Sept. 9 GLO Park Meeting Recap

Nearly 100 people showed up to learn more about the state's new proposal

First, as always, thank you SO MUCH for taking the time to engage with your community. Nearly 100 people showed up to the meeting to learn more about the state’s housing proposal where the GLO Park labs were previously going to be built. Dozens of you signed up for public comment. And everyone, even with very strong feelings, was respectful and gave everyone a chance to voice their opinions on the housing project.

Presentation from the Governor’s Office

The meeting started with Lu Cordova from Governor Polis’ office providing background information and an update about the project. The state released it’s Request for Qualifications (RFQ), which you can read here, at the beginning of September.

The northwest corner of Camp George West was originally going to be developed into renewable energy labs, otherwise known as the GLO Park. There was a land swap several years ago that ultimately resulted in the state getting the Camp George parcel; Jefferson County Open Space getting more land on South Table Mountain for trails and a parking lot; and the federal government getting the site of the former minimum-security prison on South Golden Road.

This plan started during the Biden administration, but as the Trump administration rolled back support for renewable energy, NREL could no longer move into the GLO Park buildings. At the same time, private industry was also no longer interested in moving into the buildings, particularly without NREL’s presence.

The GLO Park labs were now in limbo for an unknown amount of time. So the state began to rethink labs and housing to figure out what could be accomplished.

Lu acknowledged that given the lack of infrastructure and land’s location in a floodplain, this was a “low feasability” project. One person attended a site visit at the beginning of September. She characterized the RFQ as a way to see what’s possible before coming to the community, and that the project was very much up in the air.

In my personal opinion, that’s not the impression that the RFQ leaves. It has a very ambitious construction timeline and is extremely detailed, so it felt a bit disingenuous to say that. That’s just my two cents.

Lu did also reference possible federal government funding for community improvements, but that seemed contingent on housing actually getting built.

Lu did want to make sure everyone had her contact information. Her email is lu.cordova@state.co.us.

Community Feedback

To make sure everyone had a turn to speak, you had to sign up for public comment before the meeting began and were limited to three minutes. (Thank you to everyone who let me cut you off at three minutes without getting upset)

29 people made a comment, which echoed many concerns that have been brought up by the community in surveys, as the board has door knocked, and at the state’s last presentation to the county commission.

The themes I heard over and over were:

• The renewable energy labs were a good compromise.

  • They were only going to be occupied during the weekdays. Apartment buildings have many more people 24/7.

  • Renewable energy is a compelling research cause to many community members.

• Why give up on the renewable energy labs so quickly? It makes Governor Polis feel like a fair weather supporter of renewable energy. Political tides will change and we will lose the unique opportunity of co-locating the labs right next to NREL.

• Camp George West is one of the very few open spaces that is easily accessible to Pleasant View residents. It is already a valuable asset in its current state. And, the renewable energy labs would have incorporated the open space and allowed the use of parking on the weekends.

• People were disappointed this was not going to be affordable housing. Neighbors are well aware of the housing crisis and could have been more amenable to apartments that are specifically for low-income folks. It seems like all the current housing being built is luxury and extremely expensive.

• There won’t be any benefit to Pleasant View since we won’t receive property taxes. The district will receive no additional revenue but will still have to provide services to hundreds of new residents.

• Pleasant View desperately needs better infrastructure. The traffic on South Golden Road is at a crisis point. There are very few safe sidewalks and much of the community has no sidewalks at all. Biking and walking are dangerous and the bus is infrequent, so people are forced to drive and it’s feeling impossible to do that now too.

• Utilities were also a major concern brought up by multiple residents. Lena Gulch already floods the neighborhood downstream. The property in question is in a floodplain. There are no sewer or water connections to the property. The fire department is already stretched thin.

• It’s presumptuous of the state to describe the land in the RFQ as “under-utilized” and to describe the project as providing the community with a great asset when the community wasn’t consulted on the switch and has made it clear they don’t want it changed to housing.

• The switch of the proposal from labs to housing without consulting the community first feels like a bait and switch from the state government.

I did also really appreciate Bruce’s perspective. Bruce is a community member who works at NREL. He wants to live in Pleasant View, but was not able to find an affordable place to live.

I think this is a really important perspective to consider, because many many people want to be part of our community but simply can’t afford it. I have only lived here for five years and already could not afford to buy my house today if I had to. There are so many people that just weren’t lucky enough to move in earlier.

It is incredibly difficult to stand up in front of a room of people who don’t agree with you and speak vulnerably. People like Bruce and are housing crisis are why I’m glad there is more housing being built in Pleasant View. If we build more housing, housing will become more affordable. Demand is way surpassing supply currently, which is making housing costs high.

This project is complicated for me, because I feel strongly that we need more housing because everyone deserves a place to live. The community deserves to be involved in any changes in plans. And as development is inevitable, it’s also really important to me that we keep Camp George West as undeveloped as possible.

I don’t think the land swap should have happened in the first place, and now that the project has morphed into something very different, I want to protect the limited green space Pleasant View has. I want to make sure you all know where I stand as well, and I’m always happy to talk through complicated issues more.

How to get your questions answered

If you signed into the meeting and left your email address, you should have gotten an email from me already with Lu Cordova’s contact information.

If you haven’t received that email, I made a typo or misread your handwriting. You can reach Lu at lu.cordova@state.co.us.

Please reach out to me as well at lauraforpleasantview@gmail.com if you need anything at all!

What did I miss?

I’m sitting down to write this almost a week later, so if I’ve missed anything or misinterpreted anything, please reach out to let me know! This recap is based on my personal notes and recollection of the meeting and doesn’t necessarily reflect the metro district, fire department, or the board’s opinions.

Additional Context/Background Information

Please refer to these earlier posts for more background information about the project proposal and community involvement to date.