A bill for an ordinance reestablishing the board of adjustment and updating board requirements and procedures. Reestablishes the board of adjustment and updating board requirements and procedures. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 1-18-22.
And we're going to go ahead and move on to our last hearing of the evening. Councilmember Ortega, will you please put Council Bill 20 2-0093 on the floor for final passage? Yes, Madam President, I move that council bill 20 2-0093 be placed upon final consideration and due process. Thank you. Has been moved and seconded the required public hearing for Council Bill 20 2-0093 is open. May we please have the staff report? Hello, Councilmember Kenny. Good evening, colleagues. Playing the role of a staff member today. I am going to drive the PowerPoint. We are going to Co-Present. And so Councilman Sandoval is actually going to kick us off. Good news. And good evening, everyone. Thank you. And thank you for hanging with us. So Councilman Kenny and I are bringing forward an ordinance to reestablish the Board of Adjustment. The zoning code was created in 1923. It was about 15 pages. It talked about height, setback, lot coverages and permitted uses. Now, the zoning code is very complicated. It's about 1500 pages. It talks about building firms, alternative standards, expanded state regulations and modernized community objectives. Next day, this bill will do modernization of the board structure. What's included in this bill is professional preparation for the role. They will be the Board of adjustment. Members will be well trained, they'll be legally prepared, and there'll be consistency, consistency for the community. And we want to make sure that we provide gratitude for the current Board of Board of Adjustment members. They serve a vital role in our zoning code and meet every other week. And it's a very complicated code. I hope I would like to remind all of us that we have two zoning codes in Denver. We have former Chapter 59, and we also have our current 2010 zoning code. Councilman PANITCH So to go into some of the details about the bill that's before you tonight, the first change that will be making is to how the appointments are made. The appointments in the bill before you will be split with the council making two appointments, may you're making two appointments and then one appointment being a joint appointment . We will also split the alternate appointments and the alternates are very important in this sport because currently they are meeting every week. So it's a demanding role in the alternates to serve regularly. You know, the real rationale behind splitting these appointments is we really have distinct roles. We do make zoning laws here in this room and we are that land use authority, but all of the land use decisions on the implementation side are made by the administration. Right. They make all of those day to day decisions, the recommendations that came before you today. And so it's actually really important that we both have a role in appointing this board. And it actually forces us to work together as a member of this council's boards and Commissions subcommittee with Councilwoman Black and Councilwoman CdeBaca on the boards where we have appointments that overlap with the mayor. We coordinate more with the administration on what the qualifications are, making sure we represent the city. It brings a little more scrutiny, and that actually helps us with recruitment, since you have both branches recruiting for the board. So there's a lot of strengths to that. You can see some of the precedents for this type of split appointments in other boards, the boards of ethnic nominating, the Civil Service Commission, the Citizen Oversight Board. We have at least 13 boards that split appointments like this. So it's actually quite common in our own city. It's also a best practice. One of the things we did for each of the things we looked at in this bill before you tonight is to ask what are other cities doing, particularly those that have modernized the same language that we have from from 100 years ago? And so of our ten cities, six have mayoral and four have council appointments. So qualifications it was actually surprising to Councilman Sandoval and I we didn't realize there were no requirements for who would be qualified to serve on this board. Other boards in Denver, the audit committee, the building code board of Appeals landmark. These are really common things when you have a technical board to have some technical qualification requirements. So this bill before you tonight will require that one member at least be an architect. There could be two. Secondly, that that person, a person that either has one of these either urban planning, construction, engineering or development, doesn't need to have multiple doesn't have to, but has to have one of those backgrounds. So it's a broad range of flexibility for those that are recruiting for the board. The third requirement is for an attorney. An admin law is the preference so that this is not about having a land use lawyer on the board necessarily. That's what you U.S. team does, right? Madam Hernandez, they there's a particular attorney assigned to this board to be their attorney. But this is about seeing that the board runs the meeting and they need to have an eye towards things like due process. They need to have an eye towards how they take testimony and evidence. This is a board that takes evidence. It's an appeal process. It is it is as close to judicial as you can get without being a judge. And so having an attorney there that can just have an eye towards that maybe and help as a member of the board to keep a culture that has high legal adherence to the not just the the board of adjustment criteria itself, but also to other legal principles like due process and consistency that are really important. And that could make us as a city liable if the board violates them. So that's really important. This board is a part of the city, and if they violate any laws, the liability falls to us as a city. So having a really good, tight process is really important. So those are the three named criteria, at least one member with each of those, then any remaining members must have a demonstrated interest in land use and zoning. In the past, members have been appointed to this board without experience. That's not a great first experience, right? This is a technical decision making board. They should have some background in zoning. It doesn't mean that they are a practicing professional. It could be that they have been engaged in committees as members of the public. It could be that they have academic background, but they need to have some background in zoning that's demonstrated. So there are a lot of precedents for this in other cities as well. And again, in many cities there is actually a movement away from making these day to day decisions by volunteer boards because codes are so complex because there is a need for consistency. Many cities have moved to professional hearing examiners or having staff make more of the decisions. But of those that still have boards doing this day to day work, there's a number of them that you can see listed here that have requirements. The third change the ordinance is making is to the training we listed out here, the zoning code, legal procedures, the stuff I just talked about in terms of due process, adopted plans. Right. That even though this board is not making policy, it's important for them to understand the policy behind. What it is that they are making decisions on the implementation, appeals for diversity, equity and inclusion. This is a value of this city, the value of this body. And it's important for this board to have training and understanding how their role in particular, you know, needs to be aware of these things. And then the legal network. Right. Many of these federal laws did not exist when this board was created. The ADA didn't exist. Civil rights laws didn't exist for housing didn't exist. They do today. And this board needs to understand how they need to be thoughtful about the types of questions that they ask me, the type of evidence that they're receiving, and making sure that they're compliant with all of those laws. So, again, precedent here, we don't have as much in the city as I might like. If I had two more terms, I might work on some training requirements for all of our boards and commissions. So that's something for those of you who continue on this body might want to think about or the administration that comes next. But we're here today and we should, you know, make sure to fill this gap with this board while we're here. It is a requirement in other cities, Austin being the most robust for all their boards, but also some examples that are just for analogous boards to do zoning. So those are the three main requirements that are changing in the structure of the board. The board will be reestablished with these criteria. And, you know, we've been asked about that question. And the idea here is to have a firm foundation where everyone gets the same training at the same time and they can operate as a uniform board and that we can make sure we have the right balance of all of those qualifications. There is precedent for this in the city in terms of both. Our Sustainability Commission was reseeded as a whole for a new era of our sustainability policy. Our housing committee was reconsidering constituted as a whole. So there is some precedent for this, which is setting a strong foundation. So we do some cleanup in the bill as well. I want to first just remind us, we had a good conversation at committee. The people who might be appealing a decision to this body could be a homeowner or a property owner, and it also could be a neighborhood person. The criteria for an appeal are applied the same no matter who you are. And so what we want to make sure is that those criteria are very clear and they match the intent of the ordinance. So there is some cleanup about the standard of evidence for finding that there was an error. Just as a reminder, these types of appeals are a very small number in front of the board, you know, three, four or five in a year. The vast majority of things they hear are variances. There is not a standard of evidence for a variance. There are a set of different criteria. We're not changing any of those criteria in this bill because they all live in charter. But the criteria for what defines an area for that small number of appeals. We're just changing the language to better match the intent of the ordinance, calling it clear and convincing evidence. That's a term that's used legally to kind of mean deference to the decision maker, which the ordinance does call for. It says that the zoning administrator, we should have deference to her. So so this just matches that language up. And again, that will apply if a developer thinks they were denied something that they want. That will be the standard they have to meet. The same as if someone doesn't agree and a permit was issued, everyone will be having to meet the same standard. Cleaning up the definition of unusual conditions. This is for properties that can't meet the zoning code because maybe the lot size is strange. Maybe there's a river or a natural feature that affects a lot and makes it difficult to do the setbacks or things the way that the normal requirements would be. Or maybe the property itself is is non-conforming and unusual. This unusual conditions included some financial language right in the middle of it. It kind of muddled things. There's a separate section of the ordinance that covers financial things. You can't get a variance just because it's more expensive. That's not an excuse to get a variance, and that's covered elsewhere. It doesn't need to be covered in a section just about the physical criteria of the site. We're making a standard term for the alternates. They had a term somewhere between one and five years in the code. It was a little unusual. The attorneys had not seen a lot of maybe appointed between one in five years. We picked three years. So it's standard for the alternates. And then we also just clarified the attendance criteria. If someone is absent for more than a third of the meetings, that's the current standard for their to be in attendance issue. We made it the same as it is for this body and the same as it is for all other boards and commissions, which is more than three unexcused absences. If you have a serious illness, you can be excused. But if you don't show up. If you don't. Have an excused absence by the chair of this board. You shouldn't miss more than three meetings, and that is standard in many boards and commissions, according to our research. So that is the end of our staff presentation. And I will be available. We'll both be available to answer questions. And then after the hearing. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Councilmembers Meech and Sandoval. And this evening we have seven folks lined up to speak. Our first speaker is Shawn Johnson. You can come up to the podium and if you wouldn't mind introducing yourself and your city or address whichever you feel comfortable providing. Hey. Hey, y'all. I'm Shawn Johnson. I'm from Denver. I live in Councilman Sandoval's district. I'm here to speak in favor of this bill because it makes sense, especially as a first steps towards remedying some of the longstanding issues. Denver residents who have a who have had to present in front of the Board of Adjustments have experienced. It may come as no surprise to those families which have witnessed the board inexplicably reject accept request while also overseeing approving the destruction of some of Denver's most beautiful houses and neighborhoods. Doesn't require any qualifications of or training. I watched testimony from the PowerPoint presentation of this bill and heard how a bill may be a way member testified, how they applied were notified, they'd be appoint, they'd been appointed and were adjudicating cases the next day without even really knowing what's in or required of their powerful position. That's a serious problem because these members hear serious cases that have serious implications on families and businesses and Denver. In my family's experience with the bill, the way we went before them, seeking an additional 95 square feet for the footprint of our EDU project, a new project plan that had been approved. Our city councilperson had been promoted and improved our neighbors. This was a development plan that was aligned with the city's vision, aligned with our district's vision. The additional square space was going to allow our family to enclose the stairway up to the living space so that we could install a chairlift for my mom who was disabled and . At that was trying to recover from me and at the time was trying to recover from a serious health setback. This minimum request was submitted with numerous letters of support to the view away from the Social Security Administration detailing my mother's disabilities. My mother's personal doctor attesting that this housing would be beneficial to her health care. We presented letters of support from three of the four R.A. organizations listed that they'd contacted about our project. Letters from our direct neighbors. Letters from our R.A. in Specific Submitted, which included a unanimous vote by our local neighbors who supported our project. A letter from Denver's Blueprint Task Force member who represented our area as well as our own city councilperson. The bill away, rejected or ignored all of this input. My story may be egregious, but it's not singular. Most people building here in Denver have their own unfortunate story of. Dealing with fraud. That's the time we have a lot of the for each speaker. Each one has 3 minutes. Was that. Yeah, it was. Yeah, it was. I'm sorry I didn't get to. That, so I. Wanted to brief the guys, but I didn't want to say that I was thankful to the bill or to the city council and I'm sorry for going over time. I didn't know there was. I would have. We can we can call you back up if somebody has a question. So go ahead and please stay. All right. Great. Thank you. On line, our next speaker is LeAnn Anderson. I can hear me. Can you hear me all right? Yes. Awesome. So I just want to say good evening and thank you for the opportunity to speak to you tonight. As you said, my name's Leon Anderson and I am a Denver native and neighborhood advocate. I had the opportunity to present to the BOA on several occasions and have been on both sides of the border decisions as the zoning and land use chair and co-chair for Park Hill. Engagement in the IPO process was why I applied to become a member of the board. I was appointed to serve on the Board of Adjustments as an alternate board member in March of 2019. I'm concerned that as drafted, this bill has the potential to exacerbate the issues the bill is attempting to address. The approach seems counterproductive, unseating the current board in its entirety and replacing them with new board members who may have no knowledge or limited knowledge of the process, has the potential to increase inconsistencies and result in increased complaints from constituents, as well as increased legal liability for the system for the city. New people. Members with the same criteria will likely result in limited process improvement and may very well likely make things worse. I urge you to reconsider the proposal to reestablish the Board of Adjustment Striker from the bill and to focus on modernizing the VOA criteria to meet the needs of a growing city. The current board members have diverse backgrounds and personal experience. Board member terms are staggered and allow for the desire for board member updates to occur naturally over the next two years and allow the necessary time to vet the needed body process. Improvements and training of board members to be. The bill itself provides legal authority for the Board of Adjustment members to be trained to better prepare them to serve in the role and application of the BOA criteria. I also would urge you to require, in the composition of the board in Section E of the bill, to require at least one member to be a neighborhood advocate . Persons who have served on their registered neighborhood organization acted as a zoning or land use chair or co-chair, and presented cases to the Board of Adjustments. Boots on the Ground Experience. And I would also ask that you would consider to add a number five to require all members of the Board of Adjustment to have a demonstrated interest in zoning and land use. I urge you to focus on updating the bio criteria. First and foremost, implore and analyze which VOA approach is best for the city and city and county of Denver, and ensure all citizens are able to serve on the VOA and methodically implement those changes in concert with the. Time we have allocated for each speaker. Our next speaker is Amy SIEGEL. Trying to get you moved over, if you could. Oh, there you go. Go ahead, please. Hi there. Hi, Madam President. My name is Amy Segal. I live in Berkeley neighborhood in northwest Denver. I'm actually speaking on behalf to promote the change to the procedures and processes of the Board of Adjustment. I do believe that it needs to be overhauled as it is not representing the community or the needs of the residents. The VOA members don't have any special training, which I think is important, and we've had first. I have knowledge of how the system does not work. And as an attendee to some of the zoning meetings and also appeal, we have found a lot of inconsistencies that have proven to be detrimental in decisions being made. There were sign up sheets at one of the zoning meetings and the people who came in were not living in the district and were able to sign up, which was inconsistent. They didn't have any proof of residency and where they lived and if it was in the affected area. They should take into consideration the blueprint. Denver in some of the decision making. The experiences that we had were very. Detrimental as far as decisions being made and having alternates on the board and one of our board members recuse themselves. So when 50 residents showed up for a hearing, paid parking took off work. We didn't have a full board there. So those processes did not work in order to have. An. Alternate. And when the alternate did listen to the recordings, it was an antiquated recording. They could not hear nor understood and did not get a clear picture. And while three members of the board voted in favor of our appeal, the alternate voted against, and we were not able to see that through. My career is basically in commercial real estate and having people on the board that have zoning knowledge and. Experience would be beneficial not only for these decisions but for residential, commercial and anything else that takes place in the district. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Our next speaker is Frankie Schulz. The as Henry. Yes. Go ahead. Thanks. Good evening, everybody. First of all, I just want to say thanks for your service. I know it's a thankless job sometimes, and I appreciate what you guys do for the city. I also want to thank the council members that are that that called me back when I reached out about this particular case. I've been honored to serve as a as a volunteer seven years on the Denver Planning Board and as my ninth year on board of Adjustment. And just a quick clarification, Councilman Sandoval, that we meet every week, not every other week. So just a note to listen to in my testimony that we meet every week, 9 a.m., and everybody's committed that i'm the testimony that i'm going to give right now, although it may not make a difference tonight, i'm clear about that. But I wanted to make sure I got it on the record. It's not really so much about me. At this point because I'm off the board very shortly, but it's about my colleagues that I work with every week. I'll also say that I. I support this legislative change. I support the equity component. I think we had more of it and a couple of people got off. That did change that dynamic some. I agree with the training. Different backgrounds. Streamlining the criteria, which is important, and I'll talk about in a minute. Here's the challenge. When we're in there, it's not. Easy. We have criteria. From the city that we have to follow. But each case is different. And if we if we vote against the case, those people aren't happy. And then they call council, they call the mayor, they get upset and calls names. And I'm sure you guys understand that with things, that decision you guys make. So that's a real challenge for us. And I'm going to play onto what Lianne said, that one of the biggest things, the focus should be around this, especially when I listen to Councilman Kennish and a lot of the the reasons for the change, they seem. Very. About the people that are on the board as opposed to as opposed to the criteria. The criteria is what's heart. Hear sometimes because we have to follow a criteria. I'm running out of time. So I got to be quick here. There is a case and Mr. Johnson was there. I challenge anybody to look at the time, to look at the details of that case, because it's not exactly like he said. And to be honest with you, I voted for it, but still got dragged through the wringer on a bunch of investigations of how we are. We're prejudiced to the different cases. So, you know, it's a tough thing when somebody doesn't get approved. I get that. We do our best to grant a variance. When it's needed for minimal minimal for for minimal thing they need to do to get that variance. And that stairwell and closure was not the problem on that. But but furthermore, what's more important is that the that I, I also I also want to say this. I would challenge the knowledge of our board, which a lot of it was learned the hard way. And I'm for the training. But a current understanding of the zoning code to anyone. Including everybody sitting on council. Because we have people that dig very deep. And and know a lot about zoning. I'm fine having formally trained. I get that. Okay. Thank you. So that's the time we have allotted for each speaker. You got it. Thank you. Somebody asked me a question because the only thing. Thank you. We're going to go ahead and move on to our next speaker. We've got Joel Noble. Good evening. Counsel. Go ahead, please, Joel. It. Can you hear me all right? Yes. Thank you very much. My name is Joel Noble. I live in the Curtis Park neighborhood within the five point statistical area. Although I do volunteer as on a number of roles, I am speaking tonight only on my own behalf, and I'm here to speak in favor of this first step to reestablish and modernize the Board of Adjustment for Zoning Appeals. As a community member, I've paid attention to the Board of Adjustment for many years, going with my neighborhood on matters, having peer to peer input with others, whether they were someone bringing an appeal such as a variance or responding either for or against as a neighborhood. And I've seen a lot of cases. I've formed a lot of opinions about how things work and been able to help folks through this process. So when I heard this came up, I had a lot of questions and I want to thank Councilwoman Keech, Councilwoman Sandra Ball and Tina at our zoning administrator for spending time with me to answer all of my questions as the final decision makers on these important appeals, most often for variance, sometimes for other matters. It makes sense to me that we update the appointment qualifications and training requirements for this board, as well as the important clarifications that Councilwoman Keech talked about. It's my understanding that existing Board of Adjustment members will be invited to apply along with other applicants, and, and I hope they will be considered. My my understanding is also that beyond the action considered tonight, there's a second step and this gets what I think both the existing Board of adjustment members earlier spoke to modernizing the criteria especially the with the variance criteria, we put the board of adjustment in a very difficult position. And on the one hand, we need the intent of the zoning code to be upheld and we need it to be flexible when there's a true hardship. But I think the criteria we have written in the zoning code for hardship, other than specific cases of personal disability or a very unusual light configuration, pretty objective, are very challenging. And I can understand that the Board of Adjustment has to find their own way because we collectively as a city and then the criteria we give them don't give a lot of guidance. And so I'd like to see this next phase, and I've given a lot of input to the sponsors as to things that might be covered, results in a clearer process that everyone understands better, including the public, that the same facts will reach the same decision reliably because it has transparency and clarity . But this as a first step I think the council sponsors are bringing forward. Thank you. Our next speaker is Jonathan Capelli. Okay. Everyone hear me? Hello. Go ahead, Jonathan. Okay, great. Thank you, Madam President. My name is Jonathan Capelli, the executive director of the Neighborhood Development Collaborative, a coalition of 19 affordable housing organizations serving about 30,000 households across metro Denver. I am speaking today in support of S.B. 93, and there are three main reasons why we support this bill. One is the professionalization of the body. And two is the enhanced training requirements. And three is a sort of rebalancing of appointment power. Professionalization is really important because our land use policies are very complex and the only way to demystify complexity is with knowledge. It's also really important, though, to balance expert knowledge with community voices. So we're pleased to see that the bill's. Sponsors ensure a guaranteed mix. Of subject matter experts and informed laypersons. We also think these measures so we think that these measures will then lead to the flexible and nuanced guidance of the creation of our built environment that the city needs. We need the members with the technical expertize. To interpret both the spirit and the letter of our. Code and other documents in order to ensure that the values coded within are reflected in their decisions about it. Land is getting scarcer, costs are rising, and this causes development proposals by necessity to become increasingly unorthodox. So a wise and informed interpretation of a variance request is an appeal that's necessary to ensure that affordable housing and other community benefiting uses essential to the city are actually created. We also feel that training is incredibly important, as others have spoken, to ensure that both members are up to date on the complex, legal and zoning concepts that the code is replete with, and also ensures that BLM member, VOA members of the future understand the impact of their actions on things like racial equity. Land use decisions have arguably had the single greatest impact on the history, on the history of how our country and the city have become less of a melting pot and more of a sort of a cafeteria trade all divided up. When it comes to people of different races and ethnicities and incomes and how they're distributed across the city. Finally, we also appreciate the balance of government appointment power. We thank the current VOA members for their volunteer service over the years. Sounds like a tough job. However, today, simply put, we have election season approaching, so having such a consequential quasi judicial branch that's decided only by one branch of government without any stopgaps places it in danger of being politicized over future administrations. So these proposed changes will finally let the body match the precedent of ten of our peers, cities, and most of Denver's other decision making committees in their practice requiring cross cross-brand split sort of appointing power. So in short, we see that this unifying way decision making landscape that the VOA will face over the coming years is more complex than it was in the fifties and never more consequential. So to rise to the challenge of the future. We do ensure it has a diversity. This time we have allocated. We're going to go ahead and move to our last speaker this evening, Brian Connelly. Thank you. Council President Gilmore. My name is Frank Connelly, as many of you know. I'm a land use planner and land use lawyer with the firm of Otten Johnson here in Denver. And I'm also a Denver resident. I in addition to my day job, I teach land use law at both the University of Colorado Law School and at the University of Denver Law School. And the function of the Board of Adjustment and Variances and Appeals are one of the first things that I teach in an introductory land use course. So the function of the Board of Adjustment is very important and very fundamental to land use law into the function of zoning in our city . In my day job, I've had the opportunity to appear before the current Board of Adjustment and Prior Boards of Adjustment on many occasions. And they they do perform a very important role. And I think that the current members of the board have done a remarkably good job of performing that role. Despite the challenges of the role, as you've already heard about this evening. I am in support of the changes that are proposed by council member candidates and council members and of all. And it's really for two reasons. First, I appear before decision making bodies, including city council all around the state, and I've observed that decision making bodies that have a robust training regimen as part of their their process, I think perform their functions in an incredibly professional manner. And so I'm very supportive of the notion of additional training for Board of Adjustment members. I think it's incredibly important given the challenges of that position. And then secondly, I think the fact that we would introduce some requirements that Board of Adjustment members be well credentialed in the area in which they are required to make decisions, I think is a good move. Certainly the other boards in the city that council member mentioned that have credential requirements, I think those boards function very well and those board members bring an important perspective to their decision making authority. So I do applaud the sponsors of the bill for taking this additional step. I agree with some of the other speakers regarding the need for modernization and some of the criteria. I do think the current board members for their service and they've done a good job and I am in support and urge council to. Pass this bill. Thanks. Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Council Bill 22, Dash 0093 Councilmember Sawyer. Things on a President. I have a couple of quick questions, but first, I wanted to just allow there was two speakers that couldn't finish. So you're one of them? Yeah. And then I think there was one on line as well. And I would love to just maybe give them another minute to just wrap up. I really don't think it's an end or a five year anniversary. And we decided to come here to. Happy anniversary. And to speak on this issue instead of just going out to dinner and have something wonderful. So I do it in a do reintroduce yourself for the public record. My name is Shawn Johnson. I'm sure you all familiar with my family's story. I'll try to send you the videos of our hearing. I've tried to contact you. I've tried to speak out. Our family is not trying to demonize any members of the body who try to speak tonight. We think it's important that the city be prepared. As especially as Councilwoman Candace pointed out there, there's a liability issue here that these members are representing the city and that they are not familiar with housing laws, equity laws. The vision of the city, the planning, development of different communities. And that they are not even in the position to sort of here pay attention to are required to adhere to the input that they get from particular communities. This is a simple bill that just makes sense. And I'm really proud of the City Council of Denver for hearing an issue that is not just my own. As I tried to reach out to everybody that existed when this was happening to my family, because it meant that we were going to be displaced from our home and potentially displaced from Denver. While only trying to create a safe, healthy spot for my mom, for our family. That was a huge issue, one that we couldn't ignore. And as I reached out to everyone, almost every department, almost every individual that I spoke to could speak to an issue with this boy and how it functions. So I think that this was a really productive thing and a great thing that you all did to address an issue that is affecting residents and particular developers, everyone in this city. And it's simple. It's asking that people who have a huge power, a huge influence in our city, be trained and be qualified. That's not that's not huge. It's not controversial. These are basic things. And I hope that you guys will support this bill and support the deadline that would require a new board to be set, because the current members are, I think, jeopardizing not all of them. I don't want to say that, but there are members on this board who are jeopardizing this city. Period. I mean, they're jeopardizing the city. The consequences that can come out of their decisions are jeopardizing. The city are going to take money from this city that could go to other issues, important issues, creating housing as opposed to the potential lawsuits and liability that might exist. So I think this is a simple solve, especially as a first step to to start to create change and to start to create a progress that's going to be important for our city. And I thank you for the additional time. I don't want to say too much, but I I'm thankful. It's not a lot of times that you have a problem and you see your government, you see your city immediately sort of respond to it, I think, in a kind, generous way. And this was, I thought, a gracious way to sort of address the issue while also giving the members of this board an opportunity to sort of step down without anybody in particular being called out, anybody in particular being told you have to go for this reason? It's just a gracious way for our city to move forward and in a progressive way, in the right way, and that aligns with our values. Right now, the VOA is even allowed to align with new values that our city is putting forth. And this is a great thing to do, and I hope that you guys will support it because it's it's simple as asking for them to be qualified and for them to be trained. Awesome. Thank you so much. And I believe there was a gentleman online as well who had a few more points I think you wanted to make. Maybe it was Frank Schultz. We yep. We've got Frank. Schultz thinking. Of moving in. I really, really appreciate you. Let me at least get these closing statements and obviously being on the board for nine years. I've got a lot to say. And but I did say I supported this bill. And the point. I didn't get to yet was. Is that you got all these people that serve that that have worked really hard and don't have a prejudice bias at all. They look at the cases. They have tough decisions to make. They try not to play in the gray. But as even Ms.. Sawyer said earlier that we have to look at each case individually. And I'm telling. You, from knowing these people for a long time. They're all good people that are. Judge in these cases because of color, because of sexual orientation. They're judging them because of the stuff that's in front of them. And maybe we had to learn the hard way. Of how to of how to understand zoning, how to understand the different what we can and can't do and the criteria. But well, I've been on there a long time. And if training is we I support the training, you know, but we should have. The opportunity to do it. I know we can reapply, but I. Think there's three people that. Are turning now. There's one that resigned and there's. So it really. Leaves us two that are that have a few years left. But here's the main point is that. The people that are on this board and I'm off and I'm done. But the people that were on this board, I was shocked that they should be able to serve the. Rest of their term because it's only going to be a couple of them. And it helps Austin, the director. Make his transition. And I just it's very hurtful. I was on a meeting with them today before, and I literally had two or four board members that were that were beside themselves when I'm crying, because they've put all this time in nine to noon and they put all this time in and and this is about criteria. If we want to tighten it up, we the criteria. Let's not prejudiced people and we're not against training. We agree with different backgrounds and the. Requirements here actually maybe except the attorney have have pretty much been there since. I've been on the board for nine years. They've just happened to be that way. So anyway, that's there's so much more to say sort of in nine years on this board and and really we all feel like or actually I'm gonna speak for four, five of the seven board members but the rest I just what they weren't on the meeting. Today is we all feel like although we're in support of a lot of these changes that our. Time wasn't valued and you could. Say it, well, we're done. Council gets to speak, you can say, Hey, we appreciate your time. Yeah, you served our city. But you know what? The damage is done if you just throw everybody off and put a new board on because that's what you're saying. Is there the problem, not the changes in the legislation and the criteria? So I'm as lawyer, thank you for letting me finish. And that's all I got. So. I appreciate your perspective. Thank you for sharing it. And and I do want to make sure that I certainly can't speak for other council members, but I think they will all agree with me when we say thank you for your service. We certainly understand how difficult your job is and, you know, appreciate what this must feel like to current board members. So thanks for sharing that perspective. Just one question, Councilwoman Kennedy, I guess, for you and Councilwoman Sandoval while the new board is being convened, should this pass tonight. What is the transition plan? Will. Will the former board continue to? I know we've got lots of things going on and people are, you know, very concerned about the length of time that it takes to get things approved, etc.. So what what's the interim plan? Thank you for the question, Councilwoman Sandoval, and thank you also for letting our two speakers finish. We have a timeline in the appendix of the document that's in your legislative system, and we're actually beginning work this week. So we, as a council boards and commissions workgroup have already discussed, you know, getting recruitment to begin. The mayor's office is already discussing recruitment. So those conversations have begun pending this passing tonight. We have a meeting with the staff for the Board of Adjustment to talk about the training plan that includes some of the agencies that will be involved, including like H.R., for example. You know, we want to add some flesh to the bones of the the training conversation so that, for example, we can maybe have it videoed so it can be consistent. The goal is to have all of the appointments completed by the end of April and then be able to have the month of May for training. And the anticipation is it would be a combination of some self-study materials that will be provided by the agencies along with some, you know, live trainings. Whether that's live in-person or live on Zoom, I can't tell you today, but the idea that the board members would have time together and then they would begin meeting in June. You know, we're we're aware if you know, it is our sincere hope. We we do appreciate the service of this board. And I'll talk more about that in my comments. But it's our hope that the board members will continue to serve through through through the end of May until the new board takes over . You know, we did have someone resign and the administration is responsible still for the appointments. And so they're working on that. A replacement we. So so that's the plan for this phase I was going to because this hearing is only on this bill. I didn't get into some of the discussions about the other conversation. I'll do that again in my comments. But I think I'm answering your question as it pertains to this interim for what happens with this bill. I yeah, exactly. Yeah. Thanks so much. I think that's it. Thanks, Madam President. All right. Thank you. Councilmember Sawyer and Councilmember Canete. Next up, we have Councilmember Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. First, I want to thank Councilwoman Sandoval in Councilwoman each for their work on this over time. I've worked on many projects that have gone before the Board of Adjustment, and it's not always a clear process, especially for residents who experience it for a first time and really are trying to figure out how to navigate through that process. The one question that came up from a comment that Joel Noble made about current members being able to re-apply is there they'll be given the same timeline notification as anybody else and they'll be encouraged to apply, correct? Yeah, I can take that one. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Councilman Kenny and I met with all of the current board members and the two alternates and informed them of the ordinance and told them that if they so desire that they can reapply. So when we open up the positions, they'll be notified as well. Okay. I think that's all I have. So thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 22, Dash 0093 and wanted to give our sponsors, Councilwoman Meech and or Sandoval the opportunity to go first since you sponsored this. Thank you, Madam President. And thank you to the speakers who are here tonight. I'd like to start my comments by, you know, really addressing and responding to to the speakers who are here, because I think that basically our speakers tonight were a microcosm of the stakeholders we talk to through this process. And all of you were heard. I want to make clear, first of all, Mr. Johnson and Amy, who spoke, had particular cases with outcomes they were not pleased with. And I heard you I heard your stories. But I also want to be really clear that no one case prompted this bill. In fact, questions and, you know, thinking about what this board's history was and how it compared to other cities began before some of the cases that we're talking about tonight in the testimony. So there is no one case. There's no one decision. This was really about slowly becoming more aware of the board and that the differences between the board and some of the best practices that are emerging in other cities and and what those differences could be addressed. And honestly, this conversation really began with what every speaker tonight talked about, which was the criteria. It began with what have we given this board to work with? And I want to start, I guess, by you know, that that discussion by saying with humility, we have as a city has haven't done well by this board. They are using the same criteria from 1924 to determine whether a property, you know, or a project needs a variance. That's not okay. And it's not okay because our values as a city aren't always served. We don't have, for example, a criteria that says this will save a 100 year old tree in the canopy that we value for our environment. We probably don't have enough criteria to help us save old buildings. I've said numerous times you can always meet the zoning code perfectly if you scrape something and start from scratch. But if our values are to keep old, awkward buildings that don't fit with the zoning code, we probably need variance criteria that work better . And I want to just acknowledge what the board members who testified today and those we talked to said, which is we have given them an impossible job. We've given them a job to try to create just outcomes with very awkward criteria. One group of people we didn't hear well we heard from one tonight is people who testified. We haven't actually been as clear as we could be with our community that these are not policy debates. It's not about the opinions and feelings of communities in the same way that those discussions occur in this chamber sometimes. These are technical conversations about whether criteria are met. So we set up our community with expectations that it's about counting the number of speakers or how much support there is, when in fact the board is given criteria that don't really make those relevant pieces of evidence. So while we give, you know, these board members this very tough job, it became clear that we have improvements that we can make. And those improvements almost all led back first to the charter. And so tonight's presentation was about those things within our ability to change by ordinance only. But we will have that second conversation. And that second conversation will be an attempt to address the feedback of every speaker who spoke tonight, whether they were community or board members or developers or neighborhood leaders that we got to look at and modernize those criteria. But in that process, we also learned that we didn't have the best structure we could. And so our attempt to both take some immediate action that can help us come in a better prepared way for the situation we're in, but then expeditiously have that conversation about the bigger picture issues that folks raise. So so that's what really came together in Councilwoman Sandoval and his decision to work together on first this bill and then the conversation that follows. It was really to try to set the stage and to really get to an outcome that maybe requires less confusion, because maybe some of these things could be decided in a much more administrative way. And that is the trend in other cities. Right. We could do better education. We're going to share with the staff of this board the feedback we got. We should have maybe some information or videos for folks who might appear before the board so they get some better preparation. There are things we can do as a city to support this board that we haven't done previously. So the good news about a focused conversation is we learn things we can change in the ordinance and we learn things we can change in the practices that don't require an ordinance change. So we'll do our best to support both conversations. I just want to say thank you to all the stakeholders who met with us, only a small portion who are here tonight. And I want to thank you, John Griffin from the Legal Council, his predecessor, Kirsten, and others from the CPD staff, Tina and Abe, who really answered our questions and worked with us as well. It was a great team effort to try to get the information. I want to thank the staff of the BOA in addition to the board members who spoke with us as well. Their feedback is all going into that next conversation. So thank you and I'll pass it to my co-sponsor. Thank you, Councilwoman Leach. Councilwoman Sandoval. Thank you, Madam President. As I was thinking about the Board of Adjustment, I was also calling out our five criteria in our zoning code. And so I just want to say that when I'm looking at equity and I'm looking at due process in city, when it comes to land use, I take being the land use commissioner very seriously and I take it's one of our biggest responsibilities because we usually have rezonings every night. And so I just want to make it clear that I was not just calling out due process on the Board of Adjustment and Antiquated Systems. I'm also calling out antiquated systems on our five criteria that we vote on here. And therefore CPD reacted and we have a task force. I've looked at ADU standards throughout the city as we rezone neighborhoods, and so CPD reacted. And we have a task force for accessory dwelling units. And this was one area of the charter that allowed city council to have due process to modernize this. This board, when I was talking to people and we were giving our presentations and I made and the fact that the zoning has not changed since 1956, I thought about all of the changes that have happened in Denver since 1956, and to not have updated a board since 1956 is a failure of our system. And so with that, I just ask all my colleagues to think about all of the changes that you can think of since 1956 and how important it will be to modernize this board and bring it up to a new type of criteria. And really, to have training makes our city better. We put these five members and the two alternates every week. We ask them to do and make legal case law with no training and so therefore we make them vulnerable as well. So I think that this is a win win for the entire city and I ask for my colleagues support. And I would just also like to thank all of the speakers. Thank you for spending your 50 year anniversary here with us. I couldn't. I'm a zoning geek, so I couldn't think of a better way to spend it. I appreciate your coming in and saying that you don't often hear a complaint in the city react. And so thank you for your comments. And thank you for the board members comments. Thank you for the mayor's office working with us. And thank you for CPD, Tina and your staff. Thank you, Councilmember Sandoval. Councilmember Hines. Thank you. Council president. I want to thank the sponsors of this bill. I want to thank also the members of the Board of Adjustment for all their hard work over so long period of time. I also want to thank Catherine, percent of all for calling out the five criteria. I agree with you. Any change to comments that I want to make? First, as a civil rights advocate for people with disabilities, I want to thank the sponsors for including the EEI principles diversity, equity, accessibility and inclusion. I'm an elected official today because I perceived discrimination against those with disabilities that led to multiple passed laws at the state level law with my name on it and a successful campaign for city council. Second comment that I wanted to make is I've served on numerous boards, some more effective than others, including the Denver Commission for People with Disabilities appointed by our Mayor. Current Mayor. The current Advisory Council for Persons with Disabilities. Appointed by the Governor. A Health Care and Policy. Health Care Policy and Finance. State Board appointed by the Senate President at the time. President Grantham. Denver. Dumb friendly. Clever. Still museum. And the common thread that I see is that having a matrix makes a lot of sense for boards and commissions, and the most effective boards that I've served on have had a matrix. And based on my personal experience and based on the research I've completed for attending or being participating in those boards and for this discussion, I am really excited that we are adding a bit more meat to the to the process. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilmember Hines. And I'll wrap up. I want to sincerely thank Councilwoman Canete and Sandoval for taking this work on and the public who stayed and testified tonight. It was really helpful to hear that testimony. And then I want to thank the current members of the board for their service and recognizing that change is hard. Change is never easy, no matter what. And I support these changes. But there is still the opportunity for current board members to reapply, to continue serving. And I think the training opportunity, the opportunities for us to modernize are so important and this is important work and we've got more work to do. But this is an important first step and I am happy to support it this evening. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 20 20093, please. See CdeBaca. Can each. I. Sandoval. I swear, I. Torres, I swear I can't. All right. Fine. I. Herndon. Hi. Hi. Cashman. Ortega. I. Madam President, I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. 12 hours, 12 Eyes Council Bill 20 2-0093 has passed. On Monday, March 21st, Council will hold a required public hearing on 20 2-0160, changing the zoning classification for 3759 North Industry and 3760 North Jason Street and Highland.