City Council - Regular Meeting

All right. Hello and welcome everybody to the Lakewood City Council study session on Monday, February 9th, 2026. It is 700 p.m. and I would like to uh call to order. And then the items, first item for discussion is the review of the fourth quarter 2025 police report. And uh Chief Smith is here to go through the report with us. And it is in your packet beginning on page four. Thank you, Chief. Thank you.

Okay. Well, good evening, council, and thank you for having us here today to go over our fourth quarter police report. Um, for our fourth quarter, uh, I'll just start with the calls for service. and our calls for service, we have pretty much leveled out since 2023. Um, we're keeping track pretty much within 1% of what we were in 2024 for the fourth quarter of the year. So, our calls for service remains pretty much in line with the past year, just slightly above. As far as our arrest, you'll notice that our felony arrests were down 14.7%. Uh that was just basically from a change in our um legislature which moved some crimes that were felonies down to gross misdemeanors. And as you analyze the report, you'll see that our gross misdemeanors were up 44.4%. In addition to our misdemeanors being slightly down just under 1% as far as the overall arrests and our war arrests were up 1.6%. Overall our our arrests were down just 2.7%. pretty much in line with the past. Th this year we had um tremendous crime reduction within the city of Lakewood. Our crime numbers show that um our a assaults were down 20.2%. Our simple assaults were down 15.4%. Um, and this year was a banner year as far as our homicides. We came down 100%

from five in the previous year to zero this year. Our robberies were down 42.9% and our sex crimes were down 7% for an overall crime reduction of 17.7%. Um in analyzing our third quarter, fourth quarter and our fourth quarter, fourth quarter comparisons, we see that our third quarter to fourth quarter was down 30 4.6% and our fourth quarter to fourth quarter was down 30.8%. Our property crimes, we show that our our burglaries overall were down 42.5%. Our fraud was down 25.4%. Our lararsenies were down 11.8%. And our critical area that we have been tracking for the past 3 years has been our motor vehicle theft which was down 53.8%. Our stolen property was down 27.3%, vandalism down 35.9%. Our weapons law violations were down 5% for a total reduction of 26.9% in our property and societal crimes. Our pursuits overall were were down. We've had an issue with pursuits uh as we as the laws have changed and then come back into alignment with what we traditionally expect of uh pursuit laws. So um our our overall pursuits were down 27.8%. And our eludes were down 45.6% which is a great progress from where we had been in the past. One of the areas that showed a

significant reduction was in our shots fired within the community. Um you can see where we were in 2023 just in the lower right. Uh gives you a great illustration of our year to our end of year crime where we were down 38.8% overall illustrating pretty much 200 over 200 fewer victims of shots fired crimes in in the community. our motor vehicle theft. I think this is the greatest graph to show what what has occurred and the progress that we've made in the community. Um I in 2023 was a year um when we had the greatest number of motor vehicle thefts, almost 1,200 uh stolen vehicles in 2023. It was in the third quarter of 2023 where uh you the council approved uh us to um approve funding for flock safety which we invested in. And you can see the overall trajectory of of crime in that area from uh 1,182 all the way down uh to 181 in 2025. Um, we saw a 69% reduction in uh 2024 and another 53% reduction this year. And I I think that's probably the greatest figure uh and illustration of progress in the community. Over a thousand less victims. Yes, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Chief, um, this is a great trend, but is are we have we trended down to a to a new plateau where in the range of 180 a year is probably both good, but what we should expect. Um, you know, I wish I had a crystal ball to to determine that. However, um, it's our goal to simply drive down crime as best we possibly can. Uh, the new technologies that we've been have implemented have been working for as exceptionally well. Um, the systems that are in place uh within the the city um have helped our officers tremendously well. Um other cities who have also made the same investment have seen um also great drops in these areas and and those who have not have not seen uh you know crime reductions to the level that we have.

So if or when it does plateau in sometime in the future,

what's the next investment we need to make to start lowering that plateau again. Um so basically what we've been doing is taking it step by step. We started out with a smaller number of flock safety and through uh a grant we were able to increase the numbers within the city and that helped us in 202 uh four and five. Um and so uh the next step for us is that we we added additional technology to our uh vehicles for for the officers. And so we have been slowly progressing through um the the crime reduction and the crime trends that we we have seen. And so we're hoping that that just staying slightly ahead of the curve of what's happening, watching our daily numbers, um the report that I handed you guys out, the this is our chief's report that comes out every morning that it's where we stay uh up on the daily trends and what's happening within the community. And as you can see, even with the 181 um as of the 8th, we're still down 23% down from the uh uh past year at this time. So, we're still working on crime reduction and we're doing uh the officers are doing what what uh they can to continue to reduce crime within the city.

Okay. And again, my question is looking ahead seven months from now when we're trying to create the next bianial budget whether there are any investments that need to be in in in in that 2728 budget to stay on the similar trajectory. So but but that's a question that you can answer six months from now.

Right. So, what what I would I would truly like to see and the direction that that we're going is to work our way towards a real-time crime center so that we are have more eyes on the city and in critical areas so that we can identify the crime trends, the hot areas that we need to work and then start to work towards a real-time crime center so that that we are addressing the blind spots within in what we do and and within the city. Thank you, Chief. Thanks, Mr. Mer. Okay.

So, our collision report uh here shows that uh we have crime reduction or reduction in our traffic collisions of 9.7% pretty close to 10%. Um I I I'm sure all of us would like to see this number go down as we implement more um structural roundabouts but also more enforcement within the community uh due to a number of promotions that kind of took away from our traffic unit. However, uh those guys were really doing a great job for us in in our traffic enforcement. Uh it's one of the continued challenges within the city that we'll continue to work work on as far as reducing our traffic collisions. And this is our overall summary. Within the summary, you'll see uh pretty much crime reduction in every category of crime. Um this is uh very reflective of a number of areas where there's a tremendous reduction in crime and I I think it's been a almost a banner year for the city of Lakewood and I I um look at our overall numbers and um we're we're [snorts] on track for serious reductions over a thousand uh fewer victims than the year before and um if I remember correctly, it's close to 2,000 from the year prior to that. So, our numbers are are looking tremendously good. And the the paperwork that I gave you was uh I handed out today was our chief's daily report which shows you our tracking of our overall crime on a and

looking at our crime numbers on a daily basis and also our goals for the uh year 2026 of what what we want to achieve within the city and how we intend to get there. Do you want to speak to any of that on the on the goals and how those were put together? And

no, I I I'll just just briefly just to kind of quickly go over them is is to focus on community engagement and increase uh community- based policing, reduce crime and the fear of victimization. And so one of the things that of of that one that's most important is it's one thing to reduce crime, but we want to reduce the fear of victim victimization of someone feeling like there's crime when or something going on um and shedding um the thoughts of fear of the past of what the city uh that they thought or what they heard about the city. But we want to focus on that. We want to reduce uh traffic collisions and create a safer safer communities, increase the use of technology, technological advancements in policing and enhance police training, wellness, and support. Um and then those are broken down into bullet points from there. Council member Lindholm. Chief, thank you for bringing these numbers to us. They're very encouraging. Do we have any instances of human trafficking reflected in here anywhere? So, um I don't believe we do, but usually that will fall in the upper area. I don't think this wants to work with me too well. It likes to go forward and not back.

usually in our our crimes against persons. Uh but it's not broken down just for human trafficking. Sure. And I know we've spoken before there's one officer that's spending some attention in this area. Do we have any kind of a coordinated approach with other jurisdictions on this on human trafficking? It's a kind of thing that crosses boundaries very easily. Um, not necessarily. I mean, we work with all of the other agencies just in coordination in general, but Yeah. No, not specifically on that. So, do you think that would be helpful?

Yes. Um, any signs of it that we've we've had we've been able to work on. Um, I think the greater one was [snorts] uh using our block technology. we were able to save a 15year-old from um from being sex trafficked into or out of the country. And so that's where a lot of the technology comes in. And so um let me see if our Captain Captain Crater is not here if I can speak to that. We we did have a couple task force officers.

Is this working? So, up until the last two years, we had a couple of detectives that were on the FBI innocence loss task force. Um, but due to a retirement and some rotations within investigations, we don't currently have anybody assigned to that task force. Are we hoping to make that assignment soon? We're going to look into that. It's just dependent on staffing. Sure. So, Okay. Thank you. Does council have any other additional questions for the chief for the presentations? Council member Brandsteader.

Uh, a short time ago, the council had a discussion about uh, uh, the design for future roadway improvements on Mount Tacoma Drive. And um then there was a particular intersection there that the question was had to do with should we put a traffic circle there or not? And so the discussion came up about collisions. Mhm.

Okay. And um and then and then the discussion about collisions distilled down into uh severity of collisions and you're the data that you routinely provide us like today

is a a totality of collisions that I assume covers a range of severities But we're really looking to see whether particularly given the significant number of roadway improvement projects that we've had in the past four four years of of trying to look at whether we've reduced the severity of collisions in and not just totally focused on on on the numbers and I'm would would ask that maybe if during 2026 some collision data that categorizes collisions by [snorts] severity in injuries death property whatever whatever is the appropriate way to to to to to do that. [clears throat]

That data is possibly going to be something that will be important to us as we are looking to prioritize the next sequence of traffic projects that we want to do and and to help uh um folks with with with with design measures. and what is always there and to explain the community why certain design measures were selected. So if if if that could be something that you could look at uh if that's possible to do with 2026 data.

It is it is possible. Um, you know, the roundabouts that that we have are designed to uh lessen your traffic collisions or the most serious traffic collisions and um try to eliminate the cross traffic collisions or the T-bones for the most part. And whereas if you're having a collision in those areas, they're usually a a a sidewiping or a side collision that uh does not result in a rollover type of event. Yeah. And I and I agree. And we designed them with that intent and then but we you cannot account for drivers modifying their behavior to defeat your intent.

Yes. Yes. Yes. You have any more questions? [snorts] Council member Pearson.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you, Chief. Um, yeah, I just piggyback on Mr. Brandset's comments about the roundabout design and just traffic calming in general. And I can say without a doubt that it certainly has worked on Washington and veterans. I've that's my kind of main route back and forth to the highway. And I can't tell you how many times uh before those road projects were completed that folks would be flying down the middle uh to a left turn lane like 60 m an hour. And now there's zero opportunity to do that because we have a, you know, raised median with vegetation and stuff in the middle and lots of roundabouts and you're lucky to even be going the speed limit, you know, post the posted speed limit there before you're slowing down and, you know, accelerating between them. So, um, they're they're definitely a good tool. Um, and then as it relates to one of the objectives on here, uh, reduce crime and the fear of victimization,

I really I really like, um, what you guys are doing there. Um,

I think over the past year or year and a half, there's been a a a noticeably noticeable increase in presence at the town center. And I think that that's gone a long ways. And I've heard it from many people around the community that, you know, the Lakewood Police Department's always out at the town center, you know, a couple officers, you know, siren or lights on, just just showing presence. And um and in fact, uh while I was in Target one of the days, I heard some younger folks that were up to no good cons, but they were actually having a conversation about whether or not they should steal from Target because this is in Lakewood and you'll actually, you know, there'll be some repercussions. So, I think that, you know, as you talk as you look at reducing crimes, you know, those things are are happening. And so, I I just really appreciate your guys's work there um and your leadership for that. Thank you.

Well, thank you,

Council Member Talbo. Thank you, uh, Mr. mayor and uh thank you to my council members for your comments and touching on what touching on Mr. Brandstead's comment too. Um, I have kind of asked about it in certain ways, but I haven't uh I I think what I've observed is we've talked a little bit past the direct uh concept of how and where the city uh incorporates what's known as vision zero or target zero principles. um particularly because this is really the direction that the state has taken um and there there on one hand there's a lot of resources available to uh PDs locally especially through the Washington State traffic safety commission and so when we look at collisions

and we count collisions it's one thing to count the frequency and the occurrence of collisions But collisions also is very broad. Mhm.

Uh defined and so like Mr. Branson was pointing out how you how how communities how we look and define how collisions uh constitute injuries, serious injuries and fatalities because the frequency of fatalities, you know, those are those are attributed to causes and causes can be related to things like sight distance um or turning radi or intersection ction configuration which starts to become more of an public works engineering design uh remedy in some cases versus uh human cause um in uh human human causes like DUIs

that can't be controlled by the

um by the intersection design geometry or etc. So as we begin to you know as we keep getting statistics I do think that it's productive at some point um for uh there to be some inter support interdep departmental support and and communication and coordination between PD and traffic operations or signal operations or whoever it is in our in our public works side that is actively looking at the causes of crashes and collisions and the severity uh that that you know that that the severity of them and and their as the the you know trying to get at the root of why we experience so many collisions. Um, so this is less of a question, but really just more of a I think comment and um kind of ask that as we go forward that I think we really need to start taking a more meaningful concerted approach and effort in the way that we define collisions and the severity of collisions and start really trying to get at the causes of them and understanding them as more than just fender benders and understanding the true severity of them. Um there are there are definitely resources financial through the uh Washington State traffic safety commission. There's also a lot of federal resources and even uh for safety improvements that we that we program in our in our traffic CIP. Um there can be the case had for

um going after certain types of federal funding to to uh build and implement those those uh those traffic improvement projects. um especially if we had like a local safety roads plan which is um a requirement of applying for certain types of federal funds like the HSIP program, the highway safety improvement program. Um and they can cover uh arterial roads and principal roads where you would experience high severities because higher speeds are going on those roads and especially when pedestrians are involved in injuries and fatalities. I think that's where for me that's where my interest and my hairs kind of raise more about collisions and frequency and understanding why uh those are happening. So I just wanted to leave those comments with you and our our public works officials here tonight. But thank you for the work and

All right. Thank you. Thank you for for keeping us safe. Thank you, Council Member Talbo. Any other comments? So, Chief, thank you very much for the presentation. Uh, we don't have drug I I noticed nationally actually drug arrests or drug crimes were one of the one things that went up last year because I guess a lot of a lot of uh different um agencies are pursuing drugs a little bit more now in the era that we're in. So, I'm assuming that the higher gross misdemeanor arrests have to do with that moving down those things from felonies to the gross misdemeanor that we passed. Is that is that a good assumption?

That that is a a good assumption. Uh actually our our drug numbers are down in comparison to 2023. However, uh they do account for an increased number of the gross misdemeanor arrests. Uh the other part is from our um uh business district uh car that we place in the the town center that um focuses solely on uh reducing crime in the town center to whereas we're getting immediate arrest, we're following up on those arrest and uh increasing our overall arrest in that area.

Great. Thank you very much. Well, these are especially in the items that you gave us here, you know, historically low numbers when it comes to burglaries and and motor vehicle thefts. I mean, you've the the motor vehicle number of course was inflated by the changes that the legislature made and also in robbery. So, I I really do believe that I think people are beginning to feel much safer. I know public perception of crime always lags the actual crime numbers. I mean, that's one of the hard parts about policing. You don't you don't get credit uh for um even when the numbers are down, people question the numbers and and that's a a national phenomenon, right? And so, thank you very much and go back to your folks and tell them that we appreciate all the work that they're the fine work that they're doing and um really making this community much much safer.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. So next uh we have a request to move item number three, the review of the grant for the Washington State Department of Commerce for the Natural Environment and Climate Change NECC program uh to for item number three to make it item number two. And without objection, I'm going to ask Ms. uh Spear to come here and and tell us about that. And that begins in your packet on page 344. and then we'll go back to items two and three or two and four, excuse me, after that.

Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of the council, and I do appreciate the uh willingness to change the order out. As you said, this does begin on page 344 of your packet this evening. Uh this is related to the ongoing work uh both under state requirement through House Bill 1181, but also is related to the city's natural, environment, and climate change program. The House Bill 1181 requires that by mid2029 a number of things happen and be updated within our comprehensive plan and development regulations. But as you know this has been rolled into a larger program that also incorporates the city's tree canopy goals, urban forestry planning, etc. And there has already been one of these grants awarded to the city for the years 23 through 25. Um, last year when I was before you speaking about what we would be doing with the natural environment and climate change program this year, we weren't aware that this grant was going to be available because at first uh Department of Commerce had let us know that the funds would not be. But then at the end of December and into early this year, we did find out in fact there would be dollars. So this is good news for the city's intention to um do more than just is required by state law. And what this allows us to have is $355,000 from state grant funding which can be matched by staff inind time. So no dollars are required for a match to do work related to climate change and resiliency from mid25. So we're able to go back and uh invoice certain activities that occurred second half of last year through mid 2027. And that in turn leaves uh dollars that we're going to have to go toward that work uh freed up through the American Rescue Plan Act and also the city tree funds. And so we have started taking those funds to partner with Pierce Conservation District, Tacoma Tree Foundation. And we hope to partner with

others as well this year to do um for instance the mini grants to certain property owners to depave or uh increase the vegetation and native and resilient vegetation on their property. And also to do things like urban tree sales. There's actually now one that's going to be happening this spring. And in addition to that, other uh educational events and activities for the public in 2023 that we otherwise would not have been able to afford quite frankly. Uh but in now with the grant coupled with uh the dollars that are now freed up from ARPA, we hope this year to do those tree uh events with the public. Also continuing to move forward with the formal launch of an urban forest management plan for the city of Lakewood. looking at the updates required for the climate change and resiliency element uh under 1181 which are two new sub elements that would be before you as part of next year's comprehensive plan amendment package and also some changes related to green spaces and forestry in the land use element. On page 345 you'll see a few more items. There's going to be in addition to all of those things related work to uh come up with urban heat resilience strategies and also a municipal project uh native and climate resilient planting plan developed. So the the contract is there. It's a pretty standard Department of of Commerce boilerplate language until you get to page um 359 of the packet that breaks out the scope of work that would be covered in the time frame for that and then the budget follows. But if there's any other questions, please feel free. I'm ready to answer them.

Does anybody have any questions for Miss Sphere? Miss Talbo, council member Talbo.

Thank you, Miss Bear. Um, uh, on regarding so, okay, so regarding the urban heat resilience strategy, what is the what do you anticipate if at all that would change in code as a result? That is going to be a matter of taking a look at the data that was collected in 2024. We partnered with Pierce County and the health department to do an urban heat mapping project. And it wasn't a a surprise per se, but it just was finally data that saying yes, whereas for instance, there's less tree canopy cover, there is more heat on a hot day. Uh, and so this is going to be responding specifically to code language under 1181, but also looking at what can we do with the neighborhood associations, with other types of community organizations to help uh counter not only with potentially tree plantings, but there may be some energy efficiency fans, HVAC type of um support we might be able to provide to some uh private property owners as well. And then the native develop native and climate resilient planting plans for municipal projects. So is that the same or is that different as the concept of creating like a citywide tree bank for example or identifying areas of the city where planting can where credits or replanting can occur? I I think they're related but this could potentially be separate. This could be for instance whether it's a storm water project or a transportation project. what is going to be planted as part of frontage improvements or along and inside rights of way uh in terms of low impact development andor trees uh in order to help assist with again tree

canopy cover improvements and uh climate change resiliency. So I guess in the in the the con I guess in my mind I think of and I think this I thought the state allowed some legislation that allows for like tree banking. So you could develop a credit system and then and then when a development project uh cuts down trees there's a way to bank those um tree credits and then that there's areas that can go somewhere. Are we where does that or does that concept fit in this scope of work?

It is probably going to be within what is recommended through our climate advisory board or entity whatever it ultimately becomes uh based on your direction uh expertise coming back to the city to say these are the priorities of what we need to work on within that. is increasing tree population in a certain part of the city a high priority goal or is it spread it out as much as we can everywhere type of a process? Um or is it do we need to look at our tree mitigation fund code language for instance and make some amendments there to where it's not just a fee and loo but maybe it's the ability to plant offsite but that's all going to require some analysis of other code sections and how it all interacts. um we're just too early to be able to give you a really clear answer.

Okay. So it sounds like we're relying on the the committee then to kind of be the genesis and starting point of of concepts and concepts of a program to consider as opposed to direction that from direction or ideas from this body to task the committee with. Uh, no, I wouldn't say that because in 2021 when our first energy and climate change chapter was adopted, uh, there were 89 action items that the council approved and about 15 of those have been done to date. And one of the first things that that group um would do was take a look at those that remain and prioritize them. But they're also going to be looking at the state requirements. There's some spec specificity in 1181, certain content that has to be included. Um but that by no means limits what the council may want to provide as additional direction.

Okay. And then the last question is uh looking at attachment A in the scope it it's chronologically timed out. Um, is it the intent to follow the scope of work kind of directly following uh the timing of how these tasks are lined out or is there priority in any one of these deliverables to accomplish uh before the other like one before the other? At this point, this is a rough uh timeline and it is something that excuse [clears throat] me could certainly satisfy the requirements of the contract itself uh coming from uh the Washington State Department of Commerce. However, if there are things that it makes sense once we get into it to readjust timing and maybe com combine issues or actually separate what we think can be done as one thing into more than one, that's all within our purview to do with the state's approval. So if you if there were something here that for instance was scheduled for uh the end of the process mid27 but could or should be done quicker than that, we have the ability to make that change.

Thank you, Council Member Tabo. Council member Brandstead. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Miss Spear, I'm just in looking at the scope of work in the in the contract which which goes on over there. Uh is this some sort of boiler plate that came from the state or is this something that we uh that that was created with our input?

The scope of work is started with a template that the state provides and then we flush it out a little bit more. And as time goes on, as we're actually implementing the grant, there's opportunity to make additional changes as needed. Okay. But but the start and end date of the there's two sets of deliverables. One for resiliency and one for greenhouse gases I guess is what GHG stands for.

Correct. Uh [clears throat] what's the diff could you define what those two what resiliency and greenhouse gas how that encompasses and how those two things together encompass everything that we want to do?

Well, what this is language is not everything in the natural environment and climate change program. These are the two elements uh sub elements of what's required under 1181 for climate change and resiliency specific changes to the city's code. So our program the the neck program includes beyond these things what could be funded for instance this year with ARPA dollars and public activities. These are specific sub element requirements that again 1181 lays out. And so climate resiliency is things like um looking to uh improve canopy cover, improve urban heat island um frequency within your city. Greenhouse gas emissions is vehicle miles traveled. It's encouraging building efficiency. uh looking at green roofs, looking at uh multimmodal activities and maybe um somehow trying to figure out more transit options within the city of Lakewood. So, it's a slightly different focus with each sub area or excuse me, sub element within our climate change uh element that we have as our comp plan. And so I noticed that the um 4:15 2026 which is around two months from now on in both greenhouse gas and deliverables that one of the things that they're expecting is it says samples are a copy of the completed climate element workbook. book uh and that seems to that seems to be a workbook where that covers both the resiliency and the greenhouse gas things. Is that something that we like given our work since uh you know 2021

that that that we already sort of have the start of um or or is or is this a specific type of document that the state is mandating? It's the latter. The climate element workbook is something excuse me [clears throat] that department of commerce provides and jurisdictions need to fill out. Have you done x y and z just for the ability of tracking compliance with the state law?

So you so so we appro when we approve this contract uh that uh is is is that a reasonable date to try to do that? Uh I I mean how how insistent on this is the state on having that date? That is a date that's not hard to meet because it is a checklist essentially and it's not asking for finished product. It's saying what have you done so far? or what have you committed to do? That kind of level of conversation as opposed to show us everything that you've completed.

And um then I was if I if I can skip to the to the end of the appendix, it says greenhouse gas deliverable 7 and it says draft GHG emissions reduction sub element. And would I be correct in assuming that that's a sub element of our comprehensive plan? Correct. The sub element that's mentioned for both climate change and then excuse me resiliency and then the other one for greenhouse gas emissions. Those are both required to be incorporated into the city's comprehensive plan by the end of 2029. We are trying to get that work done by mid 27 because the following bienium the concentration would be on the transportation work that's required under 1181. So, this is trying to gather all of the related parts of that bill. That's our um environment, tree canopy, heat island, um climate change outside, for lack of a better way to say it. Uh as opposed to the following bienium, which would be again the transportation changes. Are you envisioning that there will be sequentially [snorts] in in future years? [clears throat] um that this work is going to lead or inform policies and uh strategies and goals in the comprehensive plan on an annual or at least every two years as as we continue to do this work even not just because of this contract but because of the natural environment climate change uh work that we envision doing over the next 10.

I think I'm understanding your question. The the money [clears throat] that's available through this grant is not the only reason why we would be moving forward with 1181. We have our own element and climate change program and much of it overlaps with what's required in state law. We're taking advantage of the dollars here to um certainly accomplish what the state law requires, but also flesh out as much as possible what we already have in our own comprehensive plan. And yes, going forward, um, this is the starting point and then undoubtedly as the city matures its urban forestry program and other things, there will be, uh, desire to keep these regularly updated.

Were the, um, the efforts of Lakewood and other cities, uh, significant in the creation of this grant program? I don't know that we were on specifically on the grant, but we were kind of tip of the spear, if you will, with some of the adoption of environmental rules prior to when state law started to change. And that was reflected in uh some state legislators minds. You know, we weren't the only ones, but we were one of the cities that had gone ahead and done it. And so this is saying, okay, we need to start to look at um risk of flooding, risk of wildfire, risk of uh the heat and the cold affecting people's qualities of lives, qualities of life. And also we need to be looking at um tree cover for heat again, but also air quality. And we need to be looking at transportation options for air quality, uh, use of electricity, but also, um, the opportunity to reduce wear and tear on the roads over time with our transportation system statewide. So, what local government did however many years ago, for us, it was now 5 years ago almost, that helped start this conversation. But this is also related to statewide and regional climate planning that's been going on. Um the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency has a plan now. Pierce County has a regional plan for the jurisdictions within it. Uh and then the state obviously has adopted 1181.

Okay. Well, you know, I I seem to recall that a year ago when we were formulating the National Environment Climate Change, there was hope for a grant like this, but no but uncertainty. Okay. Um is u but is right now the certainty of this grant is here but the hope is that there will be future grants available to compete for.

The hope is that first of all there will be a third bianial grant for 27 to 29 specifically related to 1181. Yes. Beyond that, I don't know where the state is going to take its budgeting given given their forecasts, but the idea would be hopefully there would continue to be support at the federal as well as the state level for uh energy efficiency planning. you know, if you start to talk about um AI and uh the banks that draw on the power for that and the water usage that is recurring when when those things are getting constructed, uh there's a need to look at energy grids and figure out exactly how we're going to try to allow that new stuff to enter in the national, state, local market, as well as continuing to deal with population growth in the Puet Sound. So, I think we're going to continue to see something, but the nature and and amount will remain to be seen.

In terms of the getting to the something, is this uh um are the decision makers about whether there is something going to be in the legislature or are they going to be in the in commerce and in in in the state agencies? And I'm trying to figure out Is it better for you and staff to be advocating with them or is this something that we should be looking a year from now in our as we as this legislature is going into a a new bienial session of of of including in our legislative policy manual and with whatever priority we choose to put on it. you you can go ahead and answer that, but we're kind of getting a little off the track a little bit here, off this grant, which we have to vote on.

We'll go ahead and answer that and then we'll we'll see who if we have any other questions. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I I would just say that that is entirely up to the council if they want to provide uh direction to staff to provide recommendations about um requested funding or scope of future legislative work related to climate change and transportation, for instance. uh happy to do that. Thanks.

Okay. So, are there any other questions for Miss Spear? So, the the bottom line basically beginning on page 344, city tree related planning and projects which we've discussed and there's a lot of interest around the urban forest management master reforestation plan, climate change and resiliency element of the greenhouse gases land use element consistent with 1181. the urban heat resilience strategy, the native and climate resilient planting plans for municipal project. So there's a lot going on in here. There is and most of it is related specifically to 1181 requirements. Okay.

And that is because that's what this grant funding would cover. The city's ARPA dollars are open to anything related to urban forestry and the tree mitigation fund is um also open without the time deadline that ARPA has because that has to be used by the end of this year. So, we're trying to not only handle this by um getting this grant dollar uh amount in hand, then we can go out and start to do more of the community engagement that isn't part of what this grant dollar uh amount would cover. because I'm I am hearing and I'll just leave you with this. Uh I am hearing more interest in planting trees. I don't know that we've identified any areas where to plant them, but there are there are folks in the conservation district and whatnot that are willing to get out there and plant trees. The question is where are you going to plant them and

right, how are you going to keep them alive, right? Yeah. And that that is also part of the urban forestry program of course is once something's put into the ground, what is the operation and maintenance to make the program a success overall. Yeah. All right. And this is on the on the docket on the consent agenda next week. So um [snorts] it's ready to go. Okay.

Thank you, Miss. Next up is review and engineering development regulations including the engineering and standards manual lakewood municipal code titles 1213 and chapter 18 a do20 and uh that begins on page go back to page 14 your packet and we have the planning and public works director Mr. Remac and assistant director Angie Silva. Good evening. Welcome.

Thank you, sir. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, deputy mayor, and council members. So, this is kind of a update to a variety of different development regulations relating to engineering standards within the city of Lakewood. Thanks.

Uh 14, Sarah. Oh, the slide deck specifically. Let me double check. I have page 328. [gasps] So this project initiated in early uh 2025 where we were uh supported by consultant resources over the course of October as well as well into the new year. The planning commission reviewed the draft proposal but also held a public hearing to render their recommendation um related to the draft proposal. So tonight's study session is really focusing on the draft amendments, the planning commission's recommendations, but also next steps before this body, including uh tentively planned a public hearing for your February 17th meeting with action um tentatively planned for in spring or March of this year. just kind of stepping back and as part of your overall briefing memo in the packet itself is looking at three different themes to the draft amendments. Substantive changes, reorganizational but also housekeeping and kind of taking another couple steps back. It really just looks at the overall benefit of how different development codes or titles work together along with those engineering standards. So, as relates to the engineering standards manual or ESM for short, this is kind of the technical uh standards that implements the policies in title 12, but also other uh Lakewood municipal codes. It also establishes clear authority based on risk, whether that's the city uh engineer, Weston, or the planning and public works director. It also is intended to align with several standards from state agencies as well as international uh code council

for building and fire codes and then through a combination of substantive reorganizational and housekeeping changes. This is intended to improve predictability as well as improve our review timelines whether you're from the public applicant or as a reviewer themselves. So kind of document overview there are four separate attachments within your packet this evening. So again title 12 which is the public works standards. This is really the setting forth kind of the policy and uh framework as it relates to street and traffic management, storm water management and the use of public rights away as well as site development requirements. When we move over to title 13, which is public utilities, it currently houses only garbage collecting services. But the proposal is to relocate our sewer requirements from title 12 to title 13 in addition to reflecting Pierce County standards. As we move to title 18, this includes the zoning provisions, but a lot of uh procedures related to permit public noticing and processing. So includes administrative requirements notification but also the the appropriate decision authority and then last but not least that ESM that engineering standards manual specific design criteria getting into the technical weeds as it relates to storm water but also activities within the rideway and how they should be designed. So going back to that kind of big bucket of topics here, compliance and consistency was one of them. So looking at our federal, state, and local standards, that was one of our key updates as part of this overall package. So in Title 12, kind of the big consistency reviews, you're going to we

took a look at state as well as county uh storm water requirements. We also try to align with current building and fire codes as it relates to access or emergency services for example. Ensuring our right of entry as it relates to um co-compliance issues are consistent with constitutional authority but also existing procedures found elsewhere in our liquid municipal code. In addition to aligning our permitting and application procedures as part of engineering permits as well as uh excuse me identify outdated references. So removing those and updating them. As we move to title 13, we incorporated and adopted current Pierce County sewer code by reference and as that gets updated over time at the Pierce County our code states current through that or as amended language. In addition to that, we clarified mandatory connection requirements of existing language. Sometimes it requires interpretation. So, we wanted to clear that up for not only folks that may follow in those provisions, but also staff that are asked to interpret them. And last but not least, clarify those availability charges when they apply and do not apply. On the ESM side, we removed outdated technical references, added new references that were not previously included, removed policies not found in code, for example, but also incorporated current ecology storm water u design manuals uh design as well as permitting requirements. And then last but not least, come some of those housekeeping updating um code references. On the housekeeping buckets in the title 12, we added3 uh 23rd Street to minor arterial inventory. So that helps what design level each of these roadways public roadway should be classified as.

In addition, we incorporated existing code enforcement language found in title one and title eight. And last but not least, updated references. On the public utility side for title 13, we included some definitions related to side sewer stub, for example, or building sewer and the distinction between those two, but also updated our code enforcement provisions on the ESM. Again, out removed outdated references, added new references, but also removed policies not found in code. And again, you'll see this consistent theme updating to state standards like the ecology storm water manual and updating our code references. So through the discussion with the planning commission as well as public hearing, the planning commission rendered their recommendation to this body on January 21st with seven uh votes to recommend the proposal as is and no absence is during that process. We did have some good um public testimony as it relates to street ends and the authority to remove obstructions from street ends or to vacate street ends. But as it relates to the proposal itself, no changes were recommended by the commission. If I can get the clicker working, bear with me. All right. Now, we're going to dive a little bit deeper in the substantive changes as it relates to the different uh documents in your packet this evening. So, again, on the substantive changes, we covered this already, but aligning with current uh code requirements. It establishes kind of three tiers for drainage review, whether that's civil review or something that could be incorporated as part of a building permit review that doesn't require a civil engineer. That includes a

simplified documentation for low impact projects as part of that process, but also ensuring controlled runoff uh from trash enclosures when we get to those larger commercial projects. For example, on the topic of site development clarifies uh driveways, maybe I should look on this site. Driveways, gates, and emergency vehicle access as it relates to building and fire codes, for example, especially that emergency vehicle access. Clarifies geotechnical analyses that are required not only in the building code in in our environmental standards, but also in our engineering standards. So, we want to make sure there's consistency and application there. And then last but not least, aligned our flood plane regulations that are found in our environmental and zoning codes to align with our uh engineering standards. As relates to rightaway use, we clarified the different types of utility permits, whether annual or single single um permits or oversized load permits within our code. In addition to updated uh guidance as it relates to trenchless road crossings where we're seeing a lot of our franchise agreements and utilities for broadband requesting those types of design um allowances in their rideway permits on the topic of traffic impact. So incorporating defined transportation level of service that's in the comprehensive plan and how that gets implemented at a project level in our code. But in addition to taking our downtown tra transportation mitigation fee, which is a policy through the downtown EIS plan action and codifying that code for transparency, but also consistent application when it comes to those projects in the downtown area. And then last but not least, um clarifying when a traffic study and the level of content and detail would be triggered based on a number of trip generation per that project.

As we move to the engineering standards, again you'll see this theme again, updating our storm water requirements consistent with current ecology standards as well as our site development. So relocating code level um design criteria out of the design manual and moving that back into title 12 and then providing uh unified technical standards for grading, access and construction practices. So cleaning that up. So again, title 12 that policy whereas you go to the engineering standards manual or ESM and getting into the technical design weeds and again that same theme in title 12 we talked about or proposed language as it relates to um trenching and restoration etc. You go to the ESM and that provides the technical design criteria to do so. And last but not least, cross referencing those traffic impacts, the details of those traffic studies and what that content should and should not include, but also the triggers for that as well. So kind of side by side snapshot So kind of the old structure or what we say current structure policy and design were intermixed and intertwined in the title 12. I don't know what the procedure is versus the design and then vice versa in the ESM. We tried to clearly separate that. So code procedure the ESM or the design manual those design technical standards um removing uh conflicting or inconsistent cross references. So again looked at title 12

looked at ESN making sure those are consistent whereas currently very confusing referencing different things all the time. Removing outdated or legacy technical details. So many of these requirements uh in the current code reflect Pierce County standards that have been superseded. So they no longer exist. We want to clean that up. And then in addition, trying to reference manuals or amendments thereafter. So updating the technical standards required for formal code amendments. So as those changes at the state or federal or county level, our code always stays current. New structure again, title 12 policy framework, ESM, the technical design and construction standards, which equates to the intent of faster, more flexible updates, but also consistent and unified manual for not only staff, applicants, but the public when it comes to engineering requirements here within the city. There we go. So, we covered this a little bit. So, I'm going to go quickly on this slide again. Uh, title 12 implements the policies, engineering policies. This supports kind of consistent reviews whether I'm doing a site development project or working within our public rights away and adopts many manuals whether at the federal, state or local level when it comes to roads, storm water, uh, emergency access and then again improves cross uh, department coordination. A lot of site development or engineering cross-pollinates with planning and land use, but also as it relates to building and fire standards as well. As we move to title 13, again, this is the public uh utilities chapter currently only has solid waste collection. We are moving the sewer code

into title 13 as part of the draft proposal. So some of those subsidive edits and clarifications clarifies when 10 years after public sewer availability is required. Clarifies availability charge applying after 90 days. This is current language is very confusing which triggers subject for interpretation consistently. Want to clean that up make it faster for implementation. In addition to that we clarified language as it relates to immediate connection. If a septic fails, property sale or higher intensity or new construction owner has 90 days to act may be deferred up to three years. Wanted to clarify many of those policy intents there. Mentioned this before um but we did incorporate by reference Pierce County Sewer Code as the sewer utility. They have their own design standards. Want to make sure we are consistent with that. but also clarified when sewer is available, when it immediately abuts the property. Sometimes we get questions, can I maintain my septic or do I need to connect to a sewer? And on the topic of availability charge when property does not connect, when that noticing begins, but also when there's a multi-unit discount still available. So again, a lot of policy language clarifying that within the existing code. With that, that was a high level overview. Mr. Mayor, we're happy to answer any questions you may have as well as this body. And I believe our city engineer, Weston, is also in the audience.

Well, thank you, Mr. Mayor, for calling on me. Um, very riveting stuff here. I feel uh, bad for the people that have to read this stuff. Um, I have a few questions, comments to kind of go over. Um, mo mostly in title 12 and then a few things in the uh, whatever this is, the engineering standards manual. Um, one of the things on asbuilts that wasn't when when we get as built, um, are they actually on the approved plans or are they just submitted? It wasn't clear, um, how they're supposed to be submitted or, um, because I know some folks they'll just take what they have in CAD and resubmit and then it's not clear if things had changed based on what was approved or whatever.

Yeah. So, no, it should be a redline asbuilt stamp set that comes in with the city red line markup. Okay. Yeah, I just wanted to make sure there. And then there was a number of things called out in the um engineering standards manual in the record drawing section. It seemed just a bit more detailed than I'm used to seeing as far as what all is required on to be surveyed there. It was like everything under the sun was required to be surveyed on all things private and public. And I just didn't know if there was is there value added there? Are we using that for something particular or is it just staying on the record?

So typically the value added when you look at it is when you go forward to do a future project. So I'll give an example of the recent upgrades that we did out off of Stilicum. We did not have any of the side connections that were annotated in the asbuilt drawings anywhere. So those were missed when we originally went through. Hence we had to put in the secondary storm drain trench that ran behind the sidewalk there. it did alleviate the issue, but the idea is anything that they are there that could impact a future project is identified. So

yeah, so some of the things were like all of the striping was as built and stuff in there. So I I hadn't seen that before. Usually it's been centered around storm drainage like infrastructure elements and ADA compliance to make sure that we're getting ramps that are meeting ADA standards and not getting sued like Tacoma. So, so the reality when you look at the ASBO, what they call out is typically you're going to come in with your standard plan with red line markup. So, it it's all going to be on there because it's the you're not going to get the grading, you're not going to get erosion control, but you'll get your full built out plan set. Okay?

So, the other idea behind it would be if they cut short, say, on a turn lane because they ran into an issue or they extended a turn lane based on something, you would see what that final striping layout was. Okay. Um, and then I I wasn't clear on the deviations versus variance process. If you could just elaborate on what my understanding was a deviation, it basically was a slight change in the code or in the design standard, but a variance was something more significant. And it just seemed like that was a little bit unclear to me is like if you're talking to someone about what's going to be a variance and have to go through that process versus a deviation. Can you just explain that a little bit?

Sure. So if you looked at like a deviation, say we called out that you need to use a type two catch basin and instead you're going to use a type three or you need to have a type 1L which is a larger basin that allows for a larger pipe but there's a clearance issue. So you're like okay I can't use a type 1 L. So you shift it to a different that would be a deviation. and it's meeting the form and function of what we're trying to do where a variance would be completely shifting altogether. A numerical standard shift as to what we're looking at.

Gotcha. Okay. Thank you. Um and then a couple things that I have had issues with in the past in my daily job is um and something that's not clarified in the storm in the ecology storm water manual, but we did just get included in the Pierce County storm water manual is project phasing. And so being able to um I I think that the new Pierce County manual is going to implement like a seven-year phasing where whatever was done seven years ago is considered existing and you're not like continuing to like add in requirements. So, I I think that if there's not something like that, um that might be able to be added into the into chapter 9 in the engineering design standards in the storm water section just to kind of clarify like where

someone comes in with illegal gravel that was done 10 years ago, are you getting them for it now? Is it considered existing? Or if it was even permitted 10 years ago, now you're expanding it. Are you expanding it to the whole site and all the requirements now? Yeah. So, so the phasing when we look at it actually comes in, they have to give a delineated plan and timeline and that's their operational time that they'll lay out and build that out. Should they exceed that threshold, then they're on a new plan and they'll be starting a new. There isn't going to be seven years down the road as to what we're looking at for phasing. That's just not a reality of where we're at. No, I I get that. I guess I'm people that aren't anticipating on phasing, but they're coming in daisy chaining projects together or they came in with an original project. Oh, so you're talking about cumulative addition. Yeah.

Yeah. No, so when we look at cumulative addition, there's case law behind it when you already look at it that if it comes in under one code section, so say it comes in under the 2024 storm water manual for Western Washington, they build it out because phasing requires you to go ahead and fully treat and vest that impervious. They have to be standalone. That is one of the things of phasing. You can come in with phase one, but it must be able to stand on its own. It can't be dependent upon another phase. So if they go ahead and they build that and then it's closed out and we go to another phase under a new manual. So a code update that we would roll into, we would not view it as cumulative addition. We would look at it and say you now have to go ahead. You could start a new and they'll have to mitigate that. But that gets vested because it's already treated. So whatever treatment they had to do for that is treated.

Yeah. I I Okay. Um does that make sense? Yeah. I was more so talking about kind of folks getting under the thresholds and then daisy chaining and now you've avoided thresholds because you now have, you know, Yeah. So, the only way they would ever be able to daisy chain it would be going four years at a shot in between manual updates to go ahead and do it. And I' I have seen that in the past where someone went ahead and they built a home and they built and they closed out and they treated it all. The code changed. They came and said, "Okay, I'm going to expand for my RV garage." And they treated it under the current code. So if they went over 2,000 square feet, they treated it, mitigated it on site, etc.

Okay. Thank you. And then um on the the traffic um mitigation memo or the traffic uh review memo, there's the three different levels from nothing for less than five, five to 50, and then 50 and above. And I I was just curious what the five the five trips, why why that seems like a very small number. So I was just wasn't sure. We did a an analysis of surrounding.

Yeah. So basically we did an analysis of surrounding jurisdictions and what we looked at. Note the five we're looking at is PM because we kept the PM to be in line with what we had for traffic out here for planned action EIS. So that we weren't talking ADT and then PM trips. And it was just a reality of when when you run into what people are looking at the active where they really need to be, right? So 5pm was the equivalent of doing one of your um a single family residence is the reality of it. So 1080 is what you would look at for a single family residence when you're looking at the PMS. So that is where we'd be at people with the swift and what we can do now with unit lot subdivisions and things that we're looking at. We already had frontage improvements when we were going to be over 12 that were required to come in. So people needed to start looking at that. So once we got over five, there was questions as to what the impacts were and especially with driveway placement associated with relative to where we're going to have the stop sign because before the code was very clear and it just said you can't be within 150 ft. We were like that's not feasible as to what we're looking at. So that is the only avenue we have really to assess when we're looking at it. Okay, what is the safety concern and where we're at with that coming in for single family residents? It wouldn't impact something.

Okay. And so 12 12 you're talking about 12 units is where you Oh no no it used to be 1280 if you had 1280t then frontage improvements were required depending on your road frontage and where you were at. So two units basically. Yeah basically two units. That also came into play when we had to look at ADUs. So ADUs are not something that per the IT have a set fixed rate when it comes to what we're looking at. So, we went and again surveyed other surrounding jurisdictions to see where they were at when we set the rate when it came to ADUs for where they were at. Thanks. Y

um and then in uh 12.09.062, there was some kind of unclear language. I felt like maybe it was not quite complete about um plats versus final plats and and what that is really referencing. So, I don't know. Um, I don't know if there's anything missing there, but it just seemed a bit unclear as to what it was really getting at. Is the intent of the language to reference existing plat language? Um, I I can I'll I'll message it to you guys after. That's fine. Okay. Um, couple of the Let me see here.

Are you talking about completion? Yeah, I think it was completion and it referenced plat but I was like is it talking about final plat preliminary plat what has to be done at what phase? So so what it is and all site improvements. So we're talking about the site development permit and at the completion of the site development permit an engineers letter needs to be provided that all work was completed and approved in in a conformance with the engineer's design. So it's the engineer certification is what it's locking there. Okay. meaning final plat before final plat approval all those site development um sidewalk storm water facilities need to be constructed.

So it's it's two steps when you look at it. So the first paragraph is speaking to the engineers letter for the site development permit and the second one is speaking to that all work must be done and the final flat must be recorded prior to any occupancy for any of the buildings because you would have the allowance that is allowed in the whack to go ahead if it was a plat and build some of the model homes that exist. They can build those concurrently while doing a site development permit, but they get marked so you can't get occupancy prior to final plat. Can you still The language looked like it was strucken out. Can you still bond for final plat to get your lots created without No. Okay. So, there's no bonding for final plat.

No, you're not. You're not supposed to be able to bond for final plat. One of the requirements for final plat is you're supposed to be built out with all safety infrastructure built and installed prior to final plat. Okay. And that's an existing title 17 land division standard. Okay.

Um and then just a another my last comment finally. Um the general notes, there's a number of different general notes, roadway notes, storm water notes. Um is there any thought to putting those into like standard plans instead of in the code here, which would allow you guys to update them and change them um a bit more frequently if you needed to instead of having to adopt it through code or can you just can you adjust what's in here?

No. If it's in the code, it wouldn't be something we'd be able to adjust. That would be a legislative action. We didn't normally look to adjust the general notes. Those will usually be the bare minimum that have been industry standard for such a long time. There can be additionals that can be requested out of that. Okay, sounds good. Thanks. Yep. Council member Bell.

Thank you. Um just to go off I'll speak for you. You I don't want to share a mic. [laughter] [gasps] Um it was just a question about what uh council member Pearson asked about the deviation and variance. I just had a extra question on that and I wondered how like is there criteria and will there be consistency just to ensure the consistency that the city engineer um that the decisions that are being made there?

Yeah. So really it'd be something when we look at it as to what we ask because if they needed a variance then we request it' be a sep request for a separate permit in what you look at to go through a variance that the city engineer would look at a deviation. So I'll just use a numerical example that's the simplest. Say we were allowed 300 ft of linear pipe that could be installed from inlet to inlet and someone comes in and they say no I want to go 350 ft. That's not a deviation. That's a variance from a numerical standard. But if instead of using a type one, they want to use a type 26 that's a simplest bottom because they're sitting over a utility or something, that would be a deviation because it's still achieving the same purpose, but we're not violating a numerical standard.

And within the draft uh proposal itself, there is criteria under both of those. So the consistency and what we evaluate for approval. You're just I don't need

any other questions. Council member Brandanstead. This is fun. Uh, you know, thank you. and and and and the entire body of work certainly seems to meet your intended goals back when you when you started it more than a year ago to to try to get get going off to be able to to do this. Um, and uh, so I have I had a few things as I went through it that had questions that were not as technical as as council member Pearson's because I don't have any technical things in my head that way to be able to go and do that. But uh there were quite a number of places at different pages in the that that talked about there being some sort of a problem with trash enclosures and that we had to tighten things up to be able to go and do that and that they had to have roofs and locks and guard dogs and whatever. Can you explain what is the what what what is the problem and what is the catalyst for that somehow now being a an item of interest and and how does that affect apartment complexes that have just got trash enclosures that are probably the catalyst for the problem. [laughter] So trash enclosures have been a common problem across multiple jurisdictions and what they look at. It doesn't really impact anything that's already existing and what we're speaking to. But when we come in for say a new multif family and they would look at it, elicit discharge is one of the things that can get into

your storm water system when it comes to uh trash enclosure. When you look at it, for instance, the garbage that leeches out of the dumpster and when we look at it, there isn't a set standard when it comes to the garbage facilitator. They take a look at what they have for dumpsters, but they're not guaranteed. they're not certified for loging and so when we look at them there's been experience in terms of them leaking and then that entering the storm water system. So storm water systems when you look at it either go in and they either sometimes directly discharge to open ocean right like so like Alliance we're fixing how it delayed before but it did go ahead and used to go into Pon Stale Leo and it was a direct discharge. So what we look at is we look at getting a collection point where you can actually either one it's collected and then it can be cleaned out like they can come and vector it if they have a spill two that it goes ahead and goes into the storm water system and then hits like an oil water separator and then discharges into by an oil water separator we're talking about spill control oil water separator inverted elbow oil floats on the top water can come out the bottom relatively clean and goes to like the water quality facility that's expected for the what you're building um or the ability that they can And no one really does this because no one wants to put a roof on it. No one wants to then directly connect to sewer, any of that nature, it becomes problematic. But it's to prevent discharge into storm water systems or negligent release when people have leaky dumpsters. You know, biggest ones I can speak to that you see a lot is anyone that deals with a lot of oily or greasy foods, things of that nature, what you have leak out of the dumpsters. So, it's just protections for the storm water. Well, it it certainly sounds like a a problem that needs attention to be able to go and do that. But when you say it won't affect anybody's current situation, do we have a system in place or does the the the

utility code uh have some requirements that if an inspection should determine that a trash enclosure has now gotten to the point where it is has this problem of of leakage or or or spillage into the storm water system. Um or are all of those systems that might evolve into that point in the future because they were already constructed. Are we not able to touch touch them or

so we have inspections that we do with those. So Diana Har is our storm water inspector. So, she goes out and does annual inspections on storm water systems. Works with the homeowners to educate, not homeowners, I'm sorry, business owners to educate on what we're looking at. Uh, also gets clean and contract invoices for when they've cleaned their own private systems. So, we do check on that and we monitor it. Would we come back and have someone to retroactively be able to make them modify it? No, because they build to what was the code at the time that they were there. should they go to tear it down or remodel or do something different then potentially you could but we do not have a retroactive way to go in and make people change something unless they have redevelopment that they come in for. So it's not the same as a septic system whereas if a septic system fails or doesn't so so so current storm enclosures around do that but we're setting standards for the construction of new storm system.

Okay. Um, [clears throat] [snorts] you know, I I I seem to recall as as we go through and when you you talked about a putting in here of saying to keep the code immediately current that certain changes in certain technical publications would become effective immediately upon publication. I think that was the word is y

as opposed to there are some publications that periodically the city council has been asked to approve the next edition being in the code being able to go and do that. But the other um the other piece of that is is that sometimes it seems that there have been codes and then they've been published and then they're there and then someone files a lawsuit or something and elements of them are are delayed or going on off and I you not technical you I I think when we had the the wild land urban interface elements of of one get got done that way. So is is is making them automatically affected upon publication. How much work does that cause for us to notify people that the code that we that the code has changed?

None. We don't have an obligation to notify people that the overarching codes that are not under our control have been updated. So like if we come into Western Washington and they update it in 2027, that's their code. Everyone that's a phase 2 or phase 1 municipality has to adopt that code. They do not have an option. So when we're looking at it and we're referencing it if we reference and say specifically the 2024, we're creating work for ourselves because we don't have an option but to adopt that code, but then we have to go back into our own local code and change the number versus saying the current version of the storm water manual for Western Washington is the adopted reference. I I guess my my concern is is that if I go if I look forward 12 years, it'll have changed three times or four times being able to to go and do that. But but what we've still gotten our code is the the something dated 12 years ago. But but but with the notation that it will um it'll change or as future updated. Okay. Is probably we we do that all the time. So um and so so my question is is that confusion on the part of and for for big projects that got lots of engineers engaged in doing them they're they're probably a way to do that. But when you get into smaller projects that are being initiated on private property by citizens you know they

[clears throat] keeping that far up on doing that. And so so some way of saying that that putting out some sort of notice that that the the current code is even though it doesn't require council action or or Lakeland municipal code update but some strategy in order to periodically induct [snorts]

May May maybe maybe publish the entire list and what and what what really is is is all there would be something that in future years might be be. Um, and then I guess the the one area in this whole package that caused me some concern as to whether as to what the council should do u has to do with the sub area plan downtown traffic management fee. um you know that that that that as you noted is is just it's just inside of a planned action ordinance 636 and it's not in the code and so it's probably good to bring it into the the city the city code. Um, and it was mentioned quite a few times in your discussions about how it the it speaks almost euphorically about it about what a good thing this is. But um, you know, uh, I would suggest and Mr. Mayor, I would suggest that the council has had concerns about that the downtown traffic management fee and whether it has been working well, whether it's been a success, whether it's been a disincentive in cases to in to development. As we've looked at the actual implementation of how specific parcels have had to pay fees and others have gotten not had to pay fees because of the way

that previous uh uses were there back some whether they were back 10 years or two years or one year or being able to go and go in and do that things that weren't really real well spelled out in the ordinance. And it seems that at this juncture when we're going to move it from the ordinance, but we're going to put it into um in chapter 12. Okay. Title 12 to to to be able to go and do that. that that we ought to take a look at what do we want you want it to say clearly rather than just transferring what the existing language that has proved problematic or even discussion whether we want to continue to do it and and go to some other way of trying to fund transportation improvements in the in the in the in the downtown and I that that's the one area of this be that that that that seems to be an opportunity for the council to look at something that we've mused about multiple times. Okay. as to whether this is working well, whether it's a good thing being able to go and do that and maybe we can um perhaps get some recommendations about how it could be modified and changed and maybe we can look at it at a at at a at a study session after the public hearing next week or or or or move it forward because I just don't want to move it forward as the same

semifunctional program that it seems to be. If if we want to change it or if we want to discontinue it or if we want to expand it to a greater portion of the city because that's been one of the problems of where some [snorts] developers said, "Well, it only applies here, but if I go three blocks away, it it doesn't to be able to go and do that." So, that's the one area of this that I'd really like to get a closer look at is should it move to the code just as it as it is or or as it moves to the code, can it be improved, enhanced, or does it even need to exist?

So, I want to speak on that one for a moment. I need to speak on that one so that we're all on the same page and what we're looking at. The fee that we the TMF is not an impact fee. It is directly tied through SEPA to the planned action EIS. We cannot modify it without again looking and opening up the planned action EIS. We cannot expand it without again looking at the planned action EIS. What we're looking at and what we can do with that is we looked at the policy about a year ago as to how we were treating that because one of the things we were running into was regardless of anything had ever been in it, we didn't have a time frame associated with it. So something had not been there for 3 years. We still it was still being looked at and they were like oh you get the credit. There was something there previously. That wasn't the intent when we looked at the EIS and we moved through it. We said no there's going to be impacts as to where we're at. So the council at that time agreed to change the policy to 12 months. 12 months prior if there was something in that location then we would not collect the EIS. We collect the difference on what that was. Say it was a bakery that had 20 people that came to it during the day and suddenly it turned into a a quickie mart and a 100 people were coming a day. We were collecting on the 80 that delta that existed between what was the prior occupancy and what was a new occupancy. But to look to change that in any significant way is a much larger issue than just the council deciding they want to change it. It would require looking at another planned action EIS to make that change for the SEA determination. the rates that exist and how we collect that are based off the impacts from the planned action EIS. So not opposed to ever looking at another planned action EIS, but I need everyone to be very cognizant of what it is and what the scope of work associated with that is that that's not that was something that was obviously when we did that that was a very long process when we went through it. But that is what that fee is tied to. And similar to impact fees studies, you commission a study to assess based on

your capital need what the scope and scale of those traffic sheds or studies, but also the rate you apply. So it's not just it's a broader policy discussion that is fueled with a lot of technical analysis to help guide and shape that policy. Impact fees by statute and sepha mitigation are two separate swim lanes. They may interact very well together, but there's different operating sideboards and how you do that. Well, I guess that I would say that perhaps there is effort involved in changing it or doing away with it. Um but because there is effort if it's if it's if it's not a good idea and it's kind of a of a sunk cost that we put into that EIS, you know, that was it was an idea brought to us by a consultant back when we were doing that. Okay. you know, um the answer is to just say, "Well, just keep doing it forever because it's too much trouble to change it." Because I look around the downtown and the the um the revenue that it's generated and the the projects that were expected to be fund like that. And while while it was it was over a 20 years, they're not happening. and the funding isn't happening. And we've already taken the uh tax increment financing revenue from the downtown and and committed it to parks. So, we can't commit it to to transportation. So, uh I I guess that I I I understand what you're saying and I didn't think it would be easy. Okay. Um, but I but I'm um

but I don't want to fool ourselves by saying, "Well, we're just doing the easy thing by moving it out of the EIS ordinance and putting it into the into into title 12 um as as as a fix because I I don't think it's a fix. it's just moving the same broken piece over there. Or if we look at it and we see how various policy adjustments are are going to make it go better. And this is done in a background of the planning commission deciding to renew review the downtown sub area plan. Not review it every two years or four years, but review it every every 10 years. um you know you know we're not going to get where we where we want to be. So I I think that I'd at least like to get some more information about about that and and have a discussion if if if maybe as at that while we could contemplate and take this action but we also start a further process to decide what to do about this video or whether we do it. Um I I don't I don't know how much doing a new you know modifying the ordinance 686 would would be I I I got you council member Rans and I want to get to council member Tala. I think we we have new members. We do need to take a look at that. We haven't seen anything in a long time about is it producing any revenue at all? Um, have we funded anything with it? I mean, we we did a lot of we went through a lot of

stuff and I I can't sit here and tell anybody that we know a couple of uh of the newer businesses have had paid a lot, others didn't pay any, and then we changed the rules. And I don't know that we've heard of anything about the impact of the rules. What I'm hearing from staff is we'll have to do that on a separate track from this going into that. But we I think at some future study session we do need to understand are we getting anything from it? Is it making any difference at all? Is it worth it? because we have new members here who may who may think uh it's not worth it or is it something we should modify further because we made the modifications that you mentioned. Yeah. No, I have no op I have no objections whatsoever to looking into at a future future date. I just want to be conscientious of what we're looking at in terms of any any immediate rapid change would do away with the planned action EIS. look at for the local area. It's something I'm I'm more than happy. We do have to relook at the EIS. It's supposed to have a 5-year update and refresher to look at it as to where we're at. I have no concerns with that. I'm just stating specifically to the TMF. we have to do the two in conjunction or risk losing what we're using now for the central business district when it comes to SEIPA which is not which is not the end of the world but we would have to do SEPA for pretty much every project that came in to the town center which is part of the reason that we looked and we went away from it and there were assumptions that were looked at for housing employment things of that nature.

Yeah. Well, I I I think we just need to get an update before we try to tackle that. Well, we may have folks here who want to tackle that now. Council member Talba. Thank you. Thank you. And when when you say planned action EIS, we talk are you talking about planned action EIS for the downtown sub area or the planned action EIS for the city comprehensive plan including the transportation element? Downtown sub area. Correct. city citywide is not a plan action EIS. So outside of downtown and the station district you have to do full sea review

but you can do a planned action for adopting your transportation element as part of your comprehensive plan. You can parcel that. That is an allowance under SIBU rules. Yes, we haven't. We did a program at a high level the 2024 update. So I Okay. So I because I I understand

yes no

yes okay um yeah I understand the effort that can be involved with revising a land action EIS at the same time because we are talking about I think because the interest that we're talking about is focused in transportation it really could be a revision of just the transportation aspect of the planned action EIS keeping the growth rates the same as we've adopted them for the comp plan right so so like it it really could still be a revision Um, I wouldn't say do away with do I wouldn't say I wouldn't use the terms do away with, but really revising or updating the planned action EIS in the aspect of the transportation area to focus on answering and getting those um questions answered so that we're living with a transportation mitigation fee that is married to our concurrency policy in a tight-knit way and translating that in code and in policy for development, but also we're at a I mean, it's not just Lakewood, it's all the other cities that are living with you can't build you can't build the road. You can't widen the roads to uh you you can't widen the roads to fix your growth problem all the time, right? Capacity is expensive. But at the same time, that's why under the GMA, we try to shift modes as as best as we can to non-vehicular modes, but it takes money and it takes

funding to pay for those non-vehicular capacities. So unless you have a a concurrency policy and a TMF policy and a that that fit and marry together so that that you can hypothetically use that funding and steer it to the non-vehicular capacity that you're trying to get and you I mean you can do that through um a trip bank type of methodology if you want to. Personally, I think Lakewood does not uh experience the levels of congestion in say Tacoma or areas in King County that would that would steer you down that path. But you can also instead go move towards plan-based um concurrency so that so that your mitigation fee can be steered toward non-vehicular capacity so that you have the resources to pay for sidewalks and bike lanes and the just the the things that you need to make our complete streets fully complete. So I just I I just put that out there. Um

I don't think there's any disagreement on the mechanism and that the scenario you you shared is like modifying kind of the downtown plan action. Absolutely. That would be a supplemental to that plan action that could be focused to transportation. But depending on the scope or scale this body wants to look at that only covers downtown. If you want to look at traffic sheds and how to pay for mitigation citywide, if there's a four lot short plat being developed, how do we make sure there's pedestrian sidewalks and bike lanes that are for all modes of travel incorporated into those mitigation measures that are not in there? Yeah,

that's a different level of potential SEPA review, concurrency review, etc. So, it depends on what level this body wants us to evaluate. there are paths forward whether it's under SEIPA but also the statutory requirements if you don't want to do a TMF do you want to do an impact fee kind of approach is another tool in the toolbox there's certain things we need to hit on that as well

and we're in agreement on what you're looking at that's not that there's a disagreement in talking about what we're at what I'm really looking at is I'm looking at title 12 and the engineering standards manual and that this would be a multi-phaseed it would not I would not recommend in the middle of doing this update to then look at it now. We need to put it on the agenda for a forward look when we're looking at it. There is some changes that have happened. I'll be honest in the change that's happened in the last year. We've had one year to look at what we have for the TMF. Until a year ago, shortly after Angie and I arrived, we weren't collecting, though we could have, but we have started collecting since then. So, there's conversation as to where we're at. Um, it's not been a very long time, honestly, to show the proof is in the pudding. management was 65,000 ft of vacant area over in Town Center. Barnes & Noble did have a significant amount that they paid when they came in. There was the offset because we had the one year that we look at when Alliance came in. We would be more than happy to come back and have conversations about what we're looking at. I'm just asking that let's do that as a future set and what we're looking at and not house it in the middle of this update.

Yeah. And I and I agree. I agree. That's that's a very meaty um but I think because we're looking at it, it spurs it's it's very provocative in the moment. Um okay. So I will that's all I'll say about that. Uh okay. So I do have thoughts and some concerns about the what is in Title 12. And forgive me because my laptop is crapped out and so I've been using my phone um and I've just been scrolling back and forth and it's a little nuts to get to where I want. I'm okay, but thank you. But um I think so I I think what concerns me the most right now in the in the red lines that are in front of us are the revisions in are is the language in in in our enforcement section and in 1212 and I think even 120 1205 because and this has to do with vacations of how we treat vacations of streets and particularly vacations of streets of bunny in the water. And I'm not going to try to get too into it because I know that we're going to discuss that. But I do think that it's we really do need to I think what concerns me right now is that even like the way that we use vacations and the way that we treat enforcement of of uh encroachments in public in public rights

of way. I guess I didn't really find number one how chapter 12 really deals with encroachments in the right of way and I guess what I kind of surmised is that we use vacations as a way to clean up encroachments and that is problematic for me because that is not really a public access first type of policy. That's like kind of a way to make it easy and convenient to deal with encroachments in the right of way. But when it comes to shoreline, which in our shoreline master plan, we specifically have language and and statement and policy about preserving, maintaining, promoting public access and being public access first. We don't I didn't see that we have cross references in chapter 12 to reference reference that language so that it's clear in chapter 12 that that where we stand on public access and that that or if public access is first I believe that it should be um but but I was looking for that in the in what we have in front of us. And then I was kind of go then I was going back to enforcement and looking at our how we you know how our enforcement language treats it. And I felt like maybe there's some inconsistency because in 1202 we talk about the process for appeals in enforcement. We refer to the hearing examiner process. But in 1212 when we talk about vacation of streets without and this is without the red lines or

without the changes um the that process goes to city council by petition. So for anyone that wants to appeal uh the enforcement of encroachments or the vacation of the street, what is the process for that? Um, so the process for vacations are outlined in state law and it's a legislative action by the local municipality. So in this case it would be city council. Any legislative action especially in that nature would likely go to superior court. I'm going to look at our city attorney vacations. If one disagrees with the decision appealable to superior court, madame city attorney,

so vacation of a right ofway would come before this body for approval and people who have standing to challenge that decision by the city council would then appeal it into superior court. And I think the standard that the superior court would look at is probably comparable to what you'd find under the APA, the administrative procedure act, which is more just whether or not the council acted beyond their bounds. You wouldn't necessarily get a fresh guess from the superior court.

Thank you. Thank you. I think the other I mean the other thing is that I in the language where we're talking about I think I referenced 1212 but in the street vacation area I mean we're taking out some what I view language that gives us kind of more higher authority now in the to to deal with um vacations and removing that concerns me that we wouldn't have as much uh authority to deal with um vac street vacations to deal with enforcements going forward. And I guess what I'm really go what what I really want to say is in all of this is that um I if this wants to go to public hearing next next week, that's it. It could go to public hearing, but I wouldn't feel comfortable uh taking action on this in March without some more serious discussion on on that particular issue of of encroachments in the in in street right ofway. And even just at a policy level, how we are going to, you know, how we fall on on public access first, especially especially on the shoreline because our shoreline master plan says very clearly that we that we preserve that. Um the other thing finally you know in looking at all this I was doing my own research because working at a city on Lake Washington for example that's a lake surrounded by six jurisdictions with one in the middle even Lake Samameish shared by shoreline

you know shared by city of Redmond and and lake and um city of lakes mammish you know I was thinking of I was trying to think of areas and examples that that um experience the same level of, you know, heartache and challenges that we deal with here on on our lakes, too. And I found that uh these cities do treat do treat um do treat it much differently. They don't use vacations as a means to clean up encroachments. they are they there there is a um they do draw in in some cases a a bright red line a bright line as to what's acceptable in terms of of uh encroachment and and and like the city of Seattle for example even goes so far as to um uh refer to encroachments as public nuisances which we've kind of taken out we've we've str we've struck some red lines or excuse me, we've made some strikeouts to that in these changes too. So that concerns me a little bit. I what I also found too is in in research probably the the one area that comes closest to the types of challenges that we've had most recently when it comes to street ends on the lake is um Lake Chalan because a large body of water with maybe not as um similar policies as here in western Washington but still trying to get at the same um objectives of being public access friendly. And so I just offer those as examples to look at and research to consider because um I think

my final recommendation is that we um not accept those changes in this part of code at least as it as it relates to the street ends until we have further discussion whether that's through workshop or further executive session. Um, and then council member, did you I know I heard Seattle, Renton, any other jurisdictions you want us to do some research on what sounds like additional local policy as it relates to encroachments and street ends as it that enters waterways.

I mean, I I did research on Seattle, Kirkland, Mercer Island, Belleview, Reton. Could could I ask a question as we're looking at it because it is the study session. Sure.

Could we get a list of what specifically for the red lines you're looking at because I'll be honest when I'm looking at it I don't see anything where we've eliminated other than changing like the article or some of the names and I'm not opposed to doing whatever the council wants. But what we have currently reflects what's required by RCW in terms of the protections. So if there was something to go further than that, I hear 100% what you're saying and with Seattle and what they've done, that would be a councilmatic action or direction that we were given to modify the code to that extent. We we didn't. What we were trying to do was cleanups with things that we've had with some of the vacations in the past. Appraisals not coming in at the same time as other things. So I I I don't have any issue with what we're talking about. I just want to know specifically what sections to look at if we're if we feel like we're releasing um any of our justifications or powers to do in encroachments so that we can actively look at that.

I I have notes that I can share through the city manager or the mayor. Okay. Well, and and we'll need to do that because it's really getting really specific. We are going to have a public hearing on this next week. So, we'll hear what we then and then we probably should have some further discussion once you talk to Council Member Talbo about some of those concerns um in another study session. Yeah. No, so we're to be clear, we're not pushing forward that it must move forward in two weeks. We 100% walking into this understood that this could be continued for a second study session without any concerns on planning and public works side whatsoever.

Yeah. And if there's any other concerns that members have, they should probably bring those directly to public works or at least let the rest of us know and get those to the city manager so we all see them. Um so we can understand those because there are a lot of things going on here. Um anybody else have any other questions for the Okay. So those will be uh we'll wait for the public hearing next week. I don't know who we'll hear from. I'm not, you know, when you have kind of technical changes like this, I don't I'm trying to I'm trying to so figure out who.

So, I have I have a question actually. If we're looking to look more into the comments that we have, are we wanting to come back to study session or are we still looking to move forward to public hearing? I think we should move to public hearing. Yeah, we've got we got it scheduled. We should do the public hearing. Yeah, we we've already we're we're already moving forward with hearing. I don't want to I mean if if we have major uh changes, we'll do that at the council level. Okay. So we need to move on to uh volunteer program because we have that and

yeah from uh perspective on notice notification s just referenced that if the end document um substantially changes you'd probably end up running back through another public hearing anyway. Yeah. I don't want to assume that though and I don't know what substantial means in this regard. So to

move forward with the public hearing. Okay. Um, okay. We've got one more item to cover and we do have a an executive session and and whatnot. So, uh, real quickly, 365, page 365, the volunteer program. Who's speaking to this? Mr. Remac Silva team show.

Okay, please. talking on uh page 365 as mayor. This is kind of a draft ordinance formally establishing the Lakewood Community Volunteer Program and municipal code. The intent here is to moderate modernize and consolidate citywide volunteer program which informally adds street endu stewardship as part of that broader volunteer umbrella into one unified framework. This in addition to builds off of two separate resolutions for volunteerism as it relates to adopt a street and adopt a site that were adopted via resolution in the early 1990s there. So really consolidating a lot of different pro uh rules sideboards and how that volunteer program and codify that encode to apply citywide. In addition to this review as part of codifying the volunteer program uh triggered the need to re-evaluate our guidelines and different waiver forms as it relates to minimum standards through the Washington city's uh insurance authority to minimize risk and provide ensure that we're consistent with that. So kind of the bottom line up front or the short version of it, it creates a new chapter in title two uh community volunteer program defines the program purpose, scope and elig volunteer program citywide and then places administration under the city manager or designate. It requires written guidelines and what is included in your packet as a draft or a concept is those updated guidelines based on WCIA uh risk management protocols and then what those agreements um scope safety and duration should bare minimum should consist of. So the overall key improvements to that again clarifies volunteers are not necessarily city

employees. That is consistent with our insurance authority. Uh requires updates to liability waiverss and separating between individual versus organizations. Um requires orientation and safety training. Um sets min minimum volunteer age of 15 uh with parental consent and supervision and sensor centralizes that coordination tracking and recording citywide. again focus on the ordinance itself. What is not changing? Volunteers do not replace city staff on core maintenance functions across the city. Um participation remains voluntary and renewable annually and activities are limited to approved lowrisk uh tasks that are defined through implementation the various departments. So overall benefits again encouraging civic pride and community stewardship. So by that codification of the ordinance improves care of our streets, public lands and street ends strengthens our legal uh defensibility and consistency while providing scalable framework for volunteer engagement. So that's kind of the nutshell in that packet um itself and again tentively proposed for your February 17th meeting is to take action on the ordinance itself which then will trigger finalizing the guidelines that is a sample in your packet and all the various waiver forms that need to be created for citywide implementation. Deputy Mayor Bell, hold our first.

Thank you. Um, I just wanted to say thank you for doing all of this for the volunteer program. I think it's really important. We've heard a lot about it from the community and I just the [clears throat] comment is that the formalized structure I think is going to really really help everyone. I love um the tie-ins like to the adopt the street things that are happening um you know just in giving recognition to people who make those changes and volunteer for the program. So that was just my comment is that I really appreciate this. We've heard from our community this is what they want and it's happening. So thank you council member Ransitter. And again, I would echo the deputy mayor's comments that I think that uh you know, we that this this provides both both a clear but a simple structure that can easily be modified to sites to multiple sites and situations. And I think that it is um precisely what we've had folks in this city asking for in order to be able to implement their enthusiasm for volunteerism.

Any other council member Pearson? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um one question about the age limit. So my um nephew has to do volunteer through his school and middle school and so that would pro preclude someone um like this. Uh he's not 15 yet. He has but he has to do volunteer work. Is there any issues that we would have with moving that down to like a sixth grade? It's

it's directly tied to the insurance requirements associated with AWC. Gotcha. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? So my my question is is so right now when we do parks appreciation day does does will parks appreciation now day now fall under this umbrella because parks appreciation day has always been show up start cutting things or

the volunteer program would fall underneath it in terms of the new framework that they come in for any of your coverages or any of the guidelines that they sign and they they manage. So when we're looking at it, parks has been involved with this and the stand up of this and what we're looking at as well as our community um relations. So Chris Davis has also been there. We look at it. So yeah, the idea would be this policy would stand up and this would be how we bring volunteers in and we're able to go ahead and get them trained and have them coverage.

So I'm I'm trying to understand how Okay, so help help me out how this would work. If someone wanted to clean up a street end group of people, doz dozen people, we would have somebody out there just to this this training element or this safety element that's now added to this. How does that look?

So part of the street ends, it's not just about the volunteer program. It's getting the permit approvals to do maintenance activities within the shoreline and the rideway itself. So what would be triggered by um and the reason why we needed to put this in place versus the other pieces of that puzzle includes two permits, a shoreline exemption and a rideway permit. Through the approval of those permits which are administered by the department, we set sideboards and what the minimum activities can do and what you're not allowed to do and the extent of that work environment within the street and the boundaries of it. That is the foundation of the training materials that would go through. In this example, likely parks would be doing the training. Here's your permit parameters, what I can and cannot do. No mechanical equipment where hand tools, pulling weeds, etc. And that's the minimum of it. And that sets forth when they're on site. This is what you can do. These are the tools we can do it. And here's the duration in which we can do that.

Thank you. Are there any other questions? Council member Calvo. So, how much is so what is the amount of permit fees that a group is? Let's say a boy scout group wants to scout group wants to clean up one of the street ends. So, you're saying they have to get two permits? No. What the program? We're not expecting individual volunteers or organizations to get permits. We would issue an annual permit to parks to administer the volunteer permit. Thank you. This will be up for vote next.

The 17th, Mr. Mayor. The 17th. Okay. Thank you very much. So, we do have some followup on on uh your previous matter that So, we'll have the public hearing, but we also have some followup on on that. Okay. Mr. city manager, any reports for us?

Yeah, mayor and council and knowing we've also have a recommend executive session. I'll go quickly here. Um, looking at uh the 18th, um, our state lobbyist has several meetings already scheduled from about the 10:00 a.m. to about 100 p.m. and so is looking at getting a couple more for our legislative day in Olympia. Still need to narrow down dates and the team that would be going to DC for our federal efforts later this year. And then just a reminder that we have uh multiple association meetings coming up and different events over the next two weeks that I'll go ahead and uh skip because I know we have them on all on our calendars, but and that's all I have, your honor.

February 18th is our legislative date. February 19th is the Chief Lehi Honor Walk. And is that in the park this year? Totally. I believe so. Do you know how they've correct? So the honor walk will be at Fort Silicon Park um this year. They started like specific place. I don't have the exact map in front of me, but we can go ahead and provide that to you so you're aware in advance.

I don't know that I don't I'm not guaranteed that I can make that. Council member comments quickly. Council member Pearson,

Council Member Talbo, just quickly, I will attend uh the Lake City Neighborhood Association this week. And my only question was about the 19th Chief Lush Eyewalk. Are we publishing on that one on social media or I didn't see it in the newsletter or I guess is the public invited? Yes, we'll begin some communications on that event this week. Thank you. Thank you. That's it. Council

member Brandsteader. Council member Lindholm.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I really appreciate these study sessions. It just really puts on display how much work the staff does. So, thank you for that. Um, I brought up one thing earlier uh with human trafficking. You know, as I speak to law enforcement, as I speak to our prosecutor's office, um it's really discouraging to see that this is happening here in Lakewood. And one of the things I've learned is that awareness really matters for this. So I'd like to invite my colleagues to consider doing a proclamation around human trafficking because we know if people are looking out for this, if they're aware of it, um that matters. It can save lives. We've heard from our chief this evening that a 15-year-old girl um was saved from a horrible situation. Um I don't want any more 15y old girls in that situation. Thank you, mayor. Thank you.

Thank you, mayor. Uh I too will also uh mayor and I will be at the Lake City uh neighborhood meeting this week on Thursday. So, we'll see you all there. I think a lot of folks are going to be think Council Member Rans that's his that's his [snorts] home field. So, he he usually goes to that too, right? So, uh, you know, hopefully we'll have a good a good turnout of people. Um, and then the 14th is the, uh, Lions Club thing.

Yeah, the the crab feed on. Yeah, that's how I'm spending, uh, Valentine's Day. I had Pierce Transit today, the first time, but I did I I went virtually. I didn't go in in person, so it was interesting. and covered covered some subjects and it's all new to me. So, uh it was it was interesting uh to watch. So, with that that is all um still have some seats available for the Caring for Kids auction um on the 21st. So, if you wanted to spend more time at the McGavoc Center um you'll get that opportunity. So, we still have three or four seats left, I believe. Um, with that, since this is official, I would like to announce the city council will recess into executive session for approximately 15 minutes pursuant to RCW42.30.110 30.110 paragraph 1 sub paragraph I to discuss with legal counsel representing the agency litigation or potential litigation to which the agency the governing body or a member acting in an official capacity is or is likely to become a party when public knowledge regarding the discussion is likely to result in an adverse legal or financial consequence to the agency. The city council is not expected to take action following the executive session other than to adjourn the meeting. So with that we will uh adjourn and for 15 minutes and if it goes beyond that I'll let you Oh,