Loading...
2017-267-Minutes for Meeting April 17,2017 Recorded 5/25/2017Recorded in Deschutes County CJ2017-267 Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk Commissioners' Journal 05/25/2017 10:51:46 AM For Recording Stamp Only Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97703-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF WORK SESSION DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Allen Conference Room Monday, April 17, 2017 Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Anthony DeBone and Phil Henderson. Also present were Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; David Doyle, County Counsel; and Sharon Ross, Board Executive Secretary. Attending for a portion of the meeting were Wayne Lowry, Finance Director; Steve Reinke, 9-1-1 Operations Director; Nick Lelack, Peter Gutowsky, Jacob Ripper, Zehariah Heck, Caroline House, Anthony Raguine, and Matt Martin, Community Development Department; Whitney Hale, Public Information Officer; and 25 members of the community. No representatives of the media were in attendance. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Baney opened the meeting at 1:33 p.m. ACTION ITEMS 1. Finance Update Wayne Lowry, Finance Director/Treasurer was present for the finance update to the Board. Treasurer's report and total investment portfolio as of March 31, 2017 was reviewed. Monthly financial reports were reviewed including the statement of financial operating data through March 31, 2017. Discussion held on the policy level for ending fund balance and budget process. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session April 17, 2017 Page 1 of 4 2. Consider Approval of the Deschutes County 9-1-1 District Updated Strategic Plan. Steve Reinke, Communications Director noted the project is on budget for the computer aided dispatch and radio project. At the March 21, 2017 9-1-1 User Board meeting the recommendation was made to forward the District's strategic plan to the Board for approval. The strategic plan goals and objectives for 2017-2021 were reviewed. At this time, Chair Baney Convened the Meeting as the Governing Body of the 9-1-1 County Service District HENDERSON: Move approval DEBONE: Second VOTE: HENDERSON: Yes DEBONE: Yes BANEY: Chair votes yes. Motion carried 3. Historic Landmarks Commission Vacancy/Recruitment: Matt Martin, Community Development Department, serves as the staff liaison to the Historic Landmarks Commission. Mr. Martin noted the recent resignation from a voting member leaving a vacancy on the commission. He explained the commission has two ex -officio members that would be interested in the appointment. Mr. Martin asked the Board for their direction on whether to consider reviewing the two applicants for an appointment or directing a full open recruitment. Review made of current membership and the hope for geographic representation. Chair Baney asked for staff recommendation and Mr. Martin noted either ex -officio members would be a good choice stating both have regular attendance and have dedication to historic preservation month. The next meeting for the historic landmarks commission is scheduled for May 1. Commissioner Henderson requested additional time to review the applicants. Commissioner DeBone supported filling the position and then posting request of applications for ex -officio members. Commissioner Baney would also include emphasis for applicants with south County representation. Chair Baney asked Deputy Administrator Kropp to review the calendar for a date for further review and appointment decision. 4. Marijuana Production Appeal: Jacob Ripper and Peter Gutowsky, Community Development Department presented for discussion the Rubio Real Estate Investments marijuana production appeal from the public hearing of March 6, 2017. Deliberations are scheduled for next Wednesday April 26. The County has a 150 -day clock of taking final action on this Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session April 17, 2017 Page 2 of 4 application by May 18th Consideration is to be made whether the marijuana production application will comply or not comply with the applicable sections of the Deschutes County Code. The key issues for board consideration and decision were reviewed including requirements for electric service, odor control, water source, new dwelling, road frontage and access, and trip generation. Discussion also held on the concern of the property line adjustment and of traffic safety. 5. Lot of Record Presentation: Zechariah Heck, Caroline House, and Peter Gutowsky, Community Development Department provided a lot of record presentation to the Board. This presentation has been provided to numerous realtors as a result of a recent Land Use Board of Appeals decision. Grimstad vs. Deschutes County or LUBA no 2016-035 found the issuance of a building permit cannot be recognized as the creation of a legal lot of record. A lot of record is a lot or parcel lawfully established through compliance with any rules in effect at the time of creation. County code definition of lot of record provides five options: creation by subdivision, creation by partition, creation by town plat, created by conveyance, and remainder parcel. Review done on how to apply for a verification or what happens if needing to validate a unit of land. Discussion held on application fees. Commissioner Henderson asked whether the fee needs to be so high. Peter Gutowsky said the actual costs vary from application to application but they try to make the fees meet the lists. At the time of 3:38 p.m., the Board took a recess. The meeting was reconvened at 3:46 p.m. 6. 2016-17 Q4 Discretionary Grant Review: Judith Ure, Management Analyst presented the discretionary grant applications for the fourth quarter of 2016-2017. Discussion held on where the funds come from and the history of funding. Upon review of each application, the Board made recommendations of award levels for the submitted fund raising and projects and programs applications. Ms. Ure will finalize the awards and update the discretionary grant program spreadsheet. 7. Social Media Policy: Whitney Hale, Public Information Officer presented a draft policy for consideration. The current communication policy went into effect 2009 and social media has Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session April 17, 2017 Page 3 of 4 evolved since then. The Board expressed support. The policy will be communicated to staff via Friday Update. OTHER ITEMS: • Hearings Officer Fee: Nick Lelack and Peter Gutowsky, Community Development Department presented the option of establishing a hearing's officer fee on marijuana production applications due to the controversial nature of the application. The fee amount would be $5,000. If there is no hearing's officer deposit the application is deemed incomplete. Question to the Board is whether to send controversial applications to hearings officer or for the Board to hear. One current applicant has voiced an opinion of withdraw if having to go through hearings officer and land use. Discussion held on the benefits of hearing's officer vs. taking the case to the Board. Chair Baney asked Deputy County Administrator Kropp to review the calendar for a date this item could be brought back to a future work session. EXECUTIVE SESSION: At the time of 5:12 p.m. the Board went into Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (e) Real Property Negotiations. The Board came out of Executive Session at 5:52 p.m. • Commissioner Henderson inquired the status of the Item pulled from the business meeting agenda regarding the lease option for the Sievery LLC. This item relates to a property in La Pine that requires further discussion before consideration. ADJOURN: Being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 6:Olp.m. DATED this Day of County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: WriAndt, ecording ecretary 1WAT C-4414 Tammy Baney, Chai Anthony DeBone, Vice Chair Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session 2017 for the Deschutes Philip G. derson, Commissioner April 17, 2017 Page 4 of 4 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 — Fax (541) 385-3202 — https://www.deschutes.org/ WORK SESSION AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1:30 PM, MONDAY, APRIL 17, 2017 Allen Conference Room - Deschutes Services Building, 2ND Floor — 1300 NW Wall Street — Bend Pursuant to ORS 192.640, this agenda includes a list of the principal subjects anticipated to be addressed at the meeting. This notice does not limit the ability of the Board to address additional subjects. Meetings are subject to cancellation without notice. This meeting is open to the public and interested citizens are invited to attend. Work Sessions allow the Board to discuss items in a less formal setting. Citizen comment is not allowed, although it may be permitted at the Board's discretion. If allowed, citizen comments regarding matters that are or have been the subject of a public hearing process will NOT be included in the official record of that hearing. Work Sessions are not normally video or audio recorded, but written minutes are taken for the record. CALL TO ORDER ACTION ITEMS 1. Finance Update - Wayne Lowry, Finance Director 2. Consider Approval of the Deschutes County 9-1-1 District's Updated Strategic Plan - Steve Reinke, Communications Director 3. Historic Landmarks Commission Vacancy/Recruitment - Matt Martin, Associate Planner 4. Marijuana Production Appeal - Jacob Ripper, Associate Planner 5. Lot of Record Presentation - Peter Gutowsky, Planning Manager 6. 2016-17 Q4 Discretionary Grant Review - Judith Ure, Management Analyst 7. Draft Social Media Policy for Consideration - Whitney Hale, Public Information Officer OTHER ITEMS 8. EXECUTIVE SESSION: under ORS 192.660 (2) (e) Real Property Negotiations These can be any items not included on the agenda that the Commissioners wish to discuss as part of the meeting, pursuant to ORS 192.640. Board of Commissioners Work Session Agenda Monday, April 17, 2017 Page 1 of 2 At any time during the meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2)(e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2)(h), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor negotiations; ORS 192.660(2)(b), personnel issues; or other executive session categories. Executive sessions are closed to the public; however, with few exceptions and under specific guidelines, are open to the media. ADJOURN 131 ElDeschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and activities. To request this information in an alternate format please call (541) 617-4747. FUTURE MEETINGS: Additional meeting dates available at wvvw.deschutes.orWrneetingcalendar (Please note: Meeting dates and times are subject to change. All meetings take place in the Board of Commissioners' meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. If you have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572.) Board of Commissioners Work Session Agenda Monday, April 17, 2017 Page 2 of 2 1 T PLEASE RETURN TO BOCC SECRETARY 1-31 't 0 k) ^-Z N J --J All) SSRICICIV m z 0 rn rn m 0 (1) m0 Monthly Meeting with Board of Commissioners Finance Director/Treasurer AGENDA April 17, 2017 (1) Monthly Investment Reports — March 2017 (2) March Financials Investment Income r st e} VN CO to N M CO P ce CI CO CO r- CA co CZ) H < "4 `-� M co (a>- r 0 N 6. 00 Ea E!9 EH >' — v - O O O r 01 to7 CO N ii r` 0 co c) cc (o r co co—-.tN 1 r r r 1- ;13 ;a 2 EA 4 EO Investments By County Function $ 170,043,590 co ccrn O Less Fee: 5% of Invest. Income Investment Income - Net 0 0 co .g a o 0 OOD N (NO O • N (t'• M N C O O O O 0 0 0 000006) O O O O O Cn O 0 0 O N- O N (Y) d• 0 CO CD N d O CO d C6 0 61 a5 0 ✓ M CO CO I 170,043,590 EA Total Investments Prior Year Comparison Total Portfolio: By Investment Types Ooi 'O'O �x d O > o e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n N 0 N • N Y- • N 0 r r (n E U E co E co a) @ y to cc •� N .0 O N 7 i 2 7 0 a) O F E U 0 (3 4< to 't CO C N o 2Es To ,- U,0 E L m o 43 a��i m E co -a C.) 3 C_7 ti m i- 2 U H o D l ;o N a E .(1 1) M _ N NL t— r0 O .2 LO N 0. 0 N 0 UZ N r Under 5 Years Deschutes County Investments Portfolio Management Portfolio Details - Investments March 31, 2017 Purchase Maturity Days To Ratings Coupon CUSIP Security Broker Date Date Maturity SSP Moody's, Rate YTM 365 91159HHD5 'US Bancorp CASTLE, 4/23/2015' 5/15/2017, 44 A+ :Al L 1.650 0.882 91412GUU7 University of California ,PJ ' 12/19/2016, 5/15/2017 44 AA Aa2 1.222 0.993, 961214CH4 :Westpac CASTLE 4/7/2015 5/19/2017 48 AA- Aa2 1.200, 1.061, WASH FED CD !Washington Federal CD , 5/20/2015 5/22/2017: 51 0.900 0.913: 31771CS97 !FICO Strip CASTLE 12/9/2014 6/6/2017 66 Aaa ; 1.019 1.065 48125LRD61JPMorgan Chase - Corporate N CASTLE 6/10/2016/ 6/14/2017 74,A+ Aa3 1.521 1.313 84247PHS329270CYZ2 �� - t- A - - 20 1 / --- - - - Bonneville Power Admmistratio CASTLE 4/24/20.14 7/1/201.7 91AA- Aa1 1.197_ 1.171 Southern CA Public Power Authc .CASTLE 6/17/2014 7/1/2017 91 AA- 1.745. 1.180E 3137EADV8 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp 'MBS 5/29/20151 7/14/2017, 104 Aaa_ - r _ 0.750 0.787 298191N37 Eugene Power RW B 1.2/13/2016: 8/1/2017 122,AA- ,Aa2 -__ 0.835. 1.102 005158VE7 Ada County SD _ - ,PJ 6/1/2015 8/15/2017~ 136AA+ 'Aa1 3.000 0.930 675371AT5 Oceanside California Pension PJ 5/20/2016 8/15/2017, 136 AA_ ___, 1 806 1.000 3130A62S5 Federal Home Loan Bank CASTLE 7/24/2015' 8/28/2017 149 Aaa 0.750 0.858 94974BGB0 Wells Fargo Corporate Note DA DAV 3/8/2016 9/8/2017 160'A A2 ' 1.400' 1.450 ---- --. toot - --- --- - - — - - -- -- - - --- - 313383J88 Federal Home Loan Bank ,,DA 12/26/2013- 9/27/2017 179 AA+ Aaa 1.000 1.250 31771JMR8 FICO Strip ,CASTLE " 10/22/2015 10/6/2017 188 0.751 0.781 31771KAD90 FICO Stnp 'DA DAV 12/10/2014' 11/30/2017 243 1.205 1.267 9 `_- 244 �- 2.000 0 901 427542KW4 Hermiston OR Washington 'DA DAV 9/21/2016 12/1/2017 244x+ 1.220' 1.218, 494751DH0 .Kin County FPD PJ 1.2/15/2015 12/1/2017 36960458C6 'General Electric - Corporate N CASTLE_ 9/6/2016 12/6/2017, 249 AA+ Al 5.250, 1.050 SYS10520 'Lewis & Clark Bank 6/8/2016• 12/8/2017' 251 1.000 1.000{ 880591CU4 'Tennessee Valley Authority CASTLE 12/1/2016, 12/15/2017' 258 AA+ , 6.250 1.011, 88059FAZ4 !Tennessee Valley Authority ,CASTLE, 11/21/2014 12/15/2017' 258 AA+ ; 1.205 1.268' 961214825 ,Westpac CASTLE . 3/5/2015. 1/12/2018 286 AA- Aa2 , 1.600 1.490 740189AK1 :Precision Castparts Corp ,CASTLE 12/13/2016 1/15/2018 289 AA-_ ,A2 1.250 1.318, 949748E00 Wells Fargo Corporate Note 94988J5A1 Wells Fargo Corporate Note CASTLE , 1/29/2016, 1/22/2018_ 296'Aa2 1.650 1.580, 90331HMQ3 'U S Bank - Corp Note ,CASTLE, 11/18/2016. 1/26/2018, 300_ AA- Al 1.350 1.316 92976WBH8 Wachovia Corp .CASTLE 2/26/2016, 2/1/2018 306,A [A2 5.750 1.690, 31771EAL5 [ FICO Strip CASTLE 2/24/2015. 2/8/2018 313 1.252, 1.318' 31771EAL5 FICO Strip __- CASTLE ' 2/25/2015' 2/8/2018, 313 _ 1 257 1.323' 3134G8M71 Federal Horne Loan Mtg Corp CASTLE 2/26/2016+ 2/26/2018, 331 AA+ 1.050 1.050' 06050TLY6 • Bank of America - Corporate CASTLE 5/14/2015, 3/26/2018, 359 A Al 1.650 1.570 06050TLY6 , Bank of America - Corporate CASTLE ' 5/21/2015, 3/26/2018. 359 A Al , 1.650 1.540. 06050TLY6 of America - CooraCASTLE 5/27/2016 880591 EC2 BankTennesseeValley Authority CASTLE , 12/2/2016 34/11/2018 365AA+ Aaa 4.500 1.150 880591EC2 Tennessee Valley Authority CASTLE , 12/15/2016 4/1/2018 365 AA+ ',Aaa _ 4.500 1.156 880591EC2 Tennessee Valley Authority CASTLE , 12/16/2016, 4/1/2018 365 AA+ Aaa 4.500 1.200 68607VG66 Oregon State Lottery DA DAV 6/12/2015, 4/1/2018 365, AAA AA2 5.000 1.120, 68607VA96 Oregon State Lottery DA DAV 6/13/2016 4/1/2018 365 AAA AA2 1.353 0 970, 3130A87133 'Federal Home Loan Bank VINISP 12/6/2016 5/30/2018. 424AA+ Aaa 1.000 1.141 912828XA3 U.S. TreasuryPJ 11/30/2016 5/15/20188 1 409 AA+ Aaa 1.000 1 000 913366H$2 University -of Califonia CASTLE 3/21/2017 5/15/201409AA- Aa3 0.936 _1.351 3135GOXD0 Federal National Mt Assn CASTLE 1/4/2017 _ 5/21/2018 415 AA+ Aaa 1.000 1.250 j 3132XOLR0 Federal Agriculture Mtg Corp PJ 12/8/2016 6/8/2018 433 1.100 1 1001, 98385XAP1 XTOEnergylnc .CASTLE 8/4/2015 6/15/2018' 440:AAA Aaa 5.500 1500: 904121NC0 Umatilla School District PJ 5/7/2015 6/15/2018 440 AA+ - 1.430. 1.430, Corp --- 4/15/2016 6/24/2018 449 AA- Aa2 1 1.718 1.191, 166764AE0 Chevron CASTLE '� - 166764AE0 Chevron Corp CASTLE 10/11/2016 6/24/2018 449 AA- Aa2 I, 1.718 1.259 939307HF4 Hillsboro SD Pension Bonds PJ 3/30/2015 6/30/2018 455 Aa3 I 1.732 1.650 938429M46 Washington County SD Municipal , 'PJ_-__�9/6/2016 6/30/2018 _ 455 Aa3 1.585 0.999 3135GOL43 Federal National Mtg Assn CASTLE 12/13/2016, 7/13/2018 468 AA+ ,Aaa . 0.850 1.221 88059EMT8 Tennessee Valley Authority ,DA DAV 2/22/2016: 7/15/2018 470 __- 1.021 1.065 3133EGNU5 ,Federal Farm Credit Bank CASTLE 8/1/2016 7/27/2018 482 AA+ _ _ _ •Aaa 0.960 0.960 313409067 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp CASTLE 7/27/20161 7/27/2018' 482 AA+ Aaa 1.050 1.050. 934876A00 Port 0f Newport OR Lease _ DA DAV 3/27/2017 8/1/2018 487 AA 4.500 1.450 65371AU2 Oceanside Califomia Pension CASTLE 1/27/2017, 8/15/2018 501 'AA 2.298 1.551 , 544351KM0 ,Los Angeles Calif Go Ref Bds 'PJ 12/21/2016. 9/1/2018' 518 AA2 1.210 1.209 3134GAKFO Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp CASTLE 10/18/2016 9/12/2018 529'M+ Aaa 1.110 1.110 3134G8UN7 Federal Home Loan Mtg CorpAA+ Aaa - 1.200 1.200 ,CASTLE 3/30/2016 9/28/2018, 545 3134G9YA9 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp .CASTLE 6/28/2016 9/28/2018 545 AA+ Aaa 1.010 1.000 3134GAND3 Federal Horne Loan Mtg Corp CASTLE 9/28/2016 9/28/2018 545 AA+ Aaa 1.050 1.050, AA+ ,Aaa 1.100 1 100 3133EFJP3 Federal Farm Credit Bank -__CASTLE ' -__ , --- 11/4/2016 10/15/2018 562 89236TAY1 Toyota Mtr Cred - Corp N , CASTLE 1/5/2016 10/24/2018' 571 AA- 1Aa3 2.000 1.770 89236TAY1 Toyota Mtr Cred - Corp N CASTLE 3/15/2017 10/24/2018 571 AA, 43 2.000 1.700 912828WD8 U.S. Treasury :CASTLE 12/1/2015, 10/31/2018 578 AA+ Aaa 1.250: 1.223, 91159HHFO US Bancorpry 9 !CASTLE 12/1/2016. 11/15/2018 593 [Al 1.529 1.326 Federal Home Loan 912828T83 U S. Treasu CASTLE ' 12/14/2016 10/31/2018 578 AA+ Aaa 0.750 1 155'[ 3134GAVU51 MtCo ,CASTLE 12/28/2016! 11/16/2018 594 AA+ 0.625 0.672i 42754210(2 !Hermiston OR :DA DAV Y 9/21/20161 12/1/2018_ 609'AA- , 3.000 1.001' 31771EAN1 1FICO Strip CASTLE 11/3/2016 12/27/2018' 635 0.984' 1.025, 912828A75 ,U.S. Treasury :CASTLE 6/8/20151 12/31/2018, 639,AAA .Aaa 1.500 1.324, 037833CE8 (Apple Inc CASTLE 2/9/2017; 2/8/2019 678,AA+ Aa1 _ 1.550 1.5891 459058FC2 1 International Bonds for Recons CASTLE 12/15/2016: 4/26/2019' 755 AAA :Aaa 1.250 1.5001 250351FJ7 ,Deschutes CourOre Sch Dist PJ 8/16/2016' 6/15/2019, 805 AA1 1.360 1.360'1 3137EAB1 1ederal Home Loan Mtg Corp CASTLE ' 7/20/2016 7/19/2019 839 'AA+ 'Aaa : 0.875 0.957; 3135GON33 ,Federal National Mtg Assn 'CASTLE 8/18/2016: 8/2/2019' 853 AA+ :Aaa 0.875 1.000[ 3134GA5Q3 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp ,CASTLEj 2/28/2017, 8/28/2019. 879 AA+ ,Aaa : 1.5501.5581 06406HCW7 ',Bank of New York Mellon Corp 'CASTLE11/3/2016[ 9/11/2019 893 A ,A1 2.300 1.5321 313586RC5 ' Federal National Mtg Assn 'CASTLE, 12/4/20151 10/9/2019 921' AA- 1 _ 1.891 2.031. 313586RC5 Federal National Mtg Assn ,CASTLE_, 3/17/2016 10/9/2019 921 AA- ,noon 1.665 1.774;' 313586RC5 Federal National Mtg Assn ;CASTLE 1 8/8/2016, 10/9/2019 921 AA- - 1.252 1.318 3135001239 ,Federal National Mtg Assn ,CASTLE , 11/10/2016', 10/24/2019 936 AA+ 1Aaa 1.000 1.1731 912828562 'U.S. Treasury _ [CASTLE` 10/11/20161 10/31/2019 943.MA '[,Aaa 1.500 1.0081 912828U73 , U,S.Treasury CASTLE 31372017 12/15/2019 988 AAA Ass 1.375 1.527 3134GAK60 'Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp 1 CASTLE 1/27/20171 1/27/2020' 1031 AA+ ,Aaa 1.800 1.800, 594918AY0 ;Microsoft Corp I CASTLE 8/8/20161 2/12/2020, 1047 AAA ,Aaa 1.850 1.298, 686053CK3 Oregon School Boards Assoc CASTLE 3/15/2017 6/3012020 1186 AA- Aa2 2.063 2.149 686053DH9 10regon School Boards Assoc _!DA DAV . 11/2/2015 6/30/2020L 1186 ,AA !Aa2 , 5.373 2.050; 686053DH8 'Oregon School Boards Assoc !CASTLE , 6/24/2016 6/30/2020! 1186SAA Aa2 5.3731 1.570, 949748GM6 Wells Fargd Cojporate Note IPJ 1 1/19/2017 7/22/2020; 1208'A 'A2 ; 2.600 2.350, 940093825 Washington Univ Higher Ed PJ 1, 1/19/2017 10/1/20201 12791 1Aa2 5.930 1.9701 4922,!4DV7 ' Kem Communis College CASTLE , 11/15/2016 11/1/2020 1310 'AA- 1 2.893 1800; ---1Local Govt Investment Pool 1.300 1.300. -- - --- -ca -------- `--- - t --- -_ , Bank of the Cascades 1.300 1.300', Par Market Book Call Value Value Value Date 1,000,000 1,000,090' 1,000,308 4/15/2.0.17_ 1000.000 1,000,020 1,000,277 - - 2,000,000� 1,999,860 2,000,365! - - 200,000 200,000 200,000 - - 1,028,000! 1,025,965 1,026,079' - 1,000,000 1,000,620 1,000,000 - _ 670,000' 669,940 670,044 - - 1,000,000! 999,120 999,914 - - __- 1,000,000 999,630 999,895 - - 150,000, 149,856, 149,867 - - 1,000,000 1,007,950. 1,007,606 - 500,000 500,985 501,486 - 1,000,000, 999,380 999,563 - - 461,000 460,770 460,901 - - 1,000,000 1,001,090 998,809, - - 2,000,000 1,988,660 1,992,154 - - 2,000,000 1,984,880 1,983,728 - 590,000 592,844 594,291 - 230,000 229,777 230,000. - - 1,000,000 1,025,330 1,028,311 - - 240,000'240,000 240,000 - - 1,000,000 1,035,980' 1,036,674 - - 1,059,000 1,049,437 1,049,852, - 2,000,000 2,000,620 2,001,671 - 1,250,000 1,249,250 A2 1.500 1.6.01' 2,000,000' 1.996,400 1,998,421, • - 1,000,000 999,440 1,000,555, - - 2,850,000 2,846,523! 2,850,759' 12/2.6/2017_ 1,000,000' 1,031,430 1,033,1421- 1,260,000 1,247,740, 1,246,279' - - 740,000 732,800 731,909 - 3 000,000 2,997,930 3,000,000 5/26/20.17_ 2,000,000, 2,000,780 2,001,541 - - 1,000,000 1,000,390 1,001,055 - 1,000,000 1,000,390 1,000,286 - - 500,000 516,420, 516,568_ - - 2,000,000 2,065,680 2,066,175 - - 2,380,000 2,458,159, 2,457,665 - 610,000 634,815 633,231 - 200,000 199,980 200,757 - 2,000,000 1,997,500 2,000,000 - - 3,080,000 2 986 440 2,986,182 - - _ 500 000 499,000, 500,000, 5/21/2017 1,500,000! 1495 800 1,498,947. 5/30/2017 2,000,000! 1,999,540 2,000,000 - - 1,000000 1,045,570 1.047,020 - 750,000 748,193' 750,000, - 2,000,000' 2,006,420 2,012,757 5/24/20.18 1,000,0001 1,003,210' 1,005,455 - - 985,000', 987,502 985,971 - 250,000 250,645 251,802, - 1,000,000 995,580' 1,000,000' 4/13/2017 500,000, 491,295 493,334, - -- 1,000,000 997,600 1,000,000' 7/27/2017 3,000,000 2,994,240 3,000,000, 4/27/2017 610;000 633,595 _ 634.465 - - 1,850,000 1,865,263 1,868,6711 - - 1,000,000 997,610 1,000,000, - 3,000,000 2,994,810 3,000,000 6/12/2017 2,000,000, 1,992,580, 2,000,000 6/28/2017 2,520,000 2,511,306 2,520,000_ 6/28/20.17_ 4,000,000 3,988,360 4,000,000 - - 5,000,000 4,983,850 5,000,000 - - 784,000 _--787,873' 786,734 • - 3,216,000 3,231,887 3,230,791 - 1,000,000 1,000,780 1,000,424, - - 3000,000 2,978,910 2,981,042 - - 2,000,000 2,010,200 2,006,649 10/15/2018 4,000,000 3,999,120, 3998,844 5/16/2017 605,000 620,409' 624,891 - - 1,000,000 974,290 982,643, - - 1,000,000; 1,004,690 1,002,991 - - 3,000,000, 3,005,430 2,997,885 - -_ 2,000,000, 1,984,400 1,997,786' 4/26/2017 245,000, 242,379 245,000 - _ - 1,000,000 987,850' 998,143 • - 1,000,000. 987,020! 997,123 - - 3,000,000 2,999,1601, 2,999,510 8/28/2017 1,675,000' 1,690,879 1,705,472 8/11/2019 1,400,000 1,336,2721 1,332,272' - - 600,000 572,688 574,443 - - _ 400,000 381,792` 387,187 - -- - _ 2 000,000 1,975,640 1,991,325 - - 2,000,000 2,004,060, 2,024,976 - - 3.000,000 2,994,390 2,987,932 -- 2,000,000, 1,999,240 2,000,000 4/27/2017 1,000,000 1,002,730 1,015,416 1/12/2020 1,000,000 934,960 932,981 - - _ 875,000 964,723, 964,590 - - 500,000! 551,270, 559,610 - - 1.000,000 1,009,890, 1,007,893 - 400,000' 452,476' 453,2001_- 500,000, 514,510 518,8161 - - 33 840,682' 33,840,6821 33,840,682 - - 4,619,908� 4,619,908, 4,619,908 - 70 043,590, 170.267.3451 170,481.234 Memorandum Date: April 10, 2017 To: Board of County Commissioners Tom Anderson, County Administrat r From: Wayne Lowry, Finance Director a''r- RE: Monthly Financial Reports Attached please find March 2017 financial reports for the following funds: General (001), Community Justice — Juvenile (230), Sheriffs (255, 701, 702), Health Services (274), Community Development (295), Road (325), Community Justice — Adult (355), Solid Waste (610), Insurance Fund (670), 9-1-1 (705), Health Benefits Trust (675), Fair & Expo Center (618), and Justice Court (123), Transient Room Tax (160, 170). The projected information has been reviewed and updated, where appropriate, by the respective departments. Cc: All Department Heads Revenues Property Taxes - Current Property Taxes - Prior Other General Revenues Assessor County Clerk BOPTA District Attorney Tax Office Veterans Property Management Total Revenues Expenditures Assessor County Clerk BOPTA District Attorney Medical Examiner Tax Office Veterans Property Management Non -Departmental Total Expenditures Transfers Out Total Exp & Transfers Change in Fund Balance Beginning Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance GENERAL FUND Statement of Financial Operating Data Year to Date July 1, 2016 through March 31, FY 2016 2017 (75% of the year) FY 2017 of Actual Actual I Budget Budget Projected ( Variance 24,561,964 24,712,854 96% a) 25,749,791 25,749,791 516,994 335,108 67% 500,000 400,000 2,412,614 1,965,488 80% b) 2,450,622 2,429,700 875,075 692,110 81% c) 849,349 849,349 1,721,618 1,382,007 76% 1,810,837 2,010,837 12,413 10,043 81% c) 12,350 12,350 194,675 105,395 56% 188,400 188,400 212,618 155,179 76% c) 204,730 204,730 98,161 49,081 50% 97,400 97,400 75,000 11,250 12% 94,500 94,500 30,681,131 29,418,515 92% 31,957,979 32,037,057 79,078 (100,000) (20,922) 200,000 3,857,613 1,447,322 61,911 5,776,482 54,173 751,319 333,745 288,776 1,161,328 13,732,670 15,520,033 29,252,703 1,428,428 9,788,945 $ 11,217,374 2,959,912 1,230,942 51,049 4,562,379 110,956 612,948 303,431 188,373 816,927 10,836,917 13,772,861 24,609,778 4,808,736 11,217,374 $ 16,026,110 71% d) 4,187,123 60% 2,043,672 74% 68,890 71% d) 6,401,372 118% e) 94,155 75% 812,314 72% 422,673 91% d) 206,671 64% 1,273,153 70% 15,510,023 77% 17,865,428 74% 33,375,451 4,087,123 100,000 2,043,672 68,890 6,281,372 147,941 812,314 422,673 206,671 1,273,153 15,343,809 17,865,428 33,209,237 (1,417,472) (1,172,180) 108% 10,411,770 11,217,374 120,000 (53,786) 166,214 166,214 245,292 805,604 $ 8,994,298 $ 10,045,193 $ 1,050,895 Beginning Net Working Capital per FY 2018 Requested Budget I $ 10,500,000 a) Current year taxes received beginning in October b) Includes annual PILT Grant - $500,000. Close out of Fund 129 not likely to occur in FY 2017 - $53,122 c) Includes A & T Grant. Received quarterly - YTD includes 1st, 2nd, and 3rd quarters d) Personnel expenditures projected to be less than budgeted e) Formerly combined with District Attorney Page 1 Revenues OYA Basic & Diversion ODE Juvenile Crime Prev Leases Inmate/Prisoner Housing DOC Unif Crime Fee/HB2712 Food Subsidy Gen Fund -Crime Prevention Interest on Investments OJD Court Fac/Sec SB 1065 Contract Payments Case Supervision Fee Miscellaneous Total Revenues Expenditures Personnel Services Materials and Services Transfers Out-Veh Reserve Total Expenditures Revenues less Expenditures Transfers In -General Fund Change in Fund Balance Beginning Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance COMM JUSTICE -JUVENILE Statement of Financial Operating Data FY 2016 Actual 413,233 88,030 33,759 59,100 36,090 23,811 20,000 13,147 22,661 8,870 6,347 42,490 767,538 4,947,639 1,172, 705 3,660 6,124,004 (5,356,466) 5,464,591 108,125 1,307,249 $ 1,415,374 Year to Date July 1, 2016 through March 31, 2017 (75% of the year) FY 2017 % of Actual Budget Budget Projected Variance 147,279 38% a) 386,725 360,217 (26,508) 39,183 43% a) 91,379 94,728 3,349 61,050 125% b) 48,840 83,750 34,910 51,900 94% c) 55,000 59,000 4,000 27,034 74% 36,658 36,658 - 13,707 69% d) 20,000 18,000 (2,000) 10,000 50% e) 20,000 20,000 - 12,865 161% f) 8,000 16,000 8,000 13,305 78% 17,000 17,000 - 6,659 95% f) 7,000 9,000 2,000 4,855 81% 6,000 6,000 2,028 214% f) 950 2,500 1,550 389,863 56% 697,552 722,853 25,301 3,742,849 72% d) 5,186,945 5,050,000 136,945 877,549 69% d) 1,273,154 1,200,000 73,154 33,000 75% 44,000 44,000 4,653,398 72% 6,504,099 6,294,000 210,099 (4,263,536) (5,806,547) (5,571,147) 235,400 4,098,447 75% 5,464,591 5,464,591 (165,089) (341,956) (106,556) 235,400 1,415,374 118% 1,200,000 1,415,374 215,374 $ 1,250,285 $ 858,044 $ 1,308,818 $ 450,774 Beginning Net Working Capital per FY 2018 Requested Budget N $ 1,200,000 I a) Biennial allocation; reimbursements received quarterly. Projections changed due to FY 16 expenditures of the biennial award b) Additional detention space leased (beginning 9/26/16) c) Projection increased due to revenue received YTD from other counties' use of detention d) Decreased expense projection due to YTD Personnel and Materials & Services expenses e) Quarterly reimbursement f) Increased projection due to revenue received YTD Page 2 Sheriff's Office and LEDs Statement of Financial Operating Data FY 2016 Year to Date July 1, 2016 through March 31, 2017 (75% of the year) Actual ctual of Budget Budget FY 2017 Projected Variance REVENUES LED #1 Countywide Property Taxes Current Year (a) 20,079,835 20,282,930 96% 21,033,596 21,033,596 - Prior Year 372,660 252,436 63% 400,000 300,000 (100,000) Interest 75,743 78,377 N/A - 80,600 80,600 Total LED #1 Countywide 20,528,238 20,613,743 96% 21,433,596 21,414,196 (19,400) LED #2 Rural Property Taxes Current Year (a) 8,904,294 9,086,446 98% 9,258,083 9,258,083 - Prior Year 178,807 115,535 62% 185,000 120,000 (65,000) Interest 61,532 64,217 N/A 75,000 75,000 Total LED #2 Rural 9,144,633 9,266,198 98% 9,443,083 9,453,083 10,000 Sheriff's Office Revenues 7,899,943 5,927,875 78% 7,634,390 7,634,390 Total Revenues 37,572,814 35,807,816 93% 38,511,069 38,501,669 (9,400) EXPENDITURES Sheriff's Services 2,946,663 2,138,144 70% 3,050,727 3,139,982 (89,255) Civil/Special Units 1,133,697 835,113 71% 1,175,801 1,172,178 3,623 Automotive/Communications 1,977,223 1,406,564 68% 2,053,696 1,987,940 65,756 Detective 1,785,375 1,350,131 77% 1,759,576 1,802,021 (42,445) Patrol 8,583,641 6,549,302 72% 9,083,787 8,876,562 207,225 Records 718,786 476,045 62% 773,412 696,451 76,961 Adult Jail 15,633,055 11,714,397 68% 17,237,586 16,907,084 330,502 Court Security 262,486 198,554 51% 387,878 353,273 34,605 Emergency Services 212,012 186,360 66% 283,141 280,536 2,605 Special Services 1,488,556 1,094,934 69% 1,577,367 1,572,682 4,685 Training 522,986 401,449 66% 604,033 613,076 (9,043) Other Law Enforcement Services 1,014,820 687,266 80% 854,664 942,950 (88,286) Non -Departmental 93,312 84,636 75% 112,846 112,846 - Total Expenditures 36,372,611 27,122,895 70% 38,954,514 38,457,581 496,933 Revenues Tess Expenditures Beginning Balance Ending Balance 1,200,203 8,684,921 (443,445) 44,088 487,533 10,025,490 11,225,692 113% 9,894,937 11,225,692 1,330,755 11,225,692 19,910,614 9,451,492 11,269,780 1,818,288 LED #1 5,780,690 LED #2 5,445,002 11,225,692 a) Current year taxes received beginning in October. Beginning Fund Balance per Requested Budget LED #1 LED #2 11,419,638 3,878,948 5,048,251 1,169,303 8,490,976 5,572,545 6,221,530 648,985 19,910,614 9,451,493 11,269,780 1,818,287 5,073,000 6,040,000 Page 3 Revenues State Grants OHP Capitation Administrative Fee Environmental Health Fees State - OMAP Federal Grants Patient Fees Local Grants Local Government payments Title 19 State Shared -Family Planning State Miscellaneous Liquor Revenue Divorce Filing Fees Interfund Contract -Gen Fund Vital Records Interest on Investments Other Total Revenues Expenditures Personnel Services Materials and Services Capital Outlay Transfers Out Total Expenditures Revenues Tess Expenditures Transfers In -General Fund Transfers In -Other Total Transfers In Change in Fund Balance Beginning Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance HEALTH SERVICES Statement of Financial Operating Data FY 2016 Actual 11, 940, 592 11, 756, 788 920,156 878,929 1,116, 399 676,462 350,727 605,656 129,514 226,258 211,627 151,973 131,689 194,785 61,273 365,510 29,718,339 22, 769, 593 9,402,751 213,459 445,740 32,831,544 Year to Date July 1, 2016 through March 31, 2017 (75% of the year) % of Actual Budget 8,287,465 70% a) 7,365,971 62% b) 807,982 71% c) 806,023 88% 683,569 72% 162,307 24% 236,885 60% 1,263,213 106% e) 510,428 N/A e) 352,996 139% 102,898 51% 110,645 64% 82,906 55% 157,603 120% 82,717 65% 174,555 100% 71,596 130% 417,452 113% 21,677,212 70% Budget 11, 915, 605 11,941, 755 1,143,411 915,350 945,650 683,417 397,225 1,193,613 253,461 200,000 172,000 151,000 131,689 127,000 175,000 55,000 367,888 30,769,064 17,851,999 69% f) 25,786,129 7,179,947 63% g) 11,338,623 34,226 N/A h) 334,305 75% 445,740 25,400,476 68% 37,570,492 (3,113,205) 1 (3,723,264) 4,408,227 227,587 4,635,814 1,522,609 6,165,600 $ 7,688,209 $ 3,513,150 75% N/A 3,513,150 75% (210,114) 7,688,209 132% 7,478,095 (6,801,428) 4,684,193 4,684,193 (2,117,235) 5,827,329 $ 3,710,094 FY 2017 Projected Variance 12,346,988 11,001,276 1,083,411 918,284 898,598 606,400 351,713 1,697,835 510,428 471,000 180,000 185,860 141,088 157,603 127,000 231,000 92,820 433,597 31,434,901 24, 312, 918 10, 529, 946 84,226 445,740 35,372,830 431,383 (940,479) (60,000) 2,934 (47,052) (77,017) (45,512) 504,222 510,428 217,539 (20,000) 13,860 (9,912) 25,914 56,000 37,820 65,709 665,837 1,473,211 808,677 (84,226) 2,197,662 (3,937,929) 2,863,499 4,684,193 4,684,193 746,264 7,688,209 8,434,473 2,863,499 1,860,880 $ 4,724,379 Beginning Net Working Capital per FY 2018 Requested Budget 1 $ 8,434,473 1 a) Additional grants received during FY 17 for crisis services, children's intensive services, and adult intensive services b) Estimates provided by Pacific Source have been revised since budget adoption c) Draws from OHA Reserves are done on an as -needed basis e) Grants of $510,000 & $504,000 for Crisis Stabilization Center not anticipated at time FY 2017 budget was adopted f) Personnel Services savings are anticipated to be 6% of budget for the year g) Savings anticipated for contracted medical services, medical supplies, and program supplies h) Incurred capital purchase of building security system; anticipate two grant -funded vehicle purchases Page 4 Revenues Adm in -Operations Admin -GIS Admin -Code Enforcement Building Safety Electrical Contract Services Env Health -On Site Prog Planning -Current Planning -Long Range Total Revenues Expenditures Admin -Operations Admin -GIS Admin -Code Enforcement Building Safety Electrical Contract Services Env Health -On Site Pgm Planning -Current Planning -Long Range Transfers Out (D/S Fund) Total Expenditures Revenues Tess Expenditures Transfers In/Out In: General Fund - L/R Planning Out: CDD Reserve Funds Net Transfers In/Out Change in Fund Balance Beginning Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Statement of Financial Operating Data FY 2016 Actual 86,401 877 349,648 2,435,823 572,160 536,646 671,414 1,325,662 686,012 6,664,642 1,621,971 134,450 306,588 836,425 295,001 328,534 346,978 998,174 506,993 163,940 5,539,054 1,125, 588 90,783 (1,037,652) (946,869) 178,719 2,151,773 $ 2,330,492 Year to Date July 1, 2016 through March 31, 2017 (75% of the year) % of Actual Budget 71,925 90 316,882 2,029,160 524,197 432,296 1,080,017 443,356 4,897,924 1,306,871 97,714 269,952 927,061 235,295 285,606 849,526 292,779 4,264,803 633,121 (1,036,200) (1,036,200) (403,079) 2,330,492 $ 1,927,413 Beginning Net Working Capital per FY 2018 Requested Budget 88% 9% 73% 78% 84% 0% a) 72% 80% 68% 72% 75% 68% 63% 61% 71% N/A a) 64% 68% 65% N/A 68% N/A 75% 75% FY 2017 Budget Projected 81,551 1,000 436,000 2,600,000 622,500 502,500 598,750 1,343,350 656,500 6,842,151 1,732,376 143,702 427,837 1,522,708 330,955 444,755 1,256,203 452,653 Variance 104,266 22,715 150 (850) 436,000 2,842,238 683,710 632,250 1,410,150 632,211 6,740,975 1,794,559 143,702 387,860 1,364,004 350,348 401,783 1,199,106 408,122 242,238 61,210 (502,500) 33,500 66,800 (24,289) (101,176) (62,183) 39,977 158,704 (19,393) 42,972 57,097 44,531 6,311,189 6,049,484 261,705 530,962 691,491 160,529 (1,381,600) (1,381,600) (1,381,600) (1,381,600) (850,638) (690,109) 148% 1,578,206 2,330,492 $ 727,568 $ 1,640,383 $ $ 1,640,386 I a) City of Redmond contract cancelled. Services for City of Sisters are reported in the County's Building Safety and Electrical Divisions 160,529 752,286 912,815 Page 5 Revenues Motor Vehicle Revenue Federal - PILT Payment Other Inter -fund Services Cities-Bend/Red/Sis/La Pine State Miscellaneous Forest Receipts Sale of Equip & Material Mineral Lease Royalties Assessment Payments (P&I) Interest on Investments Miscellaneous Total Revenues Expenditures Personnel Services Materials and Services Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Revenues Tess Expenditures Payment from Solid Waste Trans In - Transp SDC Transfers Out Total Transfers Change in Fund Balance Beginning Fund Baiance Ending Fund Balance ROAD Statement of Financial Operating Data FY 2016 Actual 12,487,163 1,203,216 1,132,400 728,980 603,572 1,067,643 345,190 135,663 109,142 123,836 402,358 18,339,163 5,668,320 8,658,040 1,605,077 15,931,437 2,407,727 326,539 1,000,000 (600,000) 726,539 3,134,266 11,706,673 $ 14,840,939 Year to Date July 1, 2016 through March 31, 2017 (75% of the year) Actual % of Budget 9,893,662 1,323,365 237,991 111,225 593,969 381,533 191,478 191,818 76,376 80,017 33,564 13,114,998 4,315,358 4,147,621 45,595 8,508,574 4,606,424 271,840 (9,067,643) (8,795,803) (4,189,379) 14,840,939 $ 10,651,559 Beginning Net Working Capital per FY 2018 Requested Budget a) Motor Vehicle Revenue trending to $13M b) PILT Grant received in July c) Chip seal to be billed this Spring/Summer d) Chip rock has yet to be purchased 79% a) 106% b) 24% 13% c) 100% 95% 61% 110% 76% 200% 80% 76% 71% 33% d) 17% 45% 75% N/A 100% 101% 118% Budget 12,470,647 1,250,000 977,400 847,000 593,969 400,000 316,200 175,000 100,000 40,000 42,070 17,212,286 6,106,592 12,582,412 273,000 18,962,004 (1,749,718) 362,453 (9,067,643) (8,705,190) (10,454,908) 12, 549, 601 $ 2,094,693 FY 2017 Projected 13,000,000 1,323,365 977,400 847,000 593,969 381,533 316,200 191,818 100,000 110,000 42,070 17,883,355 Variance 529,353 73,365 (18,467) 16,818 70,000 671,069 6,106, 592 9,022,197 3,560,215 273,000 15,401,789 3,560,215 2,481,566 4,231,284 362,453 (9,067,643) (8,705,190) (6,223,624) 14,840,939 $ 8,617,315 $ I $ 8,684,589 I 4,231,284 2,291,338 6,522,622 Page 6 ADULT PAROLE & PROBATION Statement of Financial Operating Data FY 2016 Actual Year to Date July 1, 2016 through March 31, 2017 (75% of the year) % of Actual Budget Budget FY 2017 Projected Revenues DOC Grant in Aid SB 1145 3,650,200 2,737,626 75% a) 3,650,168 3,650,168 CJC Justice Reinvestment 845,836 845,836 100% b) 845,836 845,836 DOC Measure 57 234,316 240,315 103% c) 234,316 240,315 5,999 Electronic Monitoring Fee 175,399 98,233 49% d) 200,000 150,000 (50,000) Probation Superv. Fees 216,170 158,268 75% 210,000 210,000 DOC -Family Sentence Alt 110,797 110,797 100% b) 110,796 110,796 Interfund - Sheriff 50,000 37,503 75% 50,000 50,000 Gen Fund/Crime Prevention 50,000 25,000 50% e) 50,000 50,000 DOJ/Arrest Grant 46,736 23,368 50% e) 46,736 46,736 Alternate Incarceration 19,492 14,633 73% f) 20,035 22,000 1,965 State Subsidy 16,317 12,275 79% f) 15,610 17,000 1,390 Interest on Investments 15,022 21,653 309% g) 7,000 28,000 21,000 Probation Work Crew Fees 9,531 4,464 74% g) 6,000 7,000 1,000 State Miscellaneous 11,623 - 0% 4,300 4,300 Miscellaneous 842 1,238 248% g) 500 1,238 738 Total Revenues 5,452,282 4,331,209 79% 5,451,297 5,433,389 (17,908) Variance Expenditures Personnel Services 3,770,605 3,067,338 70% h) 4,407,793 4,200,000 207,793 Materials and Services 1,489,673 1,098,235 64% h) 1,721,927 1,575,000 146,927 Transfer to Veh Maint 41,472 16,500 75% 22,000 22,000 Capital Outlay 2,880 29% g) 10,000 13,000 (3,000) Total Expenditures 5,301,750 4,184,953 68% 6,161,720 5,810,000 351,720 Revenues Tess Expenditures 150,532 • 146,256 (710,423) (376,611) 333,812 Transfers In -General Fund Change in Fund Balance Beginning Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance 451,189 338,391 75% 451,189 451,189 601,721 484,647 (259,234) 74,578 333,812 863,649 1,465,370 126% 1,162,000 1,465,370 303,370 $ 1,465,370 $ 1,950,017 $ 902,766 $ 1,539,948 $ 637,182 Beginning Net Working Capital per FY 2018 Requested Budget a) Quarterly payments based on biennial allocation b) Annual payment based on biennial allocation c) Received a small grant in addition to biennial allocation d) Decreased projection due to less fee revenue than budgeted e) Quarterly reimbursement f) Reimbursed based on actual offender expenses. Increased projection due to YTD revenue received g) Increased projection due to YTD revenue received or expenses incurred h) Decreased projection due to YTD Personnel and Materials & Services expenses 1,375,000 Page 7 Operating Revenues Franchise Disposal Fees Private Disposal Fees Commercial Disp. Fees Franchise 3% Fees Yard Debris Recyclables Equip & Material Special Waste Interest Leases Miscellaneous Total Operating Revenues Operating Expenditures Personnel Services Materials and Services Debt Service Capital Outlay Total Operating Expenditures Operating Rev Tess Exp Transfers Out SW Capital & Equipment Reserve Mt* Trancfwrg Whit Change in Fund Balance Beginning Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance SOLID WASTE Statement of Financial Operating Data FY 2016 Actual Year to Late July 1, 2016 through March 31, 2017 (75% of the year) FY 2017 % of Actual Budget Budget Projected Variance 4,964,159 4,054,439 78% 5,195,799 5,565,802 370,003 1,869,094 1,405,346 79% 1,787,980 1,829,602 41,622 1,446,733 1,202,648 82% 1,473,817 1,641,805 167,988 238,665 106,756 46% a) 230,000 245,000 15,000 178,658 109,435 75% 145,000 160,000 15,000 18,238 9,192 61% 15,000 12,000 (3,000) 16,490 10,187 N/A 10,187 10,187 21,806 18,131 73% 25,000 25,000 24,335 22,820 127% 18,000 29,621 11,621 10,801 8,101 75% 10,801 10,801 42,543 37,788 116% b) 32,500 46,740 14,240 8,831,521 6,984,842 78% 8,933,897 9,576,558 642,661 1,967,190 1,538,927 73% 2,120,146 2,119,100 1,046 3,832,421 2,756,144 63% 4,395,018 4,528,257 (133,239) 911,224 312,735 34% c) 930,944 930,944 74,313 71,882 45% d) 158,000 117,650 40,350 6,785,148 4,679,688 62% 7,604,108 7,695,951 (91,843) 2,046,372 2,305,154 1,329,789 1,880,607 550,818 1,400,000 1,400,000 646,372 1,163,893 $ 1,810,265 1 1,375,000 1 37.5 000 100% 930,154 1,810,265 302% $ 2,740,419 100% e) Beginning Net Working Capital per FY 2018 Requested Budget 1,375,000 3,075,000 1,375,000 075 nnn (45,211) (1,194,393) 600,000 1,810,265 $ 554,789 $ 615,872 $ 615,872 1 (1,700,000) (1,700,000) (1,149,182) 1,210,265 $ 61,083 a) Fee due in April 2017 b) Includes $10,000 from sale of reportable assets c) Semi-annual payments (November and May) d) Several capital purchases are in process e) Additional transfers will be made in June, Appropriation transfers will be made, as necessary, prior to June 30, 2017. Page 8 Revenues Inter -fund Charges: General Liability Property Damage Vehicle Workers' Compensation Unemployment Claims Reimb-Gen Liab/Property Process Fee-Events/Parades Miscellaneous Skid Car Training Transfer In -Fund 340 Interest on Investments TOTAL REVENUES Direct Insurance Costs: GENERAL LIABILITY Settlement / Benefit Defense Professional Service Insurance Loss Prevention Miscellaneous Repair / Replacement Total General Liability PROPERTY DAMAGE Settlement / Benefit Insurance Loss Prevention Repair / Replacement Total Property Damage VEHICLE Professional Service Insurance Loss Prevention Miscellaneous Repair / Replacement Total Vehicle WORKERS' COMPENSATION Settlement / Benefit Professional Service Insurance Loss Prevention Miscellaneous Total Workers' Compensation UNEMPLOYMENT - Settlement/Benefits Total Direct Insurance Costs Insurance Administration: Personnel Services Materials & Srvc, Capital Out. & Tranfs. Total Expenditures Change in Fund Balance Beginning Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance RISK MANAGEMENT Statement of Financial Operating Data FY 2016 Actual 859,198 394,092 179,850 1,140,241 335,660 71,559 1,595 0 30,240 95,000 39,075 3,146,510 205,873 36,380 6,304 198,516 5,049 98 29,876 482,096 48,500 166,978 23,145 190,123 21,097 141,853 162,949 381,919 7,450 139,185 45,289 41,895 615,738 81,487 1,580,894 308,591 198,474 2,087,958 1,058,552 3,869,719 $ 4,928,271 Year to Date July 1, 2016 through March 31, 2017 (75% of the year) ie OT Actual I Budget 700,050 291,834 147,897 912,717 205,623 26,228 1,125 30 32,130 41,883 2,359,517 711,537 22,601 6,250 335,696 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 131% 63% 29% 100% N/A 105% 76% 171 9,931 1,086,185 139% 12,000 75,036 87,036 40% 781 5,101 20,995 6,985 80,664 114,526 115% 332,085 6,250 138,854 38,298 28,401 543,887 60% 19,855 13% 1,851,489 86% 245,719 99,873 2,197,081 162,436 4,928,271 $ 5,090,707 FY 2017 Budget 1 Projected 931,319 389,101 197,155 1,216,966 273,824 20,000 1,800 105 32,000 40,000 3,102,270 780,000 215,000 100,000 900,000 150,000 2,145,000 73% 337,106 47% 212,799 82% a) 2,694,905 407,365 123% 4,000,000 * $ 4,407,365 Beginning Net Working Capital per FY 2018 Requested Budget * Ending Fund Balance includes $2,900,000 restricted for Workers' Comp Loss Reserve a) Appropriation transfer is necessary and will be made prior to June 30, 2017. 931,319 389,101 197,155 1,216,966 273,824 28,000 1,800 105 34,000 Variance 8,000 2,000 50,000 10,000 3,122,270 20,000 1,200,000 (420,000) 170,000 45,000 130,000 (30,000) 690,000 50,000 2,240,000 330,106 212,799 2,782,905 339,365 4,928,271 $ 5,267,636 I $ 4,897,636 I 210,000 100,000 (95,000) 7,000 (88,000) (68,000) 928,271 $ 860,271 Page 9 Revenues Property Taxes - Current Property Taxes - Prior State Reimbursement State Grant Telephone User Tax Data Network Reimb. Jefferson County User Fee Police RMS User Fees Contract Payments Miscellaneous Interest Total Revenues Expenditures Personnel Services Materials and Services Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Transfer In - Fund 710 Revenues Tess Expenditures Beginning Fund Balance Ending Fund Qalanca DC 9-1-1 (Funds 705 and 707) Statement of Financial Operating Data FY 2016 Actual 7,091,838 139,516 52,851 825,758 51,399 31,743 56,776 314,631 486,783 333,046 76,500 9,460,840 5,066,537 2,727,787 1,821,228 9,615,552 5,723,091 5,568,379 4,995,106 Year to Date July 1, 2016 through March 31, 2017 (75% of the year) %of Actual Budget 7,193,180 89,673 39,235 429,989 252 32,251 54,669 51,340 41,763 16,289 80,966 8,029,608 4,315,711 2,109, 379 4,251, 785 10, 676, 874 400,000 (2,247,266) 10,563,485 1 V,563,4V5 = 4p V,3 1 V,L 1 0 97% 64% 6% 0% 55% 0% 98% 99% 18% 8% N/A 188% 78% FY 2017 Budget Projected a) 7,430,701 140,000 b) 640,000 c) 278,500 d) 780,000 e) 53,000 33,000 55,000 e) 280,000 f) 547,653 43,000 10,280,854 65% g) 6,658,661 71% 2,968,767 75% h) 5,650,000 70% 15,277,428 400,000 7,430,701 100,000 820,000 278,500 880,000 53,000 33,000 55,000 280,000 142,000 182 100,000 10,172,383 6,058,661 2,868,767 5,650,000 14,577,428 400,000 Variance (40,000) 180,000 100,000 (405,653) 182 57,000 (108,471) 600,000 100,000 700,000 (4,596,574) (4,005,045) 591,529 114% 9,290,627 10,563,485 1,272,858 A CAA AGO $ C 558 AA $ '1,804,387 80 387 .p Y, V.74,VJJ Q V,JJ0,4YV 1,OV'F,JO/ Beginning Net Working Capital per FY 2018 Requested Budget (Projected Budget will be updated) 7,784,093 I a) Current year taxes received beginning in October b) Reimbursement for the State's share ($780,000) of the new 9-1-1 phone system is pending c) All grant work has been completed. Waiting for mid-April inspection before submitting a reimbursement request d) 3rd Qtr payment is pending. Revenue is trending higher than expected e) Annual payment recently invoiced f) Radio system user fees will not be invoiced due to the levy passing g) Projection based on unfilled positions h) Higher capital expenses than anticipated due to better than expected project schedules Page 10 Revenues: Internal Premium Charges Part -Time Employee Premium Employee Monthly Co -Pay COIL Retiree / COBRA Co -Pay Prescription Rebates Claims Reimbursements & Misc Interest Total Revenues Expenditures: Materials & Services Admin & Wellness Claims Paid -Medical Health Benefits Fund Statement of Financial Operating Data FY 2016 Actual $ 15,745,144 8,000 900,225 2,103,195 1,147, 682 66,573 314,287 119,284 20,404,390 12,745,706 Claims Paid -Prescription 914,949 Claims Paid-Dental/Vision 1,927,875 Stop Loss lnsurance Premium 358,991 State Assessments 119,231 Administration Fee (EMBS) 487,091 Preferred Provider Fee 155,634 Other - Administration 201,166 Other - Wellness 152,033 Admin & Wellness 17,062,675 Deschutes On-site Clinic Contracted Services 905,222 Medical Supplies 68,477 Other 31,690 Total DOC 1,005,389 Deschutes On-site Pharmacy Contracted Services 350,144 Prescriptions 1,670,080 Other Total Pharmacy Total Expenditures Change in Fund Balance Beginning Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance % of Exp covered by Revenues July 1,2016 through March % of 31, 2017 (75% of Budget Fiscal Year) $ 12,707,262 2,100 682,065 1,631,823 894,792 33,885 82,361 120,472 16,154,761 FY 2017 Approved FY 2017 Budget Projection 76% a) 16,670,000 16,943,016 N/A 2,800 73% a) 928,800 909,420 80% a) 2,050,000 2,175,765 74% 1,208,893 1,208,893 26% 130,000 130,000 55% 150,000 150,000 105% a) 115,000 160,629 76% 21,252,693 21,680,523 9,940,762 74% a) 720,726 74% a) 1,601,398 78% a) 274,891 65% 0% 344,851 72% 70,675 41% 173,057 93% 139,562 89% 13,265,921 73% 646,029 71% 52,406 62% 31,734 67% 730,168 70% 250,972 74% 1,146,585 69% a) 21,002 25,372 84% 2,041,226 1,422,929 70% 20,109,291 15,419,019 73% 295,100 735,742 14,207,523 14,502,622 101% $ 14,502,622 $ 15,238,365 101.5% 1 104.8%N 13,463,599 977,251 2,059,150 420,000 225,000 481,500 171,800 186,574 156,350 18,141,224 905,000 85,000 47,525 1,037,525 339,200 1,650,000 30,374 2,019,574 21,198,323 54,370 14,327,000 $ 14,381,370 13,192,236 960,968 2,121,852 420,000 225,000 481,500 171,800 186,574 156,350 17,916,280 905,000 85,000 47,525 1,037,525 339,200 1,719,878 30,374 2,089,452 21,043,257 637,266 14, 502, 622 $ 15,139, 888 100.3%I 103.0%1 Beginning Net Working Capital per FY 2018 Requested Budget J $ 15,000,000 I a) Year to date annualized $ Variance 273,016 2,800 (19, 380) 125,765 45,629 427,830 271,363 16,283 (62,702) 224,944 (69,878) (69,878) 155,066 582,896 175,622 $ 758,518 Page 11 Operating Revenues Events Revenues Storage Camping at F & E Horse Stall Rental Food & Beverage Activities, net Annual County Fair (net) Interfund Contract Miscellaneous Total Operating Revenues Operating Expenditures, net of TRT: General F & E Activities Personnel Services TRT Grant Materials and Services TRT Grant Capital Outlay TRT Grant Total Operating Exp, net of TRT Other: Park Acq/Dev (Fund 130) Rights & Signage Interest Total Other I Results of Operations Transfers In / Out Transfer In -General Fund Transfer In -Room Tax - (Fund 160) Trans In(Out)-Fair & Expo Reserve Total Transfers In Non -Operating Rev & Exp Debt Service Total Non -Operating Expenditures Change in Fund Balance Beginning Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance FAIR AND EXPO CENTER Statement of Financial Operating Data July 1, 2016 through March 31, 2017 FY 2016 Actual Year to Date (75% of the year) Actual I% of Budget FY 2017 Budget 1 Projection 1 $ Variance $ 539,591 $ 342,480 62.8% $ 545,000 $ 59,700 38,616 64.4% 60,000 19,475 1,450 6.6% 22,000 51,449 2,280 4.4% 52,000 92,159 87,414 82.5% a) 106,015 283,000 440,000 145.3% b) 302,814 43,605 22,500 75.0% c) 30,000 7,384 8,121 91.2% 8,900 1,096,364 942,861 83.7% 1,126,729 899,882 (124,842) 714,323 (95,265) 1,394,098 30,000 101,630 1,587 133,217 (164,516) 300,000 25,744 (62,740) 263,004 109,927 109,927 (11,440) 58,723 47,283 1 Beginning Net Working Capital per Requested Budget 676,085 (135,184) 539,063 (97,847) 982,117 67.9% 72.4% 67.3% 43.2% 0.0% 0.0% 71.0% 22,500 75.0% 80,965 73.6% 999 124.9% 104,464 74.2% 65,208 187,497 75.0% 19,305 75.0% (55,000) 100.0% 151,802 68.8% 57,422 52.9% 57,422 52.9% 159,588 47,283 120.4% $ 206,872 1 995,217 (186,672) 800,712 (226,594) 255,000 (255,000) 1,382,663 525,076 57,616 20,350 41,260 100,685 440,000 30,000 10,322 1,225,309 $ (19,924) (2,384) (1,650) (10,740) (5,330) 137,186 1,422 98,580 942,085 53,132 (186,672) 746,970 53,742 (157,579) (69,015) 255,000 (255,000) 1,344,804 37,859 30,000 30,000 110,000 112,265 800 1,197 140,800 143,462 (115,134) 23,967 250,000 250,000 25,744 25,744 (55,000) (55,000) 220,744 220,744 2,265 397 2,662 139,101 I 108,488 102,536 5,952 108,488 102,536 5,952 (2,878) 142,175 145,053 39,277 47,283 8,006 $ 36,399 $ 189,458 $ 153,059 a) See "Food & Beverage Activities Schedule" b) Revenues and Expenses for the annual County Fair are recorded in a separate fund and the available net income is transferred to the Fair & Expo Center Fund c) Reimbursement from RV Park for personnel expenditures recorded in F&E $ 225,000 1 Page 12 FY 2017 Actual Year to Date M r 00 O 00 0) CO O CO N 1- O N CO 00 eh CO N CO CO 0 0) h CO CO CO 0) r O 1- O - N O CO r CO O O CO_ In 00 LOCo) CD In N d' 00 N r rLn r O N. Ln M O Ln 00 1s. N CO CO 00 r N- 1- CO r N 0) 0) 00 r V. 1` O O O O r CO d' cdf o N N O N- CO CO L 0 CO 0 00 10 0 r CO N. CO 00 0 0 O e - U V. O N r 0 0) Is -(O d' C6N N e O ' O t e - L1: M r N C•1N 1- (N .' Ln 00 00 O O c%i co in N CO CO CO h CO C- e- 00 2 T- ti V CO 0 CO CO r N N o to N ti O 0) O 0 0) Ln 0) CO N CO O 0) ao 00 d N O M a CO (0 CO CO OO 000)' N- O) ti ' It) N.- M e- 2 (C Ln I- M (5 O 1` 00 Ln r N O O e - M N N r e- r e - LL Eft (R 0) U) (4 CO CO CO 0) O o co co O in M ti r -1- Ln O 00 CO r (O CO N N 0 'Et .4 M (p (WO 0 0) CO CO. CO 0) CO O cci' r ' e- N N 0) O (O ct N Ln r (`') 1- N e CO N N O O iris C M N •- N r N e- - e - Ca ERI N 00 Ln r Ln r r 10 CO N o CO O co 0 CO (O 00 CA 0) r r 0) O CO N f` 0) N- 0) N. 0 Ln 10 0 CO r M 0 d r r I� r Ch r ' CO N N d' CD d' Cf' r (V M r N r r N O O ((0 U N CN 0) ER Zri N O O In 10 10 O 0) M o CO CO co M 10 In 1 O 00 O) O) r- d N co CO N r e- 0) d M d' _co M Ln N- r r N In 1` c ' (O ' CO r M 0 N e- Ln O �1 N CV r Ln In CO N N O r e - N r r r N r- r r > e} O Z vs to, L 00 Ln N O N co �' CO N o O O O CO CO In CO v- O aD CO h N- CO 0 'r d co N- ti N. O) Ln O Cn O) r 1- 00 e- CO 00 ' 00 N r M In O O 00 10 00 N N N '4 e- O O M U N N ('4 r r T- 0 0 ER (R L O M O O In O N 0 K) 0 CO CO O Ci) 00 (A O N- N r N- CO CO N CO �- CO M O N- n Lc" O ti M to Ln r N N CO N- ' ' Fs N CO 00 CO E (O ti MCO d' r d• O (O co i e- O O ('4 a) e- N N r <- 0_ d e- a) (I) (R M h .4. M co co co 1- o O 0 0) O) CO O M rN- CO CO 0 (0 n 1` Ln O O O CO r t 1- O M (O Ln Ln O M' M ti m (0 h O L(1 (n CON r r M e- M 6) r r 01 N N 69 (R or 0 N-- CO 0 10CD COCOO CO - 0) O cr CO'It O CO tnCON r O CO 0 O 0) O co d CO N N ti e- dj CO CO ' M f,- r Of eh 00 V'Ln N N (0 co e- O) r O M N C e- FY 16 Actual t- e' Ln 0 Q) e- o M CO e- r (V M 0) In CO ODM ti ti t() d CO M CO CO "CrK) Is. r CO N d: CO CO ' In O Lf) CO e- CO O r O O (0 (n O L() N 1- a) (O N 0) Cr) - 1- CO e- r N r N 'Et Of CO r N r C... ER 0) O (0 11) a) m Total Direct Costs Gross Profit Gross Profit Percentage Other Revenues Total Other Revenues Total Expenses tfT Income (Loss) F&B Activity Revenues Court Fines & Fees Interest on Investments Total Revenues Expenditures Personnel Services Materials and Services Total Expenditures JUSTICE COURT Statement of Financial Operating Data FY 2016 Actual Year to Date July 1, 2016 through = March 31, 2017 (75% of the year) % of Actual Budget 530,437 339,479 65% a) 803 1,036 N/A 531,240 340,515 65% 435,314 345,005 75% 158,695 115,289 66% 594,008 460,294 73% Revenues Tess Expenditures (62,768) (119,779) Transfers In -General Fund 145,747 18,747 75% Change in Fund Balance 82,979 (101,032) Beginning Fund Balance 78,723 161,702 111% End Fund Bal (Contingency) $ 161,702 $ 60,670 Beginning Net Working Capital per FY 2018 Requested Budget Budget 520,000 520,000 458,984 175,007 633,991 FY 2017 Projected (113,991) 25,000 (88,991) 145,608 $ 56,617 $ �$ 534,089 1,500 535,589 458,984 175,007 633,991 Variance 14,089 1,500 15,589 (98,402) 15,589 25,000 (73,402) 15,589 161,702 16,094 88,300 $ 31,683 70,000 a) Year to date: July through February. March revenue: $61,016. Projection: Nine months actual annualized $534,089 Page 14 Fund 160 Budget Deschutes County Room Taxes (Funds 160 and 170) Budget and Actual - FY 2017 YTD 03-31-2017 Fund 170 ■ Combined Actual • Budget Actual • Budget % of Actual Budget REVENUES Room Taxes $ 5,425,000 $ 4,790,268 $ 775,000 $ 684,324 $ 6,200,000 $ 5,474,591 88.3% Interest 3,000 7,869 4,687 3,000 12,555 418.5% Total Revenues 5,428,000 4,798,136 775,000 689,011 6,203,000 5,487,147 88.5% EXPENDITURES Administrative Auditing Services 11,000 8,750 1,500 1,250 12,500 10,000 Temporary Help 330 47 377 Interfund Contract 68,951 51,714 11,324 8,496 80,275 60,210 ISF 37,291 27,972 11,932 8,955 49,223 36,927 Public Notices 2,650 1,103 400 158 3,050 1,260 Printing 1,800 870 350 124 2,150 994 Office Supplies 900 150 125 21 1,025 171 Postage 2,625 730 400 104 3,025 835 Total Administrative 125,217 91,618 26,031 19,156 151,248 110,773 Current Distributions LED #2 3,151,787 2,363,841 - 3,151,787 2,363,841 Sunriver Chamber (1) 34,500 44,500 - - 34,500 44,500 Sunriver Chamber (2) 10,000 - 10,000 Sunriver Service Dist (3) 200,000 - - 200,000 COVA - 6% 868,696 721,876 868,696 721,876 COVA - 1% 758,007 641,483 758,007 641,483 RV Park - 40,000 28,721 40,000 28,721 Annual Fair - 61,000 75,069 61,000 75,069 F&E - 6% 25,744 19,305 25,744 19,305 F&E Reserve Fund 224,703 168,527 224,703 168,527 F&E - 1% - 668,266 204,817 668,266 204,817 Total Distributions 5,048,734 3,791,005 993,969 477,134 6,042,703 4,268,139 Total Expenditures 5,173,951 3,882,622 1,020,000 496,290 6,193,951 4,378,912 Balance 254,049 915,514 (245,000) 192,721 9,049 1,108,235 Transfer to Gen Cap Reserve 489,049 489,049. . 489,049 489,049 Change in Balance (235,000) 426,465 (245,000) 192,721 9,049 619,186 Beginning Balance 235,000 313,406 245,000 405,292 480,000 718,698 Ending Balance $ - $ 739,871 $ $ 598,013 $ 489,049 $ 1,337,883 1) $30,000 base plus 15% increase to match COVA's increase 2) $10,000 To Sunriver Chamber for consultant 3) $200,000 to Sunriver Service District for Training Facility JRF 4/3/2017 TES G W n a -k o -< Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 — Fax (541) 385-3202 — https://www.deschutes.org/ AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners Work Session of April 17. 2017 DATE: April 13, 2017 FROM: Steve Reinke, 9-1-1 Operations, 541-322-6101 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Consider Approval of the Deschutes County 9-1-1 District's Updated Strategic Plan PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS DATE?: No ATTENDANCE: Steve Reinke SUMMARY: At its March 21, 2017 meeting, the 9-1-1 User Board recommended forwarding the District's updated Strategic Plan for approval by the Commissioners, the District's Governing Board. RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: Consider approval of the Deschutes County 9-1-1 District's updated Strategic Plan. (ES 1 Primary Goals 1.1 Deschutes County 9-1-1 Strategic Plan for 2017 — 2021 Improve the capability and reliability of the emergency back-up facility. (September 2020) • Explore partnering with regional public -safety agencies in the development of a regional training center in the Redmond area. 1.2 Remain open to consolidation opportunities with other Public Safety Answering Points. (Ongoing) 2 Objectives — Line Operations 2.1 Staff two fire dispatchers 24 x 7 x 365. (May 2017) • Hire, train, deploy and promote public -safety dispatchers to achieve this objective. 2.2 Achieve Oregon Accreditation Alliance accreditation. (October 2017) • The Operations Manager will lead this initiative. 2.3 Staff for 24 x 7 x 365 supervision. (October 2017) • Promote a qualified person into the vacant supervisor position. 2.4 Staff a law enforcement data channel 12 hours per day. (April 2018) • Hire, train and deploy telecommunicators for when data requests are forecast to be highest. 2.5 Improve the retention rate for new line employees. (Ongoing) • Continually evaluate and improve the entire entry level hiring and training process. 3 Objectives — Technical Division 3.1 Add four consoles to the dispatch floor to improve the District's call taking capacity. (July 2017) • Obtain a higher level of support from the State 9-1-1 Program for 9-1-1 phone equipment. 3.2 Continue to develop radio system partnerships with other public agencies (December 2017) • Continue to use the Public Safety Radio Team and customer agency operational committees to engage with the system's user agencies. • Develop relationships with potential partners and secure written commitments for participation, first for the concept, then financial. • Develop and adopt communications system service level agreements. • Obtain all available grant funding including supporting partner agency grant applications. 3.3 Complete the CAD/RMS integration project. (May 2018) • Refine the existing RMS agreement to verify funding allocations; required data entry standards; user responsibilities; and system administration and security requirements. 4 Objectives — Administrative Services 4.1 Develop a policy for capital and operational reserves. (January 2018) 4.2 Continually evaluate personnel to back-up existing roles and for succession planning. (Ongoing) Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 — Fax (541) 385-3202 — https://www.deschutes.org/ AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners Work Session of April 17, 2017 DATE: April 12, 2017 FROM: Matt Martin, Community Development, 541-330-4620 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Historic Landmarks Commission Vacancy/Recruitment PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS DATE?: No ATTENDANCE: Matthew Martin SUMMARY: The resignation of Broc Stenman from the Deschutes County Historic Landmarks Commission creates the need to fill the position on the commision for the remainder of the term. The purpose of this work session is to discuss the vancany and request Board direction on the method of recruitment. Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division P.O. Fox 6005 117 NW Latayntte Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www, co.deschutes,or.us/cdd/ MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Matthew Martin, AICP, Associate Planner DATE: April 11, 2017 RE: Historic Landmarks Commission Vacancy/Recruitment PURPOSE The purpose of this memorandum is to provide an overview of the options available to the Board of County Commissioners (Board) to fill a vacancy on the Deschutes County Historic Landmarks Commission (HLC). At the work session on April 17, staff will seek direction on a method of recruitment. BACKGROUND On February 14, 2017, Commissioner Broc Stenman submitted his resignation effective March 15, 2017. This resignation creates the need to fill the voting position on the HLC for the remainder of the term ending March 31, 2020. The HLC consists of five voting and an undetermined number of ex -officio (non-voting) members. The voting members must reside within the county and shall, to the extent possible, be representative of the various geographic areas.1 Mr. Stenman lived in the Bend region. To the extent they are available, some of the commission members should meet professional qualifications in the disciplines of history, architecture, architectural history, archaeology, or related fields. Landmarks Commissioners serve four- year terms. Any vacancy occurring in a position for any reason other than expiration of a term shall be filled by appointment for the remainder of the term. OPTIONS Staff has identified the follow options for the Board to consider filling the HLC vacancy: 1. Appoint Ex-Offico Member Currently the HLC has two Ex-Offico members, Rachael Stemach and Kelly Madden. Staff has contacted both Ms. Stemach and Ms. Madden and each expressed interest in filling the voting 1 DCC 2.28.040. Administration. The Historic Landmarks Commission also recognizes one member appointed by the City of Sisters and one recommended by the Deschutes County Pioneer Association. Commissioners Dennis Schmidling and Bill Olson represent these two positions. Quality Services Pride member position. Both members are in good standing with the HLC through reliable meeting attendance and contributions, including involvement with other preservation activities. Staff has high regard for both and supports the appointment of either. Attached are the bios (cover letter, application, and resume) provided by Ms. Stemach and Madden prior to their appointments as ex-offico members. 2. Open Recruitment County staff will issue a media release, post information on the County's website, utilize social media, and make direct contact inviting applications to fill the vacancy on the HLC. Following the application deadline, staff will return to the Board to schedule interviews. 3. Other The Board can direct staff to utilize an alternative method not identified to fill the vacancy. Attachments: Ex-offico bios 2 Nick Lelak Deschutes County Community Development Department Planning Director 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97701 February 8, 2012 A.Kelly Madden Bend, Oregon 97701 RECEIVED FEB 0 7 2012 Deschutes County CDD Dear Nick Lelak and County Commissoners, Tammy Baney, Ron Unger, and Tony Boone: On December 26, 2010, I suffered a spontaneous carotid artery dissection. Because of the nature of this injury, I was forced to take leave from my teaching job of 26 years and sit quietly until I repaired. In the subsequent 12 months, as I recovered, I spent hours upon hours upon hours reflecting, pondering and focusing on the things and relationships that are most important to me. As my father-in-law, Dr. Joe Treleaven says: "There's nothing like a near death experience to get your priorities straight." My health and priorities are after a year, finally and completely in order. To that end I would like to apply to be one of the three new volunteer Historic Landmark Commission members for Deschutes County. This rekindled passion for history and historic places is not just a passing fancy. My interest in historic preservation goes back a long way. When I was in graduate school, I became concerned at the rate my University was tearing down old structures to build new ones. The founder of the University's home was torn down and no one seemed too bothered. When the home came down, I decided I needed to do something. In conjunction with my professors, I embarked on a semester long combined course of Material Folk Culture and Preservation AND writing. During that semester and with the guidance of my committee and The Missouri Cultural Heritage Center; I helped the University preserve another structure, The Conley House, which now houses the Honors College. But, sadly, as I pursued my teaching career, this passion simmered on the back stove of my imagination until now. I understand the role of a landmarks commissioner. I know it is the commissioner's job to make the right decision about structures. Does the building or place have architectural merit? Does it have viable history to keep it alive? Should the owners be allowed to make changes? How can the changes be done and still keep the historical integrity of the structure? I feel I have good qualifications for this position. Firstly, I have passion about history and historic places. Secondly, I have traveled and explored not only all over this county, but all over the state. I know Central Oregon and Oregon in general VERY well. Thirdly, I am good at observation and details. I am in organized person and am able to see things that sometimes others might miss. I am a good reader, of both books and places. Finally, I am a great team player. One can't be successful as a middle school teacher without being able to cooperate and work with others. These same skills serve me on any committee or any group I work with. I get along well with all kinds of people and am usually able to communicate effectively with them. I hope you consider me for this position. I look forward to hearing from you. If you have questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, A.Kelly Madden DESCHUTES COUNTY HISTORICAL LANDMARKS Commissioner Application 1 Aop 1 pJ.11lb 11 '1n Jll11,111�1111, 1 YI I 1 YIn 111111111 i11tn�1 61,(111111{11 (111.111 V 11'Y 1 II1 uenl no1111 I 1. Position applied for: V Unincorporated County Sisters 2. Name: Addres 3. Phone: Email: ecw i II I 1 uJ1u III +I III[ III V u II I11e11111Wu lYllu ,1 ,14w leo IYb,11J411 Iu1 I.V 6.111,11 ,I y 11u,11 I III I I II I I I I II 1 11111 1 111 1 111 11 IY II II II Iii II 11 III 111,11111 11 I IIm 111111111 111 I 1 1116111111111 II 111111 I IY Yil II 111 ill 11 11111 I Pioneer Association 014mto) �. 0-e,c4-, q q / 4. Special skills, intcrcts, hobbies that you believe would bring special value to your ability to serve on this Commission: _I'm geed et;rbSev✓ee756') ani 4,6/c re*.d •J f' rend 014 I, yi vvi4n ct bo 4-5 aib,+-r f�/ Th corm , r�, y,' "C?• krofti/r �Z. S, _ 'lid /Yo. v{//. -W + )171 n_siveG/q in 7h/ c d w roto 441 el 4 r✓J wee/ vvsed in 71-e 4d-kvti..P4- f'Ylw*v7G+2 Ge l7v ee eYA sS ' a S��fi eeti . c41 -2v h /1,e 4c47, 4 voe 475 5. Current occupation and duties: -fro 1/6- 4 Ve-Madle.c 4.6)-(. 24 yea, f ", c h i Jai i ei.€4 J Cc- ' �pve a l / y.Vo/tirPerred or ce. as Tive Igkee-s i t'W Rf f l 75171e- 6. »fl 6. Other volunteer, committee, board and/or commission experience: ' " /Z + From: 11144 • ZO// To: Za Type of organization: Role: Activities/Achievements: (Month/Year)Organization Name: te5.C4btk5 hie 4rviCa C n4Nseuppll (Month/Year)Address: 0ld ea Sated V'nluk feet• run ,fy-ottotesic oseerre 004.11 r T t a If you are still serving in this capacity, do you foresee any conflicts between this Commission and the position you currently hold? Yes , No Deschutes County Historic Landmarks Commissioner Application Page 1of14 From: To: Type of organization: Role: Activities/Achievements: (Month/Year)Organization Name: (Month/Year)Address: If you are still serving in this capacity, do you foresee any conflicts between this Commission and the position you currently hold? Yes No From: (Month/Year) Organization Name: To: (Month/Year) Address: Type of organization: Role: ' .. Activities/Achievements: If you are still serving in this capacity, do you foresee any conflicts between this Commission and the position you currently hold? Yes No From: (Month/Year) Organization Name: To: (Month/Year) Address: Type of organization: Role: c:;c44..., r.el „ Activities/Achievements: If you are still serving in this capacity, do you foresee any conflicts between this Commission and the position you currently, hold? Yes No (Please attach additional pages If you have additional information regarding your organizational involvement.) 7. Please be prepared to answer the following questions if you are interviewed: a. Describe your knowledge of and experience using the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitation, if any. b. Describe your experience with local historical preservation codes. c. Describe your knowledge of and experience restoring or rehabilitating historic structures. d. Describe your experience with Inventories of historic resources. e. Please describe your profession and education as they relate to the following areas or attach your professional resume: architecture, history, architectural history, planning, prehistoric and historic archeology, folklore, cultural anthropology, curation, conservation and landscape architecture or related disciplines. Deschutes County Historic Landmarks Commissioner Application Page 2 of 14 f. How would you describe your attitude toward and perspective on the importance of historic preservation programs in local land use planning and economic development? g. Describe your knowledge of and experience with historic cemeteries. h. Describe your interest in and knowledge of local history. '), y /n 8. How did you hear about this position? read 0 �� ( �/I %i (.4 -Ail? wast.)( --e... 9. Do you have any neighbors, friends or relatives presently working for Deschutes County? If yes, please list: 10. References: IZ/t t aC""Mal L'a r - —n My signature affirms that the information in this application is true to the best of my knowledge. I understand that misrepresentation and/or omission of facts would be cause for removal from any advisory committee, board or commission to which I may be appointed. I also understand that County policy requires disclosure of actual or potential conflicts of interest by persons appointed by the Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners to any committee. All information and/or documentation related to service on the Deschutes County Landmarks Commission is subject to public records disclosure. '66t?„ ` 144 ,40(G .G ..) f Signature Date Please mail or deliver your application no later than Friday, February 24, 2012 at 5:00 p.m. to: Nick Lelack, Deschutes County Planning Director 117 NW Lafayette, P.O. Box 6005 Bend, OR 97708-6005 Nick can be reached at (541) 385-1708 or via email at nick.Ielack@deschutes.org Deschutes County Historic Landmarks Commissioner Application Page 3 of 14 Education July 2006 A.KellyMadden Bend, Oregon 97701 Advanced Intermediate Spanish Certificate, Progama de Aprendizaje de la Lingua Castellana, Sucre, Bolivia April 2000 Oregon Standard Teaching License, English for Other Languages August 1993 Advanced Spanish Certificate, Escuela de Espanol I.C.A Quetzaltenango, Guatemala November 1991 Oregon Standard Teaching License, French Pre -Primary -12 and Language Arts 5-12 May 1986 Masters Degree in Education, M.ED. Department of Curriculum and Instruction Missouri Life Secondary Teaching Certificate French K-12 and English 7-12 University of Missouri- Columbia December 1982 Bachelor of Arts, Dual Degree- French and English Literature, Department of Arts and Sciences University of Missouri- Columbia May 1980 Diplome Generale, Alliance Francaise - Paris, France Fluent in French and conversational Spanish A. Kelly Madden Professional Experience September 2005 to 2011 Teacher Specialist, High Desert Middle School, Bend, Oregon 6th, 7th 8th grade English Language Learners (ESL, ELL, ELD) March 1999 to June 2005 Teacher, Obsidian Middle School, Redmond, Oregon 8th grade Humanities- Language Arts and History, 8th grade Leadership, 8th grade Romance Languages, 8th grade Talented and Gifted, August 1998 to February 1999 Teacher, St. Mary Star of the Sea, Astoria, Oregon Language Arts, PE and Health - grades 4-8 September 1996 to June 1998 Instructor, Clatsop Community College, Astoria, Oregon Writing 40, Writing 41, Writing 121, Writing 122, Writing 123 English as a Second Language, Job Start at Head Start (grant project) September 1992 to May 1996 Teacher, Gregory Heights Middle School, Portland, Oregon English as a Second Language Core teacher - grades 6, 7, 8 Language Arts, Social Studies and Reading October 1991 to June 1992 Grant High School, Portland, Oregon Newcomer Program, English as a Second Language August 1989 to June 1991 Teacher, American International School, Lisbon, Portugal AP English, Beginning Composition, IB Language A, Freshman English, 7th and 8th grade English, ESL and Journalism Fall 1990 Instructor, University of Maryland -European Division NATO Headquarters, Oeiras Portugal English 101- Introduction to Writing August 1985 to June 1989 Teacher, Rock Bridge Senior High School, Columbia, Missouri French I, French 11, American Literature - Junior English, Publications I, II, 111 A. Kelly Madden Trainin2s, Special Achievements and Awards, US Department Of State, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs Fellowship: Teaching Excellence and Achievement Program. Gyumri, Armenia, Washington D.C, and Lincoln, Nebraska. 2007-2008 Trainer of Trainer's Institute, Sheletered Insrtuction Observation Protocol. 40 hours. High Desert ESD June 2007 SIOP Training, Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol. 30 hours. Bend- La Pine School District, May 2006 ELD Training, Systematic English Language Development. 21 hours. Bend -La Pine School District December 2006 Boomerang Project, Leadership Training, Basic Training for WEB, 32 hours, Blaine, Washington, February 2006 IB Training, International Baccalaureate, Middle Years Programme, Areas of Interaction Trainings in Humanities and Language AAugust 2003, Colorado Springs Colorado and February 2003, Toronto, Canada Award Winner, Oregon Middle Level Association, Certificate for Outstanding Service, June 2003 State Honor, Service Learning Project (and grant recipient), Veteran's History Project, State Presenter at Memorial Day Celebration sponsored by Oregon State Department of Education, Salem Armory, Salem, Oregon, May 2002 Adopt -a School International, Y2K service trip to supply highland mountain villages with school supplies and medical supplies, Summer 2000 Award Winner, Redmond City Council Recognition Award for volunteer efforts of my Advisory, 2000 Grant Recipient, Chapter II Block Grant, 1994-95, received $30,000 for Project MIDL: "The Multi-Lingual/Cultural Intergenerational Developmental Literacy Project" Presenter, Oregon Middle Level Association Winter Conference, January 1996 Workshop entitled : " Pinatas to Parallelograms, Adapting Curriculum for the ESL Student" Honoree, Most Influential Teacher Award, awarded by the University of Missouri Honors College, 1989-90 A. Kelly Madden Activities and Duties High Desert Middle School Bend, Oregon • WEB coordinator. 2006-2009 • Curriculum Adoption Committee for ELL 2006-2007 Obsidian Middle School Redmond, Oregon • 1B Team 2003-2005 • Recycling/ Green School Coordinator 2003-2005 • Track Coach 1999- 2003 Head Coach 2001, 2002 • Talented and Gifted Program Coordinator 2002-2003 • SITE Council 1999-2001 • Text book adoption team member Clatsop Community College Astoria, Oregon • Developed ESL program for migrant farm workers at local housing development • Wrote mini -grant- ESL program Clatsop Community College- "Books for Students" • Coordinated Volunteer Literacy Tutor Workshop Fall 97- Clatsop Community College Astoria, Oregon • President- North Coast Chorale, a classical choral music group for Northwest Oregon • Columnist- bi-monthly columnist for the Daily Astorian on Senior Citizen Issues Gregory Heights Middle School Portland, Oregon • SITE Council Chair 1995-96 • SITE Council member 1994-95 • Testing Coordinator for ESL Department • Supervise all bi-lingual assistants 1993-96 • Coordinate and Implement Project MIDL Adviser of school paper "The Panther Press" Grant High School Portland,Oregon • Coordinated Newcomer Program 1992 American International School • English Department Chair 1990-91 • Junior Class Sponsor 1989-90 Rock Bridge Senior High School • Journalism Adviser- "The Rock" 1985-89 • Literary Magazine Adviser- "Echoes from the Bridge" 1987-1989 A. Kelly Madden References for A. Kelly Madden Recommendations from the following individuals are available. My credentials are on file and available from: Educational Placement Center 118 Hill Hall University of Missouri- Columbia Columbia, Missouri 65211 (573) 882-8311 Gary DeFrang Principal High Desert Middle School 61000 Diamondback Lane Bend, Oregon, 97701 (541) 383-6486 gdefrana0Bend.k12.or.us Janelie Beers (former Principal, Obsidian Middle School) Superintendent Dayton School District #8 526 Ferry Street Dayton, Oregon 97114 (503) 864-2215 janelle.beersQdayton.k12.or.us Patricia McBride (former Assistant Principal, American International School, Lisbon) esota 55804 Rachel A. Stemach ADDRESS Bend, OR 97701 PHONE EMAIL RECEIVED BY: in4i" 1 FEB 1 7 2012 DELIVERED BY: February 17, 2012 Nick Lelack, Planning Director Deschutes County Community Development Department 117 NW Lafayette Ave Bend, OR 97701 re: Historic Landmarks Commission application Dear Mr. Lelack, Enclosed you will find a completed application for a position with the Deschutes County Landmarks Commission and my professional resume. I am an Oregon -licensed architect, and am a partner at Ambient Architecture with my husband, here in Bend. The following two anecdotal paragraphs explain my background and zeal for architectural history. I've witnessed Central Oregon change before my eyes. In fact, we've grown up together. As a child, I used to marvel at photographs of the Pilot Butte Inn, demolished the year before I was born. My schoolbus used to drive by on Industrial Way next to the Brooks -Scanlon Crane Shed, and then parallel to the Shevlin-Hixon train trestle that spanned the Deschutes River. I've - watched magical places tike the Peterson Rock Garden deteriorate. I've also seen places very dear become new again - the Tower Theatre, the Bend Amateur Athletic Club, the Allen - Rademacher House, and even my own house. Researching tax assessor's records and micro -fiche articles on my 92 -year old, westside milt home, I tried to find images or information of what our home was tike in the early part of the century before it was hastily modified. Its true self was unveiled to us in 2006 when the asbestos siding was removed, exposing its original mill -scrap lapped siding, and lined on the interior by 1920's -era newspapers. At the age of ten, I sketched house plans. At Bend Senior High, I turned to drafting courses. At Central Oregon Community College, it was computer-aided drafting. At University of Idaho, it was earning a degree in Architecture. For awhile, I considered an internship with the National Parks Service, researching and documenting historic structures throughout the country. Instead, right out of college, I found a rich cache of building projects, both new and old, in Portland, Maine. For four years, I soaked in much experience in restoration and rehabilitation of existing structures, the best experiences of which were found at Pinetand Center, a 19 -building campus (most of which are rehabilitated early 20th century buildings from the state's mental health department), and is now a successful convention and business campus for central and southern Maine. Deschutes County's heritage has always been important to me, and on a professional levet I have wished for sometime to be a part of it by giving time and expertise to my community. I am excited about the possibility of becoming a Historic Landmarks Commissioner. 1 look forward to hearing from you and discussing this position further. Sincerely, Rachel A. Stemach Architect, LEED AP+ -VES 0 DESCHUTES COUNTY HISTORICAL LANDMARKS Commissioner Application 11 ,1111J1,44 „111JIIUh,a a1li Aldi Jelin, Y„iY1,LL1“,,UU1141 1,1,,1„11,,1111110111'11111, I1 III I 1111111 lil 1 Ila 111111 11111 , IUlll�ti.11111e,1111111n I ul lil la L6,1,111, la U1,�I,�„611111111„I,uIl1 L,d 1., I,IJhIa1 Il ll(i((VII111r11Kri((rr(IriiR R11 llefiilldhllhulh IIWh!F1III1111111111111 In1111 a 111011111111111111 01111 11 111111 1 1 1 11111 a 1111 i h11111 HMO lulu 111 11 11 1BIIIII161hI, I1IY IL YII1111 ulIiu1 11111L1111IIWIlII,hia1114111111II1,IhIJ, 1. Position applied for: )(l Unincorporated County Sisters 2. Name: tao.G-lam- A.. S'i” 'Yvi a6.0 -i Address: 3. Phone: Email: Pioneer Association Cell: 5 h1 L Fax: 4. Special skills, interests, hobbies that you believe would bring special value to your ability to serve on this Commission: )4, LOtJCC T► tvbi -ip P 1 D6m' , 1 'Ye m1-�A1 iPX 4136'66 AcedifT1P 5(WF / 1'vk O urt 'I1) t••IG . rr P4, Ft2 tb sre sant e= of auS M e r tx:6T ewe/4 t// -Z , 1306 / 12 -ea tiff L/HEM 5-172,V1)P_ is <a -V-673 .knJP P_EH4 Iu74M-73. AS 401 A cH17 cT. 1 Htb op-i,vaRkbkr (SN515vgrz,6,4 . 07/e H COL/NW/ Y- I by / P 0/ U)//k143 Avg-1/JL4 F -1J2 YeAkr ir4 NbtS _k \16 t.Aav6 , 1knJ D HAW $i?dtX tr 77-I4T P 2Ie7 f t t-ogizeunX POWY / H.kro ir. FP -k- elaV/k'no1.31,47ugoP ogani soyvli/JA<29,.4s• KIEV, A1oF 5S1tiU/AtT Ni►r/t¢ til-E131Nl4 Q ON H 1s-IU21 c Pgst►z.V 1107.1 sr1= T'6"67iGs . S. Current occupation and duties: citze&oN 1 D1%-1-10121 N r1 tT . M PI,oYEb AT / 418/FNr A -120H/ 7?z. -02.g ► AJ DO-varrblAW Purr, INGt,Ubti SPS-PCNJtJ!t'.6 , pteAsiol LCT<i sTvPies. Dc -/4113 AnrA 60NsieuctiBtJ Doiconite-AnAlltsiu ezoRDiNktioNt. Pe77fLSr SP67-11✓164714nf5,A,A16 cotrs7?z1C7IevLi Ac»41 N1sTRA776M, 6. Other volunteer, committee, board and/or commission experience: From: 1401 To: Elis” Type of organization: Role: Activities/Achievements: If you are still serving you currently hold? (Month/Year)Organization Name: (Month/Year)Address: eAU1e U4'1tvtuNtc-A770ni S `t T7.k�V %7P ltl?,rx' ill -b/1/41-11-/ •t- dAtUu14-L. YYl ffen N cr 5E7/JP Dbw Ni ENSTAT M NTA -111.51 N N tiN Pl;-bFt - cm-NspQ- eig4 rC W6P6.544,S • in this capacity, do you foresee any conflicts between this Commission and the position Yes )X No gifEIa KreST NO4ManeH0013 A-sr,'ewgriiIV o, Se,( 1135 iz✓E✓%ih. bra c17769 F3G8 or k/ON Pr?oP/T FU2 Wt575/D ees/DP74,175 Deschutes County Historic Landmarks Commissioner Application Page 1 of 14 From: To: D1112. (Month/Year)Organization Name: Type of organization: Role: Activities/Achievements: (MonthlYear)Address: 1.11/11.161 t LDI I\1 64e.1A.M.V9 P- Ai 1z1 u,4 4441 Are ''PtertANO, 612 c izoot IINJTep JArn451L.341_ t.ttht re 'PO 1ZJ 12 /NSTITU11 1voprF, -rO vkaAs So 44ilaU( JUST; CtAUNTi31;iZAMf3A ,t.Arbr2_ eU�Tuiz uv MCAa�Jbezortrc,icnct�! . UNQ 4 b ur, TM Kit N7.r 2 c aol2Plnrzln I ni.4 t IV1J P Jt7M1 LA>LAL is4/11U►-Tu0S r— - INTt?Oi)oc Iluzf u ul nr4 es/hUJ/N74 If you are still serving in this capacity, do you foresee any conflicts between this Commission and the position you currently hold? Yes )( No From: (Month/Year) Organization Name: To: (Month/Year) Address: Type of organization: Role: Activities/Achievements: If you are still serving in this capacity, do you foresee any conflicts between this Commission and the position you currently hold? Yes No From: To: Type of organization: Role: Activities/Achievements: (Month/Year) Organization Name: (Month/Year) Address: If you are still serving in this capacity, do you foresee any conflicts between this Commission and the position you currently, hold? Yes No (Please attach additional pages if you have additional information regarding your organizational involvement.) 7. Please be prepared to answer the following questions if you are Interviewed: a. Describe your knowledge of and experience using the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitation, if any. b. Describe your experience with local historical preservation codes. c. Describe your knowledge of and experience restoring or rehabilitating historic structures. d. Describe your experience with inventories of historic resources. e. Please describe your profession and education as they relate to the following areas or attach your professional resume: architecture, history, architectural history, planning, prehistoric and historic archeology, folklore, cultural anthropology, curation, conservation and landscape architecture or related disciplines. Deschutes County Historic Landmarks Commissioner Application Page 2 of 14 f. How would you describe your attitude toward and perspective on the importance of historic preservation programs in local land use planning and economic development? g. Describe your knowledge of and experience with historic cemeteries. h. Describe your interest in and knowledge of local history. 8. How did you hear about this position? J NN4 .IONNScN t~ -Y11411- 12,51,Est; 61125)1Z: 9. Do you have any neighbors, friends or relatives presently working for Deschutes County? If yes, please list: NONE 10. References: M -t t1' 1k rc NpeZsarJ f3elut 4 012 91701 TDPD Rc(3:1Z7A. 46HmsbnJ Gam, orz q-rlbf My signature affirms that the information in this application is true to the best of my knowledge. I understand that misrepresentation and/or omission of facts would be cause for removal from any advisory committee, board or commission to which I may be appointed. I also understand that County policy requires disclosure of actual or potential conflicts of interest by persons appointed by the Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners to any committee. All information and/or documentation related to service on the Deschutes County Landmarks Commission is subject to public records disclosure. Signature Please mail or deliver your application no later than Friday, February 24, 2012 at 5:00 p.m. to: Nick Lelack, Deschutes County Planning Director 117 NW Lafayette, P.O. Box 6005 Bend, OR 97708-6005 Date Nick can be reached at (541) 385-1708 or via email at nick.lelack@deschutes.org Deschutes County Historic Landmarks Commissioner Application Page 3 of 14 Rachel A Stemach ADDRESS PHONE EMAIL Profile My delight in architectural design, building technologies and detailing, documentation and construction continues to grow with every project, new or remodeled. Opportunities and challenges grant a sense of purpose and accomplishment that i constantly strive for. The client's interaction and satisfaction in their successfully completed buildings are always the greatest reward in my profession. Experience ARCHITECT, AMBIENT ARCHITECTURE; BEND, OR - 2010 TO PRESENT Fully -realized potential in design and coordination of targe multi -family housing to retail tenant improvements, as well as feasibility studies and visioning concepts, building material selections, specifications and public -bid proposals and firm marketing strategies. PROJECT ARCHITECT, STEELE ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS; BEND, OR - 2004 TO 2009 Instrumental expertise in all phases of design and construction including commercial/ industrial campuses, various mixed-use buildings, education remodels, dozens of tenant improvements including medical, retail, restaurant, and government agencies. JOB CAPTAIN, SMRT, INC; PORTLAND, ME - 1999 TO 2003 Extensive involvement in design phases including conceptual design, space planning, SD, DD, CD phases and detailing for various project types including healthcare, correctional and secondary education, as well as commercial building historic rehabilitation. ARCHITECTURAL INTERN, THOMAS DEATHERAGE, ARCHITECT; BEND, OR - 1997 TO 1999 Summer internship duties consisting of CD phase documents, Addenda/ bidding phase, specification writing and office administration. Projects White at Ambient Architecture 1002 NW BOND STREET RENOVATION; BEND, OR (IN CONSTRUCTION) AMERICAN RED CROSS DONOR CENTER TENANT IMPROVEMENT; BEND, OR (IN CONSTRUCTION) OSU-CASCADES STRATEGIC CAMPUS VISIONING; BEND, OR LONE PINE VILLAGE 48 -UNIT HOUSING PROJECT; THE DALLES, OR (IN CONSTRUCTION) LIVING CITIES DESIGN CHALLENGE COMPETITION - BEND, OR (SHOWCASED IN VANCOUVER, B.C. SPRING 2011) RE/MAX REVOLUTION TENANT IMPROVEMENT, SISTERS, OR (COMPLETED SPRING 2011) UNDERWOOD RESIDENCE, SISTERS, OR (COMPLETED SPRING 2008) FRESNO AVENUE RESIDENCE REMODEL, BEND, OR (COMPLETED WINTER 2006) While at Steele Associates MOSAIC MEDICAL EXPANSION TENANT IMPROVEMENT; BEND, OR (COMPLETED FALL 2009) BEAR CREEK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL REMODEL & EXPANSION; BEND, OR (COMPLETED FALL 2009) KARCHER BUILDING, WITH IDAHO ORTHOTIC & PROSTHETIC SERVICES; MERIDIAN, ID (COMPLETED SPRING 2009) OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TENANT IMPROVEMENT; BEND, OR (COMPLETED FALL 2008) ANIMAL EMERGENCY CENTER ADDITION & REMODEL TENANT IMPROVEMENT; BEND, OR (COMPLETED SUMMER 2008) DECOY BAR a GRiLL TENANT IMPROVEMENT; BEND, OR (COMPLETED WINTER 2007) Rachel A Stemach ADDRESS Bend, OR 97701 PHONE EMAIL FRANKLIN CROSSING; BEND, OR (COMPLETED SUMMER 2006) CENTRAL OREGON RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES TENANT IMPROVEMENT; REDMOND, OR (COMPLETED FALL 2005) BEND MEMORIAL CLINIC TENANT IMPROVEMENT; REDMOND, OR (COMPLETED FALL 2005) MIDSTATE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE; LAPINE, OR (COMPLETED FALL 2005) While at SMRT AROOSTOOK MEDICAL CENTER ADDITION a RENOVATION; PRESQUE ISLE, ME (COMPLETED SPRING 2004) ELLIOT GERIATRIC HEALTH CENTER; MANCHESTER, NH (COMPLETED SUMMER 2002) DURHAM HALL AT PINELAND CENTER RENOVATION; NEW GLOUCESTER, ME (COMPLETED SPRING 2002) YORK COUNTY JAIL & SHERIFF'S OFFICE; ALFRED, ME (COMPLETED FALL 2003) MARANACOOK MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOLS; READFIELD, ME (COMPLETED FALL 2001) Accreditations Licensed Architect, State of Oregon (December 2007) Licensed Architect, State of Idaho (July 2010) NCARB Certification, 2008 LEED®AP+ - Leadership in Energy Et Environmental Design Accredited Professional, U.S. Green Building Council, September 2007 Education University of Idaho, Moscow, ID - Bachelor of Architecture w/ Art Minor, 1999; 3.45 GPA Central Oregon Community College, Bend, OR - General Studies, 1995: 3.71 GPA Bend Senior High School, Bend, OR - AP English a Science courses, 1993; 3.84 GPA Skills ArchiCad 14 a 15, Building Information Modeling (BIM) AutoCAD (2010 and all versions since Release 12) Arcom MasterSpec Oregon Structural Specialty Code (OSSC) and International Building Code (IBC) City of Bend ePlans (electronic plan submittal) Microsoft Office (Word, Excel, Outlook) Adobe (Photoshop Elements, Acrobat Professional) Windows 2000, XP and Macintosh OS X and above Hand -drafting a color rendering techniques Activities &t Awards Living Building Challenge Volunteer Ambassador, Bend, OR; 2012 -present Commute Options of Central Oregon Commuter Challenge Winner, Bend, OR; 2010 Secretary/ Treasurer - Riverwest Neighborhood Association, Bend, OR; 2007 -present Muralist - Working Wonders Children's Museum, Bend, OR; 2004 References PERSONAL CLIENT COLLEAGUE Michelle Anderson Todd a Roberta Johnson David Coffin, Jr. Digital Editor Owners Architect, AIA TheHo e.com S•ortsvision Bend Sawmill Studio iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Bedford Hills, NY Bend, OR itsiaciataia Bend Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 — Fax (541) 385-3202 — https://www.deschutes.org/ AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners Work Session of April 17, 2017 DATE: April 12, 2017 FROM: Jacob Ripper, Community Development, 541-385-1759 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Marijuana Production Appeal PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS DATE?: No ATTENDANCE: Jacob Ripper, Associate Planner. SUMMARY: The Board is tasked with determining if the marijuana production proposal will comply or not comply with the applicable sections of the Deschutes County Code. Staff has provided a memorandum and all documentation submitted during the open record period. Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ STAFF MEMORANDUM DATE: April 10, 2016 TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners FROM: Jacob Ripper, Associate Planner RE: Marijuana Production Appeal 247-17-000036-A (247 -16 -000600 -AD) BACKGROUND INFORMATION Proposal: The applicant requested approval of an Administrative Determination to establish a marijuana production facility in the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) Zone. Staff Reviewer: Jacob Ripper, Associate Planner Administrative Decision Issued: January 11, 2017 Appeal Filed: January 17, 2017 Hearing Date: March 6, 2017 Record Closed: April 3, 2016. The record was left open for a total of 28 days, at the discretion of the Hearings Body, which was the Board of County Commissioners (Board) in this case. Review Period: The application was submitted on October 4, 2016. It was deemed incomplete on November 2, 2016. After the applicant submitted additional information, the application was accepted and deemed complete on December 19, 2016. The 150th day on which the county must take final action on this application is May 18, 2017. The Board is tasked with determining if the subject proposal will comply or not comply with the applicable sections of the Deschutes County Code. Staff has provided two tables, one with testimony summaries and the other to assist the Board in evaluating the record. ISSUES RAISED IN TESTIMONY & SUBMITTED MATERIALS Numerous topics were raised in testimony at the public hearing and in written submissions during the open record period. In compliance with Deschutes County Code (DCC) 22.24.140, the following open record period was provided immediately following the public hearing: a 14 -day period ending on March 20, 2017, for new written evidence and testimony; a Quality Services Performed with Pride 7 -day period ending on March 27, 2017, for response to materials submitted in the previous period; and a 7 -day period ending on April 3, 2017, for final a statement from the applicant. Table 1 captures the majority of the impacts, comments, and topics of concern identified in the written materials and testimony from the public hearing, as well as from the open record period. Staff grouped public comments by topic in no particular order other than alphabetical. Following Table 1, are staff responses. TABLE 1: TOPICS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA Amendment to DCC: marijuana requirements Code enforcement Compatibility with surrounding uses Conditions of approval Cost of improvement to driveway Definition of unreasonable in regards to odor control EFU minimum irrigated acres parcel size Electric service Farm & Forest management agreement Fertilizer and pesticide use Fire risk to surrounding homes Harmonious with surrounding uses Hidden driveways on road Identification of OLCC license holder Insects, mold, mildew, mites, rodents, etc. from marijuana production Legislative history in development of DCC marijuana use regulations Moral character of applicant Morality of using potable water for farm use MUA-10 zoning standards As identified in Findings & Decision for file 247 -16 -000600 -AD. 247-17-000036-A Page 2 of 13 New dwelling in conjunction with marijuana No initial public hearing (administrative decision) Nobody living onsite in EFU (residency requirements) Noise pollution Number of employees Number of plants Odor control Ongoing compliance Other off-site marijuana production sites Permitted use v. conditional use Petition in opposition Procedurals errors/noticing errors Property values Proximity to residential uses Regulatory taking & collateral attack Relation to comprehensive plan Road Frontage/Access Safety of neighborhood Seasonal production volumes (summer v. winter) Secured waste receptacle Septic - second system allowed v. not allowed Small parcels nearby Sustainability of marijuana production System Development Charge (SDC) ✓ si 247-17-000036-A Page 3 of 13 Transportation/Traffic Impacts (when use will create 50 or more daily trips) Transportation/Traffic Impacts (when use will create less than 50 daily trips) Trespassing Vehicle crashes nearby Visual impacts Warehouse as analog use for marijuana production Wastewater/septic approval Water source (irrigation & private) Water source's sustainability Water supply/season Website not functional (www.dial.deschutes.org) Youth spending time outdoors nearby (not a youth activity center) STAFF RESPONSES: Amendment to DCC An opponent letter suggested several text amendments to the DCC in regards to regulating marijuana uses. No application for a text amendment has been filed as of the date of this memo. Code Enforcement Several letters of opposition questioned how the requirements and conditions of approval will be enforced. Staff notes there is a Code Enforcement Division that investigates code violation complaints and there is an annual reporting requirement (DCC 18.116.330(D)) for approved marijuana production sites. Compatibility with Surrounding Uses Several objectors questioned if the proposal was compatibles with surrounding land uses. The appellant has stated Ordinance 2016-015 allows recreational marijuana grows as a permitted use. The appellant has not cited a DCC criterion requiring compatibility with surrounding uses. Staff notes that in general, compatibility criteria are reviewed for conditional uses. Marijuana production in the EFU zone is not a conditional use. Comprehensive Plan The appellant has suggested approval of the subject land use permit is not in compliance with the County's Comprehensive Plan. Staff notes that the applicable marijuana -related code sections of the DCC were developed and approved as part of a public process, ultimately 247-17-000036-A Page 4 of 13 leading to the adoption of Ordinance 2016-015. The subject land use application is not part of that rule-making process, but rather an implementation of those adopted DCC requirements. Conditions of Approval The appellant stated, "that a county must approve an application if it can do so by imposing conditions of approval" and also, "there is no logical way to find compliance is feasible, without the Board literally making up facts for the applicant". In the Findings & Decision, staff found the proposed marijuana production facility can comply with the applicable standards and criteria of the Deschutes County zoning ordinance (DCC Title 18) if conditions of approval are met. The Board will need to determine if the proposal can meet the standards and criteria of the Deschutes County zoning ordinance if conditions of approval are met. Cost of Improvement to Driveway The appellant stated they paid for improvements to the driveway which now serves the subject property, but did not cite an applicable criterion in the DCC. Definition of Unreasonable An opponent letter asked the Board to clarify what "unreasonable" means in regards to the DCC 18.116.330(B)(10)(a)2 requirement for odor control. This DCC section provides guidance on how to address the subjective "unreasonable interference with neighbors use and enjoyment" criterion and assumes that an applicant will not unreasonably interference with his/her neighbors so long as utilizing an odor control system that meets or exceeds minimum standards as well as being designed by a mechanical engineer. EFU and MUA-10 Zoning The appellant discussed the Tumalo/Redmond/Bend Exclusive Farm Use subzone's (EFU-TRB) minimum acreage requirement of 23 irrigated acres. The appellant did not cite a DCC section where this minimum irrigation size applies to marijuana production. Staff finds this is not an approval criterion for the proposed land use application. The appellant and several opponents suggested the subject property and surrounding area should be zoned MUA-10 (a rural residential exception area) instead of EFU. A rezone from MUA-10 to EFU would require an application for and approval of a comprehensive plan amendment and zone change. Electric Service A "will serve" letter from the Central Electric Cooperative (CEC) was included by the applicant in the application for the nonfarm dwelling, file 247 -15 -000103 -CU. The applicant submitted an additional letter dated March 15, 2017, from Central Electric Cooperative that indicates CEC will serve the subject property as it pertains to the marijuana production proposal. Employees Opponents and the applicant discussed the number of employees required to operate the proposed marijuana production facility. Neither the applicant nor the appellant identified a DCC section where the number of employees is an approval criterion. In regards to trip generation, see the comment in this memo titled "Transportation Impacts and System Development Charges (SDC)". 2The building shall be equipped with an effective odor control system which must at all times prevent unreasonable interference of neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. 247-17-000036-A Page 5 of 13 Farm & Forest Management Easement An opponent letter included a copy of the recorded Farm & Forest Management Easement required as a condition of approval for the nonfarm dwelling file 247 -15 -000103 -CU. The opponent suggests this easement requires the property owner to be in compliance with all Federal laws. Staff notes the easement waives the grantor's (the applicant's) rights to object to farm and forest activities adjacent to the subject property. Fertilizers & Pesticides Opponents of the proposal expressed concern regarding the use of fertilizers, pesticides, and other agricultural chemical productions, but did not cite a DCC section that regulates the use of pesticides and fertilizers. Fire Risk The appellant raised an issue regarding fire risk to surrounding homes and commented on the Bend Fire Department's response to the application, but did not cite a criterion addressing fire risk or fire safety requirements. Harmonious with Surroundina Uses Several objectors questioned if the proposal was harmonious with surrounding land uses. The appellant has stated Ordinance 2016-015 allows recreational marijuana grows as a permitted use. The appellant has not cited a DCC criterion requiring harmony with surrounding uses. Staff notes that in general, harmonious relations to the natural environment and existing development criteria are reviewed in site plan reviews. Marijuana production in the EFU zone does not require site plan review. Hidden Driveways on Road The submitted comments do not cite an applicable DCC criterion related to the existence of nearby hidden driveways. Identification of OLCC License Holder The submitted comments do not cite an applicable DCC criterion related to requiring the applicant to identify the licensed individual. Staff notes that in general, land use permits run with a specific property and not with an individual. Insects, Mold, Mildew, Mites. Rodents, etc. from Marijuana Production The submitted comments do not cite an applicable DCC criterion related to regulations of these nuisances Legislative History in Development of DCC Mariivana Use Regulations The appellant submitted documents from and comments about the legislative history of developing the DCC regulations regarding marijuana uses. Staff notes that the applicable marijuana -related code sections of the DCC were developed and approved as part of a public process, ultimately leading to the adoption of Ordinance 2016-015. Moral Character & Good Repute The appellant has not identified a requirement in the DCC which requires the applicant to prove good repute and moral character to receive a license from the Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC). Deschutes County does not review or issue marijuana production licenses on behalf of the OLCC. 247-17-000036-A Page 6 of 13 New Dwellina in Coniunction with Mariivana Production: The appellant suggests the applicant's plans to construct the previously -approved nonfarm dwelling3 violates DCC 18.116.330(6)(20)(1)4. Staff found in the Findings & Decision that none of the prohibited uses in DCC 18.116.330(6)(20) were proposed. The applicant states the nonfarm dwelling received a final decision prior to the subject land use application for marijuana production. The applicant also suggests the DCC's prohibition is in compliance with state regulations that prohibit a marijuana crop from being used to qualify for a new farm dwelling based on income standards. The applicant also cites ORS 215.427(3)(a), the "goal post statute", which requires that once a land use application is deemed complete, on the standards and criteria existing on the date the application was submitted govern. An opponent letter challenges the ability of a land use permit to be transferred with the sale of a property but does not cite an applicable DCC section. No Initial Public Hearina (Administrative Decision) The Planning Director has the authority to either issue a land use decision administratively or refer the matter to public hearing, per DCC 22.20. Nobody Living Onsite in EFU (Residency Requirements) Several objector's testimonies state there is no dwelling currently onsite, which is confirmed in the Findings & Decision. Staff notes an onsite residence is a requirement in the MUA-10 zones but not in the EFU zone. There is an approved nonfarm dwelling land use permit associated with the subject property. The appellant and several objectors are challenging the validity of that land use permit and arguing it is prohibited in the DCC. Noise Pollution An objection to the proposal included the potential for excessive noise. The applicant submitted a mechanical engineer's statement indicating the proposal will meet the noise requirements of DCC 18.116.330(6)(11). Number of Plants The applicant states the maximum area for mature plant canopy on the subject property is 10,000 square feet, and the applicant intends to vary the number of mature plants based on maturity cycles and seasons. No parties have identified a DCC requirement regulating the number of marijuana plants. Odor The applicant addresses the challenge raised in testimony concerning the mechanical engineer's professional opinion not being a definitive statement on odor control. The applicant submitted a letter from the mechanical engineer stating that based on the engineer's experience, the proposed odor control systems will meet the requirements of DCC 18.116.330(6)(10). An opponent letter questions if the odor control system will be effective in the greenhouses 3Land Use Permit 247 -15 -000103 -CU 4DCC 18.116.330(6): 20. Prohibited Uses. a. In the EFU zone, the following uses are prohibited: i. A new dwelling used in conjunction with a marijuana crop ... 5 DCC 18.116.330(6)(18) 247-17-000036-A Page 7 of 13 because these structures typically do not contain insulated walls. Other Mariivana Production Sites The appellant submitted screen shots from a video apparently concerning operations at other marijuana production sites. The current application does not include other properties or operations, and the impacts from those operations do not change the applicable criteria of the subject land use application. Permitted Use & Conditional Use The applicant states that marijuana production is a permitted outright use and not a conditional use. Staff notes that the surrounding area is zoned both EFU and MUA-10. Marijuana production is a conditional use in the MUA-10 zone and a permitted use in the EFU zone. Petition in Opposition The appellant submitted a petition including numerous signatures in opposition to the proposal. The appellant did not identify a DCC constraint regarding petitions. Staff notes DCC 22.24.080(B)6 allows those individuals who sign a petition to be considered a party and have standing in the hearing. Procedural Errors & Noticina: The applicant suggested that a procedural error was made by not mailing a Notice of Application once the application was deemed complete. The DCC section 22.24.030(A)(1)7 requires that a Notice of Application shall be mailed within 10 days after receipt of an application. A mailed Notice of Application was sent on the eighth day (October 12, 2016) following the receipt of the application on October 4, 2016. The appellant suggested that the revised site plan required a modification to the application and a mailed re -noticing of the application. Staff found no procedural error was made in the Staff Memo dated February 27, 2017. Property Value The impact to property value was a topic of concern in letters of objection and testimony. No DCC section was cited for consideration of property value as an approval criterion. Proximity to Residential Uses Much of the testimony concerned the proximity of the proposed marijuana production site to residential uses in the area. The Findings & Decision identified that DCC 18.116.330(B)(6) required that the marijuana production site be set back at least 300 feet from off-site dwellings, and found the proposal met that requirement. Regulatory Taking & Collateral Attack The applicant and appellant discuss legal consequences and outcomes if the Board finds the DCC Section 18.116.330(B)(20)(a)(i) regarding prohibited uses will disallow the previously approved nonfarm dwelling. 6Any person appearing on the record at a hearing (including appeals) or presenting written evidence in conjunction with an administrative action or hearing shall have standing and shall be a party. A person whose participation consists only of signing a petition becomes a party only if his or her signature is legible and his or her address is clearly written on the petition. 'Except as otherwise provided for herein, notice of a land use application shall be mailed at least 20 days prior to the hearing for those matters set for hearing, or within 10 days after receipt of an application for those matters to be processed administratively with notice. 247-17-000036-A Page 8 of 13 Road Frontaae & Access One of the options to satisfy the access requirements in DCC 18.116.330(B)(8) is to have frontage on and access from a county road8. In the Findings & Decision, staff found the tract owned by Rubio Real Estate Investments LLC includes a 0.22 -acre tax lot (Assessor's Map 17- 13-28, tax lot 1601) which is north of and adjacent to the subject property. Tax lot 1601 has frontage on Alfalfa Market Road. A property line adjustment approval under file 247 -15 -000280 - LL will result in a consolidation of tax lot 1601 with the subject tax lot 201. According to Planning Division records, it did not appear the property line adjustment was perfected at the time of applying for the subject land use permit, meaning a survey and a new deed, as required by the decision, were not recorded with the County Clerk. The appellant's attorney testified that tax lot 1601 was a separate legal Lot of Record, but provided no evidence of this claim. The appellant's submitted documents do identify that the property line adjustment was not perfected, which staff also identified in the Findings & Decision. The property line adjustment is valid until August 18, 2017. On March 16, 2016, during the open record period for new evidence and testimony, the applicant submitted a recorded deed that describes the subject tax lots as a consolidated property (OR 2017-09961). According to the property line adjustment decision, the final activity to perfect the adjustment is to file a survey with the County Surveyor and provide a copy of the recorded survey to the Planning Division. Safety & Crime Letters of opposition raised concerns about neighborhood safety including trespassing, illegal exports of surplus marijuana, guard dogs, theft, and burglary. The objectors did not cite any DCC requirements that would require these concerns to be reviewed as part of the subject land use application Seasonal Production Volumes (Summer v. Winter) An inquiry regarding seasonal levels of production was posed at the public hearing. No parties have identified an applicable DCC section in regards to the seasonal fluctuation of marijuana production. Secured Waste Receptacle An objector questioned if a waste receptacle is secured if the licensee physically leaves the property for a period of time. In the Findings & Decision, staff found the applicant could comply with DCC 18.116.330(6)(17) and added a condition of approval to ensure ongoing compliance. Septic - Second System Allowed v. Not Allowed A question was raised at the public hearing of whether a secondary septic system for the marijuana production use would be allowed on the subject property. No parties have identified an applicable DCC section prohibiting a secondary septic system. Small Parcels Nearby Several objections concerned the size of nearby parcels in both the EFU and MUA-10 zones. No parties have identified an applicable DCC section regarding the size of adjacent or nearby 8 DCC 18.116.330(B): 8. Access. Marijuana production over 5,000 square feet of canopy area for mature marijuana plants shall comply with the following standards. a. Have frontage on and legal direct access from a constructed public, county, or state road; ... 247-17-000036-A Page 9 of 13 properties. Sustainabilitv of Mariivana Production An opponent and the appellant suggested marijuana production is not a sustainable farm use due to pesticide use and water use, but have identified an applicable DCC section regarding sustainability. Transportation Impacts and System Development Charges (SDC': Trip generation rates and the SDC were calculated by the Senior Transportation Planner. An appeal of the assessed SDC should be directed towards the Deschutes County Road Department. The SDC charge is not an approval criterion nor was it a condition of approval in the initial land use decision. The Senior Transportation Planner has submitted a Staff Memorandum to the record regarding SDC, trip generation, vehicle crash history, driveway access, and vehicle speeding. The County Administrator via County Counsel has submitted to the record a copy of a Memorandum from the Director of the Public Works Department regarding the technical rationale behind the assessment of SDC to various marijuana -related businesses in accordance with Resolution 2013-020 (SDC Resolution). Trespassing An opponent stated trespassing may occur, or already has occurred, when potential burglars or thieves attempt to access the subject property through adjacent properties. No parties have identified an applicable DCC approval criterion regarding trespassing. Vehicle Crashes Nearby The submitted comments do not cite an applicable DCC criterion related to the vehicle crash data. Visual Impacts Aesthetic quality was a topic of opposition in comments received. Staff found the proposal met the screening and fencing requirements of DCC 18.116.33.(B)(12), Wastewater/Septic The appellant suggests the land use application should be denied because there is no site evaluation for an onsite septic system for the proposed marijuana production. The appellant has not cited a DCC requirement that would support this claim. Staff notes septic systems are reviewed by the Environmental Soils Division in coordination with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, and septic system review is not part of the land use review process for the subject proposal. Water The appellant .suggests there is not a sufficient supply of water nor a suitable water source provided for the proposed use but does not cite an approval criterion specific to these water requirements in the DCC. In the Findings & Decision, staff found the applicant met the water requirements of DCC 18.116.330(6)(13). An opponent letter suggests the irrigation on the subject property is not lawful because water rights are subject to rules and laws of the state and the federal government. Water Source's Sustainabilitv The appellant suggests that a potable water source provided for farm use is not sustainable, but 247-17-000036-A Page 10 of 13 does not cite an approval criterion specific to sustainability requirements in the DCC. Website Not Functional (www.dial.deschutes.ora) The County's property information website, Dial, was not entirely functional for an extended period of time due to a software error. The entire record for this application and appeal has been available online through the State's ePermitting website, as well as in hard copy at the Community Development Department. Youth in the Neiahborhood An opponent letter explains that children are on the property at 23054 Donna Lane for the daily care of 4-H animals. The letter does not cite a specific approval criterion in relation to this concern. Table 2 provides a decision matrix for the Board. (next page) 247-17-000036-A Page 11 of 13 1) Electric service 2) Odor control 3) Water source 4) New dwelling 5) Road frontage & access TABLE 2: KEY ISSUES FOR BOARD DECISION Has the applicant satisfied the utility verification requirements of DCC 18.116.330(B)(15)? Has the applicant satisfied the odor control requirements of DCC 18.116.330(B)(10)? Has the applicant satisfied the water requirement of DCC 18.116.330(B)(13)? Does the prohibition on new dwellings include previously approved land use permits for nonfarm dwellings? Has the applicant satisfied the access requirements? 6) Trip Was the trip generation rate generation correctly determined? The applicant submitted a "will serve" letter from the electrical utility as required by code. The applicant submitted a mechanical engineer's statement as required by code The applicant submitted documentation for a private water source and for irrigation water as required by code. The nonfarm dwelling was previously approved in a final land use decision. The ORS prohibits using the income from a marijuana crop to qualify for a new primary and/or accessory farm dwelling in conjunction with a marijuana crop. The Property Line Adjustment approval to consolidate the two subject lots is valid. A new deed description has been recorded during the open record period. Refer to Transportation Planner memo and Roads Director memo. Board determination of yes or no is required. If no, the application is denied. Board determination of yes or no is required. If no, the application is denied. Board determination of yes or no is required. If no, the application is denied. Board determination of yes or no is required. If no, the application is denied. Board determination of yes or no is required. If no, the application is denied Board determination of yes or no is required. If no, the application is denied 247-17-000036-A Page 12 of 13 Attachments: From staff & previous record materials: 1. Findings & Decision (247 -16 -000600 -AD) 2. Staff Memorandum dated 02/27/2017 (prior to public hearing) From public hearing: 3. Surrounding Area Map 4. Site Plan 5. Testimony Exhibits From open record period for new materials, days 1-14: 6. Road Dept. Memo re: Marijuana Trip Generation and SDC 7. Senior Transportation Planner Memo re: Transportation Issues from Hearing 8. Applicant's Responses (includes exhibits) 9. Appellant's Responses (includes exhibits) From open record period for rebuttal, days 15-21: 10. Letter from Applicant to Appellant re: Retraction Demand 11. Applicant's Rebuttal (includes exhibit) 12. Appellant's Rebuttal From open record period for applicant's final statement, days 22-28: 13. Applicant's Final Statement NOTE: The complete written record is available on the Deschutes County Property Information website: httr ://dial.deschutes.ora/Real/DevelopmentDocs/162185. 247-17-000036-A Page 13 of 13 Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 Phone: (541) 388-6575 Fax: (541) 385-1764 http://www.deschutes,org/cd STAFF MEMORANDUM FILE NUMBER: 247-17-000036-A (247 -16 -000600 -AD) OWNER: Rubio Real Estate Investments, LLC 2979 NW 17th St. Redmond, OR 97756 APPLICANT/AGENT: Douglas R. White Oregon Planning Solutions 60762 River Bend Dr. Bend, OR 97702 ATTORNEY FOR APPLICANT: APPELLANT: PROPOSAL: Lisa Klemp Bryant Emerson, LLP PO Box 457 Redmond, OR 97756 Monika & Lance Piatt 23095 Alfalfa Market Rd. Bend, OR 97701 The applicant requested approval of an Administrative Determination to establish a marijuana production facility in the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) Zone. The administrative decision issued by staff was appealed. ADMINISTRATIVE January 11, 2017 DECISION ISSUED: APPEAL FILED: January 17, 2017 HEARING DATE: March 6, 2017 STAFF REVIEWER: Jacob Ripper, Associate Planner STAFF COMMENT: This memorandum supplements the Findings and Decision for the above-mentioned land use application. This memorandum does not replace previous staff findings in the Findings and Decision, but supplements those previous findings in consideration of the appellant's objections listed in the Notice of Appeal. Quality Services Yerformed with Pride I. STANDARDS & APPLICABLE CRITERIA Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, the County Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.80, Airport Safety Combining Zone Chapter 18.116, Supplementary Provisions Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code, the Development Procedures Ordinance II. OBJECTIONS & FINDINGS BASIC FINDINGS A. SITE DESCRIPTION: The subject property is approximately 20.05 acres in size according to County Assessor's records, and rectangular in shape. The property slopes slightly down to the southwest and has a vegetative cover of juniper trees scattered in pockets throughout. A large rock outcrop exists in the eastern -center of the property. APPELLANT'S OBJECTION: In the Notice of Appeal and supplemental materials, the appellant states: Can these structures be permitted/built apart from the large rock outcrop, previously approved for the building site? Further, does the proposed extra nearly 2k sq ft of built space (over the allowed 10k sq ft grow operation) comply with the EFU zoning when it is being placed in previously irrigated pasture? STAFF FINDING: The rocky outcrop referred to above is associated with the building envelope for the nonfarm dwelling approved by file 247 -15 -000103 -CU. The building envelope applies to the dwelling and those uses which are accessory to the dwelling. It limits residential development to the area of the property previously identified in the nonfarm dwelling approval as the least suitable area for farm use. Because the proposed marijuana production is not an accessory residential use, these structures may be located outside of the nonfarm dwelling building envelope. The Central Oregon Irrigation District was sent a Notice of Application and did not respond. B. AGENCY COMMENTS: The Findings and Decision stated: The Planning Division mailed notice and received comments from the following agencies: Deschutes County Senior Transportation Planner. Peter Russell: I have reviewed the transmittal materials for 247 -16 -000600 -AD for a 10,000 -square -foot marijuana production (growing) operation within one 4,000 -square foot building and two greenhouses of 3,000 square feet each in the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) zone at 23105 Alfalfa Market Road, aka 17-13-33A, Tax Lot 201. The most recent edition of the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook does not contain a category for marijuana production. In consultation with the Road Department Director and Planning staff, the County has determined the best analog use is Warehouse (Land Use 150) based on the storage requirements and employees of this activity. Warehouse generates daily trips at a rate of 3.56 trips 247-17-000036-A (247 -16 -000600 -AD) Page 2 of 13 per 1,000 square feet. The application indicates the site will have 10,000 square feet of building devoted to cannabis production. The resulting trip rate would be 36 daily trips (3.56 X 10). Deschutes County Code (DCC) at 18.116.310(C)(3)(a) states no further traffic analysis is needed if there are 50 or less new weekday trips generated from the use. The proposed land use will not meet this minimum threshold for additional traffic analysis. Board Resolution 2013-020 sets a transportation system development charge (SDC) rate of $3,852 per p.m. peak hour trip. The ITE indicates Warehouse generates 0.32 p.m. peak hour trips per 1,000 square feet, which in this instance would result in 3.2 p.m. peak hour trips (0.32 X 10). Thus the applicable SDC would be $12,326 (1.6 X $3,852). The SDC is due prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy; if a certificate of occupancy is not applicable, then the SDC is due within 60 days of the land use decision becoming final. APPELLANT'S OBJECTION: In the Notice of Appeal and supplemental materials, the appellant states: Senior Transportation Planner, Peter Russell reviewed for a total of 10k sq ft production and the analogy of warehouse use, NOT for the 12k sq ft production operation. Furthermore, was this particular section of Alfalfa Market Road considered? There is a Blind Turn, with 5 Hidden driveways (including this one), safety accessing arterials, granting large access for this commercial business, level of safety/service, speeds exceeding 55 mph, traffic studies and lastly DUIs. STAFF FINDING: The appellant is correct in determining that the Senior Transportation Planner reviewed the initial proposal and not the revised proposal. Staff requested the applicant to submit additional materials to address missing or unclear information prior to deeming the application complete. The applicant is allowed to amend their application in response to a request for additional information from staff, as discussed in a section below. On February 22, 2017, staff notified the Senior Transportation Planner of the revisions and he responded with the following comments: Here are the revised comments as 247 -16 -000600 -AD is being heard as a de novo appeal and the total size of the buildings have changed between my comments and the approval. The current proposal is for three buildings comprising 11,760 square feet. Daily trips, based on Warehouse (LU 150) would be 42 new weekday trips (11.76 square feet X 3.56 trips 1,000 square feet.) No further traffic analysis is needed. SDC, based on Warehouse generating 0.32 trips per 1,000 square feet: 3.8 p.m. peak hour trips (0.32 X 11.76). The resulting SDC would be $14,638 (3.8 p.m. peak hour trips X $3,852 per trip). C. PUBLIC COMMENTS The Planning Division mailed a Notice of Application to property owners within 750 feet of the subject property on October 12, 2016. Two public comment letters were received and raised the following concerns: 1. Odor control 2. Light pollution 247-17-000036-A (247 -16 -000600 -AD) Page 3 of 13 3. Use of a secure waste receptacle 4. Visual impacts 5. Neighborhood crime 6. Criminal trespassing 7. Environmental impacts from the use of pesticides and fungicides 8. Property value impacts APPELLANT'S OBJECTION: In the Notice of Appeal and supplemental materials, the appellant states: It is noted that Deschutes County does not authorize to review concerns of Neighborhood Crime, Criminal Trespassing, Environmental and Property Value impacts. Please Note that you are approving this "vacant" facility in the midst of family homes, many with children and grandchildren. STAFF FINDING: The Deschutes County Code (DCC) does not authorize the Planning Division to review concerns 5 - 8 above in relation to the proposal. Applicable criteria of the DCC, including spatial separation from off-site dwellings, were addressed in the Findings and Decision. TITLE 22, DESCHUTES COUNTY DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURE ORDINANCE A. Chapter 22.08, General Provisions 1. 22.08.030, Incomplete Applications. A. If an application is incomplete, the planning director shall, within 30 days of receipt of the application, notify the applicant in writing of exactly what information is missing. The applicant may amend his application or submit a new application supplying the missing information. APPELLANT'S OBJECTION: The appellant expressed concerns that the Notice of Application described the proposed structures differently than what was described in the Notice of Decision. The appellant questions if the increased building footprint requires that a new land use application is made. STAFF FINDING: The applicant submitted the application on October 4, 2016. A Notice of Application was mailed on October 12, 2016. Staff determined the application was incomplete on November 2, 2016, and notified the applicant in writing. The applicant submitted additional materials amending the application and provided the missing information staff requested. The application was deemed complete on December 19, 2016. The additional materials are included in the public record. The difference in proposal descriptions occurred because the applicant amended the submitted materials. Staff finds a new application is not required. 247-17-000036-A (247 -16 -000600 -AD) Page 4 of 13 TITLE 18, DESCHUTES COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE A. Chapter 18.116, Supplementary Provisions 1. Section 18.116.330, Mariivana Production, Processina, and Retailing. B. Marijuana production and marijuana processing. Marijuana production and marijuana processing shall be subject to the following standards and criteria: 3. Maximum Mature Plant Canopy Size. In the EFU zone, the maximum canopy area for mature marijuana plants shall apply as follows: a. Parcels from 5 acres to less than 10 acres in lot area: 2,500 square feet. b. Parcels equal to or greater than 10 acres to less than 20 acres in lot area: 5,000 square feet. The maximum canopy area for mature marijuana plants may be increased to 10,000 square feet upon demonstration by the applicant to the County that: i. The marijuana production operation was lawfully established prior to January 1, 2015; and ii. The increased mature marijuana plant canopy area will not generate adverse impact of visual, odor, noise, lighting, privacy or access greater than the impacts associated with a 5,000 square foot canopy area operation. c. Parcels equal to or greater than 20 acres to less than 40 acres in lot area: 10,000 square feet. d. Parcels equal to or greater than 40 acres to less than 60 acres in lot area: 20,000 square feet. e. Parcels equal to or greater than 60 acres in lot area: 40,000 square feet. APPELLANT'S OBJECTION: In the Notice of Appeal and supplemental materials, the appellant states: Maximum Nature [sic] Plant Canopy size is 10k sq. feet, HOW will the additional 2k sq. feet be used in the 6k building/shop/warehouse? Please specify and provide additional information. STAFF FINDING: The applicant has proposed a maximum of 9,760 square feet in mature plant canopy area, as allowed under subsection (c) for properties with a lot area equal to or greater than 20 acres and less than 40 acres. The subject property is 20.05 acres in size. The proposal consists of a maximum mature plant canopy of 9,760 square feet within three structures. Those three structures are one 6,000 square foot building with 4,000 square feet of mature plant canopy, and two 2,880 square foot greenhouses with a combined 5,760 square feet of mature plant canopy. In the larger structure, the 2,000 square feet which are 247-17-000036-A (247 -16 -000600 -AD) Page 5 of 13 not dedicated to the mature plant canopy have not been identified for a particular use or uses by the applicant. Staff notes that additional space within marijuana production facilities is typically used for drying, propagation, harvesting, and other uses associated with marijuana production. When building permits are applied for, staff will review them for compliance with this decision. Staff concludes this criterion applies to the area of the mature marijuana plant canopy and not to areas used for associated or subordinate activities. 5. Limitation on License/Grow Site per Parcel. No more than one (1) Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) licensed marijuana production or Oregon Health Authority (OHA) registered medical marijuana grow site shall be allowed per legal parcel or lot. APPELLANT'S OBJECTION: In the Notice of Appeal and supplemental materials, the appellant states: WHO holds this one license? Agent: Douglas R. White or Owner: Rubio Real Estate Investments LLC? STAFF FINDING: The proposed use includes only one (1) Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) licensed marijuana production site. The criterion does not require the applicant to identify an individual but does limit the number of licensed or registered grow sites to one site per parcel. 7. Separation Distances. Minimum separation distances shall apply as follows: a. The use shall be located a minimum of 1000 feet from: 1. A public elementary or secondary school for which attendance is compulsory under Oregon Revised Statutes 339.010, et seq., including any parking lot appurtenant thereto and any property used by the school; ii. A private or parochial elementary or secondary school, teaching children as described in ORS 339.030(1)(a), including any parking lot appurtenant thereto and any property used by the school; A licensed child care center or licensed preschool, including any parking lot appurtenant thereto and any property used by the child care center or preschool. This does not include licensed or unlicensed child care which occurs at or in residential structures; iv. A youth activity center; and v. National monuments and state parks. b. For purposes of DCC 18.116.330(B)(7), all distances shall be measured from the lot line of the affected properties listed in DCC 18.116.330(B)(7)(a) to the closest point of the buildings and land area 247-17-000036-A (247 -16 -000600 -AD) Page 6 of 13 occupied by the marijuana producer or marijuana processor. c. A change in use of another property to those identified in DCC 18.116.330(B)(7) shall not result in the marijuana producer or marijuana processor being in violation of DCC 18.116.330(B)(7) if the use is: i. Pending a local land use decision; ii. Licensed or registered by the State of Oregon; or iii. Lawfully established. APPELLANT'S OBJECTION: In the Notice of Appeal and supplemental materials, the appellant states: The applicant states the closest school is 15,000' from the property. With 27 properties within 1,000' of said property, may we continue this search to include any In Home Day Care/Babysitting facility? STAFF FINDING: According to Deschutes County GIS and the applicant's submitted materials, none of the properties within 1,000 feet of the subject property are in a use described in the above section or are subject to subsection (c). The appellant has not presented evidence to the contrary. Staff notes the criterion of subsection (a)(iii) above refers to licensed child care centers and not licensed or unlicensed child care occurring within a residential structure. 8. Access. Marijuana production over 5,000 square feet of canopy area for mature marijuana plants shall comply with the following standards. a. Have frontage on and legal direct access from a constructed public, county, or state road; or b. Have access from a private road or easement serving only the subject property. c. If the property takes access via a private road or easement which also serves other properties, the applicant shall obtain written consent to utilize the easement or private road for marijuana production access from all owners who have access rights to the private road or easement. The written consent shall: i. Be on a form provided by the County and shall contain the following information; ii. Include notarized signatures of all owners, persons and properties holding a recorded interest in the private road or easement; ill. Include a description of the proposed marijuana production or marijuana processing operation; and iv. Include a legal description of the private road or easement. 247-17-000036-A (247 -16 -000600 -AD) Page 7 of 13 APPELLANT'S OBJECTION: In the Notice of Appeal and supplemental materials, the appellant states: The driveway is on their property, however, do they need a NEW access/Driveway permit, for a change in use for this commercial Marijuana Production Facility? STAFF FINDING: The Deschutes County Senior Transportation Planner responded to the Notice of Application and indicated a transportation impact analysis was not required for the proposed use. A driveway was approved for the subject property by permit 247-SW1446, issued on May 9, 1997. Staff requested the County Engineer at the Road Department to clarify if a new driveway access permit for a change of use is required. The Road Department responded: On the Road Department end of things, we don't consider the use of the property when we are approving an access permit. We only look at it to make sure it meets sight distance standards. If they move the location of the driveway from its original approved location, then we would require either a new permit or revisit and revise the original permit to reflect the new location. The applicant has not proposed to change the driveway location, therefore, staff finds the Road Department would not require a new driveway permit. 10. Odor. As used in DCC 18.116.330(6)(10), building means the building, including greenhouses, hoop houses, and other similar structures, used for marijuana production or marijuana processing. a. The building shall be equipped with an effective odor control system which must at all times prevent unreasonable interference of neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. b. An odor control system is deemed permitted only after the applicant submits a report by a mechanical engineer licensed in the State of Oregon demonstrating that the system will control odor so as not to unreasonably interfere with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. c. Private actions alleging nuisance or trespass associated with odor impacts are authorized, if at all, as provided in applicable state statute. d. The odor control system shall: i. Consist of one or more fans. The fan(s) shall be sized for cubic feet per minute (CFM) equivalent to the volume of the building (length multiplied by width multiplied by height) divided by three. The filter(s) shall be rated for the required CFM; or ii. Utilize an alternative method or technology to achieve equal to or greater odor mitigation than provided by (i) above. 247-17-000036-A (247 -16 -000600 -AD) Page 8 of 13 e. The system shall be maintained in working order and shall be in use. APPELLANT'S OBJECTION: In the Notice of Appeal and supplemental materials, the appellant states: Odor as used in 18.116.330(8)(10): The applicant's by a [sic] Mechanical Engineer licensed in OR, states the odor will be controlled in the Greenhouses. However, the odor must also be controlled in the 6000' sq ft building? With what method? STAFF FINDING: The agent submitted a letter dated November 23, 2016, from Registered Professional Engineer Robert James stating, "for odor control in the shop building (indoor grow area), all exhausted air will pass through carbon filters before being exhausted outside the building". Staff added an ongoing condition of approval to the decision to ensure ongoing compliance with the above requirements. 11. Noise. Noise produced by marijuana production and marijuana processing shall comply with the following: a. Sustained noise from mechanical equipment used for heating, ventilation, air condition, odor control, fans and similar functions shall not exceed 30 dB(A) measured at any property line between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the following day. b. Sustained noise from marijuana production is exempt from protections of DCC 9.12 and ORS 30.395, Right to Farm. Intermittent noise for accepted farming practices is permitted. APPELLANT'S OBJECTION: In the Notice of Appeal and supplemental materials, the appellant states: Greenhouse fans will not run at night, HVAC system for 6k Shop Building, similar to a home system. What is the use for this building? Additionally, there are outdoor condensing units. STAFF FINDING: The applicant has submitted a letter dated November 23, 2016, from Registered Professional Engineer Robert James. Staff found the engineer's statements satisfied the requirements of this section. The 6,000 square -foot structure is one of three structures proposed as part of the marijuana production facility. 13. Water. The applicant shall provide: a. A copy of a water right permit, certificate, or other water use authorization from the Oregon Water Resource Department; or b. A statement that water is supplied from a public or private water provider, along with the name and contact information of the water provider; or c. Proof from the Oregon Water Resources Department that the water to be used is from a source that does not require a water right. 247-17-000036-A (247 -16 -000600 -AD) Page 9 of 13 APPELLANT'S OBJECTION: In the Notice of Appeal and supplemental materials, the appellant states: Proof from the Oregon Water Resources Dept. that the water used is from a source that does not require a water right. STAFF FINDING: The applicant stated that water is provided by Avion and irrigation is provided by Central Oregon Irrigation District. Staff notes the criteria in subsections (a) and (b) end with "or" and not with "and", indicating documentation from only one of subsections (a), (b), or (c) need to be provided to satisfy this requirement. 14. Fire protection for processing of cannabinoid extracts. Processing of cannabinoid extracts shall only be permitted on properties located within the boundaries of or under contract with a fire protection district. APPELLANT'S OBJECTION: In the Notice of Appeal and supplemental materials, the appellant states: No Processing is proposed by the applicant or owner. Deschutes County Code defines "Marijuana Processing" as: processing, compounding, or conversion into cannabinoid products, concentrates, or extracts, provided that the processor is licensed by OLCC or registered with the OHA. STAFF FINDING: No processing was proposed and staff found this section did not apply. Staff is unclear as to the nature of the objection. Staff suggests the appellant provide additional information if they believe this criterion applies. 16. Security Cameras. If security cameras are used, they shall be directed to record only the subject property and public rights-of-way, except as required to comply with requirements of the OLCC or the OHA. APPELLANT'S OBJECTION: In the Notice of Appeal and supplemental materials, the appellant states: As this facility is vacant and [there is] no residence on this property, what security cameras and methods will be in place? Crime, theft, trespassing are concerns. FINDING: The applicant agreed to the requirements of this section and stated all cameras will only record the subject property. Staff understands this criterion does not require security cameras to be used and does not require additional security measures. 17. Secure Waste Disposal. Marijuana waste shall be stored in a secured waste receptacle in the possession of and under the control of the OLCC licensee or OHA Person Responsible for the Grow Site (PRMG). 247-17-000036-A (247 -16 -000600 -AD) Page 10 of 13 APPELLANT'S OBJECTION: In the Notice of Appeal and supplemental materials, the appellant states: The Applicant did not specify where the waste will be stored or how it will be secured. OLCC's licensing requirements in OAR 845-025-7750(1)(b) require the applicant to meet these requirements, under the control of the licensee. There are concerns of the impact on soil, water and the environment. Please provide additional specifics. STAFF FINDING: The applicant did not identify the location of the secure waste receptacle. Staff added a condition of approval to ensure compliance. The Hearings Body may request additional information from the applicant to determine compliance with the above criterion. 20. Prohibited Uses. a. In the EFU zone, the following uses are prohibited: i. A new dwelling used in conjunction with a marijuana crop; ii. A farm stand, as described in ORS 215.213(1)(r) or 215.283(1)(o), used in conjunction with a marijuana crop; iii. A commercial activity, as described in ORS 215.213(2)(c) or 215.283(2)(a), carried on in conjunction a marijuana crop; and iv. Agri -tourism and other commercial events and activities in conjunction with a marijuana crop. APPELLANT'S OBJECTION: In the Notice of Appeal and supplemental materials, the appellant states: (a)(i) A New Dwelling used in conjunction with a Marijuana crop. Will the shop/warehouse have a dwelling? What are future plans for a Residence on this property? (ii) [sic] Commercial Activity (How and Where will these products be sold?) (iv) Agri -Tourism and other Commercial events or activities in conjunction with this crop. NOTE: As an ongoing condition of approval, the uses listed in DCC 18.116.330(20) shall be prohibited on the subject property so long as production is conducted on the site. STAFF FINDING: None of the prohibited uses were proposed by the applicant. As discussed in the Findings and Decision for this application, a nonfarm dwelling has been approved on this property by file 247 -15 -000103 -CU. Staff notes the uses listed in subsection (a) above are specific uses which may be allowed when conducted in conjunction with a farm use. Staff understands the prohibition applies to these listed uses when they are proposed in conjunction with a marijuana crop, and as prohibited in the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Section 475B.370(2). 247-17-000036-A (247 -16 -000600 -AD) Page 11 of 13 C. Marijuana Retailing APPELLANT'S OBJECTION: In the Notice of Appeal and supplemental materials, the appellant states: Retailing is not mentioned in the Findings and Decision. How and Where will this crop be sold? Are Retail Sales legal in EFU zones? Approval of a conditional use permit and site plans review are required prior to initiating the use. The level of site plan review (new, alteration, change of use) will vary based on the development history of the location. STAFF FINDING: Marijuana retailing was not mentioned in the Findings and Decision because it was neither proposed nor approved. Marijuana retailing is not an allowable use in the EFU zone. Marijuana production does not require site plan review in the EFU zone. D. Annual Reporting 1. An annual report shall be submitted to the Community Development Department by the real property owner or licensee, if different, each February 1, documenting all of the following as of December 31 of the previous year, including the applicable fee as adopted in the current County Fee Schedule and a fully executed Consent to Inspect Premises form:... APPELLANT'S OBJECTION: In the Notice of Appeal and supplemental materials, the appellant states: Each February 1st, Documentation [shall be submitted] demonstrating compliance with the (i) Land use decision and permits (ii) Fire, Health, Safety, Waste Water and building codes and laws. (iii) State of Oregon licensing requirements Finding: Compliance with this annual reporting obligation of this section is required. STAFF FINDING: Compliance with the annual reporting obligation of this section was required as a condition of approval. Staff is unclear as to the nature of the objection. Staff suggests the appellant provide additional information if they believe the applicant cannot or does not comply with this criterion. B. Chapter 18,80, Airport Safety rnmhining lone 1. Section 18.80.044. Land Use Compatibility Applications for land use or building permits for properties within the boundaries of this overlay zone shall comply with the requirements of DCC 18.80 as provided herein [...] B. Outdoor lighting. No new or expanded industrial, commercial or recreational use shall project lighting directly onto an existing runway or taxiway or into existing airport approach surfaces except where necessary for safe and convenient air travel. Lighting for these uses 247-17-000036-A (247 -16 -000600 -AD) Page 12 of 13 shall incorporate shielding in their designs to reflect light away from airport approach surfaces. No use shall imitate airport lighting or impede the ability of pilots to distinguish between airport lighting and other lighting. APPELLANT'S OBJECTION: In the Notice of Appeal and supplemental materials, the appellant states: B. Outdoor Lighting. Finding: The proposed marijuana production facility is a new commercial use. Under Section 20. Prohibited uses: Commercial activity is prohibited... STAFF FINDING: The proposed marijuana production facility is a new commercial use for the purposes of review under DCC 18.80.044(B). A marijuana crop is a farm use', and is not a commercial activity in conjunction with farm use, which is a separate use allowable by a conditional use permit under DCC 18.16.030(E), but is prohibited by DCC 18.116.330(B)(20) when operated in conjunction with a marijuana crop. III. CONCLUSION The Findings & Decision for this application identifies all applicable zoning ordinances and evaluates compliance with the criteria and standards of those ordinances. This memorandum only supplements the findings of compliance with the identified ordinances in relation to the issues raised in the Notice of Appeal. Based on the foregoing Findings and Decision, staff finds that the proposed marijuana production facility can comply with the applicable standards and criteria of the Deschutes County zoning ordinance if conditions of approval are met. Copies of the proposed documents and attachments are available at no cost at the Deschutes County Property Information website (Dial)2. Copies of the proposed documents and attachments are available for inspection at no cost at the Deschutes County Community Development Department at 117 NW Lafayette Avenue. Copies of the documents and attachments can be purchased at the office for (25) cents a page. Dated this 27th day of February, 2017 Mailed this 27th day of February, 2017 ORS 475B.370(1) 2 http://dial.deschutes.ora/Real/DevelopmentDocs/162185 247-17-000036-A (247 -16 -000600 -AD) Page 13 of 13 Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 Phone: (541) 388-6575 Fax: (541) 385-1764 http://www.deschutes,org/cd FINDINGS & DECISION FILE NUMBER: 247 -16 -000600 -AD OWNER: Rubio Real Estate Investments, LLC 2979 NW 17th St. Redmond, OR 97756 APPLICANT/AGENT: Douglas R. White Oregon Planning Solutions 60762 River Bend Dr. Bend, OR 97702 PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting approval of an Administrative Determination to establish a marijuana production facility in the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) Zone. STAFF CONTACT: Jacob Ripper, Associate Planner I. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, the County Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use Zones Chapter 18.80, Airport Safety Combining Zone Chapter 18.116, Supplementary Provisions Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code, the Development Procedures Ordinance II. BASIC FINDINGS A. Location: The subject property has an assigned address of 23105 Alfalfa Market Rd., Bend, and is identified on County Assessor's Map 17-13-33A, as tax lot 201. B. Lot of Record: The subject property is a legal lot of record because it is Parcel 2 of the Minor Land Partition MP -83-13, and recorded with the County Surveyor as CS03304. C. Zoning: The subject property is zoned Exclusive Farm Use — Tumalo/Redmond/Bend Subzone (EFU-TRB) and is within the Airport Safety (AS) combining zone. Quality Services Performed with Pride D. Proposal: The applicant is requesting approval of an Administrative Determination to establish a marijuana production facility in the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) zone. The proposal consists of a maximum mature plant canopy size of 9,760 square feet within three structures. Those three structures are one 6,000 square foot building with 4,000 square feet of mature plant canopy, and two 2,880 square foot greenhouses with a combined 5,760 square feet of mature plant canopy. E. Site Description: The subject property is approximately 20.05 acres in size according to County Assessor's records, and rectangular in shape. The property slopes slightly down to the southwest and has a vegetative cover of juniper trees scattered in pockets throughout. A large rock outcrop exists in the eastern -center of the property. F. Surrounding Land Uses: The subject property is surrounded to the north, east, and west by rural residential uses and small-scale hobby farms on lands zoned EFU-TRB. To the south and southwest are other rural residential uses and hobby farms on lands zoned Multiple -Use Agricultural (MUA-10). The hobby farm uses consist of livestock, irrigated pasture and hay production. Approximately 1,300 feet to the east are Federally -owned vacant lands and zoned EFU-AL. G. Land Use History: The subject property received a conditional use permit approval to establish a nonfarm dwelling under file CU -05-6. That land use permit expired prior to the use being established. Another conditional use permit under file 247 -15- 000103 -CU approved an application to re-establish the expired nonfarm dwelling approval. The nonfarm dwelling has not been established as of the date of mailing of this Findings & Decision. A property line adjustment under file 247 -15 -000280 -LL approved an adjustment between the subject property and the properties identified on County Assessor's Map 17-13-28 as tax lots 1600 and 1601. The result of the property line adjustment would be a consolidation of tax lot 1601 with tax lot 201. The property line adjustment has not received final approval because copies of the recorded survey and new deeds have not been submitted to the Planning Division as of the date of mailing of this Findings & Decision. H. Public Agency Comments: The Planning Division mailed notice and received comments from the following agencies: Deschutes County Buildina Division: The Deschutes County Building Safety Divisions code required Access, Egress, Setback, Fire & Life Safety Fire Fighting Water Supplies, etc. will be specifically addressed during the plan review process for any proposed structures and occupancies. All Building Code required items will be addressed, when a specific structure, occupancy, and type of construction is proposed and submitted for plan review. Deschutes County Senior Transportation Planner, Peter Russell: / have reviewed the transmittal materials for 247 -16 -000600 -AD for a 10,000 -square -foot marijuana production (growing) operation within one 4,000 -square foot building and two greenhouses of 3,000 square feet each in the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) zone at 23105 Alfalfa Market Road, aka 17-13-33A, Tax Lot 201. The most recent edition of the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook does not contain a category for marijuana production. In consultation with 247 -16 -000600 -AD Page 2 of 22 the Road Department Director and Planning staff, the County has determined the best analog use is Warehouse (Land Use 150) based on the storage requirements and employees of this activity. Warehouse generates daily trips at a rate of 3.56 trips per 1,000 square feet. The application indicates the site will have 10,000 square feet of building devoted to cannabis production. The resulting trip rate would be 36 daily trips (3.56 X 10). Deschutes County Code (DCC) at 18.116.310(C)(3)(a) states no further traffic analysis is needed if there are 50 or less new weekday trips generated from the use. The proposed land use will not meet this minimum threshold for additional traffic analysis. Board Resolution 2013-020 sets a transportation system development charge (SDC) rate of $3,852 per p.m. peak hour trip. The ITE indicates Warehouse generates 0.32 p.m. peak hour trips per 1,000 square feet, which in this instance would result in 3.2 p.m. peak hour trips (0.32 X 10). Thus the applicable SDC would be $12,326 (1.6 X $3, 852). The SDC is due prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy; if a certificate of occupancy is not applicable, then the SDC is due within 60 days of the land use decision becoming final. Bend Fire Department: General Safety Provisions: Hazard Communication • Material Safety Data Sheets shall be on property and made easily accessible to the fire code official. Section 5003.4 of the 2014 Oregon Fire Code • Containers and/or packages related to hazardous materials shall be properly labeled and warning signage shall be properly displayed and easily visible. Section 5003.5.1 of the 2014 Oregon Fire Code. • All persons shall be trained on what to do in the event of an emergency involving hazardous materials on the property. Sections 406 and 407 of the 2014 Oregon Fire Code. • NFPA 704 hazard identification signs shall be placed on stationary containers and above ground tanks and at entrances to locations where hazardous materials are stored, dispensed, used, or handled in quantities requiring a permit and at specific entrances and locations designated by the fire code official. Section 5003.5 of the 2014 Oregon Fire Code. Building and Equipment Design Features: Interior Finishes Interior finishes (Visqueen® or Mylar® type plastic/polyethylene or polyester to cover walls and ceilings) must comply with flame spread ratings in accordance with Table 803.3 of the 2014 Oregon Fire Code. Exits and Exit Signage, Egress: Security measures shall not conflict with the maintenance and operation of exiting and egress. • Means of egress shall not be concealed in any way. Section 1008.1 of the 2014 Oregon Fire Code. Exit doors and their function shall not be eliminated or modified in any way without prior approval of the Building Official. Section 1001.2 of the 2014 Oregon Fire Code. Slide bolts and security bars installed on emergency egress doors are prohibited. Section 1008.1.9.4 of the 2014 Oregon Fire Code. 247 -16 -000600 -AD Page 3 of 22 Fire Extinguishers: Provide 10 Ib. ABC 4A: 80B: C portable fire extinguishers through the facility to achieve a maximum travel distance of no more than 75 feet to each fire extinguisher. Section 906.1 of the 2014 Oregon Fire Code. Fire Apparatus and Building Access: • Buildings/facilities associated with the production of marijuana shall have at least one all-weather road 20 feet wide and supporting fire apparatus up to 60,000 GVW. Section 503.2 of the 2014 Oregon Fire Code. • Gates across fire apparatus access road shall be approved by the fire code official. Section 503.6 of the 2014 Oregon Fire Code. • The installation of a Knox Box® and/or Knox® Key Override shall be installed to provide rapid entry. Section 506.1 of the 2014 Oregon Fire Code. Fire Protection Water Supplies: • An approved water supply capable of supplying the required fire flow for fire protection shall be provided to premises upon which facilities, buildings or portions of buildings are hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction. Section 507.1 of the 2014 Oregon Fire Code. • Fire flow requirements for buildings or portions of buildings shall be determined by an approved method. Documentation of the available fire flow shall be provided to the fire code official prior to final approval of the water supply system. • In areas without water supply systems, the fire code official is authorized to use NFPA 1142 in determining fire flow requirements. Appendix B107.1 of the 2014 Oregon Fire Code. Hazardous Materials and Operations: • Provide information to the fire code official on the use of Carbon Dioxide and Carbon Dioxide generators related to the marijuana production operation. The use of Carbon Dioxide or Carbon Dioxide Generators creating an asphyxiation hazard shall require monitoring, detection and an audible alarm. Chapter 50 of the 2014 Oregon Fire Code. Other Fire Service Features: • New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall be a minimum 4 inches high with a minimum stroke width of 0.5 inch. Where access is by means of a private road and the building cannot be viewed from the public way, a monument, pole, or other sign or means shall be used to identify the structure. Address signs are available through the Deschutes Rural Fire Protection District #2. An address sign application can be obtained from the City of Bend Fire Department website or by calling 541-388-6309 during normal business hours. Section 505.1 of the 2014 Oregon Fire Code. The following agencies either had no comment or did not respond to the notice: Avion Water Company, Bend/La Pine School District, Bend Municipal Airport, Central Oregon Irrigation District, Deschutes County Assessor, Deschutes County Environmental Soils Division, and Oregon Liquor Control Commission. 247 -16 -000600 -AD Page 4 of 22 I. Public Comments: The Planning Division mailed a written notice of this application to property owners within 750 feet of the subject property on October 12, 2016. Two public comment letters were received and raised the following concerns: 1. Odor control 2. Light pollution 3. Use of a secure waste receptacle 4. Visual impacts 5. Neighborhood crime 6. Criminal trespassing 7. Environmental impacts from the use of pesticides and fungicides 8. Property value impacts Staff Comment: The Deschutes County Code (DCC) does not authorize the Planning Division to review concerns 5 - 8 above in relation to the proposal. Applicable criteria of the DCC are addressed in the findings below. J. Review Period: This application was submitted on October 4, 2016. It was deemed incomplete on November 2, 2016. After the applicant submitted additional information, the application was accepted and deemed complete on December 19, 2016. The 150th day on which the county must take final action on this application is May 18, 2017. III. CONCLUSIONARY FINDINGS A. Chapter 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use Zones 1. Section 18.16.020. Use Permitted Outriaht. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright: S. Marijuana production, subject to the provisions of DCC 18.116.330. FINDING: The proposed marijuana production facility is an allowable use permitted outright in the EFU zones, subject to the provisions of DCC 18.116.330, which are reviewed below. 2. 18.16.060. Dimensional Standards. E. Building height. No building or structure shall be erected or enlarged to exceed 30 feet in height, except as allowed under DCC 18.120.040. FINDING: No elevation drawings were submitted by the applicant. This criterion can be met by the imposition of a condition of approval. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit elevation plans demonstrating all structures shall not exceed 30 feet in height. 247 -16 -000600 -AD Page 5 of 22 3. Section 18.16.070. Yards. A. The front yard shall be a minimum of: 40 feet from a property line fronting on a local street, 60 feet from a property line fronting on a collector street, and 100 feet from a property line fronting on an arterial street. B. Each side yard shall be a minimum of 25 feet, except that for a nonfarm dwelling proposed on property with side yards adjacent to property currently employed in farm use, and receiving special assessment for farm use, the side yard shall be a minimum of 100 feet. C. Rear yards shall be a minimum of 25 feet, except that for a nonfarm dwelling proposed on property with a rear yard adjacent to property currently employed in farm use, and receiving special assessment for farm use, the rear yard shall be a minimum of 100 feet. D. In addition to the setbacks set forth herein, any greater setbacks required by applicable building or structural codes adopted by the State of Oregon and/or the County under DCC 15.04 shall be met. FINDING: Staff finds the subject property's northern property line is the front property line. Alfalfa Market Road to the north is an arterial road, therefore the required front yard setback is 100 feet. The revised site plan indicates the three proposed structures are clustered together and the closest structure is approximately 330 feet from the northern front property line. The proposal is not for a non-farm dwelling, therefore, the required side and rear yard setbacks are 25 feet. The submitted plot plan indicates the clustered structures will have a western side yard setback of 115 feet, an eastern side yard setback of approximately 445 feet, and a southern rear yard setback of approximately 820 feet. The required yard setbacks of subsections A, B, and C are met. Any greater setbacks required by applicable building or structural codes will be addressed during building permit review. B. Chapter 18.116, Supplementary Provisions 1. Section 18.116.330, Mariivana Production. Processing, and Retailing. A. Applicability. Section 18.116.330 applies to: 1. Marijuana Production in the EFU, MUA-10, and RI zones. 2. Marijuana Processing in the EFU; MUA-10, TeC; TeCR, TuC, Tul, RI, and SUBP zones 3. Marijuana Retailing in the RSC, TeC, TeCR, TuC, Tul, RC, RI, SUC, SUTC, and SUBP zones. 4. Marijuana Wholesaling in the RSC, TeC, TeCR, TuC, RC, SUC, and SUBP zones. FINDING: The applicant has proposed Marijuana Production in the EFU zone. This section applies. 247 -16 -000600 -AD Page 6 of 22 B. Marijuana production and marijuana processing. Marijuana production and marijuana processing shall be subject to the following standards and criteria: 1. Minimum Lot Area. a. In the EFU and MUA-10 zones, the subject legal lot of record shall have a minimum lot area of five (5) acres. FINDING: The subject property is a legal lot of record and is 20.05 acres in size. This standard is met. 2. Indoor Production and Processing. a. In the MUA-10 zone, marijuana production and processing shall be located entirely within one or more fully enclosed buildings with conventional or post framed opaque, rigid walls and roof covering. Use of greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar non- rigid structures is prohibited. b. In the EFU zone, marijuana production and processing shall only be located in buildings, including greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar structures. c. In all zones, marijuana production and processing are prohibited in any outdoor area. FINDING: The subject property is within the EFU zone. The applicant has proposed that production will occur within one (1) 6,000 -square -foot fully enclosed structure, and two (2) 2,880 square foot greenhouses, complying with these criteria. These criteria can be met. As an ongoing condition of approval, marijuana production and processing are prohibited in any outdoor area. 3. Maximum Mature Plant Canopy Size. In the EFU zone, the maximum canopy area for mature marijuana plants shall apply as follows: a. Parcels from 5 acres to less than 10 acres in lot area: 2,500 square feet. b. Parcels equal to or greater than 10 acres to less than 20 acres in lot area: 5,000 square feet. The maximum canopy area for mature marijuana plants may be increased to 10,000 square feet upon demonstration by the applicant to the County that: i. The marijuana production operation was lawfully established prior to January 1, 2015; and ii. The increased mature marijuana plant canopy area will not generate adverse impact of visual, odor, noise, lighting, privacy or access greater than the impacts associated 247 -16 -000600 -AD Page 7 of 22 with a 5,000 square foot canopy area operation. c. Parcels equal to or greater than 20 acres to less than 40 acres in lot area: 10,000 square feet. d. Parcels equal to or greater than 40 acres to less than 60 acres in lot area: 20,000 square feet. e. Parcels equal to or greater than 60 acres in lot area: 40,000 square feet. FINDING: The applicant has proposed a maximum of 9,760 square feet in mature plant canopy area, as allowed under subsection (c) for properties with a lot area equal to or greater than 20 acres and less than 40 acres. The subject property is 20.05 acres in size. This criterion will be met. 4. Maximum Building Floor Area. In the MUA-10 zone, the maximum building floor area used for all activities associated with marijuana production and processing on the subject property shall be: a. Parcels from 5 acres to less than 10 acres in lot area: 2,500 square feet. b. Parcels equal to or greater than 10 acres: 5,000 square feet. FINDING: The subject property is not located in the MUA-10 Zone. This criterion does not apply. 5. Limitation on License/Grow Site per Parcel. No more than one (1) Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) licensed marijuana production or Oregon Health Authority (OHA) registered medical marijuana grow site shall be allowed per legal parcel or lot. FINDING: The proposed use includes only one (1) Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) licensed marijuana production site. This criterion will be met. 6. Setbacks. The following setbacks shall apply to all marijuana production and processing areas and buildings: a. Minimum Yard Setback/Distance from Lot Lines: 100 feet. b. Setback from an off-site dwelling: 300 feet. For the purposes of this criterion, an off-site dwelling includes those proposed off-site dwellings with a building permit application submitted to Deschutes County prior to submission of the marijuana production or processing application to Deschutes County. c. Exception: Any reduction to these setback requirements may be granted by the Planning Director or Hearings Body provided the applicant demonstrates the reduced setbacks afford equal or 247 -16 -000600 -AD Page 8 of 22 greater mitigation of visual, odor, noise, lighting, privacy, and access impacts. FINDING: The submitted plot plan indicates the marijuana production structures are a minimum of 115 feet from all property lines. The applicant submitted a revised site plan demonstrating the closest off-site dwelling is 320 feet northwest of the subject marijuana production area, meeting the requirement under subsection (b) above. These criteria will be met. 7. Separation Distances. Minimum separation distances shall apply as follows: a. The use shall be located a minimum of 1000 feet from: 1. A public elementary or secondary school for which attendance is compulsory under Oregon Revised Statutes 339.010, et seq., including any parking lot appurtenant thereto and any property used by the school; 11. A private or parochial elementary or secondary school, teaching children as described in ORS 339.030(1)(a), including any parking lot appurtenant thereto and any property used by the school; 111. A licensed child care center or licensed preschool, including any parking lot appurtenant thereto and any property used by the child care center or preschool. This does not include licensed or unlicensed child care which occurs at or in residential structures; iv. A youth activity center; and v. National monuments and state parks. b. For purposes of DCC 18.116.330(6)(7), all distances shall be measured from the lot line of the affected properties listed in DCC 18.116.330(B)(7)(a) to the closest point of the buildings and land area occupied by the marijuana producer or marijuana processor. c. A change in use of another property to those identified in DCC 18.116.330(B)(7) shall not result in the marijuana producer or marijuana processor being in violation of DCC 18.116.330(6)(7) if the use is: 1. Pending a local land use decision; Licensed or registered by the State of Oregon; or 111. Lawfully established. FINDING: The applicant states the closest use requiring separation is approximately 15,000 feet from the subject property and is the New Leaf Academy, a private school. Twenty-seven (27) properties are wholly or partially within 1,000 feet of the subject property. According to 247 -16 -000600 -AD Page 9 of 22 Deschutes County GIS, none of these properties are in a use described in the above section or are subject to subsection (c). These criteria are met. 8. Access. Marijuana production over 5,000 square feet of canopy area for mature marijuana plants shall comply with the following standards. a. Have frontage on and legal direct access from a constructed public, county, or state road; or b. Have access from a private road or easement serving only the subject property. c. If the property takes access via a private road or easement which also serves other properties, the applicant shall obtain written consent to utilize the easement or private road for marijuana production access from all owners who have access rights to the private road or easement. The written consent shall: i. Be on a form provided by the County and shall contain the following information; ii. Include notarized signatures of all owners, persons and properties holding a recorded interest in the private road or easement; iii. Include a description of the proposed marijuana production or marijuana processing operation; and iv. Include a legal description of the private road or easement. FINDING: The applicant proposes a maximum canopy size of 9,760 square feet. These criteria apply. The tract' owned by Rubio Real Estate Investments includes a 0.22 acre tax lot (Assessor's Map 17-13-28, tax lot 1601) which is north of and adjacent to the subject property. Tax lot 1601 has frontage on Alfalfa Market Road. A property line adjustment approval under file 247 -15 -000280 -LL approved a consolidation of tax lot 1601 with the subject tax lot 201. According to Planning Division records, it does not appear the property line adjustment was perfected, meaning a survey and/or deeds, as required by the decision, were recorded with the County Clerk and copies of those recorded documents returned to the Panning Division for review. Regardless, staff finds both tax lots comprise a tract of land which has frontage on a public road and the access requirements of this section are met. 9. Lighting. Lighting shall be regulated as follows: A. Inside building lighting, including greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar structures, used for marijuana production shall not be visible outside the building from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. on the following day. b. Lighting fixtures shall be fully shielded in such a manner that all light emitted directly by the lamp or 1 "Tract," as used in DCC 18.16, 18.36 and 18.40 means one or more contiguous lots or parcels in the same ownership. A tract shall not be considered to consist of less than the required acreage because it is crossed by a public road or waterway. DCC 18.04.030. 247 -16 -000600 -AD Page 10 of 22 a diffusing element, or indirectly by reflection or refraction, is projected below the horizontal plane through the lowest light -emitting part. c. Light cast by exterior light fixtures other than marijuana grow lights shall comply with DCC 15.10, Outdoor Lighting Control. FINDING: The agent states, "No lighting from inside [the] building or greenhouse[s] will be visible from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. on the following day or projected upward. No lighting will be visible from the buildings' interior, and greenhouses will have black -out light deprivation systems installed and operated by auto timers. Light cast by exterior light fixtures other than marijuana grow lights will comply with DCC 15.10, Outdoor Lighting Control". These criteria can feasibly be met. Staff adds the following ongoing conditions of approval to ensure compliance with the above section: Inside building lighting, including greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar structures, used for marijuana production shall not be visible outside the building from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. on the following day. Lighting fixtures shall be fully shielded in such a manner that all light emitted directly by the lamp or a diffusing element, or indirectly by reflection or refraction, is projected below the horizontal plane through the lowest light -emitting part. The light cast by exterior light fixtures other than marijuana growing lights shall comply with DCC 15.10, Outdoor Lighting Control. 10. Odor. As used in DCC 18.116.330(B)(10), building means the building, including greenhouses, hoop houses, and other similar structures, used for marijuana production or marijuana processing. a. The building shall be equipped with an effective odor control system which must at all times prevent unreasonable interference of neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. b. An odor control system is deemed permitted only after the applicant submits a report by a mechanical engineer licensed in the State of Oregon demonstrating that the system will control odor so as not to unreasonably interfere with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. c. Private actions alleging nuisance or trespass associated with odor impacts are authorized, if at all, as provided in applicable state statute. d. The odor control system shall: i. Consist of one or more fans. The fan(s) shall be sized for cubic feet per minute (CFM) equivalent to the volume of the building (length multiplied by width multiplied by height) divided by three. The filter(s) shall be rated for the required CFM; or ii. Utilize an alternative method or technology to achieve equal to or greater odor mitigation than provided by (i) above. 247 -16 -000600 -AD Page 11 of 22 e. The system shall be maintained in working order and shall be in use. FINDING: The agent has submitted a letter dated November 23, 2016, from Registered Professional Engineer Robert James stating that odor will be controlled in the greenhouses by an automatic exhaust fan system that utilizes a fogger to control odor and will satisfy the requirements of DCC 18.116.330(B)(10)(d)(ii) above. The engineer goes on to state the odor control system inside the building will use carbon filters to satisfy these requirements. This criterion can be met. As an ongoing condition of approval, proposed odor control system must at all times prevent unreasonable interference with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. The odor control system shall be maintained in working order and shall be in use. 11. Noise. Noise produced by marijuana production and marijuana processing shall comply with the following: a. Sustained noise from mechanical equipment used for heating, ventilation, air condition, odor control, fans and similar functions shall not exceed 30 dB(A) measured at any property line between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the following day. b. Sustained noise from marijuana production is exempt from protections of DCC 9.12 and ORS 30.395, Right to Farm. Intermittent noise for accepted farming practices is permitted. FINDING: The agent has submitted a letter dated November 23, 2016, from Registered Professional Engineer Robert James, which states, "The greenhouse exhaust fans will not operate at night between the hours of 10 pm and 7 am. The HVAC equipment for the shop building does not run continuously. It runs only intermittently, similar to a typical home HVAC system. Therefore, there is no sustained noise from this equipment. Additionally, the outdoor condensing units will be screened on one side by the shop building and will be screened on the other three sides by a concrete wall. Our calculations indicate that [the] sound level from operating HVAC equipment should not exceed 30 dBA at any property lines between the hours of 10 pm and 7 am, and meets the requirements of County Code Chapter 18.116.330(B)(11)" Staff finds the Engineer's statements satisfy the requirements of this section. These criteria can be met. As an ongoing condition of approval, sustained noise from mechanical equipment used for heating, ventilation, air conditioning, odor control, fans and similar functions shall not exceed 30 dB(A) measured at an ra elty line between 1 0:0V p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the following day. yp property y 12. Screening and Fencing. The following screening standards shall apply to greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar non- rigid structures and land areas used for marijuana production and processing: a. Subject to DCC 18.84, Landscape Management Combining Zone approval, if applicable. b. Fencing shall be finished in a muted earth tone that blends with the surrounding natural landscape and shall not be constructed of temporary materials 247 -16 -000600 -AD Page 12 of 22 such as plastic sheeting, hay bales, tarps, etc., and shall be subject to DCC 18.88, Wildlife Area Combining Zone, if applicable. c. Razor wire, or similar, shall be obscured from view or colored a muted earth tone that blends with the surrounding natural landscape. d. The existing tree and shrub cover screening the development from the public right-of-way or adjacent properties shall be retained to the maximum extent possible. This provision does not prohibit maintenance of existing lawns, removal of dead, diseased or hazardous vegetation; the commercial harvest of forest products in accordance with the Oregon Forest Practices Act; or agricultural use of the land. FINDING: The applicant states that fencing is proposed to enclose the marijuana production area, that no temporary materials will be used, and that all proposed fencing and all wires will be in a muted earth tone color. The applicant has not provided the specific colors or materials of the fencing. The subject property is not in the Landscape Management or the Wildlife Area Combining Zones. The property contains numerous trees that partially screen the proposed structures from view from the public right of way and from adjacent properties. Furthermore, the structure exceeds setbacks from property lines required by DCC sections 18.16.070 and 18.116.330(6)(6). These criteria can be met, and staff adds the following conditions to ensure compliance with the above criteria of this section. As an ongoing condition of approval, fencing and wire shall be finished in a muted brown, green, or natural wood color and shall not be constructed of temporary materials such as plastic sheeting, hay bales, tarps, etc. As an ongoing condition of approval, the existing tree and shrub cover screening the development from the public right-of-way or adjacent properties shall be retained to the maximum extent possible. This provision does not prohibit the maintenance of existing lawns, removal of dead, diseased or hazardous vegetation; the commercial harvest of forest products in accordance with the Oregon Forest Practices Act; or agricultural use of the land. 13. Water. The applicant shall provide: a. A copy of a water right permit, certificate, or other water use authorization from the Oregon Water Resource Department; or b. A statement that water is supplied from a public or private water provider, along with the name and contact information of the water provider; or c. Proof from the Oregon Water Resources Department that the water to be used is from a source that does not require a water right. FINDING: The applicant states that water is provided by Avion and irrigation is provided by Central Oregon Irrigation District. The applicant references a letter from Avion in the file 247- 15 -000103 -CU that states Avion will serve the subject property with potable water. Staff was able to locate this letter dated March 3, 2015. The applicant has also submitted a "Parton 247 -16 -000600 -AD Page 13 of 22 Taxlot Inquiry" from Central Oregon Irrigation District stating the property is served with 10.0 acres of irrigation water for use from April 1st to October 31St. These criteria can be met. 14. Fire protection for processing of cannabinoid extracts. Processing of cannabinoid extracts shall only be permitted on properties located within the boundaries of or under contract with a fire protection district. FINDING: No processing is proposed and this section does not apply. 15. Utility Verification. A statement from each utility company proposed to serve the operation, stating that each such company is able and willing to serve the operation, shall be provided. FINDING: The applicant states, "in the above referenced CUP, the record also demonstrates that Central Electric Cooperatives 'will serve' the subject property with electricity". Staff was not able to locate the "will serve" letter associated with the CUP file 247 -15 -000103 -CU in Planning Division records. Regardless, a "will serve" letter from the electric utility for the referenced CUP would have been for residential use and would not satisfy this criterion. A commercial marijuana production facility can reasonably be expected to consume more electricity than a typical residential use. Staff finds this criterion can feasibly be met through a condition of approval. Prior to issuance of building permits, a statement from the electric utility company proposed to serve the marijuana production operation, stating that the electric utility company is able and willing to serve the operation, shall be provided to the Planning Division. 16. Security Cameras. If security cameras are used, they shall be directed to record only the subject property and public rights-of-way, except as required to comply with requirements of the OLCC or the OHA. FINDING: The applicant agrees to these requirements and states all cameras will only record the subject property. As an ongoing condition of approval, security cameras shall be directed to record only the subject property and public rights-of-way, except as required to comply with requirements of the OLCC or the OHA. 17. Secure Waste nisposal. Marijuana waste shall he stored in a secured waste receptacle in the possession of and under the control of the OLCC licensee or OHA Person Responsible for the Grow Site (PRMG). FINDING: The applicant acknowledged this requirement and states, "marijuana waste will be stored in a secured waste receptacle in the possession of and under the control of the OLCC licensee". The applicant did not specify where the waste will be stored or how it will be secured. The OLCC's licensing requirements in OAR 845-025-7750(1)(b) require the applicant to, "store marijuana waste in a secured waste receptacle in the possession of and 247 -16 -000600 -AD Page 14 of 22 under the control of the licensee". Staff finds this criterion can feasibly be met by both an ongoing condition of approval and as part of the licensing requirements for the OLCC. As an ongoing condition of approval, marijuana waste shall be stored in a secured waste receptacle in the possession of and under the control of the OLCC licensee. 18. Residency. In the MUA-10 zone, a minimum of one of the following shall reside in a dwelling unit on the subject property: a. An owner of the subject property; b. A holder of an OLCC license for marijuana production, provided that the license applies to the subject property; or c. A person registered with the OHA as a person designated to produce marijuana by a registry identification cardholder, provided that the registration applies to the subject property. FINDING: The subject property is not in the MUA-10 zone. This section does not apply. 19. Nonconformance. All medical marijuana grow sites lawfully established prior to June 8, 2016 by the Oregon Health Authority shall comply with the provisions of DCC 18.116.330(6)(9) by September 8, 2016 and with the provisions of DCC 18.116.330(6)(10-12, 16, 17) by December 8, 2016. FINDING: The proposal is not for an existing medical marijuana grow site. This section does not apply. 20. Prohibited Uses. a. In the EFU zone, the following uses are prohibited: i. A new dwelling used in conjunction with a marijuana crop; ii. A farm stand, as described in ORS 215.213(1)(r) or 215.283(1)(o), used in conjunction with a marijuana crop; A commercial activity, as described in ORS 215.213(2)(c) or 215.283(2)(a), carried on in conjunction a marijuana crop; and iv. Agri -tourism and other commercial events and activities in conjunction with a marijuana crop. c. In the EFU, MUA-10, and Rural Industrial zones, the following uses are prohibited on the same property as marijuana production: i. Guest Lodge. ii. Guest Ranch. iii. Dude Ranch. iv. Destination Resort. 247 -16 -000600 -AD Page 15 of 22 v. Public Parks. vi. Private Parks. vii. Events, Mass Gatherings and Outdoor Mass Gatherings. viii. Bed and Breakfast. ix. Room and Board Arrangements. FINDING: None of the prohibited uses have been proposed by the applicant. As an ongoing condition of approval, the uses listed in DCC 18.116.330(20) shall be prohibited on the subject property so long as Marijuana Production is conducted on the site. D. Annual Reporting 1. An annual report shall be submitted to the Community Development Department by the real property owner or licensee, if different, each February 1, documenting all of the following as of December 31 of the previous year, including the applicable fee as adopted in the current County Fee Schedule and a fully executed Consent to Inspect Premises form: a. Documentation demonstrating compliance with the: i. Land use decision and permits. ii. Fire, health, safety, waste water, and building codes and laws. State of Oregon licensing requirements. b. Failure to timely submit the annual report, fee, and Consent to Inspect Premises form or to demonstrate compliance with DCC 18.116.330(C)(1)(a) shall serve as acknowledgement by the real property owner and licensee that the otherwise allowed use is not in compliance with Deschutes County Code; authorizes permit revocation under DCC Title 22, and may be relied upon by the State of Oregon to deny new or license renewal(s) for the subject use. c. Other information as may be reasonably required by the Planning Director to ensure compliance with Deschutes County Code, applicable State regulations, and to protect the public health, safety, I and welfare. ^. Marijuana Control Plan to be established and maintained by the Community Development Department. e. Conditions of Approval Agreement to be established and maintained by the Community Development Department. f. This information shall be public record subject to ORS 192.502(17). FINDING: Compliance with the annual reporting obligation of this section is required. 247 -16 -000600 -AD Page 16 of 22 As an ongoing condition of approval, the annual reporting requirements of DCC 18.116.330(D) shall be met. C. Chapter 18.80, Airport Safety Combining Zone 1. Section 18.80.020. Application of Provisions. The provisions of DCC 18.80.020 shall only apply to unincorporated areas located under airport imaginary surfaces and zones, including approach surfaces, transitional surfaces, horizontal surfaces, conical surfaces and runway protection zones. While DCC 18.80 identifies dimensions for the entire imaginary surface and zone, parts of the surfaces and/or zones do not apply within the Redmond, Bend or Sisters Urban Growth Boundaries. The Redmond Airport is owned and operated by the City of Redmond, and located wholly within the Redmond City Limits. Imaginary surface dimensions vary for each airport covered by DCC 18.80.020. Based on the classification of each individual airport, only those portions (of the AS Zone) that overlay existing County zones are relevant. Public use airports covered by DCC 18.80.020 include Redmond Municipal, Bend Municipal, Sunriver and Sisters Eagle Air. Although it is a public -use airport, due to its size and other factors, the County treats land uses surrounding the Sisters Eagle Air Airport based on the ORS 836.608 requirements for private -use airports. The Oregon Department of Aviation is still studying what land use requirements will ultimately be applied to Sisters. However, contrary to the requirements of ORS 836.608, as will all public -use airports, federal law requires that the FAA Part 77 surfaces must be applied. The private -use airports covered by DCC 18.80.020 include Cline Falls Airpark and Juniper Airpark. FINDING: The subject property lies within the conical surface of the Bend Municipal Airport. Therefore, the provisions of this chapter apply. 2. Section 18.80.028. Height Limitations. All uses permitted by the underlying zone shall comply with the height limitations in DCC 18.80.028. When height limitations of the underlying zone are more restrictive than those of this overlay zone, the underlying zone height limitations shall control. [ORS 836.619; OAR 660-013-0070] A. Except as provided in DCC 18.80.028(B) and (C), no structure or tree, plant or other object of natural growth shall penetrate an airport imaginary surface. FORS 836.619; OAR 660-013-0070(1)] FINDING: The subject property is located within the conical surface of the Bend Municipal Airport. The conical surface extends outward and upward from the periphery of the horizontal surface at a slope of 20:12 for a horizontal distance of 4,000 feet and to a vertical height of This ratio is equivalent to 20 feet of horizontal distance for every 1 foot of vertical distance. 247 -16 -000600 -AD Page 17 of 22 350 above the airport elevation. The proposed marijuana production facility is limited to a maximum height of 30 feet and will be located more than 10,000 feet from the airport. Staff finds that the proposed marijuana production facility will not penetrate the conical surface. This criterion will be met. B. For areas within airport imaginary surfaces but outside the approach and transition surfaces, where the terrain is at higher elevations than the airport runway surfaces such that existing structures and permitted development penetrate or would penetrate the airport imaginary surfaces, a local government may authorize structures up to 35 feet in height. FINDING: The subject property is within the conical surface, therefore this criterion applies. The elevation above sea level for the Bend Municipal Airport is approximately 3,436 feet. The elevation above sea level for the subject property is approximately 3,484 feet. The proposed marijuana production facility will be limited to a maximum height of 30 feet. Therefore, maximum elevation of the structures on the subject property is 3,514 feet. As noted above, the subject property is located more than 10,000 feet from the airport. Staff finds that this maximum elevation will not penetrate the conical surface. C. Other height exceptions or variances may be permitted when supported in writing by the airport sponsor, the Department of Aviation and the FAA. Applications for height variances shall follow the procedures for other variances and shall be subject to such conditions and terms as recommended by the Department of Aviation and the FAA (for Redmond, Bend and Sunriver.) FINDING: No height exceptions or variances are sought by this application; therefore, this criterion does not apply. 3. Section 18.80.044. Land Use Compatibility. Applications for land use or building permits for properties within the boundaries of this overlay zone shall comply with the requirements of DCC 18.80 as provided herein. When compatibility issues arise, the Planning Director or Hearings Body is required to take actions that eliminate or minimize the incompatibility by choosing the most compatible location or design for the boundary or use. Where compatibility issues persist, despite actions or conditions intended to eliminate or minimize the incompatibility, the Planning Director or Hearings Body may disallow the use or expansion, except where the action results in .los s of current operational levels and/or the ability of them airport to grow to meet future community needs. Reasonable conditions to protect the public safety may be imposed by the Planning Director or Hearings Body. (ORS 836.619; ORS 836.623(1); OAR 660-013-00801 A. Noise. Within airport noise impact boundaries, land uses shall be established consistent with the levels identified in OAR 660, Division 13, Exhibit 5 (Table 2 of DCC 18.80). Applicants for any subdivision or partition approval or other land use approval or building permit affecting land within airport noise impact boundaries, shall sign and record in the Deschutes County Book of Records, a Declaration of Anticipated Noise declaring that the 247 -16 -000600 -AD Page 18 of 22 applicant and his successors will not now, or in the future complain about the allowed airport activities at the adjacent airport. In areas where the noise level is anticipated to be at or above 55 Ldn, prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of a noise sensitive land use (real property normally used for sleeping or as a school, church, hospital, public library or similar use), the permit applicant shall be required to demonstrate that a noise abatement strategy will be incorporated into the building design that will achieve an indoor noise level equal to or less than 55 Ldn. [NOTE: FAA Order 5100.38A, Chapter 7 provides that interior noise levels should not exceed 45 decibels in all habitable zones.] FINDING: The subject property is not within the noise impact boundary associated with the Bend Municipal Airport. Since the noise level at the subject property is anticipated to be less than 55 Ldn, staff finds that no noise abatement strategy is necessary. B. Outdoor lighting. No new or expanded industrial, commercial or recreational use shall project lighting directly onto an existing runway or taxiway or into existing airport approach surfaces except where necessary for safe and convenient air travel. Lighting for these uses shall incorporate shielding in their designs to reflect light away from airport approach surfaces. No use shall imitate airport lighting or impede the ability of pilots to distinguish between airport lighting and other lighting. FINDING: The proposed marijuana production facility is a new commercial use. The subject property is outside of the airport approach surface and is further than 10,000 feet from the runway, therefore staff finds lighting will not project into or onto any of the protected areas associated with the airport. This criterion is met. C. Glare. No glare producing material, including but not limited to unpainted metal or reflective glass, shall be used on the exterior of structures located within an approach surface or on nearby lands where glare could impede a pilot's vision. FINDING: The submitted application does not indicate what building materials or finishes are proposed. A condition of approval has been added to ensure compliance. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit building plans demonstrating no glare producing materials, including but not limited to unpainted metal or reflective glass, shall be used on the exterior of the proposed structures. D. Industrial emissions. No new industrial, mining or similar use, or expansion of an existing industrial, mining or similar use, shall, as part of its regular operations, cause emissions of smoke, dust or steam that could obscure visibility within airport approach surfaces, except upon demonstration, supported by substantial evidence, that mitigation measures imposed as approval conditions will reduce the potential for safety risk or incompatibility with airport operations to an insignificant level. 247 -16 -000600 -AD Page 19 of 22 The review authority shall impose such conditions as necessary to ensure that the use does not obscure visibility. FINDING: The proposed marijuana production facility is not an industrial, mining or similar use. This criterion does not apply. E. Communications Facilities and Electrical Interference. No use shall cause or create electrical interference with navigational signals or radio communications between an airport and aircraft. Proposals for the location of new or expanded radio, radiotelephone, and television transmission facilities and electrical transmission lines within this overlay zone shall be coordinated with the Department of Aviation and the FAA prior to approval. Approval of cellular and other telephone or radio communication towers on leased property located within airport imaginary surfaces shall be conditioned to require their removal within 90 days following the expiration of the lease agreement. A bond or other security shall be required to ensure this result. FINDING: The proposed marijuana production facility will not cause or create electrical interference. This criterion will be met. F. Limitations and Restrictions on Allowed Uses in the RPZ, Approach Surface, and Airport Direct and Secondary Impact Areas. For the Redmond, Bend, Sunriver, and Sisters airports, the land uses identified in DCC 18.80 Table 1, and their accessory uses, are permitted, permitted under limited circumstances, or prohibited in the manner therein described. In the event of conflict with the underlying zone, the more restrictive provisions shall control. As used in DCC 18.80.044, a limited use means a use that is allowed subject to special standards specific to that use. FINDING: The proposed marijuana production facility will not be located within the runway protection zone (RPZ), the approach surface, or the airport direct and secondary impact areas. This criterion does not apply. !V. CONCL 'SION Based on the foregoing Basic and Conclusionary Findings, staff finds that the proposed marijuana production facility can comply with the applicable standards and criteria of the Deschutes County zoning ordinance if conditions of approval are met. V. DECISION APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions of approval. 247 -16 -000600 -AD Page 20 of 22 VI. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A. Use & Location: Marijuana production is conditionally approved inside the three proposed structures consisting of one 6,000 square foot building and two 2,880 square foot greenhouses. This approval is based upon the application, site plan, specifications, and supporting documentation submitted by the applicant. Any substantial change in this approved use will require review through a new land use application. B. Height: Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit elevation plans demonstrating all structures shall not exceed 30 feet in height. C. Glare: Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit building plans demonstrating no glare producing materials, including but not limited to unpainted metal or reflective glass, shall be used on the exterior of the proposed structures. D. Utility Verification: Prior to issuance of building permits, a statement from the electric utility company proposed to serve the marijuana production operation, stating that the electric utility company is able and willing to serve the operation, shall be provided to the Planning Division. ONGOING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL E. Lighting: The following lighting standards shall be met. 1. Inside building lighting used for marijuana production shall not be visible outside the building from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. on the following day. 2. Lighting fixtures shall be fully shielded in such a manner that all light emitted directly by the lamp or a diffusing element, or indirectly by reflection or refraction, is projected below the horizontal plane through the lowest light - emitting part. 3. The light cast by exterior light fixtures other than marijuana growing lights shall comply with DCC 15.10, Outdoor Lighting Control. 4. All exterior lighting shall be shielded so that direct light does not project off site. F. Odor: The proposed odor control system must at all times prevent unreasonable interference with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. The odor control system shall be maintained in working order and shall be in use. G. Noise: Sustained noise from mechanical equipment used for heating, ventilation, air conditioning, odor control, fans and similar functions shall not exceed 30 dB(A) measured at any property line between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the following day. H. Fencing.: Fencing and wire shall be finished in a muted brown, green, or natural wood color and shall not be constructed of temporary materials such as plastic sheeting, hay bales, tarps, etc. 247 -16 -000600 -AD Page 21 of 22 I. Screening: The existing tree and shrub cover screening the development from the public right-of-way or adjacent properties shall be retained to the maximum extent possible. This provision does not prohibit the maintenance of existing lawns, removal of dead, diseased or hazardous vegetation; the commercial harvest of forest products in accordance with the Oregon Forest Practices Act; or agricultural use of the land. J. Security Cameras: If security cameras are used, they shall be directed to record only the subject property and public rights-of-way, except as required to comply with requirements of the OLCC or the OHA. K. Waste: Marijuana waste shall be stored in a secured waste receptacle in the possession of and under the control of the OLCC licensee. L. Prohibited Uses: The uses listed in DCC 18.116.330(20) shall be prohibited on the subject property so long as Marijuana Production and/or Processing are conducted on the site. Marijuana production and processing are prohibited in any outdoor area. M. Annual Reporting: The annual reporting requirements of DCC 18.116.330(D) shall be met. VII. DURATION OF APPROVAL: The applicant shall complete all conditions of approval and obtain placement permits the proposed use within two (2) years of the date this decision becomes final, or obtain an extension of time pursuant to Section 22.36.010 of the County Code, or this approval shall be void. This decision becomes final twelve (12) days after the date of mailing, unless appealed by a party of interest. DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION /re-- ritten by: Jacob Ripper, Associate Planner Reviewed by: Peter Gutowsky, Planning Manager Dated this 11th day of January, 2017 Mailed this 11th day of January, 2017 247 -16 -000600 -AD Page 22 of 22 247-17-000036-A - Appeal of 247 -16 -000600 -AD Legend Subject Property 17-13-33-A0-00201 County Zoning EFUAL - Alflafa Subzone EFUTRB - Tumalo/Redmond/Bend Subzone MUA10 - Multiple Use Agricultural Appellant: Lance and Monika Piatt Taxlot Number: 17-13-33-A0-00201 Address: 23105 Alfalfa Market Rd, Bend Owner: Rubio Real Estate Investments LLC 0 200 400 800 1,200 i� Feet March 2, 2017 4.555,5505.55-5 0o Ilow6p6uuaaul6ueuowuoq 'Iowa i9Z L -61L (L66) :x°dl9Z L-6LL (LbS) :auogd 6SLL6 sials!5 anliG auolG uap100 COOL 3d1 'uoluo8 '0 uanalS DNI 'NDIS30 ONI2133NION3 NOINV8 z 4 uo6aa0 `pua8 pool }a>jJDW o}lojld goL J.la]d0dd (pond 310 SSJ330 30FM ,0L M3 II 1 Anthony Rai uin ..a ,,,. �xn: From: Sent To: Subject: Anthony, Eric Porter <porterdevlk@gmail.com> Saturday, May 09, 2015 9:03 AM Anthony Raguine; Linda Reed Haase Haase Conditional use Permit for a non-farm dwelling For.purposes of the Conditional Use Permit decision, please useRichardson Road as the intended access. We will be adjusting the lot line to consolidate tax lot 1601 into the parent parcel, but we are interested completing the CU -Process in the near-term because of the pending sale of the property, 1 expect the I.:LA will be submitted to you. within one or two weeks, Thanks for your assistance through this process. Please let me know if you need anything else, otherwise we'll continue to nnove forward With the lot line adjustment process, and will await your decision on the CU. Take care, Erie Porter Porter Land: Development, LLC porterdevIld@trmail.com 541-280-7910 PA GE Petition against marijuana production facility at 23105 Alfalfa Market Road, Bend, OR 97701 Owner: Rubio Real Estate Investments, LLC Applicant / Agent: Douglas R. White We the undersigned do request the Board of Commissioners to deny Rubio Real Estate Investments, LLC's application No. 247 -16 -00600 -AD for a marijuana production facility to be constructed at 23105 Alfalfa Market Road in Bend, OR 97701. A marijuana production facility does not belong in a family neighborhood, regardless of land use zoning. The owners of said property, Rubio Real Estate Investments, LLC do not live on the property, nor is there a caretaker living on the property nor proposed to live on the property. As absentee owners (and/or leasors of said property to a third party for marijuana production), Rubio Real Estate Investments, LLC has no obvious concern for protection and guardianship of their own property and neighboring properties in this family community. Approving proposed use of said property will increase traffic, noise, light pollution, air pollution, and the likelihood of criminal trespass; moreover, approval of proposed use will negatively affect the neighborhood's property values, and as an "attractive nuisance" it has the potential to bring increased crime to a safe neighborhood. We urge you to deny this request. [z v c:A C ANN \*\ �� �.� _e<< ,s: --AL06;;')::(-37):-.(SIALAc" 9 ® aw, ,, \"vet• Petition against marijuana production facility at 23105 Alfalfa Market Road, Bend, OR 97701 Owner: Rubio Real Estate Investments, LLC Applicant /Agent: Douglas R.White We the undersigned do request the Board of Commissioners to deny Rubio Real Estate Investments, LLC's application No. 247 -16 -00600 -AD for a marijuana production facility to be constructed at 23105 Alfalfa Market Road in Bend, OR 97701. A marijuana production facility does not belong in a family neighborhood, regardless of land use zoriing. The owners of said property, Rubio Real Estate Investments, LLC do not live on the property, nor is there a caretaker iving ori the property nor proposed to live on the property. As absentee owners (and/or leasors of said property to a third party for marijuana production), Rubio Real Estate Investments, LLC has no obvious concern for protection and guardianship of their own property and neighboring properties in this family community. Approving proposed use of said property will increase traffic, noise, light pollution, air pollution, and the likelihood of criminal trespass; moreover, approval of proposed use will negatively affect the neighborhood's property values, and as an "attractive nuisance" it has the potential to bring increased crime to a safe neighborhood. We urge you to deny this request. `--11 1; / 4-� ' /' � / A/~^/ ��v�/� ���//.` /4,�. � ^,y1 19/ .?/ /.w��^- ''/'/�� /'� { /1 1)1w) [-//�// /y )/J 2 /�,`�7 .' ' � ' .~ / -`.`� � �� / / �v�» /r�r�e*r/~ 7/ k S- G A»,~'. 4° DrA P(..=1:��'���/c��~��{/� /^�/� �u /a �� Men -ere y ' '17,.v `\�^/,*�+` 3/-1)) 0//o°^6~,,i- D / — '-- J - Lo0�/ /- / �r~`9'r \ �LVlrv`«�o ' � ����` Petition against marijuana production facility at 23105 Alfalfa Market Road, Bend, OR 97701 Owner: Rubio Real Estate Investments, LLC Applicant / Agent: Douglas R. White We the undersigned do request the Board of Commissioners to deny Rubio Real Estate Investments, LLC's application No. 247 -16 -00600 -AD for a marijuana production facility to be constructed at 23105 Alfalfa Market Road in Bend, OR 97701. A marijuana production facility does not belong in a family neighborhood, regardless of land use zoning. The owners of said property, Rubio Real Estate Investments, LLC do not live on the property, nor is there a caretaker living on the property nor proposed to live on the property. As absentee owners (and/or leasors of said property to a third party for marijuana production), Rubio Real Estate Investments, LLC has no obvious concern for protection and guardianship of their own property and neighboring properties in this family community. Approving proposed use of said property will increase traffic, noise, light pollution, air pollution, and the likelihood of criminal trespass; moreover, approval of proposed use will negatively affect the neighborhood's property values, and as an "attractive nuisance" it has the potential to bring increased crime to a safe neighborhood. We urge you to deny this request. tl-d., x ; i'tl. (: % eic i9 -i %i Pym 14--YLt 4 c. f � b)a Ike Pt EST Lc.e..,.. /11724- Ate,bisc4 L.0 r,c c= i f, W/LG /,4n w. A9100/0/ iVA Rupe p 11( 23 c= 25 c25 7 10144 ex/ BBQ, o,Q Y770/ 237 S7 1c3nncx BeAdr Oco17 t __�� E,c-F Petiton against marijuana production facility at 23105 Alfalfa Market Road, Bend, OR 97701 Owner: Rubio Real Estate Investments, LLC Applicant / Agent: Douglas R. White We the undersigned do requesthe Board of Commissioners to deny Rubia Reai Estate nvestments, LLC's application No. 247 -16 -00600 -AD for a marijuana production facility to be constructed at 23105 Alfalfa Market Road in Bend, OR 97701. A marijuana production facility does not belong in a famity neighborhood, regardtess of tarid use zoning. The owners of said proprty, Rubio Real Estate Investments, LLC do not live on the property, nor is there a caretaker living on the property nor proposed to live on the property. As absentee owners (and/or leasors of said property to a third party for marijuana production), Rubio Real Estate Investments, LLC has no obvious concern for protection and guardianship of their own property and neighboring properties in this family community. Approving proposed use of said property will increase traffic, noise, light pollution, air pollution, and the likelihood of criminal trespass; moreover, approval of proposed use will negatively affect the neighborhood's property values, and as an "attractive nuisance" it Fias the potential to bring increased crime to a safe neighborhood. We urge you to deny this request. 01/(, ������_�� ,��. �� ~- ^~ ' �~ ^ ' ' �� / �"* �~ v��r'e� '��B�� 6\� \0 miL/ �/ ��-^=`� f+|4ro��f=` �w�\L� /`e� L�d � Y.�. �/m wa�`� _/ (�' �� ' ��vc�1����*te4.i�~�/ \�� � G �l - � x/ -`�� "-~ `'1-, /\L«KYVT C V(aiir/ R Petition against marijuana production facility at 23105 Alfalfa Market Road, Bend, OR 97701 Owner: Rubio Real Estate Investments, LLC Applicant / Agent: Douglas R. White We the undersigned do request the Board of Commissioners to deny Rubio Real Estate Investments, LLC's application No. 247 -16 -00600 -AD for a marijuana production facility to be constructed at 23105 Alfalfa Market Road in Bend, OR 97701. A marijuana production facility does not belong in a family neighborhood, regardless of land use zoning. The owners of said property, Rubio Real Estate Investments, LLC do not live on the property, nor is there a caretaker living on the property nor proposed to live on the property. As absentee owners (and/or leasors of said property to a third party for marijuana production), Rubio Real Estate Investments, LLC has no obvious concern for protection and guardianship of their own property and neighboring properties in this family community. Approving proposed use of said property will increase traffic, noise, light pollution, air pollution, and the likelihood of criminal trespass; moreover, approval of proposed use will negatively affect the neighborhood's property values, and as an "attractive nuisance" it has the potential to bring increased crime to a safe neighborhood, We urge you to deny this request. •�C 11((ri 1I its1)( ((((��I coke, q5 130 AA Vr1 T iatc..E:(c h(,rc 3i 35 cm, 7of ^� i r_=%i44J j f, e 3 ;; I c ti #o LF!h-.-ID `> (Q2.? Wkikevr ' f)tr u : 1 c2 (tIAN v 4L -r-42_ Fes' /l'1 tt, 111! 4 Y/� . UY'ti 2 C..f `I 4 LEA L.%!3 411< T.. NARRATIVE: THE PURPOSE OF THIS SURVEY WAS TO TRANSFER A 50.00 FOOT STRIP OF LAND FROM TAX LOT 17-13-28-1600 AND ADD TO TAX LOT 17-13-33A-201 FOR ACCESS FROM ALFALFA MARKET ROAD. REFERENCE SURVEYS USED WERE CS03304 BY MICHAEL TYE AND CS03188 BY RAY OMAN. WE SEARCHED FOR IRON RODS AT THE P.1.5 OF THE CURVES PER C") 1924 MAP OF ALFALFA MARKET ROAD ON FILE WITH THE ROAD DEPT. AND DID NOT FIND THEM. Ir I USED THE DEED CALLS ON THE WEST LINE OF TAX LOT 17-13-28-1400 W !O FOR COMPUTATION OF THE EAST LINE OF THE ACCESS STRIP, CD DEED REFERENCE FOR TAX LOT 1600: VOL. -PAGE 1999-48745 ro TAX LOT 201: VOL -PAGE 517-0214 n - ALFALFA MKT. ROAD S2TS /s33 T; 1/4 COR. FD. 1-1/4" I. P. N54'E19.5' ..5/12' I.R. ± 0.5 FT. SO. OF -x-x� R.R. TIE UPRIGHT IN 09140. "ffa .a POW. POLE "2257' WASH. IN NE FACE 1-1/4" I.P.-- � son 11,1 72' E 30.5' VA > 20 JUN. WASH. IN SL CE TIES TO 1/4 COR. NO SCALE SCALE, 1"=200' LEGEND: • -Monument found on noted O -Set 5/8" x 24" iron rod w/ red piaet. "KARL" cop R - Record doto M - Measured dato 1275 11' M 1325.11' M 10009 28"E 1324.85' CS03304 SET 1/16 COR.-' 29,98' M N 89' 41' 00" W 2649.33' M V 89' 41' 00" W 2649.78' CS03304 LED 5/8 I.R. BASIS OF BEARING NO CAP PER 0503304 z 1/16 COR. 1/2" 1.R. RISING 3" 1318.43' CS03188 00' O8' 53' E z TAXW ESTAB. PER LOTS 1400 & 150CALLS 0 R-1400' L-253.24' C-252.90' 5 79'14'1TE TL 1600 t. PROPOSED , a I 10' ACCESS TL 1400 EASEMENT ..11cri SEE DETAIL BELOW • o, 5287 TL 201 19.6 AC. ..-S33 S34 SEC. COR. F.D. 1" I,P, R=1370.00' --q ALFALFA MKT. 1-50.19' \ R0. C=50.19' 584'54'38"E --.� co ai mit w 30 w 0 5.60371° SO, FT, m om 814 zo .tn1/16 50.00' 189'41'00" W SCALE: 1" =100' LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT SURVEY NC/IL-99-105 IN DATE: 1/6/2000 THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 28, T. 17 S., R. 13 E., r REGISTERED W.M., DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON SCALE: 1"=200' LAPROFESSION OFD SSIIO L FOR; JEAN PAUL VANDENBROUCKE & yy,p, NO. 99-7153 //'44-4.46441,4%%�' LINDA REED HAASE (,.ex.srA. 61151 ROUGH RIDER LANE DRAWN BY: OREGON I BEND, OR 97702 418440.444Y 10. 1087 J RUSSELL M. KARL 1R. Bob Karl - Russ Kari, Jr. Profe8aional Land Surveyors s+ 7307 744 NW Florida Ave., Bend, OR 97701 (541) 389-1924 Ca) TO BE RENEWED ON 6/30/01 CSI304i 41,61-(...vfJ117-/i-aze2 a7-46 46 -e -6-5-s- rCempz f/7- A BRYANT EMERSON, LLP Attorneys at Law March 2, 2017 Page 2 The County Transportation Department is proposing an SDC in the amount of $14,638. Because there is no ITE for Marijuana Growing Operations, the Department is applying the ITE for a Warehouse use. However, a Warehouse is a more active use generating employee and customer/client trips than do growing marijuana crops, Moreover, this applicant has a processing facility in Bend's industrial area that he will use to process the marijuana into other products. Therefore, a majority of the crop will be used by the applicant himself, further limiting the number of vehicle trips generated by the proposed use. Accordingly, the applicant requests that the Board determine that SDC's do not apply to his application for the passive growing of marijuana. If the Board does apply an SDC, the applicant requests that the Board consider not applying it to the hoop greenhouses which are by design temporary structures, and used exclusively for growing of the crop. Although the County assesses SDC's on other types of temporary structures, such as drive -dun coffee shops, those types of uses are for retail, and generate a significantly greater number of traffic trips which in turn have a greater impact on the infrastructure which is precisely what the Charge for the SDC is intended to fund, Moreover, lithe greenhouses were already in place, there would be no SDC assessed against them, as no SDC was assessed for the existing greenhouse for another marijuana growing operation in Deschutes County - Elite Soils, LLC 247 -16 -000525 -AD/ 526 -AD / 527 -SP. So as long as the greenhouses are in place prior to the application they are not assessed an SDC, Obviously, that creates for inconsistency in the application of SDC charges in the County. Because the applicant's greenhouses are to be used entirely for growing of the crop, and are not structures that are permanent in nature, the applicant requests, at a minimum, that SDC's not be assessed on those structures. This is an issue of novelty for the County, and one of importance to the Applicant. An SDC of nearly $15,000 for the growing of crops, in the EFU zone wherein commercial activity is restricted for marijuana crops, outweighs the impact, if any, that the proposed use will have on the System for which the Development Charge is assessed. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Nook forward to discussing this further with the Board during the hearing on Monday. 888 SW Evergreen Avenue I PO Box 457 j Redmond OR 97756 Phone: 5413482151 1 Fax: 541348.1895 BRYANT EMERSON, LLP Attorneys at Law March 2, 2017 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners P,O, Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, OR 97708 Re: Hearing Monday March 6, 2017 Rubio Real Estate Investments, LLC File Number 247 -17 -000036 -A(247 -16 -000600 -AD Dear Commissioners: Ronald L. Bryant" Steven D. Bryant Alison M. Emerson Loon T, W. Johnston Lisa Klemp Ricky Nelson *Also admitted in Washington This matter comes before you on appeal from the Administrative Decision approving the proposed marijuana grow operation pursuant to Deschutes County Code. But for one issue, which is addressed further below, my client agrees with the Administrative Decision and asks that the Board affirm the decision. The applicant is requesting that the Board find that the proposed marijuana growing operation, a passive use, be exempt from the application of SDC's in whole, or at a minimum, in part, Section 4(A) of Resolution 2013-020 describes an exemption for farm -related buildings as follows: (A) ...Non-residential, farm -related buildings for growing and/or storing agricultural products to he used on site, and that do not generate additional commercial traffic, are exempt, Here, the structures proposed consist of a 6,000 square foot building, and two temporary style hoop greenhouses that are 2,880 square foot each. These structures will be used for "growing and/or storing" the agricultural product, On-site retail sales and commercial activity for marijuana grows is prohibited and/or restricted by State and County law. As staff addresses on page 12 and 13 of the Staff Memorandum, the marijuana crop production is a farm use, not a commercial activity in conjunction with a farm use. The commercial activity in conjunction with a farm use requires a Conditional Use Permit. (18.16.030(E)). However, ACC 18.116.330(B)(2) prohibits the Conditional Use Commercial Activity when operated in conjunction with a marijuana crop. (Staff Memorandum, page 13) 888 SW Evergreen Avonuo ( PO Box 457 I Redmond OR 97756 Phone: 541.548.2151 I Fax: 541.548.1895 1 r Exhibit Schedule \ File No. (0"UVPID \ `1 -05(9 P Hearing Date: Subject: _ f1N`;i?4 .n elio1 1?�%=L 40.py�.� Hearings Body: Exhibit No. 4' i, Description 1-3`4,0 Submitted By 6- .1 ee... gduvecism a. a: youyAk SLAW MAR 6 1°\ Metadata Thumboa,,F, Arnotat ions Entry Properties Last modif led OW7016 A01' '1020694420H3PLIS4HHDL1D5 , 1 , Go PDF I g,4' 1,...0.73I4','I ;am Pmtkiia+ ty4 to,i4tONAIIM tvecrit 60,fitO Fklik- - '11--1401W1u501i-ROAD 0.1 fk5a,nts NE1/4 SEC, 33 T.17S. R.13E. W,M. 17 13 33A DESCHUTES COUNTY a , 2(12 tti$ a term...16w. 101117 1 3 11 27 _----- TfatAriiisticiartsf TO- tikkerkii) Ott File: 247-16-000600AD Address: 23105 Alfalfa Market Rd. Map: 17-13-33A 11. 201 1-3 fru ifa 0 ‘TirrinrriTTITIS fIrr VW, le 71.1r a fillisrar 1'7*. _PAGE 17 13 33A Jacob Ripper From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: David Doyle Monday, March 20, 2017 9:28 AM Jacob Ripper MJ i20150321092231.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Jacob - Tom Anderson has asked that the attached be included in the Record (assuming it is still open), Thanks. DAVID DOYLE Deschutes County Legal Counsel 1300 NW Wall Street, Suite 205 Bend, OR 97703 Telephone: (541) 388-6625 Facsimile: (541) 617-4748 Email: David.Dovle aedeschutes.orq The information in this email, including any attachment, is for the sole use of the intended recipient and contains information belonging to Deschutes County, which is confidential and/or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this email information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. Date: To: From: RE: MEMORANDUM Road Department 81150 SE 27th St. • Bend, Oregon 97702 (541) 388-6581 • FAX (541) 388-2719 January 23, 2017 David Doyle, County Attorney Chris Doty, PE, Director of Public Works The calculation of trip generation and associated SDCs to marijuana related businesses The purpose of this memo is to present the technical rationale behind the assessment of SDCs to various marijuana related businesses in accordance with Resolution 2013-020 (SDC Resolution). SDCs are based on the number of new trips' added to the County's transportation system. Trips are calculated per the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (current edition) which contains empirical trip generation data from many different types of land uses. As one would expect due to the infancy of the land use, the ITE manual does not contain a land use specific to a marijuana grow operation or other related marijuana land use such as processing or sales. As noted within the SDC Resolution, land use categories of a similar nature can be used when specific land use categories do not exist within the ITE manual. The specific marijuana related land uses that are occurring or anticipated to occur as commercial enterprises generally consist of the following: 1. Marijuana grow operation/production: a. The commercial manufacture, planting, cultivation, growing, trimming, harvesting, or drying of marijuana. 2. Marijuana related processing a. The processing, compounding, or conversion of marijuana into cannabinoid products, cannabinoid concentrates, or cannabinoid extracts, etc. 3. Marijuana dispensary/retailing a. The sale of marijuana items to a consumer. ITE Land Use Category Assumptions for Marijuana Related Land Use The ITE Trip Generation Manual provides land use categories which, in my opinion, align with the business practices and trip generation characteristics of marijuana related businesses. Use of ITE trip generation rates will provide the basis for determination of traffic impact as well as calculation of the Transportation System Development Charge (SDC). The below analysis identifies the land use categories for the calculation of the trip generation of proposed marijuana business — until such time that the ITE Trip Generation Manual provides better data or a local trip generation rate has been established and approved. 1. Marijuana Grow Operations/Production ITE Land Use Code: Warehouse (#150) ITE Description: Warehouses are primarily devoted to the storage of materials, but they may also include office and maintenance areas. ITE Trip Generation Rates for Warehouse (#15) Average Vehicle Trip Ends Weekday 3.56 per 1,000 SF Gross Floor Area PM Peak Hour (4-6PM, basis of SDC) 0.32 per 1,000 SF Gross Floor Area Rationale for comparable use: Marijuana growing/production is not a typical farming operation as it requires significant care and attention paid to each individual plant. In addition to employment related trips associated with production, it is not unreasonable to expect trip generation associated with typical commercial operations such as deliveries, vendors, prospective client visits, security, etc. Coincidentally, industrial warehouse space is commonly used for marijuana grow facilities in urban areas, where permitted. Sample calculation: Utilizing the Warehouse category as a comparable, a 2,500 SF marijuana grow. operation (greenhouse, outbuilding, etc) would generate approximately 8.9 trips per day and 0.8 trips during the PM peak hour — approximately equal to the trip generation of a single family dwelling in Deschutes County. At the current SDC rate of $3,852 per PM peak hour trip, the SDC for a 2,500 SF marijuana grow facility would equal $3,082. 2. Marijuana Related Processing ITE Land Use Code: Manufacturing (#140) ITE Description: Manufacturing facilities are areas where the primary activity is the conversion of raw materials into finished products. Manufacturing facilities generally also have office, warehouse, research and associated functions. ITE Trip Generation Rates for Manufacturing]//140) Average Vehicle Trip „Ends Weekday 3.82 per 1,000 SF Gross Floor Area PM Peak Hour (4-6PM, basis of SDC) 0.73 per 1,000 SF Gross Floor Area Rationale for comparable use: Although marijuana processing is certainly not one of the specific uses represented by data contained in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, the ITE description very closely matches the processing activity that would be expected within a marijuana related processing use. Sample calculation: Utilizing the Manufacturing category as a comparable, a 2,500 SF marijuana manufacturing related structure (per prior description) would generate approximately 10 trips per day and 1.8 trips during the PM peak hour. At the current SDC rate of $3,852 per PM peak hour trip, the SDC for 2,500 SF marijuana processing facility would equal $7,030. 3. Marijuana Dispensary/Retail ITE Land Use Code: Specialty Retail Center (#826) ITE Description: Specialty retail centers are generally small strip shopping centers that contain a variety of retail shops and specialize in quality apparel, hard goods, and services such as real estate offices, dance studios, florists, and small restaurants. ITE Trip Generation Rates for Speclaity Retail Center (#826) Average Vehicle Trip Ends Weekday 44.32 per 1,000 SF Gross Floor Area PM Peak Hour (4-6PM, basis of SDC) 2.71 per 1,000 SF Gross Floor Area Rationale for comparable use: This land use category is generally the "catch-all" for small scale retail use. Some recent trip generation studies in Colorado have found that retail marijuana related facilities generate trips at rates that exceed ITE Specialty Retail or Shopping Center rates (http:/lwww.mikeontraffic. com/trip-generation-data-marijuana- dispensaries/). Sample calculation: Utilizing the Specialty Retail category as a comparable, a 2,500 SF marijuana manufacturing related structure (per prior description) would generate approximately 111 trips per day and 6.8 trips during the PM peak hour. Utilizing typical pass -by trip reduction rates for retail (61%), the use would generate 2.7 new trips. At the current SDC rate of $3,852 per PM peak hour trip, the SDC for 2,500 SF marijuana processing facility would equal $10,304. Farm -Related Building Exemption: As it pertains to language in Resolution 2013-020(4A) regarding farm related buildings (Section 4A): (A) .,. Non-residential, farm -related buildings for growing and/or storing agricultural products to be used on site, and that do not generate additional commercial traffic, are exempt. As noted and assumed in this memo, marijuana grow/production operations do generate additional commercial traffic and therefore are not exempt from payment of the Transportation SDC. Specifically a PM Peak Hour trip -end (one-way movement) entering or exiting a site. Community Development Department Penning Division Suilding Safety Division Environmental Sods Division P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 Phone: (541) 388-6575 Fax: (541) 355-1764 http://www.cleschutes.or j/cd MEMORANDUM To: Jacob Ripper, Associate Planner From: Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner Date: March 14, 2017 Re: Response to issues raised at March 6, 2017, Board hearing on appeal of marijuana production site near Alfalfa Market Road and Waugh (File 247 -16 -000600 -AD) The public in oral and written testimony on March 6, 2017, raised several issues, including transportation generation assumptions used by the County; crash history on this section of Alfalfa Market Road; access to Alfalfa Market Road; and speeding on Alfalfa Market Road. While other topics were mentioned by the public, staff is only responding to these listed issues since they directly relate to County roads. 1. Trip generation assumptions for marijuana production sites The County uses the most recent edition of the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. While the ITE has approximately 170 land use categories, marijuana production facility, aka marijuana grow, is not one of them. Planning and Road Department staff reviewed the ITE manual and found Warehouse (Land Use 150) is the closest analog. Warehouses are one of the lowest generators per square foot in the ITE manual, generating 3.56 weekday trips' per 1,000 square feet and 0.32 p.m. peak hour2 trips per 1,000 square feet. By comparison a Nursery (Land Use 817) generates 68.10 weekday trips per 1,000 square feet and 6.94 p.m. peak hour trips while a single-family home (Land Use 210) generates 9.52 weekday trips and 1.0 p.m. peak hour trips. The ITE's summary of the Warehouse category states "Warehouses are primarily devoted to the storage of materials, but they may also include office and maintenance areas." (Page 191,9th edition). Under Deschutes County code all marijuana grow operations must occur indoors. The structures used in the grow operations include plants at various stages of development, in essence storing them. Due to the high monetary value of each plant, many operations are labor intensive in the caring, nurturing, growing, and harvesting operations. Thus, grow operations can have several employees. As with any land use category, trips to/from the site include employees, delivery vehicles, utility readers, parcel package services, etc. I A trip end is whenever a vehicle uses an access to either leave the roadway to enter the property or leave the property to enter the roadway. A vehicle entering and leaving thus would generate two trips. 2 The p.m. peak hour is 4-6 p.m. Quality Services Performed with Pride Marijuana grow operations are different from most agricultural products. First, many agricultural crops are highly mechanized and generate few trips for their size. Second, other agricultural products are grown outdoors and are seasonal with short -growing seasons due to the High Desert's elevation and climate. By contrast, marijuana grow operations occur indoors, often in climate -controlled settings, and thus can generate trips year-round. The plurality of marijuana grow operations do not trigger a traffic study. The County at Deschutes County Code 18.116.310 requires traffic analysis for land uses that will generate 50 or more new daily trips. Given the low weekday trip rate for Warehouse, a grow operation would have to exceed 14,000 square feet to trigger a traffic study. The County does accept a local trip generation rate for land uses that are either not in the ITE or if the applicant feels a local trip rate is substantially different from the national data. However, under DCC 18.116.310(F)(2) this requires pre -approval by the Road Department and must be prepared by a professional engineer who would analyze three to five local sites with a use similar to the proposed land use. To date, no marijuana grow operation has selected this option for either a traffic study or transportation system development charges (SDCs).3 2. Crash history on Alfalfa Market Road between Waugh and Walker Crash history is not a land use approval criterion, but staff presents the following information. Road Department staff pulled the 2011-15 crash history for this segment of Alfalfa Market Road. There were no fatal or serious injury crashes.4 There were seven crashes in this segment, one at the intersection of Waugh/Alfalfa Market, one about two-thirds of the way to Alfalfa Market/Stenkamp-Bennet intersection, one about three-quarters of the way to Alfalfa Market/Stenkamp-Bennet, and one at the Alfalfa Market/Stenkamp-Bennet intersection. The remaining three crashes were in the vicinity of Alfalfa Market -Walker Road intersection. Flg. 1 Alfalfa Market Road between Waugh Road and Walker Road 3 Transportation SDCs are not a land use decision and thus are not part of the appeal of File 247 -16 -000600 -AD, Board Resolution 2013-020 details the trip assumptions, assessment of transportation SDCs, and appeal of a transportation SDC. 4 Typical industry practice is to review the three most recent years for which data are available and focus on fatalities or Serious Injury A crashes, which are defined as a life -altering event such as loss of limb, paralysis, severe brain injury, etc. This segment of Alfalfa Market had no fatalities or Serious Injury A crashes in this time period. 2 Of the total seven crashes, four were Property Damage Only (PDO). The remaining three were minor injury crashes. The County through its transportation system maintenance and operations practices and capital improvements program seeks to lower or eliminate crashes on the County road network. The crash history here does not indicate a substantial problem. Six of the seven crashes were single -vehicle incidents, indicating driver error. 3. Access to Alfalfa Market Road The Road Department in 2011 issued SW2510/A-9939, an access permit for a driveway located at 17-13-28, Tax Lot 1601. This is the small tax lot abutting Alfalfa Market which can provide access to 17-13-33A, Tax Lot 201, aka 23105 Alfalfa Market Road. Both tax lots are owned by the applicant, Rubio Real Estate Investments, LLC. The access located on 17-13-28, Tax Lot 1601 has a complex history. The driveway was permitted, but was tied to the parcel to the immediate west, 17-13-28, Tax Lot 1600, aka 23095 Alfalfa Market Road, which is now the Piatt property. That property did not have a legal right to use the driveway, so the Road Department in 2016 issued a second access permit, 247 -16- 000246 -DA, for the Piatt property. Rubio Real Estate Investments, LLC, will need to apply to the Road Department for an approach permit at the location previously permitted under SW2510/A-9939. The fee is $77. Discussions with Road Department staff George Kolb (County Engineer) and Mike Martin (Engineering Associate) on March 9, 2017, indicated the driveway serving 17-13-28, Tax Lot 1601, aka the smaller Rubio property, met sight distance requirements and could be permitted. The most recent average daily traffic (ADT) counts for Alfalfa Market were taken in 2015. Alfalfa Market had 2,948 ADT just east of Powell Butte Highway. This volume would be considered low to modest. The County's adopted Level of Service (LOS) standard for a roadway segment is a maximum 9,600 ADT or LOS D. Alfalfa Market is at about 31% capacity (2,948/9,600 X 100). This means there likely will be sufficient gaps in traffic for a vehicle to make a left out of the Rubio property to turn west onto Alfalfa Market Road. Staff and the County engineer conducted a site visit to the property on March 9. From the driveway looking west, on -coming vehicles were in full view for six seconds routinely, which is a sufficient gap. Vehicles coming from the east were in full view for seven seconds. 4. Speeding on Alfalfa Market Road Speeding is not a land use approval criterion. Staff does note of the seven crashes on this segment of Alfalfa Market Road, the crash report cites speed or driving too fast for conditions as a factor in five of the crashes. Enclosures: Crash diagram and crash log for Alfalfa Market Road 2011-15, Waugh to Walker SLID DATE ROAM ROAM (:9400._1YP COLLIS„TYC.IIASII„69 WI 111,C01G(CONIC RAS N EO C RASII,CAU`YI IC I GNIFAT„C:N1 103A CN INJ B CM[NJ CCN' 1541679 12/8/2013 ALFALFA MKT RD WAUGH RD HX OBI FIX PDO SNOW DAY St IPPLHY 100•FA5T 1 0 G 0 0 1593073 9/7/2014 ALFALFA MKTRD STENKAMP RD FI1 OBJ FIX PDO CLR DAY FENCE TOO-FAST 0 0 0 0 1564213 4/16/2014 ALFALFA MKT RD BENNETT RD ANGL-OTH ANLL 101 C)0 DAY 41a11; },O-Y(FI n 3 4 0 1 1586940 8/7/2014 ALFALFA MKTRD STENKAMP RD FIX OBI FIX 101 UR 0Ai1K t 41,0a 331110-IMP 0 0 1 0 1124045 6/12/2013 ALFALFA MKT RD BENNETT RD FIX OB; FIX 111) 344 DAY 18E0 SPEED 1 0 0 0 1 150725 3/9/2014 ALFALFA MKT RD STENKAMP RD FIX OBI FIX PDO CLD DAY DITCH 100-FAS C 1 0 0 0 0 1599543 12/11/2014.ALFAIFA MKT RD WALKER RD 6I%061 FIX 600 I)NK DARK OTH SIGN TOO-FAST 1 0 0 0 0 1597693 10/12/2014 ALFALFA MKT RD STENKAMP RD FIX OBJ FIX INJ CLR DAY TREE TOO-FAST 1 0 0 1 0 Crash log for Alfalfa Market Road, 2011-15 between Waugh and Walker roads ST JD 1524045 1D 1560725 ID 1599 ST ID 1597893 i Crash log data mapped for Alfalfa Market Road, 2011-15, between Waugh and Walker roads Source: Deschutes County Road Dept. 4 Jacob Ripper Lk 111111 From: Lisa Klemp <lisa@redmond-lawyers.com> Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 3:48 PM To: Jacob Ripper Subject: Rubio Appeal Attachments: 20170320154206795.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Please see attached applicant's responses to the questions posed by the Board of Commissioners, and other issues raised at the public hearing. Thank you. Lisa Klemp Attorney Bryant Emerson, LLP P.O. Box 457 Redmond, Oregon 97756 541.548.2151 - Telephone 541.548.1895- Fax lisaPredmond-lawyers.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email transmission, and any documents, files or previous email messages attached to it, may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this message is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by reply email at beredmond-lawvers.com or by telephone at 541.548.2151, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading them or saving them to disk. 1 BRYANT EMERSON, LLP Attorneys at Law March 20, 2017 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners CIO Jacob Ripper Deschutes County Conununity Development P.O. Box 6005 Bend, Oregon 97708 Re: Rubio Real Estate Investments, LLC Administrative Approval of Application 247-17-000036-A Dear Commissioners: Ronald L Bryant* Steven 1). Bryant Alison M, Emerson Lonn T W. Johnston Lisa K letup Ricky R. Nelson *Also admitted in Washington Thank you again for taking the time to consider this appeal. I understand it is the first appeal of the County's new Development Code which allows Marijuana Crops in the EFU zone. As such, there were:a. number of questions presented by the appellants, and the Commissioners, concerning the nature of such operations. My client holds himself out as an advisor and consultant to others in the establishment of their own operations. Therefore, some of the information sought is provided in a more generalized response, so that my client is not providing confidential trade secrets and proprietary information. 1. Odor Control pursuant to DCC 18.116.330(B)(10) An issue was raised concerning the expert opinion which addresses the odor control system. The allegation is that an expert's "opinion" is just an "opinion" and is not "definitive." Although I strongly disagree with that allegation, the expert has provided a letter stating definitively that based upon their experience with the proposed systems, the system will control the odor emissions as required by the County Code. (Exhibit A) 2. Dwelling Approval and Residential Use a. No new dwelling in conjunction with a marijuana crop Applicant agrees with Staff's Finding, and submits that there is no dwelling approval applied for in conjunction with the marijuana crop. The Non -Faun dwelling was initially approved in 2005, and after expiration of that conditional use approval, the prior owner obtain another approval for the Non -Farm Dwelling pursuant to 247 -15 -000103 -CU. The conditional use approval does not restrict ancillary uses or future farming operations on the subject property. The only restriction is that non-farm structures need to be located within the approved building site area. Since the application on review is for agricultural structures, the restriction docs not apply to the proposed marijuana crop. The approval was issued long before the applicant's purchase of the subject property. Therefore, there is no proposed dwelling in conjunction with the marijuana crop for consideration before the Board. 888 SW Evergreen Avenue I PO Box 457 1 Redmond OR 97755 Phone. 541 5482151 j Fax: 511.548,1895 BRYANT EMERSON, LLP Attorneys at Law March 20 2017 Page 2 of 5 The land use approval for the dwelling is a final decision which was not appealed. It is well established that a prior, final land use decision cannot be collaterally attacked via review of a subsequent land use application. My client purchased the subject property which had increased market value due to the CUP for the non-farm dwelling. He paid the additional market value for the approved dwelling. The opposition has submitted that the County should revoke that permit as part of its consideration of this application. To do so would violate the applicant's constitutional rights, and would constitute a taking of a property right without just compensation or due process. In sum, the non-farm dwelling was approved twice by the County prior to the applicant's purchase of the subject property, and is not a dwelling proposed in conjunction with a marijuana crop, and therefore that issue is not properly before the Hoard for a final determination as part of this application. It is interesting that the opposition testimony (except for the testimony by Liz Dickson) argued in support of a residential use on site so that there would be increased security, with 24/7 monitoring and control of the property. A dwelling in conjunction with the farm use is permissible in the MUA-10 zone. It seems reasonable that the current restriction on new applications in conjunction with a marijuana crop in the EFU zone is due to the State's inability -to, establish, the statutory.applicable income threshold and other criteria to determine when a farm use such as a marijuana crop is substantial enough to warrant a home site in the EFU zone. It can be expected that once the income and nature of the operation become more discernable at the state level that the applicable criteria would he established for the citing of dwellings in conjunction with the farm use for the marijuana crop. Therefore, the current prohibition on the applications for new dwellings in conjunction wish a farm use arguably prevents every small marijuana crop operation that might easily meet the current statutory income threshold from obtaining a new dwelling approval in the, exclusive farm use zone. b. Marijuana Crop is a Use Allowed in the Agricultural Zone as Permitted Use•(not a Conditional Use) The restriction on the placement of dwellings in the exclusive faun use zone is to minimize the impact on the soils capable of producing agricultural crops, and to regulate and minimize the conflict in uses between agriculture and residential use. Pursuant to state'law, the primary use of the surrounding area is agricultural, and state law is clear that a marijuana crop is a farm use. See ORS 47513. Accordingly, the agricultural farm use is a permitted use in the zone. The State allowed marijuana crops in the agricultural zones so that residential conflicts would not be an issue. Otherwise, the State could have allowed this use in the residential zones as it is all conducted within wholly enclosed structures. Here, the neighbors that testified in opposition to the application all reside in either an exclusive farm use zone, or in a multi -use agricultural zone. However, there was no testimony in the record from anyone that they actually engage in agricultural production, but only testimony that a few neighbors have a few animals for 4-H and family entertainment. The concern by the opposition is that this is going to affect their "residential use" and want the county to deny the application because it is not "harmonious" or "compatible" with the residential uses. That is not the standard by which this application is reviewed. The zoning is Exclusive Farm Use, and the applicable criteria de not require the applicant to establish that the farm use, a permitted use by state law, will be "harmonious" or "compatible" with the residential uses. Rather, the residential uses must be compatible with farm uses. Waivers of remonstrance are required when home sites are established in the agricultural zone for this very reason. Farming operations are generally incompatible with'residential uses, hence the legislative restrictions. Farming operations create noise, dust, odor, utilize a great amounts of water, create waste of various types, and generate slow moving vehicles. BRYANT March 20 2017 EMERSON, LLP Page 3 of 5 Attorneys at Law The "livability" in an agricultural zone is irrelevant and wholly misplaced. This is not a zone designed for "livability" unless you are a plant or animal. This is not a rural residential zone. The entire area is zoned pursuant to state law as an agricultural zone. To give weight or credibility to the complaints in opposition which are wholly based upon their "livability" standards flies in the face of Oregon's Land Use Planning and Zoning. The marijuana crop laws were passed at the State and local level. Utile opposition did not want the proposed use "in their back yard" then they should have voiced that opposition before the laws were passed, or they should not live in an agricultural zone, but regardless it is misplaced to attack this application based upon residential uses and issues that are not set forth in State Iaw or the County Code. 2. Access A Lot Line Adjustment was approved for tax lot 201 and 1601 pursuant to 247 -15 -000280 -LL. The required deed to consolidate the two lots has been recorded in the Official Records of Deschutes County, and submitted to the Community Development Department pursuant to that approval. (Ex B) Moreover, according to the County Surveyor's snap, there are two public dedicated right-of-ways to the subject property. (Ex C) These right-of-ways have not been vacated and they continue to provide legal, public access to the subject property. Finally, the applicant agrees with the staffs analysis that tax lots 201 and 1601 constitute a "tract" of land as defined in the State law (ORS 215.010(2)) and the Deschutes County Code (DCC 18.04), as the lots are contiguous and in the same ownership. (Ex D) Therefore, the access provided via 1601 is legal access for lot 201. 3. Electric Service Applicant submits herewith a "willing to serve" letter from Central Electric Cooperative in satisfaction of the applicable criteria. (Ex F) 4. Secure Storage of Crop Waste State law sets forth specific regulations concerning the location and storage of any waste from the Marijuana Crop. As a licensed OLCC facility, any and all waste generated from the Marijuana Crop will be stored in a secure, locked, container in compliance with the OLCC regulations. See OAR 845-025- 7750 which details the waste management requirements. Applicant incorporates those requireinents herein as his proposed waste management plan. Marijuana Crop Operation Information ORS 215.427, the Goal -Post rule of Oregon Land Use Law, provides that the rules in existence when an. application is complete are the rules that govern the approval or rejection of the application. The Board of Commissioners has requested information from the applicant concerning a number of issues that are not set forth in the County's Code as Applicable Criteria. However, the applicant understands that this is the first appeal of a marijuana crop operation to the Board of Commissioners, so he has provided the information as "background" information for the Commissioners, but wants to make clear that by providing this information, the applicant is not conceding that these issues shall be a basis for approval or denial of the application as they are not contained in the applicable criteria of the County's Code. As stated at the hearing, because it is well established in Oregon law that the reviewing body can only approve or deny the application based upon the applicable criteria, any deviation from that authority would be a violation of the applicant's legal rights. BRYANT March 20 2017 EMERSON, LLt' Page 4 of 5 Attorneys at Law 1. Septic Facilities There are no septic facilities required by the applicable criteria in either the State law or County Code, and there are no septic facilities proposed for this application. The Board of Commissioners Lias inquired as to what facilities any employees would use while working on-site. Although not subject to an applicable standard or criteria, the applicant is willing to respond to the inquiry that unless and until any permanent facilities are available on-site, port -o -toilets will be utilized and serviced accordingly. 2. How many plants would be grown in 10,000 square feet? The State and County law provide for 10,000 square foot of canopy. There is no set number of plants that make up that canopy. Obviously it is easy to maintain an operation within the maximum canopy area because the operation is wholly maintained inside 3 structures with a combined square footage of less than the 10,000 square feet. As plants mature, their canopy expands. Therefore, there can be a larger number of starter plants maturing, but when move.d to the appropriate growing conditions to force maturity,,the plant will grow more fully. The plants will be converted to the maturing stage as they are ready, but more controlling is that they are converted as needed — that is as space becomes available. There are different stages of maturity, and therefore the different stages have different fullness aka canopy. Much of the requested information by Commissioner Henderson via email dated March 10, 2017, is proprietary and constitutes a business trade secret. The applicant is an expert in the area and provides consultant on other operations; therefore to set forth the detail requested would be making it available in the public record and would injure his business venture interest. In general, as the applicant stated at the hearing, there are different methods to trine or clip the crops. It can be done by hand or by machine, and the method utilized is determinative of the labor hours. Also, watering, and the other care and maintenance associated with horticulture are dependent upon the growing conditions. A marijuana plant needs particular light conditions, humidity, and temperature. Because these climate conditions cannot be maintained in the two greenhouses during the winter months (October through April); the greenhouses will not be utilized for the growing of the crop. 3. SDC's The Board of Commissioners made clear at the hearing that the assessment of SDC's is not part of the land use application process. The applicant is still confused as to what effect, if any, the analysis by the Traffic Department has on the proposed application. Because the analysis of the SDC's was sought in response to the application and incorporated into the application, it would appear that it did become a part of the land use review and approval; however, there were no applicable criteria to which the analysis pertained. Therefore, if the Board of. Commissioners has determined that the analysis of the SDC is not a part of the land use process, then the applicant understands that there is another proceeding which he will be provided notice and an opportunity to be heard concerning the SDC assessment. To date, the applicant has not been provided with any notice of an imposed SDC or any appeal rights. The SDC analysis really pertains to the number of employees required for the operation. There is no applicable criteria concerning the number of employees. Ilowever, as the applicant testified the operation is very passive, and the number of vehicle trips per day is within the trip generation analysis done by the Transportation Department. The applicant is agreeable to accept the use of ITE 150 as proposed by the 13RYANT EMERSON, LLP Attorneys al Law March 20 2017 Page 5 of 5 Transportation Department as it is the most analogous to the vehicle trips potentially generated by the growing of a crop. If the land use decision does in fact incorporate the SDC analysis concerning ADT, then the applicant requests that the square footage calculation of the analysis be reduced pro rata to account for the 7 months of the year that the greenhouses are not in use. Accordingly the total ADT associated with the less than 6,000 square feet for the greenhouses during May to September should be averaged out over the 12 months, because the 6,000 square footage of the green houses would have 0 (zero) ADT for 7 months of the year. There for, the ADT for the 5 months of use would be averaged annually to determine the impact on the system for which the charge is assessed. Otherwise, the assessment would far exceed the actual impact as there is no attributable impact to the system (traffic or otherwise) during the 7 months of dormancy. However, I understand that at some point the County will inform the applicant that he will have the opportunity to address this argument as the SDC assessment is not a part of the land use process pursuant to the statements at the public hearing. Conclusion Thank you again for taking the time to consider this application. As stated at the hearing, the applicant believes that the staff did a thorough analysis of the applicable criteria of the County Code, and accordingly came to the right decision that this application does meet, or can meet the County Code criteria with the imposition of conditions of approval. Therefore, the applicant requests that the Board of Commissioners approve the application. Sincerely, Enclos. cc: client November 29, 2016 To Whom it Concerns: ColeBreit met with the owner of the proposed cannabis grow facility at 23105 Alfalfa Market Rd in Bend, OR at approximately 9:30 am on October 17, 2016. This proposed site will have two buildings related to cannabis production: a greenhouse and a shop building used for indoor growing. Odor: For odor control in the greenhouse, a Fogmaster Corporation drum mounted fogger will be utilized. The unit is CE listed. The fogger injects an odor neutralizer directly into the exhaust airstream. We have seen this equipment in operation at other facilities we've investigated. With the fogger turned off, we could smell the growing plants in the exhaust airstream. With the fogger turned on, we could no longer smell the plants. The fogger will be wired into the exhaust fan control system such that whenever the exhaust fans are energized, the fogger will also be turned on. For odor control in the shop building (indoor grow area), all exhausted air will pass through carbon filters before being exhausted outside the building. In our experience, these systems will control odor so as not to unreasonably interfere with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property and satisfies the requirements of the County Code Chapter 18.116.330(B) (10). Sound: The greenhouse exhaust fan will not operate at night between the hours of 10 pm and 7 am. The HVAC equipment for the shop building does not run continuously. It runs only intermittently, similar to a typical home HVAC system. Therefore, there is no sustained noise from this equipment. Additionally, the outdoor condensing units will be screened on one side by the shop building and will be screened on the other three sides by a concrete wall. Our calculations indicate that sound level from operating HVAC equipment should not exceed 30 dBA at any property line between the hours of 10 pm and 7 am, and meets the requirements of County Code Chapter 18.116.330(B)(11). Best Regards, Rob James, P.E. ColeBreit Engineering ( EXPIRES 6/30/17 ) COsl81-1 CO518n COLEBREIT ENG INEERIN G EXHIBIT 0 J• ZitifsnasucommenatimacengC4'' e 1030 NW Bond St , Suite 202 Bend, OR 97703 o: 561 /28 3293 cclebreit.com AFTER RECORDING RETURN T0: BRYANT EMERSON, LLP PO BOX 457 REDMOND, OR 97756 Unless Otherwise Requested, All Tax Statements shall be sent to: Rubio Real Estate Investments, LLC 2979 NW 17°7 Street Redmond, OR 97756 DESCIHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERK IIIIII 1 1111111111 11 IIIIIIIIUI 11 201109961 $68.00 01106119201700099510040048 03/15/2017 02:16,04 PM D-9 Cntm1 Stn=2 TN $20.00 $11,00 $21.00 $10.00 $6.00 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT DEED Rubio Real Estate Investments, LLC, an Oregon limited liability company, Grantor, who acquired title of that certain real property in Deschutes County, Oregon, more particularly described in Document No. 2016-023945 recorded in the Deschutes County Official Records, conveys and warrants to Rubio Real Estate Investments, LLC, an Oregon limited liability company, Grantee, who acquired title of that certain real property in Deschutes County, Oregon, more particularly described in Document No. 2016-023945 recorded in the Deschutes County Official Records the following described real property in the County of Deschutes, State of Oregon: See attached Exhibit A. The true and actual consideration for this conveyance is $-0- (removal of lot line designation and removal of separate parcel designations). The Deschutes County Planning Division has approved the desired lot line adjustment under the Deschutes County Planning Department File No. 247 -15 -000280 -LL. Grantee's property after the Lot Line Adjustment is described on Exhibit 13 attached hereto. BEFORE SIGNING ORACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON TRANSFERRING FEE TITLE SHOULD INQUIRE ABOUT THE PERSON'S RIGHTS, IF ANY, UNDER ORS 195.300, 195.301 AND 195.305 TO 195.336AND SECTIONS 5 TO 11, CHAPTER 424, OREGON LAWS 2007, SECTIONS 2 TO 9 AND 17, CHAPTER 855, OREGON LAWS 2099, AND SECTIONS 2 TO 7, CHAPTER 8, OREGON LAWS 2010. THIS INSTRUMENT DOES NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHUCK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY THAT THE UNIT 01? LAND BEING TRANSFERRED IS A LAWFULLY ESTABLISHED LOT OR PARCEL, AS DEFINED IN ORS 92.010 OR 215.010, TO VERIFY THE APPROVED USES OF THE LOT OR PARCEL, TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES, AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930, AND TO INQUIRE ABOUT TILE RIGHTS OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS, IF ANY, UNDER ORS 195.300, 195.301 AND 195.305 TO 195.336 AND SECTIONS 5 TO 11, CHAPTER 42.4, OREGON LAWS 2007, SECTIONS 2 TO 9 AND 17, CHAPTER 855, OREGON LAWS 2009, AND SECTIONS 2 TO 7, CHAPTER 8, OREGON LAWS 2010. [Signature Page Follows] Page 1. LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT DEED 0:\Clients\LDK\Rubio, Rogelio\Faubte 1..nd UseO.ot Ltne Adjusnncnt L>ced w7d zi EXHIBIT ice/ nRYANT EMERSON, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 635 SW EVERGREEN AVENUE PO E1OX 457 REDMOND OR 97756-0104 TELEPHONE (541)515.2151 FAX (541) 515-1695 DATED this J day of March, 2017, Rubio Real Estate investments, LLC, an Oregon limited liability company 1Wg-61-iO tarot 1 ts ManegeFMeniher STATE OF OREGON, County of Deschutes) ss. _AD Personally appeared before me this jr---j-day of March, 2017, the a.bove-named Rogeho Rubio as Manager Member for Rubio Real Estate Investments, LLC, and acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be his voluntary act and deed. art'," CIAL STAMP !CATHARINE EUZADETH CHANDLER NOTARY PUBLIC- ORE -(O COMMISSION NO, B6B024 EOM MORES OCTOBER an, 2020 /IQ 0 01/1/1/11,,LL-) Notiiry Public of Oregon ACCEPTANCE The undersigned Grantee hereby accepts this Lot Line Adjustment Deed and signs this acceptance in accordance with ORS 92.190(4). DATED this day of March, 2017.. Rubio Real Estate Investments, LLC, an Oryypit Jimited liability company STATE, OF OREGON, County of Deschutes Personally appeared before me this _ day of March, 2017, the above-named Rogelio Rubio as Manager Member for Rubio Real Estate Investments, LLC, and acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be his voluntary act and deed. Its: Manag-erg67ib' . . - KATHARINE ELIZABETH CHANDLER OFFICIAL STAMP NOTAIW PLISLIC, OECO N NotPublicof Oregon COA:MISSION NO. 956B24 WV WU iSs ION DIPiRES OCTOr3ER SO, 2020 Page 2. LOT LINE A DiliSFNIENT DEED kcTolio \Rubio Land Use \I-4)( !.ine Adjusinicm Dzed wi,(1 1114,VA NT EiVIEltSON, ATTORNEYS AT 1 AW 3(1f1 SW EVERTSREITH !ATP WTI PO [TOY. 157 ftEDFA6110 OR SY /66.n TELET5 ,CTNL (54115177161 FA). (5111 7.115-1095 EXRIBIT A PARCEL 1: The East 'A Northwest 1/4 Northeast 1/4 of Section 33, Township 17 South, Range 13 East of the Willamette Meridian. PARCEL 2: A 50.00 foot wide tract of land located in the Southwest 1/4 Southeast 1/4 of Section 28, Township 17 South, Range 13 East of the Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon being described as follows: Beginning at the Southwest corner of said Southwest 1/4 Southeast 1/4, a 1-1/2" iron pipe; thence along the South line of said Southwest 1/4 Southeast 1/4, South 89°41'00" East, 1275.11 feet to a 5/8" iron rod, the True point of Beginning; thence North 00°09'28" East, 193.99 feet to a 5/8" iron rod on the Southerly right-of-way of Alfalfa Market Road; thence along said right-of-way, along the arc of a 1370.00 foot radius curve right, 50.19 feet, the chord of which bears South 84°4'38" East, 50.19 feet to a 5/8" iron rod; thence leaving said right-of-way, South 00°09'28" West, 189.82 feet to a 5/8" iron rod at the Southeast corner of said Southwest 1/4 Southeast 1/4; thence North 89°41'00" West, 50.00 feet to the Point of beginning and terminus thereof. Page 3. LOT 1,INE ADJUSTMENT DEED G:1CIients\LDK Rub)°, Rogeho' uble Land Use\Lot Linc .A115111)cnt Deed wpd BRYANT EMERSON, LLY ATTORNEYS AT LAW 088 SW EVERGREEN AVENUE PO BOX 07 REDMOND OR t)7'&00103 TELEPHONE (541)548-2151 FAX I541) 548-1835 EXHIBIT 13 The East l Northwest 1/4 Northeast 1/4 of Section 33, Township 17 South, Range 13 East of the Willamette Meridian. Together with a 50.00 foot wide tract of land located in the Southwest 1./4 Southeast 1/4 of Section 28, Township 17 South, Range 13 East of the Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon being described as follows: Beginning at the Southwest corner of said Southwest 1/4 Southeast 1/4, a 1-1/2" iron pipe; thence along the South line of said Southwest 1/4 Southeast 1/4, South 89°41'00" East, 1275.11 feet to a 5/8" iron rod, the True point of Beginning; thence North 00°09'28" East, 193.99 feet to a 5/8" iron rod on the Southerly right-of-way of Alfalfa Market Road; thence along said right-of-way, along the arc of a 1370.00 foot radius curve right, 50.19 feet, the chord of which bears South 84°4'38" East, 50.19 feet to a 5/8" iron rod; thence leaving said right-of-way, South 00°09'28" West, 189.82 feet to a 5/8" iron rod at the Southeast corner of said Southwest 1/4 Southeast 1/4; thence North 89°41'00" West, 50.00 feet to the Point of beginning and terminus thereof. Page 4, LOT LINE ADJUSTIMLENT DEED G:\Clients\LDK"Rublo, Ro,elio`Rulio Land IJse1i_ol Line ,4ypubneni Ded svpd I3RIANT EMERSON, LLP ATTORNEYS AT IAV'.' 88B S\4' EVERGREEN AVENUE PO BOX 457 REDMOND OP. 977TC-07033 TELEPHONE FAX (541) 54B-7895 C I u do JS _ 6 EXHIBiT --44k Deschutes County Property information - Dial Zoning Map for account 204744 Map an. Taxlo : 71 2x0001601 (t71 -1,-L •AJ) uo!sJaA lenueN-punjed Jo; uoReo!IddV :Aq pema!Aaj (Mon lou op) uogoV ON uogeovIdV PPA uoqeoHddV mEADLII!M PlaL11-11M 0093 (Aidde leg; lie moeq3) :uORDV andmwied (einleuois sAleoliddV) :eirqeu6G Jjels aao :Aq paisanbazd NOISIAla oNicninEl NOISIAla ONINNVid NOISIAla SlIOS 1VIN3INNONIAN3 :CINI1J3t1 1V10.1. 00-9£17ZZ-0000-96Z :1W1000V ONfldal iNnowv CINI1d31 'ON aNnnm 'ON 1d13031:1 'ON IIINI:13d ON17.43•11 J0.1 NOIIVOI7ddti ipp/srvAo•sa1rnpsap•oa•mmm/pd411.1 179L T -584:(Tt,S) XVJ StS9-88E(i 6S) 9009-9OLL6 uo6wo 'puas anuanv ai;eiCeiel MN 1.1,1- 5.1009 we O'd 1.101s1A1C1 SIPS I3UUUOJIAU UOIRIAM �UppHn8 IJOMAIO Buiuutaki ;uowpedea watudotanea Apununtrop :puniam ioj uoseezi :Apadoid ;pied :sseippv eicie4ed :0)ea CENTRAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. March 15, 2017 Lisa Klemp PO Box 457 Redmond, OR 97756 RE: Will Serve Letter for 23105 Alfalfa Mkt Rd TL 201 in response to your inquiry, please be advised that property located in T175., R13E.,W.M., Section 33, Taxlot 201 Deschutes County, Oregon, is within the service area of Central Electric Cooperative, Inc. Central Electric Cooperative is prepared to serve these locations in accordance with the rates, policies and available system capacity of the Cooperative. Sincerely, 41:0•00. Emily Faddis Customer Service Rep PO Box 846 • 2098 N. Hwy 97 - Redmond, Oregon 97758 0187 Tel: 541.548,2144 • Fax; 541,548 0366 www.cec coop EXH I BIT yJ �y 400 SW Bluff Drive, Suite 240 Bend, OR 97702 541-585-2224 March 20, 2017 Deschutes County Commissioners C/o Jacob Ripper, Planner Deschutes County Community Development Dept. 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, OR 97703 RECE D MAR 2 0 2()17 Deschutes County CDD RE: Appellant Submittal In the Matter of Deschutes County Appeal No. 247-17-000036-A Dear Commissioners DeBone, Baney, and Henderson, Our offices represent Monika and Lance Piatt in their appeal of the approval of an application for a marijuana production facility on Alfalfa Market Road, Deschutes County File No. 247 -16 -000600 -AD. Please accept this submittal into the Record for the appeal, File No. 247-17-000036-A. The 28 homes within 1000' of the subject property have banded together to share their concerns and objections to the proposed recreational marijuana production use submitted by Mr. Rubio. Together, they recognize that the legalization of recreational marijuana production, processing, retailing, and consumption is not a legally admissible argument at this stage. That matter has been settled by Oregon's voters. But like all legal uses, Oregon's land use system provides a path to determine whether marijuana production (and other uses) is compatible in specific locations, each one being unique. Just because it's legal, doesn't mean citizens have suspended their Statewide Planning Goal #1 Community Involvement rights, and the more specific goals it sets out for all land use in Oregon. This is the first case requesting to site recreational marijuana production in Deschutes County. There are no precedents to rely upon for interpretation of the Deschutes County Code as it relates to this new use. On behalf of the Piatts and their neighbors, we have researched the legislative history of the DCC, including the Marijuana Advisory Committee Report and the Planning Commission impressions, to clarify what these new provisions of law were intended to mean when they were adopted into the Deschutes County Code. We have provided the pertinent text of these documents as attached exhibits for ease of reference, and to refresh the memories of Commissioners DeBone and Baney, and provide foundation for Commissioner Henderson, acknowledging his recent election to the Board of County Commissioners. All exhibits referenced here are incorporated into the Record by reference. Appeal of 247 -16 -000600 -AD Applicant Rubio Real Estate Investments, LLC Opponent Piatt, et al, Submittal in Opposition Page 2 1. What is the current land use permit status at 23105 Alfalfa Market Road, the subject property? This EFU parcel is surrounded by rural residential lots or parcels on the north, south, east and west. One lot to the south (Bob and Carol Fair) has a few cows and their grandchildren raise FFA/4H pigs 9 months out of the year in the pen touching the Rubio property line. The subject property was approved for non- farm dwelling twice, after expiring the first time and still not vested the second time. A property line adjustment was approved to allow the lot to gain legal access in August, 2015. The Piatts paid to fence, grade, and pave the access for the subject property to be good neighbors when they were improving their own driveway in 2015. That lot line adjustment expires in August, 2017. At present, the driveway lot is a separate legal lot, and is not part of the subject property under consideration in this application. In summary, this island of EFU property has one expired conditional use permit for non-farm dwelling, one not vested conditional use permit also for non-farm dwelling, and a lot line adjustment not completed. (See CU -06-6, 24745 -000103 -CU, and 247 -15 -000280 -LL.) 2. What legal access is available to the subject property? The subject property has no direct access to any public road. According to the property line adjustment application filed by Eric Porter on behalf of the predecessors in interest to Mr. Rubio, the only legal access is the undeveloped Richardson Road, established in 1909. It is viewable on the site map of the subject property provided with the staff Findings and Decision. The road is described in the application as the sole means of legal access, though the road isY2 width to the east, full width to the west, and has been vacated at the northern edge of TL 201, the subject property. There is, to our knowledge, no intention of developing this century -old roadway to service the subject property. It thus has no direct legal access to a road, as required by the DCC. The application, as filed, does not meet the legal requirement as set out in both state statute and the county code. 3. Would the proposed use generate additional traffic? As noted above, the requested use is a new one in Deschutes County, with no experience on which to base traffic counts. We do, however, have medical marijuana production facilities in the county. We have interviewed owners and operators of two "grows" and have also interviewed adjacent property owners to these much smaller facilities. Lance Piatt has prepared a video presentation of two interviews and photos of the medical marijuana grow the interviews reference. Still shots of the video are attached as Exhibit A, and the full video is 7 minutes long and available for viewing at this Zink: https://vimeo.com/209011858/cfb48d6677 The video shows many vehicles parked at the site, which is less than 1/10`h the size of the proposed grow by Mr. Rubio. It is reasonable to conclude that Mr. Rubio's grow would generate significantly more traffic than he has estimated, without substantiation. Appeal of 247 -16 -000600 -AD Applicant Rubio Real Estate Investments, LLC Opponent Piatt, et al, Submittal in Opposition Page 3 This lack of specifics is not in compliance with county code. In the original Findings and Decision, Senior Transportation Planner Peter Russell offered up a guess of an equivalent category from the ITE Manual, applying the standard of Warehouse (Land Use 150) at 3.56 trips per 1,000 square feet. That analysis, based on the first area application offered by applicant of approximately 10,000 square feet of marijuana production operation, yielded an estimate of 36 daily trips. The Piatts pointed out that the application was modified to 11,760 square feet, so the Russell estimate was based on old information. Mr. Russell revised his estimate in the Staff Report prepared for this appeal, and calculated that at the 1,760 larger size, the estimate came to 42 daily trips. We have researched the ITE classifications applied. Warehouse use is usually storage of fixed items, such as boxed equipment or machinery. That does not describe this use as well as the ITE category of Nursery (Wholesale), (Land Use 818). Wholesale Nursery use is planting, tending, and harvest of plants. Like the proposed use, it does not include sale of product to the public, so does not include those trips. Copies of both descriptions and trip generation rates from the 7th Edition of the ITE Manual are attached for review as Exhibit B. Nursery Wholesale estimates generation of 39 trips per 1,000 feet of square footage. (It also offers an estimate of 19.5 trips per acre as an alternative method of calculation.) 11,760/1000 =11.76 11.76 x 39 trips per 1000 sf = 458.64 new weekly trips generated 458.64 weekly trips is greater than the 50 trip exclusion, so a traffic impact analysis should be required. (Using the acreage alternative method yields 390 trips, also exceeding the 50 trip exclusion.) SDCs have also been a concern, though not pertinent to the land use appeal under consideration. If calculated under the more comparable Nursery Wholesale category: 5.17 pm peak hour trips/1,000 sf x 11.76 = 60.799 rounded to 60.8 60.8 x $3,852 = $234,201.60 system development charge due DCC 18.116.31(C)(3)(a) requires the most accurate estimate possible for this calculation, and as demonstrated above and by the descriptions attached as Exhibit 8, Nursery Warehouse more closely estimates the trips this use will generate. 4. Does the proposed use pose a fire risk to the 28 surrounding homes? Planner Ripper's staff report notes in public agency comments that Bend Fire Department did offer general comments. It is important to note that all agencies, including this one, received notice of the application in its unmodified form, with 1,760 less square feet of grow operation planned. And they were given 12 days from the date of mailing to make those comments. It's not surprising that only Appeal of 247 -16 -000600 -AD Applicant Rubio Real Estate Investments, LLC Opponent Piatt, et al, Submittal in Opposition Page 4 generic comments were received from this agency. Note that none were received from electricity supplier CEC or water suppliers COID and Avion. The Fire Department comments, though generic, note that hazardous materials may be part of this use and so stored on the property. No provisions for such safe storage is included in the revised site plan. Experience in other communities has indicated that greenhouses are notoriously hazardous as well, with exposed wiring for layers of grow lights, Targe amounts of electricity, pools of water and condensation commonly observed, and flammable plastic to serve as walls and roof of the temporary structure. The comments note the use of Carbon Dioxide and Carbon Dioxide generators. These are common in large scale grow operations, where plants "breathe" carbon dioxide, and need additional supplies in crowded grow environments. Such methods create asphyxiation hazard for humans, and would be highly hazardous to firefighters in the event of an on site emergency. The subject property has no well, no fire hydrants, no cistern. It has no "will serve" from any water provider. The Fire Department comments expressly require specific fire apparatus and water supplies sufficient to protect the structures and the surrounding properties in our dry desert climate. No such provisions have been planned or described as part of the subject application. 5. Is sufficient water available for the proposed use? The Oregon Water Resources Department governs use of irrigation water provided by COID in this region. Jeremy Giffin, local representative of the Department, notes that the Department interprets the greenhouse growing of marijuana as a "Nursery Operations Use" as defined in OAR 690-300 (30). "Nursery Operations Use" means the use of water for operation of a commercial nursery which may include temperature control, watering of containerized stock, soil preparation, application of chemicals or fertilizers, watering within greenhouses and uses to construct, operate and maintain nursery facilities. The use of water within plant nursery operations constitutes a different use from field irrigation, although that may be a part of nursery use. If used for field irrigation for nursery stock, such use is not restricted to the defined agricultural irrigation season." As of the date of this appeal, applicant has neither applied for, nor received, permission to use water as regulated by the OWRD. Applicant cannot demonstrate that the required water will be available, as required by code. Amounts of water needed vary widely according to methods used. Cleansing of planting medium alone requires 15 gallons per plant for 4 days, just to clean out the pesticides, herbicides, salts, and other materials that build up in the soil or cocoa mat commonly used. The prevalence of microscopic bugs and mildew and fungus require extensive use of controlling chemicals. See "Grow Chemicals" printout of various sources, attached as Exhibit C, which also describes hazards from vermin attracted to these grows. Appeal of 247 -16 -000600 -AD Applicant Rubio Real Estate Investments, LLC Opponent Piatt, et al, Submittal in Opposition Page 5 Water is not plentiful in Central Oregon. It is a resource that is valued and managed carefully. The DCC requires a "will serve" letter from water providers, which has not been given in this application. This application should be denied for failure to prove such supply is available. 6. How will wastewater be managed on site? The only site evaluation available for this property is a July 20, 2016 letter from Todd Cleveland, Environmental Soils Division. It is attached as Exhibit D. It passes the site for a 5 bedroom home, not an 11,760 s.f. constantly watering grow operation. The evaluation provided does not reflect the impacts of the proposed use and should be rejected. No suitable evaluation for wastewater has been provided for the proposed use. The application should be denied on this basis, for without the required wastewater facilities, the polluted water that runs off of such grows may be stored outside and make such pollutants available to wildlife. Such pollutants are difficult to clean from the water as well, reducing long term supplies. Alternatively, the ponding of such pollutants can seep into groundwater and create plumes of polluted water and soils on both the subject property and surrounding areas, where yard irrigation is prevalent, and one family raises 4H/FFA livestock and swine. 7. Will Mr. Rubio be able to pass the Licensee Requirement of HB 3400 for Good Repute and Moral Character? Applicant Rogelio Rubio must satisfy OLCC requirements for good repute and moral character to receive a license to operate this facility. Neighbors are very concerned that he may not be able to pass this test. A simple on line search of Oregon court records yielded a number of concerning entries, which may or may not be pertinent to the applicant, but worry neighbors as citizens of Deschutes County. See Exhibit E. The Piatts and the 27 other families within 1000' of the subject property had heard rumors of Mr. Rubio's reputation, and were not reassured by what they found. 8. Is Deschutes County's Comprehensive Plan being followed by this approval? The underlying ordinance passed by Deschutes County in June of 2016 evaluated the Comp Plan in relation to the proposed Ordinance No. 2016-015 and related ordinances. Excerpts of that analysis are attached as Exhibit F for ease of reference. At the time, planners, the Advisory Committee, the BOCC and the public had been wrestling with implementation of HB 3400 for over a year. In retrospect, the analysis of the Comp Plan's applicability to the resulting ordinance seems somewhat thinly worded. For example, Chapter 2 Resource Management requires policy analysis of agriculture, water resources and environmental quality. The analysis speaks to revenue generation and the promotion of a niche market. It does not speak to what resources will be taken up by this crop, what unintended consequences to limited resources might be, and how the environment will be impacted. Goal 3 discusses ways "to arrive at reasonable regulation to ensure the viability of this emerging agricultural crop." It does not discuss the impacts of this use on existing farming, even hobby farming in the few parcels adjacent to the subject property in this application. Section 2.5 of the County's Comp Plan references water resources, with no recognition of the known consumptive nature of this crop. And again, on page 2 of Exhibit F, Appeal of 247 -16 -000600 -AD Applicant Rubio Real Estate Investments, LLC Opponent Platt, et al, Submittal in Opposition Page 6 end of first paragraph, the findings specify that "applicants will be required to demonstrate that have [sic] a legal source of water under State law." In this instance, they have not been required to do so. Energy implications are also included in the County's Comprehensive Plan. Goal 1 calls out promotion of energy conservation. How is allowing a 11, 270 square foot grow of artificial lights compliant with "reducing energy demand through efficiency and conservation?" Environmental Quality Policies cite to Goal 1 to "maintain and improve the quality of air, water, and land.» It is acknowledged throughout the Marijuana Advisory Committee's report that this use will create odors over 1000' feet away, take up huge amounts of water, and adversely impact the land of neighbors all around these grows. See Exhibit G, excerpts of MAC Report to Nick Lelack. 9. Is the Proposed Use Compatible with Surrounding Uses? Ordinance No. 2016-015 allows recreational marijuana grows as an outright use. But now that we're faced with the first actual application of the ordinance, there are significant shortcomings with this simple rule. And this isn't the first time these shortcomings have been considered. See Exhibit K of the Ordinance, attached as Exhibit H. The language acknowledges that these farming areas are unique in Oregon, because not much is really farmable outdoors in soil here with the short growing season and poor native soils. And the analysis concludes that there are "compatibility concerns" for these rural residential property owners. It goes on to note it will be a "challenge" to mitigate potential impacts to maintain compatibility of nearby land uses. The Rubio application is the first one, and already these impacts are problematic. The neighbors of the Piatts have provided letters of their concerns, illustrating precisely these challenges. They are attached as Exhibit 1. These letters are offered to provide first hand examples of the incompatibility of this new use in a predominantly MUA-10 zoned neighborhood. We ask that the Board consider the genuine concern of these neighbors, and the future neighbors throughout Deschutes County that their sentiments represent. Applicant also seems to be saying that he now intends to build the non-farm dwelling that was previously approved on the property. Since the use is not vested, it may not now be legally added to the proposal for the site. The site plan does not include it and the law does not allow it. See HB 3400, Section attached for of refe.. states, "Notwithstanding ORS chapters 195, 34, (2)(a), ease ICI CICIII..C. It 196, 197, and 215, the following are not permitted uses on land designated for exclusive farm use: (a) A new dwelling used in conjunction with a marijuana crop[.]" See Exhibit J. 10. May conditions of approval be imposed to correct the problems identified with this application to allow its approval? ORS 197.522 and ORS 215.416(4) state that a county must approve an application if it can do so by imposing conditions of approval. What does a government have authority to impose? Does it have to Appeal of 247 -16 -000600 -AD Applicant Rubio Real Estate Investments, LLC Opponent Piatt, et al, Submittal in Opposition Page 7 put words in the mouth of the applicant? Oregon case law has interpreted the meaning of the statute. Conditions of approval cannot be used to prove an applicant's compliance with approval criteria. The ability to determine satisfaction of approval criteria must be at least "feasible." Meyer v. City of Portland, 7 Or LUBA 184 (1983), aff'd 67 Or App 274 (1984). Here, applicant has provided an application without access proof, without "will serve" letters for water and power, without proof of wastewater disposal adequacy. There is no logical way to find compliance is feasible, without the Board literally making up facts for the applicant. Such creativity goes beyond the rights or the responsibilities of a local decision maker in a land use application. If the proof offered in an application may be found to be "possible, likely and reasonably certain to succeed," then a condition of approval is allowed. If it is "uncertain," the application must be denied. Gould v. Deschutes County, 216 Or App 150 (2007). This requirement is not changed by the OLCC requirement for a state agency permit. The OLCC permit is based on entirely different criteria, and the land use decision is deferred solely to the local authority. In this case, the Piatts and their neighbors are challenging this application on an evidentiary basis. The application submitted does not satisfy the applicable criteria, even if the ink is still wet on the June 2016 code provisions. There is too much doubt, too much uncertainty to approve the application submitted. We ask this Board to deny approval of the Rubio application, and establish a precedent of high evidentiary proof standards for this and all other related applications to come. Sincerely, &,..1g._ Elizabeth A. Dickson EAD/mls Enclosures Cc: Client e. � Vr 0 IAA to 00 Q d rft O a Q V 1191HX3 EXHIBIT A in N 4- O N 0 0, 0 a EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT A Page 8 of 25 EXHIBIT A LA N 9- 0 O) d CO CU CL EXHIBIT A Page 12 of 25 EXHIBIT A Page 13 of 25 EXHIBIT A Page 14 of 25 a 1- m x w Page 15 of 25 EXHIBIT A �'�� ?�', Page 16 of 25 EXHIBIT A Page 18 of 25 i i:11:11 'a•e 2 o EXHIBIT A Page 24 of 25 EXHIBIT A Page 25 of 25 Land Use: 150 Warehousing Description Warehouses are primarily devoted to the storage of materials, but they may also include office and maintenance areas. High -cube warehouse (Land Use 152) is a related use. Additional Data No vehicle occupancy data were available specifically for warehousing, but the average was approximately 1.3 persons per automobile for all industrial uses. The peak hour of the generator typically coincided with the peak hour of the adjacent street traffic. Facilities with employees on shift work may peak at other hours. The sites were surveyed from the late 1960s to the 2000s throughout the United States and Canada. Source Numbers 6, 7, 12, 13, 15, 17, 74, 184, 192, 390, 406, 411, 436, 443, 571, 579, 583 Trip Generation, 7th Edition 188 Institute of Transportation Engineers Land Use: 150 Warehousing Independent Variables with One Observation The following trip generation data are for independent variables with only one observation. This information is shown in this table only; there are no related plots for these data. Users are cautioned to use data with care because of the small sample size. Independent Variable Loading Bays Weekday a.m. Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic Weekday p.m. Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic Trip Generation Rate Size of Independent Variable Number of Studies Directional Distribution 0.69 52 1 61% entering, 39% exiting 0.48 52 1 60% entering, 40% exiting 43 Trip Generation, 7th Edition 189 Institute of Transportation Engineers Land Use: 818 Nursery (Wholesale) Description A wholesale nursery is a free-standing building with a yard of planting or landscape stock. The nurseries surveyed primarily serve contractors and suppliers. Some have large greenhouses and offer landscaping services. Most have office, storage and shipping facilities. Nurseries are characterized by seasonal variations in trip characteristics. Nursery—Garden Center (Land Use 817) is a related use, Additional Data Outside storage areas are not included in the overall gross floor area measurements. However, if storage areas are located within the principal outside faces of the exterior walls, they are included in the building's overall gross floor area. The sites were surveyed In the 1980s in California. Source Numbers 205,240 Trip Generation, 7th Edition 1422 Institute of Transportation Engineers 0,111,11.,11Il 1111,�IJ11111 III I 1.11,1,111141 ihuJ ills ,III 1.11 illlil 1,11111d111,IJ 1.11111 Land Use: 818 Nursery (Wholesale) Independent Variables with One Observation The following trip generation data are for independent variables with only one observation. This information is shown in this table only; there are no related plots for these data. Users are cautioned to use data with care because of the small sample size. Trip Size of Number Generation Independent of Independent Variable Rate Variable Studies Directional Distribution Employees 1 Weekday 1 23.40 1 5 1 1 1 50% entering, 50% exiting 1 1,000 Square Feet Gross Floor Area 1 Weekday 1 39.00 1 3 1 1 1 50% entering, 50% exiting 1 Acres 1 Weekday 1 19.50 1 6 1 1 1 50% entering, 50% exiting 1 Trip Generation, 7th Edition 1423 Institute of Transportation Engineers Proposed Marijuana grow on Alfalfa Market Road. Environmental effects on neighboring properties and animals. Mr. Rubio has not so far provided us any information on the procedure that he plans to use for his grow operation. We are all concerned about the potential environmental impact on our families, properties and animals. You're Here: Home » How to Grow Weed » Chemicals Grow Chemicals Growing cannabis plants requires the use of many different chemicals that are needed to insure that every harvest is filled with the best quality and largest size buds. Chemicals used in marijuana cultivation range from pH up & down, cleaning solutions, insect and spider mite sprays and oils, along with some more. Chemicals are not to be confused with Nutrients to grow marijuana plants. Nutrients or Nutes are used as food and vitamin/nutrient supply. Chemicals are used as cleaning agents, pH adjusters & so on. Unknowns abound in pesticide use for growing pot "There is no federal agency that will recognize this as a legitimate crop. ... Pest -management information regarding this crop devolves to Internet chats and hearsay," says Whitney Cranshaw, a Colorado State University entomologist and pesticide expert PUBLISHED: JUL 20, 2015, 10:39 AM • UPDATED: JUL 20, 2015, 3:54 PM "Microscopic bugs and mildew can destroy a marijuana operation faster than any police raid. And because the crop has been illegal for so long, neither growers nor scientists have any reliable research to help fight the infestations. As legal marijuana moves from basements and backwoods to warehouses and commercial fields, the mold and spider mites that once ruined only a few plants at a time can now quickly create a multimillion -dollar crisis for growers. Some are turning to industrial - strength chemicals, raising concerns about safety. Herbicides and insecticides are regulated by the federal government, which still regards almost all marijuana as an illicit crop, so there's no roadmap to help pot farmers. Chemists and horticulturalists can't offer much assistance either. They sometimes disagree about how to combat the problem, largely because the plant is used in many different ways — smoked, eaten and sometimes rubbed on the skin. "We have an industry that's been illegal for so many years that there's no research. There's no guidelines. There's nothing," said Frank Conrad, lab director for Colorado Green Lab, a pot -testing lab in Denver." This proposed gr o is in t:l e middle of a residential neighborh zod. Do we really want to expose our neighbors, children and domestic anima ist this? iMiarijuana growers 'flush" their plants to eliminate the chemical taste and rid the buds of chemicals. http://growpotplants.com/grow-guide/flushing-marijuana/ HOW TO FLUSH SOIL OR COCO "In soil or coco, flushing is a two-step process. The first step is to leach the minerals out of the soil/coco. The second step is to deprive the plants of nutrients. This is done by feeding them only water. The plants are used to nutrients and when they are withheld, the plant will begin feeding on its stored nutrients." STEP 1 • Make sure you have those little trays under your pots to catch all the run off. • Pour 15 gallons of water through each 15 gal pot. • Take your time to prevent the water from just running off. • Use your ShopVac to suck the water out of the trays. • Make sure you get all the water (to keep from having nutrients leach back in). • Repeat steps 1-3 every day for the next 4 days. • Be thorough Tl -t is process uses ga, oris. of m;Itev per plant and is done 2 weeks prior t harvest. This water is then disqosed of but Mr, Rubio as not indicated how wit (C1' this. He will most likely just let ft run on tiR ground or fili t existing );ond with this runoff. just wt we need, contaminated so and/or irrigation poild. By Seth Zuckerman October 31, 2013 in "THE Nation" . While some growers raise their pot organically, many do not. "Once you get to a certain scale, it's really hard to operate in a sustainable way," Greacen says. "Among other things, you've got a monoculture, and monocultures invite pests." Spider mites turn out to be a particular challenge for greenhouse growers. Tony Silvaggio, a lecturer at Humboldt State University and a scholar at the campus's year-old Humboldt Institute for Interdisciplinary Marijuana Research, found that potent poisons such as Avid and Floramite are sold in small -vials under the counter at grower supply stores, in defiance of a state law that requires they be sold only to holders of a pesticide applicator's license. Nor are just the workers at risk: the miticides have been tested for use on decorative plants, but not for their impacts if smoked. Otherwise ecologically minded growers can be driven to spray with commercial pesticides, Silvaggio has found in his research. "After you've worked for months, if you have an outbreak of mites in your last few weeks when the buds are going, you've got to do something—otherwise you lose everything," he says:" Mites are transmited by wird and tri animais. These mites can wipe out an entire grow. They are easily transferred to farm crops and tomatoes. Our neighborhood enjoys gardening. We also don't want toxic chemicals around our children and farm animals. "Outdoor growers face another threat: rats, which are drawn to the aromatic, sticky foliage of the cannabis plant. Raids at growing sites typically find packages of the long-acting rodent poison warfarin, which has begun making its way up the food chain to predators such as the rare, weasel -like fisher, A study last year in the online scientific journal PLCS One found that more than 70 percent of fishers have rat poison in their bloodstream." By Seth Zuckerman October 3l,IO13in"THE Nation" "While sonne8row*nsreise theirorpnicaUy, rnanydo not. "]nceyou get: to certain scale, it's really hard to operate in a sustainable way," Greacen says. "Among other things, you've got a monoculture, and monocultures invite pests." Spider mites turn out to be a particular challenge for greenhouse growers. Tony Silvaggio, a lecturer at Humboldt State University and a scholar at the campus's year-old Humboldt Institute for Interdisciplinary Marijuana Research, found that potent poisons such as Avid and F|nranoite are sold in small vials under the counter at grower supply stores, in defiance of a state law that requires they be sold only to holders of a pesticide applicator's license. Nor are just the workers at risk: the miticides have be n tested for use on decoralive pnts, but not for their irnpcts ifsmoked. Otherwise ecologically minded growers can be driven to spray with commercial pesticides, Silvaggio has found in his research. "After you've worked for months, if you have an outbreak of mites in your last few weeks when the buds are going, you've got to do something—otherwise you lose everything," he says." Mites are transnmitudbywind and ouanimals. These mites can wipe aut an ntire growThey are easily transferred to farm crops and tomatoes. Our neighborhood enjoys gardening. We &so don't want toxic chemicals around our children and farm animals. "Outdoor growers face another threat: rats, which are drawn to the aromatic, sticky foliage of the cannabis plant. Raick at growing sites typically find packages of the long --acting rodent poson warfarin, which has begun making its way up the food chain to predators such as the rare, weasel -like fisher. A study last year in the online scientific journal PLOS One found that more than 70 percent of fishers have rat poison in their bloodstream." Centra Oregcwi may not have fkhers but we have a trai ram on cur property. We hae racoons, kit foxes, coyotes, deer, owis, hawks, and domestic animals that will infest these poisoned rodents " July 20, 2016 RE: 23105 Alfalfa Market Rd. Bend, Oregon 97701 247 -16 -003936 -SEP DESCHUTES COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PO Box 6005, Bend, Oregon 97708 117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Rend, OR 97701 Telephone (541)388-6575, Fax (541)385-1764 htto://www.deachutes.org/ed This letter provides the results of the site evaluation conducted on the property referenced above for an onsite wastewater treatment system. The site was evaluated on, and was found suitable to install a "System," as defined in Oregon Administrative Rules for Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems, OAR 340-071. The minimurn treatment system type approved is a Standard System. For more information about the different types of systems, descriptions, design criteria, important links and diagrams contact our office or visit our website at www.deschutes.orrucd. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Minimum System Specifications: Maximum Design Flow (gallons/day): 525 gpd (up to a five bedroom residence) Tank Size (Gallons): 1,500 Trenches: Standard Maximum Trenches Depth: 29 inches Minimum Trench Depth: 24 inches Length (feet): 350 lineal feet * Specifications for all trenches, including capping fills, are contained in OAR 340- 071. 2. The area approved for the system is very specific. The land surface in the vicinity of the approved site must not be altered. Any alteration of the approved site or placement of a well within 100 feet of the approved site may invalidate this approval. Technical rule changes will not invalidate a favorable site evaluation, but may require use of a different kind of system. 3. A permit trust be obtained from Deschutes County prior to the installation of the system. Application for a construction permit must be accompanied by an accurately drawn plan showing the layout and components of the system. The plans must also show the Quality Services Performed with Pride replacement area, proposed location of dwelling and other structures, driveways, wells, waterlines, property lines, and any other pertinent information. a. The location of the dosing septic tank or septic tank dosing chamber b. If a pump is necessary, submit pump specifications and hydraulic design for the proposed pump. c. The soil absorption design and layout for the initial system d. The area for the reserve system e. The proposed residence f. All other structures, wells, waterlines, driveways, property line setbacks and property dimensions g. Test pit locations h. Setbacks of proposed system and reserve system from proposed and existing structures i, Submit a scaled construction detail drawing for the proposed system. j. Accurately show the test pit Iocations. Follow the enclosed guidelines. Consult a licensed Department of Environmental Quality installer or a consultant if you need assistance. Inaccurate or incomplete construction details will require revisions. 4. This site evaluation approval does not guarantee that land development permits can be issued. The applicant must obtain land use approval from the Deschutes County Planning Division before Deschutes County Environmental Health can issue permits. 5. Additional requirements and/or comments: a. This system has been sized to serve a five bedroom residence because of limited area, the replacement system will likely need to be a Sand Filter System. REVIEW AVAILABLE Pursuant to OAR 340-071, you may request that the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) conduct a site evaluation report review if you believe this report to be in violation of the rules. The DEQ conducts report reviews upon submission of the appropriate application materials including: 1. A written request that includes all information you have received from Deschutes County, the reason you believe the report is in error, including the specific Oregon Administrative Rules that conflict with the report, and 2. The application fee. The DEQ will review the county report and visit the site to determine the report's compliance with the appropriate rules. OAR 340-071-0415 allows an applicant to request a variance to any rule or standard. For more information about requesting a report review or a variance to the Quality Services Performed with Pride D 2- 7 rules, please contact the Oregon DEQ at 475 NE Bellevue Dr., Suite 110, Bend OR 97701, phone 541-388-6146. If you have any questions, pleasecall this office at 541-388-6575. Sincerely, ENVIRONMENTAL SOILS DIVISION Todd Cleveland, REHS Registered Environmental Health Specialist TSCialh Quality Services Performed with Pride r ) Applicant: f2LJL Date: -7/13Il Ev tor: c(- SuitabTe) SITE EVALUATION FIELD INSPECTION FORM Site Evaluation # i (6— 6 6 3c:r3i. Subdivision: L B Parcel Size: 2.o .S TJL R j3S ;S3 TL Sketch No o Scale Unsuitable 1 We( t•ref- av4. 0Y,F, ro-A c*%.; eLkaS41-10-4, 4<m-s-Itli"ms 4. /1/4iPered," rcVe '.. *systems and parameters approved are the minimum to meet current DEQ rules System type approved: S. AzeL, A O. ryt Absorption facility: S4a.htkk rik Initial S j,c,,,,,k c, rik. Min. Size :2D Max. Depth 19 Min. Depth ReplacementRok-1-001lcii Sc,,,A ti -'1.1.6-- Min. Size 91,0f±2.- Max. Depth 0 Min. Depth c) Tank Size 1,u) Sewage Flow 5.2.S g PO Special Conditions: TL- lk c.,,.fs'Uo4 ko.c Li -c.,, S'iuil irt Suve. et -Ci ve. Ic?ttAro,....-", r.eicti.t.c..e , Teecw“, c. -c liy,A;1-1,4 artc, Ai,* c6.9koxcw,c4q.-1, S,ittrANN 6.01\ I ; kellIA e 4 A Al. 612 6',. Saelek P * I ke* rs'rPcf,11 Paw nvelv:a,.$,Oconcit4es,AVIC...5 1 SITE EVALUATION FIELD INSPECTION FORM Applicant: R3J10,'.) Site Evaluation # 2.`-17 ) 0031-36 Evaluator1;4S CAt'Ate-ta'N-A Date: /I/ // 43 Parcel Size: 2-)' 5 Subdivision: T R IS S 336 TL 2-0 —B --- DEPTH I TEXTURE I COLOR Nctes on roots, structure, % loose rock, mottling, layer limiting effective soil depth, etc. 14 C. - 2 ( irA0 .1)C• r Sf t, R.31.3 .__3(-‘ '5 - • • / • t c 10-1,4:3/L. t-2fi L/11 5 L it ,/ ' I SiPZ rAm M 11/..44 : C.) I 4 L ft -s • 2— I .`,14-sk• S I *>•-i 1--\t.er) 5 - 2o Landscape Note: 'AV& *. Slope. 2, 9 Other site notes: Comments: Reason for Unsuitability: (lncludo Rule Reference) p..,0,L¢,i:34trstpbtorati4d.rvAlcems, 08/211,16 4fm - ,L 1 44; fitc < Asprecl. 4.9 14% r)) " Groundwater: J C2403e1 lb otAc) F3U, PERMIT #:„ SEPTcC. COMM UNTY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. PLANNING DATE ENV. HEALTH DATE F BUILDING DATE Go e earth feet!' 1,,.11.111 meters' )1 „1.1.1 „1,„„ 300 h .111, 1,11 11,1 ,1111,1.1111 1111 Ii111111,1111 ,,hod Ihhi I M 1111., 100 „ A c k 40 OIL.— c . E Ate '14 APPLICATION FOR INDIVIDUAL SITE EVALUATION DESCHUTES COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION 117 NW LAFAYETT'E AVE., BEND OR (641) 38&6676 737 SW CASCADE AVE, REDMOND OR (641) 3861713 111 ALUATION NUMBER The following Information Is required to complete an application for a Site evaluation. Please be as accurate and complete as possible, TOWNSHIPS RANGE E RECTION 33A TAJIQT 2cc-='1. I EDAL LOT V 7QNRNG SUBDIVISION t „� n 40..)..T f1Q013ESS OF PA(3CEI, 23 i Ct� l�--G I T`«- n' �i� �\-E'4Cs.c PARCEL SIZE NAME OF OWNER TELEPHONE NUMBER OF AU HORIZEU REPRESENTATIVE WATER ��,`` `` IN SO. FT, OR ACRES Za. C , fie 13EDRbOMS SOURCE AvtN' COI TIVE TELEPHONE P-942.tIZ-do s->4.tA�-ti ^yLZ4, xi 0, 4-e44PN.I�°u L SLIT -69 s sn MAILING ADDRESS MAILING AUURE 3S 4 `" 2. q � q t•.f Lk) 1 ? �` .51 : , Su. �fi�e log . � 1 CITY STATE c4z.. ZIP I CITYSTAT 2 ZIP `( 7? S c� cvr6l-�. COMMENTS/REMARKS PLANNING NOTIFICATION a/ -s/7- 6ye—M ro sEt.UE 400 V)►.k,- I4\ Cit.O.eLL ( Pt -t i (I:: L -247 - i5 - c,n ,c)3 -C-C. . joi-yvVhOic_c3 6 4,� 7— 4. Res v, I iijV111 / 107e -•t 0 1-oCI( FOR GoMMgR�IA� US1e U JLY -TYPE OF USE, DAILY FLOW Plans answer the following quasilonst 1, Are there any bodies of water on or adjacent to this:property? 2. Aro there existing wells on the property? 3. • Aro there any proposed wells on the property? 4, Aro there existing wells on adjacent property? b, Will this property be served by a community water system? 6, Are there any encumbrances whloh could proven( or erect the Installation of a subsurface sewage disposal system? (Dens, easements) TEST HOLES ARE; READY In the area below, skate the parcel Adjoining roads or streets Property lines and dimensions Location of test pits sparpments (clIfh, banks) showing the location oh 41 Existing and proposed wells All bodies oI water (rivers, canals, ponds) Wells on adjacent properties Reservoirs and/or cisterns )144 eilsi Ines , SB, 0 0 0 FEE 1 0 . ,.0 i 1 9 3/15/2017 https://publ i caccess.courts.oregon.gov/Publ icAccessLogi n/Search.aspx?I D=200 Civil, Family, Probate and Tax Court Case Records Search Results Skip to Main Content Logout My Account Search Menu Search Civil, Family, Probate and Tax Court Case Location : All Locations Help Records Refine Search Record Count: 6 Search By: Party Exact Name: on Party Search Mode: Name Last Name: rubio First Name: rogelio All All Sort By: Filed Date Case Number Style Filed/Location Type/Status 08BC2662 RAY KLEIN INC VS. ROGELIO RUBIO 12/31/2008 Small Claims Contract Coos Closed 10DM0275 MARIAN BARNES VS. ROGELIO RUBIO 03/30/2010 Domestic Relations Abuse Prevention Coos Closed 10DM0571 MARIAN BARNES VS. ROGELIO RUBIO 07/01/2010 Domestic Relations Petition Custody Coos Closed 14FL0040 ROGELIO RUBIO VS. MARIAN BARNES 06/12/2014 Domestic Relations Filiation Deschutes Open 14DS0746 MARIAN BARNES VS. ROGELIO RUBIO 08/22/2014 Domestic Relations Transfer Support Deschutes Closed 17SC10658 Ray Klein Inc., Doing Business As Professional 03/13/2017 Small Claims - General Credit Service vs Rogelio Rubio Deschutes Open https://publicaccess.courts.oregon.gov/PublicAccessLogin/Search.aspx?ID=200 1/1 3/15/2017 https://publicaccess.courts.oregon.gov/PublicAccessLogin/Search.aspx?ID=1700 Judgment Records Search Results Skip to Main Content Logout My Account Search Menu New Judgment Search Refine Search Location : All Locations Help Record Count: 9 Exact Name: on Party Search Mode: Name Last Name: rubio First Name: rogelio Sort By: Filed Date Case No./Location Entered/Docketed Debtor(s) Creditor(s) Details B03D709614 03/03/2004 RUBIO, ROGELIO Amount:$106.00 Coos Status: Unsatisfied Type: DKMJ-Judament - Docketed Money B03D709614 06/04/2004 RUBIO, ROGELIO Amount:$15.00 Coos Status: Unsatisfied Type: JGLA-Judgment - License Susoen B03D709614 08/18/2004 RUBIO, ROGELIO Amount:$18.00 Coos Status: Unsatisfied Type: JGCA-Recordation - Collection B08E460124 07/15/2008 RUBIO, ROGELIO Amount:$145.00 Coos Status: Unsatisfied Type: JGLC-Creates Judament Lien B08E460124 07/15/2008 RUBIO, ROGELIO Amount:$823.00 Coos Status: Unsatisfied Type: JGLC-Creates Judament Lien B08E460124 07/15/2008 RUBIO, ROGELIO Amount:$427.00 Coos Status: Unsatisfied Type: JGLC-Creates Judament Lien 808E460124 07/15/2008 RUBIO, ROGELIO Amount:$15.00 Coos Status: Unsatisfied Type: JGLA-Judament - License Susoen B08E460124 08/19/2008 RUBIO, ROGELIO Amount:$100.00 Coos Status: Unsatisfied Type: JGAS-Judament - Payment Schedu B08E460124 10/05/2008 RUBIO, ROGELIO Amount:$227.00 Coos Status: Unsatisfied ype: JGCA-Recordation - Collection https://publicaccess.courts.oregon.gov/PublicAccessLogin/Search.aspx?ID=1700 1/1 3/15/2017 https://publicaccess.courts.oregon.gov/PublicAccessLogin/Search.aspx?ID=100 Criminal, Traffic and Parking Case Records Search Results Skip to Main Content Logout My Account Search Menu Search Criminal, Traffic and Parking Case Records Refine Search Record Count: 9 Search By: Defendant Exact Name: on Party Search Mode: Name Last Name: rubio First Name: rogelio Case Number Citation Number B991980A B0011036 B000244661 B01D271424 B02D556108 B03D709614 0505466 B08E460124 08CR0925 1980 11036 D244661 D271424 D271424 D556108 D09614 D09614 E174836 E174836 E174836 E460124 E460124 E460124 Defendant Info Filed/Location Type/Status RUBIO, ROGELIO 12/20/1999 1983 Coos RUBIO, ROGELIO 09/15/2000 1983 Coos RUBIO, ROGELIO M 12/11/2000 1983 Coos RUBIO, ROGELIO 05/07/2001 1983 Coos RUBIO, ROGELIO 04/23/2002 1983 Coos RUBIO, ROGELIO 09/17/2003 1980 Coos RUBIO, ROGELIO 08/11/2005 1983 Lane RUBIO, ROGELIO 05/27/2008 1983 Coos RUBIO, ROGELIO 08/26/2008 1983 Coos Offense Infraction Closed Offense Violation Closed Offense Violation Closed Offense Violation Closed Offense Violation Closed Offense Violation Closed Offense Violation Inactive Offense Violation Closed Offense Felony Closed 3 Location : All Locations Help All All Sort By: Filed Date Charge(s) Passenger Fail to Use Seatbelt Causing Unreasonable Sound Amplification from a Vehicle Violating the Basic Speed Rule Violating the Basic Speed Rule Violation Driving While Suspended Violating the Basic Speed Rule Violating the Basic Speed Rule Failure to Carry Proof of Compliance Violating a Speed Limit Violation Driving While Suspended Driving Uninsured Permitting Operation of Unregistered Vehicle Violation Driving While Suspended Driving Uninsured Delivery of Cocaine Possession of Cocaine https://publicaccess.courts.oregon.gov/PublicAccessLogin/Search.aspx?ID=100 1/1 3/15/2017 Six arrested after cocaine found, 5 children in custody of CPS - Valley Morning Star : Local News Six arrested after cocaine found, 5 children in custody of CPS Posted: Tuesday, May 3, 2011 12:00 am Valley Morning Star HARLINGEN — Six people were arrested Friday by Harlingen police and Cameron County Sheriff's officers, armed with a narcotics search warrant, at a home in the 2300 block of South F Street. Five small children were also found in the home and were placed in the custody of Child Protective Service, police said. During the search, officers found cocaine and cocaine residue floating in a toilet bowl, and more cocaine was found in the master bedroom, police said. Cocaine residue and drug paraphernalia was found during the search and was easily available to the children, police said. All six adults — four men and two women — were arrested and taken to Harlingen city jail. Arraigned Saturday were: H Rogelio Mendez Rubio, 33, on charges of possession of controlled substance, abandon/ endangering a child; tampering with evidence; possession of a controlled substance. Total bonds $115,000 Rogelio Mendez Rubio Age 33 Anthony Pena Age 25 Jorge Rubio Mendez Age 32 Michael Penn Age 24 llaytnay Mnelen Rojas Age 25 Angelica FFcobar-Guerrero Age 20 Six arrested after cocaine found, 5 children in custody of CPS H Jorge Rubio Mendez, 32, possession of controlled substance; abandon/ endangering child; tampering with evidence. Total bonds $105,000. H Anthony Pena, 25, possession of a controlled substance; abandon/endangering child, tampering with evidence, Total bonds $105,000. H Michael Pena Mendez, 24, possession of controlled substance; abandon/endangering child; tampering with evidence. Total bonds $105,000. H Daymay Maelen Rojas, 25, possession controlled substance; abandon/endangering child; tampering with evidence; possession controlled substance. Total bonds $115,000 H Angelica Guerrero Escobar, 20, possession of controlled substance; abandon/endangering child; tampering with evidence. Total bonds $105,000 http://www.valleymorningstar.com/news/local news/article _ Oa557aa6-5786-5721-9e0f-ce838dc69rd5.html?mode=print 1/1 emotional and charged topic at hand. Staff, the Planning Commission, and the Board reviewed state rules and regulations as well as those of other local governments when constructing the County's reasonable regulations for time, manner, and place of producing, processing, storing, and retailing marijuana. The above work sessions, staff reports, and public hearings comply with Section 1.3, Goal 1, but also its policies, specifically 1.3.1-1.3.4, and 1.3.6. Goal 2 to promote regional cooperation and partnerships on planning issues and its policies were met. The County coordinated with the cities of Bend and Redmond on the regulations specific to Title 19 and 20, which implement those cities' General Plans. The County also reached out to local irrigation districts in the process of developing these regulations. This satisfies relevant Policy 1.3.11. Chanter 2 Resource Manaaement: Sets the Goals and Policies of how the County will protect resources lands, including but not limited to, Agriculture and Forest as well as Water Resources and Environmental Quality. Section 2.2, Agricultural Lands Policies, sets Goal 1 to preserve and maintain agricultural lands and the agricultural industry. Policy 2.2.6 calls for a regular review of farm regulations to ensure compliance with State statutes and Oregon Administrative Rules. The marijuana regulations proposed under this text amendment are precisely the actions anticipated by this policy. Changes at the State level have led to the rise of a new agricultural industry in Deschutes County. Goal 2 promotes a diversified, sustainable, revenue -generating agricultural sector. Policy 2.2.10 calls for the promotion of economically viable opportunities and practices while Policy 2.2.11 encourages small farming enterprises including but not limited to, niche markets and organic farming and valued -added projects. The marijuana regulations proposed under this text amendment will diversify agriculture in the County by adding a revenue -generating plant. By definition, the marijuana grown, processed, wholesaled, and sold at retail for recreational and medical uses is a niche market. co Goal 3 specifies the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) policies, classifications, and codes are consistent with local and emerging agricultural conditions and markets. The regulation of time, manner, and place of growing marijuana are consistent with this goal. The County has spent extensive staff time, reviewed testimony of experts in the industry and concerned citizens, irrigation districts, and State agencies to arrive at reasonable regulations to ensure the viability \A of this emerging agricultural crop, afi c Section 2.3 deals with Forest Land which includes the F-1 and F-2 zone, neither of which is proposed as possible locations for any marijuana -related land uses activities. In terms of resource -zoned lands, the marijuana -related land uses are only proposed for the EFU zone. Therefore the Goals and Policies of this section are inapplicable. Section 2.4 deals with Goat 5 (Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, "pen Space, �. •� ..unw Historic "pen v'.wwv, and Aggregate, i.e., surface mining) resources. Goal 1 is to protect Goal 5 resources. The County has an acknowledged list of significant and protected Goal 5 properties and sites. These regulations would not repeal those protections or Goal 5 listings, therefore the text amendment is consistent with this portion of the Comprehensive Plan, in particular with Policy 2.4.2 (which is incorrectly listed as 2.2.2 in the Plan). Section 2.5 concerns Water Resources and Goal 1 is to develop regional, comprehensive water management policies white balancing the diverse needs of water users and recognize Oregon Page 8 of 13 - EXHIBIT K OF ORDINANCE NO. 2016-015 Pue Y2 water law. Policy 2.5.1 calls for working cooperatively with stakeholders, During the development of the regulations, the County reached out to local irrigation districts and the Oregon Department of Water Resources (DWR) to participate in the process. Representatives of DWR and irrigation districts attended to varying degrees meetings of the MAC. DWR and irrigation districts to varying degrees submitted oral or written comments to the MAC, the Planning Commission, the Board, or staff. Goal 6 of this section calls for coordinating land use and water policies and Policies 2.5.22 and 2.5.24 concern assessing potential impacts of land use to river or riparian or wetlands and assessing the effects of significant land use developments upon water. The proposed regulations do not modify the County's land use notice requirements and the County's transmittal list, which includes DWR and local irrigation districts. Notification to these irrigation districts and state agency of marijuana -related land use applications will ensure water is a considered element in any County land use decision. Furthermore, applicants will be required to demonstrate that have a legal source of water under State law. Thus, the proposed regulations comply with the relevant Comprehensive Plan policies. Section 2.6 contains Wildlife goals and policies. The proposed regulations will not modify the County's Goal 5 inventory nor its various wildlife area combining zones nor seasonal travel restrictions. Thus, the proposed amendments are consistent with the relevant goals and policies of this section. Section 2.7 focuses on Open Spaces, Scenic Views, and Sites. The proposed regulations will not modify the Goal 5 inventory nor lands zoned for Open Space and Conservation (OSC) nor rivers and roadways included in the Landscape Management (LM) overlay zone. Any development must conform to the setback, vegetative screening, downcast lighting, and allowable colors of building materials and paints in the LM zone. Thus, the proposed amendments are consistent with the relevant goals and policies of this section. Section 2.8 devotes its energy to Energy Policies. Goal 1 is to promote energy conservation and applicable Policies 2.8.2 and 2.8.4 look at reducing energy demand through efficiency and conservation, respectively. Goal 2 promotes affordable, efficient, reliable, and environmentally sound energy systems for individual home and business consumers. In terms of growing operations, the combination of Central Oregon's numerous sunny days, greenhouses, and modem building technologies make for highly energy efficient operations. Midstate Electric and Central Electric Co -Op participated in panel discussions, encouraging growers to contact them well in advance for design review of their planned operations. Both agencies are on the County's transmittal list to be contacted as service providers for land use applications. This allows energy providers to plan their long-term infrastructure needs. Retail, wholesale, and processing are no different from any other user of energy. A Statement from each utility company proposed to serve the operation would be required, stating that each such company is able and willing to serve the operation. Taken together, the marijuana regulations thus comply with these goals and their relevant policies. Section 2.9 consists of Environmental Quality Policies. Goal 1 is to maintain and improve the quality of air, water, and land with Policy 2,9.2 to maintain County noise and outdoor lighting codes and revise as needed. The marijuana regulations will not repeal the County's applicable ordinances regarding noise and lighting. Goal 2 promotes sustainable building practices and Goal 3 encourages recycling. Marijuana waste would be required to be stored in a secured waste receptacle in the possession of and under the control of the OLCC licensee or OHA Person Responsible for the Grow Site. Additionally, modern greenhouses are energy efficient and thus sustainable and the unused portions of marijuana can be recycled under a secured system, thus the regulations comply with the applicable goals and policies. Page 9 of 13 - EXHIBIT K OF ORDINANCENO. 2016-015 Section 2.10 regards Surface Mining Policies. As the regulations will not change the Goal 5 inventory of surface mining sites and the County code requires properties with a quarter -mile of an SM zone to sign a waiver of non -remonstrance, the regulations are consistent with the applicable goals and policies of this section. Section 2.11 focuses on cultural and historic resources. The proposed regulations will not modify the County's Goal 5 inventory for cultural and historic resources. Thus, the proposed amendments are consistent with the relevant goals and policies of this section. Chapter 3 Rural Growth Management: Sets the goals and policies on who the County will manage the development of the lands outside of urban unincorporated communities such as Terrebonne and Tumalo. Section 3.3 consists of Rural Housing Policies. Given the regulations are for non-residential uses, the goals and policies of this section are not applicable. Section 3.4 sets Rural Economy Goals and Policies. Goal 1 is to maintain a stable and sustainable rural economy, compatible with rural lifestyles and a healthy environment. Given farming is one of the definitive rural activities, the regulations comply. Policy 3.4.1 promotes rural economic initiatives, yet maintains the County's rural character, and review land use regulations to identify legal and appropriate rural economic development opportunities. The proposed regulations, which deal with a newly legal agricultural crop and its potential products, are a perfect fit. The regulations are consistent with Policy 3.4.7 of permitting locai)y serving commercial uses in higher density rural communities which are consistent within State regulations. Policies 3.4.8 through 3.4.21 deal with lands zoned Rural Commercial and Policies 3.4.22 through 3.4.35 apply to lands zoned Rural Industrial. The proposed regulations would be consistent with or exceed the pre-existing standards (building size, intensity of use, general description of the market being served, floor area, etc.) for these zones. The proposed marijuana retail, wholesale, processing, and manufacturing uses allowed under the proposed regulation are consistent with uses already allowed under Rural Commercial and Rural Industrial zones. The proposed amendments are consistent with the relevant goals and policies of this section. Section 3.5 is Natural Hazards with Goal 1 being to protect people, property, infrastructure, the economy and the environment from natural hazards. The goals and policies are not directly applicable with the possible exception of Policy 3.5.3, which requires coordination with emergency service providers when new development is proposed. When a property is proposed to develop, the County sends a transmittal notice to the fire agency that would respond in an emergency. As the marijuana land uses cannot occur in F-1 or F-2 zoned lands, wildfire is not an issue. The County code does not allow development in the 100 -year floodplain, which is consistent with Policy 3.5.10. Processing of cannabinoid extracts would only be permitted on properties located within the boundaries of or under contract with a fire protection district. The amendments comply with the applicable goal and policies of this section. Section 3.6 is Public Facilities and Services and Goal 1 is to support the orderly, efficient, and cost-effective siting of rural public facilities and services. As these proposed regulations are for private development the goal and policies of this section do not apply, save for Policy 3.6.9 which states new development shall address impacts on existing facilities and plans through the land use entitlement process. While the language is mostly likely directed at the development of public buildings, it could be interpreted that private development must account for its impact on public roads, for Instance. The County code does require traffic studies for developments that Page 10 of 13 - EXHIBIT K OF ORDINANCE NO. 2016-015 3 I 911. !116= Community Development Department Planning, Building Safety, Environmental Soils, Code Enforcement PO Box 6005, Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue www.deschutes.org/cd STAFF REPORT TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Nick Lelack, Director Matthew Martin, Associate Planner DATE: April 20, 2016 SUBJECT: Marijuana Advisory Committee Final Report 1. SUMMARY On February 3, 2016, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) appointed the 13 -member Marijuana Advisory Committee (MAC). The MAC was charged with developing and recommending reasonable time, place, and manner land use regulations to mitigate the impacts of medical and recreational marijuana uses — especially production. The MAC met for seven meetings between February 10 and April 7, 2016, for a total of 26 hours. The MAC worked under a consensus process rather than a direct up or down vote. Where full consensus was not reached on a particular issue, the parties were afforded the opportunity to submit a position report on the various points of view. Please note the write-ups were not approved by the full committee. The culmination of work of the MAC is presented in the attached report. 11. MAC FINAL REPORT/REFERENCE MATRICES OVERVIEW The MAC report begins with a detailed overview of the committee and decision making process. The report goes on to identify the various regulatory standards that were evaluated and the resulting consensus/non-consensus conclusions and recommendations. For references, attached are matrices that include the following information: Zoning Matrix - Mariivana Retail and Wholesale • Zones • Original Proposal • Planning Commission Recommendation • MAC Recommendations (Zoning matrices for production and processing are not included because the MAC did not address zoning for these uses. Instead, the Board directed the MAC to focus only on production and processing regulations applicable to the Exclusive Farm Use zone.) Deschutes County separation distance proposal is so much less than the Clackamas distances, to protect our children, we believe that lot line to lot line is the correct distance measurement for Deschutes County. • The MAC and Board of County Commissioners' responsibility is to develop a reasonable compromise between protecting public safety, quality of life, and property values in our rural areas and the interests of the marijuana industry. • Marijuana dispensaries and retail stores are bulk purchase stores just like OLCC liquor stores. There are 10 OLCC bulk liquor stores in Deschutes County (Bend South, Bend East, Bend North, Bend West, Redmond North, Redmond South, La Pine, Sunriver North, Sunriver South and Sisters) in comparison to current —20+ Deschutes County dispensaries that will soon sell both medical and recreational marijuana. • The Deschutes County can develop restrictions that are more stringent than state code but cannot be more lenient. • The City of Bend has set the precedent of using lot line to lot line as the distance calculation. It is a clear way to measure the distance and is not a function of the premises definition, which could change depending on how the retail facility might want to use the land outside of the original premises definition. For example, many typical businesses have temporary vehicles for storage or unloading in areas surrounding their retail shops. If needed, this gives the retail facilities the ability to expand beyond the original premise's definition without conflict. Supporters: Sam Davis and Liz Lotochinski 15. Measure separation from property line to property line to avoid encroachment where children are located. Position jn ffvof: • Protecting public safety, quality of life, and property values Is of utmost importance in rural Deschutes County. • MAC committee discussed various methods to measure distance separation between a "protected" space (i.e., school, playground, child care facilities, parks, public gathering venues, churches, etc.) and a marijuana retail business. • Some MAC members were in favor of measuring protected space to marijuana retail business from property line to property line for the following reasons: o Provides utmost protection of children and avoids encroachment of where children are located and/or frequent. o Ensures rural service centers remain safe places for youth and adults alike. o Recognizes the high-value nature of marijuana and associated retail businesses operating on a cash basis, which may entice a criminal element. o Avoids clustering of marijuana retail businesses in a finite locale such as the rural service centers. o Recognizes a building may be removed and replaced with another facility elsewhere on the site locating new structure closer than the measured distance. o Recognizes Deschutes County has no method to locate and measure from a building's perimeter. Supporters: Sam Davis, Larry Fulkerson, and Liz Lotochinski Position against: The distance should be measured from the lot line of the affected property (e.g., a school) to the closest point of the building space occupied by the marijuana retailer. For retail to retail, separation distance Deschutes County Marijuana Advisory Committee Report Page 9 Recommendations: Processing and Production of Marijuana (EFU only) CONSENSUS ITEMS: PROCESSING AND PRODUCTION, EFU Production and Processing in EFU: Home Occupation 29. Production and processing are prohibited as home occupations. Production and Processing in EFU: Odor 30. For odor, the definition of "building" is, "Any building, including greenhouses, hoop houses, and other similar structures, used for marijuana production or marijuana processing." 31. Odor standards for production and process in EFU: • Buildings for production and processing in EFU shall be equipped with an effective odor control system that prevents unreasonable interference of neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. • An odor control system is permitted if the applicant submits a report by a mechanical engineer licensed in the State of Oregon demonstrating that the system will control odor. • Private citizen complaints about odor are authorized, as judged by persons of ordinary sensibilities. ■ The system shall consist of one or more fans. ■ The fan(s) shall be sized for cubic feet per minute (CFM) equivalent to the volume of the building (length multiplied by width multiplied by height) divided by three. • The filter(s) shall be rated for the required CFM. • The system shall be maintained in working order and shall be in use. • These standards shall be applied to existing production and processing sites after one year. Production and Processing in EFU: Noise 32. Marijuana processing and production sites In EFU shall comply with the Noise Control Standards of DCC 8.08. This standard applies to existing medical marijuana sites, as well as any prospective sites. Production and Processing in EFU: Lighting 33. Production and processing sites in EFU shall meet the following lighting standards: • Inside building lighting used for marijuana production shall not be visible outside the building from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. on the following day. • Outdoor marijuana grow lights shall not be illuminated from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. the following day. • Light cast by exterior light fixtures other than marijuana grow lights (i.e. security lights) shall not trespass onto adjacent lots. ■ Lighting fixtures shall be fully shielded in such a manner that all light emitted directly by the lamp or a diffusing element, or indirectly by reflection or refraction, is projected below the horizontal plane through the lowest light -emitting part. • These standards shall be applied to existing production and processing sites after one year. Production and Processing in EFU: Separation 34. For production and processing in EFU, there shall be a separation of 1,000 feet from public and private elementary and secondary schools, licensed child care centers (excluding in-home child care), licensed pre-schools, national monuments and state parks, and all approved/licensed youth activity centers; a change in use (e.g., a new school) shall not cause a violation of this standard; separation is to be measured from the lot line of the school. 35. For production and processing in EFU, the 1,000 -foot separation shall be measured from the lot line of the school to the premises. Deschutes County Marijuana Advisory Committee Report Page 19 36. Existing lawfully -established medical marijuana processing and production sites are exempt from the separation standard; however, if they apply for a new type of license, the separation rules would apply. NON -CONSENSUS ITEMS: PROCESSING AND PRODUCTION, EFU Production and ProcessinR in EFU: Production Outside 37. Prohibit outdoor/no-building cannabis grow sites. Position in favor; • Protecting public safety, quality of life, and property values is of utmost importance In rural Deschutes County. ■ The residents of rural Deschutes County are currently suffering from the reduction in quality of life and reduction in property values due in large part to the consequences of the unregulated "Skunk Like" odor emanating from the over 1800 currently licensed medical marijuana grow sites in Deschutes County. • MAC members had consensus on odor control for indoor (in a building) grow sites. Since it is not possible to contain odors from outdoor grows and outdoor grows would likely be larger than indoor grows, it is not possible to control odors from outdoor marijuana grow sites. Therefore no outdoor grow sites shall be allowed. • In Deschutes County, we have a unique rural population. Unlike any other County in Oregon, we have approximately one third, or over 55,000 residents, living in rural areas. Many live in small unincorporated communities and many thousand others are spread throughout the rural areas. Unlike any other County, most of our rural residents do not form. Many of these rural residents live in EFU areas and enjoy all that country living has to offer. The county is unique in that it is an area of many destination resorts, offers a very desirable area to live for retirees, and provides ample opportunities for health and outdoor enthusiasts. Marijuana grow sites are changing this wonderful county in ways that none of us could have imagined even a few years ago. • Only the four MAC members who are currently living near marijuana grow sites showed green cards for the prohibition of outdoor grow sites. • Outdoor grows will also invite theft and encourage the criminal element to prey on our rural areas. Division 25 Section 845-025-1410 states that licensee must provide security systems that include commercial grade, non-residential door locks Installed on every external door of licensed premises where marijuana items are present. A valid question would be how an outdoor grow site could be similarly protected even with fences topped with razor or barbed wire. Significant negative impact to public safety should be of utmost concern to the County when considering this issue. • Division 25 Section 845-025-2040 (2) (b) states outdoor production canopy limits: o Tier l: Up to 20,000 square feet. o Tier II: 20,001 to 40,000 square feet [nearly an acre) ■ OAR 845-025-1115(1)(d)(B) offers a provision that suggests a single parcel could far exceed the canopy limits listed above, as long as licensees on that parcel are not held under "common ownership." That essentially means producers could stack licenses similar to what Is happening under OHA rules for growers, and the number of licensees — and canopies — would be limited only by the size of the relevant parcel of land. Read this to mean massive outdoor marijuana grows on a single tax lot wafting its skunk -like odor for thousands of feet. • Since Deschutes County is not required to consider the "Right To Farm" statutes when adopting regulations controlling the nuisance aspects of marijuana, and given the fact that other political subdivisions such as Boulder and Denver Counties in Colorado have successfully implemented regulations that do not allow odor off the premises, we believe a requirement for marijuana to only Deschutes County Marijuana Advisory Committee Report Page 20 Supporters: Andy Anderson, Matt Cyrus, Alison Hohengarten, Hunter Neubauer, Lindsey Pate, and Josh Rodriguez Position against (second oftwo): • Private roads and easements often traverse one or more properties to reach the destined marijuana operation. ■ In unincorporated Deschutes County, especially with the subdivision of large parcels into smaller ones, many parcels of land are indeed served by these private roads or easements. ■ The proposed item indicates marijuana operation traffic would be permitted on said road/easement if a "majority" of property owners with access rights to that private road or easement agree to allow it. • This item should require ALL property owners with access rights to agree to allow marijuana operation traffic on the road or easement. • A single property owner with access rights to that private road or easement may be more seriously impacted with ingress and egress traffic resulting from a commercial marijuana grow operation. Their dwelling may be located closer, their personal use and enjoyment of their property may be adjacent to that road or easement, their children may ride bikes on such roadway or easement, and the impact of such traffic could substantially reduce their property values. Since marijuana is a unique industry with inherent risks, requiring ALL property owners to agree to allow marijuana business traffic is necessary. Supporters: Sam Davis, Larry Fulkerson, and Liz Lotochinski 41. There shall be no access restrictions to marijuana processing and production sites in EFU. Position in favor: Easements are legal documents between landowners for the purpose of use of an ingress or egress. This ordinance should not impact those agreements. For example, if farmer sells his neighbor an easement to access a property on the other side of his farm, he should not face limitations on the use of his land simply because he was being a good neighbor and allowing someone else to cross his property. Easements address the types of uses allowed and the county should not impose itself into a civil matter between neighbors or allow one neighbor to unreasonably veto the uses of another. Supporters: Andy Anderson, Matt Cyrus, Alison Hohengarten, Hunter Neubauer, Lindsey Pate, and Josh Rodriguez Position against: None submitted. Supporters: Tim Elliott and Liz Lotochinski Production and Processing in EFU: Lot Size (production) 42. The minimum lot size for recreational marijuana production in EFU is 20 acres, and growing outside an enclosed building is prohibited. Position in favor: • Protecting public safety, quality of life, and property values is of utmost importance in rural Deschutes County. • Some residents of rural Deschutes County are currently suffering from the reduction in quality of life and reduction in property values due in part to the consequences of the unregulated "Skunk -Like" odor emanating from some of the over 1,800 currently licensed medical marijuana grow sites in Deschutes County. Deschutes County Marijuana Advisory Committee Report __Page 24 • MAC members had consensus on odor control at grow sites in a building. Since it is not possible to contain odors from outdoor grows, and because outdoor grows would likely be larger than indoor grows, we propose no outdoor grow sites shall be allowed. • In Deschutes County, we have a unique rural population. Unlike any other County in Oregon, we have approximately one third, or over 55,000 residents, living in rural areas. Many live in small unincorporated communities and many thousand others are spread throughout the rural areas. Unlike any other County, most of our rural residents do not farm. Many of these rural residents live in EFU areas and enjoy all that country living has to offer. The county is unique because it is an area of many destination resorts, offers a very desirable place to live for retirees, and provides ample opportunities for activity and outdoor enthusiasts. Marijuana grow sites are changing the nature of the county in ways that none of us could have imagined even a few years ago. • Most of the thousands of parcels of EFU land in Deschutes County of less than 20 acres are not economical to farm and are typically not used for farming as defined in Oregon Statutes. They were purchased by people desiring the rural lifestyle. Prohibiting marijuana grow sites from intruding on this idyllic lifestyle would go a long ways towards preventing conflict between and complaints against neighbors. • Almost all owners of 20 acres or less EFU parcels are not able to make a living growing anything without the use of a greenhouse or other indoor grow facility in order to ensure their crops will not suffer frost damage and fail. Limiting all marijuana grow sites to more than 20 acres and requiring all marijuana grow sites to be indoors would mitigate the nuisance aspect and would prevent a substantial number of complaints from being filed regarding odor emanating from outdoor marijuana grow sites. This regulation would preserve the property values and expectations of rural landowners as per the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. • Only five of the MAC members who are not in the marijuana industry showed green or yellow cards for the regulation against outdoor grow sites. • Outdoor grows will also invite theft and encourage the criminal element to prey on our rural areas. Division 25 Section 845-025-1410 states that licensees must provide security systems that include commercial grade, non-residential door locks installed on every external door of licensed premises where marijuana items are present. A valid question would be how an outdoor grow site could be similarly protected, even with fences topped with razor or barbed wire. Significant negative impact to public safety should be of utmost concern to the County when considering this issue. • Since Deschutes County is not required to consider the "Right To Farm" statutes when adopting regulations controlling the nuisance aspects of marijuana, and given the fact that other counties such as Boulder and Denver in Colorado have successfully implemented regulations that do not allow odor off the premises, we believe a requirement for marijuana to only be grown indoor with sufficient odor elimination systems is reasonable for our climate and unique diversity of rural residents and their lifestyles. Supporters: Sam Davis, Tim Elliott, and Larry Fulkerson Position aeainst: The proposal to require a minimum EFU lot size of 20 acres with no outdoor production represents an unreasonable restriction on small farmers. The proposal was poorly received by MAC members, as it received 2 green cards, 8 red cards, and 3 yellow cards. Cannabis producers on the MAC have demonstrated a commitment to "friendly neighbor" regulations and have supported proposals that restrict production on EFU land. Our committee has approved noise, odor, and lighting regulations for cannabis production on EFU land by consensus agreement. When combined with reasonable setbacks, these regulations strike the right balance between the concerns of Deschutes County Marijuana Advisory Committee Report i' l Page 25 hobby landowners and EFU farmers. Imposing a minimum lot size would confer no functional benefit to the community in terms of nuisance reduction, but it would have the unintended consequence of unreasonably restricting the ability of small farmers to improve the value of their land and create a better life for their families by using their EFU farmland as it was intended. Furthermore, a 20 -acre minimum with no outdoor production does not support the goals outlined in the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, Section 2.2, Agricultural Lands Policies. These goals include • promoting diverse agricultural economies, ■ supporting stakeholders in viable activities, and • supporting small farmers and encouraging niche markets and high value farm products. A study referenced in the same section of the Comprehensive Plan found that Deschutes County's unique climate and short growing season mean that it is harder to create economic stability on large lots in our county. A crop like cannabis that can be farmed on small lot sizes means that there is real economic potential for small farmers on properties that have been properly zoned and classified. Finally, it is worth noting that hog farms on EFU have no minimum acreage requirements. Wineries are allowed on lots of 15 acres and above. If the county wishes to move forward with a minimum EFU lot size, a 10 -acre minimum would be a more reasonable limitation that takes into account setbacks and nuisance regulations as well as the smaller lot size needed for successful cannabis farming. This proposal would also disallow outdoor production. Outdoor growing has previously been discussed and non -consensus reports have been included in this report that represent those views (see item #37). An outright prohibition to grow an outdoor farm crop is unreasonable on its face, especially on large parcels, as this would prevent even one plant from being grown at an outdoor location where it potentially would not cause any disturbance to any neighbors. Most importantly, an outright prohibition does not seem to be based on any particular reason, as conditions of use still have to be applied. In our County Code Chapter 18.16.010, EFU zoned land has the clear purpose to be used for farming, and to disallow outdoor cannabis cultivation would not support agricultural opportunities or farm stakeholders. This type of regulation, if adopted, discourages an economically viable and value-added farm crop, in addition to creating a high barrier of entry for small farming enterprises and niche markets. Please refer to item #37 (above) for a more detailed discussion on outdoor cannabis production in our county and creative ways in which MAC members attempted to reach consensus. Supporters: Andy Anderson, Matt Cyrus, Alison Hohengarten, Jeff Ingelse, Hunter Neubauer, and Lindsey Pate 43. There is no minimum lot size for recreational marijuana production in EFU. Position in favor: We support no minimum lot size in EFU zone given the fact that it is unreasonable to restrict recreational marijuana production as a potential use for the majority of EFU-zoned properties in the county. All EFU properties still have to meet state restrictions in order to obtain a license, which may prevent some smaller lots from being potential sites anyway. Plus, if only big parcels can have production operations, we are really encouraging the big operations as opposed to allowing the smaller, family farmers have a chance at making their farm productive. According to the numbers given at this meeting, in Deschutes County, 4,428 lots are less than 5 acres, 980 are between 5 and 10 acres, 1084 are between 10 and 20 acres, 956 are between 20 and 40 acres, and 960 parcels are larger than 40 acres. Deschutes County Marijuana Advisory Committee Report Page 26 Minimum lot sizes were intended to try to mitigate nuisance issues. The MAC has reached consensus for mitigating odor, noise, and light, which are the nuisance concerns for most people and therefore minimum lot sizes are no longer needed to serve that purpose. The Exclusive Farm Use zone was intended to preserve lands for commercial agricultural production. There is no differentiation within the zone for different types or intensities of agricultural uses. To create minimum lot size requirements within the same zone would create a slippery slope of de facto sub -zones and increased restrictions within the EFU zone. The more proper way to address smaller zones that some may feel are inappropriate for all farm uses is to rezone them to MUA or RR, where the county can legally impose limitations on agricultural uses. Imposing arbitrary cropping restrictions on some EFU parcels is not a "reasonable restriction" under the statute, Supporters: Andy Anderson, Matt Cyrus, Alison Hohengarten, Hunter Neubauer, and Lindsey Pate Position against: • The MAC was charged with considering the Planning Commission's recommendations as a starting point to discussions. • Since the MAC is responsible for considering both reasonable and balanced regulations for both sides of every issue, having no minimum lot size is a disservice to the intent of the committee. • While some existing medical marijuana grow site owners have demonstrated a total lack of regard for the rural residents around them and have been called the "few bad apples," what proof can be offered to ensure that all recreational grow sites will have kind, cooperative, supportive and accommodating owners? • By requiring some minimum parcel size, the number of total available marijuana grow sites is lessened and therefore the total affected neighboring or nearby parcels is reduced. • Because there tends to be a clustering of smaller parcels in a given geographic area of Deschutes County, the nuisance of marijuana grow sites to their neighbors in those denser areas will be mitigated by having some minimum lot size. ■ Without question, the public safety, quality of life, and property values of rural property owners surrounded by nuisance -generating marijuana grows will be negatively impacted on an ongoing basis. • It has been suggested that owners of smaller EFU lots have not been able to make a living on their land. Those same owners chose to buy those parcels knowing that farming is not a sustainable economic activity in Deschutes County. The MAC should not consider bolstering up these smaller lot owners' income at the risk of destroying or significantly reducing other residents' enjoyment of their land, their peace, quiet, comfort and safety, and the value of their property or the ability to sell it in the future. Supporters: Sam Davis, Tim Elliott, Larry Fulkerson, and Liz Lotochinski 44. The minimum lot size for ie ,eationai marijuana production in EFU is 20 acres, growing outside of an enclosed building is prohibited, and no production is allowed if adjacent parcels are zoned MUA-10 or RR -10. Position in favor: ■ Protecting public safety, quality of life, and property values is of utmost importance in rural Deschutes County. • Deschutes County has allowed former farm properties to be divided into small parcels (RR -10, MUA, and EFU) <20 acres for residential development. When this occurred, Deschutes County effectively changed the designation of these areas from farm to residential without changing the zoning. These Deschutes County Marijuana Advisory Committee Report Co. Page 27 ■ Odors from outdoor grows travel thousands of feet, effectively trespassing onto nearby properties and public areas. • Highly impressionable youth, even those educated by their parents or schools on the dangers of pot consumption by young people, will view marijuana as a normalized element of the community if grow and processing facilities are sited without sufficient setbacks. ■ Setbacks as proposed here will destroy views, increase risk to public safety, create odor pollution, influence youth by normalizing pot in their lives, and detrimentally affect the enjoyment of all individuals who use and enjoy Deschutes County: residents, owners, children, visitors, cyclists, guests, tourists, etc. • Protecting public safety, quality of life, and property values should be the priorities of Deschutes County Commissioners. Supporters: Sam Davis and Liz Lotochinski 60. For production and processing operations in EFU, not including extracts, Require setbacks of 200 feet from the lot line and 300 feet from a residence (or the proposed location of a dwelling unit under application) not on the same property for grow sites in a building; and Require setbacks of 200 feet from the lot line and 1,000 feet from a residence (or the proposed location of a dwelling unit under application) not on the same property for grow sites outside of a building. Position in favor: • Protecting public safety, quality of life, and property values is of utmost importance in rural Deschutes County. • Visual impacts are a major concern to neighborhoods. These larger setbacks will help mitigate the visual impacts. Division 25 Section 845-025-1410 states that licensees must provide security systems that include commercial grade, non-residential door locks installed on every external door of licensed premises where marijuana items are present and fences topped with razor or barbed wire. Fences topped with razor or barbed wire create a prison -like atmosphere. These impacts cannot be mitigated with only questionable screening that will take years to develop even if adequately maintained. These greater setbacks are necessary to increase the buffer between the grow facilities and neighboring residences. ■ The majority of marijuana industry facilities typically have ancillary, unsightly clutter associated with them: 'temporary' large storage containers, old 40 foot truck trailers, propane tanks, outbuildings, old vehicles, delivery containers, and support equipment that are allowed under insufficient County codes that do not require permits for 'temporary' facilities (which typically exist for years). This ancillary clutter is typically located near the grow buildings. The larger setbacks proposed here are more likely to keep this clutter further from neighboring residences. ■ Marijuana grows invite theft and encourages criminal elements to prey on our rural areas. These greater setbacks would increase the buffer between this type of negative activity and neighboring residences. • The odors from an outdoor grow will travel far in excess of 1,000 feet, which makes a 1,000 foot setback the minimum that should be required. Supporters: Sam Davis, Larry Fulkerson, and Liz Lotochinski Position against: This proposal is not workable for cannabis producers and processors, and specifically the 200 foot setback from a lot line and the 1,000 foot setback from a residence not located on the same tax lot. Deschutes County Marijuana Advisory Committee Report Page 46 season (88-100 days), low rainfall, and distance to major markets hamper profitability. The 1992 study resulted in minimum lot sizes that are smaller than the State requirement of 80 acres for farm land and 160 acres for range land. These minimum lot sizes are unique in Oregon and were acknowledged as in compliance with Statewide Goal 3 (Agricultural Lands) by the Land Conservation and Development Commission. The County maintains a unique set of farm sub- zones based on the average number of irrigated acres for each type of farm land as determined in the 1992 farm study. Irrigated land divisions in each sub -zone must result in parcels that retain certain acreages. Statewide Planning Goal 3 requires counties to preserve and maintain agricultural lands. However, in discussions on the future of agriculture in Deschutes County, there are still differences opinion over which lands should be designated farm lands and which should not, as well as t land uses should be allowed. Farm lands contribute to the County in a number of ways. A riculture is part of the ongoing local economy. Wide-open farm lands offer a secondary benefit by providing scenic open spaces that help attract tourist dollars. Farm lands also contribute'to the rural character that is often mentioned as important to residents. Finally, it should be noted that agricultural lands are preserved through State policy and land use law because it is difficult to predict what agricultural opportunities might arise and once fragmented the opportunity to farm may be lost. On the other hand; there seems to be widespread agreement that much of the local farm land is marginal at best, particularly without irrigation. The climate, especially the short growing season and the potential for freezing temperatures on almost any given night, makes commercial farming challenging and usually a losing proposition financially. Statewide Planning Goal 3 does not really account for the conditions in Deschutes County, resulting in agricultural zoning being applied to land with no history of farming and limited potential for profitable farming. The small size of agricultural parcels adds significantly to the challenges. It has been argued that preserving farm lands benefits the wider public at the expense of agricultural landowners. There is considerable pressure to convert agricultural land to residential or other uses. The debate is complicated because there are impacts to the farming community from converting agricultural lands to other uses. It can be difficult for a farmer who has residential neighbors because farming activities can have noise, odor and/or dust impacts. Oregon's right -to -farm law offers some protection to farmers, but as residential uses grow there is pressure to convert, leading to a greater loss of agricultural lands. The introduction of marijuana production into these farming areas, particularly those areas of smaller lot patterns and nonfarm residential development, highlights the compatibility concerns expressed by both farm and nonfarm, rural residential property owners. The unique conditions and development patterns that exist in Deschutes County only amplify the concerns of these diverse populations and the challenge in mitigating potential impacts to maintain compatibility of nearby land uses. II. PROPOSAL This is a legislative text amendment to Deschutes County Code (DCC), Title 8, Health and Safety; Title 15, Buildings and Construction; Title 18, County Zoning; Title 19, Bend Urban Area Zoning Ordinance; Title 20, Redmond Urban Area Zoning Ordinance, and Title 21, Sisters Urban Area Zoning Ordinance. The proposal defines four types of marijuana -related land use and specifies whether these uses are subject to administrative determinations, conditional uses, or prohibited in various zoning districts in unincorporated Deschutes County. The four uses generally are defined as follows: Page 3 of 13 - EXHIBIT K OF ORDINANCE NO. 2016-015 (t FA O ( March 12, 2017 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners c/o Associate Planner Jacob Ripper Community Development Department PO Box 6005 Bend OR 97708-6005 Re: Appeal of Deschutes County Administrative Determination Approving Recreational Marijuana Production Facility at 23105 Alfalfa Market Rd, Bend 24716 -16 -000600 -AD We are writing to you to express our concern over this matter. We live in a residential area at 23031 Donna Lane which is just south and slightly west of the subject property. We have resided on our 4 acres since 1998 with our two children, one of which is still living with us. We feel very fortunate to have purchased this property from the original owners who had lived here for 25 years raising their family as well. We were drawn to this neighborhood of small acreages within a subdivision of paved streets because of the rural feel while still being close in proximity to our neighbors and not being too far out from our jobs, schools, medical and shopping. We and our children have spent a great deal of time outside on our property gardening and in our neighborhood taking walks and riding bikes. This type of rural residential property also gave our children the opportunity to participate in 4-H animal projects over the years. The subject property does not seem suitable for a commercial type operation of growing recreational marijuana because it is in fairly close proximity to surrounding properties that are residential in nature and the closeness causes us to be concerned with various issues as follows: Odor and noise...we know based on research that this size of operation will create a tremendous amount of odor that will linger over neighboring properties, including ours. This infringes on our quality of air and time spent outside. The noise of fans & equipment needed for this facility, along with the amount of lights used in the growing also infringes on us. Who at the county will be overseeing complaints of this nature and how will they be dealt with? Chemicals...we have learned from talking with an experienced grower that commercial recreational grow operations tend to use several chemicals to create fast growing plants, yielding a quicker turn around for harvesting as well as pesticides to protect the plants. We are concerned about the effects of this on our water and air since this size of operation can produce a very Targe amount of plants which also leads to increased odor. What chemicals will this facility be using and how will they be regulated? Water usage and waste...we have learned about the amount of water that is needed for growing marijuana, which on average can be in excess of 2,000 gallons for a handful of plants. How much water will this commercial facility use since, based on size, it has the ability to produce thousands of plants. How will the waste water be dealt with specifically? Can we be assured that this process will be overseen and regulated and by whom? We learned that an organic grower can filter and recycle their waste water but only through expensive specialty equipment. A commercial facility of this size will consume an enormous amount of water and produce a lot of waste water that has chemicals in it and would not likely be able to recycle due to the cost involved...millions of dollars for the equipment. Safety...increased traffic on Alfalfa Market Rd which already has several vehicles traveling at high speeds and around blind corners, the access to the subject property is on a dangerous corner. We are also concerned about EXHIBIT - I11 ' CSF .1 01�..,, the potential growth and size of this operation and the crime that comes along with the nature of this business that deals in large amounts of cash and the possibility of theft of the plants. Neighboring properties could be used by thieves to try and access the subject property. We have recently learned a great deal about the recreational marijuana business and the medical marijuana business and the impacts to our community. While we acknowledge the possible benefit of medical marijuana that is grown organically for people who are i11, we do not understand the need for recreational grow operations that don't fit into a residential setting. The majority of property owners in our county are using their properties for residential purposes, including ones zoned EFU and MUA. Also, we know from a local medical grower that the retail dispensaries currently have the supply they need and there is an overabundance of marijuana within Deschutes County. Since a medical grower typically has an excess that is difficult to get rid of to the dispensaries, then it would seem that the subject property's operations would have excess as well. This makes us wonder where the excess would possibly be sold and transported to...outside of our state, black market?. The subject property is close to the Bend Airport as well as E Hwy 20. We don't want to speculate in a negative way but don't want to be naive either. Can we be assured that OLCC will have a specific task force assigned to oversee compliance? Will we have enough local law enforcement to deal with the increase in problems that can arise from the approval of this type of grow facility? We appreciate very much being able to communicate our concerns to you and that you as our Board of County Commissioners have taken the time to hold a hearing and to listen to us as individuals and as a group. We are thankful to have you as leaders in our community and we are very hopeful that you will take additional information under consideration and change your initial decision of approval to denial. Respectfully, JI , Tony & Ericka Fredricks EXHIBIT ' t9. tom �� 0 I don't want to put my name on this, but there are other issues I think should be brought up to the commissioners. Rogelio Rubio is trying to take advantage of their admitted ignorance of the process of marijuana farming. He will use more resources than he claims, he will have more employees than he claims, and frankly, his operation will be a danger to the neighbors. He is lying and hoping he doesn't get caught. In hearing from Tim about his inside knowledge and deep expertise on the subject of growing marijuana, there is an excess of marijuana in the county. There is more pot than can fill the dispensaries. OLCC is not currently doing any enforcement — they are only issuing licenses at this point. The excess marijuana from Deschutes County (and likely elsewhere in the state) is being taken over state lines (flown and driven, it sounds like — what better location for Rubio's business than easy access to both highways and a local airport). By allowing marijuana to be grown in our county, the powers that be are complicit in the illegal drug trade. We MUST stop this person. We must, we must, we must! EXHIBIT 3 op 1 March 14, 2017 Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners c/o Associate Planner Jacob Ripper Community Development Department P. 0. Box 6005 Bend OR 97708-6005 Re: Appeal Determination Approving Marijuana Production Facility 247 -16 -000600 -AD Rubio Real Estate Investments LLC, Owner 23105 Alfalfa Market Road, Deschutes County Dear Deschutes County Commissioners: We live off Bennett Road on Roland within a half mile from Alfalfa Market Road and have resided on our 20 -acre property for 19 years raising pasture -fed cattle. We are part of a group of concerned neighbors appealing the approval of the subject property as a cannabis growing facility. The decision to allow this facility was made by a county determination without a public hearing because apparently where a decision is "deemed to be simple" and does not impact other residents, the decision does not require legal interpretation or a public hearing. We are contesting that decision because, in fact, it is anything BUT SIMPLE. A great many people are being impacted by this quickly - made approval decision. We believe the property is NOT suitable for the proposed facility and request that our appeal be upheld. A public hearing was held on March 6. Mr. Rubio failed to fully explain the questions that were put to him and left us with even more questions and a less -than -clear picture of what he plans to do. We do have more questions than answers as this is a new development for us and for the county. A few of our concerns and questions not answered by either by Mr. Rubio or the Commissioners, are listed below: 1. WATER USAGE: The properties in this area, generally five to 20 acres, come with irrigation rights. It is our understanding EXHIBIT OF 11 0 that marijuana requires a great deal of water. How will this impact our water usage? Mr. Rubio did not elaborate on how many plants he will be growing nor how much water they will need and how that water usage will impact neighbors. When Central Oregon Irrigation stops their water flow, we then use Avion water. Will he be recycling this enormous amount of gray water through a filtering system to be reused, or simply run out the water on the property? Does he plan on installing a septic system for the waste? Has Avion, in fact, been apprised of this proposal and notified of the increased demand this will make on their ability to deliver? Avion is intended for human consumption, not large-scale marijuana production. As it stands, we are currently stretched at times during the summer to get our quota of water. 2. WATER POLLUTION AND CONTAMINANTS: It is our understanding that marijuana growers use chemical supplements, including genetically modified ones, to enhance growth. This is of particular concern from an environmental standpoint. Exactly what kind of supplemental nutrients are used and what is their impact on the soil and land? How is this kind of hazard regulated and enforced? Is this planned as an organic growing farm? In either case, will commercial sprayers be used? If so, how will they affect neighbors? Additionally, there are neighbors on surrounding properties who grow organic food for their families. What will be the impact of the waste from this production facility on organic farming? 3. NOISE POLLUTION: There is concern over the level of noise that will emanate from continuous use of fans in a facility of the size proposed. This too poses an environmental concern and a definite negative lifestyle outcome for the neighbors. 4. LIGHT POLLUTION: We have been told by neighbors who live close to such a facility that lights are continuously on for both growth of the plants and for security at night. This would seriously impact those neighbors closest to the property and be a nuisance and degradation in lifestyle. Do Mr. Rubio's plans EXHIBIT I 2 OF 0 include incorporating current restrictions and ordinances around lighting in Deschutes County? 5. ELECTRICAL OUTPUT: Since the hothouses would be running 24/7, Mr. Rubio will need to disclose the level of electrical output and whether Central Oregon Electric would be prepared to deal with this kind of operation and the considerable extra drain on their resources. 6. ODOR POLLUTION: There is strong and unacceptable odor that comes from the harvesting of marijuana which will negatively impact all the neighbors in the area as well as property values. This would result in property and home depreciation. 7. PROPERTY VALUES: Property values in the area will be severely impacted if this operation is allowed for all the reasons listed. Most of us have lived and tended our properties for many years and do not want the value of our homes and land to be undervalued because we have this facility in our midst. 8. SAFETY: This is of prime concern. There have been concerns reported about "non -reported surplus" of marijuana being trucked, flown, and otherwise shipped to non -growing states making Oregon a prime supplier of a drug that is illegal in most other states. This results in unauthorized people seeking access to facilities, especially at night, posing a very real hazard to neighbors. There are other reports of dogs being allowed to freely roam these type of properties and being used as guard dogs, again posing a potential threat to neighbors and livestock, not to mention a danger to drivers of loose dogs on Alfalfa Market Road. 9. TRAFFIC: A large number of people are required for harvesting. From the quantity of plants able to be grown from a facility the size of that proposed, how many dozens of employees will be hired to harvest? How often are the plants harvested? Is there parking away from neighbors to accommodate the number of laborers required? EXHIBIT OF 3( I 0 10.ENFORCEMENT: Where is the Task Force and who serves on a Task Force to enforce codes? And are the Codes sufficient to maintain standards of living in Deschutes County? What about the criminal elements that are lured by this type of operation? Who do we call for assistance when we see unusual activity and what is in place and functioning to assure compliance with the law? 11.TAXATION AND FEES: How and who takes care of accounting for taxes and fees for such a project? If there is no task force in place for any regulation and enforcement, how can we be assured that those things will be accounted for? 12.DUE DILIGENCE: From what little we have learned directly from Mr. Rubio, our impression is that he has done very little research into this business and the impact it would have on the environment, the neighborhood or the lifestyle that most of us come to Bend and Deschutes County to enjoy. We are asking for our County Commissioners to take a strong and assertive stance in upholding our appeal and denying Mr. Rubio's request to build this facility in such a populated area. The county will be setting a precedent for other landowners who will face these same issues in the future. We are fighting for the very lifestyle for which we have worked so hard — one free of the infestation of outside forces that require us all to be consistently hyper vigilant. We are appreciative of your studied and measured consideration to this matter that will ultimately impact not only the neighbors around the property in question but potentially all of the rural neighborhoods and neighbors in our county. Sincerely, Richard and Maria Wattier EXHIBIT 7 OF TO: Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners c/o Associate Planner Jacob Ripper Community Development Department P.O. Box 6005 Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 RE: APPEAL OF DESCHUTES COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION APPROVING RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA PRODUCTION FACILITY 247 -16 -000600 -AD Rubio Real Estate Investments, LLC, Owner By Douglas R. White, Oregon Planning Solutions, Applicant/Agent 23105 Alfalfa Market Road, Deschutes County DATE: March 10, 2017 CC: Monika and Lance Piatt Dear Deschutes County Commissioners: We are writing to submit our support for the Piatt appeal to the application noted above. While not living at the subject property, we do have an Interest in the property, as Lance and Monika Platt are our son and daughter-in-law and we visit them quite frequently. Our concern is that due to the increased traffic this marijuana production facility will create, the safety of our family and that of their neighbors will be jeopardized. Our son's driveway is situated on Alfalfa Market Road and is adjacent with the property in question. Both properties are on blind curves in each direction. When my husband and I visit, it Is quite an ordeal to simply leave the property on an ordinary day. It takes two people to make sure that the traffic is clear from both directions and then the driver has to accelerate to ensure their automobile is up to speed before an on -coming car is upon them. The speed limit is 55 MPH, but it Is unusual for drivers to obey the speed limit. I can't remember a time that our automobile has been not passed at least once because we obey the speed limit. Each time we leave the property at 23095 Alfalfa Market Road our daughter -In-law verbally warns us to please be careful when we leave. We did attend the Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners' public hearing on March 6 on the appeal. My husband and I thought the public hearing was run in a very business -like manner and that the Commissioners gave deep thought to issues brought up by the neighbors, as well as forming important questions of their own. We are very appreciative of the time and consideration you are giving for such an important decision that needs to be appealed. Sincerely, Richard and Dolores Piatt 2060 Cinnamon Teal Dr. Redmond, Oregon 97756 EXHIBIT To the Departrnent of County Commissioners and Deschutes County In working through this challenge,mynindonnUnuemtomwxeMhnough3ereaa. • Suitability • Compatibility • Predictability The lot in question "Rubio -201" and its use for a recreational pot grow and harvesting operation is unfit' for this neighborhood. As you already know EFU is 'exclusive farm use" and MUA1 0 is mutti-use agriculture" (small hobby and famUy properties). This neighborhood has been operating as an MUA1 0 area for decades... not EFU. As an example, our property (23095) which is EFU, as weti as our neighbor's to the east iaalso EFU. The reason for this is due to a lack of re -zoning to keep the continuity of what EFU and MAUI° is supposed to. Neither of these two properties should zoned mothey ana... thus, the Rubio property is literally surrounded by MUA10 zoned property and all are family, small scale hobby properties and is very much, a neighborhood. Thus, we have a huge zoning probfem and one that has helped to create this land use development". In this neighborhood, we have families, kids, and grandkids (and their friends) as well as small home offices. A pot operation of the size and rnagnitude being purported is riot suitable for the Because there will be no owner occupant on the Rubio property, nor will there be, the proposed pot operation... (which is federally illegal) is not compatible with the neighborhood. It violates and confuses the kid's perceptions and understanding of our state's and nation's ability to work together and represent its own citizens well. What kind of message is being sent when a federally illegal drug operation is being let loose in a neighborhood and deemed ok? The property becomes an predictable attractant for vagrant people not suitable or compatible for this neighborhood. Two of the dozens of pot advocacy magazines, such as High Times and Cracked all write articles warning "would be growers and active growers" of the predictability of the following.., 1. Increased crime... armed robberies (when an operations is producing 500-700 lbs of marijuana every 30-40 days and stands to net $500,000 every month (which what i0.OUUsq, hand 1UU0+plants will do). 2. Law Enforcement raids (Every large scale operation contends with this due to #1) 3. The technical meaning of ''Schools"... "anywhere where children may gather regularly. That could technically mean a church, a local park, a zoo, a movie theater or even neighbors houses, if they have childnBD.^ Maw —^—` y //Y7 4. Transporting a federally illegal substance through the backdoor and over state lines (education on how this should be done and avoid detection from neighbors). 5. Contaminating the groundwater is an act of terrorism. (there is currently zero evidence as to how Rudio plans to keep his pollutants contained and disposed of. 6. A quote for Cracked Magazine... Basically. arowina frecreationall weed for a Iivina is like willinaly addina your name to the sex offender registry: Your neiahbors no lonaer trust you. and the authorities forbid you from, comina into contact with children. 7. And Security.... How protect your property (including using buffer zones i.e. neighborhoods). Mr. Rubio fully intends to use our neighborhood as his own security buffer. We are his guard dogs, his camera (because apparently the cameras are more focused internally for theft and taxes than they are for neighborhood or property security. We do not condone using small family properties as a security measure for someone's not operations. This is the countv's responsibility to serve their community properly which includes property owners already settled into life on Alfalfa Market Rd. It is a well known fact that armed trucks are common in large scale pot operations (which Rubio is most certainly part of this at 10,000 sq ft. and growing). Armed for one reason only, they bring a very dangerous climate into our neighborhood. And on this topic, they are entering an alley -way that is both illegal for Rubio to use and using an illegal point of entry to and from a dangerous road. Illegal driveway? The records show the driveway permit is awarded to 23095 Alfalfa Market... Bottom line pot growing operations are an attractant for vile behavior not fitting for a neighborhood that should be MUA10... the state voted, ignorantly, to approve this activity, however if the voting was to have taken place in Deschutes County... it would not have passed (which is what we are discussing here... county business). The county itself didn't even get a chance to vote because of this simple decision. Not so simple is it? If someone wants to build a pot operation... then they need to do it away from people. kids and, in desianated areas where the decline of neighborhood culture doesn't happen, Lance Piatt 23095 Alfalfa Market Rd. Bend Oregon 9770:1 )/'(f . 7-- EXHIBIT - EXHIBI I 1� op l/ 0 March 14, 2017 Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners c/o Associate Planner, Jacob Ripper Community Development Department P.O. Box 6005 Bend, Oregon 97708 Regarding: 247 -16 -000600 -AD Rubio Real Estate Investments, LLC, Owner By: Douglas R. White, Oregon Planning Solutions, Applicant/Agent 23105 Alfalfa Market Rd., Deschutes County Dear Deschutes County Commissioners: Our names are Jerome Davey and Jan Davey and we live at 62443 Waugh Road, approximately 1,000 feet from the proposed marijuana grow operation. We moved into our home, which we built, in 2008 but we have lived in Bend for 25 years. This is the home where our family comes to enjoy summer and winter activities. At least 3-4 times a week we will have our six grandchildren and great nieces and nephews at our home. Our property is zoned R10 and it is a 5 -acre parcel. We were at the hearing on March 6, and do wish you would have given the 30 days for you to consider this decision. We have several concerns with this proposed site. Surrounded by smaller parcels with children We may not have a school within 1,000 feet from the proposed site, but the properties surrounding the proposed site are smaller lots with families who have small children who are either living on the property or who are regular visitors to the property. In our opinion this is not an appropriate lot for a grow operation and should probably be rezoned by the County rather than making this decision that will impact the families surrounding this EFU parcel. Odor I want to address the odor issue because as a realtor I am seeing more and more buyers avoid properties that are in proximity to a marijuana growing operation. Their concerns are not only the criminal element the operation might bring, but the odor these operations cause has been an issue in other areas. This property, because it is surrounded by smaller parcels, seems to show that it is predictable that odor will be an issue; there just isn't enough separation from the smaller parcels from this particular EFU property. When I went online to the County website, the regulations listed include requirements which marijuana growing operations must abide by with regard to timing of lights, fans, and odor controls, to name a few. I know that Lane County has been having a real issue with complaints from families living near marijuana growing operations; and an article last year in the Register -Guard gives us a pretty good indication that we need assurances that regulations can be enforced. EXHIBIT I" Lane County Commissioner Jay Bozeivich says more needs to be done to make sure the odors of marijuana growing operations don't interfere with Lane County homeowners' quality of living. "This high impact and sometimes dangerous commercial activity needs to be limited in residential setting." My hope is that this last sentence in Lane County Commissioner's statement is taken into your thoughtful consideration. We are looking to you, the commissioners of Deschutes County, to re- evaluate and not approve this application because of the surrounding residential setting and the impact this marijuana growing operation would have. I have met with people who have marijuana operations next to their properties and it is a living hell. The smell is so bad during harvesting they cannot open their windows and even with the windows closed it still stinks up their house. They have multiple complaints into the county and all have been ignored. My question to the board is, since it is predictable that odor will affect the quality of life for citizens in the surrounding smaller parcels, how are you going to handle compliance from this grow operation? What assurances can you give surrounding homeowners? Finally, who will enforce and what is our recourse if odor becomes an issue and does affect our quality of life? Stories from other citizens in this county reveal that despite numerous complaints, no enforcement is happening. I think that the Commissioners owe us this in writing. Sewage -septic impact At the hearing we were told that any workers who were hired to harvest were going to be using Rubio's future home's bathrooms. How are they going to use the bathrooms when they are not building the home first? What will happen is that Rubio will have portable bathrooms delivered to the property causing trucks to come in and out affecting traffic. I believe that the applicant said that the home's bathroom would be used by workers because they knew a septic system would not be allowed for their grow operation. The septic feasibility was completed for a residence. This is another reason that this application should not be allowed. Marijuana waste disposal—liquids and solids The Commissioners need to let us know who is making sure this waste is disposed of in a proper manner. For example, Washington's marijuana laws state: (1) Solid and liquid wastes generated during marijuana production and processing must be stored, managed, and disposed of in accordance with applicable state and local laws and regulations. (2) Wastewater generated during marijuana production and processing must be disposed of in compliance with applicable state and local laws and regulations. (3) Wastes from the production and processing of marijuana plants must be evaluated against the state's dangerous waste regulations (chapter 173-303 WAC) to determine if those wastes designate as dangerous waste. What environmental impact studies have been done by the State of Oregon to properly designate marijuana waste and its disposal thereof? Bend likes to tout itself as an environmentally friendly/conscious place to live and visit. Do we stand by our values of our commitment to the environment and providing healthy living for our citizens? EXHIBIT 1), OF II Losing Bend Finally, my comment is that as Commissioners for Deschutes County you have a responsibility to your community, to your voters, and to all citizens to take the time to make this pivotal decision in a thoughtful manner and not rush to get it over with. We expect strict regulations to be set and enforced to ensure that Bend and surrounding areas will remain the family -friendly area that it is; we do not welcome "legal cartels" in this community. Did you know that the area is producing more marijuana than it sells locally and legally? What is happening to the excess? It is being taken out of state for the black market in states where marijuana is still illegal. The OLCC is not enforcing marijuana laws and codes. Just yesterday it was announced that Governor Brown is likely to cut drug enforcement officer positions. What happens next? Central Oregon becomes even more popular as a trafficking destination and there won't be much clone to enforce it. Is that how you see the future of Bend? Bend is a very special community with people coming here because of the active lifestyle and beauty it offers. We need stricter regulations that set the greater good of our community as the highest goal, rather than allowing this "cash crop" to take over our community and rural neighborhoods. You must not put cash before your community; that is not what Bend is about — or, I hope that you don't think it is. This decision is important to us as a neighborhood/community and we are putting in your hands our concerns; we pray you take the time to reflect. Thank you for hearing our concerns. Respectfully, yr Jan and Jerome -Davey EXHt March 11, 2017 Monika Piatt 23095 Alfalfa Market Road Bend, OR 97701 Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners c/o Associate Planner Jacob Ripper Community Development Department P.O. Box 6005 Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 Re: Appeal of Deschutes County administrative determination approving recreational marijuana production facility 247 -16 -000600 -AD Rubio Real Estate Investments, LLC, Owner By Douglas R. White, Oregon Planning Solutions, Applicant/Agent 23105 Alfalfa Market Road, Deschutes County Dear Mr. Ripper and Deschutes County Commissioners: Thank you for hearing the appeal regarding the above proposed marijuana production facility on Alfalfa Market Road. I was at the appeal hearing on Monday, March 6 and was the first person to speak on behalf of the neighbors in the community surrounding Mr. Rubio's property. I am the one who filed the appeal, but please note, I am one of numerous neighbors who oppose this location for this new commercial recreational marijuana production facility. Because this one 20 -acre parcel is surrounded by multiple smaller parcels, including the Donna Lane subdivision, there are 28 properties located within 1000' of this proposed facility. We have lived here for 2'/2 years and have owned our rescue and safety business for over 20 years. My husband and I both have home offices for our online gear sales and online safety rigging based business, but no vendors or clients come to our home to conduct business. Our property is affectionately known to us as "green acres" because it needed work and cleaning up when we first purchased it. As a member of the Bend Hardy Plant Gardening Club, I take great enjoyment in the environment and maintaining an eco - friendly habitat on our property. Since my husband and I spend so much time outside, through our observation we have conducted our own traffic study during our time of residence here. An increase of traffic - especially on an increasingly busy road with properties situated on a blind turn - is a major concern and reason to decline the applicant's request for a commercial marijuana business on this property. EXIITBTT 1 jy of /10 As mentioned in the hearing, our property is located less than two miles east of the Powell Butte Highway roundabout. Prior to the roundabout, traffic at the intersection of Alfalfa Market Road and Powell Butte Highway created a danger to the community. We give a big thank you Deschutes County for recognizing this and making this well - traveled arterial safer! Our particularsection of Alfalfa Market Road has a blind corner that begins at Waugh Road and ends at Stenkamp/Bennett Road. A "slow to 50 mph" sign is located on both west and east ends of this curve. There are NO posted speed limit signs on the well - traveled road, and excessive speeding is commonplace. Last February, I worked with Mike Martin and George Kolb with the Road Department requesting solar flashing lights on these "slow to 50 mph" signs, offering that we as neighbors would be happy to cover the costs incurred. Apparently, flashing features were only applicable to approaching stop signs at that time. Because of my safety concern/observations - there are five driveways in a row on this dangerous turn (four on the south side, including Rubio's property and one on the north side) - the road department found it appropriate to install a "hidden driveway ahead" sign for our neighborhood. We are grateful for this gesture of safety, which also came with a warning not to expect speeds to decrease for our residences. It is guaranteed that the proposed new commercial recreational marijuana production facility would increase traffic on a road/route that currently has the following uses/locations: - Boat ramp at Prineville Reservoir (water ski boats) - Crooked River (fishing boats) - Four corners (OHV and motocross bikes) - Traffic route for Alfalfa residents - Route for Targe scale marijuana grow operations in alfalfa (owners and employees) - Scenic route for motorcycles and vehicles - Road bicycles on the bike lanes Senior transportation planner for Deschutes County, Peter Russell, reviewed the materials for this 12,000 square foot proposed commercial recreational marijuana production facility/operation. According to the most recent edition of the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook, there does not exist a category for marijuana production. In consultation with the road department director and planning staff, the County has determined the best analog use is "warehouse" (land use 150) based on the storage requirements and employees of this activity. A warehouse generates daily trips at a rate of 3.56 per 1,000 square feet. The resulting warehouse trip rate would be 42 new daily trips. In speaking with multiple marijuana growers, it is my understanding that Mr. Rubio has greatly underestimated the number of employees he would need to farm his marijuana crop. The operation of growing marijuana and employment needs thereof is not strictly EXHMIT 19. of f l 0 a "one and done" deal. Employees are needed to fertilize, water, inspect for pests, monitor plant growth, handle waste, apply pesticides, trim (this is when extra employees are needed), etc. In speaking with the other growers, an operation with a canopy of 10,000 square feet is considered to be a large grow and it is possible that the applicant could have thousands of plants growing. An operation of this magnitude requires many hands-on tasks that cannot be performed with just a few people every now and then. To say otherwise is simply untrue. Staff finding requires the applicant to submit additional materials for unclear or missing information prior to deeming the application complete. Please note, neither the applicant nor Peter Russell addressed my appeal's objection of this particular section of Alfalfa Market Road. Again, there is a blind turn and there are five hidden driveways (including Rubio's) along this stretch of road. I have concerns with increased traffic use by a number of employees serving a 10,000 square foot canopy. A commercial business on a blind turn where speeds already exceed 55 mph (and where impatient drivers consistently pass), is a safety hazard to the general public. We ask that the commissioners decline the application due to the safety hazard it proposes to the public right-of-way. Regarding access to the property in question, marijuana production facilities with over 5,000 square feet of canopy area must comply with the standard of having frontage on AND legal direct access. The Rubio's property, where the growing buildings will be does not have frontage on Alfalfa Market Road; our property runs parallel and directly north of the front of their entire lot. Additionally, the property line adjustment under file 247 -15 -000280 -LL approved an adjustment between the subject property and the properties identified on County Assessor's Map 17-13-28 as tax lots 1600 and 1601. The result of the property line adjustment would be a consolidation of tax lot 1601 with tax lot 201. The property line adjustment has not received final approval because copies of the recorded survey and new deeds have not been submitted to the Planning Division, according to the Findings & Decison document. We ask that the commissioners decline the application due to issues with access to the property and easements thereof. I would like to provide some background on the land use history. The subject property received a conditional use permit approval to establish a non-farm dwelling under file CU -05-6. That land use permit expired prior to the use being established. Another conditional use permit under file 247 -15 -000103 -CU approved an application to re- establish the expired non-farm dwelling approval. The non-farm dwelling has not been established as of the date of mailing of Findings & Decision. At the hearing on March 6, Mr. Rubio stated he intends to build a home, in addition to the proposed recreational marijuana production facility. The staff finding on Staff Memorandum dated February 27, 2017 states: "The rocky outcrop associated with the building envelope for the non- EnnlT r farm dwelling approved by file 247 -15 -000103 -CU applies to the dwelling and those uses which are accessory to the dwelling. It limits residential development to the area of the property previously identified in the non-farm dwelling approval as the least suitable area for farm use. Because the proposed marijuana production is not an accessory residential use, these structures may be located outside of the non-farm dwelling building envelope." Am I the only one who is getting lost in this story? I would like to direct your attention to the prohibited uses in the code: "In the EFU zone, the following use is prohibited: A new dwelling used in conjunction with a marijuana crop." However, at the hearing on March 6, the applicant and his agent Doug White stated they are building a home, which will also provide restrooms to their employees from the facility on site. What about a septic permit and plan? Isn't that part of any building process? In addition, would the house and the production facility share a septic system? Would the liquid waste from producing marijuana go into the septic system? We ask that the commissioners decline the application due to insufficient information (and laws) regarding disposal of both liquid and solid waste (which would also undoubtedly contain pesticides that would be harmful to groundwater or a septic system). We are also concerned about the odor emitted by 10,000 square feet of recreational marijuana production. DCC 18.116330(B)(10)(a-b) requires a marijuana producer to show that it has an appropriate and effective odor control system. Has the applicant proven what his odor control systems will be? Further, have the systems themselves been tested by an air-quality engineer to prevent odor from escaping the warehouse and greenhouses? What about the strong winds we have on the east side of Bend? Has the odor control system proven to contain all odors inside the buildings themselves, preventing the odor from being carried on the wind to neighbors on all sides, depending which way the wind is blowing? Other concerns which I addressed in both my letter to the county on October 25, 2016, as well as the appeal filed on January 23, 2017, are regarding light pollution, use of a secure waste receptacle, and visual impacts. In the staff finding on Staff Memorandum dated February 27, 2017, it is noted that Deschutes County Code (DCC) does not authorize to review concerns of neighborhood crime, criminal trespassing, environmental impacts, and property value concerns (points 5-8) in relation to the proposal. Certainly, however, environmental impacts cannot be ignored when discussing the viability of a schedule 1 federally illegal drug which requires a lot of water and pesticide use in order to maximize crop growth. Odor control, light pollution, use of a secure waste receptacle and visual impacts, are covered in points 1-4 and must be addressed. We ask that the commissioners decline the application due to environmental hazards;, odor, noise, and light pollution; and lack of ability to promise a guaranteed odor control measures. ExHrBrr = 17 OF 110 Last but not least, we have repeatedly asked WHO holds the OLCC license for this proposed recreational marijuana production facility, in the midst of 28 properties, many with children and grandchildren on adjoining properties. It is the right of the neighbors to know who the business owner/operator is. Per the staff finding on February 27, 2017, the proposed use includes only (1) OLCC licensed marijuana production site. The criterion does not require the applicant to identify an individual but does limit the number of licensed or registered grow sites to one site per parcel. Finally, I have the most important question for you. If this proposed facility were in the middle of your neighborhood and you didn't know who was coming and going, whether or not someone would be be residing there or not, knowing it is a federally illegal schedule 1 drug, and whether or not the criteria would actually be met and/or enforced (as proven it has not been in Tumalo, for example), would you approve this application? We value the wonderful community of neighbors we have and we feel our case has shown that multiple criteria cannot be met, thereby requiring you to decline this application. Thank you for taking the time to hold a public hearing and to listen to the concerns of the neighborhood. Sincerely, Monika Piatt t_0F f I 0 3/x/7 Dear Bend County Commissioners, My wife and I live at 23057 Donna Lane, Bend, Or 97701. Our property line is less than 1000 feet from the property line of the proposed 10,000 sq ft recreational marijuana growing operation located at 23105 Alfalfa Market Road, Bend, Or 97701. We have the following concerns: 1) It is my understanding that there will be two greenhouses and a main building. None of these structures will exceed 30 feet in height. Is only one level allowed in the main building, or is a second level allowed, doubling the growing space. How many levels are allowed in the 2 greenhouses? 2) How much marijuana can be produced per month in this operation? Is there a maximum limit in pounds that can be produced per month or year? Does someone keep track of where the marijuana's final destination is? My concern is with so many marijuana growers in Oregon and Washington that there will be a surplus that cannot be utilized in the present markets. The temptation to overgrow and smuggle the excess into other states where it is presently illegal would be ever present. In other states where it is illegal, the cost of marijuana is much higher than in states where it is legal. It would be in the marijuana grower's financial interest to sell it illegally in those states. 3) Is the utility company able to supply enough power to the grow operation? Are the present utility lines able to support this extra load? 4) The ongoing conditions of approval have standards for lighting (not visible outside the building from 7pm to 7am and exterior lighting shall be shielded so that direct light does not project off site), odor control (odor control system must at all times prevent unreasonable interference with neighbors use and enjoyment of their property), and noise (shall not exceed 30 dB(A) measured at any property line between 10pm and 7am). The lighting control is to the point. The odor control is ambiguous, who's definition of unreasonable are we using? The noise control is to the point, but what if that level of noise is not acceptable to one of the neighbors? Will there be periodic inspections to determine if the grower is complying with the rules. What are the penalties for breaking these rules? What rules have other grow operations broken and how have they been resolved? 5) During the winter months the irrigation canals are dry. Is the grower going to use purified drinking water for his plants? It does not seem environmentally friendly using purified drinking water to grow crops. What volume of water is to be used? What type of pesticide will the grower be using and is this safe for the environment and is it safe for the consumer? EXHIBIT I- (71 OF 0 6) How will the waste be stored? How much waste can be stored on the property at any one time? What is considered an excess amount of waste on the property? How does the grower get rid of the excess waste? 7) Will the grower be self -reporting in the annual report? Will there be surprise inspections to determine if the grower is following the rules? Is there any over site of the grower? 8) Why wasn't potential crime and the impact of a marijuana grow operation so close to a neighborhood with small children not factored into the decision to permit or deny the applicant. I find this omission irresponsible. In conclusion, we feel that all the issues have not been properly addressed. Furthermore, we believe that this area is a very poor location for a marijuana grow operation with its proximity to a neighborhood and small children. There is not one neighbor who embraces this pot growing facility. It would be in Deschutes counties best interest to keep all such pot growing facilities a far distance from any neighborhoods and small children. Sincerely, William and Iva Rudolph (1/0( (44/p1/) _2305 7 OO/ff4 GANG &.5ND, OR 9 7 7 ©/ 1x rnrr ole /10 Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners c/o Associate Planner Jacob Ripper Community Development Department PO Box 605 Bend Or 97708-6005 Regarding: Appeal of Des Co Administrative Determination approving Recreational Marijuana Production Facility 247 -16 -000600 -AD Rubio Real Estate Investments, LLC By Douglas R. White, Oregon Planning Solutions, Applicant/Agent 23105 Alfalfa Market Road, Deschutes County March 13, 2017 Deschutes County Commissioners, Thank you for taking your valuable time to reconsider this important issue. My husband and I live on the south side of this proposed Marijuana grow. My husband's elderly mother also lives on the south side on the lot next to ours. Our lots together equal 10 acres that border this 20 acre parcel. We raise a small herd of cattle on this land. Our family has lived on this land since 1972. My grandchildren have been raising 4-H pigs on our property for the last 9 years. We will be getting 5 expensive show pigs next weekend to raise and show at the Deschutes County Fair. The pens for these animals are on the north side of our property and border the proposed grow. It is not appropriate for our grandchildren and their animals to be so close to this proposed grow. Our grandchildren are on our property daily to care for and train the animals. Another point of concern is the use of domestic water required for this operation. There are irrigation rights to this parcel but they are regulated by the federal government so not available to this operation. This property is bordered by 27 parcels of 5 or less acres that are within 1000 feet. These 27 residences will be affected by not only odor but light and noise pollution. This crop requires pesticides and multiple other chemicals that are going to have a negative impact on our neighbors, ground water, air and EXHIBIT OF 0 animals. We have not been informed of the method of waste disposal. What impact will this have on our ground water, soil and air quality? Our driveway is long and leads toward the proposed grow site. If you Google the proposed grow property it appears that our drive leads directly to it. We have already had trespassers trying to access across our land. Research of growing operations indicates that it takes one person per plant to trim the buds during harvest and they will harvest one time per month. An operation of this size would have upwards of 1000 plants. Mr. Rubio testified that he would be doing all of the operation himself, then he said that a 5 man crew was the most he would need to grow and harvest his crop. I am very familiar with the access off of Alfalfa Market Road. There are 5 driveways that are on a very blind curve. Drivers travel at 55+ mph and the risk of car crashes is increased with the additional workers that will be accessing this property. My husband provided testimony at the hearing on March 6, 2017. I was in attendance. Mr. Rubio's either lack of knowledge or unwillingness to respond to questions from Deschutes County Commissioners was of great concern to me, and should have been a concern t you also. Would you not agree that moving this operation to an area with more open space be appropriate? Please reconsider this land use application and decline to approve it for all of the reasons I have stated above. Thank you again for all of your time and attention to vital issue. Sincerely, Carol Fair 23054 Donna Lane Bend, OR 97701 EXHIBIT 1 OF March 13, 2017 Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners, Regarding 247 -16 -000600 -AD Rubio Real Estate Investments, LLC, Owner By Douglas R. White, Oregon Planning Solutions, Applicate/Agent 23105 AlfaIf Market Road, Deschutes County Hello my Elected County Commissioners, my name is Ramona Newman and have lived at 23042 Donna Lane lot # 501 between Robert and Carol Fair and Jerry and Beverly Powell, since October of 2000, so we are in our 17th year living in our home, and both nieghbors have been here for over 30 years. We have successfully raised three boys and now are starting to have grandchildren. Liam is turning 2 on the 30th of this month and one more on the way. I watch Liam every Tuesday while his mother and father are working, and they usually bring him out at least once on the weekend. Our family has had horses, cows, and chickens on this property, we usually raise one to two cows a year, one for beef and the other is for my nephew for FFA. He comes over twice a day when he needs to feed and work his steer. We have about a 3 acre piece of property and can see the subjects property in our back yard, I am concerned that the view out my back will become an eye sore when we are out back BBQing with family and friends and playing with our grandkids, I can hardly keep Liam indoors. My other concerns are the quality of life you would be allowing into this residential part of Bend, people all over want to come to Bend and live to have a better quality of life, to escape the polution, bad water, and crime. The odor of marijuana smells as bad as a skunk and I'm sure you wouldn't want to smell that in your backyard. Also I'm sure you would agree that it is very nice to be able to go to any faucet and get a fresh glass of water, we all know that they will need more water to run their bussiness then we do to just keep our animals and grass fed, what happens if this passes and then you realize it isn't only bad for Bend residents but it is really bad for our environment. Since 2005 Tammy has recieved at least 6 awards, and Tony has recieved at least 4 awards since 2006, Phil I'm not sure about you, but I would give you one just for your kindness you showed me the day of the meeting when I asked for directions, so now what I would like to ask all of you is what do you want to be known for when you leave your position on the County Commissioners seat, I hope that you would be known for keeping Bend a beautiful place to raise a family and a beautiful place to retire and not some place that used to be beautiful but 1 EXHIBIT ! 0 now is a place where there is less fresh air, no more fresh water and a place of crime, because we are all about money and drugs instead of a great quality of life. I would ask that you would really consider all of us as property owners, and the fact that most of us have made a life for ourselves and our families out here in what I call Gods country, and thank you so much for taking the time to read my letter. I have prayed for this situation on several occasions and I am praying for all of you while you are considering this appeal. Respectfully, Ramona Newman 2 EXHIBIT OF /10 )eschutes County Board of County Commissioners /o Associate Planner Jacob Ripper '0 Box 6005 Send, Oregon 97708-6005 regarding Appeal of Deschutes County Administrative Determination Approving recreational MarijuanaProduction Facility\ :47 -16 -000600 -AD Rubio Real Estate Investments,LLC Owner 3y Douglas White,Oregon Planning Solutions.Applicant Agent :3105 Alfalfa Market Road,Deschutes County Marcg 14, 2017 Dear Sirs and Madams of the Deschutes County Commissioners; Our Home is located approximately 950 feet from the subjects property. We have lived in this residence since September of 1980 and we moved to this location because we had farm animals that needed space. Currently only we( Norm & Deedy Whittington) live here –but our two daughters and families (grandchildren) frequent;y 'isit. The odor control is a major issue My husband is an engineer as well and knows that one engineers opinion of odor control is not sufficient to be taken as guarantee that the proposed system would be adequate to prevent all odor. We frequently have smelled the "SKUNK" like odor from the Alfalfa grow operation. All of the surrounding homes have only been used for small farm operations or to just have space between homes. Also a major concern is the use oof "POTABLE WATER" FOR GROWING MARIJUANA --That water becomes contaminated with the chemicals and other fast grow items and cannot be used again as POTABLE WATER. Just last night March 13 2017 on the news the Sheriffs department is underfunded and cannot give support to us for the criminal type" transporters of marijuana across state lines via vehicle or plane that could occur. There are not enough local dispensaries to buy this quantity of marijuana locally as this operation projected is huge and would be harvesting regularly. Since we are in Oregon could the federal govenment cut off funds through the department of Agricultuire because we are going against federal laws regarding growing "controlled drug substance"? There are too many questions regarding this operation and the status of legality and harmful cindiitions that need to be answere before any more grow operations should be in Deschutes county --.how many can one county handle??? We attended the meeting on March 6th 2017 and felt the commisioners were trying to hear all sides of the issue. My only question is when the legality of the marijuana was approved in 2016 as an EFU addition—who was present at that time and who was notified. Just because the Oregon Voters approved the recreational use did the new bill provide t" " that EF property OF II 1-11.11 • !: Gama oe usea as i- . marijuana operation ror recreational use or meaicai use: Hopefully requesting that you do NOT approve of the application for a Marijuana grow operation on this property known as 23105 Alfalfa Market Rd.. &,) (6; „it...67_7, L.) e1 -r -/--e }Cr& Sincerely Norman and Zora Whittington 23011 Donna Lane Bend Opregon 97701 Phone 541-382-5950 EXHIBIT OF /I1:7 March 14, 2017 Susan Altman 62231 Bennett Road Bend, OR 9770I Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners c/o Associate Planner Jacob Ripper Community Development Department P.O. Box 6005 Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 Re; Appeal of Deschutes County administrative determination approving recreational marijuana production facility 247 -16 -000600 -AD Rubio Real Estate Investments, LLC, Owner By Douglas R. White, Oregon Planning Solutions, Applicant/Agent 23105 Alfalfa Market Road, Deschutes County Dear Mr. Ripper and Deschutes County Commissioners: Thank you for hearing the appeal regarding the above proposed marijuana production facility on Alfalfa Market Road, 1 was at the appeal hearing on Monday, March 6 and was the last person to speak in favor of Monika and Lance Piatt and on behalf of my family and the neighbors in the community surrounding Mr. Rubio's property. In addition to the issues I brought up regarding waste, I would like to address three more issues that I think are vitally important, and which also reflect the applicant's inability to meet the criteria set forth by the DCC Code 1 18.1 16.330 regarding Marijuana Production, Processing, and Retailing. For the sake of fluidity in addressing the issues brought up by the applicant's counsel during the rebuttal phase of the hearing, 1 will be presenting my thoughts out of order of the code, but in line with my reasoning. The three issues are easements, utilities, and pollution. The documents I refer to in this letter are: 247 -15 -000103 -CU dated 3/5/15 — Land Use Application 247 -15 -000103 -CU dated 5/15/15 — Email regarding Land Use Application 247-15-000103-CIJ dated 6/16/15 — Farm & Forest Management Easement — 247 -16 -000600 -AD dated 1/10/17—Findings & Decisions Under Section B(20)(a) of the code it is written: In the EFU zone, the following uses are prohibited: i. A new dwelling used in conjunction with a marijuana crop Both consultant and counsel to Mr. Rubio indicated that he intends to build a home on the property; his consultant indicated that due to finances being tight at the moment, Mr. Rubio would like to build a marijuana production facility before building a home. Counsel indicated that there exists for this property an approved conditional use permit for a non-farm dwelling and that should be accepted as -is and transferred with the sale of the property to Mr. Rubio. Arguably, the code is not written to say that "pre- existing conditional use permits arc allowed as exceptions to this code." The code is clear that no new 1 of flirt /,w A -k -a ch r n t -s I'in I A c iI I' 2 dwellings may be built. In addition, conditional use permits have time limits. What is the expiration on the current CUP? Under Section B(8)(c) of the code it is written: If the property takes access via a private road or easement which also serves other properties, the applicant shall obtain written consent to utilize the easement or private road for marijuana production access from all owners who have access rights to the private road or easement. If the commissioners consider that the current approved Conditional Use Permit stands, then the commissioners must review and accept the conditions set forth for the approval of the CUP. That is to say, if the conditional use permit goes with the property, then the guidelines under which the permit was approved should apply. As an addendum to the original CUP application, there is a supplemental email from which I quote: "For purposes of the Conditional Use Permit decision, please use Richardson Road as the intended access• " (Document: Email regarding Land Use Application) In addition, the most recent Land Use Application (Document: Land Use Application) indicates on page 7 under question 5(a) the following: "Question: Describe what access the property has to public roads .. . Answer: Existing easement to Alfalfa Market Road." In the same document, under the Burden of Proof dated March 4, 2015, Mrs. Hasse states, "The site takes access from Richardson Road via recorded access easement (A9760), recorded on 2-1-2012." Furthermore, in the same document the Statutory Warranty Deed has language that refers to . • • TOGETHER WITH an easement for ingress and egress , . as necessary for access to Alfalfa Market Road ... " Also attached is a Farm and Forest Management Easement (Document: Farm & Forest Management Easement). In this easement, which was part of the Conditional Use Application from 2015, it reads, "In accordance with the conditions set forth in the decision of the Deschutes County Planning Division, dated May 12, 2015, approving land use permit 247 -15 -000103 -CU, Grantor hereby grants to owner(s) of all property adjacent to the above-described property (Grantees), a perpetual non-exclusive farm and forest practices management easement as follows: .conducted in accordance with Federal AND [emphasis mine] State Laws Grantor shall comply with all restrictions and conditions for maintaining residences in farm and forest zones that may be required by State, Federal, and local land use laws and regulations. This easement is appurtenant to all property adjacent to all above-described property, and shall bind the heirs, successors, and assigns of Grantor, and shall endure for the benefit of the adjacent landowners, their heirs, successors, and assigns. The adjacent landowners, their heirs, successors, and assigns are hereby expressly granted the right of third party enforcement of this easement." EXHIBIT OF I/d /w Mtn c h m eAn-l-s ' i; t I :'\ 1 i e; t 1 -- l' ; i 1,1 c As the currently -approved CUP suggests, the subject property has an easement, which in and of itself makes that criterion unable to be met. Furthermore, the Farm and Forest Management Easement indicates that it must be in accordance with Federal AND State Laws. Production, processing, and retailing of marijuana is against Federal Law; the conditions of the FFM easement are clear that restrictions and conditions must be in accordance with Federal Law. This is another reason why the criterion can't be met. Under Section B(13), it is written: Water. The applicant shall provide: a. A copy of a water right permit, certificate, or other water use authorization from the Oregon Water Resource Department; or b. A statement that water is supplied from a public or private water provider, along with the name and contact information of the water provider; or c. Proof from the Oregon Water Resources Department that the water to be used is from a source that does not require a water right Applicant provided a Patron Taxlot Inquiry from COID as their burden of proof that COID will serve the property. However; at the bottom of the letter, the last sentence reads, "Water rights are subject to the laws and rules of the State of Oregon and the federal government [emphasis mine] and the policies of the district." Again, this criterion cannot be met, as the production, processing, and retailing of marijuana is illegal according to Federal Law. Furthermore, COID water is only available April through October. How will the applicant water his plants when COID water is not provided? Avion does not have the capacity to serve an operation of this size, so he will have to dig an irrigation well to be able to grow his crop. Has he shown proof of any ground water rights? Under Section B(15), it is written: Utility Verification. A statement from each utility company proposed to serve the operation, stating that each such company is able and willing to serve the operation, shall be provided. In the Findings & Decisions, the Finding states, "Staff was not able to locate the 'will -serve' letter associated with the CUP file 247 -15 -000103 - CU in Planning Division records. Regardless, a 'will -serve' letter from the electric utility from the referenced CUP would have been for residential use and would not satisfy this criterion." [emphasis mine] The paragraph goes on to say suggest that the criterion can feasibly be met. However, as it stands in the application, this criterion is also not met. Under Section D(1), it is written: Annual Reporting 1. An annual report shall be submitted to the Community Development Department by the real property owner or licensee, if different, each February 1, documenting all of the following as of December 31 of the previous year, including the applicable fee as adopted in the current County Fee Schedule and a fully executive Consent to Inspect Premises form: a. Documentation demonstrating compliance with the: EXHIBIT OF /w RM -a c h n�ten 1'ialt AI)I,eaI - Pagc 4 i. Land use decision and permits. ii. Fire, health, safety, waste water, and building codes and laws. What are the waste water laws regarding production of marijuana? What are the guidelines and acceptable practices? What is to be done with the grey water from production? Will there be a separate septic system installed? If not, will the waste water go directly into the ground? If so, what are the suspected or known environmental impacts? Looking at Washington State as an example, neither septic nor surface water discharge are allowed. This needs to be defined for the Deschutes County Code in order to be able to properly process this application and future applications. Under Section B(10), it is written: Odor. As used in DCC 18.116.330(B)(10), building means the building, including greenhouses, hoop houses, and other similar structures, used for marijuana production or marijuana processing. a. The building shall be equipped with an effective odor control system which must at all times prevent unreasonable interference of neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. b. ... c. .. d. The odor control system shall: i. Consist of one or more fans... AND Under Section B-11, it is written: Noise. Noise produced by marijuana production and marijuana processing shall comply with the following. a. Sustained noise from mechanical equipment used for heating, ventilation, air condition, odor control, fans and similar functions shall not exceed 30 dB(A) measured at any property line between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the following day. I would like to address these two topics together, as they are related in terms of air pollution and noise pollution. If the fans are running during the day to prevent air pollution (odor), then they may create noise pollution (otherwise, why the requirement to turn them off at night?). If the fans must be turned down or off at night to eliminate noise pollution, then they will not be working to eliminate air pollution (odor) and will be an unreasonable interference of neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. These criteria are related and cannot be met. Furthermore, two of the applicant's three structures for producing marijuana will be "hoop houses" which presumably are more temporary structures that are not built to a specified code with insulation. As temporary structures, their exterior will be more permeable and more apt to emit odors and noise. Additionally, these temporary structures do not shield against Tight pollution from the grow lights. I am concerned that the decision to approve the proposed facility was made by administrative determination, without public hearing. Administrative determinations are allowed where a decision is so simple that it does not require interpretation of the facts or the law. However, as clearly demonstrated in my points above, this issue is not so simple. The marijuana production and processing codes are in their infancy and need work to make this new law mutually beneficial to the citizens of Deschutes County and to the marijuana growers. I do not object to the legalization of marijuana; however, the current code needs much critical analysis and amendment in order to benefit both the citizens of the rural unincorporated areas of the county as well as the growers who wish to establish their crop. Marijuana production facilities do not belong in neighborhoods with various levels of zoning (R10, MUA, EFU). Moreover, the county should look to create new zoning for EXHIBIT 1 //d tt) Pk. wte.1 i� Plait 11)11eaI lr,t't215 such use. Possible considerations for re -zoning would be: growing is only allowed in commercial or industrial buildings (considering the crop is not legally allowed to be grown outside, why not move it all to an industrial zone in certain city limits); and/or, growing is only allowed on a property greater than 10 miles from the UGB; and/or marijuana growing is only allowed in an area where zoning and parcels of land are of equal size (or surrounding properties are larger than the growing operation) and greater than 25 acres. I sincerely appreciate the ability to speak at a hearing about an issue which is concerning to not only our neighborhood, but to many other citizens in the county who have been or may soon be facing the same issue. It is an important part of our local governmental process that the Commissioners hear from the citizens who will be most affected by this law. My request is that the Commissioners deny Rubio Real Estate Investments' application for a marijuana production facility based on the inability to meet multiple criteria as I noted above. I am grateful for this opportunity to have my voice heard and I appreciate the Commissioners' time in reviewing and considering my letter. Sincerely, Susan Altman cc: Monika & Lance Piatt EXHffirr '5l OF I1 AA) r)(1 -e$1 1-s Anthony Rae& From: Sent: To: Subject: Anthony, Eric Porter <porterdevllc@gmaiicom> Saturday, May 09, 2015 9:03 AM Anthony Raguine; Linda Reed Haase Haase Conditional Use Permit for a non-farm dwelling For purposes of the Conditional Use Permit decision; please use Richardson Road as the intended access. We will be adjusting the lot line to consolidate tax lot 1601 into the parent parcel, but we are interested in completing the CU process in the near-term because of the pending sale of the property. 1 expect the LLA will be submitted to you within one or two weeks. Thanks for your assistance through this process. Please let me know if you need anything else, otherwise we'll continue to move forward with the lot line adjustment process, and well await your decision on the CU. Take care, Eric Porter Porter Land Development, LLC norterdevilctc emai1.coin 541-280-7910 i EXHIBIT :lID 110 Return 10: Anthony Raguine, Senior Planner Community Development Dept. 117 NW Lafayette Ave., P,O. Box 0005 Bend, OR 97708-0005 DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERK RECORDS LO�/015.215NNANCY 111011121111111131111111101111 $"'°°t; 0810512015 09;28,40 AM 04AS ental Stnw1 9N $15.00 $11.00 $21,00 $10.00 $8.00 FARM AND FOREST MANAGEMENT EASEMENT — CONQITIONAt_ USE Linda Reed Haase, Trustee of the Linda Reed Haase Revocable Trust, herein called the Grantor, is the owner of real property described as, The East Half of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (E % NW 1/4 NE 1/4) of Section Thirty-three (33), Township Seventeen (17) South, Range Thirteen (13) East of the Willamette Meridian, TOGETHER WITH an easement for ingress and egress over the West Half of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (W '% NW % NE %) of Section Thirty-three (33), Township Seventeen (17) South, Range Thirteen (13) east of the Willarnette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon, as necessary for access to Alfalfa Market Road, together with ten (10) acres of Central Oregon Irrigation water rights, and identified or depicted as tax lot 201 on Deschutes County Assessor's Map 17-13-33A.. In accordance with the conditions set forth in the decision of the Deschutes County Planning Division, dated May 12, 2015, approving land use perinit 247 -15 -O00103 -CU, Grantor hereby grants to the owner(s) of all property adjacent to the above described property (Grantees), a perpetual non-exclusive farm and forest practices management easement as follows: 1. The Grantor, her heirs, successors, and assigns, hereby acknowledges by the granting of this easement that the above-described property is situated in a designated farm zone in Deschutes County, Oregon, and may be subjected to conditions resulting from farming or forest practices on adjacent lands. Such operations include management and harvesting of timber, disposal of slash, reforestation, application of chemicals, road construction and maintenance, by raising, harvesting and selling crops or by the feeding, breeding, management and sale of, or the produce of, livestock, poultry, fur -bearing animals or honeybees or for dairying and the sale of dairy products or any other agricultural or horticultural use or animal husbandry or any combination thereof, and other accepted and customary farm and forest management activities conducted in accordance with Federal and State Laws., Such farm or forest management activities ordinarily and necessarily produce noise, dust, smoke, and other conditions that may conflict with Grantor's' use of Grantor's property for residential purposes. Except as allowed by ORS 30.930 through 30.947, Grantor hereby waives all common law rights to object to normal, non -negligent farm and forest management activities legally conducted on adjacent lands that may conflict with Grantor's use of Grantor's property for residential purposes, and Grantor hereby gives an easement to the adjacent property owners for the resultant impact on Grantor's property caused by the farm and forest management activities on adjacent lands. 2, Grantor shall comply with all restrictions, and condition§ for maintaining residences in farm and forest zones that may be required by State, Federal, and local land use laws and regulations. Grantor shall comply with all fire safety regulations developed by the Oregon Department of Forestry for residential development within a forest zone. This. easemer t is ,appurtenant to ail. property adjacent to, ,the, above-described property,, and: shall bind the heirs, successors, and assigns of Grantor, and shall endure for the benefit of the File No: 247 -15 -000103 -CU Farm and Forest Management Easement 1 adjacent landowners, their heirs, successors,. and, assigns. The adjacent, landowners,- their heirs, successors, and assigns are hereby 'expressly granted the right of third -party enforcement of this easement Dated this !f..day of • , 2015 GRANTOR LINDA REED HAASE REVOCABLE TRUST Linda Reed Haase, Trustee` STATE OF OREGON ) COUNTY OF ts,tr)e- On this Is> , day of 3‘,..* 2015, before me, a Notary Publio in and for said County and State, personally appeared Linda Reed Haase, who Is known to me to be the Trustee of the LindaReed Haase Revocable Trust, and who acknowledged to me that she executed the same freely and voluntarily on behalf of said Trust. tts(100. (A. 17.11( a y Public f6r taY\-e, My Commission Expires: i\ t-- 2)(YVZ OFFICIAL STAMP ALYSSA COLENE WALTER NOTARY PUSLIOONEGON COMMISSION NO. 934629 MY COMMISSION eXPINES NOVEMBER OS, 20IB File No: 2414.6 -000103 --OU Farm and Forest Management. Easement 2 Community eve opment Department Pkulningji?rvis'trt� l ittki}rich 'zifrty EirsOroniver M $o;la Divisiork ' \4 :\�, `i>' �"ti i?-,,::; :. }4:'>ii:�.:,�:.;>,".•_y.=:.=ti..>x,.:}s•:.....>s;;. `\:;,, .sv,':si?'<'� y:h}>v ;, y , . � y,t:ay::�.: rr:,: �:. �y:G:`a.: ; j `.J`,i: i . ,y"}+.`��.. }.:. . ,:�,t.,. r Y�.a>rvtsnl..,JhCfiM). @in'` sib '* r.':.`>:�:sa �.,..,.k:�.-r:.::�.:::'�,.�.<S'`�:r»r:.::...:.,•{ f 1��: r, r��fi?:'>'�?«'�:'�:?:2�:. . P.0, Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97718-6OO.5 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.Co.deschutes.or.ustcddi LAND USE APPLICATION INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED 1. Complete the application form and provide appropriate original signatures. 2. include a copy of the current deed showing the property owners. 3. Attach correct fee. 4. Include a plot plan that shows all property lines and existing and proposed structures, parking, landscaping, lighting, etc. 5. If this application includes oversized plans a single, reduced -size pian no larger than 11" x 17" with graphic scale shall also be included. if color exhibits are submitted, black and white copies with captions or shading delineating the color areas shall also be provided. 6. AH applicable standards and criteria must be addressed in writing prior to acceptance of the application, Detailed descriptions, reaps and other relevant information must be attached to the application. TYPE OF APPLICATION (check one): Conditional Use (CU) ,.)4 Temporary Use (TU) Partition (MP) , , Site Plan (SP) .� Subdivision (TP) ---._ Variance (V) Applicant's Name (print).°<':i..:..._`.'.r��i::rr ;¢.. Mailing Address:,__1412°)..,1.3, tJ CA4 s4oN1 l�P rel Applicant's Email Address: Co r t>. (44.), IN,kei.3 Property Owner's Name (if different)': Li as tsA l2-- - Marling Address: 22-F•.li , � At,.l> FEE: 42'ikri, Setback Exception (SE) Other. Phone: (SW I) `7.'� (t� City/State/Zip: R.z.Vraon.! is .)14. ct Phone: (511) 4714 0; CV City/State/Zip: "r.`.fk.±u +alt t°�R 1 —14 1. Property Description: Township L7 Range (3 Section 33 A Tax Lot. C ' 2:.c 2. Property Zone(s):_ciE4_ f RB,. _.. 3....rs Property Size (acres or sq. ft.): 2.?:s . 0,k; ^.i . 3. Lot of Record? (State reason): k ;~',ts :Art 1,..k: r.f#r> •. 33:i - 1:$ 4. 5. 6. 7. Property Address: '2-310 5 PrrrCAt_ Ta. t4,4-p-r�-r C2 ff.0ietA, `L.3 OR_ Present Use of Property: ;(,?�`�C;..r'A.`• . ( 6, A,<,,v .i 3 i(v Existing Structures. Request: 1A._. :. ..t .t:41.». ??t ` , e (60t4.1'.), ?:ll.i. ...» 8. Property will be served by: Sewer. 9. Domestic Water Source: {.U't, 9 l Applicant's Signature; Onsite Disposal System Pr6per�ty O. vrier�a >it riilitufG(if :different)";:, a. ti. fiiee tttril,C s l:s t t .'tr t' $ Date: � � iii: �::......................:.f:�,,.,._.. Agents Naryte (if applicable):„ Mailing Address: .:1(V. i:: Agents Email Address: i41c:b%./k:' Phone: (S4-11 ) "� >c� ...� �e ('{) City/State/Zip: if this application is not signed by the property owner, a letter authorizing signature by the applicant must be attached. By signing this application, the applicant understands and agrees that Deschutes County may require a deposit for hearings officers' fees prior to the application being deemed complete; and if the application is heard by a hearings officer, the applicant will be responsible for the actual costs of the hearings officer. 3/13 !March 4, 2015 Deschutes County .Planning (Dept. 117 Lafayette Stet Bend, OR 97701 Rel Conditional Use Permit - Linda Reed MASA; t i lot T17 R13 S33A, tat 201 Address: 23105 Alfalfa .Market .Road Zoning EFU, TIB and AS Sub -districts Dear Deschutes County Planning Department, 1 represent the property owner of the subject site, Linda heed Haase, in her desire to apply for a Conditional Use Permit for €e non-farm dwelling. The site was approved for a non -.faun dwelling CU in 2005 which has since expired. The lot was created in 1983 through MP 83-13 which was recorded on 8-3.1983. My client now again seeks conditional use permit consideration for a non -fans dwelling. We applied for 'Non Faann Dwelling Deposit' ("Deposit") on :February 13,1015 (County file no. 247 -15 -000068 -CU). The Deposit review was completed on March 1, 2015. This letter w companies the Land Use application and 90% fee ($2880) as required by the County. As the agent / applicant representing the owner, please feel fig to call me for any questions or issues that relate to this application. My contact information is below. Respectfully, Eric J. Porter, Planning Consultant 1409 NW Canyon Drive Redmond, OR 97756 (541) 280-7910 Porterde vl lc� ca,�`,.gm ai l .co m Attembeggegee 1-- Land Use Application 2 - Supplemental Application for a Non -Farm Dwelling ... in the EFU Zone 3 - Letter ofAuthorization allowing Eric Porter to not in behalf of Property Owner 4 .- Burden of Proof Statement 5 -- For€n C --Abutting Lots and their Soil Classifications (5 qty) 6 - Maps (6 city)provided. from Deschutes Cocanty, Deposit sit Review Prod 7 - Aerial Photos (2 qty); 1985 (D.C. provided), and 2015 Google Earth photo 8 - Statutory Warranty Deed 9 -- DIAL neighbor names and addresses within 750' of the subject site (Feb. 2005) 10 -- Site Plan 11 ... Photos of Site (4 qty) 12 - Conditional Use Application Fee of 82880.00 Community Development Department Planning Division n"mmgSafety Division Environmental x"n,Division P/IBox 800s 117Nm/Lafayo*nAvenue Bend, Orogen 97706-6005 (541)388-3575 FAX (541)335.1764 SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION FOR History/General Information Oregon's and use laws include important provisions intended to protect farmland. In 2007, the agriculture industry in Oregon produced over $4 billion in farm commodities. During 2007, farming in Deschutes County contributed over $i9 mUUon to the fonm|oonmomy Farmland in Oregon is protected through Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) zoning. In order to protect the and available for nnmme/cia|farmingandtoeduoenunfl|otsh*tweenha,mingandmna|dv*mOingn.thetypeoofdwaNngoeUoxvedinEFUzoneo are regulated under state /ow. In general terms. three types of dwellings are allowed. (1) "nonfarm" dweUingn. which may be authorized on rand not suitabTe for raisinq crops or livestock; (2) "lot of record" LiweHings; and (3) 'farm° dweflnqs. Oregon |mw, as implemented by the Deschutes County Comprehenive Pfan and Zonrng Code, places strict limits on the siting of nonfarm dvveUinRx in EFU zones. The Oregon courts have stated that under Oregon /nw, nonfarm dwellings should be the exception and that approval for thern should be difficult to obtain. Chapter 18.16 of the Deschutes County Code, Exclusive Farm Use Zones, contains the criteria for nonfarm dwellings. The prin'iary approval criteria are set hy state law and are codified in the Deschutes County Code. These criteria also apply to the approval of land divisions, as prescribed under Section 18.16.055 of Chapter 18,16 of Title 18. The information requested on this application is the minimum which will assist County Winners in evaluating whether your proposa rneets (hese criteria. Failure to cornplete applicable porUons of this foun rriay result in the Curity either not anoephng, or denying, your application for failure to demonstrate that criteria have been met. The County will assist you by providing such information as U.S. Soil Conservation Service soils maps and data from the County Assessor's offlce on the nature of parces surroundtng the subject prce. However, the burden Ues an However, the burden lies onyou, the ''|icont, hzdemonmhshatheitheodkariuhavoboen/net. |nmany cases, you may wish Luprovide additional information eyond that requested on the forrn, to support your appiication. Approval of a nonfarm dwelling or partition may require payment of deferred taxes. Before deciding whether to proceed, you should read and make suie you uriderstandFormD'atteohedhothivapp|ication. Nonfarm Dwelling/Partton Application Process 1. Information Packet — l)�� «4»Acii The applicant will first pay a deposit of ten percent (10%) of the total fee for the conditional use permit for the dwelling(s). Planning staff will then assemble a packet of information relevant to the applicant's property, which will include: a. Six (6). information ( system(GIS) n`apowith Assessor's data acres,(total date d�y@Uingowem eatab|iohed.inigm*edacres and farm ceoeri ��soi|typea.ehz.}wrihen on each parcel within the are of review surrounding the subject property. b. AG|Sdaio*eport[ormachEFU-zoneUponm|withinthoeooeo/mwiew. c. Copyfles of 1985 acral photofs of the subject property and nearby area. d. Natural Resource Conservation Service Map for subject parcel and abutting parcels and descriptions of the soils. The County will either mail the completed information packet to the applicant or, upon request, notify the applicant that the packet may be picked up. This packet must be returned with the completed application 2. Pre -Application Conference Ft=13,., 1 2.0}5 Once the applicant has a draft application compiled, he/she will make an appointment for a pre -application conference with County planning staff. The Planning Division will describe the criteria and application requirements. After reviewing the criteria and the information packet with staff, the applicant will decide whether or not to proceed. 3, Application Requirements Prior to action by the County, the applicant must submit to the Planning Division: • A completed General Application Form (attached). • A completed Supplemental Application Form (attached), • Completed Forms A, 3, C and D (attached). • A plot plan of the subject property, showing: • The location of the nonfarm dwelling's, other buildings, septic system (including reserve area), well and road access, with setbacks noted. • Existing stuctures, if any, with a description of type, size, existing use and the location of all existing canals, ditches, wells, septic tanks and drainfields. + Fences or other improvements on the property. • The topography of the property (flat, sloping, etc.) and the location of features such as canyons, bluffs, rock outcroppings, natural springs or flood plains. • The names and the existing condition's of any adjacent road/s. ♦ If the proposal includes a partition, the dimensions of the new property line/s, the area of each proposed parcel, locations of ail easements, and the location's, width, proposed name's, curve radii and grade/s of proposed rights-of-way. • A color aerial photo from 1993 or later showing the area within the area of review surrounding the subject property. • Ground level color photographs (prints only) showing the nature of the proposed homesite, its vegetation (or lack thereof), topography and other pertinent information. Please state the location from which the photos were taken and what they are intended to illustrate. • A letter from the supplier of the applicant's domestic drinking water affirming the supplier's ability to continue to provide water. Or, if the applicant is drilling a new well, provide at least two well logs for wells developed in the area, showing that water is available, or provide a letter to that effect from the Watermaster. • A letter from the fire district or other entity affirming that the district or entity is able to serve the proposed dwelling's. If the applicant is not in a fire protection district, a fire protection plan must be provided, including water source's and fire prevention measures. • A copy of the irrigation map for the area and historical water rights information on the subject property (available from the appropriate Irrigation District). • A letter from the area's electric utility affirming its ability to serve the proposed dwelling. • A letter from any other appropriate utilities affirming their abilities to serve the proposed dwelling (gas, phone, etc,). The information; packet prepated by ills} P:ianning t3ivi i .r} • The correct application fee. 4. Review and Action on the Application The application will be processed pursuant to the Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance, Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code (for an approximate timeline, see handout "Procedures used in Reviewing Land Use Applications"), 2 4/13 Supplemental Application This application is for (check one): X. Nonfarm Dwelling Partition to Create Nonfarm llomesite/s through (check one): irrigated Land Division Non -Irrigated Land Division State law requires that applications for non -irrigated land divisions be evaluated as if the applicant were applying for a nonfarm dwelling on each parcel. Therefore, the entire application must be completed as if seeking approval for a nonfarm dwelling on each parcel to be created. In addition, applications for land divisions must address the requirements of Chapter 17.22 of Title 1, Deschutes County Code, Subdivisions. The applicant has the burden of proving the application meets the following criteria in the County's Zoning Code (as mandated by State law). The applicant's answers below will help the Planning Division to determine whether or not the criteria are met. If the applicant chooses to complete a separate response in a burden of proof statement, "see burden of proof statement" should be indicated. 1. Compatibility and Noninterference witch Nearby Farming Activities The dwelling or activities associated with the dwelling will not force a significant change in or significantly Increase the cost of accepted laming practices as defined in Oregon Revised Statutes 215.203(2)(c), or accepted forest practices on nearby lands devoted to farm or forest use. Please state why your proposal meets this criterion: L FS A-rrAc-#44 :11, On a separate sheet of paper, list which EFU-zoned parcels on the Assessors rnaps falling within one (1) mile of the property are currently being farmed, and for each such parcel describe the following: 1. The nature of the current farming (e.g., cattle grazing, alfalfa, potatoes, mint, etc.) including the number of -such usta or _the numbeof hvestort' grod n the;property, - Li St -thosoerve- of your our nation and, if based on visual observation, state the date of your observation. 2. For each type of farming activity listed above, describe the attendant farming practices (e.g., tilling, ground or aerial spraying, harvesting, etc.) that might conflict with nearby residences because of noise, dust or chemical trespass, and the frequency of such activity. Consult the list of fanning practices provided in the deposit packet for various types of farming operations in the County. 3 4/13 3. Estimate the intervening distance between the fanning practices on the parcels and the proposed dwelling site. Describe any vegetative, topographical or structural features that might reduce or eliminate conflicts between residential use and the nearby farming activity, b. If any parcels have been omitted in responding to question a., above, identify them and explain why. c, If there are any EFLI-zoned parcels managed for timber production or which have stands of merchantable timber (that is, timber other than juniper), respond as in questions a , and b., above. 2. Maintaining the Stability of the Overall Land Use Pattern of the Area The proposed nonfarm dwelling does not materially alter the stability of the overall land use pattern of the area. In deterrnining whether a proposed nonfarm dwelling will alter the stability of the land use pattern in the area, the County will consider the cumulative impact of possible new nonfarm dwellings and parcels on other lots or parcels similarly situated in the area. Please state why your proposal meets this criterion: pLeits. _stt- ..A.r.mcga ..artfi a. Considering only EFU parcels in the surrounding area of review, complete the following: $ ,s Number of EFU zoned parcels: .1(0 Number of parcels with dwellings on them: Number of parcels not receiving farm tax deferral/ Number of parcels that are twenty (20) acres or smaller: Number cif vacant parcels: (Q5_la 1) /IAA 114 fetYl- 44,At 4., ) 4At. (*If, b. List i4n.w.te4r_rto4f sizAt.) soils:ndi could be the subjects of future nonfarm dwelling/s and partition application/s. If there are none, explain why: irkstjj - „ .. 41. A. . LL.4.LLRe/(. 707 \fAC4j41- 11 At>A it.')610” LIVA 'osk 009)00 t • c)6 At.; Y.. • 4:55%.- 54.)C ; g • "!A) A 5 . 0 4/ 104 (0'7 -- ,o;) Asio 7, 34, Kt VAC.i; cYt' .5t7ts tc,, s . '115 Z,3ee, C. ; 1,)N , e'6 A •-• 417; • Ztl 0+' SO) As! % 41) o 4/13 c. Using the GIS map, count the number of dwellings: Constructed during or prior to 1978 Constructed from 1979 to 1992 Constructed during or after 1993 d. After comparing the two (2) aerial photos, describe the changes in land use over time, Circle in red any areas which have changed from agricultural to residential or other uses: C.0 V41-4 ...... f41.1.V .41> 3. General Unsuitability of the Property for Crop or Livestock Production The proposed nonfarm dwelling is situated on an existing lot or parcel, or a portion of a lot or parcel, that is generally unsuitable for the production of tam) crops and livestock or merchantable tree species, considering the terrain, adverse soil or land conditions, drainage and flooding, vegetation, location and size of the tract. Ur...MA.4VA, • Please state why your proposal meets this criterion: r 1...4131,<:,?EF R.N., krsc-it ehie-oti.,;:i, egc,wf. a. General description of the subject property: 1, How large is the property? 20-0$ acres 2. List all tax lots making up the property: T 17 R Sec 334 Tax Lot , 2-0 T R ........ „,. Sec Tax Lot. T R Sec Tax Lot 3. If you or another memher of your household owns or leases any parcels abutting the subject property, please list the tax lots and give the combined acreage, T ........ R Sec Tax Lot T R ...... Sec Tax Lot T „ .... R Sec Tax Lot 6 4113 4. Complete Form D (attached) concerning soils on the property. 5. Describe the vegetation on the property, referring to the type, distribution and suitability for grazing. If you are unable to identify the vegetation on the property and/or to address the grazing capacity of the existing vegetation, you may wish to consult a range conservationist to assist with your answer. 4!Y' ,... '4 6. Describe the type and volume of crops, including hay, grown on the property during any of the last five (5) years, and the portions of the property on which they were produced, or indicate that no crops were grown: Number of Acres Used Crop Amount Produced to Grow the Crop 1€0 _ No crops were grown an this property within the last five (5) years. 7. Describe the type and volume of crops, including hay, grown on the property during any of the last five (5) years, and the portions of the property on which they were produced, or indicate that no crops were grown: Livestock Type and Number Number of Acres Days Grazed Used for Grazing No livestock were grazed on this property within the last five (5) years. 8. Are you aware of any other historical use of the property for farming? if so, please describe the use and its duration: ±...11. tt fti...::t.S.>m 4L4 tisk, 6 4/13 9, if the property was once Fart of an alouttiag or nearby farming operation, describe the nature of that operation: )4V 4(‘-c ?q ol,Na.A1 10. During which of the preceding five (5) years has the subject property been receiving special fax assessment for farm use? 6__.(4.2.661.;irt—'1 i•A )50*FeRS-01-.L., If the property has received special farm tax assessment during any of those years, explain the change in circumstances that now makeis the parcel "generally Unsuitable for the production of crops or livestock": tka- Sot 4— ..Atgru,A.rikz.14.: goC-. 4.1 t)1:e-gr:' iQtrry L' rLILe' DP,P.Pria-• b. General description of surrounding area Complete one Form C (at(ached) for each parcel that abuts your property, 4, Conflicting Uses The proposed nonfarm dwelling is not within one-quarter (1/4) mile of a dairy farm, feed lot or sales yard, unless adequate provisions are made and approved by the Planning Director or Hearings Body for a buffer between such uses. The establishment of a buffer shall be designed based upon consideration of such factors as prevailing winds, drainage, expension potential of affected agricultural uses, open space and any other factor that may affect the livability of the nonfarm dwelling or the agriculture of the area. Please list any such uses by fax map and lot number: __I\j00-6' YJ Please state any proposed or existing provisions for a buffer between the nonfarm dwelling and these uses: 5, Adequacy of Public Services, Water and Site Safety Are road access, fire and police services and utility systems (Le., electrical and telephone) are adequate for use? a. Describe what access the property has to public roads. Describe the number of trips per day you believe would be made by residents of the dwelling/s: kA5fmeAtt. 141 M.Aity.,OT PAO, A4.0 0046. itc Gmlatit,,rg •Avfok6e. e5 0 fx tIst, 73:Pqt etie- 7 4/13 11 Describe What your source of domestic drinking water will be 144 104 c. Describe how tire protection will be provided to the property: J2th... ............... gs.r'e e. Additional Information or Analysis Addressing the Criteria Please feel free to attach additiOnal inforMatIon or analySis Which you believe demonstrates compliance withi the requirements of the EFU zone. 4/13. Form A Traffic Figures for NonFarm Dwelling To be completed by Applicant: rz The proposal is fora nonfarm dwelling located on ................:... ... ,.,...,.,. x...,......,.... w......,..,., u...r. m......._ r (road name) on.a parcek.:desoribed Vis; Township. bangs - teoti( n, IIA Tax Lot To assist County staff in making a proper determination of traffic impact's, please list the number of dwellings or uses currently taking primary access from the road, This information is necessary only if the road terminates in a dead end or cul-de-sac (Le., not a through road). Example: 10 houses. 2 businesses, etc: 9 4/13 Form B Information Concerning the Soils of the Property List the soils on the subject property, with reference to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soil number. For each soil type, estimate. the percentage of the property covered by such soil. Frorn the soils narrative, list the crops or livestock that can be produced on the soil. Soil Number Name Crops or Livestock which Percentage WRCS Survey States can be Soil Class of Lot Produced on this Soli Type 15.% C.,- �U�xis+.t 70 - i) 'lh: t + etakiv:0 10 4t1 Tax Map and L�t u Form C Soil information for Abutting Parcel (complete one Form C for each abutting tax lot) r: ...... Son Number Name Crops or Livestock which Percentage NRCS Survey States can be Soil Class of Lot Produced on thls Soil Type If farming activity is currently taking place an abutting parcels, and these parca have the same soils as the subject property, explain why your property cannot be used forthe same kind of fanning as the abutting parcels, Form D Acknowledgment of Tax Consequences Oregon law requires that any property receiving special fawn tax assessment be disqualified from such tax status upon receipt of preliminary approval for a nonfarm dwelling or partition. ln addition, the law requires that certain taxes associated with disqualification be paid before the partition can be effected or the nonfarm dwelling can be built. The statute, as set forth in Subsection 18.16.050(G)(3), reads as follows: "Loss of Tax Deferral a Pursuant to Oregon Revised Statutes 215.236, a nonfarm dwelling on a lot or parcel in an Exclusive Farm Use Zone that is or has been receiving special assessment may be approved only on the condition that, before a building permit is issued, the applicant must produce evidence from the County Assessor's Office that the parcel upon which the dwelling is proposed has been disqualified for special assessment at value for farm use under Oregon Revised Statutes 308.370 or other special assessment under Oregon Revised Statutes 308.765, 321.352, 321.730 or 321.815, and that any additional tax or penalty imposed by the County Assessor as a result of disqualification has been paid. b. A parcel that has been disqualified for special assessment at value for farm use pursuant to Oregon Revised Statutes 215,236(4) shall not requalify for special assessment unless, when combined with another contiguous parcel, it constitutes a qualifying parcel," IMfe, the undersigned, by my/our signature acknowledge having read the above provision, 1/We understand that under Oregon real property law, approval of this nonfarm application may result in significant deferred real property tax liability. .4 Date Owner's Signature /... r taitel 12.rae:t) 44s - Printed Name Lff,Trkes. or, 4 v•rri, k, Date Owner's Signature Prited ----------- 12 4113 Linda Reed Haase 2344 Emerald Street Eugene, OR 97403 Tell. 541 6544107 Deschutes County Planning Department Deschutes County Administrative Building Bend, OR 97701 Re: Non-farm dwelling conditio To Whom It May Concetn: use perrnit process 1 hereby authorize Eric Porter to act in my behalf throug4 all tags of the non-farm dwelling conditional use permit procesS, Very Truly Yours, Linda Reed Haase , ,,,, ,,,,,,,,, .•• , March 4, 2015 Burden of Proof Conditional Use Permit for a Non Farm Dwelling m the EFU Zone Owner Linda Reed Haase Applicable Criteria: Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, County Zoning, Chapter18.16, Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) Zones and AS Airport Safety Combining Zone, and `ride 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance. L Findings of Fact; 1. Location: T17 R13 S33A lot 201. Address: 23105 Alfalfa Market Road. 2. Zoning: EFU, TRB and AS Sub -District 3. Lot of Record: Created in 1983 by MP 33-13 and recorded 8-3-1983. 4. Site Description and History; The 20.05 acre site has a gentle to moderate downhill slope in a south-westerly direction, The site contains scattered juniper trees and a 3+ acre rock outcropping in the approximate center of the site that is the logical buildable portion of the site based on soil type, rocky characteristics and the inability of this portion of the site to be used for any agricultural purpose. The subject was approved for a non4ann dwelling conditional use permit in 2005 through file no. CU 056 which has since expired. - The'site-takeS aCeesa- from RichardsOn2nadyia-r000tck4 access easentent,(A9760), tecercled on 2-172012. The site is in farm deferral and has been used occasionally as grazing land with 10 acres of water rights. The site is served by power from Central Electric Cooperative, and uses Avion Water as its water provider. The site is served by Bend Rural Fire District No, 1 The site is comprised of category 58C Trosney' sail on and near the rocky outcropping, which has poor characteristics for farming, and category 36A Deskamp Loamy Sand on the remainder of the site. 5. Surrounding Uses. The lots adjacent to the subject site are varied in size. The lot to the west is shnilarly-sized and is vacant grazing land. The lot to the east is 37.9 acres in size and has been used as grazing land. The lots to the south are zoned MUA 10 with sins ranging from 2.5 acres to 5+ acres and are primarily developed with dwellings. The lots to the north of the subject site in Section 3313 vary in size from 3+ acres to 6+- acres and contain a mixture of undeveloped and partiallY developed sites. The zoning of the surrounding land to the north, west tuid east is also -FEU— TRB 'Subdistrict and AS Airport Safety COmbining Zone, H. Applicable Deschutes County Code Standards and Applicant's Responses. Deschutes County Code Chapter 18.16.030. Conditional Uses Permitted -High Value and Non -high Value Farmland. The following uses may be allowed in the Exclusive Farm Use zones on either high value farmland or non high value fartnland subject to applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, DCC 18.16.040 and 18.16.050, and other applicable sections of DCC Title 18. A. Non - farm dwelling. Applicant's Response: The applicant had received approval of a conditional use permit fir a non-fann dwelling in 2005, tile no. CU 056, ibis approval has since expired. Ihe applicant again seeks approval for a conditional use permit for a non-farm dwelling through the conditional use permit process. 18.16.040. Limitations on Conditional Uses. A. Conditional uses permitted by DCC 18.16.030 may be established subject to ORS 215.296 and applicable provisions in DCC 18.128 and upon a finding by the Planning Director or Hearings Body that the proposed use: 1, Will not force a significant change in accepted farm or forest practices as defined in ORS 215.203(2)(c) on surrounding lands devoted to farm or forest useL Applicant's Response: The area located within one mile of the subject site contains a total of 76 parcels that are similarly -zoned. Of these, four are owned by the U.S. Government, and 7 others do not contain dwellings. A total of 42 of these lots are no longer in farm deferral. The immediate area is characterized by lots that are either smaller, or that are similarly -sized with the exception ofthe lot located immediately east of the subject site (tax lot 17 13 33A, lot 00100) which contains a dwelling. 2. Will not significantly increase the cost of accepted farm or forest practices on surrounding lands devoted to farm or forest use. Applicant's Response: The addition of a dwelling on the subject site will have no financial impact on the ability of neighboring tots to continue to allow grazing on their land. 3. That the actual site on which the use is to be located is the least suitable for the production of farm crops or livestock. Applicant's Response: As evidenced in the attached photos of the subject site, the pnitiort fth itc taut is desired fir bitildingia t:haraCteriZed by ft Significant kicky outcropping consisting of Class V111 soils that inhibits meaningful production of crops or grazing by livestock as well as other agriculturally -related uses that might otherwise occur on the site. 18..16,050, Standards for Dwellings in the EFU 7 nes, Dwellings listed in DCC 18.16.025 and 1.8,16.030 may be allowed under the conditions set forth below for each kind of dwelling, and all dwellings are subject to the landowner for the property upon which the dwelling is planed, signing and recording in the deed records for the County, a document binding the landowner, and the landowner's successors in interest, prohibiting them from pursuing a claim for relief or cause of action alleging .injury from farming or forest practices .for which no action or claw is allowed under ORS 30.936 or 30.937. G. Nonfarm dwelling. 1. One single-family dwelling, including a manufactured home in accordance with I CC18.116.070, not provided in conjunction with farm use, may be permitted on an existing lot or parcel subject to the fallowing criteria: a. The Planning Director or .Hearings Body shall make findings that: i. The dwelling or activities associated with the dwelling will not force a significant change in or significantly increase the cost of accepted farming practices, as defined in ORS 215,203(2)(c), or accepted forest practices on nearby lands devoted to farm or forest use. Applicant's Response: The 1 -mile radius or `target area' in this vicinity is not characterized by farming practices. This area contains 76 parcels that are zoned EFU; of these, 42 are no longer in farm deferral, and 65 contain dwellings. Further, 4 of the 76 EFU lots are owned by the federal government and would not be developed unless the government surpluses the land to sell at some future date. ii. The proposed nonfarm dwelling will not materially alter the stability of the overall land use pattern of the area. In deterniitting whether a proposed nonfarm dwelling will alter the stability of the land use pattern in the area, the County shall consider the cumulative impact standards under OAR 660-033-0130(4)(a)(D), and whether creation of the parcel will lead to creation of other nonfarm parcels, to the detriment of agriculture in the area. Applicant's Response: The land use pattern in the area is already established with non- farm dwellings on smaller parcels. This request would not be detrimental to the nature of this area, which is not agricultural in nature. ill. Me proposed onfarm dwelling is situated on an existing lot or patrce;1 or a portion of a lot or parcel that is generally unsuitable for the production of tarn crops and livestock or merchantable tree species, considering the terrain, adverse soil or land conditions, drainage and flooding, vegetation, location and size of the tract. Applicant's Response: As stated, the approximate 3 acre rocky outcropping containing Class 58C Gosney sail is being considered as the site for non-farm dwelling, and is unsuitable for Earls cop production, livestock grazing and merchantable tree specie growing and cultivation. iv. The proposed nonfarm dwelling is not within one-quarter mile of a dairy A farm, feed lot or sales yard, unless adequate provisions are made and approved by the Planning Director or Hearings Body for a buffer between such uses. The establishment of a buffer shall be designed based upon consideration of such factors as prevailing winds, drainage, expansion potential of affected agricultural uses, open space and any other factor that may affect the livability of the nonfarm - dwelling or the agriculture of the ora, Applicant's Response: The subject site .is not located within one-quarter mile of a dairy farm, feed lot or sales yard. v. Road access, fire and police services and utility systems i.e., electrical and telephone) are adequate for the use. Applicant's Response: The applicant has a recorded access easement (A9760; recorded 2-1-2012), and takes access to the site via Richardson. Road. The site is already served with power from Central Electric Cooperative, and can receive cell phone service through various providers. The site has confirmation of service from the Bend Rural Fire District #2 (2005 letter of service confirmation), and can receive service from. Deschutes County Sheriff's Department for police services. The site is served with water from Avion Water Company, and a 'will serve' letter is attached. vi. The nonfarm dwelling shall be located on a lot or parcel created prior. to January 1, 1993, or was created or is being created as a nonfarm parcel under the land division standards in DCC 18.16.055(B) or (C). Applicant's Response: The lot was created in 1983 through MP 83-13. 2. For the purposes of DCC 18.16.050{) only, "unsuitability" shall be determined with reference to the following: a. A lot or parcel or a portion of a lot or parcel shall not be considered unsuitable solely because of size or location if it can reasonably be put to farm or forest use in conjunction with other land. if the parcel is under forest Lisseasment, the dwelling shall be situat xi upon generally unsuitable land for the production of merchantable tree species recognized by the Forest Practices Rules, considering the terrain, adverse soil or land conditions, drainage and flooding, vegetation, location and size of the parcel. Applicant's Response: 'I'here are several factors that make this site unsuitable for meaningful farming practices; specifically the quality of the soil, and the rock outcropping in the center of the site. The primary soil in the center of the site is elevated rocky outcropping and is poor quality for crop or grazing production. 'this outcropping is significant enough to prevent mechanical tilling of the soil without incurring significant expense to remove the rocks and level the ground. b. A lot or parcel or portion of a lot or parcel is not "generally unsuitable" simply because it is too small to be funned profitably by itself. If a lot or parcel or portion of a lot or parcel can be sold, leased, rented or otherwise managed as part of a commercial farm or ranch, it is not "generally unsuitable." A lot or parcel or portion of a lot or parcel is presumed to be suitable if it is composed predominantly of Class 1 -VI soils. Just because a lot or parcel or portion of a lot or punyl is unsuitable for one farm use does not mean it is not suitable for another farm use. If the parcel is under forest assessment, the area is not "generally -unsuitable" simply because it is too small to be managed for forest production profitably by itself. Applicant's Response: The rocky outcropping is about 3 acres in gross area, and is wholly unsuited for crop production and grazing, as it is a Class VII soil. (Note the applicant believes thud rocky outcropping is a class VIII soil, however this is not what is shown on the soil may provided by Deschutes County). o. If a lot or parcel under forest assessment can be sold, leased, rented or otherwise managed as a part af a forestry operation, it is not "generally unsuitable." If a lot or parcel is under forest assessment, it is presumed suitable if it is composed predominantly of soil capable of producing 20 cubic feet of wood fiber per acre per year. [fa lot or parcel is under forest assessment, to be found compatible and not seriously interfere with forest uses on surrounding land it must not force a significant change in forest practices or significantly increase tbe cost of those practices on the surrounding land. Applicant's Response: The site is not under forest assessment, but is under farm deferral. The applicant understands that the land will have to be removed from farm deferral when a building permit is obtained, and that all back -taxes on the affected property will be due and payable to Desebutes County at that time, 3. Loss of tax deferral. Except as provided in DCC 18.16.050(1)(2), pursuant to ORS 215.236, a nonfarm dwelling on a lot or parcel in an Exclusive Farm Use zone that is or has been receiving special assessment may be approved only on tho condition that hCriere a is isStied the applicant nurst produce evidence from the County Assessor's office that the parcel upon which the dwelling is proposed has been disqualified under ORS 308A.113 or ORS 308A.116 for special assessment at value far fann use under ORS 308A.062 or other special assessment under ORS 308A.068, 321.352, 321.730 or 321.815 and that any additional tax or penalty imposed hy the County .Assessor as a result of disqualification has been paid. A.pplicant's 'Response: Please see prior applicant's response. Chapter 18.80, AIRPORT COMBINING ZONE - AS 1.8.80.026 - Notice of Land Use and Permit Application. Except as otherwise provided herein, written notice of applieNations for land use or limited land use decisions... in an area within this overlay zone, shall be provided to the Airport sponsor and the Department of Aviation in the same manner as notice is provided to property owners entitled by law to written notice of land us or limited land use applications. Applicant's Response: the applicant understands that this application request will be routed to the appropriate air authorities by Deschutes County Planning and in the manner prescribed within these subsections, Any dwelling at this location will be within the 30 foot height limit established by -this sob -district, and no height exception is sought. The subject property is not located within the approach zone for the Airport, and the use proposed does not involve any uses that are industrial in nature, or which would emit noise, smoke, odor, dust or steam, nor are any sanitary landfills proposed or water impoundments, radio, radiotelephone, television or similar telecommunication facilities associated with the residential use. 18.80.044 - Land Use Compatibility. Applications for land use or building permits for properties within the boundaries of this overlay zone shall comply with the requirements of 'DCC 18.80 as provided herein. When compatibility issues arise, the Planning Dircetor or Hearings Body is required to take actions that eliminate or minimize the incompatibility by choosing the most eorripatible location or design for t .e boundary or use. Where compatibility issues persist, despite actions or conditions intended to eliminate or minimize the incompatibility, the Planning Director or Hearings Body may disallow the use or expansion, except where the action results in loss occurrent operational levels and/or the ability of the airport tto growto meet future community needs. Reasonable conditions to protect the public safety may be imposed by the Planning Director or Hearings Body. Applicant's Response: The applicant does not anticipate any compatibility issues with the Airport from this proposed residential use. 18.80.076 - FAA Notification (form 7460-1). Applicant's Response; The subsections associated with this section state specific parameters that would trigger the need for an FAA 7460-'i 'form to be submitted. The site; is not located within one mile of the Airport; is not within any runway protection zone, and is not a candidate to apply for this FAA form. The notice of land use applieaation that will be sent to the Oregon Department of Aviation by County Planning, as well as to the Bend Airport, is sufficient to advise these agencies of the applicant's cltzke to constnet non-farm dwelling on the subject site in the near future. Conclusion. The applicant believes that she either has met, or can -meet all of:tbe applicable standards and criteria through reasonable conditions of approval bawd on the evaluation of the applicable criteria; the location of the site; the soil categories present on the site; the difficulty of using the center of the site for any agricultural puiposes; the prior approval of a conditional use permit for a non-farm dwelling in 2005, and the ability of the site to be served by all vital utilities and emergency services protetion. Respectfully subraittot4 C) Eric J. Porter Consultant for Linda Reed Haase (541) 280-791.0 norterdevllc@amail.corn A 60813 earr011 Rd * Bend, OR 977925 Ph: 641-382-634; • fax: 041-382-6398 • Email: Aviritipytpnuiptor.qom March 3, 2015 Ref: 23105 A Oregon. ket Rd. Also known as tax lot: 171333A000201. Bend, To Whom It May Concern Avion Water Company, Inc, is willing and able to serve potable water to the above described property, provided all requirements by Avon Water CoMPany are met and all monies due are paid In accordance with AVion's approved tariff. Sincerely, Mike Heffernan Engineering Department Avian Water Company, Inc. s 'Y LU 'OH 1.t.341N3a a LO p r . r:4 ria',(0':eN.._ �r LEI C) 1. A * , K• r- r» V'''' vim...: . ri. (X) Form C Soil Information for Abutting Parcel (complete one Form C for each abutting tax lot) Tax Map and Lot Number: Soil Number Name 15(,4 )i;Y•Als . „ . Soil Class iLS Crops or Livestock which Percentage NRCS Survey States can bo of Lot produced on this Soil Type 7 . If farming activity is currently taking place on abutting parcels, and these parcels have the same soils as the subject property. explain why your property cannot be used for the same kind of farming as the abutting parcels. . Te.:$ 17) AAA 4,ert" <LiklIVE h 6A4 2,140' • ........ ..... ............... 11 ... 4/13 Form C Soil Information for Abutting Parcel (complete one Form C for each abutting tax lot) Tax Map and Lot Number: J L2.1 t;Ot2 Crop or LiVeatOck which Soil Percentage NRC$ SurveY Staws.ttaft be NUrnber Name Soil Class ofLot Pkgincorl on this Soil Type Alla) CAA f,\ Scral) if farming activity is currently taking place on abutting parcels, and these parcels have the same soils as the subject property, explain why your property cannot be used for the same kind of farming as the abutting parcels. (") ........... ...... ... ° .1A1...:11,fA ..... .... 11 .4.1445.44.44MSAVIAMONV4v.v.....,1,NWO. 4/13 Form C Soil Information for Abutting Parcel (complete one Form C for each abutting tax lot) Tax Map and Lot Wumbar LL.J ?:, Soil Number ... — A Crops or Livestock which Percentage NRCS Survey States can bo Name Soil Class_ of Lot Produced onthis .......... 42i g,i1 1.-i NI If farming activity is currently taking place on abutting parcel, and these parcels have the same soils as the subject property, explain why your property cannot be used for the same kind of farming as the abutting parcels, r.A4e1-Y t> v ezE ... ............ Grre i'''''.711-4:ree 14' „ 11 4/13 Form C Soil Information for Abutting Parcel (complete one Form C for each abutting tax lot) Tax Map and Lot Number: • -I el tot, Solt Number Nemo 1••,) c 6'„ Crops or LIveatock whlch Percentage NRCS Survey States can be Soil Class of Lot Produced on Ws Soil Type 17" If farming activity is currently taking place on abutting parcels, and these parcels hove the same soils as the subject property, explain why your property cannot be used for the same kind of farming as the abutting parcels. 11 MA. N. '' ...................... ......... ..... 11 4/13 Form C Soil Information for Abutting Parcel (complete one Fomi C for each abutting tax lot) Tax Map and Lot Number: — 0 ... &•*• 0 ...... Crops or Livestock which Soil Percentage NRCS Survey States can be Number Name Soil Class of Lot Produced on thls Solt Type • :DT .1.* ".V.I.'• A 1:t., o ..-.:, ,-,4 ::.. si V:::CI ),:eN . p..., 0: . 1.., .15T"tre) ..,,, MO. If farming activity is currently taking place on abutting parcels, and these parcels have the same soils as the subject property, explain why your property cannot be used for the same kind of farming as the abutting parcels. tDC-t. Og•e,-.141)1• .... ( • ..ct-,,,krtsi or 121,4.1 ?\40ie„es. <,:f.) f„1,...5,1 --T4 401 . WwwW.A. 11 4/13 1:K••• z,••• „Txr4'44 • •, TN, `IN:,klik• 41; 'itt‘k#04,,'k i 1 • • • '' '—',AV,040,0•14 Itt.}WN,M EFU Analysis - EFU Zoning Taxlot: 171333A000201 rel,;f•;.,••••/2 2(AS 0,3 cow:Ey C,:(:),?1%1101.• ripnzlitmo � � 5 st NCS a' p EFU Analysis - Sods Tgot]733 0201 *.21 42$a w v Orstel f4Autuoryk A, eCounty Ory Otvolopitte,ii Deptsr3Men1 1 'MUM .ir:.::::;:: rrr r,:.•r,' < Year Built (.... 11000. 1978 1979-19921 - 1893 - 20141 EFU Analysis - Year Built Taxiot: 171 333A000201 U "Y• Oka NF ilgte; February 24, W ci flresctiul»c Go:Imy Com::wruly Development Deetni nent U C 0 , U .Y 4 8 PJ V as 4 p c 8 C� M 8 m y it 8 rJ tft L. N MAP INFORMATION MAP LEGEND comprise your AO1 mete .:napped at 1:24, The sail surveys .. N 5 6 0 4 W a1 w r4 4 n 7 Pq y '2 ac 6' u ro c 0 a, vi t' h y Iv 0 `° -: N ',I': 2, st °? ro 4 Fn b 11� E 2vi 1p m , ui C. - M 20 r %uib ZS o.yG' o w 13 c"�ov s vatiod� dg Yay n F' -is i1. r L .f.7 c7 ` `e.'O C Et al 51 Q7 -9,5). . tee ' o z • ,�8 r��• c av FosEm v nd cai n J:iiiig .a n c�S ca bio fi'rmi '�ro Is tt^S� . m' 8 o Uro L U Q x , N c" _. tryd C lel 0GG% 0 E a .c. N 13 CiIS be Bos Ma¢ Unit Paiygcns Scs Map Una Lines SicMasi Unit Paints 0 W N 5 Yi so as w Ca Ca la o_ N. i'.. - b z ,3 g1 s w c9 a. U 43 "5.�9p 3'y 6 t 0 C T1 t) SoH Map Upper Deschutes Fiver Area, Oregon, Parts of De,stytutes, Jefferson, and Klamath Deschutes County Hlie Counties 247.15.00G06&•CU Map Unit Legend. Upper Deschutes River Area, Orogen, Parts of Deschutes, Jefferson, end Klement Counties (08820) Map Unit Symbol Mop Unit Noma Acres to A01 Percent of AOt 36A Cteskarnp loamy sand. 0 to 3 perrenl :slopes 5BC Totals for Area of lntere;st Camey -Rota outcrop- Geskamp complex, 0 to 15 percent slopes 196.5 414.3 32.2% 67.1.1% • 610.6 100,0°% ,1M Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2/27/2015 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soll Survey Page 3 of 3 EFU Analysis m Total Acres Taxlat; 1713331000201 D 4.:Y.^. 4w+ v.3 ....':..IgIN 1lMM1,: ' aA4LTE Cate: rebruary'2.4, 2016 G`Q?keI11:1C4 County Community Devntc•umont Uapattmr;nt 1 1 ..... f•' r , t ::A 4, " " • •'• ,„ „;4•4:„...„Xi,.,s„,.. S., „ , 1' in Tax DoranI.(Iti EFU Analysis - Tax Deferred Taxlot: 171333A000201 13 10 P, M3os Dato: hwary 24, 2015 Oottohates County Community Dovoloprotrnt D000rttoont J 4 • ,���, ..\\�\ �"k`, \\,�\\\\ \\\\\".��• ,* yid J \ EFU Analysis -• Last CU Permit Ta xiot : 171333A000201 0 ft.t �;� 9a:• t21 f)iN:r F'cbrwijy 24, 20 it Ccilil t ity OtIvolnottiont f)il til, rPgn{ 6700,9 le Ar 'krI:o STATUTORY WARRANTY Y DEED NORMAN BAIN, Grantor, conveys and warrants to LINDA REED) HAASI , Grantee, the following described real property free of eaacambrances except as specifically set forib herein: The East Ralf of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (E VA NW '/4 NE %) of Section Thirty-three 03), Township Seventeen (17) South, Range Thirteen (13) East of the Willamette Meridian, TOGETIIER WIT11 an easement for Ingress and egress over the West Half of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (W Ya NW 1/4 NE '/e) of Section Thirty three: (33), Township Seventeens (17) South Range Thirteen (13) East of the Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon, as necessary for access to Alfalfa Market Road, together with ten (til) acres of Central Oregon Irrigations water rights. StalEC'.1' TO: Rel property taxes, Existence of roads, railroads, irrigation ditches and canals, telephone, telegraph and power transmission facltities; Rules, regulations, assessments and liens thereon of the Central Oregon irrigation District; and Reservations in Federal patents. and. covenants that Grantor is the owner of the above described pmperty free of all encumbrances. except as listed above and will warrant and defend the same against all persons who may lawfully claim the same except as shown above. The true and actual consideration for this conveyance is $25,000. THIS INSTRUMENT WILT., NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLTCABT E LAND USE TAWS AND RE.GULA`1IONS. 'BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROI'RIA`I"E era OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES AND TO DETERMINE ANY Limns ON LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES AS DEFINED rN ORS 30.£330. TTI! PROPERTY DESCRIBED 1N THIS INSTRUMENT MAY NOT BE WITHIN A F1 RE PROTECTION DISTRICT PROTECTING STRUCTURES. THE PROPERTY TY IS SUBJECT TO LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS, WHICH, IN FARM OR FOREST ZONES, MAY NOT AUTHORIZE CONSTRUCTION OR SITING OF A 'RESIDENCE AND WHICH LIMIT LAWST ITS AGAINST ! RAM1NG OR FOREST PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930 IN .ALL ZONES. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEB TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES.. I)..lr ;i '.I'i N :1 OF FIRE P.R.O ECTION FOR. STRUCTURES. Grantees current address is: 114$ NE Revere Ave., Bend, OR 97701 Statutory Warranty Deed Page 1 The tax at count number of the property described above is:,_,._ 42 Datil a change is requested, all tax statements shall W sent to: Linde Reed Haase, 1184 NE Revere Ave., Bend, OR 97701. DATED this 7/5r4 day of October, 2004. Nero athaiqa. STATE OF OREGON ) as. County,*;,. ) -14 Personally appeared the above named Norman Bain and acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be his voluntary act. BEFORE Me Notary Public fir Oregon My Commission Expires: :;.5-,0? PAULA E WARRINGTON Na. J PUN[uc- mop(3144 ,r Statutory t arranty Deed Page 2 Neighboring Properly Owners within 750' of Subject Site Conditional Use Per it lbr Lauda :Rend :Haase Non -.larva Dwelling iia E +'U ening District 171333A000200 TIBBITTS,CARRIF 23045 ALFALFA MKT R0) BEND, OR 97701 171333A00900 BERNARD, PATRICK ET At. 2669 NE HWY 20 BEND, OR 97701 171333 1300 1 00 F ROWN,CrHARLES W11.1..IAM & BARBARA ALICE 22895 ALFALFA RD BEND. OR 9770' 1713280001700 GONZALEZ EDGAR & LETICIA 0552 OXFORD DFS I IUNTINGT'ON 9E:ACH, CA 92647 71333 A000400 F AI R.ROE ECT CALVIN & CAROL LYNN 23054 DONNA LN BEND. OR 97701 171333A000700 FRE:DRIf: KS, TONY W & E:RICKA 23031 DONNA LN BEND, OR 97701 17133313001202 CABE, LANCE C & CORNETT, T, TAMMY J 22980 DONNA IN BENZ:), OR 97701. 171333A000901 RUDOLPH, WILLIAM H & IVA 23057 DONNA LN BEND, OR 97701 1713280001€100 MATT LIVING TRUST 23995 ALFALFA MARKET RD BEND, OR 97701 1713280000900 KILLPACK, MIATTHE),At J & BAYLEY A 229111) ALFALFA MARKET RE) BEND. OR $7'?01 171333A000300 FAIR, KATIE 23060 DONNA IN BEND, OR 97701 1713280€081500 FISHER,KEVIN & NICOLE M 23130 ALFALFA MKT RD BEND, OR 07701 1713331.000201 �� .... HAASE, LINDA REED (APPLICANT) 171 1280001400 F1SHER,RANDALL C & €.YNNE:TTE: L PO BOX 9724 BEND. OR C?770.�}..9?24 171333A00010(}w.......................... FAHLMAN, JUDITH K 2264 DUNNIGAN ST CAMARtLLO., CA 93010 171333.A000500 POWEL.1., JERRY & BEVERLY 23030 DONNA LN BEND, OR 97701 171333.000501 NI WMIAN,JERRY & RAMONA 23042 DONNA IN BEND. OR 97701 171333.A001001 FI IAYER,DAVID 1' & DONNA J 62231 BENNE: UT' RD BEND. OR 97701 171333.A001000 FLANARY, RANDAL.L & CHERYL 62275 BENNETT RD BEND, OR 97701 171333A000502 WALKER, GILBE_RT A & JOAN E 23008 DONNA LN BEND, OR 97701 171333A.000800 WITTE, GAIL. 1) & PATCHETT, JAGS€€CE 1) 23053 DONNA LN LEND. OR 97701 1 tr 2. or Jur ago 6'f!svil.., 3 OF-- 4 } yt,'C 1,00 ^ {lei 01: C c 4r-ef, +J*' s t'it: Loot 0466 Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue send, Oregon 97708-6005 Phone: (541) 388-6575 Fax: (541) 385-1764 http://www,deschutes.org/cd FINDINGS & DECISION FILE NUMBER: 247 -16 -000600 -AD OWNER: Rubio Real Estate Investments, LLC 2979 NW 17th St. Redmond, OR 97756 APPLICANT/AGENT: Douglas R. White Oregon Planning Solutions 60762 River Bend Dr. Bend, OR 97702 PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting approval of an Administrative Determination to establish a marijuana production facility in the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) Zone. STAFF CONTACT: Jacob Ripper, Associate Planner I. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, the County Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use Zones Chapter 18.80, Airport Safety Combining Zone Chapter 18.116, Supplementary Provisions Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code, the Development Procedures Ordinance I1. BASIC FINDINGS A. Location: The subject property has an assigned address of 23105 Alfalfa Market Rd., Bend, and is identified on County Assessor's Map 17-13-33A, as tax lot 201. B. Lot of Record: The subject property is a legal lot of record because it is Parcel 2 of the Minor Land Partition MP -83-13, and recorded with the County Surveyor as CS03304. C. Zoning: The subject property is zoned Exclusive Farm Use — Tumalo/Redmond/Bend Subzone (EFU-TRB) and is within the Airport Safety (AS) combining zone. Quality Services Perlimncd with Pride D. Proposal: The applicant is requesting approval of an Administrative Determination to establish a marijuana production facility in the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) zone. The proposal consists of a maximum mature plant canopy size of 9,760 square feet within three structures. Those three structures are one 6,000 square foot building with 4,000 square feet of mature plant canopy, and two 2,880 square foot greenhouses with a combined 5,760 square feet of mature plant canopy. E. Site Description: The subject property is approximately 20.05 acres in size according to County Assessor's records, and rectangular in shape. The property slopes slightly down to the southwest and has a vegetative cover of juniper trees scattered in pockets throughout. A large rock outcrop exists in the eastern -center of the property. F. Surrounding Land Uses: The subject property is surrounded to the north, east, and west by rural residential uses and small-scale hobby farms on lands zoned EFU-TRB. To the south and southwest are other rural residential uses and hobby farms on lands zoned Multiple -Use Agricultural (MUA-10). The hobby farm uses consist of livestock, irrigated pasture and hay production. Approximately 1,300 feet to the east are Federally -owned vacant lands and zoned EFU-AL. G. Land Use History: The subject property received a conditional use permit approval to establish a nonfarm dwelling under file CU -05-6. That land use permit expired prior to the use being established. Another conditional use permit under file 247 -15- 000103 -CU approved an application to re-establish the expired nonfarm dwelling approval. The nonfarm dwelling has not been established as of the date of mailing of this Findings & Decision. A property line adjustment under file 247 -15 -000280 -LL approved an adjustment between the subject property and the properties identified on County Assessor's Map 17-13-28 as tax lots 1600 and 1601. The result of the property line adjustment would be a consolidation of tax lot 1601 with tax lot 201. The property line adjustment has not received final approval because copies of the recorded survey and new deeds have not been submitted to the Planning Division as of the date of mailing of this Findings & Decision. H. Public Agency Comments: The Planning Division mailed notice and received comments from the following agencies: Deschutes County Building Division: The Deschutes County Building Safety Divisions code required Access, Egress, Setback, Fire & Life Safety Fire Fighting Water Supplies, etc. will be specifically addressed during the plan review process for any proposed structures and occupancies. All Building Code required items will be addressed, when a specific structure, occupancy, and type of construction is proposed and submitted for plan review. Deschutes County Senior Transportation Planner. Peter Russell: / have reviewed the transmittal materials for 247 -16 -000600 -AD for a 10,000 -square -foot marijuana production (growing) operation within one 4,000 -square foot building and two greenhouses of 3,000 square feet each in the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) zone at 23105 Alfalfa Market Road, aka 17-13-33A, Tax Lot 201. The most recent edition of the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook does not contain a category for marijuana production. In consultation with 247 -16 -000600 -AD Page 2 of 22 the Road Department Director and Planning staff, the County has determined the best analog use is Warehouse (Land Use 150) based on the storage requirements and employees of this activity. Warehouse generates daily trips at a rate of 3.56 trips per 1,000 square feet. The application indicates the site will have 10,000 square feet of building devoted to cannabis production. The resulting trip rate would be 36 daily trips (3.56 X 10). Deschutes County Code (DCC) at 18.116.310(C)(3)(a) states no further traffic analysis is needed if there are 50 or less new weekday trips generated from the use. The proposed land use will not meet this minimum threshold for additional traffic analysis. Board Resolution 2013-020 sets a transportation system development charge (SDC) rate of $3,852 per p.m. peak hour trip. The ITE indicates Warehouse generates 0.32 p.m. peak hour trips per 1,000 square feet, which in this instance would result in 3.2 p.m. peak hour trips (0.32 X 10). Thus the applicable SDC would be $12,326 (1.6 X $3, 852). The SDC is due prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy; if a certificate of occupancy is not applicable, then the SDC is due within 60 days of the land use decision becoming final. Bend Fire Department: General Safety Provisions: Hazard Communication • Material Safety Data Sheets shall be on property and made easily accessible to the fire code official. Section 5003.4 of the 2014 Oregon Fire Code • Containers and/or packages related to hazardous materials .shall be properly labeled and warning signage shall be properly displayed and easily visible. Section 5003.5.1 of the 2014 Oregon Fire Code. • All persons shall be trained on what to do in the event of an emergency involving hazardous materials on the property. Sections 406 and 407 of the 2014 Oregon Fire Code. • NFPA 704 hazard identification signs shall be placed on stationary containers and above ground tanks and at entrances to locations where hazardous materials are stored, dispensed, used, or handled in quantities requiring a permit and at specific entrances and locations designated by the fire code official. Section 5003.5 of the 2014 Oregon Fire Code. Building and Equipment Design Features: Interior Finishes • Interior finishes (Visqueen® or Mylar® type plastic/polyethylene or polyester to cover walls and ceilings) must comply with flame spread ratings in accordance with Table 803.3 of the 2014 Oregon Fire Code. Exits and Exit Signage, Egress: Security measures shall not conflict with the maintenance and operation of exiting and egress. Means of egress shall not be concealed in any way. Section 1008.1 of the 2014 Oregon Fire Code. Exit doors and their function shall not be eliminated or modified in any way without prior approval of the Building Official. Section 1001.2 of the 2014 Oregon Fire Code. Slide bolts and security bars installed on emergency egress doors are prohibited. Section 1008.1.9.4 of the 2014 Oregon Fire Code. 247 -16 -000600 -AO Page 3 of 22 Fire Extinguishers: • Provide 10 lb. ABC 4A:808:C portable fire extinguishers through the facility to achieve a maximum travel distance of no more than 75 feet to each fire extinguisher. Section 906.1 of the 2014 Oregon Fire Code. Fire Apparatus and Building Access: • Buildings/facilities associated with the production of marijuana shall have at least one all-weather road 20 feet wide and supporting fire apparatus up to 60,000 GVW Section 503.2 of the 2014 Oregon Fire Code. • Gates across fire apparatus access road shall be approved by the fire code official. Section 503.6 of the 2014 Oregon Fire Code. • The installation of a Knox Box® and/or Knox® Key Override shall be installed to provide rapid entry. Section 506.1 of the 2014 Oregon Fire Code. Fire Protection Water Supplies: • An approved water supply capable of supplying the required fire flow for fire protection shall be provided to premises upon which facilities, buildings or portions of buildings are hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction. Section 507.1 of the 2014 Oregon Fire Code. • Fire flow requirements for buildings or portions of buildings shall be determined by an approved method. Documentation of the available fire flow shall be provided to the fire code official prior to final approval of the water supply system. In areas without water supply systems, the fire code official is authorized to use NFPA 1142 in determining fire flow requirements. Appendix 8107.1 of the 2014 Oregon Fire Code. Hazardous Materials and Operations: Provide information to the fire code official on the use of Carbon Dioxide and Carbon Dioxide generators related to the marijuana production operation. The use of Carbon Dioxide or Carbon Dioxide Generators creating an asphyxiation hazard shall require monitoring, detection and an audible alarm. Chapter 50 of the 2014 Oregon Fire Code. Other Fire Service Features: • New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall be a minimum 4 inches high with a minimum stroke width of 0.5 inch. Where access is by means of a private road and the building cannot be viewed from the public way, a monument, pole, or other sign or means shall be used to identify the structure. Address signs are available through the Deschutes Rural Fire Protection District #2. An address sign application can be obtained from the City of Bend Fire Department website or by calling 541-388-6309 during normal business hours. Section 505.1 of the 2014 Oregon Fire Code. The following agencies either had no comment or did not respond to the notice: Avion Water Company, Bend/La Pine School District, Bend Municipal Airport, Central Oregon irrigation District, Deschutes County Assessor, Deschutes County Environmental Soils Division, and Oregon Liquor Control Commission. 247 -16 -000600 -AD Page 4 of 22 I. Public Comments: The Planning Division mailed a written notice of this application to property owners within 750 feet of the subject property on October 12, 2016. Two public comment letters were received and raised the following concerns: 1. Odor control 2. Light pollution 3. Use of a secure waste receptacle 4. Visual impacts 5. Neighborhood crime 6. Criminal trespassing 7. Environmental impacts from the use of pesticides and fungicides 8. Property value impacts Staff Comment: The Deschutes County Code (DCC) does not authorize the Planning Division to review concerns 5 - 8 above in relation to the proposal. Applicable criteria of the DCC are addressed in the findings below. J. Review Period: This application was submitted on October 4, 2016. It was deemed incomplete on November 2, 2016. After the applicant submitted additional information, the application was accepted and deemed complete on December 19, 2016. The 150th day on which the county must take final action on this application is May 18, 2017. III. CONCLUSIONARY FINDINGS A. Chapter 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use Zones 1. Section 18.16.020. Use Permitted Outright. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright: S. Marijuana production, subject to the provisions of DCC 18.116.330. FINDING: The proposed marijuana production facility is an allowable use permitted outright in the EFU zones, subject to the provisions of DCC 18.116.330, which are reviewed below. 2. 18.16.060. Dimensional Standards. E. Building height. No building or structure shall be erected or enlarged to exceed 30 feet in height, except as allowed under DCC 18.120.040. FINDING: No elevation drawings were submitted by the applicant. This criterion can be met by the imposition of a condition of approval. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit elevation plans demonstrating all structures shall not exceed 30 feet in height. 247 -16 -000600 -AD Page 5 of 22 3. Section 18.16.070. Yards. A. The front yard shall be a minimum of: 40 feet from a property line fronting on a local street, 60 feet from a property line fronting on a collector street, and 100 feet from a property line fronting on an arterial street. B. Each side yard shall be a minimum of 25 feet, except that for a nonfarm dwelling proposed on property with side yards adjacent to property currently employed in farm use, and receiving special assessment for farm use, the side yard shall be a minimum of 100 feet. C. Rear yards shall be a minimum of 25 feet, except that for a nonfarm dwelling proposed on property with a rear yard adjacent to property currently employed in farm use, and receiving special assessment for farm use, the rear yard shall be a minimum of 100 feet. D. In addition to the setbacks set forth herein, any greater setbacks required by applicable building or structural codes adopted by the State of Oregon and/or the County under DCC 15.04 shall be met. FINDING: Staff finds the subject property's northern property line is the front property line. Alfalfa Market Road to the north is an arterial road, therefore the required front yard setback is 100 feet. The revised site plan indicates the three proposed structures are clustered together and the closest structure is approximately 330 feet from the northern front property line. The proposal is not for a non-farm dwelling, therefore, the required side and rear yard setbacks are 25 feet. The submitted plot plan indicates the clustered structures will have a westem side yard setback of 115 feet, an eastern side yard setback of approximately 445 feet, and a southern rear yard setback of approximately 820 feet. The required yard setbacks of subsections A, B, and C are met. Any greater setbacks required by applicable building or structural codes will be addressed during building permit review. B. Chapter 18.116, Supplementary Provisions 1. Section 18.116.330. Mariivana Production. Processing. and Retailing. A. Applicability. Section 18.116.330 applies to: 1. Marijuana Production in the EFU, MUA-10, and RI zones. 2. Marijuana Processing in the EFU, MUA-10, TeC, TeCR, TuC, Tul, RI, and SUBP zones 3. Marijuana Retailing In the RSC, TeC, TeCR, TuC, Tul, RC, RI, SUC, SUTC, and SUBP zones. 4. Marijuana Wholesaling in the RSC, TeC, TeCR, TuC, RC, SUC, and SUBP zones. FINDING: The applicant has proposed Marijuana Production in the EFU zone. This section applies. 247 -16 -000600 -AD Page 6 of 22 B. Marijuana production and marijuana processing. Marijuana production and marijuana processing shall be subject to the following standards and criteria: 1. Minimum Lot Area. a. In the EFU and MUA-10 zones, the subject legal lot of record shall have a minimum lot area of five (5) acres. FINDING: The subject property is a legal lot of record and is 20.05 acres in size. This standard is met. 2. Indoor Production and Processing. a. In the MUA-10 zone, marijuana production and processing shall be located entirely within one or more fully enclosed buildings with conventional or post framed opaque, rigid walls and roof covering. Use of greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar non- rigid structures is prohibited. b. In the EFU zone, marijuana production and processing shall only be located in buildings, including greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar structures. c. In all zones, marijuana production and processing are prohibited in any outdoor area. FINDING: The subject property is within the EFU zone. The applicant has proposed that production will occur within one (1) 6,000 -square -foot fully enclosed structure, and two (2) 2,880 square foot greenhouses, complying with these criteria. These criteria can be met. As an ongoing condition of approval, marijuana production and processing are prohibited in any outdoor area. 3. Maximum Mature Plant Canopy Size. In the EFU zone, the maximum canopy area for mature marijuana plants shall apply as follows: a. Parcels from 5 acres to less than 10 acres in lot area: 2,500 square feet. b. Parcels equal to or greater than 10 acres to less than 20 acres in lot area: 5,000 square feet. The maximum canopy area for mature marijuana plants may be increased to 10,000 square feet upon demonstration by the applicant to the County that: I. The marijuana production operation was lawfully established prior to January 1, 2015; and 11. The increased mature marijuana plant canopy area will not generate adverse impact of visual, odor, noise, lighting, privacy or access greater than the impacts associated 247 -16 -000600 -AD Page 7 of 22 with a 5,000 square foot canopy area operation. c. Parcels equal to or greater than 20 acres to less than 40 acres in lot area: 10,000 square feet. d. Parcels equal to or greater than 40 acres to less than 60 acres in lot area: 20,000 square feet. e. Parcels equal to or greater than 60 acres In lot area: 40,000 square feet. FINDING: The applicant has proposed a maximum of 9,760 square feet in mature plant canopy area, as allowed under subsection (c) for properties with a lot area equal to or greater than 20 acres and Tess than 40 acres. The subject property is 20.05 acres in size. This criterion will be met. 4. Maximum Building Floor Area. In the MUA-10 zone, the maximum building floor area used for all activities associated with marijuana production and processing on the subject property shall be: a. Parcels from 5 acres to less than 10 acres in lot area: 2,500 square feet. b. Parcels equal to or greater than 10 acres: 5,000 square feet. FINDING: The subject property is not located in the MUA-10 Zone. This criterion does not apply. 5. Limitation on License/Grow Site per Parcel. No more than one (1) Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) licensed mariJuana production or Oregon Health Authority (OHA) registered medical marijuana grow site shall be allowed per legal parcel or lot. FINDING: The proposed use includes only one (1) Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) licensed marijuana production site. This criterion will be met. 6. Setbacks. The following setbacks shall apply to all marijuana production and processing areas and buildings: a. Minimum Yard Setback/Distance from Lot Lines: 100 feet. b. Setback from an off-site dwelling: 300 feet. For the purposes of this criterion, an off-site dwelling includes those proposed off-site dwellings with a building permit application submitted to Deschutes County prior to submission of the marijuana production or processing application to Deschutes County. c. Exception: Any reduction to these setback requirements may be granted by the Planning Director or Hearings Body provided the applicant demonstrates the reduced setbacks afford equal or 247 -16 -000600 -AD Page 8 of 22 greater mitigation of visual, odor, noise, lighting, privacy, and access impacts. FINDING: The submitted plot plan indicates the marijuana production structures are a minimum of 115 feet from all property lines. The applicant submitted a revised site plan demonstrating the closest off-site dwelling is 320 feet northwest of the subject marijuana production area, meeting the requirement under subsection (b) above. These criteria will be met. 7. Separation Distances. Minimum separation distances shall apply as follows: a. The use shall be located a minimum of 1000 feet from: 1. A public elementary or secondary school for which attendance is compulsory under Oregon Revised Statutes 339.010, et seq., including any parking lot appurtenant thereto and any property used by the school; ii. A private or parochial elementary or secondary school, teaching children as described in ORS 339.030(1)(a), including any parking lot appurtenant thereto and any property used by the school; Hi. A licensed child care center or licensed preschool, including any parking lot appurtenant thereto and any property used by the child care center or preschool. This does not include licensed or unlicensed child care which occurs at or in residential structures; iv. A youth activity center; and v. National monuments and state parks. b. For purposes of DCC 18.116.330(8)(7), all distances shall be measured from the lot line of the affected properties listed in DCC 18.116.330(8)(7)(a) to the closest point of the buildings and land area occupied by the marijuana producer or marijuana processor. c. A change in use of another property to those Identified in DCC 18.116.330(B)(7) shall not result in the marijuana producer or marijuana processor being in violation of DCC 18.916.330(8)(7) if the use is: 1. Pending a local land use decision; 11. Licensed or registered by the State of Oregon; or Lawfully established. FINDING: The applicant states the closest use requiring separation is approximately 15,000 feet from the subject property and is the New Leaf Academy, a private school. Twenty-seven (27) properties are wholly or partially within 1,000 feet of the subject property. According to 247 -16 -000600 -AD Page 9 of 22 Deschutes County GIS, none of these properties are in a use described in the above section or are subject to subsection (c). These criteria are met. 8. Access. Marijuana production over 5,000 square feet of canopy area for mature marijuana plants shall comply with the following standards. a. Have frontage on and legal direct access from a constructed public, county, or state road; or b. Have access from a private road or easement serving only the subject property. c. if the property takes access via a private road or easement which also serves other properties, the applicant shall obtain written consent to utilize the easement or private road for marijuana production access "from all ownerswho have access rights to the private road or easement. The written consent shall: i. Be on a form provided by the County and shall contain the following information; ii. Include notarized signatures of all owners, persons and properties holding a recorded interest In the private road or easement; iii. Include a description of the proposed marijuana production or marijuana processing operation; and iv. Include a legal description of the private road or easement. FINDING: The applicant proposes a maximum canopy size of 9,760 square feet. These criteria apply. The tract' owned by Rubio Real Estate Investments includes a 0.22 acre tax lot (Assessor's Map 17-13-28, tax lot 1601) which is north of and adjacent to the subject property. Tax lot 1601 has frontage on Alfalfa Market Road. A property line adjustment approval under file 247 -15 -000280 -LL approved a consolidation of tax lot 1601 with the subject tax lot 201. According to Planning Division records, it does not appear the property line adjustment was perfected, meaning a survey and/or deeds, as required by the decision, were recorded with the County Clerk and copies of those recorded documents returned to the Panning Division for review. Regardless, staff finds both tax lots comprise a tract of land which has frontage on a public road and the access requirements of this section are met. 9. Lighting. Lighting shall be regulated as follows: a. Inside building fighting, including greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar structures, used for marijuana production shall not be visible outside the building from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. on the following day. b. Lighting fixtures shall be fully shielded in such a manner that all light emitted directly by the lamp or "Tract," as used In DCC 18.16, 18.36 and 18.40 means one or more contiguous Tots or parcels in the same ownership, A tract shall not be considered to consist of less than the required acreage because it is crossed by a public road or waterway. DCC 18.04.030. 247 -16 -000600 -AD Page 10 of 22 a diffusing element, or indirectly by reflection or refraction, is projected below the horizontal plane through the lowest light -emitting part. c. Light cast by exterior light fixtures other than marijuana grow lights shall comply with DCC 15.10, Outdoor Lighting Control. FINDING: The agent states, "No lighting from inside [the] building or greenhouse[s] will be visible from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. on the following day or projected upward. No lighting will be visible from the buildings' interior, and greenhouses will have black -out light deprivation systems installed and operated by auto timers. Light cast by exterior light fixtures other than marijuana grow lights will comply with DCC 15.10, Outdoor Lighting Control" These criteria can feasibly be met. Staff adds the following ongoing conditions of approval to ensure compliance with the above section: Inside building lighting, including greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar structures, used for marijuana production shall not be visible outside the building from 7:00 p.m, to 7:00 a.m. on the following day. Lighting fixtures shall be fully shielded in such a manner that all Tight emitted directly by the lamp or a diffusing element, or indirectly by reflection or refraction, is projected below the horizontal plane through the lowest light -emitting part. The light cast by exterior light fixtures other than marijuana growing lights shall comply with DCC 15.10, Outdoor Lighting Control. 10. Odor. As used in DCC 18.116.330(B)(10), building means the building, including greenhouses, hoop houses, and other similar structures, used for marijuana production or marijuana processing. a. The building shall be equipped with an effective odor control system which must at all times prevent unreasonable interference of neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. b. An odor control system is deemed permitted only after the applicant submits a report by a mechanical engineer licensed In the State of Oregon demonstrating that the system will control odor so as not to unreasonably interfere with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. c. Private actions alleging nuisance or trespass associated with odor impacts are authorized, if at all, as provided in applicable state statute. d. The odor control system shall: i. Consist of one or more fans. The fan(s) shall be sized for cubic feet per minute (CFM) equivalent to the volume of the building (length multiplied by width multiplied by height) divided by three. The filter(s) shall be rated for the required CFM; or ii. Utilize an alternative method or technology to achieve equal to or greater odor mitigation than provided by (i) above. 247 -16 -000600 -AD Page 11 of 22 e. The system shall be maintained in working order and shall be in use. FINDING: The agent has submitted a letter dated November 23, 2016, from Registered Professional Engineer Robert James stating that odor will be controlled in the greenhouses by an automatic exhaust fan system that utilizes a fogger to control odor and will satisfy the requirements of DCC 18.116.330(B)(10)(d)(ii) above. The engineer goes on to state the odor control system inside the building will use carbon filters to satisfy these requirements. This criterion can be met. As an ongoing condition of approval, proposed odor control system must at all times prevent unreasonable interference with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. The odor control system shall be maintained in working order and shall be in use. 11. Noise. Noise produced by marijuana production and marijuana processing shall comply with the following: a. Sustained noise from mechanical equipment used for heating, ventilation, air condition, odor control, fans and similar functions shall not exceed 30 dB(A) measured at any property line between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the following day. b. Sustained noise from marijuana production is exempt from protections of DCC 9.12 and ORS 30.395, Right to Farm. Intermittent noise for accepted farming practices is permitted. FINDING: The agent has submitted a letter dated November 23, 2016, from Registered Professional Engineer Robert James, which states, "The greenhouse exhaust fans will not operate at night between the hours of 10 pm and 7 am. The HVAC equipment for the shop building does not run continuously. It runs only intermittently, similar to a typical home HVAC system. Therefore, there is no sustained noise from this equipment. Additionally, the outdoor condensing units will be screened on one side by the shop building and will be screened on the other three sides by a concrete wall. Our calculations indicate that [the] sound level from operating HVAC equipment should not exceed 30 dBA at any property lines between the hours of 10 pm and 7 am, and meets the requirements of County Code Chapter 18.116.330(B)(11)» Staff finds the Engineer's statements satisfy the requirements of this section. These criteria can be met. As an ongoing condition of approval, sustained noise from mechanical equipment used for heating, ventilation, air conditioning, odor control, fans and similar functions shall not exceed 30 dB(A) measured at any property line between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the following day. 12. Screening and Fencing. The following screening standards shall apply to greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar non- rigid structures and land areas used for marijuana production and processing: a. Subject to DCC 18.84, Landscape Management Combining Zone approval, If applicable. b. Fencing shall be finished in a muted earth tone that blends with the surrounding natural landscape and shall not be constructed of temporary materials 247 -16 -000600 -AD Page 12 of 22 such as plastic sheeting, hay bales, tarps, etc., and shall be subject to DCC 18.88, Wildlife Area Combining Zone, if applicable. c. Razor wire, or similar, shall be obscured from view or colored a muted earth tone that blends with the surrounding natural landscape. d. The existing tree and shrub cover screening the development from the public right-of-way or adjacent properties shall be retained to the maximum extent possible. This provision does not prohibit maintenance of existing lawns, removal of dead, diseased or hazardous vegetation; the commercial harvest of forest products in accordance with the Oregon Forest Practices Act; or agricultural use of the land. FINDING: The applicant states that fencing is proposed to enclose the marijuana production area, that no temporary materials will be used, and that all proposed fencing and all wires will be in a muted earth tone color. The applicant has not provided the specific colors or materials of the fencing. The subject property is not in the Landscape Management or the Wildlife Area Combining Zones. The property contains numerous trees that partially screen the proposed structures from view from the public right of way and from adjacent properties. Furthermore, the structure exceeds setbacks from property lines required by DCC sections 18.16.070 and 18.116.330(B)(6). These criteria can be met, and staff adds the following conditions to ensure compliance with the above criteria of this section. As an ongoing condition of approval, fencing and wire shall be finished in a muted brown, green, or natural wood color and shall not be constructed of temporary materials such as plastic sheeting, hay bales, tarps, etc. As an ongoing condition of approval, the existing tree and shrub cover screening the development from the public right-of-way or adjacent properties shall be retained to the maximum extent possible. This provision does not prohibit the maintenance of existing lawns, removal of dead, diseased or hazardous vegetation; the commercial harvest of forest products in accordance with the Oregon Forest Practices Act; or agricultural use of the land. 13. Water. The applicant shall provide: a. A copy of a water right permit, certificate, or other water use authorization from the Oregon Water Resource Department; or b. A statement that water is supplied from a public or private water provider, along with the name and contact information of the water provider; or c. Proof from the Oregon Water Resources Department that the water to be used is from a source that does not require a water right. FINDING: The applicant states that water is provided by Avion and irrigation is provided by Central Oregon Irrigation District. The applicant references a letter from Avion in the file 247- 15 -000103 -CU that states Avion will serve the subject property with potable water. Staff was able to locate this letter dated March 3, 2015. The applicant has also submitted a "Parton 247 -16 -000600 -AD Page 13 of 22 Taxlot Inquiry" from Central Oregon Irrigation District stating the property is served with 10.0 acres of irrigation water for use from April 151 to October 31St. These criteria can be met. 14. Fire protection for processing of cannabinoid extracts. Processing of cannabinoid extracts shall only be permitted on properties located within the boundaries of or under contract with a fire protection district. FINDING: No processing is proposed and this section does not apply. 15. Utility Verification. A statement from each utility company proposed to serve the operation, stating that each such company is able and willing to serve the operation, shall be provided. FINDING: The applicant states, "in the above referenced CUP, the record also demonstrates that Central Electric`Cooperatives `will serve' the: subject'property" with electricity' Staff was not able to locate the "will serve" letter associated with the CUP file 247 -15 -000103 -CU in Planning Division records. Regardless, a "will serve" letter from the electric utility for the referenced CUP would have been for residential use and would not satisfy this criterion. A commercial marijuana production facility can reasonably be expected to consume more electricity than a typical residential use. Staff finds this criterion can feasibly be met through a condition of approval. Prior to issuance of building permits, a statement from the electric utility company proposed to serve the marijuana production operation, stating that the electric utility company is able and willing to serve the operation, shall be provided to the Planning Division. 16. Security Cameras. if security cameras are used, they shall be directed to record only the subject property and public rights-of-way, except as required to comply with requirements of the OLCC or the OHA. FINDING: The applicant agrees to these requirements and states all cameras will only record the subject property. As an ongoing condition of approval, security cameras shall be directed to record only the subject property and public rights-of-way, except as required to comply with requirements of the OLCC or the OHA. 17. Secure Waste Disposal. Marijuana waste shall beattred in a secured waste receptacle in the possession of and under the control of the OLCC licensee or OHA Person Responsible for the Grow Site (PRMG). FINDING: The applicant acknowledged this requirement and states, "marijuana waste will be stored in a secured waste receptacle in the possession of and under the control of the OLCC licensee The applicant did not specify where the waste will be stored or how it will be secured. The OLCC's licensing requirements in OAR 845-025-7750(1)(b) require the applicant to, "store marijuana waste in a secured waste receptacle in the possession of and 247 -16 -000600 -AD Page 14 of 22 under the control of the licensee': Staff finds this criterion can feasibly be met by bath an ongoing condition of approval and as part of the licensing requirements for the OLCC. As an ongoing condition of approval, marijuana waste shall be stored in a secured waste receptacle in the possession of and under the control of the OLCC licensee. 18. Residency. In the MUA-10 zone, a minimum of one of the following shall reside in a dwelling unit on the subject property: a. An owner of the subject property; b. A holder of an OLCC license for marijuana production, provided that the license applies to the subject property; or c. A person registered with the OHA as a person designated to produce marijuana by a registry Identification cardholder, provided that the registration applies to the subject property. FINDING: The subject property is not in the MUA-10 zone. This section does not apply. 19. Nonconformance. All medical marijuana grow sites lawfully established prior to June 8, 2016 by the Oregon Health Authority shall comply with the provisions of DCC 18.116.330(B)(9) by September 8, 2016 and with the provisions of DCC 18.116.330(B)(10-12, 16, 17) by December 8, 2016. FINDING: The proposal is not for an existing medical marijuana grow site. This section does not apply. 20. Prohibited Uses. a. In the EFU zone, the following uses are prohibited: 1. A new dwelling used In conjunction with a marijuana crop; ii. A farm stand, as described in ORS 215.213(1)(r) or 215.283(1)(o), used in conjunction with a marijuana crop; iii. A commercial activity, as described in ORS 215.213(2)(c) or 215.283(2)(a), carried on in conjunction a marijuana crop; and iv. Agri -tourism and other commercial events and activities in conjunction with a marijuana crop. c. In the EFU, MUA-10, and Rural Industrial zones, the following uses are prohibited on the same property as marijuana production: i. Guest Lodge. 11. Guest Ranch. ill. Dude Ranch. iv. Destination Resort. 247 -16 -000600 -AD Page 15 of 22 v. Public Parks. vi. Private Parks. vii. Events, Mass Gatherings and Outdoor Mass Gatherings. viii. Bed and Breakfast. ix. Room and Board Arrangements. FINDING: None of the prohibited uses have been proposed by the applicant. As an ongoing condition of approval, the uses listed in DCC 18.116.330(20) shall be prohibited on the subject property so long as Marijuana Production is conducted on the site. D. Annual Reporting 1. An annual report shall be submitted to the Community Development Department by the real property owner or licensee, if different, each February 1, documenting all of the following as of December 31 of the previous year, including the applicable fee as adopted in the current County Fee Schedule and a fully executed Consent to Inspect Premises form: a. Documentation demonstrating compliance with the: i. Land use decision and permits. ii. Fire, health, safety, waste water, and building codes and laws. iii. State of Oregon licensing requirements. b. Failure to timely submit the annual report, fee, and Consent to Inspect Premises form or to demonstrate compliance with DCC 18.116.330(C)(1)(a) shall serve as acknowledgement by the real property owner and licensee that the otherwise allowed use is not in compliance with Deschutes County Code; authorizes permit revocation under DCC Title 22, and may be relied upon by the State of Oregon to deny new or license renewal(s) for the subject use. c. Other information as may be reasonably required by the Planning Director to ensure compliance with Deschutes County Code, applicable State regulations, and to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. d. Marijuana Control Plan to be established and maintained by the Community Development Department. e. Conditions of Approval Agreement to be established and maintained by the Community Development Department. f. This information shall be public record subject to ORS 192.502(17). FINDING: Compliance with the annual reporting obligation of this section is required. 247 -16 -000600 -AD Page 16 of 22 As an ongoing condition of approval, the annual reporting requirements of DCC 18.116.330(D) shall be met. C. Chapter 18.80, Airport Safety Combining Zone 1. Section 18.80.020. Application of Provisions. The provisions of DCC 18.80.020 shall only apply to unincorporated areas located under airport imaginary surfaces and zones, including approach surfaces, transitional surfaces, horizontal surfaces, conical surfaces and runway protection zones. While DCC 18.80 identities dimensions for the entire imaginary surface and zone, parts of the surfaces and/or zones do not apply within the Redmond, Bend or Sisters Urban Growth Boundaries. The Redmond Airport is owned and operated by the City of Redmond, and located wholly within the Redmond City Limits. Imaginary surface dimensions vary for each airport covered by DCC 18.80.020. Based on the classification of each individual airport, only those portions (of the AS Zone) that overlay existing County zones are relevant. Public use airports covered by DCC 18.80.020 include Redmond Municipal, Bend Municipal, Sunriver and Sisters Eagle Air. Although it is a public -use airport, due to its size and other factors, the County treats land uses surrounding the Sisters Eagle Air Airport based on the ORS 836.608 requirements for private -use airports. The Oregon Department of Aviation is still studying what land use requirements will ultimately be applied to Sisters. However, contrary to the requirements of ORS 836.608, as will all public -use airports, federal law requires that the FAA Part 77 surfaces must be applied. The private -use airports covered by DCC 18.80.020 include Cline Falls Airpark and Juniper Airpark. FINDING: The subject property lies within the conical surface of the Bend Municipal Airport. Therefore, the provisions of this chapter apply. 2. Section 18.80.028. Height Limitations. All uses permitted by the underlying zone shall comply with the height limitations in DCC 18.80.028. When height limitations of the underlying zone are more restrictive than those of this overlay zone, the underlying zone height limitations shall control. [ORS 836.619; OAR 660-013-0070] A. Except as provided in DCC 18.80.028(B) and (C), no structure or tree, plant or other object of natural growth shall penetrate an airport imaginary surface. [ORS 836.619; OAR 660-013-0070(1)] FINDING: The subject property is located within the conical surface of the Bend Municipal Airport. The conical surface extends outward and upward from the periphery of the horizontal surface at a slope of 20:12 for a horizontal distance of 4,000 feet and to a vertical height of 2 This ratio is equivalent to 20 feet of horizontal distance for every 1 foot of vertical distance. 247 -16 -000600 -AD Page 17 of 22 350 above the airport elevation. The proposed marijuana production facility is limited to a maximum height of 30 feet and will be located more than 10,000 feet from the airport. Staff finds that the proposed marijuana production facility will not penetrate the conical surface. This criterion will be met. B. For areas within airport imaginary surfaces but outside the approach and transition surfaces, where the terrain is at higher elevations than the airport runway surfaces such that existing structures and permitted development penetrate or would penetrate the airport imaginary surfaces, a local government may authorize structures up to 35 feet in height. FINDING: The subject property is within the conical surface, therefore this criterion applies. The elevation above sea level for the Bend Municipal Airport is approximately 3,436 feet. The elevation above sea level for the subject property is approximately 3,484 feet. The proposed marijuana production facility will be limited to a maximum height of 30 feet. Therefore, maximum elevation of the structures on the subject property is 3,514 feet. As noted above, the subject property is located more than 10,000 feet from the airport. Staff finds that this maximum elevation will not penetrate the conical surface. C. Other height exceptions or variances may be permitted when supported in writing by the airport sponsor, the Department of Aviation and the FAA. Applications for height variances shall follow the procedures for other variances and shall be subject to such conditions and terms as recommended by the Department of Aviation and the FAA (for Redmond, Bend and Sunriver.) FINDING: No height exceptions or variances are sought by this application; therefore, this criterion does not apply. 3. Section 18.80.044. Land Use Compatibility. Applications for land use or building permits for properties within the boundaries of this overlay zone shall comply with the requirements of DCC 18.80 as provided herein. When compatibility issues arise, the Planning Director or Hearings Body is required to take actions that eliminate or minimize the incompatibility by choosing the most compatible location or design for the boundary or use. Where compatibility issues persist, despite actions or conditions intended to eliminate or minimize the incompatibility, the Planning Director or Hearings Body may disallow the use or expansion, except where the action results in loss of current operational levels and/or the ability of the airport to grow to meet future community needs. Reasonable conditions to protect the public safety may be imposed by the Planning Director or Hearings Body. (ORS 836.619; ORS 836.623(1); OAR 660-013-00801 A. Noise. Within airport noise Impact boundaries, land uses shall be established consistent with the levels identified in OAR 660, Division 13, Exhibit 5 (Table 2 of DCC 18.80). Applicants for any subdivision or partition approval or other land use approval or building permit affecting land within airport noise impact boundaries, shall sign and record in the Deschutes County Book of Records, a Declaration of Anticipated Noise declaring that the 247 -16 -000600 -AD Page 18 of 22 applicant and his successors will not now, or in the future complain about the allowed airport activities at the adjacent airport. In areas where the noise level is anticipated to be at or above 55 Ldn, prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of a noise sensitive land use (real property normally used for sleeping or as a school, church, hospital, public library or similar use), the permit applicant shall be required to demonstrate that a noise abatement strategy will be incorporated into the building design that will achieve an indoor noise level equal to or less than 55 Ldn. (NOTE: FAA Order 5100.38A, Chapter 7 provides that interior noise levels should not exceed 45 decibels In all habitable zones.] FINDING: The subject property is not within the noise impact boundary associated with the Bend Municipal Airport. Since the noise level at the subject property is anticipated to be Tess than 55 Ldn, staff finds that no noise abatement strategy is necessary. B. Outdoor lighting. No new or expanded industrial, commercial or recreational use shall project lighting directly onto an existing runway or taxiway or into existing airport approach surfaces except where necessary for safe and convenient air travel. Lighting for these uses shall incorporate shielding in their designs to reflect light away from airport approach surfaces. No use shall imitate airport lighting or impede the ability of pilots to distinguish between airport lighting and other lighting. FINDING: The proposed marijuana production facility is a new commercial use. The subject property is outside of the airport approach surface and is further than 10,000 feet from the runway, therefore staff finds lighting will not project into or onto any of the protected areas associated with the airport. This criterion is met. C. Glare. No glare producing material, including but not limited to unpainted metal or reflective glass, shall be used on the exterior of structures located within an approach surface or on nearby lands where glare could impede a pilot's vision. FINDING: The submitted application does not indicate what building materials or finishes are proposed. A condition of approval has been added to ensure compliance. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit building plans demonstrating no glare producing materials, including but not limited to unpainted metal or reflective glass, shall be used on the exterior of the proposed structures. D. Industrial emissions. No new industrial, mining or similar use, or expansion of an existing industrial, mining or similar use, shall, as part of its regular operations, cause emissions of smoke, dust or steam that could obscure visibility within airport approach surfaces, except upon demonstration, supported by substantial evidence, that mitigation measures imposed as approval conditions will reduce the potential for safety risk or incompatibility with airport operations to an insignificant level. 247 -16 -000600 -AD Page 19 of 22 The review authority shall impose such conditions as necessary to ensure that the use does not obscure visibility. FINDING: The proposed marijuana production facility is not an industrial, mining or similar use. This criterion does not apply. E. Communications Facilities and Electrical interference. No use shall cause or create electrical interference with navigational signals or radio communications between an airport and aircraft. Proposals for the location of new or expanded radio, radiotelephone, and television transmission facilities and electrical transmission lines within this overlay zone shall be coordinated with the Department of Aviation and the FAA prior to approval. Approval of cellular and other telephone or radio communication towers on leased property located within airport imaginary surfaces shall be conditioned to require their removal within 90 days following the expiration of the lease agreement. A bond or other security shall be required to ensure this result. FINDING: The proposed marijuana production facility will not cause or create electrical interference. This criterion will be met. F. Limitations and Restrictions on Allowed Uses in the RPZ, Approach Surface, and Airport Direct and Secondary impact Areas. For the Redmond, Bend, Sunriver, and Sisters airports, the land uses identified in DCC 18.80 Table 1, and their accessory uses, are permitted, permitted under limited circumstances, or prohibited in the manner therein described. In the event of conflict with the underlying zone, the more restrictive provisions shall control. As used in DCC 18.80.044, a limited use means a use that is allowed subject to special standards specific to that use. FINDING: The proposed marijuana production facility will not be located within the runway protection zone (RPZ), the approach surface, or the airport direct and secondary impact areas. This criterion does not apply. IV. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing Basic and Conclusionary Findings, staff finds that the proposed marijuana production facility can comply with the applicable standards and criteria of the Deschutes County zoning ordinance if conditions of approval are met. V. DECISION APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions of approval. 247 -16 -000600 -AD Page 20 of 22 VI. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A. Use & Location: Marijuana production is conditionally approved inside the three proposed structures consisting of one 6,000 square foot building and two 2,880 square foot greenhouses. This approval is based upon the application, site plan, specifications, and supporting documentation submitted by the applicant. Any substantial change in this approved use will require review through a new land use application. B. Height: Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit elevation plans demonstrating all structures shall not exceed 30 feet in height. C. Glare: Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit building plans demonstrating no glare producing materials, including but not limited to unpainted metal or reflective glass, shall be used on the exterior of the proposed structures. D. Utility Verification: Prior to issuance of building permits, a statement from the electric utility company proposed to serve the marijuana production operation, stating that the electric utility company is able and willing to serve the operation, shall be provided to the Planning Division. ONGOING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL E. Lighting: The following lighting standards shall be met. 1. Inside building lighting used for marijuana production shall not be visible outside the building from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. on the following day. 2. Lighting fixtures shall be fully shielded in such a manner that all light emitted directly by the lamp or a diffusing element, or indirectly by reflection or refraction, is projected below the horizontal plane through the lowest light - emitting part. 3. The light cast by exterior light fixtures other than marijuana growing lights shall comply with DCC 15.10, Outdoor Lighting Control. 4. All exterior lighting shall be shielded so that direct light does not project off site. F. Odor: The proposed odor control system must at all times prevent unreasonable interference with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. The odor control system shall be maintained in working order and shall be in use. G. Noise: Sustained noise from mechanical equipment used for heating, ventilation, air conditioning, odor control, fans and similar functions shall not exceed 30 dB(A) measured at any property line between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the following day. H. Fencing: Fencing and wire shall be finished in a muted brown, green, or natural wood color and shall not be constructed of temporary materials such as plastic sheeting, hay bales, tarps, etc. 247 -16 -000600 -AD Page 21 of 22 Screening: The existing tree and shrub cover screening the development from the public right-of-way or adjacent properties shall be retained to the maximum extent possible, This provision does not prohibit the maintenance of existing lawns, removal of dead, diseased or hazardous vegetation; the commercial harvest of forest products in accordance with the Oregon Forest Practices Act; or agricultural use of the land. J. Security Cameras: If security cameras are used, they shall be directed to record only the subject property and public rights-of-way, except as required to comply with requirements of the OLCC or the OHA. K. Waste: Marijuana waste shall be stored in a secured waste receptacle in the possession of and under the control of the OLCC licensee. L. Prohibited Uses: The uses listed in DCC 18.116.330(20) shall be prohibited on the subject property so long as Marijuana Production and/or Processing are conducted on the site. Marijuana production and processing are prohibited in any outdoor area. M. Annual Reporting: The annual reporting requirements of DCC 18.116.330(D) shall be met. VII. DURATION OF APPROVAL: The applicant shall complete all conditions of approval and obtain placement permits the proposed use within two (2) years of the date this decision becomes final, or obtain an extension of time pursuant to Section 22.36.010 of the County Code, or this approval shall be void. This decision becomes final twelve (12) days after the date of mailing, unless appealed by a party of interest. DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION itten by: Jacob Ripper, Associate Planner Reviewed by: Peter Gutowsky, Planning Manager Dated this 11th day of January, 2017 Mailed this 11th day of January, 2017 247 -16 -000600 -AD Page 22 of 22 14,2,, ti r44 RC" eni.mu 10, 1, NE1/4 SEC, 33 T.17S, R.13E. W.M, DESCHUTES COUNTY t. • .qCM 8 18 88 . III_ -- I..... . . SI WAlleSefl keki TST 00- •89 r: r I fl Sh» t ,1 rl 19, 1 ”. 10 14 14. exv,, -erro,,,,,,,"8 iij [ Std 1,Y4' 1.7 .3 sm :5 AirkTA-- 4.'".1.14R_KE_T 1100 File: 241 -164300600 -AD Address: 23105 Alfalfa Markel Rd, Map: 17-13-33A TL 201 1! ZO i1x,r4arkit.,str,s,”777,-1,17,1,,Wcy 17 13 33A 84 17 13 33A Community Development Department Planning Division euildinp Safety Division Environmental! Soils Division P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 Phone: (541) 388-6575 Fax: (541) 385-1764 http://www.deschutes,org/cd NOTICE OF DECISION The Deschutes County Planning Division has approved the land use application described below: FILE NUMBER: 247 -16 -000600 -AD LOCATION: 23105 Alfalfa Market Rd., Bend, described on the County Assessor's Map 17-13-33A as Tax Lot 201. OWNER: Rubio Real Estate Investments, LLC 2979 NW 17th St. Redmond, OR 97756 APPLICANT/AGENT: Douglas R. White 60762 River Bend Dr. Bend, OR 97702 SUBJECT: The Deschutes County Planning Division has approved a request for an Administrative Determination to establish a marijuana production facility in the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) Zone. STAFF CONTACT: Jacob Ripper, Associate Planner, (541) 385-1759 APPLICABLE CRITERIA: The Planning Division reviewed this application for compliance against criteria contained in Chapters 18.16, 18.80, and 18.116 in Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code (DCC), the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance, as well as against the procedural requirements of Title 22 of the DCC. DECISION: Staff finds that the application meets applicable criteria, and approval is being granted subject to the following conditions: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A. Use & Location: Marijuana production is conditionally approved inside the three proposed structures consisting of one 6,000 square foot building and two 2,880 square foot greenhouses. This approval is based upon the application, site plan, specifications, and supporting documentation submitted by the applicant. Any substantial change in this approved use will require review through a new land use application. Quality Services Performer! with Pride B. Height: Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit elevation plans demonstrating all structures shall not exceed 30 feet in height. C. Glare: Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit building plans demonstrating no glare producing materials, including but not limited to unpainted metal or reflective glass, shall be used on the exterior of the proposed structures. D. Utility Verification: Prior to issuance of building permits, a statement from the electric utility company proposed to serve the marijuana production operation, stating that the electric utility company is able and willing to serve the operation, shall be provided to the Planning Division, ONGOING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL E. Lighting: The following lighting standards shall be met. 1. Inside building lighting used for marijuana production shall not be visible outside the building from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. on the following day. 2. Lighting fixtures shall be fully shielded in such a manner that all light emitted directly by the Tamp or a diffusing element, or indirectly by reflection or refraction, is projected below the horizontal plane through the lowest light -emitting part. 3. The light cast by exterior light fixtures other than marijuana growing lights shall comply with DCC 15.10, Outdoor Lighting Control. 4. All exterior lighting shall be shielded so that direct light does not project off site. F. Odor: The proposed odor control system must at all times prevent unreasonable interference with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. The odor control system shall be maintained in working order and shall be in use. G. Noise: Sustained noise from mechanical equipment used for heating, ventilation, air conditioning, odor control, fans and similar functions shall not exceed 30 dB(A) measured at any property line between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the following day. H. Fencing: Fencing and wire shall be finished in a muted brown, green, or natural wood color and shall not be constructed of temporary materials such as plastic sheeting, hay bales, tarps, etc. Screening: The existing tree and shrub cover screening the development from the public right-of-way or adjacent properties shall be retained to the maximum extent possible. This provision does not prohibit the maintenance of existing lawns, removal of dead, diseased or hazardous vegetation; the commercial harvest of forest products in accordance with the Oregon Forest Practices Act; or agricultural use of the land. J. Security Cameras: If security cameras are used, they shall be directed to record only the subject property and public rights-of-way, except as required to comply with requirements of the OLCC or the OHA. 247 -16 -000600 -AD 2 K. Waste: Marijuana waste shall be stored in a secured waste receptacle in the possession of and under the control of the OLCC licensee. L. Prohibited Uses: The uses listed in DCC 18.116.330(20) shall be prohibited on the subject property so long as Marijuana Production and/or Processing are conducted on the site. Marijuana production and processing are prohibited in any outdoor area. M. Annual Reporting: The annual reporting requirements of DCC 18.116.330(D) shall be met. This decision becomes final twelve (12) days after the date mailed, unless appealed by a party of interest. To appeal, it is necessary to submit a Notice of Appeal, the appeal fee of $250.00 and a statement raising any issue relied upon for appeal with sufficient specificity to afford the Hearings Body an adequate opportunity to respond to and resolve each issue. Copies of the application, all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost. Copies can be purchased for 25 cents per page. NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE, LIEN HOLDER, VENDOR OR SELLER: ORS CHAPTER 215 REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE, IT MUST BE PROMPTLY FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER. Dated this 11th day of January, 2017 Mailed this 11th day of January, 2017 247 -18 -000600 -AD 3 Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division P,O, Box 6005 '117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708.6005 Phone: (541) 388-6575 Fax: (541) 385-1764 http://www.cieschutes,org/cd CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FILE NUMBER: 247 -16 -000600 -AD DOCUMENTS MAILED: Findings and Decision Notice of Decision LOOKUP AREA: 750 Feet MAP/TAX LOT NUMBER: 17-13-33A TL 201 I certify that on the 11th day of January, 2017, the attached notices)/report(s), dated January 11th, 2017, was/were mailed by first class mail, postage prepaid, to the person(s) and address(es) set forth below/on the attached list. Dated this 111h day of January, 2017, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT By: Sher Buckner Applicant: Rubio Real Estate Investments, LLC Douglas R. White 2979 NW 17th St. 60762 River Bend Dr. Redmond, OR 97756 Bend, OR 97702 County Assessor, via email 22 Lookups Quality Services Performed with Pride BEND, OR 97701 BEND, OR 97701 BEND, OR 97701 BEND, OR 97701 BEND. OR 97701 BEND, OR 97701 BEND, OR 97701 BEND, OR 97708-9724 BEND, OR 97701 BEND, OR 97703 BEND, OR 9770 Nn rnCC CC rn O O o -o z z UJ UJ CO no BEND, OR 9770 BEND, OR 9770 BEND, OR 9770 Of o O z O 2 z w 22 ¢ a a 3b53‹ 38 a a 3 d z§1g821W FWRION SUITE 610 #10 PIATT, LANCE J & MONIKA E TTEES 2979 NW 17TH ST BEND, OR 97701 BEND, OR 97701 BEND, OR 97701 333 111 282 U `) Z i - Y Z C¢ CO N W% -4 1 w - O tttw���1 y J O} L- O 2z i(-5 U` i•• Z 2 O Y 1 a u J O } W dJ ? oti1ca w06 f0i as ~ Z o 3 a D °el i J? 0 - ¢ z 1-9 ocd 8!, y S U v) Y W u,6 - g. ga w' z w g§ W z. w v §s o5 `"a0 ,i,,rr_8 v,,e.u0n.zu°°6z Let, w �¢� 0 0 o 8g S z�$ mm8ou.aUL�U.c�x52 zo_ 1 0 W (1) For purposes of this section, "reasonable regulations" includes: (a) Reasonable conditions on the manner in which a marijuana producer licensed under section 19, chapter 1, Oregon Laws 2015, may produce marijuana; (b) Reasonable conditions on the manner in which a marijuana processor licensed under section 20, chapter 1, Oregon Laws 2015, may process marijuana; (c) Reasonable conditions on the manner in which a marijuana wholesaler licensed under section 21, chapter 1, Oregon Laws 2015, may sell marijuana at wholesale; (d) Reasonable limitations on the hours during which a marijuana retailer licensed under section 22, chapter 1, Oregon Laws 2015, may operate; (e) Reasonable conditions on the manner in which a marijuana retailer licensed under section 22, chapter 1, Oregon Laws 2015, may sell marijuana items; (1) Reasonable requirements related to the public's access to a premises for which a li. cense has been issued under section 19, 20, 21 or 22, chapter 1, Oregon Laws 2015; and (g) Reasonable limitations on where a premises for which a license may be issued under section 19, 20, 21 or 22, chapter 1, Oregon Laws 2015, may be located. (2) Notwithstanding ORS 633.738, the governing body of a city or county may adopt ordi- nances that impose reasonable regulations on the operation of businesses located at premises for which a license has been issued under section 19, 20, 21 or 22, chapter 1, Oregon Laws 2015, if the premises are located in the area subject to the jurisdiction of the city or county, except that the governing body of a city or county may not adopt an ordinance that prohibits a premises for which a license has been issued under section 22, chapter 1, Oregon Laws 2015, from being located within a distance that is greater than 1,000 feet of another premises for which a license has been issued under section 22, chapter 1, Oregon Laws 2015. (3) Regulations adopted under this section must be consistent with city and county comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances and applicable provisions of public health and safety laws. SECTION 34. (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, marijuana is: (a) A crop for the purposes of "farm use" as defined in ORS 215.203; (b) A crop for purposes of a "farm" and "farming practice," both as defined in ORS 30.930; (c) A product of farm use as described in ORS 308A.062; and (d) The product of an agricultural activity for purposes of ORS 568.909. (2) Notwithstanding ORS chapters 195, 196, 197 and 215, the following are not permitted uses on land designated for exclusive farm use: (a) A new dwelling used in conjunction with a marijuana crop; (b) A farm stand, as described in 0115 215.213 (1)(r) or 215.283 (1)(o), used in conjunction with a marijuana crop; and (c) A commercial activity, as described in ORS 215.213 (2)(c) or 215.283 (2)(a), carried on in conjunction with a marijuana crop. (3) A county may allow the production of marijuana as a farm use on land zoned for farm or forest use in the same manner as the production of marijuana is allowed in exclusive farm use zones under this section and 0115 215.213 and 215.283. (4)(a) Prior to the issuance of a license under section 19, 20, 21 or 22, chapter 1, Oregon Laws 2015, the Oregon Liquor Control Commission shall request a land use compatibility statement from the city or county that authorizes the land use. The land use compatibility statement must demonstrate that the requested license is for a land use that is allowable as a permitted or conditional use within the given zoning designation where the land is lo- cated. The commission may not issue a license if the land use compatibility statement shows that the proposed land use is prohibited in the applicable zone. (b) A city or county that receives a request for a land use compatibility statement under this subsection must act on that request within 21 days of: (A) Receipt of the request, if the land use is allowable as an outright permitted use; or Enrolled House Bill 3400 (HB 3400-A) Page 19 Jacob Ripper From: Lisa Klemp <lisa@redmond-lawyers.com> Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 2:01 PM To: eadickson@dicksonhatfield.com Cc: Jacob Ripper Subject: Retraction Demand Attachments: 20170323135340264.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Please see attached letter. Lisa Klemp Attorney Bryant Emerson, LLP P.O. Box 457 Redmond, Oregon 97756 541.548.2151 - Telephone 541.548.1895 - Fax IisaPredmond-lawvers.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email transmission, and any documents, files or previous email messages attached to it, may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this message is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by reply email at beC@redmond-lawvers.com or by telephone at 541.548.2151, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading them or saving them to disk. 1 I3RYANT EMERSON, LLP Attorneys at Law March 23, 2017 Elizabeth Dickson Dickson Hatfield LLC 400 SW Bluff Drive Suite 240 Bend, OR 97701 Re: DEMAND FOR RETRACTION Dear Liz: Ronald L. Bryant* Steven D. Bryant Alison M. Emersnn Loran T. W. Johnston Lisa Klemp Ricky R. Nelson *Also admitterlin Washington I am in receipt of your written comments submitted into the public record of Deschutes County concerning my client's land use application on appeal: Rubio Real Estate Investments, LLC, This letter is to demand that you take any and all weans necessary to retract Exhibit E, Pace 4 from the public record, as the individual identified in the exhibit is NOT the annlicant. The use of the exhibit is defamatory, and my client is considering any and all legal remedies he has concerning the same. As lawyers, it is our professional duty and ethical responsibility to insure that the content of our representation, and our actions in the community, do not violate the rights of others, I am sure that you recognize this duty, and will take action to immediately correct the record concealing this issue. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. cc: client Sincerely, 888 SVv Evergreen Avenue PO Box 457 1 Redmond OR 97756 Phone: 541.548.2151 Pax: 541.548.1895 Jacob Ripper From: Lisa Klemp <lisa@redmond-lawyers.com> Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 1:54 PM To: Jacob Ripper Subject: Rubio - MJ Grow appeal Attachments: 20170327134835091.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Please see the attached from the Applicant. LK Lisa Klemp Attorney Bryant Emerson, LLP P.O. Box 457 Redmond, Oregon 97756 541.548.2151 - Telephone 541.548.1895 - Fax lisa(redmond-lawvers.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email transmission, and any documents, files or previous email messages attached to it, may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this message is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by reply email at beCalredmond-lawvers.com or by telephone at 541.548.2151, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading them or saving them to disk. BRYANT EVERSON, LLP Attorneys at Law March 27, 2017 Board of Commissioners Deschutes County 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, Oregon 97703 Ronald L. Bryant'' Steven D. Bryant Alison M Emerson Lonn T. W Johnston Lisa Klemp Ricky R Nelson *Also admitted in Washington Re: Appeal No. 247-17-000036A Land Use Application for Marijuana Grow Operation (Rubio) Dear Commissioners: Thank you for consideration of this matter. The following is the Applicant's response to the issues raised by the Appellants, and other members of the public. 1. Legal Access The application includes both tax Tots owned by the Applicant: 1601, and 201. Tax Lot 1601 has direct access and frontage to Alfalfa Market Road, a County improved and maintained public road. The applicant's Burden of Proof provides: "The subject property is a flag -lot with 50 -feet of road frontage on and direct legal access to Alfalfa Market Road by .22 -acres of deeded land (Map Tax Lot 1713280001601). This tax lot k used for accessing the proposed use located on Tax Lot 171333A000201, and therefore is considered part of the subject legal lot of record. No other property is being accessed using Tax Lot 1601." The County Road Department submitted a memorandum reviewing the history of the approved access on tax lot 1601. However, to update that access permit, the Applicant has submitted a Road Access Permit application (247 -17 -001265 -DA). Applicant incorporates the Access permit 247 -17 -001265 -DA by this reference. According to the County Memorandum concerning the existing access, the County Road Department did an on-site inspection of the access following the public hearing, and concluded that the site distance requirements are still met. It is expected that the final approval for the updated access permit will be issued before the Board of Commissioners decision. Tax Lot 201 and 1601 constitute a tract of land because they are contiguous and title is vested in the same ownership. Therefore, tax lot 201 has direct access to the County Public Road via the access at tax lot 1601. Both lots are the subject of the application, and there is already an access permit for the access at tax lot 1601. Therefore, this criterion is met. 888 SW Evergreen Avenue 1 PO Box 457 1 Redmond OR 97756 Phone. 541 548.2151 1 Fax: 541.548.1895 BRYANT EMERSON, LLP Attorneys at Law 2. OLCC license and Defamatory conduct by the opposition March 27, 2017 Page 2 of 4 It is sad that in today's world, people freely defame others without any regard to the consequences. The appellants submitted a newspaper article which identifies an individual in another state, with a name similar (but not the same) to the Applicant. The subject individual in the article is NOT the applicant. A demand to retract the defamatory information was made to attorney Liz Dickson. To date, Ms. Dickson has not responded or taken any known action to correct the issue. The newspaper article submitted as Exhibit E, Page 4, of Dickson's written comments dated March 20, 2017, should be stricken from the record, and given no consideration in this matter, as the content of the article has absolutely nothing to do with the Applicant, and the publication of the article as part of the public record constitutes defamation of the Applicant. In addition, the Appellants submitted printouts to imply that the Applicant is unsavory because he has outstanding judgments, when in fact, a more thorough and accurate statement of the public record demonstrates that he does not. Such defamatory conduct is unethical and misplaced in this proceeding. The content of these materials should have been more thoroughly researched as part of an attorney's duty of due diligence before being submitted into the public record as fact. The issue of OLCC licensure is regulated by the State of Oregon, not Deschutes County, and accordingly there is no applicable standard or criterion to apply so the issue cannot be a basis for approval or denial of the application. 3. Traffic Generation/SDC There is no applicable standard or criteria for which the Board of Commissioners can approve or deny this application based upon alleged increased traffic. However, the Transportation Department has gone through great lengths to explain and analyze the ITE 150 for calculation of SDCs. The opposition makes allegations without any traffic engineer evidence to support their claims. Regardless, this issue is not applicable to any standard or criteria, and cannot be a'basis for approval or denial. 4. Video Interviews The appellants have attempted to submit video interviews of other, unrelated, marijuana grow operations. These other marijuana grow operations have nothing to do with the Applicant, or his operation. The Video Interviews cannot be viewed or considered by the Board as the record was dosed to oral testimony at the public hearing, and only the "written" record remained open. To view and/or consider the video interviews would constitute a violation of the Land Use Procedural rules and regulations, and accordingly would be a violation of the Applicant's rights. BRYANT March 27, 2017 EMERSON, LLP Page 3 of 4 Attorneys at Law 5. Water Available to the Subject Property Contrary to the allegations made by the opposition, the application satisfies the applicable criteria concerning water. The application addresses the "willingness" of Avion water to serve the property and incorporates the letter already located in the County's Public Records at 247-15-000103CU, and has attached the "Willing to Serve" letter from Avion to this letter (Exhibit A). The application also includes a "Parton Taxiot Inquiry" from COID stating the property is served with 10.0 acres of irrigation water for use between April 1 and October 31. The applicable criterion only requires "A statement that water is supplied from a public or private water provider, along with the name and contact information of the water supplier." This criterion has been met. 6. Wastewater Like other "Permitted Uses" in the Exclusive Farm Use Zones, there is no applicable criterion to address "wastewater". Therefore, the issue of "runoff" and "wastewater" cannot be a basis for approval or denial of the application. As a designated "farm use" by the Oregon Legislature, wastewater will be managed from runoff to adjacent properties in accordance with Oregon law. There is no site evaluation or proposed wastewater plan required. This issue is not contained in the County Code as an applicable criterion and cannot be the basis for approval or denial of the application. 7. Nuisance issues The opposition has gone to great lengths to include various claims that the citing of a marijuana crop in the Exclusive Farm Use zone will result in 1) an influx of rats, 2) smelly subfloors, 3) exclusion from restaurants, and 4) pungent beds. Not only are these claims outlandish, there is no "substantial evidence" (or credible evidence) in the record to support the claims. The County Code contains provisions for addressing any public nuisance that could result from the operation. However, the County Code at issue does not contain applicable criteria concerning the same. Accordingly, the issues cannot be a basis for approval or denial of the application. 8. Collateral Attack on the State Law and the Deschutes County Code The opposition argues that the County Code does not comply with the County's Comprehensive Plan or the Statewide Planning Goals. Regardless of whether that argument has any merit, the argument is misplaced as the time to appeal the adoption of the County Code has long passed. The Code was adopted in compliance with State and County Law, and the Appellants could have appealed it, but they did not. BRYANT March 27, 2017 EMERSON, LLP Page 4 of 4 Attorneys at Law It is disingenuous to collaterally attack the adopted County Code on the back of this applicant. The issues raised are more fitting for a Code Amendment process. Accordingly, the issues raised which do not address applicable criteria cannot be the basis for approval or denial of the application. 9. -Conclusion Although the opposition has raised a number of "concerns" or "fears" they have, unless the "concerns" or "fears" are incorporated into the applicable criteria they do not give rise to a basis for approval or denial of the application. The applicant has addressed all of the applicable criteria and has demonstrated that the criteria are satisfied. Therefore, this application must be approved. Sincerely, Enclos. cc: client 7 .. . ............. ... ........... ,, ,,,, 1(, P4 1 W '0-0.843 06r -0H ROW> OW 1.7702'. \"k • . . 42 • fa5:: $4.141f:01 Eia"00,00,itqlw0,4':ndor morqh a, 2Q1 Ret.2310.5-AlfalfarMarket Rd, . OreRoP,_ To.'Whb.rn ItIVW-COnO0j7W Avion Water Cornpny- 1 no. Iswijiinaandable:to:serve potablemater to -the: above described property, provided all by AvibriVyWr .(7',OthOnyr, are met and 11 Monies due accordance wth Avion a approved taffff, 1-0Mperelyi MVO Haffecnari Erigin'eAtir)g:POOtYr100! Avion Water Company, Inc.. „1.11 I 1111. i.ip I EXH-11137m64111." '4 h thhiLwa 400 SW Bluff Drive, Suite 240 Bend, OR 97702 541-585-2224 March 27, 2017 Deschutes County Commissioners C/o Jacob Ripper, Planner Deschutes County Community Development Dept. 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, OR 97703 RECE D MAR 2 7 2017 Deschutes County CDD RE: Appellant Rebuttal Submittal in the Matter of Deschutes County Appeal No. 247-17-000036-A Dear Commissioners DeBone, Baney, and Henderson, Our offices represent Monika and Lance Piatt in their appeal of the approval of an application for a marijuana production facility on Alfalfa Market Road, Deschutes County File No. 247 -16 -000600 -AD. This letter is our Rebuttal Submittal into the Record. Please accept this submittal into the Record for the appeal, File No. 247-17-000036-A. Our Open Record Submittal filed March 20, 2017 demonstrated that the applicant has not met the evidentiary requirements to prove he satisfies the applicable approval criteria, so his application should be legally denied by this Board. 1. Subject Property is proposed for a 20 acre recreational marijuana grow in a rural residential neighborhood, to the detriment of 28 families living within 1000 feet. 2. The three indoor greenhouses proposed would require maintenance and supervision similar to a Wholesale Nursery, generating 458.64 daily* trips, significantly more additional traffic than applicant claims, requiring proof of transportation facility adequacy. 3. The proposal poses a significant fire risk to the proposal and the 28 surrounding homes without a water supply and without accurate assessment of site volume by the Bend Fire Department. (Deschutes County provided outdated information to the Department.) 4. Applicant has not proven sufficient water will be available and supplied for the proposed use. 5. Applicant has not sited, explained, or demonstrated how human (licensee and employees) and plant wastewater will be managed safely on site. 6. This proposal does not comply with Deschutes County's Comprehensive Plan. *March 20 Appellant submittal erroneously stated these were weekly trips. The ITE Manual referenced states this estimate as daily trips. Appeal of 247 -16 -000600 -AD Applicant Rubio Real Estate Investments, LLC Opponent Piatt, et al, Rebuttal Submittal in Opposition dated March 27, 2017 Page 2 7. This application is incomplete, by excluding Applicant's stated intention to build a residence in conjunction with the recreational marijuana production facility. Appellant's concerns have been described previously in detail, offered here for summary purposes. Two submittals were made to the Record on or about March 20 that are new and require analysis in this last Appellant submittal. These are: I. Attorney Doyle/Tom Anderson/Chris Doty Submittal ofJanuary 23, 2017 Memorandum regarding early technical analysis of SDCs applicable to the instant application. I1. Attorney Klemp Submittal supplementing incomplete information in Application. Each entry will be analyzed individually below, highlighting applicability to the instant application and pertinence to applicable approval criteria. I. Attorney Doyle/Tom Anderson/Chris Doty Submittal of January 23, 2017 Memorandum regarding early technical analysis of SDCs applicable to the instant application. This January analysis referenced calculation of appropriate SDCs to recreational marijuana production, processing, and retail uses. System Development Charges are not subjects of land use approval. They are assessments made against a use prior to issuance of a building permit to assure that the respective use will pay its fair share for the increased demand and consequential wear on Deschutes County's road system. Whether it's paid, or how much is paid, is immaterial to the land use approval itself. Strictly speaking, it is irrelevant to this application decision at this juncture. However, the underlying calculation made to determine what the traffic load will be is relevant to the land use decision before the Board. The same methodology used to calculate SDCs is usually used to calculate the number of trips a use will add to an existing road system. DCC 18.116.31(C)(3)(a) requires that an estimated trip increase of 50 trips or more per day be specifically analyzed by a transportation expert. For this reason, the SDC methodology is important to the Land Use approval. The January 2017 memorandum estimated the 20 acre recreational marijuana growth operation to be most analogous to a warehouse use. In Appellant's March 20 submittal, the distinctions in function between a warehouse and a wholesale nursery were explained in detail. The OWRD categorization of the use is "Nursery Operations Use" as well, as described in that submittal. We ask this Board to consider whether three greenhouses, full of trays of planting medium, irrigation watering systems, grow lights, multilevel trays of grow operations, and thousands of living plants is more like a warehouse or a wholesale nursery. The number of employees required to plant, trim, irrigate, and tend these plants are much more like a wholesale nursery than a warehouse of boxes or equipment or other non -living things that do not require care and feeding. It is reasonable to conclude that this use is best estimated as a wholesale nursery for purposes of determining likely impacts of such a use. Appeal of 247 -16 -000600 -AD Applicant Rubio Real Estate Investments, LLC Opponent Piatt, et al, Rebuttal Submittal in Opposition dated March 27, 2017 Page 3 II. Attorney Klemp Submittal supplementing incomplete information in Application. Applicant, through Ms. Klemp, provided additional information in an attempt to shore up the incomplete application. Her responses may have opened more holes than they closed. A. What will Mr. Rubio's role be in the Marijuana Production Operation proposed? Applicant's submittal now states that Mr. Rubio will be an "advisor and consultant to others is establishment of their own operations." At hearing and in previous representations, Mr. Rubio stated that he would supervise the greenhouse crops himself, and didn't anticipate needing help. Now is he stating that he will not be there at all, and may not even be involved in the operation? B. Is Applicant legally required to provide operational information so that the County can evaluate the likely impacts of those operations on neighbors and the community at large? Applicant claims that they are "not providing confidential trade secrets and proprietary information" to the Board in response to Commissioner questions. Applicant may not properly be allowed to hide behind this defense as a reason not to provide requested information that is necessary to determine if the proposal is even feasible, let alone good public policy. C. Is the supplemental odor control letter sufficient to satisfy the applicable criterion? Applicant's March 20 response included an Exhibit A, offered to prove that the engineered systems to be utilized will control odor outside the greenhouses. This letter is insufficient to meet the required standard. The letter does not even evaluate the proposed operation as described in the modified application. Mr. James' letter states Tiflis proposed site will have two buildings related to cannabis production: a greenhouse and a shop building." The application clearly proposes three buildings. Mr. James goes on to describe using a fogger in the greenhouse and carbon filters in the shop building. There is no required study of odor volume in relation to number of plants or size of buildings, no offering of the capacity of the proposed mechanisms proposed, and no proof of these systems working in a facility of the size proposed. On the date the on-site meeting occurred, October 17, 2016, the current application hadn't even been proposed. Applicant was still working with the smaller application. It is reasonable to surmise that the expert offered, Mr. James, was not even provided accurate information about the proposal under consideration by this Board. This supplemental letter does not satisfy the requirements of the Deschutes County Code for a recreational marijuana production use. The application may properly be denied for failure to provide necessary evidence. Appeal of 247 -16 -000600 -AD Applicant Rubio Real Estate Investments, LLC Opponent Piatt, et al, Rebuttal Submittal in Opposition dated March 27, 2017 Page 4 D. Is a non-farm dwelling permit an unconditional property right guarantee to allow construction under all circumstances, regardless of subsequent applications that do not include such plans? The Oregon Legislature expressly disallowed a new residence in conjunction with recreational marijuana production on EFU-zoned property, as noted in Appellant's March 20 submittal to the Record. Applicant now asserts that the previously approved non-farm dwelling on the property is an absolute right. The subject application does not show the house on the site plan, does not describe it in the burden of proof, and does not make any provisions for its location, except to claim that the Environmental Soils' approval of a septic system for it should serve as the septic system for the 20 acre grow operation, without any proof of loads or sufficiency. By claiming to use the approved septic for the grow instead, Applicant infers the house will not be built. Then Applicant contradicts himself by claiming that the workers on site needed to maintain the nursery greenhouses will use the house sanitary system for their personal needs. Applicant is providing a proposal that seems to claim the same system for two entirely different purposes. Such contradictions reasonably lead to the conclusion that applicant hasn't properly planned what will be needed for this proposed use, or how to supply the systems necessary to meet those needs. The non-farm dwelling permit is not an unconditional property right, where an applicant then proposes another application on top of it that supersedes it. If the new application is approved, the old application is cancelled. Applicant must choose which use he wants to request, where Oregon's legislature has clearly determined that he cannot build the production facility and then build the house on the same property. This ambiguity creates an application that precludes the Board from considering the request, where the request itself is undefined. If the dwelling had been constructed under either of the previous two approvals, the current application would include it and be part of the analysis. Here, the dwelling was not built, is not vested, and the instant application is to be judged by current law. Under that law, the dwelling will not be allowed if the marijuana production use is allowed in any form. E. Does Applicant have a colorable claim for a Regulatory Taking if the dwelling is not allowed? Applicant has mentioned in hearing and in the March 20 submittal that if the Board denies applicant's final land use approval to build the dwelling along with the production operation, it denies applicant's constitutional rights. This is a serious claim, not to be taken lightly. Though applicant has not described in detail what would be the nature of such a claim, and perhaps not with sufficient specificity to preserve it under the "raise it or waive it" rule, we will try to describe the most likely claim in the interest of refuting the argument. Applicant claims that the County revocation of the conditional use permit as "part of this application... would violate applicant's constitutional rights and constitute a taking of a property right without just compensation or due process." Appeal of 247 -16 -000600 -AD Applicant Rubio Real Estate Investments, LLC Opponent Piatt, et al, Rebuttal Submittal in Opposition dated March 27, 2017 Page 5 1) Constitutionality Claim is not sufficiently preserved It is a long -accepted rule of law that government officials are the defenders of property rights. Property values are enhanced and diminished by zoning and land use controls, and the permits that arise from them. Those property rights in play are not just those of an applicant, but also the surrounding neighbors and the community they make up. Here, the burden is on the challenger to state clearly the nature of the claim made. Attorney Klemp has not done so. See Bonnie Briar Syndicate, Inc. v. Town of Mamaroneck, No. 176, 1999 NY Lexis 3739, at 15-16, N.Y. Ct. App. Nov. 23, 1999. 2) Inverse Condemnation argument is without merit Applicant's claim is likely a claim for inverse condemnation, where a government action would be so extreme and burdensome that it becomes a taking of private property without fair compensation. In such cases, the issue is not the value of the claim, but rather whether the taking occurred at all. Here, Rubio's private property was not taken. He still has it. It is capable of being used for a non-farm residence or a marijuana production facility, but not both. He simply wants to use the property for even more profit than the law allows. 3) Regulatory Taking argument is without merit Within the category of inverse condemnation, this would likely be argued as a regulatory taking, where government restrictions on the use of private property under public health and safety authority work as a taking of private property rights. For this Board to work a regulatory taking against Mr. Rubio, it would have to violate the 5th and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The 5th Amendment, adopted in 1791, states, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The 14th Amendment, commonly referenced as the "Due Process Clause," applies the 5th Amendment to state and local actions. See Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, 384 n.5 (1994). a) Application of the balancing test shows public concerns should prevail Because fee simple title of property is not taken in such a government action, there is a balancing method used to evaluate the public versus private concerns in such cases. "[E]ach of us is burdened somewhat by [land use] restrictions, [but] we, in turn, benefit greatly from the restrictions that are placed on others." Keystone Bituminous Coal Ass'n v. DeBenedictis, 480 U.S. 470, 491 (1987). This concept is also described in Agins v. City of Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255, 262 (1979), when the Supreme Court finds that restriction of individual development is less important than ensuring orderly development of the whole community. b) Regulation does not serve as appropriation of private property Analysis of such claims is made in steps. First, a court examines the plain meaning of the Takings Clause. Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393, at 414 established the rule that mere restrictions on the use of property do not constitute a taking. A regulation is unconstitutional if it has "very nearly the same effect for constitutional purposes as appropriating" private property. Appeal of 247 -16 -000600 -AD Applicant Rubio Real Estate Investments, LLC Opponent Piatt, et al, Rebuttal Submittal in Opposition dated March 27, 2017 Page 6 This line of interpretation has been carried through consistently. A 1985 Supreme Court decision, Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank, at 473 U.S. 172 (1985), held that a regulation must be "so onerous that it has the same effect as an appropriation of the property through eminent domain or physical possession." More recent case law has determined how much use must be deprived for a regulation to be unconstitutional. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1014 (1992) established the rule that a regulation must deny all economically viable use of the land, phrasing it as "equivalent of physical appropriation!' c) Rational Basis level of scrutiny applies, so legitimate government interest prevails The Supreme Court has further established that this evaluation of the effect of the regulation on the property must be reviewed using the lowest level of scrutiny, the Rational Basis Test, pursuant to the Due Process Clause. If the regulation advances a legitimate government interest, it is defensible. See Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 388-89 (1926), more recently adjudicated in Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n, 483 U.S. 825, 834-35 (1987). d) Applicant's claim is not ripe for adjudication under instant application Procedural Requirements also apply in such cases. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that a property owner may not claim that a taking would occur, but rather that it has occurred. In the case of Agins, cited above, the Court held that a takings challenge to a zoning ordinance was found to be premature because the owner had not submitted a plan to develop. Mr. Rubio has not filed an application that includes his proposed dwelling, so he has given up his right to it if the instant application is approved. This was voluntary, not by government action. Even if he had asked for both the house and the grow operation, state statute precludes it to serve an important public interest, which would comply under the Rational Basis Test of scrutiny. And even if the state statute were found to be unjustly restrictive to private property rights, Mr. Rubio is not deprived of substantially all of his economically viable uses for the property. It is reasonable to conclude that the Applicant's claims of unconstitutionality are not properly preserved, lack foundation and are without merit under the law. As noted on March 20, the Piatts and their neighbors are challenging this application on an evidentiary basis. The application submitted does not satisfy the applicable criteria. We ask this Board to deny approval of the Rubio application, and establish solid precedent for other applications to come. Elizabeth A. Dickson EA D/m is Jacob Ripper 11 11 1 II , 1 1 11 111 1, 1 1.,,11,1i 11,1 111111111 II 1 111 III 1 11111 1 11 111111111, III II II I From: Lisa Klemp <lisa@redmond-lawyers.com> Sent: Monday, April 03, 2017 3:43 PM To: Jacob Ripper Subject: Applicant's Reply Attachments: 20170403153711318.pdf Attached please find the Applicant's Reply statement. Thank you. Lisa Klemp Attorney Bryant Emerson, LLP P.O. Box 457 Redmond, Oregon 97756 541.548.2151 - Telephone 541.548.1895 - Fax Iisac redmond-lawvers.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email transmission, and any documents, files or previous email messages attached to it, may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this message is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by reply email at be(aredmond-lawvers.com or by telephone at 541,548.2151, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading them or saving them to disk. 1 BRYANT EMERSON, LLP Attorneys at Law April 3, 2017 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners c/o Jacob Ripper, Planner, via email Bend, Or 97703 Re: Land Use Appeal re Marijuana Crop, a "Permitted Use" in the EFU zone Dear Commissioners: Ronald L. Bryant* Steven D. Bryant Alison M Emerson Lonn T. W. Johnston Lisa Klemp Ricky R. Nelson *Also admitted in Washington The opposition has argued that their "concerns" supersede the County's applicable, acknowledged, land use criteria adopted pursuant to the State Statutes, State Administrative Rules, and the County's Acknowledged Comprehensive Plan. Oregon Land Use law is clear, that without question, the arguments by the opposition do not serve as a basis to deny this application. The County cannot deny the application based upon the opposition's collateral attack on the County's Acknowledged Land Use Regulations, the State Statutes authorizing the Permitted Farre Use, and the County cannot directly apply the Statewide Planning Goals or the County's Comprehensive Plan to its consideration of the Application. The State of Oregon has declared that the growing of a Marijuana Crop is a Permitted Use in the EFU zone. The State did not impose a Conditional Use analysis, but made it a Permitted Use. In accordance with the Law of the State, the County adopted its Land Use Regulations. In fact, the County Code closely mirrors the State Law. The Opposition is using this Application to Collaterally attack the State and County Law, however, there is no basis in Law for their arguments. It is unfortunate that the Opposition did not participate in the local process when the laws were adopted, but those laws are now acknowledged by DLCD, and the time to challenge there has long since expired. Therefore, the County Code is the ONLY applicable standards and criteria by which this application can be reviewed. There is no law that supports review of the application pursuant to Statewide Planning Goals, or the County's Comprehensive Plan. The County is prohibited from imposing any new standards, criteria, or regulations, at this juncture, To do so would constitute a violation of the State and Federal Constitutional Due Process rights of the Applicant. The Opposition has provided no legal authority that allows the County to directly apply the Comprehensive Plan or the Statewide Planning Goals to this application or that gives the County any authority to violate the Applicant's Constitutional Rights in favor of the Opposition. Oregon's Goal Post Statute serves to protect Applicants from exactly what the Opposition seeks. This statute (ORS 215.427(3)(a)) provides that once this application was deemed complete, only the standards and criteria existing on the date the application was submitted govern. Within 30 days from submittal of the application, the County must have notified the Applicant of "exactly what information is missing." 888 SW Evergreen Avenue 1 PO Box 457 1 Redmond OR 977716 Phone: 5415482151 1 Fax: 541.543.1 895 BRYANT EMERSON, LLP Attorneys at Law April 3, 2017 Board of Commissioners Page 2 of 3 ORS 215.427(2). The Applicant has never been given any notice that the Plan or Goals directly apply to this application. To apply them now would be a violation of the Goal Post Statute. The Goal Post Statute is to "assure both proponents and opponents of an application that the substantive factors that are actually applied and that have a meaningful impact on the decision permitting or denying an application will remain constant throughout the proceedings." Davenport V. Tigard, 121 Or.App. 135, 141 (1993). The Opposition has cited to no legal authority that allows the County to violate this state statute and impose new review criteria. The Goal Post Statute also prohibits the County from adopting a new interpretation of its standards or criteria that has the effect of changing positions in the same proceeding with respect to which criteria are applicable. Bemis v. City ofAshland, 48 Or LUBA 42, 56-57 (2004), of 'd without opinion, 197 Or App 124 (2005). The reinterpretation of an approval criterion that has already been applied in the county's review of this Application may run afoul of the law of the case principles. Beck v. City of Tillamook, 105 Or App 276, 278 (1992). Accordingly; the County cannot change an existing interpretation when the reinterpretation is "the product of a design to act arbitrarily or inconsistently from case to case. Alexanderson v. Clarnackas County, 126 Or. App. 549, 552 (1994). The County's Comprehensive Plan provides the basis from which. the County adopts zoning and land use ordinances. The zoning ordinance classifies land into districts and includes land development and use regulations that implement the goals of the comprehensive plan. Within each district; land use regulations allow certain land uses subject to certain standards and procedures. The County's Comprehensive Plan is written to guide the County's future development of Ordinances and zoning rules to implement plan policies. Plan goals worded as broad standards that set a policy direction for a local government in developing legislation are not approval standards in quasi-judicial land use applications. Angel v. City of Portland, LUBA No. 90-108, 21 Or LUBA 1, 13-14 (1991). See also Downtown CommuniryAsso. V. Portland, 80 Or App 336 (1986); Fasano v. Board of County commissioners 264 Or 574, 582 (1973), overruled on other grounds, 288 Or 585 (1980) (comprehensive plan embodies policy determinations and guiding principles; zoning ordinance is the means to effectuate those principles). To directly apply the Comprehensive Plan to a land use application, the Comprehensive Plan must state an intention to apply the plan policy to quasi-judicial reviews or to the type of land use matter proposed. The same is true of the Oregon Statewide Planning Goals & Guidelines. They contain prescriptive provisions that are to be reflected in local comprehensive plans and land use regulations. ORS 197.250. Once the LCDC acknowledges a local comprehensive plan, the goals generally no longer directly apply to decisions made pursuant to the acknowledged land use regulations. See Baxter v. Monmouth City Council, 51 Or App 853, 858 (1981) (Once LCDC acknowledges a comprehensive plan and implementing ordinances, land use decisions are governed by applicable criteria in that plan and those ordinances.) Decisions by the County are not reviewable for compliance with statewide planning goals due to the provisions of URS 197.175(2Xe)-(d). The Statewide Goals are not standards for the County interpretation of its acknowledged land use regulations. Friends of the Metolius v. Jefferson County, 125 Or App 122 (1993). The County must make land use decisions in compliance with the acknowledged County Code. ORS 215.416(8) requires that decisions on permit applications be based on standards and criteria set forth in local development ordinances. The time for judicial review of the DLCD Acknowledgment of the BRYANT EMERSON. LLP Attorneys at Law April 3, 2017 Board of Couunissioners Page 3 of 3 County's Ordinance has passed, and no review was sought, so the Aeknowledgnent is final. 1000 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC 77 Or App 590, 595 n4 (1986). The collateral attack on the County Code is not well taken. A review of the Opposition's written argument does not cite to specific County Code provisions that are not inet. Rather, the argument is more appropriate for a Code Amendment process as it sets forth what the County "should" require and what standards and criteria "Should apply." This is not a "Conditional Use" which allows for an impact analysis. The State of Oregon has declared that the proposed use is a "Permitted Use." The arguments by the Opposition are without merit, have no basis in law, and are merely intended to cause delay and injury to the Applicant. The Applicant has satisfied the Applicable Criteria, and the Staff Decision must be upheld. cc: client 1- E w -< Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW WaII St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 — Fax (541) 385-3202 — https://www.deschutes.org/ AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners Work Session of April 17. 2017 DATE: April 5, 2017 FROM: Peter Gutowsky, Community Development, 541-385-1709 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Lot of Record Presentation PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS DATE?: No ATTENDANCE: Peter Gutowsky, AICP, Planning Manager Caroline House, Assistant Planner Zechariah Heck, Assistant Planner. SUMMARY: The Planning Division is providing a lot of record presentation to the Board of County Commissioners at their work session on April 17. This presentation has been provided to numerous realtors as a result of a recent Land Use Board of Appeal (LUBA) decision. RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: Information only. Community Development Department Planning Division wilding Safety Division Environmental Soils. Division P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 Phone: (541) 388-6575 Fax: (541) 385-1764 http://wway.cleschutes.org/cd Memorandum TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners FROM: Peter Gutowsky, AICP, Planning Manager Caroline House, Assistant Planner Zechariah Heck, Assistant Planner DATE: April 5, 2017 SUBJECT: Lot of Record Verification / Work Session I. SUMMARY The Planning Division is providing a lot of record presentation to the Board of County Commissioners (Board) at their work session on April 17 (Attachment). This presentation has been provided to numerous realtors as a result of a recent Land Use Board of Appeal (LUBA) decision. Along with those methods outlined in the definition of "lot of record" below, the Planning Division traditionally utilized an internal policy of recognizing parcels where a residential building permit was issued as a legal lot of record. However, a recent decision from LUBA, Grimstad vs. Deschutes County, Or LUBA_, (LUBA No. 2016-035, September 29, 2016), found the issuance of a building permit cannot be recognized as the creation of a legal lot of record. 11. BACKGROUND Deschutes County does not issue any permits on a lot or a parcel until it is determined it was lawfully created. Section 18.04.030 of the County Zoning Ordinance defines a "lot of record" as: A. A lot or parcel at least 5,000 square feet in area and at least 50 feet wide, which conformed to all zoning and subdivision or partition requirements, if any, in effect on the date the lot or parcel was created, and which was created by any of the following means: 1. By partitioning land as defined in ORS 92; 2. By a subdivision plat, as defined in ORS 92, filed with the Deschutes County Surveyor and recorded with the Deschutes County Clerk; 3. By deed or contract, dated and signed by the parties to the transaction, containing a separate legal description of the lot or parcel, and recorded in Deschutes County if recording of the instrument was required on the date of the conveyance. If such instrument contains more than one legal description, only Quality ServiresPerformed with Pridt one lot of record shall be recognized unless the legal descriptions describe Tots subject to a recorded subdivision or town plat; 4. By a town plat filed with the Deschutes County Clerk and recorded in the Deschutes County Record of Plats; or 5. By the subdividing or partitioning of adjacent or surrounding land, leaving a remainder lot or parcel. B. Notwithstanding subsection (A), a lot or parcel validated pursuant to ORS 92.176 shall be recognized as a lot of record. The definition goes on to say that the following are not deemed to be a lot of record: 1. A lot or parcel created solely by tax lot segregation because of an assessor's roll change or for the convenience of the assessor. 2. A lot or parcel created by an intervening section or township line or right of way. 3. A lot or parcel created by an unrecorded subdivision, unless the lot or parcel was conveyed subject to DCC 18.04.030. 4. A parcel created by the foreclosure of a security interest. Attachment Lot of Record Presentation LOT OF RECORD Overview Takeaways from this meeting Why does this matter? What is a legal Lot of Record? Application process to request verification Cautions Q & A Takeaways • When in doubt contact CDD Planning Division. planning@deschutes.org 541-388-6560 • Important to establish Lot of Record status before real estate transaction. • Plan ahead: a Lot of Record verification application can take 10 weeks or more. Why does this matter? • Must be verified before the issuance of any land use decisions, building permits or septic permits. Deschutes County no longer recognizes a property as a legal lot of record based on a previously approved building or septic permit (reference LUBA Grimstad decision). Lot of Record status does not display. in a Title Report. What is a legal Lot of Record? • A lot or parcel "lawfully established" through compliance with any rules (partition, subdivision, minimum lot sizes.. in effect at the time of creation. • A tax lot is not always a legal lot of record. • DCC definition of "Lot of Record" provides 5 options. Option 1 — Creation by Subdivision Example: Address: 19518 River Woods Drive, Bend Lot of Record Reason: Platted Lot 14, Block HH of the Deschutes River Woods subdivision How to Verify: Dial > Development > Summary > Property Details DESCHUT ES RIVER WOODS C..°) nen futon lonattiollto 'Dvvelopment Slummy for amount #107363 - - , .. • . , Account Intornotton Property Deans lunscitcnon 201,010 OtttlanItintl tt,,tti ,,..., •ont ,, , •,,„ ,....,..,.., „,, , Option 2 — Creation by Partition Example: Address: 21845 Bear Creek Road, Bend Lot of Record: Platted Parcel 2 of Partition Plat (PP) 2013-10 How to Verify: Dial > Development > Summary > Property Details PARTtrioN PEAT No. lorS,I0 trana • rao at"tito::: I.MD PARTITION oatmorzou,o, ant %MOIL. DM-Mnatin Of MONS I. 1113I,TilY ,17/1. 1,7 • f ;l'lllt)AgtittOignlOyMIlt-Ottafpftlt46„„ Development SUMMIT for account 0109802 • Accalant Inform.. `.• ills I in.= mai mikananis Conn, Omananment OnsMa Option 3— Creation by Town Plat Example: Location: 64695 Wood Avenue, Bend Lot of Record Reason: Platted Lots 7, 8, 9, Block 16 of the Townsite of Laidlaw How to Verify: Dial > Development > Summary > Property Details • gwehtitaatortoPi:O.04,0*iii 1$0ElpiliMatilliepag Development Summary for avrOMIT FT: nt Woman.000.0,0000 400,0060. Ofmannanon ve re-oo I COW. InUmr.M.SIN.E. Option 4 — Creation by Conveyance Example: Address: 22245 Nelson Road, Bend Lot of Record Reason: Sold as separate unit of land prior to County's adoption of land division regulations. How to Verify: Apply for a Lot of Record Verification WAPeafill ,4- 74.740 247. Community Development Department 0 Por 43.03 117 My fats, sue ssense Peri, Oregon O7703,475 Motet 1:4 11 3ES WS f ast iSalt EE5-1,4 fopirects. ieschytel mg."! LOT OF RECORD VERIFICATION APPLICATION INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED PEE. Appleant s Nome Noel/ 7200.r I Des Sta1e2tp Properly 0.17er Nolte olNororill PAN, 1_1 Co, Sta. p Property Dearop.n Tc.ostbip Range SectAn Yas bet Prow!, Zonetst YOU must include the folloveng waft this application: 4007012740 074103707 12(0' o177 approortate oftgAel ogneteres To ensure 0010'$ 9(00050001 01 tour epporatton, matesa's rot. be soNroed on snot...Pei 8 5' t paper Do not use ND., tabs.& tiers, slap. or We Option 5— Remainder Parcel Example: Address: 7905 SW Quartz Avenue, Redmond Lot of Record Reason: Remnant parcel left over due to the subdividing and partitioning of adjacent lands. How to Verify: Apply for a Lot of Record Verification 2 Eagle Cre- i supl , geference Land Patent n4„io. 1139798 Appleant e Name fr(.) teg Aditess F. No 24, Community Development Department P 0 Yot CEOS 117 Ivo Wats, storse Erni Ors goo Y7702.2',5 (Pons 1541, .08 0575 fact 1001) 735'1,4 httoCesve OossitAst voice LOT OF RECORD VERIFICATION APPLICATION INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED Phxe Ly_yyl C Stele Dp Property Deter 9 Nero. clIterenIC 917(10,) Prep.> ion., FEE You (005I)001000000 following YettM1 this application' 1 A tomplotod appa<mon fonn teb opLiNYtele eft9001 Web," sostee (ANN 9(004ss179 of tour apporaton, tbaterAls most be wont Pei on s ogOtostiret 8 15. s 11 • paper Do nm use btniers tabs Attires copaes or OP. How to apply for a Verification 1, Contact the Planning Division Obtain the historic tax card (Assessor's Office) 3. Obtain the oldest deed describing the property (Clerk's Office) Complete application form Submit all materials for review with the required fee (currently $925) A decision will be issued approximately 10 weeks from application. What to do if a property is determined to not be a Lot of Record... Lot of Record decision finds property was not lawfully established (i.e., does not fall under options 1-5) Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 92.176 offers two ways to validate a unit of land... Validation of a unit of land Option 1: • At time of sale the property could have met the partition standards in effect Solution: Apply for a partition OR Option 2: • Deschutes County issued a residential buildinq. permit prior to 2007 Solution: File a 1 -lot final partition plat. BUILDING PERMIT Cautions "PT" Lots = Portion of a platted parcel or subdivision lot. Partitions prior to 1990 do not display in the Dial Property Details. "PT" Example Deschutes CoUniy ip;perty Inforinaiikr Me* Search kneraCtir... Development Summary for account #138 Account Information innsa Name .MLIDES.M, RE\ Ci,SLE IT.M7 • ..tp nod AccouLt S., .14,55 ,i, Lt. 3f1 97107 Do[M.r.re TaX SUMS Prone LOC 1,1. SI, Zoning Designation ,1_21).11L4SUI.M.EM.,,CLE FAMILY RESIDENTRL DISIRICT ' Pre -1990 Partition Example Deschutes County PiePe:itg mfol4te He.s Sara 1 Development Summary for account *167827 Account Information Zoning Deslartato. Property De L. b.., Cautions • Properties may be recognized as legal for some historical land use approvals. • The Planning Division's policy on Lot of Record can change based on state court and BOCC decisions. Summary • Important to verify the Lot of Record status before a real estate transaction. • Use Dial to verify Lot of Record When in doubt call or email the Planning Division 541-388-6560 planning@deschutes.org Questions? DCC 18.04.30. Definitions Lot of Record A. A lot or parcel at least 5,000 square feet in area and at least 50 feet wide, which conformed to all zoning and subdivision or partition requirements, if any, in effect on the date the lot or parcel was created, and which was created by any of the following means: 1. By partitioning land as defined in ORS 92; 2. By a subdivision plat, as defined in ORS 92, filed with the Deschutes County Surveyor and recorded with the Deschutes County Clerk; 3. By deed or contract, dated and signed by the parties to the transaction, containing a separate legal description of the lot or parcel, and recorded in Deschutes County if recording of the instrument was required on the date of the conveyance. If such instrument contains more than one legal description, only one lot of record shall be recognized unless the legal descriptions describe lots subject to a recorded subdivision or town plat; 4. By a town plat filed with the Deschutes County Clerk and recorded in the Deschutes County Record of Plats; or 5. By the subdividing or partitioning of adjacent or surrounding land, leaving a remainder lot or parcel. B. Notwithstanding subsection (A), a lot or parcel validated pursuant to ORS 92.176 shall be recognized as a lot of record. C. The following shall not be deemed to be a lot of record: 1. A lot or parcel created solely by a tax lot segregation because of an assessor's roll change or for the convenience of the assessor. 2. A lot or parcel created by an intervening section or township line or right of way. 3. A lot or parcel created by an unrecorded subdivision, unless the lot or parcel was conveyed subject to DCC 18.04.030(B). 4. A parcel created by the foreclosure of a security interest. For the purposes of DCC Title 18, "lot" or "parcel" means a lot of record as defined DCC 18.04.030. ORS 92.176 - Validation of unit of land not lawfully established (1) A county or city may approve an application to validate a unit of land that was created by a sale that did not comply with the applicable criteria for creation of a unit of land if the unit of land: (a) Is not a lawfully established unit of land; and (b) Could have complied with the applicable criteria for the creation of a lawfully established unit of land in effect when the unit of land was sold. (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1)(b) of this section, a county or city may approve an application to validate a unit of land under this section if the county or city approved a permit, as defined in ORS 215.402 or 227.160, respectively, for the construction or placement of a dwelling or other building on the unit of land after the sale. If the permit was approved for a dwelling, the county or city must determine that the dwelling qualifies for replacement under the criteria set forth in ORS 215.755 (1)(a) to (e). (3) A county or city may approve an application for a permit, as defined in ORS 215.402 or 227.160, respectively, or a permit under the applicable state or local building code for the continued use of a dwelling or other building on a unit of land that was not lawfully established if: (a) The dwelling or other building was lawfully established prior to January 1, 2007; and (b) The permit does not change or intensify the use of the dwelling or other building. (4) An application to validate a unit of land under this section is an application for a permit, as defined in ORS 215.402 or 227.160. An application to a county under this section is not subject to the minimum lot or parcel sizes established by ORS 215.780. (5) A unit of land becomes a lawfully established parcel when the county or city validates the unit of land under this section if the owner of the unit of land causes a partition plat to be recorded within 90 days after the date the county or city validates the unit of land. (6) A county or city may not approve an application to validate a unit of land under this section if the unit of land was unlawfully created on or after January 1, 2007. (7) Development or improvement of a parcel created under subsection (5) of this section must comply with the applicable laws in effect when a complete application for the development or improvement is submitted as described in ORS 215.427 (3)(a) or 227.178 (3)(a). [2007 c.866 §2] Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 — Fax (541) 385-3202 — https://www.deschutes.org/ AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners Work Session of April 17. 2017 DATE: April 12, 2017 FROM: Judith Ure, Administrative Services, 541-330-4627 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: 2016-17 Q4 Discretionary Grant Review PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS DATE?: Yes ATTENDANCE: Judith Ure, Management Analyst SUMMARY: Each quarter, the Board of Commissioners reviews applications submitted to the Deschutes County Discretionary Grant Program and makes awards accordingly. On April 17, 2017, the Board will consider requests made for activities to take place beginning on or about the fourth quarter of 2016-17. Applications and funding status worksheets are attached for the Board's consideration. RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: Review applications and determine awards for discretionary grant applications submitted for the fourth quarter of 2016-17. U a) E o Oj ao -o ate) co cp °' O. o° N N O C 0 Ut°o [2 16 4.3 E aE + N '> yO N N (0 Co a) � 0> o NCO Cno UD U L4 O 66 O ( (6 U- ,� C o ' co .. d y a) N CO -fp .0 N C Q C N a) d G 6a a) a)-)15) . NI- d fl 0'O p UC/) cE U ocl co aci n o c a) c U o 7-2 Y E a- N cp ° d (r Q mvv§ooa°)mwcto.coLL> �U(6,Em CO °caai a) w E on ��1155 c 0- W' N Y p d a0 O a C a) O N (n it H 66 m° 1, ° 6 c c En U C7 0@ .� g o m m N c O 3 0 2 E taa vot-� c `a) ° w ac) m c1 c 7 N Z CnCD 0 -,hU J JU()0 mUO J LL 6)J.J UIlQ m I-- -J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 'O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O co! O 00 000000000000 U) 000OOO 0 ca00 I 6 to O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 h O O 0 0 0 0 0 b 0 0 P; N U) 0 0 0 M P 0 O N in, W.'. N CSI. N 1°_, U) U) O O N O O I r"...IN.. a- r e= N e- N aeN sr' s= N M N N N e- CO M F- V, V, 4J fA to EA 69 E9 ER ER to fo to EA 69 E9 EA EA CA fo ; INEN li 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '0 O O C O 6 6 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O :ca O N t9 to to t9 to to 69 69 69- 69 69 69 EA 69 69 EA 69 CCD CO CCD CD O co,„ Co E9 4» co, 0 0 in a 69 E9 EA 69 4» a -;IA C CAI 7 LL CD a O N O to 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 o 0 do0'CD ot>i Et o66oo0)ooai000000 4-000 «iv C O EA to o co co 0 0 U) EA O M O O U) O O 69 E9 E9 69 (0 U) 0 to N h 0 to CO M M O U) N N W U) U) P. Et V CO h C!) CO O C069 EA 69 fAi-- 69 69 EA 69 69 69 69 69 E9 to E9 4» 0 t O t9 fA VI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O >, C7 O 0. 0 V' M O O O O O M O O (O O O Ci C7 O O Ps 00 0 6'6N! 0 69 69 E9 O CO M O O IA 69 O M O CD U) O O 69 69 69 69 CO CO O OD N h C :, C CO M M U) U) N N CO CO U) )- '' i' Et CO )- 0 et N O 1 m 69 69 69 69 69 E9 69 M 69 C9 C9 69 69 99 69 W CO w ; E9 (A' E9 N! U; Q� 0.' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O Q- c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 O O 0 0 0 O O M M 0 0 0 0 0 d' O O 0) 0 0 0 c) O O (0 O O C7 d!co C i *.. N 60 69 69, O M M O O CO O O M O O U) O O 69 69 69 (a (0 (O O E9 041P. ` i a) Cf) M M U) Cf) N O N N U) U) f+ V 'd' CO t` U) to O O C'00 Ef) Es) tF) E9 E9 69 r 6A Ffl t9 69 VD OD L9 69 69 E9 00 1. (0 C [fl 49 69 �' = m C' CO i_ O1 •d' 1 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t -I mi 0.00000000 COO N OOOh 000000 0000 a) co to co_ to co, O En to N. 0 0) U) CO 0 (-4, ON U) U) U) U) co U) O O �I' N N N N N r N N N N N N CsN N N N N E9 E9 EA E9 t9 ffl 69 E9 E9 69 69 69 69 69 69 M 69 EA 6. (9 69 69 69 69 6 ,- CD O N LL O O C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C) O O O o O CD C7 CO O C7 Ci C7 CD Ui O O C7 O O O a co (D (0 O (D CO CO (0 (O (D (0 0 0 0 0 0 CD 0 0 0 0 y N N N N N N N N N N j O) 6' ti h Ps Ps t, n d' O) tV 0 N NN N N NN N N r O ce (D h M h-1` 1'- ti n (0 0) (0 O O CO CO CO W (0 (0 M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N V V CP V' SP d' d' V V• n N N N N N N N N N N O O O O O O O O O T Ps, h 1-. CY r r r r r r r r N N N N N N N N N N N N N M M M OD a a) }zz_>->.r}}>-}}.>-}}}}}r}}} >- >- >- >- LL 0 O (41 O c O O O N U (6 0 N 0 U 0 N U.. a) N a) aci o c m W 0 w N (9 a) p2 1-o c - CES a) 0 o , c -a Z OD F- v. C ao ( N N 0 Q (1) aa) a a 0 JIr c c as JJ c 6a C O — N0 N Q To C N d 0- c a a O Q) > p CO c N - c0 a)o....00 ao 0 Q N ° ,O O C om' O C E C C O) c c 'p Z 0 E o c omt Ju__ oQrt to m Li - 000t,500..., ,. a ,� _° W O a o O c 0_ 1- 0 o 3 �" NNC6t O N i >04 U_ c �0 a) .N Oa; a N aQ a0 >,, N �0moo ma=aWo0OC)0ntim=04 0 c 0C N .2 >, N N W O U E-° 0 Deschutes County Discretionary Grant Program Status as of 4/12/2017 Commissioner DeBone 0 0 -3,167.00 Q1 9, 0 0 o " o 0 0 0. d o 0 O o o o 0 in IA - - r -i ih i 75 co c • .E o- 44 E 0 0 0 0 0 o 000q ▪ N0O N 00 01 0.) 0 rn `" c°' 17:). v--1 000 000 ooc qoo d Ci Lri 0 ev 0Qo1. • vi °i3' >,- r-.4 it co u. w c o a) *rii 4.) 0 c ._ as E as E co 0= .1., C OA a E • es a) E cr 48 a) o o - . o oQq o o o 9 0. 8 u. ci 4 ti <V N. a)0 crl o -0 °F" '6 c Lri' W r -I X V1- .., t c M u L. c ra c°) lis .- o co O 4.., . c pa a) c E C. •E E cr) T' o ca E u ,-1 (-4 m .). 48 a) $6,575.00 Remaining Balance 2016- 2 Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners Discretionary Grant Program Board Meeting Date: April 17, 2017 Organization: Heart of Oregon Project Name: Fleet Capital Campaign Project Period: Underway Description: Request for change to 10/24/2016 discretionary grant in amount of $2,275 to apply funding to purchase of a dump trailer instead of an enclosed trailer. Amount of Request: N/A Previous Grants: N/A Approved: Declined: Judith Ure From: Laura Handy <laura.handy@heartoforegon.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 11:07 AM To: Judith Ure; Tony DeBone Cc: Carly Shadron; Hayley Craig Subject: Request re Heart of Oregon Corps Community grant Dear Tony and Judith, A big thanks again to Deschutes County for supporting Heart of Oregon Corps and our Fleet Capital Campaign with funds for a trailer. Equipment like this is essential to the emerging workforce training that we do. In the campaign we have asked multiple funders for support, and as those requests are awarded, or not, sometimes we have to make small adjustments to our plan. I am writing to ask permission to make a small adjustment to the purpose of the Deschutes County grant funds. In the campaign we have 1 enclosed trailer and 1 large dump trailer left to procure. We originally asked Deschutes County to support the enclosed trailer, however, with your permission we would like to combine your funds with other secured campaign funds and put them towards the dump trailer instead. The enclosed trailer will still be purchased, as a part of the overall campaign, but the costs and timing of that purchase fits more ideally with another funder. Is this small adjustment allowable? Thank you for your support, Laura Handy Executive Director HEART OF OREGON 44, CORPS Gap uYnii f /ta qr. of ict;: 541-633-7834 mobile: 541.419 8500 heartoforeaon.or Connect with n:; on Facebook! 1 Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners Discretionary Grant Program Board Meeting Date: April 17, 2017 Organization: Central Oregon Youth Choir Project Name: Honorarium Project Period: May 25, 2017 Description: National anthem performance at National Association of Counties' Western Interstate Region conference. Amount of Request: TBD Previous Grants: None recorded. Approved: Declined: Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners Discretionary Grant Program Board Meeting Date: April 17, 2017 Organization: Opera Bend Project Name: La Boheme at Ridgeview HS Project Period: 1/9/2017 — 3/11/2017 Description: Performance of La Boheme at Ridgeview Performing Arts Center in Redmond. Amount of Request: $2,000 Previous Grants: 1/25/2016 $2,500.00 Via Lactea Opera Approved: Declined: Today's Date: Deschutes County Board of Conamissionegs PO Box 6005, Bend, OR 9770 -6%005 1300 NW Wall Stave, Suite 200, Bend, OR Telephone: 5,11-3311-6571 Fax: 541-3R5-3202 Vv'ebsite: www.desclultes.orE DESCHUTES COUNTY DISCRETIONARY GRANT PROGRAM APPLICATION 12/29/2016 Project Name: 1 La Boheme at Ridgeviewl-IS Project Beginning Date: I Januar' 9, 2017 Amount Requested: $2,000.00 Name of Applicant Organization: opera Bend Address:I P.O. Box 2301 City & Zip Code: 1Bend, OR 97709-2301 Contact Name(s): Fax #: Jason Stein Project End Date: I March 11, 2017 IDate Funds Needed: 1 Email Address: March 1, 2017 D a: 46-2541609 1 Telephone #: I 541_350_9805 iasonannerabend.ora On a separate sheet(s), please briefly answer the following questions: 1. Describe the applicant organization, including its purpose, leadership structure, and activities. 2. Describe the proposed project or activity. 3. Provide a timeline for completing the proposed project or activity. 4. Explain how the proposed project or activity will positively impact the community. 5. Identify the specific conamunities or groups that will benefit. 6. Describe how grant funds will be used and include the source and amounts of matching funds or in-kind contributions, if any. Itemize anticipated expenditures*. 7. If the grant will support an ongoing activity, explain how it will be funded in the future. Attach: Proof of the applicant organization's non-profit status. * Applicant may be contacted during the review process and asked to provide a complete line item budget_ Project Narrative Project Title: La Boheme Performance at Ridgeview Performing Arts Center in Redmond, OR OperaBend produces 2 full operas yearly. In partnership with Central Oregon Community College, we offer the Opera Production Class each quarter. In keeping with our mission we involve local, regional and nationally acclaimed performers and master classes. Collaborators for this project include the Cascade Chorale and Central Oregon Community College. Participants are 10 local soloists, 30 local choristers, Maestro Michael 6esme, Conductor, and thirty orchestra members and numerous stage tech etc. Six guest artists from Portland, Eugene and Los Angeles round out the cast. Additionally, Central Oregon has a very strong artistic community of choristers, soloists and theatre professionals. Through the Opera Performance Class offered by COCC, performing artists, both young and adult, are educated and gaining experience in this art form. The target audience is students and adults. We seek funds enabling us to offer $10 student tickets and to children in Deschutes County/Central Oregon., There will be two performances in Redmond on March 10th and March llth, 2017. OperaBend consistently engages performers who are currently singing lead roles with Eugene Opera, Portland Opera, the Portland Opera Young Artist Program, Seattle Opera and the MET Opera in NYC. The intended outcome is to bring a wonderfully rich cultural experience to Deschutes County residents. OperaBend has provided outreach performances in Deschutes County on a smaller scale, taking scenes performances to schools in Bend and Redmond. In the 2014-2015 season, Les Miserable at the Tower theatre was sold out for 8 performances resulting in a participant count of approximately 3300. Also, in the 2014-2015 season, Mozarts"s The Magic Flute was sold out for 2 performances at COCC's Pinckney Center for the Arts, making the participant count approximately 550. In the 2015-2016 season, Die Fledermaus had a participant count of roughly 400. In May, 2016 the production of Carmen had a participant count of approximately 3000. Via Lactea, A New Opera in English was roughly sold out of 3 performances at the Tower Theatre, resulting in a participant count of approximately 1,200. OperaBend Artistic Director, Nancy Engebretson, has thirty-five years of producing, teaching, performing and directing experience, with twenty-two of those in Central Oregon. In the Childrens Music Theatre Group, 2003-2009, she created the first year round music and theatre experiences for school age children, highlighted by full productions of four Broadway musicals, with live orchestra, at Bends Tower Theatre. Engebretson also directed the acclaimed and sold out performances of Mozarts The Magic Flute in 2015 as well as numerous musicals and opera performances. She was the director for the World Premiere of Via Lactea, a New Opera in English, and starring Metropolitan Opera soprano Emily Pulley. Jason Stein, Executive Director has a Master of Science in Management degree from New York University, and has Management experience with 3 different Non-profit Oregon companies. Board Member, Richard Doyle, has owned and managed aircraft rental firms. Board Member, Suzie Hughes is a retired advertising account executive. OperaBend intends to create a fresh, engaging, and stimulating production of La Boheme that will appeal to a broad and diverse audience. By performing in Redmond we will: • extend awareness of OperaBend and the Cascade Chorale to a new community in Deschutes County • $10 student tickets and $15 lowest adult tickets lowest will create access for many new and old audience members • La Boheme, accompanied by a live orchestra under the baton of Michael Gesme, conductor of the CO Symphony, and the opera chorus sung by the Cascade Chorale provides vocal, choral, orchestral and theatrical audience experience • Deschutes County funding allows OperaBend to reach our funding goal, thereby fulfilling our mission: Promoting, nurturing and preserving the Central Oregon tradition of excellence in Opera and Classical Vocal Music. A Targe part of this project is intended to reach those in Deschutes County who do not have access to this type of live performance, An important cultural value is the rare chance to give exposure to children and families of what is possible in the performing arts. Many children see live theatre only through a program such as this. For children who do not have a strong arts education, this can be an invaluable experience which promotes expanding their vision of what is possible and seeking out more such opportunities. OperaBend will be performing Puccini's La Boheme at Ridgeview Performing Arts Center in Redmond, OR. That theatre holds approximately 600 seats, so our objective is to have an attendance of 900 between the two performances. We will measure the success by determining at least 33% of those in attendance were new audience members to OperaBend. The data is automatically gathered through our ticket provider, Brown Paper Tickets. After the event is complete we can very simply get a list of all those folks who attended and compare it to our existing database of audience members. Ticket sales will be the clearest indicator of outcome. Additionally, audience exit reviews and venue staff reviews will provide valuable information for gauging success. The impact an children would be evident to teachers and parents and can be measured by interviews with audience, venue staff, and school staff members. This is accomplished by written and/or oral means. A successful project would inspire continuing and building upon the learning that this performance will provide. If this project is successful, OperaBend will endeavor to provide more opportunities of access to live opera and musicals to Deschutes County. Expenses Desc. t In -Kind Total Staff -Admin $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 4,000 Staff -Project Specific Dir., SM, Tech. $ 6,200 $ 1,000 $ 7,200 Contracted Services -Other Singers/Orchestra fees $ 14,000 $ 1,000 $ 15,000 Space/Facility Costs $ 5,000 $ $ 5,000 Materials Supplies Sets/Props/Costumes $ 4,050 $ 250 $ 4,300 Marketing/Promotion $ 6,700 $ 500 $ 7,200 Other Insurance $ 1.000 $ 0 $ 1.000 Total Expenses $ 38,950 $ 4,750 $ 43,700 Status (Planned, Revenue Pending or Confirmed' I In -Kind Total Earned Revenue (Admissions, Memberships, Fees for services) Planned $24,450 $ 24,450 Corporate Support (source) 1. Radio Ads Planned $ $ 1,000 $ 1,000 2. Newspaper Ads Planned $ 750 $ 750 3. COCC $ 3,000 $ 3.000 subtotal $ 4,750 $ 4,750 Individual/Community Support 1. Donors Pending $ 5,000 $ 5,000 2. Individual Donors Planned $ 2,500 $ 2.500 subtotal $ 7,500 $ 7,500 Applicant Cash -Allocated to the Project Confirmed $ 5,000 $ 5,000 Grant Request Planned $ 2.000 $ 2.000 Total Revenue $38,950 $ 4,750 $ 43,700 The source of the "matching" funds will be from individual and corporate donors. Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners Discretionary Grant Program Fundraising Activity Board Meeting Date: April 17, 2017 Organization: Saving Grace Project Name: Heroes' Luncheon Project Period: 3/8/2017 Description: Annual fundraising event. Amount of Request: $2,000 Previous Grants: 6/23/2014 $1,500.00.. 1/26/2015 $1,200.00 4/13/2016 $1,200.00. Approved: Declined: Heroe's Luncheon Heroes' Luncheon Heroes' Luncheon Deschutes County Board of Commissioners PO Box 6005, Bend, OR 97701-6005 1300 NW Wall Street, Suite 200, Bend, OR Telephone: 541-388-6571 Fax: 541-385-3202 Website: www.deschutes.org DESCHUTES COUNTY DISCRETIONARY GRANT PROGRAM APPLICATION Today's Date: 13 VI( 1 ' 7 I Project Name: I Sp ,n (�t (Ira e a, Re,ra es Project Beginning Date: l 5 , 8 1 I Project End Date: 13 \ 1 .. , 0('0 (*)Date Funds Needed: Amount Requested: 111' Name of Applicant Organization:) S 1 Address:I I n 4N\1V V T I I 1,,A1 OVA S�,t 0 Tax ID#: 6e- 02144h `f Telephone #: I SU , -3E2 q L-.t-thaL City & Zip Code: I 1�Pir\ rk ( "11 0 ?.) Contact Name(s):I Vl trn DIA r s --e. Fax #:1614 I — 3-30 sou Email Address: I1aU9 �,Y)@ swl1fty . , l - On a separate sheet(s), please briefly answer the following questions: 1. Describe the applicant organization, including its purpose, leadership structure, and activities. 2. Describe the proposed project or activity. 3. Provide a timeline for completing the proposed project or activity. 4. Explain how the proposed project or activity will positively impact the community. 5. Identify the specific communities or groups that will benefit. 6. Describe how grant funds will be used and include the source and amounts of matching funds or in-kind contributions, if any. Itemize anticipated expenditures*. 7. If the grant will support an ongoing activity, explain how it will be funded in the future. Attach: Proof of the applicant organization's non-profit status. * Applicant may be contacted during the review process and asked to provide a complete line item budget. 1. Saving Grace's mission provides comprehensive family violence and sexual assault services and promotes the value of living life free from violence. Given this Mission, we believe in: • Declaring freedom from fear of all forms of abuse a basic human right • Empowering survivors of violence to make their own choices by exercising their right to self-determination • Respecting children, women and men equally • Breaking the cycle of violence through education • Offering a program balancing prevention, intervention and support • Endorsing public policy making violence unacceptable in our society • Conducting our own affairs in an ethical and caring way • Establishing ourselves in a leadership role in the community to promote freedom from violence Our services for domestic violence and sexual assault survivors are designed to help them with the healing process and to provide them with resources to regain control of their lives. Our services for professionals and community members help them identify abuse and how to respond so future abuse can be prevented. Our services include: • 24-hour hotline • Support groups • Emergency shelter • Professional training • Emergency transportation • Court advocacy • Respite child care • Systems advocacy • Programs for children exposed to violence • Community education • Hospital response • Therapy • Individual crisis counsel • Public awareness • Information and referral to social services • Youth violence prevention • Supervised visitation and exchange center 2. The 7th Annual Saving Grace Heroes Luncheon is Saving Grace's largest fundraiser. This year we were able to highlight the 40th Anniversary of the cause and focus on a few survivors stories that allowed community members to learn more about what we do. 3. The project is completed, but we are still seeking funding. 4. This is Saving Grace's largest event to raise funds for services at Saving Grace. All services offer to community members are free and confidential. Our goal is to never have cost be a barrier to safety and healing. By contributing funds toward this event Deschutes County is directly benefiting survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault in our community. These services provide safety, support, healing and hope. 5. The specific communities that will benefit are survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault. 6. These funds go in to Saving Grace's general fund and are used to ensure our services are always available to those in need. 7. We hope to continue with the annual luncheon and other fundraising activities to continue to raise funds. We also appeal to donors and supporters of our cause for monthly and yearly donations. Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners Discretionary Grant Program Fundraising Activity Board Meeting Date: April 17, 2017 Organization: Human Dignity Coalition Project Name: Central Oregon Pride 2017 Project Period: Current — June 24, 2017 Description: Central Oregon Pride festival and fundraiser. Amount of Request: $2,000 Previous Grants: 1/26/2015 $1,200.00 Central Oregon Pride Event 4/13/2016 $1,200.00 Fundraising Event Approved: Declined: -t r S Deschutes County Board of Commissioners PO Box 6005, Bend, OR 97701-6005 1300 NW Wall Street, Suite 200, Bend, OR Telephone: 541-388-6571 Fax: 541-385-3202 Website: www.deschutes.ore, DESCHUTES COUNTY DISCRETIONARY GRANT PROGRAM APPLICATION Today's Date: I Feb 16, 2017 Project Name: I Central Oregon Pride 2017 Project Beginning Date: I now Project End Date: I June 24, 2017 Amount Requested: I 2,000 I Date Funds Needed: I May 1, 2017 Name of Applicant Organization:I Human Dignity Coalition Address:I 155 NW Irving Street City & Zip Code: I Bend 97701 Tax ID #: I 93-1131138 Contact Name(s): I Gait Boyce I Telephone #: I 541-385-3320 Fax #: I Email Address: I cait@humandignitycoalition.org On a separate sheet(s), please briefly answer the following questions: 1. Describe the applicant organization, including its purpose, leadership structure, and activities. 2. Describe the proposed project or activity. 3. Provide a timeline for completing the proposed project or activity. 4. Explain how the proposed project or activity will positively impact the community. 5. Identify the specific communities or groups that will benefit. 6. Describe how grant funds will be used and include the source and amounts of matching funds or in-kind contributions, if any, Itemize anticipated expenditures*. 7. If the grant will support an ongoing activity, explain how it will be funded in the future. Attach: Proof of the applicant organization's non-profit status. * Applicant may be contacted during the review process and asked to provide a complete line item budget. 1. Describe the applicant organization, including its purpose, leadership structure, and activities. Human Dignity Coalition (HDC) was founded in 1992. HDC is dedicated to safeguarding human rights and promoting equality for the LGBTQ community. HDC advances and defends the rights of Central Oregon's LGBTQ community through education, outreach and support, helping to ensure that they enjoy both legal and lived equality. HDC's leadership structure consists of an all -volunteer run Board of Directors and dozens of volunteers. HDC has one paid staff member who serves as the Community Organizer and allows our office to be open every day. Our Board is composed of people who identify as LGBTQ along with a straight parent of transgender children, ages 6 and 8 years. 2. Describe the proposed project or activity. Central Oregon Pride is Human Dignity Coalition's primary fundraiser. It is an annual LGBTQ Pride festival at Drake Park in Bend, Oregon. It is the only LGBTQ Pride festival in Central Oregon, and is a vital safe space for the community to celebrate and gather resources and support. The event will occur on Saturday, June 26, 2017 from 12:OOp.m. to 6:00p.m. The festival will feature music, entertainment, educational workshops (new this year), local food vendors, a kids' zone, community booths, and an area for seniors and those who are alter-abled. Deschutes County Health Department is often present at Pride, and this year we also hope to include more Deschutes County booths to spread awareness about County services. Commissioner Tammy Baney also made an appearance at Pride 2015, and it was wonderful for our community to see that the County supports us. During the festival, there will be a silent auction, which is one of the main fundraisers for this event. Other sources of income include sponsors (with Subaru of Bend as the Title Sponsor), vendors and grants. Funding from Deschutes County will help us grow the festival, and raise more funding and awareness for Central Oregon's LGBTQ community. It will also help us continue to provide education and vital services for this community. Entrance to the Pride festival is free, so that all members of our community can attend. Central Oregon Pride is Human Dignity Coalition's most important fundraiser. The funds raised at Pride help offset the operation costs of putting on the Pride festival and running HDC. 3. Provide a timeline for completing the proposed project or activity. Timeline: Saturday, June 24, 2017 4. Explain bow the proposed project or activity will impact the community's economic health. Turnout for Central Oregon Pride 2016 was approximately 5,000 people, which means that 5,000 people will be supporting local vendors and community organizations, and attending educational workshops hosted by local organizations such as Saving Grace and Planned Parenthood. Pride has over 50 business vendors at the event, which sell crafts and food, and these vendors promote their businesses by making vital connections with the community. One of the outcomes of Pride is to help people locate businesses and services, including Deschutes County services, that are LGBTQ-friendly. This event is also a fundraising opportunity for Human Dignity Coalition, bringing in funding that goes directly to the local LGBTQ community HDC serves. This positively affects the organization's economic health and enables HDC to continue to advocate for, and offer vital services to, the LGBTQ community. 5. Identify the specific communities or groups that will benefit. The funds raised at Pride will help offset the operation costs of hosting Pride and running HDC. The LGBTQ community within Deschutes, Jefferson, and Crook counties—as well as their supports, friends, and families—will ultimately benefit from this community investment. 6. Itemize anticipated expenditures*. Describe how grant funds will be used and include the source and amounts of matching funds or in- kind contributions, if any. If the grant will support an ongoing activity, explain how it will be funded in the future. The grant funds will help offset event costs such as printing posters, fliers and programs; food; advertising; entertainment; Drake Park rental; equipment rentals; stage and sound; garbage and PortaPotties; supplies and postage; security; and banners and signs. Currently, our matching Grant funding is from the Pride Foundation in Portland in the amount of $5,000. Our estimated expenditures for Pride 2017 is approximately $10,000. Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners Discretionary Grant Program Fundraising Activity Board Meeting Date: April 17, 2017 Organization: Bethlehem Inn Project Name: Spotlight on Homelessness Project Period: 2/1/2017 — 5/15/2017 Description: Sponsorship for Spotlight on Homelessness fundraising dinner. Amount of Request: $2,500 Previous Grants: 2/13/2002 $1,000.00 11/4/2003 $1,000.00 5/11/2011 $6,000.00 3/25/2012 $2,000.00 3/25/2013 $1,900.00. 4/7/2014 $2,000.00 4/8/2015 $1,000.00 4/13/2016 $2,000.00 Approved: Declined: Special project: hats, gloves, etc. for homeless Homeless shelter services Spotlight on Homelessness Spotlight on Homelessness Spotlight on Homelessness Spotlight on Homelessness Spotlight on Homelessness Spotlight on Homelessness Deschutes County Board of Commissioners PO Box 6005, Bend, OR 97701-6005 1300 NW Wall Street, Suite 200, Bend, OR Telephone: 541-388-6571 Fax: 541-385-3202 Website: vavw.deseltutes.om DESCHUTES COUNTY DISCRETIONARY GRANT PROGRAM APPLICATION Today's Date: J 1/31/2017 Project Name: I Spotlight on Homelessness Project Beginning Date: I 2/1/2017 I Project End Date: I 5/15/17 Amount Requested: 1 $2,500 J Date Funds Needed: I 4/30/17 Name of Applicant Organization: Bethlehem Inn Address:1 P.O. Box 8540 City & Zip Code: I Bend 97703 Contact Name(s): I Kim Fischbach Fax #: 541.318.7336 Email Address: I Tax ID #: 93-1323419 Telephone #: J 541.322,8768 ext 21 I kim@hAthirtheminn nr9 On a separate sheet(s), please briefly answer the following questions: 1. Describe the applicant organization, including its purpose, leadership structure, and activities. 2. Describe the proposed project or activity. 3. Provide a timeline for completing the proposed project or activity. 4. Explain how the proposed project or activity will positively impact the community. 5. Identify the specific communities or groups that will benefit. 6. Describe how grant funds will be used and include the source and amounts of matching funds or in-kind contributions, if any. Itemize anticipated expenditures*. 7. If the grant will support an ongoing activity, explain how it will be funded in the future. Attach: Proof of the applicant organization's non-profit status. * Applicant may be contacted during the review process and asked to provide a complete line item budget. /Qethlehem L1nn shelter • help • hope Bethlehem Inn Economic Development Fund Discretionary Grant Program Application 1. Describe the applicant organization, including its purpose, leadership structure and activities. In Central Oregon, Bethlehem Inn is the largest emergency shelter for adults and children experiencing situational homelessness. On any given day, the Inn provides an average of 83 people with the basics of survival — a hot shower, three nutritious meals each day, a place to sleep in warmth and safety and access to support services. Last year the inn provided: • 920 men, women and children( includes 62 families) were provided shelter, food, clothing and support services • 26,143 bed nights were provided • 69,541 meals served (all donated with a total in-kind value of $192,628) • 934 food boxes were provided to exiting residents and others in need Within 24 hours of entering the Inn, case managers prioritize the immediate needs of each resident or family; initially addressing the basic survival needs of housing, food, safety and health. Once these needs have been addressed, a best -practices case management system is used to connect residents with appropriate partner agencies and services to provide an effective avenue to self-sufficiency. As a private, non-profit agency, the Bethlehem Inn relies heavily on the dedication of volunteers to succeed. While our programs are managed by 15 paid staff members, many of the duties that allow the Inn to provide the day-to- day services, 365 days each year are handled by a base of over 2,500 volunteers. The Inn's staff is led by a proactive Executive Director, who is supported by a Managing Director and a Director of Development, along with other dedicated staff committed to helping the Inn fulfill its mission. A strong and capable Board of Directors in conjunction with effective board governance and program committees support the Inn staff with their oversight and proactive involvement. 2. Describe the proposed project or activity. Bethlehem Inn respectfully requests even sponsorship support from Deschutes County for our sixth annual Spotlight on Homelessness fundraising dinner on Tuesday, May 9 at Riverhouse on the Deschutes. This event is designed to educate our community on the problems facing adults and children experiencing homelessness and the ways in which the Inn staff serves this vulnerable segment of our population. This event continues to serve as the Inn's only annual fundraiser and as such, is a critical component of the Inn's projected revenue. The event has two key goals; to generate revenue in support of general operations and to serve as an educational tool in the ongoing effort to increase community awareness of the services offered by the Inn. Last year 310 guests joined us for our 2016 Spotlight dinner, which successfully raised over $216,000 in revenue! As in prior years, sponsorship funding helps to underwritthe cost ofths Important event, aliowing every doflar generated that evening to directly support the Inn's program providing services for adults and children experiencirig homelessness. 3. Provide a timeline for completing the proposed project or activity. 2017 Spotlight on I-Iomelessness Timeline: January Community Sponsorships —ongoing February Initiate Community PR and awareness Save -the -date materia Is frna Iized/begin distribution Recruit Table Hosts March Develop presentation materials Provide Table Hosts with event invitations Finalize community sponsorships April Finalize presentation materials Finalize guest lists and seating May Conduct event Thank you etters to guests Report to sponsors Open House and tour for donors 4. Explaln how the proposed proJect or activity wifl Impact the community's economlc health. Funding received from the Spotlight on Homelessness dinner will be directed to the Inn's program serving the adutts and children experiencing homelessness iri Deschutes County. Women, children, and senior adults continue to represent a growing number of today's homeles. With assistance and close collaboration with community partners including DHS, FAN, Head Start, COVO and KIDS Center, these adults and families are able to seek out the necessary resources that will allow them to avoid chronic homelessness. The Inn works as a leveraging agent to connect individuals experiencing homelessness by mitigating the immediate crisis and helping to guide them to a path of better decision making and stability. Bethlehem Inn works closely with local government and a broad network of service agencies to support residents, who fix their sights on the possibility of affordable housing. We are among the community leaders who tighten the interweaving network of resources that homeless people need to inch their way back up to long-term housing — clothing, job training, counseling, health care, child care, transportation, parenting classes, budgeting assistance, educational opportunities, transitional housing. Every day the Inn helps people without homes access the critical service partners in Central Oregon. Bethlehem Inn is proud of the support and investment we have received from our community. It is that very support that allows us to help our residents move up to the next level and into a life of self-sufficiency... which ultimately has a positive impact on the economic health of Deschutes County. With that continuing momentum and the support of the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners, the Inn will be able to break the cycle of homelessness for many and he-lp move those in crisis towards economic strength and vitality. 5. Identify the specific communities or groups that will benefit. Former inn residents shares their story: Megan and Charlie never imagined getting arrested would be a good thing. They were living in Sunriver, both using drugs and about to become homeless when the Sunriver police busted them...and told them about Bethlehem Inn. They'd hit bottom with the drugs before the arrest...wanted to get clean. The arrest and the Inn's no alcohol/no drugs rule were exactly what they needed. They had structure in their lives. They were held accountable. In their words, "We realized we were free." Charlie, an Army veteran who served in Korea, got reconnected with the VA. Megan, with Inn help, got medical insurance through the Oregon Health Plan. Here's Megan: "Bethlehem Inn gave us hope. It is so much more than a homeless shelter. It gave us a platform we could just jump off of." And jump they have: they're clean; they have great jobs; they have found an apartment for themselves and their two cats. Charlie and Megan were on a path to nowhere. Now, thanks to their determination and willingness, direction and encouragement from Bethlehem Inn, they are on a path to a bright future. Their fresh start truly reflects a life transformed through the Inn's mission of providing: shelter, help, and hope. All of the adults and children that benefit from the vital safety net provided by Bethlehem Inn are experiencing economic crisis in one form or another leading to insecure housing and no reliable, consistent source of food. We provide our residents with everything they need to reclaim their dignity and rebuild their lives: shelter, nutritious meals, counseling, clothing as well as access to medical and dental care, transportation and access to transitional housing. By having access to the basic necessities, our residents are given the opportunity to rebuild their lives with the goal of returning to self-sufficiency. The community as a whole benefits from our services, when individuals and families are not forced to reside in unsafe environments. Residents are able to reconnect with family, connect with employers and find other ways to give back to the community in productive and positive ways. Bethlehem Inn Projected 2017 Outcomes: • Shelter services will be provided to 1,100 unduplicated individuals; • 27,000 emergency bed nights will be provided; • 3 nourishing meals per day will be offered to each resident representing 70,000 meals; • 100% of residents will have their receive basic met; • 2,450+ referrals will be made to over 70 local partner agencies 6. Itemize anticipated expenditures. Describe how the grant funds will be used and include the source and amounts of matching funds or in-kind contributions, If any. Grant funds from Deschutes County will be applied towards an event sponsorship of the 2017 Spotlight on Homelessness. Sponsorship funding will help cover the cost of the event; allowing funds raised during the event to be directed services that support Inn residents. The goal is to generate $170,000 through corporate and community sponsorships along with individual donations. The Inn is currently seeking match grant funding. Spotlight on Honielessness Projected Budget Expenses Projection In -Kind Cost of venue includes tabies, chairs, bar area and catering space $6,600 Cost of passed appetizers, salad, main course (320 guests) $13,000 $2,043 Wine (3cases vvb\te/3red) and 4 No -Host Bars $75/each; $1,000 $600 Riverhouse Audio Package - $450Shuttle Service (provided by Photos, Video - $12,800 proj. total 50% aUocated to event AV/Tech Support Audio Visions Plus); Karen Commack-Photog Centerpiece/Desserts Mailing Invitations; thank you Ietters (2Z4invites, thank you letters ) $450 $450 $7,000 $500 $839 $128 Invitations/Envelopes RSVP cards/envelopes $500 $33.21 Supplies - posters, speaker thank you gift($60), program($300) $650 $330 ( pledge cards -$Z4) TOTAL EXPENSES: 25,732 $8,641 Revenue Sponsorship $22100 Donor Gifts $90,000 Challenge Grants $20'000 Pledges $38,000 In -Kind $8,480 TOTAL REVENUE $170\000 $8,480 Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners Discretionary Grant Program Fundraising Activity Board Meeting Date: April 17, 2017 Organization: Latino Community Association Project Name: Gala de Oro Fundraiser Project Period: 4/21/2017 Description: Community fundraising event with Latin American -inspired food, music, performances, and auction. Amount of Request: $1,500 Previous Grants: 2/11/2009 $1,000.00 High Desert Intercultural Festival 8/22/2011 $1,500.00 Festival of Cultures 8/26/2013 $1,500.00 7th Annual Festival of Cultures 11/12/2014 .$800.00 Empowering Families Breakfast 4/8/2015 $1;500.00 Gala de Oro Fundraising Event 1/25/2016 $1,500.00: Fundraising Events Approved: Declined: Latino Community Association — Discretionary Grant Proposal — March 24, 2017 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners PO Box 6005, Bend, OR 97701-6005 1300 NW Wall Street, Suite 200, Bend, OR Telephone: 541-388-6571 Fax: 541-385-3202 Website: www.deschutes.org DESCHUTES COUNTY DISCRETIONARY GRANT PROGRAM APPLICATION Today's Date: 03/24/17 Project Name: Gala de Oro (fundraiser) Project Beginning Date: 04/21/17 Project End Date: 04/21/17 Amount Requested: $1,500 Date Funds Needed: 04/18/17 (date pledge needed) Name of Applicant Organization: The Latino Community Association Address: 1130 NW Harriman St. City & Zip Code: Bend, OR 97703 Tax ID #: 93-1260288 Contact Name(s): Brad Porterfield Telephone #: 541.382.4366 Fax #: 541.385.1742 Email Address: brad@latinocommunityassociation.org On a separate sheet(s), please briefly answer the following questions: 1. Describe the applicant organization, including its purpose, leadership structure, and activities. 2. Describe the proposed project or activity. 3. Provide a timeline for completing the proposed project or activity. 4. Explain how the proposed project or activity will positively impact the community. 5. Identify the specific communities or groups that will benefit. 6. Describe how grant funds will be used and include the source and amounts of matching funds or in- kind contributions, if any. Itemize anticipated expenditures*. 7. If the grant will support an ongoing activity, explain how it will be funded in the future. Attach: Proof of the applicant organization's non-profit status. * Applicant may be contacted during the review process and asked to provide a complete line item budget. Page 1 of 6 Latino Community Association — Discretionary Grant Proposal — March 24, 2017 1. Describe the applicant organization, including its purpose, leadership structure, and activities. Our mission is to empower our Latino families to thrive by creating opportunities for advancement and building bridges that unite and strengthen us all. For the past 17 years, the Latino Community Association (LCA) has been providing critically important services to strengthen Central Oregon's underserved, low-income Latino families. Our Latino population in Central Oregon has more than quintupled since 1990, having grown from 3,362 to 19,933, and Latinos are projected to be the fastest growing segment of the U.S. population for years to come. Our programs include Workforce Education & Training, Family Empowerment, Youth Development, Healthy Families and Cultural Enrichment. Our services impacted the lives of nearly 7,000 people last year. Latino Community Association is an essential connecting point and community resource hub for our immigrant families, community organizations and businesses. We help families file their taxes, work through legal issues, find work, improve their English, gain computer skills, achieve citizenship and connect to new opportunities. Overall, our low-cost and free services save client families over $100,000 annually in -lieu of paying market rates for the same services. This is especially significant considering 94% of the families we served earn less than $30,000 a year and 84% have no health insurance. These are hard-working, yet underserved and vulnerable families and children we are impacting. We accomplished all of this with 5.25FTE paid staff, a budget of $265,000 and roughly 150 volunteers, as well as multiple community partners. We are led by a board of directors that is majority Latino, a 100% giving board, and representative of many different industries and communities. We provide additional needed services such as translation, cultural consulting and diversity training to the broader community. And we offer volunteer opportunities that bring people together across cultures to build a more cohesive and resilient Central Oregon. 2. Describe the proposed project or activity. Our third Gala de Oro (Golden Gala), scheduled for April 21' , will bring together two hundred and fifty people to gather at the Boys & Girls Club in support of the Latino Community Association's mission. Funds raised at the gala sustain and expand our program staff and will specifically support bringing on a Development Assistant to increase our fundraising capacity and services long-term. We are making significant changes to the event structure this year adding a VIP Dinner for up to 100 people and following with our past model of live music and dancing to include an additional 150 guests. This allows for two price points that increase accessibility to the event overall. It also invites people uninterested in the party aspect to join us for a sit-down, plated meal including a guest speaker, client testimonial, and traditional fundraising activities to help us raise 20% more than last year ($42,000 to $50,000). The masquerade ball portion will feature unique Latin American -inspired small plates prepared by a diverse group of local restaurants and the COCC Culinary Institute, margaritas, exceptional wines, and craft beer from Deschutes Brewery. A unique silent auction and paddle raise activity will bring everyone's focus to our mission and the specific goal to expand our workforce training and youth development programs. Throughout the evening, guests will enjoy live Latin music from Pura Vida Orchesta, an 11 -piece Latin social band from Portland. The night will also include a couple of very special performances to celebrate the cultural diversity that the Latino Community Association strives to nurture and highlight in our community. 3. Provide a timeline for completing the proposed project or activity. Our Gala de Oro will occur on April 21, 2017. It is a one -day, annual event. Page 2 of 6 Latino Community Association — Discretionary Grant Proposal — March 24, 2017 4. Explain how the proposed project or activity will positively impact the community. The purpose of our Gala event is primarily to raise funds to support the expansion of our workforce education services and our emerging youth development services. Funds raised from the Gala this year will also support a new part-time Development Assistant to help increase our long-term capacity to raise the funds needed for our expansion plans. Ultimately, the benefits will impact the families we serve. Objectives we aim to accomplish by 2018 include: increasing family incomes collectively by $500,000; increasing access to services for families with young children by providing childcare for parents while they are utilizing our services; increasing volunteer engagement by 500 hours annually; and touching the lives of an additional 500 people who benefit from our services. These impacts will directly benefit the families we serve, but their impact will be felt throughout the community by employers, educators, and other public and private community agencies whose workloads will be reduced and/or enriched as a result. Our expanded and improved workforce education and training services will increase the available pool of qualified bilingual, multicultural workers in Central Oregon. This will be a boon to businesses and community organizations aiming to provide services to limited -English Latinos. And at this particular time in nation's history, a lot of people are hungry for cultural celebration and cross-cultural exchange and understanding, which our gala provides in spades. 5. Identify the specific communities or groups that will benefit. The Gala is adding value to the Bend community specifically, and to Central Oregon in general. The event itself will benefit the 250 guests in terms of enriching their lives with a cross-cultural experience no one else in our region provides. Business sponsors, participating restaurants, student chefs, and multiple community partners will all benefit from the exposure and experience they will receive through their participation. Our volunteers are gaining valuable experience in event planning, marketing, business and community outreach, and the opportunity to work cross -culturally to achieve important goals. And, of course, the main reason for all of this is to raise the revenue needed to provide services that will empower the Latino families we serve to set and achieve their goals. Most of the families we impact, about 5,000 people, live in Deschutes County. 6. Describe how grant funds will be used and include the source and amounts of matching funds or in-kind contributions, if any. Itemize anticipated expenditures*. We are requesting funding support to help maximize our efforts to raise funds at our third annual Gala event on April 21, 2017. More specifically, we plan to utilize these funds to cover food costs, one of the main expenses for a successful gala. Your support will be covering event expenses together with contributions from our other event sponsors. Event expenses include food and dining materials, beverages, ice, draping, lighting, sound, space rental, two professional performers, decorations, and publicity. As of March 20th, we have commitments from the following sources: Cash Sponsors $10,500 In -Kind Sponsors (media, etc.) $6,500 In -Kind Contributors (auction items, decor. etc) $7.900 TOTAL: $24,900 Please see our detailed 2017 Gala de Oro Event Budget below. Page 3 of 6 Latino Community Association - Discretionary Grant Proposal - March 24, 2017 2017 Gala de Oro Budget INCOME Total county Other In-kind Tickets 14,000 0 14,000 0 Sponsors 19,000 0 12,500 6,500 Grants 1,500 1,500 0 0 Beverages 2,450 0 1,500 950 Silent Auction 16,867 0 7,500 9,367 Raffle 6,200 0 3,000 3,200 Paddle Raise 5,500 0 10,000 0 20,017 Volunteers 6.750 0 0 6.750 TOTALS $76,267 $1,500 $48,500 $26,767 CASH TOTAL S50000 EXPENSES Total County Other In-kind Ticketing 410 0 410 0 Food 3,450 1,500 500 1,450 Beverages/Bar 1,100 0 150 950 Space Rental 250 0 250 0 Outreach/Marketing 270 0 150 120 Publicity 7,300 0 800 6,500 Materials & Supplies 1,950 0 690 1,260 Silent Auction Items 9,367 0 0 9,367 Raffle Item 4,200 0 1000 3,200 AV Equipment 800 0 600 200 Performers 3,200 0 2,950 250 23,297 Volunteers (ore -event, day -of) 6.750 0 0 6,750 TOTALS $39,047 $1,500 $7,500 $30,047 CASH TOTAL $9,000 NET INCOME $41,000 7. If the grant will support an ongoing activity, explain how it will be funded in the future. Our Gala de Oro event is planned to be an annual event and it is an integral part of our overall fundraising plan. We believe our gala budget plan is sound and that community support will remain consistent moving forward. Two areas of growth we anticipate are business sponsorships, which we believe will increase in future years as the event builds recognition and our guests become our ambassadors, and greater individual giving as the event attracts new supporters with a greater capacity to give. Page 4 of 6 Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners Discretionary Grant Program Board Meeting Date: April 17, 2017 Organization: Sisters Park & Recreation District Project Name: SPRD Senior Programs Project Period: May 1, 2017 — ongoing Description: Scholarships for seniors in need to attend classes and programs, including exercise and fitness, computer basics, cooking, health care, and other subjects. Amount of Request: $1,000 Previous Grants: 3/25/2013 $1,500.00 Sisters Country Trails Map 4/13/2016 $1,000.00 Senior Programs Approved: Declined: 11t>ch,tac ('uumy Huard 1'U Liox t,u(i5, Head. OR 9:7o] t,liil5 1.10i) \11 61 all Street. '±t:iti; : (1U, 'fiend. ()1t 1dephcuic' Stt-.1Xk-t,i`71 lar: 5.11-'4i5-12.02 ,1 dos C1I.l:eF:;rC DESCt-IUTES COUNTY DISrCRETIONARY GRANT PROGRAM APPLICATION Today's Date: mar 2r, 1t17 i Project Name; Project Beginning Date 11;Jv 1.1.117 Project End Date. Amount Requested. I $1000 Date Funds Needed Name of Applicant 0 rganization: siste•s Park 8 l2t>cir;Flik1n Distnt;: is' -'RD) ..r Address: t76:''W vtc;Ki r:evHATFtcl i ity` & Zip Code. si52Qr5.OR i177s9 Contact t\lames):! armor', Raciicova5K, Address 10!)-90 np May 1 2317 Tax ID #. 4 7,.(1.V.:4•4; • I Telephone f �tnSl.rt ; t i G:185tN`:S, 1. 1)cti `Ilhe lli app Imint Urgiatll/ailori, ll ci Lining Its purpt»e. leadership tit rllci.ur('. and aotiVities. �. Describe the propuaeci prtl,jet;t Of i, Provide a timeline for completing the proposed prcajccl or aeti\it} [xpluin how the proposed project or al:ti\ ity will po nivel). an it, the connnutlit�r. 5. Identify the specific communities or groups that will benefit, (i. Describe how Efrain funds will he used and include the source and amounts' of matching funds or in-kind contributions, il'any. Itemize rlrrtieipated expenditures'', ?. lythe grant \\ dl ,support tut uniuoinp activit), explain how it will be funded in the future, Attach; Proof of the applicant urgaiIn'.ation's non -prof -it status. Sisters Park & Recreation District Deschutes County Discretionary Grant Program Mar 27, 2017 Questions to be answered on grant application 1. Describe the applicant organization, including its purpose, leadership structure and activities. The mission of Sisters Park & Recreation District (SPRD) is to sustain a viable, fiscally responsible organization that serves Sisters Country with recreation and cultural enrichment opportunities. Sisters Park and Recreation District provides programs and activities for a wide range of participants in the community including; The Sisters Community Preschool. The administration of many youth sports such as volleyball and football. The administration and operation of all Sisters Middle School sports. Management of ski program at Hoodoo Ski area for middle and high school students. Administration of variety of club tournaments in sports such as basketball and lacrosse. Operation of a wide range of adult rec programs with a strong focus on senior programs. SPRD is led by an executive director and a staff of 13 year-round people including a staffer responsible for adult programs, Shannon Rackowski. This grant proposal focuses on the senior programs managed by Shannon., 2. Describe the proposed project or activity. SPRD provides a number of classes and programs targeted for senior citizens but many seniors are unable to attend these programs due to financial hardship or lack of transportation. This grant requests funds to be used as scholarships for needy seniors; a scholarship might be used to pay for a class, participate in a program or arrange transportation to SPRD. Scholarships will allow many more seniors to participate in SPRD programs. In addition, the number of available programs will grow with the increased number of participants Current activities and classes targeted at seniors. (a) One of the SPRD rooms serves as a senior center. Increased participation will allow the senior center hours to expand. (b) SPRD operates a number of senior excursions. With scholarships, the number of participants will increase. (c) SPRD administers health talks/discussions with local health professionals. (d) There are presently a number of classes for seniors including: Stretch & Flex Walk With Ease including indoor winter walks Zumba Gold Computer Basics Cooking Matter of Balance Living with Chronic Conditions 3. Provide a timeline for cornpleting the proposed project or activity. SPRD operates its programs year -around. The funds would be continuously available to qualified seniors at any time. 4. Explain how the proposed project or activity will positively impact the community. Many senior citizens are unable to participate in community activities due to financial hardship or the inability to transport themselves, A community benefits when its citizens participate actively in the life of that community, A community benefits when its citizens benefit. 5. Identify the specific communities or groups that will benefit. This proposal requests funds to support seniors (60+) who live within the Sisters Parks & Recreation District boundary, In particular, older seniors who live alone or lack mobility and need financial support to participate In SPRD programs. People 60+, who live alone, comprise a significant segment (estimate is 12%) of the Sisters population. As this population ages, there will be more and more widowed seniors who experience mobility difficulties and financial hardships. This is the key population that we wish to serve with this grant. This demographic is already large in number and is almost certain to grow dramatically over the next few years. 6. Describe how grant funds will be used and include the source and amounts of matching funds or in-kind contributions, if any. Itemize anticipated expenditures. 100% of the grant funds will be used for scholarships to support program costs and transportation costs for senior citizens, None of the funds will be used for any other SPRD capital or operational needs. 7. If the grant will support an ongoing activity, explain how it will be funded in the future. Ongoing scholarships for senior citizens will be funded by individual donations and future grant requests, Finance Department/Tax Collection Wayne Lowry, Finance Director and Tax Collector Andrea Perkins, Deputy Tax Collector October 15, 2015 1300 NW Wall St, Suite 203, Bend, OR 97701-1960 P.D. Box 7559 Bend, DR 97/08-7559 (541) 388-6540 - Fax (541) 385-3248 www.deschutes.org/finance TO: Taxing Districts FROM: Andrea Perkins, Deputy Tax Collector RE: Notification of Property Taxes Imposed for the 2015-2016 Fiscal Year Attached please find a schedule of property tax distribution percentages and certified property taxes for all taxing districts in Deschutes County as well as the Summary of Assessment & Levies (SAL) Schedule 4a, if applicable. In compliance with ORS 311.391, we are notifying you of the amount of property taxes imposed for your district for fiscal year 2015-2016. Your district's information is highlighted on the enclosed schedule. If you have any questions regarding the distribution schedule, please contact me at (541) 388-6538. The final enclosure is a copy of the Assessor's 2015-2016 Summary of Assessment and Tax Roll. If you have questions regarding the SAL report or the Summary of Assessment and Tax Roll please contact Scot Langton, County Assessor at (541) 388-6508. enclosures Copy: Wayne Lowry, Finance Director and Tax Collector Scot Langton, Assessor TABLE 4a -- DETAIL OF TAXING DISTRICT LEVIES TAX YEAR 2015-2016 County: DESCHUTES 1 Taxing District code 1371 2 Taxing District Name (SISTERS PARK d RE('ItFATI(3N DIST 3 Counties in which District Iles 4 Levy Approved Before or After 1016101 .. , , ... Ad Valorem Tax Levies 5 Permanent Levy, (0 dollar amount) 6 Local Option Levy (if dollar amount)' 7 "GAP" Bond Levy 8 Urban Renewal Special Levy 0 Bond Levy 10 Total Dollar Levy (add lines 5 through 9) Adjustments 11 Amount Raised In Other Counties 12 Net Dollar Levy for Tax Rate (line 10 minus line 11), Taxable Property Value 13 Total Taxable Assessed Value 14 Add: Nonprofit Housing Value 15 Add: Fish and Wildlife Value 16 Subtract: Urban Renewal Excess (amount used only)" 17 Value to Compute the Tax Rate Tax Compura duns 18 Tax Rate (for dollar levies, line 12 divided by line 17)•" 19 Amount Tax Rale Will Raise (Ilne 17 times line 18).. 20 Truncation Loss (line 19 minus line 12) 21 Total Timber Offset Amount (county district only) ... , 22 Timber Tax Rate (line 21 divided by line 17) 23 Billing Rale (line 18 minus line 22) 24 Calculated Tax for Extension for District (line 23 times Ilne 17) 24a Gain from UR Division of Tax Rete Truncation 24b Galn or Loss from UR Division of Tax Across Counties 24c Net Tax for Extension (24 + 24a + 24b) .......... 25 Actual Tax Extended for District 26 District's Gain or Loss from individual Extension (25-24c) 27 District's Compression Loss (enter as a negative number)•'•' 28 District Taxes Imposed (line 24c+ line 28 + Ilne 27) . AJdilionrl Taxe,A'enxlties 29 Farmland (ORS 309A.703) 30 Forestland (ORS 308A.703) 31 Small Traci Foresllend (STF) (ORS 3D8A.703), .... 32 Open Space (ORS 308A.318) 33 Single Family Residence (ORS 308.685) 34 Historic Properly (ORS 358.525) 35 Other 36 Late Filing Fee County Only (ORS 308.302) 37 Rall Corrections (ORS 311.206), , , ........ „ Incl. omitted propertylather roll corrections, but excl. roll corrections under ORS 311.208. 38 'raraL4ddillunal Taxes/Penalties (add hues 29111iu 37) 39 TOTAL TO BE RECEIVED (line 28 plus Ilne 38) .. . PERMANENT 1 LOCAL OPTION BEFORE Tlnalde "GAP" BONDS or UR SPECIAL LEVY BONDS BEFORE Outside October 08, 2015 2:54 PM L 0. 0. 0.05 0.00 0,0(1 0.001 0.0(( 0.00 0.0002205 268,095,53 0,001 0,000000 0.000220(1 0.000000 268,095.51 15.34 0.0 288,110.8' 268,112.19 1.34 0,0 266,1121 0,000000 0.0 0 o.00nono(1 0.0c' 0.05. 0.000000(1 o,o(1 0.04 O.Od 0.0 0.09 0.001 9.00 0.05 0.05 0.0009009 0.00 o,oa1 (Log 0,0 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.000000c 0,00) 0,0 0.0 o,ad 0.0(1 0.00 0.00 0.001 0.09' 0,001 0.00) 0.00) o.00l 1,229,465,379.001 0.001 0.00' 10,849,315.000,, 1,218,616,061.001 9,0002200] 268,095.531 0.00) 0.00) 0.00000001 0.00022001 268.005.531 (5.32 0.001 269,119.851 268,112.19) 1.34 -0.0 268.1 259.97) 259.07 0,o(1 -0.00 0.001 0.00 0.0(1 0.00 0.00 0:o6 0.00 0.00 0.00 ___0_00 0.00 0,00 258.54 _258,54 518.5 518,51 40 Percentage Schedule (ORS 311.390) (OPTIONAL, SEE INSTRUCTIONS) ' If district hos multiple Local Option or Bond levies, please show each levy on a separate 4a page (see instructions about combining in some cases). " For urban renewal special levies, enter Zero on this line: excess value is not subtracted, "' Line 12/Line 17 computation applies ONLY to dollar levies; if district has a rale levy, enler the tax rate used. "" Enter only the district or U,R, spacial levy compression loss. Urban renewal division of lox compression loss is reported on table 4e, See Instructions. 268,630.671 0.000855451 Deschutes County Taxes Imposed Tax Year 2015-16 District ID 351 371 565 570 580 601 613 614 615 616 620 628 629 630 632 633 651 660 662 670 671 701 702 703 705 706 710 720 735 740 745 747 749 770 775 776 785 790 795 797 798 803 901 905 District Name REDMOND AREA PARK & REC DISTRICT SISTERS PARK & RECREATION DIST WATER WONDERLAND IMP DISTRICT RIVER MEADOWS IMPROVEMENT DIST MANUFACTURED DWELLING ASSESSMENT SCHOOL DISTRICT #1 SCHOOL #1 BOND 1998 SCHOOL #1 BOND 2002 SCHOOL #1 BOND 2007 SCHOOL #1 BOND 2013 SCHOOL DISTRICT #21 SCHOOL#21 BOND 2004 SCHOOL #21 BOND 2008 SCHOOL DISTRICT #6 SCHOOL #6 BOND 2001 SCHOOL #6 LOCAL OPTION HIGH DESERT ESD CROOK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT CROOK COUNTY SCHOOL BOND 2013 COCC COCCBOND SPECIAL ROAD DISTRICT#1 DRRH SPECIAL RD DISTRICT UNIT #6 LAZY RIVER ROAD DISTRICT RIVER FOREST ROAD DISTRICT PINEWOOD COUNTRY ESTATES SRD SPRING RIVER ROAD DISTRICT SPECIAL ROAD DISTRICT #8 RIVER BEND ESTATES ROAD DISTRICT VANDEVERT ACRES ROAD DISTRICT HOWELL HILLTOP ACRES ROAD DIST CROOKED RIVER RANCH ROAD DIST PANORAMIC ACCESS ROAD DISTRICT CASCADE VIEW ESTATES ROAD DIST NEWBERRY ESTATES ROAD DISTRICT NEWBERRY ESTATES ROAD DIST LOCAL OPTION FALL RIVER ESTATES ROAD DISTRICT FOREST VIEW ROAD DISTRICT BEAVER ROAD DISTRICT PONDEROSA PINES EAST ROAD DIST SUN MOUNTAIN RANCHES ROAD DIST 4 RIVER VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT OREGON WATER WONDERLAND SANITARY STARWOOD SANITARY DISTRICT Totals Distributton % Total to be Collected 0.3863% $1,229,082.56 0.0844% 5268,630.67 0.0241% $76,615.00 0.0205% $65,373.00 0.0047% $15,001.73 21.9278% $69,770,035.83 0.5067% $1,612,309.08 0.4266% $1,357,232.77 4.6922% $14,929,555.35 1.2759% $4,059,737,43 6.1489% $19,564,439.52 1.2299% $3,913,388.77 2.0555% $6,540,202.60 2.3888% $7,600,634.64 0.5667% $1,803,149.35 0.3558% $1,131,951.06 0.6189% $1,969,096.67 0.0277% $87,991.50 0.0048% $15,166.69 3.9802% $12,664,174.12 0.7720% $2,456,301.53 0.0735% $233,736.43 0.0081% $25,743.38 0.0080% $25,611.77 0.0105% $33,416.95 0.0054% $17,274.73 0.0067% $21,222.52 0.0198% $62,956.39 0.0079% $24,999.94 0.0064% $20,480.30 0.0046% $14,528,32 0.0068% $21,481.16 0.0092% $29,203.08 0.0117% 537,200.54 0.0059% $18,886.86 0.0030% $9,647.07 0.0056% $17,850.45 0.0080% $25,442.32 0.0037% $11,686.84 0,0023% $7,269.97 0.0109% $34,682.87 0,0579% $184,094.65 0.0126% $40,015.27 0.0003% $1,026.03 100.0000% $318,180,186.06 Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners Discretionary Grant Program Board Meeting Date: April 17, 2017 Organization: Women's Civic Improvement League, dba KPOV Project Name: Civic and Cultural Online Archives Library Project Period: June 1, 2017 — March 1, 2018 Description: Create online archive library of interviews and performances broadcasted on KPOV. Amount of Request: $2,000 Previous Grants: 4/8/2015 $600.00 Production Equipment Replacement 4/13/2016 ..$1,600.00 KPOV Signal & Reach Expansion Approved: Declined: Today's Date: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners PO Box 6005, Bend, OR 97701-6005 1300 NW Wall Street, Suite 200, Bend, OR Telephone: 541-388-6571 Fax: 541-385-3202 Website: www.deschutcs.ora DESCHUTES COUNTY DISCRETIONARY GRANT PROGRAM APPLICATION March 17, 2017 Project Name: Project Beginning Date: June I, 2017 Amount Requested: I $2,000 Name of Applicant Organization: Address: 501 NW Bond Sl. Civic and Cultural Online Archives Library I Project End Date: I March 1, 2018 IDate Funds Needed:' July 1, 2018 en's Civic Improvement League, dba KPOV City & Zip Code: I Bend, OR 97703 I Tax ID #: Contact Name(s): Fax #: ill Mahler Email Address: Telephone #: j il1(uJkpov.org On a separate sheet(s), please briefly answer the following questions: 20-0733873 541-322-0863 1. Describe the applicant organization, including its purpose, leadership structure, and activities. 2. Describe the proposed project or activity. 3. Provide a timeline for completing the proposed project or activity. 4. Explain how the proposed project or activity will positively impact the community. 5. Identify the specific communities or groups that will benefit. 6. Describe how grant funds will be used and include the source and amounts of matching funds or in- kind contributions, if any. Itemize anticipated expenditures*. 7. If the grant will support an ongoing activity, explain how it will be funded in the future. Attach: Proof of the applicant organization's non-profit status. * Applicant may be contacted during the review process and asked to provide a complete lint item budget. Narrative Questions I. DESCRIBE THE APPLICANT ORGANIZATION, INCLUDING ITS PURPOSE, LEADERSHIP STRUCTURE, AND ACTIVITIES. Purpose &Activities Mission statement; KPOV1s radio by the people and for the people of Central Oregon. KPOV strengthens community, arts, culture, and democracy through independent, non-commercial KPOV began as a bold idea in 2001 to create a nonprofit, community-based alternative to commercial radio after the FCC allowed for a new, low power FM radio station in Bend. Since going on the air in 2005KPOV has engaged our comrnunity in producing high quality, informative and entertaining local programming, from civic affairs to children reading their own stories; from interviews with writers to live music. Now broadcasting at full power — 1000 watts — since 2011, KPOV is the only nonprofit radio station broadcasting from Bend and serving Deschutes County and parts of Crook County. For eleven years KPOV has engaged our community in creating media specifically for Central Oregonians. KPOV's programming focuses on issues important to a strong, healthy community, including economic and environmental sustainability, human rights, arts and culture, health and spirituality, and other programming often ignored by comrnercial media. The station offers a forum for diverse views and music from our region and around the world. KPOV provides a wide diversity of musical genres through more than 35 music shows,including classical, jazz, blues, Americana, world, country, rock, and much more. Local performing and visual artists, writers, and musicians are regularly interviewed on a variety of local weekly shows, as well as non -profits, business owners, and individuals with stories, information or perspectives to share. Through 50 weekly music and talk shows produced by 70 volunteer hosts, KPOV is Central Oregon's platform for sharing arts, culture, environmental, and civic concerns with the community. KPOV features local shows such as The Po!nt (civic and cultural affairs), Open Air (inteand Youth Radio Hour (hosted by local teens ages 13-20). We also carry syndicated programs that look at today's issues from different perspectives than are available in commercial media, and a four-hour biock of Spanish language prograrnming on Monday rnornings. 2 KPOV's signature program, The Point, was launched in 2013 to serve as our first locally produced daily public affairs showproviding a new platform from which to inform our community. The Point has 10 hosts and countless contributors, greatly expanding our coverage of local affairs by interviewing a wide variety of community members such as nonprofits, authors, artists, civic - minded residents, and business and government leaders. The Point and KPOV's other local affairs ivic'nnindedvesidents,andbusinessandgovernment/eaders.ThmPmintmndKPOV'sother|oca/affn/rs shows feature thoughtful dialogue and analysis on local issues from the people who know Deschutes County the best. A special service of KPOV are live broadcasts from cuitural and political events around town including four local music festivals, League of Women Voters candidate forums, and The City Club of Central Oregon's monthly forums. We also make those broadcasts available on -demand" at our website. KPOV's local live music show, Center Stage, plus annual events featuring local musicians, make KPOV an important resource for Central Oregon's local musicians. KPOV is the only Iocal media outlet that gives Deschutes County residentsthe training and opportunity to become radio program hosts, as volunteers, pursuing their passions and engaging with the community. Educational programming includes two to three DJ classes every year for adults and teens. These classes train more than 40 community members each year to create a diversity of voices and perspectives on the air. Two thorough, four -session Talk show host trainings a year give people the skills to become hosts on KPOV's local affairs shows or to create their own shows. Five annual youth camptrain 10-14 year-olds in media skills, team buliding, and project development as they create a one-hour show that is played on KPOV. KPOV's twice weekly Youth Radio Hour gives older teens an opportunity to further develop their skills by having their own radio show. KPOV's trainings help educate and inform the next generation to become active members of their communities. KPOV is one of the founding members of a new coalition (started in 2013) called "Oregon Community Media" made up of community radio stations across the state. OCM allows KPOV to share ideas with community other stations around the state and gives KPOV access to statewide audiences with collaborative programming. In April 2014, we hosted the state-wide, bi-annual meeting here in Bend and will do so again this spring. KPOV serves on the steering committee for OCM and will be part of making this grassroots coalition an important resource for nonprofit media outlets all around Oregon. Leadership Structure KPOV is governed by a Board of Directors and advised by a Community Advisory Board, both representatives support and organize operations, administration, communications and KPOV is a 24-hour volunteer effort. All the local voices on KPOV's airwaves are volunteers from the community. As a listener -supported, volunteer -powered station, KPOV has more than 100 volunteers who donate more than 20,000 hours annually to everything from technology to office work to programming. KPOV's primary funding comes from listeners, with other funds comirlg from business underwriting, grants, and special events. 2. DESCRIBE PROJECT Much of the civic, artsand cultural information on KPOV comes through on -air, in-depth interviews of Iocal writers, artists, musicians, non'profits business owners, elected officials, and active community members. These local interviews showcase the cultural and civic life of Deschutes County in an average of about 7-10 interviews per week. In addition, local musicians talk about and play their music live every week on Center Stage and KPOV broadcasts from and records performances in Iocal music festivais. KPOV works closely with a number of non-profit and for-profit businesses. We regularly bring non -profits on the air to talk about their upcoming activities and events and to educate our community. KPOV also works with for-profit businesses like local bookstores to interview their scheduled authors in advance of their appearances. KPOV provides a forum for Iocal performing arts organizations including the Sisters Folk Festival, Central Oregon Symphony, Opera Bend, CTC, Second Street Theater, BEATthe Tower, Cascade School of Music, the Central Oregon Songwriters Association, and others to bring in participants from their organizations for interviews and performances. No other Deschutes County media ouUet comes dose to offering this depth and range of Iocally sourced information, culture, arts and music. The interviews and performances on KPOV contain vatuable Iocal content that is simply not available anywhere else. After these interviews and performances are aired, KPOV's current technology makes them accessible on KPOV's website for one week, but only within the show on which they were broadcast. In order to find an interview or live pertormance after the original broadcast, listeners must stream the entire show on which it was aired until they find the interview or music they want to hear. KPOV does have a basic page with some recent interviews listed, but needs a more appealing and more easily accessed vehicle for listeners to find the KPOV interview they want. 4 To make these interviews and performances easier to find and more readily available to the public, KPOV will create an online archive library. We will engage web development services to build an archival system and interactive page on the KPOV website. The new page or pages will be more appealing than our current interview page, will be organized by type of content, and will be easily searchable. We need web development services because the new archival system and web page will be based on platforms not currently available on KPOV's website. To bring interviews and performances to the new page, KPOV volunteers, led by a stipended intern, will separate the interviews and performances out from the shows they aired on. They will be stored in the online library so the public can easily search and access specific recordings they want. Program hosts will be trained to edit and upload their own interviews and performances in a timely manner. Staff will guide and oversee the entire process. The outcome of this project will enable the community to have direct access to KPOV's rich library of in-depth civic, arts, and cultural interviews and performances in an easy, searchable and appealing web interface. Interviews and performances will be available much longer than the current one week time frame. Approximately 150 locally produced interviews and 50 live musical performances will be added to the online library each year. The new system will also allow local people, nonprofits, and performers to link to their KPOV interviews or performances to spread the word about their work. 3. TIMELINE Spring/Summer 2017 1) Engage web development services to implement the project, with guidance and input from selected KPOV staff and volunteers. 2) Technical team will begin work on scripts to automate uploading of the interviews and performances to the website database. 3) Hire an intern to streamline the process of editing and uploading the interviews to the website. 4) Intern will teach KPOV hosts how to edit and upload their interviews and content. Fall/Winter 2017 1) Finish project on the KPOV website. 2) Market the archives through social media, newsletter, and during shows. 3) The KPOV Board, Community Advisory Board, and listeners will contribute feedback to continually improve the online library. 5 4. EXPLAIN HOW THE PROPOSED PROJECT OR ACTIVITY WILL POSITIVELY IMPACT THE COMMUNITY We want to showcase the cultural and civic life of Deschutes County by making KPOV's rich collection of local interviews and musical performances easily available to any community member at their convenience. Our entire community will benefit from ongoing access to KPOV's online library. Through live music and interviews with local artists and civic minded citizens, KPOV brings cultural experiences and information about services directly to the people of our community. When these interviews are available on -demand at our website, more people will have the opportunity to experience local arts, culture and civic life. Local nonprofits serving our communities will have a way to expose the community to detailed information presented through KPOV interviews and can link to the KPOV page to educate their current and potential constituents, volunteers and supporters. 5. IDENTIFY THE SPECIFIC COMMUNITIES OR GROUPS THAT WILL BENEFIT AJI of Deschutes County,will benefit from Internet access to KPOV's interviews and performances. Deschutes County has a vibrant arts and culture scene and a community of active civic -minded residents. Talented local musicians, plus visiting regional and national artists, form an exciting music arena. We are home to a variety of authors, artists, and thinkers and are a destination for many book tours and traveling speakers. People concerned and involved with the environment, recreation industry, and government want to communicate their concerns and work with the public. KPOV hosts bring these voices on the air for interviews so they can discuss their work and upcoming event . These interviews can be then shared with their own communities and the general public through their websites, email and social media to build awareness of their artistic or civic work. Local nonprofits and those they serve will benefit from being able to share their KPOV interviews with the community. All of the performing musicians and authors, performers, artists and businesses interviewed on KPOV will likewise benefit. Anyone interested in local civic affairs, nonprofits, arts, culture, and music wUl aso benefit from being able to access KPOV interviews and performances. Community members who tack the resources for alternatives to mainstream broadcast media, such as cable TV and satellite radio, will benefit from access to KPOV's interviews and 6 performances over the InternetLikewise, those unable to attend live Iocal music performances, candidate forums, or the City Club forums, can still hear these events anytime on KPOV's interview and performances page. 6. DESCRIBE HOW GRANT FUNDS WILL BE USED AND INCLUDE THE SOURCE AND AMOUNTS OF MATCHING FUNDS OR IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS, IF ANY. ITEMIZE ANTICIPATED EXPENDITURES*. The project budget includes: 1) Partial funding for web development to implement our new interview access interface. 2) A small stipend for our technical team to implement scripts automating the uploading of interviews once they are prepared. 3) Hiring an intern to streamline the process of attaching interviews to our website and then conducting trainings for our volunteer hosts to ensure they have the knowledge to sustain the program 4) Purchasing an additional external hard drive to allow space for saving the interviews 5) Purchasing a microphone and boom to allow for full interview editing in our sound booth 6) Staif time necessary to coordinate web development meetings and a survey of stakeholders, recruit and hire an intern, communicate with developers, purchase and instafl equipment and software as well as manage the overall project. See attached budget. Matching contributions will include: • Internet storage space for hosing the final interviews for access on our website. This donation is already promised by Streamguys. • KPOV is also seeking funds from Roundhouse Foundation. • KPOV has received 51000 from Deschutes Cultural Coalition for this project. • KPOV's web developer will donate some development time. w KPOV's current volunteers will be asked to assist in the web design, attend trainings, and be responsible for ongoing web maintenance. 7. IF THE GRANT WILL SUPPORT AN ONGOING ACTIVITY, EXPLAIN HOW IT WILL BE FUNDED IN THE FUTURE. The project will create a permanent online library of interviews and performances. After the website is developed, the process is streamlined, and hosts have been trained, uploading and attaching interviews to the site will become a volunteer position and will no longer need a stipend. The rest of the expenses are one-time expenses. 7 KPOV - Deschutes County Discretionary Grant Project Budget 2017 Budget for: Deschutes County Grant 2017 Submitted by Women's Civic Improvement League (dba KPOV) Date: 03/31/17 1 1 1 INCOME 1 1Grants 1 1 'Deschutes Cultural Coalition 1 'Deschutes County 1 'Roundhouse Foundation 11n -kind donations of Services 1 1 1 Total Income I I I 1 1 I. EXPENSES I I I Personnel *See calculation details below 11 Staff time 2 Intern stipend 2 Web development 3 KPOV Tech crew stipend - script development 4 Volunteer time calculated at $18.77/hr 1 1 Personnel Sub -total 11 Non --personnel 15 TB External hard drive 'Increased server storage @ Streamguys, annual Mics (1) - Heil PR40 for sound booth editing station IMic Booms (1) - OC White ProBoom Black 1 1 1Non-personnel Sub -total Total Expenses !Calculations 1 Staff time, $2000 Request $2,000 $1,000 $1,900 $4,900 In-kind $400 $1,500 1 $1,900 1 $1,080 $1,080 Received $1,000 $1,080 $2,080 1 Cash $2,000 $600 $600 1 $150 1 $3,350 I $200 $270 $180 $650 $4,000 Total $1,000 $2,000 $1,000 $2,980 $6,980 Total $2,000 $600 $1,000 $150 $1,500 $5,250 $200 $1,080 $270 $180 $1,730 $6,980 Includes: Conducting surveys of stakeholders, coordinating design of web interface, hiring intern, communicating with web developer, purchasing equipment, setting up trainings for volunteers 2 Intern stipend, $100/month for 6 months Includes: streamlining editing & attaching interviews to the website, leading trainings 3 Volunteer time calculated at $18.77/hr x 80 = $15001 _ 1 1 'Includes: Fine tuning equipment, assisting in web design, attending trainings, editing audio 1 Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners Discretionary Grant Program Board Meeting Date: April 17, 2017 Organization: Waterston Desert Writing Prize Project Name: A Desert Conversation Project Period: April 16, 2017 — August 1, 2017 Description: Symposium addressing issues facing deserts in oregon and throughout the world. Amount of Request: $1,000 Previous Grants: None recorded. Approved: Declined: Deschutes County Board of Convaissioners PO Box 6005, Bend. OR 97701-6005 1300 NW Wall Street, Suite 200, Bend, OR Telephone: 541-388-6571 Fax: 541-385-3202 Website: wwwdeschutes_orti DESCHUTES COUNTY DISCRETIONARYGRANT PROGRAM APPLICATION Today's Date: I March 31, 2017 Project Name: J A Desert Conversation Project Beginning Date: April 16, 2017 Project End Date: I August 1, 2017 Amount Requested: $1,000 I Date Funds Needed: May 31, 2017 Name of Applicant Organization: J The Waterston Desert Writing Prize Address: PO Box 640 City & Zip Code: I Bend, OR 97709 Tax ID #: 86-1167881 Contact Name(s): Ellen Waterston, Board Chair 'Telephone #:1 541-480-3933 Fax #: None J Email Address: I ellen4ellenwaterston.corn On a separate sheet(s), please briefly answer the following questions: 1. Describe the applicant organization, including its purpose, leadership structure, and activities. 2. Describe the proposed project or activity. 3. Provide a timeline for completing the proposed project or activity. 4. Explain how the proposed project or activity will positively impact the community. 5. Identify the specific communities or groups that will benefit. 6. Describe how grant funds will be used and include the source and amounts of matching funds or in-kind contributions, if any. Itemize anticipated expenditures*. 7. If the grant will support an ongoing activity, explain how it will be funded in the future. Attach: Proof of the applicant organization's non-profit status. DESCHUTES COUNTY DISCRETIONARY GRANT PROGRAM APPLICATION "A Desert Conversation" — a project of the Waterston Desert Writing Prize" Responses to Seven Questions Applicant Organization The Waterston Desert Writing Prize (WDWP) is a three-year-old Bend -based nonprofit that awards an annual prize to the authors of excellent literary non-fiction book proposals about deserts anywhere in the world. The June award ceremonies are held at the High Desert Museum, an in-kind collaborator and supporter of WDWP's efforts. In 2016, over sixty prize entries were received and 125 community members attended the awards ceremony that includes readings by the finalists and winner. In 2017, the cash portion of the prize will grow to $2,000. The prize also includes a four-week residency at PLAYA, an artists' and scientists' residency program located in Summer Lake, Oregon. For more information please see www.waterstonorize.ora 2. Project — "A Desert Conversation" The Waterston Desert Writing Prize seeks a Deschutes County Discretionary Grant to help fund the first year of "A Desert Conversation", part of WDWP's long range plan to enhance and expand the award ceremony. Each year the "Conversation" would address issues facing deserts in Oregon and throughout the world, in conjunction with the annual awards event. Noted writers, policy makers, and scientists would be featured each year. For the first "Conversation" in June of 2017 WDWP has commitments from: John Calderazzo: award-winning author and Professor Emeritus of English, at Colorado State University. The author of Rising Fire: Volcanoes and Our Inner Lives, Calderazzo writes extensively about natural history and the interrelationship of science and culture. In addition to participating in "A Desert Conversation", Calderazzo will offer a nonfiction creative writing workshop in conjunction with the WDWP event. Kathleen Dean Moore: noted author, philosopher and environmental activist, Moore is an Professor Emeritus of Environmental Humanities at Oregon State University. A prolific and award-winning author, her most recent title, and first novel, is Piano Tide, released in 2017. Final commitment is still pending from: Elizabeth Woody: Oregon's Poet Laureate is a Native American with tries to Warm Springs Reservation in Jefferson County. Her collection of poems, By Hand Through Memory, won her numerous awards and established her as a poetic voice for the indigenous peoples of the Northwest. Included in WDWP's five-year plan is to gradually grow the "Conversation" portion of the award ceremony into a multi -day symposium on environmental, economic, social and political issues pertaining to deserts, particularly the high desert of Eastern Oregon. 3. Timeline The submission period for the prize competition concludes on April 1, 2017. The Waterston Prize Board of Directors will select the winner and finalists at their meeting on April 16, Over 60 entries for the prize were received in 2016, twice the number received in 2015, and that number is expected to grow in 2017. Later in April, the Board will announce the prize winners and the coming award ceremony. WDWP is highly experienced in generating publicity. Attendance at the awards ceremony — which is free and open to the public — was 125 in 2016 and, thanks to increased publicity and an expanded program, we plan to boost attendance at the combined "Conversation" and award ceremony this year to 200. The annual award ceremony and the first "A Desert Conversation" will be held at 5:30 p.m., Wednesday, June 28, 2017 at the Higli Desert Museum. After the event WDWP will distribute selected content from the "Conversation" in order to serve a wider audience and to bring more attention to the event, the prize, and to Deschutes County. Funding has been secured for the prize and award ceremony. Only partial funding has, to date, been secured for the "A Desert Conversation" portion of the event. The Board of the Waterston Desert Writing Prize hopes the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners will select "A Desert Conversation" as a recipient of a Deschutes County Discretionary Grant. 4. Community Impact The Waterston Desert Writing Prize and "A Desert Conversation" seek to serve the residents of Central and Eastern Oregon who live in a dynamic desert landscape with unique issues often overlooked by wider society. Those attending will benefit from a high-quality, informative, thought-provoking program that will create a greater appreciation of the virtues and issues (e.g. land use and conservation, resource extraction, water, transportation, recreation etc.) of not only the high desert but deserts worldwide. 5. Impact on Specific Communities By annually bringing noted thinkers and writers to Bend to participate in "A Desert Conversation", the cultural life of Deschutes County and neighboring communities will be enriched in the manner non-fiction writers have enriched the cultural life of the West as a whole (Wallace Stegner, Timothy Egan, Barry Lopez) and of the Northwest (Robert Michael Pyle, Kim Stafford). The "Conversation" will, over time, bring national and international attention to Deschutes County for annually bringing citizens together to explore the interrelationship of culture, science and the uniqueness of desert environments. 6. Use of Funds A Deschutes County Discretionary Grant A would be used to help defray the costs of honoraria and travel and lodging expenses for the speakers. There are no snatching funds. In-kind contributions will include the use of the High :Desert Museum venue, and the provision of refreshments at the event. Please see the attached budget. 7. Continuing Activities WDWP plans to annually repeat "A Desert Conversation" with an expanding list of writers and others who would contribute to the discussion. A Deschutes County Discretionary Grant would insure the inaugural year sets the bar high for future "Conversations". Please find attached: The budget for "A Desert Conversation" for June, 2017. A 501 (c)(3) Change in Status showing the name change from Nature of Words to Waterston Prize The original 501(c)(3) for Nature of Words 2017 Preliminary Budget - A Desert Conversation EXPENSES Salaries/volunteer hrs Benefits Honoraria 1Travel 'Supplies & materials !Equipment & services 1Facilities rental Publicity ADA access Indirect costs (up to 1D% of grant request allowed) Other (please specify) A. TOTAL EXPENSES "Grants listed in expens Description/Source Cash In -Kind Grants Total Board fundraising, program development, grant writing 1For speakers leading the program, "A Desert Conversation' 'For speakers leading the program, ''A Desert Conversation" 'Donated by The High Desert Museum Web site presence, press releases, email invitations, social and print media $125.00 $500.00 I $1,250.001 $250.00 $125.001 $125.00 $250.00 $125.00 $500.00 $875.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $750.00 $125.00 $0.00 1,750.00 1,000.00 $0.00 $125.00 $125.001 $1,000.00 $500.00 $2,500.00 $4,000.001 es indicate expenses paid directly from grants without comingling with the organization's cash account. DescriptionlSource (Required) Cash In -Kind Grants Total REVENUE Admissions or registration (fee x antic. audience) 3rd Darty coritributions Individual/org. support (pending or confirmed?) Grant/Foundation support (confirmed) Grant/Foundation support (pending) Applicant organizations's cash/in-kind contributions Subtotals Grant request Deschutes County Discretionary B. TOTAL REVENUE Free and open to thepublic 1Cash from individual donors; Inkind from High Desert Museum 'Deschutes Cultural Coalition Roundhouse Foundation Cash donations from board members, Volunteer work (in-kind) I from board members $500.00 $500.00 $1,000.00 $500.00 $1,500.00 $3,000.00 $1,000.001 $1,000.00 $1,000.0Ol $500.00 $2,500.00f $4,000.00 $375.00 $0.00 $0.00 $875.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $500.00 $500.00 , $125.00 $625.00 March 31, 2017 Application Organization: Waterston Desert Writing Prize. Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners Discretionary Grant Program Board Meeting Date: April 17, 2017 Organization: SageBrushers Art Society Project Name: Facility Upgrade to Enrich Seniors and Veterans Project Period: July 2017 — September 2017 Description: Upgrade facility to support arts programs for seniors and veterans. Amount of Request: $1,500 Previous Grants: None recorded, Approved: Declined: Deschutes County Board of Conunissioners PO Box 6005, Bend, OR 97701-6005 1300 NW Wall Street, Suite 200, Bend, OR Telephone: 541-388-6571 Fax: 541-385-3202 Websitc: www.deschutes,ore DESCHUTES COUNTY DISCRETIONARY GRANT PROGRAM APPLICATION Today's Date: I Mw -c/430,„3©11 Project Name: I FaCt tI Upq rade, -to priri4-, Senrrlks4 l/e4 5 Project Beginning Date: I J'c l y ,.2©11 Amount Requested: I'-$ 1500 I Project End Date: I $tpfewlbtr, 011 IDate Funds Needed: I 3u1', ©1-? Name of Applicant Organization: Saye.8rts - e,rr Ari- .SOciv(y Address:I I I `7 SW Rooseve 13 A Ue-. City & Zip Code: 13e j, OP— c1-1-10 1 ContactName(s):I 7rei-cha+ Atoekar nn'1 Fnr-l-r#i Fax #: I cff IEmail Address: Tax ID 0-©61,39,08 I Telephone#: 541-3ro-030 8 ret cher, b V b end to road banA.e.on- ?ran 44- er®Sntall. torr. On a separate sheet(s), please briefly answer the following questions: 1. Describe the applicant organization, including its purpose, leadership structure, and activities, 2. Describe the proposed project or activity. 3. Provide a timeline for completing the proposed project or activity. 4. Explain how the proposed project or activity will positively impact the community. 5. Identify the specific communities or groups that will benefit. 6. Describe how grant funds will be used and include the source and amounts of matching funds or in-kind contributions, if any. Itemize anticipated expenditures*. 7. If the grant will support an ongoing activity, explain how it will be funded in the future. Attach: Proof of the applicant organization's non-profit status. Applicant may be contacted during the review process and asked to provide a complete line item budget. Describe the applicant organization, including its purpose, leadership structure and activities: The SageBrushers Art Society is a member supported nonprofit. It was founded in 1952 by five women who wanted to promote the arts In Bend. In 1960, SageBrushers purchased the building where we currently reside through a special agreement with the county for $1. Our mission is to support the arts in Central Oregon through classes, fellowship, a lending library, and a member studio and art gallery. The gallery is open to the public. Members pay an annual fee of $50 and are required to volunteer 20 hours' p/year toward building and grounds maintenance and keep supplies stocked. Currently there are 113 members. Membership fees cover typical operating expenses: insurance, phone, utilities, office supplies, etc. The Board of Directors meet monthly and is comprised of a traditional executive committee plus a Facilities Manager. It is the Facilities Manager's responsibility to evaluate and maintain the studio and gallery with the help of the membership, yearly assess the state of the facility and advise the Board on repairs and updates for the budget process. The directors serve a two-year term. The leadership structure is also comprised of seven committees: membership, website, newsletter, publicity, gallery shows and exhibits, guest artist classes and fundraising. There is no paid staff and day- to-day operations are met only through volunteers donating their time and talent. Describe the proposed project: The SageBrushers' house was built in 1935. This project is a facility -upgrade with the goal of replacing the aluminum windows with energy efficient windows. It is more cost-effective to replace them than try to improve their energy efficiency. The project cost for 5 single hung windows and 5 sliding windows is $6,000. Provide a timeline for completing the proposed project: June 30 • funding secured for the project July — September • Project contract secured with Lowe's • Removal of existing interior window trim • Removal of existing windows • Installation of new windows and sill adapter and head expander as required • Caulk and insulate as required • Replacement of window stop and existing casing as required • All job-related debris hauled away • Final inspection Explain how the proposed project will positively impact the community: As mentioned, our mission is to support the arts in Central Oregon. Currently members of SageBrushers provide free art classes to seniors at the Senior Center in Bend. In addition, we provide monthly gallery shows at the center. Seniors are often underserved. We would like to expand our work with the senior population in Deschutes County by opening our doors to senior organizations for classes in our studio. This would allow more access to art supplies and expand the creative process. According to a study published in the Journal ofAaina Studies, six features of successful aging was identified: a sense of purpose, interactions with others, personal growth, self -acceptance, autonomy, and health. Creative activities, such as painting encourage a sense of competence, purpose and growth. Some of the proven benefits of engaging older adults in creative activities include: • The senior has a sense of choice and control, • There is a reduction of stress, fear, and anxiety, • Relationships are enriched and there is socialization rather than isolation, • Cognition is improved and attention is focused. Veterans are also underserved. Our vision is to connect veterans with the arts in much the same way as the senior citizen population we reach. Research has shown that the veteran population often has trouble verbalizing what they have been through. Engaging in creative activities also provides a form of nonverbal communication and expression. Our vision is to partner with veteran outreach organizations in Deschutes County, including mental health providers, and open our studio doors to provide veterans the opportunity to use art as therapy. As with seniors, proven benefits of engaging in creative activities leads to self-expression and self-discovery and nurtures a sense of Self and renewed self-esteem, and promotes relaxation and decreases disruptive behavior. A barrier to achieving our outreach with seniors and veterans is the cost associated with increased building usage and the resulting increase of utilities. When the Lowe's Project Specialist did a site visit, a comment was made that we are basically heating the outside with the current windows. It seems so simple, but by upgrading to energy efficient windows, we can keep the building utilities at a reasonable rate while increasing the facility's use. New energy-efficient windows will eventually pay for themselves through lower heating, cooling and lighting costs. Describe how grant funds will be used and include the source and amounts of matching funds or in- kind contributions, if any. Itemize anticipated expenditures. Source Deschutes County Discretionary Grant Roundhouse Foundation 2017 private donations secured to -date 2017 membership fees Amount $1500 Request/Pending $1500 Request/Pending $2200 Secured $800 Secured How funds will be used Preparation & installation of 10 windows Preparation & installation of 10 windows Preparation & installation of 10 windows Preparation & installation of 10 windows Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners Discretionary Grant Program Board Meeting Date: April 17, 2017 Organization: Sunriver Women's Club Project Name: Sunriver Art Fair Project Period: Current date through August 13, 2017 Description: Hold 3 -day juried art show. Amount of Request: $2,500 Previous Grants: None recorded. Approved: Declined: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners PO Box 6005, Bend, OR 97701-6005 1300 NW Wall Street, Suite 200, Bend, OR Telephone: 541-388-6571 Fax: 541-385-3202 Website: tleschutes.ore DESCHUTES COUNTY DISCRETIONARY GRANT PROGRAM APPLICATION Today's Date: I M a rch 3D,'171 Project Name: 15n or/ ver 4r i• Pair Project Beginning Date: I No w' 1 Project End Date: 1/11,40101, ti 7 Amount Requested: 14$ 2 , 500, vo I Date Funds Needed: I M a tj 15, '17 Name of Applicant Organization:I 5t n r j Ve r W' me n' ' C J u b Address:I P ©. EbOx City & zip Code: 15 U h r; Ise r 117707 Contact Name(s):I Sandra. La tis evl ITax ID#:I5f.-n18rpabl Telephone #: 14 l/ 1 .- 5 q3 . #: J 707. y8 y -17©© 'Email Address: I Sari /45 5 nR my h • co /r ceii On a separate sheet(s), please briefly answer the following questions: 1. Describe the applicant organization; including its purpose, leadership structure, and activities. 2. Describe the proposed project or activity. 3. Provide a timeline for completing the proposed project or activity. 4. Explain how the proposed project or activity will positively impact the community. 5. Identify the specific communities or groups that will benefit. 6. Describe how grant funds will be used and include the source and amounts of matching funds or in-kind contributions, if any. Itemize anticipated expenditures*. 7. If the grant will support an ongoing activity, explain how it will be funded in the future. Attach: Proof of the applicant organization's non-profit status. * Applicant tnay be contacted during the review process and asked to provide a complete line item budget. 1. Organization, Purpose, Leadership Structure and Activities: The Sunriver Women's Club (SRWC) was founded 35 years ago and has grown to a membership of over 250 members. The SRWC's overall mission is to engage in philanthropic endeavors while providing social and community enrichment to our members and neighborhoods in southern Deschutes County, a particularly underserved and economically challenged area of the county. The SRWC is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. See Attachment 1 for proof of non-profit status. The SRWC has awarded over $500,000 In local grants since 1999. Eight years ago, it became evident that the SRWC needed to find additional means of raising funds to meet the significantly increased needs of one of the most impoverished areas in Central Oregon, beyond depending solely on the generosity of its membership and the surrounding community. The SRWC decided to sponsor an art fair to generate additional funds for the philanthropic grant program, to support economic development in South Deschutes County, and increase job growth. The Sunriver Art Fair (SRAF) is now the major fundraiser of our philanthropic grant program and a significant means of accomplishing our first goal of supporting and strengthening neighborhood resources in our community. All grants awarded by SRWC are restricted to projects/programs serving this area. Because of the high degree of poverty in this area, grants are aimed to meet basic needs. SRWC was able to make sixteen grants totaling $32,500 to 501(c)(3) organizations in 2016, in addition to programs supporting children at Rosland Elementary School in LaPine. The SRWC officers are volunteers elected annually from the membership. See Attachment 2 for the list of current the Board of Directors. 2. Proposed Project: The 8th Sunriver Art Fair (SRAF) will be held on August 11-13, 2017 In the Village at Sunriver. It is an all -volunteer event supported by local sponsors, artists from across the country, and donations. The Director and 20 -person Cabinet produces the affair. Approximately 200 volunteers provide the logistic support during the event, including set up, advertising, artist hospitality, signage, information, and the Children's Art Center. The SRAF has significantly grown over the years and gained regional and national recognition. It is a 3 -day juried art show targeting multiple artistic mediums and all age groups. This year's event will include 69 national and local artists, musical entertainment featuring local musicians, and a children's art program. Artist applications for the SRAF have increased from 75 to over 220, with artists representing western states and beyond. The SRAF was voted one of America's top 50 best art fairs and Favorite Small Town Art Fair for 2016 by the ArtFalrCalendar.com. As a direct result of this growth and popularity, operating costs have increased accordingly, with expenses for musicians, security, publicity, artist support, and signage for the event. This grant would allow the Sunriver Art Fair to expand the number of entertainment activities and increase advertising for the event to reach more possible visitors. The fair is a significant source of added visitors and shoppers for the Sunriver area, with many local merchants commenting that they have their best sales day of the year over the fair weekend. 3. Project Timeline: The SRAF committee has reviewed the artist applications and selected those whose work is considered exceptional. The chosen artists have been notified and will have formally committed to attend by April 30, and our final map of the event will be drawn up and printed. On August 10, 2017, the artists will arrive, register and the process of setting up begins. The show opens on Friday, August 11, and closes Sunday, August 13. During the course of the three-day long fair, live music Is planned, raffle events take place, local merchants are featured around the central Pavilion where the entertainment stage is located, and the Kid's Art Center will be open. 4. Positive Community Impact: The SRWC Board is dedicated to assisting the South Deschutes County community. The SRAF has contributed $115,290 to the SRWC grant program since its inception. Grants are awarded to nonprofit organizations serving families, women and children in South Deschutes County. Funding from the SRWC in 2016 addressed the basic needs of food, child and afterschool care, shelter and clothing, education, and health. Overall, the funds were distributed across the life- span. A variety of programs/projects focused on addressing children's needs (58% of the funds). Another 30% of the funds were for food for families with 5% earmarked for seniors. According to the 2015 US Census data seniors are the fastest growing population in the county and have a high level of need. The remaining 12% of the funds were awarded for vocational/college scholarships for graduating seniors and adults. 5. Communities and Groups that Benefit: The requested grant would allow SRWC to impart a two -fold local benefit. First, it would allow the SRAF to grow, allowing more revenue from the art fair to be channeled directly to the SRWC philanthropy grant program. Second, it will sustain and expand local economic development resulting in Increased revenue to businesses and suppliers, and expand tourism dollars generated in the area. Profits from the SRAF and other fund raising efforts of the SRWC are dedicated to support the basic needs of South Deschutes County and the surrounding community. Identified in the Census Bureau's 2015 information for Deschutes County as high -poverty hotspots, the LaPine and South Deschutes County area have a poverty rate of 27%. The percent of parents with minor children is 60%, and the percent of population with less than a high school education is 15%. In 2016, over one-third of our grant awards and community support went to specific programs in schools in the affected area. The SRAF assists the SRWC in reaching our second goal of enriching our community through economic development. The fair draws visitors and art lovers to Central Oregon, benefitting small local businesses that support employment and growth in the region. The SRAF is a major economic boost to the Sunriver area each year. Cultural tourists bring significant dollars to the local retailers, restaurants, lodging/rental, and entertainment/recreation businesses. The annual attendance has been 17,000 to 19,000 people. According to our 2015 survey, over 50% of the SRAF attendees were from out of the area. In 2015 and 2016, the Sunriver Resort area had nearly 100% occupancy during the weekend of the fair. In fact, Sunriver tourists generate over $4 million annually in occupancy tax to Deschutes County. Further, the SRAF provides significant exposure to fine art and presents local artists to both local residents and visitors. Combined with the Sunriver Music Festival, which takes place during this same time period, we are creating a focus on fine art and music in Central Oregon and southern Deschutes County. Additional grant funds would allow that synergy to be publicized in regional publications throughout Oregon and adjacent states, creating an additional source of visitors and further building the reputation of the area as a mecca for the arts. 6. Use of Grant Funds: The annual amount available to fund SRWC philanthropy efforts is directly based on the profits of the SRAF as the major fundraising event. In 2016, the art fair income, including all support from fees and donations, was over $38,000. The offsetting expenses to actually run the event were just over $18,000. In the expenses, 23% was for the live entertainment, 38% for publicity and marketing (to bring the locals and tourists to the Fair), 15% provided security and safety for all participants, and 15% was for operational expenses. The majority of the expenses are associated with increased business for the local area. The requested funds ($2,500) will be used to enhance the advertising and marketing campaigns, recruit quality entertainment to the venue, and expanded security during the event. With the additional support from the Deschutes County Discretionary Fund, the SRAF expenses will be reduced, providing a corresponding increase in the SRAF contribution to the SRWC philanthropy program. See Attachment 3 for an itemized list of anticipated expenditures. Attachment 2 Sunriver Women's Club Current Board of. Directors Co -President: Corrine Andrews Co -President: Stephanie Nelson Treasurer; Cindy McCabe Assistant/Ex Officio: Lorna Nolte Recording Secretary: Nancy Fischer Corresponding Secretary: Sandra Kendle Communication: Laura Dickinson Assistant/Ex Officio: Laura Shearer Membership: Rae Klein Assistant/Ex Officio: Christine Dishaw Program: Ann Juttlestad Assistant/Ex Officio: Patty Klascius Philanthropy: Cheryl Storm Assistant/Ex Officio: Shirley Olson Art Fair Director: Sandra Lassen Nominating Director: Lana Benish 6010 • Art Fair Income 6011 • Artist Fee Attachment 3 6020 • Artists - AeplIcation Fees 6030 • Artists - Booth Fees Total 6011 • Artist Fees 1 6100 • Art Fair Event Income 16110 • Kids Art Center Fees 16120 • Kids Facepainting 1 16130 • Mug Sales I 16135 • Wine Glasses 1 16140 • Poster Sales 1 y 16145 • Apron Sales 1 1 16150 • Raffle 1 16180• AF Water 1 16100 . Art Fair Event Income - Other Total 6100 • Art Fair Event Income) 6190 • Vendors 6200 • Sponsor Income Total 6200 • Sponsor Income 6010 • Art Fair Income - Other Total 6010 • Art Falr Income 6210 • Sponsorship - Platinum $5000+ 62.20 • Sponsorship -Gold $100044999 6230 - Sponsorship - Silver $400-$999 6240 • Sponsorshlp - Bronze $100-$399 6248 • In -Kind Donation 6249 • Sponsorship $ Is Is Budget Oct '16 - Sept '17 3, 750.00 26,950,00 30,700.00 350.00 200.00 100.00 100.00 800.00 300.00 1,850.00 6,500.00 1,000.00 3,000.00 1,500.00 12,000.00 44, 550.00 1 8100 • Art Fair Expense 18110 • Artist Expense 18111 • Artists - Recruit/communication 18115 • Artists - ZAPP 8119 • Artists - Hospitality Total 8110 • Artist Expense I 8130 • AF Entertainment 1 18131 Entertainment - Equipment/Sound 18135 • Entertainment - Performers Total 8130 • AF Entertainment 1 18140 • Art Fair Publicity & Marketing 1 8141• AF Ad - Media 8142 • AF Brochures 8143 • AF Ad - Print 8147 • AF Marketing/Publicity 8148 • AF Publicity Misc 8149 • AF Artist's Promotion - Misc Total 8140 • Art Fair Publicity & Marketing 8165 • Kids Art Center Materials 18180 - Logistics Total 8180 • Logistics 8210 • Art Fair Operational Expenses 8211 • AF Beverages 8212 • AF T -Shirts and Aprons 8213 • AF Credit Card Fees 8214 • AF PayPal Fees 1 8215 • Art Fair - Storage 8216 • AF Misc. Sunplles 8217 • Volunteer Expense 8218 • Sponsorship Exp 8220 • AF Klck-off Expense Total 8210 • Art Fair Operational Expenses Total 8100 • Art Fair Expense 1 (8181 • Logistics - Permits/Insurance 18182 • Logistics - Rentals 18183 • Logistics - Security 16184 • Logistics - Signs 18289 • Logistics - misc 1 Budget Oct '16 - Sept '17 1 1 $ 100.00 $ 1,000.00 500.00 $ 1,600.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 4,500.00 $ 6,500,00 S • $ 6,000.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 300.00 $ 50.00 $ 700.00 $ 1,300.00 $ 700.00 $ 100.00 $ 2,850.00 $ $ 500.00 $ $ 100.00 $ 480.00 $ 30.00 $ 200.00 $ 400.00 $ 500.00 $ 2,210.00 S 19,460.00 1 Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners Discretionary Grant Program Board Meeting Date: April 17, 2017 Organization: MountainStar Family Relief Nursery Project Name: Spark! Kindling a Community Conversation Project Period: 4/20/2017 Description: Educational sessions to raise awareness about child abuse. Amount of Request: $1,500 Previous Grants: 6/23/2014 $620.00 Trauma Informed Practice Conference Approved: Declined: Today's Date: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners PO Box 6005, 13end, OR 97701-6005 1300 NW Wall Street, Suite 200, Bend, OR Telephone: 541-388-6571 Fax: 541-385-3202 Website: www.desehutes.ore. DESCHUTES COUNTY DISCRETIONARY GRANT PROGRAM APPLICATION 3/16/17 IProject Name: I Spark! Kindling a Community Conversation I Project Beginning Date: J April 20, 2017 I Project End Date: I April 20, 2017 Amount Requested: j $1,500 I Date Funds Needed:1 April 7, 2017 Name of Applicant Organization:I MountainStar Family Relief Nursery Addressd 2125 NE Daggett Lane City & Zip Code: Contact Name(s):1 Bend, OR 97701 Kayla Rotunno Fax #: I 541-322-1884 Tax ID #: 42-1560891 Telephone #: I 541-322-6820 !Email Address: I kaylar@mtstar,org On a separate sheet(s), please briefly answer the following questions: 1. Describe the applicant organization, including its purpose, leadership structure, and activ ities. 2. Describe the proposed project or activity. 3. Provide a timeline for completing the proposed project or activity. 4. Explain how the proposed project or activity will positively impact the community. 5. Identify the specific communities or groups that will benefit. 6. Describe how grant funds will be used and include the source and amounts of matching funds or in-kind contributions, if any. Itemize anticipated expenditures*. 7. If the grant will support an ongoing activity, explain how it will be funded in the future. Attach: Proof of the applicant organization's non-profit status. * Applicant may be contacted during the review process and asked to provide a complete line item budget. MountainStar's Request to Deschutes County's Discretionary Grant Program 1. Describe the applicant organization, including its purpose, Jeadership structure, and activities. MountainStar Family Relief Nursery was formed in 2001 in response to the community need for comprehensive services for distressed families with very young children. Our mission is to prevent child abuse and neglect through community support and therapeutic services that help vulnerable children and families succeed. We are the only program in Deschutes, Jefferson, and Crook Counties providing therapeutic classrooms, parenting education services, and family support targeted at protectinbabies and toddlers who are at significant risk for abuse and neglect. Our Relief Nursery services include the Therapeutic Early Childhood Program (TECP) with three age specific Therapeutic Classrooms and the Safety Net Program, which provides crisis intervention and ongoing services to high risk families who are not enrolled in the TECP. To further meet the needs of client families in crisis, over the years we have added regular child assessments, home visitations, transportation services, emergency food boxes through partner agencies, services for limited English-speaking families, and a varietyof mental health services. Since our inception, we have increased the number of children served annually from 34 in the first year (2001), to over 450 children and their families. MourtainStarhas consistently sought to maximize our impact on child satety and parent success through close partnership with Deschutes County, social service agencies, and other organizations. MountainStar has an experienced, professional, and dedicated staff of 30; an active, committed 10 member Board of Directors; and 140 volunteers. MountainStar staff participate in coordinating groups such as Partnership for Young Children, Central Oregon Parenting Education Cooperative, Oregon Association of Relief Nurseries, and the Child Care and Education workgroup of the Early Learning Division. MountainStar consistently performs at the highest quality standard and was awarded Organization of the Year by the Bend Chamber of Commerce in 2016 and in 2006. In 2014 we achieved a 5 -star rating from Oregon's new Quality Rating and Improvement System (QRIS). MountainStar is one of only 36 programs in Oregon accredited by the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). We have held this accreditation for the past six years. Our research -informed programs focus on children at the highest -risk for abuse who are 6 weeks through 3 years of age. Over 34% of Oregon's child abuse victims fall into this age groupThe infants and toddlerswe serve live in householdswith an average of 18 risk factors, including substance abuse, mental health issues, or a history of family violence. 100% of our client families live in poverty. It is these children, and their families, who are at the center of our efforts. 2. Describe the proposed project mractivity. Last year we launched a brand new community awareness event in April called "Spark! Kindling a Community Conversation in Child Abuse Prevention Month.'' We invited community mennbmno, staff/volunteers of nonprofit opgenizetiono, and civic/professional leaders to participate. We shared compelling videos around the theme of Adverse Childhood Eeriences (ACEs) which is a hot topic right now in the social service/health/education sectors. The event included discussion sessions led by experts who invited all attendees to ask questions and share ideas. The event received overwhelmingly positive responses; people were gateful for the opportunity to speak about this difficult subject. Last year we held Spark! in a venue that only held 75 people. We had an excellent response and far more people wanted to attend. This year we are partnering with United Way and KIDS Center to hold Spark! at the Riverhouse on April 20th. This is the perfect opportunity to support nonprofits that are working together and show the community that the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners is here to support community collaboration on behalf of vulnerable children and families. Attached is a flyer for Spark! and the list of key takeaways from participants at last year's event. 3. Provide a timeline for completing the proposed project or activity. This year's Spark! event will take place on April 20, 2017. We are in the event planning stages now. 4. Explain how the proposed project or activity will positively impact the community. The Spark! event is a great benefit in two ways: it raises community awareness around the topic of child abuse prevention AND it raises awareness of the hosting organizations - namely MountainStar! The result of increased community awareness is increased support for our programs. Through this event, we hope to gain monetary donors (the evening of the event and beyond) as well as advocates, volunteers, and more. MountainStar's top funding need is unrestricted operating income for our Therapeutic Early Childhood Progam (TECP), which is our most intensive and effective child abuse prevention program. We have centers offering this program in Bend, Madras, and Prineville. Each year we must raise hundreds of thousands of dollars to operate this program, which offers every child/family involved over 300 hours of contact each year. As we raise more awareness of our program, community giving increases. 5. Identify the specific communities or groups that will benefit. Our research -informed programs focus on children at the highest -risk for abuse who are 6 weeks through 3 years of age. Over 34% of Oregon's child abuse victims fall into this age group. The infants and toddlers we serve live in households with an average of 18 risk factors, including substance abuse, mental health issues, or a history of family violence. 100% of our client families live in poverty. It is these children, and their families, who are at the center of our efforts. 6. Describe how grant funds will be used and include the source and amounts of matching funds or in-kind contributions, if any. Itemize anticipated expenditures. Grant funds will be used to support event costs. We anticipate the following event costs: Food $6,500 AN rental $1,500 Riverhouse venue fee $1,000 Printed materials/promotion $200 Total $9,200 2 Revenue includes: Suggested donation at door of $1Oper person (we expect 2OOguests) Les Schwab ($5,000 pending) Deschutes County Discretionary Grant Funding ($1 500, this request) Others to submit T. If the grantwlll support an ongoing activity, explain how it will be funded in the future. MountainStar is managed sustainably and our presence is stable at centers in Bend, Madras, and Prineville. We receive funding for our Relief Nursery programs (Therapeutic Early Childhood Program and Safety Net Program) through government grants (about 40%), as well as individuals, businesses, and foundations in the community (about 60%). As far as our Spark! event goes, we are colwith several local partners: The KIDS Center is our partner for Child Abuse Prevention Month (also known as the Blue Ribbon Campaign). United Way is partnering with us for Spark! and will be pursuing sponsorships as well. The Riverhouse will offer in-kind support by discounting our venue and food fees. Deschutes Brewery may provide the drinks for the Spark! event. 3 Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners Discretionary Grant Program Board Meeting Date: April 17, 2017 Organization: Bend Spay & Neuter Project Project Name: BSNP Free Rabies Clinics Project Period: June 2017 & September 2017 Description: Two annual clinics to provide free rabies vaccinations. Amount of Request: $600 Previous Grants: 8/21/2006 $6,100.00 Improvements 9/19/2007 $5,500.00 7/13/2005 . $4,000.00: , Capital Projects 10/25/2005 $3,000,00. Facilities Improvements 7/23/2008 $2,500.00 Educational Campaign and Technology Project 1/1/2009 $1,300.00 Spay and Neuter Grant 7/9/2014 $1,000.00 Free Rabies Vaccine Clinic 10/7/2015 $1,000.00 Free Rabies Outreach Clinics Approved: Declined: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners PO Box 6005, Bend, OR 97701-6005 1300 NW Wall Street, Suite 200, Bend, OR Telephone: 541-388-6571 Fax: 541-385-3202 Website: www.desehutes.org DESCHUTES COUNTY DISCRETIONARY GRANT PROGRAM APPLICATION Today's Date: 13/ 11- I Project Name: 1 Cpcivp elbilkc I Project Beginning Date: JUXlC j fYalt , I Project End Date: kkali- 1 L 1- Se -of I Amount Requested: AND I Date Funds Needed: I 41,1XLS— 5+- 1:919) 77- I Name of Applicant Organization:I ZOLA q9/1,41.1- 1\)/{LbA Pr9it Address:1 6t ID i Wi.19,V1 A- 1 City & Zip Code: --ryild 0 I. 1 Tax ID #: -71- O'177 STO I Contact Name(s): I ikAtpyto ham I Telephone #: I 5-//--1,i7- /WO 1 Fax #: I Gill_ (oil_ 1191 Email Address: 1 ryvi tin v1/4/ and(r) pi 00 On a separate sheet(s), please briefly answer the following questions: 1. Describe the applicant organization, including its purpose, leadership structure, and activities. 2. Describe the proposed project or activity. 3. Provide a timeline for completing the proposed project or activity. 4. Explain how the proposed project or activity will positively impact the community. 5. Identify the specific communities or groups that will benefit. 6. Describe how grant funds will be used and include the source and amounts of matching funds or in-kind contributions, if any. Itemize anticipated expenditures*. 7. If the grant will support an ongoing activity, explain how it will be funded in the future. Attach: Proof of the applicant organization's non-profit status. * Applicant may be contacted during the review process and asked to provide a complete line item budget. Deschutes County Discretionary Grant Application 2017 Bend Spay and Neuter Project 1. Bend Spay and Neuter Project provides affordable, preventative veterinary care for cats and dogs at risk of suffering in Central Oregon in order to create a more humane community. All of our programs are geared towards keeping pets out of our local shelters and in loving homes. BSNP provides affordable and free sterilization for owned animals, trap, neuter, return (TNR) for Community Cats (feral and stray cats), affordable weekly Wellness Clinics, and we operate the HOPE pet food bank in conjunction with Bend Pet Express. BSNP has provided services to over 48,000 cats and dogs in Central Oregon since 2004. BSNP is governed by a Board of Directors, and daily operations are led by the Executive Director, Megan Gram, and Medical Director, Dr. Katie Bahr DVM. 2. Bend Spay and Neuter Project is proposing holding two annual free clinics where free rabies vaccinations would be provided for dogs and cats. Clinics would be held at BSNP and in LaPine at a location yet to be determined. Rabies clinics would be available to anyone on a first come, first served basis. 3. The timeline for the project would be to hold one clinic in June of 2017 and one clinic in Sept. of 2017. Each clinic would be held on a Sunday for 4 hours. 4. Free Rabies Vaccine Clinics would benefit our community in three ways. First and foremost, by helping to ensure that all pets in our area receive at least one rabies vaccine in their lifetime. Although rabies is not very common in this area, approximately 1 in 100 bats in our area do carry the disease. Vaccinating pets against rabies is the first step in reducing the risk that there will be an outbreak of rabies in Deschutes County. By partnering with BSNP on this project, Deschutes County will improve public health for residents in our community. In addition to improved public health, low-income pet owners will have an opportunity to provide their beloved pets with the basic care they need to stay healthy. This clinic would also provide BSNP the opportunity to distribute vouchers for affordable or free (pending funding) vouchers for spay and neuter services to community members most likely to contribute to the pet overpopulation problem, those living at or below the poverty line. Statistically, 85% of dog bites involve intact dogs, by offering both rabies vaccinations and vouchers for spay/neuter services, the partnership between Deschutes County and BSNP could significantly reduce the chances of a rabies outbreak in Deschutes County, while working to decrease the number of dog bites occurring annually. 5. Free Rabies Vaccine Clinics would benefit low-income residents in our community, specifically those living at or below the poverty line. BSNP is prepared to offer as many free rabies vaccinations as we can provide within a 4-5 hour period. In 2014/2015/2016 we provided a total of over 500 rabies vaccinations in just four clinics! We anticipate being able to provide at least 175 vaccinations at each clinic. This opportunity also affords BSNP staff a chance to reach the population most likely to have unaltered pets, and encourage them to spay/neuter their pets, improving the lives of the pet, their owner and public safety. 6. Grant funding from Deschutes County would be used to provide medical staff from BSNP to administer the vaccination clinics in the amount of $500 per clinic and vaccinations for 300 pets for a total of $1600. Bend Spay and Neuter Project will provide advertising and additional medical supplies/administrative staff for the events at a cost of $350 per clinic. 7. The clinics held in 2014/2015/2016 were HUGE successes! We not only provided over 500 vaccinations, but we also provided over 100 vouchers to have pets spayed and neutered for free at BSNP. These are pets that most likely would not have been spayed or neutered otherwise, and would've been very likely to contribute to increasing the number of pets entering our local shelters. We hope to continue doing bi-annual free vaccination clinics as a partnership with Deschutes County to improve public health for people and pets in our community. Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners Discretionary Grant Program Board Meeting Date: April 17, 2017 Organization: NeighborImpact Project Name: Housing Stabilization Project Period: 5/1/2017 — 4/30/2018 Description: Annual Point -in -Time Count and rental assistance for persons experiencing homelessness. Amount of Request: $5,000 Previous Grants: 7/7/2008 $3,006,00 Head Start Mobile Dental Van 2/8/2010 $2,000.00 Food Bank Expansion 8/2/2010 $2,000,.00 Redmond Child Care Provider Network 3/2/2011 $606.00 Veterans Supportive Services Grants Application 8/22/2012 $2,000.0tY Redmond Childcare Alliance Network 10/10/12012 $6000.06 La Pine Low/Mod Income Family Assistance 1/22/2014 $2,000.00:, Point in Time Homeless Count 7/9/2014 $2,600,00 Transitional Housing Program 1/26/2015 $2,060.00 Point in Time Homeless Count 4/13/2016 $2,500.00 Transitional Housing Program Approved: Declined: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners PO Box 6005, Bend, OR 97701-6005 1300 NW Wall Street, Suite 200, Bend, OR Telephone: 541-388-6571 Fax: 541-385-3202 Website: www.descIiutes.org DESCHUTES COUNTY DISCRETIONARY GRANT PROGRAM APPLICATION Today's Date: I March 1, 2017 I Project Name: I Housing Stabilization Project Beginning Date: I May 1, 2017 I Project End Date: I April 30, 2018 I Date Funds Needed: I May 1, 2017 Amount Requested: I $5,000 Name of Applicant Organization:) Neighborlmpact Address:) 2303 SW First Street City & Zip Code: I Redmond, 97756 I Tax ID #: 193-0884929 Contact Name(s): I Molly Heiss I Telephone #:1(541) 323-6562 Fax #:1(541) 548-2380 I Emait Address: I mollyh@neighborimpact.org On a separate sheet(s), please briefly answer the following questions: 1. Describe the applicant organization, including its purpose, leadership structure, and activities. 2. Describe the proposed project or activity. 3. Provide a timeline for completing the proposed project or activity. 4. Explain how the proposed project or activity will positively impact the community. 5. Identify the specific communities or groups that will benefit. 6. Describe how grant funds will be used and include the source and amounts of matching funds or in-kind contributions, if any. Itemize anticipated expenditures*. 7. If the grant will support an ongoing activity, explain how it will be funded in the future. Attach: Proof of the applicant organization's non-profit status. Applicant may be contacted during the review process and asked to provide a complete line item budget, Deschutes County Discretionary Grant Program Neighborlmpact Application 2017 1. Describe the applicant organization, including its purpose, leadership structure, and activities. NeighborImpact was founded in 1985 to represent and serve economically disadvantaged residents of Crook, Deschutes and Jefferson ccunties. Our programs benefit one in four residerits of CentraJ Oregon; we are considered the Iargest nonprofitinnurroginnonao|innt-own/edbasin.Thnnughthnefodaof187 staff in 16 locations throughout our service area, NeighborImpact assists approximately 55,000 residents every year. Our mission is "Supporting People. Strengthening Communities." NwighbnUmpact is governed by a 15 -member Board of Directors who represent all three counties and multiple sectors oythe community: govomment, eduoatkon, buminoon, and human services, The board is composed of elected officials (e.g., County Commissioners); low-income residents; and representatives of entities such as local banks, foundations, businesses, and provider partners. One-third of our board members represent economically -disadvantaged populations in C,00h. Deschutes, and Jefferson counties. The board defines our mission, vision, and goals to reflct community need, Meeting monthly, the Directors exercise fiscal oversight: they monitor budget reportsreview ledgers, and develop and approve operating policies. The Board hires and oversees NeighborImpaces Executive Director, who directs day-to-day operations and program management. A Community Action Agency, Neighborlmpact was created hnfightpoverty by empowering low-income residents in our tri -county area, To that end, we have become the area's leading provider of emergency food pnograma, housing and homeless services, energy assistance, child care n000uncaa, early childhood education services, and self-help programs for the working poor. We offer assistance through the following programs: • Housing Stabilization assists unaccompanied adults and families with minor children who are homeless or who face immediate housing crises. Housing Stabilization provides rental subsidies and deposits along with concurrent supportiveservices. N shelter, Nancy's House, provides short-term shelter and case management services for up to five homeless families with children at any given time. Requests for assistance originate with the 211 system. • Food Bank is the regional affHiate of the Oregon Food Bank. The Food Bank coliects and distributes over 2.6 million pounds of food to 40+ local agencies in Crook, Deschutes, and Jefferson Counties and at the Confederate Tribes of Warm Springs. Emergency food sites help 20,000 individuals every month. • Energy Assistance helps que||fimdhouseholds bypaying aportion uftheir heating costs. Services inolude utillty shut-off prevention and payment assistance withheaUngsoun:eo(e\eotrioky.natura/gaa. oil, propane, wood,peUota)a|nngmiUlmoheno|shoctheresoistmnoenosnuroeo/nthecommunity (e.g.. Family Advocate Network, St. Vincent de Paul, Central Oregon Council on the Aging, WIC, SNAP, churches). • Weatherization Program provides construction services to add insulation and repair heating systems for income -qualified clients. As a result, homes retain heat, and heating bills decrease. • Energy Education classes provide clients with strategies to control energy expenses in their homes and to promote heatth and safety relating to energy usage. • Head Start strengthens families and closes the achievement gap for over 500 mostvulnerable and at -risk pre-school age children, annually. Head Start integrates high-quality earlyd tionvvithothor critical services such as health services (medical visits; haaring, vision and dental checks); meals and nutritionand family advocacy. • Child Care Resources offers training, technical assistance and business support to child care provkiers in Central Oregon. ChiId Care Resources not only supports child care providers through the Quality Rating and Improvement System but also builds the infrastructure of child care in Central Oregon. • HomeSource offers a range of programs and services to help persons manage, grow and protect their assets. HomeSource's Financial Fitness workshops present a four-part series that covers budgeting, saving, investing and improving credit. Homebuyer Education workshops explain the home buying process in detail. Residents may bt i individual coaching for foreclosure prewendon, reverse mortgages, budgets, credit, and the IDA matched savings program. Participants may use the IDA matched savings program to purchase or rehabilitate a home, start or expand a business, pursue higher education, or purchase a vehicle for employment purposes. • Loan Program offers a variety of loan products at reasonable interest rates. Based on income guidelines, the program makes loans for home rehabilitation, down -payment assistance, micro - enterprise, and septic replacement. 2. Describe the proposed project or activity. NeighborImpact requests support for our efforts to end homelessness. As the lead agency for the Homeless Leadership Coalition (HLC), we guide the HUD -mandated Point -in -Time Homeless Count and Survey. Also, our Housing Stabilization Program helps prevent and end homelessness through an emergency shelter and a rapid -rehousing program. The activities we propose here will (1) facilitate the Point -in -Time Count and Survey (PIT Count) and (2) provide rental assistance as a means of housing persons experiencing homelessness. The Point -in -Time count (PIT Count) is an unduplicated count, conducted nation-wide on a single night in January, of sheltered and unsheltered people in a community who are experiencing homelessness. Although required by HUD, each count is planned, coordinated, and carried out locally; in Central Oregon, that duty falls to HLC and, by virtue of our serving as HLC's lead agency, to Neighbor(mpaot. During (he PIT Count period, CoCs also must conduct an annual Housing Inventory Count (HIC), a point -in -time inventory of provider programs within a CoC that provide beds and units dedicated to serve persons who are homeless, categorized by five Program Types: Emergency Shelter; Transitional Housing; Rapid Re- housing; Safe Haven; and Permanent Supportive Housing. The HIC helps CoCs determine gaps in hPua|ng, by type, for persons experiencing homelessness. PIT Counts establish the dimensions of the homelessness problem and help policymakers and program administrators track progress toward the goal of ending homelessness, Collecting data on homelessness and tracking progress can inform public opinion, increase public awareness, and attract resources that will lead to the eradication of homelessness. For example, if Veterans or homeless youth are not included in local PIT Cnuntn, their needs could be under -represented as Oovernmonhe, nonpmfihe, and key stakeholders at the federal, state, and Iocal level plan to respond to the problem. HUD uses information from local PIT Counts, among other data sources, in the congressionally -mandated Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress (AHAR). This report informs Congressb t(1)thw number of people experiencing homelessness in the United States and (2) the effectiveness of HUD's programs and policies in decreasing those numbers. On the local level, PIT Counts help communities plan services and programs to address local needs appmprioba|y, measure progress in decreasing homelessness, and identify strengths as well as gaps in a community's current homelessness assistance system. Supported by HLC's PIT Count and HIC data, Neighborlmpact implements programs and services that prevent and end homelessness. Neighborlmpact's Housing Stabilization program not only helps facing housing crises remain in their homes , through homeless prevention. Supporting Housing Stabilization's rapid -rehousing effort, the project we propose to Deschutes Courovide rent and move -in assistance, thus helping residents experiencing homelessness obtain housing. The intent af the rent and move -in assistance is to enable the quick resolution of immediate housing crises, The amount and duration of financial assistance wiu vary. At a minimum, Housing Stabilization provides the assistance necessary for participants to move immediately out of homelessness and to stabilize in permanent housing. A majority of rapid -rehousing participants can maintain housing with short-term rent assistance. Housing Stabilization helps fund security depnmito, rental pmymento, and utility assistance. Financial assistance can come in the form of a full subsidy covering the entire rent for a period of time or a shallow subsidy covering a portion of the rent. NeighborImpact has yet to complete data compilation for the 2017 PIT Count. However, preliminary numbers indicate 872 homeless individuals in Deschutes County. If funded, NeighborImpact's proposed project will help house a handful of those residents this year and support next year's PIT Count. 3. Provlde a timeline for completing the proposed project or activity. All pactivities are implemented at this time and will be ongoing through the next fiscal year. Ne| hUo|mpootvvi||heginhoexpondOeaohubaoCounhyDinonaUonaryGnantfundu/mmedkaha|yupon receipt anci wiH have spent all grant funds byApril 3O.2018. 4. Explain how the proposeproject or activity will positively impact the community. We anticipate the following outcomes from Point -in -Time Count and rental assistance activities: •A minimum of 500 individuals in Deschutes County will participate in the Point -in -Time Homeless Count and Survey •Survey data will guide communityplanning meless resources, programs, and services •Through $2,500 in grant support from Deschutes County, one or two households experiencing homelessness will obtain housin • Households will remain housed at program exit • Children will remain enrolled in school • Program participants will increase household income through access to mainstream benefits These outcomes will produce significant impacts in Deschutes County, stemming from locating homeless populations in our area and identifying their needs. Some impacts are economic: adults who care for and support thi families reduce their need for community services. Housing Stabilization's working adults not only pay their bilis on time but also spend their money locaily, contributingto the economy. (A 2012 study by the lnstitute for Local Self -Reliance reportsrts tht eachdoUarnpwnt|oumUyganermbeoone|mootfour-fb|d economic benefit for the surrounding region.) Housing Stabilization also has a positive social impact. Through case management, the adults we serve learn to make healthier choices for Themselves and their families. The project will have a direct impact on the homeless families or unaccompanied adults who will progress toward stability at our shelter or in housing subsidized through our HUD and HTBA grants. Clients who enter the Housing Stabilization program will reside in a safe place, have regular meals, and connect to services that foster independent living. Children will relinquish concerns over food, shelter, and safety; their improved sense of security can create a more positive classroom experience as well as better peer interaction. lndirectly, the projectwill have an impact on various sectorof the community. Utility companies and landlords will receive timelnts froadult clients who not only obtain and maintain but also manage their finances. There will be an impact on employers, whose workers, freed of stresses associated with housing concerns, can concentrate on work. Grocers and retailers will realize revenue from a population with increased income as a result of having some housing costs met. Because stability decreases incidents that can occasion encounterwith police, Iaw enforcement wifl see an impact. Finally, with every household that increases its income or becomes self-sufficient, the counties' social services providers will have fewer demands on their resources. 5. Identify the specific communities or groups that wilbenefit. The projecwill benefit a range of groups. The PIT Count will benefit persons experiencing homelessness, whose presence and needs will be documented, The PIT Count also will benefit HLC, its member agencies, and its stakeholders, who require updated, valid data to plan and provide services that end homelessness. City, County and State officiats also wifl benefit from the PIT Count data, whch they may reference for housing and Consolidated Plans. Rental assistance will benefit priority populations experiencing homelessness: (1) families with children who are literally homeless (in a ohe|bar, on the street, or in a place not meant for human habitation); or fleeing/attempting to flee domestic violence; (2) Veterans; (3) households in poverty; and (4) individuals with crises that have resulted in loss of income. Housing Stabilization program data suggest a population with these characteristics: • 57% Female • 20% Domestic Violence victim or survivor • 58% dependent children • 42% needed rental payment assistance • 7296extremely low income (O-30Y6W1F|);%396low income (31Y6'5O%K8F|);5Y6moderate income (51- 8OY6N1FU • 25% Female Head of Househotd • 31% between ages 25 and 54 • 77% Caucasian Non -Hispanic • 23% needed transitional housing or shelter 6. Describe how grant funds will be used and include the source and amounts of matching funds or in-kind contributions, if any. Itemize anticipated expenditures. Neighborlmpact will use grant funds to assistald and families experiencing homelessness,VVewN| purchase items to offer as incentives to individuals who participate in the Homeless Leadership Coalition's annual PIT Count and survey. We also will expend grant funds on rental assistance: deposits and rent for persons experiencing homelessness. The pject receives no matching or in-kind funds. However, we must stress that a Deschutes County grant itself will provide matching funds: it will leverage other grants Neighborlmpact receives through HUD's Homeless Continuum of Care grant, HUD's Emergency Solutions Grant, and our TANF block grant (from Oregons Housing and Community Services' HHS doltars). These grants require matching funds In the amounts pf25Y6. 100%, and 100%, respectively; unless we provide match, we cannotexpendd dollars avaitable through those existing grants. We have used Emergency Housing Assistance (EHA) funds as cash match for rental assistance for all federally -derived grants. EHA dollars, funded by document recording fees from around the State, are the most flexible funds available to Housing Stabilization. (Incidentally, we received an unforeseen supplemental allotment last year.) We also have used State Homeless Assistance Program (SHAP) funds for rental assistance. Because of increased need as well as higher rent and deposit fees charged by landlords, Housing Stabilization committed our private rental assistance funds by mid-December, exhausting our matching funds. Now, we not only anticipate a 20% reduction in our regular allocation from all State funds but also will not receive the supplemental allocation, A Deschutes County grant will compensate for some loss of flexible assistance dollars. Anticipated Expenditures Homeless Point -In -Time Count & Survey incentives • Gift cards from Ray's, Bi -Mart & Grocery Outlet (350 @ $5.00) • Blankets (8O@ $5) • Propane vouchers (30 $15) 1 Rental Assistance |$2,500 |$1.75O | $300 �*45O 1 $2,500 ~2deposits @ $800 1 • 1 rentapoymort@ $900 . 1 Total 1 $1600 '$QO0 $5,000 7. If the grant will support an ongoing activity, explain how it will be funded in the future. Barring unforeseen cuts to HUD and HTBA budgets, Neighborlmpactexpects funding for rental assistance from those sources, but we must search for and solicit revenue for PIT Count costs and flexible funds for rental assistance. To that end, our Development Department will apply for foundation gnantm, cultivate individual donorm, and develop relationships with new sponsors. | Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners Discretionary Grant Program Board Meeting Date: April 17, 2017 Organization: The Center Foundation Project Name: Ahead of the Game Project Period: 4/21/2017 Description: Educational conference about recognition, diagnosis, management, and prevention of concussions. Amount of Request: $3,000 Previous Grants: None recorded. Approved: Declined: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners PO Box 6005, Bend, OR 97701-6005 1300 NW Wall Street, Suite 200, Bend, OR Telephone: 541-388-6571 Fax: 541-385-3202 Website: www.deschutes,ora DESCHUTES COUNTY DISCRETIONARY GRANT PROGRAM APPLICATION Today's Date: I,: 93 / n 1 Project Name: I e\i-\ Q " c- -. � C-' . I Project Beginning Date: I 1, 1 1 Qn (r -i. 1 Project End Date: 1 - t t t-"3 ,.) Amount Requested: I 115pky} 0 I Date Funds Needed:1 k 1 5 / Qc 1 Name of Applicant Organizatio�R nn:�I' " --�-. (' ,11 �-t,- \-C 51int tr,t h c r- I fir . Address:C i U C' ) N'3('1. r:\ City & Zip Code:117, (l .1 (42.\ c,17----1101 I Tax ID #: ' 1;) • `: cC? 1 Cal 1 I Contact Name(s): `�, Telephone #: b Fax #: I I Email Address: _ ' .;.3\ � 1 " M wt. '1"� W 1 x 'fie r doe (' l On a separate sheet(s), please briefly answer the following questions: 1. Describe the applicant organization, including its purpose, leadership structure, and activities. 2. Describe the proposed project or activity. 3. Provide a timeline for completing the proposed project or activity. 4. Explain how the proposed project or activity will positively impact the community. 5. Identify the specific communities or groups that will benefit. 6. Describe how grant funds will be used and include the source and amounts of matching funds or in-kind contributions, if any. Itemize anticipated expenditures*. 7. If the grant will support an ongoing activity, explain how it will be funded in the future. Attach: Proof of the applicant organization's non-profit status. * Applicant may be contacted during the review process and asked to provide a complete line item budget. 1.Describe the applicant organization, including its purpose, leadership structure, and activities. As Centrdl Oregon's only non-profit organization sol&y dedicated to providing sports medicirie as a means to ensure youth are safe, healthyand protected in an active Iifestyle, The Center Foundation plays a fundamental role in improving the awareness, education, and proper management of concussions and injuries in youth and high school athletes. Formed in 1988 by physicians at The Center for Orthopedic & Neurosurgical Care & Research in Bend, The Center Foundation is a national innovator in the prevention, diagnosis, and management of sports -related concussions. Our mission 15 to promote the health and safety of kids through access to sports medicine services and education. The Center Foundation accomplishes this by placing athletic trainers who have received state and national certification in area high schools, conducting free pre -participation sports physicals, providing concussion identification and management, offering brain and spinal cord injury education to students, and providing free bike helmets to local youth. We believe that keeping kids active and involved in sports is important to their overall physical, social, and educational development. We support school athletic and intramural programs by providing sports medicine services and concussion management in Central Oregon high schools at no cost to students or parents. In 2000, The Center Foundation became the first organization west of the Mississippi River to adopt and implement the University of Pittsburgh's ImPACT Concussion Program, a nationally recognized concussion management program. Since then, no student under our care has suffered a fatal brain injury. To date, we have conducted nearly 11,000 baseline tests and managed over 1,400 concussions for Central Oregon high school athletes. The athletic trainers work with the students and coaches in six area schools to prevent injuries and ensure that concussions are identified and treated early to avoid permanent brain damage and additional injuries. Our athletic trainers have master's degrees and provide medical attention to 3,000 young athletes each year at over 760 events and games. Additionally, we partner with Bend Memorial Clinic and Bank of the Cascades to provide education to elementary schools on how to protect young brains. Since its inception, The Center Foundation has distributed over 10,000 free bike helmets, ensuring that all children have access to and education about the importance of using helmets. Our Board of Directors consist of 16 persons passionate about our work and is led by our Executive Director, Sonja Donohue. 2. Describe the proposed project or activity. Every 3 years the Center Foundation in collaboration with community partners has been hosting an educational conference dedicated to updating our knowledge regarding recognition, diagnosis, management and prevention of concussions. Ahead of the Game, a two-day conference in Bend, Oregon on April 21-22 is led by nationally recognized concussion experts. With growing attention in the media, we are targeting many audiences to educate on the latest research studies and offer the community a unique opportunity to learn from national experts. A free community event will kick off the conference on Thursday evening, April 20th at Bend Senior High, targeting parents, students and the community at large. The conference itself is for all disciplines involved in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of concussions including physicians, neuropsychologists, school administrators, school nurses, athletic directors, physical therapists, occupational therapists, speech therapists, athletic trainers, and coaches, and other medical providers. CME, PDU, and CEU certificates are available. The conference takes place at The Tetherow Event Pavilion and starts with a focus on concussion management and best practices for return to learn and return to play. Discussions will explore challenges to schools for students with prolonged post -concussion symptoms, as well as improving communication between the schools and medical providers. There will also be education regarding Oregon state laws on concussion and school responsibility. The keynote speaker for the reception dinner on Friday night is Dr. Stan Herring, team physician for the Seattle Seahawks and University of Washington clinical professor. Jenna Sneva, a young woman who sustained at least 11 concussions while participating in club soccer and competitive skiing will also speak about her experiences, which led to the origination of Jenna's law in Oregon. On Saturday, the sessions include discussion of the latest science around recurrent concussions, evidence based return to activity protocols, post-traumatic headache management, sleep disorders associated with concussion, and more. 3. Provide a timeline for completing the proposed project or activity. Planning for the conference began last year with a collaboration between St. Charles, COPA, OHSU and U of 0. Marketing efforts are underway and will continue until registration is full. We have been soliciting sponsorships since December. The conference will conclude April 22nd 2017. 4. Explain how the proposed project or activity will positively impact the community. From kids to grandparents and teacher to physicians, we will be able to educate our community about a growing concern for all. We are seeing increased number of concussions in our community across all demographics and can address questions and provide answers. 5. Identify the specific communities or groups that will benefit. Youth, parents, seniors, physicians, neuropsychologists, school administrators, school nurses, athletic directors, physical therapists, occupational therapists, speech therapists, athletic trainers, and coaches, and other medical providers. 6. Describe how grant funds will be used and include the source and amounts of matching funds or in- kind contributions, if any. Itemize anticipated expenditures*. Total budgeted expenses for the conference are $42,300. We have support from St.Charles Foundation, Central Oregon Pediatrics Association, Central Oregon Emergency Physicians, Central Oregon Health Council and Bend Parks and Rec totaling $13,000. Grant funds requested from this application will be used to cover a portion of our honorarium costs totaling $5000. Expenses include: Marketing: $ 4,700 Venue and Meals: $21,000 Speaker Travel and Lodging: $ 2,500 Honoraria: $ 5,000 Materials: $ 4,000 Misc: $ 1,200 7. If the grant will support an ongoing activity, explain how it will be funded in the future: The Center Foundation produces this conference every three years. As a 501C3 dedicated to providing Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners Discretionary Grant Program Board Meeting Date: April 17, 2017 Organization: Leadership Bend Project Name: Leadership Bend Impact Summit Project Period: 9/11/2016 — 5/11/2017 Description: Leadership workshops assisting small non -profits with growing their capacity. Amount of Request: $2,500 Previous Grants: 10/2/2013 $1,500.00 4/13/2016 $2,500.00 9/9/2015 . $1,20.0.00 Approved: Declined: Leadership Bend Class of 2014 Central Oregon Impact Summit Leadership Bend 2016 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners PO Box 6005, Bend, OR 97701-6005 1300 NW Wall Street, Suite 200, Bend, OR Telephone: 541-388-6571 Fax: 541-385-3202 Website: wvay.deschutes.org DESCHUTES COUNTY DISCRETIONARY GRANT PROGRAM APPLICATION Today's Date: 03/30/2017 Project Name: (Leadership Bend Impact Summit Project Beginning Date: I Amount Requested: September 11'h 2016 Project End Date: 1 May 11th 2017 $2,500 1 Date Funds Needed:1 May 1" 2017 Name of Applicant Organization: Leadership Bend — Bend Chamber of Commerce Program Address: c/o Bend Chamber of Commerce, 777 NW Wall St, Ste 200 City & Zip Code: Bend, Oregon 97703 Contact Name(s): Rodney Cook 1 Tax ID #: 93-1224982 1 Telephone #: 541-385-8831 Fax #: J 541-385-8832 1 Email Address: 1 Rodney@rosellwealthmanagement.com On a separate sheet(s), please briefly answer the following questions: 1. Describe the applicant organization, including its purpose, leadership structure, and activities. 2. Describe the proposed project or activity. 3. Provide a timeline for completing the proposed project or activity. 4. Explain how the proposed project or activity will positively impact the community. 5. Identify the specific communities or groups that will benefit. 6. Describe how grant funds will be used and include the source and amounts of matching funds or in-kind contributions, if any. Itemize anticipated expenditures*. 7. If the grant will support an ongoing activity, explain how it will be funded in the future. Attach: Proof of the applicant organization's non-profit status. * Applicant may be contacted during the review process and asked to provide a complete line item budget. Deschutes County Discretionary Grant Program Application 2017- Leadership Bend's Impact Summit Narrative Questions: LEADERSILIP BEND TAYLOR NW TITLE INVESTOR 1. Describe the applicant organization, including its purpose, leadership structure, and activities. Leadership Bend is a community leadership development program designed to identify, educate, train and connect willing and committed citizens to leadership roles in Bend, Deschutes County, and Central Oregon. Now in its 20th year, Leadership Bend is a 501(c) (3) non-profit organization governed by the Bend Chamber of Commerce and managed by Executive Director of Government Affairs, Jamie Christman. Fully supported by community resources, Leadership Bend boasts an active board of directors, along with an advisory board for its flagship event, the Leadership Bend Impact Summit. See attached Leadership Bend 2017 Board of Directors and LBIS Advisory Board. Leadership Bend (LB) brings together community minded individuals ready to assume leadership roles and businesses who believe a healthy community comes from an investment in leadership. In 2017, LB's 24 participants were identified from a broad cross-section of the community, drawing from acknowledged and aspiring leaders who represent diversity and share a common commitment to action and a bright future. Through a nine-month series of intensive workshops and meetings, community leaders educate committed citizens on critical community issues and local resources. The cohort of citizens are then challenged to use their new knowledge to develop informed strategies that address pressing issues and experience meaningful engagement. Each year the cohort plans and executes a community -directed project and the Leadership Bend's Impact Summit, with a focus on strengthening and supporting Central Oregon's non -profits and the people they serve. Leadership Bend's over 385 alumni include a variety of prominent business owners, CEOs, city managers, superintendents, executive directors, elected officials, industry leaders, and professionals. See attached Leadership Bend 2017 Participant Roster. 2. Describe the proposed project or activity. Launched in 2015, the LBIS was founded in response to a desire by local non-profit, business, and Community leaders, to assist smaller non -profits in growing their capacity to serve community needs. In its inaugural year, the LBIS invited small nonprofits (with an annual budget under $750,000) to apply as participants in a series of leadership workshops, culminating in a pitch competition for a $10,000 jury prize and a $1,500 crowd -funded prize. With ample support from greater Deschutes businesses, Bend City government and Deschutes County government, LBIS has engaged over 30 non -profits since 2015 in deep learning and ultimately, Leadership Bend — A Program of the Bend Chamber "Developing the Community Leaders of Tomorrow" Leadership Bend, c/o Bend Chamber • 777 NW Wall St, Ste 200 • Bend, Oregon 97703.541/382-3221 (o) • 541/385-9929 (f) •www.bendchamber.org LEADERSHIP TAYLOR NW TITLE INVESTOR assisted the local work of Healing Reins in 2015 and La Pine Community Kitchen in 2016, with a $10,000 gift each. This proposal seeks funds of $2,500 for Leadership Bend's flagship event, the 2017 Leadership Bend Impact Summit (LBIS). LBIS is designed and facilitated by the LB'17 participants with generous support from judges, coaches, and workshop leaders. The LBIS event convenes ten local non -profits to increase their organizational skills in professional leadership training workshops on topics such as: board governance, marketing, pitch preparation and practice. Participants of the LBIS event are eligible for the culminating public event at which five finalists will present their work for a top prize of $10,000 or an audience -directed second prize of $1,500. Funding will allow expansion of the 2017 Leadership Bend Impact Summit to a class of workshop participants that includes both executive directors and board leaders. It also assures the quality of presentations for the non- profit participants who will interact and learn from seasoned providers with expertise in board governance, marketing, and pitch planning/practice. We will also have a panel of leaders in philanthropy, business, and civic governance who will judge the final pitch presentations on May 11th. Most important, LBIS is proud to serve ten organizations engaged in direct service in Central Oregon, meeting broad community needs for individuals with disabilities, children, the LGBT community, anti -bullying initiatives, and more. Capacity -building workshops will strengthen services for thousands of Deschutes County residents. 3. Provide a timeline for completing the proposed project or activity. The LBIS began recruiting applicant organizations in January 2017 and selected finalists to participate in the workshop series that started on March 7th 2017. The four educational workshop series will be completed by April 25th 2017. The final event, (Public Pitch Event), will take place on May 11, 2017. The Public Pitch Event engages five finalists in a competition for two cash awards at a celebratory gathering at the Hampton Inn & Suites in Bend. 4. Explain how the proposed project or activity will positively impact the community. As described above, the Leadership Bend Impact Summit will strengthen local community services in two ways. First, by building local non-profit leadership capacity through specific trainings in governance, board leadership, marketing, and pitch presentations for executive directors and board leaders. Second, by providing direct operating funds totaling $10,000 and $1,500, respectively, to two non -profits with strong potential to deliver direct results to their target communities. By engaging ten local non -profits in four intensive, free, leadership workshops, the LBIS strengthens multiple Deschutes County communities, a huge return on investment serving hundreds to thousands of individuals in high -need populations across the region. In addition, to having access to potential mentors, coaches, trainers, etc., the two non -profits selected as grantees, will also benefit from direct funding for critical services ranging Leadership Bend — A Program of the Bend Chamber "Developing the Community Leaders of Tomorrow" Leadership Bend, c/o Bend Chamber • 777 NW Wall St, Ste 200 • Bend, Oregon 97703. 541/382-3221 (o) • 541/385-9929 (f) •www.bendchamber.org LEADERSHIP BEND from early childhood, to drug/alcohol prevention, to specialized intervention services, to individuals with disabilities. TAYLOR NW TITLE INVESTOR 5. Identify the specific communities or groups that will benefit. The 2017 LBIS serves ten local non -profits. See attached list, including key participant executive directors and board members. 6. Describe how grant funds will be used and include the source and amounts of matching funds or in-kind contributions, if any. Itemize anticipated expenditures*. Grant funds of $2,500 will be used to support the $20,000 operating costs for the 2017 Leadership Bend's Impact Summit, with anticipated expenditures, donations, and in-kind contributions listed in the attached budget. 7. If the grant will support an ongoing activity, explain how it will be funded in the future. The Leadership Bend Impact Summit is a year-to-year project, planned and managed by each cohort of Leadership Bend. Each cohort, determines its fund raising plan based on the needs of the Summit design. Accordingly, the Leadership Bend Class of 2018, will seek resources and solicit sponsorships based on the summit theme and interest of business partners throughout the community. Leadership Bend — A Program of the Bend Chamber "Developing the Community Leaders of Tomorrow" Leadership Bend, c/o Bend Chamber • 777 NW Wall St, Ste 200 • Bend, Oregon 97703. 541/382-3221 (o) • 541/385-9929 (f) .www.bendchamber.org gbu)4o.oto:eo1jhii,#k4w;fojwofiojfyijo43!otilNoOtoogongobsingE,,;,, Connie Druliner, Owner Express Employment Professionals 61379 South Highway 97 Bend, OR 97702 (541) 389-1505 connie.drulinerexoressoros.com Leadership Bend Founder 1992 Jillian Taylor, Owner Jillian Taylor Consulting 2969 NW Merlot Lane Bend, OR 97701 (503) 860-7370 itaiilliantavlorconsultine.com Leadership Bend Alumni 2014 Jared Standerwick, Project Analyst U.S. Bank 1025 Bond Street Bend, OR 97702 (541) 325-3735 iared.standerwickQusbank.com Leadership Bend Alumni 2015 Heather Hansen, Attorney Bryant, Lovelien & Jarvis, PC 591 SW Mill View Way Bend, OR 97702 (541) 382-4331 hansenrialilawvers.com Leadership Bend Alumni 2009 Renee Alexander, Principal BBT Architects 1160 SW Simpson Ave. #100 Bend, OR 97702 (541) 382-5535 ralexander@bbtarchitects.com Leadership Bend Alumni 2016, Co -President Ken Katzaroff, Attorney Three Rivers Advisors 3081 Hwy 97, Ste. 150 Bend, OR 97701 (503) 453-0873 ikatzaroffa.outlook.com Leadership Bend Alumni 2015 Gary Kronmiller, CPA (Retired) Jones & Roth CPAs & Business Advisors Bend Chamber Board of Directors Bend, OR 97701 (541) 788-1782 garykron10(ib.outlook.com Leadership Bend Alumni 2005 Stephanie Senner, Commercial Marketing Dir. TDS Telecommunications Corp BendBroadband, B2B Dir. 63090 Sherman Road Bend, OR 97701 (503) 347-7781 ssennerabendbroadband.net Leadership Bend Alumni 2014, President Maggie Kirby, VP Development Manager Craft3 917 Harriman St., Ste. 101 Bend, OR 97703 (541) 290-6373 mkirbvacraft3.ore Leadership Bend Alumni 2015, Vice -President Stacy Pell, Human Resources Manager Deschutes Brewery, Inc. 901 SW Simpson Ave. Bend, OR 97702 (541) 312-1997 snelWdeschutesbrewerv.com Leadership Bend Alumni 2016, Co -President Ex -Officio Directors Katy Brooks, President & CEO Bend Chamber katvabendchamber.ore Sandy Stephenson, CFO/COO Bend Chamber sand‘a,bendchamber.ore Jamie Christman, ED Leadership Bend/EVP Community Affairs, iamiedbendchamber.ore Leadership Bend Impact Summit (LBIS) Advisory Board Maggie Kirby, Craft3; 541-290-6373; mkirbva,craft3.ore Steve Curley, COCC-SBDC; o: 541-318-3766, m: 541-350-0628; scurlevlakocc.edu Ken Katzaroff, Three Rivers Advisors 503-453-0873; ikatzaroffaoutlook.com Lindsey Hopper, Pacific Source; 541.706.5066; Lindsev.Honoer(&oacificsource.com LEADERSIHIP BEND Key Staff Leadership Bend's Leadership Bend Impact Summit 2017 TAVLORNW TITLE INVESTOR Jamie Christman is the Executive Vice President (EVP) of Community Affairs for the Bend Chamber of Commerce and is the Leadership Bend Executive Director, a 501(c) program of the Chamber. She leads the Bend Chamber Advocacy Council and subsequent ad hoc committees such as the Legislative Committee, policy taskforce groups, and key liaisons to represent the diverse chamber membership and is responsible for the monthly "What's Brewing: Community Forum". Jamie Christman serves on the boards for Bend Economic Development Advisory Board (BEDAB), Opportunity Knocks (OK), Economic Development for Central Oregon (EDCO), City Club of Central Oregon (past chair) and advisory boards for the Bend Fashion Quarterly and the Cascade Culinary Institute. A native Oregonian, Ms. Christman, split time growing up between Lodi, CA and eastern Oregon whereby the dichotomy of the two regions sparked her curiosity about people, cultures and communities leading to her B.A. in Sociology/Anthropology, running two businesses, and thus, the passion for the people she serves. Leadership Bend — A Program of the Bend Chamber "Developing the Community Leaders of Tomorrow" Leadership Bend, c/o Bend Chamber • 777 NW Wall St, Ste 200 • Bend, Oregon 97703. 541/382-3221 (o) • 541/385-9929 (f) •www.bendchamber.org J W 0 408-772-4642 41-330-7576 41-385-8831 1949-338-3819 360-608-3576 41-322-9128 41-416-6732 1541-233-6885 541-390-4947 541-382-4521 541-367-5155 Qt r -i u1 541-389-4363 503-279-5408 v oN N � v 01 01 Crt a cr, H VD N n W 00 1�t1 M �U 1 ��-I 0 00 O 00 O1 01 N N t;t O O C N iLnU1O lr1 In in vm 1 1 0 541-330-7918 a N to O al T 00 00 oa 00 m m m � •at �n vs v1 541-388-5575 541-322-2067 203-361-4233 41-706-4860 541-306-1668 870-329-3217 541-388-4774 1.17 0 t0 00 00 00 m 541-382-7887 888-231-2170 0 0 E P....4E u o 0 +. as ar E v o �°, a E uCO ° c u oio E � u E`8 .,s., u u •on C c v a ra a`) v 0) c 3 .gym ro it o co oc L to © v N E a) v E o N Q> j E ec v a) u E .n E _ E a`i E o p ej ' o p , (0 O 0t } ‘..i9- ' v o N. E o 0 3 a, a_ s o a Ems e'I 0 as o "• E> c 0 0.25 0 a0) 6 +u E u c c �t E O u 3 i1 ro :J • `r;3 _ 4- `) 3 o `n - 0 l C) 0g E N ,0 — E 0) c o°c 4 @' @ < `-' °°� c @ a} E a 0) rri N ro ,� o a > u al ro N Wa = Q. rc [o C c '6 u 0 -0 -0 re >.0 ;; 0 E 0 C v CO1 3 ro v1 c c > aJ ,� i Q°J " v v o w E > 3 vL. Uc co ° °rortsc' ro v -°)° '^ ro4)10W a-� L �' , 0 . c3 E ---. .a' v (.m�._y.3, i x ... to .•�.=a. ,v'_.,. ._._ :OZ Cc w'�.; 1.{:m m vE`am a 0. E �m r+ OJ C �. 0 'au O d0 L '� C N 1:1C .� Q 0)2,-i C ai • a) c cu" >. to m m vi E E c o c c o w W z° co o co c o a) J n. ..d q v c �+ 2 u —I v -0 E d� N u s ro CU v LL u o += ° 0 V u 0 E a 3 oz ` c (0 s a c u v -o v u o 110 = m s a s j E C °_ ` c m L CCV c ro N a! L t O .3 != J++p i m 0 "�O •� Q m t'' C ` m LLA a) +�+ 0 Q N V_ 0 y a ro w U 0 0J m a Z v o v u m w •_c N u p C Z vVi >. ( m a c Li- m m tY W D Y.' A O Q SLI Q YL -� Q) CO _u_ L o. �i Ius al H co H al ce a) U EE. a1 C E C ut,1 C = �' O al 'C C a/ ? C O D O '° rev = ` m 0) m N •� N ,��, O N O C 'c 3 ° .0 N F- - Q m Y I- i= CO w x l7 .n Ne F- v1 v a ORG c c o c (o C t/1 C t 0 O •.b_A Q! a) iv c Y N .0/ 0 •� hC a! 61 3- 14 E ro 0 0 03 r>o aroi `m (0 CO CO C1) • o) 0 SLup0 0 l7(7SIt 2 a oo Scheuerman Schumacher v 0 al u- 4 -Vi 0 C C I..C ra u s2 vt.oi-s saw LEADERSHIP BEND TAYLOR NW List of narticinating non-nrofit organizations TITLE INVESTOR 1. Deschutes Children's Foundation o Amy Ward, Executive Director email.: amus?deschuteschildrensfoundation.ora o Amanda Miko, Board Chair 2. Camp Fire o Kecia Kubota, Executive Director email: o rotating board members 3. Destination Rehab o Carol -Ann Nelson, Executive Director email: carolann(a).destinationrehab.ora o Rotating board members 4. Bend Spay+Neiter o Megan Gram, Executive Director email: meaanw(ibensnip.org o Marie Melsheimer - 3/7 o Jessi Princiotto - 3/21 o Julie Hotchkiss - 4/4 o Lori Drew - 4/I1 o Bonnie Wilson - 4/25 o Jade Mayer - 5/11 - if needed. 5. Pet Evacuation Team o Jamie T. Kanski - Regional Coordinator email: inforthmetevaeuationteam.com o Ed Bartz - Assistant Coordinator for Bend area b. Younity o Arlene Gibson - Co -Founder & President email: ae_ ibsonavounitvus.orn o Rotating board member 7. Human Dignity Coalition o Erin Rook — Board President o Cait Boyce — Community Organizer email: cait(cAumandinitvcoalition.ora o Rotating board member 8. Oregon Adaptive Sports o Suzanne Lafky — Executive Director email: Suzanne(aoreeonadaotivesports.ora o Rotating board members 9. Deschutes County Healthy Beginnings, Inc. o Holly Reiner — Executive Director email: hollv.remer(a).hdesd.ora o Kelly Nuemann — Family Support and Screening Logistics Specialist/ Oregon Health Plan Assister o One or two board members (if appropriate) 10. Good Thought Good Action Foundation o Wendie Hohman — President email: tivchohman(ii)email.com/infotiitateafoundation.ora o Patty Knowles — Co-founder Leadership Bend — A Program of the Bend Chamber "Developing the Community Leaders of Tomorrow" Leadership Bend, c/o Bend Chamber • 777 NW Wall St, Ste 200 • Bend, Oregon 97703. 541/382-3221 (o) • 541/385-9929 (f) •www.bendchamber.org Title Quantity Amount Total In-Kind Workshop Coaches 2 250 500.00 Beverages 2 200 400.00 Office Supplies 1 10 10.00 Snacks & Misc. 3 10 30.00 Venue Site 1 300 300.00 1,240.00 Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners Discretionary Grant Program Board Meeting Date: April 17, 2017 Organization: Central Oregon Police Chaplaincy Project Name: Training Support Project Period: February 2017 — July 2017 Description: Attendance at four-day conference sponsored by the International Conference of Police Chaplains. Amount of Request: $2,500 Previous Grants: 11/1/2010 $1,500.00 Maintaining Operations Approved: Declined: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners PO Box 6005, Bend, OR 97701-6005 1300 NW Wall Street, Suite 200, Bend, OR Telephone: 541-388-6571 Fax: 541-385-3202 Website: www.deschutes.org DESCHUTES COUNTY DISCRETIONARY GRANT PROGRAM APPLICATION Today's Date: I March 1,2017 I Project Name: (Training Support Project Beginning Date: (February 2017 1 Project End Date: (July 2017 Amount Requested: I 82500 1 Date Funds Needed: I M arch 15th,2017 Name of Applicant Organization:( Central Oregon Police Chaplaincy Address:I PO Box 1898 City & Zip Code: I Contact Name(s): I Fax #: I of %A Redmond 97756 Jim Crowley Tax ID #:193-1244225 I Telephone #:1541-410-6128 I Email Address: Iierowley5510@gmail.com On a separate sheet(s), please briefly answer the following questions: 1. Describe the applicant organization, including its purpose, leadership structure, and activities. 2. Describe the proposed project or activity. 3. Provide a timeline for completing the proposed project or activity. 4. Explain how the proposed project or activity will positively impact the community. 5. Identify the specific communities or groups that will benefit. 6. Describe how grant funds will be used and include the source and amounts of matching funds or in-kind contributions, if any. Itemize anticipated expenditures*. 7. If the grant will support an ongoing activity, explain how it will be funded in the future. Attach: Proof of the applicant organization's non-profit status. * Applicant may be contacted during the review process and asked to provide a complete line item budget. 1. Describe the applicant organization, including its purpose, leadership structure, and activities. The Central Oregon Police Chaplaincy is a nonprofit whose Mission it is to Serve and Support Central Oregon's First Responders. 2. Describe the proposed project or activity. Annually COPC provides Training for our chaplains involving attendance at a 4 day conference for the Region endorsed by the International Conference of Police Chaplains. Annually ICPC accomplishes training that this year would be providential for myself to attend to assist my directing an Academy for Oregon Chaplains. 3. Provide a timeline for completing the proposed project or activity. The Annual Training Seminar will conclude in July of 2017 4. Explain how the proposed project or activity will positively impact the community. Central Oregon Police Chaplaincy has been known for 15 years amongst our Law Enforcement and Fire Disciplines to provide support for our officers and for the community experiencing traumatic events i.e. Infant Deaths, Traffic Fatalities, Homicides and Suicides and many others. We assist the Officers with victim assistance, family support and educating the community while accomplishing training. Myself and one other chaplain are Approved Instructors with the International Critical Incident and Stress Foundation providing an opportunity to education Deschutes County Behavioral Health personnel, Law Enforcement. SCMC Health Providers to name a few. in attendance at these conferences and this year were able to send more than before. We have 21 chaplains that are well trained and credentialed to care for the traumatic events that unfortunately occur in Central Oregon. We are annually raising funds through our Sportsman's Show Fund Raiser and Golf Tournament. Approximately 25% of our annual budget is accomplished by our First Responders accomplishing a payroll deduction for COPC. This percentage continues to grow. Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 — Fax (541) 385-3202 — https://www.deschutes.org/ AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners Work Session of April 17, 2017 DATE: FROM: Whitney Hale, Administrative Services, 541-330-4640 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Draft Social Media Policy for Consideration PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS DATE?: No ATTENDANCE: Whitney Hale SUMMARY: Draft social media policy for BOCC consideration. Deschutes County Administrative Policy No. Effective Date: DESCHUTES COUNTY SOCIAL MEDIA POLICY STATEMENT OF POLICY It is the policy of Deschutes County that social media is an effective outreach tool to disseminate information, and promote programs, initiatives and services. DEFINITIONS For the purpose of this policy, the following definitions shall apply: • Social Media Channels — Digital platforms that allow users to create and share information, ideas or questions with other users or audiences. Popular social media channels include Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Pinterest. • Social Media Presence — The specific account/profile that a user or organization has on a social media channel. For example, Administrative Services manages the Deschutes County presence, or page, on Facebook. • Post — Any content generated or shared on social media presences. Posts can include, but are not limited to, messages, links, images, maps videos and emoticons. • Comment - A post made in response to a post. • Official — For the purposes of this policy, "official" refers to any social media presence set up by the County. APPLICABILITY This policy applies to all employees, volunteers and agents of Deschutes County, with the following exceptions: employees of Deschutes County Fair and Expo, the Deschutes County 9-1-1 Service District and elected officials, or their staff, although all employees are encouraged to use this policy as a guideline. POLICY & PROCEDURE To best manage online relationships and conversations, the County Administrator will appoint a Public Information Officer (PIO) or designee as the administrator of social media content. The PIO will manage all of the County's social media accounts and will be responsible for content deployment. The PIO will also have the authority to establish and terminate accounts, monitor and respond to comments from the public and post updates on behalf of the County. Departments are not to create social media accounts on behalf of the County. Instead, they are directed to recommend and generate draft content (news, photos, videos) for use on official County social media accounts and submit the material to the PIO (or designee) for review. This centralized social media strategy allows for consistent branding and the ability to maintain a clear voice across County communications channels. This structure is intended to prevent audience fragmentation and lost engagement opportunities. It also allows departments to maximize their messaging and benefit from the large existing following of established Deschutes County social media presences. Social Media Communications on Behalf of Deschutes County Selection of Social Media Channels • Use of any new social media channels must be approved by the designated PIO (or designee) in coordination with the Legal Department and IT Department. Establishing New Social Media Presences • Authorized representatives (the PIO or designee) who set up accounts on behalf of the County should use a County email account created by the IT Department specifically for use with the social media account. • Where possible, accounts should link to the County's Social Media Terms & Conditions. Content Development • Content shared on official County social media channels will endeavor to reflect the values and priorities of Deschutes County. Content created and shared by the County shall not: o Use vulgar, profane, violent, sexist, racist, threatening, or other offensive language or imagery. o Post information for personal gain. o Use inappropriate humor. o Be in violation of any applicable federal, state or local laws, or promote the violation of such. o Infringe on copyright or intellectual property rights. o Engage in political advocacy. o Violate any County policies. o Promote or perpetuate, in any fashion, discrimination in any form on the basis of race, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, color, age, gender identity, marital status, national origin, disability, or other aspects or traits. o Promote solicitation of commerce or specific businesses (unless a purpose can be demonstrated). o Compromise the safety or security of the public. o Violate the privacy of its subjects (images or information). o Provide false, libelous or defamatory information. o Be automated. • Content developed for social media use should link to the County's official website (www.deschutes.ore) whenever possible. Brand Management • All County social media presences should be clearly identified as official Deschutes County assets, using the County's logo or department logo as the identifying image. They should also include Deschutes County in the account name. • Social media presences (and content) should be designed to emulate the County's brand. Public Comments / Engagement • A driving goal of social media is to promote effective two-way communication with members of the public and other key stakeholders. As such, comments from all parties are to be encouraged and welcomed, often directly by a post itself. Both positive and critical comments about Deschutes County, its programs or policies are welcome. • Any comment, reply or similar communication from followers/users should be allowed to remain posted, provided it does not violate the County's Social Media Terms & Conditions. • Deschutes County reserves the right to ban or block users from any of its social media presences for violations of its Social Media Terms & Conditions. If a comment, private/direct message or other communication is taken down or deleted, it must first be captured photographically or as an image and stored off-line. This image, and an explanation of actions taken, must be sent to the Public Information Officer for retention. Existing Department Presences • It is essential that County social media presences share content on a regular basis. Each year, the Public Information Officer will review existing Deschutes County social media accounts to determine whether they should continue as stand-alone presences or be absorbed by main County accounts. Records Retention / Public Records • Content posted or exchanged on county social media channels is subject to Oregon Public Records Law (ORS Chapter 192). Any content that is related to County business is a public record. Content shall be maintained in accordance with Oregon Archives Division's records retention schedules. • Any content that is removed from a county site will be documented with a description detailing why the content was removed or deemed unsuitable and maintained in accordance with OAR 166, County Records Retention Schedule. Related Policies All County authorized use of social media shall comply with the appropriate County policies and standards, including but not limited to: • IT User • Communications Policy • HIPAA • Public Records • County Personnel Rules Guidelines for Private Use of Social Media by Employees • Deschutes County employees are not permitted to use a County affiliated email address when using social media in personal capacities. (For example, don't create a personal Facebook or Twitter account using your deschutes.org email address.) ■ Content (including information, audio, photos or video) that is obtained during working hours or when the employee is acting in an official capacity may not be used or shared on personal social media accounts without Department Head approval. ■ All employee use of County -sponsored social media and any internet resources is subject to Policy IT -1: Computer, Email and Mobile Computing Device Use. • If you identify yourself as a Deschutes County employee when conducting personal social media activities, please state in your profile that your comments/views are not authorized by, or necessarily representative of Deschutes County government. • Employees not acting in their official capacity shall not represent or give the impression that they are acting in their official capacity. • Whether or not you specify on your personal social media accounts that you work for Deschutes County, your employment with the County is public record under Oregon Public Records Law. Be mindful that whenever you discuss issues online, whether in a personal or professional capacity, your comments could be attributed to your employment with Deschutes County. • Nothing in this policy is meant to prevent an employee from exercising his or her right to make a complaint of discrimination or other workplace misconduct, engage in lawful collective bargaining activity, or to express an opinion on a matter of public concern that does not unduly disrupt county operations.