City Council - Regular Meeting

you Thank you. Thank you. you Amen.

Join me and stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. That would be great. Thank you.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. All right. Will the city clerk please call the roll call?

Council Member Castema.

Present.

Council Member Schmoko. Present. Council Member Adler. Present. Deputy Mayor Johnson.

Present.

Council Member King.

Excused.

Council Member Gilliam. Present. Mayor Whitting.

Present. Great. Thank you. Okay. Council, can we have a motion to approve the agenda as stated before us? So moved. Second. Thank you. Council, we have a motion and a second to approve the agenda. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed, nay. Motion passes. Thank you. We have one item on the agenda. This is a study session. It is a policy direction regarding Phase 2 zoning map and code amendments. Senior Planner Kendall Walsh will give us a presentation, and I understand if I recall right, This is kind of a preview to kind of hear direction before this goes to planning. Is that correct?

Correct, before it goes to the Planning Commission.

Thank you.

Yes, so thank you. Kendall Walls with the Planning Division. This is what we're calling package six of the Development and Permitting Services Work Plan for this year. It's also phase two of zoning map and code work. Phase, this'll go here. There we go. Phase one was adopted earlier this year, as council may recall. That was kind of the first step, and this is the next step for bringing our future land use map and zoning map into consistency. And then also, there are some code amendments associated with it. So this package, we've presented some of our policy questions to council at prior meetings. And we're here tonight to confirm some of the policy discussion from prior meetings. And then also want to touch on some other components that are associated with this code package to make you all aware of what will be coming before you in the future and hear any feedback you have on those components as well. So for the prior policy direction that we've received, it's related to some of our mixed-use zones, commercial and office professional zones, single-family residential zones. And we have some more discussion for you tonight related to single-family zones. And then we'll roll into some of those additional components, which have to do with our manufacturing, fare, and fare parking overlay zone. So to dive right in, we're gonna start with our mixed use zones. Some general updates that we had identified were actually several of them were included in the phase one housekeeping ordinance the council passed at your June 16th meeting. So really what's left out of those general updates are looking at increased height allowances in our mixed use zones and evaluating height bonuses. So potentially just increasing to what those bonus heights would allow kind of going to raising that base height allowance outright instead of having to require a height bonus to help with project feasibility as we've heard from development community that some of our height standards are are challenging to make projects work So one of the specific policy questions that we've posed to council at recent meetings is regarding the CMX zone or the community mixed use zone. It's applied to approximately 30 acres out in the Shaw Pioneer area. And staff was asking whether or not this area-specific mixed-use zone should be retained or if we should look at eliminating it and applying one of our other mixed-use zones to the property. In that discussion, we generally heard support for eliminating the CMX zone and rezoning it to the UCX zone. There were some concerns expressed regarding impacts to traffic and small businesses existing in the area. And to kind of give a visual of map changes, we also in your packet have the phase two map changes outlined. So the highlighted text is showing the proposed zoning. So with the direction we received from Council at prior work sessions, The CMX would then convert to UCX. These properties here on the other side of Shaw Road, kind of the Shaw Road overpass, these were identified in the periodic update process. The future land use map was already amended to convert those properties to a mixed use land use. So the rezone would, again, be making it consistent with the already approved future land use map. And so we would be looking at making both sides consistent with the UCX zoning designation. Another mixed use zone change is over off South Meridian and the 512 off ramp. So this is kind of near the hospital, north of 15th Avenue Southwest, the old, I believe the old Jason's Restaurant site. This one was asked by the property owner to be held back for phase two as they were looking at project feasibility for the site. So we're now proposing to implement for consistency with the future land use map as part of phase two. And there's also another area with mixed use zoning changes that I'll show a map for later that's related to the South Hill Business and Technology Center up on South Hill. But with all of these mixed use changes, we would also be applying the mixed use design review overlay to them, as well as that Shaw Pioneer corridor that changed in phase one to make it clear that our mixed-use design review overlay does apply to those properties as it would being a mixed-use.

Kendall, can I just take a moment while we're here before we move forward on the UCX proposal right at the base of Meridian there by the hospital? Yes. this proposed new zoning, what additional development could happen with this additional or I suppose enlarged zoning?

What was- For this property in particular? Yeah. So it's our mixed use zone, so it kind of goes to more flexibility. It could have residential or commercial type uses, whereas right now it's a general commercial zone that's very specific to commercial zoning.

Would the UCX expand that to more options in that area, including, let's just say, a couple of things that come to mind. Could you have medical buildings in there, medical office buildings in there with this new zoning? Yes. Could you have a hotel in there with this new zoning? Yes.

Okay.

Because I know that the hotels around the hospital do very well. There are very few vacancies there with the fair being so close and the hospital being so close. I know that's why the Hampton Inn expanded their rooms because they were just selling out at max capacity. So they put in a huge investment to add rooms. So if this opens up more potential economic development for other uses, that could be hotels, it could be a medical office building, whatever, I certainly would support that. You don't get much property around an established growing medical district that becomes available and that should be opened up for whatever uses would be conducive to that. And especially with their, what, $450 million new addition coming in that's going to create more jobs, more probably hotel stays, you know, more workers that were working on the construction to stay at various places, or even another medical building. So I really support that. And then we can open it up to Council Member Cassam in a moment. And then we'll go over to this other place here off Shaw Road. This is Kitty Corner from the Safeway, is that correct, in that area? Correct. And this new proposed zoning would, because I think right now it's pretty limited to just residential, and this opens it up to other uses, is that right?

Well, this portion here, the CMX, is a mixed-use designation, but it is a pretty low-density and low-height designation.

Yeah. I mean, you have all that development going there. Anything that would increase density seems to me to make sense in that area. I mean, that area is growing with that new shopping center and there's some apartments going on already nearby. And then what about that area across the street? Would that also expand higher density potential in this, what do you call it, CG? Yeah.

Yes, the general commercial, again, is very specific to commercial uses. It has very limited residential use allowances. So this, again, would have an allowance for both residential and commercial uses. And then there's also this ARO, which is our Agriculture Recreation Okay. An open space. So that is another conversion of that portion.

Thank you for letting me drill down. Council Member Castamante, did you want to speak?

Thank you. I appreciate that exchange you just had because those were the type of clarifying. I mean, CMX, UCX, et cetera, the acronyms just get kind of lost. And so it's better if you, when you explain something, this is what you can do now, this is what you'll be able to do, et cetera. Having said that, in the ARO, you have that little section there that's going to go to UCX, and you mentioned that it had been kind of a buffer. Is that what you refer to, or green space, or what was that?

It's... It allows for kind of agriculture uses, but also could be recreation or open space.

It's a very low impact. I would investigate that a little further because I think a number of years ago, this one specifically was dealt with by council members at that time that they wanted to preserve that. At least we should have some historical background.

We did evaluate that with a comprehensive plan update process because that area was modified on the future land use map. The parcels on the north side were protected, but these specific parcels were not. So that was part of the analysis that was done with the periodic update.

Okay, good. Thank you. So just to make, just to follow up on Council Member Castemire's comments, this ARO is going to stay the same. That's not going to change, that you're proposing that, or is that going to also go to UCX?

The area that is cross-hatched here would be going to UCX to be consistent with the future land use map.

Can I just dig a little deeper on the ARO? I think I appreciate the intent, and maybe there's some historical documentation. You could refresh our memory. And I appreciate, again, this intent of kind of preserving land. I guess the question would be is, that would really limit any development in that property. And that's a big piece of land. And so is that kind of a, I don't know what the owners think about this, but you know, do they want to grow with the region in the area or do they want to maintain ARO and are we required to maintain ARO when everything around is developing? And I know we have a park, you know, the Van Lurek Park over there, which is nearby for public areas. There's a lot of green space going there. And then with, Krista's placed there with some of the things she's doing with agricultural stuff. There's some things going on. So is this kind of landlocking this and really not allowing development because it's so limited? Expand a little bit on that because I'm a little concerned.

So are you specifically kind of looking at the northern ARO parcels? ARO, the green.

That's the only one. These ones here? Yeah, yeah.

So those parcels were protected so as part of the when the area was annexed the county put restrictions on converting the land away from agriculture kind of low intensity uses. So in order to eliminate that restriction it's a covenant on those properties it would require agreement from both the county and the city and the property owners to eliminate that. I know that that's desired, I believe, by property owners in that area, but it does have a bit of a process involved that would be outside of the phase two work.

I'm not sure of the process, but if there is a process and the property owner would like to pursue that, I think they should be allowed that due process to at least examine. It doesn't mean that it wouldn't be accepted, but with all the development going on all around it, to preserve something that really can't be developed, that's potentially a loss to a property rights ownership issue, and I would be concerned about that. Unless the city had any intention of buying a new park there, which would be a lousy area. We've got Van Lyric Park. There would be no reason to have that there. So anyway, I'd like to put that on the record that I hope that someone's checking into that because it would make sense to make it consistent with the parcels all around it and not have this really, in a sense, isolated area that is so limited and the odds of it being developed in some usable public way or even private development way is pretty well minimal to none. So thank you for that. All right. Carry forward. I guess let's see if we have any more questions on that.

Okay, so the next policy consideration was most recent. At your June 16th meeting, we talked about neighborhood commercial designated parcels. So again, these parcels on the map were designated on the future land use map as neighborhood commercial. We're now working on zoning code amendments in order to implement that on the zoning map, but also in our zoning code. The city has an existing limited mixed use zone, LMX, which has been proposed to be amended to serve that purpose as the neighborhood commercial zone, neighborhood mixed use zone. So staff presented proposed changes as part of this package of amendments, which will touch on limits to commercial and residential uses, including size and operational time limits for commercial uses. Also looking at density and setback standard changes for, again, repurposing that existing zone. We heard general support for those initial concepts, but also concerns to be careful about how that code is drafted to be considerate of impacts to the adjacent properties and neighborhoods. And so we'll be looking at that as we craft the future zone amendments. And also, we're encouraged to do some public outreach as part of this process where the zoning is to be implemented to get input from neighboring property owners in this process.

Thank you, Kendall. Councillor Acosta.

Thank you. Just to put a fine point on the last issue that you brought up, not only in the outreach when it comes to the development of the criteria for this, but actually in the permit process itself. In other words, a notification of the type of business that will go in there. Do you understand?

So you would like us to do some special neighboring property owner notification when applications come in? Correct. Absolutely. Okay. So like an administrative conditional use process for any use that's going to go in there or... We don't typically, if it's a permitted outright use, so that's something that we can evaluate.

I understand that, but I think that there has to be a heightened level of neighborhood input into this. I'm afraid that what you'll do is you'll go and you'll ask people what kind of general criteria, but into the specifics of it when something is actually going in, whether they'd be notified of that.

I should say there could be a notice of application process for new projects, for new development. It may not capture, just our standard process may not capture like a TI, tenant improvement. If they were just doing a remodel, it may not capture that. But any new structure, it would probably capture that.

I just got an issue this last weekend with someone having a Again close to a neighborhood and that disrupting that neighborhood and receiving a complaint I believe the police had to respond but I I think that Again, no surprises.

Mm-hmm. We can look at options that way.

Okay.

Thank you And follow up to that In the drafting of this, again, everyone knows my support of this. I think it's insignificant. When we look at these dots on the map, the impact is so minimal. And yet the potential for small business expansion is so great, it's almost insulting that we are limiting it to these small little pinpoint dots in the city. But that being said, I hope that we can expand this. This can be a pilot project. If these go well for small businesses, we can expand this to other neighborhood businesses with contingencies of safeguards. In other words, you know, written into the code on this could be, you know, using that example, no rock bands, you know, being played in these businesses or even exterior music. You can tighten, you know, concerns in a neighborhood area, yet still allow the business to operate freely for a home business, which should, I think it should be an American right to have a business in your home if it's not impacting your neighbors and it's bringing economic development. So anyway, I hope that that's drafted into you know, maybe the conditions where there's a little bit narrower road of restrictions, but still allowing for just a legitimate business to operate in a small way, small footprint within a residential area. So I think the safeguards could be built into that, unlike a general commercial area that would be wider options for impact. So anyway, just some thoughts on that. Thank you. I guess we can move forward.

OK. OK, so now moving to commercial and office professional. So these areas really tie in with the last slide regarding our changes for LMX, limited mixed use zone. These zones were identified through the comp plan process as they're kind of used very sparingly throughout the city. They're very specific to like CL is a limited commercial, OP is an office professional. They're kind of redundant now with our comp plan really enforcing kind of mixed use opportunities in these transition zones. All where you see the existing CL and OP, these zones are proposed to be eliminated and would be rezoned to the new LMX. That's on the other map. It's captured on those parcels that were already designated with the neighborhood commercial designation. So this is something that we've talked with council about as part of our streamlining and consolidating process. And so we will... moving forward with elimination of those two zones in that effort.

Thank you. I would just, for the record, support that. I mean, these isolated areas of this very limited OP and CL or whatever, does that make sense consistently with the area? So to streamline that and open up more opportunities for development makes sense to me. So I suspect that that would be a good move. Thank you.

So now to our single-family residential zones. We have three remaining low-density residential zones. It's our RS6, 8, and 10 zones. And you'll see the table on here kind of shows some general distinguishing factors between the three zones and where they're currently applied throughout the city currently. Um, the city adopted a housing action plan back in 2021 that included a strategy regarding zone consolidation. And so, um, staff brought this forward earlier this year asking for policy direction because. The initial guidance from the housing action plan, there's been some changes that have occurred through the comprehensive plan process. It eliminated one of our, we had four low density residential zones. One of them had been eliminated through that process. And also with the state mandates related to middle housing, kind of taking away some of the distinguishing factors outside of these general ones here. And so staff brought this forward as a question. of whether we should move forward with a two-zone consolidation. I kind of laid out some options that way. We received pretty mixed feedback, I'd say, from council at that time. There was some support for consolidating to two low-density residential zones. At least one council member expressed interest in streamlining to one low-density residential zone. And some expressed just wanting a little more time to kind of dive into these details. And so staff has been looking into this and have some additional considerations and kind of more refinement to the options that we wanted to present to council tonight to hopefully get some better direction for how we should move forward with this zone consolidation factor. The current new policy considerations are in option one, two, and three, the first one being no change. We keep the three zones as we have them, RS six, eight, and 10. Option two would be to consolidate to two zones. There's two kind of sub options under that one, which I'll touch on here on a future slide. And then option three is to do the consolidation to one low density residential zone. We wanted to note that with both options two and three, we see public engagement being a big factor, something that needs to be done, and will take some additional time to complete those two options. So I wanted to just note that as a consideration. Option one, again, no change. We would retain RS 6, 8, and 10. So it kind of maintains status quo. And we would do general cleanups to the code to eliminate references to the RS4 zone as just a cleanup measure. For the two options, this is more detailed. And we don't necessarily need to get into the details tonight. I just wanted to show that there are some options with this one when we go to two zones of how we do it. We could do kind of a hybrid zone, a combination of RS-10 and 8 and retain RS-6. Or we could go a different direction and just eliminate the middle. zoning designation of rs8 and we retain the 10 and rs6 these are details that we could work through with the planning commission but i also wanted to present them in case council had any specific input they'd like to to provide on this option And then option three is going down to one zone. So this would retain the RS-6 designation and would eliminate RS-8 and 10. With this one in particular, it is outside of what we studied as part of the different alternatives with our environmental analysis for the comprehensive plan update. So it would likely trigger some additional environmental analysis in the form of an addendum or a supplement to that EIS. So it's not that we couldn't move forward with that, it would just require some additional analysis as part of that process that would add a little bit of time as far as implementation.

Kendall, Council Member Gilliam had some questions.

Thank you, Kendall. I'm just curious, what is the need for change? Why do we have, what's the value of having these three different zones? And then what would truly be the benefit to city staff or residents on why we would eliminate any one of them?

So it was identified in the housing action plan because we had four at the time. And I would say previously there was little distinguishing factors between the four, even more so now with requirements for middle housing. So right now there's not a lot of distinguishing factors between the three. it it doesn't hurt to maintain the three our community knows the existing zoning designations so it we could keep status quo or we could consolidate it kind of helps with the whole streamline and simplifying of the code you're reducing the number of zones therefore the number of nuances to the code so it can be straightforward a little more straightforward for staff to implement, but also community to understand what's allowed in that zone and what's not and what the setbacks are and that type of thing. So it's kind of a policy decision, really, of do we want to maintain what we have now or do we want to work on consolidating some zones?

And so by listening, what I believe I'm hearing is that actually would be beneficial for everybody if we literally just created all one zone.

It could be.

Yeah. And it wouldn't be a detriment in any way.

I mean, it's hard to say what the community would feel. That's something that we would want to do outreach on just to get a better temperature of that. I know we'd be going to smaller lot sizes with that if we were to go to RS6. So our RS10 has a 10,000 square foot minimum lot size. We'd be going down to a 6,000 square foot lot size. So that would kind of change development of areas in low density residential areas. But it's not to say that it's not an option.

Right. But we still have plenty of spaces where lot sizes are already quite large. So this really would be a way to create more middle housing and affordable housing.

Potentially.

OK. I'm asking leading questions for my own benefit as well as just how can we actually improve our community for our residents and future growth. So thank you. I really appreciate your feedback and thoughts. Thank you.

Yeah, can we go back to that one slide that showed the three different zone areas of our city, District 1, District 2, District 3, right? Yeah, there. I'd like to speak to this, and I'll open it up to Council Member Castema. In teeing up, Council Member Gilligan stated, You look at RS6, which is the smallest lots zoning, it's all in District 1 for the most part. So they have to live by higher density lots. It's an established neighborhood. And then you look at RS8, RS10, this is all in District 2, District 3. So they have maybe the luxury of having these larger lots. So it seems in proportionate to have one district area in our city be opened up to high density, and the other ones get to maintain larger footprint lots. And so it's not consistent to me across the city to have that. the burden of small lots put in District 1 and then not allowing opportunities for developers to have smaller lots in District 2 and 3. Keeping in mind now, I'm just talking out loud, right? And so we'll ask some questions maybe. I'm thinking out loud because this is a public meeting. You're supposed to not pre-bake your answers before you get here. Just talk about why, right? So as I'm talking about this, I'm thinking some people might be concerned with, oh gosh, you know, if we shrink it to, let's just say we go across the board, everyone's consistent, RS6 across the board. Many of these districts and District three they all have covenants. So those applications are not going to apply to them So there's preservation of those residential areas because that those are not applicable So let's remember that this is not going to open up huge density and established covenant areas, right? and then section to where I live You could have some smaller development, but keeping in mind a lot of that is near creeks and wetlands, so the odds of that happening and all those going to be filled up is, you know, case by case minimal. So I really support the RS6 across the board for fairness and consistency, and if we are embracing the opportunity for middle and affordable housing. This is consistent and fair, I think, to have RR6 across the city, knowing that there's safeguards built in, that not every single lot is going to be applicable to an RR6 development. And then I was just talking to a neighbor today and this middle housing affordability is real. His son couldn't afford a house and so they built an ADU on his property and was able to do that. And I'm looking at some potential ADUs for my family and so forth and so on. The odds of being able to buy a house is very minimal with the higher ratios. I also had a chance to go to the AWC Association of Washington City's conference in Spokane and spoke with a developer who had a booth there that has some specialized plans that you can get a beautiful 1,000 square foot ADU about $200,000. And now there's probably additions and luxuries you can get. That's a really reasonable house to have and keep your mortgage payment down pretty low. So if there is a process in a market for middle housing and affordable housing, Having the opportunity for an RS6 across the city is more even and fair, knowing there's provisions and safeguards with wetlands and streams and buffers and covenants that will protect the whole city from turning into the sky is falling and now everybody gets a 6,000 square foot lot in the city. So I would support that. I realize it's going to take more work, but council, for coming this far, a little bit more work is better than just take the easy option, which is no change, move forward. And what did we really do? I do think we should spend the extra time and look at that and then do it right. And so far, so on. So that's what I had. I'll turn it over to Council Member Castema. Thank you.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor. So review for us the impact of middle housing mandate that the state put on property and how it would affect RS-6 and RS-10. Give us an example of the difference.

At this point in time, the same uses are allowed within the zones. There's different factors as far as I believe it's maybe more so with our ADUs as far as if the site meets minimum lot size, then you can have two ADUs versus one. So there's some differences that way based on the lot size, but that was kind of one of the factors we were noting is that with the middle housing changes previously, we had differentiation between the zones for use allowances for these types of units where you could have middle housing type like a duplex or triplex through a CUP process, that type of thing, but now it's more consistent within our single-family residential zones. You may be able to get larger units and that type of thing based on the lot size now, but the use allowances are generally the same.

OK, just slight editorializing. I think that, of course, I've always felt that the neighborhoods are the strength of Puyallup, period. size of our neighborhoods, the integrity of our neighborhoods are essential to this community. It gives us the kind of longevity that we need, the strength. And so I know there's members here who want to go ahead at breakneck speed, but we're now having to deal with mandates from the state that deal with middle housing. deal with parking requirements. I mean, throughout the entire city, you build a structure, and you'll be required to have one parking place. And for an apartment, half a parking place. And for anything within the downtown core, in essence, zero. So I think that I would preach caution. We just went through monumental changes when it comes to these mandates. And we have more mandates yet to actually be implemented. So I would say let's not put more stress and strain on the neighborhoods. I don't see a compelling reason for us to go from what we currently have No one has ever, ever come to me or sent me a letter making a request for any of what you brought before us, at least right here. This. It seems to be something that's more of an inside baseball sort of request, but my constituents aren't asking for it. So I would just, at this point, I will probably be more in that first category of saying, hey, let's live with the shock. that this community will experience over the next five years and see if we can handle that. And then maybe if we come through that, maybe we can then, at that point, put more challenges and strains on our neighborhoods. But right now, I think it would be uncalled for. But anyway, that's where I'm at at this point. Thank you. And I know Deputy Mayor has a rebuttal after every one of my speeches, so I'm ready to hear it.

Thank you, Council Member Castle. I have no rebuttal on that, so I'll shock you on this one, so. Okay, Kendall, I guess we can move forward, thank you.

Okay.

Okay, so manufacturing zones. The South Hill Business and Technology Center, I kind of alluded to this a little bit earlier in the presentation, but as part of the periodic update process for the comp plan, the property owner had some requests that came in Part of which is the redesignation for the frontage of the property. So you may recall that this was a change that was made on the future land use map to convert the frontage along 39th to a mixed use property. land use designation so this proposed change is implementing the future land use map just wanted to call that out here as far as changes to this this area and then also the property owner had requests just some code changes related to the existing zoning of mp which is the business park designation. So I also just wanted to note that while we're opening the M zone chapter, staff has identified some cleanup items related to fencing standards in our M zones in general. So that would be something that we would be bringing forward as part of the package. And then also calling out that craft manufacturing uses since we would be defining that as a use in other zones. We want to just clarify that that would be a permitted use in our manufacturing zones. So as far as kind of property owner requests for this zone in particular, which you can see right now, it's currently just applied to that area of the city. The two that are in bold are kind of the forefront of the request. They'd be looking to clarify that data centers are permitted in this zone. as kind of a clarifying piece. And then daycare centers are currently permitted as an accessory use to a permitted use in the zone or through a conditional use permit. It could be a standalone daycare through a conditional use permit for the zone. So they are seeking daycare centers as an outright allowance in the business park zone. Some other uses, from my understanding, just they're looking to just expand opportunities for the area. So looking at warehouse and distribution, some kind of outdoor storage component, which falls under our contractor shops and storage yards in that zone chapter. Equipment sale or rental accessory retail products, they're trying to have a little more retail component allowances. They also identified multifamily residential. This is something that we identified as something that we could consider as an outright allowance in the zone or it could be an overlay for certain portions of the site. There's different ways that you could go about that. And then the the property owner also just noted that if residential uses are supported They'd also request some considerations for increased height To make it more feasible So these are things that we would be exploring as part of the work with the Planning Commission Wanted to bring it to your attention and hear if you have any concerns about any of these particular uses before we move forward in that process and

Thank you, Kendall. Let's make some comments on that. As I understand, this is the Benaroya property that you're referring to here, the data center? Correct. If I recall right, that lot is about 87 acres or something of that nature, 87 acres. And it's kind of really captured by this really, in a sense, pristine area. You've got the Bradley Lake Park at the back of it. You've got this beautiful college campus over to the one side and you've got this kind of senior housing here. So it's really got this kind of really interesting usage. And I think I go into Seattle three days a week and we're seeing that a lot of office and lease spaces are becoming less and less demand. This is a business park. They have a lot of offices there. And so I think it's good to open up options for development because if one industry is going down, you don't want this to go dilapidated because it's limited to just office or business part. So I think the idea of offering more opportunities in this parcel would be wise. The other thing too, thinking of the daycare and multifamily residential, some of the big kind of trends moving in the future is you know, work, live and play in your region, right? So if you have jobs in this area and people that have a means may want to live on this campus with some nice housing, condos or apartments, whatever they are, it would be nice to have the park there. They can live in a residential unit. They can work in the center there. They can use the park as a benefit and, you know, And also I think there's some opportunities for residential usage that might partner with the continued growth of the college. If the college continues to grow and needs some housing for students because they're growing, there could be some partnerships perhaps that provide housing for that scenario. So I think we should open that up. Yeah, and then in terms of high density for some of these housing units, I just wanna go back to, I remember when I first got elected to council, we went through a massive South Hill redevelopment project. This is like 10 years ago. And I remember that Don DeSalvo and the Cafaro's were here and they were going through repurposing of the South Hill development, which the mall was on. And same thing in that industry, malls are typically starting to decline because the demand for malls are changing. And so I think the council at that time and the property owners at that time in the region were saying, listen, we've got to look down the road and realize that this is going to change. So we need to prepare for that change. Now, so far they haven't utilized it because they've been able to keep that mall going with some new things. But wisdom says, you know, if an industry is changing, you've got to get ahead of that and don't want to react to that. And then it's too late. So I remember that in that council approved some pretty high height opportunities on that South Hill. And if I recall right, I'm going to just kind of guesstimate, I think it was eight to 10 stories and up to 12 or 14 with some bonus densities. In other words, you had to kind of pay for that through bonus densities, but you could go up pretty high. I think it would be consistent to allow for some height opportunities in this business park area due to the nature of the campus and the park and the views from there would be fantastic. So anyway, I just think we should be looking at that. I think Planning Commission should be pursuing, you know, some of the ideas that are mentioned here because it's has foresight to realize that industry is changing. And so what we're going to do to adapt to that and make it a viable part of our, and growing part of our community. And with the fact that the senior housing next door to have other housing in that area is consistent. So thank you. Those are my comments on that. Council member Adler. Oh, I'll get, I'll grab mayor next. Yeah. Go ahead.

Thank you. I just wanted to make sure that the mayor, uh, You can still go, Mr. Mayor. But I guess everyone wants me to. So great. Kendall, thank you. Appreciate the work and the detailed presentation. I just want to say that I like... these allowances, particularly because I'm someone who believes that we need all types of housing to really address the housing crisis, challenge, however you want to characterize it, that I do believe exists. But I do want to caution and just, you know, we have the hot words, rightfully so of the moment, bolded here, which are data centers. And I just want to be very cautious about that. and hope that we will have thoughtful discussions about what that means and how that will be, what potential lies there and the impact. Certainly, affordability is on many, many, many people's minds. And so I just, again, want to hope that we can be thoughtful on what that looks like and what that could open ourselves up to. So thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Adler. Mayor Wedding, please.

Yes, just wanted to touch base on a couple of these things. That site doesn't seem to me to be terribly amenable to warehouse and distribution. I don't really think we want to have more semis and so forth going into that area. So I would tend to want to to limit that the multi-family residential i think is a great idea having it tall you know we've got a lot of students coming into to pierce college and and having that some some uh almost dorm kind of space that's right next door would be i think real helpful there and we do need more more uh housing so so i wouldn't want to exclude the multi-family from that area like council member adler i'm a little concerned about data centers we've got data center in that complex as we speak i think it's been a good addition but but uh you know there's a lot of uh There's just a lot of considerations with data centers, and we're kind of in a transition period with data centers right now. I'd like to go a little slow with that. Daycare centers, if we can have daycare centers where people work, I think that makes life a lot easier for parents. So I would support that. contractor shops and equipment sales. I'm kind of neutral on, I'm not sure what that looks like. Could you go back one slide? I just wanted to comment on this little strip and ask a question. I look at that strip of property and the west side of the strip is Wesley Holmes, I believe. And then we've got Kaiser and there's some tanks in there. As we go further east, you get into some wetlands. I'm just wondering what's anticipated in that strip. Why are we identifying that strip?

That was something that was requested by Benaroya during the periodic update to convert or have a portion of the site allow for mixed use. So it's more so regarding their property on this portion for future redevelopment. That was something that was requested by them and we analyzed that and it was part of the future land use map amendment. So this would be implementing that change to go to a mixed use designation.

Okay, I see I was reading the map a little bit wrong. I was missing where the Wildwood Park Drive was. So I was thinking part of that was Pierce College there.

Pierce College is going to be this PF portion. So this lighter blue is essentially the Benaroya property.

Okay, I think I've said my piece. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Smoko?

Thank you, Deputy Mayor. So MP, or the Business Park Zoning, do I have that right? Correct. OK. The acronym throws me off. So as I understand it, that's about living wage jobs and high density employment per our own comp plan. So I support expanding allowable uses that meet that bar, like craft manufacturing, flex tech space, other business park uses. But data centers are the one, like Councilmember Adler and Mayor Whitting have alluded to, that give me the most red flags because, for one, they're inconsistent with comp plan language and the zone stated purpose. And so I have a couple of questions. One, has Public Works or other city staff done any capacity modeling for what a hyperscale or even mid-sized data center does to local water, power infrastructure? and who pays for the upgrades, the developer or rate payers, things like that. Has any of that kind of study been done yet? No, we're just very much in the beginning stages. Okay. And then, so with that, my request would be for staff to bring something like job count per acre estimates and a water power demand projections list or summary so that we can kind of get an idea of what a representative data center might look like for us with those things, and also making sure that it's in line with what the language is in our comp plan, because there is some discrepancy there. And then I would also suggest that if data centers get allowed, that's a somewhat dangerous precedent for waving through every other item on that on that list of additional uses under consideration. So that could become a real point of scrutiny for us to go, you know, suggestion by suggestion for allowable use and just making sure that they are in line with the language we've already adopted on the comp plan. Definitely.

Thank you, Council Member Smoko. Council Member Castama.

Thank you. The property already has a data center, correct?

That's my understanding.

That's absolutely correct. In fact, that was put in place in the late 70s by Fairchild, I believe was the name of the chip manufacturer. And it's always been a center for high-tech manufacturing. Fairchild, I believe it was Fairchild, ended up selling it. I think Microchip bought it. Eventually, the Benaroya company family purchased that. And then one of the world's largest or a very large AI company, the data center, is located there right now. I mean, that's been the focus of this. And as to, I believe we were all there at the ribbon cutting ceremony or a tour of that. In fact, because it does bring high paying jobs, not only in the construction, but I think in the operation. It brings high-paying jobs. I think we've been out in the forefront. In fact, I believe that the state of Washington passed a tax break that allowed encouraged data center development and that this data center took advantage of that. So when I was in economic development in the state legislature, data centers were actually a prized And I would say that we have to look at the facts regarding them, because they have become, I think, kind of a lightning rod. But I think that in this case, you don't want to, because it's always been a high tech sector. And as to the other aspects of this, you know, I think I look at what's happening on 410 and you go towards Buckley, you have a two lane road and they're building warehouses there. I think that warehouse and distribution with the location right next to 167 or 512, I don't see anything not being viable with that. So none of these here strike me as something that should be exempted from the list. I mean, it's a very commercial corridor. You've got, you know, a lot of large retail box stores right in there, but it's a very concentrated business area. So, again, they don't strike me as being a foul. That's my two cents.

Thank you, Council Member Kastema. Council Member Smoko.

Thank you again, Deputy Mayor Johnson. The data centers from the 70s and 80s are wildly different from data centers today with regard to their footprint in size, their water use, their power draw, and their employment. It is a totally different ballgame now. So whether it has been since the 70s, a data center of... 2026, 2027, et cetera, and onward is totally, totally different. That's where I have my concerns is it's actually not even the same. They have the same name, but they're not the same in impact on any of those factors. And I'd be happy to send you some data that compares and contrasts both of those time periods for those.

All right. Thank you, Council Member Smoko. So, Kendall, I think you got some direction. It sounds to me what I'm hearing is there's some concerns about a couple of items in general consensus over most of the items. Seems to me what I'm hearing direction is let's pursue it with the public process of the Planning Commission and they can fine tune it and we can always critique it more then. But I don't think, I don't hear any no's on anything here. Just more some caution. And so I think the planning process will bring clarity and confirmation and bring up any concerns that we can look at as a council to weigh in on that. But I think moving forward it seems like this is something that can go with the Planning Commission. So unless there's any other questions we can move on to the next slide or next section.

So I think this is my last section of changes. This is before kind of recap, but fare zone and fare parking overlay updates. As part of the periodic update, Washington State Fair also weighed in on some requested map changes as well as code changes. So this is really implementing those requests. We did already, as part of the periodic update process, we re-designated several properties that are owned by the Washington State Fair to a fair land use designation. The map that's shown here is just showing existing zoning. So it's not showing those areas that were re-designated. But it expanded to properties that are beyond the main fairgrounds. And as mentioned, then there are some requests related to re-zones and some modifications to the fair parking overlay that we wanted to touch on as part of this code package. So for zoning considerations, as a reminder, we have certain zones that can be implemented. By each of our future land use designations and so for the fair land use designation It can only implement currently the fair zone or the public facilities zone Currently some of the outlying properties outside of the main fairgrounds that are owned by the fair have different zoning between high density residential general commercial and some single-family zones and And so we've been working with fair representatives to figure out next steps. There's been interest in some more mixed use opportunities within those areas that are outside the main fairgrounds. And we were really looking at ways to kind of keep to our streamline and simplify our zoning map and code. And so this was something that we've worked through and identified as some potential map changes, but we'll also need some amendments to the future land use designation language in the comprehensive plan itself. In particular for the areas for mixed use are the blue lot here you'll see called out in this hatching, the gold lot, and then properties north of 9th Avenue Southwest that are owned by the fair. So those ones in particular, we'd be looking at essentially amending the implementing zones list that are for that future land use designation in the comp plan to also include a mixed use designation as opposed to recreating a whole new zone. So for this example, we've identified UCX. We also are in conversation with the fair on potentially the properties north of 9th. Could be a CBD zoning designation. We're kind of working through those options. But essentially, our proposed path forward would be instead of recreating new zones for a particular area, we would be using zoning designations we already have and just adding them as an implementing zone. We wanted to bring that to your attention as this would be the way we are planning to move forward and kind of work through those remaining details with the fair and also the planning commission process. And then I'll just pause here. There are changes to the zoning overlay itself, the fair parking overlay, unless you'd like me to recap on that first and we kind of talk about it as one.

Maybe continue with the rest of the fair and then we can maybe go back. Okay. But I do have some questions, but I'll hear you out because maybe we can do it all in one scoop. Okay.

So then the fair parking overlay applies to properties that are under ownership of the fair. These are kind of those again those properties that are outside the main fairgrounds. It allows for additional uses beyond the base zoning. So it allows for parking for fairground events. periodic vehicle sales events, different types of things like that, as well as the RV parking associated with the fairgrounds events. So the overlay itself has not received amendments, I think, since 1997. So we're just kind of re-looking at that and seeing what needs to be fine-tuned. We're also considering maybe renaming it to just be a fair overlay. Maybe there's some other use allowances or other considerations we should be looking at as opposed to just parking allowances. And then there's other properties that were identified by the fair in the comprehensive plan process for changes. So to clarify, those yellow areas are where the overlay currently applies. You'll see there's a remnant one that covers a portion of the main fairgrounds that's proposed to be eliminated as part of this process. But then where the cross-hatching is is where it's proposed to be applied to properties that are primarily long-standing properties that are owned by the Washington State Fair or used for parking uses. The intent is to resolve some potential non-conforming issues. I know they've tried to do some improvements and had issues with just what's allowed without some of the sites having the overlay, that type of thing. Again, the overlay doesn't alter the underlying zoning. It just kind of allows over and above. And then, again, we're just proposing to eliminate that small portion. So that would be as part of this process as well. So happy to...

Yeah, thank you, Kendall. So I'll pose some questions. Very few cities really have the opportunity to have a thriving fair right in the heart of their town. And beyond that, very few cities have the experience of millions of positive memories that children and families and couples have had that have visited this fair for 125 years. You know, we should be very grateful that those that have gone before us started this up in 1901 and as an agricultural Gathering place for fruit and produce and animals and it's now evolved into a kind of a year-round event center that has this great functions It brings people from out of town and our locals to participate in this so they're just great stewards And so I support in general everything that they're talking about in terms of uses But I do have a question you know as as the fair continues to develop and grow and and and evolve in development as a event center and community gathering area. Is there any precedence or could there be any precedence or would the fair be interested in, let's just say the planning commission approves these overlays and some of the zoning changes that they're proposing and let's say the council ends up approving it hypothetically. Would there be interest from the fair to rather than to go through this again, that if they pick up parcels along the way that are joining, that that could be an automatic kind of adoption, that it would just be applied and expand with that, rather than waiting until they had a clump of 15 different parcels, then coming back again to do that. Would there be interest in the fair on wanting that option for a smoother transition and consistency? Number one, again, these are just questions you don't need to answer tonight. Could it legally be done? I don't know. If so, is there interest in that, and could the council weigh in on that if it was something? So anyway, just as a thought in mind, but in general, my support, they've been good stewards, been very responsive to concerns, and they generate not only a lot of great memories, but... but good resources for our city. And so we want to partner with them to help. And again, going back to parking, I mean, you know, if they could do something overlays and provide more parking opportunities, that's good. So our neighborhoods are protected a little bit more with the additional parking. So that's all I had. Thank you. Customer customer.

Thank you. Deputy mayor. So in this case, the areas that are gray, um, By expanding the overlay, you're saying that we will not alter the underlying zoning or uses?

Correct. This would be over and above.

Okay. So why would this be controversial?

I don't know that it's controversial. It's just a request that we're processing.

Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Castemire. Council Member Smoko?

Thank you. Yeah, the site goes way back beyond even the 1900s with the Valley Fair, but also has been with the traditional potlatch grounds for the Calip tribe for eons prior. It's a long history, and it continues to be a major economic cultural asset for sure. And the comp plan explicitly supports its development with things like this. But I think there's a difference between the fair growing into the land that it uses for genuine fairgrounds operations versus an overlay that extends parking lot flexibility into where people currently live without a compatibility assessment, protective standards that the comp plan already promises those neighbors. So that's a legitimate equity and quality of life question for me. I'm not trying to be obstructive, but I think that there's people living there. So if it's going to possibly become a parking lot or even adjacent to a parking lot, that worries me a bit and some other people as well.

I think generally they're already being used for parking lots. So that was why I think they were pursuing adding the overlay. But that's definitely something that we can evaluate as part of the process.

Thank you, Council Member Smolko. Anybody else have anything on this? If not, we'll move forward. Council Member Gilliam.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor. I'm in full support of this request by the fair. I feel like the fair is a very good neighbor and a strong supporter of our community, our city, and... having grown up literally on the 9th Avenue Southwest down from the Red Gate. I know Council Member Adler as well had grown up a few years after me there. her grandparents, my grandparents, I don't believe, I mean, yes, please check with the neighbors, but I don't foresee an issue mainly due to the fact that they love parking cars on their property when the fair comes and they make a benefit. So I just feel like it's a mutual benefit for all and I'm in support. So thank you.

Thank you again, Senator Gilliam. All right, Kendall, I think that covers that. Anything else we need to discuss, or did that complete your presentation?

I just have a couple slides on next steps, if you don't mind if I run through that briefly. Just as how we see things moving forward regarding this package and other work that we're doing. Third quarter of this year, I mentioned we're kind of planning to jumpstart right into work with the Planning Commission on these amendments. We are... considering decoupling the RS zone consolidation discussion from this package of amendments due to just the outreach components and potential environmental analysis. It sounded to me like I heard a little bit of support for either option two or three. It wasn't completely clear. But in either case, I think we would need to allocate some additional time for that outreach. So that is something that we're proposing to kind of pull it from this package of amendments. Then council would be reviewing the remainder of the package six amendments later this year. And planning commission will continue review of package five. So we're kind of putting... six before five in this instance, which is our design standards update. We've been working on that for some time. And then we'll bring that back to council early next year. And that zone consolidation work, we propose that that starts at the beginning of next year. So this is kind of just a recap of the work plan and what Where we are in the process, so packages one, two, and three have been completed. We have package four, which is the critical areas ordinance in process. So that'll come back before council here late this summer. And the clear and objective design standards update i just mentioned will be kind of brought forward i believe at a future study session to catch you all up to speed with those changes and again zoning map phase two would be towards the end of the year and we actually have this other small package of amendments related to urban agricultural uses in single-family residential zones that will be coming before you next month for consideration. There's kind of a smaller tweak to the code. So that's kind of what we have coming to you here in the next several months.

Great. Thank you, Kendall. Council Member Adler, please.

Thank you. I realized that I failed to comment on the RS zoning changes. And so I just wanted to go on the record and say I am supportive of option two, A, B. I think I'm partial to A, but you know, could go along with B. And option three, I like option three, the one zone, because of exactly what it says in the considerations in your memo, which is maximizes housing flexibility and zone simplicity. But I do, while I strongly believe that, I do think that being more conscious and thoughtful about that is the right thing to do, despite... you know, how much I want to say, let's open the gates and go to town. I do think that it's more thoughtful to look at option two A or B. So thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Adler. Council Member Castaneda.

Yes, thank you, Deputy Mayor. I see, I'm surprised, I thought we were on the calendar had rural buffer zones We were going to be dealing with those in this year's calendar. That was an item.

RBR RS 35?

Well, we have rural buffer zones and the reevaluation of whether those are needed or not.

Those have not been a part of our packages for this year. I think that would be a future item.

I remember distinct discussions where they were supposed to be. part of this year's evaluation we had. Doc Hanson, I believe, was in here. And I believe that that was something that was conveyed to him, is that we'd be addressing those.

My understanding is it was put as an implementation item to the comprehensive plan, but due to the amount of code work that we were already working on, we weren't able to work on it this year, but it is something that is planned for a future work item.

Can you fit it in this year? Okay, thank you. Appreciate that.

Can I follow up on that? Council Member Kessler, are you referring to this buffer deal? Because I'm maybe getting it confused, or maybe it's the same one, this new proposal of how many feet between wetlands and creeks, or are you talking about something different? Completely different. Okay, so I'll make sure. Yeah, completely different. All right, good. Thank you. Okay, good. Council, anything else before we move forward? Well, Kendall, a great job on presentation. Thank you. Really nicely articulated, calm, knowledgeable, great interaction with council, good question, answers, response. Thank you. Well done. Thank you.

Thank you for all your feedback. It's appreciated. Yeah, sure.

All right, council. This now moves into opportunity for citizens' comments. I do have a few people that signed up. So if you'd like to speak, there's some green slips over there. You can fill out and give it to the city clerk and she'll get it over to me. But I'll be calling on those that filled out a form and then moving on. Just as a reminder, you need to speak. You can only public comment on just the items that are on the agenda, which would be in this case zoning. And there's two minutes for that. So the first one I'll call up is Matthew, is it Karras?

Karras.

Karras, please. Yeah, thank you.

Hi, good evening members of the board. So members of the board, Well, first I wanna actually quote Jim Kastema here. Neighborhoods are the strength of our community. That's gonna be a quote that I'm really gonna be thinking about these next few months here. But today I wanna talk to you about these new code amendments for our zoning map for phase two. I want all of you to highly consider the felt needs of our community members. When we change zones from limiting low density residential to mixed use zones, ask yourself, what are the results? To some, it might send a message that low income families come second to the needs of more business. I'm telling you that, I'm not telling you what is right or wrong. However, what I am asking is what is the community asking of you now? The public has asked for further infrastructure of walkable spaces, housing affordability, and renters protections and public traffic safety. When we consider these new zones, are these projects that the community is excited for? I'm not sure if community members are aware that data centers and warehouse distribution centers are being considered for zoning. Personally, as a community member in District 3, I am not in favor of any data centers being built in our city. Noise and light pollution, water scarcity have already hurt many communities around our country as it is. If our neighborhoods are our strength, why would we risk with data centers? So I want us to think about that. I want you to ask your neighbors. I want you to go to your districts and ask them, what are their needs? Thank you.

Thank you, Matthew. Next, we're gonna turn to Valerie Dent, please.

These zoning laws are extremely concerning, especially this one. where at the city council meeting, you pointed out the little green market, Pioneer Market on Pioneer Way, made a reference of possibly doing microbrewing through the area. This is the area I've been fighting for. This is the area I've been demanding traffic calming. It may be a small step, but I got a hidden speed sign move to pretty much into my front yard. But now it can be seen. And now you want to change this zoning into limited manufacturing. Here's a fact that you haven't thought about or even cared to think about. In-home businesses in that area have a one mile radius of disruption to the neighborhood. And to make that more realistic for you to understand, that's 5,280 feet of disrupted traffic, suspicious behavior, breaking and enterings. Did you talk to the police about that market and how many times it's been recorded in robbing? Have you talked to the owner about how many times it's been robbed and not reported? Back in 2012, 2013, people were complaining of the unsafe conditions on Pioneer. And city council came back, or excuse me, I apologize. City engineering came back and said that we understand that you're starting to refuse to walk down Pioneer. Therefore, no problem. It's fixed. No pedestrians, high speed of traffic, dangerous zones. And now you want to change the zoning on something that I'm fighting for, that that area has been fighting for for decades, and put in limited manufacturing. you are now going to increase that circle to at least two miles radius of where that manufacturing is. And if Pioneer is already considered a death zone for walking, you're going to enhance that.

Deputy Mayor, the speaker has reached two minutes.

Thank you, Valerie. Okay, next and last one on the list for speaking. Again, if you want to speak, there's still time to fill out a slip. Fill one out and get it to me. Otherwise, this will be the last one for the evening. David DeGroat.

I'm a member of the Planning Commission, but I'm speaking for myself only tonight. Tonight you'll be reviewing, or have reviewed, proposed zoning changes in several parts of the city that will allow for significantly increased density. What has not been proposed is a plan for adding to our infrastructure to accommodate that growth. I'm not talking about a traffic light here or a turn lane there or even widening existing roads. We already have several intersections rated as failing. If we continue to put more vehicles on the same roads, the problems at our intersections will only get worse. The best way to reduce congestion is to reduce the number of vehicles. The second best way is to disperse traffic by providing alternate routes. We have a failing traffic situation here because for decades, development has preceded infrastructure. Every part of our city is burdened by disconnected dead end streets or disconnected cul-de-sac developments. Traffic backups at major intersections are not just an inconvenience, over time they waste many thousands of gallons of fuel, pump tons of pollutants into the atmosphere and steal days of people's lives. Beyond that, it's a safety hazard to residents living in the valley. The two square mile area bounded by Meridian, Shaw Road, Pioneer, and 23rd Avenue Southeast is at particular risk in the event of an emergency such as a lahar earthquake or major flooding because of the lack of access to higher ground. I'm not here to speak against proposed zoning changes. I'm not here to speak against development. but I am here to ask that you defer approving some zoning changes until you have a plan for adding needed streets and street connections while there's still the opportunity to do so. Once zoning changes have passed and development has occurred, it'll be too late. Please do what should have been done for the past 100 years and ensure that infrastructure precedes development. Thank you.

Thank you, David. Appreciate that. Last one to speak, signed up, is Mr. Terry Weiss.

Hello, Council. Terry Weiss. I'm a local land use consultant for the last 40 years, as it turns out. I wanted to put a little background on, we were talking about the Northwest quadrant of the Shaw and Pioneer property. There's 24 acres in there roughly that's surrounded by the Shaw Road overpass to the east, the railroad to the south and Pioneer Way, and then there's a spur that connects those. And I think the South, correct me if I'm wrong, but the South 13 and a half acres is part of the comp and was rezoned and part of the code update. There was discussion tonight about that northerly portion that has a, it's actually a protective covenant that was established when this was before it was annexed into the city of Puyallup when it was part of Pierce County and it was part of a negotiation with the Van Lierp family to say okay you want to develop farm 12 and be able to develop part of that as consideration for that to protect farmlands we're going to put this preservation covenant on and it was a three-way agreement between the Van Lierp family Puyallup City and Pierce County. Puyallup, I think, is an advocate of, hey, we need to be able to, in order to develop that to be economically viable, having that whole piece makes that much more possible. But because Pierce County now really doesn't have a dog in the fight. It's not in their jurisdiction, but they were a party to the agreement. We need them to be a party to that. And so they're really tying our hands. I think it tells us two things. One is we're working forward to hopefully do that, because I think that's really a benefit to Puyallup. But I think it's a cautionary tale when we enter into these protective covenants and these types of things that cause long-term issues, we should be very careful about that. The last thing I was going to say is I am so encouraged. I've been working with City of Puyallup for many years. And the level of questions and staff talking about what we're talking about is just really an encouragement. Years ago, Puyallup was considered to be one of the worst jurisdictions in Pierce County to work in. They are now considered to be one of the best. And so my hat's off to all of you because I think we're really turning a corner. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Weiss. Appreciate that. All right, Council, that is the end of our public comments. Thank you for all your input, everyone that shared. At this point, we're going to go into an executive session. The council will now recess into an executive session to discuss with city attorneys litigation or potential litigation to the city, to which the city, city council, or council member acting in an official capacity is or likely to become a party. The executive session is expected to last a very short 30 minutes, and there will be no further action expected as followed with the executive session. So at this point, we will now exit into executive session. Thank you.

Thank you.