Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
M100614 - Marijuana Moratorium Hearing Comments scanned as received
District No. 1 Commissioner: Phil Johnson District No. 2 Commissioner: David W. Sullivan District No. 3 Commissioner: John Austin County Administrator: Philip Morley Clerk of the Board: Erin Lundgren MINUTES Special Meeting Week of October 6. 2014 Chairman John Austin called the meeting to order at the appointed time in the presence of Commissioner David Sullivan. Commissioner Phil Johnson was absent. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following is a summary of comments made by citizens in attendance at the meeting and reflect their personal opinions: A citizen: 1) thanked the two County Commissioner candidates for running a friendly issue oriented race; 2) announced there will be a meeting on Wednesday at 6:30 p.m. at the Chimacum Grange where the operation of a local farm will be discussed; and 3) questioned how Cape George Colony can ban individuals from doorbelling? 5 citizens spoke on the issue of marijuana business operations in Jefferson County; and A citizen: 1) stated that some County budget appropriations are necessary and some are not; and 2) stated the County has limited sources of revenue, yet it is considering extreme permit regulations or outright banning of marijuana businesses that would generate sales tax revenue. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Sullivan moved to approve the items on the Consent Agenda as presented. Chairman Austin seconded the motion. The motion carried. 1. CALL FOR BIDS re: Pickup Trucks; Bids Accepted Until 9:30 a.m. and Opened and Read Publicly at 10:00 a.m., or shortly thereafter on Monday, November 3, 2014 in the Commissioners' Chambers 2. AGREEMENT re: Contract Award for Motor Graders; In the Amount of $608,492.50; Jefferson County Central Services; NC Machinery 3. AGREEMENT, Amendment No. 1 re: Motor Graders; No dollar amount, Clarifies the Warranty Coverage; Jefferson County Central Services; NC Machinery 4. AGREEMENT re: Paint Exterior of Port Townsend Community Center Gymnasium; Amount Not to Exceed $39,220.91; Jefferson County Central Services; Sabelhaus West, Inc. 5. AGREEMENT re: Paradise Bay Road, Phase II County Road No. 503608, Project No. CR1873, M.P. 0.37 to MY 1.53; In the Amount of $58,061.48; Jefferson County Public Works; Van Aller Surveying 6. AGREEMENT re: Quinault S. Shore Road Mitigation Project No. CR1848, County Road No. 911607, Federal Aid No. ER- 1002(010); In the Amount of $278,924.18; Jefferson County Public Works; GeoEngineers, Inc. Page 1 Commissioners Special Meeting Minutes of October 6, 2014 7. AGREEMENT re: Emergency Repair, Quinault S. Shore Road Revetment Maintenance, M.P. 1.28, County Road No. 911607, County Project No. X01953; Amount Not to Exceed $30,000; Jefferson County Public Works; Northwest Rock Inc. 8. AGREEMENT NO. PW -00- 691 -ELP -301, Amendment A re: Public Works Trust Fund Board Loan to Reconstruct Lindsey Hill Road; No Dollar amount, Change in Annual Payment Date; Jefferson County Public Works; Washington State Department of Commerce 9. AGREEMENT re: Washington Conservation Corps (WCC ) Crew; In the Amount of $6,640; Jefferson County Public Health; North Olympic Salmon Coalition 10. AGREEMENT NO. SEANWS- 2014- JeCoWS -00006 re: Jefferson County Marine Resources Committee Project Administration; In the Amount of $73,000; Jefferson County WSU Extension; Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) 11. Final Short Plat Approval re: Bowe Short Plat 4MLA05- 00343 / 4SUB05- 00024; To Subdivide a 12.74 Acre Parcel into Two Residential Lots; Located off Brunt Tree Lane, Quilcene; David and Diane Bowe, Applicants 12. Advisory Board Appointment re: Jefferson County Developmental Disabilities Advisory Board; Three (3) Year Term Expires October 6, 2017; Patrick Kane 13. Payment of Jefferson County Vouchers /Warrants Dated September 22, 2014 Totaling $314,322.15 and Dated September 29, 2014 Totaling $367,187.47 14. Payment of Jefferson County Payroll Warrants Dated September 19, 2014 Totaling $72,213.24 and A/P Warrants Done by Payroll Dated September 6, 2014 Totaling $127,220.21 and Dated September 19, 2014 Totaling $15,422.95 COMMISSIONERS BRIEFING SESSION. • The Commissioners each provided updates on the following items: Chairman Austin - Received a letter last week from the Washington State Department of Transportation announcing that they have withdrawn the property located at South Point from auction scheduled to take place this will allow the State to retain an emergency alternate ferry landing site when the Hood Canal Bridge is out of service. Attended a presentation by a local astronaut who shared his experience in space and provided photographs of the growth of desertification in Africa. Attended a health conference last week where the issue of drug overdose was discussed and how the use of the drug Naloxone can reverse the effects of drug overdose. Will be attending a State Board of Health meeting in Spokane this week where one of the issues being addressed is how the State responds to Ebola. Commissioner Sullivan - Supports the use of Naloxone for reversing the effects of drug overdose. - Attended a PDD /RC &D meeting last week where the closure of the mill in Forks was discussed. - Attended a Food Council presentation and a Marine Science Center breakfast meeting last week. - Will be attending a YMCA Collective Impact meeting this week. Page 2 Commissioners Special Meeting Minutes of October 6, 2014 PROCLAMATION re: Proclaiming the Week of October 6, 2014 as Mental Illness Awareness Week: Darlene Grunke of the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) spoke on behalf of the organization and gave an update on their services. Chairman Austin read the proclamation proclaiming the week of October 6, 2014 as Mental Illness Awareness Week. Commissioner Sullivan moved to approve the proclamation. Chairman Austin seconded the motion. The motion carried. The meeting was recessed at 9:50 a.m. and reconvened at 10:00 a.m. Chairman Austin and Commissioner Sullivan were present. Commissioner Johnson was absent. HEARING re: 31 Quarter 2014 Budget Appropriations/Extensions for Various County Departments: County Administrator Philip Morley reviewed various County department requests for 3rd quarter 2014 budget appropriations /extensions. The proposed budget changes are intended to address unanticipated revenues and expenditures of the requesting departments. Pursuant to RCW 36.40.140, the Board of County Commissioners must hold a public hearing regarding the proposed budget changes. Chairman Austin opened the hearing for public testimony. Tom Thiersch: He stated he has one objection to the proposed appropriations for the 3'd quarter budget extension, and that is the money that is being allocated for the consultant report for the parks open space report. He attended a special meeting of the Parks and Recreation Committee last week in which they received the first draft of that report for which the County is paying over $20,000. Within a matter of a couple of minutes of glancing at the first draft of that report, he was able to spot from personal memory a number of blatant errors in that report: misstating the population of the Port Townsend School District, overstating it, using a number that is a dozen years or more out of date; misrepresenting the ownership status of a property that is owned by the County; and lots of other little details and typographical errors. The County is paying money to a consultant that is basically doing nothing more than reiterating a previously published report, and yet is charging the County again for that same information. Consultants are notorious for doing these sorts of things, but, this really is not forgivable. We are not getting our money's worth. I understand that we need to have an Open Space Plan in order for the County to be able to apply for certain grant monies, but, this expenditure is not the right way to do it. That consultant either needs to produce something meaningful and valuable to the County, true value, or that work needs to be given to somebody else and that contract needs to be negated. He recommends and urges the Board to not appropriate this money and not pay that consultant until we get what we are paying for. Thank you. Steve Oakford: He stated he supports the comments made by Mr. Thiersch. He acknowledged that he himself generally has a very low regard for consultants. He would first go through staff at the County who could probably do what a consultant does way better than they do it because they have local knowledge. Also, many retirees that come from great careers could put together better reports at a way lower cost and make a determination. I think the only time you can justify hiring a consultant is when you are embarking on something in which there is absolutely no possible source of expertise. We are blessed to be loaded with a community full of really great competent people. The staff of this County Page 3 Commissioners Special Meeting Minutes of October 6, 2014 and the staff of the City both are just head and shoulders above what you are going to run into just about anywhere else. To tap an outside resource when you have got pure gold right in your building just strikes me as not the greatest idea. Go local first. If they can't do it, I think these people will be honest enough to say this is outside my camp. But, just from what I've witnessed in staff people here and all of the electeds really care about their communities, they may have different viewpoints, but they care. I think almost anything we need to figure out, can be figured out locally without spending good money for paperwork that would not get past my eighth grade English teacher. Thank you. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Austin closed the public hearing. Commissioner Sullivan stated that the County does have staff that is very capable of doing the work, but they are working. Rather than add and make a long -term commitment to increase the staffing to do work, sometimes it is more efficient to hire a temporary worker to do the work. Staff may not have the time to do the work even though they may have the expertise. Otherwise, we would have to hire somebody do the other part their job. Temporary consultant staff can be a useful tool. Yes there are concerns about them. He asked County Administrator Morley to address the quality control with regard to the report. County Administrator Morley stated that Parks and Recreation Manager Matt Tyler certainly has the capability and expertise of doing the plan himself, but he lacks the time because he is busy managing the parks division which is very shorthanded. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board recently met where comments made by Mr. Thiersch were pointed out. Mr. Tyler will be taking responsibility for doing quality control. Ultimately, it is up to the County department which is hiring the consultant to provide the oversight and supervision to get what we are paying for. Mr. Morley agrees that we want to make sure that we get a quality product. The consultant that is doing the work had done background work for the Exploratory Regional Parks and Recreation Advisory Board that did much of the inventorying of park facilities, so the consultant came in with some knowledge and was the basis for why she was chosen to do this work. He also agrees that we want the department to provide the supervision to make sure we are getting what we pay for. He is not hearing disagreement that there is a need for a new Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan and time is of the essence in order to be able to be qualified to submit for the next round of grants. For those reasons, he suggests that the Board move ahead with the appropriation and he will work with the department to make sure that we get quality control. Commissioner Sullivan moved to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 45 -14 re: Order approving the 3`d Quarter Supplemental Budget Appropriations /Extensions for various County departments. Chairman Austin seconded the motion. The motion carried. The meeting was recessed at 10:19 a.m. and reconvened at 10:30 a.m. Chairman Austin and Commissioner Sullivan were present. Commissioner Johnson was absent. Page 4 5C Commissioners Special Meeting Minutes of October 6, 2014 HEARING re: ORDINANCE NO. 07- 0811 -14, Moratorium Prohibiting the Production, Processing and Retailing of Recreational Marijuana in Certain Land Use Designations within Unincorporated Jefferson County and Establishing a Work Plan for the Planning Agency: Department of Community Development (DCD) staff present for the hearing included Director Carl Smith, Planning Manager Stacie Hoskins and Associate Planner Colleen Zmolek. Director Smith explained that last fall when they learned this new type of industry and new type of land use would require the development of regulations, DCD staff met with a number of other agencies to discuss how the County should respond. DCD staff has no experience with this new type of industry and new type of land use. Since the community is very friendly to agriculture it was decided that staff would see if our existing regulations were sufficient to properly control marijuana. As the Washington State Liquor Control Board began sending the DCD notices of pending applications and as DCD staff gained some experience, staff noticed some trends that raised concerns. One concern that was raised was the preponderance of applications that were going to rural residential zoning. Historically, agriculture has not focused on rural residential zoning, with the exception of small agriculture use. Approximately half of the marijuana applicants are proposing to be located in rural residential zoned land. The issue is whether or not marijuana fits within the purpose and intent of rural residential land designations. Secondly, there was one application in a rural residential zone proposing a total of 40,000 square feet of building, a septic system design for 50 or more people, and 30 parking spaces. This is inconsistent with the type of uses DCD staff has seen in rural residential zoned land and raises the issue of secondary effects which includes issues with traffic, noise, light, glare, odors, and activities. These are issues that DCD planners must address in determining a clear intent and purpose of land use zones. They need to make sure this type of use is consistent with the zoning. In July, a teleconference was held with the Washington State Liquor Control Board (LCB) and other State agencies including the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) and Olympic Region Clean Air Agency (ORCAA). During the teleconference it was Learned that the LCB was only sending marijuana application notices to Jefferson County as the local jurisdiction. DCD staff considered the role of other agencies in dealing with water, wastewater, etc. for these types of applications and it was felt that these agencies should also be receiving notification of the applications. While the applicants will be subject to local regulations and the regulations of the other agencies, the LCB does not intend to screen the applications to insure they meet the regulations of each agency. This concerned DCD staff, so on their own initiative, they instituted a process that when they submit comments on all applications to the LCB they also send a copy to the DOE, ORCAA, and the U.S. Navy. These issues led DCD to request support of a moratorium which the Board of County Commissioners enacted on August 11, 2014. In accordance with State law, a public hearing must be held on the moratorium within 60 days of enactment. The public hearing was noticed in the Port Townsend/Jefferson County Leader, which is the official newspaper of public record, on August 27, 2014 and September 17, 2014. County Administrator Philip Morley stated that the purpose of the moratorium allows a six month period of time for County staff to develop what, if any, additional permanent regulations may be adopted regarding marijuana production, processing and retailing. The moratorium is not intended to be a regulation for the long term. It is a time -out to allow staff time to develop regulations that would go Page 5 Commissioners Special Meeting Minutes of October 6, 2014 through the normal drafting process of being reviewed by the Planning Commission with public hearings being held before the adoption of permanent regulations. The moratorium ordinance outlines a specific timeframe in the next six months for accomplishing various tasks including a study of impacts within a 120 days of enactment of the ordinance, Planning Commission review and recommendation within 150 days of enactment of the ordinance and final adoption of regulations within 180 days of adoption of the moratorium. The moratorium is not intended to be long -term regulation of marijuana activity, but rather to allow the County time to freeze the playing field for a period of time while the County develops regulations. Chairman Austin opened the hearing for public testimony. Jean Ball: She apologized for speaking during public comment on the issue of marijuana. She thanked the Board for being involved in the Democratic process. She noted that we may not all agree, but we need to find a way to move forward. She introduced herself as Jean Ball with Gnarley Dog Farm in Chimacum. Ms. Ball stated she has been a resident of Jefferson County since 2002. She is an applicant for I -502 production and processing. She is an organic farmer of animals, plants and gourmet fungi. Ms. Ball indicated that she is an organic subsistence farmer because she has extensive food sensitivity and health issues. She teaches land stewardship, sustainable farming, animal husbandry, bee keeping and humane processing of meat animals. Ms. Ball stated she needs to find a way to support herself from home or face becoming a dependent. 1 -502 is a chance for her to support herself and her family on their farmland with her family's extensive skills. The bottom line is simple for her. She wants a job and she wants to work from home. Ms. Ball noted that she read the Jefferson land use regulations for rural residential zoning and she found numerous statements to support her concept of land use for 502 and numerous distinct efforts to improve employment opportunities in Jefferson County through rural residential zoning and cottage industry permits. Ms. Ball pointed out that the regulations indicate their purpose is to foster home based businesses for cottage industries in order to provide economic and employment opportunities outside of rural village centers. And the right of a property owner to utilize land is an important issue to all citizens of Jefferson County. Policies regarding legal existing uses, home based businesses and cottage industries will provide for an economic viabilities of businesses, etc. As a farmer, Ms. Ball does not see the need for an agricultural product to be produced, otherwise known as grown or processed, otherwise known as packaged in a commercially zoned area. She stated she can grow her plants and package her flowers on her farm. If a lumber mill, auto mechanic or lavender farm can operate on rural residential, so too should a cannabis farm. She indicated that she found other verbiage that also seemed to support rural residential land use for I -502 applicants stating that the purpose of the rural residential zoning is to acknowledge and protect the rights of private property owners in preparing land use development, prohibit arbitrary and discriminatory actions and preserve reasonable uses for regulative properties. She does not know of anyone more highly regulated than "us." Perhaps the nuclear power plant. Ms. Bell went on to read from the regulations further. The County understands it cannot satisfy every resident, it can make balanced choices that provide for the greatest public benefit. She feels confident that the Commissioners will make the correct decision for Jefferson County regarding the sufficiently regulated agriculture product because it is a step toward the greatest public benefit. Thank you for your time. Page 6 Commissioners Special Meeting Minutes of October 6, 2014 Kyle Craig: He stated he is a Tier 3 license applicant and the horticulturist for the Jefferson County Cannabis Company. He has a Master's Degree in horticulture and was formerly an employee in the Department of Horticulture at Washington State University (WSU) working in organic crop production and research. Mr. Craig stated he is also a member of the Olympic Peninsula Cannabis Association (OPCA), many members of which are here today. He indicated that all members share a deep concern for sharing our environmental resources. As such, the OPCA is working on guidelines and recommendations for growers to make sure our members are educated about best management practices to limit or eliminate run -off from the fertilizers and pesticides which may be employed during the course of marijuana production. It is the clandestine history of marijuana production and there is a great deal of misinformation regarding the horticultural practices and requirements for this plant. In reality, were it not for the extensive security and traceability requirements mandated by the Washington State Liquor Control Board (LCB), than many of our member's operations would be indistinguishable from any other small scale horticulture or dried herb business. Concerns over marijuana growing and pollution are understandable. Sustainable crop production is a challenge for all farmers and non -point source pollution from agricultural operations is a major concern. Overuse of fertilizers like corn and soybean farmers is one of the main drivers of conditions that create a 5,000 square mile dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico each summer. Moreover, the copper -based fungicides commonly used in fruit, vegetable, flour and grain crops present a special challenge to water ways due to their accumulation in the soil and toxicity to fish. As with any crop, marijuana growers need to institute best management practices to avoid harm to the environment and their crop. The overuse of fertilizer and pesticides is detrimental to both. It is important to bear in mind that all licensed marijuana growers are restricted to a very small list of approved pesticide products, almost all of which are already approved for use in organic farming systems. Growers must employ these products judiciously as contamination can render a crop unmarketable. Requirements by the LCB mandate that samples from all harvests are screened. For reference, Mr. Craig included a copy of the Washington State Department of Agriculture's (WSDA's) position on pesticide use in marijuana and a list of products approved on licensed crops. He submitted a document from the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) regarding water resource rules and regulations for marijuana growing in Washington State. He suggested contacting Vince McGowan who is the DOE lead on marijuana water use. DOE anticipates that all tiers of licensees growing within protected structures leaves less water than the 5,000 gallon per day exemption granted for commercial irrigation in most areas. While they do not make such predications for crops grown under field conditions, the agricultural standard of one to two acre inches per week is a reasonable estimate considering this amount is more than adequate for industrial hemp cultivation. Even the largest producer of field cannabis would be using less than the daily exempted amount of water crop irrigation in most areas. Jefferson County was correct in its initial classification of marijuana growing as agriculture. Categorizing the propagation, cultivation and harvesting of the flower as anything else would be an absurd legal fiction. Public policy should be grounded in science and facts, not fear of myopic considerations. Marijuana growing should be allowed anywhere in Jefferson County where fanning is permitted. Mr. Craig submitted the position of the Washington Sungrower's Industry Association (WSIA) of why marijuana cultivation is agriculture. The WSIA is an organization about outdoor and greenhouse marijuana growers, dedicated to shaping public policies, environmentally and economically sustainability in Washington State. Thank you. Tami Mendonca: She stated she resides in Jefferson County and is a Tier 2 applicant. She reported on some of the issues of growing marijuana in rural residential areas and gave statistics from the uniform Page 7 Commissioners Special Meeting Minutes of October 6, 2014 crime reporting standards in Denver. Between January 1, 2014 and July 31, 2014, crime has gone down in all categories, specifically robbery. Robbery has gone down 8.2% and burglary has gone down 6.9 %. While this does not set a conclusive outcome of crime effect on property, it does show that the sky did not fall, or is not going to fall. Ms. Mendonca does not believe the concerns against marijuana are valid. In Port Townsend they are allowing medical growing to occur without any fences, video surveillance or security requirements that the I -502 growers are required to have. She believes that if a criminal has a desire to steal marijuana, they would probably go to an open garden someplace in town. Both 502 growers and medical growers in Port Townsend have to register their address and it has to be made public knowledge. If a criminal was going to look up a public record in hopes of stealing marijuana, they would most likely access one of the gardens in the City of Port Townsend rather than those in the rural communities. Ms. Mendonca stated that as far as crime goes, marijuana theft is not a valid concern. Thank you. Sylvia White: Passed Felecia Allen: She stated she resides at 1450 Egg and I Road and has had more trespassers on her property within the last year than she has since she moved to that location. It is not okay. We live in America, this is still a federally illegal substance. There is illegal drug use. There are people that have addiction problems and it starts out with recreational stuff. It is not okay. Ms. Allen noted that she homeschools and provides an alternative learning experience. She submitted a document that addressed a Washington Code that states that her children are enrolled in a public school program and she may as well have a public school at her house because her children have to follow all of the same rules as a public school. In addition to that, she is also a County 4 -H leader and has been for many years. Ms. Allen grew up in a 4 -H family and 4 -H participants come to her property. She reiterated that illegal trespassing has already taken place on her property. They live in a family- orientated area where people go to bed early, they get up early. Now, every time her livestock guardian dogs bark, she is concerned whether or not she needs to walk down to where her gate is and find out if someone is parking or illegally trespassing across her property. Ms. Allen stated that she has never had to do that. She does not like living where she has to worry about trespassers. She bought that piece of property and intends to live there until she dies. The prior property she resided at for 17 years. Ms. Allen wants to keep her beautiful piece of property in Jefferson County as a nice quiet place for her family to continue to grow. She understands people want to grow marijuana, but there are still people that live in areas where they do not want to be concerned about a marijuana growing operation in their backyard. This is a new thing. Agriculture does not require 8 foot fences to be protected. She asked the following questions: If marijuana is considered the same as any other agriculture property, why does it have to have 8 foot fences? If it is like anything else, why am I now getting trespassers on my property when I've never had that before? Thank you. Tom Brotherton: He stated that he has heard of the environmental concerns of marijuana growing. He visited a crop located in just outside of Sequim in Clallam County last Friday. Mr. Brotherton asked the owners questions. He learned that the couple bought an old dairy barn and put their growth facility inside of it. He submitted documents and included photos of the marijuana grow. The female half of the couple handles the plants and the male handles the sales and maintenance and they have one full time Page 8 Commissioners Special Meeting Minutes of October 6, 2014 employee. When he first drove up to the site, he thought he had missed the turn -off. There were no signs anything was going on. There was no noise, no lights, no odor, nothing. There was just a building sitting there. Mr. Brotherton noted that he knocked on the door and it reminded him of his college days. He worked at the Air Pollution Research Center at the University of California. This grow operation was much like those he saw back in college. There were rows of plants in pots, lots of lights, very clean and everything was labeled. It was a very professional design. In regard to environmental concerns, they use 100 gallons of water per day. They buy $1,000 of electricity per month. By comparison, his small store in Quilcene costs around $900 a month in electricity due to their freezers and coolers. The grow he visited is completely organic and they use no chemicals. All plants are inspected every day and watered by hand. They use hydrometers to make sure they have the correct amount of water, so there is very little water consumption. There are no waste products at all and no septic system. In regard to traffic, Mr. Brotherton indicated that they have one product delivery per month via car which contains about 30 pounds of marijuana. As far as he can tell, it is the perfect home business. There is no traffic, trivial water use, no noise, no odor, the same electricity consumption as a small store, they use no chemicals, no solid waste or septic waste and it makes significant tax revenue. From his experience on the City Council and the Planning Commission, these are things you look for in a home business. He pointed out that this particular marijuana grow operation is probably the poster child of operations. It was completely indoors, you could not tell it was happening. Mr. Brotherton submitted a second page regarding the control of agriculture through reduced environmental concerns. He indicated the document surfaced a couple years ago from the Planning Commission. To grow a pound of marijuana it takes around .32 cubic meters of water and there is 294 gallons in a cubic meter. To raise one head of cattle it takes 4,000 cubic meters of water. That are 1.176 million gallons of water in 18 months. Sheep, goats, anything that walks uses much more water and makes much more waste than marijuana plants do. In comparison, it takes 10.5 liters of water to create a heavy hit of marijuana, or half an ounce. Marijuana growing has a very small environmental impact, if done properly. The meeting was recessed at 11:00 a.m. and reconvened at 11:05 a.m. Chairman Austin and Commissioner Sullivan were present. Commissioner Johnson was absent. Public testimony continued: Claire Wood: She stated that she is a recent college graduate and concerned young citizen who knows that allowing marijuana to grow in rural residential areas will bring no harm to these areas, or the community at large. In fact, she believes quite the opposite. Growing marijuana under new recreational laws is not only safe, responsible and profitable, it is empowering. Ms. Wood expressed that via family, friends and the news, it is reported that it is hard out there for recent graduates. She noted that even if a graduate worked hard and did wonderfully in school, built a great resume, spent their spare time running organizations and being a proactive member in the community, as she did, once you are let out into the real world, the experience is often disappointing, at best. For her and so many people she knows, they have scrambled hard to find any job that would take them, let alone any job they were qualified for. Jobs which would allow them to buy food, pay rent and maybe begin to dig their way out of student debt. It is easy to feel disenfranchised by the whole experience. Ms. Wood stated that for her, beginning to work in Page 9 Commissioners Special Meeting Minutes of October 6, 2014 the marijuana industry has changed her life. It is a perfect union of what she has studied in school and her interests which are agriculture, food science, natural medicine and eco- engineering. Every day of work has presented new challenges and learning opportunities. She has spent so much of her own time researching and experimenting because she feels inspired, would like to know more and do her absolute best. Her business is one of two in Jefferson County that received the green light to grow before the moratorium passed. It still feels as though this development is threatening our business as well as so many others that will not have a chance if the ban on growing continues in these areas. Ms. Wood indicated that they all have put so much hard work into building these businesses from the ground up and want nothing more than being able to continue working hard if given the chance. She feels fortunate to have a career that she feels empowered and passionate about. It affords her the opportunity to become a business owner at her young age and to be free of the constant worry of being able to afford living. She affirms that she is one of countless others who feel the same way. Opening up the market to grow in all areas will only bring goodwill, great job opportunities, new vibrant spirits and abundant revenue to the community. That is in everyone's best interest. Thank you. Kyle Baker: He stated he is a young farmer with a degree in sustainable agriculture and is hoping to benefit from the budding marijuana industry in Jefferson County. He disagrees with the moratorium placed on marijuana growers and processors. If he could use one word to describe the motives behind this moratorium, it would be "fear." There is nothing to fear. If he could use one word to describe the marijuana industry in Jefferson County it would be "growth." Growth not only for the economy, but for the ecology and culture. It is already very difficult for growers and processors to grow. This new phenomenon can bring so much force to soil conservation alone which is a huge issue in developing areas. On his farm they are putting a lot of energy and effort into building the soil and diversity of the land. By not allowing growers to use rural residential land you are wasting away that potential in areas that could gravely benefit from it. Growing, producing and using marijuana is akin to the wine industry with its vibrant culture and connoisseurship. With all the varieties, strains, growing methods and ways of incorporating marijuana into products, the results are many nuances, qualities and flavors. It belongs in the cottage industry. Mr. Baker stated they already have 8 foot fences, maximum security and odor control measures in place. Residents in these areas are looking at nothing more than a fence, or maybe the tip of a roof in their own self - induced fear. Marijuana plants are very beautiful and just being in a marijuana garden is one of the most pleasant feelings. This moratorium makes it very difficult for people like me and families like mine, who are already having a difficult time getting started in this industry, to have a flourishing small home business and to bring love to the communities. Mr. Baker asked the Board to make an honest choice between fear and growth. Thank you. Kristina Mayer: She read from her statement. (See Hearing Record Attached) Karen Page: She stated that she lives at 1064 Egg and I Road. She does not agree with a previous statement made which indicated that some citizens' concerns are empty fears. Ms. Page noted that her property has already been negatively impacted by her neighbor. She has already been treated in such a way that cannot be denied. Neighbors will not always be at the heart of this industry. There is no fear involved when the Assessor for our County comes back from an Assessor meeting and announces that some property owners will have their property de- valued in light of location next to marijuana facilities? There are real impacts to water run -off, water availability, people who fear for the aquifers and having Page 10 Commissioners Special Meeting Minutes of October 6, 2014 enough water. We live in an area in Chimacum where there are water issues. Several of these applicants are going to be located in that same area. Ms. Page stated they are concerned about water and having enough for living purposes in that area. She thoroughly believes that the moratorium is the right thing to do. There needs to be a process that goes through the Planning Commission to give us all further opportunities to be able to have concerns addressed. She would appreciate the opportunity to have meetings where people can express their points of view and do that in a way that is fair and everyone's concerns are taken into account. Thank you. Gary Johnson: He read from his statement. (See Hearing Record Attached) Annette Gardner: She read from her statement. (See Hearing Record Attached) Chris Gardner: He stated that he is a resident of Jefferson County and he lives next to a proposed site. It is closer to Port Townsend than Cape George, Port Hadlock and other communities. The property may be considered rural, but it does not feel rural to him and his neighborhood. Mr. Gardner noted that statistics concerning crime and environmental impact are easily manipulated and therefore are mostly erroneous. This is not about I -502 legalization, which the voters voted for, this is about manufacturing and processing facilities within Jefferson County and what is appropriate placement. The moratorium allows time to develop appropriate regulations around what is happening in our neighborhoods and communities. The effects of this industry in Jefferson County are largely unknown. More questions than answers. Mr. Gardner indicated there was little awareness of the full scope of I -502 in conjunction with existing zoning laws. This multi- million dollar, mostly cash industry, is surrounded by state required security fencing, cameras and lights — is not agriculture and does not belong in residential areas. Environmental impact, commercial traffic, police and fire protection are a great concern. If left to sort itself out within residential areas, we will all suffer diminished quality of life. Lower property values will lead to less tax revenue for a County that is already struggling to fund existing services. I -502 operations belong in industrial zoned areas where they can be properly monitored. Thank you. Tim Fader: He indicated that he spoke earlier during public comment period about the odor of marijuana. He stated that everyone seems to think it will be a problem. It is not. It is composed of 68 different molecular components, all of which are heavier than air and sink to the ground. They have certain physical characteristics. They cannot attach to water molecules, therefore they cannot waft off into the atmosphere and they do not travel any distance. Smell is basically a non - issue, it does not exist. It is like every other naturally occurring flower, you do not smell the roses in Chetzemoka Park until you get inside the rose trellis. You do not smell the lavender farms in Sequim until you are right inside the farms. Driving by, you just do not smell it, it is naturally occurring. It is not like the mill smell. Mr. Fager expressed that he is bothered by comments that state growing a flower is not agriculture. What is it? It is agriculture just like any other agriculture product like corn, cut flowers or anything that grows. He reiterated that marijuana is agriculture. He does not understand previous comments stating the opposite. This is the American dream to live where you work and have farms. Small farms built this country and people that did their business where they lived. If we all are forced to go into one central location, isn't that hurting the carbon footprint to make that commute? You're making us spend more money than we already are on our own properties? That idea makes everyone the loser. Where will the County be getting their money? If the County promotes the growth of this industry, you will be Page I 1 Commissioners Special Meeting Minutes of October 6, 2014 receiving sales tax from everyone that sells soil, light bulbs or has any part of this business. The County will also be receiving savings from not prosecuting marijuana crimes and not having to jail people for these crimes. There will be no more litigation on marijuana crimes. You will not need the officers, court time or attorneys. That is a huge savings to the County. Mr. Fager reiterated that in promoting the marijuana industry, that is giant for the County. Why don't you want to promote economic growth in this County? If you keep with the moratorium, that is what you are saying. That you do not want economic growth in this County. Thank you. Steve Fetter: He stated he has lived in Jefferson County for about 9 years. He is a small business owner who runs his own business and is pro small businesses, especially successful small businesses. At the same time, he is also pro safety and security. Mr. Fetter indicated that he does not currently have a dog in this hunt other than he has read Ms. Felicia Allen's letter to the editor about two months ago. She had spoken in regard to strangers walking across her property at a time when her kids were out playing. He believes some of these people spoke with her children and threw rocks at her dog. It reminded him of an incident that happened during the 9 years that his wife and he have lived in Jefferson County. One time they looked out their back window, and there were teenagers sitting in their Adirondack chairs chatting. They approached the teenagers and asked them what they were doing? The teenagers replied saying "Oh, aren't we allowed to sit here ?" Mr. Fetter and his wife replied they were not, they walked the teens to the street and they were on their way. They felt violated that day. He instructed everyone to picture how they would feel if this were happening every week or every couple weeks in their own backyards where strangers felt free to walk around day and night. When he read Ms. Allen's letter it struck him. He was encouraged today when Department of Community Development (DCD) Director Carl Smith indicated that the state would be relying on the local officials on secondary effects. It is very important when you encourage pro- business. He is pro- business. Mr. Fetter urged the County to look at the secondary effects so that neighbors to these businesses will not be negatively affected. He stated that he has nothing against a successful marijuana growing or processing operation as long as it does not have negative effects on the neighbors. He encouraged the Board to use the authority they have to factor that into any application. Thank you. Joe Baisch: He stated he resides in Brinnon, Washington. He noted that the discussion today is very interesting and he learned some things that he was not up to date on. Mr. Baisch believes that the reasonable approach would be to require a conditional use permit in the rural or rural residential zoned lands. In 1994, when he and his wife opened up their bed and breakfast, they had to go through the conditional use process. A year later when they wanted to serve a meal other than breakfast, they had to do another one. It did not hurt. It , it gave the neighbors an opportunity to have their say. It is reasonable. He urged the Board to consider that possibility. Mr. Baisch noted for the record, that he is against marijuana growing and processing operations in rural residential or residentially -zoned property. Thank Von. Marjorie Boyd: She stated that she is a property owner in Chimacum, Washington. She stated that she feels strongly that if marijuana operations are going to be allowed in our County, which they are, we should take steps to preserve the special character of our neighborhoods, especially rural residential neighborhoods. Growing and processing marijuana is going to be on a commercial scale more likely than not. This activity is more akin to light industrial activity than our traditional agricultural activities. Page 12 Commissioners Special Meeting Minutes of October 6, 2014 Ms. Boyd noted for the record, that both state and federal law prohibit treating marijuana and marijuana processing as normal agricultural activities even though there are people who feel that it ought to be thought that way. Jefferson County is not free to take a different position from the state on that matter. Marijuana growing and processing operations should be limited to industrial and commercial zones and open areas where law enforcement can monitor activity. Ms. Boyd pointed out that she conducted code enforcement for the County for five years and she is aware that operations are out there. She does not believe it is wise for operations to reside in the woods. It makes monitoring and enforcement very difficult. She noted other hearing testimonies which indicated individuals who are planning to go about marijuana production in the right way, but she believes there will also be large commercial growers who may not and will ruin it for those who are. Ms. Boyd indicated that regulations need to be put in place so that the bad players do not ruin it for the good players. Unfortunately, that is what it is like. She finds that the local folks are the ones doing it right. She believes the big dogs will be coming in from out of state and out of county, throwing their money around and will not be doing it right. They will ruin it for the locals. If there was some way she could keep marijuana production to the locals, she would. Ms. Boyd stated that she has a colleague who is working on a local grow and she thoroughly supports him and believes he will do a good job. If he moved in next to her, she would think that was cool. She believes he would first approach her about it, he cares about the land, he grew up here, he cares about his neighbors and he would have done it right. She reiterated that unfortunately there are jerks who come in and it is a crap shoot, and that is why we need laws. The Jefferson County Planning Commission process should be followed and the Comprehensive Plan modified prior to Jefferson County granting any permits. Allowing exemptions allows people, particularly those who did not play by the rules, an unfair advantage. Everyone else who plays by the rules and who is further on down the line, just got penalized and the people who did not play by the rules, got ahead. She stated she will submit something in writing. There will be people that will do it right. It does not mean that all people are criminals. Pot is going to be easy to fence. It will not be the people themselves or the actual marijuana grows that attract criminals, it will be the product. Thank you very much. John Anko: He stated that he supports the idea of not putting marijuana operations on residential properties. He does not want it in his neighborhood. Mr. Anko noted that he was not against people who would like to go into business, but he is against them doing it in his neighborhood. He has listened to so many comments that he agrees with, but does not want to waste his three minutes of speaking time to review them. He does not need three minutes to speak about how upset he is with the whole issue. Mr. Anko is proud that the County has come up with a moratorium. He would like to see the issue settled and put these types of operations where they belong which is industrial areas. He would like it to be 1,000 feet away from his house and wants to be protected just like the kids in school are protected. Thank you. Dennis Schultz: He stated he resides at North Jacob Miller Road. He has been farming in Jefferson County for 20 years. Mr. Schultz indicated that he has an ideal setup on his property to grow marijuana. He has everything that is required, however, he personally is not into the idea. He has been involved with the agriculture rules of this County for a long time. In 2004, he was one of the people who rewrote the agricultural code for the County. It is time to re -write the code for agriculture. Mr. Schultz believes it is time for new zoning regulations and permitting rules. He urged DCD Director Carl Smith to take a look at the Critical Areas Ordinance and the steps that are required to designate an area for a species of Page 13 Z Commissioners Special Meeting Minutes of October 6, 2014 local importance. It goes through a long list of things that people would have to do to get that permit. He believes the code should protect the rights of the neighbors and all the codes should contain a sunset clause. After a period of time, the permit is reviewed. He anticipates some losers and some bad people and a sunset clause would be one way to get rid of them. We do not have to say once you get a permit that it will last forever. Mr. Schultz stated that idea needs to be a serious consideration. Thank you. Colum Tinley: He stated he is a Jefferson County property owner. He asked what is the value of a cannabis cultivation to Jefferson County? It is a very large number. Mr. Tinley indicated that a previous person provided testimony regarding a trickle -down effect for other businesses and how much money the County will collect. He drafted an estimated revenue for Jefferson County grown cannabis which he stated he forgot to bring but will be submitting later. Historically growing cannabis has been a clandestine operation, which is not the case now with new legal 502 farms. A lot of the concern that people have regarding how it has been done historically do not apply to the future of above -board growing operations. Mr. Tinley believes the conditional use permit process that is currently in place is adequate to separate the good guys from the bad guys in this industry. The so- called big money coming from out of County that may detrimentally affect their neighbors. All of the growers that he is aware of are planning to grow in rural residential and are planning to do so in a very wholesome and organic manner, keeping the rights of their neighbors in mind. They are trying to keep impact at a minimum. To outright ban growing and processing on rural residential lots does a disservice to the community and is quite unnecessary. A case by case basis would be the way to go. Mr. Tinley pointed out that he heard a lot of comments today regarding risk to our children. He believes the risk of a 502 farm, behind a fence, is of no risk to any children passing by. They are simply not allowed to access anything within that farm. It is out of touch. He heard concerns regarding 30 car parking lot and a 40,000 square foot operation. His understanding of a cottage industry in a rural residential zone is limited to 4 employees and about 2,500 square feet. Mr. Tinley noted that he is a nurse and stated that subject of naloxone with a trade name of Narcan was discussed earlier. He stated that it was a very effective drug to reverse opiate overdose. Tim Wilkins: He stated that he is a Jefferson County property owner. He believes marijuana can be grown without pesticides, worry about run -off, extra people or traffic and that it can be grown the right way. Many people are intending to do that. There is no difference between that or another crop. You can use pesticides on corn if you want or choose not to. He suggested putting some recommendations in place that would be a guide to how people should go about growing marijuana. Ten months ago, people applying for marijuana licenses sent in their location to the LCB and they were not yet required to put in • permit at that time. Mr. Wilkins believes that the moratorium is discriminatory against those people. If • permit was not required at all, or not yet required, how could you allow some people to do it in residential areas and others not? It seems to him that everyone who has a current application with the LCB with a Jefferson County address should be allowed to grow. Maybe not process, but at least to grow marijuana on their property. These people could have sold their licenses for tens and thousands of dollars. For them to be told that due to the moratorium, they cannot do that anymore, they have lost their money and chance. It is very difficult to change your location with the LCB. It just seems unfair to these people to penalize them. If the County wants to limit the production of marijuana, they could put a hold on processing in residential areas. Mr. Wilkins reiterated a previous suggestion for those that have already listed their address with the LCB, can be grandfathered in. To put a moratorium on those who Page 14 5 Commissioners Special Meeting Minutes of October 6, 2014 submitted their licenses ten months ago, back when they were not required to do permits at that time, seems unfair and discriminatory. Greg Brotherton: He stated that he runs three stores; two locally sourced groceries and a retail marijuana shop. He is also a father, property owner and a school board member. Mr. Brotherton stated that regulation is the key to making marijuana an analog to alcohol in our society. He pointed out that he sells a lot of drugs at all three stores. Drugs such as ibuprofen, coffee and tobacco. He added that he does not sell cigarettes because although he loves them, he is morally against them. Everyone has their moral code that they have to live by. Policy should not be driven by that, it should be driven by the law. Mr. Brotherton stated that he locally sources produce such as lettuce and eggs for his other stores. All of the farms have fences around them. He does this so that there is a smaller carbon footprint and also because he can see the chickens' lives and see them come out and make sure that they are stewards of their land. He believes that all of the Jefferson County growers that he has met are the same kind of stewards of the land. They want to be responsible and are considering the big picture as they grow cannabis. Mr. Brotherton encouraged the Board to end the moratorium and use the conditional use permits like they are supposed to be used. He noted that he agrees, he would not want a 40,000 square foot building next to my house either. He understands the personal issues that spring up and believes the conditional use permit is a great vehicle to vet that. William Johnson: He stated that he is a former Jefferson County resident and that his parents live in Brinnon. I -502 represents a potential gold mine for the County. State Senators and Representatives generally acknowledge that not sharing the 25% excise tax from producer to processor, the 25% excise tax from processor to retailer and the 25% excise tax from the retailer to the customer with local jurisdictions was an oversight and will be corrected during the next legislative session. The reason it was not corrected last session was because last year a super majority vote would have been required to change 1 -502 as it was passed. Mr. Johnson emphasized that there is a good chance that the County will make as much or more profit from the sale of each gram produced and sold in the County as the individual processor, producer or retailer does on that gram. Thank you. Michael Ball: He stated that his family resides in a rural residential area in East Jefferson County. This area is Marrowstone Island. He opposes the cultivation and processing of marijuana on rural residential lands. Mr. Ball stated that he does not have a problem with commercial industrial lands at all as those are areas that are set up for businesses. They have the infrastructure, security and they do not have the effects on the neighbors. Neighboring counties are in the process of adopting policies which do not allow rural residential lands for the purpose at hand. It is his opinion that if Jefferson County chooses not to follow this example, we will become an open market for exploitation of our rural residential lands due to Jefferson County policies. There are many reasons to not allow this on rural residential zoning. Mr. Ball can think of only one reason to allow it, for the monetary gain of a few of the costs to many. Is it really worth it? He stated that from the tax base it is a really good idea to allow the growing and processing of marijuana in Jefferson County, but he suggested keeping it industrial commercially zoned areas. Thank you. Mollv Fahrenschon: She stated that she has property along Swansonville Road in Port Ludlow about a quarter mile from one of the pending marijuana permit applicants. Ms. Fahrenschon noted that she has Page 15 Commissioners Special Meeting Minutes of October 6, 2014 spent many years calling herself a local food nerd committed to supporting anything that uses the growing, selling and consumption of local agricultural products. She is captivated by the positive impacts of strong local economies and hopes that Jefferson County will one day be able to generate more from within to sustain our community. She sincerely believes the new agriculture being discussed today is a huge leap in that direction. For years our community has spent countless hours in meetings and discussions asking the tough questions about how to create a sustainable economy that retains young families and attract businesses that can provide livable wages. Ms. Fahrenschon believes that these issues were discussed during a half dozen Collective Impact meetings that she has attended over the last few years. She heard around 200 -300 livable wage jobs is what Jefferson County needed to become a more sustainable County. The County's geographical remoteness precludes us from being an ideal location for any sort of factory or new major industry. Then, recreational cannabis came into play. Cannabis has a huge demand and can be grown and processed in rural agricultural communities like ours. It will generate much needed jobs and sales taxes for Jefferson County. Ms. Fahrenschon pointed out that as a person under 40 years old with a small business, 3 or more jobs and a family she can affirm how difficult it is to stay in Jefferson County when other places have more jobs, better services and lower cost of living. She stated that she knows of countless people this County has breathed in and out because of the difficulty of staying here. She feels that a strong step toward improving the County's economy is to allow cannabis to be grown on lands zoned rural residential as many others have indicated also. One of her current jobs is working for Sea Change Cannabis. Ms. Fahrenschon indicated that she speaks to people every week and has an excellent rapport with all the folks that visit the business. As a person who is passionate about locally grown and produced items, it is such a bummer that there isn't anything in Jefferson County that we can be selling considering our miraculous local bounties. She urged the Board to let the moratorium expire and allow Jefferson County to benefit from this new agriculture. It is not often that we have a relatively low impact and potential multi- million dollar industry just stride into town. The end. Keith Apgar: He stated he has lived in Jefferson County for over 10 years. He voted for I -502 and thinks that it is a good direction. Mr. Apgar stated he lives in a rural residentially zoned area and he does not want a warehouse in his neighborhood and that is very important to him. He invested time, energy, love, sweat and literally tears building soil, planting trees, building a home and it is beautiful. He noted that he loves his home and loves his neighborhood and has not heard much mention of that today. In his neighborhood, there is currently one application submitted for a growing and processing facility. That property is adjacent to his property. There is another neighboring property that is for sale. An offer came in for that property above the asking price with a high interest rate. He has learned that due to road routing and easements, his property would be completely surrounded by I -502 traffic. He does not know the intentions of the marijuana applicants, if they were approved and able to move forward, but he reiterated that he does not want a warehouse in his neighborhood. A distinction needs to be made between agriculture and industrial marijuana. He noted other hearing testimonies that spoke of the term agriculture. Agriculture happens outside, it is subject to the seasons and the natural cycles of the year. In his opinion, when you put something into a warehouse, it is not agriculture anymore. Mr. Apgar pointed out that it was great that a lot of young people attended the moratorium hearing as well as many of his friends. He expressed that he hopes they can still be friends after the meeting. It is a positive to see a lot of young people engaging in this process and speaking of organic principles. When you grow organically, chemicals and fertilizers are not used and that is important. The agricultural practices, Page 16 Commissioners Special Meeting Minutes of October 6, 2014 organic techniques in Jefferson County and local food are what keeps him and a lot of people here. Mr. Apgar reiterated that he does not want to see warehouses turning up in our neighborhoods. It is not right and had he known this would have been a possibility 10 years ago, he definitely would not have invested here. He urged the Board to do the right thing and not let that happen to his neighborhood. Thank you. Kimberly: She stated she has lived and owned property in Jefferson County for 15 years. She agrees with many of the reasons why people want to keep marijuana operations out of rural residential designations. Ms. Walla emphasized the difference between agriculture and marijuana growing. Agriculture does not require surveillance cameras and 8 foot tall fencing. For those folks who want to grow organically, she applauds the effort. For those who would like a cottage industry, she wishes there was a way for that to happen. Currently, Washington State law requires the fencing, the cameras and things that differentiate this from any other kind of agriculture. Yes it is harvesting flowers, but either fortunately or unfortunately the state has found that there are some very real differences with marijuana. People coming from California and big industries are speculating on buying cheap residential properties here. Pot growing is the biggest threat to the local aquifers and rivers and has been for years. The legal limits on how much chemicals are supposed to be used or how much water is supposed to be used, get ignored a lot. Marijuana is a very polluting industry and she does not want to see that happening on her land. Ms. Walla stated that she does not want her son having to bump into 8 foot tall razor wire fencing, guard dogs or other things that a marijuana operation would bring. She pointed out that what is happening in California is a reality. People were probably thinking that the marijuana industry would be great and become a cottage industry at first. How it is playing out is a little different. Now it is happening all indoors. She is in favor of outdoor growing, but does not see a way of distinguishing the permits between a small outdoor organic crop and a large crop. She believes that would be a form of discrimination. Unless there is some way of making those distinguishing decisions when a person is applying for their marijuana permits, than she really does not want that in a rural residential or any residential zone. That is what zoning is for and why some lands are considered residential. Ted Hunter: He stated that he is an attorney representing the Gardners who gave their hearing testimony earlier. He pointed out that the Gardners are a family that bought property to raise a family in Jefferson County. Next door to them, out of state residents purchased property and have a marijuana operation to take the profit out of the State and back to Arizona. At first the Board's stance was to let 100 flowers bloom. The County did the right thing by putting the moratorium in place. Mr. Hunter stated that he is assuming that the Board intends to keep that in place and County staff is working on crafting the regulations that are necessary to control marijuana operations. He noted that we need to focus on how they craft the regulations that the Board will be considering. He urged the County not to make the mistake of thinking that marijuana can be a conditional use permit approach. The reason why conditional use is just another way to get permission. Mr. Hunter pointed out that he holds hundreds of hearings and make thousands of decisions on conditional use permits. It is rare for them to be denied. In this situation where you have the State setting all of the requirements for an operation, you will not be able to do a lot of local regulation of impacts. Impacts is exactly what zoning is about. It is what the Board is elected to do, regulate impacts. He indicated that other people have mentioned that marijuana is agriculture use, it is not. It is about the impact. Zoning has two prongs, one is to regulate uses and what uses happen next to each other and the other is regulating impacts. You regulate the impacts by putting pornography in certain zones and marijuana operations in certain zones. He warned the Board not to use Page 17 Commissioners Special Meeting Minutes of October 6, 2014 conditional use permits for marijuana. He indicated there will be hearings, a lot of staff time, money paid to hearing officers to hold hearings and people will think that they can condition this and prevent the impacts. No, the State has already done that and the County cannot preempt the State, Mr. Hunter stated that the County can ban and ascertain a position of strength. Know that you can ban, this was not known six months ago. Now we have the Kemp and Fife cases in which you can ban marijuana. You can ban commercial marijuana. The bells are ringing, you have the authority and the power, do it. Ban it, if not ban it, regulate it and keep it out of rural residential zones. He reiterated to the Board again not to use a conditional use permit. Message clear? Thank you. Tom Thiersch: He noted that DCD Director Carl Smith made some interesting remarks about the fact that the moratorium is really just about one property and one 40,000 square foot application. Don't we have a constitution that says that law enacted against one person is called a bill of attainder? Mr. Thiersch stated that the County cannot do that. He noted that there were fewer than 24 permits in total. With 30,000 parcels in the County, a fairly small percentage of those are actually zoned rural residential. Still, that is very few properties within the County as a whole. The numbers of affected properties is very few. He noted that folks are concerned about a warehouse going up in their neighborhood. Mr. Thiersch stated that if he were going to put up a large building, he would make it look like a barn. A barn is an agricultural building and it cannot be restricted by any kind of permit process. The people that are looking into getting into this business are fairly smart and will find ways around any kind of regulations that the County wants to craft, unless you do an outright ban. He believes a ban would be stupid. Mr. Thiersch stated that people are concerned about security issues and other things that are related to crime. Do we have a crime problem in this County as it pertains to processing and growing of marijuana? Certainly not for the medicinal uses that it has been approved for. No evidence whatsoever. The Board should be making a decision based on facts. Well, the facts are the County does not have a problem with marijuana other than the criminal uses, the illegal grows and sales. He noted that is the whole point of I -502, to get rid of the criminal element and make it possible for everyone who wants to, to participate in the production and use of a perfectly legal product. 70% of the people in the State feel that way. Thank you. Sylvia White: She stated she is reiterating the size of the problem. According to Oregon State University, one acre of outdoor marijuana growing will produce a ton of marijuana. A greenhouse that is one acre in size can produce four tons of marijuana. That is an enormous amount of marijuana that has to get processed or pre - processed. A grow only area of marijuana still needs some type of processing, even if it is just drying and putting it into one pound packages and then distributing or trucking off to an industry. There are other side effects. Thank you. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Austin closed the public testimony portion of the hearing. Chairman Austin noted that the whole purpose of the moratorium is to give staff and the Commissioners time to consider the issue before us. He added that they are grateful to everyone who showed up for the hearing today and share their opinions and information. County Administrator Morley indicated that the Commissioners have received materials that were submitted in writing prior to today's hearing. He noted that additional materials were received today that Page 18 Commissioners Special Meeting Minutes of October 6, 2014 the Commissioners had not had an opportunity to review. He suggested that the Board continue their deliberations to allow time to review the newly submitted materials. No specific additional action would be required by the Board given the moratorium ordinance is already enacted. The Board could in an open public meeting choose to take action to modify the moratorium at a later date. Commissioner Sullivan stated that Commissioner Johnson will want a chance to listen to the audio of the hearing and read the materials. The meeting was recessed at 11:58 a.m. and reconvened at the Jefferson County Courthouse in the Commissioners' Chambers at 1:30 p.m. Chairman Austin and Commissioner Sullivan were present. Commissioner Johnson was absent. BRIEFING re: North Gateway Buffer Conservation Futures Project and Notice to Title: Environmental Health Specialist Tami Pokorny briefed the Board on the North Gateway Buffer project she has been working on for Conservation Futures. She indicated that the property had been protected by an agreement but there is a Notice to Title referenced in that agreement that was never fully developed. Ms. Pokorny stated that she intends to place this item on a future Consent Agenda for the Board to approve. County Administrator Philip Morley asked where the property of this project is located? Ms. Pokorny replied that it is near the entrance to Port Townsend. She noted that north of Jacob Miller Road there is a triangular piece of property which is the North Gateway Buffer. The intention is to preserve that land as forest but not to necessarily never touch it. Ms. Pokorny added that there is a management plan for the project that includes thinning the forest from time to time in order to generate income. She noted that the plan was developed by a professional forester with the land trust. County Administrator Morley asked who owns the property? Ms. Pokorny replied that the County owns it and the acquisition was originally presented to the Commissioners as a Conservation Futures project, but it was not recommended by the Conservation Futures Citizens Advisory Committee. At that time, the Commissioners were able to work with the City to come up with additional funding. Although the purchase price of the property was $70,000 the actual outlay from Conservation Futures was a little over $25,000 which is less than they originally asked for. County Administrator Morley asked if this was inside the City limits? Commissioner Sullivan and Ms. Pokorny confirmed that it was. Commissioner Sullivan stated that he remembered at one point, there was a threat that the trees may be cut down and there was a lot of volunteer effort coming forward to raise money for this project. County Administrator Morley asked if the County is looking into transferring ownership to the City? Ms. Pokorny replied that would be possible or a transfer of ownership to the Jefferson Land Trust. The agreement specifically calls for that option as a possibility. County Administrator Morley noted that it seems like owning that property would be more a liability than an asset. Commissioner Sullivan added Page 19 t PC Commissioners Special Meeting Minutes of October 6, 2014 that there could be an issue when the entrance to Port Townsend changes in terms of transportation issues and the addition of roundabouts in the surrounding area. County Administrator Morley asked if the easement on the property and the Notice to Title preclude the ability to do traffic? Ms. Pokorny replied that it would not. She added that if the property were sold, it would be used to acquire similar property by whomever. County Administrator Morley asked if the Notice to Title would change that in any way? Ms. Pokorny replied that it would not, it references the agreement. The specific clause is GIF which states "The parties agree to record a Notice to Title affecting the North Buffer Property and the forms substantially set forth in Exhibit C." She added that unfortunately the exhibits are not labeled. Commissioner Sullivan pointed out that the aforementioned property is actually south of Mill Road which means it is located in the County. Ms. Pokorny stated that Conservation Futures has begun adding language which has become standard practice for Conservation Futures projects. The language includes: "In order to permanently protect... "which they have since been adding to the verbiage within conservation easements. Commissioner Sullivan noted that within Section C of the agreement, it describes some of the history of the transaction. A discussion of Section C ensued. Ms. Pokorny stated that the agreement references the City's ownership, but that maybe it should read County, since the County is the current owner. County Administrator Morley suggested before bringing this item before the Commissioners, to look into this transaction further to see if changes need to be made and ensure that the County is honoring their obligations. Commissioner Sullivan suggested notifying the Jefferson Land Trust about this issue. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS— TWO (2) LETTERS: The Board took action to approve the following two letters: 1) Letter supporting the naming of a segment of Highway 101 in honor of Marvin Shields. Chairman Austin moved to approve sending the letter. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion. The motion carried; and 2) Letter to Congressional delegation requesting support in developing a funding solution for the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program. Commissioner Sullivan moved to approve sending the letter. Chairman Austin seconded the motion. The motion carried. COUNTYADMINISTRA TOR BRIEFING SESSION: County Administrator Philip Morley reviewed the following with the Board. Calendar Coordination: • Commissioner Sullivan will be attending a Collective Impact meeting on October 9, 2014. • Chairman Austin and Commissioner Sullivan will be attending a Jefferson County Health Board meeting on October 16, 2014. Chairman Austin will be out of the office October 21 -22, 2014. Commissioner Sullivan will be attending the Hood Canal Coordinating Council's Environmental Achievement Awards and Conference on November 7, 2014. Page 20 KIK"I Commissioners Special Meeting Minutes of October 6, 2014 • Chairman Austin will be out of the office mid - afternoon on November 25, 2014 and will be back in the office on December 1, 2014. • There will be a JeffCOM meeting December 18, 2014. Miscellaneous Items: Marijuana Regulations. Department of Community Development (DCD) staff present: Director Carl Smith, Planning Manager Stacie Hoskins and Assistant Planner Colleen Zmoleck. Sign code. Proposed Animal Responsibility Ordinance and Noise Ordinance. NOTICE OFADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Sullivan moved to adjourn the meeting at 4:30 p.m. until the next regular meeting or special meeting as properly noticed. Chairman Austin seconded the motion. The motion carried. SEAS r� i S u v v 1 ATTEST: Erin Lundgren, CMC Clerk of the Board JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF MMISSIONERS � Jo Austin, Chair V (Excused Absence) Phil Johnso Member David Sullivan, Member Page 21 )0 �4 < -0 - f" s1- 5 S pe r JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST TITLE: Hearing re: ORDINANCE NO. 07- 0811 -14: Moratorium Prohibiting the Production, Processing and Retailing of Recreational Marijuana in Certain Land Use Designations within Unincorporated Jefferson County and Establishing a Work Plan for the Planning Agency DATE and TIME: Monday, October 6, 2014 at 10:30 a.m. PLACE: Cotton Building, City of Port Townsend NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS (Not Required) CITY (Not Required) Testimony? YES NO MAYBE ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ L LaL� ICA— L \,�e, ❑ ❑ q u M L t )"V, of [ ❑ ❑ / Er El El 124 _ ❑ ❑ �3. -16A a 1 ❑ ® ❑ X2-87 Fr R e' ��1 �ecccJt �ilcQP� ❑ ❑ El El a f f ❑ 3 E q ice(' o L, u' ❑ ❑ GCe -e,' t,� /iv L -E' 403 :-IV -,-X-: ❑ ❑ j ?GS L&--f ❑ ❑ L f cool w '2`— ❑ ❑ Ll ❑ ❑ a ( 11160 4 S 2�Q k: Aqw ��,� ❑ 2' �<{I- /,%S T er �dkzr,ls'A 1 -1 0 ❑ AI.µ �t'`,J L YtEY 4t%� �S,Jy l`GC G1 Ys: pig CKN r IC GI , Z ❑ ❑ Ww OR to 13 7t Z ;L i8 ID i y w f q JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST TITLE: Hearing re: ORDINANCE NO. 07- 0811 -14: Moratorium Prohibiting the Production, Processing and Retailing of Recreational Marijuana in Certain Land Use Designations within Unincorporated Jefferson County and Establishing a Work Plan for the Planning Agency DATE and TIME: Monday, October 6, 2014 at 10:30 a.m. PLACE: Cotton Building, City of Port Townsend NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS (Not Required) CITY Not Required) Testimony? YES NO MAYBE I, Jz?N bFA� K-sa ©L L411111S-1„� 12 ca I-, ❑ ❑ Do, fe 0 0 Qd (11 0 ❑ ❑ K �at�a ryy FT 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 7 # -;K❑❑ 4 $V $L fu u i�j 19 ❑ ❑ ]] ❑ ® ❑ 61(vi iPl- ❑ ❑ �2 rk� T ® ❑ ❑ r ❑ ❑ EA I1, p L . �jJ l�t6 It 6• tiC1Li El [I El � 1 � ��1�� {tom, / ® ❑ ❑ ® ,d� ❑ 11 El El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El El F-1 1v;3 z JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST TITLE: Hearing re: ORDINANCE NO. 07- 0811 -14: Moratorium Prohibiting the Production, Processing and Retailing of Recreational Marijuana in Certain Land Use Designations within Unincorporated Jefferson County and Establishing a Work Plan for the Planning Agency DATE and TIME: Monday, October 6, 2014 at 10:30 a.m. PLACE: Cotton Building, City of Port Townsend NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS (Not Required) CITY (Not Required) Testimony? YES No MAYBE ❑ ❑ 1111❑ ❑ 11 El 11 11 ❑ ❑❑❑ ❑❑❑ ❑ 1111 1111❑ ❑ 1111 ❑ 11 11 ❑ 11 El ❑ El El 1111❑ 1111❑ ❑ 11 11 ❑ 11 11 ❑ El El ❑ 1111 ❑ [I El E ; n 4� JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST TITLE: Hearing re: ORDINANCE NO. 07- 0811 -14: Moratorium Prohibiting the Production, Processing and Retailing of Recreational Marijuana in Certain Land Use Designations within Unincorporated Jefferson County and Establishing a Work Plan for the Planning Agency DATE and TIME: Monday, October 6, 2014 at 10:30 a.m. PLACE: Cotton Building, City of Port Townsend NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS (Not Required) CITY (Not Required) Testimony? YES NO MAYBE Gl/�i ve Gam, ❑ ❑ ❑ C� f/ ❑ ❑ ❑ V 1 Sri � � � ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 1111 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 1111 ❑ 1111 ❑ 1111 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 1111 ❑ 111:1 ❑ 11 ❑ From: Tom Giske [tgiske @gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 8:45 PM To: #dcd Cc: #Long -Range Planning; jeffbocc Subject: Business Use of Property Zoned as Community Crossroad August 26, 2014 Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: Use of Property Zoned as Community Crossroad To: Carl Smith, Director, From: Tom Giske, Member of Planning Commission While I am writing as a concerned resident of the county, I am also reflecting upon the work of the Planning Commission during the time I have been a member. I was a member of the Planning Commission when the zoning for the property at SR 104 and Shine Road was changed from Residential to Community Crossroad in 2008. I remember it well because I opposed it until I was assured it could not be used for other than serving the local rural community. The description in the code makes that intent clear, and the Use Table precludes similar types of businesses, such as liquor stores, but since pot stores were not envisioned at the time, it is not specifically stated that they are prohibited. I can tell you, in my view, that had they existed, or even been envisioned in 2008, they clearly would have been included in the use table as restricted from Community Crossroad designated property. I also remember the discussion of traff is safety, and being assured by the County's Office of Community Development, that any new business to be located on that specific property, regardless of type, would be required to undertake a traffic impact study before being allowed to open. While I will be out of the State on September 3rd, and cannot attend the monthly meeting of the Planning FA Commission, I ask that this subject be put on the agenda with the opportunity for comment from the community. If possible, I would like to be included via speaker phone. I believe the Commission should declare publicly that marijuana sales were not considered in 2008, but had they been so considered, it is likely they would have been restricted form Community Crossroads, just like liquor stores. The very fact that there are only four such properties in the County suggests the unique nature of a Community Crossroad, with the intention of allowing only businesses that are focused on the unique needs of the surrounding local community. While the process to update the code is too long to address this particular situation, the existing wording of the code can be interpreted to prevent such a business on a property zoned as Community Crossroad. I request that we ask for such an interpretation from the County Attorney's office, or at least, ask that the County declare a hold on any such property use until the appropriate zoning can be considered. 3 Thank you for considering this request. Tom Giske 220 Shine Road Port Ludlow, WA 98365 (425) 301 -5925 jeffbocc From: Tom Giske [tgiske @gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 8:01 AM To: #dcd Cc: #Long -Range Planning; jeffbocc Subject: Re: Business Use of Property Zoned as Community Crossroad I apologize for using the wrong term ... Where I refer to Community Crossroad, it should say Convenience Crossroad Sent from my iPhone On Aug 26, 2014, at 8:45 PM, Tom Giske <t i� skeggmail.com> wrote: August 26, 2014 Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: Use of Property Zoned as Community Crossroad To: Carl Smith, Director, From: Tom Giske, Member of Planning Commission While I am writing as a concerned resident of the county, I am also reflecting upon the work of the Planning Commission during the time I have been a member. I was a member of the Planning Commission when the zoning for the property at SR 104 and Shine Road was changed from Residential to Community Crossroad in 2008. I remember it well because I opposed it until I was assured it could not be used for other than serving the local rural community. The description in the code makes that intent clear, and the Use Table precludes similar types of businesses, such as liquor stores, but since pot stores were not envisioned at the time, it is not specifically stated that they are prohibited. I can tell you, in my view, that had they existed, or even been envisioned in 2008, they clearly would have been included in the use table as restricted from Community Crossroad designated property. I also remember the discussion of traff is safety, and being assured by the County's Office of Community Development, that any new business to be located on that specific property, regardless of z type, would be required to undertake a traffic impact study before being allowed to open. While I will be out of the State on September 3rd, and cannot attend the monthly meeting of the Planning Commission, I ask that this subject be put on the agenda with the opportunity for comment from the community. If possible, I would like to be included via speaker phone. I believe the Commission should declare publicly that marijuana sales were not considered in 2008, but had they been so considered, it is likely they would have been restricted form Community Crossroads, just like liquor stores. The very fact that there are only four such properties in the County suggests the unique nature of a Community Crossroad, with the intention of allowing only businesses that are focused on the unique needs of the surrounding local community. While the process to update the code is too long to address this particular situation, the existing wording of the code can be interpreted to prevent such a business on a property zoned as Community Crossroad. 3 I request that we ask for such an interpretation from the County Attorney's office, or at least, ask that the County declare a hold on any such property use until the appropriate zoning can be considered. Thank you for considering this request. Tom Giske 220 Shine Road Port Ludlow, WA 98365 (425) 301 -5925 4 jffbocc From: Stacie Hoskins Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 8:23 AM To: Tom Giske; #dcd Cc: *Long-Range Planning, jeffbocc; David W. Johnson Subject: RE: Business Use of Property Zoned as Community Crossroad Attachments: RE: Convenience Crossroads business definition Hi, Tom, I can understand your concerns, and would like to explain some of the land use requirements. As the project is a development review project and may require its own public hearing, it would not be appropriate to place this item on a Planning Commission meeting agenda for public comment. We are obligated to meet our codes and we are bound by them. The code dictates the comment period requirements, and we need to follow that. Please see attached for information I provided to another resident in the area about the project comment period and permit review process. Discussing marijuana businesses will be on the Planning Commission work plan due to the moratorium. It would be most appropriate to consider any additional code language that would apply to any marijuana uses in the context of that discussion. I can assure you that during permit review we will consider and consult with county Public works and State Department of Transportation for traffic impacts due to this proposal. Best regards, Staue Z' '>✓{odtw Planning Manager, Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street * Port Townsend, WA 98368 Phone 360 - 379 -4463 * Fax 360 - 379 -4451 sho s ki n s Ca? co. j effe rso n.w a. u s Jefferson County DCD Mission: To preserve and enhance the quality of life in Jefferson County by promoting a vibrant economy, sound communities and a healthy environment. All e-mail sent to this address has been received by the Jefferson County e -mail system and is therefore subject to the Public Records Act, a state law found at RCW 42.56. Under the Public Records law the County must release this e -mail and its contents to any person who asks to obtain a copy (or for inspection) of this e -mail unless it is also exempt from production to the requester according to state law, including RCW 42.56 and other state laws. From: Tom Giske [mailto:toiske@cimail.coml Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 8:45 PIA To: #dcd Cc: #Long -Range Planning; jeffbocc Subject: Business Use of Property Zoned as Community Crossroad August 26, 2014 Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: Use of Property Zoned as Community Crossroad To: Carl Smith, Director, From: Tom Giske, Member of Planning Commission While I am writing as a concerned resident of the county, I am also reflecting upon the work of the Planning Commission during the time I have been a member. I was a member of the Planning Commission when the zoning for the property at SR 104 and Shine Road was changed from Residential to Community Crossroad in 2008. I remember it well because I opposed it until I was assured it could not be used for other than serving the local rural community. The description in the code makes that intent clear, and the Use Table z precludes similar types of businesses, such as liquor stores, but since pot stores were not envisioned at the time, it is not specifically stated that they are prohibited. I can tell you, in my view, that had they existed, or even been envisioned in 2008, they clearly would have been included in the use table as restricted from Community Crossroad designated property. I also remember the discussion of traffic safety, and being assured by the County's Office of Community Development, that any new business to be located on that specific property, regardless of type, would be required to undertake a traffic impact study before being allowed to open. While I will be out of the State on September 3rd, and cannot attend the monthly meeting of the Planning Commission, I ask that this subject be put on the agenda with the opportunity for comment from the community. If possible, I would like to be included via speaker phone. I believe the Commission should declare publicly that marijuana sales were not considered in 2008, but had they 3 been so considered, it is likely they would have been restricted form Community Crossroads, just like liquor stores. The very fact that there are only four such properties in the County suggests the unique nature of a Community Crossroad, with the intention of allowing only businesses that are focused on the unique needs of the surrounding local community. While the process to update the code is too long to address this particular situation, the existing wording of the code can be interpreted to prevent such a business on a property zoned as Community Crossroad. I request that we ask for such an interpretation from the County Attorney's office, or at least, ask that the County declare a hold on any such property use until the appropriate zoning can be considered. Thank you for considering this request. Tom Giske 220 Shine Road Port Ludlow, WA 98365 0 jeffbocc From: Stacie Hoskins Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 2:25 PM To: sue hasten Subject: RE: Convenience Crossroads business definition Hi, Sue, They shouldn't be open yet. You could fill out a complaint form and provide it to us by email or drop it off at our office. The form is online at: http•// www. co. mefferson. wa. us/ commdevelopment/ PDFS/ Complaint%20Form %20fillable.pdf I forgot to mention in my previous message that if someone wants to be a party of record, they should include their name and mailing address in order to receive future notices. If you believe the project should require a conditional use permit, please include that in your comment letter by the 9/3 deadline. We will consider all comments as well as conduct our own analysis following the comment period closing. Best, Stacie From: sue heston [mailto:sjora36 @gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 1:48 PM To: Stacie Hoskins Subject: Re: Convenience Crossroads business definition Thank you Stacie. It was very helpful to talk to you this morning. A couple questions as I was not able to take notes when we talked. Do we ask for a Conditional use status in our comments or is that something the county determines after receiving comments? The way I read the Public Notice; the application is to change from RE office to Med. marijuana and it requires a Type II "D" use permit etc. I read that to mean it is not supposed to be open until this public notice process is completed. If that is accurate, we need to know where to file a complaint as I stopped in on my way home and it is definitely open for business. Please advise. Sue Sue On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Stacie Hoskins <SHoskins(a co.iefferson.wa.us> wrote: Hi, Sue, It was good to talk to you this morning. As I mentioned, the project on Shine Road is subject to a Discretionary Use, and the comment period is open now through 4:30 pm September 3, 2014. Emails received prior to that deadline or letters postmarked by that date will be considered for the comment period. In order to be a party of record, make sure to provide comment by email or by letter stating your concerns and the desire to be a party of record. This will ensure that you receive any future notices on this project. Information on Discretionary uses is available online at JCC 18.15.1118 Conditional, discretionary and special uses. At the end of the comment period, DCD staff will review comments per the criteria pasted below and online at 18.15.040 Categories of land use. (2) Discretionary Uses. Discretionary uses are certain named and all unnamed uses which may be allowed subject to the applicable development and performance standards (Chapters 18_20 and 18_30 JCC) and an administrative review of potential impacts are designated by a "D" (for "discretionary"). On the basis of the administrative review, the administrator may classify the proposed "D" use as either an allowed use, a prohibited use, or a conditional use in the particular land use district affected. Discretionary, "D," uses are subject to a Type II administrative review as specified in Chapter 18_40 JCC. Decisions classifying "D" uses made under this section may be appealed to the hearing examiner (see Chapter 18_40 JCC). The administrator may classify the discretionary use as an allowed "Yes" use in the particular district affected, only if the proposed development: (a) Complies with the applicable development standards of Chapter 18_30 JCC; (b) Complies with the performance and use - specific standards unique to the proposed use specified in Chapter 18_20 JCC; (c) Is appropriate in design, character, and appearance with the goals and policies for the land use designation and district in which the proposed use is located; (d) Is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the applicable regulations of the Shoreline Master Program if the application involves property located within the jurisdiction of the state Shoreline Management Act, but does not require a shoreline permit; (e) Will be served by adequate facilities including access, fire protection, water and sewer facilities (municipal, community, or on -site systems); (f) Does not include any use or activity that would result in the siting of an incompatible use adjacent to an airport or airfield (Chapter 36.70 RCW); (g) Shall not adversely impact the public health, safety and general welfare of the residents of the county; (h) Shares characteristics common with but not of significantly greater intensity, density or that generates more environmental impact than those uses allowed in the district in which it is to be located; and (i) Will not result in impacts on the human or natural environments determined by the administrator to require review as a conditional use. If the preceding conditions are not met to the satisfaction of the administrator, the administrator may either prohibit the use or require a conditional use permit. (3) Conditional Uses. All conditional uses are designated by a "C" and may be allowed subject to meeting the applicable development standards (Chapter 18.30 JCC), performance standards unique to the proposed use (Chapter 18_20 JCC), and the criteria for a conditional use permit (Article VIII of Chapter 18_401CC), as provided for in this code. All conditional uses shall be reviewed in accordance with a Type III quasi - judicial permit review process (requiring public notice, written comment and a public hearing) outlined in Chapter 18_40 JCC; except that conditional administrative uses (designated by a "C(a) ") may be allowed subject to a Type II administrative permit review process (requiring public notice and written comment, but not a public hearing); and conditional discretionary uses (designated by a "C(d) ") may be allowed subject to a Type II permit review process, unless the administrator determines that a Type III permit review process (requiring a public hearing) is warranted based on the project's potential impacts, size or complexity, according to criteria in JCC 18.40.520. (4) Prohibited Uses. Uses designated with a "No" are not allowed in the applicable land use district. Information on Conditional uses is available online at the following links: Chapter 18.40 JCC Article VIII. Conditional Uses 18.40.490 Purpose. 18.40.500 Scope. 18.40.510 Application submittal and contents. 18.40.520 Conditional use permit types— Review processes. 18.40.530 Approval criteria for all conditional uses. 18.40.540 Additional conditions. 18.40.550 Use of property before final decision. 18.40.560 Effective period — Expiration. 18.40.570 Modification of a conditional use permit. 18.40.580 Conditional use permit to run with the land. 18.40.590 Permit suspension or revocation. 18.40.600 Assurance device. I hope this helps! Staea .Cr. qed&04 Planning Manager, Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street * Port Townsend, WA 98368 Phone 360- 379 -4463 * Fax 360- 379 -4451 s hoski ns p co. i efferson.wa. u s Jefferson County DCD Mission: To preserve and enhance the quality of life in Jefferson County by promoting a vibrant economy, sound communities and a healthy environment. All e-mail sent to this address has been received by the Jefferson County e -mail system and is therefore subject to the Public Records Act, a state law found at RCW 42.56. Under the Public Records law the County must release this e-mail and its contents to any person who asks to obtain a copy (or for inspection) of this e -mail unless it is also exempt from production to the requester according to state law, including RCW 42.56 and other state laws. From: sue heston [mailto:siora36Calgmail.coml Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 7:36 PM To: Stacie Hoskins Subject: Re: Convenience Crossroads business definition Thank you for sending this, it is helpful. Sue On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Stacie Hoskins <SHoskins/.&co jefferson.wa.us> wrote: Hello, Ms. Heston, You're on the right track looking at the description of the zoning. Your answer lies in also looking at our table of uses as well as the definitions for different types of uses. These sections of the code are: • 18.15.040 Categories of land use. —This section includes a matrix of different uses and what the permission or permit process is for that use in each zone. No means it's not allowed in that zone, yes means a consistency review is needed, and C of any type means a conditional use permit and pre - application conference is required for that use in that zone. • Chapter 18.10 DEFINITIONS hope this helps! .Staea .e. 'Moak" Planning Manager, Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street * Port Townsend, WA 98368 Phone 360 - 379 -4463 * Fax 360 - 379 -4451 shoskins lo? co.j efferson.wa. uz Jefferson County DCD Mission: To preserve and enhance the quality of life in Jefferson County by promoting a vibrant economy, sound communities and a healthy environment. All e-mail sent to this address has been received by the Jefferson County e -mail system and is therefore subject to the Public Records Act, a state law found at RCW 42.56. Under the Public Records law the County must release this e -mail and its contents to any person who asks to obtain a copy (or for inspection) of this e -mail unless it is also exempt from production to the requester according to state law, including RCW 42.56 and other state laws. From: sue heston [mailto:sjora36(o)gmail.com1 Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2014 4:09 PM To: Stacie Hoskins Subject: Convenience Crossroads business definition 4 Ms. Hoskins: I am trying to find the definition of what kind of business can be operated with Convenience Crossroads zoning designation. I have read the following description " Convenience crossroads consist of a single commercial property at a historical crossroads. Typically, the existing commercial use is a convenience or general store with associated uses that provide a limited selection of basic retail goods and services for the local population and the commuting or traveling public. Land uses are not oriented to markets beyond the local rural population. There are three convenience crossroad designations in Jefferson County: Nordland, Beaver Valley and Wawa Point ". I have been told there may be a more detailed definition of the kind of business available. If more detailed definition exists I'd appreciate it if you could send me information about that. Thank you. Sue Heston 295 Margaret St siora36n,email.com jeffbocc From: Tom Giske [tgiske @gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 9:44 AM To: Stacie Hoskins Cc: #dcd; #Long -Range Planning; jeffbocc; David W. Johnson Subject: Re: Business Use of Property Zoned as Community Crossroad Stacie, thank you for your quick and helpful reply. I understand and support the appropriate process. But we have a business that seems to be ignoring the appropriate process. How can they be operating BEFORE you even do a permit review? Their doors were open over the weekend with Grand Opening signs along SH 104. Under such conditions, it seems appropriate to allow the commission to review what is happening and for the community to comment. Do we not have any enforcement responsibility? Have we not had enough fatal and serious injury accidents along that stretch of the road? My sense is that the community merely wants to express itself, not interfere with the appropriate process. Is there a reasonable alternative way to allow that to happen? And, by the way, there are now two businesses operating on that property, which is clearly limited to one by the zoning. I believe the community has supported the coffee stand, and would be disappointed to see it closed. Again, i do not want to alter the course of a well defined process. But I do want to call attention to a serious disruption of that process, with the very real possibility of tragic consequences, and request that we deal with it in the public's interest. Thanks, Tom Sent from my Whone On Aug 27, 2014, at 8:22 AM, Stacie Hoskins <SHoskins(aco.jefferson.wa.us> wrote: Hi, Tom, I can understand your concerns, and would like to explain some of the land use requirements. As the project is a development review project and may require its own public hearing, it would not be appropriate to place this item on a Planning Commission meeting agenda for public comment. We are obligated to meet our codes and we are bound by them. The code dictates the comment period requirements, and we need to follow that. Please see attached for information I provided to another resident in the area about the project comment period and permit review process. Discussing marijuana businesses will be on the Planning Commission work plan due to the moratorium. It would be most appropriate to consider any additional code language that would apply to any marijuana uses in the context of that discussion. I can assure you that during permit review we will consider and consult with county Public works and State Department of Transportation for traffic impacts due to this proposal. Best regards, Planning Manager, Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street * Port Townsend, WA 98368 Phone 360 - 379 -4463 * Fax 360 - 379 -4451 shoskins@co-lefferson.wa.us Jefferson County DCD Mission: To preserve and enhance the quality of life in Jefferson County by promoting a vibrant economy, sound communities and a healthy environment. All e-mail sent to this address has been received by the Jefferson County e -mail system and is therefore subject to the Public Records Act, a state law found at RCW 42.56. Under the Public Records law the County must release this e -mail and its contents to any person who asks to obtain a copy (or for inspection) of this e -mail unless it is also exempt from production to the requester according to state law, including RCW 42.56 and other state laws. From: Tom Giske rmailto:taiskeC&gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 8:45 PM To: #dcd Cc: #Long -Range Planning; jeffbocc Subject: Business Use of Property Zoned as Community Crossroad August 26, 2014 Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: Use of Property Zoned as Community Crossroad To: Carl Smith, Director, F] From: Tom Giske, Member of Planning Commission While I am writing as a concerned resident of the county, I am also reflecting upon the work of the Planning Commission during the time I have been a member. I was a member of the Planning Commission when the zoning for the property at 5R 104 and Shine Road was changed from Residential to Community Crossroad in 2008. I remember it well because I opposed it until I was assured it could not be used for other than serving the local rural community. The description in the code makes that intent clear, and the Use Table precludes similar types of businesses, such as liquor stores, but since pot stores were not envisioned at the time, it is not specifically stated that they are prohibited. I can tell you, in my view, that had they existed, or even been envisioned in 2008, they clearly would have been included in the use table as restricted from Community Crossroad designated property. I also remember the discussion of traffic safety, and being assured by the County's Office of Community Development, that any new business to 3 be located on that specific property, regardless of type, would be required to undertake a traffic impact study before being allowed to open. While I will be out of the State on September 3rd, and cannot attend the monthly meeting of the Planning Commission, I ask that this subject be put on the agenda with the opportunity for comment from the community. If possible, I would like to be included via speaker phone. I believe the Commission should declare publicly that marijuana sales were not considered in 2008, but had they been so considered, it is likely they would have been restricted form Community Crossroads, just like liquor stores. The very fact that there are only four such properties in the County suggests the unique nature of a Community Crossroad, with the intention of allowing only businesses that are focused on the unique needs of the surrounding local community. While the process to update the code is too long to address this particular situation, the existing wording of the 4 code can be interpreted to prevent such a business on a property zoned as Community Crossroad. I request that we ask for such an interpretation from the County Attorney's office, or at least, ask that the County declare a hold on any such property use until the appropriate zoning can be considered. Thank you for considering this request. Tom Giske 220 Shine Road Port Ludlow, WA 98365 (425) 301 -5925 <mime - attachment/ 5 Ct From: Tami Mendonca [tamilee100 @gmail.com] Sent: Monday, September 01, 2014 2:30 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Letter regarding the 1 -502 Moratorium Attachments: Letter to JeffCo commissioners.doc Dear Jefferson County Commissioners, HEAPxeING I have attached a letter for your review regarding my input into the I -502 Jefferson County Moratorium. Thank you for your time and your consideration in this important matter. Tami Mendonca letter in Support of Rural Residential Zoning for I -502 Dear Jefferson County Commissioners, I think there has been a big misunderstanding between those opposing rural residential, legal producing and processing of cannabis, and those businesses that are choosing to farm in these areas. I am a I -502 producer /processor applicant who also lives in rural residential zoning. I would like to join forces with the Residents for Responsible Regulation because I share their same values as well as their fears. These are the fears that have been created by the marijuana black market. We have all heard stories on the news of houses being blown up from improper, ignorant use of flammables that illegal processors use to create concentrates, or the improper disposal of waste materials, fertilizers and pesticides that harm our water supply. This is why we are here, to participate in a business that the state has regulated and standardized and to create a safe, legal product that creates jobs and tax revenue for the state, city, and county. The legal cannabis industry has to follow strict rules and regulations set up by the Liquor Control Board (LCB). As well, some of us are going above and beyond in our practice, following best management practices (BMP) that address environmental impact issues such as nonpoint source water pollution and growing an environmentally sustainable, organic product. We are responsible, hard working, caring members of this community. We are not Columbian Cartels. We are not drug lords. We are not the enemy. We are just like those citizens who belong to the Residence for Responsible Regulation. Just like them we care about what happens to our land, community, and our planet. We are on the same side, both wanting the same thing - -to get rid of the criminal element associated with marijuana; the black market. What many do not realize is by making it more difficult to legally and transparently produce, process and sell marijuana, this gives the edge to the black market where the very fears of the citizens have been and will continue to be realized. That is why we do what we do. Instead of arguing with each other, why not unite and work to eliminate all that is rightfully feared of in the black market? None of us want crime, pollution or public safety risks. This is exactly what this legal industry is all about. The voters of Washington need to be heard. Getting rid of the black market and creating tax revenue are some of the main reasons the voters passed I -502. Let the professional, honest cannabis businesses work together with local and state government and our citizens to remove the criminal element. Let's support the voters of Washington state and help them to realize their vision of legal cannabis. Together, we can make a difference. We can eliminate the criminal element involved with cannabis. Let's work together to improve our community with more environmentally friendly jobs, more tax revenue and reduced crime. Our cannabis business, Discovery Garden, Inc, wishes to run a responsible, legal and environmentally friendly farm on our private property and I think we have the right to do so. A neighbor who objects based on misinformation and fear or just thinking it isn't a good idea has no right to influence that ability. As long as the farming and processing is done legally and responsibly, we should be no different than any other business based in rural residential zoning. There are many examples on Cape George Road, the main road off which we live, such as Goodman Sanitation, Chuck's Auto and Electric Repair and sales, Alpenfire Hard Cider, a massage business, and a mental health business. Discovery Garden, Inc. would like the opportunity to make a difference, to start a business that can be run on our land; farming and processing marijuana. Give us this chance. We seek to improve our local economy and bring a more diverse population into Jefferson county. Many young people are seeking new business opportunities and see one in the marijuana industry, specifically here in Jefferson county, resulting in a more diverse population base. It is healthy for society to have both young and old living in the same community. This industry can improve the quality of lives of all Jefferson county residents. More than half of those businesses applying for permits are located in rural residential zones. If producing and processing cannabis is restricted to forest, agriculture or commercial then where will all these businesses go? They may have to locate outside the county which is a economic loss for Jefferson county. This industry offers a big opportunity for Jefferson county as is the case for legal marijuana businesses in Colorado. As an example, a pair of retail marijuana stores in Denver, under the same ownership, will generate $30 million in economic output and pay the city $390,000 in city taxes as well as create 280 jobs this year. And this is from just one business. There are many other marijuana businesses contributing to the economy of the community in a similar way. These employees are being paid $17.00/hr (with paid benefits) which is higher than the average wage in Denver. Both employees and business owners have a ripple effect on the economy, spending money on gas, groceries, rent, and supplies which all results in an even greater economic impact on the county. Growers and processors will have a similar effect on the economy here in Jefferson county. Similar to lavender in Sequim, Jefferson county can be the tourist destination for marijuana. Many in the state are vying for this designation. I understand one of the concerns of this industry is crime. Crime in Denver has gone down since the introduction of legal marijuana into the city. According to a report of crime in the city and county of Denver based on a report from the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) standards, crime between Jan 1 and July 31, 2014 has gone down in many offense categories when compared to the same period in 2013. Robbery (under "violent crime ") has gone down 6.9% and burglary (under "property ") down 8.2 %, compared to the same time last year. Homicide has gone down 32.0 %, sexual assault down 14.7 %. Larceny down 17.1 %. While this data may not prove a conclusive trend in crime, it does show the "sky didn't fall" as predicted by some law enforcement agencies in Colorado. http : / /www.denvergov.orgIPortalsl 720 /documents /statistics /2014lUCR_Citywide_Report ed %20_Offenses_2014.pdf Regarding environmental impact concerns some citizens have voiced. The 1502 growers and processors on the Olympic Peninsula have organized a trade association, called Olympic Peninsula Cannabis Association (OPCA). It is the association's mission to set best practices for the industry, which, in some cases, exceeds the already strict state requirements. All members will need to meet these standards in order to be part of this association. Being a member of OPCA show others we are producing and processing cannabis in a environmentally sustainable way, creating an industry that is an asset to this community. Some of our members are young people who have masters and bachelor degrees in sustainable agriculture and horticulture, as well as business degrees from the University of Washington. These young entrepreneurs need to be encouraged and supported by our community. I would rather see a well educated, responsible citizen running a transparent, legal marijuana business, than have so many zoning restriction as to make it difficult to set up a licit business in Jefferson county, relegating it back to the criminal element. I ask the commissioners to continue to allow I -502 businesses to operate in rural residential zones as well as forest, agriculture, and commercial zones as long as all state and local requirements are met. In the new legal cannabis industry, it is easier to obtain the license than it is to keep one. The LCB will quickly revoke the license of a "bad actor ". The public needs to be made aware of this so we can all rest assured. Thank you for your time and for your consideration of this important step forward in the legal cannabis industry. Tami Mendonca, Jefferson County jeffbocc From: Lou /Donna [Ioudonna2011 @gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 11:55 AM To: jeffbocc, z' ,; r' Subject: My 2¢ worth re: moratorium Thank you for this oppourtunity to voice my concerns regarding land use and Marijuana production in rural Jefferson county. I voted with the majority to legalize marijuana production,processing and retail sales. I knew that according to JCC Title 18.20.030 any rural property over 20 acres can be used to farm under the "Right to Farm" rule. I am looking at a list of 26 citizens who have paid $250.00 for marijuana producer licenses in Jefferson County. I think it's safe to assume these people understood the "Right to Farm" rule when they spent $250.00 Non Refundable for the application. Now because a few nervous NIMBY's want to reclassify a god given plant as something other than a agricultural product and think the only proper place for it is in a concrete bunker somewhere in a industrial park you are being asked to rewrite the rules. Is that the way things are going to be done in Jefferson county ? If you take away the "Right to Farm" from these rural land owners are you going to refund them their $250.00 ? And who will be next maybe that noisy chicken farm or saw mill down the road,what about the foul smell of all of the manure being spread all over Beaver Valley ?. Lift the moratorium,allow these nacent businesses to use their land as the laws allow. Thank you, Louis Hightower Port Ludlow Sent from my Verizon Wireless Device effbocc From: Amanda Webby [amandawebby @hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2014 11:02 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: comment regarding marijuana grow on residential zoned land To whom it may concern, (county reps, DCD) I am a resident of Jefferson County. I live in Port Townsend and have concerns regarding our county allowing marijuana growing and /or processing on residentially zoned land. I have been informed that Jefferson county had adopted the idea that marijuana is like any other agricultural crop. I feel that this is where Jefferson County's policy unintentionally caused problems. Whereby most of us would be charmed by rows of veggies and flocks of chickens next to a school, it would clearly not be the same were it a pot farm. Like the majority of Jefferson county residents, we want to promote and support food farming and to be friendly to new businesses. We also voted for the legalization of Marijuana. I don't think any of us had in mind that our neighbors and our children would have their safety, well- being, and lifestyles compromised. We assumed that grow operations would be in safe, commercial or at least agriculturally zoned areas. If a business that is required by the state to have fences, lights and security cameras, etc.. is going to be in a residentially zoned area, the LEAST our county could do is require strict conditional use permits, building permits, environmental impact statements, and strict water quality and septic tests... I believe that the use of residential land to run a business was meant for industries where the owners planned to live at their business to attend to it. ie: daycares, pre - schools, kennels, horse boarding, or any other situation where it is imperative that the owners be there in order to attend to their business at all times. I am respectfully asking that all people with the power to influence or make decisions about marijuana grown on residentially zoned land choose to support reasonable neighborhood quality. Please recognize that marijuana being grown next door with all that it would implicate, is very different than having vegetables and food being farmed next door to families and children. Sincerely, Amanda Webby 1275 S. Discovery Rd. Port Townsend, WA 98368 C. eDc-D 9laa)fy Julie Shannon From: John Austin Sent: Sunday, September 21. 2014 10 55 AM To SubjecSha Subject: Julie 12 ° °° FW. 50 moratorium point of view W HEARING RECORD From Tang Lee Mendonra Sem: Sunday, September 21, 201410:5):00 AM (UfOW00) Pacific Time (US & Car al To: John Austin; good Sullivaq Jef boac®jeffermn.wa . us Al llip Morley Sabjec .1 -502 mcmtorium paint of vier I understand one of the concerns of residents living in rural areas is bringing came to the neighb°rho00. Recently the city of Port Townsend has authorized the growing of medical cannabis in all pads of the city including neighborhoods. Growing cannabis whom the city limits can be done without the sthd security requirements set forth by Me WSLCB for legal 1 -502 recta denal businesses. This means no fences, no cameras, no alarm systems. Just out in plain view of all n see. The only requirement is that the grower registers the address of the operation so Nis location can be made public. The addresses of both fegaf -502 and ma l opergons are public knowledge, but one is quite accessible and the other is quite Inaccessible. Right town our lane where we live in a coral mandating neighborhood is a mental login practice, were 3 mental health provident are seeing on average 3 patients per hour. Some may fear having this type of business in our neighborhood as they may believe there is a strong cerrelation between mental health issues and crime. This practice has been neat door us for as long as we have lived here and I have not had any problems win criminal activity and have no concern of any Our business Is no more likely to attract crime than a mental health business. A gun smith is allowed to operate under a Cottage Industry in a rural residential zone. I think guns are more likely to attract criminals Nan most businesses would, yet they are allowed to operate next door to me. If we use Colorado as an example of the effect cannabis legalization has on crime then the outlook is favorable. Crime in Denver has gone down since the introduction of legal marijuana Into the city . According n a report of crime in the dry and county of Denver based on a report from the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) standards, crime between Jan 1 and July 31, 2014 has gone down in many offense categories when compared to the same pence in 2013. Robbery (under'Yident crane') has gone down 6.9% and burglary (unter'propedy) down 6.2 %, compared to the same time last year. Homicide has gone down 32.0 %, sexual assault down 147 %. Larceny down 12.1 %. Whlde Nisda may not prove a conducive trend in crime, it does show the "sky dil fall" as preeictee by some law enforcement agendes in Colorado. h )n d WPoftiN 201docijmenWstatisticsOOlMUCR Ctvwee In dosing, it is unfair to tisctlmmme against a legal business operating in a humid da de dal zone based on the unfounded fears of its neighbors. Tam, ventures, Jefferson County resident PART 1 CRIME IN THE CITY ANO COUNTY TYPE OF OFFENSE H tl VIOLENT 9 IAS Sault CRIME F bb ry A9g a1 dASaauX SUBTOTAL JAN1 #UG31, 2013 JANU1UO31, 2014- CHANGE JAN 1 -AUG 31, 2014 InclWinB USC N 30 321 ]59 1583 F 21 273 699 1,596 # % 9 300 a 48 -150 °6 60 -0.9% 13 0.8% A 2' 273 699 1603 %Change -300% -150% -]9% 13% 2.693 2,569 -104 3.9% 2,5M -3.8% -- 3,300 3,004 _296 -90 3,005 -8.9% PART Thefl(rom MV) 5.258 5.262 6 0.1% 8,141 1]0% PROPERTY VeM1lck r _ 4W6 2_289 64 i55A _ 3,3]3 2,2]8 -1,2]5 -2].4% 3,3]3 -2]4% -10 29. -1$461 -1,650 -04% 453% -9.9% i.0% 2281 -0.3% 93 95 484% SUfiTOTA_L - LI,011 16,600 14,W1 -0.244 16,360 1F IRS, WN awns omnm nand Do tM USC Waxy w mmpam W e PIT"" Al Nee wheel into Meal mton return an amain,. gain Lies a III eaamam ealeA, Ini modm®dxn at any Once, iWAPOO ova wmplan led Dn and IM1,11 We m xnmmuseam nay nrenemxN ere wSpIAL Money mA wyln mural m aluaawent reor mm mama on Mal mEM OF SAFETY Full INFORMATION STANDARDS Fxluner not amunn, mmoama,"q, ams am oMr tram, orterne, 1, May MI 3 To OnOW Sam Capama•nt lmplmnennn to Unlrnn SOM MA and Compmnr( usag pin®se urn aroreea,nml m,nims name M miner uyearn Me, atleQ, Me enel,AWor prw¢ss Thm.Ammal Arannifierl W th, Derver Sheriff. Caunb Can C% Afton y ADWnp Atmrr,mmmmnadma ettnargepNtrmrnss we.e. A loll any pmaxe ar lama menuu y,AAAM,r,A, Fremwrymtxmumd m NAOMI III MW Repring SyxM1m(NIBIF mmplonw,op,saeolm,Ach A,capmred due m to Ul pmxu Mre mtludM M1,m to de, whanwnAPAS201 B01a. AnaeamddY. alum has dean Sean mticmnka MDN reMV.mtM.a0.aDmm�nolNna,. Julie From: John Austin Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2014 10:06 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Pulbic Comment on 1 -502 Moratorium From: Colum Tinley Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2014 10:07:45 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Philip Morley; jeffbocc @jefferson.wa.us; David Sullivan; John Austin Subject: Pulbic Comment on I -502 Moratorium I would like to offer my perspective of the moratorium recently placed on 1 -502 businesses in Jefferson County. A few brave Jefferson County residents have decided to take part in an exciting new business opportunity in Washington State. The growing and processing of cannabis. These brave people and their new businesses have each been spending hundreds of thousands of dollars developing their businesses. Unfortunately development of these businesses has recently been halted due to the county's moratorium on 1 -502 businesses in rural residential zones. 55% of Jefferson County applicants propose to operate in rural residential zones. Why do you suppose an 1- 502 applicant would want to operate their business on rural residential land? The same reasons any farmer wants to live on the land they cultivate. Being close to the land one works has been the norm for farmers of this planet for thousands of years. Jefferson County 1 -502 farmers are no different. No farmer wants to pollute the land they live and work on with poor agricultural management practices. These rural residential farmers are using the greenest techniques possible. Forcing 1 -502 growers into industrial zones would be detrimental to the health of Washington State residents. Industrially zoned land is quite likely to contain more heavy metals and other toxins than rural residential land. Cannabis is a plant that extracts and concentrates these toxins. Growing it in industrial soils places all users of the plant at risk. http://www.r-nhhe.com/biosci/pae/botany /botany map /articles /article 10.html Forcing 1 -502 growers and producers into industrial areas also discriminates against these legal businesses. I don't see the county's hard apple cider producers herded into industrial zoning and those businesses pose similar effects on their neighbors. To prohibit 1 -502 businesses from operating under conditional use permits like any other legal business is entitled to do is similar to prohibiting women from voting, prohibiting individuals with certain racial characteristics from riding in the front of the bus or prohibiting those with certain sexual preferences from marrying. The simple and righteous way for county commissioners to handle the implementation of 1 -502 in Jefferson County is to do exactly what they have been doing so far, treat it just like any other business, with no more regulation and no more rights than any other business. Colum Tinley, CRNA 409 Lane de Chantal Port Townsend, WA 98368 �� From: RICK KATHY NELSON <rickathy37 @msn.com> �j..���jq'` Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 12:09 PM A I " ° To: jeffbocc Subject: Public Comment -- 1 -502 Moratorium Jefferson County Commissioners: We urge the county to prohibit commercial recreational (502) prow operations (No matter what the size o the business, large orsmall) in rural residential zoning. The state requires a 1,000 foot distance from school, daycare, park, recreational facility, etc., so why would this type of business be allowed on land situated in areas of family homes where our children and grandchildren play everyday. This type of operation should not be allow in forest land either, The area best suited for this type of business is light industrial zoned land. Our concerns for allowing commercial recreational (502) grow operations in residential areas include: increased traffic, increased potential for criminal activity, increased light pollution from required security lighting, a decrease in land value of neighboring properties (who wants to buy a family home right next to a large scale marijuana operation), runoff to soils from large amounts of fertilizers /pesticides used, noise from 24 -hour operation of business, decrease in aesthetics of neighborhood due to eight -foot tall fencing around the business as required by state law. We also believe marijuana should be classified as something other than "agriculture ". While we appreciate that the County values and supports agriculture, this is not the same and should not be classified the same as the growing and production of "food." Please, we urge you, our elected officials, to make the right decision on this matter -- prohibit commercial recreational (502) grow operations in rural residential zoning. Respectfully, Richard E. & Kathy C. Nelson 31 Combs Place Port Townsend WA 98368 From: Colum Tinley <cpt409 @ymail.com> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 8:52 PM To: Phil Johnson, jeffbocc Subject: Fw: Pulbic Comment on 1 -502 Moratorium I would like to offer my perspective of the moratorium recently placed on 1 -502 businesses in Jefferson County. A few brave Jefferson County residents have decided to take part in an exciting new business opportunity in Washington State. The growing and processing of cannabis. These brave people and their new businesses have each been spending hundreds of thousands of dollars developing their businesses. Unfortunately development of these businesses has recently been halted due to the county's moratorium on 1 -502 businesses in rural residential zones. 55% of Jefferson County applicants propose to operate in rural residential zones. Why do you suppose an 1- 502 applicant would want to operate their business on rural residential land? The same reasons any farmer wants to live on the land they cultivate. Being close to the land one works has been the norm for farmers of this planet for thousands of years. Jefferson County 1 -502 farmers are no different. No farmer wants to pollute the land they live and work on with poor agricultural management practices. These rural residential farmers are using the greenest techniques possible. Forcing 1 -502 growers into industrial zones would be detrimental to the health of Washington State residents. Industrially zoned land is quite likely to contain more heavy metals and other toxins than rural residential land. Cannabis is a plant that extracts and concentrates these toxins. Growing it in industrial soils places all users of the plant at risk. Forcing 1 -502 growers and producers into industrial areas also discriminates against these legal businesses. I don't see the county's hard apple cider producers herded into industrial zoning and those businesses pose similar effects on their neighbors. To prohibit 1 -502 businesses from operating under conditional use permits like any other legal business is entitled to do is similar to prohibiting women from voting, prohibiting individuals with certain racial characteristics from riding in the front of the bus or prohibiting those with certain sexual preferences from marrying. The simple and righteous way for county commissioners to handle the implementation of 1 -502 in Jefferson County is to do exactly what they have been doing so far, treat it just like any other business, with no more regulation and no more rights than any other business. Colum Tinley, CRNA 409 Lane de Chantal Port Townsend, WA 98368 jeffbocc From: frank white <whitef @olympus.net> Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 1:29 PM at To: jeffbocc p HE ARV ? Subject: moratorium My name is Frank White. 1 have lived in this county for 38 years. 1 have chosen this as my home in large part because of the rural nature of the area. I love the farms that abound in our county. An intelligent use of agricultural land is a joy to behold, and adds to the attractiveness of the region. To equate the growing of marijauna with the raising of a food crop is patently absurd. I do think that growing marijauna has the potential of bringing in badly needed income to our county, but it should be done in industrial zones because it is, indeed, an industry, and an eyesore. Let it be grown and processed where the use of pesticides and fertilizer can be both closely monitored as well as the run off from the above can be controlled. Thank you for your time and interest in this subject. Sincerely, Frank White jeffbocc From: Patricia <pjearnest @earthlink.net> ; Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 7:10 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Comments for Oct 6th Attachments: BOCC comment on rural areas for pot growing & processing. pages. zip, ATT00001.htm Comments for marihuana moratorium hearing on October 6th. I'm sending this in advance to be sure they are available for the Oct 6th hearing: C,ornmernon, for manluana Baring on October B, 2014 To Whom it may Concern Having moved from an aman center to the grief. clean air, relatively safe fora' area at the Pacific Northwest almost 10 years ago, it is greatly disturbing to find Mean me stand legalized but fgderatiy illegal substance dallied marijuana Wight be showed by Jefferson Countyto be grown 8 processed just upwind. I see several ormpelling reasons for restricting marqtwina timcl permitting in rural residenf ul areas fRR) &. also in agrewauraf smas AG.j i _ The fortreas type structuring required for a processing facfiity does no trelong in deer & ellineor, hataTat. Nor does it belong in human Child habitat. 2- The polordialty staining odd of pot growing snould not be forced on those iii in RR & raising families tinkiding Chat' & thaw cht dren wig have the Small of Cedar or killer -. rosed, wain they step outsitle. 3- The cigar cutting at wooded areas to provide room for the facilities without the contrc lea rid- planting of the next gensranlore of tonest have now proven to eriareupt natural weather cycie5. d. Pot growin=g :s not an AG business as the crops are not nutritious &[ire sustaning as are hurts & vagefabfes. 5. Because at our intent grading Hutt, It is likely that most of the pot growing win tte in interior tacildms which would therefore waste vafuairia suslenanca owing rich farmland if allowac to be built on AG lands. 8. As protsclion wll€ be part of the growing. prociessi ng & diurldbuting of pot preduct, locating and facilities in an industrial of tight industrial area would make Potion, amass dealer. That's what f think & why I ft* the rules must be strict & RR areas must be forbidden for the Industry of pert growing. Thank you, Follicle Tamest Nordiand, WA From: Gerry Furnia <gpfurnia @centurytel.net> Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2014 6:54 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: marijuana To the county commissioners: We have had a cabin on Marrowstone for over 45 years, and have enjoyed the rural, safe atmosphere on this jewel of an island. Our children enjoyed safe, carefree times growing up, and now our grandchildren are enjoying the same thing, but for how long? The thought of marijuana being grown and processed on this unique place when there are industrial sites aplenty angers me. The commissioners should confine growth and production to places where the general population will not be harmed by a business deemed objectionable by almost half of the people in the state. True, a small majority approved this business, but I feel most never thought through all the ramifications resulting from this measure. I don't feel that the huge number of people who voted against this measure should have to suffer socially, mentally and financially because of what is essentially a harmful drug, At the very least, confine the growth and production to places where the general population doesn't have to endure financial hardship due to falling property values, and emotional pain by being a neighbor to a drug producing farm, and the loss of a feeling of safety and well- being. It's an industry, so confine it to industrial areas. Gerry Furnia October 2, 2014 Board of County Commissioners a # 1820 Jefferson Street D Port Townsend, WA 98368 RkOl I , i T Regarding: Public Comment, Ordinance # 07- 0811 -14 moratorium on accepting or processing of permits for recreational marijuana in certain zones Honorable Commissioners, I am a resident of Jefferson County. I was born and raised here and my husband and I are raising our children here. I am strongly opposed to the development of any 502 operations in residentially zoned areas and also the classification of such operations as "agriculture ". 15 years ago, before we had children, we purchased our home on 5 acres not far from the PT city limits. We love our neighborhood. It's rural, yet close enough to town to easily shuttle kids to school and activities or make a run to the store. We have dreamed about buying a larger house as our family grows, and were thrilled when, at the end of 2013 we were able to buy 20 acres only Y4 mile from our existing house. The plan is to build a new home on this property and we have spent many hours exploring the woods and scoping out the perfect spot for our future home. Almost 6 months ago, in May, we were devastated to learn that an investor had purchased the adjacent 20 acre parcel, of which we share access, with the intent of developing a commercial recreational marijuana grow operation. Since learning about this, I have spent much of my time considering how my family can and will be affected. Before May I had never considered that a business such as this could be permitted to operate in a residential neighborhood. I had always relied on the fact that we had purchased land in residentially zoned areas and that land use in these areas would remain consistent with the intent of the zoning. I commend DCD /Mr. Morley and the BOCC for taking a step in the right direction by imposing the 6 month moratorium on 502 developments in residentially zoned areas. If you do nothing to regulate this, my family will be subjected to a large -scale indoor grow operation including 40,000+ square feet of buildings, parking for 30 cars, round the clock employees, and the lights, noise, traffic and odors that accompany it, all less than 75 feet from our property line. Now I urge you all to take this time to develop regulations to keep all 502 operations off of residentially zoned land, no matter what the size and scale of the business. This business has only very recently become legal in our state. It is a new use industry and Jefferson County needs to develop new regulations around it It is not "agriculture ". Please follow the lead of so many other communities in the state who are regulating 502 operations. Consider the families who live in Jefferson County, and are continuing to move here because of the wonderful quality of life we enjoy in this area. Please keep the county and our neighborhoods "neighborly" and residential. If you choose to allow 502 operations in Jefferson County, make sure they exist in areas appropriate for the nature of this business, i.e., industrially zoned land. The state of Washington does not allow 502 operations within 1,000 feet of where youth congregate, so it makes sense that this industry cannot be allowed in neighborhoods where our youth sleep, play and live. Thank you for taking the time to consider the negative impact this will have on our county if 502 operations continue to be allowed to start up anywhere with no regulations. I trust you will do what is truly best for our community. Keep the moratorium in place until you adopt regulations that keep 502 operations out of residential zones. Annette Gardner, Port Townsend Enclosures: Copy of Objection Letter, previously submitted to BOCC Sound Law Center Dspute Resolution %Ulvire-s WIN1141 Soundlawrlenter "Wr (206) 628-0700 J title 2014 Washington State Liquor Control Board Licensing and Regulation PO BOX 43 100 Olympia. WA 98504 .Jefferson Count,,, Board of Commissioners ATTN: Philip Morley. County Administrator PO Box 1220 Port Townsend. WA 98368 Jefferson County Department of Community Development ATTN: Stacie Hoskins 6211 Sheridan St. Port Townsend, WA 98368 RTC: Objection to I-Acensino ofN/Iari.jUana Producer I ocated At 1743 S. Discmery Road Dear State and Local Officials: We are writing on behalf of our clients. Christopher and Annette Gardner, to of ject to the licensing or any other approval of a marijuana production facility at 1743 S. Discovery Road. There are many reasons x,,Ii\ a marijuana grove operation should not be allowed in this residential zone, as detailed beio\\. It ask that you accept this Objection Letter as a matter of public record. and consider it should an applicant propose to grow commercial marijuana at 174-31 S. Discovery Road. Port Townsend. WA. We have good reason to suspect that this Jefferson County property. just outside the city of Port Townsend. will be proposed as a marijuana grow site. Recently. the Gardners learned that an out -of- -state couple (William and Lissa Staples) purchased the 20-acre parcel immediately adjacent to their own 20 acres.' The Staples have cleared trees and begun grading the property. initially without required legal approval. Those working at the site have stated the Staples, or at, I agents on their behalf. will be seeking a license to produce marijuana at 1743 S. Discover\ Road. The property is zoned for residential use and, like the Gardners' property ad<jacctit to it. is undeveloped \vith a wide diversity of' I The property address does not appear on the Jefferson County Assessor parcel map, which may be an oversight that should be remedied by the County. tree and plant growth. It shares an easement access road with the Gardners.. and is in the midst of a residential area, A thorough search of public records reycals that there are currently no marijuana producer permits requested for the property at 1743 S. Discovery Road (Parcel #001201021). However, the Staples appear to be financing a pending; grow operation at 453 Otto St. for the Jefferson Cannabis Company and have communicated an interest in operating a similar business at the Discovery Road propert\ A fe \i weeks ago Jefferson County issued a stop work order at 1713 S. Discovery Road for unpermitted grading and tree clearing on the property. The fact that the property owners would authorize illegal activity on the property heightens our concern that the property will be used for a marijuana production operation right next to the Gardner residential property. perhaps without the `bother' of applying for appropriate permits. There are several reasons the 1743 S. Discovery Road property is an inappropriate location for a marijuana production operation: The property proposed for a marijuana gro%v operation is in a residential zone (R -20). Although Jefferson County has yet to adequately update zoning ordinances to address citizen concerns over the implementation of I -502. common sense dictates that residential areas are inappropriate for large -scale marijuana production. This site is especially inappropriate as it shares a common driveway with the Gardner property. Should a permit be granted for 1743 S. Discovery Road. the Gardners' voung children will he exposed to the operation on a daily basis. The fundamental reason for zoning,, is to make certain conflicting, land uses are not located next to each other. �f"he location of a commercial marijuana grow operation next to a residence is contrary to all zoning principles and is simply unacceptable. 2. The `right to farm' ordinance should not apply to commercial growing of marijuana. It is recognized that Jefferson County has a "right to farm.. ordinance, an ordinance cited by local officials when discussing, the county's current `no regulation of marijuana" policy. ]'his ordinance may at first glance appear to allow marijuana growing in certain residential zones. However, farming in rural residential zones is allowed only 'Mien "such operations are ... in compliance with local. state. and federal laws." .1c,11�,r yon Code ode IN.15.095(4)(1)). While marijuana is now a crop that may he legally grown under Washington law, it is still a Schedule 1 drug under the federal Controlled Substance, Act and is illegal to grow. Jefferson County*s right to farm ordinance thus does not allow for the growing of marijuana, an illegal crop under federal laxv. In addition, a large -scale marijuana production facility would clearIN- classify as a nuisance under the common law ,. 3. There is not adequate water at the property to sustain a marijuana grow operation. The property at 1743 S. Discovery Read shares an exempt well with the Gardner property. Under Department of Ecology rules for the Quilcene-Snow Watershed basin (WRIA 17). farms are allowed to use Lip to 5,000 gallons/day from permit-exempt wells- Because marijuana is a water- intensive crop, it is doubtful whether this limit could meet the requirement for water needed in marijuana production. In addition. use of the exempt well for a commercial marijuana grow operation would threaten the availability ol* water for residential use on the Gardner property resulting in a policy distortion on the use of water. 4. Any proposed use of the property for commercial marijuana growing Must be denied because the proposed use will be within 1.000 feet of a recreational facility. Tile Gardners are establishing a recreational facility on their property. The recreational facility is focused on outdoor activities for children from 4 to 14. Activities may include native plant identification, nature hikes, campfire story telling, rope sv,-Ings. and tree climbing, The Gardners are also exploring affiliations with local childhood education organizations in the vicinity -- including day cart-, centers -- to use part of their property lor outdoor education activities. Marijuana production permits cannot be approved for property within 1.000 feet of school. day care, or recreation facility. R('14' 69.50.331(8). Any permit requests for 1743 S. Discovery Road must be denied. 5. Public records indicate that there may have been violations of forest practice regulations on the property. Pursuant to Section 76.09.460 of the Revised Code of Washington and Section 18.20. 160(c) of the Jefferson Count',, Code. no permits or approvals relating to non-l'orestr\ uses ol'the land may be issued for six years from the conversion notice or until the property owner has resolved all forestry-related issues. Accordingly, any permit requests for marijuana grow operation should be denied. 6. There are other concerns as well that justify denial of any license request involving this property. These include: (a) Emergency vehicle access to the property is challenging at best. Despite the publicly recorded easement guaranteeing the Gardners access to their ov,-n property. the Staples are now guarding the steep and unimproved access road with a locked tyate. The Gardners have been locked out of their own property, twice in the last llew months. Yet, the risk of a marijuana grow operation is known to include the serious risk of fire. (b) There are stronia, odors associated with a commercial marijuana grow operation. (c) Because marijuana is often a cash crop. there Is all increased risk of crime around any location that has marijuana on it. (d) Growing marijuana often requires large amounts of herbicides and pesticides. (e) Electricity needed for a marijuana grow- operation would collie from Jefferson County PUD. The PLU obtains some of its power trom the Bonneville Power Administration. a federal atyency which would not allow electricity to be used for operations illegal under federal law. While we understand that Washington voters have expressed support for legal marijuana production, not all sites are properly suited for commercial marijuana production and certainly not in a residential zone. 1-502, and the federal government in the Cole memo, clearly anticipates that local government will ree ,ulate \\:here marijuana producers can operate their businesses. The Gardners purchased the adjacent property to build their family home, relying on the underlying zoning of residential. They never suspected that a commercial marijuana grow operation Would start tip next to where they will raise their children who are now 4 and 8 years old. When county officials tell them that marijuana farming could be allowed on the site. they understandably are frustrated and befuddled as to how- and why their elected officials would allow this to occur. By filing this letter. we hope that those who have the authority to prevent this Irom happening take action to do so. To approve a marijuana :_1 adjacent to our clients' property, would be in juana tyroNN operation ad' violation of applicable state and federal law. By providing this letter to you, we ask that: (a) this letter remain on file with the Board: (b) that Sound Law Center and the Gardners be considered parties of interest for any licensing decisions involving 1743 S. Discovery Road and are notified of any license requests. communications, and decisions involving the property, and (c) that any marijuana production licenses for 1743 S. Discovery Road be denied. We appreciate your attention to this matter. If you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at any time. Sincerely. ,-- " n-- \ e's q A_Aj�� Ted Hunter Sound Law Center 206-628-0700 tph(ii)soundlawcentencorn cc: See Attached List of Agencies. Individuals and Media John and Donna English 351 Center Cemetery Road y}aA}q Chimacum, Washington 98325 October 1, 2014 Jefferson County Board of Commissioners P. 0. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Dear Sirs: fi • 2 �d$Yjj� This letter is to encourage a permanent moratorium on marijuana growing and processing in Rural Residential areas. To suggest that marijuana is a typical agricultural product is short sited. There are numerous regulations on marijuana that do not apply to agricultural products: Marijuana growers are required to have a state license and county permit. Marijuana growers are required to install security fencing, cameras and lighting around the growing area and have on site inspections Marijuana cannot be grown within 1000 feet of schools churches, and other public areas. Marijuana cannot be consumed in public. Marijuana is limited in the amount one may possess. Marijuana grow licenses require a criminal background check for growers, employees and investors. None of these restrictions apply to typical agricultural products grown in family gardens. By any reasonable standard Marijuana is a controlled substance and should be treated as such. To prohibit marijuana operations of any sort close to schools, churches and public parks and then assume it's appropriate to be grown and processed in a residential area where children LIVE is unreasonable. As our representatives, please consider the right decision and make the moratorium permanent. Marijuana growing and processing is a commercial endeavor and should be confined to commercial or industrial zones. From: Tom Thiersch <thiersch - public @usregs.com> Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2014 1:02 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Ordinance No. 07- 0811 -14 - TESTIMONY (1) for October 6 hearing Commissioners, This email is testimony for the record regarding Jefferson County Ordinance No. 07- 0811 -14 (the county's moratorium on "pot "); I am submitting a number of emails on this same Ordinance to make it easier to address the numerous issues separately. ISSUE: Facts Of the numerous "findings of fact" in the Ordinance, perhaps the most objectionable is: "WHEREAS recreational marijuana production and processing may be done at a scale and intensity exceeding that which has occurred historically, and may result in impacts such as increased traffic noise light hours of activity odors water supply withdrawals and surface and ground water pollution; and " No evidence has been presented by any person to support any of these alleged possible impacts. Examining each of these: 1. Increased traffic: Marijuana is a low- volume, high- unit -value product that requires very few commercial vehicles to service, far fewer vehicles than are typically required for other crops, which are generally high - volume, low- unit - value. 2. Noise: From what sources? Even the largest scale "grow" will not be using tractors, combines, or other noisy equipment typically required for other agricultural activities. Cultivation of marijuana is a manual process, and does not create noise from any kind of heavy machinery. I live adjacent to property where cattle are raised — now that's some noise (and odor), which I accept as part of life in this semi -rural area of the county. 3. Light: The installation of security lighting that is required by RCW and WAC for pot grows and processing facilities is already addressed by the Jefferson County Code's lighting standards. No additional regulation is required. 4. Hours of activity: There is no reason way these new cottage industries should be regulated in any way different from any other cottage industry. 5. Odors: What odors? Other, equally legal, agricultural activities such as raising chickens, pigs, cattle, etc. all produce odors. But growing marijuana plants produces no particular odors, no more than a lawn or a field of corn. As for the odors that might emanate from processing facilities, those emissions (e.g., the use of butane for extraction of marijuana oil) are highly regulated by the state and require no further regulation by the county. 6. Water supply withdrawals: This is the provenance of the state department of Ecology, and is not a proper issue for the county to consider. 7. Surface and ground water pollution: As noted elsewhere in the Findings, existing state laws and Environmental Health regulations will apply to marijuana grows, like any other agricultural activity (e.g., fertilizer runoff, etc.) No additional regulation by the county is needed. In summary, there is no factual basis to justify the creation of any new Jefferson County Codes regarding the production and processing. Ordinance No. 07- 0811 -14 must be repealed and not renewed. From: I om I hierscn <thierscn- puDUcLusregs.com> Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2014 1:12 PM To: jeffbocc Cc: Phil Johnson; David Sullivan; John Austin Subject: Ordinance No. 07- 0811 -14 - TESTIMONY (2) for October 6 hearing Commissioners, This email is testimony for the record regarding Jefferson County Ordinance No. 07- 0811 -14 (the county's moratorium on "pot'); I am submitting a number of emails on this same Ordinance to make it easier to address the numerous issues separately. ISSUE: Discouragement The title of the Ordinance is "An Ordinance Establishing a Moratorium Prohibiting the Production, Processing and Retailing of Recreational Marijuana in Certain Land Use Designations within Unincorporated Jefferson County AND Establishing a Work Plan for the Planning Agency ". The reference to "retailing" in that title is in conflict with the language of the ordinance. 'Retailing" is also referred to three different "WHEREAS' clauses, the so- called "findings of fact'. It is only when one reads all the way to page 5 of 6 of the ordinance that one learns that 'retailing" is actually not included in the scope of the ordinance, and then only by the absence of that word from the occurrences of the phrase "production or processing of recreational marijuana ". (1) It seems that this ordinance was not reviewed by legal before enactment; any competent lawyer would /should have corrected those mistakes. (2) The inclusion of "retailing" in the scope of the ordinance (title) is and will be a source of indirect discouragement; persons seeking new business opportunities in this area will stop looking once they see that, at a summary level, Jefferson County has a law "Prohibiting the Production, Processing and Retailing of Recreational Marijuana ". (3) Businesses will see that Jefferson County appears to have blanket prohibition on all recreational marijuana activities because of the faulty construction of the ordinance and those businesses will look elsewhere to site their operations. Significant loss of revenue to the county will be one of more noticeable consequences of this poorly- conceived law. Ordinance No. 07- 0811 -14 must be repealed and not renewed. Tom Thiersch Jefferson County Y � u From: Tom Thiersch <thiersch - public @usregs.com> Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2014 2:09 PM To: jeffbocc Cc: Phil Johnson; David Sullivan; John Austin Subject: Ordinance No. 07- 0811 -14 - TESTIMONY (3) for October 6 hearing Commissioners, This email is testimony for the record regarding Jefferson County Ordinance No. 07- 0811 -14 (the county's moratorium on "pot "); I am submitting a number of emails on this same Ordinance to make it easier to address the numerous issues separately. ISSUE: Findings The ordinance states, "Section Six. Findings. The Jefferson County Commission hereby adopts the above recitals (the "WHEREAS" statements) as its findings of fact in support of this Ordinance." Some of the "findings" are biased and incomplete. e.g., "WHEREAS, citizens have addressed the County Commission during the public comment period of the Commission's open public meetings expressing great concern that the production of marijuana is not typical agriculture and that both production and processing should be the subject of additional development regulations not currently found in the applicable land use and development regulations; and The above "finding" conveniently omits the fact, supported by the official minutes of the meetings of the County Commission, that numerous citizens have also addressed the Commission to express their position and great concern that the county has no need to enact any new regulations; RCW 69.50.325, and Chapter 314 -55 WAC already contain (more than) ample regulations. Another Finding, states (emphasis added): "WHEREAS, the County Commission acknowledges that the citizens of Jefferson County supported the approval of Initiative 502 by almost a 2 -1 margin, and in recognition of the clear will of its citizenry, does not intend to undo Initiative 502 by the eventual enactment of regulations regarding recreational mariivana that would make initiating and undertakinq such businesses in Jefferson County impractical; and " It is clear that any new regulation at the county level would, at best, be duplicative of regulations extant and would only lead to confusion, loss of new businesses, added costs to applicants and to taxpayers, and would serve no public purpose. Ordinance No. 07- 0811 -14 must be repealed and not renewed. Tom Thiersch Jefferson County y jeffbocc From: Tom Thiersch <thiersch - public @usregs.com> Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2014 2:23 PM To: jeffbocc Cc: Phil Johnson; David Sullivan; John Austin Subject: Ordinance No. 07- 0811 -14 - TESTIMONY (4) for October 6 hearing Commissioners, This email is testimony for the record regarding Jefferson County Ordinance No. 07- 0811 -14 (the county's moratorium on "pot "); I am submitting a number of emails on this same Ordinance to make it easier to address the numerous issues separately. ISSUE: Work Plan (emphasis added) The ordinance correctly notes that, "this moratorium is authorized by RCW 36.70.795, RCW 36.70A.390 and Article 11, § 11 of the Washington State Constitution as long as a work plan for the County's planning agency is made part of this Ordinance ". The work plan in the Ordinance begins with: Section Five. Work Plan. The following work plan is adopted: • DCD to hold a public comment period during September 2014 The hearing scheduled for October 6, 2014, does not meet the requirements for public process, as stated in the Work Plan; that hearing is being conducted by the Board of County Commissioners at a special meeting of the BoCC, and not by DCD nor by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission of DCD, which is legally the county's "planning agency ", has not held any public meetings and therefore there has been no public comment period during "September 2014 ", the time period specified in the Ordinance; that fact is documented by the Planning Commission's own "Agendas" webpage: w•wrwxo jeftenon.wa.us - / commdevelopmenVP DFSIFCrtenda/2014 Agendas/ and, from another Planning Commission webpage: ra.ssr. +f•r. =ez °. x} .. Ate €+ s.' x Ytf.�e Pfiy• .`3+i' i7. .at .a t:S AM }f v.,4 f si n.�, r_" Ytiti• #'fll i. . ?:. Y" ei ..£ : =.A:? Ap5 S`Y l5 » .j •_.: t a � � ,,• �l Y•4!.cfL}. - a- t tf Yx3 +tfNY� .ri5` :7. M 3:St ^. AN I tfr f � z Y+rbatffl. wi. :ba .£ ;rk °iM *1 3 $;: .a ri✓�, ♦ a <tr �'t +» ., .. ks3seiSS F. :a. ii. :i ".£ 1t }f AX OW S1 YlY.a #1i1'. i' 11 =14 #tot W, YlGbtflY >. ry.� g }, }S2£ M fC±L A1tl £4. *$$i: Y119R)!#Y. <'V.i S3. l'ikf W* Ti# 10.4k{i 3 R:' # t -. °.4I.ia Yrnfc•Ntk• NPtutsi 34. .6,f £x;f fll a)(E Y8 .�,. -,g? s M ... ,;ys' and, from another Planning Commission webpage: wa'91Lz•i .7 -to . 1� -? Plww*V CAKemossiW1... meeWogs have returned to a *r"-e -nw*h *Kh our next maethnq be" hOd at thvo Tit -Mea Community tenter on the first Wedriesday M each month: August % 2014 at 6:30 Mn Septomber 3. 2014 at 6 «90 PM (Can W), October 1, 2014 at 6:30 Pon H. 16er 3, 2014 at 6290 PM Doeamber 3. 2014 at 6:90 pen Additionally, the Work Plan of the Ordinance requires that DCD • Study impacts and generate draft revisions to the County's development regulations within 120 days of enactment of this Ordinance No such work took place the most recent meeting of the Planning Commission, and there is no evidence that there is any room in the crowded schedule of the Planning Commission to undertake such an effort within the required 120 days (there are only two more meetings scheduled before December 9). Failure to comply with work plan required by the Planning Enabling Act (RCW 36.70) as stated in the moratorium should render the Ordinance null and void. Ordinance No. 07- 0811 -14 must be repealed and not renewed. Tom Thiersch Jefferson County °r WRITTEN COMMENTS REGARDING MARIJUANA MORATORIUM My name is Steve Ramsey. I reside at 581 S Bay Way Port Ludlow Washington. First, I want to commend the Commissioners for pausing to consider the ramifications of the new and completely different industry of marijuana production and processing in our county and for providing a vehicle for public comment and input into how and where marijuana operations should be sited and allowed to operate. It is important to have an open and inclusive process at the outset of anew and important issue like marijuana production and processing. I feel strongly that if marijuana grow and processing operations ( hereafter, "marijuana operations ") are going to be allowed in our county, that we should take steps to preserve the rural character of our county, especially nural residential neighborhoods. The County recognized the potential negative impacts of marijuana operations on the quality of life and rural neighborhoods of Jefferson County when it announced the Moratorium. Marijuana grow and processing operations are going to be more numerous and larger than county officials anticipated. County officials acknowledged the County had not anticipated the number and size of marijuana operations in adopting its initial approach to approval and siting marijuana operations in Jefferson County and noted this as one of the reasons for putting a moratorium on licensing/permitting marijuana operations. I ask the County to consider and implement the following suggestions regarding the actions the County should take in considering all applications for permits to site and operate marijuana production and processing operations and facilities in Jefferson County • Growing and processing MJ will be a light industrial, commercial activity. It is not a traditional agricultural activity. The County's position that marijuana operations are merely "normal agricultural activities" is not supported by any rational basis and is contrary to both State law and the weight of agricultural experts who have reviewed this issue. Marijuana operations should be limited to industrial or commercial areas and not allowed in areas which are zoned residential or where the predominate use and character of the neighboring properties is residential regardless of zoning classification Under both state and federal law marijuana production and processing are not agricultural activities. Growing and processing marijuana is illegal under Federal law. The Washington Legislature removed growing marijuana from the definition of agricultural activities. Jefferson County is bound by the statutes enacted by the Washington Legislature and is not free to take a different position from the State on this matter. By persisting in its position that growing marijuana is "normal agriculture," Jefferson County deprives its citizens of the benefit of Statutes enacted to protect them in violation of both Federal and State constitutions. Jefferson County should amend its Code to recognize that growing and processing marijuana is fundamentally different than normal agriculture. • The potential negative impacts of marijuana operations on the environment, property values and the quality of life of rural residential neighborhoods have not been adequately evaluated. These issues should be evaluated through the Planning Commission process before allowing marijuana operations to be sited or operate. The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) is applicable to actions Jefferson County takes relative to evaluating and making decisions concerning siting and authorization of marijuana production and processing operations. SEPA review must be conducted in advance of authorizing any such operations. Failure to do so is a violation of the Act and could invalidate any permit or authorization granted. Marijuana operations will utilize large amounts of commercial fertilizers; chemicals to process, distill, and extract oils from marijuana plants; generate solid and hazardous waste; present nontrivial risks of fire, explosion, and related public safety events as well as the potential for criminal activity in rural residential areas; and consume inordinate amounts of water, all of which have the potential to present a threat to public health and the environment. The risk to rural residential areas is significant and has not been evaluated or addressed by Jefferson County to this point. Limiting marijuana operations to industrial and commercial areas will make them more accessible to fire, law enforcement and emergency vehicles and reduce the significant risk which will exist if marijuana operations are sited and operate in residential areas. The potential negative environmental and quality of life impacts were not studied by Jefferson County nor did Jefferson County undertake a review of the potential environmental impacts of marijuana operations under the State Environmental Policy Act ( "SEPA "), as it should have done, both as to the individual and cumulative impacts of allowing marijuana operations in Jefferson County. The County is required to undertake such a SEPA review and should do before making any decisions or taking any actions which would allow marijuana operations to proceed in Jefferson County. Comprehensive review under SEPA is required in advance of any decision; making piece -meal decisions of this type is disfavored under Washington law. A hearing examiner in Clallam County recently decided that SEPA was applicable to marijuana siting and permitting decisions. Jefferson County should undertake a SEPA review for each site where marijuana will be produced or processed and should also evaluate the cumulative impact of all such sites prior to make any final decision concerning those operations. Siting marijuana operations must be evaluated in the context of the predominant land use and character of the surrounding community neighborhood. Marijuana growing and processing operations should be limited to industrial and commercial zones and not allowed in areas which are zoned residential or where the primary character /use of the majority of adjoining property is residential. Limiting marijuana operations to industrial and commercial areas will eliminate disputes regarding what is or is not "residential" and provide certainty to both businesses and residents alike about where marijuana operations may be sited and conducted. It will eliminate or greatly reduce concerns about public safety and security related to the presence of a marijuana operation adjoining residential neighborhoods by separating marijuana operations from areas which are residential in use and character. • The Jefferson County Planning Commission process must be followed and the Comp Plan modified prior to Jefferson County's granting any permit or license or taking any action that would authorize marijuana operations to proceed. No application for marijuana operations should he approved until the comp plan has been modified in accordance with the Jefferson County Code. No exemptions should be granted including those applications preliminarily identified as substantially complete. If exemptions are granted, some applicants gain an unfair business advantage and the planning commission process will be undermined. It would also be unfair to adjoining property owners if the County allows marijuana operations to be sited in areas where marijuana facilities are subsequently determined by the County and the Planning Commission to be inappropriate, present unacceptable risks, and/or adversely impact the rural residential character of an area. Jefferson County should ask the LCB to not grant any permits until the Planning Commission review is complete, the Comp Plan has been amended, and there is a clearly understood process in place. Kitsap and Clallam Counties have determined to follow this approach. Jefferson County should harmonize its laws and approach to siting and approving marijuana operations with surrounding counties to avoid creating an incentive to operations which hope to take advantage of what is perceived to be the most lax and least protective jurisdiction in this area. Given the publicly acknowledged difficulty Jefferson County has in enforcing its Code and the likelihood of violations of laws and regulations governing marijuana operations, there should be mandatory reporting by all marijuana operations to insure licensees or permittees are in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Specifically, all permittees should be required to: o Certify quarterly that the marijuana operation is in compliance with all applicable state and local laws and regulations. This certification should be made to the Jefferson County Departments of Community Development and Environmental Health and be made publicly available. o Demonstrate that they have a water right for sufficient water to undertake the activities associated with the licensed/permitted marijuana operation. o Install, maintain, and certify the existence of meters on wells or stream intakes to allow an accurate determination of water used in connection with the growth and processing of marijuana. o Report water use results monthly to DCD or DOH. The permit application for 1066 Egg & I Road was incorrectly determined to be "substantially complete" and should not be granted an exemption from the Moratorium. The applicant at 1066 Egg & I Road continues to modify the details of the application and the County did not have enough information to make a decision at the time the Moratorium was put in place. Applicant was requested to provide additional information as recently as last week. The applicant provided false information on the pre decision application document which was filed for this location and cleared land without a permit in violation of Jefferson County Code requirements. Applicant should not be entitled to benefit from applicant's failure to comply with County Code requirements. In addition, children at an adjoining property are being home schooled and regularly gather there for 4 H activities. Applicant not have legal access to use the easement across an adjoining property for commercial purposes. The application for 1066 Egg & I Road should not be considered "substantially complete" nor should a permit be granted for any activity which would support a marijuana operation at 1066 Egg & I Road or be in furtherance of the application to the Liquor Control Board for a license to grow or process marijuana at that location. Any delay in making a decision regarding the application for a marijuana operation at 1066 Egg & I Road does not disadvantage or cause undue hardship for the applicant because the Moratorium has delayed consideration of all other applications for permits to site and operate marijuana operations in Jefferson County. Some modest delay in considering the application at 1066 Egg & I Road is justified for the County to take the time to "get it righfI about where marijuana operations can and should be sited in Jefferson County. Any hardship to applicant is outweighed by the hardship to neighboring landowners who oppose the application for a marijuana operation at 1066 Egg & I Road. If applicant is allowed to proceed, the County will have allowed an intrusive marijuana operation in the midst of a rural residential neighborhood without the scrutiny or process which the remaining marijuana operations will and should receive once the County has determined its approach to siting and authorizing marijuana operations in Jefferson County. • Jefferson County should not rely on Liquor Control Board regulations with regards to authorizing and siting marijuana production facilities but should develop a comprehensive permit process for production facilities. The Liquor Control Board has only the most minimal regulations in place governing the siting and approval of marijuana production operations. The County knows that the LCB is looking to the County to provide adequate regulation to protect the public and insure that marijuana production is not allowed to go forward without meaningful review. This is the approach which has been followed in almost every other county and has been upheld by Washington State Courts. The Court in the Fife case upheld a ban on marijuana retail operations as within the authority of the Town of Fife. The Attorney General of Washington has opined that Counties have the ability to add additional regulation up to and including a ban on marijuana operations. Since Jefferson County also has no meaningful regulations in place to govern or control the siting or authorization of marijuana production facilities, the public is not protected and has no voice in the siting of such facilities. This failure to protect the public and provide for an orderly and comprehensive review of siting and authorizing marijuana operations should be corrected and no permits or other actions in furtherance of such production operations should be taken by the County until and unless it develops and puts a meaningful regulatory system in place. The County should ask the Liquor Control Board not to approve any license or other authorizations for marijuana production in Jefferson County until the County has done so. • The written comments of Karen Page, Stephen Ramsey, Marjorie Boyd and Kristina Mayer which have been provided both to Jefferson County and the Liquor Control Board on this subject are incorporated by reference. Respectfully Submitted Stephen D Ramsey 581 S Bay Way Ml Ocl; Zoe`/ I502 Implementation in Jeffe1i3ounty Board of County Commissioners Hearing October 6, 2014 My name is Dr. Kristina Mayer and I reside at 1064 Egg and I Road, Chimacum, WA 98325. I came to Jefferson County 26 years ago to teach school at Grant Street Elementary. For 25 of those years I owned a home in the City of Port Townsend. Recently, I moved to my current home in Chimacum. I chose to live in Jefferson County because it is rural and has enjoyed a long history of being a safe place to live despite the relatively easy access to Seattle. Since 2004, I have owned my own consulting business where I provide facilitation, training and organizational development to local municipalities, nonprofits and foundations. I am also the founding director of the Jefferson County Community Foundation. This hearing is important to me because my quality of life is being threatened by the lack of concern for those impacted by the implementation of I -502, the disregard for the sensitive nature of the Chimacum Sub -basin and the lack of compassion for my personal safety living next to a commercial endeavor related to drug production. Despite the fact that I voted for I502, I have testified before you on several occasions about this issue because I believe some safeguards need to be put in place to protect our neighborhoods and quality of life. I am really glad that you issued a moratorium and decided to take a look at the Jefferson County Code and how best to address marijuana facilities in our County. I wish you had done this earlier - before we had all these applications and proposals to respond to - but I think you now see that this issue needs to be dealt with and cannot simply be ignored by saying all marijuana facilities are "agriculture." Growing marijuana, processing marijuana and selling marijuana are not the same as growing corn, canning tomatoes or selling lettuce at the local farmers market. The voters who approved I -502 knew that too and they included strict safeguards. It is time for you to do that as well_ Here are some of the things I want you to consider as you review the Code and make changes. Q a. First, you should amend the definitions in the Code and be clear that marijuana production, processing and sales are not "agricultural activities." Second, you should treat marijuana facilities like an industrial or commercial activity and limit marijuana operations to industrial and commercial areas. It should not be located in zones where children are routinely present. That means not only schools, churches, playgrounds and day care centers but zones where residential uses are allowed. We do not want children playing next to a pot farm, even if it has a high fence, razor wire, security cameras, armed guards, and 24 -hour lighting. That is not a residential use nor a way to raise healthy children. Third, you need to provide public notice of all applications, and you need to provide an opportunity for the public to comment. In certain circumstances, a public hearing should be held and there should be an administrative process to review the Planning Department's decisions. The process in industrial and commercial zones can be more streamlined of course but in any zones where children are present the process needs to be more robust, open and transparent. Fourth, a SEPA, the State Environmental Policy Act, review is required before not after Jefferson County makes decision. The review should be comprehensive as opposed to piecemeal and cover all applicants. There is already a process for gathering information about the impacts a proposal might have not just on the natural environment but also on people - neighborhoods, power supply, water supply, stormwater, noise, traffic, dust, glare from lighting, and public safety. Use SEPA to gather this information for all marijuana facilities, inform the public, and then make better decisions about whether to approve a proposal, to impose site - specific conditions, or deny a proposal entirely. Lastly, the Planning Commission process should be utilized in this instance to allow for full public participation and to fully utilize the tools and resources necessary to make responsible decisions. N ao n. I appreciate that you have a difficult job to do and you have to balance a lot of interests. Until you imposed the moratorium, it seemed the only interests you had thought about were the marijuana industries interests. You have an opportunity to fix that now and achieve a more responsible balance. Please do so. Respectful Submitted ��Dr. istina L. Mayer A?Mx� 64 Egg and I Road Chimacum, WA 98325 W In October 3, 2014 Board of County Commissioners 1820 Jefferson Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Honorable Commissioners, Regarding the Public Comment, Ordinance #07 -0811 -14 moratorium on accepting or processing of permits for recreational marijuana in certain zones: We weren't really prepared to deal with all the different facets that go with the legalization of marijuana in our State. You are to be congratulated on your decision to hold a 6 -month moratorium on 502 developments in residentially zoned areas, thus allowing public comment and research. It saddens me to think that this grow operation could potentially be allowed near families. We have to consider our young families, especially, who have been happy and privileged to raise their children in a safe and healthy environment free of the congestion that an industrial operation brings. I am sure there are areas zoned for industry. I believe marijuana growing is not "agricultural," such as corn and wheat, etc. are. There are industrial zones, agricultural zones and residential zones and they should be used accordingly. Thank you for providing the opportunity for citizen comment. We appreciate that. Most sincerely, From: Aaron Mcgregor <aaron.mcgregor @yahoo.com> Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2014 6:50 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Marijuana buisness Dear County Commissioners, I have brought my family here to Jefferson County for the wonderful aspects you all know and appreciate. We came her from a place that has a strong focus on the mass production of marijuana. I know first hand the effects it will have on our economy but to a much greater extent our natural and community environment. I am very concerned with the status quo of allowing the grow facilities to be placed within our rural communities. The industrialization of marijuana should not be permitted to impact our rural life. Take a trip to Humboldt County California and fly over this once beautiful landscape. You will not find a pristine community of homesteads and farms, you will see first hand the mass land clearing, the coastal mountains chopped up to place massive marijuana grow facilities. The insatiable appetite for water has led to dry wells and streams, the transportation of soils and goods for these facilities creates heavy traffic on the rural one lane roads. Now that years have past since the marijuana boom began you will find abandoned facilities and toxic dumps. Please don't let this gold rush ruin our beautiful community. We want people to move here because it is beautiful and sustainable. We want people to move here for reasons beyond their pocket book. We want families to create a sustainable environment for future generations. I believe income can be generated without the destruction of our life support, our environment. Slow growth is good and allows the consideration of impact. I cannot fathom a facility moving in next door to me with a security fence and lighting, round the clock employee traffic and delivery trucks rumbling by daily. Let us step back and take the time to create a sustainable protocol and keep high impact industry where it belongs. Please designate the marijuana grow facilities to industrial zoned areas only. Sincerely, Aaron McGregor Business owner and Father From: Linda Jarvis <lindajarvis @mac.com> Sent: Friday, October 03, 2014 6:24 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Marijuana in Jefferson county Dear Jefferson County BOCC and County Commissioners Linda Jarvis here. I have lived here in Jefferson county since 1995. I chose to live in this area to be near my aging parents and for it's outstanding beauty, for the culture of creative and artistic individuals that make this county unique. I am here for the wilderness and outdoor activities, the unspoiled rural space, for the rewards from the tireless organic farmers that produce food for our community. We are so very lucky. And the reasonably low rate of crime and it's potential for ongoing safety for the other families that also live here in Jefferson county. It is a county, or it has been one, where individuals and families with kids can feel comfortable raising them in a setting that is not so corrupt by the corporate world, so far, thankfully!!! However, with this whole untested marijuana growing and processing industry upon us in our county it changes the equation considerably especially when those with real concerns, I feel, have been ignored and are not seriously being heard. Why is that? Which brings me to the fact that our county officials decided that Marijuana is OK to be grown and/or processed in rural residential or in neighborhoods where the essence of the neighborhood is rural residential. This is NOT OK. Marijuana should NOT be grown in these areas. Families with children or those who chose to live in a rural setting do not want any of the ramifications these growing and /or processing businesses would bring to their neighborhood. It is a no- brainer that marijuana growing and /or processing should NOT be in neighborhoods where children routinely gather, live or play. This would lay down a possibility for criminal activity in an area where it should not. What do you think about that? The use of the planning commissions process to allow for public hearings and public process should be put into place so the public has some real input, be heard and given serious consideration on this serious issue that affects their lives in a very impacting way. It is my understanding and a big disappointment that to date the commissioners have disregarded the typical planning process for new land use. Why is that? It seems that outsiders and those wishing to delve into an industry that is brand new to our county, with potential for the growth of criminal activity, are given more rights than existing residents who feel disenfranchised by this whole process. Jefferson county process is more lax than other counties. Why are not all counties using the some permitting process? Why is that? It should be required that a SEPA (State Environmental Protection Act) review ALL applications before any decisions are made rather than the piecemeal approach currently being employed. There have been some activities already implemented on some of the growers properties 1 that were done illegally and the county seems to be looking the other way and ignoring that fact. Why is that? Additionally, marijuana is NOT an agricultural activity - as defined in law. It should be amended that the Jeff Co Code be clear that marijuana is NOT a traditional agriculture industry or activity. The present moratorium on county permitting for marijuana growing and processing businesses limits those businesses to three areas - agricultural, forestry and industrial. As a result, such businesses are NOT allowed in rural residential areas Commissioners adopted the moratorium in response to Department of Community Development (DCD) staff concerns about the size and potentially conflicting nature of some legal I -502 marijuana businesses locating in areas zoned primarily for residences! Since October 2013, the county has applied its existing land -use and zoning rules to marijuana businesses, allowing growers to set up in any area without a land -use permit and requiring only a cottage industry permit for processors in most areas. WHAT? Why is that? Some 55 percent of producer - processor applicants in Jefferson County, of which there are 27, have chosen to set up on land zoned rural residential, said DCD Director Carl Smith (it has been witnessed that Mr. Smith does NOT deal with public input challenges in a professional or polite manner). He also said some 90 percent of applicants looking to grow marijuana in the county are also looking to process it. The moratorium does not apply to applicants who are vested or are deemed "substantially complete," which Carl Smith said amounts to a handful of applicants. I think this whole issue has not been thought through and was there a complex studies done with regard to growers /processors in Colorado? I have not heard of one. This whole thing could have a major lethal backfiring result and it will be on the hands of the county officials. I am baffled and discouraged by the fact that it appears that our county officials did not do more research before granting permits willy - nilly. PLease try to put yourselves in the shoes of these concerned citizens of Jefferson county and understand their perspective and give them just attention and due process. Please consider my input above at the Oct. 6 hearing regarding what needs to be implemented before the moratorium is lifted. Thanks for your attention to my letter. A response would be nice if you have the time. A concerned Jefferson county resident, From: Wendy Davis <treehouse44 @msn.com> Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2014 8:28 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: 1502 moratorium I want to voice my concern about the current moratorium on i502 producers on rural residential. It is unfair and uncalled for. Cannabis grows have no more impact than any other farming activity which is currently allowed. In fact, it could be argued that they have less impact because no other agricultural industry is so heavily regulated. The folks who have already invested a ton of time and money to start this process will be left in the dust if they are forced to wait out a 6 month or greater moratorium. You already told them that rural residential was ok, now you are going to pull the rug out from beneath them? These businesses will be providing much needed jobs for this community. These businesses will be spending money locally. Their employees will be spending locally. Why would we want to stifle that? As an owner of two businesses in Jefferson County this moratorium has already directly impacted me. I may have to close down my garden supply store waiting it out. This brand new industry is an opportunity for our community, and I believe, a good fit for our community. Can we please let cooler heads prevail and immediately lift this untimely moratorium? Thank you, Wendy Davis Sem from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphane From: keeth <keeth @harmonicapocket.com >i Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2014 10:45 AM To: jeffbocc Cc: Nala Walla Subject: Comments on Rural Residential Moratorium Hello, 1 am writing to address the County's Moratorium on permits to grow and process Cannabis, as per 1 -502. I have lived and worked in Jefferson County for almost 15 years with my wife and our three - year -old child, and we consider this place to be our lifelong home. Thus, although we both voted for 1 -502 and are in favor of the legalization of cannabis, we are DECIDEDLY NOT in favor of it being grown and processed in rural neighborhoods like our own. We believe strongly that this activity ought to take place in areas already zoned industrial or agricultural. Contrary to what County Commissioners may have envisioned when 1 -502 first became law, for - profit Cannabis Growing does not qualify as a "cottage industry." As has been seen in California for many years, large -scale marijuana grow operations are highly- mechanized, often indoor monocultures with a large carbon footprints and polluting trails of chemical fertilizers left behind to leach into nearby lands and waters. Far a from cottage industry, most for - profit cannabis growing qualify as industrial operations and ought to be treated as such by law. This industrial manner in which most applicants intend to grow marijuana in Western Washington makes it unfit for our Residential communities. For this reason 1 support growing Industrial Marijuana in zones already deemed Industrial by the County. I live in a Rural Residentially Zoned area. The property owner next door (who l have not seen for 7 -8 years as he lives in Kitsap County) currently has an application in for a growing and processing facility to be established at his address in my neighborhood. Additionally, another adjacent property currently on the real estate market has a single offer in from another out -of- county businessman whose intention 1 have learned is to also start an 1 -502 business. Due to current road routing and easements, if growing and processing facilities are allowed in Rural Residential Zones my family's home and lives stand to be literally and completely encircled by 1 -502 traffic. I never would have settled and invested here had I known Industrial Marijuana would move into my Jefferson County neighborhood where 1 built my home, grow my food, and live with my family. It does not make any sense to build large warehouse -like spaces in Rural Zones. The prospect of mandatory security fences, floodlights & surveillance cameras, not to mention the 24 -hour traffic, guard dogs, and groundwater contamination and heightened potential for burglary next door is frightening. Operations such as these should never be located way at the end of the road in residential areas like ours, where it is exceedingly difficult to monitor by fire, police and hospital services. And they should certainly not be located next door to families with children at normal play in their neighborhoods. For these many reasons, I was especially pleased to learn about the moratorium on growing and processing facility permits in Rural Residential Zones. If future growers intend to grow marijuana like other locally farmed fruits and vegetables -- outdoors, in accordance to the seasons and natural cycles of the year -- then these applicants should in my mind be allowed to grow in Agriculturally Zoned areas. But large warehouse -style buildings should not be allowed to mar the landscapes of our picturesque agricultural lands. I support any locally minded grower who intends to grow outdoor, organic marijuana and those permits should be approved for Agriculturally Zoned areas because their practices should not disturb or pollute their neighbors. Additionally 1 would be disappointed to learn that the County has issued permits to bulldoze Forestry Zoned lands in order to erect indoor growing facilities. I am writing to ask the County Commissioners to do the right thing and do not allow our rural residential neighborhoods to be disrupted, polluted, and forever changed. Keeping industrial operations and security risks out of our neighborhoods is the primary reason that areas are zoned "residential" in the first place. Let's keep the integrity of our rural neighborhoods, and roll this moratorium on growing and processing facilities in Rural Residential Zones into permanent Jefferson County zoning law. Do not permit Industrial Marijuana facilities in Rural Residential Zones. Thank you, Keith Apgar and Kimberly Walla Marrowstone Island, WA - s . From: Yvonne Jarosz <dreamrosz @yahoo . com> Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2014 11:50 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Permits for growing marijuana Attachments: I live on Marrowstone Island in a small rural residential neighborhood of half a dozen families with children.doc Attached is a letter with my opinion re marijuana growing in rural residential areas Yvonne Jarosz To Board of County Commissioners: I live on Marrowstone Island in a small rural residential neighborhood of half a dozen families with children. I have a small business in downtown Port Townsend and lived there for 20 years until moving to Marrowstone 10 years ago. In our Marrowstone neighborhood, we grow our own organic vegetables and fowl, maintain a small energy footprint and respect the privacy needs of our neighbors. Life is good here, with no crime, a community sense of stewardship and caring for the land, and trusting relationships forged over many years of manual labor and communication with one another. There is a parcel of land for sale in our neighborhood that has been for sale for six or seven years. Recently, a large offer was made on this parcel and a permit applied for to grow marijuana as a "cottage industry." Another parcel that has lain abandoned for the last eight years and whose owner has had it on the market for the same, has also recently been listed by the county as the owner having applied for a permit to grow marijuana. The permits were applied for after the passage of I -502. The dictionary defines cottage industry as "a small -scale industry carried on at home by family members using their own equipment." The people who have applied for permits under I -502 do not have plans for a cottage industry as defined above, and have neither a home nor family in residence. On the abandoned parcel there is a partially built building that has been exposed to the elements for years, with abandoned projects, fencing and trailers, strewn about the landscape. The potential buyer of the other property mentioned above is planning a large -scale marijuana growing business, evidenced by offering an amount larger than the asking price and quickly applying for a marijuana- growing permit. Neither the buyer nor the non - resident has ever contacted the families in our neighborhood to discuss their plans or to get input. I had a small business in my home in Port Townsend at one time and the city officials there went through a process of surveying the neighbors regarding slightly increased traffic (1 or 2 cars intermittently) and the low impact my business would have. If the neighbors had not agreed, I could not establish my business in my home. No such conversation has taken place in our rural residential neighborhood. Marijuana is a plant that is easy to grow and pays a big return in the current market. Large scale industrial management of marijuana crops with concomitant industrial buildings, inorganic fertilizers, herbicides, large scale fencing and surveillance technology, along with noise and traffic increases are a rule of thumb in production management. There is a large retail industry of irrigation, lighting and building products that support large scale growing of the marijuana plant. What those who have applied for permits in our quiet neighborhood want is not the "cottage industry" idealized in the dictionary definition above, families working together to add to their middle class incomes. I am convinced that they want to make a lot of money quickly with their investment, and would have no problem putting up warehouse style buildings and fracturing the landscape with an industrial operation. These operations should be restricted to industrial areas. And if they want a large -scale agricultural operation, the restriction should be to agriculturally zoned areas. We want to maintain the rural residential heart of our neighborhood and an industrial marijuana operation will rupture the trust and stewardship we have built over many years of hard work and caring. Yvonne Jarosz P.O. Box 330 Port Townsend, WA 98368 360 - 301 -0930 dreamrosz @yahoo.com From: Jan Misner <jan @happytailsranchnw.com> Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2014 2:07 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Marijuana Facility Zoning Dear Jefferson County Commissioners, I am writing this letter to share my concerns regarding the planning for zoning of marijuana growing facilities. Please plan for these facilities carefully and keep them confined to industrial areas where the impact is low or non existent to neighboring properties. If this is not an option please confine permits to growers who's properties used for growing borders the public road for access, are not going to burden neighbors safety or otherwise, and are tied into the power grid for low noise impact. We live a rural area of Jefferson County that is a mixture of timber, ag, and residential zoning. We live on a private road and only about half of the neighborhood has grid tied power. There are only 2 or 3 of us that maintain the road for the entire neighborhood, and the generator noise can get a bit overbearing in this lovely valley. A marijuana growing facility in our neighborhood or any residential area would put a major burden on the entire neighborhood as far as noise, traffic, safety, and road use. The only ones to benefit would be the growers themselves and the county collecting taxes. While we the neighbors would be stuck with the added traffic, road maintenance costs, safety concerns, and noise possibly of generators running all night to keep growing facilities lit and warm. Marijuana growing facilities are not 'agricultural' they are an industry. Marijuana is typically grown indoors with artificial lights and heat. If the stores selling marijuana need added security I'm sure these growing facilities do to. Please plan carefully and keep this industry contained in an industrial area where the impact is low to neighboring properties and the burden is on the growers not the surrounding property owners. voted yes to legalize marijuana, I believe that is a good option. But like any other industry the impact on neighboring properties needs to be taken into consideration when planning the implementation of the new zoning laws. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Jan Misner jeffbocc From: Martha Trolin <mojotro @yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2014 8:46 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Marijuana grow facility zoning Dear County Commissioners, 3._ We would like to voice our concern about locations where grow operations will be allowed in the county. Right now there are no restrictions on where these facilities can be built. But there are requirements for fencing, outdoor lighting and cameras. We feel strongly that this should meant that they will not be allowed in residential areas, and frankly feel the same way about rural neighborhoods and farming areas areas. I think the most appropriate areas are those zoned as industrial and light manufacturing. Thank you very much for your consideration in this matter. Martha Trolin & Libby Atkins 1528 Adams St. Port Townsend, WA 98368 385 -2735 ieffbocc Prom: Dana Yeakel <danayeakel @gmaiI.com> Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2014 10:34 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Marijuana grow facilities. Dear County, I am writing to express my concern over the decision to reevaluate the acceptable locations of Marijuana grow facilities. Because these facilities are required by state law to have security fencing, outdoor lighting, and cameras, they are more than likely to have a high impact in the aspects of traffic, water and general land use. From my point of view these facilities should be designated to industrial zoned areas only. I urge you to listen to your community in this matter. Thank you, Dana Yeakel From: Bert & Marietta <spitintheocean @cablespeed.com> Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 8:21 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Marijuana My name is Bert Bergman , I reside at 1550 Umatilla Ave . Port Townsend , . Let me begin by stating that I do not smoke or use cannabis products , I voted for the initiative to legalize pot because it is very expensive to arrest and convict pot smokers , There is a better use of our police resources as well as our jails . As you are aware that the initiative passed overwhelmingly. In the 2 years since the legalization , who could of imagined all of the foot dragging and obstructionism that would be created by any agency that could possibly intervene ? These naysayer lost in a fair and conclusive vote . I think it is time for elected officials to recognize that and act accordingly . Attempts to preempt a legal process are just encouraging those black market forces that the initiative was attempting so hard to eradicate. Do the right thing , legalize it , best regards , Bert Bergman From: Jim MacRae <macraej @comcast.net> Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 10:16 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Public Comment on Ordinance 07- 0811 -14 Letter to Jefferson County Commissioners 10:15am Oct 6, 2014 Dear Commissioners I have owned both agricultural (AL -20) and Rural Forestry lands in Jefferson County for over 10 years. I am writing to express my concern about the failure of Jefferson County, in forming it's proposed ordinance 07- 0811 -14 to recognize that there are 3 different levels (sizes) of marijuana production licenses being granted by the Washington LCB and to use this fact as input in deciding to ban ALL marijuana production and processing in RR zoning. The Council also seems to, in proposing ordinance 07- 0811 -14, have failed to recognize the fact that marijuana grow operations are not limited to those that are indoors that utilize high- intensity artificial lighting. Outdoor grows and Greenhouse grows are also allowed by 1 -502 (and encouraged by many). Tier 1 production licenses are limited to a maximum canopy of 1,400 sq. ft. of marijuana. Tier 2 production licenses are limited to a maximum canopy of 7,000 sq. ft. of marijuana. Tier 3 production licenses are limited to a maximum canopy of 21,000 sq. ft. of marijuana. To put this into perspective, these Tiers each represent a surprisingly small percentage of the surface area of lot sizes common in Jefferson county, as summarized in the following table: Tier Maximum % of 1- % of 5- % of 10- % of 20- % of 40- level Canopy acre lot acre lot acre lot acre lot acre lot Tier 1 1,400 3.21% 0.64% 0.32% 0.16% 0.08% Tier 2 7,000 16.07% 3.21% 1.61% 0.80% 0.40% Tier 3 21,000 48.21% 9.64% 4.82% 2.41% 1.21% While I am not currently an applicant for an 1 -502 production license, I am considering the possibility of running a Tier 1 grow in the future— which would be primarily in greenhouses and /or outdoor (likely with hoop houses). I was close to making an offer on a 10 -acre RR parcel in the Port Ludlow area recently for approximately $500,000 when I became aware of this proposed moratorium. Needless to say, the property deal is on hold right now. As this parcel is approximately 10 acres, my proposed Tier 1 grow would represent less than 1/3 of one percent of the lot, and would (by the way) be dwarfed in size by the two small vineyards and the vegetable garden that currently exist on the site. I have no interest in doing an INSIDE grow of marijuana (other than, perhaps, to keep the "mothers" alive year- round), which appears to be what the citizen commenters in Jefferson County (and, perhaps the Council ?) seem to assume is the only way to grow marijuana. I request and suggest that you amend the proposed ordinance from having a blanket moratorium to explicity allow Tier 1 grows on RR lots, to have an administrative review for Tier 2 grows, and to have a Conditional Use Permit required for Tier 3 grows to take into account the fundamental difference of these in size, and to continue to allow those of us who aspire to having the marijuana equivalent of a "micro- brewery" on our land to be able to do so. In addition, I would like to commend the Council on taking the position that growing marijuana is normal agriculture and is just like growing other plants. While the State has changed some definitions of Marijuana in order to support the taxation structure that has been setup for 1 -502 businesses, in all other ways, the growing of marijuana IS agriculture. Regardless, the growing of marijuana is the growing of plants. Some people choose to grow indoors under high- intensity lights. I personally believe that that method will not be fiscally viable in the long -term, and that natural sunlight should be used, whenever possible, to grow plants. Should I eventually get into this business and opt to not acquire an RR parcel on which to live and run this business, I fully intend to utilize one of my existing Jefferson County parcels (likely the one zoned as AL -20) for this purpose. That parcel already has approximately 500 vines of grapes growing, which take up a space that is significantly larger than that which a Tier 1 marijuana grow would encompass. Sincerely, Jim MacRae (landowner in the Quilcene area) From: Trueblood, Craig <craig.trueblood @klgates.com> Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 10:31 AM To: jeffbocc Cc: Karen Page (karenpage777 @gmail.com), Kristina Mayer (kristina @klmayer.com); Marjie Boyd (marjorie.boyd.01 @gmail.com); steve ramsey (sramsey @optonline.net); steveramsey581 @gmail.com, Peterson, Alanna Elizabeth; Paul Hirsch (pjh @hirschlawoffice.com); Joel Peterson; Carl Smith Subject: Ordinance # 07- 0811 -14 Attachments: Comments re Ord 07- 0811- 14.pdf Please see attached comments re the above matter. The original letter will be mailed to the Board today. Craig Trueblood K &L Gates 206- 370 -8368 This electronic message contains information from the law firm of K &L Gates LLP. The contents may be privileged and confidential and are intended for the use of the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not an intended addressee, note that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this message is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please contact me at craig.trueblood @klgates.com. October 6, 2014 UL GATES Lue 925 FOURT-I AVENUE SUITE 2900 SEATTLE, VIA 99104 -1158 T +1.208.823.7580 F +1.208.823.7021 klgales com Craig Trueblood (206) 370 -8368 craig.trueblood @klgates.com SENT VIA MAIL AND E -MAIL TO: ieMocc(a�caieffersomwa.us Board of County Commissioners Jefferson County F.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, Washington 98368 RE: Continents on Land Use Regulation of Recreational Marijuana, Including The Moratorium Prohibiting the Production and Processing of Recreational Marijuana in Unincorporated Jefferson County, Ordinance #07- 0811 -14 ( "Moratorium ") Dear Commissioners: On behalf of our clients, Karen Page, Marjorie Boyd, Kristina Mayer, and Steve Ramsey, we submit the following comments in support of amendments to the Jefferson County Code that would allow the establishment of marijuana production and processing in industrial and commercial areas of the County, while largely excluding these uses from residential areas, and providing for appropriate substantive environmental impact review under the State Environmental Policy Act ( "SEPA "), RCW 43.21 C. The approach suggested below will allow legalized recreational marijuana in Jefferson County while significantly reducing the inherent conflicts between different types of land uses. The Board has expressed that the Moratorium was driven by a desire to preserve the traditional rural character of the County. Our clients believe that a responsible, thoughtful planning approach to marijuana production and processing will ensure preservation and protection of the rural character that first drew them to Jefferson County. Our clients are immediately impacted by the County's approach to the regulation of marijuana production and processing. A marijuana production and processing facility is proposed directly adjacent to our clients' properties on Egg and I Road, including both indoor and outdoor grow areas. Under current County policy, the County would apparently allow this proposed facility to begin to be permitted in a segmented fashion, without any substantive SEPA review or Algates.com Board of County Commissioners October 5, 2014 Page 2 mandated notice to adjacent properties. Our clients' immediate situation illustrates the crossroads at which the County now finds itself; the land use planning and policy decisions made at this stage will have a profound impact on the character of the County for years to come. We trust the County shares our clients' deep concern for deliberate long -term planning to preserve the character of Jefferson County, and in that spirit, we offer the following comments. 1. The Moratorium Should Extend to All Zones While Jefferson County Determines the Best Comprehensive Planning Approach to the Regulation of Marijuana Production and Processing The County should extend the Moratorium to all zoning designations while it determines the best approach for regulating marijuana production and processing. The County's rationale for imposing a moratorium on permitting applications related to marijuana facilities in rural residential areas applies equally to certain agricultural and forestry zones that commonly include residences, such as RF 1:40. Such zones reflect the County's unique emphasis on the promotion and preservation of traditional agriculture and forestry and these zones were created to encourage residents to use their land for rural purposes. Regardless of the zone, the same concerns apply when a commercial marijuana facility is sited next to a residence. The County should therefore extend the Moratorium to all zones, and to all applications, while it considers the long -range planning implications of marijuana production and processing and makes reasoned modifications to the County Code and Comprehensive Plan. In making these modifications, the input of the Planning Commission will be essential. The County should not grant any permit that would allow marijuana production or processing before the County has completed its comprehensive review under the Growth Management Act as well as SEPA as this would be contrary to fundamental principles that permitting and zoning decisions must be consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan, must comply with SEPA, and should not unfairly disadvantage the majority of the applicants and result in the operation of certain marijuana facilities that are inconsistent with the County's planning approach that is still being developed. Board of County Commissioners October 6, 2014 Page 3 2. Jefferson County Zoning Should Allow Marijuana Production and Processing in Industrial and Commercial Zones In a Manner Similar to Kitsap and Clallam Counties In order to protect the treasured rural and traditional agricultural character of Jefferson County, and allow for appropriate SEPA review of proposed new uses (especially in areas containing residences), our clients propose that the County adopt a system of zoning (preceded, as discussed throughout, by comprehensive planning and analysis under SEPA), that allows marijuana production and processing in the following zoning designations: Zoning Abbreviation Use LI Light Industrial Ll /C Light Industrial/Commercial LI/M Light Industrial/Manufacturing MPR -VC Village Commercial Center UGA -C Urban Growth Area Commercial UGA -LI Urban Growth Area Light Industrial UGA-VC Urban Growth Area Visitor Oriented Commercial MPR -VC Village Commercial Center In LI, LI/C, and LIN zones, marijuana production or processing could be an allowed use subject to the same permitting requirements as any other industrial or commercial business, since these are not residential areas. In the others, like the Irondale -Port Hadlock urban growth area, 1,2 ' "Although the frondale & Port Hadlock UGA contains a significant amount of existing single- family urban residential development from a future urban growth perspective —its major intent is to provide more economic development opportunity to serve the unmet regional commercial needs of eastern Jefferson County. Comprehensive Plan, 2-4. z "The Irondale & Port Hadlock UGA is presently served by a range of public services, including a potable. water Board of County Commissioners October 6, 2014 Page -4 the crossroads zones,} and the rural village centers that include substantial numbers of residential parcels, it would be preferable to make marijuana production and processing conditional uses so that the particular circumstances of the location could be evaluated and neighbors could have notice and meaningful input before a s facility was permitted .4 By adopting a zoning regime that keeps marijuana production and processing in existing industrial and commercial zones, the Board would further several of the community policies and goals captured in the Comprehensive Plan. Such zoning regulation would "[p]reserve the high quality of life" found in Jefferson County while "[s]upport[ing] and encouraging] economic opportunities" by welcoming marijuana production and processing in appropriate areas where it would not disrupt the rural ambiance that makes residing in this County so desirable. Comprehensive Plan, Community Vision Statements, 1 -16. As the Comprehensive Plan clearly indicates, "the preservation and enhancement of rural character is a desired outcome of the planning process." Id. at 1 -12. This approach would also be consistent with adjacent counties such as Clallam and Kitsap Counties. This is a critical point, because if Jefferson County creates a system of regulation that is more lenient than adjacent counties, it creates a substantial risk that potential adverse impacts from marijuana production and processing would be concentrated within Jefferson County, and specifically in those zones where land use and environmental review requirements are least stringent. The County should consider these potential cumulative, inter - county and intra - County impacts in its assessment of its proposed land use scheme going forward to avoid unintended consequences that may focus adverse impacts within the County and threaten Jefferson County's traditional agricultural character. Due to novelty of the marijuana industry in Washington, and the as -yet unknown nature and scope of potential adverse impacts of these facilities (including long -term and indirect system, piped fire flow, public transit, and public safety fre. EMS and sheriff). Outside of the City of Port Townsend, the Irondale & Port Hadlock UGA and Glen Cove are the only areas of the county with that same complement of existing public services. The Glen Cove light industrial area has been designated a "limited area of more intensive rural development" under RCW 36.70A.070(5xd) and is not subject to an urban growth area designation ..." Comprehensive Plan, 2.6 (emphasis added). ' General Crossroads, Convenience Crossroads, and Neighborhood Crossroads. ' With respect to the trondale -Pon ttadlock UGA, this many not be necessary as portions of UGA that are designated Urban Commercial and Urban Industrial. (Comprehensive Plan at pp. 2- 11.12.) Marijuana production and processing could be restricted to these zones. Board of County Commissioners October 6, 2014 Page 5 impacts), all marijuana producers and processors doing business in Jefferson County should also be required to regularly certify their activities to the responsible County departments. At a minimum these should include: (1) certification of compliance with all state and county laws; (2) demonstration of legal access to sufficient water to operate the licensed facilities; and, (3) metering of all water sources with monthly reports to DCD and Public Health. 3. Marijuana Production and Processing are Not Traditional or Typical Agricultural Activities, a Distinction That Has Been Recognized by State and Federal Lawmakers and Neighboring Kitsap and Clallam Counties Marijuana production and processing are not typical agricultural activities. Both are prohibited under federal law. 21 USC § 841 et seq. Jefferson County Code sections 18.20.030(2)(b)(i)s and 18.15.095(4)(b)6 state that farming must be done in accordance with federal law. Because of this, the production and processing of marijuana, while allowed in Washington under state licenses, cannot be considered typical agriculture activities. In fact, the Washington legislature itself has declared that: The terms "agriculture," "farming," "horticulture," "horticultural," and "horticultural product" may not be construed to include or relate to marijuana, useable marijuana, or marijuana- infused products unless the applicable term is explicitly defined to include marijuana, useable marijuana, or marijuana- infused products. (RCW 82.04.213(3).) Therefore, treating marijuana production and processing as typical, traditional agricultural activities is proscribed under both federal and state law. Nonetheless, to date Jefferson County has been treating marijuana production as normal agriculture. See DCD Recommended Policies and Regulations in Response to 1 -502 (Legalized Marijuana,) at I (stating "[m]arijuana growing is interpreted to be agricultural use in all zones per JCC 18.20.030 "). Further, the County's 1 -302 Recommended Policies treat marijuana processing the same as any other agricultural accessory activity. The County should not take a position on marijuana s "Other Applicable Laws and Rules. This section does not exempt the proponent from acquiring any other required approvals from county, state or federal agencies, including, but not limited to, approvals related to matters of public health, safety, and welfare.." (emphasis added). 6 "Jefferson County has determined that the use of real property for agricultural and forestry operations is a high priority and favored use in the county. The county will not consider to be a nuisance those inconveniences or discomforts arising from such operations, if such operations are consistent with commonly accepted best management practices in compliance with local, state, and federal laws." (emphasis added). % w_. n......... __ :- a. -...._ i......... we.,< L.,.... a ..,, /oACC /reM /LCn90 %7nPnGcio-ao/ 7n:G"/.9nR wovrntinna Mf Board of County Commissioners October 6, 2014 Page 6 production and processing that is at variance with the position taken by the State Legislature. The County should not treat these activities as typical agricultural activities. To allow these uses as "agriculture" is therefore inconsistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan, and the long - valued rural character of Jefferson County. Unlike typical traditional agricultural activities, marijuana production and processing are subject to extraordinary security regulations under state law. WAC 314 -55 -075 el seq. These regulations, in relevant part, state that: [mjarijuana production must take place within a fully enclosed secure indoor facility or greenhouse with rigid walls, a roof, and doors. Outdoor production may take place in nonrigid greenhouses, other structures, or an expanse of open or cleared ground fully enclosed by a physical barrier. To obscure public view of the premises, outdoor production must be enclosed by a sight obscure wall or fence at least eight feet high, Outdoor producers must meet security requirements described in WAC 314 -55 -083. WAC 314 -55- 075(1). WAC 314-55 -083 outlines more specific security requirements for all marijuana facilities, including employee identification badges, alarm systems, elaborate surveillance systems, and quarantine areas. In addition to those stringent security requirements, marijuana facilities must be located more than 1,000 feet from the property boundaries of elementary and secondary schools, playgrounds, recreation facilities, child care centers, public parks, public transit centers, libraries and arcades where admission is not restricted to those age 21 and older. Such buffers are not and never have been applied to agricultural activities. These security requirements alone show that marijuana production and processing are not normal agricultural activities. Growing kale does not require criminal background checks and the other investigations of applicants undertaken by the Liquor Control Board. No typical agricultural activity requires anything like what licensed marijuana production and processing require. As the Director of the Washington Department of Agriculture recently stated, "For now, marijuana still is considered a drug, rather than an agricultural product ... At the moment, it doesn't fit within what the state would consider traditional agriculture." S Consistent with that interpretation, Kitsap County has restricted marijuana production Kristi Pihl, Mid - Columbia. Farmers Mull Marijuana, Tri-City Herald, Dec. 7, 2013, available at http: / /www.tri. cityheraid.com/2013/ 12/07127199%/m id- columbia- farmers- mull- marijuana.httn I. Board of County Commissioners October 6, 2014 Page 7 and processing to industrial and commercial zones. Clallam County, after experimenting with conditional use permits, is moving to simpler and more effective regulation through zoning under the impetus of the county planning commission.9 Likewise, the involvement of the Jefferson County Planning Commission will be necessary to bring the current Moratorium to a successful and acceptable conclusion. The Kitsap County zoning ordinance is attached as Appendix A for reference. Marijuana production and processing are much more akin in nature and impacts to industrial activities than agricultural activities. Industrial activities have traditionally been separated from residential areas under zoning to protect residential zones from adverse impacts of industrial activity, preserve property values, and protect quality of life. Since no one has experience with marijuana production and processing to date, and particularly no experience with the industry culture and practices that will develop around them, it is imperative for this Board to apply the precautionary principle in their regulation. The precautionary principle holds that if an action or policy has a reasonably suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action. SEPA requires consideration of potential significant adverse impacts of actions at the earliest possible time, and in a comprehensive fashion, including direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts, and incorporating mitigation measures. Simply put, one should look before one leaps. If this Board exercises it zoning powers wisely, there is still time to adopt policies that will protect residential neighborhoods while also allowing marijuana production and processing in appropriate areas. Such an approach is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's goal of preserving the traditional rural character of the County. "The County must ensure that rural commercial development located outside designated Urban Growth Areas is appropriately scaled to serve the needs of the local rural community and the traveling public, and to protect and enhance rural character." (Comprehensive Plan at 3 -1.) Marijuana production and processing in rural areas of the County furthers none of these goals. They do not serve the needs of the local community or the raveling public, nor do they enhance the rural character. Since growing marijuana is neither "Rob 011ikainen, Clal[am Planning Commission opposes rural pot grow operations; public hearing on zoning set Tuesday, Peninsula Daily News, Sept 21, 2014, available at http:// www. peninsuladailynews .com/article/2014092 i /NE WS/309219927/clallam- planning- commission- opposes- rural- pot - grow - operations - public. Board of County Commissioners October 6, 2014 Page 8 an agricultural activity nor a traditional land use, applicants should not receive the benefit of the County's "right to farm" ordinance. They are industries and should be sited as such. Siting marijuana facilities in residential areas will very likely negatively impact residential property values, access to financing, and affect insurance rates. These are all matters that should be reviewed by the County (and including the Planning Commission) before the moratorium is lifted. This review should take place, consistent with the principles of SEPA review, at the earliest possible time, and taking into account potential cumulative impacts of reasonably anticipated similar actions. In this instance, this analysis must include consideration of all pending or anticipated marijuana production and processing permits, including the impacts of the facilities themselves (direct and indirect), and the impacts and planning implications of allowing numerous 1000 -foot exclusion zones to surround each facility (discussed more below). Similarly, the cumulative impacts of the County's actions must be analyzed in light of adjacent Counties' planning and land use strategies, to assess potential adverse impacts in the event that Jefferson County's policies are more lenient for marijuana siting, giving rise to the potential for Jefferson County to become a haven for marijuana land uses, thereby concentrating cumulative impacts within the County, on a regional basis. All of this analysis must be undertaken, as a planning matter and under SEPA, before the County grants permits which would allow any new marijuana uses. 4. Allowing Marijuana Uses in and Near Residential Areas Precludes Placing Multiple Types Of Public Facilities Within 1000 Feet Of The Marijuana Facility, Including Future Elementary and Secondary Schools, Playgrounds, Recreation Facilities, Child Care Centers, Public Parks, Public Transit Centers, Libraries and Arcades A lawfully, if unwisely, established marijuana facility could control future development in its vicinity and preclude future uses that would benefit the community. Certain other facilities could not be built near it due to the state- mandated 1,000 foot buffer around each such facility. The.govemtnent might be able to force the owners of a marijuana facility to move by bringing an expensive condemnation lawsuit so the public could site anew public school, park, transit center, library, or recreational facility nearby, but new private elementary and secondary schools, private recreation facilities, child care centers, and arcades would be excluded within the 1,000 foot buffer of the facility. Courts might find the marijuana facility to have the prior, superior right to Board of County Commissioners October 6, 2014 Page 9 be there. This is a problem easily avoided by keeping marijuana facilities out of places where people live and putting these facilities only in places where people work; industrial and commercial areas. Such zoning will result in better security for the facilities, greater safety for police, firemen, and emergency medical personnel answering calls for assistance at these facilities, and a reduction in conflicts with neighbors. Without proper limits on the allowed zones for marijuana uses, these exclusion zones, whose locations would primarily be within the choice of each project applicant, would have significant implications for the County's future planning for its education facilities, recreational facilities, and other public amenities. These potential impacts must be reviewed, and in particular, must be reviewed together, as a planning matter and under SEPA for their potential cumulative impacts because they involve similar uses and similar impacts with County -wide implications. This analysis must also be done in the context of adjacent counties' planning and zoning efforts. 5. The County Should Extend the Moratorium to All Pending Applications or, In the Alternative, Adopt a Zoning Amortization Period and Recognize Any Marijuana Facilities as Nonconforming Uses Considering only one LCD production and processing license has been granted in Jefferson County (in the industrial zone of Glen Cove Business Park), the County should not treat any of the pending permit applications related to marijuana facilities as substantially complete. Given the issuance of the moratorium and the County's critical review of its Code, the County's decision to treat some marijuana applications as substantially complete will unfairly advantage other potential LCB licensees who have not made such preliminary permit applications. For example, the County has repeatedly interrupted its review of the fence permit application submitted by Ganjika Farms, a proposed marijuana facility located at 1666 Egg & I Road in Chimacum, to seek more information from the applicant. Throughout the permit review process, Ganjika Farms has submitted a "three -year plan" for the facility that includes multiple components in addition to the outdoor grow area requiring the fence permit, including an indoor grow area that the County has determined will require additional permits. The County should review this "three -year plan" in its entirety under SEPA at the earliest possible time, and should determine that the application is incomplete until all of the components of the proposal are Board of County Commissioners October 6, 2014 Page 10 reviewed together. In addition to those concerns, there are multiple other issues that the County has failed to address in its piecemeal review of the Ganjika Farms permit application, including: (1) the proposed facility is located within 1,000 feet of a certified alternative teaming school recognized by the State of Washington and is therefore prohibited; (2) the only means of access to the facility is the use of an easement road that was intended and has been used only for residential purposes, not commercial or industrial purposes; (3) the applicants conducted improper land clearing activities; and (4) the applicants omitted material facts about the surrounding residences in their pre- application meeting documents. For these reasons, the Ganjika Farms permit application should be treated as incomplete. If the County finds that any applications for marijuana production and processing are vested, then a zoning amortization period should be included in the development regulations. Such a period would recognize the ill -sited facility as a nonconforming use and give it a limited time to move from the area. Such amortization statutes have been upheld by Washington courts. See, e.g., Northend Cinema v. Seattle, 81 Wn.2d 709 (1978) (Washington Supreme Court upheld a new ordinance that gave legally established adult theatres 90 days to move from residential neighborhoods). But it would be better to avoid such problems by expeditiously changing the zoning code now, before any production and processing facilities are licensed and built. Thank you for your attention in this matter. Respectfully, K &L GATES LLL�P Craig S. Trueblood cc: Karen Page Kristin Mayer Marjorie Boyd Stephen Ramsey Alanna Peterson, K &L Gates Paul Hirsch, Attorney at Law Board of County Commissioners October 6, 2014 Page I I APPENDIX A KITSAP COUNTY CODE, CHAPTER 17.465 KCC Board of County Commissioners October 6, 2014 Page 12 KITS" COUNTY CODE, CHAPTER 17.465 KCC 17.465.010 Findings and application. A. Marijuana is illegal under federal Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. Sections 801 et seq. State and local regulations do not preempt federal law. People and businesses involved in the production, processing, sales, and possession of marijuana could still be subject to prosecution under federal law. Local zoning and other regulations are not a defense against a violation of federal law. B. This chapter is necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare of Kitsap County citizens. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as an authorization to circumvent or violate state or federal law, as permission to any person or entity to violate federal law, or to supersede any legislation prohibiting the uses subject to this chapter. C. This chapter shall apply to those marijuana producers, processors and retailers that are licensed by the Washington State Liquor Control Board under Chapter 314 -55 WAC. (Ord. 512 (2013) § 5 (part), 2013) 17.465.020 Definitions [standard definitions omitted] 17.465.030 Location. A. Marijuana Producers. Subject to the requirements of this chapter, marijuana producers may be located as follows. Further, such facilities and uses may only be located at designated sites licensed by the state of Washington and fully conforming to state law and this chapter. 1. Tier 1, 2, and 3 marijuana producers may be located in the urban industrial (IND), Rural Employment Center (REC), and 12 Trees Employment Center (TEC) zones. 2. Tier 1 and 2 marijuana producers may be located in the business park (BP) zone. 3. Tier 2 and 3 marijuana producers maybe located in the business center (BC) zone. 4. Tier 1 and 2 marijuana producers maybe located in the rural industrial (RI) zone. B. Marijuana Processors. Subject to the requirements of this chapter, marijuana processors may be located in the business center (BC), business park (BP), urban industrial (IND), Rural Employment Center (REC), and 12 Trees Employment Center (TEC) zones. Further, such facilities and uses may only be located at designated sites licensed by the state of Washington and fully conforming to state law and this chapter. Board of County Commissioners October 6, 2014 Page 13 C. Marijuana Retailers. Subject to the requirements of this chapter, marijuana retailers may be located as follows. Further, such facilities and uses may only be located at designated sites licensed by the state of Washington and fully conforming to state law and this chapter. 1. Marijuana retailers may be located in the highway /tourist commercial (HTC), regional commercial (RC), and Rural Employment Center (REC) zones. 2. Subject to securing an administrative conditional use permit (ACUP), marijuana retailers may be located in the mixed use (MU) zone. D. Marijuana Producers, Processors and Retailers. All marijuana producers, processors and retailers must be a minimum of one thousand feet away, as measured by the shortest straight line between property boundaries, from any elementary or secondary school, playground, recreation center or facility, child care center, public park, public transit center, library or game arcade as defined in WAC 314 -55 -010. (Ord. 512 (2013) § 5 (part), 2013) 17.465.040 Permits. A. Kitsap County makes no representations as to the legality of the use subject to this chapter. All applicable permits (e.g., administrative conditional use permits, building permits or tenant improvement permits) shall be required. B. Only state - licensed marijuana producers, processors and retailers may locate within unincorporated Kitsap County. Upon request, all producers, processors and retailers must supply a copy of the state - issued license. C. No permit shall be approved unless the applicant demonstrates frill compliance with Chapter 69.50 RCVU and Chapter 314 -55 WAC. (Ord. 512 (2013) § 5 (part), 2013) 17.465.050 Public nuisance. Any violation of this chapter is declared to be a public nuisance per se, and, in addition to any other remedy provided by law or equity, may be abated by the county under the applicable provisions of this code or state law. (Ord. 512 (2013) § 5 (part), 2013) 17.465.060 Nonconforming uses No use that constitutes or purports to be a marijuana producer, processor or retailer as those terms are defined in this chapter that was engaged in that activity prior to the Board of County Commissioners October 6, 2014 Page 14 enactment of this chapter shall be deemed to have been a legally established use under Kitsap County Code and that use shall not be entitled to claim legal nonconforming status. From: neamer i uiman <neamer5eaweLyanoo.cv1T11 Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 10:36 AM To: John Austin; Carolyn Avery; jeffbocc, Phil Johnson; Leslie Locke; Erin Lundgren; Philip Morley; Julie Shannon; David Sullivan Subject: Marijuana Growing in Jefferson County I am disappointed by the evident lack of "due diligence" on the part of elected officials whose duty it is to "protect" their constituents from such intrusions as commercial marijuana growing in residential neighborhoods. It is hard to understand, in light of the fact that apparently every other county in the state has put in some reasonable restrictions, such as those adopted by Clallam County. Residential property values could be adversely affected by proximity of commercial grows of marijuana. In Jefferson County rural areas are largely residential areas —family farms - so designating marijuana as an agricultural crop is condemning family properties to the unfavorable consequences of this activity, not a desirable prospect for most families. As it is still federally illegal and most banks can't accept funds from the sale of marijuana, there is risk involved of attracting outlaw activity such as trespassing, theft, etc. Marijuana itself is not a harmless substance. It is a mind altering drug, and has deleterious effects especially on young persons, so families with children have reason to dread it as a neighbor. I spent 17 years as a board member of a residential drug rehabilitation facility in Seattle and have seen what it does to young lives. It would be prudent to take precautionary measures, as they have in Clallam County by limiting commercial grows to commercial or industrial areas, rather than the "wait and see what happens" or "don't worry about it" attitude, which could lead to having to undo damage after it is done. We should not be forced into digging out of a situation that could so obviously have been prevented by common sense in the beginning. Time Magazine this week has an article detailing how driving under the influence of marijuana is creating new headaches for law enforcement. Marijuana reduces motor coordination, slows reaction time, and impairs decision making. And to date there is no way to `measure' impairment or amounts of marijuana in the system. With reflexes sluggish and vision and problem solving impaired it is not difficult to imagine that there will be an increase in accidents. It would be prudent to put a stop to the further expansion of pot farming in Jefferson County until such time as some of the consequences can be determined, with a keen eye toward maintaining the character and livability of all residential and agricultural neighborhoods in Jefferson County. Heather Tillman 1291 E. Marrowstone Rd., Nordland, WA 98358 0 0 William &Colette Lopernan 10213 Rhody Drive Chimacum, WA 98325 T , 4c.'A- �i: ti? at Aft �P� 4 14 L HEARING RECORD —'C omment on Ordinance # 07- 0811 -14 10/6/2014 My name is Gary Johnson. I am not a marijuana user, I am not a proponent of marijuana use, but I am a proponent of marijuana legalization. I am also an 1 -502 producer and processor applicant. I would like to address some issues as stated in the moratorium: In whereas # 16 on page 3 of the moratorium you state that the vast majority of the license applicants have requested licenses to both produce and process marijuana. There is a reason for this. If you possess both licenses as a grower you are able to sell direct to retailers and you also are not required to pay the producer to processor 25% excise tax as you would have to do if you only have a producer license. I believe that the County personnel that are denying processor permits to applicants based on the existing wording in the County ordinance are envisioning truckloads of marijuana being shipped in hourly from all parts of the state in large tractor trailer rigs and being stored in towering marijuana silos feeding into huge buildings. In reality "processing" will more likely resemble breaking up a pound bag of marijuana that would have been taxed and sold to a processor into 16 one -ounce bags, labeling them for retail, and selling them direct to a retail store in Jefferson County. There is absolutely no reason for the County to deny processor permits to producers who only process their own product and the County stands to lose a substantial amount of revenue if they do not relax the prohibition (whereas # 20) on issuing processing permits. In whereas # 19 on page 3 you state that there may be compatibility issues relative to recreational marijuana production and processing in various land use designations in the County. Recreational marijuana growing and processing operations can unobtrusively exist in any location and any zoning designation in the County. Illegal recreational marijuana production and processing currently exists in every part of the County, and it has for a long time. And it's not zoned, and it's not regulated, and it's not taxed, and nobody is checking the buyer's ID card to see if he is over 21. For every 1 -502 permit that is delayed or denied by the County, there will be five or ten black market and gray market marijuana production operations that will spring up to take its place. In whereas # 22 on page 3 you state that citizens have expressed concern about marijuana production during public comment periods. This is to be expected. The almost 7 out of 10 voters in the County who voted to approve 1 -502 have no need to speak, for their voice was heard when their vote was counted. Those voters are, for the most part, sitting back quietly and waiting for things to happen. I would submit that someone who voted against 1 -502 is far more likely to go to the trouble of coming to meetings and making comments against its implementation and therefore the number of negative comments will be artificially skewed to a much higher percentage than positive comments. In whereas # 23 on page 4 you state that applicants must comply with numerous state regulations. This is true, however there are no security lighting requirements and an 8 foot fence is pretty much the minimum height you need down in Brinnon to keep the elk from eating everything in your vegetable garden. In whereas # 24 on page 4 you state that the high profitability of marijuana is attracting investors and large scale operations to the County. 1 -502 represents a potential gold mine for the County. The State senators and representatives that I have talked to acknowledge that not sharing the 25% excise tax from producer to processor, and the 25% excise tax from processor to retailer, and the 25% excise tax from the retailer to the customer with the local jurisdictions was an oversight and it will be corrected in the next legislative session. The reason it wasn't corrected last session was that last year a super majority vote would have been required to change 1 -502 as it was passed. There is a good chance that the County will make as much or more profit on the sale of each gram produced and sold in the County as the individual producer /processor or retailer does on that gram. There is no need for a moratorium. There is no need to consider more restrictive regulations. County restrictions concerning processing your own product as a producer are based solely on semantics and must be eliminated. Proposed County Ordinance: No additional permitting, zoning or land use restrictions will be placed on 1 -502 producers or processors. All county permit applications will be considered on a case - by -case basis. While the county will do its best to accommodate all requests, it may occasionally deny a permit or require alterations if the size and scope of a proposed operation is expected to have a significant effect on the character of a neighborhood or a demonstrated adverse impact on surrounding property. Processing marijuana will not require a cottage industry permit if 80 percent of the volume of marijuana processed is produced on site. STATE OF WASHINGTON County of Jefferson An Ordinance Establishing Moratorium ) Ordinance # 07- 0811 -14 Prohibiting the Production, Processing and } Retailing of Recreational Marijuana in } Certain Land Use Designations within } Unincorporated Jefferson County AND } Establishing a Work Plan for the Planning } Agency } WHEREAS, Initiative 502 was approved by the voters of this State at the General Election held in November 2012, said Initiative approving and making legal, with restrictions, so- called "recreational marijuana;" and WHEREAS, Initiative 502 was codified into Chapter 69.50 RCW, the Uniform Controlled Substances Act; and WHEREAS, marijuana and marihuana producers; processors and retailers are defined in state law at RCW'69.50.101, said definitions as currently stated there or as may hereafter be amended being hereby incorporated into this and any Ordinance or development regulation that the Jefferson County Commissioners may enact; and ti WHEREAS, Initiative 502 directed the Washington State Liquor Control Board ( "WSLCB') to develop, for example, A) rules and regulations to determine the number of retailers by county and B) licensing and other regulatory measures for the production, processing and retailing of marijuana for non - medical purposes; and S— WHEREAS, the WSLCB adopted final rules on October 16; 2013 for marijuana producers, processors and retailers, said regulations being codified at Chapter 314 -55 WAC; and 6 WHEREAS, the regulations of Ch. 314 -55 WAC went into effect on November 16, 2013 and the WSLCB began to accept applications' for recreational marijuana producers, processors and retailers on November 18, 2013; said application window being open for one month with some exception to that time limit; and 7 WHEREAS, only the WSLCB is authorized to issue licenses for the production, processing or retailing of recreational marijuana with the caveat that the WSLCB notifies local governments such as counties and cities of applicants seeking to locate in The jurisdiction so notified; and WHEREAS, WAC 314-55-020(l l) explicitly recognizes the authority of locally adopted rules or ordinances to regulate licensed marijuana businesses, such locally adopted ordinances including in part local building and fire codes, and zoning ordinances;; and y WHEREAS; on January 16, 2014, the Washington State Attorney General issued an Opinion regarding local regulation of state- licensed marijuana producers, processors and retailers (AGO 2014 No. 2 }; concluding in part, "... that 1 -502 left in place the normal powers of local governments to regulate within their jurisdictions.... Local governments have broad authority to regulate within their jurisdictions; and nothing in 1 -502 limits that authority with respect to licensed marijuana businesses;" and t 0 WHEREAS, County staff, including persons from planning, law enforcement, public health, prosecution, as well as the County Administrator, met during 2013 to determine if any changes to the County's current regulatory structure would be required in order to accommodate the then - anticipated- recreational marijuana business uses at a scale, intensity and locations that would be consistent with this county's countywide planning policies, its Comprehensive Plan and the generally rural aesthetic and character of unincorporated Jefferson County; and 1 WHEREAS, pursuant to JCC 18. 10.010 the production of marijuana is a form of agriculture, a use that the county's land use planning seeks to encourage in a wide variety of ways; and 12 WHEREAS, Jefferson County values and supports local agriculture, locally grown food, and the vitality of local farms, the farm economy; farm employment and farm li#estyies; and WHEREAS, Jefferson County has long demonstrated its commitment to supporting agriculture by previously adopting policies and regulations supporting agricultural activities, including but not limited to adopting comprehensive plan amendments to designate and rezone agricultural lands and regulations for Agricultural Activities and Accessory Uses, both of which were developed and adopted in 2004 after extensive public involvement, and which regulations were subsequently incorporated in the 2006 Omnibus UDC Revisions, winning the Washington Governor's Smart Growth Award in 2006; and j y WHEREAS, such supportive agricultural policies and regulations include provisions of Jefferson County Code Title 18.20.030, including: • agricultural activity is an allowed use within all zoning designations; • commercial agricultural activity in certain circumstances is exempt from stormwater management permitting for primary agricultural activities; • agriculture activity is exempt for obtaining building permits in certain circumstances; • Agriculture occurring on all rural land use districts except Rural Residential 1;5 are protected' by so- called "right to farm" rules that provide notice to adjacent, non- agricultural parcels that agricultural activities do not constitute a nuisance; • Accessory uses in Agricultural zoned land are exempt from obtaining building permits in certain circumstances; • Accessory uses include commercial production and sales of locally grown or produced agricultural products, construction of strictures, farm worker housing, processing, packaging, wholesale and retail sales of agricultural' products, commercial sales, repair and maintenance of farm equipment, storage of vehicles, equipment, materials or products not related to agriculture, agritourism, tourism events not related to agriculture, classes, lumber mills, harvesting, sawing, processing, assembling and selling lumber; and �r S WHEREAS, during the weekly open public meeting of the County Commission held on Monday October 14, 2013 staff brieful the Commission, informing them, according to the approved minutes for that meeting, "that existing regulations of the County and the [WSJLCB should be enough," based on the nature of marijuana operations then anticipated by the County, and thereafter no amendment or further review of the County's regulations was undertaken and 16 'WHEREAS, during the license application window which subsequently began November 18, 2013, the WSLCB has, with respect to unincorporated Jefferson County, received several dozen state license applications from persons and firms seeking to produce marijuana and /or process it AND the vast majority (approximately 90 1/6) of the applicants seeking to locate in unincorporated Jefferson County have requested state licenses to both produce and process marijuana; and 12 WHEREAS, the County has received notice from the WSLCB of these license applications and has in response informed the WSLCB of whether the County objects to either the type of state license (production, processing, retailing) or the location of the license; and (g WHEREAS; the applications to the state for producer and/or processor licenses in unincorporated Jefferson County are for locations within various land use designations such as 1) agricultural lands 2) light industrial /commercial, 3) light industrial, 4) rural residential and 5) rural forest; and 15 WHEREAS, each of those land use designations listed immediately above has a distinct purpose (and related public policy behind it) in the county's Comprehensive Plan and development regulations and thus raise different compatibility issues in relation to the impacts from the production or processing of recreational marijuana unique to each particular land use designation; and Z U WHEREAS, the County's current development regulations in the land use arena do not impose any land use permitting requirements on growing marijuana; although the processing of marijuana in most land use designations requires a County land use permit as an accessory use or "cottage industry;" and Z ( WHEREAS; state, regional and local regulations and/or permitting regarding potable water, adequate water, wastewater and surface water discharges, the proper handling and disposal of solid waste, food processing, and air quality are, and always would be; applicable to any applicant seeking to enter into and undertake any one or some of the three recreational marijuana businesses available to citizens through the WSLCB licensing process; and Z L WHEREAS, citizens have addressed the County Commission during the public comment period of the Commission's open public meetings expressing great concern that the production of marijuana is not typical agriculture and that both production and processing should be the subject of additional development regulations not currently found in applicable land use and development regulations; and Z 3 WHEREAS, the production (growing) of recreational marijuana must comply with numerous state regulations such as enclosure with an 8 foot high fence and security lighting that make it distinguishable from more traditional forms of agriculture; and WHEREAS, based on actual state license applications reviewed by the County and still pending before the state, it now appears the potential high profitability of recreational marijuana is attracting investments in marijuana operations and developments of a larger scale and higher intensity than the County previously anticipated in some land use classifications, said larger projects having resultant impacts not previously known or planned for, again making it unlike the more traditional existing agriculture found in Jefferson County; and 5— WHEREAS, recreational marijuana production and processing may result in a scale and intensity of activities that is inconsistent with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan policies to maintain rural character in rural residential lands; and Z WHEREAS, recreational marijuana production and processing maybe done at a scale and intensity exceeding that which has occurred historically, and may result in impacts such as increased traffic, noise; light, hours of activity, odors, water supply withdrawals, and surface and ground water pollution; and 2 WHEREAS, in order to balance the supportive goals and policies for agricultural uses, including but not limited to recreational marijuana, with comparable support for other land uses, it is appropriate to review regulations for the potential scale and intensity of recreational marijuana . under the County's existing regulations and make such regulatory changes as found necessary so that potential impacts between incompatible uses can be avoided, reduced or mitigated, for the benefit of the health, safety and welfare of all Jefferson County citizens and businesses; and WHEREAS, the County Commission acknowledges that the citizens of Jefferson County supported the approval of Initiative 502 by almost a 2 -1 margin, and in recognition of the clear will of its citizenry, does not intend to undo Initiative 502 by the eventual enactment of regulations regarding recreational marijuana that would make initiating and undertaking such businesses in Jefferson County impractical; and Z WHEREAS; in order to provide the County the opportunity to review and amend its regulations that would apply to marijuana production and processing, the Board of County Commissioners deem it to be in the public interest to establish a moratorium intended to temporarily prohibit the acceptance of any development permit application that would be necessary for the siting, location or operation of recreational marijuana producing and processing at certain locations; and 3 e WHEREAS, this moratorium is authorized by RCW 36.70.745, RCW 36.70A.390 and Article 11, § I I of the Washington State Constitution as long as a work plan for the County's planning agency is made part of this Ordinance; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Commissioners for Jefferson County as follows: Section 1. Moratorium. 'there shall be in unincorporated Jefferson County a moratorium with respect to: The submission, acceptance, processing or approval of any County permit applications for any proposed use, development, proposal or project for the production or processing of recreational marijuana subject to the licensing requirements of the Washington State Liquor Control Board in accordance with RCW 69.50.325; as said statute exists now or as thereafter be amended, with the exception of the following applications made for a parcel or parcels located within the following land use designations: • Production and processing of marijuana at a parcel or parcels designated AP -20 Prime Agricultural Land, ( agricultural lands of long -term significance), or AL -20 agricultural lands of local importance; • Production and processing of marijuana at a parcel or parcels designated Forest Resource Lands, including CF -80 Commercial Forest; RF -40 Commercial Forest; or IF In- holding Forest, • Production and processing of marijuana at parcel or parcels designated Rural Industrial, including RI- Resource Industrial; LI /C — Light Industrial/Commercial (Glen Cove), Light Industrial (Glen Cove); Ll /M — Light Industrial /Manufacturing; Hf- Heavy Industrial; Section Two. Effect of Moratorium. This moratorium neither impacts any permit applications relating to recreational marijuana licenses as listed in RCW 6U0.325 that have been deemed "substantially complete" by Jefferson County nor alters, amends, repeals or revises any other applicable statute, regulation or code provision applicable to such substantially complete applications. Section Three. Duration. The moratorium adopted by this Ordinance is effective immediately upon adoption and shall remain in effect for six (6) months, unless subsequently extended by the Board pursuant to state law Section Four. Public Hearing. Pursuant to state law, a public hearing regarding this moratorium will be held by the County Commission no later than October] 1, 2014. Section Five. Work Plan. The following work plan is adopted; • DCD to hold a public comment period during September 2014 • Study impacts and generate draft revisions to the County's development regulations within 120 days of enactment of this Ordinance • Planning Commission review and final recommendation to the County Commission within 150 days of enactment of this Ordinance • Adoption of final regulations within 180 days of enactment of this Ordinance. Section Six. Findings. The Jefferson County Commission hereby adopts the above recitals (tbe "WHEREAS" statements) as its findings of fact in support of this Ordinance. Section Seven. Severability. The provisions of this Ordinance are declared separate and severable. If anyprovision of this Ordinance or its application to any person or circumstances is field invalid, then the remainder of this Ordinance or application of its provisions to other persons or circumstances shall remain valid and unaffected. ADOPTED by the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners at a regular sheeting thereof this l Vh day of August, 2014, at Ll .- L'a.m. YS� a wad { � APPROVED AS TO FORM: David Alvarez 5 Date Deputy Prosecuting Attorney ATTEST: 1 y � V Carolyn ACiery Deputy Clerk of the Board'' 6 JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1 (t'L 4-l"(_44" y 1. Environmental concerns 4- 2. Visited Tropic Grow in Clallam Co a. Indoor grow operation – Level II license b. Run by a couple c. She handles the plants d. He does maintenance and sales e. One full -time employee f. Repurposed Dairy Barn , Quiet, no odors, no external sign of operation 3. Reminded of College days – Student help in UCR's APRC a. Many plants in orderly rows of pots b. Clean, cramped, well - labeled 4. Environmental Concerns a. Electricity - $1,000 /mo –compare to QVS at $900 /mo b. Chemicals i. None, totally organic c. Water i. 100 gallons/day vs 5,000 gpd for residence d. Traffic i. One product delivery per month in a standard auto. ii. One employee coming to work daily 5. Perfect home business and neighbor a. No traffic b. Trivial water use c. No noise d. No odor e. Same electricity consumption as a small store f. No chemicals g. No solid or septic waste h. Significant tax revenue Product Unit Equivalent water in m3 per unit Cattle head 4000 Sheep and head 500 goats Fresh beef kg 15 Fresh lamb kg 10 Fresh kg 6 poultry Cereals kg 1.5 Citrus fruits kg 1 Palm oil kg 2 Roots and Kg 1 tubers Marijuana lb 0.32 Equivalent Product Quantity water in liters glass of beer 250 ml 75 glass of wine 125 ml 120 glass of milk 200 ml 200 glass of apple 200 ml 190 juice cup of coffee 125 ml 140 glass of orange 200 ml 170 juice cup of tea 250 ml 35 chips bag 200 g 185 slice of bread 30g 40 egg 40 g 135 slice of bread 30g+ 10 90 with cheese g hamburger 150 g 2400 potato 100 g 25 tomato 70 g 13 apple 100 g 70 Orange 100 g 50 "hit" of mj .5 oz 10.5 cotton T -shirt 500 g 4100 pair of shoes 1 8000 sheet A4 paper 80g/m2 t0 microchip 2 g 32 y ti j k6,fti i eb'u'41 1014611Y October 2, 2014 Board of County Commissioners 1820 Jefferson Street Port Townsend, WA 98368}p� t A Regarding: Public Comment, Ordinance # 07- 0811 -14 moratorium on accepting or processing of permits for recreational marijuana in certain zones Honorable Commissioners, I am a resident of Jefferson County. I was born and raised here and my husband and I are raising our children here. I am strongly opposed to the development of any 502 operations in residentially zoned areas and also the classification of such operations as "agriculture ". 15 years ago, before we had children, we purchased our home on 5 acres not far from the PT city limits. We love our neighborhood. It's rural, yet close enough to town to easily shuttle kids to school and activities or make a run to the store. We have dreamed about buying a larger house as our family grows, and were thrilled when, at the end of 2013 we were able to buy 20 acres only 1/4 mile from our existing house. The plan is to build a new home on this property and we have spent many hours exploring the woods and scoping out the perfect spot for our future home. Almost 6 months ago, in May, we were devastated to learn that an investor had purchased the adjacent 20 acre parcel, of which we share access, with the intent of developing a commercial recreational marijuana grow operation. Since learning about this, I have spent much of my time considering how my family can and will be affected. Before May I had never considered that a business such as this could be permitted to operate in a residential neighborhood. I had always relied on the fact that we had purchased land in residentially zoned areas and that land use in these areas would remain consistent with the intent of the zoning I commend DCD /Mr. Morley and the BOCC for taking a step in the right direction by imposing the 6 month moratorium on 502 developments in residentially zoned areas. If you do nothing to regulate this, my family will be subjected to a large -scale indoor grow operation including 40,000+ square feet of buildings, parking for 30 cars, round the clock employees, and the lights, noise, traffic and odors that accompany it all less than 75 feet from our property line. Now I urge you all to take this time to develop regulations to keep all 502 operations off of residentially zoned land, no matter what the size and scale of the business. This business has only very recently become legal in our state. It is a new use industry and Jefferson County needs to develop new regulations around it It is not "agriculture". Please follow the lead of so many other communities in the state who are regulating 502 operations. Consider the families who live in Jefferson County, and are continuing to move here because of the wonderful quality of life we enjoy in this area. Please keep the county and our neighborhoods "neighborly" and residential. If you choose to allow 502 operations in Jefferson County, make sure they exist in areas appropriate for the nature of this business, i.e., industrially zoned land. The state of Washington does not allow S02 operations within 1,000 feet of where youth congregate, so it makes sense that this industry cannot be allowed in neighborhoods where our youth sleep, play and live. Thank you for taking the time to consider the negative impact this will have on our county if 502 operations continue to be allowed to start up anywhere with no regulations. I trust you will do what is truly best for our community. Keep the moratorium in place until you adopt regulations that keep 502 operations out of residential zones. Annette Gardner, Port Townsend Enclosures: Copy of Objection Letter, previously submitted to BOCC Application Ile °� w!� c'^''�p Pagel I of 3 J NW Allprep HEAiRINCZ Northwest Allprep Application Form (Fill in the boxes and then click the "submit" button) For what school year are you applying? Student Information: First Name: Middle name: Last name: Student Residence Information: Street Address: City: Zip Code: County: Resident School District (where you live): Student Contact Information: Home phone: �1 CellPhone : I Email Address: General Student Information: Birthdate (mm/dd/yyyy) Gender (M or F): l What year in school will you be when you start with us (k -12)? Please list last school attended (if any) Ethnicity: Last grade completed Yes or no Is English the primary language spoken in the home? If No, what language is primarily spoken in the home? Indicate, yes or no, any services the student may have received in his /her entire school history: A '.English as a Second Language: Yf 504 Accommodation Plan: Parent Information: http:// www .nwallprep.com/Application.httnl 10/6/2014 Application . `t Page 2 of 3 Father /Guardian's Name: treet Address: e: Code: Phone: Phone: Phone: 's Name: Street Address: City: State: Zip Code: Phone: Optional Information: Is there anything else we should know that would help us serve you better? Did you hear about NWAllprep, from one of our staff members? (Katie McDaniel,Ms McDonald, Ms Wilson, Mr King, Ms King, Mr Trevino, Mr Sprague, Nancy Gudeman) If so, who? V! If not, how did you hear about us? SubmR You can dick on this link to save time and download the "choice form" that must be filled out and taken to your local district office Choice form Link By hitting the "submit" button you acknowledge that NWAllprep is NOT a "Home school" program, but rather an Online Alternative Learning Experience and the student is enrolled in Public School STATEMENT OF UNDERSTANDING In accordance with the Alternative Learning Experience Implementation Standards, WAC 392 - 121 -182 (6)(j), prior to enrollment parent(s) or guardian shall be provided with, and sign, documentation attesting to the understanding of the difference between home -based instruction and enrollment in an alternative learning experience (ALE). Provided on the front and back of this form are summary and narrative descriptions of the difference between home -based instruction and an ALE. Please read these descriptions and sign below. Summary Description Home -Based instruction • Is provided by the parent or guardian as authorized under RCW 2aA.200 and 28A.225.010. • Students are not enrolled in public education. • Students are not subject to the rules and regulations governing public schools, including course, graduation, and assessment requirements. • The public school is under no obligation to provide instruction or instructional materials, or otherwise supervise the student's education. Alternative Learning Experience http:// www .nwallprep.com/Application.htrnl 10/6/2014 Application Page 3 of 3 Northwest Allprep • Is authorized under WAC 392 -121 -182. • Students are enrolled in public education either full -time or part-time. • Students are subject to the rules and regulations governing public school students including course, graduation, and assessment requirements for all portions of the ALE. • Learning experiences are: • Supervised, monitored, assessed, and evaluated by certificated staff. • Provided via a written student learning plan. • Provided in whole, or part outside the regular classroom. Part-time Enrollment of Home -Based Instruction Students Home -based instruction students may enroll in public school programs, including ALE programs, on a part-time basis and retain their home -based instruction status. In the case of part-time enrollment in ALE, the student will need to comply with the requirements of the ALE written student teaming plan, but not be required to participate in state assessments or meet state graduation requirements. I have read the summary and detailed descriptions of home -based instruction and alternative teaming experience provided and I understand the difference between home -based instruction and the alternative teaming experience program in which my child is enrolling. By hitting the "submit" button you acknowledge that NWAllprep is NOT a "Home school" program, but rather an Online Alternative Learning Experience and the student is enrolled in Public School F mation will be submitted when you hit the "submit" button. You will be accepted, but not enrolled until you gat a l e. You will need to go to your local school district office to obtain a District Release. We are sponsored by School District. Please contact Tamil King If you need help (webtami@nisn.com or 503.313-4114) Please be aware of our attendance0rop Policy -10 day rule We will drop any student that has done no work and has not contacted a teacher with "extenuating circumstances ", after 10 calendar school days. Students will not be allowed to reapply unless there are "extenuating circumstances" (a reason to believe they will be more successful if readmitted). Re- admittance will require a new, full application and district release form. The student's resident district will be noted when the student is dropped for truancy purposes. Students will be sent a letter and must enroll in their local district immediately. Submit http:// www .nwallprep.com/Application.htmi 10/6/2014 To: Jefferson County BOCC 1820 Jefferson St. P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 From: Marjorie Boyd 1070 Egg and I Road Chimacum, WA 98325 Re: MARIJUANA OPERATIONS IN JEFFERSON COUNTY Over the years that I have live in and worked for Jefferson County I have been at times amused, confused, awed, dismayed, frustrated and infuriated over our county's approach to long term planning. We talk about it, claim we do it, and sometimes we even do, only to undermine it unwittingly. Our county gave away the last 80 acres zoned for solid waste. We turned it into a horse park. A great idea, really, but it was a deal made by one well - intentioned person in Public Works. There was no community discussion and we thus limited our future possibilities for transfer stations and/or recycling facilities. We've done a great job being proactive around water supply (WRIA 17) and then one department made a determination that two afternoons of meetings was enough to make major decisions about a new industry for our county that is known for its high water usage and water discharge and industrial grade stormwater. Years of planning potentially and unwittingly undermined in two Friday afternoons. Our county has got to start utilizing the Planning Commission. If it is not up to snuff, then we need to make it more professional. There has to be a body that has the big picture. The BOCC is only three people with a lot of issues to deal with. By necessity you rely on departments to do their homework and present all the facts. That assumes the departments are functional. This is a dangerous assumption. We need a system of checks and balances. So here we are. THANK YOU for pausing the process to allow for some forethought- This is a new industry (at least in a legalized form) for our county and for our country. Until it is legalized throughout the whole country there will be pitfalls. The borders of illegal and legal states will see more problems with enforcement and crime. This is not paranoia. Look at what happened in the Netherlands' "tea shops ". They've had to move them in off the borders due to crime. The point is that yes, things *ought* to be normal, but it's naive to think it will start out that way. Not when there are wet states and dry states. It would be prudent to start out more cautiously, then, over time as things settle down, we can broaden what is allowed and where. It would be most unwise to allow operations in residential areas or hidden out in the woods. They need to be in open, light industrial areas where they can easily be monitored. If we let the genie out of the bottle now, it will be near impossible to stuff back in later. If DCD had done its homework: done a serious SEPA review of the industry, looked at commercial grows in other areas, typical water usage, the likely stormwater constituents from a typical grow, the byproducts from typical oil extraction processors, etc ... I might feel better about moving ahead. But DCD has not. We and they are flying blind. Gypsy moth catepillers were a great idea when first brought to our county as a substitute for silk worms, Canary Reed Grass a wonder pasture grass for Chimacum valley promoted by well- intentioned extension agents. I spent years looking for my farm. It was homesteaded in 1883 and I'm only the fourth family to own it. It was zoned rural residential when I bought it. I agreed to change it to rural ag, as did my neighbors, (special re- zoning promoted by DCD) to try to preserve the agricultural nature of the Chimacum valley for future generations. I now have the Super Walmart of marijuana grow, processing, and commercial kitchens proposed for the property behind me, and several other operations planned in this same end of the valley. I waiver between despair and fury. Well - intentioned people have suggested that I sell my farm to another marijuana operation. I would not, for Sven Bergstrom would surely roll in his grave. Please, there is no harm in moving slowly. Our neighboring counties are being cautious and prudent as well. Being an outlier county has not served us well in other areas. There are long term implications for the decisions we make now_ Thank you. Margi oy Here are my comments in bullet form. Growing and processing MJ will be a light industrial, commercial activity. It is not a traditional agricultural activity. Our county already realizes that people brewing their own beer is one thing, placement of commercial breweries is another. Marijuana operations will be large commercial ventures, not people growing a small crop in their back yard, that was actually outlawed by 1 -502. Under both state and federal law marijuana production and processing are not agricultural activities. Growing and processing marijuana is illegal under Federal law. The Washington Legislature removed growing marijuana from the definition of agricultural activities. Jefferson County is bound by the statutes enacted by the Washington Legislature and is not free to take a different position from the State on this matter. • Marijuana operations should be limited to industrial or commercial areas and not allowed in areas which are zoned residential or where the predominate use and character of the neighboring properties is residential regardless of zoning classification • The potential negative impacts of marijuana operations on the environment and property values and the quality of rural residential neighborhoods has not been adequately evaluated. These issues should be evaluated through the Planning Commission process before allowing marijuana operations to be sited or operate. Marijuana operations will utilize large amounts of commercial fertilizers; chemicals to process, distill, and extract oils from marijuana plants; generate solid and hazardous waste, present non - trivial risks of fire, explosion, and related public safety events as well as the potential for criminal activity in rural residential areas; and consume inordinate amounts of water, all of which have the potential to present a threat to public health and the environment. The risk to rural residential areas is significant and has not been evaluated or addressed by Jefferson County to this point_ Limiting marijuana operations to industrial and commercial areas will make them more accessible to fire, law enforcement and emergency vehicles and reduce the significant risk which will exist if marijuana operations are sited and operate in rural and residential areas. Jefferson County should conduct, as required, a review of the potential environmental impacts of marijuana operations under the State Environmental Policy Act ( "SEPA "), of both the individual and cumulative impacts of allowing marijuana operations in Jefferson County. This should be completed before any decisions are made or actions taken which would allow marijuana operations to proceed in Jefferson County. Siting of marijuana operations needs to be evaluated in context of the predominate use and character of the surrounding community. Marijuana growing and processing operations should be limited to industrial and commercial zones and not allowed in areas which are zoned residential or where the primary character /use of the majority of adjoining property is residential. Limiting marijuana operations to industrial and commercial areas will eliminate disputes regarding what is or is not "residential" and provide certainty to both businesses and residents alike about where marijuana operations may be sited and conducted. The JC Planning Commission process must be followed and the Comp Plan modified prior to Jefferson County's granting any permit or license or taking any action that would authorize marijuana operations to proceed. No exemptions should be granted including those applications preliminarily identified as substantially complete. If exemptions are granted, some applicants gain an unfair business advantage and the planning commission process will be undermined. It would also be unfair to adjoining property owners to allow marijuana operations to be sited in areas where marijuana facilities are subsequently determined by the County and the Planning Commission to be inappropriate, present unacceptable ri sks, and /or adversely impact the rural residential character of an area. Jefferson County should ask the LC$ to not grant any permits until the Planning Commission review is complete, the Comp Plan has been amended, and there is a clearly understood process is in place. • All licensees or permittees should be required to: o Certify to Jefferson County compliance with all applicable state and local laws and regulations. c Demonstrate that they have a water right for sufficient water to undertake the activities associated with the licensed /permitted marijuana operation. o Install, maintain, and certify the existence of meters on wells or stream intakes to allow an accurate determination of water used in connection with the growth and processing of marijuana. o Report water use results monthly to DCD or DOH. The proposed marijuana production and processing facility 1066 Egg and I Road has no legal access to the site. The applicants' intended use of a residential road easement for commercial purposes exceeds the scope of that easement. The county should deny all permits for the facility because there is no lawful access. The applicants' intended use of the easement road to provide access to and from a commercial marijuana facility is wholly inconsistent with the original parties' intent and the nature of the subsequent use of the easement. The road easement has been exclusively used for residential purposes for the history of the easement. A letter was sent to both the Liquor Control Board and Department of Community Development outlining this issue and it is attached to my comments. K &t GATES ua 925 FOURTH AVENUE SUITE 2900 SEATTLE, WA 98104 -1158 T .1.208.8233580 F - 1.206.623.7022 kfgates com September 19, 2014 D (206) 370 -8368 F (206) 370 -6196 craig.trueblood @klgates.com SENT VIA MAIL AND E -MAIL TO: jpeterson6i)co.leffersom wa. us Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Attn: Joel Peterson RE: Proposed Cannabis Production and Processing Facility 1066 Egg and I Road, Chimacum, Washington 98325 Permit Application Nos. BLD14 -00188 and MLA14 -00038 Dear Mr. Peterson: As you know, we represent Stephen Ramsey, Karen Page, Kristina Mayer, and Marjorie Boyd with respect to the above matters. We submit these comments on behalf of our clients, who object to the marijuana processing and production facility proposed by Thomas Chester, Karen Wolfe, and Ganjika Farms LLC (the "Applicants ") at 1066 Egg & I Road, Chimacum, Washington 98325 (the "Facility "). Our clients have previously submitted comments for the administrative record opposing the Facility, including an August 26, 2014, letter explaining that the Applicants' intended use of the road easement exceeds the scope of that easement. This letter is intended to supplement our previous comments and respond to the September 4, 2013, letter sent by Mr. Craig Jones of Pinnacle Real Estate Law Group PLLC on behalf of the Applicants. Contrary to Mr. Jones' assertions, the Applicants' intended use of the easement road to provide access to and from a commercial marijuana production and processing facility is wholly inconsistent with the original parties' intent and the nature of the subsequent use of the easement. The County must deny any permits for the Facility. Neither the County nor the Applicant has complied with the State Environmental Policy Act, RCW 43.21C ( "SEPA "). Under SEPA, the County must obtain complete information in the form of an environmental checklist that describes all the probable adverse impacts of the Applicants' "proposal," including the impacts related to traffic, public safety and proof of lawful access. The County would be the first agency to take an action regarding the Facility and thus the County is the "lead agency" for purposes of SEPA. As the lead agency, the County "shall make certain that the proposal that is the subject of environmental review is properly defined" for purposes of environmental review under SEPA. WAC 197 -I1- 060(3). "Proposals or parts of proposals that are related to each other closely enough to be, in effect, a single course of action shall be evaluated in the same environmental document." Id. klgates.com Jefferson County Department of Community Development September 19, 2014 Page 2 The Applicants have defined their "proposal" in application materials filed with the Liquor Control Board ( "LCB ") to conduct both marijuana production and marijuana processing. The application describes the proposal as a "[w]holesale, [m]anufacturing" facility to "grow and process marijuana for sale to retail stores in accordance with WSLCB 1 -502:' See Exhibit A (Master Business Application). In the application interview with the LCB License Investigator, the Applicants provided a more detailed description of their proposal: Business will be located on 41 acres parcel zoned rural /residential. The LLC member's residence is also located on the parcel. The business will be located in detached buildings / fence enclosed area. Processing will take place within the detached building. The grow area will be indoor (rigid walled greenhouse and an additional pole building) and outdoor (hoop house greenhouses). See Exhibit B (License Investigator Initial Interview Notes). The Applicants explained that they intend to grow a combined 30,000 square feet of marijuana between their indoor and outdoor grow facilities to "produce and process /package usable marijuana for retail sales" and to manufacture infused edibles and other marijuana- related products. Id. In addition, the Applicants submitted a "three -year plan" to the County during initial meetings regarding their proposal and included a range of actions that may have adverse impacts on the natural and build environment, including constructing a 1,900 square foot greenhouse and a 1,500 square foot pole building and remodeling an existing pole building to accommodate processing and indoor grow facilities. See Exhibit C (Applicants' Pre - Application Conference Materials). The County must have complete information about the entire proposal or it must deny any permit for the Facility. The County may not segment or "piecemeal" its analysis of the probable adverse impacts and reasonable mitigation measures with respect to all aspects of the Applicants' proposal. Even if some aspects of a proposal, such as a fence, may be exempt from SEPA the law is clear that the County cannot approve any part of the proposal and ignore the proposal's other aspects. See JCC § 18.40.750(3)(d). Even if each aspect of the proposal may be exempt from SEPA, the County must still understand, disclose and consider all of the impacts of the proposal as a whole and make a threshold determination under SEPA based on an environmental checklist prepared by the Applicants that discloses the impacts of their entire proposal. t The County must weigh the environmental impact of the entire proposal before granting a permit for any part of the proposal to satisfy the requirements of SEPA. Juanita Bay Valley Community Assn v. City of Kirkland, 9 Wn. App. 59, 72 -73 (1973); see also Concerned Taxpayers Opposed to Modified Mid -S. Sequim Bypass v. State, Dept of Transp., 90 Wn. App. 225, 231 n.2 (1998) ( "[Piecemealing] is disfavored because the later environmental review often seems merely a formality, as the construction of the later segments of the project has already been mandated by the earlier construction. "). Jefferson County Department of Community Development September 19, 2014 Page 3 In 1994, Richard and Sharron Larsen purchased a 60 -acre parcel of land off of Egg and I Road in Chimacum, Washington. They planned to subdivide the 60 -acre lot into five -acre parcels to sell for residential purposes. On September 10, 1997, Richard and Sharron Larsen obtained from Wallace and Margaret Muir an easement for "a strip of land 60 feet wide" for "ingress and egress." Quit Claim Deed, No. 02061804, Jefferson County (Sept. 10, 1997)? They obtained that easement to provide the future residents of those parcels with access to Egg and I Road, the nearest public street. After the easement was created, the County rejected the Larsen's proposal to subdivide the land into twelve five -acre parcels. Instead, the Larsens subdivided the property into one 40 -acre parcel and one 20 -acre parcel. These two parcels (the "dominant estate" for purposes of the easement) are now owned by the Applicants, and our clients Karen Page and Marjorie Boyd now own the Muir property (the " servient estates" for purposes of the easement). Since the easement was created, both the dominant and the servient estates have been conveyed and subdivided multiple times. Currently, there are seven parties to the easement. Other than the Applicants, each of the parties to the easement purchased their property to use as a residence. In the Road Maintenance Agreement and Amendment, those parties agreed to use the easement "for normal ingress and egress purposes relating to the property they own." See Exhibit D (Road Maintenance Agreement and Amendment). Contrary to Mr. Jones' assertions, the road easement has been exclusively used for residential purposes for the history of the easement. The Larsens removed timber "in anticipation of residential development on [their] property." See Exhibit E (Declaration of Sharron Larsen), Karen Page has not used the road to haul timber and her predecessors -in- interest have not used the road to haul timber. In fact, the Forest Management Plan for the property indicates that timber may not be harvested on the property for 40 -60 years. See Exhibit F (Management Plan). Ms. Page does own a landscaping business and uses her personal vehicle to travel to client's homes and perform landscaping services. She does not have a cottage industry permit because she does not conduct business at her home, other than making phone calls, sending e-mail and routine paperwork. Ms. Page's use of the easement road is limited to driving her personal vehicle to and from the public street. Contrary to the original parties' intent and the subsequent use of the easement, the Applicants now intend to use the easement to operate a commercial marijuana production and processing facility. The Applicants have already graveled and widened part of the road and installed utilities. After the Applicants begin construction and operation of the Facility, the road easement will provide the only means of access for a wide range of commercial vehicles necessary to construct and operate the Facility. The exact scope, nature, timing and extent of these commercial activities must be disclosed in a SEPA checklist and considered by the z Mr. Jones' reference to the easement recorded under Jefferson County Auditor's File No. 589134 is an error. The actual easement at issue is attached as Exhibit A to our August 26, 2014, letter. Jefferson County Department of Community Development September 19, 2014 Page 4 County and all other agencies with jurisdiction over the proposal before acting on any permits or licenses. Parties to an easement may use the easement for "reasonable use[s]," but such use cannot expand the scope of the easement so as to overburden the servient estate. Huber v. Southard, 151 Wn. App. 1008, *6 (2009). To determine the scope of the easement, courts look to the intent of the parties who created it. Wilson & Son Ranch, LLC v. Hintz, 162 Wn. App. 297, 306 (2011). Where, as here, the plain language of the easement is ambiguous and does not illuminate the parties' intent, courts will consider (1) the original parties' intent; (2) "the nature and situation of the properties subject to the easement"; and (3) "the manner in which the easement has been used and occupied" to ascertain the scope of the easement. Id. (citing Logan, 29 Wn. App. at 799 -800). As Mr. Jones accurately explained in his letter, a court will consider the intent of the original parties to the easement, the Larsens, to ascertain the permissible scope of the easement. The Larsen have confirmed that they purchased the property to develop residential parcels and obtained the easement for the purpose of providing those residents with access to Egg and I Road. See Exhibit E. There is no evidence that the parties contemplated that the road would be used for a commercial facility, especially one that produces and processes marijuana, as that would have been an unlawful activity at the time under both State and Federal law and is still prohibited under Federal law. Even if the original parties did contemplate that future residents might use the road for traditional agricultural activities and cottage industries associated with residences, producing and processing marijuana is fundamentally different from those activities. A court will also consider the subsequent use of the easement to ascertain its scope. As the dominant and servient estates have been subdivided and sold multiple times over the last two decades, the new owners have continued to use the easement exclusively for residential purposes. Before the Applicants purchased their property, the road was primarily used by Ms. Page to access Egg and I Road from her full -time residence. The other residents have used their properties as part-time residences for the majority of the history of the easement and use the road infrequently. Except for the limited timber removal in anticipation of residential development, there has been no further timber harvest on the property. As described above, Ms. Page does not conduct business at her home and uses her personal vehicle to travel from her residence to landscaping appointments. Mr. Jones relies on Wilson & Son Ranch, LLC v. Hintz, a case interpreting the scope of an easement for commercial purposes, to argue that the Applicants' intended use should be permitted here. In Wilson, the court considered whether a subsequent commercial operation exceeded the scope of the easement where the original parties contemplated that the road easement may accommodate small -scale commercial activity. Wilson & Son Ranch, LLC v. Hintz, 162 Wn. App. 297, 301 -02 (2011) (emphasis added). The easement at issue had been used to provide access to a commercial fish hatchery for 11 years and subsequent owners wished to use the road to provide access for an average_ of 30 to 60 cars to events held by Jefferson County Department of Community Development September 19, 2014 Page 5 their outdoor events business. Id. at 302. The court's analysis hinged on the prolonged history of commercial use: [t]he trial court's uncontested findings reflect that this easement has been continuously used for commercial purposes over the past three decades. Limiting its scope as Wilson urges would require us to ignore our past decisions permitting changes in the use of an easement absent a showing of an unreasonable deviation from the original grant. Id. at 307 -08 (emphasis added). The court was also persuaded by evidence that the original parties to the easement "believed that the easement was sufficiently broad in scope to permit a commercial fish hatchery to be operated on the dominant estate." Id. at 307. Considering the original parties' intent to allow a commercial use and the prolonged history of commercial use, the Court held that the use of the easement road for an outdoor events business was not an "unreasonable deviation" from the scope of the easement. Id. Unlike the easement at issue in Wilson, this easement was created for residential purposes and has been used for exclusively residential purposes for over two decades. The Applicants' intended use of this residential easement road for a commercial marijuana production and processing facility is an "unreasonable deviation" from the scope of the easement. Id. at 306. It is simply beyond reason to conclude that the construction and operation of a commercial marijuana production and processing facility is a "normal change[] in the manner of use" of a rural residential property, especially considering that marijuana production and processing was illegal at the time the easement was created and is still prohibited by federal law. Id. The Applicants' intended use of the easement road to provide access to and from their commercial marijuana production and processing facility clearly exceeds the scope of the easement and is unlawful. The County must deny all permits for the Facility because there is no lawful access and the Applicant and County have not complied with SEPA. Respectfully, K &LL GATES SLLLP Craig T eblood cc: Stephen Ramsey Karen Page Kristina Mayer Marjorie Boyd Alanna Peterson, K &L Gates Paul Hirsch, Attorney at Law F'pr�5 n a 4 � R on I am here to support rural residential cannabis businesses in Jefferson County, and to encourage county officials to define a pathway for these businesses to operate as expediently as possible. I'm an insurance agent at a well- respected brokerage in Olympia, and because I have an entrepreneurial background I -502 businesses are one of my areas of focus. I routinely assess the real risks these businesses present, and I'm here — first, because Jefferson County has the most responsible and conscientious community of growers I've met and second because the real risks aren't as acute as many people believe. In fact, the opposition to cannabis cultivation derives largely from fears that are, on the whole, unfounded. For example, unemployment has a greater adverse effect on property values on the Olympic Peninsula than cannabis ever will. Olympic Peninsula crime is largely tied to the illegal narcotics trade in which I -502 businesses cannot participate. Pollution, noise, and nuisance statistics used to malign I -502 businesses all assume highly unlikely worst -case scenarios that won't materialize in a legal, above -board industry that's capable of defining and actualizing better methodology. Meanwhile, most I -502 growers who plan to use a rural - residential property are small business entrepreneurs, going all in on a high -risk venture because they believe in that a legal, regulated marijuana industry will reap significant social benefits for the whole county — reduced crime, less experimentation by minors, and less of the real adverse effects of illegal cultivation. As I've gotten to know these people, I've been impressed by their social awareness, their commitment to best practices, and their determination to have a positive impact on their industry and in their community. But they are working against time. The market dynamics are good if you have your license today, but those dynamics will inevitably correct as more supply becomes available. As that happens, it will be harder for new brands to gain recognition and for revenue to balance out the outrageous costs of setting up and maintaining an I -502 business. I fear the fallout that could occur in small communities if the opponents of I -502, driven by ideology or NIMBY self - interest, manage to hold hostage the process of permitting and licensing these businesses. The lawsuits we've heard rumors of would almost certainly be answered by countersuits, and if we allow a garden to become a battlefield the legal carnage will create wounds that will take a long time to heal. It is frustratingly difficult to find believable information on this issue. The media does a poor job of reporting on the regulatory framework in which these businesses are forced to operate. And most of our prior knowledge of marijuana cultivation comes to the mainstream through law enforcement, based on the high - intensity formulae used in illegal grows. Based on that information, the objections are understandable. But a strict moratorium is not the answer, if for no other reason than because it doesn't give you the real, local information you need to proceed in an intelligent manner. By leaving the permitting door open, by allowing some businesses to operate, and by assessing each business's proposal on a case -by -case basis, you will gain local knowledge and insight as the real impact of these businesses becomes apparent. I am confident that you'll find most rural residential producers and processors more than willing to work and compromise in order to make this industry as friendly and beneficial to the county as possible. I encourage you to work with them, and to set aside the heavy hand of a moratorium. Eric Belgau 926 Maple Valley Rd SW Olympia WA 98512 f�°�L 'r ' 4 � y } � i y �"�+ 3 0a $ E 1 I Ms..i Numerous members of the Olympic Peninsula Cannabis Association are in attendance this morning, and all of us share a deep concern for our shared environmental resources. As such, the OPCA is working on guidelines and recommendations for growers to ensure that our members are educated about best management practices to limit or eliminate runoff from the fertilizers and pesticides which may be employed during the course of marijuana production. Due to the clandestine history of marijuana production, there is a great deal of misinformation regarding the horticultural practices and requirements for this plant. In reality, were it not for the extensive security and traceability requirements mandated by the LCB, many of our member's operations would be indistinguishable from any other small scale floriculture or dried herb business. Concerns over marijuana growing and pollution are understandable. Sustainable crop production is a challenge for all farmers, and non point source pollution from agricultural operations is a major concern. Overuse of fertilizers by corn and soybean farmers is one of the main drivers of eutrophication and the subsequent hypoxic conditions that create a 5,000 square mile dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico each summer. Moreover, the copper based fungicides commonly used in fruit, vegetable, flower and grain crops present a special challenge to waterways due to their accumulation in the soil and toxicity to fish. As with any crop, marijuana growers need to institute best management practices to avoid harm to the environment and their crop. The overuse of fertilizer and pesticide is detrimental to both. It is important to bear in mind that licensed marijuana growers are restricted to a small list of approved pesticide products, almost all of which are approved for use within Organic farming systems. Growers must employ these products judiciously. Pesticide contamination can render a crop unmarketable and requirements by the LCB mandate that samples from all harvests are screened. For your reference, I have included a copy of the WSDA's position on pesticide use in marijuana and the list of products approved for use on licensed crops. Regarding Marijuana water use rates, for your reference I would like to submit a document released by the Department of Ecology: "Water resource rules and regulations for marijuana growing in Washington state." Ecology anticipates that all tiers of licensees growing within protected structures will use less water than the 5,000 gallon per day exemption granted for commercial irrigation. While they do not make such predictions for crops grown under open field conditions, the agricultural standard of 1 -2 acre inches per week is a reasonable estimate considering this amount is more than adequate for industrial hemp cultivation. Applying this figure to field grown cannabis still results in even the largest producer using less than the daily exempted amount of water for crop irrigation. Jefferson County was correct in its initial classification of marijuana growing as agriculture. Categorizing the propagation, cultivation and harvesting of a flower as anything else is would be absurd. Public policy should be grounded in science and facts, not fear or myopic considerations. Marijuana growing should be allowed anywhere in Jefferson County where farming is permitted. For your reference, I would like to submit the position of the Washington Sungrower's Industry Association on why marijuana cultivation is agriculture. The WSIA is an organization of outdoor and greenhouse marijuana growers dedicated to shaping policy that is environmentally and economically sustainable in Washington State. Kyle Craig Port Townsend, WA Washington Sungrower's Industry Association http://www.washingtonsungrowers.org/ Agriculture and Cannabis Cannabis, with its myriad benefits, has been grown for thousands of years utilizing a variety of farming practices. Growing Cannabis, or any other crop, is agriculture. Understanding where Cannabis cultivation fits within the agriculture industry requires a bit of background knowledge. Agriculture is the oldest, largest and most important industry on Earth. Simply put, agriculture is the science and practice of farming. It is a primary industry, in which basic resources -- soil, water, energy, minerals -- are used to grow plants and raise livestock. The zoological component of agriculture is often referred to as animal husbandry, and consists of such wide - ranging specializations as dairy farming, pork production, salmon fisheries, beekeeping, and dog breeding. Interestingly, Cannabis in the form a hemp seed cake makes for an excellent livestock feed. The botanical side of agriculture can be divided into agronomy, horticulture and forestry. Forestry is perhaps easiest to explain: the production of trees for lumber and fiber, such as paper pulp. Agronomy is the production of the field crops, a.k.a. agronomic crops, that can be further classified: cereals (or grains), pseudocereals (e.g. quinoa,amaranth, buckwheat, and wild rice), legumes (or pulses, like beans and peanuts), oilseed, pasture and forage crops (e.g. hay), fibers (e.g. flax), sugar crops (e.g. sugar beet) and starchy roots and tubers (e.g. manioc and potatoes). As an agronomic crop, Cannabis is grown for hemp fiber or as a pseudocereal and farmed on a large scale, like other such crops.. Cannabis fiber is versatile in its applications. It is used to manufacture hemp rope, paper, cloth, thermal insulation and other construction materials and industrial components. Cannabis seed is considered a superfood, as it is one of the most nutritious of all grain and pseudograin crops. It can be used as a grain substitute in many food products, or processed into cooking oil, hemp seed milk and beer, protein powder and even hemp butter: the Cannabis equivalent of peanut butter. The seed is also used to manufacture oils, waxes, and resins used in products ranging from skin lotion to machinery lubricants and printing inks. As a horticultural crop, Cannabis is grown for medicinal and recreational uses. The Latin roots of horticulture are hortus (garden) and cultura (cultivation), and horticultural farms are often referred to as gardens, market gardens, orchards, groves, vineyards, nurseries and even plantations. Horticultural crop classifications include vegetables, fruit, nuts, floral, nursery, aromatic and medicinal. Compared to agronomic crops, horticultural crops -- including medicinal and recreational Cannabis -- are produced on a smaller scale but (much) more intensively, particularly when it comes to the manipulation of the growing environment and the plants themselves, the use of technology, and required labor. The cultivation of Cannabis for its medicinal and recreational uses is firmly rooted in the horticulture industry. Cannabis is grown on very small farms -- most often under an acre -- but with the aid of advanced agricultural engineering technologies, such as covered (greenhouse or grow room) production, trellising, pruning, supplemental light and warmth, and labor- intensive harvesting and curing processes. As medicine, Cannabis is processed into many different forms, from pills and tinctures to lotions, cookies and lollipops. Its active ingredients are prescribed for a range of maladies, from muscle spasms caused by multiple sclerosis and nausea from cancer chemotherapy, to Crohn's disease and wasting syndrome. Recreational Cannabis is also consumed in a variety of forms: it is smoked, inhaled as a vapor, or ingested as an ingredient in edibles ranging from baked goods and candies to honey, barbeque sauce and carbonated beverages. Like wine, beer and spirits, it is enjoyed for intoxicating effects, the sensory experience -- aroma &, taste, and often with friends in a social context. Cannabis is both an agronomic and horticultural crop, grown on a large scale for fiber and seed, and a small scale for medicines and recreational use. Similarly, both corn and soybeans are grown as agronomic crops on vast acreages and used in a wide range of food and non -food products. But both are also grown as horticultural crops: soybeans as edamame, and corn as oh -so -sweet corn -on- the -cob. With its manifold uses, forms and cultivation methods, growing Cannabis is agriculture at its most diverse, interesting and beneficial. Frequently Asked Questions Water resource rules and regulations for marijuana growing in Washington state Under Initiative 502, Washington voters in 2012 approved licensing for the production, possession, delivery and sale of marijuana. The initiative makes marijuana subject to the same water use regulations as any other commercial crop in Washington state. Water availability for outdoor growing operations can vary significantly from county to county or water source to water source. Generally, outdoor growing operations have three options for supplying water to plants: • Obtaining water from a water right purveyor such as a public utility district or irrigation district. • Relying on the water right permit exemption for small uses of water. • Obtaining a water right permit. Q: How do I obtain a water right permit In Washington state? A: First check if your property is in an area that allows you to withdraw a limited amount of groundwater under the permit - exemption. This is a simpler solution (see next question). If you cannot use the exemption, a permit is typically obtained by acquiring land with a water right certificate attached to it. If you are a new owner of the property, you must apply to have a permit assigned to you. Applying for a change in the purpose and use of an existing water right is more cost- effective and accomplished easier than applying for and obtaining a new water right. If you have to apply for a new water right or have questions about purchasing an existing water right, contact the Water Resources staff of the regional Dept. of Ecology (Ecology) �.. DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY State of Washington Publication Number: 14 -11 -003 1 Please reuse and recycle office closest to your marijuana growing operation. Staff can direct you on the best way to obtain water for your operation before you spend money and effort preparing a water right application. For more information on the water right application process, go to: http : / /www.ecy.wa.gov/progrrarns /wr /rights /water - right - home.html For more information, on changes and transfers of water rights, go to http: / /,Nw-w.ecy.wa. ov /programs /wr /rights /change transfer use.html Q: How do 1 obtain a water right permit exemption for small uses of water? A: Washington state's water right permit exemption allows the use of well water (groundwater) to: • Provide a water supply of no more than 5,000 gpd for a home or gpd = gallons per day. group of homes. Measurement of how • Water a non - commercial lawn or garden one -half acre in size or much water is used less with no gpd limit. daily. • Water livestock with no gpd limit. • Provide a water supply of no more than 5,000 gpd for a commercial or industrial purpose including indoor and outdoor use. Growers holding a water right under the commercial /industrial exemption may use it to cultivate marijuana but the half acre non - commercial lawn or garden exemption in some basins cannot be transferred to a commercial /industrial exemption for growing marijuana. Find out if your project is exempt from a water right permit: http: / /www.ecy_wa.gov /prams /wr /comy enforce /gwpe.html Use of any exemption varies from watershed to watershed depending upon water availability, mitigation requirements and water use regulations. Q: What restrictions apply to the use of permit- exempt wells? A: Once you drill a water well under Washington's permit exemption and put that water to beneficial use, you hold a water right in Washington state. However, newer water rights are "junior" to older, senior water rights. Therefore the water use of junior water right holders is the first to be curtailed in the event of a drought or impairment of a senior water right drawing from the same water source. Water management rules in certain areas of the state may prohibit new groundwater uses or impose conditions on new groundwater uses that must be met before water can be used. Growers with questions on possible restrictions of their water use should contact their nearest Ecology regional office. Publication Number: 14 -11 -003 2 0 Please reuse and recycle S Q: Will the water use limit of 5,000 gpd under the commercial /industrial exemption provide enough water for growing marijuana? A: Growers are responsible for researching and evaluating their water needs. Current information regarding marijuana water use is largely anecdotal. Growers are being licensed by the state Liquor Control Board in three tiers depending on how much marijuana they intend to grow, but all three tiers are estimated to require less than 5,000 gpd. The tiers by maximum amount (square feet, sf) of marijuana canopy allowed and the estimated amounts of water (gallons per day, gpd) needed for indoor grow operations are: Tier 1— 2,000 sf; 260 gpd Tier 2 – 10,000 sf; 1,300 gpd Tier 3 – 30,000 sf- 3,900 gpd Water needs for outdoor grow operations, where environmental conditions cannot be controlled, are likely much higher and climate variations at different locations in the state is a significant factor in determining the water needs for growing marijuana. Given that marijuana previously has been illegal to cultivate, the state does not have the same level of data regarding the irrigation needs for various locations across the state as it possesses for traditional crops. Q: Will 1 be able to use water from my irrigation district to grow marijuana? A: In May 2014, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) announced that use of USBR water or facilities (reservoirs, canals, pumps, etc.) for any activities related to the cultivation and distribution of marijuana is prohibited under the Controlled Substance Act of 1970. This means any irrigation district supplied by USBR projects can not provide water for marijuana irrigation. In Washington state, the USBR operates two large reclamation projects: the Yakima Basin Project and the Columbia Basin Project. Even though marijuana cultivation is legal under state law, Washington cannot require USBR– and the irrigation districts it contracts with – to supply water for marijuana production. There are no USBR projects in western Washington but you should contact your irrigation district to determine if water is available for marijuana irrigation. Q: Can rainwater be collected and stored to cultivate marijuana? A: Yes. Rainwater collection systems are legal in Washington state and do not require a water right. They can be used to store water collected in the wet season for later use. Groundwater from exempt wells can also be pumped to a storage tank or cistern that is part of the rainwater collection system and stored until needed, as long as the 5,000 gpd limit is not exceeded. Collected rain or groundwater can only be used on the same parcel from which it was captured. More information on rainwater collection: bM: / /www.ecy.wa.gov /programs /wr /hq /rwh.html Publication Number: 14 -11 -003 3 �"i. Please reuse and recycle Washington State Department of Agriculture Pesticide Management Division Criteria for Pesticides Used for the Production of Marijuana in Washington September 2014 The following represents the opinion of the Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) regarding the criteria for pesticides that may be used for the production of marijuana (Cannabis) in Washington. This opinion may be rescinded or superseded at any time by the WSDA. 1. Pesticides that require federal registration by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Section 3 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA): o EPA and WSDA registration is required prior to distribution of the pesticide. o Prior to planting marijuana outdoors (such as a field), use of a pesticide (e.g., broad spectrum herbicide, soil fumigant) is allowed if the food crop to be planted following application is not specified on the label. o Prior to planting marijuana in an enclosed facility (such as a greenhouse), use of a pesticide (e.g., disinfectant, sanitizer) is allowed to control microorganisms on surfaces (such as benches, floors, pallets, pots, skids). o Use of a pesticide on marijuana is allowed if: • The active ingredient is exempt from the requirements of a tolerance (e.g., auxins, biopesticides [most active ingredients], copper, cytokinins, gibberellins, petroleum oil, phosphorous acid, pyrethrins, soap, sulfur), and • The label has directions for use on unspecified food crops, home gardens or herbs (outdoor or enclosed), including unspecified food crops or herbs grown as bedding plants. (Marijuana will not be specifically listed as a crop on the pesticide label.) 2. Section 25b minimum risk pesticides (exempt from federal registration): o WSDA registration is required prior to distribution of the pesticide. o Use on marijuana is allowed if the product is labeled for use on unspecified food crops, home gardens or herbs (outdoor or enclosed), including unspecified food crops or herbs grown as bedding plants. (Marijuana will not be specifically listed as a crop on the pesticide label.) WSDA has compiled a list of pesticides that fit the above criteria for use on marijuana. The list is not an endorsement or a recommendation regarding the use of any specific pesticide for the production of marijuana in Washington. The list has been provided to the Washington State Liquor Control Board and the Washington State Department of Health, and will be updated by WSDA as needed. A searchable list of these pesticides is available from the Washington State University Pesticide Information Center Online (PICOL) database (http: / /cru66.cahe .wsu.edu /LabelTolerance.html). In order to view the list on PICOL, select WA, current year only, 1- 502/1- 692(WA only) equals yes, and click submit query. You can either view the list, or export it to Excel. AGR PUB 701 -398 (R/9/14) Do you need this publication in an alternate format? Contact the Page 1 of 2 WSDA Receptionist at (360) 902 -1976 or TTY Relay 800 - 833 -5388. Backaround Information: Both state and federal law require that pesticides be applied according to label directions. As part of the directions for use, pesticide labels will specify the particular crops and /or sites to which they can be applied. Depending on the particular pesticide, the crops /sites listed on the label can be expressed very specifically (e.g., "wheat "), or more generally (e.g., "grain crops "). While a pesticide with a label that specifies "wheat" can only be applied to wheat, a pesticide that lists "grain crops' on the label can be applied to wheat, barley, oats, rye, etc. In determining which pesticides, if any, might be used legally on marijuana, the WSDA asked the EPA if marijuana might fit into any general crop groups, such as herbs, spices or vegetable gardens. EPA's current position is that marijuana is not an herb, a spice or a vegetable. EPA considers marijuana to be a controlled substance, and has indicated that marijuana is not listed as a crop /site on any pesticide label. However, EPA does concede that, depending on actual label language, pesticides may be legally used on marijuana under certain other very general types of crops/sites when there is an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. Pesticide active ingredients that do not have any labeled uses on food crops include the plant growth regulators daminozide and paclobutrazol. These active ingredients cannot be used on marijuana grown in Washington, since an exemption from tolerance has not been established by the EPA. Mariivana Reaulation in Washinaton: In 1998, Washington voters approved Initiative 692 (1 -692), which authorized the medical use of marijuana by patients with qualifying conditions. Medical marijuana information is available from the Washington State Department of Health. In 2011, Governor Christine Gregoire (WA) and Governor Lincoln Chafee (RI) petitioned the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to reclassify Cannabis for medical use from a Schedule I controlled substance to a Schedule II controlled substance. The DEA has not made a determination on the petition. In 2012, Washington voters approved Initiative 502 (1 -502), which authorized the recreational use of marijuana by adults 21 years of age and older. Recreational marijuana is regulated by the Washington State Liquor Control Board (LCB). In 2013, Governor Jay Inslee (WA) contacted U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder regarding marijuana regulation in Washington. Governor Inslee requested that WSDA assist the LCB. LCB developed rules for regulating recreational marijuana, including limits on the use of pesticides and fertilizers. The U.S. Department of Justice provided written guidance regarding the marijuana enforcement priorities of the federal government. For information regarding recreational marijuana production (including pesticide use), contact the Marijuana Examiner Program (LCB) at 360- 664 -1614 or email mjexaminer @lcb.wa.gov. For information regarding the registration of pesticides, contact Erik Johansen (Special Pesticide Registration Program Coordinator) at 360- 902 -2078 or email ejohansen @agr.wa.gov. For information regarding how to comply with the pesticide label, contact Joel Kangiser (Program Manager, Compliance Services) at 360- 902 -2013 or email jangiser @agr.wa.gov. AGR PUB 701 -398 (R/9/14) Do you need this publication in an alternate format? Contact the Page 2 of 2 WSDA Receptionist at (360) 902 -1976 or TTY Relay 800 - 833 -6388. i € lREGISTRATNT 1 ` NAME Sect 18Sect 'NAME IEPA 'INGREDIENT !CONCENTRATION 18 Expiration _ _— t i8119-7 HINDER CONC. DEER & AMMONIUM SALTS OF RABBIT REPELLENT [20 ;FATTY ACIDS` 13.800 %MATSON LLC I 'HINDER RTU DEER & !AMMONIUM SALTS OF i RABBIT REPELLENT [21 :8119 -8 ;FATTY ACIDS i _ 0.6600 0/b MATSONLLC i IGRANT R -T -U RO -PEL DEER & €8119 -8- 3AMMONIUM SALTS OF LABORATORIESTT j ;RABBIT REPELLENT [26 :1663 !FATTY ACIDS 0.6600 ° /a INC. 1 t ` € } AMAZIN 1.2% ME PLUS €5481 -5S (AMVAC CHEMICAL [ -OMRI- [79 9 AZADIRACHTIN 1.200 %I,CORR (AZA- DIRECT E � (BIOLOGICAL 71908 -1i I k !INSECTICIDE [44 1-10163 1AZADIRACHTIN j 1.200 %(GOWAN CO• �AZAGUARD BOTANICAL ;INSECTICIDE/ 70299 -1� i NEMATICIDE[18 �7 AZADIRACHTIN 3.00% BIOSAFE SYSTEMS r .AZAHAR BOTANICAL (71908 -1� INSECTICIDE [74 10163 IAZADIRACHTIN 1.200 %jGOWAN CO. j AZAMAX BOTANICAL € 9 3 INSECTICIDET[ € € iMITICIDET[ & 71908-1 NEMATICIDE[1 -81268 AZADIRACHTIN 1.200 %lPARRY AMERICA !AZASOL[1�� 181899- 41AZADIRACHTIN. 6600 %° SOLUNEEM INC ;AZATIN XL BIOLOGICAL =70051 -2? INSECTICIDE[17 i7- 59807.AZADIRACHTIN 3.00 %jOHPINC. IAZERA INSECTICIDE / ORGANIC PRODUCTION 1021 -18; MCLAUGHLIN [46 72 AZADIRACHTIN 1.200 %'GORMLEY KING (DEBUG TURBO [3 170310- 5[AZADIRACHIIN i �AGRO LOGISTIC 1 0.700 %lSYSTEMSINC ECOZIN PLUS 1.2% ME 15481 -551 !AMVAC CHEMICAL j[72 i 19 IAZADIRACHTIN 3 1.200 ° /a CORP. IGORDONS PRO T &O I i lAZATROLEC 12217 -831 ! 16 1PBI /GORDON 1 [INSECTICIDE [68 m JAZADIRACHTIN 1.200% !CORPORATION ! ! MOLT -X [11 ;68539 -1? (1 3AZADIRACHTIN 3.00% BIOWORKS INC M �NEEMAZAD 1% EC i €# INSECT GROWTH REGULATOR /ORGAN S 70051 -11 j PRODUCTION [24 04 1AZADIRACHTIN ; 1.00 %3CERTIS USA LLC r NEEMIX 4.5IGR [18 y 170051- 9!AZADIRACHTIN i 4.500% CERTIS USA LLC i ORNAZIN 3% EC BOTANICAL f ! j 15481 -47I 3 ISEPRO INSECTICIDE [3 6- 67690'' °yAZADIRACHTIN 3.00 %jCORP0 RATION SAFER BRAND BIONEEM j iMULTI -PURP. 'INSECT &REPELL CONC. 170051 -6• ` �WOODSTREAM [99 -42697 AZADIRACHTIN 0.0900 0/1dCORR 3 PRO -MIX BIOFUNGICIDE =;,BACILLUS PUMILUSTT ( PREMIER jHORTICULTURETT + MYCORRHIZAE [ 11 174267- 41STRAIN GHA 180 ft 0.00100 %!INC. f i I 3PRO -MIX BRK _ PREMIER BIOFUNGICIDE + BACILLUS PUMILUSTI HORTICULTURETI (((, MYCORRHIZAE [8 74267- 4ESTRAIN GHA 180 I 0.00100 %!INC. i PRO -MIX BRK20 I 4 1 jPREMIER IBIOFUNGICIDE + j BACILLUS PUMILUS11 ;74267 -4 STRAIN GHA 180 INURI ICULTURETI 0.00100% INCA MYCORRHIZAE [9 'PRO -MIX BX- GENERAL (PREMIER ;PURPOSE GROWING BACILLUS PUMILUSTT HORTICULTURETf jMEDIUM [6 74267- 41SST-RAIN GHA 180 E i 0.00100 %IIINC. i ;PRO -MIX HP- GENERAL I t jPREMIER E PURPOSE GROWING E BACILLUS PUMILUST7 1HORTICULTUREIT MEDIUM [7 '.74267 -4 STRAIN GHA 180 0.00100 %!INC. I IPRO -MIX LP15 IBIOFUNGICIDE + BACILLUS PUMILUSTT 174267-4 iPREMIER HORTICULTURETT MYCORRHIZAE[10 STRAIN GHA 180 7 0.00100% INC. COMPANION LIQ �BIOLOGICALFUNG GREENHOUSEI7 ENURSERY &ORNA i :BACILLUS SUBTILIS 'GROWTH CROP2 -3 -2 [2 X71065 -3 GB03 0.0300 %!PRODUCTSTI LTD - COMPANION LIQ (BIOLOGICAL FUNG HYDROPONICS 2 -3 -2 [3 +i 'BACILLUS SUBTILIS i 171065 -3 GB03 'GROWTH 0.0300% PRODUCTSIT LTD SAYER ADVANCED I jNATRIDISEASE j �BAYER R -T -U / 1264 -115 BACILLUS SUBTILIS ADVANCED ((CONTROL 3 ORGANIC GARDENING I4 -72155 QST713 STRAIN 0.07400 %!LLC BAYER ADVANCED NATRIA DISEASE I CONTROL R -T -SPRAY / 264 -116 BACILLUS SUBTILIS I =BAYER ADVANCED I ORGANIC GARDENING 1- 72155QST713 STRAIN 1.3400% 1 LLC 3 0 ;CEASE BIOLOGICAL ! !FUNGICIDE /ORGANIC 169592-1 BACILLUS SUBTILIS ! j PRODUCTION [7 '9- 68539;QST713 STRAIN 1.3400 %'BIOWORKS INC i)AZZ /ORGANIC 4264 -115 BACILLUS SUBTILIS gBAYER PRODUCTION [218 '1 'QST713 STRAIN i 14.600 %[CROPSCIENCE LP 3 ! ' PLANTGUARDIAN BIOFUNGICID LIQUID ' 1264 -115 BACILLUS SUBTILIS � j GARDENS ALIVE! !CONC [37 2- 56872'QST713 STRAIN 1.3400% INC. PLANT GUARDIAN j x(( I �BIOFUNGICIDE ;264- 115iBACILLUS SUBTILIS ! ;GARDENS ALIVE! iWETTABLE POWDER [38 1- 56872:QST713 STRAIN 14.600 %ZINC. 69592 -1 BACILLUS SUBTILIS RHAPSODY [10 19 jQST713 STRAIN 1.3400 %:AGRAQUESTTI INC.{ j 1264- 115'BACILLUS SUBTILIS 1 BAYER SERENADE ASO [214 ;2 STRAIN ? 1.3400 %CROPSCIENCE LP{' ^mQST713 1SERENADE GARDEN % iDISEASE CONTROL- !RTU- /ORGANIC 1264-115 !BACILLUS SUBTILIS IBAYER GARDENING [212 14 QST713 STRAIN _RAIN .e.._��..,..0 0.07400 %ICROPSCIENCE LP �..- ...,..� ?SERENADE GARDEN ! ! ?DISEASE CONTROL 1264 -115 BACILLUS SUBTILIS I BAYER (CONC.[216 12 !QST713 STRAIN j 1.3400 %ICROPSCIENCE LP _ SERENADE GARDEN !DISEASE CONTROL R -T- I i I264- 115 BACILLUS SUBTILIS jBAYER ISPRAY [217 2 �QST713 STRAIN I 1.3400% CROPSCIENCE LP I 264- 115 BACILLUS SUBTILIS BAYER SERENADE MAX [213 !1 QST713 STRAIN I 14.600 %iCROPSCIENCE LP 0 I � FBACILLUS SUBTILIS [ iDOUBLE NICKEL 55 =70051- 11AMYLOLIQUEFACIENS s BIOFUNGICIDE [35 los gSTRAIN D747 TGAI 25.00 %CERTI5 USA LLC i BACILLUS SUBTILIS VAR. DOUBLE NICKEL LC ,70051- 1i�AMYLOLIQUEFACIENS iBIOFUNGICIDE [36 107 'STRAIN D747 TGAI 98.850091. CERTIS USA LLC ! BACILLUS SUBTILIS ; E � i !70051-1 VAR. !GARDEN SENTINEL ` =07 -5687 AMYLOLIQUEFACIENS i !GARDENS ALIVE! ;BIOFUNGICIDE [39 12 iSTRAIN D747 TGAI 98.8500% ZINC. � I c � 3 1 PREMIER ,PREMIER PRO -MIX BX !!BACILLUS SUBTILISTT 1 HORTICULTURET! IW /BIOFUNGICIDE [5 74267 -11MBI 600 0.00100 %ZINC. s ' PREMIER ;PRO -MIX W/ BACILLUS SUBTILIST[ HORTICULTURETj 1BIOFUNGICIDE [1 174267- 1jMBI600 0.00100 %,INC. !BACILLUS ' VALENT 'XENTARIDRY FLOWABLE 73049 -4 THU UNGIENSIS SSP. ! BIOSCIENCES /ORGANIC PRODUCTION D AIZAWAI � 54.00% CORP. j BACILLUS ? VALENT ;73049- 11THURINGIENSIS SSP. ; BIOSCIENCES 3GNATROL 71 3ISRAELENSIS 6.3800% CORP. BIOBIT HP BIO (INSECTICIDE WETTABLE; (BACILLUS ! VALENT POWDER /ORGANIC 173049- 51THURINGIENSIS SSP. i ( BIOSCIENCES PRODUCTION [34 14 ;KURSTAKI 1 58.200% CORP € j DIPEL PRO OF E BACILLUS ,VALENT {BIOLOGICAL 173049 -3 THURINGIENSIS SSP. BIOSCIENCES =INSECTICIDE DRY FLOW !9mmKURSTAKI 1 54:00% CORP. i [jBACILLUS VALENT FORAY XG BIOLOGICAL 73049- 41THURINGIENSIS SSP. 3 �BIOSCIENCES 1 `INSECTICIDE [40 16 _ ,KURSTAKI 1 17.190001-11COPR 5 ` jBACILLUS ` �CRYMAX 70051- 8?THURINGIENSIS SSP. BIOINSECTICIDE [16 j6 iKURSTAKY7841 40.0 ° /a;CERTIS USA LLC __.r. _.._.._. ._ �... ...._. , j BACILLUS f MONTEREY B.t. RTU / i70051- 11THURINGIENSIS SSP. ORGANIC GARDENING 13- 5470 KURSTAKI STRAIN :LAWN &GARDEN ;[98 5 xSA -12 9.8300%'F PRODUCTS INC. i [ =LILLY MILLER ;GONG WORRYFREE :BRANDS - li NEGOL YEAR-ROUND '67702 -4f 1 CENTRAL GARDEN i PESTICIDAL OIL [97 -33116 jCANOLA OIL 96.00 11,g& PET ' t EARTH -TONE INSECT 67702 -5, i ESPOMA CONTROL CONC. [4 -83598 !CANOLA OIL j 89.500 9/61COMPANYTT THE _ GARDEN SAFE BRAND INSECTICIDE CONC DORMANT USE ,ORGANIC GARDENING ;67702 -4' �SCHULTZ j [78 39609 ICANOLA OIL 96.00 %lCOMPANY L/M VEGOL YEAR- LILLY MILLER ROUND PESTICIDAL i ;BRANDS — OIL/ORGANIC 67702 -41 !CENTRAL GARDEN GARDENING [83 -33116 1CANOLA OIL 96.00 %1& PET �l I I i MONTEREY TAKE DOWN 67702 -5 !LAWN &GARDEN €GARDEN SPRAY [28- 54705CANOLA OIL 89.500 %!PRODUCTS INC. j _...._ _.,._... I � � LILLY MILLER �WORRYFREE BRAND 1BRANDS- 'GARDENINSECT 167702 -6; CENTRALGARDEN CONTROL R -T -U [87 ' -33116 1CANOLA OIL i 1.00% &PET (MOLE &VOLE STOPPER ; IyMESSINA CONC /ORGANIC 82165 -1 ( I WILDLIFE GROWERS [14 0002 jCASTOR OIL `[ 46,6600% !MANAGEMENT I iMESSINA i MOLE & VOLE STOPPER 82165 -1; WILDLIFE GRANULAR [20 _-_._ ;2005 CASTOR OIL _____ 9.900% €MANAGEMENT 0 IORTHO MOLE B GON j MOLE & VOLE jREPELLENT GRANULES 239 -120 lORTHO GROUPTT ' [260 09 CASTOR OIL 9.900 %=:THE IORTHO MOLE B GON !MOLE & VOLE REPELLENT R -T -SPRAY 1239 -1201 =0RTHO GROUPTT ([254 04 !CASTOR OIL 23.3300% !THE i CHROMOBACTERIUM 184059 -1 SUB STRAIN PRAA4 -1 ! !ENGAGE AGRO GRANDEVO PTO [2 7 -87865 CELLS 30.0° /a!USA -TSG- CHROM----1 IMARRUME BIO 84059 -1 SUB STRAIN PRAA4 -1 ;INNOVATIONS - lGRANDEVO [5 7 CELLS 30.Of/ S. i y t 1 CHROMOBACTERIUM i IMARRONE BID iMBI -203 EP !84059 -1 SUB STRAIN PRAA4 -1 j !INNOVATIONS - j BIOINSECTICIDE [4 10 CELLS ! 94.500 0/blTSG - sDR. EARTH FINAL STOP [ ! ROSE & FLOWER INSECT 99952 -1 i DR. EARTH !KILLER [6 2002 CINNAMON 0.0300 %COMPANY I E I ! i CDR. EARTH FINAL STOP € 3 ? !YARD & GARDEN INSECT 99952 -1 : DR. EARTH ! !KILLER [5 2001 CINNAMON 0.03000% COMPANY 1 !DR. EARTH FINAL STOP ! I ! I ISNAIL &SLUG KILLER 99952 -1 ! DR. EARTH {SPRAY [9 4003 CINNAMON OIL I 0.0300% COMPANY t IED ROSENTHALS ZERO ! I TOLERANCE HERBAL (PESTICIDE CONC 99810 -1 3001 CINNAMON OIL NATURAL GARDEN 4.00 %1SOLUTIONS [1 ED ROSENTHALS ZERO ! TOLERANCE HERBAL 99810 -1 NATURAL GARDEN !PESTICIDE RTU [2 13002 ;CINNAMON OIL 0.200% SOLUTIONS NATURAL ORGANIC GARDNER &BLOOME i99865-11 FRUITT[ VEG & HERB KELLOGG GARDEN INSECT SPRAY RTU [2 :0001 CINNAMON OIL 0.200 %s PRODUCTS 3 ? !MAC —S MIRACLE 199821 -1 ii ;MILDEW WASH [1 13001 ;CITRIC ACID 99.00% M A C INC 199794 MARCO i -1 ;INDUSTRIEST[ NUKE EM [1 14001 CITRIC ACID j 0.0500 %i !DBA FLYING SKULL] 4 j NATURAL PLANT 1BIO MITE [1 170057- 11CITRONELLA OIL 0.41700% 'PROTECTION = BAYER ADVNATRIA i NEEM OIL CONC / l jROSEST[ FLOWERSFr € ]CLARIFIED a (FRUITS &VEG./ 170051 -2 HYDROPHOBIC # ]BAYER ADVANCED j !ORGANIC GARDENING 1 -72155 ;EXTRACT OF NEEM OIL 70.0 %1LLC _ BONIDE BON —NEEM II FUNGICIDE— MITICIDE— ]CLARIFIED 1INSECTICIDE CONC. 70051-7 !HYDROPHOBIC ` IBONIDE 3 [239 5 -4 'EXTRACT OF NEEM OIL `[ 70.0% !PRODUCTS INC ! ;CLARIFIED VOLUNTARY FERTI—LOME TRIPLE 70051- 1 HYDROPHOBIC [ PURCHASING ACTION R —T —S [211 111- 7401 EXTRACT OF NEEM OIL j 70.0% GROUPS i [ 3 !CLARIFIED t [ VOLUNTARY FERTI—LOME TRIPLE ACTION X70051 -1l HYDRO PHOBIC PURCHASING [225 111 -74011 EXTRACT OF NEEM OIL 70.0% GROUPS 1 170051- 1?CLARIFIED 'FRUIT TREE SPRAY PLUS 11- 5470 ='HYDROPHOBIC j LAWN &GARDEN 1[97 i5 5EXTRACT OF NEEM OIL' 70.0% PRODUCTS INC. 1 j 1 3 j CLARIFIED ! ;GARDEN SAFE 170051 -2 HYDROPHOBIC ISCHULTZ !FUNGICIDE 3 CONC [30 1-39609 !EXTRACT OF NEEM OIL 1 70.0% %COMPANY H I ?CLARIFIED 'GREEN LIGHTT A !GREEN LIGHT NEEM ;70051-2 HYDROPHOBIC ! (VALENT USA CONC.[61 85827 EXTRACT OF NEEM OIL; 70.0% COMPANY l sCLARIFIED (VOLUNTARY NATURAL GUARD BRAND [70051- 2[ HYDROPHOBIC PURCHASING NEEM [223 j -7401 !EXTRACT OF NEEM OIL 70.0 %[GROUPS IORTHO TREE & SHRUB k CLARIFIED !FRUIT TREE SPRAY 170051 -7 HYDROPHOBIC ORTHO GROUPTT ] f CONC [263 5-239 EXTRACT OF NEEM OIL [ 70.0 %;THE I TRILOGY FUNGICIDE / j !CLARIFIED i I t [MITICIDE /INSECTICIDE E[! HYDROPHOBIC i ? 2 — ;70051-21 EXTRACT NEEM OIL —! 70.0 9/ajCERTIS USA LLC i 3BONIDE MITE X RTU I ! 14-04001 !CLOVE OIL � `BONIDE 0.200 %PRODUCTS INC [79 E DR. EARTH FINAL STOP DISEASE CONTROL 99952 -11 1D,.EARTH FUNGICIDE [8 4002 ;CLOVE OIL S 0.0500 %COMPANY �ED ROSENTHALS ZERO TOLERANCE HERBAL 99810-11 NATURAL GARDEN PESTICIDE CONC [1 ;3001 ;CLOVE OIL s 2.00% SOLUTIONS � � I JED ROSENTHALS ZERO ITOLERANCE HERBAL 199810 -11 [ NATURAL GARDEN PESTICIDE RTU [2 13002 CLOVE OIL ! 0.100 %SOLUTIONS s .r_,._..._3 NATURAL ORGANIC GARDNER &BLOOME I FRUITIT VEG & HERB 99865 -11 KELLOGG GARDEN !INSECT SPRAY RTU [2 0001 !CLOVE OIL i 0.200% PRODUCTS i 3 i 4 i 1 NATURE —CIDE ALL PURPOSE INSECTICIDE ;90395 -1° ! PACIFIC SHORE [1 14001 CLOVE OIL 0.0500 %HOLDINGS 9 -------------- PESTOUT BROAD SPECTRUM MITICIDE/ 168573-0 i!INSECTICIDE [13 :9001 CLOVE OIL 20.0WJH BIOTECHTF INC. IRID-BUGS AN ORGANIC 199892-0 ! !AZ ENTERPRISES ;INSECTICIDE [1 18001 iCLOVE OIL 2.000/61INC. 168573-01 SAFERGRO PEST OUT [9 i8003 !CLOVE OIL 0.2000/o!,JH BIOTECHTT INC. I SNS 203 CONC JNATURAL PESTICIDE 199866-11 !SIERRA NATURAL !SOIL DRENCH/SPRAY 0094 CLOVE OIL 1.500%'SCIENCE SNS 244C ALL NATURAL 199866-14 CONC FUNGICIDE 0�1 !CLOVE OIL SIERRA N ATURAL 0.200% SCIENCE � UI_ 1 �SPORATEC BROAD SPECTRUM FUNGICIDE 148813-01 J3 19003 !CLOVE OIL 10.0%IBRANDI !CONSOLIDATED BONIDE LIQUID COPPER' FUNGICIDE CONC 167702-21 !ORGANIC GARDENING ' BONIDE [112 1-4 !COPPER OCTANOATE 10.0% PRODUCTS INC ___. --_e.. BONIDE LIQUID COPPER FUNGICIDE R-T-U ORGANIC PRODUCTION 167702-1 BONIDE [152 -4 'COPPER OCTANOATE j 0.0800% PRODUCTS INC CAMELOT 0 FUNGICIDE/( BACTERICIDE /ORGANIC 167702-2 1SEPRO 'PRODUCTION [56 i-67690 !COPPER OCTANOATE 10.00. CORPORATION iCUEVA FUNGICIDE CONC FLOWABLE LIQUID COPPER 1677"0,212 LFUNGICIDE [28 -7 . COPPER OCTANOATE 10 .0% CERTIS, USA LLC 10 i i MIRACLE —GRO NATURE — tS CARE GARDEN !67702 -1 E MIRACLE —GRO DISEASE CONTROL —62355 COPPER OCTANOATE 0.0800% LAWN PRODTT INC Y i jNATURAL GUARD I ;VOLUNTARY COPPER SOAP LIQUID !67702 -2i !PURCHASING ' FUNGICIDE [140 7401 COPPER OCTANOATE 10.0 %:GROUPS c.._.---.. ....._._._...._U___..�_�.,...e. j i [ z [ ORTHO DISEASE B GON $ j COPPER FUNGICIDE ;67702 -21 ORTHO GROUPTT CONC [207 1-239 !COPPER OCTANOATE 10.0% THE i 'ORTHO DISEASE B GON § (ll COPPER FUNGICIDE R —T— ;67702 -1 ORTHO GROUPTT U [208 1-239 COPPER OCTANOATE 0.08000WIHE ORTHO ELEMENTALS ` GARDEN DISEASE 67702 -11 ORTHO GROUPTT [[CONTROL [220 —239 COPPER OCTANOATE 0.0800 %THE 68573-0' ' s iMILDEW CURE [14 9002 CORN OIL 3 30.0 0/o!JH BIOTECHTT INC. 15AFERGRO MILDEW (68573 —O 1 ([( €CURE [10 ,8004 ;CORN OIL 1 0.300 %1]H BIOTECHTT INC. �BONIDE BONIDE MITE X RTU [79 !4 -04001 COTTONSEED OIL 0.400 %1PRODUCTS INC I I I 68573 -0 MILDEW CURE [14 9002 t COTTONSEED OIL 30.0% JH BIOTECHTT INC. � E ____ 's, 3 NATURE —CIDE ALL ` PURPOSE INSECTICIDE 90395 -1l PACIFIC SHORE [1 4001 1COT7ONSEED OIL 0.0500% HOLDINGS 11 12 3 PESTOUT BROAD ;SPECTRUM MITICIDE/ 368573 -0; �INSECTICIDE [13 '9001 ;COTTONSEED OIL ! 40.0 %3JH BIOTECHTT INC. 3 SAFERGRO MILDEW 168573 -0; CURE [10 ;8004 =COTTONSEED OIL 0.300 %'JH BIOTECHTT INC. i 368573 -0 3 'SAFERGRO PEST OUT [9 18003 !COTTONSEED OIL `` 0.400 %!JH BIOTECHTT INC. , i jCYTOPLEX HMS [4 58199 -7 CYTOKININS 0.0100 %!,PBT INC j jWESTBRIDGE FOLIAR TRIGGRR PGR 51517 CYTOKININS AGRICULTURAL %PROD. -4 0.01200 151517 -41 !CONKLIN FOLIAR X -CYT...._ O PGR [2 1- 11600CYTOKININS .. 0.017300 %`j COMPANY INC. !DRIED FERM.SLDS/ j ISLBS OF ` iDITERA DF BIOLOGICAL 173049- 6iMYROTHECIUM IVALENT 1BIOSCIENCES 3NEMATICIDE 17 lVERRUCARIA 90A% CORP. i BIOMITE[1 ;70057- 1'FARNESOL 3 'NATURAL PLANT 0.16700% !PROTECTION �BIOLINKINSECT i WESTBRIDGE 3 REPELLANT GARLIC 51517 -0 JUICE 3002 GARLICOIL/POWDER JAGRICULTURAL i 20.0% ?PROD. i j 1BONIDE , 3 B� ONIDE MITE X RTU [79 '4 -04001 GARLIC OIL /POWDER m 0.100 %,PRODUCTS INC -- ----1 12 DR. EARTH FINAL STOP ROSE & FLOWER INSECT�99952 -1 JDR. EARTH KILLER [6 ;2002 ;GARLIC OIL /POWDER 0.0200 %COMPANY ._ . _._ _ i E j ; JDR. EARTH FINAL STOP ; (1 ISNAIL & SLUG KILLER ,99952 -1 `DR. EARTH SPRAY [9 14003 GARLIC OIL /POWDER 0.02009/b COMPANY 3 DR. EARTH FINAL STOP YARD &GARDEN INSECT 99952 -1 DR. EARTH KILLER [S ;2001 ;GARLIC OIL /POWDER 0.0300% COMPANY I !68573 -0 !MILDEW CURE [14 39002 ;GARLIC OIL/POWDER 1 23.00 %jJH BIOTECHTf INC.: 3 I g ? j PESTOUT BROAD SPECTRUM MITICIDE/ 68573 -D jINSECTICIDE [13 !9001 ?GARLIC OIL/POWDER 10.0% JH BIOTECHTf INC. I SAFERGRO MILDEW 68573 -0 CURE [10 ;8004 IGARLIC OIL /POWDER 0.2300 - /.I H BIOTECHTf INC. ! 3 68573 -D, I SAFERGRO PEST OUT [9 8003 'GARLIC OIL /POWDER 0.100 %iJH BIOTECHfT INC. j I 'NATURAL PLANT BIOMITE[1 700( 57_131GERANIOL 0.41700% PROTECTION._._. i ! MESSINA !MOLE &VOLE STOPPER 82165 -1 ° WILDLIFE iGRANULAR[20 ,20D5.._._..._...GERANIOL 0.9700 % MANAGEMENT 0 l ORTHO MOLE B GON !MOLE & VOLE REPELLENT GRANULES 239 -120! I ORTHO GROUPTf 7[260 109 GERANIOL _ 0.9700 0/aj ^THE 13 14 (�ORTHO MOLE B GON ( MOLE & VOLE E s :REPELLENT R -T -SPRAY 9239 -120 ORTHO GROUPTT J254 X04 =GERANIOL 1.00% THE 'CYTOPLEX HMS [4 ;58199- 7!GIBBERELLIC ACID 0.00400 %f #PBT INC GA3 20% PGR SOLUBLE 188031 -1' TGIBBERELLIC POWDER [9 5 ACID s 20.0 %!CP BID INC 155146 { iNUFARM GIBGRO 20% POWDER - -5 +AMERICAS INC: !GIBBERELLIC ACID- [2 ' =.3 lGIBBERELLIC ACID i 20.0 %1AGT DIVISION - GIBGRO 4LS -4% GIBBERELLIC -6 [ ' NUFARM 1AMERICAS INC: !LIQUID jAACCID -[5 ,55146 i2 ?GIBBERELLIC ACID 4.00 %1AGT DIVISION E t ESTOLLER iN -LARGE PGR !SOLUTION [5 57538 -11 i8 GIBBERELLIC ACID } IENTERPRISESIT 4.00 %'INC. 1SOILGARD MICROBIAL s iGLIOCLADIUM VIRENS E ''FUNGICIDE [33 ..,��.._ 170051- 31G -21 _..0.. -_ ........_.... _. �._ 12.00°//bICCERTIS USA LLC _._._. ... -._.� 3 i l 3 t ? I � I HYDROGEN PEROXIDE HDHAGRI HDH PEROXY[3 483103- 1y(DIOXIDE) 27.00% PRODUCTS ! 3 e ? i AUSTIN GRANT 1HYDROGENPEROXIDE INC. /JETHARVEST IJET -AG [5 (81803- 6i(DIOXIDE) ' l 26.500% SOLUTIONS � (OXIDATE 2 0 [24 70299 -1 HYDROGEN PEROXIDE 12 !(DIOXIDE) i 27.100% BIOSAFE SYSTEMS 14 OXIDATE R -T -SPRAY 3 3 FUNGICIDE 70299- 1 HYDROGEN PEROXIDE BACTERICIDE[19 6 '(DIOXIDE) _ 5.3400 ° /a BIOSAFE SYSTEMS} „.._._.., ..F ._ 1 i ;83103-11 HYDROGEN PEROXIDE i lPEROX -CIDE [40 1 -43553 !(DIOXIDE) 27.00 %iCH20 INC. i r]I !HYDROGEN PEROXIDE A GROWING PERPOSE PLUS [1 8f 6729- 1!(DIOXIDE) 33.00% ALTERNATIVE INC ) i { 170299-1 !HYDROGEN PEROXIDE 3 ZEROTOL 2.0 [23 12 (DIOXIDE) 27.100% i BIOSAFE SYSTEMS I m i � 1 tZEROTOL R -T -SPRAY 3 1FUNGICIDE 70299 -1'i HYDROGEN PEROXIDE 'BACTERICIDE [20 6 I(DIOXIDE) 5.3400% BIOSAFE SYSTEMS �CLONEX ROOTING GEL : ;IBA (INDOLE -3- GROWTH ![1 !79664- 114BUTYRIC ACID) 0.3100 %TECHNOLOGY LTD I i ; JIBA (INDOLE -3- I (CYTOPLEX HMS [4 158199 -7 BUTYRIC ACID) 0.00500% PBT INC j } i ! i !GARDEN SAFE TAKEROOT ROOTING 59807 -4 IBA (INDOLE- 3- SCHULTZ HORMONE [80 -39609 BUTYRIC ACID) 0.100% COMPANY GARDENTECH ROOTBOOST ROOTING 159807 -4 =IBA (INDOLE -3- i H! ORMONE I -71004 IBUTYRIC ACID) i 0. 100% PACT[ L.L.C. i i �. j I HORTUS IBA WATER :63310 -2 1IBA (INDOLE -3- HORTUS USA SOLUBLE SALTS [1 12 BUTYRIC ACID) 20.0 %CORP 15 ;JUICY ROOTS ROOTING € !GEL ROOTING jIBA (INDOLE -3- ADVANCED '.COMPOUND - AG [1 88452 -1- BUTYRIC ACID) 0.4700 %'=,NUTRIENTS !JUICY ROOTS ROOTING j !GEL ROOTING ;IBA (INDOLE -3- (ADVANCED !COMPOUND - HOME [2 ;88452- 1BUTYRIC ACID) 0.4700%' NUTRIENTS I i � !SOUTH COAST ;MAD FARMER ROOT IT 182437 -43IBA (INDOLE -3- €HORTICULTURAL t[1 ' -87662 1BUTYRICACID) 0.5400 01. SUPPLY I `MIRACLE -GRO FAST ROOT 1 DRY POWDER (63310 1'IBA (INDOLE -3- !MIRACLE -GRO ROOTING HORMONE [11 9 -62355 BUTYRIC ACID) 0.100%! LAWN PRODTT INC `U }QUANTA SYSTEMIC /PGR 15905-56 IBA (INDOLE -3- ?HELENA CHEMICAL! j &FUNGICIDE[122 i6 ;BUTYRIC ACID) E 0.013900 %CCOMPANY � I E I[ IRAPIDGROW 'ROOTBURST POWDER IBA (INDOLE -3- RAPIDGROW I !PGR[1 '83527- 11BUTYRIC ACID) 0.8000/a 1 INDUSTRIES ERHIZOPON AA No.2 163310 -2 IBA (INDOLE -3- �HORTUS USA j 0.3- [3 D BUTYRIC ACID) 0.300 %;CORP _._ jSCHULTZTAKEROOT s (ROOTING HORMONE2 159807 -4II13A (INDOLE -3- ;SCHULTZ ! 1[73 1 -39609 ;BUTYRIC ACID) 0.10011 /o {COMPANY BONIDE BONTONE II BONIDE j ROOTING POWDER [266 14 -489 iINDOLE 0.100% PRODUCTS INC E I IBONIDE SLUG MAGIC !MAKES SLUGS 167702 -3 IRON PHOSPHATE ( IBONIDE DISAPPEAR [109 € -4 �(FEPO4) �. 1.00% 1 PRODUCTS INC 16 17 ' FIRST CHOICE SLUGGO � i S ! LOVELAND PROD./ ;SNAIL AND SLUG BAIT 167702- 31IRON PHOSPHATE `p (CROP [283 1-34704 j(FEP04) ( 1.00 %1 PROTECTION SVCS i �LOVELAND LEAF LIFE ] g € �LOVELAND PROD./ SLUGGO SNAIL AND 67702 -3 ,j IRON PHOSPHATE CROP SLUG BAIT [317 =(FEP04) 3.....�......,�.- 1.00 %I'PROTECTION SVCS .. ,...- .-34704 .............-.-. ...«- �..,..�. . t 1ORTHO ELEMENTALS } SLUG & SNAIL KILLER 167702 -3 IRON PHOSPHATE jORTHO GROUPTI [204 I -239 I(F�EP04) 1.00 %T )SLUGGO SLUG &SNAIL 167702 -3 IRON PHOSPHATE 1 BAIT [29 —70051 s(FEP04) ! 1.00% CERTIS USA LLC �PFR -97 20% WDG MICROBIAL INSECTICIDE /ORGANIC PRODUCTION [26 70051 -1? 9 ISARIA FUMOSOROSEA! — 20.0 %CERTIS USA LLC I j I PREFERAL MICROBIAL i €70051 -11 i I 1 ;SEPRO ' INSECTICIDE [67 9- 67690jISARIA FUMOSOROSEA i € 20.0 %jCORPORATION i ECO E —RASE [1 3 6 1-86 JOJOBA OIL j 1110 PRODUCTSTI 97.500% I 1 LLC E � INOVASOURCE t ( � !TESSENDERLO ?SURROUND WP CROP 161842 -11 8 !KAOLIN 1 95.00 %KERLEY INC }1PROTECTANT . --� DR. EARTH FINAL STOP ° i99952-1 y € (DISEASE CONTROL iDR.EARTH 'FUNGICIDE [8 4002 MALIC ACID 0.0300% COMPANY DR. EARTH FINAL STOP s ROSE & FLOWER INSECT199952 -1 +DR. EARTH KILLER [6 ' 2002 �MALIC ACID 0.0200 %OMPANY 17 IE 3 ;FIRST CHOICE NARROW MINERAL OIL/ RANGE 415 SPRAY OIL 34704-1 PETROLEUM ! i !LOVELAND PROD. / , ;[290 ;025 DISTILLATE i ICROP 98.000/0 PROTECTION SVCS! 7 1 j ;LEAF LIFE GAVICIDE MINERAL OIL/ y LOVELAND PROD./ GREEN 415 /ORGANIC !34704 -1 PETROLEUM CROP ;PRODUCTION [288 1028 (DISTILLATE 98.00 %'PROTECTION SVCS.'. ' { � t C !LOVELAND NARROW I MINERAL OIL/ 3 iLOVELAND PROD./ j (RANGE 415 SPRAY OIL 134704-1 !PETROLEUM ;CROP ;1318 L._.T i025 3DISTILLATE 98.00 %'PROTECTION SVCSJ I ;MASTER NURSERY PEST - -� FIG HTER YEAR- ROU N D (( MINERAL OIL/ j SUMMIT ' SPRAY OIL /ORGANIC l (PETROLEUM 1CHEMICAL ;GARDENING [5 16218-71 !DISTILLATE i 98.800% COMPANY ' I 4 tJ ; MINERAL OIL/ HOLLY FRONTIER lSUNSPRAY ULTRA -FINE i86330-1 !PETROLEUM ? 'REFINING & �SPRAY OIL [2 !1 !DISTILLATE 98.80o% MARKETING ' YEAR -ROUND SPRAY OIL I MINERAL OIU i 'SUMMIT iKILLS GARDEN INSECTS i !PETROLEUM ;CHEMICAL ' 1[4 16218 -713 DISTILLATE 98.800 %'COMPANY � [MINERAL OIL/ £ !LOVELAND PROD./ y 34704 -83 PETROLEUM [ 3CROP BIOCOVER LS [119 i08 .DISTILLATET[ LIGHT 1 98. 00%1 SVCS MINERAL OIL/ € 7LOVELAND PROD. / !34704-8 PETROLEUM !CROP ,BIOCOVER SS [120 09 DISTILLATETT LIGHT 3 98.00 %I PROTECTION SVCS! 3 ..�.� .�......_- __- _ -..�.� I MINERAL OW i LOVELAND PROD./ BI000VER UL [121 134704-8 PETROLEUM 06 DISTILLATET[ LIGHT j jCROP 98.00%j PROTECTION SVCS' =; =; MINERAL OIL/ j DORMANT SPRAY OIL 5905 -36 PETROLEUM HELENA CHEMICAL [.__100 [18 ____ _ A_ 8 DISTILLATETf LIGHT 98.00% COMPANY ..._. IE i I IFERTI -LOME !MINERAL OIL/ {VOLUNTARY HORTICULTURAL OIL 148813-1 PETROLEUM !PURCHASING !SPRAY R -T -SPRAY [181 -7401 IDISTILLATETT LIGHT 80.0 9/bIGROUPS -- __, � t j ;MINERAL OIL/ LOVELAND PROD./ GLACIAL SPRAY FLUID 34704-8 !PETROLEUM '.,CROP [138 149 1DISTILLATETT LIGHT 98.400%i PROTECTION SVCS MASTER NURSERY PEST FIGHTER RTU YEAR- ROUND SPRAY OIL/ i MINERAL OIL/ SUMMIT (ORGANIC GARDENING !PETROLEUM CHEMICAL I[8 '6218- 78=DISTILLATETT LIGHT 1.00 %COMPANY j MITE -E -OIL MINERAL OIL/ ! i iINSECTICIDE- MITICIDE /,5905 -30' =. =.PETROLEUM (HELENA CHEMICAL' SPRAY [68 2 DISTILLATETT LIGHT 90.00/61COMPANY i _. I I � ;MINERAL OIL E MONTEREY 148813 -1 1 PETROLEUM ; (LAWN &GARDEN j HORTICULTURAL OIL [91.j -54705 DISTILLATETT LIGHT € 80.0 %PRODUCTS INCA i I !MINERAL OIL/ ( [5905-361 PETROLEUM ;HELENA CHEMICAL! `OMNI OIL 6 -E [17 i8 DISTILLATETT LIGHT 98.00 %COMPANY MINERAL OIL / { OMNI SUPREME SPRAY 5905 -36 PETROLEUM HELENA CHEMICAL [19 8 DISTILLATETT LIGHT 98.00% COMPANY R -T -U YEAR -ROUND MINERAL OIL !SUMMIT SPRAY OIL /ORGANIC !PETROLEUM 1 [CHEMICAL GARDENING [7 !6218- 78£DISTILLATETT LIGHT 1.00 %:COMPANY _.,.._. ...._____�.�....._____81DIS_.. 3 iMINERAL OIL/ '48813- 1 PETROLEUM SUFFOIL -X [10 ( -68539 DISTILLATETT LIGHT 80.0 %JBIOWORKS INC MOLE & VOLE STOPPER ( j kk t IMESSINA CONC /ORGANIC 182165 -1 WILDLIFE j GROWERS [14 =0002 ;MINT OIL 5.6200% MANAGEMENT ... ..�._..._,.,._,._...,_ ._._. 19 _ T. 'MONOPOTASSIUM NUTROL 0 -50 -32 [1 170644-1 PHOSPHATE 100% LIDOCHEM j ( i ! NEEM OILT] COLD iAGRO LOGISTIC iDEBUG TURBO [3 70310- S PRESSED 65.800% I SYSTEMS INC NIMBIOSYS NEEM OIL/ ' �AHIMSA ORGANIC GARDENING lNEEM GILT[ COLD JALTERNATIVE 1[2 !84181 -2; PRESSED 100 %1INC.T[THE INIMBIOSYS NEEM OIL/ ! E iAHIMSA €ORGANIC PRODUCTION : 'NEEM OILT[ COLD j ;ALTERNATIVE j [1 '' !PRESSED _ n 10 -- -._ .TT THE ._.� - -- .; E NATURAL PLANT ?BIOMITE [1 X70057 -1 NEROLIDOL 0.417009%, PROTECTION € jj( ' DR. EARTH FINAL STOP DISEASE CONTROL :99952 -1 i 'DR.EARTH FUNGICIDE [8 14002 PEPPERMINT ? 0.0500% COMPANY I DR. EARTH FINAL STOP ! ROSE & FLOWER INSECT 199952 -1 1DR. EARTH ;KILLER [6 2002 ;PEPPERMINT ! 0.0400 %!COMPANY DR. EARTH FINAL STOP SNAIL & SLUG KILLER 99952 -1 i DR. EARTH SPRAY [9 4003 PEPPERMINT [ 0.04D0% COMPANY j DR. EARTH FINAL STOP € ;YARD & GARDEN INSECT99952 -1 iDR. EARTH (KILLER [5 !2001 PEPPERMINT 0.0400 %1COMPANY ECOSMART ORGANIC INSECTICIDE ORGANIC 3 ECOSMART GARDENINSECT 167425 -1 TECHNOLOGIESr[ KKILLER2 [79 14002 PEPPERMINT ( 0.500% INC 20 21 �ECOTEC BROAD ,SPECTRUM INSECTICIDEi48813 -0? BRANDT �& MITICIDE [1 �,�,....,__ :9001 ;PEPPERMINT �...- ...,.._�.�, 2.00% CONSOLIDATED _...._._ 3 I MESSINA MOLE & VOLE STOPPER 82165 -1' j WILDLIFE !GRANULAR [20 72005 ?PEPPERMINT j 0.2900%l MANAGEMENT 3 ORTHO MOLE B GON j !MOLE & VOLE 'REPELLENT GRANULES 1239 -1201 I { € ?ORTHO GROUPTT j 1[260 109 PEPPERMINT 0.2900 %1 ITHE =ORTHO MOLE B GON I ?MOLE & VOLE REPELLENT R -T -SPRAY 239 -1201 1 3 ?ORTHO GROUPB 4 [Z54 ,04 'PEPPERMINT 0.500 %!THE j !AUSTIN GRANT jINC. /JET HARVEST ;JET -AG [5 181803 -6 PEROXYACETIC ACID 4.900% SOLUTIONS 170299 -11 i OXIDATE 2.0 [24 �2 jPEROXYACETIC ACID 2.00 %3BIOSAFE SYSTEMS 1 OXIDATE R -T -SPRAY j FUNGICIDE BACTERICIDE [19 70299 -1' j6 PEROXYACETIC ACID 1.3600% 131OSAFE SYSTEMS! � 3 ( E 70299 -1 ? ] ZERO70L 2.0 [23 2 ,PEROXYACETIC ACID ? 2.00 %JBIOSAFE SYSTEMS 3 ZEROTOL R -T -SPRAY 170299-11 ` jFUNGICIDE 1 ,BACTERICIDE [20 16 1PEROXYACETIC ACID ? 1.3600% BIOSAFE SYSTEMS ?PHOSPHOROUS ACID11 AGRI -FOS SYSTEMIC jFUNGICIDE t gMONO- AND DI- 71962 -11 POTASSIUM SALTS OF ILIQUID 45.800%1 FERTILISER PTY [1 21 22 i ;PHOSPHOROUS ACIDTT i AGRI —FOS SYSTEMIC I 71962-1 MONO— AND DI—± i LAWN &GARDEN ;FUNGICIDE [49 ` -54705 !POTASSIUM SALTS OF i �_ 45.800% PRODUCTS INC. ?AGRISOLUTIONS t PHOSPHOROUS ACIDT[ !CONFINE EXTRA 1381- 241MONO —AND DI— jWINFIELD ?FUNGICIDE [156 ';4 =POTASSIUM SALTS OF 7 53.00 %.SOLUTIONS LLC !PHOSPHOROUS ACIDFr E ]NUFARM .55146 -8 ;MONO— AND DI— !AMERICAS INC: �ALUDE FUNGICIDE [43 `3 POTASSIUM SALTS OF }..._.__�. 53.600 %]AGT DIVISION .D.. ,D _._� ..... !PHOSPHOROUS ACIDT[I 'NUFARM !ALUDE SYSTEMIC 171962-1 MONO— AND DI— AMERICAS — FUNGICIDE [16 1001 ?POTASSIUM SALTS OF { 45.800% CLEARY CHEM j !PHOSPHOROUS ACIDr[ t lFOSPHITE FUNGICIDE j !MONO— AND DI— j [1 168573 -2 POTASSIUM SALTS OF _ 53.00 %> BIOTECHTT INC. ` _.( 1PHOSPHOROUS ACIDTT gPLANT )MONO— AND DI— j PROTECTANTSTT ,FUNGI —PHITE [1 83472- 1pIPOTASSIUM SALTS OF 45.500 %!LLC l i 2 PHOSPHOROUS ACIDTI j 1ORGANOCIDE PLANT 71962- 11MONO— AND DI— 3 'ORGANIC DOCTOR [7 ' -70179 5POTASSIUM SALTS OF 45.800% LABORATORIES I [ !PHOSPHOROUS ACIDT[ # ! i i ` 1 419713 -6I MONO— AND DI— ,DREXEL CHEMICAL! `P( HITICIDE [45 125 POTASSIUM SALTS OF ! 56.200_ %;COMPANY 4PHOSTROL ( PHOSPHOROUS ACIDTjs NUFARM AGRICULTURAL `55146- 8£MONO— AND DI— AMERICAS INC: FUNGICIDE [13 3 POTASSIUM SALTS OF [ 53.600 %,AGT DIVISION PHOSPHOROUS ACIDTI ! QUANTA SYSTEMIC /PGR 15905- 56 MONO— AND DI— ;HELENA CHEMICAL ,& FUNGICIDE [122 ;6 POTASSIUM SALTS OF 56.00 %!COMPANY r 22 T !PHOSPHOROUS ACIDIf ( !LOVELAND PROD./ !!RAMPART FUNGICIDE '34704- 9'MONO- AND DI- !CROP ![168 124 POTASSIUM SALTS OF 53.00 %1 PROTECTION SVCS =RAMPART T &O 'PHOSPHOROUS ACIDTT ? �LOVELAND PROD./ � 'POTASSIUM PHOSPHITE 34704- 9'MONO- AND DI- ? 124 ;CROP [169 1POTASSIUM SALTS OF 53.00 %'PROTECTION SVCSI jPHOSPHOROUSACIDTf ! RELIANT SYSTEMIC !MONO- AND DI- (QUEST PRODUCTS FUNGICIDE [2 =.83416- 1.POTASSIUM SALTS OF 45.800 %CORPORATION I 3 i j PHOSPHOROUS ACIDII I MONO- AND DI- 1 RESIST 57 L1 !82940 -1 POTASSIUM SALTS OF 57,00 %IACTAGRO LLC I 11600 X -CLUDE FORMULA j' WHITMIRE MICRO - !GEN RESEARCH 12 1499- 5391PIPERONYL BUTOXIDE 2.500 %'r LABS 1600 X -CLUDE FORMULA! ! j 12 MICROENCAPSULATED3 i E INSECTICIDE [254 499 -539 1 PIPERONYL BUTOXIDE 2.500% BASF CORP E iBONIDE BON -NEEM II ` FUNGICIDE- MITICIDE- I INSECTICIDE CONC. X70051 -7; j BONIDE [239 5-4 ' PIPERONYL BUTOXIDE i 2.500% PRODUCTS INC GARDEN SAFE BRAND GARDENINSECT 9688 -311 FOGGER [319 �9 -8845 1PIPERONYL BUTOXIDE ( 0.200% SPECTRUM GROUP �ORTHO TREE & SHRUB FRUIT TREE SPRAY 170051 -7 i 15 'ORTHO GROUPT[ 2.500% THE CONC [263 -239 PIPERONYL BUTOXIDE ! TRMT PYRETHRUM WHITMIRE MICRO- PRES TR MICRO TOTAL ° 499- 4791PIPERONYL BUTOXIDE !GEN RESEARCH 16_00 %LABS RELEASE INSECT mm 23 24 1 !BAYER `PYRENONE CROP SPRAY :432 -103; !ENVIRONMENTAL 1[33 !3 4PTERONYL BUTOXIDE [ 60.00/a SCIENCE s � 1 iPYRETHRUM TR TOTAL `` !RELEASE INSECTICIDE j 1 [232 1499 -479 PIPERONYL BUTOXIDE 16.00% BASF CORP 3 � } jWHITMIRE MICRO -! GEN RESEARCH TYGRO ?499- 547�PIPERONYL BUTOXIDE ' 4.00 %[LABS f � TYGRO INSECT FOGGIER [259 499- 5471PIPERONYL BUTOXIDE j 4.00% BASF CORP 1 i i5905 54 i I IPOTASSIUM € €pHELENA CHEMICAL! ;ARMICARB -O- [62 I i1 BICARBONATE � 85.00% COMPANY _ � 5905- 54POTASSIUM 1 ! [HELENA CHEMICAL ARMICARB 100 [25 i t 1 BICARBONATE ' 85.00% COMPANY BI -CARB OLD 154705- FASHIONED FUNGICIDE 1!POTASSIUM r LAWN & GARDEN [62 fi.....s...__._._.. 40 BICARBONATE !�._ 81.900 °!o PRODUCTS INC. .... GREEN CURE /ORGANIC rPOTASSIUM 1 [H &IAGRITECHjj [PRODUCTION [1 170870- 1 BICARBONATE E 85.009/a11NC. iOTSUKA [ KALIGREEN - OTSUKA AGRITECHNO CO- [1 I 'POTASSIUM 1 `'11581- 2 BICARBONATE ! AGRITECHNO CO ll 81.900 ° /a LTD i I MILSTOP BROAD ([ SPECTRUM FOLIAR ?70870 -1 POTASSIUM s FUNGICIDE [4 1 -68539 BICARBONATE 85.00% BIOWORKS INC 24 3 BAYER ADV NATRIA 'INSECTICIDAL SOAP 167702-21 ,BAYER ADVANCED RTU /ORGANIC [129 1- 72155, POTASSIUM LAURATE 1.00 0/0 ;LLC 'BONIDEINSECTICIDAL MULTI— PURPOSE INSECT' CONTROL SOAP CONC 67702 -1 jBONIDE [106 j1 -4 POTASSIUM .LAUPATE__j 47.00% PRODUCTSINC jBONIDEINSECTICIDAL }SOAP MULTI — PURPOSE INSECT CONTROL R-1— j �BONIDE U /ORGANIC ;67702 -1£ GARDENING [85 j3-4 POTASSIUM LAURATE 1.00% PRODUCTS INC s I ECONCERNINSECT iKILLING SOAP CONC. WOODSTREAM 1[29 POTASSIUM LAURATE 19.900 %!CORP. } I CONCERN MULTI— I IWOODSTREAM PURPOSEINSECT KILLER CONC. [124 59913-9; POTASSIUM LAURATE 20.0 %lCORP. CONCERN TOMATO & VEGETABLEINSECT 159913 -1� IWOODSTREAM I KILLER II [49 i0 : POTASSIUM LAURATE 1.01500 %,CORP. !DES —X INSECTICIDAL ( j 'SOAP CONC /ORGANIC 167702 -2; 2.70051 POTASSIUM LAURATE 47.00 %=CERTIS USA LLC PRODUCTION [25 1 1 j EARTH OPTIONS BY 167702-2 77i BRAID INSECTICIDAL :SC JOHNSON & SOAP —OMRI— [256 11 -4822 7POTASSIUM LAURATE { ( g i 1.00 %((((((.SON INC EARTH —TONE j INSECTICIDAL SOAP / i ORGANIC PRODUCTION ;[7 67702 -2 1 -83598 POTASSIUM LAURATE ESPOMA 1.00% COMPANY)T THE ,EARTH —TONE INSECTICIDAL SOAP E CONC. /ORGANIC PRODUCTION [B 12 j67702 -2` -83598 POTASSIUM LAURATE ESPOMA 47.00% COMPANY[T THE 25 NT jGARDEN SAFE 'INSECTICIDAL SOAP 167702 -1=.. SCHULTZ !INSECT KILLER [19 13-39609 POTASSIUM LAURATE [ 1.00% COMPANY [ i i M- PEDEINSECTICIDE/ 3 162719 -51 1 DOW `AGROSCIENCES ;FUNGICIDE -OMRI- [211 (15 PPOTASSIUM LAURATE 49.00 0/b':LLC ' 110163 -31 j M -PEDE [84 ..._._ .._.__m,- �.- 124 'POTASSIUM LAURATE I .....,_____........ 49.00° /a!GOWAN CO. 1 NATURAL GUARD ? E € i VOLUNTARY i `INSECTICIDAL SOAP 167702 -21 °2 PURCHASING [160 -7401 POTASSIUM LAURATE p 47.00° /a GROUPS NATURAL GUARD R E e i -T-U (INSECTICIDAL SOAP [159 167702 -2 1 -7401 POTASSIUM LAURATE ? VOLUNTARY 'PURCHASING 1.009/° GROUPS s j i CARE 67702 -2 [MIRACLE -GRO 1NATURES INSECTICIDAL SOAP [17;1 -62355 POTASSIUM LAURATE 1.009/b LAWN PRODT1 INC !NATURES CARE ? INSECTICIDAL SOAP1 ,67702 -2 'MIRACLE -GRO ` i[12 1 -62355 POTASSIUM LAURATE _. 1.00 %LAWN PRODTT INC ~...._m. —. m ORTHO ELEMENTALS (INSECTICIDAL i ' 167702 SOAP [222 -2 11 -239 !POTASSIUM LAURATE ORTHO GROUPII 1.00% THE i ..�_ EARTH OPTIONS ISC !!RAID INSECTICIDAL SOAP '67702 -2 JOHNSON & [277 i1 -4822 POTASSIUM LAURATE , 1.00% SON INC I 4 ; !SAFER BRAND BUG E PATROL LAWN & { j !POTASSIUM ILANDSCAPEINSECT ! WOODSTREAM �CONC. [123 .._..- ._.._�,_,_ s59913- 9 LAURATE _l—_.—...._ 20.0% CORP. — .m€_._.. ---J NT 27 SAFER BRAND INSECT !KILLING SOAP CONC. II 42697 -61 j IWOODSTREAM [95 i0 �POTASSIUM LAURATE i 49.5200 0/.1CORP. i !SAFER BRAND PYRETHRIN & j INSECTICIAL SOAP !POTASSIUM WOODSTREAM d 0/01CORK KONG II [156 i59913-9 LAURATE 20.0 ;SAFER BRND 3 -IN -1 lCONC. II [114 59913 -11 13 POTASSIUM LAURATE IWOODSTREAM 12.3800% (CORP. w SAFER BRND YARD & i i i I (,GARDEN INSECT KILLER 159913 -1 WOODSTREAM jII [109 IO ?POTASSIUM LAURATE ; 1.0150D% CORK WHITNEY FARMS {INSECTICIDAL SOAP/ ORGANIC GARDENING � 167702 -2' -73327 POTASSIUM LAURATE ISMSS FARMS I 1.000%PRODUCTSTT INC. f [42 ;1 WORRYFREE i I LILLY MILLER INSECTICIDAL SOAP i BRANDS - ?RTU /ORGANIC GARDEN 767702 -2; =CENTRAL GARDEN 1 `[94 1-33116' LAURATE 1.00%(& PET j1600 X -CLUDE FORMULA 12 1499 -53, PYRETHRINS WHITMIRE MICRO - IGEN RESEARCH j 0.500 /.1 LABS _ 1600 X -CLUDE FORMULA; ( j 2 MICRO ENCAPSULATED INSECTICIDE 1254 1499- 539�PYRETHRINS 0.500% BASF CORP IAZERA i INSECTICIDE/ ORGANIC PRODUCTION I 11021 -18 MCLAUGHLIN 1 [46 172 'PYRETHRINS 1.400 %iGORMLEY KING E �BONIDE BON -NEEM II FUNGICIDE-MITICIDE- INSECTICIDE CONC. ]70051 -7 BONIDE 1 [239 [5 -4 PYRETHRINS 0.2500 ° /a PRODUCTS INC 27 a.] BONIDE CITRUSTT FRUIT! &NUT ORCHARD SPRAY 67702-11 BONIDE iCONC. [154 17-4 ?PYRETHRINS 0.2500%' PRODUCTS INC BONIDE CITRUSTT FRUIT I& NUT ORCHARD SPRAY ;67702-1i 'BONIDE R-T-S PRAY [ 15 3 !7-4 IPYRETHRINS 0.2500-/.l PRODUCTS INC 'CONCERN MULTI- PURPOSE INSECT lWOODSTREAM KILLER CONC. [124 159913-9`PYRETHRINS 0.2400% CORP. !CONCERN TOMATO & 'VEGETABLE INSECT 159913-11 1WOODSTREAM KILLER 11 [49 FO !PYRETHRINS 0.012000oiCORR I EARTH-TONE 3N 1 i67702-1; i I ESPOMA ;DISEASE CONTROL [3 15-83598 PYRETHRINS 0.01009/61COMPANYTJ THE EARTH-TONE INSECT I 6//U2-5 ESPOMA CONTROL CONC. [4 i-83598 PYRETHRINS 0.500%ICOMPANYTr THE JEVERGREEN 11021-251 MCLAUGHLIN (PYRETHRUM CONC [45 160 1PYRETHRINS 5.00WGORMLEY KING IVOLUNTARY FERTI-LOME TRIPLE 170051-1 1ACTION R-T-S [211 111-7401 PYRETHRINS !PURCHASING 0.2500%1GROUPS IVOLUNTARY FERTI-LOME TRIPLE ]PURCHASING JACTION [225 11-7401PYRETHRINS 1 0.2500%!GROUP i70051-li 'FRUIT TREE SPRAY PLUS 11-5470 LAWN &GARDEN [97 5 jPYRETHRINS 0.2500% PRODUCTS INC. a.] GARDEN SAFE BRAND f i E I 'GARDENINSECT 19688 -313 '= FOGGER [319 ;9 -8845 ;PYRETHRINS 0.0200 % SPECTRUM GROUP 3 !!MONTEREY TAKE DOWN €67702 -5I ;,LAWN &GARDEN 'GARDEN SPRAY [28 -54705 ?PYRETHRINS p 0.500% PRODUCTS INC. I ] ORTHO TREE & SHRUB i E FRUIT TREE SPRAY 70051 -7I ORTHO GROUPTI I jCONC [263 15 -239 :PYRETHRINS 0.2500% THE i �PRESTRMTPYRETHRUM i 'WHITMIRE MICRO -j TR MICRO TOTAL GEN RESEARCH RELEASE INSECT 4791PYRETHRINS 4.00 % >LABS W� [`499- PYGANIC CROP PROTECTION EC 5.0 II 1021-171 ' MCLAUGHLIN j [21 I72 gPYRETHRINS 5.00 %iGORMLEY KING IPYRENONE CROP SPRAY 432 -103 ;BAYER iENVIRONMENTAL �[33 3 PYRETHRINS 6.00% ;SCIENCE lPYRETHRUM TRTOTAL RELEASE INSECTICIDE j ! ! €[232 499 -479 PYRETHRINS 4.00 %iBASFCORP SAFER BRAND BUG I !PATROL LAWN & 1 ! tLANDSCAPE INSECT ! WOODSTREAM ICONC. [123 59913 -9 PYRETHRINS i 0.2400 %ICORP. i ! SAFER BRAND PYRETHRIN & ' INSECTICIAL SOAP CONC II [156 59913- 9 PYRETHRINS E WOODSTREAM 0.2400% CORP. 7 SAFER BRND YARD & GARDEN INSECT KILLER 59913-11 t WOODSTREAM II [109 t0tPYRETHRINS 0.01200% CORP. 29 30 'WHITMIRE MICRO—; [ €GEN RESEARCH j TYGRO 499- 5473PYRETHRINS [ 0.500% =LABS i ITYGRO INSECT FOGGER 1 1[259 1499- 5471PYRETHRINS 0.500%! BASF CORP ;LILLY MILLER WORRYFREE BRAND aBRANDS — jGARDENINSECT 67702 -6I CENTRAL GARDEN; ;CONTROL R —T —U [87 1-33116 IPYRETHRINS 0.0100 0/01,& PET '=.BIOPREPARATY COI PPOLYVERSUM [1 1PYTHIUM OLIGANDRUMp 181606-1 DV 74 ;LTD/ 1.000% BETABIOLOGICS I 181606- 11PYTHIUM OLIGANDRUM( j POLYVERSUM [87 i -10163 iDV74 1.00 %GOWAN CO. � I E ` PMARRONE BID IREGALIA BIOFUNGICIDE! ?REYNOUTRIA € [INNOVATIONS - CONC. [3 184059 -3 SACHALINENSIS i 1 I 5.00 %,ITSG - REGALIA PTO 3 184059- 3REYNOUTRIA ENGAGE AGRO j BIOFUNGICIDE [1 87865 'SACHALINENSIS s 5.00% USA —TSG- �SNS 209 ALL NATURAL y SYSTEMIC PEST ;99866 -1E SIERRA NATURAL CONTROL [6 ;2002 ;ROSEMARY HERBS 10.0% SCIENCE !DR. EARTH FINAL STOP DISEASE CONTROL 1 ; I 199952 -1; DR. EARTH !FUNGICIDE [8 !4002 ROSEMARY OIL 0.0600-1. 0.". COMPANY s i � DR. EARTH FINAL STOP ROSE & FLOWER INSECT;99952 -11 j DR. EARTH KILLER [6 2002 ROSEMARY OIL 0.0600% COMPANY 30 31 'DR. EARTH FINAL STOP I i SNAIL &SLUG KILLER ;99952 -1„ DR. EARTH 'SPRAY [9 114003 ROSEMARY OIL 0.0500% COMPANY DR. EARTH FINAL STOP i 3 'YARD &GARDEN INSECT199952 -1 (KILLER [5 12001 !ROSEMARY OIL ( ?DR. EARTH 0.0500.. 14 jam- 3 ECOSMART ORGANIC �INSECTICIDEORGANIC l 167425 I itCOSMART IGARDENINSECT -1 JTECHNOLOGIESIf KILLER2 [79 14002 ';ROSEMARY OIL 0.500% ;INC. E I a ECOTEC BROAD !SPECTRUM INSECTICIDE 48813-01 (BRANDT ]& MITICIDE [1 :9001 'ROSEMARY OIL 10.0 %'CONSOLIDATED �ED ROSENTHAIS ZERO !NATURAL ;TOLERANCE HERBAL 99810 -11 PESTICIDE CONC [1 30,01 ROSEMARY OIL GARDEN 2.00% SOLUTIONS i !ED ROSENTHALS ZERO ;TOLERANCE HERBAL 99810 -1 'NATURAL GARDEN PESTICIDE RTU [2 3002 ROSEMARY OIL 0.100% SOLUTIONS f MOLE & VOLE STOPPER € IMESSINA CONC /ORGANIC 82165 -11 [WILDLIFE GROWERS [14 0002 ROSEMARY OIL ROSEMARY _ 5.6200% MANAGEMENT RID -BUGS AN ORGANIC 99892-04 iAZ ENTERPRISES INSECTICIDE [1 8001 [ROSEMARY OIL 2.009/blINC. ' I (SNS 203 CONC INATURAL PESTICIDE 199866 -1 (SIERRA NATURAL SOIL DRENCH /SPRAY [4 10004 ROSEMARY OIL 0.5300% SCIENCE SNS 209 ALL NATURAL SYSTEMIC PEST 99866 -1[ 7SIERRA NATURAL 3 CONTROL[6 2002 ROSEMARY OIL .22300 %1,SCIENCE 31 32 t 'SNS 217 ALL NATURAL RTU SPIDER MITE 99866 -11 jSIERRA NATURAL CONTROL [1 0001 :ROSEMARY OIL 2.00 0/o1SCIENCE � !SNS j I 217C ALL NATURAL (SPIDER MITE CONTROL 199866 -1= ( SIERRA NATURAL !CONC [2 10002 IROSEMAKYUIL 10.0 %;SCIENCE =SNS 244C ALL NATURAL 99866 -1 SIERRA NATURAL CONC FUNGICIDE [5 12001 ROSEMARY OIL 0.0500% SCIENCE iSPORATEC BROAD i (( (SPECTRUM FUNGICIDE 148813 -0 JBRANDT 1[3 1,9003 ROSEMARY OIL 18.00%1 CONSOLIDATED E DR. EARTH FINAL STOP SNAIL & SLUG KILLER 99952 -1 lDR. EARTH { ?SPRAY [9 4003 !SESAME OIL 0.0400% !COMPANY ORGANOCIDE 3 -IN -1 I GARDEN SPRAY CONC. 70179 -1j }ORGANIC [5 1001 ;SESAME OIL 5.00 0/a LABORATORIES ] ORGANOCIDE 3 -IN -1 70179-11 IORGANIC GARDEN SPRAY R -T -U [6 11002 =SESAME OIL 0.100 %;LABORATORIES ;RID -BUGS AN ORGANIC 99892 -0 qq �AZ ENTERPRISES !INSECTICIDE [1 18001 SESAME OIL p 5.00 %,INC. DR. EARTH FINAL STOP (ROSE &FLOWER INSECTl99952- 1,SESAME PLANTjj DR. EARTH KILLER [6 {2002 %GROUND 0.0600 %COMPANY 77 DR. EARTH FINAL STOP l ' � y ii !YARD & GARDEN INSECT 99952-1 PLANTTT �DR. EARTH [.KILLER [5 2001 IGROUND 00500 %(COMPANY 32 33 !ELIMINATOR SNAIL & l ;67702 -3 SLUG KILLER [99 2 -59144 SODIUM FERRIC EDTA 2.00 %1GRO TEC INC. 3 I i ] (FERROXX SLUG & SNAIL 167702 -31 `W NEUDORFF BAIT [6 13 !SODIUM FERRIC EDTA [, 5.00 %GM 'BH KG =IRON FIST SLUG AND ;67702 -3 =ENGAGE AGRO j !SNAIL BAIT [2 2- 87865'SODIUM FERRIC EDTA 2.00%1 USA 3 jIRONWORXX SLUG & � j67702 -3� W NEUDORFF ;SNAIL BAIT [8 3 ;SODIUM FERRIC EDTA j 5.000/o GMBH KG MOLE & VOLE STOPPER E (MESSINA ;CONC /ORGANIC 82165- 1SODIUM LAURYL IWILDLIFE jGROWERS[14 0002 ?SULFATE 0.0200 %1 MANAGEMENT f EXTREME GARDENING IiREFORESTATION 1 KRYPTOMITE KILLS ON 99809 -1 SORBIC ACIDTT ' ;TECHNOLOGIES ° CONTACT [1 €3001 POTASSIUM SALT 0.01300 /a INTL I ' GOLDEN PEST SPRAY 157538 -1 �STOLLER ENTERPRISESTT OIL [8 l ,SOYBEAN OIL 93.00% INC. MYCOSTOP BIOFUNGICIDE/ jSTREPTOMYCES [ j VEGETABLE & ( GRISEOVIRIDIS v ORNAMENTAL CROPS 64137 -5, STRAIN K61 35.00 %'VERDERA OY s STREPTOMYCES ' i 1GRISEOVIRIDIS ! i MYCOSTOP MIX 64137- 91STRAIN K61 = 4.00% VERDERA OY i s ACTINO — IRON €BIOLOGICAL FUNGICIDE! 3STREPTOMYCES NOVOZYMES F 0-0-0 [7 X73314- 2�LYDICUS WYEC 108 1.300% BIOAG INC j 33 'ACTINOVATE AG =STREPTOMYCES !Biological Fungicide [1 X73314- I ;LYDICUS WYEC 108 €NOVOZYMES 0.037100 %BIOAG INC ACTINOVATE SP BIOLOGICAL FUNGICIDE !STREPTOMYCES ;NOVOZYMES E[2 173314- 1s1-YDICUS WYEC 108 0.037100 %jBIOAG INC ! NATURAL FORCES 170950-21 .NATURAL FORCES SUCRASHIELD [1 1 -84710 ;SUCROSE OCTANOATE 40.0 %LLC __._ _LO ...,.. [i 3 BONIDE CITRUSTj FRUIT s i j& NUT ORCHARD SPRAY ;67702 -1� 1BONIDE CONC. [154 7 -4 SULFUR 7 10.0 %;PRODUCTS INC , .. BONIDE CITRUSTf FRUIT I t I '& NUT ORCHARD SPRAY 167702 -1 !BONIDE R -T -SPRAY [153 17 -4 :SULFUR 10.0% !PRODUCTS INC !EARTH -TONE 3N1 167702 -1 [ESPOMA ;DISEASE CONTROL [3 I5- 835981SULFUR 0.200% COMPANYTI THE „_._ ....m.. ......_.! e SAFER BRND 3 -IN -1 59913 -1 � i i WOODSTREAM CONC. II [114 3 !SULFUR 6.4800% CORP. E !SAFER BRND GARDEN ! C FUNGICIDE /FLOWERST[ ! [. FRUITTf & VEG. CONC 142697 -31 ! WOODSTREAM [87 '=..7 !SULFUR 12.00% CORP. i _._.__.._ 77 I 1 DR. EARTH FINAL STOP i !ROSE &FLOWER INSECT 99952 -1 1 IDR. EARTH KILLER [6 2002 THYME HERBS 0.0300% COMPANY k DR. EARTH FINAL STOP ( ( ! YARD & GARDEN INSECT199952-11 CDR. EARTH KILLER [5 2001 THYME HERBS 0.0300 %COMPANY 34 E ED ROSENTHALS ZERO € i TOLERANCE HERBAL 199810 -11 j NNATURAL GARDEN PESTICIDE CONC [1 13001 ITHYME OIL 2.00% SOLUTIONS i 3 �ED ROSENTHALS ZERO TOLERANCE HERBAL :99810 -1 j 'NATURAL GARDEN; [PESTICIDE RTU [2 '3002 THYME OIL 0.100 %iSOLUTIONS i 1 �SNS 244 ALL NATURAL 199866-11 jSIERRA NATURAL # ;RTU FUNGICIDE [3 10003 !THYME OIL 4.00 ° /a SCIENCE I ' § i 1 ��SNS 244C ALL NATURAL 99866 -1g SIERRA NATURAL j CONC FUNGICIDE [5 2001 sTHYME OIL 1.200% SCIENCE SPORATEC BROAD E SPECTRUM FUNGICIDE [48813 -0 ] BRANDT E[3 19003 ;THYME OIL 10.0% CONSOLIDATED t � k �TRICHODERMA t IASPERELLUM STRAIN BIO —TAM 2.0 [7 180289 -91ICC 012 2.00 %jISAGRO S.P.A. ._.._ ITRICHODERMA j ITENET WP /ORGANIC 1ASPERELLUM STRAIN j ;PRODUCTION [5 (80289 -9iICC 012 2.00 %JISAGRO S.P.A. j iTRICHODERMA GAMSII j BIO —TAM 2.0 [7 !80289 -9; STRAIN ICC 080 ! 2.00% ISAGRO S.P.A. 3 TENET WP /ORGANIC j =TRICHODERMA GAMSII PRODUCTION [5 80289 -9 STRAIN ICC 080 2.00% ISAGRO S.P.A. _ I_._.._______ ......_....._..._...... .._ I SYNGENTA CROP 100- 921'TRICHODERMA PROTECTION II INCEPT [123.2 19 HAMATUM TH382 0.900% INC. 35 ROOTSHIELD [1 IR 3 ;TRICHODERMA GRANULES; 'HARZIANUM RIFAI :65539 -3I STRAIN KRL -AG2 1.1500% BIOWORKS INC !ROOTSHIELD PLUS+ ,GRANULES BIOLOGICAL JRICHODERMA 1HARZIANUM RIFAI ' GFUNGICIDE [13 168539- 10 _ =STRAIN KRL -AG2 __ - ._._, 1.1500% BIOWORKS INC (ROOTSHIELDPLUS+ WP E !TRICHODERMA i BIOLOGICAL FUNGICIDE (HARZIANUM RIFAI ?[12 =68539- 9�STRAIN KRL -AG2 1.1500% BIOWORKS INC ROOTSHIELD WP ITRICHODERMA BIOLOGICAL FUNGICIDE !HARZIANUM RIFAI [8 68539-7 1 STRAIN KRL -AG2 1.1500 %,BIOWORKS INC jROOTSHIELD PLUS+ =GRANULES BIOLOGICAL 68539- 11TRICHODERMA VIRENS FUNGICIDE [13 O !STRAIN G -41 0.6100 %o!BIOWORKS INC ROOTSHIELD PLUS+ WP I BIOLOGICAL FUNGICIDE i TRICHODERMA VIRENS [12 X68539- 9;STRAIN G -41 0.6100 %IBI'OWORKS INC 3 i I i I I £ 3 ROOTSHIELD [1 IR Energy Policy 46 (2012) 58 -67 Contents lists availabib at SciVerse $clenceDrrect r ii Energy Policyt journal,homepage: www.efsevier -com /locate /enpol The carbon footprint of indoor Cannabis production Evan Mills Energy Associates, Box 1688, Mendocino, CA 95460, United States A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T Article history: The emergent industry of indoor Cannabis production - legal in some jurisdictions and illicit in others - Received 7 September 2011 utilizes highly energy intensive processes to control environmental conditions during cultivation. This Accepted 10 March 2012 article estimates the energy consumption for this practice in the United States at 1% of national Available online 17 April 2012 electricity use, or $6 billion each year. One average kilogram of final product is associated with 4600 kg Keywords: of carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere, or that of 3 million average U.S. cars when aggregated Energy across all national production. The practice of indoor cultivation is driven by criminalization, pursuit of Buildings security, pest and disease management, and the desire for greater process control and yields. Energy Horticulture analysts and policymakers have not previously addressed this use of energy. The unchecked growth of electricity demand in this sector confounds energy forecasts and obscures savings from energy efficiency programs and policies. While criminalization has contributed to the substantial energy intensity, legalization would not change the situation materially without ancillary efforts to manage energy use, provide consumer information via labeling, and other measures. Were product prices to fall as a result of legalization, indoor production using current practices could rapidly become non - viable. © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction On occasion, previously unrecognized spheres of energy use come to light. Important historical examples include the perva- sive air leakage from ductwork in homes, the bourgeoning energy intensity of computer datacenters, and the electricity "leaking" from billions of small power supplies and other equipment. Intensive periods of investigation, technology R&D, and policy development gradually ensue in the wake of these discoveries. The emergent industry of indoor Cannabis production appears to have joined this list.' This article presents a model of the modern -day production process - based on public- domain sources - and provides first - order national scoping estimates of the energy use, costs, and greenhouse -gas emissions associated with this activity in the United States. The practice is common in other countries but a global assessment is beyond the scope of this report. 2. Scale of activity The large -scale industrialized and highly energy- intensive indoor cultivation of Cannabis is a relatively new phenomenon, driven by criminalization, pursuit of security, pest and disease E -mail address: evanmillslOgmaiixom ' This article substantively updates and extends the analysis described in Mills (2011). 0301 - 42151$ -see front matter c 2012 Elsevier ltd. All rights reserved. hnp: l7dx. doi .orgJ10.1016jj.enpol.2012.03.023 management, and the desire for greater process control and yields (U.S. Department of Justice, 2011a; World Drug Report, 2009). The practice occurs across the United States (Hudson, 2003; Gettman, 2006). The 415,000 indoor plants eradicated by authorities in 2009 (and 10.3 million including outdoor plantations) (U.S. Department of Justice, 2011 a, b) presumably represent only a small fraction of total production. Cannabis cultivation is today legal in 15 states plus the District of Columbia, although it is not federally sanctioned (Peplow, 2005). It is estimated that 24.8 million Americans are eligible to receive a doctor's recommendation to purchase or cultivate Cannabis under existing state laws, and approximately 730,000 currently do so (See Change Strategy, 2011). In California alone, 400,000 individuals are currently authorized to cultivate Cannabis for personal medical use, or sale for the same purpose to 2100 dispensaries (Harvey, 2009). Approximately 28.5 million people in the United States are repeat consumers, representing 11% of the population over the age of 12 (U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy, 2011). Cultivation is also substantial in Canada. An estimated 17,500 ,.grow" operations in British Columbia (typically located in residen- tial buildings) are equivalent to 1% of all dwelling units Province- wide, with an annual market value of $7 billion (Easton, 2004). Official estimates of total U.S. Cannabis production varied from 10,000 to 24,000 metric ton per year as of 2001, making it the nation's largest crop by value at that time (Hudson, 2003; Gettman, 2006). A recent study estimated national production at far higher levels (69,000 metric ton) (HIDTA, 2010). Even at the E Milts / Energy Policy 46 (2072) 58 -67 59 lower end of this range (chosen as the basis of this analysis), the level of activity is formidable and increasing with the demand for Cannabis. No systematic efforts have previously been made to estimate the aggregate energy use of these activities. 3. Methods and uncertainties This analysis is based on a model of typical Cannabis produc- tion, and the associated energy use for cultivation and transporta- tion based on market data and first - principals buildings energy end -use modeling techniques. Data sources include equipment manufacturer data, trade media, the open literature, and inter- views with horticultural equipment vendors. All assumptions used in the analysis are presented in Appendix A. The resulting normalized (per - kilogram) energy intensity is driven by the effects of indoor - environmental conditions, production processes, and equipment efficiencies. Considerable energy use is also associated with transportation, both for workers and for large numbers of small - quantities trans- ported and then redistributed over long distances before final sale. This analysis reflects typical practices, and is thus intended as a "central estimate ". While processes that use less energy on a per- unit -yield basis are possible, much more energy- intensive scenarios also occur. Certain strategies for lowering energy inputs (e.g., reduced illumination levels) can result in lower yields, and thus not necessarily reduce the ultimate energy - intensity per unit weight. Only those strategies that improve equipment and pro- cess energy efficiency, while not correspondingly attenuating yields would reduce energy intensity. Due to the proprietary and often illicit nature of Cannabis cultivation, data are intrinsically uncertain. Key uncertainties are total production and the indoor fraction thereof, and the corre- sponding scaling up of relatively well- understood intensities of energy use per unit of production to state or national levels could result in 50% higher or lower aggregate results. Greenhouse -gas emissions estimates are in turn sensitive to the assumed mix of on- and off -grid power production technologies and fuels, as off - grid production (almost universally done with diesel generators) can - depending on the prevailing fuel mix in the grid - have substantially higher emissions per kilowatt -hour than grid power. Final energy costs are a direct function of the aforementioned factors, combined with electricity tariffs, which vary widely geographically and among customer classes. The assumptions about vehicle energy use are likely conservative, given the longer - range transportation associated with interstate distribution. Some localities (very cold and very hot climates) will see much larger shares of production indoors, and have higher space - conditioning energy demands than the typical conditions assumed here. More in -depth analyses could explore the varia- tions introduced by geography and climate, alternate technology configurations, and production techniques. 4. Energy implications Accelerated electricity demand growth has been observed in areas reputed to have extensive indoor Cannabis cultivation. For example, following the legalization of cultivation for medical purposes (Phillips, 1998; Roth, 2005; Clapper et al., 2010) in California in 1996, Humboldt County experienced a 50% rise in per- capita residential electricity use compared to other parts of the state (Lehman and Johnstone, 2010). Aside from sporadic news reports (Anderson, 2010; Quinones, 2010), policymakers and consumers possess little information on the energy implications of this practice. A few prior studies tangentially mentioning energy use associated with Cannabis production used cursory methods and under - estimate energy use significantly (Plecas et al., 2010 and Carillons, 2010). Driving the large energy requirements of indoor production facilities are lighting levels matching those found in hospital operating rooms (500 -times greater than recommended for read- ing) and 30 hourly air changes (6 -times the rate in high -tech laboratories, and 60 -times the rate in a modern home). Resulting power densities are on the order of 2000 W/m2, which is on a par with that of modern datacenters. Indoor carbon dioxide (CO2) levels are often raised to 4 -times natural levels in order to boost plant growth. However, by shortening the growth cycle, this practice may reduce Anal energy intensity. Specific energy uses include high - intensity lighting, dehumi- dification to remove water vapor and avoid mold formation, space heating or cooling during non - illuminated periods and drying, pre- heating of irrigation water, generation of carbon dioxide by burning fossil fuel, and ventilation and air - conditioning to remove waste heat. Substantial energy inefficiencies arise from air clean- ing, noise and odor suppression, and inefficient electric generators used to avoid conspicuous utility bills. So- called "grow houses" - residential buildings converted for Cannabis production - can contain 50,000 to 100,000 W of installed lighting power (Brady, 2004). Much larger facilities are also used. Based on the model developed in this article, approximately 13,000 kW)h(year of electricity is required to operate a standard production module (a 1.2 x 1.2 x 2.4 in (4 x 4 x 8 ft) chamber). Each module yields approximately 0.5 kg (1 pound) of final product per cycle, with four or five production cycles conducted per year. A single grow house can contain 10 to 100 such modules. To estimate national electricity use, these normalized values are applied to the lower end of the range of the aforementioned estimated production (10,000 t per year), with one -third of the activity takes place under indoor conditions. This indicates electricity use of about 20TW(h /year nationally (including off - grid production). This is equivalent to that of 2 million average U.S. homes, corresponding to approximately 1% of national electricity consumption — or the output of 7 large electric power plants (Koomey et al., 2010). This energy, plus associated fuel uses (discussed below), is valued at $6 billion annually, with asso- ciated emissions of 15 million metric ton of CO2 — equivalent to that of 3 million average American cars (Fig. 1 and Tables 1 -3.) Fuel is used for several purposes, in addition to electricity. The carbon dioxide injected into grow rooms to increase yields is produced industrially (Overcash et al., 2007) or by burning propane or natural gas within the grow room contributes about 1 -2% to the carbon footprint and represents a yearly U.S. expenditure of $0.1 billion. Vehicle use associated with production and distribution contributes about 15% of total emissions, and represents a yearly expenditure of $1 billion. Off -grid diesel- and gasoline- fueled electric generators have per - kilowatt-hour emissions burdens that are 3- and 4 -times those of average grid electricity in California. It requires 70 gallon of diesel fuel to produce one indoor Cannabis plant (or the equivalent yield per unit area), or 140 gallon with smaller, less -efficient gasoline generators. In California, the top - producing state, indoor cultivation is responsible for about 3% of all electricity use, or 9% of household use.z This corresponds to the electricity use of 1 million average California homes, greenhouse -gas emissions equal to those from 1 million average cars, and energy expenditures of $3 billion per ' This is somewhat higher than estimates previously made for British Columbia, specifically. 2% or total Provincial electricity use or 6% of residential use (Garis. 2008; Bellett, 2010). 60 E. Mills/ Energy Policy 46 (2012) 58 -67 b liq { COp generator Ozone generator Submersi T water\ i" Vehicles 12% water heater handling 246 2x m' cot production 2% Pump space heat 4% Chiller mow;. 4600 kgCOz/kg Indoor Cannabis Air Motorized lamp randitiontoa rails Lets .. � Yentfiation a Oehum d. 27% Powered carbon filter Controllers -� Oscillating fan Dehumidifier Fig. t. Carbon footprint of indoor Cannabis production. Table 1 Carbon footprint of indoor Cannabis production. by end use (average U.S conditions). Nate: The calculations are based on U.S. - average carbon burdens of 0.666 kgjkWfh "CO2 injected to increase foliage" represents combustion fuel to make on -site COz Assumes 15% of electricity is produced in off -grid generators. year. Due to higher electricity prices and cleaner fuels used to make electricity, California incurs 50% of national energy costs but contributes only 25% of national CO2 emissions from indoor Cannabis cultivation. From the perspective of individual consumers, a single Cannabis cigarette represents 1.5 kg (3 pounds) of CO, emissions, an amount equal to driving a 44 mpg hybrid car 22 mile or running a 100 -watt light bulb for 25 h, assuming average U.S. electricity emissions. The 4W 40 In4ine dud fan, Room fan coupled to lights electricity requirement for one single production module equals that of an average U.S. home and twice that of an average California home. The added electricity use is equivalent to running about 30 refrigerators. From the perspective of a producer, the national- average annual energy costs are approximately $5500 per module or $2500 per kilogram of finished product. This can represent half the wholesale value of the finished product (and a substantially lower portion at retail), depending on local conditions. For average U.S. conditions, producing one kilogram of processed Cannabis results in 4600 kg of CO2 emissions to the atmosphere (and 50% more when off -grid diesel power generation is used), a very significant carbon footprint. The emissions associated with one kilogram of processed Cannabis are equivalent to those of driving across country 11 times in a 44 -mpg car. These results reflect typical production methods. Much more energy- intensive methods occur, e.g., rooms using 100% recircu- lated air with simultaneous heating and cooling, hydroponics, or energy end uses not counted here such as well -water pumps and water purification systems. Minimal information and con- sideration of energy use, coupled with adaptations for security and privacy (off -grid generation, no daylighting, odor and noise control) lead to particularly inefficient configurations and corre- spondingly elevated energy use and greenhouse -gas emissions. The embodied energy of inputs such as soil, fertilizer, water, equipment, building materials, refinement, and retailing is not estimated here and should be considered in future assessments. The energy use for producing outdoor -grown Cannabis (approxi- mately two- thirds of all production) is also not estimated here. Energy intensity (kWlh)kg yield) Emissions factor (kg(Oz emissions(kg yield) Lighting 2283 1520 33% Ventilation S 1848 1231 27% dehumid. Air conditioning 1284 855 19% Space heat 304 202 4% CO2 injected to 93 82 2% increase foliage Water handling 173 115 2% Drying 90 60 1% Vehicles 546 12% Tout 6074 4612 100% Nate: The calculations are based on U.S. - average carbon burdens of 0.666 kgjkWfh "CO2 injected to increase foliage" represents combustion fuel to make on -site COz Assumes 15% of electricity is produced in off -grid generators. year. Due to higher electricity prices and cleaner fuels used to make electricity, California incurs 50% of national energy costs but contributes only 25% of national CO2 emissions from indoor Cannabis cultivation. From the perspective of individual consumers, a single Cannabis cigarette represents 1.5 kg (3 pounds) of CO, emissions, an amount equal to driving a 44 mpg hybrid car 22 mile or running a 100 -watt light bulb for 25 h, assuming average U.S. electricity emissions. The 4W 40 In4ine dud fan, Room fan coupled to lights electricity requirement for one single production module equals that of an average U.S. home and twice that of an average California home. The added electricity use is equivalent to running about 30 refrigerators. From the perspective of a producer, the national- average annual energy costs are approximately $5500 per module or $2500 per kilogram of finished product. This can represent half the wholesale value of the finished product (and a substantially lower portion at retail), depending on local conditions. For average U.S. conditions, producing one kilogram of processed Cannabis results in 4600 kg of CO2 emissions to the atmosphere (and 50% more when off -grid diesel power generation is used), a very significant carbon footprint. The emissions associated with one kilogram of processed Cannabis are equivalent to those of driving across country 11 times in a 44 -mpg car. These results reflect typical production methods. Much more energy- intensive methods occur, e.g., rooms using 100% recircu- lated air with simultaneous heating and cooling, hydroponics, or energy end uses not counted here such as well -water pumps and water purification systems. Minimal information and con- sideration of energy use, coupled with adaptations for security and privacy (off -grid generation, no daylighting, odor and noise control) lead to particularly inefficient configurations and corre- spondingly elevated energy use and greenhouse -gas emissions. The embodied energy of inputs such as soil, fertilizer, water, equipment, building materials, refinement, and retailing is not estimated here and should be considered in future assessments. The energy use for producing outdoor -grown Cannabis (approxi- mately two- thirds of all production) is also not estimated here. E. Mills / Energy Polity 46 (2012) 58 -67 Table 2 Equivalencies. Indoor Cannabis production consumes... 3% of California's total 9% electricity, and U.S. Cannabis production & distribution S 6 Billion, and results in the is energy costs... emissions of U.S. electricity use for Cannabis of toMt U.S. production is equivalent to that of... household electricity California Cannabis production and S3 Billion, and results in the 4 distribution energy costs... emissions of 1.7 Million average U.S. homes California electricity use for Cannabis 1 Million average California production is equivalent to that of... homes of California's 1% of toMt U.S. 2% of U.S. household electricity electricity, household and electricity Million tonnes per Equal to the 3 million year of greenhouse emissions of average cars gas emissions (00z) or 7 Average U.S. power plants A typical 4 x 4 x 8 -ft production module. i Average U.S homes, or 2 accomodating four plants at a time, consumes as much electricity as... Million tonnes per Equal W the 1 Million year of greenhouse emissions of average cars gas emissions (CO,) Average California or 29 Average new homes refrigerators Every 1 kilogram of Cannabis produced 43 Tonnes of COz Equiva- 7 Cross - country trips using national- average grid power lent to in a 5.3 If100 km results in the emissions of... (44 mp g) car Every 1 kg of Cannabis produced using a 46 Tonnes of CO2 Equiva- 8 Cross - country trips prorated mix of grid and off -grid lent to in 115.3 Ip 00 km generators results to the emissions (44 mp g) car of... Every 1 kg of Cannabis produced using 6.6 Tonnes of COz Equiva- 11 Cross- country trips off -grid generators results in the lent to in a 5.3 1(100 km emissions of._ (44 mp g) car Transportation (wholesale +retail) 226 Liters of gasoline per kg or S1 Billion dollars 546 Kilograms of consumes... annually, and COz per kilogram of final product One Cannabis cigarette is like driving... 37 km in a 5.3 11100 km Emitting 2 kg of CO, which is 25 Hours (44 mpg) car about equivalent to operating a 100 -watt light bulb for Of the total wholesale price... 49% Is for energy (at average U.S. prices) If improved practices applicable to commercial agricultural greenhouses are any indication, such large amounts of energy are not required for indoor Cannabis production .3 The application of cost- effective, commercially - available efficiency improvements to the prototypical facility modeled in this article could reduce energy intensities by at least 75% compared to the typical - efficiency baseline. Such savings would be valued at approxi- mately $40,000(year for a generic 10- module operation (at California energy prices and $10,000tyear at U.S. average prices) (Fig. 2(a) -(b). These estimated energy use reductions reflect practices that are commonplace in other contexts such as more efficient components and controls (lights, fans, space- condition- ing), use of daylight, optimized air - handling systems, and reloca- tion of heat - producing equipment out of the cultivation room. Moreover, strain choice alone results in a factor -of -two difference in yields per unit of energy input (Arnold, 2011). 3 See, e.g., this University of Michigan resource: http: / /wvaw.hrt.msu.edu/ energy /Oefaulthun S. Energy intensities in context 61 Policymakers and other interested parties will rightfully seek to put these energy indicators in context with other activities in the economy. One can readily identify other energy end -use activities with far greater impacts than that of Cannabis production. For example, automobiles are responsible for about 33% of U.S, greenhouse -gas emissions (USDOE, 2009), which is100 -times as much as those produced by indoor Cannabis production (0.3 %). The approxi- mately 20 TW /h/year estimated for indoor Cannabis production is about one)third that of U.S. data centers (US EPA, 2007a, 2007b), or one - seventh that of U.S. household refrigerators (USDOE, 2008). These shares would be much higher in states where Cannabis cultivation is concentrated (e.g., one half that of refrigerators in California (Brown and Koomey, 2002)). On the other hand, this level of energy use is high in compari- Sion to that used for other indoor cultivation practices, primarily owing to the lack of daylighting. For comparison, the energy intensity of Belgian greenhouses is estimated at approximately 1000 MI/M2 (De Cock and Van Lierde, No date), or about 1% that estimated here for indoor Cannabis production. 62 Table 3 Energy indicators (average U.S. conditions) E. Mills / Energy Policy 46 (2012) 58 -67 Blended on /off grid results per cycle, per production module per year, per production module Energy cost 897 Energy use $)module Energy cost 1,977 Connected load Fraction of wholesale price 3,225 (wattslmodule) Power density 9,792 2,169 (wanslm °) Eject 2756 12,898 (kW /h /module) Fuel to make CO2 0.3 1.6 (G7) Transportation fuel 27 127 (Gallons On -grid results During production 79 Energy cost 846 3,961 $ lmodule Energy cost 1,866 Slkg Fraction of wholesale price $lkg 47% 143 COz emissions 1936 9,058 kg CO,, emissions 191 4,267 kglkg Off -grid results (diesel) kgCO21kg Energy cost 1183 5,536 $(module Energy cost 2,608 $Ikg Fraction of wholesale price 65% CO2 emissions 2982 13,953 kg CO2 emissions 6,574 kgCO27kg Blended on /off grid results Energy cost 897 4,197 $)module Energy cost 1,977 $ /kg Fraction of wholesale price 49% CO, emissions 2093 9,792 kg CO2 emissions 4,613 kgCO21kg Of which, indoor CO2 9 42 k-0O2 production Of which, vehicle use Fuel use During production 79 Uterslkg Distribution 147 Literslkg Cost During production 77 $lkg Distribution 143 $lkg Emissions During production 191 kgCO2ikg Distribution 355 kgCO21kg Energy intensities can also be compared to those of other sectors and activities. • Pharmaceuticals — Energy represents 1% of the value of U.S. pharmaceutical shipments (Galitsky et al., 2008) versus 50% of the value of Cannabis wholesale prices. The U.S. " Pharma" sector uses $1 billion /year of energy; Indoor Canna- bis uses $6 billion. • Other industries — Defining "efficiency" as how much energy is required to generate economic value, Cannabis comes out the highest of all 21 industries (measured at the three -digit SIC level). At —20MJ per thousand dollars of shipment value (wholesale price), Cannabis is followed next by paper (— 14), nonmetallic mineral products (-10), primary metals ( -8), petroleum and coal products (^-6), and then chemicals (-5) (Fig. 3). However, energy intensities are on a par with Cannabis in various subsectors (e.g., grain milling, wood products, rubber) and exceed those of Cannabis in others (e.g., pulp mills} • Alcohol —The energy used to produce one marijuana cigarette would also produce 18 pints of beer (Galitsky et al., 2003). • Other building types — Cannabis production requires 8 -times as much energy per square foot as a typical U.S. commercial building (4x that of a hospital and 20x that of a building for religious worships and 18 -times that of an average U.S. home (Fig. 4). a woo m 7000 v m 60M c 50M 0 4000 U e 3000 P 2000 8 c 1000 � 0 b 3000 2500 U Bi 2000 rn 1500 Iwo D 500 w •Vehicles «oning • Water handling a CO2 iryaraed to increase foliage •Space heat m Airconaitioning •Vantllaran & Dehumq. •Llghdng Worst Average Improved fi5% teneryy cosl as %Mwholesale value) cCalifomia reeidentlal electricity pd. •US residential ,i eledri"price 12% s% Worst Average Improved Fig. 2 Carbon footprint and energy cost for three levels of efficiency. (a) Indoor cannabis: carbon footprint. (b) Indoor cannabis: electricity cost. Assumes a wholesale price of $44001kg. Wholesale prices are highly variable and poorly documented. m 9eveaga and robem Pi Miles Tid Mile Tex ale Pma daAc m pparel t<am «ab ven Produ. WmtlN cti ca p, Neale— and d Goal Suppod PolNlaum entl coal PrMUC6 hemkala Nonmetallic RUCbN PMUcia Nonmemlllc Minann r, M.A. merry McMl Fabnolea Mel¢I Products MxMnery decreed Eama. Poglaocea, ana evnponema naneraeration equipmem FuMitve and aclarad Pred- Mlarallaneaua Al mduffilea Camae. MJISIWO Fig. 3. Comparative energy intensities, by sector (2006). 6. Outdoor cultivation Shitting cultivation outdoors can nearly eliminate energy use for the cultivation process. Many such operations, however, require water pumping as well as energy - assisted drying techniques. Moreover, vehicle transport during production and distribution remains part of the process, more so than for indoor operations. A common perception is that the potency of Cannabis pro- duced indoors exceeds that of that produced outdoors, leading E. Mills / Energy Polity 46 (2012) 58 -67 Poma'an."(Mahe2,abn 0 20 40 W W 100 120 140 Excatmn F.. Sala. Firm Se". Haelmcere: mpaeenl heart Warrant Lots, Rearl hater Tian Mal) ompe Pi Mearri Public On has am son, Reoam„e Worst aemra wareM1OU.e aM Stre, Other vacant al Cornmerdal euaeega Hann. Cannabis Fig. 4. Comparative energy intensities, by U.S. building type (2003). consumers to demand Cannabis produced indoors. Federal sources (National Drug Intelligence Center, 2005) as well as independent testing laboratories (Kovner, 2011) actually find similar potencies when best practices are used. Illegal clearing of land is common for multi -acre plantations, and, depending on the vegetation type, can accordingly mobilize green- house -gas emissions. Standing forests (a worst -case scenario) hold from 125 to 1500 t of CO2 per hectare, depending on tree species, age, and location (National Council for Air and Soil Improvement, 2010). For biomass carbon inventories of 750 tjha and typical yields (5000kg(ha) (UNODC, 2009), associated biomass - related CO2 emis- sions would be on the order of 150 kg C0i Cannabis (for only one harvest per location), or 3% of that associated with indoor produc- tion. These sites typically host on the order of 10,000 plants, although the number can go much higher (Mallery, 2011). When mismanaged, the practice of outdoor cultivation imposes multiple environmental impacts aside from energy use. These include defor- estation; destruction of wetlands, runoff of soil, pesticides, insecti- cides, rodenticides, and human waste; abandoned solid waste; and unpermitted impounding and withdrawals of surface water (Mallery, 2011; Reveille, 2009). These practices can compromise water quality, fisheries, and other ecosystem services. 7. Policy considerations Current indoor Cannabis production and distribution practices result in prodigious energy use, costs, and unchecked greenhouse - gas pollution. While various uncertainties exist in the analysis, the overarching qualitative conclusions are robust. More in -depth analysis and greater transparency of the energy impacts of this practice could improve decision - making by policymakers and consumers alike. There is little, if any, indication that public policymakers have incorporated energy and environmental considerations into their deliberations on Cannabis production and use. There are addi- tional adverse impacts of the practice that merit attention, including elevated moisture levels associated with indoor cultiva- tion that can cause extensive damage to buildings,4 as well as " For observations from the building inspectors community, see hup:l /www. nachi.org/marijuana-grow-operacions.htm Table At Configuration, environmental conditions, set- points Production parameters Growing module 1.5 Number of modules in a room 10 Area of room 22 Cycle duration 78 Production continuous throughout 4.7 the year illumination Leaf phase Illuminance 25 klux Lamp type Metal halide Wattsilamp 600 Ballast losses Urns of magnetic 8 13% digital) Lamps per growing module 1 Hourslday 18 Dayslcyde 18 Daylighting None Ventilation Ducted luminaires with "sealed" 150 lighting compartment Room ventilation (supply and 30 exhaust fans) Filtration Charcoal filters on exhaust; HEPA on supply Oscilating fans: per module, while 1 Lights an Water Application 151 Heating Electric submersible heaters Space conditioning Indoor setpoint — day 28 Indoor setpoint —night 20 AC efficiency 10 Dehumidification 7x24 CO2 production — target 1500 concentration (mostly natural gas combustion in space) Electric space heating When lights off to maintain indoor setpoint Target indoor humidity conditions 40 -50% Fraction of lighting system heat 30% production removed by lummaire ventilation Ballast location Inside conditioned space Drying Space conditioning, oscillating fans, 7 maintaining 50% RH, 70 -80F Electricity supply grid 85% grid- independent generation (mix 15% of diesel, propane, and gasoline) 63 M2 (exd. walking area) m2 days cycles Flowering phase 100 klux High - pressure sodium 1000 0.13 1 12 60 none CFM11000 W of light (free Flow) ACH liters(room- day C C SEER hours ppm Days electrical fires caused by wiring out of compliance with safety codes (Gans, 2008). Power theft is common, transferring those energy costs to the general public (Plecas et al., 2010). As noted above, simply shifting production outdoors can invoke new environmental impacts if not done properly. Energy analysts have also not previously addressed the issue. Aside from the attention that any energy use of this magnitude normally receives, the hidden growth of electricity demand in this sector confounds energy forecasts and obscures savings from energy efficiency programs and policies. For exam- ple, Auffhammer and Arconruengsawat (2010) identified a 64 E. Mills / Energy Policy 46 (2012) 58 -67 Table A2 Table A2 (continued) Assumptions and conversion factors. Wholesale price of Cannabis [g) 4,000 $lkg Service levels Production Illuminance" 25 -100 1000 lux Plants per production module' 4 Airchange rates' 30 Changes per hour Net production per production module Ili] 0.5 kg /cycle Operations U.S. production (2011) 111 10,000 metric tonnesly Cycle duration" 78 Days California production l201 1) 111 3,902 metric tonnesly Cycieslyear" 4.7 Continuous Fraction produced indoors [I] 33% production U.S. indoor production modules" 1,570,399 Airflow- 96 Cubic feet per Calif indoor production modules" 612,741 minute, per module Cigarettes per kg° 3,000 Lighting Other Leafing phase Average new U.S. refrigerator 450 kWlh)year Lighting on -time' 18 hislday 173 kgCOzlyear (U.S. Duration' 18 daysJcycle average) Flowering phase Electricity use ofa typical U.S. home -2009 11,646 JrWlh /year Lighting on time 12 hrsJday [j1 Duration' 60 daysJcycle Electricity use of a typical California home— 6,961 kW/hlyear Drying 2009 Ikl Hours)day' 24 has Duration' 7 daysJcycle Notes: Equipment ' Trade and product literature; interviews with equipment vendors. Average air-conditioning age 5 Years " Calculated from other values. Air conditioner efficiency [Standards 10 SEER Notes for Table A2. increased to SEER 13 on 1123120061 (al. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency., 2011. Fraction of lighting system heat production 0.3 [b]. Energy conversion factors. U.S. Department of Energy, htt P:I)www.eia.dce.govl removed by lummaire ventilation energyexplainedlindezcfm7paae about-energy units, [Accessed February 5, 20111. Diesel generator efficiency' 27% 55 kW [c]. United States: (USDOE 2011); California (Marnay et al., 2002). Propane generator efficiency' 25% 27 kW [d1. Average prices paid in California and other states with inverted -block tariffs are Gasoline generator efficiency' 15% 5.5 kW very high because virtually all consumption is in the most expensive tiers. Here the Fraction of total prod'n with generators` 15% PG&E residential tariff as of 111) 11. Tier 5 is used as a proxy for California hap: 11 Transportation: Production phase (10 25 Miles roundtrip www.pgemmlmtiffslR sElecCurrenixls, (Accessed February 5, 2011). In practice a modules) wide mix of tariffs apply, and in some states no tier structure is in place, or the Daily service (1 vehicle) 78 Tripslcycle. Assume propottiowliry of price to volume is nominal. 20% live on site lei. State -level residential prices, weighted by Cannabis production (from Gettman. Biweekly service (2 vehicles) 11.1 Tripslcycle 2006) with actual tariffs and U.S. Energy Information Administration, "Average Harvest (2 vehicles) 10 Tripslcycle Retail Price of Electricity to Ultimate Customers by End -Use Sector. by State', http:JJ Total vehicle miles" 2089 Vehicle mileslcycle www. eia .doe.govlelectHcity /epmlwble5 -6 a.html, (Accessed February 7, 2011) Transportation: Distribution [Q. U.S. Energy Information Administration, Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (as of Amount transported wholesale 5 kg Per trip 2J74J2011) - see hap:llwww. eia .govlooglinfolgdulgasdieselasp Propane prices - Mileage (roundMp) 1208 kmlcycle http:Jlwww. eia. gov/ dnav, petlpet_ prLprop- a- EPLLPA3TA_dpgal_m.htm,(Accessed Retail (0.25oz x 5 miles roundtrip) 5668 Vehicle- km/cyde April 3, 2011). Total" 6876 Vehicle- kmlcycle [g]. Montgomery, 2010. Fuel economy, typical car [al 10.7 1)100 km [h]. Toonen et al., 2006); Plecas et al., 2010. Annual emissions, typical car [al 5195 kgco2 [II -Total Production: The lowervalue of I0,000t peryear is conservatively retained. 0 kgCOZlmile Were this base adjusted to 2011 values using 10.9 %Jyear net increase in number of Annual emissions, 44 -mpg car" 2,598 kgCOz consumers between 2007 and 2009 per U.S. Department of Health and Human 0.208 kgCO2 /mile Services (2010), the result would be approximately 17 million tonnes of total Cross - country U.S. mileage 4493 km production annually (indoor and outdoor). Indoor Share of Total Production: The Fuels three -fold changes in potency over the past two decades, reported by federal Propane [b] 25 MI /liter sources, are attributed at least in part to the shift towards indoor cultivation See Diesel Ili] 38 MJlliter http:llww . justice. gov /ndiclpubs37137035Jnational.htm and ;Hudson. 2003). A Gasoline [bl 34 MJlliter weighted - average potency of 10% THE (U.S. Office of Drug Control Policy, 2010) Electric generation mix' reconciled with assumed 7.5% potency for outdoor production and 15% for indoor Grid 85% share production implies 33.3 %::67.7% indoor::outdoor production shares For reference, Diesel generators 8% share as of 2008, 6% of eradicated plants were from indoor operations, which are more Propane generators 5% share difficult to detect than outdoor operations. A 33% indoor share, combined with per - Gasoline generators 2% share plant yields from Table 2, would correspond to a 459 eradication success rate for the Emissions factors levels reported (415.000 indoor plants eradicated in 2009) by the U.S. Drug Grid electricity — U.S.[c) 0.609 kgCGzJkWJh Enforcement Agency (hap: Jlwww.jurtice. gov /dealprogramslmarij uanah[m). Grid electricity — CA [c] 0384 kgCO2JkWlh Assuming 400,000 members of medical Cannabis dispensaries In Califomia (each Grid electricity — non -CA U.S. [c] 0.648 kgc% /kWlh of which is permitted to cultivate!, and 50% of these producing in the generic 10. Diesel generator- 0.922 kgCO2JkWlh module room assumed in this analysis, output would slightly exceed this study's Propane generator" 0.877 kgCOzlkWJh estimate of total statewide production. In practice, the vast majority of indoor Gasoline generator" 1.533 kgCO2IkW/h production is no doubt conducted outside of the medical marijuana system. Blended generator taut" 0.989 kgCO2JkWlh III. Total U.S. electricity sales: U.S. energy information administration, "retail sales of Blended on /off -grid generation — CA" 0.475 kgCO2JkWJh electricity to ultimate customers: Total by end -use sector" http: /Iw .eia.gov/ Blended onloff -grid generation —U.&" O.666 kgCO2 /kWJh cneaffelectrici tylepm /table5_t.htm), (Accessed March 5, 2011) Propane combustion 63.1 kgCO21MBTU [k1. California Energy Commission, 2009; 2011. Prices Electricity price — grid 0.390 per kWJh (Tier S) (California — PG &E) [dj Electricity price —grid (U,S.) [e] 0.247 per kWJh Electricity price — oft grid" 0.390 per kWJh Electricity price — blended onloff —CA" 0.390 per kWJh statistically Significant, but unexplained, increase in the growth Electricity price— blended on/off — U.S," 0.268 per kWJh rate for residential electricity in California during the years When Propane price 111 0.58 $Jliter Gasoline price — us. average 117 0.97 Setter indoor Cannabis production grew as an industry (since the mid - Diesel price — U.S. average If) 1.05 $piter 19905). E. Mills / Energy Policy 46 (2012) 58 -67 65 a G M N p Y d E T T t ^ O4+ r1 r m N O N Q M M P N V1 N m Vii Q N m � Q N N N N N W I N U� O ry O ry c ` a ❑ t0 O tC tO �° N ❑ t° i0 it b O b t0 b O �° u� W V r r N O O O T„ Tr„C ❑ 6 ^ W y W W YJ W W Oi W W W W W W W W W W W C ❑ G ,- m T T H T N q �L x =O 333333 3 33333 3 3 333 33333 333 333333 a n �o �E E a - 5 °0 o °O°m^+ .n oo °vm+n �°ry �nm ^o mNrmn ° ry a °o ro 0 E r o a a Z Z E Z C O^ O O ° O O O O O O O O O O O O O Q 6 ^ - r- r- W W- P O M O L C I'i O N ol W V1 r M C .j n ol 1- C� O O C dP dE d¢ df dQ C O O 2Q 8 M 8 8 C dQ dP d¢ N dP dQ .�i L X_ O O CO O O dE dP 0 O O O 0 0 dQ dP dP O iP 0 0 2 dP O dP O L.` M' u 3p 12, °O1 b t t t t t t Id u t t t t t t t t t t z t t t t Id t i a O Irl >'i' y N b y N N y L y y N N N N L N L N L 41 L U N a y N N i a 6 7 6 Y Y E " a O c � E t a o n n 3 E .e v o E ° = Q t ° E .. t v r G o2 oL „ o u x c E _ a v ° n a o « ° = ' a_ a sa ° ” '« .cO. .cO. E.y 00 „��uo�•°za uc:¢ �❑ "�o= z "� =°].o o'u x "u�i a'.-�i 5.9 °u�2 0 u°+ °u 'u$ 3 56 E. Mills / Energy Policy 46 (2012) 58 -67 For Cannabis producers, energy- related production costs have historically been acceptable given low energy prices and high product value. As energy prices have risen and wholesale com- modity prices fallen, high energy costs (now 50% on average of wholesale value) are becoming untenable. Were product prices to fall as a result of legalization, indoor production could rapidly become unvjable. For legally sanctioned operations, the application of energy performance standards, efficiency incentives and education, coupled with the enforcement of appropriate construction codes could lay a foundation for public - private partnerships to reduce undesirable impacts of indoor Cannabis cultivations There are early indications of efforts to address this.6 Were such operations to receive some form of independent certification and product labeling, environmental impacts could be made visible to other- wise unaware consumers. Acknowledgment Two anonymous reviewers provided useful comments that improved the paper. Scott Zeramby offered particularly valuable insights into technology characteristics, equipment con- figurations, and market factors that influence energy utilization in this context and reviewed earlier drafts of the report. Appendix A See Tables Al -A3. References Auffhammer, M., Arommaengsawat A., 2010. Uncertainty over Population, Prices, or Climate? Identifying the Drivers of California's Future Residential Electricity Demand. Energy Institute at Haas (UC Berkeley) Working Paper, August. Anderson, G., 2010. Grow Houses Gobble Energy. Press Democrat, July 25.See < http:/( www. pressdemocrat.comJartide /20100725(AR ICLES /100729664). Arnold, J., 2011. Investigation of Relationship between Cannabis Plant Strain and Mass Yield of Flower Buds. Humboldt State University Proposal. Games, B, 2010. Boulder Requires Medical Pat Growers to Go Green. NewsHMS.com, Colorado Springs and Pueblo. May 19 <www.ne vsfirst5.coml...)boulder-requires- medial- pot - growers- to-go- greenl l > . (accessed June 4, 2011). Bellett, G., 2010. Pot growers stealing $100 million in electricity: B.C. Hydro studies found 500 Gigawatt hours stolen each year. Alberni Valley Times. October S. Brady, P., 2004. BC's million dollar grow shows. Cannabis Culture. <http:llwww. cannabisculture .com ) anicles)3268.html), (accessed June 4, 2011), Brown, R.E., Koomey, J.G., 2002. Electricity use in California: past trends and present usage patterns. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Report No 47992. < http: llenduse .lbl.gov)infoILBNL- 47992.pdf). California Energy Commission, 2009. California energy demand: 2010 -2020 - adopted forecast. Report CEC- 200 - 2009 - 012 -CMF), December 2009 (includes self - generation). California Energy Commission, 2011. Energy almanac. <http:((em rgyalmanacca. govlelectriciry)us_ per_ capita_electricity.htmq,(accessed February 19, 2011). Caulkins, P., 2010. Estimated cost of production for Legalized Cannabis. RAND Working Paper, WR- 764 -RC. July. Although the study aver - estimates the hours or lighting required, it under - estimates the electrical demand and applies energy prices that fall far short of the inclining marginal -cost tariff structures applicable in many states, particularly California. Central Valley High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA), 2010. Marijuana Production in California. 8 pp. Clapper, J.R., et al., 2010. Anandamide suppresses pain initiation through a peripheral endocannabinoid mechanism, Nature Neuroscience, 13, 1265- 1270, doi:10.1038fnn2632 <http:;Iv w. nature .mmlaeuro /journa1Jv13fn10I full1ron- 2532.Mm1). s The City of Fort Bragg, CA has implemented elements of this in 11TLE 9 - Public Peace, Safety. & Morals, Chapter 9.34. http:)(city.fortbraggcom /pages /searchRe sults.lasso ?- token. editChoice- 9. 0. 0& SearchType= MCsuperSearch &CurrentACtiow viewResultfi9.32.0 6 For example, the City of Boulder, Colorado, requires medical Cannabis producers to offset their greenhouse -gas emissions (Barnes, 2010). De Cock, L, Van Lierde, D. No Date. Monitoring Energy Consumption in Belgian Glasshouse Horticulture. Ministry of Small Enterprises, Trades and Agriculture. Center of Agricultural Economics, Brussels. Easton, S.T- 2004. Marijuana Growth in British Columbia, Simon Frasier University, 78 pp. Galusky, CS.-C. Chang, E. Worrell, Masanet, E., 2008. Energy efficiency improvement and cost saving opportunities for the pharmaceutical industry: an ENERGY STAR guide for energy and plant managers, Lawrence Berkeley National laboratory Report 62806. < http :f /ies.IbLgov)iespubs)62806.pdf j. Galitsky, CN. Martin, E Worrell, Lehman, B., 2003. Energy efficiency improvement and cost saving opportunities for breweries: an ENERGY STAR guide for energy and plant managers, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Report No. 50934. ( www. energystar. gov) ialbusinesslindustrylLBNL- 50934.pdf). Gans, L, 2008. Eliminating Residential Hazards Associated with Marijuana Grow Operations and The Regulation of Hydroponics Equipment, British Columbia's Public Safety Electrical Fire and Safety initiative, Fire Chiefs Association of British Columbia, 108pp. Gettman, J., 2006. Marijuana Production in the United States, 29pp. <http:/fwww, drugscience .orgJArchive /bcr2lapp2.html). Harvey, M., 2009. California dreaming of full marijuana legalisation. The Sunday Times, (September). <http:l) business. timesonline .co.ukltollbusinesslindus t ry secmrs (health(article6851523.ece). Hudson, R., 2003. Marijuana Availability in The United States and its Associated Territories. Federal Research Division, Library of Congress. Washington, D.C. (December). 129pp. Koonreg J., et al. 2010 Defining a standard metric for eleancity savings Environmental Research Letters, 5, http:lldx.dol.org /10.108811748- 932615111 0]401. Kronor, G., 2011. North coast: pot growing power grab. Press Democrat. <http:l) w .. pressdemocratcoml anicleJ20 1104281ARrICLES)110429371 ?Title= Report- Growing- pat- indoors-leaves-big- carbon- famprint&tc =ar). Lehman, P., Johnstone, P., 2010. The climate - killers inside. North Coast Journal, March 11. Mallory M., 2011. Marijuana national forest: encroachment on California public lands far Cannabis cultivation. Berkeley Undergraduate journal 23 (2), 1 -49 < http :JJescholarship.orgluclour_buj ?volume= 23;issue =2). Mamay, C., Fisher, D., Murtishaw, S., Phadke, A., Price, L, Sathaye, J., 2002. Estimating carbon dioxide emissions factors for the California electric power sector. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Report No. 49945. <http:(/ industrial- energy.lbl.govinodel148) (accessed February 5, 2011). Mills, E., 2011. Energy up in smoke: the carbon footprint of indoor Cannabis production. Energy Associates Report April 5, 14 pp. Montgomery. M., 2010. Plummeting marijuana prices create a panic in Calif. < htt p: llwww. npr. org ltemplateslstorylstory.php ?storyld =126806429). National Drug Intelligence Center, 2005. Illegal and Unauthorized Activities on Public Lands. Overcash, Y., Li, 6.Griffing, Rice, G., 2007. A life cycle inventory of carbon dioxide as a solvent and additive for industry and in products. Journal of Chemical Technology and Biotechnology 82, 1023 -1038. Peplow, M., 2005. Marijuana: the dope. Nature doi:10.10381news050606 -6, <http:jfwww. nature.< omf newsf20051050607lfu 11 /newsO50606- 6.html ). Phillips, H., 1998. Of pain and pot plants. Nature. http:JJdxdoi.mgJ10.1038J news981001 -2. Pleas, D.J., Diplock, L, Caris, B., Carlisle, P., Neal, Landry, S., 2010. Journal of Criminal Justice Research 1 (2)t 1 -12. Quinones, S., 2010. Indoor pot makes cash, but isn't green. SFGate, <http:)Iwww. sfgate.com /cgi- bin / article .cgi ?f= /c)a)2010JI O)21 /BAPOI FU9MS.DTL ). Revelle, T., 2009. Environmental impacts of pot growth. 2009. Ukiah Daily Journal. (posted at < http: Jlwww. cannabisnews .orglgnited- statesKannabis -news) environmental- impacts -of- pot - growth) ). Roth. M.D., 2005. Pharmacology: marijuana and your heart. Nature hrtp:l)dx.dai. orgJ10.10381434708a <http:Ifvoww. nature .cominature /joumallv434/n70341 fu111434708a.htmq. See Change Strategy, 2011. The State of the Medical Marijuana Markets 2011. http :llmedicalmarijuanamarkets.coml ). National Council for Air and Soil Improvement, 2010. CCOLE; Carbon On Une Estimator. <http:IM'H .nasi2.org1000LEIgcoleshtml). (accessed Sepember 9, 2m0L Toonen, M., Rihot, S., Thissen, J., 2006. Yield of illicit indoor Cannabis cultivation in the Netherlands, Journal of Forensic Science 15 (5), 1050 -1054 <http: //wvAv. ncbi .nlm.nilLgovlpubmed117018080 ). U.S. Department of Energy, Buildings Energy Data Book, 2008. Residential Energy End -Use Splits, by Fuel Type, Table 2.1.5 < http :llbuildingsdatabook.eremdoe. gov /does /xls_pdff2.1.5.xlsx). U.S. Department of Energy, 2009. "Report DOEIEIA- 0573(2009), Table 3. U.S. Department of Energy, 2011. Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Program <hap:llwww'.eia. doe. govloiaf) 16051ee- factors.html),(accessed Feb - mary 7, 2011). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2010. 2009 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, < http:) Joas .samhsa.govinsduhlatest.htm). U.S. Department oflustice, 2011 a. Domestic Cannabis Eradication and Suppression Program. <http:JJwww. justice. govldealprogramslmarijuana.htm), (accessed June 5, 2011). U.S. Department of Justice, 20111h. National Drug Threat Assessment: 2010 <http: J lv . justice. govladiclpubs3 8 13 8 6 611marijuana .htm#Marijuana), (accessed June 5, 2011). E Mills / Energy Policy 46 (2012) 58 -67 US EPA, 2007a. Report to Congress on Server and Data Center Energy Efficiency: Public Law 109 -431. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ENERGY STAR Program, August 2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 20076. Report to Congress on Server and Data Center Energy Efficiency Public law 109 -431 133 pp. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2011. Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Fuel Consumption for Passenger Cars and Light Trucks. <http:)J www.epa .gov /omslcomumer /f00013.htm). (accessed February 5, 2011). 67 U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy, 2011. Marijuana Facts and Figures. <http: / /www.whiteftousedmgpolicy.gov /dmgfact(marijuana;m rijuana_ll. html #extentofuse), (accessed June 5, 2011). UNODC, 2009. World Drug Report: 2009. United Nations OtHCe on Drugs and Crime, p. 97. < hrtp :I /www.unodcoru)unodclenldata -and- analysis/WDR -2009. hmd> For U.S. conditions, indoor yields per unit area are estimated as up to 15 -times greater than outdoor yields. From: Marc B Gordon <gourdo @gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 2:07 PM 'Comment Deadline To: jeffbocc Subject: limits on where to grow Board of Commissioners, While an exciting new industry is moving in to our state, I am asking you to implement policies that stand against marijuana grow operations and facilities in any locations other than those zoned industrial. There is too much at stake to have neighborhoods and shared lands be impacted by the increase in traffic, water, light pollution and other unnecessary changes. We're still cleaning up the leftovers of meth labs from the past decade, and therefore reject the big spending marijuana growers setting up shop in residential or commercial districts. Thanks for listening. Marc Gordon 84 Barn Swallow Rd Chimacum, WA aPived after Hearing KV jeffbocc Comment Deadline From: Colum Tinley <cpt409 @ymail.com> Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 9:43 PM To: John Austin; David Sullivan; Philip Morley; jeffbocc Subject: How Much Will Jefferson County Benefit from 1 -502 Attachments: Estimated Revenue from Jefferson County Grown Cannabis.docx Dear Commissioners, Thank you for hearing all of our comments today regarding the current 1 -502 Moratorium. As promised I am attaching some simple calculations I did in an effort to assign a numerical value to the sales tax revenue Jefferson County can expect to collect from 1 -502 cannabis grown in Jefferson County. I have made a few assumptions in order to make these calculations. As you know there is no sales tax when a grower sells his product wholesale to a retail store. Only when the retailer sells to the customer is sales tax collected. Not all cannabis grown in Jefferson County will be sold in Jefferson County but at the same time not all cannabis sold in Jefferson County will be grown in Jefferson County and I think it is fair to assume for the sake of this calculation that these two points cancel each other out. My calculations are very conservative; assuming the mid level square footage for all growers in a particular tier and assuming each grower only grows one crop per year when in fact many growers may realize three or four crops per year. Of course this little exercise does not address the numerous other revenue streams created indirectly from sales tax paid by 1 -502 farmers as they purchase equipment, supplies, pay contractors, etc. Nor does it address the money 1 -502 employees will be spending in Jefferson County. Please see the attached Word file. Thank you, Colum Tinley Estimated Revenue from Jefferson County Grown Cannabis Tier 1 growers =10 Tier 2 growers = 11 Tier 3 growers = 6 less than 2000 sq ft 2000 - 10,000 sq ft 10,000- 30,000 sq ft To be ultra conservative let's consider each grower produces just one crop per year at the mid range for their tier. Tier 1: 10 growers x 1000 = 10,000 sq ft Tier 2: 11 growers x 6000 = 66,000 sq ft Tier 3: 6 Vrowers x 20,000 = 120,000 sq ft Total: 196,000 sq ft According to Ed Rosenthal's Marijuana Grower's Handbook. expect 20 -60 gm /sq ft 196,000 sq ft x 50 grams = 9.8 million grams x $9 /gram = $88.2 million $88.2 million x 2.5% (county sales tax) = $2,205,000 tax revenue to Jefferson County Received after Hearing jeffbocc Comment Deadline From: D Johnson <djzero9l @earthlink.net> Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 12:43 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: public comment on Ordinance # 07- 0811 -14 moratorium I am Deborah Johnson, a voter, and a 22 -year resident of rural Jefferson County. I am not a marijuana user. I am not a proponent of marijuana use, and I actually voted against 1 -502.. These are some of my Comments: There should be NO moratorium on 1 -502 processors or producers. There should NOT be any permitting, zoning or land use restrictions added by the county to the requirements already set by the WSLB. There are already many restrictions, regulations and safeguards built into the state requirements for a license. 1 -502 was passed in Washington and overwhelmingly in Jefferson County. You acknowledge that! Unregulated "Medical Gardens" have sprung up all over the place. I say unregulated, not because there aren't any regulations, but because they are not being followed and /or there is no enforcement. Anyone who actually thinks these are not commercial enterprises is fooling .themselves. Limited to their legal number of plants and patients? Are you kidding? They are growing many dozens of plants and selling to anyone who walks in the door. Do they have to be permitted? Are they restricted by zoning and land use? Do they pay any taxes? I have to pay taxes at the store on my medicine! Illegal grows, as well as some actual legal medical grows, are in every neighborhood. Why does the county feel the need to interfere with individuals and businesses who seek to build and run a legal business and have been taking pains to do everything correctly and comply with the already strict state requirements? In October 2013 Jefferson County indicated no further restrictions and regulations would be placed on marijuana operations. People have spent thousands of dollars, plus countless hours researching, planning, building out, working with state inspectors, etc., and now you want a moratorium? This is not reasonable! Jefferson County is exaggerating many points in their various "whereas" statements. Whereas #16: By my count there are 25 applications, 13 of which have Port Townsend addresses. Surely at least one of them intends to function inside of Port Townsend, leaving two dozen or less. Maybe that is nitpicking. . Whereas #23: Neither security lighting nor an 8 foot high fence are required for indoor grows. Therefore, these are not a reason to distinguish from traditional agriculture. However, even in traditional agriculture, it takes an eight -foot fence to keep deer out of your garden /yard /property and a 15 foot fence to keep elk out! Whereas #25: The rural character in rural residential lands will not be impacted in any way. This is alarmist. If the grow is indoors, no one will see it or care because it is inside. If it is outdoors, then why do you care if it has a fence around it. Do you really think that rural residential lands do not have fences, especially with deer and elk? Whereas #26: Any operation with the scale and intensity your are insinuating that would cause the problems indicated would likely either be fairly rural and no different than the impact of another farm, or would likely be in an industrial -type area anyhow due to the size of the operation. Whereas #21 through 26 discussing impact is downright fear - mongering. You are making assumptions and unreasonably blowing things out of proportion — acting like every proposed operation will be a 30,000 square foot (or bigger!) out of control outdoor grow with a huge footprint! The truth is a small indoor grow is a sustainable agricultural activity: A small owner - operated grow with no planned outside employees, using a recirculating water system and LED lights, composting with yard waste, as allowed by state law, draining the nutrient "waste" water of grass - appropriate fertilizer onto the lawn, as allowed by state law, does not have the impact you envision — no increased traffic, noise, light, hours of activity, etc. No increased traffic as the UPS truck already makes Amazon deliveries daily, much less noise than the constant chainsaws cutting down trees and cutting up fire wood, noise from sawing and woodworking on neighboring properties and much less odor than the current wood burning stoves and outdoor burns. Whereas #28: Enacting a moratorium or any related permitting, zoning, or regulations has exactly the impact of making business in Jefferson County impractical. So much for economic recovery. "Certain locations," certain locations, certain locations. That is sure specific. Who are you targeting? This six -page document didn't just happen during the meeting or overnight. It took a lot of effort to draft and coordinate. NO to a moratorium. NO to permitting requirements. NO to additional zoning or land use restrictions! Proposed County Ordinance: No additional permitting, zoning or land use restrictions will be placed on 1 -502 producers or processors. All county permit applications will be considered on a case -by -case basis. While the county will do its best to accommodate all requests, it may occasionally deny a permit or require alterations if the size and scope of a proposed operation is expected to have a significant effect on the character of a neighborhood or a demonstrated adverse impact on surrounding property. isProcessing marijuana will not require a cottage industry permit if 80 percent of the volume of marijuana processed is produced on site. FA