| District | Name | 7.A. Should Community Planning and Development include regional park planning in its scope of work? Yes/No | 7.B. Why? |
| 1 | Amanda Sandoval | No | I believe that regional park planning should live within Denver Parks & Recreation’s purview. |
| 1 | Sarah Truckey | Yes | Community planning should encompass the needs of the community in each area. We should always listen to the individuals and families most directly impacted first, before deciding what is best for their neighborhoods. |
| 2 | Kevin Flynn | No | Should be led by parks and recreation but with collaboration by CPD. CPD should not take this scope away from P&R |
| 3 | Jamie Torres | No | I’m willing to hear more but I currently wouldn’t want this oversight moved from Parks and Rec. |
| 4 | Tony Pigford | Yes | Land use is all connected. In order to build 15-minute neighborhoods where everyone has access to parks, homes, and core services, the planning of both development and parks shouldn’t be siloed but integrated with each other. |
| 5 | Amanda Sawyer | No | Parks are exclusively under the purview of Denver Parks & Recreation and CPD has enough work on its plate without taking on another agency’s workload. CPD staff does not have the expertise needed to plan regional parks and they should leave that work to the experts in DPR. |
| 5 | Michael Hughes | Yes | There are so many examples of topics that are siloed in one agency but require cross-agency engagement – parks/planning is just one — planning/transportation, public safety/parks/planning — we need a city administration that will break down these silos and we need staff who will work outside their own agency to advance the public good |
| 6 | Paul Kashmann | Yes and No | It would seem to make sense that DPR and CPD work together on park development, but the lead should be DPR. |
| 7 | Nick Campion | I would need more information about this topic in order to give a proper response. | |
| 7 | Adam Estroff | Overall, comprehensive city plans should include all facts of city life – including regional parks. I would love to talk more about subregional plans and how we can implement them in an inclusive, efficient way. | |
| 7 | Guy Padgett | Yes | At a minimum, Denver Parks and Recreation should be consulted by CPD whenever long-term planning or large-scale projects are being considered. Reciprocally, DPR should maintain situational awareness as development changes the character of the neighborhoods that it serves. More generally, this is the kind of de-siloing I would like to see happening across our city government. But specifically, this would help encourage the thoughtful planning of outdoor spaces that, as discussed earlier in this questionnaire, are so vital to the health and vibrancy of our city. |
| 7 | Arthur May | Yes | Parks are an important part of the community where neighborhoods gather. Changes may not involve the park itself but it places in the role on the gathering of the overall community. |
| 8 | Shontel Lewis | Yes | community planning and developmental success often needs to extend beyond just the boundary of the neighborhoods in which we live. |
| 9 | Candi CdeBaca | Yes | Because otherwise it’s an afterthought. |
| 10 | Margie Morris | Yes | park planning is just as important to ensuring we are fostering community while parallel to building affordable housing. |
| 10 | Noah Kaplan | Yes | To increase synergy and robust, comprehensive approaches to city planning, CPD should include regional park planning in its scope of work. But currently, the workforce capacities of that office and its challenges with satisfying its already strained office do not allow for confidence in its ability to adequately incorporate parks into its scope. Therefore, we must work to increase the staffing, accountability, and accessibility in CPD to effectively administer and operate the city’s significant land use concerns. |
| 10 | Shannon Hoffman | Yes | Yes, of course. Development is the technical, permitting and review processes needed for development. Planning is our visioning process that needs to lead development, not the other way around, so of course this area needs to consider parks and spaces that should be left open to care for our planet, air, water, and mental and physical health. |
| At-Large | Sarah Parady | Yes | Development of complete neighborhoods is incomplete without the provisions for parks. |
| At-Large | Marty Zimmerman | Yes | If CPD can address their permitting backlog, then yes. Because parks and open spaces are vital to our physical, mental and emotional health as individuals, neighborhoods, communities, and our City. |
| At-Large | Penfield Tate III | Yes | I have been one of the leaders fighting to protect the conservation easement on the former Park Hill Golf Course. The legal issues notwithstanding, I strongly believe parks enhance the livability of a neighborhood and our city. As we continue to grow and grow more densely, open space must be an integral part of all of the planning done for the development of our community. |
| At-Large | Jeff Walker | No | Community Planning and Development has focused on the use of private and public land. Establishing new parks, allocating resources and programming is a different activity than CPD is designed to manage. That responsibility could be transferred to CPD, of course, but chains of command, the administration of park space and permitting for uses could slow down CPD’s already backlogged system of reviewing and approving permits for structures and their uses. |
