A bill for an ordinance providing for a moratorium prohibiting the approval of site development plans and the amendment of approved site development plans for construction of buildings using the Garden Court building form in the Denver Zoning Code for a period of approximately twelve months. Approves a moratorium prohibiting the approval of site development plans and the amendment of approved site development plans for construction of buildings using the Garden Court building form in the Denver Zoning Code for a period of approximately twelve months. IF ORDERED PUBLISHED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THIS ITEM.  REFER TO THE "PENDING" SECTION OF THE FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDAS FOR THE DATE. This bill was approved for filing by Councilmember New.  
We have given our council members a copy of one of the their six pending applications, and it is a copy of one of the designs of one of the six. And his garden court is 50 to 60 feet wide rather than the minimum of 15 feet. So it can be a beautiful design and we're looking forward to seeing it reevaluated and implemented in the future. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Councilman. New Councilman Espinosa. And I just wanted to add that thank you for for bringing these amendments forward. And and I just want to make it very clear that this moratorium should have happened years ago, because the problems related to this garden court form have been in the code since 2010 when it was adopted. But wherever this this pause had taken would have taken place, projects would have been impacted. So I just you know, there may be concerns. There are a few in the queue right now, but that would have been the case at any point in time, really, unless we found some sort of law. And so I just wanted to share that. Thanks. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilwoman Black. Thank you. I am going to support this, but I'm not promising. I'm going to support it when it comes up for a final vote until we all learn more about it. We just learned about this a week ago. I totally agree that there are issues with the garden court form and they need to be addressed. But I just want to understand better the impacts on current projects. I don't want to. Abuse anyone's property rights who may have plans already done and that their property was already zoned for this. Just as when we looked at the marijuana laws, we decided to honor those pending applications. So I just want to be very clear that I want to learn more about this before I'm going to vote for it in in about a few weeks or more. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. I am going to support this because I do believe that this is something that needs to be looked at. There are a lot of things within our zoning code. Ever since we adopted a new foreign based zoning code in 2010, that this is going to create garden. This garden build is one of them. And if you look close enough and a lot of it, a lot of our code that there's going to be a lot of things that don't match or you need to have a little bit more emphasis and guidance. And that's that's what we do as a council. That's one of our primary powers and roles per charter. So looking at this in the further detail is something I look forward to seeing and participating in. However, I do feel that there are some folks that if they are in the queue, that as a council that we be mindful of this date on the 25th and time this date for folks who are already in the queue and have been operating and and using funds and having their plans reviewed, adopting their plans, getting looking and in process. And, you know, I think it would. It would. And the spirit of the previous action of this council on marijuana. I think it's it's important that we mind the folks that are already in there, since we have already set a precedent in doing that. So but I do look forward to it. It's going to be interesting. Garden court is a rare but very, very if done right, it can be very beautiful. It's protected. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Lopez. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. Pro tem. Councilman Nu, there you have. You gave us a schematic of one of the six applications that are in the pipeline where your amendment would allow this to proceed. What's the status of the other five? Because I. I don't want to prevent folks who have abided by the process and are in the pipeline. I don't want to cut them off cold as we did not with the the marijuana moratorium. And as also tonight, we're not doing with the small lot parking exemptions. Yeah. Thank you, Councilman. Of the six pending applications, three of them are just in constant review right now. Okay. One the one that you had the diagram on Boulevard. One is inside site. Build a plan and it meets all the criteria as well as the exception so it can move forward nicely. And it's a wonderful picture of what I think we want in the future. The other two are also in site of urban planning, so none have been approved, have gotten zoning permits or or close to building permits yet. So they're in that stage where I think there's really some discussion and redesign. I think they could apply easily with the exceptions. So none of the other five applications. Three in all five right now in their current state would not go forward under this moratorium. I'll see if they redesign. If they meet the the exceptions, then they all can move forward. No question about them. But we don't know. If they do meet the exception. Not yet. Only example we've got is the one boulevard one. Okay. Before I vote, I would like to know if the other five would be able to go forward. Because I want to honor I want to honor the fact that people followed our rules. Well, Councilman Espinosa, talk about that. Yeah, I just wanted to let you know that I. I made the request from CPD for all six concepts that have been submitted so that they can all be reviewed the same way this one has. So we really don't know what what would or wouldn't conform as is. Okay. So I'm uncomfortable voting yes unless I know that. But so sometime in the very near future, we'll have that. As soon as I have that, I'll share that with my colleagues. We have four weeks. But you won't have that before roll call. This is my point. No. Okay. Thank you. Councilman Flynn, if it's okay with you. Councilwoman Sussman also has a little bit to say about your question. That was all I had. Okay. But she's speaking, I think, to your question. Yes. Thank you very much. And I believe that is a really good question. And I know that coming up is a full referral of this bill to committee in the next two weeks so that we can have those sorts of discussions. Because I would just echo what Councilwoman Black Councilman Lopez said, that we want to be careful about those in the Q know where they are in the Q, what the process is and abide by our sets that we had with the marijuana bill that those who are acting in good faith can depend upon our rules to some extent. So it is going to committee. I think you'll be referring it right, councilman, to in just the next few minutes so that we can have further discussions. This is just to publish it. It's not to agree to it. Okay. Mr. President, could I. Yep. Go ahead, gentlemen. Okay. Just a follow up question. If if we're going to refer to committee, should we bother amending it now or should we leave that to the committee to to actually formulate the final draft of the bill? We'd like to ask that you be amended now then we can we discuss it a little bit? Committee. No, not thoroughly as we want to discuss it afterwards, but we'd like to publish it as amended today. Anything else, Councilman? Thank you. Councilwoman Sussman, did you have anything in addition to the answer? Oh, thank you, Mr. President. All right. And Councilman Espinosa, if I'd never mind. Councilman condition. Thank you, Mr. President. I had two questions. The first was, does the amendment only allow folks who've already submitted applications to amend or adjust their applications to meet these criteria? Or in theory, does the amendment make it such that any applicant who comes forward during the entire moratorium period could continue to have their application processed under these standards? It's my understanding that any application can come forward. Is that okay? Great. And then I recognize this may be more applicable to the next motion, but just so I understand, if we if we vote yes on the amendment and then we we would be doing the vote to refer it to committee, would that in terms of the 30 day clock and all of that? I just want to understand what the implications of voting on the amendment tonight and having the bill as amended. Do you in terms of timeline as it relates to going back to committee? So someone can explain that to me. If we can vote on the amended bill tonight, then the second reading in the public hearing will be on August the 22nd to be 30 days. If we do not amend that tonight and then the there will be a different time period will be a later time period when it goes to committee. So. Okay. So can I just clarify then. So if there is a motion to refer to committee, it does not slow down the clock between first and second reading yesterday. Okay. For explaining that it just these votes are related. So understanding the full picture is important. Thank you. Kels. Is that. Is that all comfortable? All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Also have a question for Councilman Nu. Can you just explain what the conversations have been with the planning department that assure that they will be involved in helping to clean up this language and make sure that we don't have, you know, what has appeared to be conflicting sections of the zoning code around this particular issue? Yes, we've had several conversations with CPD and with the planners and and and the supervisor of CPD and everybody's in agreement. And this was actually this the garden code form was actually on the list that needed to be addressed and changes to the zoning code. So it's not a new issue and I think is something they will recognize just because it's been not being implemented as they really are, I guess anyone desires. So there's been extensive conversations and discussions with them and they they recommended the 12 month period to review and we will restructure the work load to make sure it happens within that 12 months. Thank you. No further questions. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Espinosa. Yeah. So those discrepancies that you and Councilwoman Ortega was mentioning, those have existed. And that's one of the things if you've been paying attention, I hope you haven't. I've been harping on for the better part of a year. Well, for exactly one year since I've been on council. Time and time again, because we've allowed zoned districts that allow this form and the density that's associated with it. But it's clearly not part of the intent of those zone districts. And so there's this this real confusion. And so one of the things is, is that the moratorium, as proposed without the amendments, was actually very clean. It just said, look, we're going to stop using this this this form until we take the time that we should have to address it. And I had already been working with CPD to do just that some time before the end of the year. But because of our workload, we just simply don't have enough time to get that done. And so rather than keep allowing sort of egregious projects, take advantage of this, yeah, it needs to be addressed. But that said, the purpose of the amendment is actually to allow it to sort of continue to persist, something akin to what was intended in the existing code that is commensurate with rowhouse sort of forms where it's allowed but not. And so we won't go into that because that's a wholly different. Litigation. And I'm sorry if I'm confusing anybody, but there are problems with this form as defined and has recorded in documented in the zoning code. And a moratorium is the right tool. When you have a problem in your zoning code and you need to address it and you want to sort of take a breather to take the time to do that. The these simple provisions would allow development, fairly dense development, to move forward on those parcels while sort of preserving the. Defi means the demonstrated or illustrated intent of this form district. So I could illustrate with these boxes, but I'll spare you all. But I just wanted to make that very clear that I have been talking about this. I have addressed it in numerous planning committees and from this day as previously. Thanks. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilwoman Sussman. Thank you, Mr. President. And Councilman Espinosa, you're actually you're very right. You do bring this up. And I thank you for sort of giving us a sense of where we might be able to make improvements in the garden court. And I do believe that we perhaps need to discuss this. My only concern, and I hope that we will be able to work on this in committee, is that the hurry up nature of the direct filing of this bill seems to be pointed to a or several particular projects. And while this is a citywide issue, I wasn't sure about the speed with which we needed to do this. So looking forward to the discussion in committee. Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Councilman Flynn. Thank Mr. President pro tem. And thank you, Councilman Nu and Espinosa. And I think I understand where you're going, but I am uncomfortable voting to move this forward. Even with this amendment, if it would mean that the other five applications and the work that went into them in good faith would not be allowed to go forward. In other words, the moratorium should apply only to any future applications. This would be a precedent that would be set here where we did not do this with pending marijuana applications, marijuana applications, and we're not doing it tonight on the other ordinance that has a moratorium on it. So I'm uncomfortable going forward with it, as is and ordering it published. Even though I support the direction you're going, I don't think that it's I think we need to be fair to people who follow the process, even though I support where you're going with the overall bill. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman Espinosa. Yeah. I just want to make clear that the vote for the amendment does not make that the case. Only a subsequent vote for the moratorium in four weeks time. So this is simply to amend with this this provision to allow these these these development proposals with the that meet these exceptions to proceed going forward in the moratorium . Once it is if it is adopted. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Back to Councilman for just a. But we're voting right afterward and ought to order it published. Correct. And I'm uncomfortable with that. I think the bill should follow the normal procedure and go to committee and before we order it published so that we have a committee recommendation. And we have them. We have all this language worked out. So thank you. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilwoman Gilmore. Thank you, Mr. President. Pro tem, I. I guess I want to fully understand and this might be a question for Mr. Broadwell. So if we vote on this tonight to have it published and then it's referred back to committee and through the conversations in committee, if there are further amendments or what we're talking about right here around honoring folks who are already in the process, would there be the opportunity to further amend it or. I just have that question. David Broadwell, assistant city attorney. The answer is it depends. Most likely changes in committee would require republication and would kick out the hearing date further. If you order if if if the bill tonight, if the amendment passes and then the bill garners enough votes to order it published, then we're going to proceed to post public notice of a hearing four weeks hence about the bill as it came out tonight. See, so if the substance of the bill were to change later, you would probably have to do a new publication several weeks out of another hearing date. And so it could potentially change things at that point. Is that clear enough? Yes. Thank you. And so with with that knowledge, you know, I we did set precedent with the marijuana process and that we honored folks that were in the process in the Q and I, you know, think that that's an important precedent that was set. And I am, you know, citing, I think, with Councilman Flynn, that it does make me uncomfortable voting on something and having it published and not having the opportunity to have further conversations, especially when people have made investments and have I have no idea the amount of money that folks have maybe invested in moving forward with their projects . Thank you, Mr. President. Pro Tem. Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilman Espinosa. I want to make something very clear to everybody here that this is actually normal process. This is fully within our powers as members of council to bring forward a bill such as this at any point in time. It does not need to go through some sort of set of set of hoops. This is this is one of the things that we can do as members of council to work to preserve or move forward or benefit our communities. So this is normal process. By putting it back in committee to have a discussion, we can actually have this discussion about the merits of these amendments and maybe there needs to be additional amendments and then go back into this other process and all that stuff. So we have the tools to to modify even with a vote for approval with the, you know, publishing right now. I mean, there's nothing about publishing that make this a foregone conclusion. Thanks. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilman, you just you just want to let Councilwoman Gilmore and Councilman Flynn know that we tried to get it to the committee last week, too, and the agenda was so fortunate. Councilwoman Sussman, this committee is just jammed with all kind of activities. And what was interesting about it is we ended up expediting and doing a lot of great work last week and then ended up having a lot of time at the end. You know, we had a just sort of a general discussion. It wasn't a thorough discussion like we we want to have at the next committee meeting. But but we were intended to bring it through the committee structure first and we just couldn't get it on the agenda because how busy they are. But we want to have a real thorough discussion about all pending applications and this bill next time. Thank you, Councilman new Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. Pro tem. I'm sharing the concerns on both sides of this. I'm concerned that we honor the people who are legitimately in the pipeline, have been following the rules that we set up. I also share Councilman Newark Councilman Espinosa's concerns that some of the I don't think horrendous is too tough a term horrendous abuses of the garden court form that once built will live on forever. So I'm going to vote to move this forward. But with the confidence that with it going to committee and if it makes it out of committee to the floor for a second reading that we'll have adequate time to vet and amend if it's the council conscience that amendments are needed. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman Espinosa. I just have to say, you know, one comment and 98, which is a moratorium with the exact same provisions which would stymie or stifle any projects that aren't to a certain point in time. So I just don't it doesn't comport that we're willing to do a moratorium on small lots. But without any concern about those projects that might be in the queue. But suddenly now we're concerned about projects that are in the queue. You know, we if we vote. If we don't vote to publish this, we shouldn't vote to publish for 98. And I'm by no means advocating that because both of these are bills that we should be moving forward and discussing and having to vote on in four weeks. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilwoman Gilmore. Thank you, Mr. President. Pro tem, I guess, for both of my colleagues. Councilman Nu and Councilman Espinosa, I appreciate where you're wanting to take this and where you want to go with it. You know, the the the small lot moratorium that's been a conversation of a little bit over a month or so. With that project, I just was able to get my briefing from you, Councilman Espinosa, at 430 this afternoon. I know we were going to try to do two, but, you know, it's the day of. And just to really understand what this is entailing. I want to make sure I'm understanding and I don't know if it's appropriate for Councilman Nu or Councilman Espinosa to answer this question, but where? Under the new language that you're inserting into the ordinance. Could you just explain one more time what that exactly means for the projects that are in the queue? What would be the additional items that they would have to then comply with if they aren't currently in compliance with it? Yes, on the first provision exemption we're talking about is really is redefining the width of the garden court to equal to or greater than the height of the building. Most of these are zoned three stories and I think it's about like 35 feet. So we've actually done some in which will talk about and show at the committee who does review of existing garden courts and they're about 30, 35 feet. So it seems to have seems about equal to what the building height is. We thought that was a good good way to talk about that minimum with the others is rowhouse development. Where. The they're not being stacked on top of each other. Then the example that the diagram I gave you shows those Rowhouse shows a row house development on the boulevard, one that is very nicely done with a 50 to 60 foot courtyard as well as each individual row houses together without any kind of snacking on top of each other, which is probably the intent. And this is something where. This is going to be a tiny bit esoteric. But what it boils down to is right now in the Westword that I believe came out today electronically, they talked about slot houses and these townhouses that have this narrow gap. So right now, the garden court, the minimum garden court with is 15 feet. So you can have a 35 foot high structure with a 15 foot garden court with no real requirement that you can plant anything in there. But that's not the intent. And so, yes, what we're saying is that this now gap this gap now has to be as wide as you are tall. So if you're going to do a 34 foot, 35 foot high building, you have to have a 30 foot five foot wide garden court so you can have a fighting chance at getting some sun down there and planting some things and having an actual garden. So that's one of the exceptions because the slot houses were not intended in this. And therein lies the problem is in the row house, they own districts. And this is going to be part of the subsequent rezoning tonight in the row house zone districts, a row house, everyone has a very clear definition. Even the zoning code has a clear definition about a row houses. These are buildings in units that face the street. The row House districts clearly defined that you're allowed to have a urban house floor, a duplex house, four in a row, house floor. It makes no mention of the garden court for yet the garden court is allowed. And so now you can have these slot houses that are perpendicular when all the other forms in the intent orient themselves to the street. So this garden, this this exception is still allowing that garden court form to exist, which shouldn't be allowed in a row house in district, provided that it has a healthy, viable garden court. Associated with it. And then it further compels that that a-road mean that the units be not stacked so that they're each like townhouses, that the units that comprise the garden court all orient themselves to the court or to the street individual units, because right now it's just a form. And so if you do a 15 foot slot and you put the doors facing that way, you can then put that door attached to any number of condo units behind that door. And that's that was never again intended for the Rogerstone district, at least as defined in the building code and in the zoning code, Denver's zoning code . So these two amendments actually address that concern going forward for the next 12 months and say no, even though we know that we have that conflict, you can now use this form with these exceptions rather than live in a series of of of of confusion, the land of confusion, where people are using this form, where it isn't in the intent statement, but it is in a use in a form table. And we haven't vetted out which one of those where it is has more gravitas. But I'm pretty sure that if we keep going down this road, we're probably going to get a legal challenge to find out. And so the moratorium is critical to actually finally addressing this concern. So my last question, Mr. President, pro tem, is if this is equivalent to the small lot moratorium, why aren't we utilizing the exact same language as far as the the the bills and creating new language to be interpreted? Councilman, new councilman. I'm not sure I know the answer to that question. I. Maybe Mr. Broadwell, he might. Of the. Well, probably not, but but I. It does give me a chance to comment on something I heard earlier. I don't have the small lot parking exemption language in front of me, but my understanding and recollection of it is that that bill does, in fact, grandfather applications in the pipeline entirely. Right. And then it says when the moratorium is in place, some some small light exemptions will still be granted when the moratorium is in place. Many will not be allowed anymore. But the issue that's been focused on by Councilman Flynn and and one or two others about how it treats applications in the pipeline is different from this bill and different from this bill even as amended. The bill as amended tonight, if the amendment goes on, will allow some of the pending applications to continue through, but will presumably cut off others of the pending applications. But I believe the small light parking exemption bill does have the kind of language we use when all pending applications are allowed to continue. The moratorium would only have prospective effects to and applicability to future applications. That's that's the shape it was in last time I saw it. And I see some heads nodding. Okay. Thank you, Mr. President. Pro Tem. Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilwoman Kinney. Thank you, Mr. Pro Tem President. That was my main question. I guess my second question is, I don't do we have someone here from development services? So my question is, if someone can please explain to me the difference between the cutoff point here, which is, I believe concepts, approval and building permits. Exactly. Can you just distinguish between those two gaits for me? Sure. Thanks. So I'm Kyle Dalton. I'm principal city planner with Community Planning and Development, and I've been authorized to speak for development services tonight too, so that CPD has been provided the text of the amendment. So I don't I mean, I'll try to write it as fast as councilman new read it. But you know, we got a draft about an hour ago that was different than what was read tonight. So the amendment speaks to this. I can't speak to that. But the Bills has drafted and has filed. There was a difference between the two bills that I think Mr. Broadwell accurately reflected. So the the small parking exception. Thank you. The small light parking exception, Bill. Um, grand grandfathers, if you will. Anyone who's applied for a concept review, which is kind of the first step in a site development plan review. So if you're in with concept, if you're informal, you can continue all the way to receive your approval and receive your permits, irrespective of the exclusions. Then there are exclusions that apply to new applications. So for new applications, if you met the two, one of the two criteria that are in that bill, you could continue. Everything else is stopped under the Garden Court bill that you're considering tonight. It actually stops all approvals. So anyone who has a concept review or a site development plan review, if they're ready to get their permit the day after you you pass the bill, we would deny it until the moratorium lapses. Okay. That was a very good description of the bill. I guess I actually want to understand better what is the difference between the plans that someone has when they have a site review approved versus when they get their building permit? So can you give me a degree of if you're in site review, you're at 20%, 80% design. And if you're at building permit, you're at 100% design. Help me understand functionally where a project is at when it's at the site. Concept, concept, use the term again, please. Concept review. Concept review. Yeah. So when someone's applied for concept review, they're required to submit a site plan that meets a number of things on our submittal checklist. And sort of the first idea of the massing, the use, the number of units, if it's a residential project, they're required to demonstrate a few things for fire. It's kind of it's it's the first idea that requires more than a napkin sketch, but it's a free review that requires a plan to be submitted. So that's that's the concept review. Now, your question about the difference between site plan and building permit. No, I think you've adequately answered it. Thank you. Just wanted to get a sense that it's not a full architectural it's not a full, complete architectural plan. The concept is not. That's correct. Thank you. So that that's actually really helpful for me. Really quickly, I'm just going to comment before I vote then, which is to say that I think that if this if without this amendment, there would be no chance of me supporting this bill because it would literally stop projects that are already in a pipeline. But this I would distinguish from the marijuana, the amended language. I would distinguish from the marijuana moratorium in that the mayor, when we were discussing marijuana licensing, the idea would have been or the proposal was to literally not allow businesses to open who had already spent money on construction design, bought land, bought stores, and to literally say you cannot operate. And that is unconscionable. This provision in this amendment, although I'm not you know, I need to see the committee discussion and understand it better, allows a path for someone to revise and continue to proceed. So to me, I'm not sure yet where my vote will be on final reading after I, but I would like to hear testimony from folks. I think about the concept review phase and understand that more from the perspective of those who testify. But I will be supporting the amendment tonight because I believe it is a path to giving folks options. So that is by no means you know, I want to hear all the testimony. I want to hear the committee discussion. But but I will be supporting the amendment because it allows an option for someone to revise but continue to be in business, which in my mind is very different. Very different than saying you are out of business, period. So. So I will be supporting the amendment tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Lopez. Mr. President, my my comments are just straight out of regarding process. We've been debating this on the floor for 45 minutes. This should be talked about and discussed in committee, not on the floor. We need the proper community notification, public participation. I want to refer it to committee. I don't mind it being published. I'm glad the amendments there. But we have a lot of folks here who had signed up to speak on numerous things tonight and not expecting to sit through another hour of committee work. So I would. I would. Respectfully suggest you call the question on this. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Lopez. Councilman Espinosa. Yeah. I just want to make that distinction between the the small moratorium and this one, though, is that that was a case of unintended consequences. And it's a it is a clear cut. We were doing something that we had envisioned unintended consequences where we're shutting that down while we figure it out. This is a situation where we have conflicting language in our code and it makes us vulnerable to getting it right. It's not actually conflicting language in the multi-unit zone districts. It's only conflicting language in the rowhouse zone districts. The problem with us making an amendment and we'll talk about this in committee, the problem is this making exceptions for the multi-unit is then we proceed to continue to have the conflicting language in the house. And so the exceptions for oddly written are to. To address that to basically allow this to. To proceed. Now that's that's now getting into I won't get into the specifics. They're happy to do that in in committee. But this is clarifying language to sort of allow for the next 12 months to proceed healthily in this form while we figure out what the way how to correct all of the numerous zoning districts where the conflict does or doesn't exist, and then to add it where it should have been by code. Point of order. Mr. President, when we have a vote to call the question, that means we are voting to cut off discussion. Thank you, Councilwoman. It was not my understanding that Councilman Lopez called the question that he was encouraging me to call the question. Did I misunderstand? Councilman Lopez respectfully asked that we call the question so we can discuss this in committee. You didn't move that. Oh, I can move it if you like. Well, so point of order, Madam Secretary. If my understanding is that Councilman Lopez is calling the question, well, how do we proceed? It'll be. Mr. President. QUESTION Mr. President, I didn't call the question. That's what I thought. So I thought. I hope we do. Okay. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Sussman. Well, I just wanted to I wanted to support Councilman Lopez. I think this is a perfect example of why bringing a bill directly to council is is very difficult, because the council wants to discuss it, needs to discuss it, needs to think things through. It needs to have the kind of time that our process allows. And I also sort of apologize to our audience out there because as these are things that should happen at committee, and that's why we have a process like this. Amen. Councilman Cashman. I just. Want to. Just wanted to see. Was that a moratorium on calling the question? Just. All right. Let's vote on the amendment. Madam Secretary, roll call on the amendment. New Ortega I. Susman, my black eye. Espinosa. Flynn. No. Gilmore. No question. I can teach Lopez I. Mr. President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting. Announce the results. Nine eyes. Two nays. Nine eyes. Two days. Council Bill 541 has been amended. Councilman Cashman, we now need a motion to order published as amended. Thank you, Mr. President. I move the council bill 541 be ordered published as amended. It has been moved and seconded by comments by members of Council. Councilman Flynn. Thank you. Just very briefly, Mr. President, pro time. I support exactly where Councilman Nu and Espinoza are going with this, but I can't support going forward by picking winners and losers already in the pipeline. So I have to vote no on it. But I support the bill in concept. That's my conundrum. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Flynn, any other comments? Seeing none. Madam Secretary, roll call. New Ortega I assessment black eye. Espinosa. Flynn. No Gilmore. No Cashman. I can eat. Lopez. Mr. President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. Nine Eyes. Tunis, nine eyes. Two Days. Council Bill 541 has been ordered published as amended. Councilman Moo Nu, do you have emotion to offer? Yes, Mr. Perez, I move that council be off for one day as amended. We refer you refer to the committee on Monday. Well, through the next neighborhood and planning committee, there will be August the third. And then I'll come back to council on August 22nd. Yes. All right, we get everything we need in that motion. Okay. All right. It's been moved and seconded comments by members of council. Councilman, did you have anything to add to the conversation at this point? No, I don't. I apologize again that we didn't have the opportunity to get it to committee and look forward to a thorough discussion and and really appreciate all our colleagues comments. This is a very, very important issue. And and I really want us to see how we can really value way to redevelop this garden forward and have it implemented as intended. So I appreciate all the discussion and I look forward to the discussion in committee. All right, Madam Secretary, roll call. New Ortega assessment. Black Eye Espinosa. Hi. FLYNN Hi. Gilmore. I can I can eat. LOPEZ All. Right. Mr. President. All right. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and know the results. 1111 I as Council Bill 541 as amended, has been referred to committee. Uh, to committee on August 3rd and will come back to council on Monday, August 22nd. Moving on, Councilwoman Sussman, under bills for final consideration, you have called out Council Bill to. Probably do the resolution next. Oh, I'm sorry. All right. Go back to our resolutions that have been called out. Can you pull the next one up and put it on our screens for us? All right. We have Resolution 388 called out by Councilwoman Ortega. Councilwoman, what would you like us to do with that one? I have a question. Go ahead with your question. So we have $32 million in eight bills that are for engineering contracts for wastewater and. What I'd like to do is get information that talks about how many of these have been utilized. Oftentimes we have these on call contracts that we do, and it costs money to go through this whole publication process to negotiate with the attorneys