Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. I would like to welcome everyone to tonight's meeting. It's 10/27/2025, and the time is now 06:01PM. This meeting will come to order. Tanya, will you please call the roll?

Here. Here.

Here.

Here. Here.

Thank you. Are there any added items or changes to the agenda from staff?

No changes.

Okay. Thank you, Kristen. The minutes from the previous meeting have been presented to the board. I call for a motion to approve the minutes of 09/22/2025 as presented.

This is Ali Shasti. I approve the minutes as presented.

This is Ben Reed. I second.

Is there any discussion? Okay, I call for a vote to approve the minutes. All in favor say aye. Aye. Those against say nay.

Okay, the vote has been approved six to zero. Tonight we are holding a land use and planning board meeting in which staff will give presentations on Recode Kent phase two frontage improvements in communal living as well as a briefing on the third quarter twenty twenty five ACD numbers. If there are no objections from the board members at this time, we are ready for Recode Kent Phase two Frontage Improvements Presentation. Is that what's going first? Okay. Perfect. Staff, you may begin.

Hello, everybody. My name is Matthew Chastain. I am one of the current planners here with the city. I'm here today to present on the city's proposal to encourage more small scale residential development through the exemption of frontage improvement requirements. If at any time you have any questions or anything, please interrupt me.

Totally good on that. So my presentation will be picking up where Kristen left off the following presentation on September 22. The primary items that I'm going to touch on are a brief run through of a project schedule. Again, I will revisit the current state of our small scale infill development requirements, and then I will go over our proposed changes to the current frontage improvements or current frontage requirements for developments of four or fewer units, coupled with a frontage requirements map that we've put together. As was mentioned at the September 22 meeting, we are currently in the phase two of our code updates.

Most of these are stemming from acquired state mandates that have and will be taking effect through the end of this year and then the following year. The primary items that we are focusing on are the co living updates that will be presented by Deja, as well as the proposed updates to the frontage requirements that I will be presenting on tonight. As Kristen had discussed at our prior meeting, the passing of the middle housing requirements, by the state has created more opportunities for homeownership throughout the city. This allows more housing units to be implemented on an individual lot, opening the door for entry level homeownership benefiting not just big developers, but, individual families and property owners. On top of increasing the opportunity for more housing, a larger focus has also been placed on retaining existing housing and promoting smaller scale development for those who have the opportunity and space to do so.

Per the goals of our 2020 or 2044 comprehensive plan, we want to preserve and improve existing housing, promote a diverse range of housing types, promote equitable housing access for everyone, overcome barriers to housing production and affordability, as well as minimizing and mitigating future housing displacement. While the middle housing while it opens the doors for more housing options that cater to these goals, one of the biggest hurdles that we are seeing are the costs that are imposed on smaller residential projects. So a lot of these smaller residential projects are submitted by those without a lot of development experience. These are individuals who wanna build housing for an aging loved one. They wanna create a home for a child so they can be closer to their parents, but also have an opportunity to get their foot in the door in the housing market.

Others wanna build additional housing units to create, like, a secondary income through, like, an ADU or some rental properties. Some just simply wanna develop their unused spaces and sell off those housing units. The opportunity to build more housing units gets us closer to those, twenty forty four comprehensive plan goals, but ultimately, what is allowable, marketable, and convenient is what drives what's being built currently. As the permit data shows, over the last fifteen years, only 32% of small scale residential development project proposals ended up making it to the final approval, point versus 70% for larger residential development projects. The transition from that preliminary submittal stage to the civil stage is where we are seeing the biggest drop in project follow through on a lot of those smaller infill project.

In the preliminary submittal phase for these small scale projects, we work with applicants to identify the necessary items that will need to be addressed for development. Originally, the zoning was one of the bigger killers of those projects through requirements for subdivisions and elements like that. With middle housing, it has opened up this opportunity for for less restrictions on the amount of units, but it has created more issues surrounding storm water, utility access, access points to the lot itself, parking, environmental constraints that are on or near the property, as well as frontage and right of way improvements that are required along the streets abutting the property itself. All of these pretty much equate to being really, really high cost items, and that can definitely keep some of these smaller property owners from being able to develop and do things with their lots that they wanted to do, but just cannot. As you can see by this list of which agency is is requiring these items, the city has some flexibility regarding requirements.

These are specifically around the access requirements, parking requirements, and then those frontage and right of way requirements as well. That yeah. Oh. I see. Sorry about that. I apologize.

So I'm curious. You mentioned that zoning is one of the project killers. Do you mean rezoning?

It used to be before we incorporated the middle housing, if somebody wanted to do, like, add two or three residential units to their lot, they had to go through the subdivision process. So that entails starting with preliminary, then it goes into civil, then you go into a final subdivision, and then you can get the building permits. That stacking and the costs that were that came along with that were just a lot.

The reason I'm asking because zoning doesn't change. No. It's from the It's start of

itself is the same. You are The zoning

So if they plan to rezone and do whatever with that, then that might be a project killer.

Yes, it could. And then I think just being able to now implement more units on a single lot for the zones is something that is allowing it versus before where it was more restrictive. So you are correct. The zoning doesn't change, just the the allowable usage on that zone.

Kristen?

Thank you.

I see you have your hand up.

Thanks. Apologies for being remote. I am sick tonight and thought I'd keep my germs at home. Yeah. Matthew's correct.

So it it's not the zone of the property. It's the zoning code that was the restriction. So normally, if you said, I wanted to put three or four units on this lot, you either had to do it through an ADU or through that subdivision process. So we never even got into a lot of times the questions of how much other requirements that are outside of the zoning code are there because zoning code just stopped any further momentum on a project. Now people have the green light with our zoning code saying you can have middle housing, but they're discovering all of these other items that are still required for all development, but they're high cost and they can be hidden surprises that we're trying to identify again trying to identify project killers early on so that if the costs are such that the the project can absorb it, then we want to notify people early on.

And so this is just basically saying zoning used to stop people from going any further in the permitting process, and now there's a lot more factors to consider. Yes.

To what Kristen was just saying, so out of these opportunities where the city has some discretion, the frontage right of way is an area that we see currently where we would can make the greatest impact on the cost to the applicants versus what is required for the city for development standards. We would still meet the standards. We would just be able to have more flexibility with what we require, which would drop those costs down is the goal. As Kristin had mentioned in the prior meeting, on average, the cost associated with right of way improvements for a project proposing four residential units or less fronting a single street like the one in the image, that cost usually runs anywhere from 60 to 80,000 for the individual. If that was a corner lot property abutting two streets, then you'd be looking upwards of $200,000 on that.

For somebody who just wants to put in a single family an additional single family home, that could be a 100% project killer, and they're just not gonna follow through with it after that. We can see this represented in the prior permit data slide. So this shows that there's a drop of over 50% in the number of short plat submittals, which are those small infill projects from preliminary plat to the civil plat. So that compared to the larger projects where you're seeing a maybe 24%, 20, you know, two percent drop is a pretty big difference. And we see a lot of that is because these bigger developers can spread out the cost of all the individual units over or the additional improvement costs over all the additional use units that they implement.

So it's less of a bigger impact per lot or per individual building that can be bought at that point. This property shown is a kind of an example of the type of area where we see that requiring frontage improvements would be both costly and not completely necessary. This roadway is a minor street that leads to that property that's in yellow and orange on the left. It pretty much dead ends there. There's only the one access point.

There's no existing sidewalks. So if this person was required to incorporate more sidewalks and put in those frontage improvements, they would be the only person on that block with those. And that could also give the false sense that there are more sidewalks and things like that coming from the city. But because this is a requirement for the individual property development or developer, that would not be the reality possibly down the road. So we're also trying to to curb these false impressions of what's coming for the development of the area.

This one is another example that's similar to the other where right of way improvements and the cost of doing those could be very intense, and maybe it wouldn't be necessary for as a whole for this space. It is a minor street that cuts through from the primary street. It's predominantly only there to serve those houses. There is no existing frontage improvements Currently, it would be another situation where it'd be very costly to in to employ those and build them out, and then you'd be the only person on the block with them, again, giving this kind of false impression of, you know, something's coming. This example in particular, it's because it's so close to the road to the north, you have adequate sidewalks and public transit opportunities.

So it's not that, you know, you might not be walking on sidewalks on your street, but it'd be really easy to get up to that and then, you know, move around the city as a whole. So, yeah, based on the feedback we heard from you all at the last meeting as well as the city council meeting, we have come up with the following proposed frontage improvement exemption. Basically, for all new residential development consisting of four or less units in the NRL, NRS, and NR 2 zones, we will not require added frontage improvements for those projects. There are certain types of streets and pedestrian areas that we did recognize as still needing improvements, So we've also included these four shown conditions where waiving the frontage improvements would not be applicable. Basically, they are that if a development site abuts a roadway designated as an existing or future arterial, minor arterial, or major collector, that would not they would not be exempt from it.

If the development site of Butsa Roadway designated as as an existing or future minor collector on the comprehensive plan that has existing sidewalks that are present and extends the edge of development site, that would not be exempt. If the development site abuts a roadway included in the pedestrian network or if it abuts a roadway included in the planned bicycle network, those would also not be applicable for exemption.

I'm sorry. Can you remind me what the difference between minor and major is?

So with those ones, the minor and major just depends on the amount of and I might be a little off. Kristen can correct me if I'm wrong. But that usually, I think, pertains to the amount of vehicle traffic that are on those roadways. So minor, it's usually people just going to and from their houses. It's not a major thoroughfare. Major has a little bit more of that. For the collectors, those are, like, the big, big streets like, 4th, James, things like that that have, like, usually, like, four lanes, and it's a massive amount of vehicle traffic. So just that kind of tiered down look of it all. Yeah. You're welcome. This is the

Great answer, Matthew. I don't have anything else to add

to that. Okay. Nice. These maps are a little hard to see, but these are the the three main maps that we were looking at to base the exemptions for frontage improvements off of and whether we would still require them or not. Basically, these three maps are the roadway classification map, which is the upper left corner.

We have the pedestrian network map, which is in the right corner, and then at the bottom is the planned bicycle network map. Trying to put all these together into you know, on top of each other and look at these this way was a little complicated. So instead, we went the route of combining them all into one map to give a better idea of what would be more applicable for having exemptions or not. So this was the map that we have come up with. Basically, all the darker lines that you can see are those arterial routes, the bike lanes, and or pedestrian corridors cutting through.

Those would all be those would not be exempt from the frontage improvements. If you had a property that was on that street, you would have to do the frontage improvements per what's in the code currently. We do have major and minor collectors, which let me go back a couple slides just to say. So these highlighted areas, these items are still things that we are in talks with public works to get the the finite details on, which hopefully we'll be getting tomorrow. We just wanna put it out there that those are still up in the air, but fingers crossed, they should be good to go. So on the map that we were just on oh, no. No. No. Sorry about that. There are those major collectors and minor collectors.

Those are things that are either currently in the works or are planned. We are just waiting for public works to get approval for those being included in this exemption category that you would have to put improvements on those streets as well. I assume they probably would want to because those will be like major arterials, so it would be kinda weird not to, but that's a decision that they would have to make. So I just wanted to be a little bit clear on that. Another thing, the gray areas that you can see, that is the area all areas that are outside of the NRL, NRS, and NR two zones.

Those would not be able to have exemptions for any residential units. If it's something like some of those areas are mixed use and things like that, you'd still have to any sort of frontage improvements that we would require at this point in time. So pretty much that concludes my presentation. Let me know if you have any questions. Sorry, didn't see the message blocked before, but I do now.

So, if you have a single family residential, single family residential doesn't require frontage improvement, correct?

For an individual, like single home, no, not

correct. Correct. Now, if your single family residential is large, let's say 10,000 square foot, you are allowed to have up to six units on it, especially if you're close to transit system. Do you need to do you have to have a frontage improvement then?

If they only want to implicitly say they have an existing house and they want to do three more units, even though they have a huge lot, we wouldn't require it. If they go over that cap of four, then they'd have to. And that's the other thing too.

So the reason I ask that because your slide say that up to four units. Yeah. You don't have to have frontage improvement. Now, here you have six units, which passed that number. So, I think we need to make it clear. So, that's what I want to bring it up.

Okay. Yes.

You follow what I'm saying?

I hear exactly what you're saying. Yes. We can have a little bit more clarification on that cap. And I was also going to say that we are also not allowing, let's say, does adds three or four units to their property. Few years from now, they wanna add an additional one. If that puts them over that four, they don't they would have to do frontage improvements at that point in time. So anything over four in perpetuity, they would have to avoid it. But, yes, I I totally hear you're saying. So we will make a note and Thanks.

Brian, sorry.

One second. Kristen is waiting to speak.

Thanks. I wanted to clarify why we chose four instead of six. So traditionally, we have two different types of short plots. One is for fewer units, the other is five or more. And so we're aligning this with the lesser intensity short plot process that we already have built into our permit system and our our developers know very well. The other reason is normally to get that six units or more, you would be closer to transit, and and the likelihood of that is that we want to support we have a variety of goals for the city, and so we we're really encouraging that small scale infill development of four fewer units. If they're adding more intensity, then we'd want to see those improvements.

So are these frontage improvements you're talking about for pedestrian and bicycle stuff, are they to make pedestrian and bicycle traffic safer or are they to try to encourage people to get out of their cars and use pedestrians and bicep walk and and ride bikes?

From most of the improvement stuff that we're touching on is more geared towards this kind of situation where it's just to do updates to the sidewalk and have, like, the street trees and have the curb and that sort of stuff. It doesn't put a huge focus just because it's as it is existing, we don't put a huge focus on some of these minor roadways to have, like, bicycle lanes and things like that. So it's not as much of a push for that per se. It's just to allow these smaller individual developmental projects to not be hindered by the fact that they would have to put in, like, additional bike lanes, some some street trees, and, like, a bunch of concrete because it gets really expensive.

So I'm looking at these purple lines and I'm assuming that you're talking about improvements required on those roads. Those roads

would all require it. Yep. So any anything that's on that map that's there, except for the gray areas, anything that's on one of those roads that's a kind of that darker reddish hue, that would all you would have to do frontage improvements whether you were doing one house wouldn't require it. If you're doing two units or more, you'd have to do the frontage improvements. So those would all require it. Getting on the outskirts of that would not technically unless they go over four units.

I mean, I'm looking at their looking at some of these places, and there are some pretty prodigious hills and some long spaces that make. It's like, I don't think anybody's walking all the way along 1 48th very often improved or not.

Maybe not. Yeah. Okay. I can see that. And that's the thing, I mean, I personally am wanting more bike lanes and stuff, but for currently, for what we can get out of it with the frontage improvements, at least for what engineering and public works require, the kind of additional lanes for bikes and things like that are not part of what they technically require yet. So it's just focused on what public works and engineering would require in the smaller scale that would shut down something right away. So in the Yes.

So just jumping in real quick. So we used three maps that were established through the transportation master plan and then adopted into the comp plan that set the city's policy for bikes and pedestrian improvements as well as larger roadway traffic through the arterials and other other models. And so we're not relitigating the policies that are have that have been set. If public works come back and they say they want to revise the bike map or the pedestrian map, we would update what this does is that would be updated, and then this policy would be tied to whatever new updates are in that. So the goal is really we don't wanna create sidewalks and infrastructure that's disconnected, that doesn't really support the broader transportation goals.

So these these reddish purpley lines, those are nonexempt. We have other policies where there's a nexus, and it makes sense to to improve, the the requirements. For the blue major collectors and the yellow minor collectors, we're still talking with public works about whether those should be included in the policy or not. And then all of those areas that are grayed out, those aren't the NRL, NRS, or NR two zones, so they don't apply to this policy. It's just the white areas with the reddish lines that you see.

So so we're not going to be skipping out on bike lanes or removing bike lanes or not producing bike lanes, if the policy says that there should be bike lanes there and the the property is improving and it has frontage on those roads, they will still need to build that infrastructure, provide right of way for that infrastructure. So it's not removing that, but it's saying in the areas where we have no plans for future improvements, we're not going to ask the individual to improve just in front of their property.

Thank you, Kristen. Justice?

So kind of two well, one question, but then one point. So I know we're waiting for public works on the major collectors and the minor collector sections. I would encourage us to include the major collectors, just looking at the ones the few that there are. Those are very important stretches of our roads that we can't if we're going to allow builders to build or buildings to build, we have to improve those those areas or yeah, they have to be improved. My other thing so you have a slide, and we keep going back to it of a house already that we've been talking about.

Not that one. That one. Yes. So that's on January by the training center of the fire station. That's our that would still be required, though, under this main this plan.

That's gonna is the site is actually a different location. We're using it just to clarify what all goes into infrastructure, not whether it should be applied here or not.

Okay. Perfect. Because I was gonna be like, if if we're trying not to do that, I'm fine with that on especially on that stretch of one sixteenth, but just making sure that we're looking at that as a whole. So that makes sense. Okay. Thank you.

I also wanted to add in that we are also including a director's determination kind of decision clause that if somebody is in an area that technically doesn't require the frontage improvements, based on specific special issues or adjacency to things, we can require frontage improvements. So it's something we're leaving open ended, so it's not just this all or nothing kind of approach. So, yeah. Awesome.

So I heard a a plug for require the major collectors. What about the minor collectors? Did did anyone have because what what this shows is where the major collectors aren't covered by either a bike, a ped, or other requirements. So these are the if we say major collectors, this would be the added in elements that weren't already covered by our bike or pedestrian corridors. So this is kind of the incremental add for each of those. So major collectors, I heard, suggested to include. What about the minor collectors?

I'm of the mindset, like, we shouldn't I I think we have a housing inventory thing. So, if we have the opportunity like, to me, like if we can make it easier to add more construction, I I don't I don't think we need to include them. Right? Is that how Whatever the stance is, it's unclear to me. I'm not making it required on the minor,

I guess. More

housing inventory good.

Justice, did you have something?

Yeah, I think for me, especially with the minor ones, looking at some of them, I think we're getting, like with the grayed out areas, and I get we were doing this for the entire city, so I understand that part. There's a lot of them are in our grayed out areas, and then we do have a few that are, I guess, looking at connectors or connecting different streets to our main arterials. I I don't know. I mean, I I feel like if we include if we make these required frontage of those minor collectors, we may end up harming housing. But I also don't wanna come I don't I'm afraid that we're if we don't allow it, we're going to have issues where now the city is having to fund it, or we're gonna have to come back and recode this again.

That's fair.

Thank you for that input. We can take it back with our meeting in public works tomorrow. Thank

you, Matthew.

Well, thank you guys for letting me come up here and

talk. Awesome. Okay. If there are no objections from the board members at this time, we are ready for Recode Kent Phase two Communal Living Presentation. Staff, you may begin.

Good afternoon. So last time I was here, we talked about co living, so I'm back to talking about co living a little bit more. And again, this is phase two of Recode Camp. So jumping right into our agenda here. So we'll do a little refresher on co living and what that means as far as state legislation, and then how the city of Kent regulates co living through communal residences.

Then we'll go through some proposed changes to fix those I'm sorry, differences between co living and commuter residence, sorry. And then we'll jump into our timeline for projects. So as Matt mentioned, this is a multiphase project. So as you know, we adopted phase one a while ago, and now we're in phase two. So that's co living and then the infill development that you all just chatted about.

And then we'll start Phase three early twenty twenty six. And we had our kickoff meeting on the twenty second, so thank you all who could attend. So jumping right into what co living means for state legislation. So they define it as a sleeping unit is independently rented and lockable. It also has some type of shared facilities such as a kitchen or bathroom.

So state says we have to allow co living or co living sleeping units on any lot that allows six or more units. So that's lots that are in mixed use zones and within one half walking distance of a major transit stop. So you may remember last phase, we adopted something that allowed for lots to have up to six units if they were within one fourth walking mile of a major transit stop or if they had some type of affordability to their project. So this legislation or HP nineteen ninety eight says that we don't have to allow co living on lots that allow six units based on affordability, but we do have to allow them for units that allow I'm sorry, for lots that allow six units based on if they were within one half walking distance of a major train to stop. So this legislation also regulates parking, sleeping unit densities, and sewer fees.

I want to make an important note here that co living are separate leases for each room, so there aren't a bunch of roommates in one home or in one apartment sharing one lease. There are multiple leases, so each room would have its own lease that they are responsible for. So currently, the city of Kent regulates co living through communal residences. So we define it as a business operated out of a single family home or single family dwelling unit with individual rents. So we require currently a business license for communal residences and no more than three rooms rented per house or ADU.

We also only allow communal residences in zones that allow for single family homes. And just going back, these are the zones down below that allow for single family homes. And just a quick comparison regarding existing regulation for co living or communal residences versus our new state law. So for communal residences, as far as building type, are only allowed in single family dwellings and accessory dwelling units, whereas co living housing has no specification for a building type. They can be in any building type.

For location, communal residence is permitted only in zones where single family residences are allowed, which we just talked about those zones in the previous slide. And then for co living, they're only allowed on lots that allow for six or more units, so that's including mixed use zones or lots on mixed use zones, in mixed use zones, or if they're within a half mile walking distance of a major train to stop. And as far as density for communal residents, so one house is equivalent to one dwelling unit with a max of three rented rooms per house. For co living, one sleeping unit is equivalent to one fourth dwelling unit and we can't put any extra density minimums or maximums on co living that we don't already apply or have for multifamily dwellings. So the density minimums for co living is based on the underlying zone with the understanding that one sleeping unit is equivalent to one fourth dwelling unit.

So I know last time I was here we talked about a remedy for these differences and how to go about it and keeping naming mechanisms and things like that. So we did decide to keep the naming mechanism communal residents. So we'll still have that, but we did create a tiered system. So tier one communal residents retains existing communal residents regulations, whereas tier two communal residents adopts what the state has for co living. So tier one is allowed on lots that allow for five or less units.

They're only allowed in single family dwelling units or ADUs. And we're only allowed three maximum sleeping units per lot. So pretty much the same what we have now. We did some clarification as per lot now that we allow these units on a lot, so you wanna clarify that. But pretty much the same as what we have now for communal residents.

As far as tier two, that's really where we implement the change. So tier two is allowed on lots that allow for six or more residential units. They'll be allowed on lots that allow that are mixed use zones or residential zones. We won't allow them, of course, on lots that have that affordability aspect to them, will put them up to six units, but they will be allowed on lots that are near transit or major transit stops, rather. So maximum density will be four times that of the underlying zone.

So that's that one sleeping unit is equivalent to one fourth dwelling unit. And in zones where there is no density limit or density maximum, the maximum number of units or sleeping units will be determined by bulk, height, lot coverage and applicable building code standards. Jumping into shared amenities and parking requirements, I don't think we talked about this last time, so this is fairly new. But again, Tier two communal residence is really where we implement that change. So tier one is pretty much the same.

So one kitchen, one bathroom per max three rooms rented out of a home, assuming that the home could have more kitchens or bathrooms, whatever the home may have. And then as far parking, two per lot, which aligns with what we have now for single family. So again, tier one doesn't really have much of a big change, keeping or maintaining what we have for communal residences as of today. Tier two, however, is our change here. So we did implement one shared kitchen per 15 sleeping units and then one shared bathroom per six sleeping units.

So these ratios, we felt, were a good starting point after reviewing what others have adopted and reviewing state guidance. So other cities such as C have also adopted similar ratios. So C Tech has one shared kitchen per 15 sleeping units and with one kitchen per floor. However, we will continue to maintain or continue to, review state guidance as well as what others have adopted to make sure these ratios will remain adequate for the city of Kent. As far as parking, we implemented point two five per sleeping unit.

So these are state requirements. Nothing that we did here out of the ordinary or new for us. We had to do it per state legislation. And then for both tier one and tier two, no off street parking required if you're within one half mile walking distance of a major transit stop. So that's pretty similar to what we have now for middle housing, so that's also not anything too new as well.

Now as far as code updates, so we have two or I'm sorry, three main code updates. So our first one is updating the actual definition of communal residence. So we're updating it to include mixed use buildings and development and also align more with state's definition for co living. Our second one is 15 o four for district regulations. So we're updating the use table to include corresponding footnotes.

So we've updated communal residents in total, added that tier one, tier two. So we're adding that into what we have our footnote for communal residents, which is footnote 33. So updating that to include tier one and tier two. We've also expanded locations, obviously, with tier one and tier two. We also updated footnotes to align with the restrictions for multifamily.

And by that, I mean, for instance, in I one, we have a regulation where multifamily is only allowed in previous hotels or motels. So we want that to carry over to co living as well. And then our third update is fifteen oh five for parking. So essentially, just implementing that parking regulations that we talked about a few slides back. So the two per lot if you're tier one or point two five if you're tier two.

So those are our major changes here. Nothing too out of the ordinary, but something new from what we talked about last time. And as far as timeline, so I know we talked previously about how we have to have this adopted by December 31 per state legislature. So we'll be back here next week for hearing, And then on the eighteenth, we'll go to committee of a whole or committee of the whole. And then December 9, we're hoping for adoption. So that's all I have for you all today. Any questions? No?

Thank you, Deja.

Yeah, thank

you guys. If

there are no objections from the board members at this time, we are ready for the twenty twenty five Q3 economic and community development department update. Kristen, you may begin.

Good evening. We have the report for q three printed out in front of you. If you have any questions, Deja and I can help answer them.

I apologize. We did not print out the 81 pages of the agenda packet, which included report. But I did email that to you separately in the agenda. And I can also forward that to you again in the email, just the report itself to make it easier.

Does anyone have any questions they'd like to ask Kristin some right now about the ECD report? Or are we content to read the attachment later and bring it up at a different time if we have questions. I thought that's that's what I thought. Thank you, Kristen. I hope you feel better. I Thank you all. I think we are good on the update for now, but we'll definitely let you know if we have any questions. Any further business to bring before the board? All right. Since there is no further business, this meeting is adjourned. Thanks, everybody.

Thank you.