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.
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.