Speaker 0: We have one public hearing tonight. Speaker should begin their remarks by telling the council their names and cities of residents and if they feel comfortable doing so. Their home address when called upon. Please wait until our meeting. Host promotes you to speaker. When you are promoted, your screen will flash and say Reconnecting to meeting. Please do not leave the meeting. You will be reconnected and will need to turn on your camera if you have one and your microphone. If you have signed up to answer questions, only state your name and note you are available for questions of counsel. Speakers will have 3 minutes. There is no yield of time. If translation is needed, you will be given an additional 3 minutes for your comments interpreted. You will see your time flash on the screen when you have 30 seconds left. 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 personal or individual attacks. Councilmember Black, will you please put council bill 20 dash 088 on the floor for passage?
Speaker 1: Yes, Madam President, I move that council bill 20 dash 088 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and we've got a second by councilman herndon. The required public hearing for council bill 20 dash 0888 is open. First we'll hear from Laura Alterity, the executive director of Community Planning and Development, followed by Britta Fisher, the director of Housing Stability. And we'll round out the team with Andrew Webb giving the staff presentation. So go ahead, Laura.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 6: For this evening and.
Speaker 4: Councilmembers for the opportunity to talk to you this evening and introduce our team and the project. For the past three years, our staff have listened, researched, studied.
Speaker 1: And finally wrote.
Speaker 6: One of the most important zoning code updates of our time. This work would not have been possible without the partnership and energy.
Speaker 4: Your officers have poured into these amendments and the time and energy of thousands of residents and care providers who participated in this process along the way. I'd like to thank all of those who've shared their time.
Speaker 6: And lived experiences.
Speaker 4: With us over these past few years. But tonight, the subject matter is gives us an opportunity to begin rectifying the role zoning has played historically in dividing cities based on race, class and perceptions of people. I'm especially proud of this work because I truly believe this is a.
Speaker 1: Watershed moment for.
Speaker 5: Denver.
Speaker 6: And a foundation.
Speaker 4: From which we can continue working together.
Speaker 6: To build a more inclusive.
Speaker 4: City. Tonight's amendments represent the best of compromises. They retain the laws we currently have allowing families of any size to live together and allow in small shelters in all neighborhoods. But they recognize the need for new regulations on residential care that allow us to provide for the most vulnerable residents while putting in place protections to ensure facilities are safe, that they're good neighbors, and.
Speaker 6: No longer.
Speaker 4: Overly concentrated in just a few areas of our city. This proposal is a huge step.
Speaker 6: Toward.
Speaker 4: Modernizing our codes and ensuring that our policies reflect our values. Thank you for allowing me a few minutes to speak tonight.
Speaker 6: And I'll turn it over to Britta Fischer, the executive director of the Department of Housing Stability.
Speaker 1: If you. Laura. Thank you. Madam President, members of Council. It is with gratitude that I start by reflecting upon the recent passage of Denver voters of ballot measure to be to create a homelessness resolution fund here in the city of Denver with an additional around $40 million annually to spend in housing, shelter and services for people experiencing homelessness. I think this shows that most people are in favor of working together toward housing and sheltering.
Speaker 6: Solutions.
Speaker 1: For people experiencing homelessness. These zoning changes in this proposal will improve Denver's ability to provide for our unhoused residents in several ways. Shelters that have been effectively frozen in place today due to nonconforming status or bed limits will be able to make renovations or reconstruct existing structures to more effectively service our guests. This includes all existing shelters downtown. There will be clear criteria for emergency expansion of shelter capacity for things like a pandemic or things like in very low temperatures or a bomb cyclone. These things are crucial for our ability to max maximize the bed space in order to get more people inside. And very importantly, this proposal will give us flexibility for use types across the continuum of housing stability. This is certainly a given, an example of a royal village, a place that has shelter, housing and supportive housing all in one site. The ability to have small amounts of emergency beds and shelter in many locations will help us to have more successful examples like a royal village. Passing. This proposal moves us toward our equity and our housing stability goals. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Laura. And. We'll go ahead and kick it over to you, Andrew.
Speaker 2: Great. Thank you. I'm going to pull up a Stanford report presentation here. It's not showing up on screens the way you would expect it to.
Speaker 0: Yup. Good to go, Andrew.
Speaker 2: Great. Thank you. So thank you again. My name is Andrew Webb. I am a senior city planner for community planning and Development. And for the last three years I've been the project manager for this effort to update the Denver zoning codes regulations for residential uses. So everything from conventional households and, and condos and apartments to residential care and other types of uses that where people live. We are doing this for several reasons. One is to move away from and move away from current regulations that prohibit or or are obstacles to providing the types of residential care users we need for our most vulnerable citizens, or simply allowing people to make their own housing choices and find affordable solutions for housing. We are also seeking to move away from exclusionary regulations of the past that basically relegated certain people only to industrial districts, industrial zones of the city, often bordering some of our most underserved neighborhoods. We are also seeking to fix a lot of known problems with the Denver zoning code, ranging from outdated and unclear language, some of which dates back to just after the Second World War and unpredictable permitting and notification requirements that are the result of many amendments over the years. So to summarize what these amendments would do, they would update the way the zoning code regulates households to allow up to five adults of any relationship to live as part of a household, but no more than five in households. We're not all adults in the household are related. These regulations would preserve the existing provisions allowing unlimited family members to live together. It would create a new congregate living category in the zoning code that would consolidate uses where more people than would typically live in a household, live together over care is not provided, such as rooming and boarding type uses, single room occupancy, that sort of thing. And we call this use congregate living. These would only be allowed in higher intensity zone districts and going back to household again. I want to just clarify that that rent by the room, rooming and boarding type operations would not be allowed in single unit and two unit low intensity residential areas. They would only be allowed as congregate, living in higher intensity zone districts where similar uses are allowed now. And then finally, these amendments would consolidate all residential care uses. Any use? Any residential use where care is required as a condition of residency into a single use type called residential care. Moving away from regulating by the people served or their housing status, and instead regulating these uses by size with spacing and density limitations for larger facilities and the larger facilities as is currently, the case only allowed in higher intensity zone districts like multi-unit and mixed use. We are also are proposing a new upfront community meeting requirement for residential care uses, serving 11 or more people to given the opportunity for neighbors to get to know the providers and understand the types of uses that are coming into their neighborhoods. Want to highlight a few of the changes that were made to these proposals during the land use, transportation and infrastructure process, which took place from September to December of last year, and then will give me an opportunity to go into a few more of the details as well. This slide shows what is currently allowed now in in dwelling units. Household uses in Denver permit in one detached home up to two unrelated adults to live together with unlimited relatives to each. This is the current regulation. And then in duplexes, apartments and condos, anything with essentially two or more attached homes, up to four unrelated adults are permitted to live together again with unrelated or unlimited relatives to each. This is an example of the kind of change that we're proposing to allow more equitable housing solutions, allowing more people, unrelated people only to live in higher and higher density. Housing means that those families of people who are not related by blood are only allowed to live in dwelling units that are on average half the size of Denver's detached housing stock. The slide shows how other cities that we looked at around the country, primarily west of the Mississippi and in Colorado, regulate households and specifically unrelated adults , unrelated adults permitted in these cities that we looked at or shown in the blue columns along the top and then the average household size. According to the American Community Survey, census data are shown in the yellow columns. You'll note that most cities that we looked at in in Colorado and in the front range allow at least five unrelated adults to live together in households, but that in even in cities that allow many more unrelated adults and have done so in all these cases for decades, the average household sizes tend to stay the same. So we can we can take from this that while the way people live together has changed, we know there are groups of people who are not related by blood that live in cities all over the all over the world, that people still tend to choose to live together in similarly sized groups regardless of what zoning regulations require. During the discussion at LOOTIE. When we came with our earlier proposals, we heard a lot of common themes support for allowing blended families, two families, to choose to live together to share housing costs, or allowing some number of unrelated adults to live together. But concerns about overcrowding in houses and in the perception of commercialization of neighborhoods was was a major concern that we heard. External impacts seemed to be a really big issue as well, especially parking. And we heard that any regulations, wherever we landed should be simple to understand and enforce. So this is what the city council draft that's before you tonight would would propose. This is how the zoning code would regulate households. If adopted, we would retain, again, the existing provisions for unlimited related people to live together. But if a household has adults in it who are not related, then there would be a maximum of five adults allowed in that household. And during the LUDI discussion, we did revise out some of the earlier proposals that would have allowed relatives to each or more people in larger dwelling units. So this would be a maximum of five people in houses were not everybody is related. And I should just reiterate here that the zoning code does not regulate children. We're just talking about adults. Next few slides will go through some of the additional details about residential care. During that discussion, again, we really took a deep dove into some of the issues related to residential care. These are uses where people are receiving care of some sort, whether it's custodial supervision or assistance with day to day activities, perhaps medical replacement therapy for addictions. The themes we heard is, is that councilmembers and we've heard that or reported to us that they were supportive of people having access to daily needs, things like transit and and employment. There was support for encouraging more equitable distribution of future facilities around the city and preventing concentration of facilities in any one part of the city. There was support for moving away from regulations that exclude people based on the type of care that they need. And there was a lot of input really recommended that we ensure that these facilities are not out of scale with with neighborhoods. These are the revisions that were made to the earlier proposals during the ludie process. One of those related to community corrections specifically those are residential care uses that serve non paroled individuals nearing the end of a period of incarceration and allows them to begin employment and job training and that sort of thing before they're released and transition back into the community. There was a lot of concern about allowing those directly in the lowest intensity zone districts in residential neighborhoods. And so these amendments, based on revisions made during the LUDI process, would prohibit residential care used to serving non paroled individuals in single unit two unit in the rowhouse 2.5 zone districts. The three lowest intensity residential districts. We also heard concerns about the concentration of all types of facilities, but especially the smallest types of residential care facilities and neighborhoods which currently do not have a density limitation. In response to that, we did propose a new density limitation for the first tier of residential care facilities, those serving ten or fewer guests year round. And that would be a requirement of up to no more than three similar facilities, residential care facilities, within a one mile radius of of a proposed site. So cumulatively, over time, this would would help prevent concentration of these facilities in any one neighborhood. We also made some changes to the the second tier, the type two residential care facilities. That includes reducing the maximum size of those facilities in the three lowest intensity residential zone districts to 20, essentially bringing it in line with what is allowed now for a residential care large in single two unit and row homes own districts. Additionally, in those districts, these uses would only be allowed. So this is the type two residential care. Serving 11 to 20 people would only be allowed on parcels that had previously been used for residential care use or some civic or public or institutional use, such as an unused church or government building. Want to focus a little bit on community corrections because I know this has been a particular interest during this whole discussion. This map shows where community corrections are currently allowed in. The existing facilities in Denver are shown as the black squares and the circles around them show their current spacing and density buffers. So where you see an area in hand that falls under one of those those additional circles, that means additional analysis would be needed to determine whether a new facility could be permitted in one of those areas. As you can see, there's currently very little land left where a new community corrections facility could be established. About 1200 parcels around the city, mostly in the. Essentially that inverted L along the park and along I-70. This map shows where community corrections users would be allowed if these amendments are adopted. That includes higher intensity areas near RTD stations proximate to downtown, as well as mixed use and commercial corridors and and similar areas throughout the city . The there are still would be spacing requirements for community corrections facilities to be spaced apart from other larger residential care uses, as well as a density limitation of no more than three larger residential care uses within a one mile of a proposed subject site. And those buffers are shown on this map. So the next few slides will go into detail about the staff report itself and our analysis. And as always, there is a lot more detail the in the full staff report which you have. The first couple of slides highlight the public process. We started this project back in March 2018 formulating a 40 member advisory committee of volunteers from all walks of life, including registered neighborhood organizations, providers of all types of residential uses, residents, people with lived experience in all types of residential uses. This is the largest volunteer advisory committee Cipd has ever convened for a text amendment. We kicked that those meetings off in March of 2018, and these were public meetings. And we also put together a website at that time where we announced the upcoming meetings if people wanted to come, and also preserve an archive of all the discussions we've had at those meetings and all the presentations given. Also since March 2018, we've presented to now about 55 registered neighborhood organizations and other community groups throughout the city. In August of 2018, we held a public open house to review and discuss the problem statements that the advisory committee and project team had had analyzed. During that first half year or so of the project. And then in early 2020, we held for public open houses around the city to to present the proposed amendments in response to those problem statements, answer questions and take feedback from the community. In August, we went to the planning board, which unanimously recommended approval of these amendments. We then came to the alluding committee in September and the slide shows that process and we'll read through every single one of these. But as you can see, we we held seven full meetings of the committee to really dove into not just these text amendments, but a lot of the the external issues that are related to this project, including former Chapter 59 enforcement, that sort of thing. The in their recommendation of approval, the planning board did recommend two conditions. One of those was that CPD do post-adoption monitoring of these amendments to ensure that we are meeting the goals that we set out within the project and not having any negative unintended consequences, especially in areas vulnerable to displacement. And and we we certainly agree and have already begun that work in the background updating the SLA system that we use for our land use information management so that new permitting data will be generating the data that we need as a project team to continue monitoring these outcomes in future years. And we're committed to reporting back to City Council and Planning Board for at least four years post-adoption. The the planning board also recommended community meetings for community corrections facilities in low intensity residential districts. During the committee process that proposal, we ultimately revised the amendments to not allow community corrections in those districts. So that's no longer a relevant condition. And then, Lou, he can be considered the revised version of these text amendments on December 22nd and unanimously recommended sending it to city council for a final vote. Just to summarize some of the outreach I did mentioned we had one problem statement workshop and for open houses to go through the proposed solutions which had more than a thousand attendees across all of those meetings. Many meetings with community organizations. 36 meetings of our Volunteer Advisory Committee. Throughout the process, we've sent out 26 newsletters to all RINO's and Councilmembers and other stakeholders making people aware of this project. And we've also been featured now in more than 20 media articles about the project. And I already talked a little bit about the advisory committee, which we pulled together, really seeking people that had the lived and or work experience with all aspects of the zoning code. This slide attempts to visualize geographically where we've done some of the outreach. Again, we offered presentations to all around OWS in the spring of 2020 and about 55 of them took us up on that. And you can see that here as reflected in the blue dots. And then we also held our open houses in essentially all four quadrants of the city to make sure that people had a meeting and they could easily get to. Since we first rolled out the proposals in in early 2020 and and and made a couple of made some major revisions both in May 2020 and then again at Luti in December, we received thousands of comments and, and petitions about this project. The majority of the opinions expressed, especially in some of the petitions we've received, have been in opposition. And I will just note that a lot of the changes that we the revisions that we made during the LUDI process and that I highlighted a few slides back thought to to address many of those concerns that we heard from , from people during that process. And we in our in the written staff report, you can go through and see full details of how we tried to specifically address all of the concerns that we heard. Quite a few RINO's have voted and sent letters indicating that they do not support these changes. A few of them are highlighted here and the full record of all comments received is on our project website and has also been provided to City Council and is on the star page for this item as well. We've also had more than 40 community groups and RINO's indicate that they support these amendments as well. And you can see a list of a few of them here. It's not a neither of these are exhaustive list. But again, the staff report details some of the organizations that have reached out. So text amendments in the Denver zoning code are required to be consistent with our adopted plans and must further the public health, safety and welfare and result in the uniformity of district regulations and restrictions. These are the criteria from the Denver Zoning Code. These text amendments would advance two key vision elements of the Denver Comprehensive Plan. Equitable and Affordable. Equitable, affordable and inclusive housing. By implementing city policies for the creation of a complete range of housing options in every neighborhood so anybody can live in the neighborhood they choose. Programs that help individuals and families, especially those who are vulnerable to displacement, seek flexible options to reduce housing costs and ensure that flexible housing options exist to meet the needs of all residents . These amendments also advance the strong and authentic neighborhoods vision element by expanding outreach. We are proposing a new upfront community meeting requirement that would give neighbors the opportunity with mailed notification to two neighbors and renters and businesses of the opportunity to learn about the potential operators that are proposing a residential care use in their neighborhood. These amendments also implement the blueprint. Denver are integrated land use and transportation plan. I'll just highlight a few of the of the strategies that these these amendments advance, but you can find more detail on that in the full staff report. They would ensure that our land use regulations support modern or equitable approach approaches to housing options. They would accomplish a blueprint strategy of providing a more inclusive definition of households by allowing people to to live with with with chosen family members in the households of their choice. It would expand the allowance for different flexible and affordable housing types and was developed through a robust and inclusive community process that I detailed in the previous slides. It would also they're also consistent with the guidance set forth in the blueprint equity concepts that are shown at the top of this slide. These amendments would expand flexible housing opportunities citywide and enable providers to increase the range of housing options that they provide so that people of all life circumstances can have access to daily needs like health care and transit. So improving the or advancing the vision element of improving access to opportunity. They would help reduce vulnerability to displacement by allowing people to choose how they want to live without fear that their housing is in zoning or in violation of zoning. And they would expand housing diversity by allowing for creative, new and reemerging housing types like single room occupancy, co-living and other approaches, of course, subject to our existing building and safety regulations. Finally, these amendments would advance policies in housing and inclusive Denver, including expanding options for residents who are experiencing homelessness by expanding the flexibility for shelters, especially for operators to offer a continuum of housing types on one site. And they would allow for the evolution of models of residential care and housing. These amendments would further the public health, safety and welfare by implementing adopted policies for enabling more housing options for all populations, removing barriers for obtaining legal and safe housing, rectifying discriminatory zoning codes, and by creating more predictable, transparent city processes. And they would result in the uniformity of district regulations and restrictions. Essentially, by establishing processes and regulations for residential uses that are uniform within each zoned district in which those uses are allowed. So with that, our staff recommends that City Council adopt this text amendment based on a finding that all review criteria have been met. And I'm happy to answer any questions. As we go through testimony. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Andrew and Laura and Britta. Tonight, council has received 1143 written comments on Council Bill 20, Dash zero eight. There are 619 submitted comments in favor of the application and 524 submitted comments in opposition of the application. All members of Council that are present have certified that they have read each of the submitted written comments. Do any members of Council need more time to read over all of the written testimony that was submitted? All right. See? None. Council secretary let the record reflect that all written testimony, both in favor and in opposition of Council Bill 888 has been read by each member of Council and all written testimony will be submitted to the official record of the hearing. Tonight, we have 150 individuals signed up to speak this evening, and we're going to go ahead and get started. And I'd like to remind folks that if you don't need the entire 3 minutes, you're not required to use it. And so you can just wrap up your comments and say thank you, and then we'll go ahead and move on to the next speaker so that we can get folks home at some point, either tonight or early this morning. And so we're going to go ahead and kick this off. And our first speaker is Kristin McArthur.
Speaker 1: Hi, my name's Kristen McArthur and I'm a resident of District Six. First, I want to thank the City Council for your service in my leadership roles, both professional and volunteer. I face the struggles of making good decisions and I know that the solutions to problems often come with winners and losers. That's also the case with these zoning changes that I propose that they leave way too many people losing. When I bought my home, I chose it with the zoning protections in place that not only made it a safe home for me, but that preserved its market value. Like many people, my home is my most significant investment, and I'm too close to retirement to recover from a sudden loss of value due to the zoning changes you're proposing. We all want people. We all want to help people experiencing challenges. But we must also be realistic about their struggles and abilities to overcome them. The City Council has not been forthcoming with the truth about the negative implications of this group living community corrections and residential care facilities that currently exist in the city. While there are a few notable exceptions, the vast majority of these facilities are rundown and have alarming numbers of police calls. And it's critical that we don't lose sight of the impact to school kids of removing school setbacks. They were put in place for a reason and are needed to protect our children. In summary, the proposed zoning changes both to our residential neighborhoods and by removing the protection of school setbacks, will be very detrimental to all the residents in the communities losing those protections. Please don't make our communities and our children the losers in your solution. Please go back to the drawing board and find a solution that helps the people who need it without harming so many others. Thank you for allowing me the time to speak.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Mary Claude Coddington.
Speaker 1: My name is Mary Coddington, speaking today on behalf of the Neighborhood Development Collaborative in cities with similar policies to the one proposed within the group amendments. The fears of double doubling density, falling property values and parking problems haven't come to pass. Most homes still have just over two people, as has been the case for decades. And Denver's really far behind most cities when it comes to common sense group living policies, expansion of areas where residential care facilities are allowed, and the expansion of where community corrections facilities are allowed really needs to happen. The community corrections facilities are designed to get people on their feet and to reconnect with society. But this is undercut if their facilities are still segregated from. Most of our.
Speaker 6: Communities.
Speaker 1: In D.C. supports the expansion of allow locations for community corrections facilities and really looks forward to a future in which Denver bases all of its zoning choices on the characteristics of the built environment instead of the characteristics of its residents. The lack of adequate rehousing options for people exiting the criminal justice system is one of the key reasons for recidivism, which is counter to the very intent of the community corrections facilities. Organizationally, most members of DC will not be directly impacted by these changes. But the mission of increasing affordability to ensure Denver can be a city for all will be negatively infected and affected if you vote against these proposed changes. And then on a personal note, I have lived experience living in a household of five adults. We were a teacher, a school librarian, a flight attendant, a personal trainer and a tech employee. And every year we would go Christmas tree shopping and decorate our tree together. We would have family dinners. And among the five of us, we had two cars. We did serve as a family for one another, and I staunchly believe it's not the role of government to define what a family is. Unfortunately, the proposed amendments that they've as they've been changed, so do define family. But at least they're offering a more expansive definition. Please vote to approve these changes. And thank you so much for your time and for your work.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Christy McCarrick. Or you can correct my pronunciation of your last name.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Counsel Gilmore. Councilwoman Gilmore. Thank you, Counsel, for allowing me to speak in opposition of this proposed amendment. My name is Christy McCarrick. I'm a Denver resident, a Denver public schools educator, a mother to a student who attends Denver Public Schools, and a volunteer who is committed to volunteerism within Denver communities to help make Denver an exceptional place to live. The amendment you are about to vote on lacks clarity and equity in many areas. If this amendment is passed, as is, our city will move down a path we cannot turn back from. There are no take backs. Your vote tonight is much more far reaching than current debate represents one of the individual areas of concern in this amendment school buffer zones, strip search of the most basic considerations for their safety. Our children deserve clearly understood and well-defined buffer zones for all our schools. This amendment has lacked clarity of purpose and equitable authorship from its creation with undefined implementation and oversight. Please Council members hear my words tonight, especially when I say being held accountable may feel like an attack. If you're not ready to acknowledge how this decision will affect the community fabric of all who live in Denver. Please make the best decision. Denver, which is a no vote on this housing amendment. Please help us to remember you as the City Council who cares about everyone's choices, safety and quality of life. Thank you for your time tonight.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, we have Jonathan Petticoat.
Speaker 2: Yes. Good evening, councilors. John for Tokyo District three. Tonight you've heard, and I'm sure we'll continue to hear the many benefits of reducing restrictions on group living in Denver. Even the most current proposal continues to discriminate. You'll also certainly hear more regurgitation of unfounded claims about drastic negative impacts. His proposal will have given that I'm not going to spend my time countering those points. Rather, I'd like to address to 11th hour modifications made by the Land Use Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. To be clear, even before these two modifications were made, the Sixth Amendment did not do enough to support vulnerable members of our communities in Denver . But I called them out for their particularly disastrous impact on the project's goals, as well as the fact that they've been wedged in without any sound reasoning to support them. The modifications in question are one. Capping the number of adults allowed to live together regardless of residential units, size and two permitting type two residential uses only on parcels previously used for civic, public and institutional structures. Both of these proposed modifications derail this multi-year project from meeting its core goal of enabling more inclusive communities and avoiding harm to vulnerable residents. On the first, I take issue with disallowing more residents, even as unit sizes were larger. Much of the opposition to large household sizes has centered around the concept of preventing overcrowded homes, and the term overcrowded is regularly misused by detractors. But if we accept it and follow the same logic. A large home should have room for more people. There are existing co-ops in Denver today that have more than five residents in sufficiently large homes, and they will not be protected if the test amendment passes as it stands. That means that if it passes, we know that good, upstanding citizens in our community will continue tomorrow to live in fear despite all of the work put into this project. Simply the notion that a 600 square foot property should be treated the same as a 3600 square foot property is patently absurd. Larger properties must allow more residents on the second modification. Limiting facilities to only existing civic or institutional buildings does not support and is not supported by any of the stated goals of the project . At the same time, while excluding this new provision does no harm to the project's aims, adding the requirement could do harm to the project's outcome. This provision would limit the supply of available lots and properties for these community enhancing residential care uses, which will increase the cost of providing these services. Further, it places community serving organizations at odds with one another. If former churches and civic institutions largely represent the few places where these new residential care uses can sprout up is essential. Third, places in our city will face pressure to close or sell to residential care groups would themselves seek to serve our neighbors with unique needs. If only existing buildings can transition to residential care, we are binding the quality of life of our current and future residents to the needs of residents who live far in our past. We cannot build for the present reality of Denver if we rely on reusing spaces designed for a different era. Thank you for your time. I urge you to remove these two modifications before a final vote progresses. Then please pass this text amendment for the betterment of our community. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Jonathan. And our next speaker, we only have Kay is the first name and D as the last name. So if you are in the attendees, if you wouldn't mind raising your hand, we can get you promoted into the panelist. And so we'll go ahead and. Give it a second. Right. If you can't get to your phone right now, if you go ahead and raise your hand, we'll try to get you up into the queue. Our next speaker is Kevin MATTHEWS.
Speaker 6: Hi. My name is Kevin MATTHEWS, and I live in the Congress Park neighborhood. I'm also with the NB Denver, but tonight I'm speaking on my own behalf as a homeowner, a husband and a father who is just trying to raise this kid. Right. Firstly, I think you really screwed this up. He took a well thought out and researched design proposal that was already a compromise. And your budget that the current proposal will break up families and I won't let you pretend that that is not what you are doing just because some of you some of them don't care, but you should amend it and fix it before passage. Only a couple of weeks after Donald Trump has left office, we can't shake the stench of the politics of Trumpism, of hate and division. Of course, the undercurrent was there before he came into office, but were really surprised. Me is how many of you have failed to recognize the significance of this moment? Politically, this should be slam dunk for a few of you. Sure, the opposition is loud and strong, but they have to be. There just aren't a lot of them. People are still talking about what happened in D.C. just a few weeks ago and why did so many Ryan do what they did? I'm sorry to say the answer is simple. For those people their entire lives, the only way they could feel good about themselves is by stomping on someone else. As Adam Suhr recently wrote, the cruelty is the point. It's the rejoicing in the suffering of those that they hate and fear and sorry. But that's what opposition to group living and residential care is really about. It's not about property values. I live in Congress Park. We have group homes already and there are two residential care facilities, a walkable distance from my home. One of them is a community corrections facility. You should come see my property values. No. This is about some people's need to exert dominance over people that they feel are lesser than them. For those of you are still patting yourselves on your back for your current station in life, you should understand that you didn't arrive where you were are today because you made good choices. You got there because you had good choices. At the Capitol. Many police officers were very badly injured and some have died. Who knows how quiet the Blue Lives Matter crowd had been, though, because blue lives was never about mattering. It was code saying The Black Lives don't. People who want to feel.
Speaker 0: Free to speak to the topic of the hearing. The group Living Amendments. Yes.
Speaker 6: So people who want to feel safe and sound don't really want to feel safe and sound. They want you to take a tool away from them that they can use to terrorize their neighbors who they think are lesser than them. If this proposal passes, that's really the only thing that changes from the status quo. Thanks. Thank you very much for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Tanya Wilson.
Speaker 1: I was wondering why it was on screen all of a sudden. Thank you so much for your time this evening. Just trying to get my note up. I'm here to ask you to vote no on the group living proposal. I submitted my final letter this morning. So you didn't get it in that packet from CPD, but it should have come through your email. I ask if you do believe that this proposal as written is the best possible solution for your situation. If you're thinking about voting yes because so much time has been invested in the process already, then I urge you to vote no. Four years of city planning time is a sunk cost at this point, and many of you have noted that CPD didn't do such a great job with this proposal. The work it's done lately to attempt to salvage this has resulted in this bloated and convoluted 200 plus page document of detailed text amendments most people haven't read. And I believe that Denver residents deserve better from their government. If you're thinking about voting yes because you believe the city can quickly come up with a solution for that inequitable Chapter 59 issue, then I urge you to vote no. Ten years have passed since the city has started, has been operating under two zoning codes, and an estimate from five years ago showed it would take two and a half years and over $500,000 to fix the issue. Just last week, CPD confirmed that it has no plan and no dedicated funds to address the issue. Plus, as we know, the city is in a budget crunch. So how realistic is it that this fix will be a priority any time soon? And if you're thinking about voting yes because you believe this proposal will address housing affordability, then I urge you to vote no. The 2018 charter for the Group Living Advisory Committee specifically stated that issues around housing affordability were not in scope because those issues cannot be resolved in the zoning code. How likely is it, though, that an unintended consequence of the proposal is less housing stock available for those who want to buy and occupy a single family house while the market is gobbled up by real estate investors intent on converting more houses to rental. To be clear, I'm not opposed to increasing the number of unrelated adults in a unit zoned a single family. I am not opposed to more placements for some residential care and I am not opposed to finding more equitable solutions than the Denver zoning code when I'm opposed to this entire process. The number of issues that the proposal attempts to address and a single change in how the city has handled feedback from those who oppose the proposal as written. Now you're in the awkward position of having to vote on sloppy work that doesn't meet the needs nor wants of Denver residents. So please do the right thing and vote no on this proposal as it is written. Start fresh. Tackle one issue at a time. Give some breathing space to everyone. And that would be a good first step in mending the divisions that this poorly executed proposal process has created. Thank you for your time and have a good evening.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Jason Warnock.
Speaker 2: But evening. My name is Jason Hornick, and I'm on the board of the Chafee Park Neighborhood Association and Jimmy Denver. And I'm a new father. So I did everything right and I played by the rules. I worked hard and I saved up my money to buy a house in Denver, a house that cost literally four times as much as it did 20 years ago when the previous generations bought their homes. Since I played by the rules, why shouldn't I be able to choose what I get to do with my own property? My house is my biggest financial asset and the zoning code should protect my financial interests by allowing me to rent out my spare bedrooms to roommates. This would help me pay for my mortgage while also providing affordable housing. It's a win win. Why should the government limit my freedom to help others? As long as I'm not violating any health, safety or nuisance ordinances, I'm not looking to host a circus on my property. I just want to have roommates that I'm not related to. Okay. So the truth is, I neither want nor need to rent out my extra bedrooms. I was just trying to make a point by co-opting the self-interested language of the opposition, I'm lucky to be in a stable enough position to afford my mortgage. However, I do remember what it was like to not have this financial stability and to need to pool my resources with others in order to get by in this increasingly expensive city. If I wasn't able to live with multiple roommates in my younger days, there's no way I would have been able to then able to gain a foothold in this economy, and I wouldn't be in the fortunate position that I'm in today. So even though I won't personally benefit from this code change, I understand that maintaining a discriminatory status quo is worse than whatever theoretical problems might come from the change. And those problems are theoretical, especially compared to the very real problems that our current code creates for people with far greater worries than the appreciation of their property value. I should also mention that I live within walking distance of two community corrections facilities and my property value is still going up. If those facilities are good enough for some neighborhoods, then they're good enough for all neighborhoods. As far as compromises made to this bill and Ludy, I'm afraid that an effort to satiate the bigoted fears of some people in this city, the committee has ruined the original intent of the legislation, which was to remove discrimination from our zoning code instead of compromising on the nuts and bolts, you threw out the original purpose and chose to maintain discriminatory language. Choosing to allow less discrimination is not a compromise. It's a surrender. There's no have position on discrimination. Discrimination condone is still discrimination. There's no half position. And bigotry. Bigotry condoned is still bigotry. This watered down version that maintains our codes unenforceable and unconstitutional attempts to legislate with whom we are allowed to live with based on genetics is bad and lazy governance. But this is where we are, so I urge you to vote on it anyway. We shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. If you're on the fence about this, please remember that you're going to upset half your constituency anyway, so you might as well vote for your with your conscience. Thanks a lot, guys. Have a good night.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Jason. Our next speaker is Bill Tanner. Bill. You might have to commute. There you go.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Okay. Can you hear me now?
Speaker 0: Mm hmm. Go ahead.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much. I appreciate the time. I want to start off by thanking everybody for all the work that they've done on this, particularly all members of the council and particularly Andrew Webb. I hope you give him a long summer vacation warmer than normal. He's certainly earned it through all the meetings that he's had in my community, which I'm going to speak to, is how my community voted on this rather than an individual vote. We did a survey. The survey was conducted among residents who had read Andrew Webb's proposal. We actually attached that to the survey, and 82% read that and 94% had read a variety of different. Media topics on the subject in terms of voting, the majority voted against both the expanding the number of people that would be able to live in an individual house and also against the residential zoning issue. I want to let you know that we actually do have in the neighborhood two residential zoning facilities and they work very well in the neighborhood. So most of the discussion was not about facilities like the memory care facility that's in the neighborhood or about an assisted living facility. But we're concerned about the homeless shelters and community corrections, which I think is pretty consistent across the city. We asked people about their concerns, and there were just three or four things that they said, I think, that are that are key and that I would ask you to take a look at before voting for this amendment. One is, is that the zoning remains inequitable. I think people who are both for and against this have pointed that out. And I think that that's a very frustrating thing. I understood that it's necessary to remove askew to you and our age 2.5. From designing consideration. But again, that just perpetuates the inequity that you are trying to resolve for in the beginning. There seemed to be a lack of permitting and oversight requirements. I would ask you to take another look at those. It's a little bit difficult to argue with people who have experience living near facilities like these and have had problems. Call 311 and not have had the issues resolved. Thank you for your time and good voting.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, we have Joseph Spaulding.
Speaker 2: I. So it just is kind of a big surprise to me to learn that Full House was set in Denver eventually would get evicted. That's kind of weird. Now that most good rock bands probably would have a hard time performing there because that type of living situation is a group living situation, my group living experience. So tells me that something tells me that houses are going to be better cared for. You just have a better, more skill set to take care of problems that come on internally inside of the house and externally. And there's a lot of encouragement from folks internally inside the household to make sure that those things are are kept up to par. I did want to tell counsel to council generally that like we stated previously, you're going to anger quite a bit of your constituents on this no matter what. You might as well be on the right side of history. If we look across the country, there are cities doing things like ending single family zoning outright like Berkeley is working on right now, or parking minimums that they just ended. The reality is we're dealing with the legacy of segregation and zoning laws in every major metropolitan area in this country. And every city has to carry their weight when it comes to fixing these types of things. It's very disappointing to see a process happen where an honest attempt at addressing that very real, very existing segregation. Remember, racial covenants were legal to be enforced back until 1960. Up until 1969, we're talking about, you know, stuff that that a lot of folks can can remember, you know, black people who couldn't can remember not being able to live in specific places because of the covenants on those homes. And now we're trying to dissect and bisect on black families. Denver has a real opportunity to open this up by undoing the damage of those amendments that happened in the process and coming back and passing this this amendment as written originally. And I do want to talk about that process specifically, because I do agree that this bill was this this tight, this man was needlessly watered down. And it's you know, frankly, anyone who is familiar with any type of city council process and they learn about the city of Denver and how entrenched the neighborhood organizations are and how there's no access to city council. But through them, it really, really shows how much of a lopsided influence the people who own versus the people who rent in the city have. So I do want city council to walk away from this knowing that they're going to have people that have their backs who know that they're fighting segregation . And we are going to scream very, very loudly that you are helping us like and this abomination, this legacy of historic racism in this country or, you know, we're going to do the other go the other way. So things have become.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Donna Krentz.
Speaker 6: Good evening. My name is Don Occurrence City of Denver. My letter was submitted by email to council today. It was not included in the package. Group Living Zoning Amendment is one massive, unproven urban social experiment with the mayor. CPD G lack and a few council members want to impose on all of Denver. And in spite of the growing opposition, the pledge of a public servant takes should be defined by the Hippocratic Oath. First, do no harm. The amendment is a mayor's and a few council members a way of shifting major burdens of the city in the shoulders of residents into stable, single family neighborhoods. CPD in a stacked and biased du Lac, failed to create creative solutions to the problems that face Denver. Even the g LAC Charter States Zoning will not resolve affordability. Simply put, the amendment will not make purchasing a home more affordable and instead promotes renting. Not owning the most current changes to the amendment are insufficient and do not go far enough to protect law abiding citizens who have made significant sacrifices to live in safe, stable neighborhoods and who have invested a lifetime in their homes and communities without further changes to the amendment. And should it pass, the city should prepare for people to flee to safer refuge as the city goes in decay, similar to the flight from cities to suburbs in the fifties and sixties. Look no further than what happened in the last 60 years in the cities of Buffalo, my hometown, Cleveland, Detroit, Kansas City, Chicago and the like. People with the means to do so fled to the suburbs while the criminal elements stayed and those with less could not escape. Many of the cities of those cities have been plagued with crime for decades, overrun with drugs, gangs and turf wars. However, this time, swing urbanites will not return to Denver to live. There will be little need to do so because technology and the rise of telecommuting is going on. It is happening right now across the city, prompted by COVID 19 impacts. Urbanites are moving to the suburbs and leaving the growing issues of cities behind them and there is no going back. Overall, the amendment will serve to destabilize existing, stable neighborhoods. Denver will evolve into a landlord's paradise, just like New York City, where only the wealthy will be able to afford to own property as the middle and lower income classes are squeezed out. The remaining population will be struggling, renters that cannot escape and the criminals that will prey on them. I urge responsible council members to show political courage and resolve in the face of adversity. And vote no on this amendment. Save our city. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Speaker 0: Q Our next speaker up is Kiara Jackson.
Speaker 7: Hello. Can you guys hear me okay? Mm hmm.
Speaker 0: Go ahead, Kira.
Speaker 7: Okay. Perfect. Um, my name is Karen Jackson, and I'm just here as a lifelong resident of Montebello, which is in District 11. And I'm asking you all to vote yes in favor of the amendment. I thought about sharing my story about being a young professional, having to work multiple jobs and still not being able to afford a mortgage on my own. But instead, I want to share some stories of my neighbors who could not be here. You know, I feel like everyone is now really familiar with the talking points commonly used to advocate for this ordinance. Um, you know, that will help people see how it'll help move the city towards more equitable zoning rules, etc.. But I think often it's easy to read and hear these talking points, but forget the context behind them, the stories behind them. And so I want to bring you real stories that my friend Myra Gonzalez and I have been trusted with. Well, we're keen to educate and gather support for this ordinance. Over the last couple of months. Um, well, I wish they were here to share this themselves. The nastiness, devoid of compassion or understanding surrounding this topic, has made them fearful to speak publicly. Um, and I hope that when you review the signatures that we've shared, you think of these stories. So the first story is one of our neighbors that lives with her significant other and another couple. They are barely able to afford that mortgage, that that shared mortgage they basically rented together without the other couple that's that the rooming with they have recently been able to go into this house from living within their car and have a baby on the way, but are now in fear of the neighbors calling and reporting on them , forcing them back onto the street, forcing them back into their car, forcing them back into a situation that they've so desperately and so have worked so hard to get out of. Another one of our neighbors who has a really large family, is fearful again of their neighbors supporting them because they would assume she breaking the group living ordinance and the danger that puts her family and as undocumented peoples. I just want to highlight to everybody that this issue is bigger than fighting over cars parked along your street. These are our neighbors and these are only two stories. But I have lost count of how many times I had heard these very stories told in fellow in Spring Valley and Central Park on the West Side and all over Denver. And I use the word excuse me. I use the words our neighbors deliberately. These are our neighbors. Please vote yes in support of this group Living Amendment, even though it's watered down. We need to start somewhere. Somewhere. We need a support system. Start supporting all of our neighbors, even the ones that don't look like us. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The next speaker is Steve. Well.
Speaker 2: Hi. Can you hear me?
Speaker 0: Mm hmm. Go ahead. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Mm hmm. Thank you, counsel, for allowing me to speak against this amendment. I'm Steve. While I live in Cap Hill, where I grew up. News reports suggest that this initiative was introduced by the corrections industry and other businesses pushing for group homes regardless of impact. Let's be clear. While improving services and housing is a good thing, it is bad to do it at the cost of ruining our stable neighborhoods. The amendment does not address unintended consequences. Ironically, although I am a businessman, I oppose this form of group density that promotes the destruction of community despite its pretense of social justice. Allowing the mass conversion of private homes into income property is bad investors. Investors. Will buy more previously privately owned homes, same as Wall Street did after the oh nine meltdown. Why is that bad? Because it makes it harder for folks and first time owners to buy homes. We as a society.
Speaker 3: Prefer more.
Speaker 2: Private home ownership or rentals. As a third generation Dem right. I'm also a historic preservationist and board member of historic Denver LoDo Design Commission and my neighborhood association. The history of Cap Hill is that formerly single family homes became boarding houses or worse. Most converted homes are investment properties owned by absentee owners, which are badly, which age badly, and create lasting blight with more crime. Distressed areas, encourage work in the suburbs, allowing group density to monetize every room in every house will result in the same. Who among us bought our homes as income property? I bought my house for quality of life, not a business. The irony is that this social engineering adversely impacts all individuals property rights. The unintended consequences far outweigh the benefits. There is already too much demand on infrastructure in many areas to support a massive increase in density. Try parking in my neighborhood after 6 p.m.. Try navigating the streets, alleys overflow with trash. Furthermore, it will monetize single family homes. Making individuals compete with Wall Street. Allowing every bedroom to be rented will create income property that will discourage and compete with individuals for homeownership. If you like the boarding house model that ruined Capitol Hill in the postwar years, you will love the density initiative. Cramming more people into already dense areas has unintended consequences. It's one thing to allow a few unrelated people to share homes, but not five, ten or 15. Also, do not allow this to be a cash cow business model, encouraging investors to buy up all the housing stock. It's one thing for a homeowner to share their home, but another for absentee owners to buy more homes. Vote no. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Chris Applegate.
Speaker 2: Hi, this is Chris Applegate. I'm at 1289 South Raritan Street in Council District seven. I've actually.
Speaker 6: Just moved to this neighborhood.
Speaker 2: Park and I have been a former resident in councilmember tourist district for the last six years, until recently moving this past week and a half. But I wanted to.
Speaker 6: I wanted to share that. I'm I guess.
Speaker 2: I would love for you all to vote yes on this group. Understanding change. As someone who considers myself like one of these folks that have moved to the city in 2013, I guess I'm hearing a lot from folks, some of.
Speaker 6: The opposing sides that.
Speaker 2: I'm not welcomed here and I'm a I'm a white dude and I can only imagine what it's like for people of color feel even less welcome in this city. I'm a millennial. I had to pay $145,000 on my student loans, eight year, almost nine years to get them paid off. And I feel like I'm so far behind, I'm a human being purchased a home that I've thought about. Maybe there's a way to do co-housing of sharing a home with someone. Because if you want to live in the city of Denver and you're not rich, you're not elite, you're not super privileged, then you're going to need a lot more money. I even look at the salaries of the council members and I'm like, I don't know if that's enough to buy a place, you know, if that was your starting salary, you had to start saving today for a home. Sit down. It's it's unreal. Uh, um, I just think that we the key word that I'd change would do that. It is a compromise. It's not perfect. No, sir. Any change will ever be perfect. But I appreciate the effort that has been put in, and I would really hope that we add that flexibility into our housing crisis that we have in our city. We have folks living on the streets and we have the city did vote yes on the $40 million last November. And that's another tool in the toolbox. Every tool we need, all of them, as many as possible to ensure that we build an equitable and inclusive city. I saw what Lakewood did about a year and a half ago with their vote on restricting building of housing. And I don't want Denver to be kind of lumped into that bucket. We've had four years of Donald Trump. He wanted to build walls. I think Denver is slowly taking down their walls to build a more inclusive city. So I hope that we can ensure that we are building that inclusive city of the future and providing more tools for that. Thank you all so much. And please vote yes.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Chris. Up next, we have Lynne crazy. And when you might have to a new.
Speaker 1: I didn't see that. Can you hear me now?
Speaker 0: Go ahead, please.
Speaker 1: Yes. I'm urging you to vote no. I'm not sure why I'm supposed to suffer financially and my quality of life, because as featured in Sunday's Denver Post, a graduate from a private school who came from out of state can afford to live in my neighborhood, the one that I saved to buy into but wants the zoning change so we should accommodate those young person from maybe California where most people are coming from so he can live with his friends. Some of us had actually moved back in with our parents or we rented apartments or other things and didn't ask people to have a zoning change that affected other people's equity in their homes. I think you're kidding yourselves. If you think increasing the number of unrelated people cramming into houses will make for a safe, clean neighborhood. Do you really think putting fun five unrelated people with all the cars and noise is an environment that supports safety. How many pitbulls will they have? Do you want your kids living next door to this situation? Mark my words in just a few words. In just a few years, Denver will be grossly overpopulated. Remember, we already have water shortages. The streets, alleys, front yards will be full of vehicles. We won't even be able to see the green spaces. They'll be trashed out yards in. The hard working people will move, leaving the mess behind. It's been done before. It's called White Flight. And you created it. Thank you. Vote now.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Chris Miller.
Speaker 2: Hi, I'm Chris Miller. I live in the Sphere neighborhood along with 10,000 other residents in District seven. I'm here to speak in support of group living changes and to ask that the limit of five residents be allowed to increase with the size of the dwelling units. Now, I can speak in front of Denver City Council tonight as a millennial homeowner, one who's worked hard but has also been graced with many advantages. That privilege enables my voice and my liberty to be here. I know that my story is not one that is very broadly shared in the way that it should be. Well, we may not hear. Tonight is the stories of those who have less voice and less liberty, those who've been forced out or priced out of Denver because we have made housing options unavailable to them. Our liberties and the policies we have and what we enforce, it plays out. And who can and who can't live here. We as a city have curtailed liberty for decades. We've lost the stories of so many people. We perhaps can't get those people back, but we can make Denver a home for more stories in the future. Now I can't or won't speak to what those who have left, what they might have wanted for themselves and their choices. But I will speak for their liberty to choose what they would have wanted because we can't know. Liberty is messy, but it always has been a worthwhile goal in and of itself. And part of our nation's founding principle is that we should continually move in that direction. Moving towards greater liberty won't mandate how you get around or what dwelling you choose to live in. It just makes it possible for others to change their own circumstances as they see fit. Liberty. Liberty allows for those who want to share a house because they're concerned about climate change to take their individual actions, reduce their carbon emissions. Liberty allows for people to save up for a down payment. Liberty allows people to choose their family and their community. To conclude, I.
Speaker 6: Encourage you to choose the bold.
Speaker 2: But noble choice of more liberty and more housing flexibility. Our community, our city and our planet depend on it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Richard says. You might need to meet Richard.
Speaker 2: Okay. Hi, I'm rich site. I live in district two, Kevin Quinn's district, and I am here tonight to ask you to vote no on live in the amendment. I wish that the adults component would have been separated from the community corrections and residential care components of this amendment. And maybe you can at some point at any rate, I'm asking you to vote no. I feel that the way this amendment has been developed has been developed in a way to benefit some very specific groups. The three groups we're talking about, primarily the unrelated adults that want to live in a home together, people in community corrections and homeless people and other groups that are in residential care. And I feel that very little time has been spent on how this amendment will or can benefit the majority of people who live in Denver. And I think that this amendment is unfairly asking the majority of Denver residents to assume a lot of risk. Risk to their quality of life. Risk to their safety. And risk to their financial status. We know in southwest Denver, where we have the Sanderson Gulch apartment, that the quality of life has been impacted negatively for businesses and neighbors surrounding that facility. You know, that facility is I think it's a well-run facility. We have a lot of issues with that facility and its negative impact on the neighbors and businesses. So much so that tourism, Mexican food across the street had to reduce its hours because visitors to that facility were harassing the people, the restaurants, customers. A safety issue affects safety for people surrounding community corrections facilities, and I think homeless shelters do. We know that there are some dangerous elements in living in community corrections facilities. That's why they're there. They're not there because they were doing everything right. They're trying to get things right, trying to live better. But there are a lot that are not doing the right things and can't do the right thing. Any little thing can set them off. And I think that presents a safety concern.
Speaker 0: We would ask that you please stay on the topic of the hearings or.
Speaker 2: Well, community corrections is a big part of this topic. And lastly, I'd say financially. Studies have shown that any home that is within 500 feet of a community corrections facility or homeless shelters does experience a significant drop in their value. And I think the city council should consider that.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker tonight is David Pardo.
Speaker 2: Hello? You guys, can you hear me?
Speaker 0: Go ahead.
Speaker 2: Thank you. My name is David Pardo. I am currently a resident of District one Radio. For six and a half years, I lived in District nine. I actually know and have spoken one on one with six out of the 13 of you. So I like to think that some of you guys actually know me. There are some things you may not know about me, though. In addition to now, currently serving on an advisory committee for the city government and now working for one of the developers here in town, having done a whole bunch of other interesting things here. When I was 19, I made some poor choices and. Pretty much only because I'm a white dude did I not end up in prison a year later after having. Made some changes in my life. I took a job in a city I had never lived in before. And. I ended up fighting forest fires, which was great, but I made almost no money for the first half of that summer, and I was homeless, sleeping on someone's front lawn. In between those two things, I ended up living in a group home where I ended up working on the issues that I'd had when when I was 19. And right now, today, I'm somebody who can. Speak directly if I want to by text or by Facebook message to multiple members of the City Council. People who end up in community corrections. People who end up in group homes. People who end up living in a house where there are more people than is normally allowed per the city law, like I was when I lived in Boulder seven or eight years ago. We aren't bad people. We are people who deserve to have a chance to live in the communities of this city. We are people who matter and who are the future of this city. Every child that somebody who is against this talks about could grow up to be somebody like me. They could have things that go wrong in their life. They could need to find a place that's inexpensive to live. They may not be able to afford to live on their own. I am blessed to be able to do right now. And because of that, I really ask not only that you pass this, but that it is in addition to passing it, that you change these a few parts of this, most particularly that you're treating a 600 square foot home, the same as a 6000 square foot home in Bel Caro. That can easily accommodate a dozen adults safely and in a healthy manner. Of not. Thank you for your time. And I once again urge you to vote yes. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Anna McCaffrey.
Speaker 1: Hi. Can you hear me?
Speaker 0: Mm hmm. Go ahead, Anna.
Speaker 7: Hi. I'm Anna, and I live in my.
Speaker 1: Congress park home for 18 years. I'm actually a Denver native.
Speaker 5: I've lived outside of the state enough to know that about living.
Speaker 1: Conditions that we don't want here in Denver. We don't want to be Seattle.
Speaker 7: Or Portland or any other overcrowded.
Speaker 1: Unregulated city. Changes need to be made, but we need to be more inclusive in the planning with.
Speaker 6: Thought out.
Speaker 1: Answers for future consequences to these programs.
Speaker 7: I work with low income and underprivileged.
Speaker 1: Citizens every day, and I'm presently working on the rent assistance program, so I fully understand the need. I'm so disappointed in the city council who dismissed the survey because too many people over the age of 36 replied.
Speaker 6: He said those.
Speaker 1: Respondents were overrepresented. Overrepresented.
Speaker 6: Isn't it the job of city.
Speaker 7: Council to represent all of us?
Speaker 1: Everyone in this city is important. Every single person. The three categories Group Living Home, Homeless, Shelters and corrections need to be separated and rewritten with more regulation and more oversight work done to prevent or prevent negative quality of life issues.
Speaker 6: Five occupants in a group living home all have friends who all have cars.
Speaker 1: People who live have to live next door to a 24 seven frat house like.
Speaker 7: The nightmare that I have to live.
Speaker 1: Next door to for two years. When the four people on the lease who had ten people living there and 15 cars turned their.
Speaker 7: Garage into a strip club that opened.
Speaker 6: Up after the bars closed.
Speaker 1: Every night. I heard that noise every single night and no.
Speaker 0: One would help me.
Speaker 1: No one. And that was what? It was.
Speaker 5: Illegal.
Speaker 1: Everyone will lose the quality of life and the quiet enjoyment that everyone deserves when you have.
Speaker 6: To live next door to this.
Speaker 1: Senior citizens have totally been left out. They need.
Speaker 6: Services.
Speaker 1: The ability to get medical and daily care and maintenance services to their homes and themselves when access to their priced properties is removed by overcrowded overcrowding and non-existent parking will make it impossible for seniors to stay, stay safe and in place. These areas were originally designed for single families with three cars at maximum. Cars have to go somewhere. If the providers can't give to the seniors.
Speaker 7: They will bypass.
Speaker 1: Them. This is very disrespectful to senior citizens. In addition to all this, there's no guarantee of affordable housing.
Speaker 6: You say it's.
Speaker 1: Against the Colorado Constitution to force.
Speaker 7: Developers to build affordable housing. Well, why aren't.
Speaker 1: We working on changing that?
Speaker 6: It's just it was poorly written.
Speaker 5: The committee that.
Speaker 6: Put the b the proposal.
Speaker 1: Together was stacked.
Speaker 7: With people.
Speaker 1: That stand to benefit from this. We're not afraid of change. The people that have worked to help you change this want to change it, but include everyone. And that includes me who happens to be a person of color. Thank you so much. Please vote no.
Speaker 0: Our next speaker is Megan Mize.
Speaker 1: Hello everyone, and thank you for the opportunity to share my comments. My name is Megan Mize and I live in District one in Denver. I would like to voice my support for the resolution to update the group Living Rules. Denver's current legal limit of two unrelated individuals in one household is one of the most restrictive of any metro area in our entire country and is discriminatory, classist and racist at its core. I fully support raising this limit. Like others have said, I do not support the government defining what a family looks like. I recognize that the value. I recognize the value in raising the limit from 2 to 5 unrelated adults. However, I believe that the advisory committee is original recommendation of eight unrelated adults. More fully accommodates the realities of living in an extractive capitalist society that we currently all reside in, and particularly during a global pandemic. I also urge you to allow more than five unrelated adults in residences of a larger size. I do. I also do not support the passing of any amendment that continues to discriminate against community correction residents by separating them from other residential care types. This discrimination against community correction residents does not set them up for success, separating them from transport and job opportunities. This discrimination also perpetuates our current carceral state system. Denver has the opportunity to work to dismantle this discrimination. Right now. As other speakers tonight have said and have pointed out, opponents to these updates are classicists simply trying to predict their own capitalist's financial status that they only achieved based on a racist and extractive system. Denver has an opportunity to move our city towards a more equitable and anti-racist city. Thank you for your time, council members and to all of those organizers who have put in a lot of effort to moving this forward.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Steven Benishek. Go ahead. Go. Mm hmm. Go ahead.
Speaker 2: Okay. So my camera's a little wonky, so it might go in and out, but. So my name is Stephen Bencic. I'm a resident of Denver District six, specifically University Park. And right now I spend about 30% of my monthly income on rent here in Denver. And I'm not unique. In fact, I'm rather fortunate in this way. It's because I have a well-paying job that allows me to work from home uninterrupted during this crisis. However, I know a lot of people in the city are not as lucky as I am. At a time when the Bureau of Labor Statistics projects unemployment in the Denver metro area at around 9%, most of that among minimum wage workers in the service sector who are struggling to afford the cost of living before we desperately need affordable housing in the city and able to continue paying rent even if it might be relatively expensive. However, others in the city are not as lucky as I understand that 30% is on the low side people in Denver. For others it can be 40, 50 and 60% of their monthly income in good times, let alone not without a source of income. The primary reason I'm speaking tonight is because of the people who these changes will truly benefit, but who are not here at this meeting right now. They're working their second or third jobs if they're lucky enough to have those, so they don't have to make the choice between rent, food or other bills. This month, however, this problem is completely avoidable. This current crisis of people in Denver not being able for basic necessities like a place to live is a direct result of the city's outdated and restrictive laws on group living. What worked for the city in 1961 is not working in 2021. We cannot continue with these Jim Crow policies. The Council has a chance to fix this crisis tonight by approving the group Living Amendments, not as initially watered down by committee, but as originally proposed. So for that reason, I urge you to vote yes on these amendments. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Stephen. Next up, we have Lawrence Murray. And we might have to have you unmute, Mr. Murray. All right. There we go. All right, Mr. Murray.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you. I'm a resident, district 11. Let the people decide. But the people decide. My name is Lawrence Murray, and I'm the vice president of the Global Network and a resident of my bellies since 31st December 1982. That was the day I closed on my first and only home. At that time, my wife and I had three young children, ages 4 to 10, to support and being an active duty airforce member at the time. It was a blessing to have a pay back loan to get our house. Both my wife and I work extra jobs at the Old Cop USA and I was a youth sports official. I was a it was a challenge at first between credit cards and a mortgage. But patience and discipline prevailed in the home as hours and hours. A long night. Now. I still remember the saleslady stating this was a fine choice as a starting home. Funny thing, I could not imagine going through that process a second time. I rely. Excuse me. I relate this story to simply saying things were promised to us and those of us purchased at that time. Things like green lawns, plenty of parking, nice schools, and the company of a newly arriving single family doing what single families do. My person purchasing a single family home with all that implies. Now, 38 years later. The city of Denver has unilaterally decided to change the rules of what it means to own a single family home in Marbella and the entire city, in effect, removing that phrase from our lexicon. They have been well documented and I have no desire to repeat them. The objections that that have been expressed so far. I simply suggest that this issue recanted. And just like the pit bull issue was handled last year. I implore the city council to simply let the people decide and let the people decide this issue. I oppose it wholeheartedly.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Murray. Up next, we have one Gutierrez.
Speaker 2: Good evening.
Speaker 0: Can even go ahead once.
Speaker 2: Thank you. My name is Brian Gutierrez. I live in in Denver in the District five neighborhood and work for the city and county of Denver, excuse me, retiring after 34 years of service. I decided to take this time to talk about the system your residents have witnessed during this process, and I will let the others speak on how we will see our city evolve. Investment is approved. For the record, I am opposed. As a city employee, I saw firsthand how, how and why some employees, and most notably politicians, are not held accountable for their actions or misdeeds. And I come to ask you to change that today. Recent Open Records lawsuit revealed much of this about the squad process and how some people on this committee could profit. If the amendment is approved, creating a conflict of interest as well as how 20% of the city under Chapter 59 zoning would be exempt from parts of this amendment. In our most recent elections, we also gave you City Council more oversight over the mayor's office in order to be more efficient, transparent and accountable to its residents. In my opinion, this lawsuit revealed how corrupt this process has been from the very beginning. Not only by Mayor Hancock, but also by some of the committee members. They did their best to hide as much information as possible from us. Under the guise of knowing what is best for known, what is best for us. I was born in and lived in a communist country and now know too well what it means to live in a government that is not held accountable for its actions. These changes do not happen at the federal level. The seeds are planted at the local level and grow from there. The City Council has now the opportunity to do to right a terrible wrong and address the issues to its residents with full transparency. And then only then will we be able to have an open and educated opinions on this and any other matter you need to address in the future. If not, this may set a new precedent. So will you regret it? If that's it. And I ran out of time.
Speaker 0: No. You still have time, sir.
Speaker 2: Okay. If not, it will be president. It will be regret about many for many decades to come. You have been elected to represent us, not the mayor or his staff. It's time to do the right thing and send a message to this, to start this process with transparency. And it should have had, which it should have had from the very beginning. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Frederick Glick.
Speaker 2: I'll send somebody else from the. Hi. Good evening. My name is Fred Glick. I live at 3850 North York Street in the Clayton neighborhood. I'm here tonight to encourage you to pass the group Living Text Amendment before you. And also mention that the Clayton United R.A. has officially supported this amendment. This has been a long and well-publicized process. There have been numerous opportunities for public engagement across the city. Sadly, there's also been a lot of fearmongering surrounding this proposal, with statements and letters being put out there about how this will destroy neighborhoods and endanger our children and seemingly most dire threatened property values. Of course, there is no evidence that this amendment will do any of that. Quite the contrary. This amendment doesn't put us at the forefront of a vast experiment. It merely brings us almost in line with other similar cities. This amendment is about doing right by our neighbors and fellow citizens, all of them. It isn't going to solve our housing crisis, but hopefully it makes it easier for some of our neighbors to be secure in their housing, like those currently living in co-ops who spoke out about their experiences.
Speaker 3: Only to have the opponents of.
Speaker 2: This amendment try to intimidate them from continuing to participate in this public process. I reporting them. We know that there are large a large number of households currently living in noncompliance with the code and that a disproportionate.
Speaker 3: Number.
Speaker 2: Of them are people of color. This amendment is about doing right by our neighbors. At an.
Speaker 3: Earlier public hearing, a.
Speaker 2: Man stood up and spoke in support of this amendment based on his personal experience living in a sober home. His life was changed by that opportunity. I have no idea what that man does for a living or how he lives now, but I do know that he took the time to come down to the city and county building to speak to our planning board about something which was important to him. He's the kind of person I'd like for a neighbor, someone who cares enough about his city and his fellow citizens to take the time to be civically engaged. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Travis Heath. And I know you're on the phone, Travis, so you might have to a new. Travis, you have to hit Star six to unmute. All right. We're going to try one more time, Travis, before we have to move on. There you go. I think you're unmuted now. Travis, go ahead.
Speaker 2: This is Travis Heath, Denver City resident for 24 years. As a Denver property owner, I'm opposed to this group Living Amendment and not based on some of the reasons that others have have insinuated on this call, such as property values, segregation, or people who look different from me. I feel it will have an extreme negative impact to the city on living conditions, and most importantly, it will not solve the problems that it proposes to solve. The number of unrelated people it would allow per square foot in a single family dwelling is absolutely insufficient and will have a drastic impact on neighbors and the neighborhood. Population density overall and the working people of Denver. This proposal was introduced in the midst of a pandemic, no less, when an emphasis on social distancing and contact tracing are vital to reaching an end to the pandemic. What exactly will happen when someone catches a communicable disease and lives in a single family dwelling with five adults and their children? Denver City Council has been deceitful and misleading through various stages of the proposal and has obfuscated the entities who are actually behind it. They've been the opposite of transparent on many, many aspects of this proposal. This proposal will result in overcrowding. It will place too much demand on the resources that are available for that space and the city services for that geographic location services which already don't meet the existing needs. Apparently it will allow up to six six cars per single unit property. We already don't have enough parking in the city. How exactly is this supposed to work? It treats property owners and renters across various areas of Denver unfairly, and the potential for abuse of the new guidelines is significant. I ask for a no vote on the unfair group living proposal.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Travis. Up next, we have Carrie Joy.
Speaker 1: Good evening, counsel. Can you hear me?
Speaker 0: Go ahead.
Speaker 1: Awesome.
Speaker 5: My name is Carrie Joy. I'm a resident of District nine, and I'm here speaking in support of this amendment.
Speaker 7: It is outrageous that we.
Speaker 5: Would choose to define what someone's family can look like by law as a black queer child of immigrants who identifies as a woman. I've seen these legal restrictions inhumanely.
Speaker 7: Define the possibilities of my safe existence. And if we don't start changing that today, then who are we? The arguments we've heard against this, we've heard about people who are part of the LGBTQ community in the past.
Speaker 5: About black people, about immigrants, and too many more.
Speaker 7: Because here we are again today. Please realize it's a non-fictional version of the beloved Golden Girls sitcom. Lived in Denver. You would call them criminals. It is also outrageous to.
Speaker 5: Limit the possibilities of housing during a housing crisis. While people are worried about their pockets, human beings are suffering, especially black and brown individuals.
Speaker 7: Who have been forced out of their once stable communities because of the priority prioritization of profit housing as a human.
Speaker 5: Rights. And the very least we could do is change archaic laws that create.
Speaker 7: More barriers than solutions to honoring the humanity of every single living soul in the city. Vote yes so that we can.
Speaker 5: Have legal, creative solutions to our housing.
Speaker 7: Crisis. Vote yes so that ten years from now or five years from now, your children.
Speaker 5: Friends and families don't find themselves suffering because we chose.
Speaker 7: Not to evolve in our thinking.
Speaker 6: Truth is.
Speaker 5: Anything that has happened to our unhoused neighbors and has forced them into some of the situation they are in today can happen to.
Speaker 7: You, me, or anyone listening on this call. A bad divorce, a chronic health condition, a job loss, an addiction or mental health condition that gets out of hand, which at least a quarter of our House residents are dealing with at any time in a given year. No matter the circumstance, the humane thing to do is to offer the life.
Speaker 5: Affirming solutions.
Speaker 7: To these to these human conditions. And one of those solutions is to make it legal for individuals, unrelated or not.
Speaker 5: To share space, share living expenses, and to.
Speaker 7: Love and support each other like Assata Shakur taught us. Although this is only a step in the right direction and I am disappointed.
Speaker 1: In the racism and classism that.
Speaker 7: Continues to segregate our.
Speaker 5: Neighbors transitioning out of prison. Please do the right thing tonight and vote yes.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Chris Ward. Go ahead, Chris.
Speaker 2: Thank you. My name is Chris Ward. I'm a resident of Denver, District ten. I'm the president of the Cherry Creek East Association, which is in Reno, representing the residents of the Cherry Creek East Neighborhood. We oppose the group Living Text Amendment as currently proposed. Based on a survey we conducted of neighborhood residents in which 84% of over 100 response respondents opposed the initiative. I can give you a quick background on this survey. It contains CPD supporting reasons for the amendment, and CPD and Councilman Hines were given advance copies and invited to comment. Respondents were provided numerous information resources, including the CPD presentation, which 82% of respondents reported having read. In short, the survey was intended to be as informative, unbiased and fair to the intent of the amendment as possible. Concern service surfaced in the survey include uncertainty about parking, noise, trash, maintenance and other externalities. Concerns about impacts on neighborhood character. Unlike groups have been grouped together, assisted living, grouped with shelters and community corrections, etc.. Inequitable application of the amendment by zone. Decisions will be made at the discretion of an unelected administrator position and absence of adequate enforcement provisions. These concerns are hardly unique to Cherry Creek East. We've heard all of them from other Arnaud's and from residents across the city. We feel it is inappropriate to pass the amendment without openly and effectively addressing these concerns. I urge you to vote no on the amendment as currently proposed. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Diane Thiele. Diane, we'll have to have you unmute yourself, please. All right, we're going to. See if we can get Diane unmuted. All right. We're going to go ahead and move on then to Karen McGuire. And Karen, you're going to have to unmute yourself. So I had.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Can you hear me?
Speaker 0: Mm hmm. Go ahead.
Speaker 1: Thank you. My name is Karen McGuire, and I'm a Denver resident since the mid 1980s. Thank you, Denver City Council for holding. I'm sorry for hosting this public hearing. Though I am a strong advocate for more unrelated adults permitted to live together and have certain residential care facilities. I object to this group Living Amendment for the following reasons.
Speaker 6: One.
Speaker 1: The one size fits all allowance of five unrelated adults per residence does not reflect the impact this will have in the many Denver neighborhoods with smaller two bedroom homes to allowing ten person homeless shelters in any residential neighborhood vastly alters the character of that neighborhood. These are not the small residential care facilities currently allowed as portrayed by Denver City Council. This is a 25% increase from what is currently allowed. Also, Denver home owners made their investment based on current zoning. They didn't buy thinking there would be a ten person homeless shelter next door. Three. The current proposal removes buffers from schools for both correctional facilities where allowed and homeless shelters. These changes affect safety. Amanda Sandoval, in alluding to the last year, portrayed the Independence House Corrections facility in her District one as a plus. She failed to mention that over the last three years there were, on average, 72 to 3 car police call outs per year for serious incidents at this facility. More than one per week. Serious incidents include shootings, burglaries, assaults, fights and disturbances. This is the rest of the Independence House story. For. I think this proposal will further develop our city and perpetuate inequity because key components rely on investors and developers, many of whom do not and will not live here. The homes that will be bought for rentals. Homeless shelters and correctional facilities will be in the less expensive neighborhoods in Denver. And this will create a disproportionate impact to lower income residents. My recommendation is to scrap this amendment and first write one that only addresses more unrelated adults per resident and proportion to conforming bedrooms. Evaluate its impact. Continue to foster RC ups as currently allowable and please complete the ten year plus effort of uniting Denver under only one new.
Speaker 0: Thank you. We're going to go back and see if we can get Diane Thiele back in the queue here. I'm going to need to unmute, Diane. All right. Looks like we're unsuccessful. So we're going to go ahead and go to Brad SIEGEL.
Speaker 3: Good evening, Denver City Council. My name is Brad SIEGEL. I'm a Denver.
Speaker 2: Native who has resided on the 1200 block of Detroit Street in the Congress Park neighborhood for nearly 30 years. Tonight, I'm speaking as a.
Speaker 3: Co-Founder of All in Denver. All in Denver is a.
Speaker 2: Nonprofit advocacy organization that believes an equitable city is where all people have the opportunity to prosper and thrive. We're led by a board of 18 civic leaders.
Speaker 3: And 300 members, nearly all of whom reside in Denver. We strongly.
Speaker 2: Support the proposed revisions.
Speaker 3: To Denver's group Living Rules. We've supported earlier.
Speaker 2: Versions of these revisions, and tonight's proposal is not as strong as we would like. However, we respect the process and the spirit of compromise that has brought us to this place.
Speaker 3: Clearly, tonight's revisions improve Denver's.
Speaker 2: Stringent, antiquated group living rules and.
Speaker 3: Will help make our city more equitable and affordable. On a personal note, I also want to share that for nearly 30 years I've lived within one block of a residential care facility that provides services to individuals suffering severe mental illness. During this time, my wife and I have owned our home and raised family.
Speaker 2: Never in 30 years has the proximity of this facility created a disturbance nor affected property values.
Speaker 3: Furthermore, we have a family friend whose son lived in the facility for several years to stabilize his condition and reenter society.
Speaker 2: He, like hundreds of residents over time.
Speaker 3: Now lives independently in our community by expanding options for these types of facilities.
Speaker 2: Denver not only becomes a more equitable city, but also a more compassionate one.
Speaker 3: After all, we're talking.
Speaker 2: About services for our neighbors.
Speaker 3: Our friends, and our.
Speaker 2: Families. Thank you for your consideration.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Gayle Bell. Gail, you're going to have to unmute yourself. There you go. Go ahead, please.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Thank you so much, Stacey.
Speaker 5: I would like to say that I have.
Speaker 1: Lived in Denver for.
Speaker 5: Almost 40 years. And I am.
Speaker 1: Very upset, of course, about the homelessness.
Speaker 5: That has gone on that we have seen that is.
Speaker 6: So much worse during the pandemic.
Speaker 1: But I want to say it.
Speaker 6: Is city council and it's.
Speaker 1: Not just you guys. It's all the city.
Speaker 5: Councils that have been here before me that I feel like the city and county of Denver has never really.
Speaker 6: Addressed the homeless.
Speaker 0: Issues.
Speaker 5: As I worked at several museums downtown, I saw every.
Speaker 1: Day.
Speaker 6: Homeless people.
Speaker 1: In Civic Center Park.
Speaker 5: And this has been an issue that has been.
Speaker 1: Long neglected in our city. I'm glad that we are addressing it now, but we're.
Speaker 5: Addressing it because you can't look.
Speaker 1: Over, looked at anymore with what has happened.
Speaker 6: During the pandemic.
Speaker 5: One of my biggest.
Speaker 1: Concerns is.
Speaker 5: The fact that most people don't even know about.
Speaker 1: This pending change in our zoning.
Speaker 5: I know that Andrew's said that there have been multiple articles in the paper. I read the Denver Post every day.
Speaker 1: I listen to our local news channels.
Speaker 6: I can tell you.
Speaker 1: Of probably.
Speaker 5: About 600 people that live in my neighborhood. I would venture.
Speaker 1: To say easily 90% of them do not even know.
Speaker 6: That this is going on.
Speaker 1: I appreciate the meeting that Stacey.
Speaker 5: Did hold with my neighborhood.
Speaker 6: And I would hope.
Speaker 1: That you would put.
Speaker 5: This at least on.
Speaker 1: Delay during the pandemic, when so many people in our city are just focused on.
Speaker 5: Trying to survive every day, trying to overcome loneliness.
Speaker 1: They can't see their families, they can't see their friends. They don't go to meetings.
Speaker 6: And.
Speaker 5: You know, I think there are some good things in this, but I also think.
Speaker 1: That there needs to be more transparency about this. And I think that the process has failed in transparency. So I'm asking you to please.
Speaker 6: Hold.
Speaker 1: Off from voting until more people can participate in the process. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Gael. Our next speaker is just Hebrew.
Speaker 1: Hey, can you guys hear me?
Speaker 0: Go ahead.
Speaker 1: Hey, I'm Jessie Broome. District three, longtime listener, first time caller. Thanks for being here, guys. And I am here to ask you to vote yes on the group Living Amendment. And also, I want to call on city council to make a motion to remove that hard cap of five unrelated adults as five is not enough. I was thinking about how in 2008 I turn the keys of the door of my first apartment in Denver. 28 And I cannot overstate the excitement that I had moving to the big city, a really big city to me at the time. I managed to get out of my tiny hometown that no one ever leaves, and then I managed to get out of an abusive marriage. And I came to Denver to start my life over in my rent on that spacious one bed, one bath, just off Cheesman Park with tons of closet space was $400 a month. You remember? Can you imagine? And because I could afford to live here, I could build a life here. And I did. I rebuilt my life. And I was so lucky to find an amazing community of artists here in Denver. Musicians, writers, poets, muralist. We all found a place here. We found family and each other, and they've added so much richness and beauty to this city. And as housing costs have skyrocketed in Denver, almost every single one of these artists has lived in a place with four or five or six or more people that they were not related to. Group living allowed them to survive here. It allowed them to make art here. It allowed them to become a part of the fabric of the city, from the halls and venues of South Broadway and Colfax, to the walls of Five Points in the Santa Fe Arts District. So here we are in 2021, and our city has worked so hard to draw people here and done so little to think about where to put them. We are in a housing crisis and we can see it everywhere from our unhoused neighbors who are a group that I'm with serves weekly outside of the very building that city council usually needs them. And and I can see it as my friends, my, my family, my friends family leaves Denver one by one because they can't afford it anymore. We have the chance here tonight to take a step towards becoming the city we want to be. I built my life here, and I want that opportunity to be open to everyone. Our existing housing policies originated in racial and economic discrimination and were intended solely to include those the most in need. This is not consistent with the city that we tell ourselves that we are. Whatever the intentions are of those who defend these exclusionary zoning laws. And I've listened to a lot of them, and they do also sound rooted in racism and classism. The result is simply to perpetuate these policies that were designed to discriminate. The growing inequality in our city is an outcome of policies like we have now, but we can stop this. Denver wants to be a city where more than just the rich can live one with rich, rich with vibrant, with artists and immigrants and people of all backgrounds and income levels. We first need to replace these outdated laws and ones with aims, with inclusion and justice. Thank you so much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Jesse. Our next speaker is Kathleen Brennan. Kathleen, you're going to have to unmute. All right. We're going to try to get Kathleen in here one more time. All right. Not seeing Kathleen able to unmute. We're going to go ahead and move to Nick Arnold. Oh, excuse me. Oh, there we go. We got you, Kathleen. Okay. Go ahead, Kathleen, please.
Speaker 1: Great. Thanks. My name is Kathleen Brennan. I'm a former resident of the East Colfax neighborhood and now a resident of the East.
Speaker 6: Hampden neighborhood as a parenthetical. I do agree with the original.
Speaker 1: The early comments of the previous.
Speaker 4: Speaker.
Speaker 1: Richard says I think is is name.
Speaker 6: I am in favor of group homes but in ten years I hope to be living in a group home for the elderly.
Speaker 4: Rather than in an institution.
Speaker 1: But I am opposed to the commercialization.
Speaker 6: Of our residential areas. Group homes have become a business. When multiple group homes are operated by entities.
Speaker 1: Especially for profit entities, they become commercialized. Commercial entities do not belong in residential areas.
Speaker 6: A major purpose of a zoning is to keep commercial entities out of residential areas. This amendment on group living. Propagates encourages group.
Speaker 1: Homes in residential areas. And I'm opposed to that. And I would hope that the City Council would take some of the previous comments.
Speaker 6: And consider portion.
Speaker 1: Passing out these different aspects of the zoning amendments and address them as individual.
Speaker 6: Categories rather than the large the large bill that's before you now. B The.
Speaker 1: Commercialization of group living is evident in the.
Speaker 6: City's, quote, citizen working group on Group Living, which was composed of commercial operators.
Speaker 1: And not citizens of the residential areas.
Speaker 6: In eliminating its oversight, in eliminating permits for group homes.
Speaker 1: The city is giving up its oversight.
Speaker 6: Of group living. I am.
Speaker 1: Opposed to the removing of city.
Speaker 6: Permits for group group living. There need to be parameters for group living. But the.
Speaker 1: Distinct the distinctions of group living categories types.
Speaker 6: Are eliminated by the city. The city is lumping groups limit living children homes, physically disadvantaged homes, mentally disadvantaged homes, elderly at risk all into one pot and in group living. I do not believe that one part fits all. I think you need those different distinctions.
Speaker 1: So that you can provide the best possible.
Speaker 6: Services to these different groups. Without outdoing the. The sanctity of our residential areas. I ask you to vote no on the group changes.
Speaker 4: Preserve our residential areas.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Nick, an oldie.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much. And it's actually great to see you again. Thank you for your help in getting a crosswalk installed by my school in your district at Escalante Academy. I am a teacher, a union teacher here in Denver. And it's it's very difficult to in this area. However, just this past couple of years, we were able to move into Denver after owning a starter home in Aurora. So if you have to go through that process all over again, please let me know I can help you out. But to go back to my original point, we already have a city where people are housing insecure, or for a lack of a better word, homeless. I live in I own a home in District three and I work in District 11 and I see many districts on my daily commute. I have to go across the city diagonally. I'm a union teacher who was present when our union made the decision to vote for this change, to support this change, and speaking on my own behalf, I've seen the evidence of students who do not have a safe place to rest their heads. They don't succeed. Think about the children. Think about the students who can continue to be displaced while keeping this policy the same as it's always been. Underprivileged kids always feel the brunt of these policies or the lack of these amendments. So I urge you to vote in favor of this amendment. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Lauren. How. Lauryn Hill. I'm sorry, Lauryn.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. My name is Lauren Howe, and I use she her pronouns. And I'm here tonight as a private citizen. I recently purchased a home in the park neighborhood of Denver at 1340 West Custer Place in District seven. As a woman of color in my late twenties, I want to express my sincere support for the amendments to the Group Living Code and more specifically, the proposed household regulations. I lived with six other roommates in an intentional community in City Park West for over a year. It was a group of young professionals, graduate students, nonprofit directors, artists, educators, storytellers and activists. We all came together to live under one roof, to create positive social change in our community, and we were able to save significant money with affordable rent. We held regular house meetings, shared a chore list, grew a community garden, and hosted public events like panel discussions and film screenings on refugee issues and political advocacy. It still amazes me that people with such diverse interests could not only coexist under one roof, but thrive and collaborate. Our house was like an organism, a place where each of us had a role and function to play, and we were much stronger together than separate. It was such a privilege, an opportunity to be able to learn from and collaborate with each other. Although I no longer live in this house, these housemates are my chosen family and have become some of my best friends in Denver. The foundation of my community here. It is shocking and disappointing to note the way we were living is currently illegal and it is also exciting and hopeful to know that future groups of individuals wanting to make our city better and more affordable through living in community or cooperatives may be permitted to do so under the proposed group Living Code Amendments. I am privileged and grateful to have just bought a home and I also experienced firsthand the lack of housing affordability and gentrification that's sweeping our city. I genuinely believe that allowing more than two unrelated adults to reside in the same household is one sustainable, equitable and anti-racist solution to the housing crisis, especially during a deep economic recession. I urge you to vote yes in support of these changes, ideally allowing more than five unrelated adults to live together. And I thank you for your consideration.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Lauren. Our next speaker is Arthur Alarcon. We're going to have to have.
Speaker 6: I got.
Speaker 0: There we go. Go ahead.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you. My name is Arthur Alarcon. I'm a 44 year Denver resident, all in the same southeast Denver neighborhood. It's Councilwoman Black's neighborhood or district district six. And I've been in the same home for 44 years. This bill will change the intended use of single family residential neighborhoods. The homes in my neighborhood were intended to be used for one family with appropriately sized amenities such as hallways, baths, kitchens, HVAC, light and ventilation. The infrastructure also was based on single family use. The size of the water, main sewer line, electrical service, surface drainage, etc. were all sized for single family. When you put four or five adults with unlimited children, you overtax the system. It has to be rebuilt or rebuilt sooner or totally replaced. The bill has gotten was begotten in a clandestine manner by the mayor and two council members. And beneficiaries are not the citizens of the affected areas, nor city and county of Denver residents as a whole, but rather business interests that will profit handsomely from the redevelopment and enhanced rents received as a result of the passage of this bill, without the dedication of a Denver citizen to uncover the real interests behind the birth of this terrible bill. None of the residents would know that the mayor and two council members, along with involved business interests, planned this whole massive change of use. The ruling by a Denver judge allowed all this activity to be uncovered and then be disseminated, but very late in the process. The mayor is on record as stating he had no part in the origin of this bill. I urge the Council to vote no on this group Living Amendment and further urge Denver City residents to keep a close eye on future land use issues, since the current council has proven to need citizen review constantly. Thank you. I urge you to vote no.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Arthur. Our next speaker is Pete Winter, Chief. Right?
Speaker 2: Yeah. Hello. I'm Pete Winters. Shit. District one resident and I strongly support adopting this amendment. I've been a Denver resident for 30 years and change. I've lived in various parts of the city and similar to many of the other supporters here. At certain points in time, I have lived to tell of this law, and not once has it been. A criminal matter or brought to anyone's attention, which drives me to some of the numerous reasons that I support this amendment. First you can make the kind of libertarian case of this is a private household. What right does the government have to say? What my family looks like? You know, if. Who I'm living with and things of that nature and setting arbitrary limits there.
Speaker 6: Next. There's no.
Speaker 2: Deny. I mean, the this has been called out a number of times, but the racial and economic injustices brought about by this rule. Part of the reason that myself and many of the other supporters that have lived afoul of this law have gotten away with it is because we're largely of, you know, well-to-do class, you know, whatever that means, you know, a family with an opera living with them would currently be afoul of this law. But nobody is going to call 311 on that. A low income family with a cousin that's maybe not really a cousin. They're going to get impacted by the current law. Though what also comes to mind for me is the affordability and long term viability of the city. By preventing people from living in houses, we're creating more traffic. We're going to degrade our neighbor to hoods and limit the sort of residents that are allowed to live here. I have several friends in very well-paying jobs who cannot afford to live in Denver, that they have had to seek accommodation outside of the city, sometimes literally across the border where there is allowed more than two people allowed in a household. Many of them commute to jobs downtown and drive on our roads, speed through our neighborhoods, and create smog and pollution in our skies. Well, this group Living Amendment won't change a lot of that. We might be willing to decrease some of it. And I would say. Some of what really drives me nuts and drives me to support this amendment even more strongly is the nuts opposition that car storage is more important than housing people, which is what numerous of the opponents of this opposition bring up. Where will I park my car instead of what family is allowed to live next to me?
Speaker 0: Thank you. That's your time this evening. Appreciate you joining us, Pete. Up next, we've got Emmett Hartley. Mr. Hobley, we'll have to have you on new.
Speaker 2: Can you hear me?
Speaker 0: Mm hmm. Go ahead.
Speaker 2: Hi. I'm a native of. Denver, Colorado. For 62 years, I've been a resident of Montebello for 1985, and I am second. By gentrification that has been allowed to take place in our city and. The zoning, racist zoning that has plagued this city for decades and centuries. I am a favor of the group labeling amendment. I am. That is payroll amendment being watered down. I am not in favor of more restrictions being placed on residents that it can least afford it. And I would urge the City Council to increase the group living number of participants. Get rid of some of the racist policies that go along with this and make sure that's equitable, equitable for the whole community and not just parts of the community. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Hobley. Up next, we have Brian Wilson.
Speaker 2: I thank you. First off, just thanks for allowing me to speak. I want to just say ditto to several of the prior speakers. Jonathan Stokoe, Kevin MATTHEWS. Jesse Broome. Hashtag five is not enough. I thought that was good. Lauren, how are we able to ask a clarifying question to Andrew Webb? Is that possible?
Speaker 0: No, not at this point. You can go ahead, oppose it, but go ahead.
Speaker 2: I think that there are several misconceptions that were brought up, particularly regarding the quote unquote, commercialization, not of the group homes, but of people coming in, buying homes and then using them as rental homes and being like absentee land landlords. It's my understanding that there's something built into this to prevent that. Maybe somebody could speak to that at some point. I'm if you guys can draw that down for maybe after, I think that's good or somebody can interject. Otherwise, that's. Yes. Please. I urge your support. And in particular, I would prefer that we increase in, if possible, make a motion to remove the cap altogether for unrelated adults. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Up next, we have Tanya Cohen.
Speaker 1: High Technical and District three. I'm going to summarize a bit of what the recent Denver Post article said on the subject. Much of Denver's zoning code, as we have heard, is completely outdated and pre-dates World War Two, which is just crazy. Many of the codes legalized discrimination as Denver grew, keeping lower income residents unable to access these single family homes. We need to follow in the footsteps of other cities who've experienced similar growth and high housing costs. Austin, Texas, which has experienced growth similar to Denver's, allows six unrelated people to a house throughout their city and their city planner said he's heard very few concerns about living arrangements throughout the city. Seattle allows eight far more than we're asking. No other major cities in the country have a limit as low as Denver's. Much of the opposition coming from is coming from safe and sound. Denver and other clearly privileged folks are house owners seeking to impose more discrimination against more vulnerable, less privileged house renters. But city planners in Denver, Austin and Salt Lake City agree that many of the concerns are overblown. Obviously, allowing more unrelated people to live together.
Speaker 4: In a home would allow individual rents.
Speaker 1: To go down. Revising these severely outdated codes would also allow the renovation or reconstruction of large shelters, which we've heard, and also allow shelters run by churches, non-profits and governments to increase the number of days a year they can host people. These things are clearly needed to help our most vulnerable in Denver. Also, we need more halfway houses outside of remote industrial zones that provided much needed transitional housing and help to integrate people into the community in better locations closer to public transportation and other services. Austin and Salt Lake City already allow this, and neither city has seen any major issues stemming from those sites. We must oppose the blatant racist classes cries coming from those most privileged in Denver who already own houses and find new creative ways to help our most vulnerable and less privileged to stay and contribute to Denver. We need diversity in Denver. We must honor Denver's working class history and stop catering to those with money and power. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Tanya. Up next, we have Pamela Clifton. We're going to Pamela's on the phone, so we'll get her connected to the audio here. All right. It shows that we're still connecting. All right. Pamela, we've got you connected if you want to go ahead and hit Star six to unmute. Pamela? Yes. All right. Yep. Now we can go ahead, please.
Speaker 6: I lost all my Internet right when I needed to talk.
Speaker 0: Oh, no. Well, we've got you up in the queue. So go ahead, please.
Speaker 1: My name is Pam Clift, and I'm from Kansas.
Speaker 0: City Council.
Speaker 6: Seven. And I really want.
Speaker 1: To thank you guys so much for giving us the opportunity to speak. And I'm calling today in support of the city of Denver's.
Speaker 5: Efforts to update regulations and the zoning code.
Speaker 1: Because I am a.
Speaker 6: Homeowner who's a resident.
Speaker 1: In Atmore.
Speaker 5: Park and have been there for.
Speaker 6: Almost.
Speaker 5: 20 years and I'm near retirement.
Speaker 7: And I think this.
Speaker 6: Is the.
Speaker 5: Smartest thing we can do for our city because making Denver more.
Speaker 1: Equitable, diverse and inclusive in its importance to housing has been a long time in coming. And when people are.
Speaker 6: Safely housed and we.
Speaker 1: Are safer.
Speaker 7: Community.
Speaker 6: Equality and inclusive inclusivity by definition requires that everyone, regardless of who they are or where they come from, has the opportunity to thrive in the city, which is deeply important when it comes especially.
Speaker 1: To our returning citizens and the opportunity to be successful when they come.
Speaker 7: Home.
Speaker 1: When there's equity, a person's identity does not determine their outcome.
Speaker 5: We need to improve access to opportunity.
Speaker 1: Flexible housing choices in all neighborhoods. So giving everyone access to goods, opportunities and.
Speaker 6: Services that they.
Speaker 1: Need to be as comfortable as possible. Listen, if this last year has taught us anything, it's that we.
Speaker 7: Need to have the flexibility to be nimble.
Speaker 6: And responsive in the face of things we've never imagined without dealing with the barriers.
Speaker 1: Of exclusionary practices.
Speaker 6: That require time and incredibly cumbersome processes to remove. One of the tax amendments that was added requires.
Speaker 1: Limiting new residential.
Speaker 6: New residential opportunities to existing buildings. I think that needs to be removed because it's too limiting and should be voted down. I do want to specifically want to recognize and support not only the city's efforts, but Andrew's extraordinary work to make sure.
Speaker 1: That all of this happened.
Speaker 6: The process was incredibly transparent. It happened over a very long.
Speaker 1: Period of time. And I.
Speaker 6: I, for one, am was excited to be able to to watch it unfold. So, please, I'm not going to use all my time, but I want to please, please vote for this.
Speaker 1: It's important and we need it.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Pamela. Up next, we have Paige Burkholder.
Speaker 1: It's moving for the gala. Good evening, City Council. Thank you for having me on tonight. I'm Paige Burkholder. I'm a sophomore park, southeast Denver resident of District four. And I've lived in Denver for 30 years. As many of you all know, I'm involved with Safe and Sound Denver, which is a diverse, nonpartisan, grassroots collaboration of Denver neighbors from across the city that oppose the current group Living Zoning Code Amendment. This is a massive and complex amendment with lots of details, and I'm still trying to figure out some of it with the latest revision. There have been many flaws in this process. This amendment didn't come about from a need that was identified. But the community that originated from the mayor's office in 2017, the group Living Advisory Committee, was comprised of special interest groups and not diverse and not didn't and did not include many neighbors from across the city. Also Chapter 59, which exempts a big 20% of the city and in some areas a pretty substantial amount will divide neighborhoods. And for example, my fellow, it goes right through the neighborhood where some places will be considered exempt and others not. It's unfortunate that this wasn't addressed until after the planning board approval and it was brought out by neighbors and safe and sound. Denver. This amendment is not equitable and it does not spread equity throughout our city. In fact, it will punish the very communities that the city states that they want to help. So tonight, here we are. I ask you to consider when voting this evening these questions. Is this really the right and best solution for Denver? Does this truly represent what most Denver neighbors desire for our city? I'm sure like I have. You've read the passionate letters and comments that have gone to your council office and to CPD. They've been written by crime victims, people that have suffered from and UN enforcement violations, tight living quarters, noise, trash. The list goes on. There's a large list of. Arnaud's that opposed the group Living Amendment on the Safe and Sound Denver website, including the Inter Neighborhood Cooperative, which also opposed this amendment and asked for the city to break it into separate sections. Did you go to Change.org and see the petition signatures? Over 10,000 people have signed the petition asking the council to vote no. Well, the zoning change this amendment. Well, the zoning change in this amendment enhance or diminish the many unique and diverse neighborhoods. We ask you to vote no tonight because this vote is so important to the constituents that elected you. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Kinsey Halsted.
Speaker 6: That meaning.
Speaker 1: Thank you to the council members, Andrew Webb and the folks at CPD, the advisory committee and the many hundreds, if not thousands of residents who have done the work to get this.
Speaker 0: Important policy consideration here tonight. My name is.
Speaker 1: Kenzie Hazard and I am a Denver resident, but I'm here representing the organizational interests of enterprise community partners, or am the state and local policy director. I'm here tonight to voice Enterprise's support for.
Speaker 0: The group Living Testimony.
Speaker 1: Enterprise works nationally and here in Denver to make home and community places of pride, power and belonging for all.
Speaker 0: Including by meaningfully advancing racial equity.
Speaker 1: We do so through capital investment.
Speaker 0: Policy and programmatic engagement.
Speaker 4: And advocacy.
Speaker 1: First Enterprise supports increasing the number of unrelated adults who can lawfully create and share a home together. While we supported earlier iterations of this proposal that allowed more unrelated.
Speaker 4: Adults to live.
Speaker 1: Together and did not draw.
Speaker 0: Such stark differences between those.
Speaker 1: Who are biologically related, did not. This proposal represents much needed change. Denver's current cap of two unrelated adults lags far behind bigger cities, with many implications. This restriction is rooted in discriminatory policies and beliefs and still today stands to disproportionately impact bipoc.
Speaker 4: Immigrant, LGBTQ, single parents.
Speaker 1: Lower income and other systemically marginalized households. Moreover, Denver has a long standing housing affordability crisis. Prior to the pandemic, 70,000 Denver households were cost burdened. And COVID has only made it worse, both in this moment and for the long term. Denver writes Need more options for affordable, high quality homes. Expanding the number of people who can share the costs and benefits of living together will not fix the crisis. But it is one such option. Second, residential care sites and services should be available in and supported by more Denver communities. Enterprise supports the city's overall effort to consider these programs by a number of residents rather than type. Though, we are disappointed by the exclusion of community corrections from any sign of any size from single family and duplex zoned areas. This reflects longstanding deference to affluent households and may not fully enhance residential care participants access to services. At the same time, we support the text amendment as a meaningful step forward.
Speaker 6: It is critical.
Speaker 1: That Denver's jobs, public transportation and community resources be available to folks who rely on group living situations to maintain their sobriety, find temporary shelter, leave confinement, or thrive with their peers with the appropriate supportive care. Finally, you may not have been hearing from as many organizations representing and serving those who.
Speaker 4: Would benefit most from these changes. As someone with the privilege of.
Speaker 1: Working with and learning from many of these groups, I can tell you that it's not that interest in support. Isn't there rather some fear for their safety? Some are stretched too thin meeting.
Speaker 4: Their own basic needs and those they serve through these extraordinarily challenging times. But these people care very much.
Speaker 6: We urge your yes vote.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Kinsley. Up next, we've got Michelle, a crew.
Speaker 1: Thank you, City Council. I do implore you to vote no on this text amendment for a couple of reasons. Not that I'm against group housing or finding more economical ways for people to live. Now let me back up. I am a long time resident of District two, but I oppose this particular amendment for many of the reasons already discussed. And so personally my own is that I do believe there are unintended consequences by having a bill of this size all grouped together. I do think that you would get more support and you would find more people favorable if this bill were broken into smaller pieces and not lumped into a 200 page bill that is difficult for citizens to read and filter through and follow the laws. I do also believe that this amendment does not support truly the common interests of those families that are struggling to make ends meet and do want to share, rent or mortgage with other adults. Not related. And the reason that I feel this way is because of the. Well, what has been said the. Sorry. I lost my train of thought. The. Lawsuit that had to be founded this week, that things were just not put out, put forth honestly and openly since the beginning of all of the research has been done. So excuse me, the information that has come out seems very one sided and almost like propaganda as to we want this bill to pass, but we're really not looking at the people who are financially struggling. There may be financial interests that are actually conflicts of interest. So yes, there are good things in this bill, but the size of the bill, the apparent conflict of interest that exist are too questionable for this to pass and really support what the majority of Denver residents and households look like. I'm urging for a no vote. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up is Myra Gonzalez.
Speaker 1: Hello, everybody. My name is Myra Gonzalez and I am a resident and counselor at District 11 since 1995. My family and I have lived in the Montebello neighborhood. We love our city community and our neighbors. Over the years, we have seen and lived the impacts racist policies have had on our health, housing options, economic opportunities, education, and much more. Today we are seeing the impacts of redlining and are feeling the pressures of gentrification. Our neighbors, community and my family included, have had to get creative with our housing options to avoid the violence of displacement. I am here today to support the proposed group Living Zoning Code Amendment, specifically because it will increase the number of unrelated people allowed to live together and it will categorize residential care and group living homes by size rather than type of facility or service being provided. Together, this ordinance will advance people's ability to live in places that are accessible to transit jobs and other community based services. I am also here to directly fight against the racist, xenophobic and classic classist efforts of wealthy groups like Safe and Sound, who have hijacked the process and conversations around group living and have attempted to invalidate years of planning efforts, research and outreach. Groups opposing the ordinance have mailed letters directly to households around the city. These letters that we received in Montebello contain lies and inflammatory language meant to confuse and create opposition for the ordinance. This propaganda has led to hurtful community conversations where our own neighbors have begun to adopt anti-immigrant sentiments. Residents during community calls, quote, directly from these letters. We have heard our elderly residents crying on Zoom calls hosted by our Seattle City Council office because these letters have made them afraid of their next door. Neighbors afraid. This propaganda has created widespread fear. And as my colleague Kiara Jackson shared over an hour ago, our immigrant neighbors are now scared that their neighbors and other residents who oppose Group Living will call the city on them if they have large families placing them in danger of the deportation machine. And Montebello. We already have families who are living grouped up in single family homes. I lived this way for over ten years and finally have had the means to purchase my own home, which I continuously fear I may not be able to keep because of the gentrification machine. And so I am asking council today to vote in support of this group amendment. And I hope that you can stand up for the against the propaganda being distributed by folks who have nothing to lose and help protect those of us who are vulnerable to housing, insecurity, displacement and homelessness. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Myra. Our next speaker is Florence Seaborn. Go ahead, Florence.
Speaker 6: Good evening.
Speaker 4: My name is Florence Bern, District six. I've been involved with this amendment since January of 2020.
Speaker 0: You can go ahead. We've got your audio right now.
Speaker 6: All right. Thank you.
Speaker 4: I was under the impression the video was also going to be there. So I've been involved with this amendment since January of 2010. I mean, my background is in research processes and rules. And I approached this issue from that standpoint. I submitted numerous Colorado Open Records Act requests to find objective, factual information. The court documents show that the origin of this effort was the mayor's office and the council members. The reasoning behind it is the failure of Denver programs to adequately address community corrections, homelessness and related affordable housing issues. The group Living Advisory Committee was specifically chosen for their expertize as providers of services, and 85% of those organizations represented on the committee will benefit from this amendment. Black conservatism consisted of 48 members. A majority were service providers and eight represented neighborhoods. Six out of 11 council districts had zero representation on black. Fully one half of the city was not even represented. There were eight full group black meetings of the 48 members, meaning attendance ranged from a low of 14 members to a high of only 34 members. The meeting where the number eight was decided is the increase of unrelated per household had only 18 members present a 37% attendance rate. The final meeting where draft language was approved had only 20 members, a 41% attendance rate. So for the last two out of three years, only a handful of people were making decisions about this amendment. When the public was finally involved in February and March of 2020, in a series of four open houses, it was just before the COVID lockdown. For the duration of 2020, CPD and City Council expected Denver residents to educate themselves on a 200 page zoning code amendment while struggling to keep their jobs, school their children and stay healthy under extreme COVID conditions and restrictions. There was no authentic public engagement in 2020. There was simply pushback as word spread to those who could minimally engaged. There has been 31 days since the draft revision was posted online. Again, not enough time for authentic public engagement for an amendment that will affect every Denver resident owner or renter in the city of 712,000 people. I started a Change.org petition as a way for Denver residents to safely and easily express their opposition to this amendment. Signatures poured in from all over the city, and I verified them with voter registration and residency databases. I submitted 3759 residents to Denver to the public comment logs. Today I submit 266 more for a total of 4025. These are your constituents. And they say stop reset and readdress these issues. We ask for your no vote on the amendment tonight, and I thank you for your time and consideration.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Leah Tani.
Speaker 1: Hi there. My name is Leah Charney and I live in the diverse KOL neighborhood in District nine and I live in an area that's already zoned for some of the group housing that folks seem to be concerned by. Yet somehow property here has increased in value by two points. Like two and a half times in the past decade. So it's more than doubled. I've heard so many fear based comments tonight that I cannot believe I have to say this, but I urge you to vote yes on this matter and vote to make roommates and families legal in Denver. In the current code, roommates are effectively illegal unless you live in an apartment or a duplex. Logic that makes little sense. It is just as against the zoning code for unrelated adults to buy a house together as it is to rent one together. An infinite number of related adults can already live together though. So we're defining what a family is. Also, being married in a civil union or in a domestic partnership does not count as being related under the current zoning, which also shouldn't matter because serious relationships are not defined by paperwork. So again, I ask council what business does the city have in defining a family? As we've heard, the city has engaged in a very long process to update the more than 50 year old classist, racist, homophobic, outdated zoning code. As an aside, it wasn't a big secret which citizens were on the initial committee drafting the proposed changes. It's been on the city's website this whole time. When I stumbled upon this about a year ago, it was very easy to see who was part of the committee proposing these changes, and the changes that they proposed have evolved so that what is before council today is a code that matches the zoning of surrounding areas like Arvada and Lakewood, and those are cities that don't suffer from lowered housing values or higher crime rates either. So this new zoning code is neither unheard of, nor is it particularly modern. I think in many ways it literally brings Denver to a status quo that's already followed by most municipalities. So let's also be clear that much of this just decriminalized is the way that people are already living. It is the right move for the city to adopt this change. Ideally, it would be the previous set of suggested updates, but at minimum I urge you to pass what's before you, because the proposed code also updates the code for other group living situations like supporting the unhoused residential treatment facilities and nursing or group homes. This update classifies them by size instead of type. Folks seem to be concerned that the zoning changes will mean criminals on every corner. So I again remind you that that hasn't happened in other cities or towns with much more modern zoning than what's proposed here. I urge Council and my fellow neighbors to keep in mind that those kinds of formal group living situations are heavily regulated already and that what you do that's outside.
Speaker 0: Of the time we have allotted. We appreciate you being here tonight. Our next speaker is Jerry DICKERSON. And Jerry, you're going to have to go ahead and unmute, please. All right. We're going to try to get Miami. There you go. Yup. You're in. Go ahead.
Speaker 2: Okay. Okay. My name is Jerry Dirksen and I'm 45 year resident of District four in the Southeast Denver. There are many flaws in the Group Living Amendment, and it's certainly impossible to address all of them in the time allotted. Community planning and development had three years and professional staff to construct this amendment and put together their sales pitch. But we only got 3 minutes to respond, so I'll do my best. An analysis of public commentary in all phases of this process shows 80 to 90% opposition. It would seem that by itself would be enough to put an end to this ill conceived idea. But here we are. Due to time constraints, I would only comment on one or two aspects of the amendment. The draft, as it currently stands, allows for the single family residence to be occupied by up to five unrelated adults, plus an unlimited number of minor children and up to six vehicles, one for each license driver, plus one more. This would create an undesirable situation for anyone unfortunate enough to live in the immediate vicinity. However, this scenario is downplayed by CPD by displaying a chart on the group living pages of the Denver Govt website, which shows the average household size for other Colorado cities and several tier cities. Here's the chart. The sustained chart that Andrew Webb presented earlier in his staff report is from a low of 1.94 in Aspen to 3.10 in Kansas City. Even in Seattle and Vancouver, where up to eight unrelated adults are allowed, the number is 2.12 and 2.46, respectfully, respectively. That being the case, it would seem logical to cap the number at three. It's apparent that allowing a number greater than three does not result in an increase in the average number of unrelated adults occupying a hall. However, a cap of three would prevent the occasional high occupancy situation from adversely affecting a block and in a neighborhood where it could occur. There are other solutions to high housing costs than increasing density in residential areas. The second item I'd like to address is allowing homeless shelters to exist in residential areas. The if not to homelessness has been going on. Program in the years when you were in much worse than it was then. At a cost of umpteen millions of dollars. It seems to me that an objective view of the situation indicates that efforts have been misguided living with the causes of homelessness, primarily drug and alcohol addiction and mental problems. Money is thrown at providing food and shelter. This provides only temporary relief, does nothing to solve the very.
Speaker 0: That's the time we have allotted for you.
Speaker 2: This area will.
Speaker 0: Do in our next speaker. To transfer the problem is Robert Ray. Go ahead, Robert. We're going to go ahead and get you in the queue. And I want to just remind folks, you got 3 minutes to speak. And if you're repeating things that folks have already said, we've got about 150 speakers and we're just starting our 50 seconds speaker. And so just a quick reminder for folks. Go ahead, Robert. Oh, and I think you might be muted. We don't have your audio, Robert.
Speaker 2: Oh.
Speaker 0: Oh, there you go.
Speaker 2: Okay. Cause sometimes I have problems with that. Thanks for the opportunity. I'm a resident of Council District ten Council Councilman Hines District. I've been following this debate for a while. I was at some of the in-person hearings. So, you know, 18 years ago or whenever it was. And, you know, have caught through those and through these. A lot of people talking about how they you know, they get an opportunity to make it in this city. And they've been able to buy a property they've been able to rent and kind of their personal story of succeeding here in Denver. And I think, you know, what's what's kind of both pro and against the theme I've heard is that that people get to succeed in this city. And I think that's pretty awesome. I feel the same way. You know, my wife and I had our first kid this year and are really looking forward to kind of succeeding ourselves in raising a family here. And I think if that's going to be a story for everyone, if we all agree that that Denver is a place where people can see succeed in people of all kinds, we need to be searching for every opportunity to promote success, whatever it looks like, and promote the different ways of living and of being that that means. And I think this is just a really great example of that. I think Andrew Webb and everybody at the city council and everybody that's been pushing for this have done a really good job of trying to find a way that that really draws the line of allowing current homeowners and everybody that, you know, has property and are worried about property values to keep that and everybody that that either chooses or has to live in a different way to to find housing that works for them. And so this just just I am amazed at the amount of hard work that has gone in to find a solution that really draws that line and promotes that sort of future where everybody can succeed. Hearing in in Congress part where we live, there's some signs that talk about how, you know, they support I can't remember exactly they say but they support an inclusive Denver and their support and they say no high rises and I think that that just doesn't fit and that a lot of these arguments you hear about this really go at that that that that they're attacking some way of people succeeding some people want or need to live in highlighted high rises. And if we want an inclusive city, if we want something that works for everybody, then we've got to be open to all solutions. And I think this this this measures that. And so I'm going to give back those 25 seconds. Thanks for your time.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. De Ray. We're going to go next to Derrick Coker, witness. Derek. I believe you're in. You might need to unmute your mike. Derek. You're still not unmuted. Derek. One more try. Okay, Derek, keep trying at that. We're going to move over to the next speaker, which is Steve Harley. Mr. Harley, can you and your mike.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Counsel For those who don't know, the Zoom.
Speaker 2: Call just changed and we can now see quite a few of the participants and the participant list. I don't know if that's intentional. My name is Steve Hali. I've lived in Baker District seven in one home since 1999, and I support the group Living Amendment. I want to take a moment to thank Myra Gonzalez, because I was really impressed by her powerful testimony. I'm not going to go into depth, but that was the one that I heard so far that really nailed it for me. I'll speak on some slightly different issues. I'm a citizens student of Denver planning issues, and I've helped my neighbors understand this amendment since its inception in 2018. I'm involved in Baker's.
Speaker 3: Neighborhood organization.
Speaker 2: But I'm speaking tonight on my own behalf. The thing that I think a lot of us share. Is that we had a lengthy youth. During which for in my case, I lived in several group living households. In every case, we shared meals, resources and inspirations, and calling us family would be completely fair. Those experiences also were also fundamental to developing my civic involvement. I'm familiar with and I support the amendment's careful realignment of residential care and group and congregate living rules. The new rules are a compromise, but they'll help Denver move forward. They're not moving anything backward. I am, however, very disappointed in the household living compromise limiting households to five adults. If any one of them is unrelated, disrespects the reality that many larger groups will still live together. It means that some people will continue to wield inequitable, complaint based enforcement over upstanding residents. I hope you will.
Speaker 3: Reconsider this cap now or in the future. But I do want you to pass this amendment.
Speaker 2: Thank you for making your decision carefully.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. Harley. I think I saw. Mr. Coke of Venice? Yes. Okay.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Hello. Good afternoon or good evening. Thank you. Sorry about the muting and so forth. Anyway, I'm strongly.
Speaker 6: In opposition to.
Speaker 2: This group Living Amendment and for a variety of reasons. Also, I've been listening. I sort of had a proposal of things that I would address, but I've heard so many speakers talk about various things, and I frankly think all of the comments regarding racism and classism and bigotry are incendiary remarks. They're insulting. They're not accurate. They these people that live in single family residential neighborhoods such as myself, are not not classes. We're taking care of our homes. We're taking care of our neighborhoods. We're watching out for our neighbors. We're supporting local cultural organizations. We're supporting nonprofits. We're supporting food banks.
Speaker 6: We are, you know.
Speaker 2: Doing good things in our neighborhood. We're growing trees. We're, you know, adding to the quality of the air. This whole racist, you know, it's just an argument that's just an excuse is just a way to cast blame. People, you know, make the point that, you know, that there's an unfair treatment of people who can't afford housing. Well, that may be true. Denver Denver's an expensive city that was.
Speaker 6: Caused by a lot of.
Speaker 2: Reasons, including, you know, giving variances to developers, building massive homes on what was single families, small, you know, homes and lots, those kind of things. You know, they have they were building has gotten out of control. Housing is gaining control. There clearly are elite people in the city. That's not something you can change. That's not something the group amendment is going to address. What it's going to address is driving people out of the city, taking people that are paying taxes, taking people that are supporting local.
Speaker 3: Nonprofits.
Speaker 2: Organizations that everybody in this benefit, including these people that are griping about unaffordable housing, their amenities are increasing vastly as a result. I really you know, the the slides and arguments we've been given from Andrew Webber, you know, ad nauseum slides to the point where it's, you know, it's it's just too much information. But basically, we're talking about destroying neighborhoods. We're talking about driving people out of the city. We're talking about people, neighbors, including in my area, that are afraid to go out at night because of homes that are have too many roommates and have criminal problems. And we're talking also about zoning department now who's not intending to or not, you know, about to enforce regulations, people or, you know, neighborhood inspection services become, you know, the contrary to the the good of the neighborhoods people cannot get through and make an effective argument. People are they're essentially told that, you know, we don't need to hear those comments anymore. And, you know, you're singled out. You're actually looked at the you know, the perpetrator when you're trying to address a trash issue and overcrowding issue or parking issue, police, you know, criminal issue, that it's just not appropriate that, you know.
Speaker 6: These things. Never forget the time.
Speaker 0: We have allocated for your speaker. Our next speaker up is Tacos Bourdain. And we're going to need you to hit Star six to unmute.
Speaker 7: Hello?
Speaker 0: Mm hmm. Go ahead. This is Birdie.
Speaker 7: Okay. Um, I'm a member of 2020 in Montebello, and I'm against the group Living. And I don't I don't understand how you can try to pass this amendment because no respect was given to our community. This group believe in can change our lives, our way of living. And we already have some problems in our community. And I wish some of the people would have decided to come out, some of the council people to come out into our communities and see what was going on before they decided to do this and see what was going on. And it and how can you say say you you're concerned about the homeless, putting people up in houses together when you are taking people to keep a distance. Telling people to keep a distance from each other. The problem that I have is that we are tax payers and we are asking the City Council and the planning board to put this group living on hold during this pandemic. This is one of the most difficult times that we are having and this is not a problem that we need. And there's something else I want to say. I know and I appreciate people talking about the homeless and people and the people who cannot afford different things. But I don't like the attitude or the idea that whenever they are talking about the poor or whenever they are talking about people who don't have housing and all this kind of stuff, they use the blacks as an excuse. We have lived in this community for over 30 years. Nobody helped us buy a home. We did it all on our own. We had many neighbors that bought their homes out here. We were military personnel, retired military and retired government workers. So we were not poor. And we don't like the attitude of people making it look like every time there's an issue in the city or anywhere else, black people are the ones they call on because that is not the truth. And I don't appreciate it. And I don't know of any black who do, so no matter what. This. This has got to stop. If you want to try to pass something and do something illegal or do something that you know is not right, do it on your own time. But don't use us as an excuse because that is not right. And we don't appreciate.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Mrs. Bourdain. Up next, we have Susan Young. And it looks like we don't have Susan in the queue. And so up next, we have Lucia Browne. You'll have to meet your yourself, please.
Speaker 1: Hi. My name is Lucia Brown. I live in Baker in District seven and I'm the president of the Baker Historic Neighborhood Association. And tonight, I'm speaking on behalf of both the association and myself, because our positions are the same, so be it. They voted overwhelmingly on two occasions to support the black proposals. In fact, we voted that they didn't go far enough with allowing only five unrelated adults living together instead of the original eight. The dilution of what the black originally came up with is truly sad. And here's why. Baker, like all older neighborhoods in Denver, was developed before there was such a thing as zoning. As such, it grew organically at a human scale with various types of businesses interspersed with various types of residences. Fast forward, when the city was imposing zoning on all parts, Baker was zoned almost completely residential, a mistake we've spent the last couple of decades trying to rectify. None of the residentially zoned parts of Baker are single family, yet Baker is full of single family homes. In fact, Baker is a wonderfully charming and walkable neighborhood made up of a diverse housing stock from single family homes, duplexes, triplexes row houses. We have publicly subsidized units and penthouses, high rises and large market rate apartment complexes. We also have group homes, transitional housing, mental health facilities and private businesses sprinkled throughout. If Denver is to provide housing for all its citizens, then we must allow higher density in all areas of the city. If Denver wants to improve its carbon footprint and become a 15 minute city, then we must have mixed use throughout. If we want to reduce the recidivism rate, then we must provide a healthy means for those who committed crimes to reintegrate into our society. If we want to correct the tragedy of redlining and systemic racism built into Denver's zoning code, then we must all open our neighborhoods to families that don't necessarily look like the stereotypical nuclear family . If anything, this amendment doesn't go far enough. Denver should join the leadership of Minneapolis, Sanford, Sacramento and the state of Oregon and get rid of single family zoning altogether. Thank you. And I yield back my time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. The cheer. Up next, we have El Nath. And after her, we have Kate a Kate Adams. And Kate, if you're in the attendee queue, please raise your hands so we can get you moved over as a panelist. Kate Adams In the meantime. L Go ahead.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Good evening, council members. My name is Al NEF. I'm a member of Council District ten and I'm here to show my support for the updates to our currently archaic group Living Rules. As former coordinator of All in Denver and an advocate for social equity, I've been following the for the group Living Conversations for over a year. I know the updates are a result of years of research and countless compromises, many of them questionable. It's time we acknowledge that work has been done and listen to the cries for help from frontline organizations so we can move on to other solutions. My passion for social equity is likely tied to the fact that I grew up experiencing a lack of housing myself. I was raised by a single mother who suffered from schizophrenia. I was kept off the streets thanks to group living situations. We lived in homes of friends, shelters, organizations like the Safe House and shared student housing. Had we not been able to live in these situations, I would have been a child on the streets had we not lived in cities where there are less restrictions on group living. I may have also been a child who didn't get to go to school. I've heard a majority of the arguments against passing these updates, and I'd like to briefly address the main ones. One. What's the point? If group living is an enforced, often the laws as they stand, give corrupt landlords more grounds to threaten the livelihood of tenants and supporting the group living laws as is. Sends a message that the city supports their corruption. The second argument is shelters and rehabs will appear everywhere, ruining our neighborhoods and making them less safe for our children. Not only are there regulations within the amendments and other limitations like expensive building codes making this impossible. But this is a telling argument as it shows a level of ignorance as to what leads people to homelessness. Whose children are you seeking to protect? Certainly not all of them. Think about the purpose of these facilities. Stability. More children attending schools. More support for addiction. Emergency mental health support services that can provide follow up and consistency. The only argument remaining is parking spots. One that is most bothersome to me. First off, no landlords will be forced to house more people than they're comfortable with. Take it up with them. Also notice this is an argument often made by the same people who say that group living is an enforced fear seems to represent issues that run deeper than their protectiveness of a parking spot. Again, the work has been done, compromises have been made. Pass these updates and rest well knowing that you're helping us take a step toward more housing solutions. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Cassius Burdine.
Speaker 2: Oh. Okay, I'm on. Can you hear me?
Speaker 0: Go ahead, Mr. Burton.
Speaker 3: I'm a Vietnam.
Speaker 7: Purple hearted veteran. And I'm now 82 years old.
Speaker 3: And I have lived.
Speaker 2: Here over 30 years in the.
Speaker 3: Same.
Speaker 2: House. Marbella group living. I'm not far.
Speaker 7: The things this may change is here.
Speaker 2: We fought to get them. And we certainly don't want to just give it to in the trash can. Everybody that was coming at it goes to the same thing.
Speaker 3: I agree with everything my wife said 100%.
Speaker 2: Now we all have.
Speaker 3: Two and three garage.
Speaker 7: Space.
Speaker 2: And driveways and hold the car. But yet there are people parking on.
Speaker 3: The streets so we don't get a street swept half the time because this.
Speaker 2: Car is parked there.
Speaker 3: So the sweeper gets to the street and is in and out. In Tulsa below me. They park all the time.
Speaker 2: The bus stop was even.
Speaker 7: Blocked.
Speaker 3: Where the kids.
Speaker 2: Can't get on it. I'm talking.
Speaker 3: About the TV and if it comes a time where somebody.
Speaker 2: Get run over, then we get concerned about it. We need to be concerned about it up front now. This is not right. And the changes we fought for. We don't intend to give them up. Okay?
Speaker 7: No.
Speaker 2: I've seen trucks.
Speaker 7: Tractor trailer trucks.
Speaker 3: Parked in driveways. That was a no no.
Speaker 2: So nobody's backing up what we did.
Speaker 3: I've seen new driveways poured and I just.
Speaker 7: Said, well, let's see if is inspector is going to come and check it. We need the.
Speaker 3: Inspectors. Are you supervised? You need to get off your hind ends and get out to the area and look at some things yourself.
Speaker 2: Don't assume that.
Speaker 7: Person that's in charge know better.
Speaker 2: If they did, they would do the work to begin with in the right fashion.
Speaker 7: When you put blacktop around railroad tracks.
Speaker 3: You might do it seven times a year. When you put cement there.
Speaker 7: It'll last for.
Speaker 2: Seven years in one. They've been cheaper in the long run. So the job needs to be done right to begin with and not just throw trash at you. And that's what we shouldn't see in better. We didn't have that before. And we're beginning to get that now. So we don't need that.
Speaker 3: Our Press Council members, Bill Roberts.
Speaker 2: Even have paint. It was better. And Bill Roberts was just great. He always let.
Speaker 3: Us know what was coming.
Speaker 2: And we was there. To back him up when he in the.
Speaker 7: So things are not going like it should. And I don't respect that.
Speaker 3: And I don't intend to let.
Speaker 2: Nobody change the thing I got to do about it. So that I stand with.
Speaker 3: The group that.
Speaker 2: Says. We don't need group living. And that's done. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Bourdain. Up next, we have Kate Adams.
Speaker 1: Good evening. My name is Kate Adams and I live in in Denver, District six. This is my third rezoning process and council meeting. I really understand the dif.
Speaker 7: The.
Speaker 1: Difficulty.
Speaker 6: Of the process and the.
Speaker 1: Potential impacts in May. I begin looking at the group Living Amendment. The first thing I found with the words nonprofit.
Speaker 6: Had been taken out of the household definition, essentially leaving households for profit. I believe people have value and households are people, but people are not for profit.
Speaker 1: Nonprofit is back in now and I appreciate the effort of Blue to remove some of this amendments egregious snus and other researching. I found the.
Speaker 6: Support for Group Living, a California organization.
Speaker 1: Committed to density and alternative transportation.
Speaker 5: Changes in Denver started.
Speaker 6: To sound familiar.
Speaker 1: Active in a number of Western and Midwestern cities, an article about Minneapolis laid out their process over a.
Speaker 6: Period of years.
Speaker 1: Begin to activate the community, influence a new 20 year plan.
Speaker 6: Voter increase favorable.
Speaker 1: Members to city leadership positions, diminish the voice of RINOs, including getting rid of the city to cut ties.
Speaker 6: Getting the city to cut ties. And over several.
Speaker 1: Years, as was mentioned earlier, they eliminated single family housing in the zoning code. Some yimby cities even have the same name for their initiatives, including Denver's upcoming residential infill.
Speaker 6: To take precedence, it seems, over the auditors recommendation to bring the.
Speaker 1: City under one zoning.
Speaker 6: Code. The group Living Amendment is not for Denver by Denver.
Speaker 1: Tonight, I'm asking you to vote no.
Speaker 6: I'm well.
Speaker 1: Aware that asking for a no vote.
Speaker 6: Includes no on two of the changes. That could be the entire scope of the vote increase. The number of unrelated adults in a household seemingly supported by both sides.
Speaker 1: Expand the area of the city for large community correction facilities. In my opinion, the city has chosen to take two Denver needs and included wants of.
Speaker 6: Outsiders or those.
Speaker 1: Who will profit from the amendment.
Speaker 6: While.
Speaker 1: Applauding the changes made by Rudy. I'm asking you to vote no on the inequity of two zoning codes and essentially unfunded mandate, with no increase in city services.
Speaker 6: Displacement of affordable homeowners like those in Virginia Village.
Speaker 1: The precedent of the city acting as proxy for.
Speaker 6: Outsiders over residents, but most of all.
Speaker 1: Silencing the vote of.
Speaker 6: Neighborhoods.
Speaker 1: This is Denver. Please vote no for the entire amendment. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Kate. Our next speaker is Megan Yankey.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Council members, can you hear me?
Speaker 0: Go ahead.
Speaker 1: Megan. My name is Megan Yankee. My family and I own a home in District one. Maintaining an inclusive city requires that we provide diverse housing options for everyone. Our current limits. And I'm speaking in support of the amendment. Our current limits on group living are among the most exclusive in the nation and impose very traditional cultural norms on everyone. When compounded with other exclusionary zoning practices, we are building a truly exclusive city. The group living proposal at hand increases.
Speaker 4: The opportunity for density while maintaining architectural character. It truly Win-Win.
Speaker 1: We must resist the urge to impose our living standards of more privileged generations.
Speaker 6: And persons on others.
Speaker 1: My family and I have considered living in community because first we can't afford a bigger house on our own. And second, we want to live with other family to support us as parents. We don't have a lot of family nearby, and it is super hard to raise a family alone. Why shouldn't we have this option when it would improve our lives and would allow us the option to continue to afford to live in Denver? Without these group living options, we will likely be forced to leave Denver for the suburbs where we can find cheaper housing. Further, the proposed changes allow the city to better serve.
Speaker 6: Those most vulnerable.
Speaker 1: In our city to prevent homelessness. I currently live near several restricted properties serving individuals that were formerly experiencing homelessness, including the formerly incarcerated and have seen only positive impacts to my neighborhood and property values. When given the opportunity to build a more inclusive city. Why wouldn't we rally to support that opportunity? Thank you for your consideration.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Megan. Next up, we have David Johnson. David. You're going to have to.
Speaker 2: Yes. Can you hear me? Go. Go ahead. Thank you. Thank you for this opportunity. I'm going to take a little bit different tack on this. My wife, Stephanie and I moved to Denver in 1983, and we've lived here for nearly 40 years, and that's 40 years. We have always lived in the Capitol Hill area. And when we first moved to the city in 1983, the city was going through a transition from multiple family residences to single family residences. We actually participated in changing the zoning and a piece of the city that we lived in from our three to r one. And part of the reason that we participated in that is we felt that there were lots of different houses. There were lots of different conditions in those homes. We saw a variety of dilapidated homes that weren't being taken care of because of the multiple family situations that involved those particular homes. Once we got the zoning changed, we saw a radical change and a radical difference in the property conditions, how how homes were being maintained. We saw more stability. We saw less transition in the neighborhoods. It was a heyday of neighborhood schools. We really saw a tremendous improvement in this city back in the seventies and eighties when we first moved here as a result of reducing multiple family situations to single family situations. I think what's happening here is we're not looking at history and we're ignoring that history. Because what we're doing is looking backwards and kind of reverting to those those times when we saw that kind of situation in those kinds of home conditions affecting our lives in Colorado. So we certainly our lives in Denver, but we certainly do not support the amendment for those very reasons. We think that there's a lot greater security that we saw, more stability, more family involvement, families moving in with children. It was a wonderful time in our city, and I don't want to see our city to go back to that where we have to we have to go through the same problems that we did back in the seventies and eighties. And I strongly urge that the group Living Amendment be voted voted down in the city council for those very reasons. And I really hope you you think about that carefully. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Up next, we have Carson Bryant.
Speaker 2: Okay. Hi, I'm Carson Bryant. I'm a resident of District ten, and I'll be speaking in favor of this proposal. So the way we treat each other is really reflected in the fabric of our physical environment. So, like, how we exclude, displace, to devalue and marginalize our fellow citizens is especially evident. And where we do and do not live. Most residential neighborhoods in Denver reveal both history and present practice of exclusion on grounds ranging from race to class to lifestyle to the care that someone needs. The lingering imperative to exclude, stigmatize and devalue has been on full display throughout this process, relying on fearmongering notions of the other invading sacrosanct single family neighborhoods. Rather, we need to emphasize the ways in which this proposal helps meet the needs of our neighbors. From those seeking stable housing to those looking to reenter our communities is the responsibility of our city government to adopt policies that prioritize those needs. I'm confident that my fellow Democrats seek to live in a city that reflects principles of equity and compassion. Tonight, I encourage you councilors to demonstrate that commitment. Please support this group living proposal. Thank you all so much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Carson. Up next, we have Samuel Hargraves.
Speaker 2: You. Is that correct?
Speaker 0: Mm hmm. Go ahead, sir.
Speaker 2: I on?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 2: Great. So apparently, I'm a racist. I'm a bigot. I'm an elitist. I'm homophobic. Apparently, I have some basic character flaw because there's no way I could possibly oppose this on any kind of substantive merit. The raising of. Of of of racial shaming, of of all these kinds of shaming techniques is counterproductive. It's possible to substantively disagree with this proposal. Number one to. To try to regulate residential zoning. The same way you regulate half way felony zoning is ridiculous. It defies logic. They are two.
Speaker 6: Completely.
Speaker 2: Different kinds of zoning and use. I don't know anybody who really cares if there were a couple of extra roommates in a house. People care if there is going to be felons living next to them or felons living in their neighborhood.
Speaker 6: It's reasonable.
Speaker 2: To expect when you move into a neighborhood that the.
Speaker 6: Zoning means.
Speaker 2: Something. It provides some system stability, some belief in how it will be. What you're proposing. These stabilizes the city, it doesn't provide stability. And the idea of that, that somehow it's to make up for past racial, racial and racial injustices. Is insulting. It's patronizing. The opposition to this is not political.
Speaker 6: The opposition to this.
Speaker 2: Is opposition by citizens of all colors, all ages.
Speaker 6: All political.
Speaker 2: Bents. I just. It's it's just. It's. It's awful. Um, I am also, uh. Though the lack of transparency in this process makes it exceptionally suspicious. Yeah. I just it's hard to trust anything, any of the statements that have come out of this this city council regarding this proposal, because it has been such a closed, opaque process. I urge you to vote this down and start new and handled residential and felony separately. Thank you.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Up next, we have Joseph Halprin.
Speaker 2: Evening evenings. Can you hear me?
Speaker 0: Mm hmm. Go ahead, Mr. Halperin.
Speaker 2: Thanks. My name is Joe Halpern. I live in District ten. I own my home. But like many people in Denver, I started out as a renter and saved up over quite a number of years. I opposed the group Living Amendments, which I may call JLA in its present form and urge you to vote no. I'm a 42 year resident of Capitol Hill, which has the most diverse housing stock and people in the city. Given Capitol Hill's density and mix of housing, buying a home in Capitol Hill involves not only choosing a neighborhood, but also choosing a block based on weighing many factors, including density, traffic, noise and safety. The group Living Amendment would allow residential care facilities of many types in any single family house and would have a serious adverse impact on homeowners who chose a neighborhood and a block seeking relative peace, quiet and safety and yes, quality of life matters even in Capitol Hill. The group Living Amendment removes existing licensing, permitting and other protections in the current zoning code and also treats all residential care facilities alike, even though their impacts can and do differ significantly and enforcement provisions in the new provision in the new Act. The new amendments are completely inadequate. In addition. I remind the Council of the Law of Unintended Consequences, which we've seen over the years on many zoning issues. And unfortunately, it's very difficult to ring the bell. It takes time. And normally because the city attorney tells you so, you need to grandfather it. Anyone who was granted imprudent permission to do something detrimental. Think about this. The slot zoning issue, the slot house zoning issue. This amendment should be broken into smaller parts and reconsider it in a truly open and robust citizen process, not a process dominated by the very commercial interests that stand to benefit financially from the group Living Amendment. For the record, I do not oppose the concept of increasing the number of unrelated adults sharing a single family house. But as written, the amendment would allow commercial landlords to easily evade the household definition. All that a landlord needs to do is prepare bylaws for a house and have all the owners sign something saying that they all choose to live together. I urge you to vote against this proposition. It is the worst proposed zoning amendment I have seen in my 40 years, in 42 years in Denver, including 29 years as the liberals see the neighbors zoning chair. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Lincoln Miller.
Speaker 2: Oh, thank you. Hi. My name is Lincoln Miller, and I just want to thank all the members of the City Council for serving your community during this very difficult time. I want to speak in favor of the proposed zoning changes, although I don't think that they go far enough. The Planning Board asked you and I attended that meeting virtually to go to eight unrelated adults and hear you only go to five. And I would like you to consider allowing houses to scale up the number of residents based on square footage. And let me tell you where that comes from. So I've been doing affordable co-operative and group living development or living in cooperatives for the last 25 years. And we've learned some things over that time. So one of the things that we learned is that the economy of scale really works when you have about ten people give or take. And so that's why when we worked on the ordinance in Boulder, we had 12 people in a single family home. As long as you have at least 200 square feet per person. So it's within the health and safety guidelines. The House is big enough. You can have more folks. Guess what? We did that since 2017 and the sky did not fall. We're still okay. The city is still intact. Family values are still intact. And why is this the case? This is the case because community.
Speaker 6: Living and co-ops provide affordable housing, because folks are allowed.
Speaker 2: To share. They provide sustainability.
Speaker 6: Because.
Speaker 3: Again, the sharing.
Speaker 6: Leads.
Speaker 2: To less energy use. In fact, one third in our engineering study of the energy is used in shared houses compared to other Colorado households. It creates community and it helps to build residents skills.
Speaker 6: So it's a real.
Speaker 2: Problem when your zoning code punishes low income people who can't afford housing, especially during a pandemic. That's what an occupancy limit does. It criminalizes poverty. It criminalizes low income folks. This is why the occupancy limits have been struck down in multiple states because they're inherently unfair.
Speaker 3: So homeownership is.
Speaker 2: Completely out of the question.
Speaker 3: For many people.
Speaker 2: But what this ordinance could help to.
Speaker 3: Do is allow for sharing, which can lead to affordable.
Speaker 2: Rentals. And also this sharing can allow people to buy a house together and create equity co-ops that are affordable for ownership. So I urge you to approve the ordinance and zoning changes before you. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Our next speaker is Anna DeWitt.
Speaker 4: The Evening City Council.
Speaker 1: I'm on a to with a teacher union.
Speaker 4: Member and resident of D ten. I've lived in.
Speaker 1: Denver for eight years and when I first moved here I was filled with it, except with excitement.
Speaker 6: What a cool city.
Speaker 1: But rent was really high for me. A teacher to afford. So to make ends meet, I shared a one bedroom with two other adults for three years. And I know it sounds crazy, but you do what you do in order to survive. But wouldn't it be nice if people could thrive instead of just survive? I hope that when people think about how the group Living Amendment will change Denver, they think about the lower middle class workers who deserve to live in a city in which they work. But the question is, who should get to live together in the year 2021, both legally and morally, as anyone who wants to be? Yet, unfortunately, our living codes are.
Speaker 4: Outdated and don't reflect current views and beliefs.
Speaker 1: Now listening to a lot of comments. I've heard the term frat house a lot. Would you be against group living if you knew your child's teacher would directly benefit from it? Would you be against group living if you knew your child's friend could live in a secure environment that his family could afford? Are you aware of the.
Speaker 4: Many Denver residents.
Speaker 1: Denver children and families who are living in housing insecurity? Hundreds of people and hundreds of children. The group living proposal is not an experiment. Denver is quite literally late to the game.
Speaker 4: Many other states have already.
Speaker 1: Passed a measure similar to this. So where is all.
Speaker 6: The commotion coming from?
Speaker 1: People are scared. We just heard someone say that they're scared an inmate is going to live next to them. But if this amendment passes halfway, homes must still go through state and.
Speaker 4: Federal law in order to exist.
Speaker 1: Denver can pass any progressive housing bill it wants. Yet it would do little to allow more halfway.
Speaker 6: Homes due to strict state and federal.
Speaker 4: Regulations. And again, for those who are in opposition, I hope you recall the 2019 election was a 300 initiative. You know, the one many of you voted no on with the presumption of we can do better.
Speaker 1: When is better going to come along? It seems that any time we have the option to support people who are housing insecure or an option to support the working class, we always.
Speaker 4: Say no. This amendment has everything to.
Speaker 1: Do with who can live next to.
Speaker 4: You and not how many people can live next to you.
Speaker 1: Let's be clear with that. In a world where blended families co-parenting, gay marriage and single parenthood is the norm, I think we should take a strong look at our individual actions and ask ourselves, Are we on the right side of history or do we support outdated living systems from the 1950s? Let's be the progressive city we pretend to be. Please vote in favor. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is fluorine now. And you're going to have to and meet yourself as well.
Speaker 6: Thanks for the opportunity to speak tonight. I have been a resident of Denver for.
Speaker 0: 43 years in Park Hill.
Speaker 6: And I have been the owner of that time in three three homes, been in the current.
Speaker 1: One for 22 years.
Speaker 6: And I, I have to say, I agree with the one of the gentlemen before that resented the implication that I was could be racist or homophobic because I oppose this amendment. That is not at all the case that I moved. We purchased a house in Park Hill specifically because it was a racially diverse neighborhood. Now, since that time, it has gotten less so due to all the housing increased housing prices in Denver. Which is exactly my.
Speaker 0: Concern.
Speaker 6: With this amendment. First, let me tell you, I am totally in favor of expanded opportunities for safe houses, correctional increased correctional facilities in residential areas and sober living homes, care facilities. My problem is with this amendment is that I think. That it is leading people to believe that it is the solution to a housing problem that it is not a solution to. There is nothing. What I see is an economic issue and. There is nothing to say that. A developer.
Speaker 0: Or a I'm sorry, an investor, real estate.
Speaker 6: Investor will not just take a home that can now house five people.
Speaker 0: Be it. A thousand square feet or.
Speaker 6: 2000 square feet and charge. Rents that are exorbitant. Just like now for a one bedroom. 1200 dollars.
Speaker 1: 1400 dollars.
Speaker 6: A month. We're implying that this is going to help us and it's not. What I urge you to do is bifurcate this issue. Take the. Care facilities, the other housing issues, a group living issues separate them and try to really. Address the affordability. I have two adult children who grew up in Denver. Neither of which, both with good paying jobs, neither of which who can afford a house in Denver right now? So I support the concept of increasing the number of people who can live together. But I do not believe that this is the answer. And I think. Accepting this answer. Will. Will not be a solution in and is detrimental. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Samantha Hinshaw.
Speaker 1: Hi. My name is Samantha Hinshaw and I am a Denver native and current resident of District ten. I'll be speaking in favor of the proposal, though I don't think it goes far enough. I would like to see allowances made for more residents living in larger homes. I lived in a limited equity cooperative house in Denver for four years and my life has been transformed by this experience in a multitude of ways. First there, the financial benefits. So I hope the previous speaker is still on the call because of the affordable rent that I pay. In our shared expenses, I have been able to break the paycheck to paycheck cycle and build my savings for the future. When I had an unexpected medical bill a couple of years ago. My housemates were able to help me cover the rent, and I've had the chance to do the same for my other housemates, especially during the pandemic. During times of job loss and more unexpected medical bills, I can finally see a path to homeownership in my own future, which I never thought would be possible for a millennial public school teacher saddled with tens of thousands of dollars in student debt. Even more important than the economic benefits, I have learned so much about myself and others while living in community, I have gained skills around the shared decision making, conflict resolution, listening and sharing. I become more civically engaged, clearly socially and environmentally conscious, and I even eat vegetables now. I learned how to fix a garbage disposal, how to speak up for what I need, and have shared some of the most growth filled years of my life with strangers who have become my family. I want this opportunity to be available to all Democrats, whether they live in Capitol Hill, my fellow Five Points or Cherry Creek. Whether they are exiting homelessness, incarceration, college, or any other phase of their life. Whether they are related to the people in their home, by marriage, by blood, or by common purpose. Please vote yes on this proposal and make Denver more accessible, more affordable and more inclusive for all.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Samantha. Our next speaker is Tuwei tuwei. Ang and we have a translator as well. And so we'll let you go ahead. And I'll have to go ahead and unmute yourselves, please.
Speaker 7: Oh, God. Mingle. I want you. Hello, everyone. Good morning. I'm actually on cable there. My name is straightway. I'll stand by my need to furnish UAV.
Speaker 1: I have been living in the East.
Speaker 7: Coast for ten years and call first Lambeau, Omaha. These are little more subtle political point out here. I'm right there for.
Speaker 1: Residents and also a.
Speaker 7: Small business owner of the East Coast Community College. Claudia, where we let you buy barrier. I'm also a board member of the Deep Coltrane Community Collective. Jamal, meet our unit at Loon, Your Mind and Our Money. We do have that in a U.S. dollar, rather.
Speaker 1: I came to the.
Speaker 7: United States as a refugee to my dad, Manuel Mule, the boy Jabari. I love to live in Denver. Anyhow, whenever I do have that, it should. We walk out in the yard. Now you worry.
Speaker 1: I believe separate is a good place for people.
Speaker 7: Who have financial difficulties to live and to be met by Mark, who is really not happy about it. However, right now the rent is becoming so expensive to live in any community buying one. The motto is to leave it limit the chilling of honor at a time during worship when we are out here. I have seen my neighbors get kicked out of their houses and they have moved to other states or their states that are really.
Speaker 6: The town's stadium.
Speaker 7: There is it or we are here tomorrow. Maphumulo celebrated who? Younan Omolola Chiluba. I'm going to people that I still have links to others. However, I still want to stay in that group because I was reporting the jungle that month and naturally late at night I need I need done by all that. You guys have really divided you up. Yeah, yeah. No, we don't need you. W all my other friends that have moved.
Speaker 1: To other states, including their children, want to come back and they suffer. And living in Denver.
Speaker 7: Deep down by my need. Not. Who are she? Middle to Maria.
Speaker 1: I believe that there is a way that everyone can live.
Speaker 7: Separately but do need to meet are who they are. The channel mothers are in my world to do it and got it. A John Peabody. One way, I believe that many families in my community can afford to. Endeavor is probably living together with different people tomorrow. You know what? I don't know. Mid-afternoon. But how about you?
Speaker 1: I also believe that many different people come together and say.
Speaker 7: You know, is it Hillary demanding that, you know, Jomana, my wife, would be ready to do me out while me Jamal, a jazz warrior. Because I know that it is expensive to buy a house. Myself and my friend want to buy a house together. By Peter Lesser or Jamal Joaquin Winograd let down by a young vigilante model, when on May one we were able model guard, soldier, general law. The reason her friend and my friend and I are buying a home together is because we are low income and we cannot afford to buy a house by ourselves. I'll be mad tomorrow, delay arranging or be no more mid-afternoon hassle. Matthew Needham with our Chengdu China Daily My new low me are also there. How would you model whenever I think about it, I don't the model in my neighborhood when I marvel. I do not believe that when I learn that different people from different families cannot live together. Because of that, my friend and I, we try to buy a house together, schedule a change, how to do this in a lot of ways when we natural web do.
Speaker 6: For one hour I to do down by my time water. Hello do do want.
Speaker 7: To a name are with you the channel mother we need her and I go tomorrow I'm your.
Speaker 1: As he and other people hope that people who are low income people for.
Speaker 7: Refugee families will be able to live together in a.
Speaker 1: Safe place in the near future. I mean, I didn't.
Speaker 7: Think of it that, oh, I got my gun back. Yeah, I bought it down here downhill.
Speaker 1: I love living in Denver and I do.
Speaker 7: Not want to move to a different neighborhood.
Speaker 6: That's something that I'm also a.
Speaker 7: Mom and I'll phone in about an hour and a chimichanga. All you need to meet up with me when we are mostly not one winner and we both have what we call our middle young. You are here. But I would like to say that.
Speaker 1: I hope all the families for four.
Speaker 7: Different families who live together at my house.
Speaker 1: Together, the model that will be the.
Speaker 6: Model that.
Speaker 7: Will nominate our union below. I know it's a model that will be coming to visit to America. We do not understand a lot of the state laws and regulations, but I hope that it can be changed in the near future.
Speaker 6: Dave Luba, thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Up next, we have David Hagan.
Speaker 1: I mean, you can't.
Speaker 0: All right. Up next, we've got.
Speaker 6: Sorry about that. Oh, there we go.
Speaker 0: All right.
Speaker 2: Yes. David, here. I would like to say I'm in favor of voting on this with a yes. I again, I don't think it goes far enough. I would like to like to say that. I think that. The reason when we are frustrated that somebody calls us racist, it's usually because we are racist. I'll just say that. Get out of the way. And I also want to say that the reason we need to be doing this is because people are struggling. Using COVID as an excuse to not do it doesn't really make sense. We need to go ahead and help people not be on the streets, help people not get COVID. And when we are together, we yes, we may we could potentially get COVID, but it's less likely to be spreading into the entire community if somebody is not on the street, you're less likely to die if you're not on the street. And I also wanted to thank all the folks that voted. I want to vote no on those that kept their cameras off. I would just request that they turn their cameras back on, just like we asked the KKK members take their hoods off to see who you are. I hope you all have a great night. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Our next speaker is Alicia Blackman.
Speaker 1: Hi there. First, I want to say thank you for the process you went through. I was able to come to a meeting a couple of months back and before COVID. It was really deep and thoughtful. And I really appreciate all the information you gave to folks. I'm a teacher and I've been in teacher for 13 years. This zoning change is really close to my heart for a variety of reasons, and I'll only really speak in depth about one of them. I'm not going to talk much about how, as a school teacher, I couldn't afford a home in the Parkville neighborhood because that's already been discussed and how I pay my mortgage every month for the last eight years because I have roommates. And also that it's my choice to have roommates because I love raising my two year old with my partner in a home with other adults who have helped me be more resilient and help me with childcare during COVID so that I could continue to be employed part time even during a pandemic. And we do lots of things to keep each other safe. We're really good at communicating. We take care of our house and it's not junky looking. But we don't need to talk about that because a lot of other folks have talked about those things today. Thank you. For those who have addressed the misinformation about property values going down and the imagined safety of our children being at risk. Yes, I'm also a teacher and a mother. I just don't believe that having people in need in your neighborhood are a risk to children. I think that that is a bigoted reason to oppose the zoning change. What I want to speak about more is probably less popular and related to more stigma, which is that two of the people I love most in my life lived in residential care homes. This issue is deeply personal to me because I kept waiting for my younger sister for the day when she wasn't going to live anymore. But because she was able to live in a residential care facility. Now, she's been sober for five years. She's found a husband who also has been sober sober for five years. And they have their first child. They both have graduated college and they're gainfully employed. She met my sister, met her husband, Orlando, who served our country in the Marines and became addicted to drugs when serving our country, which is not uncommon in part to help him manage his untreated PTSD. Together. They have gone on the most challenging journey that I can imagine, and they're incredibly resilient. Here is a picture of my sister. I don't know if you can see her at her wedding and at my wedding. They are not people who need to be feared. And when you tell me and people like my sister and people who want to live in a different way, that they don't belong, what you're doing is you're continuing the history of telling people you don't belong in this community because you look different. And that scares me.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Alicia. Next, we have Lenny Rush.
Speaker 1: Good evening. My name is Lanny Rush. I'm a District nine resident. I thank you all for your time and your commitment to hearing everyone speak and reading all those comments. I know that folks have commented about the transparency and the process, and I would say that it has felt quite transparent. It has felt that there was a outpouring of community engagement, at least in the past year. I know it's been going on for longer than that, but that's when I was made aware. I don't think I'll win for originality. And I a lot of what I have to say is similar. So I'm going to opt for brevity. I really ask you all to vote yes on these text amendments, because if all these amendments did were, as per Mr. Webb's slides, rectify discriminatory codes. That's worth your yes vote. Unless we want to say yes to the racism and status quo of the past, which to that point, all of the people who have come on here to say, does supporting me make me a racist? If you're not a head dog, don't holler. So please think about the legacy of changing these codes to something new. And will they be Denver's codes for as long as the last one was? Probably not, because we all agree that that's been outdated. However, I think this is the best that we've got, too. There have been a ton of compromises, so I really, really hope you vote yes. I think the worst thing that could happen is that this goes back to committee and we have to sit through another year of making no progress. I really hope that this goes to a vote and that regardless of the outcome, we can move forward and continue to build a better city that works for everyone. Thank you all very much for your time. Have a great rest of your evening.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Lainey. Up next, we have Jason Fellows.
Speaker 2: Good evening, everyone. Thanks for taking my comments. I urge the City Council to vote no. The narrative that those of us who are in opposite.
Speaker 3: Opposition are a classist, racist, homophobic. That's not true.
Speaker 2: My belief is that the group Living Amendment, which would convert single family homes from a two or three income model to a five income model will have the opposite effect. It will destroy the affordability of single family homes for those who are seeking to start out in Denver. And for that reason, I ask you to vote no. I think the GLA will have a profound impact on our city. It was not debated during our last election and as the last two and a half hours have shown.
Speaker 3: This is a contentious issue.
Speaker 2: I don't believe the city council has the mandate to make a change of this magnitude to our zoning code. And I think if you want to move forward, you should.
Speaker 3: As Lawrence Murray said.
Speaker 2: Take it to the voters. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Leslie Tory Kautsky.
Speaker 1: High Council president. Can you hear me?
Speaker 0: Mm hmm. Go ahead, Leslie.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. I'll keep it brief, because I know it's a long night. First and foremost, I want to ask you all council to please support this group Living Amendment. I'm very excited about the work that has been done. I don't think it's a perfect piece of policy. And so my second ask is that you will keep your hearts and minds open to revisiting this policy in a couple of years when this went through. Planning Board Susan Stanton, God rest her soul, suggested that we revisit this policy in two years. And I want to reiterate that. Finally, my third ask is that, as you know, it's now almost 10 p.m. on a monday night. I know Councilman Herndon has brought forth the concept of looking at timing for public comment in front of city council. And I think this night is a great night as an example of of how this becomes problematic that people are asked to stay in until 10 p.m. on a work night to give comment. So I will wrap up just by asking once again that you support group living, that you revisit this policy change in a couple of years and that you revisit the policy change surrounding public comment at city council.
Speaker 0: And with.
Speaker 1: That, that's all. Thank you. Council President Gilmore.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Leslie. All right. Our next speaker is Sandra Petrie PD. Sorry. And I believe we're getting her connected.
Speaker 7: Yes. Good evening. This is Sandra Petty, and I've been a Denver resident for almost 30 years. I live in Mayfair. You said cross streets, Monaco in Colfax. We have a very good, diverse neighborhood. Black, white, rich, poor, young.
Speaker 2: Old.
Speaker 7: It's enjoyable. And this program is utopian in nature, and it's destructive. And it will destroy the quality of life in Denver. We have I can't tell you how many times I have lost a day's work because I could not get out of my driveway. There was a house that was just sold a few months ago on what was just sold a few months ago. It's about 1100 square feet and a basement. It was bought by investors. These investors rented it out to four unrelated adults, each of that, each of whom have a car. The I think it's kind of public knowledge that the majority of individuals who are supporting this amendment have. Shall I say, selfish interests. And as a taxpayer. And as a property owner, I feel as though I am being discriminated by this amendment. One of the things that really concerns me is nobody has ever brought up infrastructure. We have roads that are series of pavement batteries. The crime rate in Mayfair has increased dramatically. We've had that murder on 11th and Monaco. There are two reports just yesterday, one at 13th and Locust in one at 12th and a little bit to the left of people just coming into the house during the day when people have been in that house to rob it. You know. It's. It breaks my heart. This breaks my heart. It legitimately breaks my heart. I wish the council and our mayor would take into consideration who pays their salaries and who voted them into office. And you figure the majority of the calls today have been in opposition of this. And again, we're not opposed to growth. If you don't grow, you're going to die. You have to grow. But uncontrolled.
Speaker 1: And the right.
Speaker 0: Time we have allocated for each speaker, we're going to go ahead and move to the next. We have Paul Duncan. All right, Paul, we need to have you go ahead and then you.
Speaker 2: All right. Can you hear me all right? Mm hmm.
Speaker 0: Go ahead, please.
Speaker 2: Great. I am going to keep it brief as well. I just want it done. Share that I'm a resident of District three in the West Colfax neighborhood. I'm a member of the We Can Reno Land Use Committee, although I'm only speaking on behalf of myself tonight. I just wanted to encourage city council to support this initiative. And I don't want to provide my exact address because the current regulations make my living situation illegal. And that's because I have two roommates. And that's probably a pretty strange thing to seem illegal. But as Mr. Webb pointed out, it is illegal. So unfortunately, I know people that have been evicted in Denver after receiving a complaint from a neighbor just for having three unrelated adults living in a home. So this is not a hypothetical. The current regulations have resulted in friends, people I know becoming temporarily homeless and during a pandemic. That's the last thing we want. But I think even outside of a pandemic, if we're wanting to address homelessness, affordable housing and equity, the current regulations make it really prohibitive to. Ever imagine owning a home. So I just wanted to encourage everyone to vote yes. And to note that although it's not a silver bullet for affordable housing, we do need to stand up for people that are formerly incarcerated dealing with substance abuse and legalize the way that many of us in Denver already live. So I thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Paul. Up next, we have Sarah Wells.
Speaker 7: Thank you. In 2015, my husband and I bought a 1902 Denver Square in Capitol Hill, a sprawling seven bedroom house with over 4000 square feet of living space. Over time, we filled those spacious bedrooms with people who were looking for accessible housing and a sense of community. We currently share ownership in our home with living expenses for each person affordable to those making 50% area median income. Over the last five years, residents of our co-op have been entrepreneurs, counselors, teachers, lawyers, civil servants, social workers and artists people who make the city a better place to live. The number of people in our house is illegal in the current zoning code, but does not violate the building and fire code because it is not unsafe. We live together responsibly. We cook meals together, share chores, manage maintenance, mow the lawn, park our cars off streets, have avoided any COVID infections and support each other through our successes and failures. We operate very much like a family. In fact, it is the only family of my six month old son has ever known. We know many community houses like our own throughout the city, both owner and renter occupied but do not feel safe making themselves known because of the current outdated code and fear of displacement. We made the choice to make our home more visible in this fight for a more equitable zoning code. Because over the last five years we have received hundreds of inquiries of people wanting to live here. The citizen citizens of Denver are desperate for an affordable, nurturing place to live. Over the last three years, I had the responsibility of serving on the Group Living Advisory Council and contributing to the recommendations for voting on tonight. The very first thing we agreed on in those meetings was that we should not limit who can live in a house based on blood relationship, that zoning should not be defining or chosen families. To see blood relationship persist in tonight's vote is demoralizing. To see the proposal watered down from eight adults to five unrelated adults will not go far enough to legalize many cooperatives in the city. I support tonight's proposed changes because they are better than the current rules rules which have been used to perpetuate a system that disproportionately favors the wealthy and leads to segregated neighborhoods. This is a disappointing conclusion to what could have been a truly inclusive and progressive move. But if it's the best we can do, let's embrace it as a step forward. Cooperative housing has had a profoundly positive impact on my life and so many others. I urge you to vote in favor of the proposed changes as it represents a vote in favor of a more equitable, connected and compassionate city. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Sarah. Our next speaker is Jesus Gonzalez.
Speaker 2: Hello?
Speaker 0: Mm hmm. Go ahead.
Speaker 2: All right, everyone. Good evening, everyone. My name is Alice, and I grew up in and currently work in East Colfax. I live in Central Park University Hill. And now I'm I'm at a home in Capitol Hill. And these are these locations I, like many others, have at one point or another lived with multiple, unrelated adult women starting from a young age, several people that my parents knew from their towns in Mexico, and they made their way to Denver and found their first American home within our home. Made up a big part of my childhood. Having them there was incredibly enriching for me. And they helped my parents with costs around the house, including adding a driveway for at street parking, which has been very convenient throughout the years. And growing up, though, I remember my parents always kind of living with this concern that and the way, you know, in Spanish community, when I told you that that someone would call the city on us, that's okay. The city and was as if they were doing something wrong. But according to this outdated code, they were. And when I talk to them about this text amendment, they have told me that as a young immigrant family, they felt targeted and harassed by their neighbors early on who would call the city on them. But over time, you know, they introduced themselves and they got to know us and they learned that the people that chose to live with us respected the neighborhood as much as anyone. And when I hear from opposition that these changes. And when I hear from the opposition to these changes, I feel like they're calling the city on my family. Now. I went to a pretty privileged majority white, middle, middle and high school. So I talk to my friends about roommate situations. It's never one person that they might be doing something illegal or that someone might call the city on them for living with too many people. And trust me, we live together because a whole lot more reckless than my parents ever did. But I had my parents that were harassed and that impression from that kind of intimidation from their neighbors has never really gone away for them. It's shaped their impression of them. And I see these changes as taking away some of the tools to discriminate and and harass people like us. Even though watering down the original proposal is a step backwards.
Speaker 7: We have to start somewhere.
Speaker 2: As we consider the importance of stripping discriminatory policies from our code, it's equally important to support. The residential care, the expansion of residential care facilities to be expanded throughout the city so that people, especially in those communities of color, get the support they need in places that make sense. There is discrimination, and I urge you to see these changes. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Jesus. Our next speaker is Meek and Sawyer.
Speaker 1: Hi. My name is Megan Slater. I live in District three in West Colfax. I'm speaking in favor of the group Living Amendment, and I'm doing so at personal risk because under current zoning regulations, my housing situation is illegal. When I got married, my husband moved into my half duplex and we went over the limit of four people. Our house is 3000 square feet five bedrooms, two kitchens, two baths and two laundry rooms. And it is still illegal. Even though these houses were built to house multiple families and have done so for over 100 years. People argue that increasing the amount of roommates increases trash and parking issues. But what's happening in my neighborhood is these traditional, unofficial quad boxes are getting razed and eight luxury townhome units are going in on each lot that allows 16 residents and 24 cars. And somehow that is legal. But our housing situation is not. And I'll be honest, the main benefit for me and my husband is we get an affordable housing situation with a yard close to downtown with public transportation. We'd be fine if you if you enforce the regulations. But the reality is we would have to evict one of our roommates and raise the rent 30% on our other two roommates. And that means that bedroom would remain on rented and unavailable for people like our previous roommates, the social worker, the person going through a divorce for students and the minimum wage job cook. And you know, my situation, my demographic, maybe you don't care about it, but all down the street, there's people that look very different from me and very different financial situations. But almost all of them are living in communal housing situations. And just this idea that allowing more roommates is going to cause people to live in overcrowded housing situations is just ridiculous. All it's doing is making legal what's already happening. And I will tell you from firsthand experience, there are unscrupulous landlords who utilize these types of zoning regulations to threaten their tenants from seeking legal action against them for illegal practices. And again, maybe you don't care about my experiences as a rich white college student, but there are other members in this community who are affected by those kinds of practices. The current policy of two unrelated adults in single family housing units is discriminatory. It prevents families that defined themselves as anything other than blood or marriage. You know, if you want to move in with your girlfriend and her sister, that's illegal. If you need to move in a caretaker to take care of your aging parents. That's illegal. You know, these housing laws shouldn't exist just to protect the housing values for married families that got lucky and bought a house before the housing market exploded. It should be protect the housing stability for all residents. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Megan. I just wanted to do a quick time check. We've got about 50 more speakers. And just want to remind folks if you're repeating points that that folks have already made. We would love to hear them, but ask that you maybe share new information and just wanted to take a time. Pause there. And so up next, we have Michael Henry. Go ahead, Mr. Henry. You're unmuted.
Speaker 6: Good evening, Council members. I'm not sure if you can see me. You can use video.
Speaker 0: Listen on.
Speaker 6: Can you hear me?
Speaker 0: Yes, we can hear you.
Speaker 2: Actually.
Speaker 6: Mm hmm. My name is Michael Henry. I live in District ten at the corner of 13th Avenue and William Street. And I served on the group Living Advisory Committee for the last three years. The reason I was appointed to the committee was that I had worked for at least a year in the mid 1990s as a member of a committee to develop a proposal. Two regarding spacing and regulation of our shelters and group homes in correctional facilities. At that time, I was the parish president of Veterinary Bird Corporation and the chair of the Agency Planning and Zoning Committee. Well, unfortunately in the past. 25 years. As we all know, the ordinances have become very, very outdated. And just not meeting today's needs in the way people live. The Administration and city council appointed the group living committee three years ago. And I take great umbrage at the accusations which are untrue, that most of the members of the group Living Advisory Committee were all looking to make a profit. In the first place. The providers that were on the committee. Work for nonprofit organizations, but there were many of those who simply lived in neighborhoods around the city. Oh. For the past 45 years. I have participated in were observed many. Advisory committees were working on public policy for the city. I've come to observe what I believe many of us call the Denver Way of research published to make. And that is to put together a balanced group of citizens, citizen volunteers, by the way, who carefully study very complicated issues. Another element of the Denver way is transparency and open meetings. And there's been plenty of that. And unfortunately, some features of this particular process have been not part of the general review by including much misrepresentation, anger, fear and even threatening to recall city council members. I urge you all to vote in favor.
Speaker 0: Andrew. That's the time we have available. Our next speaker is JJ Gorsuch. And we're going to get JJ. Connected. J.J. is on the phone. So give us a moment, please. All right.
Speaker 7: JJ.
Speaker 2: Good evening, counsel. My name is due to Gorsuch. I reside in the Park Hill neighborhood, though I've been a resident of a variety of the neighborhoods in our fair, clean city of the plains for nearly my entire life. The intentions behind this change are certainly novel. Like any idea that hasn't heeded or listened to its opposition? It is incompletely formed and it seems as if it will have many unintended consequences, some of which will actually exacerbate inequities in our communities. The change seems to be benefiting developers looking to capitalize on pushes for density under the guise of equity. Results are very likely for overcrowding, lack of parking, streamline infrastructure and that really can't be underscored. Yeah, I would love to have a fully pedestrian city, but our infrastructure is at risk here too. And it's in areas where we're already falling short of the city's own green space planning. Why can't we focus on more tangible and very specific solutions? Read Less Brides dipping for housing costs, for roommate situations, for co-op situations, perhaps using the maximum square foot per person based solutions for shelter development and for rehabilitation spaces. But not forget about the city's commitment to green space. What about resolving for former Chapter 59 to actually remove some of the institutional inequities and narco? Split the problems up and take a step backward in the process to get better, more specific, more elegant, and, by the way, more equitable solutions. Please, please vote no on this amendment. Thank you very much, council members, for your time and consideration tonight.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Greg Holm.
Speaker 6: Good evening.
Speaker 3: My name is Greg Home. I live. I've lived in District seven for 32 years and I'm asking you to vote yes on the proposed group.
Speaker 6: Living Ordinance with the qualification.
Speaker 3: That larger homes be permitted to allow up to eight unrelated adults to live together. And there are all types of group living facilities be permitted.
Speaker 2: In all neighborhoods. The original group living.
Speaker 3: Proposal would have permitted social services to be provided in neighborhoods.
Speaker 2: Throughout the city.
Speaker 3: In natural and authentic settings, including the provision of rehabilitation services in community corrections settings. All neighborhoods should share in supporting our most vulnerable citizens.
Speaker 2: Please remember that all prisoners.
Speaker 3: Will be released eventually and that our communities are made safer when we provide prisoners with the services and education needed for them to successfully.
Speaker 2: Reenter society. I would also like to ask why an unlimited number of related adults are permitted to live in a house, but unrelated adults are limited.
Speaker 6: I would like someone to explain the.
Speaker 2: Justification.
Speaker 3: For this distinction and why government should define what is and.
Speaker 2: Is not a family. Claims have been made that unrelated adults living together would have too many cars, have parties, make noise, commit crimes, etc.. Is it.
Speaker 6: Not.
Speaker 3: True that related adults also.
Speaker 6: Drive cars.
Speaker 3: Have parties.
Speaker 6: Make noise, commit crimes.
Speaker 2: Engage in domestic violence, drink and do drugs?
Speaker 3: There is no justification for the disparate.
Speaker 6: Treatment of related.
Speaker 2: Versus unrelated adults.
Speaker 3: It is an outrage that wealthy white neighborhoods, i.e. single family.
Speaker 2: Duplex and townhome neighborhoods, were exempted by ludy from this ordinance.
Speaker 3: Once again, wealthy white neighborhoods are using their privilege, political power and.
Speaker 2: Exaggerated outrage to exclude those who are different.
Speaker 3: And less privileged. Our current housing crisis has its roots in explicit. And deliberate racist.
Speaker 2: Housing policies.
Speaker 6: Implemented.
Speaker 2: By federal, state and local governments from the 1930s to the late.
Speaker 3: 1960s. While current policies are no longer explicitly racist. Denver remains strongly segregated.
Speaker 2: And the cost of housing is out of reach for far too many Denver ites, both of which evidence the ongoing inequity and racist impacts caused by our zoning policies. Please undo the changes.
Speaker 3: And allow up to eight residents in large homes, as well as ensuring residential care.
Speaker 2: Facilities can operate everywhere in Denver. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Greg. Our next speaker is Janice McGuire. And Janice, we'll have to have you on your cell. All right. We're going to wait and see if we can get Dennis McGuire. You're up.
Speaker 6: Next.
Speaker 0: All right. We'll go ahead and move on to Meredith Turk.
Speaker 1: Hello. Finally here. Thank you so much for listening. I am really happy that so many of the people that spoke have already spoken for me. So I'm going to do my best to introduce new information here. I was a former resident of a co-operative in Cape Hill, and I am honored to sit here as a homeowner of a single family home. And I'm here to tell you that single family homes are not the future. Even though I sit in one, because what's missing and what we have to create in this new space is the community that is is not here. And when I walk outside of my home, I don't interact with my neighbors the way that I interacted with my housemates. I don't see babies every day. I don't have people cook me meals. I don't have the same sort of community that I had in my old home. And what we forget when we create these policies is that we are not creating for a sustainable future. We're not creating for what we want to live like in our elderly age. And I think we have to recognize that the world has changed and that our society has changed and that we need to take down the fences that we keep putting up. We need to tear them down, and we need to be able to look at each other in the face. We need to be able to ask for help. We need to be able to tell each other what we need. And that is not a way to do it by isolating ourselves in single family homes for the rest of our lives. And this policy, if it is not changed, will do that. So what I ask you is what is at stake if we do not change this? And what is at stake is a future where we can all learn to live together and realize that it's okay to have conflict with your neighbors. That's actually okay. We don't need to regulate everything. We can talk to each other and we can move through life together as a community. And this is one very small step. It should five is very small. It should be at least eight. So I'll keep my comments there. But I will say that I have seen what community can give you, and I understand what it feels like to lose it. And I will spend every part of my life trying to rebuild it in the world around me. So please vote yes for this.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Meredith. We're going to try to go back to Janice McGuire and see if we can get. Denison. You're going to have to unmute yourself, Janice. All right. We're going to go ahead and move to Len Bruning. You're going to have to admit yourself. And I see that we're bringing you in via phone. So we'll give it a moment here. All right, Lynn, go ahead, please. Okay. Lynn, you're unmuted. Right. I'm not having stuff. Oh, there you go. Very good. All right. You're going to have to hit Star six to unmute, please.
Speaker 6: All right.
Speaker 0: Looks like we're having some trouble getting Lynn. Burning connected. And so we can work on that. We're going to go ahead and move to Denise Larson. All right. Looks like we've lost a few folks. Next up, we have Darryl Watson. All right. Or going down the line here, Terry Burns said.
Speaker 3: Hello.
Speaker 6: My name is Mary and I live in District six. And again, I apologize for my camera not working. I don't have any trouble with anybody saying I want to add my voice to those who are speaking in favor of the group Living Amendment. And I especially want to thank Jason Fournier and some of the people who spoke before, especially Jason who used irony and satire to ventriloquism the language of get the government off my back that so many people normally in opposition to measures like this use. And to point out the inconsistencies and the absurdity of their arguments. Bravo, Jason, for some good theater for us. I also want to point that out, because some of the people in opposition to this measure do indeed appropriate the language of the other side as well, although they do it without irony and seemingly without a sense of humor when they speak of inclusion and equality to defend their property rights. And I also want to address the issue that so many of the opponents have brought up of taking umbrage at being called racist in classes, sexist and homophobic, etc.. Now, I understand that because it's certainly not a pleasant thing to be called those things, and I have no crystal ball to see into another person's heart. But I want to point out to these people that redlining and.
Speaker 3: Gentrification, what Mario.
Speaker 6: Gonzalez so eloquently called the gentrification machine are structural problems. They are not necessarily simply matters of mustache twirling business villains sitting in a cabal somewhere, though, the history of Colorado real estate certainly does not preclude that. They are structural problems and they go beyond the individual. But as for those taking umbrage, when you look at the history of our community and our society as a whole, you have to look at whether you are supporting the status quo or not. And if you are supporting the status quo, then you have anti-racist work to do so. I'm sorry that you took umbrage, but be part of the solution. And City Council, please support the group Living Amendment. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Mary Beth Wells. Hi. Can you hear me? Mm hmm. Go ahead.
Speaker 6: Well, I'm nervous. My name is Mary Beth Wells, and I live in Parkhill on Ivanhoe near Colfax. My husband and I were able to buy a house about 50 years ago for about $38,000 when early twenties college graduates. No student loans. And it was really easy. That early investment gave us the opportunity to build equity for our futures. My concern my concern is for the kids coming out to pay crushing student loans. And they can't afford rent. They can't afford to build equity. They have no chance. Community, living, housing, whatever you want to call it, is a great way. It's a great solution to the housing crisis that we face, the affordability crisis that we face. And I urge the committee to vote in favor of the community housing legislation and the zoning changes necessary. I agree that larger houses should be allowed to have more than five people. I think it could be done safely. And finally, I want to say that the five person policy that has been proposed addresses many concerns fairly and equitably. For every objection, I have found a sound and reasonable solution. There are rules in the code that keep people safe, and we should not discriminate against people based on their blood relationships in the opposition. What I have heard is a failure to consider the future of this young generation who can't afford to buy houses. I urge the city, please, to vote for this resolution. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Emmanuel Campbell. Emanuel. We'll have to have you on. Meet yourself, please. All right, I'll try to get. Oh, there you go. Good deal. And you will go ahead, please.
Speaker 2: Okay. Good night, everybody. My name. My name is Emmanuel Avila. I'm. I'm leaving East Colfax. I'm living at Yosemite Street. Almost six years since I came here. I'm immigrants from Democratic Republic of Plenty. I just. I came here six, six years ago, but I still love to live in this area of Denver. But it's Colfax. I'm on. I tried to be a volunteer on East Colfax Community. I'm working to help my fellow new people came. And I'm also in East Colfax, the neighborhood. I'm in the board of member there. But I see, according to me, I have some experience who are facing the newcomer like me. You'll find some of our community. They are living in a sharing home where everybody can pay like 500 or 600 bucks so they can get how to live in Denver. But they are they're hardworking. I think, according to me, this proposal should pass. So it will help the so many people to get opportunity to stay in Denver to make their future. Like me. I'm trying my best to stay in Denver. These proposals should be voted on. Yes. That was my idea. That's all I have.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you very much, sir. Next up, we have Adam Astrof.
Speaker 9: Hey. My name is Adam Astrof. I live at 361, a lady in District seven. But tonight I'm speaking on behalf of Yimby. Denver, YIMBY. Denver stands for Yes in my backyard. And we're a group that was created to fight for affordable and abundant housing for everyone. And that's why we're promoting this group, Living Amendment. We agree with many commenters that the changes dismantled some of what this was trying to do throughout the 20th century. Land use was used as a way not to regulate what kind of buildings we built, but to discriminate against other kinds of people. I think it's really important that we remember and explicitly state that redlining and single unit zoning are the same thing. Redlining was accomplished through deciding who could and what kind of housing could be built in different neighborhoods. This group, Living Change, will start to dismantle that system in Denver. And, you know, thank you to all of you who are choosing to vote yes. This is not going to be a silver bullet. It's not going to end all of our problems. But this will go a long way towards ending our use of the zoning code as a way for homeowners to exercise their prejudice. I'd also like to just point out to folks who are taking umbrage at being called racist that systemic racism is not whether you hate people of color. Personally, the city council we have today is less racist than the City Council of the 1930s. I can say that as a fact, but our zoning is producing the same outcomes as it did when it was explicitly racist. Again, I call on you to pass these group living changes. Thank you for listening to all of the residents who are telling you how important this is. And tomorrow, let's get up and fight again, too, to help solve the housing crisis. Just to speak personally, you know, I'm very privileged. I haven't had housing insecurity personally, but my wife is a DPS teacher and every year she has at least one kindergartner who's homeless. We should not have homeless kindergartners in our city. Group living is one way where we can turn our single unit housing stock into affordable housing. We don't want to demolish all the buildings in our city, but we do need to increase affordability and group living policy will help us get there. So again, thank you to those of you who are voting yes, to those of you who are voting no. I'd ask for you to consider what you're going to do for the housing crisis moving forward. But again, thank you for all your time and your service in this long meeting.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Adam. Next up, we have Taryn Blake. Getting Tarrant connected via telephone here. So, Taryn, you might have to hit Star six to unmute.
Speaker 7: Hi.
Speaker 0: Hi. Go ahead.
Speaker 7: Okay, cool. Hi. My name is Taryn Blake. I'm 34, and I have lived in South Park Hill for five years. I am a proud communist, an immigrant rights organizer and a digital organizer on the rent strike and eviction defense group that came to exist during COVID 19. Where I'm in Colorado, families get evicted every single day. My family has lived in Denver for over 125 years, and not me, my brother or my parents own a home here. My parents had to sell my grandfather's studies at home and the housing crisis and still lost their home in north London. I have a massive amount of student debt, have owned a car in ten years and I'm a child care worker making just a dollar over minimum wage. My wages get garnished. I am to a bad mistake from homelessness myself. And there are generations of young people like me who always rent and never own a home because a student loan something that brings me to tears thinking about when I walk through my neighborhood in Park Hill. People of all ages benefit from a house sharing like I do in this insane capitalist economy we live in. Capitalism is a system in a state of constant displacement from the refugees of imperialism to the housing crisis at home. As an educator who works with families. I also support changes in zoning to increase access to healing, rehabilitative services and accessible housing. As people are recovering from the trauma of being tortured in a Denver County stage or living without shelter, our city can do better than 60 fucking tents in a church parking lot. Save our communities, have more resources and people should have access to healing services in every single neighborhood. Transit dependent users also benefit from resources available in every zip code. Additionally, my work in public schools and with families has shown me that people of all backgrounds struggle with housing addiction and any permaculture coming to it. Commenting today who opposes the zoning change, doesn't understand addiction, poverty, or how the austerity of capitalism keeps on working class people's necks. That's not in my backyard attitude. It's classist, eugenic and displaces people. Period. Anyone who does not want services for the sick or poor in their community just doesn't want sick or poor people in their community. The Denver police are a greater threat to our communities and school children than a homeless shelter nearby. Please support this zoning change from growing rural, working class people like myself and to commit to a free culture of people over property. A city where people are safe and able to access basic human services. A city where residents are not being pushed to the edges of town, warehoused in jails and shelters, or being completely forced out of the city. Denver can start having people and doing better if a city does not have what activists like myself will have to start having to reclaim empty houses and buildings and forcing the city to house people. As seen by housing activists in California and all across the country this past summer. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Taryn. Up next, we have Loretta Koehler. Go ahead, Loretta.
Speaker 1: There we go. Sorry about that. I was trying to get my video going and it's not seeming to let me let me let it go. So. Okay, you won't have me on video. Maybe I will be all right. I'm going to talk as best as I can, because that's what I have to do with only 3 minutes. So I want to talk about some of the things that have have have been spoken of today. But I also I want to speak as a member of the group Living Advisory Committee. I became a member of the committee because of EMC. And so I and she's been working on this issue for three years. I'm not here, as you know, speaking for ANC, because ANC as a whole did not take a position for or against. We asked for some suggestions and that's a miss representation from safe and sound. Denver So I want to just acknowledge that again. So but I am here as an individual who participated for three years and gave a lot of information back to my neighborhood and my neighborhood came out in favor. Baker Historic Neighborhood Association came out in favor of the group living. I'm in favor of Group Living. And again, as some of those other people have said, I'm for more than five members to a household. If you have 4 to 5000 square feet, why should we not be environmentally, you know, appropriate and use that space appropriately? Over 49% of the people, the residents of the city of Denver are homeowners. That means 51% of the people of Denver and growing numbers, because the increase in in apartment living and in our neighborhoods is increasing dramatically in the major and the major central core of the city. And with that comes, you know, more insecurity that people are unable to afford housing. And we're one of the top five cities in the country in proportion to income being unable to afford to live in this city. We've heard from so many people. I've lived with 50 roommates as an adult. Yes. It's certainly illegal in in many cities that I've lived in. And just like everyone else, we were professionals. We weren't, you know, people half the time I didn't own a car. That's very typical. I've lived I've had insecurity in house for so many times in my life. And it when people come back and say we had selfish interest and being on the group living well, if my selfish interest is that I'm promoting housing for other people, so be it. If I'm promoting housing for people who are coming back from criminal, from criminal, you know, it's they're not criminal. They're just back. They're trying to come back into housing and they coming back into the same community they came from. I agree. We should you should all support this. And I and those people who've spoken against it have been the people who are homeowners and older. Look at all the young people. It's not 1950s and 1960s. It's not 1970. It's not 1990. Those of us who still have student loans, it's hard to buy a home in Denver, help people get to that place when they can live together. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Loretta. Our next speaker is Joe. I'm going to let you pronounce your last name, Joe. It's way too late for me to even go for it, so go ahead.
Speaker 2: No worries. Good evening, counsel. Thanks for your time. My name is Justice Like. I'm a resident of Denver living in five points. And I'm here tonight to strongly urge you to pass the group Living Amendment. I also want to thank city planning staff for their work on this important issue. This is not a radical proposal. There are no other major cities in the country that have an unrelated, unrelated adult living limit as low as Denver's currently is. Research also suggests that household sizes remain the same regardless of government imposed limit. And with low limits, enforcement is often predicated on the whims of your neighbors. Additionally, it will serve to add legitimacy to the likely thousands of Denver kids who are already living with two or more unrelated people. Today's proposed amendments will serve to make Denver a better, more inclusive city. And if anything, they don't go far enough. On a personal note, when I was younger, I lived for many years with four unrelated people with no issues. It allowed us to be a supportive unit for each other at a time in our lives that many of us needed, especially as a member of the LGBTQ community, where traditional biological family is often a significant challenge. Why does the government get to define and limit what a family is? The current group Living Limits are systemically racist, classist relics of another era. I strongly urge you to lead and vote yes to pass this proposed amendment. This is just one of the many tools we need to move Denver forward to join the 21st century. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Joe. Joe. Up next, we have Tiffany choice. Tiffany, you'll have to go ahead and unmute yourself. All right. We're going to try to get Tiffany. Up. Okay. It looks like we're not able to get Tiffany, so we'll go ahead and move on to Travis. Go ahead, Travis.
Speaker 2: Hi. Travis Leiker, president of Capitol Hill, United Neighborhoods. I just want to say thank you to everybody who spoke tonight and to thank the city council for sticking with us at this late hour. Capitol Hill United Neighborhoods is committed to keeping our neighborhoods bright, vibrant, accessible places to live. And we're proud of Capitol Hill, a rich history of being a welcoming, inclusive and diverse community. And as Denver's largest and oldest registered neighborhood organization, we feel it's time to address policies and correct the decades long discrimination that still exists in our zoning and housing policies. As such, we believe that the current restrictions limiting people who are not related by blood or marriage is outdated, unnecessarily restrictive and discriminatory. And so to keep it short and simple and sweet. We support the recommendations as outlined by land use, transportation and infrastructure. The Group Living Group Living Advisory Committee, as well as the other many thought partners that have been a part of this process. It's a good process. It was thoughtful, thorough and certainly a lot of years time and energy and dedication has been put into this process. And so with that, both Capitol Hill United Neighborhoods has endorsed this policy recommendation and encourages council to vote in the affirmative. Thank you so much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Travis. We're going to go back to Tiffany and see if we can get Tiffany into the hearing here. So we'll do one more call for you. Tiffany. All right, I oh, there we go. We got you. Go ahead.
Speaker 1: Hi. My name's Tiffany Choi. I'm the president of the Denver Classroom Teachers Association. I'm a high school French teacher. I represent almost the 4000. 4000 members of educators across Denver also represent social service providers. And we earlier this year brought the amendment, the group living to our rep council, which is our biggest representing representative body, had about 100 people in attendance representing all of our schools across the district, and we voted to support the group Living Amendment because of all the reasons that were shared tonight. I'm not going to get into them, but essentially we believe this is helpful for our educators, but also for our community and for our students. And so we we as the CTA are supporting the group amend the group Living Amendment. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Tiffany. Next up, we have Ion in fresh. Go ahead, Ian.
Speaker 2: Hello.
Speaker 0: Hi. Go ahead.
Speaker 2: My name is Ian Fresh. I'm at 201 East Mississippi Avenue in Park Wash Park, West Area. I want to strongly urge the City Council to vote yes on the Group Living Amendment. Removing the current group living restrictions is a huge positive step forward towards fighting high housing costs. Homelessness, poverty, crime and discrimination citywide. It's been watered down twice already, which I was very disappointed to see. So what we currently have is like a huge compromise. But if it's a step forward, then it's a step forward. I see the discrimination in the zoning code that we have now is very anti-American because it's regulating the type of people that can live somewhere and just listen to yourself. Say that it doesn't sound right. It doesn't sound fair. A new proposal won't completely remove it, but it is a huge step forward for a more progressive city. And some people are complaining about parking spots. And I see that as a totally separate issue. I mean, it is storing your private vehicle on the public right of way, first of all. But it can easily be solved with permit programs paid if they have to be. And if the city continues to prioritize free parking for cars over housing for people, we won't be able to make any progress. Legalizing basically legalizing cheaper housing through sharing costs and allowing more residential care facilities, including community corrections, keeps people off the streets in stable housing. Preventing.
Speaker 0: Oh, I think we lost you somehow. In. You might have to unmute yourself again. Oh, go ahead. I'm not sure what happened there. Go ahead.
Speaker 2: Sorry. I was saying legalizing cheaper housing through sharing costs and allowing community corrections and other residential care facilities keeps people off the streets in stable housing, preventing them from falling into poverty, crime habits of desperation and homelessness. We do have a huge homelessness problem here, and there's some people saying this change is going to increase crime. And I see it as the opposite. We're keeping people off the streets. It seems that some neighbors against the proposal would rather have people thrown out onto the streets or in the neighborhoods other than theirs because they got theirs and nothing around them can ever change. And that's not best for our city. I would like to stay and get people house and not flee the city and make progress towards an equitable dinner. Denver Please vote yes.
Speaker 0: Thank you in. Next up, we have Tess Dougherty. Okay. Go ahead, Tess.
Speaker 1: There. Thank you. My name is Tess Doherty. I am in District nine and I am here tonight to support the amendments in the group Living Law. When I had a meeting with the City Planner, which I really appreciated that being offered, I'd love to see more of those offerings for public engagement for different, different bills that are coming before a vote. It has been very difficult to engage with committee. I know it's been suggested that rather than us coming to speak here that we speak at committee. But I actually have not found another opportunity except for this one tonight to just be and maybe I'm just not finding them. But this month of February, it doesn't seem like there's very many other opportunities to speak at committee. So while that suggestion sounds great, it just doesn't seem like it's an actual way to engage. So if if somebody could help me with that might be great. And so anyway, but when I spoke with the city planner, he said that this law was actually from the 1940s and and that it really hasn't been revised since then and that that it was revised in 2010, I think. But it was literally just copy and paste it and it was expressed that the reason that the cap was moved from eight. I'm sorry, what is that. The reason that the cap was moved from 8 to 2 five was that a lot of people on city council felt like we were moving to, you know, we're like moving too fast, too soon. And so I guess I would just like to question how quickly do we need to move away from the nuclear family ideals of the 1940s when our society and our housing practices were were racially segregated and when when mixed type of households didn't exist and they were actually illegal. So I think I would argue that we're really. Far behind where we should be. And given that at the Denver County jail downtown, we put people in cell blocks of eight. I'm not sure why we can't do that in our community. But aside from that, I just wanted to read a poem. This year, we, my husband and I have lived in 15 different places due to an asbestos and fiberglass spill, and we've relied on friends to two houses at times. And so under the group living as it currently stands, we would have been I mean, it would have forced us to become homeless if we couldn't have, you know, if we had gotten in trouble. So just want you to consider that.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Tess. That's the time we have allotted. Next up, we have owned our.
Speaker 6: Okay.
Speaker 1: Well, I didn't have time.
Speaker 7: So anyway.
Speaker 0: Uh huh, go ahead.
Speaker 7: So, yeah. Thank you. So I'm a resident of District nine, and I want to speak to the issue of unrelated adults. Unfortunately, that I have some direct insight into this, as I have in the past, was in a household of unrelated adults in central community or co-op, which was illegal under the current zoning code. I know that really a lot of ways I probably would have become homeless at various points if I hadn't had that form of housing. But then I also the back end studying, planning and urban geography firsthand from that perspective as well. And so I've been trying to say with the opposition, if anything, for a while, as I'm sure you're aware. Most of this is really fearmongering is based on possibly a few red herrings, but mostly just ugly stereotypes, pretty flimsy thought experiment. From my perspective, having actually lived this way. It's hard to get my head around how exactly they these horrible, imagined kind of dystopian outcomes would actually plausibly come about if this were passed. None of the people I know who live or who have lived like this are noisy, unsafe, unclean or out to destroy your property values. I think they actually take better care of their yards and their houses and a lot of folks who have fewer hands and skill sets to do so. We already have noise ordinances and things like that in place other than people who seem to be using what houses are boarding houses or this is of course completely different things . The only even sort of concrete thing I've heard cited is the parking issue. So I don't think that you have some insight on it. To be clear, I still think that there's poorly, insufficient substantiation for this kind of imagined uncontrolled slide into a ruined city. But you should know that most people who live in collective houses, in cars actually don't own cars. When I was there were only about a quarter and a half of us at any given time we did. A lot of folks drawn to that lifestyle tend to be environmentalist, ride bikes, etc. And when you have a lot of people living together, enables them to not have to own cars if they're someone who would need a car for errands and things. On top of that, those of us who did have cars all pretty consistently went out of our way to park around the corner on the side of the block that didn't have property fronting it. So we weren't stretching and just making fun of our neighbor's houses. No one asked distributors and people were complaining or anything he just told us to do. This doesn't make sense. We wanted to be good neighbors. Also, there are plenty of household oriented systems, places, zoning with wood, not all the sudden flocking to the form of housing , stressing the existing infrastructure and so forth is great in many ways. I personally got a lot out of it, but it's also hard in many ways and it's not for everyone. And I think the majority of people who want to play are already doing so. They're just living in fear and with greater precarity as others like, looking to see if it were to afford to somehow drive down other people's housing values we would already be seeing. That would. Of course it's not. So when I was living in at the time, as well as the other properties on the block, increased steadily. The whole time I was living there, I was there almost seven years and I know this is similar for other such houses have gone up all over the city and of course people continue to want to move to Denver like many others. So I encourage the council to remove cap limiting household size to five unrelated adults before passing on it. It is not too late for all the reasons that people still can say it was. It was a huge compromise to put that in that neighborhood to the balance.
Speaker 0: That's the time we have a lot of this evening. Next up, we've got Delaney Co.
Speaker 1: I thank you, counsel, for hearing our comments today. My name is Delaney and I'm a resident of Cheesman Park and District ten and here to ask the council to vote yes on the group Living Amendment because, one, it will make housing more accessible to people across the socio economic socioeconomic spectrum in Denver. Two, it will reduce bias and threat to marginalized people and housing. And three, it will simply provide much more needed housing solutions. My story shows what this amendment will actually look like rather than what the fear mongering will have many people believe. So I'm going to tell that as a survivor and later, a social worker in Denver, I was only able to afford living here by making a home and sharing costs of my friends. Three of my friends, two are who are siblings and I think that shows just how irrelevant relation as we have all been siblings and that would have been a totally different situation. But two who are siblings and two who are unrelated or should a three bedroom home in the Sphere neighborhood making it possible for me to stay here in Denver, to invest in Denver, as I have in the many years that I've lived here as a volunteer and an enthusiast of local businesses. So a lot of investments and every person has much to give and every person deserves the same opportunity to make a home here. I'm ending these discriminatory housing restrictions, make housing more affordable and accessible, which positively impacts the economy and strengthens our community. Throughout my time living in that home. We've housed over.
Speaker 6: Ten people, one.
Speaker 1: At a time for short periods of time, giving people a caring home during transitional periods of their life. One was a friend who could not leave her abusive relationship without losing her housing. Another's housing was tied to an explicit Adobe. Friends and family stayed in our basement rather than staying in abusive homes, jobs or in shelters or on the streets. Yet doing this, allowing a fifth person to live in the basement of our two story home. Further put us in opposition to Denver law. But this amendment does is allow communities to support each other and form our own housing solutions when the city just can't seem to offer them. Not to mention the expansion of options as part of picture described at the very beginning of this so nicely to offer other housing solutions and residential care. This amendment is an important step to improving the housing landscape in Denver, though we of course, have a very long way to go. Lastly, when we sign the lease, of course our landlord told us we would be out of compliance with the city statute but told us it wasn't likely to be a problem. After all, someone would have to report us and we were for young white women. Which brings me to my last point. This current statute has roots in racism and classism, and you need to easily be applied in a prejudiced way. It is more likely to be used against already marginalized people, as has been eliminated by so many other speakers. Many people are already group living in Denver, but not everyone is equally affected by the current two person restriction. I urge you to vote yes so we can bring about more equitable housing options for everyone here in Denver. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Kirsten Mitchell. And it's a phone number, I believe. All right. Looks like we've got you in. Kirsten, go ahead.
Speaker 1: Hi. My name is Kirsten Mitchell and I live in the spear neighborhood in District seven. I want to thank and commend city staff, particularly Andrew Webb. I supported the original version of the changes to our zoning code and it is my preference that City Council passed that version. First, I want to correct an error in the staff report. However.
Speaker 4: The West Marsh Park.
Speaker 1: R.A. was listed as being in opposition to this amendment. However, the board voted on February 2nd, 2021, against taking any position. It's very important that this be corrected. Now I'd like to make three points. First, I'd like to address a continued distinction between unrelated and related household members. To retain this structure strikes me as to condone this underlying discriminatory structure. I don't think we as a community should get kudos for this. It's baffling that we do this in the face of unprecedented costs, homelessness, and overwhelming need. Our neighbors deserve better. Please pass the original version which proposed to increase the legal limit to eight adults and up regardless of blood connection. Second, I support the inclusion of all types of residential facilities and congregate living across all residential areas. It's important that neighborhoods do not exclude who can and can't live with them based on the facility in which they live. Separating our neighborhoods based on commercial residential needs and further by living type such as single family homes and congregate living results in car centered, disconnected and segregated neighborhoods. In addition, there's no factual basis for the fear based comments I've heard tonight. To the contrary, our community would be more resilient, sustainable, and an overall better place to live if our neighborhoods were not so segregated. Please don't vote against these changes on the basis of these unfounded fears. If parking is a problem, the city can regulate parking. If trash is a problem, the city can modify trash policy. If traffic and pollution is a problem, then fix mass transit and increase mobility options. Finally, I would want to say that it is City Council's job to Mira to help us meet the city's current challenges, but also to plan for the future of its residents. Our city government does this in other areas, like planning for infrastructure needs. But why do we prevent this approach in the context of housing? Instead of giving into pandering to the fears of unfounded consequences. We know. Of another nonsense rooted in racism, classism and homophobia. It is not city's city council's job to condone discriminatory policy under the guise of protecting extraordinarily overvalued property values. Doing so would continue to come at the direct expense of the majority of Denver's residents who are, in fact, renters. I ask that the original version of these changes be passed tonight if there is not sufficient moral courage to meet.
Speaker 6: The.
Speaker 1: Courage to meet the moral obligation of the moment. I ask the current version be to.
Speaker 0: Up next, we have Suzanne Collier. And Suzanne, we're going to need you to raise your hand so we can get you promoted into the panelists. Hmm. Let's see. We've got your. We're going to get you moved over. All right. And you just need to unmute yourself. There you go.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. And I first want to say that it's great to see so many people participating in democracy tonight.
Speaker 4: I think it's fantastic considering that we almost lost it. I'm a lifelong Denver resident. I grew up here and without telling you how old I am, I can say that I've.
Speaker 1: Seen about four or five boom or bust cycles.
Speaker 4: Boom and bust.
Speaker 1: Cycles, the most recent one being probably the most.
Speaker 6: Transformative. All of this has brought a lot of change.
Speaker 1: And I don't hate all of it.
Speaker 4: It's brought great cultural change to our city.
Speaker 1: But as Meredith Turk pointed out.
Speaker 4: The future is definitely.
Speaker 1: Not in single family homes.
Speaker 4: I'm speaking in support of the amendment, by the way. As an anthropologist, I can tell you that living in these nuclear families is very unnatural. And we've only been doing it for about 80 years, tops. Before that, we lived in extended families or in villages and tribes. So.
Speaker 1: And I also want to remember, remind everybody who's in opposition to this that private property rights are supreme in this.
Speaker 4: Country and the rest is pretty much window dressing.
Speaker 1: So no property owner will be forced to do anything that they don't want to do. Landlords and property management companies will still have the right to enforce or mandate resident numbers at their properties. And even though I did grow up here, I had no idea that this archaic law was still on the books. Until a few months ago when I was alerted to it and.
Speaker 4: I just want to say it's so it's high time we got rid of it.
Speaker 1: And for all the people who are wondering what to do about the huge.
Speaker 6: Vast problem.
Speaker 1: Of systemic racism, this is something you can do.
Speaker 4: This is something tangible that you can grab on to.
Speaker 1: Have a little courage and have a little faith in your fellow human being.
Speaker 7: And do and.
Speaker 4: I don't know if it's going to have unintended consequences.
Speaker 1: It might. But when you're dismantling such an evil system, it takes everyone to make small sacrifices and. Small to medium sized.
Speaker 4: Leaps of faith and courage.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Eliza Cunningham.
Speaker 1: Hello. Hello. My name's Eliza. I've been a Denver resident. My. I grew up in Denver. I have three generations in Denver. My father.
Speaker 6: Was a state representative.
Speaker 1: For decades in Colorado. I want to speak on behalf of asking city council members to vote yes for the changes. And I would like to give an example of how it is very these present zoning laws are very racist in classes. For example, my mother, who died recently at age 92 when I was growing up, we had housemates, we had more than one housemate and my mother was a white, middle class woman. I don't even think she knew about this zoning laws, but I grew up with a lot of people. We didn't have parking problems. Most people didn't have a car, we didn't have trash problems, we didn't have squat. We didn't have those types of problems that people are worried about and. My daughter, who's 20, grew up with housemates. And she's a loving, kind, wonderful, empathetic person because I believe she had so many different wonderful experiences. Again, we had none of the problems that were mentioned. And I want to speak. What's really important to me to speak to is the young man who talked about the Latino man who talked about his parents, who were afraid of being called by the city because they were poor and Latin. My mother, who later in life in her nineties still had housemates and that enabled her and her husband to be able to stay home. Her entire life she had housemates. She never once worried about the city being called on her because she was white and wealthy and at the end of her life lived in the Cherry Creek area. And they never once did she worry about that. And that just shows the racism and the classism inherent in the zoning laws with this other gentleman who spoke about how his parents were so worried.
Speaker 6: And they were poor.
Speaker 1: In Latin family. And that that really breaks. Breaks my heart. And I. I want to ask. The City Council. To please vote yes to change all of these amendments and for bigger houses to allow more people. And I think that's it. I'll give up my last 20 seconds, but thank you, said city council people and please vote yes on all of these proposed changes and amendments.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank your next speaker is Joel Noble.
Speaker 2: Good evening, City Council. My name is Joel Noble and I live in the Curtis Park neighborhood in five points. I'm speaking to you on my own behalf tonight. Although I do serve on the Denver Planning Board, I'm testifying only as myself. And that's because this topic is so important. Tonight, I'm asking for every council member to vote in support of this package because it implements the philosophy, goals and specific strategies and comprehensive plan. And in Blueprint Denver in the Comprehensive Plan. Equity is woven throughout. And I'll quote to you one portion. It says, Equitable, inclusive communities are places of value that provide provide access to resources and opportunities for all people to improve the quality of their life. And that flows down into Blueprint Denver, which has three equity concepts improving access to opportunity, reducing vulnerability to displacement, and expanding housing and jobs. Diversity. All three of those and the entire concept are integral to the proposal in front of you tonight. Blueprint Denver also has a theme throughout of complete neighborhoods. I think that's very well supported here, and it speaks specifically to an evolving city, not a static city, a city with and this is a quote from Blueprint Denver A measured common sense approaches to growth should be taken. And this is one essentially we are making legal what people already do in every city and every time. Now, I want to go specifically into some of the specific regulations in the household definition. I'll just draw your attention to page 82 of Blueprint Denver. This proposal was not made in a vacuum. Blueprint Denver called specifically to update the definition of households, and I wanted to go after the previous speaker who talked about how her parents used this to age in place by being able to share expensive expenses. That's one of the examples specifically referenced in Blueprint Denver. Now for the household definition, the original proposal forwarded to you treated families that are related in families of choice the same. And that was better. And I'm disappointed that you've had to step back on that in order to find consensus, because, frankly, there is no rational basis for the government to continue different treatment of families, families of by blood or families by choice. But this compromise is still a huge step forward and will legalize what people do today for congregate in residential care. I'll just say that five points as has more small rez care uses than anywhere. It's not a problem and this improves the situation by having spacing and density requirements and for community corrections. I understand the compromises you've made. I'm asking that every council member vote vote in favor of this. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Jack. Peter.
Speaker 7: I'm out of council president members. Good evening. My name is Jack Taylor. I live in a six person cooperative house and in 1902, Denver Square in the Spirit neighborhood. We bought our house from our landlords in 2018 and we have had as many as nine housemates. Two of my housemates are expecting their first baby this summer, so more neighbors coming soon, acknowledging that the history of the zoning code is impacted by the systemic racism and homophobia that have impacted housing policy for generations. I do want to mention that we're a multiracial, mostly LGBT house and a mix of service workers, small business owners , librarians, political operatives.
Speaker 2: And white collar professionals.
Speaker 7: We have found our friends and family here. Our annual incomes ranged from 19000 to $120000 a year. We love our house.
Speaker 2: Some of us own.
Speaker 7: Some of us rent, and the care we have for each other enriches our lives immensely. We pay the mortgage each month based on income, using a calculator that I developed myself to cap payment at no more than the 30% of full time minimum wage of people who $500 a month to live, here are some over 1000. It's a great system. It's particularly beneficial this year. One of our husbands was laid off. One was furloughed. One had to close their small business for a few months, and we were able to slide their rents to zero and collectively cover the rest. I hear the outrage you're getting from some of our neighbors. People are worried that the house next door will become something like something about white flight. Apparently a house with too many neighbors out with the wrong kinds of neighbors houses. More than 3 million adults exist across the city. Our house has eight bedrooms and a downstairs apartment. It was literally built for families like ours. The question is whether the city should be able to determine what counts as a family. For the record, our property value was over $999,000 at our most recent appraisal in April. Based on how property values have continued to climb, I am sure that wholesome house is now worth over $1,000,000, which is absurd. And I want to be clear that the value of our house does not make us better than our own house , neighbors or incarcerated neighbors or community corrections. Our neighbors in Cherry Creek hate those measures so much they should take heart that zoning measures will make it permissible to have a live in au pair or live in home health, or even live in security to protect your neighborhood from the scary families trying to live with their grandparents. In a year when renters across the city are facing eviction at a scale that none of us have seen in our lifetimes, and the worst economic contraction in history group Living provides an incredible opportunity for not only affordable housing, but for stable housing. That's how you get to know your neighbors. They get to stay in your neighborhood. If any of you ever have to live in supportive transitional housing or an assisted living living. I hope that you will be able to do so in the neighborhood we already live and that you already love. I bet my spouse at a dinner at our house, we got married this summer, which hilariously does not make us related for the purpose of zoning. I live in a house. My family cooperative housing has had a profoundly positive impact on all of our lives. Belongingness and security we gain from our home is worth legitimizing in the eyes of the city. We are good neighbors. It's a shame that our House of six will remain illegal under these most recent amendments. But we will take this as a start. Vote yes. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. Teeter. We'll go next to.
Speaker 1: Austin Luce. Hello, everyone. Good evening. Thank you for listening to us in this long and lengthy process. And I just want to start out by saying how much I appreciate the opportunity to speak and have this conversation and hope that on the many issues that we see coming across through city council, that we can do more of this maybe not so late next time, but if we need to go late. Was sure as nice to hear all of the voices from all of my colleagues coming out. And I am here to support and tell you to vote yes.
Speaker 5: On this on this this piece of policy.
Speaker 1: That would help to create something where more people would have access to housing, something that we really need in Denver. There are so many people on our streets, we have thousands where we need to find solutions. And this is just one little step where.
Speaker 5: There are more, that.
Speaker 1: There's so much more that we need to do. This is such a small piece. I think that even though it's taken years, this is this is not going to alleviate the massive amounts of work that we need to do. And but it's just a piece of it. I think that we need to have more people that are allowed to live in a single home.
Speaker 6: Maybe we remove the cap.
Speaker 1: I agree with my colleagues. I, I feel like as a mother, I live in District one and as a single mother, I went through a divorce myself. And I've heard that a couple of different stories in the same situation.
Speaker 0: That I wouldn't have kept my house had I not.
Speaker 1: Been able to rent and provide an income to be able to sustain myself and my children. I actually until looking at this issue that we're talking about tonight, I never knew that what I was doing was even illegal. So I think there's this has been something that is already happening. Like so many people have said. This is just making sure that this isn't a situation where people are allowed to call the police in the city to come and give a hard time to people who are just trying to make ends meet, especially in this day and age. And the issues with parking was never a problem. The issues were trashed, nothing changed. The noise level in our and our neighborhood did not change. If anything, what having more people in the in the house with me allowed myself as well to be able to raise my children in a different and more collective way. And also one other piece is that we had a recently had a shelter open in our neighborhood and I wasn't even aware that it was open. I think these are all ideas that we're putting out there that are most definitely fear of the unknown. And sometimes we got to venture into that to really blow the roof on the innovation that we're able to achieve if we let ourselves vote yes. And have a wonderful night. Thank you, Dr. Lewis, Katy Blakey, you're up next. I thought I saw her in there.
Speaker 6: There we go.
Speaker 1: Hey, sorry. Go ahead. I'm asking you to please vote yes on this amendment. My mom grew up in a relatively large house in District five with her parents and six siblings. Under our current zoning, only two people, two unrelated people, could live in that house today. People have a right to live with whoever they want, and their options shouldn't be limited by who they're related to, whether they want to relieve their financial burdens, prevent social isolation, or live with their chosen family. They should have that opportunity. Most excited for the possibility of residential care facilities and community corrections in more areas of the city. Residents of these facilities are members of our community and they deserve to live in a way that gives them the greatest chance of living happy, fulfilling lives. This amendment will have immediate, positive impact on their housing crisis. Well, it isn't perfect and doesn't go far enough. It's a step in the right direction to undo some of the harm of our existing zoning and ensure a more equitable future for all Denver residents.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Thank you so much, Katie. Our next speaker is Blair Sagan.
Speaker 1: Hello, everybody. Thank you for staying up late and taking the time to hear us out. I'm Blair Sagan as they them pronouns. My address is currently approx because I'm currently living in my jeep. Due to the rapid increase in housing prices in Denver and I also am preferring and wanting to live in more alternative, smaller scale housing styles. Also predatory landlord vampires suck all they can out of their tenants. And I have been the target of that in the past, and I'm privileged in that I have a car as a shelter. I'm not at risk of hypothermia. And yet I would never dare park in the residential areas of Denver because all of that, some of the homeowners that care about their property value above all else, not their fellow neighbors, would undoubtedly call the police on me for having a home that is on wheels. Young people, people of color, lower income folks, immigrants and community servants such as firefighters cannot afford to legally live in the city with the zoning as it currently is. As Pete brought up earlier and several others, it's really shocking to me how many homeowners commenting here tonight value the storage of their car over housing their fellow humans . So I urge you all to vote yes tonight on this group living measure and make us proud to be Denver. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thanks, Blair. Next up, we've got Jaz Lee Kane.
Speaker 1: Hi. My name is Jocelyn. It's a lot that I wanted to say has already been said, so I'll be brief. But I am 20 years old. I have lived with House. My mom and I have lived with housemates my entire childhood. Growing up, I believe it has improved my life for the better. We had many different housemates who I learned a lot from and were close to numbers of people in a household should be dictated by health and safety standards, not blood relations. This will not fix everything, but it is a step forward. I ask for your compassion for your fellow humans, and I respectfully ask the City Council members to do the right thing and step outside the box and vote yes on the zoning propositions. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, we have Frank her.
Speaker 2: All right. I think I'm unmuted. Good evening. Thank you, counsel. President Gilmore. And thank you for running the council meetings with thoughtfulness, focus and smiles. Long night. My name's Frank Logan. Tory, and I'm a resident of City Park West in Council District nine. And I speak to you as a resident in support of the group Living Amendment and my points that basically all have been made. So I'll just leave you with a paraphrase of Einstein's quote about war that just keeps rattling in my head. And the paraphrase goes something like You cannot simultaneously support affordable living and limit the housing options for people. And some people fear what is unknown to them because others have spread fear through misinformation on social media and supporting the group. Living Amendment requires courage and resolve. And that's exactly what my ask is of you this evening is the courage to look beyond the fear and the misinformation and to have the courage to lead with your heart full of compassion and to lead with your head full of the knowledge and the facts about what the group Living Amendment actually means, and to know what it doesn't mean. And that's what the opponents have been claiming and much of their misleading information. So anyone who has some type of sentence that starts off with I support affordable living but dot, dot, dot. Well what comes after the but indicates that in fact they don't support affordable living. So today is historic. It's not because of the group living amendment, but it's because every day is a piece of history. History. It's not an event. It's not a date. It's not a speech, a tweet, a YouTube video. It's the accumulation of the the daily decisions that we all make that contribute to our community. And your decision tonight will be part of that history. And so what will that be? I urge you to vote for the group Living Amendment, please. And thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Paul Bindal.
Speaker 2: Thank you for having me. Can you hear me?
Speaker 0: Mm hmm.
Speaker 2: Go ahead. A city council considers a group Living Amendment. I'd like to look back to 1989, when Denver City Council voted 7 to 6 to allow two unrelated adults to live together. According to three male city council people, it was a step towards destroying our city. It was a sad day in the city of Denver. It was an ordinance that kicked the family in the behind. Then, as now, the reports of the unraveling of Denver's social fabric and its property values were highly exaggerated. My name is Paul Bendell, and I'm a District ten Denver property owner or co-owner of a housing cooperative with more than two unrelated adults. I asked Denver City Council to support the adoption of the Group Lending Amendment to expand the places where people exiting prison substance use and homelessness can access supportive housing and to make Denver zoning code align with Colorado's zoning rules by allowing eight unrelated adults to live together, as recommended by the clerk and the Denver Planning Board. Across the street, my single unit, Denver Square, is a multi-unit Denver square with six units. It's 1000 square feet smaller than our house, but instead is zoned for multi-unit. Each of its units can have four adults for a total of 24 people. Do 24 people live in this building? Probably not. But I can testify that the average household in Denver is less than three. All the evidence from poor cities, including Seattle, which allows eight adults, suggests it will not considerably increase if this change passes. At the same time, the smaller house across the street does have more people than our house. So why should a single family going to be prescribed a two people or even five people simply because they choose to share a kitchen? For better or worse, most land rights are chosen to live in a smaller household. But as you can see this proposal, I hope you will support a zoning code that meets the needs of all people in Denver, not just the majority, the housing needs of the elderly, people with disabilities, people exiting prison, people exiting homelessness, people needing support for substance use, and people seeking to simply reduce costs should not be minimized, dismissed or gaslit due to the fears of people who already have permanent housing. We didn't see Denver unravel due to allowing two unmarried adults living together 32 years ago, and we won't see it unravel if we allow eight unrelated adults to live together today. Please cast your vote in support of a more inclusive zoning.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, we have Jesse Perez.
Speaker 2: Oh did evening members of council those watching at home. My name is Jesse. Mission Personal Representative for Denver Homicide. Loud Black Star Tribune for Self Defense, Positive Action. Social Change as well as the Unity Party of Colorado mile high levels and from allies to abolitionist. And I will be the next mayor of Denver in 2023. I am fully in favor of the don't group living, uh, change proposal tonight. This has been a long time coming. I support up to eight plus people living in the same dwelling. So I don't think it goes far enough, but it's a start. I myself was on house for almost a decade. I lived in a house in co-op for about five years. So I know exactly what this is like. Experience to live in living. This experience has taught me a lot about. How archaic and old and racist and prejudice the city's zoning code. Policy has been over the past 100 years or so, 100 plus years, not to mention this country's long, historic history of marginalizing and disenfranchizing black foundational black America as American defenders of slavery. The people that built this country. So I am full favor of this reasoning tonight. The people that were in opposition are clearly white supremacists. The Klan wears hoods, hit dogs, hit holler when they get hit. And white supremacists will do everything in their power to deny the fact that white supremacy is in full effect and has been on full display tonight. This is bigger theater and I've been getting my kids from it. When I'm in favor of this reasoning tonight, please vote yes on the zoning proposal. We need solutions, especially since we said that we can do better. And we spent $2.5 million in 2019 lying to Denver voters saying that Initiative 300 wasn't the answer and that we can do better and we see the same opposition with this. Not in my backyard, nimbyism, that a lot of the people that have been an opposition, outspoken tonight have been displaying and putting in a rare form. So racism, white supremacists, their full effect. We have witnessed that tonight. And. What sort of history are you going to be on? Are you going to be on the right side or the left side? It's 2021. We can no longer continue to have policies from the 1940s and thirties or whatever. At the time you thought America was great and if America was great, it was because of foundational black Americans, American descendants of slavery who built this country. So vote yes in favor of this tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is John. Good, Vanja.
Speaker 6: Not bad.
Speaker 2: I love you for hanging in there. My name is John Goodwin. I'm a resident of Denver and a homeowner. I've had many other family members who live in Denver. I live near Speer and Pearl, and that's District seven. And I do want to say I have 12 years of elected service in Colorado Springs on two different school boards, two different urban school boards. So I know something about governing and boards making difficult decisions, and you have a difficult decision to make. It was several years ago when I did that as a youngster, placed yourself in the position of five years out. Which side of history do you want to be on? So I'm here to to ask you to vote to accept these changes to the group, leaving coats their on on your agenda that are before you. This is vital to equity and fairness. It's vital to the historical writing are wrongs. The current proposal is already heavily compromised. I mean, you know, that's been clear. It still retains too many remnants of segregation and discrimination. But I hate to say it, but it represents necessary progress and some modest steps in the right direction. The advisory committee, the citizens, the city's professional staff, probably many of you have worked for years to get it to this point. So this legislation, 200888 deserves your support. I urge you to support it. Community feedback clearly breaks along lines of wealthy interests not willing quite yet to take their fair share of their civic responsibility to do the best for our fellow community members, even though these changes still segregate residential facilities away from their neighborhoods. So neighborhoods must share, must share and the civic and moral responsibility to create affordable and meaningful living options. It's not just the group, the group and the number of people, but it's a number of unrelated people. It's also the expansion of the traditional transitional and residential facilities in my neighborhood. In our neighborhoods, I welcome that. Please do the right thing here and vote yes to help address the racism and classism that's historic.
Speaker 3: And finally.
Speaker 2: To empower those who have no voice. I urge you to look beyond the scaremongering of the moneyed interests and the NIMBY neighbors. And let's make Denver better. Let's make Denver a better and fairer. We all need to do our part across the entire city. This is a start. Thank you for hanging in there. Thank you for your service.
Speaker 0: Thank you, John. Sorry for mispronouncing your name so horribly this late. Up next, we have Brandy Majors.
Speaker 7: Can you hear me?
Speaker 0: Mm hmm. Go ahead.
Speaker 7: Excellent. Well, good evening, all. I have been amused and well entertained all evening with the nonsense about parking and people and my home value going down. How scared I am. And out of sexist nonsense. Almost castrated. But it's what the reality is. There are a lot of people that are unhoused and can actually utilize this plan. I'm in full support for two reasons. One, because it upsets you. That's off top. I'm glad you're upset. I'm glad that you feel fear like, oh, my God, I don't want this over here. It might upset my balance of, you know, this and then whatever else. Excuse. Yes, again, excuses. This is not just a historical thing because, you know, by all means, we've been here many times before and here we are yet again talking about something that should have been done a long time ago. I fully.
Speaker 1: Support.
Speaker 7: Utilizing, build it businesses, empty churches, whatever, to house or shelter people that need it. Do we need more shelters? Probably not. We actually need affordable, affordable housing and not what is considered mobile height affordable, but what is considered affordable for per person given their income in this world. What we have, whether it be zero or 55,000 a year or $80,000 a year or whatever, hospitality number could come with it. I don't know. I don't care. But it should be affordable for everybody. And as it stands, there's luxury apartments that aren't being used. Can we do better? Should have done better a long time ago. But here we are again. Like I say, can't we do better? At this point, I'm starting to wonder. I would hope so. But I've been disappointed before. You're disappointed when we now do the right thing or get voted out? Simple as that. Because, like, you know, you could shift us and sweep us around. Surely we could sweep you out of your seat and move you around. Because if you can't do the right thing one of these days, you may find yourself on this end of the spectrum and might be unhoused. Or you might have to share your big luxury house with like eight or ten people because you can't afford to pay your bills to say. Anyway, so much. All I have to say. Thank you, Jeremy. Have a great night.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Brandy. Up next, we have Kyle Musselman.
Speaker 2: Hi. My name is Kyle Hillsman. I live in a group home. Spearman and I supported this proposal. First thing I just said, thanks council for staying up late and talking to you. Appreciate your time. And also community planning and development. Y'all have done an incredible job. I've worked in state legislative politics for a decade and this is some truly incredible state called in like you all deserve a medal. Andrew Webb and team all deserve raises. This is incredible work that moved into this house. We call it Wholesome House back in 2015 when we were renting and nine of us moved into this.
Speaker 6: House in the spare.
Speaker 2: Neighborhood. And we have group meetings, we cook dinner together. We care for each other. We support each other. When you come home from work, somebody.
Speaker 6: Asks you how your day.
Speaker 1: Was.
Speaker 2: And really developed a beautiful, amazing space and built great relationships with our neighbors. We built gardens, I mean, really took care of the space. After two and a half years.
Speaker 9: My roommate Jack and I approached our landlords to buy the.
Speaker 2: House and we're able to do it. Frankly, the only way I could possibly had.
Speaker 6: Access to.
Speaker 2: Know to do this, coming from a working class family and at the time making $40,000 a year, was to be able to pull my money with another person and to co buy a house together and really opening up access.
Speaker 6: To the Denver market.
Speaker 2: We did that and have lived together with our partners and a handful of other roommates over the last two years. And it's been a beautiful situation. This is my family. My wife is pregnant. We are having a child in this community. These people really are who I look to for support and for love and for community and the place that I go for support. So I just want to note that passing this group Living Amendment would, one, legalize my family and legalize the way that I'm living. And to really get at this broader point of being able to open up equitable.
Speaker 6: Access.
Speaker 2: For folks to be able to rent affordably and to be able to buy into homeownership. This was noted early in the process, but we're talking a lot about unintended consequences that could potentially happen. But we know for certain right now there are unintended consequences of the current current zoning, and that is my family, my way of living . This home group living is the unintended consequence. Our property values have increased $400,000 in the time that we've lived here, and the threat of property values going over is simply overexaggerated and unfounded.
Speaker 6: In our situation.
Speaker 2: I urge. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Kyle. And our last speaker this evening is Steffan Polk.
Speaker 2: Great. And it's actually Steven Pollock. But thank you, Kyle. It's actually a pleasure to follow right after you. But my name is Steve and from District ten. I've lived in cooperative houses in Denver for the last 17 years, and I'm a better human because of it. The original recommendation by the group Living Advisory Committee of eight unrelated adults is the ideal solution in lieu of this best option. We support the compromise that we, the proponents, have made, which is by people. We've been involved in crafting this proposal with a group of living advisory committee for the last three years. And I can tell you that we are profits seeking developers where cooperatives, where community housing developers, where teachers, where firefighters or writers or active community members who believe that community housing, social housing, cooperative housing, land trusts and so on are actually ideal solutions to our affordable housing crisis. Indeed, many of us couldn't live in the city without these options, but these options currently are more or less illegal because of the zoning code. So as part of a cooperative, we're providing affordable options at rates that the government nor the private sector can match through nonprofit or limited equity models and were democratically controlled. We need to not only legalize these community based solutions, but the city actually needs to actively promote them, which at the very least requires the group living proposal to pass by not passing this law for close on this emergent and incredibly effective solution that creates strong, activated communities who care for each other, who work together to cooperate , to find solutions at very little cost to the public. So it's a vote for community, not just individual homeowners. And it just makes sense. And I'll close with this, but a larger number of people currently in the city are in violation of this outdated and racist, classist, hobo phobic ordinance. By voting no, you're essentially telling your constituents who are in violation, sorry, but you're going to need to remain illegal. You have to make more money to be legal. And that's not the message that we need to be sending to our constituents. So it's immoral, though, to vote no to voter exclusion. It's to work for the residents who are the most financially well-off or at least impacted by exclusionary zoning. To vote yes, however, to vote for inclusion. To vote for racial inclusion, class inclusion, inclusion of the LGBTQ plus community. To vote yes. To vote for a whole toolbox of socially oriented solutions that can provide affordability, democratic ownership and power for communities and is something that starts tonight. So I urge you all to vote yes as a responsibility to our community and a responsibility to us all. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Stephen. That concludes our speakers tonight. Thank you, everybody, for.
Speaker 6: A great.
Speaker 0: Required public hearing. We made it through and got everybody in, so I appreciate that. Questions from members of council. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. I was just trying to get my camera on there, so I just have two questions, and I want to say thank you to all of the people who have written, who have called, who have taken the time to be part of tonight's public hearing. Andrew, if you wouldn't mind, I would like you to clarify a couple of things that would address some comments. Stephen Wilde from Capitol Hill had mentioned concerns about, you know, that we might be seeing business investors acquiring properties and renting out rooms at top dollar. So can you talk about the protections that are in place that would prevent that from happening so that we don't see a proliferation of acquisitions with that kind of thing happening? So can you address that first?
Speaker 2: Sure. So there are a few things if you want to respond to that. The first is that the new definition of nonprofit household that would be added to the code would specify that rent buy the room type operations are do not constitute a household. And a household is a group of people who jointly occupy a property and live as a family or as the functional equivalent of a family. And so we would have that that rule as part of that definition if if there needed to be an enforcement case. We also are clarifying that that rent by the room type uses would be allowed as a as a rooming and boarding type use in places where those types of uses are already allowed and where they're appropriate. And so we're, I think, making the code more clear about where those where those those types of kind of for profit rent buy the room uses would be allowed.
Speaker 5: And that is considered a separate sort of section of the code than the the definition of a household.
Speaker 2: Correct?
Speaker 6: Right. Okay.
Speaker 5: Let me go to my next question. And this one was. Based on the size of a home. So if somebody lives in, you know, a 500 square foot home, for example, and it's only got one bedroom. Talk about how the fire code and the building code would address preventing five unrelated people in such a concentrated, little, tiny structure.
Speaker 2: So to be clear, the the the city's residential regulations that which are enforced by the EPA and the building code, which is enforced by CPD, set forth the basic requirements for houses. You have to have a functioning bathroom, kitchen, you have to have safe, habitable spaces that have safe entry and egress points. But there is not a limit of persons per square feet currently, and nor would there be so. So right now, a family, if they want or to a very large family could live in a studio apartment if they chose to. But, you know, the data on household size suggests that people are not going to make choices to live that way. But the the building and and housing codes do set standards for how big rooms have to be in and what you have to provide in a house. But as is currently, the case with the zoning code would allow an unlimited number of family members to live in any size house. And and this would also allow a group of up to five people who are not necessarily related to live in any size dwelling unit as well.
Speaker 5: And the last thing I would like you to just reiterate that you stated at the very beginning of your presentation is looking at cities across the country that have higher numbers than what Denver has currently had in terms of allowing more people to live within a household and what the actual numbers look like across the city. Can you just sort of, you know, reiterate that point?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I can just quickly recap that. So we did we looked at about 45 cities, primarily west of the Mississippi and many cities in Colorado. Most of which allow many more unrelated people to live together as a as a housekeeping unit, as a household. And. And in most of those in all of those cities, that allowed more. Whether it was, you know, five, which is the most of many of the Colorado cities that we looked at, and then up to eight. The closer you get to the West Coast, the actual average household sizes, according to the Census Bureau, were generally the same, ranging from two and a half to three people, the same amount of people who typically live on average in households in Denver. And we also talked to colleagues in some of those places as well. And what we learned is that people live in those cities the same way they live anywhere else. And certainly there are households of people who are there are very large families to live in, houses in Denver and elsewhere, and and groups of people who are not related. But none of those cities reported a change, either weather, sudden or gradual and average household size.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Andrew. I have no further questions. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Up next, we have Councilwoman Mitch.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Council President Andrew. I wanted to ask about a couple different residential care forms, so I'm going to just start with. Homeless shelters are homeless shelters allowed near where other people live today?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Are they allowed near, for example, apartments in some places. Are they allowed near single family homes or single unit homes in some places?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: And in particular, what about single unit zoning? Are shelters for those experiencing homelessness allowed in areas with single unit zoning?
Speaker 2: Yes, they are.
Speaker 1: And can you just describe what size they can be and the conditions for that last one?
Speaker 2: So a a government agency or a nonprofit or a religious assembly, use of zoning terminology for a church and can provide shelter for up to eight people year round, or in most cases, up to 100 people for no more than 120 days per year. So like a seasonal shelter. And there are actually provisions in the code that would allow more people to be served year round or seasonally, provided those shelters or those those uses can demonstrate that they need the code spacing and density requirements. So there are there are currently provisions in the code that would allow shelters in all zoning districts in the city except open space.
Speaker 1: Okay. And not just being allowed, but are such shelters actually in operation in Denver, whether they may be now in COVID or not. But but prior to COVID, were they in operation?
Speaker 2: And there are shelters that are permitted. Yes. In all in all neighborhoods.
Speaker 1: Okay. Let's talk about are there any examples of large residential care allowed in single unit zoning today?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: So can you give just a couple examples? The very that actually operate.
Speaker 2: That actually operates though. So the zoning code allows a large residential care in in single unit zoning to serve up to 20 people. And there are without looking at the map. There are assisted living facilities and transitional housing and many other types of residential care uses that that that serve a larger number of people that exist in single unit zoned districts.
Speaker 1: And as far as you know, those facilities have both residents and staff that come and go from them.
Speaker 2: That's correct, yes.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. How about community corrections? Are are there community corrections facilities in Denver with people living next door to them or across the street from them today?
Speaker 2: There are, I would say, probably more the more than half of the existing facilities are directly adjacent to residential neighborhoods.
Speaker 1: And can you just speak to what kind of housing might be next to some of those facilities, apartments, duplexes, single family, single unit homes?
Speaker 2: It's all of the above all. All those conditions exist.
Speaker 1: Are you familiar with any residential care type that we are proposing changes to today that does not already exist in Denver in one place or another?
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 1: Are you familiar with any residential care type that we're talking about today that doesn't have people living next door to it and in some type of housing in some neighborhood in Denver today?
Speaker 2: I am not.
Speaker 1: Okay. That's helpful. Thank you. A couple of our speakers raised the question about one of the changes that was made to the residential care in single unit and two unit zoned districts was that it needed to be on a parcel that had had it needed to be originally in a building that was institutional. So either a church, you know, some kind of school or some building that was not a home and into an individual's home. I raised some concerns in committee that some of the the structures might not be sound or transferable, but the idea of that being usually a larger parcel and used to having a different use on it than a single family home, but that we should, in fact, allow the property itself, the structure itself, to be renovated or torn down or rebuilt if needed, if historically, that's what was on the site. Can you just clarify whether or not the final version of the ordinance requires the use of the building or just requires that the parcel have been, you know, this type of building in the past, even if it's going to be rebuilt.
Speaker 2: Sure. It just it would just require that the parcel have been one of those previous uses in the past.
Speaker 1: Okay. So this was something that was changed in response to some feedback.
Speaker 2: So this was. Yes.
Speaker 1: Okay. Got it. I think that's it. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Next, we have Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 2: Excuse me. Thank you, Madam President. Andrew, could you give us a little more detail on a question that Councilman Ortega was asking about the rent by the room? We frequently see ads on Craigslist or elsewhere room available in this house or that house seeking a roommate. And that seems that strikes me as a very good thing. Yes. When especially when we increase the number of unrelated folks who can share a house. And I would not want to see that. Coming to question. So could you explain to me what's the difference between that and, you know, people saying, I'll rent you this bedroom, I already lived there versus a for profit or one of these pad splitting companies that we've been lobbied by who want to come in and do that as a business and put people together. Because I understood that you said the council tell you that that would not be allowed. So what's the distinction? I just want to understand. So thank you for the opportunity to clarify that the the updated definition certainly would allow somebody to rent a room in their home and and I can pull it back up on screen if necessary. But the new proposed definition would stipulate that, that the residents of a house, the make up of the household is not decided by an external third party or property manager. So then. So if it's someone in a house that wants to rent out a room, that would that would be fine. But if it's a, if it's a company renting out the whole entire house, room by room, that would clearly not be a household use and would not be allowed in the lowest intensity zone districts. Okay. Could it be the case that the owner of that house, the landlord in that case, could advertise by the room and put the four or five people together themselves potentially? And, you know, all of these would be all in any situation like this would be looked at on a case by case basis if there was an enforcement action called on the House. So, you know, I can't I can't speak to how that would play out in practice. But the intent is certainly that the people who are living there have all jointly chosen to live there. Okay. Thank you. It almost has me wondering whether it's a distinction that we know why we bothering with it. If someone wanted to do as a business, put people together in a house. All right. Thank you. That's all. Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Sawyer.
Speaker 1: Thanks, Madam President, and thanks, Andrew. One of the issues that we had talked about a lot is the issue of Chapter 59. So have we. How are we resolving that issue?
Speaker 2: So a few ways. But in the short term, as we've talked about previously and as I as I, as I presented to Ludi back in December, we'll be launching a follow up project right after this to if these amendments are adopted, that would apply the definition of household citywide, including in areas of former Chapter 59. And then moving forward, we'll will CPD will spend some time this year looking at what resources it would take and to to continue the work of rezoning the city into into one zoning code, which is our ultimate goal.
Speaker 1: Okay, great. So just so I can kind of wrap my mind around this two sides of this law definition of household side, there will be a bridge amendment coming soon that will apply that definition of household to the entire city, including.
Speaker 7: The Chapter.
Speaker 1: Nine on the residential care side. That will take some additional time yet to be determined.
Speaker 7: Is that correct?
Speaker 2: Correct. So residential care is uses are already allowed in in former Chapter 59 zone districts. And that language was actually brought forward and adapted into the Denver zoning code when it was adopted in 2010. And so those areas will continue to be regulated by the former Chapter 59 code until such time as they are as they're brought into the Denver zoning code permit.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thanks so much.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Soya. Seeing no other questions from members of council. The public hearing for Council Bill 20 dash 0888 is closed. Comments by members of Council. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. I'll try to be brief, because we've been here very late tonight, and I know people who have been watching have been with us for several hours now. But I wanted to start out first by thanking Andrew Webb and our entire team from CPD, who did not anticipate this process being this long. You know, it started out with the expectation to be a much shorter timeframe. But obviously with COVID, we ended up, you know, extending the public input opportunity and and they did an incredible outreach to the community to ensure that we got a robust input. And that input is what brought us to the kinds of changes that are in this draft bill tonight. So to those who attended all the public meetings, who gave their input. You were listened to because the bill that's on the floor tonight, you know, was was a compromise that that reflected a lot of that input. You know, no compromise is ever perfect. But I think it's a good start. And I think it's important to state the to a comment made by Leslie Tarkovsky that we would come back and revisit this. We don't have to wait two years if we find that there are real challenges and issues with any of these provisions, we could at any point in time look to bring that back. In fact, we're going to be doing that with the Chapter 59 components. I also want to extend my appreciation to all of the people who served on the committee. You heard from some of the individuals that were members of the committee. It was very broad in terms of its representation. And I just want to take issue with the comment made by one guitarist about this being a corrupt process. I've never been engaged with a more open and transparent process that, you know, had multiple outreach points with the community that was as broad ranging in the representation that was included. And, you know, at the end of the day, we've got something that not everybody's happy with, but it's something that is are important changes to move forward with. I understand there are oftentimes fears and concerns with change. But, you know, again, these are. Done with a lot of thought and much, much discussion that went into every single category. And I just want to say that where this actually started was me reaching out to the mayor's office on multiple occasions, asking them to look at changes because we had the community corrections section that was expiring and was expired during the term of this process where there had been a cap on how many beds could be in a community corrections facility. And when the mayor's office looked at this and talked with CPD, I think they thought that because we had some very outdated sections of the group living part of this code, that it made sense to look at the entirety of it and not just look at the community correction piece. And I think that was a wise move. Now, you know, again, some people think maybe we should have separated it all out. And and, you know, chances are that maybe only certain components of it would have been successful in moving forward and other elements of it maybe were not. But at the end of the day, I think these changes represent. Very broad input from our community and I will be supporting them tonight. And I just want to again thank the hundreds of people who took the time to reach out, to call, to send emails, to be part of tonight's conversation and look forward to monitoring this. And again, we would be involved in looking at bringing any changes back if it looks like there are some components of it that just are not working. So thank you very much. Madam President, I'll stop there.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Councilman Torres, you're up.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. So I'll be voting in support of tonight's proposal as well. It is a good start to how we can remove exclusion and judgment from our zoning code. CBD should not be the judge of the relationship of those who live in a home together. The desire otherwise is to unnecessarily put our values and bias inside someone else's life and household. When you aren't paying their rent or their mortgage or their childcare or their school supplies, families and individuals throughout the city need more than one tool to help them stay housed. To stay near their child's school. To stay near their job. To age in place. We need to give as many as we can to help and not hinder that reality. My personal group, Living Experience, is what empowers me to ensure that we initiate some changes here. My mom was a single mom linked up with other single moms for meeting basic human needs, including housing. After we became homeless when I was a teenager, so now feels towards his daughter will vote to ensure families, individuals and elders have greater liberty when they make their housing decisions and either team up with one another in hard times or just because they want to. This amendment ensures greater liberty to folks who choose their family and their living situation. When such houses in my district sleep tight. And I have been so impressed with everyone who has met, who has lived there. One friend in particular who used to live there said, quote, I thought of the name sleep tight on the when we bought the place. It's a comforting salutation and one that invoked special gratitude for all I had at the end of the day while working for little pay as an outreach worker to youth in homelessness. Unmoored from local community connections. Sleep tight allowed much needed balance away from the individualism of finding self alone in a city to finding a place of togetherness. This house and its community was an ongoing project. An intention being realized. A physical shell for learning how to share, learn and find the feelings and life that you need to live it well. It's not all up to you. You can rely on someone. Someone can rely on you. You can disappoint someone. And you'll learn how to work things out. When this came to Ludi in September, it was thought that we would be here for a public hearing back in November. We took even more time that we needed to ensure the details were discussed. We could continue as council members to listen to residents and stakeholders in our districts. So to my colleagues, I just want to emphasize this is necessary. I can appreciate that you've all been lobbied heavily by constituents, by your neighbors. We've all been threatened to be recalled or voted out. So be it. We are voting not just on Denver's present, but Denver's future. And when we say we need more tools for housing, for shelter, for basic needs. This is where the rubber meets the road. Think of your constituents who work three jobs and didn't have time to email you to call you to attend an evening public meeting. Over the past three years to oppose these amendments because they're trying to make sure they come up with their rent or their mortgage payment. Think of the folks leaving jail and who actually who deserve an actual second chance. Not more barriers to work and live with dignity. We took the time to dissect household definition and the number was reduced from ten to 8 to 5. We took the time to dissect concrete living and community corrections was removed from single unit zoning and additional provisions applied to limit it. Now the time is come and this is necessary, just a necessary step. This deserves a unanimous vote in favor. I just want to read it a section of a letter just to make sure that it's heard. We, the undersigned, hope this letter elevates some of the supportive voices that have not been able to participate more fully in this process. Some who stand to benefit most from those overdue changes live in households deemed illegal by the city, and rightfully so, feel threatened by the prospect of appearing before governmental bodies to plead their case. Others are among our most marginalized neighbors who are daily overburdened just to meet their and their family's basic needs. We already ask so much of the organizations that represent and serve these individuals, which are typically under-resourced and stretched thin. The frightening realities of the COVID 19 pandemic have only made matters worse for these individuals and their organizations. In this health and life threatening time, people's immediate needs have taken precedence over advocating for the group Living Rules update. However, that does not. These changes do not matter. On the contrary, the goals and outcomes of this policy change are much needed in our communities. The current code stands to harm large, biologically related families, even though it does not regulate them by giving inclined neighbors grounds to file a complaint and prompt the city excuse me, a city inspection. More often these are Bipoc families. According to a recent analysis. Black and Hispanic households comprised 30% of all Denver households, but 72% of those with five or more adults. Making these folks five times more likely to live in a five person or larger household compared to their white counterparts. We beg the question of what and who we as a Denver community value today. We look to you as our elected leaders to take decisive action in this unprecedented moment and proactively remove some of the longstanding systemic barriers standing against fair, marginalized individuals and families, helping to make stable housing options connected to opportunity a reality. For more Denver rights signed on by all in Denver be connected. Chocolate Icon Coffee Park. Neighborhood Association, Colorado Center on Law and Policy. Colorado Children's Campaign. Colorado Coalition for the Homeless. Colorado Cross Disability Coalition and Colorado Village Collaborative. Colorado Young Leaders. Comedy Taco East Colfax Community Collective Enterprise Community Partners. The Facts Partnership. Globeville Elyria Swansea A Coalition Interfaith Alliance of Colorado. J. K Places. Social Impact Real Estate. Mile High Connects. Mile High Ministries. Monarchs. Sober Living Homes. Mothers Advocating for affordable housing. Neighborhood Development Collaborative one Colorado. Our Front Porch Races. Brewing Company Revision. Reclaim the Eastside Redline Contemporary Art Center. Social Justice Team of Congregation Rhoda Shalom Second Chance Center Inc. Servicios de la Raza Saint Francis Center The COVID 19 Eviction Defense Project, the Empowerment Program Together. Colorado Tribe Recovery Homes Warm Cookies for the Revolution Yimby, Denver and Young Invincibles. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Torres.
Speaker 1: Councilwoman Black. Thank you, Madam President and Councilwoman Torres and Councilwoman Ortega, thank you for your very thoughtful comments. I also want to thank our speakers. It was truly wonderful to hear so many perspectives and so many personal stories and also many thanks to the countless emails we all received when CPD first came out with their proposal publicly . About a year ago, I was not supportive. I had concerns about the process and concerns about the committee. Since then, I spent much of 2020 communicating and meeting with my constituents in parks and in backyards, on the phone and emails and virtual meetings and social media and those many conversations. I listened to my constituents who told me that they were okay with a modest increase in household size and they weren't comfortable with community corrections in residential neighborhoods. So I worked hard with council members and CPD and together we came up with a compromise. It is far from perfect, but it is a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, there's been a lot of misrepresentation of the facts causing fear and creating opposition. It's distressing that most of the opposition comments I have received referenced this misinformation was the which is the actual source of their opposition. Myra Gonzalez talked about how this misinformation created fear and confusion in her Montebello neighborhood. I've seen the same thing in my district, and I've tried my best to correct this misinformation, but many are just unwilling to acknowledge the facts. I make my decisions based on fact, not fiction, not hyperbole, and not the misrepresentation of facts in the facts do not support the rhetoric. My district is geographically very large and with more than 65,000 individuals, it is very diverse and I've heard very diverse comments for the proposal against the proposal and a lot who are very neutral on it and just wanted more information. And while it's clear that there is a very vocal opposition group from my district, they do not speak for my entire district. I'd like to thank my constituents and my colleagues and CPD for all of their hard work. And I will be supporting this tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Councilwoman Sawyer.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. I want to start also by thank you, my colleagues and everyone who is engaged in this process. These are not easy discussions and there definitely aren't easy answers. We are a community that's divided. And Andrew, I especially want to thank you your I really appreciate your willingness to engage with me all the way along, knowing that I very much disagree with CPD on this issue. You've maintained your professionalism and calm and good humor through an incredibly difficult process. So I really appreciate that. Thank you. I strongly believe that the definition of household should be updated. Denver needs to change its laws to reflect the way people in our community are already living. Like my own family, we have three unrelated adults who live in our house. And while the residents in my district have said that they would prefer to keep it for unrelated people per household, we worked really hard to find a compromise at five unrelated adults. And I can I can respect where we landed. I appreciate that. CPD and I believe Councilman Gilmore are working to create a bridge amendment to apply the changes to the definition of household for Chapter 59 zone districts, which is fairer. And for all of those reasons, I advocated really hard with my fellow council members for an amendment tonight that would have allowed council to vote on the definition of household separately from the residential care definitions. Because I support this change and I would have liked to have voted yes. But I was not successful and I couldn't get six other members of council to support me in this. And my concerns with the residential care side are too numerous to be able to support these changes as a whole. When I ran for office, I promised to be thoughtful about the land use decisions I made, and I am really concerned about some of the consequences of the residential care side of the zoning changes. Like my colleagues have expressed, I am extraordinarily disappointed by the misinformation that has been spread in our community. It is absolutely unacceptable. And let me be clear. Residential care facilities are allowed in single family zone districts right now. Today, sober living facilities, assisted living facilities are already in your single family neighborhood. Today. You just don't know they're there and they are providing a valuable service in our community. So why do we need these complicated and confusing updates to this law, especially when they actually remove some of the rights from our neighborhoods? For example, very small facilities aren't required to have community meetings under the zoning changes. District five has a number of these facilities already, and in my experience, community conversations are essential to developing successful community partnerships. Are they easy conversations? Absolutely not. Do they take a bit of time and effort? Yeah. But they can and have been used to set clear expectations, create more positive relationships, and get better outcomes for all involved . And I believe that not requiring them is a detriment to the citizens of Denver. Again, this is not thoughtful development. Finally, and I think most importantly for District five, the changes to the residential care do not apply to zone districts. In Chapter 59 old code that covers 20% of the land in the city and about a third of the land in my district. This issue should have been addressed before this vote moved forward, and it wasn't. Denver changed the zoning code in 2010. CPD has had a decade to address this problem and chose not to. Now council has been put in a position of having to vote on a law where Chapter 59 has become a major stumbling block to fair implementation. And unlike the definition of household, it isn't possible to do a bridge amendment to apply the residential care changes to Chapter 59 zone districts. So it's maybe going to be years before that happens. And in the meantime, I don't feel that I can responsibly represent the constituents living in approximately 35% of the land in my district. When I can't predict how this might apply to them in the future. And it certainly isn't fair to the other 65% of my district or the other 80% of Denver to saddle us with a law that doesn't apply to everyone. That is not thoughtful development. And as much as they appreciate the hard work that has been done here in the compromise that has been reached, and as much as I would like to support the definition of household changes, I cannot support the changes to the residential care side of this law without them applying to the properties in the former Chapter 59 zoning code. This doesn't meet the criteria as far as I'm concerned, and so I will be a no tonight. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Sawyer. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. First, I want to thank everybody who took the time to talk with us tonight and who is hung hung in there until now. And I especially want to thank the Afghan Andrew for their work with us on this over the past year. A number of the provisions in this bill actually are adjustments to things we already have, as several speakers have said. As for household living, it's very clear that the law needs change, as we heard tonight. People already are living with unrelated roommates and they are part of the fabric of the community of several households. Within sight of my windows here that are that way. And I bet that when three or four people rent a house together, they don't even know that Denver calls illegal. And they go about their lives just as remarkably as households with large extended families. So I support that change, although I am mindful of the impact that it could have to drive rents upward as far as residential care or group homes. This is another thing we already have as Councilwoman Sawyer and others have already said. I heard from a lot of people who had concerns about the bill, who didn't realize there already are a large number of group homes in our neighborhoods, including in the low density neighborhoods. We heard so much about tonight. In my district, there are four in Harvey, part two in Bear Valley, one in Mali, one in the tiny Green Meadows neighborhood, one in Pinehurst. This bill doesn't open up low density neighborhoods to small group homes that are already there. And more could move in tomorrow, even if we didn't pass this. What this bill does is allow those smaller group homes to go from eight residents to ten. And then there was the debate over community corrections. And although a lot of the narrative tonight and during this process has been that community corrections is confined to industrial zones next to vulnerable neighborhoods, half of them are not. In fact, my southwest Denver district has the most community corrections beds of any council district at 200 221 two facilities are in the Fort Logan neighborhood, right across the street from Boomer Heights and Pinehurst. The third is right up the street from Loretto Heights, and we also have a fourth community corrections facility right next to Loretto Heights, but just over the boundary in Arapahoe County with a dozen residential care facilities in my district. We are already carrying our share of the citywide total. Denver's demographics have changed since redlining came in the 1930s. Some of those neighborhoods, those very neighborhoods that were redlined, are now gentrified or gentrifying right now and becoming whiter by pricing out the households that have been there for a long time. And other neighborhoods that had been majority white are now majority households of color. I have a subdivision in my district that was filed in 1926 when it was Arapahoe County Ranchland, and it contained a provision you can see it online. It contained a provision prohibiting the sale or occupancy of any lot by any person of color. In the 2010 census, the census tract that covers that subdivision was 82% people of color. So last summer, when we were working on this group living proposal, I asked staff to produce a demographic spreadsheet of my district. Southwest Denver today has more diversity, both race and ethnicity, and a broader range of incomes than the city as a whole. Denver is 54% white, according to the 2018 Census data from the American Community Survey. My district is 54% households of color. RV Park is almost exclusively single family homes. It's 65% households of color. 36% of households in Denver earn less than $50,000, and income in my district is 40%. On the other end, 10% of Denver households ten 10% of Denver households have incomes greater than $200,000 a year. In my district, it's 4%. My district currently has the diversity of class and race that this bill seeks to promote. My single family duplex and row house neighborhoods are not all wealthy and white. They are diverse. And they are home to families of color who sort out and enjoy that very character. My concern all along in this process has been that the kinds of policies that nevertheless have produced displacement and unaffordability through density and redevelopment, which was not the goal, will bring that same outcome to my vulnerable and currently affordable neighborhoods.
Speaker 3: As it has elsewhere.
Speaker 2: Several speakers testified and six of us on council last year had asked that this package be broken up into distinct pieces so that we in the public can focus on one area at a. Time, as Councilwoman Sawyer was saying, and the agency didn't want to do that. And so we have this stew of changes that contains things I wholeheartedly support, things I still do not like, and things I think could use more work. I wish we could work on some more. We need more community corrections sites and we could have pulled that out and worked on it more intentionally by determining, well, how many do we need and and then do the hard work of siting them where they have the best chances of success instead of having it in this omnibus bill that opens up 15,000 properties citywide when we only need a.
Speaker 3: Half dozen or so sites.
Speaker 2: We need space, I think, for about 700 people in a city of 700,000. But we left that work in a single package that is overwhelming in scope. It's clear that this is going to pass and I support wholeheartedly support parts of it. But I don't have the choice to vote yes on one section, no on another, and maybe on the third, because we didn't unbundle this package. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilwoman Sandoval.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. I'd just like to also thank all of the speakers who are hanging tough with this or more and the viewers who are here. At 1220 in the morning, as we can tell, this is very complicated. And in northwest Denver, a lot of zoning issues have always plagued District one. And when I ran, I talked about a lot of the it's where I've done what I've studied since being a council aide in 2012. And I committed to my voters that I would be thoughtful and diligent in approaching land use issues because of the conflicts and the issues that I have seen of our neighbors pitting against each other. And I think that's reflected here tonight that we're talking about this at 1230 in the morning. I wanted to make something clear. We had a speaker tonight talk about why this was coming forward and in the quarter and in the documents that she got from the mayor's office, quote. A 2008 moratorium on new community correction facilities will expire in May of 2018. One of the documents from the 2017 reads A public discussion of the current regulations is needed to identify any changes before the Community Correction Facility's moratorium expires. Since poor service providers and zoning staff have identified multiple examples of language and regulations that should be considered so. Since 2008, our halfway houses and our community corrections have been in a time capsule. I do not think that's progressive policy. I do not think that's keeping up with all of the changes that Denver has experienced as a whole. We've gone through a recession. We've gone through a pandemic. We've gone through tons of things since 2008. And I believe that the only way to change things is to create new systems and new opportunities for those who have been in these incarcerated to come out into our communities. They served their time. They deserve the opportunity to come back into our community. Another comment that I heard throughout the whole entire process was infrastructure, the need for better schools, the need for more schools, the need for trash services, the need for wastewater. And in December 12th, 2016, there was a Denver Post article and it was named titled. Denver is absorbing a lot more people, but it is more densely populated in 1950. And I'll quote from that article. Through. Those sent to states may show. Those census data sets may show that Denver. Denver is not more densely populated than it was six decades ago. There are important differences in how Denver writes then live now and are influencing today's infrastructures. Slightly fewer people live in each dwelling. Let me repeat that. Slightly fewer people live in each dwelling, according to city research. They own more cars about twice as much the rate as 1950. Even after the expansion of Denver Metro's modern transit system in the past 20 years in directions focused mostly on serving suburban commuters, only about 7% of residents in the Denver proper area use busses and trains to get to work a slightly slower rate than 8% who did so in 2002. I kept hearing talking conversations about cars. I did not run to represent cars. I ran to represent people. And I ran to represent opportunities. I also heard discussion saying that during a pandemic, we needed to stop things and stop progress. I absolutely disagree. During a pandemic is when we need to find more housing options for those who are experiencing homelessness. For those who have lost their jobs. For those who are living paycheck to paycheck, who need more resources. Right now, we have to act. Another concern that I heard was that the Independence House, which is a halfway house in northwest Denver, has tons of calls for service. I spoke with the commander, and that's not true. Any time that transportation is needed, a call for services come to the police department. The Independence House has been serving people since the seventies in northwest Denver, and they have done a wonderful job. So in District one I got several emails and they stated the zoning code should regulate safety and not be a tool for privileged groups to force discrimination in neighborhoods. The AARP wrote a letter to us and they said they are a strong proponent of age friendly, livable communities where residents of all backgrounds can thrive. We got another letter from the Neighborhood Development Development Collaborative, increasing the number of unrelated adults allowed to live together from 2 to 5 increases affordability and allows members of the community the basic freedom to determine the composition of their households. Let me say that again. We're having this discussion in 2021, and we're getting letters that talk about the basic freedom to determine the composition of their households. Expanding areas where community correction facilities can be sited. These facilities are intended to allow people who have committed a crime to get on their feet and reconnect with society, to get on their feet and reconnect with society. Who does not deserve that, that opportunity? The core of this idea is undercut if community correction facilities are only allowed in places that are segregated from most communities and segregated from access to transit and jobs. And that's what we have done in Denver. We have segregated these facilities since 2008. Let me repeat since 2008, and it is 2021. So with that, I wholeheartedly support this and the entire package. I work on land use and I hear all the time in Council District one on some of the proposals that I move forward, that people want me to piecemeal them and people want me to move them apart and only move one person forward and not the whole entire package. And when land use comes, it's complicated. And in Denver, we deserve to have a package that's progressive and is especially right now during a pandemic and people need more resources. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Sandoval. Councilwoman Canete.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Council president and to all of our speakers as well as to the staff who manage this process, but also who managed this meeting tonight. We couldn't do our jobs without you. Thank you to them. So over three years, this group living conversation has been more than a zoning debate. It has really surfaced prominent American narratives like neighborhood and family. And it's also given us a chance to really debate how we are going to or whether we're going to live up to community values that I still think that most of us would say that we shared. So I want to address both those narratives and the zoning criteria tonight. So first one, what's a neighborhood? A dictionary might tell us. It's an area around people who live near each other. Sounds pretty simple, right? But in the residential care portions of this debate, some opponents have asserted that residential care users don't belong in or are incompatible with neighborhoods. This argument would require a much more nuanced definition of what counts as a neighborhood, because as we heard in the question and the answer every resident will use, care being discussed tonight exists in some form in every city, every single one they live across. People live across the street from them. They live next door to them. They live in apartments, duplexes, even in single unit homes. In some cases, the facility existed before the rules were debated, and so it's frozen in time in something called a non-conforming use. In other cases, we just treat some residents in their zoning differently than we do other residents. So if they are not all neighborhoods. Why not? Why are one group considered neighborhoods and one group not? Or if they're all neighborhoods, how do we justify in our zoning code allowing the uses to exist as they have for 60 some years in some neighborhoods and not in others at all? So I make no assertions about the intent or beliefs of those asking us to treat these neighborhoods differently. I want to say this again. I know not what is in the heart of any person who testified tonight who supports or opposes this measure. I make no assumptions and I label no one. But as I have talked about in other forums during this past couple of years, my focus as a policymaker does need to be on the structural differential outcomes. That's what I'm focused on. Are the outcomes the same? The zoning code has historically treated some neighborhoods with people living in them differently from other neighborhoods, with people living in them without a land use matter justifying the difference. The distinction can't be who lives there. And the distinction can't be who lives inside of the facility. In the zoning code, it's supposed to be based on something to do with the land, right? So for these reasons, I find that the proposed amendments not only satisfy the criteria of uniformity of zone district to treat neighborhoods more similarly, they're actually essential because without these changes , the zoning code does not have uniformity of zone, district and regulation. So that criteria is really important. These these these amendments do need to pass. As to the criteria of public safety, health and welfare. The record includes numerous letters and testimony from residents who live near current community corrections. Current group residential care facilities. And they have described neutral or even positive experiences living near these facilities. So I find nothing in the record that indicates the incompatibility of this criteria with these changes. Furthermore, while we've identified and some of my colleagues who spoke before me identify that these uses already exist, they did not acknowledge the fact that they are frozen in time and cannot renovate or redevelop to meet the health and safety needs of their current residents. So again, I find that to meet the zoning criteria of health, safety and welfare, we must pass these changes so that they can meet those needs of their residents rather than being frozen in time as they are now unable to change. I also find that the health, safety and welfare of residents who need care is advanced by this zoning change, that being able to expand them or to create them to fill gaps as they're needed, particularly around homelessness. We've identified several shelter types that are missing in our city that this not only helps to meet the health and safety, it also meets the criteria of plan conformance because our plans call for connected and economically diverse neighborhoods. You cannot be a connected and economically diverse neighborhood if you are nowhere near transportation, grocery stores, jobs or other services. So again, I find that the plan conformance criteria is met. Another narrative What is family? Here are the dictionary definition includes traditional people who are related by blood. But if you dig a little deeper in the dictionary, it also includes people who live together as a household. In our committee process. Community Planning and development previously shared Denver's history. So it's part of the history, the record before us tonight. The limit of blood relationships is not redeemed. It is not even 100 years old in our code. It was created relatively recently. It was not the way that it always was. And I want to share one example of why this different definition of family based on blood is so troubling and exclusionary to some in our community. So an old friend of mine named Casey came out as transgender, and in large part he was rejected from his family of origin and estranged from them. Several years ago, he was diagnosed with brain cancer. It was a former partner and friend and her spouse who took care of him through this terminal illness. They took care of him physically. They took care of his financial and medical care, every aspect of his remaining days. I respect that some speakers are concerned about external impacts. And we've spent many, many hours in committee talking about the laws that exist to address external impacts. But the narrative that has come up during the testimony tonight and previously that somehow we can predict external impacts based on the presence or absence of a blood relationship that that has no basis in data. It devalues the relationships that took care of Casey in his dying days. And it over values the blood relations who reject too many in our community raising the household limit to five. And I know this is very controversial with supporters and opponents tonight raising the number to five. Those households from 0 to 5 will be treated exactly the same, whether they are related or not. That is a significant, significant change tonight. And it has value. It promotes housing stability for residents who are able to afford their housing costs by sharing them and therefore has, again, plan conformance. Our plans call for promotion of housing stability. And I find that this change promotes that. Now, I am sorry that we did not get the support we needed to treat all households the same in other size categories. But I do find that the plan goals are advanced and that we will have a more equitable zoning code if this passes than if we do not. I also just want to ground ourselves in our zoning code. There is no zoning code in the city and county of Denver in the new zoning code that is single family. We have single unit. It's about how many doors you have attached to each other. We have two units. So I find that all of the the code amendments that we're making tonight on the on this side of it also are conforming. Finally, I just want to say that I am proud of this final proposal. I'm proud of both the policy changes it makes and the fact that it was molded and shaped with input from those who sat down to provide constructive ideas on how we could find common ground, even when I might have personally felt different. Lee I believe that this is good democratic debate and it's good to see that policies can change with that input and that engagement. I see the value even where I wish that we had come up with a slightly stronger outcome. So I just want to say the values that I think we share. So and I would guess that almost none of the speakers who spoke tonight would say they disagree with these values, but these are the values represented in these criteria that are being met. People should have access to housing they can afford. This proposal advances that value. And I believe the people who told me tonight that they share this value, this proposal advances it. And failure to do so would miss an opportunity to do that. A strong community must include places to live for those who need extra care in locations with access to food, medical care and transportation that they need to survive and thrive. I believe that that's a value most people would agree with. This proposal advances it. Finally, people deserve a second chance. If you have served your time, you deserve a second chance. And that includes, I think, this proposal and advancing that. I do not believe there is a fixed amount of quality of life in Denver and that if we have more people accessing it, that somehow someone else's is diminished. It is not a finite resource. I believe we have the capacity to accommodate families that need may not be related by blood services for the people who need them and strong neighborhoods. These things are compatible. We have the capacity to deliver all of them. And for those reasons, I will be supporting this tonight and continuing to work to advance all of these values in the other areas of our land use in Denver. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman PANITCH, Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. I want to thank one. Be sure my audio was on. I want to thank everyone on all sides who participated in this incredible discussion over the past couple of years. Well, make that almost everyone. Those of you who chose to resort to vile obscenities and meritless character assassination directed at those in the community and city staff at members of this council who you felt were not addressing your concerns adequately, you contributed nothing to the conversation. You actually demean the importance of this debate. And those of you who have intentionally spread misleading and hyperbolic gossip had made a difficult discussion needlessly more challenging. I have spoken with people on both sides of this debate who feel passionately about their position, with whom I have great respect and I think have great character. Our current definition of household size is two unrelated add ons, even with the allowance for all of their relatives is antiquated merits revision to allow for a more broad definition of family, more in line with how people actually wish to live in 2021. Our sisters and brothers, our sons and daughters, mothers and fathers and uncles and aunts who either find themselves on the street with no place to call home or are trying to turn their lives around after being incarcerated for violations of the law, need additional facilities and services that give them the hand up they need to return to lives of dignity, whether that be full independence for those capable of that ascent or healing custodial care for those in need of more long term assistance. All neighborhoods should share in the benefits and the challenges of living in Denver, Colorado. We must redress the slanted policies of the past that have served some communities, not just at the exclusion of others, but at the expense of others. I really want to thank my colleagues for with whom I have had endless conversations in recent weeks trying to become clear in my own mind and thank my constituents as well, who've helped in that that bit of travel. I've spent more time on this in consideration of this proposal that on any policy I've looked at in my time on council, that is true of many of my colleagues as well who have had dove into this material in great depth. If the policy being proposed tonight passes, I do not believe it will lead to the destruction of our neighborhoods or imperil our safety. It is possible some communities will see a presence of services to which they're not accustomed. There may be discomfort for some, either due to fear of change or the reality of changes they don't like to say otherwise would be disingenuous. But the status quo has long been uncomfortable for many others. The process that got us here had some flaws that concerned me. This process Trump policy. I don't believe that's the question. And that's like asking what's more important? The Constitution or democracy process leads to policy. Better process does lead to better policy. The proposal should have been divided into at least two separate bills. I still don't see what managed group living uses have to do with household size. It makes sense for a bill that's hard to wrap your arms around and causes debate to wander all over the map as we've seen in months past and even tonight. I do believe that if the committee that led to the proposal being put forth tonight had been comprised of more broad based or different representation, it would be a different proposal. But not being a soothsayer, I can't tell you precisely what that different proposal might look like. It might have created a more nuanced approach that respected reasonable concerns for buffers between users. I'd have been more comfortable with a buffer in place around corrections facilities. But that discomfort comes from the fact that I know a lot of my constituents have that fear. The data that I've looked at doesn't justify that discomfort. The information I've gotten from the police department, from Community Corrections simply doesn't justify that discomfort. I honor that it exists. Fear is difficult to deal with sometimes. I'm concerned by the fact that some neighborhoods may be more susceptible to to the abuse of household size than others. I'm concerned by the hesitance of CPD and Dottie to commit to beefing up neighborhood inspection services. Community members and members of this body have long requested better enforcement of existing ordinances, hence the concern that additional demand might arise from implementation of this wide ranging bill. In determining policy, it's important to have as representative a group as possible at the table not only to check a box under the column headed equity or to even the numbers, but perhaps more importantly, there will be ideas brought to the table worthy of discussion that wouldn't come forward otherwise. Different communities bring differing perspectives. After five plus years on council. I fully understand the complexities that citizen involvement bring to legislating and crafting a policy. But I've chosen to believe it is among the characteristics that define our government. From others around the world. Champion public comment before this body. Because I believe in its purpose and benefit. And I believe in crafting a system that binds the civic body for ideas, not just for approval. Also in my time on council, I've heard various city agencies urge this and that policy because developers crave certainty, an ordinance and guideline. Shouldn't neighbors be accorded this same courtesy? The roadmap for how we get to the new reality that more justly houses all Denver ites with dignity is getting ever more complex. Tonight's proposal is not being considered in a vacuum. We've seen the unintended consequences of short term rentals. That were supposed to be a way to keep struggling household afloat, but has grown into an industry all its own with benefits as well as consequences. We've accepted accessory dwelling units as a value in Blueprint Denver and in our comprehensive plan. But do we know yet what what the use of what the result of implementing its use is going to be? How is it going to affect property values in general? Are these truly going to be intergenerational households, or is it just a further wealth building for those who are already advantaged? We're going to be looking at the affordable housing incentives. Program moving forward. After that, we'll be looking at residential infill where we will, in fact, question single family zoning. Where does it remain appropriate and where might it change? The discussion is more complex than some would have it be. I would. For that reason, I was not a fan at all of the original proposal. I thought it was too extreme from where we're starting now. It's my approach. It may be right. It may be wrong. It's the way I approach things. Move forward incrementally in a couple of years. If this passes, we'll look at it and will either say, Hey, we made some mistakes. We either need to back up a bit or maybe there is room to move forward even more. To say that the the the compromises that were made over the past year to to the original proposal to say that these are minimal is is simply not accurate. The original proposal, while many favored it were was for eight individuals in, I believe, 1600 square feet plus another individual for every 200 square feet with no limit and all their adult relatives to go from there. Whether you like it or not. Down to a cap of five adults is a major, major shift. To take community considered community corrections out of SOTU and Rowhouse neighborhoods is a major concession. There's. A lot of things that have concerned me about this program. But there's more. That I see. Good in it. Then I see harmful. I think the challenges are things we can manage. As I said, the safety concerns simply are not borne out by data. If they were, I'd be feeling differently about this proposal. The last thing I want to say and Madam President, I appreciate the time and I published a newspaper for a lot of years, neighborhood newspaper in South Denver. And the first historic picture that I remember getting from Denver Public Library was taken from I Live Avenue, just west of Colorado Boulevard. It was a dirt road. Looking at the brand new University of Denver campus in the late 1800s. And there was one house. All you could see in this landscape photo was one house. And it just makes me think of how when the area started to develop, how neighbors were feeling about those people getting closer . And then when we truly develop neighborhoods with setbacks of five feet. So your neighbors door, your neighbors window is ten feet away. The concerns that people had about those people living so close. I believe this proposal has challenges. I believe they can be met as far as Chapter 59 goes. I wish the whole city was being treated equally and all the Chapter 59 land was under this new proposed policy. The reality is the whole city is not being treated equally right now. So I think we're moving in the right direction. I'm committed to meeting the challenge of any unforeseen consequences that arise. So after more thought than I have given anything since taking office, I will be supporting this tonight. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Cashman. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. A rich and not muted former council person recently recently reminded me that everyone is a little mad at me about my position and I've probably come to a good compromise given the need for the opposition comments that my office has gotten about this proposal. I think we're probably in that place. We certainly heard from those who tell me that we need to keep things exactly as they are. After all, they committed their family to a community because of what the neighborhood was when they purchased their home. This amendment is a threat to that paradise. We've also certainly heard from those who tell me that this proposal has been watered down too much. If only we could maximize the purpose of the tool. Affordability for all those who are coming to our beautiful city. They are struggling to find affordable ways to live in Denver and see this council body as one that continues to hamstring each affordability effort put before us. So I want to thank I want to thank you CBT staff, especially Andrew Webb Mr. Webb and a CBT staff working hard on a proposal that. And sorry. Someone's texting me on a proposal. It's been multiple years and field fielded calls of fielded lots of angry calls emails and other constituent outreach about group living. Also, thank you to the Group Planning Advisory Committee. These individuals put in hours and hours of deliberation and learning to present potential changes to Denver's code. These volunteers were willing to expose their private lives to public scrutiny, to push a conversation that has been difficult for Denver to consider for quite some time. Thank you to all the inspectors in our city. We're hearing some ugly stuff come out that alleges that inspectors are lazy or even worse, are willing to accept bribes. I have no reason to believe that any of this is true. And I'm sad that people would make these allegations before I was elected. I spoke quite a bit about how we all need access access to housing, transportation and representation. To that end, I chose to survey the residents of our perfect slice of the city, much like my predecessor. All the information is anonymous, and none of that information was presented at an individual level. It was meant to understand the district, not spy on an individual. The survey resulted in about a thousand responses and the vast majority were from District said. On its face, a narrow majority agreed or strongly agreed with this amendment. However, the comments showed that some of those against were opposed because this amendment, in their opinion, doesn't go far enough. The comments also showed that a considerable amount of those opposed took that position because of fear of unintended consequences like parking, sanitation and other symptoms, as has been heavily covered tonight. We can legislate to stop those consequences from happening. Some said they didn't want to complete the survey because of the questions that I asked. They said the questions were biased. They said the questions were invasive. So those groups decided against participating in my survey and created their own survey. That is, of course, their prerogative to go separately from a district wide survey. But here's the deal. I was trying to cut through the misinformation and preconceptions to make sure that people were thinking about the policy, not just reciting talking points. I was. I also wanted to see if this amendment could actually be that affordability tool that CPD is striving for. That means I asked about financial stability. That means asking about social networks that if they were stable and their social network was stable, then this amendment wasn't for them. If they were severely tax burden or if their social network was housing insecure, then this amendment was made for you. So setting aside the perceived survey bias, I'm deeply concerned about a different kind of bias than I want to talk about. It's one where people who have a good life here are genuinely frightened and feel very, very threatened by the policies that could ease affordability obstacles. Some of the email I received claimed that people who would want to share their homes with other unrelated adults were dirty, unhealthy, loud, that people would want to live together this way, would park in front of their lawns and take a ball to public parking spaces on the street in front of their homes. But these people would create nuisance properties and sell drugs and clog up sewer systems. So let me tell you about two examples of constituents that I know. One of my constituents is a single dad and a DPS teacher. He's living in a nice single family home with a playset in the backyard, a dog and a couple of chickens. He lives with a couple who aren't married but are saving up for a wedding and a down payment for a home to save up for braces for his son. He's been talking to a U.S. health student doing a residency about renting her the fourth open bedroom in his house, just living with a couple of means. He's violating code and would be even more if he added the roommate to his fourth empty bedroom. The second is a prominent older man in Cherry Creek who's facing housing insecurity but is too ashamed or too proud to talk about it. His wife had passed away after a long illness. They took out a lot of their retirement savings. He risks losing the beautiful, expensive home he and his wife raised their kids in. He's in great mental health and physical health. No one would have thought no one would think of him as housing insecure. But he is. His home has four bedrooms and an office space. He has a friend who lives with a college students who helps him out with cooking and cleaning so he has a less expensive place to live. His friend suggested they all move in together and share the big, beautiful home. But here's what I want. I want TPS teachers to afford to live in Denver. I want to support a father's desire to have his son experience a backyard and a dog while growing up, even in densely packed District ten. I want to support the med student who might grow to love Denver and stay here helping save some brain drain from our city. I want to support this generational partnership. Affordability for someone starting out and affordability for someone who wants to comfortably stay in his home in his twilight years. I couldn't care less if three men choose to live together. I don't believe it's anyone in business if their relatives are not. So we've heard people talk about racism today. It's says it's a tough subject. So I want to set that aside. The discussion about whether people are racist or not. Certainly a good conversation to have. But instead what I want is what I what I see is a struggle between those who who want to prepare, desperate for an affordable future and those who want to preserve Denver for what it is today. What I would say, though, is that our job on council is to shape Denver's future. The reality is that the secret is out. Denver is an amazing place to live. People are moving to Denver in droves from all over the nation beyond. My next door neighbor is from Paris, France, and he's.
Speaker 6: Here for work.
Speaker 2: If we weren't intentional in our approach to our city's future, we'll become an even more unaffordable city than we already are. And we will have even more people living in tents than we already do. A few decades apart of Denver, Denver's District ten was literally a dump. It was thanks to our leaders decisions back then that some of the most desirable areas of our city exist. A few decades ago, Colfax was known for a different kind of nightlife than than what exists on Colfax today. Now, District ten residents and Colfax are unhappy when ten campers illegally take residence on private property on Colfax. Change doesn't happen overnight. But you haven't entrusted us on counsel to shape Denver's future long term, not just make kneejerk reactions to this morning's news headlines. This improvement in quality of life in Colfax still has a ways to go, but it's definitely moving in the right direction. Thanks to far sighted leadership. This council responsibilities as relevant today as it was back when we removed the dump or cleaned up Colfax. So we must move forward with the shaping of Denver or risk having it shaped for us. We must use all the tools to find solutions for our unhoused neighbors. Yes. That means taking huge risk on locating city by force bases here in District ten. It was risky because it was untested endeavor, and it was risky because more than a thousand we got more than a thousand e-mails on opposing those sites. It also means encouraging 100% affordable housing and developments like 13th and Sherman in District ten and encouraging our city counterparts to relax laws that allow us to get workforce, housing and every new development. And yes, it needs working sometimes with mercury developers to ensure we use every tool in our toolbox to get people out of tents and into homes. In that.
Speaker 6: Shaping, we should.
Speaker 2: Revisit the definition of the American dream. For some, that means a white picket fence and a single family home and getting into your car and cruising the strip on Friday nights. But others prefer multi-family buildings, and some don't own a car at all. It's time to recognize that my dream may not be your dream. But if we are going to dream, let's dream about our future. Let's dream to shape our city, to make it even better for tomorrow. I'm going to share two quotes from constituents. The first is from a resident in Congress Park. Do you remember as of council, I've lived in Congress parking a single family home for seven years. For the first five years I didn't recognize the two large houses on my block where group homes. I'm still unaware of the details, but I wish all the folks who are up in arms about having group homes on their block would spend some time here. It's a non-issue for that reason. And in supporting anti-racism policies, I fully support the changes being proposed to update group living rules in Denver. Medical Doctor. The last I want to end up. I want to end with a quote from a constituent who lives on Seventh Avenue. I ask my fellow neighbors and community members not to be driven by fear when they think of more adults living together and to not assume the worst. I ask that they assume that we are a community of hardworking adults trying to do our best in this world, regardless of race, religion and sexual orientation with whom we choose to live and how we are able to find a reasonable solution to pay a rent or mortgage is on each of us to solve every day.
Speaker 6: In addition.
Speaker 2: We should also take pride in supporting people in our community and group our elderly homes that are doing their best to transition to a better life or finish their lives with integrity and grace. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Hines. Councilman Clark.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. The advantage of going near the end here is that everything that I had to say, somebody else has already said. So I'll just say thank you to all of the speakers who took time to be here and to the 113 who are still hanging around watching right now. Thank you so much to staff. Andrew Webb, I think is going to be sainted having gone through this. So thank you to all of the staff within hours and hours and hours and a lot more hours at our request than it was originally planned. And thank you to all of my colleagues here on the Council for all of your work. I know a lot of work has gone into this from the very beginning. At every point it was hard. And I know that there are people that are constituents of mine on both sides who were not happy about this as we worked towards compromise for many. This doesn't go far.
Speaker 3: Enough, and for many.
Speaker 2: This goes too far. But I believe that we have struck a good balance, a good compromise that moves us forward while mitigating many of the concerns that were brought to the table by the hundreds of people who got involved with this. And so I just want to say that I'm so proud to serve with all of you and to see that respectful and passionate dialog that represents all of the voices and feelings from our community can really make a proposal better. And I'll be supporting that compromise. And the really hard work, the really hard work it took to get there with a yes vote tonight. So thank you to all of you. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Clark, I see no other hands raised. I'll go ahead and round out the column, the comments here. Before we vote, I would like to also thank the speakers community. The original community met the original committee members, my colleagues on council. We learned alongside each other during this process and CPD, Andrew, Sarah, Laura and the amazing central staff who behind the scenes made sure that we were able to pull off this massive meeting tonight and make sure that we were able to hear all of the community members. So thank you to the central staff team. The March 13 COVID shutdown did slow the roll out of these changes, and we've had a lot of community meetings, we've had town halls. And throughout this entire time, like my colleagues said, the proposed amendment drastically changed from where we originally received it, and it was vital for us to hear the community's questions, ideas and concerns. We know that during this pandemic and even before, we were seeing alarming statistics on the state of housing security in our city. And at the end of the day, these proposals, these amendments are at the end of the day, trying to get more people housed in the city and county of Denver. Our cost of living has significantly increased over the last five years. But even looking back ten, 15 and 20 years, coupled with high unemployment, we must look at equity to correct some of these issues that we're facing. My family has lived in the community for 25 years. When my husband and I bought our home in Montebello, it was $140,000 in the nineties. Reports now show that the average single family home is upwards of $600,000 in Denver. So many people have faced multiple barriers to securing housing with the state of our economy and limited job opportunities. It makes it very hard, if not impossible, for folks to make enough money to live in Denver. We also talk a lot about the needs of our many of our many family members and loved ones. And in the far northeast area plan, we as a community talked about how important it is for our older adults to age in place. Some of the uses for residential care include nursing homes, assisted living and different living situations to allow people to age in place. We need more locations within our city to support people's transition back into society and to have the support necessary to begin and maintain their recovery from addiction. On the other hand, we heard tonight from many community members, specifically in the Mount Velo community, that they don't support these changes due to decades, over decades of intended and unintended consequences brought forward from policy through our cities that negatively affected communities of color. Specifically, folks want to know how we're going to correct neighborhood inspections, how we're going to support folks in the neighborhood, and how we're going to ensure the quality of life in our community. I look forward to working with my colleagues on Council and community planning and development over the budget process this year. To look at how we can expand the ways that I ask works within our communities, similar to are having different professionals going out, knocking on doors, providing resources and support to the very people who are clearly in need. Concerns regarding absentee landlords who are difficult, if not impossible, to get in contact with has also been brought forward. This group living proposal brought those concerns forward and the desire to create a system where we begin to collect contact information and ensure rental properties are compliant. Since early 2019, I've been working on a rental license program called Healthy Rental Residential Rentals for All. I recently presented at the Budget and Policy Committee of Council on January 28, and my Council office is looking forward to rolling out this proposal through the program. The policy would ensure that those homes who are being rented are also following the Public Health, Safety and Welfare guidelines set forward in Chapter 27 of our minimum housing standards and create pathways for better outreach to help with these homes. When there are concerns, we'll also be able to support the residential. Program of Denver Department of Public Health and Environment to ensure the health and safety in our rentals in our city. This will also create another tool for host toolbox to enhance renter protections and provide more stability in our housing. Historically, in this country, we have seen policing and in housing regulations for years. There's been a practice of using the government against people who live in different ways than we do. It has been a tool that has been weaponized against people who aren't married, who identified within the LGBTQ community, who were of a different race and today against people who are roommates. There has also been real concern about how these changes are not equitable because they don't apply city wide. I agree. City staff have proposed a way to fix this issue by amending the Denver Revised Municipal Code, and I think that we as City Council members can ensure this happens quickly and expeditiously. We can amend the municipal code to extend the Denver zoning codes definition of household to areas that still have old code. Former Chapter 59 Zoning. This wouldn't impact residential care, but would ensure all households in Denver, regardless of their underlying zoning, are allowed up to five related or unrelated adults. As Council President and as someone whose district contains a large share of homes under old code zoning. I plan to lead this effort in partnership with community planning and development. This is something we can do quickly and make a priority in the coming weeks. Since it's a matter of equity again, thank you to the community who spoke tonight on this group of amendments. Neighborhood groups who stayed involved gave us feedback and pushed us to a balanced position and the thousands of Denver ites who've been involved in this citywide process. The last thing I want to mention and say is that we had a lot of speakers and a lot of folks talk about other individuals and carry on that bias and stigma that goes along with folks who come from families or personally have been affected by addiction, mental health diagnoses and folks in community corrections. And I'm not about that stigma. I'm about breaking that stigma and doing different in our city and supporting those who are most in need and need the support. And I will be honored to vote yes on this proposal tonight. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 1: Black eye, I. CdeBaca, I. Clark.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Flynn.
Speaker 6: Immunity. If Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 2: May.
Speaker 1: When was a may? Herndon.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Hines, I.
Speaker 6: Cashman.
Speaker 1: I can. I.
Speaker 6: Ortega.
Speaker 5: Absolutely. I.
Speaker 1: Sandoval. I. Sawyer. Now. Torres, I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 1: Two. I am sorry. Two nays. You have a nice 11 eyes.
Speaker 0: Council Bill 20 dash 088 has passed. On Monday, March eight, Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 21, Dash 001 for changing the zoning classification of 1112 north for being a street in East Colfax. A required hearing on Council Bill 21, Dash 0033 Changing the zoning classification for 4700 East Evans Avenue in Goldsmith and a required hearing on Council Bill 21, Dash 0071 Changing the zoning classification for 2938 North Hooker Street in West Highland. Any protest against Council Bill's 20 1-001 for 20 1-0033 or 20 1-0071 must be filed with the council offices no later than noon on Monday, March 1st, due to the Presidents Day holiday.
A bill for an ordinance relating to the Denver Zoning Code updating household regulations, consolidating residential care uses, and establishing a new congregate living use category. 
Approves Denver Zoning Code Text Amendment #8 to update the way the code regulates households, consolidate residential care uses into a single system regulated by size rather than by population served, and establish a new congregate living use category that allows for the evolution of residential uses that are not in conventional dwelling units. Also known as the “Group Living Text Amendment.” The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 12-22-20.