The URL can be used to link to this page

2017-556-Minutes for Meeting June 26,2017 Recorded 8/31/2017Recorded in Deschutes County Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk Commissioners' Journal CJ2017-556 08/31/2017 8:15:26 AM I1IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIII 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, June 26, 2017 Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Anthony DeBone and Phil Henderson. Also present were Tom Anderson, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; David Doyle, County Counsel; and Laura Skundrick, Board Secretary. Attending for a portion of the meeting were Whitney Hale, Public Information Officer, Adam Smith, Assistant Legal Counsel; Timm Schimke, Director of Solid Waste; Nick Lelack and Peter Gutowsky, Community Development Department; James Lewis, Property Management Specialist; Chris Ogren, Intern; and two other citizens. One representative of the media were in attendance. CALL TO ORDER. Chair Baney opened the meeting at 1:30 p.m. ACTION ITEMS 1.2017 Spay & Neuter Grant Awards Ms. Ure, Management Analyst, discussed the process and history of the Spay and Neuter program, with funding mostly from licenses and permits along with a small general fund transfer. She explained that four applications were received, then reviewed and scored by Dog Board members in various categories such as funding objectives, organization stability, and leveraging of grant funds. These awards are primarily intended for spay and neuter services, but can also be used for education. Recommendations for awards are based on ratings received from dog board members, and are pretty consistent with awards in years past. Commissioner DeBone asked whether Ms. Ure met with the Dog Board to review applications, to which she answered no, that information was mailed to members. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session June 26, 2017 Page 1 of 6 Commissioner DeBone proposed to round up Brightside's award to an even number, and round the remaining three amounts down to an even number. Chair Baney added it is amazing how much these organizations achieve with this money. Commissioner DeBone: Move approval. Commissioner Henderson: Second. Commissioner Henderson stated he thought Ms. Ure would have been involved in the decision making process, to which she replied that she reviews applications for eligibility and completeness but tries to remain neutral in the process. Commissioner DeBone added that the Dog Board provides a great service, with members who are very involved with the current status of these organizations. He doesn't see a need for Ms. Ure to attend an additional meeting with them for this purpose, and Ms. Ure confirmed that Dog Board members are more engaged with these organizations than she is. Commissioner Henderson stated that he trusts that the Dog Board is making good decisions. Ms. Ure encouraged the board to review the rankings and ensure they make sense, noting that commissioners will receive a report from each of these agencies throughout the year. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. HENDERSON: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 2. Lot of Record Discussion Mr. Lelack, Community Development Director, brought discussion to the board regarding the fee schedule. Commissioner DeBone mentioned that surveying has been brought up several times, and asked if there is capacity and what the legality is around that. Mr. Gutowsky replied that from a policy perspective, putting property onto a plat requiring signatures really legalizes that property. Chair Baney asked what the proposal and process is to clean up the current situation? Commissioner Henderson inquired about both short term and long term rule changes, specifically what citizens do in the meantime if the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) rule gets appealed? Mr. Lelack stated his recommendation is to continue informing everyone that the department is working to resolve the issue, suggesting that they wait to apply if they're able to. If they're not able to wait, then he recommends continuing under the current process, since it's legally defensible, until any and all appeals are resolved with a text amendment. Commissioner Henderson asked if once the new rules take effect, whether they fully replace the current rules. Mr. Gutowsky stated that once they have been acknowledged and without appeal, the department would recommend those be put into place and replace the current rules. If they are appealed, that will take several months for a decision from LUBA. Commissioner Henderson proposed reducing the $500 application fee to $250, and the $925 fee to $600. He added there should be an additional conversation regarding fees paid for applications already in the system. He suggested finding ways to further assist the citizen, whether it be new systems within the department or locating a specialist who can accumulate the required data, creating less of an internal process. Chair Baney stated she does not disagree, however the Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session June 26, 2017 Page 2 of 6 challenge is the uncertainty of how long this will remain an issue. Additionally, the department is fee based, so any gaps would typically be covered by the general fund. Chair Baney asked Commissioner Henderson whether his proposed amounts were specific to the services provided. He replied that during discussions with the department around the proposed fee scheduled, they weren't necessarily easy to categorize, so he proposed lower rates. He stated he is aware how complex applications can be, so he is trusting department heads' judgement having two levels. Chair Baney asked if an hourly rate would be possible, and Mr. Lelack replied it would require everyone tracking their time, as well as determining how to accurately track indirect costs. He added that the $925 fee is the actual cost for processing the complex applications and tasks required. Commissioner Henderson asked what that cost per hour is, and Mr. Lelack estimated about $80 per hour. Mr. Gutowsky explained the department assigns the lots of record cases to assistant planners, who are doing this on a regular basis and are the experts on the issue. They each have around 10-15 cases at a time, and with current resources, efficiencies are maximized and processes are standardized. He added that at the board's direction, priority of these applications can be elevated, but that does come at a cost to other applications. Commissioner Henderson replied he is not suggesting elevating the priority, and asked how many assistant planners the department has, and Mr. Gutowsky replied four. Commissioner Henderson asked about having two assistant planners focus solely on lot of record rather than having four doing some lot of record along with other tasks too. Mr. Lelack answered that all four are the specialists and they are doing the work that needs to be done. Chair Baney asked what the solution is, and Mr. Lelack stated one option is offering a limited duration position, which would certainly benefit the public. Commissioner DeBone suggested the possibility of adding an additional, third fee of $250, for applications with certain requirements already fulfilled? Mr. Gutowsky stated that is possible, but noted potential difficulty having various staff act as the gatekeepers of that decision. Mr. Lelack added that low price could significantly increase the amount of applications received, creating the need for even more help. Commissioner Henderson asked whether there is a third party that could provide a service gathering the required documents for the citizen? Mr. Lelack stated there is an attorney who is exceptional at this, however that comes at a high hourly rate. Chair Baney asked about potential exposure if the county were to be involved in providing all the materials? County Counsel Doyle stated overall, it is safer if the applicant hands in the information. Chair Baney noted that this highlights the importance of the education piece to the citizen, ensuring they know where to look for materials and documents. If that portion of the work takes up a large amount of staff time, perhaps there is a document that can be provided to the citizen, or a computer with a system available for them to locate their own documents — creating a smoother process when they arrive at the counter. Mr. Gutowsky stated that getting the information is not difficult for the most part, it is readily available and staff at the various offices understand what the needs are. Commissioner DeBone confirmed that the department is advocating for $925 as the first tier, and that it is the right amount for the task. Chair Baney stated she agrees with that amount for the more complex applications, but she likes the three -tiered structure in regards to the other levels of fees. Commissioner Baney supports checking in with the department July 26th, after they have time to track whether there has been a significant delta in time spent, and whether the fee covers the time. Commissioner Henderson encouraged the department to do what they can to reduce hard costs and consider further efficiencies. Mr. Lelack added that a good part of that cost is overhead, not just hourly time, adding that before the Grimstad decision, the fee was $550 for full range. Once it became a land use decision, costs were really driven up. Mr. Gutowsky stated Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session June 26, 2017 Page 3 of 6 he understands and appreciates the reduction in cost, however, all the required tasks for these take time. He stated just last week the department received 28 lot of record applications, not counting other citizens coming in for other purposes. He stated the department is happy to accommodate the direction given by the board, but that it can come at the expense of other customers. Commissioner DeBone added that everyone in the industry is learning at the same time. Commissioner Henderson explained his issue with talk about the general fund, as he is more interested in getting through this period between potential changes, which is an emergency situation of sorts. He stated that the point is to make this easier during the gap of time we are working to find a better solution. County Counsel Doyle stated this issue does not bar transferring property, however it may create a cloud for future development. County Administrator Anderson stated that if the objective in the amendment is to get back to the starting point, what about waiving the fee entirely? Mr. Lelack stated if the fee gets waived, he would strongly recommend the hire of at least a limited duration position because of the potential uptick in applications. Chair Baney explained the question then becomes how quickly a new hire could get up to speed and what to do during the interim. Mr. Lelack replied if that decision is made by the board, he can start that process immediately and move it as quickly as possible. Chair Baney confirmed with Mr. Lelack that the department felt comfortable this would meet the challenge. Mr. Gutowsky added that they could handle the interim while the new hire gets up to speed. Commissioner Henderson stated if the fee is waived for new applicants, then those who have already applied should be reimbursed. He added that he does not want to see the fee reduced to $0, and Chair Baney agreed. She suggested reducing the fee to $250, which will allow the department to recoup some costs. Commissioner DeBone agreed. The commissioners agreed on the fee structure of keeping the $925 fee the same, reducing the $500 fee to $250, as well as the addition of a limited duration staff member. Assistant County Counsel Adam Smith recommended waiting until after the July 4th holiday for the text amendment update, as legal is moving forward expediently with the amendment and will expect some feedback next week. County Administrator Anderson confirmed with Mr. Lelack this item will come back to the board at Wednesday's business meeting to finalize. Mr. Kropp stated the commissioners may authorize the additional limited duration position if they so choose. Commissioner DeBone: Move approval of limited duration position in CDD to support legal lot of record. Commissioner Henderson: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. HENDERSON: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried EXECUTIVE SESSION: At the time of 3:OOp.m., the Board went into Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2)(h) Litigation and ORS 192.660 (2)(e) Real Property Negotiations. The Board came out of Executive Session at 3:55p.m. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session June 26, 2017 Page 4 of 6 OTHER ITEMS • Mr. Lelack updated commissioners on the status of the land use application on Tumalo Place to establish a marijuana retail store in an existing building. Mr. Lelack handed out copies of the Decision of the Hearings Officer, denying this applicant's site plan and conditional use permit applications. He also told the board he was notified just this afternoon the application has been canceled. Commissioner Henderson stated he read through the decision and thought it was unclear. Commissioner DeBone suggested the point was that the property is in an unfit state to have applied in the first place. Commissioner DeBone asked whether there are any currently open code enforcement cases? Mr. Lelack stated there are a few open that the hearings officer has not yet made decisions on. Chair Baney asked if there is potential for a hearings officer in the future to make this same determination of the code? Mr. Doyle suggested it could, however he believes it is clear and the hearings officer misinterpreted this as a threshold issue when it wasn't. He added if the board is concerned the code is not clear, it can be amended for clarity. Mr. Doyle stated it could have been a footnote in the decision, so naming it in the substance of the decision was incorrect. Chair Baney proposed that if further action is needed after Mr. Doyle's discussion with the hearings officer, it can be handled then. • Mr. Lelack notified commissioners the Rodriguez application was denied and they have applied for reconsideration. Mr. Gutowsky explained they were within the 12 day window to apply for reconsideration, stating they believe the hearing officer analysis was in error on the parking spaces in relation to ADA parking and staff parking. The applicant submitted a new site plan and has a 10 day window, closing today at 5:OOpm. That begins a 150 day clock for the hearings officer to review and issue a new decision. • Chair Baney mentioned that Jim Rue is open to a discussion about Regional Problem Solving, and will be in town, providing the opportunity to discuss what the process would look like through RPS, which is a goal we've been working toward for a long time. Commissioner Henderson stated it would be easier on something other than Bend, in terms of affordable housing, and that he would like to meet Mr. Rue. County Administrator Anderson stated he can work to set up a meeting with Mr. Rue. ADJOURN Being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 4: 58pm. SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session June 26, 2017 Page 5 of 6 DATED this / Day of County Board of Commissioners. ATTE . T: Recording Secretary 2017 for the Deschutes Tammy Bney, Chair Anthony DeBone, Vice Philip G. H erson, Commissioner Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session June 26, 2017 Page 6 of 6 Jtre '2 ,2019- WORK SESSION (PLEASE PRINT) E-MAIL ADDRESS vl J., PLEASE RETURN TO BOCC SECRETARY W Z a V ,,,(,,, V` a_ N N (' CITY I 4 MAILING ADDRESS' J a (b M M AGENCY NAME c0 PAGE # OF PAGES TES 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, JUNE 26, 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. 2017 Spay & Neuter Grant Awards - Judith Ure, Management Analyst 2. Lot of Record Discussion - Nick Lelack, Director of Community Development EXECUTIVE SESSION: • Under ORS 192.660 (2) (h) Litigation • Under ORS 192.660 (2) (e) Real Property Negotiations 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. OTHER ITEMS 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, June 26, 2017 Page 1 of 2 ADJOURN Deschutes 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 www.deschutes.orq/meetinqcalendar (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, June 26, 2017 Page 2 of 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 June 26, 2017 DATE: June 21, 2017 FROM: Judith Ure, Administrative Services, 541-330-4627 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: 2017 Spay & Neuter Grant Awards PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS DATE?: No ATTENDANCE: Judith Ure SUMMARY: Deschutes County's Dog License and Pet Identification Application forms provide an opportunity for residents to make a voluntary donation to support spay and neuter services. These donations, which are periodically supplemented by additional funds authorized by the Board of County Commissioners, are offered to local non-profit organizations that provide spay and neuter services in Deschutes County for both feral animals and pets whose owners are unable or unlikely to access or afford the procedure. Grant funds may also be used for educational or promotional programs focused on encouraging or expanding spay and neuter procedures in Deschutes County. To be eligible for the program, applicants must be designated by the Internal Revenue Service as a 501(c)3 tax-exempt organization, located in Deschutes County, and able to certify that grant proceeds will be used to support services benefiting Deschutes County residents. Four applications were submitted in response to the 2017 solicitation. Members of the Deschutes County Dog Board evaluated the applications and assigned points based on established criteria related to the organization, funding objectives, projected outcomes and measurements, and leveraging of grant funds. Recommendations for grant awards which resulted from that process are described in the attached documentation. RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: Award 2017 Spay & Neuter Grants as recommended. To: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners From: Judith Ure, Department of Administrative Services Date: June 21, 2017 Subject: Spay and Neuter Grant Recommendations Background The Deschutes County Dog Licensing Program offers an opportunity for applicants to make contributions in support of projects designed to reduce the population of feral, unwanted, abandoned, or surrendered pets. These funds are distributed in the foiin of grants to local non- profit organizations that provide spay and neuter services in Deschutes County. In the past six years, the Board of Commissioners has supplemented the dog license contributions with other resources to result in the following amounts available for grant awards: 1?unding: Source 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 Dog License Program Contributions $ 2,952 $ 2,490 $ 3,134 $ 3,206 $ 4,222 $ 4,114 Supplemental Funds 9,448 10,510 9,366 9,294 8,278 8,386 Total $12,400 $13,000 $12,500 $12,500 $12,500 $12,500 The Deschutes County Spay and Neuter Grant Program was created to apply these funds toward three primary objectives: 1. Expand spay and neuter services in Deschutes County in an effort to reduce the number of unwanted dogs and cats. 2. Provide promotion or education associated with spay and neuter services. 3. Conduct outreach and assist those who are unable to access spay and neuter services due to financial constraints or physical limitations. To be eligible for funds through the Deschutes County Spay and Neuter Grant Program, organizations must meet the following requirements: • Be recognized as a 501(c)3 tax-exempt agency. • Be located in Deschutes County. • Use grant funds in support of Deschutes County residents. • Use grant funds for expenses directly associated with spay and neuter services or for spay and neuter education and promotion projects. During the history of the Deschutes County Spay and Neuter Grant Program, funds have been awarded to the following organizations: Bend Spay and Neuter Project (SNIP) BrightSide Animal Center/Redmond Humane Society Cascade Canine Rescue East & West Cat Rescue, Adoption, and Foster Team (CRAFT) Central Oregon Cat Alliance (COCA) Equine Outreach Furry Friends Humane Society of Central Oregon (HSCO) FY 2017 Recommendations The FY 2017 solicitation for the Deschutes County Spay and Neuter Grant Program closed on April 21, 2017. Four eligible organizations submitted applications for the $12,500 allocation approved by the Board of Commissioners. Applications were evaluated by members of the Deschutes County Dog Board, using criteria related to: • Organizational Stability and Solvency • Connection to Grant Program Objectives • Projected outcomes and measurements • Ability to Leverage Grant Funds The final recommendation to the Board of Commissioners is based on a formula that gives each rater equal weight in the overall allocation. If the Board accepts the recommendations, staff will prepare an agreement for each grant recipient that specifies the requirements of the award and, upon execution of the agreement, will make payment from FY 2017 budgeted funds in the amounts indicated on the attached chart. Recommendation °r--° 'Cr 00 o �) o 'o to M N M M N 69 69 6R 69 r-1 EA Project Description Free Spay/Neuter Program: Perform spay and neuter procedures on approximately 100 pets of low-income households reducing the number being brought to local shelters. Spay and Neuter Procedures, Community Awareness, and Trap -Neuter -Release Program: 1) Perfoiui spay and neuter procedures for stray animals received from animal -control authorities and the public; 2 provide low-cost spay and neuter services for pets of county residents (primarily higher cost procedures for dogs); 3) raise community awareness of spay and neuter services; and 4) operate trap - neuter -release program for feral cats. The Fix is FREE Program: Sponsor and promote spay and neuter procedures performed by the Bend Spay & Neuter Project for dogs and cats of families in financial hardship, allowing pets to remain in their homes. Spay and Neuter Assistance Program (SNAP): Increase number of low-cost vouchers provided to community members from 28-30 to approximately 39, allowing them to pay only a portion of the spay or neuter costs for their pets when procedure is performed by a participating local veterinarian. Organization Bend Spay & Neuter Project Brightside Animal Center Furry Friends Humane Society of Central Oregon Total Deschutes Coo•roy SFmy and Neuter Grant Apphcation 2017 A complete application of thc I. This cover sheet, signed and dated. 2. Narrative responses to 1.1): questions which appear at. the end of this document submitted on no more than three separato.ini1cidcd.sinvie-spaced pages. 3. Attachments as fo1lov,s: a. Proof of the oiL;J-Ini;,,,ti, :-;1.) ( taN-excropt status in the form of a letter from the Internal Revenue Scrvic:t: b. An operating 1ud,,p-21. speL:ific to the proposed program, project, or activity. c, A financial statement that shows actual total revenue and expenditures for the most recently completed 12 -month period. d. A. roster (lithe organ current Board of Directors. Submit the completed appl,,ition elek, tronicaily to judithwojdeschutes.ort2 no later than 5:00 p.m. on April 21, 2017. Late or ihcomplete tt-)plications will not he considered. Information or materials submitted in addition to those, specifically requested in this application form will not be reviewed. Contact Information Organization Name 60vt2iUjt)\,6a Address 010 j City 177o2_ Phone Number Fax Number 010 • ..„,_ E-Mmig Addrvm M Altermoe Phone mbur 51-11 1: Website orci By signing below„ .Ceri;ify the fcilitri% 1. All information provided w Cot:pi!' 2. 1 am authorized by tile rtoo: cl application. 3. This organization is in good standing kvith tc exempt status. 4. This organization is located in Deschui;!.; Cow 5. Any proceeds from a gram award will be used Signal'. Ur e (Irain '1U6'etitt/ e1)7t. Txewfi v 1)i ittlDr— in this application is correct. taurid organization to submit this grant IRS and retains its official 501(c)(3) tax - in suppon of Deschutes County residents, OB a Separate sherbig,$), piriagie itirtS•iA'ee the fogtioviiithig questioDS: 1. Describe the history of your orittainzation 2- the' lirtiSSIOn 01 yeur DeSCeibe the header p and sefuciore edditgarddiaphign, 4, Describe the printai y richt-bibs tkf'd t'” 'irff Otga Zat ion. 5. Describe the stdiciric ritoptata„ ohttatice atetbrity that Spay att.d Neuter yl» would suppot, if a'cVuded, 6, 1„)estiribe titbits idtis protritervi, pi) aura, or scusitur i.yould positively impact the otta) trig promoting or shipandirng spay and center prOCedille-S. 7. EXplait) the anticipated oulcorihn,.., this ptottirturre proAcett or activity and describe how success win be measured, rtt;ttetta L Proof of the orMarriiti.i.Or:';', 50 (eti .-eXempt status ire the form of R. letter from the Inttitmai ReVelltee Sepeice Aen omerminc, '(i. 1ittrerryttteti reteretere rtrotheht or ,plittitte 3. A iintlneitd siaterriera Sh.M.VS te,..43 e:,eted revenueiniexpendittifett for ithe recendy coropletttd 12-thotron pcnod. A roster of the ft -'1 ettrihrk 1oard Doietetots,. co BEND SPAY+ NEUTER PROJECT The Bend Spay and Neuter Project History of Organization The Bend Spay and Neuter Project was started in the Fall of 2004 by founder Sara Dice, and co founder Dr. Byron Maas. The project began when Sara found a colony of feral cats on one of her rental properties. Sara had spent time volunteering with the Central Oregon Humane Society, and was disheartened at how many feral and stray cats there were entering the shelter, and how little of a chance they had to make it out alive. She purchased her own live traps and got to work. Over the course of several months, Sara trapped over 1,000 cats and brought them to Dr. Maas for surgery. They soon made the connection that this community was in desperate need of a service like this on a larger scale. In January of 2005, Sara's parents donated one of their rental properties to use as a clinic, and Bend Spay and Neuter was born. Originally, the clinic focused mainly on cats, both owned and feral/stray, but has grown dramatically and now offers service to nearly as many dogs as cats. The clinic was started with an extensive cat adoption and foster program, however has since scaled back it's adoption program to focus primarily on the mission of spay and neuter. The clinic continues Sara's work with feral cats through our Trap, Neuter, Return program, which has grown from the few traps used by Sara, to over 50 traps available for rent by the public. The program has now grown into a partnership with the Humane Society of Central Oregon and Brightside Animal Center known as the Central Oregon Cat Alliance or COCA. In the beginning, Dr. Maas was the sole veterinarian, and the clinic employed only one other staff member, the clinic manager/veterinary technician. Even the clinic receptionist was a volunteer position until the summer of 2007. When word spread around the community, and donations increased, the clinic was able to hire a full time receptionist, as well as a certified veterinary technician to assist our doctors. Currently BSNP employs 5 full time staff members, and 3 part time staff members. At any given time there are typically 2-3 volunteers working post surgical recovery, wrapping surgical packs, cleaning and doing laundry and helping with office work. In a typical week, the clinic will see anywhere from 80-100 patients come through the doors. Since the clinic began seven years ago, our doctors have performed over 48,000 surgeries, dramatically reducing the amount of animals that could have ended up in our local shelters. BSNP is the only local provider of high volume, high quality, spay and neuter services for cats and dogs in Central Oregon! Mission Statement "The mission of BSNP is to provide affordable, preventative veterinary services to animals at risk of suffering in Central Oregon in order to create a more humane community. Leadership/Structure of Organization BSNP is governed by a 6 member Board of Directors who are actively involved in our community and have a wide variety of skills from finance to marketing. Our Executive Director, Megan Gram, has been with the organization for 8 years in various capacities and has been running the show since 2012. Our Medical Director and primary surgeon, Dr. Katie Bahr, graduated from the University of Minnesota and completed an internship at Texas A&M. She has been specially trained in the art of high quality, high volume spay and neuter by two nationally recognized organizations, Emancipet and Humane Alliance. Our Certified Veterinary Technician is a 2014 graduate of the COCC Vet Tech program and has been with our organization since 2014. Primary Activities BSNP has four main programs, each of which are designed to prevent overpopulation and keep pets in their homes. Our programs are as follows: Affordable spay/neuter, Wellness Clinics, Community Cat Program and Free spay/neuter program. In addition to our four main programs, we also operate the HOPE Pet Food Bank, which provides free pet food and additional discounts on spay/neuter and vaccinations for those in need. We serve all of Central Oregon including south to Christmas Valley and parts of Eastern Oregon to John Day and Burns. There are no income requirements for clients to utilize our services; we provide service to anyone in need. Our clients range from people who are just going through a rough patch to people who are chronically homeless. BSNP's vision is to enable anyone who wants a pet in their lives to be able to have one and provide basic care for them, regardless of their financial situation. Specific Program Supported by Deschutes County Spay/Neuter Grant We are requesting funding specifically for our free spay/neuter program in hopes of growing this program and making free spay/neuter more accessible for members of our community in need. For many people, simply making spay/neuter affordable doesn't cut it. If you live on $700/month, spending $70 to have your dog neutered might not be a reality. Often times, it's those who are most vulnerable who live on a fixed income. Seniors, people with disabilities, veterans, single parent families and local residents working with non -profits such as Saving Grace and Bethlehem Inn are some of the demographics who would benefit from completely free spay/neuter surgeries for their pets. Currently, BSNP provides additional financial assistance for those in need, however it is a strain on our already tight budget to do this. We are asking for $5,000 in funding, which would provide 100 free spay/neuter surgeries for Deschutes County pet owners in need. BSNP will provide free rabies vaccinations for all patients who receive free spay or neuter surgeries. Description of Positive Impact the Goal of Expanding Spay/Neuter Procedures By providing free spay/neuter for those most at risk, we are preventing pet owners from potentially having to surrender their pet or their pet's accidental litters to the shelter. We are preventing low and no income pet owners from having to make the decision of whether to feed themselves or their pet (people usually choose to feed their pet before themselves!). We are making it possible for people who need pets the most, those who are the most vulnerable and those who rely on pets for physical and emotional therapy, to provide them with the basic care they need to stay healthy. Overall, this program would help us to continue to make Central Oregon a more humane community, reaching those most in need of free services through providing free spay/neuter and rabies vaccinations. Anticipated Outcomes of this Program Studies have shown that 85-90% of people who earn over $35K annually will have their pets spayed or neutered. Those who earn less than that are far more likely not to have their pets spayed or neutered because they do not have the discretionary income to do so, or they have misconceptions about the effect the procedure will have on their pet. The puppies and kittens of these unaltered pets are the accidental litters who so often end up in shelters. BSNP would like to help people avoid accidental litters and keep their pets healthy and at home by offering free spay/neuter to those who need it most. We hope that this program will continue to keep pets out of our shelter so that they are able to continue to have such a high live release rate and so that there is a home for every pet in Central Oregon. The program would provide free spay/neuter surgeries for 100 pets in need here in Deschutes County, which could potentially prevent thousands of unwanted puppies and kittens from entering local shelters and rescues. It will also allow BSNP to reach out to more local non -profits to offer free spay/neuter for mutual clients who they identify has having a need for our services. We will measure our success by the intake number at our local open admission shelter, the Humane Society of Central Oregon from the time we receive the grant until 6 months after it ends and compare to numbers from 2016 to determine if our program was successful. :NTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE P. 0. BOX 250E CINCINNATI, OH 45201 Date Aliti 2 5 71105 =7., SPAY & NEUTER 1,R3JE0T c/o spak PO BOX 5983 BEND, OR S7703 Der Applicant: ,,,40a.poefAIA'TRAr ,14Arlor DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Employer Identification Number: 71-097759B DLN 17053211019025 Contact Per5on DEL T1IM8LE 10# 21.3C9 Contact Telephone Number: (077l 9-5500 AccOunting Period Endin. DECEMBER 31 'Public: Charity StAci.JF: 172)h) 11) (A) (vi) F0)rm 990 Rtq'..1i17rd! YES Effective Dat Exemptic,n; jANUARY 26, 2005 Contribution Deductibility: YES Advance Ruling Ending Date: DECEMBER 31, 2009 e aLe pleased to inform you that upon review of your application for tax exempt i'tatus we have determined that you are exempt from Federal income tax -Jnder section Sol(c)3) of the internal Revcilue Code, Contributions to you are ductIb1e under section 170 of the Code. You are a1ea qualfied to receive deductible bequests, devises, transfers or gifts under section 2055, 2106 ;)L- 2522 of the Code, Because this letter could help resolve any questions regardIng your exempt status, you should keep it in your permanent recorlis_ ni2.ations exempt under section 5G1(c)(3) of the Code are further classified ac tIther public charities Of- private foundations, Durin9 your advance ruling period, you will be treated as a public charity. Your advance ruling period begins with the effective date of your exemption and ends with advance ruling ending date shown in the heading of the letter. Shortly before the end of your advance ruling period, we will send you Form 8734, Support Schedule for Advance Ruling Period. You will have 90 days after the end of your advance ruling period to return the completed form. We will then notify you, in writing, about your public charity status. Please see enclosed Information for Exempt Organizations Under Section 501(c)(3) for some helpful information about your responsibilities as an exempt organiratien. Letter 1045 CDO/C(;) Proposed Budget Deschutes County Spay/Neuter Grant Program Item Quantity Cost Amount Requested from Spay/NeuterGrant Cat S/N surgeries 50 $2,250 $2,250 Dog S/N surgeries 50 $2,250 $2,250 Rabies Vac. 100 $200 $0 Donated by BSNP Printing/Advertising N/A $200 $0 Donated by BSNP Total 100 $5,400 $5,400 5:34 PM 01120/17 Accrual Basis BEND SPAY & NEUTER PROJECT Statement of Activities January through December 2016 Jan - Dec 16 Jan - Dec 15 $ Change Ordinary Income/Expense Income Donations Bequests 2,500.00 24,895.95 -22,395.95 Business 41,416.42 17,385.00 24,031,42 Direct Mail 18,102.95 24,263.65 -6,160.70 Expansion Campaign 13,398.19 0.00 13,398.19 Feral 5,210.00 4,123.00 1,087.00 In -Kind Donations 7,135.00 0.00 7,135.00 Individual 46,546.98 52,323.23 -5,776.25 Warm Springs 9,499.56 0.00 9,499.56 Total Donations 143,809.10 122,990.83 20,818.27 Grants Restricted 2,550.57 22,770.00 -20,219.43 Unrestriced 31,985.00 37,040.00 -5,055.00 Total Grants Other Income Employee Purchases Retail Income 34,535.57 59,810.00 -25,274.43 330.93 802.50 Total Other Income 1,133.43 1,735.71 3,951.90 5,687.61 -1,404.78 -3,149.40 -4,554.18 Services Daisy Fund Clinics 31,700.00 0.00 31,700.00 Dog Licenses 8,290.00 8,142.00 148.00 Lab 1,225.00 1,097.50 127.50 Microchip 13,543.50 12,373.50 1,170.00 Other Wellness 32,599.50 31,007.31 1,592.19 Procedures - Cat 41,198.00 32,676.50 8,521.50 Procedures - Dog 84,307.04 80,734,00 3,573.04 Vaccinations 61,294.00 54,647.11 6,646.89 Total Services 274,157.04 220,677.92 53,479.12 Special Events Bark & Recreation 11,482.21 7,234.54 4,247.67 Furball 30,775.99 20,217.31 10,558.68 Other Events 6,152.77 4,164.75 1,988.02 Total Special Events 48,410.97 31,616.60 16,794.37 Total income 502,046.11 440,782.96 61,263.15 Gross Profit 502,046.11 440,782.96 61,263.15 Expense Advertising 6,695.14 7,050.86 -355.72 Bank & Merchant Fees 4,220.27 3,259.87 960.40 Board Designated Funds 0.00 77.49 -77,49 Computers/Software 1,496.20 2,171.00 -674.80 Depreciation Expense 2,227.92 2,640.00 -412,08 Direct Mall (Printing/Postage) 2,602.49 3,341,75 -739.26 Donations Expense 0.00 10.00 -10.00 Dues & Subscriptions 0.00 110.00 -110.00 FacilityMaintanence 1,109.57 2,684.88 -1,575.31 General Supplies 1,411.75 1,733.93 -322.18 In -Kind Services/Supplies 7,135.00 0.00 7,135.00 Liability Insurance 2,610.00 2,454.00 156.00 Licenses/Continuing Education 2,387.57 1,000.00 1,387.57 Moving Expenses 18,593.54 1,400.00 17,193.54 Office Supplies 6,187.67 3,685.77 2,501.90 Outreach/Education 3,121.89 4,484.07 -1,362.18 Page 1 5:34 PM 01120/17 Accrual Basis BEND SPAY & NEUTER PROJECT Statement of Activities January through December 2016 Payroll Expenses Employee Benefits Payroll Service Fees Payroll Tax Expense Salaries & Wages Worker's Comp Payroll Expenses - Other Total Payroll Expenses Jan - Dec 16 Jan - Dec 15 $ Change 8,600.00 7,200.00 1,400.00 714.23 410.07 304.16 25,620.98 19,457,56 6,163.42 237,868.58 214,475.03 23,393.55 3,479.42 3,554.18 -74.76 94.50 168.12 -73.62 276,377.71 245,264.96 31,112.75 Phone/Internet 1,996.12 1,941.91 54.21 Professional Fees Bookkeeping 6,253.00 6,435,46 -182.46 Emerancy Vet Services 2,315.05 512.98 1,802.07 Veterinary Services 1,278.00 1,300.00 -22.00 Total Professional Fees 9,846.05 8,248.44 1,597.61 Program Expenses COCA Clinics 0.00 1,702.23 -1,702.23 Daisy Fund Outsourced Sx 7,801.60 13,417.65 -5,616.05 Daisy Fund Supplies 20,181.09 0.00 20,181.09 Dog License 8,412.65 8,102.00 310.65 Lab Fees 2,019.08 2,388.57 -369.49 Medical Supplies 17,695.94 18,671.95 -976.01 Microchips 3,641.37 3,404.02 237,35 Small Equipment 9,000.23 6,041.77 2,958.46 Vaccines 10,410.58 8,987.36 1,423.22 Veterinary Drugs 8,318.69 11,089.82 -2,771.13 Wellness Supplies 9,550.55 9,936.12 -385.57 Total Program Expenses 97,031.78 83,741.49 13,290.29 Rent 16,864.71 11,895.00 4,969.71 Retail COGS 1,243.00 3,614.60 -2,371.60 Security 611.39 523.74 87,65 Special Event Expenses Beverage Expense 459.87 677.89 -218.02 Entertainment 1,500.00 0.00 1,500.00 Event Planning Expense 1,877.37 2,798.76 -921.39 Facility Rental 2,943.00 1,985.00 958.00 Food Expense 3,885.20 3,214.00 671.20 Licenses 100.00 0.00 100,00 Other Event Expenses 2,786.60 6,014.48 -3,227.88 Total Special Event Expenses 13,552.04 14,690.13 -1,138.09 Staff Appreciation 1,606.92 1,937.35 -330.43 Staff/Board Development 3,751.14 2,852.69 898.45 Utilities 3,931.00 3,529.93 401.07 Volunteer Appreciation 1,246.93 1,396.87 -149.94 Total Expense 487,857.80 415,740.73 72,117.07 Net Ordinary Income 14,188.31 25,042.23 -10,853.92 Other Income/Expense Other Income Interest Income 5.54 5.87 -0.33 Total Other Income 5.54 5.87 -0.33 Net Other Income 5.54 5.87 -0.33 Net Income 14,193.85 25,048.10 -10,854.25 Page 2 2017 Bend Spav+Neuter Project Board Roster 1. Julie Hotchkiss, Board Chair 2. Jessi Princiotto, Board Vice Chair 3. Jade Mayer, Board Director 4. Bonnie Wilson, Board Treasurer 5. Marie Melsheimer, Board Secretary 6. Lori Drew, Board Director BEND SPAY+ NEUTER PROJECT Deschutes County Spay and Neuter Grant Application 2017 A complete application will consist of the following: 1. This cover sheet, signed and dated. 2. Narrative responses to the questions which appear at the end of this document submitted on no more than three separate, single -sided, single-spaced pages. 3. Attachments as follows: a. Proof of the organization's 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status in the form of a letter from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). b. An operating budget specific to the proposed program, project, or activity. c. A financial statement that shows actual total revenue and expenditures for the most recently completed 12 -month period. d. A roster of the organization's current Board of Directors. Submit the completed application electronically to judithu(u�deschuteS.oi•g no later than 5:00 p.m. on April 21, 2017. Late or incomplete applications will not be considered. Information or materials submitted in addition to those specifically requested in this application form will not be reviewed. Contact Information Organization Name _Redmond Humane Society, doing business as BrightSide Animal Center Address 1355 NE Hemlock Ave. City Redmond, OR _ Zip Code 97756 Phone Number 541-923-0882 (shelter) Alternate Phone Number 541-280-5238 (Jan Even) Fax Number 541-923-8609 E -Mail Address jan e(Jan Even) Website brightsideanimals.org By signing below, I certify the following: 1. All information provided to Deschutes County in this application is correct. 2. I am authorized by the governing board of the stated organization to submit this grant application. 3. This organization is in good standing with the IRS and retains its official 501(c)(3) tax- exempt status. 4. This organization is located in Deschutes County. 5. Any proceeds from a grant award will be used in support of Deschutes County residents. Print Name Jan Even Signature Title Vice President Date April 21, 2017 On a separate sheet(s), please briefly answer the following questions: 1. Describe the history of your organization. 2. State the mission of your organization. 3. Describe the leadership and structure of your organization. 4. Describe the primary activities conducted by your organization. 5. Describe the specific program, project, or activity that a Spay and Neuter grant would support, if awarded. 6. Describe how this program, project, or activity would positively impact the goal of promoting or expanding spay and neuter procedures. 7. Explain the anticipated outcomes of this program, project, or activity and describe how success will be measured. Attach: 1. Proof of the organization's 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status in the form of a letter from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). 2. An operating budget specific to the proposed program, project, or activity. 3. A financial statement that shows actual total revenue and expenditures for the most recently completed 12 -month period. 4. A roster of the organization's current Board of Directors. BRIGHTSIDE ANIMAL C E NTE R Deschutes County Spay and Neuter Grant Application 2017 I. History The Humane Society of Redmond, doing business as BrightSide Animal Center, became a 501(c)3 nonprofit in Redmond in 1989, and has operated continuously since then. It opened at its current location about 9 years ago. The organization changed its name to BrightSide Animal Center in 2013 as a result of a study done by the Advertising Federation of Central Oregon, which found that Deschutes County residents sampled believed three things about the organization that all were untrue: a) That it was a branch of the Humane Society of Central Oregon in Bend and received funding from them; b) That it received funding from the Humane Society of the United States; and c) That it served only the Redmond area. All three of these factors were hurting our fundraising efforts, the study found. So a new name was chosen that did not include any specific city or the term "Humane Society." That name change, rebranding, developing innovative programs, relocating our thrift store, introducing an active communications and marketing strategy, launching a new web site, forming a partnership with the COCC Veterinary Technician program, and making changes in the board's stewardship all have made the organization more successful since 2013. 2. Mission BrightSide's mission is to reduce pet homelessness and euthanasia in Deschutes County by providing placement and sheltering for homeless companion animals and by providing spay -neuter services to shelter animals, owned pets, and feral cats. These services include the Trap -Neuter -Release program to reduce the feral cat population that we participate in as part of the Central Oregon Cat Alliance, in which we partner with Bend Spay Neuter Project and the Humane Society of Central Oregon. It also includes a low-cost spay and neuter clinic that we until this month provided two days a week; now it is one day a week. We are proud of the success of our high -save mission. Our live -release rate of 98.8% in 2016 is one of the highest in Oregon and the nation (higher than Humane Society of Central Oregon and equal to that of the Oregon Humane Society, both of which are much better -funded than BrightSide) and far exceeds both the statewide average of 80 percent and nationwide average of 68 percent.* PO Box 1404, Redmond, OR 97756 a 501c3 not for profit 3. Leadership and structure Our organization is governed by a Board of Directors, all of whom are unpaid volunteers. We have three key leaders among the paid staff: Shelter Manager Patricia Bowling; Thrift Store Manager Teresa Daily; and our staff veterinarian, Joy Gyorgyfalvy, DVM. 4. Activities Our activities include: • Providing adoption, foster placement, transfer placement, necessary care, shelter, medical treatment, spay - neuter and needed training for homeless animals. • Providing enrichment for shelter animals such as walking, grooming, off -leash play, doggie day-care visits and needed training for dogs, and socialization, grooming and time at liberty with toys and human companionship out of cages for cats. • Returning lost pets to their owners. • Providing low-cost spay -neuter surgery for pets of Central Oregon residents, and for feral cats. • Fostering puppies and kittens until they are old enough to be adopted. • Through our innovative "fospice" program, fostering in volunteers' homes animals that are too old or chronically ill to be candidates for adoption. • Through the Central Oregon Cat Alliance, trapping, neutering and releasing feral cats. • Educating residents about responsible pet ownership. • Serving as a "pound" for the City of Redmond Police and the Deschutes County Sheriff. • Selling dog licenses on behalf of Deschutes County. • Operating a thrift store. • Operating a can and bottle recycling program. • Raising money. • Supervising court -mandated volunteers as well as general -population volunteers, including youths. • We also participate with Wings of Rescue (volunteer pilots) to rescue dogs from California that would otherwise be euthanized. In 2016 we also partnered with the Humane Society of the United States to rescue dogs from South Korea that were being raised for the meat trade; all were successfully rehabilitated at BrightSide and adopted. 5. Specific activities the grant would support • Spay -neuter surgeries for strays received from animal -control authorities and the public. Every animal BrightSide adopts out is neutered first (except for puppies and kittens, whose adopters bring them back when they are old enough for the surgery). This is a critical part of our mission. • Low-cost spay & neuter services for pets of county residents (we charge less than local veterinarians and our modest fees do not cover our costs). We would concentrate financial support from the grant on giving significant discounts for Deschutes County residents on spays of dogs, as that is the most expensive spay -neuter service. PO Box 1404, Redmond, OR 97756 a 501c3 not for profit • Awareness of our spay and neuter services. Our first priority is funding for direct spay -neuter services. We would rebroadcast previously produced TV commercials promoting spay -neuter if funds permit. • Our trap -neuter -release program for feral cats. The grant would support BrightSide's direct expenses for this program, which include the cost of trapping, putting on the town -hall type meetings the Central Oregon Cat Alliance holds in Deschutes County to build awareness about the TNR program, and the cost of performing spay - neuter in our surgical suite. We also address this need through our participation in the Central Oregon Cat Alliance, which also is a grant applicant. 6. Positive impact of those activities • To continue to provide convenient, low-cost spay -neuter services to residents of Deschutes County, especially the northern part of the county. These services are at risk because we lose money providing them. If we were unable to continue, county residents would only be able to obtain such services in Bend, which would be an obstacle for many residents of the northern county. • To assure that every animal adopted from BrightSide (well over 1,000 animals per year) is spayed or neutered. • To improve awareness of the importance of spay and neuter not only to reduce the unwanted pet population but also to improve pets' health and longevity. • To potentially leverage additional funds. In each of the past two years, we came close to the threshold of eligibility to apply for a $100,000 Lifesaving Award from the Petco Foundation. If we are able to handle about 15% more animals than we did last year (including temporary intake for surgery, as well as adoption), we would be eligible to apply for this major grant. Doing more spay -neuters would help us reach that threshold. • To reduce the feral cat population in Deschutes County, and especially in the Redmond area. 7. Anticipated outcomes and how they would be measured So far this year we have received fewer complaints about feral cats than we had at this time last year. We believe that is because our Central Oregon Cat Alliance partnership has had some success in reducing the feral cat population. Therefore we would not necessarily expect to trap -neuter -release more cats in 2017 than we did in 2016, because we believe the population has been reduced at least somewhat. We believe it's important to continue to trap -neuter - release even when the problem is less severe or the population is declining. We will track where feral cats have come from so that any hot spots can be identified. Demand for spay -neuter surgery at BrightSide by the public for their owned pets has increased compared to last year. While we cannot be certain why, we believe our efforts to promote spay -neuter has had some impact. While more demand for spay -neuter is a good thing, it has caused some problems for BrightSide because it has meant that spay - neuter surgery for shelter animals often has been delayed in order to accommodate the public's animals. In some cases this has meant that animals that have been adopted are still in the shelter awaiting surgery, or have to return for surgery. That is NOT what we want. So we recently decided to reduce the number of days for public surgery from two per week to one, so that our veterinary staff can keep current with spay -neuters of shelter animals so they can go to new homes as quickly as possible. The majority of animals adopted at BrightSide go to homes in Deschutes County, so even when we focus more of our resources on shelter animals we still are striving to increase the percentage of Deschutes County animals that are neutered. We will consider reinstating a second day of surgeries for the public's animals if our veterinary staff consistently is able to keep current with surgery for shelter animals. PO Box 1404, Redmond, OR 97756 a 501c3 not for profit *Per animal -welfare industry standard statistics, live release rate = percentage of animals adopted, returned to owner, or transferred to another organization as a percentage of total outcomes for all animals received. PO Box 1404, Redmond, OR 97756 a 501c3 not for profit Date: June 9, 2006 HUMANE SOCIETY OF REDMOND PO BOX 1404 REDMOND OR 97756-0400 Dear Sir or Madam: Department of the Treasury P. O. Box 2508 Cincinnati, OH 45201 Person to Contact: Janet M. Duncan 31-07676 Correspondence Specialist/Screener Toll Free Telephone Number: 877-829-5500 Federal Identification Number: 93-0976110 This is in response to your request of June 9, 2006, regarding your organization's tax- exempt status. In November 1989 we issued a determination letter that recognized your organization as exempt from federal income tax. Our records indicate that your organization is currently exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Our records indicate that your organization is also classified as a public charity under section 509(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code. Our records indicate that contributions to your organization are deductible under section 170 of the Code, and that you are qualified to receive tax deductible bequests, devises, transfers or gifts under section 2055, 2106 or 2522 of the Internal Revenue Code. If you have any questions, please call us at the telephone number shown in the heading of this letter. Sincerely, 144vA-1-,i6t) Janna K. Skufca, Director, TE/GE Customer Account Services 1 BSAC Spay Neuter Program for July -December 2017 ASSUMPTIONS 1) S -N on shelter and public's animals during 6 -month period will be equal to one-half of annual total. 2) BrightSide's spay -neuter rates set Jan. 1, 2017, remain in effect through Dec. 31. 3) Surgery on the public's owned pets remains limited to one day per week through 2017. INCOME Fees paid by public (25% of 2016 annual spay -neuter clinic revenue, due to half as many public's surgery days in second half of 2017 as there were in second half of 2016) Grant requested from Deschutes County Spay Neuter Program $ 12,000 $ 2,500 Other S -N grants (does not include $7,265 S -N grant from Petsmart Charities received in first half of 2017) $ TOTAL $ 14,500 EXPENSE S -N surgeries (400 @ $55 per animal average) Additional airtime for previously produced commercials promoting spay -neuter Trapping feral cats in Redmond area Posters & print collateral Town hall meeting re feral cats (room rental) $ 22,000 $ 2,000 $ 100 $ 200 $ 200 TOTAL $ 24,500 Net for Spay Neuter Program July through December $ (10,000) 4:02 PM 03/21/17 Accrual Basis BrightSide Animal Center Profit & Loss January through December 2016 Ordinary Income/Expense Income 4302-29 • Holiday Ask Letter 11-2016 T-shirt sales 4400-00 • GRANTS 4000-00 • FUNDRAISING 4100-00 • THRIFT STORE INCOME 4300-00 • SHELTER OPERATIONS 4302-00 • DONATIONS & MEMBERSHIPS 126,873.15 4303-00 • MISCELLANEOUS 78.51 4304-00 • COUNTY INCOME 48,109.94 4305-00 • CITY INCOME 33,750.00 4306-00 • ADOPTIONS 88,212.22 4307-00 • VETERINARY SERVICES 48,072.05 4308-00 • Refundable deposits 411.50 4309-00 • OS/Intake 4,825.29 4310-00 • Return to Owner 9,150.00 4311-00 • Boarding 645.00 4314-00 • Miscellaneous Income 2,526.95 Jan - Dec 16 47,473.52 219.00 35,038.00 93,203.62 496,357.43 Total 4300-00 • SHELTER OPERATIONS 362,654.61 Total Income 1,034, 946.18 Gross Profit 1,034,946.18 Expense 6400-00 • ADMINISTRATION 6100-00 • THRIFT STORE EXPENSES 6000-00 • FUNDRAISING EXPENSES 6300-00 • SHELTER EXPENSES Total Expense Net Ordinary Income Net Income 8,550.40 343,608.42 33,876.12 687,593.17 1,073,628.11 -38,681.93 -38,681.93 Page 1 BRIGHTSIDE ANIMAL C E NTE R �ner7: rhf 1-111(.0, SOCICIy of Rrdmund Board of Directors Mark Crose, president & treasurer Jan Even, vice president Abigail Kimbell, secretary Jerry Boysen, member Danica Eisenman, member Jessica Leuker Fleming, member PO Box 1404, Redmond, OR 97756 a 501c3 not for profit Deschutes County Spay and Neuter Grant Application 2017 A complete application will consist of the following: 1. This cover sheet, signed and dated. 2. Narrative responses to the questions which appear at the end of this document submitted on no more than three separate, single -sided, single-spaced pages. 3. Attachments as follows: a. Proof of the organization's 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status in the form of a letter from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). b. An operating budget specific to the proposed program, project, or activity. c. A financial statement that shows actual total revenue and expenditures for the most recently completed 12 -month period. d. A roster of the organization's current Board of Directors. Submit the completed application electronically to judithu@deschutes.org no later than 5:00 p.m. on April 21, 2017. Late or incomplete applications will not be considered. Information or materials submitted in addition to those specifically requested in this application form will not be reviewed. Contact Information Organization Name Furry Friends Foundation, Inc. Address 442 E. Main Ave. / PO Box 1175 City Sisters Zip Code 97759 Phone Number 541-549-9941 Alternate Phone Number 541-480-3201 Fax Number 541-549-9940 E -Mail Address info@furryfriendsfoundation.org Website www.furryfriendsfoundation.org By signing below, I certify the following: 1. All information provided to Deschutes County in this application is correct. 2. I am authorized by the governing board of the stated organization to submit this grant application. 3. This organization is in good standing with the IRS and retains its official 501(c)(3) tax- exempt status. 4. This organization is located in Deschutes County. 5. Any proceeds from a grant award will be used in support of Deschutes County residents. Print Name Kiki Dolson Signature K;k Z c/soh Title President "Top Dog" Date 4/14/2017 On a separate sheet(s), please briefly answer the following questions: 1. Describe the history of your organization. 2. State the mission of your organization. 3. Describe the leadership and structure of your organization. 4. Describe the primary activities conducted by your organization. 5. Describe the specific program, project, or activity that a Spay and Neuter grant would support, if awarded. 6. Describe how this program, project, or activity would positively impact the goal of promoting or expanding spay and neuter procedures. 7. Explain the anticipated outcomes of this program, project, or activity and describe how success will be measured. Attach: 1. Proof of the organization's 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status in the form of a letter from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). 2. An operating budget specific to the proposed program, project, or activity. 3. A financial statement that shows actual total revenue and expenditures for the most recently completed 12 -month period. 4. A roster of the organization's current Board of Directors. "Not all pets in need are homeless, some just need a helping paw." www.furryfriendsfoundation.org 1 EIN: 45-2352228 PO Box 698 1 Sisters, OR 97759 I 541-549-9941 I email: info@furryfriendsfoundation.org April 14, 2017 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners Deschutes County Spay & Neuter Grant Program PO Box 6005 Bend, OR 97701-6005 Deschutes County Spay & Neuter Grant Program Application Answers to requested questions... 1. History of Organization Furry Friends Foundation first began as the Furry Friends Pet Food Drive in 1992 with cooperation from Sisters Kiwanis Club and Sisters -Camp Sherman RFPD, both located in Sisters, Oregon. The holiday pet food drive application includes requests for spay/neuter sponsorships, then is distributed through the Kiwanis Food Share program, which includes children's toys and gifts collected through the Sisters Fire Department. Families in need for the drive are identified through the Sisters Kiwanis applications as low income. The drive continues today with Furry Friends feeding an average of 350 pets per holiday drive over the past 10 years. In March of 2012 Furry Friends Foundation (FFF) expanded its pet food bank and spay/neuter sponsorship services to year-round and became a 501(c)(3) organization known formally as Furry Friends Foundation, Inc. Our support and funding includes The Roundhouse Foundation, World Vision and the Deschutes Co. Spay & Neuter Grant Program. We raise other funds year-round primarily through donations, fundraisers, and our bottle -and -can drive. 2. Mission It is our mission to help pets remain in their homes through sponsorship of spay/neuter surgeries, by operating a pet food bank, and by offering monetary assistance for pet emergency medical needs to families in financial hardship. We are dedicated to improving the welfare of pets in Sisters, Oregon. 3. Leadership and Structure The nonprofit is operated out of The Nugget Newspaper office in Sisters. There is no charge for rent. It is open four days a week for families to apply for services supplied and sponsored by Furry Friends. Applications for spay and neuter sponsorships, wellness services, and medical assistance are completed here. Our focus is the area encompassing a 10 -mile radius within the Sisters School District; with an estimated population of 8,000, Furry Friends Foundation is the sole nonprofit in Sisters, Oregon aiding pets and their families. There is a core group of approximately 10 volunteers. No individual is paid a salary for his or her time by Furry Friends Foundation. There are three board members: Kiki Dolson, Teresa Mahnken, and Leith Williver. (See attached roster.) 4. Primary Activities a. Spay & Neuter Sponsorships: Both dog and cat. Individuals fill out a simple application form for sponsorship. We have a partnership with Bend Spay & Neuter Project where the surgeries are actually performed. We notify Bend Spay & Neuter to add the family to the Furry Friends sponsorship list. The family then makes the appointment and transports their pet. Vaccinations, worming, chipping, and nail trim are also often sponsored at this time. Bend Spay & Neuter then charges Furry Friends for the surgery and services. b. Vaccinations: We sponsor vaccinations through the Bend Spay & Neuter Saturday Wellness Clinics. Often the only thing keeping a family from licensing their dog is a rabies shot. They are unable to afford a visit to the veterinary clinic for this service, so this paves the way for them to license their pet. Furry Friends also sponsors the licensing fee when requested. c. 2 Pet Food Banks: We maintain a pet food bank at The Nugget office, with the bulk of the food distributed through the pet food bank we maintain at the Kiwanis Food Bank. We order approximate one ton of food monthly for the pet food bank. d. Financial Medical Assistance: The family fills out an application for medical assistance for their pet. Each application is evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Based on that evaluation the family is referred most often to Crooked Tails Veterinary Clinic in Prineville. Crooked Tails is able to offer excellent care at reduced cost. If the family is unable to transport their pet out of the area, they are referred to one of the three veterinarians in Sisters. We work with Sisters Veterinary, Broken Top Veterinary and Black Butte Veterinary. We begin with a $100 cap to cover the exam and any lab or medicine. After the first visit we re-evaluate the level of sponsorship based on the pet's needs and family's ability to pay. e. Misc. services - We handle many individual requests for a pet needing a coat, leash or collar, nail clipping, e -collar, prescription or allergy diet, to lost -and -found pet listings posted on our Facebook page. We offer euthanasia/community burial sponsorships through Central Oregon Humane Society. 5. Grant Program — "The Fix is FREE" We are planning to continue our spay/neuter though 2017 changing the campaign title to "The Fix is Free." We've discovered that using the word "Free" as opposed to "spoon-fed by" nets the most responses. The campaign will be marketed (at no charge) through stories and weekly display advertising in The Nugget Newspaper. Further promotion will include flyers attached to the food bags distributed at the pet food bank, and through social media including Facebook. 6. Program Impact Continuing this program aids us in reaching every Sisters area resident needing spay and neutering services. Part of the campaign will be to emphasize that an altered pet is a healthier pet. We have an individual that aids in trapping feral cats. We occasionally have to turn down sponsorships from families living in the Bend and Redmond area but who may work in Sisters or have family that live here. With this grant we would be able to allocate a portion directly to families that fall under that scenario. 7. Outcome: We are confident we can continue to aid the Sisters community by reducing the feral cat and unwanted pet population. And with this aid help families keep their pets healthy, in their homes, and out of the crowded Central Oregon shelters. We respectively request a $3,000 grant from Deschutes County. Thank you for your consideration, 6;<„;;-: Kiki Dotson www.furryfriendsfoundation.org INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE P. 0. BOX 2508 CINCINNATI, OH 45201 MAR2R?x12 Date: FURRY FRIENDS FOUNDATION INCORPORATED C/O KATHLEEN DOLSON PO BOX 698 SISTERS, OR 97759-0698 Dear Applicant: DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Employer Identification Number: 45-2352228 DLN: 17053320354011 Contact Person: PETER A ORLETT Contact Telephone Number: (877) 829-5500 Accounting Period Ending: December 31 Public Charity Status: 170(b) (1) (A) (vi) Form 990 Required: Yes Effective Date of Exemption: May 16, 2011 Contribution Deductibility: Yes Addendum Applies: No ID# 31436 We are pleased to inform you that upon review of your application for tax exempt status we have determined that you are exempt from Federal income tax under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Contributions to you are deductible under section 170 of the Code. You are also qualified to receive tax deductible bequests, devises, transfers or gifts under section 2055, 2106 or 2522 of the Code. Because this letter could help resolve any questions regarding your exempt status, you should keep it in your permanent records. Organizations exempt under as either public charities a public charity under the letter. section 501(c)(3) of the Code are further classified or private foundations. We determined that you are Code section(s) listed in the heading of this Please see enclosed Publication 4221 -PC, Compliance Guide for 501(c)(3) Public Charities, for some helpful information about your responsibilities as an exempt organization. Letter 947 (DO/CG) -2 - FURRY FRIENDS FOUNDATION Enclosure: Publication 4221 -PC Sincerely, Lois G. Lerner Director, Exempt Organizations Letter 947 (DO/CG) "Not all pets in need are homeless, some just need a helping paw." www.furryfriendsfoundation.org I EIN: 45-2352228 PO Box 698 1 Sisters, OR 97759 I 541-549-9941 I email: info@furryfriendsfoundation.org "The Fix is Free" Campaign Budget In 2016 we sponsored about the same number of dogs and cats for a total of 53 animals. We fell just 13% short of reaching our 2016 goal. Now that we have begun including the word FREE in our campaign headlines, our numbers for 2017 are up in the first quarter. Considering the weather in January and February that shows a positive trend for reaching more pet own- ers in 2017. With that in mind we have set a goal of 70 animals for this year. Goal: 70 Spay/Neuters Pricing: Cat Male - $35 Cat Female - $40 Average Cost per Cat = $37.50 Dog Male - $50 + $10 e -collar Dog Female - $60 + $10 e -collar Average Cost per Dog = $65 Projected Cost for 70 pets (30 cats, 30 dogs) Cats - $1312.50 Dogs - $2275 Total projected Campaign Cost = $3,587.50 Total Estimated Cost = $3587.50 Funding from... Deschutes Co. Grant award < $3,000 > Furry Friends Foundation Contribution < $587.50 > Balance -0- Average Cost to Deschutes County to spay/neuter 35 dogs/35cats (70 pets) = $42.86 per animal 1 Stop by The Nugget office to fill out a short form 2 Call Bend Spay & Neuter for the appointment 3 Take your pet — Furry Friends pays. Done! Ask about our vaccination sponsorships too! www.furryfriendsfoundation.org 4/14/17 11:48:29 AM Furry Friends Foundation, Inc. PO Box 698 Sisters, OR 97759 Profit & Loss Statement January 2016 through December 2016 Income Donations $7,916.39 Donation - In Memory $150.00 Quilt Raffle Tickets FR $2,223.25 Pet Coats FR $15.00 Christmas Painted Ornaments FR $65.00 Doggie Dash $85.00 Taste of Sisters $997.00 Ray's Access Reward Card Funds $1,366.48 Amazon Smile $55.73 Donations Events $176.60 Donations Santa Photos $1,207.00 OBRC Bottle/Can Recycle $4,906.60 Grants other $1,250.00 Roundhouse Grant $2,000.00 Deschutes Co. Grant $2,850.00 Total Income Cost of Sales Food / Treats / Beds & Toys Pet Food $4,483.87 Beds / Toys / Collars / Coats $1,127.80 Dog Licenses / Chips /Nails $289.00 Total Food / Treats / Beds & Toys Medical Spay & Neuter $2,649.00 Immunizations $1,347.00 Sisters Vet $825.66 Black Butte Vet $100.00 Broken Top Vet $100.00 Crooked Tails $1,466.65 Humane Society of Central Oreg $85.00 Medical Vets misc $534.00 Total Medical Fundraisers Christmas Ornaments FR cost $7.98 Fundraiser Supplies cost $307.31 Total Fundraisers Online & Fees Online costs $173.54 Square Fees $37.58 Paypal fees $53.70 Total Online & Fees Total Cost of Sales $5,900.67 $7,107.31 $315.29 $264.82 $25,264.05 $13,588.09 Gross Profit $11,675.96 Expenses Supplies $108.93 Promotion/Public Relations $225.00 Liability Insurance $1,495.00 State Corp Fees $50.00 4/14/17 11:48:29 AM Furry Friends Foundation, Inc. Profit & Loss Statement January 2016 through December 2016 Postage & Shipping Licenses & Fees Bottle/Can Bins/Trailer Total Expenses Operating Profit Other Income Interest Income Total Other Income Other Expenses $200.00 $25.00 $235.96 $2,339.89 $5.66 $9,336.07 $5.66 Net Profit / (Loss) $9,341.73 PO Box 698 1 Sisters, Oregon 97759 EIN: 45-2352228 Furry Friends Foundation Board of Directors: Kiki Dolson, President PO Box 1175 Sisters, OR 97759 (Kiki is the publisher of The Nugget Newspaper) Teresa Mahnken, Secretary/Treasurer 69434 Lasso Sisters, OR 97759 Leith Williver, Director PO Box 1792 Sisters, OR 97759 Deschutes County Spay and Neuter Grant Application 2017 A complete application will consist of the following: 1. This cover sheet, signed and dated. 2. Narrative responses to the questions which appear at the end of this document submitted on no more than three separate, single -sided, single-spaced pages. 3. Attachments as follows: a. Proof of the organization's 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status in the form of a letter from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). b. An operating budget specific to the proposed program, project, or activity. c. A financial statement that shows actual total revenue and expenditures for the most recently completed 12 -month period. d. A roster of the organization's current Board of Directors. Submit the completed application electronically to judithu@deschutes.org no later than 5:00 p.m. on April 21, 2017. Late or incomplete applications will not be considered. Information or materials submitted in addition to those specifically requested in this application form will not be reviewed. Contact Information Organization Name VtvAAt„1 ,oc 0-zu Address 1p 1110 City N Zip Code 977° r -- Phone Number 54 1 " 3 r 353T Alternate Phone Number Fax Number 2-- 2,07i E -Mail Address SAg 4 SU , OR --&- Website Wv4J 1"J • It -k 5 w �' �' By signing below, I certify the following: 1. All information provided to Deschutes County in this application is correct. 2. I am authorized by the governing board of the stated organization to submit this grant application. 3. This organization is in good standing with the IRS and retains its official 501(c)(3) tax- exempt status. 4. This organization is located in Deschutes County. 5. Any proceeds from a grant award will be used in support of Deschutes County residents. Print Name Signature Title Date c/1-6 (IA N{" g�V.J".� �kE-wii1. D LI(2.,)/( On a separate sheet(s), please briefly answer the following questions: I. Describe the history of your organization. 2. State the mission of your organization. 3. Describe the leadership and structure of your organization. 4. Describe the primary activities conducted by your organization. 5. Describe the specific program, project, or activity that a Spay and Neuter grant would support, if awarded. 6. Describe how this program, project, or activity would positively impact the goal of promoting or expanding spay and neuter procedures. 7. Explain the anticipated outcomes of this program, project, or activity and describe how success will be measured. Attach: 1. Proof of the organization's 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status in the form of a letter from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). 2. An operating budget specific to the proposed program, project, or activity. 3. A financial statement that shows actual total revenue and expenditures for the most recently completed 12 -month period. 4. A roster of the organization's current Board of Directors. Humane Society of Central Oregon — 2017 Spay and Neuter Grant Organization History The Humane Society of Central Oregon (HSCO) began as the Deschutes County Humane Society in 1961, as an all -volunteer organization. 2017 marks our 56`" year of service to the county. In 1978, our former shelter was built by volunteers to be a temporary 10 -year facility. The administration area was added on in 1983 with a bequest. The crematory was a necessary addition in 1994. Our current shelter was built in 2005 and encompasses over 11,000 square feet. The original shelter was torn down to make room for our play yard. In 2015, HSCO expanded and enhanced our cattery, creating additional space and more comfort for the cats and kittens while they wait to find their forever homes. We immediately saw a reduction in the time cats were at the shelter before being adopted, and an improvement in their playfulness and sociability. Today we serve over 3,000 animals annually on average. Between the shelter facility and the Thrift Store in Bend, HSCO has over 40 employees and generates substantial economic activity in Deschutes County. Mission Strengthening the human -animal bond by advocating and compassionately caring for animals. Leadership, Structure, and Board Sabrina Slusser has been the Executive Director of the Humane Society of Central Oregon since March 2011 and has extensive experience in non-profit management. The management team consists of a Shelter Manager, an Operations Director, an Outreach Manager, a Volunteer Manager, a Development Director, a Thrift Store Manager, a Lead Shelter Veterinarian, and a Transfer/Foster Coordinator. HSCO has a strong and active board, with a good mix of backgrounds and skills. They all have a love for animals and an interest in furthering the mission and good work of HSCO. Primary Activities HSCO serves companion animals and residents of Deschutes County by: o Providing physical, medical, and behavioral care for thousands of abandoned, neglected and abused companion animals each year. o Adopting companion animals into loving responsible homes. o Providing a lost and found reporting program. o Serving as a dog licensing and renewal site. County cat ID tags available. o Offering humane education programs to schools, organizations and at community events. o Providing a Spay/Neuter Assistance Program and vouchers. o Offering volunteer opportunities for adults, organizations, and community service youth programs. o Providing full service private cremation of companion animals. o Providing a pet food assistance program to pet owners with demonstrated financial need. o Conducting owner -requested euthanasia. o Serving as a community service program for court mandated adult programs. o Giving shelter tours & presentations to interested individuals and groups. Specific Program or Project that Grant will Support Many people come to HSCO every month to buy vouchers in the Spay and Neuter Assistance Program (SNAP). This program allows community members to pay only a portion of the spay or neuter costs for their pets. Funding is shared by HSCO, participating veterinarians, and the voucher recipients (who pay roughly half of the surgery costs for the voucher). In the past, HSCO was able to meet the demand for the vouchers, but in recent years has had to scale back funding for this program. As a result, we can only offer about 28-30 vouchers per month (monthly HSCO budget of $750). The demand for these vouchers is far greater than that amount — every month, we routinely sell out of the vouchers by the 2nd or 3rd day of the month, turning many people away. Funding will allow us to significantly increase the number of SNAP vouchers offered. The need is greatest for vouchers for dogs, in particular, which also represent higher voucher costs than cats. Positive Impact on Goal of Promoting or Expanding Spay and Neuter Services Additional funding would allow HSCO to significantly expand spay and neuter services available in Deschutes County. An allocation of $3,000, for example, would allow us to offer over 9 additional dog vouchers per month, resulting in over 100 additional dogs being spayed or neutered annually. Since the SNAP program is targeted towards pet owners experiencing financial hardship, these are spay and neuter surgeries that likely would not be performed without these vouchers. This outcome would have a dramatic impact by decreasing the number of unwanted litters of kittens and puppies throughout Deschutes County. Anticipated Outcomes and Measurement of Success We expect that these additional vouchers will sell quickly every month, resulting in the 100 additional annual spays and neuters described above. Also, as far as utilization of the vouchers, it is clearly in the best interest of the purchaser to get the surgery, as they are paying part of the cost and are not likely to purchase it if they don't intend to use it. Success will be measured by tracking the number of voucher sales per month, as well as utilization. HSCO gets billed by the participating veterinarians for the surgeries performed, so utilization tracking is already in place. JAN -30-2001 09:49 I ttxn I P.eve,nue Service PUrallig & Sped:1Ccordination Stag EP/E i+.y: Ja - S! • P.O. ppz S's33 Izasl gees, CA 80532380 • HUMANE SOCIETY OF CENTRAL 0IR=GON SPCA 61170 SE 27TH ST 8E VD, OR. 97702 RE: .Gentlemen: P.02 EF'/EO Disclosure Desk P.O. Sox 2350 Los Angeles, CA 9005:3 Person to Contact: Felicia C. Mirafior Telephone Number: (213)894-4292 Refer Reply to: 89-833 Oate : MAR 81 1989 93-0616957 HUMANE SOCIETY OF CENTRAL OREGON SPCA Tt is is in response to your request for a determination 1 tter of the above-named organization. A•,review of our records indicates that the above-named 6Tgani'zation was recognized to be exempt from Federal income x in February 1977, as an organization described in II terna•1 Revenue Code section 501(c)(3). It is further . c •assified as an organization that is not a private f ndation as defined in section 509(a) of the code, because is an organization described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(vi). 4 are not however, able to provide you with a copy of the e(empt'fon letter at this time. The determination letter issued on February 1977 continues to be in effect. If you are in need of further assistance, please feel free to ntac t me at the above address. e appreciate your cooperation in this regard. Sincerely, Disclosure Assistant Humane Society of Central Oregon Spay/Neuter Grant 2017 - Project Budget Cost per SNAP voucher, male dog Cost per SNAP voucher, female dog Annual cost of 60 male dog vouchers Annual cost of 50 female dog vouchers Total annual cost $25 $30 $1,500 $1,500 $3,000 Amount of request $3,000 $ Over Budget Q o O�� CO l N C = aw (1)� N 0 Wto .� N r w C 0 Accrual Basis Jul '15 - Jun 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 rMOOOOt�hf�h0 NO OD6r V 0000 VN VNN 00 00 r O r 0 0 0 h V M O O mo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1�0 rr m0cDmoo6<-6hN N O V O CON 0-0) 000)000 r. -r -(D ..... r M C))000 V 000(0000 V h0 00Or O)O.-O V OOh000 OO CO 00 O) O O O h 0000 M 00 N0 V V r O N COM 00 (D O Or . . . . . O000) GOONO (N0 hu') h0 O V O GO Oh O 0)o h (A MOr M MO coNO (DN Cl O p(. N V M p V NOhM V NCDO M hNNhN Oi N 0O NN O 1Oh V r TM 00 0-04- 0 r N OO r "-CST T 0) O r r (0 0) N. M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O p 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 O O O O O O O r 0 O 0) 00 0 0 O O O O O O O O CO 0 0 0000 V V hG OO 00 000 MO CD p00 00100 W (n ON h O ON (O MO Ori W MONO OO OM MrCD V r 0 NV r 0))0 V r (DN r(O CO .„- 0 01 (()0) 00 V 000 N 000 V O M O 0000000000000 V 001.000 x 00000? O 00 N O O N M O Q O p C30 CD Dt[)OrOh WMOO (000r 0000 N 0) (f) 0 N- 0 M 00 N 0)000 (V 0000f) n. 007 ti 00 h O N 0 (O N OD MOrOM COOOh0V co N M([) VOOOVMNO UlM O V C4 est co CD ' Vt OOONN rN T- 01 OODhr0 CO CV V rr N000 hh0N- hr h rM CD h N 000 Wu) M M 0)NOr.-(D MO hr(O V r M r V rMr0 (D MN rN. NT- T - r r V. r CO y 0 = v N V-0 w E IJL :' E aU0>CE d � °i cv )V 1-42'E '° o y E E o Q O):: Y> 6) w w d C tom m Ay) „ -ace N E N C y 0 CQ) C C Q a d z, N =O 2 0 0 0( 0 C 0) N N N In D w ` C 0 ip J x a C= t > y C N ow c-oo._ Z � 2 o ma =ALL, dr, _ :3y >,cw= o N I0 0— on cV =wwww d-. ON o v E E . . . 5m c w Ew',a�p E w C a) y J y -.9.9.2.2 LL a .0. T o 0 0 G C C z a d p W g F- y V x O 'O a. 0 z, LL ty0 (a+9 N (0 CDU G. U w x> C C O O O, d i7 Ip b N C= C w a . ..._ = E E E E E = e(084 . _ = w (a (a R m o• Udo (.$ y 'm v0000(ooxoh. 0wL. ww�215,=wz��00000( .m .3gmcr EammmUUwoUUUU-J2axvix(nc7c�00000CLWCO 0 Mt-MV)0 0 0 0 O N C E r r L` o V V C c 0 M- CD CD M N N M M (0 (0 (D (0 (00 (0 h h h h 00 0) 0) 0)) 00) O) 0 0 V O) O O M M CD CD N O. O 0) O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 r N V' et r- a 0) vvvvvavvvavvvvvavavvvvavav.r M O 2,051,852.04 Total Income O N 2,000,256.00 2,051,852.04 Gross Profit $ Over Budget O eQd d o a m is 6 N 9 d c y3. VI .c O 3 L!JAry 2 sr 13 07 Lf) O O N Jul '15 - Jun 16 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 e o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 et 00000 OD Up r- OMcep OMO Cn O et C) et.-NNh00 CnN U)MNe- O U)00 CC) (0e -CD 6 u OOe-(DO M et O)MO(O O h60 ui ON MON U) (n U) O co et N U) O et O) O) U) U)h Ui e} 4 u ON co 03 04 CDO O) O(() OO CD M O M OO) N et hNOhO U)N N N- O) O) O) Cn U) 00 O CO N W NM O)O)O N CO OD O O CD N00 QO e- t()NOOM U) CC)O CO et O O O O) CO W O CO CO 00 COT - M NCD et M O)O e-hM r- h(00(00 CO CA Ca CD66 U)rO hOOO et N P O h U) hN Oet O)et 4U)Nhr N,t 0000 t+OO ca(D Cn U)O)OU)00 On OOet O O Ui N CD 000( ON U) M W MU)M M U)U)N et W (D 00et OI:O(O 6i6 O OO U)hN MO hU)U)N W U)M CDCOOM up CO NU) CO U) CD 4.0 CO C- CD et O U)M M et U) et lC) U) CO ON 0) 6(D MN u; r- CD (A nM MNe-00r CD et CD M e- 6 OO et N et hN M Cn U) et of NN (n M Ne- e- NSU) ) NN NNCD i N CC)M O) l!)a0 co 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Q O 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O Q O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 u 6600 0070000600 CT fV 00000 O O O O N O M C7 Ci CD C7 o(0 O 6 Ui e!' el O Ui UiO h U)U)(O et OOOOCD U) 000)U)M OO et hOOOhONOOO U)OM et M CO M O CO 6)o0N X0000) M N M CD (D 00 et h O(O co CD et CD O)C00CD U)mW O O N N M N r CO CO MN CC)h et(D CD etN (D CV- r: N e -NN Ui LK C» r: 05 O N M QCO N CO M M Ci00i M m(D N enr: O CV MNN et CON 0D N N O O N CO O O Cn CC) N CD O h U) U) O (D CO O O 61 et C>D CO (O N CO Cn N CD h N et h Ch O O) M (C) N N et O U)CAW 0)C3) OO etCOU)e- ONOOOethOON U) N N O et CA U)(ry et h N OD N U) as CD0)Cn 0610 Ui Ui e - U'1 6 r` 00 a (i V CO O Ch[A M O O Cn CO 00 V ri Ui V CO M4 Vr- Cn (0 00 N CLi 60 6 6O CD et U) h et OMOO V.. OCONO OCD (OMh6et O M CD etO U) CD M CO 04 Q (D U) h O)O U) ep ev M(0 MO W h M N CD N CO co et et O(D CD e -CD NCD (OO C>0 etU)cp. (D e- r- M 00 CA (D O OCD r- r) M OD et h et U) et N e- U) e- 0) .- M N 10 Cn N MO � M N of M N V N- ,f M O 05,- Co V N N M (0 et N V eT (D N .-- c- e- N r .-- e - w 7 0. X CO 0CU 0 e4mr W C O N al 00 E ��"' V 11 O. 'y y N y 0) y d d I ^® O d 0 o W N 0 0 K d 0 a) a 10 C X CL y c N (0 0 d !i. o c CC 'O in too. °. d d d °- W U) N d a W W y D. • y c a d 2 0 A V' ti. i s y y X d C d a X w X d y C X a C d X 0 0 C Of y U to to .4 O. X 00) y y° °) a X W d C W 7, d y O. W 3 G. a W (0 0 CO (0 y a, 0 0 X W O. a 2. 0 .a d C X W 0 0)+J O C0 " X C V) X X C y C a g` N C W y N O d X X N a+ W w a� C> y y 0 a W y W 1,=, t0 ° d d 0 X d y h N C H c o W i J •C °= T C c d W .d„ a d d a C d y a d O w c y XW0320.,=�'i00..,mcE c°f oy2L°d? K00c4, 0cy0aa))•a�°)ytoEy p!4dac) W 0. c 0 W 0 0 Q :. C 0 X4C:,24 2 C C ...0 W w C Lux .--F c W of woA u d•1°p 3 y pa.yym (Xa V a)•ccy °-) W w O 0 a) 3 al ti a ... c0 t` mosoasr_ 3 0 (1) .G w 01 � w E c 0 c (0' m— N>~? 0 v) coco co 1- y a 2 i. a d to C y Q'u,wil.p Y AC 70 a U) U d E E l0 l0 y C) v 5. Ci ° a y y O) ° C r= 0 0 () 0 0 d d 0 p Y O g O a Cr) C 0 o n E° a' 't # 0 $3 � 'c •c •c •c c ° u .. "6" a " O> w w •° c C >, E C o a d 0. 0 0 0 7 3 U 0...0 C o X y T Ta C •c C° ( (0 (a co 0 oLL o. d o o 3a 6 T°c ay 3 0 c ro m•-•-•-•-•-._ m m° E� E°. o c ¢¢¢ammma0UU000000UJW0aWWSF-2�Jg2000UU2Oaa yWEEWNG.0- 0 (0 0 0 N0 t0 (D h 01 0 (D CO CO r N O O N O N 0 0 r O 0 0 0 M 10 0 r N M et (0 0 CD t.. CD 0) O N e t r N C O 0 N N et et et et (D (D (D(D In rN N (D 0000 O N (0 tr 000 N et CO (0000) 0) 0) 0) 0) CA O CO 0000000) 0) 01 OO 0O N M M MM M 00 1010 101/)(0 C0 N(0 (0() N (0(DCD CO (D (D(O (D (Oh P. K (D (D (D (O (D (D (D co (D (D (0 CO CO CO to to CO CD (0 (D (D (0 (0 (0 (D (D (D (0 CO to (D CO CO CO CO (D (D (D (D (D CO (O (D (D CO (0 W Accrual Basis $ Over Budget C t13 O M d7 v 0) d < 0 ® t-• V: 04.4 C C 0 id L d 0'' (0 J N d C 2 O. Accrual Basis Jul '15 -Jun 16 o O D o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -s -s -0)(O st sr OOMh N st MN sr 00 O 00 N N O O N 6 O 0 O O M M<ist a- r N 0)(D COn CD O(ON 7 sr'07 0) O0O 0- NO h• O (00 0) M N O 0000 sr h• C0 0) 0)0 M N V O N O s- CO u) O N CO C.- 0) 0) 0) r O N d' ui 0) (0 N h_ V h M 6 h• a 0) N u) h• 00 0 0) M sr N. N CO0/ 0 0 (O 0- N 0 M (0 N O s} _ N h CD UD u) (O N CO 0) 0) (0 O) s7 in N (f) to h• •( N N N ( 4,-- 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (O (0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (n (A O 6 OM(000C'u) cO(000)OMNh 000) M Ost O N N (0 O h• sr M s- O s- CO M co ,- s- u)<1M M Ips- NMM O)sem-co70--,M a h 0 u) O 0) s- M N N O M 0) U) M CO 0) O 0) 0)00 O sr 00-.-.-(O s70NMN00)OOt- M O O 0) 0) F'- N st (O u) n ui O (0 (0 I'- O O u) CO sy O) NN NO O r O h- (0 h• O Oa CD KT sr (O h- CO N 0) .- CO O s- M sr.. (D (O u7 s- (0 M (O s-0 s- V) e- sr CV- Ms - OMS ANN sr O O N CO 0) O O O N tO<a- OD CVN 2,304,727.85 O O CO 0) O 0) N st M 0 O (0 N O N 'a o O O CO N- 0 0 O - - M NN (O T- 0 (M cci 0) 0) N N M N- O 0a) 0) M M 0)) h n t: M O sr tl' 47 uO) U1 pap T- CI (Si O O (0 0) N N M M Ul N CO 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 ON 0 O 0 0 01 d' V O st O 00 sS st N 0) s) (00 O O O 00 O s- C74 10 O NMN -(NO 070 0 CO M (LO n h• co (0 0 ri 0 M(0 0N) co c0 CO r O CO h.O OD 10 a sr 0) h. 0) N co- (0 O uiri c6' (0 sr 04 CO CO CO 0 W CO M M st M e- a) to L X N a coy W c a 0 c E a s 0 II O aa' W a) N W 0o - C Ix N 0 X 0 .,, 0 a) 0 co a' C >9' Gi a 0) (� O c W as c oai a� a«, d o o c E ro o) a0.' ... yQ o. X a' C CO C a) y 0 0 • uN) a) C O 'C �xC%�' 0(/� c X C w W X e '0 0 c 0 ID K 0 O N ,p a C o C w W E a W y C W a) ci C a 0 )C W Y C C — 0 EoccCD aaTSw'QhCa W 3m +.• a)E Ea)1°npw X w > E ro;° ° Epaw LLo a'- >> 0 n ,_ d W RS $0 ..1c >demomc2WW��_E o' �2�o 0) yNu.-y m d �ou�Qaa'ca>ro`��m�2��'�3 °' E a) ocH�nto o ` a O o a) « z c .- .- o. cv o p o E (1' N R f0 d CO C (°, X I- •0 0 w 0 r0 u a) a) Sreconocov)23Uv)i-m»I-Wc9z33a o c W E d'>_ °11ao c o a (000)1) (DOe-NMfv.000a-NMT CO(ll E u000..5.0=0 = a_Lfl Cp O N NNa.1'a .7 .7 00st st(0000000a ro o a X• n CO CO 00 O CO CO 00 CO O W W CO 00 CO 0) CA 0) CO CO jp C 0 v- N O N O O W (0 (O u) 00 CO (D CO 0 40 (0 CO CO c0 CO CO (D CO (D (D (0 «+ .r C O O o 0 N O t.•vf )-L10D 100 t00 N(0 (A .SCM L O O O Tot Net Total Other Expense Net Other Income Net Income Humane Society of Central Oregon Board of Directors Contact Information March 2017 OFFICERS BOARD MEMBERS Lois Vallerga, President Shenny Braemer David White, Vice President Ali Dietz Cory Allen, Treasurer Shelly Garroutte Danielle Lordi, Secretary Erika Gebow Officers Lois Vallerga, President EC Occupation: Consulting -Home- 2420 Tower Rock Rd I3end, OR 97701 Ivallerga@bendcable.com Home: 541.389.0767 Cell: 541.480.1054 Cory Allen, EC Treasurer, FC Occupation: Banking -Work- 1133 NW Wall St. #102 Bend, OR 97703 callen@columbiabank.com Home: 541.322.4437 Cell: 541.480.1597 Key ** EC DD FC Preferred email/phone contact Executive Committee Donor Development Committee Finance Committee Updated —March 2017 Melissa Minor Gordon Phillips Kayla Rotunno Nichole van Eikeren Amanda Wheeler David White, Vice President EC, FC Occupation: Accounting - Home- 1398 NW Newport Avenue Bend, OR 97701 DIw72al@yahoo.com - Office- TechSoft 1567 SW Chandler Ave. #100 Bend, OR 97702 Cell: 541.610.6311 Office: 541.633.7536 Danielle Lordi, FC, Secretary EC, Occupation: Lawyer --Office- 591 SW Mill View Way Bend, OR 97701 Jordi@blilawyers.com Work: 541-693-5080 Cell: 541-556-9346 Humane Society of Central Oregon Board of Directors Contact Information March 2017 Board Members Shenny Braemer,COM Occupation: Retired -Home- PO Box 3295 Sunriver, OR 97707 Sbraemer4@gmail.com Home: 541.593.4423 Cell: 541.977.2716 Shelly Garroutte, DD Occupation: Mortgages -Home- 61435 Elder Ridge St. Bend, OR 97702 shellvg@bendbroadband.com Cell: 541.647.8962 Melissa Minor, DD Occupation: Technical Recruiter --Home- 2403 NW Droullard Ave Bend, OR 97703 mminor99@gmail.com Cell: 206-948-7886 Kayla Rotunno, DD Occupation: Development Director -Home- 17211 Gadwall Drive Bend, OR 97707 KavlarotunnoPgmail.com -Office- Morningstar Relief Nursery 2125 NE Daggett Bend, OR 97702 Cell: 541.953.7907 Updated —March 2017 Ali Dietz, DD, COM Occupation: Marketing Director and Business Owner -Home- 19741 Dry Canyon Ave Bend, OR 97702 alidietzta7me.com Cell: 503.206.9817 Erika Gebow, DD, COM Occupation: Self Employed -Home- 19642 Harvard PI. Bend, OR 97702 erikagebow@gmail.com Cell: 206.669.1812 Gordon Phillips, FC Occupation: Lawyer --Home- 19500 Lone Crow Dr. Bend, OR 97702 gphillips@bendfamilvlaw.net Work: 541-385-0505 Cell: 541-639-2542 Humane Society of Central Oregon Board of Directors Contact Information March 2017 Nichole van Eikeren, COM, DD Occupation: -Home- 20975 Royal Oak Cir. Bend, OR 97701 nichole@vaneikeren.com Cell: 541.390.6398 Updated —March 2017 Amanda Wheeler, FC Occupation: Realtor/Self Employed -Home- 490 NE Bellvue Dr. #214 Bend, OR 97701 Amandajowheeler@gmail.com Cell: 619.607.1163 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/ DECISION OF HEARINGS OFFICER FILE NUMBERS: 247 -16 -000751 -SP 247 -16 -000752 -CU SUBJECT: The applicant requests conditional use permit and site plan approval to establish a marijuana retail store in an existing building on the subject property. APPLICANT: Kelly King 4335 S. Highway 97 Redmond, OR 97756 OWNER: Harry & Beverly Fagen 53 NW Tumalo Avenue Bend, OR 97703 STAFF CONTACT: Anthony Raguine, Senior Planner HEARING DATE: April 4, 2017 HEARINGS BODY: Liz Fancher, Hearings Officer I. APPLICABLE CRITERIA: Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, the County Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.74, Rural Commercial Zone (RC) Chapter 18.80, Airport Safety Combining Zone (AS) Chapter 18.84, Landscape Management Zone (LM) Chapter 18.113, Destination Resort Combining Zone (DR) Chapter 18.116, Supplementary Provisions Chapter 18.124, Site Plan Review Chapter 18.128, Conditional Use. Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance II. BASIC FINDINGS: A. LOCATION: The subject property has an assigned address on 21280 Tumalo Place, Bend, and is further identified on Assessor map 16-12-26B as tax lot 500. B. ZONING: The majority of the subject property is zoned Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA10). The portion of the property proposed to include the marijuana retail facility is Quality Services Performed with Pride zoned RC. The northwest corner of the property is within the AS Combining Zone associated with the Redmond Municipal Airport. A majority of the property is within a DR Combining Zone. C. LOT OF RECORD: The subject property is a legal lot of record pursuant to several land use approvals detailed below. D. SITE DESCRIPTION: The property is approximately 29.04 acres in size and is irregular in shape. The portion of the property subject to the requested land use permits is approximately 22,913 square feet in size and is zoned RC. This lease area is located in the southeast corner of the property, fronts on Tumalo Place, and is developed with a two-story building. Existing vegetation consists primarily of grasses and a few mature trees along Tumalo Place. E. PROPOSAL: The applicant requests conditional use permit and site plan review to establish a marijuana retail facility on the first floor of the existing building on-site. Access to the lease area would be from the existing driveway off of Tumalo Place. The proposal includes four paved parking spaces to the west of the building. F. SURROUNDING LAND USE: To the north and northwest are properties zoned MUA10 and Rural Residential (RR10) developed primarily with single-family dwellings. Highway 97 forms the property's east border. Across Highway 97 to the east are lands zoned Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) which are developed with rural residences and some farm uses. To the southeast across Highway 97 are lands zoned Rural Industrial (RI) developed with a number of industrial uses including Willamette Graystone (masonry blocks), Jack Robinson & Sons, Inc. (excavation), 4-R Equipment, LLC (aggregate processing). To the south across Tumalo Place are lands zoned EFU developed with farm uses, rural residences and the Three Sisters Adventist Christian School. G. PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENTS: The following comments were received from public agencies. Deschutes County Building Division. The Deschutes County Building Safety Divisions code required Access, Egress, Setbacks, 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 Environmental Soils Division. This proposal will require an Authorization Notice for the change in use and potential impact to the septic system. Our records show the old system is relatively small and consists of a steel tank. The steel tank will need to be replaced at a minimum, but the exact location of the system will have to be confirmed to make sure all setbacks are being met. The system cannot be located under an area impacted by vehicular traffic. If the system has to be relocated that would require an installation permit and we would have to determine minimum system requirements as part of the authorization notice process. Deschutes County Senior Transportation Planner. I have reviewed the transmittal materials for 247-16-000751-SP/752-CU to develop a recreational marijuana retail dispensary of 1,070 square feet in the ground floor of an existing building in 247 -16 -000751 -SP, 247 -16 -000752 -CU 2 Unincorporated Community Rural Commercial (RC) zone at 21280 Tumalo Place, aka 16-12-26B, Tax Lot 500. The most recent edition of the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook has no specific category for this use; therefore after discussions between Planning and the Road Department, the County decided to use Specialty Retail Center (Land Use 826) for marijuana retail. The ITE indicates a Specialty Retail Center generates at 44.32 weekday trips per 1,000 square feet. Deschutes County Code (DCC) at 18.116.310(C)(3)(a) states no traffic analysis is required for any use that will generate less than 50 new weekday trips. The proposed land use will not meet the 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. Specialty Retail Centers after accounting for pass -by (trips already on the system) generates 1.06 trips per 1,000 square feet. Therefore, the applicable SDC is $4,122 ($3,852 X 1.07). 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. Regarding use of this existing structure as a retail or mercantile occupancy: If the building had received a certificate of occupancy from Deschutes County as a mercantile occupancy and this use has not changed since it was issued, then there will be no additional requirements from the Bend Fire Department. If, however there is no certificate of occupancy or other legal documentation attesting to the approved use, then see the following requirements: (2014 Oregon Fire Code Section 102.3, Change of use or occupancy) FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS • Approved fire apparatus access roads shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction. The fire apparatus access road shall comply with the requirements of this section and shall extend to within 150 feet of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. 2014 OFC 503.1.1 • Fire apparatus roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet, exclusive of shoulders, except for approved security gates in accordance with Section 503.6, and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. Where a fire hydrant is located on a fire apparatus road, the minimum width shall be 26 feet, exclusive of shoulders. Traffic calming along a fire apparatus road shall be approved by the fire code official. Approved signs or other approved notices or markings that include the words NO PARKING -FIRE LANE shall be provided for fire apparatus roads to prohibit parking on both sides of fire lanes 20 to 26 feet wide and on one side of fire lanes more than 26 feet to 32 feet wide. 2014 OFC 503.2.1, D103.1, 503.4.1, 503.3 • Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus (60,000 pounds GVW) and shall be surfaced (asphalt, concrete or other approved driving surface) as to provide all weather 247 -16 -000751 -SP, 247 -16 -000752 -CU 3 driving capabilities. Inside and outside turning radius shall be approved by the fire department. All dead-end turnarounds shall be of an approved design. Bridges and elevated surfaces shall be constructed in accordance with AASHTO HB -17. The maximum grade of fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed 10 percent. Fire apparatus access road gates with electric gate operators shall be listed in accordance with UL325. Gates intended for automatic operation shall be designed, constructed and installed to comply with the requirements of ASTM F 2200. A Knox® Key Switch shall be installed at all electronic gates. 2014 OFC D102.1, 503.2.4, continued. 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. 2014 OFC 507.1. • 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. • Where a portion of the facility or building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction is more than 400 feet from a hydrant on a fire apparatus road, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, on-site fire hydrants and mains shall be provided where required by the fire code official. For Group R-3 and Group U occupancies the distance requirement shall 600 feet. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.3.1.2, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet. Fire hydrants shall be provided along required fire apparatus roads and adjacent public streets. The minimum number of fire hydrants shall not be less than that listed in table C105.1 of the 2010 OFC. Existing fire hydrants on public streets are allowed to be considered as available. Existing fire hydrants on adjacent properties shall not be considered available unless fire apparatus access roads extend between properties and easements are established to prevent obstruction of such roads. The average spacing between fire hydrants shall not exceed that listed in Table C105.1 of the 2014 OFC. • ORS 811.550(16) prohibits parking within 10 feet of a fire hydrant. Provide approved signs or other approved markings to prohibit parking within 10 feet of a fire hydrant. OAR 860-024-0010 limits the placement of a fire hydrant a minimum of 4 feet from any supporting structure for electrical equipment, such as transformers and poles. Maintain a minimum 4 foot clearance of fire hydrants to any supporting structure for electrical equipment. Where fire hydrants are subject to impact by a motor vehicle, guard posts or other approved means shall comply with Section 312 of the 2014 OFC. • In areas without water supply systems, the fire code official is authorized to use NFPA 1142 in determining fire flow requirements. 2014 OFC B107.1 247 -16 -000751 -SP, 247 -16 -000752 -CU 4 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. These numbers shall be Arabic numbers or alphabetical letters. 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 numbers shall be visible under low light conditions and evening hours. • Provide illumination to address numbers to provide visibility under all conditions. 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. 2014 OFC 505.1 • A KNOX-BOX® key vault is required for all newly constructed commercial buildings, facilities or premises to allow for rapid entry for emergency crews. A KNOX® Key Switch shall be provided for all electrically operated gates restricting entry on a fire apparatus access road. A KNOX® Padlock shall be provided for all manually operated gates restricting entry on a fire apparatus road and security gates restricting access to buildings. 2014 OFC Section 505 Codes and Referenced Standards: 2014 Oregon Fire Code (OFC) 2012 NFPA 1142 No comments were received from the following agencies. Deschutes County Assessor, Deschutes County Road Department, Oregon Department of Transportation, and Oregon Liquor Control Commission. H. PUBLIC COMMENTS: The Planning Division sent notice of this application to property owners within 250 feet of the subject property. In addition, the applicant submitted a Land Use Sign Affidavit indicating the land use action sign was posted on the property on December 16, 2016. As of the date of this staff report, a total of 13 emails and letters were received in opposition to the proposal expressing the following concerns: • Lack of buffers from buildings between the subject property to the Three Sisters Adventist Christian School (TSACS) • Conflicting principles between a Christian school and marijuana dispensary • Lack of negative impact a Christian school will have on a marijuana dispensary versus the negative impact the dispensary will have on TSACS • Impact on enrollment at TSACS • The proposed marijuana retail use is more suited to other locations I. LAND USE HISTORY: The property has been the subject of a number of land use decisions, as detailed below. 247 -16 -000751 -SP, 247 -16 -000752 -CU 5 Z-77-53: Approval to change the zone of approximately .67 acres of the 29 -acre property from Exclusive Agriculture (A-1) to Rural Service Center (A -S). SP -78-18: Site Plan approval to allow the establishment of a welding repair shop and retail store. SP -82-22: Site Plan approval to allow an addition to the existing two-story building; allow the establishment of a flea market; and allow the sale of collectibles and furniture. PA -92-8, ZC-92-3: Approval to change the Comprehensive Plan Map designation of approximately 4.15 acres of the 29 -acre property from RR10 to Rural Service Center/Commercial, and to change the zone of the same 4.15 acres from MUA10 to Rural Service Center. SP -05-28: Site Plan approval to allow the establishment of a retail and wholesale landscaping use. LL -06-121: Approval to allow the adjustment of a common property line between the subject property and tax lot 600 on Assessor map 16-12-16B. DR -10-3: Declaratory Ruling determining that the existing two-story structure on-site is not a permanent residential dwelling unit. Deschutes County has also opened code enforcement files to address a number of alleged code violations on the subject property including complaints that the property has been used to operate businesses without required land use approvals. A written code enforcement complaint was filed by neighboring property owner Duane Porter and filed in the record of this case. Mr. Porter alleges that subject property is being used by a number of businesses without County land use or other permit approvals. Parties to this review, including Mr. Porter, have also provided evidence that the property is being used by a number of businesses and to store heavy motor vehicles and storage containers. J. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND REVIEW PERIOD: The subject applications were submitted on December 1, 2016. An Incomplete Letter was mailed on December 28, 2016 detailing necessary information that must be submitted by the applicant. On February 16, 2017, the applicant submitted a response to the Incomplete Letter. The application was deemed complete on that day. On February 23, 2017, the applicant tolled the running of the 150 -day decision clock for a period of seven days. The land use hearing was held on April 4, 2017. The record was kept open until May 4, 2017. A seven day period to May 11, 2017 was allowed for rebuttal and the applicant was given until May 18, 2017 for the applicant to file final argument. The applicant agreed to these post -hearing periods at the April 4, 2017 hearing and, therefore, the 150 -day decision clock was tolled from April 4, 2017 until May 18, 2017. K. LATE FILED COMMENTS: An e-mail was received from Milton Pyle on May 5, 2017 after the close of the post -hearing comment period on May 4, 2017. Staff advised Mr. Pyle that his comments would not be considered by the Hearings Officer. Mr. Pyle's comments, however, were considered by the Hearings Officer because they address 247 -16 -000751 -SP, 247 -16 -000752 -CU 6 issues and evidence submitted by the applicant during the post -hearing comment period — proximity of the use proposed to TSACS and traffic. The following e-mails from County staff were received by the Planning Division on May 12, 2017 after the rebuttal period closed on May 11, 2017: 1. Cody Smith to George Kolb and Anthony Raguine at 10:47 am 2. George Kolb to Anthony Raguine at 10:29 am 3. Peter Russell at 2:42 pm As County staff did not request that the record be reopened to allow receipt of these late -filed comments, they were not considered by the Hearings Officer and are not a part of the record in this case. The applicant filed its only traffic impact analysis documents on May 4 and May 11, 2017. This gave County staff little or no time to respond or analyze the information. A rigorous review and acceptance of the applicant's transportation analysis by the County's transportation professionals would have made a stronger case for a finding that access to the site is adequate. III. CONCLUSIONARY FINDINGS: TITLE 22, DESCHUTES COUNTY DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURES ORDINANCE A. Chapter 22.20, Review of Land Use Action Applications This decision denies approval of the submitted land use applications because it was determined through the review process of these current applications that violations of the County's land use are occurring on the subject property and will not be remedied by approval of the submitted applications. This section of the decision discusses the laws that dictate denial because this is a relatively new provision of the County code. DCC 22.20.015 law prohibits the County from approving new land use applications for properties that are in violation of land use laws. DCC 22.20.015(C) defines when a property is in "violation" to include the following: (1) a determination of noncompliance with land use laws has been made in a prior decision by the County or another tribunal; and (2) an admission of noncompliance with land use laws is contained in a voluntary compliance agreement; and (3) a determination of violation is made "through the review process of the current application." DCC 1.16.010(F) states that "[a] land use application for a property with an existing code violation will be accepted, but not processed by the County based on DCC 22.20.015. The following chart summarizes the three conditions that require denial of a pending land use application due to a code violation and their characteristics: Violation Determined How Determined Potential Consequences In a prior decision DCC Chapter 1.17 process or similar Fine or injunction/abatement; Denial of land use application Admission in VCA Resolution of code complaint Must comply or penalties will be imposed Denial of land use application In review of pending application Review of land use application subject to DCC Title 22 Application cannot be approved unless violation is cured The underlined code language makes it clear that if the review of a "current application" results in a determination that a land use violation exists, the County must decline to approve a current 247 -16 -000751 -SP, 247 -16 -000752 -CU 7 application. No other consequence is prescribed. A determination by a hearings officer "through the review process of the current application" is governed by the rules that govern the review of the current application as the determination is "through the review process of the current application." The review process for the current application is prescribed by DCC Chapter 22. DCC Chapters 1.16 and 1.17 contain provisions regarding code violations and enforcement. They do not establish the review process of the current application. The only reference to DCC 22.20.015 is found in DCC 1.16.010(F). It refers to DCC 22.20.015 as describing one possible consequence of a code violation. The rest of DCC 1.16 prescribes penalties for violations and methods of enforcing code provisions and provides authority to County officials to enforce County codes. None of these other provisions, however, were made applicable by the Board of Commissioner to a review authorized by DCC 22.20.015 "through the review process of the current application." DCC Chapter 1.17 establishes a code enforcement hearing procedure that applies when the County seeks to impose a civil penalty against a person violating the code. DCC 1.17.010 (A)(Chapter 1.17 governs procedure for the assessment of civil penalties). By its terms, DCC Chapter 1.17 does not apply to a determination of violation during the review of a land use application because a land use review is not a process for the assessment of civil penalties against a person violating the code and it is not written to prescribe the review process for the current land use applications. A determination of a violation in a "current" land use application is merely a determination that a land use application cannot be approved unless it resolves the violation. The only consequence of a determination of noncompliance made during the review of a pending application is that the application will not be approved. No fine can be assessed against the property owner unless and until the property owner is charged with a violation of the code in another forum and case. The determination is not binding on the property owner or on the applicant in any other forum. If the applicant or owner disagrees with the finding in this decision, they may appeal the decision or refile the land use application and seek a new determination. A property owner is required to sign or authorize the filing of the land use application. The owner is placed on notice, by the County code, that a finding of violation may occur during the review process when a current land use application is filed. In the current cases, the property owner, Harry Fagen, Sr., signed the land use application. Mr. Fagen was also aware that code compliance was an issue for his property early in the review of the King applications. In a letter dated February 24, 2017, Mr. Fagen wrote to planner Anthony Raguine to "clarify questions and concerns that you [Mr. Raguine] recently raised regarding the use [sic] my property located at 21280 Tumalo Place." Mr. Fagen's February 2017 letter claims "the area surrounding the dispensary is not being used commercially or as a place of business." At the April 4, 2017 land use hearing, the Hearings Officer advised those in attendance, including the applicant and his land use planner, that existing code violations might prevent approval of the application. Mr. Fagen made comments during the post -hearing comment period but did not respond to the photographic and video evidence presented by project opponents that rebuts Mr. Fagen's claims about the use of his property. 1. Chapter 22.20.015 Code Enforcement and Land Use 247 -16 -000751 -SP, 247 -16 -000752 -CU 8 A. Except as described in (D) below, if any property is in violation of applicable land use regulations, and/or the conditions of approval of any previous land use decisions or building permits previously issued by the County, the County shall not: 1. Approve any application for land use development; 2. Make any other land use decision, including land divisions and/or property line adjustments; 3. Issue a building permit. FINDING: This provision of the County code prohibits the Hearings Officer from approving the site plan and conditional use applications if the subject property is in violation of applicable land use regulations or conditions of approval of any previous land use decision. DCC 22.20.015(C), cited below, explains when a property is "in violation" for purposes of DCC 22.20.015(A). This issue is discussed above and below the citation of the text of DCC 22.20.015(C) below. All parts of Tax Lot 500, Assessor's Map 16-12-26B are the subject property. The issue of whether the property is in violation of applicable land use regulations was initially raised by County staff during its initial review of the land application use application and Mr. Fagen responded in his February 24, 2017 letter discussed above. The property owner, Harry Fagen, Sr., has stated that the landscaping business conducted on the subject property in 2005 has been discontinued. The only structure on the property, the "Pink House" is vacant and has been vacant for a number of years. According to Mr. Fagen no other businesses are operating "in the area surrounding the proposed marijuana dispensary." Mr. Fagen acknowledges that there is a large sign for Rock Tough (rock screens) on the property. He states that the business is located on Powell Butte Highway. Mr. Fagen says "there are a few pieces of large equipment near the Hwy 97 frontage. Those are personal machines/equipment and are not used commercially." There is no residence on the property and no current, valid land use approvals for the subject property other than the one authorizing the landscaping business. Mr. Fagen has advised the County that this business is no longer operating on the site. The "Pink House" is a vacant commercial building that is painted pink that was, at one time in the distant past, a residence. The applicant's attorney claims, in final argument, that there is no evidence of a code violation. The applicant's attorney argues the code complaint filed by Duane Porter does not prevent approval of the pending applications. That is correct. The filing of a complaint has no bearing on whether the property is, in fact, in violation of a County land use law. DCC 22.20.015(C) provides that a violation may be determined "through the review process of the current application." Aerial photographs, photographs submitted by the applicant and opponents, a video provided by Stephanie Brussett and testimony from opponents during the review process of the current application provide clear and convincing evidence that uses not allowed by the MUA-10 or RC zones are occurring on the subject property. DCC 18.08.010(A) limits the use of land to uses permitted by Title 18. To be allowed, a use must be authorized by the zoning district that applies to the property. The following uses are allowed without conditional use approval in the MUA-10 zone: 18.32.020. Uses Permitted Outright. 247 -16 -000751 -SP, 247 -16 -000752 -CU 9 The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright: A. Agricultural uses as defined in DCC Title 18. B. A single family dwelling, or a manufactured home subject to DCC18.116.070. C. Propagation or harvesting of a forest product. D. Class I and II road or street project subject to approval as part of a land partition, subdivision or subject to the standards and criteria established by DCC18.116.230. E. Class III road or street project. F. Noncommercial horse stables, excluding horse events. G. Horse events, including associated structures, involving: 1. Fewer than 10 riders; 2. Ten to 25 riders, no more than two times per month on nonconsecutive days; or 3. More than 25 riders, no more than two times per year on nonconsecutive days. Incidental musical programs are not included in this definition. Overnight stays by participants, trainers or spectators in RVs on the premises is not an incident of such horse events. H. Operation, maintenance, and piping of existing irrigation systems operated by an Irrigation District except as provided in DCC18.120.050. 1. Type1 Home Occupation, subject to DCC18.116.280. Any other use requires conditional use approval or is prohibited by the MUA-10 zone. Most uses allowed as conditional use in the MUA-10 zone also require site plan review. DCC 18.124.030.1 All uses in the RC zone require site plan review and must comply with the requirements of DCC 18.124.030. Some also require conditional use approval. No uses are allowed without County land use review. Storage 2U I DCC 18.124.030. Approval Required. A. No building, grading, parking, land use, sign or other required permit shall be issued for a use subject to DCC 18.124.030, nor shall such a use be commenced, enlarged, altered or changed until a final site plan is approved according to DCC Title 22, the Uniform Development Procedures Ordinance. B. The provisions of DCC 18.124.030 shall apply to the following: 1. All conditional use permits where a site plan is a condition of approval; 2. Multiple -family dwellings with more than three units; 3. All commercial uses that require parking facilities; 4. All industrial uses; 5. All other uses that serve the general public or that otherwise require parking facilities, including, but not limited to, landfills, schools, utility facilities, churches, community buildings, cemeteries, mausoleums, crematories, airports, parks and recreation facilities and livestock sales yards; and 6. As specified for Flood Plain Zones (FP) and Surface Mining Impact Area Combining Zones (SMIA). 7. Non-commercial wind energy system generating greater than 15 to 100 kW of electricity. C. The provisions of DCC 18.124.030 shall not apply to uses involving the stabling and training of equine in the EFU zone, noncommercial stables and horse events not requiring a conditional use permit. D. Noncompliance with a final approved site plan shall be a zoning ordinance violation. 247 -16 -000751 -SP, 247 -16 -000752 -CU 10 Storage 2 U provides portable storage units for customers — most likely to customers in Central Oregon. No land use approval has been granted to allow this use to be operated on this property. The portable storage units are stored on the subject property and the business has a sign advertising 16' and 20' storage units for rent. Advertising is displayed on all of the units. Two of the storage units are stacked facing southbound traffic on Highway 97.2 There are nine storage units visible in recent photographs submitted by Duane Porter. A video submitted by Stephanie Brussett shows more than nine units on the subject property (approximately 12 units visible). Advertising on site and on the units makes it clear that the units are a part of a storage unit business. The Storage 2U business appears to be located on the MUA-10 zoned part of the subject property. It is, possible, however, that the use may also be occurring on RC zoned land. Access to this business occurs in the MUA-10 zone. The evidence in the record described above makes it clear that the subject property is a business location for Storage 2U. The use is one that violates the use restrictions of the MUA- 10 and/or RC zoning districts. The property is, at a minimum, a storage yard for the storage business. This use is not allowed in the MUA-10 zoning district. It is also not allowed in the RC zoning district. A mini -storage facility limited to 35,000 square feet in size is allowed in the RC zone as a conditional use. No County land use approval has been obtained to authorize this use. Land use approval would be required if the use were allowed. This type of use would require site plan approval even if allowed outright by the applicable zoning district. Rock Tough At least three yellow static rock screens are shown on the subject property in a photograph submitted by Duane Porter on May 3, 2017. Six rock screens are visible in the video submitted by Stephanie Brussett. A forklift or similar piece of equipment is parked next to the rock screens. One of the rock screens includes a sign stating "Sales & Rental" and providing a phone number. A much larger sign in a large sign structure is erected close to the property line of the subject property with Highway 97. This use is occurring in either the RC or MUA-10 zoning districts, or both. The property owner, Harry Fagen, Sr., acknowledges there is a large sign for Rock Tough on the property for advertising but he implies that the business occurs in a different location. The evidence in the record shows that the Fagen property is also used as a storage yard for rock screens that are transported on and off of the Fagen property. Neither the RC zone nor the MUA-10 zone allows a storage or sales yard for static rock screens. Rock screens are used in surface mining operations. The Rock Tough use is not a retail sale of agricultural or farm products nor is it the sale or repair of farm machinery allowed by DCC 18.74.020. Even if it were, site plan approval is required. No site plan approval has been obtained to authorize the Rock Tough storage yard use. All Aspects Fencing, LLC All Aspects Fencing, LLC uses the south part of the subject property west of the RC zone on land zoned MUA-10. It uses the area as a fenced storage yard for its vehicles (including 2 This is a violation of the County's sign code, DCC 15.08 but is not a violation of the County's land use regulations. It, therefore, is not a basis for the County to decline approval of the pending land use applications. 247 -16 -000751 -SP, 247 -16 -000752 -CU 11 trucks), excavation equipment, trailers and fence poles. A recreational vehicle is also parked inside the fenced area. A storage yard for a fencing business is not allowed in the MUA-10 zone. No land use approvals have been issued to authorize this use to occur on the subject property. Camp -Fire -Wood Maurita Crew submitted a photo of a sign on the fence facing Highway 97 that says "Camp Fire Wood" and contains phone numbers and stated that there is a firewood sales business on the property. There is fire wood on the subject property nearby, as noted in photographs provided by Duane Porter. This is occurring in the MUA-10 or RC zoning district or both. Fire wood sales and the storage of fire wood for sale off-site is not allowed in either the MUA-10 or RC zoning districts. Other Uses of the Property Not Authorized The video submitted by Stephanie Brussett and photographs submitted by others show that the property is being used to store industrial equipment and vehicles, surface mined material and wood products. The storage of industrial equipment is not allowed in the MUA-10 zoning district or in the RC zone. The following is a partial listing of the equipment, materials and vehicles shown by the photos and video taken of uses occurring on the subject property: • 2 large water trucks stored near the Pink House; the side of one truck is marked "Fire Use Only" • Scoop used by a large excavator • Excavating equipment • Pile of excavated/surface mined dirt (very large; industrial scale/not personal use) • Trailers from 18 -wheeler trucks • Cab/tractor of tractor/trailer trucks • Large open and partially enclosed trailers, including trailers used to transport heavy equipment • Large piles of logs/timber • Large piles of pipes • Utility trucks • Dump trucks • Large concrete forms (including those installed for the prior landscaping business are now being used to store firewood, bark dust and other products) • Stacked pallets • Large long trailer used to transport liquids of unknown type e.g. milk, oil, etc. • Woody debris/solid waste The scale and volume of the unauthorized uses is significant. The uses are incompatible with other uses in the adjoining MUA-10 zoning district and the purpose of the LM zone that applies to the subject property. C. A violation means the property has been determined to not be in compliance either through a prior decision by the County or other tribunal, or through the review process of the current application, or through an acknowledgement by the alleged violator in a signed voluntary compliance agreement ("VCA'). 247 -16 -000751 -SP, 247 -16 -000752 -CU 12 FINDING: The issue whether the subject property complies with County land use regulations was raised with the property owner, Harry Fagen, Sr. by County planner Anthony Raguine prior to the end of February 2017. Mr. Fagen wrote a letter dated February 24, 2017 to Anthony Raguine "to clarify questions and concerns that you recently raised regarding the use [of] my property at 21280 Tumalo Place." The issue was also raised by aerial photographs of the subject property, photographs submitted by the applicant, photographs submitted by opponents and by a video filed by opponent Stephanie Brussett. This code section provides that a violation exists if "through the review process of the current application" it is determined a property is in violation of County land use regulations. The findings above show that the subject property is in violation of County land use regulations. The violation of the County's land use ordinances is not subtle or minor in nature. Large areas of the property are covered with unsightly vehicles and equipment. This can be confirmed by a review of Stephanie Brussett's video and the photographs of the Fagen property that are a part of the record. No prior County decision or tribunal has determined that the subject property is in violation of County land use regulations. The property owner has not signed a VCA. The property is in violation, however, because it has been found to be in violation "through the review process of the current application." D. A permit or other approval, including building permit applications, may be authorized if: 1. It results in the property coming into full compliance with all applicable provisions of the federal, state, or local laws, and Deschutes County Code, including sequencing of permits or other approvals as part of a voluntary compliance agreement; 2. It is necessary to protect the public health or safety; 3. It is for work related to and within a valid easement over, on, or under the affected property; or 4. It is for emergency repairs to make a structure habitable or a road or bridge to bear traffic. FINDING: The approval of the submitted applications will not result in the property coming into full compliance with the Deschutes County code, including compliance with the sign code. The applicant has confined his application to a relatively small part of the subject property and has not attempted to show how approval will result in the property coming into full compliance with local laws. As the applicant is leasing only a very small part of the property, he will be unable to correct the code violations occurring elsewhere on the subject property without the cooperation of the property owner. Whether such cooperation will be forthcoming is unknown. The approval of a marijuana sales outlet is not necessary to protect the public health or safety. It is not work related to a valid easement over the Fagen property. The applications do not seek approval of emergency repairs to make a structure habitable or to allow a road or bridge to bear traffic. CONCLUSION: The Hearings Officer is prohibited from approving the submitted land use application because uses occurring on the subject property are prohibited by the County's land use regulations. The following findings are provided, however, as this matter may be appealed 247 -16 -000751 -SP, 247 -16 -000752 -CU 13 to the Board of County Commissioners and it may elect to hear the case. If the code violations are corrected prior to that time or the Board finds that no violations exist, they will be asked to address the relevant approval criteria for both applications. Additionally, if the Board disagrees with the conclusion that violations exist and prevent approval of the submitted applications, it will need to make findings that address the following criteria. TITLE 18, COUNTY ZONING A. Chapter 18.74, Rural Commercial Zone 1. Section 18.74.020. Uses Permitted — Deschutes Junction and Deschutes River Woods Store. C. Conditional Uses. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted subject to the applicable provisions of this chapter and DCC 18.116, 18.124 and 18.128: 4. Marijuana retailing, subject to the provisions of DCC 18.116.330. FINDING: The applicant proposes to use the first floor of the existing structure on-site to establish a marijuana retail facility. The applicant claims that no use will be made of the second floor although the applicant is leasing both floors of the buildings. Applicable provisions of DCC 18.74, 18.116, 18.124 and 18.128 are addressed below. A condition of approval should be imposed that prohibits use of the second floor for any use unless and until the applicant obtains approval of a modified site plan and conditional use approval. 2. Section 18.74.030. Development Standards. A. Yard Standards. 1. Front Yard. The front yard shall be 20 feet for a property fronting on a local road right-of-way, 30 feet for a property fronting on a collector right-of-way and 80 feet for a property fronting on an arterial right-of-way. 2. Side Yard. A side yard shall be a minimum of 10 feet, except a lot or parcel with a side yard adjacent to land zoned exclusive farm use or forest use shall have a minimum side yard of 50 feet. 3. Rear Yard. The minimum rear yard shall be 20 feet, except a lot or parcel with a rear yard adjacent to land zoned exclusive farm use or forest use shall have a minimum side yard of 50 feet. FINDING: The applicant's site plan proposes a structure to screen the dumpster. A structure is also required to shelter the bicycle parking area if it is provided in the location proposed by the applicant. Both structures must comply with all of the above setbacks. Tumalo Place is a collector street so a 30' front yard setback applies. Highway 97 is a principal arterial. A setback of 80' applies. The trash enclosure does not comply with this setback if the exit from Highway 97 is a part of the highway. This issue should be resolved if this application is approved on appeal. 247 -16 -000751 -SP, 247 -16 -000752 -CU 14 C. Existing Residential and Commercial Lots. On-site sewage disposal. For existing lots or parcels, an applicant shall demonstrate that the lot or parcel can meet DEQ on-site sewage disposal rules prior to approval of a site plan or conditional use permit. FINDING: As noted above by the Environmental Soils Division, the steel tank on-site will need to be replaced and compliance with minimum setbacks must be confirmed. Based on staffs conversation with the Environmental Soils Division, there is no evidence to suggest the property, particularly given its 29 -acre size, could not meet DEQ rules. A condition of approval requiring the applicant to secure all necessary septic permits prior to initiating the use should be imposed. D. Solar Setback. The setback from the north lot line shall meet the solar setback requirements in DCC 18.116.180. FINDING: The trash enclosure and bicycle shelter must comply with the solar setback. The north lot line of the subject property is so far away that compliance is assured for any structure of the height allowed by the RC zoning district. This code requirement applies based on the boundary of the subject property; not based on the northern boundary of the leased area. This criterion will be met. E. Building Code Setbacks. In addition to the setbacks set forth herein, any greater setbacks required by the applicable building or structural codes adopted by the State of Oregon and/or the County under DCC 15.04 shall be met. FINDING: No additional building or structural code setbacks were identified by the Building Division. F. Lot Coverage. 2. Lot coverage for buildings used primarily for commercial and industrial purposes shall be determined by spatial requirements for sewage disposal, landscaping, parking, yard setbacks and any other elements under site plan review. FINDING: No new building used primarily for commercial or industrial purposes is proposed. This criterion does not apply. G. Building Height. No building or structure shall be erected or enlarged to exceed thirty (30) feet in height, except as allowed under DCC 18.120.040. FINDING: The trash enclosure and bicycle parking shelter that must be provided to achieve compliance with relevant approval criteria must comply with this height limit. Compliance can be achieved by a condition of approval. H. Off -Street Parking and Loading. Off-street parking and loading shall be provided subject to the provisions of DCC 18.116, Supplementary Provisions. 247 -16 -000751 -SP, 247 -16 -000752 -CU 15 FINDING: Applicable provisions of DCC 18.116 are addressed below. 1. Outdoor Lighting. All outdoor lighting on site shall be installed in conformance with DCC 15.10, Outdoor Lighting Control. FINDING: A condition of approval can be imposed to ensure compliance. J. Signs. All signs shall be constructed in accordance with DCC 15.08, Signs. FINDING: The applicant has proposed a free standing sign near Highway 97. DCC 15.08.250 (C) limits the subject property to one free standing sign per lot. The free standing sign cannot be approved until the large freestanding sign advertising Rock Tough is removed from the subject property. There are also a large number of other signs on the property that do not comply with the sign code. If a sign is allowed, the applicant must apply for and obtain sign permit approval and must construct the sign in accordance with DCC 15.08. A condition of approval can be imposed to assure compliance. B. Chapter 18.80, Airport Safety Combining Zone FINDING: Only the far northwestern corner of the subject property is within the AS Combining Zone associated with Redmond Municipal Airport. The AS Combining Zone does not apply to the part of the subject property where the proposed marijuana retail facility will be operated, if approved. For this reason, the provisions of DCC 18.80 do not apply. C. Chapter 18.84, Landscape Management Zone 1. Section 18.84.020. Application of provisions. The provisions of DCC 18.84 shall apply to all areas within one-fourth mile of roads identified as landscape management corridors in the Comprehensive Plan and the County Zoning Map. *** FINDING: This provision of the code says that the landscape management zone applies to the subject property because it is located within one-fourth mile of Highway 97, a road identified as a landscape management corridor in the Comprehensive Plan and on the County Zoning Map. In 2005, the County's hearings officer found that the LM zone applies to the RC part of the subject property in SP -05-28. The County's DIAL system that acts as the County source of zoning information, however, shows that the LM zone applies to the MUA-10 part of the subject property but it shows that does not apply to the subject property. After an extensive search of the County's zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan, an exception to the requirements of the LM zone for the subject property or for land zoned RC was not found. As a result, the Hearings Officer is unable to determine whether the LM zone applies to the RC part of the Fagen property. The Board should resolve this issue if this matter is appealed. If the LM zone applies, the following findings address LM zone approval criteria. 2. Section 18.84.050. Use limitations. 247 -16 -000751 -SP, 247 -16 -000752 -CU 16 A. Any new structure or substantial exterior alteration of a structure requiring a building permit or an agricultural structure within an LM Zone shall obtain site plan approval in accordance with DCC 18.84 (18.84.080] prior to construction. *** FINDING: This code section is unclear. It either requires that any new structure obtain LM site plan review approval and that alterations of structures that require a building permit require site plan review or it requires that structures that require building permit approvals and alterations of structures requiring a building permit obtain LM review approval. The fact that any agricultural structure requires LM review makes it likely that the Board intended that any new structure undergo LM review. Under this interpretation, the trash enclosure and the bicycle parking structure needed to shelter bicycles must be reviewed to determine compliance with the approval criteria of DCC 18.84.080. The applicant did not provide the information required by DCC 18.84.070 needed to conduct an LM review. The LM criteria of Section 18.84.080, if applicable, have not been met. D. Chapter 18.113, Destination Resort Combining Zone FINDING: The applicant does not propose to establish a destination resort. For this reason, the provisions of DCC 18.113 do not apply. E. Chapter 18.116, Supplementary Provisions 1. Section 18.116.030. Off-street Parking and Loading. B. Off -Street Loading. Every use for which a building is erected or structurally altered to the extent of increasing the floor area to equal a minimum floor area required to provide loading space and which will require the receipt or distribution of materials or merchandise by truck or similar vehicle, shall provide off-street loading space on the basis of minimum requirements as follows: Sq. Ft. of Floor Area No. of Berths Required Less than 5,000 0 5,000-30,000 1 30,000-100,000 2 100,000 and Over 3 FINDING: The applicant does not propose any new buildings, or structural alteration of the existing building. The existing building is too small to meet the minimum square footage threshold to require a loading space. No loading berth is required. C. Off -Street Parking. Off-street parking spaces shall be provided and maintained as set forth in DCC 18.116.030 for all uses in all zoning districts. Such off-street parking spaces shall be provided at the time a new building is hereafter erected or enlarged or the use of a building existing on the effective date of DCC Title 18 is changed. D. Number of Spaces Required. Off-street parking shall be provided as follows: 247 -16 -000751 -SP, 247 -16 -000752 -CU 17 6. Commercial. Use Requirements Grocery stores of 1,500 square feet or Tess of gross floor area, and retail stores, except those selling bulky merchandise 1 space per 300 square feet of gross floor area FINDING: The applicant proposes to use the first floor of the existing building, or approximately 1,070 square feet, for the marijuana retail facility. Based on the above parking requirement, a total of four (4) parking spaces are required. The site plan filed on May 4, 2017 shows two handicapped parking spaces, five customer parking spaces and two employee parking spaces. Some of the parking spaces will be located in the same area as the parking spaces approved under SP -05-28. According to the property owner, Harry Fagen, Sr. the landscaping business associated with SP -05-28 is no longer operating on-site. If this is true, the proposed parking spaces may occupy the location proposed. If this area is used by the proposed use, the site plan approval in SP -05-28 will become invalid because the parking required for the SP -05-28 use will no longer be provided. This may not be an academic issue because bark dust and a pile of landscape quality rocks and the storage bins for the prior use remain on the property. E. General Provisions. Off -Street Parking. 1. More Than One Use on One or More Parcels. In the event several uses occupy a single structure or parcel of land, the total requirement for off-street parking shall be the sum of requirements of the several uses computed separately. 2. Joint Use of Facilities. The off-street parking requirements of two or more uses, structures or parcels of land may be satisfied by the same parking or loading space used jointly to the extent that it can be shown by the owners or operators of the uses, structures or parcels that their operations and parking needs do not overlap at any point of time. If the uses, structures or parcels are under separate ownership, the right to joint use of the parking space must be evidence by a deed, lease, contract or other appropriate written document to establish the joint use. FINDING: The applicant and property owner indicate the landscaping use approved under SP - 05 -28 is no longer in business. The applicant indicates there is no current use within the existing building. A number of other uses, however, are occupying the same parcel of land (all parts of the 29+ acre Tax Lot 500) as described above. In addition, Mr. Fagen is using the property as a parking and storage area for industrial heavy equipment and commercial trucks. No use on the parcel, with the possible exception of the landscaping materials business, has obtained site plan approval. As these uses occupy a single parcel of land the amount of parking required during this site plan review is the sum of the requirements of the several uses computed separately. Although it is highly unlikely that most of existing uses are allowed uses, unless and until they are removed the applicant must provide parking for these uses because they "occupy" the parcel of land. The applicant has not calculated and provided parking for all of the uses occupying the parcel. This criterion has not been met. 247 -16 -000751 -SP, 247 -16 -000752 -CU 18 3. Location of Parking Facilities. Off-street parking spaces for dwellings shall be located on the same lot with the dwelling. Other required parking spaces shall be located on the same parcel or another parcel not farther than 500 feet from the building or use they are intended to serve, measured in a straight line from the building in a commercial or industrial zone. Such parking shall be located in a safe and functional manner as determined during site plan approval. The burden of proving the existence of such off -premise parking arrangements rests upon the applicant. FINDING: The proposed parking lot will be located within 10 feet of the existing building. This criterion will be met. 4. Use of Parking Facilities. Required parking space shall be available for the parking of operable passenger automobiles of residents, customers, patrons and employees only and shall not be used for the storage of vehicles or materials or for the parking of trucks used in conducting the business or used in conducting the business or use. FINDING: A condition of approval may be imposed to ensure compliance. 5. Parking, Front Yard. Required parking and loading spaces for multi -family dwellings or commercial and industrial uses shall not be located in a required front yard, except in the Sunriver UUC Business Park (BP) District and the La Pine UUC Business Park (LPBP) District and the LaPine UUC Industrial District (LPI), but such space may be located within a required side or rear yard. FINDING: The subject property has frontage on Tumalo Place which is classified as a collector road. Pursuant to DCC 18.74.030, the required front yard setback from a collector road is 30 feet. The entire setback area is the front yard. As shown on the site plan, the proposed parking lot will be sited at least 45 feet from the right-of-way associated with Tumalo Place. The subject property also has frontage on Highway 97. It is a principal arterial and an 80 foot front yard is required. According to the site plan filed May 4, 2017, a part of the parking lot drive aisle and parking spaces proposed for employees is located in the required front yard. This criterion is not met. F. Development and Maintenance Standards for Off -Street Parking Areas. Every parcel of land hereafter used as a public or private parking area, including commercial parking lots, shall be developed as follows: 1. Except for parking to serve residential uses, an off-street parking area for more than five vehicles shall be effectively screened by a sight obscuring fence when adjacent to residential uses, unless effectively screened or buffered by landscaping or structures. 247 -16 -000751 -SP, 247 -16 -000752 -CU 19 FINDING: The subject property area is immediately adjacent to residential uses on its north and west sides. The land to the east is zoned EFU. A part of this area is developed as a park called "The Funny Farm." The staff report also indicates that residences are located in this area. The area is, however, separated from the subject property by Highway 97. The parking area, therefore, is not "immediately adjacent" to residential uses. For this reason, this criterion does not apply. 2. Any lighting used to illuminate off-street parking areas shall be so arranged that it will not project light rays directly upon any adjoining property in a residential zone. FINDING: The applicant's final argument states that the property will be well -lighted. No lighting plans were filed. The plan to light the site is a change to the applicant's site plan made after it was filed and reviewed by County staff. It is possible that light might project into the MUA-10 zoned part of the subject property. That area, however, is not "adjoining property." It is a part of the subject property. In the location proposed, it is unlikely that off-street parking area lighting will project light rays on an adjoining property in a residential zone. The adjacent residential zones are MUA-10 and RR -10. Properties are located a significant distance to the north and west of the area proposed for lighting by the applicant. A condition of approval may be imposed to require compliance with this code requirement for any off-street parking area lighting provided. 3. Groups of more than two parking spaces shall be located and designed to prevent the need to back vehicles into a street or right of way other than an alley. FINDING: An approximately 400 -foot -long driveway will connect the parking area to Tumalo Place. Vehicles parking in the parking lot will not be required to back onto a street or right-of- way to turn around. This criterion will be met. 4. Areas used for standing and maneuvering of vehicles shall be paved surfaces adequately maintained for all weather use and so drained as to contain any flow of water on the site. An exception may be made to the paving requirements by the Planning Director or Hearings Body upon finding that: a. A high water table in the area necessitates a permeable surface to reduce surface water runoff problems; or b. The subject use is located outside of an unincorporated community and the proposed surfacing will be maintained in a manner which will not create dust problems for neighboring properties; or c. The subject use will be in a Rural Industrial Zone or an Industrial District in an unincorporated community and dust control measures will occur on a continuous basis which will mitigate any adverse impacts on surrounding properties. 247 -16 -000751 -SP, 247 -16 -000752 -CU 20 FINDING: The applicant proposes a gravel driveway and vehicular maneuvering area, and paved parking spaces. A gravel driveway and vehicular maneuvering area are allowed if one of the sub -criteria above can be met. In this case, the subject property is located outside of an unincorporated community. The shop is located in a Rural Community. The applicant is willing to agree to a condition of approval requiring that gravel surfacing to be maintained in a manner which will not create dust problems for neighbors. Staff's site visit revealed that large portions of the gravel within the access driveway and vehicular maneuvering area have broken down such that the surface appears to be dirt with only minor amounts of gravel. The access driveway provides the primary access for heavy equipment, delivery trucks, trucks hauling storage units, other industrial/commercial trucks of many different types (including 18 -wheeler tractor -trailer rigs) located and operating on site. The approval of a waiver to the paved surfaces requirement is discretionary as the code uses the word "may." Given the many other uses made of the main access driveway, it is not clear that a gravel surface will be maintained in a manner which will not create dust problems for neighboring properties, including the ODOT right-of-way. Also, the proposed use will generate a fair amount of traffic. As a result, the applicant should be required to pave the entire access aisle/service drive beginning at Tumalo Place to a point beyond the entrance to the parking area. The applicant should also be required to pave the entire parking area, including employee parking, to provide an even surface within the area. This will reduce the chance vehicles will damage the pavement when making repeated trips between the paved and unpaved parts of the parking area. It will also reduce dust in an area located close to Highway 97 where dust could create visibility problems for motorists. A condition of approval should be imposed to require paving if this application is approved on appeal. 5. Access aisles shall be of sufficient width for all vehicular turning and maneuvering. FINDING: Table 1, Off -Street Parking Lot Design, of this chapter requires a 24 -foot -wide access aisle for two-way traffic. The applicant's May 4th site plan appears to propose a 24 -foot wide access aisle. A condition of approval requiring compliance with Table 1 should be imposed to ensure compliance with this criterion. 6. Service drives to off-street parking areas shall be designed and constructed to facilitate the flow of traffic, provide maximum safety of traffic access and egress and maximum safety of pedestrians and vehicular traffic on the site. The number of service drives shall be limited to the minimum that will accommodate and serve the traffic anticipated. Service drives shall be clearly and permanently marked and defined through the use of rails, fences, walls or other barriers or markers. Service drives to drive in establishments shall be designed to avoid backing movements or other maneuvering within a street other than an alley. FINDING: The applicant proposes to use an existing gravel driveway from Tumalo Place to access the parking lot adjacent to the existing building on-site. This driveway should be paved to a point beyond the access to the parking lot to facility the flow of traffic and widened to a minimum of 24 feet. The May 4th site plan 400 -foot length of the driveway from Tumalo Place will ensure vehicles are not required to back onto a street right-of-way. A pedestrian walkway is proposed along the paved parking spaces. No pedestrian walkways are proposed along the 247 -16 -000751 -SP, 247 -16 -000752 -CU 21 driveway from Tumalo Place. The existing driveway includes a fence along its western boundary. The eastern side of the existing driveway is not clearly and permanently marked. In the applicant's response to the Incomplete Letter, the applicant agreed to install additional delineators to meet this criterion. The proposed site plan design may require vehicles to back out onto Tumalo Place rather than turning around on site. The May 4th revised site plan shows a gate across the entrance to the parking area from the shared access aisle. If this gate is closed, there is no easy way for vehicles to turn around using the facilities proposed by the site plan — in other words, vehicles will need to use other parts of the property to turn around or they will need to back out. This design does not facilitate the flow of traffic and provide maximum safety of vehicular traffic on the site. This criterion is not met. 7. Service drives shall have a minimum vision clearance area formed by the intersection of the driveway centerline, the street right of way line and a straight line joining said lines through points 30 feet from their intersection. FINDING: Based on staffs site visit and review of the site plan, staff found the minimum clear vision area at the intersection of the existing driveway with Tumalo Place is met. This criterion is met. 8. Parking spaces along the outer boundaries of a parking area shall be contained by a curb or bumper rail placed to prevent a motor vehicle from extending over an adjacent property line or a street right of way. FINDING: Where proposed, it is not possible for a motor vehicle to extend over an adjacent property line or street right of way. This criterion does not apply. G. Off -Street Parking Lot Design. All off-street parking lots shall be designed subject to County standards for stalls and aisles as set forth in the following drawings and table: (SEE TABLE 1 AT END OF CHAPTER 18.116) FINDING: The proposed driveways and access aisles must be at least 24 -feet wide as required by Table 1. All proposed vehicular parking spaces within the parking lot must meet the minimum nine -foot -wide by 20 -foot -long parking stall dimensions in Table 1. A condition of approval should be imposed to assure compliance with this condition. 2. Section 18.116.031. Bicycle Parking. New development and any construction, renovation or alteration of an existing use requiring a site plan review under DCC Title 18 for which planning approval is applied for after the effective date of Ordinance 93-005 shall comply with the provisions of DCC 18.116.031. A. Number and Type of Bicycle Parking Spaces Required. 1. General Minimum Standard. a. All uses that require off-street motor vehicle parking shall, except as specifically noted, provide one bicycle 247 -16 -000751 -SP, 247 -16 -000752 -CU 22 parking space for every five required motor vehicle parking spaces. FINDING: The general minimum standard applies to a Recreational Marijuana Retail and dispensary use. The code does not provide a different parking requirement for these uses. At least one bicycle parking space is required because four motor vehicle parking spaces are required for the proposed use. It is not, however, possible for the Hearings Officer to determine the total number of required bicycle parking spaces because the number of required motor vehicle parking spaces is unknown. The number of motor vehicle parking spaces is unknown because the code requires parking for all uses occupying a parcel of land. The applicant has not identified all uses occupying the parcel and has not calculated their parking needs. This criterion has not been met. b. Except as specifically set forth herein, all such parking facilities shall include at least two sheltered parking spaces or, where more than 10 bicycle spaces are required, at least 50 percent of the bicycle parking spaces shall be sheltered. FINDING: A minimum of two sheltered bicycle parking spaces is required for the use proposed by the applicant. No specific exception is provided by the County's bicycle parking standards for the use proposed by the applicant. No sheltered bicycle parking is provided by the applicant's site plan. This criterion has not been met. c. When the proposed use is located outside of an unincorporated community, a destination resort, and a rural commercial zone, exceptions to the bicycle parking standards may be authorized by the Planning Director or Hearings Body if the applicant demonstrates one or more of the following: i The proposed use is in a location accessed by roads with no bikeways and bicycle use by customers or employees is unlikely. ii. The proposed use generates less than 50 vehicle trips per day. iii. No existing buildings on the site will accommodate bicycle parking and no new buildings are proposed. iv. The size, weight, or dimensions of the goods sold or unlikely. v. The use of the site requires equipment that makes it unlikely that a bicycle would be used to access the site. Representative examples would include, but not be limited to, paintball parks, golf courses, shooting ranges, etc. FINDING: The applicant requests an exception to the bicycle parking standards based on the property being located outside of an unincorporated community and being a use that will generate less than 50 vehicle trips per day. This exception can be requested if the property is located outside of an unincorporated community, a destination resort, and a rural commercial 247 -16 -000751 -SP, 247 -16 -000752 -CU 23 zone. The subject property is located within a rural commercial zone. For this reason, an exception to the bicycle parking requirement cannot be granted. 2. Special Minimum Standards. a. Multi -Family Residences. Every residential use of four or more dwelling units shall provide at least one bicycle parking space for each unit. In those instances in which the residential complex has no garage, required spaces shall be sheltered. FINDING: The proposed use is not a multi -family residence. This criterion does not apply. b. Parking Lots. All public and commercial parking lots and parking structures shall provide a minimum of one bicycle parking space for every 10 motor vehicle parking spaces. FINDING: The term "public and commercial parking lots" is unclear. County staff interpreted it to mean any parking lot that serves a commercial use. The hearings officer interprets the term to mean a parking lot that is operated as a commercial enterprise that is not serving as required parking for another land use. Likewise, a typical "public parking lot" is a lot owned by the public rather than one that serves a public use. A reduced requirement for bicycle parking makes sense where the use is a standalone parking area. Additionally, it seems highly unlikely that the County Board of Commissioners intended to exempt all public and commercial uses from the requirement to provide sheltered parking and to reduce the "general" requirement. The context of this code provision, also, supports the view that this special standard applies only when the use proposed by an applicant is a "parking lot" use — not a use that requires parking. The list of specific minimum standards applies to uses proposed; multi -family residences, schools and colleges. The applicant is not proposing a public or commercial parking lot or structure. This criterion does not apply. c. Schools. Schools, both public and private, shall provide one bicycle parking space for every 25 students, half of which shall be sheltered. FINDING: The proposed use is not a school. This criterion does not apply. d. Colleges. One-half of the bicycle parking spaces at colleges, universities and trade schools shall be sheltered facilities. FINDING: The proposed use is not a college. This criterion does not apply. 3. Trade Off with Motor Vehicle Parking Spaces. a. One motor vehicle parking space may be deleted from the required number of spaces in exchange for providing required bicycle parking. i. Any deleted motor vehicle space beyond the one allowed above shall be replaced with at least one bicycle spaces. 247 -16 -000751 -SP, 247 -16 -000752 -CU 24 H. If such additional parking is to be located in the area of the deleted automobile parking space, it must meet all other bicycle parking standards. b. The Hearings Body or Planning Director may authorize additional bicycle parking in exchange for required motor vehicle parking in areas of demonstrated, anticipated, or desired high bicycle use. FINDING: The applicant does not propose to reduce vehicular parking for bicycle parking. This criterion does not apply. 4. Calculating number of bicycle spaces. a. Fractional spaces shall be rounded up to the next whole space. FINDING: As noted above, fractional spaces for the required bicycle parking were rounded up. b. For facilities with multiple uses (such as a commercial center) bicycle -parking requirements shall be calculated by using the total number of motor vehicle spaces required for the entire development. FINDING: The total number of spaces required for all development on the property is unknown. This criterion is not met. B. Bicycle Parking Design. 1. General Description. a. Sheltered Parking. Sheltered parking may be provided within a bicycle storage room, bicycle locker, or racks inside a building; in bicycle lockers or racks in an accessory parking structure; underneath an awning, eave, or other overhang; or by other facility as determined by the Hearings Body or Planning Director that protects the bicycle from direct exposure to the elements. b. Unsheltered parking may be provided by bicycle racks. 2. Location. a. Required bicycle parking that is located outdoors shall be located on-site within 50 feet of main entrances and not farther from the entrance than the closest motor vehicle parking space. i. Bicycle parking shall be located in areas of greatest use and convenience to bicyclist. ii. Such bicycle parking shall have direct access to both the public right of way and to the main entrance of the principal use. iii. Bicycle parking shall not impede or create a hazard to pedestrians. 247 -16 -000751 -SP, 247 -16 -000752 -CU 25 iv. Parking areas shall be located so as not to conflict with clear vision areas as prescribed in DCC 18.116.020. b. Bicycle parking facilities shall be separated from motor vehicle parking and drive areas by a barrier or sufficient distance to prevent damage to the parked bicycle. c. Where bicycle parking facilities are not directly visible and obvious from the public right(s) of way, entry and directional signs shall be provided to direct bicyclists for [from] the public right of way to the bicycle parking facility. Directions to sheltered facilities inside a structure may be signed, or supplied by the employer, as appropriate. 3. Dimensional Standards. a. Each bicycle parking space shall be at least two by six feet with a vertical clearance of seven feet. b. An access aisle of at least five feet wide shall be provided and maintained beside or between each row of bicycle parking. c. Each required bicycle parking space shall be accessible without moving another bicycle. 4. Surface. The surface of an outdoor parking facility shall be surfaced in the same manner as the motor vehicle parking area or with a minimum of one -inch thickness of aggregate material. This surface will be maintained in a smooth, durable, and well -drained condition. 5. Security. a. Bicycle parking facilities shall offer security in the form of either a lockable enclosure in which the bicycle can be stored or a stationary object (i.e., a "rack") upon which the bicycle can be locked. Structures that require a user -supplied lock shall accommodate both cables and U-shaped locks and shall permit the frame and both wheels to be secured (removing the front wheel may be necessary). All bicycle racks, lockers, or other facilities shall be permanently anchored to the surface of the ground or to a structure. b. Lighting shall be provided in a bicycle parking area so that all facilities are thoroughly illuminated and visible from adjacent sidewalks or motor vehicle parking. FINDING: The applicant's site plan does not provide sheltered parking. It proposes to provide bicycle parking outside. That location is appropriate so that spaces are accessible to customers who will make up the vast majority of visitors to the site. As discussed above, sheltered bicycle parking is required for the applicant's use. If sheltered parking is provided where shown on the site plan, a structure must be built and must comply with site plan and LM zone requirements. The bicycle parking area is over 50 from the front entrance to the building. It is also farther from the entrance than the closest motor vehicle parking space. The bicycle parking area has 247 -16 -000751 -SP, 247 -16 -000752 -CU 26 reasonably direct access to the public right-of-way via the path added to the site by the May 4, 2017 site plan. The proposed location does not impede or create a hazard to pedestrians. Bicycle parking is not proposed in a clear vision area. The applicant has not provided any information about how bicycle parking will be developed so it cannot be determined what the applicant might choose to build and whether it will comply with the rest of the approval criteria. This criterion has not been met. 3. Section 18.116.330. Traffic Impact Studies A. For purposes of DCC 18.116.310, the transportation system includes public and private roads, intersections, sidewalks, bike facilities, trails, and transit systems. B. The applicant shall meet with County staff in a pre -application conference to discuss study requirements, then generate the traffic study and submit it concurrently with the land use application. C. Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies 1. All traffic impact studies shall be stamped and signed by the registered professional engineer who is licensed in the State of Oregon and is otherwise qualified to prepare traffic studies. 2. The County Engineer shall determine when the report has satisfied all the requirements of the development's impact analysis. Incomplete reports shall be returned for completion. 3. The following vehicle trip generation thresholds shall determine the level and scope of transportation analysis required for a new or expanded development. a. No Report is required if there are fewer than 50 trips per day generated during a weekday. b. Site Traffic Report (STR): If the development or change in use will cause the site to generate 50-200 daily trip ends, and less than 20 peak hour trips, a Site Traffic Report may be required at the discretion of the County Engineer. c. Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA): If the development or change in use will generate more than 200 trip ends and 20 or more peak hour trips, then a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) shall be required. 4. The peak hour shall be the highest continuous hour of traffic measured between 4:00 and 6:00 PM, unless site trip generation characteristics warrant consideration of alternative periods as determined by the County Engineer. (An example would be a use with a high 7:00 and 9:00 AM peak and a low PM peak such as a school.) FINDING: Peter Russell, the County's Transportation Planner determined that no report was required for this application and his approach was supported by George Kolb, County Engineer. Mr. Russell believes that trips generated by the proposed use will be under 50 trips per day. This opinion was arrived at by using the trip rate set by the ITE Manual for "Specialty Retail" uses. 247 -16 -000751 -SP, 247 -16 -000752 -CU 27 Stephanie Brussett and the applicant's transportation engineer, Joe Bessman, submitted evidence that suggests that trip rates for marijuana sales facilities may be significantly higher than 50 vehicle trips per day. Mr. Bessman also submitted information that the ITE Manual indicates that "Specialty Retail" generates 44.32 trips per thousand square feet and 2.71 trips during the pm peak hour. Mr. Bessman noted that a study by traffic engineer Scott Ferguson projected a rate of 16.39 trips per thousand square feet of dispensary space for Bend dispensaries. It is assumed that this is the pm peak hour rate on weekdays from the context provided by the Bessman letter. Ms. Brussett provided information from an Internet website that 402 to 412 daily trips per thousand square feet of dispensary store space are being generated by stores in Denver, Colorado. In the Denver studies, the pm peak hour rate was reported to be 63.61 weekday pm trips. Between the information submitted by Ms. Brussett and the Ferguson data, I find the Ferguson data to be the most reliable. It is based on studies of marijuana dispensaries in Central Oregon; not Denver, Colorado. The pm peak hour rates in Denver, Colorado are almost 3.5 times higher than those obtained by Mr. Ferguson for Bend's marijuana dispensaries. Mr. Bessman does not provide a daily rate for dispensaries from the Ferguson study. It is clear that the number will be lower than 200 trips per day. The daily weekday rate cited for Denver is 402.27 trips per day. This number is 2.01 times higher than the 200 trips per day threshold set by the County code. The Denver peak hour trip volume is 3.88 times the number of trips observed in Bend by Mr. Ferguson. Based on this information, it is reasonable to assume that the number of daily trips based on the rates set by the Ferguson study is below 200 vehicle trips per day. When trips associated with a new use are 200 daily and 20 peak hour trips or fewer, the County code says that the County Engineer may or may not require an applicant to file a Site Traffic Report. The County Engineer did not require a report. That decision is authorized by this code section. The requirements of this code section are satisfied. 4. Section 18.116.330. Marijuana Production, Processing, and Retailing. A. Applicability. Section 18.116.330 applies to: 3. Marijuana Retailing in the RSC, TeC, TeCR, TuC, Tul, RC, RI, SUC, SUTC, and SUBP zones. FINDING: The applicant proposes a marijuana retail facility in the RC Zone. The standards of DCC 18.116.330 apply. C. Marijuana Retailing. Marijuana retailing, including recreational and medical marijuana sales, shall be subject to the following standards and criteria: 1. Hours. Hours of operation shall be no earlier than 9:00 a.m. and no later than 7:00 p.m. on the same day. FINDING: The applicant agrees to comply with this criterion. A condition of approval may be imposed to ensure compliance. 2. Odor. The building, or portion thereof, used for marijuana retailing shall be designed or equipped to prevent detection 247 -16 -000751 -SP, 247 -16 -000752 -CU 28 of marijuana plant odor off premise by a person of normal sensitivity. FINDING: Best practice data provided to the applicant from odor control professionals indicates that odor can be controlled by providing a system sized to move 1/3 of the air volume of the facility measured in cubic feet per minute (cfm). The proposed retail facility will encompass 8,622 cubic feet of air volume, necessitating an odor control system which can move 2,874 cfm of air. To achieve this, the applicant proposes two 12" x 39" Black Ops carbon filters which are rated for 1,700 cfm paired with Canfan Maxfan 12" inline fans which are rated at 1,709 cfm. As designed, the facility will utilize one filter and fan in the receptionist and waiting area, and one filter and fan in the retail marijuana tending area. Together, the applicant states the filter/fan combinations will provide a total of 3,400 cfm which exceeds the 2,874 cfm referenced above. The Burden of Proof includes specification sheets for the odor control filters and fans. Staff notes the odor control standards associated with marijuana production facilities and detailed in DCC 18.116.330(B)(10), requires the filter/fan combination to move 1/3 of the air volume of the facility per minute. For this reason, it is reasonable to conclude the applicant's odor control system will meet the odor control standard for the retail facility. A condition of approval should be imposed to ensure compliance with this standard throughout the life of the use. 3. Window Service. The use shall not have a walk-up or drive- thru window service. FINDING: The applicant agrees to this prohibition. A condition of approval may be imposed to ensure compliance. 4. 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 registrant. FINDING: Per the applicant's response to staff's Incomplete Letter, the applicant proposes a one cubic yard dumpster fitted with a lock bar and lock. The applicant states the waste receptacle will be in the possession of and under control of the applicant. A condition of approval may be imposed to ensure compliance. 5. Minors. No person under the age of 21 shall be permitted to be present in the building, or portion thereof, occupied by the marijuana retailer, except as allowed by state law. FINDING: The applicant proposes to comply with this standard. A condition of approval may be imposed to ensure compliance. 6. Co -Location of Related Activities and Uses. Marijuana and tobacco products shall not be smoked, ingested, or otherwise consumed in the building space occupied by the marijuana retailer. In addition, marijuana retailing shall not be co - located on the same lot or parcel or within the same building with any marijuana social club or marijuana smoking club. 247 -16 -000751 -SP, 247 -16 -000752 -CU 29 FINDING: Applicant proposes to comply with the prohibition on marijuana use in the building. A condition of approval may be imposed to ensure compliance. The proposed marijuana retail facility will not be co -located on the same lot or parcel or within the same building with any marijuana social club or marijuana smoking club. 7. Separation Distances. Minimum separation distances shall apply as follows: a. The use shall be located a minimum of 1,000 feet from: i. 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 family child care which occurs at or in residential structures; iv. A youth activity center; v. National monuments and state parks; and vi. Any other marijuana retail facility licensed by the OLCC or marijuana dispensary registered with the OHA. b. For purposes of DCC 18.116.330(6)(7), distance shall be measured from the lot line of the affected property to the closest point of the building space occupied by the marijuana retailer. For purposes of DCC 18.116.330(6)(7)(a)(vi), distance shall be measured from the closest point of the building space occupied by one marijuana retailer to the closest point of the building space occupied by the other marijuana retailer. FINDING: Based on staffs review of surrounding properties, the proposed marijuana retail facility will be located at least 1,000 feet from all of the uses listed in (i -iv). The closest listed use is the Three Sisters Adventist Christian School. According to evidence in the record based on scaling the distance using Google and DIAL aerial photographs and scaling tools is that the school's property is approximately 1,050 to 1,150 feet from the existing building to be used as the retail facility. There is no evidence in the record that the school is actually within 1000' feet of the retail building. This criterion is met. c. A change in use to another property to a use identified in DCC 18.116.330(6)(7), after a marijuana retailer has 247 -16 -000751 -SP, 247 -16 -000752 -CU 30 been licensed by or registered with the State of Oregon shall not result in the marijuana retailer being in violation of DCC 18.116.330(6)(7). FINDING: This is a statement about the future effect of an approval of a DCC 18.116.330(B)(7) use, if that occurs. It is not an approval criterion. 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 requirements of this section should be a condition of approval. E. Chapter 18.124, Site Plan Review 1. Section 18.124.030. Approval Required. A. No building, grading, parking, land use, sign or other required permit shall be issued for a use subject to DCC 18.124.030, nor shall 247 -16 -000751 -SP, 247 -16 -000752 -CU 31 such a use be commenced, enlarged, altered or changed until a final site plan is approved according to DCC Title 22, the Uniform Development Procedures Ordinance. B. The provisions of DCC 18.124.030 shall apply to the following: 3. All commercial uses that require parking facilities; FINDING: The applicant proposes a commercial use that requires parking facilities. As a result, site plan review is required. 2. Section 18.124.060. Approval Criteria. Approval of a site plan shall be based on the following criteria: A. The proposed development shall relate harmoniously to the natural environment and existing development, minimizing visual impacts and preserving natural features including views and topographical features. FINDING: The existing environment consists of a mixture of developed areas associated with the existing building, previous site plan approval, and other cleared areas, and undeveloped areas with a vegetative cover of sage brush, trees and grasses. The developed areas are located in the central, eastern and southeastern portions of the property. The undeveloped areas are located in the western and northern portions of the property. Views from the property include Highway 97 to the east and some views of the Cascade Mountains to the west. No unique or significant topographic features exist on-site. Opponents have complained about the pink color of the commercial building, the "Pink House.". The pink color of the house does not relate harmoniously to the natural environment and existing development. It does not minimize the visual impact of the building. Rather, it maximizes the visual impact of the building. The building, however, is not "proposed development" so it is not subject to compliance with this approval criterion. The proposed development will be limited to the first floor of the existing building and parking area in the southeastern corner of the property. Access to the facility is available via an existing driveway from Tumalo Place. Minimal physical alteration of the land will be necessary to establish the use. Both access and parking spaces will be provided adjacent to the existing building. Changes to the site plan are needed to achieve compliance with bicycle parking requirements. The bicycle parking needs to be located closer to the building than the parking spaces. As these changes will alter other site plan features, it is not yet possible for the County to find compliance with this approval criterion. The County code allows property owners to provide covered bicycle parking indoors but the applicant has proposed outdoor parking. The applicant has not provided sufficient information to allow the hearings officer to find that indoor bicycle storage is possible given the applicant's development plans for that relatively small space. This criterion is not met. B. The landscape and existing topography shall be preserved to the greatest extent possible, considering development constraints and suitability of the landscape and topography. Preserved trees and shrubs shall be protected. 247 -16 -000751 -SP, 247 -16 -000752 -CU 32 FINDING: It is unknown how the site will be rearranged to comply with the bicycle parking criteria. As a result, it cannot be determined whether the site plan will comply with this criterion. This criterion is not met. C. The site plan shall be designed to provide a safe environment, while offering appropriate opportunities for privacy and transition from public to private spaces. FINDING: Staff believed that vehicles would not be required to back onto Tumalo Place due to the length of the driveway from Tumalo Place to the parking area. It is not clear that staff took into account the fact that there is a gate across the entrance to the parking area from the access driveway. From a review of the areas proposed for development by the applicant, when the gate is closed, it does not appear to be easy for a vehicle to turn around rather than back out of the site. It appears likely that vehicles will need to travel beyond the site plan area to turn around or that they will need to drive off of the access driveway onto other parts of the site not subject to site plan review. Based on staffs site visit, the intersection of the driveway with Tumalo Place appears to meet the minimum clear vision standard. The vehicular parking spaces will include bumpers. The purpose of the bumpers is to prevent vehicles from encroaching onto the pedestrian walkway along the south side of the southernmost row of parking spaces. The bumpers are shown at the very end of the parking space. In this location, vehicles will hang over the front of the parking space into the walkway and make the pedestrian walkway too narrow for comfortable use by pedestrians. The applicant should be required to move the bumpers back to a point where a typical sports utility vehicle or passenger truck will not encroach into the pedestrian aisle and to provide the County or to enlarge or separate the pedestrian aisle from the parking space with a landscaped strip with breaks for access between the lot and walkway. The pedestrian walkway leads directly to the entrance of the building, eliminating pedestrian crosswalks in the parking area. Staffs only concern with respect to safety was the relationship between vehicular maneuvering areas and bicycle parking. Staff recommended that the applicant provide details regarding the required bicycle parking space. The May 4, 207 Landscape Plan shows a proposed location for bicycle parking but no details about the space(s). The location chosen, also, is not code compliant. As the site plan must be revised, it is premature to find compliance with this criterion. This criterion has not been met. D. When appropriate, the site plan shall provide for the special needs of disabled persons, such as ramps for wheelchairs and Braille signs. FINDING: The applicant proposes two accessible vehicle parking spaces. The on-site walkway will be reviewed for ADA compliance during building permit review. Any required accommodations will be addressed at that time. This criterion will be met. E. The location and number of points of access to the site, interior circulation patterns, separations between pedestrians and moving and parked vehicles, and the arrangement of parking areas in relation to buildings and structures shall be harmonious with proposed and neighboring buildings and structures. 247 -16 -000751 -SP, 247 -16 -000752 -CU 33 FINDING: The proposal will use an existing driveway from Tumalo Place which will connect to the proposed vehicular parking spaces. Staff recommended a condition of approval requiring the applicant to maintain 24 -foot -wide drive aisles to allow for two-way traffic. That condition is appropriate and required to assure compliance with the code. The location of parking space bumpers is at the very end of the spaces. In this location, the bumpers will not prevent vehicles from encroaching onto the paved pedestrian walkway adjacent to the parking spaces. The parking lot, as currently configured, will be located immediately adjacent to the building to allow convenient access to the use. The chosen location for the proposed outdoor bicycle parking, however, must be closer to the building than any of the parking spaces — something not achieved by the submitted site plan. The parking area will need to be redesigned. It, therefore, cannot be determined if this criterion will be met. This criterion is not met. F. Surface drainage systems shall be designed to prevent adverse impacts on neighboring properties, streets, or surface and subsurface water quality. FINDING: The applicant proposes hardscape for customer parking spaces and the pedestrian walkway connecting the parking area to the building entrance. Drainage would flow to a low point just west of the parking lot. The burden of proof states that Sun Country Engineering's preliminary assessment indicates this low point is sufficient to prevent adverse impacts on neighboring properties, streets, or surface and subsurface water quality if the parking lot paving is appropriately designed and improved to direct water flow to this area. This criterion can be met and assured by the imposition of a condition of approval. G. Areas, structures and facilities for storage, machinery and equipment, services (mail, refuse, utility wires, and the like), loading and parking and similar accessory areas and structures shall be designed, located and buffered or screened to minimize adverse impacts on the site and neighboring properties. FINDING: The proposal includes a parking area west of the existing building and a secure waste receptacle north of the building. The parking area is designed to use an existing driveway and an area previously cleared for parking associated with land use file SP -05-28. The May 4, 2017 landscape plans propose plants for screening at the east end of the driveway. The waste receptacle will use an area adjacent to, and north of, the existing building that was also previously cleared. The waste receptacle will be located in a screened and gated enclosure. No details about the appearance of the enclosure have been provided. Absent such information, the enclosure and its gates should be required to be solid and opaque to assure compliance with this criterion. A condition of approval to that effect should be imposed. H. All above -ground utility installations shall be located to minimize adverse visual impacts on the site and neighboring properties. FINDING: No above -ground utility installations are proposed. This criterion does not apply. 1. Specific criteria are outlined for each zone and shall be a required part of the site plan (e.g. lot setbacks, etc.). FINDING: The approval criteria for the underlying RC Zone are addressed above. 247 -16 -000751 -SP, 247 -16 -000752 -CU 34 J. All exterior lighting shall be shielded so that direct light does not project off-site. FINDING: The proposal includes an exterior light for the western building entrance. The Burden of Proof states the light will be shielded and directed downward to prevent light from being projected off-site. With a condition of approval, this criterion can be met. K. Transportation access to the site shall be adequate for the use. 1. Where applicable, issues including, but not limited to, sight distance, turn and acceleration/deceleration lanes, right-of- way, roadway surfacing and widening, and bicycle and pedestrian connections, shall be identified. 2. Mitigation for transportation -related impacts shall be required. 3. Mitigation shall meet applicable County standards in DCC 17.16 and DCC 17.48, applicable Oregon Department of Transportation (000T) mobility and access standards, and applicable American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards. FINDING: The proposed marijuana retail facility will use an existing driveway from Tumalo Place. According to comments from the Planning Division's Senior Transportation Planner, expected trip generation from the facility is below the threshold necessary to warrant a traffic analysis. Nonetheless, transportation system analysis work was completed by Joe Bessman, PE for the applicant. Mr. Bessman is a transportation engineer. A pedestrian connection was proposed by the applicant and mentioned in Mr. Bessman's report. Mr. Bessman provided his professional opinion that the sight distance at the access to the US 97 corridor "narrowly" meets AASHTO guidelines.3 The Senior Transportation Planner and the County Engineer reviewed the application. Neither indicated a need for transportation -related improvements. Area neighbors testified that Tumalo Place becomes congested and that the design of the interchange with Highway 97 by ODOT makes access to the site unsafe. These concerns were relayed to County staff. County staff did not find that the concerns merited mitigation. Area neighbors claimed that the vehicle trips associated will be far higher than forecast by the applicant and County using the specialty retail trip rate. Mr. Bessman provided trip rate figures obtained by a study conducted by transportation engineer Scott Ferguson. The Ferguson study shows that the specialty retail use relied on by County staff to estimate vehicle trips and to assess the adequacy of transportation access to the site provides a trip estimate is too low to be reliably applied to marijuana retail uses. The ITE Manual estimates a trip rate of 2.71 trips per thousand during the weekday pm peak hour. Mr. Ferguson's study of marijuana dispensaries in Bend showed a trip rate of 16.39 trips — a rate over six times higher than the ITE rate for specialty retail uses. While the Ferguson study was conducted in the City of Bend it is highly improbable that it overstate the trips that will occur on the subject property. The subject property is located on an extremely busy highway in a bright pink building. It will have a large pole visible from the highway to draw customers to the site. 247 -16 -000751 -SP, 247 -16 -000752 -CU 35 The Bessman study submitted on May 4, 2017 claimed that 80% of vehicle trips associated with the marijuana retail facility will be pass -by trips. These trips were subtracted from his estimate of pm peak hour trips associated with the proposed use. This is a fair approach, however, only if vehicle trips making through trips on Highway 97 are not considered "pass -by" trips. Vehicles passing by on Highway 97 will create new trips on Tumalo Place when they use the interchange to leave the highway and travel on Tumalo Place to reach the site. Tumalo Place and the interchange is where impacts are alleged to create potential access problems. Given the significant difference between observed trips for marijuana dispensaries in Bend and the ITE trip rate for specialty retail and the fact that the description of the specialty retail use in the ITE Manual does not closely fit the use proposed and the fact that County staff review of the adequacy of access was based on the very low ITE trip rate, the Hearings Officer is unable to find that transportation access is adequate. This criterion has been met. 3. Section 18.124.070. Required Minimum Standards. B. Required Landscaped Areas. 1. The following landscape requirements are established for multi -family, commercial and industrial developments, subject to site plan approval: a. A minimum of 15 percent of the lot area shall be landscaped. FINDING: In its staff report, County staff treated a leased area of 22,913 square feet of an approximately 29.04 -acre parcel of land as the "lot area." Staff also determined existing native vegetation covers an area of 10,399 square feet which is approximately 45 percent of the leased area. At the land use hearing, the Hearings Officer questioned whether the term "lot area" is synonymous with "leased area." After reviewing the County code it is clear that it is not. The term "lot area" is defined by DCC 18.04.030. It is "the total horizontal area contained within the lot lines." "Lot lines" are "the property lines bounding a lot." According to DCC 18.04.030, lots are "unit[s] of land created by a subdivision of land." The term "lot" is defined in two different ways by the County Code. It is a "lot of record" as well as a unit of land created by a subdivision of land. DCC 18.04.030, "Lot" and "Lot of Record." A lot of record includes parcels created by partitions and ORS Chapter 92 partitions and Tots created by subdivisions. Deschutes County applies its landscape requirements to parcels and lots and requires that lots be lots of record in order to be eligible for development approval. In this context, it appears that the code is referring to the lot area of a lot of record. The lot of record used to determine lot area is 29.04 -acres. As a result, 4.356 acres of the subject property must be landscaped to achieve compliance with the plain language of this code section. In a typical case where a large parcel is being partially developed, a property owner can comply with the 15% landscaping requirement by leaving that amount of the larger parcel in native vegetation. This landscaping can then serve as landscaping for future development of the rest of the parcel or be revised when additional development occurs. This, therefore, is not typically an onerous requirement. In this case, the aerial photograph of the property shows that the parent parcel contains native areas that could be set aside and protected to comply with the 15% landscaping requirement. This criterion can be met with a condition of approval. 247 -16 -000751 -SP, 247 -16 -000752 -CU 36 ADDITIONAL FINDINGS: A prior site plan approval, a hearings officer's decision in SP -05-23 interpreted this code section in a different way. Issues decided by hearings officers in prior land use decisions, however, do not act as binding legal precedent. This means that each time a decision is made by a hearings officer, the hearings officer is required to correctly apply the law. The SP -05-28 decision required that 15% of RC zoned area of the subject property be landscaped for a business proposed for the RC zone part of the Fagen property. A 15% landscaping requirement based on the RC zone area only requires that 11,238.48 square feet of landscaping. This decision did not follow this approach for a number of reasons. First, the leased area of the business includes land zoned MUA-10. The business, also, uses a significant amount of land on the subject property outside the leased area for ingress and egress to Tumalo Place. A part of that area is zoned MUA-10. As the business occupies area outside of the RC zone, it does not make sense to calculate landscaping requirement based on the RC zone only. Second, the SP -05-23 interpretation is not consistent with the plain language of subsection (a), above. Subsection (a)'s language sets the 15% requirement by reference to the term "lot area." That term is defined by the code to apply to the entire subject property. It is not defined as a part of a lot. No special rules exist for lots with split zoning. The code also does not authorize the hearings officer to calculate landscaping requirements based on the leased area of a larger property. The SP -05-03 decision disregarded the term "lot area" used by subsection (a) above because subsection (b) below requires that all areas subject to the final site plan be landscaped. There is no reason, however, that these areas must be one and the same. RESPONSE TO CHALLENGE BY APPLICANT: The applicant's planner, Greg Blackmore, argued that by using an existing building, it would not be changing the landscaped areas on site and should not be held to the landscaping standards of this code. The applicant wants to be excused from complying with certain code requirements, such as the requirement to provide landscaping in the parking area, because compliance was not required of a prior applicant for a site plan for a different use. Mr. Blackmore has cited no code provision that grants this status to landscaping areas approved by a prior site plan. DCC 18.124.030(A) requires that site plan approval be obtained when the use of a building is changed. DCC 18.124.070(B)(1) requires compliance with the code's landscape requirement for any use subject to site plan approval which includes changes of use. DCC 18.116.030 requires that parking areas that comply with the code be provided when a use of a building existing on the effective date of Title 18 is changed. The record shows that the Pink Building was on the subject property prior to 1979 which is prior to the effective date of Title 18. The parking area rules, including rules for parking lot landscaping, therefore apply. The SP -05-28 site plan submitted by Mr. Blackmore is not the final site plan required by the decision approving SP -05-28 and, therefore, cannot be said to control the outcome of this review. A revised plan was required as a condition of approval of SP -05-28. The revised plan was to show the location and type of screening landscaping and/or fencing that would be provided along Highway 97. The revised site plan was also required to show the exact size of the RC zone and the percentage of the site landscaped. This information is not provided on the site plan filed by Mr. Blackmore. 247 -16 -000751 -SP, 247 -16 -000752 -CU 37 The site, also, is not developed as promised by the submitted plan. The SP -05-08 site plan submitted by Mr. Blackmore shows that "a combination of shrubry [sic] and trees will be utilized to screen the product bins from Highway 97 within the 10 foot strip" all along Highway 97. This landscaping was not provided or was removed as it is not present on the subject property at this time. A concrete barrier has also been installed across the area subject to the SP -05-08 site plan. This barrier is inconsistent with and violates the plan approved in SP -05-08. b. All areas subject to the final site plan and not otherwise improved shall be landscaped. FINDING: Staffs Incomplete Application Letter includes the following discussion in reference to this approval criterion: Based on staff's review of aerial photographs and a site visit, there appear to be portions of the lease area that are not proposed to be improved and are not landscaped. One area is bounded by the gravel driveway to the west, the existing mature trees along Tumalo Place to the east, and Tumalo Place to the south. A second area is bounded by the gravel driveway to the west, the concrete block delineator to the north, the existing gravel vehicular circulation area to the southeast, and the gravel drive aisle to the south. A third area is bounded by the concrete block delineator to the north, the stone wall/fence to the east and southeast, and the building and gravel vehicular circulation area to the west. All three areas are not proposed to be improved and contain no landscaping. Pursuant to this criterion, these areas must be landscaped. Please amend the site plan and BoP to comply with this criterion. In response, the applicant states the majority of the non-developed portions of the site contain existing/native landscaping. While the applicant believes this existing vegetation is sufficient to address this criterion, the applicant indicates it is willing to accept a condition of approval requiring additional landscaping if determined to be necessary. Staff recommended the applicant submit a landscaping plan to meet this criterion. Staff also asked the Hearings Officer to determine if the existing landscaping on-site satisfies this criterion. The applicant submitted a landscaping plan that does not clearly establish compliance with this criterion within the leased area. The first area identified by staff still lacks landscaping between the fence around the leased area and the existing gravel site access driveway. The second area still lacks landscaping between the access driveway and entrance road (inside the leased area). Landscaping is still missing from the third area between the concrete delineator and the gravel parking area. Also, the area between the shrub screened planting area and Highway 97 is shown as "existing native landscape" but it contains a previously improved parking area. The area also contains rusted farm implements and heavy equipment not shown on the site plan. The site plan does not propose landscaping all unimproved land within the RC zoning district which is the requirement imposed in SP -05-23. It also does not propose to landscape the unimproved parts of the entire subject property. The meaning of "areas subject to the final site plan" is unclear. It is not resolved in this decision. The following discussion is, however, offered to assist the Board in answering that question if the matter is appealed and heard by the Board. Any plausible interpretation of the code adopted by the Board will be upheld. The following interpretations may be plausible: 247 -16 -000751 -SP, 247 -16 -000752 -CU 38 1. The "areas subject to the final site plan" is the "lot area" used to calculate landscaping requirements less improved areas. 2. "Areas subject to final site plan" are those areas of the site that are used for the proposed use and for all improvements required by site plan approval criteria e.g. site access, site driveway, parking lot, bicycle parking facilities, required landscaping area (15% of lot area), parking lot landscaping, front yard landscaped areas, trash enclosures and other improvements that serve the proposed use. As the leased area in this case includes land in both the MUA-10 zone and the RC zone and because the use requires the driveway to the commercial building crosses land zoned MUA-10, I do not believe an interpretation that "areas subject to final site plan" includes land zoned RC is plausible. This criterion is not met. 2. In addition to the requirement of DCC 18.124.070(B)(1)(a), the following landscape requirements shall apply to parking and loading areas: a. A parking or loading area shall be required to be improved with defined landscaped areas totaling no less than 25 square feet per parking space. FINDING: The applicant states the existing vegetation bordering the parking area complies with this criterion. Based on staffs site visit, the existing vegetation bordering the parking area is sparse and is not located in a defined landscaped area. The applicant submitted a landscaping plan. The landscape plan, however, does not identify or calculate the size of areas it believes are defined landscaped areas. The applicant has the burden of proof on this issue and has not met that burden. This criterion is not met. b. In addition to the landscaping required by DCC 18.124.070(B)(2)(a), a parking or loading area shall be separated from any lot line adjacent to a roadway by a landscaped strip at least 10 feet in width, and from any other lot line by a landscaped strip at least five feet in width. c. A landscaped strip separating a parking or loading area from a street shall contain: 1) Trees spaced as appropriate to the species, not to exceed 35 feet apart on the average. 2) Low shrubs not to reach a height greater than three feet zero inches, spaced no more than eight feet apart on the average. 3) Vegetative ground cover. FINDING: The existing vegetation between the parking area and Tumalo Place is at least 40 feet wide, and contains trees and a sparse covering of grasses. The applicant submitted a landscaping plan that proposes shrubs "TBD" between the road and the parking area. The plan, therefore, offers no evidence that the shrubs will meet code standards. This criterion is not met. d. Landscaping in a parking or loading area shall be located in defined landscaped areas which are 247 -16 -000751 -SP, 247 -16 -000752 -CU 39 uniformly distributed throughout the parking or loading area. e. The landscaping in a parking area shall have a width of not less than five feet. FINDING: The existing vegetation is not located within defined landscaping areas. The applicant filed a revised landscaping plan. The plan provides additional landscaping around the outside of the parking area. Given the small size of the parking area this seems reasonable but it does not meet the requirements of the code. The code plainly requires that landscape areas be distributed "throughout the parking or loading area." The Hearings Officer is bound to apply the law as written. This criterion has not been met. f. Provision shall be made for watering planting areas where such care is required. g. Required landscaping shall be continuously maintained and kept alive and attractive. FINDING: A condition of approval can be imposed to ensure compliance with these criteria. h. Maximum height of tree species shall be considered when planting under overhead utility lines. FINDING: No overhead utility lines exist on-site. This criterion does not apply. C. Non -motorized Access. 1. Bicycle Parking. The development shall provide the number and type of bicycle parking facilities as required in DCC 18.116.031 and 18.116.035. The location and design of bicycle parking facilities shall be indicated on the site plan. FINDING: The applicable criteria under DCC 18.116.031 and .035 are addressed above. 2. Pedestrian Access and Circulation: a. Internal pedestrian circulation shall be provided in new commercial, office and multi -family residential developments through the clustering of buildings, construction of hard surface pedestrian walkways, and similar techniques. FINDING: The applicant is proposing to use an existing commercial building and parking area for a retail use. The project, therefore, is not a new commercial development. This criterion does not apply. b. Pedestrian walkways shall connect building entrances to one another and from building entrances to public streets and existing or planned transit facilities. On site walkways shall connect with walkways, sidewalks, bikeways, and other pedestrian or bicycle connections on adjacent properties planned or used for commercial, multi family, public or park use. 247 -16 -000751 -SP, 247 -16 -000752 -CU 40 FINDING: There is only one building proposed to be used as part of the facility. For this reason, there are no other building entrances that must be connected. There are no existing or planned transit facilities in the area, and no pedestrian or bicycle connections on adjacent properties. None of the adjacent properties are zoned to allow commercial or multi -family uses. None are planned for or developed with public or park uses. This criterion does not apply. c. Walkways shall be at least five feet in paved unobstructed width. Walkways which border parking spaces shall be at least seven feet wide unless concrete bumpers or curbing and landscaping or other similar improvements are provided which prevent parked vehicles from obstructing the walkway. Walkways shall be as direct as possible. FINDING: The proposed pedestrian walkway will be five feet wide, with bumpers included within the vehicular parking stalls. The bumpers, however, are proposed to be located at the very front of the parking spaces. If this decision is appealed and the application is approved, the applicant should be required to relocate the bumpers to a spot where they will prevent parking vehicles from obstructing the walkway. This criterion is not met by the submitted plan. d. Driveway crossings by walkways shall be minimized. Where the walkway system crosses driveways, parking areas and loading areas, the walkway must be clearly identifiable through the use of elevation changes, speed bumps, a different paving material or other similar method. FINDING: No driveway crossings by walkways are proposed. This criterion does not apply. e. To comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the primary building entrance and any walkway that connects a transit stop to building entrances shall have a maximum slope of five percent. Walkways up to eight percent slope are permitted, but are treated as ramps with special standards for railings and landings. FINDING: Any required accommodations to comply with ADA standards will be addressed during building permit review. This criterion will be met. F. Chapter 18.128, Conditional Uses 1. Section 18.128.015. General Standards Governing Conditional Uses. Except for those conditional uses permitting individual single family dwellings, conditional uses shall comply with the following standards in addition to the standards of the zone in which the conditional use is located and any other applicable standards of the chapter: A. The site under consideration shall be determined to be suitable for the proposed use based on the following factors: 1. Site, design and operating characteristics of the use; 247 -16 -000751 -SP, 247 -16 -000752 -CU 41 FINDING: Site and Design The subject property is approximately 29 acres in size and is irregular in shape. The lease area for the proposed use covers 10,399 square feet of area in the far southeastern portion of the site. The lease area is developed with a two-story building, an area north and west of the building that was previously cleared for parking associated with land use file SP -05-28, and vegetation bordering the east, south, and southwestern sides of the lease area. The use is designed to take advantage of the existing building, parking area and driveway from Tumalo Place. The property has been used in the past for commercial uses. In general, the site and its design are adequate for the proposed commercial retail use. Operating Characteristics The applicant proposes to comply with the hours of operation standard under DCC 18.116.330(C)(1). This standard limits hours of operation to no earlier than 9:00 a.m. and no later than 7:00 p.m. on the same day. Additionally, the applicant proposes to comply with the standards related to odor control, waste receptacle, and minors DCC 18.116.330(C). The use proposed will occur mostly on land zoned for rural commercial uses. The site is suitable for a business with these operating characteristics. This criterion is met. 2. Adequacy of transportation access to the site; and FINDING: This requirement is similar to the requirement imposed by DCC 18.124.030(K). The findings provided regarding that approval criterion, above, apply to this criterion as well. The applicant has not met his burden of demonstrating that this criterion has been met. 3. The natural and physical features of the site, including, but not limited to, general topography, natural hazards and natural resource values. FINDING: The topography of the site rises slightly from southeast to northwest. The site is characterized by areas of heavy development and disturbance in the east, southeast and center of the property. The north and west portions of the property are undisturbed with exposed rock and a vegetative cover of sagebrush and a few juniper trees. The site does not appear to have any associated natural hazards. Natural resource value of the property is limited to existing vegetation and exposed rock. Staff determined that there is nothing about the natural and physical features of the site that will preclude or significantly hamper operation of the marijuana retail facility. There is no evidence in the record to suggest otherwise. This criterion is met. B. The proposed use shall be compatible with existing and projected uses on surrounding properties based on the factors listed in DCC 18.128.015(A). FINDING: To the north and west of the subject property are rural residential properties within the FIRST ADDITION TO WHISPERING PINES ESTATES subdivision. To the northeast are rural residential uses and small-scale commercial uses approved as nonconforming uses. At 65147 N. Highway 97, approximately 2,000 feet to the northwest of the proposed use, the 247 -16 -000751 -SP, 247 -16 -000752 -CU 42 property owner received site plan approval to alter a nonconforming use consisting of a tractor and equipment sales and service business. At 65175 N. Highway 97, approximately 2,200 feet to the northeast of the proposed use, the property owner received site plan approval to alter a nonconforming use consisting of a vehicle and equipment storage business. Highway 97 forms the property's southeast border. Across Highway 97 to the east are lands zoned EFU and RI. The EFU-zoned lands are developed with rural residential uses and some farm uses. To the southeast across Highway 97, the RI -zoned lands are developed with a number of industrial uses including Willamette Graystone (masonry blocks), Jack Robinson & Sons, Inc. (excavation), 4-R Equipment, LLC (aggregate processing). To the south across Tumalo Place are lands zoned EFU developed with farm uses, rural residences and the Three Sisters Adventist Christian School (TSACS). The County recently approved a plan amendment and zone change to RI for a medium-sized tract of the EFU land closest to the subject property (the Aceti property). TSACS is located at 21155 Tumalo Road and is approximately 1,050 feet from the proposed use. County staff advised that it is unaware of any projected land uses on surrounding properties. It is, however, reasonable to assume that the Aceti property will develop with RI zone uses that may generate higher volumes of vehicle trips than generated by the property's current use. Site, Design and Operating Characteristics The establishment of the proposed marijuana retail facility will require a relatively minor amount of physical disturbance. By and large, that disturbance should improve the site. The area to be used by the proposed use is improved with an existing gravel driveway, gravel parking area and commercial building. The record includes a number of emails and letters from staff, parents and grandparents associated with TSACS objecting to the siting of the marijuana retail facility in the vicinity of the school. The objections center primarily on the incompatibility of the proposed facility with a school use. Opponents also expressed concern that customers of the retail facility will want to smoke marijuana in the area and will drive from the subject property to the school's fenced campus to smoke marijuana. Parents of school children do not want to drive their young children by the marijuana retail facility every day while coming or going from school. They are concerned about the proximity of the school and retail location. Smoking marijuana is inconsistent with the religious values and practices of the Seventh Day Adventists who sponsor the school. It was clear from the testimony offered at the hearing and in written statements filed in the record that persons affiliated with the church are genuinely disturbed by the clash of their religious values with the use proposed. Concerns were also raised that the use proposed is a felony under federal law that should not be allowed just over 1000 feet away from a parochial school. The applicant submitted photos that show that it is not easy to see the parochial school from the subject property due to distance, trees, and a fence on the school property. The applicant claimed that only 15 percent of school trips will drive by the pink house in the morning and that 60 percent of school trips will drive by the pink house in the afternoon. What is not mentioned, however, is that 75% of school trips will pass in close proximity to the retail facility on Highway 97. Vehicles on the east side of Highway 97 near the southeast corner of the subject property were not included in the percentages cited by the applicant. 247 -16 -000751 -SP, 247 -16 -000752 -CU 43 During the legislative process to determine if marijuana -related uses would be suitable to Deschutes County, the issue of compatibility was widely discussed. The following are a few highlights of the Findings document attached as Exhibit K to Ordinance 2006-015.4 Page 2 After convening a Marijuana Advisory Committee in February 2016 and receiving its recommendations in April 2016, the Board held another series of public hearings to take testimony on: • Amendments to Deschutes County Code to define, permit, and establish standards for marijuana related uses in unincorporated Deschutes County. The amendments would identify the zones where the various uses may be permitted (outright or conditional use) and prohibited, and time, place, and manner regulations for each allowed use. Page 3 The introduction of marijuana production into these farming areas, particularly those areas of smaller lotting 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 present 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. Page 10 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 locally 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. The Board determined that the marijuana -related uses are compatible with uses allowed under RC and RI zone but it did not find that the uses are compatible with all uses in the MUA-10 and EFU zones. That question remains to be decided in this review. The Board of County Commissioners also adopted time, place and manner regulations to comprehensively address compatibility concerns. Included among these regulations are 4 Ordinance 2006-015 is included in the record. 247 -16 -000751 -SP, 247 -16 -000752 -CU 44 standards for location (zoning), distance to uses, hours of operation, odor control, secure waste disposal, and minors included in DCC 18.116.330. The applicant can meet all required marijuana retail standards. The Board chose to make marijuana retail a conditional use rather than a use permitted outright. In so doing, it determined that conditional use criteria apply in addition to time, place and manner restrictions. Compliance with the time, place and manner standards of DCC 18.116.330 does not, therefore, make a marijuana retail facility compatible with uses on surrounding properties. As a result, the site, design and operating characteristics of the marijuana retail use must be compatible with the site, design and operating characteristic of the parochial school and other surrounding uses. The site of the marijuana facility will be improved in appearance by paving the parking area and entrance driveway and by adding landscaping to the site. This will make the site more compatible with neighboring uses than the prior approved use of the site, the landscape materials business. The proposed development will create levels of noise and dust similar to a typical commercial retail use or other uses allowed in the RC zone. The uses allowed outright in the RC zone with site plan review include taverns, grocery stores, restaurants, kennel, veterinary clinic, farm machinery sales and repair. The only major difference is that the use and sale of marijuana is deeply offensive to parents and faculty of the school that is located near the proposed use. This criterion, however, appears to be directed to the physical impacts of a use rather than spiritual, moral and emotional impacts. Opponents have claimed that customers of the retail facility will trespass on the school property and will smoke marijuana on the school property. This conduct, if it occurs, is illegal but it is has not been convincingly shown to be a part of the operating characteristics of the use proposed. The operating characteristics of the use involve the transport of marijuana to the site, the transportation of cash to the bank, indoor retail sales and the parking of vehicles on site while customers are purchasing marijuana. This criterion has been met. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS: The current use of other areas of the subject property with industrial/commercial uses not allowed in the MUA-10 zone is clearly incompatible with surrounding residential areas. These uses are also incompatible with the parochial school use. The industrial uses generate noise, dust, heavy vehicle traffic and emissions that negatively impact the quality of life of MUA-10 area residents and school faculty and students in the EFU zoning district. The County code requires denial of the marijuana retail use application until those unauthorized uses have been discontinued. The findings of compatibility, above, assume that all unauthorized uses on the subject property are abated and the harm done to the property remediated. Adequacy of Transportation Access Access to the subject property will be from an existing driveway off of Tumalo Place. As explained above, the applicant did not meet its burden of proving that transportation access will be adequate. The access in question provides access to other MUA-10 and EFU properties. The proposed use has been shown by studies conducted in Bend and by Joe Bessman's May 4, 2017 transportation memorandum to generate significantly more pm peak hour trips than will be generated by high trip generating uses allowed by the RC zone (tavern and restaurant). A 247 -16 -000751 -SP, 247 -16 -000752 -CU 45 more detailed analysis of the transportation system and the impacts of the use proposed is needed before it can be found that the proposed use will not be incompatible with surrounding uses due to its impacts on the adequacy of transportation access to the school and MUA-10 residences. This criterion is not met. Natural and Physical Features The natural and physical features of surrounding properties are similar to those of the subject property — varying terrain with slight slopes, some exposed rock, and vegetation consisting of native shrubs and juniper trees. No significant or unique natural physical features exist on surrounding properties. Based on the site design and operating characteristics of the marijuana retail facility, staff finds the proposal will not adversely impact the natural and physical features of surrounding properties. Staff advised the Hearings Officer, in its Staff Report, that it is unaware of any natural hazards on surrounding properties. This criterion has been met. C. These standards and any other standards of DCC 18.128 may be met by the imposition of conditions calculated to insure that the standard will be met. FINDING: If this application is approved, all areas of the site that will be used by traffic associated with the marijuana use should be paved and drainage facilities developed to handle stormwater runoff. This will reduce the negative impacts caused by dust. To assure compatibility with the well -kept school property, the applicant and property owner should be required to remove the rusted farm and other equipment that litters the natural landscaped part of the leased area. TITLE 15, BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION A. Chapter 15.08, Signs FINDING: The site plan indicates a proposed sign in the northeast corner of the lease area. At this time, the applicant has not requested sign permit approval. A condition of approval requiring the applicant to secure sign permit approval in accordance with DCC 15.08 prior to the installation of any sign on the subject property should be a condition of approval. Compliance can be achieved by the imposition of a condition of approval. IV. RECORD The following documents and materials where filed with the County Planning Division for consideration by the Hearings Officer. All were considered by the Hearings Officer and are a part of the record with the exception of the documents shown with strikeout font. All, therefore, are a part of the record. The tape of the land use hearing and the oversized exhibit used at the hearing are also a part of the record. Document Filed by Date Filed E -Mail "Final Argument Submission" • Letter dated 5/18/17 to Liz Fancher/Final Argument Myles Conway 5/18/17 E Mail to Anthony Raguinc et "RE:16 751 SP, 752 CU Peter Russell 5/12/17 al MJ --Retail Facility (Pink Building)" 247 -16 -000751 -SP, 247 -16 -000752 -CU 46 E Mail to Anthony Raguine "RE:16 751 SP, 752 CU MJ George Kolb 5/12/17 Retail Facility Building)" (Pink E Mail to Anthony Raguine "RE:16 751 SP, 752 CU Cody Smith, PE 5/12/17 et al MJ Retail Facility Building)" (Pink E -Mail to Peter Gutowsky, George Kolb & Cody Smith "RE:16-751-SP, 752 -CU MJ Retail Facility (Pink Building)" Anthony Raguine 5/11/17 Letter dated 5/11/17 to Liz Fancher/Rebuttal Evidence • Security Plan by Kelly King • Supplemental Traffic Report, Transight Consulting, LLC dated 5/11/17 • Article entitled "Traffic Fatalities Decline in States with Medical Marijuana Laws Greg Blackmore 5/11/17 E -Mail from Kelly King • Document titled "Code Violation" by Harry Fagen Kelly King 5/11/17 E -Mail to Milton Pyle Anthony Raguine 5/5/17 E -Mail to Anthony Raguine "Pink House Pot Store" Milton Pyle 5/5/17 E -Mail to Dawn Young Anthony Raguine 5/5/17 E -Mail to Anthony Raguine "Protesting Pot" Dawn Young 5/4/17 Letter to Liz Fancher • Ordinance 2002-018 • Ordinance 2002-019 • Landscape Plan • Site Plan "Parking Improvements" by Sun Country Engineering & Surveying, Inc. • "Pink House Dispensary" by Sun Country Engineering & Surveying, Inc. with distances scaled on Google Earth • Photographs of School and Subject Property Views • Transight Consulting, LLC/Joe Bessman, PE transportation review • CATO Institute, Policy Analysis No. 799 • Harvard Kennedy School, Journalist's Resource • Public Library of Science — PLOS One • Site Plan for SP -78-18 • Cover Sheet for SP -82-22 • Staff Report for SP -82-22 • Findings and Decision for SP -82-22 by Hearings Officer • Site Plan for SP -82-22 • Certificate of Notice by Mail for SP -05-28 • Decision of Deschutes County Hearings Officer for SP -05-28 • Site Plan for SP -05-28 • Compatibility Assessment by Greg Blackmore • DIAL Screenshot for Subject Property Greg Blackmore 5/4/17 247 -16 -000751 -SP, 247 -16 -000752 -CU 47 • E -Mail correspondence between G. Blackmore and R. Raguine date 4/25/17 Letter to Liz Fancher, Hearings Officer date 4/12/17 Harry Fagen Sr. 5/4/17 E -Mail to Anthony Raguine Jenny Neil 5/4/17 Letter to A. Raguine dated 5/2/17 Merle A. Greenway 5/4/17 E -Mail to A. Raguine, P. Russell & C. Smith re e-mail from S. Brussett dated May 2, 2017 George Kolb 5/4/17 E -Mail to A. Raguine, G. Kolb & C. Smith re re e-mail from S. Brussett dated May 2, 2017 Peter Russell 5/4/17 E -Mail to Anthony Raguine • Letter to A. Raguine from Karen Curtiss & Anthony Loughton dated 5/1/17 Karen Curtis 5/4/17 E -Mail to Theresa Bastian "oteatimesoftess@gmail.com" Anthony Raguine 5/4/17 E -Mail to Jennifer Renton Anthony Raguine 5/4/17 E -Mail to Anthony Raguine "Opposed" Jennifer Renton 5/3/17 E -Mail to Amy Day Anthony Raguine 5/4/17 E -Mail to Anthony Raguine "Marijuana Dispensary Concerns" Amy Day 5/3/17 E -Mails (3) to Rene Cardenas "marijuana dispensary" Anthony Raguine 5/4/17 E -Mails (2) to Anthony Raguine "marijuana dispensary" Rene Cardenas 5/4/17 E -Mail to A. Raguine "marijuana dispensary Lori Furlong 5/3/17 E -Mail to "cdd-webmaster" "marijuana dispensary" Rene Cardenas 5/3/17 E -Mail to Don Nevin addressed to account "Sharon Nevin" "Permit Application" Anthony Raguine 5/4/17 E -Mail to Anthony Raguine via account "Sharon Nevin" "Permit Application" Don Nevin 5/3/17 E -Mail to Carolyn Bell "Proposed marijuana dispensary near Three Sisters Adventist Christian School" Anthony Raguine 5/4/17 E -Mail to Anthony Raguine "Proposed marijuana dispensary near Three Sisters Adventist Christian School" Carolyn Bell 5/3/17 E -Mail to Doug Brady Anthony Raguine 5/4/17 E -Mail to A. Raguine "files # 16751 SP and 16752 CU Doug Brady 5/3/17 E -Mail to Karla Toms Anthony Raguine 5/4/17 E -Mail to Anthony Raguine "Objection" Karla Toms, RN 5/3/17 Letter to A. Raguine Raymond B. Jones 5/3/17 Letter to Liz Fancher and Anthony Raguine Tanya D. Lysaught 5/3/17 247 -16 -000751 -SP, 247 -16 -000752 -CU 48 Letter to Anthony Raguine • Code Enforcement Complaint 5/1/17 • Nine Photographs of Subject Property • Care2 On Line Petition with Comments • Photographs of Businesses on Subject Property Duane and Leean Porter 5/3/17 E -Mail to Stephanie Brusett Anthony Raguine 5/3/17 E -Mail to Anthony Raguine "Marijuana Dispensary Application" • MP4 Video of Subject Property Brent & Stephanie Brusett 5/2/17 E -Mail to Anthony Raguine "Permit Application"(duplicate) Don Nevin 5/3/17 E -Mail to Anthony Raguine "Proposed marijuana clinic next to the Three Sisters Adventist School Eldon and Lorraine Spady 5/3/17 E -Mail to Anthony Raguine "Concerns regarding "Pink" building Randi Hansen 5/3/17 E -Mail to Anthony Raguine "Opposition to marijuana dispensary" Becky Colvin 5/3/17 E -Mail to Anthony Raguine "pot store" Georgana Nelson 5/3/17 E -Mail to mykokopelli@aol.com Anthony Raguine 5/3/17 E -Mail to Anthony Raguine "Letter of appeal to Mr. Raguine — our SDA faith tenets included Jerald G. Boyd 5/2/17 E -Mail to Anthony Raguine "Marijuana Dispensary application opposition" Brent & Stephanie Brusett 5/2/17 E -Mail to Anthony Raguine "Opposition 247-16-000752- CU Duane Porter 5/2/17 E -Mail to Anthony Raguine (Gruver) Lori Furlong 5/2/17 E -Mail to cdd-webmaster "Marijuana retail outlet" Lois Gruver 5/1/17 E -Mail to Anthony Raguine (Smith) Lori Furlong 5/2/17 E -Mail to Lori Furlong "21280 Tumalo Place" Susan Smith 5/1/17 E -Mail to Anthony Laemmle "21280 Tumalo Place" Susan Smith 5/1/17 E -Mail to Anthony Raguine "Marijuana Dispensary on Tumalo Road" Brenda Dederer 5/1/17 E -Mail to Anthony Raguine "Petition for marijuana dispensary" • Petition in opposition Brenda Dederer 5/1/17 E -Mail to Anthony Raguine from RL Coats "Proposed Marijuana Business at 97 & Tumalo • Letter to Anthony Raguine dated 4/7/17 from Mark and Rhonda Rennacker Rhonda L. Coats 4/28/17 E -Mails (2) to Anthony Raguine "Concerning property at 21280 Tumalo Place Bend" Maurita Crew 4/27/17 E -Mails (2) to Maurita Crew • Photographs of Businesses on Subject Property (3) Anthony Raguine 4/27/17 247 -16 -000751 -SP, 247 -16 -000752 -CU 49 E-Mail to Anthony Raguine "Treasurer Letter Concerning Dispensary" • Letter to "To Whom It May Concern from Judy Driver, Treasurer of Three Sisters Adventist Christian School Brenda Dederer 4/27/17 E -Mail to Anthony Raguine "Opposed to the Pink House at Hwy 97 & Tumalo Rd" Ryan and Penny Fraker 4/26/17 Letter to Anthony Raguine Sharmen Daft 4/26/17 Order re Request for Extension of Post -Hearing Comment Period Liz Fancher 4/26/17 E -Mail to Liz Fancher & Anthony Raguine Greg Blackmore 4/26/17 E -Mail to A. Raguine and G. Blackmore "Request for Time" Liz Fancher 4/21/17 E -Mail to Liz Fancher and G. Blackmore "Request for Time" Anthony Raguine 4/21/17 E -Mail to A. Raguine and G. Blackmore "Request for Time" Liz Fancher 4/21/17 E -Mail to Liz Fancher "Request for Time" • Letter from Duane Porter, undated Anthony Raguine 4/21/17 E -Mail to A. Raguine "Request for Time" Duane Porter 4/20/17 10:11 pm E -Mail to A. Raguine "Oppose the Proposed Pink House to sell Marijuana Sharmen Daft 4/20/17 Letter to Anthony Raguine dated 4/17/17 David G. Carlson 4/20/17 Letter to Deschutes County Commissioners Henry S. Keesling 4/18/17 Letter to A. Raguine Henry S. Keesling 4/18/17 E -Mail to A. Raguine "Proposed marijuana shop off Tumalo Road" Steve Schienberg 4/18/17 E -Mail to A. Raguine "Marijuana retail store on Tumalo Road" Judith Churchfield 4/15/17 E -Mail to A. Raguine "Dispensary proposal in Tumalo Place" Patricia Portlock 4/13/17 E -Mail to Patricia Portlock "Dispensary proposal in Tumalo Place" Anthony Raguine 4/13/17 E -Mail to A. Raguine "Dispensary proposal in Tumalo Place" Patricia Portlock 4/11/17 E -Mail to A. Raguine "Tumalo marijuana site" Denzel Morgan 4/9/17 E -Mail to Denzel Morgan "Tumalo marijuana site" Anthony Raguine 4/7/17 E -Mail to Anthony Raguine "Tumalo marijuana site" Lori Furlong 4/7/17 E -Mail to "cdd-webmaster" "Tumalo marijuana site" Denzel Morgan 4/1/17 247 -16 -000751 -SP, 247 -16 -000752 -CU 50 E-Mail to "cdd-webmaster"/Anthony Raguine "Opposition to Deschutes Junction marijuana [sic] retail store" dated 4/9/17 Theresa Bastian 4/13/17 E -Mail to Anthony Raguine "Conditional Use Permit Don Schuman 4/7/17 E -Mail to Anthony Raguine "Marijuana Retail Store" Evelyn Smith 4/6/17 E -Mail to Anthony Raguine "Proposed marijuana dispensary on Highway 97/Tumalo Road" Lori Furlong 4/5/17 E -Mail to Anthony Raguine "Proposed marijuana dispensary on Highway 97/Tumalo Road" Buddy and Stephanie Mays 4/5/17 E -Mail to Dennis Douglas and Anthony Raguine "Pot in Central Oregon" Tom Anderson 4/5/17 E -Mail to Tom Anderson "Pot in Central Oregon" Dennis Douglas 4/5/17 Memorandum to Liz Fancher Anthony Raguine 4/5/17 E -Mail to Kathy Case "Meeting tonight in regard to the PINK HOUSE" Anthony Raguine 4/5/17 E -Mail to Anthony Raguine "Meeting tonight in regard to the PINK HOUSE" Kathy Case 4/4/17 Exhibit Schedule 247 -16 -751 -SP and -752-CU Anthony Raguine 4/4/17 Exhibit 1 Hearings Officer's record additions • Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 3, pgs 13-14 • Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 3, p. 10 • Code Enforcement Affidavit dated June 2, 2010 by John Griley • Code Enforcement Complaint for Subject Property • Property Line Adjustment Survey • Hearings Officer's Decision approving SP -05-28 • Letter Approving Property Line Adjustment dated November 1, 2006 • E -Mail from Nick Lelack dated 4/21/11 to Peter Russell re DR -10-3 • Staff Report by Peter Russell for DR -10-3 • Record of Building Inspection for welding shop #78-116 • Record of Building Inspection for second hand store #78-139 • Burden of Proof Statement (part) and maps (2) showing RSC size of .83 acres less land acquired by ODOT Liz Fancher 4/4/17 Exhibit 2 Google Earth Image of Subject Property Liz Fancher 4/4/17 Exhibit 3 Hearings Testimony Henry S. Keesling 4/4/17 Exhibit 4 page 1 Business Insider "There are more marijuana shops in Oregon than Starbucks and Duane Porter 4/4/17 247 -16 -000751 -SP, 247 -16 -000752 -CU 51 McDonalds" Exhibit 4 page 2 "Places with More Marijuana Dispensaries Have More Marijuana -Related Hospitalizations" Duane Porter 4/4/17 Sign -In Sheet for Hearing Anthony Raguine 4/4/17 Certificate of Mailing Staff Report Sher Buckner 3/21/17 Staff Report Anthony Raguine 3/21/17 E -Mail to Anthony Raguine "Proposed Marijuana Dispensary at Hwy 97 & Tumalo Place Carol Mays 2/28/17 E -Mail to Anthony Raguine "Marijuana Dispensary" Karen Behm 2/28/17 E -Mail to Anthony Raguine "Marijuana Dispensary" Robin Sanchez 2/28/17 E -Mail to Anthony Raguine "Marijuana Dispensary and our school" Brent Brusett 2/27/17 E -Mail to Anthony Raguine "Marijuana Dispensary and our school" Stephanie Brusett 2/27/17 Certificate of Mailing Unknown 2/27/17 Notice of Public Hearing on April 4, 2017 Unknown 2/27/17 Letter to Anthony Raguine Harry Fagen Sr. 2/23/17 E -Mail to Anthony Raguine "Re: April 4th Public Hearing" Kelly King 2/23/17 E-mail to Kelly King Anthony Raguine 2/23/17 E -Mail to Anthony Raguine "Proposed Mariguana (sic) Dispensary" • Letter to Anthony Raguine (undated) Janelle Kasabasic 2/23/17 E -Mail to Anthony Raguine "Regarding marijuana dispensary at the corner of HWY 97 and Tumalo Place Daniel and Heidi Harris 2/23/17 E -Mail to Anthony Raguine "PLEASE NO MARIJUANA DISPENSARY BY OUR SCHOOL" Lorene Ferguson 2/23/17 E -Mail to Anthony Raguine "NO DISPENSARY" Donna Harris 2/23/17 E -Mail to Anthony Raguine "Proposed marijuana dispensary" Jill Mack 2/22/17 E -Mail to Anthony Raguine "proposed marijuana dispensary" Jenny Neil 2/22/17 E -Mail to Anthony Raguine "Dispute with the approval of a Medical Marijuana location too close to a school" Kathleen Case 2/22/17 E -Mail to Anthony Raguine "Marijuana Dispensary" Dan Nicola 2/21/17 Burden of Proof Statement, Response to Incomplete Letter Kelly King 2/16/17 December 28, 2016 Letter to Kelly King and site plan for SP -05-28 Anthony Raguine 12/28/16 Certificate of Mailing Letter re Incomplete Application Sher Buckner 12/18/16 247 -16 -000751 -SP, 247 -16 -000752 -CU 52 E-Mail to Anthony Raguine "MJ Retail Facility" Todd Cleveland 12/22/17 E -Mail to Todd Cleveland Anthony Raguine 12/22/16 E -Mail to Anthony Raguine "247 -16 -000751 -SP, 752 -CU 21280 Tumalo PI" • Memorandum from Jeff Bond, Deputy Fire Marshal, City of Bend Fire Department dated 12/22/16 Jeff Bond 12/22/16 E -Mail to Anthony Raguine et al "MJ dispensary at Des. Jct." Peter Russell 12/13/16 E -Mail to Anthony Raguine "247-16-000751-SP/752-CU • Comment Sheet from Deschutes County Road Dept. George Kolb 12/9/16 Comment Sheet from Deschutes County Building Safety. Randy Schied 12/8/16 Land Use Application Form Applicant or Representative 12/1/16 Burden of Proof Narrative Applicant or Representative 12/1/16 Parking Improvements for Kelly King by Sun Country Engineering dated November 1, 2016 Applicant or Representative 12/1/16 Assignment and Conveyance by Owner of Vendee's Interest in Land Sale Contract from Craven to Fagen Applicant or Representative 12/1/16 Black Ops Carbon Filters/Black Ops Filters Specification Sheet Applicant or Representative 12/1/16 Fire District Map Applicant or Representative 12/1/16 Law Enforcement Service Area Map Applicant or Representative 12/1/16 Aerial Map Applicant or Representative 12/1/16 Transaction Receipt County CDD Staff 12/1/16 V. DECISION The Hearings Officer DENIES the applicant's site plan and conditional use permit applications. Liz Fancher, Hearings Officer 247 -16 -000751 -SP, 247 -16 -000752 -CU 53