Whitelaw, III v. Denver City Council

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2017COA47

Court of Appeals No. 16CA0920
City and County of Denver District Court No. 15CV32427
Honorable Shelley I. Gilman, Judge

Arthur Keith Whitelaw, III; John DeRungs; Katherine K. McCrimmon; Laura
Pitmon; Denise Sigon, f/k/a Denise L. Sager; Alan Singer; and Rita Singer,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

Denver City Council, including the individual Council members in their official
capacity, Albus Brooks, Charlie Brown, Jeanne Faatz, Christopher Herndon,
Robin Kniech, Peggy Lehmann, Paul López, Judy H. Montero, Chris Nevitt,
Debbie Ortega, Jeanne Robb, Susan Shepherd, and Mary Beth Susman;
Manager of Community Planning and Development, Brad Buchanan, in his
official capacity; Denver Planning Board, including the individual Board
members in their official capacity, Andy Baldyga, Jim Bershof, Shannon
Gifford, Renee Martinez-Stone, Brittney Morris Saunders, Joel Noble, Susan
Pearce, Arleen Taniwaki, Julie Underdahl, Frank Schultz, and Chris Smith;
City and County of Denver; and Cedar Metropolitan LLC,

Defendants-Appellees.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED

Division I
Opinion by JUDGE TAUBMAN
Navarro and Plank*, JJ., concur

Announced April 6, 2017

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Gregory J. Kerwin, Denver, Colorado, for
Plaintiffs-Appellants

Kristin M. Bronson, Denver City Attorney, Nathan J. Lucero, Assistant City
Attorney, Tracy A. Davis, Assistant City Attorney, Denver, Colorado, for
Defendants-Appellees Denver City Council, including the individual Council
members in their official capacity, Albus Brooks, Charlie Brown, Jeanne Faatz,
Christopher Herndon, Robin Kniech, Peggy Lehmann, Paul López, Judy H.
Montero, Chris Nevitt, Debbie Ortega, Jeanne Robb, Susan Shepherd, and
Mary Beth Susman; Manager of Community Planning and Development, Brad
Buchanan, in his official capacity; Denver Planning Board, including the
individual Board members in their official capacity, Andy Baldyga, Jim Bershof,
Shannon Gifford, Renee Martinez-Stone, Brittney Morris Saunders, Joel Noble,
Susan Pearce, Arleen Taniwaki, Julie Underdahl, Frank Schultz, and Chris
Smith; and City and County of Denver

Foster Graham Milstein & Calisher, LLP, Chip G. Schoneberger, Katherine
Roush, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellee Cedar Metropolitan LLC

*Sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice under provisions of Colo.
Const. art. VI, § 5(3), and § 24-51-1105, C.R.S. 2016.
¶1 In this C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) action, plaintiffs, Arthur Keith

Whitelaw, III; John DeRungs; Katherine K. McCrimmon; Laura

Pitmon; Denise Sigon, formerly known as Denise L. Sager; Alan

Singer; and Rita Singer (the neighbors), seek judicial review of the

rezoning decision of defendant Denver City Council.1 We affirm.

I. Background

¶2 Defendant Cedar Metropolitan LLC (Cedar) applied to rezone

the 2.3-acre “Mt. Gilead Parcel” located at 195 S. Monaco Parkway,

on the southeast corner of Crestmoor Park in east Denver (the

parcel). To build an age-targeted2 apartment complex on the site,

Cedar sought to tear down a blighted church on the site and rezone

1 The neighbors’ notice of appeal also names as defendants the
individual Council members in their official capacity, Albus Brooks,
Charlie Brown, Jeanne Faatz, Christopher Herndon, Robin Kniech,
Peggy Lehmann, Paul López, Judy H. Montero, Chris Nevitt, Debbie
Ortega, Jeanne Robb, Susan Shepherd, and Mary Beth Susman;
the Manager of Community Planning and Development (Brad
Buchanan, in his official capacity); the Denver Planning Board
(including the individual members in their official capacity,
Andy Baldyga, Jim Bershof, Shannon Gifford, Renee Martinez-
Stone, Brittney Morris Saunders, Joel Noble, Susan Pearce, Arleen
Taniwaki, Julie Underdahl, Frank Schultz, and Chris Smith); and
the City and County of Denver.
2 According to the June 2015 hearing record, Cedar applied to

rezone the site in October 2014 to build this “age-targeted” housing.
“Age-targeted” is a marketing term developers use to describe
residents who are empty nesters or aged forty-five and older.
1
 the parcel from E-SU-DX (single-family home) to S-MU-3 (allowing

three-story apartment buildings).

¶3 The neighbors are property owners who live in the Crestmoor

Park neighborhood located near the parcel. They challenged efforts

by Cedar to rezone the parcel. They asserted that rezoning would

harm their property values, create traffic and parking problems,

cause hazards to pedestrians, and degrade the character of the

surrounding neighborhood. In June 2015, after an eight-hour

hearing where the City Council heard comments from the public

both in support of and against the rezoning, the City Council

changed the zoning designation to S-MU-3.

¶4 The neighbors then challenged the rezoning in district court.

Their complaint asserted a claim for judicial review under C.R.C.P.

106(a)(4) of the decisions of the City Council, the Denver Planning

Board, and the Community Planning and Development Department

(CPD) relating to the rezoning of the parcel. The neighbors also

asserted a claim for declaratory relief concerning (a) the City’s policy

and practice of not considering traffic and parking impacts in the

rezoning process; (b) the City’s implementation of the Protest

Procedure in the Denver City Charter and Denver Zoning Code

2
 (DZC); (c) the conflicts created by campaign contributions to

Council members from Cedar’s lobbyist seeking Council approval of

Cedar’s proposed zoning change; and (d) whether the rezoning

constituted unlawful spot zoning. The district court rejected all of

the neighbors’ claims.

¶5 On appeal, the neighbors challenge the City Council’s approval

of Cedar’s requested rezoning under C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4). They assert

various claims, including violation of their right to due process.

While the neighbors mention in their briefs an appeal of the court’s

denial of their claim for declaratory relief, we do not address it,

since the neighbors have only raised such a claim in a cursory

manner; indeed they did not cite C.R.C.P. 57 in their appellate

briefs. See People v. Gingles, 2014 COA 163, ¶ 29, 350 P.3d 968,

973 (citing People v. Wallin, 167 P.3d 183, 187 (Colo. App. 2007))

(declining to address arguments presented in a perfunctory or

conclusory manner).

II. Due Process Violation

¶6 The neighbors contend that the City Council violated their

rights to due process in five ways. We disagree and address each

contention in turn.

3
 A. Standard of Review and Preservation

¶7 In a Rule 106(a)(4) proceeding, our review is limited to whether

the governmental body’s decision was an abuse of discretion or was

made in excess of its jurisdiction, based on the evidence in the

record before that body. C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4)(I); Verrier v. Colo. Dep’t

of Corr., 77 P.3d 875, 879 (Colo. App. 2003); see also Alpenhof, LLC

v. City of Ouray, 2013 COA 9, ¶ 9, 297 P.3d 1052, 1055. An

agency’s misinterpretation or misapplication of governing law may

constitute an alternative ground for finding an abuse of discretion

under C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4). See Roalstad v. City of Lafayette, 2015

COA ¶ 13, 363 P.3d 790, 793.

¶8 Because an appellate court sits in the same position as the

district court when reviewing an agency’s decision under C.R.C.P.

106(a)(4), appellate review of the district court’s decision is de novo.

Alward v. Golder, 148 P.3d 424, 428 (Colo. App. 2006) (citing

Thomas v. Colo. Dep’t of Corr., 117 P.3d 7 (Colo. App. 2004)). The

rezoning of an individual parcel is a quasi-judicial decision by the

City Council. Cherry Hills Resort Dev. Co. v. City of Cherry Hills

Village, 757 P.2d 622, 625-26 (Colo. 1988). Quasi-judicial decision-

making requires notice and an opportunity to be heard as a matter

4
 of “fundamental fairness to those persons whose protected interests

are likely to be affected by the governmental decision.” Id. at 626.

We affirm a rezoning decision unless the governmental entity

exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion, which occurs if

the body misapplied the law or no competent evidence supports its

decision. Alpenhof, ¶ 9, 297 P.3d at 1055. “No competent

evidence” means that the decision is “so devoid of evidentiary

support that it can only be explained as an arbitrary and capricious

exercise of authority.” Canyon Area Residents v. Bd. of Cty.

Comm’rs, 172 P.3d 905, 907 (Colo. App. 2006) (quoting Bd. of Cty.

Comm’rs v. O’Dell, 920 P.2d 48, 50 (Colo. 1996)). While

interpretation of a city code is reviewed de novo, interpretations of

the code by the governmental entity charged with administering it

deserve deference if they are consistent with the drafters’ overall

intent. Alpenhof, ¶ 10, 297 P.3d at 1055.

¶9 The neighbors preserved all of the issues below by raising

them in their Rule 106 petition.

B. Ex Parte Communications

¶ 10 The neighbors assert that Sean Maley, a lobbyist for Cedar,

communicated with Council member Mary Beth Susman, the

5
 Council member in whose district the parcel lies, through her

private e-mail account and by phone prior to the public hearing.

They also suggest that Maley had similar communications with

other Council members. The neighbors contend that the failure to

disclose these communications to the public prior to the hearing

deprived them of their due process rights since they did not receive

notice and opportunity to rebut the information on which the

Council may have impermissibly relied in making its

determination.3

¶ 11 Acting as quasi-judicial decision-makers, city council

members are entitled to a “presumption of integrity, honesty, and

impartiality.” Soon Yee Scott v. City of Englewood, 672 P.2d 225,

3 The neighbors assert that if we do not vacate the rezoning on the
basis of the ex parte communications, we should reverse and
remand because of the district court’s erroneous discovery rulings,
which blocked the neighbors from obtaining documents and
deposition testimony about the alleged prejudicial effect of these
communications. However, “[r]eview of a governmental body’s
decision pursuant to Rule 106(a)(4) requires an appellate court to
review the decision of the governmental body itself rather than the
district court’s determination regarding the governmental body’s
decision.” IBC Denver II, LLC v. City of Wheat Ridge, 183 P.3d 714,
717 (Colo. App. 2008) (citation omitted). Accordingly, our review is
based solely on the record that was before the City Council. A
remand for further discovery is not permitted under a C.R.C.P. 106
claim if that evidence was not a part of the record in the first place.
6
 227 (Colo. App. 1983). Thus, while it is true that parties to an

administrative hearing should have the opportunity to be

confronted with all facts that influence the disposition of a case,

there must be substantial prejudice that is shown to invalidate an

agency action in order to rebut this presumption. L.G. Everist, Inc.

v. Water Quality Control Comm’n of Colo. Dep’t of Health, 714 P.2d

1349, 1352 (Colo. App. 1986) (citing Mobile Pre-Mix Transit, Inc. v.

Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 618 P.2d 663 (Colo. 1980)).

¶ 12 Here, despite extensive evidence consisting of approximately

fifty pages of e-mails that form the basis of their allegation of

prejudice, the neighbors pointed to no evidence of e-mails or

telephone conversations that had a substantial prejudicial impact

on the outcome of the proceeding. In fact, Council member Susman

ultimately voted against the rezoning. Nothing in the record

suggests that she disclosed any prejudicial communications to

other Council members who voted in favor of rezoning, either.

Further, the district court, in its detailed and thorough order, noted

that the record established that Council member Susman reiterated

in her e-mails to several people, including one to former Council

member Susan Barnes-Gelt, that she had a duty to remain

7
 impartial. Thus, the record shows that, despite the neighbors’

claims that Susman encouraged others to vote in favor of the

rezoning while she voted against it,4 the neighbors have not

rebutted the presumption that Susman acted impartially. The

neighbors’ claims, based solely on the hearsay e-mail from Barnes-

Gelt, are insufficient to rebut the presumption.

¶ 13 Therefore, we conclude that because the neighbors have not

overcome the presumption of integrity, honesty, and impartiality,

and have shown no prejudice from the communications, the City

Council did not violate their due process rights. See Soon Yee Scott,

672 P.2d at 227.

C. The Planning Board Conflict of Interest

¶ 14 The neighbors also assert that their due process rights were

violated due to the involvement of Jim Bershof, Cedar’s architect

and a member of the City’s Planning Board, in the application

process. The City’s Planning Board recommended that the City

4 The neighbors cite to an e-mail from Barnes-Gelt that said she
heard that Council member Susman was not supporting the
rezoning, but had been letting others know that she would be
comfortable if it was approved. Besides the fact that this
information is hearsay within hearsay, in her response, Council
member Susman clearly dismissed such gossip and recognized her
duty to be impartial.
8
 Council approve the rezoning application. Bershof submitted the

application to the Board, but he did not attend or vote on the

rezoning. The neighbors claim that their due process rights were

violated because Bershof’s connection to the Board imbued every

member with an inherent conflict of interest when they voted, as

quasi-judges, on their own colleague’s rezoning request. For the

reasons discussed below, we do not address this claim.

¶ 15 Denver Revised Municipal Code (D.R.M.C.) section 12-44

specifically provides:

Any planning board member having a financial
interest in any measure before the board shall
not participate in the consideration of such
measure as a board member nor vote on such
measure, but the board shall have authority to
grant a hearing to such member in the
capacity of or as an applicant, subject to the
board’s bylaws and rules and regulations
governing such hearings.

Bershof complied with this requirement by not attending the

Planning Board meeting or otherwise participating in the decision.

Regardless, whether section 12-44 creates or allows an

impermissible conflict of interest among the Planning Board

members is not subject to judicial review under Rule 106, which

9
 limits our review to decisions of governmental bodies or officers

“exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions.” C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4).

¶ 16 According to the zoning code, Planning Board members only

make recommendations to the City Council on rezoning

applications. See DZC § 12.4.10.4(E). A division of this court

considered a similar issue under the Cherry Hills Municipal Code in

Buck v. Park, 839 P.2d 498, 500 (Colo. App. 1992). The plaintiffs in

that case sought judicial review under C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) of a

recommendation by the Cherry Hills Planning and Zoning

Commission to deny their rezoning application. Id. at 499. The

division held their claim unreviewable because the Cherry Hills

Municipal Code permitted the Commission only to make a

recommendation, while the final decision was reserved for the City

Council. Id. at 500.

¶ 17 Likewise, we conclude that the Planning Board’s

recommendation on a proposed rezoning application is not

appealable because it is not a “final decision” reviewable under

C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4). According to the DZC, a decision by the City

Council on a rezoning decision may be appealed to the district

court. § 12.4.11.5. Nowhere does the DZC refer to the Planning

10
 Board’s recommendation on a proposed rezoning amendment as a

“decision.” Rather, the code refers to a “recommendation” by the

Planning Board and a “[f]inal [d]ecision” by the City Council.

§ 12.4.11.3. The Planning Board’s recommendation is only an

intermediate step in the review process, which concludes with the

City Council’s decision to approve or deny the proposed rezoning

amendment. The DZC explicitly states that only the City Council is

responsible for “final action” on a proposed rezoning amendment.

§ 12.2.1.2. Therefore, Rule 106(a)(4) affords no jurisdictional basis

to review Planning Board recommendations.

¶ 18 The neighbors contend that, regardless, the Planning Board’s

recommendation is an essential step of the process warranting

review under Rule 106(a)(4). However, our review is still limited to

decisions of governmental bodies or officers “exercising judicial or

quasi-judicial functions.” C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4). While the neighbors

argue that the Planning Board could not function as a neutral

decision-maker due to Bershof’s participation, we conclude, by

language of the DZC, that the Planning Board does not sit as a

quasi-judicial decision-maker, nor are its recommendations an

exercise of a quasi-judicial function. Its recommendation is only

11
 that, while the City Council holds the power to make a final

decision on the recommendation of the Planning Board.

¶ 19 Accordingly, we do not review this claim.

D. Irrelevant Political Factors

¶ 20 The neighbors next argue that their due process rights were

violated because certain City Council members’ comments at the

public hearing reflected “flawed quasi-judicial decision making” and

showed that they “relied on irrelevant factors and information

outside of the hearing record” in arriving at their decisions.

¶ 21 Quasi-judicial decision-makers are required to base their

decisions on relevant review criteria and the evidence in the

administrative record. See, e.g., Snyder v. City of Lakewood, 189

Colo. 421, 425, 542 P.2d 371, 374 (1975), overruled on other

grounds by Margolis v. Dist. Court, 638 P.2d 297, 299 (Colo. 1981).

Again, the City Council’s decision must be upheld unless no

competent evidence in the record supports it. City & Cty. of Denver

v. Bd. of Adjustment, 55 P.3d 252, 254 (Colo. App. 2002).

¶ 22 As we discuss in Part III below, the neighbors fail to

demonstrate a lack of competent evidence supporting the City

Council’s ultimate decision or that any individual Council member

12
 relied on factual information outside the hearing record or ignored

the record evidence in casting his or her vote. Rather, the record

shows that the City Council’s approval of the proposed rezoning was

consistent with the City’s adopted plans, as required by the DZC,

and the Council considered the public health, safety, and general

welfare.

¶ 23 The neighbors even acknowledge that, in explaining their votes

in favor of rezoning, City Council members relied on the provisions

of the adopted plans. For example, Council member Chris Nevitt

said that the adopted plans encouraged preservation of old

neighborhoods and struck a balance between preservation and

prevention of sprawl. He also noted that, consistent with the

adopted plans, the proposed new housing complex was along a

transit route. Council member Albus Brooks also discussed

whether the “existing site” reflected “the context.”

¶ 24 We therefore conclude that competent evidence in the record

supports the City Council’s rezoning decision such that the

neighbors have failed to rebut the presumption of integrity, honesty,

and impartiality in favor of the City Council’s decision.

13
 E. The Protest Petition Procedure

¶ 25 The neighbors next assert that their due process rights were

violated because the City Council stepped outside of its neutral,

quasi-judicial role and supported Cedar by improperly applying the

protest petition procedure of the Denver City Charter.

¶ 26 Section 3.2.9(E) of the Denver Charter outlines the protest

petition procedure. If opponents of a City Council action gather

signatures from property owners representing twenty percent or

more of the land area within 200 feet of the perimeter of a proposed

rezoning, then the rezoning must pass the City Council by a super-

majority (ten members). In calculating the land area, the City

included City-owned land, including the portion of Crestmoor Park

within the 200-foot protest petition area.

¶ 27 Opponents gathered only enough signatures to represent

seventeen percent of the perimeter zone and thus failed to trigger

the requirement of a super-majority. The rezoning passed by an

eight to four vote. The neighbors argue that the City improperly

applied the protest procedure by including the park land but not

allowing any procedure for residents to obtain petition signatures

from the City. The neighbors request that we hold that the City

14
 must either (a) exclude City-owned park land from the protest

petition area or (b) create a procedure to allow citizens to obtain

protest petition signatures from City representatives for City-owned

park land.

¶ 28 Cedar and the City Council respond that the City Council

properly followed the holding in Burns v. City Council, 759 P.2d 748

(Colo. App. 1988), in which a division of this court interpreted

charter section 3.2.9(E) to require inclusion of all City-owned land

in the calculation of the 200-foot protest petition area.

¶ 29 We agree with Cedar and the City Council and conclude that

Burns properly interpreted this ordinance to include all land in the

200-foot area irrespective of ownership.

¶ 30 In Burns, a division of this court held that “[t]he charter and

ordinance provisions that the protest area be defined as ‘the area to

a distance of 200 feet from the perimeter of the area proposed for

change’ are clear, plain, and unambiguous; accordingly, they must

be applied as written.” 759 P.2d at 750. The division further held

that, as a result, the City’s inclusion of City-owned streets in its

computation of the protest area was neither arbitrary nor

15
 capricious; consequently, it was not erroneous. Id. (citing Pfaff v.

City of Lakewood, 712 P.2d 1041 (Colo. App. 1985)).

¶ 31 In calculating the land area here, the City Council likewise

included all City-owned land within the 200-foot protest petition

area. Because this calculation was in accordance with the plain

language of charter section 3.2.9(E), as interpreted in Burns, this

method of computation was not arbitrary or capricious.

¶ 32 As for the neighbors’ second claim requesting that we either

create a procedure to allow citizens to obtain signatures from City

representatives or compel the City to create such a procedure, we

have no authority to do so. Further, the record reflects that the

neighbors contacted the director of the City’s Parks Department and

requested that she sign the petition but that she had “refused to

take sides on the matter.” Her refusal to sign did not effectively

foreclose the neighbors’ opportunity to meet the requirements of the

protest petition procedure.

¶ 33 In conclusion, the City did not err in its calculation of the

protest petition area.

16
 F. Campaign Contributions

¶ 34 The neighbors next contend that their due process rights were

violated because some Council members received “substantial”

political contributions from lobbyists and, therefore, were biased in

the rezoning vote. They assert that, based on City of Manassa v.

Ruff, 235 P.3d 1051 (Colo. 2010), and Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal

Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009), “[t]hese fundamental protections of

neutrality and fairness also apply to non-judicial decision-makers

acting in a quasi-judicial capacity,” Manassa, 235 P.3d at 1057,

and therefore, quasi-judicial decision-makers should be held to the

same judicial canons as judges.

¶ 35 However, we conclude, as did the district court, that our

review of this proceeding under Rule 106(a)(4) is limited to the

record that was before the City Council. Because evidence of the

contributions was not in the record before the Council and the

neighbors first raised this issue in the district court, we may not

review it. Further, the neighbors did not address this issue on

appeal in connection with their declaratory relief claim. We thus do

not review this challenge to the Council members’ roles as neutral,

17
 quasi-judicial decision-makers because it is based on facts outside

the record of the Rule 106 proceeding.

III. Compliance With the Zoning Code

¶ 36 The neighbors next contend that we must vacate the rezoning

decision because, as a matter of law, the rezoning does not comply

with the City’s zoning ordinance; specifically, the rezoning is not

consistent with the City’s adopted plans, no specific circumstances

justified the rezoning, and the rezoning fails to further the public

health, safety, and general welfare. We disagree.

¶ 37 In this case, the City Council must abide by the DZC, which

requires that a proposed rezoning be consistent with the City’s

adopted plans and further the public health, safety, and general

welfare. § 12.4.10.7. There must also be specific “[j]ustifying

[c]ircumstances” warranting the rezoning. § 12.4.10.8.

¶ 38 The City Council approved rezoning of the parcel as S-MU-3.

The parcel is bounded on the east by South Monaco Parkway.

There are multi-family apartments situated across the street from

the parcel. The parcel is bounded on the south by a day-care

establishment and one single-family home, on the north by

rowhomes, a City-owned parks maintenance facility and portions of

18
 Crestmoor Park, and on the west by rowhomes and other portions

of Crestmoor Park. The Crestmoor Park neighborhood lies to the

west and south of Crestmoor Park and is zoned as single family.

South Monaco Parkway is a “residential arterial street.”

¶ 39 In its February 2015 Staff Report and Recommendation

submitted to the City Council, the CPD found that the rezoning was

consistent with many of the strategies of the Denver Comprehensive

Plan 2000. Specifically, it found that the rezoning met the

“Environmental Sustainability Strategy . . . by promoting infill

development within walking distance of a mixed use area (Lowry

Town Center) and commercial arterial (Alameda).” The CPD also

noted that the proposed “three-story multi-unit residential

development” was “consistent with similar multi-unit residential

development across South Monaco Parkway while providing a

height limit of three stories, compatible with nearby zone districts

for single-unit residential development.”

¶ 40 The CPD, moreover, found that the proposed rezoning met the

“Neighborhood Strategy . . . by providing the opportunity for a range

of housing types in this neighborhood.” Finally, the CPD found that

the parcel was a reinvestment area within an area of stability

19
 because it “currently has a deteriorating and poorly maintained

church.” It indicated that the proposed rezoning would “encourage

reinvestment into the neighborhood, and provide[] a buffer between

single-unit residential development within the Crestmoor

neighborhood to the east and the additional development and

activity along South Monaco Parkway.” The CPD added that the

proposed rezoning would further the public health, safety, and

general welfare of the City and encourage reinvestment in the area

by “removing a structure on site that has been poorly maintained

for many years.” The CPD reiterated its findings at the June 2015

hearing before the City Council.

A. Standard of Review

¶ 41 The same standard of review outlined in Part II.A applies to

this claim.

B. Applicable Law

¶ 42 Under the DZC, the City Council may approve a rezoning

proposal that the City Attorney has determined is not a legislative

rezoning if the proposed rezoning complies with the following

criteria: (1) the proposed rezoning is consistent with the City’s

adopted plans; (2) the proposed rezoning results in uniformity of

20
 district regulations and restrictions; (3) the proposed rezoning

furthers the public health, safety, and general welfare; (4)

circumstances justify the proposed rezoning; and (5) the proposed

rezoning is consistent with the description of the applicable

neighborhood context and the stated purpose and intent of the

proposed Zone District. §§ 12.4.10.7-.8. A justifying circumstance

exists when “[t]he land or its surrounding environs has changed or

is changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to

encourage a redevelopment of the area or to recognize the changed

character of the area.” § 12.4.10.8(A)(4). Only two planning

guidelines apply to the parcel in this case: the Denver

Comprehensive Plan 2000 (2000), https://perma.cc/QUU7-VGUL

(Plan), and Blueprint Denver (2002), https://perma.cc/SE82-M676.

¶ 43 The DZC also notes, “The Suburban Neighborhood Context is

characterized by single-unit and multi-unit residential, commercial

strips and centers, and office parks. . . . Multi-unit residential and

commercial uses are primarily located along arterial and collector

streets.” § 3.1.1.

¶ 44 Enacted in 2000, the guiding principles and policies

established in the Plan (as well as those in Blueprint Denver) form

21
the basis for the goals and recommendations of subsequent City

plans. The Plan identifies numerous goals, including environmental

sustainability, adopting effective land use policies, preserving

Denver’s legacies such as tree-lined streets, and improving Denver’s

neighborhoods. The Plan identifies several strategies to meet these

goals, including the following:

• Environmental Sustainability Strategy 2-F: “Promoting infill

development within Denver at sites where services and

infrastructure are already in place”;

• Land Use Strategy 3-B: Managing growth and change

through effective land use policies, including “encourag[ing] quality

infill development that is consistent with the character of the

surrounding neighborhood; [and] that offers opportunities for

increased density”;

• Neighborhood Strategy 1-E: “Modify[ing] land-use regulations

to ensure flexibility to accommodate changing demographics and

lifestyles,” and “[a]llow . . . a diverse mix of housing types and

affordable units”; and

22
 • Neighborhood Strategy 1-F: Investing in neighborhoods “to

help meet citywide goals and objectives for a range of housing types

and prices, community facilities, human services and mobility.”

¶ 45 The City Council also adopted Blueprint Denver “to implement

and achieve the vision outlined in Plan 2000.” Blueprint Denver, at

3.

¶ 46 According to Blueprint Denver, which is considered a

“supplement” to the Plan, “Arterials are designed to provide a high

degree of mobility and generally serve longer vehicle trips to, from,

and within urban areas.” Id. at 51. “Denver’s arterial system

interconnects major urban elements such as the central business

district, employment centers, large urban and suburban

commercial centers and residential neighborhoods.” Id. “Arterial

streets serve a city-wide function and are, therefore, designated

using a broader city-wide perspective.” Id.

¶ 47 Blueprint Denver also identifies “Areas of Change” and “Areas

of Stability.” Id. at 120, 127. The parcel here is located in an Area

of Stability directly adjacent to an Area of Change. An Area of

Stability aims to “maintain the character of these areas yet

accommodate some new development and redevelopment to prevent

23
 stagnation.” Id. at 5. Like the Plan, Blueprint Denver identifies

numerous strategies to meet this goal. These include: (1)

“[a]ddress[ing] incompatible zoning and land use issues”; (2)

“[a]ddress[ing] edges between Areas of Stability and Areas of

Change”; and (3) encouraging “[d]iversity of housing type, size, and

cost.” Id. at 25. Blueprint Denver explicitly identifies a “regulatory

toolbox” to help implement these strategies in an Area of Stability.

See id. at 123. One such “tool” is the use of zoning amendments to

“create a better match between existing land uses [in an area] and

the zoning.” Id. at 124.

¶ 48 Blueprint Denver divides Areas of Stability into “committed

areas” and “reinvestment areas,” although it does not identify these

areas on a map. Id. at 123. It defines reinvestment areas as

“neighborhoods with a character that is desirable to maintain but

that would benefit from reinvestment through modest infill and

redevelopment or major projects in a small area.” Id. at 122.

Indicators of reinvestment areas within an Area of Stability include

“deteriorated and poorly maintained housing stock,” “inappropriate

land uses or inadequate buffering between uses,” “lack of curbs,”

and a need to maintain affordable housing. Id. at 122-23.

24
 C. Analysis

¶ 49 The district court found that the record supported the City

Council’s determination that Cedar’s proposed rezoning was

consistent with both the Plan and Blueprint Denver. We agree with

its analysis.

¶ 50 First, the rezoning is consistent with the objectives and

strategies of the Plan and Blueprint Denver. As the CPD found and

some City Council members noted during the June 2015 hearing,

the proposed rezoning allows for infill development along a

residential arterial and near a commercial arterial, which ensures

the availability of transit and other services. Other members also

noted that the proposed Cedar rezoning was not too far outside the

character of the neighborhood and it created diversity of housing

stock in the area — which, as Council member Nevitt noted, is

needed as Denver continues to grow, bearing in mind that the

preservation of old neighborhoods is still valuable while preventing

sprawl.

¶ 51 Further, the rezoning would revitalize the parcel, which

contained a “deteriorating and poorly maintained church” and thus

could be characterized as a reinvestment area in an Area of

25
 Stability, despite the absence of a specific map designation.5

Moreover, because the parcel is on the edge of an Area of Stability,

with multi-family buildings across South Monaco Parkway in an

Area of Change, the rezoning would, as some City Council members

noted, “address the edge” to the west and create a “buffer” between

South Monaco Parkway and the Crestmoor neighborhood.

¶ 52 Second, we agree with the district court that competent

evidence in the record supports the City Council’s determination

that the rezoning furthers the public health, safety, and general

welfare. As noted by the district court, the CPD presented evidence

to the City Council showing that the “redevelopment of the site

removes a poorly maintained structure, improves character along

Monaco, and residents have access to recreation, jobs and

commercial activities.” The evidence also indicated that the

rezoning would increase public safety because of the addition of

new sidewalks.

¶ 53 The neighbors argue, however, that the City Council refused to

consider the adverse traffic and parking consequences of the

5 At oral argument, counsel for the neighbors stated that building
has now commenced on the site pursuant to the plan approved by
the City Council.
26
 rezoning when it considered whether rezoning would further the

public health, safety, and welfare. The City responds that adverse

traffic and parking consequences are not a mandatory aspect of its

calculus when considering a rezoning.

¶ 54 We agree with the district court that the consideration of the

public health, safety, and welfare criterion may, in certain

instances, include a review of issues relating to traffic and parking.

See Town of Grand Lake v. Lanzi, 937 P.2d 785, 789 (Colo. App.

1996). Further, section 12.4.10.4(G)(2) of the DZC mandates that

the City Council shall consider “any other comments received” at a

public hearing on a proposed zoning amendment, which, in this

case, would include comments related to traffic and parking. We

conclude that the City Council considered comments concerning

the traffic and parking consequences of the rezoning.

¶ 55 As the district court recognized, the record shows that several

City Council members stated that the “major issue” was traffic and

transportation and that they “need[ed] to address it.” The City

Council members acknowledged that Cedar had altered its original

plans to address parking and traffic concerns by reducing the

number of units built, increasing the number of parking spaces,

27
 and altering the entrances to the complex to avoid disrupting

quieter streets. Therefore, we conclude that the City Council

sufficiently considered the traffic and transportation consequences

of the proposed rezoning.

¶ 56 Finally, competent evidence exists in the record to support the

City Council’s conclusion that justifying circumstances existed for

the rezoning. As noted above, the DZC provides that a justifying

circumstance exists when either the land or its surrounding

environs have changed or are changing. § 12.4.10.8(A)(4). The

neighbors assert that “land” refers to the overall neighborhood

itself, rather than the parcel subject to rezoning. The City argues

that “land” refers to the parcel.

¶ 57 Like the district court, we defer to the City’s interpretation for

two reasons. First, we may defer to a government body’s

construction of the code, as long as it is reasonable; however, we

are not bound by it, since our review of such code provisions is de

novo. See City of Commerce City v. Enclave West, Inc., 185 P.3d

174, 178 (Colo. 2008). Further, in reviewing the agency’s

construction, we apply the basic rules of statutory construction.

28
 See McCarville v. City of Colorado Springs, 2013 COA 169, ¶ 15, 338

P.3d 1033, 1037.

¶ 58 We conclude the City Council’s interpretation is persuasive,

because if “land” referred to both the parcel subject to rezoning and

the surrounding neighborhood, then the term “surrounding

environs” would be superfluous. See Doubleday v. People, 2016 CO

3, ¶¶ 19, 20, 364 P.3d 193, 196 (When interpreting a statute, the

court “read[s] statutory words and phrases in context” and

“construe[s] them according to the rules of grammar and common

usage.” It “must avoid constructions that would render any words

or phrases superfluous or lead to illogical or absurd results.”).

¶ 59 Here, both the parcel and its surrounding environs have

changed. Since Blueprint Denver was adopted, the church on the

parcel deteriorated. At the June 2015 hearing, commentators

observed that the church was blighted. Additionally, the area

around Monaco Parkway has developed significantly. These

changed circumstances were raised at the hearing before the City

Council. We thus conclude that the City Council relied on

competent evidence to determine that rezoning was in compliance

with justifying circumstances.

29
¶ 60 Based on the evidence in the record, we conclude that the

neighbors have failed to demonstrate that the determination of the

City Council was an abuse of discretion. The lengthy deliberations

show that Council members discussed the criteria and evidence in

the record, including testimony presented by both opponents and

proponents at the hearing. Therefore, the neighbors have failed to

demonstrate that the City Council’s approval of the proposed

rezoning was arbitrary and capricious, see Puckett v. City & Cty. of

Denver, 12 P.3d 313, 314 (Colo. App. 2000), and they have not

overcome the presumption that the City Council’s decision was

proper. Lieb v. Trimble, 183 P.3d 702, 704 (Colo. App. 2008).

IV. Unlawful Spot Zoning

¶ 61 The neighbors’ final contention is that the rezoning constitutes

impermissible spot zoning because it did not further Denver’s

comprehensive plans and thus was an abuse of discretion. We

disagree.

A. Standard of Review

¶ 62 The same standard of review outlined in Part II.A applies to

this claim.

30
 B. Applicable Law

¶ 63 Spot zoning examines “whether the change in question was

made with the purpose of furthering a comprehensive zoning plan

or [was] designed merely to relieve a particular property from the

restrictions of the zoning regulations.” Clark v. City of Boulder, 146

Colo. 526, 531, 362 P.2d 160, 162 (1961) (rezoning of part of a

planned residential area to allow a gas station was arbitrary). In

other words, spot zoning “creates a small island of property with

restrictions on its use different from those imposed on the

surrounding property.” Little v. Winborn, 518 N.W.2d 384, 387

(Iowa 1994) (citation omitted). If the rezoning is for the purpose of

furthering a comprehensive zoning plan or based on changed

conditions, the rezoning is not spot zoning. See King’s Mill

Homeowners Ass’n v. City of Westminster, 192 Colo. 305, 312, 557

P.2d 1186, 1191 (1976); see also 3 Arden H. Rathkopf & Daren A.

Rathkopf, Rathkopf’s The Law of Zoning and Planning § 41:8 (4th

ed. 2016). Likewise, reclassifications when the “new use is

consistent with others in the surrounding area” or where a rezoning

will “allow multifamily residences within a single family zone” are

also generally permissible. 3 Rathkopf & Rathkopf, § 41:8.

31
 C. Analysis

¶ 64 Here, as discussed above and shown on various maps

considered by the City Council, the rezoning is not out of character

with the adjacent area. Instead, it furthers the goals of both the

Plan and Blueprint Denver. It “address[es] the edge” of an Area of

Stability where hundreds of multifamily units are located directly

across the street in an Area of Change. The approved rezoning also

creates a “buffer” between South Monaco Parkway and the

Crestmoor neighborhood. In addition, it will increase the “diversity

of housing” choices. Finally, Blueprint Denver expressly recognizes

rezoning as one “tool” for use in Areas of Stability like the

Crestmoor neighborhood. Blueprint Denver, at 124. Rezoning is

consistent with and contemplated by the adopted plans.

¶ 65 Despite the neighbors’ assertion that the parcel is in the

middle of a single-family neighborhood, the parcel’s surrounding

properties, including immediately adjacent properties, contain a

variety of different zoning designations, including the same S-MU-3

zoning. In fact, the property directly to the parcel’s south has the

same S-MU-3 zoning. The properties across South Monaco

Parkway are zoned R-2-A, a classification that permits multi-unit

32
 homes. The property directly east of the parcel is home to a

number of apartments. Only the property immediately to the

southwest is zoned for single-family houses. Thus, rezoning the

parcel to S-MU-3 is in line with the zoning restrictions of the

surrounding properties.

¶ 66 We conclude that the new zone designation is consistent with

the surrounding areas and does not constitute spot zoning. See 3

Rathkopf & Rathkopf, § 41:8.

V. Conclusion

¶ 67 Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

JUDGE NAVARRO and JUDGE PLANK concur.

33