A bill for an ordinance amending the Denver Zoning Code. Approves a Denver Zoning Code text amendment to implement the recommendations of the Expanding Housing Affordability project to encourage provision of additional affordable housing beyond mandatory requirements, transition multiple existing incentive systems in various overlays, encourage on-site compliance with affordable housing requirements through other incentives, and correct minor errors and omissions from other recently adopted zoning code text amendments. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 4-26-22.
Council member Sawyer has called out Council Bill 424 for an amendment and council members say to backing Flynn have called out Council Bill 401 for comment. Under Bill's for final consideration, no items have been called out. Under pending, no items have been called out. Madam Secretary, please put the first item on our screens. Thank you. Council Member Canete, would you please put the council bill 4 to 4 on the floor for publication? I move that council bill 20 2-0 4 to 4 be ordered published. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. Council Member Sawyer, your motion to amend. Thanks, Council president. I move that council bill 20 2-0424 be amended in the following particulars. One actually it says one, but there's only one. So here we go. On page one, line 30, Strike Clerk File number 20220052. As filed with the Denver City Clerk on April 27, 2022 and replace with clerk file number 20220052a. Thank you. It's been moved. Can we get a second, please? Thank you. Comments by members of Council on the Council Amendment. Council Member Sawyer. Okay. Hang on. Let me look here. There's a little more for me to read. Do I need to? Yes. Specify elements will make my house. Okay. I'm going to do. Perfect. Okay. So thank you, Madam President, for clarifying that this amendment is just a small tweak to the amendment that Councilwoman Sandoval had brought regarding parking that was adopted in LUTI. And the purpose of it is just to align the requirements for any developer within a quarter mile of a proposed transit corridor or rail line with the current citywide parking requirements for affordable housing developers. So that's point one parking spots per unit. I agree 100% with Councilwoman Sandoval's amendment. I'm just concerned that there's going to be real world implications resulting from that change. Not only is it going to cause some safety issues in the neighborhood that board it border these transit zones. But actually I believe it will end up exacerbating gentrification and displacement in some of our most vulnerable neighborhoods. The way it reads now, it would require zero parking spots for any developer that's building the affordable units into their development along that planned transit corridor. So functionally, this does two things. First, people are still going to have cars and no parking means those cars are going to end up on the street. We see major problems with sightlines on the streets. That line major transit corridors. For example, we have a section of 14th Avenue between Grape and Hudson. In the three years I've been in office, we have had over 14 crashes. And I'm not talking about like fender benders, like rollover crashes that have taken out people's fences, people's front yards, people's almost people's houses. And we're still waiting for the city to do something about it. I don't want to make this problem any worse. Second, allowing a parking exemption in this area makes the land within that buffer zone more attractive to market rate developers. That drives up the cost of the land along our planned transit corridors. That means it's going to be impossible for affordable housing developers to purchase that land. So instead of getting 30 affordable units in a development being built by an affordable housing developer, we're going to get four affordable units and 26 market rate units built by a market rate developer. It will take ten of those developments to get the same number of affordable units along a transit line. We're already seeing this trend in East Colfax, even with the parking exemption in place. So, for example, we've got three motels in East Colfax that were all recently purchased by market rate developers, even though there were affordable housing developers bidding on those properties as well. We've see that the affordable developers simply cannot compete with the offers coming from market rate developers exempting all parking requirements for a developer who only plans to build to finish percent, maybe a little more of the total units as affordable is only going to make this problem worse and thus exacerbate the gentrification and displacement that we already see happening in East Colfax, which is one of our most vulnerable neighborhoods. That said, as I mentioned before, I agree 100% with the intent behind Councilwoman Sandoval's amendment. So I'm just proposing this point one parking amendment to align I think it strikes with the affordable housing developer requirement, which is city wide, not just along transit corridors. I think that this is sort of striking a balance. So it's offering an incentive to market rate developers to build those affordable units into their developments along the transit buffer zones. But it doesn't necessarily make those challenges to gentrification and displacement or those safety issues that we're seeing along these corridors any worse. So by aligning those parking incentives in the buffer zone, market rate developers with the already existing parking incentive for affordable housing developers, which, like I said, exists across the city, I think that's just a little bit of a better balance. So that's why I'm making this recommendation, and I hope you will support it tonight. Thanks, Madam President. Thank you, Councilmember Steuer. Next up, we've got Councilmember CdeBaca. Mine is just for comments, not a vote on an amendment tonight, but just wanting to give my colleagues a heads up that I will be proposing an amendment to the three on the 30th. And Blake, this one and the. The other piece of this, the map, one just to one increase our fees and then to to make the 38th and Blake amendment not up zone. I think it's area seven all the way to 12 stories that's out of compliance with the plan the neighborhood plan that we have. And so I'd ask my colleagues to honor that and take a look at them. And it'll be in your inbox tonight when you all get home. And then the map amendment to match it. Thank you. Thank you. We're going to go ahead then and return to the amendment on the floor. Councilmember Sandoval, go ahead. Thank you, Madam President. If it's okay, can I please call and please hook up to help us answer some questions? Sure. Just introduce yourself and Elise for the record. Good evening. Members of Council Annaliese Hoke, principal city planner with Community Planning and Development. Thank you for being here tonight, Annalise. So with this amendment, even though the language seems to be simple. I have found when I been working within the zoning code. It's not as simple as it always seems like. It's called out in in different areas. So can you just talk about are there any unintended consequences of this particular amendment? It's hard to know the magnitude of unintended consequences, as we haven't had a ton of time to really evaluate it. But one just piece, it's more of a technical drafting thing that sometimes we don't get into the weeds. Our Denver zoning code has our parking minimums, but then within that it also has parking exemptions, parking reductions and alternative parking ratios. The parking exemption language that is being proposed through this change is remaining in that parking exemption section of the code, but it's actually an alternative parking ratio of 0.1. So there's a little bit of a technical confusion where we're essentially adding another layer of an alternative parking ratio, but in kind of a different section of the code . So there's sort of that technical piece. I think it's also important to note that this is not only peeling back the amendment that was passed out of ludy as it pertained to expanding this to BRT corridors once they were constructed. But it's also peeling back the parking exemption in areas that are within a quarter mile of a fixed rail transit station, which we have really not received any opposition or concerns about. If anything, we've seen a higher rate of comments supporting those to be expanded further. So I don't know if that's helpful. Thank you. So one quick one. Also question can cause this policy so dense? There's a lot in it. The. The proposal for the parking exemption. Can you talk about how it's an incentive to for the policy and how you would actually if a developer chose to go with the incentive, they would. What's their deliverable? Are they're in for the amount of affordable units we would get? Great question. Yes. So this policy sort of has two tiers of build on site requirements as well as alternative compliance. And the incentives are really designed to ensure that we are getting as many units built on site creating mixed income, affordable housing . That first tier is base incentives, and that includes the alternative parking ratio, which gets a reduction down of all units by point one. And that's context sensitive. So that is for building units on site. Depending upon that compliance option, it ranges from 8 to 10% on their market area. However, in exchange for a greater level of affordability on site to more affordable units, developer applicants have the ability to then pursue additional incentives. Parking exemptions is one of those. It's important to note that these parking reductions and exemptions were really also derived out of conversations with the affordable housing development community, as they are commonly the ones who are looking at those really small, really challenging, hard to develop parcels that are often passed up by market rate developers because they are still continuing to provide parking that is well above the minimums that we see. And so this is really serving as another meaningful incentive to allow for projects to move forward in those transit rich areas and provide more units over affordable or excuse me, more units of both market rate and affordable over parking spaces. Thank you. And one last question, one last comments. Last question. In the public comments that you have received after the amendment from Moody, did you receive public comment for this bill supporting the amendment that we brought forward to reduce the parking around the quarter mile? And I want to make sure that I'm clear I'm built or something that is going to be built into it can't just be aspirational. And the city actually has to be something that we are going to build out. Can you talk to us about some of the public comment you received? Yeah, certainly. So throughout this process and up until the formal public hearing, we are going to continue to gather public comment that we receive. But there is a notable spike in public comments following the amendment. The majority of those comments coming in were speaking to support of those changes. There was certainly, you know, folks that do raise concerns, but it was certainly at a much smaller ratio than those in support and those will be included. Anything that came in after will be included in the council packets along with any other public comment. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilmember Sandoval. And thank you, Annaliese. Next up, we've got Councilmember Hines. Thank you, council president. I share Councilmember Sawyer's concern. We have a lot of cars in our city, and we continue to have more cars in our city and we continue to have crashes. And lots of traffic and gridlock. Colorado, which my colleague from District five and I share, might as well charge for parking. It is just such a mess. That said, I think that we should get rid of we should get government out of the business of parking minimums at all. Frankly, if the funding stack would allow it, I would prefer parking maximums in our city. I think that that what we need to do is make sure that we have good alternatives to cars, including a broad. Inviting, pedestrian experience. Protected bike lanes and and other ways for people to get around our city without a car. We're expecting an additional 200,000 people to move to the city of Denver by 2040. That's in the Blueprint 2019 adopted plan. And if we don't provide viable alternatives to cars and encourage that, those 200,000 people will bring at least an additional 200,000 cars. So if you think parking is bad now when we have 30% more people in cars here, it'll just be way worse. So I recognize that we have a lot of challenges and issues with traffic in cars. I want to make sure that we encourage people to live along areas where we can have car alternatives, such as major transit corridors. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Hines, Councilmember Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. On a list, could you expand a little bit on the advisory committee? And it's how you address some of the comments and concerns that you heard with them, because my understanding is that when this went. From the advisory committee. Whenever I'm from CPD two Planning Board, it included part of an exemption only for affordable, deeply affordable at a near fixed transit stations like rail zacharek. Okay. And the recommendation from planning board was to bring it to committee where it was amended by Councilwoman Sandoval to extend or to restore that exemption. That was in the original proposal that had been modified at the advisory committee. Is that. Yeah. I'll clarify a little bit more. So the advisory committee is comprised of about 20 or so individuals with various backgrounds throughout the city of Denver. Councilman Sandoval and can each have also been serving on that committee and thank you for your continued time commitment on that. In the kind of last round of public comments before publishing that that planning board review draft, we did hear some concerns, particularly out of some of the committee conversations around the expansiveness of the parking exemption. And so we peeled that back to only apply to the fixed rail transit stations. At the advisory committee, we did have some members that, you know, expressed some concern and disappointment with that change. However, overall, we just felt like it was still appropriate and still a strong proposal to move forward with a parking exemption but allowed in fewer areas of the city. Councilwoman Sandoval then brought forth an amendment that did not restore it to its entirety of the original proposal, but rather take a more nuanced approach that was focused on corridors within that that capital investment that the city was making as realized. And we had that adequate infrastructure in place. Okay. Can you explain what that adequate infrastructure is? I'm thinking of Federal Boulevard, which is a really good service. Yeah, but it is proposed in the future for BRT. I'm sorry, bus rapid transit speak, an acronym. So would this not apply until and unless the BRT is built out on Federal Boulevard and it would not apply now when it's simply the Route 31 and 30? That is correct. So I think the nuance of it is it's not just saying transit corridors as they exist today and have high frequency transit service, but corridors as they exist as Denver moves envisions them with not only high frequency transit service, but also the infrastructure in place to support that high, high frequency frequency capacity where you have, you know, unloading offloading off of station. So all of that is detailed in the definition in the Denver zoning code. I thought I had it printed here, but I don't. Okay. Thank you for that clarification. I really appreciate it. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. Councilmember Sawyer, we have you back in the queue, but I wanted to see if I could go to each and Ortega first. Sure. Okay. Thank you. Councilmember. Can each. Thank you. Council President I just wanted to clarify two questions so everyone understands what they're voting on. You and Councilwoman Sandoval had a long conversation, but I just want to underscore. So if this amendment were to pass, we wouldn't just lose the parking exemption that Councilwoman Sandoval introduced for bus. Is that correct? What would we also lose? Yes, we would also lose the parking exemption of sites that are providing enhanced affordability within a quarter mile of a fixed rail transit station. So it entirely eliminates options for projects to to provide zero parking and provide that higher level of affordability. And we did not get feedback about that exemption around rail. So we would be losing an exemption. We got no negative feedback about, generally speaking. None, none. That I have directly received through our various feedback forms. The second question I want to ask is the exemption is not only available to market rate developers. So there was some rationale that, you know, this is going to change. But can you please describe how the incentives in this bill are also available to affordable developers and how this amendment would affect them? Yeah, absolutely. So, you know, while this is designed with market rate developers in mind, it has also been designed with how do we remove existing known barriers to affordable housing development of those low tech projects that are providing the deeply affordable, much necessary affordable housing that we need in the city. And so by even though they do have that existing point one alternative parking ratio for units at or below 60%, AMI this did allow for those projects to build on those really small, unique, challenging sites at a to zero parking ratio. So by peeling this back, it not only would have impacts on the market rate projects which have candidly kind of said Denver's not quite there yet. We need we need this infrastructure to come along. But the affordable housing projects, some of these really small sites, they can't fit the parking and the needed turn radius to develop the housing on it. And so it allows for them to actually go in and access some parcels that might otherwise be passed up by market rate developers, because there's still that expectation of needing to provide vehicle parking in the market rate development. So does that clarify? Thank you. So I'm just going to add my comments. I appreciate that. There are places where we as colleagues may just differ. So I respect the concerns that my colleague has. I will not be supporting this amendment tonight for the following reasons. One, because it does take us backwards on rail, and also because I believe that our bus rapid transit investments, when they are made with capital infrastructure, are intended to deliver rapid transit and the type of infrastructure to more neighborhoods than we would get through rail alone. So I supported the original Sandoval amendment and worked with the team and supported the creation of that very narrow piece. And so I absolutely do not believe that we need to remove this exemption, not just from those bus corridors, but also from those rail corridors. So that's the first reason. Secondly, I, I do not respectfully agree with the rationale behind the amendment. Affordable developers have always, in this city, had to compete with market rate developers for land. It's very rare that a piece of donated or city land is available. So this is not a new phenomenon. And yet they have managed repeatedly to identify more parcels than we've been able to find. Every year, multiple projects go into the low income housing tax credit application round and only a few are selected and other projects, unfortunately, are unable to succeed. That's on us to continue to grow the the resources that we have. But we have seen, you know, time and time again, that doesn't mean every affordable developer is able to take down every piece of property they compete for. But it means that we don't need to change our zoning code in an attempt to try to create market outcomes that have, you know, for decades managed to occur even in a tough market. I don't at all envy those affordable developers having to go out and do that competition. But there's no reason and there's no evidence behind the fact that this parking reduction alone would somehow create a differential in their ability to compete for land. There's just not data to support that. So for those reasons and then finally for the fact that we have a very dedicated planning board and a very dedicated set of stakeholders who spent time on this. And there was strong support from the stakeholders as well as from the Planning Board, for us to treat bus rapid transit a little more equitably with rail. That's the original intent behind the amendment. So for those reasons, I will not be supporting the amendments and I would urge my colleagues to reject it as well with the comfort that the market has been building plenty of parking in plenty of places where they're already not required to build any like downtown. The market has not under built parking in this city to date. And so I think that we do not need to go through back flips in our zoning code for for that purpose. So thank you very much, Council President. Thank you. Councilmember each. Councilmember Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. I wanted to ask an ELISA question about the developments that we're seeing so far at our TOD sites and what am i levels that we have seen commitments to. At a high level. I don't know if I have a clear answer for you is that's not something that I've specifically been tracking. I think it's important to note that today we do not have any requirements to construct affordable housing. We have a very nominal linkage, which most people choose, and then we have our affordable housing projects that the city has opportunities to put funding into. And then there's a handful of projects that pursue voluntary housing agreements as a part of rezoning. So if there's something in those three segments that's of particular interest, I'm happy to follow up on that. But generally, I don't think I have a summary point. My apologies. Okay. No problem. Thank you for answering the question. I wanted to speak in support of this amendment and. Let me spell out what those reasons are. First of all, I have served on the board of a nonprofit housing development group as the president for many, many years. Keep trying to give away that role to my colleagues, and none of them choose to take that. But I've had intimate involvement with many of the projects that we have worked on. They're all low income projects, and it takes multiple rounds to go through the low income tax credit application process with the Colorado Housing Finance Authority, because the dollars are very competitive, both for the 9% and the 4% dollars. What I have seen in the development that has occurred across our city where they are private development and they're being asked to include affordable housing lots of times, even when we have some of our money in there, we're typically seeing commitments at 60 or 80% . Those are typically people that own cars. Where we see folks that typically don't own cars are 0 to 30% of the area median income. And even in projects that have the 0 to 30. Typically for nonprofits, they are blending incomes of people in a building there, not a project that is all 0 to 30 of the am I. It's a mix of 0 to 30 on up to typically 60, maybe 70% on the high end. So I am concerned that we are seeing for low income people that will live in a project that is an affordable unit, they're not going to they're not going to own a car. They're not going to need a parking spot. And they will be the people challenged to go find a parking spot for their cars. Yes, we all want to see people get out of their cars. But until we have the right transit system and the connectivity that allows people to get out of their car and address their first mile, last mile, we will still have people driving their cars, which is why we've actually been bringing some people from different countries and states to have presentations with this body to help us look at expanding our thinking about how we do transportation in this city. So I think this is a reasonable request. I really believe that there is a threshold difference between the 0 to 30 projects and anything from 60% above. And I would suggest that assuming this bill moves forward tonight, with or without the amendment, that we should address that threshold difference and review this ordinance at some time in the future to see exactly what is happening with the difference between those two emission levels and what's happening with the the parking issues and challenges. I can remember going to see a project in Seattle and I think some of you were part of the trip. I think this was a partnership trip, if I'm not mistaken. And we saw some affordable micro units that didn't have any parking and the people who lived in those units had cars and they were having to park four and five blocks away carrying their groceries. None of them had children because the units were too tiny. They were basically targeted for single individuals. But I don't want to exacerbate our parking issues, and I clearly understand there is an additional cost to create a parking space for a unit in these projects. But at the same time, I don't want to create a classism problem that says if you live in a low income unit, you're going to have to park your car further away because we just don't have a parking spot for you. But if you can afford one of the, you know, higher, more expensive units, then you'll get a parking spot in in your in the building. And that's that's a huge concern for me. So I will be supporting this amendment tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Ortega. Councilmember Sawyer. Thanks, Madam President. Just wanted to ask Anshul to clarify. I heard several councilmembers say that this would that this was a drafting thing that would remove the parking exemption. And it does remove the parking exemption and replace it with 0.1 or 10% parking requirements for the total unit. Can you just walk through that with me and maybe clarify and confirm that what I'm saying is correct because it sort of presented a little bit differently. Sure. Thanks, Councilman Sawyer. So the the amendment that you're proposing would remove the exemption that's enjoyed by the and compliant structures in those areas, by rail transit authorities and then those particular design districts. And that exemption will point 9 to 27.1 units per unit. So it does apply to rail? Correct. And it does apply to BRT. Got it. It's just doing nothing else but changing. 02.1. Correct. Okay, great. Thank you for clarifying question for analysts really quickly. You had mentioned that you didn't have time to really take a look and dig in at this amendment. When was the first time I contacted you about this amendment? You followed up after alluding and I apologize. I've been out on PTO. So. Totally fair. I just wanted to make it very clear that two and a half weeks ago, two weeks ago, I reached out about this amendment. So there was plenty of time. Now, we. Looked at how we could have drafted it, but we weren't sure if you were planning to move forward. That is on my bad for not following up and understanding that this was something that you were seriously considering moving forward. So my apologies. Okay. Interesting. Great. Thank you. I really appreciate that. And no further questions at this time. All right. Thank you. Councilmember Sawyer, council member state. Thank you. I support this amendment tonight for many of the reasons my colleagues have shared. I do have some questions for Annalise. Can you tell us how much it costs a developer to build a parking space? Because we don't often talk about that. Yeah, certainly. So it very much depends as to whether it's a surface structured or a sub grade surface is anywhere from 8 to 12000. Sub grade goes up to about $40,000 per parking space structured as around 20 to 30. Obviously, construction costs have gone up substantially in the past year. So it might even be slightly higher than that. So we're talking about a range from 6000 to. About 15,000 or 30,000, 40000 to 40000, $6,000. So that's $40,000 we could be capturing per space that we're waiving to figure out what we want to do with it if we have another mode or method of approaching this. Right. If we charge developers what it costs, market rate developers, what it costs to wave a parking space. I'm not sure if I entirely follow your logic. My apologies. So instead. Of a. Broad brush stroke, exempting parking for market rate and affordable housing developers in these TOD areas, BRT areas. What we could be doing is continuing our parking waiver system and actually charging for each space that's waived and capturing those. Dollars for. Our affordable housing fund. Is that possible? Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. So saying we're going to require you and please correct me if I misunderstand this. So our code will still require you to provide one or 1.25 parking spaces per unit, but will let you provide none or a lower parking ratio if you pay us $40,000 . Is that correct? In terms of the scenario that that you would want to in these particular areas that we're asking them to provide in any way for free? Yeah. So I think it's important to note that while that is the cost to construct parking spaces are often times a revenue source. So in addition to the rents that folks are paying, then they're going to pay an additional cost to access those parking spaces. And so to say, to say a developer don't build a parking space and pay us is really does not have the market operates in terms of development. What this is really trying to do is eliminate a barrier. If we were to say you have to provide parking or pay us. I would be shocked to see a single developer pay us that fee and not provide the parking spaces because. It just doesn't quite work that way. What we see in our peer cities is really them taking a move to action, to getting zoning out of the way as a barrier to providing affordable housing and and ensuring that we're promoting our multimodal transportation system. So, you know, it's been, you know, something that I've heard before, but I, I just don't actually think that we would see anyone take advantage of that and pay into the funding. But we've never tried it, correct? No, we have never tried, nor has it any other city, because I think we understand the basic economics of market development. And the basic economics suggests that a developer can afford parking spaces, but it's more lucrative to not provide it. Correct. No. Right now, the market demands the vast majority of market rate developers are expected to banks are still expecting market rate developers to provide parking, which is why we see the vast majority of market rate developers over parking beyond what the minimum requirement is. What this is really doing is setting up a systems change to allow for areas in our city where we're making significant or have made significant investments to not provide parking in exchange for greater levels of affordability. But there's no control at in the area of transit or BRT. There's no control for making sure that we're getting affordable housing. This applies also to market rate developers, and so this applies to projects that have a covenant restriction, ensuring that they are providing a higher level of affordability. Anything in our zoning code that is one of these incentives requires an affordable housing plan at time of development plan and then a covenant that is recorded against the property in perpetuity prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy and the building permit. So this is not a just I'm a market rate developer and don't feel like providing parking. It is another lever for us to drive the outcomes that we want, which is providing more onsite affordable housing in our transit rich areas and which are making those investments. That higher level is not defined. So we it is it's the enhanced onsite. So in the DMZ, there's the base onsite affordable requirements and then there's the enhanced onsite affordable requirements. They must meet the enhanced onsite affordable requirements, which is a higher percentage of total affordable housing units to access those. They also have the opportunity for other fee and loos in which none of these parking reductions or incentives are available. So if a market rate project says, I'm only going to pay the fee and layer because I don't want to provide affordable housing, that's going to be a painful fee in lieu. And they have no access to these incentives or any of the other ones as a part of this package. But the affordable housing that they create, the value of it doesn't have to match the value that they saved from the parking that they don't have to construct. We don't have a formula. We're not checking that we don't even have a range pin down of what it costs per parking space that we're holding them accountable for. We have done analysis and that's included as a supplement to the financial feasibility to look at what is the added value of the incentives. So there is a notable value that we have calculated. I apologize. I don't know what off the top of my head because there's a lot of different pieces that we looked at. But essentially it shows that it is a significant value. But we also have to reality check it with what the market is expecting, where our lenders are at. We even see sometimes traffic being a little bit hesitant in some areas to go with lower parking ratios. So we know this is an evolution in our conversations and this is really us trying to lead the way of where we want our city to grow and evolve and to start to house people over cars. Well, in the information that you provided us, there was not a sufficient analysis of that. And given that our city has not reached a place where it is feasible to take multiple children across town to different schools in our School of Choice system and get to work in a reasonable amount of time, we are setting up a context where we are not building homes for people with children, for people with more than one job, for people who have disabilities or have medical conditions where they have to get to multiple doctor's appointments on public transit or on foot in a day. We're not building for the people that we say we're trying to house. We're not there yet. And so it seems as if we would be better off trying a more experimental approach to our parking waivers, expanding on the current parking waiver system that we have in a way that lets us control project by project in a more sophisticated way rather than a blanket approach to this. So for those reasons, I do not support the current bill as it stands, and I would support this amendment tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember CdeBaca Councilmember Sandoval. Thank you, Madam President. I find it interesting that we're having a conversation about not supporting building more housing. We just had a whole entire conversation from people, from public comment who were telling us to build more housing. And so to build two parking spaces is about 600 and give or take 650 700 square feet, two parking spaces for your car. You can also have a condo for 700 square feet. That can house people with two bedrooms, a bathroom and a closet, actually, a really nice condo. So I prefer to spend money and I would prefer to give incentives to developers, to not house cars and to house people. And that's what this amendment is doing. Just along certain areas where the city and county of Denver is also putting money and dollars to get better transit along our city. I agree with everybody. Our transit is underpass. It is not very accessible. It's not very easy to take. It needs major overhaul and major updating. But we have to live in the reality where we are now. And I would rather have housed two people in a 700 square foot condo than two cars with 700 square feet. So I would hope that my colleagues do not support this amendment and have the bill moving forward as soon as it is presented. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilmember Sandoval. Madam Secretary, roll call on the amendment, please. Sawyer I. Torres They. Black CdeBaca, I. Clark. No. Flynn No. Hines? No. Cashman? No. Kenny Ortega. Sandoval No. Madam President? No, Madam Secretary. Close the voting and announce the results. Nine days, 3 hours. Three eyes the amendment to 20 2-424 has failed Council Bill 20 2-424 is on the floor for publication. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 20 to dash 042 for Council member say to market. Just reminding you I explained my call. Outs tonight were for comments to let council members know that there are amendments to review in your inbox tonight so that everyone is not feeling like anything was sprung on them. They are the amendments that I mentioned at committee. So just getting it on record. They are coming to you and I hope you all will support them. Thank you. Councilmember CdeBaca. Councilmember Sawyer. Thanks, Madam President. Just wanted to say that I will be supporting this this evening. Obviously, I'm disappointed that the small change to the Luti amendment was not passed, but this is an incredibly important piece of legislation and no legislation is perfect. So I will still be supporting it tonight because it is too important for a small issue like that. So I just wanted to clarify that I will be voting yes tonight and next week, but I'm disappointed that the the point one parking amendment did not pass. However, this is the legislative process and this is what we do. Thanks. Thank you. Councilmember Sawyer. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 22, dash four. Two, four, please. Sawyer I. Torres, I. Black eye. CdeBaca, I. Clark Eye for an eye. Hines, I. Cashman I. Can eat. Ortega. Sandoval, i. Madam President, I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. 12 Eyes. 12 Eyes Council Bill 20 2-424 has been adopted. Madam Secretary, would you please put the next item up on our screen? Councilmember CdeBaca, would you please go ahead with your comments on 20 2-401, please.