Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

for attending the December 3rd, 2025 last meeting of the security planning commission. Thank you all for coming again. Uh Rose Mark Hair here. Lyn Larson is late. Philip Lindholm present. Ellen Talbo is excused. Sharon Wallace. Philip Comolmes is excused. And Robert Estrada

here. I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. of significance is our public hearing alcohol production and [laughter] first of all do we have any chang

no Mr. Chair portion of our meeting we will No, Mr. Chair. No one in the room and no one online,

alcohol production and sales use.

Uh, no one online or in the room, but just for the record, Mr. Chair, starting on page four of your meeting packet tonight, you'll see the information for tonight's hearing regarding this issue. This is something the planning commission has had in front of it several times now, and tonight is uh scheduled both the public hearing and action. In the packet, you see the draft resolution 20250, which includes the same information that was discussed uh last time. So, you'll remember there was a change to where uh certain types of alcohol production or use or sales uses are allowed. You see this summarized here in red. Uh and then there's also a change to the parking standards adding one for brewery, winery, tasty rooms, and distilleries. And uh at this point, if there is no questions because this is unchanged from last time, I will uh step aside for the public hearing. Uh attachment A is resolution 202506. So once the planning commission hearing is closed and you're ready to take action, if you are, it would be approval of resolution 20250.

Do we have anyone signed up for? No one has signed up either in person or online. Mr. Sure. What is the uh mission's desireification lastif

correct? That was an error on my part. My apologies. Thanks. [laughter]

alcohol production and sales locations and regulations. Miss Spear, if I may, there is there any way to bring it up on the screen? Sure. Yeah. Did you need something in particular? No, just a main section. Okay. This is the summary of the changes to where things would be allowed either as a permitted or conditional use. I'm sorry. All our screens are black.

Oh, forgive me. I'm sorry. My apologies. Oh, no. [laughter] Uh, I blame the chair. That's what I get for [laughter] My apologies everybody. One second. Thank you.

Can't do anything while that thing's moving. So, are you able to see it now? Is it on your screen yet? Yes. Okay. Okay. My apologies. Well, sorry. We see the main camera. Is it possible to see the document? Yeah. Great. Thank you. Oh, did it work for you for a second? You're teasing.

Yeah. Yeah. At least no one's here to witness this. Sorry, everybody. All right, let me get this on screen for you all. There we go.

Thank you. [clears throat] There we are. You have any questions?

Oh, yes.

Okay. So, we're on I only have a furthering thought and that is that we've reasonably well demonstrated that there are a lot of commercial uses that are compatible with residential and neighborhood uses and that f that that perhaps uh deserves further exploration to see how much more vibrant we can make our neighborhoods by allowing other commercial uh enterprises to uh be integrated into these neighborhoods that uh I won't talk about putting a shopping center in the middle of a residential area but uh but other uh homeoperated or small businesses that uh uh would be uh functional and and uh aid to the aid the u the the ambiance of the neighborhoods to uh be more vibrant

but again in a neighborhood commercial. Yes. Good point.

If I may, Mr. Chair. Yeah. So, I just want to say that I I'll be supporting this. I really appreciate that we're changing the bar tavern from conditional to permitted in CBD. I think that just makes sense. Um so, I'll be supporting this. I think um like has been touched on here already this evening uh we've shown that our our community is changing and with that our vision for the community has to change and the way we view it. Um the the fact is that the way we live life in 2025 and beyond does not look the same as we lived life um in the decades prior to where we are now. And I think what we're doing is we're engaging in healthy discussion and um analysis of the way in which we bring our communities to life and allow them to flourish. And I'm supportive of this uh change. And to Mr. Larson's point, how we can further um the the vibrancy of our neighborhoods by bringing these amenities and uh resources and assets closer to where our families are in an in a pace of life that gets faster every single day. Uh so where, you know, we don't necessarily have to drive 15 or 20 minutes to get to a thing. uh that's just not uh convenient or really what I think most people want. So, I'm supportive of this change and um hopefully more as we continue to move forward.

No, I I'm supportive of it. Um I really think it's important. I was shocked to find that for example, one of the taverns I've known of for 50 years, the Ram, is out of business and it's been out for several months and the family just couldn't make it a go. So, I think that we're on the right track where we have to start looking at how do we make our communities more vibrant and to have a local business like that that really wanted to do it uh is we've got to do something. So, I think that we're we're doing that and I'm very two will be think that uh for answers to our questions that we had. Take care. How many of our comments that don't forget to look at the uh case she was speaking You know, it was noise. Children, you would make naked noise, but but to her it was an unintended consequence of how noisy it would be in the neighborhood. She wrote one step and said 16. But but the point is that she was

looking ahead as possible. What are some un unintended consequences to having a child care center or in this case the bar at least are there so far we haven't seen anything that

and just to note if I could Mr. chair that in this as you see on the table there are no uses prop proposed for R1 through R4 MR1 MR2 MF1 MF2 or MF3 for any of these types of uses accept M can you pull the proposed document up Sure. Mr. Chair, make a motion to approve resolution 2025-06 U as it appears in attachment A. Second.

Moved by Mr. Her. Second, Mr. that we approve of resolution 25 2025-06 as indicated. All those in favor, please say I. I. post. Thank you. Okay, moving on. Thank you. Unfinished business. Um, yeah, if we could go back to the approval of minutes, Mr. Chair. Ah, good point. We all had a chance to look at our minutes of November the 19th, 2025. I'll accept the motion. So moved.

Mr. Larson moves second. Home seconds. All those in favor, please say I. I. I. Oppos. Thank you. So, part two opens business. We have to continue discussion on item 12.

Yes. And I just ask, are you ready to have folks move down or you want to keep them here for a moment? Sure. Yeah. And just a reminder for everybody as you come down here, unlike up there, only three of these mics can be hot at the same time. So just remember if it starts to blink, that means there's too many people with theirs on and someone will need to turn it off. And they come on when you're ready.

[laughter]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, planning commission members. Um, tonight is a followup from your October discussion as it relates to the title 12 public works code as well as engineering standards manual update. The items in your packet tonight include draft amendments to not only title 12 or the engineering standards manual, I'm going to say ESM for short, but also additional consistency edits in other titles in the uh Lakewood Municipal Code we're going to go over tonight. Tonight is uh scheduled for no action. So this is really a discussion but as we enter the new year we'll be scheduling public hearing to consider public testimony but also go through the deliberation recommendation and and hopefully get render a perspective by this body. Um here with me is again uh Jeffrey Mech our department director but also Weston u our city engineer. So while I can give you the big picture the 50,000 foot perspective development regulations policies etc. these gentlemen um sitting next to me will be able to provide those technical responses if you dig in the weeds. Okay. So again um as shared before the purpose of this update is really to modernize our engineering standards to reflect current regulatory requirements whether that's at the federal, state or regional and local level. This also includes incorporating best practices, especially an evaluation of our neighbors um surrounding us, but also adopted city plans, whether that's the comprehensive plan or the various sub area plans we have here. So, as we dove deep um into this effort, we did a consistency review. We talked about that at the October meeting, but really focused on a number of different edits largely in title 12, but also the um ESM. As mentioned before, you will see other chapters um in the code being proposed to be updated, and those are really for

internal consistency, but better organization to find relative information. So, for example, one of the attachments um you will see is amendments to title 13. So, a lot of the sewer connection code that was currently in title 12, we relocated to the utilities title of the count of the city. Um, when it comes to amendments to title 18A, title 12 had certain procedures as it relates to deviations and variances, but there was didn't label the process in which you're supposed to go through the permitting to do that. Well, we want to clarify that for our customers and the public. So you'll see amendments for internal consistency and title 18A we're going to go over tonight. Next slide please. So kind of the overall schedule. This did get kicked off by seeking a consultant, Keller Associates, to help us with this uh technical update and awarding that contract, but really doing a deep dive of that consistency review we went over in October. So tonight, uh, just fast forward schedule-wise, tonight is just an overview and opportunity to ask questions on the draft amendments, but as we enter the month of January, we do plan to schedule a public hearing to consider testimony. Um, and as we enter in February and March, we will move that process um to city council at that time. Okay. But I'm going to belabor this. I think we covered this already again. Big document overview. Title 12, which is really known as the public works code, has a number of different topics and areas um addressing that, whether it's street and traffic management, storm water utilities within the public rightway, but also engineering and permanent uh processes. In title 13 today, it only references garbage collection, but as we were looking at title 12, it made sense, hey, if I'm looking at utilities, what are the standards for utilities? I would go to the utility chap or title. So we are proposing relocation of the sewer uh uh sanitary sewer uh connection

requirements but there are some substantive changes to that for clarity of design and requirements and again the ESM design criteria the physical dimensions uh minimum requirements and standard drawings. Okay. And just a recap of our October briefing. We did go over kind of a compliance and consistency review um comparing what county and state requirements and the storm water requirements for example. So I'll step back just a little bit in practice and by our permit with the Washington state department of ecology we have to implement the 2024 storm water manual for western Washington. In practice during permit review we do that already but if you look at our code and our ESM it references outdated material. So, it's about being transparent about what those minimum requirements in the code so people can find that easily as well as our staff. Um, in addition to that, when we're taking a dive into title 12, we notice a lot of our codes overlap different review devel disciplines. So, while we're talking about horizontal construction or site development, when we come to public work standards or engineering, vertical construction standards, building and fire codes sometimes overlap. So, we want to make sure we're clear and consistent and we're not contradicting ourselves to ease and streamline that permit review. Um, also we wanted to address right of entry when it comes to code compliance uh violations and the appropriate procedures that have been legally defined and how we would enter a property. We want that clear and make sure our staff follow those protocols uh to legal bounds. And then last but not least, we wanted to update those outdated references I mentioned before on title 13. Again, um one of the substantive updates that you'll see in there is adopting Pierce County sewer standards. We are not a sewer utility within the city. Sewer permitting is with the Pierce County uh sewer utility

division. Um we want to make sure you have to get permits from them, meet those standards. So incorporating those by reference, but also um while we moved the mandatory connection to title 13, we wanted to clarify as some of the language was a little vague and subject to a lot of interpretation as we apply that. And then on the ESM, removed outdated uh technical references, added new references, updated um reference to ecology manuals for example, and then also policies. But we're going to dive a little bit deeper um as we move through the PowerPoint. Next slide. And before I um we're going to break this out into kind of substantive edits, housekeeping edits, and organizational to understand the different categories of what those proposed amendments may be. And then before I kind of go into the slide again, if feel free to interrupt if you have questions or ask clarifi clarifications. Yeah, I have one question if I may, which is I've heard from some residents saying, "Hey, look, my process with Lakewood was fine getting my permit and things. The moment I went to Pierce County sewer, everything fell apart." Does Lakewood have any influence or sway about the process for Lakewood residents getting a Pierce County sewer permit?

So, uh, we we do and we do not. So, reality, they're their own AHA, so they don't authorize a jurisdiction and they can move as they're going to. But we do have permission when it comes to our building permits as to whether we choose to release a permit prior to having the sewer permit or not. There are some complications when we look at this. If it's a commercial project, the pre-treatment and things of that nature that are required with commercial, they really do require us to hold because where they're placed, whether they're inside the building, outside the building, have impacts to building design. When we look at things for like residential, however, there's more room to move left and right. So, we're actively talking with Pierce County Sewer right now about moving forward with the ability to release residential permits with a caveat that you will not get your final or your certificate of occupancy prior to completion of this uh sewer installation.

I appreciate that because at that point the homeowner or the the owner is almost taking the risk on themselves like look, I might not get this permit in the end, but I'm going to spend the money and the time and all things in the meantime. It is true though that Lakewood has a contract with Beers County Sewer and they're basically a subcontractor. Could you look at it that way? Yeah, we could look at it that way. So we could we could change the terms of that agreement, say, "Hey, look, you can do whatever you want for everyone else, but for our people, we want this or that." So the reality, we don't truly have a contract with them in terms of like an ILA, okay, that has standards. If you looked at UP, they have an ILA and in their ILA, it says, I'm sorry, educate me. What's an ILA? Interlocal agreement. Okay.

So, the interlocal agreement for review states that University Place will not release any building permits prior to the septic or sewer permit being released. We don't have that. We have a working relationship and we've made it clear we're not satisfied with where we're at. We understand sometimes at the same time people come in for the permit, they apply for our permit, you tell them very first thing, the first words out of our mouth every time or you need to go apply with Pierce County Sewer like now. Sometimes people because that's a very hard process. That's what I'm saying. So could we have an ILA that says the process for Lakewood residents would or could look like this? And they can say no, but we could ask, right?

So we're having the conversation with that now. And that conversation really is going to be we're looking to move to issue our residential permits. The ability to move or change the process or move to the front of the line. We can have the conversation, but that I'll be honest, that is not a reality with the size of the jurisdiction and the number of residents that they have and the services they provide. Does Pierce County do premereings with folks who are trying to figure out if their project is viable? Yeah, they have the ability for premeings. They definitely do. They have the ability. Do they do they do it in a regular way? They actively have permit meetings. Yeah. Okay. And does one pay a certain fee for that meeting? I don't I don't know what the cost of that is. Angie, what

I don't the cost of my the top of my head because they just updated their permit fees. Um, but they do have uh uh pre-application conferences, but also customer meetings um regularly with folks, and it often crosses well beyond the sewer permit, but any other additional permits they may need. I'm a huge fan of those premeings. Let's get everyone at the table, figure out if this is going to work before we all spend our time on any. Thank you.

Cool. I I know you said that we should in fact if we wanted to, but uh we I don't want to be jumping the gun onto areas that you haven't got to yet. And and although we did brief on um briefly on permitting, we spoke about that, but we really didn't get into the permitting portion of the of your presentation. Is that correct? A little bit. A lot of it what we're going over relates to all permits, whether engineered design or or not. didn't want [snorts] to to you know to spoil it all shall we say Mr. Mr. Larson,

this uh was a daunting document to attempt to read. Uh and I I found it far far over my head. Uh but it it comes down to does it work or not? And I think that if we have a questionnaire that uh that the users of the uh document and regulations and the standards uh some of which are given to us, we can't do anything about the states what they lord down on us, but [clears throat] uh those that are discretionary on our part that they they fit within what works for the community and and for the the the builders and the the the people who improve the community that we have some kind of a feedback mechanism constantly employed so that we come back and and visit in in three or six months say what have the challenges been so that we know whether it's really working or not. I think that's the real test. And so I'd like to see if there's some uh process or uh available to us to accommodate measurement of of the uh of the standards.

Is there currently no in terms of regular update? I think one of the reasons why we're here is that the code hasn't been updated since 2009. Um the ESM specifically was updated in 2021, but it was a light refresh. So, we're doing a much more comprehensive update. To your comment, sir, I I don't disagree with you. That goes to any development regulation and any code that we look at. We often need to review and update those and have that time. Um, I think part of the planning commission uh works uh plan that's adopted every year. That's a great opportunity to make sure that's an item that's up every three or five years to make sure there is a conversation as those are typical other topics you may cover like the plan action EIS in downtown. Is that working as envisioned?

Does that incorporate then that there would be a questionnaire as to how does how does this work for you essentially by the people that are impacted or or bound by the uh by the standards and the regulations that are in that are before us here?

Are you referring to like doing public outreach and survey? No, actual questionnaire so that we so that the feedback actually occurs in a written manner and in a progressive manner rather than just putting eyewash on it and and uh and saying yes, we have we we have a process but is is it really something that that gives teeth to uh to the real function of the standards that that's what I'm really why not not whether we have a bureaucratic answer but whether we have a functional answer

no a functional answer for you and what we're looking at previous jurisdictions and when I looked at it right now we're doing a new permanent system as everyone's aware that requires everyone to submit their email so the past when we've done this we've sent out surveys to previous users of the system and said hey we need input on these areas and we've done questionnaires or survey monkeys things of that nature to our experienced users who've had it's far better than just randomly sending it because it's going to their email and we know they're experienced users as to where they're at. So that would be our forward plan when we look at it because we typically try to do that anyhow for outreach for hey this is a change that's coming. So we try to notify people that way. At the same time when we're going forward and getting ready to look at the changes and where we're at, we do ask. The one thing I would say is asking six months probably wouldn't be that we would ask at 6 months. We'd probably go a year and then ask because it would be a refresh for us to make any changes. So there would have to be the work plan that it was laid out by city council for us to actually take action. But we do actively seek feedback or that will be one of our new processes because now we have everybody's email address. There's not an option to not have an email address for us to reach you. One thing that I meant to say right at the very beginning is uh it's really clear that there's been one bunch of work that staff has gone through to bring all these things to the four and uh and we certainly uh recognize and respect all all the time and all the double-checking that have already gone through to stuff and how you polish these these things before you even bring it. So, you know, that certainly we appreciate that.

Mr. Remick, are you uh saying that you in fact have a feedback program in place uh now through emails? So, we already have the ability to go ahead because we have emails, we would look at using something more along the lines of any of our feeding or polling systems that we have. They do exist. We've used them at times to go ahead and display and share information. This would be a shift in us reaching out to ask for feedback. like we have the ability to reach out. I don't know that we've asked for feedback all the time other than when we're doing a survey things associate and the spear speak if if I'm wrong but

um there hasn't been certainly the type of specific requests you've you've mentioned Commissioner Larson but it's it's possible again technologically um and then there's always the the opportunity to just physically invite people to come to a type of a a session like this with the commission uh to talk about it in person as well. So either way, whichever people prefer to share information.

Yeah. And the other avenue that we've looked at is we do have people that are routine developers. We look at pulling them together probably once twice a year. We would like to kind of meet and see where we're at, what we're hearing about because we don't always hear what the issues are. So we actively have to pull people to find out. Some people are busy and working. I understand that 100%. They got something they want to do. They're like, I don't have time to send the email. I'm just going to go ahead and wait it out or I'm doing this to move the project forward. But if we don't know about the issues or the the gaps and the stops or we don't know how to systematically change it to eliminate those right so systems view is a big thing in what we look at as to how does the system work and tie together not individual because if I don't fix the system then it's just going to happen again and again

Mr. her. You good? I still at home. One more time. If I may ask, what feedback have I received from? Well, I'll be honest. U most people when they first saw it, I hate this. I know pals.

Um, but I I achen that to like being an iPhone user and then going to a Samsung, you're like, I don't I don't know what to do with this. But once you've used it, um, people have actually become more entertained with it as to what they're looking at because it's kind of one-stop shop and where they're at. The the complaint we've gotten actually is like, "This thing gives me too much communication." So like if you happen to be an architect that's using one person to process all your permits, they're getting 30 emails because all of the permits are alerting them like, "Hey, you had a status change. Hey, you have a comment. Hey, this is ready to approve and to where we're at." So it's a learning curve. Um, I fully expected there to be people that did not like it, but people are starting to come around now as this is more kind of going from like MS DOSs to Windows where you can just scroll and click and use drop downs to see where you're at.

And Miss Doss is way before our time. [laughter] Mr. Herb.

Yeah. Mr. Mr. Larson, if you could turn your mic off, others then can turn theirs on. Can you turn your mic off, sir? Can you turn your mic off? Are you able to right there? Yeah. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, Mr. Remac, um, since we're talking about the permitting process and the new system, prior to this new system going live and kind of driving that that change, there was a rather large backlog, if you will, a lot of frustration, pent up uh, in the system. um where we are today, how would you grade this um the current status of operations with regard to permits and processing and have we been able to chew through that backlog? Is there still a backlog present? And if so, what additional hurdles are in front of us to to clear that out?

So, Miss Silva to speak in and jump in at any time if I misspe. Miss Silva regularly watches the queue every day. So when we look at it, the queue is actually coming down rather quickly. We've actually gone ahead and we use PowerBI to infiltrate and pull out the information and stack it in an accurate queue for each division as to what they're doing. So if you're a fire reviewer, you go to the page, you click it, you change it, and it shows you in a smart queue exactly what it is. It's not first in, first out. It actually goes through some hierarchy as to what it's looking at. Are you a second review coming in? You have 14 days for that. Okay. where you're higher in the queue than someone that has a total of 30 days for their first review to get looked at. So, that's been helpful. Um, in looking at permits and when it comes through, we still have migrated permits that we're looking at. I'll be honest though, that's not 100% us and what we're looking at. People on average take about two years to complete a project. That's from like they submit, they go through the queue, they get issued, and then it still exists because they're building for an additional year, year and a half. It really depends, you know, if it's an owner builder, then yeah, two, three years sometimes and what you look at, but if it's a professional builder, they'll go ahead and they'll be done in six months, you know, as to where they're moving through. So, we're actively seeing the backlog chewed down and going from under review to issued permits. But some of those also at the same time we have because we return the comment and then we don't hear from somebody for five months, six months. It just depends on who it is and the specific position. But the number of migrated permits that are left, I'll let Angie speak to that.

I think we have about 2,200 permits in some active status in the system as of this morning [snorts]

u related to that probably migrated as probably maybe 30% 40% of that overall total. And speaking to what Jeff was mentioning about new permit systems and the frustrations, we anticipated that. But also as part of that migration from a 20-year-old PAL plus system, which by the way, Pierce County is actively evaluating getting out of that system as well. So that's not going to be around forever. Um, but we had 5 months to stand up a completely new brand new permit system, build it out, and that was driven by a grant deadline. That was not our self-inflicted deadline. That was a grant deadline. For a jurisdiction of this size, it takes about 12 to 18 months to do that, right? So, the spike that we saw in frustrations or what you heard in the community were probably around July and August. Sadly, to be expected because we still needed time to build out a lot of things. We were able to work out those bugs and kinks as the months have proved on. Going back to the backlog because we are able to move into a new permit system that has better performance and monitor tracking as well as deadlines to meet those um new statemandated deadlines that we've talked about in code amendments in the past. We're able to track that. So unfortunately I darken people's doors when I see a deadline missed and that whether that's our building reviewer, our planning reviewer, our engineering group, but also our external parties that are incorporated into the system, West Pierce Fire and Rescue and the water district as well. So we have a far better ability to track and monitor performance than we had in the previous system. And we'll see actually on Monday we have a council briefing on um 5290 timelines and we took a snapshot in 2024 old system. Where were we at those timelines even though they were in effect across the board we were not doing that great in many different application types and then do a snapshot after some process improvements. One of that was the permit system launched this year and where we are uh between quarter

1 and quarter 3. You will see vast improvements in our approval timelines. Are there some areas we still need to work on? Absolutely. Process improvement is a constant effort and never stops. But you will see improvements to those timelines. But that system, that foundation of tech was instrumental for us to start moving in that forward progression. M please continue. you've provided this for us. We'd like to see it.

No. Fair enough. And I will be remissed as because the PowerPoint is on the big screen behind you. So, if you don't want to uh stare at me jabbering on, there is a slide deck that is far more uh visually appealing than looking at me. But just to wrap up this one again, we're doing housekeeping uh sub uh substantive as well as reorganizational edits. On the last topic on this slide for the ESM, again we mentioned this before, removing outdated references, adding new current references, um, but also making sure that we have the appropriate standards from the collegeies storm water standards of today. So now we'll get into the title 12 updates on substantive changes. Really kind of four basic categories on that as it relates to storm water. I'm going to move left to right on the screen. uh kind of storm water really clarifies existing requirements today, not new requirements, current requirements. The three tiers of drainage review, whether that is a simplified drainage review that doesn't require engineers to do that or versus requires a civil engineer to provide those um plans. In addition to that, um one area that was highlighted as a topic that was not clear in our design manual and the storm water code, etc., was about trash enclosures and how to appropriately address runoff from that. As in here, because Pierce County is a sewer utility, you can't directly connect that trash enclosure runoff to the sewer utility. So, we have to make sure we appropriately treat that storm water before it's discharged. On the site development side, again, we wanted to clarify driveway access, gates, and emergency vehicle access. This also has an interplay with building and fire code standards. So we want to make sure we're all on the same page and we're not asking applicants three different standards that may conflict with each other. For example, lastly also we had to updated our geotechnical requirements. Um geotech reports are required in the building code but also in engineering. So we wanted to make sure we're in alignment

and we're not confusing and making people prepare two different reports which has dual purposes. We also aligned our flood plane regulations that are found in the zoning code and our title 14 environmental code as well to make sure we're consistent with each other as it relates to rightaway use. We clarified our current practice for utility permits whether they're annual or single rightaway or oversized load. In addition to we wanted to address a new hot topic in the community that we're se seeing through franchise agreements as it relates to broadband access and trenchless uh road cut crossings. On the topic of traffic impacts, we wanted to recognize the level of service standards that are adopted in the transportation element of the comprehensive plan. In addition to that, we wanted to also incorporate and codify our downtown traffic and mitigation fee. That's already a policy. It's already an adopted standard in the plan action EIS, but that's a policy. It's not available online. So, we wanted to make sure that was transparent and available. Please note, a traffic mitigation fee or TMF for short is not a traditional impact fee you see in other communities that have different state statute requirements. This is specifically related to SEPA and environmental review and tied directly to the plan action AIS. So a lot of the content you see in that new chapter in title 12 related to the TMF is following that plan action EIS. So any big changes to that may trigger a plan action EIS amendment. So keep that in mind as we're going through that.

Say that one more time. The difference between the two.

Uh what you see traditionally in communities are impact fees whether for roads, schools as well as parks. Here in Lakewood we do not have impact fees. However, in the downtown area, as part of the adopted plan action environmental impact statement, there is a policy to recoup costs for private development impacts to the transportation network. Outlines how many dollars are needed are for capital improvements to our roadway infrastructure in downtown. Here's the cost per trip on those impacts and what the public the city would pay versus the private development that is set forward in the plan action ordinance that was adopted at that time. I think circa 2019. What this incorporates is those policies and those standards and code so it's easily found by everybody. Many of the things that we'll talk about as we're moving through are a result of like years of continued growth and maybe not having the ability to do a full reset and where we're at. Uh I came obviously in 2024, so March 2024, and they said, "We have a TMF." I said, "Cool. Where is it in code? It's not in code." Where is it? Well, it's it's an ordinance. I'm like, "Well, where's the ordinance?" Said, "Well, it's an ordinance with a policy." I was like, "Okay, well, I know what I'm doing and I'm having difficulty finding it. So, how does anybody else who's developing find this?" And there was a lot of heat that came from in terms of trying to talk about the TMF. So, this is really putting it out front so that people see it right in the code that it stands right there as you're moving through. Are you in the CBD? Yes. Are you going to create additional trips over the background of what already exists on the site? Yes. All right. you need to pay, I think it's $2,100 per PM trip for that mitigation. So, people know right away when they're looking to develop. This will be an issue in where I'm at versus we come in for design review. Design review looks at it and says, "Oh, you're

going to generate an additional 50 trips. So, we'll need $100,000 new." And you're like, "What?" Like, I I didn't prep for that. So, what we're focusing on is frontloading people to be able to understand what they're doing as they're coming through the system and not make it a secret. I don't like secrets, right? People should be able to read the code, understand, maybe have clarifying questions, but they see the path to get from A to Z and what they're trying to do. So, that is really what we're focused on in this refresh. Thank you. And as we enter into kind of the title 13 clarifications again, um just to recap, relocating the sewer mandatory connection language in title 12 to the utilities title, title 13. um clarifying what is required within a 10-year period for uh connection to public sewer if it's available. What that availability charge after a 90-day notice from the city. So clarifying that as well also just hold on the couple more topics here identifying immediate connection to the septic if it fails if sewer is within proximity of that and the timelines related. Also substantively we updated title 13 to incorporate Pierce County code um design standards and requirements there as well as clarified language as it relates to the availability charge already in code today.

[snorts]

Next slide, please. As a for the ESM kind of substitive, um, we covered this quite a bit, but including and updating all reference to the storm water standards to current ecology standards. So, we're not always going in there every time when they update a manual. [snorts] Um, clarifying and relocating outdated code level design specifications into the ESM. the rightaway use, including detailed design requirements when it comes to trenching, utility coordination, and um clarifying the different types of rightaway classifications and permits on the traffic impacts, clarifying when traffic studies are required and the content of that and the triggers related to that. So again, just being very clear about those standards. Next slide, please. So kind of a recap. Old structure the big thing you're going to see which I agree with you sir it's very voluminous and a lot of information in that packet old structure clearly separating in the code LMC that's process procedure in the ESM that's where you're going to the design requirements so separating that too before they're all intermingled I'll find design and procedures in the ESM but I'll also find it in title 12 as well so really separating and clearly uh distinguishing that in the old structure. Again, removing conflicting and incon inconsistent references, removing outdated and uh legacy technical details. And then kind of when we reference outside manuals from the state or the federal government, for example, we don't say this specific date of the manual, whatever is current at that time. So, we remain current and we don't have to come back here all the time to make a line of, "Oh, we updated a manual. It's the 2026 version now. So, next slide, please. We covered this quite a bit, so we'll

move through this quickly. The ESM, the intent of this kind of major reorg is to make sure the ESM represents the design standards with the code, the technical procedural aspects of that, whether that's um and that is intended for more consistent reviews, but also aligning and adopting those manuals in the ESM as well. Next slide, please. And on the title 18 consistency updates, this was highlighted as we're making amendments um when it comes to engineering deviations and variances. It's in code right now, but it doesn't detail the process for that. So we wanted to be very clear and had the landing p page for all of our permit procedures in in 18A20 to clarify what is the appropriate process and decision authority of that as well as the avenue in which to appeal if one disagrees with it. These updates also include 2026 uh fee schedule updates that have already been adopted by council as it relates to pavement degradation. This is related to kind of rideway work. Um when you're digging up the rideaway, we have certain fees based on when that rideway was um last updated through our capital project, for example, and as well as moratorium costs. Next slide, please. With that, that was a whole bunch of garbly goop from me. Happy to answer any questions folks have. I

think we have some down in the weeds type of questions. Okay. No one. Okay. I will then. Okay. Chapter 12.04 permitting. Why? I couldn't find anything having to do with tree permitting. Did you say tree permit, sir? Yes. Is that not covered in 12? No. Uh, tree permits are covered in 18A70, the zoning ordinance. the A7.

It also if it's related to Gary Oaks um Gary Oak protections are also located in title 14 which is our environmental and critical area standard as well. Okay. Uh chapter 12.06.70 cluster style mailboxes. The way I uh question actually so nanza street improvement according to that according to this they will now go to cluster is that correct correct

so but and then they have to pay for the cluster and for the upkeep what if I don't want it

so the difficulty when you look at it and what's asked for by the post office as well as traffic moving up and down the is for the cluster mailbox specifically when you're looking at a large separation. What we've looked to do everywhere we can is to actually put the pull out which you've seen in the code. So Nanza will have the pull out for people to go ahead and pull up and go out and get their mail as to where they're at. Uh the idea is that it limits the impacts to the rideway as well as the ability to design and where we're at. the not use of a cluster mailbox along Nyanza would mean that everybody there number one would either have to be a postal carrier who's walking because we're putting in frontage improvements or there would have to be mailboxes at the front edge of the rideway behind the curb everywhere for every home as we move through. It's not practical in the design and it's been a design change and push that from the post office for quite a long time and this section actually when we're looking at it to be clear is already in code. This is a movement in where it is to be more sequential in the order when people are moving through to better see it because it used to be at the very end and I think it was actually in the ESM if I remember right.

I'm sorry I only got I only got to page 207 of the 348 and I didn't get I think it's on 328. [laughter] Next time I'll do my homework. Okay. Um let's see. Uh, another question. Oh, so on our the flowcharts you had on page 146. I kind of like them. I thought you flows easy. You can people can see what's happening, but I didn't see you put that any place else.

Those flowcharts specifically are related to new and redevelopment as it relates to storm water and whether it triggers certain requirements. Those flowcharts are actually were outdated in the current code. What we reference is the figure numbers in the ecology manual that appropriately do. So they do have those flowcharts. It's just redirecting you to the ecology manual.

So city of Lakewood does not have a standalone storm water manual. Some jurisdictions like Pierce County, Kitap County, they have their own manual. So they reference back to the DOE manual like for a few items. You'll go into it. We don't do that. So when we were looking at in the flowcharts you're looking at that was be creating an active reason to have to check the DOE manual every time they updated it for what figures changed, what references changed, what occurred here. Rather than doing that because it's already the reference you have to go to for all the design implications of what you're going to do. We eliminated the chart and said go to this figure in the DOE manual because it will always be accurate as to what we're doing and moving forward.

Mr. Mr. Remac question just about um applying changes like this. Obviously um lots of projects going on at any given time. This uh update last happened I think you said 2009. Um as we implement these changes and as we look ahead to the future it comes to mind what happens to projects that are in flux as we're executing this guidance. Do they fall under u old guidance and they get grandfathered in, if you will, or do they have to immediately comply with this new guidance? How does that work?

So, they'll vest to the code that they submitted at when they were considered complete. They will be vested to that. Now, I say that with a caveat. Storm water is unique and that they went ahead and had a court case probably seven years ago now as to if you can vest to storm water, but you must start com, you know, building a storm water system. I think it's like seven years or 5 years. Within five years of approval, you have to start building it. You cannot have a plat that is sitting with it storm water unstructed and then come in at the six years from now and be like, "Oh, I'm going to install it now." Like, no, now you have to meet the new standard that's in place. But for the most part, anyone who's coming in and they're going to build within the next three years, there's no issue, right? They're going to come in, they'll be vested to the code at the time they submitted and had a complete application.

And the timeline that Mr. Ray Mech mentioned that's related to the ecology permit that we're all required as a municipality to get from ecology. So it's a duration of that permit and that was the court case that he mentioned Wallace. Dr. Wallace.

Yeah. Um I got about to page 240 and then I started to lose it. Uh thank you very much. And so I started looking at the the um the electrical uh some of the road standards and uh and the manual and uh that was quite a technical feat. I want to thank you very much for that. that. Um, but but some of the questions I had were it made references to the Washington State Department of Transportation. And I was having a lot of trouble figuring out what our standards really were for roads or driveway placement or the angle of inclination, the I don't know what you call them, the the way you do the edges of the roads so that people don't fall off and have a truck fall over like you know we saw the Amazon truck do. Um, and things like that. So where do we look for those things? because it was very unclear to me which standard we follow is Washington state got some strands here there's there's standards over here it was very hard to follow

so with Washington state department of transportation their standards they're vetted reviewed you know to meet requirements for ADA it's also what we meet with our grant-f funed projects is meeting those those standards so what we tried to do where we can is reference those standards that already exist because they are vetted and reviewed and the requirements uh similar to what we were talking about earlier with storm water. Um and then we make very minor changes for things that maybe are unique to city of Lakewood that we want to see in the standard. So I hope that answers your question. We can always go to a specific page if there's something I missed. But Weston on those wash dot standards or when we incorporate like Pierce County for example, those are available on their websites and we try to hyperlink that to our page when you go to for example when you want to try to find the ESM on today. You can find the ESM on our permitting page and then it lists a whole bunch of different design figures specific to Lakewood but also other standards that we incorporate in engineering review. Another weed question. Vacate vacations [clears throat] specifically. I think it's called Hilltop right off in runs all the way down to the the lake, Gravity Lake, but it doesn't go all the way down the lake because there's a tree x number of feet from the lake. First of all, is that road public road, private road? But I believe it was over there.

So, were you mentioning Hilltop Lane or Yes, Hilltop Lane, if I understand correctly, does go all the way to the lake, but I would have to research that further. It doesn't. There's a big tree in the way and you can't Oh, I see what you're saying. The road itself, not the not the rightway. The the road itself is what you're saying. It does uh end there um roughly at the entrance to the Kaufman property. Right. So is that's that's city property. So we could in fact take the tree down.

It's it's unopened right away is what you what it would be called. So there's rightway that is throughout the city. We know about the street ends that's been been recently a topic of conversation. I think everyone's aware of that. But there are other portions of rideaway that remain unopened. By that meaning no one's come in and improved the rideway for full use. So that's what you're looking at is an unopened piece of rideway. you could potentially look at the removal of that, but we typically would not go in and remove a tree unless there's a cause or a reason for that, whether that be public access. It could potentially be public access,

but at the same time, the one thing that I'll speak to the street ends really quick and really is not the purpose for tonight because we'll get into that deeper later, another council meeting. But when we look at those, there are a lot of feasibility options that go into that. So, yes, you may be on hilltop, but is how high is the water? How dangerous is it to get a person down to there? What are we looking at? What are there for encroachments? Can ADA approach this? There's about nine different criteria we look at when we're looking at these for how we move forward and what we're doing with that. So, we're actively looking at the street ends like that, which ones we can open. There are four that we're looking at to go ahead and move forward in a pilot program that was directed by the council that will come up in January to speak to. Um, but actively looking at it and saying, "Yeah, we can cut down the tree and do something." The city wouldn't take an action like that without having a reasoned thought behind it and how we were going to move forward because one of the big things we will always look at is a survey to understand where the left and right limits are in terms of the rightway. We cannot go in and take action without knowing what is actually are. So we generally know where all the street ends are, but those are items that need to be surveyed before we take action. And just from environmental lens, when it comes to those street ends, removing the tree would still because they're budding that lake that triggers shoreline environmental renewals and when you remove native vegetation, including trees like that that provide canopy as well as reduce temperature in the water. There's a lot of mitigation and restoration triggers that come along with the as a requirement of the shoreline management act in the state of Washington. So, keep that in mind. It's just not a simple tree removal.

Yeah. And the other thing when we're looking at it, I believe we already kind of know we're looking for 40% and we're starting right now into the urban forestry program and what we are. So the removal of any trees from its own rightway would really need to be tied to a purpose that really serves the community and what we look at and be versus public asex. Yes. Yeah. Exactly. Yeah. Okay. Tricky tricky. One more question. So still vacations when we vacate a street and it it becomes the property of of uh of the addition owners like right here off of um Pacific Highway. We did that uh with the hotels right next to the hotel.

Yeah. Okay. So how is the value of a street determined? Who determines that? Uh, certified appraiser. Appraiser can val streets. Yep. Did not know that. Sorry. Two things I learned. Oh my gosh. Well, okay. That was me learning tonight. Anybody have any other questions for for the I had a question about the street end.

Yeah. One of the complaints that I have heard from people is that the street ends served as a point of access from one large area of where homes were to another large area of homes. frequently they were connections and they allowed people to walk in safety without being onto the road. In some of the places they've gotten rid of those street ends which means that now there is no way to connect between neighborhoods and so you have to walk all the way out for example from interlock and you have to walk all the way out to Washington you have to go all the way down that way. Used to be you you could cut across in two different places and go end up on um I think it was 89th Street and now you can't. So you have to walk all the way around and there are not sidewalks all the way around. There's few. And so it has Yeah, those few homeowners got a little bit bigger of a backyard. That really wasn't the issue that bothered people when they said, "Well, you couldn't make a road." Well, there was no need for a road. People wanted to be able to walk there. And so I think that's been missed with that trying to separate out the neighborhoods when the neighborhoods don't really want that. They want to be able to to walk from one neighborhood to their visit their neighbor in the next neighborhood and those street ends serve that purpose and they've been eliminated in many areas and two in particular I can think of and that's been a big complaint. So is there any way to reverse that process or to allow some way to have people when where they can walk between neighborhoods? It's a much healthier alternative and people want it.

There is not a way to reverse that. No. that property when the street ends were vacated was purchased and is now the lawful property of the person who purchased it. How about ameliating it so we have access in other places so that people could do that? I mean, it doesn't seem like that's trying to make our neighborhoods walkable is not an doesn't seem to be a priority.

So, there's a multiple there's multiple levels to this and I'll kind of walk through it as to what we're looking at. So, one thing that we look at is anything that the city goes ahead and creates that is for pedestrian access needs to meet ADA requirements or must have an ADA pedestrian access route. So, it's pretty routine for jurisdictions not to maintain non-motorized trails that are not ADA centric. That's why we look at roads and why we provide them along road frontage because they're avenues of conveyance that already exist. So, we improve those so that people can get from point A to point B. There are areas in more rural areas where they have natural paths. They'll go ahead and say it's a nature path and we record it, but I've not seen any yet where they retained the rightway solely for the purpose of a walking path and what we're looking at. It's not. I understand what we're looking at, but the liability that comes with creating something like that that doesn't meet the ADA standard in the more latigious world in which we exist, jurisdictions really aren't doing that anymore because of the liability that's existing with it. Also, when we look at it, I understand the intent and what people want to do in walking between it, but many of times when that rideway was designated, it was designated to become the street as we laid out and developed the town. So, it's kind of a matter of what it was originally designed for and is the city going to go ahead and create a road. It was never really dedicated with this will be the walking path from this trail to here. They exist left or right. I grew up with them as well where I grew up in a rural area. Roads weren't completed. Areas were vacated and sold and what we looked at, but we don't look at that as when we're at it. Will we develop a road or will we go ahead and put an ADA accessible design through it is what we look at when we're there. And just to clarify from a rightaway perspective because rightaways intent by state statute is for transportation purpose that needs to meet that. However, if you look at other communities that in urban trails that

don't meet ADA standards, those are often found in parks properties or easements rights that they have acquired by adjacent property owners. So the Burkeman trail is one of those. Some of those also fall along old rail lines, but that transfer of the rail rightway went into a separate ownership to address a lot of the legalities that Jeff was mentioning. So, it's about the legal structure that that you apply that, but also the different design standards and where that it's appropriate to do that through parks planning, for example. [snorts]

Mr. I'm troubled by the by the answer uh that the integration of neighborhoods uh by natural walking paths [clears throat] cannot happen. That that seems wrong. And it seems to me as though we've got a prepoundonderance of regulations, a lot of them u given to us by others. ADA is a good example that uh are in the way of of practical uh homespun uh neighborhood community building decisions. And that that is troubling uh with uh with your answer which but which I understand from an engineering standpoint from a regulation standpoint everybody puts these things against each other and uh and and you you come up with plans but it and and that's one of the reasons I asked for the idea of having a questionnaire what's wrong uh what what are we finding that we need to correct about these factors uh as part of the process here because um there's there's a legitimate conflict between growth and peaceful neighborhood development and and evolution uh by the regulations that were lording upon the process and it's it's not all correct. It's not all right and there should be a way to be able to make these things really really work.

I I understand 100% the sentiment and where you're coming from. I'll be honest uh as a employee for the city the goal when we look at it is what is for the entitlement that we're required to do to protect both the city and the community as to what we're looking at and how we move forward. There are many things that have come in over the number of years that have been that have come upon us. Right? ADA was not something 10 years ago when I was in the field. It was nowhere near as prevalent as it is now. The reality though is in order to protect both the citizen and the the city as to what we're looking at, we have to comply with regulations that come in that do not have movement on it. It's not a decision that the city can make with many things that we look at to say we're not going to look or do that. It's not the answer you want to hear. I understand that 100%. I It's been 15 years and it is not the answer that anyone has ever wanted to hear. But the reality of what we're looking at is a balance between the two to try and give as much as we can and stay within the confines of the code to not violate it and be fined or looked at. And there are other people on the other end of the spectrum. I just wish to be clear that like immediately if you do not do that, they come in on the other end like you're in violation of growth management because you didn't do this and this should have been a requirement. It it is a uh I feel like I walk AAM's razor every day as I come in like I know I want to help you be successful and do this. this is the confines of what I can do maximum left and right. Let's work within that and that I'm not trying to be um discount or say where we're at. I have to operate within certain confines and I try to wrigle that where I can and stretch that where I can but there are limits

and there's uh as you said a balance that has to uh occur in all these things but the the rebel in me wants to say what happens if we don't go by the rules what happens if we do create variations on the theme for the community's benefit uh do does our funding get clipped do we not get the next round uh of uh of approvals from those granting the funding. Does that really matter? And uh has has the thinking gone that way? And I I don't expect an answer necessarily, but it's it's just uh seems to me that that there should be a way to have balance in that aspect as well.

Thank you for those thoughts. Dr. I just had to pile on with that because um I actually did a lot of work looking at what you could do that was ADA compliant in some of these areas and I looked at places across the country to compare what they did and I think that there are ways to do it. We just need to be creative and a little bit outside the box and um because there are all kinds of surfaces that you can use that bicycles can go on that wheelchairs can go on that will meet all those needs and they're even pvious and they're not just impervious surfaces but they're still ADA compliant and they would fit in those spaces and I actually looked at some I got an engineer that I know to look at them and say what will this meet this can you say like oh yeah you could do this you have to do I won't get into the specifics of how much dirt and how much gravel and stuff Um but he said this is how you do it and it'll be you know this smid this thick and it'll be perfectly compliant. You can do it right there and it won't bother the tree because it'll be pvious and it'll flow right through it. And so I think that it really can be done. We just need to be thoughtful about it in certain areas and and and really look at doing that because it's it's a huge complaint from people that I'm that I get. So thank you.

Nope. I I appreciate that. There there are methods to do some of the various things we're looking at. I'll be honest, there is resource in what we have and where we focus it and how we move forward. I understand it 100%. I put one in in Kitsap. It's 10 foot wide multimodal. It's not pavement. It is compacted service. It meets ADA. Um but it was I'll be honest, it was very expensive to install for what we look at for a trail and and multi well it was about a $28 million project we were looking at and the redesign ate up over 17 million of it to try and get in and meet those as to where we were at. So there's competing needs like we state. Um we try to balance those. I know it's not always the the popular answer, but the reality is when we look at these, we're usually making decisions or what is going to benefit the majority of the personnel in the city, the people who live in the city. So we have to make those decisions that way. But I don't disagree that there are options that can exist to do those.

And and I go back again, we're talking about specific allowance within public rightway, that boundary, but again transferring that over to different methods of ownership. for example, a parks property and doing those uh different variety of different design trails. There are paths forward. We see communities do it. You just got to get really really creative in how you do it. [snorts] We we will remember the city engineer at our next time and just uh thank you everyone for diving into the technical requirements. We will be um heading scheduling a public hearing in mid January as we return in the new year. So look forward to the feedback from the community and how to make this a much more robust uh draft document.

If there is [snorts] additional feedback as we go into the public hearing, please do bring that forward at the same time so that we can hear that. It is a daunting document. It is engineer focused and what you look at. I'll be honest, I had to review it twice. I was like, I'm only going to be able to do a quarter of this a day. This is not going to be the whole thing of the day. So thank you for your time. Mr. Chair, could you activate your mic? Thanks. So, uh, next on the agenda is new business. We have none according to this. Correct. And our next steps,

next steps. This was the last meeting for 2025, first of all. So, thank you all for your service this year. Um, there are no term limited people at the end of this year from the planning commission. However, as you all are aware, I think Mr. Lynholm and Miss Tabo will be moving over to city council. Uh the mayor has is undergoing the process to uh identify, interview, and appoint two new planning commission members. They will be discussed, I think, on December 15th at the city council. So, if you want to tune in and find out who those folks will be, uh I think that's when the names will be made public. And then they will be joining you at your first meeting in January. On that meeting also will be the election of the 2026 chair and vice chair. So if you're interested in that and you're going to be here next year, kind of think about that. Uh and then that process will happen early on in the first meeting of the year. Uh we don't have council member Bokei here tonight. Uh but uh just continuing on with some of the conversation from Monday night. Uh council will be in um in session two more times this this year. Their last night will be the 15th of December and their budget process is done. The um remainder of the year will be some additional discussion about child care locations. So uh that public hearing was held two days ago. They'll take action on the 15th once again. And then the other thing that's happening on the 15th of December is uh just a status update for council on our natural environment and climate change program which you've heard about a couple of times this year. Uh we'll be providing them with an update of where we're at with the creation of a climate advisory team, getting their feedback and direction on how to identify the correct people to be on that and that group will will start meeting probably at the end of January and 26. So other than that, Mr. Chair, back to you. Well, Lyn Holm is leaving us and we thank you very much for your time here

although very short but uh still you're moving on to and don't forget where you came from. Okay. And that was the planning commission. Okay. And of course Mr. Elbow also elbow and uh we if anyone has anyone anything else if I could just say one thing I'm just really thankful for my time here. If I could stay on both I absolutely would. I learn something from all of you and especially Miss Spear every time I come in this these chambers. So, so thank you. Okay. Thank you. All right, ladies and gentlemen,