Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Right now is in Arizona.

This meeting of the liquid playing commission is hereby call the order. I'm a roll call please.

Commissioner Estrada is excused. Commissioner Crook. Commissioner Flores. Commissioner Herr is excused. Excuse me. Commissioner Larson.

Here.

Commissioner Wallace. Here. And Commissioner Merritt.

Here.

Thank you. You have quorum, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much. If you all will stand and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Pledge of Allegiance.

Thank you and good evening. The minutes of the previous meeting were emailed to all. Are there any additions or corrections to those minutes? May I have a motion for approval of the minutes, please?

So moved. Second.

All in favor? All opposed? Thank you. The minutes of the previous meeting are approved. Do we have any agenda changes?

No, Mr. Chair.

Okay. We have an open forum for public comment at this time. If there's any members of the public who wish to, either from online or from the audience, wish to speak at this time, please come forward.

And this is public comment regarding anything in front of the planning commission. There is a separate public hearing specifically on the 2026 comprehensive plan amendments.

Thank you. Thank you very much. There are several members of the audience who have asked to make public comment at this time. And in order, Haley Ivey. Let us know what's on your mind. Thank you for coming.

And every single time I make a public comment or any kind of hearing, it is in reference and care and concern over Edgewater Park. I've been speaking on Edgewater Park since last summer and I visited three days ago and it looks worse than ever. I live very close to it. I have an attachment to that piece of land because it's near me. It's a place where I go to de-stress. It's a place where I go to the trees. There are two and a half feet tall weeds taken over almost the entire grass. The water is filthy, garbage lining the water line. It stinks. I can smell pee on the trees. And I'm speaking from a place of honesty because I visit this park and I speak on it so much and nothing is done. It is getting worse. Excuse me. I'm just getting a little frustrated. because not only that, the noxious wheat English ivy has taken over most of the trees there. It has not been removed. I am of the assumption that it is probably unlawful to remove it myself. So I haven't. In terms of Lakewood itself, the city ivy is taking over a lot of trees and I would like the public and officials to be made aware of the, deadly effects and the rapid growth that English ivy causes. But back to Edgewater Park is I really care about this park. It stinks, it looks bad. And as somebody who has visited Sealy Lake twice as a Lakewood resident, that is one of the most important wetlands in Lakewood. And it looks like garbage. Please help me and the other residents that want places to go, sit, smell a nice breeze, not be surrounded by piles of garbage. The trash cans are overflowing with garbage. And I have to bring this up because more and more changes are being done to the city that do not make any, what do you call it, a statement of fact that things are already bad. Instead, we are paving them over, acting as if that's what's gonna save, I don't know, our quality of life. I teach children, And their most favorite thing to do is go outside. That is the essence of being a human being. So please, I ask and beg the city for, I don't know, the 15th time to please pay attention and care for our parks instead of installing a sign as of three weeks ago that now is halfway buried between three feet of weeds. Thank you so much for listening.

Thank you, Ms. Ivey. You'll be pleased to know that there are changes coming for Edgewater Park. Next person wishing to speak is Christian Manetti. I can't quite read it.

We didn't hear what you said at the end. We'd be pleased to know that what? We didn't hear you in the back. We're pleased to know that what?

Your last sentence, we didn't hear. Changes are coming to Edgewater Park. Changes, okay, thank you.

Christina Minetti, Lakewood. I've lived here for more than 50 years, since 1972, since I was very small. And I came here today mostly to talk about the, during the public hearing about Edgewater, about the zoning changes, the zoning amendments. But first I thought maybe I would just give you some of my impressions about public's reaction to the backstory of the changes at Edwarda Park. One of our main concerns is that public input seems to be actively very kind of theatrically solicited, but then the actual public input is quite disregarded by the city in its decision making. And it's not only in terms of Edgewater Park, but a lot of other things that we have observed over the last few years in Lakewood. I don't come here very often to speak, but I usually bring my concerns to the city council. There's no evidence that Lakewood took on board all of the vociferous opposition to the Edgewater Park changes, and the residents feel quite, I would say, They think that the planning commission, the city council, the city staff, nobody listens to their concerns. They're just gonna do what they want and that's why this room is empty. Also, I didn't find out about this. I follow city things quite closely and I only found out about this because Dr. Miglioli let me know. I didn't know that the written comments were due at noon, so I had to quickly put something together. So the communication on this one wasn't that good. I don't know why. So in any case, I think that probably the city council, the planning commission, they need to do a more earnest job in really reacting to what people say is important to them. Other example, for example, recently lighting was put in front of our house on the street and I really valued the darkness that is on that street. It doesn't have a lot of traffic, it doesn't have a lot of pedestrians, it doesn't need the lights. There are a lot of birds there and there are a lot of trees there and the lights are detrimental to wildlife, detrimental to trees, to the photosynthesis, to humans trying to function, sleep in the houses. And now I have to look at those lights every day. They shine into my windows at night. I contacted the city. They said, oh, it needs to happen. They said they adjusted it. It didn't make any difference. Nobody asked me, do I want lights in front of my house? I would have told them no. Nobody said, there are going to be lights. Are these okay like here or does it shine into your bedroom? They could have put lights that are motion censored. In other cities, they have these. So when you need the lights, they go on. Otherwise, they're off so that the wildlife and the birds can function. That was another recent example. It made me really upset to see that.

In other places, in Denmark, there's some city that even installed red lights.

So please respond. Thank you, ma'am.

Your time is up.

Okay, and now I have a comment from the Gary Oak Coalition.

And I see that you've signed up for the Gary Oak Foundation.

Yes, yes.

You have one appearance, not two.

No, I have two appearances because I speak on behalf of the Gary Oak Coalition. It's a non-profit. Okay, go for it. So we also have similar concerns about the role of the Planning Commission in protecting the environment of Lakewood. It seems that the Planning Commission does not sufficiently fulfill its responsibilities in this regard. I'm not quite sure why that is. But recently, for example, there was a decision in MD&S that was issued that involved the 60-inch Gary Oak in Woodbrook, which is in the way of a semi-truck parking lot. 60-inch Gary Oak, that means that it is minimum, supposedly, according to WDFW, a rule of thumb for the estimation of age, of 900 years because it grows only one inch per 15 to 20 years. So if it's 60 inches across, you can do the math, that's 900 years. Now, it's a miracle tree because it is actually in good condition. According to the arborist report, he says it is in good condition. which is amazing because it's a senescent tree. It's at the end of its life. It's full of life. Gary Oaks are a keystone species. They support more other species than any other tree in North America. Oaks do in general, and that's our only native oak. You know, lichens, birds, butterflies, insects, all kinds of things. And that tree, in that decision, it says that not only can they build a parking lot there for semi-trucks, on the buffer area of a wetland, the frogs are up to the road. We're standing there, and there were frogs in the blackberry bushes at the road. they can pave the entire property all the way up to the Gary Oak, which means it's going to fry its root zone because the root zone goes out 250 feet from the trunk, only to the drip line. But if they really need to, they can pave 25% of the drip zone, of the critical root zone. So what kind of idea is that? In your regulations, it says it cannot happen. And if a parking lot needs to, they can pave over this 900-year-old, potentially, Gary Oak's critical root zone. You're breaking your own laws. Whoever was in charge of this, I don't know, probably not you. This is outrageous. In other places, this would be a champion tree. Have you ever heard of a champion tree? That's the biggest tree of its kind in a certain area, the state or whatever. This is huge. In 1911, the biggest Gary Oak in the state was in Parkland, and it was about 64 inches, it looks like. This one is 60. This is huge. There are none left like this around here. This is extremely rare. So I would urge you to revise that decision and save that tree entirely. Don't pave over it. Don't have a parking lot. Do conservation futures or something to save that property, that wetland, which is also valuable, and that tree. So thank you very much.

Thank you for your comments. Record also show that we've received a written document from the Gary Oak Foundation and that's been distributed to all the Planning Commission members. Thank you. James, come on down. James, would you mind saying your last name, which I can't read off this paper?

Hello, my name is James Dunlop. Thank you very much. And I'm a resident of Lakewood. I came here because I wanted to make a comment on Edgewater Park, but as this is an opportunity to make a more general comment, I thought I would sort of point you to a sort of recent article in the Cascadian, in which was, you know, talking about... what's going what's going on in the city council what people are saying on the city council maybe it is a minority opinion at the moment but i think that people in lakewood even at the level of the city council are beginning to question the city and whether the city but i mean the city bureaucracy and whether the city really is working for the benefit of uh the residents, or there's some sort of administrative reason, or rather it might be budget maximization, or there's all sorts of academic theories about why bureaucracies will basically support themselves. So it's not very often decisions I think are likely to be made, not for the benefit of the residents of Lakewood, but in order to maintain and enhance the city and municipal bureaucracies. And like with the Edgewater Park project, thing which we are about to discuss i mean this is uh an extraordinary project which on the surface it doesn't actually make any sense i mean i'll be talking about it in more detail later on but i think the city the planning commission you know do have to be careful because there is i think something wrong with this whole edgewater park project a lot of it just doesn't make sense and i think that I would urge you to not necessarily make any decision at all. I think the whole inception of the Edgewater Park project does kind of need an independent inquiry. I mean, there seems to be some independent inspection of what has happened. It all started with Dr. Mugilili losing his house. and there is a total lack of logic with a lot of what is going on and one wonders why and so you know you as oh sorry i shouldn't address you in a second person but the city council needs to sorry the planning commission you know does need to look at it perhaps from a reputational angle you know if for example if something goes wrong at a later stage you know all of those in the approval process um are likely or could well find their own reputations are damaged by it. And I think you need to kind of realize that things have changed, that people are asking questions about the city and the city bureaucracy and why decisions have been made. And you don't want the city planning commission just doesn't want to be used as a convenient rubber stamp because you might be led into something which you might later regret.

Thank you for your comments. MICHELLE INFUSIA? HOPEFULLY I DIDN'T MASSACRE YOUR LAST NAME.

It's a big last name, Michelle Infusino Lakewood. And actually this is the first time that I'm speaking to the planning commission, even though I've been following for a while, I've been a resident. We bought our house in 2001. We moved away thinking we were coming back to Lakewood that we had maybe left. I understand the policy of the state and the ADU, and I would urge the planning commission to maybe implement something that mitigates some of the environmental damage that's happening with that. We have somebody that has been permitted to build two ADUs across the street from us. They have taken down all of their trees And per the policy of your city, it is a tree that's I think nine and a half inches in diameter at four feet has to be replaced with something. And if there's no space on those properties to replace a tree that has been removed, we are not helping the city. We are not helping our stormwater situation, the end of our street floods, because there's just runoff that runs down. I care very much about where I live. I care very much about my community. And we are in a community that has an incredible amount of rental properties and not as many homeowners. And I really would like the commission to think very clearly about how they proceed and how you can help assuage the policy, even though the policy is a state policy, and I understand that. But just looking out for our communities and our stormwater and our trees and our environments and our green spaces, not just at parks at Edgewater and not just at the park at Fort Steilacoom, but all parts of Lakewood where we live and where we are. That's it. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your comments. Is there anyone else wishing to speak? Please tell us your name.

Hello, good evening. My name is Abraham Mir Jalili. I'm a resident of City of Lakewood. I'm the same person that Christina mentioned. I'm also the owner of the property at 9132 Edgewater that the city demolished an unracially motivated case. And I say that because all of those who were involved, they were Caucasians. All of them. But we also didn't know that, and we learned about it after the court made a decision that they could condemn it. We learned about five months later that, oh, the friend of the past mayor, with his neighbor wanted to make the whole 100th Street end, which they could not do that unless the city would find a waterfront property like ours to trade it with. The city resident protested. Their plan fell apart, but we believe that the city is planning to somehow to go around it and treat us differently than them, probably. Also, this is not an exception. When the dispute was originally on the boundary dispute, when we were not deceived, they used the eminent domain to condemn our home. Demolished about $2 million home to make a parking lot that I got a notice that they are not taking care of it. from the county. And this is gonna be bad for this neighborhood from another aspect because based on the law that recently passed by the legislator at the state level, anybody can go and put a tent over there and the city has to do one of these two, either leave it to stay or move them to somewhere within the city and house them. And I don't know how they want to do that. So this is insecurity for that neighborhood. And that's not all. I heard from a historian who stated that his friend, before he passed away about a year and a half ago, he said what they are doing is wrong. Because that place where they want to move the boat launch is too shallow. There are tree stump there. And besides that, what I know about it, it is that there is a street runoff that it comes down right there, and the water is stagnant. you are welcome to go and take a look at it during summertime. I have seen toxic algae over there, and these people, they want to have also put a watercraft which is going to have more kerosene and more oil into that stagnant water. which the fish are gonna go and feed on it. You really need to demand that they do a biology study in that area before they do that. They want also to open the area next to it for swimming of the kids and the families. Do you really want to do that? Having a croissant in the water that is stagnant and it's not flowing, and your kids go there. 10 years later, you learn, oh, now we have some cases that we never expected. Please make them to do their study, biological study first before they do that. And do not change the zoning. This is still under the court review and I hope it would be a reverse condemnation.

Thank you very much.

I appreciate it very much. If you want to learn about it more, I would be more than happy to share more information because It was done based on an erroneous map, and we believe the judge was deceived in that case, if there was nothing else. And I say that because- Time, Mr.

Chair. Thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

Thank you, sir, for your comments. There's another person from the public who didn't sign the list.

My name's on the list. I signed it outside for the hearing.

Feel free.

General public comment.

The public hearing is separate.

Okay. There being no other people to comment on the public hearing, then... Just a moment, Mr.

Chair. There's one person online. Yeah. Mr. Dunlop online, would you wish to speak?

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Hello, my name is T. Homer Dunlop, and I wanted to make a quick comment regarding the proposed rezoning of Dr. Merchalili's former property by Edgewater Park.

Mr. Dunlop, that's in a separate public hearing, so we'll give them back to you, okay?

Oh, all right, all right. Thank you.

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair.

Okay, no problem. Thank you. So... Is there anyone else who wishes to testify in public comments not related to the events as advertised?

If I may, my name is Helen Wagner, and I would like to speak about pretty much the same thing that our friend the doctor did. State law says that there should be no net loss of ecological function. This fits the lake. It also fits that piece of property. Since when should a boat launch and a piece of property for a parking lot? take precedence over someone's home. I'm sorry. It seems to me This is morally wrong to take somebody's property, even if he is compensated, that he's lived in for a long time. Amendment 2025 formalizes what has already been accomplished. Yes, he was compensated, but only partly. It strikes me that whoever made this decision has based on pure ethnic discrimination. Would this have been done if the owner were a white person of European origin? That the only place of convenience for, excuse me, Was that the only place that this could be put in? Isn't there a launch anyway somewhere else? Such an addition would not benefit all citizens or the ecosystem, but only those who can afford a boat. And remember, The law says no net loss of ecological function. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your comments. Is there anyone else from the public wishing to make a general public comment? Hearing none, we'll close the public comment period at this point in time. And should we go right into the comprehensive plan discussion?

Mr. Chair, I have a brief presentation, if you don't mind, before we open the hearing. Go ahead. Thank you. So as was discussed at the last meeting on June 3rd, the study session, we went through each of the 25 proposed amendments that were in front of you tonight as part of the annual comprehensive plan docket. This evening, we are gonna just do a very high flyover again, and then the public hearing will be held. There were 23 items in the docket. Two more were added subsequently in relation to Edgewater Park at the request of the Parks Department. And then we had one private rezone request later withdrawn. So we actually have a total of 24 for the Planning Commission to consider taking action on at its next meeting. The first 12 are from state law changes, which require review and potential amendment to the city's code and or zoning. amendments 13 through 21 and then 23 through 25 are a variety of text and zoning map amendments 2026 22 is the one that was removed. And then there are three that are optional, and so it is up to the City Council ultimately to decide whether they would like to take action on those or not, but they are in front of you for a recommendation to counsel. This is a really, again, high level summary, but there, again, were a total of 24. The way this is presented to you with recommendations from the Planning and Public Works Department is 11 have been recommended for approval. No action is recommended for six amendments. There's continuation recommendations to a future planning cycle for six amendments. And then there's one amendment, 202603, that the department did not recommend anything on, leaving it up for Planning Commission and Council to develop a recommendation should they wish to The approval ones, some changes required by state law regarding administrative process for lot splitting. 02 is related to building code and development regulation reform required again by state law. 05 is changing historic landmark designation criteria, primarily the age of a parcel or a property has to be no longer less than 50, but less than 40 years old. So 202606 is again required by state law and it's talking about in residential areas, if there was an existing building that may even not have been used for residential use in the past, that is something that the city must allow be used for residential use if it's redeveloped in part or in whole. 202608 is new minimum parking requirements adopted by the legislature this last session and we are required to comply with it. 2026-13 is something that is purely a technical error that was made in the last amendment cycle. We did our big 10-year review and called Pierce County Transit, and that needs to change in our comprehensive plan. There is also an amendment talking about the fact that right now there are two separate zones for open space and recreation. So there's two different zones that are applied to certain parks within the city. The recommendation here is to actually combine those zones. So the allowed uses within the single open space and recreation zone are updated. And then if this were to pass, all of the parks within the city would be zoned open space and recreation rather than OSR1 or OSR2. Then there's a recommendation to approve regulatory amendments related to boarding houses. This is a term that the department is recommending to be removed from our code because it is obsolete and new language is now used to govern the same topic. There was also a request by the city council to look at a particular comprehensive plan, land use policy related to nonconforming uses. And after review, the department is recommending removal of land use policy 10.4 from the comprehensive plan. There is now also two now recommended amendments related to Edgewater Park. First is the redesignation of the parcel that is already the park itself to rezone it to open space and recreation too. However, because I just talked about that other amendment that would change everything to a single zone, if that one is adopted, this amendment becomes moot. You don't need to take action on it when you do that at your next meeting. And then same thing would apply here. This is a recommendation to rezone 9132 Edgewater Drive Southwest from residential three to open space and recreation two. However, if this amendment 14 goes through and there's just the single zone, it would be changing this to allow the redesignation and rezone to simply OSR. There's some recommendations of no action on six, I believe, different amendments. First of all, number nine, 10, 11, and 12. The reason no action is recommended is the city is already in compliance. These were all adopted and the city had already taken care of this in a past amendment cycle. There is a change here where no action is needed regarding rental housing safety program within the city. These were already taken care of earlier this year in a separate ordinance. And then there is no action recommended on changing split zoning on certain park parcels within the city. We talked about this at the study session, if you'll recall, there was no need for the rezone according to the PPW analysis. The schedule as it sits right now is we are this evening holding the public hearing. On July 1st, you will be coming back to discuss and perhaps take action. Assuming you do, the council will begin its review on July 13th. There will be a public hearing at the city council on July 20th. And then the council is at this point scheduled to take action on August 3rd. So with that, Mr. Chair, turning it back over to you for the public hearing.

Thank you, we have a number of people who wish to speak at the public hearing. The public hearing is now open for discussion of the comprehensive plan amendments to the Lakewood City Code. And the first person who signed up to speak is Brendan Massoni, Massini.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Brendan Massini. My wife and I are the new owners at 9138 Edgewater Drive Southwest. And so our interest in agenda item 25 is that we share the border with the proposed zoning change lot at 9132. And we're here to speak in support of the rezoning. We purchased the property with anticipation and excitement about the park rejuvenation project and are excited for that. but recommend two conditions for the rezoning as the nature of that property border has now significantly been altered. One of them regards the border of that property, which and its residential setting currently essentially has no barrier towards the waterfront. In its current state, we have off-leash animals, errant fishermen chasing lures, or basically free reign across the yards at the edge of the water. CONSISTENT WITH THE MULTIPLE PARK PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN PERFORMED AROUND THE CITY. THE MOST APPLICABLE I THINK IS THE BORDER BETWEEN THE AMERICAN LAKE BOAT LAUNCH AREA WHERE THERE IS A PRIVACY FENCE AS WELL AS CHAIN LINK FENCE THAT EXTENDS INTO THE WATER. AT THE OTHER BORDER AREAS FOR PARKS THAT'S A SIMILAR uh structure and so for rezoning to a park setting adjacent to private property that would be one of our recommendations the second is related to the existing private dock that is on the property and extends into the water line also adjacent to the property border Now we find that that is inadequate for public use and public safety and would recommend strongly the removal of that dock or replacement with something more structurally sound as that represents a significant safety hazard directly on the border of our property and is a concern. In addition to that, that is another avenue of direct access to our property from the park. and should be remedied, and maybe that's done with the fencing previously recommended. But we do support the rezoning plan as well as the park project. We're actually very excited about it and what that will do for increasing access to the waterfront for the Lakewood community, but do recommend those conditions be met to approve the rezoning. Thank you very much.

Thank you, sir. Haley Ivey. Welcome back.

Thank you for having me again. I want to speak on the same issue, but I am in opposition. I want it completely thrown out. The park is already extremely small, polluted, littered. Even on our busiest days, it is quoted, this proposed development will significantly improve public safety and emergency access to the lake. Even on the busiest days, even on July 4th last year, it's fine, it's fine. It does not get that congested, but the thing is, Having pavement that completely paved over is what's going to cause the congested traffic. I don't understand how that small lot is going to be able to fit five boat trailers. That's what's going to cause the issues. What else do I got here? Also, there are so many opposing comments about this for years. It doesn't seem like any of those are addressed. There has been no transparency this entire time we've been talking about Edgewater Park. It has not been taken care of. I don't understand Who is this for? It's being improved for people that don't even go there. I've seen this part just get thrown into the trash. I'm sorry, I'm getting off topic. I oppose it. It just doesn't make any sense. I just don't know if the park is visited by anybody who's making these changes. And I want to refer back to the last hearing, excuse me, the Shoreline Master Program. hearing on March 18th where everybody opposed this plan and nothing has been said to us. We are just now suddenly at another hearing having to repeat ourselves and trying to explain basic education and telling people who have never been to this park that people are swimming in trash. There are protected fish that is just gonna get more polluted by boaters who don't live there.

It's a neighborhood park. It's quiet.

Now it's an undeveloped park. It's the only one we have. Nobody wants to go to Sealy Lake. And we're turning it into American Lake, but it's like 0.2 acres. It's tiny. Now this quiet neighborhood is just going to have to deal with the repercussions of whoever is profiting off this boat launch. And I appreciate you guys. Thank you for listening.

Thank you very much for your comments, Christina Medetti. Come on down.

Okay, so Christina Minetti, Lakewood. I've lived in the Edgewater area since 1977 and in Lakewood more generally since 1972. I strongly oppose the proposed amendment related to rezoning of the parcel that used to be the former Major-Lily property. for expansion of Edgewater Park. For nearly 50 years, I visited the small park, whether on my bike as a kid or now on walks through my neighborhood. This small piece of shoreline holds special memories for me because it was one of my first real destinations that I could go to safely on my bike and independently. What's being proposed is not making possible just a modest park improvement. It's actually a major negative change to this place. which should be an oasis of serenity and a place for wildlife, fish, and birds. The proposed changes are to encourage more motorized recreation, boat trailers, traffic, noise, pavement in the middle of a quiet residential neighborhood. I mean, it is priority fish habitat. So if it is priority fish habitat, why would somebody want to do something that would facilitate damage to that through motorboats, fossil fuels, 6ppd quinone from the tires and all that stuff? So the city keeps describing this as improving access. But the former Mir Jalili property is only about four tenths of an acre. Residents are entitled to ask why expanding a small one acre linear park, that's how the city described it for years and years, By less than half an acre means that there needs to be an additional pavement, trailer maneuvering areas, infrastructure for motorized watercraft. When does this tiny neighborhood park stop being a park and just become a transportation facility for boats? Like, you know, parking lot and stuff. Speeding trucks with boat trailers are really already dangerous on the big curve in front of my house, which is like where Waverly and Edgewater meet. Has the city completed traffic impact analysis, trailer turning analysis, whatever kind of analysis you need? If so, where are they? Why is the city seeking a rezoning before demonstrating that the impacts can be addressed? Why does access, this is like the core of it, why does access have to mean more pavement and the encouragement of motorboats? It's just a small portion of people who would use it like that. And the people who do use it now, like me, I'm not gonna go there. When I hear that there are boats there and people screaming and throwing garbage. Like, I'm not going to go there. So you were actually reducing access by rezoning it and enabling them to expand this park to make a parking lot. Like, why next to the lake? A parking lot. I mean, everybody knows that run-up is bad. 6-D quinone is bad going into the lake. Extra heating is bad for the plants. You've already cut down a major amount of trees there. Why not prioritize pedestrian access? or hand launch access for canoes and stuff? Why is more pavement and more motorized recreation being presented as the only option? Please rethink it. Do not approve this amendment. And here is a comment. Let me start it. So this is a comment from Gary Okolish in Lakewood. I'm Christina Manetti. We urge the Planning Commission to recommend denial of this proposed amendment related to the rezoning of the former Mayor Jalili property, its amendment to 2026-25 related to Edgewater Park's expansion. The city is asking that a former residential parcel be rezoned, re-designated to create additional pavement, trailer parking, and boat launch infrastructure to encourage increased motorized recreational use. Yet the record before you, I hope you have, does not demonstrate that this proposal complies with the fundamental requirements of Washington's Shoreline Management Act. WAC 173.26.201 states that the shoreline programs must assure at minimum, quote, no net loss of ecological functions necessary to sustain shoreline natural resources, end quote, and must plan for restoration where ecological functions have already been impaired. Now, the city will say, oh, but we're taking out invasive species. There were blackberry. They're still there for now. But that does not make up. If you pull out some blackberries on one side and you pour fossil fuels into the other side, that does not make up. That is not no net loss. This is definitely going to be a worse condition of that habitat than it was when this whole thing started. So where is the evidence that this proposal achieves either of those objectives? It's already a struggling ecosystem. It's a small lake, you know, compared to like American Lake. It has salmon habitat. It is City of Lakewood's priority fish habitat, along with a couple of the creeks, and it's already experiencing environmental pressures. The city proposes to convert approximately 0.42 acres into an intensified recreational facility with the more impervious surface, all those things I mentioned before, the 6P dequinone, which is acutely toxic to salmonids. If you don't know about it, you can look it up really easily. And it's also priority fish habitat, as I mentioned. So why are such activities being facilitated through this rezoning at all? Why is fishing allowed in priority fish habitat when you're trying to save salmon, some of whom are endangered? I just don't understand. How does somebody know that they're not catching a salmon and not a stalked, whatever they put there, trout or whatever? That's just crazy. How can it be priority? And then you go there and you kill whatever's in it. It's just like insane. The question before this commission is not whether parks are desirable. Of course, it's whether the city has demonstrated that this specific proposal will avoid a net loss of shoreline ecological functions. The burden is not on the public to prove that this proposal will cause damage. The burden is on the city to demonstrate compliance with shoreline law and policy. Until that compliance has been demonstrated, approval would be premature and inconsistent with the no net loss standard, and we respectfully request that these amendments be rejected.

Thank you very much. Helen Wagner.

She's not going to testify, Mr. Chair.

OK. Please tell us your name. I don't see you're on the list here.

James Dunlop. Sorry, I haven't started yet. Let me just stop.

I don't believe my timer. I've got a second. I've got a second. I see that.

My name is James Dunlop, and I'm a resident of Lakewood. So I've been watching the development of the plans for Edgewater Park over the last few years, and it never really made any sense. I mean, there have been in this room, there have been a lot of people in this room saying why the current development is a bad idea. And at some level, the city never really justified it, not fully. Certainly the parking lot for the trailers, it just seemed to be extraordinary. And it really did strike me that something was going on that was perhaps under the surface, something that ordinary residents couldn't really understand. And I do think that some independent, investigation is required to just understand what actually was going on. Why was this project in Edgewater Park conceived of? What was the real motive? Because that's not entirely clear. And in terms of Edgewater Park, if you like, the original sin was the taking of Dr. Mijalili's property. I know that it was done legally and so forth, eminent domain and all sorts of issues with boundaries, which Dr. Mijalili will talk about himself. But in terms of the original sin, part of the sin is the fact that if Dr. Mijalili, for example, had been a retired white Air Force colonel, he would not have lost his property. So I think that there is a real feeling that he was discriminated against, perhaps because of his Iranian ethnicity. If he had been a white retired Air Force officer, that would not have happened to him. And so when you look at what is going on with this this parking lot for trailers. I mean, it's just incredible that so much of that space, that tiny space, is going to be used for a parking lot for a real minority group who happen to own huge boats. That does not make any sense. And others have talked about the pollution. And then you've got the crime issue. There will be a crime issue, I think, because remember, that lake is is really used three months of the year. And the other nine months, what's that parking space going to be used for? I mean, it could be somewhere for drug deals, somewhere for practicing their driving, for, I don't know, illicit activities. That's what's going to happen. It's going to require more policing. And so I think the whole plan is completely misconceived and, frankly, immoral.

Time, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, sir. We have another unannounced guest. Come on, come ahead and please tell us your name, sir.

Sure. Hello again. My name is Abraham Mirza Lili. I'm a resident of Lakewood. As I mentioned, the property at 9132 was owned by me and my wife, my family. Basically, that we were cleansed from it, like people are cleansed in Gaza because of the power of the city, the government that is supposed to serve us. I have to say that if you really have any moral, any conscience, any integrity, you want to have a full investigation into this case and get to the bottom of it, demand a biological study for it, and look to see if really this was right to do in the first place and if it is good to go on with it. I say this because I know that place more than any of you. And I have heard it also from a historian whose friend before passes away said, this place is not a place to do what they want to do with it. before he passed. And I can give his name and his phone number that could discuss it with you. This one, you want to go also ask the neighbors around there to see if they agree with that. When it was donated to the county in March 1916, it was donated as a right-of-way to the lake. It is only 0.15 acre, all of this lawn. It doesn't have that much of land. The county came up and used some of the road and added to that, and it's not really a park. There is nowhere in the state book, not in a county, nowhere, even the city. This is still considered a right of way. And that ramp which is there, at least the water flows and gets the kerosene and oil. But if they move it over here, it's stagnant. Please go and see it. is those fish are gonna come and they're gonna feed on it and people are gonna catch those and feed on them. This is, there is already sediment in that area from the street as I mentioned. This is really is not in the best interest of the city. We believe this was racially motivated and also was meant as we learn later, to serve some of the city officials' friends, which is proven. It is corruption in government. You participate in that, you're a part of it. You don't want to be a part of it, because it will come out if that's the case someday. I know that during 1970s, there were some corruption going on in Pierce County, and it came out. You probably want to go look at it. Something similar like this was happening. This city granted some developer a dedicated time for taxes and then for building houses and then took our home and demolished it.

Thank you, sir. Your time is up. Thank you all for your public testimony here. Is there anyone else in the audience who has not spoken or would like to speak? Seeing and hearing none, I would declare this public hearing closed.

Sorry, Mr. Chair, we do have someone online, I believe, who wants to testify. We forgot the person online.

Apologies to you, sir.

Hello, can you hear me again?

Yes, thank you.

I just wanted to make a comment, kind of agreeing with what people have just said, about Dr. Merjalili's former property by Edgewater Park. Yeah, I mean, rezoning that and setting that up for boat trailers and everything, it's just not a good idea. It's... I mean, first off, there's the whole issue of runoff. You're going to have oil leaking from the boats and the trailers and everything. The lake is salmon habitat. Do you really want to be contaminating that? And also, the park is small. I go by there, and it seems like the... The park is getting used right now, and people go there to fish and stuff, but it doesn't really need to be expanded. It's a pretty small strip of park. There's kind of a limit to how much you can put there. And already with the boat launch that is there currently, when you walk by there, it's kind of already obvious that the park is appropriate. And clogging up the park with even more people trying to put boats in there is just a stupid idea. And I think if you asked almost all the people who are actually using the park, they would say that it is not necessary. But yeah, it's priority salmon habitat. We do not want any net loss of shoreline habitat and paving right up to it is just a stupid idea. So just don't do it. Other people have explained better than I can, but yeah, that's all.

Thank you, sir, for your comments and for making them over the phone. Appreciate that. And so I believe that is the completion of our public input and public hearing. And is it appropriate to close the public hearing now?

Yes, sir.

Thank you. Public hearing is hereby closed. We have any unfinished business?

Yes, Mr. Chair. So we have with us this evening at your request, our city's building official, Rafiq Gindi, who is here to answer questions that some of you voiced at the last meeting regarding the one amendment that the city department had no recommendation on, which was the self-certification process for accessory dwelling units for architecture. And so Mr. Gindi is here. If you do have any questions for him, he's ready to answer them for you.

Somebody left the phone.

Welcome.

Good evening and thank you for inviting me. My name is Rafiq Gindi and I'm the City of Lakewood building official. I understand from Tiffany that you had questions in regard to the permit ready ADUs that the state has a house bill that passed that allows cities and jurisdictions to create a process for that. So is everybody familiar with the bill? I think it's a house bill, 1353.

Generally speaking, yes.

Okay, okay. So I'm here to answer any of your questions that's in regard to the house bill. for the city, it allows the city to have the option of creating the self-certification by a registered Washington State registered professional architect to submit construction documents for ADUs, only ADUs.

Are there questions that the Commission has?

Well, I have one. If you can explain a little overview, probably in one minute, on what will be the process, let's say, for a homeowner to do it, so everybody can have a very clear picture of what's the process.

Okay. That is actually why we're not recommending going with that, because we'll have to create a separate, independent process where homeowners can hire registered professional architects and put for them construction documents. The reasoning, one of the reasoning that there is a multiple reasoning what we're not recommending implementing that one is creating a separate process Number two, that state law only exempt the building review. And we have Mr. Mayor, the architect. So the building review is one aspect of any time we get a building permit application. There are others aspect like planning and zoning, engineering, fire code, and lakewood is very unique because we got our agent there are outside agencies that could have like the water connections sewer connections we have no control over their timelines their approvals but we can't issue a a permit for a start of construction even on an adu without their approval and that's That's a big challenge even as we're working on just the standard building permit for any construction is the timelines. We try to be very efficient. We set a standards for timelines. We try to meet these goals. I would say maybe 80% of the time we meet it based on staffing, based on unforeseen issues. So we'll have to create a process, a standard where you, when you're ready to commit to submit the professional architect on behalf of the owner or the owner where they have architectural plans and engineered stamp plans, where are the process? Where are the steps? And that's with the staffing level we have that would get a lot of the staff occupied to doing dedicated time to that because we're trying to move this fast. We're trying to move this quickly. So other things will end up being set aside into priority. We don't have enough staff that says this group is going to be dedicated on the permit ready permit applications for ADUs. The rest of the group would be doing the typical project permits reviews. I hope I didn't talk more than what I should, but I was trying to explain an overall.

I think our Commissioner Merritt would like to speak to that architecture opportunity. Sure.

I do have a lot of questions about it. Of course, I'm ready. What I would worry about is if you're going to give the authority for a stamped drawings by an architect or his team, what amount of oversight will the city building department still have over that?

It's a great question. So like I alluded earlier, it's only on the building code requirements. So does it meet the building code requirements for building egress windows, height of the building per code, fire rating of the walls per building code, IRC, and so forth. But we still need to have it reviewed for the zoning requirements for critical areas. That needs to be reviewed to ensure that they're not setting it in an area where it's, for our municipal code, it's a critical zone, critical area where they need to have certain different setbacks, different requirements, geotech reports, investigations, and so forth. The other aspect, too, is Fire code, as you know, fire code dictates maybe an ADU in 800 square feet, but where it's located on the property and the conditions of the road, like a hydrant, where is the fire hydrant? What is the water pressure that's around that, that an 800 ADU may be required to get a sprinkler system? Because the fire department are not going to be able to reach in the reasonable time in case of a service call. This is why we're not recommending to go with this process. We trust the architects. We collaborate work with them all the time, architectural and engineers, because we find that it's more efficient saving their time and our time.

I have another comment. This could be a long conversation. I think really there needs to be a threshold of of decision making by the city building department to make certain for the public safety that there is a threshold and anything above that. But how you define that, I think what I've seen over the years is that there is this concern about the legal ramifications that are out there. I understand that. I totally understand indemnification or making reasonable decisions. I think you have that right. I like the idea of, and I don't understand the state law. I wasn't even certain it was thorough enough yet. I don't know. But if it does that and even goes beyond that, I think that's very valid to give indemnification because it's the stamp drawings of the engineers and architects that should be responsible. But they need to have a threshold In the decision making and how I think you can and maybe this is my simplistic way, but for many years you could go into meet with the building officials and your departments and make baseline decisions. And that's it that has not been happening for a while very well. And the reason is because we're fear of of legal ramifications I understand that. So having the indemnification for that, I think is a great step. But how we get it to that threshold to have a simple meeting of the different departments to get that to know where the baseline is. And then it's up to the engineers and architects to make sure they stay at or above that baseline.

I fully agree with you, but one point that even I, in thinking about it and talking to the department director, the law give us the identification, but does that mean that we cannot get sued? So then it becomes in the court's decision that says, yeah, you have the law that protected the city, it's now in the architect, but still it's a process where we can avoid all of that by going through the typical process of review that is not that... delaying the progress of construction. So as an engineer, I always think, what is the problem? Why they created this law? I think they created this law, it's because it's all over the Western Washington. You can get the permit for ADU. The least I saw was eight weeks. The longest I saw was... 20 weeks for an ADU at 800 square feet. That could be on the building side reviewed in four hours. But why? It's because all the other things. In Lakewood, so I'll apply it to Lakewood. So I did my statistics. How many ADUs we got from 2025 till today? We got 19. Actually 18. Nine in 2025. and the ADU was located in an area that needed shoreline exemption. So because we went through the process, so through the process, through the review, by outside of the building division, the planning division, they identified this is close to the shoreline, you need to get a shoreline exemption. The others didn't need any of that, so they were meeting the normal, the turnaround for, the turnaround, the longest one took 39 days. So we're not getting into the eight weeks like some jurisdictions. So this is kind of the, we are as a department, not wanting to go through this process because it's gonna create a lot of, motion that's unnecessary because the workload to do the ADEs, we're meeting the timelines. We got a 5290 that requires us to have everything within 30 days. We're meeting that. So the indexes are showing that the problem is not that critical.

I think this is a good first step. I really do. Yeah, sure. I think though the threshold of how you keep the professional design community aware that they are, there's a responsibility that they have, they have an obligation to make sure they know where that threshold is, that they're accommodating and responding to the parameters required by the city of Lakewood, okay?

So I checked with other jurisdictions about the threshold. I apologize, I stepped in.

uh they created like a three-step tier three-step tier uh give me a second i may have a i thought i printed a copy as you're finding that i can see i need to read the whole law because i don't you know i have not been privy to the whole law yeah i think it's the simplicity that i heard last time i think it needs some Some sideboards and maybe they're there.

Yeah, guardrails. We need some guardrails.

Because I think ultimately it's got to go beyond just ADUs. I think this is a need for the industry. Yes. It really is. Because I think you're being strangulated on things you don't need to be.

I don't disagree. I don't disagree. And I think in the city of Lakewood here, we're very unique because we're tied into outside agencies that controls our timeline. If we were a self-sustained city, we would have a full control. In previous jurisdiction, we were in charge of the water and the sewer. So we've got the water and sewer people looking at it while building and engineering are looking at it. When we were ready to issue the permit, the individual got their permit for sewer connection, their permit for the water connection, they paid the fees for the building permit that included all these connections, and you moved, you started. Being waiting on, especially with the ADUs. So I had a recent incident where the individual decided to remodel the basement and call it an ADU. No problem. We reviewed it, we approved it, we sent it out. The water district came back, says you need a new water meter and you need a new water service line. So the building review was completed, planning review was completed, but the water district, Lakewood Water, made that requirement. So we had to work with the homeowner to turn this into what won't require And a two family dwelling unit, to my surprise, the water district doesn't require a second water line. They can be served by the single water line because they consider two family dwelling units the same structure. It's the same basement, but you change the floor and the wall assembly rating to allow it to two families. So the individual was able not to put a new water meter, not a new water service. And again, that's a factor outside of our control. So if you allow me, this is like what I found was a very simple three-step process that some jurisdiction.

I'd like to get a copy of that. Oh yeah, sure. And I think I probably delved far enough, but I see this as a test worth doing. I think as we see parameters happen, we'll know if there's other implications that we need to be aware of. But I think, I see this as a step to help this, what I call, I said strangulation. Well, it's stretching things out unnecessarily because of indecision, because of the way the process is set up. So time will tell. I think it's a good first step.

Indeed, we're important. And the legislature, they didn't take into account the fact that sewers are already sized for a certain population of water in the same way. For two examples. So we're caught scrambling with how to how to make, in some cases, the impossible happen, right? So I think that we've seen, and I think your idea about having professional architects with their stamp do as much as they can do, that takes the load off of you and also puts the load for their cost to get it right the first time, which saves the department time and therefore budget. to process. And as you get that step made, then you'll find out what additions and corrections can be made to the process. And it sounds to me like you're running a great show and that you're making progress towards that goal. It feels real good to me. Anybody else? Thank you, Mr. Merritt, especially for your expertise that you bring to the table here for the Planning Commission. And thank you for coming to address our questions.

And Tiffany, we can connect anytime you want, and I'll leave you.

Yeah, great. Thank you.

OK. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for inviting me.

Next steps.

Next steps, Mr. Chair. First of all, at this point, your next meeting is July 1st, where you will be discussing as desired the 25 proposed amendments as part of this docket that you had the hearing on tonight. If you're ready to take action on the first, then you would do so, and then it would move on to council. You will have responses from the city for all of the public comments that were provided this evening. You'll see the comments and then what the city's responses to each one. And so that will be in front of you as you do your deliberations. Just a reminder, as we talked about before, we have the recommendations coming from the department, approve, no action or no recommendation. And then you have the purview, it's within your purview to either go along with those recommendations or change what you want to recommend to the city council. So for instance, the one that you just had Mr. Guindy here for, if you wanted to create a recommendation from you, it's fine that the department didn't provide one and you want to, if you wanted to go that route. Or if there's something that is recommended for approval that for some reason you don't agree with, you are able to either amend it or say, we don't want to recommend approval. So all of that is up to you. We will try to get you the packet as soon as possible in order for you to be able to think about whether you want to propose any amendments at your next meeting. for the commission to maybe take action on. Otherwise it will be a resolution that would include all of the materials you've seen now at the study session and the hearing of the language that's being proposed. And then once you take action on that resolution, it will move on to council for review. In terms of anything else, we do not have council member Taubo here tonight. You are scheduled, as I said, for your next meeting on July 1st.

So we'll be voting on the process and the accomplishments on July 1st?

That's what you are scheduled to do. If there turns out to be a need to add another time for you to deliberate further, like on July 15th, we can do that. It's just right now the calendar is you would take action next meeting.

I have questions for those present. Is there any?

I don't know if this is the right time or place to ask the question. So you cut me right down if it's the wrong thing. No, go ahead. But regarding the Edgewater Park program, the plan that you've showed us for what they're planning, is that the plan?

No, not necessarily.

There's open to change or is that the only possible thing happening there?

What was provided to you was the master plan, which was conceptual in nature that the city council adopted in 2024. What has now happened since then, we've moved two years beyond that. We are looking strictly right now and what you have been asked to decide is whether to rezone a particular parcel to add it to Edgewater Park. The analysis that was requested by some of the people testifying tonight, that's premature. It's not gonna be done until the zoning would even allow the park to occur because right now it couldn't be expanded onto this parcel we've been talking about. if and when the city council rezones the parcel, then the parks department will actually begin the true on the ground, this is what we're proposing and there will be environmental analysis, there will be the process for the department to go through and review all of the application to make sure it fits and follows shoreline rules as well as the regular development regulations and there may be changes to that master plan from a couple years ago during that process.

I appreciate you going over that again. Sure. Thank you. Sure.

The fellow who lived next door to the Edgewater Park who spoke, I would for one like to see him engage with the city as he's the next door neighbor. I would like to recommend that that he be heard as to how the park is compatible with his property immediately next door. He had a couple of interesting points. One was the viability of the existing dock. um there's not a handrail on it you know it needs to be made adu safe for instance but it's a good solid concrete structure i don't disagree with them that needs to be i don't agree with them it needs to be taken out per se but that will vet itself out with the engineers in the city and and the uh and the laws that they're working towards in order to make it uh compliant and functional for uh everybody. So that was just my only comment is that we've got a next door neighbor who's speaking in favor of the project. That's huge. And I wish he was still here to hear that. But I think if there was an opportunity to be contacted, that that would be good business for the city.

I will incorporate that into the findings that you provide to the city council.

Thank you. I don't see any major complications that would cause us to not be able to move things forward on July 1st unless there are others that you think they need to study things more. So I think we're prepared to keep it on schedule.

Okay, great. Nothing else from me, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Is there any more business anyone would like to discuss? Jim?

With the public comments tonight, Would that be an attachment to the minutes of the meeting, or do you have that as a separate document, or how do we digest some of the comments that were made?

You will have a very consolidated summary in the minutes, but we will have a separate table that will be more detailed what they have asked for, what they've said, and what the city's response is to each point.

There being no other business, we stand adjourned.