Lakewood holds public hearing on expanding child care locations as residents urge stronger neighborhood protections

Lakewood held a public hearing on proposed amendments to its municipal code intended to expand where child care centers may operate in the city, a local implementation of a 2025 state law that staff said requires jurisdictions to permit such uses broadly.

Planning Manager Tiffany Spear told the council the packet (starting at p.172) includes draft definitions and zoning-table changes that would allow family day care (homes with up to 12 children) and, in many zones, commercial child care centers (generally 13 or more children) to operate in R1–R4 residential zones. Spear said the city is proposing to act earlier than the statutory deadline to help areas described in the packet as "child care deserts." She also confirmed that uses would remain prohibited in the city's air corridor/clear‑zone areas for safety reasons.

The hearing drew multiple residents who urged the council to add neighborhood safeguards before the expansion proceeds. Christina Manetti, speaking for herself and the Gary Oak Coalition, warned that an unregulated expansion could lead to clear‑cutting and the loss of mature Gary Oak trees and urged the city to require certified arborists and strict tree protections. "Such so‑called pruning is mutilation that threatens the health and survival of these ecologically and culturally important irreplaceable specimens," Manetti said, and she urged the council to "amend the municipal code to prevent harmful pruning and to implement a robust public education campaign."

Manetti also urged Lakewood to suspend the city's Flock Safety license‑plate camera program and to reject any expansion of automated license‑plate readers, citing a University of Washington report and examples from other jurisdictions that paused or restricted the technology. She told the council she was "disturbed to learn" of unauthorized access to data from the vendor's servers and called for public review and strict data governance.

Resident James Dunlop urged caution about unintended consequences, noting prior experience with adult family homes and raising concerns about possible property alterations and environmental impacts if larger operators pursue new sites. Another in‑person commenter, Ibrahim Jali, emphasized neighborhood security and the need for careful implementation.

Multiple council members raised the recurring issue of private covenants and homeowners association restrictions. Council Member Pearson and others urged staff to consider an applicant attestation verifying that private covenants (CC&Rs) would not prevent a proposed use, to avoid putting property owners in a position where the city issues a permit only to have a private legal restriction later force closure.

Spear said the proposal responds to state law and clarified that the state's Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) handles licensing and operating qualifications, while the city controls zoning and permitting. She told council that staff can prepare proposed attestation language and additional outreach before the council is scheduled to take action on Dec. 15.

The hearing record includes written testimony the clerk said was submitted in advance; staff reiterated that the public may still submit comments by mail or email to the city clerk. The hearing closed after the virtual speakers finished their remarks. The council did not take final action at the meeting and retained an option to add or refine language addressing buffers, noise limits, traffic mitigation, tree protections, and applicant verification ahead of the Dec. 15 decision.

Next steps: the council is scheduled to consider action on the amendments at its December 15 meeting; staff offered to prepare draft attestation language and additional outreach options if council directs it.