To:  yemi.mobolade@coloradosprings.gov

​

CC:  william.gray@coloradosprings.gov, dave.donelson@coloradosprings.gov, travis.easton@coloradosprings.gov, achalfin@krcc.org, akeith@kktv.com, andy.koen@koaa.com, asack@kxrm.com, breeanna.jent@gazette.com. chelsea.brentzel@krdo.com, jcole@fox21news.com, kblanco@kktv.com, krdonews@krdo.com, kyle.clark@9news.com, larry@coloradosun.com, lmartin@kktv.com, lyn.onofre@krdo.com, mary.shinn@gazette.com, news@cpr.org, news@fox21news.com, news@kktv.com, news@koaa.com, news@krcc.org, newsroom@coloradosun.com, newsroom@denverpost.com,, newstips@9news.com, newstips@denver7.com, oliviaprentzel@coloradosun.com, radionews@krdo.com, s.harrison@krdo.com, talkshow@aol.com, tips@kdvr.com, tips@thefp.com, westsidewatchcos@gmail.com

​

Subject:  Arrowswest Development:  Will Mayor Mobolade fulfill his campaign promise?  The courts and the residents have spoken.

​

Dear Mayor Mobolade,

​

During your campaign, you were interviewed by Andrea Chalfin with KRCC in which she asked about the 2424 development on Garden of the Gods which City Council denied due to public safety risks, and the courts upheld that decision noting the testimony by Councilmembers that show development at that location violates 7.1.103.A (formerly, 7.5.603.B) that zoning changes cannot be detrimental to the public health and safety calling out the following testimony: 

"Three of the five councilmembers who voted to deny the application explicitly cited public health and safety as the basis for their decisions:

1. Councilmember Skorman: “I can’t support this kind of a dense project right now in our WUI for health and safety reasons.” 

2. Councilmember Dave Donelson: “One of the criteria we must base our decisions on is that it is not detrimental to public health and safety . . . . [T]his isn’t just another infill site . . . it’s one with a real history . . . [a]nd the real history is we had a big fire here not long ago right next to it.”

3. President Strand: “[O]ne of the criteria is health and safety. . . . I’m going to keep my foot on the pedal as best as I can to make sure that we keep our promises to our City to keep everybody safe.”

​

Ms. Chalfin asked you, "This also plays into the development question, right? And you know, you've talked a lot about responsible growth and in terms of high density development, mixed use and so forth, there are a number of proposals in some of our most at-risk areas. And I'm wondering how you feel about developments on the west side, for instance, where it is some of the most at-risk areas."

​

You responded, "...Now let's talk about 24-24. Yeah, I'm an economic developer. I'm for growth that is responsible. I am for growth that is sustainable. I am for growth that is intelligent. I do want to see us tackle our affordable housing project. I do want to see development. I do want to see info, I do want to see density cuz that's how we solve those problems. But in this issue, the residents have spoken, they have voiced their concern that maybe the time is not now. Maybe we need to look at a different pocket of the city for that development. And so as mayor, that was one of those areas, the 24-24 project that I believe demands the mayor's attention, demands the mayor's visibility. The mayor needs to show up. And that's an opportunity where I will be leaning into."

​

Will you be fulfilling your campaign promise that you need to show up and protect the citizens who clearly heard this and voted for you thinking you would protect their public safety?

​

In addition to your campaign promise regarding development at this dangerous chokepoint, below is a concise list of reasons to stand-up and tell your planning department both the courts and the people have spoken:

​

1.  City Council ruled on the 2424 Project (directly across the street from this proposed development) that any increase in density at the corner of 30th St. and GOG Rd would be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare. The City Council's decision was upheld by the District Court and the Court of Appeals. City officials took an oath of office to uphold the law. The rezone will not comply with 7.1.103.A (formerly, 7.5.603.B) of the rezone criteria. The city planner should not approve this project.

 

2.  The Project has asserted that the rezone will comply with the Hillside Overlay standards. However, in fact, the Project does not comply with 10 of the Hillside Development Ordinances, nor does it comply with 20 of the Hillside Development Guidelines (HDG). The current average height of the buildings running along GOG Rd are 23 feet tall, this Project proposes 38-foot-tall buildings which do not fit in with the surrounding area. The HDG are to reduce height and density the closer the developments approach the hillside. The 38-foot-tall buildings will block the silhouette of the hillside from the public right-of-way on GOG Rd, which is a major violation of the HDG. The significant increase in density is also a major violation of the HDG. City Council rejected the 2424 Project for these reasons and it’s decision was upheld by the District and Appellate Courts.

 

3.  The Parkland Dedication Ordinance (PLDO) requires 5.5 acres of land for every 1,000 residents.  The current Level of Service (LOS) for our Foothills area is 2.0 acres per 1,000 people which is the worst LOS in Colorado Springs for a mature area.  The Project Statement indicates the residents in these 222 units will have easy access to the existing parks. The closest Neighborhood Park is the Mountain Shadows Park which is 1.9 miles away.  The PLDO Criteria Manual indicates Neighborhood Parks are "walk-to" parks - "Every residence should have reasonable access to a Neighborhood Park". Most people will agree that 1.9 miles is not reasonable. The very poor PLDO LOS was a third reason that the City Council disapproved of the 2424 Project.

 

4.  On 3/20/23, a Neighborhood meeting with the City’s OEM and Police at the Fire Station #18 was held to discuss evacuation planning.  The OEM/police disclosed that their method of traffic management for an evacuation is decided in a meeting where attendees provided their personal ideas.  They do not use, nor are they authorized to use modeling tools, such as those used by FEMA which show where traffic chokepoints will occur and the optimal locations for contraflow.  The 2012 Waldo Fire was the worst fire in Colorado’s history – so bad that the President of the U.S. visited the Mountain Shadows Community, the heart of the fire which burned 347 homes to the ground, killed two people, damaged hundreds of other homes, evacuated over 32,000 people, and caused “a devastating blow to our collective sense of safety and security” (RE:  https://www.cspm.org/cos-150-story/waldo-canyon-and-black-forest-fires/).  A photo from the Waldo fire was presented to City Council during the 2424 Project, taken from I-25 looking west over Woodmen Rd at the intersection of Corporate Dr.  This was the merge point at the end of the contraflow.  The photo shows 2 lanes of contraflow from the west along with 3 lanes of normal flow from the west.  Traffic management had to alternate stopping the two outbound flows in order to merge the contraflow traffic back onto the normal eastbound lanes.  According to evidence gathered by the Mountain Shadows Action Team from interviewing residents along Woodmen Rd, the alternate stopping of the traffic caused a 2.7 mile backup, to at least, the entrance of the Peregrine subdivision. Additionally, the neighbors said that the traffic was so bad that traffic from secondary roads could not enter onto Woodmen Rd. – these are known as chokepoints.  When this information was conveyed to the OEM/Police during the Neighborhood meeting, the response was; “We know we could have done better”.  Without the proper modeling tools to help OEM/Police to scientifically identify chokepoints and contraflow locations, along with at least a 15% growth since the 2012 Waldo fire, evacuation conditions have been exacerbated making it even more detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare.  Under 7.1.103.A (formerly, 7.5.603.B), this project does not meet the criteria to rezone.  The city planner must stop this project.

 

The city planner’s first and foremost responsibility is to uphold city code.  As demonstrated in this document, there are an overwhelming number of violations that are justifiable in stopping the Arrowswest development.  Will you be telling the city planner that they cannot approve this project because of the public threat to your constituents as you campaigned you would do?

​

Sincerely, 

[Insert Name]

​

​

​