Planning and Community Development Committee - Regular Meeting

Good morning. Welcome to the Stomach County Council Planning and Community Development Committee meeting on Tuesday, May 19. We're gonna go ahead and call the meeting to order. Before we do roll call, I'm gonna read our script for public comment. We'll be taking public comment beginning with in person and then remotely. On Zoom, you can click the hand icon to raise your hand. If you're calling by phone, you can press 9 to raise your hand. And then when called upon, press 6 to unmute. Each speaker will have three minutes to speak, and please begin your comment with your name and your city of residence. I'll note that we do have a sign up sheet for public comment. But if you did not sign up, that's okay. You'll still have the opportunity to comment, but we'll be going in that order. And next, we will take roll call.

Committee chair Nearing?

Here.

Committee vice chair Peterson?

I'm here.

Committee member Lowe? I see him online. We'll come back. Committee member Dunn? Here. Committee member Mead? Here. Committee member Low?

Present.

Chair, we have five members present.

Okay. Thank you. Next up, we have public comment, and so I'll turn to our clerks to start with the sign up sheet.

First, we have Kim Cotulli followed by Sue Magruder.

Hi. I'm Kim Cotulli of Clearview and Snohomish County Council Megan, Nate, Jared, and Strom. You are our George Bailey of It's a Wonderful Life fame. You stand between Clearview and Pottersville, pun intended, by not reducing the distance between pot stores in the Clearview rural commisional zone to 5,000 feet and allowing a second pot store within the boundaries of the CRC. Our community worked so hard for so long to limit the pot stores in the CRC.

Even a brief review of the county's historical records would substantiate this information. This proposed change would irreversibly undo years of work from hundreds of people in our community. Hanger four two five basically gave the county the finger and opened illegally, daring you to stop them. Finally, the law prevailed. Their representatives came to a Clearview Association meeting screaming and yelling, demanding control of the dialogue.

And you want this store in our community? There are many reasons why people in the CRC want to limit on proliferation in one location for pot stores. For some, they they know that more pot stores centralized in Clearview will turn Highway 9 into Highway 99, the richest ZIP code in Snohomish County. Property values will drop. For others, it's clear that there are pot stores a few miles in either direction, so proliferation in one area is unnecessary.

For me and countless others, the reasons not to turn Clearview into Potteryville is personal. I have three family members whose lives were destroyed by pot. I'm going to tell you the most recent story that happened to my best friend from seventh grade. She had a wonderful family, great husband, four boys. Her eldest, a kind, loving, straight A Iwana kid, went to junior high.

His girlfriend introduced him to pot. According to the CDC, thirty percent three out of ten people that use cannabis develop cannabis use disorder. My friend's son's cannabis use disorder continued until July of last year when he died in his father's arms from cannabinoid hypomosis syndrome, also known as scromiting, due to the combination of screaming and vomiting. His mother called me weeping uncontrollably as he was dying and asked me to pray. She begged God to save her son.

Pot stores are not candy stores. They sell an often addictive, destructive product that brings death to families like Anne's and my own. Families are being crushed because of the legalization and proliferation of pot. Our community, our Clearview community, could not be clearer to our elected officials and county officers about our opposition to reducing the distance between pot stores in the CRC zone, which would allow Hangar 420 and any additional dispensaries into our community. And I sincerely hope you will respect the voices of those of us who call Clearview home. Keep Pottersville out of Clearview. We depend on you.

Thank you for your comment, Kim. Next.

Sue Magruder followed by Josh Shade.

Hi. My name is Sue Magruder. I've lived in Clearview quite a while. First off, I wanna thank the clerk for receiving my papers. You all got a copy of my historical from the Clearview Community Organization. I'm I attend, but I'm not a member per se. First off, I want you to know I am not opposed to marijuana, the use of marijuana. It is was legalized in the state by, initiative five zero two, and that was initiated to to the people, and and it was passed. And we don't have that's the law. It is it is it has medicinal use and, brings relief for pain for many people.

I I know this for a fact. I have quite a few friends who use it, and I I understand completely. Nor do I want to restrict the rights of cannabis or alcohol recreationally in any way. You do you, but within the law. At one time, Highway 9 was called the Green Mile.

66 plus, I guess somebody told me it was nine, cannabis stores in a four mile length. Right now, there are three distribute distribution stores, within that four mile space from Waltbee to 1 64th. When I first saw this proposal pop up, I thought it this this isn't just about little old Clearview. This is gonna affect the whole rural community. And I was surprised and disappointed that the government planning department was using was used in such a way to alter the will of the people for one business at this time.

The report from the PD, states that it is a nonsignificant impact. Sure. No animals, plants, water are affected in the sale of any cannabis, but the people are significant. We are significant. We we fought for this years ago. We've we cherish the ability to keep our area nice and respectable, clean. It it's not a lot of traffic. Please uphold the 10,000 foot buffer for rural cannabis distribution stores. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Sue. Next up, we have Josh.

Hi. Josh Shade. I own the Cushery in Clearview, and, obviously, this affects me. And I just wanna say I followed the rules. I checked on the rules. We went to open other stores. We checked on the rules. Opened a store just outside of Monroe, did the measurement, we could open. I looked for a building on 92, and it turns out it was too close to a marijuana store. So what I did, I did not buy it.

I simply followed the rules. I don't understand why somebody can get rewarded without following the rules. When I moved from one store to another store, I had three people call me up, ask me what was going on with that building that I moved out of. I told them that nobody can open. Most of them didn't believe me. And they looked themselves, and they called me back up, and they go, okay. We can't open. They followed the rules. Pat is definitely lobbying and doing what he can do to to get things changed. I am fine with the competition.

I would ask you guys to drop everything for the whole county to a 100 foot for day cares just like Linwood did. For anything you guys can drop the buffer, including a zero buffer for the whole county, bring on and let the best operator operate. I'm fine with the competition. I do not know why people can get rewarded for not following the rules. I could also pack every meeting with my employees that I choose not to.

I could have people call in that I choose not to because this isn't about me nor is it really about Pat. It's what Clearview wants and the other rural community. And I suggest if you guys bring this up to vote, that you change it to the whole county, not just the rural areas. Let the whole county come and find out what they want with marijuana. It's been a while now. It's been legal for ten plus years. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Josh. Who's our next speaker?

Joel Clark followed by James Jones.

Hi. My name is Joel Clark. I live in Clearview. I'm a general contractor, and, I watched them do the build out on this building. And I looked, and they did not get any permits.

And I thought that was interesting. I did attend a community meeting, last year, and there was a lot of rude people in there, cheering on Hangar 420, saying all sorts of obscenities and and very loud and rude things to people who were opposing it. And, I just wanna add that, you know, if you were to approve this, it it makes me wonder why because other businesses that have been in Clearview area for a while, like Flower World, you guys are actually going after right now and for for violations concerning permits. Again, I looked and could not find any permits for electrical or building on this this Hanger 420 build out. And so I just you know, I don't think you should approve it.

That's just my personal 2¢. Thanks.

Alright. Thank you, Joel. Next up, have James.

Yeah. I'm a general contractor that lives in Clearview, and I live actually right by Flower World. And I watched I also watched that building get done out, and I went in there once. I do shop at 420 at 420 Hanger as well in Snohomish. But when I when I do a build out, I have to get a permit. And and if that's not the case for general contractors now who and it's just a donation to somebody. Can I find out who the donation goes to so I can stop doing permits?

That's it.

Alright. Thank you, James. Who's our next speaker? That is it for the sign up sheet. Okay. So we'll go online. And then again, if you didn't sign up, you're still welcome to speak. But let's go online first and see if we have any hands raised.

Bill Leiter followed by Josh Estes.

Can you hear me okay?

Yes. We can.

K. William Leider, unincorporated Snohomish County. I'm here today to speak against motion twenty six two zero four, which is item five on your agenda. That request the planning commission to look at revising the county's GMA to allow religious facilities on agricultural land zoned a 10. Currently, churches, mosque, temples, etcetera, are all currently not allowed uses on agricultural land zone a 10.

This motion sponsored by council members low narrowing is not only ill advised, but also illegal. Currently, under RCW thirty six seventy a, counties are required to plan under the GMA to, and I quote, designate agricultural lands of long term significance and to adopt development regulations that assure their conservation. Motion 26 dash two zero four will start a start a snowball rolling downhill that will not assure the conservation of agricultural lands that are rapidly disappearing in Stomach County. It is not only the loss of the agricultural land, but also the increase on of traffic on rural roads that are more suitable to tractors and not to traffic for megachurches. Development on agricultural land will create noise, light glare, and storm water runoff pollution generating from impervious surface parking lots and roofs.

There is no municipal sanitary sewage service outside the urban growth area, the UGA, that will and that will further exacerbate this pollution. If there is no municipal water service service, then the drinking water wells are impacted and will deplete groundwater essential to maintaining our stream flows. Religious facilities should be restricted to inside the UGA where municipal services such as water, sewage, mass transit, and emergency services are available. Religious facilities will forever take our agricultural lands out of production. Snohomish County cannot even maintain the roads it has now without increasing our vehicle license tab fees by $20.

Please vote no on this ill advised in a illegal motion twenty six dash two zero four. Thank you.

Thank you, Bill. Next up, we have Josh.

Good afternoon good morning, council. Can you hear me?

Yes. We can.

Great. I I'm my name is Josh Estes. I live in Marysville. I'm here today on behalf of my client, Derek Anderson, owner of The Joint Retail Chain in opposition to 2026Dash0760. Mister Anderson is a former cannabis retailer in the area and has explored multiple opportunities and pathways over the years to potentially return a location to Clearview.

However, because of the existing separation requirements and the community's repeated and clear message that they did not want a second store in the CRC, he respected those limitations and looked elsewhere. That's that's what responsible operators who follow the code are expected to do. What concerns my client is that the proposal appears to create a special opportunity for one operator after the fact, while other operators who follow the rules never had the same opportunity and and won't be afforded the same opportunity. If the county reduces these buffers now, specifically to accommodate Hangar 420, the applicant, it unfairly advantages one operator while disadvantaging it it it unfairly advantages, sorry, one operator while disadvantaging other holders, including future social equity license holders who never had an equal opportunity to even compete for a location in the CRC under what would be considered the same conditions. You know, had this been an available option previously, my client and others absolutely would have pursued the opportunity to operate there as well.

They operated in that zone prior to the recreational market going from medical to rec. And at the end of the day, what really becomes a question is why one operator is receiving this level of special consideration when others who respected the code and accepted the limitations that existed at the time aren't. My client respectfully asked the council to reconsider moving this proposal forward. And if the county ultimately decides to revisit the separation distances in the future, there should be an equal and fair opportunity process for all operators, not a narrowly tailored code change that appears designed to benefit one specific operator after choosing to move forward despite the current rules. Thank you for your time.

Happy to answer any questions.

K. Thank you, Josh. Who's our next speaker online?

Kristen Kelly.

Hello?

Yes. We can hear you. Kristen, go ahead.

Okay. Thank you. Kristen Kelly representing Futurewise, and I wanna go, Futurewise wants to go on the record opposing motion twenty six two zero four and request that you not forward this motion, to the planning commission. This motion to allow churches on Agland does not comply with the GMA RCW three six point seven zero eight point one seven seven to protect our county's agricultural lands of long term significance and does not qualify as innovative zoning techniques for accessory uses, which should be designed to conserve agricultural lands and encourage the agricultural economy. Instead, this council needs to work to provide services such as churches where the majority of people live and work.

Also,

during

the comp plan update, you adopted a new ag land policy, policy seven point d point 10, where the county is gonna supposedly is gonna consider an analysis of designated farmlands and lands that could be utilized for agriculture that are already not designated. Oh, this is a way to, increase our ag lands and, something we really need to be doing. And churches on ag land is just the opposite intent of that policy. So, again, please do not move this motion forward. Thank you.

Thank you, Kristen. Who's our next speaker?

Debbie Blodgett.

Yep. There. My name can you hear me?

Yes. We can.

Okay. Thank you. My name is Deborah Blodgett. I live in Clearview, Snohomish Unincorporated Snohomish County. I'm expressing my opposition to Hanger four twenty's request to change code and or obtain a variance to allow them to open their pot shop in the Clearview rural commercial zone.

This proposal, will reduce the 10,000 foot separation of 5,000 feet only in the CRC and allows for two retail cannabis stores. This is in direct opposition to what the homeowners and 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 Hanger four twenty, 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've also heard the county executive wants to introduce an amendment for the CRC that drops the distance down further to 2,500 feet. In our past history, having been called the Green Mile, if this proposal is then lowered further, our area will become again a place for more than just two pot stores.

The statistics show that crime increased, home invasions, and theft of personal property increased, and we even had one owner of a pot store located at 1 64th And Highway 9 broken into, shot, and killed in a 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 indirect conflict with the reason the previous amendment was made to apply to the entire county. Please oppose this proposal. Thank you.

Thank you, Debbie. Who's our next speaker?

Peter Grovesner.

Hello, folks. Can you hear me?

Yes. We can.

K. My comment is about the proposed change to the separation limits for cannabis dispensaries in the Clearview CRC. I believe that Clearview zoning should reflect the needs of Clearview residents rather than swore supporting one specific business. According to Google Maps, there are already three cannabis dispensaries within a ten minute drive from my house in Clearview. One of them is the Hanger four twenty location near Snohomish.

There are also two cushery locations and the euphorium. The new Hanger four twenty location would make it four. Even without the proposed Hanger four twenty location in Clearview, I can get to two of these dispensaries faster than I can get to a second grocery store or pharmacy. The limited commercial space that zoning allows in Clearview should be prioritized for businesses that benefit local residents. As near as I can tell from Google Maps, there are few, if any, cannabis dispensaries within the city limits of Woodinville, which, of course, is in King County, Mill Creek, or Snohomish.

We seem to be asking in the unincorporated areas of the county to accept the dispensaries because, for whatever reason, the cities don't want them. I think this is unfair to Clearview residents, and I urge the council not to approve this change. Thank you.

Thank you, Peter. Who's our next speaker?

Tom Sweeney.

Morning, counsel. I just would like to say I feel very supported by Patrick. I run the Mill Creek Community Food Bank. I have spoke before. Patrick and his family serve here.

Their character is above reproach. And I think what we're really just what he's asking for is to be treated like everyone else. I hear people saying today that he's not following the rules, that he isn't doing things the right way, and I I would argue that he has done things the right way. And all he's asking for is to have the same distance between his business and other businesses as as everywhere else in the county. So 2,500 feet is my understanding.

That's what it was. That's what it is everywhere else, and that's what he's asking for here. So I don't think he got any preferential treatment. I don't think he got or did anything illegal or wrong. Again, I will speak to his character. He is an amazing man who has helped us tremendously at the community food bank who would you know, we're serving near 600 families a week largely due to his support. So thank you. Thank you for listening.

Thank you, Tom. Who's our next speaker?

Ashley Cherny.

Okay. Ashley, if you're able to unmute, you can go ahead and begin your public comment.

Can you hear me? Yes. Thank you. I apologize. I thought I unmuted.

First, I wanna thank Sam Lowe and Jared Mead for attending prior Clearview Community Association meetings and listening to residents' concerns. I live in Clearview and wanna express my opposition to reducing the current 10,000 foot cannabis store buffer in rural Snohomish County. I have attended Clearview Community Association meetings and agree with many residents here during this meeting who have spoken about Hanger four twenty's approach towards the Clearview community. Throughout this process, residents have often felt dismissed, talked down to, and treated disrespectfully by Hanger four twenty. This proposal affects communities across Snohomish County, both rural and urban, and raises concerns for families, especially children, who are among the most vulnerable members of our community and deserve careful consideration in these decisions.

I urge the council to protect the existing 10,000 foot buffer and preserve the character of our rural and urban neighborhoods. Thank you.

Thank you, Ashley.

Pat Gustafson.

Hello. My name is Kathleen Gustafson. I reside in Woodinville, but I'm actually in Snohomish County. And I did send my concerns to our council members, so I'm going to reiterate this so that the community can hear this. This proposal to change the zones appears designed specifically to accommodate Hanger 420 rather than serve the broader community.

It reaches the 10,000 foot separation requirement to 5,000 feet only within the CRC and introduces a fixed number of cannabis retail stores into the code, something residents have opposed in the past and worked through a full process to prevent. Even more concerning, it sounds as if though the executive may be preparing an additional proposal that the CRC that would drop the separation distance even further to 2,500 feet. If this does move forward, it sends troubling messages that those enough influence can violate the code and still receive special treatment. This directly undermines the intent of the previous amendment, which was created to apply uniformly across the entire county. I'm also deeply concerned about the potential impact to community safety.

Cannabis retail businesses across Washington state have reported a clear rise in armed robberies and smash and grab incidences in recent years, an out of control problem according to the industry leaders and lawmakers. Our community has been consistent and clear. We do not want cannabis retail near our area, and we do not support the change in the code to allow it. This proposal disregards the public voice and the principles of the fairness, safety, and accountability that should guide local policy. I am deeply concerned that their request that each of our council members stated stand stated that they stand firm with the current codes and within their community members have repeatedly said they want.

We elected you to represent us and protect the integrity of our community. If this code is not upheld, it feels like yet another slap in the face, a signal that our voices matter less than the financial gain of the county stands to receive. That is not the kind of leadership or represent representation we expect or deserve. Just like Josh from the Kushery, he followed the rules just like other retailers in the same category. I urge our counsel to do the same. For those for this reason, I strongly urge that you deny the change of the marijuana retail regulations in the Clearview Rural Commercial CRC area and uphold the projections protection standards and community values that re residents have fought for. Thank you.

Thank you, Kat. Skyler Gott.

Sorry. Yeah. They're they're

they're Hello.

It's like a Zoom meeting for We can hear you. You can go ahead.

Hi. My name is Skyler Gott. I am a resident of Snohomish County. I don't live exactly in Clearview, but I do have family members that live in the area. I just wanna say that cannabis has been a medicinal medicine for myself, for many others. I have witnessed it heal people. I've witnessed it relieve stress, relieve pain. My grandmother was diagnosed with cirrhosis of the liver, about eight years ago. About two years ago, she ended up getting a liver transplant. And with that, our doctors her doctors from the UW decided that cannabis was gonna be a part of her recovery.

Since I moved to Snohomish, Washington, Hanger four twenty has been open arms, very knowledgeable, very kind. The staff is always on their a game. They are very welcoming. They're never out to jab people's pockets. They're there to heal people, be their friends. And, personally, I feel like it is wrong to allow only two businesses in that area when we are a part of the community. We're taxpayers. We pay our taxes. We are here for the community. Like I said, I have family that live in Clearview.

I have an aunt, and she is severely ill. And her life is literally revolved just at that Safeway grocery store, the gas station right next to 101 Hundred And 80th Street, and that's as far as she goes. To not be able to have a place where she can get her medicine close to her is honestly, it's heartbreaking. Medicine. It's taken away the conversations.

It's taken away the one on one communications and the love that we give back to our community. I feel like it is wrong to not allow us to be there for the people. We are the people, and we are here for the people, and I stand by it. Like I said, Hanger four twenty has always been so kind to me, my family, everybody around us. I've walked into that store, and I have witnessed some beautiful, beautiful, beautiful people.

We are here to just like I said, be for the people. We're not here to attack. I've sat in the last meeting, and we had the sheriff department specifically say that cannabis does not bring harm to the community. There has been a drop in stash and go, grab and goes, whatever you call it. That's just some stigma that they try to put in our head to fear pot. Oh, no. But, really, it's a medicine. It's the people. We're not we're not here to attack. We're here to heal. And that's all I have to say. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Skyler.

Our last hand raised is Nadine Shanti.

K. Nadine, you're able to unmute, you can go ahead and begin your public comment. Are you able to unmute, Nadine? Alright. Why don't we go to in person just to see if there's anybody who'd like to give public comment who has not signed up on the sheet, and then we will try Nadine again.

And we do have a few more hands that went up online.

Oh, we do. Okay.

We can

Let's do in person first, and we'll we'll go back online. Is there anybody who didn't already give public comment, wasn't on the sign up sheet, would like to provide testimony? Okay. Go ahead and sew it to the podium. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Marissa Gan. I am a resident and active voter in Snohomish County. My husband, Patrick, the, owner of Hangar 420, and I live in the rural Clearview area between Mill Creek and Snohomish where we have been raising our four children for over ten years. My family has been in the area for over thirty years and owns several large parcels, businesses, and residences. The narrative falsely circulating that we are not from the community is simply untrue. Before we took over the corner at 180th And Highway 9, renovating and cleaning up the massive mess left by the grocery, I cannot tell you how many times my children refer to that space as the creepy building. My children, because we live in the area, and we have to see that place every day. They aren't disturbed by that corner anymore. Now the other false narrative that we are acting against the will of

the

community. There is definitely a very loud few who love to act as a voice for the community as a whole. In fact, the Clearview Community Association had attempted to host several meetings in 2025 to protest as opening. Every single time the meeting shifted towards support, the speaker was cut off or dismissed. Every single time. Now magically, there are no meeting minutes and sorry. There are no meeting minutes, and the recordings of these meetings are not available. In the board members have stated they that these meetings were not initiated by the CCA, which is why these legal public records are unavailable. I have filed a complaint with the attorney general's office. Now yesterday, conveniently timed, there was an article posted in the Linwood Times by legislator Sue Sue Magruder.

I voted for her. Big mistake, obviously. Calling for the community to come here today and speak out against us, which is honestly such an unsettling feeling knowing that these people hold such hate for us. But reading the comments on the post was incredible. Every single commenter was in support of us opening.

Closer to home, a similar post was shared yesterday by, earlier speaker Joel, on the clear ClearView community discussion page, again, calling for support for people to come here today and speak out against us. Overwhelmingly, the entire comment section was Clearview community members on the Clearview community discussion page expressing support for our store. Now these loud few can keep shouting we are not from the community and that the community does not support us, but that's simply not true. And, frankly, the slander, defamation, and monumental stress this has caused Patrick, myself, and our children needs to stop. Patrick is a nice guy. He comes here every single week and respectfully talks to you guys at public comment. I do not share his temperament.

Thank you for your comment. We appreciate it. Is there anybody else who'd like to speak in person?

Good morning, council members. I'm Ashley McDonald. I grew up in Clearview, and I live in Clearview now and raise my kids there. I'm here today to urge your support for motion two six one five five. I strongly favor reducing the required distance to 5,000 feet because it prevents monopolies, and it ensures regulatory consistency. There's no clear land use reason why cannabis retail should face stricter spacing rules than any other commercial business. Let's align our regulations to create a predictable and fair environment for all local business owners. So please vote yes on motion 26,155. Thank you. I also am a huge supporter of Hanger four twenty.

I'm I'm not tied to them. I don't work for them. I just am a customer, and they have a really great business. And, yeah, it's just a convenience as well if they could open in Clearview. So thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Anybody else who'd like to provide public comment in person?

Hi. My name is Claire Benog, and I'm in Mill Creek. I'm a member of Snohomish County. And I lived in Clearview for a brief amount of time. And I did go to the meeting.

Jared, I know you were there, and I just wanted to say a few things. I was at that meeting, and I did not see anybody being rude for 04:20 or saying anything, you know, slandering or anything rude towards anyone else that you know, towards the opposing side. And I just think that there might be some things that are being said that are false, and that should be dug into because that is the most important thing. And I've also heard a lot of people say that this is not being gone about the right way. But my question as a citizen would be where did the change happen?

Because as I understand it, the change for the buffer happened in 2023, And what made that happen? What made it go from being a certain distance to a further distance? And I feel like that should be the bigger question that should be being asked is how did that happen? And monopolies are something that you don't want. And right now, you're seeing a monopoly if you look around and you see the different areas. No one else has that that distance in that space. I have personally known Patrick and Marissa for quite some time. Our kids play softball together, and they have always been a big member of our Mill Creek community and Snohomish. They are upstanding citizens. They are great people.

They will help you out if you need them, and I just want to stand up here and support them and also tell you that, you know, I know that marijuana sometimes gets a bad name, but I do believe it is a medical thing that is needed, especially having gone through what I went through and been introduced to it, and it helped me through my cancer journey that I was in. And I'm a businesswoman, so, I'm somebody that you wouldn't normally look at and say, oh, she's walking in a dispensary. Well, why is she doing that? Well, because I had to fight cancer for two years, and it helped me through the pain. And you should be able to choose where you want to go and get that at.

And I think that by putting a monopoly on something and really condensing it down, that's a dishonor to the people in the community. And I do agree. A lot of people that yell louder get the attention, but sometimes we have to look at our citizens that are in the area and, you know, what are they giving to the community? What are they doing? Are they supporting a food bank, or are they just out being loud? So, I just wanted to say that I am in support of four twenty, and I am not in support of Monopolies. Thank you.

Yep. Thank you. Anybody else who'd like to give public comment in person today? Yep. Come on up.

Okay. That was a lot more public comments than I was expecting. I've been here, for the last few months now, and that's the most public comments I've heard. So I'll try to make mine brief. Okay. Good morning, council members. For months here, I've stood before you talking about transparency, fairness, meaningful public notice, and the real world consequences of a code change that should never happen in the first place. And now the day before this meeting, we suddenly see organized calls to fill the room, bring neighbors, and mobilize opposition to restoring fairness to this code. But that raised an important question. But this policy truly reflected overwhelming community support.

Why was this never why was there never this kind of outreach when the 10,000 buffer was originally reached? Where was the pack where was the packed rooms then? Where was the meaningful notice to affected property owners, businesses, tenants, industry stakeholders, and community members whose investments, livelihoods, and property rights were being impacted? Washington's growth management framework requires public participation procedures reasonably calculated to provide notice to affected property owners and interested parties. Yet this property had operated as cannabis retail use for over a decade, and neither the property owner, tenants, nor impacted industry stakeholders received any meaningful direct notice that the county was considering eliminating that long standing lawful use.

Because meaningful public participation only works when people actually know a code change is happening. And even council member Jared Mead acknowledged it would be unreasonable to expect ordinary property owners or tenants to know this code change to know this code change happened unless they worked for the county or directly involved in the process itself. And frankly, that says everything. This wasn't a transparent community driven planning decision. The original 2,500 foot buffer was already the most restrictive cannabis retail framework in the state.

There was no wave of new cannabis stores coming to Clearview. The geography and zoning already naturally limited the number of viable locations in the corridor. Quadrupling that distance to 10,000 feet served no legitimate planning purpose. And when the public later sees emails between county staff and lobbyists that we heard from earlier, does this give your client the flexibility they need? And saying that 10,000 foot number isn't excuse me. 10,000 feet is a nice round number that likely won't raise questions on how it was reached. It becomes very difficult to view this as an ordinary land use decision. It's not about whether someone personally likes cannabis. Washington voters already decided less that legislation years ago. Cannabis is legal.

It already is regulated. It's already age restricted, and the cannabis industry has generated billions of dollars in tax revenue for Washington State, supporting schools, health care, public services, and local jobs. This issue is about whether government should be allowed to change rules behind closed doors in a way that benefits one existing operator while preventing fair competition everywhere else because competition matters. Transparency matters, property rights matter, and meaningful public notice matters. This code change did not solve a real planning problem. It created an artificial monopoly, and correcting this code back to the county standard or even a reasonable compromise is not radical. What was radical was creating a 10,000 foot buffer in the first place. Thank you.

Thank you, Patrick. Is there anybody else in person who'd like to provide public comment? Okay. Come on up.

Good morning. Thank you, council members of the council. David Toy with Toy Strategic Advisors. We're a land use and economic development consulting firm, and, we prepared the application, on behalf of the applicants for this code amendment. I think it's important for those, that, are listening in today just to understand what this process, actually involves.

Growth Management Act provides that, jurisdictions consider on an annual basis, amendments to codes, amendments to comprehensive plans, zones, those sorts of things that may be brought forward by the public, not just by, the legislators. And so there is a section in your code as as you are all aware, but others may not be, that allows anyone, to propose, an amendment, and it establishes a fair process by which the amendment comes here now. You all take a look at it, determine whether or not, it should be forwarded to a larger process, and then it would move through that process of hearings before the planning commission and ultimately wind its way back to you. All during that time in which the public would have a a maximum amount of opportunity to participate, to provide input. Folks could discuss and deliberate alternatives and options.

And then what comes out of that process would be, you know, reflective of a wide range of input. There were a couple of speakers that that already spoke that said, you know, that they would be in support of, changes like what Lynnwood made, and that it would be okay if the county was opening up the dialogue to have a discussion about what the separation buffers should be everywhere in the county. Well, that's exactly what this opportunity presents is to be able to have that discussion and dialogue. What's before you today with motion 26 dash one five five, it's not an ordinance. It's a motion.

It's merely a matter procedural matter to move this on to a further public process that allows people to participate and have the dialogue and hopefully come up with a solution that works for most folks. But it's not an immediate change that's proposed here today, and I would respectfully ask you to go ahead and continue to move this through the process and allow it to have that opportunity for public dialogue, allow it to have a hearing, before the planning commission. And, ultimately, we'll be back, here before the council at some point in the future and, hopefully, with the proposal, that is reflective of what, folks throughout the county believe needs to happen. So thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Anybody else for in person public comment this morning? Alright. Then let's go back online, and we had some other hands raised.

Yes. Nadine has put her hand down, we'll move on to Beazer.

Hello. Thank you. Can you guys hear me?

Yes. We can.

Okay. This is my first city council meeting ever. I've been following along with just emails, not social media. I don't know of any of the slandering. But the thing that I see as a mom with young kids in this community living just down the road with my kids attending Cathcart Elementary, which is just down the road and striving by Hangar 420 daily as I give my kids a ride to and from school.

And seeing their audacity to progress despite the laws is what got me truly involved in this is the fact that there is a law in place that the community work towards. I have people that that I know that works towards increasing the distance in between pot shops and knowing that that law is in place. But despite the law being in place, them still going ahead and even putting up their sign and having it appear as if it is open. My kids have even been asking if it is open. That is what got me invested into being more involved in this process because of the fact that I can't participate in the national level of people going beyond what the laws and constitution says, but I can work starting here in my community by putting my foot down and saying, it doesn't matter if I am pro or against marijuana.

I want the laws to be abided by. And similar to how the other owners of distribution centers talked about is this is one business that's getting the benefit of of how you guys said to despite the monopoly. I disagree with that. This is giving him the monopoly. And truly, it's if if it is something that needs to change, it should be open as a vote towards the whole Clearview area or county if if to see if views have changed. But as for me, I am against it.

Okay. Thank you for your comment.

R. Rolson.

Can you hear me?

Yes. We can.

Hi. My name is Rondae Rolson, and I have actually been working and employed by Patrick and Marissa for the past almost seven years. And I am strongly in favor of reducing this buffer zone of 10,000 feet. There are many reasons why, not just because I work for them, but because I also support local businesses, and I support Clearview. When you minimize the businesses coming in, that also minimizes tax revenue.

And I know for a fact that marijuana in Washington state is taxed 48 percent. It is one of the highest taxed items in the country. You guys are missing out on that in Clearview. People speak about Highway 9 not wanting it to be 99. Guess what?

It already is. Highway 9 takes me longer to get to the Clearview location than it does to our Linwood location on Highway 99. You guys want more, grocery stores, other stores, that would be more, appropriate for Clearview. Unfortunately, food is a taxable product unless it's servable. Marijuana, again, is taxable, and it would bring more revenue to Clearview, and, therefore, I am in complete support of it. Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

And our last hand raised is Thomas Huffaker.

Hey, Thomas. If you're able to unmute, you can go ahead and begin your public comment.

Can you hear me?

Yes. We can.

Okay. I'm a member of the Clearview community. I've been to the meetings. I have listened to the argument. I am a 100% against changing the ordinance. We worked very hard to get it at the 10,000 foot mark in Clearview for a reason. We don't want any more marijuana in our community. And it's not that we want a monopoly on it. We didn't want any. And so there's places down right in Snohomish.

If you wanna drive five minutes down the road, you can go to the other four 20 establishment. We just don't want it here. That is our feeling. Everybody that I have talked to, my neighbors, my friends, my family, we are against it. And that's how we feel about it. And I don't know why over and over again, we have to have this argument and fight with the the same person that doesn't get that these this ordinance was put in place for a reason. It wasn't just by happenstance that we argued and fought and had all these meetings years ago to stop this. We did this for a reason. And that's my opinion is to keep the ordinance how it is. Do not change it.

Thank you. Thank you

for your comment.

Sorry, one more hand did go up. Kate Sass.

Okay, Kate, you can go ahead and unmute and begin your comment when you're ready. Kate, are you able to unmute?

Hello? Can you hear me?

Yes. We can now.

My name is Kate Sass. I don't have a lot to say. I just wanted to say that I am in favor of the Hanger four twenty being allowed to reside inside of Clearview. I believe if this was another gas station, another alcohol location, anything else, we wouldn't be having this conversation. I don't think it is hurting the community.

The idealism that it is compared to having prostitutes or drug dealers, it is not the same. This is just like any other operating business that is putting back into the community and giving their all and doing what is legal and what is asked of them. Hence, we are here jumping through hoops trying to put things back to how they are and to give everybody a fair shot to be in the community. Again, I am in support of Hanger four twenty to be inside of Clearview. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Any other hands?

Yes. Okay. Tristan Spencer.

K. Tristan, if you're able to unmute, you can go ahead and begin your public comment.

They did lower their hands, so maybe

Got it. Okay. Alright. Is there any other in person public testimony or public comment? Yes. Come on up.

Hi. My name is Kimberly Lind, and I was born and raised here in Snohomish County. I also am Patrick's mother-in-law. So I wasn't planning on speaking. Right? Nobody really wants their mother-in-law talking. But I as a resident of Snohomish County, my mom was the first female police officer in the city of Lynnwood. My brother was a Snohomish County sheriff and worked with the DE. I have been involved in this kind of stuff all my life. When my daughter married Patrick, was I really happy that that marijuana was his pursuit?

But my daughter loved him, and I gave him my support. I have watched over the last twelve years how much marijuana has changed. Right? My mom's 92 years old. Right? She's still kicking. She plans on being here till she's 100. But she has a lot of medical issues, but she likes the little candies, and they help her sleep at night. I think that a lot of people that are talking haven't even been there and noticed. I would say seventy percent of the people that go in there are above the age of 50 or above this age of 60.

You know? It it's it's me. It's some of the other people that says you won't, that it's bringing us down. I haven't drank in thirty five years. I do use pot because I quit using all my medications that were for pain.

I suffer badly from rheumatoid arthritis and have for thirty years since I was much younger. And through my son-in-law and a lot of people talking, I've learned that there's better things than painkillers to help you function in life. And the hangar, besides being really I mean, it's clean and welcoming, and you have no problems going in there. The family and the support that is given to not only the Mill Creek Little League. I don't know if you guys know this.

Patrick's daughter played in the World Series last year, and we went to Greenville. Their family is so involved with this. And the donations to the food banks and containers that he will have delivered to them for stuff. Let's see more of the people involvement and not just people that wanna dump their money but are spending it someplace else. You've you've got a lot to say about the characteristic of four twenty, but I don't see any of these other people out there supporting their food banks and little leagues and kids everywhere. So I'm all for it. And, and I love my son-in-law, and I'm damn proud of him.

Thank you for your comment. Is there anybody else who'd like to give public comment? Okay. Then we will turn to, to counsel. We'll begin our action items, I should say, beginning with motion 26 dash one five five. I will note that we have, five minutes left in the meeting, and so we'll, we'll try to go quickly here.

Good morning, committee chair, Nearing, and council members for the record, Deb Ossenbel, council staff. I will be brief. The proposed motion 20 six-one 155 is the first step in a citizen initiated docket process. PDS staff, Shannon Beard excuse me. Bird, long range planner, is here to give you a full briefing on this year's docket. The requested action today is to move the motion to GLS to set time and date for public hearing, personal homage county code. Council has received public comments on this year's docket, and those comments have been added to the record. This concludes my staff report and avail for any questions along with the executive staff and planning and development services staff.

Hi. Hi there. For the record, Shannon Bird, PDS. I'll be walking through the initial evaluation of the comp plan amendments today. I'll try to try to be brief.

So a little bit bit of background on the comp plan amendment process. So the GMA allows the comp plan to be changed no more frequently than once per year with limited exceptions. The GMA also requires a process which we call the docket for citizens and noncounty agencies to propose amendments to the comp plan. Snohomish County adopts the county initiated plan amendments annually, and the docket is adopted roughly every two years. So a little bit of the schedule.

We're here at step two. The deadline to submit a docket proposal is the last business day of October of each year. We do the initial evaluation based on code, and we bring it to council. Council decides whether it's to be placed on the final docket and then further evaluation. The difference between major dockets major dockets alter UGA boundaries.

They add significant capacity or have significant environmental impacts, and that action occurs every four years. Minor docket is everything else considered more minor, and it occurs roughly every two years. It's not quite going to the next. Thanks. So here's the schedule laid out in code.

So we're here at the the set of the docket, the minor docket in 2026. So under docket 22, we had one minor docket proposal submitted to the county, and that is the J and L properties and PG Management LLC. So the actual proposal is to amend Snohomish County code 30 dot 28 dot one twenty to modify the separation requirements for marijuana retail use in the CRC reduced the separation requirements from 10,000 to 5,000 feet. So the initial evaluation findings based on Snohomish County Code is the proposal is consistent with the Growth Management Act, the MPPs, the CPPs. It's also consistent with initial docket review criteria.

So in summary, this proposal is considered a minor docket amendment to the Snohomish and PDS recommends a docket application to be evaluated for further processing under final docket 22. And I don't know if there's time, but I'm here for questions.

Great. Thank you for the presentation. We appreciate it. Questions from council. And then, Tom, I'd also invite you up if you if you wanted to speak to it from the executive side, but we'll start with questions from council members.

Yeah. Go ahead, councilor. Maybe we'll start here. Tom, did you do you have any comments first before we begin?

First of Tom Teigen, executive director and county executive Dave Summers office. Yeah. Just quickly, regardless of who owns what business, we are considering the zoning and the distance between businesses in the Clearview area and regardless of the product or the business or what it might be, we do feel like updating that zoning is appropriate and making a change to that zoning is appropriate. We're not backing one owner of a group or one type of business per se or what have you. But in this case, we simply think that that it's a La Mir.

It is one of two spaces in the county with this type of specific zoning is my understanding. So we are interested in looking at that and and addressing that and making it more clear. Beyond that, here to have dialogue with both the public as well as the council members.

Okay. Thank you. So just wanted to clarify, there's this motion before us, but then as I understand, there's a separate executive proposal. Is the executive's office positioned to move this motion forward? Or what what is the position of the executive's office?

I'm I'm still confirming with the rest the executive's office on what that looks like as of today. Okay. But we are interested in both whether or not we'd do a separate motion based on statement made through the executive branch or whether or not you are doing the docket and taking it that way. That is another option that exists today too.

Okay. Alright. We'll open it up for questions. Councilor Mamid?

Thank you, chair. So you you are or are not from the executive's office proposing whether it could it's a competing proposal or an amendment to this one?

We're in the process of confirming that. That is what we're working towards right now.

Yes.

So I will say we are working on a motion, but it's not available today. We do not have it available as a product today.

Which is why your recommendation or position from the executive's office is to move this forward because you don't have a proposal yourself.

The docker proposal can move forward. It doesn't, I think, remove the opportunity for the executive's office to bring something else forward. Okay. Is that correct?

I don't know if you're asking me that if that's correct. You guys can bring forward whatever you want to bring forward. Okay. Thank you. So I have questions for that So this is a minor you said this is considered a minor proposal. Does that mean it does need to go through the planning commission? Or because it's minor, does not?

It is minor, but both minor and major have to go through the same planning commission process.

Okay. So what we're considering today would just set a public hearing for us to vote to send it to the planning commission?

Essentially, yes. But there's more evaluation that PDS does, then it goes through the planning commission process, then comes back

to Right. No, I just want to confirm that what we're voting on now is not to move to set time and date to vote to establish this in code, but it's to move this forward to be studied further and then go to the planning commission.

That is correct. And this will probably come back around sometime in 2027 for consideration.

Okay. If I can just maybe clarify or add on to that. There isn't a vote today. We're in committee. We're gonna be sending this to GLS to set time and date, and then there'll be a vote at a public hearing to send it through that process. But but today, we're not gonna be taking any any votes.

No. The requested action today is to move the motion to GLS to set time and date for a public hearing. So it's the same as any other motion. So you will you will be the request today is to take action on sending this to GLS.

Okay. Okay. But I think it's helpful to understand that process. Right? If this is if this is moved forward, it would go through the planning commission. It would come back, you said, sometime next year. Correct. And that would be kind of the final vote on it.

That's correct. Okay.

One one more question. Go ahead. So there's a lot said to our public comment. Thank you all for being here. No matter what side of the issue you are, showing up in the morning on a Tuesday to provide comment. Thank you for being here. It's it's helpful for us to hear. So what I heard were conflicting things. In in Clearview, prior to the 10,000 foot buffer that was established, was there a 2,500 foot buffer? What was the law before the 10,000 foot buffer was established?

That's a great question. I would refer to PDS staff on that.

I'd have to do a little bit more research on

So I know the answer. The answer is that it was banned. So there was no 2,500 foot buffer. There was a ban in for cannabis retail prior to the establishment of the 10,000 foot buffer. There was a shop that had been in Clearview due to a grandfathering and the community I've represented Clearview for almost ten years as an elected official both in the legislature and and on the county council for the last six years.

And I understand that the Clearview community has a pretty strong opinion on cannabis and on the proliferation of shops throughout the Highway 9 corridor. And so the 10,000 foot buffer to me changed not the allowance of how many shops were there, is why the community would have been okay with it. Still one shop prior to the 10,000 foot buffer and after. Otherwise, we would have if there was only a 2,500 foot buffer, we would have three or two or three shops already in Clearview. So just to clarify for the community that's here, that's the history of Clearview.

It's not that this went from a 2,500 foot buffer three years ago to all of a sudden a 10,000 foot buffer. This went from it being banned to a 10,000 foot buffer.

Okay. Councilmember Peterson.

Thank you. Maybe kind of in that same space, when it did go to 10,000 feet, was this same process followed? Was it a minor docket change?

I'd have to do more research on that. I don't believe it was a minor. That wouldn't have been a minor docket cycle back in 2023, but I wasn't involved in that process. So I'd have to do that research.

Okay.

Because I think there are some concerns as to how they came up to 10,000 feet. So so the 10,000 feet decision did not go through the planning committee or the planning board commission? One of those words? It did. It did.

Okay. And then I guess just for kind of as as we're moving through this process, I would be curious if there is any other place in the state of Washington that has a similar zoning buffer. Would would be helpful just as we discuss this, if you could come back with that. I think again probably again similar to Councilmember Meade's questions, do have questions about was the impetus behind 10,000 feet really from really from a land use perspective, which is I think what we're doing. Communities could be angry about having five vape shops, you know, one vape shop on every corner, which is also, you know, probably not something that everybody wants in their communities.

But we have no buffers against those. We have no buffers for, obviously, for other adult, you know, alcohol, things like that. So I'm just trying to figure out what the thought process was around 10,000 feet specifically for cannabis sales. So you don't have the answer to that, but I think as we're having those are the kind of as we continue on with these public conversations, those are the answers that that I could certainly would help me.

Alright. Thank you. Council Member Dunne?

Yeah. Just in the interest of time, when we're setting time and date for the public hearing, should go on action, but can you share can you provide a little background information on why the Clearview area has a different set of code regulations? So is it because it's a linear or is other issues? So that's that would be helpful moving forward.

Absolutely. Can do. And and, again, this is just to say thumbs up or thumbs down whether or not you want this to continue on in the process. You're not deciding the policy today or anything like that. This is just to say, yes. We do want you to further investigate this issue.

I will note. I think it would be helpful, at least from my own perspective, and we don't need this today, but maybe when we set time and date, or at some point to better understand the executive's position. I think having two competing proposals would be challenging if they're on different timelines, different votes, and it could cause some confusion. So at some point, I think it would be really helpful if we do have two competing ones. If we marry those up somehow or may maybe there isn't a competing one and this is the proposal regardless of what direction council wants to go, I think just procedurally, would be that would be helpful. So maybe we can have those conversations and and revisit that when we when we discuss this at GLS, if that works. Yes. Go ahead, councilor Peters.

So on on that, thank you for bringing that. So other question is if this is the proposal or if the exec has a different proposal, what is the process of making amendments to that? So if if this is the proposal and then the I decide, hey. I want 2,500 feet. I want a 100 feet the way it is in in the city of Lynnwood. What is the process for the council to amend this docket proposal? And when like, do we do that before it goes to planning commission and or after? Just what's the process there?

So if the other proposal went to planning commission first, because this is scheduled, we would code requires us to come back within twelve months back to you guys through planning commission for this docket. Obviously, the other executive initiated code project couldn't move quicker. So if the code is changed before this docket is set for final docket and we wanna carry on with these changes, that's the point. The final docket, When it comes back to you or planning commission, that's when we'd make changes to the previously amended motion.

So in other words, if you've got two so you've got the docket process that's before you today, and then if the executive has another ordinance coming through to change code, that would follow the regular ordinance pattern of them creating an ordinance, it going to the planning commission, and then coming re being referred to county council for a public hearing. So it's completely separate. If that motion if that ordinance passes or fails, you still have the docket process in which you can make changes. And yet that will have that public hearing process as well. However, it's a bit more involved because this was citizen initiated, not initiated by the executive's office or a council member.

K. Council council member Dunneff. Yeah. Go ahead, council member.

Well so will you know by the twenty seventh when we would be setting time and date, or do you need more time to know if there will be a proposal from the executive? Because we could set time and date later because there's a a substantial amount of work to be done for our citizens initiative.

Before you answer that, Tom, same vein, I feel like there's already been a proposal transmitted from and is in process at PDS. I've I've I've read it. So whether you're saying that you didn't propose it or you're backing off of proposing it, there is a proposal that has been written that is different than this one that has been originated by the executive's office. True or not true?

That's my understanding. I haven't read it personally, but I believe that is the case and I believe we are willing to bring that forward. I just wasn't willing to bring it forward today.

Okay. But it's already been brought forward brought forward. It's in process. There's a there's something written. It's been transmitted. It's in process. Is there someone that has read it from the exec's office that could tell us what's in it?

I can one moment, please.

Okay.

Well, Mike is here.

Yeah. Mike McCurry, county exec's office. So what you you what we have is there's two different processes going forward because there's the normal code process, which is what we have currently been working on, that is following the normal process of going through public outreach, planning commission, planning committee, and we'll eventually end up here. This other process that you're looking at today is a docket process, which is there for anyone to be able to propose from the public to be able to propose a code change. So it takes a different, much longer process.

So what was here here before you today is is that process that allows a citizen to bring forward a code project. We would not analyze that unless you say to go further, and that's that's a year away before you would ever see it. What is currently in play is an ordinance, a proposed ordinance that's going through the normal process to take a look at the distance. There is a draft of that. It's going to that public process.

It will within the next month, it'll be going to the planning commission to take a look at. Based on that, then it then it may go forward and be sent up here to planning committee. No guarantees where that'll go. Currently, right now, it is drafted and will go to the the the planning commission. That's the normal process.

So there's kinda two separate. If this were to proceed, if the the code process is in place now, were to proceed, and something's voted on and it's changed, it it may make the the docket proposal a moot point that could be pulled off off the docket. If it doesn't go forward, there's a still parallel process that that could go forward if you choose to put it on the final docket, which will be a much longer process, but ultimately, you'd end up in the same. Is that clear enough?

It does. I have a couple of clarifying questions. Yes. So there's a difference between the two. One has been originated by you, the executive's office. One has been originated by a business owner, a Correct. Resident of some kind. The one that's originated by you is free. The one that's originated by the resident, he's having to go through a whole process. He's having to expend his own energy and his own money to make this thing happen. Why has there not been a conversation between the two to say, sync up this policy if you are in support or not? Because I don't know. I'm asking both of you now if you're in support of what the docket proposal that the resident has had to put his own time and energy into proposing versus what you're proposing which is different. It's it's not the same it's the same foot buffer. Right.

One is, from what I understand, just in Clearview. One is the entire rural space. So there's a there's a incongruity between the two proposals, but one is significantly more effort on a resident's plate. Correct. But it's their it's the it's a timing thing.

Right? Because the the ordinance that that we are currently working on, until it gets before the council, there's no guarantee what it will look like if it'll be passed or not. So, you know, if if this if this proposal does not get put on the the you could choose not to put it on the final docket, but it's just a separate path. Does it make sense?

Okay. Make sense. I don't I don't wanna keep belaboring this and we can also take this technical piece offline. But it's frustrating to me that there's two proposals. They're both different. We're hearing one right now. One that is different than what you've proposed. We've sort of been brought in the loop as counsel but also kinda not because you don't even know what the policy says yet, so you can't explain to me what the difference is between that one and the one we're thinking about now. One's gonna take a year, one could take a month. So there's still questions I have. I I don't want you to have to be trying to answer some

of these off the cuff. But Well, it's strictly the one is initiated by the county, that process. Process. The other is initiated by Stone Beach County citizen.

We don't initiated it from the county executive side for a reason. You didn't just happenstance do it at the same time as this resident has been doing it. So you proposed something based off of this effort. We've had a resident coming before council for like three months talking about this issue. Now, there is a proposal that's competing with his proposal coming from you guys.

And we've been more Yeah.

And I'm I'm expected to believe that you guys hadn't talked, you guys aren't kinda coordinating what the square footage look, and then I look at it and the buffers are different. And even the spaces that are in play are different in the policies, which is what's confusing to me and probably the public.

But and and I I could see how that would be. But, you know, we we've been working on it because for at least three months ourselves is looking at, okay, what is the as Tom mentioned earlier, what's the distance in for different rural businesses just not marijuana? How does it fit into? So we we've been looking at it from more of a holistic point. Meanwhile, I don't know the exact timing. A citizen has the ability under the docket site docket cycle to submit for that proposal, and that's what happened here. Because, you

know

Are

you telling me it's completely random? You're telling me Absolutely not. Okay. Right. So you guys heard this issue happening and engaged in the process to create a policy, but not with the business owner who it's impacting or the community that it's impacting.

Right. But the citizen still has the the right under our our code to say, I want this docket put on there. But what we're working on, there has been no guarantees until now, but early stages, whether we would we were investigating it, whether you it would go forward or not. It still hasn't gone through the planning commission or not. I can certainly understand the the need of the public to want to initiate this public initiated process separately. Okay. That's their right. Okay.

Thank

you. So I think for time's sake, we'll we'll go ahead and put this on the agenda for GLS on May 27 on action. That's the set time and date for public hearing. I know for myself, it would be helpful on the twenty seventh to get a little bit a better idea, maybe both from the proposer of this motion as well as the executive's office on if there is a plan to marry the two up or move one forward, drop the other, or or move them both forward. That would be helpful in just reducing some of the confusion, I think. But for now, let's go ahead and put this on GLS on the twenty seventh. If there's no objection to that, we can continue the discussion at that point. All right. Thank you all. Thanks again for the report. Next up, we have motion 20 six-one 186.

Good morning.

The record Cynthia Foley council staff, the airport contracts with Washington Alarm for required monitoring and periodic testing and inspections for airport fire alarm systems. The proposed motion approves amendment three d agreement that which increases the not to exceed amount by $880,000. Additional funds are needed to pay for repairs and replacement of aging equipment. Their request is to move motion 26 dash one eight six to the GLS agenda for council consideration.

Alright. Thank you. Any questions or comments on motion 26 dash one eight six? If not, we will move this to the GLS agenda on May 27 for consideration on the consent agenda unless there's objection. Alright. And we'll move on to motion 26 dash one nine nine.

For the record, Cynthia Foley, council staff, Snohomish County Airport is contracting with Jacobs Engineering Incorporated for services related to the rehabilitation of Runway 16 R Dash 34 L. The project is largely funded by FAA grants. Motion 26 dash one nine nine approves the final phase of engineering for the project. The contract not to exceed amount is $1,688,663 The request is to remove is to move motion 26 dash one nine nine to the GLS agenda for council consideration.

Thank you, Cynthia. Any questions or comments from council members? If there's no objection, we'll move this on the consent agenda for GLS on May 27. And then we'll move on to motion 20 six-one 197.

Good morning, counsel. For the record, Nicole Gorley, council staff. Motion 26 dash one nine seven would approve a professional services agreement with the Timber Framers Guild selected through the RFP process to lead the planning and execution of construction of three pavilion structures on preset concrete slabs at Kayak Point Park. Under the agreement, the guild will hold a community building workshop to construct the three structures over a ten day time period. The county will provide the guild with the timber, roofing materials, and all equipment needed for installation.

The contract amount is for $103,736, and funding was approved for this project in the twenty twenty five, twenty twenty six adopted CIPM budget. The motion authorizes the executive to execute the contract and all future amendments. And today's request is to move to GLS May 27 for consideration.

All right. Thanks, Nicole. Any questions or comments from counsel? If there's no objection, we'll move this to the consent agenda on GLS on May 27. Move on to motion 26 dash two zero four.

Thank you again, committee chair Nearing and council members for the record, Deb Bell council staff. Proposed motion 26 dash two zero four is to refer a discussion item to the Planning Commission. Councilmember Low and councilmember Nearing have proposed a request for discussion regarding religious facilities as permitted or conditional uses in Zoning District A 10. The requested action is to consider the motion, and this concludes my staff report. I'm available for any questions.

Thank you. Do have questions or comments from council members? Council Member Dunn? So

typically, we refer a motion. So there's not a proposed amendment with this. This is a discussion item?

That's correct. It's it's to add a discussion item to their agenda.

And I I can speak to that. So we received council member Lo and I received a request to make to make this change. And after talking about it, we felt it was better to let the planning commission have a discussion on this and make a recommendation before we put staff time into developing a proposed code change. That's the reason there's not a change associated with it. We're gonna wait until we've heard back from the planning commission and then make a decision on whether to proceed.

And would there be would it would include some type of briefing around the legalities that were raised and a staff report for background? Absolutely. Mhmm.

Other questions? Alright. So the proposed action is to move this to GLS on the twenty seventh for consideration. Is there a preference on action or consent on that? Action. Okay. On the action agenda, next is motion 20 six-one 189.

Thank you again for the record, Dunbell, council staff. Proposed motion 20 six-one 189 would refer the proposed ordinance to the Planning Commission for review, consideration, and a recommendation back to council. The ordinance has been proposed by council member Low and council member Mead. Currently, Snohomish County code does not distinguish sheriff precincts or fire stations from other government facilities. Proposed code change would add those new definitions and would clarify the appropriate process for approving sheriff precincts and fire stations through permitted or conditionally permitted processes. The requested action is to move this motion to GLS for consideration, and this concludes my staff report. I'm available for any questions.

Alright. Thanks. Any questions or comments from council members? Just a quick clarification. This is referring it to planning commission?

That's correct.

Yep. Okay. Other questions, comments? That's for me. Did you? If no if there's no questions, we

can look forward.

I just

sponsored it. So if there were questions, I could answer them.

Great. Okay. Then let's go ahead and move this to GLS on May 27 for consideration, preference on action, or consent. Consent. Okay. Alright. We'll put that on the consent agenda. We do have a discussion item where, I apologize that we are twenty three minutes over, but, we will go ahead and bring on the marine resource committee to get their 2025 annual report. Thank you for your patience.

Great. Thanks for having us. I'm Julie Schlanger.

I'm the current chair of the Snohomish County MRC. And I'm Joyceann Blue, senior planner with Snohomish County Surface Water Management, and the MRC coordinator.

So, I'd like to thank you for having us. The Snohomish County, MRC, I started that during the COVID years. And this is my third term because I really see the value in our work both locally in Snohomish County, in our collaboration with the tribes, and in the larger effort to restore the health of Puget Sound. The MRC specifically promotes restoration, conservation, and the education of the shared water and marine resources here in beautiful Snohomish County. We've provided you with a link to our 2025 annual report.

The cover shot on that title page is a marine grass called eelgrass. Eelgrass beds have been identified as critical habitat in Puget Sound. They provide numerous ecological services like habitat and nursery sites for salmon and shellfish, shoreline protection and sediment stabilization food web support carbon capture or a sink and water quality improvement. Okay, there we go. So the MRC is driven by smart, committed Snohomish County volunteers with variable backgrounds.

The twenty twenty five team oops. The twenty twenty five team is shown up there, and we have several members in the audience, some in crutches and one in a neck brace, but don't let that bother you. I'd like to highlight that for years, we've also had consistent and valuable representation on the MRC from both the Tulalip Tribes and the Stillaguamish Tribe. Staff is housed in SWIM and are valuable assets to the development and implementation of the MRC's marine strategies. Now I'd like to focus on the five focus areas of

the

forge fish monitoring, marine vegetation monitoring, marine water quality monitoring, derelict vessel removal and finally, education and outreach. Pictured here on this slide, you can see our largest floating kelp bed in the Snohomish County with Hat Island in the background there. Floating kep kelp, Nerochisthus leukiana, is an important species in Puget Sound, and it creates a complex three d habitat forest. The bed is also located within the first ever statewide kelp and eelgrass protection zone, and it's right here in our backyard. We received the majority of our funding, as shown in the top pie chart, from SWIM utility funds and Northwest Straits Initiative grants.

In 2025, the MRC volunteers donated over twelve hundred hours for an estimated value of $52,000 Two of our focus areas are shown on this slide. Forged fish monitoring on the left, which is used to identify if and when our beaches are being used by spawning forged fish. And these fish are an important link in the food web. We process the sediment sample before sending it to our state partner, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, for further analysis. The MRC monitors Howers Park here in Everett, Picnic Point and Meadowdale County Parks.

And we're going on our twelfth year of monitoring kelp beds along the county shoreline. From the graph on the top right, you can see the year surveyed on the bottom and the kelp bed size on the x on the y axis. As you can see, the Hat Island kelp beds are represented in that peachy and the blue are the biggest beds in Snohomish County. Another kelp bed is located in Edmonds. How its area has changed over the years is in the grey color.

The Edmunds bed has become a research site used by other partners like the UW and the Puget Sound Restoration Fund, a nonprofit. I'd like to emphasize that research is being done on this kelp because there's been observed decline in Puget Sound with in both bed size and numbers of beds, especially in the Southern And Central Puget Sound. Now that Edmunds kelp bed is right there at that at that border of where this is happening, the decline. Excuse me. So now I just wanna let you know that we've set some dates for the kelp bed kayaking, so you're welcome to come with if you'd like to or to carry some sand from some forge fish samples at any time.

Another project we did in Sorry.

If could if I could just real quickly. I know a couple of us have 12:30. So you're welcome to continue, and we can drop off, or we can schedule you to come back, or we can follow-up. I'll I'll defer to you on how you'd like to handle, and I apologize.

Appreciate it. I'll I'll jump through because you have the report. So marine water quality here in Everett. We've removed two derelict vessels last year up to 31, so tab's getting higher. We did some outreach events last year, of course.

And our big one, thank you to congress council member Dunn for joining us in our our big vegetation outreach that we did in, for the Muckilteel and Hat Island communities. So we focus locally, what's in your backyard. They learned what marine vegetation is, why it's important, and where it is. Because we can't protect. We can't do any planning if we don't know anything about that.

So we're trying to keep it off the data shelf. I'm a scientist by background. I love data, but trying to get it in the hands that it can be used and protected as a as a resource economically and ecologically. So looking forward to the future there we go. The Snohomish MRC staff would or the MRC would like to provide you with a recommendation to continue the funding of MRC staff, including a marine ecology intern within the Snohomish County Surface Water Management.

And also to let you know that there's hot off the press April 2026 report from the state that is looking at marine veg, and we are here to also be a resource for you guys. And we will be following that and providing you with any updates that we think is important for future planning and protection. Thank you.

Great. Thank you very much. Really appreciate it. And and thank you for your patience and waiting for the end of the meeting and for getting through this. I know we have the report in writing as well. Any questions from council members or comments? Okay. Well, thank you again so much for joining us for all your work and the great work of, MRC. So, well, that will conclude our agenda. We will be adjourned for the rest of the day. Thank you.

Great. Thanks.