Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thanks. See July 17th, 2025, meeting the Seattle, or excuse me, Seattle City of Gig Harbor Planning Commission will call to order at 5.30 p.m. So with the roll call, Commissioner Martin. Here. Commissioner Nassau. Present. Commissioner Tessicini.

Present.

and Commissioner Burkhardt is here. Commissioner Jordan and Snodgrass are excused. We'll entertain a approval of the minutes of our last meeting. Is there a motion?

Yeah, a motion to approve. I second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye. And the minutes are approved. Public comment on non-agenda items. Do we have anyone waiting or?

Oh, okay.

All right, so hearing none, then let's see, what do we have first then? Amendments, amendment to the um gig harbor municipal code 17.80 assigned code uh continued from our last meeting um announcement of application do i hand that over to you yep now brian or yeah yes uh thank you very much uh for the record my name is eric baker i'm the

Community Development Director. This is a continuation of discussions of minor amendments to the sign code. Like we discussed at the last meeting, these issues were raised by legal staff. as potential loopholes as we are in the middle of election season and also known as sign season in many cases. We wanted to make sure that we were as clear as possible, not just for the people who were legally putting up signage, but anyone who might try to test the fences of our code and potentially try to put signage in other areas. To summarize the proposed changes that are in the Word document that we discussed at the last meeting, actually, I can probably share it on my screen. I think I have the technology. So to cover, the first is related to the sign definition. The sign definition in current code really focuses solely on commercial ventures, people trying to sell something, businesses, that kind of thing. The intent of council as well as community expectation and past practice has been that our sign code applies to all signs, especially those that are considered temporary signs. Those are the signs that you'll find located along the sides of roadways on private property, generally during election season. But also it can be people who move things call this number. I buy homes, call this number. These are all the types of signs that are intended to be captured by the sign definition. It was not – those additional ones were not captured in the current sign definition. Thus, we proposed this revised sign code that pretty much captures most – sorry, let me get this up. Most instruments that are intending to advertise, inform, identify, attract attention to, or promote the interest of any person, institution, business, event, product, good, or service. It is a much broader definition. However, it is the definition that we have been utilizing in past practices that applied to implementation and enforcement. In looking at this definition, at the last meeting, we did discuss that final sentence that excluded our official traffic signs and signals, public notices, and governmental flags. In the document that we provided earlier this week, it's entitled Sign Code Update Planning Commission Recommendation Matrix, dated July 17th. We did note that another portion of code, it is section 17-080-010B, has a scope section, which really is its exemption section already. And these items, official traffic signs and signals, public notices, and governmental flags are already covered. in that section so um staff would revise its recommendation uh to from the revised draft that you see up there to remove that final sentence with the idea that again it is captured elsewhere There is another section. I know that there were a couple concerns related with the broad application of this code. The first of which was, does this capture public art information? and or city murals. After talking very closely with legal staff and looking at the way that other jurisdictions apply their sign code, we do go back to the portion of this new definition that is used for the purpose of advertising, informing, identifying, attracting attention to, or promoting the interest of any person, institution, business, event, product, goods, or services. So any mural that featured orcas or fish or crabs are not drawing attention to any one particular thing. If that mural included a Pepsi logo, then yes, that likely could be considered a sign. Or if it included any kind of logo or information about Pepsi, a particular business that happened to be currently operating. Obviously, you could see historic murals that talk about businesses that were here back in the early days of Gig Harbor. Those would still be allowed. Again, they're not drawing attention to a current service or other person, institution, or business. Thus, legal recommended that we don't make that adjustment. This also came up when we were talking about this last meeting. Council was concerned about the city wading into the waters of what is and is not public art and what is or is not an appropriate mural. Those are very, very real concerns as both of those are in the eye of the beholder. um it is likely better to stay silent on that with the idea being that the murals that we're generally talking about um aren't drawing attention to any particular item let me pause there as those are a lot of words in succession yes sir here uh i just want to try to get a sense of you know i you know totally understand the idea of the exclusion for directional signs and

the as it's written currently it's excluded but it's under scope within 17 yes so here on the potential resolutions it's seems like it's um the under definitions, it says, what was it? There was like a place where, oh, so sign definition at the very beginning, the very first piece that sign definition, would that be considered, is that going to be what's going to be kind of replacing scope?

No, I apologize. The way that the matrix is set up, and actually let me flip to that so folks in the audience can see, as well as folks in the virtual land. And we blow it up enough so someone could actually read it. No, the idea being here is that we have the document. This is a recommendation matrix. So you have your document that is dated May 6th of 2025, or actually it may have been based on the document I just showed you previously. The matrix is intended to show areas that potentially could be changed. So the idea being is that scope would remain. The reason we included scope here under staff recommendation is so that you could see what's in the scope. So when I say it's redundant, you can say, oh, yes, it is redundant. So what staff is recommending is focused on the first paragraph. Exemption should be solely located in the scope section. We recommend removal of the final sentence of the draft code definition. That is the one to the left. And that is also highlighted in yellow. Again, I apologize for the confusion on this. So if we can continue to talk about other aspects of sign, because I think the sign definition is going to be at the core of a lot of some of the other things we're going to be talking about here in a moment. But if it is possible for the, so that we could properly capture the planning commission's recommendations, it is helpful if we can take each of these sections, potentially each of these rows individually. So we can, as you'll note on the far right-hand side, there's a PC recommendation column. So what we can do is you can memorialize what the Planning Commission said on particular topics. Usually the best way to do that is to put the main motion on the table, and that main motion would pretty much be someone suggesting approval of the June 12th uh sign code update document um and then you can amend from there you wouldn't vote on that main motion you would have that main motion that then would be amended through separate actions leading to a final conclusion where the Planning Commission would recommend the initial motion as amended. That's clearest for the minutes and clearest for the council when I bring this forward and clearest so I can make sure I properly capture what the Planning Commission is looking for.

Does anybody want to make a motion to that end?

So Eric, just to reiterate, we will be able to then have further comment and make any suggested changes that are agreed upon here by the planning commission for this document. I'm going to do it as a whole. So the June 12th, 2025 document as presented by staff and I moved to approve that document. No.

To the public, let's make a comment on science folks. Okay.

Michelle, that was awesome, though. We appreciate it. Thank you for being here, too, for the people in the audience. So, again, I move to are we saying approve, though, Eric?

You recommend approval of the June 12th staff draft entitled sign code implementation issues and potential resolutions.

I move to that. Just exactly what you said.

So before we do that, I was just wondering about, was there any response to Bizan's Yeah, was that it?

We're going to cover that through the amendment section. Right now, we're just trying to put the umbrella document up for amendment. So we need a starting spot. So the starting spot staff recommends is this document with the idea that we can make amendments from there.

So does that need to be seconded or will we just start a discussion?

That would need to be seconded. And then after that, you would then talk about amending that document. You would not vote on it until the very end. Until after the amendments. Okay.

Do I have a second?

I second it.

Okay. We'll continue. So we'll continue with that on the table. We'll continue the discussion then.

So, yeah, going back to the initial conversation about the sign definition, ultimately, the staff would recommend the striking of that final sentence. But if there are other things that the Planning Commission would like to change about that, this would be a good time for that conversation as well.

Yeah, no, I think I appreciate you putting the scope up there. It really details out and being able to exclude that and then have it in one location with more detail. I appreciate that.

I just want to bring up, I think one of the letters that came in had mentioned that in the definition was the part of graphics. And their concern was that having it unmodified, just graphics could be interpreted. I mean, again, it's like one of these, you know, the hairs are getting very thin here, that the graphic could be interpreted as being elements of a mural. And so does that word, I mean, literally, I think at least my understanding of that letter was that, should that word graphics be modified in this definition.

And I appreciate that you're bringing that forward, but we also received a subsequent letter from that individual that brought that up. And I think right now with what we're trying to do with this particular ordinance that with a lighter touch, I would be okay with it. And I think Eric, you mentioned at the last meeting that this is on the docket to take a look at it a little bit in further detail in the future, if I recall correctly.

Yes, it is included as part of phase three. And the graphics statement is the thing that we had legal review. And they indicate that graphics, as well as everything else that is in that line, is affected by the direct object, I would call, for the purpose of advertising, informing, identifying, attracting attention to, or promoting the interest of any person, institution, business, event, product, goods, or service. So the graphic is then affected by it has to be for one of those purposes, which means, again, general pieces of art that aren't directing you to Millville Pizza would not be considered a sign. But if you had a bunch of orcas and then Millville Pizza sign in the middle of it, that would be a sign.

We, uh, So are we going to continue on the other items?

Probably for simplicity's sake, if the Planning Commission is okay with striking that language, a separate motion indicating you move amendment of the draft revised sign definition to remove the final sentence, and then you can just read what the sentence says. If that gets seconded and then approved, we would just memorialize that in the right-hand column.

Okay. I'm sure much of that but I motion. Their seconds and a second. So with that. We would I guess direct the amendment of striking of was the final line of you would want to hold a vote. All those in favor aye aye aye. I mean those you're in and so moved.

Okay, so moving to page two, and I think actually page two covered what we just talked about, so we're going to just steadily move along to page three, which is one of the more thorny conversations that the planning commissioner raised at the last meeting, and that was the conversation of flags. Going back to what the definition now of a sign is, It does capture a wide variety of things, including flags. As we discussed previously, our code is content neutral. So it doesn't matter what you have on the flag, the placard, et cetera. The words don't matter. It doesn't matter who you're supporting or what business you are directing to. It is based solely on size, height, location, things that are again content neutral. Doesn't matter what the sign says. So on three, flags now are considered a temporary sign. Temporary signs don't need sign permits like temporary signs that are located in the right-of-way. There's a very clear distinction between right-of-way signs and private property signs. No permits necessary for private property signs. However, there are limitations on how high and how big signs can be on private property in particular areas. You have residential and non-residential temporary sign areas. A residential temporary sign area would be a residential zone, like the Waterfront District. The non-residential zones would be places like Uptown or Borgen, where there are places where you can have signs. We do have a map. There is particular places that those can be located, but those really kind of focus on sizes, et cetera. What was raised at the last meeting was that if flags are to be considered in this, there's two issues with that. One, if this is content neutral, while a number of flags are exempted in that scope I showed you previously, governmental flags, national flags, so the Croatian flag would be allowed to be flown, or state flags, Of course, the United States flag, all perfectly exempt. They are not covered by the sign code at all. But obviously, any flag very likely is going to be flown at a height greater than three feet or six feet, depending on where you are. They're going to be up likely at the top of a flagpole. So what you see in the proposed changes located there on page three is that temporary signs in residential in three and then non-residential in four are affected by a new statement unless connected to a legally established flagpole. So basically what that is going to do is that is going to indicate that the six feet or the three feet is allowed to be exceeded if you are attached to a legally constructed flagpole. Flagpoles have to meet height requirements just like anything else. So instead of having to repeat whatever that height requirement may be, which could change from zone to zone, we recommend just including this language and allow the building code

or other zoning code to govern exactly how high that flagpole could would could be yes ma'am so Eric I'm recalling the conversation very well here and if I have a flagpole that has a stanchion and it's on my house and it's an angled one it's not one that's in cement for standing pre-standing if you will Is that included in that? Because I think a lot of people, excluding the United States flag, et cetera, right? I'm talking about, I'm a Husky. I want to fly my Husky flag out there. It's four feet by six feet, and I'm going to put it on my house.

That would be allowed as a flagpole. That would be allowed? Yes. Okay, thank you. But it does raise the second piece, which we'll get to in a minute, which is the size requirements. But right now, if we just kind of work through the height component, as staff believes this language helps us get to that.

Okay. So that could be higher than three feet, obviously, would be.

Be higher than three feet. It would be governed by the height of the building in a lot of ways. But again, we would be talking about flags. Okay.

Thank you.

So Eric, how about the variances part?

The variances to?

That section that's in 17 dot. Can somebody apply for that?

Yeah. Oh yes, you can apply for a variance. However, if you take a look at the variance criteria, you need to meet certain things. Your property oftentimes has to be different than other properties in the area. Oftentimes it's something you didn't necessarily create the need for the variance. So yes, you could get a variance to it, but getting a variance to a temporary sign, I think would be very difficult based upon those criteria, but everyone is able to apply. The topic of SAI. Oh, yes, sir.

If somebody live in two-story home and the second floor is going to be the same as first floor we are having?

Yeah, someone on a two-story home would be, if they wanted to connect it to their second story, they would be able to do so. Though, just like any other component, it is going to be limited by the height requirement of the zone. So you can't put a 20-foot flagpole attached to your second story home. your second story building, because that would greatly exceed the height requirement for the zone. So again, we're trying to get the height requirements for the zone to kind of govern how high those can be.

But I'm talking about the apartment that somebody leaving the second floor and he's going to use the pool and use it, can do it the same as the first floor to do that?

Yes.

Thank you.

And then this would apply to flag. This would apply to flags. As for the size component of, obviously, we're not saying you cannot have fly your Husky flag, you cannot fly your Cougar flag, take your pick. Those can be considered temporary signs. The component of that, though, is that they can't be more than six square feet in size on one side. Obviously, the interest of the sign code is that we don't have large signs located up in residential areas, etc. Some members of the council historically, as well as members of the community, are concerned about the proliferation of signage and its impact on the aesthetics of the community. The way that the language is written right now is that you are allowed to have flags up to six square feet. So it is a pretty large. It is not obviously the size of a regulation American flag. It can be two-sided. So it's six feet on one side. If it's double-sided, you can have 12 square feet. So we're not saying you can't have them. What we're doing is we're just regulating the size in which they could be, much like we are those yard signs. We're saying the same thing. You can have a Husky yard sign, but again, it would be limited to six square feet.

Eric, remind me, is that if it's view, I'm talking about if it's residential now, is that if it's viewable by the right of way?

Yes.

If I had a sign that is not, or a flag, let's say, that is not viewable by the right of way, it could be larger than that.

It could be larger. Yes. Again, if you can't see it from a right-of-way, a waterway, obviously also pretty important, or a public property, so a park or something like that, that would also factor in. If it can't be seen from there, it is not considered a sign. Going back to the sign definition that indicates that a sign has to be viewable from a public space.

Right. So if somebody had this very large Husky sign, I'm going to pick on myself. And I decided to do it from the backyard where we didn't have any of those viewable options that you just mentioned, I could have at it.

Yep. Let me go up to the definition of sign here so we can. that's visible from a street, way, sidewalk, or parking area open to the public. So again, if it's not open to the public, if I'm in my second story window and I'm looking into your backyard and you have a Florida Gators flag that is huge, that is not considered a sign for the purposes of this ordinance.

Thank you.

So on this one, there is, again, the two questions. There is the question about language related to height, and then there is also whether the restriction of six square feet is acceptable for flags. There is no change necessary for that. If the Planning Commission wished to expand the size of the flags, we would have to add additional language focused solely on flags that then give a additional ability for people to expand um to three by five that's another standard size of flag um but again um these flags are intended would have to be connected to a flagpole so not once you attach them on two sides so that's not flapping in the wind anymore you're not a flag anymore now you're a banner and those would still be restricted to a particular height.

So, you know, looking over Commissioner Snodgrass's note, I mean, is that a doable thing where we go ahead and go forward with what's here and then just make a note of wanting to tee it up later on? Or, I mean, it also kind of depends on everybody else too. That'd be my understanding, right?

Yeah, that would be, you'll note that I have a line at the very bottom of page four that is to intend that we can add to this. One of those could be the planning commission's recommendation that the signed code in its entirety receive a full review as a future phase of code development. And that would be a separate motion that you would make once we get through the ones that are already in this. Yep. I'm a stickler for making sure I know exactly what you said so that I'm not putting your name in my mouth and saying it in a way that it's not and having a document that we've all seen gives me a certain level of assurance that I'm not abominating your recommendations.

Thank you for that. So on the flags, then, should we look at a motion for amending...

So we're moving to page three?

It would be, yeah. So it would be a motion to adopt the changes on page three concerning the legally established flagpole.

Eric, can you move that up on the screen so our audience can see that, please?

I think it is. Oh, wait. Nope. You are correct. I am looking. Sorry about that. I moved on to another document. I'm looking at... Stop sharing. I apologize, audience. Both here and on Zoom. So...

Sorry.

So again, it does just make the two changes to temporary signs in residential and non-residential. And again, allows for the exceeding the six feet, again, limited by the allowed heights of the zone.

Okay. Anybody still move? All right.

I move the motion.

Any second? I second. Okay. With that, all those in favor?

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, we'll mark that as amended.

Okay.

Unamended.

Moving on to the previous motion. The last one that I have on this, and that is... These are temporary sign requirements in the right-of-way. There was public comment that was concerned about the permit process. They felt that it was relatively laborious. In going through the code, and I do believe that we do have the ability to look through our internal processes, but after talking to code enforcement and talking to the folks that who are actually addressing these. Basically, that section three there is pretty much all that is really stated about the permit process. And that is all temporary signs have to be approved, have an approved city permit attached to the sign face. Permits can be acquired online at the City of Gig Harbor website or in person at no cost. So people are able to obtain these permits pretty much at any location. Currently, they're only valid for 30 days. The purposes for that is to ensure that they are not up forever. We want to make sure that we are limiting them, especially if we're talking about something other than a political sign, people who are advertising particular products. We want to make sure that they are covered. That's why we have the 30-day timeline. All signs with expired permits or no permit attached would be removed. One of the comments that was made is they felt like they had to come and get separate permits for each sign. That is how it reads right now because people put up signs at different times. They said, well, why can't we just apply for one permit? Because people are putting up signs over a particular period of time. So that's something we can look at in an internal process. There's nothing in code that says that we couldn't just say, okay, you want to have X number of signs, we'll do one permit for them. But the 30 days is going to run from the time that that permit is created. So if you put up a sign 15 days later, you only got 15 days on that sign permit. The long and short is the permit process is something that we are looking to improve over time, but is relatively limited in code, and it's limited in code so that we can do process improvements without having to come back and do repeated code. i think that does leave the one residual question of is 30 days the recommendation of the planning commission the planning commission had indicated an interest of potentially having that as a longer period of time thus um while staff does not recommend exp expanding it from 30 to 60 days we wanted to show what it would look like if the planning commission was interested in doing that and And thank you very much for one of the other planning commissioners to note that there's another place that this change would have to be made if that was if that was to occur.

Any questions. I mean Eric I think that 30 days it's relatively easy I get it when you have a large number of signs, usually in a political campaign that you have to go and update those but. I also think about our code enforcer and how many signs that we have out there and having them longer than 60 days, you know, the window washers, the roof people that we buy ugly houses and all those other people, if they do, if they are doing our permitting appropriately, having those out for 60 days doesn't make our city look so great. So I'm supportive of keeping 30 days.

And I was kind of curious, I think it was, I'm not sure how to pronounce the last name, Alsaker?

Alsaker.

Alsaker, I mean, her concern that there's really no fees to cover the potential additional cost of folks buzzing around looking at the signs, or is that a correct assumption on her part, or?

At this point, there are no fees for it. That is on purpose. Again, especially because we're talking about political signs. In many cases, we want to make sure that we are not creating a cost barrier to the political process. The council historically has been okay with um, the subsidizing of this again for the kind of the freedom of speech, freedom of the electoral process, um, type scenario. It is a cost. It is a cost for Michelle who processes many of these permits. And it is a cost to Adam who goes out to ensure that these are enforced though, historically, uh, due to the import, the importance of the appearance of this, of the city of Gig Harbor, the council has been okay, uh, with, um, uh, property taxes and other general revenues covering those costs, not necessarily putting those on the back of the people who are establishing the signs. Also, if you wanted to do it only for commercial ventures and not political signs, now you're regulating based upon content. Again, bringing us back to the conflict with the federal case saying you can't do that without risk of challenge.

the reason I was bringing it up, I was just kind of wondering if there was some kind of like a, you know, like during the permitting process, you know, popping out a barcode that got stuck on the sign to make it a little easier to, you know,

Yeah, at this point, we don't. However, it is those types of process improvements that we are currently looking at that we would not want to memorialize in code because if for some reason we don't do it or B, QR codes go the way of the dodo and we're using something else, then I have to come back and I have to amend code for us to be able to handle that. So in general, the amount of language that talks about the process, staff feels is where it should be. However, if the Planning Commission wants to have the conversation about the 30 or 60, actually, if you want to have the conversation about anything, my recommendation is just my recommendation. The purpose of it remaining this general is so that we can do those process improvements behind the scenes without having to update code every time.

Yeah, I would move that we maintain the 30 days.

I just, my comment, I'm kind of on record on eliminating the whole process because I think it's onerous. But that goes back to, you know, in phase two or three of revamping the sign cloud, I think we could greatly simplify that. the ordinance overall, whether we would limit the number of signs per entity and the entity could register just so we know a sign is registered. And if it's out there too long, kind of track it that way, as opposed to a permit taped to a sign that just seems like a real hard way to police things. But But anyway, that's just my comment. So go ahead if we want to.

Why don't we do the same thing? I mean, why don't we go ahead and clear this and then motion in? Yeah. Yeah.

I think that's fine. As far as 30 to 60 days, I don't think it makes any difference. Just continuing the 30 from my standpoint as it is would be my opinion. So I guess if... We're not changing anything. You don't need a motion or anything. We'll just ignore this.

Only need a motion if you want to change it.

We need to make a motion to have the idea of simplifying

I think once the commission decides, okay, we don't want to make any more changes to the code today in this round, you'll then do a motion that basically highlights both what the commissioner just said, as well as what was discussed previously about a holistic thing. We roll that all into one motion and one line of this matrix that'll then move on.

HAB-Jacques Juilland, Is there any any other discussion or questions on what we haven't covered so far. HAB-Jacques Juilland, So with that, should we draft up something as far as a recommendation to add to this or Well, mine was just the comment on how there's a host of things. So I could probably put something together more broadly. I didn't have anything prepared.

What about if I'm thinking, Eric, that if we can have a study session after this iteration, a study session on the plan, and then we can work with staff on that and then determine what language we may want to propose for council to consider?

Yeah, I think what you could do is you could move the commission's interest in having a study session to discuss the sign code as a whole, and that you recommend that council take action on a sign code update in the near future to address the breadth of other issues. You can list what some of those other issues may be now, or you could highlight the ones that are brought up during the study session conversations.

I mean, I like that. And I would say before the study session, it would be nice if staff, they probably already on top of it, could just do a little work in reaching out to their peers with other cities and seeing if any new things are coming about from the courts in regards to language and things that we can have on signs and et cetera. I think it would be worthy to do that first. Have you helped educate us a bit more? And then there's some great ideas up here, I think.

We could bring Adam in here to talk about, because again, while he's the enforcement entity, he's also in many ways the one who knows how the code works most. Michelle would be another person who would be a great resource for that. But yes, we could definitely do that kind of walking through that after we get through the critical areas ordinance and a series of housing code updates, which will be the next nuggets of fun that I have for this commission.

Yeah. And then I think during that time, it'd be interesting to get, you know, some of the business people who use those signs, are they effective? Is it just littering things? And it would be interesting from a campaign standpoint, just to have that discussion about we're in 2025, is that still the best thing to do or not?

Yeah. And what we've just been talking about is largely temporary signs. There is another whole animal in this code called permanent signs. Those are the ones that are located on the subway. And as to regards to how we calculate those, that is another whole conversation that is equally as meaty as what we've talked about thus far. So the commission could... decide exactly which of these sections they really want to take on because you really can absorb the better part of six months having a conversation about what could or could not be in a full sign code that sounds like a lot of fun thank you all right yeah looking forward to it now i think that's that's a that's a good idea um exactly uh anyone else comments um so we have a motion on the table to approve the amendments i guess we would take a vote at this point yep you would vote on the main motion as amended um and you would probably say as amended by the july 17th 2025 matrix which is what i will memorialize and then provide you a copy of okay so um

We'll take a vote then to approve the amendments as listed in the July 14th, 2025 matrix. All those in favor?

17, because we amended.

Oh, okay. Yeah, as amended. As amended, July 17th. Thank you. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, we'll adopt that amendment.

Thank you very much for taking on this topic that kind of came out of the blue. It's also not one that's particularly easy. So I appreciate you putting your brainpower to this, knowing all the other things that we'll have coming up shortly.

Great. So with that, are we on to any new business or public comments, I guess? Wait, where am I? Public comments? That's all done. So any, I guess, new business? It looks like, go ahead.

Yeah, so Michelle, I was thinking about the fact that we need to elect, if you will, a new chair. But we have two commissioners, unfortunately, that aren't here today. So I'm looking... Perfect. Thank you.

All right. So that's in process still. If you guys can survive this, I guess I can. Okay, then. So we're looking at next meeting Thursday, August 7th, 2025. I guess we'll entertain a motion for adjournment.

I move that we adjourn our meeting. I second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye. Hearing that, we'll adjourn for July 17, 2025. Thanks. Thank you.