Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Whenever you're ready, whenever you're ready.

Good evening. Welcome to the November 4th meeting of the Everett Planning Commission. Ayanna, would you please call the role? Chair Chatters, here. Commissioner Sullivan. Oh, Commissioner Shelby also here. Commissioner Ballard here. Commissioner Finch here. Commissioner Sullivan here. Commissioner Ridge here. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Shelby, would you read the land acknowledgement, please?

Yes. The planning commission wishes to acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Shahob people, and their successors, the Tleup tribes. Since time immemorial, they have hunted, fished, gathered on, and taken care of these lands and waters. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water. We will strive to be honest about our past mistakes and bring about a future that includes their people, stories, and voices to form a just and more equitable society.

Thank you. Uh we'll now take care of the meeting minutes from October 7th. Were there any corrections to the meeting minutes? other than the emission of Commissioner Rutledge which uh we've already mentioned that. Okay. Seeing no corrections, any objection to the minutes being approved as presented? Okay. Then without objection, the meeting minutes from October 7th are approved. Just a note regarding the meeting minutes. Um they have gone to a more brief format. Um, for anyone who follows via the meeting minutes, there are transcripts available. If you look at our YouTube page, uh, it does AI transcripts. And so, if you feel that the meeting minutes aren't quite as robust as you'd like them to be, you can read the, uh, transcript, uh, on our YouTube page. Uh, we now have an opportunity for reports from commissioners. Any reports today? Okay, then we will Oh, one additional thing. Um, we do have a hard stop today at 7:30. Uh, so we'll we'll be watching the clock to ensure that we meet that deadline. Uh, and with that, we'll turn it over. Thank you.

Sure thing. Good evening, uh, Chair Chatters. Good evening, Planning Commission. I'm York Steven, planning director. To my right is Teddy Hullbrook, environmental planner. Uh, we'll be walking through the complete draft of the critical areas uh, regulations periodic update today. But first, a couple uh staff comments. Housekeeping ordinance. Uh we sent for state agency review. We're in the 45day uh state agency review period. Uh as mentioned in the last meeting or two, we were still working on a couple of tweaks to the inclusionary housing provisions. And uh do expect to bring that back to you in two weeks on November 18th for a minor adjustment to the re uh resolution and recommendation that you passed a couple of meetings ago. um on the inclusionary zoning. We also uh general code is the consultant that does the online codification of our regulations and they have been working through the massive ever 2044 development regulations ordinance uh that has not yet been posted to the web page. We do have compiled PDF copies of it available on the planning department web page. Um they did just get us back about 35 questions on that which is about the number that I was expecting and the types of things uh numbering and some other things. Uh Danielle Marshall who's in the audience our long range uh associate planner is taking a first crack at going through all of those to see uh uh answer their questions and get those things corrected. Some of those may find their way into the housekeeping ordinance as well. So, whatever it is, we'll close the books on it after two weeks from today when we bring it back to you for what is expected to be a very brief uh a brief uh return to that topic. Uh Alisanne has an update on manufactured housing communities that she's going to give the other uh of the three code projects that we have in the works right now.

So, push the button.

That would be helpful. I'm not usually at this podium. Um, I have been meeting with residents of manufactured homes over the last couple of months. On Thursday night, I was at the Silver Lake Neighborhood Association meeting where we had representatives from Silver Stores and Plyad Lago, I believe, also there. And we have gotten basically unanimous support for creation of a manufactured housing community zone and we will be moving forward with that. and getting it to you probably the first meeting in December for a conversation again so you know what all the details of it are and then at the beginning of the year with a public hearing on it. So, so far I've heard from one owner of one of the parks and he just wanted to make sure that they could replace one for one and that's been it from the ownership side of it. So, that's where we are on that process. But I did letters went out to excuse me all the owners, all the managers, all the residents associations and the neighborhood associations explaining the entire process. So that's where we are on the outreach of that.

Thank you. Um chair, we were talking before the meeting about December meetings. We'll see how uh tonight and November 18th is done. Uh and we hear the request for um a month off which uh we've worked to very very hard this year. So uh more to come on that in two weeks. Cherry also mentioned uh the little project we did with uh revising the structure of our minutes. Um you should have a handout uh which is what we followed. Jurassic Parliament is a is an organization that supports local governments in things like Robert's rules and meeting minutes. and they had a really handy uh uh set of suggestions for running efficient minutes. That is what we're following. That's what we plan to follow going forward. Uh let us know if there are any questions or any suggestions uh from you on that going forward. I believe that's all we have for staff comments today. Thank you.

Okay, we have one agenda item today and that is the critical areas regulation. So we can jump right into that. Sure.

Commissioner Shelby just reminded me that we should give an opportunity for public comment. So before we jump I'm sorry. Before we jump into the critical areas ordinance, uh Ayanna, do we have anyone online who wishes to offer comment today? We do not. And did we receive anyone in the gallery uh with a sign-in sheet who wishes to offer public comment? We'll we'll we'll we'll get it later. Yeah. If you wouldn't mind stating your name uh and city of residence for the record and if if you could try to confine your comments to around 3 minutes. Um press the There you go.

Oh, okay. Sorry. Howard Bar Green uh 2821 Rucker Everett. Um I'm glad everyone was laughing at the start of the meeting. It means you're in a good mood. Um my request is that uh the the planning commission take out a designation in the of your critical area ordinance update. There's a designation on my family property of unnamed creek and I can go into a history 81 year history of that property. I think we want to leave here by 6:30 or 8:30. So, and I'm sure there's a third 3m minute limit, but basically the only reason there's any more water on that property than your property wherever you guys live is because the city of Everett's water uh first water tank number two and then water tank number four that was built in 1953 has been uh draining their what comes out of their reservoir. or all reservoirs leak onto my property or my family's property. And uh uh we I've had numerous discussions over the years with the city and so has my attorney and engineers, but basically the city's doing a way better job of not putting water on my property. Uh they built a new reservoir, reservoir 2, and then now reservoir 4 is empty. So I'm looking forward to having the property like it was when I was a little kid, which was dry as a bone, just like probably where you guys live. And I really would like the planning

commission or the planning department to consider taking out that designation. Um, I'm willing, as some of you know, to do um make that happen in in un uh more expensive ways. But I think if you look at the situation and if you have a chance to talk to me and find out the history, uh it just makes sense. is there's all the all all that water is is rainwater and maybe a little bit of water from septic tanks because we're the only place in the city that has septics tanks now. That's a whole another story. I begged the city to change that. They could have when they built reservoir 2 this time, uh but we're unwilling to. But in any case, uh it's not a creek and I can go into the history of it, but the only reason there's extra water there is because the city put it there. So, please consider that. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Breen. Uh can I ask what you said it was na the creek was named. What is the name of the of the creek on on on Sharon on on on on the west side of Rucker Hill in the new maps there's two areas they just designate unnamed creeks. Okay. All right. Thank you for that clarification.

Do we have any further comment? Uh folks signed up for comment. No, we do not. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Um, thank you, Mr. Bar Green, for providing uh that commentary. And with that, we'll turn it back over to you, York.

Thank you, chair. Um, this may be a good time. I'll follow up on those comments just a little bit. Uh, Mr. Bargain, I'm sorry, was not able to forward the email to the planning commission, but we will get to that tomorrow so that you have Mr. Bargarin asked that the communication be forwarded to you. We'll get that into the record and get that before you. Um the city I it's important to clarify that this process is not changing the mapping or designation of any individual stream, wetland or other critical area. the uh process by which we regulate those and the process uh the uh exceptions allowed uses. Um some of the management uh regulations are changing but what is or is not a stream is not being addressed as part of this update. Over decades, we have compiled a general map of suspected or known critical areas that is refined continuously. Each time there's a development and there's a critical area study that is done with field markings and very detailed measurements of where a wetland, for example, begins and ends, we take that information, we digitize it, we put it into the online maps. There will be a link a couple slides from now to where you can find those maps. those are considered uh suspected or uh or or possible critical areas. Um they are then further evaluated as part of any development application and that is when we would make a determination of whether it met the legal thresholds for being a stream or a wetland or any other sort of critical area um with the benefit of qualified professionals and a critical area report. The stream in question on that property was identified by USGS in a general study of the city of Everett a long time ago. So we we matched that. We

have refined the location of the uh we'll call it a suspected stream or drainage based on uh very detailed topographical LAR data. Um that's the only change from what USGS had had assumed. But whatever it is when the time came for the application of the critical area regulations, we would confirm or uh modify our understanding of the presence of that and then we would update our online uh publicly available mapping. Uh so if anybody sees a critical area on the maps that we have, it is not a guarantee that that is a critical area exactly there. If you see that there is not a critical area mapped, it's the same thing. There may be a critical area there. We work on the best knowledge that we have and that is gained at a site by sight level slowly over time. Occasionally we do full uh studies. There was a national wetland inventory for example in the 80s or something like that but otherwise it's done through individual site uh usually through uh associated with development. So we'll give a more direct answer uh to you Mr. Bar Green directly. We'll forward the email and any other conversations around that to the planning commission so you have a window on that too. Um I think after that I can turn it over to Teddy.

Okay.

All right. Next we got to click in. Here we go. So, commissioners, it was not a ghost. There was a draft published on October 31st, 2025 of the critical areas ordinance uh ever critical area regulations periodic update that will be referenced through this uh presentation. But first a quick recap of the last two meetings that we met to discuss this top this topic. Uh in September 16th we discussed the background what are critical areas where are they why protect them and gave some regul regulatory framework. We also discussed the critical areas ordinance update itself discussing best available science and potential updates to the ordinance itself. and we briefly discussed next steps including a public participation plan, the general timeline of adoption and some brief commission considerations at that time. The last meeting was October 7th where we recaped the previous meeting before that. We also discussed how the code functions and how critical areas are regulated including the mitigation sequencing hierarchy and some flexibilities in our existing code. We also briefly discussed some proposed code changes including revisions and really touched upon the reorganization of the chapter. To throw it back to the last two uh presentations, there are five different types of critical areas listed on this slide which should be familiar to you. Of note, there are no critical aquifer

recharge areas in the city of Everett. Then we discussed why we are protecting critical areas. It's falls in generally two different categories. Uh to protect ecological functions which includes water quality, hydraologic functions and habitat functions and also to protect the life and safety of our residents and to focus on avoidance and minimization of those areas. In addition to the previous slide, we also have to update review and update our critical areas ordinance uh through the growth management act. It requires us to it requires no net loss of ecological functions and values and it must be based on best available science and it must give special consideration to preserve or enhance anadimous fisheries. We also briefly touched upon the functions of the critical area regulations itself including the applicability of these regulations when to require a review. We highlighted some exemptions, exceptions and allowable uses and also our goal is to set clear criteria in standards such as what constitutes a qualified professional. We want to make sure that we highlight the protection and assessment of functions and values of these areas and how to provide mitigation for unavoidable impacts. A key component of this is this mitigation sequencing hierarchy. We want to have applicants demonstrate that they go through these steps in this order to avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, compensate, and monitor impacts to critical areas.

We also touched upon some flexibility in our existing critical areas ordinance and environmental regulations highlighting exemptions, exceptions, permitted and allowed uses including reasonable use exceptions. We also provide for flexible buffer widths including buffer averaging and buffer reduction with enhancement and implementation of protective measures. We also allow for mitigation banking and inloo fee mitigation and transfer of development rights. So now on to the proposed code updates. This is meant more for an orientation to the materials that were were provided to the commissioners. We included a memo which highlights several changes within the draft regulations in bulleted uh format. Exhibit A is the table of contents proposed changes and exhibit B is the draft code amendments itself. The memo looks like this. Um the bullet the bulleted points are those key highlights of the changes per article organized in that fashion. The general updates again we touched upon at the last presentation. It's a reorganization of chapter 19.37 where each critical area now has its own article which uh we relocated several code sections into those articles for more emphasis and better organization of similar ideas. This is highlighted in exhibit A. We provide four different tables for you. Um table one is on the left of this slide. It's in order of the existing table of contents of 19.37. On the right is what is proposed as the

new table of contents. You can see they're organized by introduction in article one, article 2, and so forth. Table three of exhibit A on the left is the existing table of contents in the order it appears in the chapter currently and on the right is the redistribution of the same text into the new proposed code sections. For example, if we pull out 19.37.030 030 which is critical area reports professional qualifications and report content in the existing code. The code language that was in that code section is now redistributed into four different code sections which is 120, 220, 320 and 520 which are those critical area reports additional requirements for each type of critical area. It's nice that the numbers all lined up. Reversing that table that I just showed you, table three is table four where we show on the left the proposed titles of the code sections in the order they appear and on the right the source of that text from the existing code. The commissioners probably know how to read a um well assume they know how to read a uh striketh through re revised text, but this is for the general public out there. If you see a striketh through section that is removed and the underline is added. For this specific example, the striketh through code section 070 is the existing that is now

being replaced with.1 for the proposed code section. On the right is an example of what is included in the draft. The underlined text is in this example a new code section. The striketh through code number is existing and relabeled to match the current organization. For this example, I have included the existing code section number so it's more clear of where that code came from. Any striketh through red text is existing code language that was removed. In this example, it's removed because right above it now is the exact same code text. It was in there twice. And the black text is existing code language that has been retained. Instead of having the entire draft appear in red, it has been accepted in Microsoft Word to now read as whatever that was in there as it appears is now black text. So moving on to next steps, we have a timeline left to right to December and January on the right. Right now, we have published a review draft of the critical areas draft ordinance. We're hoping to receive comments next and receive planning commission recommendation. After that, go to city council briefings and then hopefully to adoption with revisions as necessary.

We do have some dates on the calendar. Um we'll keep those updated on the web page, which you'll see a link to on the last page. That's where we'll put all drafts and other information on the project web page. Um, we're anticipating a uh final briefing, discussion, deliberations, and public hearing with the planning commission on November 18th. Uh, I parks and built environment committee, November 12th. Uh we are going to visit the city council's parks and built environment committee for a briefing on a couple of different items. So it'll be a small touch point and update for them on that. And then December 3rd, a full council briefing is anticipated. Uh and then we may have a second reading later in December. There are a couple meetings canceled because of holidays and there's a lot of other items including budget going on. So, may take until January before we have that second uh that second reading and then the city council public hearing and action. Um I think those are the dates. Yeah. And then uh there's the project website uh up there. Uh we have a project email address that you can submit written comments. So this review draft is out there for everyone. We're we're spreading the word widely. We have a couple of meetings scheduled already with uh uh Tulo tribes and fish and wildlife and we'd be happy to schedule briefings. If there's any other organization that would like uh staff to come visit and talk through this with uh your organization, we can do that. Um so written comments and any requests or questions or any other uh interaction with us on this topic at cao everw.gov. And then of course we'll have the formal public hearings to both the planning

commission and the city council that folks can uh get involved in. That's what we have today. Uh we were not going to get into content because you've only had the full package for a little bit and we briefed the general topics at the last couple of meetings and thank you for the recap Teddy. Um there were not many major changes from what we discussed at the last two meetings to this complete draft, but there is always a lot of nuances in the specific wording of the language. Um we think you'll uh we'll all benefit from some comments from uh external agencies, organizations, and the public. So hopefully we'll have all of that together at your next meeting in two weeks time uh uh to see what input others have uh give you some time to read it yourself. If you have questions between now and two weeks from now because this is very dense material. Feel free to reach out to us. We'd be happy to uh answer by email or jump on a on a quick call with individual commissioners. Uh if you have things that we you'll want to discuss at the next meeting that you want us to be ready for, you can let us know. Um, and that goes for anyone in the public, too. Please let us know any questions you have, comments or or anything else.

Did anything arrive on your radar as far as something that will change an interpretation that uh is currently being utilized by the public? changing and interpret. So, and I remember at your last meeting there was the question of how will this impact someone? That's a question in that area. Yeah. What are we doing here? Right. And what is the meaning of life?

Yeah, that is a really hard question. We've been working on that. Uh, since we last met, um, we've been focusing on getting the complete draft put together. Um, there's a lot of it depends in there. Uh, you will see, for example, there are different stream buffer widths that may jump out. That's one of the it's a tidy number. It's bigger. Um, most of our streams are fringed by wetlands and slopes. Wetlands tend to have larger buffers than the streams. Slopes extend the buffer up the slope which typically overwhelms that stream buffer. Um we are going through the city parcel by parcel and I don't know that we have found uh anywhere that really makes a difference. So even though the stream buffers are increasing 50% maybe in some cases the practical effect on properties is going to be much less than that to zero. Um

why do

because the state the best available science has evolved and we're required to uh update our code. the best available science applies throughout the state and there are many many streams in in other places where that does make a difference. So in in Everett both being highly developed and um seems like it'd be common for streams to be fringed by slopes and wetlands but there are definitely places and forms where that doesn't occur. So we just have to match what the best available science says. you need 100 ft for 90% of pollution reduction and that's the major um function of the buffer of a of a stream. Um but in our case that doesn't have a much practical difference compared to the 50 ft. Um, a lot of the nuances around existing development that is in what is a regulated buffer, whether it's the stream or the wetlands, and what level of um changes to a property will trigger compliance with different portions of this is something that we're looking hard at and may have some impacts in some places, but it is so sight specific. um thinking of you know what what is maybe a 100 foot buffer but most of a property is in that buffer and it is developed some of it with buildings, some of it with hardscape, some of it with lawn. Each of those three things interacts a little bit differently. And most of these regulations run through a um a professional and a uh critical area report which summarizes the functions and values of the particular critical area and what are the mitigation measures or other uh measures that need to be applied to a project to mitigate

for it. All of which is focused on the concept of no net loss and a goal of long-term net gain but balancing that with property rights and pre-existing development and nonconformities and everything. So I would say the administration of nonconforming development within current critical area buffers is one to keep an eye on. Doesn't lend itself to a a tidy this is changing because every site is different and um we're trueing up the the regulations in that. It's particularly the exemptions, exceptions, and allowed uses sections. We're trueing that up with state agency guidance as well as how we actually use the words in practice. Um, but it is really tough to say, you know, it would be easy if it was like, you know, 10 ft more buffer everywhere. Um, but it is really sight specific. So I would just tell people broadly to pay attention to that just because with ever it's highly developed nature and we have a lot of non-conforming and and that may not be exactly the right term but it's basically that a lot of non-conforming development but it is a um the mitigation sequence that we went through each development goes through that whole thing and may come up with different solutions on the back end uh depending on the applicant as well as additional questions on this topic. Commissioners, obviously, we have quite a bit of material to go through before the 18th. That's why I'm also hoping that um some of the professionals uh can help spot some things. They work

with many jurisdictions and there are probably some key items that they're looking for. And um we've already gone through one round with the state agencies months ago. Um so now they'll have a chance to see in red line exactly what we've done and respond to that and they should flag if they think we've not gone far enough in any in any way and we'll send it to other organizations to do similar level of review. From our perspective, we are hewing closely to the state guidance recommendations. Um, we are following the comprehensive plan policies in the urban form element on critical areas and we are doing our best to balance property rights, development opportunities and protections of critical areas. All of which I would not consider this to be a major uh shift. anything additional that you want to ask that when they come back on the 18th, uh, is there any questions that you anticipate wanting answers to that you want to give the planning team a heads up? Uh, something that they may need to research and come back with additional information. I don't know if it's possible. Well, we kind of talked about um some way of understanding net loss of uh building area to the work that we've done and to the number of houses that we needed and how it impacts, you know, again, it's a priority obviously and I think we all care deeply about it, but it's a balancing act. So, how does this balance in with the rest or are we doing it in a silo and everybody's just a free-for-all and fighting for their own?

Um, also I had a question. Um, since I haven't read this, so I probably will have this all wrong. Um but the uh fee andloo it seems like just looking at the strikethroughs that we had it there was an attempt to kind of have a program for fenlu and I don't know of any history that it's been successful in ever I've never used it in ever um especially for private maybe for some public jobs um but it appears we've kind of stripped that back and made it very subjective. Was there a thought process behind that? Is that is it I guess is it not supported by the city as an option to um adjust for property owners that have uh found uh wetlands or now have wetlands that maybe didn't have wetlands as an option to be able to work around that and to maintain our housing stock. So the sections regarding mitigation banking and inloo fee were written in a way that almost seemed personally to me that it was more focused on how to set up a mitigation bank or how to set up an inlue fee program within the city which is not necessarily the the objective of those those sections in our code. But it's more like how can I use those those programs? Those programs are um set up by third party organizations and they're um certified through the federal and state government for use by private or public entities. So they can pay like you said an in inlue fee, but it's a mitigation bank or an in in am I saying that right? Infiloo

right

credits essentially they're they're credit systems where you can pay into them and receive credits for potential impacts on a property the am I answering your question? Well, I I historically I've tried to use the credits in the city of Everett where I was consulted in on a kind of a nonprofit project and it kind of came down talking with the city again different a different set of people were working at the city at the point at that time it just there was really no you had it as a program but really there was no way that it could actually ever be utilized and so I'm seeing the strike through is this an attempt to like just acknowledge that and get rid of it or are we trying to make it so it actually could be a tool that could be used for development You're asking if you we we can set up a mitigation bank or an inluff fee program in the city or use those credits in the city

because they they are used in the city.

So it's not a pullback on the ability to do that. Um I think the language that we had is as Teddy said wasn't serving the function that it that it should have. So we could call it extraneous code that we're deleting while the that would be in the mitigation uh row of the mitigation sequencing once you get past avoid reduce or minimize and then you get to mitigate that's where we do have provisions that you can there's a mitigation bank Keller Farms in Redmond where they've created a large wetland complex and then they sell the credits. So if you need to impact a buffer or a wetland here, then you basically you're transferring the wetland from that property where it's more appropriate for development and over to the newly created and highly functioning wetland over there. That's the process that I'm familiar with and there's nothing that we're doing that is changing the ability to do that process. Um, I don't know if there's a different inloo fee or something, but whatever it is, this shouldn't be changing that.

I understand your responsib if I haven't got section. I think the goal of those sections specifically is to clean up and hopefully simplify how they can be used. And I hope that comes across

and I don't perceive a change in what we have in this October 31st draft uh good, bad or indifferent. Is that would you agree to the ability to use mitigation?

And it is not very spelled out. It never is. It is just that word mitigate is what triggers all of that. Um, you do have to demonstrate that you've passed avoid and minimize. Um, so it can't be the first thing that you jump to. There's a wetland. All right, let's fill it and and move it to Redmond. Um but if that truly is the the right answer, um balancing the economics of it, the uh the the proposed and request requested use of the property and other less impactful alternatives to it, then that is a then that is a path. Last call, commissioners, for anything you want to uh give the planning team a heads up on that we're going to want to discuss on the 18th.

Two points. Um it would be great if you could identify impacts to existing non-conforming develop properties when we reconvene. Maybe a couple of examples would be great. And then um identify elements of state guidance you disagree with or you don't find applicable or constructive as relates to Everett. I think we often just there's a you know someone says well it's state guidance or it's it's the law fine but um I would also like to hear some critical commentary when it doesn't apply or shouldn't apply can do very in the nitty-gritty uh page 31 line 14 um what are heritage trees And where are they defined? Because they're called out specifically. I mean, it's in addition, right? Um same with evergreen trees. Uh also not in definitions for chapter 19 that I can find. U that's it. ever defined them?

No, don't know that we have defined them. This is existing language. The well so there's a there's an existing language which is also not defined and then there's it's used again in a new language and also not defined.

Yes. Right. Um yes, we attempted. So this is under E which reads protection of significant trees within buffers in parenthesis heritage trees and evergreens at least 8 in diameter at breast height and then we replaced if trees are identified on the outer edge of the buffer and I think we probably flagged that as well what there's always trees in the buffer which trees so that was just a clarification but I think you raised a good point that leaving something that is undefined um may not be the right way to go. May, if I remember us, did we talk about this? And it was allowing for the potential future designation of heritage trees, but in the meantime, they just there aren't any. Um might have been with

Is the use of heritage trees a state requirement? That's just something we decided we thought was good to do. Not necessarily. requirement that the preservation of trees was in the complex of our policies. Sure. But not specifically heritage trees and limiting certain trees. Yeah. We'd have to go back and look to see where this came from, if it's even possible to find. So, yeah, we'll take a look and we'll see if there's anything obvious there. And um if not, maybe the time to add language about it is when we find our first heritage tree, not before.

There are other cities in Washington that talk about heritage trees. Yeah. A lot of stuff on Google currently. Seattle does.

Yep. Seattle definitely does. Um, I think that that gets back to the predictability of this ordinance. And so the extent that you can eliminate those terms that um create some level of ambiguity would be helpful. Do some research. exactly the kind of feedback we need because there's a lot in here and we don't catch everything. Okay. Um we already gave the last call. So with that we have completed our agenda and unless you have any final remarks we're going to adjourn for the evening. The final remarks.