Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. I'd like to call to order the infrastructure planning and sustainability committee meeting of 02/25/2026. Clerk, would you please call the goal?

Council member Diaz? Here. Council member Hines?

Here.

I

don't think your audio is working, council member Hines?

Is that any better?

Yep. That sounds good.

Council member Sadalgay, absent, and chair walker. Here.

Alright. And we have heard from council member Sadalgay, vice chair Sadalgay that he's on his way. Moving on to public comment. Clerk, will

you please To request to speak during public comment for items on the agenda, please sign up in the front of the room if you've not done so already. If you are speaking virtually, please press the raise hand button near the bottom of your Zoom window or star nine on your phone. Your name or the last four digits of your phone number will be called out when it is your turn to speak.

Hannah, has anyone signed up to speak virtually or in person?

I've got a Hannah line done in person.

Two minutes. So to our virtual public commenter, when you're called, please state your name for the record. You have two minutes to make your remarks. Please be mindful of the time frame. Anna, please call on those who have signed up to speak.

Alright, Rob. You have permission on duty to unmute yourself.

Alright. Can you hear me?

Yep.

Alright. Great. This is Rob Crabill, chair of Planning Commission. I won't use the full time. Just wanted to flag the conversation that y'all are gonna have on the, parking code requirements.

This is something that we're anticipating, diving into as one of our major items on planning commission this year. I'm sure that Steve and the other staff there will brief you on this, but we're really looking for some input from council on the types of things that you all would like us to study on this. So would be really I'm I'm gonna try and listen in as long as I can tonight, but would just be really interested in hearing the sort of options that you're interested in us looking at, doing some more study on, and getting some public input on. That's all. Thanks.

Thanks, Rob. Anyone else? Alright. We'll go ahead and close public comment and get, to our briefing items. We have two today. First Sorry. We are coming back to public comments.

GG iPhone.

There's actually council members that don't get hit that by mistake. I'll be there in just a few minutes.

Okay. We're glad you're on your way. I'm the member of the doggy. Our first briefing item is screening outreach for a streets levy. We have Corey Newton, Joe Franco, and a special guest here. I'm assuming It's fine. Okay. Welcome, and I'll turn the floor over to you.

Chair Walker. Yes. Before we get going too far, I cannot hear you all very well in the room. I could hear Rob when he was testifying very clearly, but I can't hear really hear anything in the room.

Thank you for letting us know. Do we have ability to turn ourselves up?

I we tested the volume. You could hear it's just.

The presenters are closer to the mic.

Council member Hines, can you hear us?

Yeah. I can hear you all bet better.

Speak loudly. Yeah. They're

not moveable.

There's one that's bad.

Oh. Oh, that might be the problem. Okay. I have

to have it. We lost him.

Well, if you can hear Joe and Corey, that's where we're gonna start. So go ahead. Good. We'll work on the volume while we're not following you. It's gotta come up.

Oh, it's just a. Oh, wow. There she is.

Alrighty. I'll go ahead and get started. Thank you everybody for that. So good afternoon, chair and IPS committee members. My name is Corey Newton. I'm the assistant public works director and city engineer. And we wanted to come to the IPS committee and provide a brief overview on our community outreach efforts for our potential future street levy. Next slide, please.

Corey, I made a joke before, but would you please introduce yourself for people who might be listening? I'm sorry.

I'm Curtis Kingsolver, the interim public works director.

Thank you. She didn't go to office. No. That's fine.

All right. So for a quick overview of today's presentation, today's presentation is intended to be informational only. We are not requesting any actions from the IPS Committee at this time, but we did want to provide an update on our outreach efforts and, in particular, our efforts with the community levy committee, which Joe will talk about here in a second. Our engagement strategies that are currently underway, such as our stakeholder briefings, some future engagement efforts, and then we'll share a timeline with regards to a potential future street levy. Next slide.

Alright. So a little bit of background on our current efforts here. So as you all know, public works staff are currently exploring the possibility of a future street levy. Some of the areas that we're currently evaluating are our safety improvements, and we're making sure that these or any future street levy will align with our Vision Zero plan. We're looking into maintenance and preservation, and in particular, how we need to protect our assets.

And actually and we're making sure that without an investment, what would happen to our infrastructure. We're also looking towards multimodal access, sidewalks, bike facilities, transit connectivities, and making sure that, that all aligns with our transportation and mobility plan as well as diving into other critical infrastructure gaps such as our high traffic arterial streets, the aging bridges that we have and other sustainable infrastructure. And with that, I'll pass it over to Joe to talk a

little bit about our community levy committee. Thanks, Corey. So good afternoon, chair and council members. My name is Joe Franco. I serve as special assistant to the director.

The community lobby committee serves as an advisory capacity as staff as staff develops a potential lobby framework. Primary role is to reflect community perspectives and help ensure that what we bring forward is grounded and lived experiences across Tacoma. The community applies a lens of access opportunity belonging when discussing potential investment opportunities, helping us consider geographic equity, historically underserved communities, and long term community impact. The CLC will review and help interpret broader engagement input, provide feedback on investment themes, and advise on draft public facing material to ensure clarity and transparency. To be clear, the committee does not make policy decisions or final recommendations.

However, we will use their input alongside technical analysis and broader engagement findings. That information will be presented to counsel to inform your deliberation should a levy proposal move forward. The community levy committee is their structure is intentional. It reflects broad community representation, including transfer transportation advocacy groups, members of our business community, neighborhood organizations, seniors, youth, and individuals with different technical expertise, as well as council identified priorities to ensure alignment with adopted policy direction. This balance allows us to integrate community voice, lived experiences, economic considerations, and technical understanding into our levy development process.

The goal is to strengthen credibility, transparency, and alignment before policy decisions come before you in mid April. In addition to the CLC, staff is conducting broader community engagement to expand reach and improve representation. This includes listening sessions, advisory group meetings, surveys, community based gatherings, and digital engagement tools. These efforts are designed to reach residents beyond traditional public meeting channels and reduce barriers to participation. We will synthesize this input and bring, forward our common themes, areas of alignment, and areas of attention to support council's policy discussions.

And together, the community lobby committee and broader engagement efforts are intended to ensure that any potential lobby proposal is informed, inclusive, and responsive to Tacoma's community needs. I'll turn it back over to Corey for the rest of the presentation.

Alright. Thanks, Joe. So when we were at study session, we kinda highlighted that when we first had our conversation about a potential future street levy with the city manager, his goal is really to make sure it was a community focused development process. And so as you kinda heard from Joe, we've been working with our consultant to make sure that we follow that community focused lens. So some of the things that we have to make sure that we're doing as part of this process is focusing on community engagement efforts.

The the things in particular, this community led by community will be very helpful for us from a policy insight perspective. They'll kind of provide some technical insight on the makeup of the package and other feedback on project scope in particular. We're doing the community listening sessions, which sounds like a fancy term for town hall. It's a town hall, so we'll meet with a big group of people and get feedback. We're doing a lot of direct stakeholder engagement.

In fact, we've already started that process, and we've had some good meetings this week, really listening to our community concerns, and potential opportunities for the future. One of the things that we need to make sure that we do is make sure that, all the information we provide is clear and accessible, and we're working actively with our consultant to ensure that we have the right stakeholders engaged. We also need to be make sure that we're being transparent transparent in our decision making as part of this levy development.

One of the charges for

the community levy committee is to make it clear what their responsibilities are and what staff responsibility are, and so we're working towards that effort. And then, of course, as you all know, you've passed lots of different policies, And our goal as city staff is to make sure that this future levy package will be in line with all those goals. That includes the Vision Zero safety plan, our climate action plan, our transportation and mobility ban and the city's equity goals. Next slide. And then to jump on time line real quick before we get to questions.

So we recently actually updated our time line. So today, we're here presenting to the IPS Committee about our engagement efforts. We plan to have our first Community Levy Committee meeting tomorrow actually, and I think we're all pretty excited to go there and meet the various stakeholders. We actually invited 22 stakeholders. I think we had 19 conversations this morning, so I'm pretty excited to hear from the different stakeholders.

We'll have another meeting mid March and then another meeting mid or late March, and then our final meeting in early April. We'll probably go to a study session April 14, and then we'll if council chooses to proceed, we'll have a resolution April 14. And then at that point, we're gonna have to change a little bit from city staff. So city staff, there'll be a fax and data portion. So from April through August, staff will only be engaged on fax and data. And then a potential election date would be August 4. And with that, that concludes our presentation, but happy to answer any questions.

Great. Thank you for the presentation. Who wants to kick us off? Council member Hyde, can you hear me? Would you like to kick off the questions, comments? You are on mute.

I'm happy to start, though I may have more questions after I hear other people speak. So we'll go from there. No. I think my question for this group, Corey, just is how framing expectations for them. I mean, what's the conversation with them ahead of time? So kind of here's what we've done in the past. Here's what we are. Here's the things we wanna know. Just broad strokes. Are you talking about granular level? Just get a little more detail on that.

Yeah. So I assume you're referring to the community levy committee, council member?

Yeah.

Okay. So for the community levy committee in particular, we kinda have a strategy for a four meeting plan, and each meeting has a different set of goals for the end result. So the first meeting is really just to kinda get to know the process. So background on previous levy, information on the April 25 levy, some information about a potential future levy and what we're looking at. And then just basically, we're gonna go over, I guess, their charge is what I call it.

So I always think of project charters or any kind of charter and kinda here's your here's your tasks, here's what you're not. So we'll go over that for the first meeting. The second meeting is really probably what you're interested in is is more of the technical analysis. So at that next meeting, staff will really kinda maybe present options on, I guess, overall needs for infrastructure. But at that meeting, at that time, we're really curious to hear their feedback and their concerns with regards to, I guess, our infrastructure and what they're seeing.

And then the third meeting will be kind of an opportunity to respond. And, Joe, if I get anything wrong, make sure you correct me. But the third meeting, it will be basically kind of a response effort for the city to kind of reevaluate and make sure we hear their concerns and dive further into specifics. And then the fourth and final meeting will really result in, I guess, some sort of it's not necessarily a recommendation, but it's here's here's kind of a summary of what we feel as a committee. And then we'll take that as staff, and we'll use that to help formulate, a package that we recommend to council. Does that help council members?

Yeah. It does. I mean, I think I'm just trying get an idea of kind of how we're helping shape this. So, I mean, an idea that I'm just gonna throw out in this conversation for whatever the conversation is. One of the inherent tensions of any of these kind of community outreach processes is the idea that we have unlimited wants and limited means by which to pay for them.

So one thought I had had if if I was gonna be more involved with the public outreach process around this, I would say I would think about maybe giving each member a $100 and say, you have a $100 to spend on all these things. Could you allocate the money in a way that you see fit? Right? Because I I if I think if you start by, well, what do you wanna see? We'll quickly run into the neighborhood of a of a transit pack or a transportation package of which we would never be able to pay for.

But I think if you can set something kind of boundaries I've seen that very effective in many community outreach processes to say, you have a $100. Divvy it up. And so people are like, well, I want 50 in multimodal. I want 20 in potholes and filling, and then I want 10 in sidewalks. And, yeah, it just helps people at or they do a 100 in whatever they want. But I I that kind of information would be helpful for me as we think about moving forward because I think just having that conversation of that we have to have as a council around, like, what is can we and can't we do with the resources we have?

No. That's very helpful, councilmember. I know the consultant plans to to have some specific activities to to kind of break out and answer some specific questions. So certainly bring that up because I like that idea.

Yeah. No problem. Thank you, chair.

Great. Thank you, council member Hines. Council member Diaz? Yeah. And a couple more questions, I think, around the committee structure in terms of, like, who do they smoke and roughly how many. Mostly, my thought is I think there's probably a sweet spot around what is a good amount versus what is not too many cooks in the kitchen. Right? So I defer to what folks think works. But I'm also wondering, like, for business community, is that are we thinking business community, small businesses, multi care folks who use transit, or are we thinking and or contractors who will be using the dollars in their business

or both?

Or how we got to that level of I'm say yes. Okay.

All all of the above.

Yes. So I think it you know, you know, as a staffer looking at who we necessarily wanna invite, we can ask our consultant for some engagement. Think I we came up an initial list with more than

a 100 or something like that. So we had

to narrow it down. So it is you're right. It's it's the goal of who who do we get invite. Our our goal really is to do a lot of engagement. And so those that are not on the CLC committee, we are planning to direct engage or invite to a town hall, a meeting session or something of that nature. But, yes, it includes the chamber that they're part of it. And we can send to the IPS committee a list of the final list of the committee committee members for the record.

Yeah. We do have that available for you, counsel. If you'd

like to take a look at it.

I think that would be helpful in terms of getting a good idea around what kind of perspectives might be represented so we can think about who might be missing in case of a new way to add in there.

Mhmm. Sure.

Just as I would like to see a good balance around which kinds of businesses, and I think even to some degree what what role those folks have. Right? Like, if it's only the highest level person, I think there's a different functionality there than the folks who ride transit to those businesses. So thinking through how that looks, I will defer, but that's just kind of where my head goes. And then the thought I also have around how that group is connected to where they can be sort of town halls or meetings.

I also think, like, there might be some utility around having the folks on the committee trained up to be ambassadors to their groups because, theoretically, a lot of these folks will have their neighborhood council meeting or their monthly chamber meeting or their staff meeting or whatever it is so that they can go and sort of get on those agendas and be helpful in helping spread the word and the engagement around what folks are looking for because literally everyone uses the roads. So I think there's not a room that anybody can walk into, and they wanna or we're having a thinking about those roads. So

No. And I appreciate that. And and it's actually something that that councilor Hines has talked a lot about when we were forming this committee is, you know, it was important to look at, you know, kind of the subsets and and who they represent, but also their reach as well. Mhmm. And that was considered because we wanna do exactly. You know, we we ultimately want to be ambassadors and hopefully will support what we're doing and and be able to you know, whether it's their through their social media or whatever channels they have to help promote this as a project. So

Just awareness. I think I'm still really grappling with the ways that the city can get the word out on what we're doing. I think that's one of our biggest barriers. So I think the more people that we can sort of spread the news to, the more they can help spread the awareness. Absolutely. Us and MCO can only do so much. So I think there's a lot of utility around having more people just say, hey. I was liking it to be in the town prior. Like, be the person who's yelling in the room a lot of thing that we're doing because sometimes if you're standing there yelling at 10 times, it takes the eleventh time to only hear you say it.

Well, it's important to note that that us can only do so much after this is on the ballot. Right? And so we we're we're doing as much as we can now with an understanding we have to stand out at some point. And so to your point, the more people that understand what we're trying to accomplish and why, the more resources we have.

And then I think the other thought I round have around that committee and who's in that room is how do we figure out or how do we prioritize people who live in the city? Because I I know a lot of times we put together committees or task force or whatever, and it's a lot of people who work in the city or represent big entities in the city, but they live in Puyallup, but they live in Lakewood.

Yeah. I think I mean, what we're trying to do as best as we can is, you know and you're right. I mean, the committee that we put together is the board's call and the chamber that, you know, larger groups. Remember, we settled up with Downtown Aragona, but we you know, transportation community transit. Right? But they're a larger entity that the the goal of having, you know, going out in the community is to try to get what you're saying. Right? When you have a town hall to get kind of the individual feedback and how people are impacted individually rather than pure transit as a whole, right, or the porn as a whole. That is what we're hoping for. But if you have other ideas, we're certainly open to to

hear it. Okay.

And I I just wanna mention, councilor, we do have members of the transportation commission and our bike ped technical advisory group that are also members of the community lobby committee. So they we do have some community voices here at the table. We also have folks that, you

know,

from APCC. You know, we've reached out to the to come up Pierce County Black Collective. So, yeah, we do have folks that are coming from, you know, within the community to to serve

here too.

Great. Yeah. And then the other thought I had is I don't see it written here, but you mentioned them. So I'm wondering if it is if there will be people from the court, the schools, the parks, the tribe, the other entities that we work with. Is that Sure. A fact

If it's okay, well, we can read to you right now just quickly on what you know, who we've reached out to.

Yeah. Sure. So, Kent, I'll go over the list. Tacoma on the go, Transportation Choices Coalition, Transportation Commission, Bike and Technical Advisory Group, Pierce Tacoma Pierce County Chamber, Master Builders Association Pierce County, South Sound Building And Construction Trades Council, Parks Tacoma, Pierce Transit, Tacoma Housing Authority, Tacoma Public Schools, Teamsters one zero one seventeen, ATU Local seven fifty eight, associate general contractors teaching sons, Port Tacoma, Pierce County, Parametrics, APC's Asia Pacific Cultural Center, Tacoma Pierce County Black Collective, Miles Resources, Cascade Bike Club, and also Tacoma Pierce County Association of Realtors.

Great. I

can handle the

list. No. That's fine.

I I do hear that there are groups that are missing, so that is

Yeah. And some folks also said no. Mhmm. And so we still have spots. And so if there are folks that you'd like to see here, we'd love to reach out

to them. And and I would add, if if, you know, we're planning on and more than willing to go reach out to individual groups separately anyhow. Mhmm. So we wanna know who they are. We don't wanna miss anybody. We just have this group that we're working with, and at some point, it becomes too much. But we're gonna be reaching out separately. So whatever information you can provide, we'll we'll take it.

Perfect. That's all I've been so far. Thank you. Great. Thank you, council member Diaz. Nice to hear. Welcome.

Right. Thank you. Thank you. My thoughts ran along with what council member Hines and council member Diaz were saying. Because as I'm thinking about this, obviously, the the the issue is to use the metaphor of a $100. We have a $100. We might have a chance for a $120. You got, like, $700 worth of expenses. So what do you cover? Right? That's kinda what where we are over here. And the question is, what if we had $20 more or something, what do you wanna use it for? Right? Actually, my numbers are probably well off. It's probably, like, another $100.

But and I think it's really important that we do this engagement, and I really like the the the large group you have there. But, ultimately, the thought I had in my head is, how do we also get just a regular person on the street to understand what this is, why it's important, and what do you how do we want to build on the last ten years? Because, ultimately, that's it. Right? We had a streets initiative.

You know, that money kinda is gone. I think a lot of people don't understand that there's going to be a deficit coming. So to really push and explain that to just a regular person on the street and that this is an opportunity to continue what we had and make it better and understand, sure. I think maybe you would have wanted something else or additional or that we prioritize something else in these last ten years to make you feel better about the money and how it was spent. What is that and how to get that from regular people?

And I'm not giving I'm just I'm just kinda talking loudly here because the question I have is how do I help you in this information gathering as I think about constituents in District 4?

Yeah. And and, councilor, it's it's kinda what we talked about when we got to the understanding session. Right? No. I I put it this way. I thought over the last ten years, we were doing a really good job telling the community what we're doing, and and we found out that most of didn't know what we were doing. So we did a, you know, a bad job, frankly, because it doesn't matter how well I thought we were doing. So it's it's the key to this. Right? How do we kinda go back and explain to them pretty quickly and succinctly what it was and what we've been able to do, and as a result, what we won't be able to do.

And and I could tell you, we've been seeing with the contracting community, and they're clearly getting that. And at least so far. But that's the contract because they're, you know, they're gonna get something out of this. Yeah. But they're realizing really quickly what they're not going to be doing if this doesn't pass. We gotta find that connection with the public as well. It's a lot easier when it hits your pocketbook as far as the contracting community. That's different for constituents. And so I'm not sure yet how to do that. You know, we will be attempting that, but, you know, I'll I'll say again, any support or thoughts you might have, we're willing to take because we we want people to understand.

I think even myself have forgotten some of the really impactful projects that this has done, like Lincoln. You know, some of the more recent projects people remember. But, you know, Lincoln was way back early in this, and it was a transformational project. So I I get on my end, I've forgotten some of the work we've done, and I can imagine others have as well or have never made a connection that that is what this package is all about.

One of the oh, go ahead.

And I I do wanna mention, council member, have also started to utilize social media a bit more. We are in the process right now of working with MCO to produce a video series about the Streets initiative coming mainly from a staff and community perspective. So it's talking about the types of projects we've been able to accomplish over the last ten years. You know, we're also gonna be talking to community members about how the streets initiative has affected, you know, their specific neighborhood, if they're able to walk, bike, and roll down the street safely now, right, versus when they did not have that infrastructure in place. So telling those community stories and having potentially you folks also share out those stories with the community, I think it's gonna be very helpful for us in getting the word out even more.

So I would I would say that that's being worked on. We have our newsletter as well. So if you're Would that be in this timeline

of February, April? It will be

in the timeline. We're working on

a review. March, April. Sorry. I I yeah. That would be amazing because there are these wins that, you know, when I go into community and I say, we could triple our buying power. We tripled our buying power in the last ten years. That's a powerful message. Absolutely. And that's a message that goes against some people like, I don't know why we wasted all this money on these bike paths and all this other stuff. I'm like, well, we got matching funds. It wasn't actually our money, and we got, like, free money. You know, things like that. Do we want to continue that as a city? If you do, you know, what more do you wanna see? What Mhmm.

Less do you wanna see? So that think that's that's that's yeah. I guess at the end of the day, I would like to just offer myself in some way if I can help you garner feedback, displace you from District 4. Yeah. That would be useful. Another anecdote I'll tell you is, you know, at East 34th where I live, a lot of that was streets initiative plus storm water because we did a lot

of storm water.

You know, some people were like, I don't know why it undulates so much. You know? They did such a crap job putting this road together. We're like, well, that's how the water gets to the storm drain. And they're like, oh, well, that's pretty cool. Right? And sometimes you just need that kind of conversation for people to be like, oh, yeah. That is actually really cool. And then they

go, oh, and there's a stamp in

here that talks about the Piola tribe too, you know, in some way or has an option. So I think there's ways to I'm really thinking about it's really important that we get these groups. Sometimes that can be an echo chamber. I think we also need to engage in those the the regular person out there. Yep.

Great. Thank you, vice chair. I'll echo everything my colleague has said. I see you council member Hines. Just two quick questions. Love all of this. How do we get from this and are really I'm looking at slide seven. It the you know, what we're grounded in, what we're guided by. How do we get from all this good stuff in this group to what's the there there? What is in the package? How do I know what I'm voting for? What am I getting? Assuming I've already decided I love what you did before. Like, I set that aside and figured that out.

So council member, that's kind of what we're staff are working on right now. Right? So there's technical analysis going on right now with, I guess, various makeups of what a package could look like and the effect on different components of our infrastructure and what we could do. So what we're planning on doing as part of this package is is really listening to feedback. And from these feedback conversations, we're gonna understand, I guess, a little bit more of the projects of impact and the community needs and wants. And then based on that, we will the staff will put that package together, and that package then will be presented to council.

And but what is that there there? Like, will it look like a list of projects? Will it look like a percentage of projects? Will it look like a like, what is the the package?

Yeah. I mean, I can if you want to

Well, I'm a say it's a little bit of both. Right? Because I it's it's really looking at kind of the buckets of money, you know, where where where we wanna put resources. But with that, it'll be a list of projects that would, you know, like these types of projects. And we we already have that list of, you know, what projects we'd like to build in the city. But it'll it'll be a little bit of both. Right? Because we want people to understand that in this bucket, these are the types of projects we build. And in this bucket, these are the types of projects we build. So it'll be a little of both.

What we're what we struggle with is is saying we're gonna do this or do that, and and that's something the council will have to decide if they wanna be that specific. And consider the can. But it's it's how far do we go with that. Because I don't know ten years from now, you know, what necessary are gonna be projects that we can get grants on. But I do know this type of project can get grants, right, and and list what those are.

K. So that April 14 date, we're gonna see something that's, like, buckets, and we're gonna make a decision to go put this on the ballot. And then that is the thing that we've already developed all these ambassadors from our c l c CLC. That's the thing that they'll take out to public. That's the thing the council will take out to public. Okay.

That's correct.

Question, the transparent decision making, just very practically, if I'm a member of the public and I wanna understand what your transparent decision making process is, is that on a website? Is that on a do you have to tune in to IPS or CLC?

So we will start up a website. We will yeah. Yeah. We will create a website that has information related to a potential future levy. Mhmm. And the CLC in particular, a lot of that transparency is really focused on them and their role and and to under just just be transparent with them about their authority, I guess, overall.

And then will it share, like, the decision making points in terms of how that bucket list gets Yeah.

I think part of our our goal and part of our presentation to the committee is basically gonna outline, hey. Here's here's how this process works. Here's what's gonna happen. And so as part of that, yes, they'll understand, hey. This is going to be a staff decision. We're we're seeking advice as part of the overall package.

Okay. Yeah. And, again, I I feel like slide seven really lays out where we're headed and the documents we're using. I mean, I know staff have done a ton of work on the all four of these projects and plans. So how we layer those into so that they're all reflected in the project. I guess, maybe just wanna advocate for some sort of really transparent, deliberate thing when we get the that package. In my mind, it's a giant binder. I don't know why I keep doing that. But that that shows, here's we're doing this because it's in the vision zero. We're doing this because it's in the climate action plan.

We're do right. So that there's that connection that the public can see. Because we we did all this work. Let's Okay. This is the way we implement it. Right? Yep. So No. I think that's a a really beautiful thing if we can show that. Council member Hines, you had some more questions or some follow-up?

I I just had a comment or a yes. One, but would be interesting just kind of piggyback on some of the conversations here and to what you all said about what's been spent. Be interesting that conversation of giving people a $100 and saying prioritize where you think this should be spent to give them an idea of the bounds. Be another interesting to see, like, near the $100. Where do you think we spent the money in three since one? Like, what how how the city allocate it back then? I'd be really curious to know that as a data point. Right? Just because the customer's always point. Like, well, some folks think we spent a $100,100 dollars on bike lanes.

Right? Or they who know? Like, there's all these perceptions of, like, where the money went, but it would be great to say, like, well, here's this and get people to think like, oh, yeah. I mean, they did chip seal the street in my neighborhood, or, oh, yeah. I did see them fix this arterial duct. I think there's many ways of just trying to get people to to think about it. And if you did that ahead of time and then where do you think it should be spent next time, it would be good to kinda just think about what kind of data you can get or it. One of the challenges you all know this. Right? If if I say a a street project's $7,000,000, I might as well be saying it's, like, a kajillion bajillion dollars, right, like, people's minds. But when you start taking numbers that are smaller that people can actually digest, I think you get more accurate information. Thank you, chair.

Thank you, council member Hines. Any other follow ups? Alright. Thank you all for sharing this. Looking forward to hearing how the CLC goes. Thank you. Alright. So we've got one more briefing item. That's parking code update. We have Maryann Mohanian from Planning and Development Services to give us an overview. Love them. Are you bringing a special guest with you as well? Yes. Unnamed?

Taking notes.

Good evening, chair and committee members. My name is Maryam Williamian. I'm a senior planner with the planning and development services department, and I'm here tonight to provide an overview of the parking code update. This is an early scope discussion, and we are hoping to get your input on these two potential scope options tonight before we move further into analysis and drafting the code. I also have here with me our assistant division manager, Steve Atkinson, to help answer any questions you may have, again, with the presentation.

Next slide, please. Here's what I will cover tonight. First, I will provide some broader context on why cities, including Tacoma, are looking at parking reform right now. Then I will walk through the recent state legislation and explain why this update is required. After that, I briefly review Tacoma's parking history and how our approach has evolved over time.

From there, I will outline the scope options under consideration. I'll also touch on our pathogen engagement approach. And I'm going to end the presentation with a tentative timeline and next steps. Next

slide, please.

I want to start with the broader context across the country. Cities are taking a fresh look at minimum parking requirements. Over the past several years many communities have reduced or eliminated parking minimums as part of broader housing and climate strategies. The conversation has shifted from how much parking should be required to are we requiring more than the market actually needs. Here in Washington, population growth has outpaced the housing supply in many cities that has contributed to rising rents and home prices and cities are being asked to look at regulatory barriers that may unintentionally limit housing production.

One of those regulations is minimum parking. So what is this minimum parking? It is a land use regulation that requires new development to include a certain number of up street parking spaces. The number of spaces depend on the type of use, number of units or the size of the building. These requirements are usually based on the estimates of how much parking is needed at the busiest time.

The state has concluded that minimum parking requirements can increase development costs for housing. They've also recognized that large parking mandates can discourage walking and transit use and increase reliance on cars which leads to more greenhouse gas emission. A single surface parking space can cost somewhere between 5,000 to $20,000 for structured parking that can cost up to $60,000 per space. Those costs are typically passed on through rents and sales prices.

Sorry. Me just yeah. Let's see here.

Parking requirements can also shape the shape what gets built, they can limit how many homes fit on a site, increases impervious surface and storm weather runoff and reduces space available for landscaping or open space. As a result, parking is being viewed not just as a transportation issue, but as a housing affordability, rockability, transit use and climate issue. The main driver for this update is the state legislation. In 2024 and 2025, the legislature adopted several bills that significantly limits when cities can require minimum parking. These laws reduce or eliminate parking for many residential and commercial uses as well as projects near transit.

The only exception is the ADA required parking. The legislation does not limit how much parking a private property may choose to provide. This limitation is just how many parking basically city can require. We also have a state deadline and must update the parking code by January 2027. Detailed information about each field is available on the attachments a in in the packet that was provided.

So let's take a look at what the new state law requires. Under the new state law, we cannot require more than half space per multifamily units and one space per single family units. And for commercial uses, we cannot require more than two spaces per thousand square feet of the commercial space. As you can see on the map on this slide, that includes, like, majority of the city.

Can you pause just for a second on the map just so we know what we're looking at? Yeah. I'm not sure how I know that it takes up the majority of the city. Are you saying that every district

Yeah. So all the all

the yellow color that we

can see on this map Is impacted. Yeah. They're all single family and, like, some source of, like, basically residential. And then the the pink is basically the commercial on this map. So as you can see, like, it's it's Yeah. Go ahead. Maybe the yellow.

Yes. Thank you.

Sorry. Just to clarify. If I remember, Homa Takoma, residential uses are you are on two and three?

Yes.

And that already if I'm not mistaken, we have a one piece one space minimum already on your one piece or at the highest was that?

So I have the Maximum. Right here. So some of these were addressed as part of only two form a, but, for example, for yes. You're right. The u r one is the minimum is, like, one space Yeah.

Per And then everything else is a little less than that. Yeah. But are the r fours and fives not included here because they're not residential, or they're just not or are they also included the two oranges?

So it would be included, like, if it's, like, multifamily use. This is, like, based on use, not just owned. So if it's a multifamily use, it would be half space. If it's a single family use, it

would be one space per unit.

So, basically, it's all the yellow plus anytime there's residential anywhere else, it's allowed because it would be multifamily.

Yeah. Got it. Mhmm.

It gets more interesting. I mean

Thank you. That's yeah. This is a great clarification to start the detail. Okay. Thank you, Mary.

Yeah. So in this slide, the the state basically I mean, this is the Yeah.

It's all the

There's the new

state law that, like, basically requires the minimum parking requirements to be removed entirely. And this is like what city can regulate. So again like the private property owner can provide more if they want to but city cannot require developers to provide parking anymore for these specific cases. So no minimum parking may be required for residential units under 1,200 square feet or commercial spaces under 3,000 square feet. No minimum parking for affordable housing, senior housing, licensed childcare facilities, and ground floor nonresidential space in mixed use buildings.

We also cannot require parking when new housing units are added to an existing building or when there is a change of use from commercial to residential or from commercial to commercial. No minimum parking can be required for housing for people with disabilities within quarter mile of the high frequency transit, no minimum parking for residential or mixed use development within transit station areas, and no minimum parking for passive house projects, modular construction, or mass timber construction. In all these cases, ADA accessible parking and loading areas may still be required. And as you can see, these exemptions limits where the city can really require, like, parking minimums in the city. Our comprehensive plan is also consistent with the new state law in the 2025 Buenos Acoma plan.

There was a broader shift away from car centered planning toward people centered planning. The plan sets a vision for a fifteen minute city where people can access everyday needs by walking, biking, rolling or taking transit rather than depending on a car for everyday trip. The plan encourages removing regulatory barriers to housing by creating flexible development standards, reducing parking requirements as a housing incentive, supporting middle housing and infill development, and maximizing housing densities within transit worksheets and limiting new surface parking near major transit and redeveloping surface parking into housing. This slide focuses on Tacoma's off the street parking history. Tacoma's parking regulations have evolved over time.

Before the GMA or parking standards were largely use based and did not apply to existing structures. And in the early 1990s, we got adoption of the GMA and establishment of the centers. Tacoma began adjusting parking requirements in mixed use and center areas to support compact development and reduce barriers to infill. In 2009, we reduced parking minimums in mixed use centers and introduced parking credits with the goal of promoting walkability and supporting transit oriented development. In 2012, we created the Downtown Reduced Parking Area or RPA eliminating minimum off street parking requirements for residential and commercial uses in Downtown.

The decision was made due to recognizing parking minimums as a potential barrier to infill development. The downtown RPA was later expanded in 2014 to include more properties north of downtown. And most recently in 2024 through Home Intercomo phase two, we created urban residential or urban residential reduced parking area near major transit stops. This new urban residential RPA applies to your one, your two, your three zones, properties that are zone c one that are at least 20,000 square feet, and high density multifamily areas located within half a mile of major transit stops. Within these areas, no off street parking is required for residential projects or residential units within mixed use developments except for ADA stalls.

Home intercom phase two also eliminated parking requirements for ADUs. In addition, the urban residential density bonus provisions further reduced parking minimums, parking requirements, sorry. So when we look at Tacoma's history, we see a consistent pattern. Parking reforms didn't happen all at once. They've been paired with broader zoning and housing updates and they've been targeted to support housing production and transit oriented growth.

This slide outlines the two scope options. Option A is to update our code to meet the state requirements. If we move forward with this option, there will be less changes to commercial and other non residential standards, parking standards and potentially more straightforward path to adoption. Option B would remove minimum parking requirements citywide. This approach aligns more closely with one Tacoma vision of creating a fifteen minute city.

It could provide greater flexibility in how land is used, support housing production in more areas of the city and reinforce the goal of walkable connected neighborhoods. At the same time, it would represent a broader policy shift and would likely require additional analysis and community engagement. We are not asking you to select an option tonight. We're just asking for your in your input in these two options before we move further into analysis and drafting the code. As part of outreach, we plan to engage both internal and external partners as well as various boards and commissions.

As part of the public outreach, we have developed a project web page. We also created an online survey, which is available on our website, and it's gonna remain open through the planning commission public hearing. We are hosting an online informational meeting tomorrow tomorrow evening to reach a broader audience. And we are also hosting an in person event in May, and there will be translated materials available for that event. We also plan to engage neighborhood councils, business districts, and other stakeholders.

There's a sub deadline, again, to adopt the the parking code changes. So this schedule was built on that deadline. The the project launch and the initial code options basically start the phase, start it like in December. We went to planning commission, introduced the the project in December, and we launched the project web page and FAQs in January. And after tonight's briefing, we are going back to planning commission next week to get their direction on the scope option.

After we receive the the direction from the planning commission on the scope option, we are gonna start drafting the code, and we are also gonna start the early engagement engagements from February or or, yeah, like, tomorrow till, like, April. We are hoping to basically release the draft code in mid April. And we're hosting an event in May, and we are hoping to have the public hearing sometimes in May. I think, like, it's May May 20, a tentative date. And we're hoping to have the planning commission recommendation in July.

And with that being said, like, that would start the city council process in August, and we're hoping to have the code adopted by October. And the the post adoption would be basically 2026 to notify the affected parties and start the internal staff training. So I'm gonna close with a couple of questions for discussion. Is this the right time to consider removing the minimum partner requirements CDY? And, also, I wanted to know what additional data or policy analysis would be helpful as we move forward with this code update.

Thank you. Great. And if you would

just leave those questions up there so

you can kinda guide our conversation, that'd be great. And I'm sure we're gonna reference some of those other slides as well. Thank you so much for all this information. This is really great, really helpful, great background. Anna told me council member Hines has his hand raised back there.

Oh, okay. You're off the hook at the moment, council member Hines. So I will open this up to questions or comments. And as Miriam said at the beginning of the presentation, this is informational only, but we are trying to give as much feedback to to the planning commission as we can. My understanding is that you all or some group from planning will be back at this committee as part of that process as well in a couple months. Is that

Yes. Correct. You're scheduled to come back in June.

Okay. Great. So we don't need, obviously, final decision, but we are trying to be as vocal and with our thoughts and direction on this at this point to help the planning commission out as they do their deeper study. So with that, anybody wanna take this off? Go ahead. Got some number Diaz.

Pull it one. Yes. Yesterday was the right time. I don't know. It just seems like, particularly given the way that we have done the work a lot of the work already in home and Tacoma and the way that the slide on slide 10 basically lays out the two options, I think the most urgency around this is to get ourself aligned with one Tacoma plan goals. So I think we gotta start moving so we can get there. We got a plan. Let's do a plan.

Great. Thank you. Vice chair. Sure.

I have one clarifying question just to be because I'm trying to remember something really clearly. One of the updates that required no parking around transit, was that a half mile radius? Is that what ended up getting updated? Because we did, like, basically a quarter mile on each side when we did home to come up from what I remember. But I think they increased it in the state, and there's a reason why this is important.

I I think the map that we have, I don't know which slide that is.

Academic slide.

So that was adopted through Home and Tacoma, and it is yeah. So

Yeah. Well, the the point was I if I recall correctly, there's a slide oh, I don't have

a number on this.

Call it. Think I two more. Yeah. Okay. So all the hash mark is what we did in home with coma, but I believe based on what the latest state mandate was. It actually increases the one around hack out slightly, if I remember. Anyways, it the point is, like, basically, the state mandates have basically added to this already existing map a whole bunch of holes Mhmm. Right Mhmm. That just blow it up. Right?

Where basically the the option is we could either expand that hash mark to everything or live in a world where we have just pockmarked where, oh, yeah. You're allowed, but also you're not except, you know, like, it's it it'd be just an absolute bureaucratic nightmare, in my opinion, to manage it. So even though I was the guy on on planning commission that was trying to preserve parking, I think we're at a point where and there's a real reason for it because I also understand now this is gonna be the hardest sell to to constituents. It is not true that requiring no minimum parking is the same as requiring no parking to be built. Mhmm.

And that is the hardest thing to get through because when you say, I'm removing parking minimums, what people hear is, I'm going to tell them not to build any parking. And we've now seen in a lot of these early home to come up projects that people are still building parking.

Mhmm. Mhmm.

You know, if chair Crapol is listening, I'm sure he's shocked and has his jaw on the ground right now. I I just think just generally in what's happened in the city, what we need to happen in the what's happened on the state level, what we need to happen on the city level, I'm I'm generally okay, which is basically removing the minimum understanding that there is going to be parking built. But one of the things so for the second one in terms of policy that needs to be looked at, I really highly suggest we look at what kind of flexibility for off-site parking can we look at. One one specific example I'll give you because it is true for two developments that were in in District 4 that would have been homeownership, and I would consider this to be part of a homeownership one, is to allow, like, front loaded garages. So you can drive into a a lower level to the garage.

You get parking off the street. It doesn't take any additional permeable surface. Our homeownership incentive is geared towards middle income because one of the fears I have is that parking then becomes, you know, a a a thing for the rich, let's say, and and gets taken out of achievable kind of homes at a lower price point for middle income people. So that specifically I'd love for for planning commission to at least discuss. Other things, and this may not be in the purview of the planning commission, but we should consider what are flexibilities in terms of permeable surfaces that we wanna maybe encourage off-site.

Because, you know, this is going with the thought, okay. We're gonna remove the minimums as a way to add flexibility and to be able to add housing. So how do we also add some flexibility when architects, designers, and builders are considering a site, given site limitations to still provide if if they want to. And there are certain limits, and I would love to understand what are some other limits that exist out there. So potentially also asking whatever advisory groups they have, whether it's the permit advisory group for what are the types of flexibilities that allow them to build off-site parking in places where it makes sense and still hit those other requirements we want in terms of amenity space and trees and and whatnot.

Was that enough? Yeah. Great. Thank you.

Thank you. Yeah.

Do want

her? I did have two more

because I kinda paused so

you moved on.

But Oh,

sorry. Go

ahead. It's okay.

I I guess one is kind of a common question, even though it's a question. So I'm wondering what, if anything, this team can do, particularly if you think about Lentzoma. How do we align our goals around not not requiring parking and development and transit oriented development with our anti displacement plan, Something that I see in a neighborhood that is in the transit center is I get calls daily about having someone come and buy my home for some predatory amount, and we at the city can't control that. But I think we need to be mindful somewhere in this process or just maybe that's for my colleagues is that we be thinking about how we could potentially start playing more teeth as we're as we're doing zoning, as we're because we're thinking about parking because I wanna make sure that it's not lost in there. And then I think what I heard you say, council members know, okay, but what I think I think what you were trying to say is when we say that we don't have parking requirements, that there's also no minimums.

So great. I think what people in the public hear us say is we are going to require that no parking be built.

That's okay. I think

that's what hope people think

they hear. And so I think that that is on us to make sure that we're not perpetuating that message. Right? That's not really the policy is clearly not saying, you know, we're parking in Tacoma. It is saying we're not required yet, but developers can't come up.

Yeah.

Right. The the market is gonna always want someone out of parking, so they will figure that out. Like, that's how that's how I would message that. And then the other thing that I I just curiosity, it might be too in the weeds for this moment. But on the slide about the lieutenant schedule, there's a note at the very bottom around fall twenty twenty six where we notify affected parties. I was wondering, do we know who the affected parties are? Is it developers? Is it just curious.

Yeah. We would usually one of the things we would work out it's a great question. In this so in this case, we're not gonna be doing a home and phone mailing like you've seen before that we would usually be doing if we were doing a rezone or a compliment map amendment. So we are relying a lot more on other digital social media communications to get the word out about this this work. But what we are trying to be more systematic about is post adoption, being more proactive in the six communications out to business district, neighborhood councils, the people who participated in our process to make them aware of the final adoption and what was adopted by the city council.

So we do know the council can amend, you know, recommendations from the planning commission. It's been an important lesson as we go through that, that we are now communicating back out to everyone who participated about what the final ordinance does and what it says and if it's different than what the version was that they commented on. And that's kinda what I would I would kinda earmark there is it depends a little bit on our level of engagement, but it's something we're trying to be a little bit more proactive on post adoption.

Okay. Good stuff. Thank you. Are you good? Other than that Okay. Councilmember. It's all good.

Does that get shorter if we decide no parking?

I would I would probably characterize here's how I'd probably think about it. If if you say that what we really think is we wanna remove parking minimums from a code writing standpoint, that's much easier than trying to integrate the state minimums into our current code. Our current code is already very complicated, the state minimums are gonna make it even more complicated. So what probably gets easier if we do option b is the code development itself. What probably gets a little bit more heightened is the level of community engagement in the code conversation because now we're if we're not just following the state minimum, now it's a policy choice.

There is more opportunity for people to participate in effect of that policy outcome. So what we'd likely expect is, you know, potentially more engagement or need for communications engagement through the process. We're

still

trying to keep it on the timeline to get the council before budget. And then if you want to hold it over or kinda continue to work through January, we have that option.

So we're we're required by December 31 or January? January. Okay. We haven't finished yet. And I was being facetious about that. But it is important to have these conversations because Mhmm. In that engagement and I'm really glad you highlighted that. In that engagement. We also want that's why I would love for these conversations about what kind of developmental flexibilities can we also add

Yeah.

To still encourage it to happen when we don't have it as a a floor anymore.

Yeah. And it and it's a I mean, it's a really important code, like, distinction that we are going out and the message is we are doing the same minimum. And here's what that means because now it's more educational because we don't have a choice. It is a new law that we are following. Reverses, now we're going above and beyond that. So we wanna be like, with the planning commission, when they when they make their call, that's partly why we're asking for earlier direction from them and input from IPS so we can start to tailor the messaging around the code alternatives going after public discussion. So that's important for us, I think, at this juncture.

So great.

K. Council member Hines, do you have questions or comments?

Yes. Alright. My am I you all see me on the camera right now?

Yep.

Good. There we go. I think my question would be, I'd love for you all to put a map where we can actually require parking in the state of Tacoma based on all the state mandates. I feel like that would be more more revealing in many ways. It seems as if there's really not anywhere left that we can do any kind of parking requirements. Is that correct? I mean

Yeah. So, like, it would be basically, like, for, like, one of the one of the requirements is that we can't require any minimum parking for residential units that are under 1,200 square foot. So that would be that could be anywhere that would allow, like, residential units in cities. So it would be very difficult to map that.

Yeah. I mean, I house is less than 1,200 square feet. So, I mean, there you know, I think Yeah.

Mine too.

Yeah. And I live in a relatively roughly appropriate house. Yeah. I guess to get to your questions, and I think I've you've under you've heard it before. Well, I will say, like, the the voting to expand the reduced parking area was one of the most contentious votes we've had on council since I've been here, since we always tend to vote nine o on everything, and we had a clear five four vote on both times we expanded that or changed it.

But being the person who landed on the other side, I don't know why we wouldn't just pursue looking at it more broadly. I think once you lay out the what the state has stepped in and said, I don't know if it's worth our time to really try to, like, create, sorry, that map that looks like what the state is now and do nothing but sow confusion among people. I mean, when you read the state's list of exemptions and what they've what they allow, I I almost feel like it's worse than just getting rid of parking minimums altogether, because there's no sense the for the average person to understand where it may or may not be required. I would reiterate what my colleagues have said. I think the critical thing to reiterate is not that we are requiring people to have no parking.

It is this. We are saying there is no requirement that you have to have parking. And I think that's really important when you think about, I'll use Procter as an example. Just, you know, some of those infill projects that have gone in is if we still had parking requirements in Proctor for some of those infill projects like the Fleet Fleet Building or that other building that's going where Jasmy used to be, you'd physically have to step that back from the street and build parking in front of that if we had parking requirements like we used to have before we moved them in the mixed use center. So part of not requiring parking is also actually allowing us to emulate some of the street feel that people do like when they think about a business district or a compact business area.

So I think that's kind of where Eileen I think some of the I I'm really having trouble hearing what's going on in the room, but I'm the transcripting from AI the the AI transcript is very good. So I I think I read something about the concern is if you remove the market requirements, they'll get higher end market projects that will have parking and other projects that are low maybe not as high end will have no parking required. And what does that look like? So I think there is a conversation around kind of the equity concerns around some of that that I think would be valuable for us to come back to or just to be part of this public outreach process. Somebody asked my question, which is who are the people we have to inform?

I I guess you don't have to call me on the phone and say, hey, councilor Hines. You don't ever have to be required to have parking in your house anymore.

Mean, exciting

times. But, in all in all all honesty, I just I think this is a good conversation for us to have. I do think thinking more broadly about parking requirements and just is moving to something that's more aggressive is probably will actually make it more simple for folks in many ways, than something that's more patchwork that, you know, will kill sow confusion. Is that that the question I was supposed to answer? Was there another question?

Perfect. Thank you.

Do you

have any additional data needs?

Not beyond some of the oh, there you go. Perfect. You know, I would love you know, parking management does a great job of doing parking studies around, like, where we see parking strains strains and things like that. I'd be curious to see some more data around that that I've seen in the past. I would be curious as we're getting generating more data on places where we're requiring less parking versus places where we're requiring more parking.

Are we seeing increased numbers of permits and development in those areas where there's less parking? That would just be something I would be really curious to think about to see because if the premises that by not requiring parking, we'll see more housing. So what's that? I'm gonna make a I'll make a one comment. I know that we now require bike bike parking as part of our parking our housing development project. Is this a time for me to talk about we should let the market decide on bike parking too, or is that not part of this conversation?

I think from a ZAP perspective, now is the time to to say. So that's exactly the kind of input or feedback we wanna make sure that we're hearing tonight so we know how we can carry that forward and bring that to the commission.

I I just I I have heard from, I have heard from some developers some of the requirements around how much bike parking is required in some of these projects has been something they've been concerned about. So I know that is also fits a lot of our other broader goals around encouraging people to ride bikes, but I it's just something that I have found intriguing that we are going wholesale against requiring parking for vehicles, but we are full on requiring parking for bikings. And but, you know, maybe that's maybe maybe we'll that's just be where we're at. Thank you, chair.

Thank you, council member Hines. I will also note that bike parking costs a fraction of the amounts to whoever is building it and encourages all our other goals around climate and One Tacoma plan. So I I definitely think it is the right time to consider removing minimum parking requirements. I think my colleagues had some good questions about just things that would be interesting to look at. I think there's, you know, all all reasons point to taking this approach as you've talked about with the one to quote plan and and meeting all of our goals, vision zero, climate action plan, but also the simplicity for the builders.

So that makes a lot of sense. I don't think I have anything additional to add in terms of data or policy. I'm looking forward to hearing from the planning commission. And I do think I think each one of my colleagues has brought it up, but just the way we talk about what is being required and what you get out of it in the end, which is more housing and a safer community, more investments in transit. I think if we can we as the council, particularly, but I think everyone that's working on it.

And I think your slideshow did a great job of of highlighting those pieces too. So but I think that's an important part of the conversation, how these things are all connected. So thank you. This is exciting work.

Thank you all. Thanks.

Alright.

Topics for upcoming meetings with our committee liaison, ALE? Great. Thank you. And since our last meeting, has anyone visited one of our committees, boards, or commissions? Councilmember Hines.

I'm proud to report that the your oppressive mandate of making me go to another commission has forced me to go to the transportation commission. No. It was great. Thank you, chair Walker. It was good. And thank you to Carrie and Jennifer who were at the transportation commission, and thank you to the transportation commissioners. They were diving deeply into the six year tip, asking wonderful questions about kind of the priority setting. And it was actually very, very interesting to kinda go and be part of it and to not have to answer any questions just to listen, Though I found ways to interject myself into the conversation on a few occasions. So, that was a great time with transportation division.

Great. Then you will have the preview of the the next conversation on the tip. Appreciate that. Alright, council member. Is it all good? Yeah. I

think your mandate was delightful. And I had a delightful time at the Landmarks Preservation Commission. I did not, I guess, participate as much as council member Hines did because I was watching, but I was actually fascinated because one of the individuals that came up to present is a homeowner who actually said she purchased the house because she heard about home in Tacoma. And she is going about adding two DADUs to her area and considering also eventually doing a unit lock subdivision to sell them off as as individual units. And she was coming out asking for advice and direction on how can she create these DAUs that still match the character and feel of this historic district.

And there were some wonderful conversation around that, and I really found the whole thing to be very collaborative and open and trying to get something done rather than what many people might think of a landmark preservation type conversation. So this is why it was delightful to be there.

So glad to hear that. I am going to the urban design board in the next couple of weeks. I can't remember the exact date. But I also wanted to highlight, we have our specific committees that we cover. And so between the four of us, we are visiting each of them this first half of the year.

We're also talking councilor vice chair Sadalgay and I are talking about connecting with the permit advisory task force and the parking advisory task force, which are officially under our committee but relate very closely to all of the work we're doing. So thank you, Anna, for coordinating all these, and really appreciate connecting with the volunteers that are doing the work. Any other items of interest from the committee? With that, I will entertain a motion to adjourn.

I move to adjourn. Second.

All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion carries. We stand adjourned.