots of big parcels that have been resolved in the guests area, in the downtown area. You know, we've got a football stadium. We've got a number of big projects that are coming along, the 825 corridor. So some. How do you all sort of decide what that process looks like? Is it based on the size of the parcel? Is it based on the size of the development? Because some developments can be vertical and be as big as some projects that take up more, you know, landmass, but may have an equal or lesser number of of units on larger, larger parcels. So can you just give me an idea of how those are looked at? So first, the question is to CPD them to host in terms of the role you play in that process. So I'll take a stab at that. I haven't been with the city for that long, so I'll call on Kyle or Sara to augment my answer if I don't hit on some of it. But we have been more recently doing an equity analysis on sites that are five acres and bigger, where we look at a number of factors related to vulnerability to displacements, access to opportunity and increasing housing and employment opportunities and the rezoning that's going on in the rest of the Navajo Market, because that does cover close to 13 acres that walks through that entire equity analysis and categorizes where these sites fall within those three equity concepts. With these smaller sites. Since this one is one and a half acres, we have considered whether or not we should start doing that more of an equity analysis on this. But so far, we look at we look at the plans, we look at the maps, including the recently developed tracking vulnerability to displacement map, to get a general idea as to what's going on in the area. And quite frankly, five points is categorized as less vulnerable. Whereas gee, as an Elyria swamps, you are very vulnerable to displacement. The socioeconomic factors within five points are quite a bit different. Okay. And then I want to focus for just a minute on open space. So when you look at the de narco market property, the entirety of what made up the narco market area. How did CPB decide that? Instead of looking at the area in its entirety and trying to figure out how much open space was needed in general, CPD allowed it to be piecemeal in terms of the development. And that, I think, really did a disservice to the amount of open space that we would have otherwise been able to see developed on the site. I don't know that. I don't know Kyle or Sarah. Either one of you could speak to that. And this isn't this isn't isolated to this property. We've been seeing this happen with some of the other larger sized developments where, you know, their master planned, but yet they are allowed to be sort of piecemeal in terms of the rezonings that happen. They come at different times. It's not like one massive rezoning that looks at, you know, different scales in different locations. They're all sort of piecemeal. I think this lone flake property was an example of of where some of that happened. It didn't all get resolved all at once. So I'm just curious how you all are making those judgment calls where by doing it that way, I think we're shortchanging how we address the need and the demand for open space in our city as well. Sure I can speak to that. Evening, sir. Hi, Sarah. Yeah. So, you know, it's I can't speak as much as some of the things that have happened in the past, but currently it's one of the reasons why we have the large development review and ADR process is so for larger redevelopment areas, we can have a conversation around whether there is a minimum requirement for open space for sites that are five acre or larger to have at least 10%. So no matter what, that's going to apply to the large site. But then we can also talk about whether there are some qualitative aspects we want to add on beyond just quantity or even additional quantity for for large areas for this area. As would be noted, there is a general development plan which was our, our older flavor of doing LDR. Now you have these larger sites where you need to coordinate development that would specifically look at open space. And when you see that rezoning that's been mentioned a couple of times now that's associated with that, you'll see that open space has been one of the major components that we're coordinating there. But for this particular site, it's small enough that it didn't trigger any of those bigger conversations. Okay. Thank you. I had one other question that I wanted to ask, and I think what I'll do is allow my colleagues I see we've got some others that are are plugged in. And so maybe I'll just get back in the queue as a president if nobody else ever asks that question. All right. Sounds good. Councilman Ortega, thank you. Up next, we have Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Madam Prince. I want to follow up on the on Councilwoman Ortega's conversation a little bit, because I sometimes my observation is that if we build more density, we increase displacement and gentrification, but if we don't build any density, we also increase displacement and gentrification. So it's like, what do you do? Everything you do makes seems to make the problem worse. But when I look at this site, Libby and maybe Sara also and also Deborah. I look at this site and I'm looking at the map right now. It is completely isolated from Globeville. You can't get there from here sort of thing. You got the river. You got the Burlington Northern Yard. The massive railroad yard. You got the Park Avenue Viaduct, I-25 in some places and into the south, even to get to five points. Although this is in the five points neighborhood, you can't get to five points. It's about a mile and a half away. It's over under the Broadway subway. You got to cross the U.P. and the RTD main lines for the A-line. And it's in an area that's completely industrial. So we're displacing no one here. And so I'm having trouble understanding the theory that adding density here will cause displacement in Globeville or Elyria, Swansea that are so disconnected from this submarket. Can one of you explain? RC Actually, I know Irene Aguilar is in the audience too, so I don't know who would be best to answer that. Lydia, Do you want to take a crack at it first? Yeah. And this is, as you noted, certainly an island that is surrounded by a lot of barriers where those impacts to displacement may not be direct. But I think that there's a fear that by creating more of these high end apartment homes, the the median income value of five points is going to go up. And that's going to create more pressure on Globeville and Elyria. Swansea, where they're concerned that their property taxes might increase, their property values might increase, and eventually they won't be able to afford their own homes. Mm hmm. Okay. I see Senator Aguilar has come in. Kyle Dalton's face just popped up on my screen to a kind of someone to help me understand this. Got everybody here for you? Somebody help me understand this. Damned if we do and damned if we don't. Argument for displacement. Irene. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Members of council. So let me address as I think the the biggest concern here, which is that when you build upscale housing, there is sort of a trickle out effect on pricing. And there are some recent studies that show that you can see that happen. I think the other thing that is that the community is concerned about here is whether the return on jobs is the same as what potentially could be held. And that's looking at it from an economic prosperity point of view. I think the broader thing that most I shouldn't say this, I don't know what people who testified here today are thinking about. But one broader question that this always brings is that there isn't that much undeveloped land in Denver. And in some ways it's just an opportunity lost in terms of where could you put affordable housing in Denver? But I think based on what we have right now in our zoning code and ordinances, this is actually a pretty good deal, is the best we could get based on our current law in the city. And so I think that addresses sort of where the concerns come from. Okay. Thank you. I don't know, Sara, Deborah, Kyle, anyone else have anything to contribute to that answer that is that pretty much covered? The only thing that I would say about this project is and it's proximity to to to Globeville and to downtown is, you know, it's on the edge. I mean, we look at it as an opportunity to house people who work downtown so, you know, minimize their their travel and, you know, the need for vehicles. And, you know, you can walk everywhere downtown. But there are so many places where people work downtown, but they can't live anywhere close by. So that was kind of our approach. And we're we're. Anticipating that through the development. And I don't remember if she said this or not. There are lots of jobs that are that are created through the construction and then into even the operation of the property. You know, I can't speak to what types of jobs those are, but those are some of the way that that we approach this. Okay. Thank you, Deborah. Libby I'm flipping through the slides from the presentation. This area, the growth area strategy here is that this will supply 15% of new housing growth in the city and 5% of new employment in this future growth area. Is that I read that correctly. Correct. So how does eliminating the industrial zoning, how does that contribute or damage the prospects for a 5% increase in employment? That. And I can't say specifically how many jobs this site would add and how that is kind of dispersed across this entire growth area that applies to the entire city. But I'd say more so it's driving up the amount of people who can live in this area as well that could provide employees to future jobs. And then also, it's not just about this site as well with that vacant land that's northeast of Tanaka and Del Gagne. If that's free zone, that actually anticipates significant more commercial developments than what would be at this site, the 5800 square feet of commercial space. At this one, the applicant anticipates providing maybe seven jobs. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, there used to be a lot of jobs down here. I think the family of one of my kid's grade school teachers had one of those produce outlets down there for many, many years in. The old narco market. Yeah, exactly. Exactly. Came in on refrigerated train cars, things like that. Last question, Libby, I guess, for you is what's being proposed here seems to fit exactly with all the planning that's been put in place. Right. It's high residential. That's it's it's it's mixed use that fits. And it seems to me that a lot of people who have testified here, actually their argument is with the plans that have been put in place over the years. And I'm wondering if you could opine on that for a second, that what is what what we're really arguing for here is to redo the plans to take out this kind of high density, because when we've spent, you know, Blueprint Comp, Plan River North and we've planned for this, when the opportunity comes along, we have people saying we don't want it. So please applying for me on that. What are your thoughts? And in other words, are we arguing more to redo the plans and lower the projected density? Or. Or is there a way to argue that this does not meet the criteria? Because what you've presented seems pretty clear that it does. And I appreciate that. And like I said, we try to be as objective as possible when we're looking at comparing any rezoning requests with these plans. And does it fit or doesn't it fit? And so I certainly believe that my analysis leads to this does fit the plans. It does meet the consistency criteria. Now, what. About in other words, it fits. But a substantial number of people are arguing that they don't want it. Right. Right. And I don't know if that means that we need to go back when there was that few years of extensive public input put into these plans. But obviously. That. You're not going to please everybody everywhere either, right? Yes. All right. Deborah and Kyle, people are. Madam President, can I ask if any of the other planners or Deborah have a comment on that? Sarah. Sarah. Thank you. I just wanted to speak very, very briefly to the alignment of the affordable housing goals from the from the city perspective. And Mr. Hill spoke to what he would pay from a linkage fee. And we know that that linkage fee ordinance in that ordinance, it requires 80% area median income housing. So, you know, this one, they reached a little deeper and and hit the 60% mark. Which which is great. Would we want deeper? Absolutely. But it but it is difficult from an economic feasibility perspective to achieve that. I know that they did make an offer to reach deeper all the way down to 30%, but of course, that results in fewer units. So but this does me what is required in the ordinance. Thank you. In other words, we could ask for 20%, 30%, 50%. But it couldn't be built. Through. Without. Without a lot of your money. Yeah. And I guess I would speak to that as well. Is that the money that we earn through the linkage fee and through property tax and all of the sources that have come together to create our funding, our funding sources, is that. Those funds are then used for the affordable housing developers who focus all of their attention on creating 100% of affordable housing. So we do not have funds to subsidize the market rate developers might see. And as they do, that's why we call it voluntary. Right now. Thank you, Madam President. That's all I have. All right. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Sandoval. Thank you, Madam President. I have a couple questions, so I have a couple of questions for CPB. We were talking about our large development review process and our ADR. And we've had these conversations about five acres, whether that should be the trigger or not. Yet. There has been some discussions throughout the city and on planning board. If five acres is the actual correct criteria because we're talking about putting like five acres would meet a certain criteria, but rezoning from industrial three storey zoning to 16 storey zoning. Actually puts more strain on some infrastructure than the Audi process does. So my question about the Audi process. There's more. I know. Mr. Hill has been here for several reasons, and some of them are contiguous. They've just broken up. My personal. My personal. Why do we allow that? Why do we allow his former rezoning in the spring with next to this site? It was the it was the storage unit. How do we allow that? I mean, are we monitoring that? Even though, yes, they're separate parcels and he would want to read them them separately. Are we sure we're not? How what would a trigger look like so that we could have them actually go through the process together? That makes sense. You pick an input. I'm thrown down. It does make sense and I haven't worked on the LDR process and I don't know why Hill and his teammates have opted to purchase these kind of one by one. I think he could either speak to that or Kyle or Sara too, if you want to provide a little bit more context as to sort of that where that five acre threshold came from for LDR and whether or not there is a way that we could encourage developers to come to us more proactively with a longer term vision in their areas to do that equity analysis. I can I can start and then I Disney record Africa is going to jump in there but to hear a little bit more about their approach here and Kyle please jump in because actually did a lot of the work around creating our new reality, our process. If I get something wrong, please speak up. But yeah, you're you're definitely right, Councilwoman, that we've heard concerns about how do you get the right trigger for when you should be having these conversations about what's coordinated the developments area and we're certainly open to suggestions there. There are all kinds of ways that you can try to identify trigger for example, like if you have enough of a change in intensity or land use, for example, then perhaps that's enough. So it's not just about it could not be about the size at all. That's your point about a change significant enough from something like industrial to allowing a bunch of residential? So I think we're definitely open to having those conversations and learning from there really hasn't been that long that we've had the LDR process in place now. So learning from it and looking for ways to reevaluate the triggers, we certainly, wherever we can encourage, try to look for these connections ourselves and encourage applicants to think about things comprehensively and not go side by side. But right now, under our current rules, there's nothing that precludes this applicant from from doing it that way. So I do think it'd probably be good to give up a chance to, to talk maybe a little bit about how your approach here. You bet they do, Sarah. And then your councilwoman cannonball to your question. So we have done a number of reasons recently. Let me just go through each quickly to clarify. So the two phase deal that we did agree, agreement with hosts in Colorado and Evans or Evans not to five, but four. That was five and a quarter acres over the threshold. We actually did a good neighbor agreement and a development agreement with the city whereby we committed to more open space, a 20,000 square foot pocket park and a total of 32,000 square feet of publicly accessible private open space that was above and beyond what the LDR process required . And we did that voluntarily. Then D.A. got a three or four rezoning. There was a period a few months ago where it was kind of a lot like an adjustment and a cleanup. Those two parcels together represented the exact same time and it was still below the five acre threshold. So those were simultaneous free zones. But this this free zone and the one adjacent that was denied it back in March. You're right, those were two separate reasons. The reason for that is we tied up the first site, started the new zone process for 6 to 9 months into that process when this current owner approached us and said, you know, basically you're buying our neighbor, we'd be interested in selling as well. So we had a separate process, 6 to 9 months behind with two different owners. But one one more thing to point out, we were the original buyer and the master developer that's in our market area. So we did do and what the new developer has to do it and also show us there is an application coming up. They still have to do the river activation and public open space along the river that we committed to back in 2007. So that green space will be part of their development but benefit all those around, including us. And then our green space here. The 10,000 square feet that runs along the Navajo is a continuation of that green space that goes all the way down to the river. Yep. All right, so I. I understand. And thank you for that answer. I understand. But I still don't understand how, even though they're nine months apart, when I'm thinking about land use, I'm thinking about seven generations. I'm not thinking about nine months. Nine months is a drop in the hat, with all due respect. So the fact that these two parcels together could have gone to an Aldi ah process. It means a lot to me. It really does. It just you just get different outcomes when you go through more of a public process. So my next question is when you. Is there a way that maybe this could be for hosted applicants? It says in the packet, I can't see anything where the development agreement is signed. Is it signed or. Everything that I've read says it will be signed. I don't understand. It will be signed. Is it signed or is it not signed? I mean, this is Andrew from Host. And the if you're talking about the voluntary affordable housing agreement, it has been executed by the developer. So we do have that agreement executed by the developer pending a positive outcome tonight vowed and we would complete the city side signature to complete the execution. And then did they get recorded on the title? It does get recorded against the land. Yes. Okay. So if they sold, it would still run concurrent with the land? Correct. Correct. Okay. So I have a couple more questions. Thank you. Oh. Did you have a couple more questions yet? Yeah. Sorry. Go ahead. No, that's. Okay. My family will keep my version working for you. Yeah, well, you gotta. You gotta be careful. Oh, sorry about that. So. One other question. So there was a comment made earlier by one of my colleagues that says this site couldn't be developed if you had 50% affordable. And I just want to know, in your opinion, to the applicant and now I know, I understand I absolutely understand that I may be asking questions that are not relevant to the criteria, but I do feel it is our job at City Council to ask questions that are get around a well-rounded idea of the proposal in front of us. So although some of my questions may not pertain directly to the five criteria we are asking we are required to vote on, this is our only opportunity as council members to ask questions. So with that, Mr. Hill, have you is it your. Business. Two. Do you are you a land long term landholder? So oftentimes I'll give you a reframe my question. Often times developers come into neighborhoods, they buy the property, they resell them, they build them, and then they sell them to for profit entities and they sell them off. Do you do that or are you a long term landholder? What's the longest one long term land that you've held? Yes. Great question, Councilman Sandoval. Typically, we stretch for investments for ten plus years. So this is a ten year investment. Could be longer, but we go into this for ten years. There are some comments made by some figures that we're out of town. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, I live a mile from the park. Well, I walk my two year old down river. So this is close to home for me. It's a ten year investment. Long term is all relative, and that might not seem to matter to some. And it does for others. But this is on a ten plus year investment. It'll take that long to get through the multiple phase redesign. And keep in mind, the original investment goes back to 2007 and we're still active building across the street today, 13 years later. So I would consider us long term. Yes. And I think you had a question about the amount of affordability or not. I don't want to miss your question. So there was a comment saying that you couldn't be it you wouldn't there wouldn't be a project if you had to do deeper affordability. And I can say my my comment for my comment question, but I believe there is a way to do more, deeper, more affordability. It just means you don't make as much profit for people first. You put people over profit. So is that accurate or not? It's it's all like a business, like. Right. My family's in the family making business. We have to sell them for a certain amount to make profit. So but you are in the business of building buildings and making a profit, correct? Yes, I'm in the for profit business. It's not it's not a nonprofit, but it's a great question. Councilman, thank you for asking. At the end of the day, we do have to raise capital for the city to get it built. We have to raise debt financing from a lender that expects their money back, plus interest as well as equity. And those equity investors want a better return to the lender for the additional risk that they're taking. So the capital markets in this environment for urban infill are very challenging. It's very hard to raise revenue of capital right now. So it's not a matter of making less money. It's getting the project off the ground. If you can't build it, there's no money to be made. And we push this to the absolute brink of financial viability and economic feasibility. It's unfortunate that because it's highrise, they cost 40,000 to build. So it's 20 million, but that's the reality of it. I would also point out it's just a small parcel which just over an acre and it's a triangle, so you kind of have to lop off the corners and then you got 10,000 square feet of open green space and you have less than an acre of usable land. So, you know, I agree completely recognize that there is a need for deeper affordability, more of it across this entire metro. But we feel it's a good contribution to the city's affordable housing needs. And we hope this leads directly to others in the area doing similar where we see we could soon see hundreds of units available to states in minus meter. Okay. One last question. Do you feel that COVID has changed your profit margin, like your performance? Is that what you said, a comment earlier when you were answering this question and you said that it stretched? Do you do you feel that because COVID has I believe COVID has impacted all of us. None of us have been not impacted. Has it impacted your profitability or your performance in these type of projects? Absolutely. Without a doubt. Metroliner down by 10% and your reports are down. More occupancies around the common earlier, about 20,000 available units. I think that's right. And the way I'm getting there is that current vacancy in Denver across the entire city is 7%. There's 250,000 apartments in Denver. 7% of 250 is 17,500. So I think we do have those 20,000 vacant units. So, yes, profit margins are down, rents are down, occupancy were down. And that's all the more reason that it's going to be very challenging to capitalize this project. We're hopeful we can do it, but I know that by pledging 50% affordable to 30 to 50% am I, as was requested by the U.S. coalition, unfortunately, I would not be able to do that to build that project. The capital markets are not there for that depth and that amount of affordability. Especially for. The youth. Think of then president. Thank you, Councilwoman Sandoval. Councilwoman CdeBaca. Thank you, Madam President. Can you move over, Erika Reiter? No, let me go. And Alfonso Espino. Yep. We should go ahead. This first question is for Erica writer. Erica, can you tell me what the impact your perception of the impact of these decisions on single parent families and their kids about what is affordable? Uh oh. I'm going to let. My daughter, who has been. Waiting for hours to stay, her piece about how this kind of project would affect a family like ours. My name is Mays Ramirez. My name is Mae Ramirez, and I'm eight years old. I am against the zoning. I want my leaders to care more about people, not buildings. What happened to the homeless people who were made to leave? This is not how people should be treated. Kids are also leaders. Please vote no on this. We are all watching. We are all part of this community. Thank you. Okay. Now for Nola. Nola, can you talk a little bit about equitable, equitable development and what you believe is needed in this neighborhood from developers and perhaps what you asked for from this developer and where there was an inability to. Come to some agreement. Sure. I think one thing, if it's okay, if starting with this is that what we've been missing out of this entire analysis and conversation is an is an actual look at what is happening with displacement. And unfortunately, we don't have that analysis. You all don't have that analysis to look at. But there should be measurements that look at both the data points of vulnerability, like we mentioned, but also even at the change over time when you have extreme amounts of change and this is something that other cities are using, I sent host of Income Risk Index that they're using in L.A. and that's the type of thing that you could look at, where you would both the extreme changes that are happening in particular areas like these, and also points of vulnerability, like the amount of renters and the amount of rent burden in those incidents. So I just wanted to say that because what those types of what that type of analysis could do is look at the all of the changes that are happening in the area. Right. So so guess in specific in some ways that it doesn't have protected affordable housing. So we have very, very little protected affordable housing. You know, we have three units in the field. Those are affordable housing that's protected to put deed restricted, affordable housing. We have very little of there are some scattered sites. There's some habitat units where they could repurchase the homes. But there's very, very little deed, restricted affordable housing, which means that everything is vulnerable. All all the people's homes, the residential. Homes. Are vulnerable. And we know that nine out of ten of our neighbors are at risk of displacement. And I would say during the pandemic. It's it's everyone and every single person that we talked to, our most recent survey was rent burden. And 89% of those people were heavily rent burdened, meaning they're paying over 50% of their income on rent, which is an impact major impact health. But getting back to what some maybe equitable things that could be done with the developer, with a private developer or an affordable housing developer could be things like income sharing. One thing that we talked about was ongoing a way to ongoing share that income of. The project with. The neighborhood. That was something that they weren't willing to look into more. They offered us a $5,000 contribution defense fund. That just wasn't. Enough. And we know that to address the impacts that are happening. All right. What about community land trust? Where part of the land. And that also wasn't an option we brought up in in our last meeting. Again, did not have extensive conversations. We didn't have the time to do that. But on a per market, a per market unit impact fee, we again didn't get there with that once. What about working with affordable housing developers, bringing in the types of partners that can acquire? And as as. Mr. Hill already said, that this wasn't a possibility for this for this project. I could talk more, if you want me to, about the protections that could be put in place by the city and so on. But oh, okay. Can you actually speak to a couple of comments that were made? One comment was about the fact that this is a pretty isolated area, although it's been highly developed over the last few years. I think it's important to have a community perspective about how displacement is impacted or facilitated, even in areas where there is development of space that is not actually physically taking anybody's house away. So can you talk a little bit about that one? Do I mean to talk to or I'll get you another. How does displacement happen if they're not actually taking houses away from anybody? So there's a something called price shadowing, which is when an area starts to feel the impacts of other developments, because not only does that development then brings more attention and demand in that area, but you start to see the impact to property valuation overall, which, as I said, 470%, we're already having huge amounts of change in that area and just we just can't take any more right now. There's so many pressures from so many angles and a 16 story rezoning just isn't what what needs to happen right now. But looking at not only the property value changing, the rent burden going up, you know, every every rental that you see is going to be, you know, in proximity to Reno, you know, like that that dynamic that is is a huge part of what's raising prices. And how about the comment that was made that, you know, there's really it's not really possible to do over 20% affordable housing in in a build like this. Can you talk a little bit about that and what you know about what is possible? Well, I would say that that's not possible potentially in a 16 story building. Because of the type of construction cost that that James was describing. So in my opinion, a smaller four or five storey zoning would facilitate affordable housing better. But, you know, we've worked with a lot of different types of developers. We've had some really exciting and creative conversations with. Helpers. That are happening that are interested in in community land trusts, in strategies, in impact, investing in different ways to try to figure this out, because we need that deeper affordability and we need ongoing ways to build the economy in in the areas that have been historically disinvested. Thank you, Nola. You might want to stand by, but that's it for my questions to you right now. My next questions are for CPD. The Rhino Plan doesn't actually call for this tall of a building. Can you explain how we got to 16 stories? Right. As I mentioned, the run up plan did not specify the building height ranges that should be allowed in here. They did allude to the design standards and guidelines, but those actually applied just across the street from the nahco. And so then we had to look at our most recent guidance within Blueprint Denver, and that's where it calls for among the highest, tallest residential buildings within this future place. Type and context. And so we we have we're not actually measuring this against the Rhino plan. It's somehow out of the boundaries of the Rhino plan. Is that accurate or. When you say across the standards don't apply until across the street? What do you mean? So let me clarify. This site absolutely does fall within the Rhino North neighborhood plan, but that didn't provide any guidance. And so it alluded to the rhino urban design standards and guidelines. But those don't. Those don't impact this exact site, but impact pretty much everything else in the narco markets to the east. And so why would that have been left out of the plan? Is that an oversight or what was that about? I don't know. Considering the plan was developed in 2003, I'm not sure why they left it that open. And so with the parts of the plan that do specify a building height, what is the tallest building height mentioned in the Rhino Plan? Specifically to do Argo market. As I mentioned, it is not anywhere in the regular plan. I would have to look at the final plan. In order to find those other. Mentions of heights. In other areas outside of the narco market. Do you know of any other single building in the Reno area? That is 16 stories today? No. And can you explain to me how far outside of the 38th and Blake affordability overlay are we with the normal market? I do not know specifically. I just know that that that in terms of hate overlay does not apply to this site. Do you know why? It just fell outside of the radius when that plan was developed. And how far is this from the 38th and Blake Station? Let me pull. Up a. Map. Although I can say earlier from my report, we're about three quarters of a mile from the station itself. Right. So less than a mile away from the 38th and Blake Station where we designed an entire affordability overlay incentive to capitalize on TOD. Not a single building that is 16 stories in the entire Reno area. The closest tall building is on the other side of the tracks in Union Station. Can you tell me about the. The building height for the river along the river in the rhino plan. What are the building heights allowed in the plan? Along the river. And which stretch of the river on the Arkansas side. And so with the narco market itself, since that's largely where my analysis was limited to the buildings along there are allowed to be only eight stories tall. And. When you. So Councilman Flynn spoke to the building form and said this matches perfectly with the rhino plan. Even though the Rhino Plan building heights are not specified for this building, that would be the tallest building, double the height of the max building in all of Rhino. When he said that it complies even with one criterion of the five we're supposed to be considering tonight while it actually doesn't. Do these rezonings have to meet all five of the criteria or just one criteria? They absolutely have to meet all five of the criteria. And I don't think that Flynn was alluding to the River North Plan so much as that this meets the Blueprint Denver guidance regarding the future context, future place type and growth area strategy. I get that. But he was more alluding to criterion two and five, almost as if those were the only criterion that mattered. And it's very strange that we don't have building heights for a development that is on the river. But I'll move on to my next piece. Can you tell me how CPD defines public health, public safety and welfare? And it can be fairly broad in interpretation for this. We focused on the fact that this is adding sidewalks in an area that currently doesn't have them. It's adding trees. It's adding streetlights. That would create a more safe, walkable environment. It's also introducing affordable housing to the area, commercial space and jobs that will create more of a mix of uses in the neighborhood. And it's complying with the green building ordinance that will add 5% greater energy efficiency than the building code requires. And then we often rely and tie that back to the fact that it's implementing adopted plans and is. Associated with. Various health goals within those plans. And so how do you also define community benefits in CPD? Those we don't necessarily define because we're not in charge of. Managing or implementing any kinds of community benefits agreements. That's something that is solely between developers and the communities and executed between those parties. But we recently did pass two area plans on East, Central and East Area that highlighted community benefits as a prerequisite for of zoning. But we don't define them in CPD, is that correct? And I am not as familiar with those neighborhood plans and haven't had the opportunity to apply them to a rezoning. So if they're included in those, then that's a step forward in the right direction for how we can help get those types of benefits with future rezonings. But CPD does not have a definition of community health, safety, welfare or benefits. If Kyler Sarah, if there's a spot that I'm missing here where we have a specific definition, please chime in. I'm happy to try to jump in here. I'm Kyle Dalton with the Department of Community Planning and Development. Thanks for the question. We're tasked with reviewing an application, determining if it meets what's. Required in the code language that Libby's outlined, as is the code language that applies. So I think Libby has accurately identified what we heard from the applicants and what we identified as why this application meets those criteria in the circumstance. So public health, safety and welfare here is sidewalks, trees, street lights, commercial space housing and 49 affordable housing units. And I think Libby also mentioned its consistency with the adopted plans. But not the plan of the area that it's in, which is the Rhino plan. Again, we review the application against the review criteria and we found it was consistent with the review North. Thank you. Can I get a host for my next questions? Mm hmm. They should already be on. Host What are the current gaps in affordable housing in Denver? Like, what brackets of am I? Are we missing? And to what degree? Well, I would direct everybody to the Department of Hosts dashboard, which gives you lots of detail. But I will say that the greatest need excuse me is that the 30% and below area, median income level, and that's where we devote most of our resources. And specifically in our neighborhoods that are vulnerable to displacement. What is the bracket that's most needed in those neighborhoods? Well, I would imagine that it would be the same. I mean, you know, under 30% area median income. Is anything. What. What is the amount of units that we need citywide in those and my brackets. Hang on. Have a sec. And I don't have those. Memorize. I'm pulling up our dashboard so tight with me for just a moment. While you pull that up, maybe you can answer this one. Was the community contacted during the negotiations with the developer so that host can understand the need of the neighborhood? Yeah. Well, we one of the very first questions that we always ask the developer is if they've made contact with the neighborhood. Like the community. But a host. I'm sorry. But does host reach out to the community to discuss their needs with them directly before negotiating with the developer? No, that's not part of of what we are we are charged to do. That is the developer's responsibility. So we encourage the developer to do that and we encourage the community to they they need to have a two way conversation. That's where community benefit agreements are created. We're really not a party to those, but we just require that they do engage the community and have a meaningful conversation. Does host recognize that there's a fundamental power imbalance in those kinds of negotiations? Yes. I you know, we do recognize that. And by not engaging the community or acting in accordance with what the community needs, is that equitable? Well, it depends on how you're defining, equitable if you're talking about just one particular area. But, you know, I would remind you that we are charged with providing equitable equity across all of Denver. So we have to focus on opportunities that are in all of the different neighborhoods. And so when we're looking at those lower income populations, yes, we do. We do consider that we are looking for, you know, as deep affordability that we can achieve through those discussions. But we cannot mandate we I want to remind you that we cannot mandate what developers do. We can encourage. We can negotiate. But but we cannot mandate. But does host have to accept the voluntary units that are offered with your recommendation for a rezoning? Do we have to accept what they what they what they offer? No, we don't have to accept it. However, without an affordable housing agreement in place, the project would not be without agreement. In principle, it cannot advance to the planning board without a signed agreement in place. It does not advance here to council. So a signed agreement is essentially an endorsement from host. It is an acknowledgment that we have agreed to the ability that we think can be achieved through this project. But not that host has actually engaged with the community or met community need. You know, that's not that's not with as I said, it's not within our purview to. We can't we can't mediate the negotiation with the with the community. We can't we can't mandate what the developer is doing as a result of what the community is requesting. We can only negotiate with what we can do within the parameters of what the ordinance requires and try to encourage that to be as low as possible so that it does meet the community needs. And so what does inform your understanding of community needs when you guys are negotiating on behalf of a community? I mean, there there are community. There's data on the community. And let me I did pick up. Let me see if I get it. The units. Before I go there, I just want to make sure I don't forget this part. The percentage of households that are cost burdened in the 0 to 30%, which includes homeless, is 86%. And that that's 2019 figures. So the number of units that that represented in 2018 was 38,000 all households, 44,000. And that's just in that area that that median income bracket. So in all households in in Denver, there are 167 households with 105 Casper and we have about 24,000 units that are income restricted with. Looks like about 2000 of those meeting meeting that need we have to chip in to chip away at it a little bit at a time. So that's a good start. Add an analysis. Have you all as host done an analysis of the impact to involuntary displacement of this development? I have not. I understand that. What is your understanding of the potential indirect? Impacts, negative impacts of this development. Well, what everybody has spoken to today, you know, but there are you know, there are economic impacts. I mean, any development that occurs, not just this one, is going to have an economic impact in to to the neighborhood. It also has the economic input impact to two elevators in Denver just as a city. So it depends on on where you are in that continuum. But I would also remind you that that the city in host does focus our effort across that continuum. So while there is a huge need and we do devote, I think I said earlier, 58% of our resources toward the 30% and below area median income households. We do also have an obligation to hit the households better in the 31 to 80 and the homeownership as well. So we have to balance all of our resources and we have limited resources. So the way that those 30% units are achieved is through the affordable housing developments that occur using low income housing tax credits, because the way that those tax credits work is they bring in lots of free money. So those investors put money in upfront and they that's the way that the projects work. They have very little net. When you have very little debt, you can make really low in low rent. I just have one last question for you. Yes. Is this project meeting any of the gaps that we have in that 30% and my bracket? It is not because I believe that the the developer offered those, but they were insufficient for what your request was. Thank you. Can I speak to Chase now? Can you tell us, Chase, what the value is of this land with what is currently on it? You mean can you clarify the question of what the value is at 16 sort zoning or the value is as a vacant warehouse? How about both? I'm not I'm not in the business of valuing industrial real estate. But I think your point is that it's worth a fraction of what it would be worth, which seems to presume. And was there a real give and take with guys, coalition and or residents in this neighborhood? Yes. Thank you, Councilman. Great question. I'm glad you asked it. We included in your your package a letter that was issued on December 9th that outlines our communication goes back to May of this year. So for seven months, unfortunately, we could not find common ground. We tried, but the give and take was was very evident. So let me quickly walk you through how that went. So starting in May and looking at where we are now over countless Zoom calls, emails, etc., we increased and increased our affordable housing by 50% from 10% to 15%. We proposed the Community Benefits Agreement that, in addition to offering that affordable housing provided eight economic and non-economic concessions, that CBA is included in the package as well. So I won't we do that. We also explored deeper affordability because we were told 60 to 80 that nobody in the D.C. neighborhoods would qualify for this experience. So we we proposed 30 to 50% and it was only 21 units. It wasn't as much, but we offered 21 affordable units in the 30 to 50% range. And we came back a few years, as recently as two weeks ago and offered them 21 units of 32, 50 or 49 and 60 to 80, and they accepted neither one, unfortunately. And, you know, they had always kind of dug in on the 50% at 30 to 50. And then in our call last week was the first to progress away from that stance. And it was mentioned that 40% at the full range of amenities, which I assume means to the 90, would be something they would consider or I don't want to I don't want to speak for no other. You can kind of jump in. But another offer was, I believe, 20%, 30 to 50 plus profit share where we gave profits in the units to. For more affordable housing and obviously no as onerous. You can see for yourself that we unfortunately never came. Never found common ground as a bridge too far. And we just couldn't quite get there. So your offer did not change. Regardless of the options put on the table. No, that's respectfully, councilman. That's not what I said. We're all for change materially. 50 over 50%. So originally offered 10% affordable. We increased that 50% to 15%. We then offered 21 units at 30 to 50, Amy, which is the Amish range they requested. We then offered a CVA, so we did it and we did it. I don't think it's fair to say that we did not move off of our original stance and but they dug in until as recently as two weeks ago on the 50% at 3250. Amy And that's what we could not commit to. And so what made you go with the higher AMI bracket versus the deeper affordability for your final offer? Yeah, that's a great question. Gasol So you have to remember too that there's there were many different organizations in our lives that we were discussing this free zone with. So we reach out to 13 different RINO's and neighborhood educator organizations of the 13 eight engaged in that with us. Of those eight seven issued letters of support. So GSA is one of those eight. What we heard from the most is organizations, many of which spoke tonight was that they were focused on the amount of affordability. So they wanted 15% of a 16 story building because they got 49 units, whereas the GSA coalition was finding 5 to 8 story zoning, even if it meant 50 units or 80 units, and they might only get 12 affordable units. And there's no right or wrong. It's just a difference of opinion. But the other groups have supported us, one, and we're focused more on the aggregate amount and number of units. So 15% of a 16 story building is more than 50% of the five story building. And so we were focused on maximizing the amounts, hence the 15%. And that garnered a lot of support in the community outside. Yes. Are any of the other organizations that support the work involved in equitable development or the equity plan in the neighborhood? Gosh, the 13 hour news and neighborhoods issues. I can't tell you the mandates or mission statements of all 13, to be honest. I think you'd have to reach out to them individually or. Nola, can you speak to that? So I mean, I think evident in the amount of support for this project was that none of the people that wrote these letters actually came tonight. Most of the the so and is the only R.A. that's of the neighborhood and. They also had a lot of questions that I never saw answers to from the developer. And they had they actually wrote the letter for the previous reason and didn't engage in these conversations at all. They were really interested in benefits for garden place for the school, the elementary school, and Globeville. And I believe there was some sort of agreement about the pickleball court on the last and maybe a donation of some sort was made to the school. So that was that interest. Both the Business Association and I don't know who the other supporters were, but they have stayed very neutral. They don't want to be involved. And I've spoken to members of all of those organizations. That. Don't agree with that decision because a full, equitable analysis and process was not done. You know, it takes, you say, countless emails. Okay. But, you know, there weren't that many emails. How many emails do we do all the time? We actually had meetings and two meetings with you guys. I mean, that that's not an equitable process and we just touch the surface that the amount of people that have been involved in that process for the Reno Arts District was involved in the in the last meeting that that that consequence they sponsored. And, you know, they have a lot of questions as well. And I just don't think we're at the point through an actual, equitable, equitable process to get to the place where we're this is a good land use. Alfonso, my final two questions are for you. How would you, as a resident of this neighborhood, characterize or describe the negotiation process between the community and the developer? And do you believe that the asks of the community were unreasonable? Thank you, Councilwoman. So to the first question, as NOLA already said, there was actually only. To. A 1 to 1 an hour conversation that actually happened between the Coalition and our development committee, which is made up of residents and other neighborhood organizations. There's only two that actually ever happened. The rest of endless communication that Mr. Chase is willing to is simple email communication, which I'm sure anybody is used to and would not consider that an actual thorough conversation. It doesn't merit the word, and I think that's what it should have been. Well, it was something that was engaging us in a true way. As Mr. Hill has already said, we were always a bridge too far for them. Right. And I think part of the reason for that is because of negligence on the side of host who is currently taking a neutral stance by saying that they didn't engage in any conversations around what is the actual need in our community because they want the developer to do that. But if they came to that agreement, which they did before we ever engage in those conversations that they say they recommend, they were. Putting us in a very tough position that undermined any process that would have seen a positive outcome. So having to face that, you know, it's difficult to even call those two brief conversations that we actually had as very genuine, the nothing really ever moved. So yeah. And and real quick, is this the largest development, either Noella or Alfonso? You can you can respond. The largest development that you all have dealt with in your your work in the community. The the Clayton Street 4041 Clayton. Was is larger that was. 700 units. But as was testified, it's been sitting. There for years. Got it. Thank you. That's it for my questions. Madam President. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman CdeBaca. Councilman Hines. Thank you, Madam President. I want to thank my colleagues for asking a lot of the questions that I had already. So and I want to thank all of our staff and all the people who have been here tonight. So great questions. Great answers. I want to ask maybe host just to get a little bit of context. The housing market took off in 2013. Am I right about that here? And that's before host was in existence as a as an entity. But was it about 2013 2014 and my when the ballpark at least. About 2012 it started improving in 2012. Okay. Before 2012, did Denver have an affordable housing crisis? Oh, yeah. Denver has always had an affordable housing crisis. Okay. So I mean, I started in. Amanda Sandoval, well, will attest that my very first nonprofit job was working for her mother and doing an inner city neighborhood revitalization and affordable housing. And that was that was a long time ago. So so we've had we've had an issue for a bit since the beginning of Denver, I suppose. Is there a city that we should be modeling? I mean, is there in the US? I know that there are different governments outside the US that make that model a little different, but is there a US city there that we should be modeling that that I should be doing a lot of research on to make sure that I understand how they're doing it right. We've actually just recently last year, I guess completed a peer cities study that and it's kind of all related to the linkage fee and, you know, zoning incentives and things like that. But we researched our consultants, researched numerous different municipalities across the country, settled on five, and some of them are similar to what we're doing. Some of them have affordable housing issues that are worse than ours, you know, like San Francisco, things like that. Places like that. I think we did a can't remember Pittsburgh or pencil are Philadelphia. I think we looked at it Austin and I'm forgetting the other two right now. But but yes, the answer is we are outreaching to that. I just finished a series of meetings this past week with poor cities across the nation, like numerous cities across the nation that are, you know, having dealing with affordable housing and trying to collaborate on solutions that work in one area another. So it's kind of like a roundtable discussion where we share ideas. So happy to get you the other cities and let you know a little bit about what what we've found. I don't I don't have them in my memory. So that's fine. But but there isn't a city in the US that has no affordable housing issue and is also a desirable city. Yeah, not. Not to my knowledge. Okay. The last question that I have is, should we be, if we're lucky, to get the Colorado General Assembly to change the Telluride decision? Is the city of Denver working now to determine what our how we might incorporate that change? Into our affordable housing strategy. We are. We have been having a discussions. We've got stakeholder stakeholders that we're meeting with. We put a temporary hold on a lot of those discussions, but for a variety of reasons, including COVID and and staff capacity, capacity as a result of COVID and things like that. But. But yeah, we have been working all of last year and it's a high priority for us in the coming year to address that. And yeah, if the news that I hear is that it sounds positive and what that, what that will, you know, it will result in legislation that will help us create a minimum standard for what we can ask developers for. I think we're the we as a city will have some work to do about figuring out exactly what all of the the details are to that. But yes, the answer to your question is yes, efforts are underway. Good. I'm happy to hear that, because while that may not directly impact this rezoning, why it sounds like Mr. Hill is interested in an additional development in the city, and so I and certainly the other developers. So thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilman Hines and Councilwoman Ortega. I want to check with you if it's okay. I'm going to go to Councilman Kinney. We haven't heard from her yet tonight. All right, Councilwoman Canete. Thanks, Madam President. To answer a question I wasn't asked, I've seen the best practice research on Inclusionary since I've been working on it for many, many years. There's not a city in America that has a policy that goes above 20%. Just to be clear, most are between ten and 15% because of economic feasibility. And so my questions are going to touch on that a little bit in a minute. But first, I want to give Deborah, who's just a moment, if she would like to correct something she said. Deborah, you mentioned that if there's not a build alternative agreement, the project doesn't get to keep going. It doesn't get to go to, as you know, the planning board or council. But that's not exactly what the law says. So I just want to be clear. If there's not a build agreement, then what happens under the law? True. And you probably have to supplement this, you know, with with my limited knowledge here, less than a year. But it does go and it's presented. But then the planning board, I believe, has to decide whether or not they want to advance it. And so that's yeah, that's I don't know if the staff wants to speak to it. The law allows developers to pay a fee. That's the short story. Oh, yeah. I just want to be really clear that the law does not require a build alternative plan. It allows that. But if a developer doesn't have that, the law requires one very simple thing, and that's not up to the planning board. I just want to be really clear. The law has and so let's I just want to get the record straight. That's fine. I appreciate that. And and I guess I misunderstood your question because I thought, you know, we had discussed earlier that there are opportunities to pay the fee, do the build alternative or, you know, do the of the voluntary. Those are the three options. So and I just want to because, you know, Councilwoman Sade Abarca asked you a question and she said, what if host didn't think the plan was good enough? What if you said you've offered us to build this many units and host said, we don't think that plan is good enough? Your answer implied that the project would be stopped and that's not the way that it works. So I just want to get back one final time here so that everyone's on the same page. Yeah. My apologies. It is. I mean, people and when we talk to developers, you know, we tell them you've got three options. And our very first initial meeting, we lay that out and, you know, you can pay the fee. And as as Mr. Hill indicated on this particular project, it's like $600,000, which doesn't you know, it barely creates one unit. Or they can do the build alternative, which is a calculation that in this particular instance creates five units, and those are all automatically at 80% area median income. Or they can choose to negotiate with us. And, you know, the way that we presented is you can help us achieve our affordable housing goals in Denver by engaging in these conversations with us and demonstrating your commitment by doing, we always start with 15%. You know. Sometimes you end up with that. So, so, so we're very clear if host decided this plan wasn't good enough for yourselves or for the community, you do not have the power to stop the project. Neither does the planning board. I just want to make sure that record is super clear. Yeah, I think the question. Is that when it comes to planning board, planning board does ask is there an affordable housing agreement in place? Right. So thank you for that. Rick Banks, I want to ask you, you've got a lot of experience in this field. What's the amount of subsidy required to get a unit to 80% of am I to get a unit to 50% of am I to get a unit to 30% of am i i in dollars? Uh. Oh, gosh. And he just turned his camera on. He's going to he's going to he's you can phone a friend. It's 1030. So right after I got my you know. The reason that I'm the reason I'm. Struggling with this a little bit is because. I think of it in terms of the projects that we fund. So the city of Denver provides get financing and we provide only a portion. Of that gap is the state. I want the whole what's the whole what how much you know it costs X amount to build to get it down to the same level is a total amount of subsidy. We you're right we only provide one piece that subsidy. Andrew where where are you jumping in to help? I was going to my internet timed out. The but I can tell. You the difference between for instance, a 80% Army unit would be 1800 dollars of maximum rent per month. I don't think that's what she's asking. Now. I'm I'm frankly asking like a unit costs between 250 and $400,000 to build, depending on the construction type in order to buy down the rent to that unit. Developers typically figure out what the subsidy per unit is. So in in tax credit projects, it might be $150,000 per unit. I mean, I can throw out some numbers that I've heard, but if some you know, if you'd like to if you guys don't have it, it's okay, right? I don't have it off the top of my head. But I will say that I think you heard Mr. Hill say that his particular units are costing 400,000 per unit, but the subsidy, the cost for an affordable housing unit is probably somewhere between 180 and $200,000, just just to construct that unit. And so when you're talking about the amount of subsidy required, it's going to depend on how big that project is. So say you have a 37, $37 million project you're going to be getting, you know. 7 to $10 million in tax credit equity. You're going to come in with. I don't want to take us. Yeah, it's okay if you don't have the number, but it's $5 million. Sorry. I'm going to cut you off if you don't have it. Let's just. Let's just go with this. Does it take more subsidy to get a unit affordable to 30% of BMI than it does to 80% of BMI? Yes. Yes. And where does the subsidy come from in this type of a project? In this project. It comes from the developer's pocket. Well, let's be more specific. What? What, what? What money is coming into the developer's pocket? What subsidizes the affordable units? We don't subsidize that affordable unit in with a dime. But when money comes into the project, it comes in for the market rate units. Right. So the market rate units are what subsidizes the affordable units? Yes, absolutely. Okay. So if there are fewer market rate units, what does that do to the amount of subsidy available for the affordable units? Well, there's not as much. Okay. So I just I want to describe because one of the things that's playing out in the question and answer as well as the testimony is two issues, which is, one, what does the community need to what could this project deliver? Right. There is a question underlying a lot of my colleagues previous questions about feasibility. Is it feasible to do what the community needs? Right. And I think that in order to do that. So let me just say, what's the typical number of units in a five story building? I mean. On an affordable it could be anywhere from if it's a tax credit project, it's going to be about between 60 and 80. Units. So what? So if we have 60 to 80 units and we wanted half of them to be affordable, we'd have, you know, 30 units, let's just say. But you'd only have 30 market rate units to subsidize them. Right. Am I doing my math? Right? Yeah. Yes. You would just have to have really high, high, high rents to subsidize them, depending on what area median income you're trying to achieve. The questions I'm asking are intended to show the math that has to happen in these projects, right, where there's no public subsidy. So now I want to ask the question, because one of the ideas was it was implied by one of our speakers that, yeah, we understand there might be a limit to how much they could do , but then they should get tax credits. Are you familiar with any building in the state of Colorado that has been 50% market rate and 50% tax credits? Have you ever seen that? Have you seen it in any other city or state? Is it your impression that the competitive tax credit projects. So this. Yeah. Well I'm sorry to interrupt. So you you know, there are there's something called the Safe Harbor Law that if you're doing like a bond deal, certain types of financing, you have to provide at least 20% at 50% area median income or 40% at 60. So if you provide the 20% at 50, the rest of them could be market. So in your experience, though, that the tax credits are typically awarded to buildings that are 50% market rate? Have you seen that in Colorado? No. Okay. So I just you know, it's just a question about what's feasible. So one more question about there was a question about doing an economic analysis of the impact of this project. So can someone, maybe the applicant or the the staff from CPD remind me how many acres this project is? Just over an acre. Just over an acre. So the five point statistical neighborhood, do we know how many acres that neighborhood is? This is this lives in the five point statistical neighborhoods. So I just want to. Write I do not. Write square miles anything. I was looking it up. If any of the staff have that figure. I guess my question, you know, and you know, we've talked a little bit about studies. You know, I was in the Anti Displacement Network. Has anyone like Irene or the host have seen a tool that allows you to determine what the displacement impact is of a one acre project on a hundred hundreds of mile? You know, my many square miles. Is anyone seen a tool that allows us to mathematically determine the future impact on displacement of a project of this size ? I haven't seen one that that speaks to the. Displacement. Impact. I've just seen studies that refer to the economic impact, the positive economic impact of affordable housing along transit. Yeah. And this is again, to this question, it's it's important to say that if we're going to vote on the the completeness of an application or its ability to meet the criteria based on doing or not doing an analysis, it's important to know whether that analysis is physically possible given the math and the tools that we have at our disposal. So I think with that, I will go ahead and let us move on. Madam President, thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Canete. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. I've got four quick questions. So the first few are for Mr. Hill. So if you can, you can you tell me if you are familiar with the Work Now program? Thank you, Councilman Ortega. I am not the first. Okay. Okay. So this is a program that the city partners with, along with the state, and it is a separate standalone entity that is working with both union and nonunion apprenticeship programs and they are plugging people from various communities. So we're mandating that in some of our city funded projects so that people from impacted neighborhoods can benefit from the construction jobs. So no, if anybody had talked to you about utilizing that tool as a way people hired on the job to do some of the construction jobs. I would have to look to learn more something. Okay. I will put you in touch with Katrina and work that program. Secondly, can you just speak to you've talked about the square footage or the percentage of the commercial that you're proposing. Can you just speak to what types of jobs you think might be part of that commercial area? And that 5% that you were referring to yesterday? And thank you for your question. So obviously, when the product is being built, we anticipate sort of 2100 jobs for the duration of the construction, which is 2 to 3 years. So they're short term jobs. What's the project is built? We anticipate there being nine full time staff for the apartment project and another six or seven within the commercial space, depending on what it is, is that a restaurant would be hire. Is it a dry cleaner? Would be less. But on average, we expect six, seven, eight in the retail commercial space, plus nine full time staff in the building for the rest of. And in your guess, were you. Committing to at least make those job notifications available and create the opportunity for local residents to maybe take advantage of those through the application process. Yes, thank you for your question. Or the CBA that we proposed that we sign. They have not signed it yet, but we intend to honor everything in that agreement despite accepting it. And there were eight different bullets aside in the affordable housing. Two of those technologies when you mentioned so an affirmative marketing agreement was mentioned in the CBA where we commit to explore and institute a neighborhood affirmative marketing agreement for five points and neighbors. So that's in the residential and. Executive jobs program so that the first opportunity to apply for the affordable units developed on the site and as well as. Not only the people within the retail space but also target GST and five points businesses as a as a hopeful ticket and a commercial space. So the CBA does touch on that. Okay. Great. In the. Report from the staff. It spoke to. Drainage. So input from which water spoke to the drainage issue and the fact that you would need more in-depth engineering on the site and potentially need to do a detention pond or something along those lines to address runoff from the site. So have you done any of that analysis and is there any expectation to have the city fund any of those costs? No, ma'am. We're not asking the city to fund those costs, but we have done our investigations. And what we determined is that because we actually fall outside of the target market, metro district and GDP or just across the street, we can not benefit from their onsite attention to the district. We have to do our own on site attention and water quality. So we'll have an underground detection pulse likely beneath our garage. This is exactly what we're doing across the street right now. And furthermore, this is in large part if not, I don't say excuse me, but this is in large part why the Green Water Foundation supported our project. Is it current? Industrial use is not exactly good for the river, which is the main block away. And furthermore, it's a brownfield development, as I believe you know, comes Ortega, but not all. They realize that this is a brownfield development. It's been historically contaminated site. It was part of an undocumented landfill. So we have engaged CDP to go through a voluntary cleanup plan, a vehicle to arrive at a no further action so that we can ultimately build and occupy this this site as residential so that those cleanup efforts will be have to be completed for to ratify the building. And as well, the water quality one or two issue ought to be handled on site within our within the boundaries of our site without any city or state assistance. And will you just clarify that if you were just doing commercial or just some other type of industrial, that the cleanup would be different than doing it as a residential? That's correct, Councilman. If it maintains we maintain it as industrial, no cleanup would be required to complete it. Can you continue to operate it as industrial site without the cleanup? But to do residential and have people live and sleep on this in this building on the site, we have to get to a ground. Okay. And then my last question. Couldn't tell just from the. The site plan if the spur to the west of the site is an active for an answer. Great question. The most proximate line is inactive. If you go to the site. The most proximate line is half of the ground and half out of the ground. The next proximate line is actually the elevated light rail line, but the closest line that grade is in. Okay. So your proximity to rail then, do you know what the distancing is between you and the the cars? Just on the other side of the RTD corridor is the storage yards, right? The closest active line and grade is 60 feet from our site boundary, and then our building is 75 feet off of our boundary. So 85 feet to the nearest active line of crude. Okay. So that's. In your application, were you asked to check the box on your proximity to where you were? Well and accurately, Councilman, your your concerns with the adjacent property that was denied the museum in May kind of brought all this to light. And so we reached out to CDP as well as started our safety investigation with our civil engineer to make sure we were accounting for this. And our first residential unit because of the 12 over 412 levels of residential over four level garage, our first level of apartments are 50 feet above the ground. Okay. So so essentially you're using your garage as sort of that buffering, if you will. That's okay. Thank you. Madam President, I have no further questions. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilwoman CdeBaca. Just a couple of questions that have come up based on other comments. Nola, can you speak to. The idea that just because we aren't currently assessing the economic impact or the impact of potential displacement, can you speak to that? And is it possible for us to extrapolate to determine what the impact would be if it is? What kind of things would we analyze and assess? So I think obviously some. Some of the things. That I said before about property, the property value changes, what the sales data of homes selling. The conversions from homeownership to rental which we've seen a 17% drop in Globeville in the last three years. The Rent Burden. There's a concept called the rent gap, which I don't want to totally get into, but the idea is a similar analysis to what land speculators do when they look at this is a piece of land where I'm going to get a lot of income out of it. And it's the percent change of property value, minus the percent change in median rentals over a certain period. So, you know, land speculators would look at that and say this, this is the place where I can raise rents significantly and make quite a bit of money and the land steeper. So the analysis would be the reverse of that, to say there's a vulnerable neighbor, vulnerable renters in this in this neighborhood that need to be protected . I think also looking at what are the amounts of like D.O.D., for instance, there's four duty stations right in this area looking at public investment like I-70 and National Western, and it's improvements and parks and all of these things, you know, maybe separately. But but, you know, how much of that public investment is happening just to look at the pressures that are happening in the area. Another thing that's important, like I said before, is are there affordable housing, existing protected protections around affordable housing in the area? Are those going to expire and do. Yes, they aren't going to expire because we don't have any. So those are some examples. So so it is possible. Also, can you speak to the criteria about public safety, health and welfare of a neighborhood? How would the neighborhood? Because I know you've spent a lot of time on this with the healthy block captains and social determinants of health. How would the neighborhood define something that furthers the safety, the health and the welfare of this community? That's for you, Nola. How how would the neighborhood define a development that did that or. Yeah. What would make a development that furthers the safety, the health and welfare of this neighborhood. You know, I think just because of the circumstance right now, the first thing that we always talk about is the affordability because of the displacement that's happening and that that is is the priority because otherwise we won't have neighbors anymore or the the ones that are currently there. And many have been living there for generations. I think, you know, other other. Things that people care about or would look to would be something that builds the local economy, that builds a sustainability and ongoing improvement in the pollution and conditions in the neighborhood, something that involves the neighborhood equitably, so that the neighborhood feels like they're a part of that. They can be they can enjoy that bus stop and they can enjoy. The types. Of amenities that that might come to be. So something that builds builds community is community development. And do you believe this development does that? No, I don't. Alfonso, can you can you speak a little bit? You mentioned it briefly in your comments, but can you speak a little bit about the acreage? We are talking about one and a half acres, as if it's only one and a half acres here. And this is a unique situation, as Councilman Sandoval highlighted, because we're basically multiplying that one and a half acres by 16. Can you talk a little bit about why this is different and why this shouldn't be treated like just one and a half acres? Thank you, Councilwoman. So if you were to do the calculation of an acre and a half, 60 story development that comes out to over 1 million square feet, to be exact, it's 1,045,440 square feet. So to imply that is just because it's only one and a half acres, it's a small project and it doesn't have an impact on our communities, is a false narrative. It's objectively untrue. And I think that council needs to recognize that this is a small project and it will have an impact on our communities. Earlier, some council members expressed a misunderstanding as to how a development project that sits seemingly disconnected from the residential areas that have been historically here can impact the property values or increase displacement. And, you know, even though it's just an acre and a half, this is proof of that. I mean, the entire grain corridor is proof of that. If you actually look at how many housing units have been built in the original land use that is residential in the communities of GS and five points, you would see that not a lot has actually been changed. But yet there's been, as I alluded to earlier, a 470% increase in property values. And those two things are not disconnected. Thank you. And so what you're basically saying is that the buildable area in in this project is exponentially higher than what you would have anywhere else in the city. And so when you take buildable area into consideration, this project is well over the five acres, actually over 21 acres, I believe, of buildable area that's impacting this neighborhood . So thank you for both for highlighting those things. Thank you. That's it for my questions. Thank you, Councilwoman CdeBaca. The public hearing for Council Bill 20 Dash 1159 is closed. Comments from members of council and. Just a quick reminder here as well, we still have two other hearings on the agenda tonight. And so if your comments could be brief, we'd much appreciate it so we can get the other folks up. First up, Councilwoman Black. Thanks, Madam President. I needed to go first before I fall asleep. I'll go as fast as I can. You know, having Mayor Pena here tonight for the proclamation was a reminder of where Denver has been. I know a lot of the people that we hear from didn't live here back in the 1980s. Some of them weren't even born yet. But as a Denver native, I do remember this terrible recession that Mayor Pena reminded us of. And during that recession, people were leaving Denver. Our economy tanked. Downtown was a ghost town and housing was really cheap. I remember looking at a house in 1990 that I could not afford in Washington Park. That was $69,000. I should have bought it because today I'm sure it's worth millions and millions of dollars. Even in this century, a little over a decade ago, there was a good supply of housing in Denver. And when the supply is high, prices are low. And it's basic economics. Stopping new housing developments and limiting the supply will not make it more affordable. Lower supply will, combined with an increasing population, will result in even higher housing costs. Since 19. Since 2010, more than 100,000 people have moved here, including many of the people who speak at our council meetings and public comment. It's expected that by 2030, another 150,000 people will move to Denver City. Cities across the country and the world are growing and are experiencing housing shortages. People want to live in cities. We cannot address the housing crisis and the shortage by stopping development of new housing. This developer, Cyprus, came to council this spring with a project that would have included 63 affordable units. It met the legal criteria and aligned with the plans, but it was voted down. That's 63 affordable units for 63 families that won't be built tonight. Cypress is back for another proposal that includes 49 units for 99 years and houses negotiated a good agreement. If it's voted down, that's 49 units of affordable housing that Denver won't have. If you combine that with the 63, that would be 112 units that we won't get. Is spending many millions of dollars every year to address homelessness and to find housing. Of course, it's still not enough, especially during our current crisis. We talked earlier about the millions being spent recently, and even tonight we approved a financing to help the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless construct 90 more units. The city and county of Denver does care and we are working on solutions. That said, our country is a nation of laws and private property and Denver cannot take units from their owners and redistribute them. Alternatively, we need to encourage developers to build new units, whether by carrot or stick. I think we're all hopeful that some state legislation will pass and in the future we will be able to require units from developers. But those units will be in new developments that are not yet built. Stopping development is not the answer to our housing crisis. Unless people start moving away from Denver, we will need more housing. And of course, we will need to ensure that until we are out of this current economic crisis, we will need to extend the eviction moratorium. This project meets our legal criteria, aligns with our plans, and will provide much needed housing. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Councilwoman Canete. Thanks, Madam President. Before I speak, we do have a custom of typically allowing the district councilperson to go first, even if they aren't fast enough to chime in as we all kind of jump in. And I did just want to if my colleague would like to go first, I'd be happy to see the floor to her since it's in her district. Thank you so much for for doing that. I appreciate that. And sorry about that. Councilwoman CdeBaca, please go ahead. First, as you might imagine, I've been looking at this screen since about 430 this afternoon. So apologies. I rather actually close this out. So go ahead. Okay. Thanks. So I, I really appreciate the discussion we've had tonight. I think it's a really important one. And I am sorry that it's happening so late and before other topics, because it's really important for us to spend time on it. And I want to say that I, I believe the things that I'm hearing from residents who are opposed to this project tonight. I believe that growth and development is a factor in displacement pressures and prices. I, i we may disagree about whether you can back out the transit stops, the parks and the thousands of other units to attribute what the impact is to one building. But I I'm not at all trying to argue the fact that there is there is impact collectively of all of these things and that each building or development contributes to those impacts and that we need to do more to study and evaluate them. I think the debate that we're having in so far tonight is about whether or not this tool of market development is the answer to mitigate all of those concerns. And so we have a scale mismatch, right? The scale of the pressures that NOLA and all of those who testified, you know, described are so great. Right. The pressures of population growth that Councilwoman Black mentioned, the pressures of, you know, transit infrastructure and the pressures of, you know, all of those things. And so to be able to say that each one individual project can meet the scale of that is, I think, the concern I have about the the asks. So I believe in asking development to mitigate its impacts, but it has to be within the the market economy that it operates. That's the tool. It's not a tool for public ownership of land when you're leveraging and redevelopment, generally speaking, unless you're in a bigger area. So the more you know, I do think it is unfortunate that the city didn't have a mechanism to sweep this in. I actually thought we did have a mechanism to sweep in disparate developments, even if they happened at slightly different locations and at slightly different times. I did think we had a mechanism to sweep them into LDR. So I will commit to spending time with staff to figure out why that didn't happen. Maybe we just were a little too far apart in time, but that allows developers to game it. So if we have a bigger redevelopment area, then our potential to mitigate impacts grows because you can, for example, put a tax credit project for 30% or 50% of housing on one spot, which works because they have to generally be self-contained to get to those and my levels. And then you can do workforce or you can do business, you can. The bigger the site, the more you can try to get to the scale. But even still, you're operating in a market economy. And so the challenge I have is, you know, I think it's legitimate for a community to say we can't take any more development and what we want to do is oppose this project. If that is what we're happening, that we absolutely be within the right, that would be you know, I'd suggest you talk about the criteria, you know, of the zoning, but but you don't have to say we could possibly support this. But what becomes hard is when the testimony before a council is, hey, listen, we really don't want the development, but if you did these totally unrealistic things that don't work in a market economy where someone has to pay for the land, they actually have to pay for the construction materials, they have to pay for the construction workers . And yes, they have to pay their lenders. Their lenders are going to charge them interest. Those are not optional things. The challenge is trying to use this tool to solve those problems at that scale. And I will just share with I my colleagues have been very enthusiastic about the legislature making changes. The number one concern I hear from people about the state legislature making this change is they believe that local governments or the community have unrealistic expectations of what inclusionary can deliver. They think that we're out there saying it can solve homelessness, it can solve all these things, and they think it's a set up for them. And so the more we can demonstrate that we understand that this is a tool and we need a whole bunch other tools, like we need the things that, you know, Nola described. Right? I agree that we need them. I've advocated for them. We might have different timelines, different ideas, you know. But I think that in a place where people have to pay for land, they have to pay for construction materials and workers, and they have to pay interest on loans and lenders to get money. There are limits to what we can do in a particular project. So I say all this not to say that I know this is the magic great number I think we've out tonight has surfaced a lot of issues. I've said before, we are not focusing enough on the displacement conversation and to the extent we're only doing it in rezonings, we are not doing a service to Greece or to any other neighborhood. You know, we had the folks in East Colfax here tonight is we can't just have this conversation around rezonings because it's already private land . When they're before us, it's already too late. Right. It's not going to be public land or it's going to be a parcel and you're only going to be able to do one thing on it, not five. And the neighborhood needs five things. So I think that so we surface that issue, we surface the fact that we are not as a city consulting with the community in the process of doing our negotiations over the development agreement. That's a problem. It's not the way every city does it. San Francisco seats the committee takes input before they negotiate with developers. We could do that. So that is an issue. We've surfaced and we have surfaced. The incredible pressure that this neighborhood is under. I think the only issue I'm taking is about the ability to solve all those things in scale in this tool. Right. So I want to just touch on the criteria real quickly. I think that the project does meet those criteria, and I think for those reasons I will support it. But that is not a vote against the things that this community is asking for. It's a vote to try to pursue them at different scales and with different mechanisms that are better designed to get to them. You know, could could this project have done 3% more? They certainly offered to do some 30% of my units. And the concern was they weren't enough. I'm not saying it was perfect, but I'm saying it seems in the realm of what these projects typically can carry, and that is when there has been independent analysis by city consultants on the feasibility, when they put in all those costs in cities across the America have done these feasibility studies and they all come out about the same place, which tells me we're not missing something by major degrees of magnitude. It tells me that we're in the realm of what this tool can deliver, and we should keep pushing it. We should keep pushing this tool, right? We should keep pushing the the envelope. But we are not out of the realm of of what other cities and other places with like less restrictive laws and similar economics can achieve. So that tells me something. And in light of the criteria, I have to vote for this tonight, but we'll keep doing the work. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Kinney. Councilwoman CdeBaca. Thank you, Madam President. And while brevity is convenient for us at 11 p.m., a project that's going to impact a neighborhood forever warrants deep care and thorough consideration that might be inconvenient. So this will not be brief. Before I begin, I want to restate what's being considered tonight. We're considering a development that is 16 stories where there is a current warehouse, there are no height specifications. In the end, the plan for the development of this area, specifically the Rhino Plan, despite it being adjacent to the river and the project itself is designed to capitalize on the river activation. The tallest allowable height in all of the Rhino Plan is eight stories. There are also no affordability incentives for this area, despite it being built next to the 38th and Blake Park Station less than a mile away. As you heard, the community benefit of housing was negotiated without community at the table defining their needs. This rezoning is being proposed by a developer who has yet to buy the land because of the exponential value increase resulting from this rezoning and it being necessary in order for them to purchase the land. Our task tonight is to make sure that this rezoning meets five criteria. I want to speak to criteria one and three. First, I want to inform you that I attempted to serve as a convener for residents of our neighborhood and the developer. Between the introduction of this bill and tonight's meeting. At that meeting, my hope was deeper negotiation around community benefits. I was disheartened but unsurprised to see a consistent issue arise, an issue that will increasingly become a worse issue with our newer area plans that have just been passed. That issue is the definition of community benefits, affordability, public safety and welfare. As a city, we've passed area plans that require community benefits as a condition of rezoning. Yet during this meeting, I had reflected to me that we as a city do not define when we as a city do not define community benefits. We're essentially tossing the ball to developers to define a community's benefit for us. The power dynamic of a rezoning such as this is set up with that imbalance from the very beginning. A developer with millions of dollars to spend and millions of dollars to be gained have the responsibility of conducting a process of convincing low income residents that they need this developer's project. They have all of the tools to literally and figuratively paint a picture of what could be without telling the residents what the unintended consequences of the project might be. They have millions of dollars to convince you and the residents that their perception of the community and what it needs is superior to what the community says themselves they need. No matter how many residents show up, no matter how much research they present to prove their experience is valid, we default credibility to the developer who knows better than the community the cost of the development to their bottom line. Never do we assess the cost of the development and the casualties of the class war that we have waged on low income and working class residents. We align with anyone who defines community benefits in the ways that validate the developer's definition of community benefits. Affordability. From the day we decided to align our definition with the Federal Government's shift from public housing to am I or area median income based affordability as our ceiling for affordability instead of our floor, we waged war upon the poor in this city. You see, in this scenario, when affordable depends on the area's median or middle income, densify and an area with higher incomes fundamentally changes the middle value. You flood an area with higher incomes and not only change the middle income, but now bump out any chance for truly taking care of the lowest income individuals. You functionally sentence the poor to a life of homelessness in a city with the so-called booming and growing economy. Finally, public safety and welfare as a criterion interpreted by anyone other than the people who live in a neighborhood is asinine, especially in the context of modern and social, modern social movements and modern realizations of different versions of America that exist depending on our race, class, nationality, etc.. We and I speak to you as an LGBTQ woman of color in a biracial working class family. Do not live in the same America. We do not live in the same America as white or wealthy Americans, where safety to white or wealthy America is primarily defined as safety from people like me and communities like mine. One definition of safety and welfare is incomprehensible. Even tonight, you heard my community defined by members of GMB and others as being derelict in the past or some other iteration of less than. This is exactly how we are perceived. And so we are no longer primarily inhabited by people like us. That's how our neighborhood is categorized as derelict. Until the demographics shift, diluting our poverty or blackness or brownness is the definition of safety that is implied by many of our choices to redevelop our communities. Safety to us is about being able to have our forever home. It's about being able to work a 40 hour workweek and own a home that we can pass down to our children. It's about being able to enjoy the new parks and the new businesses without seeing rent signs or for sale signs that, in different words, communicate to us. No poor people here or no immigrants here or no people of color here. Now, many of you might feel a wound being touched. You want to scream, you want to say, this is not about race or class or nationality. This is an exaggeration and it's completely separate. I challenge you to disregard your own privilege to decide what is valid and not valid and actually listen to the residents and consult the data because the data justifies what we're saying. Last year, Denver was the number one city displacing Latinos in the nation. It was only about 15 years ago that Denver was classified as a majority minority city, with Latinos being that top minority. Look at the data to find out where we lived and where we are now. Either where we're absent or where we're struggling to hang on. Please take into consideration tonight that the comprehensive plan and blueprint direct us to aspire to equity and safe, healthy neighborhoods for everyone in our city, not just the ones who can afford it. While those plans allow for interpretation of equity, community, community benefits, health and safety, you tonight have actual residents in front of you who have done the heavy legwork of explaining to you their lived experience and defining for you what equity, safety and welfare mean from their perspective. We have collectively protected the single family zoning character of wider, wealthier neighborhoods in other parts of our city. We've taken into consideration their fears, their desires, their self-determination and demands for protection and interpretation of our city's goals on their terms. Tonight. Your rezoning on the border of a historically black five points and historically immigrant. Yes, both working class and both redlined. We abused and neglected these families for generations until we decided that the urban core was again desirable. We can not place the entire of burden, the entire burden of growth on a single neighborhood or a single district. We cannot ignore the natives on this riverbank. We cannot continue the notorious legacy of forcible removal of a peoples from their land. The tools of removal have changed, but the outcomes have not. You have the tools in your hand right now. The five criterion in front of you tonight are tools that only ask you to stretch your perspective, to see the perspectives of the people who we should be building this community for. Please let the overwhelming majority of opponents to this reasoning inform your interpretation of what it means to facilitate equity, safety and welfare in this community. This is not about density. This is about the kind of density we need. This is this is not about this project all by itself. This is about a new standard and interpretation of what we need as a city in the middle of a global pandemic, a housing crisis and racial uprisings. This is not about a community's right to complain. It's about all of us having the right to define what makes us each feel safe and healthy in our own neighborhoods. A 16 storey market rate or luxury development will essentially be a bomb set off in the middle of this community. Please do not detonate this bomb in the face of residents begging you to protect them. Just because we have not figured it out as a city, we haven't figured out how to protect the safety and welfare of struggling people. It doesn't mean that we have to be the ones to light the match for the bomb that will erase them. Please, I beg of you. This is my district. This is my home. This is my community. And a 16 storey building is not what we need right now. I'm not saying forever, and I'm not saying a different type of 16 storey building isn't warranted. But this particular one is not consistent with what we've set forth in our plans and our goals for this city and this neighborhood. Please vote no. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Sandoval. Thank you, Madam President. I would just like to go on record and say that. There's five criteria that we have to vote on are antiquated. And then we had a meeting with the planning board. I know it doesn't seem like it. We had it this year, but we really did have a meeting with this year with planning board pre-COVID. And when I asked the question about where the five criteria came from, they came from former Chapter 59. So I think it's time that we update our criteria to council. Can you just point we have to have better tools to solve the problems that we're hearing from the people that we heard from today. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Sandoval. And since there's no one else up in the queue listening to the conversation tonight and all of the questions and folks digging in, our criteria might be antiquated, but they are our criteria and they are the legal criteria for it. And we are talking about one and a half acres of land, albeit possibly a 16 story building. We need the affordable housing and we need that partnership because where the final the financial straits of the city are in. We couldn't build this. And so we are going to have to figure out how to partner and hold developers accountable, especially during this time. And so seeing that it meets all of the criteria, I will be voting in favor of it tonight. Madam Secretary, roll call. CDEBACA El Nino. Clark. Hi. Flynn. I. Herndon. I. Hines. I. Cashman. I. Can I? Ortega. Reluctant. I. Sandoval. No. Sawyer. Now. Torres. So. Lack. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. Four days. 9 hours. Nine I's Council Bill 20 Dash 1159 has passed. Councilmember Canete, will you please put Council Bill 1190 on the floor for final passage, please?

A bill for an ordinance amending the local open meetings laws to authorize electronic participation and electronic meeting methods during emergencies and making other conforming amendments. Modernizes open meeting laws to allow for use of emerging technology. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-18-21.

DenverCityCouncil_06282021_21-0572

Ten Eyes Council Resolution 20 1-0667 has passed. The next item up is Council Bill 572. Councilmember Hines, would you please put Council Bill 572 on the floor for final passage? A move the council bill 20 1057 to be placed upon final consideration and you pass. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Councilmember Sawyer. Your motion to postpone. I move that final consideration of Council Bill 20 1-057 to be postponed to Monday, July 19th, 2021. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Questions or comments by members of Council. Council Member Sawyer. Thanks, Madam President. This is our remote meetings ordinance. It's an as most of you know, we tested council's hybrid meeting technology today. It needs a little bit more work. So we're going to postpone the final reading of this ordinance to get tech services and Channel eight a little more time before we head back into chambers for our meetings. We're super close, but just not quite there yet. So it's not a positive. Very good. Thank you. Council Member Sawyer And we continue to work on it. So appreciate everybody's patience. Madam Secretary, roll call on the postponement. Sawyer, I. Torres. I lack. I. CdeBaca. I. Clark. I. Flynn. I. Herndon. I. All right, I. Cashman. I can. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. 11 Eyes. 11 Eyes Final Consideration of Council Bill 20 1-057 to has been postponed to Monday, July 19. That concludes the items to be called out. All bills for introduction are ordered published. Council members remember this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote. Otherwise this is your last chance to call in an item for a separate vote. Councilmember Hines, will you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor?

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending Long Beach Municipal Code by amending Sections 5.90.030 and 5.90.060, by adding Section 5.90.310; and, by amending and restating chapter 5.92, all relating to the regulation of cannabis retail storefront (dispensary) business licenses and the Cannabis Social Equity Program, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_05172022_22-0515

Thank you. Now we'll move to the first reading of the equity social equity piece, cannabis. Item 25 Report from City Manager Recommendation to declare the ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code relating to the regulation of cannabis, retail, storefront business licenses and the cannabis social equity program. Read the first time and later for the next regular meeting of City Council for Final Reading and adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to establish a request for proposals for cannabis retail storefront business licenses for the cannabis social equity program citywide. Thank you. There's a motion in a second, Councilmember Austin. I'd just like to get up, make sure that. That the changes that were incorporated last week are in here and hear from the city attorney on those. Those are changes of the city manager. Yes, we can have Emily Armstrong and Art Sanchez go through in a. Summary of what those major changes are that. We got from the council at the last meeting. Yeah. Good evening, Mayor. Members of the city council. So tonight we're bringing back the equity dispensary ordinance and resolution. So council at the May 10th meeting, directed staff to amend the ordinance to include restricting the equity dispensary RFP process to equity applicants verified on or before May 10th of 2022. Prioritizing any equity applicant that had previously been awarded to move forward with obtaining a dispensary license back in the 2010 and or 2017 lottery process, and requiring that all equity businesses maintain equity ownership for a minimum of ten years before they can transfer ownership to a non equity business. So that is the summary of the changes before you tonight, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you. So last week, I think we were poised to pass a pretty, pretty significant item in terms of one that we've been working on for for quite some time. We heard from the public and we incorporated some changes based on public comment and thoughts from the council. I'd like to have Mr. Mayor hear from my colleagues and in public comment. I'm inclined to support this and move this item forward. I think is it's time. You know, we've spent a lot of time on this. We've had a robust community process. And, you know, we met the mark in terms of expanding. I think this item meets the mark in terms of spanning retail cannabis establishments for social equity specific candidates in our city. So with that, I'd like to hear from my colleagues and from public comment, but encourage us to support this item tonight, same time. Thank you, Councilwoman Allen. I yes. I also just want to say thank you for all of your hard work on this. When I read this, you did just an amazing job and incorporating all the conversations and everything we asked for in this item. So I just want to say thank you. I think it's important that we stand by all of the applicants in the process that are already in the process. And I think that this program is going to be stronger for the changes that we made. And I look forward to seeing equity operators operating the city real quickly. So thank you very much. Thank you. Is there any public comment. If there are any members of the public that would like to speak on item 22 and person, please line up at the podium in Zoom. Please use the raise hand feature or dial star nine. Now I'm sorry, this is item 25. In person. You'll have 3 minutes. My name is James Mark. I've been in a situation to see what has been occurring from both sides of the field. I mean, I've been working with the ABC for a few years now and the past 18 months, the two years, and creating their recommendations of what social equity looks like and being from the community most impacted by the war on drugs, most definitely working with my community to receive social equity. And for the past year, says Emily, Armstrong has been the city's new cannabis program manager. She's been nothing short of devious, mischievous and misleading. And from far from equitable, in her dealings with the black community, I was a part of the creation of the social equity presentations that were presented to you on Ms.. Emily with the ABC over the past 20 months to two years, and she has not given the black social equity entrepreneur the same grace and courtesy again. Your recent hirings that Ms.. Ebony has just hired in the Office of Equity speaks great volumes that cannot be expressed in the form of words, but as a real life, real time testament again to her lack of cultural competency for the most harmed and impacted by the war on drugs in the city of Long Beach. Emily's episode ways have been very conniving and again misleading to the city council. Last week she made representations to the council and the city itself that there is a $3 million come from social equity, which she's not disclosing that house path funds have been dispersed in the in the past where administration and consulting agencies hired by the city have served no purpose to not one black social equity article world, but they were able to siphon funds away for services that were not rendered. Again, we are requesting a full audit towards every means of funding that was appointed or supposed to be allotted to assist black social equity entrepreneurs in moving this process forward. Also, we want a fully drawn out report of how those funds, the $3 million in the pipeline for social equity planning on being expended also for the records. I'm not a social equity applicant, but I remain fully engaged and will continue to support to finances with the attainment of legal council, outside social equity experts, resources, the foremost power of influence and every effort to receive just that equity along with the dismissal of Emily Armstrong from their position as someone who represents the black social equity entrepreneurs and its interests and its entirety. Thank you, Counsel. Well, great evening, everyone, with giving all glory and honor to God. My name is Marian Burrell and I am a social equity applicant within this program. I'm equity applicant number seven. So that means that I've been here for quite some time. I can tell you that I have helped the city. To implement different programs in place as seeing where the disconnect is and where we are now. I can tell you that I'm not too happy with where we are. I'm one of the applicants who were awarded one of the location grants to be able to get a facility. But I can tell you that I've been begging the city for years, though they had millions sitting in their bank. My facility now is in your district, District six, and I'm looking to operate a dispensary, but there's a 200 gap within the buffer of other dispensaries. And so I would like that buffer to be set down so that. Equity. Applicants can have an opportunity to participate within this industry. As you may have read from something that she wrote, there's only about two square miles that we have within the city to erect an equity dispensary. And so that doesn't give us much opportunity to actually participate. Now, for the money that actually was awarded the grant funding, it wasn't easy, as I said, to get the city to do it. And glory to God. It was only because of him and him forcing their arm to have to give out $1.6 million within months. And were we able to recommend to her that she give it to us so that we actually have an opportunity to participate in this game? Prior to us receiving our locations, there was only one applicant throughout years of this program being in place that has actually received licensing. So that speaks volumes. So I do back what James and Mark's ask and removing Emily from her position now because after conversations I see that she lacks the empathy and the understanding regarding social equity, regarding the war on drugs and what it has done to our people. Thank you. I'm Jillian Xavier. And to echo what LBC says, LBC stands for a land based social equity entrepreneur. Here's what's happening. Going forward. Anything happening with social equity? We want to be at the table. You have to have us here. We've been here since 2018. Emily Armstrong is trying to strong arm us manipulators, tie us with these invisible chains. Slave free days is over. You're supposed to help us get into the business. You're not supposed to strong arm us and tell us where we supposed to sell our business. I want to recommend that you immediately dismiss her. I'll have an investigation done on her because, you know, we have emails from other equity applicants where you're telling them nobody is above me. I make the decisions on who gets the grants. The very cocky. Right. You make the decisions. You're not for us. Look at her. She doesn't. Social equity. Nothing says she's privileged. You need to bring somebody that look like me. Look like you. You know, indigenous person, a Latina. Valencia. Anybody besides somebody that has no empathy for us. You can't do that. Listen, you're going to D.C. today where you're not going to D.C. because we're not going to give you your vote because we've been here since 2018 and we can't get into business because this woman has our hands on us. It's racism. Your ancestors. That. Walk in behind you, too, like Robert. They had a knee in our neck as well. They killed us still. How are you going to put her in charge of social equity? She doesn't understand the struggle. You hear what I'm telling you. So you're not going nowhere when I vote for you. Get rid of her. And then we got your back. Next week, replace. Gavin. Good evening, Mayor and City Council. I've been a social equity applicant. November 2018, I believe. I want to start off. I just want to elaborate on my five year residency point from last week. Currently, what is being proposed is a five year residency requirement. I believe this does not take into account the gentrification that has occurred in the city over the last 5 to 15 years. Ten years of residency is a better indicator of who has actually lived in disproportionate areas in the city of Long Beach. Just for your information, the City of Los Angeles has DCR social equity applicant eligibility criteria includes a ten year residency requirement to determine who is a social equity applicant. If the ordinance is not going to reflect the ten year residency requirement, at least the scoring system for the eight social equity dispensaries should provide additional points for those individuals that have lived in these areas for ten years or more. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Demetrius Woodard. Once again, the original lottery winner back in 2010 with my brother Christopher. Our work to Larry Balls. Back then, the fees were 14,000, 14,000 plus per per application. So it was roughly around $28,000 back when our very own mayor was confident of District one Rec for the chief of staff for Steve Neal. I talked my brother, my family into doing this back in 2010. To be is a good opportunity. You know, if it's legal, there's some that the city was offering, you know, let's do this thing right. But it was when we did this right is when everything took a turn for the worse for me and my family. We were raided. We were arrested. We were jailed. We were prosecuted. We were name drug kingpins of the city of Long Beach for participating in a legal marijuana operation. So we thought until the council decided to change their mind and changed the changed the law on that 5.87 back in those days, I am excited that the process will move forward for people that was in these lotteries and move forward in 2010 and 2017. A Lotteries, they are like what? I said I'm I'm kind of emotional. I took a toll on my family when it came raided my brother's house. It was nothing but my sisters and my nieces there. Not one male, not one boy. You get a welcome with guns pointed at women and children. My brother's a black man. He the gun collector. I collect cars, he collects guns. But when you are a person of not of color and you have two guns, you have the right to bear arms. When a black man has more than one gun. If child endangerment, that's what we get charged with. We get charged with child endangerment for guns that was never even open and out of the box. Once again, my name is Demetrius Woodard you may know me at the major incredible Woodard are original lottery winners back in 2010 and we remain to be moral citizens and love and the city of Long Beach my name is Dimitri Garwood Witter and I am Long Beach. Yeah. Hi. My name is Spencer Cruz, and I was a part of your Long Beach Collective Association back in 2017, and I felt like you guys had directly attacked a bunch of people after the lottery came about. And one of my my delivery was pretty much set down, and I had to sell because of the ongoing issues that I had, which were court case after court, case after court, case after police officer pulling me over as a police officer and pulled over, pulled over constantly. And I had damages with the city that I've failed to get any type of, uh, reciprocation from, from Charles Parkin's office directly, which I have asked numerous times for. And I just feel like it's like you guys keep doing this ongoing bias towards the city, people who have lived here for 20 years plus, and it's like constantly just stealing money from us. So I really hope you guys get this together because I'm really sick and tired of spending money here for no reason. That continues. That concludes public comment. That concludes public comment. I have a motion and the second I have any more comments from the council. Then we can have the roll call, please, Madam Clerk. District one and District two by district three i. District four. I District five. I. District six. I. District seven. By District eight. District nine. All. Motion is carried. Okay. We're now moving on to review the two new business items. Next, which will be 30 and 32. Item 30, please.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification of 1901 Wazee Street in Union Station. Approves an official map amendment to rezone property from I-MX-8 UO-2 to PUD-G #19 (industrial, mixed-use to planned development), located at 1901 Wazee Street in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-2-18.

DenverCityCouncil_11132018_18-1006

I am secretary. Please close the voting and announce the results. It is eight is final consideration of Council Bill 1013 with its public hearing has been postponed until Monday, December 10th. Madam Secretary, if you please put the next item up on our screens and Councilwoman Black, will you please be accountable? 1006 on the floor for passage? Yes. I move that council bill 1006 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved and seconded. Councilwoman Black, your motion to postpone. I move that final consideration of Council Bill 18, dash 1006 with its public hearing be postponed to Monday, November 19th, 2018. And it looks like that has been moved and seconded. Questions or comments from members of Council Councilman Black. This postponement was requested by the applicant and is not a reflection on the merits of the application. All right. See no other questions or comments. Madam Secretary, Raquel. Black Eye. Espinosa. Hi. Flynn. I. Cashman. Hi. Lopez. I knew Ortega. I. Mr. President. Madam Secretary, please close voting and announce results. Eight Eyes Final Consideration of Council Bill 1006 with its public hearing has been postponed until Monday, November 19th. All right. Wraps up everything that was called out, all other bills for introduction or published. And we are now ready for the block vote on resolutions and bills on final consideration. Council members remember that this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote I. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call it an item for a separate vote. Councilman Black, would you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor? Yes, I move that resolutions be adopted and bills and final, final consideration be placed upon final consideration and do pass in a block for the following items. All Series 18 1180 1224 1230. 1097 1220 1221 1228 zero 936 1188 1332 1198 1199 1200 1201 1196. That's it. All right. Thank you, Councilman Black. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call. Black eye. Espinosa. Hi. Flynn. Hi. Cashman. Hi. Lopez. All right. Ortega. Hi, Mr. President. I am secretary. Please close the voting. Announce the results. 88 ayes. The resolutions have been adopted and bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Tonight there will be a required public hearing on Council Bill 996 changing the zoning classification of 374023850 York Street in the Clayton neighborhood.

Recommendation to authorize City Prosecutor to execute all necessary documents to receive and expend grant funding from Downtown Long Beach Associates ("DLBA") in the amount of $18,000 for a period ending September 30, 2015; and increase appropriation in the General Grants Fund (SR 120) in the City Prosecutor Department (CP) by $18,000. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_12022014_14-1017

Item eight is a report from the city prosecutor. Recommendation to execute documents to receive and expend grant funding from downtown Long Beach Associates in the amount of 18,000 for a period ending September nine, September 30th, 2015, and increase appropriation in the General Grant Fund in the city prosecuted department by 18,000 citywide. And I'd like there's been a motion in a second and I'd like to turn this over to our city prosecutor for a brief description on what this project is. I realize it was unconcerned, but it is noteworthy. Well, very briefly, item number eight would authorize a grant of $18,000 to help fund a community prosecution program in the downtown Long Beach area. As background, the city prosecutor's office historically was one of the first officers to engage in community prosecution. All the community prosecution programs were eliminated over the years as the budget dwindled, and I think it's time to start to revive them and look at the benefits of community prosecution. The downtown Long Beach associate discussed with me, and we engaged in a dialog that could allow a part time prosecutor to provide some services in the downtown Long Beach area, providing information on crime trends, meeting with some of the stakeholders, and also reporting back on what's happening in the courts and in our in our community. This is a pilot program. It would last nine months. And at that time, we would reassess and make sure that it's in everybody's interest to continue before we continue this program. But it's our hope that it's successful and that we can bring back community prosecution to the city of Long Beach. Thank you. Thank you, and I thank you for your efforts. There's been a motion and a second. Councilmember Gonzalez. I just want wanted to quickly thank you, city prosecutor Doug Halbert. I know how much work you've put into so many of the initiatives you've brought forward. But this is wonderful. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any member of the public that wishes to address council on this item? Please come forward. State your name. Mary Coburn, downtown Long Beach Associates. 100 West Broadway, Suite 120. Good evening, Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Members of the council. We're very. Happy to have. This opportunity to work with the city prosecutor's office on this pilot program. Many of our counterparts across the state, especially in the larger urban areas, work with their city prosecutors to address quality of life issues. This is another tool in our toolbox to help our evolving downtown address quality life issues. And we really look forward to this pilot program and looking at the results at the end of the nine month period. Thank you for your support. Thank you, Mary. Next speaker. Very good. Hugh Clark has the address. I would suggest amending this and I would bump the dollar amount up to let's start with $200,000. And follow the line that I have early suggested that we fire the city manager and hire a retired United States federal judge to act as a master to run the city until we get it back on track. I realize that's a little more, but I think in the final analysis, it will pay. It will pay. We'll have a more efficient, certainly a more honest administration. I'd like you to consider that. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Goodyear. I appreciate it. And also the issue is, tell us why what the objections are to having an outside federal judge come in and administer the city. Thank you. Mr. Ghanim. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Members of the council. Wow. I'm. I don't think I can follow that, but I think Pat's okay. And in either case, I'm. I've been appointed by the City Council to the Homeless Services Advisory Committee. I also serve on the Continuum of Care Board, which is the body that makes the decisions on distributing the federal moneys that are coming to the city on those issues. And I've been a part of the Lincoln Park Task Force for the last several months since its inception. We have an extraordinary amount of things that go on to assist those in our community that are in a hardship situation and particularly those that are on the street. But the reality is, unfortunately, there are simply some who will not take advantage of those opportunities. There are even those who, when given the opportunity to have a housing voucher, refused for months on end. And then when they do, maybe, perhaps possibly accept it. The social workers find them sleeping in the front yard or on the on their in their living room floor instead of in a bed. So there are simply those that that will not conform. And there are those that require a different approach. The community deserves to have safety and security. And we have we have a commendable operation to ensure that those who want it have a means of achieving it. So I appreciate this effort. I applaud the city attorney or the city prosecutor, or rather, I applaud city attorney two. But the city prosecutor and I know that he and our new police chief are going to be attending a meeting tomorrow of the homeless coalition and explaining this program at 830 in the morning. So I urge your approval of this and look forward to its implementation and means by which we can help to ensure that people who want to visit our community in the downtown area and in others impacted will be able to do so without problems. Thank you. Councilman Ray Andrews. Yeah. Yes. Doug, I also like to commend you on such a hard, hard job that you're working with, especially with this idea that you brought in and assist tonight. I know how you guys work with that. And I want to thank you again for doing what you're doing. It's a wonderful job and please continue to do that. I wish we had more money to give. And with that members, please cast your vote among. Yes. Bush and Kerry seven zero. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Will you remind me if we are at the regular agenda item 19 one nine? Are you sure? Item nine. Item nine is a report from Development Services. Recommendation to adopt a resolution allowing the initiation of a consolidated coastal development permit process in connection with the rebuild of the Leeway Sailing Center District three. Nine.

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending Sections 8.63.020, 8.63.030, 8.63.050 and 8.63.070; all relating to prohibiting the use and sale of single-use food and beverage containers, packaging and food service ware made of expanded polystyrene (EPS) foam, rigid polystyrene #6, and non-recyclable and non-compostable material for prepared food distribution, and the distribution of plastic for bio-plastic straws, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_02112020_20-0112

Thank you. Okay. Thank you. I know we have a we have a full agenda. So if folks are exiting, please, now would be a good time so we can continue on the agenda. So we're going to go to one more item, then we're going to go to public comment, if I can get item 15 really, really quickly . Communication from City Attorney Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code relating to prohibiting the use of and sale of single use food and beverage containers, packaging and food service where made of expanded polystyrene foam. Read the first time and lead over the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading. If I can have folks exit and speak, not talk to exit, please, that would be appreciated. There is a motion and a second. I don't have any public comment in front of me. Is there ever. Is Craig Cadwallader. Walter here? Oh, please, Craig, come forward. Right. Craig, what's your last time? How are you? Craig had Craig Cadwallader. I'm speaking on behalf of the Surfrider Foundation South Bay chapter. And thank you, Mayor Garcia and Garcia and Councilmembers. I just wanted to say I'm very happy for the improvements made to this ordinance. Hold on a second, sir. Everyone in the. Everyone that's here, please. We have someone speaking. If I could ask all of you, please, to exit the chambers and stop speaking out of respect to the person at the podium. Thank you. Thank you. These improvements are very important. It's items that we had hoped to get in the original ordinance, and I'm glad they finally have bubbled up. This is something we're working on not only locally, but for the unincorporated areas of L.A. County. And just today, the on the federal level, the Break Free from Plastic Pollution Act of 2020 was announced by Senator Tom Udall and Congress member Alan Lowenthal, who is one of my heroes locally here. And it is in the same spirit as SB 54, AB 1080 that we're doing it for the state of California. So this is very important that the City of Long Beach set this example to help us move forward, to clean the environment and to make a better standard of living and to protect our wildlife. The ADA addition was very important. We're glad that was included. And I did want to point out two items. They made a comment earlier on this, but there are two issues I'd like to address in the definition for directors that refers to two chapters, chapter 1.25 and 1.26 to the Long Beach Municipal Code. That, from my reading, 1.25 is on nominating petitions and 1.26 addresses mass mailings. I believe the correct reference should be to Chapter 9.65, which is administrative citations and penalties. So I think that ought to be fixed. It's been dragging for some time. Then my only other comment would be the definition in paragraph Q, which refers to recycled code. The proper definition of that is a resident code. So it's a little thing, but it's important. There's no such thing as a recycled code, but it is resident code to identify the type of plastic resin for recycling purposes. So I think this is really important and I really applaud the Council for moving forward on improving this ordinance. We have 136 in the state now and this is extremely important. It is not harmful for businesses and it's good all the way across the board. So thank you and I hope you'll go forward with this in Adopted at the next reading. Thank you very much. Councilman Mango. I'm sorry. Actually, I'm sorry. Councilman Price of everything addition? Nope. Our councilmember hearing anything in addition of Councilman Mongo. I just wanted to know if those changes were insignificant in nature or significant. We can make those and continue with the first reading and bring back for a second reading next week. Is that okay, Councilman Price? Thank you. Excellent. There'll be adopted members. Please go and cast your votes. I just want to also add on this topic. I think it's the way that public opinion is turned on this topic I think is so great to see. I sent out a message a few weeks ago, a week ago on this on this. And I was I always used to brace myself for the responses. And we probably got 100 responses of mostly just glowing reviews about this. So very, very good work. I think the motion carries some excellent motion carries. And with that, we move on to the of the speaker's list for the evening and I have Mr. Boland, Robin King, Marcell Alonzo Snake, Ken Fay and Darlene Broom, if you can, please.

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by adding Chapter 8.120, temporary enforcement of Long Beach Health Orders related to COVID-19; declaring the urgency thereof; and declaring that this ordinance shall take effect immediately, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_05052020_20-0390

High ranking. Adam. Adam. 29 motion carries. Communication from City Attorney Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code relating to civil defense and the declaring of the urgency thereof read for the first time and laid over the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading Citywide. Motioned by Councilwoman Pryce. Can I get a second? Second by country. Mr. Mayor, I'd like to be heard on this. Yes, please. So. So I have a couple of comments on this. First, I want to thank Monika for putting this together. I do have some concerns with with the language not not at all reflect the work of our city attorney on this at all. But I think the intent of this item, as it was suggested to council, reads very differently than what's actually on the item. So kind of to start with, you know, I think if we can try to keep. This item related to Code Red as opposed to a broader category of just general emergencies. I think that would be good. So my recommendation or my motion is going to be that this item be written related to COVID specifically. This in regards to the language that's in the TFF, I think it's very broad, but going into the ordinance specifically. So if we look at the red line version on page one, I have a couple of recommendations. I would request that the 2.69.070 that the term director be defined further to include city manager, as I believe that's the reference in this ordinance. Is that the director. Would be equivalent to a city manager. Is the city attorney there? Can they. Is that correct? Yes, yes, I am here. And yes, that is correct. In the earlier in the ordinance, we were only amending two of the sections of this ordinance. And we the plan was at the conclusion of COVID, or when the emergency was over, we were going to take another crack at rewriting the entire ordinance to clean it up and bring it up to speed. So you are correct that the definition of director is the city manager and we we can make that clear in this red line version. Okay. Thank you. The other suggestion that I had is still on page two of the red line version, the timing of this. It didn't make sense to me. Is it after the conclusion of the emergency or shouldn't it be upon the declaration of the emergency? I think were feasible. My intent would be that there would be approval from council where feasible before the city manager were to act. And is that if we were to get support from the council on that, is that something that could be worked into the ordinance to make that a little bit clearer? Again, this is Charlie Parker. And again, the answer is yes, we could work that into the ordinance. The the issue that we were having specifically to cover and your first comment about making this directly related to COVID could also be incorporated if that's the desire of the council. But the health orders were changing so rapidly. We when this first was coming out multiple times, possibly in a week, and there would have been, to the extent practical to bring it back to council, it takes a week or two at the best or the fastest. So we were trying to be, as you point out, COVID specific with this and the it was going to be bringing it back at a later date. So I don't know if that answered your question, but that was the thought is that these are this was a fast evolving issue driven by health data. And the the health orders. Were. They slowed down, but they were continually changing there for a while. And I and I get that. I totally get that. Charlie and I and I really this is has zero my comments have zero reflection on my trust in our current city manager. But if you look at the four corners of the document, at least what was presented in a council package, a packet, it really is very broad and it's not narrowly. It's not narrowly tailored to the current situation, which I believe was everybody's intent. So if you look at how it's written, so my my motion would be that this be narrowly tailored to reflect COVID related orders to the extent possible actions by the city manager regarding those orders should come back to the Council to the extent possible. I would request that throughout the document we have the term his. This is a very minor point, but perhaps coming from a female, I would like the language to reflect his or hers. We say this is language that we're imposing into our municipal code that will relate not just to Tom Modica as our city manager, but any future city managers. In regards to page two, subsection G is the assistant director. Is that the same as the assistant city manager? And the answer to that is no. The director and I don't have the in the definition section and to to raise your point to gender. Again, we were only amending two sections, so we did not address and that that was brought up. And no, I totally agree with you on the gender issue. We had made changes through the entire ordinance or entire section, entire Chapter 2.9, but we felt that was too much to try and do at this time. So I totally agree with you that we should correct it. But when it goes into the municipal code, if justice want, these two sections are changed, it'll read differently. I don't have a problem with that, but we will certainly do that and we will certainly define in these two sections. Well, the assistant director to. Yeah, I think that would be very good. I think that would be helpful in terms of the violation section, which is why I thought we were bringing in this document to begin with. I was frankly surprised. It was a lot. It was much broader than what we had discussed. But in terms of the violation section at 2.69.110, I would love in subsection in sections eight sub. Two. I would love that if we could somehow spell out law enforcement in there. I don't understand why emergency organization is in there. I think that's a little bit vague. And again, I'm perhaps I don't have the full language of the ordinance. I'm only looking at what's in the council package. But if we could include something about law enforcement or law enforcement officials, I think that would be very helpful in clarifying the document on page two of the whereas clauses. I would like the whereas clause that says to the extent possible approval, to the extent that approval from council is impractical, something to the effect of that there's going to be an effort to receive approval from council or notification to council because I think that's missing in the whereas clause. I also think that the whereas clause is missing the fact that the intent of enforcement is really education and outreach. First enforcement through criminal sanctions is is not the primary legislative intent. So this that's you know, I think we should include in the whereas clause that enforcement that education and outreach are the primary goal for any enforcement efforts. On page four, it sounds like we're trying to say that, you know, under section 2.6, 9.110 and your violations. It looks like we are. Talking about this as a misdemeanor. But then in the on page five, we talk about it's the sole discretion of the city prosecutor to prosecute it either either as a misdemeanor or an infraction. There's no waB let languish under 2.69.110. So I think we need to clarify that it can either be prosecuted as a misdemeanor or an infraction under the municipal code. And then I think that would naturally lead to the prosecutor has the discretion to make that determination. I that's that's all right. Excuse me. But that's already in the mini code in other sections that this is the discretion of the prosecutor. That's be language was added at the request of the city prosecutor. Okay. So we don't need to spell out that the offense itself can be punishable as an infraction or a misdemeanor. No, because that's already in the municipal code. All violations of municipal code that are criminal in nature are at the discretion of the prosecutor. Okay. All right. I mean, I'm looking at 2.6, 9.11. Now I see that the prosecutor has discretion under Section B, but Section eight only lays out misdemeanor as an option. So if that's if that's how the Miss the Munich code is written, then then that's fine. It's consistent with it. I just I feel like any resident reading this or or some that's this might apply to will think that it can only be prosecuted as a misdemeanor. There's no it doesn't call out infraction. But if that's the rest, the way that the rest of the code is written, then, then that's fine. I would like to add under section 2.69.110, sub a sub one it says after. Notice willfully violates or refuses to neglect, refuses or neglects to conform to any lawful rules. I think it would be important to put something in there that says after notice and an opportunity to comply. We want to give up people of notice, but we want to have an opportunity to comply before we start talking about criminal sanctions. I think that's the intent of the council. I might be wrong, but I think the intent of the council is to give people the education and give them the opportunity to be made aware of the rules and to comply with the rules before we start talking about criminal sanctions. So so my recommendations would be to approve this with the areas that I've pointed out as needing a little bit more clarification. We can certainly do that also. Okay. So thank you. But but I would, I would ask council to consider limiting this to COVID because as it's written, it's very broad. And, and the timing of when city manager can take action without council approval is very, very broad. And you point out that this is only this I do point out this is only after the declaration and ratification of an emergency by the city council. So while the language is broad and it is already broad, we are adding this to as a point of clarification and as an additional tool. I totally agree with Council Member Pearce Pryce that the the intent is to gain compliance through education and notice. But this would help clarify as as you know, there has been some difficulties in enforcing the health orders in other jurisdictions. And we are trying to the best we can address that with the changes that you've requested this evening. We can't do that tonight. We will do a rewrite on this and bring it back at a future date. But we could certainly make those changes. I appreciate that. I mean, I think for me, I was really surprised to read this because it says it talks about you know, it talks about received and filed by the city council no later than at the conclusion of the emergency or shortly thereafter. There is a lot of opportunity for council to weigh in before the conclusion of an emergency. So I will again, let me reiterate, I don't perceive this as a problem at all for Mr. Modica. But the way the language is written gives a lot of latitude to someone who may. Not be as prudent or maybe as conservative with the powers as I think Mr. Modica would be. So I really want to make sure that we're writing a document that is narrowly tailored for a particular situation and allows for council to weigh in when practical at every stage of the orders. I don't want a situation where our city manager is declaring his or her own orders without consultation with the Council. And so that I'm just trying to narrowly tailor this to to account for that, knowing that this will be in our municipal code perhaps longer than Mr. Modica might be. City Manager. So that's why I want to bring this to your attention. So, council member this is Tom. So I fully agree with you in terms of we're not looking to to do anything without, you know, kind of council interaction. And I do think you have to think about, you know, future people not, you know, who's here in the seat at the time. What as your city manager, I'm very interested in and is very interested in and so is the prosecutor in this section is really the violations part. So we would ask you to to allow us to somehow make those that wording so that if we do need to do citations, it's very clear and that we have that authority . That really is the important part to us. We could come back and clean up the rest of it later or make other changes or modifications. But that is the request we're getting from PD and city prosecutor is to make the violation section very clear. And it is it is absolutely our intent to do to do education first. We have not had to issue citations, and we're very proud of that because every time and every call we go to, we educate first and it rectifies the problem. So I did want to underscore the importance of this, to be able to have a clear, enforceable section. If we do reach somebody who is purposely and willfully disobeying the health order and PD is trying to get compliance. That clarification. Mr. Murdoch, I thank you for that. My motion then would be to approve section 2.69.110. Entitled violations with the modification to the whereas clause include the legislative intent, which is that education and outreach are the intent are the are the priority in terms of enforcement. And that imposition of criminal sanctions is not the priority of this action, but is an option that's available to law enforcement if necessary. So that should be included in the whereas and when I would further request that on page four of the document under 2.69.110 sub a sub one that the language and an opportunity to comply be inserted after the words after notice. With that, that's my motion. It's okay that there's emotion. I think councilors in the house seconded the motion originally councilwoman. The names. Yes. With that. Seconding that again. Okay. Okay, great. So there's the motion in a second. Uh, let's see. Comes to me. Ranga, you wanted to second the motion? It's already seconded, Councilman Mongo. Yes. I also had the opportunity to speak with the city attorney earlier this afternoon about this item. I, too, have concerns. I think that perhaps with the comment from our city attorney that the goal would be to bring this all back and get it revised. What I would ask is let's have this sunset in 90 to 120 days. Let's go at 90, at which time the city attorney has plenty of time to work on and bring back a more complete picture of what is necessary. I also have concerns. I don't want to be using enforcement on the front lines. There are things that we are not enforcing that are far worse than some of the things that I see on the media and I don't want to of our city get to that point. We're very fortunate to have Mr. Modica and an excellent chief of police, but that does not mean that that will always be the case. So, Councilwoman Pryce, would you be open to a sunset clause in 90 days? Of course, yes. Wonderful that I can be. Mayor and council member Mungo. If I could just request that a 90 day sunset clause may not be enough time for the covered in as the motion has been revised, it's only adopting the violation section. We can certainly bring something back to you before 90 days. I don't think you need to put the sunset in the violation section. We could come back to you with a revised either this whole section or just the changes that Council Member Price had requested to the rest of the ordinance before 90 days, if that makes it better for you. But I'm not sure that from a practical speaking, we'll be out of COVID and not need the violation section in 90 days. If that makes. How about 80 days? I'd put us in a November. We'll go with whatever days you want to put on. Yeah. I just I'm really cautious that this council continues to give away our power. I mean, it's great that we have committees that advise us and all these other things, but at the end of the day, the buck stops with us. The people elected us. The people didn't elect the city. We didn't elect the chief of police. All those things. It is our responsibility to listen to the constituents and and our responsibility. And so if 190 seems too small, let's see. 120 would put us in June. July, August, September. I'm open 180. That's November. That would potentially mean that a second wave was coming. That's far enough time for it to be a priority to other offices. Councilman Pryce, are you open to revising to 180 days? I am. You know, the sunset clause isn't that called to me? But if it's critical to one of my colleagues in the spirit of compromise, I'm willing to accept whatever recommendation you have. Thank you. I appreciate it. I feel passionately that we really need to look at sunsetting more things more often and looking at them. I know we trust staff a lot, but I mean. 100 days ago, we wouldn't have thought that half of the projects in the city were on hold. And so this really provides for ensuring that future councils are protected and the wording has come back and is in place. And if not, then a future council can handle revising the language again. It obviously isn't too difficult if we can bring it forward at this time and we don't currently have any health challenges or health order challenges that are coming down on a weekly or daily basis. So we have that time to make those changes. So I appreciate your acceptance of my family. Thank you. Next up is Councilman Pierce. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Councilmember Price, for redlining. This on top of the red line. I I want to go on record as saying i agree. I think it's important that the council maintain the power that that we do have. But I also want to make sure that we are in a place during a crisis or a disaster that our city manager has the powers that he has now and that he's able to be effective in in executing those. I know that we haven't been like Orange County, where we've had a lot of people out across the city. But we have had an issue in my area and we have had to have more P.D. presence out there on the block in the parks. And I don't want to be in a position where there's a gap in what we can do. And my concern today is that we are going through the state making changes. L.A. City, L.A. County might. And so I want to make sure I'm not a fan of ticketing. You guys all all know that. But I want to make sure that there's not a gap in what the people on the front lines are saying, that they need to make sure that their safety in place. So I know that lots of people probably have opinions on this. I think the motion that Councilmember Price has is a good motion. And so we can get this done and then come back, you know, at a later date and fine tune it. And I do think that there's a lot of energy that the staff is spending right now on items like this in the middle of an emergency . So as much as we can put it into place that now for future emergencies, I think makes sense. I'm not completely for or against sunsetting on this item, but I do think that we have to be mindful about making sure that when there is a crisis, that there are already rules in place that allow us to protect our residents first and foremost. So I support the motion as is and look forward to voting. Thank you, Councilmember Richardson. Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Thanks, Mr. Mayor. So I tend to agree with a lot of what I heard on the council, you know, in the meeting from my colleagues. My thought is. I'm a little on call. It is kind of hard to follow. You know, I have the agenda item up and it's kind of hard to follow all of the changes here. I think it might just be cleaner if we simply give staff a week. You know, if we amend that motion, just give staff a week to come back and have some of this worked out. I mean, I tend to agree with their editing language about, you know, he versus she that she or they and a little bit more time briefing the council members on the implications of this. We had a conversation a little bit earlier about how we want to be appropriate, developmentally appropriate, with engaging young people who may break rules and things like that, skate parks and stuff like that. You know, I think we need to have some conversations on that. I get we want to have some of this in place in case people say no to the social distancing. But I just think we need to take our time and make sure the council feels good. I actually would. I would. Councilman. Councilwoman Pryce, are you open to a given staff direction? You work on some of this and come back next week so we can take a complete vote. I mean, respectful of all of the things that I've heard so far. But absolutely. I mean, I'm not. Curry I understand that the city manager and the police chief, of course, want some tools. And I get that. I mean, I'm dealing with this like tenfold in my day job with the beach cities. But I have I have no objection with coming back to it in a week. I think that makes a lot more sense. Thanks for being open to that, if you would make that your motion. So I'm happy with that. Okay. So I think just for clarification, I think the motion is just to bring it back in a week with clarification that what I think that's what I heard Councilman Price in the right. Right? Yeah, that's right. Okay, great. I wasn't interested in anything else. I'm good with that. Okay. Comes from your anger. Oh, well, that was going to be what I was asking for a point of order, because it seems that any changes that the reprisal is a substantial change. The ordinance is worded. So I was going to ask you if the changes were set up to go back and then make those corrections or adjustments as proposed. But see that there's a motion on the floor already to do that for a week. I'm good with that. Council Member Your Honor. You're absolutely correct. Based on the additional motions of the sunset clause, this would have even the modified motion by Council member price would have needed to come back for a new first reading. Thank you for that clarification. Also with you, certainly we can talk about in the future, I don't know if it's something worthy of discussion here or at a city council meeting, but the way I heard the discussion going was that there was a push towards adopting a growing portion of organs and in making changes that would come back later with those to the council. And that I think problems with that and I'm not sure that I would want to see a problem with this ordinance that it was other future one where we adopt the Parliament. We'll have a review for other parts of it to come back later. Any opinion on that possibility? Councilman of Urunga, thank you for the question. Yes, I think that we were trying to be very narrow and it doesn't look like we succeeded very well. But we were trying to be narrow in the change to this particular section when, as I mentioned earlier, when we looked at the entire civil defense section, we believe that it's quite outdated and based upon what we have learned in dealing with this recent COVID crisis. We believe that a complete rewrite of the section is in order. But that's a that's a large undertaking. And it we felt the need for the violation section would be necessary to help us address what's currently going on, and we could wait on the others. We certainly don't recommend that as a general practice. You're very right. I think if we're going to address a section of the municipal code, we should take on the entire section and bring it up to speed and and do the best we can with that. But given where we are today and the resources that we have, we are just trying to narrowly bring back a narrow, minor change to the section, which some people obviously may not think is minor, but a change to the section that. And then at a later date, when we had more time, bring back the entire ordinance to be debated and considered by the city council. Thank you. Thank you for the fabrication, that's all. Okay. Thank you, Councilmember. Councilman Austin. Yes. I got the clarification I needed when I queued up. So thank you so much. I'm fine with moving this item a week, but I do think it would probably behoove us to have the city prosecutor and or police to move on to some. Some credibility as to why we're moving this item. Well, thanks. Okay. Thank you. There is a motion to second to table this. And why don't we go out and do a roll call vote? District one. All right. District two. I'm District three. I. District four. Oh. I. District five. I. District six. I. District seven. District eight. District nine. Hi. All right. Ocean carries. Thank you. You please do. I am 25. I'm sorry. AM 30.

Recommendation to approve renaming the Multi-Use Sport Court in Marina Vista Park the Luke Tatsu Johnson Court.

LongBeachCC_02132018_18-0133

Everybody else. Summer. Fantastic. So next, we're going to go ahead and take number 16. Communication from Councilwoman Price recommendation to refer to the Parks Recreation Commission to consider naming the sports. The Sport Court at Marina Vista Park. The Luke to Sue Johnson Court. Councilman Price. Thank you. Vice Mayor, I, I want to I know this is an item that my colleagues will support, but I can't resist talking a little bit about why this item came to be, because this was a very special person in my life and in the life of my community. In 2005, a group of third district students, middle school and high schoolers were involved in a youth participatory budgeting program. One important member of the student committee was 15 year old Luke Johnson. Luke was a resident of Alamitos Heights and lived close to the park with his mother, Rena, father Todd and brother Spencer. Luke was diagnosed with leukemia at the age of 14 on the very day he started his freshman year at Wilson High School. In 2006, Luke lost his two year battle with leukemia. This journey took him out of school throughout his early high school career. The committee became one of the ways that he was able to stay in contact with his peers during his illness and was a responsibility he took seriously. Luke was well-loved in the community and he was a friend to everyone. His deeply missed by the community, his peers and his family. In honor of his community involvement and the role that he had and the Marina Vista Sport Court being built, the community has expressed its support for naming the new sport court in Luke Johnson's memory. I ask my colleagues to support this item. I have I did ask Luke's parents not to come tonight because I know this is going to go through a process and I don't want them to keep having to come to council meetings. Once the process goes through the motions, we will do an official naming at the park and have a lovely celebration with his family and the members of our community. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Austin, very public comment on the same. Hello. My name is Alex Phillips and Luke Johnson is a child that lives in my neighborhood. I know his parents, I know his brothers. And I know this would mean a lot to the entire community. And I think it's wonderful that we can do something like this because it was a huge tragedy. And thank you, Susie, for bringing it to. Something. That we could do for Luke and his family. Thank you. Thank you. And no further public comment. And I just want to say, Councilmember, I think this is a great idea. I'm happy to vote and support this tonight. And members, please cast your vote. Motion carries. Thank you. Number 15, please.

A bill for an ordinance designating the second Monday of October of each year as Indigenous Peoples’ Day. Approves an ordinance designating the second Monday of October of each year as Indigenous Peoples Day. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 9-14-16.

DenverCityCouncil_10032016_16-0801

Okay. Thank you, Councilman. Now, can we bring up Council Bill 801? And Councilman Clark, will you put will you put council will 801 on the floor for passage? Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 801 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you. It has been moved and said Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. I, I wanted to call this bill out because it's not like the others. Normally, in a block vote, these are routine bills and resolutions at that. Move, move forward. What is this council bill? You know, one is not necessarily routine. And I wanted to call this out because this is an important marker, this important milestone in our history as a city council bill. You know, one is an ordinance designating the second Monday of October of each year as Indigenous Peoples Day. And this is in perpetuity unless and this is an ordinance. Last year we had a proclamation and that proclamation and in our proclamations they're non-binding, although we proclaim and as a city council, we, we, we vote on it and we proclaim and they're very celebratory in nature, which does not take away from last year, which I think was incredible. It was a very important step. It was unanimous and it was received with a great deal of love and and gratitude. And we were honored. And I think I could speak for the majority of council that day. This is a tremendous honor that we felt in our community and our council right here. Being here and hearing the prayers and having the people here is was beautiful. So this particular bill approves this ordinance, and this is the first time. In Denver's history. That we will have a Denver an indigenous people stay. And we did this because our community. Is important. Our city owes our very founding. To the indigenous peoples in Denver. And I do this because our history books erase such history. And history is told through the eyes of the victor. And when you look at history, when you study history, when someone talks about the history of Denver, it always begins with the gold rush. And how it was subtle. Bye bye. Settlers and folks heading west looking for gold along the confluence of the Platt and Cherry Creek. And I was going to say this earlier with the Platte River and the importance of the Platte River and what that means when we honor the Platte River and when we're trying to rehab that Platte River and bring it back to life and not let it be something where we dump things in. But something that we celebrate is because that very confluence of that Platte River and Cherry Creek is where our city was founded. And it was founded by the Arapaho and Cheyenne people. That's where their camp, their seasonal encampments were. That's why it was on the map that way. That's why it was a great place to build a city. So we owe it. To the founders of our city. The true founders of our city. Our history, we owe them. But we also know that in the course of history, especially as folks pushed westward, that there had been. A. Forced removal. Of historic discrimination and violence. And I'll read this. Whereas for as the seasonal encampments where the city and county never hereby recognizes the historic discrimination and violence inflicted upon indigenous peoples throughout the Americas and the subsequent forced removal from ancestral lands. And the deliberate and systematic destruction of indigenous peoples, communities and culture resulting in high poverty rates. Disparities in education, health and socioeconomic status. And. Whereas, we as a city recognize that. And that is very important for us as a society, as we recognize our wrongdoings. We recognize is we recognize where where we went wrong. And it's not an empty apology. It's not. Or we'll name a team after you. War mascot will be. An Indigenous person. That's not the way you want it. You want it by making it no longer invisible. That history is no longer invisible. But that history is not just no longer invisible in our communities, but in our textbooks. So, you know, I know that as we move forward, this is something we hope that DPS will take up. Begin to teach. And. We want to recognize that there's also vast contributions in that education as we look forward towards the future. And that's the science, the knowledge, the philosophy, the arts, the culture. And through these contributions, our city has developed. Our state is developed. We do this not in opposition of anything. Not in spite of anything. We do this for. Our community and our city in support of our community. In our city. Support of that that indigenous culture. And I could proudly say that today. Was the first day. Now we do so. And in saying that, I want to acknowledge and recognize our our American Indian Commission. I mean, Goa was here. I mean, we're flying. Arthur received it last time, you know, for for working with me on this and going back and forth, our city attorney or assistant city attorney, David Broadwell, my staff, our community, our city staff, but most importantly and above anything else, our community. This isn't something that was just thought of this last year. This struggle has been going on for four decades. It's taken marches in the street just to be seen. It's taken civil action. It's taken civil disobedience. As a matter of fact, I sat in the same pews as we were being arraigned for what we believed. What we wanted to honor and see in the B.C.. And now it feels good to be opposite. To be able to have this bill in front of us. And, you know, to be able to read this and vote on this not as a bloc, but it's independent vote. And I want to save some of the umph for next. Monday on the 10th. Although this bill is being voted on today. And I hope my colleagues will vote to move it forward, to pass it on final adoption. But on next Monday, the 10th, we will have a proclamation celebrating our first Indigenous Peoples Day officially in Denver, Colorado. So with that, I. I support this bill moving forward, Mr. President. And I would be honored if my colleagues join me in a yes vote to making this become law. Well said, Councilman Lopez, Councilwoman Canete. Thank you, Mr. President. I spoke in support of this at committee. And once again, just wanted to thank Councilman Lopez for this important proclamation of our intention as a city to change how we honor this state. And I really especially think that it's important, not just in terms of recognizing history going backwards, but also to have more attention on Native issues moving forward, disparities, whether those be in terms of income, employment or homelessness in our city so that we just like the earlier proclamation. Think of this as a call to action. And just I can't help but note that it's special, I think, to have the Hispanic Heritage Proclamation on the same day as this . These are two distinct cultures, but they come together in mestizo and the mestizo space of of of Latin and and and indigenous peoples who are sometimes melded in their backgrounds. So. So I think that this is a fitting combination to have these tonight. And I will be happily voting in support of this. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Espinosa, I saw you click in. I did, but I. I'll reserve my comments. Okay, great. We have. Let's see. No other comments. Councilman Ortega. Sorry, is shown on my screen. I'm not sure why it's not on yours. Thank you. I just wanted to make a few brief comments as well and thank Councilman Lopez for his efforts in working with the community to bring this forward. And I know this is something that has been in the works for a very long time. So thank you for your efforts. I just. Think that it's important also to mention the role that our Native American community played in. You heard me talk about DIA earlier. When we were moving forward with the construction of the highway, one of the things that happened was we worked with some of the tribal leaders to do a ground blessing on the site. As you all know, that used to be part of the old Sand Creek Massacre corridor. And I thought it was extremely important for Denver to do that. And the interesting thing about the event was the media wanted to know when and where it was going to take place. And I worked with Mayor Webb at the time to ensure that that happened. I didn't attend it. We made sure the media didn't know when and where it was because it was, you know, a very traditional sacred event that needed to take place and to, you know, pray for the lives of of the souls who were lost in that massacre. The other thing that Councilman Lopez talked about was the the history of where Denver started. It started with our Native American community right at the at the core of the Confluence Park. The city acknowledges that to the degree of seeing a number of the the parks, I mean, not the parks, but the roads down in the lower downtown and platte valley area named after some of the tribal leaders. We want to wynkoop a little raven. I remember when the naming of little raven was being proposed. Our public works department was recommending that that be called 29th Street. And I just you know, I was the councilperson of the district at the time. And I said, how do we make these decisions about what streets, what we're naming our streets? And I said, What other names did you look at? And they mentioned Little Raven. And this was when they were bringing through the committee process to do the official naming. And I said, I want it named Little Raven. And so when when that official, you know, name was put up on the street, we actually had some of the tribal leaders from the Cheyenne tribe there, and they actually were given a street sign that they were able to take and put up on display in their community. So just being part of so many of the things that have happened in this city is exciting. I worked at the state capitol when the Commission in Indian Affairs was created in George Brown's office. The lieutenant governors, it's been part of that office. I worked there and had the benefit of going to a peace treaty signing ceremony between the U.S. and the Comanches, who had been at war with each other for for 100 years. And a lot of these things, as Councilman Lopez said, are not written in our history books. You know, you in and one of the things that's occurring and those of you who have not taken the time to talk to your elders and record some of the history so that you pass it on to, you know, our children is is so important. I know in in New Mexico on some of the reservations, there are people actually doing filming, too, now of some of the elders to make sure that that history is documented and passed on, because it isn't translated in many of the history books you get in your public education system. So I again, just am happy to support this and again commend Councilman Lopez for his efforts in our Indian commission and the work that you all have done with our entire entire community. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Lopez, I see you back up. Yeah. You know, I wanted to really emphasize the 10th, Monday, the 10th and proclamation that will be here in the quarters we'd love for. And I wanted to make sure the community because we do have community folks, I want to make sure that we come back on the 10th because we would like to give not only the proclamation, but a copy of the bill over. Right. And and ceremoniously and also just for the community. I know this Saturday I didn't mention this, but the Saturday is going to be, in addition to all the events, a rally at the Capitol at 1130. I mean, 130, 130. You mean marches coming from all over the city and they're going to be here. Good celebration of all directions, all nations. And that that's really when you when you look at the what it really means is all directions all nations for went. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Madam Secretary. Raquel Lopez. Hi. New Ortega I Black High Clerk by Espinosa. By. Flynn. Hi Gilmore I Herndon in Cashman. I can eat. Mr. President. I please close voting in US results. 12 eyes. 12 eyes conceal. 801 passes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. You don't get many claps for votes anymore. Thank you. All right. We are moving to the Bloc votes. All other bills for introductions are now ordered published. Councilman, clerk, will you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills for final considerations? Consideration for final passage on the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration be placed upon final consideration, and do pass in a block for the following items. 539 811 816. 812. 813. 814. 820. 821. 822. 800. 815. Eight 1724. 761 797. All right. It has been moved. And second, it councilmembers. Please remember that this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote I or otherwise. This is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Madam Secretary, roll call. Black. I Clark. II. Espinosa, i Flynn, i Gilmore. I Herndon I Cashman. I can eat. I knew. I. Ortega, I. Mr. President. I. Please close the voting. Announce a results. 11 Eyes. 11 Eyes. The resolution resolutions have been adopted and bills have been placed on final consideration and do pass. Tonight there will be a required public hearing for Council Bill 430 Changes on a classification of four Geneva Court and Martin Luther King Jr Boulevard.

A resolution approving a proposed Design Services Agreement between the City and County of Denver and RS&H, Inc. for professional design and engineering services. Approves a contract with RS&H, Inc. for $2,637,093.94 and for one year for professional design and engineering services including the redesign of Washington Street from East 47th Avenue to East 52nd Avenue, improvements along Washington Street from the South Platte River to East 47th Avenue and the Globeville Landing Pedestrian Bridge over the South Platte River as part of the Elevate Denver Bond Program in Council District 9 (201948451). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 7-15-19. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 4-2-19.

DenverCityCouncil_07082019_19-0296

All right. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. So that leaves to 96, if you can put that one up on our screens. Madam Secretary and Councilwoman Ortega, you had a comment or question on this comment. Go ahead. First of all, I want to thank Chris Pacheco and Tim Sanders for providing additional information on the cost sharing that actually is split among four different city entities, one of which is National Western that makes up this contract. And that's the piece that was not clear when this bill came forward that we've got Elevate Denver bond money, see IP dollars, National Western and wastewater funding that all makes up that one contract. And so I just want to thank Chris. I think you're still here in the audience for for sitting down and walking me through the map and the cost sharing. And I have no further questions on this. There is just one related to at some point asking council to have project updates on where we're at in the scope of the project. How far along are they and where are we with funding? Have we added new dollars? Have we used only the dollars that were built within those projects on plot to Park Hill and on the National Western Center? I think having those periodic updates to council is going to be important to just track how we're doing with them . All right. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. That concludes the items we called out this evening. All bills are for introduction, are ordered published. We're now ready for the block vote on resolutions and bills on final consideration. Council members remember that this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for Geneva Court and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard. Rezones property at Geneva Court and Martin Luther King Boulevard from R-MU-20 (Former Code: residential, mixed use) with waivers to M-MX-5 (master planned, commercial mixed use, 5 stories) in Council District 8. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 8-3-16.

DenverCityCouncil_09122016_16-0430

Ortega was that I also was a candidate for vice. Yeah. Thank you. Congratulations. Councilwoman Gilmore, will you please put Council Bill 430 on the floor? Yes, Mr. President. I move that council bill 430 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved in a second. Councilman Herndon, we need a motion to postpone. Wait. We need 1/2. Okay. All right. So do I. See. Let me know when you get ma'am sector. Okay. Good. Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that final consideration of Council Bill 430 with its public hearing be postponed to Monday, October 3rd, 2016. Comments by Members of Council Councilman Herndon. Thank you, Mr. President. At the request of community planning and development, they need to postpone this public hearing in order to meet the notice requirements. They do apologize, but all parties were notified. So I ask that my colleagues support this postponement. All right. See no other comments, Madam Secretary, roll call. Herndon i. Cashman can eat new Ortega I. SUSSMAN My black. Eye. CLARK All. Right. ESPINOSA Hi, Flynn. GILMORE Hi. Mr. President. I. Please close the voting and announce the results. 12 eyes. 12 eyes. For Final Consideration Council Bill 430 and this public hearing will be postponed to Monday, October 3rd. Councilwoman Gilmore. Will you please put Council Bill 519 on floor?

Message and order authorizing the City of Boston to accept and expend the amount of Three Hundred Forty Nine Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($349,500,000.00) in the form of a grant, awarded by the United States Department of Treasury, to be administered by the City of Boston’s Chief Financial Officer/Collector Treasurer. This grant payment is made from the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (SLFRF) in the Treasury of the United States established by Section 9901 of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) Pursuant to the requirements of the ARPA, the grant payment would fund COVID-19 response and recovery efforts and accelerate a Green New Deal for Boston through once-in-a-generation, transformative investments that address the systemic health and economic challenges in the areas of affordable housing, economic opportunity and inclusion, behavioral health, climate and mobility, arts and culture and early childhood. Councilor Baker offered a motion to Amend Docket #0503 by reducing the Mayor's Office of Housing by $5,000,000.00 and adding $5,000,000.00 for the

BostonCC_05042022_2022-0503

Lucky number 0503 message. In order authorizing the city of Boston to accept and expand the amount of $349,500,000 in the form of a grant awarded by the United States Department of Treasury to be administered by the City of Boston. Chief Financial Officer. Collector. Treasurer. This grant payment is made from the coronavirus state and local fiscal recovery from fund sl f r f in the Treasury of the United States, established by Section 9901 of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 a. R. P. Pursuant to the requirements of the ERP, the grant payment would fund COVID 19 response and recovery efforts and accelerate a Green New Deal for Boston through a once in a generation transformative investments that address the systemic health and economic challenges in the areas of affordable housing, economic opportunity and inclusion. Behavioral health, climate and mobility. Arts and culture and early childhood. 0504 Message. In order authorizing the City of Boston to accept and expand the amount of $40 million in the form of a grant awarded by the United States Department of the Treasury to be administered by the City of Boston as Chief Financial Officer.

A bill for an ordinance establishing a "Social Impact Bond" fund in the General Government Special Revenue Fund and the means for authorizing expenditures from such fund. (FINANCE & SERVICES) Approves the creation of a new fund in the General Government Special Revenue Fund for Social Impact Bonds to provide a multi-year reserve to make performance-based payments to contractors providing housing and case management for chronically homeless individuals. This is a companion ordinance to the Long Bill. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 12-4-14.

DenverCityCouncil_12222014_14-1017

I will wait for technology to catch up. I'm sure it will be moved in second. We can go ahead to comments, Councilwoman Fox. Mr. President, presuming since it isn't coming up, this is the social impact on. 1017, I believe that is. Go ahead. Yes. Okay. Thank you. I just want to be sure I am speaking to the adult. This is an ordinance that establishes a fund for us to put money in order to pay social impact bonds, which are tacked like technically not bonds. So it gets a little complicated here. I made some comments last week and I just want to add to those comments saying, in addition to my concerns about debt financing of social programs, I question the process of establishing a fund from which to repay debt. When the city council hasn't even approved using this mechanism, first let's have the substantive discussion, and this accounting measure can and should come later. Thank you, Councilman. Thoughts? Any other questions or comments on 1017 from council members? Councilwoman, can. Each. Thank you, Mr. President. We did ask for some staff response to those concerns at last week's meeting, and no one was available. But I believe we do have a representative who can speak to it this week. So is it Brendan Hanlon if I may ask Brendan Hanlon to please share why it is we're establishing the fund structure now even though we are not doing any transactions yet. Great. So good morning. Good morning. Good evening. Brendan Hanlon from the Budgetary Management Office. I did have a chance to watch the proceedings last week. I am sorry that I wasn't here to answer questions at that point in time, but let me just go over some of the mechanics. In the 2015 budget we had at, we have allocated a transfer for social impact bonds out of the general fund into the special revenue fund. And the idea is, much like Councilwoman Fox described as this would be a fund by which the social impact bonds would be repaid from. So the mechanics is we will be contracting with nonprofits. There will be funders involved in this program to the extent to to the to the extent that outcomes are delivered by those nonprofits, there will be a repayment of the costs that they have incurred based on the outcomes that were delivered. So what we're doing here is setting aside funds. So that way, once those outcomes are achieved, either in totality or partially, we can repay from this fund. It's a way, it's an accounting mechanism to isolate these funds and properly track them as we go through this process. So given that explanation, I will be supporting this bill tonight and urge my colleagues to do the same. I really do think that it's a creative way to try to bring additional resources to some of the social challenges we have, particularly facing our homeless community. Any time we can increase resources for services or increase housing units, we know that we make a difference not just for those individuals, but also for the quality of life of our neighborhoods. Where this impact is really being felt. And so I think that we will, you know, have more vetting about the particular transactions, but as a budget mechanism, simply to create a place for the funds to be placed. While we have that conversation in a budget that we already approved, I think it's important to move this forward tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Kenney. Councilwoman Ortega. Just a quick question. And notwithstanding the comments that were just made by my colleague, Councilwoman Kenny Brennan, can you tell me when we will see the priorities that have been identified that these non-profits will be weighed against? So Sky might need to help me with the particular date of the committee meeting January 6th. We will be coming to Finance or Safety Committee, Safety Committee and presenting on the mechanics of this in a more detailed fashion than I certainly just went over. I believe we will also be identifying the the outcomes that would be addressed by a social impact bond at that point in time. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Any other comments or questions on 1017 seen on Madam Secretary? Roll call. But no can eat ice monteiro. Hi, Nevitt. Hi, Ortega. Hi, Rob Shepherd. Sussman Brooks Brown. Now. Mr. President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting. And now the results. 982992 nays 1017 has been placed on file consideration and does pass. Madam Secretary, can you tee at the last one what should be 950? Called out by Councilwoman Fox. What would you like for us to do with this? Please put it on the floor for a vote. Certainly can. Councilwoman Candace, can you please have 950 placed on final consideration and do pass?

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by adding Chapter 8.120, temporary enforcement of Long Beach Health Orders related to COVID-19; declaring the urgency thereof; and declaring that this ordinance shall take effect immediately, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_05192020_20-0390

Ocean carry item 20, please. Actually. I'm sorry, I. I'm 19. Communication from City Attorney Recommendation Declare Ordinance Amending the Long Beach Municipal Code of Temporary Enforcement of Long Beach Health Orders related to COVID 19, declaring the urgency thereof and declaring that this ordinance shall take effect immediately. Read and adopted as read citywide. Yeah, I see. I see. There's a motion by Councilmember. I think that's your ranga and seconded by. I'm sorry. No, I'm sorry. That's a motion by Vice Mayor Andrews and seconded by Councilmember Austin. Roll call. Vote, please. District one. District two. I. District three. I. District four. I. District five. District six. District seven. By. District eight. I. District nine. All right.

Approve the adoption of the Globeville Neighborhood Plan as a supplement to the City’s Comprehensive Plan. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Approves the adoption of the Globeville Neighborhood Plan as a supplement to the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 11-12-14.

DenverCityCouncil_12012014_14-0971

Yes. Council is reconvened. We have one cursory public hearing this evening. Speaker should begin the remarks by telling council their names and cities of residence and if they feel comfortable doing so, their home addresses. If you're here to answer questions only when your name is called, come to the podium, state your name and know that you are available for questions of council. Each speaker will have 3 minutes. There will be no yielding time on the presentation monitor on the wall. When the yellow light comes on, you will have 30 seconds to conclude your remarks. And when the red light appears, your time is up. Speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing and must direct their comments to the council members. Speakers are prohibited from using profanity or making personal attacks during their comments. Audience members Please understand that council members do use electronic devices of various kinds to access the materials relevant to the public hearings before us. Be assured, however, that by mutual agreement and common practice of the City Council, these devices are not being used for texting, emailing or other communications during the public hearings. All right, Councilwoman Session, will you please put Council Bill 971 on the floor? Mr. President, I move that council bill 971 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Waiting for technology to catch up. It has been moved. It has been moved. And second, in the public hearing for council bill 971 is now open. May we have the staff report? Good evening, members of Council. My name's Courtland Heiser with Denver Community Planning and Development. And for the past more than two years, I've been project manager on the Globeville Neighborhood Plan. Pleased to present for you tonight a final draft of the plan for your consideration for adoption. Just by way of background. The Globeville neighborhood is located in North Denver, shown here in these maps along the western banks of the South Platte River. And a couple of the most famous landmarks within the neighborhood are I-25 and I-70, both of which intersect at the mousetrap. Right in the right, in the center of Globeville. She's. Globeville is also one of the neighborhoods within the North Denver Cornerstone Collaborative Focus and Study Area. And in fact, the Globeville Neighborhood Plan is one of the six identified projects within the North Denver Cornerstone Collaborative. If adopted tonight, it would be one of the first projects to reach the milestone of reaching an adoption and completion. Planning efforts are ongoing within the NDC study area, not just for Globeville, but for also the Elyria Swansea neighborhood across the South Platte River to the east and the National Western Center, directly across the river from Globeville. This timeline shows how the three planning efforts are nested together. So tonight, on December 1st, we're at City Council for a public hearing on Globeville. Meanwhile, just last week, Elyria, Swansea released their first public review draft of that planning effort. You'll be seeing that on the. It's currently on track to go to City Council on February 9th. National Western Center will be releasing their first public review draft of their planning document later this month, and then that's on a track to be in front of council on March 9th. So this is the first of three coordinated, interrelated planning efforts, all covering the the North Denver Cornerstone Collaborative Focus area in North Denver. We'll talk now for the rest of the presentation about Globeville specifically. That's the item that's before you tonight. Our public process is summarized in this slide. First and foremost, our steering committee was comprised of a group of very diligent, hard working community members that met roughly every month. We missed a few months here or there. If there was a public meeting, perhaps we may not meet that month, but more or less. For the past couple of years, this group has been getting together once a month and sometimes more than once a month and met three or four times. In October of this year. In addition to that, we met jointly as needed with the Elyria Swansea Neighborhoods Plan Steering Committee at several key points throughout our planning process. Then there were general public meetings held throughout the planning process, typically every three or four months and seven of those in total. And in addition to that, we had targeted outreach to specific stakeholder groups to ensure their participation in the process, including the Spanish speaking community, youth industrial stakeholders. We attended festivals and special events throughout the planning process and coordinated with National Western Center, the DCC and others on tours and other projects and special events. In addition to that, there were a few special efforts associated with this planning process that were unique to it. Community Asset Mapping and Oral History Project were two very important efforts that were spearheaded by Councilwoman Monteiro and her office as a component and during our planning process, as well as a health impact assessment, which was conducted by Denver Environmental Health and which resulted in a detailed health assessment of Globeville, Elyria and Swansea. And the recommendations from that document were integrated with the draft plan before you. So the Globeville Neighborhood Plan is a product of a more than two year planning process. It is built on community input and has been coordinated with concurrent planning efforts. Associate with NBCC, the Elyria and Swansea Neighborhoods Plan and the National Western Center Master Plan in particular. This is a graphic from the first few pages of the plan. Sometimes we refer to this as a plan on a page. It's really sort of a graphical table of contents that shows you what is in the plan document. So up top, the vision for Globeville that it's a unique, strong, connected and healthy neighborhood. Those were guiding principles that emerged from our public outreach early on in the process. Those principles were identified as being core to the identity of what Globeville is and what it wants to be. They became an organizing element for the plan, and so the first four chapters of the document are related specifically to those guiding principles unique , strong, connected and healthy. In addition to that, the plan identifies character areas within the neighborhood. There are four of them the residential neighborhood core Washington Street and the Globeville Riverfront, the 41st and Fox station area. And the industrial edges within the neighborhood and within those character areas are one or more catalytic projects, transformative projects that the plan goes into some level of detail on with each, and which we'll be summarizing tonight towards the end of the presentation. So first up, we want to talk about each of the guiding principles. A unique Globeville is the first one. And these are three recommendations within the unique chapter. Embedded within each of the three are strategies which we won't get into that level of detail tonight. We'll just keep it at the higher level of recommendations. But each of the recommendations has associated strategies that get to the specific particulars of implementing and achieving the intent of the recommendation . So for a unique Globeville, we have to showcase the history of Globeville to embrace the neighborhood's unique physical attributes, which include some of the things that are considered to be barriers like the I-70 sound wall, for example, or embankments. The plan has strategies for celebrating these features and turning them into community assets, and the third one is to reinforce and enhance. Globeville is a unique sense of place. Under the category of strong. Strong is really a collection of many ideas. First off, having a land use plan for the neighborhood that balances the needs of all the users within the neighborhood residents, commerce and industry so that they can coexist within the neighborhood. Effectively, managing storm drainage and water quality within the neighborhood is another concept within strong, as well as having an integrated, complete and diverse park system within the neighborhood and improving access to jobs, housing, neighborhood services and education. This is the concept land use map that's contained within the strong chapter. And I'll just take a minute now to sort of walk through the general land use strategy that's outlined in the plan. So first off, in yellow here in the middle of the neighborhood, this is the residential core of Globeville. It has the the highest concentration of residential uses today. And when people think of the Globeville neighborhood, this is generally the area that comes to mind for most people that is recommended to remain single family. But we do have, in addition to that, a recommendation to adjust the zoning as necessary to allow for the implementation of accessory dwelling units. This was an affordable housing strategy that emerged from our conversation with the neighborhood in that there was a lot of support for. So the zoning in Globeville today does not allow accessory dwelling units, but the plans direction is that that would be appropriate adjacent to the yellow here on the map you see the darker blue areas and these are recommended for industrial mixed use. And the plan strategy is to use industrial mixed use as sort of a buffer between residential and heavier industry. Today, there are many instances where industry is adjacent to across the street from or across an alley from a single family home. The strategy here is to introduce industrial mixed use to help provide a better transition between industrial and residential. The lighter blue areas are industrial today and are proposed to remain industrial in the future. And over here in the Forty-firsts and Fox station area, the plans recommendations are really fully consistent with the station area plan that was adopted in 2009 for 41st and Fox. So just reinforcing the land use recommendations and really all of the content from that plan is reflected and consistent with the Globeville neighborhood plan. Then here along the Washington corridor into the riverfront. The land use recommendation is to transition to mixed use development, and we'll be providing more details as to the rationale for that throughout the presentation. So by the end of the presentation, it should be fairly clear what the opportunities are specific to that transition to mixed use development in that area. Yeah. I'm sorry. The formatting looks like it got a little messed up here, but on the connected, global is the next guiding principle, and that is to update the key transportation policies affecting Globeville, such as the Strategic Transportation Plan and Blueprint. Denver and Denver moves consistent with the recommendations of this plan. The second one is a connected street network within the neighborhood to have a walkable and bikeable Globeville, as well as one that is well-served by transit and to address traffic operations and roadway maintenance issues that are prevalent within the neighborhood today. This graphic shows the proposed Street Network as recommended in the plan. There were just a couple of things that I wanted to highlight here. The first is these dashed arrows here heading across the river. Those indicate potential and recommended multi-modal connections from Globeville into the National Western Center and into the Elyria neighborhood. These are two recommendations that arose out of our planning process, where we coordinated very closely with NBCC and the National Western, so that this is an integrated concept that you'll see appearing in all three of these major planning efforts. It's in the Globeville plan, it's in the Elyria Swansea Neighborhoods plan, and it's also integrated in the National Western Center Draft Master Plan. The idea of having a strong connection from Globeville and Washington across the South Platte River and into the National Western Center, we believe presents a catalytic opportunity to encourage reinvestment along the Globeville waterfront associated with that recommendation within this hatched area. The plan is recommending enhancing the connectivity within that area. Currently, the streets today, they go from Washington, they approach the river, and most of them end in cul de sacs or don't really connect to other streets. So North-South connectivity and connectivity along the river are two things that would be needed to realize this vision of having a mixed use waterfront across the river from a revitalized National Western Center. The third thing that I wanted to call out in this map are these connections here to the west, which would go through some of the large assembled parcels here. The currently the streets don't connect through here and these circles denotes potential ped bike only connections that would allow people who live in Globeville to have much greater accessibility to Washington Street and then future transit at the National Western Center. And we have a few renderings highlighting some of the specific street and infrastructure improvements that are recommended in the plan. This is what Lincoln looks like today as it heads under I-70. For folks that live north of I-70, this is the route that their children take to the elementary school every day. There have been some recent enhancements with the murals that you see there. If we take that to the next level with some relatively modest, relatively affordable improvements, you can see how the current underpass could be greatly enhanced into a community amenity building upon the foundation that's already been set by emphasizing public art and murals, improving the lighting under the underpass, cutting back the sloped walls, or what engineers refer to as wing walls that currently extend here and narrow the sidewalk. You could cut those back. It doesn't affect the structural integrity of the bridge and you can widen the pedestrian area. Similarly at 48th AV under IE 25, we have another overpass that could be enhanced. Our concept here is a little more modest, not relying so much on public art, but very similar in gaining space by cutting back this wall to increase the amount of pedestrian area enhancing lighting. Implementing recommendations from this plan for bike connectivity to the west of Globeville neighborhood. Small moves could have a dramatic impact in improving quality of life. Hmm. The third one here is the 44th Avenue Bridge over I-25. This is the Globeville neighborhood's only connection across I-25 to the future station at 41st and Fox. In recent years, some improvements have been made to stripe the bike lanes here on the bridge, and a few more improvements related to lighting. Enhancing the pedestrian area. A little bit could go a long way in improving accessibility to 41st and Fox Station when it opens. Moving on now to the topic of health. I mentioned earlier that we conducted a health impact assessment as a component of our planning process. That process was led by Denver Environmental Health, and it was really an integrated component of the neighborhood planning process. It arose out of our planning process, and the recommendations from this Health Impact Assessment document were incorporated into the Draft Globeville plan and also cross-referenced among the various chapters within the plan. So they appear in the health chapter and then recommendations related to other topics in addition to health, such as connectivity, were referenced in the connectivity chapter . So within the health chapter, you can see this high level of overlap that the recommendations coming out of the HRA have with the other topics in the neighborhood plan to improve environmental quality, to improve multimodal connectivity, increase access to goods and services, enhance community safety, improve mental health and well-being. And then the sixth one, there is a catchall for anything that didn't fit into those above categories. All of the other recommendations are also included within the plan. Moving on to the topic of character areas and transformative projects. This was the third category of content from our plan on a page we have for the residential neighborhood core, the Washington Street Corridor and the riverfront, the 41st and Fox station area and the industrial edges. What we'll focus on here is more so than the character areas themselves, the transformative projects that are located within those areas. So starting with 45th Avenue as Globeville is Main Street, 45th Ave has a storied past but is underutilized today and has great potential for being an enhanced main street. The plan has recommendations and strategies related to elevating 45th so that it realizes that potential, which includes both some land use strategies and recommendations, as well as some public infrastructure. So what you see here is some of these ideas illustrated in maintaining the bike lanes that were put on the street last year celebrating the corridor with banners. This shows here how a parklet or a small public space could be introduced within a single parking space in conjunction with other events such as food trucks, you know , on a vacant lot or something like that, to bring more activity and interest to the corridor. The next transformative project is related to improving Washington Street. Washington Street is it's a complex corridor and it's a corridor one size does not fit all. Here are some sub areas that are located within Washington as it flows through Globeville. At the southern end here. This area was previously improved and is already pretty wide. That was done in conjunction with a freeway reconstruction project in the early 2000. But north of 47th, Washington narrows down to 60 feet of right of way and maintains that up to the city line at 52nd Avenue. And so that's the primary area of opportunity for addressing Washington and trying to improve it. Any improvements that are made here will need to transition effectively to Adams County's Future Cross section for Washington, which at this time is known to be a three lane section one traveling in each direction as well as a turn lane in the middle. As part of our planning process, we identified the community's priorities for Washington that what what was really important to them, what did they want to see? And these were their priorities that were identified first to have sufficient travel lanes to accommodate the traffic that's on the street to have on street parking, which is especially important if it's going to be a successful mixed use commercial corridor, having a high quality pedestrian realm, which includes having sidewalks on both sides of the street for the length of Washington. It's a condition that isn't present in the neighborhood today tree lawns and street trees to green up the street and assist with beautifying it. Having some sort of enhanced bike facility either on Washington or on a parallel street. That is a quality North-South connection and minimizing the impacts to existing businesses as this vision is implemented. What the plan does is that it presents three scenarios to help advance the conversation about the future of Washington. In scenario one, we tried to work within the 60 foot right of way within that constrained section of Washington to show how many of the community's priorities could be met if we didn't widen the right of way. Just working with what we have and what we have is traveling in both directions. Turn lanes at intersections where they're needed. Mid-Block There would be the opportunity because you don't have the turn lane to have some on street parking spaces. You get a relatively narrow tree line and pedestrian sidewalk area. All of that fits, but just barely within the 60 feet. Scenario two assumes a slightly wider Washington. And in this scenario, we have all of the facilities that were identified in scenario one, plus adding an extra travel lane in each direction. So it's the same concept as in scenario one, but with four travel plans instead of two. Scenario three is sort of the unconstrained scenario of, okay, what will it take if we everything everybody says they want in Washington, we try to provide it there. What does the street look like then? And it looks pretty wide. If you meet all of the community's priorities, you end up with a very wide cross-section. For Washington, this is the same as in scenario two, but adding protected bike lanes as well. The protected bike lane would be needed on Washington because it does carry a lot of truck traffic. So you don't want the situation of having trucks and a normal street bike lane adjacent to each other. You need the the ballers to protect the cyclists. You would have a very wide Washington street and you do fail in this instance to meet the community's priority of minimizing the impact to adjacent property owners. Washington improved by itself would be transformative for the neighborhood. But if you want to transform the area between Washington and the riverfront and take advantage of a revitalized, active year round entertainment destination at the National Western Center, you need to address the street great condition between Washington and the riverfront. You can see here in this graphic the high level of disconnection of the streets here as they approach the South Platte River. Don't quite get there and in cul de sacs or streets, just sort of loop on themselves and head back to Washington. So here as well, we have some scenarios for enhancing the street grid. Each of our scenarios show the two recommended connections to the National Western Center, which are at 49th and 51st, and then they differ in how they treat the street grid within this riverfront area. But what we tried to do here was to make use of all of the existing infrastructure. So existing street segments remain and the new segments are introduced to try to enhance the grid and complete it in this area. Scenario two is responding to a criticism of the first scenario, which is that. Scenario one doesn't allow for much enhanced green space along the river. Scenario two lays back the street more and allows you to have a much greener edge along the South Platte River. Now you would have one regardless, because there is the South Platte River Trail on the side of the river. But if you want to have a larger, truly enhanced greenspace along the river, the scenario accomplishes that while still connecting all of the street segments together. And here's how they all sort of stack up. So in the existing condition, you have industrial land uses going right up to the South Platte River Trail and bank in scenario one. It allows for more development potential. There's there are more streets and smaller blocks. And in scenario two, this is the shows the the green edge the enhanced park space along the river before you have the street and the opportunity for development. And here's the approach from a different way the existing condition, the scenario one with the detailed grid, and scenario two still with a grid, but with fewer street connections and more green space. So the planning board held its public hearing on November 5th for the Globeville Neighborhood Plan. The public testimony was generally supportive. And Planning Board did vote to approve the plan by unanimous vote based on its consistency with Planning Board's criteria, which are plan consistency with adopted plans, inclusive public process, and an appropriate long term perspective. So the staff recommendation is adoption of the Globeville Neighborhood Plan as a supplement to the Denver Comprehensive Plan. Thank you. We have ten individuals signed up to speak this evening. I'm going to call the first five speakers if you can make your way to the bench here in the front, that will help speed up the proceedings. I will start with Tami Dore, Mr. Saca, Justin Croft, Nancy Grandees Jones and Vernon Hill. So if you can make your way to the first pew and Ms.. Door, you can go ahead and begin your remarks. Good evening, Council President and Honorable Members of City Council. My name is Tammy Dore and my address is 511 16th Street, Denver and behalf of the Downtown Denver Partnership. I wish to express our strong support for the Globeville Neighborhood Plan, the plan's overall vision elements unique, strong, connected and healthy. Combined with the strategic approach of including both large catalytic projects and smaller, more tactical quick wins will provide a strong path to achieve a successful vision for the Globeville neighborhood and the entire North Denver corridor of Opportunity. This vision, as the plan states, provides a unique and historic opportunity to rebuild a connected community and to energize a gateway to downtown Denver. These enhanced connections into the center city, thanks to the plan, will include all modes of transportation. We are encouraged by the walkability and likability aspects of the plan, specifically those vital connections from the 41st and Fox station into downtown. I want to personally thank and applaud Councilwoman Monteiro and the entire neighborhood for their hard work and dedication to making this neighborhood and the city an even better place. This area of the city is incredibly important to the vitality and the future of this center city overall. The partnership will continue to be a collaborative partner and the planning of the North Denver Cornerstone Collaborative, and we're encouraged by this tremendous first step. Thank you for your time and I kindly ask you for your support this evening. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.. Mr.. Sekou. My name is Chairman Sekou, founder organizer of the Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense. Advocates for poor, working poor folks. That just got broke. Poor. And homeless people. We stand opposed to this plan of being connected with a comprehensive plan. That has never been implemented as shown on the screens. Give example, we had a add on to the comprehensive plan with the five point plan and guess what happened? The neighborhood was gentrified, poor people were pushed out, and now you have a community that has been totally displaced. I am a personal victim of that plan. I'm on Section eight. I have an $800 limit to the Section eight, and I can't find a unit, a studio that I can rent. So I get a worthless piece of paper and they tell me the best I can do. After living in the neighborhood for 61 years, I can move to Lakewood. Are you kidding me? But then, you know, unintended consequences happen, Doctor, because when you have no integrity, which means you're going to do what you said you're going to do when you do it, that comprehensive plan that you've attached yourself to. HEFFNER And the people that are sitting up here, half of them are going to be gone. So to Montel, who's fought with for this plan with you guys every day and kept the developers at bay to respect you and your neighborhood. She's gone and in her place is going to be six different people coming up here. Who's going to take the place? Who you can find to fight for you. Like system to the. You had better get organized. You better bet the next one's going to take her place and hold him to the line to protect this pen no matter what. Because I'm gonna tell you flat out, the mayor that you got in office now is not going to do it. He is possible and done. Mr. Speaker. And that's the reason why I will be your next mayor, because. Mr. Sekou, I appreciate your neighborhood. Mr.. Saca Thank you. Justin Croft. Good evening, members of the council. My name is Justin Croft and I'm with Zeppelin Development at 345 five Grimsby Court in Globeville. And I'm here to offer our support for adoption of this plan. Unfortunately, Mickey's Zeppelin could not be here tonight, so I'd like to read a statement to your city council members. Thank you for considering my letter of support for the Globeville plan. Unfortunately, I'm out of town and cannot personally offer my compliments to the community and city staff for their efforts. The plan represents a balance between preserving the roots of the neighborhood and confronting a transformative future. Globeville has struggled for more than 100 years to maintain itself as an independent community. This was despite efforts by the surrounding areas to eliminate it. It was treated as the dumping ground for undesirable city uses. It was the site of junkyards, smelters, sewer plants, industrial uses, dirty air and a polluted river in the 1950s, when the interstate highway system was established. Globeville was selected as the site for that highway. The result was a community physically split in half and was subject to major land impositions through land takings for the mouse trap and other vehicle uses. With the plan, there is a new opportunity for Globeville to work towards its potential. The plan recognizes that the beginning must be with the people who live and settled there. It provides for improving health, housing, jobs, education, recreation, parks, transportation and connectivity. Urge you to approve the Globeville plan. Moreover, please recognize that this area, which has been long neglected, deserve special attention. It demands action by the city to implement the plan. Respectfully, make yourself one. I'd also like to thank Councilwoman Monteiro for her untiring advocacy on behalf B behalf of Globeville. Thank you, Mr. Craft. Nancy. Grand Grandees Jones. Good evening. Council members, and I appreciate this opportunity to speak to you in favor of the plan. I'm a business owner. I am an owner of JJ Properties located at 810 to 870 East 50th Avenue. That's about Washington and 50th. My husband purchased the property in 1995. It was a former meatpacking plant. It has over 108,000 square feet and now houses four very successful small businesses, which employ over 60 people in that Globeville neighborhood. When my husband died in 2007, I stepped in to take an active role in the company operations. As a business owner, I've made a contribution through paying taxes and invest and making an investment of hundreds of thousands of dollars over the time in keeping that property that was built in 1920. To have to be repurposed for something that benefits the community and it provides good has provide good employment opportunities. And I appreciate the benefits that I have derived from having a business in Globeville. I have come to have a passion and respect for the history of Globeville and its people. And that's why I'm coming to speak before you. I have been involved in the neighborhood planning process and also have been an advocate for the residents through a significant sponsorship of the Habitat for Humanity build. So I am very committed to advocating for services for the residents. By adopting the plan, you have an opportunity to write decades of wrongs and promises broke into the residents of Globeville, but that's only going to be the first step, because we really need to see action in implementing the significant quality of life improvements in that plan sooner rather than later. This will result in bringing the residents of global to the minimum standards enjoyed by residents in other neighborhoods. But the vision in that plan is to bring it to something special giving opportunities for education and other quality of life improvements. Two factors that I think will determine the successful implementation of the plan is looking at the rezoning and land usage. Globeville right now has has been a the has been a place where marijuana facilities have come to and land is becoming precious. As a property owner, I know my property is wanted and I do not want to see what I have there to be used anymore for that I want it to be used for something to benefit the community. Just like when my husband and I sold a property that was transformed into Project Angel Heart. Another thing is, I think that land use is going to be very significant in terms of giving the amenities for the residents, including a grocery store. Hello. Miss Granderson, I apologize. Your 3 minutes is up. Oh, I didn't even see that light. Okay. Use some tax money, marijuana tax money to give the residents amenities. Thank you. Next is Vernon Hill. And as Vernon Hill comes up to the podium, I'll call up the next five speakers David O. Lenski, David Portillo, Katie McKenna, Rob Poulet and and Elizabeth. And you can make your way up to the front pew. Mr. Hill, go right ahead. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Vernon Hill. I'm a managing partner for J.J. Properties. And the reason I'm here probably not as prepared as Ms.. Jones was about this, but I've been involved with the Globeville area since 1984. I've been I had a business there since a period of time, and I've gotten to see Globeville go through a number of changes. And I'm very excited at this point and in support of this plan and seeing what's in the future for Globeville. I've had employees that have worked for me that lived in the Globeville area, and I've seen the transition from when it was a meatpacking district on down to the point now to where it's beginning to come back. It's been a desert there. We've had a food desert as it pertains to no grocery stores. No, no, you know, stores or anything of that nature within the area. And it's been a long time coming. So just in closing, I would like to say that we are in support of this plan. And I've talked to a number of businesses within that area, and they still they all seem to feel the same way. And thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. Hill. David O. Lenski My name is David Lenski. I'm. A longtime Globeville resident president, Globeville Civic Association. And the first thing I want to do is thank all of you City Council for giving us this plan. Three years ago, we stood here and asked if we could have a plan, and you guys granted it. And it's been a long, drawn out, quick process, you know. And Judy, I can't thank you enough. You know, it's just the long hours and late nights, you know, just the the bus trips, you know, everything it took to get this going. And and, you know, this plan is needed because we have a lot going on in Globeville between the National Western Club, Swansea, Elyria, 41st light rail and I-70. You know, this isn't the plan isn't needed in time. It's needed now. And we need to implement it as quick as we can. We can't put it on the shelf, you know. And that's why I'd like to ask, you know, we've put a lot of planning in changing a lot of property zoning, and that's where we're going to need, if you could, an executive order to start that planning process . Now with the zoning, that will stop a lot of the grow houses. It'll stop a lot of junkyards. But it's going to be it's going to take a while to get that. And we need that. We need that plan. We need to implement it as quick as possible. And there's a number of us that are going to be in a committee. And we want we don't know where to go. I don't know where to go from here. And we're going to need your help. I hate to see you to be leaving in May, but maybe Debbie and Robin, you guys can help us out. And when they're when they start putting up bond money, don't let them. Let's leave Globeville out. We need our cut. You know, we need our share, and we don't want to be forgotten anymore. Anyway, all I can say is thank you for letting me be part of the neighborhood and part of these plans. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Lasky. David Portillo. Hi. My name is David Thiel. I work at the Denver Foundation. I live at 3522, wind up. And I thank Councilman Monteiro and Norma Gayle for inviting me today. I'm very proud of the work of with all of the leaders. And I'm so glad that David let ski and applied for a strength in neighborhoods grants to the Denver Foundation. I invite all city council members to make their leaders aware of the strength of the neighborhoods program for economic visioning, for leadership development. What do leaders usually apply for? Childcare, interpretation? Food. So again, these meetings can be or can be as inclusive as the global one as you look at work coming forward and opportunities that might be taken or missed. So again, thank you to to all of them. I also wanted to point out that the role I think both of the city councilwoman and and her staff was key in terms of both taking leadership by stepping back. So again, could leaders write the application? Could they manage the funds? So we think they can. And and we look forward to funding other processes to engage your resident leaders of all the city council areas. Thanks. Thank you. Katie McKenna. Hi. My name's Katie McKenna. Thank you so much for having us here tonight. I live at 4438 Sherman Street in the Globeville neighborhood, and I also work at Habitat for Humanity. And I'm here today to thank all of you, particularly Councilwoman Monteiro, for all of your help getting the neighborhood plan this far. I can't agree with Dave more. So many late nights and just above and beyond to make this possible. From Habitat for Humanity standpoint, we have been building in the Globeville neighborhood for the past four years and are really looking forward to continuing our work in the neighborhood and to continue to see this plan come to fruition. It is such a great thing for a wonderful part of the city. So thank you. Thank you. Robbo, let. Hi, I'm Robert and I live at 4785 Logan Street. For about the past four years or so, I've been involved on and off with the the plan developments, but it's been great and kind of just kind of checked in to see how it was going. I haven't had time, but the steering committee, everyone has done a great job. I think the plan is really it's now in the head for a lot of it and the sooner the better. So thanks. Thank you. And Elizabeth. Where's this light? I really need to know where it is. The time light over here. So is that a warning? And then it's a is. Also on the screen. Oh. First of all. I want to thank Judy Montero for one thing in particular, which was in the first meeting in June of 2012, I believe it was the concept of breaking down the silos between the departments in the city was put on the table as part of what would be a reflected success of this plan. And I feel that what emerged was some good work relative to the City Planning Department and the Environmental, Health and Parks and Rec. Working and working. Together. But I feel like there's a long way to go. I put that I was a speaker in favor of the plan with a caveat. And the caveat for me is the plan is like a false summit. The real work is the implementation that we have, the opportunity with everything that's going on to create a dynamic economy that is no longer a subsidized economy, that is no longer an economy that is dependent on the good graces. The graciousness of nonprofits, which we do love. Habitat for Humanity in particular, has been phenomenal. They've helped people improve their property and therefore have a greater means of staying in their property. We are still in jeopardy on the basis of keeping the families together that are traditionally the families of of Globeville. I'm, in some sense, a newcomer I've been involved with. Globeville lived over there for about eight years now, maybe seven. But I have never been so embraced by a neighborhood that understands that people are what we are and we all want the best for ourselves. And we all, in all of our imperfections, go forward to find that in a neighborhood is an extended family. So I would just like to prevail upon the city council and us, as in the neighborhoods, to recognize that the work, the hard work is beginning now. Yes, there have been many plans that have been placed on shelves and many of the the the the economic vitalization issues that need to be brought to fruition in Globeville are shared with many neighborhoods in in Denver and in the country. But to me, the most important thing is to recognize that this is an organic and living document that we want to it is an aspirational document in one sense, but that we still have to keep ourselves vividly aware of how the neighborhood is being impacted and make sure that it's a peer ship with the forces that are moving with the corridor of opportunity, as the mayor calls it. And to me, that has a lot to do with matching development, with jobs, bringing in education and making sure that the generations of folks that want to call this their place for eternity are brought into the flow of the prosperity that's coming to the area through education, jobs matching. And I would support a greater mitigation from the marijuana industry in the neighborhood as well. If there's any way to compensate, to support the folks that are getting prosperous in that way, to make it an either an even healthier and happier. And one last thing I would ask the city council to activate a relationship with with the Connect Denver Foundation and Connect as a potential source of direct resource development into helping the Globeville El-Erian, Swanson neighborhoods get the funding they need to accelerate infrastructure improvements and many of the things that make it a connected and mobile multimodal neighborhood . Thank you. Thank you, Miss Elizabeth. That concludes our speakers, this time for questions of members of council. Councilman Brooks. Yes, so I just had a question around. You know, I was on a bike in Globeville two weeks ago, and Lord have mercy for anybody riding a bike in that neighborhood. And so I love seeing seeing the plans and seeing some protected bike lanes, but just making sure with all our plans that no street call for any SROs, which means for folks who don't know to share or has shared bike lanes with cars at our vehicles at all. It's. Okay. So this this shows the recommended bike facilities map. Yep. Which is in the connected chapter. I'm not sure on which page. There are some spaces where the share is recommended, the reason being that there isn't room otherwise for a bike facility. But wherever possible, we have more robust bike facilities recommended, and this was developed in coordination with public works and the team that works on Denver moves. Yeah. You know, and I'll just say this just to continue to push us, I think it's always unacceptable, especially when we're talking in a multimodal environment for we know that 60% of folks who don't ride bikes who would otherwise if they if they had a protected space, if there was dedication, they would ride. And so we need to do whatever we can to make that happen. My real question and Councilman Materials done a great job with this as as and just alluded to in breaking down the silos and you know was great that we got, you know, the health impact assessment done. The other thing that I was looking at was economic development. We know that this community really is is is looking for economic empowerment and multisector kind of focus, not just nonprofit, but was there any kind of conversation around jobs, offered opportunities for the plan and going forward on a on a larger perspective for community planning and development , I think how do we really take these other agencies and bring them into a plan? I think it's a great example of how we can do that in the future. And if you guys have been kind of thinking about that. Yes, definitely. So the first question was about economic development and jobs. Yeah, we do have a series of strategies specific to that. On page begin on page 44, it's B 13 A through D, and they are about expanding job growth within the neighborhood, providing job training and workforce development, keeping industry and jobs in Denver. And there's a recommendation that's about it's called Jumpstart the Local Economy. And those are strategies taken directly from Jumpstart 2014. So in terms of our collaboration with other departments, we do work with them directly in developing these plans. And so that includes always public works. Office of Economic Development, Parks and Recreation and then other city departments as needed, if they're topic specific to those. But the three that I listed are involved in every planning effort and in on the city team that's coordinating and working on these plans. So these recommendations are vetted through those agencies before they appear in the plan. Great. So it's pretty broad. There's there's not a lot of specificity to it or is there? Because I don't have a plan. Right. In terms of the recommendations themselves, they they are broader. They're consistent with, you know, more specific policies that have been developed by OED, for example, like Jumpstart is its own, you know, lengthy document, which is mostly referenced here. And they need to remain relevant, you know, for decades into the future for the plan. Okay. Thanks. Thank you. Councilman Brooks, Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. I have a couple of questions. Most of them are focused around transportation issues. The first one is looking at just the most multimodal conversation about the connections at 47/51. Actually, I think the map shows 49th and 51st, if I remember that correctly. I don't know if you could pull that up. Yeah. Just trying to find the best one as you talk. Okay. So what I'm wanting to know is in some of the conversations that I've participated in related to National Western, the connection that's supposed to go across at 47 or the furthest Southern street was originally going to go straight through National Western. And then there was talk about closing the ST during events which are going to be a lot more frequent in the way that National Western has been planning their future use of the property. And so I just want to see how that was addressed in the Globeville neighborhood plan to ensure that the connectivity is something that is consistent, reliable for the residents of the neighborhood so that we don't have the same problem that happened before where, you know, 46th Avenue used to be shut down. The neighborhood couldn't go through the site until the new the bridge was built that connected them underneath 46th Avenue. I want to make sure that that connectivity is is secure and reliable. So can you speak to that? I can and I can speak to it in particular with where these connections are made in Globeville. So 47th is the existing one that exists today. You sort of cross Washington, go behind the Pizza Hut and curve over towards National Western and end up largely underneath I-70. The additional recommended connections at 49th and 51st, we recommended them at those locations because of where they land in Globeville, that at the locations at 49th and 51st, you have the best opportunity for redevelopment of property that's located along there. They're evenly spaced along the Globeville riverfront, so the 47th connection remains. Then you add on the odd numbered streets, 49th and 51st, you have a nice even spacing of those connections across the river, and then you have three of them instead of just one. So it is true that 49th, which should be the one that would go most directly through the National Western Center, they do envision having to close that to vehicular traffic, depending on the event and the marquee event being the stock show itself. And January is the one where they're pretty certain that they would need to close it to traffic, but you would still have the other two connections if all of these recommendations are implemented. The other two, meaning. 47th and 51st. Okay. And 51st. If I could just conclude is an important connection, because that's the one that most directly connects the Globeville neighborhood to the future station right on the north metro line. Okay. So I want to talk for a minute now about 48th Avenue, the bridge that connects Globeville to the West. I don't remember if that's a four lane bridge or a two lane bridge. And the picture shows a bike lane on each side. And I just want to clarify that, that the width of that bridge is wide enough to accommodate bike traffic. So are you speaking of 44th, this image here? I'm talking about 48th Avenue Bridge, the one that goes over the railroad tracks over to Pico Street. Oh, okay. Right. So this the recommendation that's here is is actually at 40th under I-25. So the bridge that you're speaking about is not directly addressed by this recommendation. I thought that's what? That bridge. Oh, okay. Okay. Sorry. All right. And then lastly. So the widening of Washington Street, you had two scenarios, two and three that looked at doing widening. And I want to know if both of those scenarios involved having to take properties to be able to accommodate both of those. Yes, they would. The with the 60 feet of right of way, there isn't an opportunity to have a wider cross-section like this without the need to take a property on either side of the street. How that property is taken would be something that would need to be the focus of a follow up study that's recommended in the plan, because there may be a way to reduce the impacts to adjacent property owners in because of the the setbacks, very on the west side of the street, the buildings tend to be much closer to Washington Street, whereas on the east side of the street they tend to be set a little further back. So there would be considerations like that to take into account with a follow up study. And, Mr. President, if I may, I just have one last question. Go right ahead. And this is about the funding commitments to address any of these improvements that are needed. We know that there was money put into the 2015 budget, and I'd like to know if you can elaborate on whether any of these projects in this plan are scheduled to be funded with any of the dollars that were approved in the 2015 budget. In terms of scheduled? I don't believe so, but I do not know for certain. I think that there is the a clear opportunity for it with an adopted plan and with the existence of the DCC in particular as a group that could help coordinate partnerships, funding and some of this implementation. Okay. Thank you. I have no further questions. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Monteiro. Thank you, Mr. President. This question is for Gretchen. Because the issue of marijuana grow facilities was brought up several times, and I would just like for you to share with us that was one of the comments that was made in the health impact assessment as well as others. So could you talk about that a little bit? Yes, it was. I'm Gretchen Armijo with Denver. Environmental Health. Department. One of the issues raised during the community input and engagement in the health impact assessment was the strong odors emanating from the. Marijuana grow houses. There are a number of grow. Facilities in Globeville and residents reported in our assessment. Headaches, watering. Eyes, throat irritation. So we documented that those impacts from residents. We recommended in the health impact assessment that further study be done. On whether there were any. Toxic components of those emissions that could be causing any more than a nuisance impacts like temporary. Sore throat or watering eyes. But we just don't know. So we did receive input from residents that they felt negative impacts from the odors when the grow houses do their venting. And we recommended. That there be further. Study about the health implications. What could you also just generally recap what the top things were as you were writing the health impact assessment and talking with the residents? Yes, the the major health concerns that residents raised through the process were related to environmental quality, particularly air quality odors. And then noise and. The odors were not only from marijuana grow. Facilities, but the other heavy industrial uses in the neighborhood. And then noise primarily from the freight trains and truck traffic and from industrial users. The connectivity and mobility was a big concern, and this plan obviously addresses a lot of those connectivity. Problems. That cause everything from increased number of accidents or lack of access to transportation. Public transportation, access to goods and services was the third area. And as it has been mentioned tonight, no grocery store in a community of almost 10,000 people. When you include Elyria, Swansea, a neighborhood as well, and a range of other daily neighborhood services and needs. For. Community safety, both actual crime and. Safety and then perceptions of safety based on civil instabilities and poor lighting and vandalism and factors in the neighborhood that could be addressed through enforcement or improvements to the built environment. And then finally, mental wellbeing. Mental health and wellbeing was a factor that because of all these other factors, you know, the constant onslaught from the built environment really impacts people's ability to go about their daily business, go to jobs, go to school. And so a lot of the recommendations we included in the plan could help reduce those mental health impacts and improve mental well-being. And how, as a policymaker, can we utilize the health impact assessment with the plan? What can we do so that it doesn't sit on a shelf? Absolutely. Well, I think. We are so grateful for the opportunity to have partnered with community. Planning and development and really broken down those silos and. Work. Together so that our. Recommendations. Are. Part of this plan. And we worked very closely to dovetail the health implications and how these recommendations to improve the built environment really could improve health. And we added the evidence basis to this plan. So we're grateful that that we could do that. I think implementation of this plan, of the recommendations in this neighborhood plan, which is what a lot of other commenters have talked about tonight, will really be key to realizing improving community health and also reducing the health disparities that this neighborhood experiences at a higher rate than other neighborhoods in the city. So by bringing the built environment up to the standards that many other neighborhoods in the city enjoy, the residents can really, you know, improve their daily quality of life and ultimately improve their health. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Monteiro, are there any other questions for members of council? Seen on a public hearing is now closed. Time for comments from members of Council Councilwoman Monteiro. Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you, Cortland, for that for that amazing presentation. You did it really well because there was so much stuff that we needed to talk about. But you did it in all the graphics and it was just amazing. And you've been above and beyond in terms of advocating and fighting for this process. So thank you. And and also to Michelle and Sam and Steve for being there with us. Thank you, Nancy. Gladys Jones and Vernon Hill and David. Let's Ski. And Katie McKenna and Elizabeth Jones up in I don't know where he is, but I'm sure that he's here in spirit. Justin Kraft, thank you for coming. And and, Rob, thank you for coming. We're going to really need you to help move all of this forward as we get this done. It's been quite a journey working in global on this neighborhood plan for over two years now. I've gotten to know the Globeville streets and the people in the neighborhood, their history and the day to day reality in a whole new way. Many invested neighbors and stakeholders have been a part of this process, and I really loved hearing about the plan in their own words. And for all of you to hear, this has meant what this has meant to the neighborhood and to the leaders. Globeville is a neighborhood full of really strong, tenacious people with a deep rooted love and respect for this community. The neighborhood planning process has really brought people together in a powerful way that I hope will have stopped making me cry. Will have lasting effects through the implementation and ongoing connections between the neighborhood leaders. I am so honored to have been able to work alongside with you and I'm really asking you with all your might to work and to continue to fight, to live with the resources that you're going to need in this community. And I would say that everyone here has always been amazing. All of my colleagues on on city council have been great. And they've all fallen in love with Globeville as well, even though it's a little bit difficult. You guys are a little bit, you know. But we've all fallen in love and want to embrace and continue Globeville to go forward. I remember when we first started talking about the Globeville neighborhood plan with community planning and development, and it was actually Councilwoman Ortega and myself that wrote a letter to Mayor Hancock asking him, you know, this this neighborhood has been so dissected in so many ways and there's been so many different plans that have been talked about, written, and have been put on the shelf. And so our plea to more Hancock was to find a way to thread everything together so that it would be a heavy lift, but we would all lift together. So thank you, Councilman Ortega, for helping me with that. And as a result, Mayor Hancock heard our call and directed a lot of his energy and intention into the North Denver Cornerstone Collaborative. So, you know, we have six catalytic projects and I keep saying I'm pushing for seven and you're going to need to push for seven two . And that's the redevelopment of Washington Street. As Cortland had said, one of our next one of our next jobs is to get a plan going for what the vision for Washington Street is in the future. So nothing, nothing, nothing. Nothing has been typical about this planning process beginning. Our office in the neighborhood had asked for a different approach and to modify how this planning would be. And I always talk about how we, even as someone that's looked at maps and we talk about planning and zoning, how it's so difficult for me to walk into a room and there's the maps and it's looks like a big plate of spaghetti to me. And so we talked about how we would, you know, how we would do it different and what kind of values we would have that go along with lifting communities and doing community development and what the values were that we wanted to adhere to , including environmental and social justice values, economic and employment, revitalization, culture and historic relevancy. And at the core of our land planning would be the health disparities. And I really believe that without the lens of these values, you can't even begin to have a conversation about land use and community development because it leaves the culture and the values of the people, and it takes preference over other things like cars and zoning. That isn't always compatible for this neighborhood, and so for community planning and development to listen to us and to help us, we all sort of grew together and even in doing we even went so far as to do a history documentary with the neighborhood elders and leaders on Channel eight. And for some folks in here, we actually went third place national and a little national award on the documentary that we all just thought, Hey, let's try this. We learned a lot about global identity, how it thrived and how it suffered with the strong, strong presence of industry, including the smelters, meatpacking , meatpacking plants and large scale factories. The Globeville smelter factories made the steel and metal that built the foundation of the city of Denver and enabled Colorado commerce to move forward. Yet the smelters also polluted the area and left residents with questionable soil and concerns about their health. Living in their neighborhood industry and residents have had a love hate relationship in Globeville. They started intertwined with people making a living and have since grown apart and become in conflict with residents. Healthy living. The neighborhood plan, really, in my opinion, address this tension and will create new pathways on how to move forward. That includes buffering between residential, industrial and industrial MC use mixed uses that can be lighter industrial uses next to residential. You can also see a major change in the plan. How the neighborhood thinks about the river and the recognition of its assets and it becoming a transformative part of the neighborhood. Globeville is always been such a tight knit neighborhood and everybody really does care with care for each other. Every. But don't get me wrong, it's not peace. It's it it's it's a neighborhood where it's give and take, but it's a neighborhood where everybody's opinion counts in a in a very big way. And it's one of those relationships that people have their opinions. They can dig their heels in, but it it's all going in the same direction. And it also strengthens the neighborhood. Immigrants from many countries have called Globeville their home. Yet regardless of the differences, they create a vibrant neighborhood culture in the day to day life in Globeville, churches, shops and schools. I believe this Globeville culture will continue to the direction of this neighborhood plan through things like the historic 45th Street beautification, through art enhancing alley streets, creating unique neighborhood destinations and interpretive signs, historical markers included in this plan. We've had lots and lots of great accomplishments that have been talked about, and I've placed them on your desk if you would ever like to read them. Many of my colleagues have heard I think many of my colleagues know so much about Globeville. And Charlie, when Garth Brooks came and, you know, Habitat for Humanity and when Clinton came and all of that. But it's an amazing, amazing neighborhood. I appreciate all the efforts, again, that all the city people have made. Gretchen Armijo, Doug Link, Hart, Jean Hook on the Health Impact Assessment, Cortland, Michelle Sam and Steve who listened and worked with the community members. And we all learned and grew together and we all just really need to continue to listen and plan forward. I want to thank the Denver Foundation for your generous contributions to our to our child care, our food, our food, because we really like to eat for the interpretation and for all of your help and and for being open to help us with that Grant and David Lenski and NOLA for writing the Grants and Spirit and Nancy and Vern and also for taking the time to organize the the merchants on Washington Street that you really felt disenfranchized, even though they were paying paying a large portion of the taxes. And so now it's on you also to be able to carry that forward so that you can see what you would like there. So moving forward, if I could have a if I could wish anything for Globeville, it would be that they carry on, that you carry on your strong spirit into this next period of history in the neighborhood, that those who live and work in Globeville now and in the future, the children going up there, even the developers that come in, that they know the history of the neighborhood and carry on its culture, evolving it to the changes around, but maintaining its integrity, its grit, and finding a new healthy balance with industry and benefits that the neighborhoods will be proud of and will have a healthy community again. So I would just I took a long time. Did you count that, Charlie? That was 4 minutes and 55 seconds. So thank you so much. And I urge the support of my council members for this neighborhood plan. Thank you, Councilman Monteiro. Councilman Brooks. Thank you, Mr. President. And I just want to I want to thank Councilwoman Monteiro. You know, I think as being on council for 12 years, not me, but her seeing this Globeville plan finally come to its completion is incredibly satisfying for even us who who are cheering her on. But so it must be incredibly satisfying to you. And thank you so much for representing the district. And it's also so great to hear folks in the community that have been at many of the meetings that I have attended be in such incredible support of this plan. And we. Expect to see great things. Also want to want to thank our mayor. Mayor Hancock, who you know, in my mind when I think about Westwood, when I think about Globeville or Swansea, I think about Welton. These are all neighborhoods who have been pretty forgotten for the last 30 years, and they're getting a significant planning documents upgrade investment into their neighborhoods. And so that's that's incredible. And in Cortland. Cortland Cortland did the Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods plan. And I can tell you, this plan is going to take off. There's going to be a lot of incredible resources that come around it, because I've seen it happen with the Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods Plan that you put together in 2011. So thanks for your work on this. I guess my my encouragement in this and I think Councilwoman Monteiro and Nolan and her office have been working on this to really bring break down the silos. And I think we can continue to get better at that. I think a neighborhood plan should really invest in and go deep into some key areas in this health impact assessment was a great example of that. That document is thorough, right? It's a guiding document for those who are going to be doing work in the neighborhood. But what's the guiding document for economic empowerment? What's the guiding document for a housing plan for that area specifically? What's the guiding document for the educational system in that area? And so, you know, while I am celebrating this, I think as a city and as community planning and development, like coming together and putting these neighborhood plans together , especially for neighborhoods that have been overlooked, we can do a deep dove into some of these other areas that I think have been have been overlooked. And so this is exciting. And I just also want to encourage everyone, because I did this a couple of weeks ago and I didn't drive through Globeville. I rode on my bike. I got off and walked around the neighborhood. Go do that. Sometime in the next couple of weeks, you will see that this is a hidden treasure in our city. I think you'll enjoy it. So congratulations, everyone. Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Councilwoman Cohen. Each. Thank you, Mr. President. I will be very brief first to just say well done, well done in taking leadership as current residents for a future of individuals who haven't yet arrived. Because without that care for the next generation, no good change gets managed. Well done for not turning your back on the hard things, right? Mental health. I mean, folks in this neighborhood do experience stress from the environment in which they live and you know, to have a planning document acknowledging mental health right after our Denver Post series about how we have turned our back on that aspect of health and also affordable housing, you know, the the the accessory dwelling units, right? That's in my time on council. It's the first time I've had a new neighborhood take that on and say, we have a legacy of affordability and we're not turning our back on that. We're embracing it. And so, so well done. And then, you know, just to say, I got your back, Councilman Monteiro, till the day you leave office, I got you back. And to these residents, I've already not taken no for an answer when it comes to important work in Globeville. And I will be there with you and, you know, with my colleague, I'm sure if we're able to grace these seats, you know, to continue to make sure that implementation is as celebrated as this plan is. So I'll be there with you and good luck and stick with us. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you. Councilwoman Monteiro. Your comments were very well stated. It covered the gamut. I just want to mention a couple of things and not try to be redundant. I want to congratulate the neighborhood, both the businesses and the residents, for just the tenacity it takes to get through the process of putting together a neighborhood plan and the involvement of Councilwoman Montero's office in, you know, saying to the planning of this, this is a priority. We need this to be front and center of all the other work that's going on in the community. I want to congratulate her, her staff, I think. Nolan's still here. Amanda for for their work with the neighborhoods as well for all of the city staff that were involved from Cortland to your colleagues, folks from Environmental Health, I know Public Works is very involved in many of the discussions about the traffic issues. I have a concern and that is that we just learned today that the I-70 project may be completely different than what has been discussed and proposed based on the whole of taxpayer bill of Rights and the lack of. Right now, there's a $200 million gap on the project. And so they're now talking about the fact that the CDOT commissioners will be discussing whether or not, you know, they're going to continue to try to find the dollars through a public private partnership, whether they're going to look at scaling back the project, just doing patchwork on it . And so, you know, that project alone has major effects on this neighborhood and in the adjacent neighborhoods. And, you know, the opportunities that we're going to present itself for jobs and potential economic development and replacement housing, which right now we don't know how that would be affected. But I think we all need to really pay attention to what's happening with that project and look at what that means, because the neighbors today just learned about this, this very information that I'm sharing with you. The other concern that I have is that there's a big focus on national Western. It's a big project. It's been very important to the city. It generates a lot of money. You know, in January, when oftentimes our sales tax dollars are flat and there are some pretty grandiose plans being looked at for that complex. And I think we as a body will need to be, you know, very thoughtful and careful in looking at what is brought forward, particularly if it is looking at public financing to address how, you know, the new national western is going to look and feel and ensuring that it's not done to the exclusion of things that the neighborhoods have fought for in the neighborhood, plans for Globeville and for Swansea and Elyria to ensure that there's some balance between what happens with National Western and whatever that new look is and the needs of these neighborhoods, and that they not be short changed. And I just want to assure you that that's one of the things that I will work very hard at and ensure that, you know. As a city, we're trying to do our collective part to address that balance between all of the needs in this quadrant of the city. So, again, congratulations to all of you for the hard work that you've put into this. Now, the real work begins in in terms of the implementation, and I'm just committed to continuing to work with your community and helping to ensure that the implementation will will follow. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman, are there any other comments from members of Council c none. Madam Secretary. Rocco Monteiro. I. Nevett i. Ortega Rob Shepherd. Sussman. Brooks. Hi. Brown. Hi, Fats. I can each. Layman. Hi. Mr. President. Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close the voting venue, announce the results. 12 Ice. 12 Ice. 971 has been placed on final consideration and does pass. No other business before this body. This meeting is adjourned. Denver eight TV. Your city. Your source. Denver. Eight on TV and online. Stay connected to your community, your city, your source. You are watching Denver. Eight TV's Your City, your source.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 8504 East Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and 2962 North Central Park Boulevard in Stapleton. Rezones property located at 8504 East Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and 2962 North Central Park Boulevard from C-MU-20 to M-RX-5A (commercial, mixed-use to master planned, residential, mixed-use) in Council District 8. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 5-23-17.

DenverCityCouncil_07242017_17-0565

And please refrain from obscene or and direct your comments to members of Council Hall and refrain from individual and personal attacks. Councilman New, will you now put Council Bill 565 on the floor. And move the Council Belfast three to be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved in second it. Public hearing for council 565 is now open. We have staff report. Scott Robinson thank you, Mr. President. And Council. Scott Robinson with community planning and Development. This is a request to rezone 8504 East Martin Luther King Junior Boulevard and 2962 North Central Park Boulevard from CMU. 22 rx5a property is located in Council District eight in the Stapleton neighborhood at the corner of MLK Boulevard and Central Park Boulevard, also bounded by Willow Street and 29th place. It's across an Oak Boulevard from Central Park. The property is about three acres and is currently vacant. The applicant is requesting the rezoning to develop the property. The requested rezoning is from C 20, which is an old code. Former Chapter 59 Zoning of commercial mixed use to mrx5a which is the master plan. Neighborhood Context residential mixed use five storey maximum height. The next master plan in context is a bit unusual. We don't see a lot of it, but it's allowed in areas that have a general development plan of at least 50 acres and on sites that are more than a quarter mile away from a transit station. As mentioned, it's a residential mixed use, which Will has up to five stories with a wide range of building forms and uses. As mentioned, the property is governed by a general development plan, the Stapleton Redevelopment South General Development Plan, which calls for mixed use development neighborhoods which incorporate multiple uses. And includes urban design standards and guidelines. As mentioned, the site is currently zoned c 20 as is the property to the west. Properties to the south and east are zoned r m 30 with waivers that residential mixed use and to the north is again Central Park, which is zoned open space. The reason this property was not resumed in 2010 was because at the time it looked like it was part of a plan. Building group and properties that were part of planned building groups were not resound in 2010 to the new code. However, upon closer examination, while this property was going through this current rezoning, we realized it was not actually included in that building group. So it's not part of the plan building group. But that's why it was not resolved in 2010. As mentioned, the site is currently vacant and to the north is the park. On the other three sides are residential mix of single-family, duplex and townhomes. You can see in the pictures here, the currently vacant property there in the center, the park above that, and then a variety of residential around it. This application went to the planning board on May 3rd, where it was recommended for approval by a 5 to 4 vote. There are also four members of the public there that spoke about it went to the Land Use Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on May 23rd and has received 18 letters of public comment as of. Thursday morning, which you have included in your packet. In order to approve a rezoning, the city must find that these five criteria are met. The first criterion is consistency with adopted plans. There are three plans that apply to this property. The first being comprehensive plan 2000, as described in the staff report. Staff has found that the proposed rezoning complies with the four strategies listed here, mostly having to do with promoting mixed use development. The next plan is Blueprint Denver from 2000 to the proposed future concept plan to use and for this property in Blueprint. Denver is single family residential, which calls for predominantly single family homes and density less than ten units per acre, but does allow for some employment and some variety in housing types. So we're looking at just this individual. BLOCK The proposed zoning does not match up with the the proposed future land use, but we're looking at the much larger single family residential area within Stapleton and accounting for that allowed variety and variability within that staff with the proposed zoning could be consistent with that land use designation. This is also an area of change. Blueprint. Denver also includes street classifications. Both Martin Luther King Junior Boulevard and Central Park Boulevard are designated mixed use arterials, which call for higher intensity and mix of uses along them. Both 29th Place and Willow Street are designated locales which are intended to serve as access connecting individual properties to larger streets. Blueprint. Denver also includes specific recommendations for the Stapleton area that calls for a network of urban villages within Stapleton and mixed use development to reduce the number of trips and life of trips taken. So considering the land use concept calling for single family, but the streets calling for mixed use development and the recommendations for the Stapleton area , Steph believes that the proposed zoning is consistent with the Blueprint Denver recommendations. The third plan is the Stapleton Development Plan from 1995. This property is in District two of that plan, which calls for predominantly employment with some residential areas adjacent to parks similar to the site. It also calls for higher densities, more intense development at intersections such as this one, and call specifically for higher density housing at Yosemite, which as it was developed, ended up being Central Park Boulevard and what's now Central Park. So the site we're talking about right now. So we're looking at the overall plan direction from Blueprint and from the Stapleton development. Seems to be some inconsistency, some calling for single family residential, some calling for higher intensity and employment. And Steph believes that the M or s5a is an adequate compromise of those different plan directions. And so finds that. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the adopted plans. The second criterion is uniformity of district regulations. Steph has found that the proposed rezoning will result in the uniform application of the Matrix five zone district. The third criterion is to further the public health, safety and general welfare of the city. Staff has found that the proposed rezoning will do so by implementing the city's adaptive plans and allow and facilitating the development of a currently vacant parcel. The fourth criterion is justifying circumstances. Staff has found that the proposed rezoning is justified by the current development of Stapleton. Stapleton has not significantly since this property was initially zoned in the nineties and given the nature of the development steps from the proposed rezoning from CMU to 20, a commercial mixed use to AMR X5, a residential mixed use is justified. And the fifth criterion is consistency with neighborhood context, zone, district purpose and intent. Staff finds that the proposed marks five eight zone districts will allow development consistent with the description of the master plan, neighborhood context and the metrics for the purpose and intent as described in the zoning code so that staff finds that all five criteria are met and recommends approval. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Scott. All right. This evening, we have 20 speakers and I'm going to call the first five speakers and I'm going to ask the folks in the front row if you could find a seat back here, because we're going to use this front row for the speakers to sit. And it's got that and that includes you. Okay. Call the first five speakers up. Bruce O'Donnell. Jim Christman. John Van Hoff. Sekou and Suzanne. Shuttle Challenger. Sorry about that. Bruce O'Donnell, you are first. Actually. Do you mind if I. I'm Jim Christian of Forest City. And we talked about maybe maybe going first. That's okay. Um, we have an order in which we can do things, if that's okay. Thank you. Go ahead. Okay. Thank you. Good evening, Mr. President. Members of council. My name is Bruce O'Donnell, and I'm at 770 Sherman Street in Denver, Colorado. I'm a representative for Forest City Stapleton on this rezoning, this site, which is currently zoned CMU 20, which is left over from the old Chapter 59 code, has always been zoned for mixed density MIT pardon me, mid density, mixed use development. Ever since the former Stapleton Airport closed in the first zoning was put on it in 1999. It's been zoned CMU 20. The current CMU 20 zoning does not limit building heights, and it is for air or floor area ratio driven zoned district as opposed to a form base district like is in our current code and like will be in the mrx5a as such today it's a use by right that 132,000 square feet of building could be developed on this site, including a wide range of commercial uses. And in fact, as you can see in the packet that was provided to you, there's been a sign on the property you might notice for ten years now that this is a future high density, mixed use site, development site. Pardon me. The rezoning request before you this evening will allow similar type development as is allowed today to occur on the property with the following important differences. One Unlike the current zoning building heights are limited to five storeys with the more x5a. As I mentioned, the CMU 20 does not have a building height limitation. Unlike the current zoning, commercial uses are limited to only be allowed on the ground floor in the new zoning and in the CMU 20 commercial could be on every floor . And then in addition, and importantly, far fewer commercial uses are allowed in the Mar x five, which is predominantly a residential mixed use district. In addition to all of that, in in response to neighborhood input, the applicant for City Stapleton has voluntarily offered and agreed to limit building heights to three stories along the east and south. Portions of the property adjacent to where there is existing development today in that offer is in response to input heard from nearby residents. Four City is firmly committed to continuing its partnership with the city and the community to responsibly develop all of Stapleton and to implement the Stapleton Development Plan in May. X5, combined with this voluntary height limitation, is the right zoning in the best zoning to foster the quality development for a city envisions finishing out the development of Stapleton with for these reasons and also for consistency with the staff report recommending approval and planning board recommending approval. I formally request the planning or excuse me the City Council vote to approve map amending application 2016 i0011 to rezoning 8504 East MLK Boulevard and 2962 Boulevard from See Me 25. Thank you. You on time and sorry we did not have your time up there. Mr. Jim Christman. Yes. Thank you. My name is Jim Christman. I'm a senior vice president with four city Stapleton, just 7351 East 29th Avenue and Denver 80238. I'd just like to reiterate a couple of the things you've already heard. I think there are important points. The first is this is consistent with the master plan for state plan that was adopted over 20 years ago as an amendment to the comprehensive plan. There's very specific language in that plan that calls out for higher density housing into two places one adjacent arterials and two adjacent to large scale amenities. Parks like Central Park. So knowing that that was always the plan when the infrastructure for Stapleton was designed, it was designed with the. Understanding that the trip count on this corner could be what it would be with the zoning. So the Central Park Boulevard and MLK have the capacity to handle any trips that are generated from this this project. The Bruce mentioned some of the uses under the current zoning that wouldn't be allowable under the new zoning. And I'll give you a few examples of that. Any type of manufacturing facility is allowable under CMU 20th building could have a single storey 135,000 foot manufacturing facility. Would we do that now but in the future? You know, you never know what might happen. Gas stations are also allowable as well as recycling collection facilities. Just to give another example and then again, we heard, you know, we did we did have some interface with the neighborhoods. We did hear their concerns. And we're trying to address their concern by offering a step by step back the building height immediately to the single family homes from three stories to five to manage the transition and to move across the street to three. And then when you get further into the project and up against the major arterials, it would go to five. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Christmann. John Van. I asked Scott if I could. Good evening. My name is John Van Hoff. I reside at 8542 East 29th place, just south of the area. In consideration this time, I would like to ask those in the audience and opposition to this matter to raise their hands for a few seconds. Within 200 feet of this site, there are 40 to 45 homes. I would appreciate if you could focus on the pictures of our homes, on your monitor as we speak. Since mid April, the biggest problem with the application has been that Forest City does not have a developer or a site plan. In light thereof. We have to assume the worst under the proposed zoning. That being a five story apartment condo building, first floor commercial, and the associated traffic, parking and safety concerns. Forest City originally told the neighbors that the site would contain 130 to 150 units. By June that had increased to 225 units. And to make things worse, it appears that the neighbors have little or no say in the permitting process. A massive five storey structure consuming the entire three acre site does not fit into the surrounding neighborhood of some 40 single family homes, paired homes and townhomes. I should also note that from All-Star Street to Havana, some 24 blocks, there are only one, two and three storey residences. I should also note that from Ulster East Bridge, some 20 blocks, there is no commercial except for Punchbowl. While appreciating Scott helping me to understand the very complicated zoning process. Thanks, Scott. I cannot agree with him and CPD that the proposed zoning meets all five review criteria. Specifically, we feel that the proposed zoned district does not further the public health, safety and welfare, and secondly, that it is not consistent with the neighborhood context. In brief, putting a five storey building on this site is totally incompatible with the neighborhood. There is already excessive traffic on MLK and CPB, plus extreme congestion at the intersection due to that congestion, entrances and exits to the complex problem. We will probably be on our side streets that would be unsafe for the neighbors. In conclusion, I would ask that you consider the information I and my neighbors are presenting and reject the proposed zoning for not furthering the public health, safety and welfare and not being consistent with the neighborhood context. If additional traffic safety data is needed, I suggest a postponement until a traffic study can be done. However, if you disagree with a neighbor's position and desire to approve the request, then we ask that you approved with conditions, and those conditions should address those concerns expressed by the neighbors this evening. I thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you. Must have enough scoop. Yes. My name is Chairman Sekou. I'm the founder organizer for the Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense. We come before council today to support this zoning change. And we come to support the zoning zoning change but certain. Conditions. Which have been outlined by the previous speakers who were opposed to this zoning change. Now. We already know how this thing is going to go down. Council was going to approve this zoning change. You're going to do it. It wouldn't get to the floor if you didn't have the votes. So consider a president. Seriously. The opposition. Conditions because we have a serious problem with these developers in our neighborhood, particularly when it pertains to black people. See there's going to be a lot of jobs available with all this construction done in Stapleton, but there's an abysmal record of black participation on these sites. You go by them sites, you don't see no black folks working. None. Not one even holding a stop sign. And then you come before council with these glorious plans, systematically excluding black people from participating in the benefits that are happening in the city. So the question becomes political courage. Now these sites have to be overseen by city council as this developed. Otherwise, we have a systematic participation of city council and excluding black participation and employment within the city. And so we're faced with the challenge of not looking the other way. Now, Dr. King once said that there comes a time when things have to be done that aren't necessarily. Comfortable. And they're not necessarily politically expedient and they're the right thing to do. And so he said in 1957, you show me a man and woman who has nothing they're willing to fight for. They are not fit to live. Go out to City Park and read his statue. So where do we go from here? Can we go from chaos or do we go to community? So I'm supporting this measure with these conditions. So folks are real clear. We have some serious, serious work to do. And I salute city council for being present here with the existing members and also those that have been here for a while this cycle. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Suzanne Chandler. I have to break this down. Thank you very much. Good evening, everybody. And I do want to just preface everything I say. The plan for Stapleton was made 20 years ago. Things have changed in Denver, so. I am in favor of developing the parcel MLK Boulevard and Central Park boulevards, but development to be useful and successful should be intelligent, appropriate and compassionate, and should be in harmony with the surrounding neighborhood. The tio d plan only a half a mile from this site is everything it ought to be to enhance the neighborhood, a vibrant, urban style enclave anchored around a transit hub providing for retail. Housing and office. Space. This parcel under consideration here has none of those qualifications positioned at a notoriously congested, fast moving and hazardous intersection site of numerous accidents. The proposed project is a behemoth of 225 one and two bedroom units with ground floor retail. This will add hundreds of new residents, visitors and their cars to the residential area. Additionally, the heavy traffic on the boulevards will force all this added traffic from the proposed complex, as well as delivery trucks serving the retail spaces onto Willow Street and 29th place. Changing the nature of the residential neighborhood and creating a formidable safety risk to the citizens, children, parents and grandparents who bike, walk, jog and stroll. I urge you implore you to be good neighbors and reject any proposed zoning that allows for development not compatible with the scale and character of the existing neighborhood currently and solidly made up of townhomes, paired and single family homes. Please, all council women and men be good neighbors and preserve the integrity of our neighborhood and the safety of all its residents by voting against misguided and reckless zoning choices. I thank you. Ma'am. Can you state your name for the record, please? Excuse me. You didn't state your name at the beginning and you stated for the record. State my name. Yes. I'm sorry. Suzanne Challinor. I live at 85, 61 East 29th Avenue. Thank you, Miss Gellar. Thank you. Appreciate it. Okay, now I'm going to call the next five. No, Lawrence. Judy Bolen. Robin. I'm sorry if I mispronounce your name. Krakowski. Jane Warner. Let's see. One, two, three. And one more, Laura, Twitter. No. Lawrence, your first. Hi. I'm Noel Lawrence and I live in Denver and my address is 8462 East 29th Place. I reside to the south of the property in question. And it's a. Suburban courtyards and. Beyond the fact that it doesn't really make sense for. The location in terms of having a huge apartment complex by the hour, suburban homes. It really is a traffic and safety issue because as it appears as though what would happen is the curb cuts or entrances and exits would go in on Willow and on 29th place, which are side streets and very small side streets, actually. And. My children and other people's children play on the garden courtyard and. This really would decrease the safety of our children and of us having these be the cut ins where they're they would probably end up paying. And the Son community organization in Stapleton has voiced their concerns, too, about regarding the safety. In a letter that they sent to council. And again, it's not appropriate for the setting. There's this huge Todd development that's going to go on down the street at the where the light rail is. And so. That's really where these kind of buildings belong. And for city has plenty of space to make piles of money and. You have their commercial development. But again, it doesn't make sense at this intersection. Thank you for considering the negative impact that this will have on our community. And. Please. Please vote no. Thank you. LAWRENCE Thank you. All right. Judy Berlin. Oh, that's me. I'm Judy Bulow. I'm at 8461 East 29th Avenue. Sorry about that. Which is, again, south of the lot we're talking about. We brought our home 11 years ago, and we're promised a certain measure of light, openness and livability. We're kind of like the tumbleweeds that were coming down the sidewalk in the streets, but the tumbleweeds are gone. But I'm afraid with this apartment complex that our way of life is threatened. And the people who live across from the apartment that they're talking about, their way of life is threatened to. I have two main concerns. One is the more traffic, more accidents. The traffic is unbearable right now. There's people speeding. There are people going through red lights. I can't even imagine what it would be like with an apartment complex. And also, the punchbowl is going to be open soon. And that's where the tower, the repurposing of the tower, the tower that's still there. And that is like an amusement center. It's a bar. It's a bowling alley. It's going to have a lot of people in there. And that's going to increase the traffic, too, because they want families during the day. They want drinkers at night till one or two in the morning. Um. Let's see. Okay. I also have noticed school kids, walkers, couples, bikers, joggers, families, runners, cats and dogs and other varieties of animals using Central Park and Martin Luther King for their routes. I can't even imagine what an apartment complex would do to all of us who live close to their apartment. Complexes, by their nature, are busy and transitional at best, with dwellers coming and going, visiting, moving in, moving out on 20 place, 29th place and Willow, both of which are very narrow streets. Homes are a little different. We already have a boatload of apartments on Martin Luther King. We have apartments coming in, as the other man suggested. Down by the train center. Is Stapleton going to be an apartment complexes? The whole thing going to be apartments? I feel like it is. Well, let's see. What why do we need more apartments? Why here in this little place, this vacant lot? Why now? I also wonder, is this building complex? We're doing this duty for our homes, not to mention the quality of this man. Excuse me. You're out of time. I know. Yeah, I know. You're out of time. My question is to finish. Why don't we know you really. You really have to. You have to sit down because we have to honor everybody else. People. Thank you. We have to honor everybody else's time. Thank you. Good points. Okay, Robin. Crack down, ski. I'm sorry. Oh, did I? Good job. Come on. Thank you. Members of the council president. Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to address you. My name is Robin Krakowski, and I've lived in Colorado in Stapleton for five and a half years. Although I currently live in Bluff Lake, I lived in the neighborhood adjacent to the lot in question for a couple of years. Coming from the East Coast. What I love most about Stapleton is the thoughtful and deliberate attention that's been given to the development of each neighborhood. And each little neighborhood within each few blocks clearly have a different feel and atmosphere. So it is beyond any understanding why this parcel of land would be treated differently and not be developed to match the surrounding neighborhood of residents as. A large five five story complex apartment does not fit. I am in and by this neighborhood on a daily basis. This intersection is one of, if not the busiest in Stapleton. Adding additional high density and high traffic. Activity to this. Location seems reckless. Punchbowl Social across the street, a men's development at the transit center and the expansion of MLK in the Central Park Bridge. All will increase activity dramatically to this location. And that's not to mention what already occurs with the park right there. Retail options already exist for this neighborhood. The 29th Avenue Town Center, Stanley Market Place and East Bridge are less than a mile with much more to come at the transit center. We don't need more restaurants, liquor stores, dry cleaners, or work out places, especially right here. I encourage the Council to only entertain a zoning that would allow for one, two and three level homes, townhomes and condos. I don't believe that any other decision is reasonable or appropriate. Thank you again for the opportunity to speak. Thank you, Mr. Krakowski. All right, Jane Warner. Members of council. Good evening. My name is Jane Warner and I reside at 2962 Willow Street in Denver, just east of the lot proposed for rezoning. I have lived at this address for 11 years. As I stated in my letter to council, we always knew that that lot would be developed, but we expected that it would be something that would fit in with the neighborhood, homes and surroundings, because that's what we were told. There are issues I am concerned about with the rezoning of this lot to more of a changing the character of the neighborhood parking, etc.. But the main concern I want to address tonight is this the corner of MLK and Central Park Boulevard is already an extremely busy intersection. Or as Tom Gleason from Forest City says, main arterial, main street to Main Street. The traffic has increased greatly in the last 11 years and is only going to get worse. Things like the extension of MLK, the expansion of the Bridge, the Punchbowl Social, of which Mr. Thompson described the development as part art, part science and the sciences. The great demographics of the Stapleton area, including its proximity of Interstate 70, which could make it not only a neighborhood draw, but a potential regional destination. I understand it's his business, but for that corner, more traffic. Because Central Park Boulevard and MLK is a main arterial with a lot of traffic, cars, people, pets, lots of accidents and a lot of near misses. And the city's usual requirement that prevents traffic entrance from the main arteries. Chances are that the entrances to this lot and the exits would be on Willow and 29th place. This would really increase the traffic on Willow, which is an already busy street, especially when there are events at the park. Holidays like Halloween and then add to the potential of 200 plus apartments and their tenants. With this increase in people in traffic, safety becomes the most utmost priority. There are times when our milk is like a raceway. Then cars turn onto willow and drive in the same manner. And we don't want to have another injury fatality like the one years ago on Central Park and 29th. In closing, I know that Mr. Gleason has said that Denver has said that putting the high density structures at major arterials is the way to go, but it's not necessarily the right thing in the end. Once for a city sells the remaining lots and Stapleton, they will be gone to develop other areas and our neighborhoods will be here 24 seven and we need to protect them and especially the people who live here. Therefore, I am asking you to consider opposing this rezoning and encourage Barr City to resubmit for MH three zoning. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Miss Warner. All right. Laura Tweedle. Good evening, President and members of council. My name is Laura Tuttle. I reside at eight, six, six three East 29th place. When I bought my home in July of 2007, I was told that that lot would be filled with single family homes, period homes and townhouses, which was taken under consideration when we made the decision to move to Stapleton. Now, ten years later, I'm being told that it's just been three rezone and filled with an apartment building that could be up to five stories tall. I've been living in this area for ten years. When I moved to Stapleton. Ten years ago, there were 6500 people that lived there. Now there's 74,000. You can imagine the traffic and Central Park and MLK. I've said it that way at 5:00 through at least three lights trying to get through that intersection. That's without any additional housing right now. It's bad enough as it is with the additional with all the people that live there. Then when the punchbowl is finished, I can discern about what the traffic will be like. In addition to the safety factors, as Jane mentioned, there was a death a few years ago at 29th and Central Park. There could be another one, and I wouldn't be surprised if there was because of the way people raced through there and then they turn off of MLK onto Willow and continue to race. I've seen people fly through there at 40, 45 miles an hour. I'm sure there's other things to be done about that, but I am very concerned about what would be built there. I'm opposed to the bill and I would like to see more residential, more single family homes, paired homes and townhouses. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Wade. Donna Davis. Good evening, councilmembers. My name is Donna Davis. I live at 8600 East 29th Avenue. Denver 80238. I moved into this address in 2003. There was nothing to the north of us. It was vacant fields all the way to Dick's Sports Arena. I live right on the southeast corner of Willow and 29th Avenue. Over the past 14 years, my husband and I have witnessed the growth in our neighborhood, and we have supported every ballot issue to build schools, improve infrastructure. We support the growth of Stapleton. However, we do not support the high density growth in this area. We are opposed to rezoning of this high density area for three reasons. Parking. The increased traffic to the neighborhood and safety and security concerns. Currently overflow parking from events that occur at Central Park. They park on Willow Street and Willow is a narrow residential street. So you add more cars from the apartment complex to that and it will increase the congestion in that area even more. The traffic. We've already talked to a lot of folks have talked about the traffic in the area, but they haven't really talked about the Willow Street traffic that's currently occurring. We have a lot of busses that travel from north to south on Willow, because they go to the Westerly Creek. We have parents drive down Willow Street to drop their kids off at Westerly Creek. And we also have a lot of kids on bikes and walking to school. Adding 300 cars or are associated with this apartment building would impact that walkability bike ability neighborhood that we all bought into. I have safety concerns about the crime and theft that's happening in our area and with the transit community that lives in these high density apartments. I am concerned for the safety of our homes. So I ask you to oppose this bill. Thank you, Ms.. Davis. All right. I'm going to call the next five. Evan Melman. Leonard Spaghetti. David Robbins. Let's see. Leslie Lockhart. One more. Kara Kuzma. All right, Evan Melman, your first. Good evening, city council members. My name is Evan Millman and I live in Stapleton one block from the parcel in question. I'm an 8560 East 29th Avenue. First, I want to thank all of you for the work you do on our behalf. And I really want to thank Chris Herndon for being extremely responsive when I reached out to him to inquire about this process. I also reached out to Jim Christman and city planner Scott Robinson, also both very responsive. So I appreciate that. But I strongly oppose the rezoning application because although it seems like it might offer more residential options than the current zoning, the intended use that Jim Christman shared with me that we've been talking about tonight just doesn't fit the character of the community. And, you know, very simply, I don't know if I have anything new to add from what you've already heard, but it just to add 300 or more additional people on a three acre parcel in what is an entirely residential single family townhome community just will change the what it means to live there for the worse. And I think that the negative effects outweigh whatever positive benefits might be there for putting this amount of people in that space out of character of the neighborhood. There are five storey condo buildings in Stapleton. There's one being completed at 29th and Rosslyn, but that's the other end of Stapleton. There's existing buildings that match it that are already there. So people that live there are already on notice. The market's adjusted for it. And so in keeping with the immediate surrounding neighborhood, you know that real estate's local and it's very local within a couple of streets is what determines what it's like to live in your neighborhood. So if you go east down 29th to where this is, this parcel, it's a much different residential character. It's reasonable to develop the parcel. It's just unreasonable to develop it in a way that single handedly increases the population density, traffic, parking, congestion, so much so that it negatively impacts what it's like to live near it. Let me be clear. My objection is to the sheer number of additional people the development would add to the immediate surrounding neighborhood, regardless of the income, ethnicity, age, or any other characteristic of those people. I welcome responsible urban development in keeping with the immediate surrounding community, such as townhomes, income, qualified homes, single homes, even condos and apartments . Just fewer of them. I went and counted how many townhouses you could fit on this parcel, and by my estimate, you could put 46 townhomes that match townhomes across the street. If you did that, instead of 275 additional bedrooms, which is just one way to talk about this, you'd be adding 138 additional bedrooms. So there's still room to increase the residential character of that parcel. Much more in keeping with the neighborhood in a way that allows more people to move in without it changing the nature of living a block away. So I urge you to consider this application as though you lived a block away and ask yourself if you want to wake up the next day with 300 new neighbors. I respectfully request that you deny the zoning application. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mellman. Leonard a. Good evening. Thank you. My name is Leonard Segreto. I live at 1994, Martin Luther King Boulevard. I'm not here to oppose the rezoning. I would hate to see this property continue as a commercial property. It could be much worse. Then the zoning. That exists or the proposed. Plan for this property. I am opposed, however, for the many reasons that you've already heard. For the development of this property and the proposed development of this property. The. The area is very, very congested already. We don't need more multi-family homes in this area. Thanks. I yield my time. Thank you, Mr. Spaghetti, for yielding time. David Robbins. Really mean. President Brooks, members of the council, thank you very much for listening to us tonight. We appreciate your service to the city and understand sometimes you have to make hard decisions. I'm speaking on behalf of my wife and myself alone, a period home at 2958 Willow Street. We've owned that home for ten years. That's across from the subject property on Willow. We would ask you to oppose the proposed action that is before you tonight. We we really oppose a five story structure, five storeys at any location on this lot. When you look at the pictures that were. Provided by your. Staff, you can see that on four sides of this proposed structure, there is a city park and there are a whole group of single family duplex, parent home structures as well as townhome structures. A five story building, five stories at any point is both inconsistent and inappropriate at this location for a city has done a good job of developing the Stapleton community. There's no question about it. But as development winds to a close, I hate to see them seeking to maximize their financial returns on the backs of this neighborhood. A five story building with commercial. Where will the tenants and the employees park? They certainly are not going to park in parking constructed below ground, but for a city that they have to pay for. They can't afford to pay rent in a building as well as parking fees. So they'll park in the neighborhood, changing the character of the community for several blocks around. And where will access occur. You've heard from. Several of the speakers. Tonight that both Martin Luther King Boulevard and Central Park. Boulevard are major. Arterials in this part of the city. Traffic moves quickly. Traffic has high volumes at the intersection of those two streets. We have lanes that are. Designed to allow traffic. To accelerate or decelerate before making turns. It's unlikely that your traffic department is going to allow significant access into this parcel off of those sorts of streets. It just will create enormous confusion and congestion. So they will have to get into this space off of Willow and 29th to streets that are absolutely not designed, set up to manage that kind of commercial traffic. Therefore, we ask each of you to vote no. On this proposed agenda. Item and to support this community. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you, Mr. Robins. Lesley Lockhart. Hello. My name is Leslie Lou Card, and I am here tonight seeking to be educated about the development that has been in The Buzz. I live at 9074 MLK, which is just down from this proposed area. And I would like to speak in solidarity with the people who live on Willow and 29th and are objecting to a development of this size and scope at that location. For the same reasons, I feel there will be a significant change to the character of what's currently a wonderful neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you. Carol Kuzma. Hi. I'm Cara Katzmaier. I live at eight, six, five, four. Martin Luther King Junior Boulevard, about six doors east of Willow. And the lot in question. I'd rather be at home in my pajamas right now after a long workday, but I thought that this was important to come and talk about. I've lived on MLK for three and a half years, and in that time I've observed a glut of traffic both on MLK and Central Park. You guys are probably noticing a theme, seeing as they are the only real arteries through Stapleton. That should come as no surprise. For a city built a suburban neighborhood of quiet, single family homes bordered by higher density townhomes, primarily on these two main thoroughfares, with some commercial mixed in around the edges of the neighborhoods. By insulating the rest of the neighborhood from through, traffic planners have created a problematic high traffic zone, including high speeds, driving past residences and the park where our children play. I'm often nearly rear ended in the right turn lane so only right turn off of MLK onto Willow. When and often when pulling into the frontage road that the go in front of the townhomes on MLK. In my view, to add the potential of up to four stories of residential and a story of commercial at the intersection of these two arteries will tip the balance from a neighborhood community feel to a congested blight. Simply put, it's not why I chose to live in Stapleton while finalizing plans for developing this rezoning, presumably being a part of that. You must also view it within the context of the offer of the other nearby projects, of which there are a number. And while I hope they augment the neighborhood, they will undoubtedly add a lot of people in cars. Well, I purchased my home knowing it was on a busy corridor. I'm stunned to see the advancement of large scale development that doesn't quite fit the neighborhood. When it's placed on the edges of the neighborhood, it makes some sense and seems to have community acceptance. But I'm having trouble accepting the idea of it being in the virtual center of our community, surrounded primarily by homeowners. The scale of whatever development is built on that lot needs to be consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Kuzma. I'm going to bring up Mr. Mr. Robbins one more time. You just need to state your name for the record. You didn't get a chance to state your name. Mr. Kelly. Council President. I apologize. No, that's okay. Mr. David Robb It's great. And it's a fine, fine mustache you got there. All right, the next four individuals, uh, Eric Stanley, this is the last for Barry McDermott, Kim KENYON and John. Sure. Sure. Sure. Okay. Sorry about that, sir. Please correct me when you come up here. Eric Stanley, you're first. All right. Thank you, Mr. President. And Counsel. My concerns have been expressed by a lot of neighbors here. My name is Eric Stanley. I live at 8452 East 29th place, just south of the proposed lot. My concerns have been expressed by a lot of the neighbors here, and I thank them all for taking the time to do this. I just want to add a personal story. My wife and I bought the bought our house seven months ago when she. Nine months ago when she was seven months pregnant. And the reason that we chose this house over a lot of others is the wonderful courtyard that I believe nine of us neighbors share. We saw kids playing in there the moment that we looked in there. We look forward to my son Nate playing in there with me, whatever he's into. And my main worry is that a development of this size will increase the traffic like you guys have heard from many neighbors along 29th place and along Willow. That's my concern. I know that Denver is growing. I'm a transplant myself. I support growth in Stapleton. It's a wonderful community. We want to have new neighbors. We want to meet a lot more people for our son to play with. But I feel like the proposed development is just too massive in scale for it to remain safe on the streets that are right adjacent to a courtyard in front of our house. Thank you. Thank you. Stanley Berry McDermott. Thank you. Barry McDermott I live at 8604 Martin Luther King Boulevard. My wife and I live right on the corner of Willow and Martin Luther King Boulevard, and we have lived there for about three and a half years, and we certainly know the experience of listening to the traffic rush by our Martin Luther King Boulevard. We also know the difficulties of turning right onto Willow. We have heard the accidents in our living room some evenings. We are not strangers to urban living. We've been in Denver for over 35 years. We lived in Capitol Hill for ten years. We live about ten blocks away from here on Bannock for another 20 years. And when we moved to Stapleton, we moved to Stapleton because of how crowded this part of Denver had gotten for us. And that's that seems to be the big concern is how much more crowded Stapleton will become if this particular unit housing unit is allowed to be developed there. As far as the zoning board goes, many people in here tonight do not agree with the rezoning of it. But I think those same people do not agree with the present zoning of it. And so we feel that that will have to be addressed at some point. Also. But just as a personal note, for three and a half years while I've lived here almost every day of the year, I go for a walk through this neighborhood and I either begin it or ended on the hill across the street from my house in the park. And when I stand on that hill and I look at this lot that we are talking about, for as long as I can see, there is nothing over three stories. And on Sundays I can see pretty far south from that vantage point. And so it is obvious to me, just by standing at that spot every day, that a five storey 200 unit complex on this three acre lot would be totally inappropriate. I also do not buy arguments that this was in the original plan because things have changed and those people who set out in the original plan not to their fault, they do not know what it is like to be in Stapleton right now, what it has become. And so we are asking that you vote no on this request because what is being proposed to be put in this place is not in character with what the neighborhood has become. As far as the president's zoning. It is not a good argument to me to say that a lot worse could be built there, because when that present zoning was given to that piece of land. It also was the wrong and inappropriate thing to zoning it for. So I ask you tonight, as all these people have spoken before me, I ask you to oppose this. And I thank you for listening to all of us. Thank you, Mr. McDermott. Kim KENYON. My name is Kim KENYON and I live at 8704 East MLK Boulevard, which is just a little bit east of the. The the. Open lot. I do want to say that I have really loved what Four City has done. As many other speakers have mentioned before in Stapleton and some of the decisions that that that they have made have been wonderful. But this one, with the potential of this being a five storey building, as everybody else has mentioned, is something that is of great concern. When the building that I live in, based upon the argument that the 1995 plan stated that this should be a specific use. I live in MLK. 8704 MLK, which was never designed to be this because what happened, as all of you know, is that the economy plummeted and there were lots that could not be that nobody would would purchase as developers. And so lots stayed empty and vacant for years until the economy came back up. So actually many different changes have happened based upon need, not directly related to the original plan. For instance, a school was built and it wasn't supposed to be built in that area, but it was built based upon need because there were more children. So basing this on something from 1995 is not a valid argument. The arguments that everybody have made about it shouldn't really be taller than a three storey building. Any of you could drive there and you would agree in the meeting on May 3rd, many of the members of the committee that we that we spoke at in the May 3rd meeting where this was originally proposed, there was a very lengthy conversation and people knew that lot, lot plot of land. And it was that's where this compromise came about of, well, maybe we do three stories on on Will on 29th, and then we do five stories closer to Central Park in MLK . But that's not a zoning you want. Why don't you zone it and you say, yes, it's okay to do this. Then the developers get to do what they want. It's not like you get to say, Well, we're going to go ahead and put in this little agreement. A zoning is a zoning. And so I had asked a member for City why wasn't a request for zoning made for a three storey building? And my understanding is there isn't a zoning specifically for that height, so I don't know if that's accurate or not, but I did want to just mention that the other members that other people that that mentioned all this about retail, there is a lot of retail going in and I don't want us to overbuild Stapleton because we also have a lot of vacancy still in Northfield. We have open spaces in Quebec Square and I'm very we've got some open spaces in the Stanley and I'm very concerned that we're overbuilding retail and then we can't keep those those businesses alive. Thank you very much. Thank you, Miss KENYON. All right. John Swire. Swire Schreyer, Scheuer. Thank you. All right. Thank you. My name is John Scheuer. I live at 8502 East 29th Place. Thank you for giving. Us the opportunity to speak council. We appreciate it. You know, these days you hear a lot about the lack of citizen involvement in our democratic process. Well, I think everybody here tonight has put that their arrest. To me, this rezoning issue boils down to two main points safety and quality of life. If you allow a five storey monstrosity to be built on this site, it will destroy. The fabric of our neighborhood and jeopardize the safety not only, not only of our current residents, but also the residents that we live in that building. Just like. You, we have seen no site. Plan from the applicants. This leaves them wide open. To do as they please. The cutouts to enter and exit. This site will almost. Certainly be on Willow and 29th place. 29th place is a three lane street. Look at the negative impact the Overture. Building has had only a few blocks away. I walk there almost daily. The increased traffic and. Increased parking have made it much less safe. To navigate that area. I have contacted the. Denver Police Department about. The number of accidents at the. CPB. And. MLK intersection. They were gracious enough to tell me that through June 1st there were 17 accidents in 17 months at that intersection. I also think that adding any commercial operations at this site is inappropriate because of the added traffic. On Willow and 29th place. The town center is only 6/10. Of a mile away from this site. East Bridge is 1.2 miles away and the new TOD is 7/10 of a mile away and punchbowl social's diagonal to it. The traffic is only going to get worse when the 399 unit main apartments open soon as also will Punchbowl Social. Add in the million square. Feet of office space. Thousand apartments, 400 condos, 120 room hotel. And 100,000 square feet of. Retail from Todd. Can you imagine what the traffic's going to be like at that intersection then? I've heard proponents of this zoning request. Well, it's a tradition in Denver to build apartment buildings at major arterial intersections and across from parks. That may be the case, but it's time to start a new tradition by listening to the residents still have to live with whatever you allow to be built on that site. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Schreyer. All right. This concludes our speakers. Those who are sitting in the front row can return back to your seat. Mr. Robinson, won't you come up to the front here and questions by members of council. Councilman Herndon. Thing. Mr. President. You can turn on your mike there, Counselor. Thank you, Mr. President. Scott, can you come up? And I'm having John Bear come up to. I don't want to say I don't like the word ringleader, but John and I have had numerous conversations and I just want to talk to him just to ask a couple of questions. Scott, first with you. The neighborhood organization. And John, this is going to be a question for you as well. I love to get your thoughts. So Sun Stable in the United Neighbors is a registered R.A. took a position of neutral and actually you know what I'm going to ask John for this. John, if you would come up. Ken, did you have any conversations with Sun and why they took a position of neutral on this? Because you did go to them and ask them to weigh in on this. It's my understanding when when I met with him in some conversations afterwards is that they heard the concern of the neighbors, and especially as they wrote to the letter today, the concern about the curb cuts not being allowed on Martin Luther King or Central Park, that they really understood the concerns of the neighbors. But it was my understanding that their biggest fear was that the current zoning would allow commercial and they didn't think the commercial was appropriate. Well, of course we agree we agree that commercial is not appropriate on that site. And once again, I don't want to speak for Sony Shame. They're not here to speak for themselves, but that's what I heard. Okay. And so with now, just for you, the industrial uses that could currently happen on the property. So the zoning right now allowing the industrial uses, you are you are comfortable with this rezoning potentially being denied. But the possibility of the industrial uses or other uses currently moving forward or what would be your approach if this rezoning is denied, what would be the next steps? Well, we definitely don't agree that it should be developed under the current zoning. Basically commercial and we have suggested numerous times to include in letters to council that we feel the appropriate zoning and we wish for city since they own it. They're the only ones that can request a rezoning that they go with the mrh3 row home, three storey maximum, which would completely be compatible with the neighborhood, completely compatible with the neighborhood. So but, you know, some can't do it. We can't do it. It's up to four city and and God forbid, we would hope that they would never consider putting the commercial on that site that is permissible under this current zoning which is I don't know how old maybe Scott can administer the current zoning. Thank you, Jonathan. Appreciate that. Scott, could you come up a couple of things I wanted to I heard in the comments, one, I believe it was Kim made the comment about the covenant that the applicant has said they would put on three stories to the south and the east was not solid. So could you just speak to that? If this does pass, would that covenant be mandated? Um. Not necessarily. I don't. I mean, I don't know the state of the Covenant, whether it's has been signed in agreeing to that. But they have can perhaps you can ask the African. That's not a factor in our analysis of the rezoning and it's not something that we know. No. And that I understand. And actually. How about Bruce? Bruce, you can come on Dec since you said that. I'll answer that and that's fine. I understand you're basing it off of just your criteria. Maybe this might be a legal question. We'll get to somebody else, but we'll go to your. Well, let's go to planning board because it was a54 vote. And I think that that's something that should be asked. Question to one. And I don't expect you to speak for the voting members who voted in against and I actually did and I'll talk about that in my comments. But could you give me those sentiments during the planning board, what they what they were saying? Yeah, I think there were only two areas of concern and one was the height. And there was some discussion of some way of getting this step down or step back that's been proposed. So it'd be three stories against the existing neighborhood. And then the other was the the use and the consistency with the adopted plans that the potential for commercial uses may not be consistent with the adopted plans as opposed to a purely residential use. And so in the minutes that I read for the planning board, there was a motion to do a step down. And could you talk to that briefly? Yeah, it was proposed. There was, I think, two areas again, two areas of concern with the proposed condition. One was whether it was appropriate and then the other was enforcement, how planning board could enforce this proposed condition. So it ended up not passing. And so the the vote was based on the application. But I want to make sure my colleagues hear the the the amendment that was voted down was to do a step back of four stories on the south and to the east. Correct. Because that's how when I read the minutes, I want to make sure I am and Bruce, correct me if that's wrong, that that was voted down, but I believe that was the motion that was made, correct? Yeah, that sounds right. I don't have it in front of you. But yes, it was something to that effect. And so. Okay, thank you, Scott, if you want to come up. Is that is that correct? In the minutes that the planning board did a motion to do for story setback to the south and to the east? Yes, I think that's correct. Okay. And then your proposal, you are suggesting even going lower. Three stories to the south. Three stories to the east, correct? Correct. Now. I'm assuming obviously you were you're the applicant for fourth city. I would I would I hate to use the word hope, but if you're going to stand in front of this body and say we're going to do a three story for the south to the east, whether for city chooses to sell a develop the land themselves or sell it to another developer. Will that three story stay in effect? Yes, it will. Okay. Talked about that. Talked on some board. Thank you, Mr. President. Those are my questions. Okay. Thank you, Councilman Herndon. Um, screen just were in Black Oak. Councilman. You are Bruce recently. As, of course. I've heard the proposal go to three stories and did the number of units change? I've heard different stories about how many units? 152 to 52. What is the what is the configuration of the number of units if is reduced to three stories on this portion of the lot? So I should pardon me, I should reiterate that there there isn't a project, there is not a design, there is an attempt to get better zoning on the property than exist today. There's an estimate that under the current zoning, about 135 to 150 units could be built depending on unit mix in parking in the. The estimate on the rezoning would be about 200 to 225. So so there's no effect that you can tell from reducing the heist to three stories on a portion of their life. I would guess there would be less units in total. Yes, but that calculation hasn't been done. Okay. Did you consider condominiums on the side instead of apartments? So the that will be a market driven decision at the time that for city is ready to proceed, it could as easily go for sale as for rent, given that there is some improvement in the construction defense pardon me defects work. At the present time is considered just market rate apartments. There isn't a decision at this time. Okay, maybe the applicant should get out. Maybe that would be helpful. Thank you. Councilman, do you continue to ask the applicant different phenomena? Yep. Can you ask the question about the future where there's condominiums and market rate apartments? What was the plan for the development? It's either or. And, you know, until we actually decide that that property is ready to be developed. We won't be able to gauge excuse me whether we rent or for sale. I can't tell you if it's for if it's a rental product for city will execute it. If it's a condo for sale product, we won't execute it. We'd bring in a third party developer to do it. Okay. In the discussions with the neighborhoods, did you consider a development agreement about this property with the neighborhoods to reach agreements? And we've seen those to be very successful in other areas of the city, and it really brings in the community to have a voice in what you're doing. Well, I think we feel like we we did hear the community's voice. We we had meetings with them. We had several, you know, emails, phone calls, discussions, presentations, the state of the United Neighbors and so on. If we were able to reach an agreement, we would have no objection to putting that in the form of a development agreement. Right. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. Councilman, Councilman Espinosa, first questions for anybody. Did anyone do an analysis of the sort of amassing the bulk the bulk analysis of both the current zoning and the proposed zoning? Okay. So that's where I'm going to be struggling with this. But I have some questions along those lines. First for you, Scott. The step to the mention of the step back. Obviously CPD is of the mindset that the the rx5a is wholly appropriate. So do you would CPD oppose step back's being you know what's the opinion is that CPD is the appropriate is is a step back appropriate or not appropriate in this situation. I don't believe we have any objection to the estate tax, as you said. We've found that the m r x5 a is appropriate and meets the criteria. Okay. I just want to confirm if the applicant wants to voluntarily reduce that or stop that that that's fine. Okay. I just want to confirm that the army throw with waivers is not a protected zone district. Correct. Correct. Even though the waivers in for a city sort of conform the development essentially to the pattern that you now see today, which would be more consistent with a rowhouse in district or a townhouse, some district, you know, or possibly protected zone districts. It is not a protected zone district. Correct. Okay. To a question for the. You know, I do want to just confirm, because I'm a little bit confused by the graphics in the zoning code and you don't have to go to the page, but it is page nine seven, dash 9.7, there's 22. It shows a general building form. I can't see anything about a lot coverage restriction, but the graphic shows a mass, you know, that conforms to the site, you know, the setback and then it shows a surface lot. Is there anything that compels them to to to have a surface lot or could it be under I mean, below parking underneath the structure and and go full setback on each side? Yeah. I'm not 100% familiar with all the requirements, but my understanding is that they could do structured parking. There's nothing that compels them to do a surface parking lot. Okay. Okay. And then the question for the applicant. Or Bruce. It doesn't it doesn't matter. Somebody from the team. How deep is the STEP Act that you're proposing and at what heights do those setbacks occur? I can't. Well, the way that I envision it working. Excuse me. So you the street there be the appearance of a full three storey unit. And I don't know how far that sits back before the unit above it starts. I mean, it's a design question, but it's not it's not two or three or four feet, something inconsequential. It's, you know, it's as if a unit could have been built above that unit and isn't. So whatever the depth of that unit would be, would be that setback. It's too bad you don't have like a sort of definition. That sort of would have been the point where you had negotiated something in a term that you could have presented in a covenant. Because there is a if this were if there's if this had been a relationship of a protected zone district consistent with the current development pattern over there and this rezoning, there are this zone, this section, the zoning code does have step means set up or story setback requirements in the max five of five, 15, 15, 20 and 25 feet in. And I would be that's why I'm asking about the massing study as I would be even curious if that was sufficient or not. And so since Charles, we're talking about a stories, I have no idea what sort of bulk restrictions you're talking about. But what I do know is that this and it's as evidenced by what Bruce O'Donnell just well, actually, that's the first question are you know, Bruce mentioned that it was using the zone district today. It's between 135 and 150 units that you could capture. And then with the rezoning, it would increase to 202 to 25. Are those numbers that are consistent with your understanding of this redevelopment potential? Yes. To the the old zoning code with the 3 to 1 four are restricted in in your own presentation to 130 some odd thousand square feet. With this new zoning code, you increase the development potential by two full floors over the 3 to 1. So it's essentially a 5 to 1 favor, which is how you get that increased increased development potential. That old zoning code, which all of Stapleton was developed, also had an open area, open space requirement and the same exact parking requirement. So this is these are two very, very different things. When we're comparing the old zoning code and there's this discussion about, well, it's not the right, it's that this is somehow better than that. This is more comment. So I guess I am trying to figure out if there's a question f r councilwoman, let's get to some other folks and then we'll come back to you to develop that question. Well, this is one quick question, was, have you guys discussed any use. Restrictions as well. In the covenant or is it simply a setback, require, you know, step back possibility? Well, if we were to sell this to a third party, we'd have retail use restrictions. All the, you know, typical retail uses that people want to see in our neighborhoods. We did it on every deal that we that we do. Other than that, there wouldn't be any. When you were presented with a little bit of opposition from the neighborhood and you clearly heard it because you're responding to it, did you go back to CPD and asked them if there was any way to sort of codify a way to address these concerns? And what was their response, if you did. To address which specific concern do you mean. Height, setback. Parking, any of the sort of metrics of zoning? Well, I mean, I the concern is that they don't want five stories. There's really no way to address that other than, you know, what we what we propose is kind of a, you know, meet your halfway proposal. Okay? The parking the parking will be fully screened from view of all the neighborhoods. The only thing you'll see is the Access Points Center. It'll be a parking structure. The units of either be built on top of it or around it. And it's Europe product or podium product. You're probably familiar with those terms. Great. Well, thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa, Councilwoman Black. Thank you, Mr. President. I first of all, I first of all, want to thank all of you neighbors for being here so late and being so dedicated. So thank you for being here. Most of my questions have been answered. I just have a couple more for the applicant. So if if you develop the property, you're committed to housing, but if you sell it, what else could be developed under the Marques five? Under American life. Yeah. My understanding is it's limited to residential with some ground floor potential for ground floor retail. And if if someone wanted to build townhomes there, could they under that zoned district? I believe they can. Yes. Okay. Thank you. All right. Councilman Flynn. Excuse me. Thank you, Mr. President. Bruce O'Donnell. Under the current zoning. I'm trying to make the numbers work. The number of units that we were talking about under the existing zoning versus the number of units under the requested zone. You get more units under the new zone. Is that correct? Yes, that's potentially. Potentially. Well, I'm confused then, because you've been saying or you were telling us in the handout that the current zoning allows up 6 to 8 storeys. So can you make the numbers for me? So the the current zoning has in air of 1 to 1. Okay. Which means the site's approximately 130,000 square feet. That size building could be built there. They just have a smaller footprint right in. Okay. And so you that that practically you, it'd be hard to go beyond higher than eight storeys because the floors would be too small. Exactly. Okay. Jim Christman, can you describe the parking program? You'd start to get into it with a wrap. Can you tell us how you expect people to access it? Will it be off of Willow and 29th place potentially, or would it be off of the major streets? How do you envision that? Well. I mean, we would support trying to secure access off the major rights of way. But as you know, that's not always easy. So it really be a function of how public works looked at it. Yeah, I think there'll be a. My personal view, there might be opportunities for like a write in, write out off of MLK, sort of certainly no full movement because of the nature of that intersection. Correct? Okay. Is Noel Lawrence still here? Maybe Mr. Schweiker, maybe you could answer was somebody Noel Lawrence said that the son of the R.A. Stapleton United Neighbors had expressed concern and had had a letter. Had sent a letter. I don't have that. Is anybody did anybody up here receive it? I certainly didn't receive it. I would like to see it. It was it was emailed to us, the neighbors, at about 1230 this afternoon, so that maybe that's why you don't have it in your hands. I've got a copy. Okay. Councilman Flynn, I. I got the letter. Okay. Is it if it's digital, could you email? Yes. Thank you. That's almost prison. All right. Thank you. Councilman Flynn, Councilwoman Cannick. Thank you, Mr. President. Question for Jim first, please. I understand you're not sure whether it would be apartments or townhomes or I'm sorry, apartments or condos. But let's just go with the apartment scenario for a second. Can you refresh me what. The overall vision. Or estimated number of apartments was going to be for the Stapleton neighborhood in the original documents that you all. Oh, all of Stapleton. Right. The Green Book. Com for about 3000 multifamily rental units. And where are you at right now with that? So where are we where are you at with that overall number right now? Or about a thousand with another. 500, probably breaking ground within a year. And have you. Are you aware of requests or concerns from, you know, community advisory boards or other groups within Stapleton who've been asking for more apartments and more apartment development? Is that something that's gotten. Yes, there's there's a group that's been asking for more apartments for quite a while. Part of the Citizens Advisory Board. Okay. Thank you. And then I had a question for I don't know if Jane Warner or Laura Tweedle are here. Yeah. If you want to come forward, either one of you. I, too, want to thank the folks who came out tonight. You clearly care a lot about your neighborhood. Both Jane and Laura mentioned something that I want to just follow up on. You both mentioned that you had been told or you were informed that this would be townhomes or or single family homes. I'm wondering about the sign. I just I checked the Google map just to make sure. But the sign that says mixed and high density mixed use site and had you, you know in your ten years have you seen that sign? And more recently there's been a sign posted. But no, there wasn't until six months ago. There hasn't been anything on that lot talked about done with. It's just been a vacant lot for nine and a half years. Okay. Can I just ask follow up with Jim or or Bruce. Whether or not when when the sign was posted about the zoning of this site. I'm just because it's very common. You know, I'm in the neighborhood. Yeah. Yeah. We went through our records and, you know, we keep records of every sign goes and we show the sign being installed ten years ago. So I. I don't have the right answer now. Or like here, believe it. Or not, through the. This perspective. Okay. Okay. Sounds good. And then I guess my last question is just for the the CPD staffer. I know you got asked some questions about this earlier, but I just wanted to put a finer point on it. We have in numerous neighborhoods. Put overlays. On sites to do transitions like this. I think about the Sloan's Lake area in particular. Did you guys have a specific conversation about that or was it that the the interest in that came up so late in the process that it was too late? Yeah, that did not come up until after the planning board hearing. So, you know, we had evaluated the proposal was are either following the planning board hearing I was informed by the applicant that they were then proposing the covenant put in the city. So if if it had been raised earlier. Is there some reason why it wouldn't have been. Considered in the same way at Sloan's? There wasn't it wouldn't have been considered, you know, would have gone through the same evaluation process that any of these proposals would go through. Thank you. No more questions, Mr. President. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman, can each councilman you back up? Scott, I forgot to ask one question. You know, when the rezoning consideration was, was, was taken and this slide was held, you sort of gave started going to be a joint available or something else. This property. I'm sorry. When the rezoning of the latest rezoning code went through in 2010, you said that this property wasn't considered for the rezoning because it was going to be used for an jointly with another property or something like that. It was. We have what are called plan or plan building groups. So I was I had a tool used in the old code to look at larger sites that had multiple buildings on them, and they had generally had special rules applied to them and, you know, agreement among the property owners that those would be kept, too. So in the 2010 rezoning process, we didn't want to try to crack all of those open and and apply the appropriate zoning. So we among other things, we left all of the planned building groups alone in 2010. And the way this was mapped in our system, it looked like it was part of a planned building group. Again, as we were going through this rezoning process, we looked at the actual plan building group document, and it specifically excludes this block. So it includes the properties around it, but not this block. So it's not actually part of the planned building group. But that's why it was not resigned in 2010. All residential zoning around it. Now it included the same CMU 20 zoning that's along MLK to the West. Mm hmm. And it has not been developed. Has it been developed yet? Most of the other blocks to the west have been developed. With what? Immediately to the west is new development that is similar to the other residential areas. It's townhomes and duplexes and single family. And then further to the west is some commercial and some I think there's a senior housing development there and a fire station. West of three stories. Uh, I don't know. Off the top of my head at all. Yeah, that's somewhere in there. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right, Councilman Clark. Thank you, Mr. President. Scott, if you could. I'm going to buzz through some of these. And if some of those if you want to pass off the torch, let me know. But I'm just trying to understand the changes between what is the existing zoning that could be built on right now with no city council or neighborhood involvement and the proposed zoning. So current zoning 135, 150 units, new 200 to 225. That's what I've been told. We haven't done that calculation. So that comes from the applicant. Can you just confirm that one? Why don't I try to put some color on that? So a typical mix of one bedroom and two bedrooms. The average unit size, an apartment project will be about a thousand feet. So there's 135,000 feet of FDR that can be constructed under existing zoning. And therefore, that's where you get about 135 units. The five story building is going to either be a rap product or a podium product. And those those densities generally range from about 7 to 8 units per acre. So it's 210 to 240. But now then so estimate take maybe ten or 15% off of that for the the setback that we're that we're offering up. And that gets us to that, you know, 210 range. And then height, I think, versus a maximum realistic height on the current zoning is eight. Well, there's no there there is no there's no legal maximum height. There's a practical maximum height. You can build 135,000 feet. So for an office building, for example, they could have a 25,000 square foot, you know, floor plate. That's a five and a half. Five six storey office building, a condo building that may have a 10,000 square foot footprint, maybe only four units per floor that can go up to 13 stories. On the current zoning. It sounds like townhomes and single family are allowed because there's adjacent with the same. So it could be developed as townhomes and single family on the current zoning. Yes. And on the new zoning. Townhomes and single family both also a level. Yes. Development. And then one more time, we started talking about uses new zoning, limits it to residential. Maybe it could be fully residential or it could be residential with ground floor retail, but that's pretty much the use table on the current zoning. You'd mentioned gas stations or recycling collection. Walk me through some of the current allowable uses. Well, I mean, it's called commercial mixed use 20. So it's predominantly was intended to be commercial type of uses. And then a lot of those are, you know, would be acceptable on that site. But I just picked the three or four that, you know, I think people would have objections to. And there's some others as well. I can't remember off the top of my head, unfortunately. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. All right. Thank you. Councilman Clarke, Councilman Espinosa, Skip, you can get to these other folks. Uh, Councilwoman Sussman. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Councilman Clark, you were going where I wanted to go to, but let me just sort of help make it even clearer. Scott, I'd like to ask you a question. So this old zoning, CMU 20, is used by. Right. If they sold this property to somebody who wanted to keep that zoning, they would not have to do anything like come to the city or come to the council, or they would just be able to build this 135,000 square foot building. Of industrial use, right? Yeah. They would just have to go through our standard site development plan and building permitting process, which is all administrative. So they would not have to come back before you were planning board or anyone. Right. I wasn't sure that the members of the community realized that that it would be used by. Right. Thank you very much. Thank you. Also. Councilwoman Sussman. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to ask Bruce if you can come forward. So I'm trying to focus more on the macro level and the micro level in terms of the. Eight acres that were originally earmarked for Stapleton for affordable housing. Have all those sites been developed so far? And where does this fall into that scheme of the eight acres that were set aside for affordability? Can someone answer that question? Do you? If it's not you, Bruce. Sorry. Of course. And no, I don't believe the edict. I don't know what portion of the eight acres has been developed. I know that between what's been developed and what will be with that sites aside for that for those developments to. Have all those sites on top of it to. Different organizations that are going to build the affordable housing on the sites that they have not yet actually been built. And, Tom, if you're the point guy, will you please come to the microphone? I'm just trying to understand where this fits into the overall scheme of the lots that were set aside for affordability. Tom Gleason For a city 7351, East 29th Avenue, the councilwoman is referring to the agreement to set aside to sell it, provide at no cost, eight acres of land to nonprofits for affordable rental. And to date, we are just under eight acres with our most recent development, which is proposed for senior affordable. So but that really is just for the affordable rental. We have donated all of the land at Stapleton for both affordable rental and affordable for sale. So that is we've done much more than that eight acres. Okay. And so it sounds like we're on mark with the rental. Where are we on the Affordable for sale? That was part of the original agreement. We are in terms of the affordable rental, we are running ahead of what was projected to be a 20%. Commitment on. The Affordable for sale. That's been 10%. And we're running it probably at about. 5.8% in terms of that. But the agreement, the Stapleton Affordable Housing Plan, says at the end of the development, we have to be a 10%. And how many more developable acres are still available that have not been obligated or are still available for development? Well, for the Affordable for Sale, we have identified all the parcels and projected the number of affordable units that will be created on that so that we meet our formal goal. For instance, we are projected to build out at Stapleton to be in the range of. About 1880 900 homes. And so we have set aside. Land for 891. Affordable for sale on the affordable rental. We projected some. Somewhere in the range of probably about 800. And and. We're we're tracking that. Pretty closely as well. And we donate land for both affordable rental and affordable for sale, even though that wasn't part of the Stapleton affordable housing plan. So, Tom, was this anticipated to be one of those sites? No, this this site would be commercial. I mean, this would be market rate. It would not be affordable. Okay. That's all the questions I have. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Councilman Ortega. Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. Scott. So would you. How close is the next five story building? Do this. This site, would you guess? It's found closer to Quebec. There's some new apartment buildings that have gone up. I think off the top of my head, I don't know every quite a while. I have quite a ways from this site. But yeah, it's it's a little ways to the west. Okay. And the finance and developer to step up for a second. So you said you've had discussions with people in the community wanting more apartments available, is that correct? There's a contingency, probably the wrong word. But there are there there are a group of folks that have been involved in our Citizens Advisory Board who for some time have asked us why we haven't built more multi-family rental than we have. And have they expressed or have you discussed with them their preferences for what style that might be? Be a five story building, be a townhomes, be it whatever. You know, they don't really express the building form. They express more the income levels that the property could serve and they'd like to see a diversity. Okay. Things for say on for rent. All right. Appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Castro. Councilman Espinosa. My question for the city attorney when they were. Well, I assumed that this project, because it's still part of the master plan, doesn't even though. This is entirely to new floors of additional development. Right. Or actually more than that. Not eligible for the linkage fee. Is that correct? Dave, Missouri Assistant City Attorney. Councilman Espinoza, could I have you repeat the question? I just didn't quite hear you. This project wouldn't be eligible for a linkage fee because of the it. Falls under. The current affordable housing plan for Stapleton. Is that correct? Yeah, that's correct. Okay. Tom, is there any sort of willingness for Stapleton and for City to sort of voluntarily commit a portion of these additional units to affordable considering that you guys took down the land some time ago and would be getting essentially additional development rights? We haven't had that discussion, as I mentioned earlier. We had the signed a an affordable housing plan with the city back in 2001. And that's what we're implementing at this time now. Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman, as one other thing, councilman herndon, I. Think it was Perez. I just want to my colleagues and now I emailed them the letter from son this neighborhood neighborhood organization reasonable organization. And Scott, this might have been asked when I had ran to run out quick there was an email that. I got wasn't mentioned today, but the person talked about the inability to park all the cars in this unit. And I've and I've heard parking within this conversation. Can you briefly just talk about any development that occurs has to have parking requirements. So could you just please talk about that? And I know we're we're we're generalities but just people to understand what the city does when it comes to that. Please. Yeah. That's all handled in the site review site development planning process. And our zoning code set standards for how many parking spaces must be required. And it depends on the type of use and the amount and the specific zoning. So, you know, whatever the zoning, whether it's the old zoning or the new zoning, proposed zoning. The zoning code would dictate how many parking spaces must be provided and that would all be required at the time of said development. Thank you. I just want to make sure that that was. No, thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. All right. Thank you, Councilman Hearn. I got a couple of questions myself, and I'm going to ask our two city attorneys to volley this question. And we'll start with you, Nate. Nate, what is our criteria for for doing zoning? So what do we do? How do we make zoning decisions? A city council. So the city council bases their rezoning decision on the rezoning criteria, which was outlined in the staff report. And so we look at consistency with adopted plans. Health, safety and welfare. I'm having a little bit of remembering here. You know. That's okay, Scott. Can you put that? Put that. Yeah. Thank you. Slide up, because I put our city attorney on the spot there. Okay. Yeah. So, yeah, there there are the five criteria there. As I mentioned, consistency with city adopted plans, uniformity of district regulations, public health, safety and welfare. Justifying circumstances is always a big one and of course, consistency with neighborhood context, zone, district purpose and intent. Great. Thank you, Nate. David Braswell, our assistant city attorney. Can you help us help me with this question? I think we get a lot of neighbors in here with with the concerns around, you know, what's being built and things like that. What is your legal advice to us when making a decision for rezonings? My legal advice to you for a rezoning. Okay. Well, some of it's just been covered again by Mr. Lucero, which is you have to apply the evidence to the criteria and make the decision. You do have significant latitude in terms of applying the criteria. We've got active litigation recently where decisions of this council have been upheld, where reasonable people can disagree, but courts tend to defer to whatever decision you ultimately come up with. So you've got you've got a lot of discretion, but you do need to link your findings to the criteria. And that's what we always advise. Okay. Thank you. And then they want one more question back to you. I think Councilwoman Kennedy brought this point up. I think it's a it's an interesting one. And I'm going to ask the applicant to to answer this. We do overlays all the time. Matter of fact, there's a lot of overlays, conservation overlays that we have in in Curtis Park. And matter of fact, I have a legislative rezoning coming up. That's an overlay actually down zoning, a part of this community where all the neighbors really wanted to down zoning, which I haven't seen in my seven years on council, but. Have we ever amended a rezoning for a conservation overlay on the floor? And do we have latitude to do that? I've not seen that. Typically what happens with conservation overlays is if they are brought before a council, then everything that is within that overlay district is subject to the conservation overlay. So long as they are zoned into the new Denver zoning code, then they're able to take advantage of the conservation overlay. So that's that's how those typically work. Yeah. Could we amend it? And, you know, the, the the applicant has already said that there's going to be some restrictions on the, the three, you know, on I forget what side it was, but three stores on the South Side or whatever. Could we restrict that in the zoning as an amend that in the zoning tonight on this bill? I think what you're asking me is whether or not you could plate place a condition on an approval and. The answer to that is. What's before council tonight is the ordinance that's been filed, which simply speaks to the May five A and there's nothing either in the zoning code or anything more memorialized in the application which would mandate such a condition at this time. So it would have to be something that would be agreed upon by the applicant. Which is the way our Denver zoning code works. So we could not amend on the floor. So what you're saying? No. Okay. Let me just ask the applicant real quick what either one of you are. Did you sign any agreement with the neighborhood on this three story? Is it written or is it just a kind of a. It's not formally read. And I mean, what I would envision and I'm not an attorney, but I would envision that we would agree to record a restrictive covenant that outlined the terms of that. And that would be a condition of your approval if you were if you were to. So right now, it's just a commitment excuse me? It's a verbal commitment to the neighborhood. It's a verbal commitment. It's an informal written commitment. Okay. We put in writing, but not in a legal format. Great. And then my last question. Excuse me, sir. I forgot your name. You're leading? Yeah. Yeah. Leading the neighborhood. Let me ask you a question. A lot of points were made tonight that I think were very important. And I'm I'm curious, the number of people who you've been working with and you yourself. Have you been a part of this citizens advisory group board that is with force? I did go speak before the Citizen Advisory Board. Prior to this development. Prior to this development, have you been a part of the Citizens Library Board? Okay. Have you been a part of the Stapleton United Neighbors prior to this? I think I've attended one or two meetings, but okay. I guess not actively involved. Okay. Thank you. Just want to know that. All right, Councilman. Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. Just to be clear. I thought you said the planning board five four split was partially over confusion as to neighborhood plan consistency. It was, in my remembering correctly. No, there was. I believe you are remembering correctly. It was one of the issues that came up, and I believe one of the concerns that some of the members had that voted against it was that it may not be consistent with the city's adopted plans, particularly relating to commercial use versus residential use. Okay. Thank you, Scott. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Councilman Cashman. Councilman New. Yeah. You're up on the revised on the proposal of a three and five story compromise that you're proposing. What percent of the project would be? Three stories. In terms of a unit count, just the total development for part is going to be, first of all, retail, you know, three parts going to be three parts going to be five stories. Well, bringing it down to three, what portion of the lot would be three stores for the project? Maybe it'd be two of the four phases of the building. It would be three stories. Mr. McDermott 50% would be three stories and 50% five stories. Yes. So I'm pretty pretty much really close, maybe, you know, 50 to 48 or something like that at the corners. Great. Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you. Councilman. Councilwoman Gilmore. Sorry. I'm sorry I didn't catch you before you went back and sat down. I have one additional question. So with with that estimate, two councilman knew then the three story outward facing would would it be along Willow and East 29th place? Yes. Okay. Have there been conversations with public works about MLK Jr Boulevard and kind of that intersection right there at MLK and Willow Street? Are there plans for any improvements at that intersection? Based upon the possible density on this lot. We haven't had those discussions. It's difficult to have that discussion in the abstract. They like to see a specific proposal in front of them. Okay. But we haven't had that discussion. The size some community members had commented that Willow Street seems narrow. And I can understand that if they're school busses going up and down Willow Street. But I have our I'm assuming that both Willow and East 29th Place are regular sized Denver residential streets. Correct. With on street parking. Okay. All right. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Yeah, thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilman Ortega. One last one. Last one. So, Jim, I think you were the one who mentioned that you all would be willing to consider a covenant on the land. Is that did I hear that correctly? You did. Okay. And so what that does is it it ensures that regardless of who owns the property, that covenant stays with the property. That's correct. Okay. And. But typically those issues are done on the front end before the applications come before us. And I guess I'm just wondering, is this is this something that for a city is committing to do regardless of this, the action taken by city council tonight. No. I think the commitment is only if the. If the actions approved at this. If the rezoning is approved, then we make the commitment to. To record the covenant. Otherwise we'll probably property would be developed in accordance with the existing zoning. Do you do you have interested developers right now that are looking at the site based on the new zoning? Now, we are not marketing the site right now. Okay. You're waiting to get the zoning done first. So I would just propose that. Councilman Herndon, I know this is your district, but I think the covenant would be an important safeguard, if you will, for lack of a better word, that the community has has raised, as is concerns that if maybe we postpone this for a short period of time to allow that to get done and to bring it back so that it's part of the application and it's contingent upon the zoning, you know, taking place, that that will go a long way, I believe, in building that. I don't know. Goodwill with the community. And I just wanted to ask if that's something that you all are open to. And Councilman Herndon, same with you. We'd be open to that. Okay. When her. If you know, I've been a part of this community since 2008 and I've worked with Forest City, obviously since I've been a council person in 2011. I believe that if they say that they're going to do that, it's not necessary to put a covenant on it. And by the all my interactions and their interactions with the community, I personally do not think it's necessary if they this isn't a developer that's coming into town and then is leaving. We have several different acres of land that still needs to be developed for city is not going anywhere. And had they choose to do something like that, rest assured there would be some serious repercussions from a city perspective, I would imagine. So I don't I personally do not think it's necessary if Jim and company have said they're going to do it, I believe it will be done. But I will certainly defer to if the majority of the council feels the need to do so then. Soviet. Well, I just want to say that I know ferocity has not developed every single parcel, a number of the parcels have been developed by other other developers who for city has sold some of that land to. And I know with some of the other applications that we've had come before us, the Covenant becomes a really critical piece of that assurance that the community is going to have those safeguards in place. I'm not saying I don't trust for city, but if the land is sold to somebody else and the covenant isn't filed, then that next party is not going to be obligated to adhere to what we're discussing here tonight as an assumed agreement. So, Councilwoman, I'm going to take this from questions and start the comment period so that you and Council Councilman Herndon can can debate this issue. The right. Okay. This hearing is closed. Council Bill 565 is now closed. Comments by members of council. Councilman herndon. And then we'll go to councilwoman ortega. Mr. President, one, I really appreciate you all coming out and have a conversation about this. You know, I, I and I sincerely appreciate the civility because we have seen several contentious rezonings and the respect towards both parties just dissipates immediately. So I really appreciate these conversations being cordial. And even though you share the passion of what's happening in your community, we still treat each other with respect. And I and I cannot say that enough because we're losing that. So thank you for that. And I appreciate the council president asking the question about what do we as a council base our decisions off of? And you see you see the five criteria in front of us because that's what we should be focusing on. And I know we always go into particular plans. And when you don't have a plan and this council has shared their frustrations with that, we we have a tendency to go to the worst of what can possibly happen. And it is our city policy to not base it off site specific plans. And people have expressed their frustration. But that is our policy. But I appreciate the dialog that we have had. I'm going to focus on the health, safety and welfare initially because as I wrote down the notes of what everybody was saying. Let me first talk about traffic. So no matter what happens at this site, traffic is going to increase. There is there's no getting around that. Central Park Boulevard and MLK are busy streets and they should be. That was the design of Stapleton so that we have traffic that's going through the community goes on our major arterials so that it doesn't go through the side streets. And we're not naive to say that it doesn't happen. People choose to do that. And I agree that MLK, CPB, our busy streets. But when I wrote down someone said Hazardous. I respectfully disagree that that is hazardous, inappropriate and I'm sorry that wasn't about the streets. So I believe traffic will increase. But I also believe we have a great traffic and engineering department that for those of you that have been in Stapleton for a while, has made several adjustments along MLK, Central Park Boulevard. So whatever development occurs because development will occur, whether it happens with our current zoning or the proposed zoning, traffic and engineering, I absolutely believe will address it and has done so in in several different ways. We talked about I asked the question about the parking because the question was, well, is the parking going to be enough? Is going to bleed it bleed over into the side streets. We have rules and regulations in place that should this potential zone go through, the parking and the parking requirements will be adhered to. Then came up the comment of safety and I, I you lost me on safety. I don't understand how simply adding apartments makes the community less safe. I rented until I was in my mid-twenties and I stayed in apartments and I don't believe that I cared less about a community simply because I rented versus owning. Um, so I, I disagree with that safety perspective that adding additional apartments makes the community less safe. That is, that's just my opinion. As I was, I was writing that down. I tilt to my head and said, I, I hear you. I'm not sure if that's something I agree with you. And there was a comment to people made about transitional tenants. And yes, renters do leave quicker than homeowners, but that doesn't mean they care less about their community. So I wanted to say that as we have these conversations, you know, I reached out to the planning board because I didn't watch the minutes. John said, watch the planning because I read the minutes and there were four members that were anti that. And so I called them and just as got talked about, there were concerns about consistency with adopted plans. I disagree. I do think the adopted plans are consistent, but there was a consensus about common questions about the the height, which is why the planning board did a recommendation to say we're going to move that. You can only do four stories to the south and to the end to the east. And even though that was voted down, the applicant came back and said, okay, we hear the concerns and we're going to go lower than that and go three stories. And I spoke to a couple of planning board members and said, were you aware that they that the applicant went from four stories to three stories and while it doesn't change their vote. A couple of those planning board members said, well, that seems like a good compromise. And I actually think in this conversation we've come to a point where the applicant has heard the community and said, okay, we're going to try to accommodate you as best that we can. And while we recognize that there are going to be some people of the position that no matter what happens, this is inappropriate, I think that that effort from the applicant is worth noting. I also want to talk to about. What's just to the west of this? Because we we focus solely at Central Park and Martin Luther King Day. So for those of you that are familiar with this, I am as well. You've got Central Park Boulevard runs north. South. If you head west, you've got Uinta is the next street that heads over and you go over one more block and you got holster my dry cleaners right there. Everyone knows I'm talking about the dry cleaners. So I go to that dry cleaning. When I come out of the dry cleaner and I look I look east, we have the overture. The overture is the senior housing. The overture is four stories. It's four stories. And so for the people on 29th place, right behind the overseer, they look out of their house and they're staring at a four story building. So to have a four storey building two blocks away from what could potentially be three stories that said back to five, I don't believe is out of context. And I have. And I remember when the overture was being built. It was being built after the houses were already there. And I literally I checked back with my staff. I said, remember when the overture was built? Did we get any complaints about traffic or any crime issues with the overture? And to the best of their memory, there weren't any. Because I wanted to say, Well, have we done this before? And what was the response from that? So I think that that's important to note when I were thinking about this potential rezoning. And then I want to I have a question about density. Where should we put density? Because as I have heard comments from the the residents, it said say density should only go in tod sites or along the Quebec square or along an East Bridge. And I think now in a place when we are trying to find space for the people that want to come here, I think thoughtful density should be along major arterials. So I agree with the notion that that's where it should go. I'm not sure a single family adding more single family and Central Park anymore makes the maximum use of our space. The overture that I talked about, it's 1.5 acres, it's 108 units. So we approximately double. It's about 200 units. And so I wrote down numbers of 300 cars. I think we're going a little bit higher than what is potential and not even talking about the setbacks in the design of that. So. Taking the criteria into account. I believe that the and lastly because I want to come back to Sun. Who was I was a son board member before I was on city council from 2000 and 2008 to right before getting elected. Sun has a very good point. So it's not just a matter of this rezoning. This the May five is what happens should this rezoning. Not be approved. What happens to that development? And I hear people saying, we're not interested in Merrick five. But I can assure you, you do not want the possibility of what could happen with the CMU 20. Because I don't believe industrial uses are appropriate at all on that site. But in the current zoning there are industrial uses that are applicable. Use by write in as a body. There would be nothing that we could do to prevent that. So I taking all that into account with. And this is this is a difficult decision. And I appreciate all everyone's comments. I believe that the criteria has been met. And I'm I appreciate the applicant hearing the community and saying, we hear you and this is how we believe we can come to a place where some might agree. Because my understanding is and I'm a look to John when the three story came back that we're going to go three stories, there were some people that were okay with it, not a lot, but there were some people that said, okay, that satisfies us for exactly I know not a lot, but I think that that's important to note. So this is something that I will be supporting. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Hurt and Councilman Espinosa, can we go to Councilman? Councilwoman Ortega. All right, Councilman Ortega. I'm going to pass. Okay. Right now. Okay. Um. Okay. Councilman Espinosa. Welcome to my last two years on this body. I represent Northwest Denver. A lot of that area got rezone like this in 2010. So we get really objectionable new construction using these existing the new zoning code and there is not a damn thing we can do about it. Apologize for using a partial swear word. So I my constituents would probably definitely relate to you. And here's a situation where we actually can do something about it. We've had many of those situations since I've been on councils, particularly in my own district, and that what you just heard is the response that you get from the majority of council almost every single time. The only time a neighborhood has been successful in my district in stopping a rezoning. Uh, was when they they petitioned and forced a supermajority, meaning that you had to have ten members of council, not the usual seven. That one failed, but it still got eight votes. So it would have passed under all other situations. And it got real interesting, too, because this council even tried to delay that vote because because it we weren't going to have a full body. And they knew that they needed everybody here to get to the ten. Yeah, that's. That's the sausage making. And I'm not supposed to talk to you about it, but that's what happens here. So I appreciate you all coming out and expressing your concerns. I do also trust this for a city is a good master developer and will do the right thing. But. I'm I'm looking at it. And you're right. You're John, you're right to be concerned because when you change the zoning now, all this stuff becomes of use by right and you have no say. You're lucky that you're protected by a design review committee. Much of what you see and what you enjoy in that community is because it's been vetted by some really great professionals. That said, we do have an issue of here, you know, in my past life as an affordable housing developer, whether you like it or, you know, love him or hate him. My last one of my last projects were the ones those townhouses and multi row houses that line MLK and Central Park Boulevard right there on that corner. And we did that in the CMU 20 without waivers, the exact same zoned district that you have today. As a matter of fact, all of the development from Ulster to Willow has occurred with this zoned district without a rezoning. So that sort of gets you to the justifying circumstances component, like what has changed? Nothing has changed in this situation. You know, the roads have been built, but those roads have been always planned. It's a matter of fact. They've been narrowed. Right. They used to be three lanes in each direction. Now they're two with bike lanes. It's good. But, you know, it's so the the the change is towards a more residential pedestrian oriented environment, which would, um, you know, but it's not, that's not a radical change in condition. I think you all bond with the master plan developer. I think we've all recognize. You've heard allocated. Time and time and time again about Stapleton both in the city and in the nation and in the world, about the success of this development. And that all occurred under the old zoning code somehow. And now this has to happen, this change. You know. So I will say. One of the thing that really frustrates me and I try to avoid this in my own district, I actually hear a win win here being proposed, but it hasn't been formulated and hasn't been generated. What I do in my district when I have the opportunity and I don't always takes a developer coming forward early in the process , not putting in their application, but we have a sort of two step process, a memorandum of understanding in my view that says, okay, developer, you agree to, to, you know, build five or six or whatever stories you want on the corner but that you transition your project as you get to the residential neighborhood. And we will support that because by the time you get into this lower density area, you've, you've addressed the massing and certain conditions that the community feels would adequately address the impact of the development. You codify what you're agreeing to in the memo, you basically says, we support we the community support you, Mr. Developer, and your ambition in exchange that you will file a covenant restricting that property to that sort of massing or those sorts of agreements within X number of days after that rezoning occurs. So you have an agreement before you come in here. You have that agreement that takes you through this process. And then within a number of days you have security that that is memorialized now and for the future. I also recommend that you don't do that in perpetuity because then it creates a legal nightmare in the future. But ten, 15, 20 years sort of buys the people that live here negotiated that outcome some predictability. It's a great tool. I can tell you that there are developers that don't want to use that tool, so they sidestep that whole process by never coming to the community and never coming to council. That's their prerogative here. I think there was the ability to get there. I just know we have real, capable people. For a city, it sounds to me that not the real nuts and bolts that I would like to, you know, be considering is how do we shape and mold so that we address the other criteria. I wish could we pull up the justifying circumstances? I actually want to speak to two of them. I've already spoken to number four that the justifying circumstances and there's nothing that has changed here. They are the CMU 20 has been good enough for the entirety of Forest City redevelopment and it should be good enough now it meets all of that criteria, the currency and EU 20. So you know, what we do know is every piece of property to the east and every piece of property, well, not every piece of property in the west, but this property and everything to the east that has already been developed, save for you into an MLK. Is, you know, already uniform with the district regulations. And so this is now going outside of that. So we're now intentionally deviating from the plan. And I just don't agree that that is, in fact necessary or it benefits all of the other criteria. And then particularly in really what it boils down to is then you get to consistency with neighborhood context and zone district purpose and intent. You already have it there. You already have it. Everything's been developed in that zone district. And and so I don't see how this improves by increasing the development potential. I don't buy the industrial concern because there are other provisions in CMU. Zone District in chapter 59 specific to trying to do industrial in a commercial mixed use zone district. So there and that is that was codified. What are the reasons our old zoning code was left is because this moved to this greater flexibility. But this greater flexibility means less predictability, more uses and more density, same amount of parking spaces required in this district. But now you've got to fit a heck of a lot more cars. And then there's it's only one per unit people will visit. And all your concerns are legitimized, not opposed to density. But you got to make the case and I haven't heard one case that why this zone district is absolutely imperative to address the concerns and needs of this community to further the public health and safety and welfare of this community. This is a great community. Yet for a city did a bang up job. Probably too good of a job in this situation is because this neighborhood that close to the park ain't going away any time soon. And so, you know, 4 to 5 and four are clearly not met. And I could extrapolate on every element here. And it could you could address those in the zoning should, in my opinion, be amended and it should have waivers and conditions rather than you have to enter in a part private party agreement. But that is a battle that I've been fighting for two years. I will continue to fight for two years for the next two years. The attention District One needs the help of District eight constituents and the city needs to participate in the Denver right process. Let them know that our next vision of the city should address have a means to address these these situations, because we have ceded a lot of responsibility on on the sense that this zoning code is just great as it is off the shelf. And it needs tweaking. It needs to be addressed. And then this process of asking also needs better input and validity. I believe you've made the case. I know it to be. You know, I think the split vote on the planning board speaks to that as well. You don't know. You don't always see that. Very rarely do you see that. And I won't go. I've talked long enough. I won't go into plans. I won't go into master plans of I'm going to adopted plans. Blueprint Denver area. But so with that, I mean, this is I think you all picked up on it. This is the situation that I wish my committee was prepared to fight, had the resources to do this, because there are lots of, you know, questions to be asked, a lot of ask that could be made so that both sides would come prepared with a win win. That has not happened here. I believe it could have happened. But I do believe that the blanketed zone district based me in the existing zone district, based on all what I've said and evidence that the it's it has in fact, allowed this area to flourish already. And it could develop in a manner that is consistent with all of our review criteria under the existing zoning code. I will not be supporting this rezoning. All right, Councilman, you. I want to thank everybody for coming out here tonight. And last year, I went through a very contentious rezoning in one of my neighborhoods. And it was just the opposite of what you're going through, which was even worse. It was from good zoning to better to worse zoning, a much worse zoning. And it was a bad situation. Where I look at this is you're going from bad zoning to better zoning. It may not be perfect. It may not be the three stories that you want all, all the way. But it looks like you're coming up with a compromise. At least 50% of that development will be three stories. So it sounds like you're moving in the right direction to that meets better your context. I know that may not be what you want, but sometimes we have to make that compromise to make sure that the right thing is done, not the wrong things. It's done. So so I'll be supporting this tonight. And I just want you to know how much we understand what you're going through. And I really appreciate you're doing, but I think you're moving in the right direction. And I believe this this owner for our city will develop this condition to make sure this restricted and we're looking to make sure that happens. So thank you very much. All right, Councilman. Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm going to side with the minority on the planning board. I appreciate the developer's willingness to to compromise with the step back. But my experience in a project in my own district is that doesn't do much. And in blunting the effect of the building of this size in an area where there's no context for that. So, you know, in my district it's along University Boulevard. There are other five story buildings. The developer decided to do a step down facing the residential, the single family neighborhoods to the east. And it's it's it's a nice it's better than than a five storey wall, but but not much. So I and I have faith in Forest City that I don't see them doing anything other than looking for an alternative. Were this to fail, which I have no thought that it will. But from what I've seen of Forest City in the past, I would expect them to look for a better alternative than the worst case scenario that the current zoning would allow. Thank you, Mr. President. All right. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. All right. Seeing no other comments. Madam Secretary, roll call. Or take a did you want to? No, no. She told me to go. Sorry. Herndon. I. Cashman. Kenny Lopez. Sorry. New Ortega? No. Sussman. I. Black. Clark. I don't know, sir. Flynn. I. Gilmore. I. Mr. President. I. Please close the voting. Announce results. So I just had to put in one absence. Nice. Nice. Three days. Nice. Nice three days. Council Bill 565 has passed. All right, councilman? No. Would you please put Council Bill 659 on the floor?

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_07132015_15-0356

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. 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. 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. Sides. 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. 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? 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. 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. 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. Okay. 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. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Rob. 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. That's certainly a reason to historically designate the Property Bureau. Well, all right. Amy. All right. 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. To. Brown. Hi. Fats. I. Can eat layman. I'm going to pass. Lopez. Pass. Montero I Nevitt I Ortega no grub no shepherd i susman. I. Brooks seven I carnage. I've seen. Lehman. Brothers. No. Lopez. No. No. Sorry. It's so funny. Lopez. Lopez. Rocky. Thank you. No. No. Okay. Uh, Mr. President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the body. Announced results. Eight eyes, four knees, one abstention. 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? Put it on the floor for a vote. Certainly. Councilwoman Shepard, could you please have 400 be placed on final consideration and do pass? Thank you, Mr. President. I move that Council Bill 400 series of 2015 be placed on final consideration and do pass. Has been moved and second make comments. Councilwoman Fox. 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. Thank you. Councilwoman fights Councilman Ken each. 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. 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. Fox No Carnage. Layman Lopez AI Montero. Nevitt AI Ortega. Rob Shepherd. Susman. Brooks Brown. Hi, Mr. President. Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close the voting, announce the results. 12 one. 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? I would like a vote, please. Certainly. Councilwoman Shepherd, could you please have 371 placed on the floor for final consideration and do pass? I move that Council Bill 375 series of 20. 1571. I'm sorry 371 series of 2015 be placed on final consideration and do pass. It has been moved and seconded. Comments. Councilwoman Ortega. 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. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Lopez. 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. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Any other comments? 371 on final consideration and do pass. Si none. Madam Secretary. Roll call. Ortega. No, Rob. I shepherd as Susman. Brookes I. Brown Hi, Fats. No can eat lemon. Lopez? No. Monteiro. No, never. Hi. Shepherd. No, Mr. President. Hi. Catwoman Shepherd. Oh. My little button went away. It went away. And now I'm saying to you, can you bring that in? Councilman Shepard was a no. I'm sorry. What is your vote? She was a. I'm a no, thank you. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Please close the door. Only announce the results. Eight eyes 598959. 371 have been placed on final consideration and does. Pass. 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? I'd like to make a comment. Please go right ahead. 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. Thank you, Councilwoman Fox. All right, Madam Secretary, quickly. Point of order. At least myself and one other councilperson heard this bill referred to as 512. Are we talking about four for 13? It was for 12, Constable. Four. Did I get the number? It's Council bill for 12. That you're speaking to. Thank you. Okay. My apologies if I said the wrong council, Bill. All right. Now, Secretary, that was it correct? Ever get out of here? 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. No, no. Ortega Oh, I'm sorry. Councilman Ortega. Montero and councilman fights those. Those are our five, Madam Secretary. Thank you. You're good. All right. 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? 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. Excuse me. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. Seen no comments. Madam Secretary, roll call.