General Legislative Session - public_hearing

Good morning, everyone. Snohomish County Council is called to order for our public hearing. Today is Wednesday, July 8th, 2026 at 1030 a.m. We're meeting in the Jackson boardroom and also remotely. I will read our script for providing public testimony and then our clerks will take roll. We'll take public public testimony will be opened on each agenda item. We'll take public testimony beginning in person and then remotely on Zoom. Click on the hand icon to raise your hand. And if you're calling in by phone, press star nine to raise your hand and star six to unmute Each speaker will have three minutes to speak, and please start your testimony with your name and city of residence. And I believe we have a sign-up sheet as well. But if you didn't sign up, we'll open up a comment. So next is roll call. Chair Dunn.

Here. Vice Chair Lowe.

Present.

Council Member Neering.

Here.

Council Member Mead.

Here.

Council Member Peterson.

Here.

Chair, we have five members present.

Thank you.

We have one action item today. It's motion 26-155. Council considers motion 26-155, approving the final list of amendments to the Snohomish County Comprehensive Plan and GMA development regulations for Docket 22.

Good morning, Chair Dunn and Council Members. For the record, Deb Bell, Council Staff. On May 19th, Council was briefed on Docket 22. the planning community services committee the proposed motion 26-155 is the first step in the citizen initiated docket process pds staff shannon bird long range planner gave a full briefing on this year's docket there is one item on this year's citizen initiated docket and that is for consideration setbacks for cannabis locations the requested action today is for council to take public comments prior to deciding if the docket item should proceed for processing Council has received written public comment on the docket, which has been forwarded and included. This is an administrative vote, and voting on the enacting policy comes later in the process in 2027. Council has until the end of this year for the public hearing on the administrative vote, and the timeline is included in my staff report. Please be aware that Council will be in recess July 27th through August 10th, and we will also take a break for the budget process on September 4th through December 1st. This concludes my staff report. I'm available for any questions along with the executive staff.

Thank you. Questions or comments from council members?

Yeah, thank you, Chair Dunn. Appreciate the staff report. So just a comment, I think, at the outset here. So we have two separate proposals, if you will. We have this docket proposal, and then we have another one that I believe is that planning commission, and that's executive initiated, which is an ordinance, right, from the exec's office? That's correct. So my hope would be that we can get these, and I've mentioned this in previous meetings on this, that we can get these on the same track or timeline so we're not taking two separate votes on what is essentially the same item. so i'm going to move you know once we get to it today that we send this item back to committee so we can get those two lined up and just have a single public hearing where we're considering both items and having having a final outcome that way we're not having multiple different votes on again what is essentially the same proposal so anyway that's my hope today just wanted to say that at the outset thanks other questions or comments so if they were to send this back to committee um

The hope would be that it would then be lined up with the process from the planning department. And then if something passes, if that ordinance passes, this would not be needed. Can you clarify that?

That's correct. But you would still need to vote on whether or not this needs to be processed. And it's an administrative process that you need to take action on.

Yes. Okay. So by the end of the year, we would have to take action on this item. It can't just lapse in committee. correct okay either a thumbs up or a thumbs down to process it okay and there's a administrative burden to the department for processing this or it's minimal uh i would have to have the planning department speak to that did you want to speak sure come on up

Thank You chair counsel Darren growth the interim planning director there there if it were sent back there isn't a lot of impact to staff regarding that process it's just a matter of getting it to this point if the docket were approved that's when staff would perform analysis and dive into more detail so at this point our work has pretty much been done and handed off to Deb thank you any other questions

Okay. We will now open up public testimony on this item. So we have a sign-up sheet, and we'll start with that first.

Kim Cattulli, followed by Chris LaBerge.

Okay. My name is Kim Cattulli. I'm a resident of Clearview, and I'm here to ask you to vote no on motion 26-155. Our Clearview community has worked for years to establish the zoning rules that govern marijuana retailers in the Clearview Rural Commercial Zone. Those rules were not created by accident. They were the result of countless meetings, public testimony, participation by hundreds of residents who want to preserve the character of our rural community. The historical record is clear time and time again. Clearview residents have opposed increasing the number of marijuana dispensaries in the CRC. Our elected officials listened, and a balance was struck, allowing a single grandfathered-in cannabis retailer. This motion would undo years of community engagement to benefit one individual applicant. What concerns me most is not simply the proposed zoning change, but the precedent that it sets. If someone is unhappy with the existing rules, should the county rewrite those rules for that person's benefit? Zoning should serve the public interest, not the private interest of a single business owner. Many of us also remember when representatives from Hangar 420, who are not local residents, attended a meeting of the Clearview Community Association. Instead of engaging respectfully with residents, they became confrontational, screaming and yelling and demanding control of the meeting. That experience did not build trust or demonstrate a commitment to becoming part of our community. After their permit was denied, they chose not to appeal through the established legal process. They opened illegally anyway, forcing Snohomish County to spend public resources obtaining a temporary injunction to enforce its own laws. This is not the kind of conduct that should be rewarded by changing county policy. No one from the Clearview community is asking for this amendment. This proposal does not solve a community problem. It does not address an unmet need. It simply changes longstanding zoning standards to accommodate one applicant who has already demonstrated a willingness to ignore those standards and potentially become a hostile and divisive thorn in the Clearview community. Please remember that the voices of the people who live in Clearview have been consistent for years. We ask that you respect the work that our community has done and uphold the zoning regulations that we carefully establish and vote no on motion 26-155. Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you for your comment next speaker Chris LaBerge followed by Peter grovsner good morning members of the Snohomish Council um I can entirely agree with camo's just shared and prepared for this meeting I am a resident of the clear VRM on 91st Avenue which is a country block east of Highway 9. I had listened to some testimony from an earlier meeting you had, and I just wanted to add a few things. There was a comment made about the availability of the kind of medications that people are seeking. There are medicinal approved by the FDA derivatives of marijuana that are available. There's Epidolex, Marinol, Casamet, and There are four of them here, Epidex, Miradol, Sandoz, and Casamet. These are available from a medical provider that can provide the kinds of things that people are seeking at this shop through these TBD or those kind of derivatives. Then to mention about what's going on here, as Kim mentioned, there's a special interest leveraging themselves into our community. And the standard that we established earlier is what we want for the kind of wholesome and area that we have. We have people with rural hobby farms. We have people who are retired. We have people who have various kinds of domestic animals. We have an active neighborhood association, which has been to coordinate ourselves and get consensus on the things and the kind of neighborhood we would like to have. There are restrictions to maintain the native integrity of our neighborhoods, such as the availability of paths, There's a park at the bottom of the hill. There is the trees and other kinds of things that kind of develop the kind of neighborhood that we want to have for ourselves. We raised there four children. The atmosphere is at Cathcart Elementary and Valley View Middle School and, of course, Glacier Peak High School. The one thing I'm concerned about is traffic by the location of this asset. and what kind of reflection it gives on the neighborhood, and what kind of influence it's exerting on both people who travel through our neighborhood and the school buses who go by that area to deliver and pick up students to attend school. So in closing, I find that this Executive Council Sohomish move to add a different kind of interpretation on what the separation is, I find that very troubling. would ask that at large of the council recognize us and the democratic process that we brought our concerns forward that you'll listen to us and incorporate those in your decision on the kind of neighborhood we would like to have thank you for your time thank you for your comment next speaker peter grobsner followed by sharon kittel

Good morning. My name is Peter Grosvenor. I'm a resident of the Clearview area. Thank you for this opportunity to speak. I urge the council to vote no on the motion before today. The point of my comments is not to debate the morality of cannabis. This is a legitimate business in the state of Washington and should be recognized as such. The concern is about changing rules to benefit one business or one type of business. over the needs and priorities of the residents of Clearview. We currently have several dispensaries close by. In fact, we can get to a second dispensary faster than we can get to a second grocery store or a second pharmacy. Meanwhile, this is an area where commercial development is restricted for good reason, and we would like to attract more diverse businesses to the area. Historically, there had been a problem prior to the current separation distances where dispensaries clustered in clearview this generated a number of problems that concern the residents this was before i lived in the area and that those concerns turned into community action that resulted in the separation distances that we have today so i would urge the council to respect the opinions the residents of Clearview and maintain the current separation distance finally I understand that as was spoken previously there is a parallel effort initiated by the executive to change separation distances at various places throughout the county including reducing separation distance in clearview to 2500 feet versus its current 10 000 feet that would allow multiple dispensaries to operate in clearview thereby generating the clustering that was a concern to so many residents in the past so regardless of whether the original motion or the motion that's coming through the planning condition is considered i would urge you to vote no thank you very much thank you for your comments

Sharon Kittle, followed by Laura Heitman.

Good morning. My name is Sharon Kittle. I've lived in the Clearview area for over 30 years. I know it probably doesn't sound like it, but I really have. I wanted to reiterate what people before me have just said. It's a rural area. It has a special designation. The rules are different, but that's why we live there. And that's what we take advantage of and enjoy. I have heard no compelling reason to change those distance rules. I urge you also to vote no on this. I believe it does set a slippery slope of a precedent for further debate. And if this is going to happen by the end of the year, hopefully it will be time to reconsider and vote no.

Thank you for your comment. Lauren Heitman, followed by Tom Stork. Hi there. Thank you so much for having us today.

I really appreciate the opportunity to share our opinions. I couldn't agree more with what my neighbors have said for all the different reasons that we have to vote no on this motion. As a resident and property owner in Clearview for almost a decade, I really appreciate the rural appeal and the community's sense of civic-mindedness that we all have in our annual community meetings that I know many of you have attended. To allow an outside business to come in and change the rules that we've set is, as my neighbor said, a very dangerous precedent. And it's something that the community, I feel, is one of the community members does not support. And I think that it is wrong for our community and wrong for this county as a whole. So I would encourage you to vote no on this motion.

Thank you for your comment. Tom Stork, followed by Lori McConnell.

Yeah, I've had heritage in Clearview since 1970. I grew up there. I've seen a lot of changes. During the code review, I remember the question being asked, well, how many pot shops were there when it became legal? Some of us remember it was four, if you count the euphorium off of Moppy Road. And in fact, I can even tell you where they all were. There was two side by side, one at the corner of 164th, which was the Berry Bowl, one next door to that in the shopping center next to that, one at 180th at the corner, and the real estate that's in question right now, and the euphorium off of Maltby Road. I think one's good. We still have two, so I'm not against them. I just think we need to kind of tone it down a little bit for a community that only has a pretty small population. I think we're kind of overkilling one particular industry, so. Anyways, I would say vote no and just kind of slow it down a little bit.

Thanks.

Thank you for your comment. Laurie McConnell, followed by Joshua Shade.

My name is Lori McConnell, and I have been a resident of Clearview for 37 years. Thank you for allowing us all to speak here today. Being a child of the 60s, I have a friend who grew a hillside of marijuana plants in California before it was legal, friends who smoke for relaxation, and family members whose lives have been dramatically, painfully impacted by marijuana use. I could tell you hair-raising stories about hospice drugs mixed with marijuana and a scary, sad story about using marijuana for the insomnia that comes with a manic episode of bipolar disorder. I don't want another cannabis shop in the area where I live. I started volunteering with the Clearview Community Association in 2014 just after the numerous pot shops along Highway 9 were reduced to one. I've always been aware of the cushery because its location at 180th and Highway 9 was quite close to my house. Why did I get involved in the Neighborhood Association? Because it looked to me like big changes might be coming to Clearview, and I wanted to be, and I wanted to help my neighbors be in the discussion on those changes. I have a simple belief. People need to know about changes happening in their community and be given a fair opportunity to have their say about those changes. As secretary to the association for several years, I typed miles of words about zoning, safety, speeding on Broadway, WisDOT, and Highway 9. Occasionally, fire and rescue were part of the mix. I stepped down from that role two years ago. But we haven't been able to talk about any of that since the spring of 2025, when Mr. Gahan and his crew first came to our meeting and tried to convince the community to support him opening his shop. He had been warned by the county that the work he was doing on it was unpermitted and violated code. Community members said no to his shop, and the meeting became contentious. At the end of it, one of his crew came up to me and sneeringly told me, some things are more important than what the members want, and went like this with his fingers about cash. Mr. Gahan talked his way into being given the stage at two more neighborhood association meetings. A lot of conversation was about what a nice, responsible guy he is. His crew members ranted about getting rid of government regulations and free trade. At every meeting, arguments broke out between people that supported Hangar 4420 and those who wanted to move on from the subject. We never got to the other topics. For the second meeting, Mr. Gahan even posted an invitation on Facebook for a meeting on his own agenda, with his own agenda, at the same time and place as the association had reserved and planned, usurping our meeting. His crew was the majority of the attendees and the rest of the community was exhausted. I can't speak for all of Clearview. Jared and Sam should have a better feel for that than I do. But personally, I urge you all to vote no on moving this issue to the docket and wasting any more dollars on allowing more cannabis dispensaries in Clearview.

Thank you for your comment. Joshua Shade, followed by Debbie Wetzel.

Hi, I'm Joshua Shade. I own the other marijuana dispensary in Clearview. I do not live in Clearview, so I'm not going to take up a bunch of your guys' time. This is about Clearview and not about me and the people that don't live in Clearview. I do think that marijuana is just a regular business and be treated like a regular business. And if that's the case, then why isn't the council talking about opening up all of Snohomish County and readdressing marijuana in general and not just one area? Rural areas are different. Nate, I believe that business, freeway business is in your area, and I believe that that still has a ban, just like Clearview did. So these rural areas are different. And if the people want that, then that's what they want. That's up to the people in the community. I followed the rules. He didn't. Are you guys going to reward somebody for not following the rules? And if that's the case, Why are you guys making rules? And is this going to reward somebody for just not following the rules? And if that's the case, why should anybody follow the rules? That's all I have to say. I don't live in Clearview, and the people that live in Clearview should have the voice. Thank you for your time.

Thank you for your comment. Next speaker. Debbie Wetzel, followed by Nadine Shanty.

Good morning, Debbie Wetzel, Clearview resident. I hope the council had an opportunity to read the public comments, not only for this motion, but for the executive's proposal, as well as the comments submitted during the permitting process and hearing examiner hearing. The residents of Clearview are suffering from participation fatigue. A year ago, we engaged deeply in the original permitting process for Mr. Ghosn's proposed location at the hearing examiner level. That permit was denied and never appealed. Furthermore, because Mr. Gone opened illegally anyway, the county was forced to issue a temporary injunction against the operation. We reasonably assumed the efforts were permanently halted. Now we find ourselves forced back to the table because Mr. Gone has initiated a code change to bypass that denial. Let's be clear, this is not a citizen-initiated motion. This is a request driven exclusively by a single business owner who does not even reside in Clearview. the Clearview community spent years working to establish our current zoning code. Alternate just a few years later solely for one individual's financial gain is highly concerning, especially when the majority of the community stands in united opposition. There are plenty of appropriate locations inside the UJ for cannabis retailers. It remains entirely unclear why this operator is so determined to rewrite the CRC zoning just for his own benefit. Mr. Ghosn submitted a petition that appears to be signed by his supporters. not residents of the Clearview community. So please do not believe his unverified petition represents the position of the community. The CRC zone is outside the UJ and must not be confused with it. Established 25 years ago, long before cannabis distance codes existed, the CRC was specifically designed to provide our local community with neighborhood-oriented retail and personal services. Allowing additional cannabis retailers does not serve the neighborhood, particularly since Clearview already has an existing cannabis retailer. While there is a high volume of commuter traffic passing through our corridor, commuter volumes does not justify rewriting community code. Furthermore, because Clearview is an unincorporated area, not a city, our community does not directly benefit from any local tax proceeds generated by these sales. The cities of Mill Creek, Lake Stevens, Monroe, Marysville, and Snohomish prohibit cannabis retailers. Many in the community feel we are being exploited from Mr. Gahn's own personal financial gain just because we are not a city and only have the CRC zoning to protect our community. We did the work, we followed the process, and the system worked when the permit was denied. Forcing residents to repeatedly defend their community zoning against a non-resident application undermines public trust and makes us feel like we are being bullied. Approving this motion sends a message to the community that the county doesn't care about local residents. If you are going to change the CRC zoning for cannabis retailers, then the zoning must be changed for all rural business areas so there is consistency and fairness. Please deny this motion. Thank you.

Thank you for your comment. Nadine Shanti, followed by Deborah Blodgett.

Good morning, everyone. I am Nadine Shanti. I am a Clearview resident. I'm a homeowner. I've been living in this community for over 40 years, built my home there, and I love it. I'm here today because the Clearview community has rejected this cannabis store multiple times in multiple meetings and discussions, and I know because I was there, and what everybody is describing to you is absolutely true. The owner was aware of the issues from the very beginning of this venture, but he decided to go ahead anyway. That was a bad business decision because everybody was telling him, we don't want you, and he knew it. This motion is not a citizen led initiative. The request is driven by an owner who knew the location rules of the CRC before this project even started. And Clearview is outside of the UGA. That's really significant to me. I don't understand why this big stress is going on to change the rules in our community when it doesn't have anything to do with the UGA for the county. We already have two cannabis stores on Highway 9 and another on 128, not far off of Highway 9. That's three. That's enough. Now, what I'm going to add that's a little bit different from what anybody else has said is that I'm 72 years old and I have glaucoma in two eyes. And I have to use the Tanoprost in my eyes at nights. And I read many, many years ago that there was a lot of benefits to using marijuana to reduce the pressure in your eyes. But I was concerned about having to go in illegally, get something on a street corner somewhere where I wasn't sure what I was getting and whether it was going to negatively affect me. I have been purchasing marijuana from the existing store. And I really appreciate having a place that is safe, that is secure, and where I can trust what it is I'm getting. I have never been turned away from that store because it's too crowded or there's so much business that I can't get what I need. And that's concerning for me because That sounds to me like there's not a lot of people who need to have another store in this area, and I really don't want to have the store that I'm used to going to compromised by this. I need them. My needs are met effectively by the existing store. So I'm going to say this again, and I hope you can hear it. Clearview residents do not want another cannabis store in Clearview. We have said this repeatedly from beginning to end. And we're being forced to do this again. I can't believe we're here again discussing this. So I strongly urge the council to listen to Clearview residents and deny this motion and preserve the CRC zoning as it stands specifically to respect the community's wishes on this issue. Thank you.

Thank you for your comment. Last on the sign-up sheet is Deborah Blodgett.

Hi, my name is Deborah Blodgett. I live in Clearview. I've been there since 1973. And I want to stay there. I don't want to have to move. I'm expressing my opposition to Hangar 420's request to change code and or obtain a variance to allow them to open their pot store in Clearview. This proposal, which would reduce the 10,000-foot separation to 5,000 only in the CRC and allows for two retail cannabis stores This is in direct opposition to what the homeowners and the community members of Clearview have fought for in the past and current meetings. Not only are the proposed changes only in the CRC to accommodate the owner of Hangar 420, but they will also be putting a specific number of stores into the code, which is directly against what the community advocated for in the past and had to go through the entire process. I have also heard the county executive wants to reduce it down to 2,500 feet. In our past history of having been called the Green Mile, if this proposal is then lowered further, our area will become again a place for more than just the two pot stores. The statistics showed that crime increased, home invasions increased, Theft of personal property increased. And we even had one owner of a pot store at 164th and Highway 9 broken into, shot, and killed in his shop. If this passes, it says to everyone everywhere that if you violate the code and have enough influence, then special considerations will be afforded by you. It is absurd and in direct conflict with the reason the previous amendment was made to apply to the entire county. Oppose this proposal, please.

Thank you for your comment. Another speaker? No other speakers on the sign-up sheet. Did anyone else wish to speak in person that didn't sign up or speak yet?

I do.

Okay.

Excuse me here. All three responses here. Well, I had something. Good afternoon or good morning, Council. My name is Patrick Gantz. I am a Snohomish County resident. Excuse me. I'm a Snohomish County citizen. I've lived in Clearview for more than 40 years now. I'm a University of Washington graduate, a commercial property owner, a local business owner, an employer, a husband, and a father of four children. I stand before you today as both a business owner and a member of this community. Today we've heard from many opinions and some factual claims, some non-factual claims. Everyone has a right to speak. But when those claims conflict your responsibility to decide this land use issue based on evidence, the official record, and work completed through this process. This amendment is not about whether someone supports or opposes cannabis. The decision was made years ago by the voters and the legislature. The question before you today is whether the current zoning standard remains reasonable and justified. County staff spent months reviewing the issue, gathering public input, analyzing the code, and recommending this amendment. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all sides and forwarded its recommendation. Staff also found this proposal consistent with peer jurisdictions. Today's vote is a culmination of that process. I also want to be crystal clear about how this 10,000-foot buffer came to exist. It was not a long-standing county standard, and it was not the result of broad requests from the residents or businesses of Clearview. The public record documents and the proposal to increase the separation distance from 2,500 to 10,000 feet was actively advocated during the code amendment process by a special interest represented by a lobbyist. Today, you have the opportunity to determine whether that fourfold increase remains justified based on the evidence before you. Over the past year, I've walked Clearview, gone door-to-door, and spoken directly with business owners. I've collected more than 75 signatures representing approximately 90% of the businesses I've contacted in Clearview. Every business owner who signed agreed to be contacted by the council and hundreds of county residents and registered voters have also signed my petition supporting this amendment. These are not false petitions. They're verified. There's phone numbers, emails, and the residents are real. I've been close for well over a year because I followed the rules the county required me to do. In many ways, that's why we're here today. I followed the rules, respected the process, and the very rule that created the situation is the one you're being asked to reconsider. The property operated at Highway 9 for 10 years as cannabis. This amendment would not create numerous new cannabis stores, even with the 2,500 separation buffer. Zoning and spacing constraints would allow for only one additional cannabis location. I respectfully ask you to base your decision on the entire record, your professional staff's recommendation, and the Planning Commission's recommendation, and the evidence before you. Thank you.

Thank you for your comment. Anyone else in person who didn't speak yet or sign up? Okay, we'll turn to online.

So I see two hands raised.

We'll turn to our clerk.

Skylar Gott, followed by Anna G.

Hi, thank you. My name is Skylar Gott. I work for Hangar 420. I appreciate you taking the time to hear us all out. I just want to say that before I ever worked at Hangar 420, it was a lifesaver for myself, for a few of my family members, and a couple of my friends. I have heard numerous on numerous of stories behind the counter from customers telling us that we're doing a good deed, that we're providing medicine, providing conversation. There's people that will come in once a week, once a month, elderly patients, and they thank us. We provide jobs. We pay our taxes. We do everything that we can to follow the rules and continue to do good for our community. I don't understand why we allow one dispensary to control an entire town, let alone control what we're able to do, what the people need. We can have gas stations filled with alcohol. We can have grocery stores filled with alcohol and cigarettes. But heaven forbid, we have cannabis, medicine, raw, true herbalistic remedies that help and heal people. I don't know about you, but that sounds evil to withhold that type of stuff from good, good people. Now, tell me this. If we allowed... one business to take control over an entire town and only provide what they have, you control the market. That's monopoly. I thought that was illegal from what I was taught. If we don't work together, then we're fighting against each other and we're not fighting. We have our hands up, we come in peace. We're just here to provide for the people. And I've said that last time, and I'm saying it this time, and I know everybody that is with us agrees that we're not fighting, we're not malicious, we're not trying to cause harm to anybody. We're just trying to provide a medicine that doesn't have any side effects, that doesn't hurt people, And I've heard stories of others saying that, well, marijuana is this and reefer madness is that. What about the pills? What about the alcohol? Like you want to provide a good representation of your neighborhood. then allow us to be in. We changed that entire building and my boss, he made it look absolutely beautiful from what the previous shop had. It looked like a trap house previously. Now it looks like a well-established business. So thank you. I appreciate your time.

Thank you for your comment. Anna G followed by Runday.

Anna, you should be able to unmute. Or you're unmuted and we can't hear you. Anna, so if you're calling in by phone, it's star six to unmute, but you're unmuted if you can.

Maybe they joined another.

So we'll move on and try to see if we can connect with Anna again.

I believe it's called Run Day.

Run Day, you're unmuted. You should be able to speak. Can you hear me? Yes. Yeah.

Hi, thank you for taking the time today to listen to us. My name is Ronde and I have worked for Patrick, owner of Hangar 420 for the last seven years. I can say that this has been a tremendous burden and heartache for all of us to have to deal with these zoning issues and the closing of our store. We have heard so many not true things from people about our staff, how we act. And I want to say firsthand, that is not correct. I'm not sure who those people are really talking about, but I know that we really do try to offer the utmost respect to everyone. And that actually is back to our Clearview community. community association meetings where I feel that as a female, I was personally attacked by most of the women there. And we were not there to cause any chaos. But I can tell you that in the community of Clearview, we were not welcome at all. And that is not a community if you ask me. I have also worked in the medical field for 10 years prior to working for Pat. I can tell you that these synthetic marijuanas that they make today that you can get a prescription for are trash. You literally, it takes so much energy and time for people to even get those prescriptions that disallowing a marijuana store to actually provide medicine is completely asinine to me. Again, marijuana and medical actually go hand in hand together. There's been so many people who have actually tremendous stories, even just coming into our stores alone. And that is from numerous things. People think that we literally are this drug dealing kind of store. I really urge you all to actually visit a cannabis store. It is inviting. We again want people to be here and welcoming and there is nothing happening in our parking lots. That is not a thing. We don't allow cannabis consumption in our parking lots. And if we do find somebody there, we asked them to leave promptly. There was actually a Department of Transportation study done on people who drive between marijuana users and regular users. And this was done about 15 years ago. And I will tell you, the marijuana users actually did better. um people saying that we are doing all these things it is completely wrong and um i in all for support of having another marijuana shop there uh you guys also have created a monopoly with the cushery and that is not fair and from what i understand that is completely illegal thank you thank you for your comment does anna g want to try to unmute again

Okay, so we'll go on to the next one and we'll try again. And Anna, if you want to disconnect and then rejoin, that might help your audio.

Go ahead. Okay. We have Sydney Lynch. Hello?

Hi, go ahead. My name is Sydney Lynch. I am a Snohomish community member. I do work for Patrick as well. I have been in the industry now for coming on about four and a half years, working with him for about two. I am in complete support of Clearview opening another pot shop. Again, if this was a gas station that served alcohol we would not even be having this conversation but because it is cannabis all of a sudden we're having this comparison to as if it's fentanyl running in our streets and that's actually just not true and completely insane to compare the two we are looking to help our community help our people heal them answer questions help guide them in areas to help benefit themselves Again, I am in support of Clearview having Hangar 420 in its community. That is all that I have to say. Thank you.

Thank you for your comment. Next speaker.

Graham Moore.

Can you guys hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

All right, hello everyone. My name is Graham Moore. I work at Natural Concept Landscape. Our office is here on Highway 9. Natural Concept's been here for 38 years. I live just about a half mile away from the office, but I feel like I spend more of my time here. You know, natural concept, we are a third party to this. But the one thing that kind of strikes me and worries me a little bit is just kind of how this affects other small businesses that may want to come in here. You know, I know Patrick has fought this battle for a long time, and I do really think it's, you know, providing a negative light on, you know, what future small businesses can come around here. um i was also part of those town hall meetings um and i do hear what both sides are saying however i don't really think that it was just one side kind of being rude and snarky to the other um i kind of saw it a little bit mostly from the town hall members that do live in clearview um but Point being, I just wanted to say a couple words and note that natural concept here, we do approve of all small businesses. We want to see more small businesses in Clearview that should hopefully bring more traffic and more money to these people that are putting their blood, sweat, tears, time really to make money, provide for the family, and make their community a better place. That's it. Thank you.

Thank you for your comment. Next speaker.

I see the energy rejoined. We want to try.

Okay. Yeah. Energy. If you wanted to try to unmute or you're unmuted, if you wanted to speak.

Hello. One, two, three.

Yes, we can hear you. All right.

Hi, good morning. My name is Anna. I'm a Snohomish County constituent and I've been attending a few of the meetings, right? I've signed up for the Clearview Association meetings to be updated and at one of the meetings, Jared Mead said that a lot of the new builds for housing were going to be apartments in that area. So although that it is great that a lot of the homeowners have opinions on what should be in their area and neighborhood, they're gonna have a lot more neighbors coming in the next 10 years. And they're gonna be younger neighbors and they're gonna have other needs that these neighbors today don't necessarily understand. And if they do, they'll also understand that having more than one place in each neighborhood is gonna be okay. There's going to be more traffic, so you're going to need to accommodate more people as well. Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

The next speaker? We have Laura Gann.

Hi. Can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

My perspective, thank you so much for listening to us. I appreciate the council. As a business owner and someone who's lived down the hill from Clearview for the last 40 years, I just wanted to go at it. I didn't really want to discuss the importance of cannabis because I think, like Patrick said, we voted on that quite a few years ago. But as a small business owner, I kind of feel like Graham just mentioned that the clear view and the Snohomish County, and we can even go broader. We can say the state of Washington, we really need businesses and we need to be supportive of small business, especially small business owners. And if you look online and you read about Snohomish County and they did surveys for small businesses, some of you might think this isn't relevant, but it's, In the last six years since the COVID, hundreds of businesses have gone out of business. And 59% of their employees were laid off in the last five years. Snohomish County has lost over 75% of revenue that was later revealed because 78, I got a number from one of the job reports, 7,800 jobs were lost just in Snohomish County. So even now in 2024 to 25, the county still uses and depends on the business owners. There's a lot of business owners that still depend on the federal recovery and the government funds to help their businesses. So it's hard to say exactly why businesses go out of business, you know, who lose their business. But a lot of it has to do with community support. I don't know why anybody would fault that business on 180S. I mean, for 40 years, I drove by a big yellow building that was a tavern, which was just a huge eyesore for the whole little community there. And now it's a beautiful little gray, very, very stylish building. So I think it really helps the community. So, you know, for the county to support a new business, especially a business owner who has a record of paying their taxes and who has supported the community, I think that's a plus. It's a plus for other business owners, too, because if you own a business, you want to see other businesses flourish and other businesses around you. That just makes all the little community that much stronger. And with all the proposals they have for collecting money right now in the state, I'd much rather see a new business pay their share of taxes.

Can you summarize? You're out of time.

Yeah. So that was my point. Instead of paying more property taxes and higher income tax proposals, I think supporting small businesses is the important thing. Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comment. Our last hand raised is Marissa Gann.

Marissa, you're unmuted.

Can you hear me? Yes. Oh, hi. Thank you guys for listening to us and thank you for having me. I'm Marissa Gann, Patrick Gann's wife. I'm going to try to talk without being too passionate and angry. So really, I just wanted to get on here and address some of the misinformation that was being spread. I want to start with Josh Shade's comment that he followed the rules and we did not, which I'm not sure if you guys are aware of the fact that Back in 2016, when the temporary moratorium was in place for medical marijuana stores, Patrick Gann was the one that worked with Snohomish County in the first place to establish that temporary moratorium. So in 2016, when it expired and the medical stores were supposed to close, we closed. We were a green care. We were on Highway 9. We closed our doors because that's what the county required of us. Josh Shea did not. He remained open in a non-CRC location, or the CRC, which was a not allowed zoning location. He continued to operate illegally in that space for however long until you guys decided that, oh, you can just magically have a grandfathered opportunity to be in this space because you broke the rules and stayed there anyway. We did not. We closed our doors. We moved on to a different business adventure. When we saw that location come available after it had been rezoned, we were thrilled to be back in the community again to serve the community because we had a huge support as medical. And we were excited to be back in Clearview again. We live in Clearview. My family's been in Clearview for years. So we, you know, and Per the Council members, unless you're involved in that process, because it wasn't a big Community support process to raise the buffer to 10,000 feet, you would not know that that was actually put in place. Because it's outside of any normal circumstance within the state, so we began to operate you guys asked us to shut down, we did we spent the last year, working with the county not fighting. but working with the county to follow the rules that you guys have in place in order for us to get opened back up in the community that we started in, that we worked with the county back in 2015 for that moratorium. And then we closed respectively in 2016 where Josh Shade did not. So to keep saying that we're not following the rules and he did, I think is a very misleading statement about who we are and who our character is. And I'm really, really frustrated and tired of the slander that's being spread about my husband, about our family, and about our business. That's all I really have to say. There's other misinformation that's out there, but I don't have enough time in three minutes to address all of the lies. Thank you.

Thank you for your comment. Anyone else online, please raise your hand. I don't see any other hands raised. So going once, going twice. Any other hands raised?

No other hands raised.

Okay. So we will close testimony and turn to counsel. Any objection to hearing one more, another in person? Okay. Go ahead.

I'm a member of the Clearview community. I've listened to both sides of this. I am against changing an ordinance for one business. I own a business. I'm a builder. Every time I talk to an inspector, he makes me follow the rules. The rules are set up there for a reason. And new codes come out constantly, and we deal with those. And we adapt and move on. In this instance, this business has continually changed or tried to change the rules. I've been at all the meetings. I've talked to Jared and Sam Lowe a couple times at our meetings and talked about this important topic. I took time off of work today to be able to make sure I was here, to be able to have my voice heard. As a council, I hope you understand that the Clearview community has said over and over again, we do not want this. We have asked, we have talked about, we have tried to let everybody know. In the past, the Clearview community has also talked and talked to the county and worked with them to create this 10,000 foot buffer. Now, it's not a monopoly. The 420 hangar has one in downtown Snohomish on our side of the river. It's not far. It's less than two miles. So people can get to their marijuana and their use if they want to. I personally don't use it or any of their products, but I have a lot of friends that do. If they have a favorite, they go to that store. They don't need it to come into their community to be able to get there. They have other choices with the kushary, and there is no reason to change this ordinance for one business. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. We'll now turn to council for discussion. Council Member Meade.

Yeah, thank you, Chair. First, I just want to say thank you all for joining us this morning. I know some of you took some time off work or in the middle of the day, so I appreciate your involvement. I have had the privilege of representing the Clearview community, both as a council member for around six years, but also in the legislature. So a better part of 10 years, I've represented this community. I've participated in many of the annual meetings forums. I've been to meetings where I haven't participated and just got to sit and listen. It's one of the most civically engaged and organized communities that I think we have in Snohomish County. It's really impressive how engaged you all are, and you really do participate in the process. So I just want to say thank you, first of all, for all of that. I also said that to say I feel like I have a pretty good pulse, feel for the pulse of the Clearview community. It's what led to me originally proposing the ordinance that is now being sought to be undone through these series of ordinances. I'm ready to be a no vote on this today. I'm ready to be a no vote on this in a couple of weeks whenever we move this. If council sees fit to line these up with the executive's proposal, I'm okay with that too. I think it makes sense to see it all and consider it all. But I'm not supportive of this policy anyway. and I'm ready to vote no if that's what we want to do as council. Thank you.

Council Member Lowe has his hand raised.

Thank you, Chair Dunn. I've represented the Clearview community for the better part of 10 years also. I just first of all want to thank everybody who's come out today to testify both for and against this motion, those that participated online. I think it's really important when people are involved in the process. And I think it's a great testament to the amount of people who have participated today in this particular motion. As I said, I've probably attended more than two dozen Clearview meetings since 2015, probably another couple dozen meetings in homes in the Clearview area also. So I, too, feel like I have a good pulse on this subject. I'm very comfortable with what the council did three years ago. I think that was the right process then. moving this to be married with the other one so we can vote at the same time. But I want to be very clear that I'm going to be a no on this motion, whether we vote on it today or whether we vote on it a month or two months from now. I want to be clear to the community that I've heard loud and clear from the community on this. The state is limited how many cannabis stores we can have in Snohomish County. That's a mandate from the state. We as a council have decided that should be dispersed across the county so that they're not in all in one place like it was back in 2013 and 14 and 15 in the clearview community so again i thank everybody for coming it's not personal uh with me with the applicant i appreciate the applicant bringing this forward it's the right process to do and there's nothing wrong with that process i know some people are frustrated having to take the day off to be here today for that, but that is the legal process to be followed, and so I appreciate the applicant doing that, but I do want to be clear that I will be a no. Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Lowe. Other comments? Council Member Peterson.

Thank you, Chair Dunn. I'm fine with kind of marrying these two so they're at the same timeline. I just want to say that I think there were some really interesting feedback really from both sides of this that we should look at something like this countywide that this shouldn't be specific to one area of the county so I appreciate the the executive putting forth that ordinance that's working its way through the process as again as some people stated this is a perfectly legal business and my understanding this is the only business in regulated in Snohomish County that has a buffer from another similar business. People pointed out liquor stores, bars, restaurants, all of the other things, vape shops, none of those have a buffer between them. So I think this is a very important conversation as, you know, recently the federal government has changed cannabis to us from a schedule one to a schedule three drug. So I think the understanding is there that this is, can be a very Beneficial both medicinal and recreational substance And is perfectly legal in the state of Washington. So I appreciate that this conversation is happening Again, I think we should look at it at a countywide level. I think somebody said Snohomish County unincorporated County has Is allowed 42 licenses under the state. I believe we have 39 current licenses and So the idea that there will be a great proliferation of cannabis businesses, I think is just, is incorrect. And I think that now that cannabis businesses have been established now for a number of years in Washington state, and we have some very successful retailers here and other places, I think it's incumbent upon us to make sure that we're treating these businesses similarly that we would treat other businesses. So again, happy that we can maybe marry these up and take a look at, county-wide um zoning as opposed to kind of spot zoning where i think a lot of the um friction comes from uh so willing to to kind of follow that to follow the council's lead on having this discussion at the same time so we can i think have a clear vision of what we can do as a council so appreciate the appreciate that um that thought council member yeah i would also um uh

I'm more supportive of the PDS process of having the department look at ordinance change that would be countywide and not limited to one area. So I'm hearing that we could potentially marry those up, but I'm also hearing that there's support for potentially taking action today. which sounds more like a leaning no vote. So, Council Member Neering, did you have thoughts on either voting today? I'm also sensitive to, I think the term was participation fatigue, so I'm sensitive to that as well. So, thoughts on moving forward today, either with a vote or marrying up the process?

Yeah, thank you, Chair. I think for me, it just makes the most sense because these proposals are not identical, but are so similar. Rather than having a vote today, and then another vote, you know, a month from now, or whenever we have the executive proposal to have them married up to have a single hearing and final decision on all those that there's closure for both sides and for everybody involved. So to me, that makes the most sense, but I'm happy to follow the will of the council on how we want to handle that.

So it would be referring it back to committee, which would marry up the process. Okay. Council Member Mead?

Yeah, and like I said, I'm fine with that if that's what we want to do.

Okay. Okay. Other comments? Okay. So if the decision is to refer it back to committee, we would then keep the record open on this item. So any other discussion?

Do we have a date for the other item? yet Deb no I do not yet have a date I haven't seen it come up so when we're referring this back to committee it's time undecided we're just sending it back and waiting for the PDS process for the executives office to transmit their ordinance and then us to schedule time that's correct okay you'd send it back to you would send this back to committee in there it would wait until we received their ecaf coming up and then I would then have those two run together And is there a requirement as far as deadlines for the docket process that kind of ties our hands to a date? What's that date?

You have until the end of this year to decide whether this should go forward or not. Okay. The docket process. And it's just the administrative. You're not voting on the policy itself. It's just whether or not to actually have PDS then go in and review and write an ordinance for this.

would then be voted on in 2027. that's correct okay um so ideally we would be um we would have an ordinance that would require a public hearing and we would set time and date on that public hearing at the same time as this ordinance or motion correct okay other discussion sitting online um so it sounds like yep councilmember peterson

yeah i don't know if we need a motion if so i would move that we refer um motion 26-155 back to committee a date uncertain until we have the ecaf from the similar that's official enough second okay uh do you want included in the motion that the record would be open that works if we could also verify which committee is that planning or committee the whole or

Any other? So planning and community development committee. Okay. Thank you. So the motion is that we are referring. So you've moved to refer motion 26155 back to the planning and community development committee. And the record would remain open on this item. So that motion has been properly made and seconded. Is there any other discussion? Okay. All in favor, please say aye.

Aye. Aye.

Chair votes aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, that passes five to zero. So that concludes our agenda and council is adjourned for the day.