A bill for an ordinance designating certain properties as being required for public use and authorizing use and acquisition thereof by negotiation or through condemnation proceedings of fee simple, easement and other interests, including any rights and interests related or appurtenant to properties designated as needed for the Sand Creek Project. Grants the authority to acquire through negotiated purchase or condemnation any property interest as needed in support the Sand Creek Project, including easement interests, access rights, improvements, buildings, fixtures, licenses, permits and other appurtenances, located at 8101 East 40th Avenue in Council District 8. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 7-7-20.
Yes, Madam President. I move the council bill to zero that 0668 be ordered published. Thank you, Councilman. May I get a second? Thank you, Councilwoman Sawyer. Questions or comments by members of Council Councilwoman said about the matter. Is there anybody here who can speak a little bit about this one? I just have some general questions about who the current owner is and what we're what we need ownership of this parcel for and why we need to use this route. Perfect. We have Lisa Lumley here. That evening with assistant director of Real Estate. This is owned by Max, and the parcel that we are looking at for this land acquisition ordinance is on the north side of the creeks and develop your property right now. That is your. Repeat what you said about the ownership. I'm sorry, Councilwoman. Can you repeat that? You were cutting out when you said who the current owner is. It is an LLC. They are doing business there on the south side of the property. We are looking at the north side of the creek. Oh, I'm going to apologize for my daughter. So this is not impacting your business at all. This is a development that will help support the flood mitigation. As. Well as protect the habitats that are there. And it allows them to restore some of the banks. We apologize. I've got somebody in front of my door. Got it. Or no. Way to have done the. Food. Grocery Council. I'm not going to try to move. Hold on a second. He really said. This is sensory aids. Do you want me to help answer that question, please? Hi. This is great. Yeah. Sensory AIDS Parks Resiliency Principle planner. I'll just step in and help out for a moment. So we have discussed with the current property owner several options to try to do the work, and we have not received any cooperation in working directly with the property owner. And is there a is there information you can disclose to us or is that private? I know it's all public record. So the property so his property is divided in half by Sand Creek, the portion to the south he is he owns and operates the portion to the north is actually sandwiched between two other parks owns property. And the almost entirely the property we are seeking to purchase is within the 100 year flood plain. So we have worked diligently with him and other the Floodplain Management Group and our development services to actually see if there were options for him to develop that land. And it's very limited what options are available based on some of the constraints around it being in the floodplain and grades. So this was kind of our last effort and trying to negotiate something with the property owner outside of this path. So eminent domain is a touchy one for me because, you know, our neighborhood currently lost a lot of property and generational wealth through the use of eminent domain. And so I'm wondering what would have happened, what would happen if the city didn't do this mitigation? And there was a 100 year flood event and this owner maintained ownership. So if he maintained ownership and didn't develop the property, then the property would serve its natural function and would absorb a lot of that flooding. And if he is able to find a way to develop the property and meet all of the permitting and requirements associated with developing within the 100 year flood plain, then he does have the ability to do so. However it could, he would have to show that that development does not adversely impact any of the adjacent properties. So there's there's definitely a process he would have to go through and it could take time for him to do that . As you know, it's best practices for floodplains to have the buffer needed in order to keep property out of our flood zones and make sure that we're providing that space for safe flood conveyance. So this is a goal of the city and of the Parks Department. And again, we've tried multiple times to negotiate one on one with him. I believe Lisa can attest to the fact that, you know, we've gone through multiple negotiations and we just haven't received any kind of middle ground on what. Options are available. But was it. In the floodplain when he purchased the property? Yes, it has been in the floodplain since it was originally mapped back in the seventies and the mile high flood district is in the process of updating that floodplain and current mapping is showing that his almost that full property property will remain in the 100 year flood plain. And so. And I just don't understand. If he doesn't don't want to engage why we're not just it's his property. Why why are we pursuing it since. All right. You may want to also address the funds that you have towards this project. Yes. And so the Mile High Flood District has provided some funding in the amount of $250,000 to help purchase the property. In addition, we have a $500,000 natural resource damages grant to restore the additional 30 acres surrounding this property. Again, this property, it's about five and a half acres we're seeking to purchase is literally a donut hole. So it's a hole in the middle of 30 acres of natural native open space along the sand creek. In addition, the Sand Creek Trail traverses well could traverse the property, but currently it goes up and around the property. And so we also have some partnership funds to reconstruct that trail. And I've worked very closely with the neighborhood and the Sand Creek Regional Partnership to develop funds for that project as well. It is a public benefited project. Currently, again, he has no ability to develop the property and 75 to 80% of that property is in the floodplain. So that is why we were seeking to purchase it. Is it possible for him to maintain ownership of the property and for you all to make the improvements, if you would, for a profit purpose anyway? So he would there's currently a metro wastewater, so a sanitary easement that runs along the same alignment of which we would install the trail. And so we've even discussed the opportunity to put in a or two to create an easement for not only that sanitary line, but also the trail alignment. And we haven't received, again, any, you know, agreement from the property owner to go that route either. Again, this is five acres of native open space in the middle of a pretty amazing wildlife corridor. So. It's this the department believes that this is the best use of the space to provide public access, connect habitat, provide that flood attenuation space for the safety of people and property, and to build that regional trail connection. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Next up, we have Councilman Herndon. Think about where I want. This is on first reading for publication, and that suggests my colleagues I serve on the sacred region of Greenway, the Denver portion of it. And if any of my colleagues are ever interested in and writing the entire Sand Creek, which abuts our neighboring municipalities, but particularly the Denver portion where you can see how the the trail has to go around where it currently is and see why I wholeheartedly support this. This is part of our Sand Creek Regional Greenway Master Plan that we had in 2016. And so I would certainly encourage my colleagues to support this on publication and on the final consideration if you want any more information. I'm happy to connect you with Beth Nobles, our executive director, and why we feel that this is so important. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilman. Next up, we have Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. I just want to clarify again, because of a lot of emails that we've been getting on this particular issue, that this there was an implication in the emails that that we were taking people's residences and homes through this action. And I, as sincerely pointed out, this is vacant land in a floodplain that is un developable because it's on the north side of the creek. And in fact, it can't be accessed from either side because the city of Denver owns property on both sides, along with the master developer in Stapleton. And the only way that that the current owner could access it would be by constructing a bridge across Sand Creek, which, given the parcel sizes, is cost prohibitive. So I just wanted to let folks know who might be watching, who sent us those emails that this does not involve anybody's home, it's vacant land, it's in the floodplain , and it's part of the Sand Creek Regional Trail. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. See no other folks in the queue for questions or comments. Madam Secretary, roll call. Actually, I vote. Please. I just want to I understand fully what we're trying to use this property for, and I understand the reluctance of the property owner to negotiate with us on principle. I don't think that I could ever support forcibly taking someone's land unless it was being returned to the people it was stolen from, specifically on Sand Creek. And so I think it's important for us to acknowledge that while there may be a public benefit for this project, we are still forcibly taking land instead of improving it. The the gentleman or the person who owns probably is well aware of the fact that they cannot develop this land, and it doesn't seem that they are holding onto it for the purpose of development. And so I think there are other tools that could be explored. There are ways that we could make the improvements that are necessary and still have and prohibit development on that land. We have Park Hill Golf Course. Case in point, as an example of how we use those tools in other situations. And so I think that there should be other tools explored before we forcibly take someone's land, regardless of how much we say we need it, when we're not willing to forcibly take land for literally life and death situations like housing people. So I'm a no on this and I hope some of my colleagues can understand why. Thank you, Councilwoman. All right. Thanks for catching me. Before we did the vote for your comments, Councilman Hines. Thank you, Madam President. One other comment I would make is that sometimes we do things that are in the to support protected classes, like there is a upcoming there is an eminent domain to put in programs. So for people with disabilities and and so I would want to make a distinction of just to go on the record why it might be important or interesting for the good of the community for us to take an eminent domain and maybe in some situations for the it is for that. But I think I'll just leave it at that. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Sawyer. Thank you, Madam President. I think Councilman Hines draws a really important distinction there. And I think it's something I think Councilwoman CdeBaca makes a really important point as well. So I will be voting to move this forward tonight because I think it's worth you know, this is first publication. It's worth moving it forward to a final vote next week. But I don't know that that means that I will support it next week. I'm going to need to think about this a little bit more. But I do think that tonight I will move it forward because it deserves our full consideration next week. So thanks. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman. All right. Last call for any final comments. Seeing Councilman Flynn. I'm sorry. I just wanted to point out that the city is not allowed to spend public dollars improving private property. So one of the reasons that we need to acquire the property is to do the improvements we can't we can't improve our private land. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. All right. And this is a reminder, this is on first reading. And so folks will have another chance at this next week. Madam Secretary, roll call. No. Clark. All right. When I. Go more, I. You've actually lost now about a second since I heard it. I. I. Cashmere. I can eat. I. Sandra. I. Sawyer, I. Torres. I black. Right. Madam President. Hi. Madam Secretary. Closed the voting and announce the results. You have a nice one day. All right. 11 days council bill 668 has been ordered published. Next up, Madam Secretary, please put up on the screen the next bill. Councilman Herndon, will you please put council bill 592 on the floor for final passage?