A bill for an ordinance amending Chapter 30 (Landmark Preservation) of the Revised Municipal Code. Amends Chapter 30 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code (DRMC), Landmark Ordinance to simplify designation criteria, add criteria associated with cultural significance, to extend time frames for demolition/designation review process, to add required mediation and to clarify language and ensure consistency throughout the ordinance. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 9-10-19.
Council is now reconvened. We have two public hearings this evening. Speakers should begin their remarks by telling the council their names and cities of residents and if they feel comfortable doing so, their home addresses. If you are here to answer questions only when your name is called, please come to the podium, state your name and note that you are available for questions of council. Speakers will have 3 minutes. There is no yielding of time and on the presentation monitor on the wall you will see your time coming down. Speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing and must direct their comments to the council members. Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments to council as a whole and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilman said Abarca, will you please put Council Bill 914 on the floor? I move that council bill 914 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. The courtesy hearing for Council Will 914 is open. May we have the staff report? Good evening. My name is Karen. I'm with Landmark Preservation in Community Planning and Development and we are here to talk about the proposed updates to the Landmark Ordinance or chapter 30 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code. Landmark Preservation was established in 1967 by Denver City Council with the purpose of designating, preserving and protecting historic resources. I Council noted at the time that it was the sense of the Council that the economic, cultural and esthetic standing of the city cannot be maintained or enhanced by disregarding the historic architectural and geographical history of the city. The Denver landmarks vary from what you see in the upper left hand corner, which is a staged stop at Four Mile Park to something as modern as a hangar in Stapleton. They vary over what is significant for in the types of buildings that that we have. There are currently 344 individual landmarks and 55 historic districts, which equals about 6800 primary buildings in the city in county of Denver, or approximately out of the approximately 160,000 buildings. 55 historic districts make it seem like a lot, but it's really about 4% of the city. And through this process, as we were looking at other peer cities, we found that that's an approximate number of percentage of buildings that are designated for cities of our size. So for the proposed landmark ordinance, we convened a task force of 16 members. It was intentionally put together to include those who were supportive of preservation, those who are not supportive of preservation, and those who were neutral. It included residents from a variety of different neighborhoods around the city and professions that intersected with landmark preservation, including to members of council developers, architects, realtors and contractors. We also looked at putting, when we convene the task force to have people who are newer residents to Denver, as well as people who had lived here for a long time and those who are multi-generation families from Denver. So we got to do a diverse group of people who had lived in the city and county of Denver. They they met for a yearlong process and convened 11 different facilitated stakeholder meetings. During their initial two meetings, the task force did a problem identification and they looked at what were the area, what were the areas that they wanted to focus on. They talked about a lack of diversity in the designated prop properties. The complexity of the ordinance requirements. Conflict associated with designations submitted as part of the demolition process. And the lack of incentives for designation. So the goals and the recommendations that are being put forth addressed is each of these items that were identified in the task force. The task force looked at those problem statements as well as criteria that they established sorry, as well as criteria that they established to determine if they were successful, that the processes that were being updated were clear and predictable, that they were consistent with long held citywide practices and that they were based on best preservation practices. We as staff conducted a nationwide comparative analysis of 12 peer cities, and when we talked to them, we looked at standard preservation practices, best practices, innovative programs, and then we called and talked to them to find out what were things that didn't work. We didn't want to put forward ideas that they found didn't work. And after the 11 meetings and the other 12 month process, the task force reached a consensus on all of the recommendations that are put forward. And so one of our one of our last meetings, one of our task force members said that he was a little bit uncomfortable with this. And then he looked and said, but he thinks any Levinsky, who is the director of historic Denver, was also a little bit uncomfortable, which probably meant that we hit the right balance between making things. That was a good compromise. So the recommendations are to add a culture criteria to our designation criteria. So the task force is recommending to add three criteria to our culture, one on how the site was used by past generations. Could a site or property be a source of pride or cultural understanding to a community? And three, is it associated with social movements, institutions, or patterns of growth or change in the community? We looked at what would be the right number of criteria, and we expanded our 12 peer cities to 32 cities. We looked at other Colorado cities. We especially looked at two cities in Colorado that had paid professional staff of at least two members. There aren't any other comparable cities in Colorado to Denver, but we wanted to choose cities that were actually putting some resources towards preservation. As an understanding that that's an ethos of that city. So we looked at Boulder and Fort Collins. Then we also looked at other peer cities like Austin, Portland and Seattle. And we found a variety of ways of how people were how many criteria were needed in order to be a landmark in those cities. And we looked at it, and most of those cities had a list of criteria rather than the categories that we currently have. Only ourselves, Boise, Boise and Greeley, out of the 32 cities, had categories. So the task force is recommending to remove the categories and have criteria. So here are existing designation criteria of history, architecture and geography. And so the task force is recommending to remove the categories and then create a list of criteria that include culture. And as you can see here, there's a list of ten criteria. They are still associated with the categories, with the addition of culture, and that it would meet a designation would meet three out of the ten in order to be designated. That is still one of the highest thresholds in the nation. As we looked at some of those same 32 cities, 24 of them, or 75% require fewer than 30% criteria met to be a landmark or a designation in their city. So we're still maintaining a high requirement for designation, which was an important part of what the task force talked about. We also went and looked and tried different properties against the proposed criteria. This is the Macedonia Baptist Church. It's listed on the National Register of Historic Places, but it is not a Denver landmark. So there was research that was already associated with this property. And when we looked at it, we found that it would have been significant under the proposed criteria under architecture, as well as under two, under culture as a source of pride, as well as associated with social movements or institutions of pattern and growth. And so we found that this criteria worked for the culture criteria to allow for designated properties that represent the African-American community. We also looked at iconic buildings, things that are already designated and whether they still be designated today. So we took one of the most iconic buildings in Denver, which is Union Station, and found that it would meet six out of the ten criteria and would still be eligible under the proposed criteria. We also wanted to look at residential in addition to in addition to commercial properties. And so we looked at the Molly Brown house, which is one of the more iconic residential buildings in Denver, and found that it still met the criteria three out of ten and felt like that would be a good threshold number. And then we also looked at a property that we had reviewed for a demolition permit a couple of years ago. And at that time, we found that it didn't meet the existing criteria and categories that we have. And we found under the proposed new criteria, it would still would not meet the it would still not meet the criteria to would only be significant under architecture. And so we wanted to try out the proposed criteria under different for different properties and under different methods to ensure that we were reaching the right balance in the task force found that the three out of ten would be the appropriate criteria for designation. The other reason that the task force was primarily convened was to look at the conflicts that comes from properties that are come under demolition review and then a designation process is started through that. And so we talked extensively about ways to reduce the conflict in that we wanted to provide some numbers of the of what we have reviewed citywide. So if you can see the blue graph bar on the the largest numbers are the properties that landmark staff reviewed and approved for demolition. Then the much smaller purple shows the number of properties that we found had the potential to be a Denver landmark, and those were posted. And then the very small that you almost can't see the line, but you can see the number are the number of designations that were received from 2014 through midyear of 2019. And so we're talking about a really small percentage of properties that come forward, but understanding that when they do come forward, there is a lot of conflict that is associated with that. So of those designations that came forward, only one has been designated as a landmark. It's the Beth Eden Baptist Church, which was designated in 2014 or 2015. We have had three that were withdrawn by the applicant, three that were denied by city council. And then we have two that were denied by the Landmark Preservation Commission because they found that the applications were not sufficient to come forward. These owner opposed designations are very rare. And one of the things that we found in Denver and in our research with our peer cities is that we sometimes find a really good way of saving buildings that aren't necessarily through designation. And so while only one property has been designated through this process, we've also we've saved a variety of buildings through a compromise that didn't come through designation. And the task force talked about wanting to take this process out of the binary demo or designation process and turn it into some sort of collaboration between the community and the property owner. And so the task force is proposing to add a pause in the process. So the top line shows the current process that that a designation would go forward and a demolition review. And on the top one in green, it shows that there's a short seven day pause. What the task force is talking about doing is extending that pause from seven days to 39 days, which adds up to a grand total of a 60 day pause. Within that pause, there would be a required third party facilitated meeting, and it would be facilitated by a city paid facilitator. Landmark staff would who would attend these meetings to help provide information that would be needed. But the intent is to bring the property owner or any of the property owners, representatives together with community members, with members of the R.A., and bring in any outside expertize that could be needed on the cases that have come forward to city council. We have. On that. Sometimes you have asked questions about the stability of the property or was there a compromise that could be reached in this process? It would allow for bringing in outside experts who are structural engineers, who are used to working on historic properties, and that they could also provide input in this process if needed. One of the questions that we got in our public comment period is what happens if someone decides to skip the third party facilitated meeting? And so we address this by if the person who asked for the pause or submitted the notice of intent. If they don't attend the facilitated meeting, that demolition would automatically be approved the next business day. If the property owner or the property owners representatives do not attend the meeting, then the demolition is automatically denied. The next day the property owner would have the ability to start the process over again, but they would have to restart from the beginning. And so there's a reaction on either side if they don't attend the facilitated meeting. So those are the two major changes that are proposed in the landmark ordinance. There are a variety of smaller updates. The landmark ordinance has been updated about 20 some times in the last 52 years, and no one has gone through and looked for consistency within the ordinance. So we are clarifying, removing and streamlining some processes. The Internet was not in existence at the time we wrote this in 1967. So we've updated the email on the Internet existing. There are other ways to communicate versus just mail. We clarified how a few things were done. We have added or amended definitions, including temporary structures for which landmark preservation would not review temporary signage or structures. We have also added something to help provide consistency with other CPD boards and to to manage the agendas of boards. If someone submits a does or submits a design review application, they are taken in a first come, first serve basis. Based on if your application is complete, there are also recommendations to update the Lower Downtown Design Review Board. Changing the name from a board to a commission and adding two At-Large members. One of the other things we did for consistency is that both the Landmark Preservation Commission and the Lower Downtown Design Review Board perform design review in a very similar manner. But the ordinance does not talk about it in the same way. So we're just clarifying and making sure that the ordinance discusses their review process in the same manner. We are also proposing a few items that are not in the ordinance but were things that the Land Preservation Office is working on. The first is to provide clarity for proposed historic districts. So we're formalizing a process for city led community meetings on proposed historic districts. We have staff attend the community meetings that are put forward by the applicants at this time. We attend multiple meetings frequently, but there was a talk, especially from some of the neighborhood residents on the task force, about wanting additional time for communities that are going through a proposed designation. And so we would, once they complete application, would be submitted into landmark staff, we would send a letter along with an FAA cue to everyone who lives within the historic district or owns property in the district, and tell them that there is going to be a meeting in 30 days to allow the community time to talk about the process. Landmark staff would provide information, and then it's mainly intended to be a Q&A for members of the community to ask Landmarks staff what meet what it means to be a historic district. Once that meeting has taken place, we would start an online system to help map and track comments. We currently have a system of dueling petitions where people who are supportive sign a petition and people who are not as supportive or opposed sign a petition. And at the last large historic district that came forward, there were people who signed both petitions which made it difficult for us to provide information to you guys as to what was the community support for this. So this would be an online mapping system. It's the same system that we used to get comments for Blueprint. Denver So it would move away from neighbors going binary yes or no for neighbors, but that they could come and provide their comments online, that they would drop a pen as to where they are, that they would provide their contact information and address so that we could verify that they are actually the people who are filling out the survey and that they would have an area for free comment for anything that they wanted to provide written comment to us. This can also have the advantage of being able to be put in multiple languages to provide better access to it. We also wanted to continue to take comment from people who don't own computers or don't have access to the Internet. They can still call us. They can come in person, they can write a letter, they can email us. So we aren't precluding any other form of comment. But we wanted to make sure that we had an opportunity to help streamline the process a little bit. One of the things the task force also talked about is to explore ways to incentivize designation. We did not find a silver bullet or a magic pot of money somewhere, but we did find through our research that other cities have additional zoning incentives that we don't have or that we aren't using to the best that could be enhanced. And so we're looking to do zoning tools to encourage designation things like administrative adjustments or variances for recommendations. If the property and the changes that they're meeting making would be compatible with the character so as to reduce the barriers for people who are designated. And this is just a summary of some of the proposed updates that are outside of the ordinance, but that are things that we at Landmark Preservation are working on after the discussion with the task force. We had an extensive community outreach. We had a variety of meetings before the Landmark Preservation Commission, the Lower Downtown Design Review Board, Planning Board. We went and met with ANC a couple of times. We had community meetings that were out in the community as well as office hours, and then we had meetings that were one on one meetings with people, as well as meetings with organizations for the Denver Metro Association of Realtors Air. We met with Arnaud's when they requested it. We had a public comment period on the draft that was about a two month period, and we incorporated those comments into the final version. Into the final version before you. Oh, sorry. Public comments. We received 11 public comments from people during the draft period. And then on the final red line, we received comments, we received 16 emails. That was a form email that was in support of the proposed amendment that was not brought forward. And then we received two letters from one from History, Colorado and one from the Colorado preservation ink in support of this, as well as 13 letters submitted by individuals who were in support of this. And so the recommendations are to add culture and simplify the criteria that remove the categories and add three criteria for the demolition review process to extend the demolition review process and to add a required third party facilitation meeting to encourage collaboration and then a variety of changes for clarity and consistency. If this is approved, it would have an effective date of November 1st. However, any designation applications that are submitted by October 31st would be processed under the existing criteria. So there are a few designations that are in process right now that you guys would see under the old criteria. And anything that's submitted up through October 31st would be under the old criteria. And I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you very much. We have nine, I think. That's nine people and everybody, if I'm reading this right, I think all nine in support tonight who are speaking, signed up to speak tonight. So I'm going to call the first five up. If you can come up to this first bench and then just step up. When I call your name, you'll have your 3 minutes start on the clock. Sheron not only Carla McConnell, Annie Levinsky, Rosemary Stoffel and Barbara Paul if you could come up and Sharon Nunnally, you are up first. Good evening, council members. My name is Sharon Nunnally. I live in Denver, Colorado, in the Humboldt Park Historic District. I am a past chair of the Denver Landmark Preservation Commission. When we had no design guidelines and our process pretty much was we would try to meet people as much as possible halfway. I am also the author of the Five Points Historic District, Cultural, Historic District. And that particular district speaks to what did not exist at the time that I wrote that application. It was written in 2000, 2001, and final designation was in 2002. And at that time, Jennifer Moulton was the director of planning and Wellington Webb was the mayor. And I think the only person on council at that time was Debbie Ortega, and that is still, still with us. So at the time that we proposed that application, the ordinance is was in its current state. There was no such thing quite as cultural. The word was used, but there had never, ever been an application brought forth on the basis of culture or quite frankly, on the basis of history of a people and a geographic location. So it took a lot of rereading on my part. Even though I had read that ordinance 100 times, I read it another 50 just to see how I could cause this application to take form in the current ordinance language. And it was very tricky, but we managed to get it done. After much explaining and many community meetings and people, everybody on both sides of the discussion were very confused. What do you mean? And why is it this place? And what about these buildings? There are only seven contributing buildings in that district, and so that was intentional and it was a way to recognize the most important buildings, because we also had a landscape that had a lot of add ons. However, the main piece of the application was about the district itself, the people, the business corridor at a time that we don't hope to ever repeat in history. And it was during the period of segregation total in this country from the twenties to the fifties. And we worked on helping people understand the process from beginning to the time of them. I'm sorry, but your 3 minutes are up. Oh, I'm sorry. Well, thank you very much. Anyway, that's where we started. Thank you, Carla McConnell. Good evening. My name is Carla McConnell. I live at 662 Ulster Way, which is in Lowry. I've been involved in historic preservation, both as a volunteer serving on the Denver Landmarks Commission, as a trustee for historic Denver and on the Colorado Preservation Board and professionally as an architect with the National Park Service. Tonight, I ask that you adopt the proposed revisions to our landmark ordinance. Denver's ordinance has resulted in the preservation of over 300 individual landmarks and predictable changes in our 55 historic districts. Our community has benefited from creative developers who have adaptively reused non-designated properties. But the strength of our landmark ordinance is in saving many qualifying properties, which may have been viewed as disposable. Earlier this evening, Lowry's 25th anniversary was celebrated. Thank you. Lowry is a great reminder of the value of proactive preservation planning at Lowry. Buildings that were first seen as white elephants, such as hangars one and two were protected before development began in a landmark district and are now centerpieces of the community. Affordable housing went into the Grand Lowry Lofts and many other examples of adaptive reuse on the one time base gives our neighborhood its unique character. LOWRY Success required collaboration between the city, the master developer and neighboring residents. In the 1990s, the certainty that grounded these decisions could not have been achieved without the tools provided by the landmark ordinance. These proposed updates ensure that we can continue to preserve places that tell Denver's story while attracting investment and meeting community needs. I thank Councilmembers Flynn and Ken each for their active involvement in the updating process for the time commitment of committee volunteers and especially wish to acknowledge the leadership of Denver's landmark staff. The staff both assembled a committee reflecting various points of view, extensively researched best practices from cities with equivalent preservation programs, and managed to end the process with a consensus vote of approval from the committee. No small achievement. Again, the proposed revisions to the landmark ordinance are worthy of your adoption this evening. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, any levinsky. Thank you. I'm Annie Levinsky, executive director of Historic Denver, Inc, a local nonprofit membership supported organization. I served as a member of the task force over the past 18 months, and we, as historic Denver, came to the table because we agreed that there was room to improve some of the landmark processes and specifically those processes related to how new historic designations come forward. I'll admit we were also a little trepidatious about what this might look like and what the outcomes would be. That said, everyone on the task force approached the issues thoughtfully and openly, and the city staff provided helpful research on how other cities were either successfully or not successfully handling similar challenges. In the end, the task force everyone on the task force did make compromises. I don't think everyone left the room getting everything they wanted, but we did leave the room in agreement that we had come to a place where the recommendations were solid, where they would serve our community well, and where they would resolve the core issues that we were commissioned to address. So I want to thank the other task force members, a number of whom are here tonight, because it was a really major time commitment. The two major recommendations of the task force relate to the designation criteria, which you've heard and the designations that result from the demolition review process, which are very rare when the property owners do not support them. We're very excited about the inclusion of the cultural criteria in the designation. We think they can help reduce bias inherent in the system and help invite recognition of resources that reflect the full range of Denver's history. And we look forward to building relationships in the communities all across the city to understand what places are meaningful to them as we get used to these new criteria. Often there have been a number of sites that have been underrepresented in formal preservation programs, and Sharon highlighted one of the challenges she faced 20 years ago trying to protect the Five Points District. But we also know that we needed to maintain a high bar for designation. And so I'll move to the three criteria on the designations that are more contentious, that do not have the support of property owners, which I think Carol highlighted. But it's less than 0.01% of all of the demolitions that come through. But still, we know that they raise contention. And we also know from our own experience that taking a little time to explore alternatives when those issues arrive can often lead to the win win outcome. And really, the value is not so much in the designation itself, but in the dialog that is generated by having the opportunity to engage. So we believe that the new structure for demolition postings, which really refocuses the time on dialog and mediation, will provide a better path toward resolution with either even fewer of those coming forward to this body. We do look forward to working on some of the incentives that the task force was not able to address because they're not in the ordinance and upholding the preservation legacy in Denver, which has saved places from the mine to LoDo, the Paramount to First Unitarian Church. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you. Next up, Rosemary Stoffel. My name is Rosemary Stoffel and I live at 2275 South Monroe Street. My role on the Landmark Ordinance Task Force was as a community representative. I've been an advocate for preservation in my own neighborhood as well as in the city as a former historic Denver board member. Other task force members represented different points of view, and not everyone was always on the same page. But each of us did have the opportunity to speak up. We all had to compromise on some things, but in the end agree that we were all on board with the final recommendations. The process involved many hours of meetings and also reading a lot of information sent out by landmark staff before each meeting. Please respect the. Work of the task. Force and adopt these recommendations tonight without any changes or delays. I want to emphasize the importance. Of the pause period. For owner opposed designations in older, older neighborhoods like mine. We have lost many older homes in recent years, including two which were important enough. To be posted by the. City as potentially eligible for designation. One of these was an architectural treasure known to most of us in the neighborhood, an intact Queen Anne House, which had one of favorite Old House award in 2009. The new owner had applied for a demolition permit and was planning to scrape the house in order to build a brand new home . I talked to this owner over the phone several times about considering ways that. He could both. Save the house and get the kind of home he wanted. But the tight. Deadline in the demo review process made that difficult. We never. Met face to. Face or had the. Time or. Expertize available to look at possibilities other. Than designation, other than demolition or designation. Sitting down together with a neutral facilitator, with city staff available to provide facts and other experts. We would have been would have been much more neighborly and given us a better chance to hear each other's perspectives. I don't know if the outcome would have been any different in this particular case, but a longer timeline would also have provided due respect to one of our neighborhoods important assets. Please adopt this proposed. Ordinance tonight so these updates can happen sooner rather than later. Thank you. Thank you, Barbara Paul and then Mark Bowman, Amy Cole, Dennis Humphries and Gregorio Al Caro. If you want to come up to the front bench, go ahead. Thank you. My name is Barbara Paul, and I'm the senior vice president. For Preservation Field. Services for the National Trust for Historic Preservation. I work for the National Trust for 35 years, all the while residing here in Denver. I have been proud to have worked with the city, historic Denver and local property owners on the designation of the Lower Downtown Historic District in the 1980s and the downtown Historic District in 2001. Big, bold projects like these have demonstrated Denver's leadership in the field of historic preservation, leadership in particular that has benefited from the city's elected officials. As a result, as you've already heard, 300 individual landmarks and 50 stark neighborhoods, but that still only represents 4% of the city's built environment. But yet we. Are here to applaud your outcomes that. Will make it easier for Denver's diverse and culturally rich historic sites and neighborhoods to be considered for local landmark designation that will allow more time for property owners and community members to meet and consider alternatives to potential demolition. That is the forever loss of an historic property. And that will ease regulatory. Barriers and create greater flexibility for owners who want to protect their historically designated property. These changes represent best practices the National Trust has been promoting in other cities across the country, including in Miami, where we've been working with the city to protect the culture rich Little Havana neighborhood that was threatened by up zoning. And in Philadelphia, the cradle of America, where now the mayor's. Task force has included the creation of a new fund. To create incentives to encourage underserved communities to engage in the preservation of their neighborhoods. My colleague Jim Lindberg, who also is here in Denver in our office, recently sent you a letter in support of this bill, and he wrote the Landmark Protection Ordinance that has helped Denver achieve its reputation as one of America's most vibrant, livable and attractive cities, to which I would also add, culturally diverse. So as a preservation professional and a citizen of this city, I urge you to vote in favor of this bill. Thank you. Next up, Mark Bowman. Good evening, President Clark, members of council, thank you for your time and consideration. My name is Mark Bowman. I'm here on behalf of DeMar Denver, Metro Boss Board of Realtors, the largest realtor association in Colorado, representing 7200 plus members. In addition to a member of DeMar, I'm a contractor and a realtor that have worked on historic homes for over 45 years. I'm also an Air Force veteran and a Lowry graduate. I'm here to express our support for the amendment package that is before you this evening. I had the opportunity to serve on the Landmark Preservation Task Force and attended each and every meeting and had that we had over 18 months before devolving. Delving into my comments, I'd like to thank staff and fellow task force members for all their hard work and time they possessed. Dee Myers, in a support of the package, was filed for the following reasons. First, we are hopeful that the pause period will provide non owner applicants and property owners the additional time and dialog prior to application going to LPC or City Council. Second, we support simplifying the designation criteria and adding culture, which is an important criteria to consider and designation process. Finally, we appreciate small language modifications that make it clear to council in giving consideration to property owners position when facing owner post designation. One of my favorite expressions is all the best agreements are reached when everybody is a little bit uncomfortable and I think everyone will agree that we were all a little uncomfortable but came to a consensus on this proposal. With that said, in light of three recent and one still unresolved owner opposed designations, it's no secret that we would like additional provisions for property owners facing unwanted landmark designations. And to be clear, to correct the record for something that was said in committee. It is not DeMarco's position to oppose landmark designation. On the contrary, we believe landmark designation has an important part of shaping our city, is a tool, has been used appropriately to save some of the city's most venerated buildings and coveted neighborhoods such as the Mayan Theater and Curtis Park. Three years ago, some of you called for Chapter 30 update for two main reasons. One, you wanted to end the ugly owner oppose landmark in front of city council. And two, you wanted to see additional provisions for property owners that had their backs against the wall that were that had to be very lopsided process. Unfortunately, this process missed the mark and accomplishing the second goal. We'd like to thank Councilmembers Black and Gilmore for bringing forward their amendments, especially the amendment proposed raising the bar for owner post designation. And even though that is not a part of this consideration, we would like serious consideration for this moving forward. I'm sorry, but your time is up. Thank you. Thank you. Amy, call. Good evening, members of Council. My name is Amy Cole and I'm a 20 year resident of West Highlands. I live on 29th Avenue. In March of 2018, I was asked to serve on the Landmark Ordinance Task Force as a neighborhood resident. And over the course of 18 months, I attended all but one of the meetings and was an active participant, including providing regular reports to my R.A., the West Highlands Neighborhood Association. Our work focused on ways to encourage dialog between the city community members and property owners during the landmark designation process, the clarification of ordinance, language and reviewing the kinds of historic significance a property should have in order to be considered for designation. Following outreach to the community about these proposed changes, the task force work concluded in June 2019 and represents the collective effort of 14 Volunteer Task Force Members, Council Persons Flynn and Ken each and was supported by Mike Hughes and the landmark and CPD staff. Our task force reached consensus about the proposal before you tonight and agree, and the agreement of the group was that it be submitted to council without amendment. Therefore, I ask you to please vote in favor of the ordinance package as it's been submitted. Thanks for your consideration. Thank you. Dennis Humphries. Good evening. I'm Dennis Humphries live at 10th and Cherokee in Denver. I'm an architect. I was a member of the task force. And I'm also here to support the revisions to the ordinance as as proposed by the task force. As everybody has stated, it was a lively group and of bringing different opinions to the table, and it was one that was resoundingly of great success. It was the chair of the Landmark Preservation Committee Commission. When a young student from the University of Colorado at Boulder came and tried to designate the Gates property. At that point, we felt as though the commission did their work in skillfully navigating and overwriting that designation. Since that time, the ordinance has been revised, and as with any ordinance, it's always up for need for further revisions. So again, I support the revisions for all the reasons that all the other members of the task force have stated. However, I would like to point out that it has been addressed, that there are several incentives that need to be addressed that are not part of this ordinance and would not be part of the Landmark Preservation Ordinance . And those are incentives to encourage people to want to preserve their properties, whether it be through tax benefits or other financial benefits. We need to work beyond this moment to make sure that those happen. We also need to further fund the Discover Denver program that has been ongoing for five years. This program has been predominantly financed by the state. It's the city's responsibility to push this forward. The purpose of this program is to inform and allow property owners to really know the value in the potential historic value of their property. So I would encourage you as a as a board, a council, to make sure that these initiatives, these incentives are pursued aggressively after this ordinance is passed. So as an architect, I believe one of my favorite sayings is that in the end, our society will not be defined by what we create. But but why we but what we refuse to destroy. So I encourage you this evening to support this ordinance. Thank you very much. Thank you. Gregorio Al Caro. Thank you. Members of City Council. I'm a Denver native. I represent a house called Casa Mayan at 10/29 Street and Tampa on the Aurora campus. I'm also an urban designer. I ask for your support in particularly the use of the word culture to be added to the updates. I particularly want to focus on social movements and culture as an example to better understand spaces through its social evolution. The Denver Landmark Commission in 1967 did not have the word culture they were use. They did hint, though, that buildings should not be frozen in time, that they needed to remain active. They needed to have a link to a memorable events. Using the word culture will prove successful, as I will give a successful case study with customer, an historic house in Denver, ninth Street Historic Park. We had a migration of many Mexican-Americans during the Mexican Revolution until the 1970s, a house that turned into a mutual aid society. It was a non religious non-governmental house that became a mutual ista mutual aid society. This house proved to be very important in understanding the Mexican-Americans and Irish-Americans importance of having spaces to preserve their culture. Music. Dance, food. Political gatherings. People like Betty and Vernita slaughtered. They had ETA. Richard de Castro found a place in a home to preserve their culture and engage in political discussions that would lead to the preservation of the alma Lincoln Park in the Chicano movement. In 40 years since the displacement, that house has been used for storage, for offices. But by using the word culture and bringing back a cultural narrative, that house has been brought back to life. Political discussions, cultural movements, historic design conferences. Culture is very critical. The students and the community bring life and spirit back to this house. This is not only an important tool for planners. Architects. Urban designers. Landscape architects. Public artist. It welcomes those to our country that have a particular heritage. They feel grounded when they know that cultural heritage, they feel welcome. And more importantly, they have a freedom to express their culture. This is a great design tool. It will lead to better urban design. Less divisiveness. And I strongly urge you to support. This amendment or this addition update. Good questions. Could you state your name for the record? Gregorio Alcala. Thank you very much. All right. That does conclude our speakers this evening. Are there any questions from members of council clementines? Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. President. It's better when the microphones on. We have a ask a question about the Molly Brown house. From I. It doesn't matter that. Yeah. The question that I have is it looks like based on the presentation, three out of the current ten criteria are tied to the Molly Brown House meets three of the ten criteria, and we're moving from a 67% threshold to a 30% threshold. The Molly Brown House is a historic lead designated building now, correct? Yes. Correct. Historic. Never owns the Molly Brown house so I can speak definitively. Answer yep. So. But it also somehow met the 67% criteria threshold and now it meets only 30%. I guess that's that's that's my confusion. Yeah. We, I think spent maybe two whole task force meetings sort of trying to figure out this math piece around how do you maintain a high bar? Because it's not exactly apples to apples, because right now we require properties to meet at least two criteria out of three categories. And so that's where you get the 67 strip the categories. Then you could say it's 20% and we're going up to 30. So it's just essentially a different system. But as you saw, still maintains a pretty high bar. Okay. I was thinking I was pretty good with math, but that just wasn't enough for me. So thank you. That's that's all ahead. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Gilmore. Thank you, President. Clerk Cara, can I ask you a couple questions, please? Um, let me see. On the task force. Slide slide seven. Um, could you give us a breakdown of the task force makeup specifically around race and then the area of the city that folks lived in? Yes. So it was a primarily white task force. There were two Latina women, one of whom did not attend as regularly as as the other task force members. We it was a very technical task force. And so in preservation as a field, as well as the architects, realtors and developers is a primarily white field. We did attempt to diversify the task force on Councilwoman Can. Each provided us with some good contacts. We reached out and asked members to join the task force. They initially said yes and then after a couple of meetings of not attending, when we got back in touch with them and they said that no, they didn't feel like the task force intersected enough with their work or areas that they were working on in order to be able to attend. So it is admittedly a pretty white task force in terms of where people lived. We didn't check the addresses of everyone, but we did try to make sure that the neighborhoods, the representatives of the neighborhood were spread out. So we had someone on the West, someone from the south, and then we had two neighborhood representatives from the Park Hill area. Okay. Thank you. So you weren't able to get any residents, I guess, further east of Park Hill? No, there were no none of the neighborhood residents were. No. We did ask people to of the people that we asked, we asked someone who represented the little area in Swansea, a neighborhoods. And then someone from more the Montebello area. And those were the people who said initially said yes and then said no, that this really didn't meet the the needs of what they were working on. And so I guess the technical nature of the task force and what you were reviewing, I guess, for the four neighborhood residents that served on the task force. How did you get them versus other neighborhood individuals? We looked for people who had so so two of the neighbors from Park Hill where people who had lived in the proposed historic district that had been proposed for Park Hill, and they were two neighbors who were not supportive of preservation. And we really wanted to make sure that we got people who were familiar somewhat with the historic districts or the landmark processes. So it was one of the things we looked at. We were looking at people who were either supportive or not supportive. We wanted someone who was familiar with preservation to a little bit of a degree. And so we chose the two or we asked the two people from the Park Hill neighborhood two to come as residents who had gone through the process or started to go through the district process. So we chose or asked those two members to join, and then we asked for two other neighborhood residents who were more supportive of preservation and trying to make sure that they were from other, other neighborhoods. And we wanted to make sure that they were from different parts of the city. So would it be a true statement then that out of the 16 members on the task force, you didn't have at least neighborhood representation that was maybe against. LAMB We had to, yeah, that the two neighbors from Park Hill were not supportive of protesters in. Support of gender neutral. Okay. Not supportive or neutral? Sorry. Not. That's okay. All right. And then I guess it sounds like early on in the process then, since you were trying to backfill with additional task force members, did you ever reach out to the council officers? We asked them to recommend people or through our registered neighborhood organizations, faith based organizations, nonprofit organizations, to ask us for recommendations. We did not. We spoke with Councilwoman Kennedy, but we did not reach out to the other council district offices. Okay. And then on further in your slide deck, the community meetings that you held, as close as I can see, it looks like that would be open to the public. There were four of them that weren't, you know, kind of hosted by a different group. Were any of your community meetings held in the Montebello or Green Valley Ranch neighborhoods? No, they were not. We had one on the West Side. We had one in Virginia Village, we had one in. We did office hours in the Blair Caldwell Library. And there's a fourth one. And I'm sorry, I'm forgetting where that one was, but none and. MONDELLO No. Okay. Or North Green Valley Ranch? No. Okay. And then with the task force, I guess, where did the conversation go? Or around the process, especially in the importance of perhaps reaching out to vulnerable neighborhoods that are at risk of gentrification or involuntary displacement? I guess where did the task force go with that conversation? And yeah, where did they go with that conversation? We had some conversations about displacement, but we also talked about it was one of the things that was brought up in problem identification and then it was scaled back because we only represent landmark is 4% of the city and that wasn't we did not feel it was something that the landmark ordinance could take on. That displacement is a huge issue within the city and was not necessarily something that landmark preservation could solve. It was something that was brought up and discussed, but it was determined that the landmark ordinance maybe wasn't the place to have that full discussion. So there was. So it sounded like there was maybe never a conversation around looking at large parcels of land in neighborhoods that are mainly African-American and Latino and possibly vulnerable. But there was never an overlay or further in-depth conversation around if there was a landmarking of, say, for example, a church property that now you're the different criteria , opens it up to more availability for it to be landmarked. But there was never really a back and forth conversation of how might that affect equity in the neighborhood? How might that encourage, you know, just I guess, distrust, unrest when there might be especially around an owner opposed designation and especially let me add on to that. If that owner opposed designation was possibly a group of Caucasian residents that were trying to landmark perhaps an African-American or Latino property. Was that specific scenario played out, talked about how can we get to a win win solution? A That particular scenario was not talked about in the incentives discussion. We talked about adding are there ways to add density to traditionally one unit or to unit to unit zone districts and ways to if something is designated, could you add density to that neighborhood then or to that to that with that building that if someone designates the building, then you could increase the number of units that could be in the property. So an ability to add density to neighborhoods. But we didn't talk specifically about places of worship or churches in the task force or discussed the exact scenario that you had asked about. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, President Park. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. Let me see who I need to ask this question. I wanted to inquire about the increase in the zoning incentives here, and maybe you can help me out here in terms of what what those might entail. So we looked at what other cities were doing and we looked at like. What Portland was doing and talking a little bit about adding density to a one or two unit zone districts, so increasing density that way. We talked about blueprint Denver has talked about you know is encouraging to use throughout the city are beginning to have that conversation. So we talked about would 80 use be allowed in any historic districts or individual landmarks? Could that sort of be the first place to add on to to add density and allow an incentive for designation? So that was one of the other areas we talked about. We also looked at there are other cities for lower parking requirements to allow administrative adjustments or administrative ah, variances for things like set back, open space, things like that. Those were sort of the zoning areas that we saw that other cities were doing. Some other cities did things like, if you're a landmark and you're going through the permitting process, some of your fees are waived through the building and zoning process. There are a few areas like that that we looked at as well. Okay. That's that's all very helpful. So when you talked about the parcel, it is really just if if your property is large enough to attach an additional unit on the property, maybe not necessarily attached to the structure. None of those include tweaks to the actual building, correct. Yeah. I mean, you could you currently can have what are either administrative adjustments for things like height or a bulk plane, or you can have variances that go to Board of Adjustment. And we currently recommend administrative adjustments or variances if the changes to the property would be something that would be compatible with the character of the building . So additions, something like if you have a gable house like a queen in and you wanted to use the attic space, and the way to do that would be to add some sort of gable or dormers on the side. You would pierce the bulk plane, but that you could get an adjustment for that. And so it would maintain the character of the building, but allow additional use within the building as well. Okay. So any I want to have you come up and just ask you kind of a follow up question. I know having worked on the old courthouse building at Colfax and Kellman, when the development team was looking at making a change to the staircase on the inside. So it wasn't even tinkering with the outside of the building because they were trying to secure some state historic funds. They couldn't do that otherwise. They had to forgo utilizing those resources. So how much do some of these tweaks impact a property owners ability to then access some of the state funding that might be available? Right. So the expectations and the regulations of the state historical fund or the National Park Service for folks using tax credits are are different than the local standards because in Denver we don't Landmark's does not review interior changes. You can get some relief and we've had this happen with local landmarks. If your historic railing isn't quite the right height, you can get some adjustments. And and we're talking about the task force to talk about other ways to remove barriers to adaptive reuse, things like that that can become investment hurdles that folks can't get over as they're trying to change the use of a building. So we think there is more that can be done to add flexibility. And then owners will have to make the decision about whether that added flexibility outweighs the the federal or the state incentive that they might get in a different manner. But yeah, so that both are sort of separate things. And in terms of the idea around sort of adding density to historic landmarks, we have some examples of that. There's a church on Sixth Avenue where the church was converted into residential and then a row of condos was built behind it on their adjacent land. And so we talked about ways that you could facilitate those kinds of solutions. Holy Ghost. Church. Right. Really creative. While you're there, let me ask one last question. Dennis brought up an issue, Dennis Humphries, about Discover Denver. Do you have any idea how what percentage of of completeness we're at on that project? I don't know, Carol. Maybe that's something for you to answer. But if you have the information, that would be helpful since you're up there. I think Kara and I were just comparing our notes here. I believe it is somewhere between 15 and 18% of the city that has been completed in the first five years. So there's a long way to go still. And that's among those that are still left. Among the what? Among those properties that are still left, because some of those that may have been surveyed might not exist anymore. That's true. Since we started discovered Denver, there have been 3000 demolitions in the city. So. Yeah. Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to. I buzzed in when Councilman Hines was talking about math, and I think Kara might know what I'm going to bring out here in my in my questioning of her. But on the chart where we we are one of the toughest to meet, two out of three criteria. I think Kara will will recall that at each task force meeting, I pointed out that that was not exactly true. It was two out of ten criteria. It's just that we group the ten criteria into three categories. And of the two criteria, you must meet. At a minimum, they must be in two of the three categories. So what the task force did and Kara, could you stand at the mic so that this appears to be a question rather than a comment? Thank you. What what we ended up doing on the task force was we just eliminated categories. But because of that, because it might be very simple to meet to if I can pull up the code, it would be very simple for a property to meet two criteria in any one category direct association with historic event and direct association to the person who had influence on a society. So in order to not lower the bar by eliminating the categories, that my recollection is what led us to say you need to be three criteria. But they could all still be in what used to be the same category. Correct? That is correct. And then adding, we added culture. And in doing that, in order to maintain the ten categories and not expand it to 12 or 14, we edited it. We did a lot of wordsmithing and we edited some of the create the existing criteria that appear to maybe have a lot of similarities and we would combine them into just one. So overall, by doing away with criteria, we're going from 20% to 30%, not from 67% to 30%. If you could, you could do the math that way. Yes. Thank you. And that was for Councilman Hines at the end. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman CdeBaca. Thank you, Mr. President. I see a representative from the Colorado Latino Forum here wondering. I didn't see you on the list, but would you be willing to come up and speak? Thank you. Yes. So I am curious about the Latino Forum's involvement or your understanding of how this change impacts the ability of diverse communities to either stay in place, stay in communities, or impact preservation themselves. Sure, I think. Of the people on TV. My name is Ian Thomas Tafoya, and this topic actually intersects along three groups that I'm involved with I.N.S. Zoning and Planning, the Colorado Latino Forum. And I'm also a trustee of historic Denver. So I think if I say this earlier, I'm in favor of this. I do think that adding culture allows more communities to have a voice in the process. With historic Denver and with Landmark. We've been working towards a cultural district just in West Denver, in the Lama neighborhood, and we've been able to put forward the idea that it's not always just about one built form, that there are several built forms that fit into a cultural context and trying to find that. In fact, I had a meeting last week. So as you go down along with me in hopes of gaining our support, which they did, to create a to seek a grant for a cultural context which will help align this all the way around. I will add that, you know, along this process, I was frustrated when the first when I first saw the landmark map, because there were parts of your district and all of West Denver where the key was on top of it. And as you know, in the Chicano movement, if you're not part of the maps, are not part of the conversation. And so we were able to actually work with them and the Justice Department to change that. I think part of the reason you don't hear about a lot of people on the task force who have the skill set is because there aren't any districts in our communities because we've been missing this component. There are very few landmarks in West Denver. It's something that I have put on the strategic plan for historic Denver, and I think things that were working forward. One idea that I've had is I think that during the MPI process we have a great opportunity to educate people about this and other conservation tools. This was in the Blueprint Plan and also to avoid landmarking disputes. We have a really unique opportunity as communities at that time to decide what landmarks are important in their community early on in the whole planning process rather than later. Thank you. And quick question for Councilwoman Ortega. I live in Swansea and I know that prior to the I-70 expansion, there were community conversations about making Elyria Historic District. Do you recall what the pushback was on that? Because I know we couldn't meet the criteria, but do you remember what exactly the pushback was about? I believe that was done under Councilwoman Monteiro at the time. It was not something I was directly involved in. And Councilwoman said, what were you working. For at the time of. My that. When that conversation came up? Because I'm not familiar with why that didn't happen. And I do know that in the application of the environmental assessment, it speaks to the neighborhoods, both the Lurie and Swansea, as historic communities because of the longstanding history and specifically the impact the I-70 project has had on those neighborhoods. And I ask this question really to emphasize how difficult it has been for different groups to preserve our communities. I believe that what I recall from that process was that we were told that none of the houses in our district, even though it was a historic neighborhood, were in in good enough condition to consider in a historic district. And I think that this is an excellent move in the right direction to make sure that we have some of those barriers eliminated. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Hines, you back up? Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to have the city come up again for a second. Thank you. So I live in Denver is perfect. Ten and I happen to represent it too. In Denver is perfect ten. I bet you can already anticipate the questions, but for the folks on the outside, there was a conversation around Tom's Diner not too long ago, and I am curious to hear the city's thoughts on how this might the new process might have have affected that that process. Yes. So I know that there were community members who were and still are having conversations with the Thomas of the property owner about is there a way to provide him with the with the appropriate recompense or the money for his property while also being able to preserve the building? And so I know it's a conversation that is still ongoing. I think that had the pause been there, there would have been a little it would have allowed a little more breathing room for the conversation to occur. Instead of feeling like it was being really compressed in to allow that conversation, which is still going on now, to have been able to do it without the the tight pressure and deadline. And I think it may have helped the process go a little bit smoother. Okay. I mean, I guess so. It's the city's opinion or you're through the stakeholder engagement process is the stakeholder engagement for this. The I'm assuming you guys talked about Tom Steiner or or had you already wrapped up by the time it started. The task force had already completed the work and it was sort of in midsummer. And so it had already gone out to the public for comment. The task force had already completed all of their work on when the Tom Steiner came in for the demo review and then the posting and then the subsequent designation application. Okay. And so the one last thing I would ask about Tom Steiner, I think Councilwoman CdeBaca mentioned in her neighborhood, none of the houses are in good enough quality to be preserved. I, I don't represent beautiful district nine and I'm not as familiar with it. Perhaps the city is more familiar with it. I think that one of the reasons why Tom Steiner was a better opportunity for historic preservation was, frankly, because it wasn't well, it wasn't as well maintained and preserved as as some other locations. So I'm going to guess. Sorry. Yes. So when you're looking to designate something, we look at integrity versus condition. So integrity is does the building convey the reasons for which it would be designated? Would someone who was at that building when it was constructed or when it was historically significant, does it look like that now? But we don't actually look at the condition of the building. Is it a little bit deteriorated? That's not something that comes into the conversation as to whether or not it's eligible to be a landmark. It's the integrity of the building, not the condition of the building. Okay. And so are the buildings in Swansea. Are they is their integrity just degraded or are. There there is integrity in those. I know that the Discover Denver has gone through and has recommended that there are areas or concentrations of buildings in Globeville, Illyria and Swansea that would be eligible to be Denver landmarks. And so we have surveyed all three of the neighborhoods and have found that there are properties that are worthy of designation that retain integrity, and that would be significant. And those were looked at under our previous criteria because we were there a couple of years ago during the survey. If we were looking at it now with the culture it may have, the areas may be slightly expanded. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. All right. See no other questions. The public hearing for comfortable 914 is closed. Comments by members of council. Councilwoman can each. Thank you, Mr. President. I first just wanted to thank all of the members of the task force who participated along the way, as well as those who are here tonight and those who cannot be. Whenever we bring together the community and ask them to spend, you know, a significant amount of time grappling with an issue. It's a service you do to us because you breed debate some of the things that we're going to debate here. And so I. Q is disappointed by our inability to get more representative sampling of folks. We worked hard, we failed, and we are responsible for that and need to continue to reflect on the diversity of the fields and the the experience from which we drew. It is my hope, and we did have the most conversation about race and equity with regard to the cultural criteria and how getting beyond just the idea of a famous person where we all remember the name. I mean, history books are written by folks who don't always remember the name of famous people of color. And so the idea that you can know a place is famous to a community without knowing the names of all the participants who might have gone to that home or gone to that business, I think is an equalizer in a way to bring up more opportunities. And so it's my hope that in a generation when we have this conversation, you know, there are a broader array of properties that have come forward. So I think that the culture criteria piece was really important. I want to comment for just a second on the request or the statement that, you know, we came together with the directive from council to, you know, make it harder to designate. That was the directive of several members of council. That was their desire. That was not a vote of the majority of council to see to landmark task force to make it more difficult to designate. There were a diversity of opinions. And Councilman Flynn and I, for example, were appointed with different perspectives on that representative of a council that had a diversity of opinion. So I just want to clarify that while some members wanted that. Others like myself were more concerned about reaching a balance to achieve the goals. One of the debates we had is whether landmark is a neutral process or not, and I think the way to be honest about it is, is not it is about preserving a piece of the history. It's not neutrally evaluating and then mediating between two parties. It is saying it's important to us as a city that we have pieces of our past that are preserved for future generations. And that future generation piece is an interesting piece of this debate. Right. So are you preserving for the neighbor who lives next door so that nothing ever changes? Are you preserving for, you know, the property owner in terms of their value, which often frankly increases with designation? If you think about LoDo, I don't think anyone would consider that to be an area that has been financially disadvantaged perhaps by by preservation limited in what they can build in how tall. So perhaps on day one there's an economic tradeoff, but the future generation and the long term value. Right, I think in this. So that's what I think this ordinance does. This ordinance says we're in it for the long game and we're protecting some values, not for, you know, me or you, but for those who come way after us. Right. So that they can remember and learn, just as we do when we talk about properties that come through. So. So for me, that's the the vision or the, the values I brought into the process is how to balance that value with these competing interests. But to achieve a vision and a goal, which is what the ordinance preamble really sets out. And in a city that's changing as quickly is done as Denver is, I think that's an important piece. It's not just balancing each property owners interests with each, you know, neighboring interest. It's about balancing the overall rate of change in the city with the overall preservation. So so it's a big task and it's a hard one because then we do come down to individual property decisions. So I really I feel very proud. You know, we we could have chosen to do a majority vote approach, perhaps as a task force. I've certainly been a part of task forces where the goal is to get people's opinions and then the staff goes ahead and makes a recommendation leader. We call it stakeholder input. This process set out for consensus, and I will admit that it disappoints me a little that groups that advocated for tradeoffs during the process and got those tradeoffs now are asking for additional changes that they were not able to get to consensus at the table. That's hard for me because it feels like a little bit like you got half of what you wanted along the way and then now you're asking for the other half from a different process. But I get that this is democracy and that that's the right of groups to do. I am glad that we're here now with the ordinance we have. I hope folks will consider carefully decisions that try to go to extreme measures. I don't want to see our city mired in retaliatory ballot measure fights like we've seen in our neighboring communities who feel like if we're not able to preserve our history, then we should limit all growth, because that's the kind of conversation this could very quickly spiral into. I don't think that's helpful for us. I think each step forward, we work to get to this place of achieving the goals of the ordinance in a way that is most respectful and most considerate of the owners involved, but can't quite go to the level of saying we'll never do it without permission. Right? We would not have LoDo if we if we needed permission. And so I think that's a decision I can stand by. I can say my predecessors had wisdom and I'm sure my colleague can tell me how many kicks they took about private property rights. But history, I think, will smile on that decision. It's hard to sit in these seats and make the decision at the moment, but I do feel like this ordinance is the right direction, both for meeting the goals of this ordinance as well as for what the city needs today. It was an honor to be a part of it as a total inexperienced individual with no technical knowledge of building types and architecture. But and I appreciate my colleague, Councilman Flynn, who we had we were a microcosm of the debate and yet respectfully worked to find common ground, just like everybody who participated. So I hope this council will find that common ground tonight while we continue to strive for closer to perfection in terms of our inclusiveness of this preservation. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Cameron CdeBaca. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to thank the task force and Annie and Ms.. Hahn for making sure that even without the representation that was necessary, equity was at the forefront of what you guys were doing here. I speak from personal experience when I say this really opens a door for a lot of opportunities in our community. Having known what happened when our community tried to preserve, to protect against the eminent domain abuse and the highway expansion, and then also watching my brother lose his house, a Victorian house to the national western and protests all along when the city was trying to take it that it was a historic property, it was a historic property. And to be told no. And then to see a sign posted up the week they were going to demolish it, saying that it was being studied for landmark and historic preservation really shows me how much you all have been doing to investigate what truly is worth preserving in this city. And so I appreciate it. And I hope to see many more spaces that reflect our contributions to this city preserved and landmarked. So thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Sandoval. Thank you, Mr. President. I would just like to start by saying thank you to the task force members. Your work on this issue is really important. So over the last four years, we think Council District one, we had three nonlinear historic designations and one historic district. So this update is really important to Northwest Denver and important to the district that I represent. I'm excited about the addition of culture. A couple of years ago, we wanted to look at preserving Navajo Street as an Italian district and Italian area as the Italians had moved out. And there was no way to do that and there is no tool in the toolbox. And so now that is gone. And that said and done, and unfortunately it's a little bit too late for that. So thank you for adding the cultural piece. And I just want to talk about the pause. Currently right now in Council District one on 46th and Tennyson. There is a non owner historic designation application in the Q and what we did was we looked at this ordinance and I took advantage of this pause and I asked both parties to come together and have a third party facilitator. And a pause was agreed to. So we are taking a 60 day pause on that application right now. Last week was the hearing, and it's postponed to November 12th to try to find different different outcomes for that property. So I really do think that this pause can work. And then another issue has come up is last month I attended a city led community presentation about a possible historic district in northwest Denver. And it was the first time in all the years. Of working in city council since 2012, where the city led the process and the city sent out the invitation. And it was very informative. It was very neutral. Both everyone was able to come out. It wasn't the applicants, it was the city. So I want and then they're going to also take advantage of this survey without this ordinance being implemented. So Council District One is already taking advantage of many of these ideas that have come forward through this task force and these recommendations. And I'm excited for them because I remember sitting over the past four years, sitting in the council office, hearing hours of testimony and knowing the houses intimately that were up and watching, feeling very conflicted about what type of preservation was needed, and the fact that 13 council members get to decide the future of neighborhood character in northwest Denver. And it just did not seem fair. So I just have to say thank you all for working on this, because this is, as you all can see, northwest Denver has been the battleground because the one historic property that they mentioned in their presentation, Beth Eaton Church, that's once again in Council District one on law. So Northwest Denver really has been the battleground for the past five years with historic designation, the certificate of non historic status. And I've sat at the table during that 21 day time clock where a certificate of non historic status came in. As a council aide, I had to reach out. I had to get there are no I had to get everyone at the table. I had to negotiate some of them and some of the applications got pulled. And with the help of historic Denver, the applicant was actually refunded the $200 when they had when they pulled their certificate of non historic status. And I will tell you it is stressful, it is not proactive work and so thank you for being proactive and just I really cannot thank you enough for working on this and I hope that the pause works regardless. It's a form of communication and sometimes on the other side of conflict and uneasy conversations, good things can come out. So thank you for your work. Thank you, President. Thank you, Councilwoman Kelton Gilmore. Thank you, President Clark. You know, I want to thank Kara and Annie and the task force and of course, the important work and time of my colleagues, Councilwoman each and Councilman Flynn. And I am pleased with a majority of the additions and changes, including adding culture. That being said, I am always troubled when there might be a process, especially through the owner opposed landmark designation that private property rights would be violated or affected. And it's disappointing that the task force didn't look at at least raising the bar by either a vote of nine or ten members of city council to really encourage folks to come to the table and get to what was said here tonight, a win win outcome. And when Councilwoman Black and I had both proposed in committee to require only on the honor imposed designations a supermajority, we were unsuccessful in getting that support. And I honor the opinions and background of my colleagues. But I also want us to be looking closely at how this unrolls, how it plays out. I agree with Ian's comment about, you know, when we don't get to participate in this process in our neighborhoods, it makes it very hard. Were put at a disadvantage to be part of the process to understand items that are very technical that you said here tonight. If we don't get the opportunity to play in that arena, then we are at a disadvantage. And so I appreciate, you know, Kara reaching out, us having a good conversation and I will be supportive of this tonight. Thank you, President Clark. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. I had my thanks to the staff and to the task force for the good work that they did. And I want to thank. My colleagues for. Continuing. To bring. Up the importance of equity. In everything that we're doing in the city. Just finished our budget. Presentations and for the first time, I think in the city's history, equity is. Is held up as a top. Value. We have an enormous. Amount of work to do to figure out how to actually address that. But but it's on the. Table and as it should have been for a long time. I appreciated what Councilman Kennedy said. As far as what we're doing here is an acknowledgment. That. Preservation of the. Important parts of our past is a community that, as well as equity preservation, have important elements of our past is an important value. I also very much appreciated Councilwoman Gilmore and Councilwoman Black's putting forth a couple of amendments. I have struggled over the issue of should there be a higher bar on owner opposed. And I was. Very convinced that there should be looking at the reality of how things have played out that we've had one owner opposed pass in six years. I'm wondering if, along with the pause that this new package brings forward, if we might have hit on what we need as far as that tool to. To better solve those contentious. Situations. There are enormously. Painful district one had a couple when when I first came on council and they are enormously painful trying to weigh the community's well-being with. Private property owners. Well-Being. I will be anxious to see how this latest tool. Helps resolve those. Tensions. I have a hunch that that it will do a great deal in that regard. The last thing I wanted to mention is, is the need, as it was talked about, for increased funding for Discovery Denver. You know, we have what was it, 18% of the city is covered and that's wonderful. But that even I can. Do that math. Councilman Hines, that's. 82% of the city that's that's not covered. And that's a potential tragedy. And we those of us who have been around Denver a long time, have seen a whole lot of important structures go away that I. Think would have made a wonderful education of of where. Denver has been and how we got to where we are today. So I would hope that as we go through the budget process, we can find some money to accelerate that the Discover Denver effort. So with that, again. Congratulations on. A lot of good hard. Work and I look forward to supporting this this evening. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to share my appreciation to all of you who were involved in this process, in bringing to us what is very clear was a compromise document with lots of give and take on both sides. And so to Kara and Annie, appreciate your your help along with my colleagues as well for your input in bringing something forward. When we did the lower downtown historic district, not everybody was happy with that either. But time showed that after the second two year review, everybody came forward and said, Just get rid of it. Just get rid of it, because we're happy with the way it's working. And so I think and if it's not, guess what? We can bring it back. It doesn't mean we're locked in stone if it's not working. But I think we've got to give it a try. And I just have to say, I live in one of these old houses and they're not cheap to maintain, right, if you want to maintain the character of it. So being able to have access to the various incentives becomes really important, whether it's being able to add on a unit, if you've got a lot size big enough to do that or you know, if it's just accessing some of the historic funds from the state or the National Trust for Historic Preservation, that also makes resources available. So for people in our community who are wanting to do the right thing, I think it is important that we have those tools readily available to them where they don't have to like hunt all over town to find them, but to be able to go to one place where it's easy to access the information and then know what's available to them. To be successful in trying to preserve their property. The data alone shows that with all the applications that have been brought forward, they don't all make it to the floor of council. So the the work that is done by our city staff in historic Denver and in trying to lay out the information because oftentimes you guys are the go to place for for people to try to, you know, pull the information. Our library is great, but oftentimes you already have much of that history on Denver neighborhoods and properties. And so that that makes it a little bit, you know, easier for people to just pull their their applications together. So so I think the the process has worked. And again, you know, some of those that have come before this body, they have an all they haven't all been approved either. Some of them have. Some of them have not. But I wanted to speak very briefly to the Swans here neighborhood and the fact that during the time that the environmental assessment was was being put together, the state, when they looked at the mitigation issues, they did not want to tinker with the exterior windows because of the historic character of the neighborhood. And it's probably a lot to do with cost as well, but that's why they ended up only doing interior windows for the residents that were within 500 feet of each side of the highway. I appreciate the fact that culture is being added because I think that there are lots of things like if you look at Santa Fe and some of the buildings along Santa Fe, that played a big role, the Walton Street corridor that was spoken to earlier. You know, across our city, we have some areas of town that played a major role in the history of our city that oftentimes are never included in the history books that our kids learn about our city . Right. Or their community. They're getting Western history information and European history, but not typically their own local history. And the contributions that, you know, people from their own community made in in shaping the city of what it is today. So I think we've got a great roadmap in front of us and a tremendous opportunity to utilize the criteria in a in a different way that I think will create more flexibility for the applicants. And at the same time, I think having those incentives will encourage more people to look at trying to take advantage of saving. Part of the history of our city, because I live in a neighborhood that doesn't look anything like what it used to. And every day very nice brick structures are being just torn down. And if you live on one side, a zoo, nice street, you're in a protected part. If you're on the other side, you're in the neighborhood where it's drastically changing. So this is a good thing. Thank you. I'll be voting for it. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Hines. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank the committee for all the hard work that you've done. You know, I'm new on council, not as new as I was a couple of months ago, but still new. And as I sit here on Monday nights and in committee, you get to learn a little bit more about my values . I also get to learn a bit more about my own values. I get a little bit of self reflection as well, and I think that's healthy for all of us to have this growing process together. But speaking of values, I talked earlier about stakeholder process and transparency, and I. I learned briefly, or rather I learned quickly about the importance of the stakeholder process. A lot of people talked about the climate change bill and how they were frustrated, frustrated with the lack of stakeholder process. Frankly, from my perspective, President Clark reached out to me the day after I won the runoff election. So he was all over it. As far as you know, as far as I knew that his stakeholder process was robust. But anyway, I really enjoy that this process had a robust stakeholder process and that it considered, you know, private property rights, it considered a supermajority. It decided to go with the the compromise that we see in front of us. You know, I, too, am interested in private property rights. When I heard about Tom Steiner, or rather when Tom Steiner came before us, you know, it also was in divorce. Perfect ten. We heard a lot about private property rights from people all over the U.S. and maybe some beyond. But certainly we had people from all over the United States writing in to the District ten office and and talking about private property rights. So I recognize that that's an important consideration for a lot of people all over America and including people in District ten. I also think that it is important for us to not. To be very measured when we arbitrarily limit City Council's power and a supermajority of nine or ten votes makes it more difficult for us to effectively represent the city because we are representing our districts. And. And if we go from a majority to a supermajority, I think that that makes it more difficult for for me to represent my district, even if the particular vote is in a different district. So I'm glad that we are at least taking this incremental approach and we're considering a straight majority. And the funky math is we are going from two thirds threshold to 30% or from 20% to 30%. And apparently both of those calculations work. But either way, I think it's great that we've had a stakeholder process that has come up with what we what we have in front of us today. So I will be supporting it. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Sawyer. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to point out that I reached out to my constituents when I was asked to consider the idea of a supermajority and with just a very nonscientific survey among people. And 57% of them came back and said that they supported a nine vote supermajority. So I think, you know, I think that I'm very supportive of the the ordinance as it's coming through tonight. I think it's a great ordinance. I'm really you know, I really congratulate all of you guys who worked so hard on this. But I do think that there is an element of awareness in our community that did not exist before this summer, when Tom's Diner happened, when when that situation came through, that has sort of woke in the community up to the issue of personal property rights in a way that maybe didn't exist before. And so maybe next time around, it's something that should come back up and be considered again. I definitely am supportive of tonight, but I just wanted to put it out there that when I asked and reached out to my constituents, 57% did support a nine person supermajority. So thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman. So, Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. I, I, too, want to thank the staff and the members of the task force with whom I served and Councilwoman Keech for a very robust discussion and process that truly did land in the center where people on one side or another are always giving up something and never getting everything they want. I really do want to thank them for that. I did learn one thing in this process on the task force that surprised me, and that is that when we had those contentious, excuse me, landmark things up in District one, that all three of which were defeated. I realized through this task force process that it wasn't that necessarily that we were being harder and more strict on owner opposed applications. I realized that we were being much less strict, much more lenient, if you will, on owner supported. And one that came to mind in particular was in Councilman Cashman's district on South Adam Street. I think it was the I Love House or what was it, their very large property on South Adams Street where the owner came in and sought designation. And I, I realized that far from being harder on the ones that were owner opposed, we were sort of just being of the owner wants it. Sure, I can see how it fits all the criteria. And that was a real eye opener for me. The other thing that I really like about this version is the addition of the cultural criteria, because I believe, as I believe, Councilwoman Torres, I was the one who mentioned the lack of designations on the West Sides, particularly Southwest side. There's only one designated landmark in Denver, south of Sixth Avenue and west of the Platte River, and that's the field officers quarters in on Fort Logan on the parade ground. Well, thanks to the Loreto Heights plan that we adopted a couple of weeks ago, there will soon be more. The Loreto Heights Academy in the chapel, possibly Pancreases Hall and looking down the road to a district designation on the campus as well. But with the cultural criteria being added, I think we can look beyond these large, obvious landmarking options that we have and look to more that more designations that speak to the to the people who built this city and the people who made this city. And I'm looking forward to scouring perhaps with Councilwoman Torres scouring the West Side and looking for opportunities and to solicit more more applications from owners who are willing to do this. So I will be supporting this. Mr. President, thank you. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman Ortega, did you have some quick things? I don't know why they're still up there. All right. All right. Well, I will just close this before we vote by saying one more time thank you to all the task force members for all the time they put in. Thank you to Councilman Flynn and Councilman Ken each for representing some different sides of the coin for us in this process and all the extra hours that took into our staff for going through all of this. I will be supporting this tonight. Madam Secretary, roll call. See the burqa. I flip. All right. Gilmore, I. Hi. Yes. Cashman. Can I? Ortega. Sandoval. Sawyer. I. Torres. I heard they. Argument. Mr. President. All right. I'm secretary. Please. Cause voting in those results. 12 hours. 12 hours. Council Bill 914 has passed. Councilwoman CdeBaca, will you please put Council Bill 776 on the floor?