Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM012615Special Meeting - Public Hearing re: Marijuana Moratorium w/Hearing Comment for extened period of timeoN I NG District No. 1 Commissioner: Phil Johnson District No. 2 Commissioner: David W. Sullivan District No. 3 Commissioner: Kathleen Kler County Administrator: Philip Morley Clerk of the Board: Erin Lundgren SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES January 26, 2015 Chairman David Sullivan called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. time in the presence of Commissioner Phil Johnson and Commissioner Kathleen Kler. HEARING re: Two Alternatives for Extending ORDINANCE NO. 07- 0811 -14: The Commissioners held a public hearing for two alternatives for extending Ordinance No. 07- 0811 -14 regarding a moratorium prohibiting the production, processing and retailing of recreational marijuana in certain land use designations within unincorporated Jefferson County. Chairman Sullivan explained that in order to allow the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) time to consider all verbal and written public testimony, deliberation on the two alternatives for extending the Moratorium for Recreational Marijuana will take place Monday, February 2, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. at the next meeting of the Board of County Commissioners. Department of Community Development (DCD) Director Carl Smith explained there are two options to extend the moratorium, or the Board could choose to do nothing and let the current moratorium expire. The Moratorium, originally approved on August 11, 2014, is set to expire on February 11, 2015. He noted that the Planning Commission is the body that has the ability to comment and make recommendations on any changes to the County's development code. With the moratorium expiration looming, he sees a need to extend the moratorium to allow time for the Planning Commission to make a recommendation to the Board. Director Smith stated that at the time the Board approved the public hearing notice for this hearing on January 12, 2015, there was a slightly different wording in the duration clause. Between the approval time and the time it was posted, staff working with legal council, clarified the duration. He explained that there was no change in substance, but because it is a change, he read into the record the new language in the duration clause, Section 3. The current moratorium duration clause states "The moratorium adopted by this ordinance is effective immediately upon adoption and shall remain in effect for four months from the date of adoption, unless subsequently extended by the Board pursuant to state law. " As it was posted and as it is for review tonight, the Section 3 duration clause states "The moratorium adopted by this ordinance shall become effective upon expiration of the moratorium enacted in Ordinance 07- 0811 -14 and shall be effective for four months, measured from the expiration date for the moratorium enacted ordinance 07- 0811 -14. It is intended that there shall be no lapse in the moratoria; ie: No period of time with neither 07- 0811 -14, nor this ordinance is in effect. " He stated this is clarifying that in the event the Board should extend the moratorium, it shall take effect upon expiration of the current moratorium. Director Smith stated that Alternative 1 version for extending the moratorium would extend the moratorium in its current form. In its present form, it would not apply to certain zones where marijuana Page 1 Commissioners Special Meeting Minutes of January 26, 2015 license activities can continue; those include agriculture, commercial forest and industrial zones. In the Alternative 2 version, those same areas are also included, but there is one additional provision which would allow marijuana licensing activities and permitting activities to occur in parcels that are five or more acres in size and zoned either Residential 1:10 or 1:20. In effect, those kinds of parcels would be available for marijuana permitting activity. Those are the two different versions of the ordinance. Chairman Sullivan opened the hearing for public testimony. Jean Ball, Chimacum: She read from a statement she submitted. (See hearing record) Peter Davis, Port Townsend: He read from a statement he submitted. (See hearing record) Dr. James McCrae: He stated he is a land owner in District 3 and welcomed Commissioner Kler and thanked her for her representation. He has been researching drugs his entire adult life and has studied the psychophysiological underpinnings of opiate tolerants and physical dependence for his doctoral degree. He attended the University of Pennsylvania where he studied in the height of the crack addiction, human drug addiction. Until recently, his wife was a professor at the University of Washington and has been heavily involved in the drug courts locally. After academics, Dr. McCrae entered the pharmaceutical industry and helped them convince doctors and the public that their drugs were good. In turn, the more pharmaceuticals that were sold, the richer the drug manufacturers became. He added that he was very good at his job and it is a very lucrative career. He is not overly proud of some of the aspects of that job. He is a Tier 1 producer /processor applicant and wishes to do the equivalent of a microbrew in his garage in Jefferson County. 1,400 square feet is the maximum he can grow. He stated he has a vegetable garden that is bigger than that. He also has a vineyard in this County that is extraordinarily bigger than that. His vineyard produces alcohol. At some point, he may have the inclination to sell it commercially. Dr. McCrae urged the Board to meet, discuss and ask questions to learn more about marijuana. He has offered his advice, but has not been taken up on it yet. He referenced a moratorium version "Declarative No. 22" and urged the Board to look for a fair balance. It is not just people saying it will kill our children and they're going to cry. There is a bunch of citizens telling the Board facts. Facts about marijuana businesses. "Declarative No. 23" stating marijuana businesses need eight foot fences and special lighting. It is not standard agriculture. We need special licensing from the Liquor Control Board (LCB) so of course it's not standard agriculture use. He urged the Board to question the declaratives and this out of control entity also known as the Director of the Department of Community Development. The LCB has given him 60 days notice after which, if he fails to obtain an appropriate property, his license application will lapse. An extension of the moratorium will affect him greatly. The present net value of his business is approximately $1.69 million dollars. If the County takes that away from him by dithering for another bit of time, he will try and recoup the loss from the County. Forget the cost. He has a graphic that could be used to show that marijuana could be agriculture. Steve Ramsey, Port Ludlow: He stated that he has become a regular at the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) meetings. He previously provided written comments to the Commissioners via email. Mr. Ramsey stated he is here today to speak on the moratorium itself and not just the regulations. He believes the moratorium should be extended in all zones without exceptions or exclusions. The County was prudent to put the moratorium in place. It may not have made everyone happy, but it was prudent to do so. It did so for a variety of reasons. The volume of applications, potential impact on residential areas caught the County by surprise. There is a July 22, 2014 internal memo from the Department of Community Development (DCD) which he obtained in response to a public records Page 2 Commissioners Special Meeting Minutes of January 26, 2015 request. The memo urged the Commissioners to limit marijuana processing and production to only industrial and commercial areas, without putting it in residential areas. He stated it would be nice to know what happened to that. It would have all been so simple, for the growers, producers and the residents who oppose it in their neighborhoods and rural areas if marijuana processing and production was limited to industrial and commercial areas. He encouraged the Commissioners to look at the July 22, 20144 memo as they think about where marijuana is to be sited. This is the time to get it right. This is a one -time opportunity, the genie doesn't get back in the bottle. The Planning Commission has just begun its work on this issue. They should be given an opportunity to finish, and it shouldn't be preempted by exempting parcels which would allow more than half the pending applications to be granted and allowed to proceed. He believes the moratorium should extend to areas which may be vested because if those applications should ultimately be denied, or withdrawn, the County should not just have a bunch of ghost zones that are unregulated. If a parcel is vested, it is going to proceed if it gets a license? That is well and good, but if that application is withdrawn or denied, that should be included in the moratorium and in the regulations as well. Agriculture is an unnecessary complication. He stated that we could have avoided much of this if we had not tried to see this through the lens of agriculture. At this point, in Washington State, it is hard to believe that anybody but Jefferson County, believes that this is agriculture. State law says it is not, Federal Government says it is not, and Jefferson County Code states that agriculture has to be done in compliance with federal and state laws. You can't be doing it in compliance with federal law. The fact that the Justice Department has granted prosecutorial discretion, does not put the County in compliance with federal law. You can't be doing agriculture, it's not entitled under the Right to Farm, and we need to take a hard look at that. The Planning Commission should do that. He appreciates the opportunity to speak. Mark Clark, Jefferson County: He stated that he is a landowner in Jefferson County, District 2. His next door neighbors are developing a growing and processing facility and he supports them. He does not believe it will be a negative factor for his community and he is not concerned about the implications. He added that his neighbors are extremely competent. Mr. Clark has heard someone state that everyone in the audience is there to speak out against marijuana, and that is not true. There is part of the community that supports marijuana. Thank you. Tami Mendoca, Port Townsend: She stated that she is a processing and producer applicant in Jefferson County. She believes that fear and misconception is the guiding force behind the opposition to rural residential legal cannabis businesses. Fear that is based on the unknown and misconceptions on past illegal marijuana operations that have no government regulation or oversight. Fear is common, anytime there is a change from what is familiar, but to allow fear to influence your decision making is wrong. She urged the Commissioners to make decisions based on facts, not fear. If fear is allowed to control decisions, then the Olympic Discovery Trail may never have become a reality. There is much resistance to the trail based on fear. The fear of increased robberies, trespassers and kidnapping of small children. The decision was made to build the trail despite these fears. Surprisingly, those cries that were so feared, were never realized. While living in Clallam County for over 10 years, she communed on that trail daily. She left her house in the dark hours of the morning, and came home during the dark hours of night. She stated she never witnessed any criminal activity, nor did she commit any crimes along that trail. She was a typical trail user. The highlight of her day was commuting along that trail. She is thankful that the fear of others did not prevent the wonderful trail from becoming a reality. Many people are afraid of rural residential growing of marijuana, not just because it is new and unfamiliar and therefore something to fear, but because they have heard of the negative affects of growing it illegally. This is a very real reason why cannabis has been legalized and regulated; to stop irresponsible and illegal growing Page 3 Commissioners Special Meeting Minutes of January 26, 2015 Kcl� practices. She urged the Commissioners to base their decisions on facts, not fear and misconceptions. Thank you. Colum Tinley, Port Townsend: He read from a statement he submitted. (See hearing record) Dr. Nancy Rody, Port Townsend: She stated she is a retired doctor of public health. She lives on Louisa Street in Maplewood Meadows. She asked that the moratorium be extended. Dr. Rody supports the legalization of marijuana and substances from a public health point of view, however, she believes more time is needed to explore the effect of what is under consideration. On the edge of her residential neighborhood, with no notice, neighbors learned by accident that one marijuana business is under construction. The business is less than 1,000 feet from residences. It is in a light industrial area and it meets the requirements. The proposed building is a 44,000 square foot multi - building facility on two acres of land. The information was obtained from a permit application and the Port Townsend Leader, which is a really good fact - taker. She has heard that the business intends to start with 14 employees. This would be on Fredericks Street and Louisa Street, which is a narrow road with no sidewalks. It is the only access to our neighborhood. The neighborhood has many young children and they have to walk down that road to and from the school bus stop, which will be less than 600 feet from the new facility. She has also heard that one to two other marijuana facilities are planned, and those facilities are to be closer to residential lines in their neighborhood. The permitting regulations say that they can be within 25 feet of a residential lot line, with a 25 foot offset, high fence and bright lights. As she is a senior citizen living alone, crime is a big concern for her. Marijuana facilities will have to handle their own cash without the use of banks, because banks are federally regulated and since cannabis is illegal under federal law, they cannot handle cash from these businesses. She is also concerned about odor and stated that it may smell like flowers, but it also smells like pot. It is a very recognizable odor. She had friends in Seattle who discussed the odor with her. Her main concern is the traffic issue because of the children in their neighborhood. Thank you. Jocelyn Davis, Port Townsend: She read from a statement she submitted. (See hearing record) Eric Belgau, Olympia: He read from a statement he submitted. (See hearing record) Annette Gardner, Jefferson County: She stated she is a resident of Jefferson County and urged the Commissioners to extend the moratorium as it stands and also to work on regulations on not allowing marijuana I -502 businesses in residential zones. She understands that I -502 passed in Washington State. The will of the voters was to legalize marijuana. The will of the voters was to expect local government to regulate it and place it in appropriate areas. No one can say the will of the voters was to allow it in residentially zoned areas. At the World Economic Forum in Switzerland last week, Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper stated that legalizing pot was a "bad idea" and other states should "wait a couple of years to see what all the unintended consequences" will be from legalizing. Obviously, we can't change the fact that Washington State voters passed this initiative. What we can do is take a smart approach to regulation while we wait to see what those unintended consequences look like. She read from a bill introduced into legislature last week regarding this topic: "The legislature finds that licensing of marijuana producer and processor businesses within an area zoned for residential use or rural use with a minimum lot size of five acres creates a public nuisance, lowers property values and increases the risk of criminal activity. The impacts of these businesses greatly affect the economic value of the neighboring properties through many factors; odors, noise levels, traffic, spraying of fertilizers, etc. In addition, the legislature finds that locating and relocating these businesses in other areas more suitable for producing Page 4 Commissioners Special Meeting Minutes of January 26, 2015 marijuana and processing marijuana pose a smaller cost on society than to allow the businesses to diminish the public health, safety and welfare of the neighboring residential and rural properties." This bill would require the state to deny licenses to I -502 operations in residential areas. She stated there is enough concern being raised about these unintended consequences for those in the senate to take notice and begin taking steps necessary to rectify this issue and concern at a state level. All the more reason not to allow it on 5, 10 or even 20 acre parcels which line residentially -owned areas. Make it simple and clear, do not approach this with a light touch because you can never turn back. She urged the Commissioners to regulate wisely and safely, as this is a big issue. She urged the Commissioners to extend the moratorium as it stands now and then work on regulations that would not allow 1 -502 operations in residential areas, regardless of the size of the parcel or size and scope of the business. Thank you. Felecia Allen, Chimacum: She urged the Commissioners to extend the moratorium as it is, across the board for all applicants, and give the County the extra time, balance and boundaries we need. She reminded the Board that she has spoke about this issue many times. Ms. Allen stated she filed a police report with the Sheriffs department on a gentleman who had rocks in his hands, ready to throw them at her livestock guardian dogs. Her dogs were contained in the proper fence, but the individual didn't know that, they only knew the dogs were there. She has no trespassing signs posted. This has not stopped other people from trespassing on her property. Her young daughter had to chase them off. Her family's safety is her biggest concern. She is also concerned that since she lives in the WRIA 17 watershed area, there were laws passed that no new wells or farms could be added to that area. Existing farms were allowed if they had been there within a certain timeframe, but there was a cap put on new farming in the area. Last week, County Administrator Philip Morley made a comment based on a previous comment she made. Her comment stated she wished something could be done and that neighbors could decide. She is a landowner and she wants to have her land rights as well as everyone else. In response, County Administrator Morley stated that "We need to follow rules and everyone needs to follow the same rules. We have rules for everybody. We can't let individual landowners make the decisions about how other landowners are." Ms. Allen asked the Commissioners to consider all the applications that are in the WRIA 17 water district. Everyone in that area has wells. If the wells get contaminated, they will no longer have a value in their homes, and they will either have to buy water or move from the land they have. No one will loan against property that does not have water, or that has water which is contaminated. She urged the Board to consider the WRIA 17 areas and neighborhood areas. Thank you. Sam Feinson, Jefferson County: He stated he is an attorney in Port Townsend. He works with a few people in Jefferson County who are working to get their marijuana business licenses, medical marijuana and for those who one day hope to get a permit. He stated he is not here for them, but more on his behalf as someone who moved to Jefferson County about a year ago and has family in the area. Mr. Feinson has friends who are a part of generations of family in the area. One of his friends has heard that the County is recruiting. He urged the Board to let the moratorium expire. If the Board and the Planning Commission absolutely need more time, go with the option that allows for smaller processors on rural residential 1:10 and larger. There has been a lot of statements made about Tier 3 producers, the impact they have and the size of their operations. Tier 2 is not that much bigger than Tier 1, those may qualify for Cottage Industry. Right now, there are about 15 -20 processor applications and that will most likely increase when the permit process opens up again. For people who are extracting THC from marijuana and creating all kinds of non - smokable, edible goods, this can be done in basically the size of a home brewing operation. This is an industry that not only can bring a lot of wealth and investment to the area, but it also speaks to and caters to skill sets that are here such as small agriculture, botany, Page 5 Commissioners Special Meeting Minutes of January 26, 2015 entrepreneurship, construction industry, consulting and small business acumen that we have in County. This is a great way to keep and create jobs in this County. He stated he wants the Commissioners to understand the importance of Cottage Industry and the possibilities for small production and the lower impact businesses that don't have as much of an environmental intrusion to residential areas. They represent more of a lower scale, more equitable and utilitarian business model that is represented in this County and will be much more prevalent when permitting opens up. Carley Anderson, Jefferson County: She stated she was born and raised in Port Townsend and has lived on Louisa Street in Maplewood Meadows since 2006 with her husband and two daughters. She is in favor of extending the moratorium to allow developers to be more deliberate in the placement of marijuana operations. Ms. Anderson stated that she disagrees with a recent comment Chairman Sullivan made to a local paper which stated a marijuana business next door is similar to that of a homeowner losing their view. She does not believe that is an honest comparison. If these marijuana developments enter their neighborhoods, property rights will change. Adding these types of plants to an already established neighborhood would necessitate the owners to disclose this information when selling their home. It would prohibit any residents, herself included, from taking care of or starting a daycare in their homes or establishing a neighborhood park. Residents in her neighborhood have discussed the idea of a park several times in the past. These restrictions are similar to that of a sex offender moving into a neighborhood. It can hardly be compared to losing a view. She finds it misleading that those in favor of ending the moratorium are claiming they will lose so much money. In fact, there currently is a major glut in the marijuana market in Washington, so that argument does not stand. She urged the Commissioners to maintain the moratorium and take time to make decisions and regulations in the best, long -term interest of the residents of Jefferson County. She and her neighbors have significant investments at stake, as well as significant concerns for their children. She urged the Commissioners not to cave in to pressure. Thank you. Karen Page, Chimacum: She thanked the Board for the original moratorium and encouraged the Commissioners to extend the moratorium. This process is basically just getting going and there are so many issues involved in figuring out what is best for this County and the citizens of this County, all of us. At this point, public participation is still needed and opportunities to present sides. She has heard arguments tonight and believes there are equal sides to every story. At this point, we are still flushing out what makes sense for all of us. She stated that she feels that the moratorium should be extended to include all parcels, no exceptions. When she got involved in this issue months ago, the very thing that was most important to her was to have this actually happen. Getting the Planning Commission and citizens involved and to be heard and listened to has been her goal since she started discussing this issue. She appreciates the fact that the hearing on this issue is taking place in the evening and encourages this process to continue. If the County declares the moratorium is over, that is not an action that can be undone. She urged the Board to continue the moratorium. Thank you. Mike Dam. Jefferson County: He stated he has lived in Jefferson County for around five years and is a small business owner. As a business owner he can appreciate wanting to get things right. He is pro - business and he can understand the plight of the individuals who want to get their businesses off the ground as quickly as possible, but he believes this needs to be done right the first time. Mr. Dam is in favor of extending the moratorium so that this process can be done correctly and business people can get what they want without affecting the residents of this County in a negative way. He stated he owns property in Maplewood Meadows where there are lots of young families. The Washington State Liquor Control Board (LCB) has certain rules in place that try and limit these types of businesses in certain Page 6 Commissioners Special Meeting Minutes of January 26, 2015 areas around schools, libraries and parks or other places where children congregate. Obviously when there are 17 children in Maplewood Meadows, they congregate there more than any of the other places combined. Even more so than the state, the County should have resident's best interest at heart. The spirit of the law seems to indicate there is some risk of having these types of businesses close to children. If that's true than that should be the case for the children in residential neighborhoods. He believes there is a solution that is fair to all parties, especially to young families and those who do not want marijuana operations nearby. In addition to the state requirements of 1,000 feet from schools and parks, so should it be for residential neighborhoods. He encouraged the Commissioners to extend the moratorium so it can be done right, as it is hard to go back if it is done wrong. Thank you. Marjorie Bovd: She stated she believes the public discussion is just starting on this issue and should have been done around a year ago, but better late than never. She is glad the discussions are happening. Democracy is messy, but here we are. She hates the idea of stopping the progress when it feels like we are just getting there, particularly the participation of the Planning Commission. She urged the Commissioners to extend the moratorium to include all zones stating the County does not want to get ahead of the legislature. The trend in other counties as well as in the state level is towards locating production and processors in commercial and light industrial areas. She added that there is an advantage to not jumping the gun and not getting ahead of the legislature. We don't want them to prohibit marijuana operations in residential when we've already permitted that. Fire explosion and related risks have not been properly evaluated by Jefferson County and should be a part of the Planning Commission review, which is finally happening. In respect to jobs, why not open adult businesses such as lap dancing? It is allowable at the federal level and legal in all 50 states. There are no problems with banking, prostitution and organized crime if it is run correctly, except that statistically, there are problems. She stated that it can be said that of those that are not run correctly, that those weren't the good players. Here we have this huge unknown where it may be legal on the state level, but not on the federal level. This is a huge experiment, why would we have a light touch at this point? She stated that would be like giving her 16 year old a can of beer, the keys to her car and encouraging her to drive across the country to see how it goes. It would be best to start her teenager on the more conservative level to see how it goes and then loosen up a bit. Once the genie is out of the bottle, you can't stuff it back in. She added that we may not know for years how this will pan out. Both sides are claiming they have statistics. One side is stating that insurance statistics are down, while according to Colorado statistics, insurance is on the rise. She urged the Commissioners not to experiment with neighborhoods as they will be destroyed and unable to be rebuilt. Gary Johnson, Brinnon: He read from a statement he submitted. (See hearing record) Tim Wilkins, Marrowstone Island: He stated he owns property on Marrowstone Island and believes it isn't fair how this moratorium transpired. He had a pre - application meeting for his property and everything was going perfectly, only to find out that three days prior, the moratorium had been enacted. He would like to see the moratorium expire. Mr. Wilkins stated he believes the people of Jefferson County want this because almost 70% of the residents voted for I -502. There is only one county in the State of Washington that had a higher percentage of `Yes' votes and that was Island County. If the Commissioners decide to renew the moratorium, he noted that one proposed version is erroneous and unfair. There are 16,366 parcels zoned R5, rural residential five acres, in Jefferson County. Rural residential 10 acres, there is only 1,249 parcels. That is a 14 to 1 ratio. He stated he has looked up all the lot sizes of the 5, 10 and 20 zoning classes. There are 21,713 of them and the lot sizes themselves are all over the board. Two acres may be zoned 20 acres and 80 acres could be zoned 20 acres. He added that Page 7 Commissioners Special Meeting Minutes of January 26, 2015 there is no uniformity when it comes to parcel sizes. He believes the only fair way to address this issue is to be real and transparent in what the County is trying to accomplish. If County makes it allowable to grow in rural residential 10 acre zoning, but you have to have five acres or more to do so, there are not that many of those kinds of parcels in Jefferson County. Mr. Wilkins suggests forgetting about the zoning, and just go by the lot size, whether it be 5, 7, 10 acres. He suggested that the County segregate out the difference between individuals who intend to produce and those who want to produce and process marijuana. Those who choose not to process marijuana should not need a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). He stated that his attorney in Seattle has heard that within the next couple of months, the LCB will be profit sharing with the local jurisdictions and local entities will get 25% of the local coffers. Francesco Tortoria, Port Townsend: He urged the Commissioners to let the moratorium expire. He read from a statement he previously emailed. (See hearing record) Angie O'Dell, Port Townsend: She read from a statement she provided. (See hearing record) Christopher O'Dell, Port Townsend: He urged the Commissioners to extend the moratorium in all zones that are within 1,000 feet of a residence. He has heard that some people have claimed that those who support extending the moratorium, are not presenting facts and are just worried about tall fences and things like that. He stated he would not mind a tall fence and his neighborhood currently has fences so it is not a big deal. If you go to YouTube and search marijuana explosions, there are many posted on there and a lot of them are from Colorado and relatively recent. He stated that his house is around 640 feet from a 44,000 square foot processing plant and less distance than that from two Tier 2 processing plants. Explosions do happen. There is also the increased probability of crime because of the cash nature of the business. The CEO of the American Bankers Association has been quoted as saying "As it stands, position distribution of marijuana violates federal law and banks that provide support to those activities face the risk of persecution and assorted sanctions." Banks will not actively work with marijuana facilities. This will force the industry to be an all cash business, and this is not good for his neighborhood. People will know there is large sums of cash at the nearby marijuana businesses that someone can steal from. He is very concerned that these issues are being discussed so close near the end of the moratorium. He stated the reason that he and his wife started attending the Board of County Commissioner (BOCC) meetings a few months ago, is because they found out about the nearby marijuana facilities by accident. They did not realize and were not informed that one such operation would be going in right next to their house on an industrial lot. He does not believe that marijuana should be the same as other types of agriculture. He does not have to worry about corn exploding next to his house or crime as a result of people stealing corn. The County needs more time to discuss these issues. He stated that he just found out about this issue weeks ago and was not aware that this has been going on since August. Thank you. Jackie Aase, Port Townsend: She read from her statement she provided. (See hearing record) William Johnson, Jefferson County: He stated he is in favor of ending the moratorium. He grew up in Jefferson County in a neighborhood that contains multiple black market marijuana grow operations that masquerade as medical grow operations. They have no security, accountability and children are present. For those familiar with state legislation, regulations and restrictions are already enacted to manage safety, security, responsibility and accountability. Rural residential licensees will be able to operate with little to no footprint. He believes Jefferson County needs legitimate licensed businesses sooner rather Page 8 Commissioners Special Meeting Minutes of January 26, 2015 than later. Through research, he found out there is a bank in Olympia already accepting cash from marijuana businesses. Thank you for allowing me to give you my input and "Go Seahawks!" David Speer: He urged the Commissioners to end the moratorium. Annie Failoni: She urged the Commissioners to extend the moratorium to allow more time to study the issues, get the facts and make sound decisions so that everyone is not possibly negatively affected. There is too much question about safety, crime, money, affecting kids, residences and other businesses. She believes the moratorium should be extended so the Commissioners can make good decisions because once the moratorium is ended, you can't go back. Thank you. John Hacko: He stated he is in favor of extending the moratorium and referenced the previously submitted emails regarding the issue. There are many decisions to make and a lot of loose ends. He can't understand why this situation is proceeding the way it is. He stated the moratorium could be put together so much better, without all the hassle. He is tired of coming to all the meetings and begging the Commissioners to do the right thing, which is doing it right. Thank you. Maria Porter: She stated she is in favor of letting the moratorium expire. There is at least one credit union that is accepting cash from marijuana businesses and other banks will also open up to this idea. She does not believe banking will be an issue in the future. Ryan Barnard, Port Townsend: He stated he is in favor of extending the moratorium. He attended a Planning Commission meeting recently and from what he saw, there is still quite a bit of work left to do. He urged the Board to let the Planning Commission do the job they are hired to do which includes research, draw their conclusions based on facts and not pressure from either side, and not to rush them. Give them time to make their recommendations. He asked the Board to listen to the County residents as they want their neighborhoods to feel safe. He is sure there is a way for the marijuana businesses to thrive in Jefferson County without compromising the nearby neighborhoods. Time needs to be given to find out how. Please extend the moratorium, thank you. Karen Crouse: She stated she is against marijuana operations in rural residential areas because she lives in a small community called Woodland Hills and there currently is an illegal business across from her property. She stated she has previously spoken to Commissioner Kler and Director Smith prior to the meeting about that issue, as well as filed complaints. DCD does not have enough people to monitor complaints. She has brought this issue up to DCD and the Commissioners on other occasions. How can we add one, two, 100 burdens or 16,000 five acre parcels to the already worked group at DCD and expect them to monitor and follow up on complaints? She stated she has not gotten anywhere with her complaint and has been told it will take another 90 days, or staff is out on vacation, but you really don't have a compliance officer to follow up on building permits. How are you going to have a compliance officer to follow up on what's necessary to monitor marijuana growing, especially in residential areas? Thank you. Heather Tillman: She stated she has been listening to the comments made at the hearing and would like to know who decided that marijuana was an agricultural crop? From what she has heard, it does not nourish people or feed animals. It certainly brings out a lot of people who are interested in money. Marijuana crop is money. She stated that those individuals who are so interested in keeping it going, are interested in money. Some people are concerned about losing money. They have invested in the Page 9 Commissioners Special Meeting Minutes of January 26, 2015 Kc marijuana business when they thought they would be very prosperous. Money is not a crop in her language, and never will be. She hopes that marijuana will not sway politicians as it seems to be doing so adequately in Washington, D.C. these days. Chris Gardner: He urged the Board to extend the moratorium and keep it in place as is. 5 -20 acres with a minimum setback. That is no different than a small parcel. There is no difference in the space between his house and a grow operation. Every lot is unique due to ingress and egress. Any marijuana grows in residential zones is unacceptable. Problems continue to arise and there is a potential to devalue entire neighborhoods. Some people may be put at risk, the County just does not know. Rural residential is just a name for almost every area right up to the City limits. He stated that this issue is a new one and no one had the foresight that a marijuana operation could happen next to them. It isn't like having an airport next to you, it's not like losing your view, this is like having a Mars launcher next to you, you wouldn't expect it. The more people that find out about this, by accident, the more public input you will hear. The longer the moratorium is in place, the longer the County will hear input from citizens. People are just finding out about this as there is no notification process. You're not keeping people from growing, they can still purchase land in areas suitable for their operations. He added there is no rights lost, they can simply go purchase land, and use that land. Thank you. Roger Short, Chimacum: He stated he has been a farmer in Jefferson County for 70 years. He came to this County when he was three years old and has been a farmer ever since. He added that he probably knows more about traditional agriculture than any other active farmer in the area and most of the bureaucratic people involved. He stated that the County Commissioners have a tough situation in front of them. He has friends on both sides of the marijuana issue. He has dealt with the County and the Planning Commission in the past on other issues which should have been stopped early on in the process. Someone with a little bit of common sense and understanding of the natural resource issues in the County, should have known that there would be problems from both sides of this current marijuana issue. He anticipates lawsuits coming from both sides. If he invested $1 -2 Million dollars in something he thought he could do in Jefferson County, he would be real unhappy being setback. He would also be unhappy if someone came in and started a marijuana operation right next to him. He used to operate a dairy for quite some time and stated that the manure spreaders smell a lot. At one point, his manure spreader turned away nearby prospective land buyers. 10 years ago he tried starting up a cheese facility, and while everyone thought this was a good idea, he was unable to get into that business due to the County and other regulatory agencies being unable to decide what they wanted to do. He stated he was stalled to death and spent $50,000 on his efforts. A greenhouse that had been proposed in the Chimacum Valley on a conservation easement for agriculture had been stalled for 8 -9 months because they were given bad information from the County. Another person tried to start a goat dairy farm, but it took them around a year and a half to go through the process. Marijuana growing is not a traditional agricultural product. He referred to a report submitted by Ms. Karen Page's attorney which has a good explanation of the reasoning behind that statement. It is not traditional. Seth Rowland, Port Townsend: He stated that he moved to Jefferson County 13 years ago from Talas County, New Mexico. Talas County has no zoning at all. Every time an inappropriate use would be suggested, it had to be fought. There was a proposed gravel crushing plant in a residential neighborhood. Every single inappropriate use had to be fought. He congratulated the County on having zoning and for paying attention to this process. Zoning done right can protect everybody because you buy a property under certain expectations, and those expectations are carried throughout your life. He supported I -502 and voted for it because he believes that criminalization of marijuana is not working. He didn't vote for Page 10 Commissioners Special Meeting Minutes of January 26, 2015 I -502 because he thinks that a marijuana farm should be put in every available lot everywhere. The County's zoning had nothing in it that addressed marijuana grow operations. The moment has already passed to set up some clear zoning before any permits were issued. We are no longer at that stage. He encouraged the Commissioners to take their time and extend the moratorium to do this right. Where his parents live, if someone wants to do something that is not allowed, such as building an extension to their house that is higher than the required limits, they just need to get the permission from all the neighbors. Marijuana is much more of an industrial crop than an agricultural one and could be zoned like that. He suggested that if neighbors are okay with a marijuana operation next door, than it would be existing condition. If the property went up for sale, potential buyers would be aware of the existing condition. He believes that is a clear and simple solution to that issue. Thanks for considering this and continue on. Vicki Costankus, Jefferson County: She stated that some people are not aware of what has been going on, or are educated on what the issue is all about. She had found out about the marijuana moratorium hearing a few days prior to it. She researched the issue and studied it. It seemed apparent to her that this County is abounds with creative individuals, beyond belief. She has lived in this community for over 20 years and the citizens here astound her. It is one of the reasons she wishes to continue living in this County. She would like to see more time spent on the moratorium, to make sure it is done right. This community is phenomenal, take a look around, it is a special place. She recognizes the tragedy of those who spent money on something they thought would happen and understands their frustration, but she also feels that the County should not make quick decisions that will haunt us forever. If the sides are this back and forth, do we need to rush it? For those in the community who are just finding out about the issue, you're going to have a lot more conversations. She doesn't want to give the Commissioners more work. It is prudent to ask for more time to set this straight for everyone. Thank you. Jeremiah Van Ness, Jefferson County: He has heard a lot of individuals speaking about "working families ". He stated he is the working family. He commutes two hours a day, depending on the job. His current job he's on, he commutes three hours one way. He does this to be able to keep his family in Jefferson County. He urged the Commissioners to extend the moratorium. He feels that this is a ball that has been dropped on he and his wife. His wife is currently at home taking care of their two small children. By saving every dime they had, they were able to purchase their current property on Larson Lake Road in July of 2014. He is in the process of getting a septic and building permit. It is like a bomb when you're not aware of what is going on and you find out through the rumor -mill that there is plans for a nearby marijuana farm. After research, he confirmed that there is. He stated it is mind - blowing and it crushes his family. He believes he is the working family, travelling and doing what he can to keep his family in Jefferson County and be able to afford a rural residential piece of land where he can raise his family and build the house of his dreams. He stated that he has a son and daughter who will be in Cub Scouts, baseball, football, cheerleading, Brownies and he is concerned that his children's friend's parents may not want their children to come to his children's house due to a marijuana grow operation down the road. There needs to be more planning, clearer decisions and more time taken. He did not plan on speaking at the hearing. As a result of attending the hearing, he will be late for his nightshift. He would like to keep his family in Jefferson County and keep his investment in Jefferson County going. There is a lot of money on the line for him. There are a lot of other people with money on the line, not just those who applied for marijuana operations. There are people who either have existing homes or are building their homes and who are trying to keep their kids in Jefferson County. Thank you. Tom Thiersch, Jefferson County: He stated that the Commissioners have three options to consider, do nothing, preserve the existing moratorium or extend the moratorium, but with modifications. What is not Page 11 Commissioners Special Meeting Minutes of January 26, 2015 listed is the fourth option, which had been brought up by many people, which is to extend the moratorium to all zones. Sorry, that is not on the table. To do this, the County would have to hold another hearing before the current moratorium expires, so that option is not available. He would not be in favor of it if it were. The moratorium should expire for a lot of reasons. The people who have permits pending, that are in progress with DCD, as soon as the moratorium lapses, those permits will theoretically be processed and those people will be able to go on with their lives. There aren't going to be any new state - issued licenses for a long time. There will be ample time to let the Planning Commission study this issue, take all the time they need, go through the regular planning cycle of Comprehensive Plan amendments and come up with some rules and regulations that may be necessary to satisfy at least the majority of people. This wasn't done in a timely manner with the current moratorium. Voters approved the initiative in 2012. How long did it take Jefferson County to come up with the moratorium? Almost two years? If the Commissioners intended to do this, it should have been done right away. He stated that by the Commissioners waiting as long as they have been, they have severely disadvantaged those people that have invested money into properties to start these businesses. It is not fair to them what the County is doing. He stated that the Board can't extend the moratorium forever without getting into legal trouble. He added that by extending the moratorium the way it is proposed, people will not be able to plant their crops and they will lose a lot of money. As a result, he believes the County will be sued for damages. That means that taxpayers will end up picking up the bill, and he doesn't want to pay for that. He urged the Board to let the moratorium lapse, put the Planning Commission to work — on a reasonable work plan, put it into the regular cycle, and let's be done with this thing. Thank you. Diane Maynard, Marrowstone: She stated that she has previously written to the Commissioners regarding this issue. She agrees with the previous commentator and believes we should "be done with this." She believes if you have this industry in an industrial or commercial area, you could be done with it. She is sympathetic with those who have made investments, the problem is that the public is a sleeping giant. If it took the Commissioners two years to enact a moratorium, it will take the public at least another four months to awake the sleeping giant so that the County can get sufficient public input. She understands that it is the Commissioners' duty to protect public interest. She has resided in Jefferson County for 20 years and she feels threatened by this industry. If 65% of the County voted to have marijuana, 35% voted not to legalize it. There is absolutely no logical conclusion that if you voted to legalize marijuana, that you voted to have it next to you in your rural residential lot. To her, it is very clear what rural residential means and is not a grey area in any way. Maybe Cottage Industry is a grey area. She hopes and expects that the Commissioners protect existing homeowners and that they at the very minimum, extend the moratorium. Thank you. Nan Pope, Jefferson County: She stated she has lived in Jefferson County for 46 years. She urged the Commissioners to check the facts they already have. You have the facts versus the fear, let the moratorium end, thanks. Jay Pine, Jefferson County: He stated that he has lived in Jefferson County for 24 years. He stated he senses a lot of fear from individuals attending the hearing. He lives in Port Townsend and one of his neighbors has a marijuana grow and is very upfront about it. His neighbor has put an article in the paper about it, invited everyone over and explained exactly what it is that he is doing, and he has not experienced any sort of crime. He is a good neighbor. He doesn't believe his neighbor has gotten into a hassle with anyone, and he lives on a small city lot. People should not approach this issue with a lot of fear because the amount of fear that people feel, is unfounded. Thank you. Page 12 Commissioners Special Meeting Minutes of January 26, 2015 x 'gso' ac Donna English, Chimacum: She urged the Commissioners to extend the moratorium to allow for time to get it right. Local media reported earlier this morning about this hearing, giving the date, time and location and said that this hearing should be watched. Perhaps the entire state will be watching Jefferson County. It is important that we get it right. John English, Chimacum: He urged the Commissioners to extend the moratorium. The vast majority of citizens that are not a part of potential grow operations found out by accident about the issue. They are just now voicing their opinion. If the people who elected to invest in these grow operations, experienced early on, the amount of push -back from the citizens that they are getting now, they may not have invested. He urged the Commissioners to extend the moratorium and get it right. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Sullivan closed the public hearing. Chairman Sullivan noted that written hearing comments submitted by email to the office prior to the close of the public hearing will be reviewed on the next business day. County Administrator Morley added that the Commissioners will be looking carefully at all the comments. NOTICE OFADJOURNMENT. Chairman Sullivan adjourned the meeting at 7:46 p.m. SEAL:" i�•i`.- ',. \y v s 11,E a I• . x, � ATTEST: Carolyn Avery Deputy Clerk of the Board JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD QF)COMMISSIONERS Phil Johnson, Member tai. kkef— Kathleen Kler, Member Page 13 JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST TITLE: Hearing re: Two Alternatives for Extending ORDINANCE NO. 07- 0811 -14: Moratorium Prohibiting the Production, Processing and Retailing of Recreational Marijuana in Certain Land Use Designations within Unincorporated Jefferson Count DATE and TIME: Monday, January 26, 2015 @ 6:00 p.m. PLACE: Cotton Building, City of Port Townsend NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS Not Required) CITY Not Required)___ Testimony? YES NO MAYBE (ION M ❑ ❑ e P goo I IY1 ❑ ❑ frn i�4C� /0 ❑ ❑ ❑ V• ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ m t-\ ❑ ❑ 21 ❑ ❑ 1V` � �r ❑ ❑ wn t��' ❑ ❑ /pLyu ^ ^nB�Z V11//��V y�(��� c?+ ❑ ❑ t4 ❑ ❑ ❑ 1—� rider , r id ti 0 ri, /a-V) d ❑ ® ❑ =joce �t�etvs �cr%Tcw,1s� ❑ ❑ -z1 X❑ ❑ ,.7 � z tz ❑ P ❑ -I r Co,t rti , -, r �> r JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST TITLE: Hearing re: Two Alternatives for Extending ORDINANCE NO. 07- 0811 -14: Moratorium Prohibiting the Production, Processing and Retailing of Recreational Marijuana in Certain Land Use Designations within Unincorporated Jefferson Count DATE and TIME: Monday, January 26, 2015 @ 6:00 p.m. PLACE: Cotton Building, City of Port Townsend NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS (Not Required) CITY Not Required) Testimony? YES No MAYBE 11 El A 1F DEN ��>Ir1SC3 1 ��t-T Lv -pLaW ❑ Z ❑ U_ Co,t Ludw El El j� 11 / ✓� `� ru L/I -et Lf I Ce ❑ [9 ❑ 'r iKI( 1 — ❑ c1f 1n ��d QV3Q jj�j ❑l B [I i� '4,t�i' U�' 2- El ❑ ❑ 9 E El 9 El 11iNNf �IJ !1 U:ll�;'� L ✓DC ✓gin/ [�/P El El El /�.i El El El J �f El El SA Nl rE NV'�d,,Aj rr ❑ ❑ RE] 11 1 ❑ ❑ V �BZIlC/ �sCG1Y'I ❑ ❑ �" Yl /1 ?Cl lln1� ❑ ❑ kf P&002 JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST TITLE: Hearing re: Two Alternatives for Extending ORDINANCE NO. 07- 0811 -14: Moratorium Prohibiting the Production, Processing and Retailing of Recreational Marijuana in Certain Land Use Designations within Unincorporated Jefferson Count DATE and TIME: Monday, January 26, 2015 @ 6:00 p.m. PLACE: Cotton Building, City of Port Townsend NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS (Not Re uired) CITY (Not Required) Testimony? YES No MAYBE ��// A t--u D -V El 11 i C Jo 1 M' [ ❑ ❑ ,JPgLR CO ❑ ❑ ❑ EWE] [I YWi �S 3 L" c� �In (� GA�I>eL'/ . nJ El 11 pp �C r S J V ❑ J. ❑ r Lole RO,-nQ,4 155 4v'->a- PT ❑ ❑ Kr 1J SA J I ❑ ❑ ❑ E ❑ ❑ aEl K ❑ ❑ aEl CeSc�o or�or 1 li Carct3(�SS ' �T/ ❑ ❑ i Y l L 1 1 ❑ ❑ I1 1 V I FPIT �JV��r{� S ❑ ❑ 'tk r� mod, ❑ 02k. G . J�] 1111 ❑ El El ❑ 11 El El 1111 JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST TITLE: Hearing re: Two Alternatives for Extending ORDINANCE NO. 07- 0811 -14: Moratorium Prohibiting the Production, Processing and Retailing of Recreational Marijuana in Certain Land Use Designations within Unincorporated Jefferson Count DATE and TIME: Monday, January 26, 2015 @ 6:00 p.m. PLACE: Cotton Building, City of Port Townsend NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS Not Required) CITY (Not Required) Testimony? No MAYBE i+ W1�.LI fh v'JTIN `LSN oJ jYES YE IGt ❑ ❑ 1h z €/ ❑ © ❑ CL El R 11 `1AA ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � t // JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST TITLE: Hearing re: Two Alternatives for Extending ORDINANCE NO. 07- 0811 -14: Moratorium Prohibiting the Production, Processing and Retailing of Recreational Marijuana in Certain Land Use Designations within Unincorporated Jefferson County DATE and TIME: Monday, January 26, 2015 @ 6:00 p.m. PLACE: Cotton Building, City of Port Townsend NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS (Not Required) CITY (Not Required) Testimony? YES MAYBE `` �i2 Lo r j G nr� S' �N-O�/ ❑ L�1 ❑ 717- Z Jf ❑ ® ❑ El El El i 1 1 \` El ❑� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 11 ❑ ❑ (c ate - I Ia i5 HEARING RECORD January 12, 2015 To: David Sullivan, Jefferson County Commissioner Phil Johnson, Jefferson County Commissioner V-- Kathleen Kler, Jefferson County Commissioner Philip Morley, Jefferson County Administrator Carl Smith, Director, Jefferson County DCD Joel Peterson, Jefferson County DCD Associate Planner From: Peter Davis, a Jefferson County resident Subject: Attached Documents (2) I appreciate having had the opportunity to speak at the two most recent BOCC Meetings, and realized that I could have (but didn't) submitted hard copies of my comments to you. Please excuse this oversight on my part, and accept these hard copies of those comments. Thank you. Sincerely, Peter C. Davis 130 Louisa St, Maplewood Meadows, Port Townsend, WA (physical address) 2023 E Sims Way, #327, Port Townsend, WA (mailing address) Cell Phone: 360 - 531 -1995 'u ITEMS FOR BOCC MEETING 1/12/15 My name is Peter Davis, and I reside at 130 Louisa Street just south of the Port Townsend city limits. I spoke to you last Monday, and wanted to clarify a couple of my comments. First, however, I want to publicly thank Kathleen Kier for taking time out of her busy schedule to come to our neighborhood, to see for herself the situation about which I spoke last week. I only hope that the other two commissioners will take the time to visit our neighborhood as well, so they can relate first -hand to the situation we face in our neighborhood. While I spoke to a number of specific concerns last week, I appear today not to re- iterate those concerns, but rather to prevail on the Board to take it upon themselves to protect the residents of Jefferson County from what can only be considered oversights of both the WSLCB and the Jefferson County Code. These oversights have no doubt been brought about by the state's urgency in developing a set of rules and regulations with regard to the legalization of marijuana, as well as the county's unfamiliarity with such a product as marijuana in terms of regulating its growing and processing facilities within the context of our county zoning laws. I Specifically, I am asking the Board of Commissioners to look closely at two primary areas of concern: the proximity of such facilities from school bus stops, and the proximity of such facilities from residential areas. The standard cited by the WSLCB is that marijuana growing and processing facilities should be at least 1,000 feet from schools, parks, playgrounds, recreation areas, arcades, and public transit centers. I am asking that this standard of 1,000 feet also be extended by Jefferson County to include school bus stops and residential neighborhoods, regardless of the zoning designation in which the facilities are located. I know that there is a big discussion going on now, and is yet to be resolved, concerning whether or not marijuana is to be considered an agricultural crop; this is one of the factors that has been taken under advisement during the moratorium. In my opinion, and by virtue of the WSLCB, the definition of marijuana has already been distinguished from other agricultural products - and as such needs to be regulated accordingly with whatever safeguards are necessary. Finally, this is the chance for Jefferson County to get it right - to derive a workable plan for the administration of this new industry called marijuana in such a fashion as to be a successful venture within our county, without any undue negative impacts on the health, well -being and happiness of its residents. While I empathize with those business - persons who are currently held up by the moratorium, I would urge the BOCC to place the importance of doing things the right way ahead of doing things quickly. Thank you. Hello - my name is Peter Davis. I reside at 130 Louisa Street, just south of the Port Townsend city boundary, and just west of State Route 20. I live in the Maplewood Meadows development, a neighborhood of 17 occupied homes and 10 lots for future residential development. I am here, along with some of my neighbors, to register opposition to the 44,000 sq. ft. marijuana growth and distribution facility that is proposed for an intersection that is very near our neighborhood. We are addressing you today because the application for this Tier III marijuana operation will not have the benefit of a public hearing. The Maplewood Meadows neighborhood exists less than 600 feet from the proposed grow operation. This is a significant distance, since the Washington State Liquor Control Board has chosen to require distances of at least 1,000 feet from elementary or secondary schools, playgrounds, recreation centers, child care centers, public parks, public transit centers, libraries, or game arcades with no age restrictions. But the WSLCB does not impose any limitations or minimum distances from a residential neighborhood, a transit or school bus stop, or a street along which school children walk. In fact, the school children in our neighborhood must walk directly through the intersection of Louisa Street and Frederick Street, the intersection abutting the proposed site. In our opinion, this is a serious oversight on the part of the WSLCB. Many of my neighbors, along with myself, have written letters to the Jefferson County Department of Community Development, which I understand to have the final say in approving the application. I have also written a letter to the Washington State Liquor Control Board, relative to its basis for issuing the Tier III license application. We have a number of objections to the proposed grow facility in our neighborhood which we have included in letters to the DCD. These include its distance from our neighborhood (585 feet), the fact that the only access into and out of our neighborhood is through the intersection that abuts the site, the fact that just over 50 people live in our neighborhood (including 23 children between the ages of 1 and 18, with those of school age having to walk through this intersection on their way to and from the school bus), the fact that both Jefferson Transit and school buses have regular stops at the intersection of Frederick and Route 20, (less than 650 feet from the proposed site), the fact that the application makes absolutely no reference to the fact that there is a residential development nearby, and so forth. Finally, there are currently 2 active and 7 pending marijuana grow operation license applications for the Glen Cove Business Park east of Route 20, as well as this application on the west side of Route 20. At 44,000 sq. ft., this will amount to site coverage of over an acre, making it one of the larger, if not the largest, grow facility in the area. For these, and many other reasons, I ask the question, "Why here, next to our neighborhood, instead of across Route 20 with the other similar businesses ?" I respectfully ask that the Board of Commissioners consider the health, well -being and quality of life of our neighborhood, and disallow this Tier III grow operation from the proposed site at Frederick and Louisa, as it has been requested in MRA14- 00090. Thank you for your consideration. Julie Shannon HEARING RECORD From: gnarleydogfarm @gmail.com Sent: Monday, January 12, 2015 9:27 PM To: Phil Johnson; David Sullivan; Kathleen Kier Subject: Thanks and support Hello Phil, Dave, and Kathleen, How is your battle to become comfortable with this beast we call 1 -502? Ha ha ha! 1 knew it was really big, but I don't think anyone totally comprehended how big it was. I know it is all- consuming, exhausting, daunting, and monopolizing your time. I hope to show you that it will also be rewarding, inspiring, sustainable, and a very solid business opportunity for JeffCo, and it's residents. I realize your time is consumed with this task, at the expense of other responsibilities and your personal lives, and I want to offer you any info I can to help you with this decision, along with my appreciation and thanks for your efforts and rational thinking. I want you to know that I am not looking for favors because I think I have enough facts to make this thing work, I believe you will agree, and I am happy to substantiate any claims I make or explain any aspect further. I have nothing to hide and I am happy to share my info. You will not catch me stretching the truth because I have no need to do so. I do make mistakes, but 1 am open to corrections and if l discover better info I will inform you of my change in information regardless if it effects me negatively. Honestly, I have done this with DCD. Would you like a tour of a licensed processor in PT? One of the OPCA (Olympic Peninsula Cannabis Association) members has a facility for processing only, not production. He'd be happy to show you his gig. The owners of Sea Change and Herbal Access (retailers) are also members and I'm sure they'd be happy to show you their stores. If you would like to meet with OPCA members and ask us any questions you wish, we'd love to share with you. We meet monthly and chat online daily. Is there anything I can help you to understand? Gratefully, Jean Ball i Julie Shannon From: liz moore <gooddogart@olympus.net> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 4:31 PM To: Kathleen Kier Subject: Fwd: Keep the Moratorium k > Dear Commissioners, > I voted for all 3 of you. I am now calling on you to extend the moratorium for ALL parcels in regards to the marijuana industry that is about to take over our county. It makes NO sense to lift the moratorium on the LARGER parcels, the ones that will have the MOST impact in our rural neighborhoods. > The large grow and processing operations should be located in the industrial areas. It is the ONLY option that makes sense. It makes sense to the Police and fire departments, it makes sense for the security of the businesses, and it makes sense to the families who have built their lives here. > Marijuana is NOT KALE. Jefferson County cannot change that. IT 1S NOT A HARMLESS VEGETABLE! Marijuana must NOT be treated as agriculture. > 1 know there are farmers out there who are ready to make their millions- MAKE THEM WAIT! You have a chance to get this right. Have any of you wondered about the people going into this business. Are there security checks done on them. How do they know so much about a substance that until recently was against the law? How many of these operations will you allow in 'Pot Townsend" or Jefferson county? What are we as a community going to gain from this? > I am sure all of you have known people that have made poor choices. How many productive stoners have you known? How many stoners have you know who have contributed greatly to society? How many teenagers have you watched go from pot to alcohol or other drugs? Sadly there are too many in our community. One is too many. Has anyone spoken to the police chief, the judges, the juvenile councilor at the courthouse, or any of our juvenile public defenders to see how many kids have a record because of ANYTHING to do with marijuana - smoking it, selling it, or doing something stupid while using pot? Thanks to the internet, infractions that may seem somewhat harmless as a teenager will NEVER disappear from their records. The kids in this town have the most to lose. Not all of them have great role models for parents , or teachers that have time to advocate for them. I urge you to please give the kids in our community the most consideration when deciding on whether to extend the moratorium. You still have a lot to figure out. Don't rush any more operations through. > Lastly I would like to say this. As democrats, you have undoubtedly been aware of the dumbing down of our society. Just look at our Congress, our schools, Fox news, how few people turn out for elections and who they vote for. Our country is in a shambles and is only going to get worse with the new majorities in Congress. Booze can now be bought at any gas stain, and soon marijuana will be as available. Why would you want to pollute our neighborhoods, our community with industrial grow and processing operations? There should be a limit to them , and they should only be located in industrial areas, not in rural neighborhoods. If investors jumped the gun and bought up property with million dollar signs in their eyes, I say TOO BAD. Don't let them bully you into rushing. Take your time, do your homework. Do what makes sense for our community. > Extend the moratorium for ALL parcels, and DO NOT treat marijuana as kale- it is not kale. > Thank you for taking the time to read this. > Sincerely yours, > Liz Moore > 26 Discovery Ridge Rd. > Port Townsend 1 Julie Shannon From: David Sullivan Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 4:23 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Keep the Moratorium From: liz moore Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 4:24:58 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: David Sullivan Subject: Keep the Moratorium > Dear Commissioners, > I voted for all 3 of you. I am now calling on you to extend the moratorium for ALL parcels in regards to the marijuana industry that is about to take over our county. It makes NO sense to lift the moratorium on the LARGER parcels, the ones that will have the MOST impact in our rural neighborhoods. > The large grow and processing operations should be located in the industrial areas. It is the ONLY option that makes sense. It makes sense to the Police and fire departments, it makes sense for the security of the businesses, and it makes sense to the families who have built their lives here. > Marijuana is NOT KALE. Jefferson County cannot change that. IT IS NOT A HARMLESS VEGETABLE! Marijuana must NOT be treated as agriculture. > I know there are farmers out there who are ready to make their millions- MAKE THEM WAIT! You have a chance to get this right. Have any of you wondered about the people going into this business. Are there security checks done on them. How do they know so much about a substance that until recently was against the law? How many of these operations will you allow in 'Pot Townsend" or Jefferson county? What are we as a community going to gain from this? > I am sure all of you have known people that have made poor choices. How many productive stoners have you known? How many stoners have you know who have contributed greatly to society? How many teenagers have you watched go from pot to alcohol or other drugs? Sadly there are too many in our community. One is too many. Has anyone spoken to the police chief, the judges, the juvenile councilor at the courthouse, or any of our juvenile public defenders to see how many kids have a record because of ANYTHING to do with marijuana - smoking it, selling it, or doing something stupid while using pot? Thanks to the internet, infractions that may seem somewhat harmless as a teenager will NEVER disappear from their records. The kids in this town have the most to lose. Not all of them have great role models for parents , or teachers that have time to advocate for them. I urge you to please give the kids in our community the most consideration when deciding on whether to extend the moratorium. You still have a lot to figure out. Don't rush any more operations through. > Lastly 1 would like to say this. As democrats, you have undoubtedly been aware of the dumbing down of our society. Just look at our Congress, our schools, Fox news, how few people turn out for elections and who they vote for. Our country is in a shambles and is only going to get worse with the new majorities in Congress. Booze can now be bought at any gas stain, and soon marijuana will be as available. Why would you want to pollute our neighborhoods, our community with industrial grow and processing operations? There should be a limit to them , and they should only be located in industrial areas, not in rural neighborhoods. If investors jumped the gun and bought up property with million dollar signs in their eyes, I say TOO BAD. Don't let them bully you into rushing. Take your time, do your homework. Do what makes sense for our community. > Extend the moratorium for ALL parcels, and DO NOT treat marijuana as kale- it is not kale. > Thank you for taking the time to read this. > Sincerely yours, jeffbocc HEARING RECORD From: Terry Steben <capegeorgeseafoods@g mail. com > Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 9:53 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Comment regarding 1 -502 Attachments: Negative Impacts of Commercial grow operations on residential areas..odt Please see attached letter. Thank you Terry Steben January 14, 2015 Board of Jefferson County Commissioners 1829 Jefferson St Port Townsend Wa, 98368 Regarding lifting moratorium on Marijuana manufacturing Commissioners, I would urge you to take a closer look at the impacts caused by commercial marijuana grow operations, especially in residential zoned areas...... Fire hazard and volatility of process to extract oils Negative environmental impacts such as air quality, ground water, bright light impacts, noise. Potential for crime and violence Hazardous chemical storage impacts Hours of operation I think the operations could be limited to commercially zoned areas and thus reduce these impacts to residential areas. Thank you Terry Steben Jefferson County builder and resident for over 35 years. jeffbocc From: Terry Steben <capegeorgeseafoods @gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 10:02 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Public comments 1 -502 Attachments: Negative Impacts of Commercial grow operations on residential areas..rtf Sorry. The first copies were in an non readable format. Please read attached letter. Thank you Terry Steben jeffbocc @co.jefferson.wa.us January 14, 2015 Board of Jefferson County Commissioners 1829 Jefferson St Port Townsend Wa, 98368 Regarding lifting moratorium on Marijuana manufacturing Commissioners, I would urge you to take a closer look at the impacts caused by commercial marijuana grow operations, especially in residential zoned areas...... Fire hazard and volatility of process to extract oils Negative environmental impacts such as air quality, ground water, bright light impacts, noise. Potential for crime and violence Hazardous chemical storage impacts Hours of operation I think the operations could be limited to commercially zoned areas and thus reduce these impacts to residential areas. Thank you Terry Steben Jefferson County builder and resident for over 35 years. _HEARING RECORD _ -- -- - - - -- - _ -- ,z�, b� v'Q 0 C i /zof Proposed Approach for Planning Commission and BOCC deliberations on marijuana Moratorium and Code revisions: A measured and conservative approach to regulation is preferable to a `fight touch" approach which could result in unintended, irremediable consequences for neighborhoods. Marijuana production and processing should be sited in industrial and commercial areas where it is compatible with existing uses and not where it will impact existing residential areas. Special consideration should be given to protect existing residential areas even in industrial or commercial zones. Taking the time to "get it right" should be the underlying principle of DCD's efforts. • Issues the Planning Commission and BOCC should consider - Marijuana production and processing are legal and may provide a source of economic growth and employment in Jefferson County - There is significant public opposition and resistance to siting marijuana production and processing facilities in residential neighborhoods and the rural parts of Jefferson County. -The resistance to siting marijuana related facilities has been exacerbated by the lack of transparency and a meaningful process for voicing objections to the siting of marijuana facilities and by the BOCCs failure to involve the public before deciding to treat marijuana production and processing as normal agriculture, thus allowing those activities to proceed in almost every zone in Jefferson County. -Lack of transparency and process for resolving objections to siting marijuana facilities has also created confusion on the part of those who wish to enter the marijuana production and processing business and resulted in acrimonious • divisions amongst Jefferson County residents on the issue. -DCD did not consult appropriately with the Planning Commission prior to proceeding with its approach to marijuana regulation nor did it follow the process • set forth in the Comp Plan for Jefferson County. Jefferson County chose a minimalist approach not generally followed in other Counties and has no independent requirements for growing marijuana apart from approval by the LCB of an application to do so. -It will likely be several years before the impacts of marijuana production and processing in Jefferson County can be evaluated and fully understood. Good policy favors caution and protection of existing neighborhoods and residents who have invested in their houses and neighborhoods. - Recent reports from the Wa. LCB show that the demand for and price of marijuana is much less than originally estimated and marijuana producers and processors are struggling to maintain commercial viability. See, January 17th article in the Peninsula Daily News. - Colorado has experienced an increase in marijuana related home explosions due to attempts to extract oil from legally grown marijuana. See, January 17th article in the New York Times - Jefferson County should regulate marijuana in such a way that it balances the needs of those desiring to enter the marijuana business with the concerns of residents regarding the potential negative impacts of siting marijuana processing and production operations in their neighborhoods on their quality of life, property values, personal safety and security, environmental consequences and personal value systems. -Any system to regulate marijuana in Jefferson County should: 1. have provisions for notice to nearby residents of the proposed siting of such facilities in their neighborhood. 2. provide an opportunity for nearby residents to voice objections to siting such facilities and obtain a fair hearing on those objections, including both production and /or processing. 3. minimize disruption of or placement of such facilities in established residential neighborhoods or neighborhoods where residential is a significant part of the use in the proposed siting area. , • 4. not result in large parcels such as rural forest 1-40 being essentially unregulated. 5. ascertain that legal requirements regarding access to water, waste generation, adequacy of septic, well metering, and requirements of State Environmental Policy Act (SEPS) are met prior to issuing any permits which would allow marijuana to be produced or processed. 6. establish a permit requirement for production of marijuana and not merely rely on LCB's minimal rules which provide no meaningful protections for neighbors or substantive environmental or other standards. Proposed Discussion Questions for Planning Commission and BOCC -given the slow pace of the LCB to grant production and processing licenses and the dramatic drop in demand and price for legally grown marijuana, shouldn't Jefferson County take the time it needs during the Moratorium to "get it right? - shouldn't neighbors who may be impacted receive notice from Jefferson County of the filing of an application to site a facility for marijuana production or processing and opportunity for hearing prior to issuance of any permit? Given that there are —25 permit applications pending and only a portion of those applications may be contested, is providing opportunity for hearing before a Hearing Officer significant burden on County staff compared to the permanent impact on residents? - shouldn't marijuana production and processing be limited to industrial and commercial zones rather than allowed throughout the County on a theory that growing and processing marijuana is simply normal agriculture? -is there a technical or policy basis for allowing large parcels of land (e.g., forest land 20 or 40) to be unregulated with respect to growing/processing marijuana? Given that there are only 2 or 3 such applications, is there a resource burden or policy reason which justifies not treating all sites equally or exempting some sites completely from regulation? 11 -why should any applications to produce or process marijuana be exempted from the Moratorium unless the County is legally required to do so? - doesn't exempting some applicants to proceed without following the Code revisions which will result from Moratorium process undercut the purpose for the Moratorium and give an unfair economic advantage to those sites which are exempted? - shouldn't Jefferson County ascertain that access to adequate water, septic and related environmental issues have been resolved before granting permits for marijuana production and processing? What is the policy reason for not doing so? Is there a reason applicants should not make this demonstration? - shouldn't all wells used in producing or processing marijuana be required to be metered to track water use and that information be made available to DCD, Environmental Health and, thus, to the public? -what is the continuing role of the Planning Commission and the Comp Plan in assuring that regulations governing producing and processing marijuana in Jefferson County provide a fair balance of the needs of those seeking to grow and process marijuana and impacted neighborhoods and residents? - should there be a citizen advisory or oversight committee created to provide input and give neighborhood perspective to DCD and the Planning Commission on this issue? 0 Flo �QA,�/ e aAA-O� pt, r:—:: /t�srS ll� Y(o s-(j Julie Shannon HEARING From: Gerald C. Olson <jerryo @donobi.net> Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 3:20 PM To: Kathleen Kier Subject: Marijuana Grow Regulation Attachments: John's Revised Statement at Jan 2015 Meeting - Copy.docx Ms. Kier... Attached is a copy of a letter from a friend of mine which you have probably received from him. He has put a great deal of thought and care into this statement. I also would certainly have reservations about a grow operation being allowed next to our property. I hope that you, and the other commissioners, would at least continue the present moratorium until a little more thought and discussion can take place. I cannot believe that reasonable people would consider marijuana, no more than any other agricultural product, considering all the harm that has come from lives ruined by the abuse of this product. Please do not rush to approving this proposal during your commissioners meeting on January 26th. Gerald and Susan Olson 361 Mountain Trail Road Brinnon, Washington 98320 Jefferson County Commissioners: I think Jefferson County government and its residents have had enough time to realize that planning for recreational marijuana needed a little more thought and consideration than simply treating it as an agricultural plant like corn or cabbage which can be grown anywhere without State regulation. What method or comparison was used to come up with the conclusion that growing marijuana is like growing corn? • You don't need criminal background checks to grow corn. • You don't need criminal background checks for employees. • You don't need lights, cameras, security fences, barcodes and a license to grow corn. • You don't find the hallucinogenic compound THC in corn. • You don't have to be 1,000 feet from anything to grow corn. If marijuana is treated like any other agricultural plant, then the passage of 502 has effectively changed the designated character and, most importantly, the purpose of residential property in Jefferson County. Does Jefferson County lack enough commercial property —is that the reason for allowing marijuana growing and processing in residential neighborhoods? I did not buy residential property and build a home to live next door to a neighbor with a commercial facility and all that what comes with it. Other Washington counties, including Clallam and Kitsap, have adopted reasonable and fair regulations to protect residential neighborhoods. I strongly support extending the current moratorium so that restricting marijuana growing from residential property can be put into place for Jefferson County. John Hacko 402 Larson Lake Road, Chimacum (360) 732 -4457 jeffbocc From: Gerald C. Olson <jerryo @donobi.net> Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 3:49 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Marijuana Grow Regulation Attachments: John's Revised Statement at Jan 2015 Meeting - Copy.docx Mr. Johnson... Attached is a copy of a letter from a friend of mine which you have probably received from him. He has put a great deal of thought and care into his statement. I also would certainly have reservations about a grow operation next to our property. After all, a short time ago this would have been punishable by imprisonment. (and still is by federal standards.) I hope that you, and the other commissioners, would at least continue the present moratorium until a little more thought and discussion can take place. I cannot believe that reasonable people would consider marijuana, no more than any other agricultural product, considering all the harm that has come from the lives ruined by the abuse of this product. Please do not rush into approving this proposal during your commissioners meeting on January 26`h. Gerald and Susan Olson 361 Mountain Trail Road Brinnon, Washington 98320 Jefferson County Commissioners: I think Jefferson County government and its residents have had enough time to realize that planning for recreational marijuana needed a little more thought and consideration than simply treating it as an agricultural plant like corn or cabbage which can be grown anywhere without State regulation. What method or comparison was used to come up with the conclusion that growing marijuana is like growing corn? • You don't need criminal background checks to grow corn. • You don't need criminal background checks for employees. • You don't need lights, cameras, security fences, barcodes and a license to grow corn. • You don't find the hallucinogenic compound THC in corn. • You don't have to be 1,000 feet from anything to grow corn. If marijuana is treated like any other agricultural plant, then the passage of 502 has effectively changed the designated character and, most importantly, the purpose of residential property in Jefferson County. Does Jefferson County lack enough commercial property —is that the reason for allowing marijuana growing and processing in residential neighborhoods? I did not buy residential property and build a home to live next door to a neighbor with a commercial facility and all that what comes with it. Other Washington counties, including Clallam and Kitsap, have adopted reasonable and fair regulations to protect residential neighborhoods. I strongly support extending the current moratorium so that restricting marijuana growing from residential property can be put into place for Jefferson County. John Hacko 402 Larson Lake Road, Chimacum (360) 732 -4457 Julie Shannon From: David Sullivan Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 3:33 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Marijuana Grow Regulation Attachments: John's Revised Statement at Jan 2015 Meeting - Copy.docx From: Gerald C. Olson Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 3:34 :57 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: David Sullivan Subject: Marijuana Grow Regulation Mr. Sullivan... Attached is a copy of a letter from a friend of mine which you have probably received from him. He has put a great deal of thought and care into his statement. I also would certainly have reservations about a grow operation being allowed next to our property. After all, a short year ago this would have been punishable by imprisonment. (and still is by federal standards.) I hope that you, and the other commissioners, would at least continue the present moratorium until a little more thought and discussion can take place. I cannot believe that reasonable people would consider marijuana, no more than any other agricultural product, considering all the harm that has come from the lives ruined by the abuse of this product. Please do not rush into approving this proposal during your commissioners meeting on January 26th. Gerald and Susan Olson 361 Mountain Trail Road Brinnon, Washington 98320 Jefferson County Commissioners: I think Jefferson County government and its residents have had enough time to realize that planning for recreational marijuana needed a little more thought and consideration than simply treating it as an agricultural plant like corn or cabbage which can be grown anywhere without State regulation. What method or comparison was used to come up with the conclusion that growing marijuana is like growing corn? • You don't need criminal background checks to grow corn. • You don't need criminal background checks for employees. • You don't need lights, cameras, security fences, barcodes and a license to grow corn. • You don't find the hallucinogenic compound THC in corn. • You don't have to be 1,000 feet from anything to grow corn. If marijuana is treated like any other agricultural plant, then the passage of 502 has effectively changed the designated character and, most importantly, the purpose of residential property in Jefferson County. Does Jefferson County lack enough commercial property —is that the reason for allowing marijuana growing and processing in residential neighborhoods? I did not buy residential property and build a home to live next door to a neighbor with a commercial facility and all that what comes with it. Other Washington counties, including Clallam and Kitsap, have adopted reasonable and fair regulations to protect residential neighborhoods. I strongly support extending the current moratorium so that restricting marijuana growing from residential property can be put into place for Jefferson County. John Hacko 402 Larson Lake Road, Chimacum (360) 732 -4457 Julie Shannon From: Sent: To: Subject: Commissioner Kier, Karen Crouse <kcrouse @olympus.net> Wednesday, January 21, 2015 2:42 PM Kathleen Kler proposed regulation for growing marijuana I am appealing to you to vote against any attempt to allow the growing of marijuana in rural residential areas. 1 bought property 10 years ago to and have since built and retired to my home. I can assure you that I would never had bought in Jefferson County if I had know that my property and my peace and safety were going to be threatened by allowing anyone, so to speak, to grow marijuana in my backyard. I was taken back to hear DCD mention several times in the meeting last week of taking a "light touch" to developing the regulations. All of the recommendation about conditional permitting are only additional burden on DCD. As you may or may not know, DCD is not able to keep up with the permitting process, much less investigate or monitor the increased number of requests that would be generated by including rural residential property in the regulations. Commission Kier, there the more than enough property in Jefferson County in the Industrial /commercial areas to accommodate the growers. There is no need to contaminate our residential areas. Thank your for your support in keeping marijuana out of the rural residential areas. Karen Crouse 233 Quail Ridge Port Townsend 379 -0244 From: Larry Dennison <ldennison021 @wavecable.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 12:20 PM To: Kathleen Kier Subject: Marijuana Moratorium and policy Dear Commissioner Kier, I have been following the issue of a moratorium by the board on marijuana growing operations and bow to classify zones for growing operations. I realize the nitty gritty issues are difficult at the local level. Regardless of how one feels about the issue of legalized marijuana, it is legal by virtue of the significant approval of Washington's voters. In fact, our county voted overwhelmingly (about 65 %) in favor of legalization. Surely that signifies a mandate on the issue. I think the Board's action of imposing a temporary moratorium on the growing of marijuana in Jefferson County was prudent since sorting out the local policy issues will take time. But the actual policy development should more fairly be oriented to the will of the vast majority of Jefferson County voters. I believe the proposal to limit growing only to designated industrial areas, rather than to agriculture zones is problematic. Marijuana is legal in Washington. It is an agricultural crop. Agricultural land is necessary for a successful growing operation. Decades ago when the federal government allowed the unrestricted growing of hemp for domestic and defense uses, it was seen as an agricultural crop. The subsequent manufacture of products from hemp were, indeed, industrial activities. Why should not we follow that more rational route to zoning policy? I think we need to respect the local majority sentiment for the legalization of Marijuana. I don't think any of us had in mind the overbearing burden of regulatory definition we are now seeing from state and local government. Between the mixed signals, delays, and unintelligible regulations coming from the State Liquor Control Board and the drawn out process we are seeing here, it seems almost like a plan to thwart the will of the voters. We can protect neighbors and kids without making the growing of marijuana nearly impossible. And let's not forget that marijuana has been easily available for to both adults and children for decades when it was illegal, so let's put this into a wider perspective. We are not going to destroy our communities and our youth by allowing grow operations in ag- designated areas. Black markets are pretty hard to regulate, and they are generally the result of unenlightened and over - restrictive public policies. I don't envy your position as a policy maker on this issue, but having been a County Commissioner myself, in the 1980's, through the early and contentious days of the Growth Management Act I also know that it is the responsibility you and I each chose. Best wishes on making an informed and enlightened decision on this policy for the people of Jefferson County. Larry Dennison 360 385 - 33201301 -0120 From: Nnll Johnson Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 12:11 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Marijuana moratorium From: Larry Dennison Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 12:12:43 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Phil Johnson Subject: Marijuana moratorium Hi Phil, I have been following the issue of a moratorium by the board on marijuana growing operations and how to classify zones for growing operations. I realize the nifty gritty issues are difficult at the local level. Regardless of how one feels about the issue of legalized marijuana, it is legal by virtue of the significant approval of Washington's voters. In fact, our county voted overwhelmingly (about 65 %) in favor of legalization. Surely that signifies a mandate on the issue. I think the Board's action of imposing a temporary moratorium on the growing of marijuana in Jefferson County was prudent since sorting out the local policy issues will take time. But the actual policy development should more fairly be oriented to the will of the vast majority of Jefferson County voters. 1 believe the proposal to limit growing only to designated industrial areas, rather than to agriculture zones is problematic. Marijuana is legal in Washington. It is an agricultural crop. Agricultural land is necessary for a successful growing operation. Decades ago when the federal government allowed the unrestricted growing of hemp for domestic and defense uses, it was seen as an agricultural crop. The subsequent manufacture of products from hemp were, indeed, industrial activities. Why should not we follow that more rational route to zoning policy? Phil, I think we need to respect the local majority sentiment for the legalization of Marijuana. I don't think any of us had in mind the overbearing burden of regulatory definition we are now seeing from state and local government. Between the mixed signals, delays, and unintelligible regulations coming from the Liquor Control Board and the drawn out process we are seeing here, it seems almost like a plan to thwart the will of the voters. We can protect neighbors and kids without making the growing of marijuana nearly impossible. And let's not forget that marijuana has been easily available for to adults and children for decades without it being legal, so let's put this into a wider perspective. We are not going to destroy our communities and our youth by allowing grow operations in ag- designated areas. Black markets are pretty hard to regulate, and they are generally the result of unenlightened and over - restrictive public policies. As I've said before, 1 don't envy your position as a policy maker on this issue, but having been there myself I also know that that is the responsibility you and I each chose. Best wishes on making an informed and enlightened decision on this policy. Larry Dennison 360 385 -3320/ 301 -0120 Julie Shannon From: David Sullivan Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 12:26 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Marijuana Moratorium and Policy From: Larry Dennison Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 12:27:31 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: David Sullivan Subject: Marijuana Moratorium and Policy Hi David, I have been following the issue of a moratorium by the board on marijuana growing operations and how to classify zones for growing operations. Of course I realize the nitty gritty issues are most difficult at the local level. Regardless of how one feels about the issue of legalized marijuana, it is legal by virtue of the significant approval of Washington's voters. In fact, our county voted overwhelmingly (about 65 %) in favor of legalization. Surely that signifies a mandate on the issue. I think the Board's action of imposing a temporary moratorium on the growing of marijuana in Jefferson County was prudent since sorting out the local policy issues will take time. But the actual policy development should more fairly be oriented to the will of the vast majority of Jefferson County voters. I believe the proposal to limit growing only to designated industrial areas, rather than to agriculture zones is problematic. Marijuana is legal in Washington. It is an agricultural crop. Agricultural land is necessary for a successful growing operation. Decades ago when the federal government allowed the unrestricted growing of hemp for domestic and defense uses it was seen as an agricultural crop. The subsequent manufacture of products from hemp were, indeed, industrial activities. Why should not we follow that more rational route to zoning policy? David, I think we need to respect the local majority sentiment for the legalization of Marijuana. I don't think any of us had in mind the overbearing burden of regulatory definition we are now seeing from state and local government. Between the mixed signals, delays, and unintelligible regulations coming from the Liquor Control Board and the drawn out process we are seeing here, it seems almost like a plan to thwart the will of the voters. We can protect neighbors and kids without making the growing of marijuana nearly impossible. And let's not forget that marijuana has been easily available to adults and children for decades even without it being legal, so let's put this into a wider perspective. We are not going to destroy our communities and our youth by allowing grow operations in ag- designated areas. Black markets are pretty hard to regulate, and they are generally the result of unenlightened and over - restrictive public policies. As I've said before, I don't envy your position as a policy maker on this issue, but having been there myself I also know that that is the responsibility you and I each chose. Best wishes on making an informed and enlightened decision on this policy. Larry Dennison 360 385- 3320/301 -0120 Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 12:14 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Cannabis issues. From: Kenny Schordine Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 12:14:46 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: David Sullivan; Kathleen Kler; Phil Johnson Subject: Cannabis issues. Mr Dave Sullivan, I have been made aware of a growing division of opinions with regard to the preparation of medical -grade cannabis for market. I have also been made aware of certain frustrations arising from the malleable nature of the statutes meant to be governing this new endeavor. As I have no contact with any form of journalism, I have relied on anecdotal information provided by, in this case, personal friends who happen to be directly involved with core issues; the right to use one's land in a legal manner by existing codes, and the right to shield one's home and offspring from onerous outside influences, such as heavy industry on land zoned for residential use.. As to the latter, I can clearly understand the reluctance on the part of the residential neighborhood to a brightly lit, barbed -wire- enclosed compound, humming and buzzing at their property lines. As to the former, denying property owners the legal use of their land is, at least, restraint of trade. It appears to me, that the core issue here is: Is cannabis cultivation industry or agriculture? Clearly it can be both, with many gradations between the extremes. I believe what is needed here is not a hard and fast rule, but parameters to delineate heavy industry, light industry, and agriculture, and a process by which differences of opinion, and conflicts between neighbors can be resolved without holding the entire county hostage. Jefferson County needs commerce. This is an opportunity for the county to be exporters of more than topsoil and High School students. My suggestion is a balanced citizens advisory board with the power to categorize the level of impact of commercial pursuits, and to mediate in the case of contest. In that way, we may all move forward with clearly delineated guidelines as to set back from property lines, noise and light pollution, and the degradation or enhancement of property values. An extended moratorium on progress serves no -one. Un- contested pursuits could go forward, and those in contest would have a mechanism of redress. With my best regards, Kenneth Schordine Citizen in favor of Progress 360.301.9870 Julie Shannon From: Phil Johnson Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 12:14 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Cannabis issues. From: Kenny Schordine Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 12:14:46 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: David Sullivan; Kathleen Kier; Phil Johnson Subject: Cannabis issues. Mr Dave Sullivan, I have been made aware of a growing division of opinions with regard to the preparation of medical -grade cannabis for market. I have also been made aware of certain frustrations arising from the malleable nature of the statutes meant to be governing this new endeavor. As I have no contact with any form of journalism, I have relied on anecdotal information provided by, in this case, personal friends who happen to be directly involved with core issues; the right to use one's land in a legal manner by existing codes, and the right to shield one's home and offspring from onerous outside influences, such as heavy industry on land zoned for residential use.. As to the latter, I can clearly understand the reluctance on the part of the residential neighborhood to a brightly lit, barbed- wire - enclosed compound, humming and buzzing at their property lines. As to the former, denying property owners the legal use of their land is, at least, restraint of trade. It appears to me, that the core issue here is: Is cannabis cultivation industry or agriculture? Clearly it can be both, with many gradations between the extremes. I believe what is needed here is not a hard and fast rule, but parameters to delineate heavy industry, light industry, and agriculture, and a process by which differences of opinion, and conflicts between neighbors can be resolved without holding the entire county hostage. Jefferson County needs commerce. This is an opportunity for the county to be exporters of more than topsoil and High School students. My suggestion is a balanced citizens advisory board with the power to categorize the level of impact of commercial pursuits, and to mediate in the case of contest. In that way, we may all move forward with clearly delineated guidelines as to set back from property lines, noise and light pollution, and the degradation or enhancement of property values. An extended moratorium on progress serves no -one. Un- contested pursuits could go forward, and those in contest would have a mechanism of redress. With my best regards, Kenneth Schordine Citizen in favor of Progress 360.301.9870 Julie Shannon From: David Sullivan Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 3:41 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Concerns and Considerations Re: Marijuana Growing and Processing operations in Jefferson County From: fls Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 3:42:05 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: David Sullivan Cc: kker @co.jefferson.wa.us; jeffboac @co.jefferson.wa.us; Philip Morley Subject: Concerns and Considerations Re: Marijuana Growing and Processing operations in Jefferson County I am opposed to marijuana grow and processing operations in designated residential neighborhoods. Marijuana growth is not a farm crop and the ramifications of having grow and processing operations in residential districts are real and far reaching. I have lived in this county for over 18 years and am fully aware of how many hoops must be jumped through for many permit processes. If ever there was a need to be sure all your "ducks were in order "this is it! Please be careful how you proceed, and clearly establish the reasonable boundaries and limits that will satisfy the reasonable concerns of a reasonable citizenry! Surely there is a way to be fair and reasonable to the new business interests, as well as all others directly or indirectly affected. How could I be anything but concerned after realizing how loosely and lightly the BOAC's original approach was to the matter? NO marijuana grow and processing in Residential areas. Respectfully submitted Fred Schubert Chimacum jeffbocc Philip Morley •From: Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 3:56 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: FW: Concerns and Considerations Re: Marijuana Growing and Processing operations in Jefferson County Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Please log this into the Public Hearing Record and Correspondence Log. Thank you. Philip Philip Morley Jefferson County Administrator pmorlev(@co.Fefferson.wa.us (360) 385 -9100 x -383 This is a reminder that al/ email to or from this email address may be subject to the Public Records Act contained in RCW 42,56. Additionally, all email to and from the county is captured and archived by Information Services. From: fls [mailto:fls05 @embargmaii.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 3:42 PM .TO: David Sullivan Cc: kker @co.jefferson.wa.us; jeffboac @co.jefferson.wa.us; Philip Morley Subject: Concerns and Considerations Re: Marijuana Growing and Processing operations in Jefferson County I am opposed to marijuana grow and processing operations in designated residential neighborhoods. Marijuana growth is not a farm crop and the ramifications of having grow and processing operations in residential districts are real and far reaching. I have lived in this county for over 18 years and am fully aware of how many hoops must be jumped through for many permit processes. If ever there was a need to be sure all your "ducks were in order'this is it! Please be careful how you proceed, and clearly establish the reasonable boundaries and limits that will satisfy the reasonable concerns of a reasonable citizenry! Surely there is a way to be fair and reasonable to the new business interests, as well as all others directly or indirectly affected. How could I be anything but concerned after realizing how loosely and lightly the BOAC's original approach was to the matter? NO marijuana grow and processing in Residential areas. Respectfully submitted Fred Schubert Chimacum Julie From: etsheff @aol.com Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2015 10:17 AM To: Kathleen Kier Subject: 1 502 Marijuana Initiative Dear Ms. Kier, It has come to my attention that parcel #001321013 located on Discovery Bay and owned by me would be affected by 1 502, the marijuana initiative. I have been given different answers by people in Port Townsend. I just want clarification if marijuana can be grown and a mj. business can be located on this property. Is my property considered residential which I believe it is and can a marijuana business be placed on my parcel? I have read several articles, but it is confusing especially since I live in California. I am not stating my opinion; I just want some answers. Thank you. Regards Eileen Sheff Julie Shannon From: Carl Smith Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 2:09 PM To: etsheff @aol.com Cc: Kathleen Kier; Philip Morley Subject: Parcel No. 001321013 Hello Ms. Sheff: your parcel no. 001321013 is zoned Rural Residential 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres, and is covered by the current moratorium on marijuana businesses and would also be covered by either alternative under consideration for extending the moratorium. Regards, Carl Carl Smith, AICP Director, Department of Community Development Jefferson County 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 V. 360 - 379 -4493 F: 360- 379 -4451 csmith @co.jefferson. wa. us www.co.jefferson. wa. us `'� SAVE PAPER - Please do not print this e-mail unless absolutely necessary Mission: To preserve and enhance the quality of life in Jefferson County by promoting a vibrant economy, sound communities and a healthy environment. Julie Shannon From: etsheff @aol.com Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 12:33 PM To: Kathleen Kier Subject: Re: 1 502 Marijuana Initiative Dear Ms. Kier, Thank you for responding so quickly to my email. The information clarifies things. Even though at this time the initiative doesn't affect my property directly I certainly support the extension of the moratorium. More information is needed before decisions are made. Living in California I am removed from the problem, but I would still support no marijuana businesses in rural residential areas. Future zoning could change how my property might be used. As an educator I am totally against marijuana businesses near where there are children and young adults. thank you for sending the links to Washington maps and the link to specific information about the initiative. have had very personal responses to questions I have asked to the few people I have contacted in Port Townsend. It makes me want to consider moving as I did when I bought the property. Living outside of Los Angeles I have to keep pushing buttons on the phone to speak to anyone. I hope the moratorium is extended. Thank you again Regards, Eileen Sheff - - - -- Original Message--- - From: Kathleen Kler <KKler @co.jefferson.wa.us> To: etsheff <etsheff @aol.com> Sent: Tue, Jan 20, 2015 3:47 pm Subject: RE: 1 502 Marijuana Initiative Dear Ms. Sheff, Below you will find link to a map of your parcel. In the future you can locate it through the Jefferson County website: http: / /www. co. iefferson.wa. us Under the banner is a tab for maps, and when you pull it up, you can select parcel. Insert your selected parcel #. Your parcel will be outlined in red with zoning information in color (see upper right hand corner for legend. Your parcel is RURAL RESIDENTIAL 1:5 which is currently under the moratorium, meaning no marijuana growing and/or processing permits can be processed until the Planning Commission and the Department of Community Development present a new zoning ordinance to the Board of County Commissioners. The present moratorium is set to expire in February, and since the new ordinance has yet to be completed, we commissioners are having a public hearing on whether or not to extend the moratorium. Under the prior zoning, your parcel could have been used for growing and possibly processing, depending on the size and scale of your design. See the link for many articles and updates to the process: http: / /www.co. efferson.wa.us/services/search.shtmI Washington State Liquor Control Board issues the licenses for any business , growing, processing or retailing of marijuana. Having a license does not guarantee a county permit. Please contact me if you have further questions. Thank you, Kathleen Kier Kathleen Kier Commissioner, District 3 Jefferson County (360) 385 -9100 KKler(cDco. iefferson.wa. us From: etsheff(daol.com [mailto:etsheffaaol.coml Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2015 10:17 AM To: Kathleen Kler Subject: 1 502 Marijuana Initiative Dear Ms. Kler, It has come to my attention that parcel #001321013 located on Discovery Bay and owned by me would be affected by 1 502, the marijuana initiative. I have been given different answers by people in Port Townsend. I just want clarification if marijuana can be grown and a mj. business can be located on this property. Is my property considered residential which I believe it is and can a marijuana business be placed on my parcel? I have read several articles, but it is confusing especially since I live in California. I am not stating my opinion; I just want some answers. Thank you. Regards Eileen Sheff Julie Shannon From: etsheff @aol.com Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 12:34 PM To: Kathleen Kier Subject: Re: Emailing: jMAP 001321013 Map didn't show up, but I will look at the web site you sent. Eileen - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Kathleen Kier <KKler @co.jefferson.wa.us> To: etsheff <etsheff @aol.com> Sent: Tue, Jan 20, 2015 4:29 pm Subject: Emailing: jMAP 001321013 I hope the map shows up on this view... KK Julie Shannon From: Phil Johnson ! Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 10:55 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: rural /residential 1 -502 production and processing From: s shoen Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 10:56:29 AM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Phil Johnson Subject: rural /residential I -502 production and processing Dear Phil, The noise created by a few poorly informed individuals regarding the alleged "dangers" of cultivating and processing marijuana on rural /residential property should be ignored. Their objections are neither fact nor science based. Importantly, over 65% of county residents voted to legalize marijuana. Marijuana is a crop that should be allowed to be grown and processed on these rural /residential properties just as any other crop. Marijuana cultivation and processing should become a reliable source of jobs and incomes for small business owners in our County. But if limited to industrial zoning, the capital required for entry will rise dramatically, and it will become an industry dominated by larger agricultural companies. This will eliminate the opportunity for our local entrepreneurs to succeed, reducing local jobs and incomes. Over the past 10 -15 years our county has seen a wonderful resurgence of local agriculture with the concomitant development of deep, local, human resources skilled in small scale agriculture. As part of this, young people have moved here, started small farms, begun families, creating jobs and good food for all of us with a resulting re- vitalization of our communities. This is a trend that we need to continue nurturing for our future. Please do not let the din of a few individuals outweigh the clear support of a large majority of our county for allowing marijuana to be grown and processed on our rural /residential land by local small businesses. Thank you for your consideration. Kind regards, Sam Samuel W. Shoen 3311 Copper Street Port Townsend, WA voice 360 - 379 -9753 cell 360- 301 -0472 samuelshoen(ci;amail. com Julie Shannon From: s shoen <samuelshoen @g mail. com> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 11:02 AM To: Kathleen Kier Subject: rural /residential 1 -502 production and processing Dear Commissioner Kler, My wife and I have lived in Jefferson County for over 20 years and raised our two children here The noise created by a few poorly informed individuals regarding the alleged "dangers" of cultivating and processing marijuana on rural /residential property should be ignored. Their objections are neither fact nor science based. Importantly, over 65% of county residents voted to legalize marijuana. Marijuana is a crop that should be allowed to be grown and processed on these rural /residential properties just as any other crop. Marijuana cultivation and processing should become a reliable source of jobs and incomes for small business owners in our County. But if limited to industrial zoning, the capital required for entry will rise dramatically, and it will become an industry dominated by larger agricultural companies. This will eliminate the opportunity for our local entrepreneurs to succeed, reducing local jobs and incomes. Over the past 10 -15 years our county has seen a wonderful resurgence of local agriculture with the concomitant development of deep, local, human resources skilled in small scale agriculture. As part of this, young people have moved here, started small farms, and begun families, creating jobs and good food for all of us with a resulting re- vitalization of our communities. This is a trend that we need to continue nurturing for our future. Please do not let the din of a few individuals outweigh the clear support of a large majority of our county for allowing marijuana to be grown and processed on our rural /residential land by local small businesses. Thank you for your consideration. Kind regards, Sam Samuel W. Sheen 3311 Copper Street Port Townsend, WA voice 360 - 379 -9753 cell 360- 301 -0472 samuelshoenLgmail.com Julie Shannon From: David Sullivan Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 11:09 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: rural /residential 1 -502 production and processing From: s shoen Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 11:09:59 AM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: David Sullivan Subject: rural /residential I -502 production and processing Dear David, As you know, Berry and I have lived in Jefferson County for over 20 years. We put our kids through schools here. I have run my business from here, and we have been involved in the community in many other ways. Too many times we have seen good things shouted down by a vocal minority, and I am hoping this doesn't happen again with 1 -502 production and processing. The noise created by a few poorly informed individuals regarding the alleged "dangers" of cultivating and processing marijuana on rural /residential property should be ignored. Their objections are neither fact nor science based. Importantly, over 65% of county residents voted to legalize marijuana. Marijuana is a crop that should be allowed to be grown and processed on these rural /residential properties just as any other crop. Marijuana cultivation and processing should become a reliable source of jobs and incomes for small business owners in our County. But if limited to industrial zoning, the capital required for entry will rise dramatically, and it will become an industry dominated by larger agricultural companies. This will eliminate the opportunity for our local entrepreneurs to succeed, reducing localjobs and incomes. Over the past 10 -15 years our county has seen a wonderful resurgence of local agriculture with the concomitant development of deep, local, human resources skilled in small scale agriculture. As part of this, young people have moved here, started small farms, begun families, creating jobs and good food for all of us with a resulting re- vitalization of our communities. This is a trend that we need to continue nurturing for our future. Please do not let the din of a few individuals outweigh the clear support of a large majority of our county for allowing marijuana to be grown and processed on our rural /residential land by local small businesses. Thank you for your consideration. Kind regards, Sam Samuel W. Shoen ---------------------------- 3311 Copper Street Port Townsend, WA voice 360- 379 -9753 cell 360- 301 -0472 samuelshoenna gmail.com Julie Shannon From: David Sullivan Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 12:01 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: rural /residential 1 -502 production and processing From: Kathleen Kier Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 12:00:30 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Philip Morley; David Sullivan; Carl Smith; Phil Johnson Subject: FW: rural /residential I -502 production and processing Sharing more citizen input. This letter IN FAVOR of MJ business, small acreage. Kathleen Kler Commissioner, District 3 Jefferson County (360) 385 -9100 KKlerC�co Jefferson.wa. us From: s shoen [mailto:samuelshoen @gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 11:02 AM To: Kathleen Kier Subject: rural /residential 1 -502 production and processing Dear Commissioner Kler, My wife and I have lived in Jefferson County for over 20 years and raised our two children here The noise created by a few poorly informed individuals regarding the alleged "dangers" of cultivating and processing marijuana on rural /residential property should be ignored. Their objections are neither fact nor science based. Importantly, over 65% of county residents voted to legalize marijuana. Marijuana is a crop that should be allowed to be grown and processed on these rural /residential properties just as any other crop. Marijuana cultivation and processing should become a reliable source ofjobs and incomes for small business owners in our County. But if limited to industrial zoning, the capital required for entry will rise dramatically, and it will become an industry dominated by larger agricultural companies. This will eliminate the opportunity for our local entrepreneurs to succeed, reducing local jobs and incomes. Over the past 10 -15 years our county has seen a wonderful resurgence of local agriculture with the concomitant development of deep, local, human resources skilled in small scale agriculture. As part of this, young people have moved here, started small farms, and begun families, creatingjobs and good food for all of us with a resulting re- vitalization of our communities. This is a trend that we need to continue nurturing for our future. Please do not let the din of a few individuals outweigh the clear support of a large majority of our county for allowing marijuana to be grown and processed on our rural/residential land by local small businesses. Thank you for your consideration Kind regards, Sam Samuel W. Shoen 3311 Copper Street Port Townsend, WA voice 360 - 379 -9753 cell 360- 301 -0472 samuelshoenna gmail.com Julie Shannon From: Phil Johnson Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 12:01 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: rural /residential 1 -502 production and processing From: Kathleen Kier Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 12:00:30 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Philip Morley; David Sullivan; Carl Smith; Phil Johnson Subject: FW: rural /residential I -502 production and processing Sharing more citizen input. This letter IN FAVOR of MJ business, small acreage Kathleen Kier Commissioner, District 3 Jefferson County (360) 385 -9100 KKier @co.jefferson.wa.us From: s shoen [mailto:samuelshoen @gmail.comj Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 11:02 AM To: Kathleen Kier Subject: rural /residential 1 -502 production and processing Dear Commissioner Kler. My wife and I have lived in Jefferson County for over 20 years and raised our two children here. The noise created by a few poorly informed individuals regarding the alleged "dangers" of cultivating and processing marijuana on rural /residential property should be ignored. Their objections are neither fact nor science based. Importantly, over 65% of county residents voted to legalize marijuana. Marijuana is a crop that should be allowed to be grown and processed on these rural/residential properties just as any other crop. Marijuana cultivation and processing should become a reliable source of jobs and incomes for small business owners in our County. But if limited to industrial zoning, the capital required for entry will rise dramatically, and it will become an industry dominated by larger agricultural companies. This will eliminate the opportunity for our local entrepreneurs to succeed, reducing local jobs and incomes. Over the past 10 -15 years our county has seen a wonderful resurgence of local agriculture with the concomitant development of deep, local, human resources skilled in small scale agriculture. As part of this, young people have moved here, started small farms, and begun families, creating jobs and good food for all of us with a resulting re- vitalization of our communities. This is a trend that we need to continue nurturing for our future. Please do not let the din of a few individuals outweigh the clear support of a large majority of our county for allowing marijuana to be grown and processed on our rural/residential land by local small businesses. Thank you for your consideration Kind regards, Sam Samuel W. Shoen 3311 Copper Street Port Townsend, WA voice 360 -379 -9753 cell 360 -301 -0472 samuelshoen(kgmail.com jeffbocc From: Philip Morley Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 12:51 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: FW: rural /residential 1 -502 production and processing Please log this into Correspondence and also include in the Public Hearing Record. Thanks. Philip Philip Morley Jefferson County Administrator pm o rleyCa)co. iefferso n.wa. us (360) 385 -9100 x -383 This is a reminder that all email to or from this email address may be subject to the Public Records Act contained in RCW 42.56. Additionally, all email to and from the county is captured and archived by Information Services. From: Kathleen Kier Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 12:01 PM To: Philip Morley; David Sullivan; Carl Smith; Phil Johnson Subject: FW: rural /residential 1 -502 production and processing Sharing more citizen input. This letter IN FAVOR of MJ business, small acreage. Kathleen Kier Commissioner, District 3 Jefferson County (360) 385 -9100 KKIer@co.iefferson.wa.us From: s shoen fmailto:samuelshoen(c @ gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 11:02 AM To: Kathleen Kier Subject: rural /residential 1 -502 production and processing Dear Commissioner Kler, My wife and I have lived in Jefferson County for over 20 years and raised our two children here. The noise created by a few poorly informed individuals regarding the alleged "dangers" of cultivating and processing marijuana on rural/residential property should be ignored. Their objections are neither fact nor science based. Importantly, over 65% of county residents voted to legalize marijuana. Marijuana is a crop that should be allowed to be grown and processed on these rural /residential properties just as any other crop. Marijuana cultivation and processing should become a reliable source of jobs and incomes for small business owners in our County. But if limited to industrial zoning, the capital required for entry will rise dramatically, and it will become an industry dominated by larger agricultural companies. This will eliminate the opportunity for our local entrepreneurs to succeed, reducing local jobs and incomes. Over the past 10 -15 years our county has seen a wonderful resurgence of local agriculture with the concomitant development of deep, local, human resources skilled in small scale agriculture. As part of this, young people have moved here, started small farms, and begun families, creating jobs and good food for all of us with a resulting re- vitalization of our communities. This is a trend that we need to continue nurturing for our future. Please do not let the din of a few individuals outweigh the clear support of a large majority of our county for allowing marijuana to be grown and processed on our rural /residential land by local small businesses.. Thank you for your consideration Kind regards, Sam Samuel W. Sheen 3311 Copper Street Port Townsend, WA voice 360 - 379 -9753 cell 360- 301 -0472 samuelshoenLtyg tail.com Julie Shannon From: s shoen <samuelshoen @g mail. com> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 12:17 PM To: Kathleen Kier Subject: Re: rural /residential 1 -502 production and processing Dear Commissioner Kler, Thanks for reading my email and responding. Both my wife and I will be out of town on the 27th, so we will not be able to participate. I will speak with some friends to get them to attend. Kind regards, Sam On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Kathleen Kler <KKlerna co.jefferson.wa.us> wrote: Dear Mr. Shoen, Thank you for taking the time to express your opinions on the current conversation about zoning for marijuana businesses. If you are able, please join the community at the hearing January 27, 6 pm at the Cotton Building where the BoCC will be taking public testimony regarding the moratorium and its possible extension. I am listening and reading carefully, determined to "get it right" even though the Solomonic decision will necessarily disappoint some of the county's citizens. This has proven to be a controversial and complex issue, and I am grateful for citizens like you who participate in the discussion. Gratefully, Kathleen Kathleen Kler Commissioner, District 3 Jefferson County (360) 385 -9100 KKler@co Jefferson.wa.us From: s shoen [mailto:samuelshoen @gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 11:02 AM To: Kathleen Kler Subject: rural /residential 1 -502 production and processing Dear Commissioner Kler, My wife and I have lived in Jefferson County for over 20 years and raised our two children here. The noise created by a few poorly informed individuals regarding the alleged "dangers" of cultivating and processing marijuana on rural/residential property should be ignored. Their objections are neither fact nor science based. Importantly, over 65% of county residents voted to legalize marijuana. Marijuana is a crop that should be allowed to be grown and processed on these rural /residential properties just as any other crop. Marijuana cultivation and processing should become a reliable source ofjobs and incomes for small business owners in our County. But if limited to industrial zoning, the capital required for entry will rise dramatically, and it will become an industry dominated by larger agricultural companies. This will eliminate the opportunity for our local entrepreneurs to succeed, reducing local jobs and incomes. Over the past 10 -15 years our county has seen a wonderful resurgence of local agriculture with the concomitant development of deep, local, human resources skilled in small scale agriculture. As part of this, young people have moved here, started small farms, and begun families, creating jobs and good food for all of us with a resulting re- vitalization of our communities. This is a trend that we need to continue nurturing for our future. Please do not let the din of a few individuals outweigh the clear support of a large majority of our county for allowing marijuana to be grown and processed on our rural /residential land by local small businesses. Thank you for your consideration. Kind regards, Sam Samuel W. Sheen 3311 Copper Street Port Townsend, WA voice 360 -379 -9753 cell 360- 301 -0472 samuelshoen cnr Qmail.com Samuel W. Shoen 3311 Copper Street Port Townsend, WA voice 360 - 379 -9753 cell 360- 301 -0472 samuelshoen(c) gmail.com Julie Shannon From: Peter Bonyun & Beth Lorber <peternbeth @gmai Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 11:55 AM To: Kathleen Kler Subject: 1-502 Hello Kathleen: I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of 1502, rural/ residential production and processing of marijuana. Please end the moratorium. Thank You, Beth Lorber Julie Shannon From: David Sullivan Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 11:55 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: 1 502 From: Peter Bonyun & Beth Lorber Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 11:56:34 AM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: David Sullivan Subject: 1502 Hello David: I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of 1 -502, rural /residential production and processing of marijuana. Please send the moratorium. Thank You, Beth Lorber 385 -7800 Julie Shannon From: Peter Bonyun & Beth Lorber <peternbeth @g mail. com> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 1:30 PM To: Kathleen Kier Subject: Re: 1 -502 Thanks for the response Kathleen. I do plan on attending the hearing. Beth On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 12:25 PM, Kathleen Kler <KKlernue co.iefferson.wa.us> wrote: Dear Beth, Thank you for taking the time to express your opinions on the current conversation about zoning for marijuana businesses. If you are able, please join the community at the hearing January 27, 6 pm at the Cotton Building where the BoCC will be taking public testimony regarding the moratorium and its possible extension. I am listening and reading carefully, determined to "get it right' even though the Solomonic decision will necessarily disappoint some of the county's citizens. This has proven to be a controversial and complex issue, and I am grateful for citizens like you who participate in the discussion. Gratefully, Kathleen Kathleen Kier Commissioner, District 3 Jefferson County (360) 385 -9100 KKIerCo co.iefferson.wa.us From: Peter Bonyun & Beth Lorber [mailto:peternbeth @gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 11:55 AM To: Kathleen Kier Subject: 1-502 Hello Kathleen: I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of 1502, rural/ residential production and processing of marijuana. Please end the moratorium. Thank You, Beth Lorber Shannon From: Phil Johnson Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 7:59 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Rural /Residential 1 -502 From: Peter Bonyun & Beth Lorber Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 8:01:18 AM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Phil Johnson Subject: Rural /Residential I -502 Hello Phil: I am writing you to urge you to vote in favor of rural /residential I -502, production and processing of marijuana. Please end the moratorium. Marijuana was being grown even before the voters approved it for legalization. Now we have a few NIMBY's who want to change the law locally for their own benefit. This process can be done smoothly if only we can encourage people to respect one another and each others property. Thank you for your service, Phil. All The Best, Beth Lorber 385 -7800 From: Lori <galfive @embargmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 9:21 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Marijuana growing Please pass on to all commissioners. I am against the farming of marihuana in residential zoned neighborhoods. Lori Millard 297685 U.S. hwy 101 Quilcene, Wa 98376 Galfive a embargmail.com From: David Sullivan Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 11:21 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Concerns and Considerations Re: Marijuana Growing and Processing operations in Jefferson County From: JeanS Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 11:21:35 AM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: David Sullivan Cc: kker @co.jefferson.wa.us; jeffboac @co.jefferson.wa.us; Philip Morley Subject: Concerns and Considerations Re: Marijuana Growing and Processing operations in Jefferson County I am writing as one from among the majority whose vote helped pass the legislation legalizing marijuana growth, sale, and usage within our state. I have no personal stake or interest whatsoever in the product. I do however have an interest in how this groundbreaking new legislation is managed within our county, and hope that you will make these determinations with careful consideration of the far reaching ramifications to the whole citizenry. Surely there is a way to be fair and reasonable to the new business interests, as well as all others directly or indirectly affected. How could I be anything but concerned after realizing how loosely and lightly the BOAC's original approach was to the matter? I am opposed to marijuana grow and processing operations in designated residential neighborhoods. Marijuana growth is not, in a far stretch, a farm crop like any other, and the ramifications of having grow and processing operations in residential districts are real and far reaching. I have lived in this county for over 18 years and am fully aware of how many hoops must be jumped through for many permit processes. If ever there was a need to be sure all your "ducks were in order "this is it! Please be careful how you proceed, and clearly establish the reasonable boundaries and limits that will satisfy the reasonable concerns of a reasonable citizenry! Sincerely, Jean Schubert jeffbocc From: Philip Morley Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 12:49 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: FW: Concerns and Considerations Re: Marijuana Growing and Processing operations in Jefferson County Please log this into the Public Hearing Record and Correspondence Log. Thank you. Philip Philip Morley Jefferson County Administrator pmorlev @co. iefferson.wa.us (360) 385 -9100 x -383 This is a reminder that all email to or from this email address may be subject to the Public Records Act contained in RCW 42.56. Additionally, all email to and from the county is captured and archived by Information Services. From: Jeans [mailto:jeansOS @embargmail.comj Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 11:22 AM To: David Sullivan Cc: kker @co.jefferson.wa.us; jeffboac @co.jefferson.wa.us; Philip Morley Subject: Concerns and Considerations Re: Marijuana Growing and Processing operations in Jefferson County I am writing as one from among the majority whose vote helped pass the legislation legalizing marijuana growth, sale, and usage within our state. I have no personal stake or interest whatsoever in the product. 1 do however have an interest in how this groundbreaking new legislation is managed within our county, and hope that you will make these determinations with careful consideration of the far reaching ramifications to the whole citizenry. Surely there is a way to be fair and reasonable to the new business interests, as well as all others directly or indirectly affected. How could I be anything but concerned after realizing how loosely and lightly the BOAC's original approach was to the matter? I am opposed to marijuana grow and processing operations in designated residential neighborhoods. Marijuana growth is not, in a far stretch, a farm crop like any other, and the ramifications of having grow and processing operations in residential districts are real and far reaching. I have lived in this county for over 18 years and am fully aware of how many hoops must be jumped through for many permit processes. If ever there was a need to be sure all your "ducks were in order "this is it! Please be careful how you proceed, and clearly establish the reasonable boundaries and limits that will satisfy the reasonable concerns of a reasonable citizenry! Sincerely, Jean Schubert From: Glen & Edna <egs @q.com> f Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 12:42 PM To: BOCC Subject: Licensing marihuana farms in populated rural areas To Jefferson County Commissioners; 1 have friends living in the above populated rural areas, and much to their distress they are told that a farm resident there has applied for a marihuana growing permit.. This will no doubt increase in and out traffic and be a detriment to the peaceful atmosphere they now enjoy. I am also concerned for the youth. Drugs are a fierce problem in this county and legalizing the "drug" marihuana will not be a solution in protecting the young and innocent children. As commissioners, you have a huge responsibility in this matter. I am hopeful that you will make wise decisions and programming. Sincerely, Edna Schenk, a resident in Jefferson County. From: Glen & Edna <egs @q.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 12:08 PM To: BOCC Subject: Marihuana growers To the Jefferson County Commissioners: The majority of people (the silent majority) do not like marihuana. 2. The users are speaking up with their desires, and so they are quite visible. 3. Please use some discretion in how this is handled. 4. These marihuana farms have been in operation for years and should not be considered for commercial licensing. Most of them are in rural areas, residential, small farms and small acreage homes. County zoning does not qualify for these operations. You, the county officials will lose control and these areas will deteriorate. Keep a "tight" hand and restrict these operations to commercial zones, This issue is still below the surface of casual conversation, however it won't be for very long if County restrictions are not sensible. Respectfully, Glen Schenk, egs @q.com Julie Shannon From: Sent: To: Subject: David Sullivan Saturday, January 17, 2015 6:03 PM Julie Shannon FW: Concerns for marijuana regulations From: Linda Jarvis Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2015 6:04:48 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: David Sullivan Subject: Concerns for marijuana regulations Dear Mr. Sullivan, I am writing to you today with great concerns for the direction the Marijuana growing/production and processing is going. It seems it is still a very huge concern for many citizens, understandably. It seems that city and county officials are still blind to the seriousness the zoning and the potential ramifications and what that means for our county and residents. It seems like there is more concern for giving out -of- county folks and even local growers /processors more privilege than those who live here in Jefferson County and have families and properties that are in jeopardy from this serious issue of zoning. I feel it is imperative that BOCC extend the present moratorium to ALL parcels, regardless of size, until reasonable regulations have been developed. Concerns are wide spread. This was evident at the BOCC meeting and at the Wednesday's Planning Commission meeting, with a fabulous turnout, including a huge showing at both by the folks from Maplewood Meadows who have major concerns for their children. Many spoke passionately and articulately about the impacts three proposed marijuana facilities would have on their residential neighborhood. There were also people from Marrowstone Island, Chimacum, Port Ludlow, and other areas. Carl Smith, the Director of DCD told the Planning Commission that the BOCC wanted a "light touch' on marijuana and that DCD's proposal was intended to implement the "light touch" approach. Most of those who spoke criticized a "light touch" approach and instead urged caution and restricted areas for production and processing of marijuana. Many stated that marijuana production and processing should be limited to industrial and commercial areas and, even then, in a way that would not negatively impact established residential neighborhoods such as Maplewood Meadows. It is apparent that "a light touch" is the wrong approach for Jefferson County and its residential neighborhoods. The fact that this new business enterprise with growing and producing Marijuana products, a substance that was just recently legalized, and isn't being dealt with in a cautious fashion, could have really dangerous and damaging consequences if not entered into slowly and with heedfulness. Colorado for example has had numerous issues with much detriment. Here is my opinion of what we should be doing with moving forward: 1. Marijuana production and processing belong in industrial or commercial areas NOT in residential areas, forest land, or in large unregulated parcels. 2. Neighbors should receive notice and have an opportunity to a hearing on their opposition to siting marijuana facilities 3. SEPA review should be completed for ALL sites and for the County's overall approach prior to taking any action on permits 4. Jefferson County must insure that water, waste, environmental, safety and security issues are identified and addressed before any permit is processed. 5. Differentiating where marijuana can be grown or processed on the basis of parcel size has no logical or technical basis. Creating large, essentially unregulated areas of the County IS reckless and bad policy. 6. It IS different than growing other agricultural crops! This is so obvious. Thank you Mr. Sullivan, for reading my concerns. I hope that you and the other county officials will show consideration for and work very closely with the citizens of this county as they have very real consternation about this new and untested industry being placed in their neighborhoods or right next door. I support their cause and concerns! Sincerely, Linda Jarvis Julie Shannon From: Linda Jarvis <lindajarvis @mac.com> Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2015 5:59 PM To: Kathleen Kler Subject: Concerns for marijuana regulations Dear Kathleen Hi. Congratulations on your new position. Nothing like jumping in head first, eh? I am writing to you today with great concerns for the direction the Marijuana growing/production and processing is going. It seems it is still a very huge concern for many citizens, understandably. It seems that city and county officials are still blind to the seriousness the zoning and the potential ramifications and what that means for our county and residents. It seems like there is more concern for giving out -of- county folks and even local growers /processors more privilege than those who live here in Jefferson County and have families and properties that are in jeopardy from this serious issue of zoning. I feel it is imperative that BOCC extend the present moratorium to ALL parcels, regardless of size, until reasonable regulations have been developed. Concerns are wide spread. This was evident at the BOCC meeting and at the Wednesday's Planning Commission meeting, with a fabulous turnout, including a huge showing at both by the folks from Maplewood Meadows who have major concerns for their children. Many spoke passionately and articulately about the impacts three proposed marijuana facilities would have on their residential neighborhood. There were also people from Marrowstone Island, Chimacum, Port Ludlow, and other areas. Carl Smith, the Director of DCD told the Planning Commission that the BOCC wanted a "light touch' on marijuana and that DCD's proposal was intended to implement the "light touch" approach. Most of those who spoke criticized a "light touch" approach and instead urged caution and restricted areas for production and processing of marijuana. Many stated that marijuana production and processing should be limited to industrial and commercial areas and, even then, in a way that would not negatively impact established residential neighborhoods such as Maplewood Meadows. It is apparent that "a light touch" is the wrong approach for Jefferson County and its residential neighborhoods. The fact that this new business enterprise with growing and producing Marijuana products, a substance that was just recently legalized, and isn't being dealt with in a cautious fashion, could have really dangerous and damaging consequences if not entered into slowly and with heedfulness. Colorado for example has had numerous issues with much detriment. Here is my opinion of what we should be doing with moving forward: 1. Marijuana production and processing belong in industrial or commercial areas NOT in residential areas, forest land, or in large unregulated parcels. 2. Neighbors should receive notice and have an opportunity to a hearing on their opposition to siting marijuana facilities 3. SEPA review should be completed for ALL sites and for the County's overall approach prior to taking any action on permits 4. Jefferson County must insure that water, waste, environmental, safety and security issues are identified and addressed before any permit is processed. 5. Differentiating where marijuana can be grown or processed on the basis of parcel size has no logical or technical basis. Creating large, essentially unregulated areas of the County is reckless and bad policy. 6. It IS different than growing other agricultural crops and is NOT like growing apples and making ciders. Thank you Kathleen, for reading my concerns. I hope that you and the other county officials will show consideration for and work very closely with the citizens of this county as they have very real consternation about this new and untested industry being placed in their neighborhoods or right next door. I support their cause and concerns! Sincerely and respectfully, Linda Jarvis jeffbocc From: Linda Jarvis <lindajarvis @mac.com> Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2015 6:01 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Concerns for marijuana regulations Dear Phil I am writing to you today with great concerns for the direction the Marijuana growing/production and processing is going. It seems it is still a very huge concern for many citizens, understandably. I1 seems that city and county officials are still blind to the seriousness the zoning and the potential ramifications and what that means for our county and residents. It seems like there is more concern for giving out -of -county folks and even local growers /processors more privilege than those who live here in Jefferson County and have families and properties that are in jeopardy from this serious issue of zoning. I feel it is imperative that BOCC extend the present moratorium to ALL parcels, regardless of size, until reasonable regulations have been developed. Concerns are wide spread. This was evident at the BOCC meeting and at the Wednesday's Planning Commission meeting, with a fabulous turnout, including a huge showing at both by the folks from Maplewood Meadows who have major concerns for their children. Many spoke passionately and articulately about the impacts three proposed marijuana facilities would have on their residential neighborhood. There were also people from Marrowstone Island, Chimacum, Port Ludlow, and other areas. Carl Smith, the Director of DCD told the Planning Commission that the BOCC wanted a "light touch' on marijuana and that DCD's proposal was intended to implement the "light touch" approach. Most of those who spoke criticized a "light touch" approach and instead urged caution and restricted areas for production and processing of marijuana. Many stated that marijuana production and processing should be limited to industrial and commercial areas and, even then, in a way that would not negatively impact established residential neighborhoods such as Maplewood Meadows. It is apparent that "a light touch" is the wrong approach for Jefferson County and its residential neighborhoods. The fact that this new business enterprise with growing and producing Marijuana products, a substance that was just recently legalized, and isn't being dealt with in a cautious fashion, could have really dangerous and damaging consequences if not entered into slowly and with heedfulness. Colorado for example has had numerous issues with much detriment. Here is my opinion of what we should be doing with moving forward: 1. Marijuana production and processing belong in industrial or commercial areas NOT in residential areas, forest land, or in large unregulated parcels. 1 2. Neighbors should receive notice and have an opportunity to a hearing on their opposition to siting marijuana facilities 3. SEPA review should be completed for ALL sites and for the County's overall approach prior to taking any action on permits 4. Jefferson County must insure that water, waste, environmental, safety and security issues are identified and addressed before any permit is processed. 5. Differentiating where marijuana can be grown or processed on the basis of parcel size has no logical or technical basis. Creating large, essentially unregulated areas of the County is reckless and bad policy. 6. It IS different than growing other agricultural crops! This is so obvious. Thank you Phil, for reading my concerns. I hope that you and the other county officials will show consideration for and work very closely with the citizens of this county as they have very real consternation about this new and untested industry being placed in their neighborhoods or right next door. I support their cause and concerns! Sincerely and respectfully, Linda Jarvis jeffbocc From: Philip Morley Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 12:03 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: FW: Concerns for marijuana regulations Please enter this into the M1 Moratorium public hearing record and correspondence log. Philip Philip Morley Jefferson County Administrator pmorlev@co.mefferson.wa.us (360) 385 -9100 x -383 This is a reminder that all email to or from this email address may be subject to the Public Records Act contained in RCW 42.56. Additionally, all email to and from the county is captured and archived by Information Services. From: Linda Jarvis [mailto:lindajarvis @mac.com] Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2015 6:03 PM To: Philip Morley Subject: Concerns for marijuana regulations Dear Mr. Morley, I am writing to you today with great concerns for the direction the Marijuana growing/production and processing is going. It seems it is still a very huge concern for many citizens, understandably. It seems that city and county officials are still blind to the seriousness the zoning and the potential ramifications and what that means for our county and residents. It seems like there is more concern for giving out -of -county folks and even local growers /processors more privilege than those who live here in Jefferson County and have families and properties that are in jeopardy from this serious issue of zoning. I feel it is imperative that BOCC extend the present moratorium to ALL parcels, regardless of size, until reasonable regulations have been developed. Concerns are wide spread. This was evident at the BOCC meeting and at the Wednesday's Planning Commission meeting, with a fabulous turnout, including a huge showing at both by the folks from Maplewood Meadows who have major concerns for their children. Many spoke passionately and articulately about the impacts three proposed marijuana facilities would have on their residential neighborhood. There were also people from Marrowstone Island, Chimacum, Port Ludlow, and other areas. Carl Smith, the Director of DCD told the Planning Commission that the BOCC wanted a "light touch' on marijuana and that DCD's proposal was intended to implement the "light touch" approach. Most of those who spoke criticized a "light touch" approach and instead urged caution and restricted areas for production and processing of marijuana. Many stated that marijuana production and processing should be limited to industrial and commercial areas and, even then, in a way that would not negatively impact established residential neighborhoods such as Maplewood Meadows. It is apparent that "a light touch" is the wrong approach for Jefferson County and its residential neighborhoods. The fact that this new business enterprise with growing and producing Marijuana products, a substance that was just recently legalized, and isn't being dealt with in a cautious fashion, could have really dangerous and damaging consequences if not entered into slowly and with heedfulness. Colorado for example has had numerous issues with much detriment. Here is my opinion of what we should be doing with moving forward: 1. Marijuana production and processing belong in industrial or commercial areas NOT in residential areas, forest land, or in large unregulated parcels. 2. Neighbors should receive notice and have an opportunity to a hearing on their opposition to siting marijuana facilities 3. SEPA review should be completed for ALL sites and for the County's overall approach prior to taking any action on permits 4. Jefferson County must insure that water, waste, environmental, safety and security issues are identified and addressed before any permit is processed. 5. Differentiating where marijuana can be grown or processed on the basis of parcel size has no logical or technical basis. Creating large, essentially unregulated areas of the County is reckless and bad policy. 6. It IS different than growing other agricultural crops! This is so obvious. Thank you Mr. Morley, for reading my concerns. I hope that you and the other county officials will show consideration for and work very closely with the citizens of this county as they have very real consternation about this new and untested industry being placed in their neighborhoods or right next door. I support their cause and concerns! Sincerely and respectfully, Linda Jarvis jeffbocc r Joseph <pjptludlow1 INC:y From: Penny @q.com> Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2015 1:55 PM To: BOCC Subject: Marijuana in Residential Areas I would like to voice my concern and unhappiness against the growing of marijuana in our residential areas and neighborhoods. There are other areas that would be ok, but NOT in our neighborhoods!!! I think you should keep and extend the moratorium and restrict this business from our neighborhoods! Penny C. Joseph 990 Thorndyke RD Port Ludlow, WA 98365 Julie Shannon From: Phil Johnson Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 7:09 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: 1 -502, banks and WAC From: gnarleydogfarm @gmail.com Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 7:10:20 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Kathleen Kler: David Sullivan, Phil Johnson Subject: 1 -502, banks and WAC Hello commissioners, I would like to offer you any clarity you may need on the intricacies of the LCB WAC in regards to 1 -502. 1 am exceptionally well versed in this document and happy to enlighten you to the responsibilities of 1 -502 businesses. I would like to clarify a point that continues to shadow us about banks. It is not accurate that banks refuse to do business with us. Banks and Credit Unions are managing many of the 1 -502 businesses, and accepting more all the time. Many things are changing in our favor. Thanks, Jean HEARING RECORD : °,N 2 January 20,2015 To Commissioner David Sullivan, The marijuanna industry is unique and does not function safely or fairly when growers are allowed to operate under existing land -use and zoning rules. There is grave concern that growing operations in rural - residential areas will increase criminal activity, close proximity to children provides a negative influence, increased trespassers and traffic and a devaluation of property values. I urge you to extend the current moratorium until laws are in place that require growers to limit their activity to semi - industrial areas. These areas must must be regulated and enforced. You have the opportunity to get it right this time. Take the crime out of the marijuanna industry and guide it's growth in a safe and fair manner. Joanne Pickering 8865 Flagler Rd. Nordland, Wa. 98358 January 20,2015 To Commissioner Phil Johnson, The marijuanna industry is unique and does not function safely or fairly when growers are allowed to operate under existing land -use and zoning rules. There is grave concern that growing operations in rural - residential areas will increase criminal activity, close proximity to children provides a negative influence, increased trespassers and traffic and a devaluation of property values. I urge you to extend the current moratorium until laws are in place that require growers to limit their activity to semi - industrial areas. These areas must must be regulated and enforced. You have the opportunity to get it right this time. Take the crime out of the marijuanna industry and guide it's growth in a safe and fair manner. Joanne Pickering 8865 Flagler Rd. Nordland, Wa. 98358 January 20,2015 To Commissioner Klerr, The marijuanna industry is unique and does not function safely or fairly when growers are allowed to operate under existing land -use and zoning rules. There is grave concern that growing operations in rural - residential areas will increase criminal activity, close proximity to children provides a negative influence, increased trespassers and traffic and a devaluation of property values. I urge you to extend the current moratorium until laws are in place that require growers to limit their activity to semi - industrial areas. These areas must must be regulated and enforced. You have the opportunity to get it right this time. Take the crime out of the marijuanna industry and guide it's growth in a safe and fair manner. Joanne Pickering 8865 Flagler Rd. Nordland, Wa. 98358 r 1 Julie Shannon From: George Hobart January 21, 2015espeed.com> �� A ���w �� Ak Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 8:32 PM HEARING Le o To: Kathleen Kler Subject: voters As a Jefferson county resident and voter, I am totally at a loss to understand why so many impediments to the implementation of the Marijuana 1502 vote are ongoing. I though we had spoken on this with our election vote. The County now seems intent on ignoring that overwhelming support because of a few uninformed folks are turning up at your meetings and lobbying you. Of course there will be those opposed and they will speak loudly for their positions. They are a minority and have their own self - serving positions on the matter. However, I would ask you to remember, we voted to approve this new industry, and I feel you would do better to help the 1502 community bring that vote to it's fruition. George Hobart Port Hadlock, WA Julie Shannon From: Phil Johnson Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 8:32 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: voters From: George Hobart Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 8:32:51 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Phil Johnson Subject: voters As a Jefferson county resident and voter, 1 am totally at a loss to understand why so many impediments to the implementation of the Marijuana 1502 vote are ongoing. I though we had spoken on this with our election vote. The County now seems intent on ignoring that overwhelming support because of a few uninformed folks are turning up at your meetings and lobbying you. Of course there will be those opposed and they will speak loudly for their positions. They are a minority and have their own self - serving positions on the matter. However, I would ask you to remember, we voted to approve this new industry, and I feel you would do better to help the 1502 community bring that vote to it's fruition. George Hobart Port Hadlock, WA Julie Shannon From: David Sullivan Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 8:32 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: voters From: George Hobart Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 8:33:11 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: David Sullivan Subject: voters As a Jefferson county resident and voter, I am totally at a loss to understand why so many impediments to the implementation of the Marijuana 1502 vote are ongoing. I though we had spoken on this with our election vote. The County now seems intent on ignoring that overwhelming support because of a few uninformed folks are turning up at your meetings and lobbying you. Of course there will be those opposed and they will speak loudly for their positions. They are a minority and have their own self - serving positions on the matter. However, I would ask you to remember, we voted to approve this new industry, and I feel you would do better to help the 1502 community bring that vote to it's fruition. George Hobart Port Hadlock, WA Julie Shannon HEARING RECORD From: Linda <lindajbrewster @msn.com> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 2:12 PM To: Phil Johnson; Kathleen Kler; David Sullivan Subject: Marijuana is an agricultural crop! Dear David, Phil and Kathleen, I urge you to end the moratorium on marijuana growing. There are people in this county well - positioned to begin making a reasonable living growing marijuana that this 'industrial' area requirement will exclude. To reframe marijuana as an industrial product rather than the agricultural product which it obviously is, seems like an approach that will seem ridiculous five years from now. It doesn't seem true to the legislation which voters supported, and seems like merely an attempt to ameliorate some people's anxiety about this societal change. I know the analogy is a liitle odd, but this 'industrial' approach reminds me of the notion only a couple of years ago that we could offer 'civil unions' as a 'fair' alternative to allowing gay marriage? LLv 'Bi-msteal 360-379-4023 ceW36O 774-6160 Julie Shannon From: Phil Johnson Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 2:10 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Marijuana is an agricultural crop! From: Linda Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 2:11:30 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Phil Johnson; Kathleen Kler; David Sullivan Subject: Marijuana is an agricultural crop! Dear David, Phil and Kathleen, I urge you to end the moratorium on marijuana growing. There are people in this county well - positioned to begin making a reasonable living growing marijuana that this 'industrial' area requirement will exclude. To reframe marijuana as an industrial product rather than the agricultural product which it obviously is, seems like an approach that will seem ridiculous five years from now. It doesn't seem true to the legislation which voters supported, and seems like merely an attempt to ameliorate some people's anxiety about this societal change. I know the analogy is a liitle odd, but this 'industrial' approach reminds me of the notion only a couple of years ago that we could offer'civil unions' as a 'fair' alternative to allowing gay marriage? Lbnda. Bre ester 360 - 379 -4023 oe1L36O 774-6160 Julie Shannon From: David Sullivan Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 2:10 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Marijuana is an agricultural crop! From: Linda Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 2:11:30 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Phil Johnson; Kathleen Kler; David Sullivan Subject: Marijuana is an agricultural crop! Dear David, Phil and Kathleen, I urge you to end the moratorium on marijuana growing. There are people in this county well - positioned to begin making a reasonable living growing marijuana that this 'industrial' area requirement will exclude. To reframe marijuana as an industrial product rather than the agricultural product which it obviously is, seems like an approach that will seem ridiculous five years from now. It doesn't seem true to the legislation which voters supported, and seems like merely an attempt to ameliorate some people's anxiety about this societal change. I know the analogy is a liitle odd, but this 'industrial' approach reminds me of the notion only a couple of years ago that we could offer'civil unions' as a 'fair' alternative to allowing gay marriage? L6nda.$rewster 360- 379 -4023 cell 360 774 -6160 From: Owner <johnpatolson @gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 7:57 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Maintain Marijuana Moratorium I understand that the Commission is considering whether to allow commercial marijuana growing and processing in residential areas. This would be a poor public policy decision for the following reasons: (.Marijuana is a target of theft as it is easily resold and attracts criminal attention — something that belongs in commercial locations where operations can be patrolled or otherwise secured. 2.Marijuana is an intoxicating drug and will attract intoxicated people to seek additional quantities of the drug where it is grown or processed. This is not something that belongs in our neighborhoods. Kids should be kept far from the drug as it severely affects them more that adults. 3.There is no rush to remove protections that have been enacted for good reason. Marijuana legalization for recreational use has just begun— prudence would suggest proceeding slowly until more experience is obtained. 4.Neighbors of commercial operations should have some defense against the type of traffic and social influences brought about by marijuana legalization. There is plenty of commercial space to grow and process marijuana. It is a highly profitable commodity. Maintain the moratorium and keep it exclusively a commercial enterprise. John Olson Port Ludlow Julie Shannon From: Phil Johnson Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 5:46 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: ugly fence From: gnarleydogfarm @gmail.com Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 5:46:37 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Phil Johnson Subject: ugly fence Hi Phil, Thank you for visiting Roger's facility yesterday. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask Roger or myself. 1 would not be at all surprised if you needed clarity on LCB requirements, they are a beast. I got some feedback from Marty Gay about his fence. He agrees that it is ugly. In his defense, I told you it is a leased fence and only meant to fill the gap for now. He is using industrially zoned land and is within his fencing rights. To change that you'd have to alter the zoning for industrial land use to specifically disallow fabric to hang from fences which are built in the future. I do not know of any requirements for aesthetic standards for fences. Sounds arbitrary and to me like discrimination to single out sight- obscuring mechanisms mandated by LCB. The Boat Haven also is loaded with fabric -lined fences. I agree with both you and Marty, the fence is hideous, but that does not mean I would change county code to prohibit it. Besides, Jefferson County has no code enforcement officer so it would be just another unfunded and toothless rule. I'd like to focus on issues that make an impact and utilize science and common sense to get this done. Everyone expects to see ugly stuff in industrial zones. While l honestly appreciate your thorough approach to minimizing the impacts due to unforeseen consequences, I would like to caution you to avoid getting lost in the weeds over minor issues. I firmly believe our Cottage Business parameters clearly define this land use as pertains to Rural /Residential parcels. These issues are already addressed and it is very late in the game, and totally unnecessary, to be reinventing the wheel. Warmly, Jean Julie Shannon From: Kathleen Kier Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 5:54 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: ugly fence From: gnarleydogfarm @gmail.com Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 5:55:27 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Kathleen Kier Subject: Fwd: ugly fence Hello Kathleen, I sent this message to Phil and thought you might like to see it too. Jean Begin forwarded message: From: gnarleydogfarm(a,gmail.com Date: January 23, 2015 at 5:46:37 PM PST To: Phil Johnson <piohnsonLco.iefferson.wa.us> Subject: ugly fence Hi Phil, Thank you for visiting Roger's facility yesterday. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask Roger or myself. I would not be at all surprised if you needed clarity on LCB requirements, they are a beast. I got some feedback from Marry Gay about his fence. He agrees that it is ugly. In his defense, I told you it is a leased fence and only meant to fill the gap for now. He is using industrially zoned land and is within his fencing rights. To change that you'd have to alter the zoning for industrial land use to specifically disallow fabric to hang from fences which are built in the future. I do not know of any requirements for aesthetic standards for fences. Sounds arbitrary and to me like discrimination to single out sight - obscuring mechanisms mandated by LCB. The Boat Haven also is loaded with fabric -lined fences. I agree with both you and Marty, the fence is hideous, but that does not mean I would change county code to prohibit it. Besides, Jefferson County has no code enforcement officer so it would be just another unfunded and toothless rule. I'd like to focus on issues that make an impact and utilize science and common sense to get this done. Everyone expects to see ugly stuff in industrial zones. While I honestly appreciate your thorough approach to minimizing the impacts due to unforeseen consequences, I would like to caution you to avoid getting lost in the weeds over minor issues. I firmly believe our Cottage Business parameters clearly define this land use as pertains to Rural /Residential parcels. These issues are already addressed and it is very late in the game, and totally unnecessary, to be reinventing the wheel. HEARING RECORD jeffbocc From: Dianne <circlebarm @q.com> Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 11:42 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Regulation of marijuana industry To the commissioners, I am writing to urge you to extend the moratorium on marijuana growing until reasonable regulations are in place. I have attended three meetings - two with commissioners and one of the planning department. I was shocked at the latter meeting when it was mentioned the BOCC had decided on a "light touch" with respect to regulation. This represents a point of view which seems predisposed to bend over backwards to accommodate marijuana interests and I cannot fathom why. Although the law passed, many voters, including myself, abhor the idea of pot grown here, and are skeptical of any reassurances about jobs and or tax revenue( ?) that are being touted. A lot of the brouhaha would die down if marijuana growing WERE LIMITED TO COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL AREAS. I would have no problem if my neighbor chose to grow a few plants for recreational or medical use, but to grow it on a commercial or industrial scale SHOULD BE IN ZONES DESIGNATED FOR THAT PURPOSE. As for marijuana being "like other agricultural crops," I totally reject that statement As for confidence that regulations put in place will be enforced, I agree with what I heard at the planning meeting: there is not enough personnel to enforce compliance, and during lengthy enforcement requests neighbors would be annoyed or at risk. As for regulation: we are not operating in a void here. Other counties nearby and throughout Washington state provide good examples of how regulation should look. Why on earth is Jefferson county determined to proceed alone with its " light touch" approach? As for opposition: it is difficult to attend the BOCC and even the planning meeting with so many procedures, acronyms, regulations. A citizen feels as if they have to have a masters in county government and environmental law to make an intelligent comment. It is intimidating. It is when the character of a neighborhood is threatened is when people like myself come forward and say that the QUALITY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOODS is what makes Jefferson county a good community. Our land values and quality of life are at stake here. Marijuana can be grown here, in areas currently designated for industry and commercial which I would avoid in searching for a house to buy. I just keep thinking there are no Port Townsend people at these meetings because homes in residential neighborhoods there are not being threatened. I believe your jobs are to integrate new interests with those that are currently here. Ask your friends: would they be interested in purchasing a home near a huge marijuana grow facility? IT IS NOT NECESSARY to break the pact with existing homeowners that their neighborhoods will be residential, or rural, or forested by changing the rules for this industry. PUT IT WHERE IT BELONGS, and regulate it with a "heavy touch," commensurate with its risk and potential profit. Dianne Maynard 761 Robbins Rd. Nordland, Wa. 98358 Sent from my Tad jeffbocc From: Philip Morley Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 12:07 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: FW: Regulation of marijuana industry Please enter this into the Hearing Record and Correspondence Log. Thank you. Philip Philip Morley Jefferson County Administrator pmorlev@co.iefferson.wa.us (360) 385 -9100 x -383 This is a reminder that all email to or from this email address may be subject to the Public Records Act contained in RCW 42.56. Additionally, all email to and from the county is captured and archived by Information Services. From: Dianne [mailto:circlebarm @q.com] Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 11:43 AM To: Philip Morley Subject: Regulation of marijuana industry To the commissioners, I am writing to urge you to extend the moratorium on marijuana growing until reasonable regulations are in place. I have attended three meetings- two with commissioners and one of the planning department. I was shocked at the latter meeting when it was mentioned the BOCC had decided on a "light touch" with respect to regulation. This represents a point of view which seems predisposed to bend over backwards to accommodate marijuana interests and I cannot fathom why. Although the law passed, many voters, including myself, abhor the idea of pot grown here, and are skeptical of any reassurances about jobs and or tax revenue( ?) that are being touted. A lot of the brouhaha would die down if marijuana growing WERE LIMITED TO COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL AREAS. I would have no problem if my neighbor chose to grow a few plants for recreational or medical use, but to grow it on a commercial or industrial scale SHOULD BE IN ZONES DESIGNATED FOR THAT PURPOSE. As for marijuana being "like other agricultural crops," I totally reject that statement. As for confidence that regulations put in place will be enforced, I agree with what I heard at the planning meeting: there is not enough personnel to enforce compliance, and during lengthy enforcement requests neighbors would be annoyed or at risk. As for regulation: we are not operating in a void here. Other counties nearby and throughout Washington state provide good examples of how regulation should look. Why on earth is Jefferson county determined to proceed alone with its " light touch" approach? As for opposition: it is difficult to attend the BOCC and even the planning meeting with so many procedures, acronyms, regulations. A citizen feels as if they have to have a masters in county government and environmental law to make an intelligent comment. It is intimidating. It is when the character of a neighborhood is threatened is when people like myself come forward and say that the QUALITY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOODS is what makes Jefferson county a good community. Our land values and quality of life are at stake here. Marijuana can be grown here, in areas currently designated for industry and commercial which I would avoid in searching for a house to buy. I just keep thinking there are no Port Townsend people at these meetings because homes in residential neighborhoods there are not being threatened. I believe your jobs are to integrate new interests with those that are currently here. Ask your friends: would they be interested in purchasing a home near a huge marijuana grow facility? IT IS NOT NECESSARY to break the pact with existing homeowners that their neighborhoods will be residential, or rural, or forested by changing the rules for this industry. PUT IT WHERE IT BELONGS, and regulate it with a "heavy touch," commensurate with its risk and potential profit. Dianne Maynard 761 Robbins Rd. Nordland, Wa. 98358 Sent from my iPad Julie Shannon From: David Sullivan Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 11:41 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Regulation of marijuana industry From: Dianne Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 11:42:11 AM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: David Sullivan Subject: Regulation of marijuana industry To the commissioners, I am writing to urge you to extend the moratorium on marijuana growing until reasonable regulations are in place. I have attended three meetings- two with commissioners and one of the planning department. I was shocked at the latter meeting when it was mentioned the BOCC had decided on a "light touch" with respect to regulation. This represents a point of view which seems predisposed to bend over backwards to accommodate marijuana interests and I cannot fathom why. Although the law passed, many voters, including myself, abhor the idea of pot grown here, and are skeptical of any reassurances about jobs and or tax revenue( ?) that are being touted. A lot of the brouhaha would die down if marijuana growing WERE LIMITED TO COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL AREAS. I would have no problem if my neighbor chose to grow a few plants for recreational or medical use, but to grow it on a commercial or industrial scale SHOULD BE IN ZONES DESIGNATED FOR THAT PURPOSE. As for marijuana being "like other agricultural crops," I totally reject that statement As for confidence that regulations put in place will be enforced, I agree with what I heard at the planning meeting: there is not enough personnel to enforce compliance, and during lengthy enforcement requests neighbors would be annoyed or at risk. As for regulation: we are not operating in a void here. Other counties nearby and throughout Washington state provide good examples of how regulation should look. Why on earth is Jefferson county determined to proceed alone with its " light touch" approach? As for opposition: it is difficult to attend the BOCC and even the planning meeting with so many procedures, acronyms, regulations. A citizen feels as if they have to have a masters in county government and environmental law to make an intelligent comment. It is intimidating. It is when the character of a neighborhood is threatened is when people like myself come forward and say that the QUALITY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOODS is what makes Jefferson county a good community. Our land values and quality of life are at stake here. Marijuana can be grown here, in areas currently designated for industry and commercial which I would avoid in searching for a house to buy. I just keep thinking there are no Port Townsend people at these meetings because homes in residential neighborhoods there are not being threatened. I believe your jobs are to integrate new interests with those that are currently here. Ask your friends: would they be interested in purchasing a home near a huge marijuana grow facility? IT IS NOT NECESSARY to break the pact with existing homeowners that their neighborhoods will be residential, or rural, or forested by changing the rules for this industry. PUT IT WHERE IT BELONGS, and regulate it with a "heavy touch," commensurate with its risk and potential profit. Dianne Maynard 761 Robbins Rd. Nordland, Wa. 98358 Sent from my iPad Julie Shannon From: Kathleen Kier Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 4:45 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Regulation of marijuana industry From: Dianne Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 4:46:32 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Kathleen Kier Subject: Regulation of marijuana industry To the commissioners, I am writing to urge you to extend the moratorium on marijuana growing until reasonable regulations are in place. I have attended three meetings - two with commissioners and one of the planning department. I was shocked at the latter meeting when it was mentioned the BOCC had decided on a "light touch" with respect to regulation. This represents a point of view which seems predisposed to bend over backwards to accommodate marijuana interests and I cannot fathom why. Although the law passed, many voters, including myself, abhor the idea of pot grown here, and are skeptical of any reassurances about jobs and or tax revenue( ?) that are being touted. A lot of the brouhaha would die down if marijuana growing WERE LIMITED TO COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL AREAS. I would have no problem if my neighbor chose to grow a few plants for recreational or medical use, but to grow it on a commercial or industrial scale SHOULD BE IN ZONES DESIGNATED FOR THAT PURPOSE. As for marijuana being "like other agricultural crops," I totally reject that statement As for confidence that regulations put in place will be enforced, I agree with what I heard at the planning meeting: there is not enough personnel to enforce compliance, and during lengthy enforcement requests neighbors would be annoyed or at risk. As for regulation: we are not operating in a void here. Other counties nearby and throughout Washington state provide good examples of how regulation should look. Why on earth is Jefferson county determined to proceed alone with its " light touch" approach? As for opposition: it is difficult to attend the BOCC and even the planning meeting with so many procedures, acronyms, regulations. A citizen feels as if they have to have a masters in county government and environmental law to make an intelligent comment. It is intimidating. It is when the character of a neighborhood is threatened is when people like myself come forward and say that the QUALITY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOODS is what makes Jefferson county a good community. Our land values and quality of life are at stake here. Marijuana can be grown here, in areas currently designated for industry and commercial which I would avoid in searching for a house to buy. I just keep thinking there are no Port Townsend people at these meetings because homes in residential neighborhoods there are not being threatened. I believe your jobs are to integrate new interests with those that are currently here. Ask your friends: would they be interested in purchasing a home near a huge marijuana grow facility? IT IS NOT NECESSARY to break the pact with existing homeowners that their neighborhoods will be residential, or rural, or forested by changing the rules for this industry. PUT IT WHERE IT BELONGS, and regulate it with a "heavy touch," commensurate with its risk and potential profit. Dianne Maynard 761 Robbins Rd. Nordland, Wa. 98358 Sent from my iPad HEARING RECORD Julie Shannon From: David Sullivan Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 1:51 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: 1502 moratorium From: Wendy Davis Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 1:52:36 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: David Sullivan; Kathleen Kier; Phil Johnson Subject: I502 moratorium Hello, As a business owner in Jefferson county I would like to express to you my disapproval with the ongoing moratorium against cannabis producers and processors. The moratorium has negatively impacted my existing business, Let It Grow Indoor Garden Supply. We may not be able to keep our doors open waiting out this untimely moratorium. Please allow producers and processors to proceed with their businesses on rural residential properties as was originally adopted by the county. Thank you, Wendy Davis, owner Let It Grow Indoor Garden Supply Port Townsend, WA Julie Shannon From: Phil Johnson Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 1:51 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: 1502 moratorium From: Wendy Davis Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 1:52:36 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: David Sullivan; Kathleen Kler; Phil Johnson Subject: I502 moratorium Hello, As a business owner in Jefferson county I would like to express to you my disapproval with the ongoing moratorium against cannabis producers and processors. The moratorium has negatively impacted my existing business, Let It Grow Indoor Garden Supply. We may not be able to keep our doors open waiting out this untimely moratorium. Please allow producers and processors to proceed with their businesses on rural residential properties as was originally adopted by the county. Thank you, Wendy Davis, owner Let It Grow Indoor Garden Supply Port Townsend, WA Julie Shannon From: Kathleen Kier Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 1:52 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: 1502 moratorium From: Wendy Davis Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 1:52:36 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: David Sullivan; Kathleen Kier; Phil Johnson Subject: I502 moratorium Hello, As a business owner in Jefferson county I would like to express to you my disapproval with the ongoing moratorium against cannabis producers and processors. The moratorium has negatively impacted my existing business, Let It Grow Indoor Garden Supply. We may not be able to keep our doors open waiting out this untimely moratorium. Please allow producers and processors to proceed with their businesses on rural residential properties as was originally adopted by the county. Thank you, Wendy Davis, owner Let It Grow Indoor Garden Supply Port Townsend, WA Julie HEARING RE From: Phil Johnson Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 12:39 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Moratorium on growing cannabis on rural residential sites From: linda landkammer Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 12:40:07 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Phil Johnson; David Sullivan Cc: Kathleen Kier Subject: Moratorium on growing cannabis on rural residential sites To the County Commissioners; I personally have nothing against growing cannabis as a useful medicinal herb. However, I do not consider it appropriate to grow it in a rural residential neighborhood where one expects to live in relative peace and safety. It is a crop that is known to attract intruders ( if it didnt, why else would cameras, monitors and high fences be required) It also has a very distinctive and strong odor. And on property that is near the edge of a bluff, a continuously eroding bluff above a body of water, I have concerns about the amount of water used to grow the plants having an influence on further bluff erosion, possibly affecting adjacent properties as well. ( I am open to being educated on this particular issue if I dont have all the facts) It seems to me that people who want to grow this product should do it on land zoned Agricultural or at least on land that is not zoned Rural Residential. Thank you, Linda Landkammer Linda Landkammer, Designer Kul Kah Han Native Plant Demo Garden H.S. Carroll Park in Chimacum, WA. http�/,,'nativeplantgarden.org wild4nature aqxom 360.379.8733 Julie Shannon From: Kathleen Kier Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 12:39 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Moratorium on growing cannabis on rural residential sites From: linda landkammer Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 12:40:07 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Phil Johnson; David Sullivan Cc: Kathleen Kler Subject: Moratorium on growing cannabis on rural residential sites To the County Commissioners; I personally have nothing against growing cannabis as a useful medicinal herb. However, I do not consider it appropriate to grow it in a rural residential neighborhood where one expects to live in relative peace and safety . It is a crop that is known to attract intruders ( if it didnt, why else would cameras, monitors and high fences be required) It also has a very distinctive and strong odor. And on property that is near the edge of a bluff, a continuously eroding bluff above a body of water, I have concerns about the amount of water used to grow the plants having an influence on further bluff erosion, possibly affecting adjacent properties as well. ( I am open to being educated on this particular issue if I dont have all the facts) It seems to me that people who want to grow this product should do it on land zoned Agricultural or at least on land that is not zoned Rural Residential. Thank you, Linda Landkammer Linda Landkammer, Designer Kul Kah Han Native Plant Demo Garden H.J. Carroll Park in Chimacum, WA. http:/,,'iiatiNeplantgarden.org wild4nature Lira .com 360.379.8733 Julie Shannon From: David Sullivan Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 12:39 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Moratorium on growing cannabis on rural residential sites From: linda landkammer Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 12:40:07 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Phil Johnson; David Sullivan Cc: Kathleen Kler Subject: Moratorium on growing cannabis on rural residential sites To the County Commissioners; I personally have nothing against growing cannabis as a useful medicinal herb. However, I do not consider it appropriate to grow it in a rural residential neighborhood where one expects to live in relative peace and safety. It is a crop that is known to attract intruders ( if it didnt, why else would cameras, monitors and high fences be required) It also has a very distinctive and strong odor. And on property that is near the edge of a bluff, a continuously eroding bluff above a body of water, I have concerns about the amount of water used to grow the plants having an influence on further bluff erosion, possibly affecting adjacent properties as well.( I am open to being educated on this particular issue if I dont have all the facts) It seems to me that people who want to grow this product should do it on land zoned Agricultural or at least on land that is not zoned Rural Residential. Thank you, Linda Landkammer Linda Landkammer, Designer Kul Kah Han Native Plant Demo Garden H.S. Carroll Park in Chimacum, WA. htt) : / /nativeolantgarden_org wilddnature(r�g_com 360.379.8733 Julie Shannon From: David Sullivan Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 11:41 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: End the moratorium From: Rebecca Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 11:41:57 AM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: David Sullivan Subject: End the moratorium Dear Councilman Dave Sullivan, My Husband Paul, and I are selling our home and are looking to buy property in Jefferson County, south of Chimacum . I am a beekeeper, and Jean Ball is a member and instructor who was nominated, but declined the post of President of our association. Her docket was filled with meetings and labors over the 1 -502 fuss. 1 had heard about the falderal instigated by NIMBYs and it was clear what a devastating impact it was having on Jean's business plan. I began to follow the politics I could garner on line and from county council minutes. I believe there are a number of cottage industries in this rural /residential area and if I was considering developing one would 1 come under attack too? I think there has been a great deal of misinformation around what is needed to grow Cannabis. It is agriculture, not industry. I could understand regulating the use of chemicals, or development on wetlands. However Jean Ball and her associates are very meticulous conservator of the environment and use organic methods. As far as noise pollution, barking dogs make more noise. Then there is the matter of revenue. Doesn't rural Jefferson county need this? Who pays for those nice roads? So do the right thing, use the fads, science, and economically sensible thing; Vote in favor of rural /residential 1- 502 production and processing, and end the moratorium. Sincerely, Rebecca and Paul Hudson Julie Shannon From: Kathleen Kler Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 11 A2 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: End the moratorium From: Rebecca Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 11:42:43 AM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Kathleen Kier Subject: End the moratorium Dear Councilwoman Kathleen Kier, My Husband Paul, and I are selling our home and are looking to buy property in Jefferson County, south of Chimacum . I am a beekeeper, and Jean Ball is a member and instructor who was nominated, but declined the post of President of our association. Her docket was filled with meetings and labors over the 1 -502 fuss. I had heard about the falderal instigated by N IMBYs and it was clear what a devastating impact it was having on Jean's business plan. 1 began to follow the politics l could garner on line and from county council minutes. I believe there are a number of cottage industries in this rural /residential area and if I was considering developing one would l come under attack too? I think there has been a great deal of misinformation around what is needed to grow Cannabis. It is agriculture, not industry. I could understand regulating the use of chemicals, or development on wetlands. However Jean Ball and her associates are very meticulous conservators of the environment and use organic methods. As far as noise pollution, barking dogs make more noise. Then there is the matter of revenue. Doesn't rural Jefferson county need this? Who pays for those nice roads? So do the right thing, use the facts, science, and economically sensible thing; Vote in favor of rural/residential 1- 502 production and processing, and end the moratorium. Sincerely, Rebecca and Paul Hudson Julie Shannon From: Phil Johnson Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 11:43 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: End the moratorium From: Rebecca Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 11:43:41 AM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Phil Johnson Subject: End the moratorium Dear Councilman Phil Johnson, My Husband Paul, and I are selling our home and are looking to buy property in Jefferson County, south of Chimacum . 1 am a beekeeper, and Jean Ball is a member and instructor who was nominated, but declined the post of President of our association. Her docket was filled with meetings and labors over the 1 -502 fuss. I had heard about the falderal instigated by NIMBYs and it was clear what a devastating impact it was having on Jean's business plan. I began to follow the politics I could garner on line and from county council minutes. 1 believe there are a number of cottage industries in this rural /residential area and if 1 was considering developing one would I come under attack too? I think there has been a great deal of misinformation around what is needed to grow Cannabis. It is agriculture, not industry. 1 could understand regulating the use of chemicals, or development on wetlands. However Jean Ball and her associates are very meticulous conservators of the environment and use organic methods. As far as noise pollution, barking dogs make more noise. Then there is the matter of revenue. Doesn't rural Jefferson county need this? Who pays for those nice roads? So do the right thing, use the facts, science, and economically sensible thing; Vote in favor of rural /residential 1- 502 production and processing, and end the moratorium. Sincerely, Rebecca and Paul Hudson HEARING RECORD On Cannabis Hemp and Amerikkkan Culture I will never forget how low and venal the mainstream media attacks were on cannabis hemp and it's users during the I -502 campaign. One ne aper ran a "pro and con debate" with two people who were actually agaiiih Iega ng cannabis and who cited no facts to support their positions. The reactive emotionalism continued on from there, and in each case, one after another, if you had the facts and more importantly the long term subcultural experience, you could refute the central allegations made in the malicious propaganda in a couple of minutes. In case after case, with absolutely no supporting facts or science, cannabis was the problem, and more mindless fascist repression and prohibition was the "solution ". This is indicative of two things; 1) the presence of the phenomenon of authoritarian groupthink or the lack thereof, and 2) the hidden influence or hand of lots of corporate money behind the scenes, and that is precisely what I have found in my research over the last couple of years. Think over these facts. 1) In states where medical cannabis is legal, opiate and other killer drug use is much reduced, so consequently are both car and medical fatalities as well. 2) In states where medical cannabis is legal, the teen suicide rate is also much reduced. This is because of the beneficial medical efficacy of cannabis in treating many psychological conditions. These uses are detailed in the four page A -Z medical /psychological index found at www.rxmarijuana.com. The FDA has been asked repeatedly to research this beneficial medical efficacy and has repeatedly refused. This is evidence of the influence of alcohol, tobacco, and big pharma companies in determining medical policies in the US, policies that have many times harmed people and communities affected hugely. There are approximately 100,000 fatalities associated with prescription drug use in the US; no such death toll with cannabis. 3) Kevin Sabet of Project SAM, a pathetically misbegotten project riddled with the usual fascist corporate lies about cannabis, was found to be funded by big pharma drug companies whose products actually kill many, many more people than cannabis ever would. 4) Driving research has shown that cannabis does not affect driving ability near as much as alcohol and some prescription drugs. This research can be found at www.norml.org along with other studies cited in this work. Generally research on complex multifactorial situations can be found to be affected deeply by both the influence of subconscious emotionalized biases indigenous to the culture, and also the influence upon researchers to prove the conclusions desired by the funders of the studies done. There's lies, damn lies, statistics, and corporate funded studies methodologically tainted. 5) Sanjay Gupta, a medical doctor /consultant working for CNN had deep emotionalized biases against the idea of medical marijuana's efficacy. Then he found out about a five year old girl whose seizures were almost completely eliminated by a cannabis tincture. Nothing else worked near as well. This is also true for thousands of other people across the nation as well. A lot of people are flocking to Colorado where the freest social and market conditions exist for patients and others. Remember recreational uses can be medically classified; see the four page A -Z medical psychological index at www.rxmarijuana.com. Sharon Foster of the Liquor Control Board has pushed to have the taxation reduced to the levels in Colorado; 25% of revenue stream rather than 75% 6) Many people have voiced concerns about traffic, odor, and security. Since cannabis is a high dollar crop, appropriate security must be planned out and has been included in the I -502 legislation for legal producers. Also cannabis is an indoor hothouse crop very similar to the canadian agriculture that is also year round. The producing locations are not retail locations so traffic in and out will be minimal like any farm. Odor control is also easily achieved since cannabis is grown in enclosed greenhouses, either permanent or semi - permanent. Finally America's family farmers have always wanted to grow hemp for flour, oil, and fiber and now can under a recent federal court decision in Kentucky. I sincerely hope that this complicated issue can be responded to rationally and humanely so we cut down on the numerous harms done to our democracy, our communities, and our people by the misbegotten, subversive, and destructive fascist war on drugs along with the killer addictive drugs; alcohol, tobacco, prescription drugs, needle drugs, and powder drugs. . Lyle Courtsal January 19, 2015 www.3mpub.com, www.narconews.com, www.leap.cc www.nortnl.org, www.rxmarijuana.com, www.hemptrade.ca Dharma, David, and William So the Washington State Liquor Control Board is rulemaking again around I -502. Take cover; incoming... Somehow they are not happy with the medical cannabis standards either, so they are going to make this situation much, much worse than it was before too. Thiis is what happens when you let a bunch of alcoholic fascists take over a viable subculture. Tell me that the people I spoke in front of at that hearing from hell knew the subculture and the full dimensions of the situation and I will call you a liar. They didn't know the first thing about what they were doing and were, as usual for most politicians, proud of it. And what a mess it is. Let's see how bad it can get even before they took over and messed up the situation further. David was a friend of mine. He was personable, outgoing generous, and really nice as people go. He had seizures and the big pharma meds didn't work near as well as cannabis did in managing those seizures. Like many people he didn't have enough money to pay for his meds and so he went without. The price of cannabis was high at the time and so he went without the medication that worked. He had had one seizure before, fell off his boat, and was airlifted to a seattle hospital. He made it that time. The second time he had a seizure and fell off his boat, he didn't make it, and the main reason for the seizure was no medication because it was too expensive at that time. Now they propose adding a 75 -115% tax on the price of the medicine. They did nothing creative, specific, and appropriate to the massive amount of cannabis medical and psychological research out there. This is around 30 -40 years of great research telling us that cannabis is beneficial and safe for the community. It's the laws that are the problem, not the pot. But more than that, it's the people in washington state making the laws that are the problem and the rest of the nation is now saying so too. I read it every day; Colorado has established taxes at the highest end of what the market will bear. Washington state's regulators are living in a lala land of delusional fantasy that somehow the market will just carry all comers who want to extort cannabis users and run off into the sunset with the proceeds. My friend David deserves a lot better than this. What are they thinking? The only conclusion you can come to is that they are not thinking, they are stealing. They say they are compromising, but no, that assumes they are actually responding appropriately to what the subculture is saying. Sure they say they did all these hearing and listened to all these people, but it has become clear to me that once again they are just listening to the money and the polls. That is why it is that they banned collective grows for medical patients; they want to control the supply and cut it off based on illegitimate pseudomoralistic emotionalisms; the foundations of all prohibitions historically. That is what most political manipulation in the US is based upon; fear - mongering and darned if they didn't cave to that over and over and over again in this process. Then they try and intimidate and further extort people with an alcohol based driving standard, rather than what the standard should realistically be; .35% BAC not .05 %, remembering that even the test they're using has a 30% error rate and most of that is false positives. Oh, and now they want a blood test too. Personally based on my experience, I don't think tests accurately assess a persons level of cannabis intoxication, it is merely a pretext to search and extort people because metabolites don't measure intoxication, period. We knew back in the 1980's drug war that the laws were the problem, not the bud. A friend with a Ph.D did drive testing for cannabis and found that half those tested drove BETTER stoned than they did straight, and this conclusion was supported by other testing done internationally. It just is nowhere near as dangerous as alcohol and should be treated as such because the present overregulation/overtaxation scheme is going to kill off the market, and I believe that was the goal John McKay had in mind from the start. And what that means for my friends is more fatalities just like my friend David; deaths from over - incarceration, raids, traffic stops, and denial of cheap and effective medicine. Prohibition was a federal problem in the 30's too, and they were more than happy to poison alcohol back then in order to achieve the death - dealing puritannical goal then too. That's what making a killing has been all about historically in this country. Sure, Obombsaway says he's backing off now, but that doesn't stop the next person from cracking down and harming tens of millions of people again as soon as he's gone. This is why I keep on hoping someone in America will show sufficient principle and resolve to put in place good enough law that we would actually really get a lot of people out of jail and make sure they stay that way. That would mean much less malicious lawmaking would be a necessity; more love, less dumb inappropriate ill- conceived harmful rules that don't respond to what the majority pf people expect in the policy. And lets see how this has worked before this particular set of screwed up statuate was put in place for insight and perspective. Dharma Rosada was skewered propagandistically by a Seattle newspaper; one of many to climb on the bandwagon to hell that was the big propaganda media outlets before the election before last. The writing on the subject was just plain mean - spirited and also completely off -base. The crap was just unbelievable; the pigs would just take a life and chop the truth of it into pieces on newsprint; business as usual. Dharma Rosada was one more such person whose situation was taken and just butchered up shamelessly in this manner. I used to see her walking around Seattle in her whiteface; sure, she was strange but she harmed no one. One day she had a healing crisis and had the misfortune to be in an apartment building full of nebby snitches who called the police when she got a little crazy; this is what most rape /abuse victim /survivors do sometimes and the situation had nothing to do with pot, it was really about the abuse she went through most of her life living in the US as a disabled person. But some pigass journalist was looking for a story, so off they went messing up her story right from the get -go. The cops came, entered the apartment, startled her, she was on a ledge, and she jumped to her death. Somehow it was all the pots' fault, not theirs though, as usual. This even though the pot probably acted to extend her lifespan as a victim /survivor who was parasuicidal, but why let the facts get in the way of stupid blind greedy ambition; the foundations of any stupid fascist mistake in progress? See, cannabis is better for a person than all those big pharma trang's people are giving the children. Sanjay Gupta at CNN even knows of a five year old that uses it for her seizures too. That truth made him a convert from prohibitionist hater to harm reduction lover. He's a brown person from India though, so his opinion doesn't count. So why is it so hard for Americans to make the leap from that kind of medication use to the one that says our communities would be safer and more peaceful if people could just use cannabis in freedom without a bunch of bullcrap laws in the way of that freedom? Because our leaders are idiots, and don't believe the truth when they are told it. Look at how unresponsive they were to the information they were given. It was obvious to me that as usual the repugnicrats involved had cherry- picked the input and limited it down to what they wanted as policy, not what served all the community best. As usual for this time in our history, they screwed up royally again and again were demanding respect for the failure; sad to see at the very least. How can a people be proud of that poor quality a product or law or policy? We can't be. So can they just really make over the document as we want it? Sure they can if they only try. The legal decisions and the information is there for them to really loosen up and let us do it and make it work if they decide to. The rest of the country is acting in accordance with what Colorado has produced, and improving on that even. Once again, Washington state has failed miserably at serving the needs of it's people and the demands of the situation, and the solution to the problem is so simple and has already worked for the last 50 years at least and maybe a lot more than that. Is that the problem? that it would work to just loosen up and let us? We are in a lot of trouble if it is. Finally I want to tell you about my friend William Langlois, jr. He was a vietnam era veteran who I befriended when I was doing volunteer street outreach. He was the best of America to me. He had been seriously abused as a child and also was a combat veteran living on the streets. He drank some beers a day, but it didn't interfere with his life. He camped across from the westin benson in Seattle in a shelter, and they let him because he kept the place up during the day. Sure he was harassed but what street person isn't. I managed to keep him off the distilled alcohol, so he survived pretty well until we finally found a place for him to live permanently. That was another two year bureaucratic horror story believe me, with the catholic housing people failing him completely once again. One day, I brought him some really great bud, and we shared the best four hours of our lives there that sunny afternoon on the streets of Seattle. We were just cracking jokes and laughing at all the humor and inspiration just pouring out of us. The darkness lifted off him that day for awhile and even for longer than awhile. There were other days when things got darker for him, but that was due to the nonstop abuse of both the streets and his lifepath thus far, not the pot. The cannabis made life bearable and survivable for him when otherwise life was a lot worse without it. That is not the outcome you get from a destructive addiction. He later died in a flophouse of cancer due to his service exposures, but the cannabis we shared improved his quality of life immensely. Who would dare deny a poor person that relief, repressing a viable, workable market by extorting it and over - regulating it? A lot of people; see, it;s easier to kill a man with a pen than a gun. You don't have to face him. It happens all the time and i -502's implementation is just one more example of such legalistic violence; shame on you, see you in hell. Lyle Courtsal www.3mpub.com, www.narconews.com ( ^ 0������ 1 0 0 oQ o ` l l 0A y . � � (A0vCe c) ��� � From: David Sullivan Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2015 8:48 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Marijuana moratorium From: Bruce Tapper Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2015 8:49:22 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: David Sullivan Cc: Phil Johnson; Kathleen Kier Subject: Marijuana moratorium I am writing to urge you to end the moratorium on marijuana growers and processors in Jefferson County. Both the State and County voters have already voted strongly in favor of legalization, and this delay is costing the state a great deal in tax revenue. Although I do not personally use either alcohol or marijuana at all, there is a legal grow just a few lots away from my residence and I fully support my neighbors in growing and processing legally. Please allow the majority of voters to exercise their rights. Bruce J. Tapper, Ph.D. Julie Shannon From: Phil Johnson Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2015 8:48 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Marijuana moratorium From: Bruce Tapper Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2015 8:49:22 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: David Sullivan Cc: Phil Johnson; Kathleen Kier Subject: Marijuana moratorium I am writing to urge you to end the moratorium on marijuana growers and processors in Jefferson County. Both the State and County voters have already voted strongly in favor of legalization, and this delay is costing the state a great deal in tax revenue. Although I do not personally use either alcohol or marijuana at all, there is a legal grow just a few lots away from my residence and I fully support my neighbors in growing and processing legally. Please allow the majority of voters to exercise their rights. Bruce J. Tapper, Ph.D. Julie Shannon From: Kathleen Kier Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2015 8:48 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Marijuana moratorium From: Bruce Tapper Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2015 8:49:22 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: David Sullivan Cc: Phil Johnson; Kathleen Kier Subject: Marijuana moratorium I am writing to urge you to end the moratorium on marijuana growers and processors in Jefferson County. Both the State and County voters have already voted strongly in favor of legalization, and this delay is costing the state a great deal in tax revenue. Although I do not personally use either alcohol or marijuana at all, there is a legal grow just a few lots away from my residence and I fully support my neighbors in growing and processing legally. Please allow the majority of voters to exercise their rights. Bruce J. Tapper, Ph.D. From: Phil Johnson Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2015 11:31 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Parkinson's and Cannabis From: COLUM Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2015 10:53:20 AM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Phil Johnson Subject: Parkinson's and Cannabis Hi Phil, Thanks for taking the time to chat with me about our marijuana moratorium conundrum. Here are a few studies I found with a quick Google search that evaluate the effect cannabis has on Parkinson's symptoms. Like most folks our age you expressed a desire for wellness with little interest in the psychotropic effect of cannabis. You're in luck as it is reasonable to expect medical use of cannabis without getting high if you are consuming a product that was processed to avoid activation of the plant's THC. The components of the cannabis plant interact in a rather complex manner with the cannabinoid receptors in our bodies. As you know recreational cannabis has been bred over the past 50 years to accentuate the THC content thereby maximizing the psychotropic effect. I don't believe this produces a plant that can maximize it's benefits to mankind although I see nothing wrong with recreational use and a psychotropic effect for adults acting responsibly, just like responsible adults drinking alcohol, even though cannabis use is clearly healthier for our bodies. I believe a plant with more balanced concentrations of THC and other cannabinoids is what we will find to be more therapeutic. As an example high doses of THC causes anxiety and psychotic -like symptoms but another cannabinoid, cannabidiol (CBD), modulates those side effects. As we learn more and more about the specific effects each cannabinoid and terpene has in our bodies we will be armed with which marijuana strains to grow and how to best process our plants to extract the components suitable for specific patients. It looks like state legislation is going to fold medical marijuana into the 502 system and the 502 growers currently on hold by the Jefferson County moratorium will be the growers supplying medicine for all of us patients. These entrepreneurs deserve an end to the moratorium and a green light to proceed. Colum Tinley http:// iournals .lww.comlclinicalneuropharm /Abstract /2014 /03000 /Cannabis Medical Marijuana Treatme nt for Motor.l.aspx http: / /normi.org/ news / 2014 /03/20 /study- inhaled- cannabis - relieves - symptoms -of- parkinson -s- disease http: / /www.medical'ane.com /2014 /11/14 /parkinsons- disease - and - medical - marijuana/ Julie Shannon From: Phil Johnson Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2015 11:48 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Cannabinoids Pie Chart Attachments: Cannabinoids Pie Chart.jpg From: COLUM Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2015 11:46:46 AM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Phil Johnson Subject: Cannabinoids Pie Chart Here is a pie chart that does a pretty good job displaying the medical benefits of a few of the most common cannabinoids. Colum kƒ k \k 2 ;{ \� \ �# �I. u \f\ 77!\ | }k� En «| 71 [r CL c ! §$i f )«2} } r L6 |!4 2fi )kr to e � -� 0 !�2\§ �k�2f CL (� ®�! 7 on f %2!K |; ) 'Fa > ca \i k .2 � |§ e$a' }$kk2 Julie Shannon HEARING RECORD From: Kathleen Kier Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2015 10:27 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Vote in favor of rural /residential 1 -502 production and processing, and end the moratorium From: Joan Cole Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2015 10:27:43 AM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Kathleen Kier Subject: Vote in favor of ruralfresidential I -502 production and processing, and end the moratorium Dear Commissioner Kier, My husband and I have lived in Jefferson County for 13 years now. Over the past 10 years or so our county has seen a wonderful resurgence of local agriculture with the associated development of deep, local, human resources skilled in small scale agriculture. As part of this movement, young people have located here, started small farms, and begun families, creating jobs and good food for all of us with a resulting re- vitalization of our communities. This is a trend that we need to continue nurturing for our future. Over 65% of county residents voted to legalize marijuana and it is a crop that should be allowed to be grown and processed on this county's rural /residential properties just as any other crop. Its cultivation and processing should become a reliable source of jobs and incomes for small business owners in our county. If the commissioners limit this 'agriculture' to 'industrial' zoning, the capital required for entry will rise dramatically, and it will become business dominated by larger agricultural companies. This will eliminate an opportunity for our young, local entrepreneurs to succeed, reducing jobs, incomes and possibilities. Please do not let the din of a few individuals pulling the 'NIMBY' and 'fear' cards outweigh the clear support of a large majority of our county for allowing marijuana to be grown and processed on our rural /residential land by local small businesses. Jefferson County must nurture our young, farming entrepreneurs and this seems like a fine way to do just that. Thank you for your service and attention. Kind regards, Joan Cole 1411 Corona Street, Port Townsend "Submit rourselfto the risk of true hecomzno." John O'Dotohue Julie Shannon From: Phil Johnson Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2015 10:29 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Vote in favor of rural /residential 1 -502 production and processing, and end the moratorium From: Joan Cole Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2015 10:29:55 AM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Phil Johnson Subject: Vote in favor of rural /residential I -502 production and processing, and end the moratorium Dear Commissioner Johnson, My husband and I have lived in Jefferson County for 13 years now. Over the past 10 years or so our county has seen a wonderful resurgence of local agriculture with the associated development of deep, local, human resources skilled in small scale agriculture. As part of this movement, young people have located here, started small farms, and begun families, creating jobs and good food for all of us with a resulting re- vitalization of our communities. This is a trend that we need to continue nurturing for our future. Over 65% of county residents voted to legalize marijuana and it is a crop that should be allowed to be grown and processed on this county's rural /residential properties just as any other crop. Its cultivation and processing should become a reliable source of jobs and incomes for small business owners in our county. If the commissioners limit this 'agriculture' to 'industrial' zoning, the capital required for entry will rise dramatically, and it will become business dominated by larger agricultural companies. This will eliminate an opportunity for our young, local entrepreneurs to succeed, reducing jobs, incomes and possibilities. Please do not let the din of a few individuals pulling the 'NIMBY' and 'fear' cards outweigh the clear support of a large majority of our county for allowing marijuana to be grown and processed on our rural /residential land by local small businesses. Jefferson County must nurture our young, farming entrepreneurs and this seems like a fine way to do just that. Thank you for your service and attention. Kind regards, Joan Cole 1411 Corona Street, Port Townsend "Submit yourself to tbae risk of true becomirn(l�. " John O'Donohue Julie Shannon From: David Sullivan Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2015 10:30 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Vote in favor of rurallresidential 1 -502 production and processing, and end the moratorium From: Joan Cole Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2015 10:31:17 AM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: David Sullivan Subject: Vote in favor of rural /residential I -502 production and processing, and end the moratorium Dear Commissioner Sullivan, My husband and I have lived in Jefferson County for 13 years now. Over the past 10 years or so our county has seen a wonderful resurgence of local agriculture with the associated development of deep, local, human resources skilled in small scale agriculture. As part of this movement, young people have located here, started small farms, and begun families, creating jobs and good food for all of us with a resulting re- vitalization of our communities. This is a trend that we need to continue nurturing for our future. Over 65% of county residents voted to legalize marijuana and it is a crop that should be allowed to be grown and processed on this county's rural /residential properties just as any other crop. Its cultivation and processing should become a reliable source of jobs and incomes for small business owners in our county. If the commissioners limit this 'agriculture' to 'industrial' zoning, the capital required for entry will rise dramatically, and it will become business dominated by larger agricultural companies. This will eliminate an opportunity for our young, local entrepreneurs to succeed, reducing jobs, incomes and possibilities. Please do not let the din of a few individuals pulling the 'NIMBY' and 'fear' cards outweigh the clear support of a large majority of our county for allowing marijuana to be grown and processed on our rural /residential land by local small businesses. Jefferson County must nurture our young, farming entrepreneurs and this seems like a fine way to do just that. Thank you for your service and attention. Kind regards, Joan Cole 1411 Corona Street, Port Townsend "Submit yourself to the risk of true becoming. " John O'Donohue t"M From: Willean Hornbeck <willean @cablespeed.com> Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2015 8:46 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Attn: Commissioner Johnson Re. Marijuana Moratorium cc: Commissioners Kler and Sullivan Thank you for carefully considering the consequences of growing, producing and selling and using marijuana in our county. We urge you to postpone final regulations until adequate time allows for further discussion of this controversial subject. We believe that just like alcoholic beverages where production, sales and use are carefully regulated, discretion is called for in establishing laws pertaining to marijuana. In particular, the needs of residential communities should be paramount with marijuana production and sales relegated to industrial or commercial zones. Communities and neighborhoods should be protected as in the State Liquor Board regulations and state environmental policy act. We see no justification for making exceptions to already established regulations pertaining to drugs. All parcels should be treated the same. Additionally, individuals should have the right to state their concerns regarding the impact of marijuana on their homes and neighborhoods including the right to an impartial hearing on the issues. Thanks for taking the time to review our concerns. Le and Willean Hornbeck, (Oak Bay) 281 S. Bay Way, Port Ludlow 360 437 -2786 jeffbocc From: Philip Morley Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 5:26 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: FW: Marijuana Moratorium Please add this to the MJ Moratorium Hearing Record and Correspondence Log. Philip Philip Morley Jefferson County Administrator pmorley@co.iefferson.wa.us (360) 385 -9100 x -383 This is a reminder that all email to or from this email address may be subject to the Public Records Act contained in RCW 42.56. Additionally, all email to and from the county is captured and archived by Information Services, From: Willean Hornbeck [mailto:willean @cablespeed.com] Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2015 8:44 AM To: Philip Morley Subject: Marijuana Moratorium Dear Mr. Morley: Thank you for carefully considering the consequences of growing, producing and selling and using marijuana in our county. We urge you to recommend postponing final regulations until adequate time allows for further discussion of this controversial subject. We believe that just like alcoholic beverages where production, sales and use are carefully regulated, discretion is called for in establishing laws pertaining to marijuana. In particular, the needs of residential communities should be paramount with marijuana production and sales relegated to industrial or commercial zones. Communities and neighborhoods should be protected as in the State Liquor Board regulations and state environmental policy act. We see no justification for making exceptions to already established regulations pertaining to drugs. All parcels should be treated the same. Additionally, individuals should have the right to state their concerns regarding the impact of marijuana on their homes and neighborhoods including the right to an impartial hearing on the issues Thanks for taking the time to review our concerns. Le and Willean Hornbeck, (Oak Bay) 281 S. Bay Way, Port Ludlow 360 437 -2786 Julie Shannon From: Kathleen Kler Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2015 8:38 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Marijuana Moratorium From: Willean Hornbeck Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2015 8:39:15 AM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Kathleen Kler Subject: Marijuana Moratorium Dear Commissioner Kler: Thank you for carefully considering the consequences of growing, producing and selling and using marijuana in our county. We urge you to postpone final regulations until adequate time allows for further discussion of this controversial subject. We believe that just like alcoholic beverages where production, sales and use are carefully regulated, discretion is called for in establishing laws pertaining to marijuana. In particular, the needs of residential communities should be paramount with marijuana production and sales relegated to industrial or commercial zones. Communities and neighborhoods should be protected as in the State Liquor Board regulations and state environmental policy act. We see no justification for making exceptions to already established regulations pertaining to drugs. All parcels should be treated the same. Additionally, individuals should receive adequate notice and have the right to state their concerns regarding the impact of marijuana on their homes and neighborhoods including the right to an impartial hearing on the issues. Thanks for taking the time to review our concerns. Le and Willean Hornbeck, (Oak Bay) 281 S. Bay Way, Port Ludlow 360 437 -2786 Julie Shannon From: David Sullivan Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2015 8:40 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Marijuana Moratorium From: Willean Hornbeck Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2015 8:40:52 AM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: David Sullivan Subject: Marijuana Moratorium Dear Commissioner Sullivan: Thank you for carefully considering the consequences of growing, producing and selling and using marijuana in our county. We urge you to postpone final regulations until adequate time allows for further discussion of this controversial subject. We believe that just like alcoholic beverages where production, sales and use are carefully regulated, discretion is called for in establishing laws pertaining to marijuana. In particular, the needs of residential communities should be paramount with marijuana production and sales relegated to industrial or commercial zones. Communities and neighborhoods should be protected as in the State Liquor Board regulations and state environmental policy act. We see no justification for making exceptions to already established regulations pertaining to drugs. All parcels should be treated the same. Additionally, individuals should have the right to state their concerns regarding the impact of marijuana on their homes and neighborhoods including the right to an impartial hearing on the issues. Thanks for taking the time to review our concerns. Le and Willean Hornbeck, (Oak Bay) 281 S. Bay Way, Port Ludlow 360 437 -2786 Julie Shannon From: Kathleen Kier Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2015 5:24 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Marijuana Moratorium From: Willean Hornbeck Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2015 5:25:03 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Kathleen Kier Subject: Re: Marijuana Moratorium Thank you, Commissioner, for your kind response. So happy that you are our Commissioner!! On Jan 25, 2015, at 4:23 PM, Kathleen Kier wrote: > Dear Le and Will, > Thank you very much for writing and sharing your deep concerns about this topic of marijuana, zoning and neighborhoods. I am very aware that this "New Use of legalized recreational marijuana" has many facets that complicate our previous standard zoning codes. I acknowledge that the public conversation about what our county wants in regard to -502 implementation has come late into the decision making process, frustrating citizens, investors, and county staff with the starts and delays of a final solution. I assure you that I am taking this matter very seriously, as I listen and read all the many comments from both sides of the issue impacted by where to site this "New Use." I have spoken with several other counties, exploring how they determined when and how to restrict business. I have consulted with our Sheriff Stanko because of the number of neighborhoods worried about increased crime. > I understand that the extension of the present moratorium can only include the previous parcel sizes under the ordinance; to extend a moratorium to ALL parcels in the county will require a separate ordinance and public hearing. Regardless, we are trying to keep the public informed of all steps in the process. > I expect to hear much more at the hearing on Monday evening, Jan. 26 at the Cotton Building which deals only with two options: whether or not to extend the moratorium on all residential rural parcels or only on parcels of a specific size. > Truly, I am deeply considering this issue. Please continue to share facts and concerns with me. > Truly, > Kathleen > Kathleen Kier > Commissioner, District 3 > Jefferson County > (360) 385 -9100 > KKler @jefferson.wa.us > From: Willean Hornbeck <willean @cablespeed.com> > Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2015 8:39 AM > To: Kathleen Kier > Subject: Marijuana Moratorium > Dear Commissioner Kler: > Thank you for carefully considering the consequences of growing, producing and selling and using marijuana in our county. We urge you to postpone final regulations until adequate time allows for further discussion of this controversial subject. We believe that just like alcoholic beverages where production, sales and use are carefully regulated, discretion is called for in establishing laws pertaining to marijuana. > In particular, the needs of residential communities should be paramount with marijuana production and sales relegated to industrial or commercial zones. Communities and neighborhoods should be protected as in the State Liquor Board regulations and state environmental policy act. We see no justification for making exceptions to already established regulations pertaining to drugs. All parcels should be treated the same. > Additionally, individuals should receive adequate notice and have the right to state their concerns regarding the impact of marijuana on their homes and neighborhoods including the right to an impartial hearing on the issues. > Thanks for taking the time to review our concerns. > Le and Willean Hornbeck, (Oak Bay) 281 S. Bay Way, Port Ludlow > 360 437 -2786 Julie Shannon From: David Sullivan Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2015 8:11 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: January 26, 2015 6 pm Public Hearing in Port Townsend From: Gayle Thorne Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2015 8:12:35 AM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Phil Johnson; Kathleen Kler; David Sullivan Subject: January 26, 2015 6 pm Public Hearing in Port Townsend Dear Mr. Johnson, Ms. Kler and Mr. Sullivan: I am unable to attend the above referenced Public Hearing next week, but I would like to voice my opinion to Vote for Option W, Take no further action and end the moratorium. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Gayle L. Thorne 221 Dennis Boulevard Port Townsend, WA 98368 360 -385 -1344 Julie Shannon From: Kathleen Kler Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2015 8.11 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: January 26, 2015 6 pm Public Hearing in Port Townsend From: Gayle Thorne Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2015 8:12:35 AM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Phil Johnson; Kathleen Kler; David Sullivan Subject: January 26, 2015 6 pm Public Hearing in Port Townsend Dear Mr. Johnson, Ms. Kler and Mr. Sullivan: I am unable to attend the above referenced Public Hearing next week, but I would like to voice my opinion to Vote for Option W, Take no further action and end the moratorium. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Gayle L. Thorne 221 Dennis Boulevard Port Townsend, WA 98368 360 - 385 -1344 Julie Shannon From: Phil Johnson Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2015 8:11 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: January 26, 2015 6 pm Public Hearing in Port Townsend From: Gayle Thorne Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2015 8:12:35 AM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Phil Johnson; Kathleen Kier; David Sullivan Subject: January 26, 2015 6 pm Public Hearing in Port Townsend Dear Mr. Johnson, Ms. Kler and Mr. Sullivan: I am unable to attend the above referenced Public Hearing next week, but I would like to voice my opinion to Vote for Option #1, Take no further action and end the moratorium. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Gayle L. Thorne 221 Dennis Boulevard Port Townsend, WA 98368 360 - 385 -1344 From: JON BEZONA <jbezona @msn.com> Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2015 8:23 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Moratorium Marijuana Jefferson County Commissioner Phil Johnson I strongly support extending the current moratorium so that restricting marijuana growing from residential property can be put into place for Jefferson County. Jon Bezona 61 Puget Loop, Port Ludlow (360) 437 -4165 Sent from Windows Mail jeffbocc From: Philip Morley Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 5:25 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: FW: Moratorium Marijuana Please add this to the MJ Moratorium Hearing Record and Correspondence Log. Philip Philip Morley Jefferson County Administrator Pmorlev@co.mefferson.wa.us (360) 385 -9100 x -383 This is a reminder that al/ email to or from this email address may be subject to the Public Records Act contained in RCW 42.56. Additionally, all email to and from the county is captured and archived by Information Services. From: JON BEZONA [mailto:jbezona @msn.comj Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2015 8:25 AM To: Philip Morley Subject: Moratorium Marijuana Jefferson County Administrator Phillip Morley I strongly support extending the current moratorium so that restricting marijuana growing from residential property can be put into place for Jefferson County. Jon Bezona 61 Puget Loop, Port Ludlow (360) 437 -4165 Sent from Windows Mail 1 Julie Shannon From: Kathleen Kier Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2015 8:21 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Moratorium on Marijuana From: JON BEZONA Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2015 8:14:01 AM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Kathleen Kler Subject: Moratorium on Marijuana Jefferson County Commissioner Kathleen Kler I strongly support extending the current moratorium so that restricting marijuana growing from residential property can be put into place for Jefferson County. Jon Bezona 61 Puget Loop, Port Ludlow (360) 437 -4165 Sent from Windows Mail Julie Shannon From: David Sullivan Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2015 8:22 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Moratorium Marijuana From: JON BEZONA Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2015 8:21:56 AM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: David Sullivan Subject: Moratorium Marijuana Jefferson County Commissioner David Sullivan I strongly support extending the current moratorium so that restricting marijuana growing from residential property can be put into place for Jefferson County. Jon Bezona 61 Puget Loop, Port Ludlow (360) 437 -4165 Sent from Windows Mail Julie Shannon From: Kathleen Kier Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 4:35 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Moratorium on Marijuana From: JON BEZONA Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 4:36:23 AM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Kathleen Kler Subject: RE: Moratorium on Marijuana Kathleen - I agree with State House Bill 5130. 1 would like to see the moratorium in place until the Bill passes. Thank you for your effort. Jon Bezona > From: KKler @co.jefferson.wa.us > To: jbezona @msn.com > Subject: RE: Moratorium on Marijuana > Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 00:31:59 +0000 > Dear Ms. Bezona, > Thank you for sharing your concerns and position on the current marijuana moratorium. You might be interested in the State House Bill 5130 which proposes limiting marijuana business in any residential zoned parcel. > Be assured that I am listening, reading, and studying the implications of this "new and legal use" of marijuana for the county, for the sake of all the county! > Truly, > Kathleen From: Phil Johnson Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2015 9:26 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Extend the Moratorium with NO Exclusions Attachments: Docl.docx From: Kristina Mayer Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2015 9:26:46 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Kathleen Kler; Phil Johnson; David Sullivan Cc: Philip Morley; Carl Smith Subject: Extend the Moratorium with NO Exclusions January 25 Commissioners: Please find my attached letter in support of extending the moratorium with no exclusions based on parcel size or location including neighborhoods like Maplewood Meadows. Dr. Kristina L. Mayer January 23, 2015 Jefferson County Commissioners Kathleen Kier David Sullivan Philip Johnson cc: Jefferson County Administrator Philip Morley Department of Community Development Carl Smith To: Commissioners Kier, Sullivan and Johnson I am writing to urge to you approve the extension of the marijuana moratorium without exclusions based on parcel size or location including neighborhoods like Maplewood Meadows. We are close to arriving at a workable solution to this new industry and there is no need to rush. I urge you to take a measured approach to resolving this land use issue ... this is not a philosophical argument about whether or not to have marijuana in our County - this is about how the new marijuana industry will be regulated and our land use policy used to protect our neighborhoods. Due to the nature of this new industry, it is imperative that the County establish a permit system for the production of marijuana which would give neighbors notice, the right to object and a hearing on those objections. Rural residential properties and our residences will be negatively impacted by having commercial activity thrust upon us. Many of us moved to Jefferson County for the quality of life which includes being environmentally aware. This new industry should have to answer to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and should not be allowed to negate the watershed plan in the Chimacum sub -basin by using single - family wells for commercial activity. Growing marijuana is not just like growing kale or corn; it is not like growing grapes or hops for making liquor either ... it is a drug and needs to be managed to mitigate the risk to our quality of life - our local environment, our neighborhoods and our families. Again, I urge you to renew the moratorium for four months with no exclusions so that the process of determining our land use policies and appropriate regulations can play out. There is no compelling reason to rush, there is a glut of marijuana on the market and four more months won't make or break a new grow operation. Sincerely, Dr. Kristina L. Mayer Chimacum, WA Julie Shannon From: David Sullivan Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2015 9:26 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW. Extend the Moratorium with NO Exclusions Attachments: Doc1.docx From: Kristina Mayer Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2015 9:26:46 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Kathleen Kier; Phil Johnson; David Sullivan Cc: Philip Morley; Carl Smith Subject: Extend the Moratorium with NO Exclusions January 25 Commissioners: Please find my attached letter in support of extending the moratorium with no exclusions based on parcel size or location including neighborhoods like Maplewood Meadows. Dr. Kristina L. Mayer January 23, 2015 Jefferson County Commissioners Kathleen Kler David Sullivan Philip Johnson cc: Jefferson County Administrator Philip Morley Department of Community Development Carl Smith To: Commissioners Kler, Sullivan and Johnson I am writing to urge to you approve the extension of the marijuana moratorium without exclusions based on parcel size or location including neighborhoods like Maplewood Meadows. We are close to arriving at a workable solution to this new industry and there is no need to rush. I urge you to take a measured approach to resolving this land use issue ... this is not a philosophical argument about whether or not to have marijuana in our County - this is about how the new marijuana industry will be regulated and our land use policy used to protect our neighborhoods. Due to the nature of this new industry, it is imperative that the County establish a permit system for the production of marijuana which would give neighbors notice, the right to object and a hearing on those objections. Rural residential properties and our residences will be negatively impacted by having commercial activity thrust upon us. Many of us moved to Jefferson County for the quality of life which includes being environmentally aware. This new industry should have to answer to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and should not be allowed to negate the watershed plan in the Chimacum sub -basin by using single - family wells for commercial activity. Growing marijuana is not just like growing kale or corn; it is not like growing grapes or hops for making liquor either ... it is a drug and needs to be managed to mitigate the risk to our quality of life - our local environment, our neighborhoods and our families. Again, I urge you to renew the moratorium for four months with no exclusions so that the process of determining our land use policies and appropriate regulations can play out. There is no compelling reason to rush, there is a glut of marijuana on the market and four more months won't make or break a new grow operation. Sincerely, Dr. Kristina L. Mayer Chimacum, WA Julie Shannon From: Kathleen Kler Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2015 9:26 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Extend the Moratorium with NO Exclusions Attachments: Doc1.docx From: Kristina Mayer Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2015 9:26:46 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Kathleen Kler; Phil Johnson; David Sullivan Cc: Philip Morley; Carl Smith Subject: Extend the Moratorium with NO Exclusions January 25 Commissioners: Please find my attached letter in support of extending the moratorium with no exclusions based on parcel size or location including neighborhoods like Maplewood Meadows. Dr. Kristina L. Mayer January 23, 2015 Jefferson County Commissioners Kathleen Kier David Sullivan Philip Johnson cc: Jefferson County Administrator Philip Morley Department of Community Development Carl Smith To: Commissioners Kier, Sullivan and Johnson I am writing to urge to you approve the extension of the marijuana moratorium without exclusions based on parcel size or location including neighborhoods like Maplewood Meadows. We are close to arriving at a workable solution to this new industry and there is no need to rush. I urge you to take a measured approach to resolving this land use issue... this is not a philosophical argument about whether or not to have marijuana in our County - this is about how the new marijuana industry will be regulated and our land use policy used to protect our neighborhoods. Due to the nature of this new industry, it is imperative that the County establish a permit system for the production of marijuana which would give neighbors notice, the right to object and a hearing on those objections. Rural residential properties and our residences will be negatively impacted by having commercial activity thrust upon us. Many of us moved to Jefferson County for the quality of life which includes being environmentally aware. This new industry should have to answer to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and should not be allowed to negate the watershed plan in the Chimacum sub -basin by using single - family wells for commercial activity. Growing marijuana is not just like growing kale or corn; it is not like growing grapes or hops for making liquor either... it is a drug and needs to be managed to mitigate the risk to our quality of life - our local environment, our neighborhoods and our families. Again, I urge you to renew the moratorium for four months with no exclusions so that the process of determining our land use policies and appropriate regulations can play out. There is no compelling reason to rush, there is a glut of marijuana on the market and four more months won't make or break a new grow operation. Sincerely, Dr. Kristina L. Mayer Chimacum, WA Julie Shannon From: Sent: To: Subject: Kathleen Kier Sunday, January 25, 2015 8:20 PM Julie Shannon FW: Marihuana growing From: Kathleen Kier Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2015 8:28:35 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Kathleen Kier Subject: Fwd: Marihuana growing -- - - - - -- Forwarded Message -- - - - - -- Subject:Marihuana growing Date -Wed, 21 Jan 2015 04:15:50 -0800 From:Lori <yalfivermbargrnail.com> To:Kathleen Kler <k.kler.quilcene cr amail.com> Kathleen I can't find the correct addresses for the county commissioners. Would you pass this on please I am against the farming of marihuana in residential zoned neighborhoods. Lori Millard 297685 U.S. hwy 101 Quilcene, Wa 98376 Galfive@embargmail.com 1 Julie Shannon From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Kathleen Kier Sunday, January 25, 2015 5:50 PM Julie Shannon F W: 01- 26- 15SpecialMeeting. pdf 01- 26- 15SpecialMeeting. pdf From: gnarleydogfarm @gmail.com Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2015 5:51:17 PM (UTC- 05:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Carl Smith; Kathleen Kier; Phil Johnson; David Sullivan Subject: Ol -26 -15 Speci a IMeeti ng. pdf Hello Kathleen, Dave, Phil and Carl, think this agenda should say that there are 3 options. This only mentions 2 options. I find that misleading. Jean http: / /www.co.jefferson.wa.0 s /commissioners /Agenda /2015 %2OAgenda s /Ol -26 -15 Special Meeting. pdf g ON Cp f0 w Agenda Special Meeting — January 26, 2015 �HING Cotton Building 607 Water Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 MONDAY 6:00 p.m. Meeting Called to Order by Chairman 6:00 p.m. HEARING re: Two Alternatives for Extending ORDINANCE NO. 07- 0811-14: Moratorium Prohibiting the Production, Processing and Retailing of Recreational Marijuana in Certain Land Use Designations within Unincorporated Jefferson County to allow the Board of Commissioners time to consider all verbal and written public testimony, deliberation on the two alternatives for extending the Moratorium for Recreational Marijuana will take place Monday, February 2, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. at the next meeting of the Board of County Commissioners Carl Smith, Community Development Director NOTICE OF ADJOURNMENT Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Accommodations Provided Upon Request PAGE 1 Julie Shannon From: Phil Johnson Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2015 5:50 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: F W: 01- 26- 15SpecialMeeting. pdf Attachments: 01- 26- 15SpecialMeeting.pdf From: gnarleydogfarm @gmail.com Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2015 5:51:17 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Carl Smith; Kathleen Kler; Phil Johnson; David Sullivan Subject: 01- 26- 15SpecialMeeti ng. pdf Hello Kathleen, Dave, Phil and Carl, I think this agenda should say that there are 3 options. This only mentions 2 options. 1 find that misleading. Jean http: / /www.co.jefferson.wa. us /commissioners /Agenda /2015 %2OAgendas /01- 26- 15Speci a IMeeti ng. pdf Julie Shannon From: David Sullivan Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2015 5:50 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: F W: 01- 26- 15SpecialMeeting. pdf Attachments: 01- 26- 15SpecialMeeting. pdf From: gnarleydogfarm @gmail.com Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2015 5:51:17 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Carl Smith: Kathleen Kier; Phil Johnson; David Sullivan Subject: 01- 26- 15SpecialMeeting, pdf Hello Kathleen, Dave, Phil and Carl, I think this agenda should say that there are 3 options. This only mentions 2 options. I find that misleading. Jean http: / /www. co.jefferson.wa.us /commissioners /Agenda /2015 %2OAgendas /01 -26 -15 Specia IMeeti ng.pdf From: Marjorie Boyd <marjorie.boyd.01 @gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2015 5:50 PM To: Kathleen Kier; David Sullivan, Philip Morley; jeffbocc; tgiske @gmail.com; Planning Commission Desk; Colleen Zmolek Subject: News stories & videos re fire - explosions at mj sites This is a small sample of many stories about fires and explosions at marijuana facilities which underscores the risk of siting such operations in residential areas and areas which may difficult for emergency vehicles to reach quickly, such as remote forest tracts. http: / /www.nytimes.com/ 2015 /Ol /lS /us/ odd - byproduct -of- legal -ma ri iva n a- homes -blow- up.html? r =0 htt www.kxi .com news s okane -news fire- officials- concerned - about - rise- in- thc- extraction- explosions /29913382 http• / /www coloradoan com /story/ news /local/ 2014 /12/17 /marijuana- extraction - caused - house- explosion- po I ice- say/20537365[ video: http: / /kdvr. com /2014/ 12/01/h ash -oi I- extract ion -b I a m ed- for - black - hawk -ex plos ion -fire/ htt www.sbsun.com eneral -news 2014ll20 fatal -musco -ex losion- attributed- to -dru -extraction - lab explosion kills 2 and destroys building http• /[gl3fox com/ 2014 /01/07/ butane - used -in- hash -oil- production- caused - seattle- explosion- police- sa explosion in Seattle moved house off foundation These (and dozens of others) are easily found by searching "marijuana fire and explosions" Julie Shannon From: Kathleen Kler Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2015 5'.49 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: News stories & videos re fire - explosions at mj sites From: Marjorie Boyd Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2015 5:50:20 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Kathleen Kler; David Sullivan; Philip Morley; jeffbocc; tgiske @gmail.com; Planning Commission Desk; Colleen Zmolek Subject: News stories & videos re fire - explosions at mj sites This is a small sample of many stories about fires and explosions at marijuana facilities which underscores the risk of siting such operations in residential areas and areas which may difficult for emergency vehicles to reach quickly, such as remote forest tracts. http: / /www. nyti mes.co m/2015/01/l8/u s /odd - byproduct -of- legal -m arilu a n a- homes -b I ow- up.html? r =0 http://www.kxiy.com/ news /spokane- news /fire- officials- concerned - about - rise- in- thc- extraction- explosions /29913382 http:://www.coloradoan.com/story/ news /local /2014 /12/17 /mariivana- extraction- caused - house- explosion- police- say/20537365/ video http: / /kdvr.com /2014/12/01/ hash -oil- extraction- blamed- for - black -h awk- explosion -fire/ http: / /www.sbsun.comlgeneral- news / 20141120 /fatal- muscoy-explosion- attributed -to -d rug - extraction- lab explosion kills 2 and destroys building http: / /g13fox.com /2014/01!07/ butane - used -in- hash -oil- production- caused - seattle- explosion- police- sa explosion in Seattle moved house off foundation These (and dozens of others) are easily found by searching "marijuana fire and explosions" Julie Shannon From: David Sullivan Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2015 5:49 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: News stories & videos re fire - explosions at mj sites From: Marjorie Boyd Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2015 5:50:20 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Kathleen Kier; David Sullivan; Philip Morley; jeffbocc; tgiske @gmail.com; Planning Commission Desk; Colleen Zmolek Subject: News stories & videos re fire - explosions at mj sites This is a small sample of many stories about fires and explosions at marijuana facilities which underscores the risk of siting such operations in residential areas and areas which may difficult for emergency vehicles to reach quickly, such as remote forest tracts. http: / /www. nytimes.com /2015 /`01 /18 /us/ odd- byprod uct-of- legal- mariivana- homes -blow- up.html? r =0 http://www.kxly.com/ news /spokane- news / fire - officials- concerned - about - rise- in- thc- extraction- explosions /29913382 http: / /www.coloradoan.com /story /news /local /2014/12/17/mari ivana- extraction - caused - house- explosion- po I ice- say/20537365/ video http: / /kdvr.com /2014/ 12/01/h ash -o i I- extraction - blamed -for -b lac k- hawk - explosion -fire/ http: //www.sbsu n. com /ge n e ra I -n ews/2014ll20/ fatal -m uscoy- explosion - attributed -to- drug- extraction- lab explosion kills 2 and destroys building http: / /gl3fox.com /2014 /01/07 /buta ne- used -in -hash -oil- production -ca u sed- seatti a -expl o si o n -pol ice - sa explosion in Seattle moved house off foundation These (and dozens of others) are easily found by searching "marijuana fire and explosions" From: Linda Jarvis <lindajarvis @mac.com> Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2015 11:40 AM To: Kathleen Kier; jeffbocc Subject: Extend the moratorium to all parcels, regardless of size Commissioners Kathleen Kier and Phil Johnson, Good day to you ... I want to share that I think it would be a prudent and perceptive gesture for all the commissioners and county and city officials to step into the shoes of the residents of this county who are voicing their very real concerns. Walk in their shoes for a while to get a better understanding and comprehend their trepidations. It is quite evident that they are very concerned about this serious issue or they would not take the time write to you, attend meetings and voice their sincere uneasiness of this marijuana topic. This is much like jumping off a cliff. One needs everything possible to insure a safe decent and landing ... So, with that said, let's, as a sympathetic and companionable community, take the time to get every detail right with regard to this consequential issue! Let's not walk into this with blinders on ... we cannot deceive ourselves - marijuana is a drug, a controlled substance, with certain characteristics that apply to it, and it alone. As such, it needs to be considered in a separate and very unique way - whether by the state, the county, or municipalities in which it is to be located. I feel it is very imperative that BOCC extend the Moratorium to ALL parcels, regardless of size, until reasonable regulations have been developed ...... a light touch" is the wrong approach for Jefferson County and its residential neighborhoods regardless of parcel size. Allowing any exceptions to the Moratorium undercuts the purpose of having a Moratorium. It creates economic and competitive advantages for those not covered by the moratorium, and disadvantages for those who are covered by the Moratorium. PLEASE do not experiment with our neighborhoods and quality of life: The "light touch" approach could result in unintended, irremediable consequences for neighborhoods. Marijuana production and processing should be sited in industrial and commercial areas only where it is compatible with existing uses, but NOT where it will impact existing residential areas. Residents in areas like Maplewood Meadows have invested in their properties, neighborhoods and communities. Any approach should protect existing residential areas, even if the marijuana facilities are located in nearby industrial or commercial zones. The Washington State Liquor Control Board has identified a number of land uses from which a marijuana operation should be no closer than 1.000 feet. Most of these land uses are where children may spend part of their day or engage in specific activities, such as attending school, going to parks and playgrounds, attending daycare, going to the library, etc. Why not extend the same limits to communities and neighborhoods where children live 24/7/365. We have to be conscious and diligent in keeping our children, our homes and neighborhoods safe. 1. Provide for adequate notice to nearby residents of the proposed siting of such facilities in their neighborhood. 2. Provide an opportunity for nearby residents to voice objections to siting such facilities and obtain a fair hearing on those objections, including both production and /or processing. 3. Minimize disruption of or placement of such facilities in established residential neighborhoods or neighborhoods where residential is a significant part of the use in the proposed siting area. 4. Include all parcels regardless of size, such as rural forest 1 -40 and not allow them to be unregulated. 5. Ascertain that legal requirements regarding access to water, waste generation, adequacy of septic, well metering, and the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) are met prior to issuing any permits which would allow marijuana to be produced or processed. 7 6. Establish a Jefferson County permit system for production and /or processing of marijuana which would give neighbors sufficient notice of proposed siting, the right to object and get a hearing on those objections, and require compliance with applicable environmental and quality of life standards. Jefferson County should regulate mariivana in such a way that it balances the needs of those desiring to enter the marijuana business with the very valid concerns of residents regarding the potential negative impacts of siting mariivana processing and production operations in their neighborhoods on their quality of life, property values, personal safety and security, environmental consequences and personal value systems. Thanks for hearing my voice with regard to this matter. I trust you will take all that is said into serious consideration. Linda Jarvis 3 jeffbocc From: Linda Jarvis <lindajarvis @mac.com> Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2015 11:41 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Extend the moratorium to all parcels, regardless of size Commissioners Sullivan, Good day to you ... I want to share that I think it would be a prudent and perceptive gesture for all the commissioners and county and city officials to step into the shoes of the residents of this county who are voicing their very real concerns. Walk in their shoes for a while to get a better understanding and comprehend their trepidations. It is quite evident that they are very concerned about this serious issue or they would not take the time write to you, attend meetings and voice their sincere uneasiness of this marijuana topic. This is much like jumping off a cliff. One needs everything possible to insure a safe decent and landing ... So, with that said, let's, as a sympathetic and companionable community, take the time to get every detail right with regard to this consequential issue! Let's not walk into this with blinders on ... we cannot deceive ourselves - marijuana is a drug, a controlled substance, with certain characteristics that apply to it, and it alone. As such, it needs to be considered in a separate and very unique way - whether by the state, the county, or municipalities in which it is to be located. I feel it is very imperative that BOCC extend the Moratorium to ALL parcels, regardless of size, until reasonable regulations have been developed ...... a light touch" is the wrong approach for Jefferson County and its residential neighborhoods regardless of parcel size. Allowing any exceptions to the Moratorium undercuts the purpose of having a Moratorium. It creates economic and competitive advantages for those not covered by the moratorium, and disadvantages for those who are covered by the Moratorium. PLEASE do not experiment with our neighborhoods and quality of life: The "light touch" approach could result in unintended, irremediable consequences for neighborhoods. Marijuana production and processing should be sited in industrial and commercial areas only where it is compatible with existing uses, but NOT where it will impact existing residential areas. Residents in areas like Maplewood Meadows have invested in their properties, neighborhoods and communities. Any approach should protect existing residential areas, even if the marijuana facilities are located in nearby industrial or commercial zones. The Washington State Liquor Control Board has identified a number of land uses from which a marijuana operation should be no closer than 1.000 feet. Most of these land uses are where children may spend part of their day or engage in specific activities, such as attending school, going to parks and playgrounds, attending daycare, going to the library, etc. Why not extend the some limits to communities and neighborhoods where children live 24/7/365. We have to be conscious and diligent in keeping our children, our homes and neighborhoods safe. 1. Provide for adequate notice to nearby residents of the proposed siting of such facilities in their neighborhood. 2. Provide an opportunity for nearby residents to voice objections to siting such facilities and obtain a fair hearing on those objections, including both production and /or processing. 3. Minimize disruption of or placement of such facilities in established residential neighborhoods or neighborhoods where residential is a significant part of the use in the proposed siting area. 4. Include all parcels regardless of size, such as rural forest 1 -40 and not allow them to be unregulated. 5. Ascertain that legal requirements regarding access to water, waste generation, adequacy of septic, well metering, and the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) are met prior to issuing any permits which would allow marijuana to be produced or processed. z 6. Establish a Jefferson County permit system for production and /or processing of marijuana which would give neighbors sufficient notice of proposed siting, the right to object and get a hearing on those objections, and require compliance with applicable environmental and quality of life standards. Jefferson County should regulate mariivana in such a way that it balances the needs of those desiring to enter the mariivana business with the very valid concerns of residents regarding the potential negative impacts of siting mariivana processing and production operations in their neighborhoods on their quality of life, property values, personal safety and security, environmental consequences and personal value systems. Thanks for hearing my voice with regard to this matter. I trust you will take all that is said into serious consideration. Linda Jarvis 3 Julie Shannon From: Kathleen Kier Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2015 11:39 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Extend the moratorium to all parcels, regardless of size From: Linda Jarvis Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2015 11:39:49 AM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Kathleen Kier; jeffbocc Subject: Extend the moratorium to all parcels, regardless of size Commissioners Kathleen Kler and Phil Johnson, Good day to you ... I want to share that I think it would be a prudent and perceptive gesture for all the commissioners and county and city officials to step into the shoes of the residents of this county who are voicing their very real concerns. Walk in their shoes for a while to get a better understanding and comprehend their trepidations. It is quite evident that they are very concerned about this serious issue or they would not take the time write to you, attend meetings and voice their sincere uneasiness of this marijuana topic. This is much like jumping off a cliff. One needs everything possible to insure a safe decent and landing ... So, with that said, let's, as a sympathetic and companionable community, take the time to get every detail right with regard to this consequential issue! Let's not walk into this with blinders on ... we cannot deceive ourselves - marijuana is a drug, a controlled substance, with certain characteristics that apply to it, and it alone. As such, it needs to be considered in a separate and very unique way - whether by the state, the county, or municipalities in which it is to be located. I feel it is very imperative that BOCC extend the Moratorium to ALL parcels, regardless of size, until reasonable regulations have been developed ...... a light touch" is the wrong approach for Jefferson County and its residential neighborhoods regardless of parcel size. Allowing any exceptions to the Moratorium undercuts the purpose of having a Moratorium. It creates economic and 1 competitive advantages for those not covered by the moratorium, and disadvantages for those who are covered by the Moratorium. PLEASE do not experiment with our neighborhoods and quality of life: The "light touch" approach could result in unintended, irremediable consequences for neighborhoods. Marijuana production and processing should be sited in industrial and commercial areas only where it is compatible with existing uses, but NOT where it will impact existing residential areas. Residents in areas like Maplewood Meadows have invested in their properties, neighborhoods and communities. Any approach should protect existing residential areas, even if the marijuana facilities are located in nearby industrial or commercial zones. The Washington State Liquor Control Board has identified a number of land uses from which a marijuana operation should be no closer than 1.000 feet. Most of these land uses are where children may spend part of their day or engage in specific activities, such as attending school, going to parks and playgrounds, attending daycare, going to the library, etc. Why not extend the same limits to communities and neighborhoods where children live 24/7/365. We have to be conscious and diligent in keeping our children, our homes and neighborhoods safe. 1. Provide for adequate notice to nearby residents of the proposed siting of such facilities in their neighborhood. 2. Provide an opportunity for nearby residents to voice objections to siting such facilities and obtain a fair hearing on those objections, including both production and /or processing. 3. Minimize disruption of or placement of such facilities in established residential neighborhoods or neighborhoods where residential is a significant part of the use in the proposed siting area. 4. Include all parcels regardless of size, such as rural forest 1 -40 and not allow them to be unregulated. z 5. Ascertain that legal requirements regarding access to water, waste generation, adequacy of septic, well metering, and the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) are met prior to issuing any permits which would allow marijuana to be produced or processed. b. Establish a Jefferson County permit system for production and /or processing of marijuana which would give neighbors sufficient notice of proposed siting, the right to object and get a hearing on those objections, and require compliance with applicable environmental and quality of life standards. Jefferson County should regulate mariivana in such a way that it balances the needs of those desiring to enter the mariivana business with the very valid concerns of residents regarding the potential negative impacts of siting mariivana processing and production operations in their neighborhoods on their quality of life, property values, personal safety and security, environmental consequences and personal value systems. Thanks for hearing my voice with regard to this matter. I trust you will take all that is said into serious consideration. Linda Jarvis 3 Julie Shannon From: David Sullivan Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2015 1141 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Extend the moratorium to all parcels, regardless of size From: Linda Jarvis Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2015 11:42:18 AM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: David Sullivan Subject: Extend the moratorium to all parcels, regardless of size Commissioners Sullivan, Good day to you ... I want to share that I think it would be a prudent and perceptive gesture for all the commissioners and county and city officials to step into the shoes of the residents of this county who are voicing their very real concerns. Walk in their shoes for a while to get a better understanding and comprehend their trepidations. It is quite evident that they are very concerned about this serious issue or they would not take the time write to you, attend meetings and voice their sincere uneasiness of this marijuana topic. This is much like jumping off a cliff. One needs everything possible to insure a safe decent and landing ... So, with that said, let's, as a sympathetic and companionable community, take the time to get every detail right with regard to this consequential issue! Let's not walk into this with blinders on ... we cannot deceive ourselves - marijuana is a drug, a controlled substance, with certain characteristics that apply to it, and it alone. As such, it needs to be considered in a separate and very unique way - whether by the state, the county, or municipalities in which it is to be located. I feel it is very imperative that BOCC extend the Moratorium to ALL parcels, regardless of size, until reasonable regulations have been developed ...... a light touch" is the wrong approach for Jefferson County and its residential neighborhoods regardless of parcel size. Allowing any exceptions to the Moratorium undercuts the purpose of having a Moratorium. It creates economic and competitive advantages for those not covered by the moratorium, and disadvantages for those who are covered by the Moratorium. PLEASE do not experiment with our neighborhoods and quality of life: The "light touch" approach could result in unintended, irremediable consequences for neighborhoods. Marijuana production and processing should be sited in industrial and commercial areas only where it is compatible with existing uses, but NOT where it will impact existing residential areas. Residents in areas like Maplewood Meadows have invested in their properties, neighborhoods and communities. Any approach should protect existing residential areas, even if the marijuana facilities are located in nearby industrial or commercial zones. The Washington State Liquor Control Board has identified a number of land uses from which a marijuana operation should be no closer than 1.000 feet. Most of these land uses are where children may spend part of their day or engage in specific activities, such as attending school, going to parks and playgrounds, attending daycare, going to the library, etc. Why not extend the same limits to communities and neighborhoods where children live 24/7/365. We have to be conscious and diligent in keeping our children, our homes and neighborhoods safe. 1. Provide for adequate notice to nearby residents of the proposed siting of such facilities in their neighborhood. 2. Provide an opportunity for nearby residents to voice objections to siting such facilities and obtain a fair hearing on those objections, including both production and /or processing. 3. Minimize disruption of or placement of such facilities in established residential neighborhoods or neighborhoods where residential is a significant part of the use in the proposed siting area. 4. Include all parcels regardless of size, such as rural forest 1 -40 and not allow them to be unregulated. z 5. Ascertain that legal requirements regarding access to water, waste generation, adequacy of septic, well metering, and the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) are met prior to issuing any permits which would allow marijuana to be produced or processed. 6. Establish a Jefferson County permit system for production and /or processing of marijuana which would give neighbors sufficient notice of proposed siting, the right to object and get a hearing on those objections, and require compliance with applicable environmental and quality of life standards. Jefferson County should regulate mariivana in such a way that it balances the needs of those desiring to enter the mariivana business with the very valid concerns of residents regarding the potential negative impacts of siting mariivana processing and production operations in their neighborhoods on their quality of life, property values, personal safety and security, environmental consequences and personal value systems. Thanks for hearing my voice with regard to this matter. I trust you will take all that is said into serious consideration. Linda Jarvis 7 jeffbocc From: Gloria Hacko <ghacko @olypen.com> Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2015 2:35 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Marijuana Growing in Residential Neighborhoods Jefferson County Commissioners: I think Jefferson County government and its residents have had enough time to realize that planning for recreational marijuana needed a little more thought and consideration than simply treating it as an agricultural plant like corn or cabbage which can be grown anywhere without State regulation. What method or comparison was used to come up with the conclusion that growing marijuana is like growing corn? • You don't need criminal background checks to grow corn. • You don't need criminal background checks for employees. • You don't need lights, cameras, security fences, barcodes and a license to grow corn. • You don't find the hallucinogenic compound THC in corn. • You don't have to be 1,000 feet from anything to grow corn If marijuana is treated like any other agricultural plant, then the passage of 502 has effectively changed the designated character and, most importantly, the purpose of residential property in Jefferson County. Does Jefferson County lack enough commercial property —is that the reason for allowing marijuana growing and processing in residential neighborhoods? 1 did not buy residential property and build a home to live next door to a neighbor with a commercial facility and all that what comes with it. Other Washington counties, including Clallam and Kitsap, have adopted reasonable and fair regulations to protect residential neighborhoods. I strongly support extending the current moratorium so that restricting marijuana growing from residential property can be put into place for Jefferson County. John Hacko 402 Larson Lake Road, Chimacum (360) 732 -4457 William Corrigan 604 Lane De Chantel Port Townsend, WA 98368 Jefferson County Commissioners 1820 Jefferson St. Port Townsend, WA 98368 Dear Commissioners Johnson, Kier, and Sullivan, January 26, 2015 I would like to comment on the upcoming decision you have addressing the moratorium on rurallresidential I -502 production and processing of cannabis. In the interest of full disclosure, I am a police officer and also live a short distance from one of the approved grow /processing operations located on my rural residential street. Although I am a police officer I want to make it clear that I am not speaking for any agency or office, or against the practice of growing, marketing, or using cannabis. I speak as a concerned citizen. Based on my experience I want to provide a perspective that may not be represented to date, specifically the criminal activity that will be directed at these operations. Allow me to provide some background information. Most crime in our county is property crime. The predominant purpose of that crime is to gain property /assets that can be converted into a more liquid form used satisfy the criminal's needs. Items that are useful for that purpose are jewelry, electronics, construction equipment, and other high value objects. These items are then passed off as the property of the criminal and sold to pawn shops or other unsuspecting (or suspecting) buyers. The final monetary benefit to the criminal is generally pennies or dimes on the dollar. This means that a $500 ring might fetch $50. That may seem a poor return, but cash is the fully liquid asset preferred by criminals. Therefore, the most desirable property to steal is cash or drugs for they represent a 100 percent conversion to the most liquid asset, and cannot be easily traced back to the original owner. Criminals who know where larger amounts of cash or drugs are kept are drawn to those locations. As we all know cash drawers are often the target of business holdups, not the inventory therein. Criminals who burglarize houses looking for marketable property when owners are absent are criminals of a different ilk than those who rob stores, banks, and people on the street. Those willing to confront their victims face -to -face are generally more prone to violent and assaultive behavior and are looking for the ultimate in liquidity, cash or drugs. Current banking practices force the cannabis business into a cash only basis, a unique and crucial element causing much higher risk in this `home' business. These banking practices require that cannabis business operators to keep cash at the business or their home for a period of time. The criminal element is also aware of this drawback and exploits it to their advantage. The more organized of these criminals will also access public records to find locations (the growing and processing businesses, and owners' residences) where cash is likely kept. By allowing cannabis businesses /operations in areas that were formerly residential only, a more violence -prone element of the criminal population is drawn there. Previously the return on `investment' in residential areas for these criminals has heretofore not met their risk/return formula related to apprehension and accountability. Again, cash and drugs are the ultimate objectives for this more violence -prone element, not the normal take in a common residence. I'm sure you'll agree that a reasonable person takes all precautions to make their home less attractive to the criminal element. We do that through alarm systems, exterior lighting, locking first floor windows and doors, and keeping valuables in our vehicles out of sight, etc. If one knows a neighborhood may be crime prone they will chose not to live there (property value impacts.) I find it counterintuitive to, in effect, hang a sign on your home/business saying that it is a lucrative target. One may say, "That's their problem," that of the cannabis business owner. But it's not; it's the neighborhood's problem because crime is not always laser- focused on the intended target. I find it difficult to understand how a concerned, informed resident would draw the attention of a violent criminal element to their home and neighborhood, unless they are naive and uniformed. I concerned for the neighbors of these cannabis businesses. I hope that when the criminal element comes they find the `right' house, and not the home of one of the neighbors who have had no choice in the matter. I do not believe it is a matter of `if it happens, but `when.' Please review my attachment representing a five minute internet search of recent home invasions in western Washington that were directed toward homes/business with drugs and cash. You can see that the violence level is extremely high. KOMO News reported that Bremerton Police Chief Steve Strachan said in a May 16, 2014 news release about home invasions targeting cannabis, "While the law on marijuana is changing, the decision by any resident to traffic in drugs results in negative consequences for the neighborhood and these 'drug rips' are Just one example." For these reasons I respectfully request that you consider extending the moratorium on rural /residential I -502 production and processing of cannabis county -wide until an approach can be crafted to allow those who wish to enter the cannabis business to do so in non - residential areas. This is a public safety issue and a unique problem requiring a unique solution. With respect 1v 1�r William R. Corrigan 1 atch Attachment — Corrigan Letter to Commissioners Nov 29, 2014. Lynnwood. Medical Mi grower held up at his home where he grows the Mi. Robbers looking for cash got $20,000 in products and supplies as well. Victim was also pistol whipped. Herald of Everett. Nov 18, 2014. Lakewood. Home invasion looking for Mi and cash. Wrong house, homeowner was piston whipped but was able to arm himself and fatally wound one of the robbers. Associated Press November 18, 2014. Tacoma. Home invasion at residence of Tacoma marijuana dispensary operator. Robbers expected pot or cash, tied up the two residents. Rolling gun battle down public streets ensued as a friend of the owner came to his aid. KOMO News. October 2, 2014. Kent. Four armed robbers broke into a house with a small Mi grow operation and assaulted the owners. Shots were fired, minor injuries. Investigators said robbers were after the money in the home. Police said "home was targeted for its M7 grow and the public is not at risk." [Really? wrc] 013 Fox News. May 6, 2014. Bremerton. Two home invasions where four suspects targeted homes they believed to be dealing Mi. "While the law on marijuana is changing, the decision by any resident to traffic in drugs results in negative consequences for the neighborhood, and these 'drug rips' are just one example," Bremerton Police Chief Steve Strachan said in a Friday (May 16) news release. KOMO News March 3, 2014. Lynnwood. Home invasion robbery looking for drugs and money. Herald of Everett February 25, 2014. Lake Stevens. Home invasion robbery resulting in gunfire and a kidnapping targeted a safe in the house containing cash and drugs. Homeowner admitted to selling drugs out of the house. Herald of Everett August 2012. Maple Leaf. Three men break into home where medical Mi was being grown. Tied up owner stealing Mi and money. Took cash, weapons and processed Mi. Owner got free and shot two of the suspects. Seattle Times November 18, 2010. Bremerton. Three men arrested for string of home invasions beginning on September 15th that targeted casual or medical users of Mi. Some of the victims were pistol whipped. Seattle Times. William Corrigan January 26, 2015 604 Lane De Chantel Port Townsend, WA 98368 Jefferson County Commissioners 1820 Jefferson St. Port Townsend, WA 98368 Dear Commissioners Johnson, Kler, and Sullivan, I would like to comment on the upcoming decision you have addressing the moratorium on rural /residential I -502 production and processing of cannabis. In the interest of full disclosure, I am a police officer and also live a short distance from one of the approved grow /processing operations located on my rural residential street. Although I am a police officer I want to make it clear that I am not speaking for any agency or office, or against the practice of growing, marketing, or using cannabis. I speak as a concerned citizen. Based on my experience I want to provide a perspective that may not be represented to date, specifically the criminal activity that will be directed at these operations. Allow me to provide some background information. Most crime in our county is property crime. The predominant purpose of that crime is to gain property /assets that can be converted into a more liquid form used satisfy the criminal's needs. Items that are useful for that purpose are jewelry, electronics, construction equipment, and other high value objects. These items are then passed off as the property of the criminal and sold to pawn shops or other unsuspecting (or suspecting) buyers. The final monetary benefit to the criminal is generally pennies or dimes on the dollar. This means that a $500 ring might fetch $50. That may seem a poor return, but cash is the fully liquid asset preferred by criminals. Therefore, the most desirable property to steal is cash or drugs for they represent a 100 percent conversion to the most liquid asset, and cannot be easily traced back to the original owner. Criminals who know where larger amounts of cash or drugs are kept are drawn to those locations. As we all know cash drawers are often the target of business holdups, not the inventory therein. Criminals who burglarize houses looking for marketable property when owners are absent are criminals of a different ilk than those who rob stores, banks, and people on the street. Those willing to confront their victims face -to -face are generally more prone to violent and assaultive behavior and are looking for the ultimate in liquidity, cash or drugs. Current banking practices force the cannabis business into a cash only basis, a unique and crucial element causing much higher risk in this `home' business. These banking practices require that cannabis business operators to keep cash at the business or their home for a period of time. The criminal element is also aware of this drawback and exploits it to their advantage. The more organized of these criminals will also access public records to find locations (the growing and processing businesses, and owners' residences) where cash is likely kept. By allowing cannabis businesses /operations in areas that were formerly residential only, a more violence -prone element of the criminal population is drawn there. Previously the return on `investment' in residential areas for these criminals has heretofore not met their risk/retum formula related to apprehension and accountability. Again, cash and drugs are the ultimate objectives for this more violence -prone element, not the normal take in a common residence. I'm sure you'll agree that a reasonable person takes all precautions to make their home less attractive to the criminal element. We do that through alarm systems, exterior lighting, locking first floor windows and doors, and keeping valuables in our vehicles out of sight, etc. If one knows a neighborhood may be crime prone they will chose not to live there (property value impacts.) I find it counterintuitive to, in effect, hang a sign on your homelbusiness saying that it is a lucrative target. One may say, "That's their problem," that of the cannabis business owner. But it's not; it's the neighborhood's problem because crime is not always laser- focused on the intended target. I find it difficult to understand how a concerned, informed resident would draw the attention of a violent criminal element to their home and neighborhood, unless they are naive and uniformed. I concerned for the neighbors of these cannabis businesses. I hope that when the criminal element comes they find the `right' house, and not the home of one of the neighbors who have had no choice in the matter. I do not believe it is a matter of `if it happens, but `when.' Please review my attachment representing a five minute internet search of recent home invasions in western Washington that were directed toward homes/business with drugs and cash. You can see that the violence level is extremely high. KOMO News reported that Bremerton Police Chief Steve Strachan said in a May 16, 2014 news release about home invasions targeting cannabis, "While the law on marijuana is changing, the decision by any resident to traffic in drugs results in negative consequences for the neighborhood, and these'drug nips' are Just one example." For these reasons I respectfully request that you consider extending the moratorium on rural /residential I -502 production and processing of cannabis county -wide until an approach can be crafted to allow those who wish to enter the cannabis business to do so in non - residential areas. This is a public safety issue and a unique problem requiring a unique solution. With respect, AJ William R. Corrigan 1 atch Attachment — Corrigan Letter to Commissioners Nov 29, 2014. Lynnwood. Medical MJ grower held up at his home where he grows the MJ. Robbers looking for cash got $20,000 in products and supplies as well. Victim was also pistol whipped. Herald of Everett. Nov 18, 2014. Lakewood. Home invasion looking for MJ and cash. Wrong house, homeowner was piston whipped but was able to arm himself and fatally wound one of the robbers. Associated Press November 18, 2014. Tacoma. Home invasion at residence of Tacoma marijuana dispensary operator. Robbers expected pot or cash, tied up the two residents. Rolling gun battle down public streets ensued as a friend of the owner came to his aid. KOMO News. October 2, 2014. Kent. Four armed robbers broke into a house with a small MJ grow operation and assaulted the owners. Shots were fired, minor injuries. Investigators said robbers were after the money in the home. Police said "home was targeted for its MJ grow and the public is not at risk." [Really? wrc] 013 Fox News. May 6, 2014. Bremerton. Two home invasions where four suspects targeted homes they believed to be dealing MJ. "White the law on marijuana is changing, the decision by any resident to traffic in drugs results in negative consequences for the neighborhood, and these 'drug rips' are just one example," Bremerton Police Chief Steve Strachan said in a Friday (May 16) news release. KOMO News March 3, 2014. Lynnwood. Home invasion robbery looking for drugs and money. Herald of Everett February 25, 2014. Lake Stevens. Home invasion robbery resulting in gunfire and a kidnapping targeted a safe in the house containing cash and drugs. Homeowner admitted to selling drugs out of the house. Herald of Everett August 2012. Maple Leaf. Three men break into home where medical MJ was being grown. Tied up owner stealing MJ and money. Took cash, weapons and processed MJ. Owner got free and shot two of the suspects. Seattle Times November 18, 2010. Bremerton. Three men arrested for string of home invasions beginning on September 15th that targeted casual or medical users of MJ. Some of the victims were pistol whipped. Seattle Times. William Corrigan 604 Lane De Chantel Port Townsend, WA 98368 Jefferson County Commissioners 1820 Jefferson St. Port Townsend, WA 98368 Dear Commissioners Johnson, Kler, and Sullivan, January 26, 2015 I would like to comment on the upcoming decision you have addressing the moratorium on rural /residential I -502 production and processing of cannabis. In the interest of full disclosure, I am a police officer and also live a short distance from one of the approved grow /processing operations located on my rural residential street. Although I am a police officer I want to make it clear that I am not speaking for any agency or office, or against the practice of growing, marketing, or using cannabis. I speak as a concerned citizen. Based on my experience I want to provide a perspective that may not be represented to date, specifically the criminal activity that will be directed at these operations. Allow me to provide some background information. Most crime in our county is property crime. The predominant purpose of that crime is to gain property /assets that can be converted into a more liquid form used satisfy the criminal's needs. Items that are useful for that purpose are jewelry, electronics, construction equipment, and other high value objects. These items are then passed off as the property of the criminal and sold to pawn shops or other unsuspecting (or suspecting) buyers. The final monetary benefit to the criminal is generally pennies or dimes on the dollar. This means that a $500 ring might fetch $50. That may seem a poor return, but cash is the fully liquid asset preferred by criminals. Therefore, the most desirable property to steal is cash or drugs for they represent a 100 percent conversion to the most liquid asset, and cannot be easily traced back to the original owner. Criminals who know where larger amounts of cash or drugs are kept are drawn to those locations. As we all know cash drawers are often the target of business holdups, not the inventory therein. Criminals who burglarize houses looking for marketable property when owners are absent are criminals of a different ilk than those who rob stores, banks, and people on the street. Those willing to confront their victims face -to -face are generally more prone to violent and assaultive behavior and are looking for the ultimate in liquidity, cash or drugs. Current banking practices force the cannabis business into a cash only basis, a unique and crucial element causing much higher risk in this `home' business. These banking practices require that cannabis business operators to keep cash at the business or their home for a period of time. The criminal element is also aware of this drawback and exploits it to their advantage. The more organized of these criminals will also access public records to find locations (the growing and processing businesses, and owners' residences) where cash is likely kept. By allowing cannabis businesses /operations in areas that were formerly residential only, a more violence -prone element of the criminal population is drawn there. Previously the return on `investment' in residential areas for these criminals has heretofore not met their risk/return formula related to apprehension and accountability. Again, cash and drugs are the ultimate objectives for this more violence -prone element, not the normal take in a common residence. I'm sure you'll agree that a reasonable person takes all precautions to make their home less attractive to the criminal element. We do that through alarm systems, exterior lighting, locking first floor windows and doors, and keeping valuables in our vehicles out of sight, etc. If one knows a neighborhood may be crime prone they will chose not to live there (property value impacts.) I find it counterintuitive to, in effect, hang a sign on your home/business saying that it is a lucrative target. One may say, "That's their problem," that of the cannabis business owner. But it's not; it's the neighborhood's problem because crime is not always laser- focused on the intended target. I find it difficult to understand how a concerned, informed resident would draw the attention of a violent criminal element to their home and neighborhood, unless they are naive and uniformed. I concerned for the neighbors of these cannabis businesses. I hope that when the criminal element comes they find the `right' house, and not the home of one of the neighbors who have had no choice in the matter. I do not believe it is a matter of 'if it happens, but 'when.' Please review my attachment representing a five minute internet search of recent home invasions in western Washington that were directed toward homes/business with drugs and cash. You can see that the violence level is extremely high. KOMO News reported that Bremerton Police Chief Steve Strachan said in a May 16, 2014 news release about home invasions targeting cannabis, "While the law on marijuana is changing, the decision by any resident to traffic in drugs results in negative consequences for the neighborhood, and these 'drug rips' are Just one example." For these reasons I respectfully request that you consider extending the moratorium on rural /residential I -502 production and processing of cannabis county -wide until an approach can be crafted to allow those who wish to enter the cannabis business to do so in non - residential areas. This is a public safety issue and a unique problem requiring a unique solution. With respect, William I Corr 1 atch Attachment — Corrigan Letter to Commissioners Nov 29, 2014. Lynnwood. Medical MJ grower held up at his home where he grows the MJ. Robbers looking for cash got $20,000 in products and supplies as well. Victim was also pistol whipped. Herald of Everett. Nov 18, 2014. Lakewood. Home invasion looking for MJ and cash. Wrong house, homeowner was piston whipped but was able to arm himself and fatally wound one of the robbers. Associated Press November 18, 2014. Tacoma. Home invasion at residence of Tacoma marijuana dispensary operator. Robbers expected pot or cash, tied up the two residents. Rolling gun battle down public streets ensued as a friend of the owner came to his aid. KOMO News. October 2, 2014. Kent. Four armed robbers broke into a house with a small MJ grow operation and assaulted the owners. Shots were fired, minor injuries. Investigators said robbers were after the money in the home. Police said "home was targeted for its MJ grow and the public is not at risk." [Really? wrc] 013 Fox News. May 6, 2014. Bremerton. Two home invasions where four suspects targeted homes they believed to be dealing MJ. "While the law on marijuana is changing, the decision by any resident to traffic in drugs results in negative consequences for the neighborhood, and these 'drug rips' are just one example," Bremerton Police Chief Steve Strachan said in a Friday (May 16) news release. KOMO News March 3, 2014. Lynnwood. Home invasion robbery looking for drugs and money. Herald of Everett February 25, 2014. Lake Stevens. Home invasion robbery resulting in gunfire and a kidnapping targeted a safe in the house containing cash and drugs. Homeowner admitted to selling drugs out of the house. Herald of Everett August 2012. Maple Leaf. Three men break into home where medical MJ was being grown. Tied up owner stealing MJ and money. Took cash, weapons and processed MJ. Owner got free and shot two of the suspects. Seattle Times November 18, 2010. Bremerton. Three men arrested for string of home invasions beginning on September 15'h that targeted casual or medical users of MJ. Some of the victims were pistol whipped. Seattle Times. From: Fnmp Morley Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 5:27 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: FW: Environmental impacts of marijuana industry Please add this to the MJ Moratorium Hearing Record and Correspondence Log. Philip Philip Morley Jefferson County Administrator p m o rlev@ co. ie ffe rso n. wa. u s (360) 385 -9100 x -383 This is a reminder that all email to or from this email address may be subject to the Public Records Act contained in RCW 42.56. Additionally, all email to and from the county is captured and archived by Information Services. From: Marjorie Boyd [ mailto :marjorie.boyd.01 @gmail.comj Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2015 6:17 PM To: Kathleen Kier; David Sullivan; Philip Morley; Colleen Zmolek; Planning Commission Desk; tgiske @gmail.com Subject: Environmental impacts of marijuana industry Below are two articles about water use, pesticides, and other issues related to the marijuana industry. hqp: / /seattle cbslocal.com/ 2014 /03/27 /marijuana - growing- isnt -as- rg een- as -vou- think/ http: / /wNvw huffingtonpost.com/2014 /06/01 /medical- marijuana -farms n 5427374.htm1 Marijuana Growing Isn't As `Green' As You Think e CBS Seattle Seattlee v SIGN UP FOR NEWSLETTERS CBS Local Rewards 2 Login I Register Search ®� Page 1 of 3 mFJW 1w_o N FOLLOW US Home News Sports Best Of Health Events Video Traffic Weather Directory Travel Deals Autos Circulars Local News National Entertainment Business Politics World Galleries SUPER BOWL XLIX: Seahawks Coverage • Patriots Coverage a Buy Gear • Listen to 1090TheFan This Week's Circulars (Photo credit ROBYN BECWAFP/Getty Images) Related Taga. legalize marijuana, Marijuana, marijuana environmental impact, Mahar Jones, pot business, pot plants (CBS Seattle) —Recreational marijuana will go on sale in Washington in a matter of months and dozens of stores will open, increasing the demand for suppliers and producers. American Express Hotels Growing pot plants may seem like a pretty em- friendly Book Your Next Hotel Stay & business, but aanrding to a recent article in Mother Can Earn Membership Jones, marijuana grows in the United States have a 1EYou Rewards(g) Points. pretty significant negative impact on the environment. A amedcanexpress.comrrravel large majority (80 %) of all the marijuana in the US is grown in five states: Washington, California, Tennessee, Kentucky and Hawaii. Twenty -two million pounds of pot is grown in this country each year, most of it illegal. And all those plants are using a lot of ax er resources. your your Max M refund with The vastly unregulated pot growing industry is powered TaxSlayer. ® htlps: /Avwv.taxslayer,wm by diesel generators, plants are sprayed with pesticides and farmed on deforested land. An indoor grow with four plants uses as much electricity as 29 refrigerators O Follow http : / /seattle.cbsiocal.conil2Ol4 /03/27 /marijuana - growing - isnt -as- green -as- you - think/ 1/26/2015 Marijuana Growing Isn't As 'Green' As You Think a CBS Seattle and indoor growing operations across the country use enough electricity to power 1.7 million homes. For every one pound of pot that's grown just in America, more than 4,500 pounds of carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere. The energy needed to create one joint is the same as what's needed for 16 pints of beer and creates the same amount of emissions created by powering a 100- --- watt lightbulb for 25 hours. You've Earned Points for Reading! Claim Points in our Reward Center, and earn more tomorrow. Claim Points In drought - ridden California, outdoor marijuana grows use up 60 million gallons of water every day, which according to Mother Jones, is 50 percent more than the water used by everyone living in San Francisco. Environmentalists in California told Mother Jones marijuana growing operations diverted enough water last summer to cause two dozen salmon streams to stop Flowing. The Department of Fish and Wildlife said it considered pot grows to be the number one threat to salmon in northern California and the state spends millions of dollars a year restoring streams. Even with increasing decriminalization and more regulation, experts say the black market for pot, and subsequently its toll on the environment, isn't going anywhere. (TM and © Copyright 2014 CBS Radio Inc. and its relevant subsidiaries. CBS RADIO and EYE Logo TM and Copyright 2014 CBS Broadcasting Inc. Used under license. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.) She" Iff] 12 View Comments PROMOTED STORIES The Richest NFL Amber Rose & 15 Quarterback Ever will Celebs Who Slayed In Surprise You Swimwear (Wodhly) (Styleblazer) PROMOTED STORIES 15 Hot Female Athletes You'd Like to Take Home For the Holidays (Rantspons) Watch Airbus Risk $1.5 Billion in a Wild Airplane Stunt (R.vaea corn) 10 NFL Players Who Are Just Flat -Out Jerks (BluebonSpon com) The 20 Most Valuable College Football Teams in the Nation (wonhly) Jay Cutler's Wife is a Hotta (My om Commode) A Grandpa Left a Trunk Behind For His Family - What's Inside is... (Ural Nova) For Former Assistants at Duke, Moving Up Means Moving Out (The New York Times) WE RECOMMEND Southwest Idaho Man Pleads Guilty In Murder- For -Hire Case Hot Stove Repoli: James Shields, the AL West & D.J. Peterson Study: High Levels Of Cancer- Linked Chemical Found In E- Cigarette Vapor Police Report Two Young Seattle Men Shot In Downtown Large Bird Attacks Oregon Jogger Watch Kate Upton Win a Wet T -shirt Contest NFL Officials Grappling Whether To Play (Video) Super Bowl With Stadium Roof Open Or ca Closed Recommended by This Week's Circulars Page 2 of 3 O Follow http: / /seaftle.cbslocal.coml2Ol4 /03/27 /marijuana- growing - isnt -as- green -as- you - think/ 1/26/2015 Marijuana Growing Isn't As `Green' As You Think << CBS Seattle 1 Comment Cz:S Scuttle c,�t,��_, r, claygooding .;a The negative impact of marijuana on our ecology today will turn to a huge positive impact when people no longer have to hide their marijuana crops. Marijuana grown outdoors eats more carbon than almost any other plant „hemp also produces more oxygen. The "Chemicals” used to grow marijuana are the very same fertilizers and substance used by gardeners around the world and are not toxic except when lazy cops dump them out on the ground unmixed. III ptay.1t YOUR NEVI pORCR47 NETWORK NEAR WHAT YOU'VE BEEN MR91NG Page 3 of 3 The All Now ®cssltdicAll-App Vo�7 NeWS Local National Entertainment Politics Business Environmental World News Galleries SpOrtS Seahawks Mariners Huskies Cougars Sounders Thunderbirds STATS Best Of Nightlife & Music Arts & Culture Food & Drink Shopping & Style Family & Pets Travel Entertainment -- ------- -- -- - -- Contact Us 1090 The Fan CW 11 Promo Crew: Work With Us CBS Seattle And 1090 The OTHER CBS LOCAL CITIES .. .__.__ .._ Fan Rules ®CBS Other Weather Traffic Circulars Deals 02015 CBS Local Media, B division of CBS Radio lnc. Corporate About Us Advertise Business Development Contact Mobile Connect Al Witte reserved. Seattle Business Listings Restaurants ears& clubs Shopping Processional Services SEARCH LISTINGS Privacy Policy I Ad Choices I Terns of Use I EEO Report I Deals Powered by Wore Press con, VIP O Follow http : / /seattle.cbslocal.coml2Ol4 /03/27 /marijuana- growing - isnt -as- green -as- you - think/ 1/26/2015 Medical Marijuana Farms Draining Streams Dry In California Page 1 of 3 fO5 ann (Ml 'IFt 1 1 1 JM -M1UK a[o U'0306621]69] =81 Logo CremeAccount A tl id sop Iftos.liplay.agogle.com/�toWappWdN it Ytl= h 17 1 %lkuprWgM") McmVb'a- nem*amenl ( htto7 lwww.hutfinatonoost.com(Greenl Edtm U.S.- Follow lhttps N.,rkftem Hufinglon Posy SearU FRONT PAGE POLITIES 5 @U_IIN M LII (HTTP: / /WWW HUFFINGTONPOST EOM)fHTTPVPNWW HUFFINGTONPOST EOM/POLITIESq(HTTP:AWWW HUFFINGTONPOST EOM IBUSINESSI)LVM.,I /NWW.HUFFINGTO Green lM1Mg' /AVw•w hUtrna[annost com /greenll•E (hl '1MVnv n t min / 1•CI'mate Chenee(htto / /wMV hvffinalgnwycoMnewalcrimate- chengell E MD f" 11 h.ffr t M ! M -tl n An mats fMlo/l w. wi huHnalonoostcoMnews/ari mals/1 • 5 (httofl huff M ! awal trs ) G-rle In STEM("pY vwvi FUlrnalogmstc "nawslorls -n- stem/) • KeyslareAL P' r 1h11o1M+wih fi 1 M e/k _ I' 9 • Frakino (Mtpllw whuRnatonmstwMnewslfmckino/) • Genemlion Ch (MI 'Lhvry huffingtenpaslxorau W Wan 11 Medical Marijuana Farms Draining Streams Dry In California M 1 By JASON DEAREN Posec, 06,0120141025am EDT UMatad 08/01,20145 59 .,EDT fiaysoore vrud(0)) 278 hdosa /wN facebook. comishamr/ sharer. DPP? u= hM %3A %2F %2Fmm,huftgtonpostwm% 2F2014 %2F08 %2F01 %2Fmed'cal- marivana -farms n 5427374htm11 htw$ot i11 In/ to UMreel'/1 - 8t t=Cal torn'a% 27s;-Med ral+ Pot+ Farms +Dra li no +Streams +Dry +httn%3A %2F %2Fhe t0 %2F1kVHD9U) fhftp&A , runaa.V /D ! t /b tt R d, = http %3A %2F %2F' hoffpast %2F % 2FIS2815D%2Fth b %2F - MARIJUANA- WATER - a 0. 8desai ion- wicel +Mari uana Fann Draimn Streams D Hn Da1M mia8url-MI %. 3A //w+nvhu ,notonoosLwM 014Ml Otfinedical- marluana -farms n 5427374. hM11 ED AWOo 5EMENi SUGGESTED FOR YOU FOLLOW HUFFPOST Email Address sign me apl ®The MarcWg Etrell ®Gtex '. Gettop stories entl hbO Pests emaiktl to me eaM Uay_ SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Some drought - stricken rivers and streams in Northern Californias coastal forests are being polluted and sucked day by water guzzling Fran Our Partners medical marijuana farms, wildlife officials say— an issue that has spurred at least one county, to try to outlaw personal grows. State fish and wildlife officials say much of the marijuana being grown in northern counties under the state's medical pot law is not being used for legal, personal use, but for sale both in California and states where pot is still illegal. This demand is fueling backyard and larger -scale pot farming, especially in remote Lake, Humboldt and Mendocino counties an the densely forested North Coast, officials said. http : / /Www.huffingtonpost.coml2Ol4 /06/01 /medical- marijuana -farms n_5427374.himl 1/26/2015 Medical Marijuana Farms Draining Streams Dry In California Sponsored Links ,. imSell With AmpTrader.com® Get a Cash Offer for Your Car or List It wl a Money Back Guarantee . wwwautotsder com/Sell The Second Income Plan DO This retirement plan is me easy path to many early and combnably. Dn'tlentlOppommobi,acam Seabourn Luxury Cruises Take advan\ese of remarkable Mfers a, "People are coming in, denuding the hillsides, damming the creeks and mining in fertilizers that are not allowed in the U.S. into our watersheds," said Denise Rushing, a Lake County supervisor who supports an ordinance essentiallybanning outdoor grows in populated areas. award winning serves "When rains come, it flows searmen.mm downstream into the lake and our aar aIInk he.a water supply," she said. Many affected waterways also contain endangered salmon, stmthead and other creatures protected by state and federal law. Wildlife biologists noticed streams running dry more often over the 18 years since the state passed Proposition ug, but weren't sure why. "We knew people were diverting water for marijuana operations, but we wanted to know exactly how much," said Scott Bauer, the department biologist who studied the pot farms' effects on four watersheds. "We didn't know they could consume all the water in a stream." So Baue r turned to Ooogle mapping technology and satellite data to find out where the many gardens are, and how many plants each contained. His study estimates that about 3o,000 pot plants were being grown in each river system — each plant uses about six gallons per day over marijuana's 150-day growing season. He compared that information with government data on stream flows, and visited 32 sites with other biologists to verify the mapping data. He said most grow sites had posted notices identifying them as medical pot farms. Pat farm pollution has become such a problem in Lake County, south of Banters study area, that officials voted unanimously last year to ban outdoor grows. "Counties are the ultimate arbiter ofland use conflict, so while you have a right to grow marijuana for medicinal use, you don't have a right to impinge on someone else's happiness and wellbeing;" Rushing said. Saying they were being demonized, pot users challenged the lacy, and gathered enough signatures to place a referendum on the June 3 ballot. They argue that grow restrictions like the ones being voted on in Lake County lump the responsible users in with criminals. "We definitely feel environmental issues are a concern. But more restrictive ... ordinances will force people to start growing in unregulated and illegal places on public land," said Daniel McClean, a registered nurse and medical marijuana user who opposes the outdoor -grow ban. While some counties are trying to help regulate the environmental effects of pot farms, Bauer hopes his study will lead to better collaboration with growers to help police illegal use of water and pesticides Precious collaborative attempts between government and growers have not ended well, said Anthony Silvaggio, a Humboldt State University sociology professor who studies the pot economy. "The county or state gets in there and starts doing code enforcement on other things," Silvzggio said. "They've done this in the past" He said pot farmers believe they are being unfairly blamed for killing endangered salmon while decades of timber cutting and overfishing are the real culprits. However, the environmental damage has led to a split in the marijuana growing community. One business, the Tea House Collective in Hots ldt County, offers medicinal pot to people with prescriptions that it says is farmed by "small scale, environmentally conscious producers:' "Patients who cannot grow their own medicine can rely on our farmers to provide them with the best holistic medicine that is naturally grown, sustainable and forever Humboldt," the group's welesite advertises. Page 2 of 3 http : / /www.huffingtonpost.com/2014 /06/01 /medical - marijuana- farms_n 5427374.htm1 1/26/2015 Medical Marijuana Farms Draining Streams Dry In California Despite efforts of some pot farmers to clean things up, the increased water use by farms is a "full -scale emtironmental disaster," said Fish and Wildlife Lt. John Nores, who leads the agency's Marijuana Enforcement Team. "Whether it's grown quasi legally unde r the state's medical marijuana laws, or it's a complete cartel outdoor drug trafficking grow site, there is extreme environmental damage being done at all levels," Nores said. Officials say until the federal government recognizes California's medical marijuana laws, growers will continue to operate clandestinely to meet market demand for their product due to fear of prosecution. Meantime, enforcing federal and state emtironmental regulations will be harden "If cherry tomatoes were worth $3,000 a pound, and consumption was prohibited in most states, people would be doing the same thing." Nores said. Jason Dearen can be reached at http: / /www.twitter.com /JHDearen ALSO ON HUFFPOST. U Top lO Toxic Industries 1 of 11 clttse MORE: Marijuana Ena'ro ment Mariluana Marlluan2. Medical Marlluana Marlluana Matlluana Water Pot Water. Pot Water Use. AP Suggest ac melon Amund lbe Web 0(hta'llabcnew .no omM mStomistudu- finds- mtlicalool 4ams 4mininactmameEry 2a9� Stud F M d' 1 - Pot F DrAtei., St D (hMU'llabcnewaggcomNSMmStorvleNd Inds- medical -not 4arms -0mining- stm2msAry 209 .._.... _..... HuMn9ron Pass Seartl, ' Awercae rnm rrnn ems naam.mmre esmuMnomnPast/ Loa In ( /USeraMOiM I Make HUflPOeITOUTHame Paae Wra homM RSS(/SVMmtjon) I carets OJoM I = Uselwmement(?erm Mmft I Prvacv(HnnlPrve cyaolCo nN commem ydlcv r/eommant/POUCVn I Abom USOPmuMndan-Pmlhtmn Abw Our Ads (HU I)Mlnfo.aol.com/A Wut-0ur -Ads/I I cant d Us fZoMaW Coq^ght 02015 TheHUftmglonPmtcom. me 1 'The HN nMon PC r is a regimered lmdemark of TheHufhrgtanPosr com.Inc All rgMS resen'etl. Patl of HPMG News Page 3 of 3 http : / /www.huffmgtonpost.coml2Ol4 /06/01 /medical - marijuana -farms n 5427374.html 1/26/2015 Julie Shannon From: David Sullivan Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2015 6:16 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Environmental impacts of marijuana industry From: Marjorie Boyd Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2015 6:17:01 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Kathleen Kier; David Sullivan; Philip Morley; Colleen Zmolek; Planning Commission Desk; tgiske @gmail.com Subject: Environmental impacts of marijuana industry Below are two articles about water use, pesticides, and other issues related to the marijuana industry. http: / /seattle.ebslocal.coml2Ol4 /03/27 /marijuana- rowin - isnt -as- Breen -as -you- think/ http: / /www.huffingtonpost.com /2014 /06/01 /medical - marijuana -farms n 5427374.htm1 Julie Shannon From: Kathleen Kier Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2015 6:16 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Environmental impacts of marijuana industry From: Marjorie Boyd Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2015 6:17:01 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Kathleen Kier; David Sullivan; Philip Morley; Colleen Zmolek; Planning Commission Desk; tgiske @gmail.com Subject: Environmental impacts of marijuana industry Below are two articles about water use, pesticides, and other issues related to the marijuana industry. http://seattle.cbsiocal.com/2014/03/27/marie oana- r¢ owing - isnt -as- Green -as -you- think/ http: / /www huffingtonpost com/2014 /06/01 /medical- marijuana -farms n 5427374.htm] C# From: Kim Gordon <gordonkm54 @g mail. com> Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 2:05 PM To: David Sullivan; Kathleen Kler; jeffbocc; Philip Morley Subject: Marijuana Moratorium Dear Commissioners, I want to take this space to urge you to extend the moratorium so that there is more time for thought and planning and to "get it right ". We have a wonderful opportunity to move forward with thoughtful planning, taking into consideration all of the citizens of Jefferson County, and to be a "role model" for the rest of the states as marijuana continues to be legalized. I am a resident of Maplewood Meadows and even though we abut a "light industrial" zone, careful consideration should be made to any businesses that apply for licenses so that it doesn't negatively impact our environment. We aren't impacting theirs. Thank you, Kim Gordon Julie Shannon From: David Sullivan Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 2:04 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW. Marijuana Moratorium From: Kim Gordon Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 2:04:40 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: David Sullivan; Kathleen Kier; jeffbocc; Philip Morley Subject: Marijuana Moratorium Dear Commissioners, I want to take this space to urge you to extend the moratorium so that there is more time for thought and planning and to "get it right ". We have a wonderful opportunity to move forward with thoughtful planning, taking into consideration all of the citizens of Jefferson County, and to be a "role model" for the rest of the states as marijuana continues to be legalized. I am a resident of Maplewood Meadows and even though we abut a "light industrial" zone, careful consideration should be made to any businesses that apply for licenses so that it doesn't negatively impact our environment. We aren't impacting theirs. Thank you, Kim Gordon Julie Shannon From: Kathleen Kier Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 2:04 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Marijuana Moratorium From: Kim Gordon Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 2:04:40 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: David Sullivan; Kathleen Kier; jeffbocc; Philip Morley Subject: Marijuana Moratorium Dear Commissioners, I want to take this space to urge you to extend the moratorium so that there is more time for thought and planning and to "get it right ". We have a wonderful opportunity to move forward with thoughtful planning, taking into consideration all of the citizens of Jefferson County, and to be a "role model" for the rest of the states as marijuana continues to be legalized. I am a resident of Maplewood Meadows and even though we abut a "light industrial" zone, careful consideration should be made to any businesses that apply for licenses so that it doesn't negatively impact our environment. We aren't impacting theirs. Thank you, Kim Gordon From: tom @ganjikafarms.com Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 2:00 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Please end the i -502 moratorium To: County Commissioners Re: 1 -502 moratorium The scare - mongering being foisted by opponents of 1 -502 businesses is so lacking in facts as to be absurd. There's one notable exception however. Indoor marijuana cultivation indeed has a massive carbon footprint. It will be highly ironic (no pun intended) and destructive to the environment if Jefferson County implements policies that force grow operations out of greenhouses and into warehouses. I urge you not to do so by dropping the moratorium. Thank you, Tom Chester 1 Julie Shannon From: David Sullivan Sent: Monday, January 26, 20151:37 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: 502 moratorium Attachments: J's 502.docx From: marymiah13 Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 1:36:59 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Philip Morley; David Sullivan; Kathleen Kier; jeffbocc Subject: 502 moratorium Sent from Samsung tablet. Dear Commissoners, Thank you for taking the time to hear my worries and concerns about the current 502 moratorium in Jeffers on County. If the current moratorium is not extended to all residentialy zoned areas, it will effect my family and many other residents of Jefferson County in the following ways. *Property value- My wife and I have recently spent our life savings in purchasing our dream property located on Larson Lk. Rd. Parcel #801105007 We fell in love with the property over a two year period and finally in July of 2014 our current home sold and we were able to purchase the property. This investment was for the future of our children and also our financial future as a family. If a marijuana grow operation is permitted to begin three 1 ots away in our community my family values and house values will deplete. How are my kids going to feel whe n they cant have 4 -H, cub scouts, girl scouts or any other extracurricular activities at our house because their frie nds parents are nervous or disapprove that we live next to a grow operation. What about our family's financial in vestment what will my property value? What will be the dollar amount be SIK000,$50,000, $25000 less, who knows. I dent know the exact price depletion but I do know it will be worth less. *Security -Our families sense of security will be impacted, we love it out there because of the quiet residential s ettings. The feeling of some space between you and your neighbors but not so much space that they cant keep a watchfull eye on your residence if you run to the stare, or are out of town for work. That feeling will be lost with view of security fences, lights,cameras, extra traffic,delivery trucks,seasonal /perminet employees traveling up down Larson Lk Rd. *Water Availability -WRIA 17- I'm worried about availability of water for my community of Mt. Townsend Vis ta. The limited use of 500 gallons per day, the limited use of the reserve in Chimacum subbasin, for domestic (in door) use only. I'm worried that one hot summer day at our new home, the well will run dry. Mt. Townsend Vist a residents are all fed off wells. There are no water mains, that have a never ending supply of water. We are all d rifled into a underground acufur if one BUSINESS takes the water of 10 -15 homes.There is a good chance we're going to run dry eventually. Everyone knows there are two things a plant needs to grow, lots of sunlight and wa ter_ If a county deed official tells me during my well application that it is strickly for residential domestic use (in door) I expect that everyone should follow the same rules! I was understanding when i was told that i couldn't us e my, water for a garden,yard,farm animals or any type of agriculture. And now 1 totally feel backdoored by the c ounty.l dont know all the rules and regulations, but the county has been entrusted by d.o.e. To follow the rules. *Enviormental Impacts - Where is all the extra runoff going? Surely there will be runoff from imperbial surfaces and extra water that the plants dont use. Is there a egineered treatment system in place ?. Surely there will be ferti lizers and pesticides used where does that go? What about smell? The sense of smell is a great thing when it co mes to a homemade pie or Thanksgiving dinner but what about when you live next to a grow operation? Indoor or outdoor it doesn't matter all the smell will not be 100% contained. When 1 think of the usual North prevailing summer wind. I think about having to smell marijuana all summer long until the seasons change and fall comes and blows the opposite way, Onto another neighboors property. *Septic system -How do you provide a adaquite safe septic system to handle a large number of employees? Ther e are environmentally sensitive areas in our community and I am concerned about a residentialy built septic cyst em that can handle a 3 -4 bedroom home being used for 30 employees. once again i tie this into a heavy industri at comparison there is no sewer main on Larson Lk Rd. In closing I could go on and on with my concerns and worries but these are my top ones. The sick feeling i n my stomach tells me that Jefferson County DOCD needs to take more time to address the current issues with a 11 grow operations as a whole not just certain group. There needs to adequate notice given to all residence within a reasonable distance of a grow O.P. Provide opportunity to object and obtain a fair hearing on the objections. L egal requirements need to be met before issuing of permitts. My wife and I bought property on Mt. Townsend V ista was because it was rural residential and we could not imagine a better place to raise our family. Never in on r wildest imagination would we have thought a grow operation would be going in just 3 houses down and being referred to as "agricultural'. You need a license to grow it, background check, 1000ft from school, sounds like a business. Whats the difference between a 1000ft from a school where children reside compared to 1000ft from my lyr old daughter and 3yr old son. I dont have to show my id to buy produce. Grow operations have their pla cc and that is in commercial or industrial settings where there is a water main and sewer main to hook up to and is set up for a business! Commissoners I trust that you will strongly consider exstending the moratorium. There are major loop hole s and problems, Please dont turn a blind eye to the problem with residential grow operations. Thank you Jeremiah Van Ness 644 Larson Lk Rd. Julie Shannon From: Kathleen Kler Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 1:37 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: 502 moratorium Attachments: J's 502.docx From: marymiah13 Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 1:36:59 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Philip Morley; David Sullivan; Kathleen Kler; jeffbocc Subject: 502 moratorium Sent from Samsung tablet. Dear Commissoners, Thank you for taking the time to hear my worries and concerns about the current 502 moratorium in Jeffers on County. If the current moratorium is not extended to all residentialy zoned areas, it will effect my family and many other residents of Jefferson County in the following ways. *Property value- My wife and I have recently spent our life savings in purchasing our dream property located on Larson Lk. Rd. Parcel 4801105007 We fell in love with the property over a two year period and finally in July of 2014 our current home sold and we were able to purchase the property. This investment was for the future of our children and also our financial future as a family. If a marijuana grow operation is permitted to begin three l ots away in our community my family values and house values will deplete. How are my kids going to feel whe n they cant have 4 -H, cub scouts, girl scouts or any other extracurricular activities at our house because their Erie rids parents are nervous or disapprove that we live next to a grow operation. What about our family's financial in vestment what will my property value? What will be the dollar amount be $100,000,$50,000, 525000 less, who knows. I dent know the exact price depletion but I do know it will be worth less. *Security -Our families sense of security will be impacted, we love it out there because of the quiet residential s ettings. The feeling of some space between you and your neighbors but not so much space that they cant keep a watchful) eye on your residence if you run to the store, or are out of town for work. That feeling will be lost with view of security fences, lightscameras, extra traffic,delivery trucks,seasonal /perminet employees traveling up down Larson Lk Rd. *Water Availability -W RIA 17- I'm worried about availability of water for my community of Mt. Townsend Vis ta. The limited use of 500 gallons per day, the limited use of the reserve in Chimacum subbasin, for domestic (in door) use only. I'm worried that one hot summer day at our new home, the well will run dry. Mt. Townsend Vist a residents are all fed off wells. There are no water mains, that have a never ending supply of water. We are all d rilled into a underground acufur if one BUSINESS takes the water of 10 -15 homes.There is a good chance we're going to run dry eventually. Everyone knows there are two things a plant needs to grow, lots of sunlight and wa ter. If a county decd official tells me during my well application that it is strickly for residential domestic use (in door) I expect that everyone should follow the same rules! I was understanding when i was told that i couldn't us e my water for a garden,yard,farm animals or any type of agriculture. And now i totally feel backdoored by the c ounty.l dont know all the rules and regulations, but the county has been entrusted by d.o.e. To follow the rules. *Enviormental Impacts- Where is all the extra runoff going? Surely there will be runoff from imperbial surfaces and extra water that the plants dont use. Is there a egineered treatment system in place ?. Surely there will be ferti Iizers and pesticides used where does that go? What about smell? The sense of smell is a great thing when it co mes to a homemade pie or Thanksgiving dinner but what about when you live next to a grow operation? Indoor or outdoor it doesn't matter all the smell will not be 100% contained. When 1 think of the usual North prevailing summer wind. I think about having to smell marijuana all summer long until the seasons change and fall comes and blows the opposite way, Onto another neighboors property. *Septic system -How do you provide a adaquite safe septic system to handle a large number of employees? Ther e are environmentally sensitive areas in our community and I am concerned about a residential built septic cyst em that can handle a 3 -4 bedroom home being used for 30 employees. once again i tie this into a heavy industri at comparison there is no sewer main on Larson Lk Rd. In closing I could go on and on with my concerns and worries but these are my top ones. The sick feeling i n my stomach tells me that Jefferson County DOCD needs to take more time to address the current issues with a 11 grow operations as a whole not just certain group. There needs to adequate notice given to all residence within a reasonable distance of a grow O.P, Provide opportunity to object and obtain a fair hearing on the objections. L egal requirements need to be met before issuing of permitts. My wife and I bought property on Mt. Townsend V ista was because it was rural residential and we could not imagine a better place to raise our family. Never in on r wildest imagination would we have thought a grow operation would be going in just 3 houses down and being referred to as "agricultural'. You need a license to grow it, background check, 1000ft from school, sounds like a business. Whats the difference between a 1000ft from a school where children reside compared to 1000ft from my Tyr old daughter and 3yr old son. I dont have to show my id to buy produce. Grow operations have their pla cc and that is in commercial or industrial settings where there is a water main and sewer main to hook up to and is set up for a business! Commissoners I trust that you will strongly consider exstending the moratorium. There are major loop hole s and problems, Please dont turn a blind eye to the problem with residential grow operations. Thank you Jeremiah Van Ness 644 Larson Lk Rd. jeffbocc From: marymiahl3 <rnarymiah13 @yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 1:37 PM To: Philip Morley; David Sullivan; Kathleen Kier; jeffbocc Subject: 502 moratorium Attachments: J's 502.docx Sent from Samsung tablet. Dear Commissoners. Thank you for taking the time to hear my worries and concerns about the current 502 moratorium in Jeffers on County. If the current moratorium is not extended to all residentialy zoned areas, it will effect my family and many other residents of Jefferson County in the following ways. *Property value- My wife and I have recently spent our life savings in purchasing our dream property located on Larson Lk. Rd. Parcel 4801105007 We fell in love with the property over a two year period and finally in July of 2014 our current home sold and we were able to purchase the property. This investment was for the future of our children and also our financial future as a family. If a marijuana grow operation is permitted to begin three 1 ots away in our community my family values and house values will deplete. How are my kids going to feel whe n they cant have 4 -H, cub scouts, girl scouts or any other extracurricular activities at our house because their frie rids parents are nervous or disapprove that we live next to a grow operation. What about our family's financial in vestment what will my property value? What will be the dollar amount be $100,000,$50,000, $25000 less, who knows. I dont know the exact price depletion but I do know it will be worth less. *Security -Our families sense of security will be impacted, we love it out there because of the quiet residential s ettings. The feeling of some space between you and your neighbors but not so much space that they cant keep a watchfull eye on your residence if you run to the store, or are out of town for work. That feeling will be lost with view of security fences, lights,cameras, extra traffic,delivery trucks,seasonal /perminet employees traveling up down Larson Lk Rd. *Water Availability -WRIA 17- I'm worried about availability of water for my community of Mt. Townsend V is ta. The limited use of 500 gallons per day, the limited use of the reserve in Chimacum subbasin, for domestic (in door) use only. I'm worried that one hot summer day at our new home, the well will run dry. Mt. Townsend Vist a residents are all fed off wells. There are no water mains, that have a never ending supply of water. We are all d tilled into a underground acufur if one BUSINESS takes the water of 10 -15 homes.There is a good chance we're going to run dry eventually. Everyone knows there are two things a plant needs to grow, lots of sunlight and wa ter. If a county docd official tells me during my well application that it is strickly for residential domestic use (in door) I expect that everyone should follow the same rules! I was understanding when i was told that i couldn't us e my water for a garden,yard,farm animals or any type of agriculture. And now i totally feel backdoored by the c ounty.l dont know all the rules and regulations, but the county has been entrusted by d.o.e. To follow the rules. *Enviormental Impacts- Where is all the extra runoff going? Surely there will be runoff from imperbial surfaces and extra water that the plants dont use. Is there a egineered treatment system in place ?. Surely there will be ferti lizers and pesticides used where does that go? What about smell? The sense of smell is a great thing when it co mes to a homemade pie or Thanksgiving dinner but what about when you live next to a grow operation? Indoor or outdoor it doesn't matter all the smell will not be 100% contained. When i think of the usual North prevailing summer wind. I think about having to smell marijuana all summer long until the seasons change and fall comes and blows the opposite way, Onto another neighboors property. *Septic system -How do you provide a adaquite safe septic system to handle a large number of employees? Ther e are environmentally sensitive areas in our community and I am concerned about a residentialy built septic syst em that can handle a 3 -4 bedroom home being used for 30 employees. once again i tie this into a heavy industri al comparison there is no sewer main on Larson Lk Rd. In closing I could go on and on with my concerns and worries but these are my top ones. The sick feeling i n my stomach tells me that Jefferson County DOCD needs to take more time to address the current issues with a 11 grow operations as a whole notjust certain group. There needs to adequate notice given to all residence within a reasonable distance of a grow O.P. Provide opportunity to object and obtain a fair hearing on the objections. L egal requirements need to be met before issuing of permitts. My wife and I bought property on Mt. Townsend V ista was because it was rural residential and we could not imagine a better place to raise our family. Never in on r wildest imagination would we have thought a grow operation would be going in just 3 houses down and being referred to as "agricultural'. You need a license to grow it, background check, 1000ft from school, sounds like a business. Whats the difference between a 1000ft from a school where children reside compared to 1000ft from my lyr old daughter and 3yr old son. I dont have to show my id to buy produce. Grow operations have their pla cc and that is in commercial or industrial settings where there is a water main and sewer main to hook up to and is set up for a business! Commissoners I trust that you will strongly consider exstending the moratorium. There are major loop hole s and problems, Please dont turn a blind eye to the problem with residential grow operations. Thank you Jeremiah Van Ness 644 Larson Lk Rd. Julie Shannon From: Kathleen Kler Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 11:49 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Please extend moratorium on all parcels From: Patricia Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 11:50:28 AM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) Subject: Please extend moratorium on all parcels The Washington State Liquor Control Board restrictions on marijuana operations with regard to children should be extended to the areas where these same children live. The operations are a business & as such should be relegated to business areas... light industry & other. Because of our weather, it's likely the growing will be an indoor operation. What if the house next door to you were replaced with a growing & processing plant? As a home has to be inspected & permitted before legal occupancy, so should a producing & processing site be inspected & permitted for water, septic, SEPA fulfillment before the marijuana permit be issued. Jefferson County Commissioners should be proactive in protecting their constituents. Can you accomplish that in another 4 months? It should extend to all parcels to be permitted for marijuana growth & processing. Thank you, Patricia Earnest Nordland, WA 98358 jeffbocc From: Patricia <pjearnest @earth link.net> Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 11:50 AM Subject: Please extend moratorium on all parcels The Washington State Liquor Control Board restrictions on marijuana operations with regard to children should be extended to the areas where these same children live. The operations are a business & as such should be relegated to business areas... light industry & other. Because of our weather, it's likely the growing will be an indoor operation. What if the house next door to you were replaced with a growing & processing plant? As a home has to be inspected & permitted before legal occupancy, so should a producing & processing site be inspected & permitted for water, septic, SEPA fulfillment before the marijuana permit be issued. Jefferson County Commissioners should be proactive in protecting their constituents. Can you accomplish that in another 4 months? It should extend to all parcels to be permitted for marijuana growth & processing. Thank you, Patricia Earnest Nordland, WA 98358 jeffbocc From: Philip Morley Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 11:53 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: FW: Please extend moratorium on all parcels I can't see if this already came into jeffbocc. If not, pis add to hearing record and correspondence log. Philip Philip Morley Jefferson County Administrator pmorley @co.iefferson.wa.us (360) 385 -9100 x -383 This is a reminder that all email to or from this email address may be subject to the Public Records Act contained in RCW 42.56. Additionally, all email to and from the county is captured and archived by Information Services. From: Patricia [mailto:pjearnest @earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 11:50 AM Subject: Please extend moratorium on all parcels The Washington State Liquor Control Board restrictions on marijuana operations with regard to children should be extended to the areas where these same children live. The operations are a business & as such should be relegated to business areas... light industry & other. Because of our weather, it's likely the growing will be an indoor operation. What if the house next door to you were replaced with a growing & processing plant? As a home has to be inspected & permitted before legal occupancy, so should a producing & processing site be inspected & permitted for water, septic, SEPA fulfillment before the marijuana permit be issued. Jefferson County Commissioners should be proactive in protecting their constituents. Can you accomplish that in another 4 months? It should extend to all parcels to be permitted for marijuana growth & processing. Thank you, Patricia Earnest Nordland, WA 98358 From: marymiah13 <marymiahl3 @yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 9:02 AM To: jeffbocc; Philip Morley; Kathleen Kler; David Sullivan Subject: 502 moratorium Attachments: 1.docx Sent from Samsung tablet. Jefferson County Commissoners. I'm here pleading for you to extend the moratorium and to put regulations into effect to keep 502 operations off of residential zoned property. My husband and I were both born and raised in Jefferson county. When we gat married and started our fam ily we were both in agreement that this is where we wanted to raise our children. In July 2014 we took everythin g we had and bought our dream property, the place where this spring we will be building the forever home for o ur two small children to grow up in. We go to our property on 644 Larson Lake Rd (MT. Townsend Vista) every weekend to explore, plan, and count the seconds until we will finally be there. We love the piece and quiet of the area and the fact that even th ough we're right of the road the only cars we ever see drive by are other resident of the rd. We were shocked to put it politely to find out that a grow operation was going in just a few houses down from us and that what will b e grown there is considered "agricultural ". This ridiculous to me and I'm sure many others. From my understandi ng local farms do not have Washington State Liquor Control Board monitoring their crops, nor do you need to be 21 to buy a head of lettuce from them, there is not limit to the amount of tomatoes you can buy at a time and you are free to eat your strawberries while you drive. So how can this be agricultural when there are so many res triclions? The piece and quiet that we love will be lost to all the added traffic. I worry how this is going to effect my children when they are older and want to have friends over or host a club meeting will the parents of those kids let them come because of what we're next to. Im angry we didnt recieve proper notification of this. That somethi ng like this could go in in residential zoned property. We are neighborhoods not commercial or industrial proper ty, neighborhoods where children sleep and play. I feel there is far to much grey area surrounding 502 and so I ask again for you to extend the moritorium, t ake the time to put regulations into effect that will keep 502 off of residential zoned property no matter what the size. Mary Van Ness Larson lake Rd. Chimacum WA.; Julie Shannon From: David Sullivan Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 9:01 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: 502 moratorium Attachments: 1.docx From: marymiah13 Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 9:02:12 AM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: jeffbocc; Philip Morley; Kathleen Kier; David Sullivan Subject: 502 moratorium Sent from Samsung tablet. Julie Shannon From: David Sullivan Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 9:01 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: 502 moratorium Attachments: 1.docx From: marymiah13 Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 9:02:12 AM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: jeffbocc; Philip Morley; Kathleen Kler; David Sullivan Subject: 502 moratorium Sent from Samsung tablet. Jefferson County Commissoners, I'm here pleading for you to extend the moratorium and to put regulations into effect to keep 502 operations off of residential zoned property. My husband and I were both born and raised in Jefferson county. When we got married and started our fam ily we were both in agreement that this is where we wanted to raise our children. In July 2014 we took everythin g we had and bought our dream property, the place where this spring we will be building the forever home for o or two small children to grow up in. We go to our property on 644 Larson Lake Rd (MT.. Townsend Vista) every weekend to explore, plan, and count the seconds until wewM finally be there. We love the piece and quiet of the area and the fact that even th ough we're right of the road the only cars we ever see drive by are other resident of the rd. We were shocked to put it politely to find out that a grow operation was going in just a few houses down from us and that what will b e grown there is considered "agricultural ". This ridiculous to me and I'm sure many others. From my understandi ng local farms do not have Washington State Liquor Control Board monitoring their crops, nor do you need to be 21 to buy a head of lettuce from them, there is not limit to the amount of tomatoes you can buy at a time and you are free to eat your strawberries while you drive. So how can this be agricultural when there are so many res tractions? The piece and quiet that we love will be lost to all the added traffic. I worry how this is going to effect my children when they are older and want to have friends over or host a club meeting will the parents of those kids let them come because of what we're next to. Im angry we didnt recieve proper notification of this. That somethi ng like this could go in in residential zoned property. We are neighborhoods not commercial or industrial proper ty, neighborhoods where children sleep and play. I feel there is far to much grey area surrounding 502 and so I ask again for you to extend the moritorium, t ake the time to put regulations into effect that will keep 502 off of residential zoned property no matter what the size. Mary Van Ness Larson lake Rd. Chimacum WA.; Julie Shannon From: Kathleen Kier Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 9:01 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: 502 moratorium Attachments: 1.docx From: marymiah13 Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 9:02:12 AM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: jeffbocc; Philip Morley; Kathleen Kler; David Sullivan Subject: 502 moratorium Sent from Samsung tablet. Jefferson County Commissoners, I'm here pleading for you to extend the moratorium and to put regulations into effect to keep 502 operations off of residential zoned property. My husband and I were both born and raised in Jefferson county. When we got married and started our faro ily we were both in agreement that this is where we wanted to raise our children. In July 2014 we took everythin g we had and bought our dream property, the place where this spring we will be building the forever home for o ur two small children to grow up in. We go to our property on 644 Larson Lake Rd (MT. Townsend Vista) even- weekend to explore, plan, and count the seconds until we will finally be there. We love the piece and quiet of the area and the fact that even th ough we're right of the road the only cars we ever see drive by are other resident of the rd. We were shocked to put it politely to find out that a grow operation was going in just a few houses down from us and that what will b e grown there is considered "agricultural ". This ridiculous to me and I'm sure many others. From my understandi ng local farms do not have Washington State Liquor Control Board monitoring their crops, nor do you need to be 21 to buy a head of lettuce from them, there is not limit to the amount of tomatoes you can buy at a time and you are free to eat your strawberries while you drive. So how can this be agricultural when there are so many res trictions? The piece and quiet that we love will be lost to all the added traffic. I worry how this is going to effect my children when they are older and want to have friends over or host a club meeting will the parents of those kids let them come because of what we're next to. Im angry we didnt recieve proper notification of this. That somethi ng like this could go in in residential zoned property. We are neighborhoods not commercial or industrial proper ty, neighborhoods where children sleep and play. I feel there is far to much grey area surrounding 502 and so I ask again for you to extend the moritorium, t ake the time to put regulations into effect that will keep 502 off of residential zoned property no matter what the size. Mary Van Ness Larson lake Rd. Chimacum WA.; Julie Shannon From: Kathleen Kier Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 1:37 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: A possible solution? From: J Ball Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 1:37:54 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: David Sullivan; Kathleen Kier; Phil Johnson; Carl Smith Subject: A possible solution? Hello All, I am very pleased to have met with Carl today to gain better clarity. During our conversation. I believe we may have discovered a solution to part of this problem. 1 think if you simply decide to manage all producers and processors through the cottage industry permit application process that all the potential issues will be covered. It seems to me that the loopholes stem from the agricultural land use exemptions and they can be eliminated via the cottage industry permit (with a residential requirement exclusion for production). Jean Bali Julie Shannon From: Phil Johnson Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 1:37 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: A possible solution? From: J Ball Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 1:37:54 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: David Sullivan; Kathleen Kier; Phil Johnson; Carl Smith Subject: A possible solution? Hello All, I am very pleased to have met with Carl today to gain better clarity. During our conversation, I believe we may have discovered a solution to part of this problem. I think if you simply decide to manage all producers and processors through the cottage industry permit application process that all the potential issues will be covered. It seems to me that the loopholes stem from the agricultural land use exemptions and they can be eliminated via the cottage industry permit (with a residential requirement exclusion for production). Jean Ball Julie Shannon From: David Sullivan Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 1:37 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: A possible solution? From: J Ball Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 1:37:54 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: David Sullivan; Kathleen Kier; Phil Johnson; Carl Smith Subject: A possible solution? Hello All, I am very pleased to have met with Carl today to gain better clarity. During our conversation, I believe we may have discovered a solution to part of this problem. I think if you simply decide to manage all producers and processors through the cottage industry permit application process that all the potential issues will be covered. It seems to me that the loopholes stem from the agricultural land use exemptions and they can be eliminated via the cottage industry permit (with a residential requirement exclusion for production). Jean Ball jeffbocc HEARING RECORD From: liz moore <glasstools @olym pus. net> Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 9:43 AM To: Kathleen Kier; jeffbocc; David Sullivan; Philip Morley Subject: Marijuana Moratorium With the passage of 1502 we have a new industry in Washington State. The production and sale of pot requires the the changing of laws and new regulations.) am a resident of Jefferson County, living in an area zoned residential with a minimum of 5 acre lots. I do not support residential areas being rezoned to accommodate pot growing. Pot growing is a new land use and is not compatible with residential zoned lands. I do not want a commercial agricultural business located in my residential community. Pot growing is a new land use with no previous ( legal ) history to judge it's impact on the community. Assuming that it will have no negative impacts on my residential community is irresponsible. Zoning is done for good reason, to keep similar land uses together. Someone buying land should be able to have some assurances of what " residential" means. Rezoning my land is not acceptable to accommodate commercial pot growing. A business growing drugs has an image problem. Our society is plagued by many horrors, many related to drug use. Having a drug business next to my home will damage my property values. Nobody wants to live next to a pot farm. This is a new land use and it should not be considered compatible with residentially zoned lands. The Moratorium should be extended, for all applicants until the regulations are solid . Thank you, Jim Moore Julie Shannon From: Kathleen Kier Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 9:42 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Marijuana Moratorium From: liz moore Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 9:43:13 AM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Kathleen Kier; jeffbocc; David Sullivan; Philip Morley Subject: Marijuana Moratorium With the passage of 1502 we have a new industry in Washington State. The production and sale of pot requires the the changing of laws and new regulations.) am a resident of Jefferson County, living in an area zoned residential with a minimum of 5 acre lots. I do not support residential areas being rezoned to accommodate pot growing. Pot growing is a new land use and is not compatible with residential zoned lands. I do not want a commercial agricultural business located in my residential community. Pot growing is a new land use with no previous ( legal ) history to judge it's impact on the community. Assuming that it will have no negative impacts on my residential community is irresponsible. Zoning is done for good reason, to keep similar land uses together. Someone buying land should be able to have some assurances of what " residential" means, Rezoning my land is not acceptable to accommodate commercial pot growing. A business growing drugs has an image problem. Our society is plagued by many horrors, many related to drug use. Having a drug business next to my home will damage my property values. Nobody wants to live next to a pot farm. This is a new land use and it should not be considered compatible with residentially zoned lands. The Moratorium should be extended, for all applicants until the regulations are solid . Thank you, Jim Moore Julie Shannon From: David Sullivan Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 9:42 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Marijuana Moratorium From: liz moore Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 9:43:13 AM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Kathleen Kier; jeffbocc; David Sullivan; Philip Morley Subject: Marijuana Moratorium With the passage of 1502 we have a new industry in Washington State. The production and sale of pot requires the the changing of laws and new regulations.) am a resident of Jefferson County, living in an area zoned residential with a minimum of 5 acre lots. I do not support residential areas being rezoned to accommodate pot growing. Pot growing is a new land use and is not compatible with residential zoned lands. I do not want a commercial agricultural business located in my residential community. Pot growing is a new land use with no previous ( legal ) history to judge it's impact on the community. Assuming that it will have no negative impacts on my residential community is irresponsible. Zoning is done for good reason, to keep similar land uses together. Someone buying land should be able to have some assurances of what " residential" means. Rezoning my land is not acceptable to accommodate commercial pot growing. A business growing drugs has an image problem. Our society is plagued by many horrors, many related to drug use. Having a drug business next to my home will damage my property values. Nobody wants to live next to a pot farm. This is a new land use and it should not be considered compatible with residentially zoned lands. The Moratorium should be extended, for all applicants until the regulations are solid . Thank you, Jim Moore 1 Julie Shannon From: Kathleen Kier Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 9:23 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Extend the moratorium for All parcels From: liz moore Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 9:23:36 AM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Kathleen Kier; David Sullivan Cc: jeffbocc; Philip Morley Subject: Extend the moratorium for All parcels http: / /NA>ti w icr3 or ,/f Odd Byproduct of Legal Mariivarta Homes That Blow Up - NYTimes pdf Dear Commissioners, I am curious whether you have seen this article in the New York Times. My family lives in a forested, rural and residential area 6 miles from Port townsend. Our forests have been extremely dry, and so far, we have been lucky to not experience any devastating fires. However, I am deeply concerned that allowing these marihuana processing businesses out in the county is poorly thought out. It makes no sense to allow lift the moratorium on larger parcels. Why make any exceptions? What is the hurry? Marijuana processing business should be located in industrial areas, where they can be more regularly inspected, have dependable security, and be more accessible to fire and police departments. These businesses should not be classified as "cottage " businesses. Manufacturing a federally controlled substance should not even qualify as a cottage business. Extend the Moratorium. Think about how these business will affect the future of our community. Thanks you, Elizabeth Moore Odd Byproduct of Legal Marijuana: Homes That Blow Up - NYTimes.com http: / /www.nytimes.com/2015 /01 /1S /us /odd - byproduct -of- legal - marijuan... ft�WWV0'itli Qi'M0 httP:Hnyti.ms /1CAJA2U U.S. Odd Byproduct of Legal Marijuana: Homes That Blow UP By JACK MALY JAN. 17,2015 DENVER — When Colorado legalized marijuana two years ago, nobody was quite ready for the problem of exploding houses. But that is exactly what firefighters, courts and lawmakers across the state are confronting these days: amateur marijuana alchemists who are turning their kitchens and basements into "Breaking Bad" -style laboratories, using flammable chemicals to extract potent drops of a marijuana concentrate commonly called hash oil, and sometimes accidentally blowing up their homes and lighting themselves on fire in the process. The trend is not limited to Colorado — officials from Florida to Illinois to California have reported similar problems — but the blasts are creating a special headache forlawmakem and courts here, the state at the center of legal marijuana. Even as cities try to clamp down on homemade hash oil and lawmakers consider outlawing it, some enthusiasts argue for their right to make it safely without butane, and criminal defense lawyers say the practice can no longer be considered a crime under the 2012 constitutional amendment that made marijuana legal to grow, smoke, process and sell. "This is uncharted territory," said State Representative Mike Foote, a Democrat from northern Colorado who is grappling with how to address hash -oil explosions. "These things come up for the first time, and no one's dealt with them before." Over the past year, a hash -oil explosion in a motel in Grand Junction sent two people to a hospital. In Colorado Springs, an explosion in a third -floor apartment shook the neighborhood and sprayed glass across a parking lot. And in an accident in Denver, neighbors reported a "ball of fire" that left three people hospitalized. The explosions occur as people pump butane fuel through a tube pa eked with raw 1 of4 1/19/2015 4:05 PM Odd Byproduct of LegalMarijuam :HomesThatBlowtip - NYTimes.com http: / /www.nytimes.com /2015/01/18/us /odd - byproduct -of- legal- marijuan... marijuana plants to draw out the psychoactive ingredient tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, producing a golden, highly potent concentrate that people sometimes call honey oil, earwax or shatter. The process can fill a room with volatile butane vapors that can be ignited by an errant spark or flame. "They get enough vapors inside the building and it goes off, and it'll bulge out the walls," said Chuck Mathis, the fire marshal in Grand Junction, where the Fire Department responded to four explosions last year. "They always have a different story: `Nothing happened' or `I was cooking food, and all of a sudden there was an explosion.' They always try to blame it on something else." There were 32 such blasts across Colorado in 2014, up from 12 a year earlier, according to the Rocky Mountain High- Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, which coordinates federal and state drug enforcement efforts. No one has been killed, but the fires have wrecked homes and injured dozens of people, including 17 who received treatment for severe burns, including skin grafts and surgery, at the University of Colorado Hospital's burn center. The legal complexities played out one snowy morning in a Denver courtroom as a district judge puzzled over the case of Paul Mannaioni. Mr. Mannaioni, 24, was charged with committing fourth- degree arson and manufacturing marijuana after explosions ripped through a marijuana cooperative in Denver that was filled with cannabis plants and littered with boxes of butane, burners, pressure cookers, metal pipes and other equipment commonly used in butane hash -oil extractions. When emergency responders showed up, they found Mr. Mannaioni and two other people with severe burns "all over their arms and legs," according to a police affida-6t. The police said that one of his companions, Danielle Cordova, later told them that she did not know who had been manufacturing the concentrate, but that the "hash bath" exploded when the three stepped into a tent where it had been cooking. To prosecutors, a crime had taken place. Legalization may have given licensed and regulated marijuana manufacturing facilities the ability to extract hash oil legally in controlled environments, but officials say dangerous, homemade operations using flammable butane — a fuel for lighters, portable stoves or heaters — are still illegal. Mr. Mannaioni's lawyer, Robert Corry, a prominent marijuana advocate, had a different take. When Colorado's voters passed Amendment 64 to legalize marijuana for personal use and recreational sales, Mr. Corry told the judge, they called for a 2 of 4 1/ 19/2015 4:05 PM Odd Byproduct of Legal Marijuana: Homes That Blow Up - NYTimes.com http: / /www.rrydi s.com/2015 /01 /18 /us /odd - byproduct -of- legal- nmrijuan... fundamental shift in how Colorado treated marijuana. It is no longer an issue for the police and courts, he said, but for the regulators and bureaucrats who enforce the civil codes surrounding marijuana growers and dispensaries. "That constitutional provision renders my client's accused conduct to be legal," Mr. Corry said in court. "The court system is not to be used for marijuana regulation anymore. He compared making butane hash oil to processing olive oil, brewing beer or distilling whiskey at home — riskier, perhaps, and vulnerable to devastating results, but no longer a drug offense worth sending a young man to prison, according to Mr. Corry. The state law being used to prosecute Mr. Mannaioni, he said, was simply no longer valid. "There are thousands of people in Colorado who are doing this," Mr. Corry said in an interview. "I view this as the equivalent of frying turkey for Thanksgiving. Someone spills the oil, and there's an explosion. It's unfortunate, but it's not a felony creme. Judge A. Bruce Jones of the Second Judicial District was not buying the argument, but he grappled with the holes in the law created by legalizing marijuana. Is making hash oil "processing" marijuana — an action that was deemed legal under Amendment 64 — or is it "manufacturing "? What is the difference? How should the law view hash oil? As marijuana concentrate, or as something else entirely? And how do you produce it, exactly? "I have no real knowledge of how you make hash oil," Judge Jones said during the hearing. Mr. Mannaioni has pleaded not guilty and declined to discuss the details of the explosion. He said he had worked jobs at dispensaries and helped to build marijuana cultivations since he was 18, and that it felt surreal to be prosecuted for a marijuana charge in a state that embraced legalization, where hundreds of medical and recreational dispensaries sell marijuana buds, edible treats and their awn hash -oil concentrates. "I was blown away that they even charged us," he said. "The court system, they are having a really hard time of letting go that pot isn't bad." And so far, the legal system has not budged. The state attorney general has weighed in to say legalization does not apply to butane extraction. This month, a western Colorado judge overseeing the case against a 7o- year -old man charged with 3 of 4 1/19/2015 4:05 PM Odd Byproduct of Legal Marijuana: Homes That Blow Up - N'YTimes.com htt p: / /www.nytimes.com/2015 /01 /18 /us /odd - byproduct -of- legal- marijuan... making hash oil in his home rejected arguments that drug laws in Colorado were now unconstitutional. In the mountain town of Leadville, a landlord named Bill Korn spent a month last spring cleaning up after one of his tenants blew apart the kitchen trying to make hash oil in his 188os home. The tenant pleaded guilty to an arson charge and agreed to pay Mr. Korn $7,000 in damages, a sentence Mr. Korn said felt "a little bit light." "They apparently don't enforce any laws anymore," he said. A version of this article appears in print on January 18, 2015, on page Al of the New York edition with the headline: Odd Byproduct of Legal Weed: Homes Blow Up. © 2015 The New York Times Company 4 of 1/19/2015 4:05 PM Julie Shannon From: David Sullivan Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 9:23 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Extend the moratorium for All parcels From: liz moore Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 9:23:36 AM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Kathleen Kier; David Sullivan Cc: jeffbocc; Philip Morley Subject: Extend the moratorium for All parcels http: / /Nkww•.icr3.ora /Odd Byproduct of Legal Marijuana Homes That Blow Up - NYTimes.pdf Dear Commissioners, I am curious whether you have seen this article in the New York Times. My family lives in a forested, rural and residential area 6 miles from Port townsend. Our forests have been extremely dry, and so far, we have been lucky to not experience any devastating fires. However, I am deeply concerned that allowing these marihuana processing businesses out in the county is poorly thought out. It makes no sense to allow lift the moratorium on larger parcels. Why make any exceptions? What is the hurry? Marijuana processing business should be located in industrial areas, where they can be more regularly inspected, have dependable security, and be more accessible to fire and police departments. These businesses should not be classified as "cottage " businesses. Manufacturing a federally controlled substance should not even qualify as a cottage business. Extend the Moratorium. Think about how these business will affect the future of our community. Thanks you, Elizabeth Moore jeffbocc From: liz moore <gooddogart@olympus.net> Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 9:24 AM To: Kathleen Kier; David Sullivan Cc: jeffbocc; Philip Morley Subject: Extend the moratorium for All parcels hLtp://-,N-,x-w.icr3.org/Odd Byproduct of Legal Marijuana Homes That Blow Up - NYTimes pdf Dear Commissioners, I am curious whether you have seen this article in the New York Times. My family lives in a forested, rural and residential area 6 miles from Port townsend. Our forests have been extremely dry, and so far, we have been lucky to not experience any devastating fires. However, I am deeply concerned that allowing these marihuana processing businesses out in the county is poorly thought out. It makes no sense to allow lift the moratorium on larger parcels. Why make any exceptions? What is the hurry? Marijuana processing business should be located in industrial areas, where they can be more regularly inspected, have dependable security, and be more accessible to fire and police departments. These businesses should not be classified as "cottage " businesses. Manufacturing a federally controlled substance should not even qualify as a cottage business. Extend the Moratorium. Think about how these business will affect the future of our community. Thanks you, Elizabeth Moore January 26, 2015 7 C Cd% nKv TESTIMONY for public hearing re: An Ordinance Extendin d 4 0. The title and body of the proposed Ordinance are in�nt, an t4 , e iberately misleading TITLE WhereAs Pg. 4 Moratorium Pg. 5 Prohibiting the Production, a moratorium intended to The submission, acceptance, Processing and temporarily prohibit the processing or approval of any Retailing of Recreational acceptance of any development County permit applications for any Marijuana ep rmit application proposed use, development, proposal or project for the production or processing Prohibiting the Production, a moratorium intended to The submission, acceptance, Processing and temporarily prohibit the processing or approval of any Retailing of Recreational acceptance of any development County permit applications for... Marijuana permit application 2. The Findings of the proposed Ordinance are biased and incomplete. Findings, Pg 3. "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 &pplicable land use and development regulations;" There is no mention in the Findings that numerous citizens have also addressed the County Commission during the public comment period, as well as during formal hearings, to the contrary; i.e., that there is no reason to add any additional land use regulations, and that the production of marijuana is no different from the growing of any other crop, some of which are also processed to become drugs, including but not limited to grapes (wine and distilled spirits), hops (beer), grains (distilled spirits), and tobacco (nicotine). 3. The original moratorium and its proposed extension were /will be adopted in violation of JCC 18.45, "The purpose of this chapter is to establish procedures for amending the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan ". The proposed Ordinance refers to the Comprehensive Planning process in several places. JCC 18.45 requires that amendments to the Comprehensive Plan be placed on the agenda for consideration by the Planning Commission not later than November 1 to be considered for the next cycle, unless a specific "emergency" is found by the County Commission that would require action on some other schedule. No emergency has been declared. That is appropriate, as no emergency exists. To require the Planning Commission to take action in direct violation of the well - established process for consideration of land use amendments is inconsistent with the intent and goals of the Comprehensive Planning process, and must stop now. The County Commission should reject all forms of an extension to the existing moratorium and allow all existing and future permit applications to proceed following current law. Tam Thiersch Jefferson County HEARING 4t�uz ��wr t�inJO Jefferson County Commissioners: �L 1 think Jefferson County government and its residents have had pn)bt4hi" to realize that planning for recreational marijuana needed a little more thought and consideration than simply tt eating it as an agricultural plant like corn or cabbage which can be grown anywhere without State regulation. What method or comparison was used to come up with the conclusion that growing marijuana is like growing corn? • You don't need criminal background checks to grow corn. • You don't need criminal background checks for employees. • You don't need lights, cameras, security fences, barcodes and a license to grow corn. • You don't find the hallucinogenic compound THC in corn. • You don't have to be 1,000 feet from anything to grow corn. If marijuana is treated like any other agricultural plant, then the passage of 502 has effectively changed • the designated character and, most importantly, the purpose of residential property in Jefferson County. Does Jefferson County lack enough commercial property—is that the reason for allowing marijuana growing and processing in residential neighborhoods? I did not buy residential property and build a home to live next door to a neighbor with a commercial facility and all that comes with it. Other Washington counties, including Clallam and K'itsap, have adopted reasonable and fair regulations to protect residential neighborhoods. I strongly support extending the current moratorium so that restricting marijuana growing from residential property can be put into place for Jefferson County. John Hacko 402 Larson Lake Road, Chimacum (360) 732 -4457 • From: Kathleen Kier Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 7:18 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: O'Dell family corrections From: 1 Ball Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 7:18:41 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: David Sullivan; Kathleen Kier; Phil Johnson Subject: O'Dell family corrections 1 would like to state, for the record, that I have attempted to correct the misinformation continuously repeated by the O'Dell family. It is not true that banks will not do business with weed farmers. It is also not true that the O'Dells are prohibited from building a daycare or park within 1000' of their local production facility. That is a requirement imposed upon the 502 businesses, not anyone else. Jean Ball Julie Shannon From: David Sullivan Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 7:18 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: O'Dell family corrections From: J Ball Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 7:18:41 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: David Sullivan; Kathleen Kler; Phil Johnson Subject: O'Dell family corrections I would like to state, for the record, that I have attempted to correct the misinformation continuously repeated by the O'Dell family. It is not true that banks will not do business with weed farmers. It is also not true that the O'Dells are prohibited from building a daycare or park within 1000' of their local production facility. That is a requirement imposed upon the 502 businesses, not anyone else. Jean Bali Julie Shannon From: Phil Johnson Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 7:18 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: O'Dell family corrections From: J Ball Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 7:18:41 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: David Sullivan; Kathleen Kler; Phil Johnson Subject: O'Dell family corrections I would like to state, for the record, that I have attempted to correct the misinformation continuously repeated by the O'Dell family. It is not true that banks will not do business with weed farmers. It is also not true that the O'Dells are prohibited from building a daycare or park within 1000' of their local production facility. That is a requirement imposed upon the 502 businesses, not anyone else. Jean Ball Julie Shannon From: Phil Johnson Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 6:18 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Notes to BoCC Jan 26, 2015 Public hearing on morat From: gnarleydogfarm @gmail.com Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 6:18:57 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: David Sullivan; Kathleen Kier; Phil Johnson Subject: Notes to BoCC Jan 26, 2015 Public hearing on morat Notes to BoCC Jan 26, 2015 Public hearing on moratorium extension. Jean Ball, Chimacum landowner am here to urge you to select option I ... to take no further action and end the moratorium now. I believe the individual members of the BoCC take their decisions seriously and have taken efforts to gain a comprehensive understanding of this issue, investigating arguments from many aspects of this issue. It appears to me that this Board grasps the intellectual depth and keen sense of social stewardship that are required to wade through the kaleidoscope that is the legalization of Cannabis. I'd like you to consider the vast array of complaints before you and ask yourselves a single question: Are there any questions or concerns not yet properly managed? I believe the answer to that question is an unequivocally no. I can address all of the complaints with information that has already been determined. I do not believe this board wishes to second guess the authors of the long- standing Jefferson County Unified Development Code. Personally, I find it to be an inappropriate and unnecessary tactic because this compendious document provides ample guidance for the agricultural land use of production and processing of Cannabis. The Cottage Industry permit process addresses: employee numbers, hours of operation, parking, maximum building size, landscaping and privacy screens, water run -off and Salmon habitat, air quality, noise, a provision that the administrator may attach additional conditions or requirements as seen fit, etc. These documents are far from loose, despite DCD's claims that these issues are not covered. 18.20.170 Cottage industry I have offered you perspective from both sides of the coin. 1 have offered solution, after option, after insight, after clarification, after discerning bit of information. have worked tirelessly, for years, to gather and share information. I have bent over backwards to share accurate information with you and everyone who would listen to me. I have been as reliable as I can possibly be. I have not mislead you about anything. 1 have not lied to you about anything. I have not stretched any truths. ........................ ............................... When New York State ended prohibition of alcohol in 1933, it was not legal to brew your own beer, but now, the POTUS makes home -brew in the White House. Just a glimpse of what prohibition looked like: Many residents of New York state had hoped that Prohibition (1920 -1933) would reduce crime, improve health and safety, promote economic prosperity, and increase public morality. However, experience would prove the Noble Experiment to fail on all counts. Mob - controlled liquor quickly replaced legitimate tax - paying alcohol producers and retailers. Gangster -owned speakeasies replaced neighborhood drinking establishments and within five years after Prohibition was imposed, there were over 100,000 speakeasies in New York City alone by some estimates. So many speakeasies operated that New York was known as the "City on a Still." Sound familiar? Do you want the black market or do you want tax - paying, legal, transparent, honest, hard- working citizens, running a legitimate business and employing Jefferson County residents? Julie Shannon From: Kathleen Kier Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 6:18 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Notes to BoCC Jan 26, 2015 Public hearing on morat From: gnarleydogfarm @gmail.com Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 6:18:57 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: David Sullivan; Kathleen Kier-, Phil Johnson Subject: Notes to BoCC Jan 26, 2015 Public hearing on morat Notes to BoCC Jan 26, 2015 Public hearing on moratorium extension. Jean Ball, Chimacum landowner I am here to urge you to select option I ... to take no further action and end the moratorium now. I believe the individual members of the BoCC take their decisions seriously and have taken efforts to gain a comprehensive understanding of this issue, investigating arguments from many aspects of this issue. It appears to me that this Board grasps the intellectual depth and keen sense of social stewardship that are required to wade through the kaleidoscope that is the legalization of Cannabis. I'd like you to consider the vast array of complaints before you and ask yourselves a single question: Are there any questions or concerns not yet properly managed? I believe the answer to that question is an unequivocally no. 1 can address all of the complaints with information that has already been determined. I do not believe this board wishes to second guess the authors of the long- standing Jefferson County Unified Development Code. Personally, I find it to be an inappropriate and unnecessary tactic because this compendious document provides ample guidance for the agricultural land use of production and processing of Cannabis. The Cottage Industry permit process addresses: employee numbers, hours of operation, parking, maximum building size, landscaping and privacy screens, water run -off and Salmon habitat, air quality, noise, a provision that the administrator may attach additional conditions or requirements as seen fit, etc. These documents are far from loose, despite DCD's claims that these issues are not covered. 18.20.170 Cottage industry I have offered you perspective from both sides of the coin. I have offered solution, after option, after insight, after clarification, after discerning bit of information. I have worked tirelessly, for years, to gather and share information. I have bent over backwards to share accurate information with you and everyone who would listen to me. I have been as reliable as I can possibly be. have not mislead you about anything. have not lied to you about anything. have not stretched any truths. When New York State ended prohibition of alcohol in 1933, it was not legal to brew your own beer, but now, the POTUS makes home -brew in the White House. Just a glimpse of what prohibition looked like: Many residents of New York state had hoped that Prohibition (1920 -1933) would reduce crime, improve health and safety, promote economic prosperity, and increase public morality. However, experience would prove the Noble Experiment to fail on all counts. Mob - controlled liquor quickly replaced legitimate tax - paying alcohol producers and retailers. Gangster -owned speakeasies replaced neighborhood drinking establishments and within five years after Prohibition was imposed, there were over 100,000 speakeasies in New York City alone by some estimates. So many speakeasies operated that New York was known as the "City on a Still." Sound familiar? Do you want the black market or do you want tax - paying, legal, transparent, honest, hard- working citizens, running a legitimate business and employing Jefferson County residents? Julie Shannon From: David Sullivan Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 6:18 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Notes to BoCC Jan 26, 2015 Public hearing on morat From: gnarleydogfarm @gmail.com Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 6:18:57 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: David Sullivan; Kathleen Kler; Phil Johnson Subject: Notes to BoCC Jan 26, 2015 Public hearing on morat Notes to BoCC Jan 26, 2015 Public hearing on moratorium extension. Jean Ball, Chimacum landowner I am here to urge you to select option I ... to take no further action and end the moratorium now. I believe the individual members of the BoCC take their decisions seriously and have taken efforts to gain a comprehensive understanding of this issue, investigating arguments from many aspects of this issue. It appears to me that this Board grasps the intellectual depth and keen sense of social stewardship that are required to wade through the kaleidoscope that is the legalization of Cannabis. 1'd like you to consider the vast array of complaints before you and ask yourselves a single question: Are there any questions or concerns not yet properly managed? I believe the answer to that question is an unequivocally no. I can address all of the complaints with information that has already been determined. 1 do not believe this board wishes to second guess the authors of the long- standing Jefferson County Unified Development Code. Personally, I find it to be an inappropriate and unnecessary tactic because this compendious document provides ample guidance for the agricultural land use of production and processing of Cannabis. The Cottage Industry permit process addresses: employee numbers, hours of operation, parking, maximum building size, landscaping and privacy screens, water run -off and Salmon habitat, air quality, noise, a provision that the administrator may attach additional conditions or requirements as seen fit, etc. These documents are far from loose, despite DCD's claims that these issues are not covered. 18.20.170 Cottage industry I have offered you perspective from both sides of the coin. I have offered solution, after option, after insight, after clarification, after discerning bit of information. I have worked tirelessly, for years, to gather and share information. I have bent over backwards to share accurate information with you and everyone who would listen to me. I have been as reliable as I can possibly be. I have not mislead you about anything. I have not lied to you about anything. I have not stretched any truths. When New York State ended prohibition of alcohol in 1933, it was not legal to brew your own beer, but now, the POTUS makes home -brew in the White House. Just a glimpse of what prohibition looked like Many residents of New York state had hoped that Prohibition (1920 -1933) would reduce crime, improve health and safety, promote economic prosperity, and increase public morality. However, experience would prove the Noble Experiment to fail on all counts. Mob - controlled liquor tluickly replaced legitimate tax - paying alcohol producers and retailers. Gangster -owned speakeasies replaced neighborhood drinking establishments and within five years after Prohibition was imposed, there were over 100,000 speakeasies in New York City alone by some estimates. So many speakeasies operated that New York was known as the "City on a Still." Sound familiar? Do you want the black market or do you want tax - paying, legal, transparent, honest, hard- working citizens, running a legitimate business and employing Jefferson County residents? Julie Shannon From: Kathleen Kler Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 2:49 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Rural Marijuana Production and Processing From: ryan ball Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 2:50:06 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Phil Johnson; Kathleen Kier; David Sullivan Subject: Rural Marijuana Production and Processing Hello As a Jefferson County landowner I support rural resident marijuana production and processing. I urge you to for vote Option I ... to take no further action in regards to the marijuana moratorium. Thank you Ryan Ball Julie Shannon From: Phil Johnson Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 2:49 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Rural Marijuana Production and Processing From: ryan ball Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 2:50:06 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Phil Johnson; Kathleen Kier; David Sullivan Subject: Rural Marijuana Production and Processing Hello As a Jefferson County landowner I support rural resident marijuana production and processing. I urge you to for vote Option I ...to take no further action in regards to the marijuana moratorium. Thank you Ryan Ball Julie Shannon From: David Sullivan Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 2:49 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Rural Marijuana Production and Processing From: ryan ball Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 2:50:06 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Phil Johnson; Kathleen Kler; David Sullivan Subject: Rural Marijuana Production and Processing Hello As a Jefferson County landowner I support rural resident marijuana production and processing. I urge you to for vote Option I ... to take no further action in regards to the marijuana moratorium. Thank you Ryan Ball Julie Shannon From: Kathleen Kier Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 3:01 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Comments for BOCC and Planning Commission Deliberations on Marijuana Moratorium and Code revisions.docx Jan 26 version.docx Attachments: Comments for BOCC and Planning Commission Deliberations on Marijuana Moratorium and Code revisions.docx Jan 26 version.docx From: steve ramsey Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 3:02:24 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Philip Morley; David Sullivan; Kathleen Kier; Phil Johnson Cc: sramsey @optonline.net; hirschlaw; karenpage777 @gmail.com; Marjorie Boyd; Kristina Mayer; Carl Smith; 'Peter Davis' Subject: Comments for BOCC and Planning Commission Deliberations on Marijuana Moratorium and Code revisions.docx Jan 26 version.docx Dear Commissioners and Administrator Morley, attached are comments regarding the Moratorium and Planning Commission review of marijuana regulation in Jefferson County. Please place it in the record for these proceedings . Thank you for the opportunity to comment and participate. Regards Steve ramsey Comments for BOCC and Planning Commission on Marijuana Moratorium and Code Revisions The Moratorium Should be Extended in ALL zones with NO Exceptions or Exclusions. 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. The County was prudent to put the Moratorium in place. Take the time to get it right. This is a "one time only" opportunity. The Planning Commission has barely begun its work and should be given a chance to evaluate fully siting and related issues. The Planning Commission should not be pre - empted by exempting some parcels which would allow more than Y2 the pending applications to go forward in a piecemeal fashion without considering them as part of overall approach. This includes areas which may be "vested" because if those applications are denied or withdrawn in the future, the County should not leave those areas unregulated. Allowing exceptions to the Moratorium undercuts the purpose of having a Moratorium and creates economic disadvantages for those covered by the Moratorium. It would also be unfair to neighbors who have been denied a meaningful opportunity to express their views to protect their property and quality of life. HOW SHOULD MARIJUANA BE REGULATED? Don't experiment with our neighborhoods and quality of life: a measured and conservative approach to regulation is preferable to a "light touch" approach which could result in unintended, irremediable consequences. Marijuana production and processing should be sited in industrial and commercial areas where it is compatible with existing uses and not where it will impact existing residential areas. Special consideration should be given to protect existing residential areas even in industrial or commercial zones and rural Ag and forest land. It is the residential character not the technical zoning which should predominate. Marijuana production and processing should be sited in industrial and commercial areas where it is compatible with existing uses and not where it will impact existing residential areas. Special consideration should be given to protect existing residential areas even in industrial or commercial zones or rural forest land. AGRICULTURE OR NOT: AN UNNECESSARY COMPLICATION Many of the problems with the County's approach to regulating marijuana stem from the inappropriate attempt to characterize marijuana production and processing as agriculture. Marijuana production and processing are not entitled to the "right to farm" provisions of the Jefferson County Code because they are not agriculture under Washington law and are illegal activities under federal Law. Marijuana production and processing and are not agriculture under Washington law. In addition, the Jefferson County Code requires agriculture to be performed in accordance with Federal law which is impossible since marijuana is a controlled substance, the possession and sale of which are illegal under Federal law. The agreement by the US Department of Justice to exercise prosecutorial discretion regarding marijuana prosecutions does not mean that marijuana production and processing are in compliance with Federal Law. The agreement to exercise prosecutorial discretion cannot and does not supersede Federal Law. Marijuana production and processing should be sited in industrial and commercial areas where it is compatible with existing uses, where the risks to people and property can be minimized, and not where it will impact existing residential areas. FIRE,EXPLOSION AND RELATED RISKS HAVE NOT BEEN EVALUATED The personal safety, fire, explosion and other risks associated with marijuana production and processing are neither "speculative "nor trivial as dozens of news stories demonstrate. The risks of siting marijuana production or processing facilities in residential or rural areas have not been evaluated by Jefferson County and should be part of the Planning Commission review and of any siting decision made by Jefferson County. Siting marijuana production or processing facilities in residential or remote rural areas presents an unacceptable risk to nearby residents and may subject the County to liability in the event of a catastrophic event. PROTECTING RESIDENTIAL AREAS IS IMPORTANT Residents in areas like Maplewood Meadows and in rural areas have invested millions of dollars in their properties, neighborhoods, and carefully chosen quality of life. Any approach to regulating marijuana production and processing should protect existing residential areas even in industrial or commercial zones and in rural forest land. There is no basis for excluding parcels from the Moratorium on the basis of size or application status. JEFFERSON COUNTY SHOULD HAVE A PERMIT SYSTEM FOR PRODUCTION Jefferson County has no meaningful permit system for evaluating and granting permits to produce marijuana. Once the LCB grants a license, Jefferson County does not have a meaningful system to notify and given neighbors the right to voice their objections to siting a marijuana production operation. Jefferson County says it relies on Washington State Liquor Control Board (LCB) In fact the LCB has no meaningful regulations with regards to authorizing and siting marijuana production facilities. It gives neighbors no notice or other rights in the licensing process. The County knows that the LCB has delegated to the County the authority 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. 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. SUGGESTONS FOR THE BOCC AND PLANNING COMMISSION Any system to regulate marijuana in Jefferson County should: 1. provide for notice to nearby residents of the proposed siting of such facilities in their neighborhood. 2. provide an opportunity for nearby residents to voice objections to siting such facilities and obtain a fair hearing on those objections, including both production and /or processing. 3. minimize disruption of or placement of such facilities in established residential neighborhoods or neighborhoods where residential is a significant part of the use in the proposed siting area. 4. include all parcels regardless of size, such as rural forest 1 -40 and not allow them to be unregulated. 5. ascertain that legal requirements regarding access to water, waste generation, adequacy of septic, well metering, and the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) are met prior to issuing any permits which would allow marijuana to be produced or processed. 6. establish a Jefferson County permit system for production of marijuana which would give neighbors notice of proposed siting, the right to object and get a hearing on those objections, and require compliance with applicable environmental and quality of life standards. 7. avoid approving any marijuana operation which would be inconsistent with current use and enjoyment of adjoining property or would conflict with, interfere with or interrupt in any way the current use and quiet enjoyment of adjoining property Jefferson County should regulate marijuana in such a way that it balances the needs of those desiring to enter the marijuana business with the concerns of residents regarding the potential negative impacts of siting marijuana processing and production operations in their neighborhoods on their quality of life, property values, personal safety and security, environmental consequences and personal value systems. It is possible to have vibrant neighborhoods and a vibrant marijuana business. There is still time to put to act to ensure this comes to fruition. Apply the precautionary principle which has been the hall mark of environmental, public health and safety regulations for decades. Respectfully, Steve Ramsey 581 S Bay Way Port Ludlow Washington 98365 Julie Shannon From: David Sullivan Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 3:01 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Comments for BOCC and Planning Commission Deliberations on Marijuana Moratorium and Code revisions.docx Jan 26 version.docx Attachments: Comments for BOCC and Planning Commission Deliberations on Marijuana Moratorium and Code revisions.docx Jan 26 version.docx From: steve ramsey Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 3:02:24 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Philip Morley; David Sullivan; Kathleen Kler; Phil Johnson Cc: sramsey @optonline.net; hirschlaw; karenpage777 @gmail.com; Marjorie Boyd; Kristina Mayer; Carl Smith; 'Peter Davis' Subject: Comments for BOCC and Planning Commission Deliberations on Marijuana Moratorium and Code revisions.docx Jan 26 version.docx Dear Commissioners and Administrator Morley, attached are comments regarding the Moratorium and Planning Commission review of marijuana regulation in Jefferson County. Please place it in the record for these proceedings . Thank you for the opportunity to comment and participate. Regards Steve ramsey Comments for BOCC and Planning Commission on Marijuana Moratorium and Code Revisions The Moratorium Should be Extended in ALL zones with NO Exceptions or Exclusions. 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. The County was prudent to put the Moratorium in place. Take the time to get it right. This is a "one time only" opportunity. The Planning Commission has barely begun its work and should be given a chance to evaluate fully siting and related issues. The Planning Commission should not be pre - empted by exempting some parcels which would allow more than %z the pending applications to go forward in a piecemeal fashion without considering them as part of overall approach. This includes areas which may be "vested" because if those applications are denied or withdrawn in the future, the County should not leave those areas unregulated. Allowing exceptions to the Moratorium undercuts the purpose of having a Moratorium and creates economic disadvantages for those covered by the Moratorium. It would also be unfair to neighbors who have been denied a meaningful opportunity to express their views to protect their property and quality of life. HOW SHOULD MARIJUANA BE REGULATED? Don't experiment with our neighborhoods and quality of life: a measured and conservative approach to regulation is preferable to a "light touch" approach which could result in unintended, irremediable consequences. Marijuana production and processing should be sited in industrial and commercial areas where it is compatible with existing uses and not where it will impact existing residential areas. Special consideration should be given to protect existing residential areas even in industrial or commercial zones and rural Ag and forest land. It is the residential character not the technical zoning which should predominate. Marijuana production and processing should be sited in industrial and commercial areas where it is compatible with existing uses and not where it will impact existing residential areas. Special consideration should be given to protect existing residential areas even in industrial or commercial zones or rural forest land. AGRICULTURE OR NOT: AN UNNECESSARY COMPLICATION Many of the problems with the County's approach to regulating marijuana stem from the inappropriate attempt to characterize marijuana production and processing as agriculture. Marijuana production and processing are not entitled to the "right to farm" provisions of the Jefferson County Code because they are not agriculture under Washington law and are illegal activities under federal Law. Marijuana production and processing and are not agriculture under Washington law. In addition, the Jefferson County Code requires agriculture to be performed in accordance with Federal law which is impossible since marijuana is a controlled substance, the possession and sale of which are illegal under Federal law. The agreement by the US Department of Justice to exercise prosecutorial discretion regarding marijuana prosecutions does not mean that marijuana production and processing are in compliance with Federal Law. The agreement to exercise prosecutorial discretion cannot and does not supersede Federal Law. Marijuana production and processing should be sited in industrial and commercial areas where it is compatible with existing uses, where the risks to people and property can be minimized, and not where it will impact existing residential areas. FIRE,EXPLOSION AND RELATED RISKS HAVE NOT BEEN EVALUATED The personal safety, fire, explosion and other risks associated with marijuana production and processing are neither "speculative "nor trivial as dozens of news stories demonstrate. The risks of siting marijuana production or processing facilities in residential or rural areas have not been evaluated by Jefferson County and should be part of the Planning Commission review and of any siting decision made by Jefferson County. Siting marijuana production or processing facilities in residential or remote rural areas presents an unacceptable risk to nearby residents and may subject the County to liability in the event of a catastrophic event. PROTECTING RESIDENTIAL AREAS IS IMPORTANT Residents in areas like Maplewood Meadows and in rural areas have invested millions of dollars in their properties, neighborhoods, and carefully chosen quality of life. Any approach to regulating marijuana production and processing should protect existing residential areas even in industrial or commercial zones and in rural forest land. There is no basis for excluding parcels from the Moratorium on the basis of size or application status. JEFFERSON COUNTY SHOULD HAVE A PERMIT SYSTEM FOR PRODUCTION Jefferson County has no meaningful permit system for evaluating and granting permits to produce marijuana. Once the LCB grants a license, Jefferson County does not have a meaningful system to notify and given neighbors the right to voice their objections to siting a marijuana production operation. Jefferson County says it relies on Washington State Liquor Control Board (LCB) In fact the LCB has no meaningful regulations with regards to authorizing and siting marijuana production facilities. It gives neighbors no notice or other rights in the licensing process. The County knows that the LCB has delegated to the County the authority 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. 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. SUGGESTONS FOR THE BOCC AND PLANNING COMMISSION Any system to regulate marijuana in Jefferson County should: 1. provide for notice to nearby residents of the proposed siting of such facilities in their neighborhood. 2. provide an opportunity for nearby residents to voice objections to siting such facilities and obtain a fair hearing on those objections, including both production and /or processing. 3. minimize disruption of or placement of such facilities in established residential neighborhoods or neighborhoods where residential is a significant part of the use in the proposed siting area. 4. include all parcels regardless of size, such as rural forest 1 -40 and not allow them to be unregulated. 5. ascertain that legal requirements regarding access to water, waste generation, adequacy of septic, well metering, and the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) are met prior to issuing any permits which would allow marijuana to be produced or processed. 6. establish a Jefferson County permit system for production of marijuana which would give neighbors notice of proposed siting, the right to object and get a hearing on those objections, and require compliance with applicable environmental and quality of life standards. 7. avoid approving any marijuana operation which would be inconsistent with current use and enjoyment of adjoining property or would conflict with, interfere with or interrupt in any way the current use and quiet enjoyment of adjoining property Jefferson County should regulate marijuana in such a way that it balances the needs of those desiring to enter the marijuana business with the concerns of residents regarding the potential negative impacts of siting marijuana processing and production operations in their neighborhoods on their quality of life, property values, personal safety and security, environmental consequences and personal value systems. It is possible to have vibrant neighborhoods and a vibrant marijuana business. There is still time to put to act to ensure this comes to fruition. Apply the precautionary principle which has been the hall mark of environmental, public health and safety regulations for decades. Respectfully, Steve Ramsey 581 S Bay Way Port Ludlow Washington 98365 Julie Shannon From: Phil Johnson Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 3:01 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Comments for BOCC and Planning Commission Deliberations on Marijuana Moratorium and Code revisions.docx Jan 26 version.docx Attachments: Comments for BOCC and Planning Commission Deliberations on Marijuana Moratorium and Code revisions.docx Jan 26 version.docx From: steve ramsey Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 3:02:24 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Philip Morley; David Sullivan; Kathleen Kler; Phil Johnson Cc: sramsey @optonline.net; hirschlaw; karenpage777 @gmail.com; Marjorie Boyd; Kristina Mayer; Carl Smith; 'Peter Davis' Subject: Comments for BOCC and Planning Commission Deliberations on Marijuana Moratorium and Code revisions.docx Jan 26 version.docx Dear Commissioners and Administrator Morley, attached are comments regarding the Moratorium and Planning Commission review of marijuana regulation in Jefferson County. Please place it in the record for these proceedings . Thank you for the opportunity to comment and participate. Regards Steve ramsey Comments for BOCC and Planning Commission on Marijuana Moratorium and Code Revisions The Moratorium Should be Extended in ALL zones with NO Exceptions or Exclusions. 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. The County was prudent to put the Moratorium in place. Take the time to get it right. This is a "one time only" opportunity. The Planning Commission has barely begun its work and should be given a chance to evaluate fully siting and related issues. The Planning Commission should not be pre - empted by exempting some parcels which would allow more than %: the pending applications to go forward in a piecemeal fashion without considering them as part of overall approach. This includes areas which may be "vested" because if those applications are denied or withdrawn in the future, the County should not leave those areas unregulated. Allowing exceptions to the Moratorium undercuts the purpose of having a Moratorium and creates economic disadvantages for those covered by the Moratorium. It would also be unfair to neighbors who have been denied a meaningful opportunity to express their views to protect their property and quality of life. HOW SHOULD MARIJUANA BE REGULATED? Don't experiment with our neighborhoods and quality of life: a measured and conservative approach to regulation is preferable to a "light touch" approach which could result in unintended, irremediable consequences. Marijuana production and processing should be sited in industrial and commercial areas where it is compatible with existing uses and not where it will impact existing residential areas. Special consideration should be given to protect existing residential areas even in industrial or commercial zones and rural Ag and forest land. It is the residential character not the technical zoning which should predominate. Marijuana production and processing should be sited in industrial and commercial areas where it is compatible with existing uses and not where it will impact existing residential areas. Special consideration should be given to protect existing residential areas even in industrial or commercial zones or rural forest land. AGRICULTURE OR NOT: AN UNNECESSARY COMPLICATION Many of the problems with the County's approach to regulating marijuana stem from the inappropriate attempt to characterize marijuana production and processing as agriculture. Marijuana production and processing are not entitled to the "right to farm" provisions of the Jefferson County Code because they are not agriculture under Washington law and are illegal activities under federal Law. Marijuana production and processing and are not agriculture under Washington law. In addition, the Jefferson County Code requires agriculture to be performed in accordance with Federal law which is impossible since marijuana is a controlled substance, the possession and sale of which are illegal under Federal law. The agreement by the US Department of Justice to exercise prosecutorial discretion regarding marijuana prosecutions does not mean that marijuana production and processing are in compliance with Federal Law. The agreement to exercise prosecutorial discretion cannot and does not supersede Federal Law. Marijuana production and processing should be sited in industrial and commercial areas where it is compatible with existing uses, where the risks to people and property can be minimized, and not where it will impact existing residential areas. FIRE,EXPLOSION AND RELATED RISKS HAVE NOT BEEN EVALUATED The personal safety, fire, explosion and other risks associated with marijuana production and processing are neither "speculative "nor trivial as dozens of news stories demonstrate. The risks of siting marijuana production or processing facilities in residential or rural areas have not been evaluated by Jefferson County and should be part of the Planning Commission review and of any siting decision made by Jefferson County. Siting marijuana production or processing facilities in residential or remote rural areas presents an unacceptable risk to nearby residents and may subject the County to liability in the event of a catastrophic event. PROTECTING RESIDENTIAL AREAS IS IMPORTANT Residents in areas like Maplewood Meadows and in rural areas have invested millions of dollars in their properties, neighborhoods, and carefully chosen quality of life. Any approach to regulating marijuana production and processing should protect existing residential areas even in industrial or commercial zones and in rural forest land. There is no basis for excluding parcels from the Moratorium on the basis of size or application status. JEFFERSON COUNTY SHOULD HAVE A PERMIT SYSTEM FOR PRODUCTION Jefferson County has no meaningful permit system for evaluating and granting permits to produce marijuana. Once the LCB grants a license, Jefferson County does not have a meaningful system to notify and given neighbors the right to voice their objections to siting a marijuana production operation. Jefferson County says it relies on Washington State Liquor Control Board (LCB) In fact the LCB has no meaningful regulations with regards to authorizing and siting marijuana production facilities. It gives neighbors no notice or other rights in the licensing process. The County knows that the LCB has delegated to the County the authority 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. 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. SUGGESTONS FOR THE BOCC AND PLANNING COMMISSION Any system to regulate marijuana in Jefferson County should: 1. provide for notice to nearby residents of the proposed siting of such facilities in their neighborhood. 2. provide an opportunity for nearby residents to voice objections to siting such facilities and obtain a fair hearing on those objections, including both production and /or processing. 3. minimize disruption of or placement of such facilities in established residential neighborhoods or neighborhoods where residential is a significant part of the use in the proposed siting area. 4. include all parcels regardless of size, such as rural forest 1 -40 and not allow them to be unregulated. S. ascertain that legal requirements regarding access to water, waste generation, adequacy of septic, well metering, and the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) are met prior to issuing any permits which would allow marijuana to be produced or processed. 6. establish a Jefferson County permit system for production of marijuana which would give neighbors notice of proposed siting, the right to object and get a hearing on those objections, and require compliance with applicable environmental and quality of life standards. 7. avoid approving any marijuana operation which would be inconsistent with current use and enjoyment of adjoining property or would conflict with, interfere with or interrupt in any way the current use and quiet enjoyment of adjoining property Jefferson County should regulate marijuana in such a way that it balances the needs of those desiring to enter the marijuana business with the concerns of residents regarding the potential negative impacts of siting marijuana processing and production operations in their neighborhoods on their quality of life, property values, personal safety and security, environmental consequences and personal value systems. It is possible to have vibrant neighborhoods and a vibrant marijuana business. There is still time to put to act to ensure this comes to fruition. Apply the precautionary principle which has been the hall mark of environmental, public health and safety regulations for decades. Respectfully, Steve Ramsey 581 S Bay Way Port Ludlow Washington 98365 Julie Shannon From: Kathleen Kler Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 4:58 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Comments for BOCC and Planning Commission Deliberations on Marijuana Moratorium and Code revisions.docx Jan 26 version.docx From: sramsey Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 4:58:02 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Kathleen Kier Subject: RE: Comments for BOCC and Planning Commission Deliberations on Marijuana Moratorium and Code revisions.docx Jan 26 version.docx Thanks, Kathleen. A couple of new thoughts. I need to submit a substitute page to clean up some garble.Proofing not my strong suit Sent via the Samsung Galaxy St 5 ACTIVETM, an AT &T 413 LTE smanphone -- - - - - -- Original message -- - - - - -- From: Kathleen Kler <KKler@co.jefferson.wa.us> Date:01 /26/2015 4:39 PM (GMT- 08:00) To: Steve ramsey <sramsey @optonline.net> Cc: Subject: RE: Comments for BOCC and Planning Commission Deliberations on Marijuana Moratorium and Code revisions.docx Jan 26 version.docx Thank you Steve. I was able to read this before the meeting. Kathleen Kathleen Kier Commissioner, District 3 Jefferson County (360) 385 -9100 KKIerCd)co.jefferson.wa. us From: steve ramsey [mailto:sramsey @ optonline.net] Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 3:02 PM To: Philip Morley; David Sullivan; Kathleen Kler; Phil Johnson Cc: sramsey @optonline.net; hirschlaw; karenpage777 @gmail.com; Marjorie Boyd; Kristina Mayer; Carl Smith; 'Peter Davis' Subject: Comments for BOCC and Planning Commission Deliberations on Marijuana Moratorium and Code revisions.docx Jan 26 version.docx Dear Commissioners and Administrator Morley, attached are comments regarding the Moratorium and Planning Commission review of marijuana regulation in Jefferson County. Please place it in the record for these proceedings . Thank you for the opportunity to comment and participate. Regards Steve ramsey From: Tom Thiersch <thiersch- public @usregs.com> Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 2:37 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: TESTIMONY re: An Ordinance Extending and Modifying Ordinance #07- 0811 -14 Attachments: JCC 18.45 highlighted re Moratorium.pdf Commissioners, It is clear that the current moratorium and proposed extension may result in significant changes to the text of the county's current Comprehensive Plan; i.e., the "land use" regulations. Because the county chose to use the moratorium process to, in effect, force changes to the Comp Plan to be made outside of the normal, prescribed, process when no emergency exists to justify such actions, you have placed the county and its taxpayers in legal jeopardy. Please refer to the attached, highlighted printout of JCC 18.45, "Chapter 18.45 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND GMA IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS AMENDMENT PROCESS" The actions that your moratorium has already required the Planning Commission to take (the "work plan" stated in the Moratorium) are completely outside of the normal process and timeline that is required for any amendment to the county's comprehensive plan. By extending that moratorium, you will be extending those extra -legal actions. People whose pending land use applications have been suspended in DCD have already suffered financial losses. You have heard testimony that continuing the present moratorium will make it impossible for producers to plant their crops on time, which will lead to additional, substantial financial losses for which the county can be held liable. The only way to prevent what will surely be a very expensive legal process is to not extend the current moratorium. You should simply allow the current moratorium to lapse. If you want to change the Comp Plan for future growing and processing applications, then you must do so by using the Comp Plan Amendment process and timelines, as mandated by JCC 18.45 and the Growth Management Act. Thank you, Tom Thiersch Jefferson County thiersch-public@usregs.com `,� SAVE PAPER - Please do not print this e-mail unless absolutely necessary. Chapter 18.45 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND GMA IMPLEMENTING REGULATIO... Page 1 of 11 Chapter 18.45 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND GMA IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS AMENDMENT PROCESS Sections: 18.45.010 Amendments — Purpose and introduction. 18.45.020 Annual amendments — Consideration of cumulative effects. . 18.45.030 Exceptions to the annual amendment process. 18.45.040 Applications for Comprehensive Plan amendment. 18.45.050 Compilation of preliminary docket. 18.45.060 Review of preliminary docket — Adoption of final docket. 18.45.070 Final docket — DCD review and recommendation — SEPA review. 18.45.080 Final docket — Planning commission and board of county commissioners review. 18.45.090 Amendments to GMA implemeriting regulations. 18.45.010 Amendments — Purpose and introduction. (1) Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to establish procedures for amending the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, defined for the purposes of this chapter as including the plan text and /or the Land Use Map. The Growth Management Act (GMA, Chapter 36.70A RCW) generally allows amendments to comprehensive plans no more often than once per year, except in emergency situations. This chapter is intended to provide the following: (a) A process whereby the county will compile and maintain a preliminary docket of proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and then select which proposed amendments will be placed on the final docket for review, no more often than once annually; (b) Timelines and procedures for placing formal applications for amendments by interested parties (i.e., project proponents or property owners) on the final docket for review, no more often than once annually; and (c) Criteria for review of the final docket by the Jefferson County planning commission and the Jefferson County board of commissioners. This chapter is also intended to provide a process for the planning commission to monitor and assess the Comprehensive Plan, and based on this review to recommend amendments (if any) to the plan as part of a standardized amendment process. (2) Public Participation. The public participation process set forth in this chapter is intended to solicit from the public suggested amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan for future consideration, and to provide an opportunity for public comment on any proposed amendments. This is achieved by early and continuous public involvement with broad dissemination of proposals and alternatives, opportunity for written comments, public meetings after effective notice, provisions for open discussion, information services, and consideration and response to public comments. (3) Planning Commission Role, The Jefferson County planning commission is an advisory body that shall make recommendations to the county commissioners on all Comprehensive Plan matters, Chapter 18.45 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND GMA IMPLEMENTING REGULATIO... Page 2 of 11 irK*_%*IgamerKt,4enfttD the pl8ntex0and Land Use Map intp terA tgr and subarea plans. (4) Applicability of Chapter 18_40 JCC. Amendments to the text of the Comprehensive Plan, the Land Use Map, and the implementing regulations are legislative, Type V decisions under Chapter 18_40 JCC. Accordingly, all applicable provisions of that chapter apply to the decision - making process adopted in this chapter, regardless of whether or not they are specifically referred to herein. [Ord. 2 -06 § 1] 18.45.020 Annual amendments — Consideration of cumulative effects. Except as provided in JCC 18.45.030, prop *h*WnWft 6theJeff mOn Cam( Comprths000*~shalflbe ©onsiderad by �'tiFr nuitY da ssicnera.nartrtt fi riuentry then antra.jtsry year; Proposals for plan amendment shall be considered concurrently so that the cumulative effect of all items on the final docket will be ascertained. Proposals may be considered at separate meetings or hearings, so long as the final action taken considers the cumulative effect of all the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. [Ord. 2 -06 § 1] 18.45.030 Exceptions to the annual amendment process. (1) Exceptions — Emergencies. In addition to the amendment process set forth in this chapter, the board of county commissioners may amend the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan in any of the following circumstances: (a) Resolution of an emergency condition or situation that involves public health, safety or welfare and when adherence to the amendment process set forth in this chapter would be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, (b) Initial adoption of a subarea plan identified in the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan; (c) The adoption of or amendments to the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program; (d) Technical, nonsubstantive corrections to manifest land use mapping errors which do not involve interpretations of the criteria for the various land use designations contained in the Comprehensive Plan; (e) Resolution of a decision by an administrative agency or court of competent jurisdiction, and (f) Special use permits for essential public facilities under JCC 18.15.110. (2) Determination of Emergency. Situations involving official legal or administrative action (e.g., decisions by the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, state or federal courts, actions of a state agency or office, or the state legislature) affecting Jefferson County will be reviewed by the Jefferson County board of commissioners with advice from the prosecuting attorney's office to determine whether an emergency exists warranting an emergency Comprehensive Plan amendment. [Ord. 2 -06 § 1] 18.45.040 Applications for Comprehensive Plan amendment. (1) Who May Propose Amendments — Application — Fee. Chapter 18.45 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND GMA IMPLEMENTING REGULATIO... Page 3 of 1 I (a) Applications for Formal Site - Specific Amendments. Proponents of land development projects (for multiple sites) and /or property owner(s) or their authorized representative(s), may file an application for a proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan relating to a site - specific proposal ( "formal site - specific amendments "). A fling fee as set forth in the Jefferson County fee ordinance shall accompany applications for site - specific amendments. (b) Applications for Suggested Amendments. Anyone may apply for a "suggested amendment" to the Comprehensive Plan which shall be added to the list of proposed amendments to be maintained by the administrator. Generally, applications for suggested amendments should be limited to proposals that broadly apply to the goals, policies and implementation strategies of the Comprehensive Plan rather than amendments designed to address site - specific issues of limited applicability. The process outlined in JCC 18.45.060 shall govern whether such suggested amendments are considered during the annual review process. No application fee shall be required for applications for suggested amendments. (2) Application Deadline — Form. (a) Deadline. All applications for formal site - specific and suggested amendments shall be submitted to DCD by March 1st of the current calendar year in order to be considered during that year's amendment process; except that county- sponsored proposals to amend the capital facilities element of the Comprehensive Plan may be accepted later than other proposed amendments because of their relationship to the county's annual budget process. (b) Application Form. All proposed amendments (i.e., both formal site - specific and suggested) shall be submitted to DCD on forms provided by the department and shall include the following information, as determined by the administrator to be necessary to evaluate a particular proposal: (i) Name and address of applicant; (ii) A description of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and any associated development proposals, if applicable. Formal site- specific or project- related amendments shall include plans, information and /or studies that accurately depict existing and proposed use(s) and improvements. Proposed site - specific or project- related Comprehensive Plan amendments that do not specify proposed use(s) and potential impacts will be assumed to have maximum impact to the environment and public facilities and services; (iii) Proposed amendatory language, preferably shown in a `bill' format (i.e., new language underlined; language proposed for deletion in strikeouts); (iv) An explanation of the rationale for the proposed amendment; (v) An explanation of how the proposed amendment and associated development proposal (s), if any, conform to, conflict with, or relate to the criteria set forth in JCC 18.45.080(1)(c) and (1)(d), as applicable, (vi) If color copies, maps or other visuals are desired the applicant shall submit 20 color copies; Chapter 18.45 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND GMA IMPLEMENTING REGULATIO... Page 4 of 1 I (vii) A completed SEPA checklist including the supplement sheet for nonproject actions if the application is for a formal site - specific amendment; and (viii) Any additional information reasonably deemed necessary by the administrator to evaluate the proposed amendment. (3) Failure to Comply — Effect. Applications that do not include the information required under subsection (2)(b) of this section, or which are not received by the deadline set forth in subsection (2) (a) of this section, shall not be processed. [Ord. 2 -06 § 1] 18.45.050 Compilation of preliminary docket. (1) Preliminary Docket — Contents. The preliminary docket described more fully in subsections (2) through (4) of this section shall consist of the following: (a) All proposals for formal site - specific amendments; (b) All proposals for suggested amendments; and (c) When applicable, all amendments recommended by the planning commission during its periodic assessment of the Comprehensive Plan. (2) List of Suggested Amendments. Each year, the administrator shall maintain for public review the annual list of suggested amendments made by citizens, the board of county commissioners or members of the board of county commissioners, county staff, county departments or other agencies. By the end of the second full business week of March of each year, this list of suggested amendments shall be compiled into a preliminary docket. JCC 18.45.060 sets forth the process for selecting which suggested amendments will be placed on the final docket to be formally reviewed during the annual review process. (3) Formal Site - Specific Amendments. The preliminary docket shall also include all formal site - specific applications for Comprehensive Plan amendments. Formal site - specific applications for amendments that are properly and timely fled under JCC 18.45.040(2)(a) shall be placed on the final docket for consideration during the current annual amendment process. (4) Planning Commission Periodic Assessment — Recommendations. (a) Periodic Assessment — Timelines. The planning commission shall review, and if necessary, recommend revisions to the Comprehensive Plan during the periodic assessment in accordance with RCW 36.70A.1 30. Tt*planrangCd , ShallooMp 9. ass98&neftd; . C fantYy November l flf> a priorto'tf� smCnt.Anyamendments recommended by a majority vote of the planning commission shall be forwarded to the administrator by March 1 st of the year in which the periodic assessment is conducted. The administrator shall place all such recommended amendments on the preliminary docket to be considered during the final docket selection process set forth in JCC 18.45.060. (b) Criteria Governing Planning Commission Assessment. The planning commission's periodic assessment and recommendation shall be based upon, but shall not be limited to, an inquiry into the following growth management indicators: Chapter 18.45 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND GMA IMPLEMENTING REGULATIO... Page 5 of 11 (i) Whether growth and development as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan is occurring faster or slower than anticipated, or is failing to materialize; (ii) Whether the capacity of the county to provide adequate services has diminished or increased; (iii) Whether sufficient urban land is designated and zoned to meet projected demand and need; (iv) Whether any of the assumptions upon which the plan is based are no longer found to be valid; (v) Whether changes in county -wide attitudes necessitate amendments to the goals of the plan and the basic values embodied within the Comprehensive Plan Vision Statement; (vi) Whether changes in circumstances dictate a need for amendments, (vii) Whether inconsistencies exist between the Comprehensive Plan and the GMA or the Comprehensive Plan and the County -wide Planning Policy for Jefferson County. [Ord. 2 -06 § 11 18.45.060 Review of preliminary docket — Adoption of final docket (1) DCD Review of Preliminary Docket. After compiling the preliminary docket, the administrator shall review the suggested amendments and prepare a report concerning which suggested amendments the administrator believes should be placed on the final docket for consideration during the annual amendment process. In addition to addressing the need, urgency and appropriateness of each suggested amendment, the staff report shall include, but not be limited to, a consideration of the following: (a) The availability of sufficient DCD staff to substantively review the suggested amendments and manage the public review process with available staff; and (b) Anticipated DCD costs and budget for processing the suggested amendments. (2) Optional Board of County Commissioners/ Planning Commission Workshop. The board of county commissioners and planning commission may, but are not required to, hold a noticed joint workshop meeting to gather information regarding the items on the preliminary docket and the administrator's report and recommendation. If held, notice of the joint workshop meeting shall be given by publication in the county's official newspaper at least one time 10 days prior to the date of the meeting and by posting a copy of the meeting notice at the county courthouse, which shall include a statement of the purpose of the joint workshop (3) Planning Commission Hearing — Report and Recommendation. The planning commission shall hold a noticed public hearing to accept public comment regarding the suggested amendments on the preliminary docket. Following the hearing, the planning commission shall prepare a report and recommendation identifying those suggested amendments that it is recommending for consideration by the board of county commissioners during the annual amendment process. The planning commission's recommendation shall be based upon the perceived need, urgency and Chapter 18.45 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND GMA IMPLEMENTING REGULATIO... Page 6 of 11 appropriateness of each suggested amendment. The planning commission's report and recommendation shall also include those proposed amendments resulting from the periodic assessment set forth in JCC 18.45.050(4), as applicable. Notice of the planning commission hearing shall be given by publication in the county's official newspaper at least one time 10 days prior to the date of the meeting and by posting a copy of the hearing notice at the county courthouse, which shall include a statement of the purpose of the hearing. (4) Board of Commissioners Decision — Adoption of Final Docket. (a) Review and Decision Process. By the second regular board of county commissioners meeting in May of each year, the board of county commissioners shall review and consider the planning commission's report and recommended final docket at a regularly scheduled commissioners meeting. The board of county commissioners may adopt the planning commission's recommended final docket without a public hearing; however, in the event that a majority of the board of county commissioners decides to add or subtract suggested amendments, it shall first hold a public hearing, noticed as set forth in subsection (3) of this section, which shall be held by the first board of county commissioners meeting in July. (b) Final Docket — Contents. The final docket as adopted by the board of county commissioners shall include the following: (i) All applications for formal site - specific amendments timely submitted under JCC 18.45.050(3); (ii) Any proposals for suggested amendments which the board of county commissioners elects to consider during the annual amendment process; and (iii) When applicable, any amendments recommended by the planning commission during its periodic assessment of the Comprehensive Plan that the board of county commissioners elects to consider during the amendment process. (c) Effect of Final Adopted Docket. The decision of the board of county commissioners to adopt the final docket does not constitute a decision or recommendation that the substance of any formal site - specific, suggested, or planning commission recommended amendment should be adopted. No additional amendment proposals shall be considered by the county after adoption of the final docket for that year; except for exceptions and emergencies as set forth in JCC 18.45.030, and county- sponsored proposals to amend the capital facilities element of the Comprehensive Plan as set forth in JCC 18.45.040(2)(a). [Ord. 2 -06 § 1] 18.45.070 Final docket— DCD review and recommendation — SEPA review. The final docket as adopted by the board of county commissioners shall first be reviewed and assessed by DCD, and the administrator shall prepare a staff report and recommendation on each proposed amendment. DCD shall also be responsible for conducting SEPA review of all items on the final docket (see Article X of Chapter 18_40 JCC). As appropriate, the administrator shall solicit comments regarding the proposed amendments from the public and /or government agencies. The administrator shall also provide notice and opportunity for public comment as deemed appropriate Chapter 18.45 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND GMA IMPLEMENTING REGULATIO... Page 7 of 11 given the nature of the proposed amendments and consistent with RCW 36.70A.140 and SEPA (Chapter 43.21C RCW and Chapter 197 -11 WAC). [Ord. 2 -06 § 1] 18.45.080 Final docket — Planning commission and board of county commissioners review. (1) Planning Commission Review. All proposed amendments on the final docket shall be reviewed and assessed by the planning commission, which shall make a recommendation to the board of county commissioners after holding at least one open record public hearing. (a) Notice. The hearing before the planning commission shall be noticed by one publication in the official newspaper of the county at least 10 days prior to the date of the hearing and by posting a copy of the notice of hearing in the Jefferson County Courthouse. This notice shall include the following: (i) The purpose(s) of amending and /or updating the Comprehensive Plan; (ii) The deadline for submitting comments on the amendments; and (iii) A tentative hearing schedule; continued hearings may be held by the planning commission but no additional notices need be published. (b), Generally. For all proposed amendments, the planning commission shall develop findings and conclusions and a recommendation which consider the growth management indicators set forth in JCC 18.45.050(4)(b)(i) through (4)(b)(vii), as well as the following: (I) Whether circumstances related to the proposed amendment and /or the area in which it is located have substantially changed since the adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan; (ii) Whether the assumptions upon which the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan is based are no longer valid, or whether new information is available which was not considered during the adoption process or any annual amendments of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, and (iii) Whether the proposed amendment reflects *xTe%* hid 4"fesidents of Jefferson County. (c) Additional Required Findings — Formal Site - Specific Amendments. In addition to the required findings set forth in subsection (1)(b) of this section, in order to recommend approval of a formal site - specific proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan, the planning commission must also make the following findings: (i) The proposed site - specific amendment meets concurrency requirements for transportation and does not adversely affect adopted level of service standards for other public facilities and services (e.g., sheriff, fire and emergency medical services, parks, fire flow, and general governmental services), Chapter 18.45 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND GMA IMPLEMENTING REGULATIO... Page 8 of 11 (ii) The proposed site - specific amendment is consistent with the goals, policies and implementation strategies of the various elements of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan; (iii) The proposed site - specific amendment will not result in probable significant adverse impacts to the county's transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks, and environmental features that cannot be mitigated, and will not place uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned service capabilities; (iv) In the case of a site - specific amendment to the Land Use Map, that the subject parcels are physically suitable for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use development, including, but not limited to, the following: (A) Access, (B) Provision of utilities; and (C) Compatibility with existing and planned surrounding land uses, (v) The proposed site - specific amendment will not create a pressure to change the land use designation of other properties, unless the change of land use designation for other properties is in the long -term best interests of the county as a whole; (vi) The proposed site - specific amendment does not materially affect the land use and population growth projections that are the bases of the Comprehensive Plan; (vii) If within an unincorporated urban growth area (UGA), the proposed site - specific amendment does not materially affect the adequacy or availability of urban facilities and services to the immediate area and the overall UGA; (viii) The proposed amendment is consistent with the Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70A RCW), the County-Wide Planning Policy for Jefferson County, any other applicable inter - jurisdictional policies or agreements, and any other focal, state or federal laws. (d) Recommendation. The planning commission's findings and conclusions shall include a recommendation to the board of county commissioners that the proposed amendment(s) be denied, approved, or approved with conditions or modifications. (2) Board of County Commissioners Review — Appeals. (a) Board of County Commissioners Workshop. The board of county commissioners may first review the recommendation of the planning commission in a workshop meeting(s). (b) Board of County Commissioners Review. The board of county commissioners shall consider the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan at a regularly scheduled meeting. If after considering the matter at the regularly scheduled public meeting the board of county commissioners deems a change in the recommendation of the planning commission to be necessary, the change shall not be incorporated until the board conducts its own public hearing using the procedures set forth under JCC 18.40.310. The hearing shall be noticed by one Chapter 18.45 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND GMA IMPLEMENTING REGULAT1O... Page 9 of 11 publication in the official newspaper of the county at least 10 days prior to the date of the hearing, and by posting copies of the notice of hearing in the Jefferson County Courthouse. The notice and public hearing for proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments may be combined with any notice or public hearing for proposed amendments to the county's Comprehensive Plan implementing regulations (e.g., this code), or for other actions of the board of county commissioners. (c) Criteria for Evaluation of Proposed Plan Amendments. The board of county commissioners shall apply the same criteria as the planning commission as set forth in subsections (1)(b) and (1)(c) of this section, as applicable. (d) Adoption by Ordinance. The board of county commissioners shall adopt any amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan by ordinance. This final action on the docket must be taken by the second regular board meeting in December of each year. (e) Transmittal to State. The administrator shall transmit a copy of any proposed amendment of the Comprehensive Plan to the Washington State Office of Community Development (OCD) at least 60 days prior to the expected date of final action by the board of county commissioners, as consistent with Chapter 36.70A RCW. The administrator shall transmit a copy of any adopted Comprehensive Plan amendment to OCD within 10 days after adoption by the board. (f) Appeals. All appeals to the adoption of an amendment to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan shall be filed with and processed by the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 36.70A RCW. [Ord. 2 -06 § 1] 18.45.090 Amendments to GMA implementing regulations. (1) Initiation. The text of the county's adopted Comprehensive Plan implementing regulations (also referred to within this code as "development regulations ") may be amended at any time, provided the amendment is consistent with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map. When inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map, the amendment shall be processed concurrent with any necessary plan amendments using the process and timelines for plan amendments set forth y in this chapter. � on *. A �', MA0yT �W nit Amiled toyt yilt UnI lio De illift'lhe Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program, or any other official controls required to implement the plan (see RCW 36.70A.030). Proposed amendments, changes, or modifications may be initiated as follows: (a) When consistent with the plan, at any time at the direction of the board of county commissioners or by the planning commission pursuant to RCW 36.70.550; (b) When inconsistent with the plan, under the process and time lines for Comprehensive Plan amendments by any interested person consistent with this chapter; or (c) Immediately following or concurrent with an amendment or amendments to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, the implementing regulations shall be amended to be consistent with the plan and Land Use Map. Chapter 18.45 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND GMA IMPLEMENTING REGULAT... Page 10 of 1 I (2) Notice. (a) Proposed amendments to the implementing regulations pursuant to subsection (1) of this section which must be processed concurrently with an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map shall be processed and noticed in the same manner as plan amendments consistent with this chapter. (b) Notice of any hearing on amendments to the implementing regulations generated by DCD staff, the board of county commissioners or the planning commission outside of the annual Comprehensive Plan amendment process shall be given by one publication in the official newspaper of the county at least 10 days prior to the date of the hearing and by posting a copy of the notice of hearing in the Jefferson County Courthouse. (c) Any additional notice required by state or local law (e.g., statutory notice requirements for amendments to the Shoreline Master Program), or deemed appropriate by the administrator, shall be paid for by the applicant. (3) Planning Commission Review. The planning commission shall hold a public hearing on any amendment(s) to the implementing regulations and shall make a recommendation to the board of county commissioners using the site - specific criteria set forth in JCC 18.45.080(1)(b) and (1)(c), as applicable. (4) Board of County Commissioners Review. The board of county commissioners shall consider the proposed amendments at a regularly scheduled meeting. (a) If after applying the criteria set forth in JCC 18.45.080(1)(b) and (1)(c), as applicable, the board of county commissioners concludes that no change in the recommendation of the planning commission is necessary, the board may make a final determination on the proposed amendment(s) and adopt the amendments as recommended by the planning commission. (b) If after applying the criteria set forth in JCC 18.45. 80(1)(b) and (1)(c), as applicable, the board of county commissioners concludes that a change in the recommendation of the planning commission is necessary, the change shall not be incorporated until the board conducts its own public hearing using the procedures set forth under JCC 18.40.310. The hearing shall be noticed by one publication in the official newspaper of the county at least 10 days prior to the date of the hearing, and by posting copies of the notice of hearing in the Jefferson County Courthouse. The notice and public hearing for proposed amendments to implementing regulations may be combined with any notice or public hearing for proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan or for other actions of the board of county commissioners. (5). 1&Strai9: The el , " a s) to the Nn , *„__ :atleast60df ' )0rt4tl* :dWAoff lacbWbytl*,boaMof. o.ounty oamrAlislopers, as consistent with Chapter 36.70A RCW. The administrator shall transmit a copy of any adopted amendment(s) to the implementing regulations to OCD within 10 days after adoption by the board. Chapter 18.45 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND GMA IMPLEMENTING REGULAT... Page 11 of 11 (6) Appeals. All appeals to the adoption of any amendment(s) to the implementing regulations shall be filed with and processed by the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 36.70A RCW. [Ord. 2 -06 § 11 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 7 -14, passed August 11, 2014. Disclaimer The Clerk of the Board's Office has the official version of the Jefferson County Code. Users should contact the Clerk of the Board's Office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above, n cad V jeffbocc From: Tom Thiersch <thiersch - public @usregs.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 8:21 AM To: jeffbocc Cc: Philip Morley Subject: FW: Read: TESTIMONY re: An Ordinance Extending and Modifying Ordinance #07- 0811 -14 Commissioners, I sent my testimony to you before the published cutoff (end of the Hearing, 1/2612015), and it was delivered to your email system before that cutoff. Yet, my message was not opened by your office until this morning. I do not want my testimony to be disregarded as a consequence of this bad timing. Please provide positive assurance that my testimony has been included in the record for the Hearing. Thank you. Tom Thiersch Jefferson County From: jeffbocc [mailto :jeffbocc @co.jefferson.wa.us] Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 8:10 AM To: Tom Thiersch Subject: Read: TESTIMONY re: An Ordinance Extending and Modifying Ordinance #07- 0811 -14 Your message To: jeffbocc Subject: TESTIMONY re: An Ordinance Extending and Modifying Ordinance #07- 0811 -14 Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 2:37:10 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) was read on Tuesday. January 27, 2015 8:08:31 AM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada). jeffbocc From: jeffbocc Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 10:11 AM To: 'Tom Thiersch' Subject: RE: Read: TESTIMONY re: An Ordinance Extending and Modifying Ordinance #07- 0811 -14 Mr. Thiersch, The County Commissioners accepted Hearing Comments until the close of the Hearing held on Monday, January 26, 2015. Your comment will be included in the Hearing Record and reviewed by the Commissioners prior to deliberation scheduled for Monday, February 2, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. (Location to be determined) Thank you, Julie Shannon Executive Secretary I Jefferson County Commissioners Office 360 385 9100 From: Tom Thiersch [mailto:thiersch - public @usregs.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 8:21 AM To: jeffbocc Cc: Philip Morley Subject: FW: Read: TESTIMONY re: An Ordinance Extending and Modifying Ordinance #07- 0811 -14 Commissioners, I sent my testimony to you before the published cutoff (end of the Hearing, 1/26/2015), and it was delivered to your email system before that cutoff. Yet, my message was not opened by your office until this morning. I do not want my testimony to be disregarded as a consequence of this bad timing. Please provide positive assurance that my testimony has been included in the record for the Hearing. Thank you. Tom Thiersch Jefferson County From: jeffbocc [ma i Ito: jeffbocc @co.iefferson.wa. us] Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 8:10 AM To: Tom Thiersch Subject: Read: TESTIMONY re: An Ordinance Extending and Modifying Ordinance #07- 0811 -14 Your message To:jeffbocc Subject: TESTIMONY re: An Ordinance Extending and Modifying Ordinance #07- 0811 -14 Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 2:37:10 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) was read on Tuesday, January 27, 2015 8:08:31 AM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada). jeffbocc From: Microsoft Outlook To: Tom Thiersch Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 10:11 AM Subject: Relayed: RE: Read: TESTIMONY re: An Ordinance Extending and Modifying Ordinance # 07- 0811 -14 Delivery to these recipients or groups is complete, but no delivery notification was sent by the destination server: Tom Thiersch (tiersch- oublic(o)usregs.com) Subject: RE: Read: TESTIMONY re: An Ordinance Extending and Modifying Ordinance #07- 0811 -14 jeffbocc From: Tom Thiersch <thiersch - public @usregs.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 8:21 AM To: jeffbocc Cc: Philip Morley Subject: FW: Read: TESTIMONY re: An Ordinance Extending and Modifying Ordinance #07- 0811 -14 Commissioners, I sent my testimony to you before the published cutoff (end of the Hearing, 1/26/2015), and it was delivered to your email system before that cutoff. Yet, my message was not opened by your office until this morning. I do not want my testimony to be disregarded as a consequence of this bad timing. Please provide positive assurance that my testimony has been included in the record for the Hearing. Thank you. Tom Thiersch Jefferson County From: jeffbocc [mailto :jeffbocc @co.jefferson.wa.us] Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 8:10 AM To: Tom Thiersch Subject: Read: TESTIMONY re: An Ordinance Extending and Modifying Ordinance #07- 0811 -14 Your message To: jeffbocc Subject: TESTIMONY re: An Ordinance Extending and Modifying Ordinance #07- 0811 -14 Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 2:37:10 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) was read on Tuesday, January 27, 2015 8:08:31 AM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada). jeffbocc From: jeffbocc Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 10:11 AM To: 'Tom Thiersch' Subject: RE: Read: TESTIMONY re: An Ordinance Extending and Modifying Ordinance #07- 0811 -14 Mr. Thiersch, The County Commissioners accepted Hearing Comments until the close of the Hearing held on Monday, January 26, 2015. Your comment will be included in the Hearing Record and reviewed by the Commissioners prior to deliberation scheduled for Monday, February 2, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. (Location to be determined) Thank you, Julie Shannon Executive Secretary I Jefferson County Commissioners Office 360 385 9100 From: Tom Thiersch [mailto:thiersch- public @usregs.comj Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 8:21 AM To: jeffbocc Cc: Philip Morley Subject: FW: Read: TESTIMONY re: An Ordinance Extending and Modifying Ordinance #07- 0811 -14 Commissioners, I sent my testimony to you before the published cutoff (end of the Hearing, 1/26/2015), and it was delivered to your email system before that cutoff. Yet, my message was not opened by your office until this morning. I do not want my testimony to be disregarded as a consequence of this bad timing. Please provide positive assurance that my testimony has been included in the record for the Hearing. Thank you. Tom Thiersch Jefferson County From: jeffbocc [ma i Ito: ieffbocc @ co. ieffe rso n.wa. u sj Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 8:10 AM To: Tom Thiersch Subject: Read: TESTIMONY re: An Ordinance Extending and Modifying Ordinance #07- 0811 -14 Your message To: jeffbocc Subject: TESTIMONY re: An Ordinance Extending and Modifying Ordinance #07- 0811 -14 Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 2:37:10 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) was read on Tuesday, January 27, 2015 8:08:31 AM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada). jeffbocc From: Microsoft Outlook To: Tom Thiersch Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 10:11 AM Subject: Relayed: RE: Read: TESTIMONY re: An Ordinance Extending and Modifying Ordinance # 07- 0811 -14 Delivery to these recipients or groups is complete, but no delivery notification was sent by the destination server: Tom Thiersch (thiersch- public@usregs.com) Subject: RE: Read: TESTIMONY re: An Ordinance Extending and Modifying Ordinance #07- 0811 -14 From: Kyle Craig <kyle_c_craig @yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 5:59 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Marijuana Moratorium Dear Commissioners, Many people uncomfortable with the marijuana industry articulate its high value as reason for concern. Marijuana is expensive because it has been illegal for almost a century, there is no other reason nor justification why a dried cut flower costs thousands of dollars per pound. Dried marijuana flowers are a non- perishable bulk commodity like wheat or rice. Over the past millennia, this crop has been produced using similar cultivation methods to these agronomic crops. Over the last few decades, the clandestine nature and high market value of marijuana has justified the absurdity that is an indoor plant factory. We stopped making gin in bathtubs at the end of alcohol prohibition and marijuana will cease to be grown indoors as soon as the economies of scale associated with the free market come to bear. The idea that marijuana shall continue to be grown indoors under the plant factory model is incorrect. Codifying that marijuana production should only take place within industrial or commercially zoned areas is based on the assumption that it will. Do not underestimate the precedent being set here for other states and municipalities who will examine these same issues in the coming years. One only needs to look around the country at clearly outmoded and ill conceived alcohol regulations laid down in the immediate aftermath of prohibition. An excellent example that affects one of Jefferson County's cherished industries is the strange tax structure imposed on hard cider greater than 7% AB V and carbonated beyond a minimum value. Adding an additional 53.40 per gallon in tax, the rational in the 1930's was that carbonated fruit wine (Champagne) was only drunk by the very wealthy and therefore it should be taxed heavily. While the cider tax may be an inconvenience for ciders and consumers, relegating marijuana production to industrial and commercially zoned areas will kill the industry before it is even bom in Jefferson County, as no significant crop production can be economically produced in these kinds of areas. Moreover, the potential for crops grown in these areas to translocate metals and volatile organic compounds left over from previous industrial or commercial use presents a significant public health threat. Would you consume food crops gown in an industrial area? Some of those arguing against marijuana production in mral residentially zoned areas seem morally opposed to, or uncomfortable with, marijuana and that alone shouldjustify banning it from there presence. If we, as a county are going to start establishing zoning roles based on morality, then there needs to be a moratorium on meat production and fishing to appease the vegetarian members of the population. Zoning and legislative decisions should be based on science and facts, not shrill hysterics. At this unique moment, there is an opportunity to leverage the high value of marijuana towards incorporating sustainable horticultural technology throughout farms in our area. For example, passive, solar thermal greenhouse technology is widely used in China to grow vegetables in sub zero winter conditions with little to no external energy inputs. Local farmers, operating under the razor thin margins of the fresh or wholesale market, cannot normally afford to experiment with new technologies. And yet, all the technologies used to create the environmental conditions needed to grow marijuana can be used to grow new crops and extend the seasonality of existing ones. This opportunity will not last forever, please do not squander it for us all. Kyle Craig Tier 3 Producer applicant, Totipmency, LLC Port Townsend, WA Received after Heating Comment Deadline jeffbocc From: Nancy Pope <ndpope @gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 8:20 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Marijuana moratorium I attended the hearing tonight (1/26/15) and listened to both sides. I support ending the moratorium. The arguments for extending it seemed, to me, to be NIMBY arguments. I don't see how it is fair to side with one group (a neighborhood) over other groups (industrial -zoned property owners and grow operation licensees). By the way, I have no dog in this fight yet I have been aware of this issue almost from the beginning, so accusations of "no notice" hold no weight with me. Thank you for conducting this very informative public hearing. Nancy Pope 2312 Rainier St Port Townsend WA Received after Hearing Comment Deadline jeffbocc From: Matt Daniel <mattdaniel1964 @g mail. com> Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 3:32 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Marijuana moratorium I attended the hearing last night (1/26/15) and listened to both sides. I support ending the moratorium. I believe that this is a business issue, not a moral one. And as I heard last night, several speakers tried to equate the fact that they had recently bought homes in the area and were worried about smells where no marijuana was going to be smoked, just grown. Crime from a business that involves growing and distribution and lowering property value in an area that was designated for what these businesses are doing and have already spent money, just silly. I even heard one speaker bring up lap dancers as if there was going to be a strip club in the area because of this. If they didn't want to own a home in an area that was designated for this, then they should have bought one in an area zoned for such homes. I don't use marijuana because of my job status, but do support it and the right of the people who voted for it and those businesses who have followed the rules and already spent money on this. They don't have time to wait with the money" invested. They have followed the rules that were already in place. They would have never set up shop where they did, if they knew it was against the rules. The legalization of marijuana was voted in by the people almost three years ago, for the life of me, I don't know why it has taken so long for people to get through the red tape. I heard some say, just wait longer and get it right. It is right, and legal. They don't like or want it in or near their back yard now, and never will, so that is what they want to do, drag it on and on but I feel for those who have already invested, they don't have time. Thank you for listening. Matt Daniel Port Townsend, WA. A,� e HEARING RErR My name is Angie O'Dell, and I live at 133 Sandstone Lane, Port Townsend, in the neighborhood Maplewood Meadows, with my husband and 11 month old daughter. I am in favor of extending the moratorium's end date, and the areas it covers. Almost every reason to have the moratorium also applies to marijuana facilities in industrial zones that are next to residential areas. There are currently three marijuana growth and distribution facilities with applications to be built within a few hundred feet of my house, including facilities in an industrial zone next door. I have heard statements made about the marijuana grower's property rights, but if any of the applications near my house are approved, you will be choosing to decrease my property rights. Now if I take steps to have my own home daycare my license application would be denied, because children should not go to a daycare this close to a marijuana facility. Other children are not allowed to stay in a home daycare this close to a marijuana facility, but the county doesn't care about my child that is living there? My property rights are further diminished because my neighborhood is no longer allowed to build a neighborhood park, because parks should not be this close to a marijuana facility. Please tell me, why is Jefferson County stopping other children from spending time in our neighborhood, instead of protecting the ones who live here? This does not make sense, but facts like these have not come to my attention until recently, and they may not have come to yours until recently either. It is very important that we take the time needed to understand all the facts and consequences before ending the moratorium. Please extend the moratorium to prevent any marijuana operation's approval in any zone within 1000 feet of residents until you have had the chance to develop a set of rules and regulations. a0 HEARING RECORD Jacqueline Aase 929 Madison Street Phone: (360) 385 -6027 Port Townsend, WA 98368 .E -mail: aase @waypointcom January 26, 2015 Jefferson County BOCC P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Dear County Commissioners: This is what we know: • Last July, the WA Traffic Safety Commission polled 943 WA citizens and determined 7 out of 10 have or were using cannabis. That was before the start date of legal sales. • The legalization of cannabis passed in Jefferson County overwhelmingly (65 %). • The industry is highly regulated by the state, and the laws incorporate well - defined and strict safety measures. • Jefferson County needs good paying jobs. • Jefferson County needs to increase its tax base. • Property owners have the right to grow legal crops. Does walking past a tobacco farm prompt the smoking of cigarettes? No. Must the mill cease to exist because its odor annoys people':' No. The Drug Policy Alliance Status Report, "Marijuana Regulation in Colorado After Six Months of Retail Sales and 18 Months of Decriminalization" ,nvc_i ;dl po ct�.org : states that according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting data, in Denver there has been a 10.1% decrease in overall crime from 2013 and a 5.2% drop in violent crime; houses in the state appreciated 8.7 percent; and lots of new jobs were created. Cannabis is an agricultural product with special attributes known to be beneficial. Therefore, 1 suggest ending the moratorium and nurturing the industry and economy instead of focusing on hypothetical problems. Thank you for volunteering to make these hard decisions. Sincerely, Jackie and Larry E1ase i � 0, -Se4n tr-rec', r ee i AEARING 26 Jan 2015 Comments to County Commissioners, Gary Johnson, Brinnon, WA Ca k') RE . The County needs to end the moratorium now. If the moratorium is continued or extended, then the fair thing for the County to do is to allow the approximately two dozen businesses that applied for 1 -502 producer or processor licenses with the State prior to the enactment of the current moratorium to be considered vested as far as County permitting and licensing is concerned, using the criteria that was briefed to the Commissioners on October 14, 2013 —That no restrictions needed to be placed on marijuana production other than the State requirements. The right time to enact a moratorium or communicate restrictions would have been in October of 2013, prior to the application window, or perhaps even in January of 2014, after 24 applications (including those in Port Townsend) had been received by the County from the WSLCB. Instead of enacting a moratorium last January or enacting timely restrictions, you sat by and let each applicant spend thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours going through the intricate and involved State license application process. During all this time the State was redefining rules almost weekly for the first few months. . All this time taking the county at their ward, that they would be allowed to be Icensed in J Person County. And then came the lightning bolt out of the blue. In August of last year, about the same time that most of the applicants had completed enough or the State application process in order to start applying frr, permits, c ; the moratorium. This action has been devastating. If the County had said from the beginning that production would not be allowed at the location that they had applied for THEY WOULD HAVE NOT APPLIED FOR THAT LOCATION, OR MOVED THE APPLICATION LOCATION, OR MOVED OUT OF THE COUNTY, OR THEY WOULD HAVE THEY MAY HAVE WITHDRAWN THE APPLICATION. At this point, for many of these applicants, it is too late to change locations, the money has been spent and anticipated revenues have not materialized due to the moratorium. Allowing these businesses to proceed will save the County a lot of money and earn the County a lot of money when HB1165 or something similar passes the State Legislature. HB1165 allows local jurisdictions to receive 10% of excise tax collected by the State to go to the local jurisdiction where the 1 -502 business is physically located. 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 H- 0406.1 HOUSE BILL 1165 64(;� 1DkKs-P, State of Washington 64th Legislature 2015 Regular Session By Representatives Condotta, Reykdal, Holy, Scott, Vick, Magendanz, Hargrove, Harmsworth, Senn, Tharinger, Springer, Muri, and Rodne Read first time 01/14/15. Referred to Committee on Commerce & Gaming. JAN 2 6 2015 AN ACT Relating to the establishment of a dedicated local jurisdiction marijuana fund and the distribution of a specified percentage of marijuana excise tax revenues to local jurisdictions; amending RCW 69.50.530, 69.50.535, and 69.50.540; providing an effect�,j.ye, date; and declaring ail emergency. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON: Sec. 1 as follows: RCW 69.50. 530 and 2013 c 3 s 26 ab'e each amended - "@u recd (1) ( (T-h-_., shall be) ) (a) Except as otherwise provided in (b) of this subsection, there must be a fund, known as the dedicated marijuana fund, which ((shall)) consists of all marijuana excise taxes, license fees, penalties, forfeitures, and all other moneys, income, or revenue received by the state liquor control board from marijuana - related activities. The state treasurer ((skate)) must be custodian of the fund. (b) There must be a fund, known as the dedicated local jurisdiction marijuana fund, which consists of marijuana excise taxes collected under RCW 69.50.535(3). The state treasurer must be custodian of the fund. (2) All moneys received by the state liquor control board or any employee thereof from marijuana - related activities ((sue)) must be P. 1 HB 1165 I 1 deposited each day in a depository approved by the state treasurer 2 and transferred to the state treasurer to be credited to the 3 dedicated marijuana fund or the dedicated local jurisdiction 4 marijuana fund. 5 (3) Disbursements from the dedicated marijuana fund ((seal!)) or 6 the dedicated local jurisdiction marijuana fund must be on 7 authorization of the state liquor control board or a duly authorized 8 representative thereof. 9 Sec. 2. RCW 69.50.535 and 2014 c 192 s 7 are each amended to 10 read as follows: 11 (1) There is levied and collected a marijuana excise tax equal to 12 twenty -five percent of the selling price on each wholesale sale in 13 this state of marijuana by a licensed marijuana producer to a 14 licensed marijuana processor or another licensed marijuana producer. 15 This tax is the obligation of the licensed marijuana producer. 16 (2) There is levied and collected a marijuana excise tax equal to 17 twenty -five percent of the selling price on each wholesale sale in 18 this state of marijuana concentrates, useable marijuana, and 19 marijuana- infused products by a licensed marijuana processor to a 20 licensed marijuana retailer. This tax is the obligation of the 21 licensed marijuana processor. . 22 (3) There is levied and collected a marijuana excise tax equal °to 23 twenty -five percent of the selling price on each retail sale in this 24 state of marijuana concentrates, useable mari.juana, and marijuana- 25 infused products. This tax is the obligation of the licensed 26 marijuana retailer, is separate and in addition to general state and 27 local sales and use taxes that apply to retail sales of tangible 28 personal property, and is part of the total retail price to which 29 general state and local sales and use taxes apply. 30 (4) All revenues collected from the marijuana excise taxes 31 imposed under subsections (1) through (3) of this section shall be 32 deposited each day in a depository approved by the state treasurer 33 and transferred to the state treasurer to be credited ((te the 34 ate)) as follows: 35 (a) Ninety percent of the revenue collected from the marijuana 36 excise tax imposed under subsection (1) of this section must be 37 credited to the dedicated marijuana fund, and ten percent of the 38 revenue collected under subsection (1) of this section must be 39 credited to the dedicated local jurisdiction marijuana fund. p. 2 HB 1165 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ,7 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 b) All revenue collected from the marijuana excise tax imposed under subsection (2) of this section must be credited to the dedicated marijuana fund. (c) Eighty percent of the revenue collected from the marijuana excise tax imposed under subsection (3) of this section must be credited to the dedicated marijuana fund, and twenty percent of the revenue collected under subsection (3) of this section must be credited to the dedicated local jurisdiction marijuana fund. (5) The state liquor control board ((shall)) must regularly review the tax levels established under this section and make recommendations to the legislature as appropriate regarding adjustments that would further the goal of discouraging use while undercutting illegal market prices. Sec. 3. RCW 69.50.540 and 2013 c 3 s 28 are each amended to read as follows: All marijuana excise taxes collected from sales of marijuana, useable marijuana, and marijuana- infused products under RCW 69.50.535, and the license fees, penalties, and forfeitures derived under chapter 3, Laws of 2013 from marijuana producer, marijuana processor, and marijuana retailer licenses ((shall)) deposited in the dedicated marijuana fund must every three months he disbursed by the state liquor control board as follows: ) One hundred twenty -five thousand dollars to the department of .social and health services to design and administer the Washington state healthy youth survey, analyze the collected data, and produce reports, in collaboration with the office of the superintendent of public instruction, department of health, department of commerce, family policy council, and state liquor control board. The survey ((sue)) must be conducted at least every two years and include questions regarding, but not necessarily limited to, academic achievement, age at time of substance use initiation, antisocial behavior of friends, attitudes toward antisocial behavior, attitudes toward substance use, laws and community norms regarding antisocial behavior, family conflict, family management, parental attitudes toward substance use, peer rewarding of antisocial behavior, perceived risk of substance use, and rebelliousness. Funds disbursed under this subsection may be used to expand administration of the healthy youth survey to student populations attending institutions of higher education in Washington; p. 3 HB 1165 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 t. (({2-)-)) (b)- Fifty thousand dollars to the department of social and health services for the purpose of contracting with the Washington state institute for public policy to conduct the cost - benefit evaluation and produce the reports described in RCW 69.50.550. This appropriation (()) ends after production of the final report required by RCW 69.50.550; ((43})) (c) Five thousand dollars to the University of Washington alcohol and drug abuse institute for the creation, maintenance, and timely updating of web -based public education materials providing medically and scientifically accurate information about the health and safety risks posed by marijuana use; ((+4 })) (d) An amount not exceeding one million two hundred fifty thousand dollars to the state liquor control board as is necessary for administration of chapter 3, Laws of 2013; ((+S+)) (e)_ Of the funds remaining after the disbursements identified in ((- ••seed___ (-`)) (a) through ((-(4+)) (d) of this ((seetien)) subsection: (({a})) S L Fifteen percent to the department of social and health services division of behavioral health and recovery for implementation and maintenance of programs and practices aimed at the prevention or reduction of maladaptive substance use, substance -use disorder, substance abuse or substance dependence, as these terms are defined in the Diagnostic and Statisticai Manual of Mental Disorders, among middle school and high school age students, whether as an explicit goal of a given program or practice or as a consistently corresponding effect of its implementation; PROVIDED, That: ((4-i+)) (A) Of the funds disbursed under (({e+)) e i of this subsection, at least eighty -five percent must be directed to evidence -based and cost - beneficial programs and practices that produce objectively measurable results; and (((!i))) (B) Up to fifteen percent of the funds disbursed under ((+a+)) e i of this subsection may be directed to research -based and emerging best practices or promising practices. In deciding which programs and practices to fund, the secretary of the department of social and health services (()) must consult, at least annually, with the University of Washington's social development research group and the University of Washington's alcohol and drug abuse institute; p. 4 HB 1165 • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 EI] 39 40 (({19})) _LLLL Ten percent to the department of health for the creation, implementation, operation, and management of a marijuana education and public health program that contains the following: (( -(4})) (A) A marijuana use public health hotline that provides referrals to substance abuse treatment providers, utilizes evidence - based or research -based public health approaches to minimizing the harms associated with marijuana use, and does not solely advocate an abstinence -only approach; (((i!) -)) (B) A grants program for local health departments or other local community agencies that supports development and implementation of coordinated intervention strategies for the prevention and reduction of marijuana use by youth; and (((err))) (C) Media -based education campaigns across television, internet, radio, print, and out -of -home advertising, separately targeting youth and adults, that provide medically and scientifically accurate information about the health and safety risks posed by marijuana use; (({e- })) (iii) Six - tenths of one percent to the University of Washington and four - tenths of one percent to Washington State University for research on the short and long -term effects of marijuana use, to include but not be limited to formal and informal methods for estimating and measuring intoxication and impairment, and for the dissemination of such research; (({})) iv Fifty percent to the state basic health plan trust account to be administered by the Washington basic health, plan administrator and used as provided under chapter 70.47 RCW;.- - ((4e})) (v) Five percent to the Washington state health care authority to be expended exclusively through contracts with community health centers to provide primary health and dental care services, migrant health services, and maternity health care services as provided under RCW 41.05.220; ((+f+)) vi Three - tenths of one percent to the office of the superintendent of public instruction to fund grants to building bridges programs under chapter 28A.175 RCW; and (({g})) vii The remainder to the general fund. (2) All marijuana excise taxes from sales of marijuana, useable marijuana, and marijuana- infused products that are collected and deposited under RCW 69.50.535 in the dedicated local jurisdiction marijuana fund must be disbursed every three months by the state liquor control board as follows: p. 5 HB 1165 w I (a) All marijuana excise taxes collected and deposited under RCW 2 69.50.535(1) in the dedicated local jurisdiction marijuana fund must 3 be disbursed to the local jurisdiction where the marijuana producer 4 is physically located. Each local jurisdiction must receive revenue 5 distributions based on the proportional share of the total revenues 6 in the dedicated local jurisdiction marijuana fund from the taxes 7 collected under RCW 69.50.535(1) from producers physically located in 8 each local jurisdiction; and 9 (b) All marijuana excise taxes collected and deposited under RCW 10 69._50.535(3) in the dedicated local jurisdiction marijuana fund must 11 be disbursed to the local jurisdiction where the retail sale 12 originated. Each local jurisdiction with retail sales must receive 13 revenue distributions based on its proportional amount of the total 14 revenues from the excise tax imposed under RCW 69.50.535(3) in the 15 dedicated local jurisdiction marijuana fund from retail sales in its 16 jurisdiction. 17 (3) For the purposes of this section, "local jurisdiction" means 18 a city, town, or county. 19 NEW SECTION. Sec. 4. This act is necessary for the immediate 20 preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of 21 the state government and its existing. public institutions, and -takes 22 effect July 1, 2015.- - -- END - p. 6 HB 1165 NEARING RECORD In countless county meetings across the state, opponents of I -502 businesses bring up the same arguments — that marijuana creates light and smell pollution, that growing operations will tank property values, that they will be magnets for crime, that their existence will corrupt minors, and that they will overburden locations with heavy traffic and other nuisances. On the Olympic Peninsula, these arguments focus on rKpl,apd residential zones. Statewide, the same arguments have been raised against I -502 businesses in every zone. As a consequence, moratoria have been put in place, and the business plans of hundreds of entrepreneurs have been stalled. Let me be clear about this: the business plans, the investments, and the livelihood of these entrepreneurs have been stalled by the PERCEIVED risks presented by a few very vocal opponents. I am an insurance agent, and I insure I -502 businesses across the state. My job is to assess actual risks. To do that, I look under the hood of these businesses, and I look under the hood of the industry. I read voraciously. I watch trends. As a result I know that understanding this industry is not difficult. Substantial factual information is readily available to anyone who cares to find it. Your moratorium was put in place to study the issue — something which is being done exhaustively across the state. What we have learned is that the real danger presented by this industry is far less than we perceived it to be only a few months ago. That is the main reason why, over the past year, insurance premiums for ,Z liability policies have dropped by more than half. Property policies, which include theft, have dropped by even more. That's based on statewide data. Here in Jefferson County, you have a group of I -502 businesspeople that is uniquely committed to making the industry as clean, unobtrusive, and beneficial as possible. But you know that. You know it because they have provided volumes of factual data and detailed explanations to substantiate their position that their businesses should be allowed to operate under existing rules without any discriminatory changes. If the opposition were to substantiate its claims with data drawn from actual, operating 502 businesses, the fear of pollution, traffic, crime, and the corruption of youth would be left baseless. We would be arguing about whether it's reasonable to derail an industry over the unsightliness of an eight foot fence. I urge you to end the moratorium with no change to your rules and to let these businesses operate. Any amount of study will tell you that is the most reasonable and appropriate thing to do. -Joce Dyv My name is Jocelyn Davis. I live at 130 Louisa Street, Port Townsend. HEARING RECD Vrs Yes, extend the moratorium to ALL zones so you can use this time to provide the best solution for all residents of Jefferson County. The State is already scrambling for emergency legislation to deal with the public nuisance issues it neglected to consider in the initial acceptance of marijuana businesses. This is an exact quote from Senate Bill #5130 read to the 64`h Legislature on January 14" . "The impacts of these businesses greatly affect the economic value of the neighboring properties through many factors, such as offensive odors increased noise levels, increased traffic, the potential for spraying of fertilizers and pesticides, and the potential for increased criminal activity, including trespassing, theft and acts of physical violence." My neighbors and I have brought these same concerns to you, and we've been scolded for not doing our due diligence when purchasing so close to industrial zones. We did our due diligence, and were happy to share our side of Route 20 with benign, family safe businesses. We do not feel safe anymore. Never in our wildest imagination did we think a business that BY STATE LAW is NOT allowed within 1.000 feet of schools, plavarounds, recreation centers, child care centers, public parks, public transit centers, libraries and arcades would be allowed within 25 feet of an established family neighborhood. But marijuana means money, and money talks. I get that. I am a business woman and I understand it take dollars to keep a county going. So let's talk dollars. My neighborhood has invested $5 million dollars into Jefferson County with just the purchase of our homes. Our neighborhood has the growth potential of an additional investment of $3 million dollars IF the family friendly character it has enjoyed for the past 10 years continues. We pay property taxes on that $5 million dollar investment every year to Jefferson County. We hold jobs in Jefferson County. We shop locally. Our professions keep dollars and services within Jefferson County The professions of my neighbors include banking, the construction trade, the high tech industry, artisans, marine trade, trucking, waitressing, accounting, nursing, Chiropractic, local business management, home schooling, law enforcement... and two neighbors work for the county. My husband and I brought our nationwide natural food consulting business to Port Townsend 15 years ago and worked with the Co -op to move from its tiny spot in uptown to its current location, growing their annual sales from less than $2 million to over $12 million. We are a neighborhood of residents who contribute substantially to this county. I am pro business growth in this county. AND I am pro RESIDENTIAL growth for this county. The marijuana business is new and untested in terms of its impact to residents. It is good, sound economic strategy to keep these businesses buffered from family residences. If we do not do this, we risk losing the young professionals this county has worked so diligently to attract and retain. Please continue the moratorium and protect the rights of residents. There ARE areas available for these businesses that are separate from residences. Don't bring unnecessary risks to our neighborhoods. Give this industry a start in a controlled environment. Then give it time to prove itself as a safe, low risk business. Take the time to get it right. Jocelyn Davis, 130 Louisa street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 email: iodyjoc@qmoil.com phone: 360 -531 -1996 HEARIN ORD J 2015 The DCD was given 6 months to explore permitting options for 502 businesses in rural residential zones. They have conducted only one meeting, finally spitting out two almost identical recommendations to extend the moratorium another 4 months. The DCD has failed to do the job taxpayers are paying them to do and deserve to be relieved of their command. Option #1 is clearly the better option excluding parcels larger than 5 acres. However, this is quite discriminatory against land owners of parcels smaller than 5 acres. We need to keep in mind that these small farms are perfect cottage industries not multinational corporations. These cottage industries are environmentally friendly and impact their neighbors far less than every other cottage industry already existing in rural residential zones. Think about the impacts of an apple cidery with dozens of customers coming and going every day, a massage therapist or psychiatry office with clients changing hourly, an auto repair shop with engine noise and toxic fumes. And while we are talking about odors and environmental contamination let's not forget the biggest violator in the county, the Port Townsend Paper Mill. Cannabis odor is a non issue because cannabis flowers smell like, flowers. The reason growers have traditionally used carbon filters to scrub their building's ventilation exhaust is only to avoid detection, not because the fragrance is foul. The mill smell is foul, and a pig farm smells foul, but a cannabis farm smells like flowers and that distinctive sweet fragrance can only travel about 30 feet. By law no retail traffic visits a 502 farm so the traffic impact amounts to 4 or fewer employees coming to work each day. Have you read this proposal by Senator Jeanne Kohl - Welles? -Local governments that want to ban marijuana licensees within their jurisdictions must put the ban to a referendum of the voters in their jurisdictions. Only voter - approved bans may go into effect. - Local governments that ban marijuana licensees within their jurisdictions may not participate in marijuana revenue sharing. There are about a dozen 502 business owners who have been discriminated against by the Jefferson County moratorium. Do you understand that a 4 month extension of our moratorium will absolutely kill those farmers. They will be unable to get plants in the ground for this summer's crop and because of another discriminatory Jefferson County obstruction will collectively incur a loss of about $36 million. With a good lawyer those damaged parties may very well prevail holding Jefferson County liable for their losses. There already exists a plethora of county regulations that guide the DCD through the permitting process of every business development. These regulations are more than adequate to insure public safety and minimize the impacts of a cottage industry. You don't need to do anything. Let the moratorium expire. Let the will of Jefferson County voters proceed. Let Jefferson County benefit from the tax revenue and farms that will soon employ more than the stinky mill. Jefferson County Revenue Liability Estimate 12 growers x 10,000 ft2 = 120,000 sq ft 120,000 x 50 g /ft2 = 6 million grams 6 million grams x $6 /g = $36 million m 0 :a I d W .a a I Q i T O O 3 p d N v ti 2 � 3 v A N m a a Q n n o n n a v v O O O ,��: 1ECORD _ J N 26 015 a� Ft x " " >° "s s 10 J my , I D f I ism •F. I .• m a a Q n n o n n a v v O O O ,��: 1ECORD _ y O c w O 0 A J N 26 015 a� Ft x " " >° "s s 10 J my , D m ism 0 cD o 3 C M Z f+ 3 Tr I fT v M Q (A n m c r _. A fD M H N m y O c w O 0 A /OcCrzl ,, C Is Cannabis an AgricultuffWSIMpRD Yes No Cannabis can yield very high revenue Is the product sold in order to Not - for -prof( — - -- - levels per acre create income? activity Yes? No? Exempting cannabis Let's hope Does the local authority agree that from tax preferences common sense - - - - - -- these facts are sufficient to define legal -- deemed sufficient to rules the day. cannabis production as agricultural? define as non- agricultural Agricultural Industrial t Cannabis is Yes No propagated using Is the product created through the ZOtC seeds or cuttings reproduction of plants, animals, or II JJ ((clones) fish? y ,�� w Fyyg�" „. 6 . , j,8 F � Y �g!S Cannabis uses Yes I No light energy, water, �._ _ _ If created through the reproduction CO2 and nutrients of plants, does the product develop to grow using the process of photosynthesis? Yes No Cannabis can yield very high revenue Is the product sold in order to Not - for -prof( — - -- - levels per acre create income? activity Yes? No? Exempting cannabis Let's hope Does the local authority agree that from tax preferences common sense - - - - - -- these facts are sufficient to define legal -- deemed sufficient to rules the day. cannabis production as agricultural? define as non- agricultural Agricultural Industrial I HEARING RECORD BOCC PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS JANUARY 26, 2015 :,� COTTON BUILDING, WATER STREET, PT 6:00 PM Good Evening. My name is Peter Davis, and I live on Louisa Street. I am here to speak in favor of the moratorium, its extension, and its expansion to include all zones, with no exclusions. We need this moratorium to give us the time to get it right! The moratorium was implemented last August to provide time to set up the rules and regulations for administering this new type of business. This process has apparently not been completed, leaving uncertainties and the growing concern of residents. Because there has been no satisfactory resolution to- date, it is imperative that the moratorium be extended. Further, because initial conversations have ignored some of the county's zones, it would seem equally important to make the moratorium all- inclusive, applying to all zones in the county. Additional study is needed about not just industrial and commercial zones, but also farming and residential zones and residential densities. Attendance this evening shows that there is still a great amount of concern about where such operations should, and should not, be allowed to locate. So why extend and expand the moratorium? There are several arguments to be considered: 1. We need additional time to consider residential zones, and the proximity to be established between marijuana facilities and residential neighborhoods - even across zone boundary lines. Let's get it right, so (S as not to alienate our taxpaying residents, and not contribute to their potential relocation and possible out - migration. 2. We need enough time to accept the fact that we are dealing with a drug industry that produces a controlled substance. Marijuana has unique characteristics, when it is growing or being processed, with risks and uncertain impacts on the environment, our resources, our businesses, and our residents. By not allowing for sufficient time in which to study and answer many of these concerns, we will be doing a dis- service to county residents by not giving them our best shot. Again, we have the opportunity to get it right - let's not blow it! 3. We need time to address all aspects of legalized marijuana - especially those aspects that have been largely ignored by the LCB - for it is these omissions that have resulted in the public outcry we are seeing here tonight. Let's not let the ambiguity and omissions of the statewide rules and regulations serve to turn loose this new business in our county within a framework of contention, unfairness, and even anger. If the state can't get it right, then let's have Jefferson County get it right. 4. Rather than Jefferson County getting the reputation of an "easy" county in which to operate marijuana businesses in a fairly unregulated manner, let's instead set a goal of becoming a statewide model of how it should be done - with an equitable balance among growers and processors, other business types, farmers and residents. Let's get it d=, for if we fail, the continued dissension in our county will serve as a cancer - impacting neighborhoods, pitting residents against business, and ultimately resulting in the destruction of our way of life here in Jefferson County. The county has long had a reputation of being liberal; let's not add to that the reputation of being short- sighted, illogical, even uncaring about the well -being of our residents. Commissioners Kier, Johnson and Sullivan, you owe it to yourselves, and to the residents of Jefferson County, to take whatever time is necessary to ensure thorough analysis of this new business scenario. Don't blow it - allow time for your staff to get it right! Thank you for your attention. /'yjy�c �C.QCJrLI' HEARING f ll� lb -6/t 72f Ifi I i c a y Q +. Y m -mss y r c'« v C H� Vi 173 v� G 4 Comments for BOCC and Planning Commissio UN a KECORD Moratorium and Code Revisions C„ 2015 The Moratorium Should be Extended in ALL zones with NO Exceptions or Exclusions. 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. The County was prudent to put the Moratorium in place. Take the time to get it right. This is a "one time only" opportunity. The Planning Commission has barely begun its work and should be given a chance to evaluate fully siting and related issues. The Planning Commission should not be pre - empted by exempting some parcels which would allow more than % the pending applications to go forward in a piecemeal fashion without considering them as part of overall approach. This includes areas which may be "vested" because if those applications are denied or withdrawn in the future, the County should not leave those areas unregulated. Allowing exceptions to the Moratorium undercuts the purpose of having a Moratorium and creates economic disadvantages for those covered by the Moratorium. It would also be unfair to neighbors who have been denied a meaningful opportunity to express their views to protect their property and quality of life. HOW SHOULD MARIJUANA BE REGULATED? Don't experiment with our neighborhoods and quality of life: a measured and conservative approach to regulation is preferable to a "light touch" approach which could result in unintended, irremediable consequences. Marijuana production and processing should be sited in industrial and commercial areas where it is compatible with existing uses and not where it will impact existing residential areas. Special consideration should be given to protect existing residential areas even in industrial or commercial zones and rural Ag and forest land. It is the residential character not the technical zoning which should predominate. Marijuana production and processing should be sited in industrial and commercial areas where it is compatible with existing uses and not where it will impact existing residential areas. Special consideration should be given to protect existing residential areas even in industrial or commercial zones or rural forest land. AGRICULTURE OR NOT: AN UNNECESSARY COMPLICATION Many of the problems with the County's approach to regulating marijuana stem from the inappropriate attempt to characterize marijuana production and processing as agriculture. Marijuana production and processing are not entitled to the "right to farm" provisions of the Jefferson County Code because they are not agriculture under Washington law and are illegal activities under federal Law. Marijuana production and processing and are not agriculture under Washington law. In addition, the Jefferson County Code requires agriculture to be performed in accordance with Federal law which is impossible since marijuana is a controlled substance, the possession and sale of which are illegal under Federal law. The agreement by the US Department of Justice to exercise prosecutorial discretion regarding marijuana prosecutions does not mean that marijuana production and processing are in compliance with Federal Law. The agreement to exercise prosecutorial discretion cannot and does not supersede Federal Law. Marijuana production and processing should be sited in industrial and commercial areas where it is compatible with existing uses, where the risks to people and property can be minimized, and not where it will impact existing residential areas. FIRE,EXPLOSION AND RELATED RISKS HAVE NOT BEEN EVALUATED The personal safety, fire, explosion and other risks associated with marijuana production and processing are neither "speculative "nor trivial as dozens of news stories demonstrate. The risks of siting marijuana production or processing facilities in residential or rural areas have not been evaluated by Jefferson County and should be part of the Planning Commission review and of any siting decision made by Jefferson County. Siting marijuana production or processing facilities in residential or remote rural areas presents an unacceptable risk to nearby residents and may subject the County to liability in the event of a catastrophic event. PROTECTING RESIDENTIAL AREAS IS IMPORTANT Residents in areas like Maplewood Meadows and in rural areas have invested millions of dollars in their properties, neighborhoods, and carefully chosen quality of life. Any approach to regulating marijuana production and processing should protect existing residential areas even in industrial or commercial zones and in rural forest land. There is no basis for excluding parcels from the Moratorium on the basis of size or application status. JEFFERSON COUNTY SHOULD HAVE A PERMIT SYSTEM FOR PRODUCTION Jefferson County has no meaningful permit system for evaluating and granting permits to produce marijuana. Once the LCB grants a license, Jefferson County does not have a meaningful system to notify and given neighbors the right to voice their objections to siting a marijuana production operation. Jefferson County says it relies on Washington State Liquor Control Board (LCB) In fact the LCB has no meaningful regulations with regards to authorizing and siting marijuana production facilities. It gives neighbors no notice or other rights in the licensing process. The County knows that the LCB has delegated to the County the authority 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. 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. SUGGESTONS FOR THE BOCC AND PLANNING COMMISSION Any system to regulate marijuana in Jefferson County should: 1. provide for notice to nearby residents of the proposed siting of such facilities in their neighborhood. 2. provide an opportunity for nearby residents to voice objections to siting such facilities and obtain a fair hearing on those objections, including both production and /or processing. 3. minimize disruption of or placement of such facilities in established residential neighborhoods or neighborhoods where residential is a significant part of the use in the proposed siting area. 4. include all parcels regardless of size, such as rural forest 1-40 and not allow them to be unregulated. 5. ascertain that legal requirements regarding access to water, waste generation, adequacy of septic, well metering, and the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) are met prior to issuing any permits which would allow marijuana to be produced or processed. 6. establish a Jefferson County permit system for production of marijuana which would give neighbors notice of proposed siting, the right to object and get a hearing on those objections, and require compliance with applicable environmental and quality of life standards. 7. avoid approving any marijuana operation which would be inconsistent with current use and enjoyment of adjoining property or would conflict with, interfere with or interrupt in any way the current use and quiet enjoyment of adjoining property Jefferson County should regulate marijuana in such a way that it balances the needs of those desiring to enter the marijuana business with the concerns of residents regarding the potential negative impacts of siting marijuana processing and production operations in their neighborhoods on their quality of life, property values, personal safety and security, environmental consequences and personal value systems. It is possible to have vibrant neighborhoods and a vibrant marijuana business. There is still time to put to act to ensure this comes to fruition. Apply the precautionary principle which has been the hall mark of environmental, public health and safety regulations for decades. Respectfully, Steve Ramsey 581 S Bay Way Port Ludlow Washington 98365 Received after Hearing Julie Shannon Comment DeadlinE± From: Kathleen Kier Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 11:00 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Comments for BOCC and Planning Commission Deliberations on Marijuana Moratorium and Code revisions.docx Jan 26 version.docx From: steve ramsey Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 11:00:44 AM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Kathleen Kier Cc: sramsey @optonline.net Subject: RE: Comments for BOCC and Planning Commission Deliberations on Marijuana Moratorium and Code revisions.docc Jan 26 version.docc Thanks, Kathleen. You have really been a breath of fresh air on this issue and in County government generally. I am glad you are there! A couple of points I would like to make which I did not have time to make last evening. As I listened to both sides, I was struck by how much of this problem was the result of a few major oversights. First, the absence of a fair, transparent process whereby both applicants and neighbors get notice of the intention to grow or process marijuana and a chance to make their views known. One of the applicants said he would have gone somewhere else if he had known there would be so much opposition. Second, the insistence that this activity is agriculture with the presumption of right to farm has led the County and the applicants down the wrong path. Forget the use of adjectives such as "traditional' or "typical" or "normal'. This is not agriculture under the Jefferson County Code for the reasons I stated in my written comments. Third, these are not trivial or speculative risks as Commissioner Morley has repeatedly called them. They are risks which should be evaluated and would be in any other government or business context. The insurance salesman's statements that one could obtain insurance for catastrophic events is irrelevant and certainly not comforting to residents. Availability of insurance says nothing about the underlying risks, only about the cost of the insurance. Lloyds will insure anything and ,having spent 3 years getting $700million from them for asbestos and environmental claims after expensive litigation at GE, they frequently get their underwriting wrong. Given what we heard about how County staff does not address enforcement of Code violations and the fact that the LCB has very limited resources, the failure to address these risks in advance may present a real risk of liability for the County. Fourth, I do not believe any of the applicants have yet received a license from the Washington LCB nor is there any guarantee of which I am aware that they will get one. So, while I am very sympathetic with their frustration in dealing with DCD, they have not been damaged nor lost a business opportunity. There is no reason to allow piece - mealing of the applications which are pending during the Moratorium. So, some additional points : 1.Jefferson County does not have and desperately needs a permit system for grow /production and desperately needs one. The County has left it all up to the LCB and the LCB has no safeguards, notice, hearing etc for anyone other than an applicant. Nor is LCB doing anything to see that other local and State government requirements are followed. The Washington AG Opinion makes it clear County can add protections for citizens and most Counties have done so. No one has thus far said what the harm is in granting neighbors notice and a hearing. Is it because it might take some staff time? Administrative convenience for the County does not justify the failure t o p lay fair with residents. Create a fair and responsive permit system for production which guarantees residents notice when the County gets notice of an application and a hearing on objections which is not discretionary with the County Administrator. 2.Extend the Moratorium in all zones and let the Planning Commission do its work. 3.Evaluate the risks associated with siting these facilities as part of the Planning Commission and permitting process. 3.Encourage more meetings where ideas can be exchanged not limited to 3 minute restatements of positions. We need some dialogue and creativity. Thanks for listening Steve From: Kathleen Kier [ mailto:KKler @co.jefferson.wa.us] Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 7:40 PM To: steve ramsey Subject: RE: Comments for BOCC and Planning Commission Deliberations on Marijuana Moratorium and Code revisions.docx Jan 26 version.docx Thank you Steve. I was able to read this before the meeting. Kathleen Kathleen Kier Commissioner, District 3 Jefferson County (360) 385 -9100 KKler(@coJefferson.wa.us us From: steve ramsey [mailto:sramsey@optonline.net] Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 3:02 PM To: Philip Morley; David Sullivan; Kathleen Kier; Phil Johnson Cc: sramsev @optonline.net; hirschlaw; karenpaee777 @email.com; Marjorie Boyd; Kristina Mayer; Carl Smith; 'Peter Davis' Subject: Comments for BOCC and Planning Commission Deliberations on Marijuana Moratorium and Code revisions.docx Jan 26 version.docx Dear Commissioners and Administrator Morley, attached are comments regarding the Moratorium and Planning Commission review of marijuana regulation in Jefferson County. Please place it in the record for these proceedings . Thank you for the opportunity to comment and participate. Regards Steve ramsey Julie Shannon From: Kathleen Kier Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 11:36 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Comments for BOCC and Planning Commission Deliberations on Marijuana Moratorium and Code revisions.docx Jan 26 version.docx From: steve ramsey Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 11:35:40 AM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Kathleen Kier Subject: RE: Comments for BOCC and Planning Commission Deliberations on Marijuana Moratorium and Code revisions.docx Jan 26 version.docx I just sent a similar email to the other Commissioners. I will stop now. Thank you for your patience and for listening Steve From: Kathleen Kier [ mailto :KKler @co.jefferson.wa.usj Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 2:09 PM To: sramsey Subject: RE: Comments for BOCC and Planning Commission Deliberations on Marijuana Moratorium and Code revisions.docc Jan 26 version.docx Received and noted in public record. Thank you Steve, Kathleen Kathleen Kier Commissioner, District 3 Jefferson County (360) 385 -9100 KKI er(cco. iefferson.wa. us From: sramsey [mailto:sramseyPoptonline. net] Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 4:58 PM To: Kathleen Kier Subject: RE: Comments for BOCC and Planning Commission Deliberations on Marijuana Moratorium and Code revisions.docx Jan 26 version.docx Thanks, Kathleen. A couple of new thoughts. I need to submit a substitute page to clean up some garble.Proofing not my strong suit Sent via the Samsung Galaxy SFd 5 ACTIVEF m, an .AT &T' 4G LTE smanphone -- - - - - -- Original message -- - - - - -- From: Kathleen Kler <KKler Aco.iefferson.wa.us> Date:01 /26 /2015 4:39 PM (GMT- 08:00) To: steve ramsey <sramseyL"Zonline.net> Cc: Subject: RE: Comments for BOCC and Planning Commission Deliberations on Marijuana Moratorium and Code revisions.docx Jan 26 version.docx Thank you Steve. I was able to read this before the meeting. Kathleen Kathleen Kier Commissioner, District 3 Jefferson County (360) 385 -9100 KKIer(a)coJefferson.wa. us From: steve ramsey [mailto:sramsey(a optonline.net] Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 3:02 PM To: Philip Morley; David Sullivan; Kathleen Kler; Phil Johnson Cc: sramseyLwoptonline.net; hirschlaw; karenpa e777!agmail.com; Marjorie Boyd; Kristina Mayer; Carl Smith; 'Peter Davis' Subject: Comments for BOCC and Planning Commission Deliberations on Marijuana Moratorium and Code revisions.docx Jan 26 version.docx Dear Commissioners and Administrator Morley, attached are comments regarding the Moratorium and Planning Commission review of marijuana regulation in Jefferson County. Please place it in the record for these proceedings . Thank you for the opportunity to comment and participate. Regards Steve ramsey Received after Hearing,; Comment Deadline Julie Shannon From: Kathleen Kier Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 11:34 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Additional Comments on the Moratorium and development of Code provisions regarding marijuana production and processing in Jefferson County. From: steve ramsey Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 11:34:47 AM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: David Sullivan; Phil Johnson; Kathleen Kler Cc: Philip Morley; Carl Smith; karenpage777 @gmail.com; Marjorie Boyd; karenpage777 @gmail.com; hirschlaw; srarnsey@optonline.net Subject: Additional Comments on the Moratorium and development of Code provisions regarding marijuana production and processing in Jefferson County. Dear Commissioners, I would like to thank you for providing residents the opportunity to state their views on this important subject last evening. I hope there will be other opportunities for discussion on this issue in the future. Due to the3 minute limit on oral comments, many people were able to say less than they planned. I would like to make a few points which I did not have time to make last evening and ask that these be added to the record you will consider. As I listened to both sides, I was struck by how much of this problem was the result of the County's failure to appreciate how important this issue would be to both applicants for permits to produce and process marijuana on the one hand and the concerns of residents on the other and to provide a process to inform and hear from both applicants and neighbors. The absence of a fair, transparent process whereby both applicants and neighbors had notice of the intention to grow or process marijuana and neighbors had an opportunity to voice their objections has resulted in polarization and a feeling that government has failed to serve both applicants and neighbors fairly. Such a process would have enabled these issue to be considered and decided . One of the applicants said he would have gone somewhere else if he had known there would be so much opposition. Additionally, the insistence that this activity is agriculture with the presumption of right to farm has led the County and the applicants down the wrong path. Forget the use of adjectives such as "traditional" or "typical" or "normal ". This is not agriculture under the Jefferson County Code for the reasons I stated in my written comments. This activity should have been limited to industrial and commercial sites away from residences, as was called for in Mr. Smith's July 22, 2014 memo. Allowing it to sprawl into residential and rural areas can still be corrected. I ask you to do so. Third, these are not trivial or speculative risks as some have repeatedly called them. They are risks which should be evaluated and would be in any other government or business context. The insurance salesman's statements that one could obtain insurance for catastrophic events is irrelevant and certainly not comforting to residents. Availability of insurance says nothing about the underlying risks, only about the cost of the insurance. Lloyds will insure anything. Having personally spent 3 years on behalf of GE getting $700million from Lloyds for asbestos and environmental claims after expensive litigation in two different countries, I can tell you authoritatively Lloyd's doesn't like to pay claims and it frequently gets its underwriting wrong. Given what we heard about how County staff does not address enforcement of Code violations and the fact that the LCB has very limited resources, the failure to address these risks in advance may present a real risk of liability for the County. Fourth, I do not believe any of the applicants have yet received a license from the Washington LCB nor is there any guarantee of which 1 am aware that they will get one. So, while I am very sympathetic with their frustration in dealing with DCD, they have not been damaged nor lost a business opportunity. There is no reason to allow piece -meal approval of the applications which are pending during the Moratorium. So, to underscore my suggestions: 1.Jefferson County does not have and desperately needs a permit system for grow /production. The County has left it all up to the LCB and the LCB has no safeguards, notice, hearing etc. for anyone other than an applicant. Nor is LCB doing anything to see that other local and State government requirements are followed. The Washington AG Opinion makes it clear Counties can add protections for citizens and most Counties have done so. No one has thus far said what the harm is in granting neighbors notice and a hearing. Is it because it might take some staff time? Administrative convenience for the County does not justify the failure to play fair with residents. Create a fair and responsive permit system for production which guarantees residents notice when the County gets notice of an application and a hearing on objections which is not discretionary with the County Administrator. 2.Extend the Moratorium in all zones and let the Planning Commission do its work. Allowing exceptions would undercut the Planning Commission and leave the County with a patchwork of "grandfathered" sites, none of which has a current license from the LCB to operate. 3.Evaluate the risks associated with siting these facilities as part of the Planning Commission and permitting process and make sure those risks can be mitigated or do not allow marijuana operations in those areas. 41imit siting these operations to light industrial and commercial zones. Keep them away from residential areas and out of the rural parts of the County. 5.Encourage more meetings where ideas can be exchanged not limited to 3 minute restatements of positions. We need some dialogue and creativity. Thank you again for convening this important meeting Steve Ramsey 581 S Bay Way Port Ludlow, Washington 98365 Julie Shannon From: David Sullivan Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 11:34 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Additional Comments on the Moratorium and development of Code provisions regarding marijuana production and processing in Jefferson County. From: steve ramsey Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 11:34:47 AM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: David Sullivan; Phil Johnson; Kathleen Kler Cc: Philip Morley; Carl Smith; karenpage777 @gmail.com; Marjorie Boyd; karenpage777 @gmail.com; hirschlaw; sramsey@optonline.net Subject: Additional Comments on the Moratorium and development of Code provisions regarding marijuana production and processing in Jefferson County. Dear Commissioners, I would like to thank you for providing residents the opportunity to state their views on this important subject last evening. I hope there will be other opportunities for discussion on this issue in the future. Due to the3 minute limit on oral comments, many people were able to say less than they planned. I would like to make a few points which I did not have time to make last evening and ask that these be added to the record you will consider. As I listened to both sides, I was struck by how much of this problem was the result of the County's failure to appreciate how important this issue would be to both applicants for permits to produce and process marijuana on the one hand and the concerns of residents on the other and to provide a process to inform and hear from both applicants and neighbors. The absence of a fair, transparent process whereby both applicants and neighbors had notice of the intention to grow or process marijuana and neighbors had an opportunity to voice their objections has resulted in polarization and a feeling that government has failed to serve both applicants and neighbors fairly. Such a process would have enabled these issue to be considered and decided . One of the applicants said he would have gone somewhere else if he had known there would be so much opposition. Additionally, the insistence that this activity is agriculture with the presumption of right to farm has led the County and the applicants down the wrong path. Forget the use of adjectives such as "traditional" or "typical" or "normal ". This is not agriculture under the Jefferson County Code for the reasons I stated in my written comments. This activity should have been limited to industrial and commercial sites away from residences, as was called for in Mr. Smith's July 22, 2014 memo. Allowing it to sprawl into residential and rural areas can still be corrected. I ask you to do so. Third, these are not trivial or speculative risks as some have repeatedly called them. They are risks which should be evaluated and would be in any other government or business context. The insurance salesman's statements that one could obtain insurance for catastrophic events is irrelevant and certainly not comforting to residents. Availability of insurance says nothing about the underlying risks, only about the cost of the insurance. Lloyds will insure anything. Having personally spent 3 years on behalf of GE getting $700million from Lloyds for asbestos and environmental claims after expensive litigation in two different countries, I can tell you authoritatively Lloyd's doesn't like to pay claims and it frequently gets its underwriting wrong. Given what we heard about how County staff does not address enforcement of Code violations and the fact that the LCB has very limited resources, the failure to address these risks in advance may present a real risk of liability for the County. Fourth, I do not believe any of the applicants have yet received a license from the Washington LC8 nor is there any guarantee of which 1 am aware that they will get one. So, while I am very sympathetic with their frustration in dealing with DCD, they have not been damaged nor lost a business opportunity. There is no reason to allow piece -meal approval of the applications which are pending during the Moratorium. So, to underscore my suggestions: 1.Jefferson County does not have and desperately needs a permit system for grow /production. The County has left it all up to the LCB and the LCB has no safeguards, notice, hearing etc. for anyone other than an applicant. Nor is LCB doing anything to see that other local and State government requirements are followed. The Washington AG Opinion makes it clear Counties can add protections for citizens and most Counties have done so. No one has thus far said what the harm is in granting neighbors notice and a hearing. Is it because it might take some staff time? Administrative convenience for the County does not justify the failure to play fair with residents. Create a fair and responsive permit system for production which guarantees residents notice when the County gets notice of an application and a hearing on objections which is not discretionary with the County Administrator. 2.Eztend the Moratorium in all zones and let the Planning Commission do its work. Allowing exceptions would undercut the Planning Commission and leave the County with a patchwork of "grandfathered" sites, none of which has a current license from the LCB to operate. 3.Evaluate the risks associated with siting these facilities as part of the Planning Commission and permitting process and make sure those risks can be mitigated or do not allow marijuana operations in those areas. 41imit siting these operations to light industrial and commercial zones. Keep them away from residential areas and out of the rural parts of the County. 5.Encourage more meetings where ideas can be exchanged not limited to 3 minute restatements of positions. We need some dialogue and creativity. Thank you again for convening this important meeting Steve Ramsey 581 S Bay Way Port Ludlow, Washington 98365 Julie Shannon From: Phil Johnson Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 11:34 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Additional Comments on the Moratorium and development of Code provisions regarding marijuana production and processing in Jefferson County. From: steve ramsey Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 11:34:47 AM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: David Sullivan; Phil Johnson; Kathleen Kier Cc: Philip Morley; Carl Smith; karenpage777 @gmail.com; Marjorie Boyd; karenpage777 @gmail.com; hirschlaw; sramsey@optoniine.net Subject: Additional Comments on the Moratorium and development of Code provisions regarding marijuana production and processing in Jefferson County. Dear Commissioners, I would like to thank you for providing residents the opportunity to state their views on this important subject last evening. I hope there will be other opportunities for discussion on this issue in the future. Due to the3 minute limit on oral comments, many people were able to say less than they planned. I would like to make a few points which I did not have time to make last evening and ask that these be added to the record you will consider. As I listened to both sides, I was struck by how much of this problem was the result of the County's failure to appreciate how important this issue would be to both applicants for permits to produce and process marijuana on the one hand and the concerns of residents on the other and to provide a process to inform and hear from both applicants and neighbors. The absence of a fair, transparent process whereby both applicants and neighbors had notice of the intention to grow or process marijuana and neighbors had an opportunity to voice their objections has resulted in polarization and a feeling that government has failed to serve both applicants and neighbors fairly. Such a process would have enabled these issue to be considered and decided . One of the applicants said he would have gone somewhere else if he had known there would be so much opposition. Additionally, the insistence that this activity is agriculture with the presumption of right to farm has led the County and the applicants down the wrong path. Forget the use of adjectives such as "traditional" or "typical" or "normal ". This is not agriculture under the Jefferson County Code for the reasons I stated in my written comments. This activity should have been limited to industrial and commercial sites away from residences, as was called for in Mr. Smith's July 22, 2014 memo. Allowing it to sprawl into residential and rural areas can still be corrected. I ask you to do so. Third, these are not trivial or speculative risks as some have repeatedly called them. They are risks which should be evaluated and would be in any other government or business context. The insurance salesman's statements that one could obtain insurance for catastrophic events is irrelevant and certainly not comforting to residents. Availability of insurance says nothing about the underlying risks, only about the cost of the insurance. Lloyds will insure anything. Having personally spent 3 years on behalf of GE getting $700million from Lloyds for asbestos and environmental claims after expensive litigation in two different countries, I can tell you authoritatively Lloyd's doesn't like to pay claims and it frequently gets its underwriting wrong. Given what we heard about how County staff does not address enforcement of Code violations and the fact that the LCB has very limited resources, the failure to address these risks in advance may present a real risk of liability for the County. Fourth, I do not believe any of the applicants have yet received a license from the Washington LCB nor is there any guarantee of which I am aware that they will get one. So, while I am very sympathetic with their frustration in dealing with DCD, they have not been damaged nor lost a business opportunity. There is no reason to allow piece -meal approval of the applications which are pending during the Moratorium. So, to underscore my suggestions: 1.Jefferson County does not have and desperately needs a permit system for grow /production. The County has left it all up to the LCB and the LCB has no safeguards, notice, hearing etc. for anyone other than an applicant. Nor is LCB doing anything to see that other local and State government requirements are followed. The Washington AG Opinion makes it clear Counties can add protections for citizens and most Counties have done so. No one has thus far said what the harm is in granting neighbors notice and a hearing. Is it because it might take some staff time? Administrative convenience for the County does not justify the failure to play fair with residents. Create a fair and responsive permit system for production which guarantees residents notice when the County gets notice of an application and a hearing on objections which is not discretionary with the County Administrator. 2.Extend the Moratorium in all zones and let the Planning Commission do its work. Allowing exceptions would undercut the Planning Commission and leave the County with a patchwork of "grandfathered" sites, none of which has a current license from the LCB to operate. 3.Evaluate the risks associated with siting these facilities as part of the Planning Commission and permitting process and make sure those risks can be mitigated or do not allow marijuana operations in those areas. 41imit siting these operations to light industrial and commercial zones. Keep them away from residential areas and out of the rural parts of the County. 5.Encourage more meetings where ideas can be exchanged not limited to 3 minute restatements of positions. We need some dialogue and creativity. Thank you again for convening this important meeting Steve Ramsey 581 S Bay Way Port Ludlow, Washington 98365 Received after Hearing Julie Shannon Comment Deadline From: David Sullivan Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 4:53 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Expiration of Moratorium From: Sonny Flores Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 4:53:58 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Kathleen Kler; jeffbocc; David Sullivan; Philip Morley Subject: Expiration of Moratorium I am writing due to the fact, that the Moratorium regarding marijuna growing and processing is about to expire. Moreover, it appears that the Jefferson County Commissioners appear to be having difficulty in making a decision, the last hearing I attended all of you (commissioners) closed the session speaking about the effects of marijuna on juveniles, now how you got there from what the real issue is "Zoning" laws, you got me there. Yes there will be people who will be upset if approved for an extension, but we the people of Port Townsend also have a vested interest in community, and as such careful consideration must me made with this issue. I believe many citizens want to live in a community that does not have to worry about where manufacturing will take place near their families. Just as industrial business is guided by "Zoning Laws" and is not allowed next door to my home or near a group of homes such as the Maple Leaf Community, This comes down to allowable Zoning of such businesses. I voted for the I502, but there must be time taken to develope regulations to the processing and growing. To allow this type of business anywhere in Jefferson county is reckless an irresponsible. Please consider all stakeholders, which includes all citizens of Jefferson County. "Please stop the stubborn defense of an obviously flawed policy which does not serve the interests of the citizens of Jefferson County and do what neighboring counties have done and protect the interest of all citizens. " Sincerely, Librado & Kathleen Flores 723 Discovery Ridge Road Port townsend WA 98368 206 - 290 -102 Julie Shannon From: Kathleen Kier Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 4:53 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Expiration of Moratorium From: Sonny Flores Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 4:53:58 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Kathleen Kler; jeffbocc; David Sullivan; Philip Morley Subject: Expiration of Moratorium I am writing due to the fact, that the Moratorium regarding marijuna growing and processing is about to expire. Moreover, it appears that the Jefferson County Commissioners appear to be having difficulty in making a decision, the last hearing I attended all of you (commissioners) closed the session speaking about the effects of marijuna on juveniles, now how you got there from what the real issue is "Zoning" laws, you got me there. Yes there will be people who will be upset if approved for an extension, but we the people of Port Townsend also have a vested interest in community, and as such careful consideration must me made with this issue. I believe many citizens want to live in a community that does not have to worry about where manufacturing will take place near their families. Just as industrial business is guided by "Zoning Laws" and is not allowed next door to my home or near a group of homes such as the Maple Leaf Community, This comes down to allowable Zoning of such businesses. I voted for the I502, but there must be time taken to develope regulations to the processing and growing. To allow this type of business anywhere in Jefferson county is reckless an irresponsible. Please consider all stakeholders, which includes all citizens of Jefferson County. "Please stop the stubborn defense of an obviously flawed policy which does not serve the interests of the citizens of Jefferson County and do what neighboring counties have done and protect the interest of all citizens. " Sincerely, Librado & Kathleen Flores 723 Discovery Ridge Road Port townsend WA 98368 206 -290 -102 Receives! after Hearing From: Kathleen Kier Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 10:07 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Explosion dangers and myths From: gnarleydogfarm @gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 10:07:22 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: David Sullivan; Phil Johnson; Kathleen Kier Subject: Explosion dangers and myths Hi Phil, Dave and Kathleen, Do you have any questions about explosions? I can give you a place to start in your hunt for the truth. I do not expect you to take anything I tell you for fact. expect you to fact check everything I tell you. I can, however, help you to identify the red herrings before you waste your valuable time. Use me as a resource. If you ever find that I am inaccurate, please do me the very kind service of correcting my misinformation. I value facts about ego. My first bit of information to share with you about explosions is that there are a lot of illegal grows and processing facilities which could not be further from 1 -502 licensed businesses. These illegal grows are what all the fuss is about. 1 agree, illegal operations are usually dangerous and staffed by idiots without a sense of responsibility to anyone. The typical "explosions" are from the process of extracting hash oil from Cannabis flowers using solvents such as butane, propane, etc. These solvents separate the plant matter from the trichomes, or the hash oil produced by the plant which contain the psychotropic compounds, and have the benefit of rendering the product free of solvent residue because the solvents evaporate off at room temperature. Solvents are flammable. When you have cheapskates playing with a chemistry set and trying to avoid detection by the law, fires happen. Have you ever seen a propane tank blow up or tossed a cup of gas on a fire? Same idea but this idiocy can cause serious injury and damage when done inside. Since I have a keen sense of the obvious, I would like to point out that 1 -502 businesses are at the opposite end of the spectrum on this issue. We are up to code all over the place. We have not only well- informed staff, but properly equipped facilities to handle whatever it is we are licensed to do. Also, we are not allowed to employ these archaic, filthy and dangerous techniques. The modern (and mandated) methods are "closed loop systems ". This means there is no ability to spill or explode. This method requires exorbitantly expensive equipment which reuses the solvent many, many times over. The Department of Ecology, fire marshall, law enforcement and L &I are involved in the permitting process for 1 -502 facilities, potentially dangerous setups would not pass muster for those facilities. I was never stretching it when I told you that between LCB, JCC and 1 -502, there is no place to hide. think you should give the suggestion made at the meeting last night to search youtube for marijuana explosions a go. If you discover a bunch of illegal activities, I'd call this myth busted. If you find a bunch of legal operations, I will eat my hat (the cotton hat, not the rabbit fur hat!). Julie Shannon From: David Sullivan Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 10:07 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Explosion dangers and myths From: gnarleydogfarm @gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 10:07:22 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: David Sullivan; Phil Johnson; Kathleen Kler Subject: Explosion dangers and myths Hi Phil, Dave and Kathleen, Do you have any questions about explosions? can give you a place to start in your hunt for the truth. 1 do not expect you to take anything I tell you for fact. I expect you to fact check everything I tell you. I can, however, help you to identify the red herrings before you waste your valuable time. Use me as a resource. If you ever find that I am inaccurate, please do me the very kind service of correcting my misinformation. I value facts about ego. My first bit of information to share with you about explosions is that there are a lot of illegal grows and processing facilities which could not be further from 1 -502 licensed businesses. These illegal grows are what all the fuss is about. I agree, illegal operations are usually dangerous and staffed by idiots without a sense of responsibility to anyone. The typical "explosions" are from the process of extracting hash oil from Cannabis flowers using solvents such as butane, propane, etc. These solvents separate the plant matter from the trichomes, or the hash oil produced by the plant which contain the psychotropic compounds, and have the benefit of rendering the product free of solvent residue because the solvents evaporate off at room temperature. Solvents are flammable. When you have cheapskates playing with a chemistry set and trying to avoid detection by the law, fires happen. Have you ever seen a propane tank blow up or tossed a cup of gas on a fire? Same idea but this idiocy can cause serious injury and damage when done inside. Since I have a keen sense of the obvious, I would like to point out that 1 -502 businesses are at the opposite end of the spectrum on this issue. We are up to code all over the place. We have not only well - informed staff, but properly equipped facilities to handle whatever it is we are licensed to do. Also, we are not allowed to employ these archaic, filthy and dangerous techniques. The modern (and mandated) methods are "closed loop systems ". This means there is no ability to spill or explode. This method requires exorbitantly expensive equipment which reuses the solvent many, many times over. The Department of Ecology, fire marshal], law enforcement and L &I are involved in the permitting process for 1 -502 facilities, potentially dangerous setups would not pass muster for those facilities. I was never stretching it when I told you that between LCB, ICC and 1 -502, there is no place to hide. I think you should give the suggestion made at the meeting last night to search youtube for marijuana explosions a go. If you discover a bunch of illegal activities, I'd call this myth busted. If you find a bunch of legal operations, I will eat my hat (the cotton hat, not the rabbit fur hat!). Julie Shannon From: Phil Johnson Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 10:07 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Explosion dangers and myths From: gnarleydogfarm @gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 10:07:22 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: David Sullivan: Phil Johnson: Kathleen Kier Subject: Explosion dangers and myths Hi Phil, Dave and Kathleen, Do you have any questions about explosions? I can give you a place to start in your hunt for the truth. I do not expect you to take anything I tell you for fact. I expect you to fact check everything I tell you. I can, however, help you to identify the red herrings before you waste your valuable time. Use me as a resource. If you ever find that I am inaccurate, please do me the very kind service of correcting my misinformation. I value facts about ego. My first bit of information to share with you about explosions is that there are a lot of illegal grows and processing facilities which could not be further from 1 -502 licensed businesses. These illegal grows are what all the fuss is about. I agree, illegal operations are usually dangerous and staffed by idiots without a sense of responsibility to anyone. The typical "explosions" are from the process of extracting hash oil from Cannabis flowers using solvents such as butane, propane, etc. These solvents separate the plant matter from the trichomes, or the hash oil produced by the plant which contain the psychotropic compounds, and have the benefit of rendering the product free of solvent residue because the solvents evaporate off at room temperature. Solvents are flammable. When you have cheapskates playing with a chemistry set and trying to avoid detection by the law, fires happen. Have you ever seen a propane tank blow up or tossed a cup of gas on a fire? Same idea but this idiocy can cause serious injury and damage when done inside. Since I have a keen sense of the obvious, I would like to point out that I -502 businesses are at the opposite end of the spectrum on this issue. We are up to code all over the place. We have not only well- informed staff, but properly equipped facilities to handle whatever it is we are licensed to do. Also, we are not allowed to employ these archaic, filthy and dangerous techniques. The modern (and mandated) methods are "closed loop systems ". This means there is no ability to spill or explode. This method requires exorbitantly expensive equipment which reuses the solvent many, many times over. The Department of Ecology, fire marshall, law enforcement and L &I are involved in the permitting process for 1 -502 facilities, potentially dangerous setups would not pass muster for those facilities. I was never stretching it when 1 told you that between LCB, JCC and 1 -502, there is no place to hide. think you should give the suggestion made at the meeting last night to search youtube for marijuana explosions a go. If you discover a bunch of illegal activities, I'd call this myth busted. if you find a bunch of legal operations, I will eat my hat (the cotton hat, not the rabbit fur hat!). i Received after Hearing Julie Shannon Comment Deadline From: Kathleen Kler Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 12:14 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: What about the children? From: gnarleydogfarm @gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 12:14:53 AM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Kathleen Kler Subject: What about the children? Kathleen, When we were campaigning for 1 -502, one of the most significant proponents, in my opinion, was The Seattle Children's Alliance. Why do you suppose an organization of more than 100 different children's groups, whose primary function is the betterment of children, supported 1 -502? It was because the effects of the laws were worse for children and families than the effects of the drug. Weed is not the only thing we keep from minors. Alcohol, tobacco, firearms, hot stoves, dangerous dogs, deep water, traffic... Are you telling me that we are not able to teach kids that some things are just not for them? Or that the entire adult world must be childproof? I have better faith in children to know the difference between right and wrong, through parental guidance. Also, most of us are adults so it is the children who need to be kept in check, not the adults. What do you think the children will think of this years from now after telling them all these things that are not true? Do you think the deception will ward them off or draw them nearer so that they may find the truth for themselves? Do you think they will develop a lack of respect for authority due to the misinformation they have been fed? This Don Quixote style has got to fade. We have real demons to battle without all the imaginary demons. I don't know about you, but it seems to me that successive generations are smarter, not less aware, about the lies told to them. Do you know of any relationship strengthened by lies? 1 can't think of one. Jean Julie Shannon From: Phil Johnson Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 12:20 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: What about the children? From: gnarleydogfarm @gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 12:20:26 AM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Phil Johnson Subject: Fwd: What about the children? Phil, I should have sent this to you also: Begin forwarded message: From: gnarlevdogfarm a gmail.com Date: January 28, 2015 at 12:14:53 AM PST To: Kathleen Kler <KKlerqaa co jefferson.wa.us> Subject: What about the children? Kathleen, When we were campaigning for I -502, one of the most significant proponents, in my opinion, was The Seattle Children's Alliance. Why do you suppose an organization of more than 100 different children's groups, whose primary function is the betterment of children, supported I- 502? It was because the effects of the laws were worse for children and families than the effects of the drug. Weed is not the only thing we keep from minors. Alcohol, tobacco, firearms, hot stoves, dangerous dogs, deep water, traffic... Are you telling me that we are not able to teach kids that some things are just not for them? Or that the entire adult world must be childproof? I have better faith in children to know the difference between right and wrong, through parental guidance. Also, most of us are adults so it is the children who need to be kept in check, not the adults. What do you think the children will think of this years from now after telling them all these things that are not true? Do you think the deception will ward them off or draw them nearer so that they may find the truth for themselves? Do you think they will develop a lack of respect for authority due to the misinformation they have been fed? This Don Quixote style has got to fade. We have real demons to battle without all the imaginary demons. I don't know about you, but it seems to me that successive generations are smarter, not less aware, about the lies told to them. Do you know of any relationship strengthened by lies? I can't think of one. Jean Received after Hearing Julie Shannon _ _ __ . __II!_ — From: Kathleen Kier Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 7:57 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Tyranny of the minority From: gnarleydogfarm @gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 7:58:24 AM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Kathleen Kier Subject: Tyranny of the minority > Good Morning Kathleen, > I would like to share with you an observation on what dogs are in this fight so you have some perspective. > The 502 group represents roughly 30 businesses. > > The nimbys represent basically 3 small groups of people. > Yes, I am aware that term is considered to be slang, however, each of them claims to have voted for 1 -502 yet none of them want it on their neighbor's property... that technically makes them nimbys. > The 3 groups are: my neighbors, the Fredricks St clan and Karen Page's posse. You are already well- versed on the Fredricks St location and aware of Page's situation (however, if you learned about it from her it is likely not accurate). My situation is ugly and 1 met a new problem at the hearing Jan 26th. > I had 2 difficult neighbors and now I have a third. I offered the new one a job at the hearing but he would not speak to me about it and his friend called me a clown ( I have 3 different families interested in his land. All 3 families want to live near and work for me). The original 2 difficult neighbors have been an ongoing and unpleasant situation. One does not want me to grow weed but it is ok that his dog killed an entire flock of production /show birds worth at least $1000 and refused he responsibility. He also filled in a class 2 and 3 wetland and built a road through the swamp without permits (which they would not have granted if he had applied because he did not need to put a road in the swamp for any reason besides to pester my dogs and then complain that they were barking at him. They will only grant a permit to fill a wetland and make a road if it is the only option). My other bad neighbor is a retired San Diego cop who moved to the country and tried to tell the farmer next door how to farm (that farmer was me). One week, his wife was telling me how much she loved my two pigs, about 3 days later, they told me I could not have pigs. I asked why and they said "Cuz they stink." I said, "You can smell my two 100 lb pigs who run free on 5 acres ?" They said "No, but we will." I have 3 dogs, all larger than those 100 lb pigs. > I do have good neighbors, too. I have one couple with an 11 year old son who was fine with my plans to have my plants up to the fence -line where their house is only 40' from where I was planning to have a half acre of plants. Totally cool about it because they are well- informed. I have 3 adjacent and reasonable neighbors who support me. > Jean Ball Julie Shannon From: Kathleen Kier Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 8:55 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Property rights and impacts From: gnarleydogfarm @gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 8:56:18 AM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Kathleen Kier Subject: Property rights and impacts Kathleen, would like to expose the notion that 1 -502 licensees subvert the rights of their neighbors for a diversionary and passive- aggressive tactic. It is not those businesses attempting to restrict the rights of the neighbors, it is those neighbors who are attempting to restrict the rights of the businesses. Let's see it straight! t never told those people they could not do anything, but they tell me I can't do something. This should all be about impacts, not perceived threats. Let's scrutinize the real impacts instead of chasing the whims of bullies. 1 have never tried to tell any of my neighbors how or what to do with their land, never. The neighbors I get along with have never tried to tell me what to do with my land. The trouble comes from the people who think they can tell other landowners how to manage their land and their lives. Incidentally, the louder they are, the less control they seem to exhibit over their own lives. If they can not manage their own lives well, why do you think they try to mange the lives of their neighbors? I pity them, honestly. Get a life! Back to impacts... If my neighbors could put into words any way in which my business activities will impact them, I would be more than happy to mitigate those impacts. However, there are no impacts. The neighbors will not smell, see, taste, touch or hear my plants or any activity that is required to farm them. Besides, how offensive is it to see a plant ?! Those people have the nerve to speak about their property rights! What about my property rights? I have been on this parcel for over 10 years and I own it. 1 have rights, too. 1 want to work from home and I have 5 acres to do that with. I am not interfering with any of my neighbors or their rights. Why do they think they have any say in what I am doing if my activities do not have any impact on them? It is none of their business. They are bullies and they are impacting my life in significant and financial ways. I am not doing anything wrong and I should have the support of local authority. Jean Received after Hearing jeffbocc oemmGM 988e"° -~ From: Sonny Flores <nic.rodeo @gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 4:54 PM To: Kathleen Kler; jeffbocc; David Sullivan; Philip Morley Subject: Expiration of Moratorium I am writing due to the fact, that the Moratorium regarding marijuna growing and processing is about to expire. Moreover, it appears that the Jefferson County Commissioners appear to be having difficulty in making a decision, the last hearing I attended all of you (commissioners) closed the session speaking about the effects of marijuna on juveniles, now how you got there from what the real issue is "Zoning" laws, you got me there. Yes there will be people who will be upset if approved for an extension, but we the people of Port Townsend also have a vested interest in community, and as such careful consideration must me made with this issue. I believe many citizens want to live in a community that does not have to worry about where manufacturing will take place near their families. Just as industrial business is guided by "Zoning Laws" and is not allowed next door to my home or near a group of homes such as the Maple Leaf Community, This comes down to allowable Zoning of such businesses. I voted for the I502, but there must be time taken to develope regulations to the processing and growing. To allow this type of business anywhere in Jefferson county is reckless an irresponsible. Please consider all stakeholders, which includes all citizens of Jefferson County. "Please stop the stubborn defense of an obviously flawed policy which does not serve the interests of the citizens of Jefferson County and do what neighboring counties have done and protect the interest of all citizens. " Sincerely, Librado & Kathleen Flores 723 Discovery Ridge Road Port townsend WA 98368 206 - 290 -102 Received affer Hearing jeffbocc e1111—f -.. eggigp From: David Neuenschwander <dnneuen @sbcglobal.net> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 12:27 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: For Kathleen Kier: On the marijuana processing moratorium Madame Commissioner Personal Comments: The following comments are personal and do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization of which I may be associated. I am naive: Community Development Director Carl Smith once told me that I am naive when it comes to land use. He is right: I have done some limited research, but I am not a expert. Recommendation: • Let the moratorium expire. • Be prepared to work with existing regulatory agencies with respect to certain adverse but potentially controllable environmental consequences such as • Odor abatement • Water usage Uptake • Discharge • Light abatement • Noise abatement • Allow (or even encourage, if possible) nuisance suits either on the part of the County or individual landowners against offending growers or processors Background • As a result of a decision by the County, marijuana growing and processing was found to be agricultural in nature and allowed as a legitimate land use. o Marijuana growers and processors, sensing an economic opportunity, began to invest time and money in this new industry Public outcry caused the County to put in place a moratorium during which time more study could be devoted • During this time, marijuana growers and processors have been economically hurt as a once promising opportunity has foundered on the rocks of uncertainty • Neighbor objections seem to include Traffic Noise Light • Hours of activity • Odors • Water withdrawal and discharge Ground water pollution Discussion • Using existing regulations is an admittedly naive approach to the problem. However, Washington State has a reputation for aggressive (some might even say excessive) environmental controls and those controls might be used to good advantage in this case. • Consider economic balance o Growers and processors do not have the economic clout that, say, the paper mill has. • The Economist states the legal cannabis industry is run by minnows • While they maybe well financed, they are still small, and cannot afford to offend their neighbors and their elected officials willy - nilly, especially if faced with excessive regulations or nuisance lawsuits • Consider economic lifecycles • Legal growing and processing marijuana is a relatively new industry • It has had some time to develop in Colorado, but not in Washington State • If the experience with video stores, full service gas stations and corner grocery stores is any indication, this new industry will change and develop in ways not yet known • The problems will likely get ironed out or simply disappear over the next three to five years • Consider the economics of the operations o While presently a fairly valuable commodity, marijuana is still tightly controlled and there will be precious little incentive to allow any waste to occur Consider the economic competition • While there might be economic opportunity, the industry is so heavily taxed that the black market will almost certainly continue. • The black market alone could drive the regulated growers and processors out of business in a few years. • The Economist reckons legal cannabis to cost upwards of $16.44 per gram in Washington State, but the illegal stuff is only $7.37 per gram (see interactive chart at http: / /www. economist .com /blogs /gra p h icdeta i I /2015 /01 /daily - chart-11) Consider the political ramifications • Allowing the moratorium to expire will likely cost votes • Even if letting it expire is the right thing to do (and I think it is), what is the political calculus that can make or break political careers? • Are you prepared to take that risk? Finally, consider civic duty • I'm not sure the public interest in this case is shallow, but the following might be worth considering • "Bread and circuses" (or bread and games) (from Latin: panem et circenses) is metonymic for a superficial means of appeasement. In the case of politics the phrase is used to describe the generation of public approval, not through exemplary or excellent public service or public policy, but through diversion; distraction; or the mere satisfaction of the immediate, shallow requirements of a populace, as an offered "palliative." It's originator, Juvenal, used the phrase to decry the selfishness of common people and their neglect of wider concerns. The phrase also implies the erosion or ignorance of civic duty amongst the concerns of the commoner. David Neuenschwander 360.765.3151 Peceived after Bearing Julie Shannon comment Deadline From: Kathleen Kler Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 9:40 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: JCC references -Why I am entitled to farm Cannabis in JeffCo From: gnarleydogfarm @gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 9:40:47 To: Kathleen Kier; Phil Johnson AM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) Subject: JCC references -Why I am entitled to farm Cannabis in JeffCo Hello Kathleen and Phil, I gathered some bits of code to show you why 1 think I am entitled to grow weed in 1effCO and why I believe our existing code sufficiently sets the parameters. Also, please read the definition of agriculture and tell me if it says to you that Cannabis is not a plant. Thank you for your enduring spirt and efforts to get this done, Jean Ball 18.20.030 Agricultural activities and accessory uses 18.15.095 Right to farm and forestry provisions 18.20.200 Home businesses. 18.15.460 Home -based businesses. 18.15.465 Cottage industries 18.20.170 Cottage industry 18.20.020 Accessory uses and structures 18.10... Definitions 18.10.030 Definition: "Cottage industry' means a commercial or manufacturing activity conducted in whole or in part in either the resident's single - family dwelling unit or in an accessory building, but is of a scale larger than a home occupation or home business. A cottage industry is a limited, small -scale commercial or industrial activity, including fabrication, with limited retail sales, that can be conducted without substantial adverse impact on the residential character in the vicinity. 18.10.080 Definition: "Home Business" Home -based businesses are secondary and incidental to the primary residential use of the structure, provide supplemental income for a family, consist of limited -scale service or fabrication, and limited retail sales. 18.10.010 Definitions: "Agriculture" means the science, art, and business of producing crops, or raising livestock; farming. "Agricultural activities" means land preparation for agricultural purposes, such as clearing, grading, contouring, ditching, fencing, plowing, tilling, planting, cultivating, fertilizing, weed pest and disease control, spraying, pruning, trimming, harvesting, processing, packing, sales, and construction of farm and stock ponds, irrigation ditches and systems; livestock management, such as breeding, birthing, feeding and care of animals, birds, honey bees, and fish; the repair, maintenance and incidental construction of equipment, structures, or machinery used to perform agricultural or husbandry operations; and the storage of agricultural products and machinery. "Agricultural best management practices (BMPs)" mean schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, maintenance procedures, and other management practices to prevent or reduce pollution of waters or degradation of wetlands and fish and wildlife habitat areas. "Agricultural product or commodity" means any plant or part of a plant, or animal, or animal product. produced by a person (including farmers, ranchers, vineyardists, plant propagators, Christmas tree growers, aquaculturists, floriculturists, orchadists, foresters, or other comparable persons) primarily for sale, consumption, propagation, or other use by people or animals. "Agriculture, existing and ongoing" means any agricultural activity conducted on an ongoing basis on lands enrolled in the open space tax program for agriculture or designated as agricultural lands of long -term commercial significance on the official map of Comprehensive Plan land use designations; provided, that agricultural activities were conducted on those lands at any time during the five -year period preceding April 28, 2003. Agricultural use ceases when the area on which it is conducted is converted to a nonagricultural use. "New Agriculture" means agricultural activities proposed or conducted after April 28, 2003, and that do not meet the definition of "existing ongoing agriculture." Julie Shannon From: Phil Johnson Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 9:40 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: JCC references -Why I am entitled to farm Cannabis in JeffCo From: gnarleydogfarm@gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 9:40:47 AM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Kathleen Kler; Phil Johnson Subject: JCC references -Why 1 am entitled to farm Cannabis in JeffCo Hello Kathleen and Phil. I gathered some bits of code to show you why I think I am entitled to grow weed in 1effCO and why I believe our existing code sufficiently sets the parameters. Also, please read the definition of agriculture and tell me if it says to you that Cannabis is not a plant. Thank you for your enduring spirt and efforts to get this done, Jean Ball 18.20.030 Agricultural activities and accessory uses 18.15.095 Right to farm and forestry provisions 18.20.200 Home businesses. 18.15.460 Home -based businesses. 18.15.465 Cottage industries 18.20.170 Cottage industry 18.20.020 Accessory uses and structures 18.10... Definitions 18.10.030 Definition: "Cottage industry" means a commercial or manufacturing activity conducted in whole or in part in either the resident's single - family dwelling unit or in an accessory building, but is of a scale larger than a home occupation or home business. A cottage industry is a limited, small -scale commercial or industrial activity, including fabrication, with limited retail sales, that can be conducted without substantial adverse impact on the residential character in the vicinity. 18.10.080 Definition: "Home Business" Home -based businesses are secondary and incidental to the primary residential use of the structure, provide supplemental income for a family, consist of limited -scale service or fabrication, and limited retail sales. 18.10.010 Definitions: "Agriculture" means the science, art, and business of producing crops, or raising livestock; farming. "Agricultural activities" means land preparation for agricultural purposes, such as clearing, grading, contouring, ditching, fencing, plowing, tilling, planting, cultivating, fertilizing, weed pest and disease control, spraying, pruning, trimming, harvesting, processing, packing, sales, and construction of farm and stock ponds, irrigation ditches and systems; livestock management, such as breeding, birthing, feeding and care of animals, birds, honey bees, and fish; the repair, maintenance and incidental construction of equipment, structures, or machinery used to perform agricultural or husbandry operations; and the storage of agricultural products and machinery. "Agricultural best management practices (BMPs)" mean schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, maintenance procedures, and other management practices to prevent or reduce pollution of waters or degradation of wetlands and fish and wildlife habitat areas. "Agricultural product or commodity" means any plant or part of a plant, or animal, or animal product, produced by a person (including farmers, ranchers, vineyardists, plant propagators, Christmas tree growers, aquaculturists, floriculturists, orchadists, foresters, or other comparable persons) primarily for sale, consumption, propagation, or other use by people or animals. "Agriculture, existing and ongoing" means any agricultural activity conducted on an ongoing basis on lands enrolled in the open space tax program for agriculture or designated as agricultural lands of long -term commercial significance on the official map of Comprehensive Plan land use designations; provided, that agricultural activities were conducted on those lands at any time during the five -year period preceding April 28, 2003. Agricultural use ceases when the area on which it is conducted is converted to a nonagricultural use. "New Agriculture" means agricultural activities proposed or conducted after April 28, 2003, and that do not meet the definition of "existing ongoing agriculture." Comment Deadline Commissioners: r Tel: 360-385-9100 KKler�co.jefferson wa.us Phil Johnson ieffboccrcojefferson.wa.us David Sullivan dsullivan@co.iefferson.wams County Administrator Phillip Morley Dmorleynd co.jefferson.wa. us Major points: o The moratorium should apply to ALL pending applications o No exception for larger parcels • There is no logical or scientific basis for such an exemption. • The potential environmental, fire, explosion, personal security and related risks are, if anything, exacerbated by allowing large unregulated marijuana operations in rural residentie neighborhoods. Received after Hearing Comment Deadline Julie Shannon From: Kathleen Kier Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 1:35 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Moratorium From: Roger Hall Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 1:35:44 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: David Sullivan; Kathleen Kler; Phil Johnson; Carl Smith Cc: Philip Morley Subject: Moratorium Dear Commissioners Kathleen Kler, David Sullivan, and Phil Johnson I was not able to attend the public meeting last even but I would like my voice to be heard. I am asking you to please not extend this moratorium. Please don't do this, and here's why. I know 1 502 is good idea and a good direction for this County, State and as a template for the whole country. That's why it passed in this county by such a huge margin and state wide. As you know is was 65% in favor of in Jeffco. The negative stigmas about Cannabis are going away all across this land. 1 understand the Nimbys concerns. What the Nimbys may or may not be aware of, or be present to, is that Jefferson County has a huge number of illegal growing operations right now and probably right next to some of the Nimby's homes but they just don't even know it. I know this by seeing all the products that are available in the dispensaries right now. Those operations are not going away unless they are forced to. The longer you prevent this, the harder it will be for law enforcement later on. The clear path to accomplishing that has to be with 1 502 going forward, by removing the medical side and regulating the retail side as we all know. As we all know, those regulations are extensive already. Please help me to actually deliver on what the Nimbys are asking you for, and that is to be a part of cleaning up this county from the illegal activity. That starts with Jefferson County reversing course, and removing this unnecessary moratorium. It wasn't necessary in the first place and it not necessary now. Since when has DCD ever needed a Moratorium (Time out) to change there rules or amend the codes? Not in my memory have I ever seen this. This is clearly a strategy for Carl Smith not to implement the voter - approved state law, 1 -502. He asked for, and you (BOCC) gave him a stop gap measure last September, in which HE MADE PROMISES THAT HE DID NOT KEEP. Now he is asking for a NEW deal by the way of an extension to that previous stop gap measure, and more promises. It's quite predictable that he is not going to keep them. either. How do I know that? Because I don't see any tangible time line, or any commitment from him to deliver anything that he has already promised. He has no firm dates of real expectations to complete anything. Just like the first time. What 1 see is a endless stream of bureaucracy that he is hiding behind. I have been to the DCD meetings and I see how easily the direction is being controlled and maneuvered around the citizens involvement , i.e., their Board. I know you see how things are being filtered. Please don't tolerate this. This is contrary to how I understand a democracy is to operate. You were elected into office to represent your districts. Your constituents Voted in favor of 1502. You can not just ignore what the voters have said to you. This is a manipulation of the Democratic process by a special interest MINORITY. I also call on you to remove Carl Smith from hindering the democratic process in this county any more then he already has. Furthermore, he clearly has shown how unprofessional he is by publishing the CONFIDENTIAL information found in the I -502 applications provided him by the WSCLB of every applicant in this county. This was NOT his property. If the Freedom of Information Act was to apply, it was up to the Liquor board to apply it, not Carl Smith. And for that I hope that he is held personally accountable by way of a class action law suit for the extensive financial damage that he has caused everyone in this county who legally applied for 1 -502, let alone the tax payers who foot that legal bill. My taxes are paying for the salaries of Phil Morley and Carl Smith. It's Phil Morley's job to manage his subordinates. If he knew of or approved of the publishing of this information, he should be removed also. They are charged with the responsibility to manage the will of the tax- paying voters in this county. But what I am seeing is that they are both manipulating and maneuvering the BoCC. They have both given you their personal preferences just before your voting on very important issues. That in itself is not how democracy works. They are administrators they don't have a vote at your table, only an opinion and their own single votes as citizens. They should not attempt to lobby or influence with their personal opinions in an attempt to sway your vote. Don't tolerate this. In closing, please do not extend this moratorium. To allow Carl Smith and Phil Morley, who are our administrators in Jefferson County, to undermine and attempt to undo what has already been debated, voted upon, and approved locally in the county and the state, and accepted as law, is a purposeful circumvention of our democratic process in Jefferson County by a self- interest - motivated minority. This is a systemic undermining of the democratic process that cannot be tolerated. Not by anyone in this County, State or our Nation. The voters have spoken in this state and their decision is now law. The State has upheld its obligation to the voters in Washington by setting up a thorough regulatory process that insures safety and quality of product for consumers as well as safeguards to prevent criminal activity, allowing legal businesses to serve customers and provide employment for local citizens and generating tax revenue for the benefit of state residents. Jefferson County has NOT. Do Not Tolerate This. Thank you for your service and your time, Roger Hall @ Auntie Onolicious 2 Julie Shannon From: Phil Johnson Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 2:04 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Moratorium From: Roger Hall Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 2:05:13 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: David Sullivan; Phil Johnson Subject: Moratorium Dear Commissioners Kathleen Kier, David Sullivan, and Phil Johnson I was not able to attend the public meeting last even but I would like my voice to be heard. I am asking you to please not extend this moratorium. Please don't do this, and here's why. I know 1 502 is good idea and a good direction for this County, State and as a template for the whole country. That's why it passed in this county by such a huge margin and state wide. As you know is was 65% in favor of in Jeffco. The negative stigmas about Cannabis are going away all across this land. I understand the Nimby's concerns. What the Nimbys may or may not be aware of, or be present to, is that Jefferson County has a huge number of illegal growing operations right now and probably right next to some of the Nimby's homes but they just don't even know it. I know this by seeing all the products that are available in the dispensaries right now. Those operations are not going away unless they are forced to. The longer you prevent this, the harder it will be for law enforcement later on. The clear path to accomplishing that has to be with 1 502 going forward, by removing the medical side and regulating the retail side as we all know. As we all know, those regulations are extensive already. Please help me to actually deliver on what the Nimbys are asking you for, and that is to be a part of cleaning up this county from the illegal activity. That starts with Jefferson County reversing course, and removing this unnecessary moratorium. It wasn't necessary in the first place and it not necessary now. Since when has DCD ever needed a Moratorium (Time out) to change there rules or amend the codes? Not in my memory have I ever seen this. This is clearly a strategy for Carl Smith not to implement the voter - approved state law, 1 -502. He asked for, and you (BOCC) gave him a stop gap measure last September, in which HE MADE PROMISES THAT HE DID NOT KEEP. Now he is asking for a NEW deal by the way of an extension to that previous stop gap measure, and more promises. It's quite predictable that he is not going to keep them, either. How do I know that? Because I don't see any tangible time line, or any commitment from him to deliver anything that he has already promised. He has no firm dates of real expectations to complete anything. Just like the first time. What I see is a endless stream of bureaucracy that he is hiding behind. I have been to the DCD meetings and I see how easily the direction is being controlled and maneuvered around the citizens involvement , i.e., their Board. I know you see how things are being filtered. Please don't tolerate this. This is contrary to how I understand a democracy is to operate. You were elected into office to represent your districts. Your constituents Voted in favor of 1502. You can not just ignore what the voters have said to you. This is a manipulation of the Democratic process by a special interest MINORITY. I also call on you to remove Carl Smith from hindering the democratic process in this county any more then he already has. Furthermore, he clearly has shown how unprofessional he is by publishing the CONFIDENTIAL information found in the 1 -502 applications provided him by the WSCLB of every applicant in this county. This was NOT his property. If the Freedom of Information Act was to apply, it was up to the Liquor board to apply it, not Carl Smith. And for that I hope that he is held personally accountable by way of a class action law suit for the extensive financial damage that he has caused everyone in this county who legally applied for 1 -502, let alone the tax payers who foot that legal bill. My taxes are paying for the salaries of Phil Morley and Carl Smith. It's Phil Morley's job to manage his subordinates. If he knew of or approved of the publishing of this information, he should be removed also. They are charged with the responsibility to manage the will of the tax- paying voters in this county. But what I am seeing is that they are both manipulating and maneuvering the BoCC. They have both given you their personal preferences just before your voting on very important issues. That in itself is not how democracy works. They are administrators they don't have a vote at your table, only an opinion and their own single votes as citizens. They should not attempt to lobby or influence with their personal opinions in an attempt to sway your vote. Don't tolerate this. In closing, please do not extend this moratorium. To allow Carl Smith and Phil Morley, who are our administrators in Jefferson County, to undermine and attempt to undo what has already been debated, voted upon, and approved locally in the county and the state, and accepted as law, is a purposeful circumvention of our democratic process in Jefferson County by a self- interest - motivated minority. This is a systemic undermining of the democratic process that cannot be tolerated. Not by anyone in this County, State or our Nation. The voters have spoken in this state and their decision is now law. The State has upheld its obligation to the voters in Washington by setting up a thorough regulatory process that insures safety and quality of product for consumers as well as safeguards to prevent criminal activity, allowing legal businesses to serve customers and provide employment for local citizens and generating tax revenue for the benefit of state residents. Jefferson County has NOT. Do Not Tolerate This. Thank you for your service and your time, Roger Hall @ Auntie Onolicious 4 Julie Shannon From: David Sullivan Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 2:04 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Moratorium From: Roger Hall Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 2:05:13 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: David Sullivan; Phil Johnson Subject: Moratorium Dear Commissioners Kathleen Kier, David Sullivan, and Phil Johnson I was not able to attend the public meeting last even but I would like my voice to be heard. I am asking you to please not extend this moratorium. Please don't do this, and here's why. I know 1 502 is good idea and a good direction for this County, State and as a template for the whole country. That's why it passed in this county by such a huge margin and state wide. As you know is was 65% in favor of in Jeffco. The negative stigmas about Cannabis are going away all across this land. I understand the Nimby's concerns. What the Nimbys may or may not be aware of, or be present to, is that Jefferson County has a huge number of illegal growing operations right now and probably right next to some of the Nimby's homes but they just don't even know it. I know this by seeing all the products that are available in the dispensaries right now. Those operations are not going away unless they are forced to. The longer you prevent this, the harder it will be for law enforcement later on. The clear path to accomplishing that has to be with 1 502 going forward, by removing the medical side and regulating the retail side as we all know. As we all know, those regulations are extensive already. Please help me to actually deliver on what the Nimbys are asking you for, and that is to be a part of cleaning up this county from the illegal activity. That starts with Jefferson County reversing course, and removing this unnecessary moratorium. It wasn't necessary in the first place and it not necessary now. Since when has DCD ever needed a Moratorium (Time out) to change there rules or amend the codes? Not in my memory have 1 ever seen this. This is clearly a strategy for Carl Smith not to implement the voter - approved state law, 1 -502. He asked for, and you (BOCC) gave him a stop gap measure last September, in which HE MADE PROMISES THAT HE DID NOT KEEP. Now he is asking for a NEW deal by the way of an extension to that previous stop gap measure, and more promises. It's quite predictable that he is not going to keep them, either. How do 1 know that? Because 1 don't see any tangible time line, or any commitment from him to deliver anything that he has already promised. He has no firm dates of real expectations to complete anything. Just like the first time. What 1 see is a endless stream of bureaucracy that he is hiding behind. I have been to the DCD meetings and I see how easily the direction is being controlled and maneuvered around the citizens involvement , i.e., their Board. I know you see how things are being filtered. Please don't tolerate this. This is contrary to how I understand a democracy is to operate. You were elected into office to represent your districts. Your constituents Voted in favor of 1502. You can not just ignore what the voters have said to you. This is a manipulation of the Democratic process by a special interest MINORITY. 1 I also call on you to remove Carl Smith from hindering the democratic process in this county any more then he already has. Furthermore, he clearly has shown how unprofessional he is by publishing the CONFIDENTIAL information found in the 1 -502 applications provided him by the WSCLB of every applicant in this county. This was NOT his property. If the Freedom of Information Act was to apply, it was up to the Liquor board to apply it, not Carl Smith. And for that 1 hope that he is held personally accountable by way of a class action law suit for the extensive financial damage that he has caused everyone in this county who legally applied for 1 -502, let alone the tax payers who foot that legal bill. My taxes are paying for the salaries of Phil Morley and Carl Smith. It's Phil Morley's job to manage his subordinates. if he knew of or approved of the publishing of this information, he should be removed also. They are charged with the responsibility to manage the will of the tax- paying voters in this county. But what I am seeing is that they are both manipulating and maneuvering the BoCC. They have both given you their personal preferences just before your voting on very important issues. That in itself is not how democracy works. They are administrators they don't have a vote at your table, only an opinion and their own single votes as citizens. They should not attempt to lobby or influence with their personal opinions in an attempt to sway your vote. Don't tolerate this. In closing, please do not extend this moratorium. To allow Carl Smith and Phil Morley, who are our administrators in Jefferson County, to undermine and attempt to undo what has already been debated, voted upon, and approved locally in the county and the state, and accepted as law, is a purposeful circumvention of our democratic process in Jefferson County by a self- interest - motivated minority. This is a systemic undermining of the democratic process that cannot be tolerated. Not by anyone in this County, State or our Nation. The voters have spoken in this state and their decision is now law. The State has upheld its obligation to the voters in Washington by setting up a thorough regulatory process that insures safety and quality of product for consumers as well as safeguards to prevent criminal activity, allowing legal businesses to serve customers and provide employment for local citizens and generating tax revenue for the benefit of state residents. Jefferson County has NOT. Do Not Tolerate This. Thank you for your service and your time, Roger Hall @ Auntie Onolicious Received after Hearing Comment Deadline jeffbocc From: Eric Belgau <ericb @nichinsure.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:04 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Cannabis comment Dear Kathleen, David, and Phil, I realize your time is valuable and that the public comment period on this issue has closed. However, there is one point that came up during the hearing that begs clarification, and there was an often - repeated argument that I would like to refute. First, the issue of explosions is an important one. The LCB currently disallows the use of systems that create potentially explosive vapors. In addition, the insurance policies available for cannabis risks disallows those systems. That is not the case in (unregulated) MMJ here in Washington, and it is also not the case in Colorado. The danger of open systems is very real, however, and you would be wise to align county regulations with the LCB's existing rules at some point. That way, in the unlikely event that the LCB changes its regulations, your county codes would still protect vulnerable areas. Second, numerous speakers urged inaction as a way to "get things right." I became an advocate for cannabis because of the surge of misinformation I saw hurled at clients whose behavior I knew well. As a result I've attended dozens of city and county meetings all over Western Washington. The arguments opposing cannabis businesses haven't changed in that time; they have not responded to the clear presentation of facts; and where there has been cooperation it has almost always been initiated by the 1 -502 community. I'm left with the impression — cynically, perhaps —that no amount of time will change the tenor of opposition and that the possibility of compromise will remain remote at best. This industry is a wolf in the shadows, and it's a Iamb in the light. Therefore, I don't believe time or inaction is prudent. Instead, I advocate moving toward the light as quickly as possible, in order to put the sound and fury to bed. On a personal note I'd like to add that, having attended so many of these meetings, I have been very impressed by the courtesy and even - handedness with which you've conducted yourselves. All the best, Eric Belgau Commercial Account Executive Nicholson & Associates Insurance 1802 Black Lake Blvd SW, Suite 301 Olympia WA 98512 (360) 352 -8444 ext. 122 (Direct) (360) 515 -6627 (Mobile) (360) 943 -9712 (Fax) 4ecejved after Heating jeffbocc Comment Deadline From: Linda Jarvis <lindajarvis @mac.com> Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 9:50 AM To: jeffbocc Cc: Kathleen Kier; David Sullivan; Philip Morley Subject: Please consider... January 29, 2015 Dear Commissioner Phil Johnson, You and I share a real concern for our environment, especially here on our beautiful Peninsula. I want to express my concerns about the environmental impacts of marijuana growing and processing in Jefferson County. Several times in Leader or PDN articles, it has been stated that these concerns are unfounded or imagined. It is hard for me to understand why we can't learn from what has occurred in Colorado or California and from that move with deliberate caution and sensibility. Why do we have to wait until we contaminate a stream or begin to see wildlife dying or have an explosion or fire to acknowledge these real, not imagined, but real threats to our natural environment? We do not want to look back at these proceedings as being negligent, but instead that we moved into it and through it with a realistic and conscious outlook. Because I know you care about the environment like I do, I am writing to you today to share my deep concerns about the real possibility of environmental contamination and devastation from marijuana growing and processing. I know that you have a difficult decision to make about how to create policies for this commercial activity in our County. I want to ask you to please consider having the growing and processing of marijuana take place in commercial and industrial zones only where the contaminates and other by- products of production and processing can be well managed and monitored. Please consider extending the moratorium with no exclusions and apply it to all parcels regardless of size. It feels to me like a workable solution is in the works. The planning commission deserves to have the right to participate. Our WRIA 17 plan was put in place for good reason - water limitations, salmon recovery - let's abide by it. We have to walk into this new arena with all our senses in place. Please don't rush into this and risk diminishing the natural beauty and rural nature of the Chimacum sub - basin. We are one community here in Jefferson County, Phil, and we all need to work this out together to protect the future of all concerned. Thank you for your consideration and integrity with regard to this volatile issue. Sincerely, Linda Jarvis CC: Commissioner Kler Received after Hearing Julie Shannon comment Deadline From: Kathleen Kler Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 6:44 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Traceability, product, samples From: gnarleydogfarm@gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 6:44:54 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Kathleen Kler; Phil Johnson Subject: Traceability, product, samples Hello Phil and Kathleen, I thought you might like to have some info about the very tightly controlled flowers we are trying to cultivate. WAC states that even business owners are not allowed unfettered access to the product or plants. Even our samples are very tightly controlled and the amounts are barely worthy of being called 'samples'. We are not allowed to provide any samples to customers. We are not given an allowance from our harvests to give to employees or to keep for our personal use. There is no wiggle room and every gram is tracked and documented. Jean If you would like the mind - numbing regulations about samples... WAC 314 -55 -083 Traceability (6) Samples. Free samples of usable marijuana may be provided by producers or processors, or used for product quality testing, as set forth in this section. (a) Samples are limited to two grams and a producer may not provide any one licensed processor more than four grams of usable marijuana per month free of charge for the purpose of negotiating a sale. The producer must record the amount of each sample and the processor receiving the sample in the traceability system. (b) Samples are limited to two grams and a processor may not provide any one licensed retailer more than four grams of usable marijuana per month free of charge for the purpose of negotiating a sale. The processor must record the amount of each sample and the retailer receiving the sample in the traceability system. (c) Samples are limited to two units and a processor may not provide any one licensed retailer more than six ounces of marijuana infused in solid form per month free of charge for the purpose of negotiating a sale. The processor must record the amount of each sample and the retailer receiving the sample in the traceability system. (d) Samples are limited to two units and a processor may not provide any one licensed retailer more than twenty -four ounces of marijuana- infused liquid per month free of charge for the purpose of negotiating a sale. The processor must record the amount of each sample and the retailer receiving the sample in the traceability system. (e) Samples are limited to one -half gram and a processor may not provide any one licensed retailer more than one gram of marijuana- infused extract meant for inhalation per month free of charge for the purpose of negotiating a sale. The processor must record the amount of each sample and the retailer receiving the sample in the traceability system. (f) Producers may sample one gram of usable marijuana per strain, per month for quality sampling. Sampling for quality may not take place at a licensed premises. Only the producer or employees of the licensee may sample the usable marijuana for quality. The producer must record the amount of each sample and the employee(s) conducting the sampling in the traceability system. (g) Processors may sample one unit, per batch of a new edible marijuana- infused product to be offered for sale on the market. Sampling for quality may not take place at a licensed premises. Only the processor or employees of the licensee may sample the edible marijuana- infused product. The processor must record the amount of each sample and the employee(s) conducting the sampling in the traceability system. (h) Processors may sample up to one quarter gram, per batch of a new marijuana- infused extract for inhalation to be offered for sale on the market. Sampling for quality may not take place at a licensed premises. Only the processor or employee(s) of the licensee may sample the marijuana- infused extract for inhalation. The processor must record the amount of each sample and the employee(s) conducting the sampling in the traceability system. (i) The limits described in subsection (3) of this section do not apply to the usable marijuana in sample jars that may be provided to retailers described in WAC 314 -55- 105(8). 0) Retailers may not provide free samples to customers. Julie Shannon From: Phil Johnson Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 6:44 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Traceability, product, samples From: gnarleydogfarm @gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 6:44:54 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Kathleen Kler; Phil Johnson Subject: Traceability, product, samples Hello Phil and Kathleen, I thought you might like to have some info about the very tightly controlled flowers we are trying to cultivate. WAC states that even business owners are not allowed unfettered access to the product or plants. Even our samples are very tightly controlled and the amounts are barely worthy of being called 'samples'. We are not allowed to provide any samples to customers. We are not given an allowance from our harvests to give to employees or to keep for our personal use. There is no wiggle room and every gram is tracked and documented. Jean If you would like the mind - numbing regulations about samples... WAC 314 -55 -083 Traceability (6) Samples. Free samples of usable marijuana may be provided by producers or processors, or used for product quality testing, as set forth in this section. (a) Samples are limited to two grams and a producer may not provide any one licensed processor more than four grams of usable marijuana per month free of charge for the purpose of negotiating a sale. The producer must record the amount of each sample and the processor receiving the sample in the traceability system. (b) Samples are limited to two grams and a processor may not provide any one licensed retailer more than four grams of usable marijuana per month free of charge for the purpose of negotiating a sale. The processor must record the amount of each sample and the retailer receiving the sample in the traceability system. (c) Samples are limited to two units and a processor may not provide any one licensed retailer more than six ounces of marijuana infused in solid form per month free of charge for the purpose of negotiating a sale. The processor must record the amount of each sample and the retailer receiving the sample in the traceability system. (d) Samples are limited to two units and a processor may not provide any one licensed retailer more than twenty -four ounces of marijuana- infused liquid per month free of charge for the purpose of negotiating a sale. The processor must record the amount of each sample and the retailer receiving the sample in the traceability system. (e) Samples are limited to one -half gram and a processor may not provide any one licensed retailer more than one gram of marijuana- infused extract meant for inhalation per month free of charge for the purpose of negotiating a sale. The processor must record the amount of each sample and the retailer receiving the sample in the traceability system. (f) Producers may sample one gram of usable marijuana per strain, per month for quality sampling. Sampling for quality may not take place at a licensed premises. Only the producer or employees of the licensee may sample the usable marijuana for quality. The producer must record the amount of each sample and the employee(s) conducting the sampling in the traceability system. (g) Processors may sample one unit, per batch of a new edible marijuana- infused product to be offered for sale on the market. Sampling for quality may not take place at a licensed premises. Only the processor or employees of the licensee may sample the edible marijuana- infused product. The processor must record the amount of each sample and the employee(s) conducting the sampling in the traceability system. (h) Processors may sample up to one quarter gram, per batch of a new marijuana- infused extract for inhalation to be offered for sale on the market. Sampling for quality may not take place at a licensed premises. Only the processor or employee(s) of the licensee may sample the marijuana - infused extract for inhalation. The processor must record the amount of each sample and the employee(s) conducting the sampling in the traceability system. (i) The limits described in subsection (3) of this section do not apply to the usable marijuana in sample jars that may be provided to retailers described in WAC 314 -55- 105(8). (j) Retailers may not provide free samples to customers. Received after Hearing Julie Shannon Comment Deadline From: Kathleen Kier Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:27 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Is Cannabis not Ag? From: gnarleydogfarm @gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:27:54 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Kathleen Kier: Phil Johnson Subject: Is Cannabis not Ag? Hello Kathleen and Phil, 1 am a subsistence farmer. I studied Biology in college. I am trained in Mycology, I forage wild mushrooms and I grow gourmet fungi. I raise meat animals, vegetables and fruit. I am a beekeeper. I think I know what a plant is. am trying to comprehend this concept that Cannabis is not agriculture. The long- and -short of it is that the failure of the definition to meet reality stems from ignorant political misconceptions. 1 do not find that to be a compelling reason to perpetuate such a violation of the protective role our government is supposed to provide, in fact, 1 find it to be contrariwise. Propaganda is not the form of interaction our government should be deploying on it's own people. This form of interaction between authority and citizens foments civil unrest. Don't you feel compelled to correct blatantly incorrect information? It has been said that: "If you repeat a lie loud enough, long enough and enough times, people will believe it is true ", they say that quote was from Hitler. If you look at this issue with a clear mind which is not muddied by the vestigial inconsistencies within federal law (if only for the reason that federal law is in flux and swinging in our favor) and try to determine what we are dealing with, perhaps you can begin like this: Biology 101 teaches us that ALL living things on Earth belong to one of five kingdoms: Animalia, Plantae, Fungi, Protista, and Prokaryota /Monera. Given those facts, I believe it is safe to say that we require no further debate over whether Cannabis belongs to the kingdom of Plantae or not, that it is indeed alive, and that it does not belong in any of the other four kingdoms. Quacks like a duck. Regardless of the kingdom Plantae designation, UDC 18.20.030 (c) states: "Agricultural Product or Commodity is ANY PLANT or part of a plant..." is an agricultural product. I call that a touchdown. In the JCC document 18.20.030 Agricultural activities and accessory uses, there are very clear definitions set forth for this seemingly nebulous term 'agriculture'. I believe you will find the valuable work done by the tireless public servants in order to complete the UDC to have taken all the guess work out of your decision - making process. I think all you need to do is read and comprehend the UDC. You will find that article (b) of 18.20.030 actually includes the term "weed" in the list of accepted agricultural activities (I capitalized it so you would see it better). Although I suspect that to be a typo meant to say "weeding ", UDC says "weed" and I must take UDC for it's word! I am grateful for the forethought of the code authors for their inclusion of this term. They were true pioneers of their time! May you find inspiration in their words! 1 Gratefully, Jean Ball 18.20.030 (a) Agriculture. The science, art, and business of producing crops, or raising livestock; farming. (b) Agricultural Activities. Land preparation for agricultural purposes, such as clearing, grading, contouring, ditching, fencing, plowing, tilling, planting, cultivating, fertilizing, WEED, pest and disease control, spraying, pruning, trimming, harvesting, processing, packing, sales, and construction of farm and stock ponds, irrigation ditches and systems; livestock management, such as breeding, birthing, feeding and care of animals, birds, honey bees, and fish; the repair maintenance and incidental construction of equipment, structures, or machinery used to perform agricultural or husbandry operations; and the storage of agricultural products and machinery. (c) Agricultural Product or Commodity. ANY PLANT or part of a plant, or animal, or animal product, produced by a person (including farmers, ranchers, vineyardists, plant propagators, Christmas tree growers, aquaculturists, floriculturists, orchadists, foresters, or other comparable persons) primarily for sale, consumption, propagation, or other use by people or animals. Julie Shannon From: Phil Johnson Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:27 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Is Cannabis not Ag? From: gnarleydogfarm @gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:27:54 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Kathleen Kler: Phil Johnson Subject: Is Cannabis not Ag? Hello Kathleen and Phil, am a subsistence farmer. I studied Biology in college. I am trained in Mycology, I forage wild mushrooms and grow gourmet fungi. I raise meat animals, vegetables and fruit. I am a beekeeper. I think I know what a plant is. I am trying to comprehend this concept that Cannabis is not agriculture. The long- and -short of it is that the failure of the definition to meet reality stems from ignorant political misconceptions. I do not find that to be a compelling reason to perpetuate such a violation of the protective role our government is supposed to provide, in fact, I find it to be contrariwise. Propaganda is not the form of interaction our government should be deploying on it's own people. This form of interaction between authority and citizens foments civil unrest. Don't you feel compelled to correct blatantly incorrect information? It has been said that: "If you repeat a lie loud enough, long enough and enough times, people will believe it is true ", they say that quote was from Hitler. If you look at this issue with a clear mind which is not muddied by the vestigial inconsistencies within federal law (if only for the reason that federal law is in flux and swinging in our favor) and try to determine what we are dealing with, perhaps you can begin like this: Biology 101 teaches us that ALL living things on Earth belong to one of five kingdoms: Animalia, Plantae, Fungi, Protista, and Prokaryota /Monera. Given those facts, I believe it is safe to say that we require no further debate over whether Cannabis belongs to the kingdom of Plantae or not, that it is indeed alive, and that it does not belong in any of the other four kingdoms. Quacks like a duck. Regardless of the kingdom Plantae designation, UDC 18.20.030 (c) states: "Agricultural Product or Commodity is ANY PLANT or part of a plant..." is an agricultural product. I call that a touchdown. In the JCC document 18.20.030 Agricultural activities and accessory uses, there are very clear definitions set forth for this seemingly nebulous term 'agriculture'. I believe you will find the valuable work done by the tireless public servants in order to complete the UDC to have taken all the guess work out of your decision- making process. I think all you need to do is read and comprehend the UDC. You will find that article (b) of 18.20.030 actually includes the term "weed" in the list of accepted agricultural activities (I capitalized it so you would see it better). Although 1 suspect that to be a typo meant to say "weeding ", UDC says "weed" and I must take UDC for it's word! I am grateful for the forethought of the code authors for their inclusion of this term. They were true pioneers of their time! May you find inspiration in their words! Gratefully, Jean Ball 18.20.030 (a) Agriculture. The science, art, and business of producing crops, or raising livestock; farming. (b) Agricultural Activities. Land preparation for agricultural purposes, such as clearing, grading, contouring, ditching, fencing, plowing, tilling, planting, cultivating, fertilizing, WEED, pest and disease control, spraying, pruning, trimming, harvesting, processing, packing, sales, and construction of farm and stock ponds, irrigation ditches and systems; livestock management, such as breeding, birthing, feeding and care of animals, birds, honey bees, and fish; the repair maintenance and incidental construction of equipment, structures, or machinery used to perform agricultural or husbandry operations; and the storage of agricultural products and machinery. (c) Agricultural Product or Commodity. ANY PLANT or part of a plant, or animal, or animal product, produced by a person (including farmers, ranchers, vineyardists, plant propagators, Christmas tree growers, aquaculturists, floriculturists, orchadists, foresters, or other comparable persons) primarily for sale, consumption, propagation, or other use by people or animals. Received after Hearing Julie Shannon Comment Deadline From: Kathleen Kler Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 11:30 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: patient concerns From: Linda Martin Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 11:31:03 AM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Kathleen Kier Cc: Kathleen Kier Subject: patient concerns Dear Kathleen, You seem to be in the middle of this muddle over medical and recreational use of cannabis, so I'm writing to you from the perspective of a long -time cancer patient currently using the medical formula with great success. My medical cannabis authorization was signed by Dr. James K. Rotchford while he was treating me for anxiety related to a re- current cancer diagnosis. For the past year, I've been able to continue an active volunteer and social life, thanks to the edible cannabis available through local dispensaries. The owners of these facilities are well- informed on the various products and provide guidance to those wishing to use herbs instead of or in combination with prescription drugs for their medical conditions. Most patients are not looking to "get high" or remove themselves from daily life. While using cannabis, I've been able to drive, shop, attend meetings, coordinate exhibits and execute complicated graphic projects for my various non - profit organizations. In other words, the freedom from anxiety before and during painful cancer exams and surgeries has allowed me to live what most would consider a "normal life." Many who use cannabis have found they can reduce their reliance on more costly prescription drugs, some of which can lead to addiction and other harmful side - effects of ter long -term use. My medical providers are supportive of my cannabis use and it is listed on my medical records locally and in all my hospital /surgical records at Swedish Cancer Centers in Seattle and Edmonds. My understanding is this -- under current Washington regulations, recreational dispensaries are not allowed to inform their customers of the various uses and appropriate dosages of their products. Any product I purchase at my medical dispensary is clearly marked with its contents, the amount of THC, so I om able to control my intake accordingly. Fortunately, the prices are reasonable and include the normal state and local sales taxes. Some patients, myself included, fear that combining the medical distribution with recreational product will result in mis -use and higher taxes that may make the product less affordable. Medical insurance does not cover these expenses, so for most of us, the cost comes out of our household budgets. This is a complicated issue, one that will require compromises on the part of policy - makers like yourself. I urge you, in your deliberations, to consider the medical cannabis user, especially those new patients who are not already well - informed. The medical dispensaries serve a valuable service to many in our community. Please support them and their efforts to keep the product safe and effective. Thanks for your consideration, Linda Martin 41 Vista Blvd., PT, WA 360- 385 -0319 Received after Hearing Julie Shannon Comment Deadline From: Phil Johnson Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 12:06 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Explosions From: Tom Thiersch Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 12:07:16 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Phil Johnson Subject: Explosions Commissioner, In the Jan. 28 PDN article about the marijuana moratorium hearing, its reported that you "would like to investigate claims about a high incidence of explosions in marijuana facilities." By all means, do so. What you'll find is that there have been NO explosions in any legal/ operated marijuana processing facilities in Colorado. This is just another situation where fear has been used to obscure the facts. All of the sensationalist reports are based on the actions of people trying to extract THC in their kitchens; these are basically untrained amateurs who have injured themselves and others, using illegal, unlicensed facilities. Please don't let fear - mongers fool you into thinking that legal cannabis processors would be any more likely to have explosions than a paint shop, a welding shop, etc., all of which are actually subject to less stringent regulations than would be a cannabis processor. Thanks, Tom Thiersch Julie Shannon Received after Hearing Comment Deadline From: David Sullivan Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 12:39 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Please Lift the Moratorium on Rural /Residential 1 -502 Production and Processing From: Lorraine Rimson Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 12:40:35 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Phil Johnson; David Sullivan; Kathleen Kier Subject: Please Lift the Moratorium on Rural /Residential I -502 Production and Processing Greetings: I am writing to ask that you end the moratorium on the granting of licenses to grow and process cannabis on rural residential properties. I am a resident of Jefferson County. I live on Lane de Chantal approximately .25 miles beyond the property where a license to grow and a license to process have been granted. In effect, this is happening in my back yard, and I'm okay with it. The voters of Jefferson County overwhelmingly approved the legalization of marijuana/cannabis. It follows logically that in order for it to be sold to the public, it must be grown and processed. To treat marijuana/cannabis as if it were an illegal product flies in the face of the fact that it's now legal! To restrict the growing and processing because it might attract crime -- because it used to be illegal -- is speculative and unfair. I am familiar with the stringent steps a grower /processor must take to track their product, videotape their property, etc. These steps are designed to address some of the concerns that have been raised. A review of the concerns related to "cottage industries" in rural residential areas shows that a business should be permitted as long as it can be conducted without substantial adverse affect on the residential or rural character of the property and /or neighborhood. Based on my understanding of the cannabis production and processing (as explained in detail by my neighbors who have licenses to do this), there will be little to no negative effect on the neighbors and the neighborhood. Continuing the moratorium due to the possibility that crime will occur is speculative and inconsistent with the voters of this county who voted overwhelmingly to allow the legalization -- of growing, processing, and selling in this area. Those who receive the licenses must follow stringent rules, laws, codes. Let's let the strict rules, laws, and codes do their jobs. Please lift the moratorium. Thank you, - Lorraine Rimson 206 - 229 -1543 715 Lane de Chantal Port Townsend, WA 98368 Julie Shannon From: Kathleen Kier Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 12:39 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Please Lift the Moratorium on Rural /Residential 1 -502 Production and Processing From: Lorraine Rimson Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 12:40:35 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Phil Johnson; David Sullivan; Kathleen Kier Subject: Please Lift the Moratorium on Rural /Residential I -502 Production and Processing Greetings: I am writing to ask that you end the moratorium on the granting of licenses to grow and process cannabis on rural residential properties. I am a resident of Jefferson County. I live on Lane de Chantal approximately .25 miles beyond the property where a license to grow and a license to process have been granted. In effect, this is happening in my back yard, and I'm okay with it. The voters of Jefferson County overwhelmingly approved the legalization of marijuana/cannabis. It follows logically that in order for it to be sold to the public, it must be grown and processed. To treat marijuana cannabis as if it were an illegal product flies in the face of the fact that it's now legal! To restrict the growing and processing because it might attract crime -- because it used to be illegal -- is speculative and unfair. I am familiar with the stringent steps a grower /processor must take to track their product, videotape their property, etc. These steps are designed to address some of the concerns that have been raised. A review of the concerns related to "cottage industries" in rural residential areas shows that a business should be permitted as long as it can be conducted without substantial adverse affect on the residential or rural character of the property and/or neighborhood. Based on my understanding of the cannabis production and processing (as explained in detail by my neighbors who have licenses to do this), there will be little to no negative effect on the neighbors and the neighborhood. Continuing the moratorium due to the possibility that crime will occur is speculative and inconsistent with the voters of this county who voted overwhelmingly to allow the legalization -- of growing, processing, and selling in this area. Those who receive the licenses must follow stringent rules, laws, codes. Let's let the strict rules, laws, and codes do their jobs. Please lift the moratorium. Thank you, - Lorraine Rimson 206 - 229 -1543 715 Lane de Chantal Port Townsend, WA 98368 Julie Shannon Received after Hearing Comment Deadline From: Kathleen Kier Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 2:09 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Energy up in Smoke: The Carbon Footprint of Indoor Cannabis Production From: liz moore Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 2:10:11 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Kathleen Kier Cc: sdsullivan @co.jefferson.wa.us Subject: Energy up in Smoke: The Carbon Footprint of Indoor Cannabis Production • Home • Profile • Clients • Writings • Speaking Sustainability • Risk Energy up in Smoke: The Carbon Footprint of Indoor Cannabis Production Downloads: 1. -The original brief report 2. -More detailed peer - reviewed study, including updated and expanded analysis 3. -Presentation - latest information 4. -Presentation given at Humboldt State University, October 6, 2011 5. •Info rg aphic 6. -Energy benchmarking survey. SUMMARY (updated April 18, 2012) What kind of facility has lighting as intense as that found in an operating room (500 -times more than needed for reading), 6 -times the air -change rate of a biotech laboratory and 60 -times that of a home, and the electric power intensity of a datacenter? The emergent industry of indoor Cannabis production results in prodigious energy use, costs, and greenhouse - gas pollution. Large -scale industrialized and highly energy- intensive indoor cultivation of Cannabis is driven by criminalization, pursuit of security, and the desire for greater process control and yields. The practice occurs across the United States and in many other countries. The analysis performed in this study finds that indoor Cannabis production results in energy expenditures of $6 billion each year - -6 -times that of the entire U.S. pharmaceutical industry- -with electricity use equivalent to that of 2 million average U.S. homes. This corresponds to 1% of national electricity consumption or 2% of that in households. The yearly greenhouse -gas pollution (carbon dioxide, CO2 ) from the electricity plus associated transportation fuels equals that of 3 million cars. Energy costs constitute a quarter of wholesale value. In California, the top - producing state —and one of 17 states to allow cultivation for medical purposes —the practice is responsible for about 3% of all electricity use or 9% of household use. Due to higher electricity prices and cleaner fuels used to make electricity, California incurs 70% of national energy costs but only 20% of national CO2 emissions. From the perspective of individual consumers, a single Cannabis cigarette represents about 10 pounds of CO2 emissions,* an amount equal to running a 100 -watt light bulb for 75 hours with average U.S. electricity (or 135 hours on California's cleaner grid). Each four -by -four -foot production module doubles the electricity use of an average U.S. home and triples that of an average California home. The added electricity use is equivalent to running about 90 refrigerators. Processed Cannabis results in 4,600 -times its weight in CO2 emissions. For off - grid production, it requires 70 gallons of diesel fuel to produce one indoor Cannabis plant, or 140 gallons with smaller, less- efficient gasoline generators. Minimal information and producer consideration of energy use, coupled with adaptations for security and privacy, lead to particularly inefficient configurations and correspondingly large energy consumption and greenhouse -gas emissions. If improved practices applicable to commercial agricultural greenhouses are any indication, the energy use for indoor Cannabis production can be reduced dramatically. Cost - effective efficiency improvements of more than 75% are conceivable, which would yield energy savings of about $25,000 /year for a generic 10- module growing room. Shifting cultivation outdoors eliminates most energy uses (aside from transport), although the practice can impose other environmental impacts, such as poisoning of animals by rodenticides and other chemicals used by growers. *Note: an earlier version of this equivalency calculation assumed the average "joint" weight of 0.33 grams. A more typical value is 1.0 grams, which effectively triples the original estimate of 3.5 lbs CO2 per joint. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS What is the purpose of this study? This study simply aims to quantify a previously undocumented component of energy demand in the United States, to understand the underlying technical drivers, and to establish baseline impacts in terms of energy use, costs, and greenhouse -gas emissions. This study does not pass judgement on the merits of Cannabis cultivation or make recommendations for how to reduce this energy use, but observes that many reversible inefficiencies are embedded in current practices. Who is the author of this report and who sponsored it? The research described in this report was conducted and published independently by Evan Mills, Ph.D., with no external sponsorship or institutional affiliation. Dr. Mills is a scientist specializing in energy analysis and the role of energy in climate change, with a focus on the efficiency of energy use as the number -one strategy for reducing climate change. He has been working in this field for 30 years and is currently a scientist at one of the national laboratories as well a Research Affiliate with the Energy and Resources Group at U.C. Berkeley. However, this study was done on the author's own time. More information on the author is available here. Has the media covered the story accurately and responsibly? The problem is a lot more complicated and nuanced than most pundits in the blogosphere make it out to be, and most in the mainstream media have actually missed the real story (a roster of articles is provided at the bottom of this page). Among the (few) relatively thorough, non - selective, and un -spun stories are those in the New York Times, FastCompany, Southern California Public Radio, San Francisco Bay Guardian, Times Standard, and the Huffrngton Post. First place for the most inane coverage is an editorial from the Calgary Herald. The Week did a particularly inept job at providing an objective cross - section of the coverage. What's missed or bungled: 1. •A number of media reports inaccurately associate the work with Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. The work was actually conducted independently of LBNL on the author's own time. 2. -Most media reports have sensationalized the numbers without putting them in perspective or looking at solutions. If the media applied the same concern to greenhouse -gas emissions for all human activities as they have to the release of this report we would be well on our way towards addressing the climate change problem. 3. -This isn't simply a California issue, let alone a "counter- culture" or "hippie" issue. Its mainstream and it's pervasive. The UN says 10% of North American citizens use Cannabis on a regular basis, and most of the production is actually not even in California any more.... Only 1 /5th of national Cannabis - related emissions come from California (and an unknown fraction of that is for products consumed outside the state). 4. -Some observers have spun the story into a blame -game rather than a "what do we do about this problem ?" challenge, with responsibility being dumped exclusively on the growers' doorstep rather than the consumers and others who can powerfully influence the energy choices being made. 5. -Few of the reports recognize that there are solutions here. There's a lot of room for a more virtuous cycle.... Using good -old market forces (see final entry on this FAQ page). This is an energy -using sector that has almost uniquely been passed over by decades of efforts from many quarters to improve efficiency .... The time for that has come and there is a lot of low- hanging fruit, which is good news to everyone concerned. 6. -Legalization is a simplistic answer. The reality is that people will seek to grow indoors irrespective of their legal status. More has to be done if carbon emissions are to be curbed. More on this below.... What information sources were used for this work? Data and assumptions for building the energy -demand model were drawn from the open literature, trade press, equipment specifications, and interviews with horticultural equipment retailers. A detailed list of sources and technical assumptions are provided at the end of the report and in the notes to the data tables. Does this report pertain only to medical Cannabis? No. A number of media reports have misreported this. The analysis pertains to all Cannabis production. Isn't the solution to just grow outdoors? Complicated. Many of the issues, and emerging opportunities (including achieving comparable quality in vs out) are discussed here. Why are you singling out Cannabis when so many other things use more energy? The study hardly singles out Cannabis. On the contrary, there has been a de facto double standard for decades in which virtually every other energy use has been met with efforts to improve efficiency and reduce emissions. Cannabis should no more be singled out for attention than it should be overlooked. Moreover, it is highly energy - intensive (see comparisons above to other sectors). How certain is the national estimate of 10,000 tonnes /year (indoor +outdoor) reliable? There are very few estimates of overall domestic production. For this analysis, I used the lowest I found (see footnotes in paper - gov't source), and it is from many years back. Keep in mind that production greater than consumption, as unknown proportions are lost during production (to problems like mold outbreaks, fires, disease), as well as due to interdiction by the authorities. No effort is made to account for net imports /exports from the US. There are no doubt huge uncertainties about the level of production, but they do not materially effect the essential findings - energy use and associated carbon emissions are significant and heretofore unaddressed. OK, how does the energy use of this sector compare to others? Key points (more detail follows): 1. -Normal indoor cultivation settings (i.e., greenhouses) - According to a new paper by Larry Kinney, indoor greenhouses spend about $5 per square foot per year on energy (at average US energy prices). At those same prices, indoor Cannabis is 11 -times that number at $55 /square foot. But, at the prices actually paid in that industry it's way higher than that (4x higher in California), since tiered tariffs or diesel generators involve much higher energy costs. 2. -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 —19 kbtu's per thousand dollars of shipment value (wholesale price), Cannabis is followed next by paper ( -14), nonmetallic mineral products ( -9), primary metals ( -8), petroleum and coal products ( -6), and then chemicals ( -5). 3. -Pharmaceuticals - Energy represents I% of the value of pharmaceutical shipments and 20 -50% of the value of Cannabis wholesale prices. The US " Pharma" sector uses $lbillion/year of energy; Indoor Cannabis uses $5 billion. 4. -Greenhouse horticulture - Cannabis production requires 13 -times as much energy per square foot as greenhouse horticulture in Belgium. 5. -Alcohol - The energy used to produce one "joint" would also produce 18 pints of beer. 6. -Other building types - Cannabis production requires 8 -times as much energy per square foot as a typical US commercial building (4x that of a hospital and 20x that of a building for religious worship), and 18- times that of an average US home. Certainly, Cannabis production is not the "main" use of energy in the world.... For example, the approximately 22 billion kilowatt -hours /year estimated for indoor Cannabis production is about one /third that of US data centers or one -sixth that of US household refrigerators. The shares would be much higher in states where Cannabis cultivation is concentrated. Automobiles are responsible for about about 33% of U.S. greenhouse -gas emissions, which is 100 -times as much as indoor Cannabis production (0.3 %). Doesn't the mainstream pharmaceutical industry use more energy? The traditional ` Pharma' sector has received much more attention than has Cannabis. Energy represents about I% of the value of pharmaceutical products, versus 20 -50% of that for Cannabis (depending on local energy prices). Total energy expenditures in Pharma were just under $1 billion for the year 2002. Our estimate for the Cannabis industry is $5 billion per year. From a "carbon- accounting" perspective it would be challenging - -if at all possible - -to meaningfully go about a deeper comparison to other Pharma, since to do that you'd have to have an apples and apples comparison not only of the energy /carbon (relatively easy) but also the impact benefit at the macro level. Typical pharmaceutical facilities are likely less energy - intensive - -in terms of energy use per square foot - - -than indoor Cannabis cultivation environments. Arguably, the mainstream Pharma industry already does much more than the Cannabis industry to reduce its carbon footprint... It has been re p o rted that the global Viagra market is about the same size as the US medical Cannabis market; i will leave it to others to debate the relative carbon footprints. How does this energy intensity compare to that for other indoor horticultural practices? Good question. According to one study, the energy use for indoor horticulture (all crops) is 7% of total energy use in the Netherlands. According to research from the Netherlands, the production of ornamental flowers is 2.2 GJper 250 flowers. This translates to about 1,200 kilowatt-hours (including indirect embodied energy for fertilizer, pesticides not counted in the Cannabis analysis). For comparison, the annual kilowatt hour use of a 4AA -foot Cannabis cultivation module is estimated at about 13,000 kWh. It is hard to identify the right "apples -to- apples" comparison metrics. Another study for Belgium places national energy use for greenhouses at about 1000 MJ /m2, which is 1 % that o f indoor Cannabis production. Um...., what about alcohol? Yeah, why don't you pick on alcohol ?! Great question. The energy use required to produce one marijuana cigarette is equivalent to that of about 18 pints of beer. Much more effort has been placed on improving efficiency in alcohol - production facilities than in Cannabis- production facilities. You're making it hard for me to justify my efforts to diminish the importance of this... OK - aren't we barking up the wrong tree? Doesn't law enforcement spent even more energy on suppression and eradication? Not likely. Certainly a study in and of itself, but per a quick look: Total federal government energy expenditure for vehicles for all purposes is less than half that of Cannabis production and jet fuel for aviation, including military (see page 96 of this report) is "only" $7 billion per year (including overseas operations) -- that was FY 2007, so maybe more now. Total federal government for aviation gasoline (small planes0 is $10 million/year... In any case, two wrongs don't make a right - seriously. We need to reduce emissions wherever they occur. If we do nothing but point to others who emit more we will never get out of the greenhouse. You say that the resulting electricity intensities are 200 watts per square foot. This is absurd. The 200W /sf value is a side note, and not integral to the energy and emissions calculations, which has somehow been misinterpreted as being the constant rate of energy use for lighting. It's actually the installed power density of lighting plus all other equipment, and none of those "watts" are assumed to be running 24x7. For example, for lighting this assumes 600W -MH (37.5 W /sf) for the vegetative stage and 1000W -HPS (62.5W /sf) for flowering (summing to —100W per the definition of power density -- but for energy calculation purposes the 600W and 1000W devices are never drawing power simultaneously). The rest of the demand is for all the other loads (AC, dehumidification, fans, ballasts, etc.). Is Cannabis production intrinsically polluting? No. Like virtually any other energy -using activity (driving, preparing food, making aluminum, heating a home) energy is commonly wasted and used inefficiently. And, as observed in virtually every energy use domain, there are enormous prospects for improving efficiency and using low- or no- carbon energy sources. Outdoor production involves particularly low energy inputs, although when mismanaged, the practice imposes other environmental impacts. Does this study enable or endorse illegal activity? No. On the contrary, the analysis sheds light on certain adverse consequences of indoor cultivation in its current form. Moreover, an increasing fraction of Cannabis cultivation is legally sanctioned at the state level (17 states at present, and many more deliberating), which places the related use of energy in the same domain the many other energy- intensive activities routinely addressed by energy policies such as codes, standards, incentives, and labeling. Does this study support the case for criminalization? No. In fact, many argue that criminalization is an important driver towards energy - intensive indoor production. Criminalization also contributes to many of the energy inefficiencies in the process, including long driving distances, noise and odor suppression measures that undercut ventilation efficiencies, and off -grid power production that is far less efficient produces more greenhouse -gas emissions than many electric grids. Moreover, decades of criminalization has resulted in this energy -using sector being passed over by massive efforts to incentivize and mandate efficiency improvements. The analysis does suggest a role for improved management of energy use, in much the same way that we address the energy use and fuel economy of our cars, buildings, and appliances. Does this study support the case for decriminalization or legalization? Not really. People grow indoors for many reasons aside from criminalization, e.g., quality control, pest control, and year -round yield. Many legally sanctioned producers choose to grow indoors. It is not known whether decriminalization will reduce or increase the rate of indoor cultivation. That said, in a scenario where production is legalized it is, in principal, easier to address the energy issues. How significant are the energy costs for producers? The answer varies widely depending on the production method, prevailing energy prices, and wholesale prices of the final product. Averaged nationally, about one - quarter of the wholesale price is attributed to energy costs. In regions with high electricity tariffs or the use of inefficient off -grid power generators, this value can approach half the total cost. Wouldn't just "going solar" solve this problem? Nope. Using solar to power inefficient systems is a waste. A costly, mega -sized solar system to run a bunch of inefficient lights, fans, and chillers in a single house would just give solar a bad name. For the same investment, many dozens of conventional houses could be made highly energy efficient and then be solar - powered all the way to zero carbon emissions. This would provide much more carbon -bang for the buck. That said, once energy efficiency is maximized, then solar would be an excellent next step. Given the particularly high electricity rates paid with `inverted- block' tariff structures, solar applications in this domain could be particularly cost - effective. What can be done with the results? The study is policy - relevant, but is not policy prescriptive. Carbon footprint could be reduced by 75% without even shifting production outdoors (which reduces emissions almost completely). Top -level pathways to reducing the carbon footprint of indoor production include: 1. -Growers selecting better, commercially available equipment. 2. -Equipment vendors developing even more efficient equipment, and educating their customers. 3. -Reducing the use of off -grid power generators fired with fossil fuels. The worst case is a gasoline- fueled generator, which results in 140 gallons of fuel burned to produce each plant. 4. -Applying science to understanding how to achieve necessary environmental conditions in a less energy - intensive manner. The opportunity to influence a constructive, climate - friendly response rests with all involved parties. 1. -Producers lack information, motivation, and market or regulatory pressure to improve. 1. -Designers and manufacturers of the energy -using equipment could more precisely analyze and consider the issues from an engineering and market standpoint. 2. -Medical dispensaries could support more responsible consumer decision - making, by providing disclosure of product carbon content and other dimensions of environmental footprint. -Planning and building officials at the city, state, and federal level may choose to seek better understanding of the energy and safety consequences of this activity in their localities. Some (Berkeley, Boulder, Fort BraaL ) have already made steps in this direction. 1. -Electric and gas utilities have already begun to recognize legal producers, granting them lower (agricultural) tariffs in exchange for safety inspections. 1. -Energy providers, policymakers, and forecasters could better account for this particular driver of energy demand, and thus more accurately evaluate the effects of unrelated programs and policies on the consumption of energy at the macro scale. 1. -Consumers and the general public can become informed about the carbon footprint associated with this practice and better consider the environmental consequences of their actions. MEDIA COVERAGE - US Atlantic - How much electricity does indoor -grown pot use? Atlantic - Marijuana growing consumes 1 percent of nation's energy Bay Citizen - Study: one joint equals two pounds of greenhouse gases Bay Guardian - Cool, efficient plasma lighting technology comes online Bay Guardian - Green Buds: Environmental cost of growing indoors is luring the marijuana industry back into the sunshine Berkeley Daily Planet - City Council fails to pass sustainable medical marijuana ordinance Bloomberg - Marijuana growing has to change its energy- hogging ways Boston Business Journal - Up in smoke California Watch - Pot growers burn through energy Cannabisculture - How can we keep weed green? Marijuana warehouses are a massive energy suck Cannabisfantastic.com - The carbon footprint of Cannabis CBS Television - Smoke on this: marijuana growers use one percent of U.S. electricity supply Chicago Sun Times - Cannabis grows best in the sunshine Chicago Tribune - National Marijuana Day: not as green as you might think Columbus Dispatch -Indoor marijuana's carbon footprint is extra large Consumer Reports - Growing marijuana gets you high ... energy costs, study finds Culture - In a brand new light The Dailv Beast - How green is your green? Pot's terrible environmental record Daily Californian - Growing marijuana indoors could damage environment Daily Kos - The carbon footprint of Cannabis Denver Business Journal - Growing pot isn't green. Is it time for LEED weed? Denver Post - Growing pot, guzzling energy Discovery News — Pot growers not so green 10 Energy manager Today - Cannabis growers reduce energy consumption Environmental guru.com - Pot: the hidden power hog Environmental Leader - Sustainable musings for the New Year Fast Company - Buzzkill of the day: U.S. marijuana industry responsible for S5 billion in energy consumption Forbes — New study reveals massive energy consumption of pot industry Freakonomics - The $5 billion carbon footprint of indoor marijuana Good - Not so kind: weed growers suck down 1 percent of all U.S. electricity Grand Rapids Press - Report: indoor marijuana growing consumes 1 percent of U.S. electricity Green Building Law Update - Indoor marijuana growing accounts for over 1% of all electric consumption in the U.S. Green Economy Post - Grass is not so green: marijuana has a huge carbon footprint Green Tech Media — Marijuana, top US crop, has a $513 power bill Grist.org - Climate change kills our buzz, and vice versa Grist.org - Can the pot industry make buds with sustainability? 11 Honolulu Weekly - How green is your pot? Huffington Post - Marijuana carbon footprint: indoor pot production uses 1 percent of U.S. electricity, study says. Second article Cannabis Carbon Footprint: Marijuana Industry's Environmental Impact International Business Times - How marijuana farms impact the environment. KALW Radio - Connecting the dots KCBS Radio - Pot growers account for 8 percent of household electricity use in CA KUOW.org - Indoor pot farms are energy guzzlers, research shows LA Weekly - Marijuana grown indoors is bad for the environment: could legalizing it change that? Mendocino Country Independent - Measuring energy use for indoor grows MIT Technology Review - Weed's chronic energy use becomes a concern. Mother Jones - The landscape - scaring, energy - sucking, wildlife- killing reality of pot farming Mother Jones - 24 mind - blowing facts about marijuana production in America National Geographic - The energy drain of recreational drugs 12 News Tribune - Power and water: will the feds allow it for pot? New York Times - Marijuana growing gobbles electricity, study finds New York Times - Study: pot growers inhale 1% of U.S. electricity, exhale GHGs of 3M cars Next 100 - Pot: the hidden power hog NPR - Marijuana not so green: study finds growing pot indoors Is energy intensive Philly Inquirer - Pot farms burn S513 of US electricity /year: report Press Democrat - North Coast: Pot - growing power grab Real -time with Bill Mahr - The mean side of green Redheaded Blackbelt - Buy only sustainably grown marijuana and reduce america's dependence on foreign oil Redheaded Blackbelt - Their weed habit causes a Fukoshima worth of power every year. Richmond Confidential - City council fails to pass sustainable medical marijuana ordinance Salon - Growing pot indoors is a major environmental problem San Francisco Business Times - Marijuana causes global warming, uses 1% of U.S. electricity 13 San Francisco Chronicle - Pot grow houses eat 8 percent of California's residential electricty use Seattle Post Intelli eg ncer - Dude, your marijuana grow is sucking up megawatts (NY Times) Southern California Public Radio - Greener pot: is there such a thing as energy efficient Cannabis? The 420 Times - Indoor marijuana growing accounts for 1% of U.S. energy use The Week - Marijuana isn't'greeriT Times Standard - Keeping the lights on: Indoor pot growers skirt high electric bills through discount program for low income Times Standard - Indoor pot grows carry heavy carbon price; scientist says education is ky to lowering carbon footprint of indoor pot grows Treehugger.com - Marijuana industry responsible for I% of US electricity consumption, has $5 billion energy bill TruthOut - Thinking beyond big Marijuana Tuscon Citizen - Marijuana causes global warming Upstart Business Journal - Growing pot isn't green; is it time for LEED weed? Vashon -Maury Island Beachcomber - Company's plans to grow marijuana indoors could strain the environment 14 WSBT - A study finds that indoor marijuana grows consume a staggering 1 percent of nation's electricity MEDIA COVERAGE - International Austria - Fin Prozent des US- Stroms fiir Marihuana Belgium - Le joint est mauvais pour 1'environnement Brazil - Plantio de maconha nos EUA alimenta efeito estufa, diz cientista Canada - Calgary Herald - Grass is not green - Boston Globe and Mail - The cost of growing marijuana France - La culture du Cannabis : une mauvaise chose pour Penvironnement ? - La culture de Cannabis aux Etats -Unis represente 1 % de la consommation - Fumer un joint est mauvais pour Penvironnement Germany - Energiefresser Marihuana Greece - H uaptyouava rrpoxa )Xi 7rayx66µta WM00Eppayall! 15 Iceland - Good - Not So Kind: Weed growers suck down 1 percent of all U.S. electricity Italy - La marijuana fa male: ai consumi ener eg tici Mexico - Consume cultivo de mariguana en interiores 1% de la produccion de electricidad en EU Poland - Zaskakuiace badanie nt. marihuany Portugal - EUA: Produedo caseira de Cannabis representa 1% de todo o consumo de electricidade Romania - Marijuana provoaca inedlzirea globala - Producatorii de marijuana din SUA consuma energie de 5 miliarde de dolari Sweden - Cannabisodlare hot mot mil ion Switzerland - HANFANBAU ALS STROMFRESSER Warnung: Dieser Joint kann Ihre Umwelt gefahrden! - Neue Aircher Zeitung Turkey - Esrar kiiresel 1slnma amp oluvor 16 <HT1 '► 18 Received after Hearing Julie Shannon From: Phil Johnson Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 5:17 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Moratorium on 502 From: Gary Nelson Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 5:17:58 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Phil Johnson Subject: Moratorium on 502 Dear Mr Johnson, I am writing to urge you to end the moratorium on growing marijuana. The regulations that have been written protect the public interest and the business people that have relied on the passing of 502 and have invested considerable amounts of money, should be allowed to operate and grow their crops. Continuing the moratorium will only encourage the black market and the criminal element that goes with it. I also feel that the 502 growers and distributors should be kept separate from the medical marijuana growers and dispensaries as they serve different needs and different members of the community. Thank you for your service to our community. Gary Nelson 516 Chestnut Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 360 - 379 -90133 Julie Shannon From: Kathleen Kier Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 5:22 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Moritorium on 502 From: Gary Nelson Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 5:23:35 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Kathleen Kier Subject: Moritorium on 502 Dear Kathleen Kler, I am writing to urge you to end the moratorium on growing marijuana. The regulations that have been written protect the public interest. The business people that have relied on the passing of 502 and have invested considerable amounts of money, should be allowed to operate and grow their crops. Continuing the moratorium will only encourage the black market and the criminal element that goes with it. I also feel that the 502 growers and distributors should be kept separate from the medical marijuana growers and dispensaries as they serve different needs and different members of the community. Thank you for your service to our community. Gary Nelson 516 Chestnut Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 360 - 379 -90133 Julie Shannon From: David Sullivan Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 5:25 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Moritorium on 502 From: Gary Nelson Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 5:26:12 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: David Sullivan Subject: Moritorium on 502 Dear Mr. Sullivan, I am writing to urge you to end the moratorium on growing marijuana. The regulations that have been written protect the public interest. The business people that have relied on the passing of 502 and have invested considerable amounts of money, should be allowed to operate and grow their crops. Continuing the moratorium will only encourage the black market and the criminal element that goes with it. I also feel that the 502 growers and distributors should be kept separate from the medical marijuana growers and dispensaries as they serve different needs and different members of the community. Thank you for your service to our community. Gary Nelson 516 Chestnut Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 360 - 379 -90133 Received after Fearing Julie Shannon Comment Deadline From: Kathleen Kier Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 9:49 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Please consider... From: Linda Jarvis Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 9:50:10 AM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: jeffbocc Cc: Kathleen Kier; David Sullivan; Philip Morley Subject: Please consider... January 29, 2015 Dear Commissioner Phil Johnson, You and I share a real concern for our environment, especially here on our beautiful Peninsula. I want to express my concerns about the environmental impacts of marijuana growing and processing in Jefferson County. Several times in Leader or PDN articles, it has been stated that these concerns are unfounded or imagined. It is hard for me to understand why we can't learn from what has occurred in Colorado or California and from that move with deliberate caution and sensibility. Why do we have to wait until we contaminate a stream or begin to see wildlife dying or have an explosion or fire to acknowledge these real, not imagined, but real threats to our natural environment? We do not want to look back at these proceedings as being negligent, but instead that we moved into it and through it with a realistic and conscious outlook. Because I know you care about the environment like I do, I am writing to you today to share my deep concerns about the real possibility of environmental contamination and devastation from marijuana growing and processing. I know that you have a difficult decision to make about how to create policies for this commercial activity in our County. I want to ask you to please consider having the growing and processing of marijuana take place in commercial and industrial zones only where the contaminates and other by- products of production and processing can be well managed and monitored. Please consider extending the moratorium with no exclusions and apply it to all parcels regardless of size. It feels to me like a workable solution is in the works. The planning commission deserves to have the right to participate. Our WRIA 17 plan was put in place for good reason - water limitations, salmon recovery - let's abide by it. We have to walk into this new arena with all our senses in place. Please don't rush into this and risk diminishing the natural beauty and rural nature of the Chimacum sub - basin. We are one community here in Jefferson County, Phil, and we all need to work this out together to protect the future of all concerned. Thank you for your consideration and integrity with regard to this volatile issue. Sincerely, Linda Jarvis CC: Commissioner Kler Commissioner Sullivan Administrator Morley Julie Shannon From: David Sullivan Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 9:49 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Please consider... From: Linda Jarvis Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 9:50:10 AM (LTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: jeffbocc Cc: Kathleen Kier; David Sullivan; Philip Morley Subject: Please consider... January 29, 2015 Dear Commissioner Phil Johnson, You and I share a real concern for our environment, especially here on our beautiful Peninsula. I want to express my concerns about the environmental impacts of marijuana growing and processing in Jefferson County. Several times in Leader or PDN articles, it has been stated that these concerns are unfounded or imagined. It is hard for me to understand why we can't learn from what has occurred in Colorado or California and from that move with deliberate caution and sensibility. Why do we have to wait until we contaminate a stream or begin to see wildlife dying or have an explosion or fire to acknowledge these real, not imagined, but real threats to our natural environment? We do not want to look back at these proceedings as being negligent, but instead that we moved into it and through it with a realistic and conscious outlook. Because I know you care about the environment like I do, I am writing to you today to share my deep concerns about the real possibility of environmental contamination and devastation from marijuana growing and processing. I know that you have a difficult decision to make about how to create policies for this commercial activity in our County. I want to ask you to please consider having the growing and processing of marijuana take place in commercial and industrial zones only where the contaminates and other by- products of production and processing can be well managed and monitored. Please consider extending the moratorium with no exclusions and apply it to all parcels regardless of size. It feels to me like a workable solution is in the works. The planning commission deserves to have the right to participate. Our WRIA 17 plan was put in place for good reason - water limitations, salmon recovery - let's abide by it. We have to walk into this new arena with all our senses in place. Please don't rush into this and risk diminishing the natural beauty and rural nature of the Chimacum sub - basin. We are one community here in Jefferson County, Phil, and we all need to work this out together to protect the future of all concerned. Thank you for your consideration and integrity with regard to this volatile issue. Sincerely, Linda Jarvis CC: Commissioner Kler Commissioner Sullivan Administrator Morley Received after Hearing Comment Deadline Julie Shannon From: Kathleen Kier Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 1:46 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Traffic From: J Ball Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 1:46:57 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Kathleen Kier; Phil Johnson Subject: Traffic Hello Kathleen and Phil, Would you like some perspective on traffic? I will use current estimates for my own production so I can have a real figure to paint a picture for you. My plans are to harvest 500 lbs this Autumn. Since I am an outdoor farmer, I only get one crop per year. If I average my deliveries over the year, I will be delivering 9.5 lbs per week. That is a single small bundle with unnoticeable traffic. I am among the 'tier 3' producers (although I am only 12,000 sgft, not 21,000), so you get some kind of an idea what kind of traffic flow the county will be dealing with on the whole. Roger plans to harvest roughly the same volume as me, but since he has an indoor facility he has a smaller garden that produces all year instead of just a single crop. His traffic volume will be similar to mine. There will be no semi trucks with bales of weed in JeffCo (or anywhere else in WA). My neighbors will never know anything is going on. Nobody's neighbors will know anything, and they have no need to know anything. Jean Julie Shannon From: Phil Johnson Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 1:46 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Traffic From: J Ball Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 1:46:57 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Kathleen Kier; Phil Johnson Subject: Traffic Hello Kathleen and Phil, Would you like some perspective on traffic? I will use current estimates for my own production so I can have a real figure to paint a picture for you. My plans are to harvest 500 lbs this Autumn. Since I am an outdoor farmer, I only get one crop per year. If I average my deliveries over the year, I will be delivering 9.5 lbs per week. That is a single small bundle with unnoticeable traffic. I am among the 'tier 3' producers (although I am only 12,000 sqft, not 21,000), so you get some kind of an idea what kind of traffic flow the county will be dealing with on the whole. Roger plans to harvest roughly the same volume as me, but since he has an indoor facility he has a smaller garden that produces all year instead of just a single crop. His traffic volume will be similar to mine. There will be no semi trucks with bales of weed in JeffCo (or anywhere else in WA). My neighbors will never know anything is going on. Nobody's neighbors will know anything, and they have no need to know anything. Jean Received after Hearing Comment Deadline Julie Shannon From: Phil Johnson Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 10:00 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: How is marijuana different from other agriculture? From: gnarleydogfarm @gmail.com Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 10:01:26 AM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Kathleen Kier; Phil Johnson Subject: How is marijuana different from other agriculture? Hello Kathleen and Phil, I would like to suggest to you that IF you think marijuana cultivation is unlike other agriculture in some ways... I think we can agree that it could be due to the security restrictions and value of the crop. Does that sound correct to you? I see no other difference with any other aspect of Cannabis /any- other -plant cultivation, so I will assume we agree that those are the differences, because I am talking to myself in this email without your replies (that should be fun to read by public records people!). Ha! I submit to you that the Washington State Liquor Control Board has taken the approach to manage the concern about the value of the crop via security measures such as: 24/7 cameras, alarms, recording devices, traceability, etc. much as you would any other valuable commodity. I think of jewelry stores and banks, but I also see security systems at hardware stores, grocery stores, and just about everywhere any public activity is happening. In fact, many homeowners are equipped with these security devices. I do not see the addition of security measures to my farm as a detriment, I see it as an asset. I am grateful to have the feature! I intended to install security features long before we legalized weed or I had any plans to become a weed farmer. Now, I just plan to have more cameras to accommodate my marijuana production. The value of the harvest is overstated at the production stage of the product. Plants are worthless until just prior to harvest and have yet to be manicured and processed into a usable form. It is a lot of work and takes time and skills. These plants are not worth the criminal record you could get to snatch them if you climbed over the 8 foot fence and were caught on camera or other security measures. It is not worth it for most people because you can buy it legally now. I don't really see this theft issue as a big threat, although I am totally geared up to prevent it. I see the prevention efforts as sufficient to deter most would -be idiots. I would also like to reiterate that while Kathleen was touring a local facility, the law was there and had done a perimeter search prior to knocking on the door within 8 minutes of our breaching the facility. How much trouble can someone get into in 8 minutes? I don't think they will get away with a thing, except a criminal record. Jean 314 -55 -083 What are the security requirements for a marijuana licensee? 314 -55 -075 What is a marijuana producer license and what are the requirements and fees related to a marijuana producer license? 314 -55 -085 What are the transportation requirements for a marijuana licensee? 314 -55 -087 What are the recordkeeping requirements for marijuana licensees? 314 -55 -089 What are the tax and reporting requirements for marijuana licensees Julie Shannon From: Kathleen Kler Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 1:06 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: since when does a fence mean it is not agriculture? From: gnarleydogfarm @gmail.com Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 1:06:42 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Kathleen Kler: Phil Johnson Subject: since when does a fence mean it is not agriculture? Good Day Kathleen and Phil, Commissioner Sullivan asked the Board "to determine HOW marijuana production is different from any other agriculture and WHY it warrants special treatment." I do not believe Cannabis production is unlike any other agriculture. The fence and security features are more about avoiding diversion of product than avoiding theft of product via burglary. The state requires a fence so that they may control any product entering the black market or the hands of minors. I believe you will find that most of the security features are based not on theft, but on preventing diversion. All of the licensing and screening processes are designed to only allow the most responsible and transparent applicants to be involved in the supply chain. However, the LCB does not stop there. The term 'seed to sale' should be granted the appropriate gravitas. 1, as a licensee, will not be allowed any opportunities to violate the strict parameters set forth by LCB. They covered all the bases. Penalties are harsh and expensive. As an applicant, 1 take this far too seriously to jeopardize my business in any way, let alone by allowing product under my control to be diverted, which defeats the entire purpose of legalizing and establishing a supply chain. I put up an 8' fence to keep deer out of my truffle orchard and none of my neighbors complained about THAT fence. I think using the fence as a tell -tail that marijuana is not agriculture is a desperate grasp for something that is not there. One of the reasons the LCB mandated we have an 8' fence, instead of a T fence, is because it requires a building permit so we have to go through DCD if we are rurally zoned. Are you telling me it is any more difficult to get over an 8' fence than it is to get over an 7' fence? 1 fail to see the significant challenge presented by increasing the fence height a single foot. I find this to be one of those arbitrary parameters imposed due to fickle public perceptions. These public perceptions change at the drop of a hat and are seldom based in reality. I hope you see that having an 8' fence around a crop is a tangential issue and should not be considered as a significant difference between weed and other crops. I've seen deer jump 8' fences. I put 8' fences around all my fruit orchards, vegetable gardens, and apiaries. This fence issue is another diversionary tactic. Does a brewery have to put up an 8' fence? Certainly not. Nor does a hops farmer. Tobacco causes cancer and can kill you, weed never killed anyone, yet we don't put 8' fences around tobacco farms. This fence kerfuffle will subside, as it should, and public perception will catch up to reality. l do agree that we need to move forward... together. However, I find it pointless to adhere to these trivial sticking points. Julie Shannon From: Phil Johnson Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 1:06 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: since when does a fence mean it is not agriculture? From: gnarleydogfarm @gmail.com Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 1:06:42 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Kathleen Kier; Phil Johnson Subject: since when does a fence mean it is not agriculture? Good Day Kathleen and Phil, Commissioner Sullivan asked the Board "to determine HOW marijuana production is different from any other agriculture and WHY it warrants special treatment." I do not believe Cannabis production is unlike any other agriculture. The fence and security features are more about avoiding diversion of product than avoiding theft of product via burglary. The state requires a fence so that they may control any product entering the black market or the hands of minors. I believe you will find that most of the security features are based not on theft, but on preventing diversion. All of the licensing and screening processes are designed to only allow the most responsible and transparent applicants to be involved in the supply chain. However, the LCB does not stop there. The term 'seed to sale' should be granted the appropriate gravitas. I, as a licensee, will not be allowed any opportunities to violate the strict parameters set forth by LCB. They covered all the bases. Penalties are harsh and expensive. As an applicant, I take this far too seriously to jeopardize my business in any way, let alone by allowing product under my control to be diverted, which defeats the entire purpose of legalizing and establishing a supply chain. 1 put up an 8' fence to keep deer out of my truffle orchard and none of my neighbors complained about THAT fence. I think using the fence as a tell -tail that marijuana is not agriculture is a desperate grasp for something that is not there. One of the reasons the LCB mandated we have an 8' fence, instead of a 7' fence, is because it requires a building permit so we have to go through DCD if we are rurally zoned. Are you telling me it is any more difficult to get over an 8' fence than it is to get over an 7' fence? I fail to see the significant challenge presented by increasing the fence height a single foot. I find this to be one of those arbitrary parameters imposed due to fickle public perceptions. These public perceptions change at the drop of a hat and are seldom based in reality. I hope you see that having an 8' fence around a crop is a tangential issue and should not be considered as a significant difference between weed and other crops. I've seen deer jump 8' fences. I put 8' fences around all my fruit orchards, vegetable gardens, and apiaries. This fence issue is another diversionary tactic. Does a brewery have to put up an 8' fence? Certainly not. Nor does a hops farmer. Tobacco causes cancer and can kill you, weed never killed anyone, yet we don't put 8' fences around tobacco farms. This fence kerfuffle will subside, as it should, and public perception will catch up to reality. I do agree that we need to move forward... together. However, I find it pointless to adhere to these trivial sticking points. Received after Hearing Comment Deadline Julie Shannon From: Kathleen Kier Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 1:51 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Limiting the size of 1 -502 canopy area From: J Ball Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 1:51:59 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Kathleen Kier Subject: Limiting the size of I -502 canopy area Hello Kathleen, I would like to give you my perspective on the suggestion by DCD to limit the allowable canopy for JeffCo applicants to 10,000 sqft. The obvious facts regarding that sort of bottleneck are the unintended consequences of such an action. This particular approach will create a drive to have smaller and more numerous gardens popping up all over the county. The current maximum allowed by LCB is 21,000 sqft. This restriction to area is not expected to change for the foreseeable future. 21,000 sqft is a half acre. I do not find the 21,000 sqft allowed by LCB to be in need of halving for any justifiable reason. I think it a sound approach if the BoCC were to revere the all- inclusive LCB rules as pertain to the various parameters to which the producers are restricted. Is there any justification for this suggestion by DCD to limit canopies to 10,000 sqft, or is this just more personal agenda by DCD staff? This particular suggestion rubs me the wrong way because I am a farmer and I want to work from home. If the county only allow me half of what the state allows me, for no justifiable reason, it impacts my ability to manage my affairs and grow my business where I am like any other farmer growing any other plant. This is one of those suggestions that shows the utter lack of information the DCD has received. The depth of magnitude lacking in most of these suggestions betrays the authors for being derelict in their fact - finding and remitting responsibilities. I do not think the term 'insubordinate' even begins to scratch the surface. 'Irresponsible' and 'activist' might be closer. Julie Shannon From: Kathleen Kier Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 3:17 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Rebuttal to Page's group Received after Hearing Comment Deadline From: gnarleydogfarm @gmail.com Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 3:18:38 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Kathleen Kler: Phil Johnson Subject: Rebuttal to Page's group Hello Kathleen and Phil. I would like to dispute the claims made by Karen Page's group of nimbys. These are the 4 demands they posted on their website, along with my disdainful comments. Rebuttal to Page's Group, January Gripes #1 -4 " #1- We are calling on the Commissioners to extend the moratorium for ALL parcels thereby enabling time for the drafting of meaningful regulations that will protect the rights of neighbors." OH, PLEASE! Page's group is calling on the commissioners to be their thugs in a personal quip. They represent 3 sets of difficult neighbors, not the general public. They are looking out for themselves, not anyone else. They are very loud. What about ME? Don't I have rights as a business and property owner? Why can they impose their will upon me? I have never tried to impose my will upon them. About this completely mis- informed idea that marijuana producers are not regulated... I believe we all know that is a load of horse poo (normally, I consider horse poo a gift for the garden microbes, but this time I mean it as an insult). This is, perhaps, the most heavily regulated business known, with the possible exception of banking or something like that. " #2- The moratorium should be extended to allow DCD and the Planning Commission to get this right. The moratorium should apply to ALL pending applications, with no exception for larger parcels. There is no logical or scientific basis for such an exemption. The potential environmental, fire, explosion, personal security and related risks are, if anything, exacerbated by allowing large unregulated marijuana operations in rural residential neighborhoods." AGAIN, Page's group demonstrates their complete lack of comprehension of the depth to which licensees are responsible and complete ignorance of facts. Licensees are among the most heavily regulated business that exists. For them to state that we are unregulated is a blatant lie. They know better, yet they have a selfish agenda, so they spreads lies. Licensees are held to fire code, building code, countless state codes, business code, etc. I find anything Page's group says hard to believe when they tells lies constantly. #3- Marijuana is NOT regular agriculture.The Liquor Control Board and WA law forbid it from being treated as agriculture and Jefferson County cannot ignore state laws." This is a random, unsubstantiated and patchwork statement. I do not know where to begin to make sense of this statement. I find it to be gibberish and non - sense. UDC 18.20.030 (c) states: "Agricultural Product or Commodity is ANY PLANT or part of a plant...is an agricultural product." We know the state and federal laws are in flux and swinging in our favor. Page's group's refusal to acknowledge this will not prevent it from happening. 1 might add, state law IS 1 -502, we are trying NOT to ignore it! V4- The rights of long term residents should not be disadvantaged because of the desire to get a hasty or compromise solution which will not provide protection for the residents of Jefferson County." More gibberish and poor syntax, making it difficult to comprehend what their demands are. I agree that I, as a long -term resident, I should not be disadvantaged because of Page's group's desire to get a hasty continuation of the moratorium. This self - serving group has no concern for protections for the rest of us. All they care about is power over their neighbors. Plain thuggery. I can not support any of it. I have rights, too. I am not impacting any of them in any way and they have no right to prevent me from my mission. Jean Julie Shannon From: Phil Johnson Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 3:17 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Rebuttal to Page's group From: gnarleydogfarm @gmail.com Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 3:18:38 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Kathleen Kier: Phil Johnson Subject: Rebuttal to Page's group Hello Kathleen and Phil, I would like to dispute the claims made by Karen Page's group of nimbys. These are the 4 demands they posted on their website, along with my disdainful comments. Rebuttal to Page's Group, January Gripes #1 -4 " #1- We are calling on the Commissioners to extend the moratorium for ALL parcels thereby enabling time for the drafting of meaningful regulations that will protect the rights of neighbors." OH, PLEASE! Page's group is calling on the commissioners to be their thugs in a personal quip. They represent 3 sets of difficult neighbors, not the general public. They are looking out for themselves, not anyone else. They are very loud. What about ME? Don't I have rights as a business and property owner? Why can they impose their will upon me? I have never tried to impose my will upon them. About this completely mis- informed idea that marijuana producers are not regulated... 1 believe we all know that is a load of horse poo (normally. I consider horse poo a gift for the garden microbes, but this time I mean it as an insult). This is, perhaps, the most heavily regulated business known, with the possible exception of banking or something like that. " #2- The moratorium should be extended to allow DCD and the Planning Commission to get this right. The moratorium should apply to ALL pending applications, with no exception for larger parcels. There is no logical or scientific basis for such an exemption. The potential environmental, fire, explosion, personal security and related risks are, if anything, exacerbated by allowing large unregulated marijuana operations in rural residential neighborhoods." AGAIN, Page's group demonstrates their complete lack of comprehension of the depth to which licensees are responsible and complete ignorance of facts. Licensees are among the most heavily regulated business that exists. For them to state that we are unregulated is a blatant lie. They know better, yet they have a selfish agenda, so they spreads lies. Licensees are held to fire code, building code, countless state codes, business code, etc. I find anything Page's group says hard to believe when they tells lies constantly. V3- Marijuana is NOT regular agriculture.The Liquor Control Board and WA law forbid it from being treated as agriculture and Jefferson County cannot ignore state laws." This is a random, unsubstantiated and patchwork statement. I do not know where to begin to make sense of this statement. I find it to be gibberish and non - sense. UDC 18.20.030 (c) states: "Agricultural Product or Commodity is ANY PLANT or part of a plant ... is an agricultural product." We know the state and federal laws are in flux and swinging in our favor. Page's group's refusal to acknowledge this will not prevent it from happening. I might add, state law IS 1 -502, we are trying NOT to ignore it! V4- The rights of long term residents should not be disadvantaged because of the desire to get a hasty or compromise solution which will not provide protection for the residents of Jefferson County." More gibberish and poor syntax, making it difficult to comprehend what their demands are. I agree that I, as a long -term resident, I should not be disadvantaged because of Page's group's desire to get a hasty continuation of the moratorium. This self- serving group has no concern for protections for the rest of us. All they care about is power over their neighbors. Plain thuggery. I can not support any of it. I have rights, too. I am not impacting any of them in any way and they have no right to prevent me from my mission. Jean Received after Hearing Julie Shannon Comment Deadline From: Kathleen Kler Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 5:54 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Why is growing cannabis different from any other kind of agriculture? From: Tom Thiersch Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 5:55:16 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Kathleen Kler Subject: Why is growing cannabis different from any other kind of agriculture? Commissioner, I think it's fair to say that the growing of cannabis, a legal agricultural commodity, is different from all other kinds of crops in only one way — the state - imposed security requirements. In every other respect, cannabis is just another crop: Consider the arguments that alarmists have used in their attempts to create the myth that cannabis is, somehow, different. Other crops may use fertilizer, and would therefore be subject to concerns about runoff Other crops use water, some more than others. Water requirement (in liters) per kilogram of crop (from the World Wildlife Fund's study): • Cotton 7,000 - 29,000 • Rice 3,000 - 5,000 • Sugar Cane 1,500 - 3,000 • Soya 2,000 • Wheat 900 • Potatoes 500 o Avocados ? ?? (so much that California producers are about to go out of business because of the cost of water) Other crops create traffic, but just how many truckloads per year could possibly come from even the largest farm? Proximity to children? Seriously, you can't believe that a child walking near a cannabis farm will be any more likely to use the end product than they would be to smoking after walking past a field of tobacco or drinking wine after walking past a vineyard. [insert your own criterion that anyone has raised as an issue, and then ask yourself how it's different from any other crop] I urge you to choose to not extend the moratorium in any form. Let the farmers plant their crops, and bring some badly needed jobs and revenue to our county Thank you, Tom Thiersch Jefferson County thiersch-public@usregs.com ASAVE PAPER - Please do not print this e-mail unless absolutely necessary. Julie Shannon From: Phil Johnson Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 5:54 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Why is growing cannabis different from any other kind of agriculture? From: Tom Thiersch Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 5:55:41 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Phil Johnson Subject: Why is growing cannabis different from any other kind of agriculture? Commissioner, I think it's fair to say that the growing of cannabis, a legal agricultural commodity, is different from all other kinds of crops in only one way — the state - imposed security requirements. In every other respect, cannabis is just another crop: Consider the arguments that alarmists have used in their attempts to create the myth that cannabis is, somehow, different. Other crops may use fertilizer, and would therefore be subject to concerns about runoff Other crops use water, some more than others. Water requirement (in liters) per kilogram of crop (from the World Wildlife Fund's study): • Cotton 7,000 - 29,000 • Rice 3,000 - 5,000 o Sugar Cane 1,500 - 3,000 • Soya 2,000 • Wheat 900 • Potatoes 500 o Avocados ? ?? (so much that California producers are about to go out of business because of the cost of water) Other crops create traffic, but just how many truckloads per year could possibly come from even the largest farm? Proximity to children? Seriously, you can't believe that a child walking near a cannabis farm will be any more likely to use the end product than they would be to smoking after walking past a field of tobacco or drinking wine after walking past a vineyard. [insert your own criterion that anyone has raised as an issue, and then ask yourself how it's different from any other crop] I urge you to choose to not extend the moratorium in any form. Let the farmers plant their crops, and bring some badly needed jobs and revenue to our county. Thank you, Tom Thiersch Jefferson County thiersch - public @usregs.com ASAVE PAPER - Please do not print this e-mail unless absolutely necessary. Received after Hearing Comment Deadline Julie Shannon From: Phil Johnson Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 5:59 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Suggested Text for Ordinance to Repeal Jefferson County Moratorium on State -Legal Cannabis Businesses Attachments: Repeal MJ moratorium (1- 31- 15)finaldraft.docx; Repeal MJ moratorium (1- 31 -15) REDLINE.docx; Explanatory Commentary on proposed Ordinance to Repeal Ordinance.docx From: Jim MacRae Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 5:59:26 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Kathleen Kler Cc: Phil Johnson; David Sullivan Subject: Suggested Text for Ordinance to Repeal Jefferson County Moratorium on State -Legal Cannabis Businesses Ms. Kler and other Commissioners: Please find attached the text I promised for a draft ordinance repealing the moratorium. I recognize my work to be a draft, and hereby state that this is the first time I've ever tried to write an ordinance .... I am not wed to any of the forms or language I used ... just the intent. I have included the "final" document (sorry about the pagination, I had trouble undoing what had been done previously), as well as a redlined version of the original ordinance to continue the moratorium, without revision that makes transparent the changes I did to that DCD- provided document to create this. I have also included a commentary document that describes my rational for each modification, deletion, and addition. That, plus this cover is all for now, As I put in a Work -Plan in the Ordinance that calls forthe formulation of a Cannabis Task Force in JC in order to do the "inform the BOCC" job that DCD appears unable or unwilling to complete, I'll simply provide the rationale for this (below) that I posted to the OPCA group when I let them know what I was doing. I recognize you do not even have to read this, let alone act on it. If you can spare any time to do either I, for one, would appreciate your time and attention on this matter. I hope to see you all Monday morning. Here's an extract from the posting I sent out to OPCA on the task force: ....my intent with the Task Force is to address DCD's engineered ignorance head -on. We know, for the most part, what we are talking about. I also believe we have some empathy with people who feel that their homes, families, way of life and /or futures are threatened by our businesses and industry. Above all else, I believe that we know many of the relevant facts. I also believe that we are legitimate business owners, hence my choice to suggest that the local chamber of commerce (tourism, whoever) also be asked to nominate folks for placement on the TaskForce. I'm quite happy to enter into what might well (initially) be an uncomfortable period spanning up to 100 days and consisting of a number (likely 10 -20) of sessions talking and sharing and creating. That is, so long as TaskForce members share a common goal of reaching better mutual understanding AND a set of regulations and practices that work for most, if not all. Personally, I'd even welcome people to the TaskForce that do not believe (on either side) that compromise is possible. I , personally, believe that compromise is the inevitable result of whatever we choose to do going forward. I also believe that the more we discuss this with civility with those who see things differently, the more we will all like the ultimate compromise achieved. In my cover note to the Commissioners for the Repeal Ordinance, I will ask only 2 requirements of the participants (other than that they participate): I)A willingness to talk, to listen, and to discuss and a willingness to do so with the goal of distinguishing fact from emotion, belief from knowledge, and right from wrong and recognizing that any Business and, more specifically, any State -Legal Cannabis Business has the potential to cause both harm and benefit to it's employees, owners, neighbors, communities and the Society in which it operates. 2)A commitment to do this while consistently displaying courtesy and respect to those holding different fact - based beliefs and empathy for those holding onto beliefs unsupported by fact. If we do this correctly, the TaskForce will produce output that should naturally flow into well - informed fact - based WHEREAS clauses in future ordinances and land -use planning and permitting decisions. We may not like ALL of the output of the TaskForce but, so long as it is fact-based, I'm OK with that Maybe a Tier 3 lighted greenhouse grow lacking blackout capability is NOT the best thing to place on a 1 acre parcel in the middle of a rural cluster subdivision, after all .... Particularly if the cannabiz owners, in a fit of stubborn anarchism and poor- neighborliness, insist on installing and operating 2417 mercury -vapor strobe lights at the perimeter of their 8 ft fence) Go HAWKS!! Jim MacRae DRAFT 1131115 STATE OF WASHINGTON County of Jefferson An Ordinance Repealing Ordinance } Ordinance # 407- 0811 -14, Prohibiting the Production, } Processing and Retailing of Recreational } Cannabis in Certain Land Use Designations } Within Unincorporated Jefferson County } AND Establishing a Work Plan for the } Planning Agency } New01 WHEREAS, the term cannabis is the generally accepted term describing the genus of the two strains of cannabis generally grown for recreational use (cannabis sativa & cannabis indica) and is comparable to the terms marijuana and marihuana regarding the plant to which it refers; and New02WHEREAS, the terms marijuana and marihuana were historically used to convey negative imagery regarding cannabis and, further, to identify certain ethnic minorities wjth the use of cannabis and it's purported ills; and New03WHEREAS, the use of the terms marijuana and marihuana is reasonably classified as discriminatory in nature; and 01 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 cannabis;" and 02WHEREAS, Initiative 502 was codified into Chapter 69.50 RCW, the Uniform Controlled Substances Act; and 03WHEREAS, cannabis and cannabis 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 04WHEREAS, 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 cannabis for recreational purposes; and 05WHEREAS, the WSLCB adopted final rules on October 16, 2013 for cannabis producers, processors and retailers, said regulations being codified at Chapter 314 -55 WAC; and New04WHEREAS, these WSLCB rules have been amended multiple times over the past 15 months, incorporating information, input, and experiences accumulated from Washington businesses and citizens and addressing emerging risks not covered in the initial rules and emerging difficulties caused by the initial rules; and 06WHEREAS, the regulations of Ch. 314 -55 WAC went into effect on November 16, 2013 and the WSLCB began to accept applications for recreational cannabis producers, processors and retailers on November 18, 2013, said application window being open for one month with some exception to that time limit; and 07WHEREAS, only the WSLCB is authorized to issue licenses for the production, processing or retailing of recreational cannabis 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 08WHEREAS, WAC 314 -55- 020(11) explicitly recognizes the authority of locally adopted rules or ordinances to regulate licensed cannabis businesses, such locally adopted ordinances including in part local building and fire codes, and zoning ordinances; and 09WHEREAS, on January 16, 2014, the Washington State Attorney General issued an Opinion regarding local regulation of state - licensed cannabis producers, processors and retailers (AGO DRAFT 1/31/15 2014 No. 2), concluding in part, "... that I -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 I -502 limits that authority with respect to licensed cannabis businesses;" and New05WHEREAS, neither WAC 314 -55- 020(11) nor AGO 2014 No. 2 require that local governments place additional regulatory restriction on State -Legal cannabis businesses; and, 10WHEREAS, 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 cannabis 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 11 WHEREAS, pursuant to JCC 18.10.010 the production of cannabis is a form of agriculture, a use that the county's land use planning seeks to encourage in a wide variety of ways; and 12WHEREAS, Jefferson County values and supports local agriculture, locally grown food and farm products, and the vitality of local farms, the farm economy, farm employment and farm lifestyles; and 13WHEREAS, 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 14WHEREAS, 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 structures, 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, 2 harvesting, sawing, processing, assembling DRAFT 1/31/15 15WHEREAS, during the weekly open public meeting of the County Commission held on Monday October 14, 2013 staff briefed the Commission, informing them, according to the approved minutes for that meeting, "that existing regulations of the County and the [WS]LCB should be enough," based on the nature of cannabis operations then anticipated by the County, and thereafter no amendment or further review of the County's regulations was undertaken; and 16WHEREAS, during the license application window which subsequently began November 18, 2013, the WSLCB has, with respect to unincorporated Jefferson County, received 94 state license applications from persons and firms seeking to produce cannabis and /or process it AND the vast majority (approximately 90 %) of the applicants seeking to locate in unincorporated Jefferson County have requested state licenses to both produce and process cannabis; and 17WHEREAS, 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 18WHEREAS, 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 NewRecital 06: WHEREAS, no tangible information or fact supporting alleged risks associated with cannabis production, processing, or retailing has been presented by DCD that were not known to the County prior to the passage of the current moratorium on Aug 11., 2014 and, indeed, that no tangible information or fact supporting alleged risks associated with cannabis production, processing, or retailing has been presented by DCD since the BOCC initially provided clarity regarding it' position on the implementation of I -502 in Jefferson County to it's citizenry and future Jefferson County State -Legal cannabis business owners on Monday, Oct 14, 2013. 20WHEREAS, the County's current development regulations in the land use arena do not impose any land use permitting requirements on growing cannabis, although certain forms of the processing of cannabis require a County land use permit when proposed in certain zones as an accessory use or "cottage industry;" and 21WHEREAS, state, regional and local regulations and/or permitting regarding potable water, adequate water, waste water 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 cannabis businesses available to citizens through the WSLCB licensing process; and NewRecita107: WHEREAS, the WSLCB has, through the formulation and re- formulation of extensive rules to which State -Legal cannabis business operators are bound, attempted to mitigate risks both anticipated by the State prior to the rollout of I -502 and recognized during the first 8 months in which this State's legal cannabis market has been in operation, and 22WHEREAS, citizens have addressed the 3 County Commission during the public comment period of the Commission's open public meetings expressing great concern that the production of cannabis 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 NeWRecita108: WHEREAS, , citizens have addressed the County Commission and Planning Commission during the public comment period of the Commission's open public meetings and during discussions conducted during Planning Commission meetings expressing great resolve and substantial factual basis to support that the production of cannabis is agriculture and that both production and processing should not be the subject of additional development regulations not currently found in the applicable land use and development regulations or in the plethora of regulations imposed on these businesses by the State; and DRAFT 1/31/15 24WHEREA$ based on actual state license applications reviewed by the County and still pending before the state, it now appears the potential high profitability ofrecreational cannabis is attracting investments in cannabis 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 28WHEREAS, 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 in any way by the enactment of regulations regarding recreational cannabis that would make initiating and undertaking such businesses in Jefferson County any more difficult than initiating and undertaking any other agricultural activity; and 29WHEREAS, almost 6 months following the passage of Ordinance # #07-0811-14, the Department of Community Development has been unable to find a single factually -based risk stemming from the production, processing, or retailing of State -legal cannabis that was not known to the county in Oct. 2013, and numerous factual responses refuting and mitigating perceived risks raised by concerned citizens have been provided to both the BOCC and DCD; and NewRecita109 WHEREAS, the WSLCB is now removing applications for State -legal cannabis businesses that do not yet have a valid location on which to operate; and; 30WHEREAS. a moratorium extension is authorized (but not required) 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. DRAFT 1131115 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Commissioners for Jefferson County as follows: Section 1. Repeal of Moratorium and Call for use of genus term cannabis instead of cannabis or cannabis. There shall no longer 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 cannabis 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 hereafter be amended.. In addition, due to increasing awareness of the discriminatory nature of the terms marijuana and marihuana, Jefferson County staff are directed, going forward, to use the term cannabis, whenever possible, in replacement for either of these two terms. Section Two. Effect of Ordinance. This repeal requires that the acceptance, processing or approval of any County permit applications for any proposed use, development, proposal or project for the production or processing of recreational cannabis 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 hereafter be amended be resumed, effective on the first day of the normal business week following passage of this Ordinance. This effectively re- institutes the regulatory environment regarding State -legal cannabis that existed in Jefferson County immediately prior to the passage of Ordinance #07- 0811 -14 in August, 2014. This Ordinance does not alter, amend, repeal or revise any other applicable statute, regulation or code provision. It also initiates a change in acceptable terminology, replacing marihuana and /or marijuana with the term cannabis. Section Three. Duration. The repeal and suggested use of the term cannabis adopted by this Ordinance is on the first day of the normal business week following passage of this Ordinance and shall remain in effect unless subsequently altered by the Board pursuant to state law Section Four. Public Hearing. Pursuant to state law, a public hearing regarding this ordinance will be held by the County Commission no later than XXX, YY, 2015. Section Five. Work Plan. The following work plan is adopted: J Form a Jefferson County State -Legal Cannabis Task Force ( JCSLCTF), including representation by the County Administrator (or other BOCC delegate), Planning, Law Enforcement, and Public Health whose majority membership comprises 9 Jefferson County landowners and residents chosen equally from pools nominated by the OPCA (Olympic Peninsula Cannabis Association), the local established non - cannabis business community (chamber of commerce ?, tourism ?) and the RFRR (Residents for Responsible Regulation). The intent of and charge for the JCSLCTF will be to return a set of fact -based recommendations to the Planning Commission that inform Jefferson 5 County's future policies regarding State- Legal Cannabis. It is expected that each represented group will present their positions, and the facts upon which these positions are based. With these shared, the Task Force will evaluate the compiled information and will attempt to come to a consensus regarding the real risks and benefits to our community posed by State - Legal Cannabis. The JCSLCTF will report back to the Planning Commission a list of declarations of fact pertaining to the categories of risk and benefit identified by the Task Force. Each declaration will have appended a vote -count of all JCSLCTF members (being for or against the declaration). This document will be presented to the Planning Commission no later than 100 days following formation of the Task Force. The votes, while recorded against each declaration, will not be binding on any Jefferson County entity. They are for information only Generate draft revisions to the County's development regulations, if necessary, that address valid fact -based concerns presented in the JCSLCTF report and present them for Planning Commission review within 30 days of receipt of the JCSLCTF report. ❑Present final regulations, if necessary, for Board of County Commissioners action within 60 days of the receipt by the Planning Commission of the JCSLCTF report DRAFT 1/31/15 (Optional) Include in these regulations explicit recommendations on how to appropriately permit each of the 3 Tiers of State -legal cannabis farms (1,400 sq.ft, 7,000 sq.ft, and 21,000 sq.ft maximum canopy), each of the 5 major types of processing facilities (packaging only, dry /trim /cure, infused product production (edibles), extractions not employing volatile solvents, extractions (or any process) employing volatile solvents), and Retail stores. ❑ (Optional) Include in these regulations explicit recommendations recognizing that cannabis farming /production is agriculture, and that many, if not all, forms of cannabis processing are adjuncts to agriculture. 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. Section Seven. Severability. The provisions of this Ordinance are declared separate and severable. If any provision of this Ordinance or its application to any person or circumstances is held 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 meeting thereof this 2nd day of February, 2015 at _ _ a.m. APPROVED AS TO FORM: David Alvarez Date Deputy Prosecuting Attorney ATTEST: Carolyn Avery Deputy Clerk of the Board M JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS David Sullivan, Chair Phil Johnson, Member Kathleen Kler, Member DRAFT - 11k2/131/31 /15 STATE OF WASHINGTON County of Jefferson An Ordinance CvdendiagRepealine Ordinance } Ordinance # 407- 0811 -14, Prohibiting the Production, } Processing and Retailing of Recreational } MaF4uanaCannabi s in Certain Land Use Designations ) Within Unincorporated Jefferson County } AND Establishing a Work Plan for the } Planning Agency } New01 WHEREAS the term cannabis is the eenerally accepted term describing the genus of the two strains of cannabis yenerally prown for recreational use (cannabis satiya & cannabis indica) and is comparable to the terms marijuana and marihuana regarding the plant to which it refers: and New02W HEREAS the terms marijuana and marihuana were historically used to conves Formatted: Font: Bow negative imagery regarding cannabis and further to identifi certain ethnic minorities with the use of cannabis and it's purported ills: and New03WHEREA5 the use of the terms marijuana and marihuana is reasonably classified — > Formatted:• Font Bold as discriminatory in nature and 01 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 xatF4aaaacannabis:" and 02WHEREAS, Initiative 502 was codified into Chapter 69.50 RCW, the Uniform Controlled Substances Act; and 03WHEREAS, ffha }aanecannabis and marilrum cannabis 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 04WHEREAS, Initiative 502 directed the Washington State Liquor Control Board (W SLCB ") 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 maFijuanacannabis for non -.me<4 "recreational purposes; and 05WHEREAS, the WSLCB adopted final rules on October 16, 2013 for ffrar Juanacannabis producers, processors and retailers, said regulations being codified at Chapter 314 -55 WAC; and Ncw04WHEREAS the Formatted: rot: Bow months, incorporating information input and experiences accumulated Gom Washington businesses and citizens and addressing 1 emerging risks not covered in the initial rules and emere ng difficulties caused by the initial rules: and 06WHEREAS, the regulations of Ch. 314 -55 WAC went into effect on November 16, 2013 and the WSLCB began to accept applications for recreational magi }uanacannabis producers, processors and retailers on November 18, 2013, said application window being open for one month with some exception to that time limit; and , 07WHEREAS, only the WSLCB is authorized to issue licenses for the production, processing or retailing of recreational man�is 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 OBWHEREAS, WAC 314 -55- 020(11) explicitly recognizes the authority of locally adopted rules or ordinances to regulate licensed ffKt �cannabis businesses, such locally adopted ordinances including in part local building and fire codes, and zoning ordinances; and 09WHEREAS, on January 16, 2014, the Washington State Attorney General issued an Opinion regarding local regulation of state -licensed niarijuanacaru abis producers, processors and retailers (AGO DRAFT -W 2'15 U31,/15 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 I -502 limits that authority with respect to licensed naFijwanacannabis businesses," and NCw05WHERFAS, neither WAC 314-55-020(11) nor AGO 2014 No 2 require that local governments place additional regulatory restriction on State -Legal cannabis businesses: and JOWHEREAS,. County staff, including persons from planning, law enforcement, public health prosecution, as well as the County Administrator, met during 2013 to determine ifany changes to the County's current regulatory structure would be required in order to accommodate the then - anticipated recreational cannabis 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 11 WHEREAS, pursuant to JCC 18.10.010 the production of niarijuaaacannabis is a form of agriculture, a use that the county's land use planning seeks to encourage in a wide variety of ways; and 12WHEREAS, Jefferson County values and supports local agriculture, locally grown food and farm products, and the vitality of local farms, the farm economy, farm employment and farm lifestyles; and 13WHEREAS, 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 14WHEREAS, 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 structures, farm worker housing, processing, packaging, wholesale and retail sales of agricultural products, commercial sales, repair and maintenance of farm equipment, 2 storage of vehicles, equipment, materials or products not related to agriculture, agritourism, tourism events not related to Fwwttea: Font.. Bold F"=tted: Fcot: Italic agriculture, classes, lumber mills, harvesting sawing, processing, assembling and selling lumber: and 17� \iYIEHr'�'7NiiBCs 15WHEREAS, during the weekly open public meeting of the County Commission held on Monday October 14, 2013 staff briefed the Commission, informing them, according to the approved minutes for that meeting, "that existing regulations of the County and the [WS }jLCB should be enough," based on the nature of marimanacannabis operations then anticipated by the County, and thereafter no amendment or further review of the County's regulations was undertaken; and 16WHEREAS, during the license application window which subsequently began November 18, 2013, the WSLCB has, with respect to unincorporated Jefferson County, received sevwu{ dozen44 state license applications from persons and firms seeking to produce maFi}ruanacannabis and/or process it AND the vast majority (approximately 90°/a) of the applicants seeking to locate in unincorporated Jefferson County have requested state licenses to both produce and process ntaFtjuanacannabis; and 17WHEREAS, 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 18WHEREAS, 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 ` ,„. Formatted: Font: 16 pt ewRecital 06 W HEREAS„no tangible information or fact supporting alleged risks associated Formatted: Font: 12 pt with cannabis production processingr or retailing has been presented by DCD that were not Fom,atted: Font: 12 pC Bold 2013. designation: an d 20WHEREAS, the County's current development regulations in the land use arena do not impose any land use permitting requirements on growing aaarije - cannabis, although certain forms of the processing of matryaauacannabis require a County land use permit when proposed in certain zones - signations requires a Cedid and use permit as an accessory use or "cottage industry;" and - 21WHEREAS, state, regional and local regulations and/or permitting regarding potable water, adequate water, waste water and surface water discharges, the proper handling and disposal of solid waste, food processing, and air quality 3 are, and always would be, applicable to any applicant seeking to enter into and undertake any one or some of the three recreational ffhff4eanacannabis businesses available to citizens through the WSLCB licensing process; and NewlZecita107_ WHEREAS, the WSLCB has, through the formulation and re formulation of Formatted: Font: add extensive rules to which State -Legal cannabis business's operators are hound attempted to mitigate risks both anticipated by the State prior to the rollout of 1502 and reco di�zed duuma the first 8 months in which this State's legal cannabis market has been in operation, and 22WHEREAS, 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 xtaFijaaaacannabis 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 NewRecital08: WHEREAS- citizens have addressed the Countv Commission and Plannmg Commission during the public comment period of the Commission'- open public meetings and _ during discussions conducted during Planning Commission meetings expressing great resolve and substantial factual basis to support that the production of cannabis is agriculture and that both ,production and processing should not be the subject of additional development regulations not currently found in the applicable land use and development regulations or in the plethora of regulations imposed on these businesses by the State; and DRAFT- 142451,131i15 24WHEREAS, 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 »eeryuuncrcannabis is attracting investments in warjuartacamtabis operations and developments ofa larger scale and higher intensity than the County previously anticipated to 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 . maintain Fare] .,.,iFiextial- lands and ' 'F"a ..4 traC , light' hours of er 4)-eder VaneF- Supply wih mra Far, :.�J surface Bud ground .... pollution: ,.d benefit the, health .,.f and,.ece.e a fall cr i.^.:aHnHEyC.� .,,a 28WHEREAS, 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 in any way by the aveetaal enactment of regulations regarding recreational m� annabis that would make initiating and undertaking such businesses in Jefferson County impmetiealany more difficult than initiating and undertaking any other agricultural activity; and 29W HEREAS, almost 6 months following the pass'a�e of Ordinance #_ #07-0811-14, the Department of Community Development has been unable to find a single factually -based risk stemming from the production processing. or retailimz of State -legal cannabis that was not known to the count, in Oct. 2013, and numerous factual responses.refutitl� avid mitigating perceived risks raised by concerned citizens have been provided to both the BOCC and DCD: and NewRecim(09 WHE72F,AS the WSLCB is now removing applications for Sm[e -legal cannabis businesses that do not vet have a valid location on which to operate and: 4 Fmmattetl: Font: [Wlk ted: Space Before: 13.9 pt Formatted: Space Before: 13.9 pt DRAFT 4L1?1K137 15 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Commissioners for Jefferson County as follows: Section 1. A4orutariumReoeal of Moratorium and Call for use of genus term cannabis instead of cannabis or cannabis. There shall no longer 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 ruarijua+xacannabis 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 ° t"=,�,eaf efborealier be amended.. In addition due to increasing awareness of the discriminatory nature of the terns marijuana and marihuana Jefferson Countv staff are directed, going forward, to use the term cannabis, whenever possible, in replacement for either of these two teens Made for apffUel OF PaFcel!; located within the fallowing land use designations Section Two. Effect of AluruturiumOrdinance. This aF'p., cat, �u:' e�^ ar± ttlo lHt{ieeitiestt5ii5teEi-- tttRE; .� ., ... been doem -d "Substantially complete" falters, amends, repeals or revises any other applicable statute, regulation or code provision_ It also initiates a change in acceptable terminologreplacing marihuana and/or maziivana with the term cannabis. Section Three. Duration. The ruoxater+am -r�cal and suggested use of the term cannabis adopted by this Ordinance is on the first day 0 f 5 the normal business week fo1lowin&2assa! e of Format . Space Before: 13.85 Pt Um spacing: EmcBy 13.7 ot. Tab stops: 3 ", Left this Ordinanceefl;eet " Ne immediate!) upoi adeptien and shall remain in effect for eur (4) ment#s r-em the .dal -f a apiiap unless subsequently n4eE altered by the Board pursuant to state law $ectiod Four. Public Hearing._ Pursuant to state law, a public hearing regarding this _ moratorium rdinance will be held by the County Commission no later than jiumar5 26. 249XXX, YY 2015. Section Five. Work Plan. The following work plan is adopted: 7 Jefferson County landowners and residents chosen equally from pools nominated by the OPCA (Olympic Peninsula Cannabis Association) the local established non - cannabis business community (chamber of commerce ?, tourism ?) and the RFRR (Residents for Responsible Regulation). The intent of and charge for the JCSLCTF will be to return a set of fact -based recommendations to the Planning Commission that inform Jeflerson County's future policies regarding State -Legal Cannabis It is expected that each represented group will present their positions and the facts upon which these positions are based. With these shared, the Task Force will evaluate the compiled information and will attempt to come to a consensus regarding ding the real risks and benefits to our community posed by State - Legal Cannabis The JCSLCTF will report back to the Planning Commission a list of declarations of tact pertaining to the categories of risk and benefit identified by the Task Force Each declaration will have appended a vote -count of all JCSLCTF members (being lot or against the declaration). This document will be presented to the Planning Commission no later than 100 days following formation of the Task Force The votes. while recorded against each declaration, will not be binding on any Jefferson County entity. 'I'hev are Cor information only.. ]Generate draft revisions to the County's development regulations, if necessary, that address valid fact -based concerns presented in the JCSLCTF report and present them for Planning Commission review at the meeting of jurniary within 30 days of receipt of the JCSLCTF report. Present final t, ^r- � ,- d � .T, with €fie4- regulations if necessary for Board of County Commissioners action recernmendation by h°- 1'4armmn.: to «v° Gounp(dorm «t,'., .gin .t,..... .. r....,.......,.. -.,� ,. r. u:., n..,c....,.,.,. of the receipt by the Planning Commission of the JCSLC'Il' deport- eavlmented P11: Ido not ImowiranY funhe Ntin Meenn®s woWd berequued.. Kept in es a Placebolder, igcsse one u roquirod Formatted: Font: (Default) Times Nea Roman DRAFT l." 1/31:15 couuucuuauous Uu uory III awwouaicw VG ILL I -1 0 -w cannabis farms (1,400 s(ift 7,000 scl ft and 21,000 sq.R maximum canopy), each of the 5 major types of processing facilities (packaging only dryrtrim/cure infused product production (edibles) extractions not emplmmg volatile solvent, extractions for any process) emploving volatile solvents) and Retail stores. (Optional) include in these regulations explicit recommendations reco,>nizing that ro�omea: Font (cefaWt) nines new Ronan cannabis ftmting/producuon is agriculture and that numv f not all forms of cannabis processing are adjuncts to agriculture 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 Section Seven. Severability. The provisions of this Ordinance are declared separate and severable. If any provision of this Ordinance or its application to any person or circumstances is held 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 meeting thereof this 2f42nd day of January Februan, 2015 at _ _ a.m. JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS APPROVED AS TO FORM David Alvarez Date Deputy Prosecuting Attorney ATTEST: Carolyn Avery Deputy Clerk of the Board 6 Explanatory Commentary on proposed Ordinance to Repeal Ordinance #07- 0811 -14 Initial edit by Jim MacRae: (425) 402 -8979 macraej@comcast.net The proposed Ordinance used the "Continue Moratorium in it's Current Form' Ordinance proposed by DCD last week as it's starting point. In addition to the proposed new Ordinance text, I have included a "redlined" version of DCD's Ordinance so that all of my modifications, additions, and deletions are transparent. The intention of THIS document is to capture my thoughts and rationale, as I edit the recitals. The new "ordination" section at the end basically sets us back to where we were pre- moratorium with respect to permitting/zoning /landuse and suggests the formation of a citizen -heavy task -force that, if the proposed timeline /workplan is followed, will result in good, fact -based declarations for the use of the BOCC, DCD, etc by approximately the 1 -year anniversary of the Aug, 2014 moratorium ordinance. Please take the form of this with some latitude - -- I have never written (or re- written) an Ordinance before, and I do not appreciate the subtleties of the process. I have taken the recitals to be declarations of fact (and have tried to whittle those down to fact -based ones) and the "Ordinations" to declare what is to be done and how and when it is to be completed. Regarding the inclusion of "Retail" in the title — I have focused the language within the Ordinance on the farming /production and processing of cannabis, but am not changing anything from the original that I either do not understand, or take no exception to The first 3 NEW recitals are proactive and are, simply, leading to the first new ordination. This is, simply, the right thing to do. Marijuana and marihuana are terms that were, initially, used and identified with negative stereotypes and in enhancing the subjugation of certain ethnic minorities. Changing our language to the more accurate genus -label and emotionally neutral term cannabis (as in cannabis sativa and cannabis indica) would be a low -cost way to show support for those 2/3 of JC voters that supported legalization. The best analogy I can give for this is that the term Redskins is offensive to some groups and people. Same thing for MJ an /or MH ... I do not believe there is a legal or tangible cost to doing this, and it's just the right thing to do. I have taken the liberty of altering the text of the remainder of this ordinance to use the term cannabis whenever marijuana and /or marijuana were previously used. Recita104 —1 -502 was for recreational, not "non- medical ". Interesting choice of terminology New Recital04 — corrects an error of omission in Recita105, which implies incorrectly that the rules set by the WSLCB have not changed since their inception in late 2013 NeWRecita105 — introduces fair balance lacking in Recitals 08 and 09 Recita110: Good for them to have met in 2013. 1 do not see the relevance of this to where we are in the process, other than it seems to be serving as a base from which to build the subsequent anti - agriculture language (which is clearly causing the original author some concern, when recitals 11 through 14 are considered). I have left it here, but believe the BOCC may want to strike it from the final Ordinance and replace it with a statement to the effect that DCD met with someone and gained some additional information since the moratorium was instituted in Aug. 2014 -- -only if they did, of course. Recitals 11 -14 are nicely, internally consistent and factual (do I hear a "but" coming ?) Recital 12: Modification to broaden the inappropriately narrow focus of the original language. Just as wine grapes are not "food" per se, so cannabis - infused brownies ARE "food ". Recital 16: Request that DCD supply that actual number of license submittals received from the WSLCB, rather than using the term "several dozen" . Would you like to bet that something on the order of 30 has become "several dozen" in the original authors mind? I'll bet a beer on that. Recital 17: It would be nice to know the number of such notifications received from the WSLCB, ideally broken out by "type" (Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, with /without an attached processor, processor along, retail) and by how many of each "type" have been responded to by the County and objected to by the County. As recitals are statements that, ultimately, become adopted as findings of fact, it would be nice if they included easily accessible relevant facts ... particularly when subsequent recitals imply that the county has experienced an unexpected, and quite - possibly - humungous, influx of 1 -502 business applicants. Recital 18: Specific numbers would be appreciated (applicants per land- use -type) and appropriate to include. (as an aside, what have DCD been doing to inform you of the relevant issues since Aug 11? Do they even know the answer to this question and the other areas where obvious relevant facts are omitted? Is it just a matter of a style favoring brevity ?) Recital 19: Strike this Recital in it's entirety. Cannabis farming is recognized by the County as agricultural. See NewRecital 06 for my rationale to strike this (and the other recitals below that, taken together with Recital 19, comprise the bulk of what appears to be the introduction of an unnecessary attack on our Right to Farm, and would set a highly undesirable precedent. NewRecital 06: Just saying .... I do not know these two assertions to be the absolute truth, but I believe they capture the substantive truth. Please at least ask DCD for a listing of specific counter - claims to my assertions. Recital 20: Cleaning up the language, and recognizing the fact that cannabis processing is not a unified activity (see the proposed 5 -level categorization in my first optional Ordination). NewRecital 07: Pointing out the other layers of regulation /compliance that already exist on 1 -502 businesses, many of which directly address, negate, or mitigate many of the concerns we, and you, have been hearing regarding these businesses and the fact that governmental agencies outside of Jefferson County have been paying attention to the emerging market that enables them to learn specifics regarding things that they "had not anticipated ", and to react accordingly to mitigate / eliminate emerging risks Statewide. NewRecital 08: Providing fair balance with Recita122, and, hopefully, providing a reminder to all that it is, logically, impossible to prove a negative. (Hence, I guess I have to cut DCD staff some slack for providing no legitimate factual basis that cannabis farming is not an agricultural activity. Using modifiers such as "typical" in conjunction with the word "agriculture" appears self- serving and is grossly inappropriate. Recita123: Deleted, as it is the logical equivalent as stating "Since the WSLCB regulates Cannabis Farming' it is not typical agriculture. My vineyard has a deer fence that ranges between 6 and 7 feet in height. It does not keep the deer (and certainly not the bear) out. Is, then, viticulture not "distinguishable from more traditional forms of agriculture ". The way truffles grow, are they not "distinguishable from traditional methods of farming zucchini ". I hope my point is obvious. Recita124: I have left this in, because facts might make it acceptable (specific numbers, coupled with a very explicit statement of what the DCD and County anticipated back in 2013 when the County set the initial rules of the road for this industry. In case facts are deemed relevant by this body: As of Jan 5 2015, the WSLCB had reported the following counts of licensed applicants in Jefferson County: 1 Tier 1 stand -alone cannabis farmer 1 Tier 1 cannabis farmer with an associated processor license 2 Tier 2 cannabis farmers with associate processor licenses ZERO Tier 3 cannabis farmers, of any type. 1 Stand -alone cannabis processor 2 Retail Stores Yes, that is correct, a total of 7licensed State -legal cannabis businesses in the whole County. As an interesting piece of trivia, not a single one of the wholesalers here (the farmers and /or processors) had booked a single dollar of sales by the end of 2014. Both of the licensed Retail stores in the county booked sales in 2014. I'll be updating my datasets later next week when the State updates licensee -level sales data. At that time, I'll share what I have in terms of overall applicants, etc ... this would likely be prior to Feb 11. Recita125: deleted as the scale cannot possibly be a problem (maximum size of a grow is less than Y2 acre ... name a farm in the county that is less than %acre in size). If the INTENSITY is a problem, then please let that be explicitly called out. I know something about cannabis farming (indoor, outdoor, greenhouse). Nothing about these activities differs in intensity from the farming of other crops. If it is PROCESSING that causes the intensity concern, I am baffled. The only form of processing that carries anything beyond minimal risk is the extraction of cannabinoids from plant material using volatile solvents (butane, etc). In the case of solvent -based extractions, the WSLCB requires that expensive closed -loop systems that have been approved as "safe" be employed. Drying/trimming /curing bud and packaging the dried /trimmed /cured bud is the type of packaging that many producer /processors will employ. I, personally, don't want butane anywhere near my farm ... I'm uncomfortable enough having a large LP /NG tank up there (which I do not). These are not the same systems as the BHO- blasters use in the black market that result in headlines about building explosions. Details available on request, but I'm not being untruthful here (or anywhere, to my knowledge). Recita126: deleted, and I'll call "ignorant bs" on this one. Historically, the farming of cannabis was illegal, and all methods employed had, at the forefront of their design, the ability to hide the operation from public and law- enforcement detection. Hence, things tended to go remote or small. A typical indoor illegal grow will take up approximately %: of the square footage of house (usually the basement, to reduce thermal contrast from above). That is approximately the size allowed for a Tier 1 farm, under 1 -502. Now that it is not illegal, how cannabis if farmed is likely to change - -- and it is likely to be only for the better in how it changes, particularly now that it is in the open and heavily regulated. Regardless, this recital adds no value other than to restate that cannabis farming is no longer illegal and underground. Someone in DCD appears to be having a problem with that fact. Recital 27: deleted for obvious reasons, given my previous comments (I can't believe that the BOCC allowed much of this drivel to become "findings of fact" last Aug 11) ... enough venting. Recital 28: cosmetic changes that reinforce that agricultural nature of cannabis farming and processing Recital 29: modified from supporting an extension of the moratorium to supporting It's repeal NewRecita109: pointing out that there is a real cost and impact to any extension of the moratorium. Recital 30: wording change that basically captures the essence of "just because we can, does not mean we should ". • �* ss* x* xa• a*+ �:«: r.: m.*+ x+. �. s�.*«.•..«* r.* ��: x* �*+. s**• +�•.s *.. :r.� *r «� « *� +sa +�. +a +x +: Ordination 1: Changed to repeal moratorium and change preferred terminology from marijuana /marihuana to cannabis. Ordination 2: Edited accordingly, given above Ordination 2 & 3 ... I opted to state that this would become effective the on the first day of the working week following passage (Feb 9 ?). If making it active on the day the moratorium expires is better, I'm OK with that. I just thought it would be nice to allow the BOCC the opportunity to actually repeal the moratorium, rather than letting it lapse. Your call (as is this all). Ordinations 3 & 4: 1 tried to minimize changes here ... not sure if # 4 is still required, given the workplan suggested. Ordination 5: This workplan is to set up a 1C Cannabis Task Force that is citizen- driven and time - limited to deliver to the BOCC a series of fact -based declarations regarding risks and benefits associated with State -Legal Cannabis Businesses. The last 2 line items (listed as options) are items that I believe it is crucial for the TaskForce to address (the different sizes of cannabis farms (biggest being < % acre), and the issue where some question the status of cannabis farming as agricultural and /or whether we should consider setting precedents that would open the possibility of threatening our Right to Farm through the introduction of other crop- specific regulations and restrictions. I'm not sure if these are best placed in the ordinance, or if they be "direction to the Taskforce ", by the BOCC. Ordinations 6 & 7: No changes, as these look like necessary legalese. Julie Shannon From: David Sullivan Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 5:59 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Suggested Text for Ordinance to Repeal Jefferson County Moratorium on State -Legal Cannabis Businesses Attachments: Repeal MJ moratorium (1- 31- 15)finaldraft.docx; Repeal MJ moratorium (1- 31 -15) REDLINE.docx; Explanatory Commentary on proposed Ordinance to Repeal Ordinance.docx From: Jim MacRae Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 5:59:26 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Kathleen Kier Cc: Phil Johnson; David Sullivan Subject: Suggested Text for Ordinance to Repeal Jefferson County Moratorium on State -Legal Cannabis Businesses Ms. Kier and other Commissioners: Please find attached the text I promised for a draft ordinance repealing the moratorium. I recognize my work to be a draft, and hereby state that this is the first time I've ever tried to write an ordinance .... I am not wed to any of the forms or language I used ... just the intent. I have included the "final" document (sorry about the pagination, I had trouble undoing what had been done previously), as well as a redlined version of the original ordinance to continue the moratorium, without revision that makes transparent the changes I did to that DCD- provided document to create this. I have also included a commentary document that describes my rational for each modification, deletion, and addition. That, plus this cover is all for now. As I put in a Work -Plan in the Ordinance that calls for the formulation of a Cannabis Task Force in 1C in order to do the "inform the BOCC" job that DCD appears unable or unwilling to complete, I'll simply provide the rationale for this (below) that I posted to the OPCA group when I let them know what I was doing. I recognize you do not even have to read this, let alone act on it. If you can spare any time to do either I, for one, would appreciate your time and attention on this matter. I hope to see you all Monday morning. Here's an extract from the posting I sent out to OPCA on the task force: ....my intent with the Task Force is to address DCD's engineered ignorance head -on. We know, for the most part, what we are talking about. I also believe we have some empathy with people who feel that their homes, families, way of life and /or futures are threatened by our businesses and industry. Above all else, I believe that we know many of the relevant facts. I also believe that we are legitimate business owners, hence my choice to suggest that the local chamber of commerce (tourism, whoever) also be asked to nominate folks for placement on the TaskForce. I'm quite happy to enter into what might well (initially) be an uncomfortable period spanning up to 100 days and consisting of a number (likely 10 -20) of sessions talking and sharing and creating. That is, so long as TaskForce members share a common goal of reaching better mutual understanding AND a set of regulations and practices that work for most, if not all. Personally, I'd even welcome people to the TaskForce that do not believe (on either side) that compromise is possible. I , personally, believe that compromise is the inevitable result of whatever we choose to do going forward. I also believe that the more we discuss this with civility with those who see things differently, the more we will all like the ultimate compromise achieved. In my cover note to the Commissioners for the Repeal Ordinance, I will ask only 2 requirements of the participants (other than that they participate): I)A willingness to talk, to listen, and to discuss and a willingness to do so with the goal of distinguishing fact from emotion, belief from knowledge, and right from wrong and recognizing that any Business and, more specifically, any State -Legal Cannabis Business has the potential to cause both harm and benefit to it's employees, owners, neighbors, communities and the Society in which it operates. 2)A commitment to do this while consistently displaying courtesy and respect to those holding different fact - based beliefs and empathy for those holding onto beliefs unsupported by fact. If we do this correctly, the TaskForce will produce output that should naturally flow into well - informed fact - based WHEREAS clauses in future ordinances and land -use planning and permitting decisions. We may not like ALL of the output of the TaskForce but, so tong as it is fact - based, I'm OK with that. Maybe a Tier 3 lighted greenhouse grow lacking blackout capability is NOT the best thing to place on a I acre parcel in the middle of a rural cluster subdivision, after all .... Particularly if the cannabiz owners, in a fit of stubborn anarchism and poor - neighborliness, insist on installing and operating 24n mercury -vapor strobe lights at the perimeter of their 8 ft fence) Go HAWKS!! Jim MacRae Julie Shannon From: Kathleen Kier Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 5:59 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Suggested Text for Ordinance to Repeal Jefferson County Moratorium on State -Legal Cannabis Businesses Attachments: Repeal MJ moratorium (1- 31- 15)finaidraft.docx, Repeal MJ moratorium (1- 31 -15) REDLINE.docx; Explanatory Commentary on proposed Ordinance to Repeal Ordinance.docx From: Jim MacRae Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 5:59:26 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Kathleen Kier Cc: Phil Johnson; David Sullivan Subject: Suggested Text for Ordinance to Repeal Jefferson County Moratorium on State -Legal Cannabis Businesses Ms. Kier and other Commissioners: Please find attached the text I promised for a draft ordinance repealing the moratorium. I recognize my work to be a draft, and hereby state that this is the first time I've ever tried to write an ordinance .... I am not wed to any of the forms or language I used ... just the intent. I have included the "final" document (sorry about the pagination, I had trouble undoing what had been done previously), as well as a redlined version of the original ordinance to continue the moratorium, without revision that makes transparent the changes I did to that DCD- provided document to create this. I have also included a commentary document that describes my rational for each modification, deletion, and addition. That, plus this cover is all for now. As I put in a Work -Plan in the Ordinance that calls for the formulation of a Cannabis Task Force in JC in order to do the "inform the BOCC" job that DCD appears unable or unwilling to complete, I'll simply provide the rationale for this (below) that I posted to the OPCA group when I let them know what I was doing. recognize you do not even have to read this, let alone act on it. If you can spare any time to do either I, for one, would appreciate your time and attention on this matter. I hope to see you all Monday morning. Here's an extract from the posting I sent out to OPCA on the task force: ....my intent with the Task Force is to address DCD's engineered ignorance head -on. We know, for the most part, what we are talking about. I also believe we have some empathy with people who feel that their homes, families, way of life and /or futures are threatened by our businesses and industry. Above all else, I believe that we know many of the relevant facts. I also believe that we are legitimate business owners, hence my choice to suggest that the local chamber of commerce (tourism, whoever) also be asked to nominate folks for placement on the TaskForce. I'm quite happy to enter into what might well (initially) be an uncomfortable period spanning up to 100 days and consisting of a number (likely 10 -20) of sessions talking and sharing and creating. That is, so long as TaskForce members share a common goal of reaching better mutual understanding AND a set of regulations and practices that work for most, if not all. Personally, I'd even welcome people to the TaskForce that do not believe (on either side) that compromise is possible. I , personally, believe that compromise is the inevitable result of whatever we choose to do going forward. I also believe that the more we discuss this with civility with those who see things differently, the more we will all like the ultimate compromise achieved. In my cover note to the Commissioners for the Repeal Ordinance, I will ask only 2 requirements of the participants (other than that they participate): I)A willingness to talk, to listen, and to discuss and a willingness to do so with the goal of distinguishing fact from emotion, belief from knowledge, and right from wrong and recognizing that any Business and, more specifically, any State -Legal Cannabis Business has the potential to cause both harm and benefit to it's employees, owners, neighbors, communities and the Society in which it operates. 2)A commitment to do this while consistently displaying courtesy and respect to those holding different fact - based beliefs and empathy for those holding onto beliefs unsupported by fact. If we do this correctly, the TaskForce will produce output that should naturally flow into well - informed fact - based WHEREAS clauses in future ordinances and land -use planning and permitting decisions. We may not like ALL of the output of the TaskForce but, so long as it is fact - based, I'm OK with that. Maybe a Tier 3 lighted greenhouse grow lacking blackout capability is NOT the best thing to place on a 1 acre parcel in the middle of a rural cluster subdivision, after all .... Particularly if the cannabiz owners, in a fit of stubborn anarchism and poor - neighborliness, insist on installing and operating 24/7 mercury -vapor strobe lights at the perimeter of their 8 ft fence) Go HAWKS!! Jim MacRae Receive: after Hearing Comment Deadline Julie Shannon From: Phil Johnson Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2015 8:34 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Please end this lunacy now. From: gnarleydogfarm @gmail.com Sent: Sunday, February 1, 2015 8:35:01 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: David Sullivan; Kathleen Kier; Phil Johnson Subject: Please end this lunacy now. Good evening commissioners, This is what I plan to read tomorrow Am: BoCC Feb 2, 2015 Jean Ball, Chimacum I do not know what other business would be subjected to the scrutiny of their neighbors when that business is not making an impact of any kind upon those neighbors or the environment. If my name was not printed on the front page of the paper, unbeknownst to me, my neighbors would never have known what kind of agriculture I was into and would not be complaining now. They have no need to know, and should have no say, because my land use will not impact them in any way. LCB, JCC and 1 -502 manage every conceivable issue to the fullest extent. Any suggestion otherwise is either misinformed or deliberately misleading. 1 -502 businesses are the perfect model for a cottage industry in Jefferson County. The process of producing Cannabis is identical to production of any other agricultural crop and looks like any other farm, despite this absurd perception that a fence means we don't grow plants. Just a reminder, I put 8' fences around my fruit and nut orchards and vegetable gardens, all poultry and various other farm stuff to keep deer and arial predators out and none of my neighbors complained about any of those goofy fences or denied that I was a farmer or grew agriculture because of those fences. The nimbys are comprised of a very small group of people, they are not wide - spread throughout the county, despite the sheer volume with which they broadcast their mis- information. They are primarily the neighbors of 3 applicants who perpetuate a culture of fear. Honest science and fact are seldom contained within their comments or thought formulations. 1 -502 businesses are suffering at the hand of this selfish and ignorant behavior. The people of Jefferson County have spoken and this mis- guided moratorium is the result of a few, very loud people who are comfortable thwarting the will of Jefferson County voters to serve their own selfish wants. Nearly 13,000 Jefferson County voters approved 1 -502 (almost as many votes as were cast for both Commissioner Kier and her opponent, Toepper, combined), are you telling me you are going to let a handful of misinformed squeaky wheels grind this whole thing to a halt? It is the same people you hear from, repeating the same things with varying degrees of truthiness* ('Thank you, Stephen Colbert). Many of them don't even write their own comments and are just looking for the next excuse to mess with their neighbors. I am tired of this harassment, 1 am doing nothing wrong, my business is subjected to some of the most restrictive and highly regulated protocols imaginable. I believe I should have the full support of my county government. I would like to repeat that I do not know what other business would be subjected to the scrutiny of their neighbors when that business is not making an impact of any kind upon those neighbors or the environment AND existing county code adequately manages every potential issue. Please end this lunacy now. Jean Julie Shannon From: Kathleen Kler Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2015 8:34 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Please end this lunacy now. From: gnarleydogfarm @gmail.com Sent: Sunday, February 1, 2015 8:35:01 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: David Sullivan: Kathleen Kler; Phil Johnson Subject: Please end this lunacy now. Good evening commissioners, This is what I plan to read tomorrow Am: BoCC Feb 2, 2015 Jean Ball, Chimacum I do not know what other business would be subjected to the scrutiny of their neighbors when that business is not making an impact of any kind upon those neighbors or the environment. If my name was not printed on the front page of the paper, unbeknownst to me, my neighbors would never have known what kind of agriculture I was into and would not be complaining now. They have no need to know, and should have no say, because my land use will not impact them in any way. LCB, JCC and 1 -502 manage every conceivable issue to the fullest extent. Any suggestion otherwise is either misinformed or deliberately misleading. 1 -502 businesses are the perfect model for a cottage industry in Jefferson County. The process of producing Cannabis is identical to production of any other agricultural crop and looks like any other farm, despite this absurd perception that a fence means we don't grow plants. Just a reminder, I put 8' fences around my fruit and nut orchards and vegetable gardens, all poultry and various other farm stuff to keep deer and arial predators out and none of my neighbors complained about any of those goofy fences or denied that I was a farmer or grew agriculture because of those fences. The nimbys are comprised of a very small group of people, they are not wide - spread throughout the county, despite the sheer volume with which they broadcast their mis- information. They are primarily the neighbors of 3 applicants who perpetuate a culture of fear. Honest science and fact are seldom contained within their comments or thought formulations. 1 -502 businesses are suffering at the hand of this selfish and ignorant behavior. The people of Jefferson County have spoken and this mis- guided moratorium is the result of a few, very loud people who are comfortable thwarting the will of Jefferson County voters to serve their own selfish wants. Nearly 13,000 Jefferson County voters approved 1 -502 (almost as many votes as were cast for both Commissioner Kler and her opponent, Toepper, combined), are you telling me you are going to let a handful of misinformed squeaky wheels grind this whole thing to a halt? It is the same people you hear from, repeating the same things with varying degrees of truthiness* (*Thank you, Stephen Colbert). Many of them don't even write their own comments and are just looking for the next excuse to mess with their neighbors. I am tired of this harassment, I am doing nothing wrong, my business is subjected to some of the most restrictive and highly regulated protocols imaginable. I believe I should have the full support of my county government. I would like to repeat that I do not know what other business would be subjected to the scrutiny of their neighbors when that business is not making an impact of any kind upon those neighbors or the environment AND existing county code adequately manages every potential issue. Please end this lunacy now. Jean Julie Shannon From: David Sullivan Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2015 8:34 PIV1 To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Please end this lunacy now. From: gnarleydogfarm @gmail.com Sent: Sunday, February 1, 2015 8:35:01 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: David Sullivan; Kathleen Kler; Phil Johnson Subject: Please end this lunacy now. Good evening commissioners, This is what I plan to read tomorrow Am: BoCC Feb 2, 2015 Jean Ball, Chimacum I do not know what other business would be subjected to the scrutiny of their neighbors when that business is not making an impact of any kind upon those neighbors or the environment. If my name was not printed on the front page of the paper, unbeknownst to me, my neighbors would never have known what kind of agriculture I was into and would not be complaining now. They have no need to know, and should have no say, because my land use will not impact them in any way. LCB, JCC and 1 -502 manage every conceivable issue to the fullest extent. Any suggestion otherwise is either misinformed or deliberately misleading. 1 -502 businesses are the perfect model for a cottage industry in Jefferson County. The process of producing Cannabis is identical to production of any other agricultural crop and looks like any other farm, despite this absurd perception that a fence means we don't grow plants. Just a reminder, I put 8' fences around my fruit and nut orchards and vegetable gardens, all poultry and various other farm stuff to keep deer and arial predators out and none of my neighbors complained about any of those goofy fences or denied that 1 was a farmer or grew agriculture because of those fences. The nimbys are comprised of a very small group of people, they are not wide - spread throughout the county, despite the sheer volume with which they broadcast their mis- information. They are primarily the neighbors of 3 applicants who perpetuate a culture of fear. Honest science and fact are seldom contained within their comments or thought formulations. 1 -502 businesses are suffering at the hand of this selfish and ignorant behavior. The people of Jefferson County have spoken and this mis- guided moratorium is the result of a few, very loud people who are comfortable thwarting the will of Jefferson County voters to serve their own selfish wants. Nearly 13,000 Jefferson County voters approved 1 -502 (almost as many votes as were cast for both Commissioner Kier and her opponent, Toepper, combined), are you telling me you are going to let a handful of misinformed squeaky wheels grind this whole thing to a halt? It is the same people you hear from, repeating the same things with varying degrees of truthiness" ( *Thank you, Stephen Colbert). Many of them don't even write their own comments and are just looking for the next excuse to mess with their neighbors. I am tired of this harassment, I am doing nothing wrong, my business is subjected to some of the most restrictive and highly regulated protocols imaginable. I believe I should have the full support of my county government. I would like to repeat that I do not know what other business would be subjected to the scrutiny of their neighbors when that business is not making an impact of any kind upon those neighbors or the environment AND existing county code adequately manages every potential issue. Please end this lunacy now. Jean Received after r, mng Comment Deadline Julie Shannon From: Kathleen Kier Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 8:37 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Comments on Moratorium From: keeth apgar Sent: Monday, February 2, 2015 8:37:41 AM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: jeffbocc; Kathleen Kier; Philip Morley; David Sullivan Subject: Comments on Moratorium Hello. I have lived on Rural Residential zoned land on Marrowstone Island for 10 years. I am an avid gardener and orchardist and I grow and consume a lot of food from my from garden. I am the father of a 3 year old boy who lives full time with my wife and I. I am very much against having my neighbors grow and process marijuana in my neighborhood. Currently there are two applications in by my next door neighbors. One of these parcels shares a 666 foot property boundary with me. The other property shares a corner with me. Each of these parcels is just over 5 acres in size. These neighbors both own land on Marrrowstone, however reside in Kitsap County where they have lived for many years. Neither of these neighbors have proactively contacted me to let me know that they were interested in growing and processing marijuana next door or let me know about their permit applications. There has been no communication about this. I found out from another neighbor who called after she discovered applications bearing my street address. I should receive a notice and have an opportunity for a hearing to state my opposition to allowing such a facility in my neighborhood! Why would you even consider allowing marijuana to be grown in rural residential neighborhoods? According to info published in The Seattle Stranger, "Figures from the Liquor Control Board show producers have grown almost 10 times the amount of pot that's been sold since stores open in July." ( "Washington Has Too Much Weed" page 13, January 14, 2015) If there is already a surplus why does this county need to open up more zoning for growing and processing marijuana in rural residential zones? There are plenty of Commercially, Agriculturally and Forestry zones available for interested parties to develop! Why spoil our neighborhoods with such unnecessary bulldozing and development? No matter what the size of parcels involved this activity does not belong and must not be permitted in rural residential zones. Please do the right thing and either extend the moratorium or make the sensible decision right now and do not allow marijuana growing and processing facilities to infiltrate our neighborhoods in Jefferson County. We the people who live here and call this home do not want it! Keith Apgar Julie Shannon From: David Sullivan Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 8:37 AM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Comments on Moratorium From: keeth apgar Sent: Monday, February 2, 2015 8:37:41 AM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: jeffbocc; Kathleen Kier; Philip Morley; David Sullivan Subject: Comments on Moratorium Hello I have lived on Rural Residential zoned land on Marrowstone Island for 10 years. I am an avid gardener and orchardist and I grow and consume a lot of food from my from garden. I am the father of a 3 year old boy who lives full time with my wife and I. I am very much against having my neighbors grow and process marijuana in my neighborhood. Currently there are two applications in by my next door neighbors. One of these parcels shares a 666 foot property boundary with me. The other property shares a corner with me. Each of these parcels is just over 5 acres in size. These neighbors both own land on Marrrowstone, however reside in Kitsap County where they have lived for many years. Neither of these neighbors have proactively contacted me to let me know that they were interested in growing and processing marijuana next door or let me know about their permit applications. There has been no communication about this. I found out from another neighbor who called after she discovered applications bearing my street address. I should receive a notice and have an opportunity for a hearing to state my opposition to allowing such a facility in my neighborhood! Why would you even consider allowing marijuana to be grown in rural residential neighborhoods? According to info published in The Seattle Stranger, "Figures from the Liquor Control Board show producers have grown almost 10 times the amount of pot that's been sold since stores open in July." ( "Washington Has Too Much Weed" page 13, January 14, 2015) If there is already a surplus why does this county need to open up more zoning for growing and processing marijuana in rural residential zones? There are plenty of Commercially, Agriculturally and Forestry zones available for interested parties to develop! Why spoil our neighborhoods with such unnecessary bulldozing and development? No matter what the size of parcels involved this activity does not belong and must not be permitted in rural residential zones. Please do the right thing and either extend the moratorium or make the sensible decision right now and do not allow marijuana growing and processing facilities to infiltrate our neighborhoods in Jefferson County. We the people who live here and call this home do not want it! Keith Apgar Received o�,.er Hearing jeffbocc Comment Deadline From: keeth apgar <theharmonicapocket @gmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 8:38 AM To: jeffbocc; Kathleen Kler; Philip Morley; David Sullivan Subject: Comments on Moratorium Hello I have lived on Rural Residential zoned land on Marrowstone Island for 10 years. I am an avid gardener and orchardist and I grow and consume a lot of food from my from garden. I am the father of a 3 year old boy who lives full time with my wife and I. I am very much against having my neighbors grow and process marijuana in my neighborhood. Currently there are two applications in by my next door neighbors. One of these parcels shares a 666 foot property boundary with me. The other property shares a corner with me. Each of these parcels is just over 5 acres in size. These neighbors both own land on Marrrowstone, however reside in Kitsap County where they have lived for many years. Neither of these neighbors have proactively contacted me to let me know that they were interested in growing and processing marijuana next door or let me know about their permit applications. There has been no communication about this. I found out from another neighbor who called after she discovered applications bearing my street address. I should receive a notice and have an opportunity for a hearing to state my opposition to allowing such a facility in my neighborhood! Why would you even consider allowing marijuana to be grown in rural residential neighborhoods? According to info published in The Seattle Stranger, "Figures from the Liquor Control Board show producers have grown almost 10 times the amount of pot that's been sold since stores open in July." ( "Washington Has Too Much Weed" page 13, January 14, 2015) If there is already a surplus why does this county need to open up more zoning for growing and processing marijuana in rural residential zones? There are plenty of Commercially, Agriculturally and Forestry zones available for interested parties to develop! Why spoil our neighborhoods with such unnecessary bulldozing and development? No matter what the size of parcels involved this activity does not belong and must not be permitted in rural residential zones. Please do the right thing and either extend the moratorium or make the sensible decision right now and do not allow marijuana growing and processing facilities to infiltrate our neighborhoods in Jefferson County. 1 We the people who live here and call this home do not want it! Keith Apgar Julie Shannon Recelved after Hearing Comment Deadline From: Kathleen Kier Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 1:56 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Pediatricians Urge IDEA to Reclassify Medical Marijuana to Boost Research - Pharmalot - WSJ From: gnarleydogfarm @gmail.com Sent: Monday, February 2, 2015 1:57:38 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Kathleen Kier; Phil Johnson Subject: Pediatricians Urge DEA to Reclassify Medical Marijuana to Boost Research - Pharmalot - WSJ Hello Phil and Kathleen, I would like to use the state of flux of the federal scheduling of Cannabis as an example of how things are swinging in favor of science and reason and away from fear and ignorance. Here is a medical stance on using Cannabis as medicine for children: http: / /bl ogs.wsj.com /pha rma lot /2015/01 /26 /pediatricians- urge- dea -to- reclassify - medical - marijuana- to- boost- research/ Thanks, Jean Pediatricians Urge DEA to Reclassify Medical Marijuana to Boost Research - Pharmalot -... Page 1 of 3 PHARMALOT News, Ouotes. Companies, Videos SEARCH Log In Pharmalot RESEARCH & FDA LITIGATION PRICING & PATIENT CLINICAL TRIALS MARKETING 13'ti6MMOPMENT ACCESS Jan 28. 2015 FDA PREVIOUS NEXT A New rude. Measures Pharmalot. PhannelitUc: Pediatricians Urge DEA to Reclassify In pact Phanna Has on e erne Reading About Infectious lliseases Regevemn, Gilead More!! Intl Vlore" Medical Marijuana to Boost Research ARTICLE COMMENTS (16) ACID CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES DEA ECSTASY EPILEPSY FDA FENTANYL HEROIN ME-11 $PHM ©z,. By ED SILVERMAN For the first time, the American Academy of Pediatrics is recommending the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency reclassify marijuana so that more research can be conducted in the hopes of finding benefits for children. The influential medical society also proposes that marijuana should be made available on a compassionate use _Reny Images basis for children with debilitating or Iffe- threatening illnesses. Specifically, the AAP wants marijuana to be removed from the DEA's Schedule 1 listing for controlled substances, which are not considered to have any "currently accepted medical use In the U.S., a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision and a high potential for abuse." Other drugs in this category include heroin, acid and ecstasy. Instead, the medical society wants marijuana downgraded to the list of Schedule 2 drugs, which are Considered to have a "high potential for abuse which may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence." These include various widely prescribed narcotics, such as oxycodone and fentanyl, as well as morphine and Codeine, which are used for medical purposes. "A Schedule 1 listing means there's no medical use or helpful indications, but we know that's not true because there has been limited evidence showing [marijuana] may be helpful for certain Conditions in adults," says Seth Ammerman, a clinical professor in pediatrics at Stanford University and a member of the AAP national Committee on substance abuse, who co- authored the new policy statement. "By placing this on Schedule 2, it would allow the FDA to be involved [in pediatric research] as the agency is in any study. Unless scheduling changes, this won't happen. And there Could be therapeutic benefits. The AAP is not opposed to medical marijuana, per se, but we feel it's important that this be explored within the [framework of the] FDA process, where you have standardization" Epilepsy has been high on the list of potentially beneficial uses. Last year, the Epilepsy Foundation called on the DEA to reschedule marijuana so to improve and bolster research, reflecting a growing belief that medical uses Con combat the affliction. Since SEARCH PHAWALOT GO IF E About Pharmalot f w _` 7w`t,:i, Phartnalot explores the fast - moving, complicated word that develops and markets medicines — antl the drug makers that are attempting to replenish their pipelines while grappling with pricing and regulatory dictates, among many other challenges. Writer Ed Silverman has covered the pharmaceutical industry for nearly two decades and has closely followed the many hurdles facing drug companies as they move ideas from the laboratory to the medicine chest. He started Phannalot while all The Star - Ledger of New Jersey and previously worked at New http: //blogs.wsj.comlpharmalot /2015/01 /26 /pediatricians- urge- dea -to- reclassify - medical -ma... 2!3(2015 Pediatricians Urge DEA to Reclassify Medical Marijuana to Boost Research - Pharmalot -... Page 2 of 3 marijuana became legal in some states, there have been reports that cannabis compounds York Newsday and Investor's Business Daily. Email Ed may reduce the frequency or severity of seizures. Silverman at ed.silverman @wsj.com, and follow him on National Institute for Health Twitter @Pharmalol. To what extent the Obama administration will consider making such a change remains unclear. There have been numerous proposals and recommendations made over the years to change the DEA scheduling. In 2008, the American College of Physicians suggested a review. But the federal government has resisted relisting over debate about Popular Now w,ats This' the kind of scientific evidence that would warrant a change. Although 23 states have legalized medical marijuana for those who receive recommendations for use by physicians, there is no accepted medical use on a federal level. The FDA is conducting an analysis —at the request of the DEA —to determine whether marijuana should be downgraded on the Controlled Substances list. We have reached out to the FDA for comment and will update you accordingly. The DEA, meanwhile, last year approved an increase in the amount of marijuana that government researchers can use for studies. The AAP recommendation, meanwhile, is potentially significant. By adopting such a policy, the influential medical society is lending its voice to a growing national debate over the veracity of using marijuana for medical purposes. And any steps that lead toward new research may also open the door to further investment from a variety of companies that view marijuana as a growing, if risky market. "Most people realize AAP advocacy is for the well -being of children," says Ammerman. "As pediatricians, we're into prevention and early intervention. So having this voice will be important. We're advocating for the kids and if it leads to research that establishes [that marijuana offers] a benefit— whoever conducts the research —then what we're doing could help improve pediatric care." [UPDATE: An FDA spokeswoman says the agency "can't Comment on the suggestion to change the schedule for marijuana, as the latest FDA review of the issue (known as the e- factor analysis) is currently ongoing. However, FDA agrees with the call by the AAP for rigorous scientific research into the uses of marijuana. The FDA has an important role we are playing to support scientific research into the coo lcal uses of marijuana and its constituents as part of the agency's drug review and approval process. As a part of this role, the FDA supports those in the medical research community who seek to study menia "J ACID CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES DEA ECSTASY EPILEPSY FDA FENTANYL HEROIN MARIJUANA MEDICAL MARIJUANA DRAMA OXYCODONE SEIZURES PREVIOus NEXT A New Index Measures Impact Pharma Pharmalot, Pharmalittle: We re Reading Has on Infectious Diseases About Regeiteran, Gilead and Lots Morel! PHARMALOT HOME PAGE - 1 Apple to Build Data Command Center in Arizona 2 Obama Would Block Strategies to Pump Up Roth IRAs O High Debt Levels o�(jlr "!ll t J Imperil Retirees' Finances I 4 Home Buyers Get a Clearer View of Their e Credit Scores 5 Nationwide Knew Super Bowl Spot Would Touch a Nerve Show 5 More Pharmalot Blogroll Generic Pharmaceutical PhRMA Association U.S. Food and Drug National Institute for Health Administration and Care Excellence National Institutes of Health Add a Comment Video NAME - - - - -- - - - - -- We welcomethougMrul comments from readers. Please comply with our guidelines. Our blogs W not require the -- - -- - -- use of your real name. COMMENT V CLEAR I POST Comments (5 of 16) vim all Comments 12:01 pm February 2, 2015 Mike wrote: The government already knows and admits MANY cannabinoids, including THC and CBD, have very legalmale medical purposes- Including basicthings like nausea, but also a potentially revolutionary prophylactic (preventative) and treatment for things such as Alzheimer's, limiting brain damage in drake or heart attack patients, Rheumatoid Arthritis and other autoimmune disorders, and A LOT more. Don't take my word for it though... Do the research yourself. A good place to start is by reading the federal government's very own research and the claims they make of how beneficial it is; READ THE PATENT THEY OWN, US patent number 663050T.. Peeling Back the Visual Nationwide Responds Two Brenze Sculptures Effects on Black Sale to Controversial Super 'Could Beby 125 Bowl Ad Michelangelo' ]:52 1 38 http: //blogs.wsj.comlpharmalotl2O l 5/O 1 /26 /pediatricians- urge- dea -to- reclassify- medical -ma... 2/3/2015 Pediatricians Urge DEA to Reclassify Medical Marijuana to Boost Research - Pharmalot -... Page 3 of 3 Coca leaves and poppy straw are schedule II because components found in them -or synthetic versions - have medicinal purposes. The government admits, through their patent, which contains citations of other studies and other patents, multiple compounds found in MJ have medicinal purposes. Additionally, they admit THC by itself has medicinal benefits by the decades old FDAlDEA approval of the medicine Mannol (dronnabinol), which is schedule III. That's right, what is considered the principle psychoactive and (sometimes slightly) addictive component of MJ is a prescription pill, AND R is only schedule III (medicinal use, and less addictive than schedule II), even though the plant that R comes from is schedule I (no medicinal use). So again, why am poppy flowers, and likewise things like morphine, schedule II, but MJ is schedule I, even though the THC pill is schedule III? We are being duped, lied to, misled, whatever other term you want to use. This potentially game changing class of drugs is known by our government and countless others to have serious benefits, but it's use and research has been tarnished by decades of misinformation... This class of drugs can help for some of the most serious ailments we are faced with - Alzheimers, seizures, cancer, autoimmune disorders, the list goes on and on. The one good thing is that it is finally starting to gain public acceptance as medicine and any day now (hopefully as quickly as the next few years) many analysts suspect there will be radical reform at the federal level... 5:19 pm January 29, 2015 Highguy wrote: Israel is doing studies on what marijuana contributes to medicine. They have found that marijuana kills cancer cells. (Allows them to die naturally) You would think that our government would be a little curious and star doing some positive testing themselves. It is our own fault this is happening. We elect the same dinosaurs to congress almost every time. No more incumbent's. . 5: 11 pm January 29. 2015 Hlghguy wrote: Maybe lt's time we file a class action lawsuit against our government for denying medication to the seriously ill. 426 pm January 28, 2015 cynthiavoelker@8U.net wrote: I am so thankful to read about your interest in marijuana. At least it proves that there must be something to marijuana other than getting high. 8:34 pre January 27, 2015 Mike E. McClendon wrote. Um... interesting article, but the IDEA is an enforcement arm, and has very little to do with how any drug is classified. It can recommend policy, but I believe the FDA and Congress have the final say. ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Subscribe / Login Back to Top Customer Service Policy Advertise Tools & Features More Customer Center Privacy Policy Advertise Apps Why Subscribe Naval Live Help Cookie Policy Place a Classified Ad Emails & Alerts Register for Free Contact Us Data Policy Sell Your Home Graphics Reprints WSJ Weekend Copyright Policy Sell Your Business Columns Content Partnerships Contact Directory Subscriber Agreement Commercial Real Estate Ads Topics Confemrices & Terms of Use Corrections Recruitment & Career Ads Guides News Archive Your Ad Choices Franchising Portfolio Jobs at WSJ Advertise Locally Old Portfolio Copyright ®2014 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All R,NS Reserved. http: //blogs.wsj.comlpharmalotl20l 5/O 1 /26/ pediatricians- urge- dea -to- reclassify- medical -ma... 2/3/2015 Received after Hearing Julie Shannon Comment Deadline From: Kathleen Kier Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 5:26 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: Thanks From: gnarleydogfarm @gmail.com Sent: Monday, February 2, 2015 5:26:42 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Kathleen Kler; Phil Johnson; David Sullivan Subject: Thanks Good evening, commissioners, I may need to take a second attempt at this for fear the first will be inadequate ... I think you'll catch my drift, regardless. Although the events of the day were not exactly what 1 had hoped for, it would be very selfish of me to deny the obvious contributions each of you has made throughout this process. I am grateful to reside in a county where our elected officials yearn to get it right and are respectful of the information gathering process. My goal has always been to move forward, together. We do not need to agree on everything, but understanding goes a long way. Thank you for your thoughtful deliberations. Jean Ball Julie Shannon Received after Heating Comment Deadline From: Kathleen Kler Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 7:54 PM To: Julie Shannon Subject: FW: MJ Moratorium From: Colum Tinley Sent: Monday, February 2, 2015 7:55:15 PM (UTC- 08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Kathleen Kler Subject: MJ Moratorium Dear Commissioner Kler, I would like to point out something regarding the Jefferson County marijuana moratorium that I haven't heard mentioned yet. As you probably know our state government is currently discussing about a dozen different bills that address various marijuana issues. I think the most important of those bills is how will the state regulate medical marijuana (MMJ). Since the state already has the 1- 502 system in place and operating it seems to me, and many others, that the state will probably decide to blend MMJ with the current 502 system, at least to some degree. This would be the simplest to implement since the 502 system already exists. That means the grower /processors currently held up by our moratorium will likely be the grower /processors that will be supplying the MMJ and recreational markets. I believe the state will also decide to allow existing 502 retail stores to serve the MMJ market although I do not support such a change as I believe patients deserve a more professional venue and professional clinicians available to advise them regarding proper products for their needs. The 502 applicants that I have come to know are all MMJ patients who truly want to serve Jefferson County patients by supplying the best cannabis based medicines available anywhere. That is very true for my wife Tami, a registered nurse, and myself, a nurse anesthetist, as health and wellness is our passion. All we ask is the opportunity to do just that. So precisely what is the risk/benefit analysis of allowing growing and processing in rural residential zones? I know you have heard many, many different claims regarding the risks. I also know that you are an intelligent person and I believe you will find the truth regarding the risks that growing and processing poses. Sincerely, Colum Tinley, CRNA Port Townsend, WA