East Area Plan Adopted
Two Of Four Impacted Neighborhoods Asked For Delays
On Nov. 16, the Denver City Council approved the East Area Plan, during its virtual weekly meeting. The plan was adopted on a 12-1 vote, with Councilwoman Candi CdeBaca voting no. Council members Chris Herndon and Amanda Sawyer, who represent the impacted areas, voted in favor.
City planners describe it as a policy document that will guide city decisions for the area for the next 20 years. The plan impacts four neighborhoods along the Colfax corridor from Colorado Boulevard east to Yosemite, including the south portion of Park Hill, East Colfax, Mayfair and Hale.
Since June, the East Colfax Neighborhood Association has asked the city to delay its push to approve the plan. The organization’s officers called it a “travesty” to adopt such a major planning document during a public health crisis, and at a time when few working class and poor people in the neighborhood were able to participate.
“There was a serious lack of representation of the East Colfax neighborhood on the committee and in the plan itself,” said Tim Roberts, president of the neighborhood group. “There’s this disconnect between the city’s stated mission of helping people and making it so people are essential to the plan.”
In early November, the majority board of Greater Park Hill Community, Inc. adopted a resolution in opposition. The following letter detailing the reasons was submitted to the City Council. (The extensive document can be reviewed at Denver-Gov.org/eastplan. In September, 2019, the GPHC covered the group that organized to oppose the plan. That news story can be read at greaterparkhill.org/2019/09/not-so- fast/.)
Letter To The City
Dear Members of Denver City Council:
On Thursday, Nov. 5, the Greater Park Hill Community Inc. (GPHC) Board of Governors voted to oppose the East Area Plan as it is currently written by a vote of 11-3 with 4 abstentions. A breakdown of the voting members is provided below.
First of all, GPHC respects and appreciates all of the work and compromise done to date – especially the many presentations and opportunities for feedback that have been given to GPHC over the past two-plus years. While the need for a plan is recognized by GPHC, our main concerns that result in the opposition are as follows:
Timing
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the City has not been able to hold meaningful sessions for in-person community input. There is a large part of our community that cannot participate in ZOOM meetings either due to lack of internet accessibility or lack of know-how. Their voices are as important as anyone’s and should be included in the debate and discussion.
With the Group Living text amendment still outstanding, the ADU issue still outstanding, and the Infill project still outstanding – each of which will have a major effect on the EAP – it would seem prudent to wait until those issues are settled.
Affordability
There is no concrete language to ensure affordability in the EAP. The Plan is assuming that density in and of itself will lead to affordability, of which there is no proof. Increased density without a concrete affordability component will increase property values, thus increasing displacement.
The small area between 13th and 17th and Colorado and Yosemite is meant to bear the entire brunt of this proposed increase in density (from 4,500 units to 33,000). This is an unfair burden for the residents of these blocks, many of who reside in arguably the smallest and most affordable homes in the East Area. Allowing zoning changes in order to increase multi-unit dwellings should exist over the entire East Area, not just a two-block section on either side of Colfax. All corridors throughout the EAP should be addressed, not just the Colfax corridor.
Lack of traffic studies
In addition to the planned Bus Rapid Transit – although its future is questionable – increased density along the Colfax corridor will undoubtedly put stress on 13th, 14th and 17th streets in addition to Montview Blvd. Since there is still no viable plan to widen Quebec, this will only increase the traffic burden in the area while people try to avoid both Colfax and Quebec.
Lack of green space
There is literally no new green space added to the South Park Hill section of this plan. In other meetings, the Johnson and Wales campus was referred to as green space but currently, it is private property, not a park space open to all residents. There is also the matter of adding sidewalks/increasing the paved surface area while diminishing the tree canopy.
Storm water issues
The permeability issue (flood control) references in the plan are vague and almost an aside. The City is viewing flood hazards in our planning area as stormwater problems, not flooding problems. They are planning on only building facilities, mostly bigger pipes underground, that will deal with approximately one-third of the 1% Annual Risk (100-year flow). The result is that they will not protect those flood prone bottomlands from two-thirds of a 1% Annual Risk flow or from even larger floods due to increased urbanization and/or climate change.
The areas most affected by flooding are the ones zoned to absorb all the density. This will only increase flooding issues in an area already burdened by flooding.
Again, the years of work and dedication so far are very much appreciated, we cannot support the EAP as it stands right now.
Respectfully,
Tracey MacDermott, Board Chair