Approves a $2,683,899.77 contract with SEMA Construction, Inc. for the CM/GC (Construction Management/General Contractor) construction contract for the Red Rocks Parking Lot and Traffic Controls Phase 1 project (201524962). (INFRASTRUCTURE & CULTURE) Approves a $2,683,899.77 contract with SEMA Construction, Inc. for the CM/GC (Construction Management/General Contractor) construction contract for the Red Rocks Parking Lot and Traffic Controls Phase 1 project (201524962). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 12-21-15.  The Committee approved filing this resolution by consent on 11-19-15.
Is someone here from the Parks Department that can answer my question? This is on Red Rocks. And a couple of us have been asked to serve on a committee that's going to be looking at a number of things. And I think the parking lot may be part of that. So what I'm trying to just clarify is if this contract is part of that master planning, that's going to be happening with that committee. My name is Scott Gilmore. I'm the deputy executive director of Parks and Planning. Councilwoman Ortega, this is not part of that. This is actually a separate project to actually work on. We actually drove by these projects when we actually took nine of the council people on the tour. These are actually we drove through those parking lots. It's the Lower South parking lot where it's going to it's going to cut off a small section of the road and actually straighten it out and fix the irrigation, add a sidewalk, improve safety, getting people to red rocks. And then the other section is the Y section where we have horrible traffic flow and have numerous accidents all the time. That section will be one of the Ys will be removed. And that's that's what this project is. But it's separate from it is going to go on with that committee. Yes. To the work on that committee is actually going to talk about looking at the designation of the park, how we can adjust the designation boundaries, the two landmark designation boundaries that Denver recognizes through our landmark commission with the National Historic Landmark designation. So we're going to look at how we can make those coincide a little better and actually look at some maybe. Some design guidelines for the overall park. Great. Thank you, Scott, to hear my questions. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Now security at the next one, 873, I believe. Councilwoman Ortega, would you like for us to do this? Just another question. Go right ahead. I was looking at the map in the documents that we have, and I was trying to understand if that would have any impact on the adjacent community garden and just wonder if there's been any dialog with the folks that run that community garden immediately to the north of where this it's actually to the to the west of where this alley would. Go through. Hi, angelica CSM with Denver Public Works. I do not know the answer to that question, but what I can say is we did not have any, you know, any concerns about it. So I can get more information for you, Emily, tomorrow and and let you know for sure. So I'm assuming this is being done to provide better access to the business at the south end of the bridge, the ones that made that request. Yes. It's being dedicated as public alley. Okay. So that will increase traffic in that alley. And I just want to make sure that there is some dialog with the people who run that community garden, because sometimes there are children in there. I believe it's fenced off on the East End. But I just want to make sure that there is some communication with the folks who are in that garden. Okay. I'll gather some more information on that and get it to you. Okay, great. Thank you, Angela. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Espinosa, you've got a question. I just wanted to add my $0.02 on that. It's the dedication actually ends between lot line between lots 12, 11 and 12. And there's a fence along that property line. So there might be some secondary impact, but it won't be directly due to the dedication. Yeah. I can see that on the map. All right. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. All right. Those were the two resolutions. And next, we had bills for introduction 868 called out by councilmembers Ortega and Espinoza. Let me first ask Councilman Ortega, did you want to call this out for a vote? No, just a question. Councilman Espinosa, did you want to call it out for a vote? I would like to do that. Okay. Well, for the question then, Councilman Lopez, can you make the motions for us tonight? Yes. Mr. President, could you please have 868 ordered published? Thank you, Mr. President. I move council bill 868 series of 2015 be ordered published. All right, we'll have technology catch up for a second because we'll need a second once it shows up moved and second. All right. Councilwoman Turner knows your names up top. You want to go ahead first? Sure. Two questions. Is there somebody from the department that was handling this things? Good evening, Lisa Lumley, division of Real Estate. So I'm what's got me scratching my head is that the this is nearly an acre worth of property in cent in the Central Valley and it's being sold at $12.26 a square foot. How did that value get determined? We used an appraiser. We also there are height restrictions there based on zoning that limit what. Can be constructed there and. How high which played and factored into the actual appraisal value. So do you know what that exact height limit is? I don't. I can get it for. You, but I know that it is not supposed to block at all the Southern exposure. And since the property has already been built out and repaid for the construction, both of the underground parking and the aboveground lot that the intention was not to construct on it, it was to go ahead and finally secure their parking that they had paid for. So I understand that sort of general practice is to to dispose of properties that are, you know, disposable. Is there a reason why in a situation where we have a lease arrangement and we're basically probably generating revenue, why wouldn't sort of maintain and hold that relationship?