Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Shoreline topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents denounce demolition of Mirjalili home at Lake Steilacoom; raise environmental and equity concerns
Summary
Residents told Lakewood council May 19 they oppose the demolition of Dr. Mirjalili's home at Lake Steilacoom and the city's apparent plan to convert the site to a boat‑launch parking area; speakers cited environmental impacts on fish habitat, runoff pollution and procedural fairness, and some alleged racial motivation in enforcement actions.
Lakewood — Multiple residents used the public‑comment period May 19 to criticize the city’s handling of the demolition of Ibrahim Mirjalili’s house near Lake Steilacoom and to question the plan to convert the parcel to a parking area tied to a proposed boat launch.
Several speakers said the action displaced a longtime community member and argued the demolition and land use change were unnecessary and environmentally harmful to a lake identified by the state as priority fish habitat.
"Eminent domaining and demolishing a family's house — how can you do such a thing for a boat trailer parking lot?" asked Christina Manetti of the Gary Oak Coalition. "The city is blinded by grants."
Dr. Ibrahim Mirjalili, who said his house had been demolished, said his family purchased and renovated the property in 2008 and that they feel the action was unfair.
"I am the person whose house has been taken and demolished," Mirjalili told the council. "We purchased it in 02/2008 and rehabilitated. Took us a decade to do it, and they demolished it now."
Speakers raised multiple environmental concerns tied to a motor‑boat parking area adjacent to an identified fish habitat: increased runoff from impervious surfaces, tire residue containing pollutants, noise and air pollution from diesel‑powered boats and trucks, and disturbance to fish and waterfowl.
"Does the proposed parking lot even comply with environmental regulations governing development along shorelines?" a resident asked. "A parking lot with an impermeable surface right next to a lake that is priority fish habitat is not appropriate."
Other commenters said the enforcement and acquisition process appeared inconsistent and called for the city to make amends and to avoid similar actions in the future. The council did not take action during the May 19 meeting; the comments were entered into the record.
Discussion vs. decision
Discussion: public comments described the demolition, environmental concerns about a proposed parking lot and inequitable enforcement, and urged the city to restore or remediate the site and reconsider motorized access. Direction: none formal; staff and council received the comments. Decision: none this evening.
Why this matters
The dispute combines neighborhood livability, shoreline protection and municipal process questions. If the tactic is tied to grant‑driven park improvements, residents said the project’s public‑access benefits do not justify demolition and potential harm to sensitive habitat.
