Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Recording in progress.

Evening, and welcome to the May 5 Planning Commission meeting. We'll go ahead and get started with the Pledge of Allegiance. If you'll please join me. Thanks, everyone. We'll go on to welcome an introduction. I am the chair, Tyler McCloskey. We'll go all the way to my right and work our way

down. Wayne Wright, planning commissioner.

Tiffany Mitchell, planning commissioner. Stephanie Bailey, planning commissioner.

Paul Fontenot, planning commissioner.

Jim Fisk, principal planner.

Connor Delquist, associate planner.

Alright. Moving on to audience comments. Says there's no one in the room. Oh. Okay. We'll wait a second for Joe. Welcome, Joe. If you could introduce yourself.

Everybody, Joe Morrison, planning commissioner.

Thanks, Joe. Alright. Is there anyone on Zoom?

There are no attendees on Zoom.

Go ahead and move on to the approval of minutes from March 3. Has everyone had a chance to review them? Any corrections or additions? I will entertain a motion.

I motion to adopt the minutes from April. March. Or March, pardon me, sorry, March.

Second. Alright, minutes are approved. We'll go on ahead and move to the business items five a, the public hearing for permitting and development approval. All in favor of approving the March minutes? Sorry. I'm out of order. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? Minutes are approved. Now five a. Sorry. It's a beautiful day. The weather's nice.

The final plat. Final plat. Right. I don't have my agenda open. We're doing final flat landscaping and then survey results. Correct? Okay. Tonight, we're holding a public hearing on proposed amendments to the Port Orchard Municipal Code that would shift final flat approval from a hearing based process to an administrative one and updating our bonding provisions to match that change. As you'll see in the presentation, final plats are the last step in the subdivision process. By the time the applicant reaches this stage, all conditions of the preliminary plat have already been met through construction and permit review.

State law treats final plat approval as a ministerial check for compliance, not a discretionary decision. Because of that, the second public hearing currently required under our Type four process doesn't add value and can create unnecessary delay. Over the past several months, staff reviewed our existing code to discuss draft concept with this commission and the Land Use Committee and prepared the proposed amendments. We also updated bonding provisions to ensure they work smoothly with an administrative approval process. The draft ordinance has been reviewed by the city attorney, sent to the Department of Commerce and CPO responsible official issued a DMS which was not appealed.

Commerce approved an expedited review of this ordinance. So tonight, I thought it might be helpful if we kinda walk through subdivision planning process. And I received well, I heard some criticism of this presentation and the font associated with it. And I'll just say on a on a computer screen, looks great, but now seeing it up there, it is not not the best. I apologize.

This slide deck is is provided in your packet, so you could you could follow along there. I'm sure it looks better than it does on that screen. So tonight, again, the purpose of this presentation is to describe the development process, the subdivision planning process from the start to the finish and why we're updating the final plot procedures and how the amendments improve efficiency. So the background of this slide is the City Of Port Orchard zoning map. And so throughout this this presentation, you're gonna look at the same subdivision.

This is the Riverstone Platte, which is near Bethel and Lund. So the first thing staff looks at, we have to determine the zoning designation. That establishes minimum lot sizes, minimum lot widths, dimensional standards. We also identify critical areas and site constraints. This the developer uses to confirm feasibility before preparing a preliminary plat. So we meet with them with the pre application meeting, they develop the plat, then they submit it. So if we can go to the next slide. We have several different permit types. Type one is administrative. There's no notice.

That's like a building permit. Type two is like a land disturbing activity permit. There is public notice, but there is no hearing. Type three, which a preliminary plat is, there's public notice and the hearing examiner makes a decision on the application. And the type four, which the final plat is currently, there's a recommendation from staff to the city council.

It requires another public hearing. But you'll see through this process that that is really not necessary at this point. And then there's some other type five which is comp plan updates and you all are familiar with that type of thing. So the preliminary plat application, the type three, they submit the preliminary plat. We review it for again zoning compliance, make sure all those lots meet minimum lot width requirements.

They have the minimum area requirements. We're looking at critical areas. So you can see in the top left corner of this image, there are some steep slopes and also Blackjack Creek kind of runs right through there. And so our code requires that that be set aside in a separate tract as open space. There's also a general review for infrastructure capacity, 's water, sewer and storm.

That typically results in the issuance of the CRC, which indicates there's no level of service failure in any of the city systems. The detailed engineering, it occurs later after this preliminary plat document is sent to the hearing examiner for a public hearing. And I already touched there on concurrency, that's the water sewer storm making sure that there's no level of service failure. So each, there's several points where we provide public notification. The first is in notice of application.

That's when we determine that the application is complete, that we have everything we need to review the application, that can contain the preliminary plat obviously, a capacity reservation certificate application. What else would you have? Critical areas report. Anything that this application will be subject to, we're already reviewing it, making sure that we have what we need to make a recommendation to the hearing examiner. So that notice is mailed to everybody within 300 feet.

And it's also posted in the newspaper of record. And then the SEPA determination wasn't quite ready. That offers another opportunity to make comment on environmental impacts of the proposed development. It is also mailed to property owners within 300 feet. It's published.

Both of these are posted on-site with that big yellow sign you see. And then last, once the application has been reviewed and we can make a recommendation to the hearing examiner, we provide notice of hearing to every property owner within 300 feet and anybody else who's made comment in the process. We also published that in the newspaper of record. But there's no sign that is posted on-site. So the hearing examiner, he holds an open record public hearing, takes public testimony, reviews all the documents that staff has provided in that analysis, all the technical reports, wetland reports, etcetera.

He offers an opportunity for public testimony. And then after the close of the hearing, he issues a decision with conditions of approval. Now that decision, it guides the detailed engineering that comes next in the land disturbing activity permit. And there is an appeal opportunity related to that decision. So after they receive preliminary plat approval, that really those conditions of approval and the documents that are approved in that process really provide a roadmap for the developer going forward with their engineering.

So they submit detailed engineering plans. And then we as staff then, we check for compliance with all of our adopted standards, the public works standards for water, sewer, the roads are the right width, that sort of thing. The hearing examiner can put additional conditions on the preliminary plat decision. And so, that's another thing we go back and refer to that preliminary plat decision to make sure that those conditions are satisfied. Utility and storm water reviewed.

There is public notice issued, but there's no hearing, but we do take public comment on it. The notice decision is then issued once it meets all code requirements, satisfies the conditions of approval from the preliminary plat. There is an appeal period with that to give the public an opportunity to obviously appeal it. And then after that construction begins and there are continuous inspections throughout the process. So they've gotten their approved documents.

They know what they have to build, how to build it. And then they build all of the required infrastructure, roads, utilities, storm water facilities, any open space mitigation that they're required to do. They do all of these things consistent with that approved plan. The city throughout the process is called for inspections and we go out there and make sure everything is up to the approved plan set. And then at the very tail end, there is an opportunity where a developer could bond some of the required items.

And what those are really are anything that the way we've written this code is that it is anything that does not present a danger to the general welfare of the public or life or safety. So this might be an item like street trees or something like that. It's just not the appropriate time of year to plant a tree. And so they can place a bond and and and install those at a later date. So once they built everything, they've been told what to do, how to do it, how to build it.

And so they it's been inspected, and they've built it to that standard. And so they submit a final plat application. Now this is what actually creates legal lots of record. And so we review that to make sure that everything has been satisfied. Now currently we're processing it as a Type four, which requires a public notice, a public hearing and a recommendation of City Council.

The problem with that is, is they've already done everything that's been expected of them. And the City Council really has no authority. They have no discretion if they've met all So it's simply just a matter of them saying yes to it. There's a problem with this because the city council, they only meet periodically. And in development, people are trying to get these plats recorded as quickly as possible because they've got a lot of money tied up in it.

They may have pending sales agreements that are dependent on having it recorded. And so if there is a delay in a council schedule like summer break or anything like that, that can significantly delay the recording of the plat. So, moving to an administrative process kind of takes that waiting out. Again, here are some of those issues. It duplicates the public hearing, which we've already held at the preliminary plat.

It adds time and uncertainty. And again, City Council has no discretion. They can't modify a fully built project. The final plat is ministerial under state law, but state law also allows delegation to staff for planning commission. And so there was when we first started looking at this, we thought about bringing it to the Planning Commission. But then we quickly realized that that wouldn't solve that timing issue at all. So, we proposed in the code that it be delegated to staff. And again, public hearings are not required for a final plat. So after it's recorded, they can submit their building plans. We review those for consistency with our design standards, building code, etcetera.

We issue the permit. They can build those consistent with all those regulations in building types and residential design standards, etcetera. And then once that again, once that plat is recorded, those lots can be sold to other people. They cannot sell them beforehand. So these amendments to 20.22, 20.8, twenty point nine zero and twenty point nine eight establish that administrative approval process for final plats, removes the Type four hearing and the City Council approval step, It clarifies procedural steps and staff responsibilities.

It updates bonding provisions to allow that administrative acceptance of bonds, again for those minor incomplete improvements. And this all is consistent with state law. These amendments also ensure bonding and final plat processes function cohesively and streamline review while maintaining a public involvement at the preliminary stage. So that is the presentation. Again, I've noted that the ordinance has been routed to commerce and they've approved the expedited review.

We did issue a CEPA determination on this which was not appealed. So tonight we ask you to open the public hearing, take public testimony, deliberate on the proposed amendments, and forward a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council received a briefing at its April 21 work study session. We anticipate bringing your recommendation and the adopting ordinance to the council on May 12.

Thanks, Jim. We'll go ahead and open the public hearing. Do we have anybody on Zoom yet, Connor?

There are no attendees raising their hand on Zoom.

Okay. If anybody on Zoom would like to add to the or contribute to the public hearing.

There are no public attendees on Zoom.

Oh, okay. Sorry, should've You said raising hands, so I thought maybe there were people.

Alright, we'll go ahead and

the public hearing, and we'll open it up for discussion. I'll again start on my right.

I find this a good move. It'll make it a lot easier for staff. There are some details. Devil's always in the details as I've said before. Coming from the McCormick Woods perspective final plat processes are good in general.

But right now where we're falling apart a little bit in my mind is that the HOA who inherits all of this final plat requirements for infrastructure is having to fight to get these drawings, the reports and the details of the drawings so if something breaks or goes down we gotta fix it. So I'm working with the HOA to try to get more engaged with Nick and others. The city's kind of involved with this because they are approving all this stuff but the HOA isn't getting it. So if a storm pond gets flooded or breaks or whatever, we've gotta go dig up dig up drawings and find an engineer. So that would be my only comment is just the devil's in the implementation details in the end for the community.

I just also wanted to comment that I also think that the work here has been I'm I'm glad that it's going this direction because as Jim said earlier in his presentation, it doesn't make any sense to have one extra step of unnecessary, like, movement in in a process if it doesn't really matter anyway. So pardon me. I'm glad that we're we're moving in this direction to, just make it easier given all of our needs as a state and community in terms of housing. So it's good.

Stephanie? No comment.

Yeah, I think that I'm in agreement more or less with my fellow commissioners. I think it's a step in the right direction. My only reservation kind of coming into this was the worry that we would go so streamlined that we're missing some things down the line and sort of reflecting Commissioner Wright's concerns there of like if something along the line does come then maybe it was an oversight that we were worried about efficiency so much. But honestly with these amendments I don't necessarily see that. I think that it says in the final slide there, the streamlining review while maintaining public involvement at the preliminary stage I think is important.

And I feel like with those concerns moving forward it's not a question necessarily of the plat process as much as the other tangential parts of the approval mostly like critical areas and different things like that. And also public involvement as well. I think that despite the efforts that the city has made which I know have been very strong to try and involve the public there's still that lack of public involvement which can sometimes be a concern. But nothing in terms of the plot processing. Feel like that won't solve that.

That's other branches of planning in the city that could do with improvement. In terms of this, I think it's fair to the developers, it's fair to staff to just get rid of, trim the fat as it were, and just kind of streamline this process and allow people to build a little bit quicker.

Joe, any thoughts?

I'm supportive, thank you.

Thanks Joe. All right, we can entertain a motion. There's a suggested motion in the agenda packet.

Oh, there. I'm happy if my glasses will see. Point it out. There we go. I move to recommend that the city council adopt an ordinance approving the proposed amendments to the Port Orchard Municipal Code title 20.22, 20.8, 20.9, and 20.98 as presented.

I second that.

All in favor?

Aye. Any

opposed? Nope. Motion passes. Now we can move on to five b, a discussion about landscaping.

Tonight we will be providing a brief update on the landscape code amendments in POMC 20.128 with an emphasis on the work completed since the commission's March meeting. As a reminder, this overall effort is aimed at clarifying the code, improving environmental performance and supporting better site design while keeping the review process predictable. Public Works is still developing the city's long term canopy analysis for the NPDES permit. So any future updates to tree planting requirements will follow once that work is complete. Since March, staff have made several refinements in response to the commission's direction and coordinated with partner agencies.

First, fencing standards have been removed from Chapter 20.128, that's the residential design standards well, pardon me, from Chapter 20.128 as previously presented and relocated into a new Chapter 20.13 with applicability to all development and addressing internal facing fencing within multifamily development. Second, after meeting with the Kitsap County Noxious Weed Program, staff updated the noxious weed provisions for clarity and added a required noxious weed management plan as part of every complete landscape plan. County staff may develop templates and planting guidance in the future reference. Staff also refined several technical components of the chapter. These included tightening the criteria for when buffer departures are allowed in urbanized areas, clarifying what is meant by internal buffers, and improving open space expectations to ensure spaces are planted or programmed rather than left as turf only areas.

Finally, in Table 20.128.070, that's been updated to give applicants more flexibility in selecting buffer treatments that respond to surrounding conditions while still meeting screening and compatibility goals. We remain on track for fall twenty twenty six adoption pending completion of public works canopy analysis. And as always, staff will continue to track comments as they've received and as they're received and as the draft evolves. With that, I'd like to invite the commission to provide any additional feedback, questions or direction on the updates presented tonight.

Thanks, Jim. This time we'll start all the way on my left with Paul. Any thoughts, questions, concerns?

Yeah. I'll admit landscaping isn't necessarily my educational forte, but my concerns coming into reviewing this part of packet was less for aesthetic design, tends to not be my concern as much as noxious weeds, invasive weeds, storm water management as long as we're planting plants that are able to deal with the increased storm water that we're probably gonna get over the next few decades. And tree canopy. As you've mentioned tree canopy that's still in the works in terms of public works is kind of taking a look at that. I'm very excited to see the results of that.

I would love to see that when that comes out. But I feel as if both of my other concerns them being like removal of noxious weeds and also with storm water management have been addressed. Most notably in what was it? Section twenty point one two eight point zero five zero, subsections or section four, subsection b, and section eight. They both kind of address that where use of drought tolerant ground cover is encouraged in all other areas to promote water conservation and reduce maintenance.

Thumbs up for me, I like that one. And then section eight obviously removal of invasive and noxious species as part of landscaping insulation, invasive species and noxious weeds on the list blah, blah, blah, blah, blah shall be removed and controlled. And I think that that is important. In terms of that there's not just a suggestion or a plan laid out because anybody can, a developer or anything else can certainly lay out a lovely PowerPoint about all the things they're gonna do and then they can never do them. So I like that there's some language in there.

It's heavily encouraging. The removal of said noxious weeds, not just management of them, but ongoing removal, ongoing, make sure that they don't come back. Yeah, I feel like those two things have been addressed pretty well. So as far as my knowledge on the subject goes, I'm in favor of it. Long winded way of saying thumbs up.

Thanks Paul. Stephanie? Sure.

Section twenty point one two eight point one zero zero for maintenance of required buffers and landscaped areas. Section number two talks about inspections to ensure compliance and currently as written, is an inspection conducted every second and fifth year.

Yes. It actually has never been our practice to do it on the fifth year. And so when we started diving into the landscape code, that's something that we actually discovered. We require a maintenance bond. The city holds a maintenance bond for a period of two years after they've performed. To hold an additional three years could add some cases where the city may not be able to cover all of those bonds. And so two years is probably more appropriate for holding that bond than five.

And my suggestion was going to be since we're removing the five to bump two up to three to help ensure compliance, but it becomes a bond issue with the city being

It's partly a bond issue, yes. I mean, obviously, the developer is going to want to get their bond back. But also when we have things bonded, there could be an occasion where the city has to pull that bond. And if we have too many bonds, that becomes a problem. We just wouldn't have the ability to do all that work. And so holding it for three years, you could see, or five years, you just have more bonds being held and more potential.

Jumping forward probably about 15 pages here, forgive me, I don't have a section other than it's well, the section titled potential code amendments for increased efficiency.

That's the next item. Page

is printed here.

Thanks, Stephanie.

You bet.

No additional comments from me other than I think the ground cover thing was new in terms of grasping preferred and then we've struck or not being preferred. Pardon me. And then that was struck, I think, based off of comments we made last time. So, like, I appreciated seeing that because I know last time we had some some thoughts about grass and trying to move away from that in favor of other types of ground cover for water reasons. So there we go.

Wayne? Yeah, I've

got a few comments. Mostly around the noxious weed stuff. I am an expert at that stuff just so full disclosure. It's a fisheries and wetland scientist. I want to know first how this is going to apply to single family residential developments. Just individual lots. Joe Farmer wants to put a lot out and build a home for his kid or whatever. How how does that particular development fit into this? You struck the single family but then said all new development came after that. So it seems like it just changed the way you set it, but it includes all new development?

No. So remember the guidance that we received is that single family and middle housing were not to be subject to the landscaping section. Okay.

Perfect.

So

that's that's that was really what I was hoping to hear. Secondly, when it comes to the way this is worded and I've fought noxious weeds my entire career forty five years. Knottweed has never been conquered by anybody, anywhere, anytime. Scott's broom has never been conquered by anybody, anywhere, anytime. Blackberry has never been conquered by anybody, anywhere, anytime.

It's always coming back. So I guess the the thing I have, I like where we're going with it, but I don't see how you're gonna put teeth on this thing. If if somebody says I'm gonna get rid of it, I can tell you right now, very likely they're not. It's gonna look like McCormick Woods Golf Course with Scotts broom all over the edges. And if you've got a road ditch that's city of Port Orchard requirement that isn't maintained and the wind blows, you're spreading seeds, same in knotweed, and who's who are you gonna hold accountable, I guess, to achieve what you're trying to say with the monitoring and the bonding on this stuff.

Again, devil's always in the details. I admire the desire to control this stuff. But what I know from my own experience and in my own community, everybody there is already doing their own thing. We're cleaning up the golf course, we're taking care of these things ourselves without any impetus. We just don't want that stuff around. So the thought that I had was how do we get some kind of education program out there? How do we get something more make it make it fun and desirable to do this. Right now it's written up, you will do this. And developers probably should do this. McCormick Woods, if you go to the to the trails and look at what they're doing there, there's scotch broom and weeds everywhere in their construction zone.

So, you know, I'd like to I'd like to find out how we can take this to the residents of these communities once they're built to help maintain and manage this stuff a little better. That's where I've found the best success, was people constantly going out there and pulling weeds and taking care of it. And not just spraying roundup and chemicals all over the place. For example, vinegar, salt and a little bit of soap is a better weed killer than almost anything you could buy. And it's a lot less caustic.

So I don't know, just stuff to think about as we develop this program for noxious weeds. Some alternatives and management plans, recommendations to communities. And for our case, like in the HOA, I would take it to the HOA and ask them if they would build a a noxious weed committee just to help maintain some of this stuff. So anyway, just some thoughts and ideas that I had there. But that was really all my points. The rest of it I liked. I liked what you did with the fencing. I liked what you did with the basic ideas and stuff. The last the last question that I had too in my head, who's gonna manage this from the Port Orchard perspective, the city? Who's gonna be the noxious weed guru? Connor, are you gonna be that guy or is somebody in public works gonna be that person? I mean, I'm just curious.

So so we've reached out to the Kitsap County noxious Weed program. And I think they have a lot to do with the ongoing maintenance of all of this. But we asked them and they indicated that they would go to their board and develop some kind of guides that we could adopt by reference. So that's why I said that in the presentation. So they really have to develop these tools.

And so they feel like the board is going to be open to that. And so we have to connect with them. You know, obviously, we haven't connected since the last time we met with them. So but they did indicate that they're gonna go to the board and try to develop some of these tools that then we can adopt by reference. Now that does not mean that the city of Port Orchard is gonna take the lead on this.

The code, what it does is it establishes that framework. That's what the expectation is. While we're doing inspections and during that two year maintenance period, that's when those plans that will be approved, obviously with Noxious Weed Board's guidance, those plans would be developed. We can do that during our monitoring period. After that, I think it's really going to fall on, like you said, kind of grassroots efforts and Kitsap County.

Have you passed this through some of the development communities? Like developers, have they seen this and what have you had feedback from any developers yet?

Not yet.

Okay. I'm curious what Nick Tosti thinks about this.

I mean we'll we'll make it available. All of these meetings are public. They're posted on the website. They're welcome to attend at any time they like. But obviously we wanna get the commission's input on this as we start drafting this.

Yeah. I've got a lot of ideas about site prep before as they first clear the property and and get it going to prevent the scotch broom mess that's going on and some of the other things. So I'd be happy to be involved with any of those conversations.

Yeah. And where the landscape plan comes in, where we're reviewing it as part of that land disturbing activity permit. Right? And so that's the exact place where it should be, I think, or the building permit. But if you have some input and you wanna send our way, feel free.

Sure. I'll do a little research and send you some information. Thanks.

Joe, any thoughts, questions, concerns?

No comments. Thank you.

Perfect. All right. So we are going to continue to provide feedback until when on this?

Well, that's a great question. Keep sending comments if you want. Again, we're waiting on Public Works to complete that tree canopy inventory and get some policy direction on like a percentage, what is the city envision for whatever long term vision that is, whatever percentage that might be. So I think we're still on track for fall. I'm hopeful. But again, that may slide just depending on public works and bringing those things back to you all.

Good. All right. Business item 5C, discussion about potential code amendments for increased efficiency. Jim?

Okay. So before we begin, I want to acknowledge that not all commissioners completed the survey on potential code amendments. Because this is an early priority setting exercise, we want to offer the option to delay the results until June. If the commission prefers, staff can reopen the survey so that the remaining commissioners can provide input without seeing the initial responses. We're prepared to proceed either way based on your direction. So if the commission would like to move forward tonight, I'll briefly summarize the work so far.

I would love the opportunity still to take the survey. By the time I got on to the city website, it closed the day prior or my city outlook. If the rest of the planning commission is comfortable with tabling this till June to provide further input in the survey.

Priorities go through because I took the survey. I'm teasing. I really am teasing. Promise.

It will still go through in June.

Yeah. I know. I'm I'm just teasing. So but I I would be open to that.

So yeah.

I'm curious, Jim, how aligned were we in general? Were we sorta close, those that did take the survey?

Too early to say depending on what you guys decide tonight. But know, after you guys make a decision, then I might share a little bit.

How many of us didn't take it? Three.

Three. That's what you said. Yeah. We can table

it.

I'm okay waiting. I think we should wait. Yeah.

Okay. Will you send it over to them?

I will reactivate the survey.

Okay. When you say reactivate, do I have to go back

to the old email? Or you resend an email?

We'll figure that out as we go forward. I'm not sure. It may be a new link.

Okay. But the survey responses will be carried over, right?

Do Yes. What I'm thinking is I'll send it to the folks that had not responded. And it will be the same format. And so at the end of that, once it's closed, then I think I'll have to combine the two manually through you know, take because I'll have two sets of data to put it all in one spot. But it shouldn't take too long. It's only three questions and three participants.

Tabling? Motion to table.

Can we just move

it to

a date certain? Which should be what, June 3?

Is that right?

June 2?

June 2. Instead

of tabling it, because that is just kind of nebulous. So if you say let's move this to

June 2. Okay.

We'll move this to June 2. That bring us to five d, the director's report.

Okay. I wanted to give you a quick overview of several things coming your way soon, starting with three mandated code updates that came out of the most recent state session. There are only these are the only bills from the session that require action by the City of Port Orchard and each one comes with a specific deadline or a trigger. So HB2266, there's permanent supportive housing. The deadline for that is 2028.

Requires cities to adopt local regulations that support and encourage permanent supportive housing by 2028. And while we've done some work on this, there there are some minor tweaks from this bill that would we need to make. HB 2,148 permit review processes. This is a deadline of summer twenty twenty seven. Requires updates to local permit review procedures to improve efficiency, consistency, and predictability in development review.

And again, we've done some work on this, but there are some additional tweaks that must occur as part of that bill. HB1859, it's affordable housing on religious owned properties. That deadline is within ninety days of receipt of a request. It requires cities to adopt a code allowing affordable housing on property owned by religious organizations. That deadline is triggered when a religious organization makes a formal request, and then the city must adopt those regulations within ninety days.

Because of these requirements, these required timeframes, staff is prioritizing the work in order of due date starting with HB twenty one forty eight and HB twenty two sixty six, while also preparing in advance for HB eighteen fifty nine in case a request comes in. So you should expect some work related to those mandates coming before the commission soon. And then the second update, we wanted to provide a quick update on the Sherman Avenue stormwater park design project. In fall twenty twenty five, we gathered public input on future stormwater park. Using that feedback, the design team, which is Connor, has developed conceptual design options for the site.

We'll be presenting those concepts at a second public workshop on May 28 here in the council chambers. This workshop will give the community yet another opportunity to review the concepts and provide additional feedback. You all are absolutely welcome to attend, but please let Conor or I know if you plan to be there and that will help us determine if we need to issue a notice for a potential quorum of the commission. After the May 28 workshop, we'll bring back an update to you in June so that you can see how public input is shaping the next phase of design for Sherman Avenue Stormwater Park. That's all my updates.

Sorry, Joe. I didn't realize I was muted. Any other items for the good of the order before we adjourn? All right. We'll go ahead and adjourn, and we will see everybody on June 2.

Thanks, everybody. Bye.

Recording stopped.