A bill for an ordinance providing for a moratorium prohibiting the use of the Denver Zoning Code’s pre-existing small zone lot parking exemption for certain projects for a period of approximately seven months. Approves a moratorium prohibiting the use of the Denver Zoning Code's pre-existing small zone lot parking exemption for certain projects for a period of seven months. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 7-20-16.
It has moved in second to the public hearing for council bill 498 is open. May we have the staff report? And that's going to come from our very own councilman, Casimir. All right. Well, thank you, Mr. President. The parking exemption for small developments officially known as the small zone, light vehicle parking exemption for parcels of 6250 square feet or less was was initiated in the Main Street Zone districts, primarily Mass one in 2006. The goal was to promote re-use of existing buildings and to stimulate small scale development on these smaller parcels that had access and parking challenges rather than encourage assemblages of multiple lots for large scale development. When the new zoning code was passed in 2010, the small parking exemption was extended to all mixed use zone districts, hoping again to stimulate small scale commercial or residential developments. In nine years, we've had one building built using that exemption. It's a three storey project comprised of ground floor commercial with nine dwelling units. There are currently ten projects in the pipeline in various stages of review. There are about 5300 small parcels in mixed use districts across the city. Some are already combined and have buildings on them. Several hundred are city or state owned. Denver's affordable housing crisis has changed the residential landscape. A new element has come into the inventory called micro housing. As a result, the small parking exemption now, as now written, leaves the door open for a development on small parcels that far exceeds the original intent to head off further damage to the community council president Brooks. At the prompting of a dedicated group of concerned neighbors, has proposed a seven month moratorium to give time to craft a more protective ordinance. During his absence from council, I was pleased to help move this through the process. If the moratorium passes, it is our intention to form a broad based stakeholders group to excuse me to exist in the work of crafting that more protective ordinance. I would like to pay tribute for a whole lot of advance work done by former District ten Councilwoman Jeannie Robb, who worked with a similar group of stakeholders and came up with a proposal that may or may not be the final outcome of a new group, but will definitely help get things rolling in the right direction. The councilwoman simply ran out of time before she was term limited out of office. So with that, Mr. President, let's hear from our speakers. Yeah, excellent job. And I'll just add to Councilman Cashman and just thank him. I was out for a month and Councilman Cashman picked up the ball on this important issue. So thank you so much. And now we're excited to hear from you, all the public. So we have 11 speakers for council. Well, for 98, I'm going to call the first five speakers and I'm actually going to use this area for the speakers to sit. They may be able to squeeze on there, but if they can't, if you can find out, see, that'd be great. All right. We'll call Bob Hickman. Margie Valdez, Doug. Greg Craig. Vander Lynn. And David Engel can come on up. And Bob Hickman, you're up first and you have 6 minutes. Thank you. My name is Bob Hickman. I live at 1091 South Gilman Street in Denver. Good evening, council members. And good evening, Council President Brooks. It's very nice to see you. You. Allow me to read from our current zoning ordinance. Not to be too repetitious here, but section ten .4.5.1 A which deals with preexisting small zone lots. It says in all mixed use, commercial zone districts, buildings on zone lots which are equal to or smaller than 6250 square feet. An area on June 25th, 2010, shall be exempt from providing parking otherwise required by this division. One sentence. How could one sentence in the ordinance be of such concern? How could one sentence, with the simple goal of encouraging development of small lots while limiting negative impacts, become such a big deal? What has brought this moratorium to your attention tonight? It came to our attention when we became aware of four projects being developed, or two, depending on your point of view. 1570 and 1578 Humboldt two side by side, 50 foot wide zone lots across the street from the Humboldt Street Landmark District. 54 units in each building, a total of 108 with the restaurant five stories over 60 feet in height, and are a projection of 60% of the tenants owning an automobile. Zero parking spaces provided. 31st in stout two zone lots separated by an alley, three and a half stories 54 total units zero parking spaces provided. Located in a landmark district, neither neighborhood can absorb this kind of added on street parking demand. The street parking potato sack is full. There is no more room for more potatoes. And there are similar development efforts underway in Cherry Creek in South Pearl. We discovered there are over 4200 parcels in Denver of this size, and although the exact number of zone lots has not been identified, the vast majority are eligible for this parking exemption and are found in nearly all council districts creating a citywide problem. When the Humble Street Neighborhood Association and Curtis Park neighborhood neighbors directly impacted by this exemption realized the scale of the problem and the potential for excessive development of these lots. We undertook efforts for the moratorium being considered. Tonight, our group met with Council nine, Councilmember Albert Brooks. He listened and took action sponsoring this moratorium bill. Thank you all for your understanding of the impact of these kind of projects in your district. Councilman Cashman, thank you for assisting in Albert's absence. I always enjoy communicating with you. And ditto for this time. And I know Albert is grateful for what you did. Now we are likely to hear opinion this evening about how affordable housing may benefit from this prison exemption. You are likely to hear opinion about how this parking exemption furthers the cause to take Denver to a city with less and less car ownership . However, this moratorium is not about either of these very important issues Denver is facing. To me, these discussions are more suited to Denver's blueprint to efforts, and that is where a long term vision and solution can be created. The problem of affordable housing and getting people to use car cars less will certainly not be solved by continuing this exemption, nor will they not be solved by passing this moratorium bill. This moratorium is simply a brief time out, time to allow a diverse citizen and professional group to explore with community planning and development, text amendment language preventing what community planning and development has described as the unintended consequences and excessive development resulting from the present parking exemption. I strongly urge you to pass this moratorium bill so the task force can be established and get on with its work. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Hickman. Margie Valdez. Good evening. Council President Brooks, I'm very glad to see you back. My name is Margie Valdez. I live at 2000 East 12th Avenue, Denver, Colorado, and I'm here in support of the moratorium. I am the chair of the Agency Zoning and Planning Committee, and the IMC, Zoning and Planning Planning Committee urges the Denver Community Planning and Development Department and the City Council to support a moratorium on applying Section ten .4.5.1 per in a the Denver Zoning Code to the issuance of zoning building permits for development of apartments on small lots 60 to 50 square feet or less unless adequate parking is provided. Such developments can put extreme parking pressures on surrounding neighbors and businesses. This is a motion that was passed by both the Sapp committee. The Zoning and Planning Committee went to our delegates and it was enthusiastically supported by the ANC delegates. I'm very proud to be presenting the motion tonight and thank both President Bush, Brooks and Councilman Cashman for their support in furthering this. Thank you very much. Thank you, Ms.. Valdez. Doug Gregg. Good evening. Wish Council President a best to health. I just want to make three quick statements. Introduce yourself. First. Oh, Doug. Greg, Greg. I live at 1901, East 13th Avenue, apartment one H at the corner of 13th and High. Thank you. I'm proud. 40 year old resident of Capitol Hill. South Capitol Hill. And that's very point. We already are so overwhelmed with cars. We should be sitting here tonight talking about building parking spots. To take care of the crisis and to build a building with no parking spots is pure insanity. This is a theoretical question, and I don't expect any of you up there to answer your raise your hands. But some of you have children and one of you and two of you might even have grandchildren. And the American dream is still to have a car. And you go ask your children or grandchild if they don't want to have a car. And they are going to say, sure, sure they do. We might have a few enlightened, educated people that dream of the future of a car society. We're not we're not going to see it in our lifetimes. So we have to plan accordingly. Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen of Denver. Thank you. Yeah. If I had. Any time left, I'll give it yield like they do in Congress to. One of these. Fine people. Yeah. You can't do that. But I appreciate that thought. Craig Vandalia. Good evening. My name is Craig Vander and 1621 Humboldt Street. President Brooks, Councilman Cashman and the rest of the City Council. We thank you very much for taking up this moratorium Bill. And I speak in favor of it. Many of you probably watched the Olympics recently, and you know that in a lot of team sports, they're able to call a timeout at a very critical moment. You know, could be in the Super Bowl with 2 minutes left or in a volleyball match. I think it's very prudent and strategically wise on the part of the city council to take this moratorium bill, to take a time out and study this really important issue that has a significant impact on the entire city. So we applaud your efforts on this matter and appreciate your consideration of the moratorium. Thank you again. Thank you. Davydenko can. Thank you, Councilman Brooks, and thanks to all of you again. We've gone through this drill maybe four times in the last, whatever, 13 years of our. Neighborhood association and always are grateful to live in a city where we have a city council that's so accessible and so open to really hear the full and objective. Story of what we're experiencing. At the neighborhood level. My job. Here is to just give you a. Super quick review of the progress. We made in the course of not only meeting with each of you, but also meeting and winning support from a number. Of neighborhood organizations citywide. Curtis Park neighbors helped initiate the moratorium. On. The 2nd of May. They voted 10 to 1 to endorse the moratorium bill Humboldt Street Neighborhood Association working with them. By April 29th, we had had a vote of our executive committee and unanimously in support. Uptown Urban Design Forum. Dr. Branigan's. Outfit had a vote that was unanimous. In support, and they. Represented. At that meeting six neighborhood organizations in the hospital zone area, particularly surrounding it. And also the reps of the four largest institutions in the hospital zone. Kaiser St Joseph's, Presbyterian, St Luke's and Children's. Important was Al. Davis. The representative from Saint Joseph's noted how important the renewal of the 17th Avenue business strip has become to the hospitals. It's seen as an amenity for their patients, families and friends and clients coming in there, and it's already overloaded. Parking is already difficult to find and it's our blocks. We're in the next block south, not our block. Franklin Street, Lafayette is to come and Gilpin and East are already serving as the overflow for those areas. So there's simply no room for around the clock. Addition of dozens. Of new cars. The Cherry Creek North Neighborhood Association at their main meeting voted the board voted unanimously in support of the moratorium. We'd like to thank Councilman Brooks, who helped us. Initiate the vote at the Inter Neighborhood. Cooperation that Ms.. Valdes just told you about. Capitol Hill. United Neighborhoods voted 9 to 5 at their June 1st meeting and support West Washington Park Neighborhood Association on their own brought this to their board without us even asking them and got a 13 to 0 support for the moratorium bill. As of. June 22nd, 11. Of the 13 of you indicated you would support. A well drafted. Moratorium ordinance from. Our individual meetings with you. Thank you so much for taking the time and the consideration for those. And we have we've gathered. Over. 225. Neighborhood. Signatures on a petition in support. Of the moratorium bill. Particularly the particular thanks goes to Mick Barnhart. Of Curtis Park. Neighbors to organize a beautiful groundswell of. Support that way. We have three houses in the immediate Humboldt Street area, Mr. York and the Denver. Post, July 26th. A lot of support there. All right. All right. I'm going to call the last four speakers up Kim Heights, Hillary Waters, Frank lack entry. And John Barajas, just this front row here, if you all could come up, Kim Heights will be first. John, if I. If I said your last name wrong, I apologize. Go ahead, Kim. Kim nighters and I'm at 1013 East 26th Avenue and I want to say thank you to you for supporting this and. Sponsoring the bill and also to Cashman for definitely, you know, being. Your right hand person on this and making it happen. So I want to also say thank you to all the council members. I had an opportunity to speak to the majority of you and received really positive feedback with regards to the moratorium. I also went out and spoke to a bunch of. The RINO's and also. Within the neighborhood. The are. As Dave said with regards to the RINO's was. A very positive feedback. And overwhelming support with regards to that. And then also with regards to our petition, we had many signatures with regards to people in the neighborhood supporting this right here. So anyways, Curtis Park has two properties that are less. Than 60 to 50 divided by. An alley, 54 units requesting no parking and a. Middle of a residential neighborhood that already has. It's a neighborhood that's over a hundred years old. Nobody has any. Garages. To park their cars. So it's definitely. An opportunity for the city to change the zoning. Code and to build right and to build smart when new construction is being proposed. Again, I hope you will support the moratorium. Thank you. Hillary Waters. As I said, I'm Hilary Waters and I live at 1630 Humboldt Street and I'm in support of the moratorium. And thank you for your support. Councilman Brooks and Councilman Cashman, fellow publisher. If as co-publisher of Life on Capitol Hill and Neighborhood Life for 21 years I observed in our papers covered. A lot of the changes, the ebb and flow of development that came into the neighborhoods of central Denver. What is currently happening, I believe, is a perfect storm that most of the general public and many in government failed to see coming. The adoption of a form based zoning code. The surge of popularity. Of Denver as the place to live. The trend of worshiping at the altar of density and the trend of micro-housing. All four of these items. The result. I believe, is neighborhoods that can instantly double in population density, neighbors that have no influence on what is constructed in their. Midst and the decrease of the quality of life. Developers are smart. They are exploiting the unintended consequence of small art development with the use of micro-housing and the city's worship of density. This trend will kill the goose that laid the golden egg, which is the charm and beauty of Denver neighborhoods. Housing that is close, but not too close. Tree lawns. Tree canopies. A variety of architectural styles. Buildings that are in proportion with landscaping setbacks. Pleasing relationships to their neighboring buildings. What are we getting today? I believe is massive high density development in a monotonous. Prison like architectural style. Driven by developers exploiting every possible inch of their. Property, whether a row of townhomes, full city block. Apartments or migrant unit cram and jam projects. The designs are efficient. Boring, repetitive and ugly. It maximizes profit, minimizes expense, and is devoid of elegance and charm and style. I'm not anti-development, though. I really am not. But I am anti. Poor quality. Development and I believe this is the legacy of what's happening. In the current development trends. We are a city of Fisher and. Fisher and William. Lang and the bishops and many other talented. Architects of the last century. They produced elegant apartment buildings. Grand homes, small, charming bungalows, medium sized apartment buildings from the twenties and the thirties and forties. A city at that time encourage the building of something worthy, substantial, elegant and in proportion. And now I feel the city encourages development. Period. The build, build, build, get as much in as can cram as possible. If it fits the form, it gets approved, even if it overwhelms its neighbors and hurts the eyes. Looking for more visionary development encouragement. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you, Ms.. Waters. Please. Please call your pa so we can get through the last two. Frank like to. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Good to see you. My name is Frank Logan. Tory. I am a resident of City Park West. I live at the corner of 16th Avenue and Gaylord. And I'll. I'll make a left turn here, and I'm opposing this idea. How to say this is that, for example, I live in City Park. I chose to live in City Park West because of exactly the things that McWhorter said. Couldn't have said it better. It's a beautiful area. It Denver is beautiful. I am so lucky to live in Denver. I'm so lucky to live in City Park West in these neighborhoods. I would like it if other people were as lucky as I was as I am to be able to live in this neighborhood because I can walk to pretty much everything that I want or need except for perhaps the mountains. And so I can access things because of the way that the community was developed. Now. The community was developed quite a long time ago. I live in a house that was built over 100 years ago. And if if I want more people to be as lucky as I am, there needs to be more housing. The crisis that I feel that we're facing isn't one of parking. The crisis that I feel that we're facing is one of a lack of housing. We we've the council has talked about that a long time. Neighborhood associations have been talking about that for a long time. We need more affordable housing. And one of the ways that we can have affordable housing is by building more units. And while I do sympathize with the ugliness of some development projects, I also feel that that's also in the eye. One, it's in the eye of the beholder. And too, it's a luxury that I don't know we can afford right now. We need if if the stats are correct. In an article that I read today, 20 people are moving into Denver every day. So multiply that by 30 days in a month. That's 600 people that are moving into the city. Are we building 600 housing units in Denver each month? If we're not, then the prices continue to go up. And it makes it more difficult for people to live in the awesome neighborhood that I live in right now. And if we're making it more difficult for people to live in the neighborhood that I live in right now, that means they're going to be living further from the city core. They're going to be driving. They're going to need cars. They don't need cars. They can be car light and live in the city, work in the hospital district. You know, without the cars we get what we build for. If we build parking spaces, we get cars and we force people to be able to drive places or force them to purchase cars that they don't want, don't need or they can't afford. So I want you to sit when you're asking the question about do we have adequate parking? I want you to ask me to do we have adequate housing? Thank you. Thank you. Okay, we we got a better spelling on your name now. Is it Joann? Burritos. Plus. Okay. I'll help you with that. Okay. Hi. Good evening, City Council. And good evening, fellow residents. My name is John Barrios. I didn't expect you to know that, but it's okay. You can call me Joe. That's fine. Sorry about that. No, no, no. No worries. So I'm a parker. I live in a two car household. I also live in Uptown on 19th and Logan and I work in Centennial and my partner works in Idaho Springs. So we don't really have a choice. We need our cards really badly. So you would think that I'm here to support the moratorium, but I'm not because. We have to make a tough choice in my household, similar to the choice that you guys have to make. Right. You're trying to represent the interests of everyone. And I'll tell you a little bit about what's going on in my house. We work really far away, but we're also expecting our first baby. And so seven months doesn't seem like a long time. But in six months, two big things are happening in our house. We're having a baby and our lease is up. And we really love our town. We were both elected members of the board. We've gotten really familiar with our neighbors. We love it there and we want to raise our baby there. But in six months, when our leases up, we're going to be priced out of a unit that we moved into two years ago. So now we have to choose. Do we support parking or we do we support the ability to live in our neighborhood in six months. And I can tell you that choice is really clear for us. I am unfortunately having one of those pregnancies where I'm like nauseous all day long. And when I come home from work at like 6 p.m. and I have to drive around the block four times just to get a spot. I hate the world. It makes me crazy. It drives me nuts. I hate it. But I need a place to live in six months. And I love my neighborhood. So seven months. Oh, it's no big deal. It's just a short time out and parking. Yes, we have a parking problem. Yes, we have a parking problem. But we have a housing problem. So think of the families that live in these neighborhoods. Think of, you know, my partner's wildland firefighter. I'm a civil servant. We don't have a lot of flexible income. The baby's going to eat up all of that extra housing income we were counting on when the lease was up. So just a different perspective. We hope we get to stay. Thank you. Thank you. And thank you to all our speakers. This concludes our speakers questions for members of council. Seeing no questions. I'm actually going to ask a question of Kyle Dalton. He's with community planning and development. Kyle, do you do you have the pending? 6250. Square lot. Parking exemption list. I do, yes. Great. I just wanted to I wanted you to just make sure you read that, because obviously in this bill, the pending applications who have gone through concept review are permitted to go through. But I just wanted you to read those in their locations. Sure. To the record. For the record, I'm Kyle Dalton, principal city planner at the Department of Community Planning and Development. So our records show, to the best of our knowledge, we have 11 projects that would meet the test in the bill as drafted in terms of having submitted a complete application for concept review. They are the two that have been mentioned a couple of times here at 16th and Humboldt. There are two located at 3148 Stout and 3121 Downing. Sure there's one at 1411 South Pearl, one at 1193, South Pennsylvania, there's one at 38, 15 Jason Street, there's one at 135. Adams Street, 2420 Welton Street. 3022 Zuni Street. And 660 Logan Street. Thank you. Councilwoman each. Thank you, Mr. President. And this question may be for you or for the staff, but can you we just I think it's always helpful to clarify expectations. So there's going to be a process. You're going to have diverse opinions. Is it your expectation that this group will work on consensus model to make recommendation or that they will debate things and may or may not all agree, but they will make their best, you know, input to you and to the city staff as and that the decision making will kind of lie after or outside the process. I just thought it'd be good to clarify, you know, whether and what the expectations are, because I think that this is an important time out. But I wanted to get a sense of, you know, what the input level is. So Kyle, I think from a process perspective, I think you should talk about it. But, but I want to mention this as far as the people who are going to the stakeholders who are going to be on their council, Councilman Cashman and myself will be looking at a diverse set of stakeholders from folks who are in the community, folks who are actually affected by this. We're going to be looking at architects. We're going to be looking at actual developers. We're gonna look at an affordable housing expert. We're going to be looking at a TOD manager. We're going to look at a lot of different experts at the table along with these community representatives. And then we're going to I think you said it best. We will look at a consensus model. But the way that CPD has outlined this process, I think we're going to start to form some contextual agreements around some of these different zone districts and what this kind of looks like. But Kyle wanted you to speak because you've you have run many of these and have suggested some an area for us to go in on this. So go ahead. Sure. Thanks. Given that so much work was done by Councilwoman Mara before she departed off the office last year, we have a lot of background work that's already been done in terms of looking at other cities, acquiring the data here in Denver, understanding the history. And Councilman Cashman did a good job of explaining a lot of what happened so we can hit the ground running. As soon as if this bill were to pass and sign into law, we could start right away with the sponsors to form that stakeholder committee and work over the next couple of months or so to hopefully, you know, help those folks get to consensus about a recommended change to the code, which we would then propose be included within the bundle, the text amendments that the department does about once a year, cleaning up and clarifying the code so that we might bring it through with you on that same adoption process and and get it done in the time afforded by the moratorium. Yeah, but I think that's a good expectation because I have heard from some folks saying, you know, will there be 20, 30 folks on the committee? And we probably wouldn't get a lot done with that many folks. And so we're looking at about 12 to 15 would a significant amount of folks from the community and making sure we have those experts as well who are coming in and more of a neutral position saying, hey, here is here's the expertize from the field. And so I think that's important for folks to realize. Thank you. I'm sorry. Real quick follow up, Mr. President. What happens if the group does not reach consensus? What's the what's the. Well, I mean, a council can meet in these questions. I'd tell you. I believe we will reach consensus. I think I'm in three or four of these issues right now currently and very tough issues that have reached consensus. But if we don't, we will have to come back here and extend the moratorium. Yeah. Councilman Espinosa. Mr.. Looking like a question for you. Right, Frank. So for the last six years, this exemption has been in place and in the area of your bid. It's been in place even longer. Why do you why do you think it hasn't solved the housing problem during this building boom? And shouldn't it be reconsidered to possibly better address the needs that you just identified? Can you repeat? I'm afraid that you're asking a question that's way out of my pay grade. But can you repeat it again? Right. So this this this exemption actually started on Colfax in the Main Street Zone District. So it's been in place even longer for your area that you represent is a bit longer than it's been citywide in the unintended consequences really extend citywide. But so during this extreme building boom that we've had over the last five years, we still have a dearth of affordable housing. So your statements were that this is somehow going to solve that problem when it hasn't over the last five years. Right. So what do you think? Why do you think that? And don't you think we should actually spend the time to try and figure out how we might address the needs on these small lots with some with moratorium and some reconsideration? Thank you. Yeah. First of all, clarify that, you know, I am speaking on behalf of me as a person and not as the Business Improvement District on Colfax. Second, I don't think that there is a real simple solution to the affordable housing issue. Otherwise it would have been solved. And you know, you all are going through that. And, you know, there's impact fees and those property fees that, you know, may be assessed to folks. And I think that's a piece of it. The perspective that I was bringing to it was more that just kind of like the simple supply and demand. And again, I don't mean that this isn't that this is the solution, but when and and I also don't mean to infer that the the one the development that's closest to me is at 16th and Humboldt, that's market rate. You know, there are some could say they're kind of expensive for the amount of square feet that you get, but it's adding 108 units into the supply. And so if parking is being required for that, then there's a cost to a parking spot. And that parking the cost of that parking spot is going to erase some level of housing, some some place where somebody can sleep. The more that the more that the number of parking spots are required, the more places that somebody can sleep are going to be diminished. So from for my perspective, the more that we are prioritizing parking over people, the more that we get into the situation where we have a shortage of housing and we should be doing what we can to increase housing supply within reason. Because if that was to go live at 16th and Humboldt, then that means that perhaps some of the old, you know, Victorian homes that have been converted into five units, five apartment units now that are commanding a thousand bucks a month that really aren't worth a thousand bucks a month. Maybe, though, the prices of those are going to go down by a couple of hundred bucks of months, and then that starts making it a little bit more affordable. So this is these are all the moving parts where I don't think that there is a silver bullet, clearly. Okay. Just out of curiosity, I in one of my ongoing frustrations is in areas of 2D. And this is relative to what you're just seeing. We have considerably massive zone districts, but there's no development requirement that you build the number of units to address the housing need can actually underbid. Do you feel that we should actually have a minimum requirement in certain residential zoned districts around at0d or mixed use? Yeah. All right. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you. I have a couple of questions. The first one is for those of you on council who have these units being proposed within your district. Is there an average square footage size for the micro units that are part of the applications that are moving through the process? You know, I don't have. Maybe one of the community advocates has the actual size for the d d line. Whoever has that information, I we can. We can. The need to put. Some sort of make up. Nick Barnhart, 3117 South Street, the ones that are proposed in Curtis Park, or approximately 320 square feet. And are they just one bedroom? I think they're more like studio studios. Obviously. Okay. So that sort of gets it kind of a concern that we're not talking about family housing. When we are talking about these micro units, it's barely enough for one person, let alone a family, to live there. My next question is to Kyle, if you wouldn't mind coming back to the microphone. Is KPD planning to handle this internally or is this something that is going to be contracted out where we will have a contract having to come before council for a different entity that will administer the process that was just talked about earlier to kind of move this forward. Sure. So so first of your previous question, I'll just note some of these projects don't even have a residential component or are five, six, seven units, so they're not all micro-housing projects, although some are. To your question to me, we will not be contracting this out. We'll be managing this together with like with the council sponsorship. So in some of these developments that were talked about earlier, whether it's the one on Humboldt or on Stout Street, you mentioned some of the addresses. So you're saying some of these will have commercial that will not have any parking requirements as well. So they're not all just residential, they're mixed use developments, correct? Some are only residential. Well, one is only commercial. It's an office building and the rest are mixed. Okay. So the fact that any of the buildings will have commercial uses, I think could further exacerbate some of the parking problems in the neighborhoods. Thank you for the questions. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman, are there any more questions? Seeing none. Public hearing of Council Bill 498 is now close. Comments by members of Council. Councilman Cashman. I'll repeat that. Thank you, Mr. President. A very interesting discussion. You know, we're on we're on this cusp of a world with no parking. I think that cusp is a lot wider than some people do. You know, we were at the. A number of us were at the National League of Cities Conference in Nashville a couple of years ago. And there are folks they tend to be younger that they believe were were with driverless cars in widespread use in five years. And why do you need parking spaces? Because you don't need to own cars. I don't think we're there yet. I think we still need to make reasonable accommodation for automobiles. I think this moratorium is essential because this is a complex discussion and I don't want to encourage auto ownership, but I certainly don't want to encourage over 100 units on one block with no parking. That's what I'm trying to stop here. That's my personal view of things. You know, we can talk about reasonable, reasonable reductions and reasonable numbers to try to reach a middle ground. But to do nothing makes no sense to me. And can we get serious here? 320 square feet. For a residence now that's going on today and widespread use. But there's a lot of things that go on today that aren't going to be going on in five years. When when, when trends change and housing desires change and the economy changes. And I couldn't agree more with Councilwoman Ortega. And I know Brother Lopez talks about this all the time. We need housing for families in this city. There is a dire need not just for for many housing, but a dire need for two, three and four bedroom affordable units. And we need to solve that as well. So while we're talking about these this parking exemption, do we require since people there's no evidence that I've seen that people in Denver are giving up their cars ? I just haven't seen that. So do we. Somehow I don't even know if it's legal or possible. Require if you're going to take a parking exemption that you can only rent or sell to people who somehow prove they have no motor vehicles. I mean, there's got to be some sort of logic to what we're doing. I also want to commend my my good friend Hillary Waters for her comments on the architecture. As Hillary said, she published life on Capitol Hill for a couple of decades while publish the Washington Park paper. And Hillary has been a warrior for her community for a lot of years. And that that whole idea about what are we doing, what do we want Denver to look like? Do we really want it to look like these mini boxes that are going up? I just spent six days in Connecticut last week and I'm looking at architecture from the 1600s and 1700s. Now there's newer buildings and they don't look exactly like the older buildings, but they sure aren't building square boxes. They're making a real effort to establish character of their community. And I think we better get back to that real soon, or I think we're going to be making a whole lot of mistakes along the way. And I want to end my comments with a philosophical question that I keep answering, and I haven't heard a real discussion of it yet. And that is what do we want Denver to be do right now? Last I heard, we were at 700 or 682,000. We'll be at 700,000 people soon. We were like at 500,000, one decade, 500,000, another decade, 500,000, another decade. All of a sudden, we're at 682,000. So what's Denver's ultimate population? Is it 900,000 or is it 4 million? I mean, I know it takes a crystal ball, but I think that discussion is critical to discussions like we're having now, because if we decide it's 4 million, we better start mowing down our Victorians and build more of these boxes because we're not going to have enough room. But if we decide that character and architecture is important, and if we decide that there is limits to density, then I think it's a different discussion. And one last thing. I was involved in an Urban Land Institute process recently at the University of Denver, and it was around this new strategic plan. There was a gal from Indianapolis there, and I said to her, I said, Well, how's things going in Indianapolis? And she said, You know, as a very bright woman, she said, there's something very appealing about being a second tier city. You know, now that's a community discussion. Do we want to become. The zenith of all modern cities and cutting edge? Or is there a middle ground? Because if if we want to keep building, I hate to tell you, but there's counties all around us that have far more ground and they're going to build bigger than we are now. There are cities within an hour's drive. There's counties within an hour, an hour and a half that can start now with endless land, build a first rate, modern day transportation system to move their people around with subways and bridges and whatever else they decide they need. So we need to really understand or discuss as a city what it is we want to be. So that's getting a little bit off track, Mr. President. So I'll end there. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman Espinosa. Thank you for those off track comments. Councilman Cashman. We couldn't agree with the majority of them more. The. The the only clarification that I wanted to make was for my constituents in northwest Denver. When this bill first came, the draft ordinance came to my desk. It actually didn't include the lion's share of these parcels in northwest Denver because it was geared not towards the urban context, even though it was intended for all mixed use zoned districts. It did not mean not that urban. Yeah, the Yukon context. So I did make my comments to the groups that were supporting this in order to make sure that those parcels that are subject to this sort of overdevelopment in traditionally lower density neighborhoods did not get impacted and without sort of a better process. This is sort of a direct reflection of the fact that while this was originally drafted towards the Colfax corridor 32nd and Lowell, not the Colfax corridor, as much as some people may want it. So I just wanted to make it very clear to my constituents in District one that I did, in fact, do what I could to advocate that this get extended and meet the true intent that I believe was always part of the original drafting. And so I'm happy to support it because it does include the lion's share of these all these parcels in District one things. Thank you, Councilman. Thank you, sir. We've had this discussion quite a bit about the small apartments. And even in Cherry Creek, we had a really strong discussion with a developer about one of the applications to be approved tonight. That apartment went up from 320 to 375 square feet, a huge jump. So. So it's pretty small. And parking was an issue and there was a good discussion about a compromise that could actually help parking as well as help the developer. So I think it's very important that we take this time out. And also all the discussion we've had, whether it's in any type of residential, a commercial zoning or even this small light zoning, it's all about transit. Where is transit? We got to people don't need cars if we have a good transit system. And I hear from from public works is still going to be five or six years away before we have our first transit implementation. So. So we we got a lot of time and there's nothing wrong with taking a time out to study this and think further and actually have a better feel for our transportation system as that planning goes forward. So I'll support this moratorium and I recommend my colleagues support it also. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. New Councilman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm going to speak in support of this moratorium as well. Several years ago, the National League of Cities hosted a meeting in Seattle, and we had some some folks who went. We also had a follow up meeting later with the Denver Partnership and several members of city council, some of whom are no longer on this body. They've been term limited, but we had an opportunity to go see some of the micro units in Seattle that were being built by more than one developer. And. What they said to us before we went to tour the sites was that the people who lived there didn't have cars. But we actually got a chance to meet the residents that lived in a couple of the developments that we saw. One building was a five story building, had, I think, 36 units. They were on single family residential blocks and they didn't have any parking, very similar to what we're dealing with here today. And we learned that they do have cars. They were challenged to find a place to park. The neighbors who lived on the block really didn't want them parking on their block. And so it created a problem. And their city council was supposed to be dealing with that very topic during the time that we were there. And I understand they delayed it and still haven't found the right solution to addressing that problem. But they're struggling with the same issues that have begun to come up here with some of the projects that are having a large number of units on single family residential blocks. We worked really hard on the Blueprint Denver plan that identified where the city wanted to see growth happen, and it was on the commercial corridors and at the TOD sites and we're seeing that happen all over the city. And in fact, this body has been involved in many rezonings that has encouraged development and, you know, approved the high density that will be going in at a number of transit stops across the city. So that's where it was designed in Blueprint Denver to direct that development. But what we're seeing happen is. Neighborhoods that have been traditional single family neighborhoods where Blueprint said protect the stable neighborhoods and target the growth to these other areas to the edges of neighborhoods. But we're seeing the internal fabric of many of our neighborhoods changing drastically. And, you know, you may have one or two developers that in some areas like. Around the Tennyson Street corridor, for example, where some blocks have been completely changed and replaced with duplexes that take up the entire lot. And the older, you know, some in some cases, historic buildings are gone. So in that neighborhood, I've been to a number of meetings of the Berkeley Neighborhood Association. The biggest topic that comes up over and over is the issue of parking. I've had many calls from the Curtis Park neighborhood about this same very topic way before we even proposed this moratorium. So this is an issue that I think is important for us to take this time out, figure out what are the right solutions so that we can be able to create that balance. Micro units are not the answer for family housing. We know that. And what we learned when we did the trip to Seattle was. Some of those units were 200 square feet. And they were renting them for $700 a month. Now, I've heard that some of the units that we're talking about here are in the ballpark of $1,000 a month. So, you know, are they are they truly affordable? It they're at a price point that's not available in our market today. Right. Because our prices of housing have gone up drastically. But, you know, I think they are one part of the solution of housing needs in this city. They're not the answer to all of our housing needs. And I think there is a place for them to go. But we also have to create that balance, because we know the people in Denver still drive their cars. Even with the build out of our transit system, many people still drive their cars. And so we have to create that balance. And I think having this timeout to allow us to do that is going to be an important measure that will allow us to find those right solutions. So thank you. Thank you, Counsel. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Clark. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to start by saying that I'm very supportive of this amendment, and I hope that we will move this forward tonight. And I want to thank my colleagues and the members of the public who worked to bring this forward and push on this these projects. What is being proposed to be built was never the intent of this ordinance. This is a loophole. This is a workaround in my mind, a way of cheating and finding a place to build something. That was not our intent. And many of us asserted that maybe this is a good thing for Denver and a way for us to deal with affordable housing and create more housing stock. Well, if this is good for Denver, then we should go in. Eyes wide open. We should go in intentionally saying we're going to carve out a parking moratorium for this. And that's not what we did. We didn't put this in place for this use and people found a way to use it in that manner. And on that alone, we should put a moratorium on and stop this until the point at which we decide that this is what we want for our city. Tonight, I drove my car here to city council for the first time. It's the first time in three weeks that my parking spot had a car in it, not a bike, or I didn't drive by the train. And with the growth that we are experiencing as a city, we cannot build enough parking or enough new lanes for everyone to be. And so we a single occupancy vehicle in their car. We need to create real options for mobility. We need to create infrastructure that gives all of our residents the freedom of choice when it comes to mobility so that they can choose to get around however they want. The only way that we will ever be able to accommodate this kind of growth. This is not the answer to that. Letting these projects go through on these lots to give you. A. Picture of this for people who might be watching or here for one of the other hearings and wondering what's going on here. I grew up on a 50 foot lot and we really packed it in as a family of seven, one of five kids, and we never had seven drivers in our household at the same time. And yet we were a parking menace on our block and right next door to us on the next lot over that wasn't even 50 feet was a single gentleman with a two car garage and a carport. So he didn't even need the parking in front of his house. And we were still all over that block. Seven people on a 50 foot lot. Some of the projects that we have talked about tonight, 54. And that's not members of the same family with some people who are little kids being carted around. That's 54 individual households. And right next door to it, another 54. Pearl Street is in the district that I represent, and it is one of those magical places that represents everything that whether we planned on it or it just happened, really went right in our city and created communities where people want to live in the city. People want to live in our urban core because it is walkable and it is bikeable. And you can get to the train and you have all these great small local businesses. What this parking exemption was created to promote and now it's all at risk. One of these projects is on that strip of Pearl Street, 17 units. 17 people on a place where we already are stretched for parking, where these small local businesses run the risk of being choked out, where residents can't find a place to park when they're getting home from wherever they're going or have any guests over at night who can park anywhere close to their house. And in a place where. Urban living is embrace. And we have huge urban infill opportunities at the former Gates site and the Broadway marketplace, where we have residents saying, yes, bring density on. Here's a place where we can build that missing housing stock. Here's a place by transit where that makes sense. And instead, what we're getting is 17 units. On Pearl Street with no requirement to build parking. Even if for a second I can see that the people living there are able to use the train or a bike or bicycle or car to go, to get to work, to get to the grocery store, to get to all of the troops that they make every day. 17 people, and none of them are going to keep a car so that they can go skiing because we don't have an option to get from the city to skiing. 17 people who are all new to Denver, 40 new people a day in metro Denver. None of them want a car so that they can go home for Thanksgiving dinner to spend it with their family. And they only hang out with other people who also don't have a car and don't ski and don't want to go home for Thanksgiving dinner because there will be no place for their guests to park either. I don't believe it. I don't buy it. And I think that what's at risk here, because this is one project on Pearl Street when there are entire blocks, the entirety of Pearl Street, that could be one after another. What's at risk? What we could lose here is far too great to even take a chance on. And I frankly think that it is irresponsible for those who are building these kind of projects when that exemption was never intended for this and is something that that puts so much at risk for so many to even be considering these projects. So I personally wish we could have tightened up the pipeline more aggressively and said, no, this is not what we intended here. And so you don't get to do it until we take a timeout. And I really hope that we will come out of this moratorium period with something that respects the fabric, fabric of our communities and gets this type of development under control. You know, if we're going to really look at this and there are really developers who say, yeah, I know these people aren't going to hit cars and they don't have friends who need cars and they don't want to go skiing. Then why don't they come to the table with when you rent here, you get an eco pass, you get a bicycle membership, you get a car to go membership. Oh, and by the way, we'll do residential parking permits on this street and ten blocks in any direction that my people won't be able to get. Because if you really believe in it, then that's the kind of proposal that we should see, a proposal that makes sure not promises what could be with this thing that we've never done but says no, you know what? It will not make any sense for someone. Someone will be unable to advocate my development and I'm still willing to put my capital on the line because I think I can rent it out. What's happening is we are all paying for that. That's been being sold to us. And I don't I don't buy it. I don't believe it. I hope that we'll pass this unanimously tonight. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Councilman Greenwich. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to start by saying that I, too, plan to vote for this piece of legislation tonight and to thank the sponsors for their work on it and the department. But I think that, you know, we speak from the dais not just to explain our vote, but also to, I think, enhance and take dialogs to the next level. So I think it's important just to share some cautions or some counterpoints to some of the dialog that we've had up here tonight. I think that my colleague, Councilman Cashman in particular, is right in saying that our infrastructure and our our our land use might be a little bit ahead of our transportation choices and our mobility. Right. So that is a real observation. And it is true we don't have as much high frequency bus service as we need. For example, rail is great, but it's very expensive and difficult to implement. So our next generation is going to be higher frequency bus, more affordable fares, whatever the different options need to be. So. So that is a significant point and I think one that this council has recognized. And it's why we are not just debating these land use pieces, but talking a lot about the infrastructure spending to fund and expand the choices that Councilman Clark mentioned. But I do just want to, you know, clarify, I think what I think are a few misnomers. Though there are choices today. It's not that there are no choices. The busting is see that service to the mountains? It's running today. It's ahead of projection. You can actually take a bus to the mountains. So let's make sure that everyone knows that, right? Let's talk about it more. They're in the process of expanding the frequency of it. So there's more trips right up to the mountains and back. But you actually can take a bus to ski in Colorado. And we've had that service for less than a year. So it's not everyone knows about it yet. But but but I think we have a responsibility to educate that these choices are coming. And it's not that our land use discussions shouldn't be contemplating them and or even responding to them. I want to talk a little bit about this idea that, you know, that we can somehow, you know, kind of limit our share of the growth in that our neighbors, you know, around us will be able to absorb it all. You know, we have an urban growth boundary in the entire metro region. So there is a voluntary agreement that all of the counties in the metro area have made and said, you know what, we can't sprawl in every square inch of green space. Why can't we? Well, first of all, because just like folks talked about the golden goose, our golden goose is really open space and mountain views and all of that. And if we build in every available space in this region outside of Denver, then the thing that made many of us love living here is diminished, too. So we as a region have actually said no. The other reason we don't want to sprawl into every piece of open space is because it's expensive. We do modeling. I'm our representative on the Denver Regional Council of Governments and we model different development scenarios and the infrastructure cost to build those new roads that some folks were describing and to build the water. Water is a huge issue in this region. It's not there. And so our neighbors are having the same conversation we are now. They may not have a downtown Denver or a tech center with 20 storey high rises, but they're debating townhomes where they used to only have single family homes or they're debating three and five story where they only had one story commercial. They are having the same conversation about growing up and growing smarter that we are. So so I think that the idea that we can just kind of, you know, continue our trend of planning for the single car and that, you know, some of this growth will go elsewhere. I don't think that's a realistic scenario. There is a desire people have to live in this city and with the amenities that we have. And that's a credit to both the character as well as some of the investments. Right. It's both of those things. So so here's my my fear. Here's my caution, I guess, about this moratorium, which is that I will disclose I'm a returning member of council. So I had a chance to talk with Councilwoman Robb when she thought about writing an amendment, and she did have a very good compromise. The compromise included some projects not having any parking and then it included other projects with more units or different kinds of units having some parking, but maybe not the same amount that they would have in some other zone districts. It was a true compromise. It didn't have always parking 17 units next to a transit station might not need parking. There are other options. Travel, demand, management. I agree with Councilman Clark. This is the concept where you say to someone, if you want the privilege of building this way, then do a written plan on how you are going to get these alternative modes. I hope this group discusses that. But but I think that, you know, I wanted to just ask the questions I did of of the sponsor, because I think it's really important to say that this council reserves the right to broker a compromise if the community can't come, if someone joins this group with the perspective that we should never, ever build a building without parking. That to me is not paving a way towards compromise and might not be the right solution. I would not support that solution. So I am both asking the community who wants to be engaged in this dialog to be sincere about compromise and to ask my colleagues on this council to say, if that compromise can't come from the community, then it's important that we broker it here. Because I'm not okay saying, you know what, we should never build another building again in Denver without parking. That's not the right answer. We have places, we have strategies and we have opportunities where we can do this. They're not all in place in all the neighborhoods where the zone district exists. We haven't done a great in advertising them, making them of, you know, accessible and affordable. So we have more work to do. And that is why I'm strongly in favor of this tonight, but with some caution and some thoughtfulness about the fact that we will continue heading in this direction as our partners in the region, as are other regions like ours, it is an urbanizing nation. And so this is hard work and it requires an investment that we are going to have to be willing to make into that transportation infrastructure. So with that, I want to just say that I'm hopeful that the folks who enter into this really, truly are open to compromise in both directions, that there may be places and conditions where this is possible and there may be some. As we've heard, not every project we've talked only about residents tonight, but our planner told us many of these buildings are commercial or other uses. We need to be much broader in our thinking. We've gotten very stuck on one story here tonight, and it's important to hear the other stories when we go through this process. So thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman. Can each. Councilman Herndon. Thank you, Mr. President. The beauty of going last is you really don't have much to ask because your colleagues are always so thoughtful and what they say. So I will certainly be brief. You know, the thing you always hear as an elected official is unintended consequences. And I, I, I understand how some colleagues are in support of this feel that. But I also share Councilwoman Kennedy is the unintended consequences of passing this bill, because I do think it's a little concerned because we do not want to say that we always want to have parking built with parking. I'm sorry. No parking bill. I always have parking bill. Excuse me. So I think it's important that we say that. And what gives me comfort in this is that this is seven months. But I will certainly question if seven months from now another extension comes forward, because then I will certainly ask that question, what are we really trying to do here? So I'm comfortable moving this forward. But we we need to be cautious about the message that we're sending. And I encourage those in this group and I have all the faith in the world, in the leadership team that's moving forward, is that we do come to a better a better agreement than what we currently have. Because I do think Councilman Clark was quite on point when he says that so too that I'm comfortable comfortable with and Mr. Drag, I want. To say I have a 15 month. Old son. I do not believe he will ever have a driver's license. I don't I do not believe that. And I think technology is moving so fast, the world that he will live in will be ridiculously different from the one that I grew up in. And so that's why I talk about being cautious, because I'm excited about the future and I think it will look very drastically different from what we have right now. But I am comfortable supporting this. So. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Herndon, we will be following your son's career. Okay, Councilman. Just to that to that point real quick, it's really interesting. This week was released that Uber next year will be in some cities releasing and testing driverless cars. So that is that's an interesting comment. Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. Councilman heard him now. And your son's about 16 years old. He's going to know your ear off so bad that you're going to want him just to go get a driver's license. Haven't even raised my sisters telling them that they can't have a license. It's almost like denying them water air. That's going to be very hard, but it is something that we have to consider and listening to everybody tonight and I do support the moratorium moving forward. I do think we need to look at this not just in terms of regional and how we're growing as a region, but in different parts of the city where it's appropriate that you'd be able to place units without having to build parking until the redistricting. Now, now that I think about it. I don't have one parking meter in my district. It's different. Some areas are different. There's a lot of areas in my neck of the woods that I was born and raised in. There's plenty of parking. But there's not as much housing as we need. And so it is a balance. The West Line cuts right through Council District three. The light rail moving south goes through District three. It is something that we are constantly looking at and the more we add units, the more it becomes an issue. Here's the thing, though. We have to strike a balance with both of those features coexisting. I agree. It's never going to be a time where you're not going to see a vehicle in the street, not in our lifetime. And you said that eloquently. But I disagree with what Mario said. Because all is fine and dandy on a bike until you have a kid that's sick in the winter. Right. And if you're working class or or you're poor in this city, you're not going to call an Uber. You're going to jump in your car, beat up car, and. Cruise over to the hospital. Or to the pharmacy. That's just the reality of it. I think sometimes we become enamored with ourselves to the point that we forget that it's not just the creative class in the city, but it's also the maintainers of this city. It's the people who are building the buildings. Right. Picking your plate up. Serving you. Building your roads. That's what Denver's for as well to. Denver is their home as well, too. It's not just it's all it's an end situation and we have to build for that end situation. You don't build just for what's popular and trendy now. Bicycles have always been part of them. And I would challenge folks especially to think. When you look at connectivity, when you look at transportation in Denver, there are so many people who bike before it was popular because the only thing that they can afford, there are people who can't get licenses because of. Their status as status issues. Until you have immigration reform, until the clear up this backlog, they can't get behind a wheel. But they're on a bike and they're on it long before it's popular. You have day laborers cruising around central Denver on bikes. You have homeless individuals trying to get to work on bikes. But when we're looking at building affordability and there has to be some kind of compromise. So that's why I do support the moratorium. As we are building those two and three bedroom units that we need so badly and desperately in the city, I be considering at least one spot. I mean, we shouldn't always do it and push all the density in areas where we don't have power or we don't have enough spaces. Right. So I do look at it as a two way street. I think it's a future for for everybody. And Denver as a city for everybody. Especially for those who maintain it. We don't want them to leave because Denver dies when that happens. So I support this. I look forward to hearing the discussions, participating in it and and coming into these chambers to actually lift the moratorium. So thank you for your work. Thank you all for for being here tonight and your leadership. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Councilman Lopez, are there any other. Any other comments for members of council? I. I will close this out and make some some comments. One and I think this needs to be easily said more. The neighbors champion this. And in a time where I'm hearing that neighbors aren't being heard at a time that I'm hearing that there's so much division in our city. The humble and courteous park neighbors came, sat down and met with me and had language that they put together for a moratorium and that needs to be celebrated. And so a way to organize in a way to show that public engagement in this city works and it matters. So I really appreciate you all. Secondly, I think there's a lot of nervous folks around. You know, what is moratorium mean and and all of this language? I think I was very clear at the beginning, and I think Councilman Cashman and I talked about this as well, is that, you know, we had this marijuana conversation about pending applications. And one of the reasons that we did not want to touch the pending is people had made sizable investments already. Whether we agree with those investments or not to change the rules midstream, we felt like was unfair. So that was one of the reasons we did not include all of the pending. However, we believe going forward that this moratorium and this this time to bring in neighbors, to bring in experts and have thoughtful consideration about what we want the future of the city to look like is going to be incredibly impactful. And so we're excited to take this on. And I appreciate all of the folks who showed up here, even the people who did not talk. But you put money in a meter and sat in those hard wooden benches. Thank you for being here. And I hope that this gives you some encouragement that this is your government and this is about inclusivity in this city. I think this moratorium makes perfect sense. We're talking about a lot of things, but this is what it's saying. We're going to need someone to take a timeout. You know, I'm a sports guy taking a time out and bring in some of the best thinkers in the city to the table and saying, how do we do this ? Well. Hey, I want to also give it up to Councilwoman Robb. This is you know, it's fun to she she really was working on this on her last months of being on city council and this kind of left. But if you're watching this as part of your legacy and councilman cat councilman Catherine has just been great picking up the picking up this moratorium and working with neighbors. And so I really appreciate it. I want to say I am a when I first got elected city council, I actually sold my car for one year to really experience what it's like to be an urbanist in the city. And it was hard. It was very hard. I do have a car again, but I think this is a larger conversation about choices that we make in the city. And I do not want that to be lost on any of us. My neighbor is in we live two miles from downtown, 2.3 miles from downtown. And my neighbor has three cars. There's two people living in the house. That's not really an urbanist perspective of how to live. That's not really sustainable. And so there are some real choices that we as neighbors, as people, as constituents and people in this city have to think about how we are impacting the environment that we're living in. And so I'm excited to have that conversation as well. So obviously I will be supporting this and I'm excited to move forward and talk about the strides that we've made in seven months. So, Madam Secretary, Roll Call. Cashman I. Can eat. Lopez All right. New ORTEGA Black Eye. CLARK Hi. ESPINOSA Hi. Flynn Hi. Gilmore, I. Herndon Hi, Mr. President. I Madam Secretary calls results and closed voting and as the results 12 eyes. 12 Eyes Council Bill. 498 passes. Councilman new, will you please put council bill 541 on the floor? Thank you, Mr. President. I move the council bill 541 be as amended on July 25th, 2016, be placed for final consideration and do pass. It has been moved in second at the public hearing for 541 is open. May we have the overview accounts? A new share.