Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0088.067 1998-2000 �MgHR -1E - 99 04 :20 PM JERRY ROTHSTEJN 329 5464 F..r.� • 0 mA, 0 March 16, 1999 7,r If 1dCV- Council chair James Arakaki Rr (4"147- Re: Clarifying the B n ng et y Ana 4 / Orr:: . Dear Council Chair Arakaki,Cciu Y L. H ,',!'d,',! This is a confusing issue. I would like tei e rify it by addressing the "harm" issue, the "deadline" issue, and answering the fundamental question "what is the difference between: (a) "NOT ratifying Draft 9, then bring it up s:s a "new bill" subject to the amending process, and (b) "ratifying Draft 9, then bring it up as n "dew bill" subject to the amending process. There are significant differences resulting 'Ft substantially different outcomes in regard to the opportunity to amend the existing zoning code, In (a) (NOT ratify D9), the existing "voidol ie" zoning code remains in place until it is replace with a new code. A bill (e.g. B250 Dt' renumbered) for a new zoning code can be processed through the Dept, Commission, Coinrnittee, Council process in a relatively short time constrained by the Sept.! deadline (v;iiich BJLT, & I agreed the Court could extend if both sides requested it, which I'm ce; .:,in the Court would reasonably do.) The new bill would be Ramsayered to the old pre.•`9C code without indicating changes between the old code and the new code In (a) when the new bill is adopted by a majority of five, that code with all of its new amendments would be virtually "veto proof' considering that the mayor would not veto a bill that would place in jeopardy many rezoning and all code changes that have occurred since Dec.96. "Not ratifying" assures both a specified t::"2 frame and a veto proof bill with a majority of five. The new bill would show ti;: Ty1ifferences between the old code and the new bill. This process provides the grew: °' potential for assuring positive change in the existing zoning code. Very few people, if any will be harmed t delay. Those few people have or will have approvals based on a provision in the pres::it code, that was not in the old code, that is not re- passed in the new code. Such cases, if any, would be handled by the court if there is an appellant with standing i.e. can convince the court that he or she has been harmed. At that time the issue of "equitable estoppel" (wherein the party has the right to depend on the actions of the government) will be addressed in court and is likely to be resolved in the applicant's favor. In the meantir, the Corp. Counsel has affirmed that the Nov,'96 Bill 250 code is in effect, applicati , ;is are being processed, and that actions taken pursuant to it are legal and will be honored by the County. / Comm. No. 8 0 p . O b 7 File No. (4 eC /Z.NG Ref. To: P /C-°vuc`"-- u„s Ti.,. 3-17 -99 t1 F: -16 - ?9 04:07 PM JERRI ROTHSTEI': 329 54G4 F'.02 With (b) (ratifying D the existing "voi'J zoning code (8250 D9) is immediately readopted. A bill for a new robin, cod,' could be processed through the Dept, Commission, Committee, Council process the same way as in (a) (as has been proposed by the P1an,Comt. chair) except that there is no Sept.! time constraint (extendable by the Court) so that the process cot in go on indefinitely rather than months, during which time the existing D9 code 1 5 operational. Also the new bill will be Ramsayered to the newly ratified (D9) code. not the old '96 code. In (b) if and when the new zoning code bill i rassed by the Council, it is likely to be vetoed by the mayor since most if not all of the hPinges are to his administrations revisions. Such a bill would require six votes to overcome the veto because there is no "voidable" code at risk. A lot of people will be harmed by ratificatio These are the people who were denied the "right to know" and are subject to the provi.si::ns of the zoning code that was passed ut a "lava tube." The provisions of the zoning cede impacts everyone! Don't ratify D9. use the existing code as Draft 1 of a new bill, anc'. they will come. "Ratifying" assures untold delay. The e:±ntig zone code remains in force and 6 votes would be needed to override a veto. T 7 `' WEii will not be Ramsayered to show the changes from the old code. This pin ess provides the least opportunity for making a positive change in the existirai° -t code. The people who have been illegally shut one of the process have been harmed, not once, but twice. Don't ratify D9, use the existin:' 'ode as Draft 1 of a new bill, and they will come. Aside from the "political" ramiticatiow, the legal issues are also fraught with uncertainty about whether D9 is ratifiable. A careful reading of the transcript indicates to nie that the judge expected Draft 9 (called "Draft 8" at the time) to be used in conjunction with a new bill, not as being ratifiable. This position is strengthened by the fact that Corp. Counsel Wurdeman, in a motion for reconsideration, asked that D8 be substituted for D4 m the order. The judge deniE•^ the request. It will ultimately be up to Judge lbarra to determine if the Council acted ttioperly in the way it adhered to the Court's order. I ask that you not vote to ratify Drat'. ``.sr any of the above reasons. I further request that a motion is naCv.:'r;d passed to "send Bill 250 Draft 9 to the Planning Dept. to initiate a new zoo eodt bill." Considering that the Council would be starting with D9 which already was processed by the '96 Council, the process need not take longer than Sept. 1, as extended by the Court. You might ask staff what an "expedited" hearing process would look like. It would not have to linger at the Planning Dept inc weeks or months nor would the Commission, which meets twice a month, need' c two months as allowed. Committee meetings dedicated to the zoning code could', ,; heduled as often as necessary to get the job done within a reasonable time as alto` . ii by the Court, Such expedited review is MAR-10 -9° 04 :0e PM !EERY POTHSTE:''i 329 5404 ..a00 O O not to be compared to the 14 day action of the . `, Council when it adopted the present zoning code. A final consideration. The '96 Council ignored the Sunshine Law, but when people finally found out about the issues from the media and attended at the last minute, the Council did respond to their comments with some amendments. The '99 Council, has followed the Sunsiti :Lc Law in these zoning code proceedings, but if the Council ratifies D9, it 17 : be following the letter of the law but abandoning the spirit by foreclosing all oppor -!iUes for making any amendments at this time Ratifying Draft 9 is like giving food to - ngry man only to find its made of plastic and inedible. Or like allowing public sa? .:ie its on items on the agenda at the end of the meeting rather than the start (as '{ ai.ahiro did when Council chair), or like welcoming public testimony but shutting off',l ' n:icrophones As 1 see it, ratification of D9 as propose/ ; as unacceptable as the action of the '96 Council. % rsfora b erwaY, / '? , s in waiiis and 96740 329 -1568