Pre-meeting chicken ordinance and DOE petition discussion

5:41He's working, he's working the audience.

5:48We learned a lot about chickens at lunch today. Oh you did? He ra he raises chickens.

5:53Oh okay.

5:57I think the back door chicken ordinance is uh Is that already coming back? Yeah.

6:04Oh okay. Yeah,

6:06so

6:08He loves that country so he can have a yen. Yes. I mean he not a yen, Brewster.

6:19Yeah.

6:20I was telling we got lesson on chickens at lunch today.

6:28Yeah. I'm following the city of Okoi.

6:32Yeah.

6:34Did you get a copy? I have a I I need to go see if I could get the DOE petition, but we have the DOE petition. Oh you do.

6:45They made some pretty good arguments. I was curious if you follow on it. I thought that they made some interesting arguments too and one of them is kind of similar to bars and like they said you can opt out of the bar. Yeah,

6:58which I thought would have carried the problem, but Department of Commerce said it doesn't. So

7:04That's what I'm interested in with this. What's the what's an error for? I don't know what Department of Commerce are. I've only seen the city of the Kobe argument. But I'll forward you the

7:14I'm

7:15only s I've only got

7:16my information from reading this argument.

7:22They're not the constitutional arguments that I was discussing with you, but they uh make some very good arguments about Department of Commerce's

7:38When the Department of Commerce have standing to send them a fourteen day notice and

7:44then file the suit right here.

7:47I don't think they do because they're not a person or a business. That's one of the poly arguments.

7:56If it says anybody can enforce the law, it's gotta be probably got it gonna be some person or business. Yeah.

8:11The Department of Commerce is sort of just enforcing the law without any clear authority to do so. Yeah,

8:15I

8:17I'm curious about their arguments. No, I think if they make some good arguments, um and they're effectively engaging in rulemaking without doing rulemaking. It's like they're just declaring things to be more restrictive on earth and

8:31I mean

8:32for example, I would argue that if your comp plan is not self-implementing and it says you're gonna regulate for some future L D C amendment or that's right. That's the part that would be more restrictive version of the future L D C event. Department of Commerce is taking the position that even if the Complan authorizes you to do some people related on the code again. But that's more restrictive for done right now. So Department of Commerce is also taking the position that even if

9:02your if your policy is less restrictive. That doesn't offset something that's more restrictive or burdensome. So that was like say your compliant allows more density, but it says you only get that more density if you need those three conditions. They're saying well those three conditions are more restrictive than burdensome, so you can't do

9:22it.

9:24Even

9:24though

9:27it's allowed more dense.

9:31Well that was always one of wondered like for instance what would happen if we said you must say it's twenty five percent of the tree canopy, but we're not gonna have tree fees. Department

9:43of Commerce's position is that's still more restrictive for interesting. But you always argue is you're you're effectively engaging in rulemaking. You're interpreting the law.

9:57Yeah,

9:57you're ready to come. Which requires you to engage in rulemaking to do that.

10:03And they're not doing that. I'll be interested to follow it all. You can start the meeting with that. So yes. I I think they make some very good arguments about anxious to see how much.