ITEM 1 - CALL TO ORDER

Mayor Burkholder called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Lakewood Civic Center South, 480 South Allison Parkway, Lakewood, Colorado.

ITEM 2 - ROLL CALL

Those present were: Mayor Steve Burkholder, Presiding

Vicki Stack
Cheryl Wise
Debbie Koop
Bob Murphy
Sue King
Ed Peterson
Doug Anderson
Ray Elliott
Diana Allen
Mike Stevens

Absent: None.

Others in attendance: Mike Rock, City Manager
Paul Kennebeck, Interim City Attorney

Full and timely notice of this City Council meeting had been given and a quorum was present.

ITEM 3 - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.

Jennifer Sylman - Lakewood Historical Society
Ms. Sylman presented the Goldman Plaque to Susan and Bernie Goldman. The plaque is from the Lakewood Historical Society. The Isaac Solomon Historic Synagogue has been placed on the Lakewood, Colorado and National Registers and is now on the Trifecta.

Bernie Goldman
Stated the Isaac Solomon Historic Synagogue was around long before Lakewood was established. They are trying to turn the Synagogue into a Historical Museum.

Councilwoman Koop - Stated she purchased a scarf from one of their fundraisers in honor of the plaque presentation. Thanked the Board of the Synagogue Foundation for all of their work

Councilman Murphy - Stated the campus is a hidden jewel.

The following Consent Agenda items were read into the record by the City Clerk:

ITEM 4 - RESOLUTION 2007-41 - ACCEPTING A BID AND AUTHORIZING A CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF KIPLING AND GIRTON SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS

ITEM 5 - ACCEPTING MINUTES OF THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS

Lakewood Senior Citizens Advisory Commission Meeting April 11, 2007

Public Comment was closed.

Councilwoman Wise made a motion to accept the minutes of the boards and commissions, order all ordinances introduced on first reading to be published in the Rocky Mountain News and public hearings set for the date included in the ordinance, and adoption of resolutions, all of which are included in the Consent Agenda items introduced into the record by the City Clerk. It was seconded by Councilman Murphy.

Vote on the Consent Agenda. All Ayes. No Nays. The motion carried.

Second Reading of Ordinances and Public Hearings

ITEM 6 - ORDINANCE O-2007-19 - TO VACATE A PORTION OF AMMONS STREET ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY AT 1355 AMMONS STREET, CITY OF LAKEWOOD, COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORADO

Public Comment: None.

Councilwoman Wise made a motion to adopt Ordinance O-2007-19 on second and final reading. Councilman Murphy seconded the motion.

Vote on O-2007-19: All Ayes. No Nays. The motion carried.

ITEM 7 - ORDINANCE O-2007-22 - AUTHORIZING SIGNATURE OF A PERMANENT EASEMENT TO XCEL ENERGY FOR UTILITY LINES AND RELATED FACILITIES ACROSS FORSBERG/IRON SPRING PARK TO PROVIDE UTILITY SERVICES TO THE FUTURE RESIDENTS OF LAKEWOOD OF THE SOLTERRA DEVELOPMENT

Public Comment:

Johann Cohn - 1208 S. Brentwood St., Lakewood CO
Mr. Cohn stated they would like some sort of picture of what this might look like when it is completed. Supports the ordinance.

Public Comment was closed.

Councilwoman Wise made a motion to adopt Ordinance O-2007-22 on second and final reading. Councilman Murphy seconded the motion.

City Manager Mike Rock - Stated the granting of this easement is based on a clear understanding that all the utilities will be underground. If that were to change, it would come back to Council.

Councilwoman Stack - Asked who is responsible for the cost of placing the underground utilities.

Ted Van Horn - Right-of Way Agent City of Lakewood - It is the responsibility of Public Service to put their utility lines in.

Councilwoman Stack - Clarified the entire cost would be covered by Solterra.

Ted Van Horn - Stated that was correct.

Vote on O-2007-22. All Ayes. No Nays. The motion carried.

ITEM 8 - ORDINANCE O-2007-23 - ANNEXING CERTAIN UNINCORPORATED LANDS KNOWN AS THE DENVER FEDERAL CENTER LOCATED IN THE EAST ONE-HALF OF THE EAST ONE-HALF OF THE EAST ONE-HALF OF SECTION 8, SECTION 9, AND THE WEST ONE-HALF OF THE WEST ONE-HALF OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORADO

ITEM 9 - ORDINANCE O-2007-24 - TO ZONE LAND KNOWN AS THE DENVER FEDERAL CENTER, LOCATED IN THE EAST ONE-HALF OF THE EAST ONE-HALF OF THE EAST ONE-HALF OF SECTION 8, SECTION 9, AND THE WEST ONE-HALF OF THE WEST ONE-HALF OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORADO

ITEM 10 - ORDINANCE O-2007-25 - ESTABLISHING VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTS PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 18 OF THE LAKEWOOD ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE DENVER FEDERAL CENTER, LOCATED IN THE EAST ONE-HALF OF THE EAST ONE- HALF OF THE EAST ONE-HALF OF SECTION 8, SECTION 9, AND THE WEST ONE-HALF OF THE WEST ONE-HALF OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORADO

Mike Rock - Good Evening, I'm Mike Rock. The reason I am out of my seat and standing up here is that I am actually the applicant on all three of these items this evening. This has been the most difficult and challenging project the City has ever dealt with and is clearly the most beneficial to this community, as well as the highest stakes project we have ever been involved in. We've been working with the Denver Federal Center and the staff of the General Services Administration for the past ten years about the future of that center. In the last two years in particular we've been involved in very intense negotiations to determine the best strategy to ensure the long term health of the Federal Center, to meet their various needs, and at the same time to create an opportunity to have the first hospital in Lakewood's history, a transit hub, 2400 jobs, and most importantly, to create a long-term partnership around the future of the Denver Federal Center.

It is a fragile and difficult agreement, it has required a great deal of compromise and a great deal of trust on the part of all of the parties. The General Services Administration has a very specific disposal process for disposal of public lands, that disposal process is very time sensitive. St. Anthony's has a major decision before it, that decision is where to locate their campus for the next 100 years and how to design a campus in a way that will meet our changing health care environment over the next 100 years. Most importantly to design a campus to ensure that they have room to stay in place and aren't faced with the dilemma they are faced with today which is, they've outgrown their Denver campus.

RTD has stuck with the project, much to their credit, despite budget difficulties and time pressures. They could save money by simply keeping the rails north of 6th Avenue, but they see the public benefit and purpose of serving both Federal Center employees, future users, both employees and patients of the hospital, as well as the community at large, so they have also stuck with it.

On June 16, on behalf of the City of Lakewood, I signed an offer to purchase and submitted it to the General Services Administration in the amount of $25 million combination of cash and various improvements to benefit the Denver Federal Center. In turn, we also entered into agreements at the same time with RTD and St. Anthony's for them to reimburse the full cost of that acquisition. That offer to purchase is now in the Federal process and ultimately a Congressional committee review.

What you have before you tonight are three specific requests. To annex, zone and vest the entire 699.8 acres of the Denver Federal Center. They are very specific development plans for the first 65 acres and those 65 acres include the RTD uses and the St. Anthony's uses. There are conceptual plans for the balance of the property. That is pretty consistent with performance-based zoning. It's very consistent with our Official Development Plan. As you will hear later this evening from Lisa Marpego, the General Services Administration are involved in a master planning process on the balance of the Federal Center. Lisa will update you on the status of that master plan. When it's complete, it will go first to Planning Commission, then to City Council and ultimately, in whatever final form you consider it, will be adopted as an amendment to our Comprehensive Plan.

The focus will be on compatibility with surrounding uses, while at the same time and most importantly, maintaining the flexibility to meet the Federal mission on the site. For St. Anthony's Hospital, we use the term 100 years fairly loosely in a variety of context. When you think of a 100 year hospital plan and look back to 100 years ago. For instance, in 1907 somebody needed to commit to provide health care and to try to predict what that would look like in 2007. That is essentially what St. Anthony's is doing today. They are committing to serve this community and the entire west side of the Denver Metropolitan Area and they want to be sure they have adequate property and adequate flexibility to do that.

This is an unusual agreement also because today the Denver Federal Center has complete autonomy on their property,. They can build buildings, tear down buildings, do whatever they want because it's Federal Government, it's an enclave, they are not in the City of Lakewood and while they have been a very good neighbor and we've had a very good relationship, the reality is that they are completely autonomous today. We see the Denver Federal Center, and you all know, it has been a major part of our community for many years. It's been a source of jobs, a source of pride, been a good neighbor. They've been an essential part of our community and we want to be sure that they stay in our community and one of the advantages in the agreement we are forging is that the proceeds from this sale will be reinvested in the Denver Federal Center in the form of improved utilities and infrastructure to serve the users of the Denver Federal Center.

The process to dispose of Federal property is a fairly complicated one. The Federal Government needs to identify which property it does not have a current need for and does not anticipate a need for that property in the future. They declare that surplus, they go through a publication process, and they have to notify various entities that the property is available and then, at the end of the day, the City has an opportunity, as a public entity, to request that we be allowed to acquire the property and, in turn, enter into agreements with end users who will use that property, we believe to the benefit of the entire community. The property is not free. As I mentioned, it is a $25 million transaction and that is based on a fair market value appraisal that was completed by the Federal Government, and in turn, we went through a lengthy negotiation process to determine what improvements will be made to benefit the hospital that will also benefit or could be in large to benefit the Denver Federal Center. To the extent that those kind of improvements exist, a credit has been given and deducted from the purchase price. That takes the purchase price from $25 million to a net of a little over $18 million, the balance being made up in various improvements on the site.

There are in turn the various sub-agreements I mentioned. We anticipate that the entire transaction will wrap up in August or September after the Congressional Committees review and hopefully accept the offer to purchase, then all the final documents will be executed.

The environmental components of the transaction are all under the control of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. There have been long series of negotiations and those negotiations have always included an understanding on the part of the City that we want to protect the City from any liability from any environmental issues that might exist on the site, today or in the future. We think we have crafted the appropriate agreements to do that.

It has been a complex negotiation by every measure and we've had (we being RTD, St. Anthony's, the General Services Administration and the City), from six to ten attorneys involved throughout this negotiation process to try to craft an agreement that meets the needs of all the parties.

The annexation could have been limited to the first 65 acres that we know precisely what will happen on. We felt that it was in the interest of the City to forge a long term partnership with the Denver Federal Center and annex the entire 699.08 acres so that we have a seat at the table and a voice, not only in what happens with St. Anthony's and RTD on this site, but what will happen in the future with other parcels as their disposed of. To our good fortune, the General Services Administration and Federal Government agreed to that.

This is a unique agreement and because it is unique, and it is unique because it has not been done precisely in this form before, we all had to feel our way along.

With the issue of zoning, we were careful to strike a balance between specificity and flexibility because we need both, to the extent we know what is going to happen on the hospital site Phase 1 and on the RTD site, we wanted to be very precise about that. We also know over the next many years, lots of different proposed uses could come forward on the Denver Federal Center and we wanted to approach that, and it was one of the City's requests, that we approach that by using an Official Development Plan (ODP). An ODP is the most commonly used zoning tool today in Lakewood, in contrast to the old traditional zoning where you would draw lines and you would say "in this box, commercial activity occurs, in this box office activity occurs, in this box residential activity occurs, and never the line shall change."

What we've learned over the years is that we need to agree what uses are acceptable and what uses are not acceptable and in general terms, where those uses occur but to provide enough flexibility to adapt to changing markets, changing demands and frankly to better ideas than sometimes we have when zoning occurs.

Paul Rice, in his presentation, will detail for you how the ODP works in both Phase 1 and Phase 2. It's very consistent with performance-based zoning, which, of course, is the zoning that is modeled that the Planning Commission worked on for many years and recently brought forward to City Council and modeled which you, in turn, adopted.

The public process, I think, has been a textbook public process. You will hear when Bob Wallace comes up from St. Anthony's the efforts they made in community outreach. They formed a citizen's advisory committee, and anyone could belong to that committee. It was not an exclusive committee, nobody was ever turned away. Anybody who wanted to participate in the discussions around St. Anthony's, what it would look like, what the phasing would look like, what the traffic activities would be, had a seat at the table. RTD, as you all know, has had a very public process around the entire light-rail system. The General Services Administration, as Lisa will provide you in greater detail, conducted a whole series of discussions within the Federal Center community and out in the broader community.

I recognize that in any project of this magnitude there are going to be concerns, traffic is always a concern that we hear about. The good news about this project is that it is bordered on three sides by state highways. Kipling, Alameda and 6th Avenue are all state highways, and were all designed to be state highways. We changed the maintenance agreements and the ownership on Alameda recently but it does not negate the fact that it was designed to be a state highway and designed to carry traffic flow. The traffic plans for this project are designed to disburse flow, there is no direct access to the south, can't travel from the Denver Federal Center in a straight line out of the Federal Center and go into the neighborhoods to the south.

The hospital is 1500 feet, which is five football fields away from the nearest residential structure to the south, so it is very far away. Of course, the whole idea of bringing transit on this site is long term, to help mobility within the Metro area. I would say that if you look at our history in terms of preparing for, or dealing with traffic, because those concerns were raised. For those of you who were around when Home Depot came in on Alameda and replaced the very small strip center there, there was a lot of concern about traffic and how it would work but today it works very well. Notice when it opened, it had full capacity to handle traffic. Belmar, Wal Mart, all the recent projects, I think we have done a very good job.

One of the items you are considering tonight is vesting. Vesting is a curse at the time, annexation and zoning occur together and vesting can occur and should occur at the same time. In fact, you, as a Council, recently visited that issue and adopted and updated the vesting ordinance because you also recognize the importance of ensuring predictability, which is really what vesting is all about. It's designed to ensure predictability. Just like you, when you buy your own personal residence and you go to the bank and get a mortgage or loan, you and that bank are entering into an understanding that that house is going to be available for you to use as a residential unit. The bank is going to lend you money to buy it and over the next 30 years you are going to pay that money back. That wouldn't work in a situation in which you went to the bank and said "I'm buying this house, I don't know if I'm going to be able to use it as a house, if I can't use it I can't pay you, but would you loan me money for 30 years". You can't do that, vesting is based on that same concept. Once you agree that zoning is appropriate, once you agree that property should be in the City of Lakewood and that you are going to zone it for certain uses, then both parties, the City and the property owner, should be able to, with some predictability, say that I can use this property for the intended purposes. Certainly, for St. Anthony's, making a major move out of Denver, making a 100-year commitment to the site, 25-year vesting period for them seems very short but we felt it struck the right balance because they are making a 100 year commitment and they can't make that commitment if we would say we were going to grant them the zoning but we might change our minds. Likewise Federal Government feels very strongly that they need predictability, understanding all the steps that they have to go through to obtain that predictability, they have to come back to you with a master plan, you would have to agree to it, review it and adopt it. It simply provides predictability on all sides subject to the rules and regulations that the City has. I appreciate that you are at the tail end of this process, a whole lot of people, a whole lot of entities, a whole lot of public processes went on before this gets to you.

We absolutely believe it is compatible with performance-based zoning. We absolutely believe it is compatible with the policy decision you made to enact vesting regulations. We absolutely believe that all the parties have worked very hard to create multiple opportunities for public participation. We also recognize that there are time constraints. The appraisal has a shelf life and that shelf life actually ended in June, which is why the offer to purchase had to be submitted by June. If the transaction did not occur, the appraisal process would start all over and that is another 15-24 months between start of appraisal and end of negotiations. The offer to purchase is in Washington. It was submitted the 18th of June and it's in staff review and will very soon go to Congressional committee review.

The project has brought bipartisan support, this has not been a partisan issue. Senator Allard and Senator Salazar have both been very supportive and have visited the Federal Center to talk about this project. Congressman Beauprez, when he represented this district, was very involved and very supportive, as is Congressman Perlmutter.

We think the project reflects the Council philosophy in terms of dealing with growth and creating opportunity in the community. We think it is an unprecedented gesture for General Services Administration, not only to make the property available for us to acquire but to agree to annex the entire project and we think the community comes out the winner in this.

If you couldn't put this project here, I don't where you could put it. If you couldn't put it in the middle of the Denver Federal Center bordered by four major roadways, three which were designed to be state highways, 1500 feet from the nearest residential unit, with loads of public participation and good faith work on all the parties, you just simply can't do a hospital, certainly anywhere in Lakewood or I would suggest anywhere at all.

You are the policy makers on work here and we will answer every question you might have. We will be here as long as you need. I'm very appreciative of the effort that all the parties have made in staying at the table. There were times when there was some talk of just walking away because it was so difficult and complicated to do this, there were easier places for the hospital to go. RTD was under pressure to cut its budget and certainly the General Services Administration was delving into un-chartered territory and to everybody's credit that stayed at the table and took us to where we are today. Following me, Bob Wallace will present the hospital perspective on the project. Lisa Marpego will discuss the General Services Administration role and very specifically the master planning process. Then Paul Rice, from our staff, will wrap up and provide the staff review and discuss in some detail the ODP. We are available for questions. Thank you.

Bob Wallace - St. Anthony's Hospital Administrator - Project Manager for St. Anthony's West

I'd like to also take a moment to thank members of the General Services Administration (GSA), Scott and Lisa in particular, members of the City of Lakewood staff, Mr. Rock, Jay, Paul, Becky, all those folks that have put an awful lot of time and sweat into getting us here this evening. It's been a great process, it's been a tough one, but certainly one we hope is going to be fruitful.

I have a member of our team here with us tonight in case I can't answer any particular questions. They represent our architect firm, our engineers for traffic, our landscape, and other questions I may not be able to answer. I do have a brief presentation that I would like to show you. I think some of it is on the screen in front of you as well as the screen behind you.

I would like to start with a brief overview (Mr. Wallace gave overview while showing plans)

We're looking at 50 acres in the southwest corner of the Federal Center near Union and Alameda and I couldn't possibly go back and try to give you that legal description but it is 50 acres right there out of the 65 that are being disposed of by the Federal Government. On that 50 acres, we intend to build a state of the art medical campus which will include leading edge programs and health care services, such as our trauma center, our level one trauma center, cardiology, orthopedics and other leading programs that we want to bring to the City of Lakewood and the surrounding area. We want to bring outpatient services that are convenient to the population. If you've been to St. Anthony's Central today, even for a chest x-ray or some procedure like that, you will wind up being in with the inpatient side because we have not had the ability over the years to separate those two functions. So, outpatient and inpatient are together and is not always the most convenient thing for patients to do that and we intend to correct that problem. We will have medical staff office buildings on this campus. Again, at St. Anthony's Central one of the issues we had over the years is that our medical staff has left the campus. There is no room on our campus for them to have offices which is inconvenient for them from a testing and seeing patients perspective. It is very inconvenient for our patients who wouldn't have the ability, or would have the ability to go see their doctor, go across the street or perhaps even walk through a walkway to a place where they could perhaps get their test performed and then go home.

We hope to have the initial opening in two phases. The first phase, we would break ground sometime this fall, early fall, and the phase one buildings we would start to get occupancy in late 2009 or early 2010. While we are opening phase one, phase two will continue construction and we would complete the process probably mid 2011 for the entire complex.

From the ODP, you can see that what we are planning here on our 30 acres here is the bulk of all of the buildings. The south part is really what we are looking at for our future for our next 100 years. We need this property to be able to develop any programs that we don't have now, such as medicine changes. We will be able to place additional programs here as well as remodel things that are here. This is McIntyre Gulch, and that is kind of a natural barrier for us, so we intend to take the first stage of this building project for St. Anthony's and incorporate it right here.

As Mr. Rock stated, this building project is literally 500 yards or five football fields from the nearest population south of Alameda.

St. Anthony's Central and St. Anthony's, in general, is driven by our mission. Our mission is to extend the healing ministry of Christ by caring for those who are ill and nurturing the people in the communities that we serve. We take both of those very seriously, the nurturing of the community of the people that we serve. I think if you were to take anyone from Summit County or Grand County, even out to Sherman County in Kansas and asked them what St. Anthony's has been able to do for their communities with them, they would give us high marks. We do not try to take health care from their communities, we literally bring health care back into their communities.

Our existing facility as was mentioned, can no longer meet the needs of where we need to go for health care in the future. We sit on 16 acres currently, the last remodel was done in 1992 and the building was open in 1893. We've got a lot of history, unfortunately we don't have a lot of space or room to do anything with it to continue for the next 100 years into the future. Our goal is to join Lakewood and support it in the way we support our mission today for the next 100 years.

We talked about pro-active communications and when we started the planning process for this project, one of the things we wanted to do was continue to be what we believe are good neighbors. In order to be a good neighbor, we need to find out what the people of the community, we would like to enter into, are thinking about. So, we formed a 75 member task force open to all. We opened up a meeting at the Sheraton Hotel and asked folks to give us their feedback. We gave them some information about what our conceptual plans were and asked them to tell us what they thought. We got feedback from them in writing, responded to that feedback, had a second meeting and brought the feedback back to them and continued to work with them via the website that is interactive. People can now go on the website, ask questions, and we respond to them either via mail personally or via website. It's been a very exciting group, one that we will continue through the process to make sure that we continue to be good neighbors and continue to get the feedback from the people that will be surrounding us. We've presented plans and fielded questions from community groups, owners associations including ward 4, we've been there twice, the Lions club, Lakewood Kiwanis, presented plans to the areas business groups including the Jefferson Economic Council, the Alameda Gateway Association, multiple individuals, business people and we still remain very open to talking to anyone that would like us to come out and make a presentation and have us hear their issues or their praise.

We've had ongoing meetings and communication with the GSA and the City of Lakewood. One example I would like to make is an example of, I think, how we are trying to be good neighbors. I think most of you may know that Building 95 is a water quality lab, which is going to be immediately east of where we are. They have some concerns, not only during our construction period where we will be kicking up some dust, but also when the buildings are done and we have exhaust fumes and we might have trucks going in there with diesel fumes. What is that going to do to the quality of the air that comes in their intakes. We've engaged probably the only business, I believe, in the U.S. ,that does wind studies. We engaged that company to actually build a model of our conceptual plan, put Building 95 right next to it and test what those exhaust fumes look like, how they would impact that building and what we might be able to do about it. Members of the GSA were there with us when they did the exam, when they poured the smoke through and, when we get the findings, we will sit down with them and say "okay, this might be an issue, how do we mitigate that". This is the way we want to work with everybody in the City of Lakewood and it's the way we will work with everybody in the City of Lakewood. Again, we have websites which show two way communication mechanism that allows anyone to go on our website, literally ask a question and we will get back to them probably within 24 hours.

Obviously, as Mr. Rock said, there are community concerns. Two of which we have heard loud and clear: traffic and noise. Traffic, I believe, we have addressed it as best we can, we've hired a traffic engineer. Chris Baushum is here tonight to answer any specific questions. We have taken the two roads, 2nd Place which is the main access off Union and the new road, Routt St. which will connect to Alameda and have looked at those roads and looked at the impact of the amount of traffic the hospital will bring and have gone by the suggestions and looked at how do we build a road with more access points, more turn lanes, those kinds of things to make sure what we're doing doesn't clog up the traffic. We've also asked that our traffic report be integrated with the City of Lakewood as well as the GSA to make sure that what we are doing today integrates with the long term plans of the Federal Center and the City of Lakewood for what happens on Alameda, Union and those other major corridors and state roads that Mr. Rock talked about. We've provided the traffic study, it is available, and again we have our traffic expert here tonight if you have specific questions.

Noise is another concern that I've heard loud and clear and I think one of the things people worry about are the helicopters and the ambulances. One of the things that I thought about when I think about ambulances, years ago when I watched television programs with these ambulances going back and forth you always saw the ambulances screaming with it's lights on and running down the road. But in those days, seriously, there were very few people like we have today, there were first responders in the back of those ambulances, perhaps the EMT's, but today we have paramedics. We have paramedics who are in constant contact with physicians at the receiving hospital, most of the patients that wind up in an ambulance today are stabilized, there really is no need for them to go screaming through traffic, etc. with the sirens blaring. Does that happen? Yes it does, because there are situations where people are in dire need and they have to get there quickly, but it's not nearly what I think I perceive and what other people perceive as a noisy kind of thing. They typically don't go through your normal neighborhoods unless there is a call there. They use the major streets to get to the hospital and don't go through residential areas. Again, they turn off the siren within one to three blocks of the hospital, area traffic permitting. St. Anthony's has a great relationship, I believe, with our pre hospital folks, we work with about 53 agencies and they all know that our concerns are for our neighbors. I would ask that you ask anyone in the neighborhood where we live today, what do they hear in terms of sirens and helicopters. I can tell you that most of them, probably 99% of them, would say it is not an issue. And I don't think it will be an issue here.

Currently there are on average two to three helicopters that fly in and out each day. That will probably be the case here except for those winter months when we have visitors to this great state that like to stand on sticks and see how fast they can go down mountains and during the summer they try to do the same thing on wheels. So, we do get a few of those folks that don't always make it down in one piece. We're happy to help them and glad we can help them, and during those specific times there probably will be more than two to three helicopters. Again, the ambulances and helicopters generally travel along the major routes, coming from the west they would be coming down 6th Avenue and coming over the buildings to land at the helipad and from the east/ west they would probably be coming over Union to try get to us.

The benefits we think that are going to come to the City of Lakewood for the future health care needs, we're going to offer state of the art technology in world class medicine and superior efficiency and operational effectiveness. Something that we have a very difficult time doing today, we offer great care, I'm not so sure it is always as efficient and effective as it could be because of the physical plant we have. We have a great opportunity to change that, we want to create an extraordinary experience for patients, visitors, physicians and employees. We want you or I or anyone who visits that hospital campus to walk away from there and say it wasn't what they expected and they have no qualms about going back there.

Access to services, like we said, it's going to be the first hospital campus in the City of Lakewood, it will attract the range of other medical and ancillary services because of that. We will have emergency and trauma services available to the citizens 24 hours a day, seven days a week. We're committed to being a good neighbor, as I mentioned, by continuing our outreach programs that benefit the people across the community. Last year we did $78 million in charity care, and community programs. We have a health passport program that serves over 10,000 seniors offering classes in health, financial management, computer basics and others. I'm in the health care field and I can tell you when you receive a bill today it is daunting, especially if you don't understand it. We have folks that reach out and help people understand what the bills means, what they can do about it and how to work with it. The weekly walking group is over 1100 strong, I venture to say if you ever go over there you eventually see them, they are very active and we hope to grow that program.

In terms of positive economic impact, the Lewann Group has done studies around hospitals in terms of what they do when they move to a community. And for each hospital job that is created in Colorado, and this was done specifically in the state, an additional 1.1 jobs were created due to indirect business and household spending. Currently today we have about 1150 full time equivalents, if you take that multiplier 2.1, that means we will be bringing about 2415 jobs to the City of Lakewood. On the other hand, across Colorado each dollar that is spent by a hospital creates more than $1.40 in additional business and economic activity surrounding the area. We did $203 million in expenses, if you take that by the 2.4 multiplier, that equals $487 million in economic activity that we feel we can bring to this community.

Again, on Project Communication, when the project starts we want to be completely proactive again with the community, with our neighbors to the east of us, our neighbors to the south of us, the business folks on Union. We already have templates of newsletters that we will begin to draft and send out at key points and times regarding when we are building, it could be weekly or monthly depending on what is going on. We will have website updates with snapshots of the progress, we will continue to have task force meetings, bring folks up to date, keep them apprised as to what is happening as well as any community meeting in terms of where we are asked to show up and ask about what we are doing.

We've been a good neighbor in Denver, we're also committed to maintaining that good neighbor standing on West Colfax. We formed a community task force a number of months ago where we met with Councilman Garcia, the Mayor, a number of homeowner groups within the surrounding areas of St. Anthony's Central currently and let them help us form a plan to develop recommendations for the site after we leave. They did that, the report is up on our website and the report will actually help us make a choice later on down the road when we decide what developer might be entertained for this campus. The existing site redevelopment, we believe, is going to serve as a catalyst for the West Colfax revitalization project and we're very proud of that and the fact that we will leave a mark at that place, we will leave part of St. Anthony's there, we're not sure what it is yet, maybe a clinic, it may be something else but we will not just be gone from that spot, we will have a presence there.

Ladies and gentleman, that ends my presentation for this evening. I thank you very much for your time and attention. I would ask that you look favorable on the recommendations of the Planning Commission. It is my pleasure to introduce Lisa Marpugo.

Lisa Marpugo - General Services Administration
On behalf of the General Services Administration I would like to thank you for the opportunity to talk to you about the Federal Center. I have been with the GSA for over 18 years now, the last 15 years have been spent here at the Federal Center in the greater community working with the community of Lakewood.

While we are obviously quite supportive of the current project at hand and the sale of the 65 acres and the benefits to the Federal Center that both Bob and Mike Rock spoke about, I'm going to focus my presentation this evening primarily on the balance of the Federal Center and some of the planning efforts that we're doing there.

Just a little bit about the GSA for those of you who may not quite know what the GSA does or what our role is in relation to the Federal Center as well as the rest of the government. Basically we are there to provide work places for other federal agencies and a variety of other services, supplies and things of that nature. We have a national office headquartered out of Washington D.C. and 11 regional offices, the Rocky Mountain region which is here and is a six to eight region and we are headquartered out of the Federal Center ourselves. The Public Building Service which is kind of the real estate end of things for the GSA is the largest public real estate organization in the country. We own over 8300 owned or leased buildings that house federal agencies and we have over 342 million square feet of work space for over one million federal employees and over 2100 American communities. We do a lot of work in communities, we do a lot of work with real estate and real estate development around the country.

A little bit about the Federal Center; it's a very unique part of Lakewood even though it's not quite part of Lakewood, it's been a big part of this community and it has a rich history in this area. It originally started as ranch land and was quite more extensive than the boundaries it is today, extending further west and east. In the early forties, the government purchased a piece of that land for the Denver Ordinance Plant, which then operated for a couple of years producing and manufacturing small arms and ammunition on behalf of the World War II effort. The buildings, many of which stand today, were put up rather quickly and the whole site was built out in about 13 months. If you look at these historical photos they look somewhat similar to what is there today, the buildings, many of which were to be temporary buildings on behalf of the World War II effort are still standing today which points to a lot of the challenges which I'll speak about and why we are doing some of the things we are doing. It's been in GSA's inventory since 1949 and today is approximately one square mile. We have over four million rentable square feet of space that house over 25 different agencies and over 50 buildings. At one time there were about double the buildings there are now but we made a lot of effort over the years to really clean up the site and demolish some of the smaller out buildings that were no longer needed or habitable. We house over 6000 tenants on the site and it's a significant asset in our regional as well as our national portfolio. It's a very unique property for GSA. Most of the buildings that we own or operate are stand alone buildings in communities. We have very few kind of sites or small cities within themselves which presents a lot of great opportunities, it's a nice feel for the tenants that we house but it obviously comes with its share of challenges as well.

I'm going to spend some time now talking about the DFC site plan or the Master Site Plan Environmental Impact Statement that we are currently doing now for the balance of the Federal Center which is everything but 600 plus acres that will remain after we sell the 65 acres. Obviously, the hospital and transit station will very much be anchor projects, and very exciting anchor projects for the balance of the Federal Center planning efforts. There are sort of four main goals of the Master Site Plan that we are doing. First and foremost is to safeguard the interest and meet the needs of the tenants that we currently have on site. I do a lot of speaking in the community and to other groups and I think a lot of folks are under the impression that this is some kind of base closure and that we have a lot of buildings and a lot of vacancies that are just kind of standing out there and that we are closing down the Federal Center. That is very far from the truth. In fact, we have a very vibrant site, a very low vacancy rate. Our challenge in the future is to try to find ways to keep that site going, to keep the extensive tenant base that we have on there and try to be proactive about making decisions and establishing a vision for that future.

First and foremost, our mission and our goal of the Federal Center is to meet the needs of the Federal Agencies to provide the space for them on the site today and to keep those buildings running and then to establish a plan to keep them there in the future. We also lease a tremendous amount of space in the Lakewood and Denver Metro area as well that plays into the plant.

Secondly, we want to maximize the value and appeal of the Federal Center. Obviously while it's got some very unique and funky buildings that have a long history, they are in desperate need of upgrading and there is a lot of opportunity there on the site to better that site, not only for our tenants but for the larger community as well. That is another big part of our goal.

The City has grown up around us and we really have some unique opportunities to better integrate with the community and to provide upgraded space and services for our tenants and to provide amenities for the larger community. At the bottom, in the italics there, is our larger vision statement which is quite lengthy but there are a number of things we are trying to achieve with our planning effort. Just to highlight a couple of things. First and foremost, it is a very innovative partnership, we've worked very closely with the community. I personally have worked with the community for over 15 years here in Lakewood on a variety of efforts related to softball fields, RTD and a variety of things on that site. Obviously that has been shown through the negotiations and the sale of 65 acres, number of partners involved and we've continued that through this planning effort and we plan to do so in the future using that first land sale really as the model as we move forward.

Again, enhancing the mission of the Federal Center, we're there to serve Federal tenants, many which live in the Lakewood or larger community. A lot of folks at the public meetings I go to talk about themselves or their parents and grandparents having worked on the Federal Center. It really is a unique place here in the community and we want to continue to foster that relationship. Sustainability, design excellence, those are all programs that are very important to GSA, both here regionally as well as nationally and we hope to use a lot of those ideas not only in the hospital and transit station but for the rest of development that may happen here on the site.

Then of course, being able to provide public transit and services to the community such as the hospital. As you can imagine, particularly with this deal and the attention around it, there are a number of people who have approached us about wanting a piece of the Federal Center to use it for something. We are very careful about what our role is and the balance of serving our agencies on the site as well as providing that integration with the community. Both the hospital and transit station clearly support the mission of GSA to be good neighbors, to integrate with the community, provide services that are needed for our tenants as well as the community and we hope to continue that effort as we move forward through the master plan that we are undergoing right now.

As part of the master plan effort, we've been under way now with the master plan for close to two years and I will talk a little bit about where we are at with the process, We've done an extensive amount of communication and outreach as part of the project similar to what the hospital has done for theirs. We've had a number of community groups involved, we've done a number of publications, we have a project website, we have what is called the Federal Center roundtable group which is a 20 plus member group that has helped guide the master plan through the very beginning. The representatives of that group include three home owners' association representatives, a number of community businesses, Federal tenants, City staff, RTD, a number of representatives from a variety of different organizations that have helped guide our planning efforts. We've had a number of meetings, public meetings for both our community onsite as well as the larger community. We've had a series of three or four of the most recent which were back in the middle of May and we just closed our comment period on the draft master plan and environmental impact statement. I've done a number of speaking engagements to smaller community groups and tenant groups so we've really made an effort to get the word out about the Master Plan, not only to the Federal community but to the larger community, and get the input on what should the future of the Federal Center be. Here are our challenges, here is what our mission is, here's what the role of this site is, how can be better serve the needs of our own tenants in the community in the future and what kind of things do people want to see and what kinds of things people don't want to see on the site.

I'm going to talk a little bit now about the two site plan alternatives. I know it's a little difficult to see up on the board here. Basically there are two conceptual site plans that are now under consideration. These were the two development alternatives in addition to a third alternative which is called a "no action alternative" that were presented at the last round of public meetings that we had in May and became part of the public document which was a Draft Master Site Plan and Environmental Impact Statement.

The EIS or Environmental Impact Statement is something that GSA is required, as a Federal Agency, to do for any major Federal action. It's required under the National Environment Public Act (NEPA) and under GSA's own environmental regulations. Every time we do a master plan, we are required to do an EIS along with the plan. Basically, what an EIS does is look at the potential impacts of the different alternatives that you are looking at. At the draft stage, a number of alternatives are presented such as these two that were in the draft as well as the no action alternative. And then there is a 45-day public comment period which just ended June 18th. We are in the process of going through all those comments now and then we will take that and work towards selecting a preferred development alternative which will then be presented in a final master plan and final EIS and again, it would be out for a 30 day public review and comment period.

In terms of the two alternatives here, the one that is in the upper left hand corner is called the Federal Mall Alternative and in the bottom right hand corner is called the Federal Quad Alternative. I won't spend a lot of time going through all the intricacies about each alternative. I'll talk about some of the numbers and development numbers associated with those alternatives in the next slide. Primarily I wanted to point out a couple differences between the two alternatives.

The Federal Mall Alternative; the defining feature is what's called a hard scape median or Federal Mall, and again, this is mall, in terms of National Mall in Washington D.C., not a retail mall. A hard scape mall that connects the transit station and what's our Center Avenue and will become second place in the City into kind of the core of the Federal Center which is shown in some of the darker and light blue areas. There is a mixed-use area that is slated just north of the rail station and sort of in the horseshoe of the alignment an off the center district, a research and development district and then all the green represents, in both plans, 80-100 acres of open space that will remain on the Federal Center for a variety of things; some of it will be natural, drainage, wildlife habitat, some will be recreational uses and a variety of different open space uses, but over 80 to 100 acres would remain open on both alternatives. One of the defining features of the Federal Mall Alternative is a residential development in the southeast corner of about 240 units. There is a considerable amount of residential development proposed up in the mixed use area around the transit station.

For the Quad alternative, the defining feature here is more of a green scape connection with the transit station and the hospital into kind of a green quad that sort of becomes the center core around some of the federal uses here. Same type of zones or districts in this alternative but a little bit changed up on this one. An office district is slated for north of the station where the mixed-use district is more adjacent to the ease of the station here in this red area. Again, a research and development district and in this one, while it does have residential proposed up in the mixed-use area, it does not propose a residential use in the southeast corner of the site.

Both of these alternatives are conceptual plans. Like I said, we just closed the public comment period. We had over 400 people attend our meetings, we received a number of comments either at the meetings, from comment forms that were issued and sent into us or through our website and email. We are in the process of cataloging all the comments that we received. There is quite a range of comments. We asked people about their concerns, about which alternative they prefer and so we are really in the process of cataloging those. One; we are required to catalog those comments under NEPA and as part of the EIS. Two; it helps us as we go to select a preferred alternative. The preferred alternative could be somewhat of a mix of the two depending on what the feedback is and what kind of comments we get or what we think best supports that site. Again, if there is something that comes out that is a slight tweak or slight variation, that will be made public as part of the release of the final plan and EIS and again, subject to public review and comment.

No matter what plan is selected, it eventually ends up being the preferred alternative. This again is not something that is going to happen overnight, it's a twenty plus year vision and guide for the Federal Center. The only thing we know at this time is the RTD and the St. Anthony's hospital anchors the site. The darker blue buildings are buildings we hope to keep in our inventory long term holds as part of our portfolio. The rest of what is shown here in the varying districts is somewhat conceptual in nature.

In terms of the development plan and some of the numbers behind the concepts, this breaks down the proposed square footages or again, total build out over the twenty plus year plan for both the Quad and the Mall alternatives. In both, we expect that out of our four million square feet of space that we currently have, close to three million or 2.8 of that will be retained in both alternatives. The remaining will be demolished over time and again there is no specific schedule for that. A lot of that is based primarily on the facilities themselves and we hope to keep those tenants and replace space over time as we have the ability to do that and the tools and the opportunity to do that. But those buildings, there are several buildings that need to be replaced and we won't be able to keep them open over twenty plus years.

Total in both schemes with the additional items that are listed above of new federal space, which is close to two million, small scale retail does not envision that this will be any type of major retail center. Total new will be close to three and a half to four million square feet proposed. Again, the residential units in the Quad unit, proposing 290 units with 240 proposed for the southeast corner. On the Mall unit which actually has quite a significant amount of residential, that's the alternative that has all of that primarily around the rail station. Again, these are somewhat conceptual. We do know that we need to replace a lot of the federal space on the site. There could, even though it says office and retail or R&D, a lot of the office and R&ND could still be federal tenants just perhaps a different ownership type structure for those buildings.

In terms of the remaining schedule we just closed the comment period for the Draft Master Plan and EIS on June 18th; that was a 45 day public review period which started April 27th and we had the public meetings in the middle of May and the comment period ended on the 18th. We're now in the throws of reviewing all the comments, I'm holding some internal team design charettes, working with RTD, with City staff, with hospital folks on some of the connections and important features of it, integrating this with a major utility infrastructure upgrade project that we're already doing on the site or in design on which is a $50 million upgrade project that is congressionally funded. Again we will work to select a preferred alternative, develop a final site plan, an EIS which will be issued sometime this fall. At that time we will have another public review period and that will conclude, essentially, the Master Site Plan and EIS. The last part of EIS is filing a record of decision to conclude that, once we're done with development of the plan. We hope to work this fall to start implementing it, which will include a number of things; coming up with specific phasing for the twenty plus year plan, working closely with City staff, developing implementation and design guidelines that will be based significantly on the ODP that we have framework for. There are a number of things that will happen as we begin to implement the project.

In terms of the long-term benefits, most of these I already spoke about but obviously there is a tremendous amount of benefits to GSA, to the Federal Center, to our tenants, both with the St. Anthony's project, RTD transit station as well as the efforts of the master plan.

We've been very much a part of this community, our tenants consider themselves a part of the Lakewood community. We want to remain a part of the community and, in order for us to do that we have to get very proactive about our planning. We have to be very savvy about the business decisions that we make. Doing things like selling land or trying to do public/private partnerships are an effort to use some of the resources that we have, such as land and be able to bring that back into this community and back into the site so we can remain a long term partner here in the community and keep our tenants here on the site. That concludes my presentation this evening, thank you again for the opportunity to speak and I will be happy to answer any questions.

Paul Rice - Community Planning and Development, City of Lakewood - Before I start the staff presentation this evening I would like to enter into the record the Zoning Ordinance, the Subdivision Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan and all the materials and testimony you received this evening.

Dennis Cole had a personal emergency and was not able to be here this evening so I'm going to do a brief presentation on the RTD layout. (Did his presentation along with a Power Point slide presentation).

The existing Cold Springs Facility, that is located in the southeast corner of the Union/6th Avenue intersection is going to move down into the light rail property here which is north of 2nd Place. The Cold Springs Facility has roughly 1000 surface parking spaces located in this area, 16 bus bays and that will open with the hospital in about 2010, so the park and ride facility will open in about 2010. The light rail station will come online in 2012 or 2013, as you can see the line will come down, cross over 6th Avenue right here, come into the Federal Center site, stop at the station here and exit up north and on the south side of 6th Avenue. That is all for the RTD proposal.

Staff Report - There are three cases before you this evening. There is an annexation case, a zoning case and a vesting request for property rights. Before I get into the cases, adjacent zoning for the Denver Federal Center, as you can see the Federal Center property is located in this area. The Union corridor to the west is primarily commercial and office type uses. To the north of the Federal Center property, again you have the Lakewood Technology Center and you have a mix of commercial and office uses in this area. On the east side, you have some community facilities, you have the high school, an elementary school and a park in this area with residents further to the east. On the south side also you have this commercial buffering strip here with residential properties in that location.

The annexation boundary, as Lisa pointed out, we are proposing to annex the entire Denver Federal Center property which includes not only the hospital and RTD parcels but the main campus itself and some of the right-of-way as indicated to the east for Kipling Avenue. Again, this kind of checkered line here indicates the light rail facility. Planning Area II is the remainder of the Federal Center, Planning Area I includes the RTD piece located at this area, the hospital proposal in this area and in the future expansion area located south of McIntyre Gulch. The primary access to the light rail piece and the hospital piece will come off of 2nd Avenue which is existing and then a new Routt Street which will be built in this location right here.

Sheet one of the ODP is kind of a title page, there is a general location map that shows Planning Area I and Planning Area II. It's got the signature box for the Planning Commission, the Mayor, the Clerk and then the recorder's office. It also kind of indexes the rest of the sheets in the ODP.

Sheet two outlines in the legal descriptions the location boundaries of Planning Area I and the location boundaries of the remainder of the Federal Center which is Planning Area II.

In the ODP for the Denver Federal Center, Section 1 is some general provisions that outline the property that we are talking about. It details the number of acres in each planning area and then where the standards actually apply.

Getting into Section 2 of the ODP, it deals with goals, policies and objectives that will help guide some of the requests when staff is reviewing those. Some of the general goals include safeguarding the entrance of current and future tenants, maximizing the appeal of the Federal Center itself, to implement some of those that are focusing on the implementing policies that deal with the Federal Campus core. Developing projects that promote land use compatibility, providing for a mix of uses, providing for quality design, promoting sustainable projects, offering multiple forms of transportation, there would be the light rail facility, the park and ride facility, promoting walking and so forth.

Continuing on in Section 3 and 4 of the ODP. Permitted land uses for Planning Area I which is the hospital and the RTD component, they deal with commercial uses, retail sales, business support and things like that. Business uses, general office, professional office type uses, some institutional uses that are currently out there, some research and development, laboratory type uses, schools and other kinds of government facilities, parks and open space. They also provide for multi-family residents in Planning Area I.

Some of the differences in Planning Area II provide for the uses I described in Planning Area I in addition to some general repair services, some hotel type uses, some museums, theatres, amphitheaters and some recreational facilities. In Planning Area I there are a couple of uses to note in that they specifically allow for hospital uses and prohibit large format retail type uses.

In section 4 of the ODP, this is where we kind of get into some of the development standards, heights, setbacks, open space requirements, parking requirements and so forth. Dealing with the development regulations, I want to point out the maximum height in Planning Area I, in the hospital piece is 12 stories. There is no maximum height limit in Planning Area II but they do have to have proposals that are compatible with existing developments and address some of GSA's security concerns.

Section 5 of the ODP deals primarily with the development review requirements and that is very similar to what staff currently uses. They come in for a pre-planning application, they would go through that process, get comments back from staff and then they have to submit a formal application so those documents are put online, they are made public and can be reviewed by the public.

Section 6 of the ODP deals with the amendment process. There are two parts to the amendment process. There is a minor amendment which again dealing with standards that are setbacks like parking and open space up to a maximum of 20% could be a minor amendment without a public process. Anything in excess of that would come back to both the Planning Commission and City Council for approval. As part of the amendment process, as Lisa discussed, the GSA is currently working on a Federal Center Master Site Plan, that is not complete. The anticipated completion date is fall of 2007. With that, they are looking at doing an amendment to the ODP, Lisa presented the two alternatives to you this evening, and they anticipate adoption of that plan in fall of 2007. With that, it is anticipated that both Planning Commission and City Council will see a proposal to amend this ODP based upon the preferred alternative.

Moving onto some of the other content of the ODP. On sheet five there is a conceptual site plan that shows the hospital layout, location of buildings and parking areas. As they get into final design that could change slightly. What you are looking at tonight is a conceptual site plan and zoning for the Federal Center property.

Sheet six and seven of the ODP give you an idea of how big the building actually is and what it is going to look like. It's a massing study for phase one of the hospital project and then as is indicated in the future massing study, they've shown some expansion areas that actually go vertical on the site.

Sheet eight is the landscape plan for the hospital, it indicates the street construction plans and landscaping on Routt Street and 2nd Place. 2nd Place does have a median island in the center.

Sheets nine, ten and eleven are some of those details. They actually show patio furniture, trash receptacles, indicate how the plants are to be installed and some of the details of what the profiles will look like along Routt Street and 2nd Place.

Also, before you is a request to vest property rights for the Denver Federal Center. As you recall, late 2006 the Council authorized the vesting process with an amendment to article 18 that allowed for a site specific document to be vested for a period longer than State Statutes. The request this evening is to vest property rights for 699.08 acres, which is the entire Federal Center and the period of vesting is for 25 years.

At the June 6th Planning Commission Hearing, the Planning Commission did adopt findings for the annexation, zoning request and vesting request and recommends approval to the City Council on all three of those projects.

That ends the staff presentation.

Public Hearing on Items 8, 9 and 10:

Susan Aldretti - 950 Wadsworth Blvd. #101, Lakewood, CO
My name is Susan Aldretti and I am here representing the Jefferson County Association of Realtors. Our Board of Directors, at their meeting last week, did vote to encourage you to adopt the ordinances that are before you tonight. We think this is the culmination of a long planning process that has involved not only the government but St. Anthony's, RTD and we think it is going to be a wonderful project for the City of Lakewood and encourage you to vote yes this evening.

Michelle Claymore - 1667 Cole Blvd. #400, Lakewood, CO
I am the Vice President of Jefferson Economic Council which is located in Lakewood. Jefferson Economic Council is a publicly and privately supported not for profit 501(c6) organization whose mission is to support economic development throughout Jefferson County. I'm here tonight to speak in strong support of the proposed annexation and more particularly, rezoning of the Denver Federal Center to allow an RTD Transit Facility and location of the new St. Anthony's West medical campus. The proposed St. Anthony's facility offers many benefits from both economic and community development standpoints. We see this project as a significant economic engine and a catalyst for more future development within the City and the County. The project itself will create about 2400 new and direct and indirect jobs in Lakewood and nearly one million square feet of new construction. The jobs being created by St. Anthony's are in many cases very highly compensated and on average are in excess of $60,000 annually which is nearly 50% higher than the average Jefferson County wage of $41,500. Furthermore we consider the new facility to be a primary employer which will bring to Lakewood payments for services from insurance companies and patients who not only live in Lakewood but throughout the region and bring a new wealth to the City in assisting the creation of additional or secondary jobs in the community. St. Anthony's new facility will also become a marketing point for new and existing businesses seeking relocation or expansion, proximity to health care services is often an important component of relocation decision. This project also supports planned future development in other parts of the County, such as Belmar and Rooney Valley. In closing, St. Anthony's is a terrific new project and I ask for your support of the entire annexation and the planned development rezoning.

Kimra Perkins - 14500 W. Colfax Ave., Lakewood, CO
Good Evening. I am the General Manager for Colorado Mills. St. Anthony's has been one of our very valued partners for the last five years. I came to speak on their behalf to tell you what terrific and honorable partners they have been. Their good stewardship of their resources has really been remarkable. They've been good neighbors to the citizens that we also serve at Colorado Mills. Lastly, they do what they say they are going to do and I think that is something really wonderful based on the presentation tonight. With that, I will add my voice to all the good comments that we've heard tonight and ask you to vote favorably.

Dorothy Wisecarver - 8655 Meadowlark Dr., Lakewood, CO
I do want to thank St. Anthony's for inviting me to their meetings at the Sheraton, I did attend and I did take part and I do appreciate the input I had. St. Anthony's, because it operates as a non-profit institution, pays no local, state or federal taxes and, of course, that includes Lakewood taxes, as well as Special District taxes such as West Metro Fire. I have some questions about this development that I would like answered, mostly by the City. I understand West Metro has reached an agreement with the hospital. Will St. Anthony's pay completely for the West Metro Fire services or do taxpayers have to assume the responsibility? Older neighborhoods surrounding the hospital, at times, experience low water pressure because of increased development and antiquated delivery systems. What, if any, effect will the hospital's water use have on the neighborhoods water supply or water pressure that surround this development? Is Consolidated Mutual supplying the water? What City expense will be involved to make Alameda able to handle the increased hospital and federal traffic, the traffic from the 1000 plus homes from Carma, and the C-470/Alameda interchange to be built? Does the City have a plan in place or an estimation of the cost for improvements to Alameda? McIntyre Gulch is designated as a drainageway for the hospital. The parking lots, rooftops and the large development will create large impervious areas. The gulch water passes through parks, schools, neighborhoods and during the 40 years I have lived on the gulch, I've witnessed large increases in the water flow because of the extensive development on Green Mountain. How is the drainage for the hospital being handled by the City? How can neighborhoods get involved to make sure the increased water in the gulch doesn't create more problems for the properties downstream? Who handles police protection at the St. Anthony's complex? Some hospitals furnish their own security force. Then, I would like to ask, what control does the City of Lakewood have over the environmental clean up? Do they play an active part or do they just receive reports? How does Lakewood take part in the environmental clean up? Then, I would like to ask about the 25-year vesting period. This term seems unusually long to me, isn't the average term around three years for vesting? That's like giving the City Manager the ten-year contract. This commits the City and future City Councils to vesting rights. Can the hospital, if they don't agree with the 25-year term, can they change that? Twenty-five years is a long time, maybe they want to change. Do they have the right to change it? The City Council has a deep responsibility to make a certain hospital as an asset, not a burden for the Lakewood taxpayers. Taxpayers recently had to bail the city out to even pay for streetlights. Development of any nature must work for its citizens, not against them.

David Wiechman - 722 S. Beech St., Lakewood, CO
I belong to a number of groups but I'm not representing any of them tonight, I am here as a private citizen. I did attend the Planning Commission meeting on this subject matter and I have been following this matter closely for the last couple of years, including being a member of the task force and attending all the open houses. I wanted to share with you a unique perspective that I can bring tonight. That is the issue of the pros and cons to this. As you know, I'm running for City Council here in November and as part of my preparation process, I've been having focus groups so I've had about ten of them so far with probably about 150 people so far. We discuss the issues that will be coming up and one of the ones that always come up is St. Anthony's and the Denver Federal Center. There are a couple of things that always seem to come out in each group, number one is that everybody is very excited about the asset that the hospital will be bringing to the community, specifically in the area of the medical services that will be provided to our community. At the same time, they are also very concerned about the impacts on traffic and so, as you can see, there is a certain dichotomy there, there are some pros and cons. What I asked the focus group to do is start talking about if there are ways to resolve this and if there are not and you are forced to choose between having the asset of the hospital or the traffic, almost invariably everyone will vote in favor of the hospital. What I realized from all of that was although a lot of the concerns that have been raised are quality of life issues, which are very important to me as they are to you, the bottom line is that this hospital is a life or death decision. By bringing these medical facilities into the heart of Lakewood, we're going to be cutting time off our response times and one of the things I learned during my service at West Metro Fire is that seconds actually count. I am absolutely convinced that this decision will save some lives tonight, I don't know how many, I can't quantify it but this is truly a life or death decision and I urge you to vote for it.

Doug Muller - 373 S. Robb Way, Lakewood, CO
I'd like to start by saying that I think a hospital and RTD center are very worthy things for this City to be developing, but I would like to express grave concerns over the fact that nearly 1/3 of the land you intend to acquire has no plan for it. I heard Mr. Rock say that your way of approaching planning for things like this, property like this, is performance based and I believe that means tax based and revenue based and so forth. That concerns me because that completely takes away the buffer between the hospital and my neighborhood and the buffer that would possibly help with some of the traffic control, the buffer that might help with the noise control and so forth. I would like to express to you that I do not think you should acquire property without a plan for developing it.

Public Hearing was closed.

Councilwoman Stack - I'd like to take this into the vesting. It was mentioned this evening that vesting provides predictability and it was maybe a month and a half ago that we changed zoning for the second time for homeowners who had lived there for 20, 30 even 40 years and there is no predictability, or room for predictability in their own home, because of what Council does, legislatively does, to their lands. Yet, we're asking for predictability in this area for 25 years. I have some issues with that and would like someone from the floor to basically convince me that we need 25 years of predictability for development.

Mike Rock - Without vesting, the project will not go forward. The Federal government has already indicated they are not willing to annex into the City without vesting. St. Anthony's has made it very clear that they are not going to make a 100-year commitment without vesting. They simply cannot make that investment, and likewise, RTD needs to be certain that if they commit to this project today that when it comes time to build it between 2010 and 2012 that they still have the right to build it. It's a very straight forward decision, it's thumbs up or thumbs down. It's the result of two years of negotiation and none of the entities are willing to make hundreds of millions of dollars in commitment without vesting. Essentially, when you zone property you say this is what we want to have occur on this land. If we zone it and refuse to vest it, we're saying you may proceed or we may change our mind and you may be a hundred million dollars into this project and we may change it.

Councilwoman Stack - Which we've done several times before.

Mike Rock - I'm not aware that we've ever changed a project that we have vested. The City certainly has the ability to zone and rezone property; we only do so after extensive hearings, I'm not sure which projects you are referencing. Certainly, the Transit Mixed Use did not take away anybody's right to use their property; it only added additional rights and only occurred after extensive public hearing so I'm not sure I see the connection between that and our mutual agreement that we would like to see the hospital and light rail occur on this property.

Councilwoman Stack - Vesting under the State Statute is three years and the purpose for 25 years is, I just cannot come to an agreement with 25 years of vesting.

Mike Rock - In three years the project won't even be done, the light rail won't even be under construction. Three years provides nothing except expense with no end product for any of the entities.

Councilwoman Stack - Both projects have indicated that between 2011 and 2012 and at the latest 2015 that these projects would be complete.

Mike Rock - Only phase one of the hospital, and the hospital has a 100 year plan, and they are moving with the intent of building out over 100 years which is why they need 50 acres, not 25. So, the hospital would find itself with the first part of the first phase of the hospital constructed and no predictability that they could finish the project which would make it a foolish decision on their part to leave Denver, relocate their facility here and only have half done. If they only wanted to do phase one of the project they don't need 50 acres and wouldn't be paying the price of 50 acres, they would only be acquiring 20-30 acres.

Councilwoman Stack - I would propose that we shorten the vesting to ten years with the ability to come back to Council which they can, according to State Statute.

Mike Rock - You can propose that but I will tell you that after two years of negotiations, this is the proposal that's before us and we believe it is a very logical proposal. The hospital is not proposing a ten-year project, neither is RTD and certainly as GSA indicated, they're looking at a 20 plus year project, at the early phases of the redevelopment of the Federal Center. So, we're not in a position to go back and say we changed our mind and you've got ten years, take it or leave it. You may all say that you don't like this project and won't go forward but what we can't do is have 11 people start moving the line back and forth. We've already had clear testimony from all the parties that their projects will extend for many, many years. Even the RTD facility only gets the light rail station, the TOD (transit oriented development) could take an unknown number of years afterwards. All the testimony you have before you indicates that these projects are designed to occur over many years and none of them would certainly be completed in three years. State Statute is not a limitation. City Council, as a matter of policy, just adopted a vesting ordinance which provides for vesting up to 25 years. If this is not a project that allows for vesting for that period, I don't know what would.

Councilwoman Stack - I would like some clarification on that vesting for 25 years. I have three years indicated.

Mike Rock - That is a minimum, that is not a maximum. We are not in violation of our ordinance.

Councilman Peterson - Back to the vesting question which is obviously of some concern to some members. Mr. Rock, could you please help me understand right now, under the current situation under the Federal Center, there is no limitation nor can we, as a community, impose any limitation to their ability to develop that piece of property any way they want.

Mike Rock - That is correct, we have no jurisdiction on the Denver Federal Center today.

Councilman Peterson - If this project wasn't before us, or this question before us and GSA decided they wanted to redevelop it for whatever purpose or any other thing that might fit the GSA of benefits for the Federal government, there is nothing that we would have to say about that in any way, shape or form.

Mike Rock - Well that is correct, but in addition, the GSA can actually sell property. We were the next in line but they could sell property to private entities through a disposal process and it doesn't have to be a Federal purpose to sell property.

Councilman Peterson - If they sold that property for the development of a shopping center or any other use, with it being outside of the City and still under Federal control, once again we really have no say as to how whoever they sold it to would develop it.

Mike Rock - That is correct.

Councilman Peterson - So what this does is gives us the opportunity through this development plan to have a say in the master planning process that the Federal Center will go through and, I think, it is a huge leap of faith on behalf of the GSA to really take what can be a free reign, and limit it to this type of development over that time period. This really gives us a whole broad range of the review of the use of this land which is surrounded by our community.

Councilman Anderson - Just a clarification, I do have some other questions but just to clarify a point that Manager Rock raised to Councilwoman Stack's question on vesting. Manager Rock, you said that the transit oriented development project of light rail associated with light rail would go forward sometime long past the actual building of the station. Is there an additional plan that would be run by RTD or in some way associated with RTD regarding transit-oriented development that we haven't seen here tonight?

Mike Rock - The proposal before you contemplates a light rail station, including the bus bays and light rail station. Transit oriented development, hospital medical uses, all of those are contemplated in the phase one development. The specifics of the transit-oriented development will depend on the market at the time the transit comes in and likewise the timing. It may be coffee shops and dry cleaners, it may look like something else. It cannot exceed 50,000 square feet of retail because we have that limitation in the development, but the specifics will come back in front of the City staff in terms of what it will look like at the time. If the market is there in 2010, it will be built in 2010. If the market isn't there until 2015 then it won't be built until the market is there.

Councilman Anderson - But as to ownership, RTD will be in charge of this project and essentially be the developer of that project?

Mike Rock - Not necessarily. I think RTD's position has been they should be the transit part of transit-oriented development and I would expect, although they are certainly not required to, I would expect they would look for a development partner because they are not really in the transit-oriented development or retail business. What I would anticipate they would do is find somebody who could come to them with a proposal and build it out to their specs. I would be very surprised it RTD built the transit-oriented development, nor would we encourage them to do that. That's really not the business they are in.

Councilman Anderson - And it would come back to staff, would it come back to Planning Commission and Council as to, if a hotel of some height or whatever were to be put up on 6th Avenue and Union or if there would be an addition to the two hundred and odd some number of residents that we have heard in that area, would that come before Council, would it come before the Planning Commission?

Mike Rock - I think we are talking about two different things. The transit-oriented development that I'm talking about is on the first 65 acres, its location is generally between the transit station and the hospital. It's not up on 6th and Kipling, it's not part of any larger development, which would be the phase two, and if that development is built within our specs, and I'm going to refer to Paul and Becky, I don't think that is something that comes back before City Council. The master plan on the balance of the property does.

Rebecca Clark - Director of Community Planning and Development - City Manger Rock is correct. It does not come back to Planning Commission and it does not come back to City Council. The next step to adopting this ODP is to go through a site specific development plan and that is reviewed by my staff and it is approved by staff.

Councilman Elliott - I just want to go back to this issue on vesting just to make sure we are clear and the public is clear. Mr. Rock, if you could explain what does the vesting do for the property owner. We talked about this 25 year time frame and there is discussion about how long it is but what does that allow them to do, basically to build on the property as it is zoned for that period of time without any possibility for the citizens to say they don't want that to potentially happen. Is that in essence what we are looking at?

Mike Rock - That is correct. When the City provides zoning, and we'll be specific to the phase one because that is the one we know is going to occur, you're providing zoning for medical and hospital uses, transit uses, including a transit-oriented development, as long as the developer then builds within those guidelines and meets all the City's requirements for setbacks and landscaping, building permits and meets all the traffic requirements and they have the ability to know that they are able to build. They have the ability to go to their board of directors and say "yes" when it comes time, when we need another hundred beds or we need a cancer center we can do that on the balance of the property without having the uncertainty of either coming back to council and having the uncertainty of either coming back to Council and having somebody say we changed our mind, or having the City or citizens initiate a rezoning and say you're half way through your project and you can't complete it.

Councilman Elliott - So as we look at what we are reviewing tonight too, as we talked about kind of the larger, and I know we had an individual come up and speak to you, we don't know what to kind of expect on the land. The reality is we have an ODP in front of us that lays out the height of the buildings, there is a lot of restrictions on what the uses are, how much has to be open space, but yet it doesn't go into every detail of potentially where those buildings are going to be built which is where the Federal Center Master Plan, at some point, will come back before Planning Commission and Council for us to take a look at exactly the placement of the buildings, how things are going to be laid out. That's not what we're looking at, we're looking at more of the broader parameters of what's going to happen on this property and what we're going to basically allow.

Mike Rock - That is correct. No development could occur on the balance, outside the 65 acres, until that Master Plan comes back and goes through the entire process and then that is when you get very specific.

Councilman Elliott - Once again, even though we've had a presentation, Paul handling the RTD piece and Mr. Wallace handling the St. Anthony's piece, really what they're doing, we're not voting on necessarily the hospital. We are again, voting on what's going to be allowed and, as long as the hospital meets those requirements, they can go ahead and do what they are. They're just sharing with us information, conceptual site plans, in relation to the specific hospital but once again they wouldn't have had to come and show us that information for us to vote on this.

Mike Rock - That is correct. In fact, there are many situations where the Council zones property without having nearly this degree of specificity. It's very general then with an understanding that as plans are developed then it comes back before you.

Councilman Elliott - Let me just throw out another question that had been raised tonight about this whole buffer concept. Obviously living in Ward 4 and being close to where that hospital is going to be, I understand that in what we are looking at there is an open space requirement of ten percent on Planning Area I and twenty percent on Planning Area II. Do we know how that is going to be configured or is that something we're going to work with potential developers as they come in. You look at the hospital right now and it's pretty far north, there is a large buffer between Alameda and where the hospital is going to come in. Do we know, at this point, what that is going to look like and are we looking at potentially providing a buffer on the south side?

Mike Rock - We're certainly sensitive to not wanting to build right up to the property line but the short answer is no. We don't know precisely what that will look like because it's probably 20-30 years down the road before that phase two comes in. But I think we are all sensitive to setbacks, height limits and things that go with it. In fact, the GSA is very sensitive to height issues because they have security concerns and they don't want too many tall buildings surrounding their own buildings and causing security concerns. So there are a variety of checks and balances in place. What is always difficult to do is to try to be precise today and say today that we know all the answers as to what will happen 20-50 years down the road, because even if we think we do, we would be wrong. Even 15 years ago, if we had had a discussion of what kind of buildings could go at the old Villa Italia site, my guess is that consensus would be no greater than two story. When in fact today, Belmar blends very well and is very compatible. What they don't have to do is come back into City Council and Planning Commission every time they are ready to build a new building.

Councilman Elliott - One of the things I found, being on Council for eight years and being involved in the planning processes, is that it seems like the consensus among both the Planning Commission and the City Council is to not be too prescriptive in what we are requiring from development because I know the individual is asking what is Performance Based Development. Now it's not necessarily about what is the greatest monetary gain for the City, it is what will work in this situation and if we're real prescriptive about what we were doing then we wouldn't be allowed to be as flexible potentially to meet the needs of the neighborhood and meet the needs of the business' surrounding the area. That really is what Performance Based is, we're able to use more flexibility in what is allowed, yet they still have to conform to certain things that are put into the ODP. I just wanted to have that discussion so people understand. One other thing that was brought up, and I just want to make sure we are clear on this, is I look at this ODP, as long as the buildings or the property is owned by the Federal Government, we will be limited as a city to our input in to what can happen with that. If it transfers over, and why this annexation is so critical, if the GSA sells off more of that property to a private developer then the City of Lakewood will be able to make that conform to our existing ordinances which I think is a real important point. As long as the Federal Government continues to own it, they're still going to be able to do pretty much anything on the property that they want to, but when it transfers to private hands, then it changes and now the City's Planning department will be involved and have a lot more influence and say as to what that developer can do on that property.

Mike Rock - That is correct.

Councilman Elliott - Thank you.

Councilman Murphy - Thank you. I'm going to take Mrs. Wisecarver's questions and actually add one or two to them. Dorothy, these are natural questions that a lot of people in the public have been asking and I appreciate you bringing them forward. We've been privy to some of these answers from internal discussions, study session, executive sessions and so on. I'd like to go down the list and I think between Mr. Rock and Jay Hutchison, Dave Avlik from West Metro and Randy Funk, just kind of go through the list about services, who is paying for the services, starting with West Metro and then going onto police protection.

Mike Rock - Let me take the broad issue. St, Anthony's is a not for profit corporation and their ultimate property tax status will be determined by the County Assessor. They will pay construction use tax so when they build their building, they pay essentially what could generally be described as sales tax on the construction material and that should be in the range of two to three million dollars. That comes to the City of Lakewood, the transit-oriented development will be a sales tax generator but we do not anticipate, nor would we ever consider, taxes on hospital beds and things like that. We don't think that is appropriate. We made a conscious decision, and a very thoughtful one, in working with the GSA in particular on the future of this property to say we don't want the Federal Center to be a retail sales tax generator. We think that where that activity should go is to benefit existing businesses in our community so it would be short sighted to make a direct equation, although we could certainly do it if we wanted to change that around, if we want this site, this first 65 acres to generate lots of revenue, all we have to do is provide more retail on it but I don't think that is where we want grocery stores and shoe stores and things like that. I think we want the people who work there to shop in our community, visit the restaurants along Union, visit the retail stores up and down. So there is Construction Use Tax at the front end that is paid and substantial. There is tax generated out of the transit oriented development and on the balance, that is a discussion that is yet to occur in the future with the County Assessor and I wouldn't want to be presumptuous on how that might turn out.

Regarding West Metro, I would defer to them of course, but I would make a broad statement and that is: hospitals, museums, libraries, we ought not to think it is their job to generate precise revenue, direct tax payments, rather they either create opportunity in the community, whether it is an opportunity to access library books, museum things or in this case, health care jobs for people and in turn, those people spend money in the community but I think it would be short sighted to take a very narrow view of this, although we could do it. It would be very easy to start working with GSA and start pumping retail on that center but I think that only hurts our existing merchants and I don't think it is good public policy.

Councilman Murphy - Randy, do you want to talk a little bit about indemnification, environmental cleanup issues and that sort of thing.

Randy Funk - Attorney for the City of Lakewood
In the agreements that we have with the GSA to purchase the property and then, in turn, agreements to sell the property to the RTD and to St. Anthony's, there are various provisions that deal with environmental aspects as well as the general law that applies to all of that. First of all, the GSA retains responsibility for the environmental condition of the property with the exception that there are some foundations, for example, on parcels A and B and some other work that will need to be done on parcel C, which is being paid for as part of the purchase by the purchasers. That is part of that credit that Mr. Rock spoke about, so there is some minor amounts for those. Otherwise the GSA retains responsibility for unknown environmental contamination that might be on the site. There has been a significant amount of testing and work done already, a lot of remediation has already been done. The State of Colorado, which regulates that through the Department of Public Health and Environment, they have issued no further action letters for parcels A and B, so there has been a lot of work done already. When we sell the property, the contracts that we have provide that we do not retain or take any obligation for that. The two property purchasers are taking the property knowingly and assuming all responsibility for any condition related to the property. So, the City is not assuming that obligation to remediate or clean up the property.

Councilman Anderson - You mentioned unknown contaminants but obviously there are some known contaminants. We would not have any liability for known contaminants, asbestos, oil leaks, petroleum leaks or any of that.

Randy Funk - That is correct.

Councilman Anderson - The fact that we have taken ownership or chain of title is in no way going to cause the City of Lakewood in the future, within that 65 acres, going to have any liability whatsoever.

Randy Funk - Part of the way we structured this, and the reason for doing that, again the City would be in the chain of title for that brief moment, that's why we've provided that the RTD and the hospital assume the responsibility and hold the City harmless for taking on that obligation for something that is known or unknown at that point in time. It is impossible to say, because we are in the chain of title, that there could never be any potential liability but the liability is very limited because of the way the transaction has been structured.

Councilman Murphy - Jay, do you want to talk about retention? And then I will yield.

Jay Hutchison - City of Lakewood Engineer
I will touch briefly on several of the items that came up earlier. First I will talk about water pressure and Consolidated Mutual Water service in the area, which is a good service, and in addition to Consolidated Mutual, there is another provider close to the area, which is the Green Mountain Water and Sanitation District. Green Mountain has been in extensive discussions with the City of Lakewood and the hospital and RTD. An agreement has been reached whereby that western portion of the Federal Center will be served by Green Mountain for both water and sewer service. The cost for those additional services will be borne by the property owners, primarily by the hospital. There will no cost to the City of Lakewood for the water and sewer service that needs to be provided for those 65 acres.

The second area of cost that I wanted to talk briefly about was the road cost, which came up in an earlier discussion. There are improvements that will be made to Alameda, there are improvements that will be made to Union and 2nd, also new Routt Street will be constructed north of Alameda. Those items were all identified as part of the traffic planning for the development and the cost for all of those roadway improvements will not be borne by Lakewood but rather the developers of the project.

McIntyre Gulch splits the 65 acres on the western portion of the Federal Center and I just want to mention that because there are detention and water quality benefits that can accrue from the development on the western portion of the Federal Center. We anticipate that those will be occurring over time as the land develops. They will be designed in such a fashion that they will comply with all of the storm water detention requirements and water quality requirements that the City has.

Councilman Elliott - You delved into this issue, Jay, and I wanted to pursue it after reading the minutes from the Planning Commission. In relation to the traffic studies, what all was looked at in regard to traffic? And as I read the minutes, it sounds like the City of Lakewood has agreed with the improvements that are going to be made but can you, for the audience, talk about what those are and what areas did we look at when the traffic study was done in relation to the hospital, and what are the improvements that are going to happen.

Jay Hutchison - Maybe starting from the more general. There have been a number of traffic studies done in the western part of the community, some specifically related in particular to St. Anthony's, others are related to a larger, more generalized area in the western part of town. The conclusion of the improvements that are necessary for the 65 acre development, particularly for phase one of St. Anthony's and for the RTD development, include improvements at the intersection of 2nd and Union, which would be turn lanes to get into and out of the new development area. Also some improvements on 2nd place, although relatively minor, there will be significant improvements at the Alameda and Routt Street intersection and for the construction of Routt Street extending north from Alameda. Today Routt Street does not extend north of Alameda but it would as development occurs on those 65 acres. So there are considerable improvements to build Routt Street and additional turn lanes at the new intersection location of Routt and Alameda.

Councilman Elliott - Is there anything being done to stop the traffic from being able to go into the neighborhoods to the south of Alameda?

Jay Hutchison - Yes. Very specifically, Routt Street is being located at a location where it will not align with any of the roads that go south of Alameda and, in fact, there will be median islands required for construction by the hospital on Alameda to prevent left turns and through movements from the hospital development and the Federal Center development on into the neighborhoods to the south.

Councilman Anderson - I appreciate the flow of the conversation. It is easier if we do it in chunks. I appreciate your time on traffic. I didn't see anything at all in the packet and I recognize that is probably something to be considered much further down the line. This median you are talking about in Alameda, can you describe it for me.

Jay Hutchison - The final configuration is not completely identified. It will prevent through movement so traffic traveling from the hospital south across Alameda will not be able to go directly into the neighborhood to the south and that will be prevented by some median islands that will allow traffic to go from the 65 acre development site onto Alameda but not onto the south of Alameda. There will be some restricted movements in order to prevent that.

Councilman Anderson - Are you anticipating that this median is in any way going to come down, I'm not quite sure on the Federal Center side of things what the building is, but on frankly my neighborhood side, Quail Street. Are you looking at constrictions of traffic flow going to the west on Alameda from the neighborhoods?

Jay Hutchison - No. I don't think there will be any proposal to restrict traffic further on Alameda.

Councilman Anderson - Are you looking at any sort of stoplights, because if I recall, the initial EIS talked about a doubling of traffic along Alameda. I don't know if that has been modified in any of these other traffic reports but doubling of traffic on Alameda would certainly cause some difficulties in getting into King Soopers, Safeway and Vitamin Cottage from the neighborhood that I live in and all of the neighborhoods up behind me into Glennon Heights.

Jay Hutchison - Obviously increased traffic does create some difficult situations. In this particular case, the only additional signal that's being contemplated is at the proposed new Alameda and Routt Street intersection so there would not be the additional signals beyond that one location. I don't have all of the traffic study numbers here, the traffic consultant who prepared that is available but the anticipated increase in traffic on Alameda from today to the opening of the hospital would increase the traffic on Alameda to a number in the range of 35,000 to 39,000 vehicles per day. To put that in context, the current traffic on Kipling is in the range of about 45,000 vehicles per day.
Councilman Anderson - But that is the opening of the hospital following the full build out of TOD and the RTD and the entire hospital, but that would obviously be considerably more.

Jay Hutchison - Yes, it could be more.

Councilman Anderson - Jumping over a couple of blocks to Oak Street, there is a light there by the post office. Because of the configuration of the frontage road and Oak Street itself, a single car turning left at that light can tie up traffic on the frontage road in front of the small businesses there and cause quite a consternation in the four-way stop sign that is behind Alameda. Is there going to be some solution brought to that because I think it was suggested to some of my neighbors that Oak Street would bear the burden of the traffic that wanted to get out and go up to the grocery stores in the neighborhood.

Jay Hutchison - There is no specific proposal for changing anything at Oak Street with the development that is before you tonight. Over time there may be additional changes along a street such as Alameda as there have been in the past but I don't know of any that have been identified specifically at this point, certainly not related to the project before you tonight.

Councilman Anderson - Jumping completely off of Alameda, over onto Union. There has been a lot of discussion around the business section of Union but there is another fundamentally different section of Union just to the south of Alameda where it is two lanes with two bike lanes. Within the next 25 years is there a solid commitment by the City of Lakewood to not expand the traffic lanes on Union and to continue to have the bicycle lanes on Union for that 25 year period?

Jay Hutchison - The City Council has recently adopted a Master Bike Plan for the City and I believe it does include those bike lanes which are out there today. Any kind of major transportation change within the City is, as routinely included, a very public process that includes a number of discussions with property owners and others who are interested in a particular project. The results of those meetings sometimes go different directions depending on what the input is and what the demands are on the traffic system. The short answer to your question is there is no guarantee but that is true throughout Lakewood on all the transportation systems. So instead of that type of guarantee there is a process whereby we work with neighboring property owners, neighboring businesses, neighboring homeowners, the general traveling public to try to determine how best to utilize resources to improve the transportation system.

Councilman Anderson - Was there a traffic study done in that section of Union?

Jay Hutchison - The region-wide study did include predictions of traffic counts for Union, both north and south of Alameda and Alameda further to the west.

Councilman Anderson - Could we possibly get copies of those sort of things. Traffic is very important to the neighborhood.

Councilwoman Wise - I would just like to put the traffic issue into perspective because it does impact neighborhoods incredibly. Mr. Hutchison, if I heard you right, the projected increase on Alameda is from 35,000 to 40,000, so an additional 5,000 per day?

Jay Hutchison - It's from about 35,000 at the opening day of the hospital up to about 39,000 by the year 2015. The 45,000 number that I used is an existing number on Kipling. The comparison I was trying to make was projected numbers on Alameda compared to existing numbers on Kipling.

Councilwoman Wise - What I would like to do is put it in perspective. Ward 1, as this Council is very familiar, I have for many months been talking about the impact on the Applewood neighborhood with regard to Cabela's but specifically the 27th Avenue hook ramps that will dump traffic off onto 27th and 26th Avenues, which is just a two lane collector and the anticipated increase traffic on that neighborhood street. If I recall rightly, is almost 3,000 cars per day. I have seen no or very limited concern from Council with regard to that impact on that existing neighborhood. Whereas Alameda is considered an arterial but then increase is not much more from St. Anthony's on a six-lane arterial than it is in my backyard in a day's time. I would like us to keep that in perspective acknowledging that traffic is a concern but it sounds definitely like we are trying to mitigate the traffic going into the neighborhoods but that Alameda has been designed to carry that type of traffic. I just want to make sure that there is consistency, that my neighborhood can't be asked to absorb a higher traffic impact when a roadway that is specifically designed for this type of development can easily accommodate that kind of increase.

Councilman Elliott - Jay, just one more question I have in relation to traffic. We didn't talk specifically about Union and Alameda. Are there any improvements planned? I know that is a congested area at certain times of the day and are we looking at doing anything there at this point? Or are there no improvements planned.

Jay Hutchison - There have been some improvements made on that intersection over the last decade or so but there are none today planned. We're certainly beginning to look at options for the long term future but they are out in the future beyond our capital improvement program.

Councilman Elliott - It is fairly expensive I would assume.

Jay Hutchison - Probably substantially expensive.

Councilman Elliott - I would like to change gears here for a second. The other thing we talked about is the impact of the neighborhoods and I know, as I have been in a number of the public meetings with St. Anthony's hospital and with neighbors that are in that area, as we look at the site and what's happening with the landscaping, has there been any thought given at this point to providing any landscaping buffers on the south side of Alameda with trees of some sort that would potentially help block or help mitigate any noise issues like that. I know we've talked about some of this stuff and as we look at this, we're not really looking at that specific area, we are looking at the area that we're developing. Have we given any thoughts to plans to help mitigate some of those things from a neighborhood standpoint.

Jay Hutchison - I know there has been some tree planting on the north side but I'm not familiar with the south.

Mayor Burkholder - If it's okay with you, Mr. Elliott, I'm going to dismiss Mr. Hutchison and we will go to Ms. Clark with Community Planning and Development.

Mike Rock - Ray, it doesn't mean that we can't work with St. Anthony's and they may not agree to do things voluntarily but we need to be very thoughtful if we put in place a standard that would be that onerous because then I think we would need to apply it to all development. That is why we've struggled. We have had quite a few discussions with St. Anthony's about voluntary things we might do but from a regulatory standpoint we are hard pressed to find that nexus that would allow us to impose a requirement.

Councilman Elliott - Understood, and as we look at that initial Area One that they are looking at, the further north part, you're obviously quite a distance from any neighborhoods and any impact that you have. Really, as that development continues further south as we anticipate is going to happen, as St. Anthony's continues to expand to at that point, to potentially look at doing something to really help some of those neighborhoods out without having to put up big concrete walls.

Mike Rock - Phase Two is much easier to deal with because at phase two we will have a better idea what the building is and how close it might be and then it is easier to be pretty specific about what you are trying to fix.

Rebecca Clark - Let me bring your attention back to the performance review elements. One of the elements is building, design and function and the other element is site design and function. We look at those things at that point in time because it is too far out in the future to know what is going to get built on that site.

Councilman Elliott - One thing that I am very convinced of, after being at a number of these meetings, is that St. Anthony's really intends on being a good neighbor. We probably couldn't be asking for a better tenant to come and locate within the City of Lakewood and their concern for the community at-large and not just for the profitability of their hospital. I just want to applaud them, with all the meetings they've been at and attended.

Councilman Anderson - Thank you Mr. Mayor and I apologize for being out of order. It's a catchy phrase to say that the residential housing is five football fields away from the hospital but we're looking at a 25-year vesting plan. Any logical look down the road says that Alameda is going to be the entry way for properties along Oak Street. There is discussion of 1,400 homes, there is discussion about commercial development, discussion of medical buildings, the height of which is not yet determined going along this section here. It might be five football fields away today but if we're expected as a Council to talk 25 years into the future with an unknown slate of what the 25 years will hold, then I think it is pretty reasonable to expect that if the prairie dogs can get across to my yard from the Federal Center, that the impacts from the Federal Center will, during that 25 years, begin to shrink from five football fields.

Mike Rock - And to the extent that specific development proposals come forward, you can deal with them then. What is difficult to do today is to say that you're going to impose a regulatory standard because the only project that is specific in front of you, what is going to be built is in fact the hospital and the RTD facility, everything else has to go back through a review process. You have regulations in place and all I would suggest, two things, is one: we always take a look based on your performance based standards at what is being proposed and how to make that as compatible as possible with the neighborhood, and number tw: anything we impose here we need to be willing to impose City wide. I think you can have as much government as you want, we just need to be sure we're going to be consistent in applying that.

Dave Abbink - Division Chief, West Metro Fire Department
First of all, I just want to say that West Metro is always proud to be the City of Lakewood's Fire Department, thank you for our partnership. We service the Federal Center by contract and that contract is good until the year 2009. We are going to honor that contract with GSA. We have had preliminary discussions with the City, with the hospital and with GSA about what it would take to include this property within the district boundaries. We did take the step to go talk to the County Assessor and we talked to them about non-profits. If the County Assessor decides a business is a non-profit, we will not receive property tax from that entity, but we look at everything that will happen around there that we will receive property taxes from. There are other positives; we've had a partnership with St. Anthony's Central for 30-40 years, we train with them, plus the positive, we will not have to transport outside of the district every time we have a medical call. We will have a hospital within the district boundaries, our firefighters will be back in service much quicker, plus, our physician advisor comes from St. Anthony's Central. We have that partnership in place and we look forward to continuing that partnership with St. Anthony's, GSA and with the City of Lakewood.

Councilwoman Allen - I just wanted to make a general statement. Nobody has a crystal ball, we can't all figure out what is going to happen in the future. When I moved here in 1998 and somebody would have told me that people were going to pay $450,000 for an urban row home, I would have actually laughed in their face. Here we are barely in 2007 and that happened really fast. A lot of things change. I just want to pull back a little bit and talk a little bit about this project. We're not talking about prison or a land fill or even any big box stores, we are talking about a hospital and public transportation and GSA who has been a good neighbor to Lakewood for 50 years. 50 years ago, I'm sure they didn't' know that a city of almost 150,000 was going to grow up around them but everybody is willing to come to the table and try and do what's good not only for themselves, but what is good for the people around them. All of these entities are for the public good, nobody is going to make a ton of money. Basically, all of the decisions we are making are revolved around what is going to be good for our community now, what will be good for the community in 1-20 years from now and there are a lot of details to work out. There is still going to be a lot of opportunities for public comment. All of the organizations that are involved have involved the public so far and have made commitments to do so thus far. Everybody so far has proved to be trustworthy, there haven't been any negative accusations that hasn't come true so far and I guess I just wanted to say that I know their neighborhood has issues and that they are going to have concerns. I guess this is why we get paid the big bucks to make commitments for things that are going to affect our community for 100 years and I just wanted to say that I personally am comfortable to committing to 25 years to bring a wonderful hospital to our community, an excellent public transportation system to our community, honoring the good neighbors that GSA has been and opening the door to a lot of possibilities that the City of Lakewood will actually get to be involved in with the Federal Center. Big picture wise, I just wanted to make sure everybody remembered where we were and what we were doing. Traffic may change, the neighborhood may change before the traffic changes, we don't know that. What we do know is that this is probably the biggest opportunity Lakewood has had ever. Are we going to take it or are we not, and I can speak for myself when I say I will definitely take that chance because I think it is a good thing for Lakewood.

Councilman Anderson - I did have two additional categories of questions. Regarding McIntyre Gulch water flow, I think Jefferson County had expressed some concerns in addition to former Councilwoman Wisecarver, regarding McIntyre Gulch and I am wondering if someone could address 100 year flood plains, changes in impermeable surfaces with the hospital and RTD and whether or not there will be any flow changes in the drainage area around McIntyre Gulch.

Jay Hutchison - McIntyre Gulch does run west to east through the property that is being sold and continues on through the rest of the Federal Center clear over to Kipling. The County's comments did indicate that there is not a map to floodplain. What wasn't further said was that there is not a map to Federal FEMA floodplain. There is a floodplain identified for that area, there is a 100-year flood plain mapped. On the 65 acres, and I believe all the way through the Federal Center, the 100-year floodplain for McIntyre Gulch is essentially contained to the channel that is in that area. We would not anticipate that to change. On both of the master plan concepts that the GSA is currently considering, they've included a large amount of open space which in both cases includes open space along McIntyre Gulch so we wouldn't expect the character to change with anything that we've seen today. There are some specific changes. For instance, Routt Street will cross McIntyre Gulch, which doesn't exist today, so there will be some changes and maybe others besides that. From a drainage standpoint, the development on the 65 acres and any further property sold by the Federal government will comply with the City's regulatory requirements, both for the quantity of water that can be discharged and the quality of that water. There will be detention provided and that will meet the regulations that the City currently has. I would not anticipate changes to the 100-year floodplain.

Councilman Anderson - Will that detention eliminate any possibility of the mitigation systems that have been set up for the pollution that had previously come down McIntyre Gulch? There are obviously some very serious mitigations that the Federal government has put in place to stop the pollution from going down into Ms. Wisecarver and other neighborhoods.

Jay Hutchison - No I don't think the surface drainage would have any effect.

Councilman Anderson - I have an additional question as to heights on properties and I don't know who might be capable of talking about it. There are no height limits if I understood it correctly in the Planning Area II, was I correct. I think Mr. Wallace mentioned that there were height limitations on the St. Anthony's building themselves, Can you speak briefly on that?

Paul Rice - The height limits on Planning Area I, which is the hospital piece, are 12 stories. On the remainder of the Federal Center there is no maximum height limit.

Councilman Anderson - We're talking 12 stories on Planning Area I, is that correct?

Paul Rice - Correct.

Councilman Anderson - There has been a rumor floating around in the neighborhood over there that St. Anthony's will build initially at one height and then add up. It won't at anytime go over the 12 stories.

Paul Rice - That is correct. The initial build out will be approximately eight floors, you only see seven because they have one underground and then they have a capacity to add two more floors to the hospital building.

Councilman Anderson - So at some future time, it might actually end up being 12 stories.

Paul Rice - About 10 stories.

Councilman Anderson - I guess I need to add to the comments made here tonight by other Council people as to what the individuals personalities involved. Bob Wallace took a great deal of time to come to the neighbors and the community I live in and put himself forward as an individual of integrity and I appreciate it very much Bob, you are a gentleman and a man of the greatest responsibilities. I appreciate the works and efforts that the GSA and RTD and planning staff have gone to through this. I will be voting in favor for the first two pieces of what we have in front of us but am frankly concerned with the 25-year vesting and will be voting in opposition to it simply from the fact that there is a need for this Council to be involved as things come back and if we're not simply to go through the staff of the City of Lakewood without going through planning and Council. Yes, I realize portions of it will from time to time come back to us, but in it's entirety, 25 years is a tremendously long time and to look out and look at some of the possibilities that exist out there, I'm afraid I don't have the ability to write down the fine details or to force and ask that the fine details come out of the Lakewood bureaucracy at this time and I recognize that may be an impossibility. Those who know me know that I am skeptical at times of the direction that this City has taken and that skepticism to be placed on a 25-year, unrestrained, unlimited leash is more than I can put forward for myself and for those who live around me. I hope that those who are within this process, both within the City of Lakewood staff, within the St. Anthony's staff, GSA's staff and RTD's staff to not hear that in any way is not an endorsement of the possibilities and the highest aspirations that have been expressed here. It is a deep fear of the worst possibilities and with that, I appreciate the time Mr. Mayor.

Mike Rock - Mr. Mayor, could I qualify that vesting has nothing to do with what the City Council reviews or doesn't review. Vesting is simply a legal recourse for the property owners, that if their right to develop the property is taken away, they have a legal recourse. The City Council has no greater or less review with or without the vesting. The same things that come to you, come to you with or without vesting. The same things that are reviewed at the staff level are reviewed at the staff level with or without vesting. The three pieces are tied together, the offer to purchase and the denial of any one of the three negates the offer to purchase and negates the deal. You can't have the hospital with 1/3 or 2/3 of the deal, you have it or you don't have it.

Councilman Stevens - Mr. Anderson, I would respectfully have to disagree. I have absolutely no problem with the vesting on this. I think it was very clear in the beginning of the notes from the Planning Commission hearing that this is a long-term project. We're talking about a 100-year plan, I don't have a problem with the 25 year vesting at all but I certainly would not expect the financial community to make an investment that might be a short-term type project. I think there is enough specifics that are involved in this that I'm comfortable and confident in terms of how this is going to move forward. I worry about any type of micro-managing from a political standpoint. I have more confidence in what the grand plan is from the hospital standpoint and RTD then I do in the future for politicians to come back and try to appease certain factions. If anything, to me, the vesting might be too short. I am in complete agreement with this and I in no way want to attempt to nickel and dime the negotiations that have taken place, the delicate balance that has been struck here to make this thing happen. I will be supporting all three parts in their entirety. For me, this is probably the most important vote in my eight years on City Council. I hope everyone takes that into consideration. I think Councilor Allen perhaps said it best, we're talking about the future of our community here and I'm in full support of this plan.

Councilman Peterson - I could not agree more than what comments were just stated. If development is like a watch because it has a lot of moving parts, and particularly, this type of thing, this project has been a Rolex. There is a tremendous amount of work and effort and energy that has been expended and a tremendous amount of trust and community commitment that has been put forth on behalf of the Federal government, the GSA, the non-profit hospital association through St. Anthony's and I want to thank you for all of the commitments that you have made to our community. As Councilor Anderson mentioned, meeting with individuals and any groups, sometimes I think you would have come out if there were only two people and over a cup of coffee and I think that is tremendous. I would also like to commend you on your commitment to the community that you are leaving. I think that speaks volumes for St. Anthony's as an association because you're not just leaving, you're leaving them with a positive and a productive use of the property you own there as well. Same thing as Jefferson County Economic Development, this could have been very contentious between the County and the City and that didn't occur. There are so many positives about this particular project and it is very rare at this level of government, that we as elected officials have an opportunity to make decisions that are basically legacy issues. Issues that will effect this community and those who decide to reside here, not just over the next five years, or 25 years for that matter, but over the next century. I have to tell you that this is one of those issues, and Councilor Stevens, I agree with you. This is probably the most important thing that has faced us or at least faced me since my election about four years ago. With that, I am going to absolutely and completely support all three of these and congratulate all of the partners that sat around the table and worked this deal out. And particularly, Mr. Rock, as City Manager and your staff and Becky from Planning, Engineering, Acquisitions, everything came together. The legal counsels that were involved in this, this has been an amazing thing to watch and I've got to tell you there were at least three times in briefing sessions and in watching this work over the past two plus years that I would have absolutely bet that this deal was as dead as a door nail. That is was never going to happen, that it could never happen because of all the idiosyncrasies that were involved within it. I just want to offer my congratulations to everyone who was involved in this and I will wholeheartedly support this very important issue for our community.

Councilman Elliott - We've heard a lot of comments from other Council members about the importance of this decision. From an economic standpoint, one of the commitments that this Council has had to our community is to provide primary jobs in the Lakewood community. We're known as a bedroom community and some people really like that. Those of us who have to travel 20 miles to a job would like to see more primary jobs occur within the City of Lakewood. This development that we are looking at tonight with St. Anthony's Hospital and with GSA and the possibilities that can occur on the Federal Center is one of the most exciting things from my standpoint, as a citizen of Lakewood, as a Council member, that I've really seen in my time. I want to applaud everybody that was involved in this process. St. Anthony's Hospital for being at the negotiation table, I'm sure there were times they wanted to leave. GSA, they've held a number of open houses, I think I've been to at least a dozen meetings on the Federal Center and the hospital. RTD, and then the City of Lakewood and I know there is a number of people that have been involved from Lakewood's standpoint in helping to keep this deal together. This is really exciting. One of the things that I am most excited about is the people we get to partner with. The GSA's concern with what happens to the Federal Center, the impact of the neighborhood and St. Anthony's hospital's commitment to be a good neighbor. The City of Lakewood wanting to make sure that we do mitigate that impact on the neighborhood as best we can. This is an incredible opportunity, one of the most exciting opportunities that we've really had. My biggest disappointment is that I will not be on the City Council to see all this development occur. I think we are moving the right direction, I applaud everybody's efforts on this and this is an exciting time. I know I'm going to need that hospital someday and I'm glad it's going to be a lot closer to where I live.

Mayor Burkholder - A lot has been said this evening and I just want to say that a comment was made that we have a deep responsibility this evening. Folks, I feel so responsible about this that I delayed a trip, I was invited to speak at an international conference and I said no. When we look at the City we don't really look at today but we're looking out ahead. A couple of weeks ago at the Colorado Municipal League, we had a futurist talk to us and some of the issues that were brought out were that a good city has to have good transportation, good health care and good jobs. When I look at this, this project is just so dynamic in that we're addressing this with a transportation hub that's going to serve not only Lakewood but Jefferson County and West Denver. When you look at GSA, you know, too often we take GSA and the Federal Center for granted. Folks, there are over 6,000 jobs out there, primary jobs. We have the highest concentration of Federal agencies outside of Washington D.C. here in our backyard and we have really worked very closely with them. They have certain needs and we've tried to work with them. I congratulate GSA for the work you've done in working with the community in this. You certainly have been listening. And of course, what can we say about St. Anthony's, we're so honored to have you even approach us on this issue. The community involvement, as you already displayed, the jobs, the economic impact, but most importantly the health care you are going to provide to Lakewood and the residents here on the west side which I think is so important. I'll pick up on this and I'm going to carry it a little further. I think tonight is one of the most momentous evenings in the history of this City. We're going in a new direction, we're plotting a course for the remainder of the 21st Century. I will just say that I certainly will support all three, I think it is a package, I want to really say that that is so important and I'm going to reserve some comments that I have for after the votes are taken.

Ms. Greer, I'm going to ask, since we've been discussing this for quite a while. I would ask that you introduce Item 8 again so that everyone knows what it's about.

ITEM 8 - ORDINANCE O-2007-23 - ANNEXING CERTAIN UNINCORPORATED LANDS KNOWN AS THE DENVER FEDERAL CENTER LOCATED IN THE EAST ONE-HALF OF THE EAST ONE-HALF OF THE EAST ONE-HALF OF SECTION 8, SECTION 9, AND THE WEST ONE-HALF OF THE WEST ONE-HALF OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORADO

Mayor Burkholder - Thank you and I was just informed that I missed Councilor Koop and I apologize. Before I have the motion put on the floor, what would you like to say.

Councilwoman Koop - I'll keep this brief. All the thank you's pretty much have been said but a few have been left out. I'd like to thank Mayor Burkholder, he has led the City wonderfully in the last eight years and you should be very proud of what you've been able to accomplish with your partnership and I know that you were in a lot of the meetings with GSA and St. Anthony's and RTD. I think that you really helped get all this to happen and I'd like to thank you for all your time you've put in. Also, our Planning Commission. I haven't heard a thank you to them, they have worked very hard, they have studied this issue and had a lot of great suggestions. I really appreciate all their time and efforts that they've done studying the annexation. I think the annexation of the Federal Center is a very important decision we have to make tonight. I just want to make it clear that if it seems like some of us haven't asked a lot of questions on this, we have been briefed all along, we have our packets, we've been able to ask staff questions when we've had them. I myself didn't really feel the need to ask a lot of questions but I think we've received a lot of information tonight, and as you can see from our public comment period, we did not have that many citizens come up here and be upset or questioning what we are doing, so I think the public, in the community outreach, has been done wonderfully and thanks to all of you for that. A lot of the questions have been answered along the way for the neighbors, I will be supporting this and, as it's already been said, this is a very important thing we are voting on tonight. I really like the direction the City of Lakewood is going.

Councilwoman Wise made a motion to adopt Ordinance O-2007-23 on second and final reading. Councilman Murphy seconded the motion.

Vote on O-2007-23. All Ayes. No Nays. The motion carried.

Mayor Burkholder - Will the Clerk re-introduce Item 9 into the record.

ITEM 9 - ORDINANCE O-2007-24 - TO ZONE LAND KNOWN AS THE DENVER FEDERAL CENTER, LOCATED IN THE EAST ONE-HALF OF THE EAST ONE-HALF OF THE EAST ONE-HALF OF SECTION 8, SECTION 9, AND THE WEST ONE-HALF OF THE WEST ONE-HALF OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORADO

Councilwoman Wise made a motion to adopt Ordinance O-2007-24 on second and final reading. Councilman Murphy seconded the motion.

Vote on O-2007-24. All Ayes. No Nays. The motion carried.

Mayor Burkholder - Will the Clerk please re-introduce Item 10 into the record.

ITEM 10 - ORDINANCE O-2007-25 - ESTABLISHING VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTS PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 18 OF THE LAKEWOOD ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE DENVER FEDERAL CENTER, LOCATED IN THE EAST ONE-HALF OF THE EAST ONE- HALF OF THE EAST ONE-HALF OF SECTION 8, SECTION 9, AND THE WEST ONE-HALF OF THE WEST ONE-HALF OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORADO

Councilwoman Wise made a motion to adopt Ordinance O-2007-25 on second and final reading. Councilman Murphy seconded the motion.

Vote on O-2007-25. 9 Ayes. 2 Nays (Stack, Anderson). The motion carried.

Mayor Burkholder - Before we move onto General Business, as I said I have a few concluding remarks. Obviously there are a lot of heroes in this particular issue and I would just say this: my congratulations to all the parties involved. I want to particularly point out to you, that this deal has unraveled so many times I can't count it. The one person that kept the unraveling from occurring is Mr. Mike Rock. Too often the City Manager is not given the full credit for what he does but in this case I want to publicly thank you, Mr. Rock, for the fine work you've done over the last couple of years. It has been an exercise in futility sometimes but through the cooperation of all the people involved, you kept everybody together and this is the culmination this evening, so thank you.

ITEM 11 - GENERAL BUSINESS

None.

ITEM 12 - PUBLIC COMMENT

Public Comments are not a verbatim transcription but rather an attempt to capture the intent of the speaker by the City Clerk.

Public Comment:

Glenn Glass - 8425 W. Belmar Dr., Lakewood CO
Stated he is concerned with Belmar Park. There is one well that is and has been un-operational since 2002. There is an adjacent well from the one that is not working that has been carrying the load for four years. Asked that the well be fixed.

Public Comment was closed.

Mayor Burkholder - Stated that when citizens come forward, everything is looked at and reviewed.

Councilman Anderson - Asked that City Council is kept informed of Mr. Glass' request.

ITEM 13 - REPORTS

Mayor and City Council reported their attendance at previous meetings and events and announced upcoming neighborhood meetings and events.

ITEM 14 - ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to come before the Council; Mayor Burkholder adjourned the meeting at 10:21 p.m.

Submitted by,
Margy Greer, City Clerk

	Home | Search | Contact Us | Privacy Policy Americans with Disability Act (ADA) Notice © City of Lakewood, 480 S. Allison Pkwy., Lakewood, CO 80226, 303-987-7000