Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM061019 - Including Hearing Comments re: Text Amendment Proposal 4gON e ys1IINGt°~ MINUTES Jefferson County Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting — Monday, June 10, 2019, 9:00 a.m. Jefferson County Courthouse—Commissioners' Chambers 1820 Jefferson Street, Port Townsend, WA CALL TO ORDER: Chair Kate Dean called the meeting to order at the appointed time in the presence of Commissioner David Sullivan and Commissioner Greg Brotherton. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following is a summary of comments made by individuals in attendance at the meeting and reflect their personal opinions. • Comment regarding derelict boats near Marrowstone Island. • Comment regarding derelict boats near Marrowstone Island. • Comment regarding a proposed shooting range in Quilcene. • Comment regarding an upcoming meeting at the Chimacum Grange on agriculture, a recent meeting on smart meters and 5G technology, and the effect of chemicals on humans and wildlife. • Comment regarding the County's Oath of Office. • Comment regarding Jefferson County Sportsmen's Association (JCSA)permits being withheld and the proposed draft agreement. • Comment regarding the Supreme Court upholding a ban on gun silencers, and the proposed agreement with JCSA. • Comment regarding activities at JCSA. • Comment regarding activities at JCSA. The Commissioners and County Administrator addressed comments and concerns raised during the Public Comment Period. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Chair Dean noted that she will need to recuse herself from an item within Consent Agenda Item No. 3. Commissioner Sullivan moved to remove Consent Agenda Item No. 3 and approve the remaining items on the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Brotherton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. RESOLUTION NO. 31-19 re: Establishing the Dates for 2020/2021 Biennial Budget Submissions, Review Hearings and Final Adoption 2. AGREEMENT re: Facilitator, Plan Writer for Homeless Housing Task Force; In the Amount of $29,750; Jefferson County Public Health; Lizanne Coker 1 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of June 10, 2019 3. (Removed and approved later in the meeting) MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT (2)re: Jefferson County Central Services; 1) Facilities Maintenance Positions; and 2) Employee Death Benefit; Teamsters Local #589 4. MINUTES re: Regular Meeting Minutes of June 3, 2019 5. ADVISORY BOARD RESIGNATION re: Developmental Disabilities Advisory Board; Claudia Edmonson 6. ADVISORY BOARD RESIGNATION re: North Pacific Coast Marine Resource Committee (NPC MRC); Chiggers Stokes 7. ADVISORY BOARD RESIGNATION re: Jefferson County Planning Commission; District 2 Representative, Mark Jochems 8. ADVISORY BOARD RESIGNATIONS (2)re: Olympic Area Agency on Aging Advisory Council; 1) Patti Reynolds; and 2)Nancy Jamieson 9. ADVISORY BOARD REAPPOINTMENTS (2) re: Developmental Disabilities Advisory Board; Three (3) Year Term; 1) Unexpired Term Expires March 17, 2021, Carl Hanson; and 2) Expires May 10, 2022, Kim Rafferty 10. ADVISORY BOARD REAPPOINTMENT re: Jefferson County Parks and Recreation Advisory Board; Two (2) Year Term Expires May 15, 2021; District 3 Representative, Jon Cooke 11. ADVISORY BOARD REAPPOINTMENT re: Jefferson County Conservation Futures Citizen Oversight Committee; Four(4) Year Term Expires May 18, 2023; District 1 Representative, David Wilkinson 12. ADVISORY BOARD REAPPOINTMENTS (2) re: Gardiner Community Center Board of Directors; Three (3) Year Term Expires May 7, 2022; 1) Herb Cook; and 2) Patricia Warner 13. ADVISORY BOARD APPOINTMENT: Ferry Advisory Committee; Four(4) Year Term Expires June 10, 2023; Valerie Pardo 14. Payment of Jefferson County Payroll Warrants Dated June 5, 2019 Totaling $925,447.52 and A/P Warrants Done by Payroll Dated June 5, 2019 Totaling $876,186.25 (Records of all claims submitted for payment along with A/P Warrants approved by the Payroll Services Manager are retained in the Jefferson County Auditor's Office) DISCUSSION re: Consent Agenda Item No. 3 re: MEMORANDUM of AGREEMENT (2) re: Jefferson County Central Services; 1) Facilities Maintenance Positions; and 2) Employee Death Benefit; Teamsters Local#589: Chair Dean chose to abstain from voting regarding the Employee Death Benefit as her sister would be a beneficiary. Commissioner Sullivan moved to approve the Agreement with Central Services regarding the Employee Death Benefit; Teamsters Local #589. Commissioner Brotherton seconded the motion. Commissioner Sullivan called for a vote on the motion. Chair Dean abstained from voting. The motion carried. Commissioner Sullivan moved to approve the Agreement with Central Services regarding Facilities Maintenance Positions. Commissioner Brotherton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. COMMISSIONERS BRIEFING SESSION: The Commissioners discussed recent meetings they attended and reviewed their meeting schedules. 2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of June 10, 2019 The meeting was recessed at 9:52 a.m. and reconvened at 10:01 a.m. with all three Commissioners present. HEARING re: Final Docket Regarding Suggested Text Amendments,Annual Amendment Cycle for Comprehensive Plan (CP) and Unified Development Code (UDC) -JCC 18.45.060(4): Department of Community Development(DCD) Director Patty Charnas, Associate Planner Joel Peterson and Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Austin Watkins reviewed the proposed changes. Chair Dean opened the hearing for public testimony. The following individuals provided testimony: Cynthia Koan, James Olson, Steve Date, Carol Gonella, Kathleen Waldron, Patricia Earnest, Patty Ivers, Victoria Galanti, John Gonella, Ron Rimple, Evelyn Ortmann, Linda Gately, Jean Ball,Nancy Slough, Kathleen Deslauriers, Mike Nelson, Alice Tibbals and Matt Sircely. Hearing no further testimony, Chair Dean closed the public hearing. After discussion,the Commissioners agreed to schedule future deliberations on the issue. PRESENTATION re: Conservation Futures Citizen Oversight Committee 2019 Funding Recommendations: Conservation Futures Citizen Oversight Committee (CFCOC) Chair Lige Christian gave a presentation on the following projects that are seeking funding from the Conservation Futures Fund: Tarboo Forest Addition, Quilcene Headwaters to Bay, Dosewallips River Lazy C Phase 1 and the 2019 Quimper Wildlife Corridor(QWC) Addition. The meeting was recessed at 11:49 a.m. and reconvened at 1:32 p.m. with all three Commissioners present. EXECUTIVE SESSION: An Executive Session was scheduled from 1:30 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. Chair Dean announced that the Executive Session will be held from 1:33 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. with the County Administrator, Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Department of Community Development Director, Central Services Director and Deputy Prosecuting Attorney regarding Attorney- Client Privilege, Actual Litigation under exemption RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) as outlined in the Open Public Meetings Act. The Board resumed the regular meeting at 2:15 p.m. Chair Dean announced that the Board will be extending the Executive Session from 2:16 p.m. to 2:45 p.m. The Board concluded the Executive Session and resumed the regular meeting at 2:45 p.m. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BRIEFING SESSION: County Administrator Philip Morley reviewed the following with the Board. • LETTER re: Finalize Navy FSEIS: After review of a proposed draft Navy FSEIS letter, Commissioner Brotherton moved to approve the letter with edits. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 3 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of June 10, 2019 • Public Hearing re: Comp Plan/UDC; testimony comments • Critical Areas Ordinance; work program • Compliance Enforcement • Review of items to discuss • Discussion re: Community Outreach Meetings; planning • Joint Meeting with Board of Health and Jefferson Healthcare • Jefferson Historical Society; Courthouse photo display • Maps to display in the Commissioners' Chambers NOTICE OF ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Brotherton moved to adjourn the meeting at 4:04 p.m. until the next regular meeting or special meeting as properly noticed. Commissioner,Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. i r , may 'i .a 1 `a t. ., JEFFERSON COUNTY � � BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS r c', , J �: Kate Dea •.it • * r` / ATTEST: 'a Q" Da 'd ullivan, ember t. (, t3 ,2vaG' 1Ztt-..,,dik, Carolyn allaway, CMC eg i.-.4 th'' n, ember Deputy Clerk of the Board 4 Consent Agenda JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA REQUEST TO: Board of County Commissioners Philip Morley, County Administrator FROM: Patty Charnas, Department of Community Development Director Joel Peterson, Associate Planner, DCD DATE: May 20, 2019 SUBJECT: Request to Publish Hearing Notice, 2019 Amendment Cycle Final Docket STATEMENT OF ISSUE: The Board of County Commissioners is asked to approve a Hearing Notice for conducting a public hearing on Monday, June 10, 2019 at 10:00 A.M. in the Commissioners' Chambers, for the purpose of taking oral and written testimony regarding whether or not to include any of four text amendments previously considered by the Planning Commission in the 2019 Comprehensive Plan Final Docket. Including a potential text amendment in the Final Docket does not constitute a decision that the amendment should be adopted, but rather, that it will be further reviewed and assessed by the Department of Community Development, undergo SEPA analysis, and be reviewed and assessed by the Planning Commission. ANALYSIS: As part of the 2019 Docket cycle, the County received one site-specific Comprehensive Plan amendment proposal from the public, which pursuant to County Code is automatically on the 2019 Final Docket: MLA 19- 0013 Andrew and Sarah Wilke proposal to rezone the 11 -acre tax parcel 001184004 from Rural Residential 1:10 to Rural Residential 1:5. On May 13, 2019 the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) considered the May 1, 2019, Planning Commission Report and Recommendation for the 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Final Docket, pursuant to JCC 18.45.060(4). There are potentially four text amendments considered by the Planning Commission that the BoCC can decide whether or not to also include in the Final Docket. At its May 13 meeting, the BoCC motioned to direct DCD to schedule a BoCC public hearing on adding or subtracting the four text amendments to the 2019 Final Docket: MLA19-00018 is a proposal to amend Comprehensive Plan and UDC to rescind provisions of the Forest Transition Overlay (FTO) currently codified in JCC 18.15.571. Jefferson County Planning Commission recommends not addressing this suggested text amendment in 2019, but to move it to the 2020 Amendment Cycle docket. Consent Agenda MLA19-00019. Jefferson County Planning Commission suggests a review and amendment of JCC 18.20.295 Recreational Marijuana addressing community concerns regarding land use issues experienced with recreational marijuana production in rural residential zones. MLA19-00020. Jefferson County Planning Commission suggests development of new regulations using "Eco-ADU" as a method for permitting multiple Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) per parcel. The suggestion would allow the existing square footage of ADUs to be allotted over multiple ADUs per parcel when certain "eco" performance standards are met. MLA19-00023. Jefferson County Planning Commission suggests an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan adding a priority work item to the Housing Element's Action Plan to "convene a panel of citizens knowledgeable in the innovative technologies listed in Policy HS -P-2.3 to research and recommend a set of performance measures upon which to build a set of opt -in, very -low -impact and/or impact -positive standards for Jefferson County." Including a text amendment in the Final Docket does not constitute a decision that the amendment should be adopted, but rather, that it will be further reviewed and assessed by DCD, undergo SEPA analysis, and be reviewed and assessed by the Planning Commission, as outlined in JCC 18.45.070 et seq. The attached legal notice opens the public comment period on May 22, 2019, allowing 19 calendar days for comment, and schedules the hearing for June 10 during the Regular Agenda. The legal notice will be published in the Leader on May 22nd and May 291h. FISCAL IMPACT: Cost of work associated with the County's Comprehensive Plan and related activities under the State Growth Management Act are largely supported by the county's general fund. RECOMMENDATION: DCD recommends that the BoCC approve the legal notice for publication on May 22 and May 29, 2019. REVIEWED BY: Philip Moley ounty mistrator Date To: Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader LEGAL NOTICE Publish Two (2) Times: Wednesday, May 22, 2019 Wednesday, May 29, 2019 Please use 7 -point font. Bill: Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan St., Port Townsend, WA 98368 Account No. #15832 Staff Contact: Joel Peterson, Associate Planner, (360) 379-4457 Date: May 20, 2019 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REGARDING SUGGESTED TEXT AMENDMENTS TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN & UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR THE 2019 FINAL DOCKET NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners will hold a public hearing on Monday, June 10, 2019, beginning at 10:00 a.m. in the Commissioners' Chambers, Jefferson County Courthouse, 1820 Jefferson Street, Port Townsend. The purpose of the hearing is to receive oral and written public testimony regarding which suggested amendments should be on the 2019 Amendment Cycle Final Docket pursuant to JCC 18.45.060(4). In addition to testifying at the June 10 Public Hearing, written testimony may also be submitted and received by the County any time beginning May 22, 2019 through the end of the June 10 Public Hearing. The public hearing is required before the Board of County Commissioners adds or subtracts for inclusion on the Final Docket suggested amendments to the County Comprehensive Plan and/or Unified Development Code that were considered by the Planning Commission. Including a potential amendment in the Final Docket does not constitute a decision that the amendment should be adopted, but rather, that it will be further reviewed and assessed by the Department of Community Development, undergo SEPA analysis, and be reviewed and assessed by the Planning Commission. A brief summary of the four potential amendments follows: (1) MLA19-00018. Jefferson County Planning Commission recommends not addressing this suggested text amendment in 2019, but to move it to the 2020 Amendment Cycle docket. MLA19-00018 is a proposal to amend Comprehensive Plan and UDC to rescind provisions of the Forest Transition Overlay (FTO) currently codified in JCC 18.15.571. (2) MLA19-00019. Jefferson County Planning Commission suggests a review and amendment of JCC 18.20.295 Recreational Marijuana addressing community concerns regarding land use issues experienced with recreational marijuana production in rural residential zones. (3) MLA19-00020. Jefferson County Planning Commission suggests development of new regulations using "Eco-ADU" as a method for permitting multiple Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) per parcel. The suggestion would allow the existing square footage of ADUs to be allotted over multiple ADUs per parcel when certain "eco" performance standards are met. (4) MLA19-00023. Jefferson County Planning Commission suggests an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan adding a priority work item to the Housing Element's Action Plan to "convene a panel of citizens knowledgeable in the innovative technologies listed in Policy HS -P-2.3 to research and recommend a set of performance measures upon which to build a set of opt -in, very -low -impact and/or impact -positive standards for Jefferson County." Oral and written testimony will be taken at the Public Hearing. Written testimony on the 2019 Final Docket may also be submitted and must be received by the County May 22, 2019 through the end of the June 10, 2019 hearing. Written testimony may be emailed to ieffbocc(!,d_)co.iefferson.wa.us, or mailed or delivered to Jefferson County Courthouse Commissioner's Office, 1820 Jefferson Street, P.O. Box 1220, Port Townsend, WA 98368. Copies of the applications, recommendations, and project materials can be found at: http://test.co.mefferson.wa.us/WebLinkExternal/0/fol/1937528/Rowl.aspx. For further information please contact Dept. of Community Development, 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368, (360) 379-4450. May 28, 2019 REAtow"; Chris & Sherryl Wilson 793 Kens Way Quilcene WA 98376 MAY 31 2Q19 Email: cbwilson3@live.com Phone 206 419 9312 r9 S n fi r`e �. �� 5. Jefferson County Board of Commissioners 1820 Jefferson Street Port Townsend WA 98368 Re: Review of MLA19-00019, regarding marijuana growing and processing business in rural residential areas of Jefferson County. Dear Commissioners: When they met on April 17, the Planning Commission unanimously supported the proposal from the Department of Community Development (DCD) to review the issue of marijuana growing and processing businesses in rural areas as soon as possible. Because this commission is advisory and you have decision making authority, I write urging you to act favorably on this recommendation at your next meeting. As stated in the Text Amendment Proposal to the Code (MLA19-00019) "Far from being the small and inconspicuous mom and pop businesses that looked more like tomato farms ... Marijuana/Cannabis businesses as a new and very specific use has proved itself, at least in its current legal context, to be industrial and high -impact in nature and does not fit in rural residential neighborhoods." Even now, a marijuana growing and processing operation is seeking approval to move from a light industrial area near Port Townsend to a quiet residential area on the Coyle/Toandos peninsula, near our home on Kens Way. The current county code (JCC 18.20.295) encourages such a 'gaming of the system' whereby a business enterprise can cloak itself in an accessory use cottage industry disguise and locate to a rural residential area as a way to lower their operating costs. This kind of business fundamentally changes and degrades the rural residential designation. For example, even with special filters, "dead skunk" smells from such operations can pervade the neighborhood (according to online marijuana web sites and the New York Times https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nVtimes.com%2F 2018%2F12%2F19%2Fus%2Fcalifornia-mariivana- stink.htm I&amp;data=02%7C01%7C%7Ceac011c421124734929508d6cc151602%7C84df9e7fe9 f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636920788261131168&amp;sdata=hlntrS6si7H2PY1r GGTv8lmA%2BoEgfRGlrRfd%2BPgsaRU%3D&amp;reserved=0). Noise and other issues of such operations are incompatible with the "...quiet use and enjoyment of adjoining and surrounding property" (JCC 18.20.170). Those of us who choose to live in rural residential areas do so to enjoy the quiet, peaceful surroundings and to avoid such impacts. I have no problem with such operations operating in Jefferson County, but they do not belong in rural residential areas. I recognize and acknowledge that DCD staff are already spread thin and some funds (though less than $10,000) are needed to conduct the proposed review. However, DCD staff are already spending substantial time responding to questions and concerns about such operations. Moreover, the costs for the County to deal with the contentious issues arising from the current situation have been substantial (in the case of the proposed Marrowstone Island growing and processing operation, now abandoned after two negative rulings by a hearing examiner) and will certainly increase in the immediate future, arising from the case of the proposed Coyle operation. Given that Jefferson County's policy to allow such operations in rural residential areas is an outlier compared to neighboring counties, more such cases and cumulative costs can be anticipated. To address this issue in a timely manner, in addition to authorizing the review by DCD, I also urge you to re -instate the moratorium on marijuana growing and processing enterprises in rural residential areas that was lifted in 2015. In hindsight, lifting of that moratorium was premature, because there was insufficient understanding of the impacts of such operations at that time (as noted in the DCDs text amendment proposal). Reinstating the moratorium would relieve the stress on the DCD staff, allow time for a thorough review and resident input and limit additional legal costs that would otherwise be incurred. Sincerely, Chris Wilson C(2'. �)CD 61311q �EAPING#" ieffbocc From: Vicki Hutchison Niederkorn <vhniederkorn@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2019 3:42 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: MLA19-00019 Atten: Kate Dean, David Sullivan, Greg Brotherton Vicki Hutchison Niederkorn 265 Blueberry Hill Drive Quilcene, WA 98376 6/2/2019 To: Kate Dean, David Sullivan, Greg Brotherton Board of County Commissioners Re: MLA 19-00019 As a resident of 265 Blueberry Hill, which is directly across Coyle road from the proposed site of the marijuana production and processing plant at 9790 Coyle road now being reviewed for approval as a cottage industry, I strongly object to the approval of this project. I chose to retire to the safe, quiet and peaceful forested residential neighborhood of Blueberry Hill. A COMMERCIAL marijuana production and processing factory pretending to be a cottage industry so close to my retirement home would destroy the very reasons I chose to live here. This industrial use of rural residential land would bring to our community noise, odor, traffic, criminal activities, vandalism, water table concerns, stress on the power grid, loss of property value and undue stress to the neighboring residents. Please on behalf of those that call this area home, deny the application to build a marijuana factory in our neighborhood. Sincerely, Vicki Hutchison Niederkorn occ From: Sent: To: Subject: Lois Venarchick <pirranhawoman711@gmail.com> Wednesday, June 05, 2019 12:11 PM jeffbocc Marijuana grow ops Hello, I am a 43 year resident of Port Townsend having married into one of this area's oldest families back in the 1970's. I love Port Townsend and Jefferson County and while there have been many changes, things I can agree with and those I don't, I am absolutely shocked that the BOCC finds themselves in a meeting about rural, residential marijuana grow operations. This can not be allowed to happen. These grow ops and their attendant smell, noise, traffic and light pollution need to be zoned into industrial areas only. As a child of the 1970's, I am very well aware of marijuana use, its intended effects and supported the initiative that made it legal. I had no idea that with my support grow ops would be considered in our rural, residential areas. I used pot as a teen but the gazillion times stronger scent emanating from these big enclosed ops simply can not be allowed in our residential communities. There are days as I drive out the highway from town where I literally gag on the smell from the grow op along the highway. Please consider those of us who ARE the community and the backbone of this area and do not allow growing operations in rural, residential areas. Thank you, Lois Venarchick iX`7 b ]b )i 9 To: jeffbocc Subject: [BULK] Eco ADU proposal: I support the Eco ADU proposal. This proposal has the potential to encourage property owners to upgrade existing substandard housing as well as to encourage building practices that will reduce harm to the rural environment, wh... • 0 CC RC1) jeffbocc From: Sarah Brownstein <brownsteinsm90@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2019 6:08 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Eco-ADU Comment I am a Jefferson County voting citizen and am commenting IN STRONG FAVOR of the Eco-ADU zoning addendum. In gratitude for your consideration, Dr. Sarah Brownstein 3610 Center Rd, Chimacum WA 98325 cc,. -DCD Loltpltq jeffbocc ;-?q"; From: Laurens Whipple <laurens.whipple@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2019 9:52 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: MLA 19-00020 Greetings: As a resident of Jefferson County, I felt that after being informed of the local initiative being brought before the County Commissioner's Board during the June 10th hearing that the topic of "Eco-ADU Proposal" is worthy of serious consideration. I support this initiative and hope you will also. Sincerely, Laurens Jones D F PINO 1*C 00 RECEIVED 6-5-19 Comment RE: MLA19-00019 JUN 0 6 2019 Jg To: Board of County Commissioners, re: meeting on Ju ne, FFEMRSON COUNTY M '0 ISSIONERS From: Bonnie Story, 293 Blueberry Hill Drive, Quilcene WA I am writing to express several serious concerns about the permitting of cannabis growing, processing, and packaging faculties in Rural Residential neighborhoods in Jefferson County, specifically the project being proposed at 9790 Coyle Road in Quilcene. My concerns: Violation of Cottage Industry Codes: Jefferson County's own Cottage Industry Code states that "Any new structure constructed to accommodate the cottage industry shall be limited in scale so that it is in character with neighboring properties." The code only authorizes "such activities (that) can be conducted without substantial adverse impact on the residential environment and rural character in the vicinity... All structures and activities shall be so located (away) from adjacent properties to avoid disturbance through glare, noise, dirt or other nuisances or hazards." "No use shall be made... to the detriment of the quiet use and enjoyment of adjoining and surrounding property." The proposed project fails the Count.y's, own test completely. Unreasonably Close to Existing Adjacent Full -Time Residences. This project, which the proponents hope to expand up to 10,000 square feet of industrial space, is located within 600 feet of established full time resident homes in an immediately adjacent residential subdivision. The applicant claims that neighboring properties are uninhabited and/or undeveloped. This is completely false. Invasive Smells. The applicant's claim that the stench of a warehouse full of ripe cannabis, in the summer heat, located in the prevailing breeze direction from an adjacent neighborhood, will be contained, is fantas . A visit to their current similar facility will demonstrate this. The complex odor suppression systems needed are expensive to operate and are hardly fail -proof. The smells also alert criminals to an income opportunity. Crime Magnet. Jefferson County itself found the "Illegality under federal law may cause those locations where recreational marijuana is produced (grown) or processed to be an "attractive nuisance"for criminals, vandals and minors, said "attractive nuisance" status being contrary to the quiet and pastoral rural nature of much of unincorporated Jefferson County." (Ord. #04-0608-15 at page 3, Findings of Fact.) Coyle residents have been told that it is not reasonable to expect a Sheriff response to a crime in progress in less than an hour. I feel it would be very careless to permit this facility so near residences. We already have enough crime here - wildlife poaching, tree theft, break-ins, boat theft, mailbox tampering, dumping of garbage and carcasses, abandonment of vehicles and pets - clearly we do not need an easily detected high value break-in target here to put even more strain on limited law enforcement availability. Damage to Property Value. Bad smells and increased likelihood of crime from industrial cannabis factories like what is being proposed is a known suppressor of property values. Realtors know that they need to disclose the presence of industrial cannabis facilities. It is suggested by Realtor associations that a drop in value of 10% can be expected when these facilities are allowed to shoehorn into existing neighborhoods. This is not an acceptable tradeoff for an ill -sited moneymaking venture. Noise. A visit to the facility where the applicants are currently producing cannabis in Port Townsend tells anyone that the drone of industrial air -handling fans will wash out the precious quiet here. The tranquility and quiet is why all of us put up with the extreme inconvenience of living here. The applicants will need to use an extensive system of motorized falls to control the fetid odor from their masses of cannabis plants. The fans truly are noisy. It is not appropriate for the location in question. Responsibility of Authorities. Commercial cannabis production, legal under state laws but still federally illegal, is brand new to Jefferson County. While we all want to claim to support local business and families, and take credit for stimulating the local economy, caution must be taken to ensure that this very new and impactful industry is being rolled out by authorities in a responsible fashion. Bad for the Cannabis Industry. Permitting the shoehorning of industrial growing/processing facilities into quiet neighborhoods does not promote goodwill and understanding. Those of us who truly support this new industry, and who believe in the great contribution that cannabis can make towards key new frontiers of medicine, are in favor of responsible facility location. Why saddle neighbors, and applicants alike, with land use conflicts, years of expensive legal battles and local strife over a project that is clearly not a good fit? All parties will then carry a negative association forever, and may become activated against the industry, as a result of having their property values damaged and having to endure needless nuisances. Authorities: Think about the industry as a whole, and help their PR efforts by being thoughtful, please. In closing: Other jurisdictions are watching, as are future applicants. Please send a message out to all that pursuing new income opportunities is not to come at the expense of local residential quality of life, quiet enjoyment, and property values. A proper location for this type of project would be much farther away from any neighborhoods. A good example is the smartly sited comparable cannabis project at mile 5 on Coyle Road. No neighbors, no lawsuits, no hassles. Mr Ward simply did not want the problems and expenses, so he did his homework, chose the location wisely, and he has benefited. We are blessed with an abundance of many suitable sites locally NOT in Rural Residentially zoned places. All development is not smart development. I hope that Jefferson County officials know that their job mission does not include rubberstamping of ill -sited industrial developments in quiet neighborhoods, in the name of imagined stimulus. Let's do better. Thank you for your consideration. Bonnie Story 293 Blueberry Hill Drive, Quilcene WA 98376 From: gw@areyoucovered.com Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2019 2:53 PM To: jeffbocc Cc: 'Bonnie Story'; 'Chuck Olson'; 'Colleen Faragher-Horwell'; 'Cynthia Burke'; 'Evelyn Carol Ortmann'; 'Gary Williams'; 'Jackie Gardner'; 'Joanmarie E'; 'John Nelson'; 'Karen Grooms'; 'Ken Shock'; 'Kris Montgomery'; 'Marilyn Mitchell'; 'Roland Faragher@gmail.com'; 'Vicki Niederkorn'; 'Vigo Anderson'; 'Chris Wilson' Subject: M LA19-00019 Attachments: GW letter 662019.pdf Dear Commissioners: Please see attached letter concerning marijuana production and processing in Rural Residential zones. Gary Williams Williams Law Office gw@areyoucovered.com Gary Williams 252 Blueberry Hill Drive Quilcene, WA 98376 June 6, 2019 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners County Courthouse Office Port Townsend, WA 98368 RE: Docket Designation MLA 19-00019 Marijuana Production in RR Zoning Dear County Commissioners: Please place this matter on your Docket for consideration of an amendment to JCC 18.20.295. The proposed amendment would ban marijuana factories from areas zoned Rural Residential. Jefferson County is the only county in this area which has not done this already. I. Allowing a Marijuana Factory on Rural Residential Zoned Property Would Violate both State and Federal Law. A. Violation of Law - JCC 18.40.530. A commercial marijuana production and processing plant at the proposed location would violate both local and Federal law. Jefferson County Code 18.40.530 states that a Conditional Use Permit ("CUP") may be granted only if the ... conditional use is harmonious and appropriate in design, character and appearance with the existing or intended character and quality of development in the vicinity of the subject property and with the physical characteristics of the subject property. A commercial marijuana factory is neither harmonious nor appropriate to development in RR zoned areas. This code section creates a very high bar for marijuana producers. We don't have a strip mall slum in Jefferson County, yet. B. Violation of Law - JCC 18.20.170. The Code is clear on the relationship between residential and commercial use on a Cottage Industry Permit. JCC 18.20.170(1) explains: 1. Purpose: To provide for small-scale economic development activities on residential parcels, subordinate to the primary residential use, if the Administrator finds that such activities can be conducted without substantial adverse impact on the residential environment and rural character in the vicinity. A marijuana factory cannot meet this test. All of the illegality, nuisance, and crime show clearly that a marijuana factory cannot "be conducted without substantial adverse impact on the residential environment and rural character in the vicinity." Further, see JCC 18.20.170(s): s. No use shall be made of equipment or material which produces unreasonable vibration, noise, dust, smoke, odor, or electrical interference to the detriment of the quiet use and enjoyment of adjoining and surrounding property. Any afterhours business activities shall not have noise impacts discernable beyond the property boundaries. Marijuana emits noxious odors during every phase of growing, processing, and production. The odor alone is a substantial violation of law. All of the problems and issues considered here relate to this - allowing marijuana factories on RR zoned land would be "to the detriment of the quiet use and enjoyment of adjoining and surrounding property." C. Violation of Law - JCC 18.20.295. When Jefferson County passed the ordinance allowing the production and processing of marijuana the County made a number of Findings of Fact. The County found the "illegality under federal law may cause those locations where recreational marijuana is produced (grown) or processed to be an "attractive nuisance" for criminals, vandals and minors, said "attractive nuisance" status being contrary to the quiet and pastoral rural nature of much of unincorporated Jefferson County." Ord. #04-0608-15 at page 3. RR zoned areas should be saved from the attractive nuisance status predicted by Jefferson County. We don't want criminal activity here. Please place this matter on your docket and deal with it. E D. Violation of Federal Law - 21 U.S.C. 801, et. seq. Although Washington state legalized marijuana, the United States government did not. For now, federal law enforcement is not prosecuting marijuana crimes but that could change at any time. That is particularly true here, where the Bangor naval base is near the proposed factory. We can pass local rules, regulations and state laws but they are all subordinate to Federal law. The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties constitute the supreme law of the land. State courts are bound by the Supremacy Clause; if federal and state law conflict, the federal law must be applied. Since federal law forbids the production and processing of marijuana, any proposed marijuana factory is illegal. II. Allowing Marijuana Processing and Production in RR Zoned Areas Would Create Residential Dead Zones. Only a commercial enterprise would build next to a marijuana factory. Nobody would raise a family, or live a quiet retirement next door to a marijuana factory. Once that level of commercial use takes place, the adjoining land is suitable only for a strip mall or worse. Allowing commercial marijuana production and processing on Lot 3 would create a residential dead zone. Please place this matter on your docket and do not allow this to happen here. III. Forbidding Commercial Marijuana Production and Processing in RR Zones Would Conserve County Resources. There have been three disputes put before the Department of Community Development. Two applications for marijuana factories in RR zones have been beaten back, but only after parties spent many thousands of dollars to preserve the peace and beauty in Jefferson County. The third, at 9790 Coyle Road is pending. See MLA 18-00102. Now, the County should place MLA 19- 00019 on the docket, study the matter, and find that these factories have no place in RR zones. Otherwise, the County will have to deal with these issues over and over again, as will the Jefferson County Superior Court. Do it once, and be done. 3 IV. Conclusion. Please Act on Docket Designation MLA 19-00019 by Placing this Matter on the Docket. Jefferson County is a magnificently beautiful place. Our forests and shorelines are plentiful, pristine, accessible and unique. Once natural beauty is destroyed, it can seldom be repaired. There is no good reason to allow marijuana factories to destroy Rural Residential zones in Jefferson County. Sincerely, Gary Williams :� cr.X 9 G -C(I From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Victoria Galanti <vicgal1804@gmail.com> Thursday, June 06, 2019 3:34 PM jeffbocc Steve Date; Chris Wilson For Hearing June 10, Review of MLA19-00019 To: Jefferson County Board of Commissioners HEARING Re: Review of MLA19-00019, regarding marijuana growing and processing business in rural residential areas of Jefferson County. Submitted for Hearing on June 10, 2019. I am writing to urge you to amend immediately the current workplan for the Department of Community Development (DCD) to allow their review of marijuana growing and processing businesses in rural areas as soon as possible. Why consider the amendments at all? Most people who choose to live in rural residential areas move there for the quiet, peaceful surroundings. Even now, a marijuana growing and processing plant is seeking approval to move from a light industrial area near Port Townsend to a quiet residential area on the Coyle/Toandos peninsula. This kind of business in a rural area fundamentally changes the nature of residential, in spite of a required house on the property. And even with special filters, the smell of "skunk" can escape and pervade the neighborhood (according to online marijuana grow sites), not to mention the noise of the fans and the high use of water resources. I have no problem with such operations operating in Jefferson County; they just should NOT be allowed in rural residential areas. Why review the regulations now? Given that many of the surrounding counties (Mason, Kitsap, Skagit and Whatcom, I believe) do not allow such operations in their rural residential areas, it is likely more and more marijuana grow and process business will look to locate in Jefferson County. Also, local citizens, not to mention the DCD staff, are spending significant time and money dealing with applications under cottage industry codes in rural residential zones. But doesn't the DCD have limited time and staff? As noted above, the staff is already spending extra time responding to questions, concerns. They have been amazingly helpful even with their heavy workload, and I appreciate that. But there are better ways to spend their time than dealing with an on-going fight about the regulations when tax payers are concerned about regulations adversely affecting their property. Also, isn't it possible to hire an outside consultant to do the study? Yes, it would require some DCD staff time to locate materials, but it would save staff time in doing further outside research and writing up the results. Other options? Given the delays in getting even a review of codes, could you not issue a moratorium on decisions made until the codes have been reviewed? That would relieve the stress on the DCD staff and allow time for a thorough review with local resident input. In conclusion, I urge the BOCC to please acknowledge the concerns of the people living in rural Jefferson County, and approve immediate review of the regulations regarding the location of marijuana growing and processing businesses in rural residential zones of up to 20 acres. Thank you for providing an opportunity for me to express my concerns. Victoria Galanti, 706 Kens Way, Quilcene, WA 98376 jeffbocc From: Marilyn Mitchell <msmitch@embargmail.com> Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2019 3:38 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: MLA 19-00019 Attachments: to BOCC652019.pdf Dear Commissioners: NEARING PFrntx) Please see my letter attached to this email for my comments for the June 10, 2019 hearing. Thank you. Marilyn S. Mitchell 252 Blueberry Hill Drive Quilcene, WA 98376 msmitch@embaromail.com 360-808-5039 Marilyn S. Mitchell 252 Blueberry Hill Drive Quilcene, WA 98376 msmitchc,',,enibarqmail.corn June 5, 2019 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners Attn: Kate Dean David Sullivan Greg Brotherton County Courthouse Office Port Townsend, WA 98368 RE: June 10, 2019 Hearing Docket Designation 9 MLA 19-00019 Marijuana Production in Rural Residential Zoning Dear County Commissioners: Nip this in the bud!! Please don't allow a large scale marijuana production facility to disrupt and impact our quiet, private established rural residential neighborhood. Our small subdivision of five -acre home sites has existed peacefully for 20 years. There was never any reason to believe that an incompatible use of neighboring land of this magnitude could or would ever occur. Now is the time for you to amend and correct the current marijuana regulations (JCC18.20.295) to stop commercial production of marijuana in Rural Residential zoning. I will be unable to attend the hearing on June 10., but this letter is to make sure my voice and concerns are heard. I am opposed to issuing a conditional use permit in Rural Residential zoned parcels for marijuana growing/processing. This light industrial use should be required to locate in an appropriate industrial or remote forested site, where the impact to neighboring residences would be lessened.. Thank you for listening. Sincerely, -t__� 12 -rb 611, _k� Marilyn S. Mitchell (C 'DcD 6-1-tq Julie Shannon From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Philip Morley Thursday, June 06, 2019 5:14 PM Julie Shannon Joel Peterson; Emma Bolin; Patty Charnas FW: Eco-ADU Proposal text Eco-ADU text 2-27-19.pdf HEARING Julie, please enter Mr. Sircely's email and attached pdf into the Hearing Record for the 2019 Docket. 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: Matt Sircely <mattsircely@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2019 12:44 PM To: Philip Morley <pmorley@co.jefferson.wa.us> Subject: Eco-ADU Proposal text Hello Philip, Here is a better -formatted version of the Eco-ADU proposal. All of the text is the same except for a few grammatical corrections that preserve wording and intent. I think better formatting makes a big difference — it's so much easier to read. Please consider sharing this easier -to -read version with the commissioners and anyone else who you think should examine the draft text. Thanks so much! Matt Sircely (360) 301-3789 Eco-ADU Draft Text Submitted to the Jeff Co WA Planning Commission text includes grammatical and formatting corrections Definitions: "Eco-ADU" - An Eco-ADU is an ADU approved for habitation under this section following the issuance of a. Discretionary ["C(d)"] Use Permit by the Director. Eco-ADUs are limited to residential parcels of 5 acres or greater. All regulations as defined in section (cite) apply to Eco-ADUs except for the sixth provision. Eco-ADUs are not required to contain every amenity that a standard ADU is expected to contain, with exemptions subject to review by the Review Panel and the department. "Agricultural Eco-ADU" - An Eco-ADU project located in agricultural zones is referred to as an Agricultural Eco-ADU, and Eco-ADUs must comply with special criteria, including the maintenance of a farm plan. "Sustainable Forest Eco-ADU" - An Eco-ADU project located in forest zones is referred to as an Agricultural Eco-ADU, and Eco- ADUs must comply with special criteria, including the maintenance of a sustainable forestry plan. "Eco-ADU project" - A project comprised of one of the three types of Eco-ADUs. In this section, the word 'project' refers to an Eco-ADU project. "Citizen Expert Review Panel" - In this section, the term "Review Panel" shall refer to the Citizen Expert Review Panel. "Living Land Stewardship Standard" - The Living Land Stewardship Standard is also referenced within this section as "the standard", "the guidelines" or the "Eco-ADU standard". The voluntary standard intends to ameliorate four primary areas of concern with regard to allowed conventional construction techniques and lifestyle choices, and agricultural and forestry practices. The four primary areas of concern that are addressed by the standard are: 1) The presence and use of toxics and materials such as synthetic pest control products or synthetic fertilizers that are intended for outdoor use and/or storage outdoors. 2) Substantial disturbances of soil due to grading, roadbuilding, or erosion 3) The standard prohibits the siting of eco-ADUs in areas that would require the felling of large trees, and/or place residents in a location with a high probability of imminent tree fall; and 4) Eco-ADUs shall not be used as short-term rental units. "Stewardship Credit" - Land set aside in exchange in order to direct Eco-ADU allotment credits to a multi -parcel clustered site plan (Conservation Village) may include, but are not required to include critical areas as currently defined by the Critical Areas Ordinance. Land set aside in exchange in order to direct Eco-ADU allotment credits to a multi -parcel clustered site plan (Conservation Village) may include preservation of other natural and agricultural areas. "Conservation Village" - a multi -parcel clustered site plan which is able to achieve approvals from the Review Panel and the department. A Conservation Village is represented by a singular Project Lead. "Eco-ADU Project Lead" - The term "Eco-ADU Project Lead", referred to in this section as "Project Lead", is a designated sole point of contact and authoritative decision-making on behalf of a particular project. All Eco-ADU projects must identify a singular Project Lead. The Project Lead may be the property owner, and may also be a tenant or a representative of a sponsor organization, and must be designated as authorized to act on behalf of the project starting with initial consultations and continuing through and beyond all permitting procedures. The Project Lead may designate that a program tenant, representative of a sponsor organization, or a third party may alternately serve as Project Lead. The creation of an Eco-ADU shall be subject to the following requirements, which shall not be subject to variance. 1. Conditional Use a) Following initial consultations with the Review Panel and/or Director, all Eco-ADU applicants must attain a Discretionary ["C(d)"] Use Permit. b) Upon the granting of a permit, Eco-ADU project participants immediately receive an additional 300 square feet of ADU allocation in addition to the 1,250 sq ft limit established by the county, which together with any unused ADU allocation, can be combined and then divided into multiple detached ADUs appropriate for lot size and zoning criteria as defined in 2. c) Applicants located in AP -20 - Commercial Agriculture and AL -20 - Local Agriculture zones may apply for a Discretionary ["C(d)"] Use Permit to establish a "Agricultural Eco-ADU" project. In addition to the other criteria outlined in this section, applicants must design, submit and pursue a credible farm plan to the review committee, which then determines whether to continue consultations or submit a recommendation to the director as to whether the conditional use permit should be approved or denied. It is not necessary for the Sustainable Forest Plan to include intent to engage in commercial timber harvest and sales. Performance evaluations and any variance from the initial plan shall be assessed no less than annually by the Review Panel. Farm plans shall be limited to use of agricultural products and materials that are allowed for use in organic production and processing by the USDA National Organic Program as listed in the federal register in The National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances (§ 205.600 - 205.608-205.619). The Review Panel may approve additional products and/or materials for general use in Eco-ADU projects. The Review Panel may also may choose to approve additional materials use permissions on a case-by-case basis. d) Applicants in RF -40 - Rural Forest, IF -20 - Inholding Forest, and CF -80 - Commercial Forest zones may apply for a Discretionary ["C(d)"] Use Permit to establish a "Sustainable Forest ADU" project. In addition to the other criteria outlined in this section, applicants must design and submit a credible Sustainable Forestry Plan under the guidance of the review committee, which then determines whether to continue consultations or submit a recommendation to the director as to whether the conditional use permit should be approved or denied. It is not necessary for the Sustainable Forest Plan to include intent to engage in commercial timber harvest and sales. Performance evaluations and any variance from the initial plan shall be assessed no less than annually by the Review Panel. Sustainable Forestry Plans shall be limited to use of agricultural and agroforestry products and materials that are allowed for use in organic production and processing by the USDA National Organic Program as listed in the federal register in The National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances (S 205.600 - 205.608-205.619). The Review Panel may approve additional products and/or materials for general use in Eco-ADU projects. The Review Panel may also may choose to approve additional materials use permissions on a case-by-case basis. 2. Number a) No more than 2 Eco-ADUs shall be allowed on parcels of 5 acres and less. b) No more than 5 Eco-ADUs shall be allowed on parcels between 6 and 10 acres. c) No more than six Eco-ADUs shall be allowed on parcels between 10 and 20 acres in size. d) On parcels 20 acres and above, total Eco-ADU allocation shall be limited to 0.5% of the total surface area of the parcel. e) On parcels 40 acres and above, the total Eco-ADU allocation is limited to 0.2% of the total surface area of the parcel. 3. Size of Eco-ADUs An Eco-ADU must not exceed 1000 square feet, including any garage area. 4. Composition and Compliance a) The ADU may include facilities for cooking, living, sanitation, and sleeping, however unlike conventional ADUs, Eco- ADUs are not required to include every type of amenity, depending on the project goals, the needs and preferences of tenants, and the permissions granted by county departments in compliance with Jefferson County Code. b) The Review Panel may choose to assist applicants in the development of new systems and methods to satisfy requirements as set forth by county departments and the JCC while also meeting program requirements. 5. Citizen Expert Review Panel a) Members of a Citizen Expert Review Panel (Review Panel) shall establish and maintain an updated list of criteria that shall be defined as the "Living Land Stewardship Standard". The standard shall be consistent with all the criteria listed in this section as well as all other county codes. b) The Board of County Commissioners shall select nine members members of the Review Panel for a term of two years, three from each district, appointed by the commissioner who represents the district in which the appointee resides. c) The Review Panel shall establish bylaws which shall be updated and approved annually by the membership. The goal of the Review Panel is to provide guidance, consultation and official recommendations to the department director. The director may instruct the Review Panel to answer questions or investigate and/or address concerns. d) The Review Panel is tasked with occasionally monitoring and advising opt -in Eco-ADU projects. In cases of potential conflicts of interest, or if the landowner objects, or if there are procedural considerations for any reason, the Review Panel may authorize a third party to perform review, provided that the individual or organization performing the review is also free of potential conflicts of interest and has been determined by both the Review Panel and the department to be reasonably qualified and capable of carrying out the necessary tasks. e) Prohibited under the voluntary standard is the outdoor use of synthetic pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, fertilizers and other nutrients of a synthetic nature or containing synthetic ingredients, unless allowed for use in organic production and processing by the USDA National Organic Program as listed in the federal register in The National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances (§ 205.600 - 205.608-205.619). The Review Panel may approve additional products and/or materials for general use in Eco-ADU projects. The Review Panel may also may choose to approve additional materials use permissions on a case-by-case basis. f) Eco-ADU projects are subject to inspection by members of the Review Panel. In cases of potential conflicts of interest, or if the the landowner objects, or if there are procedural considerations for any reason, the Review Panel may authorize a third party to perform review, provided that the individual or organization performing the review is also free of potential conflicts of interest and has been determined by both the Review Panel and the department to be reasonably qualified and capable of carrying out the necessary tasks. g) Program participants and sponsor organizations may choose to offer appropriate permissions to allow the Review Panel and/or a third -party review organization to physically sample onsite data for research and analysis. h) The Review Panel shall maintain clear guidelines for managing household hazardous waste and contained management of fluids and materials required for the operation and maintenance of ordinary household vehicles, and assess and mitigate the presence and/or probability of engine oil drips, for example from older vehicles or machinery. The Review Panel may require the operator and/or landowner to design, implement, and maintain a containment plan for any potentially hazardous materials that are allowed on site. i) The Review Panel shall consider fire danger as paramount, and ensure that each program participant receives a training in fire -preventative techniques and immediate response. The Review Panel shall encourage every tenant and program participant to maintain awareness of current local fire dangers and events, as well as develop a suite of techniques essential to wildfire prevention. At the Review Panel's request, either as part of the initial application or during ongoing review procedures, that the Eco-ADU applicant must detail pathways of access for first responders and firefighters to all Eco-ADU dwellings and any areas considered by the Review Panel to be at high-risk of fire for any reason. 6. Stewardship Credits. Stewardship credits allow separate entities which willfully enter a mutual development agreement to create a single entity, known as a Conservation Village (CV). The Conservation Village must design, manage and maintain a site plan. Before any construction begins on a project involving Stewardship Credits from two or more adjoining parcels, there must be a binding legal agreement between the owners of all parcels involved, as well as any third parties acting as sponsor organizations. The allocation of Stewardship Credits must be'negotiated by the Project Lead. Stewardship Credits shall not augment an Eco-ADU allocation by more than 75%. 7. Removable. All Eco-ADUs must be removable unless constructed from natural materials such as wood not treated with chemicals, stone, untreated metals and/or other non -synthetic materials. In the event of a permit revocation or a Project Lead choosing to opt - out of the program, all applicable buildings must be removed. Removal of slabs and footings is not required under such circumstances unless directed by the Review Panel or Director. 8. Revocation of Eco-ADU Conditional Discretionary Use Permit. The Director retains the authority under the conditional use permitting procedures to revoke a permit with or without the recommendation and consent of the Review Panel. Permit revocations shall be subject to appeal to the Hearing Examiner. In the event of a dispute between the Review Panel and the Director where the Director opposes a recommendation from the Review Panel consisting of a vote of no less than two-thirds of a quorum, the Review Panel may choose to refer the case to an automatic appeal at no cost to applicant or project. The Review Panel may also designate one or more members to advocate for the applicant or project before the Hearing Examiner, but only with the consent of the Eco-ADU Project Lead or the Project Lead's designee. 9. Eco-ADU Opt -out. In the event that an existing Eco-ADU Project Lead choses or decides to Opt -out of the Eco-ADU program, the Project Lead must coordinate the removal of all Eco-ADUs. 10. Bonus Allocation. a) Eco-ADU applicants may apply for additions to the Eco-ADU allocation. Project applicants and participants may calculate how much of their ADU allocation is unused at the time of application and add that number to the additional 300 square feet that are immediately allocated when a participant opts into the program. b) With permission from the Review Panel and Director, applicants and participants can choose to add to their allocation a bonus of 15% once they have demonstrated an intention and ability to meet criteria in one or all of four bonus categories: • Structure elevation (for example, pier blocks instead of a concrete slab) to allow the passage of wind, water and wildlife underneath the building. • Alternative energy installations excluding biomass energy generation. • Incorporating living building design components that aid biodiversity and ecosystem vitality as determined by the Review Panel. • A primary residence with a footprint of less than 1,800 square feet. CC�ebG •7-il jeffbocc RF APING RECom From: Chuck - CDA <chuck@cda-group.net> Sent: Friday, June 07, 2019 10:18 AM To: jeffbocc Cc: 'Victoria Galanti'; 'Vigo Anderson' Subject: Marijuana not on the Coyle: hearing on June 10 and the MLA19-00019 Honorable Commissioners: As a property owner who enjoys the tranquility and rural outdoors on the Toandos Peninsula I am dismayed to learn you are even considering allowing a commercial marijuana grow operation proposed in a Rural Residential neighborhood, specifically 9790 Coyle Road. Cannabis and its familiar marijuana derivative are a multi-million (or billion) dollar industry. These are not home on the farm cottage industry operations. You should reject any notion of a conditional use permit in any case where it fails to meet all requirements thereof; and especially disapproving MLA19-00019. Noise, smell (odor) and water pollution not to mention crime and security associated with drugs, legal or illegal, are further not compatible in residential areas, even parcels as large as 5 or 20 acre. We understand the State of Washington is enjoying a huge financial windfall with cannabis legalization. But how has our county benefitted? Marijuana is business, it is industry, it can and should locate under appropriate zoning and pay taxes and fees. It is reported that projected income derived by the county from this industry will likely not even cover costs of rulemaking, administration and enforcement associated with the proposed use. We also understand the permit process may violate Federal and State Law and local codes including JCC 18.40.530 — harmonious use, JCC 18.20.170 —subordinate to the residential use, JCC 18.20.295 - Attractive nuisance. We understand Jefferson is the only county in this region considering permitting marijuana in RR zoning and that Ord #04-608-15 found the activity to fall under the classification of 'attractive nuisance'. Please do not be rushed by expedience or lack of resources into bad decisions particularly with regard MLA19-00019.. Sincerely, Your neighbor Chuck Doland 1080 Payne Road Quilcene, WA 98376 cc. �)cW -1-t[j t Sent: Friday, lune 07, 2019 11:25 AM To: jeffbocc Cc: Joel Peterson Subject: FW: June 10, BOCC Hearing, Marijuana production in Rural Residential Zoning Attachments: to DCD 652019.pdf, to DCD 3222019.pdf FYI Jodi Adams Permit & Admin Manager Phone 360-379-4494 From: Marilyn Mitchell <msmitch @em bargmail.com> Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2019 3:47 PM To: DCD Front Staff <dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us> Cc: gw@areyoucovered.com Subject: June 10, BOCC Hearing, Marijuana production in Rural Residential Zoning Dear Planning Dept: Attached are my two letters for comment on this matter. Thank you. Marilyn S. Mitchell 252 Blueberry Hill Drive Quilcene, WA 98376 msmitch(@embaramail.com 360-808-5039 Marilyn S. Mitchell 252 Blueberry Hill Drive Quilcene, WA 98376 iiisiiiitclir'i.i:criibLirciiiiail.cotii June 5, 2019 Jefferson County Department of Community Development Attn: David Wayne Johnson Patty Charnas Joel Peterson 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 RE: June 10, 2019 Hearing BOCC Docket Designation # M LAI 9-00019 Marijuana Production in Rural Residential Zoning Dear Planning Department Personnel: Please use your position to urge the Board of County Commissioners to revise and amend the County Code to restrict marijuana production in Rural Residential zones. My letter to you of March 22, 2019, (Attached) raised my objections and concerns against the pending permit application specifically for 9790 Coyle Road, Quilcene, Washington, to produce and process cannabis in a rural residential zone, and I still strongly oppose this industrial use in this residential setting. But, it appears the need for clarification on this issue is larger than on an application by application basis. As a citizen and property owner I would look forward to some clear zoning regulations. Thank you for presenting my position by sharing my letter with the County Commissioners so my voice can be on the record. Sincerely, Marilyn Mitchell Attached, letter of March 22, 2019, to DCD Marilyn S. Mitchell 252 Blueberry Hill Drive Quilcene, WA 98376 360408-5039 msmitchCaembargmaii.com March 22, 2019 Jefferson County Dept. Of Community Development Development Review Division 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 RE: Type H Land Use Application, Mi.A18-00102 Applicant: Tracy Williamson Site Address: 9790 Coyle Road Conditional discretionary use permit to Produce and process cannabis in a Rural Residential zone Dear Project Planner David Johnson: Please do NOT allow this use of property In this location. A marijuana grow operation is not in keeping with our already developed, established neighborhood. While this site may appear forested and remote, there are actually a number of private, full-time rural residential properties and people here, who have called The Coyle home for 20 years. My home is in the large lot subdivision of Blueberry Hill, located at the 9 mile marker of Coyle Road, directly across the two-lane Coyle Road from this proposed enterprise. There are seven full-time, very private residences here. Two 5,000 sq. foot buildings of marijuana would bring traffic, machinery, fan noise, lights and noxious odors, all disrupting the peace and quiet we have come to cherish and expect. Additionally, I would like to reiberate and incorporate in my argument against this project the concerns outlined in the Letter of Bonnie Story, 293 Blueberry Hill Drive, Quilcene, WA 98376, raising: Violation of Cottage Industry Codes Violation of subdivision CCR agreements Unreasonably close to existing full time residences Invasive Smells Crime problems Loss of property value Noise. For all these reasons, please, do not allow this to go forward. Sincerely, Marilyn S.S. Mitchelf June 5, 2019 cu-��6 � - I -' Public Comment Regarding: HDMNG RECORD Marijuana Processing Plants in Rural Residential Areas Hearing scheduled for June 10, 2019 To: Jefferson County Courthouse Commissioners Office 1820 Jefferson Street V y Port Townsend, Washington 98368 From: Roland & Colleen Faragher-Horwell JUN 0 7 2019 471 Dietz Drive Quilcene, WA. 98376 JEFFERSON Dear Commissioners: We are full-time residents of the Coyle community on the Toandos Peninsula. We appreciate the opportunity to have you consider our concerns regarding the county code regulating marijuana growing and processing plants in residential rural areas. To be clear: we would like to see the County Code amended to disallow marijuana factories from being established in residential/rural areas. We believe the following concerns support our request. 1. Adverse impact to community: Marijuana factories produce light, noise, and odor to the detriment of the quiet use and enjoyment of adjoining properties. 2. Keep the rural/residential areas "rural/residential" (NOT light industrial: Allowing marijuana processing plants in residential/rural areas establishes a referenceable precedent for any business owner. With each new marijuana processing plant approved, rural/residential areas incrementally transform into light industrial areas. This is not what anyone who lives in these areas expect or want. 3. Property values negatively impacted: It is common sense that having a business adjacent to a rural/residential property will detract from the rural/residential property's value and salability. Approving additional marijuana processing plants in rural/residential areas, places this unfair burden on nearby property owners. When a person buys a tract of land in an area that is zoned as rural/residential, they anticipate some stability in that zoning — this stability would be undermined by the approval of marijuana processing plants in residential areas. For the reasons listed above, please restrict the development of these industrial marijuana processing plants. Thank you for considering our concerns and request. Sincerely, Roland Faragher-Horwell Vii Colleen Faragher-H Lee and Amy Does 8802 Flagler Road Nordland, WA 98358 10 June 2019 re: MLA19-00019 JEFCO Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Commissioners: RECOpt� JUN 0+ 119 s� 4 We are urging you to support DCD proposal MLA 19-00019; and to remove marijuana production and processing from consideration as a land use option on rural residential properties within Jefferson County. While we appreciate the exhaustive process our county previously endured in crafting the current CUP procedures for permitting cannabis production and processing on rural residential lands, it's now obvious that such operations are unsuitable within a residential neighborhood. We note that state laws governing cannabis production & processing require enhanced security including fencing, cameras, and yard lighting; and include age restrictions for persons visiting or employed on the property. Moreover, noise and odors from such facilities are a common complaint when encountered within a residential setting. Please note that adjacent property uses are also restricted by law, creating a de -facto loss of use/value on neighboring parcels. Our own DCD has defined both cannabis production and processing as industrial uses, saying that either use "...cannot be conducted in rural residential neighborhoods without substantial adverse impact on the residential environment and rural character in the vicinity." Both the cannabis industry and the state laws governing it are obviously still evolving; but neither should be defined through the frustrations of public testimony and needless lawsuits. I urge you to join your voters and the Department of Community Development and support MLA 19-0019. Sincerely, Lee M. Does Amy L. Does, Ph.D. From: Sent: c(-, �to � - 7 - Nancy Slough <nslough711@gmail.com> Friday, lune 07, 2019 2:13 PM qFgRIN To: jeffbocc Subject: Re: MLA19-00019, Permit Application for 9790 Coyle Road, Quilcene, WA Attn: Kate Dean, David Sullivan, Greg Brotherton We greatly appreciate your consideration of the Jefferson County Planning Commission's recommendations regarding recreational marijuana production in rural residential zones. Our concerns, as stated in a letter to the Department of Community Development (3/20/19) and voiced at the April 17, 2019 public hearing, are in agreement with many of the other residents living in the neighborhood of a proposed marijuana production site and are outlined below. Cottage Industry Code Violation: When Jefferson County implemented the allowable Cottage Industry designation on residential parcels it stated that the activities were to be... "subordinate to the primary residential use... and that such activities [can} be conducted without substantial adverse impact on the residential environment and rural character in the vicinity. No use shall be made of equipment or material which produces unreasonable vibration, noise, dust, smoke, odor, or electrical interference to the detriment of the quiet use and enjoyment of adjoining and surrounding property." Yet a cannabis plant has the potential to create, at minimum, both high levels of odor and noise. Creating the potential for major infringement on the other residents who choose to live in rural Jefferson County primarily for the peace and quiet it offers. The proponents of this project are planning an expansion of up to 10,000 square feet for their facility. Such expansion would be a full-fledged industry and totally inappropriate in a neighborhood of residential homes. It's hard to believe this would still qualify as a "cottage industry." Federal Illegality. Jefferson County itself found the "illegality under federal law may cause those locations where recreational marijuana is produced (grown) or processed to be an "attractive nuisance" for criminals, vandals and minors, said "attractive nuisance" status being contrary to the quiet and pastoral rural nature of much of unincorporated Jefferson County." (Ord. #04-0608-15 at p. 3, version 1.4) Coyle residents have been told that it is not reasonable to expect a sheriff response to a crime in progress in less than an hour. Certainly no home owner, wants an "attractive nuisance" in the neighborhood causing an increase in residential crime. Environmental Concerns: Environmental Concerns. In 2013 Jefferson County noted that "the County and the State do not know what probable significant adverse environmental impacts ("PSAEI ), if any, will arise from producing or processing marijuana.." (Ord. #04-0608-15, p. 3 version 1.4). Over the last five years what has Jefferson County learned to shed light on this question? Scientific studies on the environmental impact of marijuana production have been conducted elsewhere. For example, Ashworth and Vizuete have recently (2017) reported that studies investigating this question have "identified potentially significant environmental impacts due to excessive water and energy demands and local contamination of water, air and soil..." (p. 2531). The potential for contaminates in the soil and/or water produced from a "cottage industry" should be enough to ban a marijuana plant from a residential zone. We hope that you will consider the very real impact that a marijuana facility may have on property values, the neighbors' quality of life and the environment. We strongly urge you to deny the application for this marijuana factory on the Coyle Road. Sincerely, Chris Clegg and Nancy Slough 915 Kens Way Quilcene, WA 98376 Mailing Address: 11215 2nd Ave. NW Seattle, WA 98177 (( -, _'O CV') 0 1 - t From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Dear County Commissioners, Allison Willing <awilling@olympus.net> Friday, June 07, 2019 2:37 PM jeffbocc Marijuana -rural zoning review JCCC Marijuana Letter.docx NEARING POT I have attached a letter stating my objections to any marijuana grow/processing operations to be located within rural residential areas of our county. Thank you for taking the time to read my letter on this important matter. Allison DuRoi email: awilling@olvmpus.net 1 Allison DuRoi PO Box 63 Nordland, WA 98358 To Jefferson County, Board of County Commissioners, RE: Marijuana Grow and Processing Operations/Companies I strongly object to any review of county zoning codes in an effort to move marijuana grow/processing operations into rural residential areas under the cottage industry designation. All marijuana grow/processing operations belong in the light industrial areas already designated within the county. Furthermore, I object to marijuana grow/processing operations being located into rural residential areas for the following reasons: Laws regulating the marijuana industry require 24 hour video monitoring and 24 hour lighting, including high fences. This gives the look of a prison -like building not at all in keeping with the character of rural residential buildings including, but not limited to barns. Light pollution: 24 hour lighting for these facilities prevents viewing of the night sky by nearby residents thus infringing on current resident's rights to do so. In addition, what has happened to the save energy campaign? Isn't that what Jefferson County is all about? Noise pollution: ventilation fans that run 24 hours are both noisy and put out vibrational energy that is highly offensive for sensitive groups. On Friday June 1, 2019 at approximately 4:30 PM I had an experience of that vibrational energy which felt like a sonic assault while driving SR 20 between Seton and Fredrickson. Odor pollution: many people highly sensitive to industrial and chemical odors/pollutants live in rural Jefferson County for the quality of life this area provides. I, for one, cannot stand the odor of marijuana from the business located in Glen Cove Industrial Park when I drive along Highway 20 between Seton and Fredrickson to come into Port Townsend to shop local. I find the "skunk" smell far worse than other smells that have, or are, emanating from our light industrial area. Water Rights: The State of Washington has said that there are no more water rights in the state. Does the PUD have enough water right currently that it can support a water - heavy industry in a rural area and still have enough water rights for residential development? What will the marijuana operation do with its contaminated water? When public water came to Marrowstone Island most residents were shocked to hear the PUD say that they might not be able to hook up all Marrowstone to public water. 1CCCMarijau naLetter6/7/2019 Page 1 of 2 Decline of Property Values: It may not be proven yet, but it will be soon, that any marijuana grow/processing operation will in fact devalue nearby residential properties if located in rural residential areas for all of the reasons above. Almost no one will be able to stand the constant assault of noise, odor, lighting, fencing and other requirements needed for marijuana operations resulting in lower property values. It will be almost impossible to sell nearby residential properties for those unable to stay in their homes. Protective clothing: any operation that requires protective clothing so that the workers don't get a contact high or retain chemical residue on themselves and their clothing is inherently an industrial business. Hazardous Waste: any house that has contained an illegal marijuana grow operation is deemed by numerous jurisdictions to be hazardous. Why? Due to the residue that permeates everything! There is simply no real way to remove it. Another example is that when marijuana is burned all personnel stand up wind of it so as not to get high from the smoke. Fire Suppression Systems: if these are not required in a marijuana grow/processing operation they should be. Either way, a water or a foam fire suppression system will cause massive contamination of the ground, of the water tables, and more. In short, the best location for any marijuana grow/processing operation remains in the light industrial areas of the county where the above will have little impact on the quality of life for rural residents. All of the above stated reasons clearly demonstrate an industrial business that does not belong in any of the county's rural residential areas. Thank you, Allison DuRoi 1CCC Ma rij ua na Letter6/7/19 Page 2 of 2 jeffbocc RECORD From: DCD Front Staff Sent: Friday, June 07, 2019 4:07 PM To: jeffbocc Cc: Joel Peterson Subject: FW: MLA19-00019, Permit Application for 9790 Coyle Road, Quilcene, WA FYI Jodi Adams Permit & Admin Manager Phone 360-379-4494 From: Nancy Slough <nslough711@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, lune 07, 2019 2:20 PM To: DCD Front Staff <dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us> Subject: Re: MLA19-00019, Permit Application for 9790 Coyle Road, Quilcene, WA Attn: Patty Charnas, David Wayne Johnson, Joel Peterson We greatly appreciate your consideration of the Jefferson County Planning Commission's recommendations regarding recreational marijuana production in rural residential zones. Our concerns, as stated in a letter to the Department of Community Development (3/20/19) and voiced at the April 17, 2019 public hearing, are in agreement with many of the other residents living in the neighborhood of a proposed marijuana production site and are outlined below. Cottage Industry Code Violation: When Jefferson County implemented the allowable Cottage Industry designation on residential parcels it stated that the activities were to be... "subordinate to the primary residential use ... and that such activities [can) be conducted without substantial adverse impact on the residential environment and rural character in the vicinity. No use shall be made of equipment or material which produces unreasonable vibration, noise, dust, smoke, odor, or electrical interference to the detriment of the quiet use and enjoyment of adjoining and surrounding property." Yet a cannabis plant has the potential to create, at minimum, both high levels of odor and noise. Creating the potential for major infringement on the other residents who choose to live in rural Jefferson County primarily for the peace and quiet it offers. The proponents of this project are planning an expansion of up to 10,000 square feet for their facility. Such expansion would be a full-fledged industry and totally inappropriate in a neighborhood of residential homes. It's hard to believe this would still qualify as a "cottage industry." Federal Illegality. Jefferson County itself found the "illegality under federal law may cause those locations where recreational marijuana is produced (grown) or processed to be an "attractive nuisance "for criminals, vandals and minors, said "attractive nuisance " status being contrary to the quiet and pastoral rural nature of much of unincorporated Jefferson County. " (Ord. #04-0608-15 at p. 3, version 1.4) Coyle residents have been told that it is not reasonable to expect a sheriff response to a crime in progress in less than an hour. Certainly no home owner, wants an "attractive nuisance" in the neighborhood causing an increase in residential crime. Environmental Concerns: Environmental Concerns. In 2013 Jefferson County noted that "the County and the State do not know what probable significant adverse environmental impacts ("PSAEI'), if any, will arise from producing or processing marijuana.." (Ord. #04-0608-15, p. 3 version 1.4). Over the last five years what has Jefferson County learned to shed light on this question? Scientific studies on the environmental impact of marijuana production have been conducted elsewhere. For example, Ashworth and Vizuete have recently (2017) reported that studies investigating this question have "identified potentially significant environmental impacts due to excessive water and energy demands and local contamination of water, air and soil..." (p. 2531). The potential for contaminates in the soil and/or water produced from a "cottage industry" should be enough to ban a marijuana plant from a residential zone. We hope that you will consider the very real impact that a marijuana facility may have on property values, the neighbors' quality of life and the environment. We strongly urge you to deny the application for this marijuana factory on the Coyle Road. Sincerely, Chris Clegg and Nancy Slough 915 Kens Way Quilcene, WA 98376 Mailing Address: 11215 2nd Ave. NW Seattle, WA 98177 ( ( __ 0.7 _�q From: Heather Olson <quaintlyquirky@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, June 07, 2019 4:15 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: RE: Upcoming hearing on rural zoning, 6/10/19 To the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners: One of the most important assets of Jefferson County are its rural areas, often designated as rural residenrial neighborhoods. These pastoral areas draw visitors and are the sites of homes of tax -paying residents. It does not make financial sense to compromise these natural assets by adverse environmental impacts, such as those increasingly recognized as emerging from the establishment of cannabis factories. Certainly it makes no sense to move industrial operations into rural neighborhoods without careful study of the impact on community development. I am writing to strongly advocate for a revision of the Department of Community Development's workplan for the year to carefully study and consider a review of code language regarding marijuana growing operations. Surrounding counties have done this. Our county needs to take planful, considered, efficient steps with regard to the overarching question of county code language... rather than do extra work handling both the many appropriate concerns of affected residents and dealing with labor-intensive applications one by one. Thank you for thoughtfully and seriously considering my comments, Heather Carmichael Olson 907 Ken's Way Quilcene, WA occ From: Heather Olson <quaintlyquirky@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, June 07, 2019 4:15 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: RE: Upcoming hearing on rural zoning, 6/10/19 To the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners: One of the most important assets of Jefferson County are its rural areas, often designated as rural residenrial neighborhoods. These pastoral areas draw visitors and are the sites of homes of tax -paying residents. It does not make financial sense to compromise these natural assets by adverse environmental impacts, such as those increasingly recognized as emerging from the establishment of cannabis factories. Certainly it makes no sense to move industrial operations into rural neighborhoods without careful study of the impact on community development. I am writing to strongly advocate for a revision of the Department of Community Development's workplan for the year to carefully study and consider a review of code language regarding marijuana growing operations. Surrounding counties have done this. Our county needs to take planful, considered, efficient steps with regard to the overarching question of county code language... rather than do extra work handling both the many appropriate concerns of affected residents and dealing with labor-intensive applications one by one. Thank you for thoughtfully and seriously considering my comments, Heather Carmichael Olson 907 Ken's Way Quilcene, WA � ( - �4 �' - (U - �C� occ From: erik.newquist@gmail.com Sent: Friday, June 07, 2019 6:45 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Marijuana in rural residential Jeff Co Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners County Courthouse Port Townsend, WA 98368 RE: Docket Designation MLA 19-00019 Marijuana Production in RR Zoning Dear County Commissioners: I am requesting that you place the above -referenced matter on your Docket for consideration of an amendment to JCC 18.20.295. This amendment would ban the production and/or processing of marijuana in zones designated rural residential. By placing a ban in these rural residential zoning areas, marijuana facilities would still be allowed in other zoning designations which encompass approximately 75% of the land mass of Jefferson County. Our neighboring counties have already legislated that marijuana facilities not be allowed in zones designated as rural residential to protect the families living in those areas. Nearly seven years have passed since the State of Washington legalized recreational marijuana. In those years, there has been a learning curve as to the impact that marijuana facilities have on the environment and on humans. The evidence clearly shows that marijuana facilities create unreasonable noise and obnoxious odors. In addition, these facilities may pollute the water sources for the area and negatively affect the value of surrounding properties. A large marijuana industrial facility is not harmonious or appropriate to be amongst homes where families reside. Please do the right thing. I am asking you to protect your citizenry. Erik Newquist 7082 Flagler Rd. Nordland Wa HEARING RECOK1D From: Glenn and Linda Gately <gately@olypen.com> Sent: Friday, June 07, 2019 7:14 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: RE: Docket Designation MLA 19-00019 - Marijuana Production in RR Zoning 711 Robbins Rd. Nordland, WA 98358 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners County Courthouse Port Townsend, WA 98368 June 7, 2019 RE: Docket Designation MLA 19-00019 Marijuana Production in RR Zoning Dear County Commissioners: I am requesting that you place the above -referenced matter on your Docket for consideration of an amendment to JCC 18.20.295. This amendment would ban the production and/or processing of marijuana in zones designated rural residential. Rural residential zones are primarily for living and raising families. There are other areas where they may be located where the negative impacts will be less. Please keep our residential neighborhoods for quality living. Having to spend a lot of time and money— both county time and money and individual time and money— every time someone tries to build a marijuana operation in a residential area is a loose - loose situation. It does not make sense to keep going on like this. Other counties around us have understood this and do not allow marijuana facilities in residential areas. Please follow their example and correct this problem. Sincerely, Glenn Gately From: Debbie Williams <rainshadow98358Cugmaii.com> Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2019 7:58 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Marijuana zoning Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners County Courthouse Port Townsend, WA 98368 RE: Docket Designation MLA 19-00019 Marijuana Production in RR Zoning Dear County Commissioners: I am requesting that you place the above -referenced matter on your Docket for consideration of an amendment to JCC 18.20.295. This amendment would ban the production and/or processing of marijuana in zones designated rural residential. By placing a ban in these rural residential zoning areas, marijuana facilities would still be allowed in other zoning designations which encompass approximately 75% of the land mass of Jefferson County. Our neighboring counties have already legislated that marijuana facilities not be allowed in zones designated as rural residential to protect the families living in those areas. Nearly seven years have passed since the State of Washington legalized recreational marijuana. In those years, there has been a learning curve as to the impact that marijuana facilities have on the environment and on humans. The evidence clearly shows that marijuana facilities create unreasonable noise and obnoxious odors. In addition, these facilities may pollute the water sources for the area and negatively affect the value of surrounding properties. A large marijuana industrial facility is not harmonious or appropriate to be amongst homes where families reside. Please do the right thing. I am asking you to protect your citizenry. Bob and Debbie Williams 696 East Marrowstone Road Nordland, WA 98358 effbocc From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: HERRIN K Des <mifogeater@gmail.com> Saturday, June 08, 2019 9:12 AM jeffbocc MLA 19-00019 Marijuana Production in RR Zones 6.7.19 MJ letter. rtf Dear Commissioners Kate Dean, David Sullivan, and Greg Brotherton, Please see my attached letter requesting placing MLA -19-00019 on the docket and my objection to allowing Cannabis production in our county's Rural Residential zones. I will be attending your AM meeting at the Jefferson Co. Courthouse Monday June 10. Sincerely, Kathleen DesLauriers 707-217-0316 effbocc From: JO JACKSON <jojacksonj@msn.com> Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2019 11:09 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Fwd: Letter to the Board of County Commissioners Sent from my Whone From: JO JACKSON <joiackson*4msn.com> Date: June 8, 2019 at 11:05:48 AM PDT Subject: Letter to the Board of County Commissioners Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners County Courthouse Port Townsend, WA 98368 RE: Docket Designation MLA 19- 00019 Marijuana Production in RR Zoning Dear County Commissioners: Please take the above - referenced matter on your Docket for consideration of an amendment to JCC 18.20.295. This amendment would ban the production I �► ko i4�L and/or processing of marijuana in zones designated rural residential. By placing a ban in these rural residential zoning areas, marijuana facilities would still be allowed in other zoning designations which encompass a substantial amount of the land of Jefferson County. Our neighboring counties have already legislated that marijuana facilities not be allowed in zones designated as rural residential to protect the families living in those areas. Nearly seven years have passed since the State of Washington legalized recreational marijuana. In those years, there has been a learning curve as to the impact that marijuana facilities have on the environment and on humans. The evidence clearly shows that marijuana facilities create unreasonable noise and obnoxious odors. In addition, these facilities may pollute the water sources for the area and negatively affect the value of surrounding properties. A large marijuana industrial 2 HEARING Prco-pD June 7, 2019 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners County Courthouse Office Port Townsend, WA 98368 RE: MLA 19-00019, Marijuana Production in Rural Residential Zones Dear County Commissioners: Please place this matter on your Docket for consideration of an amendment to JCC 18.20.295. The proposed amendment whould ban Canabis factories from Rural Residential Zones. Jefferson Co. is the only county that has not already done this I wish to be counted as a resident of this county who is continuing to object to allowing cannabis production in rural residential zones for a variety of reasons which have all been brought before your committee, other agencies, and the courts. These valid concerns have been voiced over the past years by myself, my neighbors, witnesses, our attorneys, and experts.. Sincerely, Kathleen Deslauriers 430 Meade Rd Nordland, WA. 98358 facility is not harmonious or appropriate to be amongst homes where families reside. I am asking you to represent your my request Name. Jo Jackson Address 140 Beach Dr Nordland, Wa 98358 4 PIN r7 *-# U& __ Pit I, rin Lror('() 'effbocc. From: Radha Newsom <radha.newsom@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2019 1:22 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Marijuana production in RR Zoning Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners County Courthouse Port Townsend, WA 98368 RE: Docket Designation MLA 19-00019 Marijuana Production in RR Zoning Dear County Commissioners: I am requesting that you place the above -referenced matter on your Docket for consideration of an amendment to JCC 18.20.295. This amendment would ban the production and/or processing of marijuana in zones designated rural residential. By placing a ban in these rural residential zoning areas, marijuana facilities would still be allowed in other zoning designations which encompass a substantial amount of the land of Jefferson County. Our neighboring counties have already legislated that marijuana facilities not be allowed in zones designated as rural residential to protect the families living in those areas. Nearly seven years have passed since the State of Washington legalized recreational marijuana. In those years, there has been a learning curve as to the impact that marijuana facilities have on the environment and on humans. The evidence clearly shows that marijuana facilities create unreasonable noise and obnoxious odors. In addition, these facilities may pollute the water sources for the area and negatively affect the value of surrounding properties. A large marijuana industrial facility is not harmonious or appropriate to be among homes where families reside. Please consider the many voices in opposition of marijuana facilities in RR zoning. Radha Newsom 7082 Flagler Rd Nordland, WA 98358 effbocc From: vigoanderson <vigoanderson@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2019 3:37 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Subject: MLA19-00019 Jefferson County Commissioners HE AR I i� 1 My Internet connection will soon be lost but here areR�al Residential Zoned areas Obviouslyto am requesting e Jefferson County Code as it relates to marijuana production m the code be changed to block marijuana grow and processing in Rural Residential Zoned areas. My request is very simple. You have a duty, as elected county commissioners, to listen to your constituents and support the broad majority of opinion. This marijuana grow issue is not a 50/50 constituent opinion. The vast super majority of Marrowstone Island and other county residents and property owners, when presented with the facts, will desire to eliminate marijuana production in all rural residential zoned areas. These industrial marijuana grow operations have no business in RR areas. Jefferson County to ejoclean air So yes, this is a common sense issue, as most of us movedto oIt has been stated this ns a property rightsn water and low sound levels and a responsible county government. issue. Yes, this is a property rights issue and the 90 + % of Jefferson County property owners desire you change the county code to prevent any marijuana production in Rural Residential Zoned Areas. I am hopeful you will make the common sense decision on this issue and support the wishes of a super majority of county land owners and residents, your constituents. Due to a prior commitment I will not be able to attend the hearing on June 6. Sincerely, Vigo Anderson Marrowstone Island Resident Mobile: 360-302-0359 Sent from my T -Mobile 4G LTE Device effbocc From: Sent: To: Subject: Sent from Mail for Windows 10 elissa greisz <elissalynn@live.com> Sunday, June 09, 2019 10:52 AM jeffbocc amendment to JCC 18.20.295 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners County Courthouse Port Townsend, WA 98368 RE: Docket Designation MLA 19-00019 Marijuana Production in RR Zoning Dear County Commissioners: I and my family live five miles from downtown Port Townsend in a rural residential neighborhood. We have an organic garden that supplies us with bountiful vegetables. The prospect of a large marijuana facility in our quiet neighborhood that could possibly pollute our water well sources is unacceptable. I am requesting that you place the above -referenced matter on your Docket for consideration of an amendment to JCC 18.20.295. This amendment would ban the production and/or processing of marijuana in zones designated rural residential. By placing a ban in these rural residential zoning areas, marijuana facilities would still be allowed in other zoning designations which encompass approximately 75% of the land mass of Jefferson County. Our neighboring counties have already legislated that marijuana facilities not be allowed in zones designated as rural residential to protect the families living in those areas. Nearly seven years have passed since the State of Washington legalized recreational marijuana. In those years, there has been a learning curve as to the impact that marijuana facilities have on the environment and on humans. The evidence clearly shows that marijuana facilities create unreasonable noise and obnoxious odors. In addition, these facilities may pollute the water sources for the area and negatively affect the value of surrounding properties. A large marijuana industrial facility is not harmonious or appropriate to be amongst homes where families reside. Please do the right thing. I am asking you to protect your citizenry. Thank you, Elissa Greisz 87 Martin Road Port Townsend :6 -'Ant �:. From: Patricia Earnest <earnest.pj@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2019 9:57 PM To: jeffbocc; Patty Charnas; Philip Morley; Planning Commission Desk Subject: June 10 hearing re: MLA19-00019 David Sullivan, Kate Dean, Greg Brotherton, BoCC Philip Morley Patty Charnas, DCD Planning Commission of Jefferson County WA Re: MLA19-00019 To those who can determine the well being of Jefferson County residents, Marrowstone Island has twice proven that large scale marijuana operations do not fit in rural residential zones... and not just on the smallest RR 1:5 zones, but in the RR 1:10 zone. The nature of the industry is such that an indoor grow allows two or three harvests a year, and therefore is more profitable... for the grower. The nature of the plant is such that it requires enormous amounts of water, nutrition, protection from pests (i.e. killing chemicals) and protection from mold. So that means temperature control, exhaust capability, and run-off of the poisons and fertilizers. That adds up to noise & noxious odors & unless there is sewer capability, potential contamination of the underlying land and ground water. All this on property next to land designated for homes & families. When the land rules were set up, the thinking about marijuana grows was more innocent. Now that the factory nature of this industry has become apparent, it is incumbent on our elected officials, designated experts, and hired personnel, to readdress the Rural Residential permissions in JCC 18.20.295. The Planning Commission has done just that and requests that the BoCC, through the mandated Hearing process, act on the need they have so carefully considered. As you've seen on Marrowstone, responsible vetting of the CUP process is expensive and time consuming. The Cottage Industry County cannot afford it and citizens should not have to bear it. Now with the ability of out -of -staters to set up shop in Washington, ion lands l the out -of-state owners allowing processing would have to be totally readdressed or thewotenduld bend progers& otheRr oopholes clould make administrators' resided for a period of time on the property. Shell companies, pre lives untenable. This type of manufacturing belongs in designated industrial areas, not sprawled across the beautiful lands chosen for living. Once you consider the options, please see that rural residential is the wrong zone for marijuana. Thank you, Patricia Earnest Nordland, WA 98358 ieffbocc From: Glen Greisz <glen@greisz.com> Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2019 2:50 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Zoning for Rural Residential Areas in Jefferson County Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners County Courthouse Port Townsend, WA 98368 RE: Docket Designation MLA 19-00019 Marijuana Production in RR Zoning Dear County Commissioners: -(.*A r . ', 0 re% I am requesting that you place the above -referenced matter on your Docket for consideration of an amendment to JCC 18.20.295. This amendment would ban the production and/or processing of marijuana in zones designated rural residential. By placing a ban in these rural residential zoning areas, marijuana facilities would still be allowed in other zoning designations which encompass approximately 75% of the land mass of Jefferson County. Our neighboring counties have already legislated that marijuana facilities not be allowed in zones designated as rural residential to protect the families living in those areas. Nearly seven years have passed since the State of Washington legalized recreational marijuana. In those years, there has been a learning curve as to the impact that marijuana facilities have on the environment and on humans. The evidence clearly shows that marijuana facilities create unreasonable noise and obnoxious odors. In addition, these facilities may pollute the water sources for the area and negatively affect the value of surrounding properties. A large marijuana industrial facility is not harmonious or appropriate to be amongst homes where families reside. Please do the right thing. I am asking you to protect your citizenry. I live in a rural residential neighborhood on the west side of the airport. If a marijuana facility were allowed in my immediate area, It would create noise, odor, and possibly degraded water quality. For those of us like myself, who depend on wells, water quality is important. In addition, the increased traffic on our gravel road with about 20 homes would require more frequent maintenance or an expensive upgrade and would change the character of the neighborhood. So, while I can't speak for everyone in the neighborhood, or any of the many residents in Jefferson County within the rural residential zoning, it just seems like a sacrifice that needn't be made. Thank you, Glen Greisz 87 Martin Road Port Townsend, WA 98368 From: Glen Greisz <glen@greisz.com> Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2019 3:15 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Zoning issue Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners County Courthouse Port Townsend, WA 98368 RE: Docket Designation MLA 19-00019 Marijuana Production in RR Zoning Dear County Commissioners: �2"Arm'Itt, I am requesting that you place the above -referenced matter on your Docket for consideration of an amendment to JCC 18.20.295. This amendment would ban the production and/or processing of marijuana in zones designated rural residential. By placing a ban in these rural residential zoning areas, marijuana facilities would still be allowed in other zoning designations which encompass approximately 75% of the land mass of Jefferson County. Our neighboring counties have already legislated that marijuana facilities not be allowed in zones designated as rural residential to protect the families living in those areas. Nearly seven years have passed since the State of Washington legalized recreational marijuana. In those years, there has been a learning curve as to the impact that marijuana facilities have on the environment and on humans. The evidence clearly shows that marijuana facilities create unreasonable noise and obnoxious odors. In addition, these facilities may pollute the water sources for the area and negatively affect the value of surrounding properties. A large marijuana industrial facility is not harmonious or appropriate to be amongst homes where families reside. Please do the right thing. I am asking you to protect your citizenry. I live in a rural residential neighborhood on the west side of the airport. If a marijuana facility were allowed in my immediate area, It would create noise, odor, and possibly degraded water quality. For those of us like myself, who depend on wells, water quality is important. In addition, the increased traffic on our gravel road with about 20 homes would require more frequent maintenance or an expensive upgrade and would change the character of the neighborhood. So, while I can't speak for everyone in the neighborhood, or any of the many residents in Jefferson County within the rural residential zoning, it just seems like a sacrifice that needn't be made. Thank you, Glen Greisz 87 Martin Road Port Townsend, WA 98368 1 a jeffbocc From: Susan Petek <susanpetek@gmaiLcom> Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2019 5:19 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Docket Designation MLA 19-00019 Marijuana Production in RR Zoning Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners County Courthouse Port Townsend, WA 98368 RE: Docket Designation MLA 19-00019 Marijuana Production in RR Zoning Dear County Commissioners: I am requesting that you place the above -referenced matter on your Docket for consideration of an amendment to JCC 18.20.295. This amendment would ban the production and/or processing of marijuana in zones designated rural residential. By placing a ban in these rural residential zoning areas, marijuana facilities would still be allowed in other zoning designations which encompass approximately 75% of the land mass of Jefferson County. Our neighboring counties have already legislated that marijuana facilities not be allowed in zones designated as rural residential to protect the families living in those areas. Nearly seven years have passed since the State of Washington legalized recreational marijuana. In those years, there has been a learning curve as to the impact that marijuana facilities have on the environment and on humans. The evidence clearly shows that marijuana facilities create unreasonable noise and obnoxious odors. In addition, these facilities may pollute the water sources for the area and negatively affect the value of surrounding properties. A large marijuana industrial facility is not harmonious or appropriate to be amongst homes where families reside. Please do the right thing. I am asking you to protect your citizenry. Susan Petek 290 Smith Road Nordland, WA 98358 �+ jettoocc From: Deb Evans <greenrover93@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2019 8:07 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Comment on regulations regarding marijuana G&P in rural residential zones We are full time residents of the Coyle Community and are unable to attend tomorrow's hearing on REGULATIONS REGARDING COMMUNITY CONCERNS ABOUT MARIJUANA GROW AND PROCESSING IN RURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONES IN JEFFERSON COUNTY . We'd like to join those urging the Board to review the appropriateness of the regulations regarding rural residential G&P operations as part of this year's planning process. This issue is important to many of us in the community and we'd like to see it addressed in a timely manner. Regards, Deborah Evans Dennis Bell 156 Hazel Point Ct. 1 jeffbocc From: Ward Mefford <waterfordward@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2019 8:53 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Marijuana Processing Facilities Attachments: Marijuana Factory Protest 2.doc HEARING"' 4 Nearly seven years have passed since the State of Washington legalized recreational marijuana. In those years, there has been a learning curve as to the impact that marijuana facilities have on the environment and on humans. The evidence clearly shows that marijuana facilities create unreasonable noise and obnoxious odors. In addition, these facilities may pollute the water sources for the area and negatively affect the value of surrounding properties. A large marijuana industrial facility is not harmonious or appropriate to be amongst homes where families reside. Please do the right thing. I am asking you to protect your citizenry. Ward and Angie Mefford ODU 6943 Flagler Road - Nordland, WA 98358 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners County Courthouse Port Townsend, WA 98368 RE: Docket Designation MLA 19-00019 Marijuana Production in RR Zoning Dear County Commissioners: I am requesting that you place the above -referenced matter on your Docket for consideration of an amendment to JCC 18.20.295. This amendment would ban the production and/or processing of marijuana in zones designated rural residential. By placing a ban in these rural residential zoning areas, marijuana facilities would still be allowed in other zoning designations which encompass a substantial amount of the land of Jefferson County. Our neighboring counties have already legislated that marijuana facilities not be allowed in zones designated as rural residential to protect the families living in those areas. Nearly seven years have passed since the State of Washington legalized recreational marijuana. In those years, there has been a learning curve as to the impact that marijuana facilities have on the environment and on humans. The evidence clearly shows that marijuana facilities create unreasonable noise and obnoxious odors. In addition, these facilities may pollute the water sources for the area and negatively affect the value of surrounding properties. A large marijuana industrial facility is not harmonious or appropriate to be amongst homes where families reside. Please do the right thing. I am asking you to protect your citizenry. Sincerely, Ward and Angie Mefford effbocc Y; ��a P t 7. From: Patti <tch4fun@pacbell.net> Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2019 9:27 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Amendment to JCC 18.20.295 - MLA19-00019, Marijuana Production in Rural Residential Zones Dear Commissioners Sullivan, Dean and Brotherton, 1 live on Marrowstone Island and once again I am writing to you about my concerns regarding commercial marijuana production in rural residential area. 1 am requesting that you place the above -referenced matter on your Docket for consideration of an amendment to JCC 18.20.295. This amendment would ban the production and/or processing of marijuana in zones designated rural residential. By placing a ban in these rural residential zoning areas, there is still adequate amounts of land in industrial areas of Jefferson County for marijuana facilities. Our neighboring counties have already legislated that marijuana facilities not be allowed in zones designated as rural residential to protect the families living in those areas. Nearly seven years have passed since the State of Washington legalized recreational marijuana. In those years, there has been a learning curve as to the impact that marijuana facilities have on the environment and on humans. The evidence clearly shows that marijuana facilities create unreasonable noise and obnoxious odors. In addition, these facilities may pollute the water sources for the area and negatively affect the value of surrounding properties. A large marijuana industrial facility is not harmonious or appropriate to be in a rural residential area where families reside. The bottom line for land use planning is to ensure that the various land uses within a designated area are compatible. Commercial marijuana production and processing are not compatible with residential land use, and 1 respectfully request that the county codes be amended to reflect that reality. No community should have to go through what our community had to do to protect our environment and rural life on Marrowstone Island. Patricia Ivers 374 Schwartz Road Nordland, WA 98358 k DA R III , I I Rot E" rV, A' 0 �Rl June 10, 2019 The Board of County Commissioners of Jefferson County County Courthouse Port Townsend, WA RE: Docket Designation MLA 19-00019 Marijuana Production in RR Zoning Dear County Commissioners: For the past two years a concerned group of your citizenry have been imploring you to amend JCC 18.20.295 to ban marijuana production and/or processing facilities in all zones designated rural residential. The State of Washington legalized recreational marijuana seven years ago. I, along with many others, applaud that decision. Jefferson County, in its wisdom, placed a moratorium on allowing marijuana facilities within the county to study the issue of impacts. In 2015, the County through Initiative #04-0608-15, added JCC 18.20.295, Recreational Marijuana Performance Standards, which in part designates certain land use zones as being banned and certain others as allowable for such facilities. It designated two zones "MAYBE", requiring any applicant to go through a conditional use permit process, those two zones being rural residential and forest resource zoning districts. Since the legalization of cannabis both in Washington State and in several other states, evidence has surfaced about how cannabis facilities impact both the environment and the quality of life of humans. Thus it is time for Jefferson County to reanalyze the decisions it made in 2015 regarding location of these facilities in light of this new evidence. Let me give you a couple of examples of the impact of facilities when located in rural residential areas, close to homes, close to families. NOISE. An application for a marijuana facility was filed requesting a location on Marrowstone Island. The County rubber stamped its approval. After two administrative hearings, two years of research, a cost of $50,000 paid by islanders, the hearing examiner on both occasions denied the application and ruled that the mandated fans create substantial noise that unreasonably impacts the existing uses. The fan noise seriously affects the quality of life for anyone living around the facility. So doesn't it make sense to locate these facilities in industrial or agricultural zones where noise is not an issue rather amongst our homes? R . /)CQ) 4P. effbocc From: marcywa <marcywa@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2019 9:26 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Docket Designation MLA 19-00019 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners County Courthouse Port Townsend, WA 98368 RE: Docket Designation MLA 19-00019 Marijuana Production in RR Zoning Dear County Commissioners: I am requesting that you place the above -referenced matter on your Docket for consideration of an amendment to JCC 18.20.295. This amendment would ban the production and/or processing of marijuana in zones designated rural residential. By placing a ban in these rural residential zoning areas, marijuana facilities would still be allowed in other zoning designations which encompass approximately 75% of the land mass of Jefferson County. Our neighboring counties have already legislated that marijuana facilities not be allowed in zones designated as rural residential to protect the families living in those areas. Nearly seven years have passed since the State of Washington legalized recreational marijuana. In those years, there has been a learning curve as to the impact that marijuana facilities have on the environment and on humans. The evidence clearly shows that marijuana facilities create unreasonable noise and obnoxious odors. In addition, these facilities may pollute the water sources for the area and negatively affect the value of surrounding properties. A large marijuana industrial facility is not harmonious or appropriate in neighborhoods where people reside. Please do the right thing. I am asking you to protect your citizenry. Marcy Pomeroy 221 Madrona Rd Nordland, WA 98358 jeff boc From: Carol Gonnella <carolgonnella@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, June 10, 2019 7:21 AM To: Kate Dean;jeffbocc; Greg Brotherton; Patty Charnas; Philip Morley; Mike Nilssen; Cynthia Koan Subject: Docket Designation MLA 19-00019 Marijuana Production in RR Zoning Attachments: LET TO BOCC6-10-2019.docx; ATT00001.htm; 662019 Santa Barbara County in an Uproar over Cannabis Odors - The Santa Barbara Ind ependent.webarchive; ATT00002.htm Dear County Officials: Attached please find my letter and accompanying Exhibit A regarding my request to you to ban marijuana facilities in zones designated Rural Residential. Thank you for considering this request. Warm regards, Carol Gonnella 2. �wr DIMINISHMENT OF VALUE OF PROPERTY. It was difficult for the Marrowstone Islanders to find an expert who would say these facilities decrease the value of property as the experts stated it is such a new topic they do not have sufficient history to give an expert opinion. But anecdotally, the Gustafson family had a piece of property for sale adjacent to the property of the proposed facility to be placed on Marrowstone. A prospective buyer said he wanted to buy the Gustafson property, but not as long as there was going to be a cannabis facility as his neighbor. Once the hearing examiner denied the application (for the second time), the applicant removed the green house and sold the proposed site, the buyer purchased the Gustafson property within a couple of months. So doesn't it make sense to locate these facilities in industrial or agricultural zones rather than where home values of your citizenry can be substantially reduced? 3. ODOR. There is now a plethora of evidence that cannabis facilities emit a skunk -like odor. This odor has an adverse, negative effect on the quality of life for those who have to live close to these facilities. I have previously provided the Commissioners with an article from the New York Times dated December 19, 2018, regarding Santa Barbara County in California, and the many complaints that county has received about the odors emanating from marijuana facilities and how it is affecting the quality of life of the residents. It describes individuals getting headaches, residents not being able to open their windows or have a barbeque in their back yard. Some residents actually had to move to get away from the stench. By chance, four days ago, on June 6, 2019, the Santa Barbara Independent published a follow-up article regarding this issue. This article is attached as Exhibit A. The title is: Santa Barbara County in an Uproar over Cannabis Odors. From Carpinteria to Santa Ynez Valley, Lawsuits, Public Hearings and Civic Protests Complain about the Smell Emitting from Greenhouses and Fields. Of interest, within the last year, the residents of Carpinteria, a town in Santa Barbara County, have flied 166 complaints with the County regarding cannabis odor. One lawsuit has already been filed against the County, and the city of Carpinteria is generating a slush fund to sue Santa Barbara County for allowing these facilities to be located in areas that adversely affect the quality of life of its citizens. The citizens are mad and they are mad at the County Commissioners. The author of the article describes it as "A HOT STEAMING MESS". That mess is costing the County of Santa Barbara a lot of money, to handle the complaints, to have public hearings, and to defend lawsuits. Doesn't it make sense to "nip this problem in the bud" so that Jefferson County does not have the bad press, the ire of its citizens, the many complaints with which it will have to deal, the public hearings it will have to schedule to address the issue, the lawsuits it will have to defend all because YOU allowed marijuana facilities to be located amongst our homes. That is going to cost the taxpayers of Jefferson County money. A lot of money. Before we become a HOT STEAMING MESS, put these industrial facilities where they belong: in the industrial and agricultural zones of the county where the impact will be less. 4 For you, our County Commissioners, to continue to ignore this issue based on the excuses of lack of funds or lack of staff is irresponsible and without merit. Please: Do not be penny wise and pound foolish. Please protect us. Warm regards, Carol Gonnella 120 Beach Drive Nordland, WA 98358 3 From: Martini <alamo/b(upacuell.net> Sent: Monday, June 10, 2019 7:35 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Amendment to JCC 18.20.295 - MLA19-00019, Marijuana Production in Rural Residential Zones Dear Commissioners Sullivan, Dean and Brotherton, Please save our county tax dollars and the money communities spend to protect their quality of life. The permit process for the marijuana processing facility on Marrowstone Island was a totally avoidable cost to the county, the permit applicant, and the community. Please make the rules clear - no production and/or processing of marijuana in zones designated rural residential. 1 live on Marrowstone Island and once again I am writing to you about my concerns regarding commercial marijuana production in rural residential area. 1 am requesting that you place the above -referenced matter on your Docket for consideration of an amendment to JCC 18.20.295. This amendment would ban the production and/or processing of marijuana in zones designated rural residential. By placing a ban in these rural residential zoning areas, there is still adequate amounts of land in industrial areas of Jefferson County for marijuana facilities. Our neighboring counties have already legislated that marijuana facilities not be allowed in zones designated as rural residential to protect the families living in those areas. Nearly seven years have passed since the State of Washington legalized recreational marijuana. In those years, there has been a learning curve as to the impact that marijuana facilities have on the environment and on humans. The evidence clearly shows that marijuana facilities create unreasonable noise and obnoxious odors. In addition, these facilities may pollute the water sources for the area and negatively affect the value of surrounding properties. A large marijuana industrial facility is not harmonious or appropriate to be in a rural residential area where families reside. The bottom line for land use planning is to ensure that the various land uses within a designated area are compatible. Commercial marijuana production and processing are not compatible with residential land use, and 1 respectfully request that the county codes be amended to reflect that reality. No community should have to go through what our community had to do to protect our environment and rural life on Marrowstone Island. 1 Martin Ivers 374 Schwartz Road Nordland, WA 98358 effbocc From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Marcy Jaffe <action4me@gmail.com> Monday, June 10, 2019 8:12 AM jeffbocc DCD Front Staff MLA 19-00020 - Eco ADU - let's examine and move forward with Land Use/Transit options Esteemed Board of Commissioners, As a resident of Jefferson County since 1994 I honor the competing challenges you face as our Board to meet community needs. Critical among those needs is housing. Affordable housing. "Legal" and housing. Housing so that we are a sustainable community that supports our local agricultural entrepreneurs that feed us. The Eco ADU proposal needs to advance for further approval especially and focused along transportation corridors - those served by public transit. When finalizing and approval for "Conservation Villages" explore how those villages might offer a shuttle to key transit hubs, for example near the Corner store with 15 trips per day, weekdays, to/from Port Townsend. Perhaps the forthcoming Jefferson Transit 20 year Comprehensive Plan might need to examine weekend services to these rural corridors and meet community needs. We can no longer expect and require all Jefferson County residents to purchase and maintain private vehicles. Eco ADU offers a minimal footprint on the rural landscape which would be complemented by enhancing the opportunity along public transportation corridors if you consider those parcels within a 3/4 mile of the fixed transit routes to have even more Eco-ADU "density". The Bureau of Transportation Statistics estimates average costs for private car ownership where 15,000 miles are driven each year at $8,849 or $737/month. While an older car may be perceived as less costly, repairs may put someone over their budget or into financial ruin. If we do not link the concept of affordable housing through Eco ADU to public transportation options we are truly putting more Jefferson County residents on the brink of poverty. As willing community members will actively resolve local issues as "Local Expert" review panel. This will limit strains on County staff. The time is right to study EcoADU and explore what it takes to sustain our rural character without pushing residents to farther distances, up dirt roads to inadequate housing. Please move this issue forward. Appreciation to the Planning Commission for their vision, as well. (I had hoped to attend today's hearing while my schedule may not allow, so please add this to our public record supporting the progression forward for Eco ADU) If possible, please confirm receipt. Respectfully submitted, Marcy Jaffe, M BA, M PA 1213 Blaine Street;! �,p o *� Port Townsend WA 98368 m� a (360) 643 1002 IDA,\v effbocc From: Judy Alexander <lightenup@olympus.net> Sent: Monday, June 10, 2019 8:54 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Eco-ADU Proposal Attachments: Eco - ADU commentary.docx; ATT00001.txt Dear Commissioners: ,1 q I am attaching my thoughts on the Eco-ADU proposal for your consideration. I would truly appreciate a decision to fund analysis of the Eco-ADU proposal and my reasons for that request are included within the attachment. Thank you for all your hard work on behalf of Jefferson County. Sincerely, Judith Alexander Dear County Commissioners: I am writing to you with some input about the consideration of the proposal regarding Eco - ADUs that I understand is on your agenda to discuss Monday, June 10''. I think it is fairly common knowledge that Jefferson County has an affordable housing problem to solve. Our community is becoming beyond the means of many folks to afford to live here — young people, work force people, agricultural workers, service workers that are so necessary to our tourist economy, and more. The proposal to allow for Eco — ADUs would be one solution worth your consideration. My reasons follow: As one of the founders of Local 20/20, I regularly think through a lens of sustainability and resilience. Our limited access to affordable housing is a long range problem for the sustainability of our community. If we lose intergenerationality here, who will be able to care for our aging demographic? On another front, I also helped to found the Local Food System Council, now in its fifth year. As we were active in terms of assisting the Comprehensive Plan update process, the need for cluster housing on our local farms to afford agricultural workers adequate shelter was a strong focus. Such cluster housing can be accomplished via this Eco — ADU proposal without losing, in fact, protecting, our special rural character, by assisting farmers with long term survival. Not only does farm worker housing seem critical to the future of our farms, it is seems even more essential to maintaining a robust local food supply, as well. While our community addresses the long range implications of climate change, it seems very likely that we will become a destination for climate "refugees", placing even more pressures on our already limited housing stock. Please approve of the need to further engage with this Eco — ADU possibility. I particularly like the use of public volunteers in working together with the staff of DCD to accomplish this option. It will take the whole village to address the necessary changes of the coming times. It is NOT time for business as usual. Big changes require big courage to face what lies ahead. We can do this locally, so long as we work together to do it! Thank you so much for considering my thoughts, and, for all you already do to make our community such a great place to live! Judith Alexander HEARIN(% ieffbocc From: Nancy Craig <nancycraig7@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, June 07, 2019 8:20 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Request to reject marijuana production in Jefferson Co. Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners County Courthouse Port Townsend, WA 98368 RE: Docket Designation MLA 19-00019 Marijuana Production in RR Zoning Dear County Commissioners: I am requesting that you place the above -referenced matter on your Docket for consideration of an amendment to JCC 18.20.295. This amendment would ban the production and/or processing of marijuana in zones designated rural residential. By placing a ban in these rural residential zoning areas, marijuana facilities would still be allowed in other zoning designations which encompass approximately 75% of the land mass of Jefferson County. Our neighboring counties have already legislated that marijuana facilities not be allowed in zones designated as rural residential to protect the families living in those areas. Nearly seven years have passed since the State of Washington legalized recreational marijuana. In those years, there has been a learning curve as to the impact that marijuana facilities have on the environment and on humans. The evidence clearly shows that marijuana facilities create unreasonable noise and obnoxious odors. In addition, these facilities may pollute the water sources for the area and negatively affect the value of surrounding properties. A large marijuana industrial facility is not harmonious or appropriate to be amongst homes where families reside. Please do the right thing. I am asking you to protect your citizenry. Respectfully, Nancy Craig 182 Huntingford St, Port Townsend, WA NG E/���{COPD NN 2 I c&'N 14 Z;7 R V) N CIO 7, Q p, N. c&'N 14 Z;7 R ao N CIO 7, Q p, d G HEARING 1 The Board of County Commissioners of Jefferson County �-/ . �•�j�+r County Courthouse 4 vt J Port Townsend, WA RE: Docket Designation MLA 19-00019 Marijuana Production in RR Zoning Dear County Commissioners: Attached please find signatures of petitions signed by residents of Jefferson County expressing their desire for you to amend JCC 18.20.295 to ban marijuana facilities from rural residentia n g areas. There are zzignatures. This is in addition to the approximate 3.50 gnatures previously p ovided to you. Thank you for considering the request of these residents. n Sv " O CD (D O tD ' CT .0 Ct,Ero -+ • • • • • Q (D �D --� ---I -� p CD -►, � C �• O � W C7 �D W O N r.r O Vi 0 (. (D —• r* C CD CD CD M O CD �•3 cn (D (Q CD ZO �3 C_C_C_ 3 �-* Q O Cn — n w 0. CD CD CD .0 —rnl m �- CD � O < < O rrw r+M ��� _ Q_-0 ��aI- �=mDL(D cc • nv) n O ��� ��cncf) ��� ry. " 0 Ooo n0 O m �- o� m� O O p cD C m Z � Q (ate(D 0 iii0 Ono o`�� +CD CD �0o� ocDnyc� o00 00-1 c°� �-DQCQC=D -0.000 (moo C-n0 73 W 3(6 o�CO � W (D0 o0oO O aQ moo° U)�0 ° _rn0 �-__Q 3 �o 0-0 w, (a 0 w D 0 Q 3 pU) m0--QO Nn� cD C�_.l C 3 CD A� �• O 0 M, c— to o m— CD=� n o ZZrn (D CD o 0 _as 00 0 C. (D Cn ��cn m��� �•tfl�-��o c�3 mm0 W C7 O CD CD Q c Q p tV l< cn_ ��� -+, Q�,0CD ac-��o� o O Oar r, Q CD _ O N CD /) ° o cD � m � ai � CL (DD m cn Z 0 > .2 C) (D D � � 07 =r (D 47 o ZZ � c� CD Cn O 7 73 Q ��3 Sy� fin` �Q`< �� `DCncD 03,�as�3 cD vCL OC ��� cQ� QDo 00�O3cD `� �ZZ cn �• O r (D (D 71 CL 0 � ° Q �w o C) q >p � 3 -° C m O CD.t 0 O 73tD O U)c 3 cam. O cn � Cl) Cn r+ Z (DC/) Qo �3 zn Cl x (DZ 0 o O = Z n ca v .__+. . �. °t3t0 I t QA c7 Vj r-7�) �f Co OR) 7�) �� 7z) -ZA I -D bc C4 4t, �4- o' IV m 05 0 z m cn -q Cl) 0 z m C on 0 0 m --1 0 cn 5U) C —M 0 m 2 C d m m >-n0- Nm > rm °_cam 0 0 o a > c z Z > U' >v > Cl) 0 0 Oz 0 z> z a m O� 00 m Cl) �� o C tea= r-nam m vm0 m - z � Z C. �m0 N M r z U) � -Oa ZzL 0 c �cz �oZa .-< M >a Cl) C _n Z� 00 Oz z a ---I 0 0 CD Z EAa aw- 0 =06mz 0 Co 0 CD �- 3 c Cn C�- CD cQ o ? CD CD C- m ��w nO�a CD o:< o< < �O?�rt� mmm CD _ -� -� 0 o QUO v �CCn cn Ql<� D r.o0c 000 n0 o c� 3 o a o� U-0 Doan �C. 000 N—I 0�CD CD cn <000 000 0 OOo V)0 DOn n o cn Q 70 �p CCD CD °0�D-°n 0 � ? o who x'Z7 O� � o � o0 ? �_a C)_ �C-0o�-moo Q0'0 p 0- �. CD Z< C o' p = cn to m W CD r -i -p CO c o ff +- r- --% `c Z� c 0 a. X 0 0 171 i (� fr�,rn 0 ° �o�� Is (D� o3� N�0 Oc �p�3 C: c0 0n0—LO 0� m-�' 5r -n w -_m no 300 C. CD �cn m3CO`� —�� 353 — m CDS n `<a <<¢'w< n�tocoo0 � r'mt'in C-) o D CD CD Qc c a0 m iV � << cn NM ,o --mo w ' �a0 �' - CL cc I.- � 070 r+ � _ CD N O N C7 CD to �_ Co Co t0.� < (D Z �. O n D C ? O(D ��i' O o Z �CD Q�cr 0 °SFO= PCZ con n. n aD CCD p 0 -~ O m a Z -•V 4 0 0 e�M 0 CT cn m���n >D U)Q << - a0 0 Cl) Q D o m - CD QL o �- —c Z0% 0 o-� U) � m�m0 a r - .. 3 F3, Y,. m 0- 00 Z Cl) O C G) m -nS r0OD r m -o oho m 4 C. m Fo r Mn n N M r ZN� O > �Z` �0 Z n 2 0-< info NC _0 Q oZ z Z v I co rop I - �o P1411FAR91M? Pic C117\ is, n M m o� 05 0 m z CO T MSM z IV M 0 0 r_oo min Amo rnNc = Zr Z m -4 C. � > m -n .0 -n > NM 0 Z CDD Z0> G) z M. a 0 CC - 0 > C oza co) o > =n 2--1 00 i z 0 > z z a GIN I co rop I - �o P1411FAR91M? Pic C117\ is, n M m o� 05 0 m z CO T MSM z IV M 0 0 r_oo min Amo rnNc = Zr Z m -4 C. � > m -n .0 -n > NM 0 Z CDD Z0> G) z M. a 0 CC - 0 > C oza co) o > =n 2--1 00 i z 0 > z z a c o ^U) w •_ - W OC D U) +•' 0 cc r* ,_ Z3 cn 'Qp ��i oro CD co Ota 3�°,��_ _. w �; c cc }' o E 0) u; -0cm c O a) Cl) ooh v ©-4 to V CL m ',� � a� co nom' o i i .. +� p C N N cIm o � � � C:� � •� — C O ``- — co U cn Z CO E iii a) cn a) 3: cn >1 a :3 O ?Z� o '1C��O=, -0c° ccu �Ec � 2 on�� � Y O� p° v tnZ c � 0N4)=,,c �L. +-0� �� � 0 O a. QQ i- Z3 a) O co C: 0 U QLwI.N cN����� �O J c y on a cm v co Lr ca Lt1L ^ c w +- '002 F- .�— y +, ccs c c� �Z� p UO o 0 0 �» c o D- :3 chi a� E a 0 W_ 'C C ('j 8 (zp V W /01U C V .� yZ O (D N: cc ®�� m°O°W-� zV °'mow � a'c� � � � � m � ° _ c� GC >,a>, occp cc��� ��L c' LLz cmc rico � c ) Fn �0 Otn 000 3m��c� . (B°cz> (D-0 a�>,O !- V) UUU -pi p g � Qa Qo - te a) � a) Z W c m c �� Qo ;;,� -aE a cn' E p.� o.t.) 000 aa� �c� >,-�>,� cmc H-0 a�cua� ccas >�>o >°�°� C t �' +- cn E O -O -� E W ��� � CSV a� �,� �.� ui v E-> a) c� C. a)a)a� �'r�?p,« a�oa����-moo > o D �o Q za zoo (5 C- a o >, �QOp.�� a)a) �° �"Ca0-gym ("Z C) StopPotInRRli6A RECORD Published byJim Surgent on 11 th Apr 2019 We are NOT OPPOSING the production, processing, retailing, or use of medical or recreational marijuana in Jefferson County. We ARE OPPOSING locating industrial, high security facilities in rural residential neighborhoods for many reasons, the following are just a few: -Negatively impacts neighborhood property values. -Potential depletion and pollution to aquifers and other bodies of water. -Negatively impacts the neighborhood with a "dead skunk" stench. -Creates Noise Polution created from exhaust fans. We believe that commercial enterprises requiring special security measures and industrial structures are more appropriately located in industrial or agricultural zoning districts. We strongly urge the county amend the codes to prohibit these facilities in rural residential areas. These facilities destroy the spirit and intent of rural residential zones where families live. It is not harmonious in design or scale with rural residential zoning. The Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners, The Jefferson County Planning Commission The Jefferson County Department of Community Development We, the undersigned who reside or own property in Jefferson County, Washington, request that the Jefferson County Code (JCC) 18.20.295 be amended to prohibit commercial production and processing of marijuana in all rural residential zoning districts. Powered by GoPetition Im W W W� NCn W W W W to W W W W IPW 9 N ,-+ (pjj O N N c0 p co" N �7 N O) N Cn N N SP W N N N i-+ N O n+ c° �-+ co �7 i.+ O�' r+ f.+ I Aft ON C M p L7 y m n A< m m �. d< m ° z n° y m n O° n n c m C ttl w O S ' �. x C] m i a m w G7 m �'- z o `- m cn c 9vn w a r w ti p< ° w m o ti m �. n e` m a. w m n w w °° 1w C7 W .CDG- ° �j ° 3t! CD 3 i ti w d .� x a `� 'z7x O Z vi o 77 ro j C) C Cn h7 C] F m m w to b7 b7 L� w n� 7�cn N ° G Cn G y cn O O 'Y jj O w 3 tY CD N N 0.0. i aypsZD���iw ct r tl S j wW N A i wR, �✓ CD W CD p CY tl n d x tr A n ti n m O o �j m o G tr w CD Lr' y c} d C P z O w (p < cn w v, 77 ti an CD ° w n d W P If W d Q b o N �_ N it b- W W W 0 < ��yy DC n O � p, D w ry O 0.I ts' w "�' rq -, GD C o n 0<1~CD ° ne co � w y m iii �* 0 O N � Gr rw� neQ, G w R 'O 9 n �P (D w 0. P N co ° rG. in �P E ° 't 0. �P y b � I ne a' a. w w �P. 5 w ne g ° @G 0 O w w x c o ne p 5 d O N Eii n `C 5D e m � x W W ° � w ne cr n m t7, �-r � o m 5 w�G� rn a N �. (� n m m p) @) �� ne 2n 5° m a 5 Z W CD W O ti m n w ! g ww `A 'n G7 " p n G b „>~ n2 n ° �' w a w a �iP tq C', �. B y �a o o m o w K o o w cc CD ,� m 0 m w d w O n ry p O o n n o ti n 5 a• 0 0 0 c w� c re) g b 5 �,n w ti L. �. o m° -n �L x n ° en o B o 5 c m B o C,.Cc G� 0 !!o 1 ? IOC 00 o no000,orogo�o,z,ro�ro,zz,rorzn vvh zz<rozzzzz-!4'oM 3 J E. E. E. E. n A (�d n `C I m ! E. E 6. C E0E Fz. w �, o i° " C] n C w _ y ��.. jji � a �N E. , +y° o' o o �f ^Y ° °0 ,. T. 0° o� �f 0„ air. a 0 0 0 �-1 �-1 �-1 0 0 ', �y 0 0 �•1 i -f 0 0 o m o o o i o 0 �-f ti �•f ," w y o -f J nl y CD m m i CD � IO G d 'J' m 33 m co m C° 10 ] m D n m � m m m -i p .a by `J o p p !G 8� o m Cc 33 m m CD CD ii g z a m d m ° �P � a,a a ° y r � r G a a ca• w° ya a f A 7 o a9aa wa_ ° P ata wa a_ p a a ya ya w_ay_a j ya_ a wa_ 'J O �d °'� a a d 0 ] o I C11 a a,aa a OCD I°L �� CD i CD m q jw {y 3 j S} jj p aaa;afaaaa}}a ^o b ro bL'i !� "Y j�•, �'1 "Y 9`] J O W9 W N wjw W (W IN b � a;aaaaaaaaaaa�aaaaaa a zy o° o zs o° r o v ro ab h "'I M ^'1 H � �'f h `1 � M �'1 H 1 @^I N N NypN N J N N N N N t..+ j W J W N3N N-. �-+ �+ t•+ o-+ w•+ [D} �73T�m a°° "] ^9 H N CP�CJ1i�P cr H n o o H a ^1 h E a.+ tP tP�iA a p �, �"1 hf �+ `P�r+ O i yy •1 ^wY cD 'D yy yy �•1 �1 co W yy py yy yy py yy yy pp] �"1 �w'1r�j �•1 "I h � "1 �I � �I J h i t"1 _ i III ! 0. W til J �ij�l m3m �'to � 0111110 O0 0 O O O.O O O OO OO O'OI c, — C, O NO �� p N N N oo 0 N NN,N 0 0y9oo N3i3f33N 0 N 0 0 NN NN N Nf NN N N 0 00 00 ojo o0 0 �i� � ��iiiiiiCD � iDtcoeca cDdcD�cojcD o�� m �D�cocD � o 0 p S h t Im b 0 F a Q n b m R 0 m YF r,.Mh I F "r _ x i„ - j>' ���hfear% June 7, 2019 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners County Courthouse Office Port Townsend, WA 98368 RE: MLA 19-00019, Marijuana Production in Rural Residential Zones Dear County Commissioners: Please place this matter on your Docket for consideration of an amendment to JCC 18.20.295. The proposed amendment whould ban marijuana factories from Rural Residential Zones. Jefferson County is the only Washington State county that has not already done this I wish to be counted as a resident of this county who is continuing to object to allowing cannabis production in rural residential zones for a variety of reasons, which have all been brought before your committee, other agencies, and the courts. These valid concerns have been voiced over the past years by myself, my neighbors, witnesses, our attorneys, and experts.. Sincerely, Kathleen Deslauriers 430 Meade Rd Nordland, WA. 98358 1 �{fu�►hS 7�s fi�m y S�6mi � h y 711 Robbins Rd. Nordland, WA 98358 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners County Courthouse Port Townsend, WA 98368 June 7, 2019 RE: Docket Designation MLA 19-00019 Marijuana Production in RR Zoning Dear County Commissioners: I am requesting that you place the above -referenced matter on your Docket for consideration of an amendment to JCC 18.20.295. This amendment would ban the production and/or processing of marijuana in zones designated rural residential. Rural residential zones are primarily for living and raising families. There are other areas where they may be located where the negative impacts will be less. Please keep our residential neighborhoods for quality living. Having to spend a lot of time and money— both county time and money and individual time and money— every time someone tries to build a marijuana operation in a residential area is a loose -loose situation. It does not make sense to keep going on like this. Other counties around us have understood this and do not allow marijuana facilities in residential areas. Please follow their example and correct this problem. Sincerely, Glenn Gately Martini From: Martinl [alamo76@pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, June 10, 2019 07:35 To: 'jeffbocc@co. jefferson.wa. us' Subject: Amendment to JCC 18.20.295 - MLA19-00019, Marijuana Production in Rural Residential Zones Dear Commissioners Sullivan, Dean and Brotherton, Please save our county tax dollars and the money communities spend to protect their quality of life. The permit process for the marijuana processing facility on Marrowstone Island was a totally avoidable cost to the county, the permit applicant, and the community. Please make the rules clear - no production and/or processing of marijuana in zones designated rural residential. 1 live on Marrowstone Island and once again 1 am writing to you about my concerns regarding commercial marijuana production in rural residential area. 1 am requesting that you place the above -referenced matter on your Docket for consideration of an amendment to JCC 18.20.295. This amendment would ban the production and/or processing of marijuana in zones designated rural residential. By placing a ban In these rural residential zoning areas, there is still adequate amounts of land in industrial areas of Jefferson County for marijuana facilities. Our neighboring counties have already legislated that marijuana facilities not be allowed in zones designated as rural residential to protect the families living in those areas. Nearly seven years have passed since the State of Washington legalized recreational marijuana. In those years, there has been a learning curve as to the impact that marijuana facilities have on the environment and on humans. The evidence clearly shows that marijuana facilities create unreasonable noise and obnoxious odors. In addition, these facilities may pollute the water sources for the area and negatively affect the value of surrounding properties. A large marijuana industrial facility is not harmonious or appropriate to be in a rural residential area where families reside. The bottom line for land use planning is to ensure that the various land uses within a designated area are compatible. Commercial marijuana production and processing are not compatible with residential land use, and 1 respectfully request that the county codes be amended to reflect that reality. No community should have to go through what our community had to do to protect our environment and rural life on Marrowstone Island. 1 Martin Ivers 374 Schwartz Road Nordiand, WA 98358 Martini From: Patti [tch4fun@pacbell.net] -'WINif,RPNO Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2019 21:27 nv To: @ Jco.' "effbocc efferson.wa.us 1 Subject: Amendment to JCC 18.20.295 - MLA19-00019, Marijuana Production in Rural Residential Zones Dear Commissioners Sullivan, Dean and Brotherton, 1 live on Marrowstone Island and once again 1 am writing to you about my concerns regarding commercial marijuana production in rural residential area. 1 am requesting that you place the above -referenced matter on your Docket for consideration of an amendment to JCC 18.20.295. This amendment would ban the production and/or processing of marijuana in zones designated rural residential. By placing a ban in these rural residential zoning areas, there is still adequate amounts of land In industrial areas of Jefferson County for marijuana facilities. Our neighboring counties have already legislated that marijuana facilities not be allowed in zones designated as rural residential to protect the families living in those areas. Nearly seven years have passed since the State of Washington legalized recreational marijuana. In those years, there has been a learning curve as to the Impact that marijuana facilities have on the environment and on humans. The evidence clearly shows that marijuana facilities create unreasonable noise and obnoxious odors. In addition, these facilities may pollute the water sources for the area and negatively affect the value of surrounding properties. A large marijuana industrial facility is not harmonious or appropriate to be in a rural residential area where families reside. The bottom line for land use planning is to ensure that the various land uses within a designated area are compatible. Commercial marijuana production and processing are not compatible with residential land use, and 1 respectfully request that the county codes be amended to reflect that reality. No community should have to go through what our community had to do to protect our environment and rural life on Marrowstone Island. Patricia Ivers 374 Schwartz Road Nordland, WA 98358 1 11 Pwo& Tin vut 11u, I v w o v wvv i icai 6 Patty Charnas, DCD David Sullivan, Kate Dean, Greg Brotherton, BoCC Philip Morley Planning Commission of Jefferson County WA Re: MLA19-00019 To those who can determine the well being of Jefferson County residents, Marrowstone Island has twice proven that large scale marijuana operations do not fit in rural residential zones... and not just on the smallest RR 1:5 zones, but in the RR 1:10 zone. The nature of the industry is such that an indoor grow allows two or three harvests a year, and therefore is more profitable... for the grower. The nature of the plant is such that it requires enormous amounts of water, nutrition, protection from pests (i.e. killing chemicals) and protection from mold. So that means temperature control, exhaust capability, and run-off of the poisons and fertilizers. That adds up to noise & noxious odors & unless there is sewer capability, potential contamination of the underlying land and ground water. All this on property next to land designated for homes & families. When the land rules were set up, the thinking about marijuana grows was more innocent. Now that the factory nature of this industry has become apparent, it is incumbent on our elected officials, designated experts, and hired personnel, to readdress the Rural Residential permissions in JCC 18.20.295. The Planning Commission has done just that and requests that the BoCC, through the mandated Hearing process, act on the need they have so carefully considered. As you've seen on Marrowstone, responsible vetting of the CUP process is expensive and time consuming. The County cannot afford it and citizens should not have to bear it. Now with the ability of out -of -staters to set up shop in Washington, the Cottage Industry allowing processing would have to be totally readdressed or there would be no processing on RR lands until the out -of-state owners resided for a period of time on the property. Shell companies, pretend owner/managers & other loopholes could make administrators' lives untenable. This type of manufacturing belongs in designated industrial areas, not sprawled across the beautiful lands chosen for living. Once you consider the options, please see that rural residential is the wrong zone for marijuana. Thank you, Patricia Earnest Nordland, WA 98358 �OYIP6 TfSl1K,)Y,1 i a,o 1 4 F ,' June 10, 2019 A Honorable Commissioners, Beyond the sheer honor of serving as a volunteer Planning Commissioner on the Jefferson County Planning Commission, there is a particular benefit that we enjoy: that upon the occasion of our yearly comprehensive plan amendment docketing cycle, Planning Commissioners can put docket proposals in front of the entire Planning Commission to vote on. The Planning Commission can vote by majority to recommend to the BOCC those items be placed on the work docket for the following year. This year Planning Commissioners put forward four proposals and voted to recommend docketing of three of them. I'm here to urge you to docket all four. The first proposal is to complete an action item in the currently adopted comp plan to remove the Forest Transition Overlay provision from our comp plan. The Planning Commission agrees with this proposal but voted to postpone it. The argument for waiting is that the provision isn't being used. This is my argument for removing it now, when there is clearly no single application in the works. Let's not wait. The second proposal is to review the now four-year-old Cannabis regulations. The Planning Commission was aware that there was much we didn't know about how Cannabis businesses would affect our county when we helped draft those regulations in 2015. Now we know. It's important to do a thorough review as a community instead of putting the burden on individual property owners and neighbours to fight proposals that clearly do not meet the spirit or the letter of our very good cottage industry regulations or the character of our rural residential communities. The third proposal is to add an action item to the housing element of the Comprehensive Plan as follows: 1.5 Convene a panel of citizens knowledgeable in the innovative technologies listed in Policy H5 -P-2.3 (composting toilets, gLa.y water systems, site-specific nutrient management 121ans. water conservation. and net zero energy systems) to research The newest revision of our Comprehensive Plan sought to find bold ways of not just "striking a balance" between human and environmental needs, but in actually finding pathways to excel at both goals, improving the ability for humans and the environment to thrive. The Jefferson County Planning Commission voted as a majority to work on this proposal and as well as a complementary proposal to develop Eco-ADU regulations. I urge you to add all four items to the Comprehensive Plan yearly docket with funding for the work required, and please return the Jefferson County Department of Community Development budget to a General Fund item in the upcoming budget cycle. The cost of a crippled Department of Community Development is both urgent and long-term. Sincerely, Cynthia Koan, Vice -chair Jefferson County Planning Commission Full text of my application to docket Eco -performance standards for Eco -homesteading: The Jefferson County Planning Commission (JCPC) and the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners, Staff, and Citizens have recently completed more than four years of community engagement in updating the vision, goals, and policies of our Comprehensive Plan. One of the themes front and center in nearly every community and Planning Commission conversation was Housing. And more specifically and urgently, how P):AM' I t **'*' .0 aim iix- I to create opportunities and remove obstacles for worker housing, including farmworker housing, while holding the true to our community values of preserving rural and community character, protecting agricultural and forest lands, and not just preserving but improving the environmental health of our air, our land, and our waters. This newest revision of our Comprehensive Plan sought to find bold ways of not just "striking a balance" between human and environmental needs, but in actually finding pathways to excel at both goals, improving the ability for humans and the environment to thrive. To this end, the 2018 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan revision included language to encourage "innovation" and "performance-based" regulations in relation to residential building, agricultural worker housing, and environmental goals and policies. Over the last thirty-five years or so, implementation of green building codes and the development of alternative building materials and water and energy saving designs and products have revolutionized the building industry. And concern for the effects of stormwater infiltration and runoff on our ground water and waterways have brought much needed design and implementation reforms. But far from making housing more affordable, these regulations have (in concert with other factors, such as the cost of land and building materials) made the cost of building and buying homes rise beyond the reach of many. But there is an irony to this trend. While the intention of these prescriptive building standards was to reduce energy use as a percentage and to lower the impacts both of construction and human habitation, there is evidence to suggest that large, highly -engineered buildings that meet all current prescriptive regulations have a far greater impact in real numbers than small, very low-cost, low -impact or impact -positive residential buildings that use proven innovations in water and nutrient recycling. And yet some of these very low -impact or impact -positive building methods are either prohibited outright or they are only allowed along -side higher -impact, higher -cost technologies, costing the homeowner an n h more in the process. Moreover, we all know that stealthy innovators have been building and living in these dwellings in our county for generations, living always in fear that their low -impact or positive impact homesteads may be discovered and flagged by county officials, while legal, conforming structures use more water, power, fuels, chemicals, and high -impact building materials but are legal to build and live in - if you can afford them. This creates a financial and eco -impact burden on our communities and our environment that is artificially imposed by well-intentioned prescriptive regulations with unintended consequences. These buildings and systems could be built and maintained at very low cost if we create a set of regulatory opportunities for owners were willing to subscribe to a level of impact far below what now is considered standard. The Jefferson County Planning Commission believes that it is time to start developing new and innovative regulations that meet or exceed the on -the -ground performance of current codes in ways that are not currently recognized. Specifically, to create opt -in standards of low -impact or positive -impact residential performance that would allow property owners to easily and affordably permit and build residential structures and alternative black and gray water systems that are not currently allowed under our current regulations but that significantly and demonstrably lower impact in terms of water use, energy consumption, soil disruption, and storm water impacts, and herbicide/pesticide/insecticide use. Once this opt -in, performance-based low-impact/positive-impact standard is developed, benefits to landowners for signing onto these standards with a note to title might include minimal permitting, the ability to build on sites that would benefit from positive -impact living, and the ability to build residential buildings that would perform better with much lower impact, or even positive impact, than we see demonstrated in conventional building and living. i This would also allow existing stealth homesteads to be legally permitted and for"° them potentially to contribute to a performance-based design database of tested and proven gray and black water systems, and for legal residential structures with out -of -compliance septic systems to build systems that are affordable, impact —positive, and will keep them on their land and in their homes. Jefferson County stands out as one of innovative and hardworking community -minded and independent -thinking individuals who are willing to work together to literally build a better world. It is important to reward that initiative and fortitude with opportunity. People are hungry to build (or live legally in) eco -homesteads, eco-ADUs, and eco -clusters. The City of Port Townsend has a president in their Planned Unit Development code that allows an applicant to request a waiver from current code by demonstrating a public value. Unfortunately this code still involves an expensive application process that goes before a hearings examiner. The JCPC believes that Jefferson County can go farther and with more accessible results by determining a measurable standard and ultimately a pre -determined code, possibly administered by a citizen permit review board comprised of knowledgeable and experienced citizen vohinteers, that would allow innovation a legal path to building truly affordable permanent housing for Jefferson County. The Jefferson County Planning Commission believes it is time to build the path, with the first step to endeavor now to set the standard for future opt -in low -impact or positive -impact performance regulations by adding such action item to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan in this update. EXHIBIT "A" This text amendment would add an action item to the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan to work now to build ultra-low impact/impact-positive eco -building performance measures that will be used for a future set of opt -in eco -building standards for Jefferson County. Existing goals/policies: U!0 r: final NQ_(T-? PrmmntP n vnriety of house C. iQ Uf ie county with innovative land use practices, community redevelopment strategies, development standards, design techniques, and building and infrastructure permit requirements. ► Policy HS -P-2.1 Explore regulatory opportunities that help minimize costs to developing affordable housing while ensuring that public health, safety, and environmental quality standards are not compromised. ► Policy HS -P-2.2 Encourage and support greater opportunity for the development of innovative housing types to increase the inventory of affordable housing throughout the county. Work cooperatively with public and private housing experts on community redevelopment strategies, residential mixed-use development, single and multi -family attached housing, accessory dwelling units, duplexes, triplexes, apartment houses, mixed-use, senior, and multi -care facilities, community housing, farm worker housing, tiny homes, etc. Encourage development patterns such as clustering in Rural Village Centers and Urban Growth Areas, provided adequate infrastructure and services are in place. ► Policy HS -P-2.3 Pursue demonstration and pilot projects that document the safety and reliability of innovative technologies such as composting toilets, gray water systems, site-specific nutrient management plans, water conservation, and net zero energy systems that minimize housing development costs, reduce environmental impacts, and provide more affordable housing options throughout the county. ADD TO SECTION 3.5 ACTION PLAN: Irown,071IM94re1 1_` 1!1'- 1 `!. "_11._"1.'"!1 1_ ' X11/1 1• 1 !� - r_I1 1. - -1 1 '1 ! 1,11!• !1 Itl War* 7�S tib K�,-}hCeeh �aLdv� June 10 2019 r Jefferson County Board of Commissioners County Courthouse Port Townsend WA 98368 RE: "MLA 19-00019 Jefferson County Planning Commission suggests review and amendment of JCC 18.20.295 Recreational Marijuana addressing community concerns regarding land use issues experienced with recreational marijuana production in rural residential zones." For two years, Marrowstone Islanders worked tirelessly and spent $50,000, to stop two marijuana industrial applications on rural residential property near Fort Flagler. We hired attorneys and a sound specialist, who said we lived in one of the quietist places he had tested. The Hearing Examiner denied the applications due to noise and odor. There is a family living there now, for which rural residential zones are designed. To protect county citizens, many islanders proposed changing the county codes. It has been 5 years since they were written and we now know that marijuana production and processing is an industrial process and is completely restricted from rural residential zones in nearby Kitsap, Mason, Whatcom and Skagit Counties. We were told by the Department of Community Development that no County Code Amendments could occur until after the Comprehensive Plan was updated. So beginning in January 2019, we have been participating in the state mandated Comprehensive Plan Annual Amendment process. During this process, in the April Planning Commission Public Hearing, residents from Coyle reported that a marijuana plant in an industrial zone near Port Townsend wanted to save rent by moving to a 5 acre rural residential property near them! Now these county citizens are raising money to hire attorneys, and marijuana industries are attempting to move in the wrong direction, from Industrial zones to Rural Residential zones, instead of the other way around! We are all more vulnerable now! The Planning Commission heard all of our concerns and voted unanimously to request a review of our county marijuana codes. The Department of Community Development also considers this review urgent! Although it may cost $8000 for this amendment process, there are J*4 ongoing costs to the DCD, the developerI it flawed Conditional Use Permit process. A simple lf� '"`M' make it easier for all concerned! There are many "Yes" properties in Jefferson County. "Just say No" to Rural Residential zones! So now the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Process is in your hands. Your hardworking volunteer Planning Commissioners, the understaffed Department of Community Development and hundreds of citizens on Marrowstone Island, the Coyle peninsula & other rural residential areas in Jefferson County, are all respectfully requesting this marijuana code review. It is now up to you! Please listen to all of us and move this Docket Amendment forward. Thank you! Kathleen Waldron Marrowstone Island 50 Beach Drive Nordland WA 98358 PS When talking with a friend in Denver, she applauded our efforts to "rein -in" the marijuana industry. She said it is getting out of control in Colorado, & that 40 suburban homes were raided May of this year. They were part of a Chinese Drug trafficking organization, producing large quantities of marijuana for distribution out of state for criminal enterprise . Aside: The neighbors did not know, so odor & sound can be controlled, but may take organized crime money to accomplish. They were caught based on electricity usage! Here is the article... 'Asian Pride' Marijuana Bust Was Largest In Colorado Law Enforcement History - CBS Denver N'CBS Denver=MENU NEWS WEATHER SPA", P < �.'�1�,. 1 `Asian Pride' Marijuana Bust Was Largest In Colorado Law Enforcement History By Rick Sailinger May 24, 2019 at 5:02 pm 6/10/19, 7:30 AM WK" DENVER (CBS4) - The numbers contained in a court affidavit are enormous: 227 search warrants were executed during a multi-year investigation into homes being turned into marijuana grow houses. Some 66,000 pot plants were seized and 4,500 pounds of finished marijuana products in what is the largest mar i',tdar. operation in Colorado law enforcement history. A total (42 people re under arrest. h, ttps://denver.cbslocal.com/2019/05/24/marijuana-raid-asian-pride-drug-trafficking-organization-busted/ Top 10 Growing Dividends Get The Free Report on How to Grade Dividend Stocks and 10 Stock Picks For Any Portfolio. FOLLOW US a to j J o >� vi OUR NEWSLETTER Sign up and get our latest delivered, right to your inbox! 11 Subscribe Now? MOST VIEWED 'Epic Is An Understatement% Garth Brooks Thanks Denver For Greatest Night Severe Storms Produce Large Hail, Weak Tornado Near Denver Page 1 of 6 'Asian Pride' Marijuana Bust Was Largest In Colorado Law Enforcement History — CBS Denver fir;, r r f (credit: CBS The court document says the investigation began in the summer of 2016 looking into what was called the "Asian Pride Drug Trafficking Organization" It determined members of the "Chinese Drug Trafficking Organization" were supplying marijuana to Asian P, rade members. The affidavit says the Chinese organization operated hundreds of grow homes in the Denver area. Those homes were the objects of raids by federal, state and local law enforcement over the past two years. Many if not most were homes that had been rented or bought in suburban neighborhoods. The raids have been going on for well over a year. But only now after busts this week are indictments being revealed. "To be clear, these grows are not ones that were otherwise legal under state law. These are pure black market, producing large quantities of marijuana for distribution out of state for criminal enterprises," said U.S. Attorney Jason Dunn. 6/10/19, 7:30 AM 22 -Year -Old Battling Ovarian Cancer Wants Others To Know Subtle Wi ra-Discri m i nation Suit Filed Against Masterpiece Cakeshop Snow Drifts As Tall As Subarus Welcome Visitors On Trail Ridge Road That Was A Special Place': Friends Remember Teenager Who Died In Climbing Accident hkDenver Weather: Abrupt Change With Strong June Cold Front By Tonight Garth Brooks Shares More Love For Denver With 'Out Of This World' Tweet Colorado Pilot Tried To Glide To Landing, Report Says WE Ford Did tt, Their All New F150 is Incredible And Affordable. Learn More See Why The 2019 F150 Makes Sense. Learn Niore With These Searches https://denver.cbslocal.com/2019/05/24/marijuana-raid-asian-pride-drug-trafficking-organization-busted/ Page 2 of 6 'Asian Pride' Marijuana Bust Was Largest In Colorado Law Enforcement History — CBS Denver Ernie Martinez, an executive with the national Narcotics Officers' Association, spoke in general terms to CBS4's Rick Sallinger, Ernie Martinez (credit: CBS) "So we are starting to see a combination of organized crime, groups of crime taking these suburban homes and hiding in plain sight and utilizing these homes for these large grow operations"______ ___-- In federal court, seven Asian men and five women appeared before a magistrate to be advised of charges they face. The indictments were returned earlier this year but only unsealed now. MU LHUNG, Jury Charges: INDICTMENT CQ NE or about October 10, 2018, within the State and District of Colorado and elsewhere, the �ts, YI HE, HAI %lEI ZHONG, and others both known MW unknown to the Grana! Jury, pingty and intentionally combine, conspire, confederate, and agree, with ince, ifacrure and posscss with the intent to distribute- a (credit:: 3S) One names two men with conspiring with the intent to distribute 1,000 or more marijuana plants. Martinez says Colorado is being taken advantage of. "We're seeing a lot of organized crime from other countries because it's easy pickings.' So numerous are the it legal pot grow operations that they have become almost commonplace. But neighbors are certainly caught off guard when the busts happen. Jim Lynch owns a house across the street, "I'm surprised, you know, I had no idea this was going on. If I did I would have called 6/10/19, 7:30 AM https://denver.cbsiocaI.com/2019/05/24/marijuana-raid-asian-pride-drug-trafficking-organization-busted/ Page 3 of 6 'Asian Pride' Marijuana Bust Was Largest In Colorado Law Enforcement History - CBS Denver somebody." The results of this long investigation are now becoming clearer. The court affidavit says the case grew from a previous case; ing Auk restaurateur Dan Tang. The owner of Heaven Dragon r . , P. Thornton was sentenced to prison in 2010 following an investigation known as "Operation Fortune Cookie" The operations spanned the Front Range including Arapahoe County where the District Attorney George Brauchler told reporters, "If you legalize marijuana and allow it to be grown in homes this is what you can expect to happen! Comments 6/10/19, 7:30 AM https://denver.cbsiocal.com/2019/05/24/marijuana-raid-asian-pride-drug-trafficking-organization-busted/ Page 4 of 6 ONJune ' The Board of County Commissioners of Jefferson County County Courthouse Port Townsend, WA RE: Docket Designation MLA 19-00019 Marijuana Production in RR Zoning Dear County Commissioners: ppe)p e' ,All CA,P,o l 6o)qe ti a For the past two years a concerned group of your citizenry have been imploring you to amend JCC 18.20.295 to ban marijuana production and/or processing facilities in all zones designated rural residential. The State of Washington legalized recreational marijuana seven years ago. I, along with many others, applaud that decision. Jefferson County, in its wisdom, placed a moratorium on allowing marijuana facilities within the county to study the issue of impacts. In 2015, the County through Initiative 904-0608-15, added JCC 18.20.295, Recreational Marijuana Performance Standards, which in part designates certain land use zones as being banned and certain others as allowable for such facilities. It designated two zones "MAYBE", requiring any applicant to go through a conditional use permit process, those two zones being rural residential and forest resource zoning districts. Since the legalization of cannabis both in Washington State and in several other states, evidence has surfaced about how cannabis facilities impact both the environment and the quality of life of humans. Thus it is time for Jefferson County to reanalyze the decisions it made in 2015 regarding location of these facilities in light of this new evidence. Let me give you a couple of examples of the impact of facilities when located in rural residential areas, close to homes, close to families. NOISE. An application for a marijuana facility was filed requesting a location on Marrowstone Island. The County rubber stamped its approval. After two administrative hearings, two years of research, a cost of $50,000 paid by islanders, the hearing examiner on both occasions denied the application and ruled that the mandated fans create substantial noise that unreasonably impacts the existing uses. The fan noise seriously affects the quality of life for anyone living around the facility. So doesn't it make sense to locate these facilities in industrial or agricultural zones where noise is not an issue rather amongst our homes? 2. DIMINISHMENT OF VALUE OF PROPERTY. It was difficult for the Marrowstone Islanders to find an expert who would say these facilities decrease the value of property as the experts stated it is such a new topic they do not have sufficient history to give an expert opinion. But anecdotally, the Gustafson family had a piece of property for sale adjacent to the property of the proposed facility to be placed on Marrowstone. A prospective buyer said he wanted to buy the Gustafson property, but not as long as there was going to be a cannabis facility as his neighbor. Once the hearing examiner denied the application (for the second time), the applicant removed the green house and sold the proposed site, the buyer purchased the Gustafson property within a couple of months. So doesn't it make sense to locate these facilities in industrial or agricultural zones rather than where home values of your citizenry can be substantially reduced? ODOR. There is now a plethora of evidence that cannabis facilities emit a skunk -like odor. This odor has an adverse, negative effect on the quality of life for those who have to live close to these facilities. I have previously provided the Commissioners with an article from the New York Times dated December 19, 2018, regarding Santa Barbara County in California, and the many complaints that county has received about the odors emanating from marijuana facilities and how it is affecting the quality of life of the residents. It describes individuals getting headaches, residents not being able to open their windows or have a barbeque in their back yard. Some residents actually had to move to get away from the stench. By chance, four days ago, on June 6, 2019, the Santa Barbara Independent published a follow-up article regarding this issue. This article is attached as Exhibit A. The title is: Santa Barbara Counly in an Uproar over Cannabis Odors. From Carpinteria to Santa Ynez Valley, Lawsuits, Public Hearings and Civic Protests Complain about the Smell Emitting from Greenhouses and Fields. Of interest, within the last year, the residents of Carpinteria, a town in Santa Barbara County, have flied 166 complaints with the County regarding cannabis odor. One lawsuit has already been filed against the County, and the city of Carpinteria is generating a slush fund to sue Santa Barbara County for allowing these facilities to be located in areas that adversely affect the quality of life of its citizens. The citizens are mad and they are mad at the County Commissioners. The author of the article describes it as "A HOT STEAMING MESS". That mess is costing the County of Santa Barbara a lot of money, to handle the complaints, to have public hearings, and to defend lawsuits. Doesn't it make sense to "nip this problem in the bud" so that Jefferson County does not have the bad press, the ire of its citizens, the many complaints with which it will have to deal, the public hearings it will have to schedule to address the issue, the lawsuits it will have to defend all because YOU allowed marijuana facilities to be located amongst our homes. That is going to cost the taxpayers of Jefferson County money. A lot of money. Before we become a HOT STEAMING MESS, put these industrial facilities where they belong: in the industrial and agricultural zones of the county where the impact will be less. 2 Forou our County Commissioners, y ty ss oners, to continue to ignore this issue based on the exi4Us of funds or lack of staff is irresponsible and without merit. Please: Do not be penny wise and pound foolish. Please protect us. Nordland, WA 98358 3 'D O m a CT - W 33 �LO �N -- n L L o0��. m �DCA° C I� � � rt V! r+ W N D N a3 D< -n(D<v F—�� 0- U) z Az E b �V R < p `� 03 a>> N o a m ro>> m to 7 3 0 j d O o 0 0 03 f�D ro o O O C .D N a <0 m p Q N m .C -t O N m N 7 o' o w° 3 m D7. CD W 3 O G ro S_O 7° G N C ID ID —lD CL o m Vi ro t0 O0 N �, 3 ro O' N S> p 3 O a o c0 .N+ O D' m ro o is O d °' — c o s 3 n o ID o N �c c n o c- d Q o o ro m °7 a D �' o d c o a 4 o ro 3 o Q� o m °1 m s° ro ID oo � �sro ,a�@ A CD Q d lw .' Q co• p' n—i• �' .Oro. ro c0 c m T m N ro N 7 7 N A N N O" N 25' ro+ O W (7 m Om 7 m m 7 m S ? S 4 p m CL o ID m cn ocD En o w' O =n N a -i � 3 ro m ro D ro N ro O=M; cm p G N W m ro y o ro S. o m 0-° ° ro m �— 3 I� m K S. �n w 3 c m ? �c 7 o ro ro F O ro v m y ro y O m N O v a w Q S O co s d 7 2 .�-. m 5• 3 a> Q O `< m x. �` f 3 .�. umi ^y` j m O ? ro ro m m C 3 m m O U3 O 3 ro O W ro C O fD ° ro S 0 °o N O_ N " 0 ro� m N 3 m ro ° c 3 D �' o m m m m m a N. m T a m n N a M. 07 0 ro M z Az E b �V R C 7 S w 73 73 O CD 0 C 3 w -o m w m �, fibs A G o m m p �oil a in' D m °; < pa N o N w 0 ° O S ai N m O o m w O 0 a c C 7 d ID n > j = 7 w w CL w p S n m y 3 a 3 � 7 d ° ° - ai m w 2 a ID Cr O = c0 w n �• 3 y 'o of w 3 -o ° o o W, m °� m m N w w? c 3 f a y co w m N � m n m w N° 'y 'COL o w - ? ° °: o n a m 3 �o a la 3 o m m ro N= m �c c w m n 3 O m< O N C N °: O S= m = S m 03 A :E "° n• 'O °S iOC 5 3 '` c O o m s .00 d C m O = N 3 Np 3 0- m w O O d ^. O w .�O•n ti m A D7 o N-0 N N m W =• y d m .� S m m C O S !M2, a � C_ N 8 `[ o allo w < O. -n C O " w w O S a Dj Ci N n• 7' N O; m U) S o �ca = �+ m to 3 n. a. O ° U 3 so c w "a m Sr w wan O d m N 3 Lo N m O7 d N :5 0 �' ° Nm '00 m C N Ll C w N j N O N a 'D O N (R ] a a N m w w co a a; m 1 ti o �^ :3 co �. (' 'J v N 7 m �. 7 O O m a A G C 7 d m n > j = 7 w w O w p S n m c 22 7 d m a M m 7 Y w a m N m N m a N m° �• O C m -o ° 3 'o w m 3 m m o v3 d =^ w s m N N n ai m m n m w N° 'y o N -.< c w. °: °» 3 a m m o a m m m �c CO N 7 O m C d (mp O N _ 67 C y N N a w N S .. '` a _ �_ S ro m �` ^. p m 7 '� II. m d m .� S m m C ^N+ = S O 7 3 0 OD S O N m Ci N w 7' N O; m U) S a m m O O a m= C m w O ° S 7 O 2 m S S m y m m m m C CL w 7 ° ro a o '00 m N O N m < M W j N Q' a C b m O_ ?. m N — �, ? C ti co �. (' 'J S 7 m �. D_ m d T m w� m w cr a c # m O ,N: J O .^'� ,C.' N ID O CO (/i N O_ m f� Um1 V) O m - - N N N • O COAD 7 7 m v m y X <_ N a > m Z . V N o m m m aoa�ll (3 "D fD m O �O 3 CL s > � N N A , S. m N m w S .N+ m ° , N m m. �G w O Q� 3 0 O , c3 g a$ " o _. n -• O�L7' _ ti = b 00 0 • p r�i Q, N T U 0 C m IT T _ O 2 .. i D m 3 a .� m q f c a w CL @ @ 3 @ 0 a 0 O 7 CL O C7 w O' w 7 d n 0 O C CL m @ El; S @ 7 @ CL C: toFF to w N w 73 O 0; m N w D- @ w d n -o ro 13) n CL w @ w m w w @ w @ w n CL @ En Q @ U) @ a m C CL S w 0 73 CL 0 3 7 0 m w cn "O @ O w d w n 0 c a @ @ w 3 w CL w 0 @ w a 0 O" @ 3 @ CD o_ O CL 0 w 7 @ ni C w @ 0 3 @ 0 N Ut (D w @ CL Fr @ O w m w0' co S' w w W w Q' 01d n O C w CL 0 3 0 w 9 .1 *.. 3 0 w s Q @ w N@_ a ` w O. 0 �a�a U y @ c O ry O N w w co m -� o O = n S @ 7 O d w n v 5. °7 o w w ? 3 w @ w @ o O w O' N w O �y O T O J @ ce w C w O M @ a � w w O -w c_ � w o o d n - S co @ vc 3' 0 CL 0 N t M. S w � i � o @ @ w to y N 4, @CD - a 3 '< U3 aoi t0 02 c C d N S w w m � = y O o a m C cD o 0 3 � w w. > > coo (n 0 w o 0 N w 0 O 7 fD !o < 0 `wG OM ID En @ w @$ w a m W @ w 0 7 113w @ f w @ 9« 3 w w @ O w OL O n @ n m O w :3 O = n 3 w w w = w a yT - @ CL d � 0 f/7 CL 0 1p .i m y N m W fA m n. Sr M m c C CL m 3 M 71m s tD 3 12 W sg Ln 0 ro 7 c C CL .m. 7 m a ro 0 0 O 0 m 3 y m A m w< 3 f - ro rm t N m F O. m O a CID �. y a O N ro aOmo G N ro N C tp f�D y fDQ D A m m m — O _ O M ro O O Q o n 3 �, n 0 m o ca 0 o o m p a ° o o ° O Sm ro S m � O m = 7 m a m r m g n m m o< a - s o Q m y o a N:3. S °i y o a � c � y �O p » K h m y m ro y OS OCD N y a j• m ? ro o < 3 Qm m 3 �'yCL Cay a m ffx to O G a d ayc• �° m Q p OS `< 'm O Mo. m N j p m O _ ro 7 m S d y S R 3 ri ro S A y m ° m o o o a a "�- co ' �O a 0 °m, ° m h o m f N ori a ro a < COL o f=D V1 m a 3 N .y -r d O 7 A fD ro N —< ry ° a m c m N m m c_ o d 3 ro m co > > S > >c ? O m 7 ori C - D N ro a a m a 0 � y a O O' Q' °' m O 1 �7p p - y y W On 0 < M O' S `< fD N m x -COD 7C a ro O' ro O .%. In m y m S y Cj 7 1 m a m !p m p a m ' O7 Q O S .�+ O O m a 0 w a `G C O m W a m -n y 7 m a y f o m ro N > a p m= ro o o ro S. t° p y a y r 3 0 a w a co w y v o d 7 N p p L O n E 4.7 S° �G n O y d a° h .y.. N ro 7. y x W a m vCD ° ,o p ° m m a° c io °' S m �' =r 3 m 3 0, m > > 65' c 00 R 1 'O f O °' .3. 'O ro 0 m .p = o '.0 o ((nn m o m 3 F a c ro on) - I'D m y� O' A ro C=) y y ro 7 m - m S O� M T �. <. j 'O n m• m S a 0� ro M ? 3 y 3 o x � <M o o ro c s c y m ° ro O f �p tC N =. 7ID 10= CO!!! a W N N I N N N S `� OS S a O y "O y S [D C _ o s o `_ 3. y o o o a! g° `�° a m y'w_ ao o a, w s 3 F B. cmo ro 5 N a I �; tO M 3 p ro F c° o .o c o S y m m m a ro o �_ o m m N a m. c Q ro ro N> M o m i ° 5 s z o s o m s o ci o ' ff m 3 0 0 0 3 ro `�' m o o °� o= r° p o a y c -� 'o ro m d ° ° c c7n s p = y N O �? ,n m ��7 N_ 1 x f m v+ 7. O• ro ro ".� m O w y y Cr y M -3 (D m m O m S, y `< U7 (° 7 m to 3 �• m i `� O W a m M 0 0 =' o oI ID p oZ w �p ym-- d ,� p y a Mr° 0 ff O d 0 3 o F. m a y o= o a y ? c m C y m Q co y °o y' 3 n o < s v v ° o o �o tO co `G m N 3 {D m CD m O 1 7 y 0 ro N o N a � moo- --I oa cn CDro U- ro U3 O D) n N O m O s c3 d° m n w 3 -0 3 0� o n o Un N -o N ro o n N° 3 m 0 m a 3w ro o ro� 3 3 's 'h ? q 4 m m N n N o a 3° ID 'r 3 <o N �C O — 0• p ° .N•� = O" O 7 y O — — �'"`O ry_ s jN _^ < n N s w `m m o 'm m crop °' /1� °. n 3 51D- -ID dO X 10O O 3 0 ° m d =O 7 O O" O .N•t 3 ro :0, O N ° n (D Mro J 0 3 ro m p o w� o :m o N w o o S n S ro N 7. N N. p O 01 y < N n D• `G ID O O ro ro n �. C S 3 ro N 3 O N . `G o c n O D ro N F n 0 O ro N O °O (O (3D " 'O ° c wry' '"• ,,� N m °- N fD °: d o ; o ? o �. 9 c o 3 0 E i n""D c 0` Q ry '6 vroi n -" 3 C O Q N D- ro m ro (n O G D O• I O rq = 0 N ro ° d N 0 3 N (Q C — a' N' n, m <' m= -- 3 3 ° 0 o m o a m o o° m 1)i I ? N° m o N `� a `, m O d o c3 m N 3 0 N M C N ° O ° ro 00 = O � �< ro ° vo 0. o o; Q c m o 0 3 s acn a ro n 3 CL CL °° N ro O �• � m d 0 3 0° °'o v01 a Q° a y m o m n3i �j� y o o CD 3 m y m s �' ° n N s c N Ci m mo- w 2 S ro N, ? O N a ro .O•r ro N ro ro w ate' > 3 7 'm< j O _ �' n N ro N �- n N ° ro N d N — `< °. N M d 0 ro S °�. 0 D) in' X ro n 3 -' O S !!1 <? n D. N S lD N O O < S o m-wo- �' n n>> m v ° a c o 3 a° N ro Vi y' W `� ro ro h �' t0 ro A 7 y �' -° O O S .ML N. 7 fD CC O 7, O % ro N a f°D O" a° =r 'a X n n d n CD N �{ ro O ro N O O s [� D) "o O . O > > n 6 -+ N n N S 7 O ro N m (rop = S 07 O fD n W ro L n 'CO '� N ro n O. O' O N (D N ._•: N (� N •�-« d "CN" S N ° `G N N :3 M j S N M m O N N U) 3 0 — m f ro ° o m d o m 0 O N 3 CD CL N 3 7 n 72. m d (J 7 6 N 9 CL N m:;-5> NSdXNp n < c a °: ° ° 2• c O m N O 7 N ID °, h �- '6 S N ro CD° = 0 0 to m 3 O 0° d S ° N D) n -« 0- ° = -Dr a a a d o s °_' CD co cr (D IM4 -« ro o N' N n Cl. n I ro d o m o Cn 'O n 0- o Uj n n N N 0 = 0 o co -o Q d 3 m LD. 0 0 3' =r m °' °o 1 o d o 3 N m n d n S ro c l0 O ro S N m 0 O 0 o 0- 0' m 3 N d n o c o a < O n 0) l0 O' S ro O (� c n m f d D1 n. ro N 0 7 7 y `° S cn 0 o o m o o 0 3 o 0 G 0J = 3 IDIOD 3 3 0 o- m m g m a Z < 0 G1 cNi m o ro N 3 ro O m �' o m to D c c co ° — m' ro N ro y c1 CL d 0 N N m m i 0 3 m 0 m to N C: 3 0 O x 0 c W.m ro 0 CL 0 �n E m a ° O' a a'O n m S j T aate =o 8 �� `m m a o ro mami �• 7 ry a a 0 ID r- 0 -� Nt� o. c% va N ^+ m FLS O O ?. 7 S 2. 10 2 c O v p? o m m a w m• >> N .%r 7' .r p N ro N a n g• o' m cC p d Q m y m p o ni m e `� m m o a 3 z d h m ro N p m p o 3 m �. ci m > > m r<o :Ec N + N ro < co a w e v _'* 3 c m m o m {p N (A a N 7' (p fO N <m f m X o= N o m-0 o y �' p C N un n o a° o n w g o m mo o m -° 3 o m 'm m ro g mo m o O oQ 'S� E;, p Et a ry d N F]jCFi NNoo E; 3 CD '<pp , G � a pa I Y t w 4 eD � m oERm y o a g c :7,5 J a s c S 105 =r `� m 3 a 'm < On ', 3 o m << o on 3 �. m y a O p N c Na.D cr �. o m 'O , o a p m u j. -m .N -i' N 'G G =b S N N' ryEP S .a N m G a= p G N O. 2, � m = N o m m m f d = g > 5 N 3 s� � a p o a m i g m d m `c o z o= m TL m g a m m Nm G o< N .J v m `t raw =r CL /O c aav o m o a, O Q m x w m O m N 3 0 U) a m o o co a = ° m a 3 5 < m ° o 0 Q W s n D m O o m f q< v ID n > m 3 m 3CD -n m m A L 7. c o a m N n d G m c ro w 0 — ° fm O 7' CD n o N + N �� ti C-) 2L -Rsa 8. o = 8 U x'mm -. < �a� 5 !� 'O f m 3 O o p 3 O 'O ? Q T cD i m m m m Qk a A p o N 'm o° p G m 4 ' OS , - pd N N n Nroa n. (mofD 'n �• pO mmWS ,p� mr�' CD 0 SS' F5, "O nm m?m , fQm S 1 n :3 d� m m GSmNO m_ N o o 7S m L m n d a m ro m o `= N$ aS c m° v c m m m �'nbg 4 6 Q m m C. O m o. N d -' n3 p ro N o n n ifl ° N o f=D o m o O o= O a �e do G _s p_ `- o N Cl,)cn m w n m = m v' 9' p a < F m m a mom. o m m m>>° N m b 'm. E c Q j 3 m nD x' o N 3 ID C7 m m =� �. Q n m G m m �� �• m0 o 3 ro m ` _ co o m m° N N N _ F° y a m° a �. m 'm n m °�' �, o m 0. n ° s -D CD I n• n o Np w<<D 2. , a.m ami n M Ll bao =m O nNs =c - d + -Wo o OrpN 3 ° $ � o `a o f m 0 o °, 3 aYd m o m G M a c` 0 ma ID o N m s �. m O o ]' a a? �. = m N m N O m S a rn a S p •< m m m -" tNb m N ani m m O G ' � `-' ,'o c o j c° N _S 7 � 1 io m< N m a m �• = 3 �• a H m m G7 -p G tm/i 3 N j p O 1 m m mO 3 ? O_ 7 m N O o N 7 ' mm O 0O A m 3 n S m 7 n i j = m a O = m o to m 3 sn � o mo a d O ry O' G N O 3 O d � S fail y^Ss y y "6 N N f ° m ID M o o o b 3 m' 3 3 3, ° O d 0 m n d o °3 to to m o � O � ° o 0SO y O � O O J 7 j 0 a m � J D 3 f CD CD ID CLO N m N O 73N O N n 3 0 O 7 O m It -, t '+meati t 7 Q mN O S N {p 0 N N a CO mN � n N D 7 O O QO �3 <O 3 sN 3 < m y s �. N o y Z o 0 a N. 0 0 m 3 m o `o ^ 0.1 N S-;�- CD CL — o O .� 0 3 00 o m m 3 —< 0 + O S S . N Ny m m N 0 O N "• OS 2 V) n h m c �. m W °—' O m a m 3 m o 'o m E o 0 0 o m ID N �' y ,L 3 10 o d a 3 N m � � o m N 3 y' C m O m S •+. O N M n N N d �. N ? d d C N M N N FD. m 0 a m N N :E •C N N p O 2:R- p• n 1.0O _ 7 N N 0 N d N S N C N pN �_• 3 N N CD o ED 0 CL to o m c o f° 0 N O Q N m QD S °- O m O m O m N N m -W w O g N O O m N O m O 3 �' N T S� O aC<D m 0— N N S C m S N N '�f = C O W N O �' w m S S N o o N W m 3 s $-- a< 3 cc y o m• _m S<m Omn mC 7NmN fNDO0NNn O m 3 >D p Nm o Ow°m 3 3-Q a N co< a H: m Z Z -oCL n� N :E O N a N C O a s n N m 0 w a m — NSD (D cD= 3 o ° E m m m 0 a to 50 n m 0 :,:r o< 5 O S n C l0 MU) m d * m p n N m a m m f> >' d a w N 0 a o LD. c CO :3- CO g CD a N m 0 5 m CD m a I m ma co 7 m o a m ID C Sc -ti 7 = C m < n _ o m N o s N 3 o' a o N coN o 0 0 m m N a g i Nit June 9, 2019 Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: MLA19-00019, Marijuana Production in Rural Residential Zones Dear Commissioners Dean, Sullivan, and Brotherton, e Jo Ann Comstock 11 Reef Road Nordland, WA 98358 Thank you for taking the time, once again, to hear the concerns of so many of your constituents regarding the incompatibility of commercial marijuana operations with rural residential land use. Rather than reiterate the many well -reasoned arguments in support of a prohibition that have already been made over the past few years, I would like to respond to the only two arguments I have heard in favor of allowing commercial marijuana production/processing in rural residential areas. These arguments — put forth by a notably small minority — consist of the following: 1. A belief that a prohibition constitutes discrimination against a particular type of farming; and 2. A belief that those in favor of a prohibition represent a small, poorly informed minority who are opposed to ALL marijuana production, processing, and retail sales. Regarding the first point, as a business that is highly regulated and monitored by the State — including the imposition of rigorous security standards and a prohibition from having minors on-site — one must necessarily make a distinction between marijuana grow operations and other types of farming. The reality is that living next door to a high -security facility is not at all comparable to living next door to a pasture of goats or a crop of vegetables. I would oppose ANY type of business in a rural residential area if it were subject to the same security requirements and prohibition of on-site minors that the State applies to marijuana operations. It is not discrimination, it is a recognition of the differences in type and scale of impacts — a critical component of sensible land use planning. Regarding the second point, many of the individuals supporting a prohibition have repeatedly stated that they are NOT opposing marijuana, but are opposing COMMERCIAL production and processing in RESIDENTIAL areas. These facilities belong in zones designated for industrial use. Furthermore, when comparing the number of articulate speakers, letter -writers, and petition signatories in favor of a prohibition with the number of those opposed, one cannot reasonably make the argument that the former represent a poorly informed minority. To summarize, the primary purpose of land use planning is to ensure that the various land uses within a designated area are compatible. Many types of land uses are not compatible with each other, and to oppose the placement of a particular type of enterprise within a particular zone type should not be confused with opposing the enterprise itself. Commercial marijuana production and processing are not compatible with residential land use, and I respectfully request that the county codes be amended to reflect that reality. Sincerely, Ann Comstock t4e(trm, John Comstock 11 Reef Road Nordland, WA 98358 June 9, 2019 Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: MLA19-00019, Marijuana Production in Rural Residential Zones Dear Commissioners Dean, Sullivan, and Brotherton: Tax benefit of marijuana processing has been limited by state law after the moratorium was lifted in 2015. County taxes are on sales only, exempting processing and growth. This changes the revenue envisioned when the moratorium was lifted in 2015. Current Jefferson County revenue is projected at less than $30,000. Present facilities for processing require a large structure, with industrial size operation. We are no longer looking at neighbor friendly installations. Noise, odor, and security are now factors. Please revise local code to allow processing in areas zoned other than rural residential. Sincerely, John Comstock V �nn5 l�i�� on7 a(ca tk)r b/r0)i9l Wallyworks Enterprises, Ltd. 1037 Lawrence Streets Port Townsend, WA 98 s vi June 10, 2019 1'4 Dear Jefferson County Commissioners, I am writing you today in support of the Eco-ADU proposal put forward by our County Planning Commission. Modest affordable housing is in short supply throughout our county. I am pleased that the Commission has been working writing a proposal that could have a positive impact on this problem. Of course, it needs to be measured for it's adherence to state law under the Growth Management Act, so may yet need a little refining and/or further development, but I support the Planning Commission's proposal and ask for your participation in helping craft a solution to our housing crisis. Sincerely, D. Malcolm Dorn 1946 Spruce Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 jeffbocc From: Crystie KISLER <crystie@finnriverfarm.com> Sent: Monday, June 10, 2019 10:47 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Eco Adu uF4R1NG P,EC Dear BOCC, I am submitting these comments in support of the ECO ADU code revision. As a county resident who employs many young and newer members of the community, we continue to see a dire reed for affordable housing and housing code that supports innovation and ecological resilience. I believe a code adjustment such as this will open more opportunity for housing development that can be affordable and ecologically innovation— a win-win solution for long term sustainability on multiple levels. Thank you for your consideration and leadership! Crystie Farmwife • Co-founder Finnriver Farm & Cidery www.finnriver.com mobile: 360-821-9836 barn: 360-339-8478 How to make business a force for good? Enjoy a short & sweet animated video about our cider: Farmcrafted with Love effbocc From: J Ball <gnarleydogfarm@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, June 10, 2019 10:49 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Hearing this morning The notion that electrical and water use is not fit for Cannabis production is absurd. Nobody complains about electrical or water use for ANY other agricultural or business use in Jefferson County. This is simply hypocrisy on the part of these obstructionists. Jean effbocc From: J Ball <gnarleydogfarm@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, June 10, 2019 11:10 AM To: jeffbocc; J Ball Gnarley Dog Farm Subject: Cannabis businesses on RR zoned land r ►.i The Conditional Use Permit process works. Neighbors are allowed to weigh in during the hearing prior to approval of this land use and restrictions are imposed. Many RR businesses enjoy the full support of their neighbors, despite claims made today. Jean From: 1 Ball <gnarleydogfarm@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, June 10, 2019 11:06 AM To: jeffbocc; J Ball Gnarley Dog Farm Subject: Water pollution and Cannabis production The notion that these business owners are polluting water or using copious volumes is beyond the pale. Rural residentially zoned parcels have strict water use restrictions, nutrients and pesticides are expensive. Water is not wasted and neither are nutrients or pesticides, all are tightly monitored by business owners. All products available to consumers are lab tested and no residue is tolerated. All pesticides are required to meet tightly controlled and safety standards. Have a look at the OMRI and PICOL lists for acceptable products. Jean PI AIRING"', effbocc RfcopiD From: J Ball <gnarleydogfarm@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, June 10, 2019 10:57 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Generator use on Cannabis farms Seriously?! Ok, so this special interest group would have you believe that weed farmers are using gasoline to power noisy generators instead of using clean, quiet, cheap, renewable electricity. Really? So are they suggesting these business owners fetch, lug, an refill gas tanks? How about a dose of reality? These farmers are mostly organic farmers who abhor chemicals. Are we really expected to believe that gasoline generators are an acceptable practice? Get a grip! Also, I don't hear any complaints about ANYONE else using generators for anything else, only complaints about weed farmers. This is clear discrimination and unfounded in facts. Jean R11FARING111 From: Tom Thiersch <tprosys@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, June 10, 2019 11:53 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Testimony for Hearing: Planning Commission Docket Testimony for the record, regarding the Planning Commission Docket, heard June 10, 2019. Given the amount of community concern and the scope and complexity of the issue of marijuana/cannabis production in rural residential areas, and given the limited time and funding available for the Planning Commission to consider this matter, I believe that the most reasonable, realistic, and affordable approach to this issue is for the BoCC to enact a moratorium on all new permits (whether subject to CUP or otherwise) for the siting of any commercial marijuana/cannabis grow and/or processing operations on RRx:x lands (all "residential" lands). Tom Thiersch Jefferson County