Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Marijuana Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council reaffirms interim restrictions on marijuana retail relocations after public hearing; retailers warn of business uncertainty
Summary
Following public testimony from licensed retailers and employees, Spokane Valley Council approved a resolution reaffirming findings that support a temporary pause on marijuana retail relocations while planning staff and the commission review land‑use regulations; vote was 5–2.
Spokane Valley City Council on March 17 held a public hearing on an emergency interim ordinance that temporarily prevents licensed marijuana retail businesses from relocating within the city while staff and the planning commission study appropriate zoning and land‑use rules. The council approved a resolution reaffirming the ordinance’s findings by a 5–2 vote.
Tony Beattie, senior deputy city attorney, explained that the interim ordinance (adopted February 3) treats existing retailers as legal nonconforming uses and pauses relocations so staff can fold the review into the city’s comprehensive plan and development code update. He said the hearing and resolution memorialize the public input required by state law.
Multiple speakers from the Treehouse Club (owner Steven Birx and staff) told the council the interim step effectively freezes compliant businesses and could prevent medically certified stores from continuing to serve patients if they cannot relocate after a lease change or other event. They argued that Washington’s state regulatory regime already includes buffer rules and product controls and that land‑use treatment of relocation is not the right regulatory lever for product potency or youth access concerns.
Council members debated whether the ordinance met the technical standard for an emergency interim action and whether the interim timeframe was too long for affected businesses. City staff and the city attorney said the interim ordinance is a pause for up to one year to give planning staff time to craft land‑use rules; any permanent changes would require additional public hearings and planning commission recommendations.
After public testimony and council discussion, the council passed the resolution reaffirming the findings and documenting the hearing, 5–2. Several council members said they expect the planning commission to give careful consideration to buffer distances, commerce impacts and a sunset clause in any final ordinance.
