[0:07] >> First, I want to make sure that -- I want to thank

[0:09] everybody for showing up, whether it's here or online.

[0:12] Thank you, guys, for being here. I'll start with the invocation.

[0:16] Heavenly father, we ask for your guidance, wisdom and support as

[0:19] we begin this meeting. We gather here today intent on

[0:23] doing good work. We seek to present fairly and

[0:25] well. Those who gives us this task,

[0:28] help us to engage in meaningful discussion.

[0:31] Bless this community, it's residences, businesses and

[0:34] visitors. Help us to continue doing good

[0:36] work in your name, amen. Call to order, roll call,

[0:40] please. >> Council member Hollingshead?

[0:44] >> Here. >> Council member Bracken?

[0:49] >> Council member Davis? >> Yes.

[0:52] >> Council member brooks? >> Yes.

[0:56] >> Council member Dietz? >> Yes.

[1:00] Mayor gray? Yes.

[1:02] >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of

[1:03] America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation,

[1:07] under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

[1:26] >> I'll go ahead and start with council comments.

[1:29] I'm not sure if everybody could see back there but I have a pink

[1:33] ribbon on today. Unfortunately, I lost a close

[1:37] friend to breast cancer about a week ago.

[1:41] Um, and it is just too much. I feel like every few days, I'm

[1:47] finding out either one of my friends has cancer or passed

[1:50] away from cancer and it's a lot. And it's hard.

[1:57] Um, between cancer and suicide, it has been a pretty miserable

[2:01] time for me. And really upsetting.

[2:07] At the same time, it has made me reflect my relationship with my

[2:10] family and friends and I'm just asking you guys to do the same,

[2:16] because it is hard out there and, you know, it's even harder

[2:21] when you get cancer. Um, tonight, um, it's going to

[2:26] be a very passionate night. I expect it.

[2:30] I want it. We should all want it.

[2:35] Um, but what we are going to do tonight is we're going to be

[2:37] respectful. We're going to be respectful to

[2:39] each other. We're going to be respectful in

[2:41] this room. Give it the decorum it deserves.

[2:47] I do not want to see clapping and cheering.

[2:48] This is not a ball game. This is serious stuff.

[2:54] And with that, I'm done. Council member Hollingshead?

[3:01] >> No comment tonight, thank you.

[3:03] >> Council member Bracken? >> No comment.

[3:05] >> Council member Davis. >> Thank you to all the people

[3:08] who showed up to the open house last Tuesday.

[3:12] Also a reminder that everybody here is having -- all of us will

[3:15] be having an open house in the next week or two.

[3:18] I encourage you to come out and speak your voice and ask your

[3:20] questions. I got to meet a lot of you guys

[3:22] on Tuesday. That was great.

[3:24] It's nice to hear from you and direct you to the people that

[3:27] have the answers for you, so, um, if you guys live in Meadows

[3:33] -- I'm sure most of you don't -- but just know that other ones

[3:36] are coming up soon, and I encourage to you go to those as

[3:40] well. >> Thank you, council member

[3:43] Davis. Council member Brooks?

[3:44] >> Thank you, mayor. This isn't something that comes

[3:46] up on the town's website but I want to make sure that folks,

[3:52] anyone in my neck of the woods or anyone that gets up to the

[3:57] plum creek or ridge road area, there's a tremendous amount of

[3:59] dirt being moved up there. You won't find it on the town

[4:04] site because it's not town property.

[4:06] It's unincorporated Douglas county.

[4:09] There's discussion and a lot of people asking questions what's

[4:11] going in up there? Folks worry there's a bunch of

[4:14] homes going in. I wish that there were homes

[4:18] going in. It's actually going to be a core

[4:21] substation. If you're familiar with the area

[4:24] four corners, there's King Kupp Soopers there and the sub-- King

[4:31] Soopers there and that's the substation on what we'll see.

[4:35] It's unfortunate. It's not town property.

[4:38] Unincorporated Douglas county. Thank you, commissioner.

[4:41] I think we all want us to charge up our devices and have lights

[4:44] in our homes, too. I want to make sure that

[4:48] everybody understands what that is and put to bed some of the

[4:50] rumors. That's all I've got.

[4:52] Thank you, sir. >> Thank you council member

[4:57] Brooks. Council member Dietz?

[4:58] >> Thank you, everybody. I'm going to simply touch on

[5:01] something about downtown. There's nothing in it other than

[5:03] the history of what was the DRB, design review board it used to

[5:13] decide town projects. Now by a 7-0 vote, it only does

[5:18] 10,000 square feet and under. Just want people to understand

[5:20] there's a history and a need for it in the past, but I was always

[5:26] leary about the fact that it didn't represent the taxpayers

[5:30] and come to council for a full vote.

[5:33] So I just wanted to give a little history on that.

[5:35] I think the processes in town deserve to be fully understood

[5:42] and every process needs to be heard no matter what it is.

[5:45] So with downtown, anything big in the future does come back to

[5:51] your town council. Anything in the past, that was

[5:53] done up by the design review board and we really can't change

[5:56] it anymore. I found some things to be

[5:58] unfortunate, but with that said and the developing things, I

[6:03] just felt like there should be more responsible growth in that

[6:08] procedure. Going forward as Mayor Gray

[6:14] noted, we can make Castle Rock even greater and better.

[6:16] I see a lot of developers up there, too.

[6:20] Look at things we can do to make downtown and the other areas

[6:23] even better. As a council, we can get it done

[6:29] but we need your help. Thank you.

[6:31] >> Thank you, council member Dietz.

[6:34] Mayor Pro Tem Cavey? >> No comment tonight, mayor.

[6:37] >> Thank you. With that, this time is reserved

[6:40] for members of the public to make presentations to the

[6:42] council on items or issues that aren't scheduled in the agenda.

[6:48] The council cannot discuss or debate these items nor will

[6:51] council make any decisions on items

[6:54] presented during this time, rather will refer the items to

[6:56] staff for follow up. Comments are limited to three

[6:57] minutes per speaker. Time will be limited to 30

[6:58] minutes. Residents will be given priority

[6:59] (in the order they signed up) to address Council, followed by

[7:02] non-residents representing Castle Rock businesses, then

[7:05] non-residents and businesses outside the Town of Castle Rock,

[7:08] as time permits. council is also accepting public

[7:14] comments admitted online by 1:00 p.m. to be included in public

[7:19] record. I have a lot of people signed up

[7:22] to speak. If anyone wishes to speak,

[7:24] please report to the podium after we are all done.

[7:28] So I will figure out, um -- I do not have a way of doing this

[7:34] first and second because there's just -- it's kind of hard to

[7:37] tell who signed up first and last.

[7:41] I have Karl signed up. Is that for scheduled or

[7:46] unscheduled? This is not signed up here.

[7:52] It doesn't say here if you're signed up.

[7:53] Is it 16? Thank you, sir.

[7:57] No, I know -- I know you live at 16 Oak Ridge.

[8:00] Are you -- I know, but which side are you speaking on?

[8:07] Which item are you speaking on? OK but on agenda item #16 then?

[8:20] Agenda item #16. Most people are signed up for

[8:22] agenda item #16. I was just making sure.

[8:26] I have Dean on the schedule. Wait until we get to item #16.

[8:44] >> Thank you. My name is Dean.

[8:49] I ran for council in district 3 and lost.

[8:51] I say that out loud at the start because it matters to what comes

[8:55] next. I asked the voters to hire me.

[8:58] They picked someone else. I accepted it.

[9:01] You follow the process and the process gives you an answer and

[9:05] you live with the answer, even when it's not what you wanted.

[9:09] That is why the August 18th meeting bothered me.

[9:13] A member of the design review board came to unscheduled public

[9:18] comments with printouts of testaments that he says came

[9:21] from a sitting council member. No one authenticated them.

[9:26] No one had the chance to. As soon as public comment

[9:32] closed, council member Hollingshead moved to censure

[9:35] the member. Council member Bracken seconded.

[9:40] Mayor Gray backed it. It was not on the agenda.

[9:42] No notice. No verification.

[9:46] No chance for the accused member to respond.

[9:50] It failed 3-3. Censure is a formal judgment by

[9:55] this body against one of its own.

[9:57] In this town, it takes more process to get a permit than it

[10:02] took that night to try to brand a colleague.

[10:05] I'm not asking to you decide tonight whether that accusation

[10:09] was true. I'm telling you you had no way

[10:13] to know and you moved any way. That is not leadership.

[10:19] Leadership is saying we will hear this and we will hear it

[10:21] correctly. On the agenda with the evidence

[10:26] verified, with the member given the chance to answer.

[10:31] Three of you were willing to be that person.

[10:36] Three of you were not. There's a second thing.

[10:40] The man who brought the accusations sits on the design

[10:44] review board in the downtown development authority.

[10:49] This Council appoints both. Both shapes what happened

[10:53] downtown and he owns a business downtown.

[10:56] A Council appointee with a financial stake in what those

[11:00] boards decide stood at this podium and asked you to censure

[11:03] an elected official. Not one person on the dais asked

[11:08] about that. So two requests, put a written

[11:14] censure process on a future agenda.

[11:19] Notice, verified evidence, a right to respond and a standard

[11:23] applied the same way to everyone.

[11:27] And adopt a disclosure rule for board of appointees so if

[11:31] someone that sits on the council-appointed board comes to

[11:33] this podium, the interests are on the record before you act.

[11:41] >> Thank you, Dean. Moving onto unscheduled

[11:45] comments. There's a few other I saw

[11:47] questions on that I will start with.

[11:50] Next is David. >> All right, Mayor, Mayor Pro

[12:02] Tem and members of council. I'm David Myles, the member.

[12:07] I'm a business owner downtown and a resident in downtown.

[12:10] The thing that I will start with and comment -- and I know we're

[12:13] not supposed to respond, but my response to that gentleman that

[12:17] just left is ask the question: did Mark Davis admit

[12:20] to sending these text? Yes, he did.

[12:24] Did Mark Davis admit to now deleting these text?

[12:26] Yes, he did. So, I'm here to renew my request

[12:31] that Council formally censure Mark Davis and join me in asking

[12:40] him to step down. He discussed offering buildings,

[12:50] town alleys and playing hard ball.

[12:53] He texted me this. I'll drop getting rid of the DRB

[13:03] if you get a recall. This is not my issue.

[13:06] Who cares at this point? Before, the structure was also

[13:10] the town council reviewed anything that the DRB did.

[13:14] Still remains that way. So now I have a political

[13:19] operative connected to several council members that have filed

[13:21] a Colorado open records act request seeking records

[13:27] involving me even though that board, DRB we're talking about,

[13:31] haven't met about anything meaningful in months.

[13:34] So now they go to get my records for the last month.

[13:37] Again no meetings have occurred. So if that is playing hard ball,

[13:42] Mr. Davis, I receive your message.

[13:44] I am back here to play hard ball now.

[13:47] This has just begun and in my judgment, it's just another

[13:51] attempt by you to do this. I offered you conversation,

[13:54] Mr. Dietz. I offered you conversation.

[13:56] I offered you all a conversation.

[13:59] This does not stop with me. This is not just me that's part

[14:01] of this. I formally request a town.

[14:06] Tomorrow, I'm going to formally request a town perform a formal

[14:10] investigation into these text messages.

[14:12] This is beyond me. This is beyond normal research

[14:15] that's going on. This is much bigger.

[14:17] And from the town, I'm asking Douglas county get involved and

[14:21] from Douglas county, I'm asking that the state AGE get involved

[14:25] in the text messages because, Mr. Davis, you sent us text

[14:29] messages. You could have picked up the

[14:31] phone and called me. There would have been no

[14:33] records. But you sent text messages.

[14:36] This is corruption plain and simple and a censure needs to

[14:39] happen. This council should join me in

[14:41] asking Mark Davis to step down. If you don't, you're a party to

[14:45] it, because you know it happened.

[14:47] These text messages he shared with you, he apologized to you

[14:51] all for sending these text messages.

[14:54] You know and you knew. And now you certainly know it by

[14:56] now. So do something about this.

[15:00] >> Thank you, David. >> Continue to ask you to

[15:04] contact me. This is not just me.

[15:06] >> Thank you, David. Next, I have Amy.

[15:22] >> Good evening. I would like to thank theTown

[15:28] Council for putting on this agenda this evening.

[15:32] Initiative 109 protect girls sports act.

[15:33] I hope every single member of ofthe town council votes in favr

[15:39] of this initiative. That's a much worthy endeavor

[15:43] than attempting to censure a fellow board member.

[15:45] With that, let's talk about censuring.

[15:47] At the last council meeting, Hollingshead and Bracken along

[15:52] with mayor Gray were quick to call for a censure of a

[15:55] councilman. I'd like to point out a few

[15:57] things about Hollingshead and Bracken in 2024, Hollingshead

[16:00] did not remove himself from discussions regarding DCSD's MLO

[16:09] bond. He voted and advocated in favor

[16:11] of this bond. Hollingshead is the principal

[16:14] within the DCSD system. Of course , he'd advocate for a

[16:18] raise for himself. He should have recused himself.

[16:21] That would have been the ethical thing to do Similarly, last

[16:23] week, there was a discussion of the ordinance regarding DCSD in

[16:29] and the Town of Castle Rock regarding land.

[16:31] As an employee of DCSD, Hollingshead should have removed

[16:36] himself. He chose not to.

[16:38] Bracken, let's fairly discuss Bracken.

[16:40] We all know why he fell asleep at the dais in 2023.

[16:43] He knows that we know why he fell asleep.

[16:46] We also know he didn't fulfill his duties as Mayor Pro Tem

[16:51] costing him timely cost of living increases for the town

[16:54] manager and other staff. Regarding the last meeting, I'd

[16:58] like to point out that members of the design review board

[17:03] presented the town council with text messages.

[17:07] Three of the town council members, specifically

[17:11] Hollingshead, Bracken and the mayor very much knew about these

[17:13] text messages. Four members -- it was very

[17:17] obvious if you look at the video -- did not, that would be Cavey,

[17:23] Davis, brooks and Dietz. Now, I'm not an investigator but

[17:26] since we're discussing, let's open an investigation.

[17:31] Let's discuss possible open meeting law violations as Gray,

[17:35] back aren and Hollingshead were very familiar with those text

[17:38] messages. Thank you very much and have a

[17:39] good evening and thank you, all, for your service.

[17:49] >> Thank you, Amy. Next is Casey.

[17:59] >> I apologize, I did not have the agenda sheet.

[18:02] This is for the Chateau Valley. >> I can go ahead and put you

[18:06] down for Chateau Valley. >> Right now?

[18:09] >> Not now but I'll put you down on the list.

[18:11] >> Thank you. >> Thank you.

[18:12] >> Chris Weir. Chateau Valley?

[18:20] >> Yes. >> OK.

[18:30] Matt Smith. You want to talk on that one?

[18:42] OK. Thank you.

[18:43] >> Thank you. >> Thank you.

[18:50] Matt Smith and Jimmy grand #17. Clifford Hancock.

[18:57] >> 17. >> There we go.

[19:01] 18, 18. 19.

[19:03] 16. And Patty?

[19:09] >> 17. >> There we go.

[19:09] OK. I have no one else to speak.

[19:16] If you would wish to speak, approach the podium and speak in

[19:22] the microphone. Tell us if you're a resident,

[19:27] nonresident or a business owner or visitor.

[19:28] >> Thank you, mayor and council. I signed up back there.

[19:32] She still has the sheet. What I wanted to bring up

[19:34] tonight was riding coach line. Sunday, I noticed there's a

[19:44] difference in the bike lanes, painting the lines.

[19:47] And the old section of coach line has a large central median

[19:55] area. And the bike lanes are not

[20:00] proper bike lanes in that portion.

[20:03] And seeing that there's a large central median, seems to me that

[20:09] you could match the newer section of coach line, the

[20:14] newly-painted area that has the official bike lane size and has

[20:18] a smaller central median, um. I would like to ask to see if

[20:27] Public Works could see into looking into that so both

[20:30] sections of coach line match. Thank you.

[20:32] >> Thank you very much. Again, I have no one else who

[20:36] signed up to speak. If anyone wishes to speak,

[20:39] please approach the podium and speak into the microphone.

[20:43] Tell us if you're a resident, nonresident, business owner or

[20:47] visitor. Seeing none, we'll move on.

[20:50] >> A few items for us to go through this evening.

[20:56] Got a number of calendar reminders as has been previously

[21:02] mentioned. We have a number of open houses

[21:03] we want to encourage the public to attend.

[21:08] We've also scheduled a tour for the new sports center.

[21:18] Council member Davis asked for an updated tour on that.

[21:24] Some of you asked recently. If you want to go with Mark and

[21:28] I and Brian Patterson, the project manager, we'll meet at

[21:31] the site at 5:00. I ask you let me know ahead of

[21:34] time to make sure that you have your hard hat and vest and all

[21:38] of that stuff. We'll get you something.

[21:41] So if that works for you all -- if you would like a tour and

[21:47] that September 9th date does not work, let me know and parks

[21:54] and rec is doing a great job, Brian, Jeff, others involved in

[21:57] that project. It's moving along really well.

[21:59] It's really interesting to see right now.

[22:01] So if you got an opportunity to come on the 9th, great.

[22:04] If not, let me know and we'll get you in there when it's

[22:06] convenient for you. You see those dates and a number

[22:10] of other events underway. You're going on into October.

[22:18] Be sure to get those on your calendars.

[22:23] Got a number of community-wide events we have going on as well.

[22:29] You see that. We're winding down a little bit

[22:32] on some of the events that we had.

[22:35] Parks and recreation had a record-breaking year for their

[22:38] concerts. So congratulations to them for

[22:40] that work. Again, walking through this

[22:44] because I'm not trying to spend too much time this evening.

[22:48] We have a number of neighborhood meetings that are underway.

[22:53] I think we're generally familiar with these projects.

[22:59] The ridgeview project is off of ridge road.

[23:01] It's really right across the street from the King Soopers

[23:04] that's being proposed for business commercial uses there

[23:08] as well. That's an annexation into the

[23:11] town. Consideration for that property.

[23:16] Um, just a reminder, appreciate the council members giving me

[23:20] time to brief on the budget. So we'll be introducing that

[23:24] budget at your next council meeting.

[23:25] Then in October, we're considering first and second

[23:28] readings on the budget. Because the evaluation

[23:34] information lags a little bit, we won't have the final numbers

[23:38] until December 1st for a second reading on that.

[23:41] As you know, um, we're very dependent upon sales tax.

[23:47] $100 million of sales tax. $1.5 million of property tax.

[23:51] It's still an important revenue source, but we're able to

[23:53] proceed with budget adoption before that number is finalized.

[23:57] It's interesting, some of the early numbers we've seen is that

[23:59] the, um, excuse me, the assessed valuation for Castle Rock has

[24:05] actually gone down. You're seeing the moderation of

[24:07] a number of values within the community.

[24:12] One other thing I just wanted to confirm with council that

[24:15] council is good to move -- we obviously to cancel the

[24:21] fireworks on the 4th of July, but we'd like to be able

[24:25] to still have the same contractor come out and we have

[24:30] fireworks on November 11th. I don't know what the weather is

[24:32] going to be like on that, but we do know that it will be

[24:37] hopefully a little bit more moderate as well and maybe even

[24:40] some snow on the ground. We also know that the sun will

[24:43] be going down sooner so we won't wait until 9:30 for the

[24:48] fireworks but we'll let you know on that date.

[24:50] Is that acceptable for council? I send you information on that.

[24:53] Is there anyone that has a concern?

[24:56] OK. In the same memo -- you're not

[24:59] deciding this now. You'll decide it when you

[25:02] consider the Title IX ordinance -- both the fire chief and I are

[25:06] recommending we change our ban on fireworks.

[25:09] Right now, we ban the use at stage 1 and the sale at stage 2.

[25:17] Our recommendation is to ban the sale and the use at stage 1 in

[25:22] regards to fire restrictions. Don't need to decide that now.

[25:24] We put it all on the same memo where Norris was talking about

[25:28] moving that, but you will get an opportunity when your discussion

[25:39] on the Title IX criminal code rework as well.

[25:42] With that, I'm going to invite Mark Marlowe, the head of our

[25:49] water department, to give us an update on the drought and water

[25:52] conditions. >> Good evening, Mayor and

[25:59] Council. I have a quick update for

[26:00] everyone on the drought condition.

[26:03] First thing I really want to note is that the drought is not

[26:07] over. You can see here what Douglas

[26:12] County's current drought conditions look like.

[26:13] So there are still significantly worse conditions than there were

[26:20] in May, so we're not out of the drought, however, we've seen

[26:24] some improvement. The map on the right shows

[26:28] precipitation. There's been a little bit of

[26:29] precipitation in Douglas County, but the temperatures have

[26:37] remained high, so that's the chart on your left with all of

[26:40] the orange and yellow and as I have said before, orange, red

[26:45] and yellow are not great colors when it comes to the drought.

[26:49] Locally, specifically in Castle Rock in terms of our four

[26:54] weather stations, the historical weather, you can see that

[26:59] temperatures have continued to stay well above the highs that

[27:03] we've experienced in the past in July and August.

[27:07] And rainfall is still significantly below what we

[27:11] typically see in this time of year.

[27:16] There has been a little bit of improvement in Plum Creek.

[27:22] As you can see here, there are a few peaks in the hydrograph that

[27:27] shows that we had rain and it peaked up in a short period of

[27:32] time which is good. The storage in the reservoirs is

[27:35] in a reasonably good shape for this time of year.

[27:39] This -- you've seen this before -- this contains the south flat.

[27:43] You can see the black line is the important line.

[27:45] It's down near the bottom of this chart which shows that it's

[27:48] a very poor water year, below average water year.

[27:53] Continues to be very challenging from a water stand poind.

[27:58] Near record lows, in fact. I'm sure you're all familiar

[28:03] with the conditions at Lake Mead and Lake Powell.

[28:09] This is a state issue. Less of an issue for Castle Rock

[28:12] specifically. Believe it or not, Castle Rock

[28:14] does get a little bit of water from the Colorado river through

[28:16] our wise agreement with Denver and Aurora.

[28:20] So we get a little bit. It is in bad shape.

[28:30] They're in the lowest levels ever since they were

[28:34] constructed. Last year, it was a low snowpack

[28:37] year. It's causing the reservoirs some

[28:40] serious problems. In terms of the outlook, it does

[28:42] look like we're expected to get a little bit more rain than we

[28:45] normally would as we go into the fall; however, the temperatures

[28:49] are expected to continue to stay higher than they normally would

[28:53] as we go into the fall. Today might have been an

[28:56] indication of that. It was pretty hot.

[29:01] Um, this is just over the course of the whole year.

[29:03] Again, red is bad and brown is bad.

[29:07] Um, so you can see we've had some of the warmest months on

[29:15] record over the course of the year.

[29:17] July was the second warmest on record.

[29:20] A lot of warm weather. August, we don't have final

[29:23] results on where it stood in terms of the record, but it was

[29:25] definitely warmer than we would like.

[29:31] Despite all that as I noted, we have seen some improvement, so

[29:33] we've seen a little bit of rain. We've also seen a little bit of

[29:38] cooler temperatures as we get into September, even though the

[29:43] temperatures may be higher than we typically see in -- or

[29:46] September -- they're still much lower than what we were seeing

[29:51] in July and obviously August so that's helpful.

[29:54] The other thing to note is the community did respond to the

[29:59] stage 2 drought. I -- you know, I want to thank

[30:03] the community for their response.

[30:05] Through the first part of July, we were running

[30:09] 18 million gallons a day and since we went into stage 2, we

[30:14] dropped that average daily demand to about 14.8, which is

[30:19] about a 20% reduction. That is very helpful and I think

[30:24] very good. And given the state of Colorado

[30:27] and the current situation with the drought, I think it's a

[30:32] good, um, indicator of what our citizens are doing to help and

[30:38] ensure we're being responsible with water resources.

[30:42] Given, however, the improvement in the creek, the rainfall, the

[30:46] lower temperatures that we're going to see as we go into the

[30:48] fall, we are recommending that we go ahead and drop back to a

[30:54] stage 1 drought declaration which what that does is takes us

[30:59] back to a voluntary conservation request from our customers and

[31:09] people can go back to the every third day per week watering if

[31:12] they would like; however, we certainly encourage folks if

[31:17] you've got your timer already set for two days a week, just

[31:20] stay on your two-day-a-week watering.

[31:23] I will tell you that my neighbors seem to be doing very

[31:27] well with that. Their grass looks good and

[31:29] they're watering two days a week.

[31:30] I think that folks will find two-day-a-week watering could be

[31:35] pretty effective. It will increase the roots,

[31:39] especially if you let the grass grow a little bit longer than

[31:42] you might normally let it grow. Um, and, you know, that's really

[31:48] all I have for you guys. Recommend drop back to stage 1.

[31:55] >> Council member Brooks? >> Mr. mayor, thank you.

[31:57] A couple of questions, sir. Just with the -- you know, as

[32:05] our friends in Denver -- I know they have gone to shutting

[32:09] everything off as far as water supply for irrigation in

[32:14] October, I believe. You have many folks in here know

[32:16] that we get that delivery from Denver rural water as part of

[32:21] the wise water agreement. So just curious, has there been

[32:24] any sort of insinuation we should do the same thing because

[32:28] we get some of our water from Denver?

[32:32] Has there been any pressure from Denver water along those lines?

[32:35] >> No. Um, Denver water has certainly

[32:39] not pressured us to do anything relative to that.

[32:42] Obviously, all of the water utilities across the front range

[32:46] try to coordinate when it's a statewide issue like it is from

[32:52] a drought standpoint and we try to work together.

[32:54] We certainly do get watter from Denver and Aurora and the wise

[32:58] water actually went through some periods this summer where it was

[33:01] reduced and restricted and it was in response to the drought.

[33:09] But Denver and Aurora didn't tell us we had to do anything in

[33:12] particular with respect to the agreement, and the agreement

[33:15] does not call for that. The agreement does allow for

[33:17] Denver and Aurora to shut off the wise connection 2 out of

[33:22] every 10 years in response to significant drought conditions.

[33:25] But they didn't do it this year. >> I know they can interrupt.

[33:29] That's fine. Just one other question.

[33:30] I know the rebate program in Castle Rock has been very

[33:34] successful tearing up turf and putting in what they call

[33:39] roughscape. Obviously, there are guidelines

[33:41] that need to be adhered to with that, but there's a rebate

[33:44] option there. I was just curious if your

[33:46] department has had any conversations or any discussions

[33:49] -- because right now, my understanding is that it is for

[33:52] the front yard only. I only very recently learned

[33:55] through a conversation I had with a constituent that it does

[33:57] not include the backyard. Is that something that perhaps

[34:01] you might look at doing in the future since irrigated turf is

[34:04] irrigated turf, irrespective of the front versus backyard and

[34:09] really people have a lot more of it in the backyard.

[34:12] >> Absolutely, council member Brooks.

[34:13] We discussed that many times. Earlier on in the program, there

[34:15] was a strong desire to ensure we were getting Colorado scape in

[34:20] front of folks so they can see the transformation and

[34:26] understanding what those Colorado scapes look like.

[34:29] Going forward, that's absolutely something we'll look at in terms

[34:32] of reducing that irrigated turf, which irrigated turf, as you

[34:38] know very well, is one of the biggest challenges that the

[34:41] whole state has with respect to water.

[34:42] >> Thank you. Um, council member Bracken?

[34:45] >> Yes, Mr. Marlowe, can you explain the availability of

[34:49] water for the current proposed projects and future projects?

[34:55] And then how it relates to the drought?

[34:57] Because I'm getting some feedback from the community that

[35:00] we can't, you know, we can't water our grass because there's

[35:05] a neighborhood going in here or there's a project planned over

[35:08] here and that's why we can't water our grass.

[35:10] Can you just clarify the availability for current water,

[35:14] future water and then how it relates to the drought in the

[35:18] temporary nature of the drought and why?

[35:22] >> Yes, thank you, Council member Bracken.

[35:26] The bottom line is the drought is a temporary disturbance.

[35:30] Think of it like this: if you are making a certain income and

[35:35] your hours are reduced at work or you temporarily lose a job,

[35:39] you're going to reduce your discretionary spending in

[35:43] response to that. That does not necessarily mean

[35:46] you're going to cap your future spending.

[35:48] That's one example. It's kind of a temporary

[35:55] increase in available supplies in response to a historic

[35:57] drought. And the main issue really comes

[35:59] down to a peak demand issue, not a total water supply issue.

[36:04] Um, the two issues are obviously -- there's a small connection

[36:11] between water usage and drought. But at the end of the day, the

[36:16] bottom line is it does not impact the long-term future of

[36:19] the water supply. We're able to plan for the new

[36:24] development and ensure that those water resources are in

[36:26] place for new development. And a drought does not mean that

[36:33] we cannot provide for new development.

[36:36] >> OK, and so we have enough water for build out for the

[36:40] future planned areas across all town, not just one --

[36:46] >> Let me -- let me, um, let me help clarify a little bit.

[36:50] So new development comes into the town, they're required to

[36:53] provide two-acre feet for every one-acre foot of demand

[37:00] that that new development will use.

[37:01] So those water resources are provided before the development

[37:05] moves forward and is approved. Those new developments also pay

[37:12] for renewable water supplies through the system development

[37:14] fees to ensure that that development will have the

[37:18] supplies that they need for that development.

[37:21] So it's not a case where we're, um, allowing new development to

[37:26] go forward without water rights and water supplies in place for

[37:29] that new development. Um, for the development that's

[37:34] already been approved for zoning, Castle Rock water has to

[37:37] plan for those developments to happen, period.

[37:40] And so with a development that's already been approved for

[37:44] zoning, it's already provided those water rights and it's

[37:46] already committed to pay for the additional renewable water

[37:50] supplies that they will need as a part of that development.

[37:54] >> Thank you for clarifying, because it has nothing to do

[37:57] with this project. This is talking about all of

[38:01] town, right? All of town, and the ability for

[38:02] us to provide water for our residents.

[38:06] Thank you, sir. >> Thank you.

[38:08] >> Thank you, Mark. Any further questions for Mark?

[38:11] Thank you. >> Going to come up and provide

[38:17] a brief update on some items before the development services

[38:20] department. >> Council, this is your update

[38:30] on new quasi-judicial applications and

[38:32] pre-applications that have been submitted since the last time I

[38:35] presented to you all. We have a couple new quasiDujail

[38:40] applications. These are former land use

[38:44] applications that have been submitted and are under staff

[38:46] review and going to future public hearings.

[38:48] In council member Davis' district, we have a submittal

[38:52] for motors, north end of town. They have to go through Rouse by

[38:59] special review site development plan to utilize this property

[39:01] for auto sales. This is a plan for after the

[39:06] existing church lease expires. At 422 Front Street this home is

[39:15] requesting to go through landmark designation.

[39:17] That goes through historic preservation board and town

[39:20] council. On the south end of downtown,

[39:21] this is a proposed Quiktrip convenience store fueling

[39:26] station & car wash. This is south of Plum Creek

[39:30] parkway West of Wilcox Street. In council member Dietz'

[39:35] district, we have a proposed wireless cellular facility at

[39:41] Fire station 152. And then the rest of these are

[39:44] preapplications. These are not formal submittals

[39:47] at this time. Every project is required to go

[39:53] through the process to understand what theirs is,

[39:56] administrative or public hearing.

[39:57] We're operating at 30% of these turn into real applications in

[40:04] District 4, Texas Roadhouse has a preapplication.

[40:09] There are three pads if you've been out to the outlet malls

[40:12] with new parking around them so this is one of their future

[40:16] planned developments. Full-service restaurant with bar

[40:18] and patio. 850, this is south of the outlet

[40:23] mall, a proposed quick quack car wash where the existing Black

[40:31] eyed Pease restaurant is located.

[40:32] In the on corps building south of downtown, there's a new bank

[40:36] that's moving into it. Tenant suite looking to make

[40:40] interior and exterior changes for commerce.

[40:44] 404 Perry, this property is referred to as the Perry Street

[40:50] social property. There's an applicant looking to

[40:52] change that property into a parking lot with a pay kiosk.

[41:00] 200 Perry street. Emporium.

[41:02] Application to add more on the rear of the building.

[41:07] They would retain the silo structure adjacent to the

[41:10] railroad tracks. 505 Jerry street, proposal to

[41:15] convert the office building into a nonprofit restaurant space

[41:20] with a food truck/kitchen for the Sunday salmon organization.

[41:25] Cantrell school, town-owned property, we're looking to

[41:28] resign it and clean up some of the zoning that slips through

[41:36] that property. District 5, preapplication for

[41:39] the castlewood ranch Metro district.

[41:42] Looking to put a sign on the Bella Mesa property that would

[41:46] indicate when you're entering the castlewood ranch area that

[41:49] would move through future town council meetings if progressed.

[41:58] District 6, auto group looking to change the area to the east

[42:01] of their building. They were planning to have a

[42:05] planning and parking in this slew area.

[42:07] They're going to propose parking and outdoor gathering shade

[42:10] structures for employees and EV charging.

[42:14] Dawson trails West of the new crystal valley interchange,

[42:18] there's a preapplication for six commercial lots in this area

[42:23] that are looking to replat it and start working on

[42:30] installation and infrastructure. >> Any questions?

[42:34] Council member Dietz? >> Thank you, goes back to the

[42:36] cell towers. I think everybody in Castle Rock

[42:38] would agree we need cell tower coverage.

[42:41] That's near my home. I hope it happens.

[42:45] But are there more coming? What's the status?

[42:50] >> I don't know. As we get pre-applications,

[42:52] we'll bring 'em forward. >> That's really it for now.

[42:54] >> This is just the current one. Yeah.

[42:57] >> Thank you. >> Thank you.

[42:59] >> Mayor Pro Tem Cavey? >> Dave, just a reminder that

[43:03] that will have to be a stand-alone item on the agenda,

[43:08] because I work f other sections of the municipal code and

[43:10] technical criteria. Brief history before I turn it

[43:14] over to the applicant. This property is in the young

[43:18] American planned development. Annexed and zoned into the town

[43:21] in 1983. On this graphic, you can see

[43:23] some of the existing neighborhoods off of Elm street

[43:30] and ash street up to the north. Young American P.D. includes the

[43:36] Baldwin park estates, area that's already been constructed.

[43:39] Remaining areas, south Memmen and up here in this northern

[43:42] area, there are 561 residential entitlements that are remaining

[43:47] for this property. The applicant is proposing 402.

[43:54] They also previously dedicated 14 acres of open space that you

[43:57] can see on this graphic that is a part of the Memmen ridge open

[44:03] space and owned by the town. With that, this is the criteria

[44:06] that staff is required to review each application for.

[44:11] We could bring this back up at the end.

[44:13] So right now, I'll go ahead and turn it over to Mr. hall who

[44:17] does have a traffic engineer with him.

[44:20] They'll make their presentation. Then I will come back up to

[44:23] finalize a couple of slides and then we're ready for questions.

[44:26] Thank you. >> Thank you, Tara.

[44:45] >> Thank you for that introduction, Mrs. Vargish.

[44:51] Appreciate that. I'm Rusty haul.

[44:54] Our company prepared the site development plan, some of the

[44:57] engineering documents and I'm here representing the applicant,

[45:02] Chateau Valley L.L.C., for this presentation tonight.

[45:17] Chateau Valley subdivision is a proposed single-family

[45:21] subdivision located in Castle Rock.

[45:23] The site consists of 112 acres located south of 5th street,

[45:28] north of Plum Creek and West of Ridge Road.

[45:37] Chateau Valley subdivision is surrounded on three sides with

[45:42] residential subdivisions. Baldwin estates is located to

[45:49] the south. Glover subdivision is located to

[45:52] the West and southridge subdivision to the north.

[45:56] Chateau Valley subdivision proposes 402 single-family home

[46:01] sites and one clubhouse. 50 acres of open space or 45% of

[46:08] the site is proposed open space and proposed for trail

[46:15] connectivity and outdoor pedestrian enjoyment.

[46:17] We have over 3,700 lineal feet of concrete regional trail which

[46:23] is proposed along the existing natural channel that runs

[46:27] diagonally through the site. We have 2,800 feet of soft

[46:32] hiking trail proposed along the center and the south edge of

[46:36] this development. The property is annexed into the

[46:46] Town of Castle Rock and has completed the PUD planning for

[46:53] land use and density. All approved by the Town of

[46:56] Castle Rock as part of the Young PUD in '83.

[47:04] Baldwin estates is located to the south and southridge

[47:09] townhomes to the north. They're already constructed and

[47:13] are not a part of Chateau Valley application.

[47:17] The land use summary contained in the approved pudder PUD

[47:23] allows for 561 for the chateau. Chateau is proposing a 28%

[47:30] reduction in the allowable number of homes.

[47:34] 58 acres of the subdivision is proposed open space consisting

[47:38] of 45% of the site. The open space buffers which are

[47:41] proposed along the perimeter of all existing subdivisions and

[47:46] Chateau Valley is a proposed single-family subdivision

[47:50] consisting of 148 duplex lots which are located in the center

[47:54] portion of the site and 254 lots for single family detached

[48:01] homes. The proposed site plan is

[48:04] prepared in substantial compliance with the approved

[48:09] Young American PUD. I'd like to point out some of

[48:11] the different lot sizes we've proposed along the West and the

[48:14] south is slightly larger, 60-foot-wide home sites.

[48:19] Those were designed wider to blend in with the adjoining

[48:25] subdivisions, compatibility for density and similar lot size.

[48:30] The green homes that are proposed on the site are 45-foot

[48:34] wide, smaller width, higher density.

[48:38] The cyan colored is proposed 50-foot-wide lots which would be

[48:48] typical residences. The area that are mostly clear

[48:53] is our duplex products which are located here in the center of

[48:56] the project. The larger lot located in the

[49:23] north central portion of the project site is planned for a

[49:25] future clubhouse. The clubhouse will be proposed

[49:29] south of one of our proposed retention ponds east of Valley

[49:37] Drive. The parking and drive proposed

[49:39] on the lot is for temporary parking and access to the

[49:44] proposed kiosks off the street. A site development will be

[49:50] required by the town before a clubhouse may be built.

[49:56] Chateau Valley will have four drainage basins, a through d

[50:02] proposed for single-family development.

[50:07] Detention ponds for each basin will have water quality in

[50:11] accordance to the town criteria. The runoff for a, b and c

[50:17] located on the top portion of this drawing near the channel

[50:21] will be conveyed to the existing Tributary and the attenuated

[50:27] runoff for this -- the tension basin down on the southwest

[50:31] corner the site will discharge top elm street.

[50:45] >> These are proposed drop structures that will help

[50:48] control the runoff and mitigate erosion from occurring during

[50:55] 100-year storm event. Unique to this design, we

[50:58] already have a floodplain modification study approved by

[51:02] the town but we're actually improving a portion of the

[51:08] floodplain near the Northwest corner of the site where it

[51:10] encroached into some existing lots.

[51:11] We went through the exercise of correcting that.

[51:26] Existing vegetation consists primarily of natural grass and

[51:29] shrubs with scrub, oak and pine tree.

[51:32] 60 existing pine trees under the 20 feet in height will be

[51:45] transplanted on the site according to the conservation.

[51:48] Existing trees will be replaced outside of the floodplain with a

[51:53] mix of low water zone evergreen and deciduous large canopy

[51:59] trees. That's to -- as requested by the

[52:01] adjacent neighborhood to the north of our project to provide

[52:06] additional screening. We agreed to replace all of the

[52:11] cotton wood trees that would be hurt or removed as part of the

[52:17] channel's construction. Since cotton woods aren't a tree

[52:22] that the town would like to have transplanted, that's why we're

[52:26] proposing the evergreens and large canopy trees.

[52:35] We have three classifications of roadways proposed on Chateau

[52:38] Valley. First, valley drive, the main

[52:42] drive that cuts through the site, will be completed.

[52:47] That's been anticipated for many years to assist with the traffic

[52:53] in that area and that connectivity.

[52:57] Our entry streets all key into valley drive will have a median

[53:04] which is shown on the bottom figure splitting the roads at

[53:08] each entrance onto valley drive. And, of course, our local

[53:10] streets are standard, town standard residential streets.

[53:22] Chateau Valley is an infill subdivision.

[53:26] It's got five roads. Chateau Valley is an infill

[53:34] subdivision having five roadways planned to provide access to the

[53:36] site and surrounding neighborhoods.

[53:37] We have proposed traffic-calming devices at the entrance to each

[53:43] adjoining subdivision adjacent to our project.

[53:51] Now we started our discussion on some traffic issues.

[53:54] I'm going to turn this portion of the presentation over to Mike

[54:00] Rocca who prepared our traffic study.

[54:10] >> Hi, good evening. My name is Mike Rocca.

[54:17] I'm with traffic engineering consultants.

[54:22] I'll keep my presentation brief to allow time for the remaining

[54:26] presentation to follow; however, I do remain available after the

[54:30] overall presentation to answer any questions.

[54:36] We prepared a traffic impact study as part of the site

[54:39] development application being presented before you tonight.

[54:41] The traffic study was prepared in accordance with the town's

[54:45] adopted transportation design criteria manual for preparation

[54:49] of traffic impact studies. The town's transportation master

[54:53] plan and accepted analysis methodologies used by the town

[55:00] for development review. The traffic study identified,

[55:04] quantity tide and assessed future -- quantified and

[55:07] assessed future traffic conditions consistent with the

[55:09] level of analysis required with the site development plan

[55:13] traffic study. The study was also reviewed by

[55:17] town engineering and basically is also, um, from my

[55:27] understanding recommended for approval as explained in the

[55:32] engineering staff report. The side development plan stage

[55:39] of the development application, the basis of our traffic study

[55:43] concludes several different items.

[55:44] It includes the collection and review of 24-hour daily traffic

[55:47] volumes, peak hour volumes and then used to begin some of our

[55:55] analyses. This was done for multiple

[55:59] intersections along the perimeter of the site and

[56:03] traffic counts were recently collected and were used as bases

[56:04] of our study in January of 2025. While our traffic study began a

[56:13] few years prior to -- basically in September of 2021, as part of

[56:18] our ongoing discussions with town staff in regards to

[56:27] updating to address neighborhood concerns, we then have since

[56:34] collected the new traffic counts in January of 2025 and based our

[56:37] analysis off of that. So then from analyzing our peak

[56:46] from 24-hour volumes collected, we looked at the long range

[56:49] 20-year condition which is year 2045 in our study with and

[56:54] without the proposed development.

[56:57] The traffic study is considered a long-range 20-year planning

[57:00] document and is used to begin the identification of key

[57:08] potential transportation improvements applicable to

[57:13] development and adjacent area for later consideration upon

[57:16] actual site design. Additional analysis performed at

[57:20] the request of town ingeneralneering -- engineering

[57:23] was to evaluate the 20-year capacity impacts on the adjacent

[57:26] street connections upon assumed development approval.

[57:33] Key evaluations performed was site development with or without

[57:38] direct connection to the adjacent neighborhood local

[57:40] streets. Our traffic study concluded

[57:44] long-range 20-year intersection and roadway operations upon full

[57:51] build-out of site development if approved that they are in

[57:56] compliance with town master plan goals and transportation design

[57:59] standards. Key components included in this

[58:04] study were the extension of Valley Drive as recently

[58:10] discussed which is a town transportation master plan goal.

[58:15] The connection of the existing street network recently

[58:20] discussed which is a town transportation goal per town

[58:24] standards. And the impact of added site

[58:30] development traffic exceeding street capacity, existing street

[58:35] capacity. Our report concludes that the

[58:38] existing street capacity is not exceeded if this development is

[58:44] approved. In cooperation with town traffic

[58:47] engineering, our study has been revised several times to provide

[58:51] additional evaluations to account for neighborhood and

[58:55] town review comments received to date.

[58:56] Existing roadway capacity concerned -- concerns and

[59:01] existing street connection. While our study awaits town

[59:08] approval, we have worked closely with town engineering staff to

[59:13] address all review comments issued to date and it's believed

[59:16] that our traffic study provides a reasonable, appropriate and

[59:21] technically sound assessment of transportation impacts

[59:25] associated with this proposed development.

[59:28] I would like to emphasize that the site development plan being

[59:35] presented before you today if approved could represent a

[59:40] reduction and development traffic valuation of

[59:49] approximately 28%, a correlation to the reduced density that's

[59:53] proposed on this project when compared to allowed density of

[59:58] existing zoning. This concludes my presentation I

[1:00:02] remain available to answer any questions at the end of our

[1:00:06] presentation. Now, I'll return the

[1:00:07] presentation over to Mr. Hall. Thank you.

[1:00:15] >> Thank you, Mr. Rocca. Appreciate that.

[1:00:18] I would just like to conclude, you know w, with the summary of

[1:00:24] the high points and the concessions we made in working

[1:00:26] with the community in trying to make this the best subdivision

[1:00:30] we can design out, I would note 50 acres of open space.

[1:00:40] The community was really interested in hiking trails,

[1:00:48] some enjoyment of the open space itself and we have provided

[1:00:52] 45 acres of our site -- excuse me, 45% of our site is now open

[1:00:58] space. We have over a mile of trails

[1:01:00] proposed on this development. We are improving and making a

[1:01:08] drainage way a safer way to convey water without damage to

[1:01:13] private property. We provided buffers around the

[1:01:16] entire development adjoining the existing subdivisions to make a

[1:01:20] buffer between the two developments and Valley Drive

[1:01:27] itself is a much-needed key component to transportation in

[1:01:33] this area of Castle Rock and we're completing that.

[1:01:38] At this point, I would just like to ask for any comments or

[1:01:41] questions that Council may have. >> Sure.

[1:01:47] Questions for presenters first and then we'll have staff

[1:01:50] second. >> We have a new structure to

[1:02:03] how these are going to happen. >> Sorry.

[1:02:06] >> Thank you, sir. All right, so I just wanted to

[1:02:10] follow up a little bit on what the applicant -- there were four

[1:02:18] different neighborhood meetings held throughout the course of

[1:02:22] the application as you can see. They were very well attended.

[1:02:24] These are established neighborhoods adjacent to this

[1:02:28] development and as you would expect, there's a lot of concern

[1:02:31] and questions that we have gone through.

[1:02:35] Staff has done their best to respond to it.

[1:02:37] You can see in your packet there's numerous quantity of

[1:02:42] public comments that have been submitted.

[1:02:44] I do want to touch on a couple of the items that have come up

[1:02:50] over this time. I also wanted to point out, in

[1:02:53] the first application in 2021, this proposed 423 homes.

[1:02:59] In the next two neighborhood meetings, they had reduced the

[1:03:02] plan to 415 homes. And the plan that is before you

[1:03:05] tonight is at 402 homes. So as the applicant responded to

[1:03:11] feedback they received at neighborhood meetings, they did

[1:03:13] adjust their plan as well as feedback from, yeah.

[1:03:19] One of the items that have come up a couple of times is water

[1:03:22] concerns. I did work with the water

[1:03:26] director, Mark Marlowe o some of the bullets.

[1:03:28] I want to make sure that everyone is aware that Chateau

[1:03:31] Valley has been planned for residential development since

[1:03:34] 1983. The future water needed to serve

[1:03:36] this development at the higher level, at the 561 level, has

[1:03:42] been included in all of our long-term water plans.

[1:03:49] The most recent drought restrictions are a regional

[1:03:52] drought condition, not a lack of water supply.

[1:03:55] And as you're aware, those restrictions are really focused

[1:03:58] on reducing the peak outdoor irrigation demand in the dry,

[1:04:02] hot, summer days. As Mark mentioned, new

[1:04:07] development does have to meet a variety of water conservation

[1:04:09] standards. You talk about the rebate

[1:04:12] program for existing homes. All new homes built in Castle

[1:04:15] Rock are not allowed any turf in their front yard.

[1:04:18] That would apply to these homes as well.

[1:04:21] They would have to do the Colorado scape and the reduced

[1:04:24] turf in the back. The other item I wanted to talk

[1:04:27] about, we've had a lot of e-mail correspondents and questions

[1:04:32] from residents about saving the forested area that's Chateau

[1:04:35] Valley or as some of those e-mails indicated.

[1:04:38] I wanted to first make sure everyone is fully aware of the

[1:04:44] Newman ridge open space. This is not Chateau Valley.

[1:04:46] This is to the West of Chateau Valley.

[1:04:49] I put a white label so you can see where the Northwest corner

[1:04:52] of Chateau Valley begins. This parcel of land, Memmen

[1:04:56] ridge open space, that's really three separate parcels.

[1:04:59] Parcels 2 and 3, those comprise of 14 acres that have already

[1:05:04] been dedicated to the town. Those were dedicated to the town

[1:05:08] in 1985 by the memmen report -- Memmen report owners at that

[1:05:13] time -- Memmen property owners at that time.

[1:05:16] The larger parcel was purchased by the town in 1991.

[1:05:19] All of this land is owned by the town and is not subject to any

[1:05:26] of the development we're discussing tonight.

[1:05:27] I did get a more recent aerial so you can see the trees and the

[1:05:32] forested area. So all the residents and folks

[1:05:34] that are concerned, I wanted you to see where the trees are

[1:05:38] located. Highlighted in yellow is all

[1:05:40] owned by the Town of Castle Rock.

[1:05:42] We own it. It's zoned open space.

[1:05:44] You can see that the town has put in trailhead parking.

[1:05:47] There's a large number of trails you can see in the aerial.

[1:05:54] Hopefully folks in the audience could see that as well.

[1:05:56] All of this is owned by the town and is not a part of the

[1:06:00] development plan tonight. It does abutt it to be very

[1:06:05] accurate. I'm an engineer.

[1:06:06] I like to be accurate when I present to everyone.

[1:06:09] Chateau Valley does touch it on the east side.

[1:06:11] So these are the trees that the applicant was talking about.

[1:06:15] I got a quick zoom in for a moment so you can see that there

[1:06:21] are trees today on private property that is owned by the

[1:06:24] Memmen family. That's subject to the

[1:06:28] application tonight, Chateau Valley.

[1:06:32] When Mr. hall talked about the trees, these are the trees.

[1:06:41] The current owner today could cut the trees down.

[1:06:44] Wanted to make sure everyone was aware where the Memmen ridge

[1:06:48] open space was to the West and that this development is not

[1:06:51] impacting that area. Now, as the development is built

[1:06:56] out, there is grading in this area as Mr. hall indicated.

[1:07:05] There's a future trail that will wind up into the open space.

[1:07:10] There's a new area of land that will come into the town.

[1:07:13] Due to getting valley drive to connect to the north end to the

[1:07:16] south end, the grading in this area does have to be impacted

[1:07:18] which would lead to the removal of all of the trees.

[1:07:23] Our code does not require him to transplant these large trees.

[1:07:25] He can technically put in smaller, you know, trees under

[1:07:32] six feet in height that will some day grow larger but through

[1:07:36] all the various meetings and feedback he's received from both

[1:07:38] residents and staff, he is proposing now a requirement that

[1:07:43] he would transplant those trees. Not all of those trees will

[1:07:46] likely survive, but most of them hopefully will.

[1:07:49] And if not, he will have to then replace them.

[1:07:51] But I just wanted to make sure that was clear.

[1:07:54] We got a lot of questions on that.

[1:07:56] So for on-site landscaping this aerial is really just showing

[1:08:00] you can see a lot of the scrub oak.

[1:08:02] There are definitely some that are matured in that area.

[1:08:07] 60 of the trees will be preserved by transplanting

[1:08:09] elsewhere on the property. As we indicated, the largest

[1:08:12] area of buffering is in the Northwest corner behind existing

[1:08:14] homes. Overall in town code, he's

[1:08:18] required 181 trees. They're proposing 194 to include

[1:08:24] the tree planting trees. For local road connections -- I

[1:08:27] just wanted to touch on this part.

[1:08:30] Again, it's been a very big part of all of our neighborhood

[1:08:33] meetings and discussions with applicants.

[1:08:34] So while the neighborhood was always planned to have these

[1:08:38] connections at ash and elm, valley and then Eaton is a

[1:08:45] continuation and Santana drive on the north, we did ask the

[1:08:50] applicant to review it both ways and so this graphic shows on the

[1:08:55] left the site plan as it's presented before you tonight

[1:08:58] showing all of the connections. The traffic study does indicate

[1:09:02] all of that works and meets the town criteria.

[1:09:06] I know Mr. Rocca made a comment about when the traffic study is

[1:09:11] approved, if approved at the staff level, I think he's

[1:09:16] talking about if the project is approved tonight, but the staff

[1:09:19] review of the traffic study does meet all of the town's criteria.

[1:09:23] We did ask them to analyze it on the conditions on the right.

[1:09:27] So on the right-hand image shows limited connections.

[1:09:31] So the square boxes indicate closed to public access.

[1:09:33] But you can see a cul-de-sac at Ash and at Elm.

[1:09:42] There'd be emergency vehicle access.

[1:09:46] Fire department could access through there, however, the

[1:09:49] public would not be able to access through there.

[1:09:52] They've also proposed closing at Eaton if that's the will of

[1:09:59] Council this even. That would get at chain and

[1:10:05] bollard if possible. The circles indicate the roads

[1:10:08] that would stay open. They modeled the traffic studies

[1:10:10] both ways. Both scenarios do work.

[1:10:13] As you can see on the right-hand side, it does reduce the ability

[1:10:15] for existing homes to access the new connection on this street

[1:10:20] and it will cause a slight, longer delay at both the north

[1:10:23] and south end of valley for existing residents and future

[1:10:26] residents. So that is an option that

[1:10:30] Council might want to consider tonight in my motioned that I

[1:10:33] have proposed, one includes the project as the applicant

[1:10:37] proposed on the left. One would include it with

[1:10:39] limiting road connections if that's the desire of Council.

[1:10:44] >> Thank you, Tara. Before we move onto questions

[1:10:47] from council and then after that public comment, I want to make

[1:10:49] sure everyone knows, if you guys don't want to stand anymore, we

[1:10:54] have chairs and video feed downstairs if you'd like to.

[1:10:57] You're more than welcome to stand as long as you want.

[1:10:59] If you're not comfortable standing, there are chairs

[1:11:02] downstairs with a video feed. Council member Brooks followed

[1:11:09] by Mayor Pro Tem Cavey. >> Can you back up to the open

[1:11:18] space slide? I'm glad you brought this up.

[1:11:28] This is not part of what we're hearing tonight as far as the

[1:11:30] project but it's consistent with some of the other conversations

[1:11:36] we're having with pieces of property throughout town.

[1:11:42] When infill is difficult, right, and the certainty of knowing

[1:11:49] what is going to happen to a piece of property, that

[1:11:54] certainty to homeowners is something that they can take to

[1:11:56] bed at night and sleep easy with.

[1:11:59] So wherever possible, I think it's advantageous to be able to

[1:12:03] give some comfort and some certainty to homeowners.

[1:12:06] With that private parcel piece, I just wanted to bring up that

[1:12:13] when we come to motions later, I intend to make a motion to ask

[1:12:22] the town to start to investigate any and all available

[1:12:30] opportunities, mechanisms so forth, that we have available to

[1:12:36] purchase that piece of property and make it part of the Memmen

[1:12:39] ridge open space so that way we're able to take that off the

[1:12:41] board. Don't have to worry what

[1:12:44] "private parcel" means anymore. We can make that part of that

[1:12:46] open space. So I just wanted to kind of

[1:12:48] point that out right now and just give a preview of what I

[1:12:53] intend to do, also for those up here on the DAIS, I wanted to

[1:12:58] give a heads up. That'll be a secondary, related

[1:13:01] motion I'll be making. >> Thank you, council member

[1:13:05] Brooks. Mayor Pro Tem Cavey.

[1:13:07] >> Yes, I have quite a few questions here.

[1:13:09] I'm going to read something first but it is relevant in

[1:13:11] terms of where I'm going with the question.

[1:13:13] >> Absolutely, thank you. >> So our Castle Rock municipal

[1:13:19] code 17.10.0.30 land calls for development to respond to

[1:13:24] natural vegetation, terrain, drainage ways and unique site

[1:13:28] features. Code 17.30.0.40, SDP approval

[1:13:40] calls for an effort to protect significant vegetation where

[1:13:44] possible and preservation of significant natural features.

[1:13:50] So personally, I would call that ridgeline and those trees

[1:13:57] certainly part of things that are in our municipal code.

[1:14:00] So my first question is when you go over to Chateau Valley and

[1:14:07] you're looking -- whoa, whoa, whoa.

[1:14:15] >> I didn't make it to this slide.

[1:14:16] I apologize, Mayor Pro Tem. This shows the development

[1:14:19] they're proposing. >> No, actually the ones that

[1:14:22] show the trees is a better picture.

[1:14:27] That one, yeah. So that ridge, um, on the top

[1:14:31] line, right, and then stuff that comes through the middle where

[1:14:37] you're saying we're going to have to do significant grading

[1:14:40] to make valley drive come through basically all of those

[1:14:45] trees are going to be removed. How many trees in total are we

[1:14:50] removing? >> I'll see if the applicant

[1:14:53] could look up that exact number. First, I do want to clarify the

[1:14:59] top end of the site is not a ridge.

[1:15:02] That's a drainage channel so all of that does have to be removed

[1:15:04] to meet the town's water requirements.

[1:15:09] It's the road connection on valley that requires the grading

[1:15:13] in this parcel to be adjusted. I'll ask Mr. hall if he knows

[1:15:18] the exact number of trees that are being removed.

[1:15:20] I know we had 60 he identified as saving.

[1:15:22] Do you know, Mr. Hall, how many trees have to be removed?

[1:15:28] They're saving half of the trees.

[1:15:29] So. >> So we're saying there's 120

[1:15:32] trees? >> That's what he's saying.

[1:15:34] >> OK. So I thought the original site

[1:15:39] development plan called for saving 100 trees, not 60.

[1:15:43] >> No, I do apologize for that. There was a typo in the planning

[1:15:46] commission staff report. In one area it said he was

[1:15:52] transplanting 100 trees. In one area, it said 60 trees.

[1:15:56] What he's indicated and what the plan includes is transplanting

[1:15:58] 60 trees. That's always been what he's

[1:16:00] presented and there's an additional 50 cottonwood trees

[1:16:05] that the plan has to remove in the drainage way he's also going

[1:16:09] to be replacing with different trees so -- somehow that got

[1:16:13] turned into 100 trees in one section of the staff report and

[1:16:16] 60 in another. That was in the planning

[1:16:18] commission packet. Your packet is correct tonight.

[1:16:23] >> OK, so, um, if one of those 60 trees dies, are you replacing

[1:16:30] it with another 20-foot tree? >> He'll have to replace it per

[1:16:35] town code. Again, he's not required to

[1:16:37] replace any of these existing trees.

[1:16:39] >> I understand that. I'm asking a question.

[1:16:41] >> Yeah, so he's not required to replace it with a 20-foot tree.

[1:16:45] The town code I believe is a six-foot-tall tree.

[1:16:49] I'm not sure on the caliper, yeah.

[1:16:50] >> It would go from a 20-foot tree to a 6-foot tree.

[1:16:54] >> We would just as we do in any development area in town.

[1:16:57] >> All right. Um, 50 acres of open space.

[1:17:02] Um, how much of that is actually usable by the public meaning I

[1:17:07] see a lot of it as part of the drainage ditch and there's also

[1:17:12] a cliff, I believe, involved and designating that 50% open space,

[1:17:17] so to, me, it doesn't seem like it's usable open space.

[1:17:25] >> Correct. It's usable in different ways in

[1:17:27] the drainage channel. He's putting in a paved concrete

[1:17:31] trail as well as soft surface trail.

[1:17:33] Soft surface trail will wind up to connect to menmen ridge and

[1:17:37] the paved trail will be in the drainage channel.

[1:17:40] Similar to you can walk to this area from festival park along

[1:17:43] that drainage channel and then the ridgeline going up to the

[1:17:47] east is going to be privately maintained, owned and maintained

[1:17:53] by the HOA. It's publicly accessible open

[1:17:58] space. I don't believe I can answer

[1:17:59] your question on usable because it depends on who wants to use

[1:18:02] it and which way if that makes sense but it meets our criteria

[1:18:07] for open space. >> Another question on traffic.

[1:18:12] Valley Drive. Valley Drive today, what level

[1:18:15] of service is that? >> Want to speak to that?

[1:18:31] While you look at that up, I have another question.

[1:18:34] Um. What are -- what is the maximum

[1:18:42] buffers between the other communities and this community?

[1:18:47] How many feet? >> So it varies.

[1:19:04] You can see along the West property line t starts at

[1:19:10] 30 feet and widens to almost 60 feet at the top and then 100

[1:19:14] once you get to the tract where we are actually dedicating

[1:19:21] over an acre of public land space and constructing that

[1:19:27] trail connection to Memmen, existing Memmen Park through

[1:19:29] that space. So it varies pretty greatly as

[1:19:34] you work your way around the site.

[1:19:36] I would -- I think the neighborhood is focused on the

[1:19:40] minimum being 30 feet and it varies as you work your way

[1:19:44] around the perimeter of the site.

[1:19:46] But you could -- I mean, in some spaces, you can see over

[1:19:51] 100 feet of separation between the existing homes and the

[1:19:56] nearest lot. Does that answer your question?

[1:19:59] >> Yep. So 30 feet is the smallest?

[1:20:02] >> correct. >> Any quick answers regarding

[1:20:11] levels of service? Existing conditions for levels

[1:20:14] of service for valley drive and the creek.

[1:20:19] They range -- when you get into the p.m. peak hour for valley

[1:20:26] and Plum Creek intersection, you're level of service

[1:20:32] [indiscernible] or better for the level of service.

[1:20:34] >> Once this community is built out, what do the level of

[1:20:37] services go to? >> I will talk to that --

[1:20:39] >> Can you speak in the mic a little better?

[1:20:42] >> I don't think they can hear in the back.

[1:20:44] No, but they're going to make it through.

[1:20:48] >> We're just looking at existing Valley Drive as it

[1:20:55] connects to Plum Creek and existing Valley Drive as it

[1:20:58] connects to fifth. Let me talk a little bit about

[1:21:02] Valley Drive and 5th. As of today, preconstruction of

[1:21:08] that intersection. You're looking at levels of

[1:21:11] service f in the morning and levels of service e in the

[1:21:17] evening. That's pretty -- you know, just

[1:21:21] existing preconstruction that's going on now.

[1:21:22] So let me jump to total traffic year 2045.

[1:21:29] This has -- this includes now the connection.

[1:21:34] So the -- >> The through street, right?

[1:21:37] >> Yep. Yep.

[1:21:49] So Valley Drive and Plum Creek, we're looking at levels of

[1:21:56] service D or better. That's in the morning and also

[1:22:02] in the p.m. peak hour. The levels of service D are

[1:22:07] isolated to a movement just the southbound left turn movement so

[1:22:14] Valley Drive southbound left to Plum Creek.

[1:22:19] >> Wait, is this after the development or before the

[1:22:21] development? >> This is after the

[1:22:22] development. >> OK.

[1:22:23] >> OK. Then we go to -- let me just add

[1:22:28] onto that that all the other movements that are associated

[1:22:31] with that intersection, they're running C or better.

[1:22:36] So the only one in particular that's kind of running at level

[1:22:41] of service D is just the southbound left from Valley onto

[1:22:48] Plum Creek. Now we get into Valley Drive and

[1:22:51] 5th. This is with build out 20 years

[1:22:54] with the assumption of signalization at the

[1:22:59] intersection. That signalization is part of

[1:23:02] the construction that's going on now.

[1:23:07] For operations, peak hour operations, we're looking at

[1:23:13] level of service A for both morning and afternoon.

[1:23:16] >> With the signal? >> With the signal.

[1:23:18] >> OK. I'll stop there and give it over

[1:23:24] to somebody else. >> Thank you Mayor Pro Tem.

[1:23:26] Council member Davis. >> Can you go back to the

[1:23:29] limited connections? >> You want to keep the traffic

[1:23:37] engineer up here if you want me up here?

[1:23:44] >> I live in an older neighborhood, too.

[1:23:46] Having development surrounding you, you get to a kind of a

[1:23:51] level of living what you think is important to you.

[1:23:55] I think making the cul-de-sacs on ash and elm is -- I wouldn't

[1:24:05] -- I wouldn't say "required" but I would "highly" recommend that.

[1:24:11] I don't like having a new development dump onto an older

[1:24:15] neighborhood. We talked about that at Pine

[1:24:18] Canyon. I know I've seen Mike a couple

[1:24:21] of times and his engineering firm on a number of

[1:24:25] developments. There are six exits out of here.

[1:24:27] It sounds nice but for all of the people that live around

[1:24:30] that, just -- it doesn't -- it doesn't seem fair that you need

[1:24:35] six exits. I see Valley.

[1:24:37] That's totally required. Eaton, that dumps into a round

[1:24:49] about. That's a pretty good idea.

[1:24:53] Ash and Elm, I would highly push to make those cul-de-sacs.

[1:24:56] There was a rumor about C1/C2 in the top left corner about maybe

[1:25:04] the town buying that portion. I know the people that live on

[1:25:10] Sierra Street, that's quite the view that we've had for a long

[1:25:13] time. Is that a possibility, Mike,

[1:25:15] that we tried to talk to somebody about?

[1:25:18] That portion? >> Well, certainly I think we've

[1:25:26] already had that idea introduced already by council member Brooks

[1:25:32] but certainly there's always opportunities.

[1:25:36] It just depends on where there's a willingness on the other side.

[1:25:39] I mean -- >> Could we have a conversation

[1:25:44] with Mr. hall about that? >> Staff has discussed

[1:25:48] acquisition with the Memmen family and also with Mr. Hall in

[1:25:53] previous year. It's not been indicated they

[1:25:57] were interested in talking to the town about selling to the

[1:25:58] town. That may change.

[1:26:04] Is that a good response to your question?

[1:26:07] >> Yeah, I heard someone out there.

[1:26:08] >> I'm responding to you. >> Sure.

[1:26:10] OK. All right.

[1:26:15] >> If there's more out there, we'll stop the meeting.

[1:26:17] Thank you. Thank you.

[1:26:27] Any further questions from council?

[1:26:33] Mayor Pro Tem Cavey? >> I'd like to try to articulate

[1:26:37] maybe what Mark was trying to get at.

[1:26:41] That ridge that I talked about where the tree line is, I think

[1:26:47] there was a few of the larger lots.

[1:26:50] Maybe we can try to facilitate a discussion with Mr. hall about

[1:26:56] purchasing that part of the property as open space.

[1:26:59] >> I think that's a great idea. >> OK.

[1:27:00] Thank you. >> We have tried to have those

[1:27:04] conversations in the past and they haven't gone anywhere but,

[1:27:08] um, I always believe we can be optimistic in the future and see

[1:27:11] if there's interest in selling the property.

[1:27:16] If there's no interest in selling the property, as Council

[1:27:21] knows, you have the ability to acquire through eminent domain.

[1:27:25] So that's an option that the community has as well.

[1:27:30] There's challenges with that and there's costs with that.

[1:27:35] But we would like to have a willing seller that might be

[1:27:40] interested in our ability to buy some because we know space is an

[1:27:46] important priority for the community and for

[1:27:50] >> That would preserve the ridge and would help the community

[1:27:52] that lives there. It would reduce the density,

[1:27:56] traffic and it would be a good will offering to all of the

[1:28:00] people that have showed up here today in concern of their

[1:28:06] properties that surround this development.

[1:28:07] Thank you. >> Thank you.

[1:28:10] All right. I have a question for Mr. Hall.

[1:28:15] Would -- Mr. Hall, on the buffering, is there a way to

[1:28:28] increase the buffering when they're about 30 feet to 60 feet

[1:28:32] to 100 feet all the way around? >> Is there a way to do that?

[1:28:42] You would end up with one side being developed and the other

[1:28:50] side being phased on a street. It was very challenging laying

[1:28:53] out the roadways through these portions of the development and

[1:29:00] that basically doubles the cost of the roadway itself increasing

[1:29:03] development costs as well. There is a way to erase those

[1:29:09] lines. They're just lines on paper

[1:29:10] right now that are [indiscernible] but it does have

[1:29:15] an impact to the cost of the development.

[1:29:18] >> Understood. Thank you.

[1:29:19] I just -- we've -- we've tried to work with developers and

[1:29:25] residents about increasing buffers when we can.

[1:29:28] I think -- and especially in this older neighborhood it might

[1:29:31] be important to try to increase that as well.

[1:29:34] But thank you. >> Thank you.

[1:29:40] >> Any more questions from Council?

[1:29:42] We have a lot of people signed up tonight.

[1:29:44] I do appreciate you being here. I know that a lot of people

[1:29:49] understand that this land has been dedicated and annexed in

[1:29:56] 1983. That does have an awful lot of

[1:30:02] land there. Also, the land where you live

[1:30:05] used to be a Memmen property as well.

[1:30:09] I think that we all believe in land rights and land owner's

[1:30:15] rights but this is a difficult area.

[1:30:17] I do appreciate everyone being here and I do appreciate the

[1:30:20] passion in the room but, again, please have your decorum.

[1:30:24] With that, Kara. >> Does the Council have one of

[1:30:40] my sheets that I handed out? Here they come.

[1:30:43] Don't start my clock until they get the sheets, please.

[1:30:53] Basically, I think the numbers speak for themselves.

[1:30:55] Chateau Valley is basically the tip of the iceberg.

[1:30:58] As you can see on our sheet, the explosion in Castle Rock

[1:31:01] consists of 7,989 homes. That's the iceberg.

[1:31:05] We've heard from the water department.

[1:31:06] They said, oh N the future, we're going to have the water.

[1:31:09] Well, they said the same thing for lake Powell and it's empty.

[1:31:17] What kind of guarantees could the water department give us

[1:31:19] that the people that have been here for 48 years are going to

[1:31:22] have water? They can't!

[1:31:24] It's a crap shoot. I think the numbers speak for

[1:31:27] themselves. We got a 31% increase in current

[1:31:30] homes. That's based on the numbers here

[1:31:33] that are right off the internet. A 28% increase in population.

[1:31:37] Ridiculous! If you turn the sheet over, I

[1:31:41] think the Council needs to approve a senior ombudsmen for

[1:31:47] seniors pushed out of Castle Rock because of loss of economic

[1:31:50] income. I don't think any of you up

[1:31:51] there take care of the seniors in this city, as noted by my

[1:31:56] water bill of $549. The municipal code is a perfect

[1:32:02] example of the ridiculousness of the water department.

[1:32:09] Section 13.12.130, water discount for seniors 65 years

[1:32:13] and older initiated on December 11th, 2012.

[1:32:16] It's $3 per month. That's not a discount.

[1:32:21] That's an insult. We are now the Aspen and vail of

[1:32:27] the front range. The average service worker and

[1:32:29] senior on fixed income could no longer afford to live in Castle

[1:32:32] Rock. Douglas county is now #8 on the

[1:32:35] national list of richest income per family in the entire United

[1:32:40] States. Congratulations!

[1:32:42] Three in Virginia, three in California, one in Maryland and

[1:32:46] Douglas county, Colorado. Why can't the city do better

[1:32:51] than a 549-dollar water bill for an 80-year-old veteran on fixed

[1:32:56] income who's lived here for 48 years?

[1:32:59] When I moved here in 1978, the population was 3,000.

[1:33:03] We had no water rationing. We had no traffic jams.

[1:33:07] We didn't have the highest gas prices in the area.

[1:33:11] Council, you need to do something.

[1:33:13] I think the city is broken. And by the way, when they

[1:33:16] notified me of the cost increase on my water, I was ambushed.

[1:33:21] My neighborhood was ambushed. He's 90 years old and doesn't

[1:33:24] have a computer. She got the bill.

[1:33:27] It was $408! 20 oakridge drive.

[1:33:32] She put in $20,000 for the landscaping.

[1:33:35] She got a $409 water bill because they lowered the amount

[1:33:40] each individual could use and then they jacked up the rates as

[1:33:43] you used it. I had the exact same issue.

[1:33:46] I was ambushed by the water company.

[1:33:49] I don't mind paying $250 or $300 but the water people in this

[1:33:54] town are out of control! They need to notify the people

[1:33:57] that are using the water way in advance that they're going to be

[1:34:02] penalized for the water that as Mr. Bracken says we have for

[1:34:07] everybody! So basically, that's what I have

[1:34:10] to say. You got my phone number.

[1:34:13] These are the issues that I have.

[1:34:14] And like I said, take care of the seniors that built this town

[1:34:18] and take care of the people that service you, because right now,

[1:34:21] they can't afford to live in Castle Rock.

[1:34:23] Thank you. >> Thank you.

[1:34:27] I have Candace. I'm not going to try to

[1:34:32] pronounce your last name. Thank you.

[1:34:37] >> Good evening. Thank you for your service on

[1:34:43] the Town Council and being the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem.

[1:34:50] It isn't an easy job. I lived in Castle Rock for 46

[1:34:54] years. I currently live on larkspur

[1:35:00] drive, a horseshoe-shaped street off of Santana.

[1:35:02] I've attended three neighborhood meetings with Mr. Hall's

[1:35:08] thorough presentations and every time I've gone to these

[1:35:12] meetings, I haven't ever heard anyone in favor of this.

[1:35:18] It doesn't seem like there's ever a citizen, a current

[1:35:21] citizen who understands what is going on and is in favor of it.

[1:35:24] And I just wondered if you're aware of any citizens, current

[1:35:29] citizens in Castle Rock that are in favor of this and if so, what

[1:35:37] their rationale is. And I don't know if you know

[1:35:39] anybody. [chuckles]

[1:35:42] I mean, I -- I just -- I've been to the meetings and as you see,

[1:35:47] there's a lot of really frustrated people.

[1:35:50] So that's my wonder, anybody who is a current citizen in favor of

[1:35:56] this? If not, does it have to happen?

[1:35:59] I feel like you keep saying it does, because that land was

[1:36:02] allocated a long time ago. Um, I do live off of Santana

[1:36:08] Drive and currently, um, especially when it's snowing,

[1:36:12] two cars cannot pass each other now.

[1:36:15] And so I am a little concerned about that becoming a busier

[1:36:19] road because the homes are paired homes with very short

[1:36:25] driveways. And I don't know if you've seen

[1:36:27] that area, but, um, there isn't -- there isn't very much parking

[1:36:32] now. So I don't know if you would

[1:36:35] eventually limit parking on Santana if you're going to make

[1:36:38] that a busier street. So, um, especially if you give

[1:36:45] cul-de-sacs to Ash and Elm, which is wonderful, I just

[1:36:49] wonder how that's going to work on Santana.

[1:36:51] I don't have a lot of comments that are different than what

[1:36:54] everyone else is going to say. I just sort of had questions, so

[1:36:56] thank you for your time and attention.

[1:36:58] >> Thank you, Candace. Appreciate it.

[1:37:02] Vanessa. >> OK, hi.

[1:37:18] So I'm speaking on behalf of the more than 1,300 residents that

[1:37:23] we had signed the redact and revised plateau valley petition.

[1:37:29] Those signatures -- Chateau Valley petition.

[1:37:31] Those signatures represent residents that feel deeply about

[1:37:35] our community. We don't want to stop growth.

[1:37:37] We understand Castle Rock will continue to grow.

[1:37:38] What we're asking for is growth that honors the commitments our

[1:37:43] town has made in the municipal code and the 2030 Comprehensive

[1:37:47] master plan. The petition asks for two

[1:37:50] reasonable modifications, a meaningful natural buffer

[1:37:53] between the proposed development and the existing neighborhoods

[1:37:58] including a minimum 150-foot separation and second, greater

[1:38:03] preservation of the existing forested landscape through

[1:38:07] expansion of the memmen ridge open space toward Valley Drive.

[1:38:12] These requests aren't arbitrary. They're directly supported by

[1:38:15] the Castle Rock municipal code section 17.34.0.30.

[1:38:21] The code requires planned development proposals to be

[1:38:24] evaluated with consistency with the town's vision and

[1:38:26] comprehensive master plan and calls for consideration of

[1:38:29] neighborhood compatibility, open space, traffic circulation,

[1:38:31] public safety and the relationship of development to

[1:38:33] surrounding properties. The code further states that

[1:38:38] adequate buffer areas should be provided when warranted.

[1:38:40] Likewise, the town's 2030 comprehensive master plan calls

[1:38:45] in Castle Rock to protect and enhance the natural environment,

[1:38:48] maintain a high quality of life and plan for the acts,

[1:38:52] management and impacts of growth.

[1:38:54] Master plan envisions Casing roll -- Castle Rock remaining a

[1:39:01] small town character. These are principles adopted to

[1:39:06] guide decisions exactly like the ones before you tonight.

[1:39:08] Tonight, the question is not whether homes can be built on

[1:39:11] the property. The question is whether this

[1:39:13] particular plan best fulfills Castle Rock's adopted standards

[1:39:16] and conditions. More than 1,300 residents

[1:39:19] believe it opportunity. More than 1,300 residents are

[1:39:22] asking for meaningful buffering between neighborhoods.

[1:39:23] More than 1,300 residents are asking for greater preservation

[1:39:26] of mature trees, wildlife habitat and open space and more

[1:39:31] than 1,300 residents are asking for a design that better aligns

[1:39:36] with the intent of the municipal code and the comprehensive

[1:39:38] master plan. The comprehensive master plan

[1:39:43] only has meaning when it informs difficult decisions.

[1:39:47] If the town's commitments to protecting natural resources,

[1:39:50] preserving community character, maintaining quality of life and

[1:39:53] managing the impacts of growth do not apply here, residents are

[1:39:56] left asking when do they apply? This decision will outlast all

[1:40:01] of us. Once these mature trees are

[1:40:04] removed, once the natural buffers disappear and once the

[1:40:07] landscape is developed, these changes cannot be reversed.

[1:40:10] The question before you is not whether growth should occur.

[1:40:12] Growth is coming. The question is whether the site

[1:40:16] development plan sufficiently satisfies the standards

[1:40:19] established in the municipal code and advances the goals of

[1:40:21] Castle Rock's comprehensive master plan.

[1:40:24] If those findings cannot be made with confidence, the prudent

[1:40:27] course is not approval. The prudent course is revision.

[1:40:29] On behalf of more than 1,300 petition signers, I respectfully

[1:40:34] ask you to deny the Chateau Valley development plan as

[1:40:37] currently proposed and direct the applicant to return with a

[1:40:39] better plan, one that provides meaningful buffering, preserves

[1:40:44] more of the existing natural landscape and better reflects

[1:40:46] the vision Castle Rock has established for its future.

[1:40:49] Thank you. >> Thank you, Vanessa.

[1:40:53] Next I have Ron. >> Hi, I'm Ron.

[1:41:11] I live on eaton street very close to the Plum Creek circle

[1:41:15] there. We moved there roughly

[1:41:18] 30-something years ago and at the time, we were aware that

[1:41:22] there's potentially going to be a development back there.

[1:41:26] That was planned in 1983. What wasn't planned at that time

[1:41:32] was the water conditions we have here in Colorado.

[1:41:35] It came well before the drought. We had water issues here in

[1:41:39] Castle Rock. We have traffic issues now that

[1:41:43] weren't in existence in 1983. Our traffic and our water are

[1:41:48] unsustainable as it is right now and until there's a plan to

[1:41:54] reduce our -- fix our traffic problem and take care of our

[1:41:57] water problem, I think putting in a new development is not very

[1:42:01] wise. I was encouraged by the fact

[1:42:06] that you're looking at trying to protect current residences from

[1:42:14] creating extra traffic around the three streets, ash, elm and

[1:42:18] Eaton street, however, if you do ash and elm, that's going to

[1:42:22] increase the traffic down Eaton street if you don't do something

[1:42:27] as far as slowing down the traffic on eaton street which is

[1:42:28] already an issue even with the traffic mitigation device we

[1:42:33] have in front of our houses, speed bumps, we still hear daily

[1:42:38] what sounds like a bomb going off in front when a car drives

[1:42:41] over that speed bump going too fast.

[1:42:44] As far as the water goes, I, too, am being priced out.

[1:42:49] I am a retired school teacher on a fixed income.

[1:42:53] I taught in Douglas county for over 30 years and the water

[1:42:56] rates are going astronomic. I can't afford to live here if

[1:43:04] we're going in the direction we are going with the water.

[1:43:07] I think we'd be wise to slow down the development in Castle

[1:43:10] Rock and take care of our water and traffic issues before we

[1:43:13] keep adding on more and more development.

[1:43:15] And I would hope as representatives of our community

[1:43:18] that you would listen -- which I hope you do -- to your

[1:43:24] constituents. As the last speaker said,

[1:43:26] there's 1,300 residents right here right now that are not in

[1:43:31] agreement with putting in this development.

[1:43:32] Thank you. >> Thank you, Ron.

[1:43:36] Steve. >> Good evening.

[1:43:53] My name is Steve. I respectfully ask reject or

[1:43:58] defer the approval of the Chateau Valley site

[1:44:03] developmental plan until questions are fully resolved.

[1:44:04] Castle Rock municipal code requires development proposals

[1:44:08] to protect public health and safety and common strait --

[1:44:12] demonstrate compliance with the town's standards before approval

[1:44:15] is granted. Applicant zone flood plane study

[1:44:21] shows additional review will still be required.

[1:44:24] If key approvals remain outstanding, how can the town

[1:44:26] confidently approve the final development plan today?

[1:44:28] The study also identifies wetland and aquatic resources

[1:44:33] connected to east plum street and notes the need for federal

[1:44:37] jurisdiction review. If the public hasn't been shown

[1:44:40] all environmental reviews and permitting decisions have been

[1:44:43] completed and incorporated into. So with regard to the traffic

[1:44:47] plan, I'd really like to study Gilbert and see how it will

[1:44:50] affect Gilbert. I live on beecham street.

[1:44:59] While I don't partake in the activities that go on on the

[1:45:02] north end of that street, I really appreciate the activities

[1:45:05] that go on on the north end of that street when I drive

[1:45:07] through. I drive through there a lot.

[1:45:09] The kids are playing. There's a lot of people out in

[1:45:11] that neighborhood. And I love it.

[1:45:13] I love that our small town is that way.

[1:45:15] And I think if we connect Eaton street, that would be gone.

[1:45:20] You won't have the kids playing out there anymore.

[1:45:22] You won't have that as that communal area.

[1:45:27] With regard to our water situation, yeah, maybe we have

[1:45:29] it, but it's expensive. And it's just going to get more

[1:45:33] expensive. Also, I don't know if you guys

[1:45:35] have looked into the how adding developments like this increase

[1:45:40] the insurance on your home as well as your automobile but

[1:45:44] there's almost a 100% guarantee that it will increase our prices

[1:45:49] on our homeowner's insurance as well as our automobile insurance

[1:45:53] adding those adjacent neighborhoods almost always

[1:45:59] increases the price. When you're adding the increased

[1:46:01] water price as well as the increased insurance prices as

[1:46:06] well as adding traffic to Gilbert -- Gilbert is by far my

[1:46:12] biggest concern as far as adding this development -- I would ask

[1:46:13] that you might consider eaton street having at least a fire

[1:46:19] block where there's a gate there where it's not actually a

[1:46:23] through street so people that live there still enjoy that

[1:46:25] community. I would also ask that possibly

[1:46:28] maybe reducing those duplexes to actual homes so we don't have

[1:46:31] that huge increase in the number of people driving on Gilbert.

[1:46:36] And thank you for your time. I appreciate it.

[1:46:37] >> Thank you, Casey. Next, Chris.

[1:46:56] >> Hello. Thank you for showing up

[1:46:57] tonight. I appreciate your time on the

[1:46:58] matter. I would like to take this

[1:47:04] opportunity to speak as a member of the society.

[1:47:08] I would like to specifically ask the council to deny the Chateau

[1:47:17] Valley plan currently proposed. My concern isn't the addition of

[1:47:25] the 400+ homes, it's the transformation of approximately

[1:47:29] 112 acres of natural land and wildlife habitat.

[1:47:31] While the plan may preserve approximately 50 acres of open

[1:47:35] space, I believe we should carefully consider how that

[1:47:38] space will function once surrounded by homes, roads,

[1:47:42] lighting, increased human activity, etc.

[1:47:47] Meaningful habitats depends not only on acreage but connectivity

[1:47:55] and buffers of the availability of wildlife to move through the

[1:47:59] landscape. I believe we should consider the

[1:48:02] cummulative effects of continued development Castle Rock has

[1:48:04] experienced significant growth. Each individual project may

[1:48:09] appear reasonable on its own but collectively, these decisions

[1:48:14] determine how much natural land, wildlife habitat and open space

[1:48:17] remain for future generations. The a recent community survey

[1:48:22] found 73% of respondents support preserving more natural areas

[1:48:28] and open space underscoring the importance that we all have on

[1:48:34] protecting these lands. There's another study -- and

[1:48:39] I've actually e-mailed you guys this report -- that shows 73% of

[1:48:48] the natural habitats have been lost for wildlife.

[1:48:53] It's just continued development that's pushing animals out while

[1:48:56] we kind of move in and pollute the surface water and pooled

[1:49:06] groundwater. I'm also concerned about impacts

[1:49:07] on the existing residents. 402 households will bring

[1:49:13] additional traffic, construction and everything that goes with it

[1:49:16] so the character of the surrounding neighborhood will be

[1:49:18] changed as the previous citizen mentioned.

[1:49:26] I recognize that growth and housing are important community

[1:49:28] needs. Of course they are.

[1:49:29] My question is whether this particular project at this scale

[1:49:33] and at this time provides sufficient community benefit to

[1:49:38] justify the permanent impacts. Before moving forward, I would

[1:49:41] encourage the town to provide current, transparent information

[1:49:44] about housing demand including absorption rates and the

[1:49:53] approved unbuilt homes and protected future demands.

[1:49:58] I encourage Castle Rock to consider purchasing the Chateau

[1:50:02] Valley site, if feasible, and preserving it as public open

[1:50:05] space. The town could improve the

[1:50:08] property through habitat restoration, native landscaping

[1:50:11] and wildlife corridors and trails that minimize the impact

[1:50:18] and appropriate public access. It would provide a lasting

[1:50:20] community benefit while protecting natural land from

[1:50:23] permanent development. Water also deserves particular

[1:50:26] attention. Colorado's water resources are

[1:50:30] limited and every home creates long-term demand for water.

[1:50:32] The important question is not simply whether the town could

[1:50:34] serve these homes today but whether that supply remains

[1:50:37] sustainable throughout the future drought conditions and

[1:50:40] continued growth. The allotment of water for this

[1:50:43] development should be budgeted -- the allotment of water for

[1:50:48] this development has been based on wetter than average years. al

[1:50:56] character of our community. Please reject the plan as

[1:51:00] currently proposed and explore conservation options before

[1:51:05] preservation is no longer possible.

[1:51:08] Thank you for your time and your consideration.

[1:51:10] >> Thank you, Arianna. Next, Stan Peterson.

[1:51:27] >> Thank you, mayor, and council members for hearing people's

[1:51:31] concerns. I would respectfully request and

[1:51:40] recommend that you would reject the proposed chateau valley

[1:51:43] project. I own three homes in that area

[1:51:47] that will be directly impacted negatively.

[1:51:52] One is right on Valley and Valley is going to be impacted

[1:51:59] by a large degree. My concerns are that significant

[1:52:03] improvements to water distribution and sewer systems

[1:52:06] and streets have to be made, significantly and there hasn't

[1:52:12] been enough consideration in my view for the wildlife that is a

[1:52:18] part of our area here. There's a lot of wildlife.

[1:52:22] And if possible, could you bring up the picture of the trees?

[1:52:28] >> No, sir. >> With this proposed

[1:52:33] development, there will be -- well, basically it completely

[1:52:38] cuts off that green space behind the elementary school and the

[1:52:46] green space that is -- large green space that is West of

[1:52:54] Gordon drive and -- or east of Gordon Drive and West of Ridge

[1:53:04] Road completely cutting that off from access for the wildlife.

[1:53:10] I don't believe enough thought has been given to that

[1:53:11] possibility. There's a lot of people who

[1:53:17] value the wildlife in this area and enjoy seeing it.

[1:53:21] And it's taken a big hit with all the huge developments that

[1:53:27] have gone in or those developments have completely cut

[1:53:31] off their -- shall we say -- corridors that they move

[1:53:36] through. And I will say thank you, again,

[1:53:39] for listening to us and our concerns.

[1:53:43] >> Thank you, Stan. Next, Matt O'Neill.

[1:53:58] >> Good evening, everyone. I apologize, first of all, for

[1:54:01] being the one that was mouthy back there and kind of voicing

[1:54:05] my concerns. I think everyone -- you guys

[1:54:08] could kind of feel the temperature in the room.

[1:54:09] Everyone is a little heated and they're not really happy about

[1:54:12] the new development and the traffic and the water and

[1:54:16] everything else that's going to come along with this.

[1:54:19] Um, a few things -- at the last minute, a few things I was real

[1:54:23] concerned about that we brought up -- I didn't realize it'd be a

[1:54:27] different group. It was the planning committee

[1:54:29] last time. Not you guys so -- I brought up

[1:54:30] that it's weird they put signs at the very end of these

[1:54:34] streets. So I live at the end of Ash.

[1:54:36] I lived there for 12 years. I raised my son there.

[1:54:39] He's 11 years old. A bunch of neighborhood kids.

[1:54:42] Everyone has a blast. You know, all of these kids are

[1:54:44] running around and having fun. We still have the turnaround

[1:54:48] traffic and that kind of stuff. I fear if we do open up these

[1:54:52] roads and send all of these cars down here, someone is going to

[1:54:55] end up getting hurt. One of the kids is going to run

[1:54:57] out into the street -- I guess it could happen on any street

[1:55:00] but if we have the opportunity to do the emergency accesses,

[1:55:04] that's great! You know, but then look at

[1:55:07] Eaton. If they don't get one or if

[1:55:10] Valley doesn't get one and so on, we're putting other kids in

[1:55:14] danger, too. So hoping -- I mean, you talked

[1:55:16] about it, Max, maybe the town could buy it.

[1:55:18] You guys were talking about possibly buying that property

[1:55:21] just like Lost Canyon. We have so many families and

[1:55:29] kids that like to go hiking and taking their dogs out and things

[1:55:32] like that. That would be a great

[1:55:33] opportunity right in the middle of town to have a big open area.

[1:55:36] Hopefully you guys will consider that.

[1:55:37] Like I said, I apologize for my mouth back there.

[1:55:40] I wasn't trying to be rude but I'm just trying to -- I'm angry.

[1:55:44] You know what I mean? I've lived here for 12 years in

[1:55:47] that house. I bought this house in a nice,

[1:55:50] quiet neighborhood. Like everyone said, there's

[1:55:53] wildlife. We have bears that get into our

[1:55:56] trash cans. Whatever.

[1:55:56] We'll clean it up. We have bears, coyotes, turkeys

[1:56:03] and all of that wildlife back there that will get completely

[1:56:07] misplaced. They're going to end out on the

[1:56:09] roads. They're going to get hit, run

[1:56:11] over and pushed into the other neighborhoods.

[1:56:13] It's just going to -- just like anywhere in town -- do you guys

[1:56:17] live -- I don't know if you guys live in town -- you probably

[1:56:20] can't answer my questions -- but I don't know if you live in that

[1:56:22] neighborhood. This guy's traffic study behind

[1:56:25] me is complete bogus. There's so much traffic -- as I

[1:56:28] take my son to school in the morning, the round about at

[1:56:32] 7-Eleven will be backed all the way down lake -- a quarter mile

[1:56:36] easily, you can't see the end of the cars down Plum Creek, down

[1:56:42] to Plum Creek to i-25, back down to the fairgrounds.

[1:56:47] The bogus traffic study is nonsense.

[1:56:48] I hope you guys are looking at stuff rather than listening to

[1:56:53] what that guy has to say and taking it for the truth because

[1:56:56] I live there. I see it every single day when I

[1:56:57] take my kid to school so -- I just really hope you guys

[1:57:01] consider this stuff. We all voted for you, right?

[1:57:03] Like, there's going to be votes again.

[1:57:05] So hopefully you guys take into consideration -- I'm not trying

[1:57:09] to be rude. I'm really not.

[1:57:11] But hopefully you guys take into consideration -- I haven't heard

[1:57:15] one person in here that says, hey, this is a great idea.

[1:57:18] Let's do it. I mean, so -- thank you, guys.

[1:57:20] Thank you for your time. Appreciate you.

[1:57:24] >> Thank you. Jennifer Reid.

[1:57:37] >> Good evening. My name is Jennifer Reid.

[1:57:40] I've been a resident -- we moved back 12 years ago.

[1:57:45] I'm a teacher over at Mesa middle school as well.

[1:57:49] I live right at the intersection of valley and Santana.

[1:57:54] As Mayor Pro Tem Cavey so adeptly noticed, the open space

[1:57:58] mentioned in the presentation will be a concrete corridor of

[1:58:02] an existing creek bed. It will not be true open space

[1:58:06] that will allow plants to flourish naturally, animals to

[1:58:10] travel or even burrow. The location is of the "open

[1:58:13] spaces" are the only areas that Mr. Hall would not be able to

[1:58:16] build due to the floodplains. It's curious.

[1:58:19] If you come out to our neighborhood, you'll see the

[1:58:21] plan in the presentation are designed to highlight the

[1:58:25] supposed gives but don't acknowledge the reality of the

[1:58:28] land intended to be developed. The aforementioned PUD that

[1:58:34] bumps up against the 12 buildings there will exacerbate

[1:58:37] the flooding concerns of that drainage area right off of

[1:58:40] Sierra. At councilman Davis' house, the

[1:58:46] development director said building a huge retaining wall

[1:58:49] instead of leveling that area, that ridge, she said a retaining

[1:58:53] wall "might be" possible the same way they're doing it at the

[1:58:57] top of Valley although it'll be very difficult and therefore

[1:59:00] costly and unlikely to happen. I hope you will consider looking

[1:59:04] into that possibility, because as an alternative to just

[1:59:09] leveling it when Valley goes through, we'd much rather have a

[1:59:15] retaining wall than having the entire area leveled.

[1:59:17] In terms of traffic, I'd like to mention the children.

[1:59:20] I invite anyone to come down to the end of north Valley on any

[1:59:24] Sunday afternoon to watch the absolutely Ferrill -- Troupe of

[1:59:32] children that make use of the neighborhood-owned basketball

[1:59:34] hoops. We're a neighborhood trapped in

[1:59:35] the 1990's. We're filled with laughter and

[1:59:38] people who shovel each other's snowy drives in the middle of

[1:59:41] winter without having a second thought.

[1:59:45] I know it was in the master plan but as the plan -- as this plan

[1:59:50] is written and discussed, I hope this will be considered.

[1:59:52] There are also homes that open directly onto Valley, Similarly

[1:59:58] to the way they do Gilbert. Anyone who drives down Gilbert,

[2:00:01] you know the driveways open straight on there and it's

[2:00:04] difficult. There are homes on Valley that

[2:00:06] do the very same. So I absolutely agree with the

[2:00:10] gentleman who expressed concerns about the traffic volume on

[2:00:12] Valley as it will become an equivalent street to that of

[2:00:16] Gilbert, a street on which no child can play.

[2:00:18] We understand that the land is privately owned and will be

[2:00:22] sold. We understand that it was zoned

[2:00:24] for homes 43 years ago. We understand that Castle Rock

[2:00:28] is incredible and as people want to move here that growth is

[2:00:32] inevitable. In the last five years, in

[2:00:34] neighborhood meetings, we asked for compromised from the

[2:00:39] developers such as widened buffers between homes because 30

[2:00:42] feet still allows neighbors to see what they're eating for

[2:00:46] dinner. There was an error in the

[2:00:48] numbers provided in the buffer, it didn't account for the five

[2:00:50] feet of setback. That's 25 feet of true buffer in

[2:00:53] some areas. We've asked for the reduction of

[2:00:55] density to alleviate pressures on the water and the traffic,

[2:00:58] both challenges we already are faced with.

[2:01:02] Miss Vargish said there was a reduction from 423 homes to 402

[2:01:05] homes. That's 21 homes.

[2:01:07] A reduction of 4.9%. Less than 5% is not a give.

[2:01:12] That's an upcharge that was built into the original plan so

[2:01:15] that pointing it out today might feel like there was a win.

[2:01:18] On the flip side, there was a commitment to transplant the 100

[2:01:22] trees and that number has been reduced to 60, although miss

[2:01:25] Vargish now says it was a typo. We've asked for larger custom

[2:01:30] lots so Mr. Hall and Chateau Valley could keep or even

[2:01:34] increase the profit margins while reducing some of the

[2:01:36] concerning impacts. At every turn, I personally have

[2:01:41] printed the flyers. >> Thank you, Jennifer.

[2:01:42] Appreciate it. Perry -- not sure what your last

[2:01:48] name s Perry. -- name s Perry.

[2:01:53] -- name is, Perry. >> Hello, Mr. Mayor, council

[2:02:04] members. I'm Terry Beae.

[2:02:11] Lived in Castle Rock for over 30 years.

[2:02:15] Our house backs up to the proposed development.

[2:02:18] I'm going to second what a lot of people have said already.

[2:02:22] But first, I want to commend you on the Council for your

[2:02:28] commitment to preserving open space.

[2:02:39] Things like Lost Canyon Ranch and other places that you have

[2:02:43] purchased. Some of these properties were

[2:02:47] zoned originally for business and the town has purchased them.

[2:02:55] So I am encouraging you to consider doing that for this

[2:02:59] whole property, not just part of it.

[2:03:02] This is a unique piece of land in Castle Rock.

[2:03:08] It's right in the middle of town.

[2:03:09] It's a natural area thing aboutn the central part of a town is

[2:03:17] open space in the central part of a town is psychologically

[2:03:21] good for everyone. I was just in New York running

[2:03:25] around central park. If the New Yorkers didn't have

[2:03:29] Central Park, they'd probably be crazier than they are now.

[2:03:33] You have to protect the open space in the central part of

[2:03:36] town. And so having 10,000 planned

[2:03:41] housing units right now on the slate that are approved in the

[2:03:46] town limits of Castle Rock, why do you need 400 more right smack

[2:03:53] dab in the center. OK, as far as traffic, I was

[2:03:58] here basically when Valley Drive was planned and it's a dead end.

[2:04:04] If it would have been punched through when we had 3,000

[2:04:07] people, who cares? No problem.

[2:04:09] if we reach 130,000 like we're supposed to, who knows what is

[2:04:14] going to happen to traffic? I can relate it to the movie

[2:04:20] "Jurassic Park," life finds a way.

[2:04:21] I think traffic is the same way. Traffic will find a way to clog

[2:04:24] up that street and here is the thing about cut-through traffic,

[2:04:29] it doesn't only affect people that are cutting through on

[2:04:34] Valley Drive or South Street orr the other ones that it's cutting

[2:04:42] through, if Valley Drive gets congested, the traffic will flow

[2:04:49] to other streets in the neighborhood.

[2:04:52] Like Gordon drive. We'll have dangerous cut-through

[2:04:55] traffic just like one of the guys just mentioned where the

[2:04:59] kids play, where people ride bikes, where people are just,

[2:05:02] you know, out and about. That's dangerous that kind of

[2:05:05] cut-through traffic. People that come through those

[2:05:08] neighborhoods who don't live there, you know, they're in a

[2:05:10] hurry. So any way, I have a lot more

[2:05:13] but I guess I'm about up. But thank you very much for your

[2:05:16] time and for listening to us. >> Thank you, Larry.

[2:05:19] Next, Nicky Hoy. >> Thrilled to be here, Mayor

[2:05:36] and Council People. I live at the end of Valley.

[2:05:43] We've been there for about eight years.

[2:05:47] I've lived in Douglas county since, let's see, about 1988,

[2:05:54] something like that. And I have worked in the county

[2:06:01] for the last -- well, when I retired, I had worked for the

[2:06:05] county for 20 years in the assessor's office.

[2:06:07] We have lots of maps. We don't have subdivision maps,

[2:06:10] though. But I've seen a lot of maps in

[2:06:13] my day. And the first meeting that we

[2:06:17] had here, the developers had a map -- the developer had a map

[2:06:25] of all of the surrounding area of this development and I got up

[2:06:28] and I said, "all of the surrounding lots around your

[2:06:35] development are much larger than what you're putting in that

[2:06:41] area." And that's my concern.

[2:06:46] I have a very big concern of the amount of houses there and it's

[2:06:52] already been addressed. But see the tiny little ones

[2:06:56] down there? I would assume that those are

[2:06:59] the duplexes. Our duplexes right before --

[2:07:04] right when you get -- well, it's a long, um, it's along South

[2:07:13] Street. We have duplexes that have a

[2:07:15] front yard, a good-sized front yard, a good-sized backyard.

[2:07:24] There's no shred of grass at all where those duplexes are, unless

[2:07:29] he has a plan that he could explain to you better than what

[2:07:33] I could see on that. But it's pretty dense from what

[2:07:37] the surrounding area is. And that is my complaint.

[2:07:43] Thank you very much for your time.

[2:07:45] >> Thank you, Nicky. Next, I have vicenzo.

[2:08:02] >> Good evening, Honorable mayor and Honorable members of the

[2:08:09] council. This is a very large plan and it

[2:08:13] will impact the amount of density without a clear bit of

[2:08:18] evidence that our infrastructure, water supply,

[2:08:24] traffic and public safety can absorb this development.

[2:08:32] Take the example of traffic. Our own town transportation plan

[2:08:38] already shows congestion on Crowfoot Valley and Meadows

[2:08:50] Parkway. Adding 400+ homes would surely

[2:08:54] add to my estimate 4,000+ daily traffic going through this area.

[2:09:05] This will definitely affect the quality of life that we enjoy

[2:09:08] here in Castle Rock. So I will urge the member of the

[2:09:16] council we will do an independent study to find out

[2:09:18] how this traffic will impact the quality of life that we enjoy

[2:09:22] currently. Take the issue of water.

[2:09:26] We are a water-constrained community.

[2:09:29] We rely heavily on nonrenewable groundwater and expensive

[2:09:35] renewable water projects. Have we verified that the

[2:09:42] long-term impact of it? This will automatically to my

[2:09:51] judgment rise the water rate for those of us who already live

[2:09:54] here. Public safety.

[2:09:58] That would be the police, the fire department, emergency

[2:10:03] medical services. Staffing level already is

[2:10:06] stretched to the point that can we really absorb the additional

[2:10:16] burden that strained our resources?

[2:10:17] Can we still maintain the standard we set about response

[2:10:20] time for public safety? And finally, the community

[2:10:26] characteristic. Density growth always strains

[2:10:31] our roads, schools and utilities.

[2:10:34] So I would respectfully ask that you push this project from

[2:10:43] approving and have independent studies on all three major

[2:10:46] issues, that is public safety, water and quality of our life.

[2:10:54] I would greatly appreciate your consideration.

[2:10:55] Thank you for listening. And thank you for the

[2:10:59] opportunity to speak to you. Thank you.

[2:11:04] >> Thank you. Scott.

[2:11:16] >> Thank you for letting me speak.

[2:11:17] I do have a couple concerns. Everybody has brought it up.

[2:11:21] It's as far as the traffic. And the traffic -- I live off of

[2:11:25] Ash. I don't know if anybody's been

[2:11:26] up on Ash or those neighborhoods up there, but we don't have an

[2:11:31] HOA where we can actually park on the street.

[2:11:34] People park their vehicles on the side of the roadway.

[2:11:37] The sidewalks are only two feet in length, in width, I mean.

[2:11:39] If you have a car on both sides, there's only 22 feet of roadway

[2:11:44] to actually travel. So increasing all of that

[2:11:46] traffic from that neighborhood through those side streets

[2:11:49] because they're not -- this weren't designed for that,

[2:11:51] right? Now, we're going to push more

[2:11:53] traffic through there? That's very concerning to me.

[2:11:56] I have a child. I know that went to Mesa middle

[2:11:59] school. She didn't have a bus that was

[2:12:03] consistent that would actually pick her up.

[2:12:06] She had to ride her scooter five miles there and back and then

[2:12:10] you're going to increase that traffic and my child is going to

[2:12:12] be riding on those sidewalks and roadways and everything else

[2:12:14] with that increased traffic? That concerns me.

[2:12:17] OK? These are my concerns and

[2:12:19] worries with this. I just -- I urge you to really

[2:12:24] think about how many homes you're putting in there and how

[2:12:28] much traffic is going to push through the roadways that are

[2:12:30] not designed to have that amount of flow of traffic.

[2:12:32] And just like the other gentleman said, there's a

[2:12:38] [indiscernible]. If there's clogs in one of the

[2:12:40] major roadways, they're going to try to find shortcuts.

[2:12:42] People are going to try to go around it.

[2:12:44] Then they start pushing them through the neighborhoods and

[2:12:46] then it becomes even more dangerous for the children.

[2:12:50] One other thing, have we thought about public safety?

[2:12:54] Response times? That increasing as far as

[2:12:58] increasing the police force as far as the fire department.

[2:13:01] What's the response time now? It's like eight minutes for

[2:13:04] priority one calls. Is that going to increase with

[2:13:07] all of these developments coming in?

[2:13:08] Are we going to grow as a community and actually have more

[2:13:11] law enforcement? These are the things I'm

[2:13:14] concerned with. Thank you for your time.

[2:13:16] >> Thank you, Scott. Raven.

[2:13:32] >> Hi. Thank you for your time,

[2:13:34] Council. Really appreciate it me and my

[2:13:37] husband live on sandhurst Drive. We're Terry's neighbor.

[2:13:42] We're on the bottom of the site development plan.

[2:13:44] The entire development plan is behind our home.

[2:13:46] And I would invite all of you to walk down sandhurst Drive.

[2:13:53] Like Terry mentioned, our home backs up to this plan.

[2:13:56] But what he didn't mention is that our properties are built

[2:14:00] into this land. So in my backyard -- I have a

[2:14:05] small backyard and over a six-foot retainer wall and then

[2:14:08] that property begins. So when you talk about a 30-foot

[2:14:13] buffer and you talk about 100-foot buffer, you're talking

[2:14:15] about someone living, towering over me, towering over Terry,

[2:14:23] towering over the neighbors to might right.

[2:14:27] So, yes, I'm worried about traffic.

[2:14:30] I'm worried about water, but I'm worried about my privacy.

[2:14:34] That means the neighborhood behind me -- that means the

[2:14:39] neighbor behind me would see into my backyard.

[2:14:41] They would see into my master bedroom.

[2:14:44] They would see into my kitchen. They would see into my living

[2:14:47] room. They would see into every major

[2:14:49] communal space in my home on every floor but the basement.

[2:14:55] That's a huge invasion of privacy.

[2:14:59] So I ask for each of you to think about the privacy in your

[2:15:04] own homes and how much that is worth to you and how you would

[2:15:08] feel to sit in your living room which has these beautiful

[2:15:12] floor-to-ceiling windows that you loved when you walked into

[2:15:15] the home. It was an absolute selling

[2:15:18] point. But now, you're an animal on

[2:15:21] display in your own home. So that's all I have to say.

[2:15:27] I will also echo the other concerns here in this room but,

[2:15:31] um, if homes have to be builis d for our use here in Castle Rock.

[2:15:39] I know at one of the meetings when Tara was asked what she

[2:15:43] personally would do when faced with a situation like we find

[2:15:46] ourselves in, the director of development herself answered,

[2:15:50] she told my friend simply she wouldn't.

[2:15:52] She would just move away. Well, I'm happy that she has the

[2:15:56] economic strength to just up and leave.

[2:15:58] For many of us living around this parcel of land in some of

[2:16:02] the oldest neighborhoods in the town in small-paired homes on

[2:16:06] the north side, our homes with long histories with memories in

[2:16:10] the south, most of us aren't in a privileged position to do so.

[2:16:15] Mr. app hall's categorization of the $600,000 homes being

[2:16:19] affordable housing is out of touch with the vast majority of

[2:16:21] people in this room. While town abandonment is an

[2:16:25] option, this is our home and we don't want to leave.

[2:16:27] So we ask you, please, for your consideration and time.

[2:16:32] I'm encouraged to hear wonderfully reasonable

[2:16:35] suggestions about buying a piece of this land to preserve the

[2:16:37] ridge, to increase the buffer. As you continue to consider this

[2:16:44] proposal, we ask that you would consider not those that now live

[2:16:49] in Texas and other states but devote to the residents of

[2:16:56] Castle Rock. The voters who live here now and

[2:17:00] whom you see in the room tonight asking to be heard.

[2:17:03] Thank you for your time. >> If I've skipped you over,

[2:17:18] please come to the front. I'll bring it back to town

[2:17:27] council for a possible motion. Max Brooks?

[2:17:32] >> Mr. mayor, thank you. Look, I want to be very clear

[2:17:36] about what I'm about to -- the motion I'm about to make.

[2:17:41] I don't think I articulated correctly so let me just make

[2:17:47] sure that I'm clarifying. When I spoke earlier about

[2:17:53] looking at acquisition of property, specifically the area

[2:18:00] that sits to the existing open space, it was not to imply that

[2:18:05] the town will look at purchasing the entirety of the Chateau

[2:18:08] Valley development. So if I led anybody to believe

[2:18:12] that, I apologize, not my attention nor will that be the

[2:18:18] intent of the motion I'm about to make.

[2:18:22] I would like to make a motion to explore property acquisition

[2:18:28] both for that adjacent piece that is south of the existing

[2:18:34] open space but then also the areas in the existing forested

[2:18:39] area proposed in the Chateau Valley development.

[2:18:43] And let me just -- I'm sorry, let me just add that I want to

[2:18:48] ask town staff to explore the various mechanisms they have

[2:18:55] available to them. I believe that collaboration

[2:19:00] begins with communication. There's a path forward here,

[2:19:05] however, I want to make sure we're using all options

[2:19:07] available to us up to and including possible condemnation

[2:19:11] or other options. >> I would like to make a

[2:19:19] friendly amendment. My friendly amendment is that we

[2:19:27] correct town staff and Dave to look at every possible available

[2:19:39] option whether it's Douglas county, whether it's a nature

[2:19:43] conservancy, whether it's money from the Colorado lottery, to

[2:19:49] buy this entire property, all of Memmen Young, not just the part

[2:19:58] that Max Brooks was speaking about and permanently put it in

[2:20:03] a nature conservancy forever and ever, amen.

[2:20:08] [Applause] >> Please, please.

[2:20:09] Thank you. Max?

[2:20:10] . >> Mr. mayor, thank you.

[2:20:12] I believe that would probably serve as best as a separate

[2:20:17] motion honestly. So then that way those are two

[2:20:21] separate -- those are two separate distinct efforts and I

[2:20:25] don't want necessarily to tie them together if one should not

[2:20:28] be successful. >> So Dave and Mike --

[2:20:37] >> We should finish Max's -- >> All we'd need is a second on

[2:20:41] that and then you could make a motion following that

[2:20:44] afterwards. >> There is no second on this

[2:20:46] motion right now. >> OK.

[2:20:48] >> Second. >> Now there is.

[2:20:51] >> First from council member Brooks.

[2:20:53] Second from council member Davis.

[2:20:55] Any further discussion? Roll call vote, please.

[2:20:58] >> Council member Hollingshead? >> Yes.

[2:21:01] >> Council member. [en?

[2:21:02] >> Yes. >> Council member Davis?

[2:21:04] >> Yes. >> Council member Brooks?

[2:21:06] >> Aye. >> Council member Dietz?

[2:21:07] >> Yes. >> Mayor Pro Tem Cavey?

[2:21:10] >> Yes. >> Mayor Gray?

[2:21:12] >> Yes. >> Motion passes unanimously.

[2:21:21] >> I'd like to make a motion to continue this to the first

[2:21:23] meeting in January. I'd like to speak on the motion.

[2:21:26] >> Second. >> I have a first for myself and

[2:21:28] second from council member Dietz.

[2:21:29] We'll all speak on this as well. Um, I want to say a few things.

[2:21:33] First, thank you very much. It was very respectful.

[2:21:37] It was very clear and everyone here behaved really, really

[2:21:41] well. I'm really appreciating the

[2:21:44] decorum. Second, um, there's a few things

[2:21:46] I wanted to talk about. One is we have -- there's been

[2:21:53] mention of no growth. There's a state statute that

[2:21:56] won't allow no growth so that's hard.

[2:21:58] I also truly believe in landowners' rights.

[2:22:04] Although this was done in 1983. It's still land owners' rights.

[2:22:08] But I also have other issues with this property.

[2:22:15] I don't think the buffering is enough.

[2:22:17] I think one of the things they did was dissimilar homes and

[2:22:21] dissimilar uses. I think this might fall into

[2:22:24] dissimilar. Even though there are

[2:22:28] single-family homes going into both places, I think they're

[2:22:32] dissimilar enough. Also I would like to direct

[2:22:37] staff to see how much land they can get.

[2:22:39] I think that -- I think we should get as much land as we

[2:22:42] can. I'm not saying we have to get

[2:22:44] all of it. That would be fantastic.

[2:22:48] But I want to see if we can get land back.

[2:22:54] I'd like to see the buffers being much better.

[2:22:58] A lot of you guys don't know, I do live in Young American.

[2:23:02] I live in the neighborhood. We have an unwritten rule in

[2:23:05] Young American. We never call authorities or

[2:23:14] bears. Someone had mentioned the signs.

[2:23:16] The signs for new development or anything like that have to go

[2:23:22] next to the property. That's where it goes otherwise

[2:23:25] you'd think it was near the road like Gilbert Street.

[2:23:29] You would think maybe the house is behind it.

[2:23:31] There's a reason and a rationale for a lot of these things.

[2:23:36] But I would like this development to go back to the

[2:23:41] drawing board. Sharpen the pencils and do a

[2:23:46] little better job. Council member Dietz followed by

[2:23:50] Mayor Pro Tem Cavey. >> I agree.

[2:23:52] There's a lot of work left to do here.

[2:23:54] There's a lot of aspects that need to be looked at.

[2:23:57] I think some of you maybe remember me campaigning through

[2:24:02] your neighborhood because that does fall into District 6.

[2:24:05] I think there's just more work that needs to be done here.

[2:24:11] I'm looking forward to future discussions.

[2:24:14] I'll leave it at that. >> Thank you.

[2:24:17] Council member Brooks? Brooks and then Cavey.

[2:24:21] >> Thank you, Mr. mayor. I echo the comments you had made

[2:24:27] as far as connections, limited connections.

[2:24:29] That's fantastic as far as buffering and setbacks.

[2:24:31] There's a lot still to look at. I think, you know, I'm in favor

[2:24:35] of this motion in moving it to after January.

[2:24:39] I wanted to speak to kind of how that plays into the motion that

[2:24:43] you had made or that you were thinking about making, Mayor Pro

[2:24:46] Tem, that does give us a little bit of time also there to see

[2:24:49] what could be done before potentially bringing your motion

[2:24:53] back as well but I don't think it necessarily takes that off

[2:24:56] the table. I think it does give staff a

[2:24:58] little bit of time to be able to kind of work and get some

[2:25:01] feedback as well. >> Mayor Pro Tem Cavey.

[2:25:05] >> Um, I do agree with most of the comments up here.

[2:25:09] I have lived here since 2007. I'm District 2 which is Terrain.

[2:25:17] We've seen obviously a lot of growth there.

[2:25:20] That's actually why I ran for council in 2020 is because I

[2:25:23] care about my community and I care about what was going on in

[2:25:26] the community. And I definitely believe in

[2:25:30] responsible growth. I was out on this property at

[2:25:32] least the edge of it, not on it this weekend but along the

[2:25:40] Memmen Young part of it. It's an absolutely beautiful

[2:25:43] piece of property. I would definitely, strongly ask

[2:25:46] that town staff, Dave, Mike, that we look to see how much of

[2:25:54] this property we can acquire, if not all of it.

[2:26:00] in any means necessary in terms of coming up

[2:26:02] with the funding to buy the property hole history.

[2:26:06] I think there's so -- holistically.

[2:26:09] There's so many challenges with where the property is, where it

[2:26:11] sits, setbacks, the streets that come through, the traffic.

[2:26:14] Not a lot of you are here all the time but I'm constantly

[2:26:18] talking about what do we do about the traffic in town?

[2:26:24] It's definitely something that's at the forefront of my mind all

[2:26:27] the time. So I think that we need to do

[2:26:31] whatever we can to preserve as much of this property as

[2:26:34] possible. I think it preserves the

[2:26:37] character of Castle Rock. I think this is why a lot of us

[2:26:40] moved here is because we love these things about Castle Rock.

[2:26:44] And I want to continue to see Castle Rock be Castle Rock.

[2:26:48] Thank you. >> Thank you.

[2:26:50] Council member Bracken? >> Thank you, mayor.

[2:26:52] Um, yeah, I would just like to make a few comments about some

[2:26:55] of the thing that I heard. The one with the really high

[2:27:01] water bill, I know the water department is committed to

[2:27:05] trying to investigate and make sure that they make you as best

[2:27:11] as they can from your perspective.

[2:27:13] We did get that commitment from the water department before this

[2:27:17] meeting. And I would imagine that you

[2:27:19] would be able to enlist your neighbor as well to find out

[2:27:22] what is actually happening on the block there with the really

[2:27:24] high bill. OK?

[2:27:26] And just a point of clarification, I asked

[2:27:29] Mr. Marlowe during the drought and the connection to that if we

[2:27:33] have enough water for the town in the future developments.

[2:27:38] So I didn't make that statement. Mr. Marlowe made the statement

[2:27:41] that we have the water for the future projects.

[2:27:43] Just to be clear, right? So, um, what I love about this

[2:27:49] group that's in the room is the historical homes and the folks

[2:27:54] that have l >> If you're going to leave,

[2:28:18] please make your way out. Moving onto advertised public

[2:28:39] hearing. Discussion of action items.

[2:28:41] Public comments will be taken. 4 minutes maximum.

[2:28:51] RESOLUTION NO. 2026-099 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL

[2:28:53] OF THE TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO, EXPRESSING ITS SUPPORT

[2:28:54] FOR COLORADO INITIATIVE 109, “MALE AND FEMALE PARTICIPATION

[2:28:56] IN SCHOOL AND COLLEGIATE SPORTS,” ALSO KNOWN AS THE

[2:28:57] “PROTECT WOMEN AND GIRLS SPORTS ACT” (PROPOSITION 134)

[2:29:05] >> David? >> Mayor and Council n

[2:29:09] discussion with council members -- in discussion with council

[2:29:13] members, you indicated you'd like to have a resolution of

[2:29:15] support for this initiative. as it went through the

[2:29:19] initiative process, it was labeled "colorado initiative

[2:29:22] 109." As it's going to appear on the

[2:29:25] ballot, it'll be "proposition 134."

[2:29:28] So there's a little bit of change in numbering.

[2:29:30] There's no change in the initiative language you also

[2:29:37] have in your packet materials. This is a resolution of support.

[2:29:42] It goes into a number of different issues.

[2:29:45] You can read that as you believe is appropriate.

[2:29:48] I'm happy to respond to any questions.

[2:29:51] Again, under Colorado law, citizens can initiate a state

[2:29:56] law or even in some cases an amendment to the substitution.

[2:30:04] -- constitution.

[2:30:05] In this case, it's a state law as opposed to relying on the

[2:30:08] general assembly to enact a law. In this case, this initiative

[2:30:12] would speak toward the issue of male and female participation in

[2:30:15] school and collegiate sports. If it is adopted by a majority

[2:30:22] of citizens in November -- which is what the resolution

[2:30:26] encourages support for -- it would then become the law of

[2:30:29] Colorado. I'm happy to respond to any

[2:30:32] questions. You've got the resolution.

[2:30:35] You've got the initiative language in front of you as

[2:30:38] well. >> Any questions for Dave?

[2:30:43] We spoke a lot about this already.

[2:30:48] I do appreciate council comments on this in a meeting.

[2:30:54] I do have several people signed up to speak.

[2:30:56] I have to apologize ahead of time because -- when I was

[2:31:00] shuffling the paper, I'm not sure who signed up first and

[2:31:02] last and all of that kind of stuff but I will get to

[2:31:05] everybody who signed up. Um, first, I have Aniya.

[2:31:19] >> Good evening, Mayor and Council.

[2:31:24] I'm afresh flyer here at these meetings.

[2:31:25] First of all, I notice this is not something you do very often,

[2:31:28] number one. Number two, doesn't seem very

[2:31:35] important to the residents of Castle Rock.

[2:31:37] I saw the room empty out. Feels a little bit like support

[2:31:41] for some of your friends' pet projects that affects 1% of the

[2:31:44] population and not really in your purview.

[2:31:48] So just calling that out for what it is.

[2:31:53] I know how you'll vote. I know where this will go.

[2:31:56] I'm just going to say it out loud.

[2:31:58] Thanks. >> Thank you, Aniya.

[2:32:02] Next I have Amy. >> Hi, good evening, Council and

[2:32:19] Mayor Gray. I'm sorry to hear of your

[2:32:20] passing of your friend from breast cancer.

[2:32:22] >> Thank you. >> That's something I could

[2:32:23] relate to. My mother and sister passed away

[2:32:26] from that. I'm also a breast cancer

[2:32:28] survivor. So thank you for that.

[2:32:30] >> Thank you very much. >> I appreciate the Town Council

[2:32:35] presenting this this evening. I think most of us in this room

[2:32:39] up here are old enough to where we can appreciate what it took

[2:32:42] for women and girls to play sports.

[2:32:44] I think it was not until about 1972 that women had the right to

[2:32:51] play in sports. And it took a couple decades

[2:32:54] until late 80's, 90's to where sports became a thing.

[2:33:00] So I do want to say that I sincerely appreciate this as a

[2:33:07] woman and I just want to say thank you.

[2:33:11] So thank you, all. I hope every single one of you

[2:33:13] vote for this. >> Thank you.

[2:33:16] >> Thank you. >> Next, I have Matt Smith.

[2:33:29] >> Good evening, everyone. Really happy to see this here.

[2:33:33] I think it's very important as a community that we take a stand

[2:33:36] on things like this and we show the community where we stand and

[2:33:40] the values that we present here. This is something that actually

[2:33:44] affects all women and all girls especially in a school setting.

[2:33:50] Whenever biological males are allowed to join their sports

[2:33:53] teams, take their opportunities, enter their private spaces like

[2:33:56] bathrooms and locker rooms, there's probably no one in this

[2:33:58] room that's had more direct conversations with voters in

[2:34:02] Douglas county about this exact issue than me.

[2:34:06] I spent several months last year literally knocking on doors and

[2:34:10] talking about this very issue. So this is something that is --

[2:34:15] a lot of people in Douglas county, a lot of folks in Castle

[2:34:18] Rock are concerned about this. It is something we should take a

[2:34:21] stand on and we should vote yes for.

[2:34:24] This is not something where we need a lot of studies.

[2:34:26] This is just common sense. This is not about putting anyone

[2:34:29] down or how they choose to live their life.

[2:34:33] It's just we cannot expect society to roll out the red

[2:34:35] carpet and allow people to invade private spaces,

[2:34:41] bathrooms, restrooms, sports, take away opportunities from

[2:34:44] women, from girls. This is dangerous and we need to

[2:34:47] make sure that we're protecting girls and making sure that

[2:34:54] biological males are not entering their spaces.

[2:34:56] So I really am happy to see this here tonight and I really hope

[2:35:01] this is a commonsense yes vote from everybody up here.

[2:35:05] I've personally signed all three petitions and have personally

[2:35:13] committed to all of these. Again, this is a no-brainer for

[2:35:15] me. Just common sense.

[2:35:17] I won't take up a lot of your time.

[2:35:19] It's pretty late and I'm kind of hungry so, yeah.

[2:35:22] Thanks, everyone. I really appreciate the time.

[2:35:23] >> Thank you, Matt. Next, I have Jimmy Graham.

[2:35:34] >> Good evening. My name is Jimmy Graham.

[2:35:37] I'm a veteran U.S. navy seal, a protective officer, a protective

[2:35:44] professional for the CIA's overseas protectors.

[2:35:48] I'm a father of four. A wear the proud title of girl

[2:35:54] badge. The people of Castle Rock care

[2:35:57] about their daughters, meaning our future, meaning our

[2:35:59] children. Welcome to September, by the

[2:36:01] way. September 1st.

[2:36:02] September to me means Charley Kirk.

[2:36:05] It means New York city. It means Benghazi Libya, my team

[2:36:08] that was killed in Benghazi. It also means natural

[2:36:12] preparedness month. We have to be prepared for what

[2:36:13] is coming. This isn't like this flash in

[2:36:15] the pan. People can be as crazy as they

[2:36:16] want to be. We can't go with them.

[2:36:20] If people want to be foolish and make up -- if you want to try to

[2:36:27] create a warrior against safe people so you can call yourself

[2:36:30] a warrior, it doesn't fly with me.

[2:36:31] That word means something to me to do something honorable, to

[2:36:35] have -- you can't control the nation here, but you do have

[2:36:37] authority over what happens in this town.

[2:36:39] This nation is kind of losing its mind but we can show them

[2:36:42] how to do better. I truly believe that right now

[2:36:45] by the decisions that we make in this town, the silliness that

[2:36:49] happened when people are cutting off kids' genitalia is already

[2:36:53] coming back and saying this is absolutely catastrophic to our

[2:36:56] future. It is absolutely shameful.

[2:36:58] So you can make up silly words like same sex and marriage and

[2:37:03] try to put them together. It doesn't make them true.

[2:37:05] That's not what that means Biblically.

[2:37:08] On a world where the WNBA could put up welcome trans signs on

[2:37:12] the big screen and then censure people for wearing an xx/xy

[2:37:20] T-shirt, it's shameful. We saw it our kids saw it.

[2:37:23] It is time we stop fighting just for freedom.

[2:37:26] I want to be free to have sex with whoever I want.

[2:37:29] I want to be free to groom children so I could have sex

[2:37:32] with them. If it's not freedom, fight for

[2:37:34] the truth. If you're going to fight for

[2:37:35] something, fight for the truth because the truth will set and

[2:37:38] keep Douglas county and Castle Rock free.

[2:37:41] Not some freedom you made up. That's just the truth -- it's

[2:37:45] time to look at it not Jimmy's truth.

[2:37:48] Not your truth. The truth under god.

[2:37:50] We can't get religious. Well it is religious.

[2:37:54] It is religious. Let's not get political.

[2:37:59] Political is the policy that governs our lives.

[2:38:01] It's the policy that made the nation I love.

[2:38:03] If you don't like that, that's OK.

[2:38:04] There's plenty of countries to live in.

[2:38:06] It's just the truth. It's time to grow a pair and

[2:38:09] stand for what is true. We must do that.

[2:38:11] Again, we -- I stood -- people don't care about this really

[2:38:16] because I stood in three years ago.

[2:38:17] I went to dug county -- Douglas county fairgrounds and 70 men

[2:38:22] joined me and said not here. Not here.

[2:38:24] All right? Thank you if you stood there.

[2:38:26] Thank you if you did something honorable.

[2:38:28] You can't do something dishonorable and call it

[2:38:33] honorable. People are shaking their

[2:38:34] children and saying aren't you scared?

[2:38:37] Aren't you scared? My mom was shaking me.

[2:38:39] I thought she was crazy. There needs to be a sustainable

[2:38:42] future. Adults need to come into the

[2:38:44] room and say we're not playing. You know this.

[2:38:46] It's not like I'm educating you on what a man and a woman is.

[2:38:50] You can check yourself. I'll give you a second.

[2:38:52] This is an easy definition. You can look at that and make up

[2:38:56] your own titles if you wish. It's harmful to communities.

[2:38:59] I would recommend that we search into what is good and right.

[2:39:04] Somebody told me that that's bad drag.

[2:39:06] That was an example of bad drag. What is good?

[2:39:11] Good equals godly. What's -- we should get healthy

[2:39:17] people and elect people that can represent healthy people, maybe

[2:39:21] even call them representatives. Then maybe give them the

[2:39:24] responsibility to make decisions for a community.

[2:39:26] That'd be a great idea. And maybe if they could hold

[2:39:29] fast to have kind of -- that kind of kind of integrity as

[2:39:40] they go to D.C. -- we have to make good decisions on behalf of

[2:39:43] our kids. >> Thank you.

[2:39:46] Clifford? >> Thank you.

[2:39:54] Thank you for having this meeting.

[2:39:57] I'm a proud father of three children.

[2:40:00] Two of my children are young ladies.

[2:40:02] I ask myself -- and you should ask yourself as well -- why are

[2:40:09] these girls under attack? It's time to protect girls

[2:40:13] sports. May I ask you -- and you should

[2:40:20] ask yourself as well -- what has happened to children's safety

[2:40:25] physically and mentally? This is about taking dreams away

[2:40:27] from young ladies that trained very hard and put their heart

[2:40:32] and soul into their sport to either lose to a biological boy

[2:40:40] or possibly get hurt as we've seen many times in the past.

[2:40:46] Or is it to lose the trophy after practicing so hard for a

[2:40:52] competitor that shouldn't be in the same league.

[2:40:54] I ask you what happened to women's rights?

[2:41:00] I believe the right decision will be made.

[2:41:02] We need to be steadfast and protect the children and this

[2:41:06] should be a nonissue. Thank you for your time.

[2:41:09] >> Thank you, Clifford. Dana.

[2:41:23] >> Good evening, mayor Gray,town Council.

[2:41:27] Can I just say first of all what a pleasure it was listening to

[2:41:29] all of those long-term residents of Castle Rock and how much they

[2:41:34] love living here? I just enjoyed that.

[2:41:36] But I'm here tonight as a Castle Rock resident to speak in favor

[2:41:40] of this resolution. I support initiative 109, prop

[2:41:44] 134, the protect girls sports act, because I believe girls in

[2:41:48] our community deserve a fair and safe playing field in school and

[2:41:52] collegiate athletics. For me, this comes down to

[2:41:56] fairness and common sense. When teams are divided by male

[2:42:02] and female categories, those categories should mean

[2:42:04] something. Our daughters, granddaughter,

[2:42:06] neighbors and classmates should not lose opportunities, roster

[2:42:09] spots, championships or scholarships because the rules

[2:42:15] ignore biological differences. I also see this resolution as

[2:42:18] part of a broader effort by the protective Colorado teams.

[2:42:24] The other ballot measures include the children are not for

[2:42:28] sale act which addresses child exploitation and strengthens

[2:42:32] penalties for sex trafficking and the protect kids from

[2:42:35] irreversible sex change surgery act which seeks to protect

[2:42:40] minors from irreversible decisions before adulthood.

[2:42:44] As someone who cares deeply about the future of our children

[2:42:47] and families, I believe these measures puts kids first,

[2:42:53] respects parents and gives Colorado voters a clear voice on

[2:42:55] issues that matter. I urge this council not only to

[2:42:58] support this resolution but also to consider expressing support

[2:43:03] for the other initiatives. I've mentioned and stand with

[2:43:06] families seeking commonsense protection for kids.

[2:43:08] Thank you. >> Thank you, Dana.

[2:43:12] Next I have Patty. >> Good evening.

[2:43:30] I'm not a Castle Rock resident but I'm on the board of protect

[2:43:33] kids Colorado and I just wanted to thank you for the opportunity

[2:43:36] to look at this resolution and pass this resolution tonight.

[2:43:41] I know that when I grew up in lakewood, I had an intermural

[2:43:47] sports experience where the gym teacher let the boys take over

[2:43:50] the basketball game and that was the way it was in the 70's and

[2:43:56] the late 60's. We had to fight our way to be

[2:43:58] able to have sports. And so we have a situation today

[2:44:02] where people think well why do we even have to do this?

[2:44:06] I've traveled the entire state helping and getting the

[2:44:09] signatures that we had to get on the ballot or on the petitions

[2:44:13] to get on the ballot and I had one young girl in Pueblo who

[2:44:18] told me that she went to a volleyball tournament and, no,

[2:44:22] I'm sorry. She went to a wrestling

[2:44:24] tournament. And she had to wrestle

[2:44:30] 14-year-old boy who says he was a girl.

[2:44:31] So we are having these things happen.

[2:44:34] They don't necessarily happen in Douglas county, but if they're

[2:44:37] happening in other parts of the state, they're going to come

[2:44:40] here, too. That's the whole reason why we

[2:44:41] have to do this. Every person I speak to says why

[2:44:44] do we even have to do this? It's an 80% or 90% favorable

[2:44:48] issue and I really appreciate you would consider doing it

[2:44:51] tonight. And thank you very much.

[2:44:53] >> Thank you, Patty. Keith.

[2:45:06] >> Good evening. Hello, again.

[2:45:07] It's been a couple years. I'll try to keep the decorum.

[2:45:12] Mayor Gray and I exchanged some e-mailed afterwards and I

[2:45:15] learned my lesson. I'll behave tonight.

[2:45:19] Regardless of the merits of the ballot initiative itself and the

[2:45:23] content of that initiative, I don't believe the town should

[2:45:26] make comment on it. I think the voters in November

[2:45:28] should make the choice. Everyone in Colorado will have a

[2:45:31] say. Castle Rock does not need to get

[2:45:33] into culture war topics that will already be on the ballot.

[2:45:39] Given all the recent council drama around Mr. Davis and quid

[2:45:44] pro quo diminishing the quality of character of this town's

[2:45:49] government, wouldn't the town want to avoid more drama instead

[2:45:52] of wading into it? We should strive for a town

[2:45:55] government that works for and protects all of its citizens.

[2:45:57] For the council members who are using this to get media

[2:46:00] attention of their November elections, don't you have

[2:46:06] anything better to do than bully kids?

[2:46:09] Mayor Gray s this what you want your legacy to be?

[2:46:12] Mayor Pro Tem Cavey, you're running for mayor, is this what

[2:46:15] the community expects from you over the next four years?

[2:46:19] We should strive for a better form of government here.

[2:46:20] I want to add unscheduled, unsolicited comment here.

[2:46:25] I don't appreciate out-of-town actors and agents coming in to

[2:46:30] influence our town politics. Thank you for your time.

[2:46:33] >> Thank you, Keith. Angela Thomas.

[2:46:46] >> Mayor and members of council. I didn't come here to speak on

[2:46:48] this topic but after listening to some of the comments, I felt

[2:46:51] it important that I speak. I'm asking you not to endorse

[2:46:57] proposition 134. Regardless of how any one of us

[2:47:00] intends to vote on this measure, I question why the Town of

[2:47:03] Castle Rock should take an official position at all.

[2:47:10] Proposition 134 concerns participation in school and

[2:47:11] collegiate athletics. It is a statewide policy

[2:47:14] question being placed before Colorado voters.

[2:47:16] It is not about Castle Rock roads, water, public safety,

[2:47:20] development, parks, taxes or any of the other responsibilities

[2:47:25] entrusted to this town council. The people sitting before you

[2:47:28] tonight undoubtedly have different opinions about this

[2:47:31] issue. So do the residents you

[2:47:33] represent. An official town endorsement

[2:47:36] would take the collective voice of Castle Rock and use it to

[2:47:40] advocate one side of a deeply divisive statewide political and

[2:47:45] social issue. This is unnecessary and I

[2:47:48] believe it's inappropriate. There's a larger principle at

[2:47:52] stake. Local government works best when

[2:47:55] residents believe their town government belongs to all of

[2:47:58] them, republicans, democrats, unaffiliated voters,

[2:48:02] conservatives, liberals and everyone in between.

[2:48:05] You don't preserve that trust by inserting the town into every

[2:48:11] controversial issue that appears on a statewide ballot.

[2:48:13] Individual council members are citizens and voters.

[2:48:15] You have every right to support props 134, oppose it.

[2:48:21] Contribute to a campaign or speak publicly about your

[2:48:24] personal views, but the Town of Castle Rock is something

[2:48:27] different. The town shouldn't become a

[2:48:31] vehicle for advancing political positions on matters outside its

[2:48:35] municipal responsibilities. Once council establishes that

[2:48:40] precedent, it becomes difficult to explain why future councils

[2:48:44] shouldn't endorse statewide measures on abortion, guns,

[2:48:46] immigration, education, taxation or any other number of

[2:48:50] controversial subjects. You don't have to decide tonight

[2:48:54] whether prop 134 is good policy. Colorado voters will make that

[2:48:57] decision. You only have to decide whether

[2:49:00] taking an official position on it is proper business for the

[2:49:05] Castle Rock Town council. Ifully submit it is not -- I

[2:49:09] respectfully submit it is not. Please leave this decision where

[2:49:11] it belongs, with the voters of Colorado and do not endorse

[2:49:15] proposition 134. Thank you.

[2:49:17] >> Thank you, Angela. Christopher.

[2:49:31] >> My name is Christopher waterman.

[2:49:33] I live in Castle Rock. I moved here originally in 1994.

[2:49:36] I lived in Douglas county for 32 years.

[2:49:40] I came here to support a friend. My friend Jimmy Graham and other

[2:49:45] guys here. I didn't intend to speak.

[2:49:47] However, this is a subject that's really dear to my heart,

[2:49:50] because I had a daughter -- I actually have three

[2:49:52] stepdaughters -- step-daughters and my daughter -- they're all

[2:49:57] grown now -- they all played volleyball.

[2:49:58] My daughter was -- she went to mountain Vista high school.

[2:50:02] She was ranked in the top 18 in the state.

[2:50:04] She wanted to get a college scholarship.

[2:50:08] This is upsetting to me, because she actually left this state to

[2:50:13] raise her kids in another state because of what is going on in

[2:50:15] the state of Colorado. I couldn't get her to stay in

[2:50:18] Castle Rock. I wish she would have.

[2:50:21] You guys are trying to protect women and women sports.

[2:50:24] I saw her scrimmage when she played high school volleyball at

[2:50:29] mountain Vista. She was fantastic.

[2:50:31] The scrimmage with the boys, the best girls could not keep up

[2:50:36] with the boys on the B team. Right?

[2:50:42] You start bringing in biological boys or men into women's sports,

[2:50:48] these girls aren't going to play.

[2:50:49] It's not going to be fair to them.

[2:50:51] I'm glad you guys are doing this.

[2:50:53] I really am, because protect Castle Rock.

[2:50:54] A lot of us moved here because we want this type of lifestyle.

[2:50:59] I don't want whatever else Colorado is doing.

[2:51:03] The stuff they're doing up there, I don't like it.

[2:51:05] That's why I live down here. That's 80 lived here for 32

[2:51:08] years. I can -- that's why I lived here

[2:51:10] for 32 years. I could leave the state but I

[2:51:12] like Castle Rock. I like the government in Castle

[2:51:14] Rock. I like what you guys are doing.

[2:51:16] Thanks. >> Thank you, Christopher.

[2:51:17] I think I've gone through the list.

[2:51:21] Please let me know if I missed you.

[2:51:23] If I missed you, please walk to the front and speak.

[2:51:26] All right. OK, thank you very much.

[2:51:28] Um. >> Hi, Meagan, I'm a Castle Rock

[2:51:34] resident. I just want to echo some

[2:51:38] previous sentiments. Regardless of my personal

[2:51:41] opinions on this proposition, school and collegiate sports are

[2:51:46] not under the purview of town council.

[2:51:49] You're not in control of school and collegiate sports.

[2:51:54] I do not feel it is appropriate to put out an opinion on

[2:52:01] something that does not affect you as a council.

[2:52:04] Use your personal lives to do that if you have strong feelings

[2:52:07] one way or the other. Thank you.

[2:52:09] >> Thank you, Megan. We'll now bring it back totown

[2:52:16] council for a -- to Town Council for a possible discussion.

[2:52:24] >> Move to approve. >> Second.

[2:52:28] >> First from Max, second from council member Dietz.

[2:52:30] Anyone like to speak upon this? Go ahead.

[2:52:35] Sorry. Council member Bracken.

[2:52:37] >> Yeah, thank you, mayor. So, um, so this is a resolution

[2:52:44] and so it's showing our support. Me personally, I'm probably the

[2:52:50] one that was affected the most by Title IX.

[2:52:55] They eliminated my wrestling program my senior year in

[2:52:59] college and it was a legislative decision that was put into place

[2:53:06] in 1971. The athletic directors had not

[2:53:13] moved towards equality for the gender sports and long story

[2:53:20] short on it, they mucked it up really bad.

[2:53:24] They started eliminating men's programs over women's programs.

[2:53:28] That was protecting women back in the day.

[2:53:33] And I think it was the right thing to do.

[2:53:39] Pat Summit was the all-time great women's basketball coach.

[2:53:42] I sat with lunch with her because I literally went on tour

[2:53:45] to three different states to talk on behalf of changing and

[2:53:49] amending the Title IX ruling and sat with Pat Summitt and she

[2:53:56] said we literally were sitting in the basketball court and they

[2:54:03] came by and pulled the plug and turned the lights off on us.

[2:54:07] I said, pat, you're turning the lights off on us.

[2:54:11] And they eliminated our wrestling program and they

[2:54:14] decimated several colleges throughout the country.

[2:54:16] So I'm giving you this long story to say that if it's

[2:54:21] protecting girls and women in the same spirit of what the law

[2:54:27] was in 1971, whether it was implemented right, good or bad,

[2:54:32] I'm in support of it. It's almost the same type of

[2:54:36] thing that happened in 1971 with Title IX and I'm very passionate

[2:54:43] about it. If I have an upon to offer from

[2:54:48] my seat, I just did, and I will. Thank you.

[2:54:55] >> Further discussion? Council member Brooks?

[2:54:57] >> Mr. mayor, thank you. I want to address a couple of

[2:55:05] things. It's absolutely routine for this

[2:55:08] body to weigh in on legislative items.

[2:55:09] We do it all the time. We will take positions on items

[2:55:14] of state legislation we want to say, hey, we support or, hey, we

[2:55:20] do not support it. That is quite routine.

[2:55:22] That is quite normal. And I would like to remind

[2:55:29] everybody that this ended and began as a state legislative

[2:55:32] item. This was HB26-1083.

[2:55:42] It was assigned to the state civic military veterans affairs

[2:55:47] committee where it died on party line vote.

[2:55:51] That's important to understand. There's a mathematical imbalance

[2:55:59] in our state legislature. Typically -- doesn't matter if

[2:56:06] it's red that has a bunch of people or if it's blue that has

[2:56:11] a bunch of people, I will tell that you state government, any

[2:56:13] government is going to work together when it is more even.

[2:56:17] The legislators have to work together to find policy that

[2:56:22] works for everybody. This is a representation

[2:56:27] that that system is failing. This is a grassroots effort to

[2:56:30] show that system is failing. 124,238 votes were needed to put

[2:56:38] an item on the ballot. There was three state

[2:56:43] legislative items that all failed.

[2:56:47] Those were referenced a little bit earlier.

[2:56:49] They're all back on the ballot as 134 -- I'm sorry, 133, 134

[2:56:56] and 135. 124,000 needed to get on the

[2:57:01] ballot. Each of these exceeded 170,000.

[2:57:08] There's very little money really spent on this effort.

[2:57:13] What does that tell ya? It tells me that there are a lot

[2:57:18] of folks out there that are saying enough's enough!

[2:57:20] There are a lot of folks out there that say let's put this on

[2:57:25] the state ballot because you know what?

[2:57:26] Folks up there at the state Capitol aren't necessarily

[2:57:30] representing us the way that we feel we should be represented so

[2:57:34] let's let the voters decide. This is grassroots.

[2:57:37] This is democracy. This is fantastic in terms of

[2:57:41] what we're supposed to be supporting here and we do it all

[2:57:43] the time. I urge you that when the

[2:57:46] legislative session begins January 11th, 2027, oh, give it

[2:57:52] about a week or so and we'll have legislative updates that I

[2:57:57] just know that staff is so looking forward to come up and

[2:58:01] giving. They will ask you to take

[2:58:03] positions yes or no. Pay attention to that.

[2:58:07] This is very common. I will tell you that I do

[2:58:13] believe it is absolutely the charge.

[2:58:18] This body -- absolutely the charge of this body or

[2:58:24] municipality to protect women, to protect children, absolutely.

[2:58:28] So goes the state of Colorado as does Douglas county as does

[2:58:34] Castle Rock. It is a Castle Rock issue.

[2:58:37] Absolutely, I'll be voting yes. Thank you.

[2:58:39] >> Thank you, council member Dietz?

[2:58:41] >> We probably need to extend the meeting?

[2:58:43] >> Is there a motion to extend the meeting?

[2:58:46] >> Until the conclusion of the agenda.

[2:58:48] >> First from council member Bracken and second from council

[2:58:51] member Hollingshead. Roll call vote, misters.

[2:58:55] >> Council member Hollingshead? >> Yes.

[2:58:57] >> Council member Bracken? >> Yes.

[2:58:58] >> Council member Davis? >> Yes counselmember Brooks?

[2:59:02] >> Yes council member Dietz? >> Yes.

[2:59:07] >> Mayor Pro Tem Cavey? >> Yes.

[2:59:09] >> Mayor Gray? >> Yes.

[2:59:11] >> Motion passes unanimously. >> Move onto council member

[2:59:14] Dietz? >> I'm a citizen here.

[2:59:17] I worked real hard to get elected for a lot of good

[2:59:24] purposes in Castle Rock and this one is absolutely simple.

[2:59:28] There's two sections. Play in your own sport.

[2:59:32] That simple. Thank you.

[2:59:34] >> Thank you. Council member -- Mayor Pro Tem

[2:59:37] Cavey? >> You know, as the only woman

[2:59:41] that is up here on Council, I could certainly talk to it in a

[2:59:48] different perspective. I don't have daughters.

[2:59:53] I have boys, but I have family members that have daughters and

[3:00:00] as a woman who did play sports -- I did play volleyball way

[3:00:04] back in the day when I was young, and, um, that wouldn't

[3:00:09] have been fair. That wouldn't have been right.

[3:00:12] I certainly don't want them, you know, males in locker rooms with

[3:00:18] girls. They should have safe spaces for

[3:00:21] themselves. And they should have places

[3:00:24] where they belong and places where they can go play sports

[3:00:29] and be successful on their own merit and so, you know, I know

[3:00:35] what it would be like to be in that situation where I'm

[3:00:40] competing against a biological male or I had a biological male

[3:00:47] in my bathroom or in my space or in my locker room and that is

[3:00:51] just completely unacceptable! I'll be voting yes.

[3:00:58] >> Mayor Pro Tem, thank you. New further discussion?

[3:01:03] Council member Davis? >> I just want to make it short

[3:01:06] and sweet but we all know there's two sexes.

[3:01:08] You can be a boy or a girl. There's boy sports.

[3:01:12] Girl sports. Co-ed sports.

[3:01:18] That's great. If it turns into a

[3:01:20] trans community thing, start a trans league and run against

[3:01:24] whoever you want. I'm a man of three daughters.

[3:01:27] I'm going to protect my kids. As a council man, I'm going to

[3:01:31] protect other people's kids. We all know this is a

[3:01:33] commonsense, easy, easy yes. So I'm going to be voting yes as

[3:01:38] well. >> Any further discussion?

[3:01:42] Just real fast, I know this doesn't happen often.

[3:01:46] It doesn't happen often. It's not wrong that 1% or less

[3:01:51] -- but I do believe that boys in sports will beat girls in

[3:02:02] sports. And it is -- it's something that

[3:02:09] doesn't happen very often, but it does happen.

[3:02:15] And I've mentioned this before, my wife ran three different

[3:02:22] sports in college and she never beat a boy.

[3:02:28] I think it'd be -- it would be unfortunate if we were allowing

[3:02:35] boys and men to participate against women.

[3:02:41] With that, roll call vote, please.

[3:02:45] >> Council member Hollingshead? >> Yes.

[3:02:47] >> Council member Bracken? >> Yes.

[3:02:48] >> Council member Davis? >> Yes.

[3:02:50] >> Council member Brooks? >> Aye.

[3:02:53] >> Council member Dietz? >> Yes.

[3:02:54] >> Mayor Pro Tem Cavey? >> Yes.

[3:02:58] >> Mayor Gray? >> Aye.

[3:03:00] >> Motion passes uman unanimously.

[3:03:02] #18, ordinance 2026-27. Ordinance Amending Section

[3:03:10] 16.08.120 of the Castle Rock Municipal Code Regarding the Use

[3:03:11] of Land and Cash Fees Dedicated for School Purposes

[3:03:19] >> Mayor? >> Sir.

[3:03:20] >> There's some question about if I have a conflict of interest

[3:03:22] on this particular item. I would just like to speak to

[3:03:25] that. I'm a high school principal in

[3:03:27] Douglas county. I worked in the district my

[3:03:30] whole career. I raised my kids here.

[3:03:32] Unlike mayor Cavey does so properly, she works for a

[3:03:39] for-profit corporation and does contracts, there's unique

[3:03:43] entities, the state of Colorado, Douglas county and Douglas

[3:03:46] county school district which we have a ton of overlap with, we

[3:03:49] have partnerships with and so there may be times where I have

[3:03:52] a conflict of interest. Somebody mentioned we vote on

[3:03:54] the 2024 [indiscernible] which we did not.

[3:03:57] In 2022, we did. So, yes, I did vote to support

[3:04:00] something that gave me a raise. In the future, I should recuse

[3:04:03] myself from those things. That's fair.

[3:04:05] But we have two council members who are married to teachers.

[3:04:07] We have a council member who receives a paycheck from the

[3:04:09] state of Colorado. We may have another council

[3:04:11] member who may end up getting a paycheck from Douglas county.

[3:04:17] We're all connected to these community partners.

[3:04:18] There's going to be a lot of over on a lot of issues --

[3:04:22] overlap on a lot of issues. To me, this is a big long-term

[3:04:24] land use and school capital funding issue we're talking

[3:04:28] about today. And I would -- I need to

[3:04:30] represent the 12,000 people of the Meadows who have kids and

[3:04:34] who have invested into this community on this subject.

[3:04:37] If anyone could connect the dots of how I will get a big bonus

[3:04:41] from this topic of three acres of land next to Redhawk or

[3:04:46] something like that, if I ever get a raise because of this, I

[3:04:49] will be happy to donate that raise because of it.

[3:04:53] There will be issues we all have that are conflicts of interest.

[3:04:59] I don't think this is one of them.

[3:05:01] I am not going to recuse myself. >> Thank you.

[3:05:03] Council member Brooks? >> Thank you.

[3:05:05] I have my own opinions on whether you should or not that

[3:05:10] don't really matter honestly. They don't matter.

[3:05:14] However, I do think that Mr. Hyman, we were talking about

[3:05:22] the actual black and white -- like, if there's a very clear

[3:05:25] conflict, if our legal department felt that way, um, I

[3:05:29] just want to make it clear there are mechanisms by which a member

[3:05:35] can be forcefully recused but in my conversations -- and I'm

[3:05:39] going to ask legal to chime in, because, again, your opinions in

[3:05:45] some way about whether you should recuse yourself or not

[3:05:48] don't matter either. From a legal perspective it

[3:05:50] does. I would like legal to be able to

[3:05:52] weigh in on that, please. >> These are always difficult

[3:05:55] issues, because we live in the gray much of the time.

[3:06:00] And I think council member Hollingshead is correct in

[3:06:04] saying that we live in the gray. I've always taken the position

[3:06:13] in my career is the decision of recusal is council members and

[3:06:19] council members alone. Unless there's a clear, clear

[3:06:21] violation, I will not intercede. It is your call, each one of

[3:06:29] you. You all have this call.

[3:06:30] I think it's important that it remain with the people that are

[3:06:35] elected to office. >> Thank you, sir.

[3:06:39] >> Just for clarification, that was really kind of to support

[3:06:42] your decision more than anything.

[3:06:43] Not to challenge it. I wanted to make sure.

[3:06:46] >> I got you. >> Thank you.

[3:06:47] >> Thank you, David? >> Mayor and council, this is

[3:06:51] the second and final reading on the ordinance that would amend

[3:06:58] certain parts of the town code. I won't go through the

[3:07:01] presentation in full again given the hour and the issues.

[3:07:06] I think you understand the provisions of the ordinance.

[3:07:09] I would make it clear to the people that are listening to

[3:07:14] this for the first time that this doesn't change any of the

[3:07:18] designations. It establishes a process for the

[3:07:21] existing designations and future designations where we would be

[3:07:27] required to have a dialogue not only with the school district as

[3:07:31] to whether or not that future school site designation

[3:07:37] continues but also with the neighborhoods so they would have

[3:07:39] an opportunity to know about that as well.

[3:07:45] I'm happy to respond to any questions.

[3:07:47] You've seen a lot of correspondence and a number of

[3:07:51] statements made. I see this is part of the

[3:07:53] continuing dialogue on that issue.

[3:07:58] >> Mayor Pro Tem Cavey. >> Dave, I'm going to ask you

[3:08:04] the same questions I asked at the last meeting because there

[3:08:06] are people here that didn't attend the last meeting.

[3:08:15] Whether we Dez -- when we designate or a developer

[3:08:21] designated a property with a school, does that property sit

[3:08:24] with the Town of Castle Rock or sit with the school district?

[3:08:29] >> I'm going to change a little bit of your wording and

[3:08:33] substitute the word sits with with who has title to?

[3:08:37] >> Thank you. >> In this case at all times,

[3:08:41] the property is entitled to the town.

[3:08:43] The town maintains it and cleans it up.

[3:08:45] As long as the issue is on the property, those kinds of

[3:08:50] things... it mows and does whatever it needs to do in order

[3:08:53] to be able to maintain the property it owns at all times.

[3:08:56] >> It costs us money, the town and the taxpayers, to maintain

[3:09:01] those properties? >> Yes, it does.

[3:09:03] I don't want to overemphasize that but, yes, it does.

[3:09:08] We have to mow it, deal with trash and issues on the

[3:09:11] property. Absolutely.

[3:09:12] >> Then my third question that I asked last time, at any point in

[3:09:17] Castle Rock history, have we ever exchanged any money for

[3:09:22] property we own that is designated for a school and

[3:09:26] given it to the Douglas county school district?

[3:09:29] >> The answer to that question in my research is no.

[3:09:39] There is $230,000 sitting in an account that was designated for

[3:09:46] a school at Redhawk that was collected by the town for --

[3:09:58] from the developer of Redhawk but other than that, we have

[3:10:00] never received cash from a developer and we have never

[3:10:07] exchanged property except for the purpose when school

[3:10:12] districts said they were going to build a school on that

[3:10:14] property and then we [indiscernible] the property to

[3:10:20] the school. I say "we," the town council as

[3:10:25] a whole approved the deed for that.

[3:10:26] >> Thank you. >> Max Brooks?

[3:10:32] >> Mayor, thank you. Mr. Corliss, question just for

[3:10:36] clarification that this ordinance is basically just

[3:10:41] putting into motion a mechanism to review each individual

[3:10:45] property? This is not a blanket review

[3:10:47] where we're making the decision on all of the properties that we

[3:10:50] have discussed previously? Just want to make sure we're

[3:10:56] clarification that each individual property will have

[3:10:57] its own process. Is that correct?

[3:10:59] >> Council member, that is correct.

[3:11:01] We would sit down with school districts, look at the master

[3:11:08] list, have a discussion with them which properties do they

[3:11:12] see as potential school sites. I think there's some 13 of 'em.

[3:11:16] And then start that dialogue and then if there is a report back

[3:11:23] to you all, then we'll initiate the discussion about removing

[3:11:27] the designation on those in which we don't think it's ever

[3:11:29] going to be used as a school site.

[3:11:32] And then hopefully concurrent with that at some time in the

[3:11:36] future when the school district needs to build a school in

[3:11:40] Castle Rock, I think we need to have a dialogue about how we can

[3:11:45] help that school come to fruition in Castle Rock.

[3:11:49] I think the last school built in the community was 12 years ago.

[3:11:54] As you know, our growth has significantly slowed down.

[3:12:00] I didn't have the chance to say that when we had a larger

[3:12:04] audience this evening but we've done three single-family

[3:12:07] building permits last month. We're not seeing a lot of

[3:12:12] growth. We'll see some growth continue

[3:12:14] in the south part of town. At some point, Dawson trails

[3:12:19] will grow. We know that the meadows

[3:12:22] subdivision -- I'm familiar with that -- that's taken 40 years to

[3:12:24] build out. So at some point when the school

[3:12:28] district wants to talk about building a school in Castle

[3:12:33] Rock, I think we would want to be partners in regards to how

[3:12:36] that might be something we could help in regards to that as well.

[3:12:40] >> Each one of these properties that we have reviewed before

[3:12:43] that's on your list, each one of them will have its own public

[3:12:46] hearing item, correct? Where it comes to council and

[3:12:50] there'll be the opportunity for everybody to come in and give

[3:12:54] public comments and -- >> Yeah, that is correct,

[3:12:57] council member, and the predecessor to that will then be

[3:13:01] a dialogue with the school district about that site and

[3:13:04] significantly a notification to the area property owners that

[3:13:07] this issue is under consideration and when town

[3:13:12] council would be considering it. >> Council member Dietz followed

[3:13:18] by Mayor Pro Tem Cavey. >> Simply put, I like what you

[3:13:20] said there,town manager, is there'll be public comment and

[3:13:25] the public will know what is going on versus it being thrown

[3:13:29] on the consent calendar, correct?

[3:13:32] >> I would -- yeah, the ordinance provides for a public

[3:13:35] hearing -- >> Correct.

[3:13:36] >> There are processes and laws and that means that it is just

[3:13:41] that. At the public hearing, we have

[3:13:42] that and then we would need to notify an appropriate level of

[3:13:46] adjacent property owners, the neighborhood, that this

[3:13:53] particular issue is up for consideration.

[3:13:55] >> Just wanted to reiterate. Thank you.

[3:13:57] >> Mayor Pro Tem Cavey. >> One more question, Dave.

[3:14:03] If a property comes up and we go to the school district and we

[3:14:08] speak with them and they say, yes, there's still a possibility

[3:14:12] in the next say five years that we might put a school there,

[3:14:16] then we leave it designated as possible -- as a possible school

[3:14:23] and we revisit it -- and I'm making up a timeline -- in five

[3:14:27] years. We're not doing this to take

[3:14:34] property where the school district would eventually want

[3:14:39] to do a school, correct? >> That's how we've tried to

[3:14:44] design the ordinance. It continues with that

[3:14:49] continuing evaluation of the issue.

[3:14:51] >> For example, the school -- or the school -- I'm sorry, the

[3:14:57] property that has been there since 1999 In council member

[3:15:05] Brooks district, probably very high land likely where it's

[3:15:09] located that there's going to be a school in that property.

[3:15:11] >> I think that's a fair comment.

[3:15:13] I'd like to hear what the school district says.

[3:15:14] >> All right, thank you. >> Thank you.

[3:15:17] Any further questions for Dave? I have a handful of people

[3:15:24] signed up. Again, I apologize because I'm

[3:15:26] definitely out of order. Angela Thomas, please.

[3:15:42] >> Good evening, again. The more I hear about this

[3:15:45] proposal, the more I believe there's a legitimate problem

[3:15:48] here that needs to be solved. Recognizing a problem doesn't

[3:15:54] automatically mean the solution before you is the right one.

[3:15:57] Crystal valley is a good example of why we need to get this

[3:15:59] right. Land was identified and

[3:16:01] dedicated for a future school. Ultimately, that did not happen

[3:16:05] and one of the issues that appears to be emerging is that

[3:16:07] simply dedicating acreage is not enough.

[3:16:11] School land has to actually be suitable for building a school.

[3:16:15] A parcel could look adequate on a development plan and still

[3:16:18] present problems because of topography, infrastructure,

[3:16:24] access, grading costs or other site constraints.

[3:16:27] If developers are satisfying their obligation by dedicating

[3:16:29] land that the school district cannot reasonably or

[3:16:32] economically use, then, yes, we have a problem.

[3:16:33] But I'm not convinced the answer is simply to move away from the

[3:16:37] current system. The biggest issue I see here is

[3:16:40] coordination. Cass the rock approves

[3:16:42] development. Douglas county school district

[3:16:44] has to plan for the students who come with that development.

[3:16:48] Developers know what land they're proposing to dedicate.

[3:16:50] Those three parties need to be communicating before a

[3:16:55] development agreement locks everyone into a site that may

[3:16:56] not work. We shouldn't be deciding years

[3:16:58] later that the land wasn't suitable.

[3:17:03] Before changing the system, I'd like to know why the existing

[3:17:07] process failed in crystal valley.

[3:17:10] Did the town know? Did the developer know that the

[3:17:13] site wasn't workable? What safeguards could have

[3:17:15] prevented it. Growth creates children.

[3:17:17] Children require schools. Those needs should be addressed

[3:17:19] as part of planning for growth, not after the neighborhoods are

[3:17:22] built. There's a problem here we're

[3:17:23] solving. I'm simply asking council to

[3:17:27] make sure we're solving the right problem in the right way

[3:17:29] and the town and the school district are talking to each

[3:17:32] other before those decisions are made.

[3:17:33] Thank you. >> Thank you, Angela.

[3:17:35] Tony Ryan. >> Good evening, while I'm here

[3:17:46] today in my role as a school board director, I'm also a

[3:17:49] Castle Rock resident. I was incredibly fortunate to go

[3:17:52] to school through the DCSD system.

[3:17:55] I went to Cass the rock middle school and castleview high

[3:18:00] school and it was brand-new. I spent a large portion of my

[3:18:02] life here in Castle Rock. There's not a lot to do in the

[3:18:06] forest of larkspur if you're a teenager.

[3:18:11] I can remember when we had two Blockbusters.

[3:18:15] While I loved my school experiences, I had to adapt to

[3:18:18] very long bus rides to get to and from school.

[3:18:21] My family chose to live in Larkspur and wanted the

[3:18:26] spread-out neighborhood it offered.

[3:18:27] Not having a middle school and high school nearby was part of

[3:18:30] the experience that was expected.

[3:18:31] The plan for my family is different.

[3:18:32] My wife and I live in Terrain. Sage canyon elementary is a

[3:18:37] straight shot out our front door.

[3:18:39] Our children will have short bus rides to Mesa and D.C.

[3:18:43] Part of the reason we live where we do is the neighborhood has an

[3:18:47] elementary school at its center. Sage canyon was the last one

[3:18:50] built in Castle Rock. Town imaginer manager Corliss

[3:18:55] talked about that was the last one built in the district except

[3:18:57] for the two set to open next year.

[3:19:00] That's due to the school board refusing to ask for bond

[3:19:04] initiatives to build new schools here.

[3:19:05] That's why there's not a neighborhood school in crystal

[3:19:08] valley right now. Under this proposed ordinance,

[3:19:11] families in Castle Rock area would be limited to the current

[3:19:13] neighborhood schools. Some of the fastest-growing

[3:19:16] neighborhoods in Castle Rock do not have an elementary school,

[3:19:20] crystal valley as we know. Dawson's trail.

[3:19:23] These aren't areas like Larkspur.

[3:19:26] These are neighborhood developments where families

[3:19:29] expect to have groceries stores, banks and gas stations and my

[3:19:32] wife and I are excited for the Costco.

[3:19:35] This is unduly focused on the short-term when it comes to

[3:19:39] providing the same families and neighbors to access to schools.

[3:19:44] My in-laws live right next to the land in castlewood ranch.

[3:19:47] I've seen that property. I've been seeing it forever with

[3:19:51] the sign up saying there's a future high school.

[3:19:53] I've significant concerns with the ordinance and the impact on

[3:19:55] Castle Rock students and family. Strong schools aren't just the

[3:20:02] school district concern. They enhance the community's

[3:20:05] desirability and are an intrical -- the long range planning

[3:20:17] committee analyzes population trends, school facility

[3:20:19] utilization and needs and makes recommendations to board-related

[3:20:21] and school capacity and new school site locations.

[3:20:24] Members dedicate countless volunteer hours to review,

[3:20:29] refine and improve the planning and the future.

[3:20:32] Some served the district for years and understand the

[3:20:34] importance of careful and thoughtful capital

[3:20:37] infrastructure investments and land use planning as new

[3:20:40] communities develop over time. The committee considers both

[3:20:44] sites the district owns and school sites set aside for

[3:20:46] future schools. They met and reviewed the

[3:20:48] ordinance. They identified concerns.

[3:20:50] The amendments restricts the district's ability to respond to

[3:20:55] changing demographics and development shifts.

[3:20:57] School sites can't be selected based on what's best for most

[3:21:00] students because it would make it nearly impossible for us to

[3:21:04] pass the bonds necessary to build the schools.

[3:21:07] The ordinance makes it impossible to build future

[3:21:11] schools in Castle Rock. If you vote for this ordinance,

[3:21:13] you're voting for no future neighborhood schools in Cass the

[3:21:16] rock. Building new schools requires

[3:21:20] funding through a bond initiative.

[3:21:22] That takes time. The last bond that was passed

[3:21:25] was years in the making. The ordinance takes that time

[3:21:28] away. This will result in Castle Rock

[3:21:31] developments without a neighborhood school.

[3:21:32] They will never have a neighborhood school.

[3:21:35] The time constraints do not match with how long range

[3:21:38] planning works with student projections, three-year

[3:21:41] requirement and the attendance circumstances with it create an

[3:21:44] impossible task for the school district.

[3:21:46] >> Thank you, Tony. >> Thank you.

[3:21:49] >> Next I have Susan. >> Good evening.

[3:22:03] Good evening, Mayor Gray. I appreciate the opportunity to

[3:22:11] be here tonight to speak with you.

[3:22:14] I'm Susan meek, the president of the Douglas county school

[3:22:16] district board of education. And I'm here tonight in that

[3:22:19] capacity To respectfully ask to you table the ordinance 2026-27

[3:22:28] and give representatives from the town and the school district

[3:22:31] and the board an opportunity to sit down and meet directly

[3:22:37] before a final action is taken. Mayor Gray, I'd like to thank

[3:22:41] you for speaking with me and taking time today to provide

[3:22:45] some background and additional information and perspective

[3:22:49] especially around how the experience surrounding crystal

[3:22:53] valley property contributed to some of the concerns that have

[3:22:57] brought us here tonight. So I understand why that

[3:23:01] experience was frustrating for the town, for the council, for

[3:23:06] the entire community and regardless of how or why it

[3:23:11] occurred, residents should not feel surprised by decisions

[3:23:16] affecting property in their neighborhoods.

[3:23:20] I believe we share the goal of creating greater transparency,

[3:23:26] predictability and public understanding around these

[3:23:31] school-dedicated sites. At the same time, the school

[3:23:34] district has a responsibility to plan for students and

[3:23:38] communities well into the future.

[3:23:41] Neighborhoods grow, change and turn over and decisions made

[3:23:46] today about land dedicated for schools can affect our ability

[3:23:51] to serve students decades from now.

[3:23:55] Those interests do not have to conflict.

[3:23:58] Rather than allowing the difficulty surrounding this

[3:24:00] property to further strain the relationship between our

[3:24:04] organizations, I believe we have an opportunity at this moment to

[3:24:10] build a better process. The district and board would

[3:24:16] welcome the opportunity to work with the town, to work through

[3:24:23] school-dedicated property process together and develop a

[3:24:27] transparent process that gives Castle Rock residents greater

[3:24:33] certainty while preserving the district's ability to meet

[3:24:35] future educational needs. Where there are properties that

[3:24:41] clearly will not be needed for schools, let's talk about those.

[3:24:45] Where there are properties that may be important to future

[3:24:49] students, let's understand why. And let's establish a process so

[3:24:53] that neither organizations or the community is caught by

[3:24:58] surprise in the future. Our two organizations serve the

[3:25:04] same families and the same taxpayers.

[3:25:07] They should expect us to work together.

[3:25:10] The board is now directly engaged in this conversation and

[3:25:14] we would welcome the opportunity to engage directly with the

[3:25:20] council. Before taking an action with

[3:25:23] long-term implications for public assets, I believe we owe

[3:25:25] it to the community to make that effort.

[3:25:29] So tonight, my request is simple, please table the

[3:25:34] ordinance and give our two governing bodies an opportunity

[3:25:37] to meet before you make a final decision on this.

[3:25:44] A short delay does not commit either organization to a

[3:25:46] particular outcome. It simply gives us an

[3:25:49] opportunity to listen to one another, work through the issues

[3:25:53] and determine whether we could reach a solution that better

[3:25:57] serves Castle Rock's residents, Douglas county school district

[3:26:01] families. Thank you.

[3:26:05] >> Thank you, Susan. Next I have Michael.

[3:26:17] >> I'm Michael, the chair of the long-range planning committee

[3:26:21] speaking to you as an individual in the community.

[3:26:25] So as mentioned, we spend a lot of time looking at the future

[3:26:30] forecast between 0-5 and then 5-10 to assess the district's

[3:26:36] capital needs as well as growth and decline and monitor the land

[3:26:42] inventory that the district currently owns.

[3:26:46] There is precedent for municipalities to come to us

[3:26:49] with requests for alternate designations and things of that

[3:26:54] nature. I think the school board is very

[3:26:56] open to those initiatives. So I think as I heard you all

[3:27:00] describe what you're attempting to accomplish with this

[3:27:04] ordinance, I felt very aligned with the words.

[3:27:09] There are, however, issues in the details of the ordinance,

[3:27:14] specifically referring to the time frames that will make it

[3:27:17] very challenging for us to do the master capital planning

[3:27:25] process, create holistic plans for the school district more

[3:27:29] broadly as well as, you know, really, really land and

[3:27:33] effectively execute the bonds that are funded.

[3:27:37] So it definitely restricts our ability to plan for the future.

[3:27:45] I'll ask to you table that I'll also refer to a couple of have

[3:27:51] successful engagements, two school sites that municipalities

[3:28:00] approached the district about. We were able to dispose of that

[3:28:02] land in an effective manner that benefited the community.

[3:28:13] We're on board that we don't want a repeat of the crystal

[3:28:16] valley process but we also definitely think there are

[3:28:18] issues with this ordinance that will affect our ability to plan

[3:28:23] with the district and would welcome the opportunity to work

[3:28:26] more closely with this board. So thank you for your time.

[3:28:32] >> Thank you, Michael. Aaron.

[3:28:46] >> Mayor Gray and town council, thank you for having us tonight

[3:28:50] and for considering our remarks. I, too, would like to request a

[3:28:54] table of this ordinance so we can work clap brattively on --

[3:29:01] collaboratively on the ordinance so it's meeting the requirements

[3:29:06] you all have we all want to talk about school sites and having it

[3:29:09] be designated as appropriate. This ordinance gives us concerns

[3:29:13] that I'm certain are unintended consequences of the ordinance.

[3:29:15] If I could, though, I would like to start with just talking about

[3:29:20] growth in general. When somebody gets a building

[3:29:22] permit here in Castle Rock, for example, there are fees

[3:29:27] associated with growth. There are fees for police.

[3:29:29] There are fees for parks and recreation, transportation, fire

[3:29:33] and police, all of which make sense.

[3:29:35] The school district has impacts from growth as well.

[3:29:39] Needing to expand school facilities -- it's not just

[3:29:42] building new schools -- expanding new facilities, new

[3:29:47] bus routes for students, new safety measures in place,

[3:29:52] crosswalk, etc. There's a lot of school expenses

[3:29:54] that the district has because of growth.

[3:29:56] The only impact fee or the fee that a school district is able

[3:29:59] to collect is land dedicated or cash in lieu for new schools

[3:30:02] from a developer. We don't have the $1,200 per

[3:30:07] building permit or whatever it might be to impact those costs

[3:30:09] of growth. So I wanted to make sure I level

[3:30:13] set that conversation. With the ordinance in

[3:30:17] particular, our biggest concern is not so much dedicating land

[3:30:20] to open space. We want to talk to you and we

[3:30:22] want to go through our sites and we're really committed to doing

[3:30:25] that and not having any surprises or a repeat of crystal

[3:30:30] valley. The bigger issue is future

[3:30:33] schools. Because of the timelines that

[3:30:35] are put in place in this ordinance, it actually makes it

[3:30:38] impossible for us to build future schools.

[3:30:41] For example, in order to access cash in lieu and cash in lieu

[3:30:45] helps us with things like crosswalk and expanding an

[3:30:50] existing facility, expand being the parking lot, whatever we

[3:30:53] might need to do for growth, we wouldn't be able to access cash

[3:30:57] in lieu until we secured funding for literally building a new

[3:30:59] school. We also wouldn't be able to

[3:31:03] designate a site without securing funding for a new

[3:31:05] school. We can't ask the taxpayers for

[3:31:08] funding for a new school without telling them what that site is

[3:31:10] and having that site dedicated for that purpose.

[3:31:13] It puts us in a chicken and an egg kind of cycle.

[3:31:16] We are so committed to sitting down with this ordinance, with

[3:31:22] the Town of Castle Rock to red line it together to go through

[3:31:24] how can we make sure we're meeting your needs and your

[3:31:27] requirements but we're also making it realistic for us to

[3:31:32] build future schools in the Town of Castle Rock.

[3:31:36] Part of our strategic plan in the school district speaks to

[3:31:40] thriving schools and thriving communities.

[3:31:41] We all need young families to move into Douglas county in

[3:31:45] order to preserve our property values and ensure that our

[3:31:47] community thrives for many, many years to come in places like

[3:31:52] crystal valley and Dawson trail, that's going to be a difficult

[3:31:56] proposition for families when there isn't a school in

[3:31:58] proximity of that new community. They're going to pick Aurora

[3:32:03] Highlands or somewhere else that's got a school in their

[3:32:08] community. Thriving schools and thriving

[3:32:11] communities is having schools where the children are and

[3:32:13] making sure we can serve the entire community to keep it

[3:32:16] thriving for years to come. Thank you so much for listening

[3:32:19] to my remarks. I went off the cuff instead of

[3:32:22] reading my remarks. I appreciate you listening to us

[3:32:25] and considering -- all we're asking is an opportunity to sit

[3:32:26] down and red line the ordinance together so it's pragmatic for

[3:32:30] building new schools and it meets the needs of dealing with

[3:32:33] the school sites now and in the future to prevent anyone being

[3:32:37] surprised. Thank you, again, for your

[3:32:40] consideration. I appreciate all of you.

[3:32:41] Thank you for your service to our community.

[3:32:43] >> Thank you, Erin. Next, I've got Sarah.

[3:32:55] >> Hi there, I'm Sarah. I am an attorney for the school

[3:33:00] district. I just wanted -- I'm not going

[3:33:03] to reiterate everything. There's a letter that I believe

[3:33:04] you all should have received this week that outlined some of

[3:33:09] the legal concerns that we have with this ordinance that are not

[3:33:11] just for schools. You know, legal challenges and

[3:33:15] issues that will play out for your entire districts and your

[3:33:20] other communities. I urge to you take a close look

[3:33:22] at the ordinance. We want to work with you to make

[3:33:25] sure that land and fees that are dedicated through the

[3:33:27] development process are not challengeable by developers, but

[3:33:35] that they're things you can retain.

[3:33:36] We want to make sure that these fees are used for the purposes

[3:33:40] that the developers are dedicating them for.

[3:33:42] So I'll ask you just to turn to those -- to that letter and take

[3:33:45] a look at that and what we're asking you to do is to table

[3:33:49] this today. Just pause it so that those

[3:33:52] issues, legal issues and other issues that you're hearing from

[3:33:56] the district can be worked out and resolved.

[3:33:59] The district wants to collaborate and partner with the

[3:34:02] town to find ways to make sure that there is certainty about

[3:34:07] what is going to happen with these sites and to make sure,

[3:34:10] too, that these sites and the sites that are usable will be

[3:34:14] used for schools going forward. There's a few things that I want

[3:34:17] to point out. Yes, the title is with the town.

[3:34:22] The property is dedicated as part of the development and the

[3:34:26] title rests with the town, but it rests in trust for the

[3:34:29] district. It is dedicated at the time of

[3:34:33] the PV to the town to hold in trust.

[3:34:41] The developers dedicate that land and those fees to the town

[3:34:45] to hold in trust for this purpose which is for the school

[3:34:48] district. And there's case law ensuring

[3:34:51] that things that are dedicated remain dedicated that way so

[3:34:55] that there is clarity for the population when these

[3:34:58] developments are actually passed, when you go through the

[3:35:02] process like we heard today. People get certainty about what

[3:35:06] the land dedicated for and how it will be used.

[3:35:08] The next point I want to make is, yes, this is an ordinance to

[3:35:13] address a mechanism for review, and it does include a public

[3:35:15] hearing item. But I want to point out that 15

[3:35:19] days' notice to the public about the potential of losing a school

[3:35:24] site is not enough for meaningful engagement from the

[3:35:28] neighbors and the community. That's the amount in the current

[3:35:30] ordinance. That's not enough to make sure

[3:35:32] that the people who live by these schools find out about the

[3:35:36] fact that they may lose school sites in their neighborhoods and

[3:35:41] meaningfully engage. Similarly, in the ordinance and

[3:35:45] what you're hearing today is that the process for school

[3:35:48] planning is very lengthy. It is very complicated.

[3:35:51] There's a committee that looks at that.

[3:35:52] And the ordinance as it sits today provides the school

[3:35:55] district 30 days' notice before it lets the district know it is

[3:36:00] considering a site and putting it up for a hearing to remove as

[3:36:04] a school-dedicated site. That Similarly is not enough

[3:36:09] time for an organization like the district and the planning

[3:36:12] committee and everybody to take a look at that site and

[3:36:17] meaningfully confer with the town to make sure you're making

[3:36:21] thoughtful and forward thinking land planning decisions.

[3:36:24] As I mentioned before, there are other issues that are in the

[3:36:27] letter that I relayed but I do think that the school district

[3:36:30] shares the concerns that the town has expressed, transparency

[3:36:35] about what is going to happen with these sites, for a process

[3:36:38] to figure out when and how sites will be addressed that exist now

[3:36:42] that may not end up being school sites in the future.

[3:36:46] Those goals are shared. This ordinance is just not the

[3:36:49] right way to do it as it's drafted now, and the district

[3:36:53] would like to cooperate with the town to find a path forward that

[3:36:57] works for both parties. Thank you .

[3:36:58] >> Thank you, Sarah. Next I have Chris.

[3:37:13] >> Thank you, all, thank you, mayor Gray, thank you council.

[3:37:16] I'm here on behalf of myself and everybody that's hopefully in

[3:37:20] bed by now, all the students out there and future students.

[3:37:23] I'm -- I worked in Castle Rock for 16 years.

[3:37:27] I've lived in the county for 20. My kids go to school here.

[3:37:32] I'm here because I'm a subject matter expert.

[3:37:35] I've worked in the construction management world for 20 years.

[3:37:39] I've developed projects in the town.

[3:37:40] Worked with a number of the folks on staff here.

[3:37:43] I'm also currently working on about five projects throughout

[3:37:46] the state that are all school projects and I could speak --

[3:37:50] I'm here to speak specifically to the durations that I saw and

[3:37:55] read in this ordinance. I believe personally that the

[3:37:59] three years is definitely too short as mentioned.

[3:38:02] I think the counties set some precedent in what they've done

[3:38:08] recently with sterling ranch. We should look at that.

[3:38:11] I think they came into an agreement with a five-year

[3:38:14] duration which is probably more in line, but I agree with the

[3:38:17] speakers ahead of me that we need to collaborate as a team.

[3:38:23] I failed to mention I'm on the long-range planning committee

[3:38:26] which was why this was brought to my attention.

[3:38:28] We actually meet tomorrow night. Encourage anybody to attend.

[3:38:31] It's an open public meeting as well.

[3:38:33] We'd love to talk more about this subject.

[3:38:38] Little past my bed time as well. Sorry.

[3:38:41] I have a couple more things I got to get in.

[3:38:43] One of my biggest concerns as well is that this does not close

[3:38:52] the loophole that to my attention is potentially

[3:38:56] triggering this or potentially factoring into this.

[3:38:59] It was down in crystal valley ranch this property that through

[3:39:07] the development agreement was reverted back to the developer.

[3:39:09] And that was, you know, an agreement that was made by the

[3:39:13] Town of Castle Rock and that developer, not the school

[3:39:16] district. I want to make sure that you

[3:39:19] guys and the town attorney can affirm that this closes that

[3:39:25] loophole and that gap that it's meant to close, I believe.

[3:39:30] I could be wrong but I think that's probably what we need to

[3:39:35] focus on as well is how we prevent the properties being

[3:39:41] reverted back to the developer when the school district deems

[3:39:43] it surplus and unusable. Um, so I'd ask to you table this

[3:39:49] reading and direct your staff to a joint work session with the

[3:39:55] county and the school district and to get that -- make sure the

[3:40:03] [indiscernible] question is on the record before it comes back

[3:40:06] for a vote. That's all I have.

[3:40:07] >> Thank you, Chris. Christa?

[3:40:21] >> I'm Christa. I'm here as a concerned citizen

[3:40:23] recording the land ordinance. My first question is what

[3:40:27] problem are you trying to solve? I can't understand what the

[3:40:31] intended purpose of this ordinance is.

[3:40:34] However it appears the consequence unintended or

[3:40:36] otherwise of this ordinance is that the district can't build a

[3:40:40] new school in Castle Rock again. Is that the purpose?

[3:40:42] Is that the goal? I ran in the campaign advocating

[3:40:45] for the most recent bond for DCSD for the '22, '23, '24

[3:40:52] elections. Yes, it took us three times to

[3:40:55] pass a bond. That was with a clearly defined

[3:40:58] bond plan and clearly defined land areas for the new school.

[3:41:01] I could most certainly tell you they on will not pass another

[3:41:04] bond if they could not produce a dedicated site for the school.

[3:41:09] That's why we say you're basically taking away any effort

[3:41:12] in the future for a new school to be built in Castle Rock.

[3:41:20] Again, not sure if this is the purpose or an unintended

[3:41:24] consequence. I think the decision to build a

[3:41:26] new school should be up to the residents of Castle Rock

[3:41:29] whenever that time comes. I'm a volunteer of the DCSD

[3:41:33] long-range planning committee. In the master capital plan, we

[3:41:35] have four potential new elementary schools needed for

[3:41:38] Castle Rock in the next 10 years.

[3:41:41] Obviously, things could change. I'm not here sitting here

[3:41:45] advocating for new schools at this moment but shouldn't the

[3:41:48] communities have the option to build new schools for their

[3:41:50] community as needed. One of the biggest objections we

[3:41:53] heard during the bond campaign is why don't developers pay to

[3:41:56] build new schools? That's a good question but

[3:41:59] that's not how it's designed here in Colorado.

[3:42:01] What the developers are required to do is provide land or cash in

[3:42:04] lieu. This ordinance appears to be

[3:42:07] circumventing that process and taking what was intended to help

[3:42:10] DCSD with future capital needs and redirecting it as council

[3:42:14] sees fit. I'm not the lawyer.

[3:42:16] I'll let them argue the legality of that.

[3:42:17] At minimum, feels unethical. Again, I ask what problem are

[3:42:21] you trying to solve? On LRPC, we advised the board to

[3:42:30] release several areas of the ranch for the county to develop.

[3:42:40] So I join everyone tonight in asking you please reconsider

[3:42:44] this ordinance and work to find a collaborative solution to

[3:42:47] solve the problem you're looking to solve.

[3:42:49] Thank you. >> Thank you, Christa.

[3:43:06] >> Thank you tonight, city council and Mayor, for your

[3:43:10] time. I'm Rudy.

[3:43:12] I'm a 30-year resident of Highlands ranch.

[3:43:16] I've also been, maybe more importantly, a member of the

[3:43:19] school district's long-range planning committee now for

[3:43:22] almost 23 years. It really puts the "long" into

[3:43:25] my service there, I guess you can say.

[3:43:27] I'm speaking tonight as a private citizen and not as an

[3:43:32] official spokesperson. I do want to add my decades long

[3:43:35] experiences and thoughts about the proposed ordinance which I

[3:43:41] hope you'll table. My concern tonight about the

[3:43:44] ordinance is -- it doesn't work with how we do planning and how

[3:43:51] we look at things. We're all volunteers, by the

[3:43:58] way. We're really focused on

[3:44:04] capacity, buildings and sites. CBS for sure.

[3:44:07] With that, we look at it holistically across the entire

[3:44:13] district. Our district is the size of

[3:44:14] Rhode Island. We have a lot of things to

[3:44:15] consider. Our district is urban as well as

[3:44:20] rural. Hopefully you get the chance to

[3:44:21] get down to the southeast of the county where we have basically a

[3:44:24] one-room schoolhouse compared to the other bigger urban campuses

[3:44:28] we run. The proposed timelines will also

[3:44:32] going to limit future school needs.

[3:44:42] Get up to Lone Tree as soon as and visit the legacy campus.

[3:44:44] What we're doing up there is the future of education.

[3:44:46] You can't really think of education and modern facilities

[3:44:50] anymore in terms of traditional model of elementary schools,

[3:44:54] middle schools and high schools. We've got all kinds of different

[3:44:57] vehicles approaching. In fact,speaking of vehicles, a

[3:45:02] good example is the program up at legacy which is focused on

[3:45:06] turning out 11th and 12th graders that could fix electric

[3:45:10] vehicles. 23 years ago, we had no idea

[3:45:14] we'd need to have a high school program that could teach people

[3:45:18] to fix electric vehicles. We've been adding more trades

[3:45:21] programs as well too for career pathways.

[3:45:24] Recently, we opened up a brand-new center here at the

[3:45:28] Douglas county high school in the south building which focused

[3:45:32] on cosmetology, a program so in demand that for every kid who

[3:45:36] got into that program, we need two or three more seats to

[3:45:39] support that effort. This is an example where we need

[3:45:42] to plan not just for what is happening today but also the

[3:45:45] opportunities of what is going to happen down the road as well.

[3:45:50] If we put this in terms of perspective, I just want to

[3:45:54] mention how it's been going up at sterling ranch.

[3:45:56] As you may know, we're building a new school up at sterling

[3:45:59] ranch. It's the first one that sterling

[3:46:02] ranch will have as part of DCSD. We put in the last steel beam

[3:46:09] last week. It was a lot of fun.

[3:46:10] We signed the beam. They put it up in the building.

[3:46:12] To get to that point, it's taken almost 15 years.

[3:46:17] It took almost 15 years from when we first said, hey, we may

[3:46:22] need a school being built in sterling ranch to when we put

[3:46:27] the last steel beam in last week.

[3:46:28] It's also a new type of school. As mentioned earlier, director

[3:46:31] Tony was talking about going to castleview high school and what

[3:46:34] have you, I was on the committee when we were first planning that

[3:46:37] when it was a blank piece of ground.

[3:46:39] It's humorous for me to have him talk about being one of the

[3:46:42] first students there. Sterling ranch is interesting

[3:46:45] because it's also a brand-new type of school and the last

[3:46:50] school as Tony noted was also built back in 2010, actually not

[3:46:55] far from here. We thought in 2010 that that was

[3:46:57] the most amazing school design you could ever have.

[3:47:00] And today, we're building a new type of school, because things

[3:47:04] have changed. Just like we...

[3:47:09] >> Thank you. >> Thank you for your time

[3:47:11] tonight. It's been a great evening.

[3:47:15] >> If I pass over you, please approach the podium.

[3:47:26] Seeing none, we'll bring it back to town council for discussion

[3:47:28] and possible motion. >> Are.

[3:47:32] >> I move -- I move to approve the ordinance as introduced by

[3:47:37] title. >> Second.

[3:47:38] >> First by council member Dietz and second by council member

[3:47:42] Davis. Further discussion?

[3:47:45] >> No. >> Second by Max Brooks.

[3:47:50] Council member Bracken? >> I think we should hold off.

[3:47:55] I think the new information and the timeline based on the life

[3:48:00] cycle of actually selecting a school is very long.

[3:48:05] I think that the last comments that were made of the whole

[3:48:11] design and the size and the things -- legacy campus is

[3:48:17] amazing! I mean, that doesn't just happen

[3:48:24] in a three-month window or six-month window even so I think

[3:48:28] I've gotten more information tonight than even the last

[3:48:31] meeting so I'm even stronger against moving forward but,

[3:48:35] again, back to my original comments from last meeting, um,

[3:48:39] I'd like to collaborate with the school district better to be

[3:48:42] able to understand what the impacts and I just want one

[3:48:48] point of clarification. The folks that spoke keep

[3:48:51] speaking of the developers. Well, the developers by and

[3:48:59] large don't own the property. It's town owned.

[3:49:02] There's no cash in lieu to be able to shift over to the

[3:49:05] project. Developers by and large don't

[3:49:10] own the land. I just wanted that point of

[3:49:12] clarification. Those are the kind of things

[3:49:14] that I think we need to clarify what we're doing and how we're

[3:49:18] doing it based on what I heard tonight.

[3:49:20] And so I'm going to be a no vote on the proposed motion.

[3:49:25] >> Council member Brooks? >> Mr. mayor, thank you.

[3:49:29] First of all, thanks to everybody for hanging in.

[3:49:31] It's been a long evening. I appreciate you sticking around

[3:49:34] and coming up and giving your opinions and your insight.

[3:49:43] You know this process started some time ago by my

[3:49:49] understanding, a year and a half.

[3:49:51] So there has been opportunity certainly to have discussions.

[3:49:55] There's been opportunity to be able to review these items.

[3:49:58] This is not rushed. And even when it comes to each

[3:50:02] individual public item, I mean, we're not deciding what is

[3:50:07] happening with the sites tonight.

[3:50:09] That will come in the future. Each one of those sites will

[3:50:11] have its own public hearing. I think we just saw tonight that

[3:50:17] even on a notice, if there's a belief that two weeks' notice is

[3:50:21] too short, you know, we just continued an item that was

[3:50:27] originally entitled in 1983. So there are opportunities to

[3:50:29] continue. There are opportunities in each

[3:50:32] one of these discussions to be able to have collaboration, to

[3:50:35] be able to have a robust discussion.

[3:50:38] And quite frankly, I'm a little put off by what I would consider

[3:50:45] to be not just hyperbolic verbiage but wildly hyperbolic

[3:50:54] we're talking about never building another school in

[3:50:56] Castle Rock? That is not what we're

[3:51:00] discussing here. I believe that's unfair saber

[3:51:07] rattling and I reject it. We even at the beginning heard

[3:51:11] our own town manager say we look forward to being able to work

[3:51:15] with the school district in the future on future sites in Castle

[3:51:18] Rock. There will be turrents --

[3:51:22] opportunities in the future to be able to build new schools in

[3:51:25] Castle Rock. Any assertion to the contrary is

[3:51:27] just inaccurate. And then further, you know, any

[3:51:31] sort of assertion that the property that's being designated

[3:51:37] is unsuitable, that's a position that not even the school

[3:51:39] district themselves have taken. That's out of left field.

[3:51:45] So I will be supporting this tonight.

[3:51:49] I understand the difficulties that the school district is in

[3:51:54] beyond just this. And I'm not -- I'm not -- I

[3:52:00] don't have a lack of sympathy for some of that.

[3:52:08] They take on some of the most expensive students, behavioral

[3:52:12] issues, very complex medical needs and they have to serve

[3:52:15] every single kid that walks in the door.

[3:52:19] So I very much appreciate what the school district does,

[3:52:22] however this ordinance to me doesn't compromise your ability

[3:52:24] to do this. I'll be a yes.

[3:52:26] >> Thank you. Any further discussion?

[3:52:28] Mayor Pro Tem Cavey? Followed by Hollingshead.

[3:52:37] >> So I agree a lot with council member Brooks.

[3:52:40] There is no unethical behavior going on here.

[3:52:55] We want to you do something with properties but when properties

[3:52:59] sit around since 1999 and nothing's happened with it and

[3:53:02] we, the town, are responsible for the care of that property at

[3:53:07] taxpayer expense, you know, we need to have a discussion with

[3:53:11] the school district about what is going on with that property.

[3:53:41] We're not trying to take the property from you.

[3:53:44] Yes, it was spearheaded in part by the park issue.

[3:53:48] When the school board put a piece of property on the consent

[3:53:53] calendar and just threw it back over the fence with no

[3:53:58] discussion with the town, with no discussion with the people

[3:54:01] over there, with no with council, and guess who took the

[3:54:08] heat for it? We did.

[3:54:10] We had a room full of people in here that came for us saying

[3:54:15] that we as council had caused this issue.

[3:54:19] And then I want to highlight the fact that somehow in all of this

[3:54:24] the school district managed to get $500,000 from the developers

[3:54:27] on a piece of property that you didn't own.

[3:54:34] So, no. We're not trying to take

[3:54:35] anything from you. We've tried to work with you for

[3:54:40] 18 months and now all of a sudden it's a fire drill.

[3:54:48] I think we can still work together.

[3:54:52] Once again, nobody is trying to take property or say that we

[3:54:56] never want another school built in Castle Rock again.

[3:54:58] Thank you. >> Thank you.

[3:55:00] Council member Hollingshead? >> Yeah, I agree.

[3:55:04] The crystal valley property was a bad deal on all ends, all

[3:55:06] people involved. It's the only property like that

[3:55:07] in the county. I hope we're not acting based on

[3:55:10] that event. I think we've gotten the school

[3:55:13] district's attention. I think we've got an ordinance

[3:55:16] that hasn't been out there very long to review.

[3:55:19] And I think this is a great learning experience for all of

[3:55:21] us that maybe we slow down a little bit now and actually sit

[3:55:26] down with both groups and work through that ordinance.

[3:55:28] I think we can vote no on it tonight, bring back a revised

[3:55:31] version of that that is more acceptable and promotes future

[3:55:34] collaboration just by maybe -- speaking of a few things -- I

[3:55:40] feel like we're rushing through this a little bit at this point.

[3:55:42] We talked about it for 18 months.

[3:55:44] Really, we talked about this ordinance in its written form

[3:55:46] now for about a month. I think there's something to be

[3:55:49] said for waiting a few more months and actually sitting down

[3:55:52] at the table and going through some of the things -- we're all

[3:55:54] learning. This school finance stuff is

[3:55:56] super interesting. Our land use stuff is also

[3:55:59] something we all need to learn about so --

[3:56:01] >> Council member Bracken? >> Again, I think the life cycle

[3:56:04] of their process that they have to go onto a ballot, look for a

[3:56:11] bond, um, and basically find the money designated and then fund

[3:56:17] it, like, like, our process, if we're -- if we're requiring them

[3:56:23] to do that in a window that's too short for them to actually

[3:56:26] achieve it, then it's not achievable.

[3:56:28] So that's -- that's my -- that's my major concern is what I heard

[3:56:32] tonight. If it's -- if it can't fit the

[3:56:37] process, then they have to break their process to fit within our

[3:56:40] timeline and then it doesn't happen because they can't

[3:56:44] request the funding until they've identified the site and

[3:56:48] if our timeline is too tight, then it really precludes them

[3:56:53] from building their school. We're in a catch 22 in my

[3:56:55] opinion based on what I heard tonight.

[3:56:58] That's what I think about that. And to Mayor Pro Tem's point, no

[3:57:03] one is trying to -- we -- I know it's not my intent to take the

[3:57:07] land from the school. And I don't think there's -- I

[3:57:10] don't think that there's money from developers available for

[3:57:15] cash in lieu on any of the properties that I'm aware of;

[3:57:19] however, in the good spirit of trying to build schools and

[3:57:25] holding the property in a hole for you guys to file your

[3:57:30] process, I think that's important.

[3:57:32] I think we might be a little -- we might be a little rushed with

[3:57:37] unintended consequences here and so that's where I'm at.

[3:57:40] >> Thank you. Any further comment from

[3:57:46] council? I'll finish up then.

[3:57:47] You know, I -- the timeline is probably my biggest issue.

[3:57:53] I think that from talking to a few members of staff and hearing

[3:57:59] tonight, the three years, 10 years, I -- I think that's

[3:58:06] really, really pushing the limits of the school district.

[3:58:11] You know I -- I would like that -- I would like to see better

[3:58:17] communication. I know that both Douglas county

[3:58:20] school district and town council believes they try to communicate

[3:58:27] and there were times that it feels like either one didn't

[3:58:30] want to communicate a lot. And I know that could be

[3:58:33] disputed both from the Town of Castle Rock and the Douglas

[3:58:37] county school district but I mean I would like to start over

[3:58:41] and I would like to table but if this does pass tonight, I would

[3:58:47] like to -- I would like the town and the school district to talk

[3:58:52] in Ernest to try to figure out some -- talk in earnest to try

[3:58:56] to figure out some of the issues.

[3:58:57] With that, roll call, please. Excuse me, council member Dietz.

[3:59:03] >> I appreciate everyone's comments tonight.

[3:59:04] Thank you. This is an important issue, but,

[3:59:08] again, we have time. We were surprised in crystal

[3:59:10] valley. Seems like you guys are trying

[3:59:12] to buy it to build larger legacy campuses any way.

[3:59:15] How did that pertain to the property here?

[3:59:20] Future Castle Rock Town councils will have every opportunity to

[3:59:22] have citizen input way past us. So I think this is the right

[3:59:27] decision that you have to come back to town council to talk to

[3:59:31] us. Thank you.

[3:59:32] >> Thank you. Any further discussion?

[3:59:35] Roll call vote, please. >> Council member Hollingshead?

[3:59:39] >> No. >> Council member Bracken?

[3:59:40] >> No. >> Council member Davis?

[3:59:42] >> Yes. >> Council member Brooks?

[3:59:45] >> Aye. >> Council member Dietz?

[3:59:46] >> Yes. >> Mayor Pro Tem Cavey?

[3:59:49] >> Yes. >> Mayor Gray?

[3:59:51] >> No. >> Motion passes 4-3.

[3:59:53] >> Thank you. #19, discussion/direction,

[4:00:04] 2026-21, revisions on Title IX of the Castle Rock municipal

[4:00:08] code, "public peace, morals and welfare."

[4:00:14] Um, this is just discussion. There's no motion at the end of

[4:00:16] this one. Michael?

[4:00:19] >> Thank you. Thank you, mayor.

[4:00:20] Thank you, members of town council.

[4:00:23] I will try to make this as quick as possible.

[4:00:25] I know we're late. We're looking at Title IX of

[4:00:30] Castle Rock municipal code and related amendments here.

[4:00:36] This is our criminal code. No other way to say it.

[4:00:42] As the governing body of the home municipality, town council

[4:00:47] has the power to do this. Adopt ordinances necessary to

[4:00:51] protect public health, safety, welfare.

[4:00:52] 1968 was when the town council I think was Board of Trustees then

[4:01:01] first adopted title 9 to provide a comprehensive set of laws that

[4:01:07] were [indiscernible] criminal court or municipal court.

[4:01:10] A lot of the provisions are still in place.

[4:01:12] We have had 60 years of case law since then.

[4:01:16] We need to address those but haven't.

[4:01:19] So a lot of the code sections are obsolete.

[4:01:22] They require substantial revision to meet constitutional

[4:01:25] standards. So what have we done?

[4:01:30] Seeing volunteers from our own Castle Rock police department

[4:01:34] worked closely with our office, our former police legal adviser

[4:01:38] on an extensive update of Title 9.

[4:01:42] After that point in time, our chief prosecutor, Chris, as had

[4:01:49] the opportunity to weigh in as well as our outside council firm

[4:01:56] of Parker, Wilson and Carberry -- Hoffman Parker, Wilson &

[4:02:02] Carberry. They weighed in and have given

[4:02:05] their thoughts on this ordinance.

[4:02:07] Many thanks to everybody who participated in this effort.

[4:02:11] Direct those thanks to chief Cauley for me.

[4:02:16] No with that, we're ready for your -- now, with that, we're

[4:02:20] ready for your consideration. I'm just going to go through the

[4:02:23] highlights. We've added a chapter 9.01,

[4:02:27] defining terms. Defining culpable mental state

[4:02:32] that at the request of Castle Rock police.

[4:02:36] This section of the code did not have a standardized definition

[4:02:40] section. It will work better with that.

[4:02:43] We have added 9.02 kind of clarification the intent of

[4:02:47] council in adopting this code providing express authority for

[4:02:53] our police department to enforce its provision.

[4:02:58] 9.04, offenses against public peace.

[4:03:01] So we've really expanded what these code sections say.

[4:03:06] And these are just typical sections you find in any

[4:03:11] criminal code, trespassing, assault, disorderly conduct,

[4:03:15] theft. Flushing it out so we can have

[4:03:21] an ordinance that actually advises the public of what is

[4:03:26] against the law. So we are also through this

[4:03:32] section protecting our law enforcement officers as well as

[4:03:34] our citizens from those persons that chose to obey the lawful

[4:03:40] orders of a police department, instead seek to disrupt public

[4:03:43] peace. And that the request of our

[4:03:48] school resource officers, we're adding a new offense, unlawful

[4:03:52] interference with an educational institution.

[4:03:54] We need to protect our students, our teachers in the classroom.

[4:03:57] We now have that protection in this code.

[4:04:01] 9.08, offenses against property. We're expanding language here.

[4:04:09] For instance, our code prohibits damage to public property.

[4:04:16] Doesn't prohibit damage to private property.

[4:04:17] We fixed that. We added a specific offense that

[4:04:22] prohibits unauthorized connections to the property of a

[4:04:27] utility provider. I think Mr. Marlowe will

[4:04:29] appreciate that. And then we created a new

[4:04:31] section, new chapter 9.09, offenses against the

[4:04:34] administration of government. These are things like false

[4:04:39] reporting of crimes and emergency, interference with our

[4:04:43] public safety personnel. We now address those types of

[4:04:47] violations in a better manner. More thorough manner.

[4:04:53] Chapter 9.10, we discuss complicity, attempt, accessory

[4:04:58] offense, seizure -- these are adjunct offenses to the main

[4:05:05] offense. For example, we have added an

[4:05:07] offense to impose responsibility on parents and Guardians for the

[4:05:11] criminal actions of their minor children and now we require

[4:05:16] parents and Guardians to accompany their minor children

[4:05:19] to municipal court. Critical omissions we're trying

[4:05:22] to fix. 9.16 is noise control.

[4:05:25] We had a case a couple of years ago.

[4:05:34] The town now is bound according to the supreme court decision to

[4:05:40] noise levels that are set by state statutes.

[4:05:44] So we've kind of created that and recognized that decision.

[4:05:52] Unless that's fixed by the legislature, which they chose

[4:05:54] not to do this last year for some odd reason, we're stuck

[4:05:58] with that decision. Couple other things that I would

[4:06:01] highlight, we amended our general penalties section we

[4:06:08] codified the decision in the case of [indiscernible]

[4:06:14] essentially we're ensuring that penalties imposed by the

[4:06:16] municipal court do not exceed maximum penalties imposed by

[4:06:20] state law. But only where the municipal

[4:06:25] ordinance in the state starch -- statutes prohibit the same

[4:06:37] conduct. We wanted to clarify that.

[4:06:39] The penalty has gone up in years in the past to 364 days in jail

[4:06:46] and $2650 in fines we want to catch our code up to those

[4:06:53] levels and also there's been a big gap in our code about

[4:06:57] restitution, about public service.

[4:07:01] We're filling that gap now in a new section that will allow our

[4:07:04] municipal courts for restitution to crime victims and public

[4:07:12] safety agencies and order a person that's convicted of a

[4:07:15] crime to perform public service. Now, we've got a couple of

[4:07:18] requested updates. I put them in separate

[4:07:21] ordinances so that the council will have an opportunity to

[4:07:24] discuss that tonight. I would mention that council

[4:07:29] member Brooks has recommended these sections.

[4:07:33] We have those ordinances in place for you to discuss.

[4:07:36] One is the duty of the corporate energies report theft.

[4:07:40] This is modeled upon the county ordinance that was adopted.

[4:07:47] There's a duty under this ordinance to report theft, law

[4:07:53] enforcement of the corporate retailer within 96 hours of

[4:07:56] becoming aware of that. We're also making it an unlawful

[4:07:59] ordinance for that retailer to retaliate against its employees

[4:08:04] should they make that report. Also, we're looking at creating

[4:08:10] products. We've had a lot of development

[4:08:13] since 2019 when the former town council essentially prohibited

[4:08:19] sales to minors. We have a proposal to propose a

[4:08:26] blanket prohibition on the retail sales.

[4:08:28] I think we're acknowledging that ordinance more recent

[4:08:32] information from medical providers and federal agencies

[4:08:34] that indicate that kratom products create serious health

[4:08:41] and safety risks and risks for addiction.

[4:08:42] We've go that. I think our town manager has

[4:08:46] requested we also take a look at fireworks sales during a stage 1

[4:08:56] fire warning or restriction. So we're -- so that may not end

[4:09:03] up in Title 9. It's in both Title 9 and Title 8

[4:09:08] in the fireworks section but the proposal would be to ban those

[4:09:12] sales in both stage 1 and stage 2.

[4:09:16] With that, I think we could recommend that the town council

[4:09:21] move forward with the adoption of this comprehensive update.

[4:09:25] One thing I would note is that one of the more recent sections

[4:09:29] that we amended was chapter 9.06.

[4:09:33] We're actually not touching that.

[4:09:35] We may move the definitions into the general definition section

[4:09:38] but we're good there. So we're taking a look at the

[4:09:42] older sections, the ones that were done when I was seven and

[4:09:48] that's a long, long time ago. So if town council agrees, we'd

[4:09:56] like to bring forward the Title 9 comprehensive ordinance

[4:10:02] and whatever else you decide to bring forward at the upcoming

[4:10:06] meeting on September 15th so turn to you for questions and

[4:10:08] comments. >> No, I appreciate it, Michael.

[4:10:10] Since it's not going to a vote, we could give our opinions and

[4:10:14] questions right now. Mayor Pro Tem Cavey followed by

[4:10:18] council member brooks. >> Could you go to the slide

[4:10:20] that talks about retail theft? >> Yes.

[4:10:26] >> So I have a concern here. I understand what we're trying

[4:10:30] to get at, because some of these retailers kind of throw up their

[4:10:36] hands with theft and just sort of let it happen.

[4:10:40] But I also know -- and I trust our police -- and I know they

[4:10:47] have good relationships in town with our retailers.

[4:10:51] What I don't want to do is hurt the relationship between our

[4:10:56] police officers and the retailers by requiring, you

[4:11:03] know, the retailers to have to do something within 96 hours and

[4:11:10] put them at odds with our police.

[4:11:14] So that's -- that's just my overarching concern on this.

[4:11:19] I understand what we're trying to get at but I also don't want

[4:11:24] to put the police in the position where they're the bad

[4:11:26] guys with our corporate retailers.

[4:11:28] Just my comment. >> Thank you.

[4:11:33] Max Brooks? >> Mr. Mayor, I have a question,

[4:11:36] Mr. Hyman, whether this comes back to council -- when this

[4:11:38] comes back to council, will we have the opportunity at that

[4:11:41] time to vote individually on the things we want to have included

[4:11:44] or do we need to separate that if we have a loss of appetite

[4:11:47] about any particular item that we need to get that sorted out

[4:11:51] now so that way when this comes forward, you just get a "yes"

[4:11:56] vote on what we kind of agreed on.

[4:11:57] >> I would say that what I'm looking for here is just some

[4:12:01] direction from the council, not how you want to do this.

[4:12:03] So if there's a consensus to say include the additional code

[4:12:10] updates in the body of the Title 9 ordinance, we're happy

[4:12:14] to do that. Right now, I think we wanted to

[4:12:18] originally focus on the code and the update we worked on hard on

[4:12:24] as a group. That's why I split out the

[4:12:27] ordinances. So council will have the

[4:12:31] opportunity to at least discuss that tonight and give us

[4:12:35] direction to either take one ordinance, two ordinances, three

[4:12:39] ordinances, perhaps four with the fireworks.

[4:12:45] It probably would make sense to take -- I would just say the

[4:12:51] corporate reporting ordinance, kratom ordinance and fireworks

[4:12:56] ordinance separately, because there's not necessarily

[4:12:59] consensus on that. If that's council's wish, we're

[4:13:04] happy to do that. >> I think that makes a lot of

[4:13:06] sense, because I could see there's going to be some various

[4:13:10] discussion about that and various opinions on each of

[4:13:12] those so I think having that discussion as part of the vote

[4:13:17] and speaking about those individually -- I'm not a fan of

[4:13:20] the fireworks piece. So we can have discussions at

[4:13:23] that time I think probably makes a lot of sense.

[4:13:26] >> And I would just add, too, that if council would like town

[4:13:31] staff to do so, manager's office and so forth to do some outreach

[4:13:36] so -- outreach on some of these additional updates, that's also

[4:13:45] an option. Happy to do whatever you direct

[4:13:46] us to do. >> Mayor Pro Tem Cavey.

[4:13:48] >> When you say additional outreach, would that be to --

[4:13:55] like, the example I use is I don't want to put our police in

[4:13:59] a bad position with our retailers?

[4:14:04] Are we reaching out to the retailers for their opinions or

[4:14:08] the police chief and their command for their opinion?

[4:14:12] Who are we reaching out to? >> Mayor Pro Tem, I would

[4:14:17] suggest both. I don't know -- we've got -- for

[4:14:21] some reason, Pete and I are still here.

[4:14:23] We've got 3,500 business licenses.

[4:14:31] I don't know we would do that, all of them.

[4:14:33] But I mean we -- I think we can find some way to let the

[4:14:37] business community know the outlets and other places that

[4:14:41] will have that level of impact. And obviously hear it from other

[4:14:44] staff. There are -- I know there's one

[4:14:47] kratom retailer. I noticed because I did a Jersey

[4:14:52] Mike's run and there was the place right next to it that said

[4:14:56] kr atom. That reminds me we're going to

[4:14:59] talk about that. I know there's at least one

[4:15:01] retailer. I don't know.

[4:15:02] We may be able to find others quickly.

[4:15:05] Let them know, hey, we're about ready to ban that.

[4:15:07] That's probably good to do some level of outreach.

[4:15:10] I would recommend that. We haven't built that into this.

[4:15:15] You look at other stuff Mike has been working for on this

[4:15:21] ordinance. I don't think there's other ways

[4:15:23] to do outreach on some of the other topics we've got out

[4:15:25] there. Those are at least two

[4:15:27] suggestions I would have if that's something that you would

[4:15:29] want to do. They're the ones that will be

[4:15:31] impacted about this. Same thing on the fireworks

[4:15:34] sale. We know who has been pulling

[4:15:37] those permits. We can let them know.

[4:15:38] They came last time and the last time we considered doing that,

[4:15:44] the council voted against that. It's a different council now.

[4:15:54] Different experience. If you all still feel the same

[4:15:57] way, you can give us direction. >> We're ready to go with the

[4:16:06] ordinance. We plan on the next meeting,

[4:16:08] we'll start the outreach starting tomorrow.

[4:16:12] Some means of communicating that to some people.

[4:16:15] >> OK. I mean, I think it'd be good to

[4:16:17] get a good cross-section of retail businesses, small, medium

[4:16:21] and large. That kind of thing.

[4:16:22] >> Downtown merchant association, chamber of

[4:16:28] commerce. We regularly talk to the

[4:16:30] management at the outlets for example, because there's a lot

[4:16:32] of things going on there as well.

[4:16:34] Those kinds of things. But I wouldn't do it to all

[4:16:37] 3,500. It'd be too confusing.

[4:16:41] >> I get that. Yeah.

[4:16:42] >> There's a way to get that out.

[4:16:44] The kratom stuff, there's a way to find out.

[4:16:47] The fireworks stuff, we have licenses for who provided those

[4:16:51] sales last year and the last couple of years.

[4:16:52] I think we can get that out. Relatively quickly and just

[4:16:56] let 'em know, this issue is going to be considered at the

[4:17:01] next council meeting. >> Thank you.

[4:17:03] Any further questions or ideas? Seeing none, I do not have

[4:17:08] anybody that signed up to speak. If anyone wishes to speak,

[4:17:11] please approach the podium. Go up to the microphone and say

[4:17:14] if you're a resident, nonresident or business owner,

[4:17:18] you have 4 minutes to speak. Seeing none, we'll move onto #20

[4:17:22] on the agenda. Resolution Approving a

[4:17:29] Professional Services Agreement Between the Town of Castle Rock

[4:17:30] and Felsburg Holt & Ullevig, Inc., for a United States

[4:17:31] Highway 85 & Colorado Highway 86 Traffic and Safety Plan

[4:17:35] >> Thank you, mayor. Good evening, council.

[4:17:38] This is the last item. I'll try to be as brief as

[4:17:41] possible. This is an important project.

[4:17:44] This is to kick off the evaluation of safety and

[4:17:50] operation study of portions of Us-85 and highway 6 as shown on

[4:18:00] the map. This is a portion of our

[4:18:15] transition master plan that recommended a more detailed

[4:18:20] evaluation of one of the more busier corridors within the town

[4:18:22] limits. As such, the community has

[4:18:25] provided indication to us on what elements are really valued

[4:18:30] by them and what they protect from the transportation system.

[4:18:33] We keep that in mind when we're assessing these important

[4:18:37] issues. We've done that in this case.

[4:18:41] Essentially, we're trying to look at opportunities to improve

[4:18:45] safety, reliability and decrease the amount of down time

[4:18:48] associated with travel on US-85. The overall goal will be to

[4:18:57] develop projects that will address those issues that we

[4:19:02] will also prioritize against the balance of projects we

[4:19:06] identified in the transportation master plan.

[4:19:10] As part of the five-year CIP, we have a placeholder for the

[4:19:17] projects. >> Just quickly as we're going

[4:19:30] through our long-range capital budget for transportation, we're

[4:19:37] challenged by a couple of things.

[4:19:38] We want to get the results of this study.

[4:19:41] Very important to see if there's going to be new capital projects

[4:19:44] in this area but we're also challenged by the fact with

[4:19:48] growth slow down, we have a slow down in our impact revenues that

[4:19:53] go into the transportation capital fund.

[4:19:56] We're not -- the projects are increasingly expensive.

[4:20:00] We're not sure exactly how we're going to be able to get at some

[4:20:04] of the projects here in the next five years but we do want to

[4:20:06] provide that capacity in this area.

[4:20:07] >> That's right, so we'll be continuing those discussions on

[4:20:10] priorities if council wants to implement it with every annual

[4:20:16] budget and development and adjustment to the five-year CIP.

[4:20:20] We did receive a decent amount of proposals with this because

[4:20:23] this is a system that's owned and operated by the state.

[4:20:27] We're required to utilize their procurement process that doesn't

[4:20:33] necessarily look at low bids. It looks at different criteria

[4:20:36] as outlined on the screen. FHU rose to the top as being the

[4:20:43] most qualified to being able to move forward with this scope of

[4:20:46] work. We do have an allocated budget

[4:20:48] this year of $750,000. The contract would be for just

[4:20:52] under $700,000. We're asking for the balance of

[4:20:55] the budget to be utilized for contingency.

[4:21:00] This is a high level overview of the overall project schedule.

[4:21:05] We anticipate it'll be close to a year to complete the

[4:21:09] evaluation. We'll have a final draft report

[4:21:12] ready for approval by Fall of next year.

[4:21:18] We just took this to the commission last night.

[4:21:22] They unanimously recommend that town council approve the

[4:21:25] contract with Felsburg, Holt and Ullevig.

[4:21:31] Happy to answer any questions. >> Mayor Pro Tem Cavey?

[4:21:37] >> I'm sorry, it's late. What does c-dot have to do with

[4:21:41] this? >> It's their road.

[4:21:42] It's their road. >> Oh, OK.

[4:21:44] Sorry. I'm tired.

[4:21:46] I'm tired. Um, I'm not going to start.

[4:21:54] >> We understand. >> Any other questions for Dan

[4:21:58] or our staff? Council member Hollingshead?

[4:22:00] >> Last night at public works, I think they asked a good question

[4:22:03] about how they look at the next 20 years of growth, not just in

[4:22:06] Douglas county but in Albert county and that's a connector.

[4:22:09] Can you speak to how important this road is to that?

[4:22:13] >> Yeah, absolutely. I mean, because this is a

[4:22:15] regional infrastructure that's owned by the state, it's much

[4:22:20] broader than in the town and what is taken into consideration

[4:22:27] is we've master planned all the projects that accommodate full

[4:22:33] growth of the town. C-dot also looked at with this

[4:22:40] corridor t needs to serve the -- it needs to serve the growing

[4:22:44] region beyond us. As part of this effort, there'll

[4:22:45] be a regional model update that essentially takes all of the

[4:22:51] surrounding growth of region into consideration as part of

[4:22:52] the evaluation to make sure we're trying to account for what

[4:22:57] that growth might be looking like in the corridor area.

[4:22:59] I think that's what you're referring to, council member

[4:23:01] Hollingshead, as far as the discussion last night.

[4:23:05] It's a good reminder we're just looking -- we're not just

[4:23:09] looking at the boundaries of Castle Rock but the overall

[4:23:13] regional aspects. >> Thank you.

[4:23:18] Any further discussion? No one is assigned to speak.

[4:23:25] If anyone wants to speak, go to the podium and speak into the

[4:23:30] microphone. You have four minutes to speak.

[4:23:32] Seeing none, we bring it to town council for a possible motion

[4:23:37] and/or discussion? >> Motion to approve.

[4:23:39] >> Second. >> First by council member

[4:23:41] Brooks, second by Mayor Pro Tem Cavey.

[4:23:44] Any discussion? Roll call vote.

[4:23:49] >> Council member Hollingshead? >> Yes.

[4:23:51] >> Council member Bracken? >> Yes.

[4:23:55] >> Council member Davis? >> Yes.

[4:23:57] >> Council member Brooks? >> Yes.

[4:24:02] >> Council member Dietz. >> Yes.

[4:24:10] >> Mayor Pro Tem Cavey? >> Yes.

[4:24:14] >> Council member gray? >> Yes.

[4:24:18] >> Motion passes uManessly -- unanimously.

[4:24:22] >> Thank you everybody for all of your hard work.

[4:24:24] Have a good night. We're adjourned.

Town Council on 2026-09-01 6:00 PM - Published August 27, 2026 at 5:12 p.m.

Agenda

Transcript