Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2017-813-Minutes for Meeting October 16,2017 Recorded 11/21/2017
Recorded in Deschutes County Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk Commissioners' Journal ifs ''�`•'?i CJ2017-813 11/21/2017 4:35:03 PM 1111111111111111111111111111111 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 BUSINESS MEETING DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Monday, October 16, 2017 Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Phil Henderson and Anthony DeBone. Also present were Tom Anderson, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; David Doyle, County Counsel; and Sharon Ross, Board Executive Secretary. One representative of the media and many citizens were in attendance. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Baney called the meeting to order at 10:05 a.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CITIZEN INPUT: • Aleta Warren — approached the Board regarding the Central Oregon canal. Ms. Warren asked the Board to follow the money. She commented the Central Oregon Irrigation District (COID) has money and is pulling strings. Ms. Warren asked the Commissioners to keep in mind this is not about conservation but it is about money. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting October 16, 2017 Page 1 of 9 CONSENT AGENDA: Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of the Consent Agenda. HENDERSON: Move approval of Consent Agenda Items 1 and 2 DEBONE: Second. VOTE: HENDERSON: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried Consent Agenda Items: 1. Consideration of Signature of Letter thanking Frank Sieglitz for his service on the Spring River Special Road District Board 2. Consideration of Signature of Letter Appointing Mark Davis to the Spring River Special Road District Board 3. Approval of Minutes of the September 27, 2017 Business Meeting ACTION ITEMS 4. Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2017-627, Amendment #3 to Oregon Health Authority IGA #148063 James Wood and Melissa Rizzo of Health Services presented this item for consideration. Ms. Rizzo noted the document provides language for service elements and performance based measures for intellectual developmental disabilities. The funding has been built into the budget through a budget adjustment. DEBONE: Move approval HENDERSON: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. HENDERSON: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting October 16, 2017 Page 2 of 9 5. Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2017-631, Amendment #1 to Oregon Health Authority IGA #154109 James Wood, Pamela Ferguson, and Janice Garceau of Health Services presented the item for consideration. Through the WIC program and school based health centers there is additional funding available from the state that will be divided among all Oregon counties. DEBONE: Move approval HENDERSON: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. HENDERSON: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 6. Consideration of Economic Development Loan Conversion Judith Ure, Management Analyst, Kip Barrett, EDCO Bend Program Manager and Barry Harmon, Kollective Technology, Inc. Chief Financial Officer presented this item for consideration of converting an economic development loan made in May 2015 to a grant for Kollective Technology Inc. The loan is for $50,000. The loan allowed the company to move to Bend. The company started with 20 employees and now has 30 employees and anticipates growth in the next few years. Customers are worldwide and the company provides video broadcasting. DEBONE: Move approval of Economic Development Loan Conversion HENDERSON: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. HENDERSON: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 7. HEARING: Consideration of Lot of Record Amendment Peter Gutowsky Community Development Department and Adam Smith, Assistant Legal Counsel presented this item. Mr. Gutowsky reviewed the history and staff memo on the process of this record. Testimony was received late and an order reopened the public hearing. The Grimstad LUBA decision has caused uncertainties for land -owners and the Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting October 16, 2017 Page 3 of 9 text amendments are trying to clarify that. Mr. Smith reviewed the amendments and clarity that would be provided and if needed, case by case basis needs could be addressed. The modified comprehensive amendments were reviewed by Mr. Smith. Chair Baney asked for public testimony at this time. Paul Dewey - commented he is in favor and would appreciate it if the amendments could be passed to take care of the post-Grimstad issue. Tyler Neese — on behalf of Central Oregon Realtors Association — this is an issue they are concerned with and impacts property owners and supports the comprehensive amendments. Liz Fancher — commented on behalf of Belveron Real Estate Property LLC that owns a piece of forest property on Vandevert Road conveyed to them in 2008. Due to the lot size of their property they are not eligible to qualify for the fix. Ms. Fancher notes how clarity of lot of record is extremely important and they support the comprehensive approach to the amendments. Ms. Fancher suggests if the Board moves forward to send the federal conveyance back to the Planning Commission for further review. Michael Dunn — has lived in Redmond 34 years ago and spoke of snow damage from this last winter. Mr. Dunn is unable to do any updates on his property. He has accepted and paid a fee for a conditional permit and then will need to pay again. Mr. Dunn stated if it is not a legal lot why am I paying property taxes? Mr. Dunn also commented on having to pay $5,000 if having to go before a hearing's officer. Chair Baney responded these are the types of cases that have brought the Board to this process for solution. Adam Smith commented on the goal to add clarity in these issues. Mr. Smith noted there is a way to modify amendments by emergency and then follow up with comprehensive amendments. The Board discussed next steps. Chair Baney suggested leaving the record open until Monday, October 23 at 5:00 p.m. and continue the hearing on the business meeting agenda for Wednesday, October 25 at 10:00 a.m. 8. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING: Marijuana Production Appeal 247-17- 00723A Nicole Mardell, Community Development Department presented this item and reviewed the public hearing process. No conflict/bias challenge of the Board was asserted or declared. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting October 16, 2017 Page 4 of 9 Liz Dickson, attorney with law firm with Dickson Hatfield represents Bob King, the applicant who was present at the hearing by telephone. Mr. King has filed an appeal to the application for marijuana production and is the neighboring property owner. Ms. Dickson noted another member in the audience is here to speak on her own experience of living next to a marijuana grow production. Ms. Dickson reviewed the situations the law has created. Ms. Dickson notes the Board has the power to interpret the law and make a good land use policy. Debra McMann — lives at Arnold Market Road. Ms. McMann described her experiences living next to a marijuana grow. She noted the hoop structure was close to her home and the odor was overpowering and they were unable to have their windows open and was worried about the odor and oils traveling into her home. Ms. McMann noted they never knew who would arrive at the property. The family was concerned of her niece visiting the property. What can be done to protect the people living next to these operations so they can continue to enjoy the properties they live on? Commissioner Henderson inquired on the size of that grow. It was a large hoop structure that was at least 2000 square feet. The greenhouse was a fair distance from the property line but the problem was noticeable on noise, odor, and lighting as well as disruptions of traffic. Ms. McMann noted there were fans but the noise was a constant buzzing 24/7. The traffic concerns would be at least 15 cars throughout the day and night. Ms. McMann noted the owner of the property asked the tenant to leave. Chair Baney inquired if it was a licensed operation. Ms. McMann contacted the property owner as well as the Sheriff's Office and Deschutes County to inquire if it was licensed and was told that "yes," it is licensed. Soon thereafter, the property owner asked the tenant to leave. Robert King, appellant owner of the neighboring property and thanks the Board for the opportunity. They have owned the property for 25 years. Mr. King stated Ms. Mardell has always been professional and respectful. Mr. King noted the neighbors would like to have the neighborhood back to a family neighborhood. Mr. King read a letter into the record that had been submitted. Mr. King noted 83 neighbors have signed a petition representing 80% of the neighbors opposing this application. Mr. King reviewed the exhibits and correspondence regarding his appeal. Commissioner Henderson asked for clarification on Mr. King's testimony. Mr. King noted he was reviewing the history of his application in case of needing to appeal further dependent on the outcome of this hearing. Mr. King feels the Board should determine Mrs. Tewalt be an unreliable witness. Ms. Dickson spoke on the concerns of the validity of information on the application. Mr. King also noted multiple code violations on the property. Public information regarding marijuana violations are not available At this time, Chair Baney called for a recess at 1:02 p.m. and the meeting was reconvened at 1:13 p.m. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting October 16, 2017 Page 5 of 9 Ms. Dickson requested to leave the record open for three days for Mr. King to submit a narrative for the exhibits. Mr. Doyle asked Planning Staff to identify the applicable criteria. Ms. Mardell reviewed the criteria of the application. Chair Baney called for any public testimony. John "Jack" Addison lives on Goodrich Road. He voted against the recreational marijuana and yet he supports the law even if it is bad law. The best thing the county can do is to pick the appropriate area for these operations. This is a housing area and is not an appropriate location. Mr. Addison also spoke on the toxicity of marijuana to building constructions. Sheryl Robertson read a letter speaking on negative consequences to the community created by a marijuana production facility. She spoke on the effects of marijuana on children. Tammy Threlkeld read a letter on behalf of Roberta Nethercutt regarding the negative impact on families and enjoyment of neighboring properties. The request is to deny the permit of the Tewalts. She noted her life enjoyment of Bend and the stress of dealing with impacts of marijuana grow operations. Patty Adair — this issue is near and dear to her heart. She has seen children getting off the bus near grow operations. Why do we want to expose our children to this? She has 95 additional signatures of residents in Sisters that oppose marijuana grows. Businesses are experiencing difficulties in finding employees that can pass a drug test. Ms. Adair asks the Board to consider. Dennis O'Donnell and Ralph Show— both retired police officers. Mr. O'Donnell explained has had spent 29 years with the Oregon State Police and with corrections and has had experience in marijuana cases and summarized the dangers that exist with growing marijuana. Legalizing marijuana creates additional avenues for criminal activity. The State police report showed 40% of marijuana manufactured here is going elsewhere and spoke of the black market. Mr. O'Donnell noted the concerns on hash labs. He also spoke on regulations and enforcement and the lack of staff available in OLCC to cover the whole state of Oregon. Mr. Show was on the SWAT team and has experience with the high risk cases. Mr. Show is a resident on Goodrich Road and doesn't want to see this type of activity in his neighborhood. Commissioner Henderson noted the Board will be evaluating the marijuana regulations and inquired on the medical grow licenses and the license process. Mr. O'Donnell noted the black market is driven by money. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting October 16, 2017 Page 6 of 9 David Common — thanks the Board for setting the rules and asked for rules that would be protective of the community and allow the operations to be a part of the community. His wife has lupus and the marijuana oils can allow her the ability to walk. Mr. Common has livestock and his family on his farm. He invites the Board to come to tour his building and see the rules are working. Mr. Common asks that Mrs. Tewalt be allowed to have her business. Mr. Common's goal is to build a facility with nothing in it to allow for teaching. Commissioner Henderson inquired on his license status and Mr. Common reviewed the process he has had to meet for requirements. Adam Jones — He spoke on Mr. Common's comments. Mr. Jones commented on the constant odor of marijuana that even can be smelled driving down the road. Mr. Jones spoke on crimes involving marijuana facilities. He is a father of five kids and lives close enough to the Tewalts and is concerned. Goodrich Road is a school bus kids with 330 trips of kids and knows the kids will be exposed to marijuana odor. Mr. Jones feels the regulations need to be tightened and have the operations moved to proper locations. He asked the application is denied. Commissioner Baney responded that any licensed grow should not emit odor and if any odor is detected any instance should be reported to our code enforcement and if it is an illegal operation they will need to be in compliance. Bob Adair — lives on Edmonson Road and spends time and energy improving their property and would have never purchased a property where there would be a grow operation. Mr. Adair feels the Tewalt's aren't concerned with the neighbors concern with crime or quality of life. Mr. Adair is concerned with the regulations allowing marijuana grows in neighboring communities. Mr. Adair spoke on water requirements for the proposed grow and who will monitor this. He noted we have the perfect storm growing in Deschutes County and the citizens of the county have to feel the impact. Mr. Adair asks the Board does not allow permits in any residential neighborhood. Dusty Miller — lives on Edmonson Road and is in favor of this operation as it will help the economy. Mr. Miller spoke on the proposal of the Tewalt's and their plans to address smell and noise. Lucy Brackett — has been a participant in the Meth Action Coalition and her awareness of marijuana goes back 40 years. She stated she knows what it is like to be on the stupid end and she is only going to address public health issues. Please consider public safety and health of our county's children. Jessica Gellings — She is very upset by this and every aspect of our environment is being challenged by this. This neighborhood is so quiet and peaceful and charming and welcoming and is concerned for her future. She wants to be protected. This needs to be regulated where there are no kids and families. Additional traffic on that road will cause issues for safety. Ms. Gellings is concerned for the lack of amount of staff available to deal with code enforcement in our County. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting October 16, 2017 Page 7 of 9 Dennis Devine — appreciates the opportunity to speak and speaks on behalf of the Tewalts and has known them for many years and has personally known them for many years. Liz Dickson — Spoke to Mr. King and his concerns are the engineering are not adequate to meet the requirements of the code. Mr. King requests a time frame to provide a narrative to explain his concerns about the exhibits. The applicant is trying to argue this is an agricultural crop. This crop is regulated differently from other agricultural crop and compared carrots this product can't cross state lines, can't be sold to minor and by- products are not of using by-products of vegetables. The Board has the power to protect the community that they serve. Under public health safety and welfare rules you have the power. Ms. Dickson spoke on water use and the County Code does not deal with this either. It is within the Board's power to make interpretations. Noise and odor is an issue of compatibility and doesn't work in neighborhoods. She spoke on neighbors expectations that have been violated. She spoke on the land use system and its failures. She commented on a report of environmental issues and the findings on the carbon footprint of marijuana grow operations. Ms. Dickson commented on her concerns of the applicable criteria on odor, noise, water, utility verification, and waste disposal and County Code provisions. There was a significant concern on the issue of the continuance. Mr. King was disappointed to know if a continuance would be allowed. She spoke on the plat plan and does not meet the County's provisions and a better plan has not been submitted. Ms. Dickson noted in closing Mr. King feels he can't get his point across. Norma and Richard Tewalt expressed their promise to abide by the regulations and will do everything they can to ensure their building complies with Code. Chair Baney noted the importance of responding to the concerns addressed by the neighbors. Commissioner Henderson is in favor of allowing Mr. King the chance to submit a narrative. Chair Baney and Commissioner DeBone agreed. Ms. Mardell reviewed the timeline of the hearing. Dave Doyle, Legal Counsel reviewed the timeline for arguments and evidence. At this time, Chair Baney closed the oral portion of the hearing. The written record will be open until seven days from today at 5 p.m. An additional seven days will be given for rebuttal. Final arguments will be seven days after that time. Commissioner DeBone noted information was submitted by Ms. Tewalt at the meeting and was given to the three commissioners. OTHER ITEMS: None were offered. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting October 16, 2017 Page 8 of 9 ADJOURN: Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 3:12 p.m. DATED this Day of N 0 V County Board of Commissioners. Recording Secretary 2017 for the Deschutes Tammy Baney, Chai Anthony DeBone, Vice Chair Philip G. Herson, Commissioner Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting October 16, 2017 Page 9 of 9 c Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 — Fax (541) 385-3202 — https://www.deschutes.org/ BUSINESS MEETING AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 10:00 AM, MONDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2017 Barnes and Sawyer Rooms - Deschutes Services Center — 1300 NW Wall Street — Bend Pursuant to ORS 192.640, this agenda includes a list of the principal subjects anticipated to be considered or discussed 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. Business Meetings are usually recorded on video and audio, and can be viewed by the public live or at a later date; and written minutes are taken for the record. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CITIZEN INPUT This is the time provided for individuals wishing to address the Board, at the Board's discretion, regarding issues that are not already on the agenda. Please complete a sign-up card (provided), and give the card to the Recording Secretary. Use the microphone and clearly state your name when the Board Chair calls on you to speak. PLEASE NOTE: Citizen input regarding matters that are or have been the subject of a public hearing not being conducted as a part of this meeting will NOT be included in the official record of that hearing. If you offer or display to the Board any written documents, photographs or other printed matter as part of your testimony during a public hearing, please be advised that staff is required to retain those documents as part of the permanent record of that hearing. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Consideration of Signature of Letter Thanking Frank Sieglitz for his Service on the Spring River Special Road District Board 2. Consideration of Signature of Letter Appointing Mark Davis to the Spring River Special Road District Board 3. Approval of Minutes of the September 27, 2017 Business Meeting Board of Commissioners Business Meeting Agenda Monday, October 16, 2017 Page 1 of 3 ACTION ITEMS 4. Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2017-627, Amendment #3 to Oregon Health Authority IGA #148063. - Melissa Rizzo, Behavioral Health Program Manager 5. Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2017-631, Amendment #1 to Oregon Health Authority IGA #154109 - Thomas Kuhn, Health Services 6. Consideration of Economic Development Loan Conversion - Judith Ure, Management Analyst 7. Consideration of Lot of Record Amendment / Second Hearing - Peter Gutowsky, Planning Manager 8. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING: Marijuana Production Appeal - 247-17- 000723-A - Nicole Mardell, Assistant Planner 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. At any time during the meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2)(e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2)(h), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor negotiations; ORS 192.660(2)(b), personnel issues; or other executive session categories. Executive sessions are closed to the public; however, with few exceptions and under specific guidelines, are open to the media. ADJOURN To watch this meeting on line, go to: www.deschutes.org/meetings Please note that the video will not show up until recording begins. You can also view past meetings on video by selecting the date shown on the website calendar. Board of Commissioners Business Meeting Agenda Monday, October 16, 2017 Page 2 of 3 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING Subject: Ce ArtA-ra REQUEST TO SPEAK Cf14-:"). Cht Name dr -e% Address Date: / Phone #s E-mail address a, )4) a I(ey In Favor Neutral/Undecided Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. Opposed G 0 o+:-< Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 — Fax (541) 385-3202 — https://www.deschutes.org/ AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners Business Meeting of October 16, 2017 DATE: October 11, 2017 FROM: Judith Ure, Administrative Services, 541-330-4627 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of Economic Development Loan Conversion RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: Staff recommends the Board Authorize County Administrator to convert $50,000 economic development loan made to Kollective Technology, Inc. to a grant. CONTRACTOR: Kollective Technology, Inc. AGREEMENT TIMEFRAME: Starting Date: May 1, 2015 Ending Date: May 1, 2018 INSURANCE: Insurance Certificate Required: N/A Insurance Review Required by Risk Management: N/A BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The Deschutes County Economic Development Loan Program was initiated to encourage and assist companies seeking to relocate to and/or create new jobs within Deschutes County. To receive a loan, companies must agree to create a specific number of jobs within a defined period, then maintain this level of employment for an additional set period of time. On May 1, 2015, Kollective Technology, Inc. entered into an agreement with the County for a loan in the amount of $50,000 with terms that included relocating and/or hiring twenty-five (25) new full- time employees in Deschutes County on or before May 1, 2018 and maintaining these positions for a twelve-month period beyond the date all new positions were filled or by May 1, 2018, whichever date occured first. As certified by Economic Development for Central Oregon (EDCO), Kollective Technology, Inc. has met these terms and, in accordance with the agreement, is eligible to have the loan converted to a grant. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None. ATTENDANCE: Judith Ure, Management Analyst: Kip Barrett, Bend Area Director EDCO, and representative(s) of Kollective Technology, Inc. Loan Recipient: DESCHUTES COUNTY Business Development Forgivable Loan Program Kollective Technology, Inc. 1001 SW Emkay Drive, Suite 150 Bend, OR 97702 541-371-2661 Agreement No.: DC -2015-438 Date of Agreement: October 31, 2015 On behalf of Economic Development for Central Oregon, I hereby certify that Kollective Technology, Inc. has met all conditions of the Deschutes County Business Development Forgivable Loan Program as specified in Agreement DC -2015-438 (attached). I further attest that a representative of Economic Development for Central Oregon has reviewed employment and payroll records furnished by Kollective Technology, Inc. and that such records confirm that the company: a) Created within and/or relocated to Deschutes County at least 25 new full-time, family wage positions by or before May 1, 2017, and b) Maintained these new positions in Deschutes County for a 12 -month period beyond the creation/relocation date and by or before May 1, 2018. I therefore, request that the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners authorize that the business development loan made to Kollective Technology, Inc. be converted to a grant in accordance with the terms of the attached agreement. Economic Development for Central Oregon By: Title: Date: /oil( ( 20 DESCHUTES COUNTY Economic Development Loan Program AGREEMENT FOR KOLLECTIVE TECHNOLOGY, INC. This Economic Development Loan Agreement ("Agreement") is entered into: BETWEEN: Deschutes County (hereinafter referred to as "County') PO Box 6005 Bend, OR 97708-6005 Phone: (541) 330-4627 AND: Kollective Technology, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Company ") 1001 SW Emkay Drive, Ste. 150 Bend, OR 97702 1230 Midas Way, Suite 120 Sunnyvale, CA 94085 408-215-6337 RECITALS WHEREAS, County finds that the program set forth in this Agreement will promote state and local economic activity by creating new jobs and investment; and WHEREAS, Company wishes to relocate its existing business operations to Bend, Oregon thereby increasing employment and investing in equipment; and WHEREAS, the said relocation in Bend, Oregon will relocate and/or create at least twenty-five (25) new full-time, family wage jobs between May 1, 2015 and May 1, 2017 for total employment by Company of twenty-five (25) positions; and WHEREAS, once filled, the new full-time jobs will be maintained for an additional consecutive 12 -month period to occur on or before May 1, 2018; and WHEREAS, County desires to promote the expansion of Company's facility by loaning funds in the amount of $50,000 for relocation and personnel expenses and such loan will later be converted to a grant upon the condition that Company satisfy certain requirements; and WHEREAS, County has engaged Economic Development for Central Oregon ("EDCO") to assist in administering and implementing the loan; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits and promises contained herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree to as follows: DC -2015-438 SECTION 1 DEFINITIONS Section 1.1 Dollars and $ shall mean lawful money of the United States of America. Section 1.2 Loan shall mean funds loaned by County to Company as provided under Section 3. Section 1.3 Project shall mean expansion of Company employment in Deschutes County, Oregon. Section 1.4 Full -Time Employee shall mean any employee who has been hired with the expectation that the job will last for at least one (1) year and who will work at least forty (40) hours per week or the equivalent of 2,080 hours per year. Section 1.5 Family Wage Job shall mean a position with a starting salary that is equal to or greater than the average pay of all covered employment and wages for Deschutes County as reported in the Oregon Labor Market Information System (OLMIS) on the date this agreement is executed. SECTION 2 TERM This Agreement shall be effective as of the date of execution by all parties and continue until the loan is paid in full or the loan is converted to a grant as provided in Section 3.3 below. SECTION 3 LOAN Section 3.1 Loan County agrees to loan Company the sum of $50,000 no later than 30 days following delivery of this signed Agreement to County. Section 3.2 Loan Purpose and Representations of the Company The purpose of the loan is to carry out the project, and for no other purposes. Company represents and warrants that it will diligently pursue and complete the following: 3.2.1 Company will employ a minimum of twenty-five (25) additional full-time employees between May 1, 2015 and May 1, 2017 for a total of twenty-five (25) full-time employees. 3.2.2 Company will maintain these new positions from the date all are filled for an additional consecutive 12 -month period to occur on or before May 1, 2018. 3.2.3 The newly created positions will meet or exceed local family wage rates as defined in section 1.5 of this Agreement. 3.2.4 Company shall comply with all applicable federal, state, regional and local laws, regulations and ordinances. 3.2.5 Company shall timely pay all Deschutes County real and personal property tax when due and shall satisfy all delinquent property tax accounts in full. Section 3.3 Loan Repayment or Conversion to Grant 3.3.1 Unless the loan is converted to a grant as provided below, Company agrees to pay to the order of County the full amount of the loan as well as interest at the rate of eight percent (8%) per annum beginning from the date County releases funds to Company until the earlier of: (a) the occurrence of an event of default, as defined below, or May 1, 2018. 3.3.2 County agrees to convert the loan to a grant that does not need to be repaid, if and when County determines in its sole discretion that Company has satisfied all of the obligations in Section 3.2 and its other obligations under this Agreement. Such conversion shall only be effective upon written verification by the County Administrator that the loan has been converted to a grant. 3.3.3 County may, in its sole discretion, convert a portion of the loan to a grant if the obligations under Section 3.2 and this Agreement have been fulfilled to the reasonable satisfaction of County. In the event of such partial conversion of the loan, the loan shall continue to be payable on a pro -rated basis in an amount determined by multiplying $2,000 by the difference between twenty-five (25) and the number of full-time employees employed in Deschutes County by Company as of May 1, 2018. Interest will accrue on this portion of the loan at a rate of eight percent (8%) per annum from the time the Company received the loan monies to the time they are repaid. SECTION 4 DEFAULT Section 4.1 Events of Default The following shall be considered events of default: 4.1.1 Company fails to complete, or County reasonably determines that Company will not be able to complete, the obligations described in Section 3.2 and its other obligations under this Agreement; provided, however, that upon such failure or determination, County shall first provide to Company written notice of such failure or determination, and Company shall have thirty (30) days to correct the matter. If the matter has not been corrected by Company within such thirty (30) day period to the reasonable satisfaction of County, County shall be entitled to declare Company in default of its obligations under this Agreement and the loan and accrued interest shall be payable in full. 4.1.2 Company effects a change of ownership or change of control of its business which results in dissolution or conversion of the original business entity or relocates its business operations outside of Deschutes County, Oregon on or before the end of the contract period. Change of ownership and/or change of control of the business will not be deemed a default if Company notifies County which may then condition consent on any reasonable term(s) necessary to adequately secure the loan. A change in majority stock ownership will not constitute a default if all other provisions in this agreement are met. 4.1.3 The occurrence of any event that has or may reasonably be expected to have a material adverse effect on Company's financial condition or Company's ability to make any payment required by this Agreement. 4.1.4 Company fails to pay, becomes insolvent or unable to pay, or admits in writing an inability to pay Company's debts as they become due, or makes a general assignment for the benefit of creditors. 4.1.5 A proceeding with respect to Company is commenced under any applicable law for the benefit of creditors, including, but not limited to, any bankruptcy or insolvency law, or an order for the appointment of a receiver, liquidator, trustee, custodian, or other officer having similar powers over Company is entered. SECTION 5 MISCELLANEOUS Section 5.1 Right to Inspect Company agrees that County, their agents, and employees shall be entitled, upon reasonable prior notice to Company, to access and inspect the property and employment records of Company material to this Agreement and its affiliates in order to insure that Company is complying with the terms of this Agreement and all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. The right to inspection shall also include any property or employment records that are in the possession of any affiliate of Company that are directly relating to and material to this Agreement. The right of inspection shall continue until all of the obligations of Company under this Agreement have been satisfied. Section 5.2 Attorney's Fee Provision In the event suit or action is instituted to enforce any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, the unsuccessful party shall pay to the prevailing party, in addition to the costs and disbursements allowed by statute, such sum as the court may adjudge reasonable as attorney fees in such suit or action, in both trial court and appellate courts. Section 5.3 Indemnification Company shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless County and EDCO, their officers, agents, employees, and members (the "Indemnified Persons") from all claims, suits, and causes of action, including attorney's fees, of any nature whatsoever relating to claims by third parties resulting from or arising out this Agreement or funds provided to Company under this Agreement, other than any such foregoing items caused by any Indemnified Person's gross negligence or willful misconduct. Except as otherwise provided in this Section 5.3, County and EDCO shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless Company, their officers, agents, employees, and members from all claims, suits, and causes of action, including attorney's fees, relating to claims by third parties as to the validity under public finance law of this Agreement or funds provided to the Company under this Agreement. Section 5.4 Entire Agreement This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties regarding the matters herein. Section 5.6 Titles and Subtitles The titles in this Agreement are for convenience only and in no way define, limit, or describe the scope or intent of any provision of this Agreement. Section 5.7 Notice All notices, requests demands, and other communications to or upon the parties hereto shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been duly given or made: Upon actual receipt, if delivered personally or by fax or an overnight delivery service; and at the end of the third business day after the date of deposit in the United States mail, postage pre -paid, certified, return receipt requested; and to the addresses set forth on page 1 of this Agreement or at such other address of which such party shall have notified in writing the other parties hereto. Section 5.8 Time is of the Essence All parties agree that time is of the essence under this Agreement. Section 5.9 Applicable Law This Agreement is made, and shall be construed and interpreted under the laws of the State of Oregon without regard to the principles of conflicts of law. Venue shall lie in state courts located in Deschutes County, Oregon, provided, however, if the claim must be brought in a federal forum, then it shall be brought and conducted solely and exclusively within the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. Section 5.10 Disclosure Under Oregon law, most agreements, promises, and commitments made by a lender after October 3, 1989 concerning loans and other credit extensions which are not for personal, family, or household purposes or secured solely by borrower's residence must be in writing, express consideration, and be signed by the lender to be enforceable. Section 5.11 No Waiver No failure or delay of County in exercising any right, power or remedy under this Agreement shall operate as a waiver of such right, power or remedy of County, or of any other right. A waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of or prejudice County's right otherwise to demand strict compliance with that provision or any other provision. Any waiver, permit, consent or approval of any kind or character on the part of County must be in writing and shall be effective only to the extent specifically set forth in such writing. Section 5.12 No Assignment by Company No obligation or right under this Agreement may be assigned by the Company without the prior consent of County, which consent may he withheld, conditioned, or delayed in the sole discretion of County. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be duly executed as of the dates set forth below their respective signatures. Deschutes County By: , =l � —7 �'!4 Tom Anderson, County Administrator Date: / 1 -Ls Kollective Technology, Inc. By: Dan Vetras, Ifes ent-and-CEO Date: 10 / T I S Date: Chief Financial Officer I 0 ( C 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 Business Meeting of October 16, 2017 DATE: October 11, 2017 FROM: Peter Gutowsky, Community Development, 541-385-1709 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of Lot of Record Amendment / Second Hearing RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: Upon opening the hearing and receiving testimony, staff offers three options for the Board's consideration. Option 1 - Send Comprehensive Amendment (Staff) and Modified Amendment back to the Planning Commission for a public hearing. The purpose is to receive testimony on both versions by affected stakeholders (Central Oregon Builders Association, Central Oregon Association of Realtors) and property owners. Option 2 - Continue the hearing to a date certain to receive additional testimony on the modified amendment. Option 3 - Close hearing, deliberate, identify a preferred amendment, and request an ordinance and updated findings for consideration of first and second reading at a subsequent meeting ATTENDANCE: Peter Gutowsky, AICP, Planning Manager Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 Phone: (541) 388-6575 Fax: (541) 385-1764 http://wwwdeschutes.org/cd MEMORANDUM TO: Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners FROM: Peter Gutowsky, AICP, Planning Manager DATE: October 11, 2017 SUBJECT: Lot of Record Text Amendments / Second Public Hearing I. BACKGROUND The Deschutes County Board of Commissioners (Board) conducted a public hearing on September 20, 2017, closed the oral record and left the written record open until Friday, September 22, at 12:00 p.m. Upon receiving testimony by Central Oregon Landwatch (COLW) on September 20 and 22 respectively, the Board issued Order 2017-039 on September 25, reopening the oral and written record through October 16 at 10:00 a.m. II. MEETING WITH STAKEHOLDERS Planning and Legal Counsel staff recently met with Central Oregon Builders Association (COBA) and Central Oregon Association of Realtors (COAR) to discuss the different Lot of Record Text Amendment iterations that had been proposed by staff and other stakeholders. Additionally, Planning and Legal Counsel staff met with COLW regarding the same. Both County staff and COLW endeavored to identify areas of agreement to hopefully ensure an expedited final adoption to the on-going Lot of Record matter. Based on those discussions, Adam Smith, County Assistant Legal Counsel, sent a letter to COLW on October 9 identifying areas of agreement (Attachment 1). He stated in part, County staff supports several of your proposed edits. Unfortunately, County staff does not support all of your proposed edits because several of your proffered changes are based on incorrect interpretations of the current Lot of Record definition. Thereby, amending the proposed Lot of Record Text Amendment to conform to your incorrect interpretation will result in unintended policy changes. Paul Dewey, COLW Executive Director, responded to Smith's letter on October 11. Rather than addressing the proposed edits enumerated in Smith's letter, Dewey's October 11th letter outlined a new Modified Amendment. Although Smith's October 9th letter is included in the record, it should be noted that staff is no longer perusing the amendments outlined in the letter. Likewise, staff presumes that COLW is only perusing the Modified Amendment outlined in Dewey's October 11 letter. The specifics of COLW's testimony to date and the new Modified Amendment are outlined below. Quality Services Performed wit/t Pride III. CENTRAL OREGON LANDWATCH TESTIMONY To date, COLW has submitted three letters into the record. Carol Macbeth submitted written testimony on September 20 stating in part, LandWatch respectfully urges the Board of Commissioners to reject the (comprehensive) proposed amendments for the reasons outlined below. 1. Amendments provide an insufficient basis for changing the County's code to eliminate the requirement that to be developable units of land had to be 'lawfully established" under the rules in effect at the time of creation. 2. Amendments greatly expand the number of parcels that can be developed; provisions for the continuation of nonconforming uses are strictly construed against continuation or expansion of nonconforming uses. 3. Amendments are inadequate because they fail to consider compliance with all applicable statewide planning goals; proposed amendments do not comply with Goals 2, 3, 4 and 5. 4. Amendments misinterpret and misapply ORS 92.176. 5. Amendment varies the legal effects of deeds validly executed before the state or county had adopted regulations affecting conveyancing. 6. Amendments err by stating that granting of a prior county permit or a previous verification in a prior land use decision suffice to determine a unit of land can be developed. 7. Amendments err by allowing development of remainder parcels that were created by deed. Macbeth submitted follow-up testimony on September 22 stating in part, COLW is supportive of the Board's adopting provisions that simplify and clarify the lot of record process for those who hold certain permits. These are the people who had difficulty following the Grimstad decision. The draft provisions that we now believe best address those issues were presented at a work session to the planning commission on July 13, 2017: DCC 18.04.030: Lot of Record means: B. Notwithstanding subsection (A), a lot or parcel that previously received a land use permit as defined in DCC 22.04.020, or a County building or septic permit, or validated pursuant to ORS 92.176 shall be recognized as equivalent to a lot of record for the purposes of DCC Title 18. C. The following shall not be deemed to be a lot of record: 3. A lot or parcel created by an unrecorded subdivision, unless the lot or parcel was conveyed subject to sub -section A(3) abovc DCC 18.04.030(8). Paul Dewey provided written testimony on October 11 stating in part, ... 1 want to emphasize that Landwatch supports the County's proposal to fix the so-called post-Grimstad problem with has been a significant burden for the County as well as hundreds of Deschutes county residents.. . In addition, we support the Staff's alternative more recent proposal for a "verification" process to handle the post-Grimstad problem (with the exception of its use of the term "unit of land" instead of "lot of record" and other new provisions in proposed 22.04.040(C), (E) and (F)). -2- Attached is our attempt to show how Staff's new language could be amended to be focus on the post-Grimstad problem with a verification process (Attachment 2). IV. LOT OF RECORD AMENDMENTS / 3 VERSIONS As noted below in Table 1, there are currently three versions of the Lot of Record amendments. Two are worthy of consideration: Comprehensive Amendments introduced by staff and Modified Amendments provided by COLW. Table 1— Lot Record Amendments / Options Options Summary Comments 1. Comprehensive Amendments lot definition. Revises "lot" Staff remains comfortable with this version as do other stakeholders. Eliminates of rccord" and "parcel." Adds definition for "lot of record dwelling" and "unit of land" Etc. Establishes a process for verifying units of land. Identifies exceptions to verifying units of land. Bases verification on state statutes. Interprets state statutes on such issues as federal conveyances, remainders, etc. Incorporates lot of record case law and address other areas of ambiguity such as remainders by deed, multiple lawfully established units of land transferred by a single deed, etc. 2. Mini -Amendment Minor amendments to the County's existing lot of record definition. Recognizes as equivalent to a lot of record for purposes of DCC Title 18 a previously -developed lot or parcel that already received a land use permit, building permit, or septic permit. Staff recommends withdrawing this concept since COLW introduced a new amendment for consideration on October 11. 3. Modified Comprehensive Amendment COLW proposed amendments to the County's existing lot of record definition. "lot existing of record" definition. Maintains process for verifying units of land as proposed in Comprehensive Amendment. Maintains exceptions to verifying units of land as proposed in Comprehensive Amendment. Bases verification on existing Lot of Record definition. Does not resolve ambiguities existing in current lot of record definition regarding federal conveyances, remainders by deed, multiple lawfully established units of land transferred by a single deed, etc. COLW supports post-Grimstad problem. However, they do not believe it is appropriate to address other significant amendments to the text or to impact the post Grimstad solution with controversial and potentially far-reaching provisions, including: • Multiple lawfully established units of land • Federal conveyance -3- V. BOARD OPTIONS Staff provides three options for the Board's consideration: • Option 1- Continue the hearing to a date certain to receive additional testimony on the Modified Amendment. • Option 2 — Close the hearing, deliberate, identify a preferred amendment, and request an ordinance and updated findings for consideration of first and second reading at a subsequent meeting. • Option 3 - Send the Comprehensive and Modified Amendments back to the Planning Commission for a public hearing. The purpose is to receive testimony on both versions by affected stakeholders (COBA, COAR, etc.) and property owners. Attachments 1. County letter to COLW 2. Dewey Testimony -4- via email October 9, 2017 Paul Dewey Central Oregon LandWatch 50 SW Bond St., Ste. 4 Bend, OR 97702 paul@colw.org DESCHUTES COUNTY LEGAL COUNSEL 1300 NW Wall Street, Suite 205, Bend, Oregon 97703-1960 Carol Macbeth Central Oregon LandWatch 50 SW Bond St., Ste. 4 Bend, OR 97702 carol@colw.org RE: Proposed Edits to Lot of Record Text Amendment Paul & Carol, County staff thanks you for providing comments and meeting with us to discuss the proposed Lot of Record Text Amendment. To date, Central Oregon LandWatch ("COLW") is the only opponent of the proposed amendment. Unfortunately, the confusion and ambiguity surrounding the current Lot of Record definition is having a negative impact across our community, thereby necessitating an expedited resolution of this matter. We hope that the proposed edits discussed below will earn COLW's support for the proposed Text Amendment. As outlined below, County staff supports several of your proposed edits. Unfortunately, County staff does not support all of your proposed edits because several of your proffered changes are based on incorrect interpretations of the current Lot of Record definition. Thereby, amending the proposed Lot of Record Text Amendment to conform to your incorrect interpretation will result in unintended policy changes. Edits Supported by County Staff 1) County staff supports adding the word recorded to the proposed DCC 22.04.040(B)(2)(a). If the Board accepts the proposed change, the provision will read as follows (additions underlined): a. The unit of land was created by a recorded subdivision plat, partition plat, condominium plat, or town plat approved by the County, another political subdivision of the State of Oregon, or the State of Oregon; Page 2 of 4 2) County staff supports amending the "unit of land" definitions as shown below in both the proposed DCC 18.04.030 and 22.04.020. If the Board accepts the proposed changes, the definition will read as follows (additions underlined): "Unit of land" means contiguous and discrete land, intended to be used, developed, or built upon as an individual unit, and singularly described by a legal instrument such as a deed, land sale contract, partition, or subdivision. A legal instrument that conveys multiple lawfully established units of land shall not be interpreted as vacating those property lines between the multiple units of land unless abiding with applicable law regulating property line vacation at the time of the conveyance. The following shall not be relied on as describing or creating multiple units of land: tax lot segregations due to an assessor's roll change or otherwise for the convenience of the assessor; intervening section or township lines; intervening rights of way, roads or streets; surveys; individual units as shown on a condominium plat; or unrecorded subdivisions. The terms "unit of land," "lot," and "parcel" shall have the same meaning unless the code provision in which the term is used requires distinguishing how a unit of land was created. Use of the terms "units of land" versus "lot" versus "parcel" in any code provision shall not be interpreted as requiring a determination that the unit of land was lawfully created. Although County staff supports amending the "unit of land" definition as described above, as described below, County staff does not support further changes to the proposed text amendment that limit development of multiple lawfully established units of land just because they were conveyed via a single deed. 3) For the time being, County staff supports deleting the proposed DCC 22.04.040(C)(4). If the Board accepts the proposed change, the following language will be deleted (deletions std througlh): conveyance to the current owner or the owner's predecessors in interest; or County staff believes that most units of land split apart from Federal Public Lands' were likely created in a manner that meets the "lawfully established unit of land" definition in ORS 92.010. Thereby, the aforementioned DCC 22.04.040(C)(4) is arguably superfluous to subsection (C)(1). Nonetheless, County staff supports deleting subsection (C)(4) and exploring at a later date if the omitted language is necessary or helpful. It should be noted that County staff supports this edit because our community will clearly benefit from an expedited final resolution of the Lot of Record Text Amendment. Edits Not Supported by County Staff 1 It should be noted that most if not all land within present day Deschutes County was once Federal Public Land. David Doyle, Legal Counsel 1 Christopher Bell, Assistant Legal Counsel 1 John E. Laherty, Assistant Legal Counsel 1 D. Adam Smith, Assistant Legal Counsel Connie Scorza, Paralegal 1 Pauline Word, Paralegal #MCGRHB4MOD15XLv1 Page 3 of 4 1) County staff does not support any changes to the proposed Lot of Record Text Amendment that limit development of multiple lawfully established units of land just because said units of land were conveyed via a single deed. Although COLW interprets the current Lot of Record definition to more -or -less contain such a prohibition on development, that interpretation is incorrect because it is predicated on reading a sentence within subpart (A)(3) in isolation (emphasis added): 3. By deed or contract, dates and signed by the parties to the transaction, containing a separate legal description of the lot or parcel, and recorded in Deschutes County if recording of the instrument was required on the date of the conveyance. If such instrument contains more than one legal description, only one lot of record shall be recognized unless the legal descriptions describe lots subject to a recorded subdivision or town plat; However, read in context, it is clear that subpart (A)(3) focus is on deed used to create a unit of land. Thereby, deeds used to create units of land are enumerated alongside partition plats, subdivision plats, town plats, etc. The last phrase in subpart (A) makes clear that the focus of the Lot of Record definition is how a unit of land was created (emphasis added): "Lot of Record" means: A. Lot or parcel at least 5,000 square feet in area and at least 50 feet wide, which conformed to all zoning and subdivision or partition requirements, if any, in effect on the date the lot or parcel was created, and which was created by any of the following means: COLW's incorrect interpretation is derived from confusing deeds used to convey property with deeds used to create property. For the purposes of meeting the current Lot of Record definition, deeds used to create property and deeds used to convey property are not the same. A deed that conveys multiple Lots of Record is not an issue under the current Lot of Record definition because that definition focuses instead on the legal instrument that created, rather than conveyed, the subject unit of land. Nothing in the current Lot of Record definition prohibits a single deed being utilized to convey multiple lots of record so long as those multiple Tots of record were each created by another legal instrument that enumerated in subpart(A) that predated the conveyance. Clearly, County staff cannot support amending the proposed Lot of Record Text Amendment to conform to COLW's incorrect interpretation of the current Lot of Record definition because doing so could amount to a limitation on development that is not contained in the current code. The policy basis for both the current Lot of Record definition and the proposed Lot of Record Text Amendment is to reasonably ensure that units of land were lawfully established prior to being developed. The current Lot of Record definition is not intended halt development on legal established units of land that otherwise meet applicable code provisions. There is no justification to import a flawed policy predicated on an incorrect interpretation of the current code into the David Doyle, Legal Counsel 1 Christopher Sell, Assistant Legal Counsel John E. Laherty, Assistant Legal Counsel 1 D. Adam Smith, Assistant Legal Counsel Connie Scoria, Paralegal I Pauline Word, Paralegal #MCGRH84MOD15XLv1 Page 4 of 4 proposed Lot of Record Text Amendment. Further, COLW's incorrect interpretation arguably amounts to an impermissible restrain on the alienation of property and potentially even a regulatory taking. Certainly, COLW's incorrect interpretation is contrary to ORS 174.010, and the policy basis underpinning ORS 92.017, Thomas v. Wasco County, LUBA No. 2008-206, Weyerhaeuser Real Estate Development Co. v. Polk County, LUBA No. 2011-022, and Tumalo Irrigation District v. Deschutes County, LUBA No. 2016-056. 2) County staff does not support any changes to the proposed Lot of Record Text Amendment that limits the development of reminder parcels created by deed. Once again, County staff suspects that COLW's desire to include such a prohibition in the proposed Lot of Record Text Amendment is derived from an incorrect interpretation of the current Lot of Record definition. In this case, however, the basis for COLW's incorrect interpretation is not clear because the underlying issue was directly decided by Tumalo Irrigation District v. Deschutes County, LUBA No. 2016-056. Once again, County staff thanks you for your past comments and for taking the time to attend several meetings regarding the Lot of Record Text Amendment. We hope COLW can now support that the Text Amendment based on the three edits discussed above coupled with our explanations of why County staff cannot support two last edits. As you know, COLW is the only identified opponent of the proposed Lot of Record Text Amendment and several other stakeholders have expressed interest in our continued conversation. Thereby, this letter will be shared with those stakeholders and will be added to the record. It is clear that our community desires an expedited resolution of this on-going Lot of Record matter and will benefit if all involved stakeholders facilitate such an expedited resolution. D. Adam Smith Deschutes County Assistant Legal Counsel 541-388-6593 adam.smith@deschutes.org CC: Nick Lelack Peter Gutowsky CORA COBA Liz Fancher, Esq. David Doyle, Legal Counsel 1 Christopher Bell, Assistant Legal Counsel I John E. Laherty, Assistant Legal Counsel I D. Adam Smith, Assistant Legal Counsel Connie Scorza, Paralegal I Pauline Word, Paralegal #MCGRHB4MOD15XLv1 L A N D WATC H October 11, 2017 Hand -Delivered Deschutes County Board of Commissioners c/o Deschutes County Planning Department 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97703 Re: Lot of Record Text Amendments Dear Commissioners: wvdwcr ih t1lc)) gur ian,c Dese h.o g Thank you for re -opening the Record on this important subject and we appreciate Staff's time in reviewing the various proposals with us. First of all, I want to emphasize that LandWatch supports the County's proposal to fix the so-called post-Grimstad problem which has been a significant burden for the County as well as hundreds of Deschutes County residents. As I said in our letter of September 22, we support the draft language proposed for the July 13, 2017, Planning Commission hearing. Though in June we initially expressed concern with the County's approach, the County Staff's July data showing the practical effect of its proposed solution convinced us that any negative impacts were insignificant and outweighed by the need to solve the post-Grimstad problem. In addition, we support the Staff's alternative more recent proposal for a "verification" process to handle the post-Grimstad problem (with the exception of its use of the term "unit of land" instead of "lot of record" and other new provisions in proposed 22.04.040(C), (E) and (F)). Attached is our attempt to show how Staff's new language could be amended to be focused on the post-Grimstad problem with a verification process. We believe that it is in the best interest of the County and those affected by the post-Grimstad problem for the County to approve an emergency amendment to its text for that issue. As explained below, however, we do not believe it is appropriate at this time to do other significant amendments to the text or to saddle the post-Grimstad solution with very controversial and potentially far- reaching provisions. In contrast to the post-Grimstad amendments, there has not been an adequate analysis of either the reasons for or effects of the other proposed significant amendments. As an initial matter, we are particularly concerned with the use of the new term, "unit of land." We do not believe that it is in the best interest of simplification and familiar use of terms to create a new 2 term in this already confused area of law. Not only has the term "lot of record" been in long- standing use in state law, but it has been a long-standing term used by the County. See also the attached samples of other counties' definitions and rules associated with lot of record, lots and parcels. We are also very concerned with the proposed deletion of: 'Lot of record' means...A lot or parcel...created...By deed or contract, dated and signed by the parties to the transaction, containing a separate legal description of the lot or parcel, and recorded in Deschutes County if recording of the instrument was required on the date of the conveyance. If such instrument contains more than one legal description, only one lot of record shall be recognized unless the legal descriptions describe lots subject to a recorded subdivision or town plat." This definition is found in the current code, 18.04.030. Legal counsel's letter to us of October 9 alleges that we are confusing deeds to create with deeds to convey, but under either approach, what is the effect of these changes, and if the changes mean nothing, as is implied, why make them? There are also unclear additions, including the definition of "unit of land" which would mean "contiguous and discrete land singularly described by a legal instrument." What is "singularly described" and why is that term used, is that the same as the existing "contains more than one legal description," and what is the effect of the change from limiting an instrument to one lot of record to not limiting it? In addition, there are new provisions regarding "remainder parcels" and other matters where the changes and effects are unclear. In contrast to the Staff's detailed analysis of the meaning and impacts of the post-Grimstad solutions, there is no analysis of the reasons for or effects of the other proposed amendments. Just as an example, we would like to understand how these proposed changes would affect the Skyline Forest, the 30,000+ -acre parcel of private forest land between Bend and Sisters. As reflected in the attached materials, the forest is of substantial public interest and has a long history of commitments made by the County, the State Legislature and local citizens to protect it as it is. We have been concerned for some time about a potential owner wishing to develop this property and one of the principal means of facilitating that would be to obtain lot of record determinations, followed by lot line adjustments so that lots of record could be arranged for better access and more likely approval for development by the County. Where partitions could be difficult to obtain because of access requirements, the presence of lots of record, coupled with lot line adjustments, could facilitate development. Our concern is not just limited to the Skyline Forest and other forest and farm land. Important Goal 5 resources, including the Tumalo Deer Winter Range (which adjoins and includes some lands in the Skyline Forest) and other winter ranges, could be significantly affected by lot of record changes that would increase fragmentation of habitat over what could occur now under the current code. There should be at least some analysis of how the new provisions would impact the Skyline Forest and other such properties, as opposed to the impact of current lot of record language. To be clear, we do not oppose future text amendments on issues involving lots of record, but we believe the public should understand the possible consequences first. 3 Thank you for your consideration on this matter. Let us know if you have any questions. Very Truly Yours, e2,1--4- Paul Paul Dewey, Executive Director Chapter 18.04. TITLE, PURPOSE AND DEFINITIONS 18.04.030. Definitions. "Lot" means a unit of land as define in DCC I . )4.030 aI 22.04.02: created by a subdivision of land. If code pro v' on that us the term icgtl' (s (listing 'shin h a u it of 11id w, s create ;=lot Intl ' contc\t In t s a unit land ere ed 1.); a su ivision .f land ()se fihete art In any co _iovision ' all not he te..rpretec is regpitin a detain taticat _tat the tit of and was lawhiIl created. "Lot of record" means :A. A lot or parcel at least 5,000 square feet in area and at least 50 feet wide, which conformed to all zoning and subdivision or partition requirements, if any, in effect on the date the lot or parcel was created, and which was created by any of the following means: 1. By partitioning land as defined in ORS 92; 2. By a subdivision plat, as defined in ORS 92, filed with the Deschutes County Surveyor and recorded with the Deschutes County Clerk; 3. By deed or contract, dated and signed by the parties to the transaction, containing a separate legal description of the lot or parcel, and recorded in Deschutes County if recording of the instrument was required on the date of the conveyance. If such instrument contains more than one legal description, only one lot of record shall be recognized unless the legal descriptions describe lots subject to a recorded subdivision or town plat; 4. By a town plat filed with the Deschutes County Clerk and recorded in the Deschutes County Record of Plats; or 5.By the subdividing or partitioning of adjacent or surrounding land, leaving a remainder lot or parcel. B. Notwithstanding subsection (A), a lot or parcel validated pursuant to ORS 92.176 shall be recognized as a lot of record. C. The following shall not be deemed to be a lot of record: 1. A lot or parcel created solely by a tax lot segregation because of an assessor's roll change or for the convenience of the assessor. 2. A lot or parcel created by an intervening section or township line or right of way. 3. A lot or parcel created by an unrecorded subdivision, unless the lot or parcel was conveyed subject to DCC 18.04.030(B). 4. A parcel created by the foreclosure of a security interest. For the purposes of DCC Title 18, "lot" or "parcel" means a lot of record as defined DCC 18.04.030. ::Lot of record dwellme!" means dwell in al?proved__huisuant tibOIZS 215.705_ "Parcel" means a unit of land as dchne 'n DCC: 1 ,1441111,:, nd 2.04.0 of land. If; 'ode provon that us the ter " aicel._,tcc� •4s distin was creat aicel that coiit means a It of land sated bv rtit �iteel, in code pro term_ Sion shall be utter eted as mil t lanid_wa wfully ere' :ed Page 1 of 2- EXHIBIT A TO ORDINANCE NO. 2017-015 created by a partitioning ishin, ow_a t it 0flad ioilin ol�Ian . Use o the 1 r eterm gat ion t t the; "Preexisting nonconforming lot or parcel" means a nonconforming lot or parcel which is a lot of record. as unit la it of c nd' .d. la of tan d tlnl (,OI1 VC tax 11 1S c nti ytit sale 11ttact, p .,tit ,Itall 11 be into : rete( abiwith Micah 111 11 �e follow' ations d to ail s: I-rveIl(Il,ection or divid 1 units as town on t condonlin' 11 land lo., and parcel- evI have the lime it is ,ucd r till= dislingui ilj how unit of rstis "lot" versus reel 111 iy code deteiniina on that the it of fan _was Iawft d discret land sin um,t�i hdivisios 1 as_ eating; the c r_eaul esSor'S nship lit le aw be lls. icd n_ as de I'c ehan s. inter 1 plat; .r d Fir hid Al ro)} rte el I ihed by ..J,ea1 j instrun nt tlat. 1 lines b ween 1 line ribiiig 01 I' other fling righ unrceor n unlet was c ate<l nation 'cat ini? for of way rc d subdi Isu s. !fiesta. )rovis tlumen 11°yrt :uch s ultihl 1 _Iltipi units Of t 1 of 1 1a of 1 1IC11Ce C= the _._. I'vevs; term "unit of vl 1 the to �1tr�t ol nd" s re( in l�• nl at_ the nh le le conyads of SErects: Ile 11 rov151on y create.. 4 hall n se of be u1t ►r terms )reted (Ord. 2017-015§ 1, 2017; Ord. 2016-026§1, 2016; Ord. 2016-015§1, 2016; Ord. 2015-004 §1, 2015; Ord. 2014-009 §1, 2014; Ord. 2013-008 §1, 2013; Ord. 2012-007 §1, 2012; Ord. 2012-004 §1, 2012; Ord. 2011-009 §1, 2011; Ord. 2010-022 §1, 2010; Ord. 2010-018 3, 2010, Ord. 2008- 007 §1, 2008; Ord. 2008-015 §1, 2008; Ord. 2007-005 §1, 2007; Ord. 2007- 020 §1, 2007; Ord. 2007-019 §I, 2007; Ord. 2006-008 §1, 2006; Ord. 2005-041 §1, 2005; Ord. Chapter 18.04 35 ( 04/2015) 2004-024 §1, 2004; Ord. 2004-001 §1, 2004; Ord. 2003-028 §1, 2003; Ord. 2001-048 §1, 2001; Ord. 2001-044 §2, 2001; Ord. 2001-037 §1, 2001; Ord. 2001-033 §2, 2001; Ord. 97- 078 §5, 1997; Ord. 97-017 §1, 1997; Ord. 97-003 §1, 1997; Ord. 96-082 §1, 1996; Ord. 96-003 §2, 1996; Ord. 95-077 §2, 1995; Ord. 95-075 §1, 1975; Ord. 95-007 §1, 1995; Ord. 95-001 § 1, 1995; Ord. 94-053 §1, 1994; Ord. 94-041 §§2 and 3, 1994; Ord. 94-038 §3, 1994; Ord. 94-008 §§1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, 1994; Ord. 94-001 §§I, 2, and 3, 1994; Ord. 93-043 §§1, 1 A and 1B, 1993; Ord. 93- 038 §1, 1993; Ord. 93-005 §§1 and 2, 1993; Ord. 93-002 §§1, 2 and 3, 1993; Ord. 92-066 §1, 1992; Ord. 92-065 §§1 and 2, 1992; Ord. 92-034 §1, 1992; Ord. 92-025 §1, 1992; Ord. 92-004 1 and 2, 1992; Ord. 91-038 §§3 and 4, 1991; Ord. 91-020 §1, 1991; Ord. 91-005 §1, 1991; Ord. 91-002 §11, 1991; Ord. 90-014 §2, 1990; Ord. 89-009 §2, 1989; Ord. 89-004 §1, 1989; Ord. 88- 050 §3, 1988; Ord. 88-030 §3, 1988; Ord. 88-009 §1, 1988; Ord. 87-015 §1, 1987; Ord. 86-056 2, 1986; Ord. 86-054 §1, 1986; Ord. 86-032 §1, 1986; Ord. 86-018 §1, 1986; Ord. 85-002 §2, 1985; Ord. 84-023 §1, 1984; Ord. 83-037 §2, 1983; Ord. 83-033 §1, 1983; Ord. 82- 013 §1, 1982) Page 2 of 2- EXHIBIT A TO ORDINANCE NO. 2017-015 Chapter 22.04. INTRODUCTION AND DEFINITIONS 22.04.010. Introduction and Application. 22.04.020. Definitions 22.04.030. Repealed. 22.04.040. Vern\i Ha -Units -of -Emu' Lots of Record. 22.04.010. Introduction and Application. A. DCC Title 22 is enacted to provide a uniform procedure for the grant or denial and processing of applications, approvals and determinations by the Planning Division of the Deschutes County Community Development Department under the applicable County comprehensive plan, land use regulations, subdivision and partition ordinance, and other ordinances which by their terms incorporate by reference the procedures in this title. DCC Title 22 shall be known as the Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance. B. 1 yceptas addressedin 1)( (.= 22.04.0-10, 1 the provisions of DCC Title 22 do not apply to the issuance, suspension, or revocation of any on-site sewage disposal, structuralht ; g, electrical,_ mechanical, or plumbing permits except as they relate to Planning Division consideration of permitted uses. C. Notwithstanding DCC 22.04.010(A), inside acknowledged urban growth boundaries and where authorized by an intergovernmental agreement, the functions of the county Planning Director and county Hearings Bodies identified herein may be exercised by their counterparts in the respective cities in accordance with the respective intergovernmental agreements. (Ord. 2017-015§5, 2017; Ord. 99-031 §1, 1999; Ord. 98-068 §1, 1998; Ord. 98-042 §1, 1998; Ord. 90-007 §1, 1990) 22.04.020. Definitions. The following definitions apply to DCC Title 22. "1)ctcrinir itrn 0 landu s t,ction hr "lot tecordT,dc n Gt i Ytrritl it i tint uuci_l, 411e (.,tint) or wlintinr r' t "Lot" n ins a unit ai land a ieiined it uses ac term "' regnii distinnu any a unit . T land cted bv a shall notl _ ante r,pret rc ciui ininn 1,1,4 tauniytilIt(th<,v1enapp__cable )((` 18 '1.0.0 and i2111.0 ) If a unit 01' < nd ci goats, )de pro ion it of- = it hat co of It11 4l, f: is a)I'ti term "Ixaf' in an tl IMI4)11 I14ii the tti(c)I'alit i.�l�,'zas !awl -Lot of ecorti dwelling, mean5rdwellinn appy } '� ursuant to ORS 2.15.705. "Parcc!�/S1cans a tun,' land as _k.imedin I)( '_ 18.0,1.0' 1 and 22 use term "parcel rctiu' .s drstinc,tns mu how unit of nt 1 exl means unit of It_ d created by artttioni ofd. 0roy_tston I, all not be ntclprctell .r req ii rite dc!tenni anon tha created H.020 IJ code'ovision ra aacci _i that in land s l<tryfull) and wasc° att ci, ' I (term_ p e unit linat Incl nr'ns corn it us and t Scioto 1n siitgur It dose lei by • le al i1 rumor_ such as Iced last sdI con act 7artr1 n or ion \ Iona, instnim n that ,nc-caw hIlill its or liar_ hail not c intcrpt cd as va inn tht . c }pops linos I (WeellI 111111 c tlnit of land un tllitiitl+ Ga itis riy (Cable la rental• ng pro city,. Ina w11 utio it the time the Page 1 of 3- EXHIBIT E TO ORDINANCE NO. 2017-015 eoitvev nee. to follow` )e, sh ill n t herclie on as tax I seta -;at ioIts d to an t 111 chant! ssor:1.elietingg ection of _t�,rl,I1rJ)I 7ati.rlttery divot_ 1trnits asunvnon a,.e)ndutt1 r land_' 'lot," and ")arcel" sht have th. is_t .ed require clistincr„f—fish ng how unit of Ind Was_ c. Is lot' e r SOS ' par el" in ly code rovasrt,n determinati< t that the ur t of land as lawlir y created. (Ord. 2017-015§5, 2017; Ord 96-071 § 1A, 1996; Ord. 95-045 § 1, 1995; Ord. 90-007 § 1, 1990) rihini Or 'rk�ttin� u iltipleunt of land: • other lse for 1-coinen .nee of d in righ r of way. oafs or sl e lssur subdiv. . ions. "f1 terms "t it of the code . ovision n which re term ittcd, lig. of the rn s "un' of la cl" t<rli not )e IlterT• Lttd as cquu urn plat r mnrecr_>r same utile 22.04.040 Vcrif ing-Uiiil ofba•ntt} Lots of Record. \. PtI rpose scopc. ('oneulleil with or - prior to the approval or certain permits. units ol'land shall he verified pursuant to this section 21 O 010 to reasonably ensure compliance with die .cmin and land division laws in effect on the date the unit of land wrs created. Uol all permits 1equirc verification. II required, verification is a threshold issue addressed before the_perntitmay he approved. but verification does tial supersede or nullify other permit requirements_ 1 his section 22 1)1.0-1(1 provides the option Iu eoncurrerrtly utul of land is partol` applying for land use permits, or to instead apply fore a declaratory ruliliet. 11._.._Permits Ravin -Mu Verification. 1lnless an exception applies pursuant to subsection (l 1(2) below. vet-4;m...a unit of land pursuant to subsection ((_") shall he required prior to the issuance of theeIILIllowilO._ permits_ a_ Any land use permit for a unit of land in the Exclusive. Farm Use _Zones _(DCC Chapter 18.16), Forest Ilse Zone Fl (DCC Chapter 18.36). or Forest Use Zone - F2 (DCC Chapter 18.40); b. Any permit for a unit of land inclrrdimwetlands_ as shown on the Statewide Wetlands Inventory; c. Any permit for a unit ofland stiIjeer to wildlife habitat special assessment_ d. A landusepermit relocating_property lines that reduces in size a unit of land: and Aland use• permit, structural permit, or non -emergency un -silo sewage disposal _system permitif the unit of land is smaller than du: minimum arca required in the applicable zone. I xcepuOns Verification shalt not he required ir one oldie (ollo\\anii exceptions apply:, a. The unit of land was created by a recorded subdivision slat )artition blat condominiumupl rt orlowtL)Ial zipprovcd I. the County,another political subdivision ill the Slate of OregoiL or the State of Oreeon: The unit of land waspreviottsly valid ttedby the County and an applicable partition plat bias \rthsecluenlly recorded within 90 days as regt(ired hv ()0S 92.170(-1). c. The unit of land previously received a 1)etcnnination of I..;rcc ful-('real ion; d. The unit of land was previously verified pursuant to subsection (C) and a findinss was issued to that effect in a land use action or deehtratot yru1ine: or e, For permits listed in subsection (13)(11(e) only, the unit of land previously received a land Ilse or bnikli ig_ perrnit prior to September 20. 2017, t sum:tuti)_ permitalter September 20, 2017, ora non-enterotenev e n-snesccy )W disposal permit,_. C. Verified Units -of LandLots of Record. Permits that require e \eriI ication shall only be issued io .inns-- -1-tmd-lots or parcels creiilecl in one oI the following -ways listed under the definition of lot of record in 18.04.030. 1. _1'I e unit of l a is a"la\ullti estal t>lied un t of lad'' tmt,rr a)<fu the,/detinet tablisltcd in RS Q2.010. the unit of incl tv,ts er ted by_rl fine alit item app•_ved le Com v So Int J cedin unit of_l c (u alit re tor an Akin pu Amin to ubseci r rt (BIC t)I uld have eft''erifie17ursuaitt a this suhsc lou 1(2)_ Page 2 of 3- EXHIBIT E TO ORDINANCE NO. 2017-015 3. he unitiiidy cicatcc as arot hider I ;t ltin "rim a s��11� itiit plat_p f titior Condi union! 11' :,town at, or a other 1 vlul di aen e)a SUIT( Hiding id: l Il unit of Ii d v ', ailed I llie 1 It ed 5ta s of1 iciiei plot, Its rptnsirala to 1 _ 1 AV 1'('�I"tlie . AMICI s Iedcef4 urs In II l)Il\eA"tlll:�' �� 11C CU` l'Ilt The uni c )1 land is c_re cd by c) res iliii �tt olll comic nation action Conde nation t any o(cr deli tion of Nate I ld Ibr public. use if t ic_ >aitc<ll�l uov nn7ental _attity ac _Med th:• (lecheano= f Indtils,l)ecl)fator\_ltulinl . If an applicant IIplics for tiland use permit listed in subsection MAI) that requies. lthlic notice. the ('oulily shall include (MC Or three findings iitthe land use action: a lin<line. verifvimthat Ilse unit or land \vas crested in compliance witll rpplic iblc zoning and land division Ia\tiisuautto subsection ((,).aIlndinta notinu.that the unit of land does not comply with subsection ((): or alindin�;notin.�,_Iha1 �c�rificat �,,n vva tiln I unlexl because the unit of land gualiticd lin° an exceptionptrfsuant to subsection_ 1_U1(2). Ilan applicant applied ! ryny_other permit listed in subsection (lit( IJ. the applicant may reguesta declaratory ruling pursuantIo 1)(32 Chapter 2240. An tipplieant may alsoregnesta tkcltti tkt:) ruling pursuant to I)CC (liapter 22..,10 pi for 11?talInti.. for. i permit. If the unit of land was created in compliance with applicable i.onniu and lend divisions la'vs_xatsuant to subsection (Ci, the County shall issue the declaratory rulute that the unit ul Find qualifies for all permits listed in subsection (111(1 j. lithe unit of land does not Comply yr ith sub eel ion I C . the County shall not issue the deckiratoryrilbi?, and instead shall provide the applicant information on other options. 'e it Lim alions_ I'a land a action lchides a li dindctcrnn u Ilial a_tit Of Ian_tlocs y with sti_sCORM ) 0111V C1�'"` lira aernut may Isued: nrt_�I' it,atint (Inman 1=<)pert}" Ituc: 1I tttlinu the si jcea unit; land: sinulE' of lc riilion 7lill lei 1 alydat the Cuff o land pm. fiat to OI ail I )CC_ l 2 2.1100) _aroug.h(J) ait, buil( t _ t. permit,, r on -sites u)age disp , ll system sarin( al[cy(' inu rated use t a liuetltr oeate_d on th unit of Iasi pursuant t (,)RS t>'. 7601: %�.p.rt.ni c)2.1 7 3. i\ nicht and 17 , nd use p( the con ter pctlllltlal return leunit of;l all to a confinati ullination .l� 1 _a\\_I`ul-( cation, _oi �_ 1>ie\_itluslv_}crificd vtt Cid a lintlrnr' vE-is issued ) that effect it a Isnot use Iron or d )t 1 ine sldj tmcttts. Ii ?p o\ell pplo to January 2111(, t Ic land no awfully cs dished may e interpret as creating of th section _'' i.040. I he' )v, the tuli al`iaitd eieai d Ile _e111)1361urilied ife .)I3111)1361uwith."nbseetiont ) (Ord. 2017-015§5, 2017) oa#that veeivedii ved num to s1 colon eG_ tatory Illlft �. // lute adjus lett to a unit of neve unit land 10 pulp() 'es \:_the io:Inic adj sullen( Page 3 of 3- EXHIBIT E TO ORDINANCE NO. 2017-015 may OREGON COUNTIES USING DESCHUTES COUNTY DCC 18.04.030 "LOT OF RECORD" CRITERIA TO DEFINE "LOT OF RECORD" OR "PARCEL" DOUGLAS COUNTY Lot of Record: A unit of land created as follows: a. A lot in an existing, duly recorded subdivision; or, b. A parcel in an existing, duly recorded major or minor land partition; or, c. An existing unit of land for which a survey has been duly filed which conformed to all applicable regulations at the time of filing; or, d. Any unit of land created prior to zoning and partitioning regulations by deed or metes and bounds description, and recorded with the Douglas County Clerk, provided, however, that contiguous units of land so created under the same ownership and not conforming to the minimum property size of this ordinance shall be considered one (1) lot of record. TILLAMOOK COUNTY Lot of Record: A lot, parcel, other unit of land, or combination thereof, that conformed to all zoning and Subdivision Ordinance requirements and applicable Comprehensive Plan provisions, in effect on the date when a recorded separate deed or contract creating the lot, parcel or unit of land was signed by the parties to the deed or contract; except: 1. Contiguous lots under the same ownership when initially zoned shall be combined when any of these lots, parcels or units of land did not satisfy the lot size requirements of the initial zoning district, excluding Tots in a recorded plat. 2. A unit of land created solely to establish a separate tax account, or for mortgage purposes, that does not conform to all zoning and Subdivision Ordinance requirements and applicable Comprehensive Plan provisions, in effect on the date when a recorded separate deed, tax account or contract creating it was signed by the parties to the deed or contract, unless it is sold under the foreclosure provisions of Chapter 88 of the Oregon Revised Statutes. MARION COUNTY Lot of record: means a lot which is part of a subdivision or a lot or parcel described by metes and bounds, which has been recorded in the office of the county recorder and which complied with all applicable laws at the time of its recording. Parcel: means a unit of land created by a partitioning as defined in ORS 92.010 in compliance with all applicable zoning and partitioning code provisions contained in Chapter 17.172 MCC, or created by deed or land sales contract prior to September 1, 1977, excluding units of land created solely to establish a separate tax account. 1 UNION COUNTY Lot of Record: A lot which has been recorded in the County Clerk's office and meets ORS 215.705 lot of record requirements. Parcel: Includes a unit of land created by partitioning land as defined in Section 1.08, or created by deed or land sales contract if there were no applicable planning, zoning or partitioning ordinances or regulations. Parcel does not include a unit of land created solely to establish a separate tax account. HOOD RIVER COUNTY Lot of Record: A lot, the legal description for which is recorded in the Department of Records and Assessments of Hood River County. Parcel: A single unit of land that is created: (a) by partitioning, as defined in ORS 92.010; (b) in compliance with all applicable planning, zoning, and partitioning ordinances or regulations; or (c) by deed or land sales contract, if recorded prior to January 1, 1976. HARNEY COUNTY Legal Lot of Record: A unit of land created as follows: a. A lot in an existing, duly recorded subdivision; or, b. A parcel in an existing, duly recorded major or minor land partition; or, c. An existing unit of land for which a survey has been duly filed which conformed to all applicable regulations at the time of filing, or. d. Any unit of land created prior to zoning and partitioning regulations by deed or metes and bounds description, and recorded with the Harney County Clerk, provided, however that contiguous units of land so created under the same ownership and not conforming to the minimum property size of this ordinance shall be considered one (1) lot of record. WASHINGTON COUNTY Lot of Record: Any lot or parcel created by a lawful sales contract or deed and of record prior to March 26, 1984, the effective date of this Code. Two or more such lots or parcels which are contiguous and under identical ownership of record on the effective date of this Code shall be deemed separate lots of record only if the creation of the lot(s) or parcel(s) was approved by the County under a County partitioning or subdivision ordinance. A lot of record does not authorize development of a lot or parcel which does not comply with the requirements of a "parcel" as defined by Section 106-151. 2 CLACKAMAS COUNTY Lot of Record: A lot, parcel, other unit of land, or combination thereof, that conformed to all zoning and Subdivision Ordinance requirements and applicable Comprehensive Plan provisions, in effect on the date when a recorded separate deed or contract creating the lot, parcel or unit of land was signed by the parties to the deed or contract; except: A. Contiguous lots under the same ownership when initially zoned shall be combined when any of these lots, parcels or units of land did not satisfy the lot size requirements of the initial zoning district, excluding lots in a recorded plat. B. A unit of land created solely to establish a separate tax account, or for mortgage purposes, that does not conform to all zoning and Subdivision Ordinance requirements and applicable Comprehensive Plan provisions, in effect on the date when a recorded separate deed, tax account or contract creating it was signed by the parties to the deed or contract, unless it is sold under the foreclosure provisions of Chapter 88 of the Oregon Revised Statutes. POLK COUNTY Lot of Record: A lot which is part of a subdivision or a lot or parcel described by metes and bounds, which has been recorded in the office of the County Recorder. In the Exclusive Farm Use, Timber Conservation, Farm Forest, and Farm Forest Overlay zones, a lot of record refers to a lot or parcel which was lawfully created and acquired by the present owner prior to January 1, 1985, where a dwelling may be allowed subject to compliance with the applicable lot -of -record provisions in each zone. Parcel: includes a unit of land created: (A) By partitioning land as defined in ORS 92.010; (B) In compliance with all applicable planning, zoning or partitioning ordinances or regulations; (C) By deed or sales contract, if there were no applicable planning, zoning or partitioning ordinances or regulations; or (D) By deed or sales contract, if the property division occurs as a result of a grant to a public agency or public body for state highway, county road, city street, or other right of way purposes provided such deed or sales contract occurred on or prior to August 4, 1991. The property conveyed to the public agency or public body shall be deemed a separate parcel, and the remnant shall be deemed a separate parcel. If the conveyance bisects a property, each remnant located on either side of the parcel conveyed to the public agency or public body shall be considered separate parcels. (E) A parcel so created shall remain a discrete parcel, unless the parcel lines are vacated, or the parcel is further divided, as provided by law. 3 COLUMBIA COUNTY Lots of Record: Lots or parcels of record shall be recognized in accordance with applicable state and/or local statutes. The use or development of any lot or parcel of record shall be subject to the regulations applied to the property when such development or use is commenced, irrespective of the lot or parcel width, depth, or area, but subject to all other regulations. LANE COUNTY Lot of Record: A legal lot which meets all of the lot of record standards specified in ORS Chapter 215 (Sections 9 to 13, Chapter 884, Oregon Laws) and is entitled to a dwelling or mobile home irrespective of land use regulations Parcel: (1) Includes a unit of land created: (a) by partitioning land as defined in LC 16.090, (b) in compliance with all applicable planning, zoning, and partitioning ordinances and regulations; or (c) by deed or land sales contract if there are no applicable planning, zoning or partitioning ordinances or regulations. (2) It does not include a unit of land created solely *r. 4stablish a separate tax account. WALLOWA COUNTY Lawfully Created Lot or Parcel: defined as a separate unit of land created by one of the following: A. A parcel of land in a recorded subdivision and legally created under the law in force at the time. B. A parcel created by a land partitioning as defined in ORS 92.010. C. By deed or land sales contract if there were no applicable planning, zoning, or partitioning ordinances, codes, or regulations. D. Does not include a unit of land created solely to establish a separate tax account. GRANT COUNTY Lot or Parcel, Authorized An authorized lot or parcel shall be defined as a separate unit of land created by one of the following: A. A parcel of land in a recorded subdivision, legally created under the law in force at the time; (ORS 92.010) B. A parcel in an unrecorded subdivision that was filed with the Department of Commerce in accordance with regulations in effect at the time of filing; C. A parcel created by a land partition as defined in ORS 92.010; D. By deed or land sales contract, if there were no applicable planning, zoning, or partitioning ordinances, codes, or regulations; E. Does not include a unit of land created solely to establish a separate tax account. 4 JOSEPHINE COUNTY Lot or Parcel, Authorized: Means a separate unit of land created in conformance with any of the following methods: A. A parcel of land in a recorded subdivision, legally created under the law in force at the time, as defined ORS 92.010; B. A parcel in an unrecorded subdivision that was filed with the Department of Commerce in accordance with regulations in effect at the time of filing; C. A parcel created by a land partitioning as defined in ORS 92.010; or D. By deed or land sales contract, if there were no applicable planning, zoning, or partitioning ordinances, codes, or regulations. An authorized lot or parcel does not include a unit of land created solely to establish a separate tax account GILLIAM COUNTY Parcel: Includes a unit of land created: 1. By partitioning land as defined in ORS 92.010; 2. In compliance with all applicable planning, zoning or partitioning ordinances or regulations; 3. By deed or land sales contract, if there were no applicable planning, zoning or partitioning ordinances or regulations. Does not include a unit of land created solely to establish a separate tax account. YAMHILL COUNTY Parcel or lot: A unit of land created by an authorized subdivision or partitioning of land or that was created by deed or land sale contract on or prior to October 3, 1975. A lot or parcel does not include a unit of land created on or after October 4, 1975 solely to establish a separate tax account or to obtain financing for construction or other purposes. BAKER COUNTY Parcel: A unit of land created by a legal and recorded partition of land, or created by deed or land sales contract if there were no applicable planning, zoning or partitioning ordinances or regulations. 1. Includes a unit of land created: a. by partitioning land as defined in ORS 92.010; and b. in compliance with all applicable planning, zoning and partitioning ordinances, or regulations. 2. Does not include a unit of land created solely to establish a separate tax account. 5 WHEELER COUNTY Parcel: A unit of land that is created: (a) By a partitioning of land as defined in ORS 92.010; (b) In compliance with all applicable planning, zoning and partitioning ordinances and regulations; or (c) By deed or land sales contract if there were no applicable planning, zoning or partitioning regulations; but (d) Does not include a unit of land created solely to establish a separate tax account. (e) Established prior to 1980. Contiguous: Lots, parcels or lots and parcels that are in a single ownership that have a common boundary, including but not limited to, Tots, parcels or lots and parcels separated only by a public road. Only one lot or parcel exists if: (a) A lot or parcel is contiguous to one or more lots or parcels; and (b) On July 1, 1983, greater than possessor interests are held in those contiguous lots, parcels or lots and parcels by the same person, spouses or a single partnership or business entity, separately or in tenancy -in -common. JEFFERSON COUNTY Parcel: Includes a unit of land created: A. By partitioning land as defined in ORS 92.010; B. In compliance with all applicable planning, zoning or partitioning ordinances or regulations; C. By deed or land sales contract, if there were no applicable planning, zoning or partitioning ordinances or regulations. Does not include a unit of land created solely to establish a separate tax account. 6 MULTNOMAH COUNTY Lot of Record: Subject to additional provisions within each Zoning District, a Lot of Record is a parcel, lot, or a group thereof that, when created or reconfigured, (a) satisfied all applicable zoning laws and (b) satisfied all applicable land division laws, or (c) complies with the criteria for the creation of new lots or parcels described in MCC 33.7785. Those laws shall include all required zoning and land division review procedures, decisions, and conditions of approval. (a) "Satisfied all applicable zoning laws" shall mean: the parcel, lot, or group thereof was created and, if applicable, reconfigured in full compliance with all zoning minimum lot size, dimensional standards, and access requirements. (b) "Satisfied all applicable land division laws" shall mean the parcel or lot was created: 1. By a subdivision plat under the applicable subdivision requirements in effect at the time; or 2. By a deed, or a sales contract dated and signed by the parties to the transaction, that was recorded with the Recording Section of the public office responsible for public records prior to October 19, 1978; or 3. By a deed, or a sales contract dated and signed by the parties to the transaction, that was in recordable form prior to Octob'r 19, 1978; or 4. By partitioning land under the applicable land partitioning requirements in effect on or after October 19, 1978; and 5. "Satisfied all applicable land division laws" shall also mean that any subsequent boundary reconfiguration completed on or after December 28, 1993 was approved under the property line adjustment provisions of the land division code. 7 BENTON COUNTY "Parcel" means a single unit of land conforming with all land development regulations in effect on the date the parcel was created. "Parcel" also refers to a unit of land legally created prior to partition ordinances and recognized as a distinct unit of land by the County pursuant to ORS 92.017. "Parcel" does not include a unit of land created solely to establish a separate tax account. "Parcel" does not include "lot" as defined under BCC 51.020. (a) Except as provided in (b), a parcel is considered legally created and will be recognized as a legally created unit of land if: (A) The creation of the parcel was approved by the County pursuant to County zoning and land division ordinances in effect at the time of the partitioning; or (B) The creation of the parcel was by one of the following listed methods and the creation of the parcel was in accordance with applicable laws in effect at the time: (i) The parcel is shown on a survey filed with the State of Oregon prior to October 5, 1973; or (ii) The parcel was described in a land sales contract entered into prior to November 28, 1975; or (iii) The parcel was described in a deed recorded prior to November 28, 1975. (b) Any legally created parcel as described in (a) above will cease to be recognized by the County as a distinct unit of land once it has been reconfigured, altered, or consolidated into a larger unit of land by approval or recording of any one or more of the following: (A) partition plat; (B) subdivision plat; (C) deed with a single unified metes and bounds legal description; (D) deed expressly stating an intent to unify separately described parcels; (E) covenant expressly stating an intent to unify separately described parcels. (c) A legally created unit of land does not mean a buildable unit of land. Zoning and other development restrictions may exist which require the combination of lots or parcels in order for such parcels to be developed. [Ord 96-0117, Ord 96-0118] 8 n rir iipgygll ttisk trcr.;I MIOr X Si t Is h1 run,'NuBr 1ST ERS invtsrdrrio S!`TL CSV GAM �Irif , umpuJ, I11ir11,l.I I'lullivn. I 4••tnurgr. ivlrr i3r 11` 1l I Bun I It1 ,i lI, per tm»da d .Dull C' Rc aromr' frac ) ulliv.. I$ul U:• . TIIiiA0.trI., I';11tij Bull Sp 19 It 1ItERT SAt'Y9(i ST MS li F 9lenlry BEND tum 1x11 iI Cher) I 99 4001 Civnnori Bulls ROE COOPERATIVE CLOSURE Turnalo Winter Range T 16 S T 17 S Closure Area Roads open to travel Open to ATV/ ---- Snowmobile of 50in. width or les OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE cnEGcrr This area is closed 10 all unauthorized motorized vehicle travel except on those roads marked by a dotted line from December 1 through March 31. Open roads ars marked with dotted Tines. Special permits may be obtained for legitimate reasons. Private landowners and ernployees are permuted access to their lands. Fvdernl. Slate and County employees are permitted entry in parlormance of official dunes. Objectives Protect wintering deer and other wildlife trom harassment by controlling vehicle use,lhereby- 1.Incrsasing winter survival of deer 2. Providing more hunting recreational opportunities 3. Protecting end Improving rangeland 11 you nava further questions concerning any phase of this closure. ploaae contact the Deschutes National Forest. Oregon Stele Police or the Oregon Department of Fish end Wildlife. T 19 S 0679 WEEKLY.CC ° ~��• FiIfli a ° Q ' *Ct5,0 g "Cl ,boao . lot c) o a op a) cd ° p +, A 4i W ° � ,°„ y et Ci a V, . y,, 2 a O 0 p U 'b .0 U '0 a) a .. ,,H .d .0 O w .a l a b g 'C o "q p .� 0 tr 0:1E -v-70 ts, ° o • p, E~ 41 .E ° . ai H b U `:1 °iii •b 0. 0 K 4,4 a I H. a0 *6.ti 'p 4 y n 08. U.,2 bo a:d 0�'a 4)v,8 4 pr8'0 ai o 1 °6 ° F. o G g�o b b a)C° o fi pp A pp) v continued on page 12 ° a o 1 .o>' ti o o m° cd w. a w a co a) *WV) ).5 y 0 :p 1 '2)ro q 7 o q Ot o ° -0tl 4o1ee.at'p°°a.a ° vy, ci' N >., 'p b❑ .a p° 5 .6 ro F. I '�'� U as a 0 •0 Q�, - 2 ° 8 cid,t q o•5 o 0, et) co co° U'a E Q v U a ° .. ,ti 3 en V) acs, •, o ° ° ° ge.„• > °? 0 a a (7; oaG a'do >, 'a U ° .?4 � 10 •b w 0'4):a (i ° U U p ed &' ash E cd ° v° U o ° ° .5 a ro 0.>a o ea � o a)o° ° p p lit o'rt o° , Cj v 8 4� vb o o o y ° ° a) , v) c 0ozx:5 0r a)a,o - .5 : �.5- :p co 44 co CL) b Ptl tel .5 ,,„0 tia,��p ° — I-. •c a -° Vc)aov p.o O. 0 '° v o°0s qc)�q3,z viood 2 . H ow o °�r0C,b, UtulHb 31. 4,71 0-43 oa) m°,0a)en a ° �a° M. ww.b '°ob aO p;bw2,-.1„�b aNA co a) a a) .i... .. 5b 0. I7�o.Q;20c4 baLocd ico G pw.Q g° u1yaa.swg.a° 5 ed .4 �a ,��men... ri)° 2.o o„).o coo�°r_caEa. .5 '� o c .° g gb 5 U ." 5 a .5 4:9 to ° .a 'S g UESIDE THE BEND CRY LIMITS J W continued from page 11 11,pv ° a cp 5 cd O ,� ° ��a g aa, gyp o .b E 4 b0 w `r o O S7 ,1 0 O • o c o•Pe?, o a� c' Q.) +' 0) 0 "Cy 0, ad b a us, d .si., (i.) , . $4.., , 0 , ,i g • y ° , . cd mU Q .6.6 va ow a ...ni I 4 ,-,` 'P-. I '14 1) ' y L • '� VI U O .080o°!•.�avO�: L:1'c9 *C"pN b O ~ GCI a + tO°waovx�% gmao F. 0• Sa o ,,, �1 1'o• G j ,;d , *t a, A q � .09 q�N 1 ba 1 '8 o a y g yg ~ T 0 •1 A N ; a, N ° c� , c°aO , .a tn.HUofaao"Eb0 sabgb�4 �o 45 1v v, A cd a�°oa° °aa, ° 0 a) U *d a aAo&" Pqa+ � id 4. �A 'aa� ' • � o �U ,aoO 5 v, °' uoA•qa oai", ioU�oc�~ort°�,o4ria0 ° •Ubc '�eb 0 ai cd • , abO ao . 0 D y o g 0 g b�a 'E m• com a ` o ^ ° w 4 V-. O .n ° y U "° A by `4 U .CJ g .[ ., R 0 N .d g U w ✓ U g ro , U a A �cva • o a, U aa ua +, • P1 .'y0Nv,U (L) GG G.) 0V' a' F racd b. 0 1S w�, • v°v w° •°av n v v v .Q . E g oo°v a a o ca v 4o w A r' +� • hfl 66664 cu 4� o a).ti.^ ,a O .b 8 w•cv) eM h bla c N 5 R 4.1 • 4,1 CO 1-. w d0 6 '6 a a> y F. v,. CU1., y"7 1 � b "U ▪ ° ti~ cd a o 1-. t'.') ro o o +`� 73 p co -o '. ''bo 4 w m sero- ru ami a CUviZvi .E o 5 o o g g 041 (4 a a -p. •°° r cd 9 , 8 2• 4el ,VaL10 � .4 O r9 �DO L , A w 0 oOdo U0 v• O -11 �'w 5-4 0 cia2-0 4'p. • , U G=NdjLrU°N O ttO qy y p 1 cl bob Ego1.4,8�0)0 (J)ao4apaaq v U :, 0 N E t4 7.7 o A A O ° ° U �(f) GO n°h1 j ( Ik U cv a w w m cts ›, w •° U cd ,a c) Q co N it 1 rn ii Q ..a,. —_WMs.-....% 06 VI H • ' r ` tn 0 VI n_ M 01 1 1 ... '�' ©71 1 I. a�.. a 2( ' ) - LE: ' ': 1 CP P6" CD J-"'- r*--,cL CC v+ cs.�C3.w. 1 ->i-i o ai 1 1 0 1 0 CC :47.. '� a 11 o 1 O x 1 O 1 LS`i 4 0 L i 1 49 - , - = 1 0 _ 1 - 1 x t 1:.j wwwww •r...wr• ,.1b ne ie3 =Q� cre1 C37 -fig a cl? ^ice 0 C a*•CD Lel 0- C7� ',�+ �N1 ��7 L'SE • • 4 ! • 41 • • • .Y gAw r Cn CD - ^^`` 0.5r ✓ � - w E N r Y r 0 • - W Cil c �oX 0 • v 47.1 .. Not rims r ars w. w.w • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 p• 03 Q 0C1 = CV 47 o N x i.n co — M C-4 oz oz oaf 6 From: Paul Dewey To: Peter Gutowsky Subject: lot of record Date: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 3:27:53 PM Attachments: hooscan369.odf mu - Peter: I found some errors I what I sent you, where I had failed to replace "units of land" with "lots of record." See the attached, Paul (Ord 2(H '-(115 5. '01 ; ()rd 96-071 § I A. 19 • Ord. )5-045 1. 199 , i )rd. 90-007 1. 1 tt)0) rr4 Lots of Record, i i.Ots of Record. lot of record in 18 04.0.30, 11SI.d )racier tlw_ci�irrl t on of Pate 2 of 3- I XIi11311 }::.I() t)RI)INA'"CI N(). 20I7 -0l. r-1,51 1,,r1H11',111W111,1, rth nat t 'art tn.!' ctfret Lht7 -ta xat a it> h/114,1 hied ni tat th t"/I'a thr tor a ii1111'd11:.1%.11-,1.:1 1/C,." 111;,,Ai,1110-.1111. ni.11,11,11,1.:,1,1/1111111,' ,1‘41.11„,1,1`1.1 ti11./.1k11.111,1L1,1k.1 1011- tolgteAd 1). I 1n1111111:1,',1 ),-11.11:111111,11r111, .:114i1;1.!1,1;1,.. 1111 :11.111111;11/011 ,,,ophe-/ry,r kihki ;o\bd (e4 in,ecarn-,n —4444H -el ,AuJhied inr i--.,nr-anrro: :-,,arn,,e,:tr,,rn i3 r r,„,464 arraie- !,3r ,rthei pei in,r(:,1 rlirpkcanl hat tlatt tjatth htthit:: tttt t tttfa," rata ti ttiaattttf itt haqt. that T. iT,,att ttittt:t1 't Rat; Wu' ttah I <•.',Ur\ / \ WW1 ;ind thaAi t tt,1 tra t tt2, / "H.q. H1W )R.t, // ,\H\ ,Ir.'-\' rk:H;p1 -r•-:, 3-,0-;,,,i\k 7 .„ . ... , . .. tat aht.:hi ht.t1hth, thtt iahtt!, t,:hatta (Ord. 2017-M 5§,5,2(P, 7) Page 3 ()13- EX1111311 1 10 ORI)lNANCL NO 2017-015 LD to4. (4•40 fe4 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Subject: .e:-...4,,,,-1 Date: Name 1 aLi/ y LI344 : Subject: Name Address BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK .A4 e Phone #s E-mail address R,,,,e„.„, , - In Favor Neutral/Undecided Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. Opposed No Subject: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Lot 0 •C- Zac Avi4e,m_avkce-t-t-Ot Name 1 !UC Date: /6 11 Address CAI' w -Yl a 3 Phone #s t 3 B S — OE E-mail address 1(.1 In Favor Neutral/Undecided LJ Opposed C.( 14- v-(- 1C-el „1 k dcry-• Submitting written coctiments as past of testimony? JA Yes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. LIZ FANCHE2, ArrORNEY Liz Fancher Sue Stinson, Paralegal September 22, 2017 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DESCHUTES COUNTY PO BOX 6005 BEND, OR 97708-6005 Re: File No. 247 -17 -000596 -TA; Amendment of Lot of Record Rules Applicant: Deschutes County Please consider and include the following comments in the record of the above -referenced case I am filing on behalf of Belveron Real Estate Partners, LLC (hereinafter "Belveron"): OCTOBER 9, 2017 LETTER FROM ADAM SMITH Belveron believes, from discussions with staff, that the revisions to the "unit of land" ordinance that were supported in the October 9, 2017 letter to Central Oregon LandWatch were offered as a possible compromise. As Central Oregon LandWatch has not agreed to accept the amendments, it is our understanding that the amendments will not be made to the "unit of land" ordinance. If this is not correct, we ask that the amendments not be made for the following reasons: Edit 3 — Conveyances by the USA Belveron asks that the County retain language that states that units of land created by the USA may be developed if they meet all other requirements for development. Belveron believes that the strict regulations imposed on development in the forest zones are more than adequate to preserve these lands for forest use. To the extent that the Board wishes to protect special areas such as the Skyline Forest, they can do so by adopting a forest zone applicable to the Skyline Forest only that prohibits residential development due to the value of the land as a commercial forest. Edit 2 — Definition of "Unit of Land" This revision would require applicants to establish that a unit of land was "intended to be used, developed or built upon as a separate unit" of land. This requires an applicant to 644 NW BROADWAY STREET • BEND, OREGON • 97701 PHONE: 541-385-3067 • FAX: 541-385-3076 — 2 — September 22, 2017 craft arguments about the intent of the grantor who prepared a deed or land sale contract. Such a requirement violates the holding of LUBA in Thomas v. Wasco County, 58 Or LUBA 452 (2009). Thomas held that it is impermissible to rely on a grantor's intent in preparing a deed and arbitrary differences in the wording of a deed to determine whether parcels are lots of record. This change would impose a significant hardship on applicants as there are many cases where it is not clear what a grantor intended who will have to speculate about a grantor's intent in conveying land. This is especially true for remainder lots that the County's unit of land ordinance clearly intends to protect. This will also make it less difficult for opponents to argue, as COLW did in the Tumalo Irrigation District case, that deeds that convey lots lawfully created in the past eliminate property boundaries between the lots. ORS 92.017 says that these property boundaries continue to exist meaning that the County rule could result in denying development to lawfully created parcels that can be separately conveyed to new owners. Edit 1— Recorded Plat Requirement The addition of the word "recorded" before the word "subdivision" makes it unclear whether all items in the list must be recorded. Lawfully approved partitions were, in the early days, created by partition plans and maps retained by the County that were not recorded. If revisions are to be made, these partitions should also be exempt from the verification process. THE "MINI -AMENDMENT" The COLW ordinance and the County's "unit of land" ordinance completely resolves the Grimstad problem for developed lots and parcels. Both only apply the "fix" to lot or parcels in nonresource zones (MUA-10/RR-10/urban unincorporated communities and rural communities). The fix, also, will not apply to lots in nonresource zones that contain mapped wetlands or obtain wildlife habitat assessment. The Grimstad "fix" also applies to properties in all zones if a property owner seeks approval of a property line adjustment. The Mini -Amendment treats lots that have received prior development approvals as lots of record in all zoning districts. This allows the county to issue permits for properties that are already developed except where State law requires properties to be lawfully created. If the Board adopts the "mini -amendment," we ask that it drop the revision that would add the words "equivalent to" in the section that says that parcels validated by ORS 92.176 are to be recognized as lots of record. These properties, once platted, are clearly lawfully created and should be recognized as legal lots of record as they are by the County's current ordinance. If the Board adopts the "unit of land" ordinance, Belveron suggests that the County broaden the scope of the Grimstad fix so that it has the same scope offered by the mini - amendment. — 3 — September 22, 2017 Thank you for considering our comments. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Subject: -04- 0 e Name „Ak,r4„..,0„. Address Phone #s E-mail address ,telp c(„ 4 Date: )= In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opp sed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. TES G 0 ❑ -< 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 Business Meeting of October 16, 2017 DATE: October 11, 2017 FROM: Nicole Mardell, Community Development, TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING: Marijuana Production Appeal - 247-17-000723-A RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: Conduct the continuation of a public hearing to consider appeal of Administrative Decision approving recreational marijuana production in the EFU Zone. BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY: The applicant received administrative approval of an Administrative Determination to establish a marijuana production facility in the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) Zone. The administrative decision issued by staff was appealed. The Board of County Commissioners called up the matter for their review on August 28th, 2017. The Board held a hearing on September 18 and continued it to October 16. ATTENDEES: Nicole Mardell, Assistant Planner, Peter Gutowsky, Planning Manager, Anthony Raguine, Senior Planner Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 Phone: (541) 388-6575 Fax: (541) 385-1764 http://www.deschutes.orgicd STAFF MEMORANDUM To: Board of County Commissioners From: Nicole Mardell, Assistant Planner Date: October 11, 2017 Re: Continued Public Hearing on an appeal of an Administrative Determination for Marijuana Production in the Exclusive Farm Use Zone at 69188 Goodrich Road. File No. 247 -17 -000216 -LR / 247 -17 -000217 -AD / 247-17-000723-A. BACKGROUND AND TIMELINE A public hearing was held on September 18, 2017. The Board of County Commissioners granted a Continuance of the Public Hearing to October 16, 2017. This staff memorandum is supplementary to the original memo dated September 13, 2017 and provides a synthesis of the testimony provided in the initial public hearing. APPLICANT'S TESTIMONY Water: The applicant stated one 60,000 -pound truck from Bend Water Hauling LLC will deliver 3,000 gallons of water at a frequency of once per month. The water will be stored in a holding tank within the production building. The applicant stated water will be used in a closed loop system. Secure Waste Disposal: The applicant stated waste related to the marijuana production use would be disposed of in a locked receptacle within a room of the production building. The production building will have steel doors, no windows, and will be secured. Transportation: When asked how many employees the operation will employ, the applicant stated family members would manage the operation with up to 2 hired "pickers" to harvest the mature plant 1 or 2 times a month. The applicant stated they are not sure when they will hire employees. Odor/Noise: The applicant's Mechanical Engineer, Jay Castino P.E., provided testimony at the hearing and a revised letter discussing the mitigation of noise and odor on the property. Mr. Castino stated replacement of the filter in the odor mitigation system is required approximately once a calendar quarter depending on the manufacturers specifications and flow rate. Mr. Castino stated the mechanical engineer's report submitted with the original application materials was intended to meet the code requirements that show how the system adequately Quality Services Perf'or7rred with Pride controls odor and noise. Greater detail and specifications for the system will be developed during the building design phase. Other: The applicant requested denial of the request for a public hearing continuance. APPELLANT'S TESTIMONY The Appellant's legal counsel was in attendance and requested a continuance of the public hearing due to a scheduling conflict in which the Appellant could not attend the hearing. No testimony was provided from the appellant at the initial hearing. OTHER TESTIMONY Dusty Miller provided testimony in support of the marijuana production application and requested denial of the request for a continuance. CONTINUANCE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Board of County Commissioners granted the request for a continuance of the public hearing and requested any information that is usually provided in the open record period, be provided ahead of time for efficiency of time spent in the public hearing. Staff received testimony from the appellant on the date of this memo, which is included as an attachment for review. NEXT STEPS The Board has the following options: 1. The Board may choose to close both the oral and written record. 2. The Board may choose to close the oral record and leave the written record open to a time and date certain. 3. The Board may choose to continue the public hearing. Staff notes the 150th day upon which the county must issue a final local land use decision is December 29, 2017. Attachments: -Appellant Materials (submitted 10/11/2017) 247 -17 -000216 -LR, 247 -17 -000217 -AD (247-17-000723-A) Page 2 of 2 400 SW Bluff Drive, Suite 240 Bend, OR 97702 (0) 541-585-2224 • (D) 541-585-2229 October 11, 2017 Nicole Mardell, Associate Planner 117 NW Lafayette Ave. Bend, OR 97703 Board of County Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St. Bend, OR 97703 Re: Appellant Submittal to the Record for Public Hearing Continued to October 16, 2017 247-17-000723-A (Appeal of 247 -17 -000217 -AD) Dear Commissioners, Our offices represent Robert King, Appellant in the above-mentioned appeal. Please accept this letter and the attached Exhibits (by Sharefile) into the Record for the Appeal. They will be referenced at the hearing. Please have them available to the Board in hard copy, or advise and we'll bring binders. We anticipate needing approximately 1 hour and 15 minutes for presentations by: Introduction by Liz Dickson 05:00 Testimony of Deborah McMahon 15:00 Testimony of Appellant Robert King 45:00 Summary of Legal Challenge by Liz Dickson 10:00 Total 1:15:00 We do not have information on public testimony other than these presentations. Sincerely, Elizabeth A. Dickson EAD/mls https://dicksonhatfield.serverdata.net/matters documents/king robert matters - 3844/appeal of marijuana grow site (tewalt) - 217-17-000217- ad_2664-6760/public hearing 9.18.17 continued to 10.16.17/king record submittal 10.11.17.docx 1 Appellant's Exhibits for the October 16, 2017 BOCC Hearing 1. Continuance emails 2. Chairman Baney's April 2, 2017 Letter to JCOMR 3. Appellant's April 25, 2017 Letter to Tewalts 4. Neighborhood Petition 5. Neighbors' October 7, 2017 Offer to Tewalts 6. Staff's Email to Lance Piatt 7. Tewalt's August 1, 2017 Email to Staff (App. Complete) 8. Appellant's Abridged Engineering CV 9. Marijuana Facilities: Codes, Standards and Managing the Hazards (Abridged) 10. Applicant's Plot Plan 11. CEC's "Will Serve Letter" 12. Decision of the BOCC for the Rubio Appeal (Selected Segments) 13. Applicant's Phase I 14. Applicant's Pole Barn Application 15. Photos of Joint Properties 16. Applicant's Phase I Comments 17. Code Violation on Applicant 18. Another Code Violation on Applicant's Property 19. Appellant's Comments Submitted on August 3, 2017 20. DEIR for Kern County, CA for Cannabis Land Use Ordinance Project (Selected Segments) 21. Decision of the BOCC for the Rubio Appeal (Selected Segments) 22. Affidavit of Monica Stringer 23. Statistics on Marijuana Code Violations 24. Jay Castino's September 6, 2017 Letter 25. Appellant's Response to Applicant's and Staff's Response to the Appeal 26. Decision of Coppinger Appeal 27. Deborah McMahon's October 11, 2017 Letter to the BOCC EXHIBIT 1 Continuance Emails On Sep 12, 2017 at 5:16 ' , Nicole Mardell < icole.Mardell a@deschutes.orq<mailto:Nicole.Mardellndeschutes.orq» wrote: Hi Liz, Thank you for the update. I wanted to reach out to confirm we're on the same page with the meeting procedure as well. We conferred with legal counsel and they confirmed that we will need to accept testimony from interested parties during the hearing on September 18, 2017, even if a continuance is granted. "22.24.140(1) requires that "[ijf a continuance request is made after the published or mailed notice has been provided by the County, the Hearings Body shall take evidence at the scheduled hearing date from any party wishing to testify at the time after notifying those present of the continuance."" To ensure we're all in understanding of the meeting procedure, it will likely go as follows: -Board opens public hearing - Staff report, including request for continuance (if received prior to the hearing) (Our emphasis.) -Board may vote to continue the hearing -If the Board chooses to continue the hearing, interested parties may still testify - Board may continue public hearing to future date Please reach out with any questions. My staff memo is due for the agenda packet tomorrow afternoon. If you would like to submit a request for continuance in writing prior to the public hearing, and for that request to be included in the staff memo, please supply the request by tomorrow at noon at the latest. Best, Nicole ---- Original message ----___ F • �Peter tows <Peter.Gutowsky c(�deschutes.orq> MT -08:00) o 04 - - r• a <Nicole.Mardell ondeschutes.orq> Cc: "Elizabeth A. Dickson"<eadickson@dicksonhatfield.com>, Adam Smith <Adam.Smith(a�deschutes.orq> Subject: Re: King Appeal of Tewalt Marijuana Production Application Date: 9/12/17 7:51 PM Liz, At this point staff will proceed with a hearing on Monday. If your client wishes a continuance, he can request it in writing with his preferred date and you can deliver that message to the Board during the appellant's remarks as the hearing opens. You'll need to be prepared for all contingencies. It's entirely up to the Board's discretion to grant a continuance and to a date certain. Nicole, if she hasn't already, will let the applicant know the appellant's intentions. The applicant will also need to be prepared for all contingencies. Peter Gutowsky Deschutes County Sent from my iPhone EXHIBIT 2 Chairman Baney's April 2, 2017 Letter to JCOMR April 12, 2017 The Honorable Ginny Burdick and Ann Lininger, Co -Chairs Joint Committee on Marijuana Regulation 900 Court St. NE, S-407 Salem, Oregon 97301 Re: SB 1057 / Dash -11 Amendments Board of County Commissioners PO Box 6005, Bend, QR 97708-6005 1300 NW Wall Street, Suite 206, Bend, OR 97701-1960 TEL (541) 388-6570 • FAX (541) 385-3202 www.deschutes.orq board@co. deschutes.or.us Tammy Baney Anthony DeBone Philip Henderson Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners (Board) was alerted late yesterday afternoon of a spirited discussion that led to Dash -11 Amendments to SB 1057. Unfortunately, the Board did not receive any prior notice that marijuana land use concepts would be discussed at the hearing, including the Dash -11 Amendment targeted at Deschutes County's marijuana regulations. We respectfully request an opportunity to engage in this discussion and identify and clarify to this Committee the inaccuracies presented at yesterday's hearing. Inaccuracies. • Deschutes County is not requiring sprinklers in greenhouses. One applicant coordinated with the Redmond Fire District on water source requirements for her proposed greenhouse. The Redmond Fire District offered to reduce the water source requirements if this applicant voluntarily elected to install sprinklers. The County's Building Safety Division recommended this applicant coordinate with the State Fire Marshall to address the water source requirements because sprinklers appear to be an excessive requirement for the proposed use of the greenhouse. • The Deschutes County Community Development Department has not, does not, and will not make building plans available to the public for marijuana or any other buildings as stated at the hearing. As Sen. Prozanski stated, this is a clear violation of state law. Deschutes County protects building plans as intellectual property (i.e., architectural designs). • Other testimony claimed that Deschutes County has only approved 11 marijuana applications out of over 1900 marijuana grow sites in the county. As of January 2017, the Oregon Health Authority indicates there are 1322 medical marijuana grow sites in all of Deschutes County. However, it is unknown how many of the grow sites are located in city limits and how many are located in the rural county due to confidentiality laws. Last year, an attorney representing several Deschutes County medical marijuana growers anticipated the County would only receive 25-35 total applications for recreational marijuana production. • To date, the County has approved administratively (without public hearings): o 10 marijuana production applications; o 2 marijuana processing applications; and o 1 marijuana wholesale application. • In addition, the following applications are pending: o 18 recreational marijuana production applications; o 2 retail applications; and o 1 processing application. These numbers are consistent or exceed the number of applications the attorney anticipated the County might receive. Collaborative Process to develop Time, Place and Manner (TPM) Regulations. • The County engaged in an extensive, thoughtful, and comprehensive public process over approximately 10 months to develop and ultimately adopt marijuana land use standards unique to our arid, rural environment. The process included: O 8 public hearings before the Board and Planning Commission; o 7 Marijuana Advisory Committee' (MAC) meetings at which public comments were accepted; and o Staffed by a professional facilitator. The regulations were not appealed. • During the Board's adoption of the marijuana land use ordinances, it recognized that this new regulatory program would need to be evaluated and updated to determine if it is working as intended, and to address changing circumstances, interpretative matters, and amendments to State law. The Board welcomes input from industry representatives and rural residents on this important issue. Reasonable. Balanced TPM Regulations and Population Growth. • The Board considered and balanced extensive public comments, committee recommendations, and state law (HB 3400 and SB 1598) in formulating the final package of regulations. The adopted standards provide a carefully crafted compromise to support this emerging industry, a federally controlled substance, and protect the high quality of rural life through regulations to mitigate sight, sound, smell, water, waste disposal, and more. The regulations do not prohibit or effectively eliminate marijuana businesses or grow sites in the EFU or Multiple Use Agricultural -10 zones. • Some industry representatives requested regulatory flexibility in mitigating off-site impacts (i.e., odor control) rather than establishing "one -size fits all" standards. The Board responded by adopting discretionary regulations intended to provide such flexibility. • In addition, Deschutes County embraces Goal 1 of the Oregon Statewide Planning Program to involve citizens in the process to develop and adopt regulations, and to implement regulations during site 1 The MAC consisted of marijuana industry representatives and rural residents. specific review processes. It is important to note that those testifying before the Committee yesterday participated on the MAC and throughout the process to develop and adopt the County's regulations. • Deschutes County's TPM regulations are modeled after and very similar to Clackamas and Lane Counties' regulations. The only difference is the added flexibility described above. • The Board has a responsibility to represent the interests of all Deschutes County residents. Measure 91, legalizing marijuana personal possession, personal manufacture and sale of marijuana barely passed in Deschutes County by a vote of 51% to 49%. Disaggregating the vote, it was widely rejected in the rural county. At the same time, Deschutes County continues to be the fastest growing county in Oregon. Last year's population forecast from Portland State University's Population and Research Center, showed that rural Deschutes County grew at a higher average annual growth rate than the City of Bend, 5.2% to 2.7%. The county's rural population is 61,475, one of the highest in Oregon, outside the Portland metro area. • As discussed above, the County's regulations support this emerging industry while honoring the expectations and values of our large and growing rural population, many residing in close proximity to Exclusive Farm Use zones and marijuana production operations and proposals. The Board looks forward to discussing our program with the Joint Committee on Marijuana Regulation, Sincerely, DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Tammy Baney Chair c: Members of the Joint Committee on Marijuana Regulation Senators Ted Ferrioli, Tim Knopp, and Dennis Linthicum Representatives Knute Buehler, John Huffman, Mike McLane, and Gene Whisnant EXHIBIT 3 Appellant's April 25, 2017 Letter to Tewalts Robert P. (Bob) King 295 N. Rampart Unit D Orange, CA 92868 714 558 1646 April 25, 2017 Mr. and Mrs. Richard Tewalt 69188 Goodrich Road Sisters, OR 97759 Dear Rick and Norma: It's been a while since we've spoken. 1 hope all is well with you and the family. Rick and Norma, in the twenty-four years we've been next door to each other, we haven't had a chummy relationship, but we've always been friendly and respectful to each other, and we've never had an issue — until now. I'm referring to your application to produce marijuana. I really wish you had approached me in a neighbor -to -neighbor fashion to see if we could somehow come to an agreement. I honestly don't know if we would have been successful, but, at least, you could have learned our plans and maybe something could have been worked out between us. Instead, we get blinded -sided by a notice from the county with an application that is most alarming and threatening, for, if approved, it will destroy our current and intended use and entitled enjoyment of our property just so you can make more money. Unfortunately that application is now public and in a defined process that leaves us with no viable options except to surrender the intended use and enjoyment of our property or to respond -in- kind and, most unfortunately, do so in the public arena. Rick and Norma, this is no threat, but information as to our conviction to protect and preserve our Tong -held dreams for our Sisters' property. We will take every legal step possible to prevent marijuana production within at least a 100 feet of our property, and, if it so produced, that every code requirement is fully complied with, and, once production is started, there will be no "good neighbor" tolerance, so every suspected code violation will be reported. Acting on legal advice, to protect our right to protect and preserve the intended use and enjoyment of our property, we had to submit comments within the required timeframe. Which we did. In preparing those comments, I was guided by my above stated guiding principle. I'm respectfully requesting you to redraw the application, read our comments with an objective mind, and let's see if something can be worked out. Rick and Norma, please don't take this personally. If you werh my bother and sister-in-law, and your application was their application, 1 would be doing the same thing. That's how important this issue is to us. We sincerely hope you understand. Your call, of course. Sincerely, `;-ti EXHIBIT 4 Neighborhood Petition PETITION TO THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (BOCC) PAGE 1 OF PAGES Petition against marijuana production facility at 69188 Goodrich Road, Sisters, OR 97759 Owner: Norma and Richard Tewalt ADDENDUM # 1 10 16 17 Applicant / Agent: Norma and Richard Tewalt File #: 247-17-000216-LR/247-17-000217-AD From: The Below Signed Appellants as Neighbors to the Subject Property Date: August 25, 2017 WHEREAS, you are our elected representatives; and WHEREAS, it is universally accepted the first duty and responsibility of elected representatives is to provide for the safety and security of their constituency; and WHEREAS, the BOCC has been granted legal authority by the State Legislature to place reasonable regulations on the time, place, and manner of production of marijuana in Deschutes County, pursuant to ORS 4758.340, and these must be consistent with the County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinances and applicable provisions of public health and safety laws; and WHEREAS, in the "Findings and Decision," it is stated, "The Deschutes County Code does not allow the Planning Division to approve or deny this application based on. ..Previous code violations on the property, Impact of marijuana on neighboring pets and livestock, Increased crime and threat to safety of neighbors, or Potential negative effects on children in the area."; and WHEREAS, the Oregon legislature recognized and, by excluding marijuana production from protection of DCC 9.12 and ORS 30.3905, Right to Farm, publicly acknowledged that marijuana production is not equivalent to normal farming operations and requires special consideration and greater over -sight; and WHEREAS, based on results to date, it is now recognized and acknowledged by law enforcement agencies throughout the State that marijuana production has a history of frequently bringing increased crime and public safety issues, including threats of bodily harm, to a here -before safe neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the Applicants' initial application included "Phase I" which they withdrew once they were put on notice that a see-through, dilapidated, piecemealed structure only 30 feet from the neighbor's property and within a line -of -sight to the neighbor's residence was not going to be approved by the County, the Applicant withdrew "Phase I," but indicated their preference for substandard quality of construction and an absence of concern for public health and safety; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's above described behavior indicate the Applicant has a lack of respect and consideration for the neighbors and neighborhood and the established codes; THEREFORE, for the reasons stated above and in our appeal, we the undersigned do respectfully request the BOCC to consider this appeal in the scope of their highest duties and responsibilities and give full consideration to "previous code violations on the property, Impact of marijuana on neighboring pets and livestock, Increased crime and threat to safety of neighbors, and potential negative effects on children in the area" and deny Norma and Richard Tewalt's Application for a marijuana production facility to be constructed at 69188 Goodrich Road, Sisters, OR 97759. A marijuana production facility does not belong in the Goodrich neighborhood, a well established family, normal -farming neighborhood. We plead with the BOCC to deny this application. Signature address Print name Email back to adamjones99@yahoo.com or malibustudioaaol.com — Got questions call 541-323-6999 EXHIBIT 5 Neighbors' October 7, 2017 offer to Tewalts L) Plo- Robert J. & Patti J. Adair Mary Claire & Adam Jones Robert P. (Bob) King Laura McCallum & Dillon Hoffman 18000 Edmundson Road 17625 Edmundson Rd 295 N. Rampart 0 69205 Goodrich Road Sisters, OR 97759 Sisters, OR 97759 Orange, CA 92868 Sisters, OR 97759 October 7, 2017 Mr. and Mrs. Richard Tewalt 69188 Goodrich Road Sisters, OR 97759 Dear Rick and Norma: On behalf of ourselves and selected neighbors, we are making the following offer to you: If you immediately redraw your application to produce marijuana on your property and agree that an application concerning marijuana will not be filed for your property for at least five -years, we will reimburse you, via a cahiers check or wire transfer, the $5,000.00* you paid in response to our appealing the administrative determination of your application. if you agree to accept this offer, we will have Liz Dickson, our neighborhood attorney, immediately draw up a proper, legally binding Oregon contract which we will sign and have notarized. Over ninety percent of the neighbors have singed the petition in opposition to your producing marijuana on your property. If you prevail on the appeal, we are going to appeal that decision to the Land Use Appeal Board, and, if necessary, even further. It would be mutually beneficial to all of us to end this process now. Your neighbors would like to return the Goodrich neighborhood to the safe, family-oriented, normal farming neighborhood it has always been — for you, your children, and your children's children. Rick and Norma, we are wiling to pay you the $5,000.00* to give our children, and our children's children the safe advantage of growing up in the same neighborhood atmosphere as yours did. Isn't that fair? Sincerely, • Any refund the County makes from your $5,000.00 would . fo us to offset the $5,000.00 we have paid you, but, upon agreeing to this offer, you get your $5,000. back immediately. Robert J. & Patti J. Adair 18000 Edmundson Road Sisters, OR 97759 October 7, 2017 Mary Claire & Adam Jones Robert P. (Bob) King Laura McCallum & Dillon Hoffman 17625 Edmundson Rd 295 N. Rampart D 69205 Goodrich Road Sisters, OR 97759 • Orange, CA 92868 Sisters, OR 97759 Mr. and Mrs. Richard Tewalt 69188 Goodrich Road Sisters, OR 97759 Page 2 of 2 PS: Rich and Norma, if you agree to accept our offer, please call Liz Dickson at 541-585-2229, and so inform her, and let her know how you wish to take delivery of the $5,000.00. Liz will notify us and draw up the agreement. EXHIBIT 6 Staff's Email to Lance Piatt Thank you Nicole Lance Piatt lanceipiatt@me.com 541-815-0332 Red Ibex Solutions Rescue Response Gear Inc. Rigging Lab Academy Inc. Raven Collective Media On Aug 2, 2017, at 9:39 AM, Nicole Mardell <Nicole.Mardell@deschutes.org> wrote: Hi Lance, The burden of proof is on the applicant to provide a detailed account of how they will meet the criteria for approval. i have attached the approval criterion for marijuana production. You can view the submitted application materials on htto://diai.deschutes.ore/ Thank you for your comments i will include them In the record. Best, Nicole <image001.png> Nicole Mardell, Assistant Planner Community Development Department PO Box 6005 j 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 Tel: (541) 317-3157 www.deschutes.ora/cd Disclaimer: Please note that the information in this email is an informal statement made in accordance with DCC 22.20.005 and shall not be deemed to constitute final County action effecting a change in the status of a person's property or conferring any rights including any reliance rights, on any person. From: bobking714@aol.com [rnailto:bobkinc17l4@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 10:57 AM To: Nicole Mardell Subject: Re: 247 -17 -000217 -AD Application, Marijuana Production 69188 Goodrich Rd Thanks Nicole. I'll look at it tonight. When you say the burden of proof is on the applicant dies that mean the county just takes the applicants word? Someone told me the code requires a setback of 200 ft from the PL n a 10 ft high fence btw the properties Are those absolute requirements? Does the fence has to be a solid fence? Obviously we r most concerned about this situation. Thanks again Nicole for your help. Have a great day. Bob King Cell: 949 300 0845 Sent from my iPhone On Apr 12,2017, at 10:28 AM, Nicole Mardell <Nicole.Mardeli@deschuteorg> wrote: Hi Bob, A„, Here's a link to the application. The "burden of proof" within the application is the applicant's response to the relevant code sections that apply. https://weblink.deschutes.org/cddinternal/DocView.aspx?id=665500&cr=1 You can access the county code here: haps://w eblink.desch Utes.org/publ is/B rowse.aspx?dbid=db&startid=3998&cr = i Best, Nicole aimage001.png> Nicole Mardell, Assistant Planner Community Development Department PO Box 6005 1 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 Tel: (541) 317-3157 www.deschutes.org/cd Disclaimer: Please note that the information in this email is an informal statement made in accordance with DCC 2220.005 and shall not be deemed to constitute final County action effecting a change in the status of a person's property or conferring any rights, including any reliance rights, on any person. EXHIBIT 7 Tewalt's August 1, 2017 Email to Staff (App. Cornplete) Nicole Mardell From: sistershometownrealty@ykwc.net Sent Tuesday, August 01, 2017 10:13 AM To: Nicole Mardell Subject RE: 17-216-LR/217-AD Response to Incomplete Letter- Tewalt - Goodrich Road Attachments: 0728.17 Merandy Comments.pdf Hello Nicole, This email is a follow-up to my voice mail this date a.m. My husband and I have talked and we have deckled not to respond to Merandy Comments of 7.28.17. Please move forward with our file. If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know. Again, I appreciate every thing you are doing. Norma Tewalt 69188 Goodrich Road Sisters OR 97759 541-419-9629 From: Nicole Martell[mailto:Nicole.Mardell@deschutes.orgj Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 4:28 PM To: 'sistershometownrealty@ykwc.net' Subject: RE: 17-216-LR/217-AD Response to Incomplete Letter- Tewalt - Goodrich Road Yes attached are the comments. Best, Nicole Nicole Mardell, Assistant Planner Community Development Department PO Box 6005 J 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 Tel: (541) 317-3157 www.deschutes.org/cd Disclaimer: Please note that the information in this email is an informal statement made in accordance with DCC 22.20.00 and shall not be deemed to constitute final County action effecting a change in the status of a person's property or conferring any rights, including any reliance rights, on any person. From: sistershometownrealty@ykwc.net[mailto:sistershometownrealty@ykwc.net) Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 4:20 PM To: Nicole Mardell <Nicole.Mardell@deschutes.org> Subject: RE: 17-216-LR/217-AD Response to Incomplete Letter- Tewalt - Goodrich Road Hi Nicole, I have been on Dial and unable to download the response dated 7/22/17 to my incomplete letter. 1 EXHIBIT 8 Appellant's Abridged Engineering CV Robert P. (Bob) King 295 N. Rampart Unit D Orange, CA 92868 714 558 1646 TO: Ms. Nicole Mardell, Assistant Planner/Deschutes County Community Development Department From: Robert P. King, Tr. April 25, 2017 Date: April 25, 2017 Re: Deschutes County File No. 247 -17 -217 -AD Tewalt's 69188 Goodrich Rd Sisters, OR BOB KING'S ENGINEERING AND DESIGN QUALIFICATIONS (ABRIDGED) Specifically, and only for reference to some forthcoming comments, please note the following: • This writer of these comments holds a Bachelor of Engineering Physics Degree (BEP) from Auburn University (1961) and has worked as a design engineer at California Institute of Technology/Jet Propulsion Lavatory and high-tech companies. In addition to the numerous physics courses in light and sound (noise), the BEP degree curriculum also required my taking multiple mechanical engineering courses including one graduate -level mechanical engineering course. • As the Director of Project Management and Administration for a high tech company, this writer is knowable of the canons of Professional Engineers. INTRODUCTION We are the owners of record of the the twenty -acre property identified as tax lot 1200, 69220 Goodrich Road; Sisters, OR 97757. We share the entire northern property line to the Applicant's 9.39 acres parcel ("subject parcel"), hence, we are the most impacted neighbor ("MIN") of the Applicant's application, plans, and resulting behavior and the County's decision regarding the subject application. Our concerns are further heightened as this is our future home. EXHIBIT 9 Marijuana Facilities, Codes, Standards and Managing the Hazards (Abridged) MARIJUANA FACILITIES: CODES, STANDARDS, AND MANAGING THE HAZARDS (Abridged). by Bruce Straughan P.E., CEM Mechanical Engineer & Building Systems Expert Robson Forensic 354 North Prince Street Lancaster PA 17603 717.293.9050 Codes and Standards — Managing the Hazards Building permits and inspections by local building officials are required for all legal commercial marijuana operations regardless of whether the facility is a new building project or a remodel to an existing building. As long as marijuana facilities are designed, constructed, and operated according to applicable codes and standards, the risk of harm to people inside the facility and the surrounding areas is greatly mitigated. But the various systems in a facility do warrant consideration of any potential hazards, and proper installation and operating procedures must be carefully followed. An improperly designed, constructed and operated facility can also cause damage to the property or the product. (Our emphasis.) Fire Protection: Grow facilities are ciassifi Factory Industrial a fire sprinkler syst •._ .e International Building Code (IBC) as an F-1 Occupancy, the floor area of the facility exceeds 12,000 sq. ft, then Heating, Air Conditioning, and Humidity Control Due to the high heat output of the grow lamps, indoor grow facilities require air conditioning. Marijuana plants grow best at temperatures in the range of 68 to 72 degrees F, and heating equipment is also needed to maintain this optimal temperature range. The optimum humidity range is about 50% to 60% relative humidity. Growing plants transpire a significant amount of water vapor and will cause the air in the room to become very humid if not controlled. During times when the grow lights are on, the dehumidifying effect of the air conditioning unit will typically keep the humidity levels within an acceptable range. When the lights are off, however, a separate dehumidification unit or a reheat coil in the air conditioning system are typically needed. In order to maximize the rate of plant growth, humidity levels must be kept in the optimum range. If the humidity gets excessively high, the grow room becomes a conducive environment for the growth of mold and pathogenic organisms. The walls and ceiling construction of the room should include vapor barriers and corrosion resistant materials. The walls should have sufficient insulation behind the vapor barrier to minimize the chances of moisture in the air condensing and forming water droplets on the wall. Continued .... MARIJUANA FACILITIES: CODES, STANDARDS, AND MANAGING THE HAZARDS (Abridged) Fumigation Fumigation is regulated by fire codes and typically requires an operational permit. Common methods of fumigation include CO2 to control pests and sulfur burners used to control mildew. CO2 can be used for fumigation at levels above OSHA's immediately dangerous to life or health level (IDLH) of 40,000 ppm. Sulfur burners create sulfur dioxide, which can burn the respiratory tract if inhaled. Any type of fumigation is a concern to anyone entering the space, such as employees or first responders entering in the event of a fire. Adjacent tenants or bystanders could also be at risk if the chemicals were to leak from the space. Ventilation Ventilation systems are important for removing contaminants from the space and also help with keeping the space cool. Marijuana plants emit a very strong "skunk like" odor, and local authorities typically require ventilation systems to be installed such that any odors are prevented from leaving the premises. This is usually accomplished by installing a charcoal filter on the discharge of the exhaust duct. Other methods to reduce odors include ozone generators and ionizers. EXHIBIT 10 Applicant's Plot Plan 'pose a: 3 . AO; '- -L - - .,'...1r '...s., I• ‘4, .1%4%. .„. fl.. ... 41.. ..1-. a—, tie ‘13 (N. 3ePr GOO"leOso (6 ;$17.1) { pcopo �„ 4 �-- F----- 33e7' 4_ A I 1 Pe--Z1vo.6c,e)'6,A) Add -cc/ A # Re. A e -Rc,)/426 liar71p 9 4'7,4 ‘31-, 2 C ' di I rn Sc -A -le- ; vat) vt ,/ve ve-ei / frasi Pio -6. P/Ali Ala 6. V.ite-:C-1`0 ILI -.: sgo-rq.. TawK R -a- Aid Zrz4/0 54.1 *//,ul z4.40.0b c 14 D T 1 i i 1 11 CDDR COVER SHEET FOR JKH 04/17/2003 12:04:17 11 111 II A FILE ID 15110500003030T20030417120417 TAXMAP 1511050000303 SERIAL 133983 DIVISION OT SITUS 69188 GOODRICH RD HOUSE# 69188 STREET GOODRICH CONTENT PLOT PLAN RECORD ID B51750 II 1 111 11 11 ii W V ld 10'1d Weld 7naoad3a JON OU aura: vI.aION �b EXHIBIT 11 GEC's "Will Serve Letter" CENTRAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. June 1,2017 Norma Tewnit 69188 Goodrich Rd Sisters, OR 97759 RE: Will Serve Letter for69188 Goodrich Rd. In response to your inquiry, please be advised that the property located to MISS., SS., i3.11 E., W.M., Section 05, Tax Lot 303 in Deschutes County, Oregon, is located within the service area of Central Electric Cooperative, Inc. Central Electric Cooperative has reviewed the provided load information (800 amp Three phase service) associated with the submitted Cannabis Grow Operation and has determined that this service will require system upgrades to our facilities in the area. Central Electric Cooperative is willing and able to serve this location in accordance with the rates and policies of the Central Electric Cooperative. ''�Sin"ceerely, l 2CIL' .°)O. - Robert C Fowler Customer Service Representative PO Box 846.2098 N. Hwy 97 - Redmond, Oregon 97756.0187 Tel: 541.648.2144 • rex: 541.548.0386 www.cec.coop Robert P. (Bob) King 295 N. Rampart Unit D ^' " Orange, CA 92868 P-949 300 0845 "' Bobking714@aol.com October 10, 2017 VIA FAX; A TOTAL OF ONE PAGE INCLUDING THIS PAGE. NOTE: TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE; PLEASE DELIVER IMMEDIATELY. THANKS! TO: SUPERVISOR OF MR. ROBERT E. FOWLER VIA Mr. Robert E. Fowler, Customer Service Representative Central Electric Cooperative, Inc. PO Box 846 Redmond, Oregon 977756-0187 Re: Mr. Fowler's June 1, 2017 "Will Serve" Letter to Norma Tewalt Dear Sir or Madam: Robert and I spoke Monday. In response to my questions, Robert replied, "Yes, to keep our rates low for all our members, the cost of the required upgrades would be the responsibility of the user." Me, "The Tewalts." Robert, "In this case yes. Me, "Would you please email me a letter stating that." Robert, "I don't have a letter like that. I will need to ask my boss." Me, "If I understand correctly, that is CEC's policy, right?" Robert, "Yes." Me, "Time is critical, would you please ask your boss asap?' Robert, "111 do it now." Mr./Ms. Supervisor, we still have not received that letter. We have a legal requirement to submit it tomorrow to the BOCC. Would you please email a letter stating that the current policy of CEC is that, in this case, the Tewalts would be responsible for the cost of the upgrades referenced in CEC's June 1, 2017 letter? Your prompt cooperation will be appreciated. Please call me, if there are any issues. Very truly yours, Robert P. King Bobking714[a ap4.com HP Offlcejet Pro 6830 e -All -in -One Series Fax Log for Oct 10 2017 2:44PM Last Transaction Date Time Type Station ID Duration Pages Result Digital Fax Oct 10 2:43PM Fax Sent 15415480366 0:40 1 OK N/A EXHIBIT 12 Decision of the BOCC for the Rubio Appeal (Selected Segments) EXHIBIT B 1 For Recording Stamp Only Mailing Date: Thursday, May 18, 2017 DECISION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR DESCHUTES COUNTY FILE NUMBERS; OWNER/APPLICANT: APPUCANTS AGENT: APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY: APPELLANT: APPELLANT'S ATTORNEY: PROPOSAL: STAFF REVIEWER: 247 -16 -000600 -AD, 247-17-000036-A Rubio Real Estate Investments, LIC 2979 NW 176 St. Redmond, OR 97756 Douglas R. White Oregon Planning Solutions 60762 River Bend Dr. Bend, OR 97702 Lisa Klemp Bryant Emerson, LLP PO Box 457 Redmond, OR 97756 Monika 8 Lance Platt 23095 Alfalfa Market Rd, Bend, OR 97701 Elizabeth Dickson Dickson Hatfield ILC 400 SW Bluff Drive, Suite 240 Bend, OR 97702 An appeal of an approved Administrative Determination to establish a marijuana production facility In the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) Zone. Jacob Ripper, Associate Planner ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION ISSUED: January 11, 2017 APPEAL FILED: January 17, 2017 HEARING DATE: March 8, 2017 RECORD CLOSED: AprU 3, 2017 247 -16.000000 -AD, 247-17.000036A Document No. 2017-294 Exhibit B Page 1 of 7 EXHIBIT B I. SUMMARY OF DECISION In this decision, the Board of County Commissioners ("Board") considers the appellant's appeal of the January 11. 2017 administrative Findings 8; Decision (file no. 247 -18000600 -AD; 'Administrative Decision'). The Board exercised its discretion to hear the appeal de novo. The Board received two Memoranda on the appeal from Associate Planner Jacob Ripper. The first was dated February 27, 2017 ('i're-Heating Memo') that identified and summarised the key issues in the Notice of Appeal, the findings made by the staff on those issues In the Administrathre Decision or subsequent to it In preparation for Board deliberation, the applicable evldenc b e in the record, and the arguments of the applicant and the appellants. The second staff memo was dated April 10, 2017 (the "Post -Hearing Memo') that identified and summarized the key Issues to be decided by the Board in addition to both the applicant and appellant's arguments. The Board's Decision M this appeal will refer to and lncorpomte the Administrative Decision and summary of issues in both Staff Memoranda. On April H. 2017. before deliberating on specific Issues, the Board noted that this is a case of first impression since it is the first Board decision based on new code provisions adopted in June of 2018 allowing recreational marijuana grow operations. After interpreting code provisions relevant to the pending issues, the Board found that the applicant failed to meet its burden to prove that the proposal satisfied all applicable criteria. The Board interpreted applicable code unsatisfied as follows: • The utility verification requirement of Deschutes County Code (OCC) 18.118.330(B)(15) was not met because the applicant failed to provide a statement from the Central Electito Cooperative ('CEC) verifying that CEC was witting and able to provide electrical service for the operation proposed by the applicant. The Board was split on the sufficiency of the utility verification evidence that was provided, a March 15, 2017 tetter from CEC referencing only the property address but not the proposed operation that is the subject of the pending application. Further, the CEC letter did not address such issues as the proposed operation's required electrical load or the timing of that electrical toad. The Board interpreted the code to require such operational details to satisfy Deschutes County Code 18.118.330(8)(16). As discussed by the Board during their deliberations. the ambiguity regarding the sufficiency of utility verification was partially caused by the applicant's initial reliance on materials submitted for an unrelated 2015 Conditional Use Permit for a Nonfarm Dwelling on the same property. Although approved, the aforementioned Nonfarm Dwelling has not yet been established. Relative to the subject marijuana production facility. the applicant's initial October 4, 2016 Application and Burden of Proof Statement attempted to rely on evidence submitted in the unrelated 2015 Nonfarm Dwelling application as a means of providing utility verification. Deschutes County staff noted this discrepancy In the Administrative Decision and thereby imposed a condition requiring the applicant to provide 'a statement from the electric utility company proposed to serve the maritrana production operation, stating that the electric utility company is able and willing to serve the operation.' Ultimately. the applicant submitted the aforementioned March 15, 2017 letter from CEC. However, as noted, that March 15th letter only references the property location and Is not specific to the proposed marijuana production operation. 247 -16000600 -AD, 247-17-000036-+A Document No. 2017-294 Page 2 of 7 Exhibit 8 Page 1 of 6 AS EXHIBIT B 1 The Board interpreted applicable code satisfied as follows: • The odor control requirement of OCC 18118.330(8)(10) was met because the applicant provided a letter from an engineer stating the odor control system would meet the requirements of the code, The Board was split on the sufficiency of the engineer's opinion, since it did not provide his qualifications, experience, methodology, or analysis of conclusion. The Board expressed their desire for applicants to Include such detail In an engineer's statement offered to sagely this code provision in subsequent applications. • The water source requirement of 1)C016.116.330(8)(13) was deemed met because the applicant submitted sufficient documentation to satisfy the criterion. The Board was split on the sufficiency of the supplier evidence provided, since neither Avion (potable water supplier) nor Central Oregon irrigation District (Irrigation water supplier) addressed the volume or timing of water that would be required by the operation, and further did not state whether they could provide that volume• or timing of supply. •The Board expressed their desire for applicants to Include such detail in water source documentation offered to satisfy this code provision in subsequent applications. • The noise requirements of DCC 18.118.330(11) were met because the applicant submitted sufficient documentation to satisfy the criterion. The Board was split on the sufficiency of the expert analysis provided. since it did not provide the expert's qualifications, experience, methodology, or analysis of conclusion. The Board expressed their desire for subsequent applications to include such detail in a statement offered to satisfy this code provision. • The prohibition in DCC 18.118.330(20)(a)0 of a new dwelling in conjunction with a marijuana crop does not prohibit the previously approved non-farm dwelling for this site an or about May 12, 2014 in file 247 -15 -000103 -CU. • The access requirement in DCC 18.116.330(8)(a) was met because the applicant executed a previously approved property tine adjustment after the staff Decision was made but before the close of the record, to provide the subject property frontage on and direct access to a county road, as required by the code. II. APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: The Board adopts and incorporates by reference the description of the applicable standards and criteria set forth in Section I. of the Findings & Decision. BASIC FINDINGS: The Board adopts and Incorporates by reference the code Interpretations, findings of fact, and conclusions of law set forth in the January 11. 2017 administrative Findings & Decision (file 247 -18 -000600 -AD) in Section II. Basic Findings, subsections A (Location), 19 (Lot of Record). C (Zoning), D (Proposal). E (Site Description), F (Surrounding Land Uses). G (Land Use History). H (Public Agency Comments), i (Public Comments), and J (Review Period), with the following additions. 247 -16.000600 -AD, 247-17-000038-A Document No. 2017.294 Page 3 of 7 Exhibit B Page 2 of 6 EXHIBIT 13 Applicant's Phase 1 Fite No. 247- z(4- - A Community Development Department Mamba Midair Sultrang la1Mp eMskn IbeAreerriermal leas Makin P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette AVenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 Picone: (541) 388-6575 Fax (541) 385-1764 http:f/ww r.deschtltes.org/cd LAND USE APPLICATION INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT SE ACCEPTED 1. Complete the application form and provide appropriate original signatures. To ensure timely processing of your application, all materials must be submitted on single -sided, 8.5' x 11" paper. Do not use binders, tabs/dividers, staples or tape. 2. This application shall incluee one full-sized plan set (to scale) and one plan set reduced to no larger than 11" x 17". include a plot plan that shows all property lines and existing and proposed structures, parking, Landscaping, lighting, etc_ . 3. Include a copy of the current deed showing the property owners. 4, Attach correct fee. 5. Ali applicable standards and criteria must be addressed in writing prior to acceptance of the application. Detailed descriptions, maps and other relevant information must be attached to the application. TYPE OF APPLICATION (check one): FEE: Administrative Determination (AD) , Conditional Use (CU) Declaratory Ruling (DR) Partition (MP) Subdivision (TP) Temporary Use (TU) _ Site Plan (SP) _. Variance (V) _ Setback Exception (SE) Other Applicant's Name (print): tc s c,1 -It's i_:: `) i l ., ,,i t:. '.:`; r?' !Jr. ----i_.,-,:_, hi Phone: (54 t) 4 l q - (46,4c1 ,1 Mailing Address. i.,..:1 ° sr -i + c • E. f ',11%-. r, i ,. , }-c c_. I S ? C ity/$trat /Ziu,. • ., i ! - ? t` ! `' ..+ : `, �` --- . Applicant's Email Address: .. ;.. ti. .; I'-. ,, _'1. j'vr; l e i•r..-` ; t -x : _r--;1.-._'‘'.... .....t` f . 71,-;, - --i s' I r _# Property Owner's Name Of different)*:_ _ Phone: (' j Mailing Address: Ji_. (Lt.. rL 4,_ ..—' City!State/Ilp: 1. Request: °+(f),.i..,:i..s-., .'L .: j .:1. S ', , „1 2. Property Descriptio Township 1 5 Range 11 Section 0 A Tax Lot 3. Property Zone(s): E' F t L. Property Size (acres or sq. ft.) - 4. Lot of Record? (State reason): 5. Property Address: CI 6 r t. Quality Seraica Performed with Pride (over) +..► 6. Present Use of Property:__ _ i . - ti - 7. Existing Structures: 's t' :i s., fi"J: ;' .._. r. C-,i'i 'T a r( _.__ 7..? ; a {f•rI 76,,,,-_.#' 8. Property will be served by: Sewer LIOnsite Disposal System V _ 9. Domestic Water Source: J 4&a.s;--) r To the best of my knowledge, the proposal complies with alt previous conditions of approval and all other applicable local, state, and federal taws. By signing this application, I acknowledge that Deschutes County planning staff may make a site visit(s) to the address(es) listed on this application in order to evaluate the property(ies) with the Deschutes County Code criteria applicable to the land use request(s) submitted. Please describe any special circumstances regarding a potential site visit Applicant's Signature: J'� ' �, ", Z..%. ' - Date: �.. Property Owner's Signature (it different)*: Agent's Name (if applicable): Phone: ( ) Mailing Address: City/State/Zip: Agent's Email Address: Date: If this application is not signed by the property ownar, a letter authorizing signature by the applicant must be attached. By signing this application, the applicant understands and agrees that Deschutes County may require a deposit for hearings officers' fees prior to the application being deemed complete. If the application is heard by a hearings officer, the applicant will be responsible for the actual costs of the hearings officer. 8/18 1. Minimum Lot Area a. In the EFU zones, the subject legal lot of record shall have a minimum lot area of five (5) acres. RESPONSE: I am in the EFU zone. My property is 9.39 acres, in accordance with the definition of "lot area". 2. Indoor Production and Processing. a. In the MUA-10 zones, marijuana production and processing shall be located entirely within one or more fully enclosed buildings with conventional or post framed opaque, rigid walls and roof covering. Use of greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar non -rigid structures is prohibited. b. In the EFU zone, marijuana production and processing shall only be located in buildings, including greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar structures. c. In all zones, marijuana production and processing are prohibited in any outdoor area. RESPONSE: I am in the EFU zone. No outdoor production is proposed or allowed. I plan to conduct my production in a structure that meets the requirements. Phase I - Marijuana Production will be in a 36 x 36 existing agriculture building. Permit # 247-AG9858. Phase II — Marijuana Production will be in a 60 x 60 newly constructed building. 3. Maximum Mature Plant Canopy Size. In the EFU zone, the maximum canopy area for mature marijuana plants shall apply as follows: a. Parcels from 5 acres to less than 10 acres in lot area: 2500 square feet. b. Parcels equal to or greater than 10 acres to less than 20 acres in lot area: 5,000 square feet. The maximum canopy area for mature marijuana plants may be increased 10,000 square feet upon demonstration by the applicant to the County that: i. The marijuana production operation was lawfully established prior to January 1, 2015; and ii. The increased mature marijuana plant canopy area will not generate adverse impact of visual, odor, noise, lighting, privacy or access greater than the impacts associated with a 5,000 square foot canopy area operation. c. Parcels equal to or greater than 20 acres to less than 40 acres in lot area: 10,000 square feet. d. Parcels equal to or greater than 40 acres to less than 60 acres in lot area: 20,000 square feet. e. Parcels equal to or greater than 60 acres in lot area: 40,000 square feet. RESPONSE: My property is 9.39 acres, in accordance with the definition of "lot area". Phase I — Applicant is proposing 1013 square feet of mature canopy area in existing 36 x 36 permitted agriculture building. Phase II — Applicant is proposing 2500 square feet of mature canopy area in 60 x 60 new construction building. 4. Maximum Building Floor Area. In the MUA-10 zone, the maximum building floor area used for all activities associated with marijuana production and processing on the subject property shall be: a. Parcels from 5 acres to less than 10 acres in lot area: 2,500 square feet, b. Parcels equal to or greater than 10 acres: 5,000 square feet. RESPONSE: MUA-10 only. My property is 9.39 acres EFU, in accordance with the definition of "lot area". I am proposing 1013square feet mature canopy for Phase 1 existing building and 2,500 square feet of rnature canopy for Phase II new constructed building. 5. Limitation on License/Grow Site per Parcel. No more than one (1) Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) licensed marijuana production or Oregon Health Authority (OHA) registered medical marijuana grow site shall be allowed per legal parcel or lot RESPONSE: My proposed use includes one (1) Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) licensed marijuana production. 6. Setbacks. The following setbacks shall apply to all marijuana production and processing areas and buildings: a. Minimum Yard Setbacks/Distance from Lot Lines: 100 feet. RESPONSE: Phase: I The applicant propose to use an existing building for marijuana production. This building does not meet the 100 -foot setback requirement The back of this building is situated 50 feet from the northeast corner and 30 feet from the northwest corner from the property line of TM 14 11 32000 TL 1200. Subject building is 570 feet from all structures located on TL 1200. Subsection "c" below allows the County to grant an exception to the setback requirements "...provided the applicant demonstrates the reduced setbacks afford equal or greater mitigation of visual, odor, noise, lighting, privacy, and access impacts." As detailed in subsection "c" below, given the design of the structure, the topography, and the fact that noise and odor control systems are planned in the building, the setbacks afford equal or greater mitigation to visual, odor, noise, lighting, privacy and access impacts, therefore an exception is warranted, and all setback requirements are met. Exhibit 6 Phase II: New construction of 60 x 60 building is within the 100 -foot setback; therefore proposed Phase II meets this requirement b. Setbacks from 300 feet. For the purposes of the criterion, an off-site dwelling includes those proposed off-site dwellings with a building permit application submitted to Deschutes County prior to submission of the marijuana production or processing application to Deschutes County, RESPONSE: All marijuana production areas and buildings will be located at least 300 feet from any off-site dwelling. c. Exception: Any reduction to these setback requirements may be granted by the Planning Director or Hearings Body provided the applicant demonstrates the reduced setbacks afford equal or greater mitigation of visual, odor, noise, and lighting, privacy, and access impacts. RESPONSE: The applicant proposes to use an existing building for marijuana production. This building does not meet the 100 -foot setback requirement. The back of this building is situated 50 feet from the northeast corner and 30 feet from the northwest comer from the property line of TM 14 11 32000 TL 1200. Subject building is 570 feet from all structures located on TL 1200. Subsection "c" below allows the County to grant an exception to the setback requirements "...provided the applicant demonstrates the reduced setbacks afford equal or greater mitigation of visual, odor, noise, lighting, privacy, and access impacts!' As detailed in subsection "c" below, given the design of the structure, the topography, and the fact that noise and odor control systems are planned in the building, the setbacks afford equal or greater mitigation to visual, odor, noise, lighting, privacy and access impacts, therefore an exception is warranted, and all setback requirements are met. Exhibit 6 The topography of the site is heavily treed. Existing structures on TM 1411 32000 TI, 1200 are 570 feet from subject property, so it does not create any visual impact. Regarding odor and noise, the submittal includes a letter from a licensed engineer that provides technical details of the odor control and noise mitigating systems, documenting that odor and noise impacts will be mitigated so that they conform to the provision of DCC Chapter 18.116 Section 10. These mitigating measures ensure odor and noise levels are no greater then they would required being if the structure were situation 100 feet from the property line. Regarding lighting, privacy and access, all of these elements of the building are located on the front of the existing building facing away from TM 14 11 32000 TL 1200, thus sufficiently mitigated. The attached Exhibits of the existing building (documenting the design, lighting locations and access), the Site Plan and technical documents specifying noise and odor control systems. The submittal materials documents that given the existing building location , design and site topography , the setback affords adequate mitigating measures to justify an exception_ 7. Separation Distances. Minimum separation distances shall apply as follows: a. The use shall be located a minimum. of 1000 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; u. 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; 9 v7 t "; \ \ f 5 i 0 te`t L 5r_0.1e- x ` ,° :. t,3% : i : tr9;g EXHIBIT 14 Applicant's Pole Barn Application N 0 1 0 CDDR COVER SHEET FOR LJP 02/13/2001 10:56:52 i 11 i 1 11 11 BU 1 PAGES 011H 011 1 11 11 1 11 111 0 1 11111 0 1 II FILE ID 1511050000303BU20010213105652 TAXMAP 1511050000303 SERIAL 133983 DIVISION BU SITUS 69188 GOODRICH RD HOUSE# 69188 STREET GOODRICH CONTENT AG A P P RECORD ID AG98-58 1 S AG*AG*AG*AG*AG*AG*AG*AG*AG*AG*AG*AG*AG*AG*AG*AG*AG*AG*AG*AG*AG*AG*AG*AG*AG*AG* DESCHUTES COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGRICULTURE BUILDING PERMIT EXEMPTION APPLICATION 12:23:08 16 JUL 1998 CD.AG : AG9858 1:SERIAL 133983 2:PROP.ID 1511050000303 3:DATE.APP 07/16/98 4:O.NAME TEWALT,RICHARD D 5:MAIL.ADDR 69188 GOODRICH LOOP 6:MAIL.CITY SISTERS 7:MAIL.ST.ZIP OR97759 8:SITUS 69188 GOODRICH RD,SISTERS 9:SITUS.ZIP 59 10:COMMENT BARN IS 36 X 36, WILL BE USED FOR EQUIPMENT & HAY STORAGE 11:CONTACT.PHONE : 548-5311 16:RECEIPTS 226731 17:STATUS A APPLICATION FOR AGRICULTURE BUILDING EXEMPTION Certain agriculture buildings are exempt from building permits under Char 4 of the Uniform Building Codes and Oregon Law (ORS 455.315) 455.315 Agricultural building; application of specialty code; regulation rhy cies. (1) Nothing in this chapter is intended to authorized the application of a star: structural specialty code to any agricultural building. (2) As used in this chapter "agricultural building" means a structure fcrcarec :n a farm and used in the operation of such farm for the storage, maintenance or repair of farm machinery and equipment or f:r the raising, harvesting and selling of crops or in the fading, breeding, management and sale of, or the produce of. .ivesock, poultry, fur -bearing animals or honeybees or for dairying and the sale of dairy products or any other agricultural or ha.icultural use or animal husbandry, or any combination thereof, including the preparation and storage of the produce raised on s:ch farm for human use and animal use and disposal by marketing or otherwise. "Agricultural building" does not include: (a) A dwellings; (b) A structure that has two or more exists or an open side and is cird for.a purpose other than growing plants in which 10 or more persons are present at any one time; (c) A structure regulated by the State Fire Marshal pursuant to ORS Chapter 476; (d) A structure subject to Sections 4001 to 4126 Title 42, Univas Sees Code (the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968) as amended, and regulations promulgated thereunder; (3) Notwithstanding the provisions of Subsection (1) of this section.:mcororated cities may regulate agricultural buildings within their boundaries pursuant to this chapter. To be exempt, an agriculture building must be located on property whic n is carently employed in any of the uses described above for the primary purpose of obtaining a profit in money. Land proposed to be ted as a farm in the future is not "currently employed n farm use". If you believe the structure you are proposing to construct or alter may •?.uali'rc for an exemption from a building permit as agriculture building, please answer the following questions: 1. Is the proposed structure to be located on property currently emplo in farm use? Yes No 2. What is the nature of the current farm use of the property? re(. sir Tues 1, s J e s'7a c FC 3. How long has the property been in faun use? -. 5 }/.e p.-2_5 4. Is the property zoned for farm use (EFU)? Yes,( No.___ 5. Is the property specially assessed for farm use bathe Countys AssesYes No 6. For what purpose will the structure be used? f -p run Grn k, ; f, m ,,,Arr. , CrD ,,I a 1 r 7. Will the public have access to any portion of strunure? Yes_ No NC 8. Will any person live or sleep in the structure? Yes No SC iNOTE: Before a determination is made on your application for an agriculture building exemption: I. a completed application and application fee must be submitted; 2. a completed plot plan and plot plan review fee must be submitted; y 3. an elevation of the building must be submitted. NOTE: Although the proposed structure may quality for an exemption from a building permit, other requirements may apply. For example, if it is to include electrical, mechanical and plumbing installations permits for and inspections of such installations will be required. In addition, a septic site evaluation and/or septic permit may be required. Planning approval for the purposed use may also be required. Tax account #: Township 5 Ran: 1, Section 5 Tax Lot # .30?) Situs addres • . • .I.' _ c1 1. ere fel r O 2 9 7 7.5'9/ Owner. (C;614/2.4 a,. OtttYtto 177...aAC'f— Phone #: S'Vi .S'Sf4 Mailing address: Spar Size of proposed structure: 34 ' x 3 G. Size of parcel: q Number of Stories: i (Acreage) 1 certify that I have read all of the above requirements for an agriculture building exemption, that the structure I am proposing to build or alter complied with all requirements for an exemption, and that I have truthfully answered all of the questions above. I agree that the setbacks which have been verified will be maintained. I further certify that I understand that any, alternate use of the proposed structure may disqualify the structure as an exempt agriculture building and may result in a citation being issued and other legal measures being taken by the county. I further certify that 1 understand that I may be required to meet Planning and/or Environmental health requirements and that any electrical, plumbing or mechanical installations will require permits and inspections. Signed: (Owner) Date: 7—/1 - To be completed by CDD staff: Min. Setbacks: F LS RS R Actual Setbacks: F RS LS R Zone: Height of building at highest point: ft. Solar approved: Septic on Property? Septic Permit # Verified by: E.Plaruting.New George.George.Forms.Ag Bldg Exempt(mjz 1!28/97) EXHIBIT 15 Photos of Joint Properties EXHIBIT 16 Applicant's Phase I Comments c. Exception: Any reduction to these setback requirements may be granted by the Planning Director or Hearings Body provided the applicant demonstrates the reduced setbacks afford equal or greater mitigation of visual, odor, noise, and lighting, privacy, and access impacts. RESPONSE: The applicant proposes to use an existing building for marijuana production. This building does not meet the 100 -foot setback requirement. The back of this building is situated 50 feet from the northeast corner and 30 feet from the northwest corner from the property line of TM 1411 32000 TL 1200. Subject building is 570 feet from all structures located on TL 1200. Subsection "c" below allows the County to grant an exception to the setback requirements "...provided the applicant demonstrates the reduced setbacks afford equal or greater mitigation of visual, odor, noise, lighting, privacy, and access impacts." As detailed in subsection "c" below, given the design of the structure, the topography, and the fact that noise and odor control systems are planned in the building, the setbacks afford equal or ,greater mitigation to visual, odor, noise, lighting, privacy and access impacts, therefore an exception is warranted, and all setback requirements are met. Exhibit 6 The topography of the site is heavily treed. Existing structures on TM 1411 32000 TL 1200 are 570 feet from subject property, so it does not create any visual impacts. Regarding odor and noise, the submittal includes a letter from a licensed engineer that provides technical details of the odor control and noise mitigating systems, documenting that odor and noise impacts will be mitigated so that they conform to the provision of DCC Chapter 18.116 Section 10. These mitigating measures ensure odor and noise levels are no greater then they would required being if the structure were situation 100 feet from the property line. Regarding lighting, privacy and access, all of these elements of the building are located on the front of the existing building facing away from TM 14 1132000 TL 1200, thus sufficiently mitigate& The attached Exhibits of the existing building (documenting the design, lighting locations and access), the Site Plan and technical documents specifying noise and odor control systems. The submittal materials documents that given the existing building location , design and site topography, the setback affords adequate mitigating measures to justify an exception. 7. Separation Distances. Minimum separation distances shall apply as follows: a. The use shall be located a minimum of 1000 feet from: i. A public elementary or secondary school for which attendance is compulsory under Oregon Revised Statutes 339.010, et seq., including airy 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 Xa), including any parking lot appurtenant thereto and any property used by the school; 9 EXHIBIT 17 Code Violation on Applicant • • Deschutes County -Community Development Department Administration Building 1130 N.W. Harriman Bend, Oregon 97701 NOTICE OF VIOLATION Name TEWALT,RICHARD D ETUX Address 69188 GOODRICH LOOP SISTERS, OR97759 Date JANUARY 5, 1994 Case# C93281 Assessor's Serial# 133983 A COMPLAINT HAS BEEN FILED AGAINST YOUR PROPERTY Location of property T-15 R-11 S-0500 TL -00303 aka: 69188 GOODRICH RD,SISTERS YOU ARE ALLEGED TO BE IN VIOLATION OF THE FOLLOWING: Broken clean-out valves, raw sewage on ground. YOU ARE HEREBY DIRECTED TO COMPLY BY TAKING THE FOLLOWING ACTION: By cleaning up all raw sewage on the ground, and by repairing clean-out valves, and providing future protection and problems on the clean --out valves. COMPLIANCE MUST BE WITHIN 15 DAYS OF THIS ORDER. FAILURE TO COMPLY WILL RESULT IN LEGAL ACTION AND MAY CAUSE PERMIT FEES TO BE DOUBLED. If you have any questions, contact Deschutes County Development Department and ask for Frank Mancino, Code Enforcement Officer at 388-6575. EXHIBIT 18. Another Code Violation on Applicant's Property II 1 1 11 CDD COVER SHEET FOR LRL 10/13/2003 11:36:22 1 II 1 II II CE 9 PAGES II 0 0 II i 11 1 1 II 11 1 11 1 III 0 111 FILE ID 1511050000303CE20031013113622 TAXMAP 1511050000303 SERIAL 133983 DIVISION CE SITUS 69188 GOODRICH RD HOUSE# 69188 STREET GOODRICH CONTENT RECORD ID C93281 II 1 1 1 • DE'SCHUTES COUNTY BUILDING SAFETY DIVISION ****CODE ENFORCEMENT COMPLAINT**** C93281 Taxmap 15-11-0500 303 SERIAL 133983 14:16:46 10 MAR 1994 Staffer BJJ Date submitted 11/15/93 Complaint BUILT GARAGE & LIVING IN QUARTERS ABOVE GARAGE W/0 PERMITS Area SISTERS Type of violation B Permits on property 7 LUAS on property 0 Defendant TEWALT,RICHARD,D ETUX Phone 5491472 DOB 01/18/94 Location 69188 GOODRICH RD,SISTERS Zip 97759 Zone EFUSC Subdivision Lot Block Owner TEWALT, R1CHARD D ETUX Address 69185 GOODRICH LOOP City SISTERS State/zip OR97759 Complaintznt Confidential Phone DUB Status C Tentative court date Arraignment date Tickle date 02/17/94 NOV date 01/18/9; NOV COMMENTS: YOU ARE ALLEGED TO BE IN VIOLATION OF THE FOLLOWING: Built garage and living quarters above garage without necessary permits and inspections. YOU ARE HEREBY DIRECTED TO COMPLY BY TAKING; THE FOLLOWING+ ACTION: By obtaining all necessary permits and inspections. COMPLIANCE MUST BE WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THIS ORDER. FAILURE TO COMPLY WILL RESULT IN LEGAL ACTTION FIND MAY CAUSE PERMIT FEES CO BE DOUBLED. If you have any questions, contact Deschutes County Development Department and ask for Frank Mancino, Code Enforcement Officer at 388-6575. COMMENTS: Initials FNM Date 03/08/94 PERMITS ISSUED/CASE CLOSED PER ENM BJJ 03/02/94 SEPTIC PERMIT APPLIED FOR BJJ 01/21/94 DEF CALLED TO ADVICE THAT SHE'LL BE IN TODAY TO GET INFO ON PERMITS, ECC. BJJ 01/18/94 CORRECTED D NOV SENT TCi DEF ON THIS DATE/PHOTOS ADD9_D TO FILE BJJ 01/05/9+ NOV MAILED THIS DATE BJJ 12/20/93 TYPING NOV FNM 12/15/9:5 FIELD INSPECTICON—PHOTOS TAKEN/DRAFT NOV NO OTHER COMPLAINTS NO LAND USE ACTIONS ON THIS PROPERTY ****************************PERMITS ON THIS PROPERTY**************************** *PERMIT ID DATE STATUS 5 350:66 02/18/94 P Comments: 02/18/94 STS TWO—STORY GARAGE BUILT APPRUX 1991. USED BY DAUGHTER AS SECOND RESIDENCE. PER PLANNER --MUST REMOVE K I TCHCN (RANi3E AND SINK) AS SECOND DWELLING; CANNOT BE ALLOWED ON THIS PARCEL. a • CIJDE ENFORCEMENT COMPLAINT# C93281 (contiuned) 14:16:'+6 10 MAR 1994 PAGE 2 02/18/94 S1S 02/18/94 91S 02/18/94 SFS 02/24/94 JWM ORIGINf)L HOUSE HAS 3 BEDROOMS. 1HE Sl URAGE BUILDING HAS ONE LIVING SPACE USED AS A BEDROOM AND ONE BATHROOM OBTAINING PERMITS IN RESPONSE TO CODE COMPLAIN OWNER MENTIONED THERE HAVE BEEN SOME PROBLEM WITH WATER SURFACING IN DRAINF IEL D AREA/PLEASE CHECK ON FIELD VIS11 FOR FAILURE NEW DRAINF IELD INSTALLED AND APPROVED. NO APPRCIVEL FOR SECOND RESIDENCE ON LOT. *PERMIT ID DATE. STATUS S 8826 12/29/80 E NO COMMENTS *PERMIT ID DATE STATUS S 2886 09/11/81 F NO COMMENTS *PERMIT ID DATE STATUS F 33 08/12/76 F NO COMMENTS *PERMIT ID E 4741 Comments: 05/18/89 HF9 05/19/89 CFD DATE STATUS 05/18/89 F 06/06/89 CFD 06/13/89 LED *PERMIT ID B 34656 Comments: 02/18/94 BTS 02/18/94 STS 02/18/94 9TS 03/02/94 EJT 03/07/94 CLE SVC FOR PUMP N.A. 1) DRIVE 8' GROUND ROD-- 2) USE APPROVED GROUND CLAMP -- 3) STRAP & SUPPORT FLEX-- 4) INST4LL GROUND IN FLEX --6) FINISH WIRING SERVICE FINISH DRIVING GROUND ROD OR BURY HORZONIALLY 30"DEEP, SERVICE GROUND & NEUTRAL MUST TERMINATE IN APPROVED COMMON LUG OR BUSS, FLEX CANNOT BE BURIED IN GROUND, SOLID #8 NO1 ALLOWED IN coNDUI r. CORREC1 IONS MADE., SERVICE & PUMP WIRING APPROVED, F 1NFIL ED. DATE STATUS 02/18/94 DI *PERMIT ID B 9420 Comments: O 9/30/81 TWO -STORY GARAGE/S1OR(1GE BUILT IN 1991 WITHOUT PERMITS/OBTAINING PERMITS IN RESPONSE TO CODE COJMPLAINT GARAGE/SUNROUM DOWNSTAIRS/ STORAGE./BATH UPSTAIRS. OK TO APPLY PER PLANNER/OWNER MUST REMOVE EVIDENCE OF KITCHEN ORANGE AND SINK) AS SECOND DWELLING NOT ALLOWED UN THIS PARCEL. AFF ADAV 1l OF COMPLIANCE IN FILE --NO RESIDE=NTIAL OR COMMERCIAL USE ALLOWED 836 X 16.00 + 208 X 11.40 + 572 X 45.00 = 41,487 ON HOLD FOR INFO AS INDICATED ATTACHED WITH PERMIT APP. TALKED WITH OWNER, WILL BE CALLING BACK SOON TO CONFIRM SIZES. GC - R-3, 576 SF X 45.00 = ;='_5, 140. 00 / M-1, 1,044 SF X 16.00 = 16, 704. 00 DATE STATUS 01/01/81 F ULD FTG. OK TO POUR CODE ENFORCEMENT COMPLAINT* C93281 (contiuned) 14:16:48 10 MAR 1994 PAGE 3 11/18/81 OLD FRAME/ BEDROOM WINDOW NOT IN. NO BATH FAN YE"1. PLUMBING OK TO COVER. 11/18/81 OLD INSULATION OK TO COVER 02/10/82 OLD FINAL OK, EXCEPT STAIS NEED HANDRAIL. 02/12/82 OLD HEATING/STOVE SET UP OK 02/12/82 OLD FINAL OK ***..********************GENERAL COMMENTS ON THIS PROPER1Y*********************** DATE SUBJECT NAME DRAFTER 01/24/94 PERMITS TEWALT, NORMA STS OWNER IN TO SEE ABOUT OBTAINING PERMITS FOR TWO-STORY GARAGE WITH LIVING QUARTERS, DECK, E=l C. SEE PHOTOS IN CODE FILE. STRUCTURE BUILT APPRUX 1991 FOR DAUGHTER'S LODGINI3. I 'SPOKE WITH BRIAN IN PLANNING, WHO SAYS NEITHER A SECOND RESIDENCE NUR A GUEST HOUSE IS ALLOWED IN EFU ZONE, NOR CAN THEY GET A CONDITIONAL USE FOR THIS PURPOSE. THE ONLY WAY PLANNING CAN ACCEPT THIS STRUCTURE IS 1F Il IS GUTTED OU1 AND ALL EVIDENCE OF LIVING QUARTERS IS REMOVED --NOT JUST THE KITCHEN. ADVISED ALL NEW PERMITS --PLANS, PU)T PLANS, SUPPS., Al FULL FEES, PLUS "AN" FIELD VISIT FOR CHANCE IN USE. WOULD NEED AFF ADAV I T OF COMPL I ANCC, AS WELL, AND PLANNER SIGN OFF **** 1-28-94 NO SPECIAL INSPECTION REWIRED PER CEW. OWNER WILL BE GETTING COPIES MADE AND WILL BE BACK TO APPLY. ****2--8-94****MRS. TEWALT IN fO APPLY FOR PERMITS. HAD TO REDO PLOT PLANS. PER PAUL & KEVIN, THE: 2ND STORY CAN HAVE A BATH FIND "S"I OHAGE " AREA. ALSO, IT APPEARS FROM FILE THAT SEP' f I C SYSTEM MAY BE FAILING. • 1 Deschutes County Community Development Department Administration Building 1130 N.W. Harriman Bend, Oregon 97701 NOTICE OF VIOLATION Name TEWALT,RICHARD D ETUX Address 69188 GOODRICH LOOP SISTERS, OR97759 Date JANUARY 18, 1994 Case# C93281 Assessor's Seriai# 133983 A COMPLAINT HAS BEEN FILED AGAINST YOUR PROPERTY Location of property T-15 R-11 S-0500 TL -00303 aka: 69188 GOODRICH RD,SISTERS YOU ARE ALLEGED TO BE IN VIOLATION OF THE FOLLOWING: Built garage and living quarters above garage without necessary permits and inspections. YOU ARE HEREBY DIRECTED TO COMPLY BY TAKING THE FOLLOWING ACTION: By obtaining all necessary permits and inspections. COMPLIANCE MUST BE WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THIS ORDER. FAILURE TO COMPLY WILL RESULT IN LEGAL ACTION AND MAY CAUSE PERMIT FEES TO BE DOUBLED. If you have any questions, contact Deschutes County Development Department and ask for Frank Mancino, Code Enforcement Officer, at 388--6575. Deschutes County Community Development Department Administration Building 1130 N.W. Harriman Bend, Oregon 97701 NOTICE OF VIOLATION Name TEWALT,RICHARD D ETUX Address 69188 GOODRICH LOOP SISTERS, OR97759 Date JANUARY 5, 1994 Case# C93281 Assessor's Serial# 133983 A COMPLAINT HAS BEEN FILED AGAINST YOUR PROPERTY Location of property T-15 R-11 S-0500 TL -00303 aka: 69188 GOODRICH RD,GISTERS YOU ARE ALLEGED TO BE IN VIOLATION OF THE FOLLOWING: Broken clean-out valves, raw sewage on ground. YOU ARE HEREBY DIRECTED TO COMPLY BY TAKING THE FOLLOWING ACTION: By cleaning up all raw sewage on the ground, and by repairing clean-out valves, and providing future protection and problems on the clean-out valves. COMPLIANCE MUST BE WITHIN 15 DAYS OF THIS ORDER. FAILURE TO COMPLY WILL RESULT IN LEGAL ACTION AND MAY CAUSE PERMIT FEES TO BE DOUBLED. If you have any questions, contact Deschutes County Development Department and ask for Frank Mancino, Code Enforcement Officer at 388-6575. a 2 3 W cn v in W• 1- 47 U C N O a 41 N :kr as so IN MO all 1111 IN MI MN t 'i1Vlw 7 REMARKS: e fc I'/ DATE: j a -/ TIME: FILE #j C( 3 -L8 APOru'LAJN1 1N1'AKE STAFF MEMBER p DATE //- /5-93 AREA SUSPECT NAME n1.O A 4./• ADDRESS GC �/�j Cg VPtiONE ,5(/ "/ -- j (4 -7z - ADDRESS CITY CROSS STREET STATE ( „' ZIP % 7 75-`7 .SUBDIVISION LOT BLOCK OWNER OR TENANT ADDRESS PHONE CITY STATE ZIP TYPE OF VIOLATION: ZONE ENV/HEALTH BLONG MAP NUMBER T 1 R 1/ S 5 ;1131103 • , 39 3 ANY PERMITS? Y/N f ZONING - COMPLAINT: .G� LU • INITIAL INVESTIGATION SUMMARY: DATE - TIME: Revised 12/90 bjj COMPLA 1 NAN 1' PIIONCgyo-'- iv _ I DRESS (Minimum Requirement) J ~ 0,6/,&-; i EXHIBIT 19 Appellant's Comments Submitted August 3, 2017 TO: Ms. Nicole Mardell, Assistant Planner/Deschutes County Community Development Department From: Robert P. King, Tr., Owners of tax lot 1200, 69220 Goodrich Road Date: August 3, 2017 (The emphasis was added for Oct. 16, 2017 Hearing.) Re: Deschutes County File No. 247 -17 -217 -AD Tewalt's 69188 Goodrich Rd Sisters, OR and Applicants' July 20, 2017 Response to Staffs April 25, 2017 Incomplete Application Letter *************** In all future correspondence, please use the above mailing address. *************** ALL EMPHASIZED MATERIAL INTENDED FOR OCT. 16, 2017 HEARING We respectfully remind the reviewer, we are the most impacted neighbor ("MIN") of the Applicant's application, plans, and resulting behavior and the County's decision regarding the subject application. Our previously submitted "Response to Tewalt's Application" dated April 25, 2017 is by this reference incorporated herein and made a part of this response. We understand and accept that the Applicants have a lawful right to establish a "Cannabis Grow Operation" on their property — provided they can and will satisfy all current and on-qoinq statutory requirements. We request each reviewer of this application take some quite, reflection time and ask him/herself, "Would I have TRIED to do to my neighbor what these Applicants tried to do to tax lot 1200 in Phase I?" Our reading of the statute reveal the legislative intent was to ensure the maximum safeguards to the affected neighbors. Hence, we respectfully submit to each reviewer of the subject application the critical factor in this application is not that it is "started" per code, but the Applicants' operations once production is started. The application and the Applicants should be considered as one. The most impeachable and, in our opinion, pertinent evidence and/or comment in this process is the Applicants' submitting an application for "Phase I" and then withdrawing it once Staff put them on notice that a see-through, dilapidated, piecemealed structure only 30 feet from the neighbor's property line was not going to "slip through" the process. The Applicants' publically-exhibited behavior is impeachable evidence of the continuous behavior the neighbors will be subjected to if the Applicants' application is approved without inescapable safeguards for the neighbors. Again, for the above reasons, we request each reviewer take some quite, reflection time and ask him/herself, "Would I have TRIED to do to my neighbor what these Applicants tried to do in Phase I?" By reference, we incorporate each condition and safeguard we identified in our April 25, 2017 comments. For the record, we assert the Applicants' July 20, 2017 Response to Staffs April 25, 2017 Incomplete Application Letter, other than omitting their "Phase I" operations, did not factually, effectively, nor engineering/technical- competently sufficiently addressed a single issue and objection the owners of tax lot 1200 and the most impacted neighbor raised in their April 25, 2017 submission. The alleged "plot plan" included in the Applicants' response is not to scale nor does it establish an objectively verifiable reference point from which relationships can be established and verified nor is it to a true scale, Continued ........... Robert P. King's Comments on : Deschutes County File No. 247 -17 -217 -AD -2- August 3, 2017 hence there is no way to determine the exact location of the proposed 60 X 60 structure and, mostly importantly, its true minimum distance from the property line of tax lot 1200. The driveway is omitted, which, if to scale, would have allowed the establishment of some relationships. The Applicants' need to have an Oregon licensed surveyor starting from a true reference point prepare a true plot plan showing the relationship of all the pertinent structures and operational support facilities, e.g., the septic tank and it !etch field, and, critically, locating with distance and angles the specific coordinates of two corners of the proposed 60 X 60 structure and then establish the distance from the property line. The "plot plan" submitted by the Applicants does now graphically show the addition of new power poles within view of the tax lot 1200 and other neighbors. No other details are provided. Since this is for a strictly commercial operation and this application is excused from Oregon's normal farming operation safeguards and liberties, and adversely affects the neighbors, these power lines should be required to be under ground. If the power lines are allowed above ground, the existing poles, even if they have to be strengthen, should be used to route power to the 60 X 60 structure, for example, from the existing garage or house directly to the new structure. By this reference, we are incorporating and and all other Oregon's and Deschutes County's statues and codes that may apply to the possible adverse effects the proposed above ground electrical service may environmentally or otherwise have on the neighbors and neighborhood. We also deny and dispute CEC's June 1, 2017 letter definitively establishes the Applicant meet the CEC's requirements of "in accordance with the rates and policies of the Central Electric Cooperative." The requirements CEC would place on the Applicants should have specified and the Applicant should have ensured compliance — not a promise, but actual compliance. The application is incomplete and fails to factually establish the codes are met; for specific details, please refer to our April 25, 2017 response, hence, we respectfully request the subject application be denied. If the application is approved, we respectfully request that each and ever conditions and safeguards cited in our April 25, 2017 response be a required condition of approval. We further request the approval, if granted, contain the provision that three coder violations in any twelve-month period or five code violations within any twenty- four -month period will cause the permit to be automatically revoked. I willfully declare under the penalty of perjury the above is true to the best of my knowledge. Respectfully submitted, ing, Tr Mailing address: 295 N. Rampart Unit D Orange, CA 92868 EXHIBIT 20 DEIR for Kern County, CA for Cannabis Land Use Ordinance Project (Selected Segments) Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH# 2017011058 Volume 2 Appendices A through J KERN COUNTY CANNABIS LAND USE ORDINANCE PROJECT Kern County Cannabis Land Use Ordinance Revisions to Title 19 — Kern County Zoning Ordinance — 2017 B, Title 5 — Business Licenses and Regulations, and Title 13 — Parks Recreation Areas and Public Places and Agricultural Preserve Standard Uniform Rules for two (2) options — Option A — Ban all commercial cannabis activity or Option B — Regulate all commercial cannabis activity Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department 2700 "M" Street, Suite 100 Bakersfield, CA 93301-2370 (661) 862-8600 Technical Assistance by: Kimley-Horn and Associates 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 858-5800 July 2017 KERN COUNTY PLANNING & NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Kern County Marijuana Land Use Ordinance Potentially Significant Potentially Impact Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of haiardous materials into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. For a project located within the adopted Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g. Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? i. Would implementation of the project generate vectors (flies, mosquitoes, rodents, etc.) or have a component that includes agricultural waste? O ❑ 0 0 ® ❑ 0 0 ® 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 ® 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 ❑ ❑ ® 0 ® 0 0 0 January 2017 31 Initial Study/Notice of Preparation KERN COUNTY PLANNING & NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Kem County Marijuana Land Use Ordinance Specifically, would the project exceed the following qualitative threshold: The presence of domestic flies, mosquitoes, cockroaches, rodents, and/or any other vectors associated with the project is significant when the applicable enforcement agency determines that any of the vectors: Occur as immature stages and adults in numbers considerably in excess of those found in the surrounding environment; and ii. Are associated with design, layout, and management of project operations; and iii. Disseminate widely from the property; and iv. Cause detrimental effects on the public health or wellbeing of the majority of the surrounding population. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Discussion: Potentially Significant Potentially Impact Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact ® ❑ 0 0 ® 0 0 0 ® 0 0 ❑ ® 0 0 0 (a) -(c) The proposed project would either ban, Alternative 1, or implement, Alternative 2, appropriate zoning regulations to facilitate marijuana -related activities within appropriate Kern County Zoning Ordinance zone classifications. Any future marijuana cultivation and processing, whether at a six -plant scale under Alternative 1 or at a larger commercial operation scale under Alternative 2, would involve chemicals such as, but not limited to, pesticides, herbicides, rodenticides, fertilizers, petroleum products including diesel, propane and butane, heavy metals related to indoor grow lights, and carbon dioxide. For Alternative 1, these chemicals would be obtained for existing gardening supply facilities. For Alternative 2, these chemicals would be delivered to the future commercial marijuana -related facilities. This could create a significant hazard to the public or the environmental through the routine transport, use, or disposal. These chemicals could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials. While the proposed project would clarify a ban, Alternative 1, or future facility locations, Alternative 2, there could still be the potential for a facility to be proposed within 0.25 mile of a school. Distances from schools would vary depending on the facility; however, no facility can be closer than 1,000 feet from a school, daycare or youth center, as requirement of Proposition 64. The toxicity and potential release of these materials would depend on the quantity, the type of storage container, safety protocols used at future commercial marijuana -related facilities, the location and/or proximity to schools and residences, the frequency and duration of spills or storage leaks, and the reactivity of hazardous substances with other materials. The EIR will assess impacts on these January 2017 32 Initial Study/Notice of Preparation KERN COUNTY PLANNING & NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Kern County Marijuana Land Use Ordinance NOISE. Would the project result in: a. Exposure of persons to, or generate, noise levels in excess of standards established in the Local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Exposure of persons to, or generate, excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e. For a project located within the Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Noise Discussion: Potentially Significant Potentially Impact Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact ® ❑ O 0 ® ❑ O 0 ® ❑ O 0 ❑ 0 0 ® ❑ 0 0 ® ❑ 0 ❑ (a) -(c) Land uses determined to be "sensitive" to noise as defined by the KCGP include residential areas, schools, convalescent and acute care hospitals, parks and recreational areas, and churches. The proposed project will clarify a ban, Alternative I, or implement appropriate zone classifications where future commercial marijuana -related facilities are allowable in compliance with development standards or under a conditional use permit, Alternative 2. The KCGP Noise Element sets a 65 -decibel limit on exterior noise levels from stationary sources (i.e., non -transportation sources) at sensitive receptors. The Noise Control Ordinance in the Kern County Code of Ordinances (Section 8.36.020 et seq.) prohibits a variety of nuisance noises between the hours of 9 PM and 6 AM on weekdays and 9 PM and 8 AM on weekends. The future marijuana -related facilities would adhere to the provisions of the Kern County Noise Ordinance under both proposed project alternatives. The ElR will assess impacts on these resources at the program level for Alternatives 1 and 2. If applicable for the alternative, the EIR will set forth research criteria and report content to enable project -level evaluation of noise level impacts, groundbome vibration and groundborne noise impacts, and evaluate any increases in ambient noise levels above existing levels associated with future commercial marijuana cultivation, processing/packaging, and distribution facilities. This will be evaluated further in the EIR. January 2017 41 tnittai Study/Notice of Preparation KERN COUNTY PLANNING & NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Kem County Marijuana Land Use Ordinance TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to, level of service (LOS) standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? i. Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan LOS "C" ii. Kern County General Plan LOS "D" c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e. Result in inadequate emergency access? f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Transportation and Traffic Discussion: Potentially Significant Potentially Impact Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact ® ❑ 0 0 ® 0 0 0 tEl 0 0 0 ® 0 0 0 ® 0 0 0 ® 0 0 0 ® 0 0 ❑ (a)/(b) The proposed project encompasses the entire County and can be split into three main geographic areas: Valley, Mountain, and Desert. The County contains Intestates (I), U.S. Routes (US), and State Routes (SR). SR -99 provides is a major freeway servicing the large central valley urban areas, including the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. I-5 enters the County in the southwest and carries traffic on a north - January 2017 46 Initial Study/Notice of Preparation EXHIBIT 21 Decision of the BOCC for the Rubio Appeal (Selected Segments) EXHIBIT B For Recording Stamp Only Mailing Date: Thursday, May la. 2017 1 DECISION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR DESCHUTES COUNTY FILE NUMBERS: 247 -16 -000600 -AD. 247-17-000036-A OWNEWAPPUCANT: Rubio Real Estate Investments, LLC 2979 NW 17°t St. Redmond, OR 97756 APPUCANT'S AGENT: Douglas R. White Oregon Planning Solutions 60762 River Bend Dr. Bend, OR 97702 APPLICANTS ATTORNEY: Usa Kemp Bryant Emerson, LLP PO Box 457 Redmond, OR 97756 APPELLANT: Monika & Lance Platt 23095 Alfalfa Market Rd, Bend, OR 97701 APPELLANT'S Elizabeth Dickson ATTORNEY: Dickson Hatfield LLC 400 SW Bluff Drive, Suite 240 Bend, OR 97702 PROPOSAL; An appeal of an approved Administretive Determination to establish a marijuana produk: Ion facility In the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) Zone. STAFF REVIEWER: Jacob Ripper, Associate Planner ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION ISSUED: APPEAL FILED: HEARING DATE: RECORD CLOSED: January 11, 2017 January 17, 2017 March 8, 2017 April 3, 2017 247 -10000600 -AD, 247-41-000036-A Document No. 2017-294 Exhibit B Page 1 of 7 EXHIBIT B The Board interpreted applicable code satisfied as follows: • The odor control requirement of DCC 18116.330(B)(10) was met because the applicant provided a letter from an engineer stating the odor control system would meet the requirements of the code. The Board was split on the sufficiency of the engineer's opinion, since it did not provide his qualifications. experience, methodology, or analysis of conclusion. The Board expressed their desire for applicants to Include such detail in an engineer's statement offered to satisfy this code provision in subsequent applications. • The water source requirement of DCC 18.116.330(8)(13) was deemed met because the applicant submitted sufficient documentation to satisfy the criterion. The Board was split on the sufficiency of the supplier evidence provided, since neither Avion (potable water supplier) nor Central Oregon Irrigation District (hrigatfon water supplier) addressed the volume or timing of water that would be required by the operation, and further did not state whether they could provide that volume• or timing of supply. •The Board expressed their desire for applicants to include such detail in water source documentation offered to satisfy this code provision in subsequent applications. • The noise requirements of DCC 18.118.330(11) were met because the applicant submitted sufficient documentation to satisfy the criterion. The Board was split on the sufficiency of the expert analysis provided, since it did not provide the expert's qualifications, experience, methodology, or analysis of conclusion. The Board expressed their desire for subsequent applications to include such detail in a statement offered to satisfy this code provision. • The prohibition in DCC 18.116.330(20)(a)(i) of a new dweling in conjunction with a marijuana crop does not prohibit the previously approved non-farm dwelling for this site on or about May 12, 2014 in fife 247 -15 -000103 -CU. • The access requirement In DCC 18.118.330(8)(a) was met because the applicant executed a previously approved property "line adjustment after the staff Decision was made but before the dose of the record. to provide the subject property frontage on and direct access to a county road, as required by the code. II. APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: The Board adopts and incorporates by reference the description of the applicable standards and criteria set forth in Section I. of the Findings 8 Decision. 111. BASIC FINDINGS: The Board adopts and incorporates by reference the code Interpretations, findings of fact, and conclusions of law set forth in the January 11, 2017 administrative Findings & Decision (file 247 -18 -000600 -AD) in Section 11. Basic Findings, subsections A (Location), 8 (Lot of Record), C (Zoning), D (Proposal), E (Site Description), F (Surrounding Land Uses), G (Land Use History), H (Public Agency Comments). 1 (Public Comments), and J (Review Period). with the following additions. 247 -16.000600 -AD, 247-17-000036-A Document No. 2017.294 Page 3of7 Exhibit B Page 2 of 6 EXHIBIT B C. DCC 16.116.330(BX10) Odor. As used In DCC 18.118.330(8)(10), building means the building, including greenhouses, hoop houses, and other similar structures, used for marijuana production or marijuana processing a. The building shall be equipped with an effective odor control system which must at alt times prevent unreasonable interference of neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. b. An odor control system Is deemed permitted only after the applicant submits a report by a mechanical engineer licensed in the State of Oregon demonstrating that the system will control odor so as no! .to unreasonably interfere with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. c. Private actions alleging nuisance or trespass associated with odor Impacts are authorized if at all, as provided In applicable state statute. d. The odor control system shall: 1. Consist of one or more fans- The fen(s) shall be sized for cubic feet per minute (CFM) equivalent to the volume of the building (length multiplied by width multiplied by height) divided by three. The filters) shall be rated for the required CFM; or U. Utilize an alternative method or technology to achieve equal to or greater odor mitigation than provided by (I) above. e. The system shall be maintained in working order and shall be in use. The Board acknowledges that the criteria of this section are discretionary. In terms of what constitutes 'unreasonable Interference of neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property". The record includes two letters from Oregon -licensed Mechanical Engineer Robert James, PE. dated November 23 and November 29, 2016. The Board finds the applicant met these criteria. The Board also clarifies that odor control Is an ongoing requirement and that the twrden of compliance is on the applicant. The Board further clarifies that in subsequent applications, an engineer's letter should explicitly identify that the engineer signing the tetter is a mechanical engineer. D. DCC 18.116.330(BXII) Noise. Noise produced by marijuana production and marijuana processing shall comply with the following: a. Sustained noise from.nmahenlcal equipment used for)reeting, ventilation, elr conditlon,'odor control, fans and similar functions shall not exceed 30 dB(A) measured at any property line between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the following day. b. Sustained noise from marijuana production is exempt from protections of ACC 9.12 and ORS 30.395, Right to Fann. intermlttent noise for accepted . fanning practices is permitted The Board finds the applicant meets criterion (a) above, however, there was a discussion at the deliberation as to if HVAC equipment would generate sustained noise overnight when heating is on in the winter. The Board expressed a desire for additional details in subsequent applications, especially in regard to controlling sustained mechanical noise from heating and ventilation equipment between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. 241 -16000600 -AD. 247-17-000036-A Document No. 2017-204 Page 5 of 7 Exhibit B Page 4 of 6 EXHIBIT 22 Affidavit of Monica Stringer AFFIDAVIT OF MONICA STRINGER Regarding Public Records Requests in Deschutes County Concerning Records of Complaints Against Marijuana Grow Operations I, Monica Stringer, being first duly sworn, do hereby state and attest to the following facts: 1. I am employed as a Legal Assistant to Elizabeth Dickson at the law firm of Dickson Hatfield, LLC, located at 400 SW Bluff Drive, Suite 240, Bend, Oregon 97702. 2. On Thursday, September 28, 2017, I was asked by Elizabeth Dickson to contact both the Deschutes County Sheriff's Office and Deschutes County Code Enforcement and to obtain copies of all complaints filed in Deschutes County regarding marijuana grow operations, both medical and recreational, back to the date of the first allowed medical marijuana grow operation in Deschutes County. Deschutes County Code Enforcement Records Request 3. On September 28, 2017, I sent John Griley, Deschutes County Code Enforcement Technician, an email requesting copies of all code enforcement complaints filed in Deschutes County regarding marijuana grow operations, both medical and recreational, back to the date of the first allowed medical marijuana grow operation allowed in Deschutes County. I received an out -of -office reply email stating that Mr. Griley would be out of the office until Monday, October 2, 2017. See Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 4. On September 28, 2017, 1 forwarded my original email to John Griley to Nick Lelack, Deschutes County Community Development Director, and Peter Gutowsky, Deschutes County Planning Manager, and inquired about who I should contact about the records request since John Griley was out of the office. The same afternoon, Mr. Lelack replied that I needed to contact Lori Furlong, Deschutes County Community Development Department Administrative Manager, to handle the request, and Mr. Lelack notified me that "some or all of [my] request may be subject to a public records request and applicable fees, response timelines, etc. depending on the research necessary." Mr. Lelack carbon copied Lori Furlong, Peter Gutowsky, Adam Smith, and Nicole Mardell on that email. See Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 5. On September 28, 2017, after I received Nick Lelack's response, I emailed Lori Furlong directly with my records request, as described above, and added that "we are aware of and will pay any applicable fees, research costs, etc." See Exhibit C, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 6. On Friday, September 29, 2017, I received an email from Lori Furlong stating that she received my request and that she would consult with and get direction from the County's legal department because "code enforcement cases are not public record until the case is closed." She also stated that "Any complaints that are outside the scope of code enforcement are referred to the appropriate enforcement body for investigation. Those referrals remain confidential at this time." See Exhibit D, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 1— Affidavit of Monica Stringer 7. On October 2, 2017, I received an email from John Griley stating that I needed to route my records request to the County's legal department, because "Complaints are not public record until cases are resolved. Most of the complaints [they've] received are still active investigations." See Exhibit E, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 8. On October 2, 2017, I received an email from Adam Smith, Deschutes County Assistant Legal Counsel, quoting the County's Code Enforcement Policy and Procedures Manual, and stating that "the County does not disclose code enforcement files until 'the file is closed and disclosure is made pursuant to public records law." Mr. Smith also stated that his "understanding is that a majority of complaints regarding marijuana grow operations are still under investigation," and that if I wanted to obtain records for the few completed investigations I would need to work directly with John Griley and submit a formal records request, which may be subject to applicable fees and response timelines. Mr. Smith carbon copied Lori Furlong, Peter Gutowsky, Nicole Mardell, and Nick Lelack on this email. See Exhibit F, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Deschutes County Sheriff's Office Records Request 9. On Thursday, September 28, 2017, 1 went to the Deschutes County Sherriffs Office located at 63333 West Hwy 20, Bend, OR 97703, with a public records request for copies of all complaints received regarding marijuana grow operations, both medical and recreational, back to the date of the first allowed medical marijuana grow operation in Deschutes County. 10. While I was at the Sheriffs Office on September 28, 2017, 1 spoke with a woman at the reception desk who told me that the Sheriff's Office does not have any physical records from complaints unless a criminal investigation resulted and a police report was taken. She told me that the Sheriffs Office currently has only one criminal case involving a marijuana grow operation where such a report was taken, but that the case has been sent to the District Attorney's office, so she could not disclose further information about that particular case. She also told me that if a Sheriff's Deputy responds to a complaint call and then goes out to the site of a marijuana grow operation and finds that the grow operation itself is legal, then there is nothing further they can do and no police report is filed. She told me that most complaint calls of this nature are "resolved by contact," after which point the only record of the interaction would be the dispatch logs. She also stated that the Sheriff's office does not enforce County land use codes, and so those types of complaints would be referred to Deschutes County Code Enforcement. Shen then told me that my only option was to check with Dispatch to see if they could provide records of complaint calls made. 11. On September 28, 2017, I went to Deschutes County 9-1-1 Service District dispatch headquarters ("Dispatch"), located at 20335 Poe Sholes Drive, Suite 300, Bend, Oregon 97701, where I spoke to Kathleen DeForrest, Customer Service Clerk. 12. While at Dispatch on September 28, 2017, I asked Ms. DeForrest if I could request records of any and all calls received regarding complaints about marijuana grow operations, both medical and recreational, back to the date of the first allowed medical marijuana grow operation in Deschutes County. Ms. DeForrest informed me that their dispatch records only go back ten years, so they wouldn't have anything prior to 2007. Ms. DeForrest also told me that she didn't think the records request was possible without specific addresses, because all calls are logged 2 — Affidavit of Monica Stringer based on the physical address tied to the call. She stated that if I had physical addresses for individual marijuana grow operations, they could then look to see if any calls had been received regarding complaints about the grow operation at that address, but that without specific addresses, the search was too broad. Ms. DeForrest said that she would check with her supervisor to see if there was another way that they could search for these records that she wasn't aware of. 13. After I returned to the office on the afternoon of September 28, 2017, Kathleen DeForrest of Dispatch sent me a follow up email stating that her initial assumption was correct, and that "the only way to find the complaints would be to look up every one of the addresses and do a Premise History search." See Exhibit G, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. U./ Monica Stringer, Affia 't Subscribed and sworn to before me this // day of � , 2017, by Monica Stringer. 3 — Affidavit of Monica Stringer Notary Public for Oregon OFFICIAL STAMP CHRISTINE M B GARDNER-FRENCH NOTARY PUBLIC -OREGON COMMISSION NO. 925680 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MARCH 26, 2018 EXHIBIT A Monica L. Stringer From: Monica L. Stringer Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 12:31 PM To: 'john.griley@deschutes.org' Subject: Records Request Categories: Copied to LegalWorks Good Afternoon John, My boss, Liz Dickson, asked me to contact you and request copies of all code enforcement complaints received concerning marijuana grow operations in Deschutes County, both medical and recreational, back to the date of the first allowed medical marijuana grow operation. We need these no later than Friday, 10/13/17. If you are not the correct person to contact for this, please let me know and please pass this along to whomever can help with this request. Sincerely, Monica L. Stringer Office Administrator/Legal Assistant 400 SW Bluff Drive, Suite 240 Bend, OR 97702 541-585-2224 mistringer@dicksonhatfield.com 1 Exhibit A Paae 1 of 2 EXHIBIT A Monica L. Stringer From: John Griley <John.Griley@deschutes.org> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 12:31 PM To: Monica L. Stringer Subject: Automatic reply. Records Request I am out of the office. I will return October 2, 2017. I will answer e-mails upon my return. 1 Exhibit A Paae 2 of 2 EXHIBIT B Monica L. Stringer From: Nick Lelack <Nick.Lelack@deschutes.org> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 12:47 PM To: Monica L. Stringer Cc: Lori Furlong; Peter Gutowsky; Adam Smith; Nicole Mardell Subject: RE: Records Request Categories: Copied to LegalWorks Hi Monica, Please coordinate with Lori Furlong. She is the contact for such information rather than John Griley. As you know, some or all of your request may be subject to a public records request and applicable fees, response timelines, etc. depending on the research necessary. Thank you. Nick Lelack, AICP, Director Deschutes County Community Development Department 117 NW Lafayette, Ave. I P.O. Box 6005 I Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 Tel: (541) 385-1708 i Mobile: (541) 639-5585 From: Monica L. Stringer [mailto:mistringer@dicksonhatfield.com] Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 12:32 PM To: Nick Lelack <Nick.Lelack@deschutes.org>; Peter Gutowsky <Peter.Gutowsky@deschutes.org> Subject: FW: Records Request Nick and Peter -- Please see below. Since John Griley is out, I am not sure who to contact for this request. Monica L. Stringer Office Administrator/Legal Assistant 400 SW Bluff Drive, Suite 240 Bend, OR 97702 541-585-2224 mistringer@dicksonhatfield.com From: Monica L. Stringer Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 12:31 PM To: 'john.griley@deschutes.org' <john.grilev@deschutes.org> Subject: Records Request Good Afternoon John, My boss, Liz Dickson, asked me to contact you and request copies of all code enforcement complaints received concerning marijuana grow operations in Deschutes County, both medical and recreational, back to the date of the first 1 Exhibit B Paae 1 of 2 EXHIBIT B allowed medical marijuana grow operation. We need these no Tater than Friday, 10/13/17. If you are not the correct person to contact for this, please let me know and please pass this along to whomever can help with this request. Sincerely, Monica L. Stringer Office Administrator/Legal Assistant 400 SW Bluff Drive, Suite 240 Bend, OR 97702 541-585-2224 mIstringer@dicksonhatfield.com 2 Exhibit B Paae 2 of 2 EXHIBIT C Monica L. Stringer From: Monica L. Stringer Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 12:51 PM To: 'Lori.Furlong@deschutes.org' Cc: Monica L. Stringer Subject: FW: Records Request Categories: Copied to LegalWorks Lori, My boss, Liz Dickson, asked me to contact you and request copies of all code enforcement complaints received concerning marijuana grow operations in Deschutes County, both medical and recreational, back to the date of the first allowed medical marijuana grow operation. We need these no later than Friday, 10/13/17. We are aware of and will pay any applicable fees/research costs, etc. Thank you! Monica L. Stringer Office Administrator/Legal Assistant 400 SW Bluff Drive, Suite 240 Bend, 0R 97702 541-585-2224 mistringer@dicksonhatfield.com From: Nick Lelack [mailto:Nick.Lelack@deschutes.org] Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 12:47 PM To: Monica L. Stringer<mistringer@dicksonhatfield.com> Cc: Lori Furlong <Lori.Furlong@deschutes.org>; Peter Gutowsky <Peter.Gutowsky@deschutes.org>; Adam Smith <Adam.Smith@deschutes.org>; Nicole Mardell <Nicole.Mardell@deschutes.org> Subject: RE: Records Request Hi Monica, Please coordinate with Lori Furlong. She is the contact for such information rather than John Griley. As you know, some or all of your request may be subject to a public records request and applicable fees, response timelines, etc. depending on the research necessary. Thank you. Nick Lelack, AICP, Director Deschutes County Community Development Department 117 NW Lafayette, Ave. 1 P.O. Box 6005 1 Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 Tel: (541) 385-1708 1 Mobile: (541) 639-5585 1 Exhibit C Pam 1 of 2 EXHIBIT C From: Monica L. Stringer [mailto:mistringer@dicksonhatfield.com] Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 12:32 PM To: Nick Lelack <Nick.Lelack@deschutes.org>; Peter Gutowsky <Peter.Gutowsky@deschutes.org> Subject: FW: Records Request Nick and Peter — Please see below. Since John Griley is out, I am not sure who to contact for this request. Monica L. Stringer Office Administrator/Legal Assistant 400 SW Bluff Drive, Suite 240 Bend, OR 97702 541-585-2224 mIstringer@dicksonhatfield.com From: Monica L. Stringer Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 12:31 PM To: 'john.griley@deschutes.org' <john.griley@deschutes.org> Subject: Records Request Good Afternoon John, My boss, Liz Dickson, asked me to contact you and request copies of all code enforcement complaints received concerning marijuana grow operations in Deschutes County, both medical and recreational, back to the date of the first allowed medical marijuana grow operation. We need these no later than Friday, 10/13/17. If you are not the correct person to contact for this, please let me know and please pass this along to whomever can help with this request. Sincerely, Monica L. Stringer Office Administrator/Legal Assistant 400 SW Bluff Drive, Suite 240 Bend, OR 97702 541-585-2224 mistringer@dicksonhatfield.com 2 Exhibit C Pane 2 of 2 EXHIBIT D Monica L. Stringer From: Lori Furlong <Lori.Furlong@deschutes.org> Sent: Friday, September 29, 2017 7:27 AM To: Monica L. Stringer Subject: RE: Records Request Categories: Copied to LegalWorks Hi Monica, I have received your request. I will consult with our legal department on this request since code enforcement cases are not public record until the case is closed and get direction from them. Any complaints that are outside the scope of code enforcement are referred to the appropriate enforcement body for investigation. Those referrals remain confidential at this time. I'll be out of the office next week, so I'll follow up with you the week of the 9th. Thanks. .1eriaag Aftweeala uttae Vag art Deaaia*a &swayer, Deadatteguet Dc44 (me 541-817-3t2E .414 i alwe j@diaa4a'ia. "up From: Monica L. Stringer [mailto:mistringer@dicksonhatfield.com] Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 12:51 PM To: Lori Furlong <Lori.Furlong@deschutes.org> Cc: Monica L. Stringer <mistringer@dicksonhatfield.com> Subject: FW: Records Request Lori, My boss, Liz Dickson, asked me to contact you and request copies of all code enforcement complaints received concerning marijuana grow operations in Deschutes County, both medical and recreational, back to the date of the first allowed medical marijuana grow operation. We need these no later than Friday, 10/13/17. We are aware of and will pay any applicable fees/research costs, etc. 1 Exhibit D Paae 1 of 3 EXHIBIT D Thank youl Monica L. Stringer Office Administrator/Legal Assistant 400 SW Bluff Drive, Suite 240 Bend, OR 97702 541-585-2224 mistringer@dicksonhatfield.com From: Nick Lelack [mailto:Nick.Lelack@deschutes.org] Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 12:47 PM To: Monica L. Stringer <mistringert dicksonhatfield.com> Cc: Lori Furlong <Lori.Furlong@deschutes.org>; Peter Gutowsky <Peter.Gutowskv@deschutes.org>; Adam Smith <Adam.Smith@deschutes.org>; Nicole Mardell <Nicole.Mardell@deschutes.org> Subject: RE: Records Request Hi Monica, Please coordinate with Lori Furlong. She is the contact for such information rather than John Griley. As you know, some or all of your request may be subject to a public records request and applicable fees, response timelines, etc. depending on the research necessary. Thank you. Nick Lelack, AICP, Director Deschutes County Community Development Department 117 NW Lafayette, Ave. I P.O. Box 6005 I Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 Tel: (541) 385-1708 1 Mobile: (541) 639-5585 From: Monica L. Stringer [mailto:mistringer@dicksonhatfield.com] Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 12:32 PM To: Nick Lelack <Nick.Lelack@deschutes.org>; Peter Gutowsky <Peter.Gutowskv@deschutes.org> Subject: FW: Records Request Nick and Peter — Please see below. Since John Griley is out, I am not sure who to contact for this request. Monica L. Stringer Office Administrator/Legal Assistant 400 SW Bluff Drive, Suite 240 Bend, OR 97702 541-585-2224 mistringer@dicksonhatfietd.com From: Monica L. Stringer Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 12:31 PM 2 Exhibit D Paae2of3 EXHIBIT D To: 'john.griley@deschutes.org' <john.grilev@deschutes.org> Subject: Records Request Good Afternoon John, My boss, Liz Dickson, asked me to contact you and request copies of all code enforcement complaints received concerning marijuana grow operations in Deschutes County, both medical and recreational, back to the date of the first allowed medical marijuana grow operation. We need these no later than Friday, 10/13/17. If you are not the correct person to contact for this, please let me know and please pass this along to whomever can help with this request. Sincerely, Monica L. Stringer Office Administrator/Legal Assistant 400 SW Bluff Drive, Suite 240 Bend, OR 97702 541-585-2224 mIstringerffldicksonhatfield.com 3 Exhibit D Paae3of3 EXHIBIT E Monica L. Stringer From: John Griley <John.Griley@deschutes.org> Sent: Monday, October 02, 2017 8:16 AM To: Monica L. Stringer Subject: RE: Records Request Categories: Copied to LegalWorks Monica, I think you need to route this to the County's Legal Department. Complaints are not public record until cases are resolved. Most of the complaints we've received are still active investigations. This disconnect leads me to believe that this request should go to the County's Legal Department. John Griley Code Enforcement Technician Community Development Department Deschutes County (541-617-4708) e-mail: John.Griley@deschutes.org From: Monica L. Stringer [mailto:mistringer@dicksonhatfield.comj Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 12:31 PM To: John Griley <John.Griley@deschutes.org> Subject: Records Request Good Afternoon John, My boss, Liz Dickson, asked me to contact you and request copies of all code enforcement complaints received concerning marijuana grow operations in Deschutes County, both medical and recreational, back to the date of the first allowed medical marijuana grow operation. We need these no later than Friday, 10/13/17. If you are not the correct person to contact for this, please let me know and please pass this along to whomever can help with this request. Sincerely, Monica L. Stringer Office Administrator/Legal Assistant 400 SW Bluff Drive, Suite 240 Bend, OR 97702 541-585-2224 mistringer(5dicksonhatfield.com 1 Exhibit E Paae 1 of 1 EXHIBIT F Monica L. Stringer From: Adam Smith <Adam.Smith@deschutes.org> Sent: Monday, October 02, 2017 11:20 AM To: Monica L. Stringer Cc: Lori Furlong; Peter Gutowsky; Nicole Mardell; Nick Lelack Subject: RE: Records Request Attachments: PublicRecordsRequestForm.pdf Categories: Copied to LegalWorks Ms. Stringer, Deschutes County staff asked for my assistance responding to your request. Pursuant to Section VII of the County's Code Enforcement Policy and Procedures Manual, the County does not disclose code enforcement files until "the file is closed and disclosure is made pursuant to the public records law." For your reference, you can find a copy of that manual on the following web page: https://www.deschutes.org/cd/page/code-enforcement The County's policy regarding code enforcement files is based on ORS 192.501(1) and 192.502(4). Depending on the nature of the investigation, ORS 192.445, 192.501(3), 192.501(23), 192.502(1), and 192.502(2) may also apply. My understanding is that the majority of complaints regarding marijuana grow operations are still under investigation. If you want to obtain records for the few completed investigations, please work directly with John Griley (CCed) to submit a formal public records request. Attached is a form that may be useful. And, as noted in Nick Lelack's email, there may be applicable fees and response timelines. Thanks, -Adam D. Adam Smith Deschutes County Assistant Legal Counsel 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 205 Bend, OR 97703 Phone: (541) 388-6593 Fax: (541) 617-4748 adam.smithadeschutes.orq THIS ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION, INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENT HERETO, IS CONFIDENTIAL AND PROTECTED BY THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE, THE WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGE, AND/OR OTHER PRIVILEGES AND CONFIDENTIALITY PROVISIONS PROVIDED BY LAW. THE INFORMATION IN THIS TRANSMISSION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR USE OF THE INTENDED RECIPIENT. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT THE SENDER HAS NOT WAIVED ANY PRIVILEGE AND THAT YOU MAY NOT READ, DISCLOSE, COPY, DISTRIBUTE, USE OR TAKE ACTION BASED UPON THIS TRANSMISSION. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SENDER AND DELETE THIS TRANSMISSION. From: Nick Lelack Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 12:47 PM To: 'Monica L. Stringer' <mistringer@dicksonhatfield.com> 1 Exhibit F Paae 1 of 3 EXHIBIT F Cc: Lori Furlong <Lori.Furlong@deschutes.org>; Peter Gutowsky <Peter.Gutowsky@deschutes.org>; Adam Smith <Adam.Smith@deschutes.org>; Nicole Mardell <Nicole.Mardell@deschutes.org> Subject: RE: Records Request Hi Monica, Please coordinate with Lori Furlong. She is the contact for such information rather than John Griley. As you know, some or all of your request may be subject to a public records request and applicable fees, response timelines, etc. depending on the research necessary. Thank you. Nick Lelack, AICP, Director Deschutes County Community Development Department 117 NW Lafayette, Ave. 1 P.O. Box 6005 1 Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 Tel: (541) 385-1708 1 Mobile: (541) 639-5585 From: Monica L. Stringer [mailto:mistringer(dicksonhatfield.com) Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 12:32 PM To: Nick Lelack <Nick.Lelack@deschutes.org>; Peter Gutowsky <Peter.Gutowskv@deschutes.org> Subject: FW: Records Request Nick and Peter — Please see below. Since John Griley is out, 1 am not sure who to contact for this request. Monica L. Stringer Office Administrator/Legal Assistant 400 SW Bluff Drive, Suite 240 Bend, OR 97702 541-585-2224 mIstringer@dicksonhatfield.cam From: Monica L. Stringer Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 12:31 PM To: 'john.griley@deschutes.org' <john.grilev@deschutes.org> Subject: Records Request Good Afternoon John, My boss, Liz Dickson, asked me to contact you and request copies of all code enforcement complaints received concerning marijuana grow operations in Deschutes County, both medical and recreational, back to the date of the first allowed medical marijuana grow operation. We need these no later than Friday, 10/13/17. If you are not the correct person to contact for this, please let me know and please pass this along to whomever can help with this request. Sincerely, Monica L. Stringer Office Administrator/Legal Assistant 2 Exhibit F Paae 2 of 3 400 SW Bluff Drive, Suite 240 Bend, 0R 97702 541-585-2224 mistringer@dicksonhatfield.com EXHIBIT F 3 Exhibit F Paae 3 of 3 EXHIBIT G Monica L. Stringer From: Kathleen DeForrest <Kathleen.DeForrest@deschutes.org> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 4:50 PM To: Monica L. Stringer Subject: Records Request - Marijuana Complaints Hi Monica, As you and I suspected, the only way to find the complaints would be to look up every one of the addresses and do a Premise History search. If there were a lot, it could really add up quickly as we charge $25 for the first three reports and then it's $5 each starting with the fourth. Kathleen DeForrest Customer Service Clerk A. Deschutes County 9-1-1 Service District Post Office Box 6005 Bend, Oregon 97708 (541) 322-6103 1 Exhibit G Paae 1 of 1 EXHIBIT 23 Statistics on Marijuana Code Violations AOL Mail - Message View 9/28/17, 911 PM Citizens for Public Safety, Quality of Life, Property Values Clackamas County and OLCC Marijuana Violations From: Shirley Morgan <shiriey.morgan@aecinc.com> To: bobking714 <bobking714@aol.com> Date: Thu, Sep 28, 2017 10:28 am foe September 28, 2017 CITIZENS hmwnbVslxs mono Cvlatoonn 1'anwo,04 ♦caper on OaW ritafe ovo re+cY Focus -Marijuana > To: Bob King, Please note: In a discussion with Scott Canfield Supervisor of Clackamas County Code Enforcement, he noted that: "there have been over 71 code violations with marijuana grows with odor, noise, and traffic being the top complaints." In an email from the Oregon Liquor Control Commissioner, they noted that "To date we have logged $88 complaints. However this data includes licensees self -reporting outages and other issues. Some of the common complaints we receive are regarding discount violations, advertising violations, and inaccurate reporting in Metric.' Shirley Morgan httos://wwwyoutube.com/watch7v=uTLLUKsbyay&feature=youtu.be (,protectoursociety.ora www.unwantedootgrows.com NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments contain confidential information that may be legally privileged Ifyou are not the intended recipient, you must not review, retransmit, print, copy, use or disseminate it. Please immediately notify us by return e-mail and delete it. If this e-mail contains a forwarded e-mail or is a reply to a prior e-mail, the consents may not have been produced by the sender and therefore we are not responsible for its content https://mait.aoLcom/webmail-std/en-us/basic# Page 1 of 1 EXHIBIT 24 Jay Casting's September 6, 2017 Letter =C" ENGINEERING DATE: March 20, 2017 [revised September 6, 2017] TO: Deschutes County Planning Officer CC: Norma Tewalt FROM: Jay Castino RE: Odor control for marijuana production Introduction This is a narrative report for Norma Tewalt's marijuana production facility at 69188 Goodrich RD Sisters, OR. Qualifications I am a mechanical engineer licensed in Oregon #77686PE and Washington #55122. Experience 1 have provided mechanical engineering services for marijuana production facilities and other similar controlled environment applications throughout Oregon. Methodolow • Building Description o Ms. Tewalt's marijuana production facility is in an agricultural building. See architectural information provided by others for more detail. • HVAC system description o A conventional "all -air" split system furnace and NC coil will be used to condition the space for the marijuana production facility. o In the normal mode of operation, it will condition and recirculate the air within the building; no air is exhausted from the building. o In the economizer mode of operation, it will intake fresh air from outside to condition the interior space and exhaust stale air back to the outside. Building systems Design • Energy sondes* • Environmental Consulting • Consultants design a Partner services 70 SW Century DR STE 100-156 Bend, OR 97702 Phone: (541) 728-3824 • Email: Ua@Ucerrg.com • Web: www.jjceng.com Page 1of4 JJCENGQ117 TEWALT OCR_LUGS-0140c • In this economizer mode, air will be exhausted from the building and will run through the odor control system before exiting the building (see Figure 1). • Odor control system o An activated carbon (charcoal) filter on the exhaust system will provide the odor control. o When the HVAC system goes into economizer mode, the activated carbon filters on the exhaust system will scrub the exhaust air (see Figure 1). o Each grow room within the production facility will be equipped with an odor control system. A typical grow room can be 1000 sq. ft. and 10 ft. ceiling height. o Per DCC 18.116.330(B)(10)(d) the exhaust fan(s) shall be sized for cubic feet per minute (CFM) based on room volume divided by three. Based on the above mentioned typical grow room dimensions this is (1000 x 10)/3 = 3334 CFM, with the filters, in aggregate, rated for this CFM. o The activated carbon filters will be maintained and/or replaced per the manufacturer's suggested service intervals. o This odor control system will not reasonably interfere with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. iox ( 0 O p p 0 0 wudg 0 Q 75 - Figure 1- section view diagram of HVAC system in economizer mode and odor control system. • Noise requirements o The HVAC and odor control systems do not operate in a sustained manner. They operate intermittently, similar to the function of a normal residential air conditioner or heat pump. Their outdoor equipment sound pressure levels can be about 70 dbA1. o DCC 18.116.330(B)(11)(a), requires noise no louder than 30 dbA at any property line, between 10pm and 7am. o As required in DCC 18.116.330(B)(6)(a), marijuana production facilities have a minimum setback of 100 ft. from the nearest property line. o Sound pressure is reduced by 6dbA each time the distance from the noise source is doubled; this is the inverse square Iaw2. Therefore, if the source noise Is 70 dbA, the setback distance is 100 ft, then the sound pressure level at the property line will be 70 - 201og(10011) = 30 dbA which meets the noise requirement. o Typically, a marijuana production facility does not need heating from an HVAC system in the winter time; this is because the indoor lighting generally produces enough ambient heating to keep the indoor environment warm without using the I -NAC system, even at night between lOpm and 7pm. ' Split System Cooling Product Data. (n.d.). Retrieved from hnP://w ww.trmte.com/content/dam/Trane/CommerciaUgiobal/producis-systems/equipment/unitary/split- systems/split-systems-1-l-2-to-5-tons/22-1904-1 G-EN_03012016.pdf 2 The Inverse Square Law. (n.d.) Retrieved from http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/inverse-square-law- d_890.html Analysis of Conclusion Norma Tewalt's marijuana production facility at 69188 Goodrich RD Sisters, OR meets the odor control system requirement of DCC 18.116.330(8)(10) and complies with the noise requirements of DCC 18.116.330(B)(11), as provided in the methodology section of this report. Sincerely, olior-6-- Jay J. Castino, PE Principal (EXPIRES 12/31 /17 SCAN a, — - II ,407 €u , % i 3 .2 i o O +rt Canopy cktNe9 Lgyoo+ T N ice k OLl'=. 33491 v e, 5 Aoo th Sc.Lorc. WoS C• d k torP4 ao' x Lid Sco h4p:%cow bloom ao n 46 :. goD 9i, bloom 66 h 60' = -0e. 511' au;'4;r.9 EXHIBIT 25 Appellant's Response to Applicant's and Staff's Response to the Appeal Robert P. (Bob) King 295 N. Rampart Unit D Orange, CA 92868 714 558 1646 Page 1 of 25 pages (ABRIDGED & REFORMATTED FOR OCT. 16, 2017 HEARING.) TO: Ms. Nicole Mardell, Assistant Planner/Deschutes County Community Development Department From: Robert P. King, Tr. Date: April 25, 2017 (ABRIDGED & REFORMATTED FOR OCT. 16, 2017 HEARING.) Re: Deschutes County File No. 247 -17 -217 -AD Tewalt's 69188 Goodrich Rd Sisters, OR *************** In all future correspondence, please use the above mailing address. *************** OUR COMMENTS The Applicant's behavior in preparing and submitting this application indicates: • This Applicant's demonstrated desire and intent are to use every inch of space possible to maximize their production of marijuana for commercial purposes; • To minimize the Applicant's cost in getting to marijuana production, one example being their proposing no fencing even between adjacent neighbor's common property line; • The Applicant's past behavior in abiding with Deschutes County codes — reference public records Deschutes County file numbers C-93281 and B-51750. • One does not have to be an engineer nor a physics major to know and accept moving a noise (or odor or light) source 70 feet closer to a listener is absolutely NOT going to result in the noise (or odor or Tight) impact being equal to or less than if the source has been kept a full 100 feet away as the Applicant asserted in the application. • In the application, the Applicants disingenuously copied their answer for code 3 to answer code 4, though the code clearly and obviously addresses distinctly different concerns. "10. a. and b.:" Applicant's response: "The odor control system for the building is included as Exhibit 10. The odor control specification report from licensed engineer proposed odor control measures will prevent unreasonable interference of neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property." Mr. Castino knew his letter would become a public record and subject to evaluation and countering comments. As a degreed engineer with extensive design experience, I deny and dispute the September 6, 2017 signed by Mr. Jay J. Castino, PE, substantiates anything. Mr. Jay J. Castino's letter as amended on September 6, 2017 certainly does not meet the threshold of a professional engineer's objective factual research, evaluation, and the resulting conclusions from which an impartial reader can draw an objective conclusions or professionally verify the Applicant's installed system would by operating within manufacture's specifications meet existing codes. Continued on page 2 of 25 Robert P. King's Comments on : Deschutes County File No. 247 -17 -217 -AD -2- • Mr. Castino states, "Ms. Tewalt's marijuana production facility is in an agricultural building. See architectural information provided by others for more details." • Mr. Castino cited a HAVC system manufactured by Trane to give an illustration for "noise control," but no specific cite is made for odor control. He does states an activated carbon filter system will be used. Such a system is common in marijuana production facilities. There are a wide array of such filters available? • Mr. Castino states, "Per DCC 18.116.330(B)(10)(d) the exhaust fan(s) shall be sized for cubic feet per minute (CFM) based on room volume divided by three. Based on the above mentioned typical grow dimensions this is (1000 X 10)/3 = 3334 CFM, with the filters, in aggregate, rated for this CFM. • Mr. Castino states, "The activated carbon filters will be maintained and/or replace per the manufacturer's suggested intervals." • Mr. Castino states, "The odor control system will not reasonably interfere with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property." • If the Applicant's equipment were to fail, or, due to faulty operating equipment from not being maintained as required, emit marijuana odor for some duration, the horses housed in the grazing pasture adjacent to the Applicant's property or in the barn, especially, if a colt were present, could prove injurious to the livestock. The attached article, "Pets on Pot" does support that possibility. The effects on some sensitive humans and young children could have far more adverse consequences. • Not even prompt and effective code enforcement will mitigate such consequences, hence the neighbors' use and enjoyment of their properties could be irreversibly adversely affected. • The Applicant fails to meet their burden of proof that the unspecified "odor control system" satisfies the code. "11. Noise." • It is noted that "Sustained noise from marijuana production is exempt from protection (our emphasis) of DCC 9.12 and ORS 30.395, Right to farm. Intermittent noise for acceptable farming practices is permitted. (Our emphasis.)" • All the above comments related to "odor" are incorporated herein by this reference. • Mr. Jay J. Castino's letter as amended on September 6, 2017 states, "The HVAC and odor control system does not operate in a sustained manner. They operate intermittently, similar to the function of a normal residential air conditioner or heat pump. Their outdoor equipment sound pressure levels can be about 70 dbA." Via a footnote, he then makes a reference to a system manufactured by Trane and gives a website to that system. Continued on page 3 of 25 Robert P. King's Comments on : Deschutes County File No. 247 -17 -217 -AD -3- • Mr. Jay J. Castino's letter as amended on September 6, 2017 states, "Sound pressure is reduced by 6 dbA each time the distance from the noise source is doubled, this is the inverse square law." Therefore, if the source noise is 70 dbA, the setback is 100 ft, then the sound pressure level at the property line will be 70 — 20 Iog(100/1) = 30 dbA which meets the noise requirement." The application fails to either demonstrate or illustrate with proper engineering that will be the reality of their marijuana production operations. A proper engineering of the Applicant's plans would require and include the research: • Of the average temperature required in each of the 60 X 60 structures for the maximum allowable marijuana production; • The average monthly temperature for the twelve months and selecting the months where the greatest heating andcooling would be required; • Calculating the minimum required HVAC equipment requirements needed to provide that that heating and cooling; • Selecting and specifying the desired components of the HVAC systems; • From the selected equipment and its ratings and the now calculable temperature differential, calculate the average daily running time; • Make a determination as to that daily running time justifies being labeled "intermittent" or, more objectively, "sustained." • Once the specific equipment had been selected and its specifications known, the operational nose level would be included in those specifications, or could be determined from the manufacture or by experiment, so the actual combined noise level could be calculated at both the equipment locations and at the property line. • The Applicant fails to meet their burden of proof that the unspecified "noise control system" satisfies the code. "12. Code 12. B. Fencing:" • Codes 10.c and 11.b, clearly reveal the State and County understand and acknowledge that permitting marijuana production in an EFU zoning is different from "normal farm use," and an approved producer of marijuana has a greater responsibility than other permitted uses in an EFU zoning in both obtaining permission to do so and to continue to do so. • Code 12. B. Fencing states, "Fencing shall be (Our emphasis.) It does not state, "If fencing is used .." Clearly the intent of the code is to require the Applicant to provide fencing to address the neighbor's and entire neighborhood's safety issue mentioned above and "screening" to address the neighbors' privacy rights. • As shown in Exhibit King photo 3 and 4, the Applicant has no fencing between their lot and TL 12000. The Applicant fails to address their responsibility of safety and privacy to the neighbors and the neighborhood. Continued on page 4 of 25 Robert P. King's Comments on : Deschutes County File No. 247 -17 -217 -AD -4 - • A solid security fence should be required between the Applicant's property and TL 12000. • The Applicant fails to meet their burden of proof that their marijuana facility will be a secure, safe, non-threating operations, and so does not satisfy the code. "13.(c) Water;" • The Applicant has produced a "will provide" letter from the Bend Water Hauling, LLC. The Applicant has not provided a signed and notarized certification that no water supplied by the Sisters Irrigation District, which is obtained solely due to their holding Oregon water rights will ever be used in any manner for the production of marijuana. • The Applicant fails to meet their burden of proof that any water used in the production of marijuana is not from a source resulting from their having water rights and does not satisfy the code and statute. The Applicant has never satisfied the demand from the Road Department, hence the Application is at this point incomplete. We appreciate the Board's consideration of the above comments and information. We respectfully request the Board to grant the neighborhood the following: I willfully declare under the penalty of perjury the above is true to the best of my knowledge. Respectfully submitted, Robert P. King, Tr EXHIBIT 26 Decision of Coppinger Appeal DECISION OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY HEARINGS OFFICER FILE NUMBERS: HEARING DATE: OWNER: APPLICANT: APPELLANT: APPELLANT'S ATTORNEY: PROPOSAL: STAFF CONTACT: ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION ISSUED: APPEAL FILED: RECORD CLOSED: 247-17-000511-A (247 -17 -000145 -AD) July 18, 2017, 6:00 p.m. Barnes & Sawyer Rooms Deschutes Services Center 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, OR 97701 County Lines, LLC 18000 NW Germantown Rd. Portland, OR 97231 Lyle W. Coppinger 62655 County Line Rd. Bend, OR 97701 Wayne and Susan Singhose 62500 County Line Rd. Bend, OR 97701 Elizabeth Dickson Dickson Hatfield, LLC 400 SW Bluff Dr., Ste. 240 Bend, OR 97702 The applicant requested approval of an Administrative Determination to establish a marijuana production facility (grow) within the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) zone. The administrative decision issued by staff was appealed. Jacob Ripper, Associate Planner June 7, 2017 (ATTACHMENT A) June 19, 2017 August 15, 2017 I. STANDARDS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA Title 18, Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use Zones Chapter 18.116, Section 18.116.330, Marijuana Production, Processing, and Retailing Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance 247-17-000511-A 1 11. BASIC FINDINGS A. Location: The subject property has an assigned address of 62655 County Line Rd.; Bend, and is identified on the County Assessor's Map No. 17-14-25, as Tax Lot 104. B. Lot of Record: The subject property is a legal Lot of Record as it is part of Parcel 1 of Partition Plat 2001-14. The configuration of the subject property, a portion of Parcel 1, was modified by the Property Line Adjustment file LL -11-40. C. Zoning: The subject property is zoned Exclusive Farm Use — Alfalfa Subzone (EFU-AL). D. Proposal: The applicant is requesting approval of an Administrative Determination to establish a marijuana production facility (grow) in the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) zone. The proposal consists of a maximum mature plant canopy size of 40,000 square feet within multiple greenhouses, and three enclosed support structures. E. Site Description: The subject property contains areas of irrigated cropland, undeveloped areas with natural vegetation, residential development, and tilr,nctures. It is located at the eastern boundary of Deschutes County, with access to and frontage on County Line Road. F. Land Use History: According to Deschutes County Community Development records, there is a 1979 dwelling (building permit 79-1308), a Minor Partition (MP -00-27, Partition Plat 2001-14) which separa„ ;: .... • ' • • • •• east from the subject property, with a nonfarm dwelling approval for tax lot 101 (CU -00-105). As discussed above, the configurations of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 of PP 2001-14 were modified by an approved Property Line Adjustment (LL -11-40). Fs y Comments: The Planning Division mailed a Notice of Application and received comments from the following agencies: Central Electric Cooperative: CEC requests the applicant apply fora new electrical service by calling 541-548- 2144 to provide electrical Load and demand requirements for this activity. CEC will determine if capacity is available. Central Oregon Irrigation District: COID FACILITIES: • COID has a small delivery that runs through the subject's property (I-10) o There is a ROW of 20' for the canal and an additional 20' road ROW on the west side of the canal (refer to attached map) • Any construction within COiD'S ROW must first be approved through COID. COID WATER RIGHTS: • There are 51.05 ac of water rights on subject's property • Contact COID if any non -greenhouse structures are to be placed on a mapped water (refer to attached map) 247-17-000511-A 2 • Contact COID if any greenhouse structure are to be placed outside a mapped water (refer to attached map) COID POLICY STATEMENTS ■ Review following policy statement on marijuana operations COID response to Community Development Notice for Proposed Marijuana Production: Central Oregon Irrigation District (COID) serves this property with the above specified amount of irrigation water during the irrigation season of April 1st through October 31st at a rate of up to 6 gallons per minute per acre. This water cannot be used for irrigation during the winter months. If the recreational marijuana production facility is a greenhouse proposed to be built on top of the COID water right, land -user must allow COID annual access to the structure to document beneficial use of the water right. Structures on a water right for any purpose other than greenhouse operations is not allowed. `Plot Plan is required to assist COID in determining if the proposed structure will be located on the water right or if a water transfer should be filed to get water to it. Deschutes County Building Division: The Deschutes County Building Safety Divisions code required Acct. , Fores. , Setback, Fire & Life Safety Fire Fighting Water Supplies, etc. will be specifically addressed during the plan review process for any proposed structures and occupancies. All Building Code required items will be addressed, when a specific structure, occupancy, and type of construction is proposed and submitted for plan review. Deschutes County Senior Transportation Planner, Peter Russell: On March 15, 2017, a response was received from the Senior Transportation Planner, however, revised comments were submitted on June 5, 2017, which include revisions to the comments regarding a traffic study and the upcoming adjustment in SDC rates: Deschutes County Code (DCC) at 18.116.330(B)(8) only requires proof of legal direct access to the property or access from a private easement; the traffic study requirements of DCC 18.116.310 are not applicable for a marijuana production application. Thus no traffic study can be required. Board Resolution 2013-020 sets a (SDC rate of $3, 852 per p.m. peak hour trip. The County uses the most recent edition of the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) trip generation manual to assess SDCs. The ITE ►r,a, �.;t, ..... ..:: . :..: : .. category for marijuana production. In consultation with the Road Department Director and Planning staff, the County has determined the best analog use is Warehouse (Land Use 150) based on the storage requirements and employees of this activity. The 1TE indicates Warehouse generates 0.32 p.m. peak hour trios per 1,000 square feet and the application indicates 44,000 square feet would be used for cannabis production and support. This would result in 14.1 p.m. peak hour trips (0.32 X 44). Thus the applicable SDC would be $54,313 (14.1 X $3, 852). The SDC is due prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy; if a 247-17-000511-A 3 certificate of occupancy is not applicable, then the SDC is due within 60 days of the land use decision becoming final. The County's SDC rate will rise to $3,937 per p.m. peak hour trip on July 1. Thus after July 1 the SDC would be $55,512 (14.1 X $3,937). The following agencies either had no comment or did not respond to the notice: Alfalfa Fire District, Deschutes County Environmental Soils Division, Deschutes County Road Department, Deschutes County Sheriff, Oregon Liquor Control Commission, Watermaster - District 11. H. Public Comments: The Planning Division mailed a written notice of this action to property owners within 750 feet of the subject property on March 15, 2017. The following concerns were expressed in comments that staff received from the public: 1. Use of the shared access way (driveway). 2. Light pollution from the greenhouses. 3. Monitoring of production sites and operating the land use approval. 4. Visual impacts. 5. Odor impacts and the ability for odor to system. 6. Proximity to offsite dwellings and adjacent pr 7. Noise impacts, both ovemight and during the 8. Water source and supply. 9. Wildlife habitat area. within the approved limits of be controlled by proposed operties. day. 10. Infrastructure, including gravel roads, will not support retail sales.* 11. General opposition to marijuana production, processing, and retailing on- site.* 12. Traffic from marijuana production and retail may impact use patterns at the community well and a truck scale.* 13. Traffic and speeding on County Line Road. 14. Health impacts from living nearby a marijuana grow. 15. Traffic collisions involving intoxicated drivers. 16. Drug overdoses and cost of treating drug addictions. 17. Shoplifting. 18. Loss in property value. 19. Neighbors do not want to live next to a marijuana farm. 20. Children visit grandparents who live nearby. 21. Too many marijuana grows already in the area. 22. Federally illegal. 23. Possible illegal activity may decrease safety in the area. (*Retail and processing uses have not been proposed by the applicant) 1. Notice Requirement: The applicant submitted a Land Use Action Sign Affidavit, dated April 14, 2017, indicating the applicant posted notice of the land use action on April 11, 2017. 247-17-000511-A 4 J. Review Period: This application was submitted on March 7, 2017. It was deemed incomplete on April 6, 2017. After the applicant submitted additional information, the application was accepted and deemed complete on May 25, 2017. The 150th day on which the county must take final action on this application is October 29, 2017.1 K. Staff Decision: On June 7, 2017, staff issued approval of the requested Administrative Determination, file number 247 -17 -000145 -AD. L. Appeal: On June 19, 2017, Appellant filed a timely appeal to the Hearings Officer of the Administrative Determination. The Appeal sets forth the following issues and requests the Hearings Officer to reverse the approval as contrary to requirements of the Deschutes County Code: M. 1. Inconsistency with the Purpose of DCC Title public health, safety and general welfare of the 2. Failure to establish compliance with DCC regulating odor; 3. Failure to establish compliance with DCC regulating noise; 4. Failure to establish compliance with DCC requiring documentation of availability of water; 5. Failure to establish compliance with DCC requiring verification of utilities; and 6. Failure to establish compliance with DCC regulating secured waste disposa1.2 18 to promote the community; 18.116.330(6)(10) 18.116.330(13)(11) 18.116.330(B)(13) 18.116.330(B)(15) 18.116.330(B)(17) Site Visit: On July 26, 2017, the Hearings Officer and Staff conducted a site visit to the subject property. The Hearings Officer prepared a Site Visit Memorandum, dated August 1, 2017, which is part of the record for this decision. 10n July 29, 2017, the Applicant submitted a written consent to extending the 150 -day clock by 7 additional days to account for the record being left open 7 days longer. 2 Testimony at the public hearing also addressed the question of access and traffic, although access and traffic were not identified as an issue in the Notice of Appeal materials. 247-17-000511-A 5 III. APPEAL FINDINGS A. DCC 18.04.020. Purpose. A. The intent or purpose of DCC Title 18 is to promote the public health, safety and general welfare and to carry out the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, the provisions of ORS 215 and the Statewide Planning Goals adopted pursuant to ORS 197. DCC Title 18 is to establish zoning districts and regulations governing the development and use of land within portions of Deschutes County Oregon. APPELLANT'S OBJECTION: In the Notice of Appeal materials, the appellant states, "The Singhoses ask the County to consider the health and safety and general welfare of the community in which the proposed use includes the protections necessary to locate it successfully in the agricultural community requested." The appellant discusses that prior appeal deliberations have discussed whether the Board of County Commissioners is able to make general policy decisions which take into account subjects such as health, safety and the general welfare of the community. The appellant also states, "We ask the County to consider not just the details of the application, but the overall impact it will have on community health, safety and general welfare, in keeping with this provision of the Code." FINDING: The applicant has requested approval of marijuana production in the Exclusive Farm Use Zone, which is a use permitted outright in DCC 18.16.020(S), subject to provisions of DCC 18.116.330. The County Commissioners constitute the legislative branch of Deschutes County government and enact applicable law via ordinances, which then are codified in the Deschutes County Code. The Hearings Officer only has authority to enforce the law as it is currently written. I cannot revisit the propriety of the Commissioners' decision to adopt ordinances that allow marijuana production facilities in the EFU zone as an outright permitted use. The Hearings Officer notes that the phrase, "health, safety and welfare," is invoked where the County Commissioners are exercising their police power authority to regulate land uses. DCC 18.04.020(A) outlines the regulatory purpose of Title 18, which is to promote public health, safety and general welfare, carry out the Comprehensive Plan, the provisions of ORS 215 and the Statewide Planning Goals. The Hearings Officer cannot speculate as to the "legislative intent" of the County Commissioners in enacting DCC 18.116.330. Appellants' attorney opines, without evidence, that the "underlying values" of DCC 18.116.330 will not be served by the proposed application. Without more, this is not a basis on which I may condition or deny the application. The Hearings Officer further notes that speculation concerning whether the proposed use will likely" make it more difficult to farm in the area is not supported by any testimony or other evidence, only unsupported argument of legal counsel. Like the Hearings Officer, staff is required to consider whether any land use application satisfies the written standards set forth in the Code, which standards have been adopted to promote the public health, safety and general welfare of the community. This provision of the Code does not impose any substantive requirements on land use applications to make a separate showing of promotion of health, safety and welfare. I find that appellants have not established any error in this regard. 247-17-000511-A 6 Appellants cite the Oregon Court of Appeals decision in Jebousek v. City of Newport, 163 Or App 126 (1999) in support of their argument that, where specific code provisions do not address a key legal issue, more general provisions apply as well. Appellants argue that DCC 18.116.330 does not address a number of issues critical to the compatibility of the proposed use. First, the Hearings Officer finds that "compatibility" need not be demonstrated for a use that is permitted outright. A conditional use permit is not required for the applicant to site a marijuana grow facility on the subject property in the EFU zone. Second, Appellants fail to identify a single specific "issue" they believe is not adequately addressed in DCC 18.116.330. Finally, Jebousek does not stand for the proposition asserted by Appellants. The Court of Appeals explained: In Jebousek we were not asked to review ordinance language such as that in SZO 12.04. Rather, the issue was whether a comprehensive plan provision addressing hazardous areas was applicable in a lot line adjustment proceeding. There, we agreed with LUBA's conclusion that the city's interpretation of the appropriate time to consider the comprehensive plan provision was correct under the review standard of ORS 197.829(1) and Clark v. Jackson County. Mountain West Inv. Corp. v. City of Silverton, 175 Or App 556, 566 (2001). There are no general code requirements that are required to be applied to the subject application beyond those set forth in DCC 18.116.330, which must be considered to advance the health, safety and general welfare of the community because the law is an exercise of the County Commissioners' police power authority. This objection is dismissed. B. DCC 18.116.330(B)(10). Odor. 10. Odor. As used in DCC 18.116.330(B)(10), building means the building, including greenhouses, hoop houses and other similar structures, used for marijuana production or marijuana processing. a. The building shall be equipped with an effective odor control system which must at all times prevent unreasonable interference of neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. b. An odor control system is deemed permitted only after the applicant submits a report by a mechanical engineer licensed in the State of Oregon demonstrating that the system will control odor so as not to unreasonably interfere with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. c. Private actions alleging nuisance or trespass associated with odor impacts are authorized, if at all, in applicable state statute. d. The odor control system shall: 1. Consist of one or more fans. The fan(s) shall be sized for cubic feet per minute (CFM) equivalent to the volume of the building (length multiplied by width multiplied by height) divided by three. The filter(s) shall be rated for the required CFM; or 247-17-000511-A 7 ii. Utilize an alternative method or technology to achieve equal to or greater odor mitigation than provided by (1) above. e. The system shall be maintained in working order and shall be in use. APPELLANT'S OBJECTION: In the Notice of Appeal, the appellant states: Respectfully, staffs acceptance of the mechanical engineer's report is not reflective of the application's compliance with this criterion. Staff opines that "these criteria can be met," [emphasis added], but does not find that they are met. It is an applicant's burden to prove, by a preponderance of evidence, that the applicable approval standards are met.... [Mechanical Engineer] Mr. Castino does not provide the work to prove these conclusory statements, asking the County and the community to take his word for his conclusions. He is required to demonstrate that the system will control odor, not merely draw a box and conclude its so. FINDING: The applicant submitted a narrative report stamped by mechanical engineer Jay Castino describing how the system will meet the requirements of this section. Staff used the phrase "these criteria can be met," instead of "are met" because the system did not physically exist at the time of the Administrative Determination decision. The Hearings Officer finds that the phrase used by Staff in the decision is immaterial. Appellants assert that there must be some "demonstration" that the system will control odor, as well. Condition of Approval "E" requires "The proposed odor control system must at all times prevent unreasonable interference with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. The odor control system shall be maintained in working order and shall be in use." The Hearings Officer cannot presume that the applicant will not comply with any conditions of approval. Substantial evidence supports a finding that odor will be controlled by an activated charcoal filter system that will satisfy the requirements of this section. The applicant's engineer is approved by OLCC and experienced in providing mechanical engineering services for marijuana production facilities and other similar controlled environment applications throughout Oregon. Appellants and others expressed concerns regarding odor and whether it could be entirely controlled, and potential health impacts due to asthma_ Some expressed doubt that odors can be controlled based on other, existing farms/facilities. Some opponents testified that there is no measure for odor and complained that odor control measures do not eliminate odor, but only reduce it. The applicant submitted a 3 -page revised report in response to the appeal. This report shows that exhaust fans and filters are adequately sized and rated and that the system will be used and properly maintained per the manufacturer's recommendations. The Hearings Officer finds that there is no requirement to provide "proof" of a "track record" on controlling odor. The memorandum explains the methodology used including a building description, HVAC system description, odor control system and noise controls. The report includes a registered professional engineer stamp for Jay J. Castino, PE. The Hearings Officer further finds that there is no requirement in the Code to entirely eliminate odor. Based on evidence submitted by the applicant, the odor control 247-17-000511-A 8 measures proposed are consistent with the Code requirements. I cannot condition or deny the application based on speculation that the applicant will not comply with existing regulations. Subsection (10)(a) requires the building to be equipped with an "effective odor control system" which must at all times prevent "unreasonable interference of neighbors' use and enjoyment of the property." No evidence was presented that the proposed odor control system will fail to prevent unreasonable interference with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property, which is the applicable standard in the code. No evidence was presented that the odor control system will not be maintained in working order and will be in use. Appellants offered only speculation, which is not competent evidence on which I may base my decision. Appellants appear to contest the conditions of approval included in the administrative decision with respect to odor (addressed in this finding), and noise and waste disposal (addressed below), claiming that there is no "proof' the criteria will be met. However, Appellants are wrong in their contention that conditions of approval to ensure compliance with certain criteria is insufficient. In general it is well-settled that a local government may find compliance with applicable criteria either (1) finding that an applicable approval standard is satisfied, or (2) finding that it is feasible to satisfy an applicable approval standard and imposing conditions necessary to ensure the standard will be satisfied. E.g., Burghardt v. City of Molalla, 29 Or LUBA 223, 226 (1995). The Hearings Officer notes that, if operations in the future are determined not to comply with this subsection, affected property owners have the right and ability to request Code Enforcement proceedings and/or to file a civil complaint to enjoin alleged ni.iisanr_.A operations. I cannot revise the Code to require more stringent odor control measures. This objection is dismissed. C. DCC 18.116.330(6)(11). Noise. 11. Noise. Noise produced by marijuana production and marijuana processing shall comply with the following: a. Sustained noise from mechanical equipment used for heating, ventilation, air condition, odor control, fans and similar functions shall not exceed 30 dB(A) measured at any property line hett4Tnrs fniv p..m 7:00 a.m. the following day. b. Sustained noise from marijuana production is exempt from protections of DCC 9.12 and ORS 30.395, Right to Farm. Intermittent noise for accepted farming practices is permitted. APPELLANT'S OBJECTION: In the Notice of Appeal materials, the appellant states: The mandatory language of this criterion (" shall coca;. y"; ;: yiii; mac• �;;�;� the proof offered meet the burden of the application process. This statement states only that the two systems won't run all the time, and that according to specs (not provided) and calculations (not provided), the sound level won't reach such levels. No mention is made of the time restriction and whether those machines will run during the restricted time. The issue of the noise created by the two systems running together is not even considered. No calculation of the location of the 247-17-000511-A 9 systems in relation to the property lines is made. This 6 line statement is wholly inadequate to meet the proof requirements of the County's Code. FINDING: The applicant submitted a letter from a licensed mechanical engineer, which includes a statement that the proposal will be in compliance with this section because, 'The equipment specifications and our calculations indicate that the sound level will not be above 30 dba, as measured from any property line, between 10pm and 7am." Staff included a condition of approval to ensure compliance with the requirements of this section: "Sustained noise from mechanical equipment used for heating, ventilation, air conditioning, odor control, fans and similar functions shall not exceed 30 dB(A) measured at any property line between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the following day." The report concludes that the mechanical equipment will satisfy these criteria. No evidence was offered to counter this conclusion. The Hearings Officer finds that staff appropriately determined compliance with the applicable criteria will occur by compliance with conditions of approval. See Burghardt, supra, 29 Or LUBA at 226. Appellants are concemed that operations of the proposed facility will not meet these criteria. However, I cannot condition or deny the application based on speculation. If actual operations are conducted in violation of these requirements, affected property owners have the right and ability to request Code Enforcement proceedings and/or to file a civil complaint to redress alleged violations of the noise ordinance. This objection is dismissed. D. DCC 18.116.330(B)(13). Water. 13. Water. The applicant shall provide: a. A copy of a water right permit, certificate, or other water use authorization from the Oregon Water Resource Department; or b. A statement that water is supplied from a public or private water provider, along with the name and contact information of the water provider; or c. Proof from the Oregon Water Resources Department that the water to be used is from a source that does not require a water right APPELLANT'S OBJECTION: In the Notice of Appeal materials, the appellant states: Applicant has provided a statement from COID that structures on the mapped water right are not allowed, unless those structures are greenhouses used for growing. Here, structures are proposed for other purposes than growing, as acknowledged in the staff decision on Page 12, Finding. Staff opined that the violation is between COID and the applicant. This conclusion is not reasonable. Deschutes County is legally responsible for reviewing an application for a new land use, and verifying that it satisfied all applicable criteria. One of those criteria is [DCC Section 18.116.330(B)(13)(b)] ... COID did provide such a statement, affirming that they do have water available to serve the subject property. However, COID also stated that it is not legal for structures to be located over the mapped water rights, if those structures are not growing greenhouses. The instant application clearly shows 247-17-000511-A 10 non -growing areas/structures over the mapped water right areas. It is therefore not legal for applicant to use the water as it is proposed. This is not a problem between COID and applicant, but rather a standard applicable to the instant application that will not be met. It is Deschutes County's obligation to verify that the criteria will be fulfilled. FINDING: The Hearings Officer finds that the appellant's objection does not address the simple and straight -forward requirements of DCC 18.116.330(B)(13)(b) which merely require the applicant to provide a statement that water is to be supplied, and from whom the water will be supplied. The applicant submitted proof to satisfy this requirement as evidenced by a letter and an email from the Central Oregon Irrigation District (COID) dated January 26, 2017. A second letter, dated July 14, 2017 from COLD to Mr. Coppinger confirms the "will serve" commitment. It also states that, "If, and when a permit is issued by the county on this application, COID will work with the property owner to assure continued viability of the water right." (emphasis added). The letter further explains that COID performs an annual inspection of structures to document beneficial use of the COLD water right appurtenant to the footprint of the structure. If it is determined that all or a portion of the water right is not used for growing plants, COID will provide the property owner with several options to protect any unused portion of the COID water including temporary instream leases and temporary or permanent transfer of unused water. The County has no authority to condition approval of an administrative determination application on any showing by the applicant that he or she will "properly" use water supplied by a public or private water provider in accordance with such entity's own requirements. The Hearings Officer only has authority to enforce the Code as adopted. I uphold staffs finding at page 12 of the Decision which states, "It is the applicant's responsibility to comply with COID's rules and regulations for siting structures, applying for water transfers, and use of water within the allowed irrigation season." The Hearings Officer dismisses this objection of the Appellants. E. DCC 18.118.330(B)(15). Utility Verification. 15. Utility Verification. A statement from each utility company proposed to serve the operation, stating that each such company is able and willing to serve the operation, shall be provided. APPELLANT'S OBJECTION: In the Notice of Appeal materials, the appellant states: Respectfully, staff again errs in finding that because a standard can be met, it is met. The "will serve" letter from CEC says they have reviewed the load information, and that the present system isn't sufficient to meet the requirements of the proposed use. The letter goes on to note that the proposal will require system upgrades, and that CEC won't pay for them. Translation: there is not enough capacity to serve the proposed land use. This criterion is not met. The application does not meet its burden, by a preponderance of the evidence, that utility service is available for the proposed use. 247-17-000511-A 11 FINDING: As an initial matter, the Hearings Officer agrees with staffs statement at page 5 of the Staff Memorandum prepared for the instant appeal in which he states, "The appellant is incorrect in stating that staff found this standard 'can be met', and not 'is met.' In the Findings and Decision, on page 13, staff plainly states this in the finding, "This criterion is met." The Hearings Officer finds that the appellant is again reading into the straight forward criterion additional requirements that do not exist in the Code. The applicant submitted a "will serve" letter from the Central Electric Cooperative (CEC) dated May 16, 2017. A second letter dated July 12, 2017 was provided by CEC to Mr. Coppinger and reiterated its statements set forth in the May 16, 2017. The May 16, 2017 letter states, "In response to your inquiry, please be advised that the property located in T.17S., R.14E., W.M., Section 25, Tax Lot 104 in Deschutes County, Oregon, is located within the service area of Central Electric Cooperative, Inc. Central Electric Cooperative has reviewed the provided Toad information (3,000 amp three phase service) associated with the submitted cannabis grow facility and has determined that this service will require system upgrades to our facilities in the area. Central Electric Cooperative is prepared to serve this location in accordance with the rates, policies and available system capacity of the cooperative." (emphasis added). The applicant states, "The cost of any system upgrades necessary to serve the use will be borne by the applicant pursuant to CEC policy (i.e. to wit, lines, conduits, poles, transformers, etc.)." The July 17, 2017 letter confirms, "Central Electric Cooperative is willing and able to serve your requested service for this property." It also notes that "Capacity increases are achieved with system upgrades and are a routine part of supplying electricity to customers as their needs change." Electric service is the only utility the proposal will utilize besides water, which is addressed above. The Hearings Officer finds that the fact upgrades are required to the CEC system does not, in any way, take away from the statement that CEC is willing and able to serve the operation. The Code requires nothing more in this regard. The Hearings Officer dismisses this objection of the Appellants. F. DCC 18.116.330(B)(17) 17. Secure Waste Disposal, Marijuana waste shall be stored in a secured waste receptacle in the possession of and under the control of the OLCC licensee or OHA Person Responsible for the Grow Site (PRMG). APPELLANT'S OBJECTION: In the Notice of Appeal materials, the appellant states: The mandatory language of this standard requires that the County be able to verify this criterion will be complied with. Applicant's statement that they will do so is not adequate to meet applicant's burden of proof of preponderance of the evidence. It is a mere affirmation. A satisfactory application would show on a site plan where the facility would be located, how it is confirmed to be a secured area, yet how proper disposal will occur, and how applicant will supervise it 247-17-000511-A 12 ("possession and control") at all times. This must be demonstrated and applicant has failed to do so. FINDING: The applicant states, "The site will be provided with the appropriate locking container as required, under the maintenance and supervision of the owner/operator/qualified designee." Staff included the following as a condition of approval: "Marijuana waste shall be stored in a secured waste receptacle in the possession of and under the control of the OLCC licensee." In response to the appeal, the applicant submitted a 4 -page exhibit showing the dimensions and locking mechanisms of a secured waste receptacle that will be used by the applicant on the subject property. The Hearings Officer finds that this section does not require submission of a site plan, siting of a secured waste receptacle in a "secured area," "supervision" by the applicant, or a description of how waste will be disposed. Nor does this section regulate the type of waste receptacle that must be used. I note, however, that the administrative rules of the OLCC require an applicant to "Store, manage and dispose of solid and liquid wastes generated during marijuana production and processing in accordance with applicable state and local laws and regulations." OAR 845-025-7750(1)(a). Again, the Appellants would have the Hearings Officer insert additional provisions into the above regulation that do not exist. I do not have such authority. Moreover, the Hearings Officer cannot condition or deny the application based on assumptions that the applicant will not comply with the law and/or any condition of approval. This objection is dismissed. G. DCC 18.116.330(B)(8) 8. Access. Marijuana production over 5,000 square feet of canopy area for mature marijuana plants shall comply with the following standards. a. Have frontage on and legal direct access from a constructed public, county, or state road; or b. Have access from a private road or easement serving only the subject property. c. If the property takes access via a private road or easement which also serves other properties, the applicant shall obtain written consent to utilize the easement or private road for marijuana production access from all owners who have access rights to the private road or easement. The written consent shall: i. Be on a form provided by the County and shall contain the following information; n. Include notarized signatures of all owners, persons and properties holding a recorded interest in the private mad or easement; Include a description of the proposed marijuana production or marijuana processing operation; and 247-17-000511-A 13 iv. Include a legal description of the private road or easement FINDING: The Notice of Appeal materials did not include any assignment of error to the County's decision with respect to finding compliance with DCC 18.116.330(B)(8). However, testimony at the hearing indicated that Appellants believe these criteria are not met due to the alleged condition of County Line Road, access to County Line Road, and allegations conceming the impact of additional trips/traffic on County Line Road. As an initial matter, the Hearings Officer finds and Appellants' attorney conceded that the withdrawal of a Shared Access Agreement is immaterial because the applicant has direct access to a County Road. Access to the subject property will not be via a private road or easement. Accordingly, I find that DCC 18.116.330(B)(8)(c) is inapplicable.3 It is not disputed that the subject property located at 62655 County Line Road has frontage on County Line Road, which is a constructed public county road. The evidence shows that the property has several hundred feet of frontage and direct legal access to County Line Road, which is a publicly accessible county road owned by Deschutes County. Appellants' argument that the property is merely "adjacent" to County Line Road is not supported by evidence in the record. DCC 18.116.330(B)(8)(a) requires nothing more than legal direct access to a county road. The record supports such a determination. The applicant has the legal right to allow pedestrians and vehicles to cross between the public county road and the adjoining subject property. DCC 18.04.030 defines "access" as "the right to cross between public and private property allowing pedestrians and vehicles to enter and leave the property." See Central Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes County, 63 Or Luba 288, 292-94 (2011). The criteria in DCC 18.116.330(B)(8) do not require a demonstration of "safe" legal access. The Hearings Officer cannot add new criteria to DCC 18.116.330(B)(8), nor may I interpret the criteria to include additional, unexpressed conditions. Peter Russell, Deschutes County Senior Transportation Planner submitted an August 3, 2017 memorandum in response to transportation/road issues raised at the hearing and in post -hearing submittals. The memo sets forth the following: Board Resolution 2013-020 sets the County's SDC rate. Staff includes SDC amounts and when the amount is due in the land use process as a courtesy to the applicant. However, SDCs are not a land use decision and are the purview of the County Road Department, not a hearing's officer. Planning and Road Department staff held a work session with the Board of County Commissioners on April 3, 2017, discussing trip generation rates and assumptions related to marijuana. At that work session, staff relayed the reasons for using Warehouse from the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) 3 During the administrative review process, it was suggested that DCC 18.116.330(B)(8)(c) applied because the applicant's neighbor has been granted an access and utility easement to use part of the applicant's driveway. However, because the applicant has established compliance with DCC 18.116.330(B)(8)(a), as discussed above, subsection (c) is inapplicable. It is irrelevant that a neighbor has the right to use the applicant's driveway for a limited purpose. 247-17-000511-A 14 handbook instead of Nursery for marijuana production. The Board agreed with staff.... Staff considers this matter settled, but the applicant does have the ability to make a timely appeal of the SDC by following the procedures set forth in Res. 2013- 020. Deschutes County Code (DCC) at 18.116.330(B)(8) only requires that a marijuana production site has frontage on and legal access to the types of roads set forth in DCC 18.116.330(8)(8). The condition, physical dimensions, operational capacity and surface of County Line Road, which is a County - maintained local road, are not part of any approval criteria. Appellants have not provided any evidence that County Line Road is unsafe. The County has hundreds of miles of gravel roads which serve agricultural uses, timber, quarry operations, and rural residences. Low traffic volumes and low speeds are typical of such roads with the occasional occurrence of two vehicles using a gravel road simultaneously, yet accommodating each other's uneventful passing. Finally, the Alfalfa Fire District was mailed notice about the marijuana grow operation and provided no comments about the use of County Line Road. The Hearings Officer agrees with Mr. Russell's conclusion that the County cannot require additional traffic analysis or review criteria of an affected road's capacity, condition or surface and that the County's development code for marijuana production only requires proof of frontage on and legal access to specified roads, or an easement, per DCC 18.116.330(B)(8). Mr. Singhose's testimony concerning traffic on County Line Road, the conditions of the road itself, and his opinion that the road will not support additional trips generated by the proposed facility is not tied to any approval criterion and thus is not a basis for conditioning or denying the application, as stated by Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner. Similarly, arguments by counsel for the Appellants that County Line Road is "barely a road at all," and that it is not safe access for two way traffic when farm vehicles are on the road are not directed to approval criteria and thus are not relevant to this decision. The Hearings Officer dismisses this objection of the Appellants. IV. CONCLUSION The Hearings Officer upholds the Findings and Decision for the Administrative Determination application, file number 247 -17 -000145 -AD, issued by staff on June 7, 2017, in their entirety, with the exception of Condition of Approval C, which shall be deleted as unnecessary. See ATTACHMENT A. This Decision only addresses the criteria and standards to which Appellants' assigned error in their Notice of Appeal materials, and on which testimony and evidence was presented at the hearing and during the period in which the record was left open following the hearing. 247-17-000511-A 15 Based on the foregoing Findings, the Hearings Officer finds that the proposed marijuana production facility complies with the applicable standards and criteria of the Deschutes County zoning ordinance if conditions of approval set forth in the Findings and Decision dated June 7, 2017, are met. V. DECISION APPROVAL, subject to the conditions of approval set forth in ATTACHMENT A, with the exception of Condition of Approval C requiring recordation of the submitted signed and notarized Shared Access Consent Agreement with the Deschutes County Clerk and submittal of a copy of the recorded agreement to the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permits. This decision becomes final twelve (12) days after the date of mailing, unless appealed by a party of interest. Stephanie Marshall Hicks, Hearings Officer Dated this 13th day of September, 2017 Attachment: A. Administrative Decision 247 -17 -000145 -AD 247-17-000511-A 16 EXHIBIT 27 Deborah McMahon's October 11, 2017 Letter to the. BOCC October 11, 2017 Deborah McMahon 60352 Arnold Market Road Bernd, Oregon 97702 Subject: Impact of Marijuana Grow Operations on Residential Living Environments Dear Deschutes County Board of Commissioners: I am totally and unequivocally opposed to marijuana grows near residential developments. They should be in industrial areas or areas that are not close to homes. And, since marijuana plants are not planted outside, in soil, it seems logical to require this. Nonetheless, I wish to tell you of my experiences with a marijuana grow operation. I live in an area with a mix of zones and lot sizes. Our property is 20 acres in size, zoned EFU, Exclusive Farm Use. We abut a few smaller properties with various other property sizes and zones. Several years ago, my neighbor (on a smaller property) developed and ran a medicinal marijuana grow operation. It consisted of a Targe hoop structure, fans, and related grow materials. For 2 growing seasons, we experienced a significantly reduced living environment because of the marijuana grow operation. Here is how we were negatively affected: 1. I received no notice of the proposed development. The siting of the marijuana grow operation was very close to the property line and within 400 feet of our house. Other areas on the property could have been used rather the area closest to our house. 2. The smell of the marijuana pervaded our living environment to the extent we could not open our windows, hang our laundry, enjoy our deck and outdoor areas, or have guests over to visit. It was intolerable that we could not enjoy our property due to the obnoxious and unwelcome odors, non-residential operational characteristics, use of unknown chemicals, etc. 3. The odors were worse when the grower was burning the excess plant material. We were told this must be done as part of the grow operation. The odors were so strong that our clothes retained the odors if we hung our laundry outside to dry. If the windows were open, the smell came in and lingered. The oils of the marijuana plant are volatile and cling to clothing and anything else they touch. We were quite concerned since our clothes would retain the smell and we could be at risk of losing our professional insurances due to being non-compliant with Federal law. 4. The marijuana grow operation included many workers who arrived at all hours to manage and harvest the plants. At times, there were over 15 extra cars with unknown people coming and going from the grow site, including large delivery vehicles. The lights from the vehicles, noise from the workers, and the worry that the workers were loitering after their work added to our loss of privacy and increased our concerns since we have livestock on our property and family with young children who visit during the summer months. Our lifestyle was forced to change and we were greatly saddened when we could not have our 9 -year-old niece visit us anymore. My sister did not believe the marijuana grow operation created a safe and wholesome environment especially with the strong odors and unknown persons coming and going. This situation prohibited my niece from playing outside further diminishing the quality of our home life. And, not being able to have my niece visit was very sad indeed. We lost out on key moments in her life. S. We were very concerned the refuse and chemicals used on the property were not properly handled or disposed of. Contamination is still a lasting worry. No one provided us any assurance the chemicals used for the grow were safe and handled correctly. 6. The marijuana grow operation ran large air moving fans 24/7. The noise from these constantly buzzing devices disrupted our living environment and were non-stop. So not only was the odor etc. a problem, but we had the added detriment of noise pollution. Our lifestyle was severely impacted because of the marijuana grow operation. We could not enjoy the property rights that should be commonly enjoyed in our area, namely, clean air, privacy, and safety. Eventually, the grower stopped operations. If he had not, we would have moved from our property. Haveyou tried selling a home that is next to a marijuana grow? It is not a selling point. I asked the neighbor to stop or modify the operation and were told no. I called the Deschutes County Sheriff and asked how this situation could be allowed. He checked his records and told us the grower was authorized to grow the marijuana. He said there was nothing he could do. He told me to contact Deschutes County. I spoke with a Deschutes County Planner who told me the grow operation was allowed and additional rules were being written. I expressed my concerns and described my situation. Please deny any marijuana operation next to residential homes. My experiences are representative of many other people and should be considered in any decision to evaluate the proper location of the marijuana grow operation. Sincerely, Deborah McMahon Deborah McMahon TES A BOARD OF ONERS9 MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK 3/A Subject: � � r, ii �1L�a ) (7::(4-2)71.) _ Date: ) _/' ' ._ Name (7)��` P Vf40r). r 1 Address i In0lc (1&71-- C, Phone #s 2 6,-(7) E-mail address 5 --re 1,-Atvv yo In Favor Neutral/Undecided Submitting written documents as part of testimony? ' s Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. Opposed No 2 TES' w°a BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING Subject: Name Address REQUEST TO SPEAK 141 1 � I (:: /()0 &ox Date: /C9 --/( //7 Phone #s / — / 9 -- .2, S v 271s--- Phone 7.s _ E-mail address / /–(2 -1C/7.5 -6)--t � ST/'1 Goy-V/A In Favor Neutral/Undecided Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. Opposed BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Subject: p C9vw,k".ki Date: „• Name Address 3hiLr. E-mail address In Favor A Lift ev.4, Neutral/Undecided V" Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. /Opposed No w Q Subject: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK 4-6 Name IAS f. Address Phone #s Date: 0 l E-mail address -6 A In Favor Neutral/Undecided Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. Opposed No October 16, 2017 To: Deschutes County Commissioners Re: Proposed Marijuana Facility at 69188 Goodrich Road in Sisters, OR Please cease continuing to issue marijuana growers permits in rural areas where retirees and families with children are negatively impacted by the growers who want to raise the maximum number of crops per year. It is a certainty that marijuana grow lights at night, noise from the fans running in the cold months, harvesting odors and increased commercial traffic will diminish the enjoyment of neighboring property owners as well as damage the value of their properties. We have friends on Knott Rd who hear the fans at night with their windows closed and smell the harvesting odors. In addition, growing this crop requires large amounts of water that is in short supply in Central Oregon. We are asking you to deny a permit for the Tewalt's marijuana production facility at 69188 Goodrich Road in Sisters. The Tewalt's reasoning that they "would now like the opportunity for this land to give back to them financially" is a weak and greedy argument to abuse that very property they have owned since the 1970's. It is an expectation that, as County Commissioners, you be good stewards of our environment. Permitting additional marijuana farms is not only a strain on our environment but it is also a threat to adjacent properties and to the public health in Deschutes County. Thank you for your consideration. Roberta Nethercutt 22360 Rickard Rd Bend, OR 97702 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Subject: Name Address Date: Phone #s E-mail address In Favor Neutral/Undecided Submitting written documents as part of testimony? es If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary fof the record. Opposed No From: Patti Adair <malibustudio@aol.com> To: Malibustudio <Malibustudio@aol.com> Date: Sun, Oct 15, 2017 9:00 pm 69188 Goodrich Road. men The past year and a half have been a battle on many levels regarding the STATE Legislature's designation of marijuana as a crop. it has turned out that Deschutes county is one of the top five producers of marijuana in the state an the OLCC stated last MONDAY that we, the state of OREGON, . - .. .. ctaci4t. y--e4r CAA -fon ?,\ SG% dt,trYVAA- t or> c�'t-Gem -M c� 4 Hoyt SYS Last April d May, we listened to the Deschutes County marijuana advisory board that was ost decisively stacked against us, the RURAL community of Deschutes county. a are the families that have chosen to live in the mountains in Central Oregon. As I recently followed the school bus down Goodrich and watched over seven children disembark in such close proximity to the proposed "FAMILY AFFAIR" grow. It is so important to stand up for these children and the 5 young children of Adam & Mary Claire Jones. And then we see how the staff of our county has treated us. The Tewalt marijuana notification post on Goodrich almost immediately blew down. I notified Nicole and she replied that was fine. Maybe it was fine for her, but what about all those families that live in ,,,z; area. The TEWALT,greenhouse is capable of four crops a year. The noise, odor, and traffic that'accompan: s this operation NO ONE seems to understand. �` �� Our appeal was another tr n e ex erl nce as I witnessed sitting here last month. It seemed our appeal was being ignored. Our attorney, Liz, clearly pointed out this bias when she was finally allowed to address the commissioners. We wonder why would anyone go to such expense of building a 3600 square foot greenhouse including a bathroom and state on September 16th at the first part of this HEARING that they were going to start small. We can only presume they are gain. to sell and then WE, the community of Goodrich will be stuck with more trim - that we can imagine. You may NOT know but It takes 2 people over forty hours to harvest 100 sq feet of Marijuana. The crop demands daily. inspections. You will have your hands full growing marijuana which nothing like TOMATOES as some have mentioned. After collecting 100 signatures from mainly the Sister's community, we are wondering if you, our Deschutes County commissioners, are going to hear our plea for safety.? Thank you. Most Sincerely, Patti Adair malibustudi r� n +►113. 1, OW Nnt\AAAAJCcA/V alba Ma/9p),04) PETITION TO THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (BOCC) PAGE 1 OF PAGES Petition against marijuana production facility at 69188 Goodrich Road, Sisters, OR 97759 Owner: Norma and Richard Tewalt ADDENDUM # 1 101617 Applicant / Agent: Norma and Richard Tewalt File #: 247-17-000216-LR/247-17-000217-AD From: The Below Signed Appellants as Neighbors to the Subject Property Date: August 25, 2017 WHEREAS, you are our elected representatives; and WHEREAS, it is universally accepted the first duty and responsibility of elected representatives is to provide for the safety and security of their constituency; and WHEREAS, the BOCC has been granted legal authority by the State Legislature to place reasonable regulations on the time, place, and manner of production of marijuana in Deschutes County, pursuant to ORS 475B.340, and these must be consistent with the County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinances and applicable provisions of public health and safety laws; and WHEREAS, in the "Findings and Decision," it is stated, "The Deschutes County Code does not allow the Planning Division to approve or deny this application based on. ..Previous code violations on the property, Impact of marijuana on neighboring pets and livestock, Increased crime and threat to safety of neighbors, or Potential negative effects on children in the area."; and WHEREAS, the Oregon legislature recognized and, by excluding marijuana production from protection of DCC 9.12 and ORS 30.3905, Right to Farm, publicly acknowledged that marijuana production is not equivalent to normal farming operations and requires special consideration and greater over -sight; and WHEREAS, based on results to date, it is now recognized and acknowledged by law enforcement agencies throughout the State that marijuana production has a history of frequently bringing increased crime and public safety issues, including threats of bodily harm, to a here -before safe neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the Applicants' initial application included "Phase I" which they withdrew once they were put on notice that a see-through, dilapidated, piecemealed structure only 30 feet from the neighbor's property and within a line -of -sight to the neighbor's residence was not going to be approved by the County, the Applicant withdrew "Phase I," but indicated their preference for substandard quality of construction and an absence of concern for public health and safety; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's above described behavior indicate the Applicant has a lack of respect and consideration for the neighbors and neighborhood and the established codes; THEREFORE, for the reasons stated above and in our appeal, we the undersigned do respectfully request the BOCC to consider this appeal in the scope of their highest duties and responsibilities and give full consideration to "previous code violations on the property, Impact of marijuana on neighboring pets and livestock, Increased crime and threat to safety of neighbors, and potential negative effects on children in the area" and deny Norma and Richard Tewalt's Application for a marijuana production facility to be constructed at 69188 Goodrich Road, Sisters, OR 97759. A marijuana production facility does not belong in the Goodrich neighborhood, a well established family, normal -farming neighborhood. We plead with the BOCC to denthis application. Ol, ad, s �� . GtOX3 06, n&k. �i4t)41): D 43/V5 Signature address Print name Email back to AcLarin19fles99@yahoo.com or mal bustud¢gC�?aol.com — Got questions call 541-323-6999 PETITION TO THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (BOCC) PAGE 1 OF PAGES Petition against marijuana production facility at 69188 Goodrich Road, Sisters, OR 97759 Owner: Norma and Richard Tewalt ADDENDUM # 1 10 16 17 Applicant / Agent: Norma and Richard Tewalt File #: 247-17-000216-LR/247-17-000217-AD From: The Below Signed Appellants as Neighbors to the Subject Property Date: August 25, 2017 WHEREAS, you are our elected representatives; and WHEREAS, it is universally accepted the first duty and responsibility of elected representatives is to provide for the safety and security of their constituency; and WHEREAS, the BOCC has been granted legal authority by the State Legislature to place reasonable regulations on the time, place, and manner of production of marijuana in Deschutes County, pursuant to ORS 4756.340, and these must be consistent with the County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinances and applicable provisions of public health and safety laws; and WHEREAS, in the "Findings and Decision," it is stated, "The Deschutes County Code does not allow the Planning Division to approve or deny this application based on. ..Previous code violations on the property, Impact of marijuana on neighboring pets and livestock, Increased crime and threat to safety of neighbors, or Potential negative effects on children in the area."; and WHEREAS, the Oregon legislature recognized and, by excluding marijuana production from protection of DCC 9.12 and ORS 30.3905, Right to Farm, publicly acknowledged that marijuana production is not equivalent to normal farming operations and requires special consideration and greater over -sight; and WHEREAS, based on results to date, it is now recognized and acknowledged by law enforcement agencies throughout the State that marijuana production has a history of frequently bringing increased crime and public safety issues, including threats of bodily harm, to a here -before safe neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the Applicants' initial application included "Phase I" which they withdrew once they were put on notice that a see-through, dilapidated, piecemealed structure only 30 feet from the neighbor's property and within a line -of -sight to the neighbor's residence was not going to be approved by the County, the Applicant withdrew "Phase I," but indicated their preference for substandard quality of construction and an absence of concern for public health and safety; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's above described behavior indicate the Applicant has a lack of respect and consideration for the neighbors and neighborhood and the established codes; THEREFORE, for the reasons stated above and in our appeal, we the undersigned do respectfully request the BOCC to consider this appeal in the scope of their highest duties and responsibilities and give full consideration to "previous code violations on the property, Impact of marijuana on neighboring pets and livestock, Increased crime and threat to safety of neighbors, and potential negative effects on children in the area" and deny Norma and Richard Tewalt's Application for a marijuana production facility to b- constructed at 69188 Goodrich Road, Sisters, OR 97759. A marijuana production facility does not belong in the Goodr h eighborhoo a well established family, normal -farming neighborhood. We plead with the BOC •.•enythis 1171V- ig ; re z 5t,c1 address ').P.P`tetol,k ✓Chl?MW`t/4 Print name Email back to adam"ones99 • ahoo.com or malibustudio r aolncom — Got questions call 541-323-6999 PETITION TO THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (BOCC) PAGE 1 OF PAGES Petition against marijuana production facility at 69188 Goodrich Road, Sisters, OR 97759 Owner: Norma and Richard Tewalt ADDENDUM # 1 10 16 17 Applicant / Agent: Norma and Richard Tewalt File #: 247-17-000216-LR/247-17-000217-AD From: The Below Signed Appellants as Neighbors to the Subject Property Date: August 25, 2017 WHEREAS, you are our elected representatives; and WHEREAS, it is universally accepted the first duty and responsibility of elected representatives is to provide for the safety and security of their constituency; and WHEREAS, the BOCC has been granted legal authority by the State Legislature to place reasonable regulations on the time, place, and manner of production of marijuana in Deschutes County, pursuant to ORS 475B.340, and these must be consistent with the County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinances and applicable provisions of public health and safety laws; and WHEREAS, in the "Findings and Decision," it is stated, "The Deschutes County Code does not allow the Planning Division to approve or deny this application based on. ..Previous code violations on the property, Impact of marijuana on neighboring pets and livestock, Increased crime and threat to safety of neighbors, or Potential negative effects on children in the area."; and WHEREAS, the Oregon legislature recognized and, by excluding marijuana production from protection of DCC 9.12 and ORS 30.3905, Right to Farm, publicly acknowledged that marijuana production is not equivalent to normal farming operations and requires special consideration and greater over -sight; and WHEREAS, based on results to date, it is now recognized and acknowledged by law enforcement agencies throughout the State that marijuana production has a history of frequently bringing increased crime and public safety issues, including threats of bodily harm, to a here -before safe neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the Applicants' initial application included "Phase 1" which they withdrew once they were put on notice that a see-through, dilapidated, piecemealed structure only 30 feet from the neighbor's property and within a line -of -sight to the neighbor's residence was not going to be approved by the County, the Applicant withdrew "Phase I," but indicated their preference for substandard quality of construction and an absence of concern for public health and safety; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's above described behavior indicate the Applicant has a lack of respect and consideration for the neighbors and neighborhood and the established codes; THEREFORE, for the reasons stated above and in our appeal, we the undersigned do respectfully request the BOCC to consider this appeal in the scope of their highest duties and responsibilities and give full consideration to "previous code violations on the property, Impact of marijuana on neighboring pets and livestock, Increased crime and threat to safety of neighbors, and potential negative effects on children in the area" and deny Norma and Richard Tewalt's Application for a marijuana production facility to be constructed at 69188 Goodrich Road, Sisters, OR 97759. A marijuana production facility does not belong in the Goodrich neighborhood, a well established family, normal -farming neighborhood. We plead with the BOCC to den this application. �Aa . Lw/L. �c•�✓.�E-� 1494_,c4, 977,4 address Signature Print name Email back to = e am 'on es 90vahoo.coin or rnalibustudiio ca,aol.co— Got questions call 541-323-6999 PETITION TO THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (BOCC) PAGE 1 OF PAGES Petition against marijuana production facility at 69188 Goodrich Road, Sisters, OR 97759 Owner: Norma and Richard Tewalt ADDENDUM # 1 10 16 17 Applicant / Agent: Norma and Richard Tewalt File #: 247-17-000216-LR/247-17-000217-AD From: The Below Signed Appellants as Neighbors to the Subject Property Date: August 25, 2017 WHEREAS, you are our elected representatives; and WHEREAS, it is universally accepted the first duty and responsibility of elected representatives is to provide for the safety and security of their constituency; and WHEREAS, the BOCC has been granted legal authority by the State Legislature to place reasonable regulations on the time, place, and manner of production of marijuana in Deschutes County, pursuant to ORS 4756.340, and these must be consistent with the County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinances and applicable provisions of public health and safety laws; and WHEREAS, in the "Findings and Decision," it is stated, "The Deschutes County Code does not allow the Planning Division to approve or deny this application based on. ..Previous code violations on the property, Impact of marijuana on neighboring pets and livestock, Increased crime and threat to safety of neighbors, or Potential negative effects on children in the area."; and WHEREAS, the Oregon legislature recognized and, by excluding marijuana production from protection of DCC 9.12 and ORS 30.3905, Right to Farm, publicly acknowledged that marijuana production is not equivalent to normal farming operations and requires special consideration and greater over -sight; and WHEREAS, based on results to date, it is now recognized and acknowledged by law enforcement agencies throughout the State that marijuana production has a history of frequently bringing increased crime and public safety issues, including threats of bodily harm, to a here -before safe neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the Applicants' initial application included "Phase I" which they withdrew once they were put on notice that a see-through, dilapidated, piecemealed structure only 30 feet from the neighbor's property and within a line -of -sight to the neighbor's residence was not going to be approved by the County, the Applicant withdrew "Phase I," but indicated their preference for substandard quality of construction and an absence of concern for public health and safety; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's above described behavior indicate the Applicant has a lack of respect and consideration for the neighbors and neighborhood and the established codes; THEREFORE, for the reasons stated above and in our appeal, we the undersigned do respectfully request the BOCC to consider this appeal in the scope of their highest duties and responsibilities and give full consideration to "previous code violations on the property, Impact of marijuana on neighboring pets and livestock, Increased crime and threat to safety of neighbors, and potential negative effects on children in the area" and deny Norma and Richard Tewalt's Application for a marijuana production facility to be constructed at 69188 Goodrich Road, Sisters, OR 97759. A marijuana production facility does not belong in the Goodrich neighborhood, a well established family, normal -farming neighborhood. We plead with the BOCC to deny this application. 63797 6'e.An c. i'. &/fPE 9773 Print name Email back to adamjones990yahoo.com or rnalibustudi2@aol com -- Got questions call 541-323-6999 PETITION TO THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (BOCC) PAGE 1 OF PAGES Petition against marijuana production facility at 69188 Goodrich Road, Sisters, OR 97759 Owner: Norma and Richard Tewalt ADDENDUM # 1 10 16 17 Applicant / Agent: Norma and Richard Tewalt File #: 247-17-000216-LR/247-17-000217-AD From: The Below Signed Appellants as Neighbors to the Subject Property Date: August 25, 2017 WHEREAS, you are our elected representatives; and WHEREAS, it is universally accepted the first duty and responsibility of elected representatives is to provide for the safety and security of their constituency; and WHEREAS, the BOCC has been granted legal authority by the State Legislature to place reasonable regulations on the time, place, and manner of production of marijuana in Deschutes County, pursuant to ORS 475B.340, and these must be consistent with the County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinances and applicable provisions of public health and safety laws; and WHEREAS, in the "Findings and Decision," it is stated, "The Deschutes County Code does not allow the Planning Division to approve or deny this application based on. ..Previous code violations on the property, Impact of marijuana on neighboring pets and livestock, Increased crime and threat to safety of neighbors, or Potential negative effects on children in the area."; and WHEREAS, the Oregon legislature recognized and, by excluding marijuana production from protection of DCC 9.12 and ORS 30.3905, Right to Farm, publicly acknowledged that marijuana production is not equivalent to normal farming operations and requires special consideration and greater over -sight; and WHEREAS, based on results to date, it is now recognized and acknowledged by law enforcement agencies throughout the State that marijuana production has a history of frequently bringing increased crime and public safety issues, including threats of bodily harm, to a here -before safe neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the Applicants' initial application included "Phase I" which they withdrew once they were put on notice that a see-through, dilapidated, piecemealed structure only 30 feet from the neighbor's property and within a line -of -sight to the neighbor's residence was not going to be approved by the County, the Applicant withdrew "Phase I," but indicated their preference for substandard quality of construction and an absence of concern for public health and safety; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's above described behavior indicate the Applicant has a lack of respect and consideration for the neighbors and neighborhood and the established codes; THEREFORE, for the reasons stated above and in our appeal, we the undersigned do respectfully request the BOCC to consider this appeal in the scope of their highest duties and responsibilities and give full consideration to "previous code violations on the property, Impact of marijuana on neighboring pets and livestock, Increased crime and threat to safety of neighbors, and potential negative effects on children in the area" and deny Norma and Richard Tewalt's Application for a marijuana production facility to be constructed at 69188 Goodrich Road, Sisters, OR 97759. A marijuana production facility does not belong in the Goodrich neighborhood, a well established family, normal -farming neighborhood. We plead with QOCC to deny this appli jati Signature 4-4,,,„,QA10,24ez 6,5/77 address Print name Email back to adamjones99(a7yahoo.com or malibustudio cx.aol.com — Got questions call 541-323-6999 PETITION TO THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (BOCC) PAGE 1 OF PAGES Petition against marijuana production facility at 69188 Goodrich Road, Sisters, OR 97759 Owner: Norma and Richard Tewalt ADDENDUM # 1 101617 Applicant / Agent: Norma and Richard Tewalt File #: 247-17-000216-LR/247-17-000217-AD From: The Below Signed Appellants as Neighbors to the Subject Property Date: August 25, 2017 WHEREAS, you are our elected representatives; and WHEREAS, it is universally accepted the first duty and responsibility of elected representatives is to provide for the safety and security of their constituency; and WHEREAS, the BOCC has been granted legal authority by the State Legislature to place reasonable regulations on the time, place, and manner of production of marijuana in Deschutes County, pursuant to ORS 475B.340, and these must be consistent with the County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinances and applicable provisions of public health and safety laws; and WHEREAS, in the "Findings and Decision," it is stated, "The Deschutes County Code does not allow the Planning Division to approve or deny this application based on. .Previous code violations on the property, Impact of marijuana on neighboring pets and livestock, Increased crime and threat to safety of neighbors, or Potential negative effects on children in the area."; and WHEREAS, the Oregon legislature recognized and, by excluding marijuana production from protection of DCC 9.12 and ORS 30.3905, Right to Farm, publicly acknowledged that marijuana production is not equivalent to normal farming operations and requires special consideration and greater over -sight; and WHEREAS, based on results to date, it is now recognized and acknowledged by law enforcement agencies throughout the State that marijuana production has a history of frequently bringing increased crime and public safety issues, including threats of bodily harm, to a here -before safe neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the Applicants' initial application included "Phase 1" which they withdrew once they were put on notice that a see-through, dilapidated, piecemealed structure only 30 feet from the neighbor's property and within a line -of -sight to the neighbor's residence was not going to be approved by the County, the Applicant withdrew "Phase I," but indicated their preference for substandard quality of construction and an absence of concern for public health and safety; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's above described behavior indicate the Applicant has a lack of respect and consideration for the neighbors and neighborhood and the established codes; THEREFORE, for the reasons stated above and in our appeal, we the undersigned do respectfully request the BOCC to consider this appeal in the scope of their highest duties and responsibilities and give full consideration to "previous code violations on the property, Impact of marijuana on neighboring pets and livestock, Increased crime and threat to safety of neighbors, and potential negative effects on children in the area" and deny Norma and Richard Tewalt's Application for a marijuana production facility to be constructed at 69188 Goodrich Road, Sisters, OR 97759. A marijuana production facility does not belong in the Goodrich neighborhood, a well established family, normal -farming neighborhood. We plead with the BOCC to deny this application. r• { / !�. c_ �1-t\.a �' ` \ A( jt\(t,�tl('Y 1 ;Y\ Signature address (11-1 SGl c)rE> n e_ N , i )).1, h a tr z -)v-1 Print name Email back to adaimj2nes99 ahoo.co¢ or rnalibustudiopaolocorn -- Got questions call 541-323-6999 PETITION TO THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (BOCC) PAGE 1 OF PAGES Petition against marijuana production facility at 69188 Goodrich Road, Sisters, OR 97759 Owner: Norma and Richard Tewalt ADDENDUM # 1 10 16 17 Applicant / Agent: Norma and Richard Tewalt File #: 247-17-000216-LR/247-17-000217-AD From: The Below Signed Appellants as Neighbors to the Subject Property Date: August 25, 2017 WHEREAS, you are our elected representatives; and WHEREAS, it is universally accepted the first duty and responsibility of elected representatives is to provide for the safety and security of their constituency; and WHEREAS, the BOCC has been granted legal authority by the State Legislature to place reasonable regulations on the time, place, and manner of production of marijuana in Deschutes County, pursuant to ORS 4756.340, and these must be consistent with the County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinances and applicable provisions of public health and safety laws; and WHEREAS, in the "Findings and Decision," it is stated, "The Deschutes County Code does not allow the Planning Division to approve or deny this application based on. ..Previous code violations on the property, Impact of marijuana on neighboring pets and livestock, Increased crime and threat to safety of neighbors, or Potential negative effects on children in the area."; and WHEREAS, the Oregon legislature recognized and, by excluding marijuana production from protection of DCC 9.12 and ORS 30.3905, Right to Farm, publicly acknowledged that marijuana production is not equivalent to normal farming operations and requires special consideration and greater over -sight; and WHEREAS, based on results to date, it is now recognized and acknowledged by law enforcement agencies throughout the State that marijuana production has a history of frequently bringing increased crime and public safety issues, including threats of bodily harm, to a here -before safe neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the Applicants' initial application included "Phase I" which they withdrew once they were put on notice that a see-through, dilapidated, piecemealed structure only 30 feet from the neighbor's property and within a line -of -sight to the neighbor's residence was not going to be approved by the County, the Applicant withdrew "Phase I," but indicated their preference for substandard quality of construction and an absence of concern for public health and safety; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's above described behavior indicate the Applicant has a lack of respect and consideration for the neighbors and neighborhood and the established codes; THEREFORE, for the reasons stated above and in our appeal, we the undersigned do respectfully request the BOCC to consider this appeal in the scope of their highest duties and responsibilities and give full consideration to "previous code violations on the property, Impact of marijuana on neighboring pets and livestock, Increased crime and threat to safety of neighbors, and potential negative effects on children in the area" and deny Norma and Richard Tewalt's Application for a marijuana production facility to be constructed at 69188 Goodrich Road, Sisters, OR 97759. A marijuana production facility does not belong in the Goodrich neighborhood, a well established family, normal -farming neighborhood. We plead with the BOCC to deny this application. n Signature Com• 116 l 1- c.. Shy,. I z4.) address Print name Email back to adamjones99@yahoo.com or malibustudio s aol.com — Got questions call 541-323-6999 PETITION TO THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (BOCC) PAGE 1 OF PAGES Petition against marijuana production facility at 69188 Goodrich Road, Sisters, OR 97759 Owner: Norma and Richard Tewalt ADDENDUM # 1 101617 Applicant / Agent: Norma and Richard Tewalt File #: 247-17-000216-LR/247-17-000217-AD From: The Below Signed Appellants as Neighbors to the Subject Property Date: August 25, 2017 WHEREAS, you are our elected representatives; and WHEREAS, it is universally accepted the first duty and responsibility of elected representatives is to provide for the safety and security of their constituency; and WHEREAS, the BOCC has been granted legal authority by the State Legislature to place reasonable regulations on the time, place, and manner of production of marijuana in Deschutes County, pursuant to ORS 4756.340, and these must be consistent with the County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinances and applicable provisions of public health and safety laws; and WHEREAS, in the "Findings and Decision," it is stated, "The Deschutes County Code does not allow the Planning Division to approve or deny this application based on. ..Previous code violations on the property, Impact of marijuana on neighboring pets and livestock, Increased crime and threat to safety of neighbors, or Potential negative effects on children in the area."; and WHEREAS, the Oregon legislature recognized and, by excluding marijuana production from protection of DCC 9.12 and ORS 30.3905, Right to Farm, publicly acknowledged that marijuana production is not equivalent to normal farming operations and requires special consideration and greater over -sight; and WHEREAS, based on results to date, it is now recognized and acknowledged by law enforcement agencies throughout the State that marijuana production has a history of frequently bringing increased crime and public safety issues, including threats of bodily harm, to a here -before safe neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the Applicants' initial application included "Phase I" which they withdrew once they were put on notice that a see-through, dilapidated, piecemealed structure only 30 feet from the neighbor's property and within a line -of -sight to the neighbor's residence was not going to be approved by the County, the Applicant withdrew "Phase I," but indicated their preference for substandard quality of construction and an absence of concern for public health and safety; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's above described behavior indicate the Applicant has a lack of respect and consideration for the neighbors and neighborhood and the established codes; THEREFORE, for the reasons stated above and in our appeal, we the undersigned do respectfully request the BOCC to consider this appeal in the scope of their highest duties and responsibilities and give full consideration to "previous code violations on the property, Impact of marijuana on neighboring pets and livestock, Increased crime and threat to safety of neighbors, and potential negative effects on children in the area" and deny Norma and Richard Tewalt's Application for a marijuana production facility to be constructed at 69188 Goodrich Road, Sisters, OR 97759. A marijuana production facility does not belong in the Goodrich neighborhood, a well established family, normal -farming neighborhood. We plead with the BOCC to deny this application. Signature .,e)v 6 ?it, i„,,,z61.4,-/-2;:tt,—Re-ec-0--?' Rit-h Rd5 lv address Print name Email back to adamjopes99@; ahoo com or alibustudio aoLcom — Got questions call 541-323-6999 PETITION TO THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (BOCC) PAGE OF _ PI ES Petition against marijuana production facility at 69188 Goodrich Road, Sisters, OR 97759 Name Signature Street Address Phone #CGt I4 Gt Porth(Z1)'C;ey' 7c 4 d 5-///-2-47 w ev,v._ Lt -r) d1'7 6C? /u00c, .)1,3d 15 Lt r , z r3 -063 3 PETITION TO THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (BOCC) PAGE — OF PAGES PETITION TO THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (BOCC) PAGE 1 OF PAGES Petition against marijuana production facility at 69188 Goodrich Road, Sisters, OR 97759 Owner: Norma and Richard Tewalt ADDENDUM # 1 10 16 17 Applicant / Agent: Norma and Richard Tewalt File #: 247-17-000216-LR/247-17-000217-AD From: The Below Signed Appellants as Neighbors to the Subject Property Date: August 25, 2017 WHEREAS, you are our elected representatives; and WHEREAS, it is universally accepted the first duty and responsibility of elected representatives is to provide for the safety and security of their constituency; and WHEREAS, the BOCC has been granted legal authority by the State Legislature to place reasonable regulations on the time, place, and manner of production of marijuana in Deschutes County, pursuant to ORS 4756.340, and these must be consistent with the County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinances and applicable provisions of public health and safety laws; and WHEREAS, in the "Findings and Decision," it is stated, "The Deschutes County Code does not allow the Planning Division to approve or deny this application based on. ..Previous code violations on the property, Impact of marijuana on neighboring pets and livestock, Increased crime and threat to safety of neighbors, or Potential negative effects on children in the area."; and WHEREAS, the Oregon legislature recognized and, by excluding marijuana production from protection of DCC 9.12 and ORS 30.3905, Right to Farm, publicly acknowledged that marijuana production is not equivalent to normal farming operations and requires special consideration and greater over -sight; and WHEREAS, based on results to date, it is now recognized and acknowledged by law enforcement agencies throughout the State that marijuana production has a history of frequently bringing increased crime and public safety issues, including threats of bodily harm, to a here -before safe neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the Applicants' initial application included "Phase I" which they withdrew once they were put on notice that a see-through, dilapidated, piecemealed structure only 30 feet from the neighbor's property and within a Zine -of -sight to the neighbor's residence was not going to be approved by the County, the Applicant withdrew "Phase I," but indicated their preference for substandard quality of construction and an absence of concern for public health and safety; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's above described behavior indicate the Applicant has a lack of respect and consideration for the neighbors and neighborhood and the established codes; THEREFORE, for the reasons stated above and in our appeal, we the undersigned do respectfully request the BOCC to consider this appeal in the scope of their highest duties and responsibilities and give full consideration to "previous code violations on the property, Impact of marijuana on neighboring pets and livestock, Increased crime and threat to safety of neighbors, and potential negative effects on children in the area" and deny Norma and Richard Tewalt's Application for a marijuana production facility to be constructed at 69188 Goodrich Road, Sisters, OR 97759. A marijuana production facility does not belong in the Goodrich neighborhood, a well established family, normal -farming neighborhood. We plead with the BOCC )o denhis apply ation. vy-t �l Signature 7b//0 .e'Gaft/x/ af<(/�e .- �) / r'/�'�- ' Y� address Vs Print name Email back to as amjone 99 yahoo.cor or malibustudio .:;aol.com — Got questions call 541-323-6999 PETITION TO THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY CiMMISSIONERS (BOCC) PAGE OF J PAGES Petition against marijuana production facility at 69133 Goodrich Road, Sisters, OR 97759 Name Signature II Street Address Phone (12q171&kftkec taatetod51;ste5 N at-115ci 503 gi2)---MpD--- t6q/"77 Sars-9?zk;-6/ 9 77s - PETITION TO THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BIARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (BOCC) PAGE OF PAGES VL\-\ \6,,v(\,)\)1'((\Arr,' FI3) oV (-, PETITION TO THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (BOCC) PAGE 1 OF PAGES Petition against marijuana production facility at 69188 Goodrich Road, Sisters, OR 97759 Owner: Norma and Richard Tewalt ADDENDUM # 1 101617 Applicant / Agent: Norma and Richard Tewalt File #: 247-17-000216-LR/247-17-000217-AD From: The Below Signed Appellants as Neighbors to the Subject Property Date: August 25, 2017 WHEREAS, you are our elected representatives; and WHEREAS, it is universally accepted the first duty and responsibility of elected representatives is to provide for the safety and security of their constituency; and WHEREAS, the BOCC has been granted legal authority by the State Legislature to place reasonable regulations on the time, place, and manner of production of marijuana in Deschutes County, pursuant to ORS 475B.340, and these must be consistent with the County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinances and applicable provisions of public health and safety laws; and WHEREAS, in the "Findings and Decision," it is stated, "The Deschutes County Code does not allow the Planning Division to approve or deny this application based on. ..Previous code violations on the property, Impact of marijuana on neighboring pets and livestock, Increased crime and threat to safety of neighbors, or Potential negative effects on children in the area."; and WHEREAS, the Oregon legislature recognized and, by excluding marijuana production from protection of DCC 9.12 and ORS 30.3905, Right to Farm, publicly acknowledged that marijuana production is not equivalent to normal farming operations and requires special consideration and greater over -sight; and WHEREAS, based on results to date, it is now recognized and acknowledged by law enforcement agencies throughout the State that marijuana production has a history of frequently bringing increased crime and public safety issues, including threats of bodily harm, to a here -before safe neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the Applicants' initial application included "Phase I" which they withdrew once they were put on notice that a see-through, dilapidated, piecemealed structure only 30 feet from the neighbor's property and within a line -of -sight to the neighbor's residence was not going to be approved by the County, the Applicant withdrew "Phase I," but indicated their preference for substandard quality of construction and an absence of concern for public health and safety; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's above described behavior indicate the Applicant has a lack of respect and consideration for the neighbors and neighborhood and the established codes; THEREFORE, for the reasons stated above and in our appeal, we the undersigned do respectfully request the BOCC to consider this appeal in the scope of their highest duties and responsibilities and give full consideration to "previous code violations on the property, Impact of marijuana on neighboring pets and livestock, Increased crime and threat to safety of neighbors, and potential negative effects on children in the area" and deny Norma and Richard Tewalt's Application for a marijuana production facility to be constructed at 69188 Goodrich Road, Sisters, OR 97759. A marijuana production facility does not belong in the Goodrich neighborhood, a well established family, normal -farming neighborhood. We plead with the BOCC,to deny this application. f 1 y(C.Nr-1 ,74/6 / � )iq,/ //ek c�/ an4c/ti74rdL,J��1A �J Si nature address Print name Email back to damiones9@yaho , pin or rnalibustudio@aoicom -- Got questions call 541-323-6999 PETITION TO THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (BOCC) PAGE 1 OF PAGES Petition against marijuana production facility at 69188 Goodrich Road, Sisters, OR 97759 Owner: Norma and Richard Tewalt ADDENDUM # 1 101617 Applicant / Agent: Norma and Richard Tewalt File #: 247-17-000216-LR/247-17-000217-AD From: The Below Signed Appellants as Neighbors to the Subject Property Date: August 25, 2017 WHEREAS, you are our elected representatives; and WHEREAS, it is universally accepted the first duty and responsibility of elected representatives is to provide for the safety and security of their constituency; and WHEREAS, the BOCC has been granted legal authority by the State Legislature to place reasonable regulations on the time, place, and manner of production of marijuana in Deschutes County, pursuant to ORS 475B.340, and these must be consistent with the County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinances and applicable provisions of public health and safety laws; and WHEREAS, in the "Findings and Decision," it is stated, "The Deschutes County Code does not allow the Planning Division to approve or deny this application based on. ..Previous code violations on the property, Impact of marijuana on neighboring pets and livestock, Increased crime and threat to safety of neighbors, or Potential negative effects on children in the area."; and WHEREAS, the Oregon legislature recognized and, by excluding marijuana production from protection of DCC 9.12 and ORS 30.3905, Right to Farm, publicly acknowledged that marijuana production is not equivalent to normal farming operations and requires special consideration and greater over -sight; and WHEREAS, based on results to date, it is now recognized and acknowledged by law enforcement agencies throughout the State that marijuana production has a history of frequently bringing increased crime and public safety issues, including threats of bodily harm, to a here -before safe neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the Applicants' initial application included "Phase I" which they withdrew once they were put on notice that a see-through, dilapidated, piecemealed structure only 30 feet from the neighbor's property and within a line -of -sight to the neighbor's residence was not going to be approved by the County, the Applicant withdrew "Phase I," but indicated their preference for substandard quality of construction and an absence of concern for public health and safety; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's above described behavior indicate the Applicant has a lack of respect and consideration for the neighbors and neighborhood and the established codes; THEREFORE, for the reasons stated above and in our appeal, we the undersigned do respectfully request the BOCC to consider this appeal in the scope of their highest duties and responsibilities and give full consideration to "previous code violations on the property, Impact of marijuana on neighboring pets and livestock, Increased crime and threat to safety of neighbors, and potential negative effects on children in the area" and deny Norma and Richard Tewalt's Application for a marijuana production facility to be constructed at 69188 Goodrich Road, Sisters, OR 97759. A marijuana production facility does not belong in the Goodrich neighborhood, a well established family, normal -farming neighborhood. We plead with the BOCC to deny this application. Signature address Print name Email back to adam"ones99 ': ahoo.com or malibustudio@aol.com — Got questions call 541-323-6999 PETITION TO THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (BOCC) PAGE 1 OF PAGES Petition against marijuana production facility at 69188 Goodrich Road, Sisters, OR 97759 Owner: Norma and Richard Tewalt ADDENDUM # 1 101617 Applicant / Agent: Norma and Richard Tewalt File #: 247-17-000216-LR/247-17-000217-AD From: The Below Signed Appellants as Neighbors to the Subject Property Date: August 25, 2017 WHEREAS, you are our elected representatives; and WHEREAS, it is universally accepted the first duty and responsibility of elected representatives is to provide for the safety and security of their constituency; and WHEREAS, the BOCC has been granted legal authority by the State Legislature to place reasonable regulations on the time, place, and manner of production of marijuana in Deschutes County, pursuant to ORS 4756.340, and these must be consistent with the County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinances and applicable provisions of public health and safety laws; and WHEREAS, in the "Findings and Decision," it is stated, "The Deschutes County Code does not allow the Planning Division to approve or deny this application based on. ..Previous code violations on the property, Impact of marijuana on neighboring pets and livestock, Increased crime and threat to safety of neighbors, or Potential negative effects on children in the area."; and WHEREAS, the Oregon legislature recognized and, by excluding marijuana production from protection of DCC 9.12 and ORS 30.3905, Right to Farm, publicly acknowledged that marijuana production is not equivalent to normal farming operations and requires special consideration and greater over -sight; and WHEREAS, based on results to date, it is now recognized and acknowledged by law enforcement agencies throughout the State that marijuana production has a history of frequently bringing increased crime and public safety issues, including threats of bodily harm, to a here -before safe neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the Applicants' initial application included "Phase I" which they withdrew once they were put on notice that a see-through, dilapidated, piecemealed structure only 30 feet from the neighbor's property and within a line -of -sight to the neighbor's residence was not going to be approved by the County, the Applicant withdrew "Phase I," but indicated their preference for substandard quality of construction and an absence of concern for public health and safety; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's above described behavior indicate the Applicant has a lack of respect and consideration for the neighbors and neighborhood and the established codes; THEREFORE, for the reasons stated above and in our appeal, we the undersigned do respectfully request the BOCC to consider this appeal in the scope of their highest duties and responsibilities and give full consideration to "previous code violations on the property, Impact of marijuana on neighboring pets and livestock, Increased crime and threat to safety of neighbors, and potential negative effects on children in the area" and deny Norma and Richard Tewalt's Application for a marijuana production facility to be constructed at 69188 Goodrich Road, Sisters, OR 97759. A marijuana production facility does not belong in the Goodrich neighborhood, a well established family, normal -farming neighborhood. We plead with the BOCC to deny this application. Signature adv fr</'Z. address Print name OK.9 l.\ _ Email back to adam ones99 + . ah0o corn or malibustudio aol.com - Got questions call 541423-6999 PETITION TO THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (BOCC) PAGE OF _ PAGES Petition against marijuana production facility at 69188 Goodrich Road, Sisters, OR 97759 Name Signature Street Address Phone LAAAe- e,..)': ( -WO_ tee._ `Q; 123(1-3W- v v %fat l it 54( 5 5f -3S 125, e y.. 0 • ca. 1e- �". �"> 173'i 141 -v a,- , S l-,, "T 1 i e 5.i.1.76- /"a 0 z 9-7-7 47 -6- -6-1 fir' .7-- PAP � � !o69es e/s% /CD 5W - PAP gIl/0 rn. a5z� , ' _, B/�Lrm off . X1770 / 3/7- S-4461. (40(09'8,e ie-0syf- - r l & t-Se,s'Ler C►"- , F A)7 0e.. y°22 a / ., 7. 1-ts1" t.1 io` m }, trie rza. 5-'1 i t rrv,b8et,,,,..,, 4 ,D SLA...., --, ' (f t, I1vt'P1 • /1-e4 (7) ' CC•-, - 5,.s1.6,ffs 0r2 '/ 7`7`7 SI% ``y:14I ° , -- / ,C1f H, 61r Yom/ L, 4,,- P /776 NO0,01-11/Ai ho,,,.; KJ �,�q -- / ' .5. s 2.s (7 , 7.7.5-7 j 4-9- / R74, '/e4kid lam � '5�au <� r�r /iPi/. f41 /PS y .q ®gyp 9 • I �..� pgx _ . Nt� /LeA r) tci yr � i t 1 .: - 3 c bLtirrr ctY\ Lr�toIlt) P� , ( �` -- J i. $ --c tRc..i. c) t 141.51 5 1,-591- o� (FR 3- I9 / '7,3, /3'7�ra>TTAiti1 VIELj; R/ 6eilV aYY L 1 7�r1Li2-`j i..e -t'✓Si5.5 i E-", aiq >'775ci -5-447-,597- 7c 17 / 0'/ - (�i 6'0 Jc 6 / 1 Al �'" ,�/., ._yl w/.� � 6 � VJ ! ` AA / rt tvy _ -----7) 1 -74, ' � wi..! `-savqq CR - q11/0 541- _(ct 11S- u c?..G e aS . �Old 1 � .' :' s(/ ID4.,-,1„6. ;7/6 IGM N 1 :.w tt 4'P JVz7// z/ /91/0/ 1C» /011.% +I( �'if1 i' d`$;: `, 1,1e4 5,0 f2Trci 4'6 I cellOvta-thl,+ ° • , 17 //l) /no rt yt V, 0'3 /ir ... , r. i. _ ..,. IN G'�C� (i3 5 1A-1.�I eu" `-� �sr(-54q-440 .3u tes ,v\ Vivre (� -q c td.: .bJ, 9 r1 5 ci :C 9sC�r 1�i) '7(,)().)..c S v-,,, l5 '‘&A --i‘ r. A .\meq .'�h-1-40-,3 i ce-, c'- - r 14 i /'/ )//,.441 ,�: -�.� ',.?4,,ZrZr) a--,---- - 7 6, .� s _ ,P ..,e,,,,- — `�- s-- l ki, S G 41/ G 173 0.?1 7- C { ...-. e e 447-,f2-_,„_. a ' -.‘e- ,---.4 - ci GJ PETITION TO THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (BOCC) PAGE OF PAGES Petition against marijuana production facility at 69188 Goodrich Road, Sisters, OR 97759 Name SignatureStreet _ •-.7...,„ ,_ Address Phone , - r ) 4e 4 f7e,,,,„ - / , / „2.23 I_ • 4,--(,e",s( - -1- fiellittO it ''k. Pi. • / 4 MI7A 0- ,,' 7952297/ alarm ii c, 0444(4 rThikki ,0 ,..., (LA c -i (06 es74 Oftt_i 4 obek Pri .--:'-',-.......:: ----• 140 1 ,,,,-oki i : ,,cof G , 4 L 0 4 g(...) CAfc-t- ( J ;cukAil -1-toplitis ii ' - 4 ' a a Utoulriod 1,5eafjes---i--, 2 sad ,56) bv'eacii,-C-1- /vki..e.,Y ir9.4..Ly i I, / C15-2, /Vgal /7/11Cij 4) all 1P32 'PI PO( LOAN/PI° - ,i2:21k-fi 1, /-111-, 1 ()1'') i) Id )714A)14';ti 1-1 i )A..) i t: 66'1)41; /v f_7, co-t7e4,.._c�p-----, ---- 604,30 kif.,(-•,....C-i-,Ke„ Ae.e„. ...,444---/ . . # c/ilva4, y 7-, /22',;? ii, -‘:s.3.--; ayt_05 Vf6(fljA Aht) . " 4 rc--1--TOcctil t N . 33g(A) (ACif12:0--)ryPT L 1 30 0 Jo 4,12- aztri44 .. //,;(-- 3333 livp-fiwroc,i2 . oc 5301164; ki „ ...-e ,,,,,„ , E At, 47 .2 rcrY7 ‘ (/yvy rw/aeeekv , (,) t J iti; 77 afrlk- ,7444 )\,44-1h igikeieWla -A (Lot ) 1°2 S6 Cl -k if 1-676 5- 21) z 91? 6,6 PETITION TO THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (BOCC) PAGE - OF PAGES Petition against marijuana production facility at 69188 Goodrich Road, Sisters, OR 97759 Name Signature Street Address Phone iNeig /Viirde dia4t---/eA, 77)40 e z) aey/ Ay/10o - ---) - '-\1\4) 4.0 ? -I- • V 1 / , a v I' ,,,t op -70 6,7-0/vifoire il 1 ii-s/ Pa • 0-k .A., L k v 5.-ipicle.„., Q.Cli" NC \ZQ .. kw., -4-3 (3 1, - S - -i. op I 3/ 6c) G/ky--, wcqii+-76 , , 0 , - , • ,i,,- 0 g 9 77 c7 --- q 1 7 n. o 51 1 - 6V3 - 1 e go . _ 11.S e, ---v-0-4) hr ref --Al- • l A L7 /14.c."2 i 4 5' q i z ' /-1IF A, ,Ll /)/ 2/0 :;4&4)/Co 40 , . ' ./( ( .- / z/i / A e• (7' ''''' ' : . / _ -.. 6 , 7e; 23/(1,47, (-: re `ei-Zick joddt tevrikAic,..,,, 30 & 5,2,5-friviet 0 -f-i _ , 5.1/4--i Affinii- tE or z, vs6--g ..,e4,.,;/-A-ee.,), 1 4. ) 777- 4 ' -egp 7i 0 d()?/9-44LyAi 7774-av A . I1 ./ • 1 9 2- 925- &'4- 31/7--- 3t7°--- 7 PETITION TO THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (BOCC) PAGE OF PAGES PETITION TO THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (BOCC) PAGE _ OF PAGES Petition against marijuana production facility at 69188 Goodrich Road, Sisters, OR 97759 Name Signature Street Address Phone /-c,o.",...4) , 9 3 782- --S-cm di.OLck ( 5;/(- 7 SY--- 71)64a' 2.6 '4* /4 Gafryic) d lop ( ft c-ic7V:R,z- 7 7.2 ( )' rAhvi_s ,INa fl 12—C-0 r\A 6,-vD 16/1,{1114, la if i (..,,r, co Y (Oi\-46c .:, 0 k 4, .- ' 144k _.t) 1, - - cli - ci3 )4,i6 .6141 Sq0U11 Ar 9 7 71,9.2 A re,' Li .°? /O/o 124 /2 a4,44, .0e.: ( 2204 , t X 12-r. SIA, AN—TO Ttli.--6/0-6•1 y 1,:f 6,1? 7-M1N 7/ 5'7 7 7‘' als-eza - , A 41.---) (fl 1 1 1 -frnitt \- A ' 977 At —7— ,C , _,,,..7_26,--- , :1 / (1,, / g- 4_4,4 jy,a770 / " 7 ' zt!" ....-,:,A,. ../ --Z- Yi ,r I 2 e I' i PI , ri 7 j ::; c) b 1 i i=" f -i - -lij1---- ‘--gd 1- " -.7 -r -7, ......(.7 . 1-----1,-/,i211- PETITION TO THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (BOCC) PAGE OF — PAGES PETITION TO THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (BOCC) PAGE OF ___ PAGES Petition against marijuana production facility at 69188 Goodrich Road, Sisters, OR 97759 Name Signature Street Address Phone t> '0'‘ \\ ON rU,'' i • 6..0 r. \ .2 --;zk-,_6_,--.' 7w7S71a../ek-)5ez 4- 91/ sw 0 til el) p, . / im Sa/c/7/1,4 (;‘ 72,4-9 ---/ ge ,t16-#11 atLi 5v--54/9-09 , i ' cf-iL„,,, -‘Lw'tii- Avuut_cti; ) 056 ni iiiii- , (A /,,,,/,,./_,_ 2:4 \Al tZ0-7 &5-0 mi. viod 4f), e ,S; 671-7— 4s0e....5-q4,s-sT‘, (707 4 he/ 1021 1ff 7) :' ke4/' /165bi-e21QcvapM Viila ,Ritigtabi ''''/ , ' ' /; / , „,7_ 74/zo "VAN& 9fg " °-3-40 .7 • set PETITION TO THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (BOCC) PAGEOF _ PAGES Petition against marijuana production facility at 69188 Goodrich Road, Sisters, OR 97759 Name Signature Street Address. Phone 5Ltaile.;,-cit /14. . 3a.c? i'VL.- 2-L-&4' 5(16('393/2-5/6 OJAL/J meter C'er-1 O / N NjE, Vi + WI-Lk)C. YYrd onx).),r----41.-05?--On'c. kt,9:- o } ` (� t`:e-it-it f t 3 --i/ Y1 ?7768\ PETITION TO THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (BOCC) PAGE OF _ PAGES w A BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Subject: Name Address Date: 0,1t-11,4 P. .4 . Ale Phone #s E-mail address In Favor Neutral/Undecided EKOpposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes allo If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. w Q BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Subject: 1\44(1. � � �1` I� CGn� C� R-� Date: 1c 1 ( ( 7 Name Z AL {' j t -t Address 9-7 3—s— ( \P--0 l 5 Phone #s S I 'lir-6 .S 3 e, E-mail address 5 Lt .,A.,, n In Favor Neutral/Undecided X Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. A. No BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Subject: !/spot) e. GE w i) ;sx., Name (D.AU t D wt vim. 0-..l Date: / Address Z o' 0 1 u. 04.A t P.L Phone #s 70,; —LiO? ??S E-mail address biivi CCniversttN z i,44 to J CDczt ylIn Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes / If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. No Subject: Name Address BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK (7 JZ`W-67/✓4,444 P1,,((4 Date: /0 1 Phone #s f _ sol _ �J t E-mail address `� ' � 0 5 l �` In Favor Neutral/Undecided a Submitting written documents as part of testimony? %.( Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. Opposed No PETITION TO THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (BOCC) PAGE 1 OF Petition against marijuana production facility at 69188 Goodrich Road, Sisters, OR 97759 Owner: Norma and Richard Tewalt File #: 247-17-000216-LR/247-17-000217-AD Applicant / Agent: Norma and Richard Tewalt From: The Below Signed Appellants as Neighbors to the Subject Property Date: August 25, 2017 WHEREAS, you are our elected representatives; and PAGES WHEREAS, it is universally accepted the first duty and responsibility of elected representatives is to provide for the safety and security of their constituency; and WHEREAS, the BOCC has been granted legal authority by the. State Legislature to place reasonable regulations on the time, place, and manner of production of marijuana in Deschutes County, pursuant to ORS 4756.340, and these must be consistent with the County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinances and applicable provisions of public health and safety laws; and WHEREAS, in the "Findings and Decision," it is stated, "The Deschutes County Code does not allow the Planning Division to approve or deny this application based on. . .Previous code violations on the property, Impact of marijuana on neighboring pets and livestock, Increased crime and threat to safety of neighbors, or Potential negative effects on children in the area."; and WHEREAS, the Oregon legislature recognized and, by excluding marijuana production from protection of DCC 9.12 and ORS 30.3905, Right to Farm, publicly acknowledged that marijuana production is not equivalent to normal farming operations and requires special consideration and greater over -sight; and WHEREAS, based on results to date, it is now recognized and acknowledged by law enforcement agencies throughout the State that marijuana production has a history of frequently bringing increased crime and public safety issues, including threats of bodily harm, to a here -before safe neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the Applicants' initial application included "Phase I" which they withdrew once they were put on notice that a see-through, dilapidated, piecemealed structure only 30 feet from the neighbor's property and within a line -of -sight to the neighbor's residence was not going to be approved by the County, the Applicant withdrew "Phase I," but indicated their preference for substandard quality of construction and an absence of concern for public health and safety; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's above described behavior indicate the Applicant has a lack of respect and consideration for the neighbors and neighborhood and the established codes; THEREFORE, for the reasons stated above and in our appeal, we the undersigned do respectfully request the BOCC to consider this appeal in the scope of their highest duties and responsibilities and give full consideration to "previous code violations on the property, Impact of marijuana on neighboring pets and livestock, Increased crime and threat to safety of neighbors, and potential negative effects on children in the area" and deny Norma and Richard Tewalt's Application for a marijuana production facility to be constructed at 69188 Goodrich Road, Sisters, OR 97759. A marijuana production facility does not belong in the Goodrich neighborhood, a well established family, normal -farming neighborhood. We plead with the BOCC to deny this application. PETITION TO THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (BOCC) PAGE -1 OF PAGES Petition against marijuana production facility at 69188 Goodrich Road, Sisters, OR 97759 Owner: Norma and Richard Tewait ADDENDUM # 1 10 16 17 Applicant / Agent: Norma and Richard Tewalt File #: 247.17-000216-LR/247-17.000217-AD From: The Below Signed Appellants as Neighbors to the Subject Property Date: August 25, 2017 WHEREAS, you are our elected representatives; and WHEREAS, it is universally accepted the first duty and responsibility of elected representatives is to provide for the safety and security of their constituency; and WHEREAS, the BOCC has been granted legal authority by the State Legislature to place reasonable regulations on the time, place, and manner of production of marijuana in Deschutes County, pursuant to ORS 4758.340, and these must be consistent with the County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinances and applicable provisions of public health and safety laws; and WHEREAS, in the "Findings and Decision," it is stated, "The Deschutes County Code does not allow the Planning Division to approve or deny this application based on. ..Previous code violations on the property, Impact of marijuana on neighboring pets and livestock, Increased crime and threat to safety of neighbors, or Potential negative effects on children in the area."; and WHEREAS, the Oregon legislature recognized and, by excluding marijuana production from protection of DCC 9.12 and ORS 30,3905, Right to Farm, publicly acknowledged that marijuana production is not equivalent to normal farming operations and requires special consideration and greater over -sight; and WHEREAS, based on results to date, it Is now recognized and acknowledged by law enforcement agencies throughout the State that marijuana production has a history of frequently bringing increased crime and public safety Issues, including threats of bodily harm, to a here -before safe neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the Applicants' initial application included "Phase I" which they withdrew once they were put on notice that a see-through, dilapidated, plecemealed structure only 30 feet from the neighbor's property and within a Zine -of -sight to the neighbor's residence was not going to be approved by the County, the Applicant withdrew "Phase I," but indicated their preference for substandard quality of construction and an absence of concern for public health and safety; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's above described behavior indicate the Applicant has a lack of respect and consideration for the neighbors and neighborhood and the established codes; THEREFORE, for the reasons stated above and in our appeal, we the undersigned do respectfully request the BOCC to consider this appeal in the scope of their highest duties and responsibilities and give full consideration to "previous code violations on the property, Impact of marijuana on neighboring pets and livestock, Increased crime and threat to safety of neighbors, and potential negative effects on children in the area" and deny Norma and Richard Tewait's Application for a marijuana production facility to be constructed at 69188 Goodrich Road, Sisters, OR 97759. A marijuana production facility does not belong in the Goodrich neighborhood, a well established family, normal -farming neighborhood. We plead with the BOCC to d ny this ap cation. Signature 2 4 w 4* Neil «y ikte 7.e r.e.r, 7 Da cs ` 41-4-rcr4 ok 4)7-t4-1 address Print name Email back to adamlones99eavahoo.com or mallbustudloe.aol.com — Got questions call 541.3234999 PETITION TO THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (BOCC) PAGE OF PAGES Petition against marijuana production facility at 69188 Goodrich Road, Sisters, OR 97759 Name Signature„ - APIO' , — Street Addres s Phone (.(.,e--1 C. c.,. , (SI- ' of- ,,,, ( 7 -5-37/ /%/, es '' 5-90 F/J-4--YI 0 cc -i- k t -7c: r • c7) • ) - - —1) 771 — 7 /77 r/ -t4 1154 / ; . 15,-__ /7/. 5 66. - k ex/lee ' , 2( 2 }N-# --- ) Yft - ) --- ' / PETITION TO THE DESCHUTES C UNTY BOARD OF C 1 UNTY COMMISSIONERS (BOCC) PAGE OF PAGES PETITION TO THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS (BOCC) PAGE 14. OF PAGES Signature Address Print name a aragiiMMWS 9 0W‘4 9d:s2,42 C14 -dV17 Z-(1 AledI9e& /2‘/4‘/C. .7a ) �i� .�..r �775'� , 461 w 0 Subject: Name Address BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Date: rj Phone #s E-mail address In Favor Neutral/Undecided Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. Opposed ef ES" BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Subject: Name Date: Address iT" Le, vt, al it *At '7,1.• Phone #s E-mail address `1: Neutral/Undecided Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. Opposed No Q Subject: Name Address BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK c)(4 p(( -,c ate: C) C16Cf L1 Phone #s E-mail address In Favor S 316 icWo (At IJP"`/ h2h GQ lre z �< cCOD,- Neutral/Undecided OD - Neutral/Undecided H—Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. No TE3 n\\ 03," 2 w { BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING Subject: Name Address CR cr. L REQUEST TO SPEAK -6A ) c_ C.7S\c_o C Phone #s E-mail address In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. No BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Subject: Name ,1 eV Address Date: Phone #s E-mail address In Favor Neutral/Undecided Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. Opposed No BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Subject: _ Date: Name Address Phone #s E-mail address Neutral/Undecided Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. Opposed BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Subject: r1.,✓��''"C rC� w.. /1:716c L . Date: Name te.11 i )i Address P (c2 ,2 ‘.;72-)i.4 Phone #s E-mail address // j J' r' % l In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. P No BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Clk Subject: Date: l Name Mal (Ai r& `IRC S Address L 0-- C ktvlo A SLO vk ri, 00(4 t5,s.- of o� 67 Phone #s ( &So ZOO') E-mail address a ok cy lfte se.) s dv1 G6/` eAnn In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. o n o+ Pr No w a Subject: Name Address BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Date: E-mail address In Favor Neutral/Undecided Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. (t0+ Opposed BEFORE THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPELLANT'S SUBMITTAL TO THE RECORD FOR PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 16, 2017 BOB KING DESCHUTES COUNTY LAND USE APPEAL 247-17-000723-A (Appeal of Richard & Norma Tewalt Application 247 -17 -000217 -AD) 400 SW Bluff Drive, Suite 240 Bend, OR 97702 (0) 541-585-2224 • (D) 541-585-2229 October 11, 2017 Nicole Mardell, Associate Planner 117 NW Lafayette Ave. Bend, OR 97703 Board of County Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St. Bend, OR 97703 Re: Appellant Submittal to the Record for Public Hearing Continued to October 16, 2017 247-17-000723-A (Appeal of 247 -17 -000217 -AD) Dear Commissioners, Our offices represent Robert King, Appellant in the above-mentioned appeal. Please accept this letter and the attached Exhibits (by Sharefile) into the Record for the Appeal. They will be referenced at the hearing. Please have them available to the Board in hard copy, or advise and we'll bring binders. We anticipate needing approximately 1 hour and 15 minutes for presentations by: Introduction by Liz Dickson 05:00 Testimony of Deborah McMahon 15:00 Testimony of Appellant Robert King 45:00 Summary of Legal Challenge by Liz Dickson 10:00 Total 1:15:00 We do not have information on public testimony other than these presentations. Sincerely, Elizabeth A. Dickson EAD/mls https://dicksonhatfield.serverdata.net/matters documents/king robert matters - 3844/appeal of marijuana grow site (tewalt) - 217-17-000217- ad_2664-6760/public hearing 9.18.17 continued to 10.16.17/king record submittal 10.11.17.docx 1 Appellant's Exhibits for the October 16, 2017 BOCC Hearing 1. Continuance emails 2. Chairman Baney's April 2, 2017 Letter to JCOMR 3. Appellant's April 25, 2017 Letter to Tewalts 4. Neighborhood Petition 5. Neighbors' October 7, 2017 Offer to Tewalts 6. Staff's Email to Lance Piatt 7. Tewalt's August 1, 2017 Email to Staff (App. Complete) 8. Appellant's Abridged Engineering CV 9. Marijuana Facilities: Codes, Standards and Managing the Hazards (Abridged) 10. Applicant's Plot Plan 11. CEC's "Will Serve Letter" 12. Decision of the BOCC for the Rubio Appeal (Selected Segments) 13. Applicant's Phase I 14. Applicant's Pole Barn Application 15. Photos of Joint Properties 16. Applicant's Phase I Comments 17. Code Violation on Applicant 18. Another Code Violation on Applicant's Property 19. Appellant's Comments Submitted on August 3, 2017 20. DEIR for Kern County, CA for Cannabis Land Use Ordinance Project (Selected Segments) 21. Decision of the BOCC for the Rubio Appeal (Selected Segments) 22. Affidavit of Monica Stringer 23. Statistics on Marijuana Code Violations 24. Jay Castino's September 6, 2017 Letter 25. Appellant's Response to Applicant's and Staff's Response to the Appeal 26. Decision of Coppinger Appeal 27. Deborah McMahon's October 11, 2017 Letter to the BOCC EXHIBIT 1 Continuance Emails On Sep 12, 2017 at 5:16 ; Nicole Mardell < icole.Mardell@deschutes.orq<mailto:Nicole.Mardell(cr�,deschutes.org» wrote: Hi Liz, Thank you for the update. I wanted to reach out to confirm we're on the same page with the meeting procedure as well. We conferred with legal counsel and they confirmed that we will need to accept testimony from interested parties during the hearing on September 18, 2017, even if a continuance is granted. "22.24.140(1) requires that "[ilf a continuance request is made after the published or mailed notice has been provided by the County, the Hearings Body shall take evidence at the scheduled hearing date from any party wishing to testify at the time after notifying those present of the continuance."" To ensure we're all in understanding of the meeting procedure, it will likely go as follows: -Board opens public hearing -Staff report, including request for continuance (if received prior to the 1( hearing) (Our emphasis.) -Board may vote to continue the hearing -If the Board chooses to continue the hearing, interested parties may still testify -Board may continue public hearing to future date Please reach out with any questions. My staff memo is due for the agenda packet tomorrow afternoon. If you would like to submit a request for continuance in writing prior to the public hearing, and for that request to be included in the staff memo, please supply the request by tomorrow at noon at the latest. Best, Nicole ---- Original message ---- , Peter tows <Peter.Gutowsky(c'deschutes.orq> Date: 9112/17 7:51 PM • MT-08:00) o: tors - -roe <Nicole.MardellAdeschutes.orq> Cc: "Elizabeth A. Dickson"<eadickson@dicksonhatfield.com>, Adam Smith <Adam.SmithRdeschutes.orq> Subject: Re: King Appeal of Tewalt Marijuana Production Application Liz, At this point staff will proceed with a hearing on Monday. If your client wishes a continuance, he can request it in writing with his preferred date and you can deliver that message to the Board during the appellant's remarks as the hearing opens. You'll need to be prepared for all contingencies. It's entirely up to the Board's discretion to grant a continuance and to a date certain. Nicole, if she hasn't already, will let the applicant know the appellant's intentions. The applicant will also need to be prepared for all contingencies. Peter Gutowsky Deschutes County Sent from my iPhone EXHIBIT 2 Chairman Baney's April 2, 2017 Letter to JCOMR April 12, 2017 The Honorable Ginny Burdick and Ann Lininger, Co -Chairs Joint Committee on Marijuana Regulation 900 Court St. NE, S-407 Salem, Oregon 97301 Re: SB 1057 / Dash -11 Amendments Board of County Commissioners PO Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005 1300 NW Wall Street, Suite 206, Bend, OR 97701-1960 TEL (541) 388-6570 • FAX (541) 385-3202 www.deschutes.orq board@co.deschutes.or.us Tammy Baney Anthony DeBone Philip Henderson Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners (Board) was alerted late yesterday afternoon of a spirited discussion that led to Dash -11 Amendments to SB 1057. Unfortunately, the Board did not receive any prior notice that marijuana land use concepts would be discussed at the hearing, including the Dash -11 Amendment targeted at Deschutes County's marijuana regulations. We respectfully request an opportunity to engage in this discussion and identify and clarify to this Committee the inaccuracies presented at yesterday's hearing. Inaccuracies. • Deschutes County is not requiring sprinklers in greenhouses. One applicant coordinated with the Redmond Fire District on water source requirements for her proposed greenhouse. The Redmond Fire District offered to reduce the water source requirements if this applicant voluntarily elected to install sprinklers. The County's Building Safety Division recommended this applicant coordinate with the State Fire Marshall to address the water source requirements because sprinklers appear to be an excessive requirement for the proposed use of the greenhouse. • The Deschutes County Community Development Department has not, does not, and will not make building plans available to the public for marijuana or any other buildings as stated at the hearing. As Sen. Prozanski stated, this is a clear violation of state law. Deschutes County protects building plans as intellectual property (i.e., architectural designs). • Other testimony claimed that Deschutes County has only approved 11 marijuana applications out of over 1900 marijuana grow sites in the county. As of January 2017, the Oregon Health Authority indicates there are 1322 medical marijuana grow sites in all of Deschutes County. However, it is unknown how many of the grow sites are located in city limits and how many are located in the rural county due to confidentiality laws. Last year, an attorney representing several Deschutes County medical marijuana growers anticipated the County would only receive 25-35 total applications for recreational marijuana production. • To date, the County has approved administratively (without public hearings): o 10 marijuana production applications; o 2 marijuana processing applications; and o 1 marijuana wholesale application. • In addition, the following applications are pending: o 18 recreational marijuana production applications; o 2 retail applications; and o 1 processing application. These numbers are consistent or exceed the number of applications the attorney anticipated the County might receive. Collaborative Process to develop Time, Place and Manner (TPM) Regulations. • The County engaged in an extensive, thoughtful, and comprehensive public process over approximately 10 months to develop and ultimately adopt marijuana land use standards unique to our arid, rural environment. The process included: o 8 public hearings before the Board and Planning Commission; o 7 Marijuana Advisory Committee) (MAC) meetings at which public comments were accepted; and o Staffed by a professional facilitator. The regulations were not appealed. • During the Board's adoption of the marijuana land use ordinances, it recognized that this new regulatory program would need to be evaluated and updated to determine if it is working as intended, and to address changing circumstances, interpretative matters, and amendments to State law. The Board welcomes input from industry representatives and rural residents on this important issue. Reasonable, Balanced TPM Regulations and Population Growth. • The Board considered and balanced extensive public comments, committee recommendations, and state law (HB 3400 and SB 1598) in formulating the final package of regulations. The adopted standards provide a carefully crafted compromise to support this emerging industry, a federally controlled substance, and protect the high quality of rural life through regulations to mitigate sight, sound, smell, water, waste disposal, and more. The regulations do not prohibit or effectively eliminate marijuana businesses or grow sites in the EFU or Multiple Use Agricultural -10 zones. • Some industry representatives requested regulatory flexibility in mitigating off-site impacts (i.e., odor control) rather than establishing "one -size fits all" standards. The Board responded by adopting discretionary regulations intended to provide such flexibility. • In addition, Deschutes County embraces Goal 1 of the Oregon Statewide Planning Program to involve citizens in the process to develop and adopt regulations, and to implement regulations during site The MAC consisted of marijuana industry representatives and rural residents. specific review processes. It is important to note that those testifying before the Committee yesterday participated on the MAC and throughout the process to develop and adopt the County's regulations. • Deschutes County's TPM regulations are modeled after and very similar to Clackamas and Lane Counties' regulations. The only difference is the added flexibility described above. • The Board has a responsibility to represent the interests of all Deschutes County residents. Measure 91, legalizing marijuana personal possession, personal manufacture and sale of marijuana barely passed in Deschutes County by a vote of 51% to 49%. Disaggregating the vote, it was widely rejected in the rural county. At the same time, Deschutes County continues to be the fastest growing county in Oregon. Last year's population forecast from Portland State University's Population and Research Center, showed that rural Deschutes County grew at a higher average annual growth rate than the City of Bend, 5.2% to 2.7%. The county's rural population is 61,475, one of the highest in Oregon, outside the Portland metro area. • As discussed above, the County's regulations support this emerging industry while honoring the expectations and values of our Targe and growing rural population, many residing in close proximity to Exclusive Farm Use zones and marijuana production operations and proposals. The Board looks forward to discussing our program with the Joint Committee on Marijuana Regulation. Sincerely, DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Tammy Baney Chair c: Members of the Joint Committee on Marijuana Regulation Senators Ted Ferrioli, Tim Knopp, and Dennis Linthicum Representatives Knute Buehler, John Huffman, Mike McLane, and Gene Whisnant EXHIBIT 3 Appellant's. April 25, 2017 Letter to Tewalts Robert P. (Bob) King 295 N. Rampart Unit D Orange, CA 92868 714 558 1646 April 25, 2017 Mr. and Mrs. Richard Tewalt 69188 Goodrich Road Sisters, OR 97759 Dear Rick and Norma: It's been a while since we've spoken. I hope all is well with you and the family. Rick and Norma, in the twenty-four years we've been next door to each other, we haven't had a chummy relationship, but we've always been friendly and respectful to each other, and we've never had an issue — until now. I'm referring to your application to produce marijuana. I really wish you had approached me in a neighbor -to -neighbor fashion to see if we could somehow come to an agreement. I honestly don't know if we would have been successful, but, at least, you could have learned our plans and maybe something could have been worked out between us. Instead, we get blinded -sided by a notice from the county with an application that is most alarming and threatening, for, if approved, it will destroy our current and intended use and entitled enjoyment of our property just so you can make more money. Unfortunately that application is now public and in a defined process that leaves us with no viable options except to surrender the intended use and enjoyment of our property or to respond -in- kind and, most unfortunately, do so in the public arena. Rick and Norma, this is no threat, but information as to our conviction to protect and preserve our long -held dreams for our Sisters' property. We will take every legal step possible to prevent marijuana production within at least a 100 feet of our property, and, if it so produced, that every code requirement is fully complied with, and, once production is started, there will be no "good neighbor" tolerance, so every suspected code violation will be reported. Acting on legal advice, to protect our right to protect and preserve the intended use and enjoyment of our property, we had to submit comments within the required timeframe. Which we did. In preparing those comments, I was guided by my above stated guiding principle. I'm respectfully requesting you to redraw the application, read our comments with an objective mind, and let's see if something can be worked out. Rick and Norma, please don't take this personally. If you were my bother and sister-in-law, and your application was their application, I would be doing the same thing. That's how important this issue is to us. We sincerely hope you understand. Your call, of course. • Sincerely, EXHIBIT 4 Neighborhood Petition PETITION TO THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (BOCC) PAGE 1 OF PAGES Petition against marijuana production facility at 69188 Goodrich Road, Sisters, OR 97759 Owner: Norma and Richard Tewalt ADDENDUM # 1 101617 Applicant / Agent: Norma and Richard Tewalt File #: 247-17-000216-LR/247-17-000217-AD From: The Below Signed Appellants as Neighbors to the Subject Property Date: August 25, 2017 WHEREAS, you are our elected representatives; and WHEREAS, it is universally accepted the first duty and responsibility of elected representatives is to provide for the safety and security of their constituency; and WHEREAS, the BOCC has been granted legal authority by the State Legislature to place reasonable regulations on the time, place, and manner of production of marijuana in Deschutes County, pursuant to ORS 475B.340, and these must be consistent with the County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinances and applicable provisions of public health and safety laws; and WHEREAS, in the "Findings and Decision," it is stated, "The Deschutes County Code does not allow the Planning Division to approve or deny this application based on. ..Previous code violations on the property, Impact of marijuana on neighboring pets and livestock, Increased crime and threat to safety of neighbors, or Potential negative effects on children in the area."; and WHEREAS, the Oregon legislature recognized and, by excluding marijuana production from protection of DCC 9.12 and ORS 30.3905, Right to Farm, publicly acknowledged that marijuana production is not equivalent to normal farming operations and requires special consideration and greater over -sight; and WHEREAS, based on results to date, it is now recognized and acknowledged by law enforcement agencies throughout the State that marijuana production has a history of frequently bringing increased crime and public safety issues, including threats of bodily harm, to a here -before safe neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the Applicants' initial application included "Phase I" which they withdrew once they were put on notice that a see-through, dilapidated, piecemealed structure only 30 feet from the neighbor's property and within a line -of -sight to the neighbor's residence was not going to be approved by the County, the Applicant withdrew "Phase I," but indicated their preference for substandard quality of construction and an absence of concern for public health and safety; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's above described behavior indicate the Applicant has a lack of respect and consideration for the neighbors and neighborhood and the established codes; THEREFORE, for the reasons stated above and in our appeal, we the undersigned do respectfully request the BOCC to consider this appeal in the scope of their highest duties and responsibilities and give full consideration to "previous code violations on the property, Impact of marijuana on neighboring pets and livestock, Increased crime and threat to safety of neighbors, and potential negative effects on children in the area" and deny Norma and Richard Tewalt's Application for a marijuana production facility to be constructed at 69188 Goodrich Road, Sisters, OR 97759. A marijuana production facility does not belong in the Goodrich neighborhood, a well established family, normal -farming neighborhood. We plead with the BOCC to deny this application. Signature address Print name Email back to adamjones99nyahoo.com or malibustudio(7u,aol.com — Got questions call 541-323-6999 EXHIBIT 5 Neighbors' October 7, 2017 offer to Tewalts Robert J. & Patti J. Adair Mary Claire & Adam Jones Robert P. (Bob) King Laura McCallum & Dillon Hoffman 18000 Edmundson Road 17625 Edmundson Rd 295 N. Rampart D 69205 Goodrich Road Sisters, OR 97759 Sisters, OR 97759 • Orange, CA 92868 Sisters, OR 97759 October 7, 2017 Mr. and Mrs. Richard Tewalt 69188 Goodrich Road Sisters, OR 97759 Dear Rick and Norma: On behalf of ourselves and selected neighbors, we are making the following offer to you: if you immediately redraw your application to produce marijuana on your property and agree that an application concerning marijuana will not be filed for your property for at least five -years, we will reimburse you, via a cahiers check or wire transfer, the $5,000.00* you paid in response to our appealing the administrative determination of your application. if you agree to accept this offer, we will have Uz Dickson, our neighborhood attorney, immediately draw up a proper, legally binding Oregon contract which we will sign and have notarized. Over ninety percent of the neighbors have singed the petition in opposition to your producing marijuana on your property. tf you prevail on the appeal, we are going to appeal that decision to the Land Use Appeal Board, and, if necessary, even further. It would be mutually beneficial to alt of us to end this process now. Your neighbors would like to return the Goodrich neighborhood to the safe, family-oriented, normal farming neighborhood it has always been — for you, your children, and your children's children. Rick and Norma, we are wiling to pay you the $5,000.00* to give our children, and our children's children the safe advantage of growing up in the same neighborhood atmosphere as yours did. Isn't that fair? t'S.incerely, Gly YA',2 • Any refund the unty makes from your $5,000.00 would ;fir ; o us to offset the $5,000,00 we have paid you, but, upon agreeing to this offer, you get your $5,000. tr back immediately. Roberti. & Patti J. Adair 18000 Edmundson Road Sisters, OR 97759 October 7, 2017 Mary Claire & Adam Jones Robert P. (Bob) King Laura McCallum & Dillon Hoffman 17625 Edmundson Rd 295 N. Rampart D 69205 Goodrich Road Sisters, OR 97759 . Orange, CA 92868 Sisters, OR 97759 Mr. and Mrs. Richard Tewalt 69188 Goodrich Road Sisters, OR 97759 Page 2 of 2 P5: Rich and Norma, if you agree to accept our offer, please call Liz Dickson at 541-585-2229, and so inform her, and let her know how you wish to take delivery of the $5,000.00. Liz will notify us and draw up the agreement. EXHIBIT 6 Staff's Email to Lance Piatt Thank you Nicole Lance Platt lancejpiattc ne.com 541-815-0332 Red Ibex Solutions Rescue Response Gear Inc. Rigging Lab Academy Inc. Raven Collective Media On Aug 2, 2017, at 9:39 AM, Nicole Mardell <Nicole.Mardell@deschutes.org> wrote: Hi Lance, The burden of proof is on the applicant to provide a detailed account of how they will meet the criteria for approval. l have attached the approval criterion for marijuana production. You can view the submitted application materials on http://dial.deschutes.onzJ Thank you for your comments t will include them in the record. Best, Nicole <image001.png> Nicole Marded, Assistant Planner Community Development Department PO Box 6005 ) 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 Tel: (541) 317-3157 www.desch utes.oreicd Disclaimer: Please note that theinformation in this email is an informal statement made in accordance with DCC 22.20.005 and shall not be deemed to constitute final County action effecting a change in the status of a person's property or conferring any rights including any reliance rights, on any person. From: bobking714@aol.com [mailto:bobking714@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 10:57 AM To: Nicole Mardell Subject: Re: 247 -17 -000217 -AD Application, Marijuana Production 69188 Goodrich Rd Thanks Nicole. I'll look at it tonight. When you say the burden of proof is on the applicant dies that mean the county just takes the applicants word? Someone told me the code requires a setback of 200 ft from the PL n a 10 ft high fence btw the properties Are those absolute requirements? Does the fence has to be a solid fence? Obviously we r most concerned about this situation. Thanks again Nicole for your help. Have a great day. Bob King Cell: 949 300 0845 Sent from my iPhone On Apr 12, 2017, at 10:28 AM, Nicole Mardell eNicole.Mardell@deschutes.org> wrote: Hi Bob, A„ Here's a link to the application. The "burden of proof" within the application is the applicant's response to the relevant code sections that apply. https://weblink.deschutes.org/cddinternal/DocView.aspx?id=665500&cr=1 You can access the county code here: https://weblink.deschutes.org/publ ic/Browse.aspx?dbid=db&startid=3998&cr=1 Best, Nicole .image001.png> Disclaimer: Nicole Mardell, Assistant Planner Community Development Department PO Box 60051 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 Tel: (541) 317-3157 www.deschutes.org/cd Please note that the information in this email is an informal statement made in accordance with DCC 2220.005 and shall not be deemed to constitute final County action effecting a change in the status of a person's property or conferring any rights, including any reliance rights, on any person. EXHIBIT 7 Tewalt's August 1, 2017 Email to Staff (App. Complete) Nicole Mardell ;ram: sistershometownrealty@ykwc.net Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2017 10:13 AM To: Nicole Mardell Subject: RE: 17-216-LR/217-AD Response to Incomplete Letter- Tewalt - Goodrich Road Attachments: 07.28.17 Merandy Comments.pdf Hello Nicole, This email is a follow-up to my voice mail this date a.m. My husband and I have talked and we have decided not to respond to Merandy Comments of 7.28.17. Please move forward with our file. If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know. Again, I appreciate every thing you are doing. Norma Tewalt 69188 Goodrich Road Sisters OR 97759 541-419-9629 From: Nicole Mardell [mailto:Nicole. Mardell@deschutes.org] Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 4:28 PM To:'sistershometownrealty@ykwc.net' ;object: RE: 17-216-L.R/217-AD Response to Incomplete Letter- Tewalt - Goodrich Road Yes attached are the comments. Best, Nicole Nicole Mardell, Assistant Planner Community Development Department PO Box 6005 j 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 Tel: (541) 317-3157 www.deschutes.org/cd Disclaimer: Please note that the information in this email is an informal statement made in accordance with DCC 22.20.005 and shall not be deemed to constitute final County action effecting a change in the status of a person's property or conferring any rights, including any reliance rights, on any person. From; sistershometownrealty@ykwc.net(mailto:sistershometownrealty@ykwc.net) Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 4:20 PM To: Nicole Mardell <Nicole.Mardell@deschutes.org> Subject: RE: 17-216-LR/217-AD Response to Incomplete Letter- Tewalt - Goodrich Road `i Nicole, have been on Dial and unable to download the response dated 7/22/17 to my incomplete letter. i EXHIBIT 8 Appellant's Abridged Engineering CV Robert P. (Bob) King 295 N. Rampart Unit D Orange, CA 92868 714 558 1646 TO: Ms. Nicole Mardell, Assistant Planner/Deschutes County Community Development Department From: Robert P. King, Tr. April 25, 2017 Date: April 25, 2017 Re: Deschutes County File No. 247 -17 -217 -AD Tewalt's 69188 Goodrich Rd Sisters, OR BOB KING'S ENGINEERING AND DESIGN QUALIFICATIONS (ABRIDGED) Specifically, and only for reference to some forthcoming comments, please note the following: • This writer of these comments holds a Bachelor of Engineering Physics Degree (BEP) from Auburn University (1961) and has worked as a design engineer at California Institute of Technology/Jet Propulsion Lavatory and high-tech companies. In addition to the numerous physics courses in light and sound (noise), the BEP degree curriculum also required my taking multiple mechanical engineering courses including one graduate -level mechanical engineering course. As the Director of Project Management and Administration for a high tech company, this writer is knowable of the canons of Professional Engineers. INTRODUCTION We are the owners of record of the the twenty -acre property identified as tax lot 1200, 69220 Goodrich Road; Sisters, OR 97757. We share the entire northern property line to the Applicant's 9.39 acres parcel ("subject parcel"), hence, we are the most impacted neighbor ("MIN") of the Applicant's application, plans, and resulting behavior and the County's decision regarding the subject application. Our concerns are further heightened as this is our future home. EXHIBIT 9 Marijuana Facilities, Codes, Standards and Managing the Hazards (Abridged) MARIJUANA FACILITIES: CODES, STANDARDS, AND MANAGING THE HAZARDS (Abridged). by Bruce Straughan P.E., CEM Mechanical Engineer & Building Systems Expert Robson Forensic 354 North Prince Street Lancaster PA 17603 717.293.9050 Codes and Standards — Managing the Hazards Building permits and inspections by local building officials are required for all legal commercial marijuana operations regardless of whether the facility is a new building project or a remodel to an existing building. As long as marijuana facilities are designed, constructed, and operated according to applicable codes and standards, the risk of harm to people inside the facility and the surrounding areas is greatly mitigated. But the various systems in a facility do warrant consideration of any potential hazards, and proper installation and operating procedures must be carefully followed. An improperly designed, constructed and operated facility can also cause damage to the property or the product. (Our emphasis.) Fire Protection: Grow facilities are classifitee International Building Code (IBC) as an F-1 Occupancy, Factory Industrial '�o.erate Hazard.. a fire sprinkler syst y + the floor area of the facility exceeds 12,000 sq. ft., then Heating, Air Conditioning, and Humidity Control Due to the high heat output of the grow lamps, indoor grow facilities require air conditioning. Marijuana plants grow best at temperatures in the range of 68 to 72 degrees F, and heating equipment is also needed to maintain this optimal temperature range. The optimum humidity range is about 50% to 60% relative humidity. Growing plants transpire a significant amount of water vapor and will cause the air in the room to become very humid if not controlled. During times when the grow lights are on, the dehumidifying effect of the air conditioning unit will typically keep the humidity levels within an acceptable range. When the lights are off, however, a separate dehumidification unit or a reheat coil in the air conditioning system are typically needed. In order to maximize the rate of plant growth, humidity levels must be kept in the optimum range. If the humidity gets excessively high, the grow room becomes a conducive environment for the growth of mold and pathogenic organisms. The walls and ceiling construction of the room should include vapor barriers and corrosion resistant materials. The walls should have sufficient insulation behind the vapor barrier to minimize the chances of moisture in the air condensing and forming water droplets on the wall. Continued.— MARIJUANA FACILITIES: CODES, STANDARDS, AND MANAGING THE HAZARDS (Abridged) Fumigation Fumigation is regulated by fire codes and typically requires an operational permit. Common methods of fumigation include CO2 to control pests and sulfur burners used to control mildew. CO2 can be used for fumigation at levels above OSHA's immediately dangerous to life or health level (IDLH) of 40,000 ppm. Sulfur burners create sulfur dioxide, which can burn the respiratory tract if inhaled. Any type of fumigation is a concern to anyone entering the space, such as employees or first responders entering in the event of a fire. Adjacent tenants or bystanders could also be at risk if the chemicals were to leak from the space. Ventilation Ventilation systems are important for removing contaminants from the space and also help with keeping the space cool. Marijuana plants emit a very strong "skunk like" odor, and local authorities typically require ventilation systems to be installed such that any odors are prevented from leaving the premises. This is usually accomplished by installing a charcoal filter on the discharge of the exhaust duct. Other methods to reduce odors include ozone generators and ionizers. EXHIBIT 10 Applicant's Plot Plan (:0 WV pcopoSeD SosN 1671 �-- �------ 3301 a00C 14 v,Mfj Ail k .►Nd.6`tiQ/J r .A a/ /frIc.4p 107t 3- 54191-41h, 1 _+ tt4 -t . &/1 J g4/Iv. e,43-42. 9 6 S ah.° I 10 60 i'' ?l1eti C 0Spft; 4 -No 5c (Q. 4 v .i P10e Plum ep A/® Ve•-e: R b1 c.,. S 1 e ,fes P 1e Pli '' -° R e..(---- - c -e- No 6' v -'9•11V 6442 0,7 44erfilia s gs 1. h"K 11 Re Noz4 v')S 64, bi21CI T otic T rn ./W 1 11 1 u 1 11 CDDR COVER SHEET FOR JKH 04/17/2003 12:04:17 11 1 u 11 OT 1 PAGES 11111111 1 I III11111 1 FILE ID 15110500003030T20030417120417 TAXMAP 1511050000303 SERIAL 133983 DIVISION OT SITUS 69188 GOODRICH RD HOUSE# 69188 STREET GOODRICH CONTENT PLOT PLAN RECORD ID B51750 11111 A 11 3'Jnu01d32! JON 00 NY"1 J.O1d w9 -hi WIMP •, 1191,3: vtxON air..x d d 8 "305 9.44 AC. )Iles' ROAD "303 9.39 AC. i 0 .ww VJ 1— EXHIBIT 11 CEC's "Will Serve Letter" CENTRAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. June 1, 2017 Norma Tewalt 69188 Goodrich Rd Sisters, OR 97759 RE: Will Serve Letter for69188 Goodrich Rd. In response to your inquiry, please be advised that the property located in T.ISS., R.11 E., W.M., Section 05, Tax Lot 303 in Deschutes County, Oregon, is located within the service area of Central Electric Cooperative, Inc. Central Electric Cooperative has reviewed the provided load information (800 amp Three phase service) associated with the submitted Cannabis Grow Operation and has determined that this service will require system upgrades to our facilities in the arca. Central Electric Cooperative is willing and able to serve this location in accordance with the rates and policies ortlle Central Electric Cooperative. Sincerely, kTZ at• Robot E Fowler Customer Service Representative PO Box 846.2098 N. Hwy 97 - Redmond. Oregon 97758.0187 Tel: 541.548.2144 • rex: 541.548,0355 WWW.CBC.COap Robert P. (Bob) King 295 N. Rampart Unit D ^' ^' Orange, CA 92868 P-949 300 0845 "' ^' Bobking714@aol.com October 10, 2017 VIA FAX; A TOTAL OF ONE PAGE INCLUDING THIS PAGE. NOTE: TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE; PLEASE DELIVER IMMEDIATELY. THANKS! TO: SUPERVISOR OF MR. ROBERT E. FOWLER VIA Mr. Robert E. Fowler, Customer Service Representative Central Electric Cooperative, Inc. PO Box 846 Redmond, Oregon 977756-0187 Re: Mr. Fowler's June 1, 2017 "Will Serve" Letter to Norma Tewalt Dear Sir or Madam: Robert and I spoke Monday. In response to my questions, Robert replied, "Yes, to keep our rates low for all our members, the cost of the required upgrades would be the responsibility of the user." Me, "The Tewalts." Robert, "In this case yes. Me, "Would you please email me a letter stating that." Robert, "I don't have a letter like that. I will need to ask my boss." Me, "If I understand correctly, that is CEC's policy, right?" Robert, "Yes." Me, "Time is critical, would you please ask your boss asap?' Robert, "I'll do it now." Mr./Ms. Supervisor, we still have not received that letter. We have a legal requirement to submit it tomorrow to the BOCC. Would you please email a letter stating that the current policy of CEC Is that, in this case, the Tewalts would be responsible for the cost of the upgrades referenced in CEC's June 1, 2017 letter? Your prompt cooperation will be appreciated. Please call me, if there are any issues. Very truly yours, Robert P. King Bobking714@afxl.com HP Officejet Pro 6830 e -All -in -Ona Series Fax Log for Oct 10 2017 2:44PM Last Transaction Date Time Type Station ID Duration Pages Result Digital Fax Oct 10 2:43PM Fax Sent 15415480366 0:40 1 OK N/A EXHIBIT 12 Decision of the BOCC for the Rubio Appeal (Selected Segments) EXHIBIT B For Recording Stamp Only Mailing Date: Thursday, May 18, 2017 1 DECISION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR DESCHUTES COUNTY FILE NUMBERS; OWNER/APPLICANT: APPUCANT'S AGENT: APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY: APPELLANT: APPELLANT'S ATTORNEY: PROPOSAL: STAFF REVIEWER: 247 -16 -000600 -AD, 247-17.000036-A Rubio Real Estate Investments, LLC 2979 NW 17e' St. Redmond, OR 97756 Douglas R. White Oregon Planning Solutions 60762 River Bend Dr. Bend, OR 97702 Lisa Klemp Bryant Emerson, LLP PO Box 457 Redmond, OR 97758 Monika & Lance Platt 23095 Alfalfa Market Rd, Bend, OR 97701 Elizabeth Dickson Dickson Hatfield LLC 400 SW Bluff Drive, Suite 240 Send, OR 97702 An appeal of an approved Administrative Determination to establish a marijuana production facility In the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) Zone. Jacob Ripper, Associate Planner ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION ISSUED: January 11, 2017 APPEAL FILED: January 17, 2017 HEARING DATE: March 8, 2017 RECORD CLOSED: April 3, 2017 247.16.000600 -AD, 247»17-000036-A Document No. 2017-294 Exhibit B Pagel of 7 EXHIBIT B I. SUMMARY OF DECISION In this decision, the Board of County Commissioners (`Board') considers the appellant's appeal of the January 11, 2017 administrative Findings & Decision (file no. 247 -16 -000600 -AD; "Administrative Decision'). The Board exercised ifs discretion to hear the appeal de novo. The Board received two Memoranda an the appeal from Associate Planner Jacob Ripper. The first was dated February 27, 2017 ("Pre -Hearer Memo") that identified and summarized the key issues in the Notice of Appeal, the findings made by the staff on those issues In the Administrative Decision or subsequent to it In preparation for Board deliberation, the appiicable evi lenc b e in the record, and the arguments of the applicant and the appellants. The second staff memo was dated April 10, 2017 (the `Post -Hearing Mem') that ldentifred and summarized the key issues to be decided by the Board in addition to both the applicant and appellant's arguments. The Board's Decision in this appeal will refer to and incorporate the Administrative Decision and summary of issues In both Staff Memoranda. On April 28. 2017, before deliberating on specific issues, the Board noted that this Is a case of first impression since it is the first Board decision based on new code provisions adopted in June of 2018 mowing recreational marijuana grow operations. After Interpreting code provisions relevant to the pending issues, the Board found that the applicant felled to meet its burden to prove that the proposal satisfied all applicable criteria. The Board interpreted applicable code unsatisfied as follows: • The utility verification requirement of Deschutes County Code (DCC) 18.116.330(8)(15) was not met because the applicant failed to provide a statement from the Central Electric Cooperative ('CEC') verifying that CEC was willing and able to provide electrical service for the operation proposed by the applicant The Board was split on the sufficiency of the utility verification evidence that was provided, a March 15, 2017 letter from CEC referencing only the property address but not the proposed operation that is the subject of the pending application. Further, the CEC letter did not address such issues as the proposed operation's required electrical load or the timing of that electrical load. The Board interpreted the code to require such operational details to satisfy Deschutes County Code 18.116.330(B)(16). As discussed by the Board during their deliberations. the ambiguity regarding the sufficiency of utility verification was partially caused by the applicant's initial reliance on materials submitted for an unrelated 2015 Conditional Use Permit for a Nonfarm Dwelling on the same property. Although approved, the aforementioned Nonfarm Dwelling has not yet been established. Relative to the subject marijuana production facility, the applicant's initial October 4, 2016 Application and Burden of Proof Statement attempted to rely on evidence submitted In the unrelated 2016 Nonfarm Dwelling application as a means of providing utility verification. Deschutes County staff noted this discrepancy in the Administrative Decision and thereby imposed a condition requiring the applicant to provide 'a statement from the electric utility company proposed to serve the marijuana production operation, stating that the electric utility company is able and willing to serve the operation.' Ultimately, the applicant submitted the aforementioned March 15, 2017 letter from CEC. However, as noted, that March 15th letter only references the property location and Is not specific to the proposed marijuana productlon operation. 247 -16.000600 -AD, 247-17-000036-A Document No. 2017294 Page 2 of Exhibit B Page 1 of 6 EXHIBIT B 1 The Board interpreted applicable code satisfied as follows: • The odor control requirement of DCC 18116.330(B)(10) was met because the applicant provided a letter from an engineer stating the odor control system would meet the requirements of the code. The Board was split on the sufficiency of the engineer's opinion, since it did not provide his qualifications, experience, methodology, or analysis of conclusion. The Board expressed their desire for applicants to include such detail in an engineer's statement offered to satisfy this code provision in subsequent applications. • The water source requirement of DOC 18.118.330(B)(13) was deemed met because the applicant submitted sufficient documentation to satisfy the criterion. The Board was split on the sufficiency of the supplier evidence provided. since neither Avion (potable water supplier) nor Central Oregon irrigation District (irrigation water supplier) addressed the volume or timing of water that would be required by the operation, and further did not state whether they could provide that volume -or timing of supply. -The Board expressed their desire for applicants to include such detail in water source documentation offered to satisfy this code provision in subsequent applications. • The noise requIrernents of DCC 18.118.330(11) were met because the applicant submitted sufficient documentation to satisfy the criterion. The Board was split on the sufficiency of the expert analysis provided, since it did not provide the expert's qualifications, experience, methodology, or analysis of conclusion. The Board expressed their desire for subsequent applications to include such detail in a statement offered to satisfy this code provision. • The prohibition in DCC 18.118.330(20)(a)(1) of a new dwelling in conjunction with a marijuana crap does not prohibit the previously approved non-farm dwelling for this site on or about May 12, 2014 in tale 247 -15 -000103 -CU. • The access requirement in DCC 18,118.330(8)(a) was met because the applicant executed a previously approved property fine adjustment after the staff Decision was made but before the close of the record, to provide the subject property frontage on and direct access to a county road, as required by the code. 11. APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: The Board adopts and incorporates by reference the description of the applicable standards and criteria set forth in Section 1. of the Findings & Decision. BASIC FINDINGS: r. The Board adopts and Incorporates by reference the code interpretations, findings of fact, and conclusions of law set forth in the ,laniary 11, 2017 administrative Findings & Decision (file 241 -18 -000600 -AD) in Section 11. Basic Findings, subsections A (Location), t3 (Lot of Record). C (Zoning), D (Proposal). E (Site Description), F (Surrounding Land Uses). G (Land Use History), 11(Public Agency Comments), 1 (Public Comments), and J (Review Period), with the following additions. 247 -16.000600 -AD, 247-17-000030A Document No. 2017294 Page 3 of 7 Exhibit 13 Page 2 of 6 EXHIBIT 13 Applicant's Phase I File No. 247 - Community !Development Department Plow** DNIelen Willing Wall Mahn rnvkarnirtal Sas Olvlske Alice.'cei1 mittz.:-`:d x` P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue 8end, Oregon 97708.6005 Phone: (541) 388-6575 Fax (541) 385-1764 http;//wrw,deschutes,arg/cd LAND USE APPUCATION INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED 1. Complete the application form and provide appropriate original signatures. To ensure timely processing of your application, all materials must be submitted on single -sided, 8.5' x 11" paper. Do not use binders, tabs/dividers, staples or tape. 2. This application shall ,ncluae one full-sized plan set (to scale) and one plan set reduced to no larger than 11' x 17". Include a plot plan that shows all property lines and existing and proposed structures, parking, landscaping, lighting, etc. 3. Include a copy of the current deed showing the property owners. 4. Attach correct fee. 5. All applicable standards and criteria must be addressed in writing prior to acceptance of the application. Detailed descriptions, maps and other relevant informal on must be attached to the application. TYPE OF APPLICATION (check one): FEE: Administrative Determination (AD) Conditional Use (CU) Declaratory Ruling (DR) Partition (MP) Subdivision (TP) Temporary Use (TU) Site Plan (SP) _ Variance (v) Setback Exception (SE) Other = s elf. � r ! E ;. :(54I) 4 Iq 'ltaeaci Applicant's Name (print): � � t;:.t-! �-t �,': .� � , .. �,- �t:.. 4-.s:, fd t-:;._ r: _.�t Phone- Mailing Address: i / ' ; . ..r �r �.� ' c; �, , ,� . ,. City/State/Zi• _. " ! Applicant's Email Address: "-r;- sr:.- ; ;..r x tom; /._; ; ...� ,% (4):'! G, r•`.:.. Property Ownerfs Name (if deferent)*: Phone: j' Mailing Address: . - &..4. ' ,n.d�- ' '- " City/StateJZip: •j j i. t 1. rrequest: !, . � .t..=' s ' k R r,'.:. 1 i v i t /: # :i .. .Z... y'v., y • -•t 4_,•. t [ : P 2. Property Description Township 1 5 Range 1 I Section ©�` Tax Lot 3. Property Zone(s): LA.Property Size (acres or sq. ft-)- .1 ..''i i 4. Lot of Record? (State reason): 5. Property Address: ; i't 9 ' Quality Services Performed with Pride (over) Ns. r: S. Present Use of Property t:..� :< . a ./'}J i. 7. Existing Structures:. !} l , t L.r'. f;',v4 a Es.. r t'� i (?' •, f r,�{ i '. ' („s �.T” 8. Property wilt be served by: Sewer "r Onsite Disposal System if- 9. Domestic Water Source: f.� 1 s To the best of my knowledge, the proposal complies with all previous conditions of approval and all other applicable local, state, and federal laws. By signing this application, I acknowledge that Deschutes County planning staff may make a site visit(s) to the address(es) listed on this application in order to evacuate the property(les) with the Deschutes County Code criteria applicable to the land use request(s) submitted. Please describe any special circumstances regarding a potential site visit Applicant's Signature: J )0•#;; ,, Property Owner's Signature (it different)*: Ageni's Name (if applicable): Phone: t ) Mailing Address: City/State/Zip: Agent's Email Address: Date: -. 11..x# i Date: If this application is not signed by the property owner, a letter authorizing signature by the applicant must be attached, By signing this application, the applicant understands and agrees that Deschutes County may require a deposit for hearings officers' fees prior to the application being deemed complete. If the application Is heard by a hearings officer, the applicant will be responsible for the actual costs of the hearings officer. 6118 1. Minimum Lot Area a. In the EFU zones, the subject legal lot of record shall have a minimum lot area of five (5) acres. RESPONSE: I am in the EFU zone. My property is 9.39 acres, in accordance with the definition of "lot area". 2. Indoor Production and Processing. a. In the MUA-10 zones, marijuana production and processing shall be located entirely within one or more fully enclosed buildings with conventional or post framed opaque, rigid walls and roof covering. Use of greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar non -rigid structures is prohibited. b. In the EFU zone, marijuana production and processing shall only be located in buildings, including greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar structures. c. In all zones, marijuana production and processing are prohibited in any outdoor area. RESPONSE: I am in the EFU zone. No outdoor production is proposed or allowed. I plan to conduct my production in a structure that meets the requirements. Phase 1- Marijuana Production will be in a 36 x 36 existing agriculture building. Permit it 247-AG9858. Phase II— Marijuana Production will be in. a 60 x 60 newly constructed building. 3. Maximum Mature Plant Canopy Size. In the EFU zone, the maximum canopy area for mature marijuana plants shalt apply as follows: a. Parcels from 5 acres to less than 10 acres in lot area: 2500 square feet. b. Parcels equal to or greater than 10 acres to less than 20 acres in lot area: 5,000 square feet. The maximum canopy area for mature marijuana plants may be increased 10,000 square feet upon demonstration by the applicant to the County that: i. The marijuana production operation was lawfully established prior to January 1, 2015; and ii. The increased mature marijuana plant canopy area will not generate adverse impact of visual, odor, noise, lighting, privacy or access greater than the impacts associated with a 5,000 square foot canopy area operation. c. Parcels equal to or greater than 20 acres to less than 40 acres in lot area: 10,000 square feet. d. Parcels equal to or greater than 40 acres to less than 60 acres in lot area: 20,000 square feet. e. Parcels equal to or greater than 60 acres in lot area: 40,000 square feet. RESPONSE: My property is 9.39 acres, in accordance with the definition of "lot area". Phase I -- Applicant is proposing 1013 sgnare feet of mature canopy area in existing 36 x 36 permitted agriculture building. Phase II — Applicant is proposing 2500 square feet of mature canopy area in 60 x 60 new construction building. 4. Maximum Building Floor Area. In the MUA-10 zone, the maximum building floor area used for all activities associated with marijuana production and processing on the subject property shall be: a. Parcels from 5 acres to less than 10 acres in lot area: 2,500 square feet. b. Parcels equal to or greater than 10 acres: 5,000 square feet. RESPONSE: MUA-10 only. My property is 9.39 acres EFU, in accordance with the definition of "lot area". I am proposing I413square feet mature canopy for Phase I existing building and 2,500 square feet of mature canopy for Phase II new constructed building. 5. Limitation on License/Grow Site per Parcel. No more than. one (1) Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) licensed marijuana production or Oregon Health Authority (OHA) registered medical marijuana grow site shall be allowed per legal parcel or lot. RESPONSE: My proposed use includes one (1) Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) licensed marijuana production. S. Setbacks. The following setbacks shall apply to all marijuana production and processing areas and buildings: a. Minimum Yard Setbacks/Distance from Lot Lines: 100 feet. RESPONSE; Phase: I The applicant propose to use an existing building for marijuana production. This building does not meet the 100 -foot setback requirement. The back of this building is situated 50 feet from the northeast corner and 30 feet from the northwest corner from the property line of TM 14 11 32000 TL 1200. Subject building is 570 feet from all structures located on TL 1200. Subsection "c" below allows the County to grant an exception to the setback requirements "...provided the applicant demonstrates the reduced setbacks afford equal or greater mitigation of visual, odor, noise, lighting, privacy, and access impacts." As detailed in subsection "c" below, given the design of the structure, the topography, and the fact that noise and odor control systems are planned in the building, the setbacks afford equal or greater mitigation to visual, odor, noise, lighting, privacy and access impacts, therefore an exception is warranted, and all setback requirements are met. Exhibit 6 Phase II: New construction of 60 x 60 building is within the 100 -foot setback; therefore proposed Phase 1I meets this requirement b. Setbacks from 300 feet. For the purposes of the criterion, an off-site dwelling includes those proposed off-site dwellings with a building permit application submitted to Deschutes County prior to submission of the marijuana production or processing application to Deschutes County. RESPONSE: All marijuana production areas and buildings will be located at least 300 feet from any off-site dwelling. c. Exception: Any reduction to these setback requirements may be granted by the Planning Director or Hearings Body provided the applicant demonstrates the reduced setbacks afford equal or greater mitigation of visual, odor, noise, and lighting, privacy, and access impacts. RESPONSE: The applicant proposes to use an existing building for marijuana production. This building does not meet the 100 -foot setback requirement. The back of this building is situated 50 feet from the northeast corner and 30 feet from the northwest corner from the property line of TM 1411 32000 TL 1200. Subject building is 570 feet from all structures located on TL 1200. Subsection "c" below allows the County to grant an exception to the setback requirements "...provided the applicant demonstrates the reduced setbacks afford equal or greater mitigation of visual, odor, noise, lighting, privacy, and access impacts." As detailed in subsection "c' below, given the design of the structure, the topography, and the fact that noise and odor control systems are planned in the building, the setbacks afford equal or greater mitigation to visual, odor, noise, lighting, privacy and access impacts, therefore an exception is warranted, and all setback requirements are met. Exhibit 6 The topography of the site is heavily treed. Existing structures on TM 1411 32000 TL 1200 are 570 feet from subject property, so it does not create any visual impacts. Regarding odor and noise, the submittal includes a letter from a licensed engineer that provides technical details of the odor control and noise mitigating systems, documenting that odor and noise impacts will be mitigated so that they conform to the provision of DCC Chapter 18.116 Section 10. These mitigating measures ensure odor and noise levels are no greater then they would required being if the structure were situation 100 feet from the property line. Regarding lighting, privacy and access, all of these elements of the building are located on the front of the existing building facing away from TM 1411 32000 TL 1200, thus sufficiently mitigated. The attached Exhibits of the existing building (documenting the design, lighting locations and access), the Site Plan and technical documents specifying noise and odor control systems. The submittal materials documents that given the existing building location , design and site topography , the setback affords adequate mitigating measures to justify an exception. 7. Separation Distances. Minimum separation distances shall apply as follows: a. The use shall be located a minimum of 1000 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; u. 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; 9 NS' r•-- Sti Bicn - c-1 1.1 .•• 0 fe\ a v.. ci) L 5 0 54; A, IS' t tve t-Vik 15‘. - L . -Ed 41- fif gtoig:\15 EXHIBIT 14 Applicant's Pole Barn Application i 1 11 1 i p CDDR COVER SHEET FOR LJP 02/13/2001 10:56:52 1 11 i 11 0 0 i FILE ID 1511050000303BU20010213105652 TAXMAP 1511050000303 SERIAL 133983 DIVISION BU SITUS 69188 GOODRICH RD HOUSE# 69188 STREET GOODRICH CONTENT AG A P P RECORD ID AG98 - 58 1 11 1 1 11 b 1 AG*AG*AG*AG*AG*AG*AG*AG*AG*AG*AG*AG*AG*AG*AG*AG*AG*AG*AG*AG*AG*AG*AG*AG*AG*AG* DESCHUTES COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGRICULTURE BUILDING PERMIT EXEMPTION APPLICATION 12:23:08 16 JUL 1998 CD.AG : AG9858 1:SERIAL 133983 2:PROP.ID 1511050000303 3:DATE.APP 07/16/98 4:0.NAME TEWALT,RICHARD D 5:MAIL.ADDR 69188 GOODRICH LOOP 6:MAIL.CITY SISTERS 7:MAIL.ST.ZIP OR97759 8:SITUS . 69188 GOODRICH RD,SISTERS 9:SITUS.ZIP 59 10:COMMENT BARN IS 36 X 36, WILL BE USED FOR EQUIPMENT & HAY STORAGE 11:CONTACT.PHONE : 548-5311 16:RECEIPTS 226731 17:STATUS A APPLICATION FOR AGRICULTURE BUILDING EXEMPTION Certain agriculture buildings are exempt from building permits under Chir 4 of the Uniform Building Codes and Oregon Law (ORS 455.315) 455.315 Agricultural building; application of specialty code; regulation ivy cies. (1) Nothing in this chapter is intended to authorized the application of a state structural specialty code to any agricultural building. (2) As used in this chapter "agricultural building" means a structure ler tet +n a farm and used in the operation of such farm for the storage, maintenance or repair of farm machinery and equipment or f:r the raising, harvesting and selling of crops or in the feeding, breeding, management and sale of, or the produce of. Livesuck, poultry, fur -bearing animals or honeybees or for dairying and the sale of dairy products or any other agricultural car ho-icultural use or animal husbandry, or any combination thereof, including the preparation and storage of the produce raised on s.ich fann for human use and animal use and disposal by marketing or otherwise. "Agricultural building" does not include: (a) A dwellings; (b) A structure that has two or more exists or an open side and is t ted fora purpose other than growing plants in which 10 or more persons are present at any one time; (c) A structure regulated by the State Fire Marshal pursuant to ORS Chapter 476; (d) A structure subject to Sections 4001 to 4126 Title 42, Unius Sates Code (the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968) as amended, and regulations promulgated thereunder; (3) Notwithstanding the provisions of Subsection (1) of this section.:mcor,_orated cities may regulate agricultural buildings within their boundaries pursuant to this chapter. To be exempt, an agriculture building must be located on property whic3i is c rrently employed in any of the uses described above for the primary purpose of obtaining a profit in money. Land proposed to be used as a farm in the future is not "currently employed n farm use". If you believe the structure you are proposing to construct or alter may qualify for an exemption from a building permit as agriculture building, please answer the following questions: 1. Is the proposed structure to be located on property currently emplo d in farm use? Yes:be, No 2. What is the nature of the current farm use of the property? j' a ; c ; 0.1 . i J e s'T a c tC 3. How long has the property been in farm use? cJ 5 ye pr/L.$ 4. Is the property zoned for farm use (EFU)7 Yes No ____ 5. Is the property specially assessed for farm use bathe County Assessor? Yes No 6. For what purpose will the structure be used? j -A run ePF�v ; p ret prlT ST—Zi 1,7 Ia1 r 7. Will the public have access to any portion of structure? Yes No k' 8. Will any person live or sleep in the structure? Yes^_ Nom NOTE: Before a determination is made on your application for an agriculture building exemption: 1. a completed application and application fee must be submitted; 2. a completed plot plan and plot plan review fee must be submitted; 3. an elevation of the building must be submitted. NOTE: Although the proposed structure may quality for an exemption from a building permit, other requirements may apply. For example, if it is to include electrical, mechanical and plumbing installations permits for and inspections of such installations will be required. In addition, a septic site evaluation and/or septic permit may be required Planning approval for the purposed use may also be required. Tax account #: Township 5 Ran: • l t Section 5 Tax Lot # �n3 Situs addres ° 1.L` Owner: ((? L1,4A141 a• Mailing address: SRrn are,es Oz. 9 7 ?SI ORM A 174e..AA Phone #: S?// $'�/� . S? I I Size of proposed structure: 3 to ' x 3 C. ' t'/ ' Est. S Size of parcel: q Number of Stories: (Acreage) 1 certify that I have read all of the above requirements for an agriculture building exemption, that the structure I am proposing to build or alter complied with all requirements for an exemption, and that I have truthfully answered all of the questions above. I agree that the setbacks which have been verified will be maintained. I further certify that I understand that any alternate use of the proposed structure may disqualify the structure as an exempt agriculture building and may result in a citation being issued and other legal measures being taken by the county. I further certify that 1 understand that I may be required to meet Planning and/or Environmental health requirements and that any electrical, plumbing or mechanical installations will require permits and inspections. Signed: (Owner) Date: 7—/1 %"' To be completed by CDD staff: Min. Setbacks: F LS RS R Actual Setbacks: F RS LS Zone: Height of building at highest point: ft. Solar approved: Septic on Property? Septic Permit # Verified by: E.Planning.New George.George.Fonns.Ag Bldg Exempt(mjz 1/28/97) EXHIBIT 15 Photos of Joint Properties t 1 7 EXHIBIT 16 Applicant's Phase I Comments c. Exception: Any reduction to these setback requirements may be granted by the Planning Director or Hearings Body provided the applicant demonstrates the reduced setbacks afford equal or greater mitigation of visual, odor, noise, and lighting, privacy, and access impacts. RESPONSE: The applicant proposes to use an existing building for marijuana production. This building does not meet the 100 -foot setback requirement. The back of this building is situated 50 feet from the northeast comer and 30 feet from the northwest corner from the property line of TM 14 11 32000 TL 1200. Subject building is 570 feet from all structures located on TL 1200. Subsection "c?' below allows the County to grant an exception to the setback requirements "...provided the applicant demonstrates the reduced setbacks afford equal or greater mitigation of visual, odor, noise, lighting, privacy, and access impacts." As detailed in. subsection "o" below, given the design of the structure, the topography, and the fact that noise and odor control systems are planned in the building, the setbacks afford equal or ,greater mitigation to visual, odor, noise, lighting, privacy and access impacts, therefore an exception is warranted, and all setback requirements are met. Exhibit 6 The topography of the site is heavily treed. Existing structures on TM 1411 32000 TL 1200 are 570 feet from subject property, so it does not create any visual impacts. Regarding odor and noise, the submittal includes a letter from a licensed engineer that provides technical details of the odor control and noise mitigating systems, documenting that odor and noise impacts will be mitigated so that they conform to the provision of DCC Chapter 18.116 Section 10. These mitigating measures ensure odor and noise levels are no greater then they would required being if the structure were situation 100 feet from the property line. Regarding lighting, privacy and access, all of these elements of the building are located on the front of the existing building facing away from TM 14 1132000 TL 1200, thus sufficiently mitigated_ The attached Exhibits of the existing building (documenting the design, lighting locations and access), the Site Plan and technical documents specifying noise and odor control systems. The submittal materials documents that given the existing building location , design and site topography, the setback affords adequate mitigating measures to justify an exception. 7. Separation Distances. Minimum separation distances shall apply as follows: a. The use shall be located a minimum of 1000 feet from: 1. A public elementary or secondary school for which attendance is compulsory under Oregon Revised Statutes 339.010, et seq., including any parking lot appurtenant thereto and any property used by the school; ii. A private or parochial elementary or secondary school, teaching children as described in ORS 339.030(1)(a), including any parking lot appurtenant thereto and any property used by the school; EXHIBIT 17 Code Violation on Applicant • • Deschutes County.Community Development Department Administration Building 1130 N.W. Harriman Bend, Oregon 97701 NOTICE OF VIOLATION Name TEWALT,RICHARD D ETUX Address 69188 GOODRICH LOOP SISTERS, OR97759 Date JANUARY 5, 1994 Case# C93281 Assessor's Serial# 133983 A COMPLAINT HAS BEEN FILED AGAINST YOUR PROPERTY Location of property T-15 R-11 S-0500 TL -00303 aka: 69188 GOODRICH RD, SISTERS YOU ARE ALLEGED TO BE IN VIOLATION OF THE FOLLOWING: Broken clean-out valves, raw sewage on ground. YOU ARE HEREBY DIRECTED TO COMPLY BY TAKING THE FOLLOWING ACTION: By cleaning up all raw sewage on the ground, and by repairing clean-out valves, and providing future protection and problems on the clean -put valves. COMPLIANCE MUST BE WITHIN 15 DAYS OF THIS ORDER. FAILURE TO COMPLY WILL RESULT IN LEGAL ACTION AND MAY CAUSE PERMIT FEES TO BE DOUBLED. If you have any questions, contact Deschutes County Development Department and ask for Frank Mancino, Cade Enforcement Officer, at 388-6575. EXHIBIT 18 Another Code Violation on Applicant's Property 400 SW Bluff Drive, Suite 240 Bend, OR 97702 (0) 541-585-2224 (D) 541-585-2229 October 13, 2017 Nicole Mardell Deschutes County Community Development 114 NW Lafayette Ave. Bend, OR 97703 RE: Amended Exhibit 18 — Appellant's Submittal for Public Hearing Continued to 10/16/2017 247-17-000723-A (Appeal of Richard & Norma Tewalt Application 247 -17 -000217 -AD) Dear Nicole, Please amend Exhibit No. 18 in our submittal filed on October 11, 2017 with the enclosed documents, and include them in the packet to be provided to the Board of County Commissioners on Monday, October 16, 2017. We will include the amended version in the Board binders as well. Sincerely, Elizabeth A. Dickson EAD/m Is Cc: Client 1 11 1 11 CDD ARCHIVE COVER SHEET FOR MAS 02/08/2001 17:29:33 1 of 1 11 1 1 11 u BU 001 ARCHIVE Ind 1111 111 11111 111 1I1l1llhlIllIlI FILE ID 1511050000303BU20010208999001 TAXMAP 1511050000303 SERIAL 133983 DIVISION BU SITUS 69188 GOODRICH RD HOUSE# 69188 STREET GOODRICH CONTENT ARCHIVE 11 1 1 11 STATEMENT' OF COMPLIANCE 1, /\ y G J Il e ) t i /sc-<- yt_1_c 4fs_ owner of the property described as ‘ 9 %8 9 l oo•p i2 ; L 14 2Ae Sis'Tz12 9 77s'q and further described as T IS R-11 S -os jz o - 1603 a do hereby certify that the proposed building is for personal use. only. I will use it for C A 2 E j 5Yo 2 Q;E It will not be used for any residential purpose or for any commercial purpose. 1 UNDERSTAND THAT ANY ALTERNATE USE MAY RESULT IN A CITATION BEING ISSUED. ELECTRICAL OR PLUMBING INSTALLED WILL REQUIRE PERMITS. DATED this /3 day of 1.4f ti alvtt9 A,/ , 1991. STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE -- 1 Revised 11/91 11 1 1 i CDD COVER SHEET FOR LRL 10/13/2003 11:36:22 11 1 11 11 CE 9 PAGES 11 11 11 11 11 11 1 i 11 11 11 11 11 11111 i 11 111 FILE ID 1511050000303CE20031013113622 TAXMAP 1511050000303 SERIAL 133983 DIVISION CE SITUS 69.188 GOODRICH RD HOUSE# 69188 STREET GOODRICH CONTENT RECORD ID C93281 11 1 1 1 u • 1 Deschutes County Community Development Department Administration Building 1130 N.W. Harriman Bend, Oregon 97701 NOTICE OF VIOLATION Name TEWALT,RICHARD D ETUX Address 69188 GOODRICH LOOP SISTERS, OR979 Date JANUARY 18, 1994 Case# C93281 Assessor's Serial# 133 A COMPLAINT HAS BEEN FILED AGAINST YOUR PROPERTY Location of property T-15 R-11 S-0500 TL -00303 aka: 69188 GOODRICH RD,SISTERS YOU ARE ALLEGED TO BE IN VIOLATION OF THE FOU -OWING: Built garage and living quarters above garage without necessary permits and inspections. YOU ARE HEREBY DIRECTED TO COMPLY BY TAKING THE FOLLOWING ACTION; By obtaining all necessary permits and inspections. COMPLIANCE MUST BE WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THIS ORDER. FAILURE TO COMPLY WILL RESULT IN LEGAL ACTION AND MAY CAUSE PERMIT FEES TO BE DOUBLED. If you have any questions, contact Deschutes County Development Department and ask for Frank Mamcino, Code Enforcement Officer at 388-6575. EOMPLA I NT INTAKE FILE I/ C 3 ---;Q81— DATE "rx&LDATE a-- /5793 SUSPECT NAME �t4.411• ADDRESS (q y'72; CITY STAFF MEMBER' AREA CROSS STREET STATE (PHONE V 9- 1 1172 - ( � ZIP 2 7 759 SUBDIVISION OWNER OR TENANT ADDRESS CITY STATE TYPE OF VIOLATION: ZONE LOT BLOCK PHONE ZIP ENV/HEALTH BLDNG • MAP HUMBER T / R %r/ S d 5 TL# .003 • 4e/339'13. ANY PERMITS? Y/N # COMPLAINT: ZONING •��. e_ 6,01. a INITIAL INVESTIGATION SUMMARY: DATE TIME: Revised 12/90 b33 COMPLAINANT PHONE /4 7 (Minimum � qui) • • DESCHUTES COUNTY BUILDING SAFETY DIVISION ****CODE ENFORCEMENT COMPLAINT**** C93281 Taxmap 15-11-0500 303 SERIAL 133983 14:16:46 10 MAR 1994 Staffer BJJ Date submitted 11/15/93 Complaint BUILT GARAGE & LIVING IN LWARTERS ABOVE GARAGE W/0 PERMITS Area SISTERS Type of violation B Permits on property 7 LLAUS on property 0 Defendant TEWALTvRICHARD,D ETUX Phone 5491472 DOB 01/18/94 Location 69188 GOODRICH RD,SlSTERS Zip 97759 Zone EFUGC Subdivision Lot Block Owner lEWALTvRlCHAHD D ETUX Address 69188 GOODRICH LOOP City SISTERS State/zip UR97769 DOB Complaintant Confidential Phone Status C Tentative court date Arraignment date Tickle date 02/17/94 NOV date 01/18/94 NOV COMMENTS: YOU ARE ALLEGED TO BE IN VIOLATION OF THE FOLLOWING: Built garage and living quarters above garage without necessary permits and inspections. /OU ARE HEREBY DIRECTED TO COMPLY BY TAKING THE FOLLOWING A[JIUN: By obtaining all necessary permits and inspections. COMPLIANCE MUST BE WITHIN 30 DAYS OF,THIS ORDER. FAILURE TO COMPLY WILL RESULT IN LEGAL ALJIUN AND MAY CAUSE PERMIT FEES [O 8E DOUBLED. If you have any questions, contact Deschutes County Development Department and ask for Frank Mancino, Code Enforcement Officer at 388-6575. COMMENTS: Initials FNM Date 03/08/94 PERMITS ISSUED/CASE CLOSED PER PNM BJJ 03/02/94 SEPTIC PERMIT APPLIED FOR BJJ 01/21/94 DEF CALLED TO ADVISE THAT SHE'LL BE IN TODAY TO GET INFO UN PERMITS, ETC. BJJ 01/18/94 CORRECTED NOV SENT TO DEF ON THIS DAlE/PHUTUS ADDED TO FILE BJJ 01/695/94 NOV MAILED THIS DATE 8JJ 12/20/93 TYPING NOV FNM 12/1b/93 FIELD INSPECTION -PHOTOS TAKEW/DHAFl NOV NO OTHER COMPLAINTS NO LAND USE ACTIONS UN THIS PROPERTY ****************************PERMITS ON THIS PHUPEHlY***************************+ *PERMIT ID DATE STATUS 3 35036 02/18/94 P Comments: � 00a/18/940a/18/94 STS- TWOSTORY GARAGE BUIL' APPROX 1991. USED BY DAUGHlEH AS SE[�/N] RES'--%EwCE. PER PLANNER—MUST REMOVE RITCWN (RANGE AND SINK) AS SECOND DWELLING CANNOT BE ALLOWED ON THIS PARCEL. � � • CODE ENFORCEMENT COMPLAINF# C93281 (contiuned) 14:16:46 10 MAR 1994 PAGE 2 02/18/94 STS ORIGINAL HOUSE HAS 3 BEDROOMS. THE STORAGE BUILDING HAS UNF LIVING SPACE USED AS A BEDROOM AND ONE BATHROOM 02/18/94 STS OBTAINING PERMITS IN RESPONSE TO CODE COMPLAIN 02/18/94 STS OWNER MENTIONED THERE HAVE SEEN SOME PROBLEM WITH WATER SURFACING IN DHAINFIELD AREA/PLEASE CHECK ON FIELD VISIT FOR FAILURE 02/24/94 JWM NEW DRAINFIELD INSTALLED AND APPROVED. NO APPR[/VEL FOR SECOND RESIDENCE ON LOT. *PERMIT ID DATE STATUS 8 8826 12/29/80 E NO COMMENTS *PERMIT ID DATE STATUS S 2886 09/11/81 F NO COMMENTS *PERMIT ID DATE STATUS F 33 08/12/76 F NO COMMENTS *PERMIT ID • 4741 omments: 05/18/89 HFS 05/19/89 CFD DATE STATUS 05/18/89 F 06/06/89 CFD 06/13/89 CFD SVC FOR PUMP N.A. 1) DRIVE BY GROUND ROD-- 2) USE APPROVED 3) STRAP & SUPPORT FLEX-- 4) INSTALL GROUND IN WIRING SERVICE FINISH DRIVING GROUND ROD OR BURY HOHZLN1ALLY 30"DEEP, GROUND & NEUTRAL mu2T rERmimnrE IN APPROVED COMMON LUG FLEX CANNOT BE BURIED IN GROUND, SOLID #8 NUT ALLOWED IN CONDUIT. CORRECTIONS MADE, SERVICE & PUMP WIRING APPROVED, FlNALED. GROUND CLAM[` -- FLEX --5) FINISH SERVICE OR 8USS, *PERMIT ID DATE STATUS B 34656 02/18/94 D1 Comments; 02/18/94 STS lWU -STORY GARAGE/STORAGE BUILT IN 1991 WITHOUT PERMITS/OBTAINING PERMITS IN RESPONSE TO CODE COMPLAINT 02/18/94 GTS OARAGE/SUNHUUM DOWNSTAIRS/ ST8RAUE/BA7H UPSTAlRS, OK TO APPLY PER PLANNER/OWNER MUST REMOVE EVIDENCE OF KITCHEN (RANGE AND SINK) AS SECOND DWELLING NOT ALLOWED ON THIS PARCEL. AFFADAVll OF COMPLIANCE IN FILE --NO RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL USE ALLOWED 02/18/94 STS 836 X 16.00 + 208 X 11.40 + 572 X 45.00 = 41,487 03/02/94 EJT ON HOLD FOR INFO AS INDICATED AT[ACHED WITH PERMIT APP. TALKED WITH OWNER, WILL BE CALLING BACK SOON TO CONFIRM SIZES. 03/07/94 C£W GC - R-3, 576 SF X 45.00 = 25,/40.00 / M-1, 1,044 SF X 16.00 = 16,704.00 oERMIT ID DAM STATUS 9420 01/01/81 F Comments: 09/30/81 ULD FTG. OK TO POUR • • CODE ENFORCEMENT COMPLAINr# C93281 (contiuned) 14:16:48 10 MAR 1994 PAGE 3 11/18/81 OLD FRAME/ BEDROOM WINDOW NUl IN. NO BATH FAN YEl. PLUMBING OK TO COVER. 11/18/81 OLD INSULATION OK TO COVER 02/10/82 OLD FINAL OK, EXCEPT STAIS NEED HANDRAIL. 02/12/82 OLD HEATING/STOVE SET UP OK 02/12/82 ULD FINAL OK ***********************GENERAL COMMENTS ON THIS PROPERTY*********************** DATE SUBJECT NAME DRAFTER 01/24/94 PERMITS TEWALT,NURMA STS OWNER IN ro SEE ABOUT OBTAINING PERMITS FOR TWO-STORY GARAGE WITH LIVING QUARTERS, DECK, ETC. SEE PHOTOS IN CODE FILE. STRUCTURE BUILT A['PHUX 1991 FUR DAUGHTER'S LODGING. I SPOKE WI[H BRIAN IN PLANNING, WHO SAYS NEITHER A SECOND RESIDENCE NUR A GUEST HOUSE IS ALLOWED IN EFU ZONE, NVR CAN THEY GET A CONDITIONAL USE FOR THIS PURPOSE. FHE ONLY WAY PLANNING CAN ACCEPT THIS STRUC1URE IS IF Il IS GUTTED OUT AND ALL EVIDENCE OF LIVING QUARTERS I6 REMOVED --NOT JUST THE KITCHEN. ADVISED ALL NEW PERMITS—PLANS, PLOT PLANS, SUPPS., Al FULL FEES, PLUS "AN"^ FIELD VISIT FOR CHANGE IN USE. WOULD NEED AFFADAVIT OF COMPLIANCE, AS WELL, AND PLANNER SIGN OFE**** 1-28-94 NO SPt-.CIAL INSPECTION REWIRED PER CEW. OWNER WILL BE GETTING COPIES MADE AND WILL BE BACK 10 APPLY. ****2-8-94****MRS. T£WALT IN ro APPLY FOR PERMITS. HAD TO MO PLOT PLANS. PER PAUL & KEVIN, THE 2ND STORY CAN HAVE A BATH AND "SlURA6E" .,REA. ALSO, IT APPEARS FROM FILE THAT S£PrlC SYSTEM MAY BE FAILING' 11 1 1 1 u CDD COVER SHEET FOR JMM 03/15/2005 09:13:53 1 Y 1 1 11 11 1 1 FILE ID 1511050000303BU20050315091353 TAXMAP 1511050000303 SERIAL 133983 DIVISION BU SITUS 69188 GOODRICH RD HOUSE# 69188 STREET GOODRICH CONTENT EXT L T R RECORD ID B51750 111 1 1 11 11 DESCHUTES COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, 117 NW LAFAYETTE AVE BEND, OREGON 97701 (541) 388-6575 03/08/05 TEWALT,RICHARD D 69188 GOODRICH LOOP SISTERS, OR 97759 Dear Permit Holder: In response to your request, we date for permit number B51750 at extension gives you 180 days project. To prevent this permit to schedule an inspection before are extending the expiration 69188 GOODRICH RD, SI. This to show progress on this from expiring, you will need 09/04/05. Please feel free to contact me if you have any additional questions or concerns. 1 can be reached weekdays from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM (Wednesdays from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM) at (541) 388-6575. Sincerely, Jann Moss Permit Technician JMM:sys DESCHUTES COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, OR 97701 Telephone (541)388-6575, Fax (541)385-1764 Please complete this form if you would like to apply for a one-time 180 -day extension for the permits listed on the attached letter. 3/3 /0 s Name: 'P,i/e h,et'/Ld Pi ;�,,e�.,,(Jc+Address: 6of Fe /j,' Q&i...0 �Gc- R4 012_ '/ 71s- `/ Phone#: 54-11-I 544 -g• -.53t ( Property Address: C,--G,c J Permit #'s: 6,57 '1 50, 4 R7 tf� 1 S ` YV c 5 ? g-6 • In the space below, please list the reason(s) for this extension request (i.e., financial, weather etc.): I eY/tz:e,&0 a4t(J__ gt-ufflek tox..elt ea -e -ix& u)84, ,- , , If you have made progress and you are ready for a progress inspection, please call th inspection request line at (541) 317-3174. d'. Please return this form to: Deschutes County Community Development Department Attn: Jann Moss 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97701-1925 Lt)Aibtk. 6(//1— rx-LO f9& CC 0-e/W 11 1 1 1 11 CDD COVER SHEET FOR DRK 02/09/2006 10:16:07 BU 2 PAGES lIlIlIlIlIlIll nRIMIIIYVIIInIIBIII 1 FILE ID 1511050000303BU20060209101607 TAXMAP 1511050000303 SERIAL 133983 DIVISION BU SITUS 69188 GOODRICH RD HOUSE# 69188 STREET GOODRICH CONTENT EXP L T R RECORD ID B51750 DESCHUTES COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, OR 97701 Telephone (541)388-6575, Fax (541)385-1764 Please complete this form if you would like to apply for a one-time 180 -day extension for the permits listed on the attached letter. ks.___i / 3°/a Name: . , .4 t. �+ #. al -t-- Address: (.671 YY ' f a tea) (D/2_, 9y7$9 Phone #: 5 g _ 5-31 Property Address:f 7F 1/.)6066(14,4L, r Permit #'s: 4.517 5-0 , 77' R 6 , /---)c:),0„./1 In the space below, please list the reason(s) for this extension request (i.e., financial, weather etc.): iltaA_ Ga./kJ/7c- / (4A,b-t (2.,&& 4--c) If you have made progress and you are ready for a progress inspection, please call the inspection request line at (541) 317-3174. Please return this form to: Deschutes County Community Development Department Attn: Donna Kern 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97701-1925 APPROVED mq DESCHUTES COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, 117 NW LAFAYETTE AVE BEND, OREGON 97701 (541) 388-6575 02/02/06 TEWALT,RICHARD D 69188 GOODRICH LOOP SISTERS, OR 97759 Dear Permit Holder: In response to your request, we date for permit number B51750 at extension gives you 180 days project. To prevent this permit to schedule an inspection before are extending the expiration 69188 GOODRICH RD, SI. This to show progress on this from expiring, you will need 08/01/06. Please feel free to contact me if you have any additional questions or concerns. I can be reached weekdays from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM (Wednesdays from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM) at (541) 388-6575. Sincerely, Donna Kern Permit Technician DRK:sys EXHIBIT 19 Appellant's Comments Submitted August 3, 2017 TO: Ms. Nicole Mardell, Assistant Planner/Deschutes County Community Development Department From: Robert P. King, Tr., Owners of tax lot 1200, 69220 Goodrich Road Date: August 3, 2017 (The emphasis was added for Oct. 16, 2017 Hearing.) Re: Deschutes County File No. 247 -17 -217 -AD Tewalt's 69188 Goodrich Rd Sisters, OR and Applicants' July 20, 2017 Response to Staffs April 25, 2017 Incomplete Application Letter *************** In all future correspondence, please use the above mailing address. *************** ALL EMPHASIZED MATERIAL INTENDED FOR OCT. 16, 2017 HEARING We respectfully remind the reviewer, we are the most impacted neighbor ("MIN") of the Applicant's application, plans, and resulting behavior and the County's decision regarding the subject application. Our previously submitted "Response to Tewalt's Application" dated April 25, 2017 is by this reference incorporated herein and made a part of this response. We understand and accept that the Applicants have a lawful right to establish a "Cannabis Grow Operation" on their property— provided they can and will satisfy all current and on-going statutory requirements. We request each reviewer of this application take some quite, reflection time and ask him/herself, "Would I have TRIED to do to my neighbor what these Applicants tried to do to tax lot 1200 in Phase I?" Our reading of the statute reveal the legislative intent was to ensure the maximum safeguards to the affected neighbors. Hence, we respectfully submit to each reviewer of the subject application the critical factor in this application is not that it is "started" per code, but the Applicants' operations once production is started. The application and the Applicants should be considered as one. The most impeachable and, in our opinion, pertinent evidence and/or comment in this process is the Applicants' submitting an application for "Phase 1" and then withdrawing it once Staff put them on notice that a see-through, dilapidated, piecemealed structure only 30 feet from the neighbor's property line was not going to "slip through" the process. The Applicants' publically-exhibited behavior is impeachable evidence of the continuous behavior the neighbors will be subjected to f the Applicants' application is approved without inescapable safeguardsfor the neighbors. Again, for the above reasons, we request each reviewer take some quite, reflection time and ask him/herself, "Would I have TRIED to do to my neighbor what these Applicants tried to do in Phase I?" By reference, we incorporate each condition and safeguard we identified in our April 25, 2017 comments. For the record, we assert the Applicants' July 20, 2017 Response to Staff's April 25, 2017 Incomplete Application Letter, other than omitting their "Phase 1" operations, did not factually, effectively, nor engineering/technical- competently sufficiently addressed a single issue and objection the owners of tax lot 1200 and the most impacted neighbor raised in their April 25, 2017 submission. The alleged "plot plan" included in the Applicants' response is not to scale nor does it establish an objectively verifiable reference point from which relationships can be established and verified nor is it to a true scale, Continued ........... Robert P. King's Comments on : Deschutes County File No. 247 -17 -217 -AD -2- August 3, 2017 hence there is no way to determine the exact location of the proposed 60 X 60 structure and, mostly importantly, its true minimum distance from the property line of tax lot 1200. The driveway is omitted, which, if to scale, would have allowed the establishment of some relationships. The Applicants' need to have an Oregon licensed surveyor starting from a true reference point prepare a true plot plan showing the relationship of all the pertinent structures and operational support facilities, e.g., the septic tank and it !etch field, and, critically, locating with distance and angles the specific coordinates of two corners of the proposed 60 X 60 structure and then establish the distance from the property line. The "plot plan" submitted by the Applicants does now graphically show the addition of new power poles within view of the tax lot 1200 and other neighbors. No other details are provided. Since this is for a strictly commercial operation and this application is excused from Oregon's normal farming operation safeguards and liberties, and adversely affects the neighbors, these power lines should be required to be under ground. If the power lines are allowed above ground, the existing poles, even if they have to be strengthen, should be used to route power to the 60 X 60 structure, for example, from the existing garage or house directly to the new structure. By this reference, we are incorporating and and all other Oregon's and Deschutes County's statues and codes that may apply to the possible adverse effects the proposed above ground electrical service may environmentally or otherwise have on the neighbors and neighborhood. We also deny and dispute CEC's June 1, 2017 letter definitively establishes the Applicant meet the CEC's requirements of "in accordance with the rates and policies of the Central Electric Cooperative." The requirements CEC would place on the Applicants should have specified and the Applicant should have ensured compliance — not a promise, but actual compliance. The application is incomplete and fails to factually establish the codes are met; for specific details, please refer to our April 25, 2017 response, hence, we respectfully request the subject application be denied. If the application is approved, we respectfully request that each and ever conditions and safeguards cited in our April 25, 2017 response be a required condition of approval. We further request the approval, if granted, contain the provision that three coder violations in any twelve-month period or five code violations within any twenty- four -month period will cause the permit to be automatically revoked. I willfully declare under the penalty of perjury the above is true to the best of my knowledge. Respectfully submitted, ing, Tr Mailing address: 295 N. Rampart Unit D Orange, CA 92868 EXHIBIT 20 DEIR for Kern County, CA for Cannabis Land Use Ordinance Project (Selected Segments) Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH# 2017011058 Volume 2 Appendices A through J KERN COUNTY CANNABIS LAND USE ORDINANCE PROJECT Kern County Cannabis Land Use Ordinance Revisions to Title 19 — Kern County Zoning Ordinance — 2017 B, Title 5 — Business Licenses and Regulations, and Title 13 — Parks Recreation Areas and Public Places and Agricultural Preserve Standard Uniform Rules for two (2) options — Option A — Ban all commercial cannabis activity or Option B — Regulate all commercial cannabis activity Kern County Planning and Natural Resources Department 2700 "M" Street, Suite 100 Bakersfield, CA 93301-2370 (661) 862-8600 Technical Assistance by: Kimley-Horn and Associates 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 858-5800 July 2017 KERN COUNTY PLANNING & NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Kem County Marijuana Land Use Ordinance Potentially Significant Potentially Impact Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. For a project located within the adopted Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g. Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? i. Would implementation of the project generate vectors (flies, mosquitoes, rodents, etc.) or have a component that includes agricultural waste? ❑ 0 0 ® ❑ 0 0 ® ❑ ❑ 0 ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 0 0 ® 0 0 0 ® 0 ® 0 ® 0 0 0 January 2017 31 Initial Study/Notice of Preparation KERN COUNTY PLANNING & NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Kem County Marijuana Land Use Ordinance Specifically, would the project exceed the following qualitative threshold: The presence of domestic flies, mosquitoes, cockroaches, rodents, and/or any other vectors associated with the project is significant when the applicable enforcement agency determines that any of the vectors: Occur as immature stages and adults in numbers considerably in excess of those found in the surrounding environment; and ii. Are associated with design, layout, and management of project operations; and iii. Disseminate widely from the property; and iv. Cause detrimental effects on the public health or wellbeing of the majority of the surrounding population. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Discussion: Potentially Significant Potentially Impact Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact ® 0 0 0 ® 0 0 0 ® 0 0 0 (a) -(c) The proposed project would either ban, Alternative 1, or implement, Alternative 2, appropriate zoning regulations to facilitate marijuana -related activities within appropriate Kern County Zoning Ordinance zone classifications. Any future marijuana cultivation and processing, whether at a six -plant scale under Alternative 1 or at a larger commercial operation scale under Alternative 2, would involve chemicals such as, but not limited to, pesticides, herbicides, rodenticides, fertilizers, petroleum products including diesel, propane and butane, heavy metals related to indoor grow lights, and carbon dioxide. For Alternative 1, these chemicals would be obtained for existing gardening supply facilities. For Alternative 2, these chemicals would be delivered to the future commercial marijuana -related facilities. This could create a significant hazard to the public or the environmental through the routine transport, use, or disposal. These chemicals could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials. While the proposed project would clarify a ban, Alternative 1, or future facility locations, Alternative 2, there could still be the potential for a facility to be proposed within 0.25 mile of a school. Distances from schools would vary depending on the facility; however, no facility can be closer than 1,000 feet from a school, daycare or youth center, as requirement of Proposition 64. The toxicity and potential release of these materials would depend on the quantity, the type of storage container, safety protocols used at future commercial marijuana -related facilities, the location and/or proximity to schools and residences, the frequency and duration of spills or storage leaks, and the reactivity of hazardous substances with other materials. The EIR will assess impacts on these January 2017 32 Initial Study/Notice of Preparation KERN COUNTY PLANNING & NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Kern County Marijuana Land Use Ordinance NOISE. Would the project result in: a. Exposure of persons to, or generate, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Exposure of persons to, or generate, excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise Levels? c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e. For a project located within the Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Noise Discussion: Potentially Significant Potentially Impact Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact ® ❑ 0 0 ❑ 0 0 ® ❑ 0 0 El ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ 0 ® ❑ 0 0 (a) -(c) Land uses determined to be "sensitive" to noise as defined by the KCGP include residential areas, schools, convalescent and acute care hospitals, parks and recreational areas, and churches. The proposed project will clarify a ban, Alternative 1, or implement appropriate zone classifications where future commercial marijuana -related facilities are allowable in compliance with development standards or under a conditional use permit, Alternative 2. The KCGP Noise Element sets a 65 -decibel limit on exterior noise levels from stationary sources (i.e., non -transportation sources) at sensitive receptors. The Noise Control Ordinance in the Kern County Code of Ordinances (Section 8.36020 et seq.) prohibits a variety of nuisance noises between the hours of 9 PM and 6 AM on weekdays and 9 PM and 8 AM on weekends. The future marijuana -related facilities would adhere to the provisions of the Kern County Noise Ordinance under both proposed project alternatives. The EIR will assess impacts on these resources at the program level for Alternatives 1 and 2. If applicable for the alternative, the EIR will set forth research criteria and report content to enable project -level evaluation of noise level impacts, groundborne vibration and groundborne noise impacts, and evaluate any increases in ambient noise levels above existing levels associated with future commercial marijuana cultivation, processing/packaging, and distribution facilities. This will be evaluated further in the EIR. January 2017 41 Initial Study/Notice of Preparation KERN COUNTY PLANNING & NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Kem County Marijuana Land Use Ordinance TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to, level of service (LOS) standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? i. Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan LOS "C" ii. Kern County General Plan LOS "D" c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e. Result in inadequate emergency access? f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Potentially Significant Potentially Impact Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact ® ❑ 0 0 ® 0 0 0 ® 0 0 0 ® 0 0 0 ® 0 0 ❑ El 0 0 0 ® 0 ❑ 0 Transportation and Traffic Discussion: (a)/(b) The proposed project encompasses the entire County and can be split into three main geographic areas: Valley, Mountain, and Desert. The County contains Intestates (I), U.S. Routes (US), and State Routes (SR). SR -99 provides is a major freeway servicing the large central valley urban areas, including the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. I-5 enters the County in the southwest and carries traffic on a north - January 2017 46 Initial Study/Notice of Preparation EXHIBIT 21 Decision of the BOCC for the Rubio Appeal (Selected Segments) EXHIBIT B For Recording Stamp Only 1' Mailing Date: Thursday, May 18, 2017 DECISION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR DESCHUTES COUNTY FILE NUMBERS: OWNERIAPPUCANT: APPLICANT'S AGENT: APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY: APPELLANT: APPELLANT'S ATTORNEY: PROPOSAL: STAFF REVIEWER: ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION ISSUED: APPEAL FILED: NEARING DATE: RECORD CLOSED: 247 -16 -000600 -AD, 247-17-000036-A Rubio Real Estate Investments, LLC 2979 NW 17°i St. Redmond, OR 97756 Douglas R. Whita Oregon Planning Solutions 60762 River Bend Dr. Bend, OR 97702 Usa Klemp Bryant Emerson, LLP PO Box 457 Redmond, OR 97756 Monika & Lama Platt 23095 Alfalfa Market Rd, Bend, OR 97701 Elizabeth Dickson Dickson Hatfield LLC 400 SW Bluff Drive, Suite 240 Bend, OR 97702 An appeal of an approved Administrative Determination to establish a marijuana production facility in the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) Zone. Jacob Ripper; Associate Planner January 11, 2017 January 17, 2017 March 6, 2017 April 3, 2017 247 -15.0000000 -AD, 247 -1T -000038-A Document No. 2017-294 Exhibit B Page 1 of 7 EXHIBIT B The Board interpreted applicable code satisfied as follows: • The odor control requirement of DCC 18116.330(B)(10) was met because the applicant provkled a letter from an engineer stating the odor control system would meet the requirements of the code. The Board was split on the sufficiency of the engineer's opinion, since it dict not provide his qualifications, experience, methodology, or analysis of conclusion. The Board expressed their desire for appifcants to Include such detail in an engineer's statement offered to satisfy this code provision In subsequent applications. • The water source requirement of DCC 18.116,330(8)(13) was deemed met because the applicant submitted sufficient documentation to satisfy the criterion. The Board was spilt on the sufficiency of the supplier evidence provided, since neither Avian (potable water supplier) nor Central Oregon irrigation District (Irrigation water supplier) addressed the volume or timing of water that would be required by the operation, and further did not state whether they could provide that volume or timing of supply. •The Board expressed their desire for applicants to include such detail in water source documentation offered to satisfy this code provision in subsequent applications. • The noise requments of DCC 18.119.330(11) were met because the applicant submitted sufdent documentation to satisfy the criterion. The Board was split on the sufficiency of the expert analysis provided, since it did not provide the expert's qualifications, experience, methodology, or analysis of conclusion. The Board expressed their desire for subsequent applications to include such detail in a statement offered to satisfy this code provision. • The prohibition in DCC 18.116.330(20)(a)(1) of a new dwelling in conjunction with a marijuana crop does not prohibit the previously approved non-farm dwelling for this site on or about May 12, 2014 in Ole 247 -15 -000103 -CU. • The access requirement in DCC 18.118.330(8)(a) was met because the applicant executed a previously approved property line adjustment after the staff Decision was made but before the dose of the record, to provide the subject property frontage on and direct access to a county road, as required by the code. II. APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: The Board adopts and incorporates by reference the description of the applicable standards and criteria set forth in Section 1 of the Findings & Decision. 111 BASIC FINDINGS: 1. The Board adopts and incorporates by reference the code Interpretations, findings of fact, and conclusions of law set forth in the January 11, 2017 administrative Findings & Decision (file 241 -18 -000600 -AD) in Section 11. Basic Findings, subsections A (Location), 8 (lot of Record), C (Zoning), D (Proposal), E (Site Description), F (Surrounding Land Uses), G (Land Use History), H (Public Agency Comments), 1 (Public Comments), and J (Review Period), with the following additions. 247 -16 -000600 -AD, 247-17-000036-A Document No. 2017-294 Page 3of7 Exhibit B Page 2 of 6 EXHIBIT B 1 C. DCC 18.116.330(8)(10) Odor. As used In DCC 18.118.330(8)(10), building means the building, including yreerihouses, hoop houses, and other similar structures, used for marijuana production or mar ivana processing. a. The building shall be equipped with an effective odor control system which must at all times prevent unreasonable interference of neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. b. An odor control system is deemed permitted only after the applicant submits a report by a mechanical engineer licensed in the State of Oregon demonstrating that the system will control odor so as not .to unreasonably interfere with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. c. Private actlons alleging nuisance or trespass associated with odor impacts are authorized if at ail, as provided in applicable state statute. d. The odor control system shall: I. Consist of one or more fans. The fan(s) shall be sized for cubic feet per minute (CFM) equhralent to the volume of the building (length multiplied by width multiplied by height) divided by three. The Waifs) shall be rated for the required CFM; or 11. Utilize an alternative method or technology to achieve equal to or greater odor mitigation than provided by (1) above. e. The system shall be maintained In working order and shall be In use. The Board acknowledges that the criteria of this section are discretionary. in terms of what constitutes 'unreasonable interference of neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property". The record Includes two tetters from Oregon -licensed Mechanical Engineer Robert James, PE. dated November 23 and November 29, 2016. The Board finds the applicant met these cxtteria. The Board also clarifies that odor control Is an ongoing requirement and that the burden of compliance is on the applicant. The Board further canities that In subsequent applications, an engineer's letter should explicitly identity that the engineer signing the letter is a mechanical engineer. D. DCC 18.116.330(Bx11) Noise. Noise produced by marijuana production and marijuana processing shall comply with the following: a. Sustained poisQ. frprn.mechani?cal equipment used for posting, v.enillation, air conditlon,'odor control, fans and similar functions shall not exceed 30 dB(A) measured at any property line between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the following day. b. Sustained noise from marijuana production is exempt from protections of DCC 9.12 and ORS 30.39$ Right to Faun. intermittent noise for accepted . farming practices is permitted The Board finds the applicant meets criterion (a) above, however, there was a discussion at the deliberation as to if HVAC equipment would generate sustained noise overnight when heating is on in the winter. The Board expressed a desire for additional details in subsequent applications, especially in regard to controlling sustained mechanical noise from heating and ventilation equipment between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. 247 -18400601 -AD. 247-11-000038-A Document No. 2017-204 Page 5 of 7 Exhibit B Page 4 of 6 EXHIBIT 22 Affidavit of Monica Stringer AFFIDAVIT OF MONICA STRINGER Regarding Public Records Requests in Deschutes County Concerning Records of Complaints Against Marijuana Grow Operations I, Monica Stringer, being first duly sworn, do hereby state and attest to the following facts: 1. I am employed as a Legal Assistant to Elizabeth Dickson at the law firm of Dickson Hatfield, LLC, located at 400 SW Bluff Drive, Suite 240, Bend, Oregon 97702. 2. On Thursday, September 28, 2017, I was asked by Elizabeth Dickson to contact both the Deschutes County Sheriff's Office and Deschutes County Code Enforcement and to obtain copies of all complaints filed in Deschutes County regarding marijuana grow operations, both medical and recreational, back to the date of the first allowed medical marijuana grow operation in Deschutes County. Deschutes County Code Enforcement Records Request 3. On September 28, 2017, I sent John Griley, Deschutes County Code Enforcement Technician, an email requesting copies of all code enforcement complaints filed in Deschutes County regarding marijuana grow operations, both medical and recreational, back to the date of the first allowed medical marijuana grow operation allowed in Deschutes County. I received an out -of -office reply email stating that Mr. Griley would be out of the office until Monday, October 2, 2017. See Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 4. On September 28, 2017, I forwarded my original email to John Griley to Nick Lelack, Deschutes County Community Development Director, and Peter Gutowsky, Deschutes County Planning Manager, and inquired about who I should contact about the records request since John Griley was out of the office. The same afternoon, Mr. Lelack replied that I needed to contact Lori Furlong, Deschutes County Community Development Department Administrative Manager, to handle the request, and Mr. Lelack notified me that "some or all of [my] request may be subject to a public records request and applicable fees, response timelines, etc. depending on the research necessary." Mr. Lelack carbon copied Lori Furlong, Peter Gutowsky, Adam Smith, and Nicole Mardell on that email. See Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 5. On September 28, 2017, after I received Nick Lelack's response, I emailed Lori Furlong directly with my records request, as described above, and added that "we are aware of and will pay any applicable fees, research costs, etc." See Exhibit C, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 6. On Friday, September 29, 2017, I received an email from Lori Furlong stating that she received my request and that she would consult with and get direction from the County's legal department because "code enforcement cases are not public record until the case is closed." She also stated that "Any complaints that are outside the scope of code enforcement are referred to the appropriate enforcement body for investigation. Those referrals remain confidential at this time." See Exhibit D, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 1— Affidavit of Monica Stringer 7. On October 2, 2017, I received an email from John Griley stating that 1 needed to route my records request to the County's legal department, because "Complaints are not public record until cases are resolved. Most of the complaints [they've] received are still active investigations." See Exhibit E, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 8. On October 2, 2017, I received an email from Adam Smith, Deschutes County Assistant Legal Counsel, quoting the County's Code Enforcement Policy and Procedures Manual, and stating that "the County does not disclose code enforcement files until 'the file is closed and disclosure is made pursuant to public records law." Mr. Smith also stated that his "understanding is that a majority of complaints regarding marijuana grow operations are still under investigation," and that if I wanted to obtain records for the few completed investigations I would need to work directly with John Griley and submit a formal records request, which may be subject to applicable fees and response timelines. Mr. Smith carbon copied Lori Furlong, Peter Gutowsky, Nicole Mardell, and Nick Lelack on this email. See Exhibit F, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Deschutes County Sheriff's Office Records Request 9. On Thursday, September 28, 2017, I went to the Deschutes County Sherriff's Office located at 63333 West Hwy 20, Bend, OR 97703, with a public records request for copies of all complaints received regarding marijuana grow operations, both medical and recreational, back to the date of the first allowed medical marijuana grow operation in Deschutes County. 10. While I was at the Sheriffs Office on September 28, 2017, I spoke with a woman at the reception desk who told me that the Sheriffs Office does not have any physical records from complaints unless a criminal investigation resulted and a police report was taken. She told me that the Sheriff's Office currently has only one criminal case involving a marijuana grow operation where such a report was taken, but that the case has been sent to the District Attorney's office, so she could not disclose further information about that particular case. She also told me that if a Sheriff's Deputy responds to a complaint call and then goes out to the site of a marijuana grow operation and finds that the grow operation itself is legal, then there is nothing further they can do and no police report is filed. She told me that most complaint calls of this nature are "resolved by contact," after which point the only record of the interaction would be the dispatch logs. She also stated that the Sheriff's office does not enforce County land use codes, and so those types of complaints would be referred to Deschutes County Code Enforcement. Shen then told me that my only option was to check with Dispatch to see if they could provide records of complaint calls made. 11. On September 28, 2017, I went to Deschutes County 9-1-1 Service District dispatch headquarters ("Dispatch"), located at 20335 Poe Sholes Drive, Suite 300, Bend, Oregon 97701, where 1 spoke to Kathleen DeForrest, Customer Service Clerk. 12. While at Dispatch on September 28, 2017, 1 asked Ms. DeForrest if I could request records of any and all calls received regarding complaints about marijuana grow operations, both medical and recreational, back to the date of the first allowed medical marijuana grow operation in Deschutes County. Ms. DeForrest informed me that their dispatch records only go back ten years, so they wouldn't have anything prior to 2007. Ms. DeForrest also told me that she didn't think the records request was possible without specific addresses, because all calls are logged 2 — Affidavit of Monica Stringer based on the physical address tied to the call. She stated that if I had physical addresses for individual marijuana grow operations, they could then look to see if any calls had been received regarding complaints about the grow operation at that address, but that without specific addresses, the search was too broad. Ms. DeForrest said that she would check with her supervisor to see if there was another way that they could search for these records that she wasn't aware of. 13. After I returned to the office on the afternoon of September 28, 2017, Kathleen DeForrest of Dispatch sent me a follow up email stating that her initial assumption was correct, and that "the only way to find the complaints would be to look up every one of the addresses and do a Premise History search." See Exhibit G, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Monica Stringer, Affia Subscribed and sworn to before me this l/ day of ar4} , 2017, by Monica Stringer. Nota 3 — Affidavit of Monica Stringer Public for Oregon OFFICIAL STAMP CHRISTINE M B GARDNER-FRENCH NOTARY PUBLIC -OREGON COMMISSION NO. 925680 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MARCH 26, 2018 EXHIBIT A Monica L. Stringer •om: Monica L. Stringer -.eat: Thursday, September 28, 2017 12:31 PM To: 'john.griley@deschutes.org' Subject: Records Request Categories: Copied to LegalWorks Good Afternoon John, My boss, Liz Dickson, asked me to contact you and request copies of all code enforcement complaints received concerning marijuana grow operations in Deschutes County, both medical and recreational, back to the date of the first allowed medical marijuana grow operation. We need these no later than Friday, 10/13/17. If you are not the correct person to contact for this, please let me know and please pass this along to whomever can help with this request. Sincerely, Monica L. Stringer Office Administrator/Legal Assistant 400 SW Bluff Drive, Suite 240 Bend, OR 97702 -41-585-2224 iIstringer@dicksonhatfield.com 1 Exhibit A Paae 1 of 2 EXHIBIT A Monica L. Stringer From: John Griley <John.Griley@deschutes.org> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 12:31 PM To: Monica L. Stringer Subject: Automatic reply. Records Request I am out of the office. I will return October 2, 2017. I will answer e-mails upon my return. 1 Exhibit A Paae 2 of 2 Monica L. Stringer EXHIBIT B 'rom: Nick Lelack <Nick.Lelack@deschutes.org> .lent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 12:47 PM To: Monica L. Stringer Cc: Lori Furlong; Peter Gutowsky; Adam Smith; Nicole Mardell Subject: RE: Records Request Categories: Copied to LegalWorks Hi Monica, Please coordinate with Lori Furlong. She is the contact for such information rather than John Griley. As you know, some or all of your request may be subject to a public records request and applicable fees, response timelines, etc. depending on the research necessary. Thank you. Nick Lelack, AICP, Director Deschutes County Community Development Department 117 NW Lafayette, Ave. 1 P.O. Box 6005 1 Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 Tel: (541) 385-1708 1 Mobile: (541) 639-5585 .om: Monica L. Stringer [mailto:mistringer@dicksonhatfield.com] Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 12:32 PM To: Nick Lelack <Nick.Lelack@deschutes.org>; Peter Gutowsky <Peter.Gutowsky@deschutes.org> Subject: FW: Records Request Nick and Peter -- Please see below. Since John Griley is out, I am not sure who to contact for this request. Monica L. Stringer Office Administrator/Legal Assistant 400 SW Bluff Drive, Suite 240 Bend, OR 97702 541-585-2224 mIstringer@dicksonhatfield.com From: Monica L. Stringer Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 12:31 PM To: 'john.griley@deschutes.org' <iohn.grilev@deschutes.org> Subject: Records Request Good Afternoon John, ly boss, Liz Dickson, asked me to contact you and request copies of all code enforcement complaints received concerning marijuana grow operations in Deschutes County, both medical and recreational, back to the date of the first 1 Exhibit B Paae 1 of 2 EXHIBIT B allowed medical marijuana grow operation. We need these no later than Friday, 10/13/17. If you are not the correct person to contact for this, please let me know and please pass this along to whomever can help with this request. 'incerely, Monica L. Stringer Office Administrator/Legal Assistant 400 SW Bluff Drive, Suite 240 Bend, OR 97702 541-585-2224 mistringer@dicksonhatfield.com 2 Exhibit B Paae 2 of 2 Monica L. Stringer EXHIBIT C -om: Monica L. Stringer .ent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 12:51 PM To: 'Lori.Furlong@deschutes.org' Cc: Monica L. Stringer Subject: FW: Records Request Categories: Copied to LegalWorks Lori, My boss, Liz Dickson, asked me to contact you and request copies of all code enforcement complaints received concerning marijuana grow operations in Deschutes County, both medical and recreational, back to the date of the first allowed medical marijuana grow operation. We need these no later than Friday, 10/13/17. We are aware of and will pay any applicable fees/research costs, etc. Thank you! Monica L. Stringer Office Administrator/Legal Assistant 400 SW Bluff Drive, Suite 240 'lend, OR 97702 A-585-2224 mistringer@dicksonhatfield.com From: Nick Lelack[mailto:Nick.Lelack@deschutes.org] Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 12:47 PM To: Monica L. Stringer<mistringer@dicksonhatfield.com> Cc: Lari Furlong <Lori.Furlong@deschutes.org>; Peter Gutowsky <Peter.Gutowsky@deschutes.org>; Adam Smith <Adam.Smith@deschutes.org>; Nicole Mardell <Nicole.Mardell@deschutes.org> Subject: RE: Records Request Hi Monica, Please coordinate with Lori Furlong. She is the contact for such information rather than John Griley. As you know, some or all of your request may be subject to a public records request and applicable fees, response timelines, etc. depending on the research necessary. Thank you. Nick Lelack, AICP, Director Deschutes County Community Development Department 117 NW Lafayette, Ave. 1 P.O. Box 6005 1 Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 NI: (541) 385-1708 I Mobile: (541) 639-5585 1 Exhibit C Paae 1 of 2 EXHIBIT C From: Monica L. Stringer [mailto:mistringer@dicksonhatfield.com] Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 12:32 PM To: Nick Lelack <Nick.Lelack@deschutes.org>; Peter Gutowsky <Peter.Gutowsky@deschutes.org> 'ubject: FW: Records Request Nick and Peter Please see below. Since John Griley is out, I am not sure who to contact for this request. Monica L. Stringer Office Administrator/Legal Assistant 400 SW Bluff Drive, Suite 240 Bend, OR 97702 541-585-2224 mIstringer@dicksonhatfield.com From: Monica L. Stringer Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 12:31 PM To: 'john.griley@deschutes.org' <iohn.grilev@deschutes.org> Subject: Records Request Good Afternoon John, My boss, Liz Dickson, asked me to contact you and request copies of all code enforcement complaints received concerning marijuana grow operations in Deschutes County, both medical and recreational, back to the date of the first allowed medical marijuana grow operation. We need these no later than Friday, 10/13/17. If you are not the correct erson to contact for this, please let me know and please pass this along to whomever can help with this request. Sincerely, Monica L. Stringer Office Administrator/Legal Assistant 400 SW Bluff Drive, Suite 240 Bend, OR 97702 541-585-2224 mistringer@dicksonhatfield.com 2 Exhibit C Pace 2 of 2 EXHIBIT D Monica L. Stringer rom: Lori Furlong <Lori.Furlong@deschutes.org> cent: Friday, September 29, 2017 7:27 AM To: Monica L. Stringer Subject: RE: Records Request Categories: Copied to LegalWorks Hi Monica, I have received your request. I will consult with our legal department on this request since code enforcement cases are not public record until the case is closed and get direction from them. Any complaints that are outside the scope of code enforcement are referred to the appropriate enforcement body for investigation. Those referrals remain confidential at this time. I'll be out of the office next week, so I'll follow up with you the week of the 9th. Thanks. dote fesetwf Aissegeoutavallasager Ne lesvolveserg Voyeeoftarust Dcftatrud 5#-317-3tE2 4ag toof@d aafartia. ott From: Monica L. Stringer [mailto:mistringer@dicksonhatfield.com] Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 12:51 PM To: Lori Furlong <Lori.Furlong@deschutes.org> Cc: Monica L. Stringer <mistringer@dicksonhatfield.com> Subject: FW: Records Request Lori, ly boss, Liz Dickson, asked me to contact you and request copies of all code enforcement complaints received ,oncerning marijuana grow operations in Deschutes County, both medical and recreational, back to the date of the first allowed medical marijuana grow operation. We need these no later than Friday, 10/13/17. We are aware of and will pay any applicable fees/research costs, etc. 1 Exhibit D Paae 1 of 3 EXHIBIT D Thank you! Monica L. Stringer Alice Administrator/Legal Assistant 400 SW Bluff Drive, Suite 240 Bend, OR 97702 541-585-2224 mIstringer@dicksonhatfield.com From: Nick Lelack [mailto:Nick.Lelack@deschutes.org) Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 12:47 PM To: Monica L. Stringer <mIstringer dicksonhatfield.com> Cc: Lori Furlong <Lori.Furlong@deschutes.org>; Peter Gutowsky <Peter.Gutowskv@deschutes.org>; Adam Smith <Adam.Smith@deschutes.org>; Nicole Mardell <Nicole.Mardell@deschutes.org> Subject: RE: Records Request Hi Monica, Please coordinate with Lori Furlong. She is the contact for such information rather than John Griley. As you know, some or all of your request may be subject to a public records request and applicable fees, response timelines, etc. depending on the research necessary. 'hank you. Nick Lelack, AICP, Director Deschutes County Community Development Department 117 NW Lafayette, Ave. I P.O. Box 6005 I Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 Tel: (541) 385-1708 1 Mobile: (541) 639-5585 From: Monica L. Stringer [mailto:mistringerCatdicksonhatfield.com] Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 12:32 PM To: Nick Lelack <Nick.Lelack@deschutes.org>; Peter Gutowsky <Peter.Gutowsky@deschutes.org> Subject: FW: Records Request Nick and Peter — Please see below. Since John Griley is out, I am not sure who to contact for this request. Monica L. Stringer Office Administrator/Legal Assistant 400 SW Bluff Drive, Suite 240 Bend, OR 97702 541-585-2224 mistringer@dicksonhatfield.com om: Monica L. Stringer Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 12:31 PM 2 Exhibit D Paae 2 of 3 EXHIBIT D To: 'john.griley@deschutes.org' <john.grilev@deschutes.org> Subject: Records Request good Afternoon John, My boss, Liz Dickson, asked me to contact you and request copies of all code enforcement complaints received concerning marijuana grow operations in Deschutes County, both medical and recreational, back to the date of the first allowed medical marijuana grow operation. We need these no later than Friday, 10/13/17. If you are not the correct person to contact for this, please let me know and please pass this along to whomever can help with this request. Sincerely, Monica L. Stringer Office Administrator/Legal Assistant 400 SW Bluff Drive, Suite 240 Bend, OR 97702 541-585-2224 mistringer@dicksonhatfield.com 3 Exhibit D Paoe3of3 Monica L. Stringer EXHIBIT E John Griley <John.Griley@deschutes.org> ent: Monday, October 02, 2017 8:16 AM To: Monica L. Stringer Subject: RE: Records Request Categories: Copied to LegalWorks Monica, think you need to route this to the County's Legal Department. Complaints are not public record until cases are resolved. Most of the complaints we've received are still active investigations. This disconnect leads me to believe that this request should go to the County's Legal Department. John Griley Code Enforcement Technician Community Development Department Deschutes County (541-617-4708) e-mail: John.Griley@deschutes.org . rom: Monica L. Stringer [mailto:mistringer@dicksonhatfield.com] Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 12:31 PM To: John Griley <John.Griley@deschutes.org> Subject: Records Request Good Afternoon John, My boss, Liz Dickson, asked me to contact you and request copies of all code enforcement complaints received concerning marijuana grow operations in Deschutes County, both medical and recreational, back to the date of the first allowed medical marijuana grow operation. We need these no later than Friday, 10/13/17.1f you are not the correct person to contact for this, please let me know and please pass this along to whomever can help with this request. Sincerely, Monica L. Stringer Office Administrator/Legal Assistant 400 SW Bluff Drive, Suite 240 Bend, OR 97702 541-585-2224 mistringer@dicksonhatfield.com 1 Exhibit E Paae 1 of 1 EXHIBIT F Monica L. Stringer rom: Adam Smith <Adam.Smith@deschutes.org> ant: Monday, October 02, 2017 11:20 AM To: Monica L. Stringer Cc: Lori Furlong; Peter Gutowsky; Nicole Mardell; Nick Lelack Subject: RE: Records Request Attachments: PublicRecordsRequestForm.pdf Categories: Copied to LegalWorks Ms. Stringer, Deschutes County staff asked for my assistance responding to your request. Pursuant to Section VII of the County's Code Enforcement Policy and Procedures Manual, the County does not disclose code enforcement files until "the file is closed and disclosure is made pursuant to the public records law." For your reference, you can find a copy of that manual on the following web page: https://www.deschutes.org/cd/page/code-enforcement The County's policy regarding code enforcement files is based on ORS 192.501(1) and 192.502(4). Depending on the nature of the investigation, ORS 192.445, 192.501(3), 192.501(23), 192.502(1), and 192.502(2) may also apply. My understanding is that the majority of complaints regarding marijuana grow operations are still under investigation. If "ou want to obtain records for the few completed investigations, please work directly with John Griley (CCed) to submit formal public records request. Attached is a form that may be useful. And, as noted in Nick Lelack's email, there may be applicable fees and response timelines. Thanks, -Adam D. Adam Smith Deschutes County Assistant Legal Counsel 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 205 Bend, OR 97703 Phone: (541) 388-6593 Fax: (541) 617-4748 adam. s mithCa7deschutes. orq THIS ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION, INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENT HERETO, IS CONFIDENTIAL AND PROTECTED BY THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE, THE WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGE, AND/OR OTHER PRIVILEGES AND CONFIDENTIALITY PROVISIONS PROVIDED BY LAW. THE INFORMATION IN THIS TRANSMISSION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR USE OF THE INTENDED RECIPIENT. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT THE SENDER HAS NOT WAIVED ANY PRIVILEGE AND THAT YOU MAY NOT READ, DISCLOSE, COPY, DISTRIBUTE, USE OR TAKE ACTION BASED UPON THIS TRANSMISSION. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SENDER AND DELETE THIS TRANSMISSION. om: Nick Lelack Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 12:47 PM To: 'Monica L. Stringer' <mistringer@dicksonhatfield.com> 1 Exhibit F Paae 1 of 3 EXHIBIT F Cc: Lori Furlong <Lori.Furlong@deschutes.org>; Peter Gutowsky <Peter.Gutowsky@deschutes.org>; Adam Smith <Adam.Smith@deschutes.org>; Nicole Mardell <Nicole.Mardell@deschutes.org> Subject: RE: Records Request li Monica, Please coordinate with Lori Furlong. She is the contact for such information rather than John Griley. As you know, some or all of your request may be subject to a public records request and applicable fees, response timelines, etc. depending on the research necessary. Thank you. Nick Lelack, AICP, Director Deschutes County Community Development Department 117 NW Lafayette, Ave. 1 P.O. Box 6005 1 Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 Tel: (541) 385-1708 1 Mobile: (541) 639-5585 From: Monica L. Stringer[mailto:mistringer@dicksonhatfield.com] Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 12:32 PM To: Nick Lelack <Nick.Lelack@deschutes.org>; Peter Gutowsky <Peter.Gutowskv@deschutes.org> Subject: FW: Records Request Nick and Peter — Please see below. Since John Griley is out, I am not sure who to contact for this request. Monica L. Stringer lffice Administrator/Legal Assistant 400 SW Bluff Drive, Suite 240 Bend, OR 97702 541-585-2224 mIstringer@dicksonhatfield.com From: Monica L. Stringer Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 12:31 PM To: 'john.griley@deschutes.org' <iohn.grilev@deschutes.org> Subject: Records Request Good Afternoon John, My boss, Liz Dickson, asked me to contact you and request copies of all code enforcement complaints received concerning marijuana grow operations in Deschutes County, both medical and recreational, back to the date of the first allowed medical marijuana grow operation. We need these no later than Friday, 10/13/17. If you are not the correct person to contact for this, please let me know and please pass this along to whomever can help with this request. Sincerely, Monica L. Stringer \ffice Administrator/Legal Assistant 2 Exhibit F Paae 2 of 3 400 SW Bluff Drive, Suite 240 Bend, OR 97702 541-585-2224 -nIstringer& dicksonhatfield.com EXHIBIT F 3 Exhibit F Paae 3 of 3 Monica L. Stringer EXHIBIT G -rom: Kathleen DeForrest <Kathleen.DeForrest@deschutes.org> dent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 4:50 PM To: Monica L. Stringer Subject: Records Request - Marijuana Complaints Hi Monica, As you and I suspected, the only way to find the complaints would be to look up every one of the addresses and do a Premise History search. If there were a lot, it could really add up quickly as we charge $25 for the first three reports and then it's $5 each starting with the fourth. Kathleen DeForrest 1. Customer Service Clerk Deschutes County 9-1-1 Service District Post Office Box 6005 Bend, Oregon 97708 (541) 322-6103 1 Exhibit G Pane 1 of 1 EXHIBIT 23 Statistics on Marijuana Code Violations AOL Mail - Message View 9/28/17, 9:11 PM Citizens for Public Safety, Quality of Life, Property Values Clackamas County and OLCC Marijuana Violations From: Shirley Morgan <shirley.morgan@aednccom> To: bobking714 <bobking714 @ aol.00m> Date: Thu, Sep 28, 2017 10:26 am CITIZENS MOWN MaWbittbta cvkitv cdaboonvsP me*c LtHepet yet 6e+a1 atsar.ava rnk -, Focus -Marijuana www.aakaMseek*Aig • September 28, 2017 To: Bob King, Please note: In a discussion witb Scott Canfield Supervisor of Clackamas County Code Enforcement, he noted that "there have been over 71 code violations with marijuana grows with odor, noise, and traffic being the top complaints" in an email from the Oregon Liquor Control Commissioner, they noted that: Ate we have logged X98 compfai tta. However this data includes licensees self -reporting outages and other issues. Some of the common complaints we receive are regarding discount violations, advertising violations, and inaccurate reporting in Metric.' Shirley Morgan https://www.youtube.comiwatch?v=uTLLUKsbyaY&feature=youtu.be w protectoursocietyarg www.unwantedg_otg NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments contain confidential information that may be legally privileged If you are not the intended recipient, you must not review, retransmit, print, CO}p, use or disseminate it. Please immediately notifr us by return e-mail and delete it. If this e-mail contains a forwarded e-mail or is a reply to a prior a -mail, the content's may not have been produced by the sender and therefore we are not responsible for its content. ittps://mail.aoi.com/webmail-std/en-us/basic# Page 1 of 1 EXHIBIT 24 Jay Castino's September 6, 2017 Letter Iip==a ENGINEERING DATE: March 20, 2017 [revised September 6, 20171 TO: Deschutes County Planning Officer CC: Norma Tewalt FROM: Jay Castino RE: Odor control for marijuana production introduction This is a narrative report for Norma Tewalt's marijuana production facility at 69188 Goodrich RD Sisters, OR. Qualifications I am a mechanical engineer licensed in Oregon #77686PE and Washington #55122. Experience I have provided mechanical engineering services for marijuana production facilities and other similar controlled environment applications throughout Oregon. Methodology • Building Description o Ms. Tewalt's marijuana production facility is in an agricultural building. See architectural information provided by others for more detail. • HVAC system description o A conventional "all -air" split system furnace and A/C coil will be used to condition the space for the marijuana production facility. o In the normal mode of operation, it will condition and recirculate the air within the building; no air is exhausted from the building. o In the economizer mode of operation, it will intake fresh air from outside to condition the interior space and exhaust stale air back to the outside. Mechanical Enuineerinq Consultants Building systems Design • Energy services • Environmental consulting • Machine design • Partner services 70 SW Century OR STE 100-158 Bend, OR 97702 Phone: (541) 728-3824 • Email: Bcfi$yceng.com • Web: wavr.Bceng.com Page 1 of 4 JJCENGQ117_TEWALT ODR_LUCS-01.doc • In this economizer mode, air will be exhausted from the building and will run through the odor control system before exiting the building (see Figure 1). • Odor control system o An activated carbon (charcoal) filter on the exhaust system will provide the odor control. o When the HVAC system goes into economizer mode, the activated carbon filters on the exhaust system will scrub the exhaust air (see Figure 1). o Each grow room within the production facility will be equipped with an odor control system. A typical grow room can be 1000 sq. ft. and 10 ft. ceiling height. o Per DCC 18.116.330(B)(10)(d) the exhaust fan(s) shall be sized for cubic feet per minute (CFM) based on room volume divided by three. Based on the above mentioned typical grow room dimensions this is (1000 x 10)/3 = 3334 CFM, with the filters, in aggregate, rated for this CFM. o The activated carbon filters will be maintained and/or replaced per the manufacturer's suggested service intervals. o This odor control system will not reasonably interfere with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. Orcool flier let Ofer Ovaiol Figure 1- section view d agram of HVAC system in economizer mode and odor control system. ! Noise requirements o The HVAC and odor control systems do not operate in a sustained manner. They operate intermittently, similar to the function of a normal residential air conditioner or heat pump. Their outdoor equipment sound pressure levels can be about 70 dbA1. o DCC 18.116.330(8)(11)(a), requires noise no louder than 30 dbA at any property line, between 10pm and 7am. o As required in DCC 18.116.330(B)(6)(a), marijuana production facilities have a minimum setback of 100 ft. from the nearest property line. o Sound pressure is reduced by 6dbA each time the distance from the noise source is doubled; this is the inverse square law2. Therefore, if the source noise Is 70 dbA, the setback distance is 100 ft, then the sound pressure level at the property tine will be 70 - 20log(100/1) = 30 dbA which meets the noise requirement. o Typically, a marijuana production facility does not need heating from an HVAC system in the winter time; this is because the indoor lighting generally produces enough ambient heating to keep the indoor environment warm without using the HVAC system, even at night between lOpm and 7pm. ' Split System Cooling Product Data. (n.d.). Retrieved from help://www.trsme.com/content/dam/Trane/Commercial/global/products-systems/equipment/unitary/split- systems/split-systems-1-1-2-to-5-tons/22-1904-1G-EN 03012016.pdf 2 The Inverse Square Law. (n.d.) Retrieved from http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/inverse-square-law- d 890.htmi 1 (EXPIRES 12/31/17) Analysis of Conclusion Norma Tewatt's marijuana production facility at 69188 Goodrich RD Sisters, OR meets the odor control system requirement of DCC 18.116.330(8)(10) and complies with the noise requirements of DCC 18.116.330(8)(11), as provided in the methodology section of this report. Sincerely, o'or-6z Jay J. Castino, PE Principal SCA\ e. tW` ACO 6u :\ 8 n 3 61 o o ft% Canopy ani Lt. 00+ T N 14% k'dZ4' . 331, j VGg Aoo tv‘ Sam, %6 k td ---- (Ooh 96 X 46 4toovr bloom bO (o6 >' 6d' = -.(05e) 5A' so:44\5 EXHIBIT 25 Appellant's Response to Applicant's and Staff's Response to the Appeal Robert P. (Bob) King 295 N. Rampart Unit D Orange, CA 92868 714 5581646 Page 1 of 25 pages (ABRIDGED & REFORMATTED FOR OCT. 16, 2017 HEARING.) TO: Ms. Nicole Mardell, Assistant Planner/Deschutes County Community Development Department From: Robert P. King, Tr. Date: April 25, 2017 (ABRIDGED & REFORMATTED FOR OCT. 16, 2017 HEARING.) Re: Deschutes County File No. 247 -17 -217 -AD Tewalt's 69188 Goodrich Rd Sisters, OR *************** In all future correspondence, please use the above mailing address. *************** OUR COMMENTS The Applicant's behavior in preparing and submitting this application indicates: • This Applicant's demonstrated desire and intent are to use every inch of space possible to maximize their production of marijuana for commercial purposes; • To minimize the Applicant's cost in getting to marijuana production, one example being their proposing no fencing even between adjacent neighbor's common property line; • The Applicant's past behavior in abiding with Deschutes County codes — reference public records Deschutes County file numbers C-93281 and B-51750. • One does not have to be an engineer nor a physics major to know and accept moving a noise (or odor or light) source 70 feet closer to a listener is absolutely NOT going to result in the noise (or odor or light) impact being equal to or less than if the source has been kept a full 100 feet away as the Applicant asserted in the application. • In the application, the Applicants disingenuously copied their answer for code 3 to answer code 4, though the code clearly and obviously addresses distinctly different concerns. "10. a. and b.:" Applicant's response: "The odor control system for the building is included as Exhibit 10. The odor control specification report from licensed engineer proposed odor control measures will prevent unreasonable interference of neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property." Mr. Castino knew his letter would become a public record and subject to evaluation and countering comments. As a degreed engineer with extensive design experience, I deny and dispute the September 6, 2017 signed by Mr. Jay J. Castino, PE, substantiates anything. Mr. Jay J. Castino's letter as amended on September 6, 2017 certainly does not meet the threshold of a professional engineer's objective factual research, evaluation, and the resulting conclusions from which an impartial reader can draw an objective conclusions or professionally verify the Applicant's installed system would by operating within manufacture's specifications meet existing codes. Continued on page 2 of 25 Robert P. King's Comments on : Deschutes County File No. 247 -17 -217 -AD -2- • Mr. Castino states, "Ms. Tewalt's marijuana production facility is in an agricultural building. See architectural information provided by others for more details." • Mr. Castino cited a HAVC system manufactured by Trane to give an illustration for "noise control," but no specific cite is made for odor control. He does states an activated carbon filter system will be used. Such a system is common in marijuana production facilities. There are a wide array of such filters available? • Mr. Castino states, "Per DCC 18.116.330(13)(10)(d) the exhaust fan(s) shall be sized for cubic feet per minute (CFM) based on room volume divided by three. Based on the above mentioned typical grow dimensions this is (1000 X 10)/3 = 3334 CFM, with the filters, in aggregate, rated for this CFM. • Mr. Castino states, "The activated carbon filters will be maintained and/or replace per the manufacturer's suggested intervals." • Mr. Castino states, "The odor control system will not reasonably interfere with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property." • If the Applicant's equipment were to fail, or, due to faulty operating equipment from not being maintained as required, emit marijuana odor for some duration, the horses housed in the grazing pasture adjacent to the Applicant's property or in the barn, especially, if a colt were present, could prove injurious to the livestock. The attached article, "Pets on Pot" does support that possibility. The effects on some sensitive humans and young children could have far more adverse consequences. • Not even prompt and effective code enforcement will mitigate such consequences, hence the neighbors' use and enjoyment of their properties could be irreversibly adversely affected. • The Applicant fails to meet their burden of proof that the unspecified "odor control system" satisfies the code. Noise." • It is noted that "Sustained noise from marijuana production is exempt from protection (our emphasis) of DCC 9.12 and ORS 30.395, Right to Farm. intermittent noise for acceptable farming practices is permitted. (Our emphasis.)" • All the above comments related to "odor" are incorporated herein by this reference. • Mr. Jay J. Castino's letter as amended on September 6, 2017 states, "The HVAC and odor control system does not operate in a sustained manner. They operate intermittently, similar to the function of a normal residential air conditioner or heat pump. Their outdoor equipment sound pressure levels can be about 70 dbA." Via a footnote, he then makes a reference to a system manufactured by Trane and gives a website to that system. Continued on page 3 of 25 Robert P. King's Comments on : Deschutes County File No. 247 -17 -217 -AD -3- • Mr. Jay J. Castino's letter as amended on September 6, 2017 states, "Sound pressure is reduced by 6 dbA each time the distance from the noise source is doubled, this is the inverse square law." Therefore, if the source noise is 70 dbA, the setback is 100 ft, then the sound pressure level at the property line will be 70 — 20 Iog(100/1) = 30 dbA which meets the noise requirement." The application fails to either demonstrate or illustrate with proper engineering that will be the reality of their marijuana production operations. A proper engineering of the Applicant's plans would require and include the research: • Of the average temperature required in each of the 60 X 60 structures for the maximum allowable marijuana production; • The average monthly temperature for the twelve months and selecting the months where the greatest heating andcooling would be required; • Calculating the minimum required HVAC equipment requirements needed to provide that that heating and cooling; • Selecting and specifying the desired components of the HVAC systems; • From the selected equipment and its ratings and the now calculable temperature differential, calculate the average daily running time; • Make a determination as to that daily running time justifies being labeled "intermittent" or, more objectively, "sustained." • Once the specific equipment had been selected and its specifications known, the operational nose level would be included in those specifications, or could be determined from the manufacture or by experiment, so the actual combined noise level could be calculated at both the equipment locations and at the property line. • The Applicant fails to meet their burden of proof that the unspecified "noise control system" satisfies the code. "12. Code 12. B. Fencing:" • Codes 10.c and 11.b, clearly reveal the State and County understand and acknowledge that permitting marijuana production in an EFU zoning is different from "normal farm use," and an approved producer of marijuana has a greater responsibility than other permitted uses in an EFU zoning in both obtaining permission to do so and to continue to do so. • Code 12. B. Fencing states, "Fencing shall be (Our emphasis.) It does not state, "If fencing is used .." Clearly the intent of the code is to require the Applicant to provide fencing to address the neighbor's and entire neighborhood's safety issue mentioned above and "screening" to address the neighbors' privacy rights. • As shown in Exhibit King photo 3 and 4, the Applicant has no fencing between their lot and TL 12000. The Applicant fails to address their responsibility of safety and privacy to the neighbors and the neighborhood. Continued on page 4 of 25 Robert P. King's Comments on : Deschutes County File No. 247 -17 -217 -AD -4 - • A solid security fence should be required between the Applicant's property and TL 12000. • The Applicant fails to meet their burden of proof that their marijuana facility will be a secure, safe, non-threating operations, and so does not satisfy the code. "13.(c) Water;" • The Applicant has produced a "will provide" letter from the Bend Water Hauling, LLC. The Applicant has not provided a signed and notarized certification that no water supplied by the Sisters Irrigation District, which is obtained solely due to their holding Oregon water rights will ever be used in any manner for the production of marijuana. • The Applicant fails to meet their burden of proof that any water used in the production of marijuana is not from a source resulting from their having water rights and does not satisfy the code and statute. The Applicant has never satisfied the demand from the Road Department, hence the Application is at this point incomplete. We appreciate the Board's consideration of the above comments and information. We respectfully request the Board to grant the neighborhood the following: willfully declare under the penalty of perjury the above is true to the best of my knowledge. Respectfully submitted, Robert P. King, Tr EXHIBIT 26 Decision of Coppinger Appeal DECISION OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY HEARINGS OFFICER FILE NUMBERS: HEARING DATE: OWNER: APPLICANT: APPELLANT: APPELLANT'S ATTORNEY: PROPOSAL: STAFF CONTACT: ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION ISSUED: APPEAL FILED: RECORD CLOSED: 247-17-000511-A (247 -17 -000145 -AD) July 18, 2017, 6:00 p.m. Bames & Sawyer Rooms Deschutes Services Center 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, OR 97701 County Lines, LLC 18000 NW Germantown Rd. Portland, OR 97231 Lyle W. Coppinger 62655 County Line Rd. Bend, OR 97701 Wayne and Susan Singhose 62500 County Line Rd. Bend, OR 97701 Elizabeth Dickson Dickson Hatfield, LLC 400 SW Bluff Dr., Ste. 240 Bend, OR 97702 The applicant requested approval of an Administrative Determination to establish a marijuana production facility (grow) within the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) zone. The administrative decision issued by staff was appealed. Jacob Ripper, Associate Planner June 7, 2017 (ATTACHMENT A) June 19, 2017 August 15, 2017 I. STANDARDS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA Title 18, Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use Zones Chapter 18.116, Section 18.116.330, Marijuana Production, Processing, and Retailing Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance 247-17-000511-A 1 1° II. BASIC FINDINGS A. Location: The subject property has an assigned address of 62655 County Line Rd.; Bend, and is identified on the County Assessor's Map No. 17-14-25, as Tax Lot 104. B. Lot of Record: The subject property is a legal Lot of Record as it is part of Parcel 1 of Partition Plat 2001-14. The configuration of the subject property, a portion of Parcel 1, was modified by the Property Line Adjustment file LL -11-40. C. Zoning: The subject property is zoned Exclusive Farm Use — Alfalfa Subzone (EFU-AL). D. Proposal: The applicant is requesting approval of an Administrative Determination to establish a marijuana production facility (grow) in the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) zone. The proposal consists of a maximum mature plant canopy size of 40,000 square feet within multiple greenhouses, and three enclosed support structures. E. Site Description: The subject property contains areas of irrigated cropland, undeveloped areas with natural vegetation, residential development, and structures. It is located at the eastern boundary of Deschutes County, with access to and frontage on County Line Road. F. Land Use History: According to Deschutes County Community Development records, there is a 1979 dwelling (building permit 79-1308), a Minor Partition (MP -00-27, Partition Plat 2001-14) which separatz.ni ;_" ,.._::...... ' " east from the subject property, with a nonfarm dwelling approval for tax lot 101 (CU -00-105). As discussed above, the configurations of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 of PP 2001-14 were modified by an approved Property Line Adjustment (LL -11-40). ' v =ry Comments: The Planning Division mailed a Notice of Application and received comments from the following agencies: Central Electric Cooperative: CEC requests the applicant apply for a new electrical service by calling 541-548- 2144 to provide electrical load and demand requirements for this activity. CEC will determine if capacity is available. Central Oregon Irrigation District: COID FACILITIES: ■ COID has a small delivery that runs through the subject's property (1-10) o There is a ROW of 20' for the canal and an additional 20' road ROW on the west side of the canal (refer to attached map) • Any construction within COID'S ROW must first be approved through COID. COID WATER RIGHTS: • There are 51.05 ac of water rights on subject's property • Contact COID if any non -greenhouse structures are to be placed on a mapped water (refer to attached map) 247-17-000511-A 2 • Contact COID if any greenhouse structure are to be placed outside a mapped water (refer to attached map) COID POLICY STATEMENTS ■ Review following policy statement on marijuana operations COID response to Community Development Notice for Proposed Marijuana Production: Central Oregon Irrigation District (COLD) serves this property with the above specified amount of irrigation water during the irrigation season of April 1st through October 31st at a rate of up to 6 gallons per minute per acre. This water cannot be used for irrigation during the winter months. If the recreational marijuana production facility is a greenhouse proposed to be built on top of the COID water right, land -user must allow COLD annual access to the structure to document beneficial use of the water right. Structures on a water right for any purpose other than greenhouse operations is not allowed. 'Plot Plan is required to assist COM in determining if the proposed structure will be located on the water right or if a water transfer should be filed to get water to it. Deschutes County Building Division: The Deschutes County Building Safety Divisions code required nc:c:Ysti F;;iEiss, Setback, Fire & Life Safety Fire Fighting Water Supplies, etc. will be specifically addressed during the plan review process for any proposed structures and occupancies. All Building Code required items will be addressed, when a specific structure, occupancy, and type of construction is proposed and submitted for plan review. Deschutes County Senior Transportation Planner, Peter Russell: On March 15, 2017, a response was received from the Senior Transportation Planner, however, revised comments were submitted on June 5, 2017, which include revisions to the comments regarding a traffic study and the upcoming adjustment in SDC rates: Deschutes County Code (DCC) at 18.116.330(B)(8) only requires proof of legal direct access to the property or access from a private easement; the traffic study requirements of DCC 18.116.310 are not applicable for a marijuana production application. Thus no traffic study can be required. Board Resolution 2013-020 sets a (SDC rate of $3,852 per p.m. peak hour trip. The County uses the most recent edition of the institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) trip generation manual to assess SDCs. The ITL category for marijuana production. In consultation with the Road Department Director and Planning staff, the County has determined the best analog use is Warehouse (Land Use 150) based on the storage requirements and employees of this activity. The ITE indicates Warehouse generates 0.32 P.M. peak hour trios per 1,000 square feet and the application indicates 44,000 square feet would be used for cannabis production and support. This would result in 14.1 p.m. peak hour trips (0.32 X 44). Thus the applicable SDC would be $54,313 (14.1 X $3,852). The SDC is due prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy; if a 247-17-000511-A 3 certificate of occupancy is not applicable, then the SDC is due within 60 days of the land use decision becoming final. The County's SDC rate will rise to $3,937 per p.m. peak hour trip on July 1. Thus after July 1 the SDC would be $55,512 (14.1 X $3,937). The following agencies either had no comment or did not respond to the notice: Alfalfa Fire District, Deschutes County Environmental Soils Division, Deschutes County Road Department, Deschutes County Sheriff, Oregon Liquor Control Commission, Watermaster - District 11. H. Public Comments: The Planning Division mailed a written notice of this action to property owners within 750 feet of the subject property on March 15, 2017. The following concerns were expressed in comments that staff received from the public: 1. Use of the shared access way (driveway). 2. Light pollution from the greenhouses. 3. Monitoring of production sites and operating the land use approval. 4. Visual impacts. 5. Odor impacts and the ability for odor to system. 6. Proximity to offsite dwellings and adjacent pr 7. Noise impacts, both ovemight and during the 8. Water source and supply. 9. Wildlife habitat area. within the approved limits of be controlled by proposed operties. day. 10. Infrastructure, including gravel roads, will not support retail sales.* 11. General opposition to marijuana production, processing, and retailing on- site.* 12. Traffic from marijuana production and retail may impact use patterns at the community well and a truck scale.* 13. Traffic and speeding on County Line Road. 14. Health impacts from living nearby a marijuana grow. 15. Traffic collisions involving intoxicated drivers. 16. Drug overdoses and cost of treating drug addictions. 17. Shoplifting. 18. Loss in property value. 19. Neighbors do not want to live next to a marijuana farm. 20. Children visit grandparents who live nearby. 21. Too many marijuana grows already in the area. 22. Federally illegal. 23. Possible illegal activity may decrease safety in the area. (*Retail and processing uses have not been proposed by the applicant) Notice Requirement: The applicant submitted a Land Use Action Sign Affidavit, dated April 14, 2017, indicating the applicant posted notice of the land use action on April 11, 2017. 247-17-000511-A 4 J. Review Period: This application was submitted on March 7, 2017. It was deemed incomplete on April 6, 2017. After the applicant submitted additional information, the application was accepted and deemed complete on May 25, 2017. The 150th day on which the county must take final action on this application is October 29, 2017.' K. Staff Decision: On June 7, 2017, staff issued approval of the requested Administrative Determination, file number 247 -17 -000145 -AD. L. Appeal: On June 19, 2017, Appellant filed a timely appeal to the Hearings Officer of the Administrative Determination. The Appeal sets forth the following issues and requests the Hearings Officer to reverse the approval as contrary to requirements of the Deschutes County Code: M. 1. Inconsistency with the Purpose of DCC Title public health, safety and general welfare of the 2. Failure to establish compliance with DCC regulating odor; 3. Failure to establish compliance with DCC regulating noise; 4. Failure to establish compliance with DCC requiring documentation of availability of water; 5. Failure to establish compliance with DCC requiring verification of utilities; and 6. Failure to establish compliance with DCC regulating secured waste disposa1.2 18 to promote the community; 18.116.330(B)(10) 18.116.330(B)(11) 18.116.330(B)(13) 18.116.330(B)(15) 18.116.330(B)(17) Site Visit: On July 26, 2017, the Hearings Officer and Staff conducted a site visit to the subject property. The Hearings Officer prepared a Site Visit Memorandum, dated August 1, 2017, which is part of the record for this decision. ' On July 29, 2017, the Applicant submitted a written consent to extending the 150 -day clock by 7 additional days to account for the record being left open 7 days longer. 2 Testimony at the public hearing also addressed the question of access and traffic, although access and traffic were not identified as an issue in the Notice of Appeal materials. 247-17-000511-A 5 III. APPEAL FINDINGS A. DCC 18.04.020. Purpose. A. The intent or purpose of DCC Title 18 is to promote the public health, safety and general welfare and to carry out the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, the provisions of ORS 215 and the Statewide Planning Goals adopted pursuant to ORS 197. DCC Title 18 is to establish zoning districts and regulations governing the development and use of land within portions of Deschutes County Oregon. APPELLANT'S OBJECTION: In the Notice of Appeal materials, the appellant states, "The Singhoses ask the County to consider the health and safety and general welfare of the community in which the proposed use includes the protections necessary to locate it successfully in the agricultural community requested." The appellant discusses that prior appeal deliberations have discussed whether the Board of County Commissioners is able to make general policy decisions which take into account subjects such as health, safety and the general welfare of the community. The appellant also states, "We ask the County to consider not just the details of the application, but the overall impact it will have on community health, safety and general welfare, in keeping with this provision of the Code." FINDING: The applicant has requested approval of marijuana production in the Exclusive Farm Use Zone, which is a use permitted outright in DCC 18.16.020(S), subject to provisions of DCC 18.116.330. The County Commissioners constitute the legislative branch of Deschutes County government and enact applicable law via ordinances, which then are codified in the Deschutes County Code. The Hearings Officer only has authority to enforce the law as it is currently written. 1 cannot revisit the propriety of the Commissioners' decision to adopt ordinances that allow marijuana production facilities in the EFU zone as an outright permitted use. The Hearings Officer notes that the phrase, "health, safety and welfare," is invoked where the County Commissioners are exercising their police power authority to regulate land uses. DCC 18.04.020(A) outlines the regulatory purpose of Title 18, which is to promote public health, safety and general welfare, carry out the Comprehensive Plan, the provisions of ORS 215 and the Statewide Planning Goals. The Hearings Officer cannot speculate as to the "legislative intent" of the County Commissioners in enacting DCC 18.116.330. Appellants' attorney opines, without evidence, that the "underlying values" of DCC 18.116.330 will not be served by the proposed application. Without more, this is not a basis on which I may condition or deny the application. The Hearings Officer further notes that speculation concerning whether the proposed use will "likely" make it more difficult to farm in the area is not supported by any testimony or other evidence, only unsupported argument of legal counsel. Like the Hearings Officer, staff is required to consider whether any land use application satisfies the written standards set forth in the Code, which standards have been adopted to promote the public health, safety and general welfare of the community. This provision of the Code does not impose any substantive requirements on land use applications to make a separate showing of promotion of health, safety and welfare. I find that appellants have not established any error in this regard. 247-17-000511-A 6 Appellants cite the Oregon Court of Appeals decision in Jebousek v. City of Newport, 163 Or App 126 (1999) in support of their argument that, where specific code provisions do not address a key legal issue, more general provisions apply as well. Appellants argue that DCC 18.116.330 does not address a number of issues critical to the compatibility of the proposed use. First, the Hearings Officer finds that °compatibility" need not be demonstrated for a use that is permitted outright. A conditional use permit is not required for the applicant to site a marijuana grow facility on the subject property in the EFU zone. Second, Appellants fail to identify a single specific "issue" they believe is not adequately addressed in DCC 18.116.330. Finally, Jebousek does not stand for the proposition asserted by Appellants. The Court of Appeals explained: In Jebousek we were not asked to review ordinance language such as that in SZO 12.04. Rather, the issue was whether a comprehensive plan provision addressing hazardous areas was applicable in a lot line adjustment proceeding. There, we agreed with LUBA's conclusion that the city's interpretation of the appropriate time to consider the comprehensive plan provision was correct under the review standard of ORS 197.829(1) and Clark v. Jackson County. Mountain West Inv. Corp. v. City of Silverton, 175 Or App 556, 566 (2001). There are no general code requirements that are required to be applied to the subject application beyond those set forth in DCC 18.116.330, which must be considered to advance the health, safety and general welfare of the community because the law is an exercise of the County Commissioners' police power authority. This objection is dismissed. B. DCC 18.116.330(B)(10). Odor. 10. Odor. As used in DCC 18.116.330(B)(10), building means the building, including greenhouses, hoop houses and other similar structures, used for marijuana production or marijuana processing. a. The building shall be equipped with an effective odor control system which must at all times prevent unreasonable interference of neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. b. An odor control system is deemed permitted only after the applicant submits a report by a mechanical engineer licensed in the State of Oregon demonstrating that the system will control odor so as not to unreasonably interfere with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. c. Private actions alleging nuisance or trespass associated with odor impacts are authorized, if at all, in applicable state statute. d. The odor control system shall: 1. Consist of one or more fans. The fan(s) shall be sized for cubic feet per minute (CFM) equivalent to the volume of the building (length multiplied by width multiplied by height) divided by three. The tilter(s) shall be rated for the required CFM; or 247-17-000511-A 7 ii. Utilize an alternative method or technology to achieve equal to or greater odor mitigation than provided by (1) above. e. The system shall be maintained in working order and shall be in use. APPELLANT'S OBJECTION: In the Notice of Appeal, the appellant states: Respectfully, staffs acceptance of the mechanical engineer's report is not reflective of the application's compliance with this criterion. Staff opines that "these criteria can be met," [emphasis added], but does not find that they are met. It is an applicant's burden to prove, by a preponderance of evidence, that the applicable approval standards are met.... [Mechanical Engineer] Mr. Castino does not provide the work to prove these conclusory statements, asking the County and the community to take his word for his conclusions. He is required to demonstrate that the system will control odor, not merely draw a box and conclude its so. FINDING: The applicant submitted a narrative report stamped by mechanical engineer Jay Castino describing how the system will meet the requirements of this section. Staff used the phrase "these criteria can be met," instead of "are met" because the system did not physically exist at the time of the Administrative Determination decision. The Hearings Officer finds that the phrase used by Staff in the decision is immaterial. Appellants assert that there must be some "demonstration" that the system will control odor, as well. Condition of Approval "E" requires "The proposed odor control system must at all times prevent unreasonable interference with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. The odor control system shall be maintained in working order and shall be in use." The Hearings Officer cannot presume that the applicant will not comply with any conditions of approval. Substantial evidence supports a finding that odor will be controlled by an activated charcoal filter system that will satisfy the requirements of this section. The applicant's engineer is approved by OLCC and experienced in providing mechanical engineering services for marijuana production facilities and other similar controlled environment applications throughout Oregon. Appellants and others expressed concerns regarding odor and whether it could be entirely controlled, and potential health impacts due to asthma. Some expressed doubt that odors can be controlled based on other, existing farms/facilities. Some opponents testified that there is no measure for odor and complained that odor control measures do not eliminate odor, but only reduce it. The applicant submitted a 3 -page revised report in response to the appeal. This report shows that exhaust fans and filters are adequately sized and rated and that the system will be used and properly maintained per the manufacturer's recommendations. The Hearings Officer finds that there is no requirement to provide "proof' of a "track record" on controlling odor. The memorandum explains the methodology used including a building description, HVAC system description, odor control system and noise controls. The report includes a registered professional engineer stamp for Jay J. Castino, PE. The Hearings Officer further finds that there is no requirement in the Code to entirely eliminate odor. Based on evidence submitted by the applicant, the odor control 247-17-000511-A 8 measures proposed are consistent with the Code requirements. I cannot condition or deny the application based on speculation that the applicant will not comply with existing regulations. Subsection (10)(a) requires the building to be equipped with an "effective odor control system" which must at all times prevent "unreasonable interference of neighbors' use and enjoyment of the property." No evidence was presented that the proposed odor control system will fail to prevent unreasonable interference with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property, which is the applicable standard in the code. No evidence was presented that the odor control system will not be maintained in working order and will be in use. Appellants offered only speculation, which is not competent evidence on which I may base my decision. Appellants appear to contest the conditions of approval included in the administrative decision with respect to odor (addressed in this finding), and noise and waste disposal (addressed below), claiming that there is no "proof" the criteria will be met. However, Appellants are wrong in their contention that conditions of approval to ensure compliance with certain criteria is insufficient. In general it is well-settled that a local government may find compliance with applicable criteria either (1) finding that an applicable approval standard is satisfied, or (2) finding that it is feasible to satisfy an applicable approval standard and imposing conditions necessary to ensure the standard will be satisfied. E.g., Burghardt v. City of Molalla, 29 Or LUBA 223, 226 (1995). The Hearings Officer notes that, if operations in the future are determined not to comply with this subsection, affected property owners have the right and ability to request Code Enforcement proceedings and/or to file a civil complaint to enjoin alleged nuisanra operations. I cannot revise the Code to require more stringent odor control measures. This objection is dismissed. C. DCC 18.116.330(B)(11). Noise. 11. Noise. Noise produced by marijuana production and marijuana processing shall comply with the following: a. Sustained noise from mechanical equipment used for heating, ventilation, air condition, odor control, fans and similar functions shall not exceed 30 dB(A) measured at any property line hetween 10170 p.m 7:00 a.m. the following day. b. Sustained noise from marijuana production is exempt from protections of DCC 9.12 and ORS 30.395, Right to Farm. Intermittent noise for accepted farming practices is permitted. APPELLANT'S OBJECTION: In the Notice of Appeal materials, the appellant states: The mandatory language of this criterion ("shai; ::u.iip;y") i ui; the proof offered meet the burden of the application process. This statement states only that the two systems won't run ail the time, and that according to specs (not provided) and calculations (not provided), the sound level won't reach such levels. No mention is made of the time restriction and whether those machines will run during the restricted time. The issue of the noise created by the two systems running together is not even considered. No calculation of the location of the 247-17-000511-A 9 systems in relation to the property lines is made. This 6 line statement is wholly inadequate to meet the proof requirements of the County's Code. FINDING: The applicant submitted a letter from a licensed mechanical engineer, which includes a statement that the proposal will be in compliance with this section because, "the equipment specifications and our calculations indicate that the sound level will not be above 30 dba, as measured from any property line, between 10pm and 7am." Staff included a condition of approval to ensure compliance with the requirements of this section: "Sustained noise from mechanical equipment used for heating, ventilation, air conditioning, odor control, fans and similar functions shalt not exceed 30 dB(A) measured at any property line between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the following day." The report concludes that the mechanical equipment will satisfy these criteria. No evidence was offered to counter this conclusion. The Hearings Officer finds that staff appropriately determined compliance with the applicable criteria will occur by compliance with conditions of approval. See Burghardt, supra, 29 Or LUBA at 226. Appellants are concerned that operations of the proposed facility will not meet these criteria. However, 1 cannot condition or deny the application based on speculation. If actual operations are conducted in violation of these requirements, affected property owners have the right and ability to request Code Enforcement proceedings and/or to file a civil complaint to redress alleged violations of the noise ordinance. This objection is dismissed. D. DCC 18.116.330(B)(13). Water. 13. Water. The applicant shall provide: a. A copy of a water right permit, certificate, or other water use authorization from the Oregon Water Resource Department; or b. A statement that water is supplied from a public or private water provider, along with the name and contact information of the water provider; or c. Proof from the Oregon Water Resources Department that the water to be used is from a source that does not require a water right APPELLANT'S OBJECTION: In the Notice of Appeal materials, the appellant states: Applicant has provided a statement from COID that structures on the mapped water right are not allowed, unless those structures are greenhouses used for growing. Here, structures are proposed for other purposes than growing, as acknowledged in the staff decision on Page 12, Finding. Staff opined that the violation is between COID and the applicant. This conclusion is not reasonable. Deschutes County is legally responsible for reviewing an application for a new land use, and verifying that it satisfied all applicable criteria. One of those criteria is [DCC Section 18.116.330(B)(13)(b)] ... COID did provide such a statement, affirming that they do have water available to serve the subject property. However, COID also stated that it is not legal for structures to be located over the mapped water rights, if those structures are not growing greenhouses. The instant application clearly shows 247-17-000511-A 10 non -growing areas/structures over the mapped water right areas. It is therefore not legal for applicant to use the water as it is proposed. This is not a problem between COID and applicant, but rather a standard applicable to the instant application that will not be met. It is Deschutes County's obligation to verify that the criteria will be fulfilled. FINDING: The Hearings Officer finds that the appellant's objection does not address the simple and straight forward requirements of DCC 18.116.330(B)(13)(b) which merely require the applicant to provide a statement that water is to be supplied, and from whom the water will be supplied. The applicant submitted proof to satisfy this requirement as evidenced by a letter and an email from the Central Oregon Irrigation District (COLD) dated January 26, 2017. A second tetter, dated July 14, 2017 from COID to Mr. Coppinger confirms the "will serve" commitment. It also states that, "If, and when a permit is issued by the county on this application, COID will work with the property owner to assure continued viability of the water right." (emphasis added). The letter further explains that COID performs an annual inspection of structures to document beneficial use of the COD water right appurtenant to the footprint of the structure. If it is determined that all or a portion of the water right is not used for growing plants, COID will provide the property owner with several options to protect any unused portion of the COID water including temporary instream leases and temporary or permanent transfer of unused water. The County has no authority to condition approval of an administrative determination application on any showing by the applicant that he or she will "properly" use water supplied by a public or private water provider in accordance with such entity's own requirements. The Hearings Officer only has authority to enforce the Code as adopted. I uphold staffs finding at page 12 of the Decision which states, "It is the applicant's responsibility to comply with COID's rules and regulations for siting structures, applying for water transfers, and use of water within the allowed irrigation season." The Hearings Officer dismisses this objection of the Appellants. E. DCC 18.116.330(B)(15). Utility Verification. 15. Utility Verification. A statement from each utility company proposed to serve the operation, stating that each such company is able and willing to serve the operation, shall be provided. APPELLANT'S OBJECTION: In the Notice of Appeal materials, the appellant states: Respectfully, staff again errs in finding that because a standard can be met, it is met. The "will serve" letter from CEC says they have reviewed the load information, and that the present system isn't sufficient to meet the requirements of the proposed use. The letter goes on to note that the proposal will require system upgrades, and that CEC won't pay for them. Translation: there is not enough capacity to serve the proposed land use. This criterion is not met. The application does not meet its burden, by a preponderance of the evidence, that utility service is available for the proposed use. 247-17-000511-A 11 FINDING: As an initial matter, the Hearings Officer agrees with staffs statement at page 5 of the Staff Memorandum prepared for the instant appeal in which he states, "The appellant is incorrect in stating that staff found this standard 'can be met', and not 'is met.' In the Findings and Decision, on page 13, staff plainly states this in the finding, "This criterion is met." The Hearings Officer finds that the appellant is again reading into the straight -forward criterion additional requirements that do not exist in the Code. The applicant submitted a 'will serve" letter from the Central Electric Cooperative (CEC) dated May 16, 2017. A second letter dated July 12, 2017 was provided by CEC to Mr. Coppinger and reiterated its statements set forth in the May 16, 2017. The May 16, 2017 letter states, in response to your inquiry, please be advised that the property located in T.17S., R.14E., W.M., Section 25, Tax Lot 104 in Deschutes County, Oregon, is located within the service area of Central Electric Cooperative, Inc. Central Electric Cooperative has reviewed the provided Toad information (3,000 amp three phase service) associated with the submitted cannabis grow facility and has determined that this service will require system upgrades to our facilities in the area. Central Electric Cooperative is prepared to serve this location in accordance with the rates, policies and available system capacity of the cooperative." (emphasis added). The applicant states, 'The cost of any system upgrades necessary to serve the use will be borne by the applicant pursuant to CEC policy (i.e. to wit, lines, conduits, poles, transformers, etc.)." The July 17, 2017 letter confirms, "Central Electric Cooperative is willing and able to serve your requested service for this property." It also notes that "Capacity increases are achieved with system upgrades and are a routine part of supplying electricity to customers as their needs change_" Electric service is the only utility the proposal will utilize besides water, which is addressed above. The Hearings Officer finds that the fact upgrades are required to the CEC system does not, in any way, take away from the statement that CEC is willing and able to serve the operation. The Code requires nothing more in this regard. The Hearings Officer dismisses this objection of the Appellants. F. DCC 18.116.330(B)(17) 17. Secure Waste Disposal, Marijuana waste shall be stored in a secured waste receptacle in the possession of and under the control of the OLCC licensee or OHA Person Responsible for the Grow Site (PRMG). APPELLANT'S OBJECTION: In the Notice of Appeal materials, the appellant states: The mandatory language of this standard requires that the County be able to verify this criterion will be complied with. Applicant's statement that they will do so is not adequate to meet applicant's burden of proof of preponderance of the evidence. It is a mere affirmation. A satisfactory application would show on a site plan where the facility would be located, how it is confirmed to be a secured area, yet how proper disposal will occur, and how applicant will supervise it 247-17-000511-A 12 ("possession and control") at all times. This must be demonstrated and applicant has failed to do so. FINDING: The applicant states, "The site will be provided with the appropriate Locking container as required, under the maintenance and supervision of the owner/operator/qualified designee." Staff included the following as a condition of approval: "Marijuana waste shall be stored in a secured waste receptacle in the possession of and under the control of the OLCC licensee." In response to the appeal, the applicant submitted a 4 -page exhibit showing the dimensions and locking mechanisms of a secured waste receptacle that will be used by the applicant on the subject property. The Hearings Officer finds that this section does not require submission of a site plan, siting of a secured waste receptacle in a "secured area," "supervision" by the applicant, or a description of how waste will be disposed. Nor does this section regulate the type of waste receptacle that must be used. I note, however, that the administrative rules of the OLCC require an applicant to "Store, manage and dispose of solid and liquid wastes generated during marijuana production and processing in accordance with applicable state and local laws and regulations." OAR 845-025-7750(1)(a). Again, the Appellants would have the Hearings Officer insert additional provisions into the above regulation that do not exist. I do not have such authority. Moreover, the Hearings Officer cannot condition or deny the application based on assumptions that the applicant will not comply with the law and/or any condition of approval. This objection is dismissed. G. DCC 18.116.330(B)(8) 8. Access. Marijuana production over 5,000 square feet of canopy area for mature marijuana plants shall comply with the following standards. a. Have frontage on and legal direct access from a constructed public, county, or state road; or b. Have access from a private road or easement serving only the subject property. c. If the property takes access via a private road or easement which also serves other properties, the applicant shall obtain written consent to utilize the easement or private road for marijuana production access from all owners who have access rights to the private road or easement. The written consent shall: 1. Be on a form provided by the County and shall contain the following information; ii. Include notarized signatures of all owners, persons and properties holding a recorded interest in the private mad or easement; Include a description of the proposed marijuana production or marijuana processing operation; and 247-17-000511-A 13 iv. Include a legal description of the private road or easement FINDING: The Notice of Appeal materials did not include any assignment of error to the County's decision with respect to finding compliance with DCC 18.116.330(6)(8). However, testimony at the hearing indicated that Appellants believe these criteria are not met due to the alleged condition of County Line Road, access to County Line Road, and allegations concerning the impact of additional trips/traffic on County Line Road. As an initial matter, the Hearings Officer finds and Appellants' attorney conceded that the withdrawal of a Shared Access Agreement is immaterial because the applicant has direct access to a County Road. Access to the subject property will not be via a private road or easement. Accordingly, I find that DCC 18.116.330(B)(8)(c) is inapplicable.3 It is not disputed that the subject property located at 62655 County Line Road has frontage on County Line Road, which is a constructed public county road. The evidence shows that the property has several hundred feet of frontage and direct legal access to County Line Road, which is a publicly accessible county road owned by Deschutes County. Appellants' argument that the property is merely "adjacent" to County Line Road is not supported by evidence in the record. DCC 18.116.330(B)(8)(a) requires nothing more than legal direct access to a county road. The record supports such a determination. The applicant has the legal right to allow pedestrians and vehicles to cross between the public county road and the adjoining subject property. DCC 18.04.030 defines "access" as "the right to cross between public and private property allowing pedestrians and vehicles to enter and leave the property." See Central Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes County, 63 Or Luba 288, 292-94 (2011). The criteria in DCC 18.116.330(6)(8) do not require a demonstration of "safe" legal access. The Hearings Officer cannot add new criteria to DCC 18.116.330(6)(8), nor may I interpret the criteria to include additional, unexpressed conditions. Peter Russell, Deschutes County Senior Transportation Planner submitted an August 3, 2017 memorandum in response to transportation/road issues raised at the hearing and in post -hearing submittals. The memo sets forth the following: Board Resolution 2013-020 sets the County's SDC rate. Staff includes SDC amounts and when the amount is due in the land use process as a courtesy to the applicant. However, SDCs are not a land use decision and are the purview of the County Road Department, not a hearing's officer. Planning and Road Department staff held a work session with the Board of County Commissioners on April 3, 2017, discussing trip generation rates and assumptions related to marijuana. At that work session, staff relayed the reasons for using Warehouse from the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) 3 During the administrative review process, it was suggested that DCC 18.116.330(8)(8)(c) applied because the applicant's neighbor has been granted an access and utility easement to use part of the applicant's driveway. However, because the applicant has established compliance with DCC 18.116.330(B)(8)(a), as discussed above, subsection (c) is inapplicable. It is irrelevant that a neighbor has the right to use the applicant's driveway for a limited purpose. 247-17-000511-A 14 handbook instead of Nursery for marijuana production. The Board agreed with staff.... Staff considers this matter settled, but the applicant does have the ability to make a timely appeal of the SDC by following the procedures set forth in Res. 2013- 020. Deschutes County Code (DCC) at 18.116.330(B)(8) only requires that a marijuana production site has frontage on and legal access to the types of roads set forth in DCC 18.116.330(B)(8). The condition, physical dimensions, operational capacity and surface of County Line Road, which is a County - maintained local road, are not part of any approval criteria. Appellants have not provided any evidence that County Line Road is unsafe. The County has hundreds of miles of gravel roads which serve agricultural uses, timber, quarry operations, and rural residences. Low traffic volumes and low speeds are typical of such roads with the occasional occurrence of two vehicles using a gravel road simultaneously, yet accommodating each other's uneventful passing. Finally, the Alfalfa Fire District was mailed notice about the marijuana grow operation and provided no comments about the use of County Line Road. The Hearings Officer agrees with Mr. Russell's conclusion that the County cannot require additional traffic analysis or review criteria of an affected road's capacity, condition or surface and that the County's development code for marijuana production only requires proof of frontage on and legal access to specified roads, or an easement, per DCC 18.116.330(B)(8). Mr. Singhose's testimony concerning traffic on County Line Road, the conditions of the road itself, and his opinion that the road will not support additional trips generated by the proposed facility is not tied to any approval criterion and thus is not a basis for conditioning or denying the application, as stated by Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner. Similarly, arguments by counsel for the Appellants that County Line Road is "barely a road at all," and that it is not safe access for two way traffic when farm vehicles are on the road are not directed to approval criteria and thus are not relevant to this decision. The Hearings Officer dismisses this objection of the Appellants. IV. CONCLUSION The Hearings Officer upholds the Findings and Decision for the Administrative Determination application, file number 247 -17 -000145 -AD, issued by staff on June 7, 2017, in their entirety, with the exception of Condition of Approval C, which shall be deleted as unnecessary. See ATTACHMENT A. This Decision only addresses the criteria and standards to which Appellants' assigned error in their Notice of Appeal materials, and on which testimony and evidence was presented at the hearing and during the period in which the record was left open following the hearing. 247-17-000511-A 15 Based on the foregoing Findings, the Hearings Officer finds that the proposed marijuana production facility complies with the applicable standards and criteria of the Deschutes County zoning ordinance if conditions of approval set forth in the Findings and Decision dated June 7, 2017, are met. V. DECISION APPROVAL, subject to the conditions of approval set forth in ATTACHMENT A, with the exception of Condition of Approval C requiring recordation of the submitted signed and notarized Shared Access Consent Agreement with the Deschutes County Clerk and submittal of a copy of the recorded agreement to the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permits. This decision becomes final twelve (12) days after the date of mailing, unless appealed by a party of interest. Stephanie Marshall Hicks, Hearings Officer Dated this 13th day of September, 2017 Attachment: A. Administrative Decision 247 -17 -000145 -AD 247-17-000511-A 16 EXHIBIT 27 Deborah McMahon's October 11, 2017 Letter to the BOCC October 11, 2017 Deborah McMahon 60352 Arnold Market Road Bernd, Oregon 97702 Subject: Impact of Marijuana Grow Operations on Residential Living Environments Dear Deschutes County Board of Commissioners: 1 am totally and unequivocally opposed to marijuana grows near residential developments. They should be in industrial areas or areas that are not close to homes. And, since marijuana plants are not planted outside, in soil, it seems logical to require this. Nonetheless, I wish to tell you of my experiences with a marijuana grow operation. I live in an area with a mix of zones and lot sizes. Our property is 20 acres in size, zoned EFU, Exclusive Farm Use. We abut a few smaller properties with various other property sizes and zones. Several years ago, my neighbor (on a smaller property) developed and ran a medicinal marijuana grow operation. It consisted of a large hoop structure, fans, and related grow materials. For 2 growing seasons, we experienced a significantly reduced living environment because of the marijuana grow operation. Here is how we were negatively affected: 1. I received no notice of the proposed development. The siting of the marijuana grow operation was very close to the property line and within 400 feet of our house. Other areas on the property could have been used rather the area closest to our house. 2. The smell of the marijuana pervaded our living environment to the extent we could not open our windows, hang our laundry, enjoy our deck and outdoor areas, or have guests over to visit. It was intolerable that we could not enjoy our property due to the obnoxious and unwelcome odors, non-residential operational characteristics, use of unknown chemicals, etc. 3. The odors were worse when the grower was burning the excess plant material. We were told this must be done as part of the grow operation. The odors were so strong that our clothes retained the odors if we hung our laundry outside to dry. If the windows were open, the smell came in and lingered. The oils of the marijuana plant are volatile and cling to clothing and anything else they touch. We were quite concerned since our clothes would retain the smell and we could be at risk of losing our professional insurances due to being non-compliant with Federal law. 4. The marijuana grow operation included many workers who arrived at all hours to manage and harvest the plants. At times, there were over 15 extra cars with unknown people coming and going from the grow site, including large delivery vehicles. The lights from the vehicles, noise from the workers, and the worry that the workers were loitering after their work added to our loss of privacy and increased our concerns since we have livestock on our property and family with young children who visit during the summer months. Our lifestyle was forced to change and we were greatly saddened when we could not have our 9 -year-old niece visit us anymore. My sister did not believe the marijuana grow operation created a safe and wholesome environment especially with the strong odors and unknown persons coming and going. This situation prohibited my niece from playing outside further diminishing the quality of our home life. And, not being able to have my niece visit was very sad indeed. We lost out on key moments in her life. 5. We were very concerned the refuse and chemicals used on the property were not properly handled or disposed of. Contamination is still a lasting worry. No one provided us any assurance the chemicals used for the grow were safe and handled correctly. 6. The marijuana grow operation ran large air moving fans 24/7. The noise from these constantly buzzing devices disrupted our living environment and were non-stop. So not only was the odor etc. a problem, but we had the added detriment of noise pollution. Our lifestyle was severely impacted because of the marijuana grow operation. We could not enjoy the property rights that should be commonly enjoyed in our area, namely, clean air, privacy, and safety. Eventually, the grower stopped operations. If he had not, we would have moved from our property. Have you tried selling a home that is next to a marijuana grow? It is not a selling point. I asked the neighbor to stop or modify the operation and were told no. I called the Deschutes County Sheriff and asked how this situation could be allowed. He checked his records and told us the grower was authorized to grow the marijuana. He said there was nothing he could do. He told me to contact Deschutes County. I spoke with a Deschutes County Planner who told me the grow operation was allowed and additional rules were being written. I expressed my concerns and described my situation. Please deny any marijuana operation next to residential homes. My experiences are representative of many other people and should be considered in any decision to evaluate the proper location of the marijuana grow operation. Sincerely, Deborah McMahon Deborah McMahon