Staff lays out parking‑code update options to meet new state law; council raises mapping, equity and messaging concerns

Mary Anne William, a senior planner with Planning and Development Services, told the Infrastructure, Planning and Sustainability Committee on Feb. 25 that new state legislation requires Tacoma to update its off‑street parking code by January 2027. “We must update the parking code by January 2027,” she said, and summarized the principal state limits staff must incorporate: no more than 0.5 spaces per multifamily unit in many contexts and 1 space per single‑family unit, plus exemptions that prohibit minimums for many residential and commercial scenarios (for example certain small units, affordable housing, senior housing, licensed childcare and development near high‑frequency transit).

William outlined two scope options for the committee’s input. Option A would revise Tacoma code to implement the state minimums with relatively limited changes to commercial standards; Option B would remove minimum parking requirements citywide to align more closely with the city’s 15‑minute and climate goals, but would require expanded analysis and increased public engagement. “Option B... could provide greater flexibility in how land is used, support housing production in more areas of the city, and reinforce the goal of walkable and connected neighborhoods,” William said.

Council members focused questions on how the state exemptions affect the city geographically, how staff will communicate changes to the public, and whether removing minimums could worsen displacement or alter the mix of housing built. Council member Hines proposed an engagement technique to help residents prioritize investments: “I would think about maybe giving each member $100 and say you have $100 to spend on all these things… Could you allocate the money in a way that you see fit?” she said, arguing that concrete tradeoff exercises can help residents understand constraints.

Other council members asked for a clear map showing where the city can still require parking under state law and for data comparing permit and development trends where parking minimums were reduced in the city. One council member suggested staff evaluate flexibilities such as allowing front‑loaded garages or off‑site parking to preserve homeownership opportunities in smaller, middle‑income housing.

William said staff plan to host an online informational meeting, an in‑person May event with translated materials and to keep an online survey open through the Planning Commission public hearing. Staff intend to release draft code by mid‑April, hold a Planning Commission hearing (tentatively May 20) and seek a Planning Commission recommendation in July, followed by council consideration and an anticipated code adoption target in October 2026 with post‑adoption notices and internal staff training.

Council members cautioned staff about public messaging: several said residents can hear “remove parking minimums” and interpret that as a ban on parking, so staff should emphasize that removing minimums does not prevent developers or property owners from providing parking. “It is not true that requiring no minimum parking is the same as requiring no parking to be built,” one council member said. Staff and council agreed the policy and messaging choices deserve robust outreach and clear explanatory materials.

Next steps: staff will return to the committee and Planning Commission with additional analysis and public‑facing materials; the committee scheduled a June follow‑up presentation.