Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. It is 632 and on August 10th, and we are ready to start our, uh, planning committee for this Monday. Uh, at this time, if you would like to do, you would like to, uh, do attendance, please.

Certainly commissioner shoe.

Present.

Commissioner Colvin. There we go. So you just have to have a young, smart person, technology smart person. I'm not going to get any closer to that. Is that better? Yep. Okay. So Commissioner Colvin indicated that he was not available tonight. So I believe you'll deal with that. Do you do an excused absence? Okay.

So at this time, we'd like to have a motion to excuse Commissioner Colvin.

I move that we excuse Commissioner Colvin.

Do we have a second? I second. Okay.

Any discussion?

All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye.

Opposed? OK, Commissioner Butler?

Present.

Commissioner Burleson? Present. Commissioner Lynch? She also indicated that she would be absent tonight.

Yes. So if I could have a motion to excuse Commissioner Lynch.

I move that we excuse Commissioner Lynch.

And a second?

I second.

Any discussion? All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

And Commissioner Jenner? I did not hear from her.

And I believe, is this new? This is a new commissioner. So I am not familiar with if she's gotten the emails.

Okay. We've had challenges with emails with many of you, I think. So at some point in time, we'll want to make sure that you're all getting emails and not getting emails where you don't want to have emails sent. So maybe I'll ask you before you leave tonight just to let me know what your preference is. And then I'll make a point of checking with the clerk's office to reach out to Commissioner Jenner and see if he is getting our emails.

Okay?

Okay. And then Commissioner Chase, did I call on you? No. Oh, Commissioner Chase.

Present. Point of order, do we need to excuse Commissioner Jenner saying... Technically, they're a member of the group.

Have things been signed and everything?

I believe they've all been signed. I've not been told that we don't have the paperwork in place for Commissioner.

We'll go ahead and make a motion to excuse Commissioner Jay.

And make the motion to excuse Commissioner Jenner.

Do I have a second?

I second.

Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. Next item. At this time, we'd like to open the floor to any public comments. None? Okay. All right. Is there anyone online who has made reference that you want to give a public comment?

No.

No? Okay. So at this time, we'd like to move on to the approval of the minutes from March 9th, 2026.

Before we do that, can we have an introduction? I don't know this young lady.

Sure. Well, are we going to cover that in new business?

We could do it in new business. I was going to talk about some departmental changes in the administrative report. I'll just be patient.

Do I have a motion to accept the minutes from March 9th, 2026?

I'll make that motion to accept the minutes of March 9, 2026.

OK. Do I have a second? I second. All right. Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Opposed?

Do we need approval of the agenda?

I wasn't sure in preparing the agendas from the past, the agenda that was prepared for the July special meeting that didn't happen, didn't have that on here. So I wasn't sure if you use that agenda item or not. Do you typically make a motion to approve the agenda?

Yes.

Okay. My apologies. We can certainly add that if you'd like to go ahead and do that.

Okay. So we will do a, um, We'll just kind of throw it in there as an approval of the agenda. Do you have a discussion?

Move that we accept the modified agenda as stated tonight.

All right. Do I have a second? Any discussion? All right, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? All right, acceptance of the amended agenda with the approval of the agenda. And the agenda approved. And then moving down to new business. As we talk about the work sessions, if you two would like to introduce yourself.

Sure.

As we start the work sessions.

Sure. So my name's Lisa Parks. I'm currently serving as the interim public services director for the city of DuPont. I've been here since June 10th. And my appointment goes through the end of the year and potentially for three additional months into the next year. if the city so chooses at that point in time. And to my right is Iana Babauta. Sorry, it's just Iana when we're all working in the office. Iana is the permit technician for the city of DuPont, and she's here to help us out tonight with the technology. So I can cover that under our administrative reports? Sure. Um, so the primary, so I'm not sure exactly how you do this. I'm not used to a super formal planning commission like this. So I apologize if I'm stumbling a little bit, I do, I can do this with city council members. I'm happy to do this with, with you. I'm used to sitting around the table and having conversations, but, um, so, uh, I would like to just kind of talk to you about this work plan and what I sent out to you. And you can ask all sorts of questions because there's lots of questions to be had. And I will give you the explanations as I can. This is a first draft. That's why it says draft. And I wanted to be able to provide you with some background and some talking points. So the primary focus of this work plan as it's been presented to you is to help the City of DuPont achieve compliance with the Growth Management Act. So one of the requirements of the Growth Management Act that I'm sure this will sound very familiar to you all if you spent any time in the last year or so on the Planning Commission is that there's a requirement in the law that every community that's required to fully plan under the Growth Management Act that you periodically review and update your comprehensive plan and your development regulations. Just for the purpose of recognizing changes in your community as it grows and develops, but also to address any changes that have come about in the course of time at the legislative level. So have there been changes to the actual laws of the state of Washington? And what the city of DuPont completed in February of this year was the update of the comprehensive plan. The development regulations to implement that comprehensive plan were not fully included in that process. So that component of the periodic review and update of development regulations has not yet been completed. So that's part of what you see on this list. And there were, because of changes by the legislature, specifically dealing with housing and housing affordability, the legislature made changes to the law that prescribed some very specific requirements for all cities who are fully planning under the Growth Management Act. As a component of that requirement, they assigned the task to the Department of Commerce, the local government division. They're the folks that provide us with technical resources for our planning compliance work under the Growth Management Act. They the legislature created this process whereby the Department of Commerce would select a certain number of communities. I believe it was 10 that they would do a an in-depth review of the comprehensive plan and development regulations of these 10 cities. and determine whether or not they were compliant with this new Housing Accountability Act that was recently passed by the legislature. And I believe also to look at there were other changes to the law specifically over the last couple of legislative sessions that were intended to address housing affordability in addition to the Housing Accountability Act that was more recently passed. So DuPont was selected by Department of Commerce to be one of those jurisdictions. They have been working on that analysis for several months. They sent us an initial preliminary report And then the subsequent report that was dated July 21st of this year was their final analysis of our compliance with the various provisions that are prescribed in the law. So that is a significant component of the work plan. That law actually gives the city 120 days from receipt of that letter from Department of Commerce to complete the updates. And before we talk about timing, just kind of keep that in the back of your mind. There were two other letters that were addressed to the city during the review of the conference. Anytime you're proposing amendments to your comprehensive plan, you have to have a 60-day review that has to go out to the public, but also specifically has to go to Department of Commerce for their review for compliance and consistency with the Growth Management Act. It also is required that we send our work to the Puget Sound Regional Council. Both of those entities had submitted comment letters The comment letter from PSRC came in in January. I've talked with David Dixon at PSRC. He hadn't seen the adopted version of the comprehensive plan. So it's possible that we've already completed some of the items that the PSRC commented on in that January letter. just in case that's on the list, in case we missed something. And then the Department of Commerce letter actually came after we had adopted, the city council had adopted the comprehensive plan. And so there is a little bit of overlap, I believe, in the comments from the Department of Commerce and PSRC members. So we're including those in this work plan just to make sure that if we have any outstanding issues from either of those entities, that we're taking this opportunity, that we are obligated to look at the housing accountability provisions. in order to be able to fully ensure that when a state agency says, is the city of DuPont in compliance with the Growth Management Act, that the answer is very clearly yes. So that's the basic overview of why the things that are on this work plan are included. In terms of timing, So the Housing Accountability Act review has the 120 day obligation. There's also a requirement in the Growth Management Act that you're not supposed to amend your comprehensive plan more than one time a year. And that's to be included, to be inclusive of the periodic review. It's my understanding from Department of Commerce staff that that one time a year process is not applicable to the Housing Accountability Act review tasks that have been identified. In my mind and in conversations with city administrator and staff, as well as our consultants, our recommendation is that we do the best we can to try and meet the 120 day timeline, but it doesn't make a lot of sense to do the housing accountability work in 120 days and still have these other items that are outstanding and still keep us from being in compliance and consistent with the act. So the work plan, which suggests that we combine all of these items together in a review process, it likely will take us into next year, early next year, to where we can adopt the comprehensive plan amendments to address all but the Housing Accountability Act and still comply with the one time a year process. And it would take us past the 120 days but still be a comprehensive, holistic look at these items as opposed to piecemealing it. And as confusing as this feels, the assumption was that it would be a whole lot more confusing if we first did just the housing accountability stuff and then came back and did all of the other stuff.

Yes. When we were putting together our comprehensive plan and looking at using the Growth Management Act as a guideline, and it told us what type of housing we had to have and all of those things. What's the account of housing accountability? Because I thought we were doing what they were asking, you know, in When we submitted the plan, because we took all of that. We talked about where was their growth. We had the stuff by State Farm. And so we supposedly didn't... We were able to keep the numbers at Old Fort Lake, you know, not having to be at such a high number to keep the space a little bit more breathable because we had this other property. And I don't even know what other lands we have that could still be developed. But I don't understand... What the Accountability Act is, I thought we were working on that.

Yes, you were. Okay. The Housing Accountability Act is a more recent piece of legislation.

So they added something after they did the Growth Management Act. And even though they gave us numbers in the Growth Management Act that we had to comply with or try to reach,

Yeah, so the legislature amends the Growth Management Act and it places some obligations to do regional coordination and growth projections and those types of things. That's how Pierce County and PSRC get involved in your comprehensive plan and that's where we have to look at densities and population growth and how much is DuPont going to get of the population and employment growth and how much is Lakewood going to get, right? The Growth Management Act creates the obligation to do that work, and then that work happens at a regional level. The Housing Accountability Act specifically is new legislation, and it is the legislature, again, acting very proactively for one of the first times ever to preempt local regulations and require very specific things to be included in your comprehensive plan and in your development regulations. And so there are the growth projections that are one thing, the housing accountability requirements are a very, an additional and somewhat different thing in that it's very prescriptive in the legislation what you're actually required to do.

So the numbers, the Growth Management Act numbers that we were using might not sync then with the housing accountability.

The theory is that they should be syncing. The other theory is that I believe the intent of the legislature, and I would, this is my guess, my understanding, they're attempting to not just address through the projections, which talk about density and where are all these people going to go, I believe a lot of the housing requirements that they have now obligated local governments to include in their zoning regulations have been more in a specific attempt to address the affordability issue, which So that could change. It would be lovely if they all fit together very nicely.

But what we came up with for, what was it we didn't call it?

Densities of development.

Yeah, the metal housing could be not enough based on if that's what they're looking at.

I think the answer is yes to that. I think I understand that you all worked on the middle housing piece. And if I remember correctly, in the overview, there aren't a lot of changes related to middle housing that need to occur. The primary issue that was not addressed in... our comprehensive plan or development regulations adequately are what they call step housing, which is emergency shelters, temporary housing, and yeah, I'm not great at the acronyms there, Greg, so.

I'll let you go first, Commissioner Chase.

Two comments that I guess I'd like to make. One about your emergency activities. I'm going to label them as activities. That would be, and I understand the state painted everyone with one paintbrush. That's fine for somewhere like Lakewood or Olympia or Tumwater or Tacoma or Seattle. We have absolutely zero services to go with this emergency housing. Yes. Is the legislature going to give us any money for that so that we can, instead of having a standalone unworkable situation, that we're going to get a workable situation. I mean, have they thought about that? And I guess the other question I have, and it gets back to the density question, and it's one that I had throughout the whole process. Somewhere PPC, PRC, whatever the acronym is. Yeah, PRC. decided that we are a commuter town. I get the wrong word.

High capacity transit.

High capacity transit.

Yeah.

I have yet to see a guarantee that in my lifetime, or I don't know who the youngest one here is, but in her lifetime that she's going to see light rail, Or the sounder train.

This far south.

This far south. Yes. And so, I mean, to me, the whole premise has been built on a false premise. And now we're living with it. And I just see this emergency housing, all four emergency housing, provided you have the services. Yeah. I'm sorry. I'll get off my soapbox.

I'm dumbstruck, but yeah, I don't even have words for what this is coming at us because of so many different levels on this. I want to say thank you that you didn't cut and run the second day you showed up. I'm into this. Thank you for that. You know, and I guess my question on this is the fact that we've put three years extensively into doing the old Fort Lake plan and then the comp plan. How often... can they throw this at us? Cause we followed everything that we were given. And now all of a sudden, and I know you're, we're preaching to the court. You're the messenger here on this and, and, and one that's got thrown in, but I'm like, All that work. And they're saying it was for naught. And can they do this every year? I mean, are we going to get this every year that all of a sudden we go through and spend the next 120 days accommodating and then next January they say, well, nope, we're going to change it again. Now you have to start all over. I'm not... comprehending what this what this is.

And I'm just flabbergasted that this Yes, how is how can they ask us to do something like that? When we don't just the basic structure of what they want doesn't exist here.

Yeah.

And, and, and like Lee said, are they going to support us having that? And then before any more development comes. I mean, realistically. That requires, you know, depending upon what we have to put in place, If it's something that has to do with any type of health care, that's a lot of land.

We have nothing. Realistically, we could put this according to their, you know, we could zone this out in the farthest corner. Now what are they going to do? If this is step-up housing, if that's where we zoned it, they have no transportation. They have no means of getting anywhere. So what is the point of putting that housing out there? You know, so basically, is that going to go? Did anything and I mean, we'll go through this, I guess we're all jumping to without looking at this, but I'm like, I'm wondering if any of this was even addressed in their comments that they're asking for things that our city cannot provide. Yeah. Is that addressed in this at all?

So the requirement is from the legislature. So Department of Commerce is doing what the legislators voted on. So yes, the legislators, the state of Washington, can amend the laws of the state of Washington every single legislative session. I would, as frustrating as this is, I would say that not all was for naught. You did a lot of really good work. The plan, the comments are, they look like a lot. 28 pages, I think, is the one report. It looks like a lot, but a lot of that is just the analysis. In fact, I've focused mostly on what the eight requirements are in the front without, right? I mean, I can argue the analysis if we want to spend the time to do that, I suppose. So I think the extent of what we're required to address really is not as big as it could have been if you hadn't done it. all of the really good work that you did over the course of the last three years. So I do understand your frustration. I empathize with it. I graduated from college with a degree in urban and regional planning in June of 1990. The Growth Management Act was adopted in April of 1990. So it is a very different law now than it was then, largely because almost every single year it's being Changed and I will say also I'm trying to make you feel better here So the Association of Washington cities is an advocacy advocacy advocacy group for Washington cities For a number of years they have advocated to the legislature on behalf of cities across the state Please stop messing with the law and give us a chance to catch up. Well, that's so so We are not alone in this, I guess is what I'm trying to say. Tumwater was in the same situation, working and living and being near Olympia. I mean, this is not a challenge just for us. This is a challenge across the state. And I think, again, I think... the intent of the legislature is to try and help our communities with the affordability thing, which is a very complicated and difficult issue. And it's not an issue that is solved in the same way in each community. And I think that's just me. I'm trying to be charitable and try to understand. And I'm also acknowledging to you that it is very, very frustrating. Yeah.

So if we can't Well, if we are looking at this and we say, how are we going to do this? And it's not because we don't want it in our backyard, you know, any of the negative things. Does our city government, how do they present this so that we are not... penalized for something that just is not viable for a community. I mean, we are so locked in. And what would make us attractive to somebody? You know, if you're living in the community, yes, you might need that. If something happens and you might need some type of assistance. But also, how do we... I just don't, you know, I feel like I'm going to call either Tawana Nobles or somebody because this doesn't make sense.

Yeah, so again, I think that... There are lots of cities that it doesn't make sense for, right? So there's one thing that the legislature can control and that's the laws in the state of Washington. And therefore the laws, in some ways, the laws of the counties and cities within the state of Washington, they can't necessarily control the market. So what they want you to do in your comprehensive plan and in your zoning regulations is make provisions for so that if there was a need or if there was a market for something, whether it's the housing units or middle housing units or some other type of activity that they're mandating, They want you to have zoning regulations, development regulations, comprehensive plan that could at least allow for those things somewhere. And so, but that doesn't mean that that's going to happen because if you are, you know, if you're an emergency shelter provider, you're probably a nonprofit organization. You're probably going to look at the city of DuPont and say, I don't know why we would put a facility, right? We haven't noticed a high homeless population. There is not a good transit services. There are no medical facilities. There's no, right? So, In part, the legislature is saying, take care of this, everybody, because we want to make sure that we have a good environment within which the market can make these necessary services available. They can't control the market. I appreciate the frustration and I appreciate that it feels like this doesn't work in DuPont. And again, there are lots of other communities where it doesn't work either. I spent a lot of time doing land use planning in North Central Washington. There's a lot of, you know, I don't know if you've ever been to Waterville. You know, there isn't a whole lot of need for emergency shelters in Waterville either. And yet, these particular provisions are provisions that most jurisdictions that are required to operate under the Growth Management Act are required to address.

Do we have land?

Well, so can I, as the relatively new person here, ask a more basic question? Because I was not part of the comprehensive plan. I came on board after that.

Okay.

And I look at that and I kind of go, why? But then I understand why, to a certain extent. Like, why would we do that to this community, this town? Because it changes the fundamental character of why people live here.

Right.

So having said that, and I very much... am in the camp of not in my backyard, so to make that very publicly clear. And the reason for that is there's a lot of resources elsewhere. So why would we open up our community to that? Now, having said that, when I look through this, I'm trying to understand, having only made it through page 20 of four before I kind of lost focus. I see a lot of very general terms that I don't know if you're going to get the covering what those are. All right. It says, for example, emergency housing. Right. does it give specifics or do we get like what exactly that means for our community? Or can we say in our comprehensive plan, yes, we zone this area for emergency housing. It's down by the mine and that checks block is not practical, but it's covered. I'm just trying to understand what does it say? You must have beds for three people. I don't even know what emergency housing looks like in this scenario.

So, um, No, I think. We can't do that. They do define it. They give us a whole list of definitions that we now need to include in our development regulations so that everybody in the state of Washington is using the same definitions when we're talking about these things that they've decided that they're going to preempt local zoning regulations about. We have to define it. We've got a big long list of those things that we need to include in our development regulations. In terms of where we allow it, they specifically describe where we are required to allow the different types of activities based on whichever one it is. And essentially it's in residential zoning districts. You have to look at each specific item.

Right, and I'm looking at it. So it goes emergency shelter in all zones allow hotels, including mixed-use, community, entertainment, business park, commercial, The list goes on. So basically the entire...

So in those zones, again, this is where we have to make allowances in our regulatory environment in those zones that they've identified for us. So we may not call them specifically those names, but in those zones where we allow those types of uses, we also have to allow these other types of uses. So that's where it's like, well, we can't just say, well, down there by the mine, if that's not already an area that's zoned residential, then that wouldn't work. Does that make sense? I know if you're new to the Planning Commission, you haven't been indoctrinated yet.

Well, I came on board in February, so we were a little more focused for those few months on specific things. This is very nebulous. definitions in my mind and when i go through and read the comments once again only made like page 20 um it's very general allow emergency housing in all zones but it doesn't say what exactly that looks like for i guess i don't understand what that looks like for us because when i read this it looks like you know there's a little i live on a cul-de-sac and i've got a little green space in the middle like to me when i read this as like you know someone can put up a cut down the trees and put up a building right in the middle of my cul-de-sac and call it a day.

So yes and no, right? So you have to allow for the use, but the use still has to comply with our other regulations, right? So when they come in and preempt zoning regulations, they typically, they have said, for example, a couple of years ago, they said, you can no longer require a certain number of parking spots per multifamily or a certain number of parking spots for commercial retail, you have to allow this, right? So in that case, it was a very specific design standard that they were changing. In this case, where they're talking about uses that need to be allowed, they need to be authorized, but they still have to comply with all of the other requirements in the zoning code, such as the lot coverage, so how much of your lot can be covered by buildings or impervious surfaces. They still have to comply with setback regulations. They still have to comply with whatever height regulations there are.

Does that apply to the ADUs as well? And I ask, so this is A two-part question. One, does that apply to ADUs? Because I thought reading it here someplace, maybe I misread it.

Some of those may have been preempted, yes.

And then it talked about heights and that, which exceeded anything I was allowed to do for when I had to garage addition, for example. I couldn't go that high. But now if I do an ADU, I can make it 30 freaking feet tall, whatever it is. And then a secondary part of that is and this may not be appropriate for this account, I guess I'm just curious, with Northwest Landing being a massive ROA that forbids a lot of these things it's talking about, how does that compliance piece work?

So private covenants do not overturn or overshadow zoning regulations. Zoning regulations generally are going to prevail if there is a if there is a disconnect. Now, I don't know that for sure in this particular instance, but generally speaking, zoning regulations, first of all, cities don't enforce, jurisdictions don't enforce homeowner regulations. The Homeowner Association reinforces those. But there also have been cases, legal cases, where people have challenged home, like covenants, private covenants, and claimed them to be discriminatory or in conflict with state requirements, and those lawsuits have prevailed. So generally speaking, zoning regulations are going to take precedent over homeowner association. Because you're going to be in a situation where the city, because we are now obligated to change our regulations, somebody applies for an ADU, we're going to have to at least adopt the minimum that the state requires us to adopt, regulate what we still are allowed to regulate. But even if we're going to issue that building permit to that person, as long as it complies with those things, even if the homeowners association says it's not allowed. Because we don't enforce homeowner regulations.

No, I understand that part. I'm just curious. Or priority, I guess. I don't know.

And Greg, I will get back to you if I'm wrong on that. Because it's been a while since I've specifically delved into a lot of planning stuff. I'm more recently in more administrative. roles than planning roles. But that's my basic understanding. And I will for sure correct myself if I can.

I appreciate it. And then I will sit back from this point forward and listen and learn because I have a million questions on this.

Greg, the other thing you have to understand is that the city of DuPont is not Totally covered by homeowners association. And so, no, I understand that.

But 2,500 of the 3,900 or so, I understand.

I'm just saying that it presents some unique problems. The city gets to decide what the city for everybody and the homeowners association.

I was just curious that the complexion piece, so not to make this a personal thing, but I, for example, got approved by the city for a project and the HOA said no, even though it met all state, city, et cetera, et cetera. The HOA still had the authority to say no. So when I look at the ADU stuff written in here, it is no chance it passes.

Let me...

Even if the city said yes, so then that was my question is like... And that's why I said it may not be appropriate for this forum. I don't know, but...

It's completely appropriate to ask the question and I will check. I will look into it.

Thank you.

I don't know what... It would be helpful to know what the specific project is that you're talking about.

Well, just looking at the ADUs in general, right? A thousand square feet up to 30 whatever feet tall. Like I can assure you that that does not fly with... the primary ROA in this community.

Yeah. Okay.

It was simply a question of if the city says yes, the state says yes.

Can the HOA say no?

The ROA.

Yeah.

Can they say no? Because it's about, but once again, I don't mean to jump. I'm just trying, I'm trying to understand the basis for this because I was not part of that three year long process.

Yeah.

That I heard. Yeah. So I'm just trying to understand how all this ties together. I read through this. There's so many generalities and it references back to, I mean, it'd be a full-time job looking up every single one of these, uh, RCWs.

Well, it was a full-time job person that wrote the analysis. So, yeah. So I agree with you. There's a lot of jargon and there is a lot of reference to laws and wax. And, um, I think, you know, if, um,

And I don't know if I should be worked up over it because when I read it, it gets me worked up immediately. As someone who owns a home here whose kids I want to stay in this town and I read this, on the surface, this turns our town into a place that my kids aren't going to want to stay.

Yeah.

So it immediately evokes emotions in that regard. But maybe I'm getting emotional over something that is just because we haven't defined where a shelter can go.

Yes.

So I don't know. So I'm going to be quiet from this point forward and I'll just listen.

So part of the work plan, part of the process, the overall process is for the planning commission first and then making a recommendation to the city council is to try and work through the balancing act, which is... when I talk about local government and what we do every day, we balance every single day. We are balancing needs with resources. We are balancing one person's perspective with another person's perspective. In this case, we're going to be balancing what the state legislature has said thou shalt do with how we can make it work best. How can we make that mandate work for DuPont because it is a mandate. And one of the earlier questions I think was what happens if we don't do this? So the biggest impetus is that In the Growth Management Act, there is a requirement that most state funding agencies, so Department of Transportation, Department of Ecology, Department of, I don't know, Fish and Wildlife has a whole lot of grants, but it requires that state funding agencies ensure that the community, like cities that request money are in compliance with the law. So that is probably the biggest requirement the biggest negative if we are not in compliance. That's the reason why we try to maintain consistency and compliance with the Growth Management Act in terms of what happens if we don't. In answer to that question, if we don't do that, we will not qualify for a lot of state funding agencies. And in our current municipal financial environment, which again, we are not alone, it's like every city across the state has similar issues in relative scale. How we fund the basic services and needs that our community members want and expect is a constant challenge. And so we rely on state funding nearly every year. The Center Drive projects, those are largely funded by...

I don't know if that's a great example because literally everyone I know is like, why are we repaving the street right now? But in this case, not the best use of it. Once again, I go on the record saying that as a taxpayer, that's the upset.

Fair enough. So before we get, I mean, if you want to do it. We can get into the weeds in this really quickly. If you want to give one quick comment, I feel we need to set the tone of where, how we're going to move forward, because obviously we're all going to have to go over this.

So, um, it's not a comment. It's a question. Okay.

So go ahead.

So if we, we say we've developed this plan for emergency housing, um, Is it on city land? Is it privately? I mean, how does this how does this structure actually come to be?

It's the same way that any other land use is authorized. So the zoning, first the comprehensive plan says we would like these types of uses here, so we're going to designate at this designation, right? And we do that all over the city limits. And then we have zoning regulations that regulate the uses within those different zones according to the policies that are identified in the comprehensive plan.

So is this a city, this would be run by the city?

No. Oh. This is, again, this goes back to- The structure, the building. We are creating a regulatory environment within which someone can do this. So the city doesn't- It could be, I can guarantee, well, you have a council member in the audience. I don't see, I do not foresee the city of DuPont- working to try and become the provider of an emergency shelter. That's not what this is about. Oftentimes there are cities who partner Right? In communities where this is an issue, there are, you know, Lacey, for example, has partnered with nonprofit organizations and state funding to convert a, this is also not a great example, but to convert a motel into emergency shelter for homeless folks, right? So there are opportunities for for cities to choose to partner, but these mandates from the state do not obligate the city to be the provider of emergency housing. They just say, you need to create a regulatory environment within which these services can be offered by someone.

It's no different than what we did with the zoning map. And we said so many acres for hotels, I'm thinking out in Old Fort Lake area are so many for entertainment. My question would be when you start adding additional uses, do we have to increase any of those acreages? Or if it's all gobbled up with a hotel and a winery, Have we met the requirement?

Yeah. So again, this goes back to the conversation about the regulatory environment versus the market. If there's no market for it, it's not going to happen. At least today, right? Maybe there's a market for it somewhere down the road. And I can't guarantee that there won't be a market for anything, right? I can't guarantee there won't be a market for, pick a use. I can't guarantee there won't be a market for something. But just because there's a regulatory environment that authorizes it, right doesn't mean that that's going to happen in in all those locations and you're like even with hotels you're providing zoning districts and land use designations that allow for hotels whether or not a hotel developer wants to come in and create another hotel is completely up to them whether or not they can you know find a piece of property to buy and build whether or not the market is really supportive excuse me whether or not there's um the right services around your hotel that you want to build, right? Those are the market conditions and the things that happen that are extraneous to the regulatory environment. But the regulatory environment is what we can control and what the legislature, in this case, is asking us to control or mandating us to control. Okay.

So, I mean, for moving forward for this, what is your timeline schedule that you would like to see?

So we have a consultant on board with a draft scope of work. And it is based on this. So this approach, again, is let's do the minimum necessary to ensure that we, by the time we get through with this one, we get the check mark around GMA compliance. And so the things that are included on this list above the... Basically the GMA compliance comp plan amendments and the GMA compliance development regulations, those two items are essentially what we're proposing to create a single activity. So it's a single process around that. So that's basically, I'm gonna put my glasses on, sorry. To the top of page three, where it says Development Regulations Periodic Review. So we have always needed to do this piece, right? Take the Housing Accountability Act, out of the equation, when you're required to do a periodic review and update under the statute, you're required to not just look at your comprehensive plan, but also look at your development regulations. So there are, we had, Barb had actually hired a consultant to do what we called an audit. So we have a list of development regulations that we need to update and change just based on the comprehensive plan changes that you guys made that were recently adopted. So that's what the last item is on, on the list that we have things that we need to do.

So are you talking about the blue? The blue framed on the, yep. Yes.

So if you want to, if you want it, so right after the, um, the minutes and the agenda, agenda item number five, 5.1, it says up in the top right corner, if you want to just start there and this is page five of the 37 page packet. So the first category of items in this work plan for the process that we would like to embark upon with you, is to address the Housing Accountability Act review requirements that we got. And that's the letter dated July 21, 2026. There's eight items in there. Two of those items actually relate to the comprehensive plan. Those two items plus the rest also relate to the development regulations. So the changes in the comprehensive plan are not necessarily going to be that significant. The next comprehensive plan amendment we would like to consider at the same time concurrently is to look at the letter from the Department of Commerce. And that one was dated March 27, 2026. And that was specifically their response to our notice that we were going to be adopting the comp plan update. And they indicated that there were a couple of additional issues around our transportation element. And they hadn't seen. So in the final plan, we included the ordinance and a staff report that outlined all of the work that you had done. That isn't actually in the body of the plan itself. So the changes that we need to make to the comprehensive plan to address the letter from Department of Commerce related to from March are pretty minimal also. We need to go back to our transportation element consultant and have them address I have a sneaking suspicion that some of this work that was identified in this letter from Commerce from March has already been done. It just didn't, they didn't see it. It's a big document. So those are some of the other changes that we would then do. And then we would include a much more, actually include in the comprehensive plan a description of our process that went into that periodic review process. So then the last thing that would then govern or impact the review of the comprehensive plan from a compliance standpoint is on the top of the next page. And that is the Puget Sound Regional Council letter that's dated from January of 2026. These are, I believe also it's entirely possible that these comments have already been addressed in the version of the plan that was adopted in February. It's on here mostly in case they haven't been. I've met with David Dixon once. I had a Zoom call with him once. He actually hadn't known, he didn't realize that we'd actually adopted something. So I did send him the adopted plan. And I need to check back in with him to see if he's had a chance to review it. So some of this work on this item may actually be done as well. And some of this, the stuff that's, the comments related to the transportation element in this letter are pretty consistent with the comments that are in the Department of Commerce letter from March around the transportation element. So there's not, there's a lot of overlap in the comments from PSRC and in comments from Department of Commerce from March. So the comprehensive plan amendment topics are not necessarily super lengthy. They'll be around, pardon? They're not very lengthy. It's not a huge amount of work. We need to make a few changes to the housing element, and we need to ensure that we've got some land use assumptions and projections that are part of the PSRC Vision 2050 plan, which we are a part of from a regional perspective. We just need to make sure that our growth assumptions and our land use assumptions are have been included in our plan and they're consistent with the comments that are made in those two letters. So it's not a whole lot of work. It's rechecking and refining probably what has already been done.

So in this process, are we going to go over and make our recommendations first before we get a draft or is the draft going to be presented and then the

My suggestion to you is that we provide you a draft. Specifically with regard to the comments on the comp plan, they're very specific. And like I said, I think a lot of that work has already been done. When it comes to the next items, the development regulation items, so there are the items based on the Housing Accountability Act review. that you already have. And then the other set of development regulation recommendations are based on our consultant's audit of our existing development regulations and whether or not they are consistent with the comp plan that was adopted and with any other regulatory updates, legislative updates that affect our development regulations. which includes in part our critical areas requirements. So we have critical area requirements in our zoning code, in our development code. One of those, for example, is we are obligated to use best available science as we are reviewing development projects and potential impacts on critical areas as they're defined first by the state and then consistently in our zoning regulations. Science changes all the time. So we are, part of our periodic review is we have to take a look at our critical areas regulations. So our consultant has done that for us. They've said, okay, here's this new provision in the new comprehensive plan. This part of the zoning regulations need to be updated to match that, to implement that. They've also gone through and Department of Commerce has a whole series. And in this case, actually, Department of Ecology and I believe Department of Fish and Wildlife, they all have checklists. And we use those checklists to they they give us those checklists so that we can take them and look and say, OK, here's this requirement. where is this requirement in our code? So it helps us do this evaluation. And our consultant has completed that. They actually completed that right before I started, actually. They had started doing that while Barb was still here. They completed it. And then I've been getting my feet under me and dealing with the housing accountability stuff. So we have a list of proposed changes. We don't have the drafts yet. of those actual changes, but we have a list. And I am happy to give you the audit, the audit memorandums from our consultant as well. That would be my next step. So the strategy would be to come to you And similarly to how you, I believe you did the comp plan update. You took a kind of element by element. We would probably try and take each one of these items in a work plan, in a work session, work through that, get your feedback, make some tweaks, come to you with draft language, and then have you ultimately hold a public hearing on all of it and make a recommendation to the city council who gets to do the same thing. They get to take a look at what your recommendation is, they hold a public hearing, and then they adopt ordinances. One ordinance probably for the comprehensive plan, one ordinance to adopt updates to the development regulations. In terms of timing, we're still working on that. It is, unless you're willing to meet, you can't. There's no time in the day to do that much work that quickly. We have a couple of meetings. We need to have more conversations with the growth management staff at Department of Commerce and talk to them more about the 120-day timeline that's part of the Housing Accountability Act review and our need to be efficient with our time and our money in terms of addressing everything. And I feel really strongly about For one, this is confusing enough already. If we just do two processes right back to back, and if we do just the housing accountability stuff, we're going to open up the comp plan, the development regulations, just do those things. We still have to do this other stuff. It doesn't make sense to spend time and money on doing the one thing and still have no check mark when it comes to the state funding agencies. So we're still talking with Department of Commerce and trying to push our perspective and need to finalize the actual work plan in terms of what the timeline looks like associated with this. I mentioned earlier, I think it's entirely possible given workloads and planning commission schedules and consultant time and energy and the time to draft and review. It's entirely possible that it's early, you know, first quarter of 27. I can't believe that first quarter of 27 before this gets, before you hold your hearing and the city council holds theirs and everything is done and we get to say, whew, hopefully. Yes. Yeah.

Yeah. Okay. So, so the, or what, so we're, so we're going to wait for the draft and obviously I think we've all heartily agree that get it all done as long as they agree with that and give us the, we just do it all in one fell swoop. It doesn't, I wouldn't know why you would do the same work.

Yeah.

always. So are we are we thinking? Obviously, they've already been working on this behind the scenes? Are they thinking? Are we going to have any of it drafted by next month for the meeting?

I think we should plan on meeting next month. I think you should plan on having your meetings from here on out until we can get through this. And then we will use those as targets for our work to make sure that we're being diligent in providing that.

Okay, so the goal would be for our September meeting to have a draft from the team for us to start to review. We would, yes.

If we don't have an actual draft language, we will make sure that we are going through these letters, and then I will also get you the audit that our consultant did. And we'll be able to say with more... definition what the timeline should be on this and be able to have a much better Gantt chart type work plan that shows you timing and topics. it's something that I need to work with our consultant on to figure out like, like, is this what we're doing? So we kind of like, I'm, I believe I don't need you to necessarily take action on it, but I just would like, like, yes, you're blessing us to move forward with the assumption that we're going to do those things up through the top part of, uh, that, that third page of the work plan. And then we will come back to you with more definitive schedule and timeline. And, and I can also bring back those topics, the audits, the two audit memos.

And then it's always been beneficial for us as well if during any of those, especially maybe towards the final, it's always beneficial if the consultant is willing to give their time in one of the meetings so we can directly ask any questions. Yes.

We will need to do that because we are short-staffed and they are going to be doing the majority of the work. So we will need them to be here and talk with you. That will absolutely be part of the process.

If possible, could we get those drafts to review prior to, like maybe Monday of the, a week ahead of time instead of three or four days ahead of time? Yes, we will do our best. Some of us have other lives besides Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday and Monday. To read these.

Yes, absolutely. Yes, we will do a much better job of trying to get this to you a week in advance.

It was a question of better job. It was just a question of if possible.

Absolutely. And it is definitely a hundred percent. Yes. If possible, we will do what we can to get you that information as quickly as possible.

I have a question.

And I also encourage you, if you do get it ahead of time and you have a bajillion questions, please feel free to reach out. And if I don't know the answer, I will seek it out for you. Or hopefully we, it's actually helpful. You know, if you have an opportunity to look at this stuff before the meeting and you've got, it's helpful to know so that we can come. you know, prepared to specifically like do some research if need be. So you should very much feel welcome to, uh, reach out with a list of questions or a phone call or whatever, uh, however best. Um, and if I can't add, like I said, if I can't answer it at the moment, then we at least know that we've got some research to do, uh, to try and bring you some answers.

Commission Burleson.

I just have a question in reading. Um, page on page 15. It's it to see it says sufficient capacity of land for housing. And it seems like that's a con. It's it's reads as if we have to have the have the land. Not that it I just don't understand. This, what do you call this this? what are these things called? RCW. It was a finding and it says sufficient capacity for housing. It says they've determined that no changes are needed to be consistent with the housing requirement. But then below, it says what's needed. And we have set aside quite a bit of that in the old Fort Lake, the plan. But then it says that we they've identified sufficient land to allocate, but I just, it's almost like this land is just sitting there waiting. And we, I mean, how do you plot this out?

So again, it's not, so the, the RCW that's cited there, I believe specifically relates to So we've identified sufficient capacity for density. That's one thing. The other thing is that we have to allow for a variety of uses. So density of development and the variety of uses that are allowed within different zoning districts are two different things. So so the good news is, yes, we've identified sufficient capacity for the land, for the for the types of for housing. And we've actually it actually says that we have identified sufficient capacity for government assisted housing, housing for moderate, low, very low and extremely low income households manufactured. I mean, you've done a great job. But because of this one law, we have to identify emergency housing and shelter in those uses as well.

So if I can, because I tried to ask this earlier, but maybe it segues off this better. So the comment here, quantitative analysis of merchant housing capacity basically has not been done. Is that the consultant that does that? Or who comes back and says we need our city of 10,000 people or whatever we're at needs three emergency or one emergency shelter with five beds. Like what is, where's the, I obviously can't click the hyperlink, right? On this paper. How do we know what that actually means?

So the guidance is going to be helpful to you. And the answer is yes, part of the consultant's task is to do the quantitative analysis.

So they'll come back and say, in order to meet this requirement, you need one facility.

You need to make.

Potentially the.

The opportunity.

Opportunity to provide one facility.

Two rooms in the hotel.

Right. That's where I think part of my confusion or questions come in is there's a lot of comments like that. Yeah.

So they're telling us what we need to do and we need to figure out how to do that. And that's the scope of work that we're going to be getting from, that we have. We have a draft scope of work.

And then for those of us that are... did not go through that three-year process. Like this old one with the old Fort Lake thing, right? There's definitions in the back of it that lay out, but in this new one that you sent out, there's a lot of definitions, mentions, RCWs in that. Yes, so this is- Is there an index someplace that explains what all the error are? Am I expected to look all these up every single time?

Well, if you really want to, you can look them up.

I mean, I started to, but- But I also have another life.

Yes. Or you could wait for the consultant to come back. Well, that's my question.

That was my question is when the consultant gives us this draft, is it going to have an index at the back or something that lays out?

The draft will be abundantly. So this is a technical analysis. Did you say you're an engineer?

I was. By trade. I was actually a bomb squad for 20 plus years.

Okay. This is just their technical analysis. This is them, the technical policy housing knowledgeable planners and part of commerce saying, this is what the law says. And this is what we've been able to see from your, right. So this is just the technical analysis.

I just looking through it, trying to prepare for this meeting. I have a million questions.

Yeah. Especially if you're new to the planning commission.

Four hours into looking up RCW 6.70, I'm like, I can't.

What I would say to you is the way I believe they've written this is the requirements are the things that we have to do are on the first two pages, two, three pages. And then the rest of it is all just justification for why they say we have to do that.

Oh, I'm under the executive summary.

Yes, I believe that's how it's titled. So they sent a letter. There's a letter with a bunch of CCs on it. And then there is the executive summary. And those eight requirements on that executive summary is what I'm looking at primarily. The consultant is also looking at all of the other stuff, but where it starts on their page five of 24, where it says introduction, they were required by the legislation to do this analysis. They chose us to be one of 10, so they did the choosing. There were some jurisdictions that volunteered to do this, So there were some of those also, but so that from that point on that the rest of that 24 page document from commerce is their technical analysis of the legislation and how our documents fit, or are consistent with or are not consistent.

So, so moving. So the tentative plan then would be, we're going to meet September 8. And you're hoping by let's say September 1st to have some draft emailed to us so that we can review it before the meeting. Yes. Okay.

And it will be a detailed work plan for how we're going to do this. And then we'll also... I'm also going to include the technical memorandum from the consultant. There's two of them. And from our consultant, those are going to be focused on development regulations. It's also... It's also a technical analysis, but it is, it'll show you kind of where we're looking, where they've identified where we need to make some changes to the code. It's not draft language yet, but it is like, we need to amend section 25.10.050 subsection to be right. So it'll be that level of detail. And we'll make sure that you have that at the next meeting.

So did anyone else have any other questions before we, I think we've got a good plan of what will be the next steps and where we're going to call it now. Cause it's not going to get, it's going to get a little worse before it gets better.

I think once again, I'm going to go back to that comment that the state painted with one paintbrush, And I think just looking at the requirement we were looking at, or I was looking at with concerning parking. We have a parking problem right now. And we went through this discussion. Lisa, you weren't here, but we went through this discussion with Barb where we were talking about We have houses with, I'm going to say, six or eight cars. And you have to have off-street parking because there's no house that can hold six or eight cars.

Well, what I find interesting in that is that we were limited on what we were allowed, what we were required, what we could require of parking. And now all of a sudden they're backtracking going, oh, wait a second, we're going to change that a little bit.

We were wrong. Oh, no. In reading number four, it's down to a quarter of a parking space. off-street parking space may be required per sleeping unit. Well, that's less than what we have right now.

When I started doing land use planning as an idealistic new planner right out of college, the Growth Management Act was, at the time, very much a local ground up. process. And in the last 25 years, it's been changed. I would be surprised if there's any legislative session during which they did not make some sort of change to RCW 3670A. And there have been also then case law. And there's been growth management hearings board decisions. And so it has become quite a different thing than what it was originally. Originally it was like, look, we need to plan for all of these things. How are we going to do it? And local government, you need to address all of these things. wasn't the first planning statute in the state but it was the one that said you need to communities you need to think about your capital facilities you need to think about your transportation you need to think about how you can provide housing that's affordable to all economic segments right so it was much more broad and much more um local control than what it currently is and um it was I think my first year at Tumwater. So this would have been 2023 when I was listening to the planners and they were telling me that the state was going to tell us how many parking spaces we needed in commercial districts. That's big. What? That's way different than what I was used to. So I feel your pain is what I'm, I'm empathizing with you and I'm empathizing and we're going to, We're going to get through it. We'll get through it. We'll get through it. I promise. You may not be super happy at the end of it, but we'll get through it.

Yeah. Okay. All right. So we're good on new business. Yes. And then, um, moving on to administrative report. Yes.

So the first thing that I want to share with you is a document and I, Iana didn't have this, um,

So one of the things that

One of the things that I am an advocate of is trying to provide as much background information and training and education around all of this very complicated stuff. And I'm a big proponent of this program. It's called A Short Course on Local Planning. It's been around, there have been short courses on local planning that have been offered since the mid 70s. It has followed very much the same format that entire time. In this case, there's a lot of virtual options. I think you could probably even go onto the commerce website and watch a webinar. In this case, we actually, I talked with city administrator Campbell and we have, He agreed that it would be good if we could bring a short course on local planning here to DuPont. So on September 28th, which is the fifth Monday of September at six o'clock, we're going to have a session here. um in dupont it's open we're going to be inviting the planning commission all of our other commissions and advisory boards and our city council of course it's open to the public commerce also is going to be inviting other jurisdictions other planning commissions and city council members and county commissioners types elected and appointed officials to attend if they would like to And it is going to cover some basics on this big thing that we call land use planning in the state of Washington. So there's going to be a session that's, this is always, typically is always given by an attorney. So it'll talk about all of the land use regulations, land use and environmental regulations in the state of Washington that we deal with. The Growth Management Act is just one of many. So they'll talk about the legal basis of planning in the state of Washington. Our planner from Department of Commerce, not the person who wrote the Housing Accountability Act report, I will say. Eric is a very nice man. He will talk a little bit about comprehensive planning under the Growth Management Act. And then we also are going to have, I'm not sure, this Angela Stahlnecker, I'm not sure what jurisdiction she works for, but she is a planning manager for another jurisdiction. And she's going to talk about sort of the roles and the responsibilities in the overall process. There are legislative things which is what you and the city council does. There's also quasi-judicial and administrative things which are handled typically by staff where you write the policies and the rules and we then implement them on an individual basis. So the planning manager will talk about the different roles and responsibilities and how those work and some of the laws that govern each of those different processes. And then the attorney will speak again around the Open Public Meetings Act and the Open Records Act, which is as planning commissioners, you have an obligation to take training that's offered by the state specifically on those two topics. And you're required, I think, every four years to renew that. So we keep track of who all is up to do that. I will need to look and see, but as an appointed official and as elected official and honestly as staff, we're all obligated to take this same training. So this will be an opportunity to have that training here for you to attend and participate in. And then there's typically questions and answers after that. There is a registration link on here. It's not mandatory. It's just one way for us to try and keep track of who we're hopefully getting to attend, especially if it's some of the other neighboring jurisdictions. So hopefully they would sign the registration and go that route so we can kind of know how many people to anticipate. It is going to be advertised and available and noticed. We'll try to encourage as many people, including from the public, to attend as possible. And it should be a fun and interesting evening. And I hope you all will be able to attend.

yes the notice says tuesday september 28th and it's it oh yes it's monday yeah so i'll let him know thank you so i would imagine that a majority of

the planning commission would probably go to this meeting. You're going to post that we will.

It'll be notified as a public meeting for all of the cities, the city council, all of the boards and commissions. Yes, we'll make sure that we take care of that. Our clerk's office is really good at that. Yeah.

I think we had to do an update of the OPMA. Yeah, we had to sign something. Yeah.

Yeah.

But they intended offer that at this meeting.

Um, let me confirm with the clerk's office that this one will qualify if you've gotten the list, but if not, I would encourage you to, to, um, hop on and take the, take the training that's online as well. If you, you know, just to get it done and over with, and this, it, it's super confusing. And incredibly exciting.

It's so hard to stay focused.

Yes. Yeah. Thank you for pointing out the incorrect thing on that. Let's make sure we, I I'll take care of it. I got that in an email from the department of commerce. So I'll make sure I do that. Just help me remember to do that. And then in terms of, So the only other thing I wanted to share with you too is so Sarah Buchanan is not any longer with the city of DuPont. I'm not at liberty to discuss the whys or wherefores, but so she has, she has left the employment. So you had asked about that and I am happy to share that. That's what I can share. So we are going to be advertising for a planner. I will tell you, so part of my request, part of the reason I'm doing what I'm doing is to help the department continue on a day-to-day basis, keep things rolling along. And there is a lot going on. The other component of that is to take a look at the public services department as a whole. It was created from the community development and the public works department back in, I believe it was 2022, 2023 timeframe. And the question at this point is, is that still a good arrangement? I'm a strong advocate of that combined department, but with that combined department, what are the staffing resources that we need? Looking at our functions, the things that we do, the services that we provide from that large department, what some of the other jurisdictions in the region are doing that are similarly situated, the other ones that are providing water, that are providing stormwater and streets and planning and parks. And then I'm going to make some recommendations based on my process in terms of staffing resources and how things could be organized to be a little bit more efficient. we're moving ahead with trying to find a planner as soon as possible because I am, quite frankly, the job that Barb was trying to do was to be community development director and public services director, right? So she was trying to be your main planner and trying to run one of the largest organizations departments in the city performing four or five different functions. It depends on where you put facilities. If you put facilities under operations and public works, it's for, if you, if you include it as its own, which, you know, taking care of all of our buildings and all of the buildings in our different parks, um, it was a monumental job. And, um, so we are definitely going to need, um, a planner, um, and, uh, It didn't work out with the one, but we definitely need that position and are going to be trying to recruit that position sooner than later. I've come to learn that the city of DuPont doesn't necessarily have a high volume of permit activity, but you have some very complex projects that including long range planning, but you have some very long range permitting development permits and projects that have taken a lot of years and they're very complicated. They're very complicated development projects. So it will be important to make sure that we have another planner in here to help with helping Jana and Ray, our building official, and help implement all of the different activities that we have just on the planning function in the city. Okay. That's all I've got specifically. I'm happy to answer any questions that I can.

This time we'd like to open to any public comments. Is there anybody online? Okay. At this time, are there any planning commissioner comments?

I got one. Just real quick, back to this fun document. When the draft is done, if if it's at all possible, give as many, or I would like as many DuPont-specific examples. So when there's a lot of generalities in there, like what is the actual so what for the city? What does it actually mean when it says, you know, transit stop, or whatever the definition might be. I lost the page I had a second ago. But, you know, I think that will help clarify, especially for those of us that are not as... wise and this smoke my other folks sitting up here oh like what that actually means to us when we say these things yeah absolutely um because i can read zero lot setbacks or whatever and i i generally know what that means but what does that actually mean right um it would be helpful thank you yeah absolutely 100 all right

All right. At this time, we would like to adjourn our meeting at 8.04, 20.04, in memory of Jeff, 20.04 PM.

Or 20.04, not PM.

So are you all getting my emails? I got yours. So you did, Lauren? Okay, good. So you got it through your Yahoo, but not the... Okay. Okay. Yeah. Yeah.