AND SUSTAINABILITY
COMMITTEE WILL COME TO ORDER.
IT'S 9:23 P.M. OR A.M.
I AM EDDIE LIN WITH THE LAND
USE SUSTAINABILITY
COMMITTEE MEETING.
WILL THE CLERK CALL
THE ROLL? [ ROLL CALL ]
>> CHAIR, THERE ARE FIVE
MEMBERS PRESENT.
>> THERE'S NO AGENDA -- NO
OBJECT, THE AGENDA WILL BE
ADOPTED. OBJECTION THE AGENDA
IS ADOPTED.
GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE.
THANK YOU ALL FOR COMING TO
THIS WEDNESDAY MORNING MEETING
TO DISCUSS LAND USE.
AS ALWAYS, THANK YOU TO THE
CITY CLERK, COUNCIL CENTRAL
STAFF AND
SDCI FOR HELPING US
PREPARE TO THIS MEETING.
WE WILL OPEN THE HYBRID
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.
PUBLIC COMMENT SHOULD RELATE
TO ITEM 2 OR ITEMS WITHIN
THE PURVIEW OF THIS COMMITTEE.
PLEASE HOLD THE
COMMENTS REGARDING
ITEM 1 COUNCIL BILL 121 512 AND
THE ORDINANCE
UNTIL THE PUBLIC HEARING WHICH
WILL
BE HELD IMMEDIATELY AFTER THIS
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. CLERK,
HOW MANY SPEAKERS ARE
SIGNED UP TODAY?
>> WE HAVE ONE PERSON SIGNED
UP.
>> EACH PERSON WILL HAVE
TWO MINUTES AND WE WILL
START WITH THE SPEAKERS FIRST.
WILL YOU PLEASE READ THE
INSTRUCTIONS.
>> THE PUBLIC COMMENT WILL BE
FIRST AFTER --
[ INDISCERNIBLE ]
TO ALLOW US TO CALL ON THE
NEXT
SPEAKER. THE PUBLIC COMMENT
PERIOD WILL BE ON THE LIST.
STEVE RUSELLA.
>> WELL, PRIORITIES ARE AN
IMPORTANT THING AND MHA
HAS NEVER BEEN REVIEWED.
MHA, WHEN IT WAS PASSED
WAS SUPPOSED TO BE 50/50 ON
PEOPLE
ACCEPTING IT AND PEOPLE PAYING
THEIR WAY OUT.
MY EXPERIENCE, EVERY
PROJECT I'VE EVER SEEN SHOWS
THAT
PRETTY MINIMAL PEOPLE ACTUALLY
HAVING PEOPLE WHO ARE LESS THAN
THEIR TARGET AUDIENCE IN THE
BUILDING, AND I THINK DIVERSITY
IN
THE CITY IS AN IMPORTANT THING,
AND I THINK WE NEED TO RAISE
THOSE
MHA FEES WHICH ALL THE
STUPID NIMBIES SAID WERE WAY TOO
LOW IN THE BEGINNING AND TAKE A
LOOK
AT
IT. NOBODY HAS HAD THE WILL TO
DO
THAT, AND I ASSUME THIS IS
NOT BLESSED BY THE DEVELOPERS,
SO IT WILL BE A REAL HARD GO.
THE OTHER THING IS TREES.
LET'S SAVE OUR MAJOR TREES.
THEY ARE GOING AWAY.
NOW, THE GOAL ON THAT WAS
TO EQUALIZE THE RICHARD GORE
DISTRICTS NORTH AND SOUTH.
YOU ARE EQUALIZING AT
ABOUT
ZERO. WE ARE SEEING A LOSS OF
OUR
MAJOR TREES, THOSE THAT TAKE
20 YEARS OR MORE TO BE.
SHRUBS ARE NOT THE SAME
AS TREES.
NOW I KNOW THE COMMUNITY THINKS
LET'S LOOK AT IT FROM
THE SATELLITE POINT OF VIEW.
I SAY LET'S LOOK AT IT FROM THE
POINT OF VIEW ON THE
GROUND WHERE WE REALLY ARE.
SO IT'S ABOUT TIME TO
REALLY SAVE THE MAJOR TREES.
NOT EVERY TREE, MIND YOU, BUT
THE MAJOR TREES THAT WILL TAKE A
LONG TIME TO REPLACE, AND DESIGN
REVIEW IS ANOTHER THING.
I KNOW IT'S VERY EASY TO RUN
THE CITY WITHOUT CITIZEN, BUT
CITIZENS DO CARE, AND SO LET
US BACK INTO THE PROCESS.
THAT WAS THE PRICE FOR ALL
THESE URBAN CENTERS AND NOW --
>> THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, STEVE.
>> LAST PUBLIC COMMENTER.
>> THERE ARE NO ADDITIONAL
REGISTERED SPEAKERS, WE WILL
NOW PROCEED TO OUR ITEMS OF
BUSINESS. SO WE'LL NOW MOVE ON
TO
OUR FIRST ITEM OF BUSINESS.
WILL THE CLERK PLEASE READ ITEM
1?
>> ITEM 1, COUNCIL BILL
1152, AND PERMANENT
REGULATIONS CONSISTENT WITH
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
AGENCY,
UPDATING THE NATIONAL
FEBRUARY 2020 UPDATED FLOOD
INSURANCE FOR
PEOPLE'S FLOOD
INSURANCE PROGRAM, REPEALING
ORDINANCE
126113 AND 126536 AND
AMENDING CHAPTER 25. 06 AND
25.09.030 OF
THE SEATTLE MUNICIPAL CODE.
>> THIS LEGISLATION SETS
PERMANENT FLOOD
PLAIN REGULATIONS TO COMPLY WITH
THE
FEDERAL LAW ADMINISTERED BY
FEMA AND THE FLOOD PLAIN
REGULATIONS
APPLY FOR REGULATIONS WITHIN
FLOOD PLAIN REGULATIONS
MAPPED BY FEMA.
FEMA REQUIRED THESE TYPES
OF UPDATES ACROSS THE COUNTRY IN
FEBRUARY 2020 HAD NEW
FLOOD INSURANCE MAPS FOR SEATTLE
AND THEY BECAME EFFECTIVE ON
AUGUST 19th, 2020.
THE CITY HAS ADOPTED
INTERIMINTERIM FLOOD PLAIN
REGULATIONS
TEN TIMES WEIL WORKING TO
ADOPT PERMANENT FLOOD PLAIN MAPS
AND THE PROPOSED
PERMANENT FLOOD PLAIN MAPS ARE
IDENTICAL.
SO NOW WE'LL GO TO THE
PUBLIC HEARING PORTION AS
PRESIDING
OFFICER, I AM NOW OPENING
THE PUBLIC HEARING ON COUNCIL
BILL
121152 FOR PERMANENT FLOOD PLAIN
REGULATIONS. CLERK, HOW MANY
SPEAKERS ARE
IN LINE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING?
>> WE HAVE TWO SPEAKERS LINED
UP.
>> EACH SPEAKER WILL BE
PROVIDED TWO MINUTES AND CLERK,
I WILL PRESENT THIS TO YOU FOR
THE
INSTRUCTIONS.
>> THE PUBLIC
REGISTRATION WILL REMAIN IN THE
CONCLUSION OF THE
PUBLIC HEARING AND WHEN
IT'S TIME TO WRAP UP
COMMENTS IT WILL BE AT THE END
OF THE ALLOTTED
TIME.
121152 IS THE ONLY BILL UP FOR
THE PUBLIC HEARING AND
SPEAKERS WILL BE CALLED
UP.
>>
THANK YOU. CAN YOU GUYS HEAR ME?
THERE YOU GO.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR AND
COUNCIL MEMBER, I AM JACK
McCULLOUGH, AND I AM HERE ON
BEHALF OF
THE PUBLIC PIER, 54, 55, 56 AND
57 TO PROVIDE A COUPLE OF
COMMENTS.
IT'S ODD THAT I'M HERE ON
BEHALF OF THE PIERS BECAUSE
THEY SHOULDN'T EVEN BE IN THE
FLOOD
PLAIN. ONE OF THE THINGS WE'VE
BEEN STRUGGLING WITH ARE THE
MAP HAPPENS THAT ARE BEFORE YOU
NOW
THAT WERE PREPARED BY KING
COUNTY MANY YEARS AGO ARE
FLAWED, AND -- AND IN FACT,
THE WORK THAT'S BEEN DONE SO
FAR
INDICATES THAT THE PIER
SHOULD NOT BE IN WHAT'S CALLED
THE VE
ZONE, AND THEY'LL
BE FOR A WHILE UNTIL WE GET IT
FIXED.
SO WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THESE
ARE REGULATIONS THAT THE
PIERS CAN
LIVE WITH. THE CHALLENGE OF THE
PIERS,
AS YOU KNOW, THEY'RE
LANDMARK
STRUCTURES. THEY'RE VERY OLD
AND
DELICATE, AND IN ORDER TO DEAL
WITH
THE MAINTENANCE AND IMPORTANTLY,
THE
HUNDREDS -- THE REMOVAL
AND REPLACEMENT OF THE HUNDREDS
OF
CREOSOTE PILINGS THAT
LIE BENEATH THEM WHICH ARE TENS
AND TENS OF MILLION OF DOLLARS
OF
EXPENSE, THEY NEED TO
GENERATE
REVENUE. TO GENERATE REVENUE
THEY
NEED TO KIND OF CHANGE AND OFFER
NEW
SERVICES, YOU KNOW,
INTERNAL CHANGES AND
MODIFICATIONS TO
THE STRUCTURES ALL UNDER, OF
COURSE, THE EYE OF THE LANDMARKS
BOARD.
WE'VE BEEN WORKING
COOPERATIVELY
WITH SPCI TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS
ORDINANCE DOES NOT IMPAIR
THAT
ABILITY. IN JUST IN THE LAST
MONTH
WE FOUND A COUPLE OF GOTCHAS IN
THE LAST AMENDMENT OF THE
LANGUAGE.
ONE WHICH WAS IN AMENDMENT
1 WHICH WE SUPPORT.
ANOTHER ONE WHICH WE'RE
WORKING
ON. I AM HERE TO ASK YOU ON
BEHALF THE PIERS NOT TO
VOTE TODAY. WE DON'T HAVE AN
OBJECTION TO THE ORDINANCE, BUT
I
WOULD ASK YOU TO HOLD IT.
WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF SETTING
UP A MEETING BETWEEN THE
PIER OWNERS AND THE BUILDING
OFFICIAL TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE
ARE NO MORE GOTCHAS AND WE CAN
DO THAT
IN THE
NEXT TWO TO THREE WEEK,
I'M SURE. THANK YOU.
>> NEXT UP IS STEVE RUBSTELLO.
>> WELL, THIS WOULD NOT BE
PERMANENT.
IT WOULD BE UNTIL THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MAKES CHANGES
OR
WITH DEVELOPMENT YOU CHANGE THE
FLOOD PLAIN AND/OR ALLOW A
DEVELOP TORE CHANGE THE FLOOD
PLAIN.
AS UNCOMFORTABLE AS IT MIGHT BE,
THIS ACTUALLY MAKES SENSE AND
TO MAKE NOT ONLY DEVELOPERS,
BUT AVERAGE CITIZENS IN A
POSITION WHERE THEY COULD GET
HELP FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
IF THEY'RE FLOODED OUT.
THAT WOULD BE A PRETTY
LOGICAL THING TO DO.
SO I REALLY HAVE NO OBJECTION
TO THIS PARTICULAR CHANGE IN THE
LAW. AS A MATTER OF FACT, IT
ACTUALLY
SEEMS TO MAKE SENSE.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THAT WAS OUR -- THAT'S
OUR LAST PUBLIC COMMENTER.
>> OKAY. SO THAT WAS OUR LAST
REGISTERED SPEAKER PRESENT TO
SPEAK AT
THIS
PUBLIC HEARING. THE PUBLIC
HEARING AND COUNCIL
BILL 121152 IS
NOW CLOSED. WILL OUR
REPRESENTATIVES FROM
SDCI AND COUNCIL SOCIAL
STAFF PLEASE JOIN US TO ANSWER
ANY QUESTIONS COUNCIL MAY HAVE.
ANYONE WHO IS READY, PLEASE,
INTRODUCE YOURSELF.
>> GOOD MORNING, CHAIR LIN
AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.
I AM MAGGIE GLOWACKI WITH
SDCI, AND I HAVE BEEN WORKING ON
THE FLOOD PLAIN REGULATIONS FOR
OVER FIVE YEARS NOW, AND I'VE
BEEN WITH SDCI FOR OVER 25 YEARS
NOW WORKING AT S AN
ENVIRONMENTAL AND A
FISH BIOLOGIST. KEVIN FREEMAN,
ENVIRONMENTAL
CENTRAL STAFF.
>> THANK YOU.
FELLOW COMMITTEE MEMBERS, ANY
QUESTIONS FOR OUR PRESENTERS
TODAY?
>> UM, I WOULD LOVE TO
HEAR ABOUT THE AMENDMENT IF YOU
HAVE
ANY FEW COMMENTS
THAT YOU CAN PROVIDE ABOUT THE
AMENDMENT
AND ANY OTHER -- WE HEARD A
LITTLE BIT FROM THE PIER
OWNERS, ANYTHING THAT YOU CAN
STATE THERE.
>> SURE.
I CAN SPEAK TO THE AMENDMENT AND
YOUR AGENDA PACKET IS AN
AMENDMENT SPONSORED BY
COUNCIL MEMBER LIN COUNCIL BILL
121152 AND IT HAS A DRAFTING
ERROR IDENTIFIED BY STAFF AND BY
MR.
McCULLOUGH, AS WELL.
THIS WOULD CLARIFY THAT
THE TERM -- IT WOULD CLARIFY THE
DEFINITION FOR SUBSTANTIAL
IMPROVEMENT OR SUBSTANTIAL --
YEAH, SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT
TO CLARIFY THE DEFINITION DOES
NOT
APPLY TO IMPROVEMENTS THAT
ARE REQUIRED TO REMEDY CODE
VIOLATIONS OR FOR APPROVED
ALTERATIONS OF THE
STRUCTURES BY THE LANDMARKS
BOARD.
>> IT'S LARGELY
A CORRECTION.
>> WONDERFUL. THANK YOU.
>> COLLEAGUES, ANY -- LOOKS
LIKE -- GO AHEAD, COUNCIL
MEMBERMEMBER
STRAUS.
>> HAVING SPOKEN ON THE
ISSUE FOR MANY YEARS I DON'T
HAVE
MORE QUESTIONS.
I'M INTERESTED TO HEAR TODAY
ABOUT THE MAPPING OF WHERE FLOOD
PLAINS ARE BECAUSE JUST AS
A COMMON PERSON OUT HERE, I
SEE THE PIERS ARE LIKELY IN AN
INTERTIDAL ZONE AND NOT IN
A FLOOD ZONE.
CAN YOU SPEAK TO HOW THOSE MAPS
ARE CREATED, UPDATED AND HOW AN
INTERTIDAL ZONE IS KNOWN AS
A
FLOOD ZONE. HELP ME UNDERSTAND
THAT A BIT
BETTER, PLEASE.
>> YEAH.
SO THE MAPS ARE CREATED BY
FEMA, AND IT IS NOT UNCOMMON
THAT
WHEN YOU'RE IN THE WATER YOU'RE
IN
A FLOOD ZONE.
SO ALL OF THE DWAMISH RIVER
IS ALSO A FLOOD ZONE, AND SO
IT'S A DIFFERENT TYPE AND THOSE
ARE COASTAL FLOOD ZONES AND SO
YOU KNOW, WHEN WE HAVE
KING TIDES WITH STORMS, THAT'S
CONSIDERED FLOODING WHEN THE
WATER
COMES OVER EITHER THE TOP OF THE
PIERS OR OVER ON TO LAND.
THAT'S CONSIDERED A FLOOD ZONE.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?
>> I -- I HEAR YOUR
ANSWER IS THE BEST THAT I CAN
SAY
IS UNDERSTANDING THE
INTERTIDAL ZONES ARE A
FLUCTUATION LIKE THE
WATER LEVEL FLUCTUATES EVERY
DAY, AND I UNDERSTAND KING
TIDE, ET CETERA, AND
UNDERSTANDING THAT WHEN THE
DWAMISH
FLOODS WITH HIGHER RAINFALL WITH
THE KING TIDE THAT'S WHAT
CREATES
THE SOUTH PART.
I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE.
I'M JUST, YOU KNOW, MAYBE IT'S
NOT FOR COMMITTEE TODAY, BUT
TO UNDERSTAND MORE OF HOW
INTERTIDAL ZONE --
>> SO THE INTERTIDAL
IS WHERE THE WATER MEETS THE
LAND
AND SO THAT'S WHERE WE
WILL GET THE FLOODING FROM THE
INTERTIDAL
ZONES. WHEN THERE'S TOO MUCH
WATER
IN THOSE INTERTIDAL ZONES THAT
MOVE
ON TO THE LAND AND THEN JUST
TO DIG A LITTLE BIT DEEPER ON
THE MODELING, SO THEY HAVE
A MODEL THAT THEY RUN TO
DETERMINE WHEN WE'RE GOING TO
SEE 100-
YEAR FLOODS FOR DIFFERENT AREAS
AND SO WE DON'T DO THE
MODELING, FEMA DOES, BUT TO
ADDRESS
WHAT MR. McCULLOUGH SAID
REGARDING THE PIERS BEING MAPPED
INTO
THETHE FLOOD PLAINS, WE -- I
MEAN, THAT WAS FROM FEMA'S
MODELING.
WE'VE BEEN MADE AWARE BY
FEMA AND FEMA CAME AND TALKED TO
THE
PIER OWNERS AND EXPLAINED
THAT THE ACTUAL PIER STRUCTURES
WERE NOT IN THOSE MODELING, AND
SO
THERE IS ANOTHER COURSE
WHERE WE CAN DO ANOTHER MODEL
THAT --
THAT BRINGS IN THE
STRUCTURE OF THE PIERS AND THAT
WILL
INFLUENCE WHERE THE WATER
MOVES, HOW FAST IT GOES UP
AGAINST THE -- OR HOW HARD IT
WILL GO
UP AGAINST THE SEA WALL
THERETHERE
THAT MAY LEAD TO A DIFFERENT
OUTCOME WHERE THE PIERS COULD BE
MAPPED OUT.
THAT IS A MODELING THAT SDCI
HAS COMMITTED TO DOING, BUT IT
ISN'T AN OVERNIGHT PROCESS.
THAT WILL TAKE A WHILE AND
IT WILL HAVE TO GO OUT FOR
PUBLIC
BIDDING AND GO OUT REGARDING
THE STRUCTURE AND HOW BIG IS THE
PIER, HOW TALL IS IT?
HOW MANY PILES ARE UNDER IT?
SO IT'S GOING TO BE A
PROCESS, BUT AND WITH THE
POSSIBILITY THAT THOSE PIERS
WILL BE
MAPPED OUT IN CONGRUENT --
WHEN WORKING WITH FEMA.
SO FEMA IS THE AGENCY
THAT NEEDS TO MAP THOSE AREAS
OUT,
AND WE'RE -- WE'VE ALREADY
SAID
THAT WE WILL WORK ON THIS, BUT
WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO
SAY, YOU KNOW, THAT THESE
AREAS AREN'T FEMA VE RIGHT NOW.
WE JUST DON'T HAVE THAT
ABILITY UNTIL WE GET THAT DATA,
AND YOU
KNOW, AS YOU UNDERSTAND,
WE'VE DONE TEN EXTENSION OF
THE INTERIM REGULATIONS SO THAT
WE CONTINUE TO BE IN THE NFIP,
AND
SO, YOU KNOW, WE'RE COMMITTED
AND WE'VE MET WITH THE PIER
OWNERS AND EXPLAINED HOW
PERMITS WILL BE REVIEWED AS WELL
AS
THE HISTORIC PIERS.
THEY ARE EXEMPT FROM SUBSTANTIAL
IMPROVEMENT AS LONG AS THEY
KEEP THE HISTORIC, YOU KNOW,
DESIGNATION, AND SO THAT'S
ALREADY PART OF THE CODE
THAT WE'RE -- I MEAN, THAT
COMES
FROM FEMA, ESSENTIALLY.
AND SO THERE IS -- THEY
ARE PASSING THE
BOARD.
>> THE CITY DOES NOT
PROMULGATE THE MAPS.
THOSE ARE PROMULGATED BY
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
THERE ARE VERY
LIMITED THINGS THAT THE CITY CAN
DO
TO INFLUENCE KIND OF WHAT
THOSE FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAPS
LOOK LIKE.
IT WILL BE UP TO FEMA TO
REMAP THE VELOCITY ZONES ALONG
THE
FRONT TO COME UP WITH
A DIFFERENT DESIGNATION AND
POTENTIALLY EXCLUDE THE
PIERS FROM THE MAPPED VELOCITY
ZONES THAT ARE THERE, THE
VE ZONES THAT ARE THERE ON
ELLIOTT BAY. SO SDCI IS WORKING
WITH SOME OF
THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS TO
FIGURE OUT KIND OF HOW THAT
REMAPPING CAN HAPPEN.
SHORT OF THAT, THERE IS
AN OPPORTUNITY FOR SELF- HELP
FOR PROPERTY OWNERS ON THE
WATERFRONT AND
INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS CAN
APPLY FOR
A LETTER OF MAP AMENDMENT OR A
LETTER OF MAP REVISION FROM THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THE CITY
IS NOT THE ONE THAT
GRANTS THAT AND MAKES THAT
AMENDMENT
DECISION, BUT THERE ARE
OPPORTUNITIES IN THE NEAR-
TERM FOR FOLKS WHO HAVE MORE
URGENT NEEDS TO REDEVELOP
THEIR PROPERTY TO SEEK SOME
RELIEF FROM THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT.
>> THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, MISS GLOWACKI FOR
YOUR WONDERFUL EXPLANATION.
CHAIR, THIS CONVERSATION'S
BEEN GOING ON, I BELIEVE,
SIX AND A HALF YEARS AT THIS
POINT.
AS MISS GLOWACKI NOTED, TEN
EXTENSIONS, AND I GUESS I'M D
ISA POINTED
DISAPOINTED TO SEE THERE IS MORE
CONVERSATION AND WE CAN HOLD THE
VOTE ON A DIFFERENT DAY TO
ASK
THE PERMANENT LEGISLATION. WE
HAVE THE INTERIM
LEGISLATION RIGHT NOW THAT'S
BEEN IN
THE PROCESS FOR SIX AND A
HALF YEARS.
I GUESS MY ASK HERE IS JUST
CANCAN WE PLEASE JUST TAKE THE
TIME
TO GET IT RIGHT?
AND -- THAT WOULD BE MY ASK.
>> UM, CAN I ASK IF TO THAT --
IS THERE ANYTHING IN THESE --
I KNOW THEY'RE CALLED PERMANENT
FLOOD PLAIN REG ULATIONS, AND
I HEAR YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER
STRAUS,
AND IS THERE ANYTHING THAT
WOULD PRECLUDE US FROM AMENDING
THE REGULATIONS?
IT SOUNDS LIKE THE MAPS MIGHT
BE CHANGED AT SOME POINT, BUT AS
NEEDED TO -- TO ADDRESS
CONCERNS FROM THE PIER OWNERS IN
THE
FUTURE? IS -- IS THERE ANYTHING
THAT PRECLUDES US FROM WORKING
ON THAT OR PASSING?
>> THERE'S NOTHING THAT
WOULD PRECLUDE US
FROM WORKING ON THAT.
>> OKAY.
AND --
GO AHEAD. [ INAUDIBLE ]
LET'S SEE, COUNCILMEMBER
STRAUSS, I CERTAINLY HEAR
YOU, AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT
TO GET IT RIGHT AS YOU STATED.
THIS IS -- WE'VE ALREADY
HAD CONCERNS ABOUT TIMING ISSUES
AND
SO, CLERK, IS THERE A WAY IN
TERMS OF THE RULES, IN TERMS OF
PROCEEDING, IF THERE IS
AN OBJECTION, IS THERE SORT OF A
PROCESS FOR DEALING WITH
AN OBJECTION TO PROCEED WITH
THE VOTE ON THE SAME DAY OF
THE PUBLIC HEARING OR --
>> I BELIEVE WE MOVE TO A
VOTE ON -- ON WHETHER TO SUSPEND
THE
RULES.
>> ON WHETHER TO SUSPEND THE
RULES.
>> YES.
>>
COMMENT?
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR, IF I'M
RECOGNIZED?
>> YEAH.
>> THANK YOU.
JUST FROM MY
UNDERSTANDING I HAVE A QUESTION
FOR CENTRAL
STAFF, CAN YOU HELP ME
UNDERSTAND WITH
RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH NOT TO
TAKE
ACTION TODAY. I RECOGNIZE THERE
IS A LONG
HISTORY OF THIS WORK ON FLOOD
PLAINS LEGISLATION.
I KNOW, AGAIN, AS WAS
MENTIONED SIX YEARS, I JUST
WANT TO UNDERSTAND AGAIN,
PROCEDURALLY
IF THERE ARE ANY RISKS
ASSOCIATED WITH NOT
TAKING ACTION TODAY AS IT
RELATES TO AN
INTERIM EXTENSION.
>> THERE'S NOT WITH NOT
TAKING ACTION TODAY.
THERE IS, OF COURSE, WE HAVE
AN INTERIM AND WE HAVE INTERIM
REGULATIONS AND THOSE ONLY
LAST FOR SIX MONTHS.
WE ARE WITHIN THAT SIX- MONTH
WINDOW, SO A DELAY TO THE
NEXT COMMITTEE MEETING WILL NOT
PUT US UP AGAINST THE
REGULATIONS THAT WILL EXPIRE,
BUT GENERALLY
SPEAKING, THE RISK IN
NOT ADOPTING THE FLOOD
PLAIN REGULATIONS IS THAT THE
CITY COULD BE OUT OF
COMPLIANCE WITH THE NATIONAL
FLOOD
INSURANCE PROGRAM WHICH MEANS
THAT PROPERTY OWNERS WHO HAVE
PROPERTY AND SPECIAL
FLOOD HAZARD AREAS WOULD NOT
BE ABLE TO HAVE THE BENEFIT OF
SUBSIDIZED FLOOD
INSURANCE AND THE CITY WOULD NOT
QUALIFY
FOR RELIEF IF THERE IS FLOODING
IN
THE CITY THROUGH THE --
THROUGH FEMA.
SO THAT IS -- THOSE ARE THE
LONG-TERM RISKS, BUT IN TERMS
OF SCHEDULE RISK, REALLY, THE
ONLY
THING THAT'S SORT
OF DRIVING THAT IS THE CURRENT
EXPIRATION
OF OUR INTERIM REGULATIONS, AND
FOR THAT, THERE IS A WEEK DELAY
THAT'S NOT GOING TO PUT US UP
AGAINST THAT DEADLINE.
>> THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, CHAIR.
>> I WANTED TO ASK, MY
UNDERSTANDING WAS WHAT WE
HEARD IN THE PUBLIC HEARING
EARLIER TODAY WAS SOME CONCERN
NOT NECESSARILY AROUND INTENT OR
SPECIFIC THINGS THAT WE ARE --
THAT ARE INCLUDED, BUT
A CONCERN THAT THERE MAY BE
OTHER DRAFTING
ERRORS GIVEN THAT THERE'S ONE
DRAFTING ERROR THAT
WE'RE WORKING TO AMEND OR
THAT THE CHAIR IS BRINGING
FORWARD IN
THE AMENDMENT TODAY.
MY QUESTION IS A VARIATION
ON COUNCIL PERSON'S QUESTION,
IF WE
WERE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH
THE VOTE TODAY IS THERE ANYTHING
TO
PRECLUDE COUNCIL FROM ANY
FURTHER AMENDMENTS AND
TAKING THOSE UP IN FULL COUNCIL
SHOULD DRAFTING ERRORS BE
IDENTIFIED?
>> NO.
>> GO
AHEAD.
>> SO REGARDING THE OTHER --
I'M NOT GOING TO CALL
IT AN ERROR. IT'S LANGUAGE THAT
CAME FROM
FEMA, AND WE DON'T HAVE
THE ABILITY TO CHANGE THAT, AND
SO WE CAN WORK ON A DIRECTOR'S
RULE THAT WOULD INTERPRET THAT,
AND
AS WE DUG DEEPER IT SEEMED
THAT IT WAS MORE BUILDING CODE
THE
WAY PEOPLE IN THE BUILDING CODE
SECTION LOOK AT THE DEFINITIONS
AND WORDS COMPARED TO HOW LAND
DOES THAT.
SO THAT'S EASILY ADDRESSED
THROUGH A DIRECTOR'S RULE.
WE REACHED OUT TO FEMA BECAUSE
IT'S FEMA'S LANGUAGE, AND
WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO
CHANGE THAT.
WE DO HAVE THE ABILITY
TO WRITE THE DIRECTOR'S RULE.
>> I APPRECIATE
BEING FORGIVING WITH DRAFTING
ERROR
LANGUAGE THERE SO THANK YOU.
>> BUT -- TO RESPOND TO
YOUR QUESTION, OF COURSE, THERE
CAN BE AMENDMENTS IN FULL
COUNCIL
AS WITH ANYTHING THAT LOOKS LIKE
AA
LAND USE REGULATION FOR
THE PURPOSES OF GMA, AND
THERE'S
A CONCERN ABOUT WHETHER
SOMETHING IS WHOLLY NEW OR AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR COMMENT AND IF
IT'S IN
THE SCOPE OF WHAT'S BEING
CONSIDERED,
THAT WOULDN'T BE A
PROBLEM AT ALL.
>> THANK YOU.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER
S, IS THAT YOUR HAND UP?
>> YEAH. I WANTED TO ASK
QUICKLY, THE
RISKS THAT MR.
FRIEDMAN DESCRIBED ARE REAL AND
THEY'VE OPINION PRESENT FOR
SIX AND A HALF YEARS AND WE'VE
BEEN ABLE
TO TEMER THAT WITH
THE ORDINANCES AND THAT'S BEEN
THE PROCESSES.
THIS IS NOT THE FIRST ISSUE
THAT SDCI AND AN EXTERNAL STAKE
HOLDER HAS MEDIATED.
I SEE OTHER STAKEHOLDERS IN THE
AUDIENCE, AS WELL, AND SO
IF THERE ARE THINGS THAT WE
ARE NOTICING TODAY, THE
SAME DAY THAT WE'RE
VOTING IS THE SAME DAY AS THE
PUBLIC HEARING AND
IF WE'RE MAKING CHANGES OR
ERRORS
AS WELL AS SOMEONE
ELSE'S WORDS AND I DON'T MIND
RESPONSIBILITY.
I DO THINK IT'S
MY RESPONSIBILITY THAT IT'S A
CLEAN BILL AND BECAUSE WE HAVE
BEEN ABLE TO MITIGATE THESE
RISKS AS
KITO HAS DESCRIBED AND THE
TEMPORARY BILL EXTENDS
ANOTHER SIX MONTHS AT THIS
POINT.
WE CAN ALWAYS PASS
ANOTHER
TEMPORARY BILL. I WOULD BE LESS
INTENT ABOUT
STOPPING THESE -- NOT
PASSING MORE TEMPORARY BILLS,
BUT
THE REASON THAT I'VE BEEN
SAYING THAT ALL THESE YEARS IS
BECAUSE I AM FINDING THAT WE ARE
HAVING CONFLICT WITHIN OUR CITY
AT TIMES WHERE WE SHOULD BE
JUST WORKING TOGETHER
IN
COLLABORATION. SO THAT'S MY ASK
IS ADDITIONAL
COLLABORATION. LET'S DOUBLE-
CHECK THIS FOR
THE RIGHT IT MAKE SURE
EVERYTHING
IS CORRECT, BUT ALSO, AS FAR
AS, YOU KNOW, THE BILL'S NOT
BEEN MOVED OR SECONDED.
IT CAN BE MOVED AND
SECONDED, AND I BELIEVE THE
RULES
HAVE TO BE SUSPENDED BECAUSE WE
HAVE THE
PUBLIC HEARING THE SAME DAY.
AS YOU AS THE CHAIR WANT TO
MOVE FORWARD I'LL JUST ABSTAIN
TODAY.
IT WOULD BE MY REQUEST IF
WE'RE HAVING AMENDMENTS ABOUT
MAKING SURE THAT THIS IS CORRECT
THE
SAME DAY WE'RE VOTING WE
SHOULD MAYBE TAKE A SECOND LOOK.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER
STRAUSS.
>> I'M JUST WONDERING IF WE
WERE
TO NOT VOTE TODAY ANY IDEAS ONON
QUICKLY WE COULD COME BACK?
I THINK I JUST HEARD IF THERE
WERE AMENDMENTS AND THERE WAS A
QUESTION OF WHETHER TO HOLD
ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING.
I JUST WANT TO GET A SENSE
FROM YOU ON HOW QUICKLY DO YOU
THINK WE COULD RESCHEDULE, AND I
KNOW THAT KIND OF DEPENDS ON OUR
SCHEDULE,
BUT JUST IF YOU HAVE ANY
THOUGHTS?
>> ONE THING THAT WOULD NEED
TO HAPPEN BETWEEN NOW AND
COMMITTEE
VOTE POTENTIALLY,
ASSUMINGASSUMING
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING KIND
OF WHAT YOU'RE DESCRIBING WOULD
BE
POTENTIALLY A MEETING
BETWEEN THE CITY REGULATORS SO
SDCI AND
PERHAPS OTHERS, AS WELL AND
THE DOWNTOWN WATERFRONT PIER
OWNERS.
MAYBE THERE ARE OTHER
INTERESTED PARTIES, TOO,
POTENTIALLY
THE
PORT. AT THE END OF THE DAY
IS WHAT THE CITY IS RUNNING UP
AGAINST IS WHAT THE CODE OF
REGULATIONS REQUIRES THERE MIGHT
NOT BE AN
OUTCOME THERE THAT'S AN
AMENDMENT OR MAYBE A
FUTURE WORK
PLAN ITEM FOR THE CITY, BUT
THERE MAY NOT BE AN
OPTION THAT'S A CHANGE IN
REGULATION.
>> OKAY.
>> CLERK?
[ INAUDIBLE ]
>> UM, THANK YOU, COLLEAGUES.
IT'S A GOOD DISCUSSION.
I DO THINK THIS HAS BEEN IN THE
WORKS FOR A LONG TIME,
AND ON THE ONE HAND, I WAS
LOOKING FORWARD TO MOVING TO A
VOTE.
AT THE SAME TIME, I DO THINK
IT'S IMPORTANT TO GET IT
RIGHT AND TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL
TIME.
SO AT THIS POINT I'M
NOT GOING TO BE PROPOSING JUST
TO SPIN
THE RULES AND TO ALLOW FOR THIS
TO
HAPPEN ON A FUTURE
DATE.
>> CHAIR, IF I MAY?
>>
YES.
>> THANK YOU FOR GUIDING
US THROUGH THIS.
I KNOW I WAS COMING
IN PREPARED TO VOTE TODAY, BUT
HEARING
THE POINTS RAISED, I UNDERSTAND
THERE'S SOME ADDITIONAL WORK TO
DO, AND I WANT TO BE RESPONSIVE
TO THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS'
REQUEST, AND I'M FEELING A
SENSE OF URGENCY, AS WELL TO
KEEP
THIS ON TIMELINE AND HEARING
FROM
KITEL THAT IT COULD BE ON THE
DEADLINES.
WHEN DOES OUR EXTENSION END?
>> YEAH.
>> AND FROM AN SDCI
PERSPECTIVE THE LIKELIHOOD OF AN
ADDITIONAL EXTENSION FROM FEMA?
I MEAN, I JUST WANT
TO UNDERSTAND, AGAIN, OUR
KEY DEADLINES TO KEEP IN MIND
SO WE CAN KEEP THIS MOVING
FORWARD.
>> YEAH.
I'M GOING GO FROM MEMORY
HERE, SO SOME OF THIS WILL NOT
BE
PRECISE. I BELIEVE IT WAS IN
DECEMBER THAT THE COUNCIL
EXTENDED -- IT
MIGHT HAVE BEEN IN EARLY
JANUARY, THAT THE COUNCIL
EXTENDED FOR AN ADDITIONAL
SIX MONTHS THE CURRENT INTERIM
REGULATIONS. SO THOSE WILL
EXPIRE ON
OR ABOUT THE END OF JUNE.
I'M JUST SORT OF BACKING UP
FROM THAT.
YOU KNOW, WE'D NEED PROBABLY
30 TO 40 DAYS FOR
THOSE REGULATIONS TO BECOME
EFFECTIVE.
SO THAT MEANS A FULL COUNCIL
VOTE SHOULD HAPPEN AND NO
LATER THAN MAY.
SO THERE IS TIME BETWEEN NOW AND
THEN FOR THAT
TO HAPPEN. MAGGIE MAY HAVE SOME
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT
SORT
OF WHAT ANY KIND OF REVIEW BY
THE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY OR
THE FEDS AND HOW THAT WILL BE,
AS
WELL.
>> YEAH, SO WITH ANY CHANGES
THAT WE MAKE, WE NEED TO
BRING THE REGULATIONS TO FEMA
FOR THEIR REVIEW AND AS KITEL
POINTED OUT EARLIER, WE ARE
WITHIN GUARDRAILS, LIKE
THERE'S LANGUAGE THAT WE HAVE
TO
HAVE IN THE WAY FEMA WAS
WRITTEN,
COMPLETE CONTROL OVER
THE CHANGES THAT WE MAKE.
SO AS WE GO BACK AND FORTH
WITH FEMA.
AS FAR AS ITERATIONS AND WHAT'S
PROPOSED, GO TO FEMA TO
SEE IF IT'S OKAY.
WE'VE TALKED TO FEMA
STAFF REGARDING THE ONE COUPLE
OF WORDS THAT ARE IN THE
DEFINITION
OF NEW CONSTRUCTION THAT
COMES FROM FEMA, AND SO WITH
THAT
ONE, WE KNOW THAT THE
DIRECTOR'S
ROLE IS THE WAY TO GO.
SO WHAT I'M SAYING IS IT
TAKES TIME TO GET A HOLD OF FEMA
STAFFSTAFF TALK THROUGH THIS AND
COME UP WITH THE SOLUTION AND
THEY NEED TO REVIEW OUR FINAL
PROPOSAL SO THAT THEY
THEN APPROVE IT, OTHERWISE,
WE'RE
NOT IN THE NFIP
ANYMORE.
>> TO OFFER THIS FOR WHAT IT'S
WORTH.
I DON'T THINK FEMA IS IN
THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY.
SO I DON'T KNOW THAT ANY
OF THEIR STAFF IS DOING
ANY WORK
RIGHT NOW.
>> THAT'S TRUE, TOO.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT.
THOSE ARE CERTAINLY
IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS AS WE
TAKE THIS
UP.
SO I THINK MY REQUEST FOR
THE COMMITTEE WOULD BE WE
SHOULD JUST BE AWARE THAT WE
SHOULD NOT -- WE CANNOT DEPEND
ON
FEMA GRANTING US ANOTHER
EXTENSION.
SO IF WE'RE NOT GOING
TO VOTE TODAY LET'S ALL COMMIT
TO GETTING THIS DONE
AND GETTING IT OVER THE FINISH
LINE.
SO THANK YOU, CHAIR.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL
MEMBER RINCK, AND I FULLY AGREE.
I DO NOT LOOK FORWARD TO
ANOTHER
EXTENSION. I WOULD LOVE TO SEE
IF THERE ARE
ANY ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS,
BUT CERTAINLY -- OR IF THIS
ISSUE COULD JUST BE WORK SHOPPED
AND THERE'S A WAY TO ADDRESS
THIS WITH FUTURE LEGISLATION,
BUT
I AM CERTAINLY COMMITTED TO
AVOIDING A FURTHER EXTENSION IF
AT ALL POSSIBLE, AND
I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS
ABOUT GETTING A HOLD OF FEMA AT
THE
MOMENT. SO -- BUT I LOOK FORWARD
TO WORKING WITH YOU TO BRING
THIS BACK FOR A FUTURE COMMITTEE
MEETING FOR A FUTURE VOTE
SOON, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO HEAR
ANYTHING UPDATES. THANK YOU SO
MUCH.
>> THANK YOU.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU, COLLEAGUES.
WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO
OUROUR SECOND ITEM OF BUSINESS,
WILL THE CLERK PLEASE READ
AGENDA
ITEM 2.
>> COUNCIL BILL 121171,
AN ORDANCE RELATING TO AND USE
AND ZONING, REPEATING ORDINANCE
127191 WHICH ALLOWED
RESIDENTIAL USE WITHIN THE
STADIUM TRANSITION AREA OVERLAY
OF THE
DISTRICT UNDER SEATTLE MUNICIPAL
CODE.
>> WE HAVE STAFF HERE AND
BEFORE WE GET STARTED JUST GO ON
AND PROVIDE A COUPLE OF
COMMENTS.
SO TODAY IS JUST AN
INITIAL BRIEFING.
WE WILL NOT BE HAVING A VOTE
TODAY. THERE WILL BE FUTURE
BRIEFINGS ON THIS AGENDA ITEM,
AND I
JUST WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT
--
THAT AS LAND USE CHAIR,
I'M BRINGING THIS FORWARD TO
ADDRESS GROWTH MANAGEMENT
HEARINGS, BOARD ORDER TO
ADDRESS COMPLIANCE ISSUES, NOT
TO
REVISIT A VERY DIFFICULT POLICY
ISSUE, AND JUST WANT TO
THANK THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
FOR
BEING HERE INCLUDING OUR LABOR
PARTNERS, AND WITH THAT,
COULD YOU PLEASE INTRODUCE
YOURSELF?
>> H.B. HARPER, CENTRAL
STAFF. A BRIEF PRESENTATION WITH
ONE
SLIDE FOR YOU AND SHOWING A
TIMELINE FOR YOU.
LAST YEAR THE THEN
COUNCIL PRESIDENT SPONSORED
LEGISLATION THAT HAD BEEN AS YOU
MENTIONED SUBSEQUENTLY DEEMED
INVALID.
I AM BEFORE YOU TODAY WITH
THE DRAFT REPEAL ORDINANCE FOR
DISCUSSION.
COUNCIL BILL 120133 WHICH
BECAME 12119 WAS PASSED AND IT
ALLOWED RESIDENTIAL USES AS
A CONDITIONAL USE WITHIN
A PORTION OF THE STADIUM
TRANSITION AREA
OVERLAY DISTRICT.
SO AS YOU SEE HERE AFTER
PASSAGE IN MAY, THE PORT
SUBMITTED
A PETITION OF REVIEW WHICH IS
A TYPE OF APPEAL TO THE GROWTH
MANAGEMENT HEARINGS
GROWTH CLAIMING PROCEDURAL AND
SUBSTANTIVE ERRORS ON THE PART
OF THE CITY.
IN NOVEMBER, THE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BOARD
ISSUED A FINAL DECISION AND
ORDER DEEMING THE ORDINANCE
INVALID
AND ORDERED THE CITY TO TAKE
COMPLIANCE ACTION BY MAY 11th
OF THIS YEAR AND I HAVE 2025 IN
THE TIMELINE
THERE. THAT'S MEYER Y ERROR.
THE CITY DOES NOT HAVE THE
TIME FOR PROCEDURAL STAFF AND A
DRAFT
APPEAL HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR
YOUR TRADITION, AND
CONSIDERATION.
I CANNOT SPEAK TO THE LEGAL
ASPECT OF THIS, AS YOU
ARE PROBABLY AWARE, THERE ARE
MANY.
I CAN TRY TO ANSWER POLICY AND
PROCEDURAL QUESTIONS AND
I LIKELY CAVEAT MY ANSWERS
A BIT TO MAKE SURE I'M STAYING
IN MY
LANE, SO TO SPEAK.
SO LEGAL ADVICE MAY BE WARRANTED
PENDING THE QUESTIONS GIVEN THE
ONGOING LITIGATION, AND
THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
THANK YOU.
>>
THANK YOU. COLLEAGUES, ANY
QUESTIONS?
UM, THANK YOU SO MUCH.
COULD YOU JUST DESCRIBE A
LITTLE BIT WHO THE GROWTH
MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BOARD IS AND
SORT
OF WHAT THEIR ROLE IS?
>> SURE.
THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT
HEARINGS BOARD IS THE ARBITER OF
GROWTH
MANAGEMENT ACT COMPLIANCE,
AND SO WITHIN STATE LAW AND
THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT
THERE ARE A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT
REMEDIES FOR FOLKS SEEKING TO
INVALIDATE CITY ACTIONS.
SO DEPENDING ON THE TYPE OF
LAND USE DECISIONS IF IT'S
RELATED TO
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING AND
REGULATIONS, THOSE GO TO
THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS
BOARD
FOR A DETERMINATION OF
VALIDITYVALIDITY
OR INVALIDITY.
>> AND THE GROWTH HEARINGS
BOARD DETERMINED THAT
PRIOR ORDINANCE -- A FINDING OF
INVALIDITY, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> AND COULD YOU -- I'M
NOT SURE IF THIS IS A LEGAL
QUESTION, BUT
COULD YOU PERHAPS
DESCRIBE SORT OF THE EFFECTIVE
OF FINDING
INVALIDITY, AND WHAT
THAT MEANS FOR US AS A CITY FOR
PERMITS
OR SO ON?
>> YEAH.
I THINK, SPEAKING FROM
THE POLICY PERSPECTIVE AND NOT
THE LEGAL PERSPECTIVE, IT MEANS
THAT THE POLICIES THAT WERE
PASSED
CANNOT BE IMPLEMENTED.
SO IF WE WERE TO RECEIVE
A PERMANENT THAT
WERE ADOPTED UNDER THAT
ORDINANCE.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU SO MUCH.
ONE FINAL QUESTION, IF THIS
REPEAL WERE TO BE ADOPTED,
IS THERE ANYTHING THAT SORT OF
PRECLUDES US LONG TERM?
DOES THIS PERMANENTLY BIND
OUR HANDS OR ARE WE ABLE TO
REVISIT
OUR ZONING DISCUSSIONS IN
THE FUTURE WITH THIS AREA OR ANY
OTHER AREAS OF THE CITY.
>> YEAH.
WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF STATE
LAW THAT LAYS OUT WHEN YOU CAN
ADOPTADOPT COMPREHENSIVE
AMENDMENT
AND HOW THEY ARE CONSISTENT
WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS AND ALL
OF THAT IS REVISITABLE.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU. ANYTHING FURTHER?
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
>> A QUICK QUESTION.
COULD YOU, FOR THE PUBLIC, AND
HB, WALK US THROUGH
THE POTENTIAL TIMELINE?
LIKE WHAT CLOCK WE'RE UP
AGAINST IN TERMS OF DEADLINES
WHEN WE
POTENTIALLY HAVE TO DO
SOMETHING, ALL THOSE THINGS?
>> SURE.
SO THE MAY 11th COMPLIANCE
DATE, IF WE BACK THAT
OUT, UNDERSTANDING THAT
ORDINANCES
TO AMEND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS,
EVEN IF THAT'S TO APPEAL --
I'M SORRY TO REPEAL
DEVELOPMENTAL REGULATIONS
REQUIRE NOTICE
AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE PERIOD.
SO WITH A 30- DAY EFFECTIVE
DATE BACKING OUT FROM MAY 11 th
WHICH
WOULD BE OUR TYPICAL EFFECTIVE
DATE THAT WOULD REQUIRE THAT
THE ORDINANCE BE ACTED ON BY
APRIL
11th, AND I DIDN'T DO THE
MATH ON WHETHER THERE ARE 30 OR
31
DAYS DAY IN APRIL, BUT
APPROXIMATELY,
I WILL SAY.
WITH THE NOTICE OF
PUBLIC HEARING THAT REQUIRES A
30-
DAY
NOTICE. THAT NOTICE HAS BEEN
PUBLISHED FOR APRIL 1st TO HAVE
A
PUBLIC
HEARING DATE. AS YOU CAN IMAGINE
BETWEEN
APRIL 1st PUBLIC HEARING AND
APRIL 10th, 11th AND 12th TO
ACT, THAT'S A PRETTY
NARROW WINDOW. SO IF WE SORT OF
TACK THOSE KE THOSE
TWO REQUIRED TIMELINES IT'S
QUITE A
TIGHT TIMELINE.
>> UNDERSTOOD, AND I AM
ALSO VERY CAREFUL JUST HOW I'M
ASKING QUESTION, AS WELL,
JUST UNDERSTANDING ALL OF
THE THINGS THAT ARE GOING ON
LEGALLY,
BUT THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE
AND MAYBE THIS ONE IS OFFLINE IS
US UNDERSTANDING THE OPTIONS
WITH THIS.
THIS RIGHT NOW THAT'S IN
FRONT OF US A REPEAL, BUT IF
THERE ARE
OTHER OPTIONS CONCERNING THIS,
I'M SURE THAT WE'LL HAVE THOSE
DISCUSSIONS.
SO --
>> YEAH.
I WOULD SAY THE REPEAL IS
THE MORE FREIGHT FORWARD OPTION
AND THERE ARE OTHER OPTIONS THAT
MAY BE LESS STRAIGHTFORWARD THAT
WE
CAN LOOK INTO.
>> UNDERSTOOD.
THOSE ARE ALL MY
QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, CHAIR.
>> THANK YOU, AND SO JUST
TO CONFIRM, WE ARE SCHEDULED FOR
AN ADDITIONAL BRIEFING MARCH
18th.
WE ARE SCHEDULED FOR A
PUBLIC HEARING ON APRIL 1s
t. WE GAVE PUBLIC NOTICE OF
THAT.
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS? COLLEAGUES?
OKAY.
THANK YOU.
AT THIS POINT WE'VE REACHED
THE END OF TODAY'S MEETING
AGENDA.
IS THERE ANY FURTHER BUSINESS
TO
COME BEFORE THE COMMITTEE BEFORE
WE ADJOURN?
HEARING NO FURTHER BUSINESS COME
BEFORE THE COMMITTEE, WE
ARE ADJOURNED AT
10