A bill for an ordinance amending Chapter 59 (Zoning) of the Denver Revised Municipal code to administer certain provisions of Former Chapter 59. Amending DRMC Sec. 59-2 to make the Denver Zoning Code’s updated definitions and regulations for households effective in applicable zone districts from Former Ch. 59. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 3-2-21.
Yes, Madam President, I move that council bill 210213 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Okay. Thank you. It has been moved and I think we got the second in there from Council member Ortega. The required public hearing for Council Bill 213 is open. May we please have the staff report and we have Andrew Webb joining us tonight. Go ahead, Andrew. Great. Thank you, Council President Gilmore. And good evening, everyone. Can you see my slide deck as you would expect? Yep. You got it. Well, thank you. Thanks for having me this evening again. I'm Andrew Webb from Community Planning and Development here to present on this proposed amendments to the Denver Revised Municipal Code to bridge the Denver zoning code's recently updated definition and regulations for households two areas under former Chapter 59 or the old code. This is a follow up to the group living package of Denver zoning code amendments that were adopted in February and would effectively make the updated regulations for households effective citywide. It will impact the areas that are shown in the kind of pink or salmon color on this map. Everything in gray is under the Denver zoning code and everything in the that pink color is under a former Chapter 59 zone districts. This slide shows what is currently allowed in areas under former Chapter 59. So the the current former Chapter 59 regulations are very similar to the regulations that were in effect under the Denver zoning code prior to the council's adoption of the group Living Amendments in February. In former chapter 59 zone districts that allow residential uses. Currently in a detached home. A typical single unit house up to two unrelated adults are permitted to live together with any number of relatives, adult relatives to each and then in any multi-unit housing, so that any housing that shares walls or duplexes, apartments, condos with two or more attached dwelling units up to four unrelated adults are permitted to live together again with unlimited relatives to each. This slide shows what is proposed to change. So this is the this is the new newly updated definition or regulations for households that were adopted into the Denver zoning code. And if this is an amendment to the municipal code is adopted, they'd be effective in former Chapter 59 as well. Who would allow it retain the current allowance for unlimited relatives who live together? Adult relatives? Or it would allow a household of up to five adults who are not all members of the household are related . So that could allow five roommates to live together, two families to live together, but it does not allow additional adult relatives beyond that. That's a cap of five. If there are people in the household who are adults and who are not related, there is a maximum cap of five in a household. This slide shows a little bit more detail about where the residential zone districts can be found in the in areas under former Chapter 59. Those are shown in yellow. And then many of the pods which are shown in orange color also allow residential uses. And then the mixed use districts also allow residential uses just to drill down a little bit further as to where these residential types of uses are allowed. This proposed amendment is one of several efforts that we are at CPD aims to try to take on in the in the coming years to address the challenge with former Chapter 59, which still does cover about 20% of the city. As I said, this amendment will not change underlying zoning. The zone districts will remain their former Chapter 59 districts, but it will allow for the Denver zoning codes household definitions to apply in these areas. So that is that is a first step and a second step. We heard loud and clear during the the Group Living Project and doing other projects that as we continue to update and modernize the Denver zoning code to bring it in line with the way people live together or the way property is developed, that it presents an inequity to have 20% of the city living under a separate zoning code. That's that it is somewhat locked in time. And so we know that we need to get to a place where we have just one zoning code for the whole city, and we'll continue to work on that. And we're spending this year looking at what options might exist for either a city driven or applicant driven or development triggered rezoning out of former Chapter 59 and into the Denver zoning code and looking at what resources might be needed for any of those efforts so that we can begin making those requests and budgeting for that kind of work. But that will be out in the future at some point. So though this is not an amendment to the Denver zoning code per se because it is related to zoning and is a land use an update to land use regulations. We did analyze these proposed amendments to the municipal code against the criteria in the Denver zoning code for text amendments. This proposed amendment advances several recommendations from the Denver Comprehensive Plan, implements policies for the creation of a complete range of housing that helps people seek opportunities to share housing and and opportunities to reduce housing costs and reduce the vulnerability to displacement in a high cost of living city. And helps ensure that we have a flexible range of housing options available to people who live in all types of household configurations. It advances several recommendations in Blueprint Denver, including ensuring that our land use regulations support modern and equitable approaches to housing, providing a more inclusive definition of households by acknowledging that people, not all households live together as a nuclear family related by blood as they may have in the 1940s and fifties, when some of our current zoning code language was was developed and adopted, and it expands the allowance of flexible and affordable housing types. This proposed amendment also addresses blueprint's equity concepts by expanding flexible housing opportunities citywide and allowing people to simply choose how they want to live without fear that their housing is in violation of the zoning code. And finally, this proposed amendment advances recommendations from housing and inclusive Denver by increasing the flexibility of regulations for all housing types. This slide outlines the legislative review process for these amendments. This set of amendments was introduced directly to the Land Use Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, which held a meeting to discuss it in March. City Council reading was in early March as well, and then here we are at the public hearing on April 5th. We did hold office hours and offered several townhalls and community meetings as well to explain what was proposed for these amendments. So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions and stand ready for any questions you may have. All right. Well, thank you, Andrew, for the great staff report. I'm sure you can probably do that in your sleep by now or around how many times we've done it. But tonight, council has received 17 written comments on Council Bill 213. There were no submitted comments in favor of the bill and 17 submitted comments in opposition of the bill. All members of Council that are present have certified that they have read each of the submitted written comments. Do any members need more time in order to read all of the written testimony that was submitted? CNN council secretary let the record reflect that all written testimony, both in favor and in opposition of Council Bill 2013 have been read by each member of Council and all written testimony must be submitted to the official record of the hearing. We have three individuals signed up to speak this evening. Our first speaker is Paige Burkholder. That evening, Denver City Council. My name is Paige Burkholder and I live in Southeast Denver Council District four. I am part of the safe and sound Denver Issue Committee. I'm speaking today on behalf of thousands of Denver residents that oppose the group Living Zoning Code Amendment, which city council approved on February 8th. Not only was the group living the amendment a massive and aggressive change to the Denver zoning code. But the process was disingenuous and information from the city was limited and controlled. This is very disappointing to me to be here again in front of all of you, to now ask why City Council is moving forward with voting on the Chapter 59 Bridge Amendment tonight. As you all know, a citizen led issue committee has been formed and is currently in process of securing signatures to place the group Living Amendment on in the hands of Denver voters on the November 21st ballot. During the past year. The most common questions that I and others in safe and sound Denver continuously heard was Why isn't the zoning amendment on the ballot? Why is City Council making this decision for us? Why hasn't City Council listened to our opposition letters when over 80% of the comments submitted consistently opposed the group Living Amendment? Why isn't our city council listening? Will safe and sound? Denver Neighbors did listen. As you already know, those throughout the city involved in the grassroots endeavor over the past year filed a citizen led ballot initiative to offer all of Denver neighbors a voice and a choice. Our filing was approved in March. Denver neighbors have been going into their communities to gather signatures, and Denver neighbors across the city are clicking on the website safe and sound. Denver dot com to learn more and to sign up to place their signature on the petition. Let me go back to the the submitted comment letters. At the beginning of the February 8th meeting, Council released a statement that 619 comments were in favor of the group Living Amendment and that only 500 people were opposed. If you go over that is actually a you have some it's not open. No, this is related to the so there was actually final opposition was 4665 opposed. So Denver neighbors are angry and disappointed in the city council's vote in February. And we're disappointed that this is coming up to vote again. It seems premature to vote on this bridge amendment this evening. So I will leave you with my final question, which should be discussed tonight. Prior to the vote, when Denver neighbors place the group Living Amendment on the ballot and Denver voters decide in November 21 election to repeal the group Living Amendment. What will City Council do to unwind these approvals? Thank you for your time. Thank you. Our next speaker up is Jesse Paris. And just a reminder, we ask that our speakers please speak to the bill that we have before us, which is the Chapter 59 Household Size Amendment. Go ahead, Jessie, please. Yes. Good evening. Member of the council. My name is just Tim Pearce and I'm represented for Black Star Accidents, Movement for Self-defense, Black Star Action Movie Self-defense, Positive Action Commitment, Social Change as well as the going to be party of Colorado in front line black nose. And I will be the next mayor of Denver in 2023 now. And with guards to this reasoning for this proposal tonight I'm in support of it. After hours of televised testimony from over a hundred and something, just two words that were mainly in favor of this proposal that Kennedy and others had drafted to alleviate our unhoused neighbor crisis or our lack of housing stock, affordable housing stock in the city and county of Denver. And to make it where, you know, people are being criminalized for trying to survive in the mile high income city where you have to have mile high income in order to survive or thrive and a fledgling, booming world class city and in the process, those that are not on those financial means. Cannot longer afford to live here. And that is a shame because I am a native. I grew up here. This city was affordable at one time, right after 2008, after the Democratic National Convention. It is no longer. It's become the high income city. So I'm in full support of this, despite with everything an opposition was saying tonight, which is racism, white supremacy on full display for those watching at home. This is what this city needs. We have a housing crisis. We had the housing crisis before COVID. We still have a housing crisis during this. And as I've stated before, I've stayed at collective house such as these. On where it would be legal for the people to live in that dwelling, whereas prior to this rezoning change it was technically illegal. So I'm in support of this. I appreciate the council's, uh, due diligence and get in this past, despite what the opposition was saying. He did all the right things. So I will not be discouraged at all by any of the previous testimony. This is what the city needs and going into 2023. I have to warn you, if you do not pass things like this, you will be swept out in 2023. Like you are sleeping on house neighbors each and every night. So thank you, Carol, for please pass this to my. Thank you, Jesse. Our last speaker this evening is Samuel Hargraves. And you're going to have to unmute, Samuel. There you go. Yeah, you might have to. We can't really hear you. You might have to turn your volume up. Maybe. Is that better? Mm hmm. Yeah. Go ahead, please. Okay. Thank you. Let me do something here because my computer. Doesn't like to let me listen to sounds. All right, terrific. Can. Can you say something so I can make sure I hear you? Mm hmm. Yep. Okay. Great. All right. Thank you very much. Thanks for your patience. I'm Samuel Hargraves. I live in District nine, and I'm speaking to the so-called group Living Amendment, which this will now impose upon the remaining 20% of the city, which until this point had been sort of and kept from its terrible consequences. Thousands of Denver neighborhoods are disappointed that the GLA was passed in February. The trouble is that the City Council was conflating traditional residential housing with felony and rehab housing, which was and is disingenuous and misleading. I think that the City Council canceled its current contracts with the service riders before they had an alternative provider. Thus, the City Council created a crisis which they then used an excuse to ram the GLA down the throats of residents which are now imposing upon the final 20% of the city. The vast majority of these residents oppose this so-called group living arrangement. What city council should have done is severed the traditional residential rental portion from the felony rehab housing portion. They're completely different forms of housing. The people I've spoken to are fine with a small increase in residential rental occupied occupancy. Well, the City Council falsely claimed that two was the maximum number of unrelated roommates allowed. It was actually three with an easily obtained waiver, not two, but three, which is 50% more than claimed. The other the other thing that's happened is that any opposition to this has been labeled racist, just as the prior commenter referenced. What white supremacy as as as a motive for opposing this. I object to that in the strongest possible terms. It's possible to object to this on the merits. An example is the response to any questions regarding parking. By this, increased occupancy was always reacted dismissively and deflected only racist or you care more about cars than people. More people and higher density equals more cars. You can try to racist your way out of this fact, but I have yet to hear a cogent answer to the simple, reasonable, practical question. I encourage everyone to go to safe and sound Denver and check out the ballot initiative we want to put on to rescind this. So-called Group Living Amendment. So that it can be implemented more, more, more practically and better and more and more appropriately sever the residential housing from the fell into rehab housing. They're completely different use. Of care at the time we have allotted for your comments this evening. I appreciate our three speakers joining us. And that concludes our speakers questions from members of council. Councilmember Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. I wanted to ask Andrew if you can. Add yourself and address the issue that Mr. Hargrove's just Hargraves just brought up about the fact that this particular proposal would create the opportunity for. What he referred to as felony rehab housing in residential neighborhoods and. So what was presented to us is just expanding. How many unrelated people can live in a single family structure, which is different from any of the other group living categories? So can you. Just clarify that? Your Council want to take out? I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, but I believe that the speaker was referring to that original set of group living amendments and and his concern that that but we addressed all the residential regulations in the zoning code as part of one project. But just to clarify, these changes would only impact the household definition and regulations in areas under former Chapter 59 and the regulations for residential care uses, which are allowed in and in those zoned districts, would remain regulated by that former Chapter 59 code. Okay. Thank you. I think that takes care of that. The question about parking and concerns about how. Parking meters saturated neighborhood would be addressed based on. You know. How many people may be in a house under these new regulations. Can you just speak to what the tools are that the city has to address that problem and that challenge? I know that came up many times during the planning process. You know. When all of the parties who were involved in looking at the various provisions to assure folks that parking would not become. Overwhelming and problematic. Yeah. So thanks for that comes from our take a few a few ways to respond to that. First, I would just highlight that the data that we've shown in previous meetings and I have it in my slide deck today, I didn't bring it up with any, but it would like to see if it is the table that shows or cities that we looked at and the number of unrelated adults that they permit to live together and the number of there are in the state, the average household size in those places. And if you recall from that table, the average household size in cities that have allowed, you know, five or more unrelated adults to live together for decades, the average household sizes stay the same, suggesting that while allowing people to make more flexible choices about who comprises of a household and to live with, you know, chosen family, there's there is no indication from any of these cities that we looked at in circle where we actually talk to colleagues there, that there's actually a change in the in the actual household size on average of those places or that there's a sudden change in the way people live together. I would also just highlight that the zoning code does have regulations about the front set back that can be used for parking. I know that in a lot of neighborhoods, parking in yards is a is a concern and ah, the zoning code, it varies by context but it's generally around 30%, only 30% of a front set back may be surfaced for parking and our code enforcement, zoning and Neighborhood Inspection Services Division does enforce on those regulations frequently. That's a that's a fairly common complaint that the city receives, and we do enforce that. And then I would also note that the municipal code and the zoning code have regulations about, you know, inoperable vehicles, vehicles parked that are inoperable in the street, the parking of work vehicles, nerves in the street and that sort of thing. So there are many regulations that address who can park what, where essentially. And then ultimately, if a neighborhood feels like there is a parking concern, typically driven by a a local attraction of some sort of a public a place that's popular with tourists or something like that, they can actually petition the city to have a resident only parking that would only go allowed a certain number of parking permits per household in some neighborhoods. And there are a few of those that exist around Denver today and that certainly exist as an option for neighborhoods that feel like they have a real concern with parking. I don't know if. We have Greg Morrow on tonight. I know we did during the first provisions, but. I just wanted to ask a question about what. Would be the proposed minimum number of people that would be housed in a community correctional facility to basically ensure economies of scale are being met because. Of the. Not only zoning restrictions, but the state requirements that are associated with the operations of any of the corrections facilities in our city. Do you? Do you know the answer? Yeah, I know that. I can't. So Greg isn't here tonight because this this particular amendment doesn't impact residential care or community corrections. But I think I can respond generally that there is not a minimum number of people who can be in a community corrections facility, but and that the state and city standards and statutes do have minimum space requirements and that sort of thing that would effectively determine if if a community corrections facility was looking at a particular building, how many people could could be housed in that particular facility. And I would also also just highlight and reiterate that based on the revisions made during the LUDI process to the group living amendments adopted in February, that particular use types, those residential care facilities serving non parole individuals would not be allowed in single unit two unit and row house 2.5 zone districts, the lowest intensity residential districts. Thank you for that additional clarification. I have no other questions. The President. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Councilmember Ortega. Councilmember Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. Andrew. You can go back to a neutral corner of Brennan. Make Lucero for a tag team in your need. It seems to me and correct me if I'm wrong, but this is kind of arcane. But to address some of the points that were made by our speakers at the public hearing this this ordinance does not amend Chapter 59 of the old zoning code. It amends Section 59, dash two of the current Denver Revised Municipal Code, which refers to how we will treat the former Chapter 59, which you can only read in the archives at this point. And all it says, it doesn't say that in the Chapter 59 neighborhoods that still exist, we will apply these rules. What it says is that the rules that are in the Denver zoning code that we adopted in February will apply as far as household definition will apply in these circumstances. Is that is that basically what we're looking at here? What I'm getting at is if if this initiative for repeal were to pass in November, it doesn't this what we're doing tonight doesn't really change anything. It simply means that what was repealed would no longer apply. Is that is that how that works? Naval Officer, Assistant City Attorney. I think I understand your question. I certainly understand your reading of what is happening this evening with with the request to amend the Denver Revised Municipal Code of Chapter 59. Exactly. But former chapter 59. So so if there were to be a referendum either for the ordinance that's going forward tonight or the ordinance that was passed in February, it would have to follow the typical referendum process or the actions. Right. And the bill tonight amends the DRC. It does not in men in Chapter 59 or former, chapter 59. That's correct. Right. So if something were to happen in November to overturn that, it would simply follow that what we're passing tonight would be of no force or effect anyway. We don't have to tear out root and branch and things like that. It seems to me is that. Would you agree with that? Yeah. I agree that, you know, former chapter 59 as it exists is is not being amended. So anything that happens with this bill does not. Amend former chapter 59. Right. It's what we're doing. If I can just say it in plain English. We're simply applying the household definition consistently and uniformly across our households, no matter what zone they are in 2010 Code or Former Chapter 59. Yes, that's correct. And that that was the impetus behind this bill was was to treat. Right. Correct. Thank you. That's all, Madam President. Thank you. Councilmember Flynn. Councilmember Kenny. Thank you. Council President I just wanted to go back to something that you talked about and just make sure that I understand it. We got a number of letters today from folks who live in condos who seem to be under the impression maybe that there were more limits on their units than they were. And so I just wanted to clarify. If you lived in a condo or a apartment in former Chapter 59 zoning, was there any limit under the number of human beings who could live in that condo where apartment in chapter 59. Not in the zoning code. Okay. So so it's not that there was a prior limit. So. And how is that? People will say what? There was no limit. Just explain what the law was. So the current regulation in former Chapter 59 is the same as what was allowed under the Denver zoning code prior to the February 8th adoption of the group Living Amendments. And it would allow up to four unrelated adults, plus any number of related adult or of adults related to those four people in in attached housing. So condos, duplexes, apartments. So I just want to clarify for the many letters we got from those living in condos and apartments. The change before us today allows a change from four unrelated to five unrelated individuals. I'm going to get to part two, but part one is it simply changes from 4 to 5? It's a change of one person, correct? That's correct. But secondly, it actually reduces the ability to have related people along with those. So in some regards it is more restrictive than what the law is in those condos and apartments today. That is correct. Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. The other question we got is, you know, our H-2A or our you know, a condo building doesn't allow for certain configurations renting out a unit, etc.. Does anything in our change require an owner to allow individuals of a certain number to live in a unit? It would not. So it doesn't create a legal obligation for a building to allow that. It's still up to the individual owners whether they want to allow additional individuals of a certain number up to the zoning code in their in their unit. Yes, that's correct. Okay. Thanks for making sure I understood all that. I appreciate it. No more questions. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Canete. Councilmember Black. Of your media. You're muted, councilwoman. Thank you. Council President Gilmore Thank you. Andrew Webb. And thank you, Councilwoman Canete, for bringing up those letters. I was actually going to address them because every single one of them came from one place in my district, a very large condo complex called Morningside. There are hundreds and hundreds of units there, and I have responded to every single person who has written me an email. There are management put fliers all throughout their buildings. I think there are seven buildings that range from 4 to 7 stories, and they had a lot of misinformation on there. I have followed up with the management company to point out their errors and to point out that this proposal is, in fact, more restrictive than what is currently allowed. And one person wrote me back today and said, Thank you for the clarification. Too bad the management company put out incorrect information anyway. They were all sent from the same place and they were all due to misinformation that was put throughout these buildings on fliers. And I did respond to every single person individually, so. Just wanted to make sure everyone knew that things. Thank you, Councilmember Black. All right. Seen no other hands raised for questions. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 213. All right. Council member Sawyer. Thanks, Madam President. I mentioned the night of the group Living hearing that while residents of my district said they would have preferred to keep it for unrelated adults per households, council worked really hard to find a compromise that five and I can respect where we landed. I advocated for an amendment that would have allowed council to vote on the definition of households separately on the night of the group living vote so that I could vote yes on this portion of the ordinance. Unfortunately, I wasn't successful in convincing my colleagues to do that, and my concerns with the residential care side were too numerous to be able to fully support the zoning changes as a whole. Again, I talked about this on the night of the vote and also mentioned my concerns that this created an unfair situation with the group Living Amendments because specifically because they didn't apply to the city as a whole. So and that's why I voted against those the first time. So I just wanted to kind of walk through that and say that I'm supportive of this change to apply the new definition of household in those regulations to the entire city. Recognizing that my concerns with Group Living were on the residential care side, not the side. So I think this is a fair application of these changes and I will be voting yes. Me too. Thanks, Madam President. Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer. Councilmember Canete. Thank you. Council President. I wanted to just thank you personally for sponsoring this bill, and I appreciate Councilman Sawyer's use of the word fair. I think that's what this bill is about. It's about treating our city fairly and not treating one area differently than another. I also want to thank the community planning and development and their team because, you know, originally I think there was a thought that this process could take a really long time. And the truth is, it's not new policy. It is just simply making it work fairly in across areas of the city. I just want to reiterate what came out in my last question and answer section, which is that nothing requires any owner of any property to rent or sell or allow occupants beyond what they are comfortable with. The owner of a property will continue to have that control and I think that that is really important. And, you know, we see that in most cities with these types of allowances. Very few households may make use of it, but for those who do, it may be very important for them. Right. So even if it's not needed by everyone for those it is needed for or buy, it can be a very important tool to helping to prevent displacement from your neighborhood, from your care provider, to your network of support, whatever that might look like. And as we discussed extensively, that's not always related by blood, that there are many forms of relationship and care that we take in our communities for each other. So I just want to thank you and the Community Planning and development team and happy to support this tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Kenny. Up next, we have council member Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. I want to wholeheartedly agree with Councilwoman Sawyer's remarks, because I was in the same position on the night of the hearing, and we voted the same way that evening. I supported the household definitions portion of the larger bill and just had continuing problems with, as the councilwoman said earlier, some of the residential care that I thought could have been more intentional had it been broken out, I too would have voted yes on this particular portion of it. But more fundamentally tonight, what we're faced with doing, as Councilwoman Kenyatta said, is is making a uniform and fair across the city because most people, when they if they look on the apartment listings or the rental listings and they move here or there, they don't know. They're moving into a former Chapter 59 site. They don't they don't think to look at that a good lord go. Some of the things we've seen in real estate that people were unaware of that this might be one of the the most obscure to walk into. I have chapter 59 former chapter 59 areas that immediately abut 2010 zoning code areas. So the house across the street I could have if we were not to pass this, the house across the street would have a different set of regulations as far as household than the ones on the other side of the street. And that's not right. And so for that reason, as stated by Councilwoman Sawyer, I'm going to vote yes on this as well tonight. All right. Thank you. Councilmember Flynn, Councilmember Hines. But thank you. Council President. I also will be voting in favor of this tonight. I think that the discussion that the discussion about plumbing was has already happened. And this is a discussion about making sure that we provide that vote equitably throughout the city. I know that I've certainly had folks in District ten who wanted me to vote no on Group 14. Obviously I voted yes, but many of those who wanted me to vote no support this because one of the concerns that I heard from from member are my neighbors in District ten is that this Chapter 59 means that that the group living vote even more disproportionately affects District ten, because we have a lot of multi-family homes in in our district. So so I think that certainly those who support group voting support this vote tonight, those many of those who opposed group living also support this vote tonight because they want to make sure that it is a fact it affects the entire city and not just certain portions of the city. Thank you. Council president. In Council Member Hines and not seen in any other hands raised. I'm going to go ahead and weigh in with my comments as well. And, you know, I was really happy to initiate this bill to make the Denver zoning codes recently updated definition of household effective citywide, and it would include the approximately 20% of the city still under former Chapter 59 or old code. And as we've talked about tonight, the proposed legislation will allow up to five adults to live together citywide. I'd like to sincerely thank Andrew Webb, Sarah Chau, Walter Laura Ultra Thé, Sarah Brennan, Stacy Samina, Melissa Sotelo and Megan Allen's Melissa and Megan from my council office for all their help on this. This was something that we didn't have within our work plan for 2021. And we very quickly, with CPD's help and assistance after city council vote after City Council voted to adopt the group Living Amendments on February eight, we immediately turned around and embarked on a community process that included two citywide town halls one on March six , the other on March 10th, including CPD office hours. And it's simple. We need more housing for people in Denver. We've missed the over one year mark of the pandemic, and we continue to see the alarming effects it's had on housing security or our residents. And when you look at my council district, specifically in District ten, District 11 excuse me, I have over almost 34% of my council district and District 11 were under the old Code zero nine, including my own home in Montebello. And so I was really happy to lead this effort so we could create more equity and fairness across the city in regard to the household size and allowing five related or unrelated adults to now live together across the entire city. And so this is something that we heard from our constituents loud and clear, and we made it a priority in the in the interest of equity. And I'm really pleased that we're voting on this so early. We were concerned that it might be mid-summer before we were able to get this work done. And so I respectfully and humbly asked my colleagues to support this amendment. All right, Madam Secretary, or excuse me, this legislation to create a household definition across the city for five unrelated or related adults. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 213, please. Black. I. CdeBaca. I. Clarke by. Flynn. I. Herndon. I. Hines. I. Cashman. I. Can each i. Ortega. I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Torres, I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. 13 eyes. 13 Eyes Council Bill 20 1-0213 has passed our pre adjournment announcement on Monday May 3rd Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 21, Dash 0309 Changing the zoning classification for 1450 South Humboldt Street in Walsh Park.