missing title

Okay, the March 4th, 2026 Land Use and Sustainability Committee meeting will come to order.

It's 9.33 p.m.

or a.m.

I'm Eddie Lin, Chair of the Land Use and Sustainability Committee.

Will the committee clerk please call the roll?

Vice Chair Strauss?

Here.

Council Member Foster?

Here.

Council President Hollingsworth?

Here.

Council Member Rink?

Present.

Chair Lin?

Here.

Chair, there are five members present.

There's no agenda or no objection.

The agenda will be adopted.

Hearing no 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 clerks, council central staff and STCI for helping us prepare for this meeting.

We will now open the hybrid public comment period.

Public comments should relate to item two or items within the purview of this committee.

Please hold the comments regarding item one, council bill 121152, the permanent FEMA floodplains regulations ordinance until the public hearing, which will be held immediately after this public comment period.

Clerk, how many speakers are signed up today?

President, we have one in-person speaker signed up.

Okay, each speaker will have two minutes.

We'll start with in-person speakers first.

Clerk, can you please read the public comment instructions?

The public comment period will be moderated in the following manner.

The public comment period is up to 20 minutes.

Speakers will be called in the order in which they're registered.

In-person speakers will be called first, after which we'll move to remote speakers until the public comment period is ended.

Speakers will hear a chime when 10 seconds are left for their time.

Speakers will be muted if they do not end their comments within a lot of time to allow us to call on the next speaker.

The public comment period is now open and we'll begin with the first speaker on the list, Steve Rubcello.

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 it pretty minimal on 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 NIMBYs 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'll 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 rich and poor districts and the north and south.

Well, you are equalizing at about zero.

We're 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 velvet community thinks, let's look at it from a 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 are going to take a long time to replace.

and design review would be another thing.

I know it's very easy to run a city without citizens, 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.

That's our last public commenter.

Thank you.

There are no additional registered speakers.

We'll 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 one.

Item one, council bill 121152. In ordinance relating to floodplains adopting permanent regulations consistent with federal emergency management agency, FEMA regulations adopting the February 2020 updated national flood insurance.

Rate maps allow individuals to continue to obtain flood insurance through FEMA's flood insurance program, repealing ordinance 126113 and 126536 and amending chapter 5206 and section 2509030 of the Seattle Municipal Code.

Thank you.

This legislation sets forth permanent floodplain development regulations to comply with the federal law administered by FEMA.

These permanent floodplain development regulations apply to permit applications for construction on property within floodplain areas mapped by FEMA.

FEMA has required these types of updates across the country.

In February, 2020, FEMA finalized new flood insurance rate maps for Seattle.

The 2020 FEMA maps and interim floodplain regulations became effective on August 19th, 2020. The city has adopted interim floodplain regulations and interim maps 10 times while working to adopt permanent floodplain regulations and maps.

The interim floodplain maps and the proposed permanent floodplain maps are identical.

So now we're gonna go to the public hearing portion.

As presiding officer, I am now opening the public hearing on Council Bill 121152, setting forth permanent floodplain development regulations.

Clerk, how many speakers are signed up for this public hearing?

We have two in-person speakers signed up.

Okay.

Each speaker will be provided two minutes.

Clerk, I will now hand this over to you to present the instructions.

Speakers will be called in the order of registration.

The public hearing registration will remain open until the conclusion of the public hearing.

The same public comment rules apply to this public hearing.

A 10-second chime will be your notice that it is time to wrap up comments.

Speakers will be muted at the end of the allotted time.

Public comment relating to Council Bill 121152 is only being accepted to the public hearing.

Speakers are asked to begin their comments by saying their name.

First up is Jack McCullough.

Thank you.

Can you guys hear me?

There we go.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and council members.

I'm Jack McCullough.

I'm here on behalf of the historic peers 54, 55, 56, and 57 to provide a couple of comments.

It's odd that I'm here on behalf of the peers because they really shouldn't even be in the floodplain.

One of the things we've been struggling with is the maps that are before you now that were prepared by King County many years ago are flawed.

And in fact, The work that's been done so far indicates that the peers should not be in what's called the VE zone.

But they're going to be for a while until we get that fixed.

So we need to make sure that these are regulations that the peers can live with.

The challenge of the peers, as you know, is there are landmark structures.

They're very old.

They're delicate.

and in order to deal with the maintenance and importantly, the removal and replacement of the hundreds of creosote pilings that lie beneath them, which is a tens and tens of millions of dollar expense, they need to be able to continue to generate revenue, right?

And to generate revenue, they need to continue 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 SDCI to make sure that this ordinance does not impair that ability.

Just in the last month, we found a couple gotchas in the last minute in the language, one of which is reflected in your Amendment 1. which we support, another one of which we're working on.

I'm here to ask you on behalf of the peers not to vote today.

We don't have an objection to the ordinance, but I would ask you to hold it.

We're in the process of trying to set up a meeting between the peer owners and the regulators at SDCI, the building official, and the folks who've been working for the ordinance to make sure that there are no more gotchas.

And we can do that in the next two, three weeks, I'm sure.

Thank you.

Next up is Steve Rubstello.

Well, this would not be permanent.

It'd be until the federal government makes changes or, with development, you change the floodplain.

and or allow a developer to change the floodplain.

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, and 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 in 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.

And once ready, please introduce yourself.

Good morning, Chair Lynn and members of the committee.

I'm Maggie Glowacki with SDCI, and I have been working on the floodplain regulations for over five years now, and I've been with SDCI for over 25 years now, working at an environmental planner on the environmental regulations, and I'm also a fish biologist.

Ketel Freeman, Council Central Staff.

Thank you.

Fellow committee members, any questions for our presenters today?

I would love to hear about the amendment, if you have any, just a few comments that you provide about the amendment and any other, we heard a little bit from the peer owners, anything that you can state there?

Sure, I can speak to the amendment.

So, in your agenda packet is an amendment sponsored by Council Member Lynn.

It's Amendment 1 to Council Bill 121152, and it corrects a drafting error that was identified by staff and by Mr. McCullough as well.

This would clarify that the term-it would clarify the definition for substantial improvement to clarify that the definition does not apply to improvements that are required to remedy code violations or for approved alterations of historic structures by the Landmarks Board.

It's largely a correction of a typographical error.

Wonderful.

Thank you.

Colleagues, any, it looks like we're, go ahead, Council Member Shouse.

Thank you, having spoken on this issue for many years, I don't have many more questions.

Interesting to hear today about the mapping of where floodplains are, because as a, you know, just as a common person out here, I see the piers are likely in an intertidal zone, not in a flood zone.

Can you speak to how those maps are created, updated, how an intertidal zone is known as a flood zone.

Just help me understand that a little 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 Duwamish River is also a flood zone.

And so it's a different type, and those are coastal flood zones.

So when we have king tides with storms, that's considered flooding when the water comes over, you know, either the top of the piers or over onto land.

That's considered a flood zone.

Does that make sense?

I hear your answer is the best that I can say, just to say understanding that intertidal zones are a fluctuation, like the water level just fluctuates every day, right?

So I understand king tide, et cetera, right?

And understanding that when the Duwamish floods with high rainfall at the same time as a king tide, that's what creates the South Park.

I totally understand and agree.

I'm just, you know, maybe it's not for committee today, but to understand more of how an intertidal zone.

So the intertidal is where the water meets the land.

And so that's where we're going to get the flooding from the intertidal zones when there's too much water in those intertidal zones that move onto the land.

And then just to dig a little bit deeper on the FEMA 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 the floodplains, I mean, that was from FEMA's modeling.

We've been made aware by FEMA, and FEMA came and talked to the peer owners and explained that the actual peer 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 that will influence where the water moves, how fast it goes up against the, or how hard it will go up against the seawall there, may lead to a different outcome where the peers could be mapped out.

That is a modeling that SDCI has committed to doing, but it isn't an overnight process.

That's going to take a while.

We're going to have to go out for public bidding and then get information from the peer owners regarding the structure, you know, like how big is the peer?

How tall is it?

How many piles are under it?

So it's going to be a process, and with the possibility that those peers will be mapped out in congruent, you know, when working with FEMA.

So FEMA is the agency that needs to map those areas out.

And we're, you know, we've already said that we're gonna work on this, but we don't have the ability to say, and, you know, 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 extensions of the interim regulations so that we continue to be in the NFIP.

And so we're, you know, committed.

We've met with the peer owners and explained how permits will be reviewed, as well as the historic peers, they are exempt from substantial improvement as long as they keep the historic designation.

And so that's already part of the code that we're that comes from FEMA, essentially.

And so there are paths forward.

Maybe just to add a little bit to what Maggie's describing.

So the city does not promulgate the flood insurance rate 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 would be up to FEMA to remap the velocity zones along the harbor front to come up with a different designation and potentially exclude the peers 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.

Individual property owners can apply for what's called a letter of map amendment or letter of map revision from the federal government.

The city is not sort of the one that 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, Ms. Glowicki, for a wonderful explanation.

Chair, this conversation's been going on, I believe, six and a half years at this point.

As Ms. Glowicki noted, 10 extensions.

And I guess I was disappointed to see that we have additional conversation that is not yet resolved today.

I think it would be prudent upon our behalf to hold the vote on a different day to have these issues resolved before we pass the permanent legislation.

We have the interim legislation right now that's been the process for six and a half years.

I guess my ask here is just can we please just take the time to get it right?

That would be my ask.

Can I ask if to that, is there anything in these, I know they're called permanent floodplain regulations and I hear you Council Member Schauss.

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 peer owners in the future.

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.

Anything further?

Okay.

Let's see.

Council member Shouse, I certainly hear you.

I think it's important to get it right.

I also, as you stated, this is the, that we've already had 10 extensions and certainly concerned about timing issues.

And so clerk, if, is there a way in terms of the rules, in terms of proceeding, If there is an objection, is there a process for dealing with an objection to proceed with the vote on the same day at the public hearing?

I believe we move to a vote on on whether to suspend the rules.

Just from my understanding, a question for our central staff, Ketel.

Could you help me understand any risks associated with not taking action today?

I can recognize that there's a long history of this work on floodplains legislation.

I know Again, as was mentioned, six years.

I just want to understand, again, procedurally, if there's any risks associated with not taking action today as it relates to, you know, an interim extension.

There is not with not taking action today.

There is, of course, we have an interim, we are currently under interim regulations.

Those only last for six months.

We are within that six month window, so a delay to the next committee meeting is not going to sort of put us up against when those current interim regulations expire.

But generally speaking, the risk in not adopting the floodplain regulations is that the city could be out of compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program, which means that Our property owners who have property in special flood hazard areas would not be able to have the benefit of subsidized federal insurance, and the city may not qualify for relief if there is flooding in the city through FEMA.

So those are kind of 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 is not going to put us up against that deadline.

Thank you, Kudel.

Thank you, Chair.

Yeah, I just wanted to ask, I think my understanding is what we heard in the public hearing earlier today was some concern, not necessarily around intent or specific things that are included, but a concern that there may be other drafting errors, given there was one drafting error that we're working to amend, that the Chair is bringing forward an amendment on today.

My question is maybe a variation on Councilman Burring's question, which is, were we to move forward with the vote today, would there be anything that precludes council from any further needed amendments and taking those up at full council should any additional drafting errors be identified?

No, go ahead, Maggie.

So, regarding the other, and 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 like building code, the way people in the building code section look at the definitions and words compared to how land use code does that.

So that's easily addressed through a director's rule.

We've already reached out to FEMA because it is FEMA's language, and so we don't have the ability to change that.

We do have the ability to write a director's rule that interprets it.

Thank you, I appreciate the clarification, and I appreciate you being forgiving with the drafting error language there, so thank you.

But to respond to your question, of course there can be amendments in full council.

One, as with anything that looks like a land use regulation for the purposes of GMA, there's always a concern about something being wholly new and whether or not there would need to be an additional opportunity for comment, but if it's something that's within the scope of what's been considered, that really wouldn't be a problem at all.

Thank you.

Council Member Strauss, is that your hand up or is that?

Yeah, just wanted to quickly, I think, The risks that Qt Minister Freeman described are real.

They have been present for six and a half years.

And we've been able to mitigate those with the temporary ordinances.

That has been the process to go through a lot of, because this is not the first issue that SDCI and an external stakeholder has negotiated and mediated.

I see other stakeholders here 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.

If we are making changes, whether they're errors or somebody else's words, I don't mind, I don't assign responsibility.

I do say it's our responsibility to make sure that this is a clean bill and because we have been able to mitigate these risks as Ketel has described, for the last six years through the temporary bills.

The temporary bill extends another six months at this point.

We can always pass another temporary bill.

I will be less intense about stopping these, not passing any 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.

That's my ask is additional collaboration.

Let's double check this for the right, you know, to make sure everything's correct.

But also as far as, you know, the bill has not been moved or seconded.

It can be moved and seconded.

I believe the rules have to be suspended because we had public hearings the same day.

If you as the chair want to move forward, I'll just abstain today.

But 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.

Thank you.

Thank you, council member Shoss.

Just wondering if we were to not vote today, any ideas on how quickly we could come back.

I mean, I think I just heard if there was amendments, there's a question of whether we would need to hold another public hearing.

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.

It sounds like one thing that would need to happen between now and committee vote, potentially, assuming that, from understanding what you're describing, would be potentially a meeting between city regulators, so STCI and perhaps others, SPU perhaps as well.

and the downtown waterfront pier owners, maybe there are other interested parties too, potentially the port.

If at the end of the day what the city is running up against is what the Code of Federal Regulations requires, there may not be an outcome there that is an amendment.

There may be some future work program items for the city, but there may not be an option that is a change in regulation.

That's okay.

Okay.

Clerk, if we decide not to call the vote today,

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 gonna be proposing to suspend 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 also the committee members' request.

I also am just feeling a sense of urgency as well to keep this on timeline.

So hearing from Ketel that a week delay wouldn't keep us still within those deadlines, can you just do a quick refresher for us of key deadlines to know, like, when does our extension end?

Um, and I mean, what is also from an STCI perspective, a likelihood of a 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, and I'm going to go from memory here, so some of this is not going to be precise.

But I believe it was in December that the Council extended the – it might have actually 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.

Just sort of backing up from that, we'd need probably about 30 to 40 days for those regulations to become effective.

that means a full council vote probably should happen at some time 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 may kind of sort of how that may play into that schedule as well.

Yeah, so with any changes that we make, we need to bring the regulations back to FEMA for their review.

And as Kito pointed out earlier, we are operating within guardrails.

Like, there's language that we have to have exactly the way FEMA has written.

and so we don't have complete control over the changes that we make.

And so as we go back and forth with FEMA, as far as iterations, what's proposed, go to FEMA to see if that's okay.

We've already talked with FEMA staff regarding the one, a couple words that are in the definition of new construction that comes from FEMA.

And so with that one, we know that a director's role is the way to go.

So what I'm saying is it does take time to get ahold of FEMA staff and talk them through this and come up with a solution.

They need to then review our final proposal so that they then approve it.

Otherwise, we're not in the NFIP anymore.

I'll just offer this for what it's worth.

I'm not sure.

I mean, FEMA's in the Department of Homeland Security, so I don't actually 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 to the committee would be we should just be aware that we cannot depend on FEMA granting us another extension.

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 Rankin.

And I fully agree.

I do not look forward to another extension.

So I would love to see if there are any additional amendments, but certainly, or if this issue could just be workshopped and there's a way to address this with future legislation, but I'm certainly committed to avoiding a further extension if at all possible.

And I understand the concerns about getting ahold of FEMA at the moment.

So I'd look forward to, we'll work with you to bring this back for a future committee meeting for a future vote soon and look forward to hearing any updates.

Thank you so much.

Okay.

Thank you, colleagues.

We will now move on to our second item of business.

Will the clerk please read agenda item two.

Agenda item two, Constable 121171, an ordinance for the new land use and zoning repealing ordinance 127191, which allowed residential use within the city of transition area overlay district under chapter 2374 of the Seattle Municipal Code.

Thank you.

And we see our council central staff here.

And before we get started, just brought on and provide a couple 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 wanna make it clear 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 wanna thank the members of the public for being here, including our labor partners.

And with that, could you please introduce yourself?

H.P. Harper, central staff.

Brief presentation today with just one slide for you.

So I'm showing the timeline here, but essentially last year the then-council president sponsored council-generated legislation that has been, as you mentioned, subsequently deemed invalid.

So I'm before you today with a draft repeal ordinance for discussion.

Council Bill 120933, which became Ordinance 127191, was passed by the City Council just about a year ago, and it amended development regulations to allow 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 for review, which is a type of appeal, to the Growth Management Hearings Board claiming procedural and substantive errors on the part of the city.

In November, the Growth Management Hearings Board issued a final decision in order deeming the ordinance invalid and ordered the city to take compliance action by May 11th of this year.

And I see I have 2025 in the timeline there.

That's my error.

It should be 2026. The city does not have time to complete all the necessary procedural steps to attempt a replacement ordinance by that compliance date, and therefore a draft repeal has been prepared for your consideration.

And I would say here that I'm happy to answer any questions, but I should specify that I cannot speak to the legal aspects of this, which as you probably are aware, there are many.

I can try to answer policy and procedural questions, but I will likely caveat my answers a bit to ensure I'm staying in my lane, so to speak.

So legal advice may be warranted depending on the questions given the ongoing litigation.

And that concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Colleagues, any questions?

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 different remedies for folks seeking to to evaluate or appeal or invalidate city actions.

So depending on the type of land use decision, if it's related to comprehensive planning and development regulations, those go to the Growth Management Hearings Board for determination of validity or invalidity.

and the Growth Management Hearings Board determined that prior ordinance was a finding of invalidity.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

And could you, I'm not sure, I don't think this is a legal question, but could you, perhaps it is, could you describe sort of the effect of a finding of an invalidity?

What that means for us as a city for permits or so on?

Speaking from the policy perspective, again, not the legal perspective, it means that the policies that were passed cannot be implemented.

So if we were to receive a permit application, we could not process the permit application under the regulations that were adopted under that ordinance.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

And 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 sort of revisit our zoning discussions in the future with respect to this area or any other areas of the city?

Yep, within the bounds of state law, which lays out when you can adopt comprehensive plan amendments and how development regulations must be consistent with comprehensive plans, all of that is revisitable.

Thank you.

Anything further?

Go ahead, Councilman.

Chair, thank you, Chair.

Quick question.

Could you, for the public, 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 repeal development regulations, require notice and an effective date period.

So with a 30-day effective date, come backing out from May 11th, which would be our typical effective date, that would require that the ordinance be acted on by April 11th I didn't do the math on whether there are 30 or 31 days in April but approximately mid-April let's say and with requiring that we notice a public hearing that's required 30 days notice so that notice has been published for April 1st to have a public hearing date so as you can imagine between April 1st public hearing and April 10th 11th 12th to that's a pretty narrow window.

So if we sort of take those two required timelines, you can imagine it's quite a tight timeline.

Understood.

And I also am very careful how I'm asking questions 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 is in front of us a repeal, but if there are other options concerning this, I'm sure that we'll have those discussions.

Yeah, I would say the repeal is probably the most straightforward option.

There may be other options that are less straightforward that we could look into.

Understood.

Thank you.

Those are all my questions.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

And so just to confirm, we're scheduled for an additional briefing March 18th.

We're scheduled for a public hearing on April 1st.

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?

and hearing no further business come before the committee.

We are adjourned at 10, 13 AM.

Thank you.