mass transit, right? Whatever that may be. And unfortunately, things are moving quickly. So what today may not be applicable may be applicable in five years because technology continues to increase and speed up this new opportunities of mass transit. So I think there needs to be some sort of consideration for probably a phasing of that because it's almost like the chicken and the egg, right? If you don't create enough density along a corridor, you'll never be able to justify the transportation. So if you put no density along the corridor, then we'll never have transportation. So I think that's a good point to bring up. And I think it's a point that the planning staff should take into consideration in which some of this stuff should be phased, right? That we meet certain milestones. And if there's a milestone that we say we need to have certain number of homes or ridership to meet that, that we don't trigger the next phase of that until that's achieved. And we do it smartly. I appreciate the feedback. And I think if you look at the TPO's work from almost 10 years ago, it's basically what you've described. They're saying we need X number of people in order to qualify for federal funding. And that's why I think it cascades down into the various aspects of code and planning. But I think it's fairly obvious that some of the fundamentals have changed. And to your point, technology is changing. We're looking at air taxis at some point. We're looking at all kinds of things that are different than a decade ago. And that rate of change is happening faster and faster. So I think it would be appropriate, again, to, like you say, perhaps look at a phased approach. But I don't want to get into having recommend to the staff what they should do. I just think we should look at it. Mr. Ruppo. Yes, Mr. Chair. And I, you know, the PAB, I'll say the PAB has, will have the opportunity to discuss some of these questions when you receive the evaluation and appraisal of the comprehensive plan, right? So that's going to be due to the board in the coming months. You know, and on the question specifically, how it's, it's, it is that age-old question of, you know, paralleled with the chicken and the egg, which one comes first, land use or transportation? You know, because if you're planning for transportation, you know, you need the densities to support the transportation, the motor transportation, and, you know, do you have, do you bring the lenses first or the service, the transit service first? So, you know, we grapple with that question, you know, quite a bit as planners. But I will say, though, that with the allowances in the CDMP for the various corridors, right, and the development that the CDMP ultimately allows, one key criteria that's inherently built in into the allowance is that compatibility with the neighborhoods is a significant consideration. So, you know, it, the development should be right-sized based on the neighborhood that is happening in. And, you know, we are, as we evaluate these applications from that perspective in determining, you know, essentially, is it allowed the, can it take advantage of the allowances for these corridors or not? And, you know, so we are involved in that process, right? But as far as the PAB is concerned, right, you will have an opportunity to get into some of that discussion when you have the ear before you. So, I think what I'm asking for is knowing that we're going into those discussions, it would be great to have this information so that we can make an advised recommendation. And so, that's what I'm asking for is if it's possible, like, we can't direct you to do it, but we certainly can ask, can we have this information so that we can make informed decisions when it comes time to review the CDMP changes that will be coming in the next couple of months? In addition to your previous comment, the, the way in which staff is involved is in the form of an interpretation letter, correct? That's one way, yes. So, it really, all it is, is it's reviewing the text, it's saying, yes, you're conforming with the text, and reminding you that you need to be compatible with it. It doesn't have the full scope of the work that you do to present to us to make a recommendation. It bypasses us when, it bypasses that work and goes straight to zoning. I guess, yeah, it, I guess the, the context is appropriate to consider in that the, the allowances that are already in the comprehensive plan don't need to come back to this board whenever there's a project. So, I guess that's what you're speaking to when you say it bypasses you guys. So, yes, the, the comprehensive plan was already amended to include those allowances. Then the appropriate path for any projects to, to, you know, seek the, the development rights or zoning, you know, they just, they go through the zoning application process, but there's a determination of consistency with the CDMP that, you know, we will evaluate and ultimately issue a position on. Absolutely not our concern. That's, that's at the BCC level for them to make that determination. I don't want to step on their toes at all. That's not the point here. Right. The point is we've made a change to the plan a number of years ago that was based off of underlining assumptions that arguably are not the same today. And I think we should have the information to understand what those underlining assumptions are so that we can make a thoughtful recommendation when it comes to changing the CDMP. Yeah. And, you know, we can, we can certainly follow up with you at any point, you know, we're, we're always welcoming to whatever questions you have, information requests and all, you know, we'll, we're here to help you make, you know, your, your work easier on this board. So certainly we'll be following up with you. I'm giving you a heads up. Yes. Yes. So, you know, we're here, we're here more than we're here. I would love for you to come back to us with the information I described. Okay. So, and I guess, um, what I'll do is to ensure that we're fully responding to the questions that you have. We'll have a follow-up with you before your next meeting with the board, the next board meeting, so that we, we ensure that we're hitting all the points that you're concerned about. These things take time. I realize this is a complex ask, uh, before we have to review the CDMP changes that are coming is when we would need that information. So I'm not asking for it right away. I think it would just be good for myself and my colleagues to have this information in hand so that we can make a thoughtful recommendation. Yeah. We, you know, I commit to working with you to making sure that, you know, whatever information we can provide, we will. So, yeah. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. No problem. Do we have any discussion or any other, uh, new business, any old business? All right. I think we might've missed, uh, staff announcement. My apologies, staff. Mr. Rohde, do you have any announcements? Uh, we did have an announcement. We passed out the flyer for the Shenley park workshop, and that's going to be this Saturday, um, September 19th from 10 o'clock till noon at 80 dance, 80 Barnes park. So if you're interested in that, uh, please pick up the flyer. And then, uh, the next PAB meeting is going to be in three weeks on Monday, October 5th. And as we have a lot less agenda items than we have expected, we're going to be moving the time back from 10 o'clock to the regular two o'clock time. And I'll send you out the email reminder about that and for the time change. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Seeing no further business, uh, board member Morris moves, we rise adjourned. All right. Meetings adjourned.