Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, Mr.

Chair, we are ready to go when you are.

All right, thank you. Good evening, everybody. Today is Wednesday, August 5th, 2026. The time is 632. And I will now call this meeting of the Lakewood Planning Commission to start all over again. Good morning, everybody. Good afternoon, everybody. Today is Wednesday, August the 5th, 2026. The time is 632 p.m. And I will now call this meeting of the Lakewood Planning Commission to order. Will the clerk please call the roll?

Katie Crook. Robert Estrada is online.

Here.

Christian Flores.

Here.

Mark Hare.

Here.

Ben Larson. Mr. Larson is here. He's in the restroom. Jim Merritt and Sharon Wallace. You have quorum. Thank you.

Will you all please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice Thank you. I trust everybody had an opportunity to review the minutes of our previous meeting. Would entertain a motion to approve. So moved. Second. It's been motioned by Commissioner Larson and seconded by Commissioner Flores that we approve the meeting minutes from July the 29th. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, hearing none, we move to a vote. All those in favor of approving the minutes, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. All those opposed, please signify by saying no. Motion is approved. The minutes are approved. We move on. Ms. Speer, are there any agenda updates?

No, Mr. Chair.

Outstanding. We'll wait for the recording to pick back up.

Under more.

Good to go. Are we good? Yes. Okay. For those of you watching online, a little bit of a technical difficulty, but we are back. There are no agenda updates. We will move to public comment. Just a reminder, public comments 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 and 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 time we started online. So this week we will start with those joining us here in council chambers. There is nobody signed up for the public comment portion of tonight's meeting, but if you would like to make public comment, and I will just clarify the public hearing will come immediately following this, regarding marijuana sales inside the city of Lakewood. If you would like to make public comment about any other issue before the commission, now would be your time to do so. Is there any member of the public present that would like to make public comment that did not sign up? I see none. Ms. Speer, is there anybody online for public comment?

Mr. Chair, can you hear me?

I can hear you. Can you hear me?

Okay. I'm sorry. I can.

Mr. Chair, if we can pull the participants online just to double check, there's no raised hands for the record. Mr. Chair, we have no raised hands on the online, sir.

Thank you for that. That being said, we will close this public comment period. We move on to the public hearing regarding cannabis retail sales, processors, producers, and testing laboratories. Again, we will begin this public hearing with those of you joining us here in Council Chambers this evening. We will use the sign-in roster and go from top to bottom. If you have not signed in, you will have an opportunity to speak after those folks that are on the sign-in roster. First up, Mr. Kaufman, please approach the podium.

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, I'm Chris. Mr. Chair, members of the committee, I'm Chris Kaufman. I have lived in Lakewood for over 55 years. And a little under 40 years ago, this subject came up. And... Actually, there was a state vote on whether or not to legalize cannabis. I voted in favor of legalizing cannabis. When it came up for the city of Lakewood to legalize dispensaries of cannabis, I actively voted no. And back then, it looked like the vote was going to be four to three, one way or the other. And the last minute of that meeting, Jason Whalen came in and came over and said that he was my fourth vote. So the cannabis was denied in Lakewood by a vote of four to three. And all the issues about how much money the city would make, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, were thoroughly reviewed at that time. The bottom line was what is the sense? Okay.

Can you please reset the timer to a minute and 47 seconds for Mr. Kaufman? Apologies, Mr. Kaufman, please proceed.

Thank you. It was an important point I wanted to make, and that is what is your view of the sense of Lakewood? Is the sense of Lakewood having drug dispensaries, cannabis, what have you around? Because we make a little bit of money on it, but not much. And in turn, we get to pay additional expenses related to law enforcement and other impacts of this. I don't think Tacoma is too far away if people really need to go have some cannabis or whatever they do with it. So I guess my question is in terms of the sense of Lakewood, what is different now than 34, 35 years ago, whatever it was, when we thoroughly reviewed this subject and came up with, in my view, the proper answer, and that is no dispensaries of cannabis in Lakewood. Any questions? I'm biased, so that's fine. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Coughlin. Next, Dustin Reed. approach.

Howdy. My name is Dustin Reed. I am a Lakewood resident, local realtor father. I'm a member of the Chamber of Commerce here. So I have an active interest in Lakewood and how it's perceived. I do have a bias against cannabis. I used it every day for four years. And I can honestly say it did not make my life better. It made it worse. And Like the last gentleman mentioned, there may be some tax increases or tax revenue from a new business coming in. However, I have never heard anybody say, well, I think I'd like to live down the street from a pot shop where the area really turned around and got better when that new cannabis dispensary went in. And we are four miles away at this location from two other pot shops. When people think about moving to Lakewood, they often think South Tacoma. For most people from out of the area, they don't know the difference. And I hear this all the time. People from East Pierce County often don't want to move to Lakewood until I tell them my testimony about how great the area is and how I go on walks with my daughter every day and how much I've been surprised and love living in Lakewood. And I can say that I have moved people to Lakewood for that reason. When you put in businesses that deal drugs, you're not going to contribute to the character of the community in a positive way. I am not anti-cannabis. I do think it does have some benefits, like medicinal and for pain. However, it's easily accessible in the rest of One minute.

Standby, we'll fix the recording. Ms. Devereaux, can you please reset the timer to 59 seconds?

Mr. Chair, this is Tiffany . Mr. Chair, this is Tiffany Spear. You can disregard the recording. My apologies for that. Please continue the meeting.

Understood, Ms. Spear. We will move forward and disregard any of the recording messages from this point forward.

Thank you. Sorry about that.

Please continue.

So I think that I pretty much said what I wanted to say. I don't think that it contributes to the community in a positive way. It's easily accessible everywhere else. And Lakewood stands out in our area because we do not allow it. It's something worth saying that I get to see the front lines of people, especially young people moving to the area because Lakewood is an affordable community. And when I'm able to tell them about the moral character of Lakewood, it changes people's mind. And I don't want to change that because I want my friends to have the potential to own homes in this state. And this is one of the few areas in this side of the county that they can do so. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Raschke.

Mr. Chairman, members of the planning commission. My name is Phil Raschke. I'm a long time resident of the beloved city of Lakewood. I just had my eyes dilated. So I may fumble through this a little bit. Please bear with me. As you know, cannabis comes in two forms. There's recreational cannabis and then there's medical cannabis. In the state of Lakewood, you have to have a medical card in order to purchase the medical cannabis. Once you have that, you can purchase it. There is no age limit in terms of having the medical card, but you must be 21 to purchase it. However, and noteworthy, there are only 24,000 medical cardholders in the entire state of Washington. That's less than one-third of 1% that are eligible to buy the medical cannabis at this time. On the other hand, lobby groups that like to actively push these programs, that's their big push, medical cannabis. The other is recreational cannabis. And as you may know, it is currently a federal crime class one to buy or sell recreational cannabis because it's in a hallucinogenic and it is not approved by the FTC for any medicinal purposes. However, it is highly taxed where the medical cannabis is not taxed at all. So there's no revenue there, but on the recreational cannabis, it is taxed up to 47% right here in the state of Washington. So that's where the money is. So when we get to the idea of money, let's do some other considerations. Police unions do not endorse proliferating the, opening of cannabis shops. There are also 10 cannabis shops surrounding the city of Lakewood. So there's plenty of ways to access it if that's a requirement. The schools, a cannabis shop can be within a thousand feet of a secondary elementary school or a playground. It cannot be rather within a thousand feet of that. Secondhand cannabis smoke, there are cognitive tests that have proven that children exposed to THC, which is the hallucinogenic part of the recreational cannabis, score lower on cognitive tests than children who are not exposed to it. There's also the consideration of robbery. Cannabis stores cannot or primarily deal in cash. The reason they deal in cash is because they can't use credit cards because credit card companies will not process a transaction for a federal crime. And recreational cannabis is a federal crime. So therefore, they're subject to high robbery. Moving on down the line, there is a lot of other- Mr. Radley, I apologize.

Your time has depleted.

I'm finished?

Yes, sir.

Okay. But in the sake of a beloved community, in the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, I encourage you to do the right thing for our citizens, our children, and for our beloved community. Thank you.

Thank you for your comment, sir. Paul Bryce, please approach.

Thank you, members of the Planning Commission. Paul Bryce. Cannabis, it's inevitable. Change is inevitable. I mean, unless you're under a rock, the popularity of it growing, it's bigger than Lakewood. People voted unanimously. It's here to stay. It's not going away. Rescheduling for medical already happened. I'm hearing, oh, it's medical. Yes, exactly. It's medical. We find so many purposes other than the things that we have passed, like opioids, cigarettes, and alcohol that are poisons, toxins that actually kill people. Again, marijuana hasn't killed anybody. whether it's three years, five years from now, it's going to be in our pharmacies. We already saw what the glimpse of the future is going to be, where the pharmacies are going to be able to sell it and whatnot. So it's going to be around where the children can actually go. Right now, it's in stores where children aren't even allowed to go inside. And just fast forward this 20 years from now, it parallels alcohol. Same thing. When people start saying, oh, you kept alcohol out of the cities for all this time, and they're going to say the same thing. Well, you kept all the finances, all the money, all the people who voted, all the reasons why it should be legalized in the first or here in the first place it's going to be silly uh no one's saying oh what a great job you you held it off for another five seven years before it's just going to be everywhere anyways and you know hearing kids kids kids like let's we got to stop with that it's it's not for kids even though it has medical purposes for kids even though cigarettes and all the other things don't it it actually does but it's not meant for kids whatsoever uh and you know again as an adult who smokes marijuana many benefits for me and plenty of people that i know And I don't go and buy this marijuana four miles away and smoke it over there. It gets smoked right here in Lakewood. Every adult in Lakewood buys it four miles away, spends their money over there, no sharing, nothing else, and it's all smoked right here. Nothing's going to change from none of that. So it's really ridiculous. And then, you know, Bellevue, Redmond, so many other stores, UP, they're just waiting for the federal legalization for them to have it even more just, again, surrounding, getting bigger and bigger year after year. And The talks of like right now we're doing the right thing by holding it off for however little bit of left time that you can hold off or really doesn't make sense because, again, it's going to go into the bigger corporations, more widespread. Kids see it from more social media, from the songs, from TVs and everything else that you're ever going to see. Again, I operate a couple of shops in small towns already. In small towns, you literally have one street. One street in all these small towns is the main street. You don't hear, after all these years, decade and plus of the legalization of it, you don't hear these towns going back and saying, oh, Jesus, all our kids are starting to smoke pot. Again, the kids, the teenagers that are getting it, it's through the black market. All the shootings is from the black market, from people trying to round up some money to then go the difficult thing of going four miles away to still bring it over here. I mean, again, it's ridiculous. And to keep all that money out for the employment... the income and the taxes and everything else, it's changes and it happens everywhere. We got to move on with time and it's the right thing because it's the safest of all the other things that's really been legalized.

Thank you for your comments, Mr. Bryce. AJ Peters, you are next.

good evening city council and or council members my name is aj peters i'm a resident of lakewood i have a social equity cannabis license that i would like to bring into the city of lakewood with everything being said tonight um it's really hard to go into a debate and debate whether it's good for the community good for kids etc etc but in my social equity license i have different plans It's not only to capitalize on the recreational cannabis, but to help those that are medical, that can't literally drive 10 miles away, that aren't treated with the great respect or the knowledge or the different things that make a good cannabis company. There's been a lot of cannabis companies that have failed. If you look around, there is some right now in receivership. Those that are greedy with predatory lending and everything else, allowing cannabis into the city of lakewood is not a bad thing it can be a good thing if those are willing to step up and make good out of something that is no different than the pilner's beer or the mad dog that you can get across the street from any school people are going to use whether they use it here or they use it there they go to the bar they use it at home It makes no sense to continue to try to not take the capitalization and maybe use that funding for drug programs or whatever to help our younger youth with the heavier drugs that obviously most fall into. Yeah, cannabis can be a gateway drug, so can alcohol, but that's sold in every store. So those that combat it, need to understand those that will socially use it and those that will use it medically. Those that use it medically due to our opioid crisis, it does help a lot of them. and there's so many opportunities for every pharmacist to not want to even talk about anything herbal anything you know that's not a pharmaceutical oh that's not what i'm about etc etc so allowing cannabis not only would take care of our medical people in the community and a store like i would have i would recommend those that are using it medically get a medical license I would approve them to grow their own. But one of my bigger concerns is, is even if you guys do pass it, there's literally very few areas where the thousand foot buffer zone comes into play. You guys have the way to enact it to where we can lower those buffer zones to maybe allow three or four stores. Maybe we put them close to the police department. Maybe we put them in areas where they won't be a nuisance. And that brings me to my other thing with the nuisance. And from, if I'm hearing it correct, revoking a license because it's a nuisance because somebody robbed them and shot them or however, whatever. But thank you for your time.

Thank you, Mr. Peters, for your comments. There is nobody else on the sign-in roster here in the chamber this evening. But if any member of the public is present and would like to speak during this public hearing, please approach the podium at this time.

BRIAN BORGELT. live here in Lakewood. I have most of my properties in my business in Tacoma though. So I've had two different perspectives here on this marijuana issue. And I voted for it, legalized in here in the state of Washington. I figured, ah, people are doing it. They're buying it on the illicit market. Might as well tax it, might as well get some revenue out of it. Might as well put that money to good use. Disappointed to say the least. What I've experienced in Tacoma is, oh, what I would call basically a meltdown of behavior by the people that I see using this on a habitual basis. And we have to deal with them in all facets. We have open businesses. People can flow in and out freely. And so we have to deal with it. We've had 10 arsons in five years on properties that I own in Tacoma. If you don't count the... the car of the customer that somebody broke into and started a fire in to stay warm. We've seen terrible behavior. And I see drug use, maybe not just marijuana, but just drug use, but it seems like they all are involved in this and they enjoy it. We've seen the homeless camps that have sprung up and the use of this stuff within it. It just seems to be a cultural ill, a symptom. I've seen the mental health crisis spring up around this. Now, all of a sudden, we have to react to this mental health crisis that seems to be directly tied to this marijuana thing. Um, I just don't see an upside. I have a sister in Colorado. They've been very parallel with us on the drug legalization and they have the same problems. I mean, just awful. And, uh, I'd say we've gone backwards. We've made a bad choice, putting it in our neighborhoods for distribution, horrible idea. Um, I just don't see an upside to this at all, guys. I mean, if I could point out one, great. I don't know the medical side, but as it was pointed out earlier, that's a minor part, and that's for the doctors to decide. But recreationally, disaster. And I would say, no, don't do it. Keep that away from our people here in Lakewood. We've got a pretty good little niche, little nick of the woods down here. You know, we do our best. And this would not be a net positive in any way, shape, or form. Just by my experience, that's all I got.

Thank you for your comments. Yep. Is there any other member of the public here with us tonight in chambers that would like to speak that did not sign up on the sign-in roster? Seeing none and hearing none, we will move to online. Ms. Spears, is there anybody online that would like to participate in the public hearing?

Mr. Chair, we have Jan Gee, if I'm spelling that right. I hope I am, with her hand raised.

Yes, thank you very much. It is Jan G. And I am a resident of Lakewood for 40 years. I voted for cityhood because crime was becoming a problem and the county was not addressing it. I feel like we're a neighborhood community and we're getting crime under control. Lakewood is becoming a much nicer place to live than it was prior to cityhood. And I think this proposal takes us a step backward. And I urge you to send a strong no recommendation to the city council on their request. You can drive any way, any direction from Lakewood in 15 minutes. and access cannabis. We don't need this in the city, and this is not the kind of revenue that we want in our city. This revenue will just cause us to have more of a crime problem, which will cause us to have to Increase our funding of our police department, so it is not a wise decision, a previous speaker said it's inevitable it'll be in pharmacies someday that'll be well. Then the feds will have made it legal. If it's in our pharmacies, it will be controlled. They'll be able to use a banking system that other small businesses can use, and it won't attract the crime it currently attracts. We love our city. We urge our city council to find more productive ways to generate revenue or to be a more efficient spender of our tax dollars. But I urge the Planning Commission to send a strong no on this proposal. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments, Jan G. Ms. Speer, is there any other person online? I see no other hands raised.

No, Mr. Chair, there's no one else.

All right. That being said, we will declare this public hearing on cannabis retail sales, processors, producers, and testing laboratories closed. We move on to unfinished business. Ms. Speier, action on resolution 2026-07, the 2026 annual development regulation amendments.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Rather than try to share anything, I'm simply going to speak to the commission this way. If you'll recall from your study session and your public hearing, there are four annual public, excuse me, annual development regulation amendments up for consideration and action tonight. First is changing the way the use tables are included in our Title 18A, going from 14 separate use tables to a single one, so consolidating everything to one place for ease of reference. And then also making several changes to open space and recreation setback standards. The second is the technical correction recording regarding how to record documentation for short subdivisions and boundary line adjustments. The third is an explanation in a couple of different chapters of our municipal code directing applicants to file an appeal through the online permitting formal. And then the final amendment is regarding limited exceptions being allowed with Department of Planning and Public Works director permission for certain weekend and night construction work. And there's criteria that must be followed. So if the commission is ready to do so. The motion that would be before you for discussion once someone moves it and then seconds it would be to approve resolution 202,607 formalizing the planning commission's recommendations regarding the 2026 annual development regulations and forwarding its recommendations to the city council for consideration and action. So back to you, Mr. Chair for discussion.

Thank you. Ms. Devereaux, can you put the resolution on our screen, please?

It's on page 131, I believe.

So commission will take action this evening on resolution 2026-07. Does any member have a motion at this time?

My apologies, Mr. Chair. It's on page two.

Yeah, that's the second one there. Page two of the PDF.

Yes, that's the memo. And then on the beginning of the next page, you'll see resolution 202607.

Okay, go to the next slide, please. Next page, there we go. Is there a motion to approve or send forward a recommendation to the city council? Commissioner Wallace, please turn your microphone on. You're on.

My question is, well, does this include or what part of the code would include, they talk about boundaries, but does that include easements or roads that would be on property that might be new roads or old roads that would be being modified? I just don't, I don't see that addressed here. We just talk about boundaries.

Can you be slightly more specific? I apologize. There is quite a bit of discussion around boundaries throughout the changes

Yeah, I'm just trying to get an idea about accessing a property. Do you need certain types of roads? Will there be easements? Where would the code information be found? So people know if they want to say something or not, where can they put a road? And what kind of roads can they put in there? And what what are the easements or not? So I just don't know where those regulations are, if I could be directed to them.

The spear. Any comment?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The amendment tonight affects chapter 1738, which is specific to boundary line adjustments. So when you have an existing several parcels and there's a boundary between them and for whatever reason that line needs to be moved or maybe parcels are being combined, that's what this chapter would address. There would be separate chapters under Title 17 and then maybe sections in Title 18A. where new road construction, or Title 12 actually as well, where new road construction and access would be discussed. But this is a very limited amendment this evening regarding the process at the county auditor's office, how to record a boundary line adjustment.

Okay, thank you.

The spirit just for clarity, I want to make sure I understood what you said. And in my interpretation, that was that Commissioner Wallace's question is not inside the scope of the amendments offered here in this resolution this evening. Is that correct?

That is correct.

Thank you. Is there a motion? We need a motion to discuss.

Moved their second Second.

It's been motioned by Commissioner Larson and seconded by Commissioner Wallace that we approve Planning Commission Resolution 2026-07 and forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council. Is there any discussion? Seeing none and hearing none, we'll call the vote. All those in favor of approving and forwarding the approved recommendation to the City Council for Planning Commission Resolution 2026-07, please signify by saying aye. Aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, please signify by saying no. You guys have it. The motion is approved, and the recommendation will be moved forward to the City Council in this matter. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. I'm now going to, I'm sorry. Go ahead.

I apologize. Go ahead.

I apologize to you. I'm now going to be logging off the meeting and Assistant Director Silva and other staff there in the room will be assisting you to move through the rest of the meeting.

Understood, thank you for your time. Ms. Silva is in the room and she will take administrative control here. Ms. Silva, we move on to discussion and action on resolution 2026-08, cannabis retail sales, processors, producers, and laboratories.

Not yet, not just yet.

Ms. Jebrow, could you please forward us to the resolution? I think it's 137 or somewhere in that range.

Because she's sharing her screen.

Okay.

The slide deck is on 203 if you want to use the PDF copy. Okay, that works too.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and planning commissioners for another opportunity to be here this evening. So this is the third installment of the discussion related to authorizing cannabis businesses within the city limits. Tonight, specifically, as you heard earlier, was scheduled for a public hearing. I want to thank everybody for providing not only written comment, but also verbal comment on the draft proposal this evening. Since that hearing is now closed, it is an opportunity for this body to deliberate and provide a recommendation to city council. As a courtesy, we're gonna do a very brief overview compared to last planning commission meetings we had on the 29th and 15th about a lot of different information, statistics, requirements, regional trends, you name it, and just provide a very high level overview of the draft proposal in your packet starting on page 131. Again, tonight was a hearing scheduled for recommendation. And again, there are six code sections before you that either replace are new or amend several chapters. So specifically, just a friendly reminder, the State Liquor and Cannabis Board issues and enforces state cannabis licenses. Cities and counties retain the authority to determine whether cannabis businesses may locate within the city limits. And if that answer is yes, what permits would be required, what local standards would apply, as well as other local business license requirements. A state license does not authorize operation in a jurisdiction that has not allowed the use within their own municipal code. So specifically, 18A-10-180 adds seven new definitions in your packet this evening. 18A20-080, this defines the appropriate permit review and approval procedures. 18A40 is where you'll find all different zones found within the city and where different cannabis business may locate and not locate. In 18A40-160, currently in code, this outright prohibits marijuana businesses within the city. The draft proposal in your packet would replace that prohibition and include several different operational standards for different cannabis types. 1880.030 sets forth parking standards, which are similar to retail and industrial uses you find in the city today. And last but not least, a proposed new chapter for specialty license, again, not the state license, but a local business license to operate within the city. And the draft proposal includes where cannabis retail would be included in various zones, including the Transit Orient Center, Central Business District, and various commercial zones, which is reflected through C1, C3. Also included in the packet is that review and decision authority. So a department administrative decision is considered a type one permit that is appealable to the Lakewood hearing examiner. So even though the department issues, the decision does not mean that cannot be appealable by the applicant or public. A type one decision does not require a public hearing. As we move down that list from cannabis processor in the draft proposal, identify to be potentially located in our various industrial business park zones, as well as our industrial one and two zones. in the proposal as a administrative department decision. That is similar to cannabis producer indoor only in our industrial zones as an administrative decision. However, cannabis producer indoor through our air corridor one and air corridor two zones is proposed to be a type three, which is a conditional use permit, which requires not only public notice, but also a public hearing before the hearing examiner who would render the final decision. And the reason for that is to recognize the tent of the air corridor zones, but also allow site specific evaluation based on compatibility, noise and adjacent uses. In the draft proposal in your packet, what is not proposed to be permitted is any of the residential zones, mixed use, multifamily, or neighborhood commercial, where you see it abutting a lot of single family residents, as well as our public institution and open space zones throughout the city. In addition to that, as previous briefings, state law requires a separation buffer requirement from a number of different protected uses. The minimum standard is 1,000 feet, as you see in your screen. However, state law allows, if selected by a local jurisdiction through an ordinance, to reduce certain protected uses down to 100 feet. The draft proposal before you maintains that 1,000 feet across all protected uses. Key operating standards, again, this is a very high level briefing. I think we did a deep dive in the last meeting, but what you see here is a summary of key operating standards in the draft. So specifically for retail, it reemphasizes retail sales as 21 and over, so no children, no onsite consumption, which is prohibited by a state law, only items authorized in state law would be part of that retail use. So again, no co-sale of alcohol, tobacco, vapor products, et cetera. As it relates to processing, wholesale only, no public sales. Extraction systems would require state certification plus review by our local building official as well as fire marshal approval before installation. In addition to, any infused product kitchens require Washington Department of Agriculture certification as well. As it relates to production indoor only, this would be fully enclosed permanent structures. Outdoor cultivation is prohibited in the draft proposal. Order control will be required using best available control technology and Ecology's air quality compliance standards. Security, again, reiterates state law requirements as related to security, as well as the three canopy tiers outlined in state law. As for testing, this also requires Department of Agriculture accreditation and state license certification. Both have to be maintained, and this must be a financial independence from licensed producers and processors as well. In addition, state law outlines quality assurance testing with no production, processing, and sales on-site. As it relates to the new chapter, as it relates to local specialty business licenses, this again would be a two license requirement to operate, not only the state license, but the city specialty license. Both must be valid at all times to operate any type of cannabis business within the city. A valid LCB license or conditional approval letter is required to be presented as part of city licensure. The state must come first and proof must be maintained throughout that operation. The duration of a one-year term is intended to align with the state's licensing cycle. Non-renewal suspension or revocation of the state license automatically trigger determination. The license is site-specific and non-transferable. So meaning any change in ownership or license premise requires a brand new city license application. So with that, Mr. Chair and planning commissioners, I'm happy to answer any questions this body may have as you move forward with deliberations.

Thank you, Ms. Silva. We'll just remind the commissioners that we do need a motion to open the discussion. Once we've received the motion and discussion ensues, we will move forward before we call a vote. I will ask for each commissioner to elaborate on your position, uh, to provide clarity to the council on whatever our ultimate recommendation is so that they may reference those positions and their own deliberations. That being said, I'd entertain a motion on the question.

I'd like to make the motion, please.

Motion to approve or?

I would like to make the motion that the Planning Commission vote no on allowing the cannabis uses as proposed anytime, anywhere in the city of Lakewood. And furthermore, to send a message to the City Council with this vote of no, I recommend for no, that the demonstration of the public testimony before us today, the overwhelming majority was against the measure.

It has been motioned by Commissioner Larson to forward a no recommendation to City Council regarding Planning Commission Resolution 2026-08. Is there a second?

Second.

It has been seconded by Commissioner Wallace. Is there any discussion?

May I comment?

Please, Commissioner Wallace.

I concur with some of the documentation that was provided by individuals that did some research into the medical effects of marijuana. I am a physician, and I am firmly against the use of marijuana. There are a few minor indications in some people, but the overwhelming concerns that I have are the increase in addiction and the increase in psychotic disorders in genetically susceptible individuals, which I've already explained previously, so I will not go into that detail. But I think that this is a bad idea. There are other stores where people can buy it if they wish to do so. They're not in Lakewood. I like Lakewood the way it is. I think many of the people here are against it, the same reasons that I am. Perhaps maybe not as eloquently stated, but some were very eloquent. So I would like to say I'm against it.

Commissioner Flores. Yes, I would like to make also a comment. Completely agree. With Wallace, I believe a lot of people moving to the city of Lakewood because it's clean and strict. I would like to keep it that way. And as long as I'm here helping and providing my advice, I will vote no for opening stores, selling marijuana in the city.

Commissioner Crook.

I'm also gonna agree and vote no. I feel like just numbers standpoint, the income revenue is not going to outweigh the cost that it's gonna take for us to monitor it, at least starting up, and I just don't think it's worth it. We've come a long way in Lakewood, and I feel like we've done nothing but improve, and this is not gonna be anything but a setback.

Commissioner Merritt.

I also feel that With the amount of testimony we had tonight in person, what I see in the documentation that we received since our last meeting, the amount of public comment that I received personally, that this is something that should be voted as a no. I think it's very sad that, you know, a few generations now and more are experiencing this and they feel it's very positive. I think the medical research is starting to prove just the opposite. And I think it's gonna take time for that pendulum to swing. Whether it will be fully successful ever, I don't know. But I think Lakewood is making a wise move if we hold the line. Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Larson.

I'd like to elucidate on Mr. Borgelt's testimony. I know Mr. Borgelt personally. He owns the Freight House Square down next to the Tacoma Dome. He has seen, touched, and felt that neighborhood and watched it change. And I think he speaks with authority and personal knowledge and observation of the negative functions of the cannabis operations that are around the Tacoma Dome area. It's a problem area in the city of Tacoma, and we certainly don't want to promulgate that kind of thing in Lakewood. My other comments are that we send a loud and strong message to the city council, as we've already discussed.

Thank you. Commissioner Merritt.

I have just one little follow-up just on numbers. The public testimony tonight was overwhelming. I was surprised. I thought there'd be a little more on both sides. It was either five or six to one that we should not do this.

Mr. Estrada, we do see your hand raised. Can you please unmute Commissioner Estrada?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Can you hear me?

Yes, please proceed.

If with your indulgence, I'd like to kind of elaborate on what I've heard and what has been said. From my perspective, so the city enacts legislation as such that will benefit the community as a whole or at least the majority of the community. And I read and reviewed this proposal in that light and I've also listened to and I've read the submitted comments. After that, I'll come up with a few comments of my own. My question, does this proposal generate funding that could be used to benefit the community? As we've heard previously, staff estimates that retail activities would generate only about $150,000 to $200,000 a year because the city only gets 3.5% from the states generated 37% excise tax, and would even be less, 1.5%, if only the retail portion was allowed. That amount is significant in itself, but after expenses related to the enactment and implementation, it's going to be far less. So there's no money there. I heard a comment at an earlier meeting about property tax. That's significant, should we not count that? Well, sure. Gentleman is gonna start a cannabis activity. Is he gonna purchase the building just for the activity? Or would he seek an existing standing facility so not to pay for that cost? That facility already pays property taxes, so that would be cheaper. So probably no funds there. How about would a significant number of the community be adversely affected if it was not passed? We heard earlier, it's a convenience for some to have to travel four miles to get recreational or medical cannabis in Tacoma. An inconvenience? Well, maybe for some. Another point, cannabis remains federally regulated. Yes, a recent presidential executive order directed a review of cannabis reclassification from a schedule one controlled substance to schedule three. But even if that classification is changed, it still remains a controlled substance. And lastly, and this is more of a personal comment, The city of Lakewood is adjacent to a federal military installation. I served, and I'm sure many of you did also, during times of military conflict. For me, it was Vietnam. I saw the use, abuse, and adverse effect of drug use among military members, unfortunately. Once, I had to recommend that aircraft be grounded because I could not guarantee their airworthiness. A crew chief had offered some of his drugs to a pilot as the pilot got into his aircraft. Was the crew chief under the influence of drugs at the time? And if so, did he perform the required inspections required of the aircraft before it flew? Could something like that happen at JBLM? Probably not to that extent. But I do think that the city should not be a party to any possible scenario like that. So I'm gonna vote no. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for your comments, Commissioner Estrada. Before I give my own comments and position, I would ask the rest of the commission If this motion to recommend disapproval is forwarded, the question still remains for the council to deliberate on whether any of the buffer zone requirements should be changed should they desire to move forward with a positive action. Is there any recommendation from any member regarding that? Or should we leave them the same? Or do you think we should lower them? I don't think we can increase. I think there, Ms. Silva, can you comment on that? I think the thousand is the maximum.

No, Mr. Chair, 1,000 is a minimum standard. So if you want to increase, there is local discretion to do so. That said, as we do a jurisdictional comparison, most jurisdictions have maintained 1,000 or 500 feet or 100. I have had to come across a higher standard. In addition to there is local discretion to add additional protected uses. We just can't go below the minimum standard outlined in state law.

Thank you for that clarity. Commissioner Merritt.

I mentioned that at the last meeting that I was kind of surprised that it would drop clear down to 100 feet. That's one lot away. That's no distance at all. And I think 1,000 feet for some uses like elementary schools is still, that's two blocks. That's not very far. And so if we can't, because that's state law, so be it. But I don't think, frankly, any of the issues should be less than 1,000 feet. Why do we want to do that? I would say that should go in as an addendum to our motion.

It will be a portion. Okay. Would any other commissioner like to comment? No. Mr. Larson, or Commissioner Larson, would you like to amend your motion to include the no change to the buffer zone?

Yes. Yes. Yes.

Motion to deny or disapprove the recommendation of cannabis sales inside the city will be amended to show the recommendation for no change to buffer zones so they would stay as presented. I will offer my own comments. I am certainly not opposed to, and I've spoken before about individual, I will step short of rights, but being able to live life the way you want to live life, right? You should be able to make your own decisions. This was specifically centered around service members and the question that was called earlier. Service members, serve our nation and doing so, they understand they are putting themselves in a sacrificial position with certain things and liberties. Um, this is one of those. Um, that being said, I think we've had a robust discussion. We've looked at, uh, many, uh, and heard many voices around this topic. We've heard from business owners that are engaged in the sale, production, and procurement and processing of cannabis here in Washington State. We've heard from community members that live here in Lakewood. We've heard from other business owners in Lakewood and the surrounding area. And we've received a fair amount of written testimony, some of it quite well researched, regarding the medical impacts of cannabis. In this matter, I think there are a lot of different lenses to look at it through. For me, the question came down to, is there a benefit to the city of Lakewood? So as Commissioner Estrada pointed out, there is a financial impact that could potentially come to the city. However, it gets throttled or limited considerably if you do not offer all three points inside the question. And that would be production facilities, processing facilities, and retail sales. There is a change from 3.7 to 1.5 on the sales tax if you just go only the retail sales route. There is a convenience factor for the people of Lakewood who are utilizing this substance to have it essentially in the town center, if you will. The fact is 10 maximum 15 minute drive in any direction you're able to procure these items and transport them back into the city of lakewood at your discretion in compliance with laws there is also the potential of a modest displacement of illegal sales if we were to to offer this and i think we we didn't really talk about that but it is there By providing a legal pathway, we could offset some of that illegal activity. On the other side of the coin, there was quite an abundant discussion around processing and production facilities, specifically in the nearby Nally Valley region. I did visit the area. I talked to one of the contractors who services the air scrubbers that go into those type of facilities. There are some serious challenges with the technology around that type of air quality control and treatment. And then there is, when we talk about aesthetic quality of life and or potential nuisance to surrounding businesses, there is some impact there. The signage of... Cannabis sales operations frequently features marijuana leafs, you know, and those type of themes. I don't know how impactful that is. I think it was pointed out here earlier that those types of images and imagery are prevalent throughout our society. But it is there. For these reasons, um, and coming back to my initial question of is there a benefit to the city? I don't at this time see a huge benefit to the city and I will be, um, supporting a no recommendation. Um, the amendment is to forward a no recommendation with no change or to the buffer zone requirements. Um, for the purposes of clarity and for the public record, uh, we will Take the vote by roll call.

If I may comment, the motion was to make an emphatic no, not just a no. An emphatic no.

Understood. We will take the vote by roll call. Will the clerk please call the roll? Katie Crook. Please turn your microphone on.

No.

Robert Estrada?

No.

Christian Flores?

No.

Mark Hare?

No.

Lynn Larson?

No. No.

Jim Merritt?

No.

Jaron Wallace? No.

Thank you. In the matter of Planning Commission Resolution 2026-08, The recommendation to City Council will be to not approve and to not change buffer requirements and to keep them as presented.

I might suggest emphatically not approve.

It is a unanimous recommendation to the City Council.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Planning Commissioners. We will return to your next meeting with a revised recommendation resolution for execution based on the discussion, the reasons for the unanimous vote of no, and we'll transmit that to City Council for their consideration. As next steps, we are anticipating tentatively to bring this proposal to for discussion again with city council, and there will be another opportunity for those to provide testimony, whether written and verbal, through that process prior to a final decision via ordinance. So stay tuned, everyone, and please visit our project website for more updates.

Thank you, Ms. Silva. We turn to new business, and there is none on the agenda. Ms. Devereaux, we move to next steps.

All I can add is that your next meeting will be September 2nd. Next meeting, September 2nd.

The time is 7.38 p.m., and I will declare this meeting of the Lakewood Planning Commission closed.

We are adjourned.