Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, Mr. Chair, ready when you are. Good evening. It is 6:30, Wednesday, January 21st, 2025, and I call this meeting of the Lakewood Planning Commission to order. Madam Clerk, please call the role. Philip Cones present. Robert Estrada here. Christian Flores here. Mark Hair here. Lyn Larson here. Jim Merritt here.

Sharon Wallace here. You have quum. Thank you. You all please join me if you so desire in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America. to the republic which stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. I trust everybody has had an opportunity to review the minutes from January the 7th. There any questions or updates? Seeing none, hearing none, I will entertain a motion to approve.

Second. It's been moved by Mr. Combmes and seconded by Mr. Merritt that we approve the meeting minutes of January 7th, 2026. Please signify by saying I. I. I. I. Any opposed? The eyes have it. The motion carries. Minutes are approved. Madame clerk, are there any agenda updates? No, Mr. Chair.

All right. I will open the public comment for the evening. We have uh nobody signed up for inerson comment at this time. However, just a reminder for first of all, thank you for all that have shown up here in person today. If you are in the room and did not sign up for public comment, we'll be given an opportunity here in just a moment to approach the podium. For those of you joining us virtually or watching at home or after this date on the liveream, you may join us virtually online or by phone at city of lakewood- us.zoom. us/j517-94-54840. You may also join us by phone at 253-215-8782 and enter meeting ID 8517-94-54840. Public comment or testimony on public or public hearing are accepted by mail, email, or in person or virtual attendance, mailed comments to Karen Devo, Planning Commission Clerk, 6000 Main Street Southwest, Lakewood, Washington 98499, or email kero city of Lakewood. us. Comments received by noon on the day of the meeting will be provided to the commission electronically. or inerson virtual comments. Each person will have three minutes. Attendees are allowed to speak during public comment or public hearings only. Those attending in person will be called on by the clerk. Those attending via Zoom should use the raise hand function to indicate that they wish to speak. Once the chair or the clerk calls your name and recognizes you, you will be unmuted. First, state your name and city of residence and then provide your testimony. this evening. Is there anybody in the room who would like to provide

u public comment that is not signed up? Please go ahead and approach the podium.

You know how to turn? Yeah. My name is John Burns. I'm a resident of Lakewood, Washington.

I wanted, as many of you know, I am an advocate for keeping the public access to the street ends that abut the lakes of Lakewood open to the public. I think it's a good idea to have room for extra room for parks, extra room for people to come down and enjoy the water, however they do that, be it waiting, fishing, kaying. And I think it's a travesty that any of these would ever be sold to the adjoining property owners for any reason. Okay? Any reason whatsoever. I think it's important to keep these valuable properties within the city for the public use. And once again, anybody who has a joining property, well, they already got a little slice of the pie. Um, and let's let the public have another slice. So, um, this policy that is in front of you in the Lakewood Municipal Code, um, chapters 12 deal with how encroachments are enforced. Okay. So, if someone were to take some land and have some of that public land, um how what city tools the city has to be able to uh enforce those and the tools under the new policy that's in front of you here, although it didn't say that, have been changed drastically and reduces the city's capability to site encroachers and essentially is written and that has been confirmed confirmed by others and staff. It's written to give them a pass. So any encroachments that they that they that they have, they're grandfathered in those encroachments. They don't the

city's lost its ability to enforce those encroachments to to write someone up. They've lost the ability to um um to levy fines. So the only ability now that exists is if the new land owner encroaches adds to the encroachments. That's all. That's a that is a that is a policy that is not a good thing. Okay? If you and if you bought a section of land and you didn't have it surveyed and yet it holds, you know, 22 feet of of of public property behind your fence and you want to keep that. Well, you know, when you decriminalize that kind of behavior where someone has something that doesn't belong to them, then when you allow that as a city or even a member up here, those things to go unchallenged, uh then you're part of the problem, not part of the solution. Because people who take things that isn't theirs and keeps them when they know they're not yours,

okay, are part of the problem and not part of the solution. Thank you. Thank you for your comment, sir. There any other member of the public present that would like to speak? Hello. Is that good? Okay. Uh my name is Cameron Copa Chap. I'm a resident of Lakewood, Washington. I was born and raised in Lakewood, Washington. I'm also speaking to the laken uh easement issue there. Um we went through this before. I don't have too much to say about it. Honestly, I think any subtle attempt to legally circumn or negate the gains that we made in regard to the lake end easements is um I mean kind of unethical, actually severely unethical. And then as a fisherman and someone who pays a Washington state fishing license fee uh annually, um I think there's a huge problem there regarding access and taking away any access. Right now all over the United States, there are huge public land battles, attempts to sell off public land and generally reduce access to public land and waterways. And I would hope that the city of Lakewood would be uh bold in its a commitment to public access to public waterways and public land um and continue to enforce that policy and especially in a city like Lakewood that's incredibly diverse um in more ways than one when it comes to the demographics of the people that live here uh whether that's uh ethnically or socioeconomically. So, I would hope that our public waterways are equally as diverse in the

type of access that we have. You know, the there's a waterfront park um which is great if you have a really big boat and if you can afford a really big boat. And when we went through this battle the first time, I was hearing a lot of people say things like, "Well, from the lake, we can't even see that easement." Well, that's correct that you cannot see it from a 20ft boat. Uh but for people who walk down there, for kids who can't drive, for people without cars, single mothers pushing strollers, uh you can definitely see the easement because you can get down there. Um so I think as far as just um keeping equity in mind as well, I would hope that the city would be bold in its push to protect public access as far as these lake ends go. Um cuz I think it would just be largely out of step with public sentiment as far as access to public land and public waterways go. Uh there's also the question of corner crossing which in the United States, you know, land is on a grid pattern. There's recently rulings at some higher courts in the United States as far as accessing public land and waterways going from public to public. So regardless of if the easement is even vacated, there's a question of whether or not people would even still be able to access the water from that point.

Time has elapsed, sir. So thank you. Thank you. Is there any other member of the public present this evening that would like to speak? All right, Madam Clerk, we'll turn to the um digital viewers or virtual viewers if you will. Is there anybody present online that would like to speak? No, Mr. Chair. All right. I will declare this public comment here period closed.

There is no public hearing scheduled for this evening. We'll move on to unfinished business action of the evening on resolution 2026-02 Lakewood Municipal Code Title 12 Public Works and Lakewood Engineering Services Manual Update. Miss Spear. Thank you. And I'm going to turn it right over to assistant public and plan planning and public works director Silva to address this issue for the commission.

Thank you Tiffany. Mr. Chair as well as planning commissioners. This is a followup from your January 7th public hearing on proposed amendments to the Lakewood's engineering standards manual and several titles within uh the Lakewood Municipal Code. Again, this is focused on engineering standards. Uh we also appreciate the time that folks came to provide public testimony as it relates to this. I have no formal presentation scheduled for this tonight. So really want to open it up and ask any if the planning commission has any questions for us um as it relates to the proposal before you and any suggested amendments. Also here with me is department director Jeffrey Remack behind me as well as oh the city engineer Weston to assist with technical engineering questions if you may have them. Mr. Estrada.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, Miss Silva, uh, twice now I've heard in public comments about a an encroachment that is not going to be what, how do they how do you put it? Um, an encroachment that is grandfathered in. um they're in title 12. Uh can you clarify that please?

Certainly and it's a great and fair question as we all love our access to our marine as well as freshwater ways across the region including within the city of Lakewood. The proposed amendments have if you recall do three basic categories. We reorg so we reorganize several sections into a consolidated more userfriendly. There are substantive edits as well as housekeeping as it relates to rightofway use. So street ends are rightaway easements that end in lake terminas. Those specifically in the proposed revisions to the activities as well as the enforcement from the department's perspective have not been weakened. They've been strengthened. It is still illegal for objects or activities to occur within the rideway without express permission within the from the city of Lakewood. The proposed code amendments also clarify the type of rideaway permits that would be used in that section. In addition, the current code as well as the proposal addresses street vacations. The state authorized process in which a property owner can request to vacate a street end or a partial street end. That is a legislative decision that would go before the city council as it relates to there's a public hearing and public notice. Substantly that code has not also changed in this proposal because it's following the minimum standards of state law. What is separate to all that in the legislative proposal before you is the real estate transaction and whether or not to sell off or vacate rideaways or street ends, which is not the proposal here. We're not vacating any rideway. In addition to what would be a capital parks project to develop those areas for future public enjoyment and access. Right now parks capital is going through the permitting process to develop the west lake street in. There are plans to

develop more. Both of those decisions to vacate the real estate transaction goes to city council for a final decision. Whether we agree or not, there's plenty of public opportunity to comment on that when it is before city council. as it relates to the parks capital project that too has an ability through public comment when that six-year plan goes to city council to provide comment on whether street end should be part of that six-year plan to develop and and and make improvements to before city council makes that final decision. With that, I'm going to look at the gentleman behind me. Anything to add or what I missed? I'm

not sure. that it's clear to me and maybe only to me again the question is if a property has been encroached upon and at this time uh does this new amendment allow that encroachment to remain or will it still be subject to be removed? moved by the city.

There's no proposed action. What I mentioned is there's several different avenues for action. Street vacation, real estate transaction. Further, what is complicating when it comes to encroachments is part of that review, the due diligence review on what is the appropriate path forward requires a survey. oftentimes those encroachments sometimes those encroachments were allowed through the permitting process under Pierce County to site the garage or driveway access or the retaining wall to their home. That information has to be factored in as part of whether that encroachment is retained or whether or not the city will work around that as part of a future public access design. The proposed amendment does not decide that whatsoever. I guess I don't want us to get into a situation similar to Edgewater Park when the encroachment was allowed to take place and then the city end up taking action

correct after the fact. I mean if it's if it's encroached now they should be taken care of now not later. That's my perspective. Correct. Edgewater the property adjacent to Edgewater is a good example of city deliberate action to acquire that parcel. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Commes,

thank you for uh that. I when I read this before it made sense. I didn't see any issues with it. I still don't see any issues with this as it relates to the street ends. I know that it will come up some point. It's not today, but um I I I personally am good with that. I guess I would add though I do agree with the public comment. the street ends are something that we need to, you know, manage and be wary of handing them out too freely or letting them go. And I don't think that's what's proposed. I don't think that's the case right now. Um, and those would be case by case. The street ends are uh valuable, not just for us today, but really looking further down the road. And I think about Lakewood 20, 50 years from now, what are those street ends look like? And so retaining those for future access, future need in the meantime, they may not be something super special, but we have them. And so I think when we do let them go needs to be strategic. It needs to be well thought through. It needs to be intentional. Uh not just because the neighbor wants it. And I don't think that's the case here, but I'm just putting my two cents in uh while I've got it. And I appreciate it. I'm I motion for it. I'm ready to approve the plan.

Basically, I was going to say something like it. I mean, the name of the city is a lakewood. Most of the people is thinking and visualizing well there is going to be access to the water. So once we reach that point, I think we're going to do something about those ends and do something about it in the future because I think about the same thing is in the future in 20 40 50 years I don't think it's going to be something good that people don't have access to to the water when or to the lakes when the name of the city is is Lakewood, right? So it it's we will work on something to to take care of that situation.

Thank you. Okay. I So just so I understand a little bit more clearly. Sorry. Then mine is quite sensitive. I apologize. Um I'm praying. Then so what we are approving is that the street ends will not be if you will given away or they will they will be maintained as is and then they may be developed by Lakewood for the use of its citizens at some time in the future. Is that correct? So they will be preserved.

Well it doesn't it so there's several processes in the code. So what the code says and what it is proposed to say you cannot have objects or activities within the writer without city approval that's not eroded. We strengthen our enforcement protocols to go to other areas in our Lakewood municipal code specifically title one that talks about penalties and the process for stop work etc. What the code also currently has and retains is street vacations. Tonight, we're not saying street vacations are not allowed. What tonight is it's still in the proposal. It's just reorganized there. That is a state law process and that goes to city council. So to say that street ends will remain public forever. That's not a decision or something we can guarantee tonight. That is a future conversation with the city council, the public as well as the property owners abudding those areas. Whether through a street vacation, through a parks capital project to improve public access or through a third option, the city formally acquires that residential property to expand public access.

Well, I just for the record, I would like to encourage that we maintain as many of those access points to the water. I I agree and I think the people of Lakewood deserve as much access as possible to those and we should retain everything possible and uh maybe even though a little bit that's impossible, we should still retain because right now it there's very limited access and it's you know it's something we should all share. Thank you. Gentlemen, anything Mr. Larson? I don't think an amendment is necessary. It seems as though Sorry, I didn't mean to do that. No, that's just trying to make it.

It seems as though the city has adequate appropriate uh systems in place for public use of the property uh as it inherited when it became a city. these encroachments uh there probably are several of them around Stellen Lake uh were in place when Lakewood was in Pierce County and we inherited a certain amount of that and uh we agreed to let be what was there without requiring all of a sudden to have people remove homes or parts of them and so to be equitable to the public as well. the the rights of way exist. They uh have not perfect access as one would prefer to be able to drive and launch a boat, have a parking space and the whole whole nine. But Lakewood is a different tradition than that, especially around Lake Stilikum. And a good part of that could be said around American Lake as well. So, I believe that we're okay. It's not broke. Don't fix it. Thank you, M. Please go ahead, Mr. Strata.

Miss SA, I attended the um uh city council meeting last night and the subject of 108th Street uh came up. So I went to our 12 series manual here to see if I could find something pertaining to um so 100 is considered a minor arterial and there's various qualities or they go along with that particular but from my perspective when you increase the number from 5 to 20,000 to more you make it a principal arterial which 108 street basically become now since 112 is closed. So with that in mind uh is there a mechanism of some sort to treat even if it's only temporarily uh and give that uh street uh more attention. Uh we're talking about um some sort of sin because of the school, because of the church. That was the primary issue there. Uh you know, we don't want to wait until an accident happens before we say, "Yeah, maybe we should have done something." And there's Mr. Jeff. Okay, Mr. Jeff, tell us about it, please.

Yeah. No, so we we did hear the message that was delivered yesterday, and we do understand with Alliance coming in, you're looking at 300 more apartments will be coming in. the portion of the traffic that is going to head out and go down 108. So, we did speak with the city engineer this morning. We're already looking at designs to potentially go ahead and put in flashers or the potential for what we can move forward with for traffic calming associated with the school because we are aware of that. So, we're looking at the transportation uh traffic impact analysis that we got with Alliance to see what percentage of that was directed to go down 108. That's a prediction that they look at and what assessments we can really do to look at that. There is mechanisms when you know a road goes ahead and gets enough traffic and it grows then yes it can change and it can become a higher classification of road. The difference when you look at that though is the higher classifications of road start having different standards the width of the road the roadages that come improved with it and typically to be honest the larger the road the faster the speed limit. So it's not about necessarily that it be moves from you know a local road to an you know minor artery and it just keeps growing. It's about what can we do about the issue associated with the schools. So we would look at that. At the same time, it doesn't hit the thresholds that we have currently for true full redevelopment. When we look at those, it is based on safe routes to schools dependent on location to schools. When we go for federal grants, conditions of roads, amount of rideway that exists, and where it's prioritized in terms of impact or hot spot for accidents and things around the city. So, we are actively looking at what we can do there. It will probably be a traffic calming. It'll be not um it'll be more like signs, things of that nature, emphasis patrols than it will be redesigning the road because that takes more time in what we're looking at and that would be a future planning object. That that answer the question?

Yes. And I thank you very much for your quick response in less than 24 hours. No, it's good. We're we're actively looking at it and we are Thank you, sir. I have no more questions. Thank you. Any other questions from any other commissioner? Seeing none, hearing none. Uh actually I do have one uh madam clerk. Um on the agenda, this action resolution is labeled 2026-02 and in our packet it's labeled 01.

I'm sorry that is an error. It should be 01. Okay, thank you. Um, I'll just offer one thing and then we'll I'll entertain a motion. Um, it's very obvious that we have passionate members of our community. Um, throughout all the different areas and zones of Lakewood. Um, and as was as it was mentioned here before, we are in fact called Lakewood. There are 14 lakes inside the city and how to best utilize those spaces um is a varied approach across the city. It is the city council's job to to take all the information in and determine the best path forward. It is our perspective and purview to offer them a well-developed conversation um to help them make deliberations. Um I think we are doing that. I think we're hearing some good comment here this evening and and we have had before. Um and there is no doubt that there will be continued conversation about about some of these topics. What we are doing here tonight is not changing the landscape of that discussion. I think that's important to note. Um and these these issues are getting a light shined on them and that is our obligation u to the community. With that being said, um I'll entertain a motion to approve planning commission resolution 2026-01 unless there is any uh desired amendments at this time.

Could you repeat the resolution? Yes. The resolution is planning commission resolution 2026-01, a resolution of the planning commission of the city of Lakewood, Washington, formalizing its recommendations regarding amendments to engineering development regulations, including the engineering standards manual, Lakewood Municipal Code Titles 12 and 13, and chapters 18 alpha 20, and forwarding those recommendations to the Lakewood City Council for consideration and action. Second and so moved by Commissioner Comolmes and seconded by Commissioner Larson. All in favor signify by saying I. I.

I. All opposed. Guys have it. Resolution is approved. All right. Mr. Spear, seems like we will begin talking about the Lakewood Natural Environment and Climate Change Program.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. chair and let me um open up the slide deck for that. Just a moment. All right. So, uh yes, thank you. And this is actually something that came before those planning commissioners who were here last year. So, I'm going to do a really quick reminder of what this program actually is. The natural environment and climate change or neck program uh is something where we've incorporated into a single program with a single um direction for staffing and and work planning uh both the city's own voluntary uh recently adopted tree canopy goal of of 40% by 2050. also some of the other uh planning excuse me comprehensive plan policies that the city council has adopted in the latest comprehensive plan itself. But then it's also addressing the requirements under state law house Bill 1181 which is related to climate change, climate resiliency and greenhouse gas reduction. So it's all um climate related, nature related uh and some of it is voluntary by Lakewood's own proactive positions. Other of it is required. But again, because it's so correlated, uh we're have incorporated this into a single program. So, excuse me. The idea here is with tree information, other data that's been collected over recent years, community input, and then information about the climate and priorities regarding climate change. That is what is the basis for uh the NEC program. And so you'll see this little logo and um it'll you'll see it many times, but that is the point behind all of that is it's trying to pull all

of those things together. Uh beginning in 2021 in 2022, the city proactively adopted uh an energy and climate change element in the comprehensive plan as well as a work plan that had almost 90 action items. Fast forward a couple years, there was the state law again that related to what the city now has to do between 2023 and 2029 related to climate change and resiliency planning. And then we had over the last few years a number of updates to our big comprehensive plan overall. Again, some of you were involved in that. And then we have also collected quite a bit of data which will now inform this program uh going forward. What's happened already is uh last year in the annual comprehensive plan update process, we verified as a city that our parks, our utilities, and our capital facilities elements all already comply with what's required under House Bill 1181. So, we're able to check those action items off what we need to do by 2029. This is where we are right now. And for the next 18 months, because it's already January of 2026, we're looking at really uh climate change, resiliency, land use, uh urban forestry, and then uh community involvement in all of this because the city of course can't solve all of this problems itself. Uh this is going to require the cooperation, interest, and support by private property owners. And then we also are looking at urban heat and how uh people and our environment that we want to live and work in can be more resilient for that as uh hotter days increase and the temperature on those days increases. as well as looking for how the municipal projects going forward, whether it be a construction of a building or a road

improvement, what have you, when there are vegetation and tree plantings that have to occur, making sure that the right uh vegetation and trees are selected. So, what we are doing is uh being able to take advantage of a second round of grant funding to help deal with this first and foremost that became uh available as of January of this year. we weren't expecting it. So, we were able to expand the scope of work uh in a good way. But we also have existing American Rescue Plan Act dollars that were res reserved for uh dealing with our urban forestry program. And we also have a tree fund where uh enforcement and other mitigation fees which are collected by permit applicants and developers uh are set aside for things to deal again with with uh trees and public education about uh tree forestry in the city of Lakewood. So with the grant funding, with the ARPA dollars, and with the tree fund dollars, we are now in addition to what we have to do under the state law, uh looking at also moving forward with some voluntary public involved efforts this year. We have um uh memorandums of understanding almost executed with the Pierce Conservation District. We're going to be hosting at least one, if not two tree sales or tree giveaways for members of the public, whether they are be uh residential homeowners or whether they're a business owner if they want to be picking up trees to plant on their properties. There will also be education about how to do that the right way. And then we're also supporting many grants, so up to $4,000 to uh some property owners that also went through the Pierce Conservation District with their project to get approval uh based on certain criteria, including at least 50% of what they plant has to be native vegetation or trees. We also are looking to potentially uh partner with Tacoma Tree Foundation and

some other groups as well uh in order to have the the public pulled into this early on because again the city only owns so much property. The city only has so much um control or authority over utilities for instance and of course private property owners are subject to the law but it's not up to the city to say exactly what you do all the time. So everybody has to be involved in order for this program to succeed and ultimately not only the state law complied with but also the urban forestry uh helping to achieve that tree canopy goal that's in our comprehensive plan. So again in the next 18 months the focus will be on establishing the public outreach education and opportunities to participate. There will be uh the urban forestry program uh stood up and the short meaning three to fiveyear plan put together. We'll also be doing some additional updates to the comprehensive plan contents related to climate change and resiliency as well as land use uh related not only to open space and forest but also dealing with wildfire risk. We will also be looking at an urban heat resilience strategy. One of the data points that was collected in 2024 were uh on the hottest day in August of that year, we had volunteers drive around the city morning, afternoon, and night to identify where were the hottest points of the city. And probably not a surprise to people, but where there was a lower tree canopy, the temperatures were higher. Uh and so now we have data that actually uh verifies that. And then again, the planting plans that I mentioned, those will be things that are uh developed over the next 18 months or so. The last piece of uh what's required right now that we know about for this program is in 27 through mid 2029 and this is going to be focused on transportation. So it will be more of a technical approach and there may be um

additional grant funding that we well there excuse me there will be that we'll be accessing for this and then also potentially uh taking advantage of some of the prior to this time period information that the city is gathering on its transportation system both motorized meaning vehicles and non-motorized so feet and um bicycles and electric bikes and anything you can think of other than a car or a truck. And then we're also in the middle, actually right now, you're going to have it in front of you in a few months, um updating the city's uh Americans with Disabilities Act transition plan. So, that will be part of what we need to do by 2029 to get that process finished. The other piece that's required through state law is an electrical vehicle infrastructure plan. Um, as you may know, there's not a lot of places where electric vehicles can plug in in liquid at this point. Uh and so it's a matter of trying to figure out where and again how we can partner with various either public or private uh property owners to have adequate um charging stations for the various amounts that are anticipated over time. Uh next steps are now going to reflect what was discussed with the city council last week on the 12th. There was a discussion about whether or not uh to proceed with an ad hoc group or a more permanent group to be the advisory uh board for the neck program. And the direction that was provided by city council back to the department was to actually look at creating a standing advisory board. And this would perhaps end up dealing with more than just this 5year or this 10-year plan. That will be the first steps, but also just as a standing permanent board similar to yourselves, similar to the uh safety board, the youth council, others that uh interact regularly with the city council. So, we are now internally working on this direction provided to us and we will be in front of the city

council probably within the next few months to get their uh reaction to what's recommended and then uh I will again bring you up to speed on on what's being proposed and directed by council. So, that is where we're at right now with this program. Um, I'm happy to say that again, we were able to expand what we can do over the next 18 months because of this additional grant funding that became available unexpectedly and so we're going to be able to move that much faster particularly on the urban forestry program. And then Mr. Chair,

uh, two points. The first is to the citizens advisory group uh, which we had for 10 years. It was called the the KAG citizens advisory group and uh it served a a valid and valuable purpose but was disbanded for the reasons I don't know but uh but it's very interesting to me to see it come back to the floor as something that's valuable to the city. Uh secondly, uh uh as uh most know I'm u concerned about this tree ordinance that we have and that it's overreaching in its extent. But I do really think that when we have replacement trees due to development that when they can go to the places where we need trees for uh better um temperature control in the city and that means more comfortable for the people in the summertime and such. So uh we can uh you know if we have a forested area that's uh taken apart for tree for homes uh that the equivalent of that forest gets created again at least part of it to the areas that are not or that are without trees. And part of that would include what's would be expense to the city unfortunately, but it's an expense uh of planting trees in the rightway uh like we have down Lake View Avenue for instance. And uh that would be really really a good part of a revised tree program that doesn't have a 40% requirement per se. And uh that makes sense out of what to do rather than have some artificial number created. It's uh so um that's to say that we've

temporarily uh um planned that for the March meeting uh and uh u that uh that's something that I should still be able to be prepared for, but the the presentation reminds me of those those points. Thank you, Commissioner Estrada.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, Miss Spear, regarding the electric vehicle infrastructure plan, two questions. Uh, do we receive any funding via state from federal state to us uh for our plan? Number one. And number two, with the deemphasis and if we if we do with the deemphasis by the federal government on electric vehicles and more toward oil, how will that impact us?

And I do not have a clear answer for you because it is a moving target. I will say right now that uh the state is providing funding for this planning process through 2029 assuming that in 2027 when they are looking at the state level budget the dollars are still there to uh provide it to local governments. If the funding is not there the requirement to do the planning goes away the because our requirement as a city to do it is contingent on state funding to to help us do it. the changing federal priorities regarding different transportation modes. I don't think anyone can predict at any point uh right now what's going to happen in the end. Um the way that uh federal transportation dollars are being um distributed through grant processes or other programs is changing and is in flux and what can be the reasons behind the application for a particular project has changed as well. So again, right now the funding is there and the assumption is it will continue through 2029 to do this planning. When we get to the point assuming that planning is done uh so beyond mid 2029 and we're trying to implement the electrical uh vehicle charging station installation for instance and then also maintenance over time. the uh question of where the funding will come from, whether it's federal, state, or if somehow the city is supposed to try to identify those funds, that is all up to debate. So, I I can't give you a better answer than that.

Thank you, Commissioner Combmes.

Real quick, and and not to beat a dead horse, but uh we're going to do it anyways. Um, Mr. Larson mentioned the um passion for the urban forestry and just to give the other commissioners some backdrop on this because you weren't here when it was approved. There was a whole uh group dedicated for putting together recommendations for the planning commission and they included mostly um activists and arborists and that group together recommendations, got the recommendations, we listened through the whole thing and that group also gave the city council the same recommendation. So we took that information. Then we also poured through uh hundreds and hundreds of pages of documents to try and understand what an urban forestry program looked like, how it works, what should happen, what were the right targets, what were the wrong targets, what was really achievable and so on. And at that time this commission did not believe we could meet the goal that set um knew that there were a goal that needed to be move established but we had approved the lower target. I think it was close to 30 32

it was 30%.

And and um part of that had to do with available land. There's only so much land left to build on. And to do this with we have conflicting interests as well. We have a housing shortage. We have housing goals we have to meet. We have infrastructure uh and and all whether that's road sidewalks or utilities. There's a lot of things you have to plan in here and still try and get the economic engine of the city going and maintaining that. And I think there is a way to create synergy. But ultimately we recommended a lower target and the city council came back and said we're going to do a higher target. And uh there isn't and there was no evidence and there's no amount of land available that even got us to that target. If you were to try and do that, there was no plan at that time that showed there was a pathway to get to 40%. So it was considered a lofty goal at the time, but the idea was from them and and help at the time with the city. Let's have a goal. But I think what happens over time is that that's forgotten. And the goal of it was just to help push it. But um it's not actually achievable. There is no pathway forward to it. we don't own, you know, there's uh Blakes, there's Point Base, Lewis McCord, there's a lot of unbuildable land. There's already existing buildings. So, ultimately, you'd have to take buildings down or take private property in order to hit that 40%. So, just keep that in the back of your head moving forward. I I do agree with this objective to try and put more um trees in and certain types of trees can help the environment a little bit more, but There's also misnomer that trees will solve the problem and unfortunately trees also create the

carbon. So they capture it and as they degrade it comes goes back in. So it is a cycle of life. That is just how they work. So they are not the solution but they can't help and they definitely can help with cooling and canopy but it's trying to figure out where that balance is. And I think Mr. Larson's just trying to help remind everybody that it is not a program that um it can get car it can carry away on its own if if it uh is allowed. And so I think it's something to consider. I don't want to get on the uh you know soap box on this. I just feel like having the background for this very helpful to understanding how we got in the situation in the first place. and there was an advocacy group to go going around the cities and essentially pressuring them into it. Cities had to fight back. Um some of these cities who uh did adopt it were sued and there's some there's a lot of questions about um how much is too much. So I think I don't as a city I don't want city to be exposed. I also want sensible policy that can be easily implemented. And the last one the The program itself was initially going to be very expensive and it was around $500,000 to launch it and I don't know what that number looks like today for continuing to operate and grow it but we're talking about multiple staff people involved and of all the priorities we have I guess I would just ask that we keep that perspective in mind again I'm not against the idea or even having some goal But just the background of that might be helpful as we, you know, make steps forward because got to balance the budget. We've got to work on other things in the city besides trees and some of these properties are

too small to put trees in yet they'll be forced to. And then their driveways, their sewer system, their infrastructure, their house foundation, those get damaged over time. None of that stuff is factored into the whole plant right now. It's it was contemplated early on, but it's not factored into the current design. So, this we got we it's something that's worth reooking at and how do we create a sustainable program? Right now, we don't have anything going, but I think that's just something to keep in the back of our heads. How do we fine-tune this is Thank you, Commissioner Colmes. She watched

the last number I heard was 685 for the cost. 685,000 685,000 to implement or just to get started

to implement the uh ordinance. Yeah. Um, I just wanted to say I have talked to some people who have property and there is an interest in putting trees on those property and with if there could be some incentives that would be small, they would be very willing to assist and these are big pieces of property from people who feel that it's important and would want to better the city. So, I think that one way to do this would be to encourage volunteer programs. Perhaps we would, you know, I've mentioned this before water at a discount because that's an expensive part of it. Um the trees are easy to get those you can grow. I grow tons of trees are easy to grow here. Um and but providing those types of things to people who didn't have them uh would be a way to I think that we could en harness a lot of people who are interested in it at a lesser cost to the city and that would be amendable to what we need to do. And as far as the thing about for people in areas that are hot and in lower income, I think that's a really good point that we need to look at uh providing them with trees that are going to work well. Some of the trees we've used so far grow up quickly, but they don't really provide the cooling and shade. So clearly there are some clever things we can do that are not as expensive I think that we really need to consider. That's all I have to say.

Thank you. Anybody else? Mr. Spear, I do have one question. Sure. um unrelated to the the current topic, but um as I went to my first meeting of the day, I went to turn down 112th Street and it is closed as of I guess today.

Um widely publicized. I think everybody knew it was coming. If I had a tally book that I carried around with me on the number one question I've been asked in the last two weeks, it would be this. And I will preface all this by saying I understand that the transportation improvement plan, the six-year plan is approved by the city council and it is subject to funding from various sources. What and Miss Silva, this may be a better question for you. What if any deconliction happens prior to the execution of contracts? And who ultimately decides the tide timeline on beginning work? answer.

It's a great question, Mr. Chair. On the last question you asked about the timing and sequencing. So, some of the conversation last night at the city council was why is this project going on in 112 and all this over here and this over here. Specifically, what our capital projects manager Troy Podswitzky shared last night with city council and members of the public is oftentimes those timelines are not dictated. So we have over3 $30 million worth of sound transit pro projects we are contractedly obligated to implement and complete by I think it was 2030 or 2034 was the number thrown out there and the reason why one project was moving at this pace at this time and moving forward is because we have several other projects to deliver within that timeline and the reason why those timelines are set because it's also Sound Transit has other improvements they are contractally obligated and will be leading So it is a sequence of events and different projects different uh roadway segments, sidewalk segments get done in a sequence that make the most logical and less um complicating for the traveling public as best as possible. As we all know and including myself, I hate being in traffic. I get frustrated like anybody else. But if we want to see the improvements, we have to all work together and also work on our patience as well. that I'm talking to myself when I'm driving and sit in traffic for hours. Um so it's often nuances like that um that really dictate and can you repeat your first question sir?

Uh I think the first part was just is there consideration given to timelines execution timelines and then where that responsibility lies to make that decision.

Yeah. So part of that, you know, some of the sequencing projects you see in the in the six-year tip, again, sound trends and what they are doing versus what we have to do within a certain time frame are a big indicator in that. Another big indicator is the source of funds because the source of funds, whether it's a federal uh grant or a state grant, there is a duration in which we need to not only design, permit, and construct and do final close out with that granting agency within a few years of that. So oftent times it takes us about four to six years from start to finish we're trying to do many of these projects because of available funding that we have secured in three years four years even less than that. So while while we're trying to move forward critical infrastructure improvements sometimes you have to bend to the will and and agree to the strings attached to that grant agreement.

Thank you for your response. I appreciate it. I I realize that there was a conversation held last night, but um I think it is important that we ask these questions and that the the public hears the the staff response and and we get them answered. Yeah. And I I I know the director was at the last night. This is related to the sequencing with the road projects and so sound transit was one of it. The grant timelines play the play a huge role. Anything else you want to add, Jeff?

No, that's really it. We have other projects, those seven other projects that we're looking at. And in order to be able to move forward and be obligated for the funds for that and get those funds, we have to complete this in order to complete them all in the timeline that we have, it must go. Now, it's unfortunate that there's the overlap in what we're looking at and that was unintentional. That was not the intent or the purpose. Um, but in redoing Nyanza and looking at how we did design it and some of the water upgrades that were done at the same time, there were a multitude of factors that really led to these overlapping like they are. But honestly, I know it's unfortunate at this point. We're at we are where we are and if we don't move forward, then we risk losing more than this inconvenience really would cause.

Thank you, Mr. Larson. Another point that uh was made earlier by the city engineer and that that is that uh this funding expires. So if they don't get the stuff done within the funding, the outside funding goes to the liquid taxpayers. So we want to do it got to do it now. Get it done. Mr. Estrada

just to piggyback. So, uh, last night we also heard from one of the council members who said when the roundabout there on Gravaly and Ianza is completed, which should be in a couple of months, that would alleviate a lot of the problems because it'll be two-way flow of traffic. Whereas right now it's backed up because of the single lane and light. Is that correct? Yes. So prior to Nyanza opening two-way traffic on Gral at that roundabout will go into service and then Nanza will open up. I don't remember the time frame. I apologize. But it will go into two-way traffic on Gral prior to that opening to the full roundabout. Okay. Thank you. Yes.

Any other questions? Yeah, not a comment. Just maybe a request. Yeah, I totally get why that's just the nature of these the funds. Um, and we are kind of uh, you know, handcuffed sometimes. I think one thing that would be helpful is you know soon as we know when this is going to happen, try and get that blast out as much in as often because I it's the one I hear most about as well. And so I totally get your your reasoning is fine. It's just Not everyone knows it, so they just get upset. You know,

I understand 100% and we'll do a better job on trying to forecast those on this one specifically as to where we're at. This is something that we spoke to of the timing and when these projects were set to go through, we do that when we're doing part of the tip and where these things are going to be. What we didn't broadcast was the slide to the right that occurred with Nyanza that then left them in overlap. Right? So that was something that developed as we were going through construction and we could have been a little more conversation about it, but I think it honestly would have been like this is coming, winter is coming type scenario. Thank you. Anything else? No, Miss Spear.

All right, it looks like uh council member Tabbo actually is here uh who is the new planning commission liaison from the city council. So I'll invite her up if she has anything she'd like to share. And Mr. Chair, can I ask a question of her, please? Uh, real quick. Okay. Excuse me. No, Mr. Tbo. Mbo, could you please address the the concern by councilman Larella Lasserella regarding the MF3 versus MS3 parenthesis one? Um with regard to the alcohol

the alcohol discussion last night regarding the alcohol which we limited forward.

Yeah thank you. Hello planning commission. Welcome to our new members. It's nice to see you all again. Um nice to be here. Wednesday nights have not changed. So um but yes uh thank you for your discussion earlier which I heard some of. Last night we did have um we did have some discussion about the recent alcohol uh permitted areas for breweries and whatnot. Um I think it was a pretty good discussion. Um and a couple of the things that came up uh were you know number the question of number one should we expand allowance of of those uses into the MF3 area. Um there's MF31 and MF3 just regular non-prenenthesy and I think the logic was that you know hey should we just expanded to make it consistent across the zone. So that's one uh thought of that that concept that is out there that we've asked staff to go back and bring us some information about when we um hear the item again in February. The other thought, the other idea that came up and and comment that came up is also meritable too that like, hey, you know, we need to we we we should be a little more cognizant of how we're um placing these uses so that we're not just shoving them in one um one type of residential area. I know that the planning commission talked about um you know for in the station district the idea of we have ground we can we can allow for ground floor retail

use in those in that very high density uh area. So it makes sense on one hand to invite those type of commercial uses, but the only other area where we have uh the that type of densification is the apartment areas behind Oakbrook, behind the Oakbrook Shopping Center, the Thunderbird Shopping Center. Um most of that area is is primarily built out. So the the density that you see today is the density that exists and that would be you know, the concept that we could allow breweries in in those existing areas where you see apartments today. Does that really, you know, does should that or does that really make sense? That's kind of I think that's going to be the point of discussion for us to to to discuss when we hear this item in in February. But to Mr. Estrada's point that that yes there is the other there is the other thought that um you know multifamily is really is is is a is a is a use and a and a and a type that you know we're trying to make it easier for families in general and so um you know shoving these types of uses there does it is it really compatible when I you know one of The things I I also look at too is in that Oakbrook area for example, it's all it's it's also surrounded by uh neighborhood commercial use. And so those are and commercial use and those are also uses that are probably more suitable to attract a type of of of alcohol uses that we're allowing. So in a way I would say that they kind of you know they they kind of are permitted in those areas. But um there will be some dis some more discussion in February. So

I'll just keep it there. I hope that that kind of gets to what you were Mr. Estrada what you were kind of hearing last night.

Yes, we we decided to do that. We decided to allow it in the station region, but that's it for MF3. So we made it a separate little category all by itself, you know. So the point last night was no, if you're going to do MF3, make it all the way across, not just a separate little section. But to her point, we want growth in the station area. Does that help growth? Probably. Maybe. So that was our idea in the first place. But do we don't have any growth in Oakbrook? And so that was maybe our thought at the time. I don't remember the discussion today. I think I would um maybe just uh close up my comments here that uh just to summarize that yes that was one of the points um that was another discussion uh coming up we also you may have seen um there are in the minutes but we have assigned council members to their respective committees so um so I will be with do some more for for um for a while, you know, for going forward. So, I appreciate that. Um and it also looks like we may have some upcoming appointments um throughout the whole committee stretch this year. There are other committees that are up for um that have have terms ending. So, you know, it's a good time to it's always good to recruit and think of of people to um to bring on to to engage and, you know, be part of our our parks committee, our safety committee um and whatnot down the line. So, I'll close there and I can answer any questions. Sure.

Commissioner Strada and I'm sorry for hogging up the no time. So last night also council, one of the council members brought up cannabis, the use of uh the establishment of cannabis establishments sales. I can comment

been discussed before. Now do you think that that's going to come before us like the alcohol was? I don't I don't know, but I would I I don't know. I will defer to staff, but I I what came up last night at least was just the question and the comment that um that hey, we're hearing about it more or or it's the the um legalization has been around for quite some time. The industry has been around for quite some time in the state and and and some of us hear about it more often than others. And so perhaps it's time to do at least at the very least just the due diligence of just seeing some data and evaluating it and and look and and you know looking at the data for what we have in front of us coupled with data also indicating giving us a sense of the impact of um legalization and that is you know however however you track that um that data can take some time to collect. So I don't think that this issue will be coming soon necessarily, but uh we have asked council is is asking to at least start to get some sense of of this issue um I would say this year. And Mr. Chair, if the if it were something where the council wanted to consider the legalization of cannabis, um our current code prohibits it uh explicitly it would come before you as a code change. Uh but it'll it'll be a period of time to do any research requested and then they would have to direct that action.

Okay. Thank you. So if there is any action taken, you are the body planning commission is the body that that accepts the plan the public hearing. So you would hold the public we would look to the planning commission to hold the public hearing for that item. Thank you. Thank you. Anything else over here? All right, Council Member Tabo, thank you so much for joining us. We look forward to seeing your smiling face every Wednesday that we meet for the rest of the year. Miss Spear, anything?

Um, just a reminder that we are now uh the next meeting will be the first uh Wednesday of February. We're already into February. It'll be February 4th. Uh and then we'll be moving into discussion of a couple of new items. the annual comprehensive plan amendment package, which is a recurring theme. We're going to have this spring the shoreline restoration plan activity reporting back to you from uh the city itself as well as volunteer organizations in the city that do restoration work. There's going to be a conversation, excuse me, regarding the uh ADA transition plan that I mentioned uh earlier this evening and continuing forward with the natural environment and climate change uh direction once we hear back from council where they specifically want to go with that. Thanks.

Thank you, Miss Spears. Any uh council member, excuse me, commissioner have anything for the good of the order? Commissioner Larson.

Understood. If you can't hear Commissioner Larson's request, we move the conversation date for the tree ordinance. That request was received at our last meeting and is captured in the minutes. Yes.

So, we're good to go there. Any other member have anything for the good of the order, betterment of the group? I'll leave you with this. Um, recently attended the Lake City Neighborhood Association meeting. Wonderful opportunity to engage with the community where our planning and public works director, Mr. Jeffrey Remack, was present. Spoke to everybody in attendance. He was posed with some questions and concerns from the community. And to his credit, he left the building and went and addressed those concerns and witnessed them in person that night. and responded back to the neighborhood association folks so they could get those responses back to the members. It was very wellreceived. Mr. Remac, thank you so much. I think you've done nothing but demonstrate what true public service looks like and I just want to say thank you for doing that. Um that is not in your job description necessarily, but it is noted and very wellreceived. Thank you. That being said, I'll just remind you that our next meeting is February 4th, 2026. And I declare this meeting of the Lakewood Planning Commission.