Speaker 2: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 5: 11 Eyes.
Speaker 2: 11 Eyes. Final consideration of Council Bill 20 2-345 has been postponed to after the public hearing on Council Bill 20 2-352 this evening. Councilmember Hines, would you please put council bill 22, dash 352 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 0: I'd love to.
Speaker 3: Move the council bill 20 2-035 to be placed upon final consideration.
Speaker 0: And do pass.
Speaker 2: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded the required public hearing for Council Bill 20 2-352 is open. May we have the staff report, please?
Speaker 7: Thank you. Council President Gilmore and good evening. Members of the City Council. My name is Lily Jones. I'm with CPD Planning Services and today I'll be presenting the Farnworth Area Plan Amendment. My presentation is about 10 to 15 minutes long, and I will briefly cover the existing 2019 adopted plan, followed by a quick reminder on what initiated the plan amendment. And then I will wrap up with the summary of the staff report. So some of you were part of the vote that adopted what was then the very first neighborhood plan amendment or the very first Neighborhood Planning Initiative, which was the part of these area plans back in June of 2019. The adoption went through a 24 month planning process, which I was heavily involved with as a part of program project management team. And between 2017 and 2019, Community Planning and Development worked closely with the far northeast community to put together a really comprehensive plan that provides great guidance from and below Gateway, Green Valley Ranch and the DIA neighborhoods. And this great plan will continue to serve the far northeast community for years to come. The framework of the plan, which was adopted in 2019, address land use in built form, mobility and quality of life and infrastructure. And as you recognize, these are three elements of the complete neighborhood as prescribed by or in the blueprint Denver. The original 2019 plan adoption went through 20 steering committee meetings, five public meetings, one design charrette, and over 50 participations and community events attended by CPD staff, including myself. But today we're presenting to you a focus area upon amendment to the, ironically, the far northeast corner of the neighborhood. And the boundary of the plan amendment was predefined by their large development review, which is bounded by the future 72nd Avenue to the North Himalaya street to the east, the existing High Point Boulevard to the south, and then Argonne Street here to the to the on the western edge. An amendment to the recently adopted plan was needed in order to accommodate the relocation of Pepsi Bottling plant from its current location on Pruyn Avenue to the DIA neighborhood. There are four main components that were addressed or rather amended in this plan. The first is that we amended the land use designation to the specific area which was previously identified as a community center. And a community center is a place type that is intended to support a variety of mixed uses but doesn't support light, industrial or manufacturing uses. Therefore, to support a use like Pepsi Bottling Company, this area had to change its place type designation to value manufacturing, as you see identified here and on the map in Violet. The reason we had previously identified this as a mixed use is that we have we had anticipated that a light rail stop, I'm just going to call it out right here at the intersection of 72nd and Avenue and Himalaya was going to be developed. But since the adoption of this plan, we've learned that there are no plans to develop the light rail in the next 20 years. And so a mixed use would be difficult to support here without this light red light rail station. I should also remind you that the dark diagonal lines that we see indicated on the map, that's just to show us that residential isn't allowed north of 64th Avenue due to the disease influence area overlay. And so the change in place type from a community center to valley manufacturing is also needed to support the rezoning which my colleague Scott Robinson will present after me. The second change in the plan amendment is the change that had to be heard to be made to the Mobility Network in this area. Roads and mobility networks are highly dependent on the land use designations. And so with the changes of land use. We we don't need as many roads to connect across this this portion of the. The third man component amended in this plan is the transformative project in the DA neighborhood. This was previously called out as a line station at 72nd and Himalaya Street. But again, as I've already mentioned, this is no longer within the horizon of this plan. We have amended the transformative project to be Employment Center north of 64th Avenue. I do want to point out that there's still some language here and actually all throughout the plan that support the light rail stop in this area in case anything changes. And lastly, there are additional red lines throughout the plant that speak to either design quality, mobility, placemaking aspects, community outreach or just specific to the development of new manufacturing or light industrial uses in the far northeast community. We also facilitated market analysis for this area, which reported to which reported that the greenfield sites north of 64th Avenue where residential is restricted due to the the airport overlay. What's what was shown is that what's appropriate is light, industrial and manufacturing growth in this area. So this report also pointed out that industrial jobs have significantly higher wages when compared to hospitality. And hospitality is what we have previously seen develop in this area. So with hospitality jobs paying on average 1260 per hour versus $30 per hour, which is what the industrial wages are paying. So the market analysis also reported that the hotel corridor will remain strong along Tower Road. But again, the greenfield sites on the western and eastern ends of tower would be more appropriate to support light, industrial or manufacturing uses. There are three main criteria there are laid out in our plan 2044 evaluating area plants and plant amendments, and they are to assure that an inclusive community process was used to develop the kind of amendment that the plan amendment is consistent with the vision, goals and strategies of the plan. And then the plan amendments demonstrates a long term view. The pre-planning for the amendment started late in the summer of 2021, and we had our first steering committee meeting in October of last year, followed by a public meeting in December. We had a second steering committee meeting in February and we also sent out multiple email blasts and put out to a two week public review draft. I have three slides that touch on the most common themes that we heard throughout the public outreach process. The forerunner of these community asks for a community engagement strategy. And so we added recommendations in the plan that speak to building and establishing partnerships not just with Pepsi, but with any future employment uses, especially when it comes to job recruitment in the community and providing scholarships for certificate training and professional development for the far northeast community . We've also heard the community ask for transit access to the new employment centers, and we've included language that support shuttle services, for example, that connect people from transit stops to employment centers. An exemplar could be of that could be a shuttle from the existing 61st and Pena Boulevard to the Pepsi facility. We've also heard the community feedback regarding anticipated truck traffic along town roads and the impact it will have on road maintenance in. Well, Tower Road was designed to accommodate freight and large volumes of traffic. We did language into the plan that speak to developing road maintenance for Tower Road. Pepsi has also expressed their commitment to changing their fleet to all electrical vehicles by 2030, which will mitigate noise and air pollution due to truck. Truck traffic. The community also expressed that they wanted to make sure that benefits that were integrated into the hypo in general development plan for this area were not lost in the amendment process . And we have language of the plan that supports that specific to this property as it regards to open space trail networks, bridges and roadway connections. And those are all being carried over in the GDP update. Finally, the staff finds that the Foreign Office Area Plan Amendment was developed through an inclusive public process. So in regards to plan consistency specific to the comprehensive plan 2014, the far Northeast Area Plan Amendment is consistent with 31 individual goals and 67 strategies covering the topics of affordable housing, international intentional growth and development, supporting culturally rich and inclusive communities. Multi-Modal connectivity. Parks and open space. Health and safety and economic vitality. With regards to Blueprint Denver, the Farnworth area plan amendments address 22 individual policies and 53 individual strategies that cover topics such as land use and build form. Housing and transportation. Mobility and quality of life. The Map amendment stayed consistent with the previously adopted plan, and changes to these maps were only made within the amendment boundary. Steph therefore finds that the far north these area upon amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan 2040 as well as the blueprint Denver. Lastly, SAP finds that the far northeast area plan amendment was developed with a long term vision and view building on the originally adopted 2019 plan. And so upon conclusion of this analysis, staff recommends approval of the in area plan amendment with conditions that the document would be edited for clarity and correctness. And with that, I thank you for your time. Attention.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you, Lily, for the staff report. And we have five individuals signed up to speak this evening. And our first speaker is Steve Lawrence. Joining us here in chambers. Oh, okay. I will. Mr. Lawrence is attending, but is declining to speak. And so we'll go ahead and move on. Martin Wallace, who's joining us via Zoom. Go ahead, please, Martin. You'll have to unmute yourself.
Speaker 0: I. Good evening.
Speaker 2: Hello. Go ahead, please. Martin. You can go ahead and start. All right. We're going to see if we can get. MARTIN, you're the only I think we've got one other virtual. We'll go ahead and see if we can get. Martin back in the queue. All right. Well, we're trying to get Martin. We'll go in chambers. John Bennett is. We're in the public comment portion. The public speaker portion. You'll have 3 minutes to speak, sir.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Members of the City Council. My name is John Benitez. I have the privilege of being a resident of the city in county of Denver with my wife for 42 years. I'm here today. To discuss. The impact of the decision you are about to make. And I'm hoping that I can draw your attention, your focus on the importance of it in relation to a building that is in the path of progress here at 6850 argon. Eight years ago, I formed a company called BD Omni. We purchased a building in 68, 50, 68, 60 and 68, 90 Garden Street. I was hoping to be able to show you where it is on this map. But we are at the intersection of Oregon Street and 69th Avenue. Right now that property by the Army leases all of its space to seven tenants, one of which is the Denver Public Schools. We have a full fledged high school called Legacy Options High School with 125 students. We have administrative staff, a cafeteria, a gymnasium, principal's office. It's a full fledged high school. We have a church. We have five other tenants that are in the buildings. There are three buildings. The Church and a TV production company are situated. In the property that is and there. Premises are about 50 feet, which is almost the length of this dais for the city council members. From 69th Avenue. What we've learned and why am I here? I'm here not to promote my property. I'm here because there has been a lack of information given to us concerning a very pivotal decision made by Dottie. And I understand the accolades and I support them with respect to what Dotty has done for the city and county of Denver. What a decision that was made and indicates that the primary ingress and egress for 300 to 400. To up to I have read 900 tractor trailer trucks will be going past our building within 55 feet of it every day. Every day to go to the Pepsi Bottling plant. The Pepsi Bottling plant. Let's be clear about it is a 1.2 million square foot facility that will grow to 1.7 million. It'll start with 500 employees, which is terrific. They purportedly will come in from a different angle, but we will have 300 to 400 to 900 trucks a day.
Speaker 2: We have a lot of speakers. Everybody gets 3 minutes. And so we're going to go ahead and transition to the next speaker. Thank you for being here. And folks can ask you to come up for any questions that they might have. Next, we're going to Jesse Perez online.
Speaker 3: Yes. Members of council may be.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 3: Yes. Oh, good evening. My name is Justice for Black Star Action, Movement for Self Defense, Positive Action, Comment for Social Change, as well as the Unity Party of Colorado, the East Denver Residents Council, front line Black News. And I'll be the next mayor of Denver in 2023. And I live in District eight. And Councilman Hern, this district I'm in favor of this amendment to the far northeast plan for the green bill, a greenfield site to accommodate market demand since the plan's adoption. My question is, what exactly is going to be put here? I keep hearing it's either going to be a Pepsi facility or a community center. If someone please answer that question, I would greatly appreciate it. It meets. The three criteria consistency with the Northeast Denver plan consistency with Blueprint Denver and the long term view. Or efficient. So I'm in favor of the three amendments excuse me, to the Far East or Northeast plan. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Our next speaker is Brian Conley.
Speaker 1: Good evening, Madam President, and members of Council. My name is Brian Connolly. I am with the firm of Otten, Johnson, Robinson, Neff and Ragan Eddy here in Denver. And I have the privilege of representing PepsiCo Beverages North America on the two matters that are before you this evening. As Lilly explained also, I should thank Lilly. She's done an excellent job of processing this area. Plant Amendment. As Lilly explained through the large development review process, we received feedback that an area plan amendment would be required, and we submitted a letter on March 9th of this year before the Planning Board hearing explaining our position in support of this area plant amendment. That's before you this evening. I would like to take this time to just mention three things, which I think underline Pepsi's support of the area plant amendment and why we think it's important to the city. First, manufacturing is really important to our community. We need to support its continued development. Manufacturing offers good paying jobs to people across the income spectrum, and economists have long agreed that communities that have manufacturing jobs have less income stratification and provide more upward mobility for residents. Denver has been losing manufacturing space and has lost manufacturing jobs as a share of our total employment for many years. And that's in part because we've set aside fairly little plant, little room in our plans for these types of uses, but the demand for them is high. This amendment and the Pepsi project that this will support presents an opportunity for our entire community to add manufacturing employment here in the city and for our city to become a model for sustainable advanced manufacturing. And on a related point, second point, this plant amendment will support significant developments in sustainability and technology. Pepsi's proposed bottling facility is intended to be industry, leading both in its sustainability and its technology. On the sustainability front, the company is anticipating the use of solar energy to power the plant with a goal of the entire facility being net zero. It is anticipating electrification of the company's truck fleet in the hopefully relatively near future and using the most advanced technology for wastewater recovery and recycling in the entire industry and the technology front. The plant will feature automated storage and retrieval systems, automated guided vehicles and advanced diagnostics and beverage manufacturing. The third thing is that this has great has several community benefits for the far northeast community. Pepsi looks at community benefits through four major ways workforce development, educational partnerships, community partnerships, and infrastructure improvements and workforce. This project will provide community members with access to jobs and training. On the educational side, Pepsi is looking at partnerships with local high schools and community colleges to encourage building technical skills and the community side. Pepsi will continue with strong philanthropic support of community organizations citywide as well as in the far northeast area. And our infrastructure improvements will include streets and parks and recreational facilities for community use. So with that, we do encourage you to support this a plan amendment. We'll be happy to answer any questions. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. We're going to go ahead and try to get Martin Wallace back in the queue, our final speaker for this public hearing. And I see you're unmuted. Martin, go ahead, please.
Speaker 0: I am.
Speaker 3: And sincere apologies. We have storms in New York.
Speaker 1: So happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 2: All right. Wonderful. Thank you. All right. That concludes our speakers for this hearing. Questions from members of Council on Council Bill 22, Dash 358. CNN. I knew as soon as I saw that. Councilmember Flynn. Go ahead, please.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam President. It was taking a while after clicking the button for it to appear. The gentleman from the church. Mr. Benitez. Could you come up? I don't get out there very often. So I'm relying on Google which. Maybe isn't the best thing on the planet, but it appears that the church is like a commercial warehouse structure or some kind of a light industrial structure is. Are there plans to build a church structure somewhere nearby? Is this a temporary home for the church? To my knowledge, no. It's not a temporary home. They are an active church that I built out. It looks like a warehouse, but it honestly is a church on the inside. Similarly, it looks like a warehouse with respect to the high school. It looks like a warehouse. But when you walk inside, it is. A high school. Okay. So is this. This will be then the permanent home for Saint Gianna Beretta, Molla Parish. It is to my knowledge that they have signed a long term lease with me. Yes. And they are there and they're active, not just on Sundays at seven days a week. Okay. Generally speaking, the. Is this an archdiocesan church? Yes, it is. It's affiliated with the Denver Archdiocese. Yes, it is. It's not one of those sort of breakaway Pius the 10th. No. The lease is actually referenced in the Archdiocese of Denver for the benefit of. Okay. That's okay. Because generally the archdiocese owns the real estate where it's churches are built. So I'm just curious. That's why I was finding it hard to believe that this was the permanent location in many ways to sell this to the archdiocese. No plans right now. They lease part of one of the buildings, and they're a great tenant. Mm hmm. And part of why I'm here is because the 300 to 400 to 900 trucks are going to go within 55 feet of their back door. Okay. Thank you. Was that basically the the tenor of the remainder of your remarks that you were not able to make? I appreciate you asking that question because no, I actually had other remarks to make, and I'd be glad to supplement, if I may. Madam Chairman. Madam President, can I ask him that?
Speaker 0: Go ahead.
Speaker 6: Thank you for allowing me to do this. God forbid I should not panic. I say, God forbid. I should not. The reason that I'm suggesting that the council consider this issue of whether or not. This area plan amendment should be approved is for the simple reason that there was a decision made. There were options in front of the Department of Transportation, also in front of Pepsi Bottling Company, as to where all of these trucks and how they should go into and out of their facility. A decision not easy to make, but there were three options 69th Avenue, which abuts my property. 70th just north of it. And 71st. Just north of that. The decision ultimately made, to the best of my knowledge, after participating in the process and I filed objections or I filed our comments just as Pepsi did for the Denver Planning Board. But the decision was ultimately made without, to my knowledge, taken into consideration whether there was an impact on our building or on the hotels that are on 69th Avenue, those properties and the guests in those properties. There's going to be a lot of traffic no one has requested. We're asked whether or not this would impact our property at all. I have filed comments saying it will impact our property somewhere within the Department of Transportation, perhaps CPD. It's hard to say where the ultimate decision finally was made, but it was made to do it on 69th Avenue, which will severely impact the operations of my property . If the decision had been made after the city and county of Denver through its departments had actually. Gone in and understood. Is this going to impact you? Tell us what it will do. Having all these trucks every day. It's not just a NIMBY thing. It's this is what's going to impact our property. And I have 125 high school students and our high school. That are right there in DPS. I talked to them today. They are considering possibly expanding. There's a lot going on. But my point for the council to consider is that as this decision was made, it was made, I would characterize in a vacuum without having those of us, whether it's in an industrial site, whether it's a hotel, really talked to and allowed to voice their concerns. To me, it didn't happen. I wished it had. If the decision had been made, once that knowledge was shared, then I would accept the decision. I don't think it's there. I just do not think that process was undertaken. One of the things that I and I'm going to just say this is I truly, sincerely believe it. After 42 years here, many, many, many years that I've lived here, I have been thankful and very proud of this city and the state, quite frankly, of the decisions that we have made as a city and as a state . And what I'm challenging this city council is please. Please use best practices. Let us make the best decisions we can. We are smart. We can come up with solutions to issues and but let's hear people out and understand truly what impacts are. So I really appreciate the open question. Thank you. Thank you. That's all. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you, Mr. Barnabas and Councilmember Flynn. Councilmember Sawyer.
Speaker 7: Thanks, Madam President. Just had a couple of, I guess, quick clarifying questions for CPD. So we haven't approved the amend the amendment yet and we haven't approved the rezoning yet. So those things have to happen legally speaking, before a site plan happens. Can we? In which case things like locations in and out.
Speaker 0: Of.
Speaker 7: And access to for trucks.
Speaker 0: Would.
Speaker 7: Be made. So I'm just a little confused about kind of where we are in the process in the background.
Speaker 0: Good evening, sir. My name is Steven Wilson. I'm with Community Planning and Development and in the large development review group. So I have worked with the applicant team and the different divisions in the city since the beginning of 2021 on this project. And to specifically answer your question, so there's a general development plan amendment and that has not yet been approved. That general development plan was presented to the Planning Board for feedback, and then the ultimate approval authority is the Development Review Committee. So you're correct that approval would be contingent on this evening's approval of the Area Plan Amendment and the rezoning.
Speaker 7: Okay, great. So, so the reason I ask that is because then that would suggest that there is still potentially time to, you know, discuss other options.
Speaker 0: Or.
Speaker 2: Consider.
Speaker 7: Impacts to surrounding businesses that maybe were unanticipated.
Speaker 0: That is correct. And if I may, I could give a little bit of background to that right now. So, again, thank you for the opportunity. So in the process of evaluating, there are actually four potential options at 69, 70, near 71st and 72nd. And through a process with Dottie community planning, development and the applicant in their plan, it was determined that 69th was the best option for safety reasons, that there is a streetlight already planned for 69. It allows for connections to the east. It allows for stacking of vehicles. And it again, it was overall the safest connection that we could do for the project based on the context. And to Mr. Benitez's point, there will be impacts to adjacent properties, but each of those other options has adjacent properties as well.
Speaker 7: Okay. And I think you mentioned, Brian, maybe you mentioned electrification of the the fleet. So. That could mean a lot of different things. Does that mean, then, that Pepsi's fleet will.
Speaker 0: Be quieter.
Speaker 7: And less impactful on the environment as a whole because they're electric? I mean, I used to have an electric car and people used to walk out in front of me all the time because they couldn't hear me coming. So I can attest to that. But I just wanted to kind of walk through that.
Speaker 1: I actually had a law school professor almost ran over me with an electric budget.
Speaker 7: Yeah, it's a thing.
Speaker 1: Yes. So if the if if the cab, you know, if you're an electric cab on the front of a truck, it's not going to have all the diesel noise that would come with a usual truck cab. There's still maybe noise from braking. There may still be, you know, noises associated with, you know, tire tires running along the pavement. But it would it would be quieter than a diesel cab.
Speaker 7: Okay. I really appreciate that. And I think that covers all my question. Thank you.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Sawyer. Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 7: I'm just going to further clarify what Councilman Sawyer said. Whoa.
Speaker 8: Lily.
Speaker 7: By approving this amendment to the plan, are we approving that 69th Avenue will be the road that is accessed by the Pepsi trucks? So the the plan isn't the right tool for whether the 69th or 71st. In fact, the plan as you can. Well, I don't I can't share the screen now, but if I could, you'll see that the the deck there's no actual language in the plan that says 69th versus 71st or anything like that. It is graphical, it is diagrammatic in terms of sheer the potential connections that we can have. And then there's a legend there that's attached that says, you know what, one is a priority versus another one is as a second option. And so we facilitated that. There's a69 connection, and we also have an arrow that shows 71st connection as a potential potential network. So the. To to answer. You know, in order for this plan to be approved or in order for zoning rezoning to be approved, the plan is to be approved. But then it would kick in the GDP approval as well. Right. But by approving the plan amendment tonight, we are not approving the GDP. No, you're not. I just wanted to be clear on that.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilmember Black. Councilmember Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to ask how many lanes are anticipated on 69th Avenue? Is it anticipated to be widened from what it is today? Would. How many lanes are there right now?
Speaker 0: Again. Stephen Wilson, thank you for the question. So although I'm not an engineer, I think I have the answer to your question, which is that right away would ultimately support four lanes. To start with, I believe it will be two lanes with turn lanes that go with that. Okay. And that's a planner answering him or engineering questions.
Speaker 2: And how does that differ from 56th Avenue that runs in front of or is this GBR in front of the B Dennis campus? I believe it's 56th Avenue that runs in front of the Sandoval campus as well, which has a significant amount more of students in both of those campuses. Are you familiar with the the width of the roads in front of those two high schools?
Speaker 0: I apologize. I'm not.
Speaker 2: Okay. Councilwoman Gilmore, could you answer that question? So could you please your question again? I'm just asking, how many lanes of traffic are on 56th Avenue and is it GBR or 56 that runs in front of every Dennis campus? So it's Green Valley Ranch Boulevard runs perpendicular to every great Dennis campus. Telluride runs in front of it. But 15/6 Avenue is currently I mean, it's ultimately planned for six lanes, but we are getting an additional two lanes on 56th Avenue from Pena all the way to Peoria. So really the Montebello side in Green Valley Ranch, it's more so built out for the six lanes already on 56th Avenue. Okay. And that one is the one that runs parallel to the Sandoval campus. Right. Which has middle school and high school. Correct. I just wanted to sort of make that distinction between those locations, which I do know, on 56th Avenue between Pena Boulevard and Quebec Street, actually all the way down to I-25. As you go to the west, there's a lot of heavy truck traffic that travels on that particular corridor. That's normally the route I take when I come from the airport. So I don't have to, you know, sit with me. But I just wanted to point that out because I. Insensitive to Mr. Benitez's concerns. But as we have seen this part of our city grow, we have had to figure out how to address moving people back and forth, and particularly where we have some of the industrial businesses that happen to exist out in this area. So I think those are the only questions I had. So appreciate it. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. And I'm going to go ahead and pose a couple of my questions and then we'll bring Councilman Flynn back into the queue. Lily. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions. So when we had brought folks together for the far northeast area plan, we had great representation by both community organizations and residents in Green Valley Ranch . We got folks in Parkfield, High Point and Montebello. And could you talk a little bit about how we reconvened those steering committee members? Yeah.
Speaker 7: So we we had a fantastic steering committee that was really engaged in the original 2019 adoption process. And so we reached out to them again and we pulled community members from each one of those areas and asked them to rejoin. So we weren't starting that process from scratch. It wasn't people who, in terms of steering committee members who weren't involved in that in the original plan since this was so recently adopted, it felt like we just came back together and got back to work and really concentrated on the small area. So it was a really great process.
Speaker 2: Great. Thank you. And how many meetings? I know you talked about that. We had our kickoff meeting in October of last year. And could you talk a little bit about the attendance by committee, by steering committee members? And then we also had some wide scale public meetings as well. Could you talk a little bit more about the the participation and the conversation of folks?
Speaker 7: Yeah, well, certainly, given the fact that we are in a pandemic right now, the public meeting structure, which was previously done in in the Foreign Office, communities, community centers, high schools, and, you know, in a place where people really felt comfortable right. As part of their community, we this time around, we were meeting online. Right. And that was a completely different experience. We didn't get to connect in the same way in with the steering committee. We met twice. We exchanged a lot of emails back and forth, and one of the ways that I convinced everybody to come back together is I promised that I wasn't going to exhaust them with a lot of steering committee meetings. And so they were really engaged. They were really present. And then with the I think on average, we would get about 45 people showing up online. Again, that's that could be said, that's a lot in a COVID environment to an online participation, especially for an area that's, you know, there's no permanent residential community here. So it's all greenfields.
Speaker 2: Great. Thank you. And in those meetings with the community, I know a lot of times we talked about, you know, having a specific idea of what the truck routine would be so that there was consistency for community members. And so we talked about the free traffic scholarships and educational support that the community would want. Could you also talk a little bit about the workforce development and what was important to the community through having a large scale employer literally in the back yard, back yard or front yard of District 11?
Speaker 7: Yeah, we and that's one of the things that we reached out to the or we use the market analysis that we facilitated. Right. We weren't just thinking as we developed this with, with the community, but we weren't just thinking of Pepsi as the sole user like this. We anticipate similar type of in light industrial users like that facilitating. I wish I could pull the map up again because if you remember, it's hotel row along tower and greenfield sites all along. And so there's a lot of language that we included into the plan that spoke to building those partnerships, specifically with these kind of employment centers that are coming in, incorporating partnerships and creating neighborhood agreements that would foster those kind of, you know, relationships that we would we could anticipate the scholarships, we could anticipate job training. We could anticipate employing people from the community.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you. And I appreciate that, Lily, and your leadership through this process. And I would like to invite Mr. Benitez up for a couple of questions, please. Hello. Thank you for being here, sir. If you wouldn't mind what I. If I recalling which of the steering committee, the community meetings. Were you able to attend?
Speaker 6: I attended the February 24th of this year. Community meeting. Yes, I did. I attended and spoke at the Denver Planning Board. Hearing that consider this issue and we submitted comments to that. So, yes, I did do that.
Speaker 2: Okay, great. Thank you. So you were at one of the meetings and then you attended the planning board. From the the conversation with your high school, how long has the high school been located in this facility?
Speaker 6: They've been there approximately five years and they have about another four or five left. Okay. With renewals that are available.
Speaker 2: Great. And I know that in one of the meetings, we had talked quite extensively about the educational and also employment and career options that this might pose for students at your high school. And it sounded like from that meeting that it was something that you might be interested in pursuing, knowing that this far Northeast Amendment is separate from the rezoning hearing that we'll have after this.
Speaker 6: Great point. Let me let me add a comment. The company that owns this real estate. It's a small, limited liability company. We have seven members. We do not we do not object to the development that Pepsi wants to do. We're strong supporters of that. The objection that we have goes to one thing, and it is a decision that was made, and I don't know whether that decision was communicated during the other public hearings that Lilly described and perhaps you were referring to back in 21. And whether the attendees of those hearings truly understood there's going to be 300 to 400 to 600 to 900 trucks going on this particular street, because for the members of the council, there was a mobility study completed December 15th of last year. And that mobility study focused on 71st Avenue as the way to get the trucks in and out. And that mobility study concluded that that was the best route in and it did not address. 69th Avenue and decide the 69th was the best way in. That decision was made sometime in January or February or March this year. And it was made and I wonder whether that decision was truly communicated to members of the public particularly. The company I'm referring to be the Army. The hotels on 69th Avenue truly today understand that there's going to be this much traffic going by their hotels. And I question whether that that was truly made clear or not. So we do not object to the development. And should we support it? We support the jobs.
Speaker 2: Great, great. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. And then I don't know if this question is perhaps for Lilly, because when we were working with the community members, they did want something documented around.
Speaker 0: A.
Speaker 2: Truck reading agreement. And so the council office had worked closely before this rezoning was filed. That's right. To negotiate and to work with an adjacent property owner to assure that, because that was the recommendation from the members of the steering committee and community members, that they wanted a bit more reliability on removing trucks from Tower Road and actually rerouting those trucks onto Panya Boulevard more. So is that accurate?
Speaker 7: That's correct, yeah. So the good neighborhood agreement and the reason I didn't bring it up because these are usually not tied to the plan, the plans themselves, they're associate usually with the rezoning, which my my colleague Scott was going to refer to. But Brian, do you want to speak to the development agreement?
Speaker 2: Great. Thank you. And Brian, if you could, go ahead and introduce yourself for the record.
Speaker 1: Yes. Brian Connolly, again, I'm representing Pepsi Bottling Company, North America. So the agreement that you're referencing, Council President Gilmore, is a it's a truck routing agreement between Pepsi and the surrounding master association that controls all of High Point the development out there, because those are the most affected owners. Those are the ones that would be affected by truck routing and through the course of conversations. So so I want to just take one step back, which is the community meetings on this project actually started with the large development review process. So the community meetings actually started before the far Northeast Area Plan Amendment even was was discussed or came about. It started before the rezoning was was the application was filed. And in those community meetings we, we were required to notice properties all around the subject property. And so those notices went out to the entire hotel community up and down Tower Road. There were hotel owners that actually attended even that first community meeting on the large development review process. And one thing that we consistently heard was we don't want truck traffic going into the residential areas that are south of this property. As Lily mentioned, there is residential south of 64th Avenue. And so I think the feedback that we received from Green Valley Ranch, from Monticello, from people who live in the community, was we don't want truck traffic in our residential areas. Obviously, truck traffic in residential areas is also bad for Pepsi because that's certainly the slowest path by which you can transport goods out of the the proposed plant. So in working with the community immediately around this property, we we developed a truck routing agreement which provides for trucks to be routed west out of the facility to Tower Road, where they will then access Pena Boulevard and would actually then likely go on to E for 70. So so even keeping them sort of out of central Denver to the extent they're going westbound. So that's what the truck routing agreement provides and it's a binding contractual commitment. I would also just add the truck traffic piece. I would also just make one more clarifying point because I want to make sure we're operating on a consistent set of facts. There is no plan to have 900 trucks a day with this facility. This facility, as we've said consistently throughout the process, is anticipated when it when it opens to have approximately 12 trucks an hour, which comes out to about 280, 290 trucks per day. That number certainly could increase as production increases, but there is really no way that there would ever be 900 trucks a day. And I'm not really sure where Mr. Benitez got that information.
Speaker 2: Great. Thank you, Brian. Appreciate that. All right. That wraps up my questions for now. And we'll go it looks like Councilman Flynn, you're up next.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam President. You stole my thunder with the truck routing agreement. I was wanting to go into the background of why that was. That's not a city requirement. Lilly Correct. The truck routing agreement is in our packet and I was reading through it and I was just curious why 69th Avenue was chosen. I guess the city is not part of that, is it? Because it's between the High Point Master Association and Bottling Group?
Speaker 7: I'm not sure if I'm following your question.
Speaker 6: Does the did the city. Did we ask Pepsi and the.
Speaker 7: Joint.
Speaker 6: Master Association to come up with this truck routing agreement? We are not a party to it.
Speaker 7: That's right.
Speaker 6: So do we have anything to do with the do we ask for it?
Speaker 7: Well, we suggested that that might be the route to take. When we heard the the feedback from the community during planning meetings.
Speaker 6: Obviously we're not insisting on. No. Well.
Speaker 7: Or is this a disgusting thing?
Speaker 6: Brian, could you could you respond? I'm just really curious, because when Mr. Benedetti was talking about 71st Avenue, 71st Avenue was two blocks closer to Pioneer Boulevard, and it would mean two fewer blocks. My wife is not listening, so she can't correct my grammar. I think it's two fewer blocks traveling on Tower Road. Why? Why was 71st Avenue not chosen for this? I mean, because it goes right into the ACM High Point site.
Speaker 1: That it does actually. So 71st Avenue was the access point to the site that was initially proposed by Pepsi. Right. So if you can and again, if if we had the map up, it would be helpful. But if you can envision the geography out there, 71st Avenue and Oregon meet each other at what is essentially an L intersection. So 71st Avenue ends at Argonne right now. Right. The original proposal from Pepsi was to just extend 71st Avenue into the site that Pepsi is purchasing.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 1: And feedback that we received from Dottie, we actually heard a few pieces of feedback from Dottie, which I think are important to this analysis. The first is that if if 71st were extended into the Pepsi site, you'd have a dead end street. We don't usually do dead end streets in Denver. It complicates things like snow removal and street maintenance and whatnot. Secondly, Dottie wanted a through connection to the East to improve connectivity in the area and so 69th allows for that. If you if you had 71st be that through connection through that property, you would you would basically preclude the construction of a manufacturing plant because it would be right in the middle of the property. The third reason that Dottie was concerned about that approach is that 71st Avenue, if it were used as the access point to the plant, it would result in trucks stacking or backing up westward from the plant entrance, which I mean, again, it's sort of anticipated that there would be 12 trucks an hour, a truck every five or 6 minutes. But if you had a stacking situation, the trucks might actually back up to the Tower Road intersection. The 69th Avenue alignment allows for a thru connection from High Point Boulevard over to Tower Road. It then also allows for what will ultimately be a long North-South driveway from 69th Avenue into the Pepsi facility so that you really don't run the risk of trucks stacking or backing up out under the public streets. Any of that stacking would occur internal to the property. And then the final reason, the fourth reason that Dottie, as I understand it, rejected the 71st Avenue proposal is that 71st Avenue, there is not enough stacking room for trucks that would be turning left off of Tower Road onto 74. So if you can imagine driving south from Panya Boulevard into where the hotel district is, you've got left hand turn lanes. There would not be enough room for trucks to to back up sort of backward north from 71st. And that would then impact the bridge that the bridge overpass where the line goes over Tower Road 69th Avenue, again allows for that through connectivity. It avoids the stacking issues. It will be a signalized intersection at Tower Road. And I'd also just point out that as part of the GDP amendment process, there is discussion about the applicant actually making transportation improvements to the intersections at 69th and Argonne, as well as at 69th and Tower Road to improve safety.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you. At. I guess I'm looking at the subdivision map and I. I just don't see I guess I don't see the sense of that. The 71st 69th Avenue being a thru route. Are we? We're going to punch it through to Aurora. Because it connects to High Point Boulevard at the Aurora city line. It would be no longer or shorter than 71st. So I'm a little befuddled. The left turn stacking cutout on Tower Road, it looks to be the same length turning left from tower to 71st as it is tower to 69th. So I guess I'm a little befuddled in the long run that this is not something that I would base, you know, a decision on. It's a it's an agreement between two private parties. It's not involving the city. But I just find befuddled by. So if you can shed light on it. Really, that's great. If not, we should move on.
Speaker 7: I just. Is there an option to share the screen? Again. Thank you so much. I just want to clarify to what Brian was speaking to. Here's the 69th Avenue connection. And these were really I mean, we spent hours and hours and hours with daddy trying to understand how to move traffic along here. Obviously, I'm not a traffic engineer either. I'm a planner. And so I'm going to do my best to explain and reiterate what Brian, which was speaking to you. But essentially what you get on 71st Avenue is a private roadway, right? That's just servicing Pepsi and Daddy's priority. One of their priorities was to make that through connection, that it wasn't going to be just in and out. But there was an opportunity to navigate traffic, not only for Pepsi to use, but for to connect across to what potentially would be 71st Avenue or 70 I'm sorry, 73rd Avenue across into Adams County as well. And then the intersection here, this is where Brian was speaking to you. The way that the the trucks lining up as they're coming down, pioneer would just cause too much of a congestion here and the ability to to make those left turns versus the ability to take a left turns here. And then again, as Steven Wilson mentioned, there's going to be a signaling that's going to be in place and that's already plan at 69. And that also created that as a priority over 71st. And lastly, the stacking of vehicles. This allows for the stacking vehicles, the length of that within Pepsi's property as they as they wrap as the trucks would wrap around here, which didn't didn't given just sort of the footprint and the layout of the building as proposed, which is very strict, as I as I learn, based on their operational needs, it wouldn't been a lot like they wouldn't have had enough room to do that on 71st.
Speaker 6: Okay. I. I guess I'm still scratching my head 69th as I'm looking I'm looking at that on my screen here and 69 Wiggles and whines to High Point Boulevard and then it goes up. I know that's Dunkirk. And then over again on 70th and then up on Himalaya, seems to be 71st, goes right into the plant and that would be where you want the trucks to go rather than winding through 69th and High Point.
Speaker 7: Yeah. And as Brian mentioned, that was that was our first and initial consideration. But it just no matter how much we tried it, it wasn't working. Okay, technically.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 2: Driven out there lately or had to go down Tower Road or once you get off Penn Yan Boulevard, it is a very short stretch of road and you could see very quickly how the trucks would start to stack up. That's right. Coming off and then impede traffic both on Tower Road. That's right in on Pena Boulevard as well, trying to get off on that off of that off ramp that definitely. I'm glad you're asking the questions. Councilmember Flynn. Councilmember Ortega. Thanks, Ben and President Lilly, I wanted to ask a question about you had mentioned that. Pitney Boulevard was one of the preferred routes to take to sort of keep that traffic out of the neighborhood. Mm hmm. And I don't know if we have anybody here from the airport.
Speaker 7: But I think we do.
Speaker 2: I remember we are going through a process of adding additional lanes because of concerns that traffic that's not going to the airport. We actually had to pay some fines to FAA because that road was built with airport dollars. And I'm just wondering how we're encouraging people to use Pinners that are not airport traffic. Right. That would would be using that corridor to then, you know, come into this area. And I get we want to keep traffic out of neighborhoods. But at the same time, I don't want to make I don't want to create more planes for the airport either. So is there anyone that can speak to this issue?
Speaker 7: I think Brian or Jen.
Speaker 1: I will I will do my best to answer it. And if I do something incorrect, then somebody behind me is going to kick me. So. We had discussions with the airport about the use of Panya and about the funding question and improvements to Panya. Ultimately, how those discussions were resolved is that because of the planning process that the city is going through right now, it was not the appropriate time to decide whether or how Pepsi or any other property owner along Panya would contribute to resolving that situation. The reality is that Panya was built with interchanges that serve the properties around it, and it's a public highway. And so that, you know, in working with through the airport and the city attorney's office, it was determined that this was the best approach to take with both truck routing and with addressing the issues of hand.
Speaker 2: So I think this is something that warrants having some input from the airport attorneys to make sure that we're not putting the airport in a in a box, if you will, as we encourage more and more development out in this area. I know it has been anticipated that we have airport development, and it may be that, you know, if this facility is going to be shipping out product to other cities, other states, it may be somehow deemed as an airport related operation. So that's where I think having that clarity from our our city attorneys from the airport may be helpful because I know that we don't want to get in trouble with FAA as as we've seen in the past, where we had to pay fines. And I'll go ahead and unless Brian.
Speaker 1: You I was gonna say I mean I've spoken to airport attorneys about this I don't know if any member of the city attorney's office who's present here would like to weigh in on it.
Speaker 2: But yeah, I did. I mean, so I've had extensive conversations with Josh in the mayor's office about this, and I'm blanking on Josh's name. Lepley Yes. And so, you know, in talking with Josh right now, we have traffic on Penna that is not sitting in county related, it is not airport related, it is commerce traffic. We're not currently it's not a toll road. We're not restricting Adams County, Arapahoe County Commerce City, Aurora from utilizing Pena Boulevard. And I would hate to see us restrict a large scale workforce development employment center in the far north east by holding ourselves to a different standard than what the airport is currently holding other municipalities to. And that hasn't been a conversation, I believe, that long ago when we explored the conversation about a toll road, we knew that that was going to restrict growth in the far northeast, and that wasn't anything that the airport wanted to do either. And so the airport has been well aware of this process as it's been going through, you know, the different channels. Are they going to come forward and publicly say, yes, we want you to do that? No, they're not. They're going to stay silent on it. But unless you've got new information that that's where we had left the conversation, I don't have near.
Speaker 7: And for me, I've just been struggling with trying to figure out how to answer your question. And I know I should have an answer.
Speaker 5: I was the transportation commissioner that involved in the project office, but I don't have the specific correct answer to your question. The more general answer to the question is that application.
Speaker 7: Of user fees have been evaluated for Pepsi Center, as you know, in.
Speaker 5: The for the for Pena Boulevard in general.
Speaker 7: But there isn't going to be a move to apply user fees for one specific user. So there could in the future be.
Speaker 5: A reevaluation of whether there.
Speaker 7: Should be user fees for for Penn.
Speaker 5: Boulevard.
Speaker 7: For all commercial uses or for commercial uses of a particular type. But the airport is not going to institute.
Speaker 5: Specific restrictions for one specific user.
Speaker 0: I get.
Speaker 7: That. Yeah.
Speaker 2: But I guess as we continue to encourage more development on airport property. It appears as though this is something that we're going to need to figure out how to tackle as as we attract more and more commercial or industrial development. I'm I think this is a great project for our city. I think it's a great project for the far northeast area. But I think we we just have to be really clear that, you know, we've we've crossed all the T's and dot it all the I's. And Shannon, I understand you have that. Expertize that you bring to the table. Having worked with CDOT and being involved with a lot of our big projects that we have in the city. But I just know that in the past we've had to pay fines because people driving on the airport on Pioneer Boulevard that were not going to the airport, we got dinged for it. We the airport. And so I just hope there's some way as as we encourage more development out there, that I heard you very loud and clear that there would be fees attached to the project. Is it you made reference to fees.
Speaker 5: That there are.
Speaker 7: Not user fees currently for the use of any boulevard.
Speaker 5: That there could be a general.
Speaker 7: Reevaluation of that in the future?
Speaker 5: The Chip Projects Office.
Speaker 7: Actually has a regular check in meeting with the airport administration to talk about sort of all the issues about real estate development. I will put that on the agenda for our next meeting, just to ask if, you know, if they're considering.
Speaker 2: This.
Speaker 7: In the future.
Speaker 2: I guess the other question to ask is, as we're moving forward to add more lanes of traffic to Pioneer Boulevard that. As I understood it would otherwise accommodate. Traffic that is not going to the airport. How? You know, like, what's the timing of that? And then how do we see that getting us out from, you know, being fined by FAA? So anyway, that would be part of those conversations with the mayor's office. But I appreciate everyone attempting to answer my questions.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Sorry, I can't be more specific.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega, for those questions. And I hope we get to that point that we have more development in the far northeast, that we have to entertain some of those fees for the use of our roadways. That would be great. Not seen any other questions. The word we're within our meeting right now, sir, and the public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 22, Dash 352. I want to go ahead and I'll make my comments first about that. This is in the far northeast and this has been a long time coming. We had great community engagement with the Far Northeast plan when we went through that initial process. We reconvened the same community members because they were very well versed in what the far northeast area plan and the intent was. And we reconvened those co-chairs and they did a really great job of through Montebello 2020, through Montebello Organizing Committee, through Girls Trek, through Montebello, walks through the Green Valley Ranch Citizens Advisory Board, through a variety of civic minded and community based organizations, came together and really made recommendations that we held Pepsi to a high standard. We held the the potential use. We vetted all of the different options and talked through it with the community. And we wanted to be cognizant that we didn't want truck traffic going through the residential areas. Now, do schools change do churches change locations? Yes, they do. We know in Denver public schools that they're currently closing schools because they're not seeing the enrollment numbers that they used to have. And I would ask my colleagues to vote in favor of this far Northeast Amendment, because it will bring almost 500 high paying jobs to the district. And we have a plan in place to reduce the negative effects of that development in the community. And I would ask my colleagues to support this far northeast area plan amendment this evening. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 22. Council members say to Barker, You're a little late on the queue, but go ahead and get your comments in, please.
Speaker 7: Thank you very much. I am currently housing Pepsi in my district and currently live in a neighborhood surrounded by these job providers like Purina, Manna, Pro and Pepsi and Coke. And the list goes on of people or companies that we've sacrificed our communities to. This is it feels incomplete. It feels like we're prioritizing the business over. The bike impaired experience in these neighborhoods, the residential experience. I have a camera outside my home that captures how many semi-trucks go down my street. They're not allowed to go down. And every day I count hundreds of them. And so I'm very concerned about this and definitely don't think we have enough information about the agreements, about the stakeholders who are affected at the schools in this location. And so for tonight, I'll have to abstain, but wanted to make sure that I explained on record why I don't feel like this is complete and why I feel like there is potential harm or unintended consequences of not fully fleshing this out before we support it. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman CdeBaca. And I'll go ahead and close out the comments. I'm going to tonight vote on my vote with my community and that there is no residential community of Denver residents in the area. And I'm carrying forward the will of the district 11 residents who fully vetted this process. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 22, Dash 352, please.
Speaker 5: Black. I set about to abstain. Clark.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 5: Flynn.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 0: Herndon, i.
Speaker 5: Hines.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 5: Cashman.
Speaker 3: All right.
Speaker 5: Kenny Ortega, I.
Speaker 7: Sawyer, I.
Speaker 5: Madam President.
Speaker 2: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 5: One Abstention in ten Eyes.
Speaker 2: Ten Eyes Council Bill 20 2-352 has passed. Councilmember Hines, will you please put Council Bill 20 to dash three, four or five on the floor for final passage and.
A bill for an ordinance to amend the Far Northeast Area Plan, necessary for a greenfield site to accommodate market demands since the Plan’s adoption.
Amends the Far Northeast Area Plan, as a supplement to Comprehensive Plan 2040, by amending maps including place type designation and road network, amending the transformative project for the DIA Neighborhood, and adding guidance for the development of manufacturing uses in greenfield sites, community outreach and road maintenance in Council District 11. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 3-29-22.