Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, Mr.

Chair, ready when you are.

All right, perfect. We're recording already? Yes, go ahead. Good evening. The time is 6.30 PM. Today is Wednesday, September the 2nd, 2026. And I will call this meeting of the Lakewood Planning Commission to order. Please call the roll.

Katie Crook. Robert Estrada. Christian Flores.

Here.

Mark Hare. Here. Lynn Larson. Jim Merritt. Here. Sharon Wallace.

Here.

You have quorum, Chair.

Outstanding. Thank you, Ms. Devereaux. Will you all please join me in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance?

Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

Indivisible with liberty. Thank you all. I trust you've all had an opportunity to review the minutes that were emailed out earlier today. I do have a motion. I will move to approve the minutes as corrected to include the individual roll call votes by name as appropriate for the two votes that we had. Is there a second?

Second.

It's been motioned and seconded to correct the minutes to hold the roll call vote. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, hearing none, we move on to a vote. All those in favor of approving the minutes as corrected, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, please signify by saying no. The ayes have it. The motion carries, and the minutes are approved. We move on. Ms. Speer, are there any agenda updates? No, Mr. Chair. Outstanding. Thank you. We move on to public comment. Public comments or testimony on public hearings are accepted by mail, email, or by in-person or virtual attendance. Mail comments to Karen Devereaux, Planning Commission Clerk, 6000 Main Street Southwest, Lakewood, Washington, 98499, or email kdevereaux at cityoflakewood.us. Comments received by noon on the day of the meeting will be provided to the commission electronically. For all in-person and virtual comments, each person has three minutes to speak. Attendees are allowed to speak during public comments or public hearings only. Those attending in-person will be called on by the chair. Those attending via Zoom should use the raise hand function to indicate they wish to speak. Once the chair calls your name, you will be unmuted. First, state your name and city of residence and then provide your testimony. Seeing nobody here in person today, we will turn online. Ms. Spears, is there anybody digitally joining us that would like to comment for today's public comment period?

No, Mr. Chair.

No digital visitors? Nobody. Check the back of the room. Nobody appears here in chambers to present comments for public comment today. I will declare this public comment closed. We move on. There are no public hearings scheduled for today. There is no unfinished business. We move on to new business. Ms. Speer, review of the 2027 draft comprehensive plan, zoning map, and development regulation amendment docket items. You have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And it's good to be able to be back with you in person. I know there were not only technical challenges on my end, but I think it happened here in the room as well. So thank you for your patience as we worked through all of that. I will share my screen now to walk through. Where we're at with our annual, this is probably the biggest thing that the Planning Commission has to handle every year is the review of the, first the docket, but then the actual amendments to our comprehensive plan, zoning map, and development regulations. So we are at the point now where you are starting to look at potential items that you would either recommend or not for the City Council to say, yes, we're gonna call these our docket for next year's review. If you remember, just with very recent meetings, you approved the 2026 actual content. And then there was now the discussion about what's just going to be the items. So there's not a lot of substance to these yet. But then a year from now, you would be approving these amendments in substance. And then you would be already starting into the 2028 process. So I kind of just went through a little of this. But in the month of July, we had the call for applications from the general public. They can actually, in theory, submit not only rezone requests, which is what we generally will receive from the public, but they could actually suggest changes to our comprehensive plan. They could also suggest changes to our development regulations. As it happens, we do this in the month of July every year, and this year we received... two applications this year. And if you'll recall from our last cycle, there were two that were forwarded to be included in this year's cycle. So we actually have four total for the 27 docket as it stands right now. As is your standard mode of operation, you would be taking a look at this information in this study session and then next have a public hearing and then have continued deliberations until you're ready to take action. The way this is set up because of the council schedule, it's a little bit compressed. We're asking that the commission hold a public hearing on the 16th and also if you are ready to take action that same night rather than have a separate meeting where you would take action in order to fit into the council's discussions tied in along as they start their biennial budget process. That's why there's a little bit of a constriction. The other thing I'll note here before I start to go through specific proposed items is that this is in some cases subject to change because we are looking at some amendments that will have guidance coming from the state. And there is another one where we may have some guidance from a regional countywide group and we don't have that yet. So once those things get released, then we would take that into account. Or we may have one where they're late and we're unable to do it this cycle and we'll just do it the next time. So once the docket is approved, the next step is to say, okay, here's the docket, city staff, now you have a number of months to go back and do either the drafting, if it's something like the city council has asked this time around, you'll see there's a request from the city council to make an amendment. Staff then drafts that as requested, like it was coming from a member of the public. And then there will also be this process to do our SEPA or State Environmental Policy Act review. And then the Department of Ecology and Department of Commerce, both review draft versions of the amendments themselves. And then we'll come back next spring into summer with a public hearing and then recommendation. And then the council does the same. They review it, they have their public hearing, and then they take action to either adopt or not whatever the final 2027 list is going to include.

So any questions on any of that background?

Can you turn on your mic?

So just to clarify, When we're looking at these 23 amendments, we are to screen as such, determine which ones we think should be reviewed by a more thorough review by the staff. And then those will then go forward to the city council. So we have to, in fact, purge some of these if we don't think.

If you feel that there is an amendment here that, A, we're not having to do because of state law change, because that's kind of the exception to the rule. But if there is another one where you feel this is not appropriate to move forward, whether it's a city initiated one, for instance, or a privately initiated one, you have that ability now to send a recommendation to council to say, this is not appropriate to include for whatever reason. So yeah, we're at the point of just showing you a list and you guys say yes and no to any and all.

And maybe I'm jumping the gun here per se, but I looked at these and I saw where many you made reference to the particular house bill or Senate bill. So you click on that and that's a long house bill or Senate bill. So we were to review all that and we're gonna need more time. I don't think we tonight had an opportunity to go through each one of those bills and see which ones we want to recommend going forward with.

And you are not expected to do that. So that kind of goes back to the caveat I said, if it is a state law required change, They're going to move forward. If you feel like it's a bad idea and you want to voice that to the council and then they're aware of that and maybe think about what can we do to edit this, kind of shave off the extras that aren't the absolute mandate from state law, that's a finding that you could provide, for instance. But the only reason those are hyperlinked, quite frankly, are for anybody and everybody who wants to just look at that bill and see what it's about. You're not expected to become experts on those bills this fall or next spring, frankly. It's going to be deciding next spring, once you see the substance, whether the amendments that we have brought to you match what state law requires. And we will have that analysis for you.

Thank you, Ms. Spears.

Thank you. Sure. Any other questions from any other commissioner?

All right. So continuing here, you'll see that there are 23 total, and the first eight in the list, so 2027-01 through 08, are related to state law changes, and they're basically going to move forward because the city has been told you shall do X, Y, or Z. Then you have nine amendments, which are either from the city council asking that they be brought to you or staff recommendation. And the staff recommendation sometimes is their own experience with a code section needs to change. Or like we've had recently, the parks department came and asked that we rezone some parcels to be added to a park. Is there still wide variety there? Or if we'll hear at the front counter someone trying to work through the permit process, a problem that is found to be within the code that needs changing. That's the kind of thing that you would hear from staff. Then there's two amendments that are pending, and four of you are involved with this process, but our Natural Environment and Climate Change Task Forces are working away as we speak. And so there are two amendments for next summer, which are A, to talk about any changes that need to happen to the comprehensive plan, the policies there, and then B, if there are related changes that have to be done to our development regulations. So there will be two amendments listed, but they're really empty right now because those task forces will be working through next spring, as you are probably aware, in order to put that language together. And then finally, we do, as I mentioned, have four private rezone applications, which I'll go through as well. So again, this isn't going to be a lot of substance, but just showing you the first eight, again, are those that are through state law requirements. So the first one, I'll just shorthand it to House Bill 1491, which is focused on the required changes to our regulations, in essence, to allow higher density in, quote, transit-oriented development. If you want to think immediately of either right here in the downtown with the Pierce Transit Center or at the Sounder Station, those would be two transit-oriented areas in the city. There may be, but there may not, because we have done so much change lately, some additional changes we need to do per this latest bill. And so this is saying... city staff go through, find what needs to be amended in order to comply with this bill. And we actually have until 29 to do it. We're just picking it up now in order to get it out of the way, quite frankly. The second one is another, it's House Bill 2266. And this is some refinement about permanent supportive housing and transitional housing. And this is a kind of a clarification bill. There's already language in our code that the city adopted one or two cycles ago, allowing all of these things. But as time has gone by, now we have some refinements to regulations related to these different types of shelter or permanent supportive housing. The third is regarding permit review processes. Some of you will remember a few years ago, 2023, Bill 5290, and we had Angie Silva, our Assistant Department Director here, talking to the Planning Commission about that we had to change the timelines allowed for the city to review certain types of permits or the certain cycle of review something was in. And also there is now some online required processes. The city has to allow things to happen online, I should say. And also there is an annual report that needs to go back to the Department of Commerce saying, this is how the city did in meeting all of the deadlines that were in 5290. This bill updates that and adds a few more refinements similar to the last bill. And so this will be a cleanup to something that's already going on in the city. The fourth one is related to something that did actually get adopted in some way in 2026, and it's another refinement bill. It is talking about allowing certain residential uses in commercial or mixed use areas. So in a commercial area rather than requiring mixed use, and I think everybody here understands that's either in the same building or in the same development, if it's more than one building, having both residential and commercial together. This is saying now, because there's such a focus on providing more housing units and affordable housing units, allowing more pieces of property to be used for residential uses even in a, quote, commercial area. So the mixed use part is being taken away as a requirement in some cases. So there will be a lot more discussion about that. But there are some things, again, that Lakewood has already adopted per earlier bills. This is a cleanup to continue to move that policy forward from the state. Land banking authorities, land banking refers to collecting multiple parcels, generally speaking, and holding them and allowing affordable housing, generally speaking, to happen on those consolidated parcels. And so this is just looking at our regulations and our zoning to make sure that the city, in fact, already complies with what's now in this one, House Bill 1974. It's also looking for city to take action to maybe hold property for a short amount of time. If you do that, then the potential developer would be talking to the city as the landowner in order to move forward. It's all a matter of figuring out the devil in the details, and between now and next spring, that's what the city staff will be doing. 06 is talking about... This is a voluntary and optional element where in addition to what we already do as a city, which is the planning commission, and then the city council says our housing element and our comprehensive plan and our regulations related to that comply with state law. This is a way where if Lakewood were to want to do this, and I honestly don't know where the council is on this issue, but if they wanted to do this, sending the housing element and regulations to the Department of Commerce, if that agency takes a look at it and says, you know what, you guys have done it, you've hit the mark, this is compliant with GMA, and they issue a letter to that effect, That then becomes, if something ever happens legally where the city is sued to say, you guys aren't following the Growth Management Act, Department of Commerce will support the city's position. So it's an optional thing, and it's something where either you could recommend not doing it, or you could say, explore it more, city council. They might come back to staff ultimately with this is a good idea, we should move forward with it, or maybe not such a good idea for Lakewood, set it aside. So it's optional in all respects. The seventh is State Senate Bill 6027. And this is looking at tweaking what allowable funding sources the city can say in its code are available for affordable housing incentives or other services related to affordable housing. So maybe it's, again, that permanent supportive housing. you break down the name of that, it's someone who has human services support, whether it's assistance with physical disability, whether it's a mental health issue, whether it is they are receiving extra assistance with their economic planning for their financial well-being, whatever it is, that extra support of services, as well as the affordable housing, so maybe subsidizing housing cost, All of those things, just again, taking a look at that bill and seeing if what Lakewood has in its code allows what the state wants to be available for those that need that affordable housing and that human service support. The last one that's coming from state law that we have to take a look at is 1859. This is one where again, the city does have language in its code, but this is an update at the state level to what is currently on the books. And it's looking at affordable housing on property that is owned by religious organizations. And there are things where again, the state is very focused on allowing more opportunity for more housing to be built. and they're saying if it is owned on, sorry, if it's located on property owned by a religious organization, there will be certain incentives allowed or certain parts of it that don't go through the same hoops necessarily for approval. Not life safety issues, but other things. So this is one where we're gonna have to go and scrub through our code to make sure that we are compliant with that bill. So those are the eight that are state law and more to come in the spring. But any questions at this point about any of those? And I'll be the first to say, I haven't read all of the bills either. Anybody have any questions? Okay. If not, we'll keep going. You'll recall this one. There is one question.

I'm sorry.

Regarding the land. Land banking. Land banking. The way I read it that could go either to the city managed or the city can sub contract as such to a private entity. Which of our departments would be responsible for this land.

Grant per se. I'll kind of answer your question backwards if I can. First of all, I think if Lakewood were to pick this up and do it or figure out what it needs to do to comply with this bill, should this ever occur, the legal department and Planning and Public Works would probably be involved in just holding title. And then once someone were saying, we want to build affordable housing on this land, the city would want to as quickly as possible divest itself, sell the land to that developer. Or if they just want to do the services, they would need to find someone else to buy it from the city. Rather than over time, Lakewood becoming a property holder of more and more of these projects.

That was what I was getting at. The city would not be the property owner per se.

No, I think that if the city were to at some point hold it, it would be a temporary situation until someone else purchased it.

Okay, and did I read correctly saying that there's also a tax incentive per se?

Yeah, there is a need to have that in our code showing where and when that would be effective, yes.

Okay, thank you.

Sure.

Commissioner Larson.

Question has to process here. Are we approve or deny or recommend denial of these factors or can we recommend modifications?

It'll depend on the bill language. Some of them are you shall do one, two, three, four, five. Others are you're encouraged to do this or you're discouraged to do that. So it's going to depend on each one of these bills.

Specifically the ADU plan question.

So are you talking about number nine? Yes.

Okay, yeah. Would we be allowed to expand that to say as well as other single family homes? plans, so that there could be in the city of lakewood a set of plans that were stock, if you will, that have a bill or wanted to build those plans, the permit process could be shorter and easier for that as well. function.

If it is the primary residence, they wouldn't fall under the accessory dwelling unit bill. However, as the planning commission, if you have a recommendation to the city council that that's something the city should do, you should allow base plans or you should allow whatever else the term is, that you can bring that forward as well. And if you actually wanted to add another amendment, you guys can do that as well.

Okay, thank you.

Sure.

Any other questions?

Thank you. So number nine is one that you did talk about this last cycle. And if you'll remember, it was pushed forward into this cycle because we were waiting for a countywide template and recommendation. We do expect that probably in January, the template. So we will be able to bring this forward in the next cycle with language for you to review in probably March we'll get started. But what this idea is, is again, I'll call them a base plan. I, I, I know what the county calls it. In any event, this is the cities that have done this already have used a couple of different techniques. One is they have gone to multiple architectural firms and said, please design architectural plans for accessory dwelling units. And then either the city actually purchases those plans outright and charges whatever they would charge when a member of the public says, hey, I want to use one of those plans. Or The city has that contract with the architectural firm. They keep the copyright on that plan. And then it's up to the people that want to use it to be working with that firm at that point to get a reduced rate on using those plans. So there's a couple of different ways that other jurisdictions who have done this so far have. But this is a matter of the city just deciding do they want to do this at all. This is not something we, quote, have to do from state law. It is absolutely a choice. So it's a policy for you to recommend and then the council to decide on. Number 10 is nothing really new other than to say we need to update our comprehensive plan to include data from the 2024 tree canopy report, which I think many of you saw when it first came out. But it is now the subject of a lot of conversation in the natural environment and climate change task forces. And our comprehensive plan just needs to be updated to be consistent with that. Number 11 also is a tie-in to this last cycle that just wrapped up. So if you remember, I brought to you, this is our current code and here's our new version that's got a lot of colors in it and it's taking 14 separate tables and putting them all into a single one to make it more user-friendly. This is part two of doing that sort of fix to the code to where people, whether they be on their phone, whether they come in online, or whether they're in front of the counter talking person to person will have an easier way to navigate from what zone am I in? What use do I want to do? Is this allowed or not? And if it is, what are the conditions? It's just trying to make that path through our code as simple as possible. So you'll see a part two to what you saw this last round. Number 12, construction storage right now is not a recognized use in our code. And there's been enough just questions about that over time. to include it as an allowed or conditionally allowed use. So that will be coming forward to you. And then number 13, this is Tiffany's idea. So please, I would love and ask for your thoughts. And if you want to can this one, please do. But this is suggesting that the terms of planning commissioners be reduced from five to four years. simply because there are a number of other boards where that is the term as opposed to five. And other planning commissions in other jurisdictions, five is a pretty long and pretty rare term. If you like it, if you're happy, please tell me and we'll take it away. This is just an opportunity to bring this question up to you if you want to talk about it. Obviously, you all said yes to a five-year term. That's why you're here. It's five years.

Yeah.

No, it's five. So anyway, it's up to you. If you even want to talk about this, this is a great example of you guys can recommend it to go away and it'll go away. And that's it because this is simply my, my thought. Number 14, this is one that's an example that the city council asked for. There was a land use policy that refers to transportation planning is the simplest way to describe it right now. And there are some suggested changes because it's pretty outdated. And so the city council has asked that we look at that and update the language to be accurate to our current road system. So you'll see that. And then 15 and 16, those are the ones related, again, to our task forces, their recommendations. 15 would be the policy ones coming to amend the comprehensive plan. And then 16 is the one that would have accompanying regulations, if there are any. So some of you will be involved as this sausage is made before it comes to the full planning commission. Some of you will see this starting next spring. In April, just so you know, there will be a meeting where you are here and all of the members of all of the task forces are going to be invited to come. And it's just going to be kind of an open house almost where you can ask questions, you can provide input on regarding the task force you may have been involved in. And then from there, you would start to move forward talking about these recommended amendments. 17, we talked about this one and asked that it be moved forward to this cycle as well. This idea of food truck pods or food cart pods. Many people are familiar with what happens down in Portland or Vancouver, Washington, but there are other places in the state as well where there's a semi or a permanent place for trucks or carts to be stationed, or there's a permanent space and those trucks kind of rotate to give different choices of food. And the idea here is just to look and see what would need to happen in our municipal code to allow that. Because right now, they can't be close to each other and they have to move every day. And there's no set place in the city where they could sit like as a recognized spot. So this is the one that the council is interested in as an economic development spur. But it's one that we're exploring right now, examples from other places. So those will come to you in the spring. Okay. 22 is talking about the fact that the International Building Code changed actually a few years ago to allow the height of interior and backyard fences to go up from six feet to seven feet. Our code just doesn't say that yet. And so every time someone comes in, we do it, but we have to take them through a variance process to our code, which is time consuming and is not needed. So this is to correct that. And then 23 is one that actually came in after the materials were put together for you. Actually, so was the six to seven feet. But the last one, there is on occasion the need for receiving from people who appeal that they owe money to the city for their sewer connection. It's a pretty rare thing, but right now there's no way for the city to go back and collect those appeal fees where the city prevails in the legal discussion. And so, for instance, there is a $125 fee right now. The city is getting the $125, but they're paying $1,000 under the current process because they can't go back and get the funds. So that's what this would do, correct that. Thank you. So those are all of the different policies. I know I'm screaming fast through this stuff, but these are in the packet and what the public hearing will be on at your next meeting. So you've got another couple of weeks to review at your leisure. And then the next four are the ones that are requests from private property owners for rezones. And they kind of vary in nature. This one is all of these starred parcels. And so it's all along either Steilacoom Boulevard or South Tacoma Way. Currently, they are zoned commercial and commercial two. That's what this orange is. But the request is to rezone those parcels industrial because there are uses that they would like to do or that already have in some of these parcels and are considered non-conforming right now in commercial that would be allowed in industrial. So this is one where what the city will do is take a look at all of the background information that the applicant has provided. We will have that for you for the public hearing and also talk about whether it makes sense in terms of the larger land use scheme for the city. The next request of a rezone is down in the Tillicum area. As you're fully aware, I'm sure, we've recently had a couple of interchanges added to I-5 that were completely rebuilt, expanded from what they were prior. And these are parcels you'll see with the stars. On the right-hand side, you'll see NC2. So their current zoning is Neighborhood Commercial 2. This bigger star over here is just to show this further away so you can see where the interchange is. But the request is to move from neighborhood commercial to commercial in order to allow, again, additional uses that are allowed in a commercial area close to an interchange versus a neighborhood commercial, which is kind of a quieter set of uses, if you will. So again, this information will be provided to you and then there'll be potentially testimony on all of these rezone requests. The third one is a little bit different from the others so far. This is one where you have one parcel, you'll see this larger one here, that's actually split between two zones. NC2 is the pink and mixed residential two is that darker gold. So there's that parcel and then the other one that's also in mixed residential two right next to it. And the request is that all of these pieces end up as neighborhood business district and neighborhood commercial two. So in other words, taking this one that's split zoned, making this all one, and then the one right next door, changing it from mixed residential to neighborhood commercial two. and the explanation of why will be provided to you as well. There's some information already for you in the packet to look at, but you'll have the other one before next meeting with the hearing explaining all of this.

Yes.

Commissioner Estrada. Thank you, Ms. Chair. Ms. Speer, along that line, so if it's mixed residential, and we're talking about the fourplex that is residential, If it goes to neighborhood business, does that mean that you can no longer have residential?

Let me see if I'm answering you correctly. If the zoning were to change on that parcel and they didn't want to do anything different, they wanted to leave the duplex, yes, they can do that. If the zoning changes and you don't change your use, it can stay. It's when you want to look at doing something different that the zoning is going to matter more to the property owner because then there will be rules of what's allowed, what's not allowed at all, or what has conditions on it. So if they, for whatever reason, were to say, hey, rezone us to neighborhood commercial, change their mind later and want to leave that residential use on that parcel after it's rezoned, that's okay. Is that your question?

What I was getting at is my concern was that so those individuals that are in those apartments, basically, will then be asked to move because I can make more money commercially than I can from residential. So we would lose residential. That's what I was getting at. Is that possible?

Part of the analysis, yes, would be, and that again goes under that SEPA analysis that's required, as well as some just housing required analysis now for all applications like this, is to say...

First of all, yes.

If a property owner is given a rezone where they now have different uses allowed and they want to pursue that, they as the property owner have the right to then empty out the parcel, do whatever they're going to do. The city does have to do that analysis, right? We have our growth targets. We have our job and housing targets as well. And so it's a matter of saying if this happens and this fourplex disappears, we lose four housing units. We have to record that and track it over time on any time that happens. Yeah.

So we will be responsible for decreasing the number of housing available, instead of increasing like we.

In this case, yes, yes, yeah all right, thank you. The final reason request is on still a come boulevard as well it's in a different part of silicon as that from that other one we just went through. But this is a single building with with multiple addresses here, as you see. They are currently in C2, which is commercial two. And the request is to change from commercial to neighborhood business district and neighborhood commercial two. And again, what they're trying to do is look at adding residential uses in this commercial area. And if you remember, this is one that I said, let's move it forward because of all this weird change in state law, the timing was off. This is now our opportunity to tell these people, yes, you can do this because now they can. State law changed, the city law changed as a result. And so in commercial areas, you can actually have residential uses now. And so it'll be a matter of the finer details, but the answer to this one, even if they didn't rezone, is that they can now bring those residential uses in as long as it fits within regulations that apply. So that's why this one was moved forward is last year it didn't work, now it does. So those are your 23 amendments at a very high level. Again, next meeting, which is two weeks from tonight, the idea because of the council's restricted schedule with their budget stuff is that you would take your hearing, deliberate and take action on the 16th. However, as you see, it's a whole month before the council starts this. So if you need another meeting, if you wanna use your first meeting in October to continue talking about this, you can, no worries at all. And then the council would pick it up in October. All of this, again, is just to set the list of amendments. It's not a substantive review. That will come back to you next March, April, and then we'll move through a public hearing process again. And that's it from me, unless there's questions on this.

Commissioner Estrada.

Thank you Mister chair going back to 5 House bill 1974 establishing the land bank authority. I read this and what really caught me was the land bank land bank authority may lease sell land to housing developers at less than the market rate. In exchange for compliance of affordable requirements. such transfers are not required to be made to the highest bidder. To me, that opens up a lot of, you know, so I don't know how to go about this. So the city has the property, it sells that to this individual, and that individual becomes the land authority, then they can do whatever they want. They can pick whoever they want. It doesn't have to go to the highest bidder. It doesn't have to go to market rates. I'll just give it to Mike Rooney. That's what I'm afraid of.

Yeah. A couple things. A, even if the city code is changed to comply on paper with this law, whether the city would actually ever get into the business of land consolidation, holding it and then selling it to somebody else is a separate question. So this may never come up as a city-owned parcel being handled this way. Regardless, if it is a third party that is holding property and then selling it to a developer of affordable housing, the reason you see that language in there is, again, the state legislature is really focused on trying to get as many opportunities for housing units to be built as possible. And so your perception of that is not unique. Other people are saying the same thing. It's just that that is the result of the state legislature really wanting to make it as easy as possible to build housing units. So it's a policy decision that they're making to say, you don't have to go highest bidder. Market rate doesn't necessarily apply when we're talking about this affordable and even maybe subsidized housing.

Different subject. The increased density for religious owned property. So that's the phrase that they used was an increased density from the normal. So what does that really mean? I can build more houses or more apartments in this than what the city normally would allow?

Yes. Let me just get this up here for if anyone happens to be reading it. So this would be number eight. What that is suggesting, and you actually have an example of it here in the downtown, where there are, quote, overlays, where you have a basic set of rules, and then you have a part of the downtown that has... But if you... Let's just use affordable housing. If you add more affordable housing units, meaning you're selling something below market rate or renting something below market rate, you can add another floor to your building or you can just take the height higher for your building. So it's the same kind of thing for the religious organization. If they own that property, it is encouraging their ability to put as many housing units as will work under the code with those added incentives as possible.

What I was thinking of, but it came to mind, was unfortunately we have many churches that are being consolidated with other churches because participation is down. Everything is down. So what to do with these houses of worship that are no longer going to be houses of worship? Could they in fact change it into a care facility, for example. So I'm just trying to figure out how that would all would work if they're allowed to build more than Well, anyway, I'm sorry. I'm just thinking out loud.

This is an off-the-cuff reaction. I think this bill stems from the fact that over time in different areas of the state, there have been situations where churches or other religious organizations try to bring in a tent city or they try to bring in by developing on their part of their land that they may own that used to be a parking lot and there's less people coming so they don't need it anymore or it's just vacant land altogether and part of their mission they see as a religious organization is to support people in their housing and so they want to build and there's been resistance to that or there's been denial of that because of community interest or opposition, right? And so the state is saying, no, we are going to actually give this special protection almost, special incentive to where if that's what these organizations want to do, we should let them do it and we should let them do it easier. That's the thought behind the bill.

Thank you, Ms. Chair. Thank you, Ms. Chair. Commissioner Larson.

The rezone two ago, the one where the NC2 is proposed to jut into the residential area, is there a proposed use that goes along with that zoning request?

I would have to go back and look in the application how specific they are, but it is in the packet if you want to review it yourself, and I'll have an answer for sure at the next meeting.

Thank you. I think my views depend substantially on that as to whether it would be – imposition into the residential area to have a commercial use jutting into it, noise, light, all those things. But then I look at just on the bottom part of the circle there, and I see the residential use already juts into the NC2 use, so is what good for the goose is good for the gander, right? Those are thoughts, but thank you very much for supplying that.

Okay. If there's no other questions on this one, then again, next week, next meeting, excuse me, will be the public hearing. And then if you're ready to take action on the, it's just the list, or if you want another meeting to do that, we can accommodate that as well. And then if you're ready, Mr. Chair, we can move to the next topic.

Absolutely. Ms. Spear, the floor is yours. Please drive on.

All right. Thank you, sir. So we are going to shift to something that some of you are already living and hopefully liking. We are just, I wanted to bring you, because this has been going on now for a few months, progress of all of the different natural environment and climate change task forces that you stood up and appointed members to. And our four of you are involved in those as they're meeting throughout, starting this last May and summer, still meeting on a monthly basis. Others are on a little bit of a hiatus. So I'm going to call it the NEC program rather than having to say the whole name. But just a quick review. Oops, there's a state law yet again that we've had to respond to where prior City of Lakewood chose voluntarily to, for instance, look at its tree canopy and make a goal of increasing that by 2050. There was also an energy and climate change policy document added to our comprehensive plan. Just to say, hey, we're looking ahead and we want to be proactive in helping to mitigate what's happening with climate change. In Lakewood's case, that may be drought. It may be higher high temperatures, lower low temperatures. It may be flooding in some parts of the city. But now with this bill, there are specific things that need to happen in our code and our policies by 2029, including looking at greenhouse gas emissions, looking at the number of vehicle miles traveled by people in single occupancy vehicles, and also looking again at, we know climate changes are starting to affect people. Heat is probably the most obvious one right now as there are more days hotter than in the past around here. but also other natural hazards that may occur and what do we need to do to help mitigate what's going to be coming for especially those more vulnerable in our jurisdiction. So the work started actually in 2025. Three elements of our comprehensive plan were already updated and comply with that state law. But what we're doing right now is working with the climate change and urban forestry and greenhouse gas portions of this state bill. And under energy and climate change, there needs to be this inventory of the sources of greenhouse gas emissions and not surprisingly in Lakewood, it is our buildings and then it is our cars. Not uncommon at all. And then we're also supposed to be looking at climate resilience opportunities, gaps and barriers. So looking at where are the parts of the city that have the lowest tree canopy level, not only just because of that tree goal that the city adopted, but also that's affecting heat in that particular part of the city. It's maybe affecting air quality for those people that live there. The land use element, looking at urban and community forests. And so that's part of the reason why we have a task force that's now specifically dedicated to developing our urban forestry management program, but also looking at things like risk of wildfire and how can our land use zoning and regulations help protect against that as more wildfires start to be happening in Western Washington. Looking at planting plans and planting lists for what the city's going to put in or have as allowed on private property over time for drought and heat resiliency in particular. And then again, getting that master, excuse me, the forest management master plan in place and implement it. Just so you know, there will be another biennial process then from mid-2027 through mid-29, where the real focus is gonna shift to transportation. And so we will likely have the council asking you to set up again some task forces. There may not be four this next time around, but there will likely be at least one or two. to talk transportation. And they will be working again in that two-year period to make the changes as needed to our plans and our regulations to deal with those issues related to climate change. The program itself, I won't spend a lot of time here. I know you are familiar with this. You were involved in putting it together, but it is a combination in Lakewood of what's required, what's voluntarily been taken on by the city, also recognizing what the city has already accomplished, and then also incorporating our local experts that we have. So as you know, on those task forces, it's not only yourselves, it's not only residents, it's also, for instance, a professor from Clover Park Technical College. It's also a person who is on our Parks and Recreation Advisory Board who happens to also be an invasive weed specialist. We've got people from Department of Natural Resources involved in ecology as well. So trying to bring as many voices to the table that can help really inform how this plan and the rules that are going to come out of those plans look. So not wanting to repeat myself, but these are all of the various different things that were brought together to create the NEC program. Looking at trees specifically, looking at climate change concerns and planning ahead. Looking at the data that's been collected by the state, by the county, and then by Lakewood itself about Lakewood's current and future state. and then making sure we have the community involved from the beginning. We're gonna end up here with this current group of task forces with policy direction, with an implementation plan with a 10 plus year horizon, and then also a shorter term three to five year work plan. So kind of saying it all graphically, we've done things in 25. We're in the middle of doing our climate change specific in 26 and 27. 27 to 29 will be transportation focused. And then by June of 2029, the city has completed this initial phase of adoption. And then we're implementing from that going forward. There are, as I've said a couple times now, four different plan task forces. So the first is dealing specifically with those 10 or three to five year work plans. There's one specifically on climate. There's one specifically on urban forestry. And there's one specifically on heat mitigation. So, obviously, all of these are interrelated and there is overlap in the content of what each task force is talking about, but then there are subject matter experts, people with lived experience with various pieces of this that are also on those task forces. the schedule, just color coded by which task force we're talking about. Let's see if I can remember this. Task force one is the plans, two is climate, thank you. Three is urban forestry and four is heat mitigation. So they're all on their own schedule as you can see here. We're in September, so for instance this month, We're going to have a meeting of the urban forestry group as well as the heat mitigation group. October, they will be joined by Task Force 2 coming back after a couple months off. And then as we get into the end of the year and early 27, that's when the sausage will be made internally and with our consultant having taken all of that information. starting in january there will be a concerted effort for public outreach we will have a series of open houses we will be reaching out to boards and commissions that the city has including again the parks and recreation board the youth council and we'll also be going out to neighborhood associations And then if there are organizations who express interest in us going to them, we will do that as well. And then I mentioned earlier tonight in April is when things are going to kind of wrap up at the task force level and come to you as you start your review of the full 2027 comprehensive plan packet. So all of these task forces will finish their work. They will come and talk to you all together. And then I'm sure some of them will engage actively as we move this through public hearing and action at city council ultimately by next June. I would just like to thank all of you as the liaisons, but these are the members ultimately of the various different task forces. They have all provided really good feedback. I think we've ended up very fortunately with some great minds that do have different perspectives and voice them, and also at the same time understand we're all here for a common purpose. Those of you that are the liaisons, again, thank you, but thank you for helping lead these conversations as well. I think task forces that don't have somebody on them that is a liaison sometimes flounder a little bit. I think the fact that there's somebody there from the commission helps in the back of their mind, remember they're moving toward a certain specific goal on their part that's then gonna really influence what the city does. Just a couple things about Lakewood that is affecting our planning around all of this that's different maybe from other cities. Obviously, Joint Base Lewis-McChord right next door. But that also affects land uses north of McCord Field. So we have our clear zone where really no land uses are allowed. And then north of that, we've got a limited allowed types of uses for public safety and We have our lake geography where east-west corridors in the city are limited because you run into a lake. And so how does that deal or how does that affect, for instance, the transportation planning that's going to happen in 27 to 29? We have I-5 bisecting the city. And so when you start to talk lakewood emissions and talk about cars... Obviously, some of what's being measured in the air, a lot of it, is coming from the people just passing through on I-5. So when we as a city are talking about what can we do to help, what can we do to mitigate, how do you figure out what the city can do and is it realistic to expect a certain amount of change given I-5 is going right through it? We have multiple utilities, we have three power utilities, and then the county runs our sewer utility, and then we have a Lakewood Water District. So rather than owning all or some of the utilities, they are all independent of the city. So that requires additional partnerships and strengthening those relationships going forward. And then our vulnerable communities don't all live in the same neighborhood. They are kind of sparse down in different parts of the city. So making sure we are being responsive over time to the specifics to each parts of the city where they may be. Really quickly, just again, this has been discussed before and are being talked about at our task forces, but looking at in 2020, which is the basis for some of the data in our 2024 assessment, we're at a 24% and about a half urban tree canopy, and the goal is 40%. So the idea is between now and 2050, it's almost a 16% increase in tree canopy cover. The task force is looking at that and trying to figure out how to achieve that goal. And they've actually come up with some pretty creative things already. And then that will continue to move forward this winter into next spring. Trees are central to a lot of these various topics, and they also are something handled by the private and the public side. So the city obviously has trees in its right-of-way and parks, but then you have most of our tree canopy on private property. And so how do all of those different owners and maintainers work together in a coordinated way to preserve and even increase our canopy? We have climate projections of increased heat, and you see we're right in Pierce County. This little tip right there is the top of Tacoma, so we're about right here, and we're in one of those areas that has increased number of extreme heat days by 2050, estimated at between 30 to 50 days per year. This is specific to the city of Lakewood. This was done in August of 2024, so actually just about two years ago exactly. We actually had volunteers from the city drive around in the morning, the afternoon, and the evening in one of the hottest days in August of 24 to measure differences in temperature. And so on the left-hand side, you'll see here, the blue, as you would imagine, is the cooler parts, the yellow is the warmer parts, and not surprisingly as well, these are, generally speaking, lower trees standing, more intense land uses, and also for the residences, those are the areas which tend to be more ethnically diverse and economically strained, poorer people. Little more detail about our tree canopy cover, and so, if you go back to heat and where those areas where it's hotter and then you look at. This map lower tree canopy cover in some of those same places so heat and tree canopy are obviously related in terms of what people experience as they're walking around. One more point on this. This is the economic index. And again, the lighter colors are those that are in low or very low economic index. And the area south of I-5, Woodbrook and Springbrook coming up into the middle of the city in Lakeview. And then some of those other areas over to the east where we have many mobile home parks. Those are the areas with lower tree canopy, higher heat and lower economic status. As a result of part of that, a couple of years ago now, we had a tree advisory committee that worked on prioritizing where tree planting may happen. And not surprisingly, we've got those same areas that were historically identified for a number of reasons, but then they also found some spots on the west side of the city that would make sense. And so this is being brought to the task forces right now as a way to help them and decide where to also in that three to five year plan, for instance, where are we going to start with our tree planting?

Tiffany, I have a question.

Commissioner Wallace.

One of my concerns is water and the availability of it. With the change in climate and the hotter temperatures, you can't expect the trees to grow without water. And so you're going to have to have some way of individually watering each tree, especially the little ones, while they grow, which means you're going to have to have pipes, you're going to have to have a water source, and someone's going to have to put all that in, especially in these areas that are less fortunate financially. Because they're not going to be able to do it. Even if they want to, they won't be able to do it. They just financially won't be able to. So I think that's something that really needs to be taken into account. The days of the natural rainfall providing sufficient water are gone.

Yep. I just fear not to steal your thunder, but to speak directly to this, this did come up in the task force meeting that we just had last month, and it is on the top of the agenda items to develop courses of action for specifically water availability and personnel to deliver water. Commissioner Larson.

What is a vulnerable community?

Um, it is historically, uh, How to say this, I'm going to be kind of crude about this, so I apologize. I don't mean to offend anyone in any way. Poor people of color, maybe English as a second language, historically discriminated against in housing. So African-American, there's a lot of redlining that happened, not in Lakewood, but in Tacoma and other areas of the state. Maybe single family or single parent families. So in Lakewood, for instance, you would have an African-American community, maybe Korean, maybe Vietnamese, that tend to, culturally speaking, kind of come together. And so you'll see some historical neighborhoods where they have a higher concentration of a particular ethnic group because they have found community with each other over time. But at the same time, whether it's because the housing stock is old or when it was built, there was just fewer amenities provided, the property values are low enough to where those that are making less money are able to afford living in that area as opposed to other parts of the city. So it's over time, they generally have less quality of life, lower quality of life, less outside beauty to be looking at in their neighborhoods, maybe fewer park resources. And so it's a matter now of trying to recognize that and make sure that the city's planning and zoning doesn't perpetuate change. that inequality. So we're trying to go back and say, okay, this is where there's issues where if you want to deal with citywide climate and heat issues, this is where we need to concentrate putting more trees because it's where the least amount of trees, I guess is the easiest example.

Commissioner Estrada. Thank you, Mr. Chair. To piggyback on that discussion, As period says something about redlining in Tacoma. If I recall. Either at the planning commission or city council while back we spoke about entities. Neighborhoods within Lakewood. whether CC&Rs still prohibit African Americans or Asians and people of color specifically. How was that addressed? Did we ever do anything about that?

What we have in our code is the reference to people who, if they happen to see that in their CCNRs, where you would go through the county assessor treasurer or auditor to get that removed. With civil rights laws in the late 60s, early 70s, they have no effect. but they may still be there. And if you were someone coming in and looking at your house deed and you're wanting to buy and you see that, that's pretty offensive. So you are still able to go in and have it removed, even though it has no legal effect. It's there, just historically speaking, in some cases. I mentioned in Tacoma because they were a city early enough to where there actually was a city where this happened. And they said, this line... white this line not white and so nary shall the two groups you know live together right in Lakewood the reason in part is that it just doesn't build up as fast as Tacoma but we do have parcels here and near the downtown for instance that have that language in their original deeds and it doesn't have any legal effect but in some cases it's still there And you had also things like the only person of color that could live in this neighborhood is a chauffeur or a maid. And if they live there, it's because they're in the servant's quarters. I mean, literally that's the language. So those kinds of things may be there. And if they are, we, at least as a city, try to help people find the quickest and easiest way to get rid of it.

Thank you, Ms. Spear. Chair, one more question. Please go ahead. Going back to the neck. Liquid goals. What a percent canopy by 2050 or. Increase 15.6%, 1700 acres. I don't quite understand. Could you explain that please?

Sure. I think I probably did a confusing job with this slide. The goal itself is a 40% tree canopy citywide by the year 2050. The or in that second bullet point is saying in order to achieve that, that's a 15.6% increase in our canopy. And that works out to be about 1700 acres. It's just another way of saying the same goal.

Thank you.

Sure. Sorry for the confusion.

Anything else? Mr. Peer.

All right. So that is what's happened with those four task forces. I don't know if any of the liaisons would like to say anything else to their cohorts here on the Planning Commission. Otherwise, every once in a while, I may come back and just give you updates. But long story short, next spring, you're going to meet these folks in person if you haven't already and have opportunity to talk with them before you start looking at the formal recommendations and taking action on them.

Does any of the commissioners that are acting as liaisons want to offer any comment to the other members of the Planning Commission? While you mull that over, I'll offer some comments from the tree canopy task force that's been meeting monthly. Robust discussions have been being had up here on the fourth floor. It's been interesting. There are lots of interested parties at the table and knowledgeable folks. We're not just having hip pocket conversations, if you will. But I would encourage you to... Make sure you are informed yourself as we move through this process. These are very impactful recommendations that we are making. And if you don't know, please make it your business to become informed so that we can provide good guidance and direction to the city council as they make final decisions.

And if I could, Mr. Chair, the easiest way to start to do that is just go cityoflakewood.us slash trees, and that'll take you to all the details.

Any other comments? Commissioner Estrada.

Regarding the staff proposal or your proposal to move our tenure from five to four. So if that were to pass, then the individuals that are serving five would automatically go to four. Is that correct?

Actually, I don't know. The city council could say, finish out your current term and then it'll change over time. Or they may say, if you wish to move that forward as a recommendation, they might say, okay, as of right now, you have less time on your sentence, if you will.

Yeah, I think I like four. I'd be dead in five, but I like four better.

Okay.

Anything else?

I have one comment for the group before we move on. As Ms. Speer pointed out earlier, the timeline for consideration for all of these amendments is tight. So I would just offer this. Please reacquaint yourself all as we come back from the summer break with the Lakewood Planning Commission Rules of Procedure. You can Google Lakewood Planning Commission Rules of Procedure link is right there on that page. But that talks about how we move through the meeting. Also, staff does a phenomenal job of putting read ahead packets together for all of us. I would encourage you to please read the entire staff report, commonly referred to as the read ahead packet. Hold any questions that you have that are already answered in the packet, please. Staff is here for clarification. If the answer is already in the packet, please start there and give your reference point so that we're not moving through 300 pages trying to find the place where your question resides, just so that we can streamline the conversation and we're not in here till 1130, as we have seen in the past. Not directed at anybody in particular, just good rules of order for us to go back and reacquaint ourself with.

I believe, We do not have Councilmember Talbot with us tonight. So two weeks from tonight will be your next meeting. And as the chair just said, we will try to get the information for the next meeting to you about a week ahead of time. And then it'll be September 16th at 630.

All right. I will encourage you all to enjoy the last few moments of sunshine that we have for this year.