Planning Commission - Special Meeting

All right, Mr. Chair, we're ready to go when you are. Thank you.

Perfect. Good evening. Good evening, everybody. Today is Wednesday, July the 29th, 2026. The time is 631 p.m. And I will call this special meeting of the Lakewood Planning Commission to order. Will the clerk please call the roll?

Katie Crook. Robert Estrada. is excused at this time. Christian Flores, absent at this time. Mark Hare.

Here.

Lynn Larson. Jim Merritt. Sharon Wallace. You have quorum.

Thank you. Will you all please stand and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. and two republics for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

All right. Ms. Devereaux, are there any agenda updates for this evening? Actually, let me back up a little bit. Oh, yeah. I forgot she's online. Before we get there, I trust everybody had an opportunity to review the minutes from our last meeting on July the 15th. We'll entertain a motion to approve those minutes. Is there a second? Second. It has been motioned by Commissioner Larson and seconded by Commissioner Wallace to approve the meeting minutes of July the 15th of the Lakewood Planning Commission. Is there any discussion? Seeing none and hearing none, move it to a vote. All those in favor of approving the minutes, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, please signify by saying no. The ayes have it. The minutes are approved. Are there any agenda updates, Ms. Speier?

No, Mr. Chair.

Outstanding, thank you. We will move to public comment. As a reminder, public comment or testimony on public hearings are accepted by mail, email, or by in-person or virtual attendance. Mail comments to Karen Devereaux, Planning Commission Clerk, 6000 Main Street Southwest, Lakewood, Washington, 98499, or email kdevereaux at cityoflakewood.us. Comments received by noon on the day of the meeting will be provided to the commission electronically. For all in-person virtual comments, each person has three minutes to speak. Attendees are allowed to speak during public comment or public hearings only. Those attending in person will be called on by the chair. Those attending via Zoom should use the raise hand function to indicate they wish to speak. Once the chair calls your name, you will be unmuted. First, state your name and city of residence, and then provide your testimony. I believe last week we started in chamber. So this week we'll start. Is there anybody in virtual attendance that would like to public speak during the public comment period?

No, Mr. Chair. And just to note that Bob E that you see is Mr. Estrada. So he is now present as well.

Outstanding. Thank you. Being that there are no virtual commentees, Mr. Bryce, you did sign up for both the public comment and the public hearing section. Was that intentional or did you just? Okay, so you wanna speak during the public hearing? Okay. I think you're meaning to speak on the cannabis issue, right? which is not today's public hearing. Okay. Okay. So you, you could speak tonight during public comment on any topic you'd like, if you would like, you do not have to. Okay. Now is your time, sir.

Hello. Yes. Paul Bryce city of Lakewood for 20 plus years. And, uh, I am going to speak on, on cannabis. One of the things while you guys deliberate is just want to point out, this is not for kids. We keep hearing it over and over again, but it is not for kids. And, you know, last time I did hear, you know, for kids, biologically predisposed epilepsy, but I would say the arguments for the medical use for epilepsy or for schizophrenia, for epilepsy and so many other, the reasons for pain, but for adults and everything else, way outweigh for a small use of who are not supposed to be taking this in the first place. And then I just wanna remind you who you're delivering this for. Target, cashiers, stalkers, for sure. Some of them over there use cannabis. The movie theater, GameStop, Dollar Tree, Michael's, Ross, any arts and crafts, any of the restaurants. Cooks, servers, barbecue pizza, wing stops. Crunch, and I'm not talking about the people who go there. I'm talking about the people who work there. And this is just this little circle right here. We're not even saying going outside of here. Planet Fitness, the pet stores, Applebee's, Red Robin, for sure. Burlington, Safeway. The tire shops, Jersey Mike's, even here at Lakewood City Hall. There's a whole use of cannabis that's just not smoking pot these days. We're talking about lotions, edibles, drinks. It's not just smoking weed no more. And then... A big reason is financially. I heard we're doing just fine without. That's just not the case. One thing that every one of these people have all in common is when they all get done or want to go get it, they all have to leave our city, spend their money somewhere else to then bring it back over here to use it. That makes no financial sense whatsoever. And then just to compare it with what's already legalized, alcohol kills 178,000 per year, 2.6 million globally, opioids, 70,000, cigarettes, 480,000, 7 million globally, sugar kills 340,000, processed foods, 124,000. And to this day, yet still, cannabis has killed zero people. Zero, this is a fact. Zero people. You cannot overdose on it. You can't kill yourself on it. So it just seems like it's very obvious why it should pass. you know, I think a very easy number to assume between a couple of stores in Lakewood would do about 1.5 million a month in sales, which being $40 average ticket would, equate out to about 40,000 monthly that come and spend their money in here in Lakewood. And what we should do is figure out where does it make the most sense to set up these stores? And I don't propose having like a green light district where we have a cluster of them all wherever, but a couple stores situated to where we know it'll be great for our economy. Also be a place where all our residents can not have to leave the city to go spend their money at all the gas stations and all the restaurants as they find their new places to go because Your time has expired, sir. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bryce, for your comments this evening. Is there any other member of the public that would like to speak during the public comment here this evening? Even if you did not sign up, now is the time. Seeing none, I will declare this public comment period closed. We will move on to the public hearing for the 2026 annual development regulation amendments. Again, we will start with any commenters online. Ms. Speer, is there anybody online?

There's not, but if you don't mind, sir, I would just like to do a couple of comments before the hearing actually begins.

Please.

Okay. So we did already walk through these last meeting, but just a reminder, there are four annual development regulations within the package in front of you tonight for hearing. The first is an update to our land use code within chapter 18A40 of the municipal code. It is simply taking the existing land use code tables, which are within 14 different chapters, and combining them all into one. And the only substantive change is one amendment to the open space and recreation use setback standards. Otherwise, it is simply relocating all of the accompanying notes from the 14 tables to follow the one table that's now being put into the code. The second is a correction from an error that was made with the last update regarding what is required documentation for short subdivisions and boundary line adjustments. It's a technical correction, nothing substantive. The third amendment is explaining and clarifying in two different chapters, one 5.36 and 5.02 about how to file an appeal through the city's online permit portal. And the final amendment is allowing limited exceptions with criteria that have to be met and approval by the Planning and Public Works Director to allow weekend and night work as appropriate. So that is something that was discussed, if you'll recall, at the last meeting as well. Other than that, where you're at this evening with the process is to hold the hearing. And then next meeting is when you would deliberate and take action on a resolution recommending or not any of these four amendments to the city council. So with that, Mr. Chair, handing it back to you.

Outstanding. Thank you, Ms. Speer. We will now begin the public hearing for the 2026 Annual Development Regulation Amendments. Again, we will start online. Ms. Speer, is there any member of the public online that wishes to speak with the raised hand function during this public hearing this evening? There is not, Mr. Chair. Outstanding. Thank you so much. We will turn to hearing council chambers. Mr. Bryce, again, just want to say you're the only one who signed up for public hearing today, but you're going to hold off for next week. Is that correct? Thank you, sir. Is there any other member of the public in the building here this evening who would like to speak during the public hearing comment tonight on the 2026 annual development regulation amendments? Seeing none, I will declare this public hearing closed. We turn to unfinished business. Ms. Spear, draft legislation regarding cannabis retail sales, processors, producers, and testing laboratories.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm actually going to turn this now over to the people coming to the podium, Angie Silva, the Assistant Director for Planning and Public Works, and then Jay Hopkins and Billy Stewart will also be presenting information to you this evening. And just to let you know, sir, I also have to leave the meeting a little early, so From here on out, Angie will be in charge. So thank you very much.

Thank you, Ms. Spear.

Where we all do a collective mwahaha.

I'm joking. A little humor for an evening meeting. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Planning Commission members for the opportunity to yet return tonight on what is our second discussion item on cannabis, allowing cannabis businesses with the City of Lakewood. As Tiffany mentioned, here with me again is Jay Hopkins, as well as Billy Stewart, Associate Planners, who will be assisting in the presentation. So you don't have to hear my nauseating voice for 30 slides. So you're welcome in advance. With that said, this is again your second briefing. On July 15th, we did an overview of cannabis legislation at the state level and the local discretionary items governments could take into consideration as they consider this policy topic. Tonight's focus, again, no action is requested at this time. We will be following up on the informational requests that were received at the July 15th meeting, but also provide an overview of the draft amendments that are included in your packet. Moving forward on August 5th, we are planned for a public hearing to consider testimony on that draft amendments, but also following the close of that public hearing, we'll be seeking deliberations and a recommendation by this body, which would then be forwarded to city council for their consideration. Moving forward, fall time is where we're anticipating this would be on the council agenda, which also will have a public hearing opportunity as well for folks to testify and provide input on what that draft regulation should or should not include. So first and foremost, we're going to go over the informational requests. So specifically, this might look very familiar from the July 15th meeting, but it's sliced a little bit more granular. So we talked about the violation rates from LCB reporting on cannabis enforcement statewide, but also what that may look like in Pierce County in a future slide. Statewide, about a 4.6%. Violation rate is on average over a 12 year period. But based on those violation rates, tracing and tracking were the highest category compared to minor sales. And we're going to see a difference as we get into alcohol. So again, this is just another informational request from last week. What is the violation rates for other counties? In particular, with Snohomish County at the highest at 7.8%, Kitsap at the lowest at 3.2%, and Pierce at that 3.5%. That is well below the statewide average of 4.6%. So again, information that was provided, but a little bit more granular. So this is specific to Pierce County. Of those 3.5% violation cases, what was the category of those violations or the share? So similar to statewide, tracing and tracking were about 21.3%. whereas minor sales were at 16.9% specifically in Pierce County. Comparative to other jurisdictions in Pierce that allow cannabis, where those violations ranked on the county average, 3.9% in Tacoma compared to 2.2% in the community of Fife. And just for context, this is LCB's kind of violation tier that's set forth in their administrative rules. So they define them in different categories. So category one is an automatic cancellation on the first violation. These are serious violations. This is diversion to the illicit black market, buying or selling from unlicensed sources, transporting cannabis out of state, for example. Category two, direct threat to public health or safety. So sale to a minor, there's different suspension days related to that. On the fourth, cancellation in two years, et cetera, and additional fines and penalties. As we get up to fourth or fifth, category three, potential threat. What falls in these categories? Unlicensed transport, driver and serving transaction limitation violations, et cetera. There are fines associated with this that are set in the Washington Administrative Code for LCB. Please note, because one is found of a violation, they still have due process and go through their own hearing to determine whether that remains or not. In comparison liquor violation so we're going to go statewide and then go to pierce county to zero in so statewide there was about a little close to a little over 11,000 violations recorded over a 12 year period. With 51% involving minor sales service or frequenting of that service, and that is about 7.9% of those violation rates. This slide there we go so as you can compare that between what the cannabis violations computer liquor there's not a direct comparison. traceability was number one and cannabis the but the violation relates were much slower than the liquor sales compared to minor cells being significantly higher and those violation rates higher within the pierce county jurisdictions. I'm going to hold off because this is a public meeting and we want to make sure the recording is active. Please bear with us chair.

Thank you.

Absolutely. The time is 6.50. We'll recess for 10 minutes, reconvene at 7 p.m. Let's see how this goes. How have you been? Got progressive lenses. It's a different world. Oh, my gosh. But they are nice. Took me about two weeks to... We are, does anybody need to go out or do we want to just press on? Sounds like everybody's passing, Ms. Silva. We'll get going again.

Test, test it.

The time is 6.51. We had a brief stop for a technical issue. The Planning Commission is reconvening. Ms. Silva, you have the floor.

Apologies, Mr. Chair, there, and thank you for everybody's patience. So as we follow up on another informational request, at the last meeting, At the last meeting, we discussed what are other jurisdictions doing? What are kind of some of those common trends, et cetera? So there's a lot of different places around the state that allow cannabis. But what we kind of focused on was who went from a ban to complete to allowance in their local ordinance. So we selected Clark County, Pasco, as well as, hold on here real quick. Got a little echo. I love technology when it works. test. test. Okay. Jay Hopkins associate planner, but also tech support. Add that to the job description. Thank you, Mr. Hopkins. So Clark County, as well as Pasco and Linwood, specifically Clark County in 2019 went from a ban to allowing all three license types. Keep in mind these all three license types as we get to the revenue piece of this discussion. So that's the three license types are retailers, processors, and producers. They were very specific to what zones they would be allowed, but also specifically looking at the operational standards where it came to noise, light, and security, et cetera. Pasco, in 2023, first jurisdiction in the Tri-Cities to lift what was a 10-year ban. They didn't do the three. They only allowed retail only and limited to certain zones and industrial as well as commercial. Nuanced in this one, they did cap it at three stores, four with the social equity license as allowed by state law. More recently, Linwood. Uniquely, they also only allowed retail only. They capped it to four stores within a certain transportation corridor where production and processing remain prohibited. This particular one also required retailers to hold a medical endorsement as well. The fourth store opened recently in spring. So a couple takeaways from those peer jurisdictions. They were specific about what zones and where the compatibility should be. Similar to the draft proposal we'll go over later in the presentation. Some jurisdictions, not all, cap the retail store count. There is a statewide allotment for every jurisdiction. In our draft proposal we'll go over, we're proposing to stay with the state law. Some jurisdictions cap that or mirrored it with state law or capped it lower. Buffers, each jurisdiction looked at the buffers differently. So at last meeting, we talked about what is the minimum, but where we have local discretion to go down to up to 100 feet on certain protective uses. Different jurisdictions did different things. In Linwood, they went down to 100 feet where they could. In Olympia, it's 500 feet. Tacoma, 500 feet in downtown districts only. Whereas others had different makeups. What also Pasco and Linwood did is they allowed retail only. Clark County permitted several license types by treating production and processing as industrial uses with performance standards. Another nuance from these jurisdictions For example, Clark County aligned the retail hours with the city of Vancouver. So for example, we're going to go over in state law, retail has an hour cap between 8 a.m. to midnight. What Clark County did, the city of Vancouver reduced those hours. They mirrored that neighboring jurisdiction. With that said, looking at the Lakewood context, as well as Pierce County and state, for the retail cap, the estimation is four plus whatever is available in the social equity licensing. I'm going to caveat this. We have reached out to LCB. It is their calculation. This is an estimation. We haven't received feedback yet, but that is still pending information. Producer, there is no state law cap, but there are canopy tiers that we covered last week and we'll cover in the draft code amendments. Processor, there is no cap or allotment based on WAC. Researcher, there is no cap in state law on that as well. It's project-based and they have to be approved as part of a scientific reviewer. Testing lab, no cap, but it's accreditation-based. There's specific criteria in what that means in state law. I mentioned before the retail hours. There's only a limitation on the hours of public sales. Remember, that's only retail businesses only. State law limits that to 8 a.m. to midnight. There is no state hours cap for producers, processors, researchers, or labs. As we look at local context of what other Pierce jurisdictions are, Tacoma retail cap 16 per allotment with a 100% medical endorsement. Pierce County, no numeric, they default to state law. But again, they have specific buffer requirements on store to store dispersion. So that separation, if you will. And they also in their local ordinance limit indoor production to a maximum of 10,000 square feet. Fife allows all the licensing types. Buckley, they only designated three parcels within that city to allow cannabis businesses. But no hour cap, no reduced buffers, for example, in those protected areas where we could through a local ordinance.

This is just a follow up on some economic impact.

So what you see on the left side of the screen is statewide averages based on what the state minimum wage is compared to positions that you would find in a researcher or retail business, for example. So the state minimum is $17.13 per hour. As we looked at information available statewide, which location and individual business wages do vary, for cannabis industrial, this is processors and producers, the average is about $22 an hour. General retail, non-cannabis business, is about $21. Budtender, which is cannabis retail position, averaged just shy of $19 compared to that minimum wage. As we look at where some of these potential cannabis businesses could be located, including some of our industrial zones, we look at the vacancy rates in our industrial parks. We're currently at a 9.1% vacancy rate with over 300 square foot available in multiple different locations of where a potential processor or producer, for example, could locate within the city minus those buffer restrictions we mentioned before. And then last on the economic impact, some of this is just recovering some territory at the last briefing. The top three, sales tax on retail purchases. That comes in the form of a shared 37% cannabis excise tax that is in addition to the local sales tax. We also have the shared excise tax that is population-based and pooling different capita shares. Third revenue would be local business license. This is different from LCB licenses and would be an additional revenue if that is approved. And then last meeting, we talked a little bit about property tax and how that could be a local revenue stream as well. That wasn't highlighted in the last presentation. We looked into it because it was a good conversation. In most circumstances, cannabis businesses go in existing retail and industrial spots. So they're not building new construction. And under state law, there's caps to how much property taxes can be increased. So on an existing developed site, let's say it's across the street, we're capped at a 1% annual growth. However, if it was a vacant lot and a new structure was in it, we get that additional assessed value from the new improvements in the building and the land part of it. So you see a huge spike, but then it starts normalizing as that 1% growth. So overall, I think this would be a minor revenue change, but it is a possibility, but I wanted to bring that forward in some context. So now we're gonna go on the draft amendments and I'm gonna hand this off to Jay for overview of that.

Commissioners, Chairman. So what do the draft amendments do? We've made some proposed changes to the code. As you can see, the definitions portions of the LMC has been affected. The review and approval section has been affected. Our zoning use table has been affected. This allows us, of course, to tell our city where and where we cannot utilize this uses or the proposed uses. We've replaced the cannabis business section. This is completely eliminating it as this was the section that had marijuana and cannabis as prohibition throughout the entire city. We've amended our parking standards so that coincides with how retail producers and processors could operate. And then lastly, we have a new chapter, which is for our cannabis license of our specialty license. The special thing to note here is that the state licensing stays with the LCB throughout. Nothing here authorizes anyone to grow, process, or sell. It sets the local condition under which a state licensed business may operate in the city of Lake Though some of the definitions and zoning, I could sit here and bore you, but I know that you guys can all utilize the screen. I know this information is also online, but these are the new definitions that we have for the cannabis proposed amendment changes or code amendments. We have of course what cannabis or marijuana is defined. And of course, this is in conjunction with a cross-reference of state law rather than restating it. So we're not trying to make up anything new. So you have cannabis business, what a producer is an indoor cannabis producer is what a processor is a cannabis retailer cannabis transporter the cannabis testing lab and the actual production of cannabis or cultivation is defined in the so where is the use permitted Cannabis retail, we are proposing to place them in our commercial corridors. So the transit-oriented commercial, or TOC, the downtown, the CBD, and of course all three commercial zoning districts, C1, C2, and C3. The cannabis processors will be primarily in our industrial business park and industrial zones. as well as our cannabis producer indoor, which are also permitted outright in the industrial business zones. The only key difference here is that in the AC1 and AC2 zoning districts or the air corridors districts by the military, we are proposing that they have a type three conditional use permit obtainment before they can operate. The previous or the others, the cannabis retail, cannabis processors are all type one permitting, which is the shortest permitting that the city has, 65 daytime review. But we wanted to specialize the air corridors next to the military, and I'll get into that in the next slide. And then lastly, we have the cannabis testing laboratory One thing that's very important about this is that the cannabis laboratories can have no retail, has financial dependency on these testing laboratories. So they have to be a complete separate entity to operate. They can't be tied to any of the producers, processors to be the lab facility. None of the cannabis uses were permitted in the R1, R4 zones, any of the neighborhood commercial zones. And the reason why is because although they are commercial zoning districts, they abut directly against residential districts. And so the city proposed not to have that. So the air corridor broken down here, the proximity to JBLM, as you know, matters. And the AC1 and the AC2 zoning districts reflect the flight path and the noise compatibility associated with JBLM. So we want similar uses that support being near JBLM. There is intent that the comprehensive plan designates the use compatible with military air operations, which is low intensity agriculture, open space, and certain industrial uses. And this discourages residential and other sensitive uses. Another key point. Table already permits growing and harvesting of crops and plants and nurseries and things of that nature. And so cannabis cultivation indoors would align already with what the agricultural use pattern is there. So again, the AC1 and AC2, if you wanted to become a cannabis producer indoor would be a type three conditional use permit. This requires public noticing and a determination by the hearing examiner. The industrial zones permit this outright, I-1 and I-2. And then lastly, we've also done outreach to JBLM giving a 60-day notice to the installation commander. So the review and approval process, The cannabis producer, processors, retailers, testing labs are all type one permits. So they go through the administrative, department administrative approval. This is the same review that all type one permits go through. They don't have... They don't get to skip anything. They still have to meet the zone, buffers, parking standards, and all operating standards in the current LMC. The, of course, difference with the Type 3, as stated before, is that the hearing examiners involve public noticing and conditional improvements could be placed upon the business that address odor, security, hours, and JBLM corporate coordination. All right, and next I want to turn it over to my coworker, Bailey Stewart, for the standards.

Standards. So right now, LMC 18A40-160 prohibits cannabis citywide. This draft replaces it with operating standards organized by the license type. So these standards would be type 1 permit, Hello.

Oh, okay.

Sorry about that. Alright. Cannabis retailers, so as discussed at the previous meeting, sales are limited to consumers that are 21 and over. Sales of alcohol, tobacco, vapor products, and other over the counter meds at the same locations would be prohibited. Consumption of cannabis on any parts of the premises are also prohibited. All employees serving the customers must be at least 21 years of age or older. A retailer may obtain a medical cannabis endorsement, which would allow them to sell certified medical products to patients and providers. The draft permits and endorsements, but excuse me, the draft permits endorsements does not require one. Sorry, my notes got a little jumbled here. The draft also provides that the city will not issue a license that would exceed the statewide cap of five retail licenses held by a single true party of interest. Processors may manufacture and process usable cannabis concentrates, infused products, topicals, Inedibles, all processing, packaging, labeling, and storage must meet state licensing, testing, sanitation, fire, life safety, and building code requirements. Wholesale only, so no sales to the public from these processing sites. Extraction is the principal safety issue here. So a processor using compressed gases, solvents, anything flammable, combustible, they must do four things. So first they would have to obtain their LCB certs for all extraction equipment, obtain written approval from the building official and fire marshal before installation and then comply with the applicable building fire mechanical electrical and hazardous materials material codes fourth they would have to submit a cannabis alteration request to the LCB for any modifications to the systems. For producers, all cultivation must occur in fully enclosed permanent structures. Outdoor cultivation, like open fields, hoop houses, or any unenclosed growing, it would be strictly prohibited by the city. Producers must implement best available control technology, things like carbon filtration, negative pressure, and air scrubbing. They must also comply with the Department of Ecology air quality requirements. Security is also very important. 24-hour camera coverage, controlled access, perimeter fencing, and inventory tracking is required under the WACs. Facility scale is set by state canopy tier, not by the city. So tier one would be under 4,000 square feet. Tier two, 4,000 to 10,000. And then tier three is 10,000 to 30,000 square feet of plant canopy. Once again, wholesale only. Direct retail sales from a production facility are prohibited. Testing labs are a third-party lab certified by the LCB to perform mandatory quality assurance testing. No products may transfer from a producer to a processor or to a retailer without a past test. They test for things like potency, concentration, residue solvent testing where applicable, pesticide screening, heavy metal analysis. Independence is the core requirement here. So as mentioned earlier, no person with a direct or indirect financial interest in a licensed producer or processor may hold a financial interest in a certified testing laboratory. They must be accredited by the WSDA before their certs. And the results are reported to the licensee and the LCB. A certificate of analysis expires 12 months after the issuance of the product. And again, these testing labs, they do not grow, process, or sell these products. buffer requirements so i'm going to touch a little bit more on this and you spoke of it earlier, so these are set by the state laws. there's 1000 foot buffer for certain protected uses the draft will retain the full 1000 feet for every protected use so no reduction is proposed. there's two buffers that cannot be reduced, which would be the elementary and secondary schools and also the public playgrounds. The other ones can be reduced to no less than 100 square feet, and those include child care centers, public parks, public libraries, recreation centers, and then also public transit centers. So these buffers apply to all license types and not just the retailers. Whether to reduce any of these is our first policy discussion, but Angie will also bring that up later today. Each cannabis use is assigned an existing LMC standard, rather than a new cannabis specific one when it comes to the parking standards. So cannabis retail would require three to six spaces per 1000 gross square feet, which is equivalent to our general retail standards. cannabis processor has one space per 2000 square feet of gross floor area and one per 400 square feet of office or display area, which is equivalent to our warehouse standards for parking. Indoor producers and testing labs, so this is spaces for the greatest number of employees on a single shift plus space for all company vehicles, which is also our general industry standards. City specialty licenses. A cannabis business would need two licenses, the LCB state license and then also the city cannabis specialty license. Both must be current and valid to operate in city limits and missing either is grounds for revocation. Four local license types matching the zoning use. So there's retailer license, producer, processor, and then also the testing laboratory license. Transporter and researchers are not included in our draft amendments. A valid license or conditional approval letter from the LCB is a condition that's required prior to the city issuance. So proof is required with the application and state license must be maintained throughout operation. The license is site specific and non transferable. It does not travel or sail with a move. The license is for a one-year term aligned with the LCB license cycle. Non-renewal of the state license will automatically trigger revocation with the city as well. For LCB suspension, revocation, or non-renewal is grounds for immediate city suspension as well. Any appeals are handled by our hearing examiner. And that covers all our draft standards. Next, Angie will take it from here.

Thank you both, Billy and Jay. So this next section is to kind of spur a discussion. And the reason for this is, again, one of the first policy discussions that will be asked following our public hearing on the fifth is first, should cannabis businesses be allowed in the city, yes or no? And if the answer is yes, you have the draft proposal with you with the certain minimum conditions, but there are areas at a local level, there are toggles or something we can modify with local discretion in our ordinance. So for one, buffer reductions. you've seen where we have to maintain the thousand square feet such as elementary and secondary schools or public playgrounds but there are allowances to reduce that like other jurisdictions as low as 100 feet some have chosen 500 feet as the magic number that's one question we'll ask you Another one is cannabis researcher. So as Jay went over kind of the definitions in the draft proposal, we define it. It's an allowed cannabis business, but it's not specifically identified and allowed zone or where that should be located within the city. I'm gonna prompt for that discussion with this body.

Third, the air corridor.

Unlike the other proposals on the review and decision authority, that type one, no public notice, no public hearing, air corridor is being treated a little bit differently in that permitting process. That goes to the highest level that we have at the city, which is a type three, which goes to the hearing examiner. It requires not only a public notice, but a public hearing, and that decision is not rendered administratively through the department. It's to the hearing examiner. One caveat I will note, even if a type one decision is made by the department, it's still subject to appeal. So if you disagree with it, or I'm the applicant and I disagree with the conditions of approval or the denial or whatever it is, you can appeal the department's decision to that hearing examiner. Specifically to the air corridor zones, should it be a conditional use permit? Should it be a type one? I'm gonna spur that discussion. Policy topic number four, residential density or separation. The draft does not propose any additional local cap beyond what state law calculations would allow. It also doesn't have this separation between retail outlets like some other jurisdictions applied. This is a policy consideration by this body. Topic number five, hours cap. As you saw, Clark County and City of Vancouver, they capped it a little bit lower for retail compared to what the state law is. What the draft proposes mirrors the state law. Is that something should change in the draft proposal or not? These are not all the policy topics, but I want to flag some big ticket items for just discussion with this body. With that, that was a whole bunch of slides coupled with a lot of different tech issues to go along with it. So hopefully it was enjoyable. But with that, Mr. Chair, I'll open it up for questions and discussion.

Thank you, Ms. Silva. Questions from the commissioners. Can you turn your mic on, please? Commissioner Wallace.

Yes. One of my questions is, in the edible forms, will that be clearly labeled on the ingredients list as their requirement? Because there may be people who choose to eat that thing or not.

I believe there is description on the THC content, CBD. I'm going to look at a retail business owner to correct me. I also know there's other labeling restrictions in LCB, but the actual ingredients, I might have to follow up with you, ma'am, on the WAC requirements. Can you find out?

Because I think people would like to know what they're eating. Yeah.

Thank you, ma'am.

And then just one thing. There is a local jurisdiction that does not allow it yet, and that is University Place.

I'm sorry, can you repeat that, ma'am?

University Place.

Well, the nuance with the university place is they do allow it in their mixed-use zone in downtown, but they have a nuance in their code. Yes. They have this caveat that says, well, we're not going to allow it until the federal government does.

Correct. So you can't get it there yet. That is that. Thank you.

Commissioner Larson.

I have several points. First of all, I'd like to ask if we could hear from law enforcement. As to the impact that they anticipate in the city of Lakewood with this ordinance were to pass, I think that we should be advised as to the the legal and public safety risks that that this ordinance may create.

Mr. Larson, I would point you to our July. I know you weren't available for the July 15th meeting, but I would point you to that packet. We did reach out to LPD, understanding any cannabis calls for service, et cetera. In the last 12 months, they have been investigating illegal grows in the city, but that is not a... apples to apples comparison. What you saw, what you'll see in the July 15th packet as well as tonight is looking at liquor and cannabis board violation data and that rates because those are where those enforcement of a legally established cannabis business goes. So that's why fair question, but I would refer to those materials.

Thank you very much. My request would remain that we have a presentation from law enforcement regarding this ordinance. Secondly, I would like to know if any of the planning staff has visited the production facilities in Nally Valley.

Not in Nally Valley, no, sir.

Okay, I strongly suggest that that be something that staff does is acquaint itself with how the current operations that are closest to us in Nallie Valley operate. I'm particularly concerned, even though there's a place in the proposed ordinance to regulate the smell that comes from production of cannabis, that even the best state laws for regulations and ecological rules fail the stench that comes from the production of cannabis in Nellie Valley. And so I would like that brought to everybody's attention that would have anything to do with the production function under this ordinance. And second or next, I would like to ask if we have analyzed what income the city of Lakewood would be eligible for from the state tax that would be shared were we to allow cannabis within City of Lakewood and also which categories would qualify us for that tax share if it were considerable or substantial or is it tiered based on what you allow?

It's based on the three big businesses, retail processor and producer. In the July 15th packet, we did a revenue estimation of what that sales tax share could be up to three to four potential retail locations within the city itself. I believe the number was $150,000 to $200,000 annually, ballpark estimation. Okay. Okay.

I would suggest that within the city's budget, then it's inconsequential that the share of the tax would come from the state. And so, did you answer in the affirmative that one, of the categories of cannabis licensing would qualify for Lakewood to be eligible for the share?

My understanding, let me verify, but I believe it's the three big retail processes in producing to get the various sales tax share, the per capita based on population, but also a portion of that retail sales tax in addition to our own sales tax price.

But would you have to have, for instance, could you do it simply if you had retail only?

My understanding is no, but let me verify that, sir.

Okay. And my next concern is the proximity in Lakewood of more, even though it shares a distance from daycare, shares a distance from schools, that if it's closer and easier to acquire cannabis, then it will have a direct impact on the children of Lakewood. and I don't think that can be denied. Furthermore, the proximity to our military community is also of concern to me. And University Place saw that factor also in terms of their declination of the opportunity to have cannabis businesses in the city. And And last, I'd like to know if we have gathered data or discussed cannabis legalization with the power companies that serve Lakewood, Puget Sound Power and Light, Lakeview Light and Power, and Tacoma Power, as to the availability of electricity, because it takes a lot of electricity to have a producer in many, many times most other industries. And it is a drain on the electrical grid to have that happen. For instance, they are virtually out of electricity to be able to serve any industry in Nally Valley because of the cannabis consumption of electrical power. So I think we need to bring the power companies into this discussion as well. And I think we should hear from them as we should hear from law enforcement.

Specifically to power companies, part of our required noticing in SEPA review, we do look at capital facilities impacts, et cetera. As part of our comprehensive plan, we expect certain number of jobs and growth, industrial as well as commercial. That looks holistically at the city and our power companies and their ability to accommodate growth over time. May not be an immediate need without infrastructure upgrades, But over the 20-year planning horizon, it is intended and they have the capacity to build out that infrastructure. Specific to Nally Valley, that's outside of our jurisdiction, so I can't speak to the power limitations there. But related to our SEPA notice that was published today, there is an opportunity for power companies and the public, et cetera, to comment and provide, is there impacts to this proposal that we need to? So that's something that can come up during public comment opportunity as well. But oftentimes when you reach out to power companies, it's really site-specific on the limitations to the grid. So what we have is here's some general zones, here's some additional buffer layers. Where likely this could occur is probably along the pack highway when you start layering all those restrictions in place. Is there available power or there will be needed additional upgrades that would be permitted through LNI, but also whoever's the applicable power purveyor in the area?

So what did you just say? That there's enough power?

We did a determination of non-significance because it was consistent with the comprehensive plan and sub-area plan. There is capacity in the overall grid citywide to address power because we already plan for growth. And this is considered just like any retail or industrial job. What that doesn't answer is site-specific. So if this parcel here, does it have enough power? Does that building have enough power? That is deferred at a permit project level, not a development regulation level. So at a high 50,000-foot policy, overall, that's been analyzed in our comprehensive plan and our environmental documents, and there's capacity to bill out over time. If this ordinance passes and it allows, during permit review, we look at those things at the project level based on site-specific circumstances. So short answer, power companies are notified of the opportunity to comment. But here, we're not looking at individual building limitations. We're looking at holistically, should it be allowed in the zone, where it should be allowed, what's those buffer requirements, et cetera.

Thank you. The last thing I would like to comment on is right in one of the first slides, it was demonstrated that Lakewood has a 9.1% vacancy factor in industrial real estate in Lakewood. That is norm. That is throughout the whole region is the same rate, 9.1 to 9.7%. So Lakewood is not unique in its impact in the local markets for vacancy. I would like to say also that...

I agree with you, sir, on the vacancy rates.

I would like to say also that... that the revenues that are generated from industrial rents for producer processors are substantially greater than local market rents by as much as double. So there's money in it to go along with that smell if we want to put that into Lakewood's citizens. Is there a way that we get to tax it as a city?

In terms of, well, it would be business license, which is in the draft proposal, that would be a revenue source. Let me double check on the retail sales, because again, the sales tax share has to do with retail sales only, but there's a pro capita population share that gets distributed if you allow, I think, the big three. But let me verify that as Commissioner Wallace asked the same question.

I'd also like to say that my knowledge of the processors, not the producers, but the processors, and that does not generate the smell that the production does. But the smell throw-off is quite substantial, and it's a problem.

Are we speaking specifically producers or processors or both, sir?

So if you're a processor, you can be a producer automatically also under the same license?

No, they're different licensing. They could be combined, but you still have to meet LCB requirements. Also, if allowed in the city, what's our restrictions on both of those and if they're allowed in the zone? So it's not automatic. They can site together.

What do you think of regulating that fine point between the two to allow one and not the other? Is that functional within planning?

Well, it's the discretionary, right? What businesses should be allowed is we went over tonight's slide deck. There's some places that only allowed retail and they didn't allow any other businesses. If this body recommends only processing in retail, that is a consideration to move forward from an implementation permitting standpoint. We can review those. We just have to have time to set up the permitting process and the customer information tools and all that. Um, Whether or not we get the full share of all the revenue pieces, that's something I have to follow up with you. Because my understanding, it's the big three, retail, processing and producing. But again, I'm not an LCB aficionado and I'll have to dig in the wax a little bit more.

Excellent. Excuse me. And thank you for your presentation has been very comprehensive.

Well, this also goes credit to the staff behind me. They have to put up with me and work on this as well. So, and they have other duties as assigned.

Commissioner Merritt.

I have a couple of questions on the distance. A thousand feet can go down to a hundred feet. Has there been an overlay of the city of Lakewood with what that is mean from at least most of those criteria, like the thousand feet?

Absolutely. That was in your July 15 packet. I was just going through so much material, sir. I didn't have it in this slide deck, but that's in your July 15.

We could make sense of it.

It's hard because that map specifically gives you options. So there's different overlays at 1,000 foot, 500 feet, and 100 feet in that packet. So depending on what you're looking at, And what use it is, it could be 1,000 feet, but if you want to drop it to 100, that map's going to significantly change on where those allowed areas are.

See, if as you look at it on feet, 100 feet is like one site.

Yeah.

A lot. That's not very far. If you think about 1,000 feet, that's two blocks. Is that good enough? I don't know. That's what I think a little more discussion is necessary because we may want that to be a further out there. A thousand feet may not be enough in some cases. That's something to consider. The other thing is that was brought up on the smell from Nally Valley. It's very interesting how that could happen because in the documentation, it does talk about negative pressure. I understand what that means, but to get negative pressure inside a functional building or warehouse means you have to exhaust something. So you have to be able to control that. What does that mean? That means scrubbers. You have to have something to control that the exhaust is controlled at the, that odor is all taken out by scrubbers and other things. If that's not possible, we've got a dilemma. Okay.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Commissioner Crowe.

I appreciate Commissioner Larson's questions. You answered everything that I was wanting to ask. My only thought was the Lakewood Police Department probably doesn't have much experience dealing with what we're talking about. Correct. It would be a lot better to hear from a different police. And I just don't know if that's possible to hear from Tacoma, maybe not Lakewood. And I... So that's my only thought.

I agree with you. Lakewood would not have experience dealing with legalized cannabis business because it's prohibited in the city. What they have shared with us is what illegal grows. But again, that's not an apples to apples. So that's why we brought forward the LCB violations. Here's some context of what it is. We also brought forward in this meeting as part of the July 15th discussion, what does that mean compared to liquor, which is already allowed within the state, county and city itself. So that's why we brought that up as context to that policy discussion itself. As it relates to Tacoma or Pierce County, for example, I can make a request to other law enforcement agencies I can't promise I will get them here by August 5th as a presentation. Maybe I'll get an email going, hey, what's your experience for calls of service as it relates to legally established cannabis business? I'll make that request. But again, I can't promise I'll get information back.

I'll just offer my thoughts briefly. Over the last two years moving through the city, I would say there has been a significant number of conversations and individuals who have approached me about this topic. And I would say it's largely centered around retail sales. I don't think I've been approached by any producers or processors specifically that have expressed interest in moving into the Lakewood area in terms of facility use. But the retail opportunities, it has been discussed, it has been brought up specifically to me. So for me, I see, as has been discussed here this evening, a lot of challenges, with the grow and processing or the producing and processing operations. On the retail side, I think it's been 10 years since we've had this discussion here in the city, and it's a good discussion to have. Times are definitely changing. Thought patterns are shifting. Some of the circumstances are, We do have a very close proximity to Joint Base Lewis-McChord and a large volume of U.S. service members. I would just say with that, we always have to temper back to kind of what their whole purpose is, right? And that is individual accountability, right? And rights and all those things. And not to say that this is necessarily a right, but it is an individual choice, right? um just like alcohol um there are lots of good good discussions being had here this evening i i think um and i'm enjoying hearing the discourse and the different points of view that that we're bringing to the table and we're going to be able to offer to the council what i would um encourage everybody in this body to do, and Mr. Estrada, I know you're still online there, and I see your hand raised, sir. Go look at those buffers and take a look at that interactive map. In my mind, if we do continue down the road of the retail discussion, that's the biggest piece is Where do those buffers land? And when you size those out, could we potentially end up with a thing where we say, we're going to allow this use, but then we restrict it so much that we're really not allowing it? Then if that's the case, we should just not make the recommendation. But my personal experience is that there are a lot of people who would like access to these products. They are getting them around us, not necessarily at every border that we have, but there are places where our citizens can get this. I believe that part of our recommendation to the council is, is this something that the people of Lakewood want as a convenience? I don't think there is a... A huge amount of of reason to do this other than if the community wants it. I think we've seen with the property tax increases, it would be a nominal number. There may be some uniqueness in the way that the sales taxes are distributed from the state where if we only allow retail or one or two portions of the entire potential that we may not have access to the full sales tax. Allocation, those are things to be considered. But all in all, again, I think this is a conversation worth having and I would like to be able to present a recommendation to the council after our public hearing next week. Mr. Estrada does have his hand raised.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm sorry I'm not in a position to ask too many questions this evening. But first comment, the idea that... Excuse me. Mr. Chair, I'm sorry. I'm not gonna be able to do this because...

All right, one more time.

The idea that to retail, you also need to be able to sell medical marijuana, whoever to go that route. I think that's a good proposal. Number two, as I understand it, we do have one city, and I don't recall which city it was, that allows only retail and not that the other two elements and therefore their revenue is minimal. That would my perspective lead to your point Mr. Chair that the city felt that people wanted it and they were trying to accommodate a portion of the city. Thank you for the time. That's all I have at this time.

Thank you, Commissioner Estrada. Any other member have comments this evening? Ms. Silva, thank you for your time.

Thank you. And again, we'll be back on the 5th for a scheduled public hearing.

We move on, Ms. Devereaux or Ms. Silva, you have control and we move on to new business, discussion of the downtown transportation feasibility study status.

So apologies, you get me once again on another topic related to the downtown just across the street. This is related to a federal... On here my tech support is telling me I am doing something wrong. Maybe you can't leave early. If you can stay Jay just in case I break something. I touched it and broke it. So this is related to the downtown transportation feasibility study that was federally funded. So we applied just to give context and how long to get a project to move, even a study to get federally funded. We started the application process in 2023. We were awarded in 2024. It took us over a year plus to get our contract executed with federal department of transportation, then down to our state department. Department of Transportation just to move forward and accrue consultants to do the work. So this has been a long time going, and we're finally at the start stage. So what is the study? This is specific to the downtown subarea plan only. This is fixed. It's not a citywide effort. This was the original scope that was awarded in the federal agreement. This is a study only, and it's safety focused. So the intent is to analyze a whole bunch of information, public information, and come up with design concepts to then further implement down the road so for example whoops it takes a look at analyzes crashes closes pedestrian and bicycle gaps or safety concerns looks at ada access that this group just recently reviewed the ada transition plan citywide as well as the downtown sub area plan green street blue concept last it builds off of two cycles of updates to the downtown transportation sub area plan We're not asking to reimagine what downtown is, this is an implementation study. Here's the vision, how do we make our transportation network accessible and safe for all modes of travel? And when I say all modes of travel, that's not just one in a car, that's one walking, biking, but also using transit facilities in the downtown core. So this is just a visual representation of the downtown area that you've seen many times before this body. So bounded by Bridgeport, Gravely Lake, Lakewood Town Center right down in the middle of it. And again, the Green Street Loop concept within it all. So why does this matter? So again, building off of two rounds of subway plan updates and over 645 folks that commented and participated on that, and we have about a $950,000 federal grant to assist with the goal of completion by next year. So the focus is improved pedestrian and ADA accessibility, closing those gaps in the bike network, reducing crashes and improving traffic flow for all users, better transit connections. We're going to evaluate the green street loop concept in the subarea plan and then equitable access to all community members. I'm going to talk a little bit more what that really means. So where are we on the process? So there's four distinct phases of work. We've just completed kind of the base, building the base, phase one, which was a lot of the collecting and analyzing data as well as launching our first public outreach component, which was an online survey for three weeks. I'll share some of the results of that survey later in the presentation. As we move into phase two, we start taking that data as well as that public input and crafting alternatives. What are some alternative ideas when it comes to our transportation network in the downtown area for all modes of travel? Once we have those bookends, once we analyze the pros and cons and the trade-offs of those alternatives, we will have another round of public feedback in the form of open houses, in-person open house, but I'll... also an online open house. That would feed into the selection of a preferred. And when I say preferred, it could be a hybrid. You got three alternatives testing different ideas and concept. A preferred could use components of all those. This is the approach we want to move forward to implementation. What's that cost? What's that going to look like in kind of cross sections, etc. ? As we move into phase three, that's where those planning level cost estimations, those renderings, what that looks like. And then last but not least, this all gets wrapped up in a draft and final study, which also looks at a local road safety plan. I'm gonna call that out specifically, because that's a strategic document investment. Any federal grant asks for this. This analyzes a crash date and how we develop countermeasures to counteract those impacts into safety, reduce fatalities. While this only looks at the downtown, because that's the federal scope, this strategically positions ourselves for future grant opportunities at federal and state. So I'm going to point that out. There's a reason for that. Second, strategic implementation plan. I got pretty pictures, but how am I gonna make it reality? What grants, state or federal, that we can go after and what's applicable? What local money share that we have to bring to the table to position ourself to not vision but implementation? And last but not least, put it in the study. But the goal is the study doesn't sit on the shelf. We actually move forward in a variety of different forms. There may be recommendations part of this study. Update the downtown sub area plan. The green street loop concept that's in there, it's not feasible, but here's a better alternative, update it. Take a look at the traffic mitigation fees in downtown. You need a better revenue source. I don't know if that's gonna be a recommendation, but that might be in there. Take a look at your design standards for roadway improvements in 18B in your Lakewood Municipal Code. Maybe that should change as part of this, but there's gonna be recommendations. It doesn't change it, it doesn't start construction, but it's gonna give us a map to move forward and bring forward in the appropriate process. We changed the code, we changed the separate plan. We're back here, but we're doing more public outreach. So here's just another image of that project timeline against going over to 2027. We're just wrapping up that survey closed in June and working on those bookends on the draft alternatives. I'm going to go over a little bit later in the presentation. So again, that first phase of engagement, we were building the base. So we had an online survey, which again, had questions that we asked folks to respond to, but also a map. Where are those safety concerns? Point it on that digital map for us. We had it available in multiple languages, and that's where that equitability comes in. Our demographics in the city is not primarily English. We have multiple languages, Korean, Spanish, Vietnamese, and I'll also throw in Tagalog as part of that. In addition to that, we're doing pop-ups. So we will be at different locations talking about this. So I apologize to anybody in advance that has to meet with me and talk about a transportation study as you pick out some Brussels sprouts. But this is an important topic that we need to have good conversation with. At those events, we'll have table surveys as well as maps for folks to use, as well as the upcoming Summerfest, for example. We will be there. We will be there to talk with folks as they enjoy wonderful food and activities. Moving later, and this will be fall of this year, I mentioned an open house opportunity, both in person and online. What those alternatives are, ask the project team questions, but also give us comments. What do you like? What do you don't like? To help select that preferred. As it relates to that survey, so again, over a three-week period, we received 205 responses, over 1,200 safety pins placed on a map, 133 written comments, and close to 50,000 social media views. So one of the comments I heard about our social media blasts is, oh my gosh, that was a lot of outreach to the community. You were asking us to participate. Exactly. We wanted to reach out to people that don't traditionally participate in local government action. So part of that, I have to nag you. I have to reach out to you and go, please, I want your input. Come bring that. So part of that response, here are some of those results. About 38% responded, 25 to 44 years old, compared to 18 to 24 at 6%. What was the reasons why they visited downtown? 54% said shopping and errands, compared to commuting to work, 12%. What the community is asking for in investments, top investment priorities, 56% said safer intersections and crossings, 44% wider and improved sidewalks. 43% reduced traffic vehicle flow compared to 16% more frequent transit options. Top safety concerns, 45% unsafe behavior, failure to yield compared to, which is close in percentage, 38% aggressive driving, 35% speeding, or 32% distracted driving. Requested safety improvements, 49% improved roadway design and signals. 47% improved pedestrian and signal facilities. 36% crosswalk improvements, as well as similar increased patrols and monitoring. How safe do people feel? This is really important and when we do a comparison of what the crash data says as well. Here's a big ticket item. 79% feel unsafe biking in downtown. 46% feel unsafe walking in downtown. But 95% of the respondents drive to downtown. So if I'm driving, I'm cool. But if I want to walk or bike or even use a transit, it doesn't feel safe. So that tells you something. And again, there's additional stats there. I won't go through every one this evening, but it's in your packet for reference. So as we go into the crash day, this is a very preliminary review as we continue studying this. So remember, this study is about downtown. I can't do a citywide study, but it's good to know what the comparison is in that geographic area. So there was about 578 crashes between a five-year period in the downtown. Three were fatal. Seven were serious injury. That is 8.6% compared to citywide. It's a little over 6,700. And as you can see, that trend for 2021 to 2025, it is going down, but we're still seeing those crashes occur in some big categories there. So here's kind of just as we look at that local road safety plan, what we keep our eye on is, again, what's those fatal and serious crash injuries and what was the reason? So in 2023, it was a hit and run, one fatality, hit a signal pole, unfortunately. In 22, it was a paired driving, two fatalities ran off the road. And 23, angle crash, another impaired driving, three fatalities to the signal pole. And as we look at this and how we can design our roads to be safer, to minimize the human element of driving, We do look at the state safe system approach and look at countermeasures. There are specific design measures at the federal level and state level to reduce that. And that helps get funding as well. And then 10 of that is for safer roads, safer speeds, safer vehicles, and so on. But with that said, kind of just the stats related to that of the 578 crashes in the downtown area, 25% is entering at an angle compared to 14% being sideswiped. That statistic is not unusual. You see that generally in most communities. as it's the alternative. So we're really at defining it, what that really looks at. So we've got three different alternatives, and the goal here is to test different things. You don't want them all identical, because you're going to have the same results. You want them to be the minimum to the maximum bookend possible to hopefully identify that preferred. So alternative A, the theme of that is safety first. So targeted specific improvements, such as upgraded sidewalks with rapid flashing beacons you see in some communities, speed management techniques and ADA improvements like sidewalks, a curb gutter sidewalk. Likely going to be a lower cost and quicker to deploy, just off cuff. Whereas alternative B, we up it up a notch. This is going to be a multimodal bike, walk, et cetera. More protected bike facilities. Some of the data we got from the survey, I want a protected sidewalk. I want a protected bike lane. That's great, but you got to have right of way to do that. That increases the cost. What's that going to look like? Where is it appropriate to have those? That'll be looked at in alternative B. So that also look at not only wider sidewalks, protected sidewalk features or bike lanes, but also that traffic calming focus as well in a number of our intersections and roadways. Alt three, up and up again. Full blow, every roadway. What does that look like? What does that design look like? That'll help us identify what those costs are. It will likely be the most expensive option, but what's it gonna take to do that? Is it even feasible? Let's test that. With that, that's my presentation. Happy to answer any questions. I will be back to this body to provide status update and seek your input throughout this process, but I just wanted to do an introductory overview.

Thank you, Ms. Silva. Commissioner Larson. Here we go. You can just use mine. Good man. Thank you.

One of the things that I've heard many complaints about is the, and I think it's an indirect factor on public safety, and that is after Lakewood does this wonderful job of renovating a street with sidewalks and new street and striping and everything like that, nobody maintains the rights of way that border the houses, and we have a lot of dead grass growing and it just is a tawdry appearance and I wondered if there's anything in the context of planning that you are doing to either get budget assigned to a program where if people don't maintain the right of way, the city will and bill them or some function that makes our streets look like they should look having been just rebuilt. And a particular example would be Steilacoom Boulevard, where it departs and goes into Lakewood at Lake Steilacoom. And brand new street, beautiful, and no maintenance of the rights of way on the other side of the sidewalks at all and such.

Fair question. This study is not looking at maintenance and operations, but we're looking at the capital initial cost. But we all know once you build it, you got to maintain it. So two fronts. Our code delineates where it's the adjacent property owner's responsibility in front of the right away sidewalk piece to maintain that. So it's an individual owner. That becomes a local enforcement issue. But also sometimes as we look at abatements or other code of compliance of the tier, public safety, protection of the environment, mowing that patch and lawn tends to be the lowest priority when it comes to code enforcement cases. So one piece that is already in our code Second piece, if folks are seeking a higher level of service from the city in which parks operation and maintenance staff is actually not housed in planning and public works, which is unique here, it's housed in the parks department, which serves not only maintenance for our public parks, but also our streets. They don't do all the maintenance. We actually privately contract a third party a lot of services, whether it's from stormwater, traffic signals, you name it, and that's managed in our department. So if there is a desire for a higher level of city service, that needs to be changed at the budgetary level. and who should be doing that. And we happen to be entering a new biennium budget process for the city for 27 and 28. So if folks want to see a higher level service, I encourage folks to participate in the budgeting that sets expectations and what resources are available to us. And that will also have a public hearing before council too. So not something the study will, but there are avenues for folks to advocate and influence.

Commissioner Merritt.

having tech issues i don't know what it is we should be at a barbecue tonight is what it's saying there we go i got it um you have there are small diagrams on the presentation but you have something larger that we could dive into and kind of understand a little more of the grid.

Are you looking for alternatives specifically or the map?

I'd like to see what you've been coming up with.

Honestly, we're working on the alternatives. We're just defining the bookend themes at this point. At our last check-in with city council, they provided a lot of great feedback of what features we should be testing on that. So we're developing that right now, sir. I don't have that right now, but I will darken your door as we get into fall.

It's very interesting in the history of our country, actually, how what happened a couple hundred years ago was a Jeffersonian grid. So a lot of historical cities have a grid that has more flexibility. So that's one of the dilemmas that Lakewood has is most of the street infrastructure was done when this whole panacea of

of loops and- And shopping centers and big parks and all that.

Let alone we have three major lakes and smaller ones to deal with.

Yep.

So there's all sorts of dilemmas in how to get this to work. The other thing I've always wondered about, well, first a comment on, I think it's really truly wonderful how the city of Lakewood has taken a great look at, we're at 20 roundabouts, that I think are very effective in that. And you start looking at those versus the cost of doing light and that it's remarkable that I'm not so sure it isn't a savings if you really started getting things worked out. And that as far as instead of having the lights, the other thing I wonder about, and then if the planning, if, and I think it's unfortunate, like, and I want to speak to Tacoma, they should have, they had opportunities because they have a very good grid. that to separate the bicycle path from the vehicle pass. They don't have to be in the same rotor along the edge. And I'm just mystified when I see in the city of Tacoma where they've got a bicycle path along the edge and then it comes out to cross the right-hand turn lane is like, it doesn't make sense to me. how can that be safer? I just like, oh my gosh. So I don't know if there are opportunities for that. But I also think the edge conditions, the dilemma that really presents itself most dramatically is Gravity Lake and Bridgeport become really very heavily traveled. The alternatives are very few. So anything that we can do as the the edge conditions beyond the core should be considered. Even if it's 20 years before they can get done, baby steps help to understand how you can start to take some of the pressure off of Gravely Lake and Bridgeport. And I hope that's in the discussion. It may not be easy to do right away, but I hope that it is kind of at least put on the radar.

You've put a lot of great points, and I will say all of them are on the radar. So from going from a traffic signal to a roundabout, that's going to be analyzed in some of the alternatives. Gravel Lake and Bridgeport, that intersection, that was pinpointed by the community survey as well as us. We're like, that is an area we need to figure out what's possible solutions there. The separated bike lanes. So for example, if you drive around the city, you see what we call share roads. Share the roads, it's a bike lane in the travel lane. If it is a major traveled arterial, you have to have a lot of guts as a cyclist, and you have to be a seasoned cyclist to have a lot of guts, and not many people fall in that category to do that. That was clear in the survey. They don't feel safe with that method of bicycle travel. But with that said, we got comments, no more roundabouts in the city. Whereas roundabouts, while they may increase the capital cost because of the real estate we have to acquire to build them, the long-term maintenance costs compared to a traffic signal or when that traffic signal goes down due to a crouch, et cetera, and the replacement cost is actually less statistically. So that's why you see a lot of jurisdictions moving in that direction. Also, roundabouts is a safety countermeasure. You see at the federal and state level, they... makes people slow down, pay attention to their surroundings. There are some information in different jurisdictions. When it comes to pedestrians, if it's a multi-lane roundabout, they don't necessarily feel safer if they have to cross a roundabout. So there's a pro and con to those choices. But that's exactly what the study is. Which alternative will test what idea? We're still defining those bookends. So again, I will be back. Mwahaha and darken your door again.

Anything else? Miss Silva, I would be remiss, because I know when I walk out of here and I go into neighborhood association meetings throughout the rest of this summer, I always get asked, and Mr. Remack has heard these same questions. And if there's anybody out there listening tonight, here's the moment I'm going to ask Planning and Public Works. It is hard to listen to future potential upgrades specifically around upgraded crosswalks when we have recently renovated crosswalks that for whatever reason in the decision-making matrix did not get an upgraded status. And when I mean upgraded, what I'm really referring to is like a flashing yellow light or something beyond just markings on the roadway. This comes up nearly every neighborhood association meeting, but very particularly in the Lake City area after the veterans and Washington Boulevard upgrades. Can you shed a little bit of light on how that decision is made? I know it's not directly related to this, but I think it would go a long way and it would certainly help me.

Yeah, part of the transportation kind of priority, again, this body reviews and has a discussion about the six-year transportation improvement plan. That sets forth priorities, whether it's funded or not, of what we're going to pursue grant-wise, kind of the scope of that project. It also ballparks what our local share could potentially look at that, meaning we have to look at general fund, which is property tax and sales tax, real estate excise tax, something, or stormwater assessment fees to help pay for a proportionate share of that. Step one sets the bookends, sets kind of the roadmap to move forward. As we search for grant funding, certain grants are looking for certain aspects. So all of them are going to ask for ADA upgrades to meet the minimum standards by federal or state law. When it comes to what countermeasures flashing lights, that becomes a very site-specific design feature. What I don't know off the top of my head, I'll have to talk to our capital projects manager on the specifics, but oftentimes, is there electricity in that corridor that we can do the flashing beacons? Because we know those solar panel ones don't always are optimal or work all the time. If there was no electricity, There's a design reason why that happened or it would cost too much and we didn't have the money to extend electrical. I don't know the specifics, but those are the things that you find out through the design phase. So when you get funded with a grant, And whatever our local share is, we define that in our what is the six-year capital improvement plan that gets adopted in the biennium budget. That's our work plan in our capital group. That sets forth projects. It defines what is secured funding and what our local share is. By that, we follow the grant agreement. 30% design. We have a general idea of what the design of the roadway, the sidewalk width, et cetera. But we don't know the full impacts of how much right-of-way we'll need, what trees will be removed at 30%. As we get into design at a 60%, a lot more details start flowing out. You have a better idea of what the right-of-way impacts. You can have a better conversation with the property owners. Hey, I need to negotiate and purchase 10 feet, 20 feet, whatever it's gonna be. In addition to that, we have a better idea of tree impacts. Are we gonna hit that root ball? Are we not? Can we avoid that impact? Those are the things we find out at 60%. But all the details when it comes to utilities, the sequencing, you don't know that until 90 and 100% design. And there's also a sequencing. Well, Lakewood Water's got to go first, but TPU's got to do this before we can even close the construction. So there's a multi-phase step and it's multi-year. This doesn't happen in a month. It doesn't happen in six months. It happens over a multi-year period. But I can circle back on that project specifically and why there's no flashing beacons.

Outstanding. I'll leave with one more comment and then I'll be done. Particularly referencing veterans in Washington Boulevard again. Those projects were complete renovation. There's obviously electricity available. Overhead lighting was installed. And it was even discussed during design and execution. It's been brought up multiple times. So I get that question the most when I'm over there. Why didn't this happen? Why are we still talking about this? It's an unsafe area. And so I wanted to bring it up. Thank you for your time this evening and your presentation. It has been very insightful. Thank you all. Have a good evening. All right. That said, we move to next steps. Ms. Devereaux, are you going to finish us out? Or would you like me to do it?

I don't see Ms. Taubo here, Council Member Taubo, so there'd be no comments from her. And I was not instructed to give any, so it's back to you.

Outstanding. Does any commissioner have comments for the good of the order? Seeing none and hearing none, I'll remind you all that our next meeting is August 5th, 2026, right here in Council Chambers at 6.30 p.m. That being said, the time is 8.12 p.m. This special meeting of the Lakewood Planning Commission is adjourned.

Um,