Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

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

All right. Good evening. Today is Wednesday, July 15th. The time is 630, and I will call this order of the Lakewood Planning Commission. This session of the Lakewood Planning Commission to order. Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll?

Katie Crook. Robert Estrada.

Here.

Christian Flores.

Here.

Lynn Larson is excused at this time. Jim Merritt.

Here.

Sharon Wallace. Here. Mark Hare.

Here. You have quorum. Outstanding. If you all please stand and join me with 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 for all. Thank you. I trust you've all had an opportunity to review the minutes from our meeting on June the 17th. I'm going to entertain a motion to approve those minutes. Second. It's been motioned by Commissioner Wallace and seconded by Commissioner Flores that we approve the minutes from June the 17th, 2026. Is there any discussion? Seeing none and hearing none, all those in favor of approving the minutes from June 17th, 2026, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, please signify by saying no. The minutes are approved. Madam Clerk, are there any agenda updates?

No, Mr. Chair.

Outstanding. We will move on to public comment. I'll remind you that 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 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. Madam Clerk, are there any virtual attendees for public comment?

There is not, Mr. Chair.

There are none. We will move to those joining us here in council chambers. There is one person on the list signed in. If there are any others, please feel free to make yourself available after Mr. Paul Bryce.

Hello, thank you, council members. I just wanted to introduce myself. My name is Paul Bryce. I'm here for hopefully cannabis retail sales here in Lakewood. I've been a part of the social equity program, actually the advisory member for the legislative task force. I'm the advisory member that kind of helped for the last five years to get our social programs for the licenses that are out today to hopefully find locations, hopefully one in, a couple in Lakewood. Outside of that, I'm also part of LCB's Eastern of Washington State's cannabis representative for all the social equity licenses coming out. And yeah, I just wanted to introduce myself and be a part of the beginnings of what cannabis amendments might look like here in Lakewood, Washington. Thank you. And 8507 104th Street, Lakewood, Washington is where I reside over 20 plus years. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments, Mr. Bryce. There is no other person signed in for a public comment. But if there is anybody in the building that would like to make public comment at this time, please approach the podium. I see none. We will close the public comment. There is no public hearing for this evening. We turn to unfinished business. Miss Speer.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to walk very briefly through, because it's been a month since actually we were all together, this summary of what is your first item tonight, the 2026 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Package. You're scheduled to take action tonight if you're ready to do so. So as a reminder, once upon a time, the council sent you a docket that had originally 23 items in it, and then two additional amendments were added related to rezoning two parcels to include in Edgewater Park. Following that, we had one rezone request privately submitted that was then withdrawn. So we ended up with a complete total of 24. And those have gone through the analysis and preparation for the public hearing that you held at your last meeting. The summary of the types of amendments, the first 12 of the 24 were state law changes that either require or offer options to the city to take action. Then 13 through 21, 23 and through 25 are a variety of locally initiated or city initiated text and zoning map amendments. There are three which are again optional that the city council is not required through state requirements for instance to do, but they're within the package for them to look at and consider going forward. Tonight you have in your packet a draft resolution 202606, which is what you would be taking action on if you're ready to do so. And within 202606, you'll see the full language of each of the amendments that are proposed for inclusion. Also included in the packet are the comments to the public comments received in the Planning Commission's public hearing. So in summary, once again, there were 24 total, but there were 11 amendments that are now recommended for approval by the department. And this is how it is included in your draft resolution to approve the first seven. excuse me, the first nine without any qualification. The last two say approve as is if amendment 202614 is not approved. And that's because if you remember, we have an amendment that would take away the two separate zones for parks and just combine them into one. And so if you adopt that one, numbers 24 and 25 become moot because they're talking about changing it from one park zone to the other. They would just fall under 2026-14. So this would be something that's in the motion itself. We don't need to take any special action. It's just if you decide to go ahead and approve 2026-14, the rezones included in 24 and 25 are not required. Then for the remainder of the total of 24 that were reviewed and considered at your public hearing, there's six of them recommended for no action. Another six that are recommended to not go away completely, but just to be continued. And five of those six would be continued just one year for a variety of reasons that have been talked about. with the planning commission. And then there's one that's been recommended to move forward to 2029 because it's relating to our downtown sub area plan and regulations, which will be reviewed in total in 2029. And then there's the final one, which is the no recommendation at all. That is leaving it as a policy question for the city council to decide whether they want to incorporate that one or not. So this was the subject of conversation for the benefit of you, Mr. Chair. Last time, June 17th, where we had our city's building official here to talk with the planning commission members and explain why the department had had no recommendation there. But to summarize, the reasoning behind the no recommendation is essentially the, and let me back up, my apologies. There's two ADU design amendments, and this may be something that needs clarification before you were to take action in any event. 2026-19 would allow pre-approved accessory dwelling unit designs meaning the city could say, okay, general public, we have these number of approved plans. And if you come and try to build something and you use one of these approved plans, you're not gonna have to go through review. The city has already conducted it. And the reason that's recommended for continuation into 2027 is Lakewood has been part of a Pierce County wide group of jurisdictions working on this together, and we're just not done yet with the product. So we're hoping to have that in front of you in 27. The other ADU amendment is 202603. And this is again, ADUs, but it is a different type of proposal. It is actually allowing certified architects to take on the certification of the ADU plans rather than the city. And so that is where the city is not providing a recommendation at all to you and as it is written in your ordinance or resolution, there isn't a recommendation right now either. That's up to you if you wanted to change that as a recommendation to the city council tonight. But the reasoning behind it, the self-certification program is not just a matter of accepting the application. It is the city having to adopt program rules, conduct audits of the applications, penalize architects who fail an audit, developing the forms for the program, monitoring architect's insurance, and then providing reports to the State Department of Commerce. And then in addition to all of that, Lakewood does not own its utilities. And as a result, those utilities would be continuing their own separate reviews regardless of whether the city had this program or not. And that may affect the timing, which is the whole point behind this program is to save time. So if an external utility hadn't completed their review by the time the city had walked through its process, the situation would be the same as no program at all. And then the final one is that yes, there is the potential for liability or at least the city's position on this program being challenged if a particular ADU were to fail for some reason over time. And it's even if you're not exempt, I'll start over. Even if you're not liable or found exempt, then the cost of responding to those challenges also needs to be taken into account. The total number of ADU applications in 25 and 26 when our building official, Mr. Gindy was here last time he reported was 18. And the longest any one of them had taken was 39 days because it was on a shoreline. So the rest of them have been done in a timely way under State Bill 5290, which is that one that now requires specific deadlines for permit review and action. So this is just to kind of summarize the discussion that happened last time regarding this no recommendation. So here is the recommended motion that you would maybe take up tonight and adopt, or if you wanted to make amendments to any of these, this would be the time to start to talk about that. But this motion as reads would be to approve resolution 202606 recommending the 26 comprehensive plan zoning map and development regulation amendments to the city council. Turning it back over to you, Mr. Chair.

Outstanding. Ms. Spear, thank you for that overview. I do have one question. I didn't see in the packet the draft resolution. Did I just overlook it, or have we not been provided it?

It should be in your packet.

I'm probably just failing myself with technology.

It starts on page six.

I was looking at the end. That's probably why. All right, is there, okay, yes, I apologize. Thank you, I was looking for it at the end for some reason. All right, is there a motion from any member at this time so we can open the discussion? What is your motion? You have to make a motion for approving as presented or... As presented, it's been motion to approve draft resolution 2026-06 planning commission resolution of the city of Lakewood formalizing its recommendations regarding the 2026 comprehensive plan zoning map development regulation amendments and forwarding recommendations to the Lakewood City Council for consideration and action. Is there a second? We need the second just to open it up for discussion.

Second.

All right. It's been motioned by Commissioner Wallace and seconded by Commissioner Flores. The question is up for debate. What questions do we have? Would anybody like to remove any of the amendments or not as presented, not recommend as presented? Commissioner Estrada. Zero three.

I'm sorry, Mr. Estrada, do you have your mic on?

thank you again thank you mr chair and i'd like to remove 26 excuse me 20 2603 for the reasons that uh miss spear has spelled out the reasons that are also stated in our uh our packet for this week and also the ones that were stated in uh our packet of june the third As an also iteration of reasons why they should not go forward, and I think it's. My initial concern was I didn't think that the architect would be signing off on permits. I wanted to come to find out that in fact we're just talking about plans that they would sign off on and not the final approval for the specific utilities, for example.

Commissioner Estrada, I just want to point out 2026-03 is actually on the draft resolution as a no recommendation, which would mean we're not moving it forward to council at this time.

I'm sorry. It actually means it does. It's for them to decide with no yes or no or anything.

We're not going to provide an input.

Right. That's the way it's designed right now.

You want to change that. You want to provide guidance. I want to provide data that I agree we should not go forward. Understood. Okay.

So Mr. Estrada, you're suggesting change this to deny as opposed to no recommendation?

That's correct.

OK.

Deny versus understood.

Commissioner Wallace, can you turn your microphone on, please?

I agree with that. I would also like to change my recommendation to not recommending it. All right.

Is there any other amendment that any commissioner would like to change from as presented on your screen right now?

I'd like to ask a question. Please, Commissioner Merritt. 202,603 with the ADA self-certification, there's no recommendation. So what happens to that?

It will go forward as you have it in your packet. And the idea then is the city council has its own discussion and decides whether it wants to move forward with it or not.

I can certainly appreciate the comment that is in the dialogue that was part of that. Because I do think there is something about holding the professional community responsible. So this is a dilemma because they have to be held responsible but I do believe that the city is in the right position to look for indemnification on things that are really not school to do as long as they have guidelines that would be followed over time. So this is a dilemma. So it'll go to council, correct?

This will go forward to council. It just won't say approve or deny. It will just be there for them to decide. Yes, yes.

So I don't know if there's any more dialogue that we can contribute to it. But I think this has got to play out a little bit further. And I think it's a good step that I can understand the dilemma. So we have to keep it as is and go to the council for further discussion.

Yeah, so just to be clear so that all the commissioners are aware, as it sits right now with no recommendation, essentially we're just saying city council have your discussion. We're not going, Ms. Speer, correct me if I'm speaking wrong here. That's correct. We're not making a recommendation. We're recommending by not making a recommendation, they have a robust discussion that is already planned around this particular amendment. Is that correct? Does everybody, Mr. Commissioner Estrada, are you good with that? Or do you want to have a vote here or what?

I think we should have a vote. Personally, if we think it's not a good regulation, then we should say so. And I don't think it's good. I think it should be denied. And I should go forward as we saying, we don't, I think you should approve this.

Okay. That's my perspective. Okay. Noted. Really quickly, of the other 24, 23 amendments, is there any other amendment that any commissioner would wish to have action changed other than 2026-03? Are we good with all the other ones as presented? Yes. Okay. Um, the motion was to approve as presented. Miss Spear, I believe for us to to have that to vote on that one particular amendment. Can we Do we just pass the other ones and then have a discussion and a vote around that one?

Actually, Mr. Chair, I think based on your discussion, it would make sense to just have, you have the motion on the floor in front of you, as is all 24. You have two people that voice the desire to remove completely Amendment 202603. So that can be its own amendment right now that would amend the motion on the floor.

And then we'll look at that one separately. Right. Okay. the motion is to approve all of the amendments as presented here minus 2026-03 not quite it would be you leave that big one alone okay all you're going to do right now is how many are in favor of removing 2026-06 and then we'll go three then we'll vote on the rest and then okay okay so We are removing 2026-03 from the discussion to leave the remaining amendments for approval. No, not quite. Oh, my gosh.

OK, sorry. What we're doing is you have your 24 items on the floor. What you're doing is amending that before action is taken on that big one by saying, everybody take a vote. Do you want to keep 202,603 as is, or do you want to take it out? Yeah. And then once you take it out, you have an amended 23 item docket that you would then take a vote on.

Okay. All right. Let me see if I got this. Okay. All right. Motion to amend. It is in motion that we remove 2026-03 from this draft resolution as presented. All those in favor. Actually, is there any further discussion? Seeing none, hearing none, we move to a vote. All those in favor of removing 2026-03 from the proposed action, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed. None. The motion is approved. 2026-03 will be removed from recommended action at this time. Now, we will.

Now, Mr. Chair, it would be to take action on resolution 2026-06 as amended.

We'll hear a motion to approve action 2026. Excuse me, let me get to the top here. Ms. Speier, I told you I'm a little rusty tonight.

That's all right, Mr. Chair. I think if you were just to voice, because you already did read it into the record, if you just want to call it resolution 202,606. All right, perfect.

Resolution 202,6-06 as amended is up for consideration. All those in favor of approving as amended, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, signify by saying no. Motion is approved and 2026-06 as amended, we'll move forward. Do we consider 03 separately now?

No, it is off at this point. Outstanding. So what will happen, given Commissioner Merritt's question, 202603 will be incorporated into the documentations that goes to the city council that says Planning and Public Works said no recommendation at all to you, didn't provide one. Planning Commission decided to take it out of the proposed ones to adopt. They will still have all of the information and if they want to add it back in, they can.

All right. We got through that, everybody. Pat yourself on the back. All right. We turn to new business and the introduction of 2026 Annual Development Regulation Amendments. Ms. Spear.

Thank you. You guys are going to be sick of regulations by the end of tonight, I'll tell you. Okay. So we just got done with the big packet. This is kind of the mini-me, if you will, that we do every year related specifically to development regulations only. So this is not talking about zoning changes or... policy changes in the comprehensive plan. This is strictly development code changes that usually will come from either experience at the front counter for staff and or the public where bugaboos are identified, or if it's a technical misprint of something, or if there is an issue where we've found a code inconsistency that needs to be fixed for whatever reason. So that's what we'll be looking at. Those types of things tonight for the most part. And in just a second, you'll see why I said that. There are four of these this year. And the first one is probably the biggest change to code just in terms of organization. It is talking about taking away 14 separate tables in our land use code. And if any of you have spent any time in it, you've seen those charts that say residential zone, R1, this is what you're allowed to do in it, right? And there's 14 separate tables because you've got the commercial version of that. You've got the public institutional one of that. You've got the industrial one of that, that would take all of those tables and put them in truly into one. And then the only other piece that is a little bit of substantive is changing some of the things related to open space and recreation, which is somewhat related to what you just did with the comprehensive plan amendment, creating a single zone and updating its uses. The second one is a correction from a past round of amendments where an error was made. So this is truly a technical correction. The third is amending two sections of code, one in title one and one in title five, explaining to applicants how to file an appeal correctly through the city's new online permitting portal. And then the fourth one is another one that is more substantive. It's amending two places, Title 8 and Title 18A, to allow, in some cases, weekend and night construction work. So this is addressing primarily noise outside of normal work hours. So looking at the first one, replacing multiple tables, as I just explained. This is what our tables currently look like. So as I just mentioned, you've got the type of use in this case, I just grabbed the civic, and then you see all of our city codes across, and then you see all of the civic only types of uses, and then whether or not they're P for permitted, C for conditional, or that dash means it's prohibited within a particular zone. And as you see here, the organization of the whole chapter, there's a total of 14 of these separate tables. So that's the status quo. The new version would use color coding for ease of navigation to begin with, but it does combine all of those into a single table. It adds some additional hyperlinks throughout the code, and this is phase one, I should just tell you, of a multi-phase process between now and 27 and 28, where we're gonna continue to make some of these navigation improvements. But you still see the same use of permitted is P, condition is C, not allowed is that dash. And then N, A, you'll see it's a little different from prohibited. It's just, this isn't even something to talk about in this zone. So the color legend, the greens are the residentials. The yellows are the multifamily or mixed. Purple, neighborhood business and commercial zones. Pink, industrial and public institutional, and then blue for open space and recreation. So here's just a screen grab of what this would look like, and it would be significantly longer than this, as you can imagine, all 14 of those tables put into one. But the idea here is you see the use, all of the uses, and then you see each type or breakout of the types of zones that are out there, and whether or not, again, P, C, or dash for the prohibited. On the right-hand side right now, it's a link that's not live. That would happen here as soon as we could get that set up within our code online. But this would take you to the section in 18a that gives you more detail about the use standards, the setbacks, the heights of walls, the amount of landscaping you would have to do, etc. Those types of standards for a particular type of use or a class of uses. So again, looks a little different from before. It's not a lot of substantive change other than those few things related to open space and recreation, but it is an improvement for ease of use for the general public as well as for our own staff. So any questions on that one? The second one I mentioned is basically a technical correction from past amendments. It's really nothing other than doing what we thought we had done in 24, I believe, to make sure it was clear when you're recording a survey that you have the correct fields in the recording document and you have correct signature lines. The third, again, talking about just making sure customers understand how to file appeals through our online permitting system of various permit decisions. And then the fourth again is the one that's a little more substantive. So this would allow limited night and weekend construction work. It's case by case. There has to be public benefit to do so. And this is something that ultimately the department director is going to decide, long story short. The language is incorporated into your document again, and I should have mentioned this at the very start. The whole big packet for the annual development regulation starts on page... 78, excuse me, 74. And so all of this is language that's taken directly out of the packet. But there is the director authorizing temporary construction or utility related work conditions. Only the director or their designee may do that. If you've got the one or more of the following conditions, avoiding negative impacts, emergency access or public safety, work on a utility system will be more efficient and or effective. Work cannot be reasonably completed during daytime hours or during Monday or through Friday due to particular reasons. The work addresses time sensitive public infrastructure needs. For instance, if there were We've just had this recently. There's been a couple of car crashes into utility boxes in the city that have affected intersections. Trying to get that done as fast as possible would be an example. But then there is advance notice when it's not that type of an emergency situation that would be required to properties located within 300 feet. Application, you have to be clear on where and when, what type of noise reducing techniques or methods you would use, where the lighting would be pointed, and what type of idling equipment might be used, and then the contact information for when things are happening on site. Director has the ability to revoke the authorization at any time if you violate those conditions originally the basis for the approval. And then this is not, quote, vested, meaning just because you did it once doesn't mean you're going to be able to do it again. So where we sit, this is an error. This is not a public hearing tonight. This is just the introduction of these four. But on the 29th, your next special day meeting, you will have a public hearing on these four. And then you will have the second meeting excuse me, yes, September 2nd. You will not be talking about this in August. You will have action scheduled and then it moves on to council. So any questions on any of the four, knowing that this will be in front of you at your next meeting for a public hearing?

Commissioner Estrada.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess I misunderstood. I thought that we were talking about they were working at night strictly for city employees, but we're talking about all public and civilian contractors.

Assistant Director Silva is going to come and help answer that question.

Commissioner Estrada, can you repeat your question? Sure, I didn't hear it in the back. I misunderstood. I thought that this proposal was strictly for city employees working at night, but it's actually commercial.

Correct. The proposal, if we can put that up, Tiffany, please. The proposal is for public as well as private projects. Yes, ma'am. As the department, we do get requests from properties like the Project Alliance across Main Street over here or Western State Hospital, depending on that at that certain weekend work may be appropriate to maintain construction schedules as well as inspection schedules on the public side. Excuse me, let me step back. Alliance, they had to close down Main Street to connect to utilities and make improvements and connections to that project over there. If they could have done that work at night, where appropriate, noise mitigation, that would have been less disruptive to the surrounding community in terms of circulation. given all other capital projects that were going on. Western State has regularly asked to conduct work over a certain period of time on Saturday to catch up with their schedule and their funding sources at the state level. On our capital project side, We are coming more and more in a situation where we need additional flexibility, less disruptive to the community public of having doing some improvements or maintenance work or striping work at night that is less disruptive. Having that flexibility but also evaluating it's not appropriate for every circumstance. This is a case by case circumstance. and what information should be provided to the public, contact information, but also inspection and enforcement of that. If you violate those conditions, we will come in onsite. If you just, for example, on a case-by-case night work, very loud noises that's near a residential area, we would not permit that outright. That is something that is very serious for us because we will get the complaints directly on that. So it's something for a little additional flexibility to deliver critical infrastructure projects, but also flexibility on housing and as well as large institutional projects. Small residential, we don't see these requests often. It's these major, major projects. We're seeing them come up.

Did not know we had a regulation against Rogan at night. Okay. Thank you. And I have one more question. Please go ahead. Ms. Speer, on our packet, on page 105, 18A-40-101?

Yes, I'm there with you.

Okay. So under that category, has the number of people allowed in C2 or AC1 or AC2, has that changed?

Just for the benefit of the record, I'm getting to that page online as well. So you're looking right there at the top of the page, sir?

The number of people on site, any time, should not exceed one per thousand, et cetera, et cetera. All these restrictions here, that's just a carryover, isn't it? Correct.

And hopefully this is not too confusing, the fact that it's in red text.

That's quite confusing, because above it says anything in red has changed.

Yeah. And the reason it's called that and in red is because it's actually, we have taken the old language and completely rewritten the chapter. So the text content is moved into a new numbering system and a new part of the code essentially, but it's not substantively changing. Got it. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. Any other commissioner have any questions? Looks like none, Ms. Spear.

All right, so this will be, again, a public hearing at your next meeting, which is two weeks from tonight.

Ms. Spear, I do have one question before we move to the next item. Sure. It's related to planning public works. Can we request that either, that somebody from Planning and Public Works give us an overview as to how, is the right way to say this, how projects are decided with regard to timeline, closures, impacts?

Meaning like the night construction work?

It doesn't have to be tonight, but at some point in the near future. I'm getting a lot of questions from business owners and people throughout the community, and I want to be able to speak intelligently on this and give the correct feedback. So I know what I think happens, but I'd like to hear what the department says, how they move through that risk matrix and the mitigation matrix. and what that process looks like and from the gamut, notification, deciding what projects are happening when, whether that's driven by budgetary constraints or just whatever the considerations are so that as I'm being approached with these things, I can give appropriate answers or direct those folks just directly to Public Works.

What I can do, sir, if I'm understanding you right, first of all, you're talking primarily road projects that would close down. Okay. What I can do is reach out to the relevant staff within PPW and make sure you get the right person in front of you next time, whether it's director Remack or someone else, we can do that. No problem. But there may be some other information that I can refer the commission and anybody else to online that explains some of that as well. That'd be great. So I'll, I'll get you that as well.

Thank you, sir.

And then if you're ready to do so, we can move on to the next topic, if that's all right.

Absolutely. Okay.

So this next topic tonight is an overview of what you will hear in an introductory way next meeting, because it is a substantial import to the city, and it's also a complex issue. So we're going to be looking at, for the first time again since I believe 2019, the question of whether to legalize cannabis production, retail sales, etc., I'm going to turn it over now to Assistant Director Silva, and she may be bringing up some additional department staff to help as well.

Thank you, Tiffany. Mr. Chair, Planning Commissioners, thank you for the opportunity to be here this evening. Again, I'm Angie Silva, I'm the Assistant Director with Planning and Public Works. Also here with me tonight are Associate Planners, Billy Stewart, as well as Jay Hopkins in the audience there, who have been working diligently behind the scenes, researching, but also preparing for this amendment package. So again, tonight is a study session intended to be an introductory overview of the upcoming code amendments that we'll be presenting to this body as we have been requested to move this forward for public policy consideration. Specifically tonight, I'm not asking for action by this body. The goal here is to ensure the commission has the background state law, local authority, citing constraints, regional data, but also a fiscal picture before we dive in a little bit more into the code amendments themselves, starting at your July 29th meeting. Next slide, please. So kind of just tentative schedule wise tonight, again, as introduction with the goal at your July 29th meeting, we'll have an overview of the draft code amendments in preparation for an August 5th public hearing, which we hope to seek a recommendation by this body. Moving forward after planning commission, like any development regulation, we'll go to the city council for their consideration. They too will have a study session, public hearing, as well as make a decision via ordinance roughly September, early October is the timeline associated with that. So right now, current Lakewood regulations outright prohibit all cannabis business, whether it's retail, producers, processors, testing laboratories, or researchers. This prohibition works in multiple facets. So it prohibits cannabis uses in all zoning districts. It is also unlawful to own, establish, or operate any type of cannabis facility within the city itself.

Next slide, please.

This particular topic, so many of the permitting things that we bring forward, development regulations in Washington State, the origin story starts with state law, setting forth the minimum standard, how we permit projects within the city. So when I hear comments, hey, we need to streamline permitting, why is there so many permits? The origin story always starts with state law and the reasons for that. It often requires a public hearing. It requires certain noticing requirements. Certain standards have to be met at the local level to be implemented by staff. So specifically, this is a two-layer regulatory framework. So the slide captures kind of the structural points that is important to understand before anything else. Cannabis is regulated in Washington State under two independent layers, essentially. Both must be satisfied for a business to legally operate. The city cannot override those state requirements. So the state layer is the Liquor and Cannabis Board, I'm gonna call LCB for short. So this organization at the state level issues licenses, sets mandatory buffers, enforces compliance to these regulations, as well as reviews and revokes these state licenses. The city has no role in the state licensing decisions and cannot instruct LCB to issue or deny a license. That said, at the local level, the local layer is where city has the local discretion. Zoning and land use, for example, we have the ability to note where these uses should be cited. Local business licensing, we do have that here in the city of Lakewood like many other cities and towns. where we have option to reduce buffer requirements, where state law allows operational standards and how these use should operate in the neighborhood compatibility that could go above state requirements. The draft amendments we bring forward on 29th will operate entirely within this local layer and reference state law and LCB rulemaking wherever appropriate. Next slide, please. So kind of just an overview of the type of state licenses, several different types specifically. So for the commission's purposes, the key decision is what type of business, what should be allowed in Lakewood and which zones and under what conditions. So specifically producers. So the producers are intended to cultivate cannabis for wholesale distribution. They are tiered by plant canopy size. So for example, under state law it says tier one is under 4,000 square feet. Tier two up to 10,000 square feet or tier three up to 30,000 square feet. Producers operation industrial in character, they raise odor sometimes, security, power and ventilation considerations. Conversely, processors. Processors convert harvest cannabis into concentrates and infused products and package and label them for distribution to retailers. Similar to land use profiles for producers are industrial in character and sometimes get co-located with producers. Retailers, on the other hand, are public facing license. They sell directly to adults 21 and over. Retailers must also hold a medical endorsement to serve qualifying patients. Retailers have the most direct neighborhood compatibility, buffer and density considerations, and the use the most resembles a commercial retail storefront. Another type of license is transporters. Like the name, they move cannabis between licensed businesses. They require common carrier permit on top of an LCB license, and their land use impact is minimal, primarily a routing consideration on our roads, not a siting issue. And then last, we have researcher as well as testing laboratories. So these are lower impact, very specialized uses. Labs must be financially independent of producers and processors, have Washington State Department of Agriculture accredited LCB license, but neither of them all kind of that public retail component of it. Next slide, please. Another layer at state law we have to take into consideration at a local level is mandatory buffers. So state law sets a default 1000 buffer between any cannabis business and a list of protected uses on your screen there. This is measured at the shortest straight line distance between the nearest property lines, not walking distance or road distance. Two protected uses carry an absolute non-reducible 1,000 foot buffer, which is secondary and elementary schools, as well as public playgrounds. All other uses you see on that screen, public park, public library, public transit center, can be reduced as low as 100 feet. Next slide, please. And here's just a visual of what that may look like in several different buffer requirements. So you can see on the screen there, we have the thousand foot buffer. You see where we have highlighted a thousand foot buffer between park and playgrounds as well as schools. And then we further reduce that where it's applicable to a 500 foot buffer, for example, or even as minimum to a hundred foot buffer. Next slide, please. So as we kind of embark in this much broader policy context as staff, we're talking. What's that regional context? What's that market context as we look into these code amendments? So since 2014, LCB has issued about 102 retail cannabis licenses in Pierce County. As of April of this year, about 33 are active, 64 are closed, and five are pending or suspended. That closure rate, about nearly two-thirds of all licenses issued, reflect the market consolidation but also price compression that has characterized this industry statewide over the past several years. That context matters for any revenue projections, but also recognizing the market is competitive. So among neighboring jurisdictions, we did include a summary table of what other places are doing within the Pierce County context. So for example, Tacoma allows retail in their commercial and mixed use zones and has 16 active stores. Whereas Paul, not Poulsbo, Huyallup as well as Bonnie Lake maintain total bans. University Place, while they allow it in some of their mixed use zones, they also have a note, there's a complete prohibition until it's allowed at the federal level. So effectively, this is looking at kind of a multitude of how different communities have addressed this same policy discussion and how they approach it a little bit differently, but also the similarities. Another comparison is kind of Pierce County unincorporated areas allow a number of cannabis businesses. I think they have a little over about close to 11 retail stores within the unincorporated area. Next slide, please. We also look at enforcement. So LCB, because the state law has been around, there's a lot of data available for the public to consider as part of this broader discussion. So as we look at Pierce County, we looked at via enforcement data through early 2026, which shows about 5,246 compliance visits and 183 violations countywide since 2014. That's roughly about a 3.5% violation rate. The violation rate in incorporated cities that do allow this is about 3.5%, which is essentially similar to what you find in unincorporated Pierce County. So separate combined city county versus city alone county alone. In addition to that, the most common violation categories include a traceable and inventory tracking failure, advertising violations, prohibited credit card sales, but also some minor related violations. These are primarily regulated by LCB and not violent or property crime. In addition to that, we also looked at what are the crime statistics, what information is available statewide and where communities have allowed this since it was allowed by the voters of the state. So there's a couple public safety research documents we were able to find, two specific Washington studies, one in 2023, as well as one in 2022. And that was funded by the legislature and did not find any significant crime statistics or trends as part of the legalization of that or any major emergency service demand. We also spoke to our police department as well in coordination and considering this policy discussion. So the city has no local crime data for regulated legal cannabis operations as it's currently not allowed. They did recognize the police has investigated unlicensed legal grow operations, including a couple cases in the last year. But again, I want to emphasize that is not comparable because those are unlicensed illegal grows within the city itself, not operating under any regulatory oversight. Next slide, please. Another element of this is, okay, we allow it. What revenue comes in the city to benefit public programs? I will say this is an art, not a science, because we're doing a lot of ballpark assumptions of how many businesses, if it's allowed, would locate. And there's a lot of market considerations as part of this. While the proposal may include, allow this type of use in a zone, does not mean that use will actually locate in that section of the city. So it's just paving the way for the opportunity, but the private market will also play a significant role in whether it comes here. So taking about roughly about three to four retail businesses and factoring the number of different revenue streams that would come into play, the state per capita share. So unlocking that would bring in some additional revenue, the state retail share, based on the overall excise tax collection at statewide, local tax share, so our own local sales tax share, in addition to specialty business licenses. So remember we have LCB that has the state license, We have our own general business licenses here, and this would also be a consideration of potential revenue. It's about three to five retail licenses, roughly up to about $200,000. Again, that's an art that is not exact as we try to forecast what this may include for revenue for programs. Next slide, please. With that, I'm going to open up. That was a lot of gobbledygook for me and happy to answer any questions you have at this time.

Commissioners, any questions?

I had a question. One of the concerns that I have is that some of the longitudinal studies on cannabis use, particularly in children on large trials, have shown a two to four increase in the incidence of schizophrenia in adolescents and people that were less than underage, if you will. And so I'm concerned about that. And we have not made it, now we do have Western State Hospital here, which is quite convenient, but there is that statistically significant incidence of schizophrenia in youth exposed to cannabis. Do you have any comments or any information about what we're gonna do to measure that? That was not addressed in your presentation.

Again, Steph is not a medical professional. So we're here looking at it from a land use and zoning consideration. And I will say of all the loud uses we allow in the use table and businesses cited here, there was a lot of pros and cons from a medical perspective. If you recall some of the folks on this commission last year, we talked about breweries and distilleries, and there's a lot of information about the effects of drinking and what that may be on the youth, but also as an adult, as one ages, I cannot speak on the medical aspect of that. What staff and the department are here and been tasked to do is whether these proposed code amendments on whether these businesses should be allowed within the city and under what parameters. That is the policy discussion here, but I welcome additional feedback and information on that.

I guess that would be my only comment would be that it would be helpful to restrict its use in adolescents and those at more susceptible risk for long-term consequences such as schizophrenia or other types of psychotic disorders associated with marijuana use. It seems, you know, it's a genetic predisposition, but you don't know who those people are. So, but it does not seem to occur so much in people who are of age, if you will.

Just to go back to what Mr. Ms. Silva said is that this would only be sales to 21 year old and up.

Just want to make sure we're very clear of that. But even in that age group, you may find an increased incidence of two to four fold.

Just to stay on track commissioners, we're talking about land use tonight. There's gonna be a very robust discussion obviously, but that's kind of the road we're driving down here. Commissioner Estrada.

Again, wait a minute. Ms. Silva, would you please comment on the recent federal developments?

Absolutely, sir. Part of the memo packet, I'm gonna skim very quickly where that is actually. It's on page 194. We do recognize December of last year, the current presidential administration issued an executive order directing federal review of cannabis reclassification as part of the Drug Enforcement Agency. So essentially that executive order directed the DEA to declassify cannabis at a federal level and what that means. What I have right now, I don't have a lot of information on exactly what DEA is going to propose and what those regulatory refinements may be, but there's clear direction at the federal level, at least the administrative level, to reevaluate outright federal prohibition.

Any other questions? Go ahead, Commissioner Estrada.

Thank you again. Your packet also shows that the federal share is 37% excise tax.

Yes, sir. They do take a lion's share of the revenues.

And still it's profitable, obviously, because it's still around. Our retail share would only be a min of 1% or something.

The local retail share is roughly limited. So if you go to, let me skim to the, I'm looking at the memo that's in your packet specifically. 202. 202, thank you, sir. You're looking at the retail share of 1.5% and distributed to the cities and then the per capita share at 3.5% distribution. So the cities would get 40% of that. The counties take a larger share based on population.

I'm sure more to follow, but only making 150 to $200,000 a year doesn't seem like a heck of a lot for the city.

As part of this Paula discussion, I encourage people to think about this when it comes to uses and where it's appropriate to site and where it's not appropriate to site. Like we talk about any other use in the code. Most uses do not have a specific retail tax associated with that. There's a retail sales tax. They might have a business license, but there's not in addition to that. So if we permit a fast food place, which has health impacts to the youth as well as adults, there's no dispute about that. There's a lot of good studies out there. That is an allowed use in many of our zones. And the revenue that is generated, not just the property tax piece of it, but also the sales tax and any sales on the fast food, that Happy Meal, whatever it may be. A portion of that goes to the state, the county, but also it's shared to the city as well. This one has a specific line item that's in addition to all that. So keeping that in mind and how this is regulated a little bit differently than we talk about something else and whether it should or should not be within the city.

Can I ask a clarifying question, Mr. Chair? Please. Mr. Estrada, when you were talking about the 40% that's referred to here on page 202, correct me if I'm wrong, is the $150,000 to $200,000 net, meaning even with this 40% calculation, you're still talking about an estimation?

That is correct. Again, and I'm making assumptions. I'm making assumptions. We get three retail stores. I don't know what that may look like. So it's just trying to provide some context of what that revenue should be. But again, as we look at partners in the municipalities that have allowed this, this is not a significant revenue windfall for them.

Just to further clarify there, Assistant Director Silva, that is in addition to any property taxes that would be associated with these businesses, correct? That is correct. So just to be clear, we're not only talking about an increase of projected $200,000 increase to the city coffers. there are other layers of potential income to the city via property taxes or other mechanisms that exist for every other kind of commercial business that's taking place. That's specifically addressing retail sales income, is that?

That is correct, sir. And again, just for property tax context, so if you have a vacant land, you have the land value, right? You come and improve it, you're now going to get not only land valuation increase, you're going to see building valuation increase. You'll see that piece of that conversation along with kind of the multifamily tax exemption and where you see increases in revenue at a local level.

And so to further expand on that, let's just say for conversation's sake that we have a current empty lot inside the city limit that was approved for this use. We're going way down the road here. And that business was implemented on that site and is now generating revenue. Those taxes would increase from what they currently are as an empty lot with an active business that's generating revenue and it would go up potentially exponentially.

That is correct. And one thing we didn't have the information to include in the packet and the slide deck is we had a really great conversation with Mr. Bryce as a business owner, understanding that economic impact to a community, what those wages would look like compared to the minimum wage at the state level, as well as as we look to where what zones would be appropriate for these types of uses. For example, our industrial zones, what are their vacancy rates? So that unfortunately we didn't get that information into this packet, but I will make a promise to share that with you at your July 29th meeting.

When that's presented, could you also, I guess for lack of better terminology, show us a compare and contrast with the nicotine and the vape industry, what that vertical looks like and how it may be similar or different from this vertical? Are you looking from a regulatory standpoint or kind of a fiscal? I think from a use standpoint, right? Specifically. Obviously, the regulatory differences are going to be robust, but... That would be nice, and I have a couple questions.

And just to clarify, for in our use table, we don't line item a vape store as its own unique use and has certain operational characteristics. We classify that as general retail in the city.

Okay, so there are no separations for nicotine vape or liquor stores?

I believe we do have separation in our code about bars, distilleries, et cetera. Very familiar with that. But when it comes to specific vape stores, if someone wanted to permit that, that would be a straight permitted use as a general retail store. They are regulated state federally on the health, you know, all those kinds of things, signage, no selling to underage folks, but that it would be not a local regulatory item. That would be state federal.

Yeah, being that these businesses are regulated under the LCBF, I think it would be nice just to see those side by side. Yep. Also, I don't recall the slide, but we were talking about violation rates compared to inspections. Here we go right there. I'm sure you don't have this off the top of your head, but can you get the commercial standards for other retail operations excluding these types. So what does a normal administrative failure rate look like during inspections from other government agencies on retail operations? Is 3.5 pretty normal? Is that extremely high? Is that extremely low? I think that would be beneficial.

I think with the limit, so not everything that is a retail operation is regulated by LCB. So if okay with you, Mr. Chair, for example, the LCB also regulates liquor and liquor stores. They have data available on their website. If it's okay, if I can bring a comparison of that.

I think that would be helpful.

Okay.

And then, yeah, I think that we kind of covered my additional questions there. Does any other commissioner have another question? Commissioner Estrada. I want to thank you, Mr.

Chair, for that clarification. The indirect benefits that can be seen there. I mean, we see that you say 150, 200,000, not a heck of a lot of money. But then, as you pointed out, there are some other indirect benefits that the city gains from this. Thank you for that. Thank you.

I would, I guess one more request, Assistant Director Silva. You're not going to call me Angie too. There are many municipalities throughout the state of Washington that have implemented environments that have allowed these type of businesses to operate. It would be helpful to see what are some success stories out there throughout the state? What are some failure stories? What are the best practices for where this is happening well? And, you know, is there I think the other piece would be, as we look ahead for the city, the conversation that's gonna take place, I know for me, I would like to just be able to say, what are the benefits of this? What are the benefits to the people of this community? Both direct financial benefits, if they exist, And are there other potential benefits that we may not be aware of at the moment? In any decision-making process, there are the things that we know we know, the things we know we don't know, the things we don't know we don't know, right? And the things that we don't know that we do know. There's a lot out there and this is a big topic and it deserves a very robust discussion. And I think we owe it to our council to have as much of that here ahead of their discussion that we can, and we owe it to those potential business operators that would seek to start these businesses inside the city to have that discussion. But we also owe it to our community members to leave no stone unturned as we inspect this issue. And I think that's what this body is doing through this discussion now. So if anybody, any other commissioners have no further questions?

I have a comment.

Commissioner Merritt.

The only thing I see in the presentation that it seems a little bit arbitrary, is changing from 1,000 down to 100 feet.

Part of the 29th presentation, obviously we'll have a whole bunch of things to circle back with you based on our discussion tonight. As we overview the draft code amendments, I'm going to outline some policy discussion items. One is the 1,000 foot buffer. Another one is what zones. But another thing is a cap.

Certainly, I'm not an expert on this, except I think 100 feet is like one lot between two users. It could be next to a school or a nursery or a daycare. That seems pretty tight. And I think if you're going to start something like this, 1,000 feet, that's like two blocks. Okay, that's at least a start. I think what Commissioner Wallace says though is true that we're at to be kind of in the infancy of what the results, what the outcomes could be over time to health and what use really does. I don't know, we don't know that yet. There's a lot of speculation, but again, the arbitrary distance, I think a thousand feet apart, Sounds reasonable to start with. That's why I would like to see us consider that. And then just make note that, you know, the experts over time, because we've had other use of things. I don't know if you can say it, tobacco and alcohol, it's not comparable maybe, but we don't know what the future holds. And I hate to say that our society is going to be guinea pigs to this, but that's how it's got to maybe work and see what the results are. But the distance, that's something that's quantifiable.

I have a question.

Is there a way to get access to the violation rates for other counties than Pierce within our state?

Yes, absolutely. LCB, I would say, has a pretty robust database that's available to anyone, and we'll bring those numbers. So if I heard that correctly, violation rates specific to other cities within Pierce County, correct?

No, other counties than Pierce, so that we can compare more than just our county. Absolutely, we can bring that forward.

Thank you commissioner Crook. Last call. Very apropos. Well, commissioner Flores comment.

And my comment on this specific topic is the city of Lakewood is doing just fine without these products on in the limits of the city. I think truly it should stay that way.

Yep, absolutely. The way ahead is having a robust discussion, right? And anything that we do, we consider all the points. We make educated decisions and we pass on recommendations to the city council to make policy decision regarding the way ahead for the city of Lakewood. Ms. Spear, I believe that wraps up our discussion on this particular topic.

It does, Mr. Chair. You do not have Councilwoman Talbot here this evening, so no reports from Council. Just a note one more time, you do have another meeting this month. It's on July 29th, which is the fifth Wednesday. And then the following week, you do also have a meeting on August 5th. The following August meeting, 19th, this point is canceled. But as you were just saying, if you want to add additional time for this discussion regarding cannabis, you do have that open. And then if we need to go into September, that's entirely up to you to do so.

Outstanding. Ms. Spear, I believe we are to the end. Yes, sir. Yes. I see nothing else. The time is 739. I will declare this meeting of the Lakewood Planning Commission over.