FACT CHECK: The Appeal of the Raven Hills HOA @ City Council

Kris Anderson presented to City Council on Tuesday, April 11th an appeal requesting City Council reverse the decision of the city's Planning Commission and deny the permit issued for 50 Mikado Dr. E. Ms. Anderson spoke as a Board member and identified herself to be representing the Raven Hills Homeowners Association. 

Those asking City Council to deny the appeal in support of the conditional use permit believe there were numerous false statements made in Ms. Anderson's presentations of information, both to the Planning Commission and to City Council, and now to the Members of the Raven Hills HOA. For the purpose of advocating for a discussion based on facts, a selection of Ms. Anderson's falsehoods and misrepresentations are addressed and dismantled, supported by citations, as detailed below. Statements by Ms. Anderson are quoted directly from her comments and presentation, which was recorded on video, to City Council: 

1. Ms. Anderson has represented both to City Council (video) and to the community (email text and attachment) that "clearly over 80%" of the Raven Hills community was opposed to the conditional use permit for the purpose of the home child care. 

This is demonstrably false. If you visit the City's website, and view the agenda housed within the meeting details for the City Planning Commission's initial review of the permit on March 8th (video)(minutes), you can find every single letter that was sent to the Planning office about this project. You'll find that just 37 homes sent letters of opposition, which were collected by the Planning office prior to the permit being reviewed by the Planning Commission. There are 220 homes in Raven Hills. 37/220= just 16% of Raven Hills felt strongly enough about this child care to send a letter of opposition (and that's *after* their campaign and emails urging people to send their opposing statements to the city. Prior to their email blast on December 8th, just 11 homes had vocalized concern to the city planning office. That's just 5% of Raven Hills.)

2. Ms. Anderson told City Council that "a dozen people showed opposed" to the permit at the Planning Commission meeting. 

Actually, three people spoke in opposition at the Planning Commission meeting: Greg Anthony, Kris Anderson, and Patrick Misnick, who spoke by phone and asked the Commission to table the item (minutes).

3. Ms. Anderson at the City Council meeting made numerous false claims about the number of children that would be present at 50 Mikado Dr. if her permit was upheld. She stated "up to 20 kids could be at that house". She said, "(This permit would allow her) to take unlimited special skills children". 

This is factually inaccurate. Ms. Warren was permitted to care for a total of 8 children: 6 full time + 2 part time. Her new permit would allow her to add four more children, and increase up to 12. The permit is for 12 children. Period. (Colorado Springs home daycare permit definitions.)

4. Ms. Anderson stated, "A traffic study was not completed. The planner was not even aware of this. (The traffic engineer) stated one was never done." 

According to multiple city employees at the City Council meeting, the city planning office sent Ms. Warren's permit application to the Traffic Engineering Division. The Traffic Engineering Division analyzed it to see if the proposed permit would generate a traffic impact warranting a traffic study. The Traffic Engineering Division found it would not. Ms. Anderson's insistence that a "traffic study" is "required" is based in an apparent misunderstanding of the city's conditional use checklist. (video)

5. Ms. Anderson stated Ms. Warren had "no license on file - required for more than 4 kids". 

This is not correct. Ms. Warren has always held the required license (at the state level) and permit (at the city level) for her work. Further, Ms. Warren was considered "license exempt" by the state due to the manner in which she provided care, per Section 7.701.11: Licensing Exemptions in the Department of Human Services Social Services Rules.

6. Ms. Anderson claimed Ms. Warren was under investigation for "too many children," however she admitted at the City Planning Commission meeting that this was stemming from complaints she filed herself (video). 

Further, Ms. Warren was able to present to City Council that she was NOT under investigation. (video)

7. Ms. Anderson claimed Ms. Warren had "no fire evacuation plan". 

As Ms. Warren told City Council, has multiple safety plans, including fire evacuation plans, and has completed FEMA training. Her permit was also reviewed for fire safety by the city in the permitting process, and they returned no comments of concern. (video)

8. Ms. Anderson claimed "no health and safety inspections," and later claimed, "she could be running 11 children out of there with no inspections". 

Again, this is factually wrong. As Ms. Warren told City Council, she has been inspected and is in compliance with all licensing and permitting requirements. (video)

Popular posts from this blog

Stolen Election: The abuse of proxy ballots to manipulate the Board and Annual Assessment Amounts of the Raven Hills Homeowners Association

Raven Hills Homeowners:  Your ballots were abused and manipulated last fall by existing Board members. These Board members acted in an attempt to manipulate the Board election and to double your annual assessments.  Did you want the Board to use your proxy at last October's Annual Meeting to vote to DOUBLE your annual dues to $240? They say you consented to this when you gave them your proxy.  Did you want the Board to leverage your proxy to take executive action and steal the election from everyone in attendance at the Annual Meeting? They say you should have known that was a risk when you gave your proxy to them.  The Annual Raven Hills Homeowners Association meeting took place on October 25, 2022. Those of you who attended the 2022 Annual Meeting got a very clear look at how dysfunctional, uninformed, and disengaged our Board of Directors have become. Homeowners were asked to approve a budget that reflected inflated fees to be paid to Diversified for services rel...
Read more