2017-812-Minutes for Meeting October 30,2017 Recorded 11/21/2017Recorded in Deschutes County CJ2017-812
Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk
Commissioners, .journal 11 /21/2017 4:34:50 PM
2017-812
II I II I II III
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 30, 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 were in attendance.
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Baney called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
CITIZEN INPUT: None was offered.
CONSENT AGENDA: There were no items submitted for the Consent Agenda.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting October 30, 2017
Page 1 of 4
ACTION ITEMS
1. Consideration of Board Signature of Ordinance No. 2017-007 and Ordinance No.
2017-008, Approving a Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Chris Schmoyer, Community Development Department presented this item as response
to direction to staff the draft a decision and ordinances. Mr. Schmoyer noted there are
two versions of the ordinances in the packet (emergency and standard)
Discussion held on whether to adopt the ordinances by emergency. Mr. Anderson noted
the City of Bend's application is to be submitted with the State of Oregon Land
Conservation and Development Commission seeking permission to participate in the
Urban Growth Boundary expansion pilot program and if selected to continue as part of
this program they would be specific with the next step of the process to include the
identification of the property.
Liz Fancher, attorney for the applicant, Porter Kelly Burns Landholdings, LLC. She
noted the City of Bend has a deadline of November 1st
Discussion was held on the need for housing options in the community and the proposal
for the ordinances to be adopted by emergency. This item proposes a plan amendment
from Agricultural to Rural Residential Exception Area and zone change from Exclusive
Farm Use to Multiple Use Agricultural. Commissioner DeBone is inclined to adopt with
a 30 -day time frame and not immediate emergency clause. Commissioner Henderson
would suggest to table this item until Wednesday.
Chair Baney directed staff to table the item until the Business Meeting of Wednesday,
November 1St and will determine if the ordinances would be adopted by emergency.
2. Consideration of Board Signature of Document No. 2017-674, Purchase & Sale
Agreement and Chair Signature of Document No. 2017-678, Memorandum of
Purchase & Sale Agreement Regarding the Sale of the 72 -Acre Demolition Landfill
to Oregon State University
James Lewis, Property Management Specialist presented the item for consideration. The
property is a 72 -acre parcel that was operated as a demolition landfill from 1972 to 1993.
In August of 2015, Deschutes County entered into a letter of intent with OSU Cascades
for purchase of the property. Mr. Lewis reviewed the history, process, and provisions of
the land purchase. County Administrator Anderson commented on the long discussion
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting October 30, 2017
Page 2 of 4
process and thanked James Lewis, Property Management Specialist; Timm Schimke,
Director of Solid Waste; Dave Doyle, County Legal Counsel; Becky Johnson and Kelly
Sparks of OSU Cascades in their work on this agreement.
Commissioner Henderson spoke on his concerns of the use clause and language of grant
funding for unauthorized waste remediation and this doesn't seem a fair principle. He
feels these are crucial points in the final negotiation.
Commissioner DeBone looked to Timm Schimke, Director of Solid Waste for the history
of the landfill. This was a construction waste landfill. Mr. Schimke noted the work done
with Department of Environmental Quality. Commissioner DeBone commented that
repurposing this land is a great opportunity for development on the west side.
Commissioner Baney noted that the County is unaware of any specific items of
unauthorized waste on the property and any demolition materials on the site were not
considered unauthorized waste at the time when the landfill was in operation.
Commissioner Baney spoke on the benefit to the community for higher education and an
opportunity to partner with businesses to provide a higher skill level for employment.
Commissioner Henderson noted the importance of the work done and yet remains
concerned with the agreement and is not supportive of this particular contract. He noted
his concerns with the funding process but is supportive of the university.
DEBONE: Move approval
BANEY: Second
VOTE: DEBONE:
HENDERSON:
BANEY:
Yes
Opposed
Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
3. PUBLIC HEARING: Marijuana Production and Processing Appeal — 247-17-
000803-A
Cynthia Smidt, Community Development Department. The appellant has requested a
continuance until Wednesday, November 8.
Ms. Smidt presented the hearing procedures. The applicant has extended the 150 day
review clock to January 8, 2018. If continuing the hearing the written record was be
extended as well.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting October 30, 2017
Page 3 of 4
Chair Baney opened the hearing at this time. Commissioners did not declare any
conflicts; no challenges from the public. Ms. Smidt reviewed the staff report.
Commissioner Henderson requested information from the engineer's report. Ms. Smidt
will provide the full application including the mechanical engineer's report.
Chair Baney opened the hearing for public testimony.
Tammy Threlkeld has been reviewing applications for marijuana grows and feels there is
not enough information specified on the impacts of pesticides and fertilizer our air and
water quality.
Ed Fitch to make the hearing more efficient would request to submit written documents
prior to the hearing for review. Chair Baney directed that the material be submitted to
Ms. Smidt.
Hearing no other comments, Chair Baney called for continuation of the hearing on
Wednesday, November 81h at 10:00 a.m.
OTHER ITEMS: None were offered.
ADJOURN: Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at
11:08 a.m.
DATED this Day of bV 2017 for the Deschutes
County Board of Commissioners.
Tammy Baney, Cha'
ATTES :
Recording Secretary
Anthony DeBone, Vice Chair
P
d
Philip G. HeOderson, Commissioner
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting October 30, 2017
Page 4 of 4
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703
(541) 388-6570 — Fax (541) 385-3202 — https://www.deschutes.org/
BUSINESS MEETING AGENDA
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
10:00 AM, MONDAY, OCTOBER 30, 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
ACTION ITEMS
1. Consideration of Board Signature of Ordinance No. 2017-007 and Ordinance No. 2017-
008, Approving a Plan Amendment and Zone Change - Chris Schmoyer, Associate
Planner
Board of Commissioners Business Meeting Agenda Monday, October 30, 2017 Page 1 of 2
2. Consideration of Board Signature of Document No. 2017-674, Purchase & Sale
Agreement and Chair Signature of Document No. 2017-678, Memorandum of Purchase
& Sale Agreement Regarding the Sale of the 72 -Acre Demolition Landfill to Oregon
State University - James Lewis, Property Management Specialist
3. PUBLIC HEARING: Marijuana Production and Processing Appeal - 247-17-000803-A -
Cynthia Smidt, Associate 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.
Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and
activities. To request this information in an alternate format please call (541) 617-4747.
FUTURE MEETINGS:
Additional meeting dates available at www.deschutes.org/meeting calendar
(Please note: Meeting dates and times are subject to change. All meetings take place in the Board of
Commissioners' meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. If you have questions
regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572.)
Board of Commissioners Business Meeting Agenda Monday, October 30, 2017 Page 2 of 2
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703
(541) 388-6570 — Fax (541) 385-3202 — https://www,deschutes.org/
AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT
For Board of Commissioners Business Meeting of October 30, 2017
DATE: October 24, 2017
FROM: Cynthia Smidt, Community Development, 541-317-3150
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
PUBLIC HEARING: Marijuana Production and Processing Appeal - 247-17-000803-A
RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED:
Hold a de novo public hearing and make a decision based on the existing record and written
and oral testimony.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Before the Board of County Commissioners
("Board") is an appeal filed by Wendy Every in response to the administrative decision
approving a marijuana production and processing facility in the Exclusive Farm Use Zone and
proposed by Evolution Concepts, LLC. The Board called up the matter for their review on
October 4, 2017 via Order No. 2017-040. Based on the Order adopted by the Board, the
appeal will be heard de novo.
See attached staff memo for further background information.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None
ATTENDANCE: Cynthia Smidt, Associate 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) 385-1,764
http://wway.deschutes.org/cd
STAFF REPORT
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Cynthia Smidt, Associate Planner
DATE: October 24, 2017
HEARING: October 30, 2017
RE: Public Hearing on an appeal of an Administrative Determination for Marijuana
Production and Processing File No. 247-17-000803-A (247 -17 -000172 -AD, 247-
17 -000173 -SP, and 247 -17 -000180 -AD)
PURPOSE
The Deschutes Board of County Commissioners ("Board") will hold a public hearing to consider
an appeal, filed by appellant Wendie Every, in response to an administrative decision approving
a marijuana production and processing facility proposed by Evolution Concepts, LLC. The subject
property is located at 4800 Highland Avenue and zoned Exclusive Farm Use (Attachment A). The
appellant's appeal identifies several concerns regarding overall neighborhood livability in the area.
The Board called up the matter for their review on October 4, 2017.'
This memorandum supplements the Findings and Decision for the above -referenced land use
application (Attachment B). It summarizes the concerns raised in the Notice of Appeal
(Attachment C).
11. APPELLANT'S OBJECTIONS
The appellant states the following reasons for the appeal:
A number of neighbors with properties adjacent to 4800 SW Highland Avenue (State
Highway 126) wrote letters with various objections in March 2017. Per the county website,
opposition that came from public comment were to be addressed in a hearing. None of
the occupants were notified that a public hearing would not take place. Therefore, we are
filing an appeal so our specific concerns will be addressed.
In addition to the concerns raised in the 3/30/17 letters in the last two weeks, neighbors
at (4937 W Hwy 126) have had two offers rescinded regarding the sale of their property.
The Board called up the matter via Order No. 2017-040.
Quality Services T'erliwrned with Pride
In addition, the traffic concerns were not specifically addressed. The water table concerns
were not addressed. And, the proximity to multiple residential properties and the urban
growth boundary were not addressed.
It is extremely disappointing that you did not follow your established procedure and hold
a public hearing to address our concerns. Instead, we were required to file an appeal to
have a hearing. In conclusion, our primary concerns are traffic congestion, adverse effects
on neighborhood wells and our inability to sell our homes. It is also understood that the
owner of the property resides in Costa Rica, has no plan to relocate to the United States,
and therefore will not be impacted by the changes in the area caused by the operation of
his facility.
The comments submitted to the record are included (Attachment D). As summarized in the
Findings and Decision (page 10), opponents raised the following concerns:
• Overall neighborhood livability
• Environmental impacts (e.g. water and electricity usage)
• Property values
• Odor, noise, and lighting
• Safety
• Traffic impacts
The administrative decision did not address the above noted concerns in a point -by -point manner.
Instead, staff addressed those issues (e.g. odor, noise, lighting, safety, and traffic) that were
relevant or applicable to the proposal.
111. NEXT STEPS
At the conclusion of the hearing, the Board can choose one of the following options:
1. Continue the hearing to a date certain.
2. Close the hearing and begin deliberation.
The appellant has requested a continuance of the hearing to a date in early November. The
applicant responded by objecting to this request (Exhibit E).
On October 10, 2017, the applicant extended the 150 -day review clock for 60 days. Based on
this information, 150th day on which the County must take final action on this application is
January 8, 2018.
Attachments
A. Vicinity Map and Applicant's Plot Plans
B. Administrative Decision for 247 -17 -000172 -AD, 247 -17 -000173 -SP, & 247 -17 -000180 -AD
C. Appeal Application for 247-17-000803-A
D. Public Comments from 247 -17 -000172 -AD, 247 -17 -000173 -SP, & 247 -17 -000180 -AD
E. Appellant and Applicant's Correspondence Regarding Continuance
F. Staff Hearing PowerPoint
File No.: 247-17-000803-A Page 2 of 2
Deschutes County Files 247-17-000172-AD/173-SP/180-AC
4800 SW Highland Ave (Highway 126), Redmond
SE�� E�tE 70L1 l lg �'✓�r.
0)
W .ANTLER AVi W ANTLER AVE
Subject
Property
r-
.n
""A'OBSIDIAN AVE
s^f
`.'VJ INDIAN PI
SW JUNIPER AVE
SW LAVA PME
v,
r�
crt
t i'«4+ L Lit, A14
REDMOND
S4VdPUMICE
0.:.
2'
2
u7
w
�
I -SW QUARTZ AVE
IV IP.'GH AV!
w-
J
d
r H ray deo
SE�� E�tE 70L1 l lg �'✓�r.
0)
W .ANTLER AVi W ANTLER AVE
Subject
Property
r-
.n
""A'OBSIDIAN AVE
s^f
`.'VJ INDIAN PI
SW JUNIPER AVE
SW LAVA PME
v,
r�
crt
REDMOND
S4VdPUMICE
AVE
SW PUTAICE P
f�
I -SW QUARTZ AVE
w-
J
d
r H ray deo
P ark
GD
Deschutes County ArS, Sources: Esrn, USGS, NOAA
4 f�
L! '
n
1O
'0
.oz
rc
�o
>rc
$sip'i�3e`
z S
a
v
-
gm "
OZ
OZ
OZ
0
0
O£
HO <oc
J
W
t �
�o
1O
'0
.oz
rc
�o
>rc
N
z S
OZ
OZ
OZ
0
0
O£
1
I
a3�
m
{ � s
Community Development Department
i
Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division
r
P.D. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6605
(541) 388-6575 Fax (541) 385-1764
http://v+vm,des ch Lites.org/cd
FINDINGS AND DECISION
FILE NUMBERS: 247 -17 -000172 -AD, -000173-SP, and -000180-AD
APPLICANT: Evolution Concepts, LLC
915 SW Rimrock Way, Suite 201
Redmond, Oregon 97756
PROPERTY ATP, LLC
OWNER: 21330 Young Avenue
Bend, Oregon 97701
ENGINEER/ Tim Weishaupt, P.E.
SURVEYOR: Sun Country Engineering & Surveying
920 SE Armour Road
Bend, Oregon 97702
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting Administrative Determinations and Site
Plan review to establish a marijuana production and processing
facility on a 55.8 -acre parcel in the Exclusive Farm Use Zone —
Tumalo/Redmond/Bend Subzone.
STAFF CONTACT: Cynthia Smidt, Associate Planner
I. APPLICABLE CRITERIA:
Title 18, Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 18.16. Exclusive Farm Use Zone
Chapter 18.84. Landscape Management Combining Zone
Chapter 18.124. Site Plan Review
Chapter 18.116. Supplemental Provisions
Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance
II. BASIC FINDINGS:
A. LOCATION: The subject property has an assigned address of 4800 SW Highland Avenue
(State Highway 126), Redmond and is identified on Deschutes County Assessor's Map
No. 15-13-18, as Tax Lot 2400.
Quality Services Perj't»-med with Pride
B. LOT OF RECORD: The subject property is recognized by Deschutes County as a legal
lot of record based on file LM -05-168. This decision was not appealed.
C. ZONING: The subject property is zoned Exclusive Farm Use Zone —
Tumalo/Redmond/Bend Subzone (EFU-TRB). The property is also within the Landscape
Management (LM) Combining Zone.
D. SITE DESCRIPTION: The subject property is approximately 55.8 acres and irregular in
shape. The site has varying terrain with native vegetation including juniper trees and
groundcover (grasses and shrubs) and irrigated pasture. The subject property has 22.4
acres of water rights. Highland Avenue/Highway 126' abuts the property along its
northern boundary, which provides primary access to the site. The property is currently
developed with a 1946 single-family dwelling and several accessory structures (e.g. barn,
shed, and greenhouse).2 According to the Flood Insurance Rate Map for Deschutes
County and the National Wetlands Inventory, respectively, the subject property is not
located in the 100 -year flood plain and does not contain wetlands.
E. SURROUNDING LAND USES: The area surrounding the subject property consists of
mostly developed and vacant rural residential properties and farm -zoned parcels.
Residentially zoned parcels are located to the east and northeast, across Highland
Avenue. To the north, south, and west are farm -zoned parcels, either developed or
vacant, and with some farm uses occurring. The urban growth boundary associated with
the city of Redmond is located at the intersection of Highland Avenue/Hwy 126 and SW
Helmholtz Way, which is approximately 1,000 feet to the east of the subject property.
Zoning in the area is a mixture of Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA-10), and Exclusive Farm
Use, and Urban Holding (UH -10).
F. PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting approval of an Administrative Determination to
establish a marijuana production facility (grow) on the subject property. The applicant is
also requesting an Administrative Determination and Site Plan review for marijuana
processing facility. In particular, the applicant states the following regarding the proposed
production and processing:
This application requests approval for a site plan to develop multiple marijuana
production facilities (greenhouses) and processing. The proposal is to convert the
existing approximately 4200 square foot building into processing and
office/storage space, and add (4) additional production buildings of approximately
5,208 square feet each, in phases, with 2,450 square feet of production area
(canopy) each, for a total of just under 9,800 square feet of production area, and
a total building area of 28,056 sf.
The proposed production and processing site will be located in the northwestern region of
the property. The applicant proposes to establish the four production greenhouses to the
1 The location of the subject property is approximately where the road name changes to/from Highland
Avenue and Highway 126.
2 County Assessor's records showtwo dwellings on the property, including one established in 2006. County
records do not show permits for the second dwelling. However, in 2006, through permits LM -05-168 and
AG -05-114, an agricultural building was established on the property intended for "farm equipment storage,"
horse stalls, and hay storage.
247 -17 -000172 -AD, -000173-SP, and -000180-AD, Evolution Concepts Page 2
west of the existing agricultural building. The proposed parking area will be located
between the production buildings and the processing building. As indicated by the
applicant, each production building will be 5,208 square feet for a total of 20,832 square
feet for all four buildings. The existing agricultural building is approximately 4,200 square
feet. The total building area for all five buildings will be 25,082 square feet (staff believes
the applicant miscalculated this total building area).
G. LAND USE HISTORY: The subject property has had the following land use permit history:
file LM -05-168, a site plan review for an agricultural building (barn).
H. PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENTS: The Planning Division mailed notice to several agencies
and received the following comments:
1. Central Electric Cooperative (CEQ: The following comments were received on March
29, 2017.
The proposed site is in an unallocated area as determined by the PUC and I
believe is presently being served by Pacific Power.
If the owner is interested in using Central Electric Cooperative for their power
needs, the applicant will need to apply for a new electrical service by calling 541-
548-2144, provide electrical load and demand requirements for this activity.
CEC will determine if capacity is available.
2. Central Oregon Irrigation District: Comments and a map were submitted by Dan
Downing with the Central Oregon Irrigation District on April 4, 2017. The comments
are below.
COID FACILITIES:
• COID has four separate canals that run through the subject's property
o B-7 has a ROW of 30' with an additional 20' ROW for a road.
■ Road ROW changes sides mid -way through property
o B-7-3 has a RO W of 20'
o B-7-3-0-1 has two canals, each has a 20' ROW
• Do not build or encroach upon COID's ROW
• If a crossing of COID's facility is needed, contact the District for a
crossing permit.
COID WATER RIGHTS:
• Subject's property has 22.4 acres of COID water rights
• Contact COID if greenhouse structures are to be placed outside of a
mapped water right
• Contact COID if non -greenhouse structures are to be placed on a
mapped water right
COID POLICY STATEMENTS
• Read the following statement on marijuana grow 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
247 -17 -000172 -AD, -000173-SP, and -000180-AD, Evolution Concepts Page 3
through October 31" 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.
3. Deschutes County Assessor: The following comments were submitted by Nora
Wallace, Assessment Technician III, on March 28, 2017.
This property is in farm deferral.
4. Deschutes County Building Safety Division: Randy Scheid, Building Safety Director,
submitted the following comments on March 27, 2017.
The Deschutes County Building Safety Division code required Access, Egress,
Setbacks, Fire & Life Safety, Fire Fighting Water Supplies, etc. will be
specifically addressed during the plan review process for any proposed
structures and occupancies. All Building Code required items will be
addressed, when a specific structure, occupancy, and type of construction is
proposed and submitted for plan review.
5. Deschutes County Transportation Planner: Peter Russell, Senior Transportation
Planner submitted the following comments on March 29, 2017.
I have reviewed the transmittal materials for 247-17-000172-AD/173-SP/180-
AD for a marijuana production (growing) and processing operation in the
Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) and Landscape Management zones at 4800 SW
Highland, aka 15-13-18, Tax Lot 2400.
The most recent edition of the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip
Generation Handbook does not contain a category for marijuana production.
In consultation with the Road Department Director and Planning staff, the
County has determined the best analog use is Warehouse (Land Use 150)
based on the storage requirements and employees of this activity. Warehouse
generates daily trips at a rate of 3.56 trips per 1,000 square feet. The
applicant's site plan shows there will be 20,832 square feet of greenhouses for
cannabis production and support. The resulting trip rate would be 81 daily trips
(3.56 X 22.832). The applicant has proposed repurposing an existing 4,200 -
square -foot building for marijuana processing. Deschutes County uses
Manufacturing (Land Use 140) when assessing marijuana processing
operations, which has a weekday trip rate of 3.82 trips per 1,000 square feet.
The processing operation would thus generate 16 daily trips (3.82 X 4.2). The
entire grow and processing operation would generate 97 daily trips (81 + 16).
Deschutes County Code (DCC) at 18.116.310(C)(3)(b) states traffic analysis
is required if the proposed use will generate between 50-200 new weekday
trips. The proposed land use will meet that threshold and therefore a Traffic
Site Report is required.
247 -17 -000172 -AD, -000173-SP, and -000180-AD, Evolution Concepts Page 4
On page 10 of the burden of proof the applicant indicates a preference for
using Nursery, Wholesale (Land Use 818) from the ITE manual and to use
number of employees as the trip generation variable, rather than square feet.
Staff, in consultation with the Road Department, rejects this approach for the
following reasons. First, the ITE's summary of the Warehouse category states
"Warehouses are primarily devoted to the storage of materials, but they may
also include office and maintenance areas." (Page 191, 9th edition). Under
Deschutes County code all marijuana grow operations must occur indoors.
The structures used in the grow operations include plants at various stages of
development, in essence storing them. Due to the high monetary value of each
plant, many operations are labor intensive in the caring, nurturing, growing,
and harvesting operations. Thus, grow operations can have several
employees. As with any land use category, trips toffrom the site include
employees, delivery vehicles, utility readers, parcel package services, etc.
Second, the ITE summarizes Nursery Wholesale as "characterized by
seasonal variations in trip characteristics." By contrast, mar#uana grow
operations occur indoors, often in climate -controlled settings, and thus can
generate trips year-round unlike Wholesale Nursery.
Second, the County uses square -footage of buildings when determining
transportation effects, rather than employees. This is because the County has
a review role in the regulation of types and size of land uses and building
permits. The County does not review or regulate number of employees. An
applicant could claim minimal traffic impacts based on a handful of employees,
but then have staff several times larger with resulting traffic impacts.
As staff relayed at the pre -application conference, the County has decided to
use the Warehouse category for marijuana production and the Manufacturing
category for marijuana processing. The application should be deemed
incomplete until a Site Traffic Report is submitted to the County.
Board Resolution 2013-020 sets a (SDC rate of $3,852 per p.m. peak hour trip.
The ITE indicates Warehouse generates 0.32 p.m. peak hour trips per 1,000
square feet, which would result in 7.3 p.m. peak hour trips (0.32 X 22.832).
Thus the applicable SDC for the grow operation would be $27,349 (7.3 X
$3,852). The ITE indicates Manufacturing generates 0.73 trips per 1,000
square feet, which would result in 3.1 p.m. peak hour trips (0.73 X 4.2) Thus
the applicable SDC for the processing operation would be $11,941 (3.1 X
$3,852). The total SDC for the marijuana grow and processing operation would
be $39,290 ($27,349 + $11,941). The SDC is due prior to issuance of
certificate of occupancy, if a certificate of occupancy is not applicable, then the
SDC is due within 60 days of the land use decision becoming final. The
applicant proposes to use Nursery (Wholesale) for the SDC calculation. For
the same reasons stated above regarding traffic studies, the County bases its
SDC on size of buildings when it comes to marijuana grow operations.
Additionally, state law at ORS 223.301 does not allow the number of
employees to be used when determining SDCs.... The applicant can choose
to follow the County's SDC appeal process as described in Res. 2013-020,
Section 12 as the SDC is not part of the land use approval.
STAFF COMMENT: The applicant provided a Site Traffic Report performed by Joe
Bessman of Transight Consulting, LLC and dated September 18, 2017. The report
247 -17 -000172 -AD, -000173-SP, and -000180-AD, Evolution Concepts Page 5
provided five methods for determining the estimated trip generation for the proposed
use. Peter Russell submitted the following comments on September 19, 2017 in
response to the report.
Since this application includes site plan review, the traffic requirements of DCC
18.116.310 apply whereas most mar#uana production applications are reviewed
under DCC 18.116.330(B)(8) which only requires proof of legal access for
production sites where the mature canopy will exceed 5,000 square feet.
Regarding the ITE category to use for trip generation rates, the Planning and
Road Department have selected Warehouse. The Board affirmed that
decision in an April work session. The applicant has provided four different
methodologies for trip generation. Staff accepts methodology#3, which uses
the County's method of square footage of devoted to production and
processing. In turn production is analyzed using the Warehouse category and
processing is analyzed using the Manufacturing category. This results in 100
daily trips and 9 p.m. peak hour trips.
Staff does have one question in that the TIA references 2,450 square feet for
unenclosed outdoor production. Staff was under the impression all marijuana
production had to be enclosed by either greenhouses or other structures as
DCC 18.116.330(B)(2)(c) prohibits in all zones any outdoor production or
processing.
Staff uses the same trip generation categories for traffic analysis and
transportation system development charges (SDCs). BOCC Resolution 2013-
020 establishes an SDC rate of $3,937 per p.m. peak hour trip. The applicable
SDC based on the traffic analysis above is $35,433 (9 X $3,937). If the
applicant wishes to appeal the SDC, that is done through a Road Department
process as outlined in Board Resolution 2013-020, Section 12. The SDC is
due prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. If a certificate of occupancy
is not required, then the SDC is due within 60 days of the land use decision
becoming final.
6. Deschutes County Road Department: In response to the above noted Site Traffic
Report submitted by the applicant, Chris Doty, Director, provided the following
comments on September 19, 2017.
To the extent that Mr. Bessman has submitted an analysis that takes issue
with the County's trip generation policy regarding the trip generation of MJ
related facilities, I do feel compelled to respond regarding that particular
element of the study.
As have others, Mr. Bessman points to the Nursery (Wholesale) land use
category in the ITE manual as a more analogous land use for an MJ grow
facility versus the County's preferred use of the Warehouse category. While it
may sound like a better fit, there are reasons why I rejected the Nursery land
use in crafting the County's trip generation assumptions for MJ grow
operations.
1. Use of the Nursery land use requires use of the number of employees
as the trip generation variable. This requires significant speculation
and cannot be verified or permitted. Use of the number of employees
would not produce a consistent rate that could be fairly and consistently
247 -17 -000172 -AD, -000173-SP, and -000180-AD, Evolution Concepts Page 6
applied to different applications. For example, the last MJ grow
application which proposed use of the Nursery land use category
suggested that only 5 (max) employees would be required for 20,000
SF of grow space (Synergy Concepts, 7171 SW Quarry Avenue). This
application states that 15 (max) employees would be required for less
than 30, 000 SF of indoor grow space. That is a 100% difference (on
an employee per square foot basis) between two MJ grow operations.
2. Use of acreage as the variable is also highly speculative as most MJ
grow operations do not use but a fraction of their site for active use. In
his report, Mr. Bessman assumes a highly speculative and very
generous 6.7 acres of actively used space to back into a calculation of 4
peak hour trips. At 30,000 SF of total grow space and 6.7 acres of site,
this is not remotely close to analogous to the Wholesale Nursery land
use as that would mean the California nurseries noted in the report only
grow nursery stock on 10% of the land. Acreage is not a reasonable
land use variable by which to calculate trip generation for MJ use.
3. The third variable provided in which to calculate trip via the Nursery use
is gross floor area. Mr. Bessman adequately notes that this is not an
appropriate variable. Use of this variable would produce a calculation
of 270 peak hour trips for this site — which is clearly unreasonable.
As stated in the within the attached January 23, 2017 MJ technical memo
(policy), the Warehouse use is not a perfectly analogous land use for an MJ
grow, but I believe it to be a reasonable placeholder until such time that an ITE
or local trip generation rate can be developed and approved.
7. Pacific Power: The following comments were submitted by the applicant on June
12, 2017.
This is to advise you that Pacific Power has electrical distribution facilities near
Tax Lot 2400 in SEC. 18, T. 15S. R. 13E, W.M.in Deschutes, Oregon; and
Pacific Power has certified rights to provide electrical energy in this area. For
a Cannabis Grow operation, with an estimated load provided by the customer
of 3000 amps 277/480 v. three phase, approx. load of 2 Megawatts.
Pacific Power will provide electric service to this project within a reasonable
time after service is applied for. These extensions are provided under our
Rules and Regulations as filed with the Oregon State Public Utilities
Commissioners. These Rules and Regulations require that under some
situations, the developer or customer will be required to participate in the line
extension costs.
Please be aware that single customers of 1 Megawatt or larger will require the
completion of an engineering study to determine impacts on the electric system
and any construction necessary to serve the load.
Electric service to this project is in accordance with the Rates, Rules and
Regulations of Pacific Power's files Electric Tariff.
8. Redmond Fire and Rescue: Comments were submitted by Clara Butler, Deputy Fire
Marshal, on March 30, 2017. Ms. Butler's comments are below.
The following fire code requirements will apply to the processing facility.
247 -17 -000172 -AD, -000173-SP, and -000180-AD, Evolution Concepts Page 7
WATER:
Area without Fire Hydrants:
NFPA 1142 Requirements
o If the structure is being built in an area without a public water supply
system, then the water flow requirements will come from NFPA 1142.
o Note: The following information will need to be provided in order to
determine accurate water flow requirements.
■ Building height, length and width
■ Use of the building
■ Type of construction
■ Whether the structure 100 sq ft or larger and within 50 feet of any
other structures
Structures with Automatic Sprinkler systems — 2012 NFPA 1142
Chapter 7
o The authority having jurisdiction shall be permitted to waive the water
supply required by this standard when a structure is protected by an
automatic sprinkler system that fully meets the requirements of NFPA
13 or NFPA 13D
o Note: Contact Deschutes County Building plans review staff for
other options.
ACCESS:
• Premises Identification — 2014 OFC 505.1
o Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and
existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible
from the street or road fronting the property. Said numbers shall
contrast with their background and visible at night. Number/letter shall
be a minimum of 4" high and a 0.5" stroke width.
Fire Apparatus Access Roads — 2014 OFC Section 503 & Appendix D
o Fire apparatus access roads shall extend to within 150 ft of all
portions of the building as measured by an approved route around
the exterior of the building.
o Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not
less than 20 feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less
than 13 feet 6 inches.
o Fire apparatus roads shall be designed and maintained to support the
imposed loads of 70,000 lbs and shall be surfaced so as to provide all-
weather driving capabilities.
o The required turning radius of a fire apparatus access road shall be
30 feet inside and 50 feet outside.
o The grade of the fire apparatus access roads shall be within the limits
established by the fire code official (10916).
Fire Lanes — 2014 OFC 503.3 & Appendix D
o Approved signs or other approved notices shall be provided for fire
apparatus access roads to identify such roads or prohibit the
obstruction thereof. Such signs or notices shall be kept in legible
conditions at all times. The stroke shall be 1 inch with letters 6 inches
high and read "No Parking Fire Lane". Spacing for signage shall be
every 50 feet.
247 -17 -000172 -AD, -000173-SP, and -000180-AD, Evolution Concepts Page 8
Recommended to also (in addition to Fire lane signs) paint fire lane curbs
in bright red paint with white letters.
o Appendix D Section 103.6.1 Roads 20-26 Ft. Wide: Shall have Fire
Lane signs posted on both sides of a fire lane.
o Appendix D Section 103.6.2 Roads more than 26 Ft. Wide: Roads
26-32 ft wide shall have a Fire Lane signs posted on one side of the
road as a fire lane.
Aerial Access Roads — 2014 OFC Appendix D, Section 105
o Buildings or portions of buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet in height
above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access shall be
provided with approved fire apparatus access roads and capable of
accommodating fire department aerial apparatus. Overhead utility and
power lines shall not be located within the aerial fire apparatus access
roadways. At least one of the required access routes meeting this
condition shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum
of 30 feet from the building, all access roads shall have an unobstructed
width of not less than 26 feet and shall be positioned parallel to one
entire side of the building.
Dead -Ends — 2014 OFC Section 503.2.5
o Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length
shall be provided with an approved area for turning around fire
apparatus. Contact Redmond Fire & Rescue for requirements.
o OFC Table D103.4 Dead Ends over 750 Feet- Require special
approval. If approved, there shall be a turn -around no more than every
1000 feet with a bulb of 60 feet across and the width of the road shall
be a minimum of 26 ft clear for fire apparatus.
• Additional Access — 2014 OFC Section 503.1.2
o The fire code official is authorized to require more than one fire
apparatus access road based on the potential for impairment of a single
road by vehicle congestion, conditions or terrain, climatic conditions or
other factors that could limit access.
• Emergency Access Road Gates — 2014 OFC Appendix D 103.5
o Minimum 20 feet wide.
o Gates shall be swinging or sliding type.
o Shall be able to be manually operated by one person.
o Electric gates shall be equipped with a means of opening by
emergency personnel & approved by fire official.
o Locking devices shall be fire department Knox Key Switch purchased
from A-1 Lock, Safe Co., Curtis Safe & Lock, on line at
www. knoxbox. com, or contact Redmond Fire & Rescue for an order form.
o Section 503.3: Install a sign on the gate "No Parking -Fire Lane"
• Key Boxes — 2014 OFC Section 506.1
o An approved key box shall be installed on all structures equipped with a
fire alarm system and /or sprinkler system. Approved key boxes can only
be purchased at A-1 Lock Safe Co., Curtis Safe and Lock, on line at
www. knoxbox. com, or contact Redmond Fire & Rescue for an order form.
247 -17 -000172 -AD, -000173-SP, and -000180-AD, Evolution Concepts Page 9
Commercial & Industrial Development — 2014 OFC Appendix D 104
o Buildings exceeding three stories or 30 feet in height shall have at least
2 means of fire apparatus access for each structure.
o Where 2 access roads are required, they shall be placed not less than
the length of the overall diagonal dimension of the property or area
to be served, measured in a straight line between accesses.
9. The following agencies did not respond or had no comments: CenturyLlnk, Deschutes
County Environmental Soils Division, Deschutes County Property Address
Coordinator, Deschutes County Sheriff, Oregon Department of Agriculture, Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality, Oregon Department of Transportation, Oregon
Liquor Control Commission, and Watermaster — District 11.
I. PUBLIC COMMENTS: The Planning Division sent notice of this proposal to all property
owners within 750 feet of the subject property. Seven comments were submitted in
opposition of the proposal that included the following concerns:
• Overall neighborhood livability
• Environmental impacts (e.g. water and electricity usage)
• Property values
• Odor, noise, and lighting
• Safety
• Traffic impacts
J. NOTICE REQUIREMENT: The applicant complied with the posted notice requirements
of Section 22.24.030(B) of Deschutes County Code (DCC) Title 22. The applicant
submitted a Land Use Action Sign Affidavit, dated May 2, 2017, indicating the applicant
posted notice of the land use action on May 2, 2017.
K. REVIEW PERIOD: The application was submitted to the Planning Division on March 16,
2017. An incomplete application letter was sent on April 14, 2017. The applicant
responded with additional information by June 12, 2017. The Planning Division deemed
this application complete and accepted it for review on June 12, 2017. The 150th day on
which the County must take final action on this application is November 9, 2017.
111. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:
Title 18, Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance.
A. CHAPTER 18.16. EXCLUSIVE FARM USE ZONE
1. Section 18.16.020. Uses Permitted Outright.
The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright.
S. Marijuana production, subject to the provisions of DCC 18.116.330.
FINDING: The applicant is proposing marijuana production on the subject property, a
use permitted outright subject to compliance with the applicable provisions of DCC
247 -17 -000172 -AD, -000173-SP, and -000180-AD, Evolution Concepts Page 10
18.116.330. Compliance with the provisions of DCC 18.116.330 is addressed later in
the decision.
2. Section 18.16.025. Uses Permitted Subject to the Special Provisions Under DCC
Section 18.16.038 or DCC Section 18.16.042 and a Review Under DCC Chapter
18.124 where applicable.
1. A facility for the processing of farm crops, or for the production of biofuel as
defined in ORS 315.141, if the facility is located on a farm operation that
provides at least one-quarter of the farm crops processed at the facility, or
an establishment for the slaughter, processing or selling of poultry or
poultry products pursuant to ORS 603.038.
FINDING: The applicant proposes to use an existing agricultural building for marijuana
processing of marijuana produced on-site. At least one-quarter of the marijuana
produced on-site as measured by weight is to be processed at the facility in any
calendar year. The proposed processing facility is to be located in an existing
agricultural building and siting standards are compliant with this use.
As a condition of approval, the applicant shall assure that at least one-quarter of the
farm crops processed at the facility in any calendar year, measured by weight, are
produced at the farm operation on the subject property. In addition, the applicant shall
provide to the Planning Division written documentation of compliance with the
requirement in paragraph DCC 18.16.025(1) by submitting processed crop summaries
to the Planning Division on request, and no less frequently than on an annual basis by
January 31 of each year.
1. If a building is established or used for the processing facility or
establishment, the farm operator may not devote more than 10,000
square feet of floor area to the processing facility or establishment,
exclusive of the floor area designated for preparation, storage or other
farm use.
FINDING: According to the applicant, the existing 4,200 square foot agricultural
building will be used for processing and total floor area devoted to processing will not
exceed more than 10,000 square feet. This standard is met.
2. A processing facility or establishment must comply with all applicable
siting standards but the standards shall not be applied in a manner that
prohibits the siting of the processing facility.
FINDING: Staff finds that the processing facility, as proposed and conditioned, can
comply with all applicable siting standards identified in this decision and that these
applicable standards have not been be applied in a manner that prohibits the siting of
the processing facility.
3. The County shall not approve any division of a lot or parcel that separates
a processing facility or establishment from the farm operation on which
it is located.
FINDING: No division of a lot or parcel is proposed.
247 -17 -000172 -AD, -000173-SP, and -000180-AD, Evolution Concepts Page 11
L. Marijuana processing, subject to the applicable provisions of DCC
18.16.025(1) and 18.116.330.
FINDING: The applicant is proposing marijuana processing on the subject property,
which is a use permitted subject to compliance with the applicable provisions of DCC
18.16.025(1), 18.116.330, and additional sections of 18.16 identified below. In
addition, the proposal is subject to compliance with relevant sections DCC 18.124.
Compliance with these provisions is addressed in this decision.
2. Section 18.16.060. Dimensional Standards.
E. Building height. No building or structure shall be erected or enlarged to
exceed 30 feet in height, except as allowed under DCC 18.120.040.
FINDING: The marijuana production facility will be established in four greenhouses
and processing facility will be established in an existing agricultural building. The
greenhouses will be approximately 16 feet in height. For reference, the existing
agricultural building is approximately 28 feet based on County records.
3. Section 18.16.070. Yards.
A. The front yard shall be a minimum of. 40 feet from a property line fronting on
a local street, 60 feet from a property line fronting on a collector street, and
100 feet from a property line fronting on an arterial street.
B. Each side yard shall be a minimum of 25 feet, except that for a nonfarm
dwelling proposed on property with side yards adjacent to property currently
employed in farm use, and receiving special assessment for farm use, the
side yard shall be a minimum of 100 feet.
C. Rear yards shall be a minimum of 25 feet, except that for a nonfarm dwelling
proposed on property with a rear yard adjacent to property currently
employed in farm use, and receiving special assessment for farm use, the
rear yard shall be a minimum of 100 feet.
D. In addition to the setbacks set forth herein, any greater setbacks required by
applicable building or structural codes adopted by the State of Oregon
and/or the County under DCC 15.04 shall be met.
FINDING: The applicant is proposing four new production buildings (greenhouses). In
addition, the applicant is proposing to use an existing agricultural building for marijuana
processing. All structures are or will be located in the northwestern region of the
property. Highland Avenue is classified as an arterial street. Based on the revised site
plan submitted on June 12, 2017, the proposed production related buildings will have at
least 500 feet for the front (north) yard setback. The production buildings will have side
yard setbacks from the east and west property boundaries of at least 1,100 feet and
approximately 100 feet, respectively. The rear (south) yard setback will be at least 1,300
feet. For reference, the existing agricultural building was established in 2006 according
to County records (see permits LM -05-168 and AG -05-114). According to the submitted
application materials, the existing building has an approximate 450 foot front (north) yard
setback from Highland Avenue; side yard setbacks from the east and west property
boundaries are approximately 970 feet and 300 feet, respectively; and the rear (south)
247 -17 -000172 -AD, -000173-SP, and -000180-AD, Evolution Concepts Page 12
yard setback is approximately 1,300 feet. No exterior alterations to the agricultural
building are proposed. These criteria are satisfied.
B. CHAPTER 18.84. LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT COMBINING ZONE
1. Section 18.84.020. Application of Provisions.
The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all areas within one-fourth mile of
roads identified as landscape management corridors in the Comprehensive Plan
and the County Zoning Map. The provisions of this chapter shall also apply to
all areas within the boundaries of a State scenic waterway or Federal wild and
scenic river corridor and all areas within 660 feet of rivers and streams otherwise
identified a landscape management corridors in the comprehensive plan and
the County Zoning Map. The distance specified above shall be measured
horizontally from the centerline of designated landscape management roadways
or from the nearest ordinary high water mark of a designated landscape
management river or stream. The limitation in this section shall not unduly
restrict accepted agricultural practices.
FINDING: Highland Avenue/Highway 126 located north of the subject property, is
identified on the County Zoning Map as the landscape management feature in the
area. The marijuana production and processing facility is proposed within four new
greenhouses and one existing agricultural building. The agricultural building was
established in 2006, which included LM Zone review through file LM -05-168. The
applicant does not propose an addition to this structure. The design and construction
of the greenhouses does not require a building permit. According to DCC 18.84.050,
the LM Zone is not applicable for structures not requiring a building permit.
C. CHAPTER 18.124. SITE PLAN REVIEW
1. Section 18.124.030. Approval Required.
A. No building, grading, parking, land use, sign or other required permit shall
be issued for a use subject to DCC 18.124.030, nor shall such a use be
commenced, enlarged, altered or changed until a final site plan is approved
according to DCC Title 22, the Uniform Development Procedures Ordinance.
B. The provisions of DCC 18.124.030 shall apply to the following:
1. All conditional use permits where a site plan is a condition of approval;
2. Multiple family dwellings with more than three units;
3. All commercial uses that require parking facilities;
4. All industrial uses;
5. All other uses that serve the general public or that otherwise require
parking facilities, including, but not limited to, landfills, schools, utility
facilities, churches, community buildings, cemeteries, mausoleums,
crematories, airports, parks and recreation facilities and livestock sales
yards; and
6. As specified for Flood Plain Zones (FP) and Surface Mining Impact Area
Combining Zones (SM/A).
247 -17 -000172 -AD, -000173-SP, and -000180-AD, Evolution Concepts Page 13
FINDING: The marijuana processing is considered an industrial use.3 However, the
proposed processing represents a small fraction of the total use at the site while the
proposed marijuana production is considered the dominate use on the property.
Therefore, staff finds that the use of the land is not primarily for the manufacture,
processing, storage or wholesale distribution of products, goods or materials, which
would make it a commercial use 4. Nevertheless, since the proposed use is a use that
requires parking facilities, the provisions of this chapter are applicable.
2. Section 18.124.060. Approval Criteria.
Approval of a site plan shall be based on the following criteria:
A. The proposed development shall relate harmoniously to the natural
environment and existing development, minimizing visual impacts and
preserving natural features including views and topographical features.
FINDING: The subject property is approximately 55.8 acres, irregular in shape, and
has varying topography. Throughout the property, the vegetation includes juniper
woodlands with native groundcover and irrigated pasture, which includes 22.4 acres
of water. The site is developed with a single-family dwelling and several accessory
structures in the northern region of the property. At least two irrigation canals run
through the property. Highland Avenue abuts the property to the north. Access to the
property is taken from an existing access point along Highland Avenue.
The subject property is surrounded by farm and residential properties. Rural
developed residential lots are located to the east and northeast, across Highland
Avenue. Farm -zoned parcels, developed or vacant, are located to the north, south,
and west. Farm -zoned properties are in either nonfarm use or farm use, which may
include irrigated pasture and livestock grazing. The City of Redmond is located to the
east of the property including its associated urban growth boundary (UGB). The
Redmond UGB is approximately 1,000 feet east of the property boundary, at the
intersection of Highland Avenue/Hwy 126 and SW Helmholtz Way.
The applicant is proposing a marijuana production and processing facility on the
property. The processing facility, which is subject to site plan review, will be located
in the northwestern region of the property in an existing 4,200 square foot agricultural
building. The existing agricultural building is over 450 feet south of Highland Avenue
and over 600 feet from the closest residential use, which is just beyond Highland
Avenue to the north. The applicant plans to remodel the existing agricultural building
for marijuana processing. To the west of the agricultural building will be four
greenhouses for marijuana production and a parking area. The project will include
establishing a parking and maneuvering area adjacent to the production and
processing buildings. Removal of vegetation will only occur within the building area
3 DCC 18.04.030 - "Industrial use" means the use of land primarily for the manufacture, processing, storage
or wholesale distribution of products, goods or materials. It does not include commercial uses.
4 DCC 18.04.030 - "Commercial use" means the use of land primarily for the retail sale of products or
services, including offices. It does not include factories, warehouses, freight terminals or wholesale
distribution centers.
247 -17 -000172 -AD, -000173-SP, and -000180-AD, Evolution Concepts Page 14
for the parking lots. Mature juniper trees and other vegetation and existing topography
throughout the property will be retained.
Based on this information, staff believes the proposed marijuana processing within the
existing building and marijuana production as proposed will relate harmoniously to the
existing development, minimizing visual impacts and preserving natural features
including views and topographical features.
B. The landscape and existing topography shall be preserved to the greatest
extent possible, considering development constraints and suitability of the
landscape and topography. Preserved trees and shrubs shall be protected.
FINDING: The applicant is proposing a marijuana processing on the property, including
associated parking and maneuvering areas. The proposed improvements will be sited
in areas previously cleared of vegetation and adjacent to the existing accessory
structure. The proposal will require removal of vegetation only within the building area
for the parking lot. Mature juniper trees and other vegetation and existing topography
throughout the northwestern region of the property will be retained. No other impacts to
landscape and existing topography are proposed. This criterion is met.
C. The site plan shall be designed to provide a safe environment, while offering
appropriate opportunities for privacy and transition from public to private
spaces.
FINDING: The applicant is proposing a marijuana processing facility, which includes
clustering existing and proposed greenhouses together in the northwestern region of the
property. Access to the site is taken from Highland Avenue approximately 450 feet to
the north. Parking and maneuvering areas will be located between the existing
agricultural building and four proposed greenhouses. The layout of the existing driveway
together with the proposed parking areas, loading area, and structures provides
appropriate opportunities for privacy and transition from public to private spaces.
Marijuana processing of extracts can include unusual levels of fire safety hazard but
the subject property is located in the Redmond Fire and Rescue District, who
commented on this application. As a condition of approval, the use shall comply with
the applicable building, fire, and OLCC safety standards. This standard is met.
D. When appropriate, the site plan shall provide for the special needs of
disabled persons, such as ramps for wheelchairs and Braille signs.
FINDING: The County Building Safety Division will review specific ADA requirements
during building permit review.
E. The location and number of points of access to the site, interior circulation
patterns, separations between pedestrians and moving and parked vehicles,
and the arrangement of parking areas in relation to buildings and structures
shall be harmonious with proposed and neighboring buildings and
structures.
5 This does not include any clearing for the marijuana production facility because this aspect of the proposal
is not being reviewed under DCC 18.124).
247 -17 -000172 -AD, -000173-SP, and -000180-AD, Evolution Concepts Page 15
FINDING: The applicant proposes to continue to use the existing access from
Highland Avenue/Hwy 126 to reach the proposed facility and parking area, with
pedestrian access to the marijuana processing facility in the existing building. Based
on the site plan submitted by the applicant, staff finds that the circulation pattern and
arrangement of parking areas shall be harmonious with proposed and neighboring
buildings and structures.
F. Surface drainage systems shall be designed to prevent adverse impacts on
neighboring properties, streets or surface and subsurface water quality.
FINDING: The proposed processing facility will not significantly increase impervious
surface area on the subject property. Furthermore, there is no evidence in the record
that the site has a history of adversely impacting the surface water drainage pattern in
the area. The submitted site plan shows the subject property will be designed, graded,
and improved to direct the flow of stormwater to areas located on the property. Staff
finds the proposed design prevents adverse impacts on the neighboring properties,
streets, and surface and subsurface water quality.
G. Areas, structures and facilities for storage, machinery and equipment,
services (mail, refuse, utility wires, and the like), loading and parking and
similar accessory areas and structures shall be designed, located and
buffered or screened to minimize adverse impacts on the site and
neighboring properties.
FINDING: Based on the size of the property, consolidated building footprint, existing
vegetation, topography, and development on the property, the applicant indicates the
proposed development will be adequately buffered and screened. The parking area
will be located between the existing agricultural building and the proposed
greenhouses, and thus the structures provide a buffer from the neighboring property
to the east and west. Natural vegetation, topography, and existing development
provide screening between the facility and all surrounding residences and neighboring
properties. Staff finds that the site layout, as conditioned, will be designed, located,
buffered or screened to minimize adverse impacts on the site and neighboring
properties.
H. All above -ground utility installations shall be located to minimize adverse
visual impacts on the site and neighboring properties.
FINDING: Utilities necessary for this project, including sewer, water and electricity will
be located underground or otherwise screened to minimize adverse visual impacts.
1. Specific criteria are outlined for each zone and shall be a required part of the
site plan (e.g. lot setbacks, etc.)
FINDING: Each zone affecting the subject property is identified in this decision. The
applicable criteria for each zone are addressed in the findings above.
J. All exterior lighting shall be shielded so that direct light does not project
off-site.
247 -17 -000172 -AD, -000173-SP, and -000180-AD, Evolution Concepts Page 16
FINDING: As a condition of approval, all exterior lighting shall be shielded so that
direct light does not project off-site.
K. Transportation access to the site shall be adequate for the use.
1. Where applicable, issues including, but not limited to, sight distance,
turn and acceleration/deceleration lanes, right-of-way, roadway
surfacing and widening, and bicycle and pedestrian connections, shall
be identified.
2. Mitigation for transportation -related impacts shall be required.
3. Mitigation shall meet applicable County standards in DCC 17.16 and DCC
17.48, applicable Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) mobility
and access standards, and applicable American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards.
FINDING: The Deschutes County Road Department, Deschutes County
Transportation Planner, or Oregon Department of Transportation identified no
transportation infrastructure deficiencies or requirements.
3. Section 18.124.070. Required Minimum Standards.
A. Private or shared outdoor recreation areas in residential developments.
FINDING: The proposal does not involve residential development. Staff finds this
criterion does not apply.
B. Required Landscaped Areas.
1. The following landscape requirements are established for multi -family,
commercial and industrial developments, subject to site plan approval:
a. A minimum of 15 percent of the lot area shall be landscaped.
b. All areas subject to the final site plan and not otherwise improved
shall be landscaped.
FINDING: The applicant is proposing a marijuana processing facility, which is an
industrial use. However, staff finds that the siting of this use in a 4,200 square foot
structure is part of a marijuana related operation that includes over 20,000 square feet
dedicated to the marijuana production farm use does not make the primary use of the
55.8 -acre property "industrial development". Moreover, the primary use of the property
will continue to be marijuana production, which is not an industrial use and is not
subject to site plan review. Staff finds that these criteria do not apply to this proposal.
2. In addition to the requirement of DCC 18.124.070(B)(1)(a), the following
landscape requirements shall apply to parking and loading areas:
a. A parking or loading area shall be required to be improved with
defined landscaped areas totaling no less than 25 square feet per
parking space.
b. In addition to the landscaping required by DCC 18.124.070(B)(2)(a), a
parking or loading area shall be separated from any lot line adjacent
to a roadway by a landscaped strip at least 10 feet in width, and from
any other lot line by a landscaped strip at least five feet in width.
c. A landscaped strip separating a parking or loading area from a street
shall contain:
247 -17 -000172 -AD, -000173-SP, and -000180-AD, Evolution Concepts Page 17
1) Trees spaced as appropriate to the species, not to exceed 35 feet
apart on the average.
2) Low shrubs not to reach a height greater than three feet zero
inches, spaced no more than eight feet apart on the average.
3) Vegetative ground cover.
d. Landscaping in a parking or loading area shall be located in defined
landscaped areas which are uniformly distributed throughout the
parking or loading area.
e. The landscaping in a parking area shall have a width of not less than
five feet.
L Provision shall be made for watering planting areas where such care
is required.
g. Required landscaping shall be continuously maintained and kept
alive and attractive.
h. Maximum height of tree species shall be considered when planting
under overhead utility lines.
FINDING: The parking area is not adjacent to a property line or roadway, as it is
located over 100 feet from any such boundary and surrounded by native landscaping
and irrigated pasture in excess of the required landscaping above. As a condition of
approval, the landscaping in the vicinity of the parking adjacent to the buildings used
for marijuana processing shall be continuously maintained and kept alive and
attractive.
C. Nonmotorized Access.
1. Bicycle Parking. The development shall provide the number and type of
bicycle parking facilities as required in DCC 18.116.031 and 18.116.035.
The location and design of bicycle parking facilities shall be indicated on
the site plan.
FINDING: Compliance with DCC 18.116.031 and 18.116.035 is discussed in findings
for those sections, below.
2. Pedestrian Access and Circulation:
a. Internal pedestrian circulation shall be provided in new commercial,
office and multi -family residential developments through the
clustering of buildings, construction of hard surfaced walkways and
similar techniques.
FINDING: This criterion does not apply, as the facility is not a commercial, office, or
multi -family residential development.
b. Pedestrian walkways shall connect building entrances to one another
and from building entrances to public streets and existing or planned
transit facilities. Onsite walkways shall connect with walkways,
sidewalks, bikeways, and other pedestrian or bicycle connections on
adjacent properties planned or used for commercial, multi -family,
public or park use.
c. Walkways shall be at least five feet in paved unobstructed width.
Walkways which border parking spaces shall be at least seven feet
wide unless concrete bumpers or curbing and landscaping or other
247 -17 -000172 -AD, -000173-SP, and -000180-AD, Evolution Concepts Page 18
similar improvements are provided which prevent parked vehicles
from obstructing the walkway. Walkways shall be as direct as
possible.
d. Driveway crossings by walkways shall be minimized. Where the
walkway system crosses driveways, parking areas and loading areas,
the walkways must be clearly identifiable through the use of elevation
changes, speed bumps, a different paving material or other similar
method.
e. To comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the primary
building entrance and any walkway that connects a transit stop to
building entrances shall have a maximum slope of five percent.
Walkways up to eight percent slope are permitted, but are treated as
ramps with special standards for railings and landings.
FINDING: The applicant is proposing a marijuana processing facility in conjunction
with the marijuana production on the subject property. The proposed facility includes
the clustering of existing and proposed greenhouses in the northwestern region of the
property. There are no designated pedestrian walkways along the roadway, adjacent
to the site, or on the site itself. The submitted application materials does not illustrate
pedestrian walkways for the proposed facility. Based on the decision of file CU -14-7,
the Hearings Officer makes the following finding:
...these criteria have limited application to the applicants' proposal inasmuch
as there is only one commercial use proposed for the subject property, and
there will be a single building for that use. Therefore, I find there is no need to
apply these criteria to require particular pedestrian circulation or walkways on
the property.
Staff finds that the present application is similar in regards that there is a single building
proposed for the marijuana processing facility and thus no pedestrian walkways under
these criteria are required.
D. Commercial Development Standards...
FINDING: The proposed facility is not a commercial development. These criteria do
not apply.
4. Section 18.124.090. Right of Way Improvement Standards.
Any dedications or improvements to the road right of way required under DCC
18.124 shall meet the standards for road right of way improvements set forth in
DCC Title 17 and any standards for right-of-way improvements set forth in DCC
Title 18 for the particular zone in question.
FINDING: The Deschutes County Road Department, Deschutes County
Transportation Planner, nor Oregon Department of Transportation identified
transportation infrastructure deficiencies or requirements.
D. CHAPTER 18.116, SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
1. Section 18.116.020. Clear vision areas.
247 -17 -000172 -AD, -000173-SP, and -000180-AD, Evolution Concepts Page 19
A. In all zones, a clear vision area shall be maintained on the corners of all
property at the intersection of two streets or a street and a railroad. A clear
vision area shall contain no planting, fence, wall, structure or temporary or
permanent obstruction exceeding three and one-half feet in height,
measured from the top of the curb, or, where no curb exists, from the
established street centerline grade, except that trees exceeding this height
may be located in this area provided all branches and foliage are removed to
a height of eight feet above the grade.
B. A clear vision area shall consist of a triangular area on the corner of a lot at
the intersection of two streets or a street and a railroad. Two sides of the
triangle are sections of the lot lines adjoining the street or railroad measured
from the corner to a distance specified in DCC 18.116.020(B)(1) and (2).
Where lot lines have rounded corners, the specified distance is measured
from a point determined by the extension of the lot lines to a point of
intersection. The third side of the triangle is the line connecting the ends of
the measured sections of the street lot lines. The following measurements
shall establish clear vision areas within the County:
1. In an agricultural, forestry or industrial zone, the minimum distance shall
be 30 feet or at intersections including an alley, 10 feet.
2. In all other zones, the minimum distance shall be in relationship to street
and road right-of-way widths as follows:
Right -of -Way Width
Clear Vision
80 feet or more
20 feet
60 feet
30 feet
50 feet and less
40 feet
FINDING: Based on the submitted site plan, no clear vision area will be obstructed
with this proposal. Staff believes this criterion is met.
2. Section 18.116.030. Off Street Parking and Loading.
A. Compliance. No building or other permit shall be issued until plans and
evidence are presented to show how the off-street parking and loading
requirements are to be met and that property is and will be available for
exclusive use as off-street parking and loading. The subsequent use of the
property for which the permit is issued shall be conditional upon the
unqualified continuance and availability of the amount of parking and
loading space required by DCC Title 18
FINDING: The off-street parking requirements for the proposed processing facility are
addressed below.
B. Off -Street Loading. Every use for which a building is erected or structurally
altered to the extent of increasing the floor area to equal a minimum floor area
required to provide loading space and which will require the receipt or
distribution of materials or merchandise by truck or similar vehicle, shall
247 -17 -000172 -AD, -000173-SP, and -000180-AD, Evolution Concepts Page 20
provide off-street loading space on the basis of minimum requirements as
follows:
1. Commercial, industrial and public utility uses which have a gross floor
area of 5,000 square feet or more shall provide truck loading or unloading
berths subject to the following table:
Sq. Ft. of Floor Area
No. of Berths Required
Less than 5,000
0
5,000-30,000
1
30,000-100,000
2
100,000 and over
3
3. A loading berth shall contain space 10 feet wide, 35 feet long and have a
height clearance of 14 feet Where the vehicles generally used for loading
exceed these dimensions, the required length of these berths shall be
increased.
FINDING: The proposed primary marijuana production use is a farm use and does
not require a loading berth. The proposed marijuana processing use is most similar
to an industrial use in nature and requires compliance with this standard. The
proposed marijuana processing will occupy 4,200 square feet in area falling below the
threshold for requiring a loading berth. Therefore, no berth is required.
C. Off -Street Parking. Off-street parking spaces shall be provided and
maintained as set forth in DCC 18.116.030 for all uses in all zoning districts.
Such off-street parking spaces shall be provided at the time a new building
is hereafter erected or enlarged or the use of a building existing on the
effective date of DCC Title 18 is changed.
D. Number of Spaces Required. Off-street parking shall be provided as follows:
7. Industrial.
Use
Requirements
Manufacturing
1 space per employee on
establishment
the largest working shift
Storage warehouse,
1 space per 2,000 sq. ft. of
wholesale establishment,
floor area
rail or trucking freight
terminal
9. Other uses not specifically listed above shall be provided with adequate
parking as required by the Planning Director or Hearings Body. The
above list shall be used as a guide for determining requirements for said
other uses.
FINDING: The applicant is proposing a marijuana processing facility, which is an
industrial use. As stated in a foregoing finding, staff finds that the siting of this industrial
use as accessory to the primary farm use of marijuana production. The proposed
247 -17 -000172 -AD, -000173-SP, and -000180-AD, Evolution Concepts Page 21
marijuana production is a farm use and farm uses are not included on the uses
specifically listed in Section 18.116.030(D). Farm uses are typically not subject to the
parking requirements of this section. Moreover, marijuana processing is not
specifically listed in this section. The use also includes office and storage space. The
uses are comparable to what is described under DCC 18.116.030(D)(7) since the
property facilities include agricultural buildings and greenhouses. However, because
the proposed use is a combined facility, staff finds the application of (D)(9) is applicable
here. The applicant has provided the following parking analysis for the proposed use:
The proposed use is not specifically listed in this section. The use is might most
be similar to 'warehouse", which would require 10 spaces for 20,000 square
foot of building area. This will also be sufficient to provide for the "I space per
employee on the largest working shift" standard, as the owner anticipates only
5 staff members might be on site at any given time. As shown on the tentative
plan, ten parking spaces are proposed for the use.
In a revised burden of proof statement, the applicant indicated that the number of staff
onsite would be approximately 5 to 10. In the above analysis, the applicant is only
taking into consideration the total area of the greenhouses, which is 20,832 square
feet. However, the combined total of all buildings is closer to 25,000 square feet, which
would result in 13 required vehicle parking spaces. Nevertheless, since the number
of employees on the largest working shift is 10, staff finds the proposed 10 spaces
provides adequate parking and thus satisfies criterion under (D)(9).
E. General Provisions. Off -Street Parking.
1. More Than One Use on One or More Parcels. In the event several uses
occupy a single structure or parcel of land, the total requirement for off-
street parking shall be the sum of requirements of the several uses
computed separately.
2. Joint Use of Facilities. The off-street parking requirements of two or
more uses, structures or parcels of land may be satisfied by the same
parking or loading space used jointly to the extent that it can be shown
by the owners or operators of the uses, structures or parcels that their
operations and parking needs do not overlap at any point of time. If the
uses, structures or parcels are under separate ownership, the right to
joint use of the parking space must be evidence by a deed, lease, contract
or other appropriate written document to establish the joint use.
FINDING: No other uses or businesses will be sharing the proposed off-street parking
spaces. Therefore, these criteria are not applicable.
3. Location of Parking Facilities. Off-street parking spaces for dwellings
shall be located on the same lot with the dwelling. Other required parking
spaces shall be located on the same parcel or another parcel not farther
than 500 feet from the building or use they are intended to serve,
measured in a straight line from the building in a commercial or industrial
zone. Such parking shall be located in a safe and functional manner as
determined during site plan approval. The burden of proving the
existence of such off -premise parking arrangements rests upon the
applicant.
247 -17 -000172 -AD, -000173-SP, and -000180-AD, Evolution Concepts Page 22
FINDING: All required parking spaces are located on the same parcel and closer than
500 feet from the building they are intended to serve.
4. Use of Parking Facilities. Required parking space shall be available for
the parking of operable passenger automobiles of residents, customers,
patrons and employees only and shall not be used for the storage of
vehicles or materials or for the parking of trucks used in conducting the
business or used in conducting the business or use.
FINDING: A condition of approval has been added to ensure compliance.
5. Parking, Front Yard. Required parking and loading spaces for multi-
family dwellings or commercial and industrial uses shall not be located
in a required front yard, except in the Sunriver UUC Business Park (BP)
District and the La Pine UUC Business Park (LPBP) District and the La
Pine UUC Industrial District (LPI), but such space may be located within
a required side or rear yard.
FINDING: The required parking spaces for the proposed marijuana facility will be
located over 450 feet south and located outside of the required front yard. Therefore,
staff believes this criterion is not applicable.
6. On -Street Parking Credit. Notwithstanding DCC 18.116.030(G)(2), within
commercial zones in the La Pine Planning Area and the Terrebonne and
Tumalo unincorporated communities, the amount of required off-street
parking can be reduced by one off-street parking space for every allowed
on -street parking space adjacent to a property up to 30% of the required
off-street parking....
FINDING: The applicant is not requesting off-street parking credit. This criterion is
not applicable.
F. Development and Maintenance Standards for Off -Street Parking Areas.
Every parcel of land hereafter used as a public or private parking area,
including commercial parking lots, shall be developed as follows:
1. Except for parking to serve residential uses, an off-street parking area for
more than five vehicles shall be effectively screened by a sight obscuring
fence when adjacent to residential uses, unless effectively screened or
buffered by landscaping or structures.
FINDING: The proposed parking area will have over five spaces so this criterion
applies. The parking area will be located between the existing agricultural building
and the proposed greenhouses, and thus the structures provide a buffer from the
neighboring properties to the east and west. Natural vegetation, topography, and
existing development provide screening between the facility and all surrounding
residences and neighboring properties. Based on this information, staff finds this
standard is met.
2. Any lighting used to illuminate off-street parking areas shall be so
arranged that it will not project light rays directly upon any adjoining
property in a residential zone.
247 -17 -000172 -AD, -000173-SP, and -000180-AD, Evolution Concepts Page 23
FINDING: The subject property is located within the EFU Zone and is bordered on
two sides —south and west— by EFU-zoned properties. To the east and north, beyond
Highland Avenue, are residentially -zoned properties. Substantial vegetation is
established along the north and east sides of the subject property, which will provide
a screen. To ensure compliance, any lighting used to illuminate off-street parking
areas shall be so arranged that it will not project light rays directly upon any adjoining
property in a residential zone.
3. Groups of more than two parking spaces shall be located and designed
to prevent the need to back vehicles into a street or right of way other
than an alley.
FINDING: Based on staffs review of the parking lot design, vehicle parking is
approximately 450 feet from Highland Avenue. Staff finds the parking spaces are
located and designed to prevent vehicles from backing into a street or right-of-way.
4. Areas used for standing and maneuvering of vehicles shall be paved
surfaces adequately maintained for all weather use and so drained as to
contain any flow of water on the site. An exception may be made to the
paving requirements by the Planning Director or Hearings Body upon
finding that.
a. A high water table in the area necessitates a permeable surface to
reduce surface water runoff problems; or
b. The subject use is located outside of an unincorporated community
and the proposed surfacing will be maintained in a manner which will
not create dust problems for neighboring properties; or
c. The subject use will be in a Rural Industrial Zone or an Industrial
District in an unincorporated community and dust control measures
will occur on a continuous basis which will mitigate any adverse
impacts on surrounding properties.
FINDING: The subject property is located outside of an unincorporated community.
The applicant proposed parking spaces will be graveled and maintained in a manner
in which it will not create dust problems for the neighboring properties. Staff finds this
standard can be met through a condition of approval requiring the areas used for
vehicle standing and maneuvering associated with the marijuana processing use shall
be constructed with a surface that is adequately maintained for all weather use and
maintained in a manner that will not create dust problems for neighboring properties.
5. Access aisles shall be of sufficient width for all vehicular turning and
maneuvering.
FINDING: The access aisles are proposed at a minimum width of 24 feet, allowing for
two-way traffic. Staff finds that this is sufficient width for all vehicular turning and
maneuvering.
6. Service drives to off-street parking areas shall be designed and
constructed to facilitate the flow of traffic, provide maximum safety of
traffic access and egress and maximum safety of pedestrians and
vehicular traffic on site. The number of service drives shall be limited to
247 -17 -000172 -AD, -000173-SP, and -000180-AD, Evolution Concepts Page 24
the minimum that will accommodate and serve the traffic anticipated.
Service drives shall be clearly and permanently marked and defined
through the use of rails, fences, walls or other barriers or markers. Service
drives to drive in establishments shall be designed to avoid backing
movements or other maneuvering within a street other than an alley.
FINDING: The existing driveway, access aisles, and parking areas will be sufficient,
as conditioned, to accommodate service vehicles coming to this site. The drive aisles
are well marked and defined by the rock surface of the drive. The buildings are located
a significant distance from public right-of-way, thereby preventing backing movements
or other maneuvering within the street.
7. Service drives shall have a minimum vision clearance area formed by the
intersection of the driveway centerline, the street right of way line and a
straight line joining said lines through points 30 feet from their
intersection.
FINDING: The driveway connection at Highland Avenue observes these requirements.
8. Parking spaces along the outer boundaries of a parking area shall be
contained by a curb or bumper rail placed to prevent a motor vehicle from
extending over an adjacent property line or a street right of way.
FINDING: The proposed parking area is not located near any property boundary or
street right-of-way. No curb or bumper rail is required to prevent a motor vehicle from
extending over an adjacent property line or a street right of way.
G. Off -Street Parking Lot Design. All off-street parking lots shall be designed
subject to County standards for stalls and aisles as set forth in the following
drawings and table:
(SEE TABLE 1 AT END OF CHAPTER 18.116)
1. For one row of stalls use "C" + "D" as minimum bay width.
2. Public alley width may be included as part of dimension "D," but all
parking stalls must be on private property, off the public right of way.
3. For estimating available parking area, use 300-325 square feet per vehicle
for stall, aisle and access areas.
4. For large parking lots exceeding 20 stalls, alternate rows may be
designed for compact cars provided that the compact stalls do not
exceed 30 percent of the total required stalls. A compact stall shall be
eight feet in width and 17 feet in length with appropriate aisle width.
FINDING: The County standards for stalls and aisles as set forth in Table 1. As
designed, the parking lot and all parking spaces comply with the standards set forth in
Table 1. The standards in Table 1 include parking stall dimensions of 9 to 10 feet wide
by 20 feet long for a 90 -degree parking angle and 9 to 10 feet wide by 19.8 to 20.5
feet long for a 45 -degree parking angle. The bay width for two-way traffic and one row
and two rows of parking stalls shall be 44 feet and 64 feet, respectively.
The applicant proposes parking to include one row of four 90 -degree parking stalls.
The applicant's site plan illustrates the 10 parking spaces and adequate room for
247 -17 -000172 -AD, -000173-SP, and -000180-AD, Evolution Concepts Page 25
access aisles and maneuvering areas. The proposed dimensions for each 90 -degree
non -accessible parking space will be nine feet by 20 feet. Access aisles are proposed
at a minimum width of 24 feet, allowing for two-way traffic.
3. Section 18.116.031. Bicycle Parking.
New development and any construction, renovation or alteration of an existing
use requiring a site plan review under DCC Title 18 for which planning approval
is applied for after the effective date of Ordinance 93-005 shall comply with the
provisions of DCC 18.116.031.
A. Number and Type of Bicycle Parking Spaces Required.
1. General Minimum Standard.
a. All uses that require off-street motor vehicle parking shall, except as
specifically noted, provide one bicycle parking space for every rive
required motor vehicle parking spaces.
b. Except as specifically set forth herein, all such parking facilities shall
include at least two sheltered parking spaces or, where more than 10
bicycle spaces are required, at least 50 percent of the bicycle parking
spaces shall be sheltered.
c. When the proposed use is located outside of an unincorporated
community, a destination resort, and a rural commercial zone,
exceptions to the bicycle parking standards may be authorized by the
Planning Director or Hearings Body if the applicant demonstrates one
or more of the following:
i The proposed use is in a location accessed by roads with no
bikeways and bicycle use by customers or employees is unlikely.
ii. The proposed use generates less than 50 vehicle trips per day.
iii. No existing buildings on the site will accommodate bicycle
parking and no new buildings are proposed.
iv. The size, weight, or dimensions of the goods sold at the site
makes transporting them by bicycle impractical or unlikely.
v. The use of the site requires equipment that makes it unlikely that
a bicycle would be used to access the site. Representative
examples would include, but not be limited to, paintball parks, golf
courses, shooting ranges, etc.
FINDING: The subject property and proposed use are located outside of an
unincorporated community, a destination resort, and a rural commercial zone, thereby
eligible for exceptions to the bicycle parking standards. The subject property has
frontage on and legal direct access from Highland Avenue, also known as Highway
126. Highway 126 does not have bike lanes and is not specifically designated as a
bikeway. In addition, the proposed marijuana production and inputs to that production
would typically be delivered by truck and transporting them by bicycle would be
impractical or unlikely. Based on this information, Staff finds the proposal is allowed
an exception to the bike parking standards.
4. Section 18.116.330. Marijuana Production, Processing, and Retailing
A. Applicability. Section 18.116.330 applies to:
1. Marijuana Production in the EFU, MUA-10, and R/ zones.
247 -17 -000172 -AD, -000173-SP, and -000180-AD, Evolution Concepts Page 26
FINDING: The applicant has proposed marijuana production in an EFU zone. This
criterion is met.
B. Marijuana production and marijuana processing. Marijuana production and
marijuana processing shall be subject to the following standards and criteria:
1. Minimum Lot Area.
a. In the EFU and MUA-10 zones, the subject legal lot of record shall
have a minimum lot area of five (5) acres.
FINDING: The subject property is 55.8 acres in size. This standard is met.
2. Indoor Production and Processing.
a. In the MUA-10 zone, marijuana production and processing shall be
located entirely within one or more fully enclosed buildings with
conventional or post framed opaque, rigid walls and roof covering.
Use of greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar non -rigid structures is
prohibited.
b. In the EFU zone, marijuana production and processing shall only be
located in buildings, including greenhouses, hoop houses, and
similar structures.
c. In all zones, marijuana production and processing are prohibited in
any outdoor area.
FINDING: The subject property is located in the EFU zone. As shown on the
submitted site plan and specified by the applicant, all production and processing will
be located within the existing building and the proposed greenhouses. This standard
is met.
3. Maximum Mature Plant Canopy Size. In the EFU zone, the maximum
canopy area for mature marijuana plants shall apply as follows:
a. Parcels from 5 acres to less than 10 acres in lot area: 2,500 square feet.
b. Parcels equal to or greater than 10 acres to less than 20 acres in lot
area: 5,000 square feet. The maximum canopy area for mature
marijuana plants may be increased to 10,000 square feet upon
demonstration by the applicant to the County that:
i. The marijuana production operation was lawfully established prior
to January 1, 2015; and
ii. The increased mature marijuana plant canopy area will not
generate adverse impact of visual, odor, noise, lighting, privacy or
access greater than the impacts associated with a 5,000 square
foot canopy area operation.
c. Parcels equal to or greater than 20 acres to less than 40 acres in lot
area: 10,000 square feet.
d. Parcels equal to or greater than 40 acres to less than 60 acres in lot
area: 20,000 square feet.
e. Parcels equal to or greater than 60 acres in lot area: 40,000 square feet.
FINDING: As allowed under Section (d) above, the subject property qualifies for up to
20,000 square feet of mature plant canopy based on the parcel size of 55.8 acres.
247 -17 -000172 -AD, -000173-SP, and -000180-AD, Evolution Concepts Page 27
The applicant proposes approximately 9,800 square feet in mature plant canopy area
in four production greenhouses. This standard is met.
4. Maximum Building Floor Area. In the MUA-10 zone, the maximum
building floor area used for all activities associated with marijuana
production and processing on the subject property shall be:
a. Parcels from 5 acres to less than 10 acres in lot area: Z 500 square feet.
b. Parcels equal to or greater than 10 acres: 5,000 square feet.
FINDING: The above criteria applies to properties within the MUA-10 Zone. The
subject property is within the EFU Zone. This standard is not applicable.
5. Limitation on License/Grow Site per Parcel. No more than one (1) Oregon
Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) licensed marijuana production or
Oregon Health Authority (OHA) registered medical marijuana grow site
shall be allowed per legal parcel or lot.
FINDING: The proposed marijuana production facility will operate under no more than
one OLCC permit. Staff includes this requirement as a condition of approval.
6. Setbacks. The following setbacks shall apply to all marijuana production
and processing areas and buildings:
a. Minimum Yard Setback/Distance from Lot Lines: 100 feet.
FINDING: The marijuana production and processing facility will be established in four
greenhouses and one existing agricultural building on the property. The four
greenhouses intended for production will be located near the western property
boundary, setback a minimum of 100 feet. The greenhouses will also have a front
(north) setback of approximately 500 feet, a rear (south) setback of at least 1,300 feet,
and an east side setback of at least 1,100 feet. The existing agricultural building
intended for processing has an approximate 450 foot front (north) yard setback from
Highland Avenue; side yard setbacks from the east and west property boundaries are
approximately 970 feet and 300 feet, respectively; and the rear (south) yard setback
is approximately 1,300 feet. These standards is met.
b. Setback from an off-site dwelling: 300 feet
For the purposes of this criterion, an off-site dwelling includes those
proposed off-site dwellings with a building permit application submitted
to Deschutes County prior to submission of the marijuana production or
processing application to Deschutes County.
FINDING: The submitted application materials show the proposed greenhouses and
existing agricultural building will be no less than 300 feet from off-site dwellings in
the area. Although a building permit application was not submitted to Deschutes
County prior to submission of this marijuana production and processing application,
the applicant demonstrated that the proposed processing facility will be
approximately 340 feet from the building footprint for the dwelling approved on
neighboring property, tax lot 1100, to the west (see files MC -05-4, CU -02-108, and
DR -09-10). This criterion is satisfied.
247 -17 -000172 -AD, -000173-SP, and -000180-AD, Evolution Concepts Page 28
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, lighting, privacy, and access impacts.
FINDING: The applicant is not requesting an exception to the required setback
requirements.
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;
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;
iii. A licensed child care center or licensed preschool, including any
parking lot appurtenant thereto and any property used by the child
care center or preschool. This does not include licensed or
unlicensed child care which occurs at or in residential structures;
iv. A youth activity center; and
v. National monuments and state parks.
b. For purposes of DCC 18.116.330(B)(7), all distances shall be
measured from the lot line of the affected properties listed in DCC
18.116.330(B)(7)(a) to the closest point of the buildings and land area
occupied by the marijuana producer or marijuana processor.
c. A change in use of another property to those identified in DCC
18.116.330(6)(7) shall not result in the marijuana producer or
marijuana processor being in violation of DCC 18.116.330(B)(7) if the
use is:
i. Pending a local land use decision;
ii. Licensed or registered by the State of Oregon; or
iii. Lawfully established.
FINDING: Fifty-four properties are wholly or partially within 1,000 feet of the subject
property. None of these properties is in a use described in this section or is subject to
subsection (c). There is no public or private school, licensed child care center, youth
activity center, national monument or state park located within 1000 -feet of the exterior
boundaries of the subject property. As a result, the subject property complies with the
separation distances mandated by this section.
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
247 -17 -000172 -AD, -000173-SP, and -000180-AD, Evolution Concepts Page 29
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:
L Be on a form provided by the County and shall contain the
following information;
ii. Include notarized signatures of all owners, persons and properties
holding a recorded interest in the private road or easement;
iii. Include a description of the proposed marijuana production or
marijuana processing operation; and
iv. Include a legal description of the private road or easement.
FINDING: The subject property has frontage on and legal direct access from Highland
Avenue, also known as Highway 126, which is an Oregon Department of
Transportation facility, constructed to the standards of the department. The applicant
has provided proof of legal access as documented through a deed, recorded with the
County Clerk's Office in Volume 135, Page. 96 and Volume 141, Page 351.
9. Lighting. Lighting shall be regulated as follows:
a. Inside building lighting, including greenhouses, hoop houses, and
similar structures, used for marijuana production shall not be visible
outside the building from 7.00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. on the following day.
b. Lighting fixtures shall be fully shielded in such a manner that all light
emitted directly by the lamp or a diffusing element, or indirectly by
reflection or refraction, is projected below the horizontal plane
through the lowest light -emitting part.
c. Light cast by exterior light fixtures other than marijuana grow lights
shall comply with DCC 15. 10, Outdoor Lighting Control.
FINDING: The applicant has proposed to limit visible lighting outside the structure
from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. To ensure compliance, staff includes these criteria as
conditions of approval.
10. Odor. As used in DCC 18.116.330(B)(10), building means the building,
including greenhouses, hoop houses, and other similar structures, used
for marijuana production or marijuana processing.
a. The building shall be equipped with an effective odor control system
which must at all times prevent unreasonable interference of
neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property.
b. An odor control system is deemed permitted only after the applicant
submits a report by a mechanical engineer licensed in the State of
Oregon demonstrating that the system will control odor so as not to
unreasonably interfere with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their
property.
c. Private actions alleging nuisance or trespass associated with odor
impacts are authorized, if at all, as provided in applicable state statute.
d. The odor control system shall:
L 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 -000172 -AD, -000173-SP, and -000180-AD, Evolution Concepts Page 30
ii. 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.
FINDING: The applicant submitted a May 8, 2017 revised narrative report stamped by
mechanical engineer Jay J. Castino. Staff confirmed Mr. Castino's certificate number
on the Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying's
website, which lists Mr. Castino's license information and identifies him as a
mechanical engineer. Mr. Castino provides the following information regarding the
proposed facility:
• Building Description
o Mr. Jenkins' mar#uana 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.
• 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 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.
o The odor control system has one or more fans that are sized for
cubic feet per minute (CFM) equivalent to the volume of the building
divided by three and the filter(s) are rated for the CFM, per DCC
18.116.330(8)(10)(d).
Based on the submitted letter from Mr. Castino, the proposed odor control system will
satisfy the requirements of DCC 18.116.330(B)(10)(d)(ii) above. As indicated, the
letter confirms capable compliance with this section odor control.
Compliance with this criterion can be met through the applicant's ability to comply with
an ongoing condition of approval that the applicant's 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.
247 -17 -000172 -AD, -000173-SP, and -000180-AD, Evolution Concepts Page 31
11. Noise. Noise produced by marijuana production and marijuana
processing shall comply with the following:
a. Sustained noise from mechanical equipment used for heating,
ventilation, air condition, odor control, fans and similar functions
shall not exceed 30 dB(A) measured at any property line between
10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m, the following day.
b. Sustained noise from marijuana production is exempt from
protections of DCC 9.12 and ORS 30.395, Right to Farm. Intermittent
noise for accepted farming practices is permitted.
FINDING: The letter from Jay Castino of JJC Engineering, a mechanical engineer
licensed in the State of Oregon, also addresses noise impacts from the proposed use.
Pertinent excerpts of his letter are provided below:
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 furnace or heat pump. Further, 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 lam.
Staff finds the Engineer's statements satisfy the requirements of this section. These
criteria can be met.
As an ongoing condition of approval, sustained noise from mechanical equipment
used for heating, ventilation, air conditioning, odor control, fans and similar functions
shall not exceed 30 dB(A) measured at any property line between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00
a.m. the following day.
12. Screening and Fencing. The following screening standards shall apply
to greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar non -rigid structures and land
areas used for marijuana production and processing:
a. Subject to DCC 18.84, Landscape Management Combining Zone
approval, if applicable.
b. Fencing shall be finished in a muted earth tone that blends with the
surrounding natural landscape and shall not be constructed of
temporary materials such as plastic sheeting, hay bales, tarps, etc.,
and shall be subject to DCC 18.88, Wildlife Area Combining Zone, if
applicable.
c. Razor wire, or similar, shall be obscured from view or colored a muted
earth tone that blends with the surrounding natural landscape.
d. The existing tree and shrub cover screening the development from
the public right-of-way or adjacent properties shall be retained to the
maximum extent possible. This provision does not prohibit
maintenance of existing lawns, removal of dead, diseased or
hazardous vegetation; the commercial harvest of forest products in
accordance with the Oregon Forest Practices Act; or agricultural use
of the land.
247 -17 -000172 -AD, -000173-SP, and -000180-AD, Evolution Concepts Page 32
FINDING: Highland Avenue/Hwy 126, located north of the subject property, is
identified on the County Zoning Map as the landscape management feature in the
area. The northern half of the property, including the marijuana production and
processing facility, is located within the LM Zone associated with the road. The
marijuana production and processing facility are proposed within four new
greenhouses and one existing agricultural building. The agricultural building was
established in 2006, which included LM Zone review through file LM -05-168. The
applicant does not propose an addition to this structure. The design and construction
of the greenhouses does not require a building permit and thus the LM Zone is not
applicable as addressed above.
The applicant is not proposing any new fencing or razor wire. However, if fencing is
required or desired in the future, the applicant sates the fencing will comply with this
section. The applicant proposes to retain screening vegetation as part of this project.
As an ongoing condition of approval, the existing tree and shrub cover screening the
development from the public right-of-way and adjacent properties shall be retained to
the maximum extent possible. This criterion will be met.
13. Water. The applicant shall provide:
a. A copy of a water right permit, certificate, or other water use
authorization from the Oregon Water Resource Department; or
b. A statement that water is supplied from a public or private water
provider, along with the name and contact information of the water
provider; or
c. Proof from the Oregon Water Resources Department that the water to
be used is from a source that does not require a water right.
FINDING: As indicated by the applicant and confirmed through comments from
Central Oregon Irrigation District, the subject property contains 22.4 acres of irrigation
water for use during the irrigation season of April 1 to October 31. During the off-
season, November 1 to March 30, the applicant is purchasing water from ABC
Lightning, LLC. This standard is met.
14. Fire protection for processing of cannabinoid extracts. Processing of
cannabinoid extracts shall only be permitted on properties located within
the boundaries of or under contract with a fire protection district.
FINDING: The subject property is within the boundaries of the Redmond Fire and
Rescue District. This standard is met.
15. Utility Verification. A statement from each utility company proposed to
serve the operation, stating that each such company is able and willing
to serve the operation, shall be provided.
FINDING: Dan McDevitt from Pacific Power provided the following comments on June
8, 2017.
This is to advise you that Pacific Power has electrical distribution facilities near
Tax Lot 2400 in SEC. 18, T. 15S. R. 13E., W.M. in Deschutes, Oregon; and
Pacific Power has certified rights to provide electrical energy in this area. For
247 -17 -000172 -AD, -000173-SP, and -000180-AD, Evolution Concepts Page 33
a Cannabis Grow operation, with an estimated load provided by the customer
of 3000 amps 227/480 v. three phase, approx. load of 2 Megawatts.
Pacific Power will provide electrical service to this project within a reasonable
time after service is applied for. These extensions are provided under our Rules
and Regulations as filed with the Oregon State Public Utilities Commissioners.
These Rules and Regulations require that under some situations, the developer
or customer will be required to participate in the line extension costs....
This criterion is met.
16. Security Cameras. If security cameras are used, they shall be directed to
record only the subject property and public rights-of-way, except as
required to comply with requirements of the OLCC or the OHA.
FINDING: The applicant proposes security cameras with this proposal. The applicant
acknowledges the requirement noted above. The proposed security cameras will be
directed to record only the subject property. To ensure compliance, staff includes it
as a condition of approval.
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).
FINDING: The applicant acknowledges this requirement. Staff includes this
requirement as a condition of approval.
18. Residency. In the MUA-10 zone, a minimum of one of the following shall
reside in a dwelling unit on the subject property.
a. An owner of the subject property;
b. A holder of an OLCC license for marijuana production, provided that
the license applies to the subject property; or
c. A person registered with the OHA as a person designated to produce
marijuana by a registry identification cardholder, provided that the
registration applies to the subject property.
FINDING: The subject property is not in the MUA-10 Zone. Therefore, this standard
is not applicable.
19. Nonconformance. All medical marijuana grow sites lawfully established
prior to June 8, 2016 by the Oregon Health Authority shall comply with
the provisions of DCC 18.116.330(B)(9) by September 8, 2016 and with
the provisions of DCC 18.116.330(8)(10-12, 16, 17) by December 8, 2016.
FINDING: The subject property does not presently have an established grow site.
20. Prohibited Uses.
a. In the EFU zone, the following uses are prohibited.
i. A new dwelling used in conjunction with a marijuana crop;
ii. A farm stand, as described in ORS 215.213(1)(r) or 215.283(1)(0),
used in conjunction with a marijuana crop;
247 -17 -000172 -AD, -000173-SP, and -000180-AD, Evolution Concepts Page 34
iii. A commercial activity, as described in ORS 215.213(2)(c) or
215.283(2)(a), carried on in conjunction a marijuana crop; and
iv. Agri -tourism and other commercial events and activities in
conjunction with a marijuana crop.
b. In the MUA-10 Zone, the following uses are prohibited:
i. Commercial activities in conjunction with farm use when carried
on in conjunction with a marijuana crop.
c. In the EFU, MUA-10, and Rural Industrial zones, the following uses are
prohibited on the same property as marijuana production:
i. Guest Lodge.
ii. Guest Ranch.
iii. Dude Ranch.
iv. Destination Resort.
v. Public Parks.
vi. Private Parks.
vii. Events, Mass Gatherings and Outdoor Mass Gatherings.
viii. Bed and Breakfast.
ix. Room and Board Arrangements.
FINDING: The applicant has indicated that none of the prohibited uses identified in
this section are proposed. As a condition of approval, the uses listed in DCC
18.116.330(20) shall be prohibited on the subject property so long as marijuana
production is conducted on the site.
D. Annual Reporting
1. An annual report shall be submitted to the Community Development
Department by the real property owner or licensee, if different, each
February 1, documenting all of the following as of December 31 of the
previous year, including the applicable fee as adopted in the current County
Fee Schedule and a fully executed Consent to Inspect Premises form:
a. Documentation demonstrating compliance with the:
i. Land use decision and permits.
ii. Fire, health, safety, waste water, and building codes and laws.
iii. State of Oregon licensing requirements.
b. Failure to timely submit the annual report, fee, and Consent to Inspect
Premises form or to demonstrate compliance with DCC
18.116.330(C)(1)(a) shall serve as acknowledgement by the real
property owner and licensee that the otherwise allowed use is not in
compliance with Deschutes County Code; authorizes permit
revocation under DCC Title 22, and may be relied upon by the State
of Oregon to deny new or license renewal(s) for the subject use.
c. Other information as may be reasonably required by the Planning
Director to ensure compliance with Deschutes County Code,
applicable State regulations, and to protect the public health, safety,
and welfare.
d. Marijuana Control Plan to be established and maintained by the
Community Development Department.
e. Conditions of Approval Agreement to be established and maintained
by the Community Development Department.
f. This information shall be public record subject to ORS 192.502(17).
247 -17 -000172 -AD, -000173-SP, and -000180-AD, Evolution Concepts Page 35
FINDING: Compliance with the annual reporting requirements of this section shall be
a condition of approval.
IV. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES:
Board Resolution 2013-020 sets a transportation system development charge rate of $3,937
per p.m. peak hour trip, which, in this case is nine (9). Therefore, the applicable SDC based
on the traffic analysis dated September 18, 2017 by Transight Consulting, LLC is $35,433 (9
X $3,937). The SDC in this application will be triggered prior to certificate of occupancy if a
building permit is required or within 60 days of the land use decision becoming final.
V. CONCLUSION:
Based on the foregoing findings and conclusions, staff concludes that the proposed marijuana
production and processing facility can comply with the applicable standards and criteria of the
Deschutes County zoning ordinance if conditions of approval are met.
Other permits may be required. The applicant is responsible for obtaining any necessary
permits and meeting the requirements of the Deschutes County Building Safety Division and
Deschutes County Environmental Soils Division, as well as obtaining any required state and
federal permits.
VI. DECISION:
APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions of approval.
VII. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
A. This approval is based upon the application, site plan, specifications, and supporting
documentation submitted by the applicant. Any substantial change in this approved use
will require review through a new land use application.
B. The applicant shall assure that at least one-quarter of the farm crops processed at the
facility in any calendar year, measured by weight, are produced at the farm operation on
the subject property. In addition, the applicant shall provide to the Planning Division
written documentation of compliance with the requirement in paragraph DCC 18.16.025(1)
by submitting processed crop summaries to the Planning Division on request, and no less
frequently than on an annual basis by January 31 of each year.
C. Off-street parking areas used to fulfill the requirements of DCC Title 18 shall not be used
for loading and unloading operations except during periods of the day when not required
to take care of parking needs.
D. Required parking space shall be available for the parking of operable passenger
automobiles of residents, customers, patrons and employees only and shall not be used
for the storage of vehicles or materials or for the parking of trucks used in conducting the
business or used in conducting the business or use.
247 -17 -000172 -AD, -000173-SP, and -000180-AD, Evolution Concepts Page 36
E. The areas used for vehicle standing and maneuvering associated with the marijuana
processing use shall be constructed with a surface that is adequately maintained for all
weather use that is not cinder and maintained in a manner that will not create dust
problems for neighboring properties. The surfacing of the areas used for vehicle standing
and maneuvering associated with the marijuana processing use shall be completed prior
to initiating the marijuana processing use, the proposed use triggering this requirement.
In addition, prior to initiation of the use, all parking spaces shall be gravel surfaced, all
parking -adjacent drive aisles shall be gravel surfaced to 24 -foot width, and all two-way
drive aisles to be gravel surfaced to 24 -foot width. Any signed one-way vehicle circulation
drives shall be gravel surfaced to a minimum of 20 -foot width. The applicant shall submit
written confirmation that the required surfacing has been completed.
F. At all times, the following lighting standards shall apply:
1. Inside building lighting used for marijuana production shall not be visible outside the
structure from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. on the following day.
2. Lighting fixtures shall be fully shielded in such a manner that all light emitted directly
by the lamp or a diffusing element, or indirectly by reflection or refraction, is projected
below the horizontal plane through the lowest light -emitting part.
3. Light cast by exterior light fixtures other than marijuana grow lights shall comply with
DCC 15.10, Outdoor Lighting Control.
4. All exterior lighting shall be shielded so that direct light does not project off site.
G. The odor control systems described in the May 8, 2017 letter shall be equipped on the
building as described and must at all times prevent unreasonable interference of
neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. The odor control system shall be
maintained in working order and shall be in use at all times.
H. At all times, the following noise standards shall apply: Sustained noise from mechanical
equipment used for heating, ventilation, air condition, odor control, fans and similar
functions shall not exceed 30 dB(A) measured at any property line between 10:00 p.m.
and 7:00 a.m. the following day.
I. At all times, the following fencing standards shall apply: Fencing shall be finished in a
muted earth tone and shall not be constructed of temporary materials such as plastic
sheeting, hay bales, tarps, etc.
J. At all times, the following screening standards shall apply: The existing tree and shrub
cover screening the development from the public right-of-way or adjacent properties shall
be retained to the maximum extent possible. This provision does not prohibit the
maintenance of existing lawns, removal of dead, diseased or hazardous vegetation; the
commercial harvest of forest products in accordance with the Oregon Forest Practices
Act; or agricultural use of the land.
K. The landscaping in the vicinity of the parking adjacent to the buildings used for marijuana
processing shall be continuously maintained and kept alive and attractive.
247 -17 -000172 -AD, -000173-SP, and -000180-AD, Evolution Concepts Page 37
L. At all times, the following standards shall apply to security cameras: Security cameras
shall be directed to record only the subject property and public rights-of-way, except as
required to comply with requirements of the OLCC.
M. At all times, the following standards shall apply to waste management: Marijuana waste
shall be stored in a secured waste receptacle in the possession of and under the control
of the OLCC licensee.
N. The following shall apply regarding prohibited uses: The uses listed in DCC
18.116.330(20) shall be prohibited on the subject property so long as Marijuana
Production and Processing are conducted on the site.
O. The following annual reporting standards shall apply: The annual reporting requirements
of DCC 18.116.330(D) shall be met.
P. The use shall comply with the applicable building, fire, and OLCC safety standards.
VII. DURATION OF APPROVAL:
The Applicant shall obtain all required permits and initiate the use within two (2) years
following the date this decision becomes final, or obtain an extension of time pursuant to
Section 22.36.010 of the Deschutes County Code, or this approval shall be void.
This decision becomes final twelve (12) days after the date of mailing, unless appealed
by a party of interest.
DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION
C//
Written by: Cynthia Smidt, Associate Planner
Reviewed eter Gutowsky, Planning Manager
247 -17 -000172 -AD, -000173-SP, and -000180-AD, Evolution Concepts Page 38
P.C. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 9"7708-6005
Phone: (541) 388-5575 Fax: (541) 385-1764
http://wvnv.deschutes.org/cd
APPEAL APPLICATION
FEE:
EVERY NOTICE OF APPEAL SHALL INCLUDE:
1. A statement describing the specific reasons for the appeal.
2. If the Board of County Commissioners is the Hearings Body, a request for review by the Board stating
the reasons the Board should review the lower decision.
3. If the Board of County Commissioners is the Hearings Body and de novo review is desired, a request
for de novo review by the Board, stating the reasons the Board should provide the de novo review as
provided in Section 22.32.027 of Title 22,
4. If color exhibits are submitted, black and white copies with captions or shading delineating the color
areas shall also be provided.
It is the responsibility of the appellant to complete a Notice of Appeal as set forth in Chapter 22.32 of the County Code.
The Notice of Appeal on the reverse side of this form must include the items listed above. Failure to complete all of
the above may render an appeal invalid. Any additional comments should be included on the Notice of Appeal.
Staff cannot advise a potential appellant as to whether the appellant is eligible to file an appeal (DCC Section
22.32.010) or whether an appeal is valid. Appellants should seek their own legal advice concerning those issues.
Appellant's Name (print): Wendie Every Phone: ( 541) 923-5836
Mailing Address: 1210 SW 51st Street City/State/Zip: Redmond, OR 97756
Land Use Application Being Appealed: File Numbers: 247 -17 -00172 -AD, -000173-SP, and -000180-AD
Property Description: Township 15 Range 13 Section 18 Tax Lot 2400
Appellant's Signature:
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 22.32.024, APPELLANT SHALL PROVIDE A COMPLETE
TRANSCRIPT OF ANY HEARING APPEALED, FROM RECORDED MAGNETIC TAPES PROVIDED BY THE
PLANNING DIVISION UPON REQUEST (THERE IS A $5.00 FEE FOR EACH MAGNETIC TAPE RECORD).
APPELLANT SHALL SUBMIT THE TRANSCRIPT TO THE PLANNING DIVISION NO LATER THAN THE
CLOSE OF THE DAY FIVE (5) DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE SET FOR THE DE NOVO HEARING OR, FOR
ON -THE -RECORD APPEALS, THE DATE SET FOR RECEIPT OF WRITTEN RECORDS.
(over)
10/15
NOTICE OF APPEAL
A number of neighbors with properties adjacent to 4800 SW Highland Avenue (State Highway 126) wrote
letters with various objections in March 2017. Per the county website, opposition that came from public
comment were to be addressed in a hearing. None of the occupants were notified that a public hearing
would not take place. Therefore, we are filing an appeal so our specific concerns will be addressed.
In addition to the concerns raised in the 3/30/17 letters, in the last two weeks, neighbors at (4937 W Hwy 126)
have had two offers rescinded regarding the sale of their property. In addition, the traffic concerns were not
specifically addressed. The water table concerns were not addressed. And, the proximity to multiple
residential properties and the urban growth boundary were not addressed.
It is extremely disappointing that you did not follow your established procedure and hold a public hearing
to address our concerns. Instead, we were required to file an appeal to have a hearing.
In conclusion, our primary concerns are traffic congestion, adverse effects on neighborhood wells and our
inability to sell our homes. It is also understood that the owner of the property resides in Costa Rica, has
no plan to relocate to the United States, and therefore will not be impacted by the changes in the area
caused by the operation of his facility.
(This page may be photocopied if additional space is needed.)
CE
April 2, 2017
Cynthia Smidt, Associate Planner
Deschutes County
Community Development Department
P.O. Box 6005
117 NW Lafayette Ave.
Bend, Oregon
97708-6005
RE: File No: 247-17-000172-AD/173-SP/ 180 AD
Applicant: Evolution Concepts, LLC
Location: Subject Property, 4800 SW Highland Avenue, Redmond; Tax
Map 15-13-18 as Tax Lot 2400
Dear Cynthia,
CDD
In September of this year my family will have lived in this Helmholtz, Antler,
Highway 126 vicinity for approximately forty-seven years.
I am 82 years old, my wife Patty and I have five married children and 17
grandchildren and five great grandchildren. We are currently and have
always been involved in taking an active part in Deschutes County and
Redmond vicinity projects such as the Redmond Airport Board, County
Fair, Redmond Flag Day, Boy Scouts, 4-H, FFA, Kiawanis, Rotary, etc.
I would appreciate your careful consideration of the following facts,
regarding this Applicant and subject land use.
Listed are several approximate GPS distances of subject property to
factual sites....
Eagle Crest Residential Development.. 1.7 miles
Summit Crest Residential Development.. 1.3 miles
Redmond City Limits.. .5 miles
Ridge View High School.. 2.4 miles
Redmond High School..1.6 miles
Redmond, Hwy, 126 Gateway , Future Urban Expansion, 200' ( 200 Feet }
( Directly across Hwy, 126 )
Additional Comments:
I notice that a part of the Mission Statement of Deschutes County, reads
the following.. " To enhance the lives of the Citizens of Deschutes County"
I also read in the State Of Oregon, Guide Lines, ORS -215.253.. Titled
Limitations on Restrictions By Governing Bodies.
" Unless practice effects the Health, Safety & Welfare of the Citizens of the
State off Oregon..
Regarding Safety.. Subject Property is exactly 1/4 mile from the Helmholtz,
Hwy. 126 Intersection, at a 45 mile per hour speed Limit (A very
dangerous intersection )
The Webster Dictionary defines Public Welfare as follows " Promoting
the health, safety, morals, well being, and prosperity of the people "
Regarding Prosperity: I understand that property values decrease
substantially with real estate in close proximity to Marijuana Facilities...
Marijuana Is still Federally illegal in the United States, and that could
cause many, many complications that could impact the citizens of this
vicinity... (We are gambling with Risks).
CypAa, I veDtA4uckappreciate your careful consideration.
QeaF�Llrki ( 1-4K Revocable Trust )
4704 West A r Avenue
Redmond, Oregon
541-788-1548
Cynthia Smidt, Associate Planner
Community Development Department
P.O. Box 6005
Bend, OR 97708-6005
March 31, 2017
File # 247-17- 000172 — ADA 73-SP/180-AD
Dear Ms. Smidt,
RECEIVED
Dmchtft County CD
We are absolutely opposed to Evolution Concepts, LLC, proposed land use application to
establish a marijuana production and processing facility next to our land, 5200 W. Hwy
126. Our reasons are as follows:
1. Marijuana growing and processing has a huge and lingering stench. Our land
value would decrease considerably, which is a real problem as we have it listed
for sale at this time. The buildings they propose are 140 feet from our property
line which is close to our approved CUP — for a farm house.
2. The noise of the drying, heating and cooling fans would be deafening and again
reduce the value of our property. It would also erode the quality of life of anyone
considering our property as a home.
3. Traffic would increase exponentially in and out of the facility, as well as on Hwy
126, which is already very dangerous and an area of many accidents each year.
The only way we would consider changing our position on this application is two -fold:
A. If the owners of 4800 want to grow pot on their land, they can buy our property
also, at list price plus a 10% premium, or
B. If the City of Redmond includes our parcel in their Future Urban Expansion Area.
This would increase our options for maintaining value on our land. We don't know
why our land isn't included at this time, as the property north and west of ours is
included. Furthermore, ODOT has a 200 foot easement on our property frontage
already.
If one of these two conditions isn't met, we will remain opposed to 4800 SW Highland
using their land for pot production and processing. Please consider our stand and reasons
on this issue.
Y
Most Sincerely,<
i1�1, ;w i1lc:
M. indsay it i ns t,iving Trust, Et All
17420 Casc, de Estates Drive
Bend, OR 97,703
Cynthia Smidt
From: Wendie Every <wendie@every-idea.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2017 1:55 PM
To: Cynthia Smidt
Cc: Phil Henderson; Tammy Baney; Tony DeBone
Subject: Testimony for File# 247-17-000172-AD/173-SP/180-AD
Attachments: Documentl (002) (002).docx
Attached please find our written testimony on the Application for a marijuana production and processing
facility noted above.
If you have any questions, we welcome your call.
Thank you
Wendie Every
Charlie & Wendie Every
1210 SW 51St Street
Redmond, OR 97757
April 4, 2017
Cynthia Smidt —Associate Planner
Deschutes County Planning Department
PO Box 6005
Bend, OR 97701-6005
RE: Proposed Land Use Action #247-17-000172-AD/173-SP/180AD
Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the proposed land use action mentioned above.
We are the landowners of the property due south of the subject property, and we strongly oppose this
application due to the following:
Our first and most serious concern is safety. We've been told by law enforcement that anytime you have
a product such as marijuana there is always a risk for theft, violence and the type of activity that would
create a safety issue. We have grandchildren who play and ride their horses within 1,000 feet of the
proposed production and processing facility.
When property in Central Oregon is purchased by someone from Central America that only spells
trouble to me, and you would be hard pressed to convince me or guarantee me that there is not some
type of connection to unlawful drug activity. I understand there are a lot of players in this operation
which also sends up a red flag for us.
This property is only % mile from the Redmond Urban Reserve boundary, and only 2 miles from Vern
Patrick Elementary School, RPA Middle School, and Redmond High School.
We believe our property value will decrease due to the proposed business we share a fence line with.
We have talked with others who have experienced the same situation and devaluation was a true reality
for them. We've lived here for 20+ years and don't want to move due to this new proposed operation.
We have also been told by several previously affected property owners that the strong odor neighbors
will experience from marijuana production and processing is nasty and very annoying. We spend a lot of
time on our deck facing this proposed operation and feel that experience will be destroyed.
We believe the precincts of voters who passed the legalization of marijuana in Deschutes County were
very few with concentrated population, and the precincts in rural areas voted NO. So, urban users of
marijuana benefit and rural property owners take the hit.
We're concerned about bright grow lights disturbing our views and quality of life.
We have already noticed increased traffic to the subject property and see this as a commercial business,
not an agricultural business that lawmakers intended Exclusive Farm Use Zone to be used for.
I understand voters passed this law in Oregon, but not those of us who are going to be the most affected
by the grow operations. And while marijuana is still federally illegal, what happens if government funds
are withheld from cities, counties and states who have allowed this activity and development?
Please be brave and do what's right for the citizens who have paid their taxes, been mindful of building
strong communities and neighborhoods, and truly care about Deschutes County. Have the courage to
say no to those who are only here to make a lot of money and have no concern for our community or
what we have all worked so hard for.
We strongly encourage denial of this application, and truly hope this written testimony will assist in a
decision that will benefit this entire area of property owners, not just one.
Thank you again for your time and serious consideration.
Charlie Every
Wendie Every
541-480-8440 541-419-1346
Cynthia Smidt
From: Wendie Every <wendie@every-idea.com>
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 2:49 PM
To: Cynthia Smidt
Subject: Land Use Application #347-17-000172-AD/173-SP/180AD
Attachments: SKM C284e17040714460.pdf
Cynthia,
Attached is the letter from Barbara Rich. She ask me to forward to you.
Thank you
EVERY IDEA MARKETING
IDEAS THAr EquAL itESIAtTs
355 NE Lafayette Ave, Bend, OR 97701
ph 541.383.2669 1 fx 541.383.2072
wendieeevey-idea.com ( www.every-idea.com
Barbara Rich
1150 SW 531tl
Redmond, OR 97756
April 7, 2017
Cynthia Smidt —Associate Planner
Deschutes County Planning Department
PO Box 6005
Bend, OR 97701-6005
RE: Proposed land Use Action I#247-17-000172-AD/173-SP/180AD
1 would like to express my serious concerns about the marijuana production and processing facility
application mentioned above, by agreeing with everything that has been stated by Charlie and Wendie
Every in their testimony dated 4/4/1.7, which is attached.
I've lived here for 40 years and I'm asking that the application be denied.
Thank you for your consideration.
Barbara Rich
RECEIVED
r
It{`
3/30/17
To Deschutes County Planning Division: Deschutes County CDD
We are writing this letter out of grave concern regarding the proposed commercial marijuana
production and processing facility to be located on 4800 Highland Avenue in Redmond, Oregon. We all
have standing in this matter, having lived adjacent to the property for decades.
The fact that this activity is now legal in Oregon reasonably does not allow its establishment in an area
without considering relevant social and environmental impacts.
Even though we are just outside the city limits, this is a neighborhood; there are 7 properties/families
living next to this parcel, most of whom have raised families and lived here for decades. It is obvious
that having such a business situated here, with the required security and surveillance equipment in
sight, will change the character of the area. We are located in the Urban Growth Boundary Reserve and
will likely be included in the Urban Growth Boundary in the future. Surely, this type of facility would not
be allowed in the Urban Growth Boundary. Our proximity to this facility will make the sale of our
properties in the future more difficult. One estimate from Colorado states that property values within %Z
mile from a marijuana growing and production facility fell 8.4%.. Practically speaking, what family
would want to live next door to a marijuana farm? The submitted application describes this area as
rural -that is ridiculous -we are close to town and we are a neighborhood.
This area of Highway 126 is already congested and there is frequent traffic leaving and arriving in our
multiple driveways. The traffic from Sisters and Redmond can be heavy much of the day as itis. The
application for this facility states that they will also process other growers products which will result in
increased traffic and congestion. We have decades of practical experience and strongly refute their
traffic impact assessment.
There is a real and measurable impact on the local environment to consider. One marijuana plant,
growing for 5-6 months uses up to 1000 gallons of water. For 100 plants that is 100,000 gallons of water
in an area with very deep well depths. Our well had to be deepened several years ago and the very real
fact of worsening a failing water table is of great concern. The energy requirements of 24/7 high
intensity lights is significant. One estimate is that 4 indoor plants use as much electrical energy as 30
refrigerators (200 watts/sq ft). The use of outside high intensity security lighting will contribute to light
pollution, an established subject of litigation.
The pervasive odor of marijuana growing operations has been a demonstrable problem in areas that
allow grow facilities. Some communities need officers with special smell detectors to cite operations
that exceed local standards. This also has been shown to make selling nearby properties problematic.
Despite odor control measures, the literature abounds with references to the lack of efficacy of these
measures resulting in multiple odor complaints. A current grower in Deschutes County confirms that
the odor is impossible to completely control.
Marijuana remains a federal Schedule I drug - illegal to possess or grow. The danger of civil asset
forfeiture and seizure is very real. This is even more relevant considering the new administration's
stated intention to enforce existing federal law - "recreational marijuana will be subject to greater
enforcement of federal laws" (CNN.com/2017/02/2017).
As one of the authors of this letter, on a personal note, it has been my privilege to be a physician in
Redmond since 1988 and have seen it grow from a population of 6500 to over 25000. 1 have taken care
of thousands of my fellow citizens — and I care about my community. I am not disputing the usefulness
of medicinal cannabis. However there is abundant peer reviewed literature to support the fact that
there are real side effects to it regular use including:
Measurable decrease in IQ among regular users who began as a teen (Substance abuse and behavioral
health statistics and quality. 2015).
Low birthweight babies in regular users (Neurotoxicol and Teratol; 200:22(3):325-336).
Gateway drug phenomenon. ( Int J Drug Pol. 2015; 26(2):135-142).
It is at least apparent that there are some unresolved issues with the recreational use of marijuana. That
is not the focus of this letter. Rather we want to express our legitimate and serious concerns that
allowing this business to operate in this location has significant negative impacts to the surrounding
properties and the families that call it home.
• Measurably decreased property values
• Pervasive odors
• Security measures and potential crime
• Excessive water use in an area of low water tables
Light pollution
• Federal law regarding marijuana and the probability of enforcement of existing laws including
forfeiture and seizure of assets
• Adverse environmental impact resulting from the carbon footprint of excess energy
consumption in the form of electricity
• Increased traffic and congestion on an already busy highway
These are justifiable and reasonable concerns about an entity with potential adverse social and
environmental impacts that should not be located in an area with surrounding established families and
businesses. The proposed facility can and should be built in an area that is truly rural, not in the Urban
Growth Boundary Reserve and located near established family homes. It is critical to note that the
owners of the facility do not live here and will not be impacted by the changes in the area caused by
the operation of their facility.
As families and business owners, we want to register our strong opposition to the location of this
commercial marijuana enterprise in our neighborhood.
Sincerely, �-
Jack Hartley MD FAC
Katherine Hartley l�
jCf W W -Y l -t-
Redmond, Oregon
g7-25Le
April 5, 2017
: ECE,' VE
Deselmes County
To whom it may concern
On April 3, 1 submitted a letter concerning the proposed marijuana grow operation located at 4800 W
Hwy 126, and I inadvertently did not include the list of signatures of the concerned neighborhood
families. Here it is.
Thank you for your. consideration.
Jack Ha '_.ley
r
i l
541-306-8653
3/30/17
To Deschutes County Planning Division:
We are writing this letter out of grave concern regarding the proposed commercial marijuana
production and processing facility to be located on 4800 Highland Avenue in Redmond, Oregon. We all
have standing in this matter, having lived adjacent to the property for decades.
The fact that this activity is now legal in Oregon reasonably does not allow its establishment in an area
without considering relevant social and environmental impacts.
Even though we are just outside the city limits, this is a neighborhood; there are 7 properties/families
living next to this parcel, most of whom have raised families and lived here for decades. It is obvious
that having such a business situated here, with the required security and surveillance equipment in
sight, will change the character of the area. We are located in the Urban Growth Boundary Reserve and
will likely be included in the Urban Growth Boundary in the future. Surely, this type of facility would not
be allowed in the Urban Growth Boundary. Our proximity to this facility will make the sale of our
properties in the future more difficult. One estimate from Colorado states that property values within''/:
mile from a marijuana growing and production facility fell 13.4%.. Practically speaking, what family
would want to live next door to a marijuana farm? The submitted application describes this area as
rural -that is ridiculous -we are close to town and we are a neighborhood.
This area of Highway 126 is already congested and there is frequent traffic leaving and arriving in our
multiple driveways. The traffic from Sisters and Redmond can be heavy much of the day as it is. The
application for this facility states that they will also process other growers products which will result in
increased traffic and congestion. We have decades of practical experience and strongly refute their
traffic impact assessment.
There is a real and measurable impact on the local environment to consider. One marijuana plant,
growing for 5-6 months uses up to 1000 gallons of water. For 100 plants that is 100,000 gallons of water
in an area with very deep well depths. Our well had to be deepened several years ago and the very real
fact of worsening a falling water table is of great concern. The energy requirements of 24/7 high
intensity lights is significant. One estimate is that 4 indoor plants use as much electrical energy as 30
refrigerators (200 watts/sq ft). The use of outside high intensity security lighting will contribute to light
pollution, an established subject of litigation.
The pervasive odor of marijuana growing operations has been a demonstrable problem in areas that
allow grow facilities. Some communities need officers with special smell detectors to cite operations
that exceed local standards. This also has been shown to make selling nearby properties problematic.
Despite odor control measures, the literature abounds with references to the lack of efficacy of these
measures resulting in multiple odor complaints. A current grower in Deschutes County confirms that
the odor is impossible to completely control.
Marijuana remains a federal Schedule I drug - illegal to possess or grow. The danger of civil asset
forfeiture and seizure is very real. This is even more relevant considering the new administration's
stated intention to enforce existing federal law - "recreational marijuana will be subject to greater
enforcement of federal laws" (CNN.com/2017/02/2017).
As one of the authors of this letter, on a personal note, it has been my privilege to be a physician in
Redmond since 1988 and have seen it grow from a population of 6500 to over 25000. 1 have taken care
of thousands of my fellow citizens — and I care about my community. I am not disputing the usefulness
of medicinal cannabis. However there is abundant peer reviewed literature to support the fact that
there are real side effects to it regular use including:
Measurable decrease in IQ among regular users who began as a teen (Substance abuse and behavioral
health statistics and quality. 2015).
Low birthweight babies in regular users (Neurotoxicol and Teratol; 200:22(3):325-336).
Gateway drug phenomenon. ( Int J Drug Pol. 2015; 26(2):135-142).
It is at least apparent that there are some unresolved issues with the recreational use of marijuana. That
is not the focus of this letter. Rather we want to express our legitimate and serious concerns that
allowing this business to operate in this location has significant negative impacts to the surrounding
properties and the families that call it home.
• Measurably decreased property values
• Pervasive odors
• Security measures and potential crime
• Excessive water use in an area of low water tables
• Light pollution
• Federal law regarding marijuana and the probability of enforcement of existing laws including
forfeiture and seizure of assets
• Adverse environmental impact resulting from the carbon footprint of excess energy
consumption in the form of electricity
• Increased traffic and congestion on an already busy highway
These are justifiable and reasonable concerns about an entity with potential adverse social and
environmental impacts that should not be located in an area with surrounding established families and
businesses. The proposed facility can and should be built in an area that is truly rural, not in the Urban
Growth Boundary Reserve and located near established family homes. It is critical to note that the
owners of the facility do not live here and will not be impacted by the changes in the area caused by
the operation of their facility.
As families and business owners, we want to register our strong opposition to the location of this
commercial marijuana enterprise in our neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Jack Hartley MD FAC .
Katherine Hartley ,
iq ) of 4wy/2-
Redmond, Oregon
Richard and Barbara Morton
4861 W. Hwy 126 ."C
Redmond, Oregon
Keith and Tami Ross
5067 W. Hwy 126
Redmond,Oregon
,(AJL'AJ
0
C4 S Cp
are
L
ftP
Mv C,
I tPq *vRe t4 Aw -
Cynthia Smidt
III®IY®9 OI®9111M�1
From: Debra Ford <debraford58@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2017 4:38 PM
To: Cynthia Smidt
Subject: 4800 W Hwy 126
Hi. We are property owners, adjoining property to 4800. Our address is 4500 and 4542 SW Indian Ct. I am
wondering why we were not notified, like all other neighbors were notified of impending change of EFU. I just
found out yesterday, from my 104 yr old neighbor.
So, a few questions, please. Water source is coming from where? Waste going where? Chemicals being
used? Since I have organic livestock, cows, chickens and pigs. Security issues, since my property borders this
property, is an issue. If someone were up to nefarious actions, well, they would probably come down new
frontage road to end, go across my property, and access their property.
I would love a call back, or a reason why we were excluded from notifications.
Sincerely, Rob and Deb Ford 4542 SW Indian Ct Redmond, OR 97756, or Deb at 541-610-8077, or email me
back please. We would appreciate your attention to this matter.
Cynthia Smidt
From: Jim McConnell <jim@lightelegance.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 11;44 AM
To: Cynthia Smidt
Subject: Prposed Pot Grow on Hwy 126
Attachments: DeschuteCountryPotGrowlune 29.pdf
Hi Cynthia,
Thank you for returning my call today. Per our conversation, I have written a letter regarding my
thoughts on the proposed growing and processing of marijuana on Highway 126, west of Redmond. I
have spoken with my family members about this issue and they are in complete agreement with me on
this issue. The letter represents 6 adults whom all live in Eagle Crest.
Best regards,
Jim
Jim McConnell
President
r�
nlohile:
406 SW Umatilla Ave, Redmond, OR 97756
541.126'1411 v: 1' htelegance.com
•••
McConnellabs
June 29, 2017
Cynthia Smidt
Deschutes County
C my hia,smidt@deschutes.org
Subject: Opposition to the Marijuana Production and Processing proposed land use west of
Redmond on Highway 126
Dear Cynthia,
I write to you regarding the proposed land use of the property on Highway 126 west of
Redmond, OR for the use to grow and process marijuana. I am opposed to the use of the
property to grow and process marijuana. It is my opinion that if the operation is allowed to
proceed, the following will occur: 1) an increase in traffic in the area that is already subject to
accidents, 2) increase in crime in the area based on the knowledge of the production facility
being present, and 3) the effect on the community of Redmond and surrounding land.
Highway 126 seems to have a fairly high incident rate of accidents. The intersection of Highway
126 and 351h Avenue is certainly one of our intersections host subject to accidents in and
around Redmond, but the highway in general seems to suffer from a lot of accidents. If the
growing and processing operation is allowed to be a business in this location, being directly on
the highway, it is my fear that the accident rate will increase significantly as a result of
increased traffic.
My wife and I moved from Eugene to central Oregon in 2010. When we had our business in
Eugene, the office was in an industrial complex in which the offices were all quite close. Across
the complex from us was an illegal (this was in 2008-2010) growing and processing operation
for marijuana. The traffic that went through the complex on Wednesday through Saturday had
a significant impact on our business because it made it difficult for our employees and
customers to enter our building. The crime rate in the area also increased as a result of some of
the people who came to make their purchases. While the proposed operation on Highway 126
may or may not sell marijuana, it is a concern of mine that the crime rate will go up. While
working late in my office in Eugene one evening, three men came into my office with the intent
to steal money, computers, laboratory equipment and more. I was able to fend them off and
get them out of my office without harm, but if I had not been equipped at the time to deter
McConnell Labs, Inc.
406 SW Umatilla Ave
Redmond, OR 97756
+1 541 526 1417
M _ � onneAabs
..•
them, I would have been robbed. The last issue surrounding the growing and processing
operation in Eugene is that the growers tried to process the marijuana into hash. During the
processing of the finely ground marijuana buds, there was an explosion that sent three people
to OHSU in Portland, OR via Life Flight and endangered a young child. The pot growing and
processing operations are not safe, not conducted as a reliable business and are often operated
by people whom I wouldn't want in my community.
Redmond and the surrounding area is primarily ranch land and hardworking inhabitants. A pot
growing and processing operation is counter to our community. We would lose our sense of
community to some degree or to a great degree. While areas do change, this would be
extremely detrimental to our area and as such, I think that the ranches and farms would close
and our residents would move away.
My family history is a common one. My mom smoked pot when I was young. I saw the types of
people that it brought to our home and they were not nice, kind fun -loving people. They stole
from me and my brothers. My experience was the same in Eugene when the growing operation
was in our business complex. The same people came to our location and they stole or
attempted to steal from everyone around. The operation in Eugene brought unwanted traffic
and crime. it is my experience that the same will occur in Redmond at the proposed facility on
highway 126. Please do not allow this operation to be in our community.
I live in Eagle Crest at:
1953 Kingfisher Circle
Redmond, OR 97756
jim@mclabs.us.com
541285 1283
I work in Redmond near the airport and employ 30 people at our facility.
Best regards,
James (Jim) McConnell
President, McConnell Labs, Inc.
McConnell Labs, Inc.
406 SW Umatilla Ave
Redmond, OR 97756
+1 541 526 1417
Fitch LAw Grouj�, P
Edward P. Fitch
"ed htchlxw iru con
C,O1�T1Ll�alt(:('C t..O 1�XCE: etdcE. � � ��> p�''
Linda J. Nichols
Paralebal
linda@fltch]amgroup.c=
October 23, 2017
VIA FACSIMILE: 541-385-3202
And HAND DELIVERY:
Deschutes County
Board of County Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., 2"' Floor
Bend OR 97703
Re: Land Use Appeal of Evolution Concepts, LLC — Marijuana Production and Processing
Facility
Dear Commissioners:
This office represents the opponent/appellant Wendie Every to the application of Evolution
Concepts, LLC for a marijuana facility. The appeal hearing is currently set for October 30,
2017 at 10:00 a.m. I have just recently got on board with this matter and would respectfully
request a short set -over of the hearing to either November 6, 7, 8 or 9"'. This will give the
appellant sufficient time to prepare for the hearing.
Please advise as soon as possible. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
EDWARD P. FITCH
EPF:Ijn
Enclosure
Ce: Client
Cynthia Schmitt — Associate Planner — Cynthia. smidt c deschutes.org
Evolution Concepts, LLC — 915 SW Rimrock Way, Redmond OR 97756
G:\Clients\EPI"\Every, Wendie\Every, Wendie L.0\L,tr to Deschutes BOC.docx
210 SW 5"' St., Ste. #2 I Redmond OR 97756
Phone: 541.316.1588 1 Fax: 541.316.1943
Titch Law Group, PC
"Committed t0 Excellence"
October 23, 2017
VIA FACSIMILE: 541-385-3202
And HAND DELIVERY:
Deschutes County
Board of County Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., 2nd Floor
Bend OR 97703
Edward P. Fitch
ed@fitelilawgroup.com
Linda J. Nichols
Paralegal
linda@fitchlawgroup.com
Re: Land Use Appeal of Evolution Concepts, LLC — Marijuana Production and Processing
Facility
Dear Commissioners:
This office represents the opponent/appellant Wendie Every to the application of Evolution
Concepts, LLC for a marijuana facility. The appeal hearing is currently set for October 30,
2017 at 10:00 a.m. I have just recently got on board with this matter and would respectfully
request a short set -over of the hearing to either November 6, 7, 8 or 9th. This will give the
appellant sufficient time to prepare for the hearing.
Please advise as soon as possible. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
EDWARD P. FITCH
EPF:Ijn
Enclosure
Cc: Client
Cynthia Schmitt — Associate Planner — Cynthia. smidtkdeschutes.org
Evolution Concepts, LLC — 915 SW Rimrock Way, Redmond OR 97756
G:\Clients\EPF\Every, Wendie\Every, Wendie LU\Ltr to Deschutes BOC.docx
210 SW 5"' St., Ste. #2 Redmond OR 97756
Phone: 541.316.1588 Fax: 541.316.1943
23 -OCT -2017 11:09 From:INFO@FITCHLRWGROUP 541316194'3
Fitch Law Group, PC
"Committed to Excellence"
To:5413853202 Pa3e:I,'2
FACSIMILE 114AINISMITTAL
DATE: October 23, 2017
TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
FAX NO.: 541-385-3202
FROM: Linda J. Nichols
Paralegal to Edward P. Fitch
R,E; Land Use Appeal of Evolution ConceptsLD-17—
Marijuana Production and PracessingNwility
NUMBER OF PAGES:
NOTES:
Edward P, Fitch
2.10 SW 5" Street, Suite 2
Redmond, Oreizon 97756
Phone; 541.316.1588 Fax: 541,316,1943
Email: ed@fitcWawgroup,coiu
(Including coverpage)
Please see attached correspondence Tegar&nly the above -referenced matter. Thank you.
Linda
NOTICUTO RECIPIE NT
The infornzation contained in thisfaeshnfle is intended only for the use of the individual or
entity natitedit,boveatidmay coiiiai,riattorney, p,r,ii)l'li=,4�(,,dor- conji-denti(ilittfoi-stiatioll. If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipipat, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution or copying of this coamumication is If'youhave
received this communication in error, please callus iinniediately (collect calls will be accepted,4
and return the original message to the address ohove via tire U.S. Fostal Service,
GACIicm%PREvery, Wcudic%wry, Wendic LUTAX cover shed - UrAocx
2__41CT-2017 11:09 Froffi:INF0@FITCHLAWGR0UP 5,4131G, 1
F 1," Fitch Law Group, PC
C -i m I
wi tted to Excellence"
October 23, 2017
VIA FACSIMILE: 541-385-3202
And HAND DELMRY:
Deschutes County
Board of County Conmissioners
1.300 NW Wall St., 2nd Floor
Bend OR 97703
To:5413853202 Pa 2,`2
lklward 11. Fitcb
sd@fitPh1awUoup.com
Lind,i J, Nicb,ols
Parak,,p
linda("MUlawgroup.com
Be.- Land Use Appeal of Evola fioa C�),fgcep tiz#.1JX — Map-ijuana prod"clion and, Process,ingg�
Facility
Dear Commissioners:
This office represents the opponent/appell,,utt Wendie Every to the application of Evolutim-.1
Concepts, LLC for a marijuana facility, Pie ajalw.,A hearing is currently set for October 30,
2017 at 10:00 ami. I have just recentlyc-,ot (1- �I
gu lBoard with tIds matter and would respectfully
request a short set -over of the he 'ill.' to eill...er November 6, 7, 8 or 90'. 'Ms will give the
appellant sufficient time to prepare for the :hearing.
Please advise as soon as possible. Tharik you,
Vcry truly yours
EDWARD P. FITCH
EPF.Ijn
Enclosure
C C', Clielat
Cynthia Schmitt —Associate Pleur ne.r—
Evolution Concepts, LLC — 915 SW RUAE,ock. Way, Redmond OR. 97756
G
.xAC1ientsTPn'_Fvv,ry, Wendie\Evcry, Wendie LUUr to Desd-iuff;:i DOC.doc,&
2105W5'hSt,,StaAt I Y<edmond OR 97756
Phone, 541-316,1588 1 Fax; 54-1,316,1943
Cynthia Smidt
From:
Ellen H. Grover <ehg@karnopp.com>
Sent:
Monday, October 23, 2017 5:11 PM
To:
Cynthia Smidt
Cc:
'Jacob Jenkins'; 'ed@f itchlawgroup.com'; Nancy J. Hanson
Subject:
Response to Continuance Request: File 247-17-00083-A
Hi Cynthia:
As you know our office represents Evolutions Concepts, LLC in the above referenced appeal file. I have conferred with
my client regarding Mr. Fitch's letter, dated October 23, 2017, requesting a delay in the commencement of the appeal
hearing to November 6, 7, 8 or 9th. My client objects to a delay in commencement of the hearing. In addition, one of
our valuable team members will not be available on the dates suggested by Mr. Fitch.
Kind Regards,
Ellen Grover I Karnopp Petersen LLP
Attorney
v: 541.382.30111 e: ehg@karnopp.com
-----Original Message -----
From: Cynthia Smidt[mailto:Cynthia.Smidt@deschutes.orgj
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 3:47 PM
To: Ellen H. Grover <ehg@karnopp.com>
Subject: continuance
Ellen,
If you are able to provide any response to the attached request for continuance by Tuesday morning I will include it with
my packet to the Board. Otherwise, we'll provide it to them by the hearing date (Monday).
Thanks.
<https://url.emailprotection.link/?aFMbIWOBJJRG6QEW1cgK4fxbAgRQATYEeJCvOnrELntQ-> Cynthia Smidt, Associate
Planner
Community Development Department
PO Box 6005 1 117 NW Lafayette Avenue
Bend, Oregon 97708-6005
Tel: (541) 317-3150
https://url.emailprotection.link/?antOkngx3sFOr8jeSA9iyRwgWqjq2fIM2i8A9ej2ohcQ
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.