The Lakewood City Council denied a request to vacate a portion of 100th Street SW at its Sept. 16, 2024 regular meeting.
The adjoining property owners requested the vacation. The property is publicly owned by the city. It runs from 100th Street into Lake Steilacoom.
The property is described on page 20 of a 2023 street ends report (view the PDF report). The report identifies all street ends across the city. For each street end, options are presented for how to increase public access to the water. Recommendations range from development of the small parcels, to vacating the land to adjoining property owners.
At the meeting Monday, Planning and Public Works Director Jeff Rimack said the property owner requested the City Council postpone its decision until mid-October. This was so the property owner could submit a complete appraisal, which the city requested.
Councilmember Mike Branstetter said his decision would not change after review of a complete appraisal. He said he did not support vacating the land. He motioned to act on the ordinance.
Councilmember Ryan Pearson seconded Brandstetter’s motion. During the discussion Pearson said he too opposed the vacation request. He noted he was disappointed with how the community treated the property owners requesting the vacation. People harassing the property owners, being rude to them on social media and in person is unacceptable, Pearson said.
The 2023 street end report identified encroachment of private property into the 100th Street right-of-way. Part of a carport and the house was built on the city land.
While he does not support the full vacation of the street end, Pearson said he supports vacation of a portion of the property that would allow the private property owners to address the encroachment issue.
“The street end vacation is the tough pill to swallow, and I am definitely not in support of that,” Pearson said.
Councilmember Patti Belle thanked the community for its public comments on the issue. Belle has “always been a proponent of public access to public lakes”, she said and did not support the full vacation request.
Mayor Jason Whalen agreed public access to the lakes is critical. That’s why the city’s Parks and Recreation Advisory Board is working on a pilot project to open a city street end to improve public access on Lake Steilacoom, he said.
Whalen thanked the community for getting involved. He said he would abstain from voting because he did not think the issue was ready for determination. Whalen said he thinks the city can find a balance that allows public access to the lake in a way that still provides opportunity for the property owners to fix the encroachment issues.
Roll call: The vacation request was denied. Council members Belle, Brandstetter and Pearson voted against the request. Mayor Whalen and Councilmember Paul Bocchi abstained from voting. Deputy Mayor Moss was excused from the meeting and not in attendance.
Watch the discussion on the City’s YouTube channel at the 1 hour 29-minute mark.
Want to learn more about the city’s efforts to open street ends to gain access to the lakes? The city’s Parks and Recreation Advisory Board made a recommendation in July as to how to proceed with a pilot project to build out street ends. Find the recommendation and report online.
I would love to see better public access on Lk Steilacoom. Edgewater Park is ok but limited. Reading the PDF report from 2023 linked in the article was illuminating. So many lakefront property owners doing all they can to gradually and stealthily absorb public property and prevent access. I got mine, go away! This feels like a brewing fight similar to the rail trail conversion on Sammamish Lake in King Co. Kudos to the council for not rubber-stamping the vacation request.
The report failed to mention the vast amount of response the City had received from the public to NOT vacate that property. There were several people speaking at the meetings along with emails to the City council asking to keep the Public acceses public.
Bravo! Thank council members for doing the right thing for the community.
We had a “public park” one lot away from our house (street end parcel donated to the City, functionally the same as a street end right of way). It created an awful situation on the lakefront and in the neighborhood, and I’m glad it was sold to adjoining landowners. Prior to the sale, people camped overnight, lit fires, littered, used drugs, set off fireworks. The lot was a mess of brambles and scrubby trees. A stolen car was left on the street; there were car prowls and break-ins of residents’ park users’ and vehicles.
If the City wants to keep public access to public lakes, they need to maintain the property as if it truly is a park. Keep it tidy. Keep it clean. Keep it safe.
So a minority….3 votes….was enough to pass legislation on this Council? What about Council member Lauricella? Where was he in all of this? I thought it took a majority (4 votes) to pass legislation in Lakewood.
Lauricella had already stated in a previous meeting he wouldn’t support selling the street end regardless of the price!
This has been coming up over and over for 50+ years. I grew up in Lakewood since 1956, with the exception of four years. I graduated LHS in 1972, and we always grumbled that getting on the either Steilacoom or Gravelly Lake was a problem. Propery owners would harrass whomever they deemed a non-lake residient.
THIS time, perhaps the City of Lakewood will actually be able to do something about public access availability. It is ridiculous that this has been allowed to go on for so very long. May progress continue in this effort!
I agree with you Pat. “If the city wants to keep public access to public lakes, they need to maintain the property as if it truly is a park. Keep it tidy. Keep it clean. Keep it safe.”
The biggest issue here is that the city does not have the capacity to maintain the parks nor all these street ends. Anyone with eyes can see that just by driving around Lakewood. They can’t even keep up with the amount of dumped garbage all over this city and in the creeks – and our law enforcement is overwhelmed. The city needs more help/city workers.
A. Parsons- The City does allow for vol. that was to help keep the City clean in support roles and I know for sure the Parks Dept would be open to help.
I think it is good that the city declined the request and honestly feel they need to consistent. The City should not vacate any of the land and hold the property own accountable for building on City land, just as they have done near Edgewater Park. (or work with both property owners and sell those portions to them they encroached.)
A. Parsons- The City does allow for vol. that was to help keep the City clean in support roles and I know for sure the Parks Dept would be open to help.
I think it is good that the city declined the request and honestly feel they need to consistent. The City should not vacate any of the land and hold the property own accountable for building on City land, just as they have done near Edgewater Park. (or work with both property owners and sell those portions to them they encroached.)
Whether or not the city chooses to use the land for public use is not really the issue here I feel. It’s whether someone can build privately on public land then claim it as their own. When you build it is your responsibility to make sure you are within your property line.
The other direction has to be honest in their dealings w/land as well, such as claiming land for public use, holding for a period of time, then selling it off to random buyers, having taken it away from a private owner to begin with instead of returning it to them.