The URL can be used to link to this page

2018-47-Minutes for Meeting January 10,2018 Recorded 2/7/2018Recorded in Deschutes County CJ2018-4% Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk Commissioners' Journal 02/07/2018 8:29:31 AM ><�,�.: 11 11111 � II��I If 11 ��1�111 1 ■II 2018-47 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 Wednesday, January 10, 2018 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 Assistant. Several representatives of the media were in attendance. CALL TO ORDER: Chair DeBone called the meeting to order at 9:05 a.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CITIZEN INPUT: None was offered. CONSENT AGENDA: Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Henderson requested to pull Item 1 for discussion and pull Items 4 and 5 for additional review. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting January 10, 2018 Page 1 of 7 BANEY: Move approval of Consent Agenda Items 2, 3, and 6. HENDERSON: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. HENDERSON: Yes. DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried Consent Agenda Items: 1. Consideration of Board Signature of Resolution No. 2018-001, Budget Adjustment — Community Development Department 2. Consideration of Signature of Letter of Appointment to Fred Turner, Marilyn Turner, and Mike Skjold to the Ponderosa Pines East Special Road District Board 3. Consideration of Signature on Letter Thanking Dale Grinols, Debra Grinols, and Todd Christopherson for their Service on the Board of Ponderosa Pines East Special Road District 4. Approval of Minutes of the November 27, 2017 Work Session 5. Approval of Minutes of the December 6, 2017 Business Meeting 6. Approval of Minutes of the December 13, 2017 Business Meeting ACTION ITEMS Consent Agenda Item I as pulled for discussion: Consideration of Board Signature of Resolution No. 2018-001, Budget Adjustment — Community Development Department Commissioner Henderson asked for clarification on the budget impact. Sherri Pinner, Community Development provided information. HENDERSON: Move approval BANEY: Second VOTE: HENDERSON: Yes BANEY: Yes DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting January 10, 2018 Page 2 of 7 7. Consideration of Application for Homeland Security Grant Nathan Garibay, Emergency Services Manager presented the item for consideration of submitting a grant application to the United States Department of Homeland Security through the Oregon Office of Emergency Management. BANEY: Move approval. HENDERSON: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. HENDERSON: Yes. DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 8. Deschutes County — Jefferson County IGA Regarding Alternative Access to Crooked River Ranch: Discussion of Draft Chris Doty, Public Works Director presented this item as a discussion item noting many entities are involved in discussions of a secondary road access for safety. The Board expressed support with moving forward. Commissioner Baney commented on the past closure of Wimp Way and the discussions then on the future needs of a secondary access. 9. Transportation Safety Action Plan (TSAP) Grant Application Chris Doty, Public Works Director presented the item to consider a request to apply for a grant for Deschutes County for developing strategies to reduce the number of fatal and serious injury crashes by collecting data that will be used to develop infrastructure and education relating to safety improvements. Dave Thompson was also present to comment on safety awareness programs. BANEY: Move approval. HENDERSON: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. HENDERSON: Yes. DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting January 10, 2018 Page 3 of 7 RECESS: At the time of 9:45 a.m., a recess was taken. The meeting reconvened at 10:02 a.m. Upon re -convening the meeting, the Board Chair allowed a second opportunity for Citizen Input. Gladys Bigler approached the Board with her concerns regarding the actions of the Deschutes County Sheriff's Office and the actions of Sheriff Shane Nelson. The public has no clear understanding of the staffing issues and cost to the community. Citizens Advisory Committee supposedly being held but no information is available to the public. 10. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal of an Administrative Determination Approving a Marijuana Production Facility at 25606 Alfalfa Market Road Jacob Ripper, Community Development Department outlined the hearing procedures. The Board had no conflicts of interest to disclose. Mr. Ripper provided the staff report. Mr. Ripper noted materials are available for the public through the county website in DIAL and through E -permitting. Commissioner DeBone called the applicant to provide testimony. Douglas Bryson and Cameron Ye for S20 Dynamics LLC presented their request to convert and existing medical marijuana production to become a recreational medical marijuana facility. Mr. Bryson spoke on the items of opposition that have been brought forward regarding their application. Commissioner Henderson inquired if permitted how we gain access to the property to verify the regulations are being met. Mr. Bryson commented on the OLCC having the rights to inspect the property as the regulatory agency. The Board asked for clarification on staffing numbers at the site. Mr. Bryson reported on the varying times of harvest and staff expectations. Commissioner DeBone requested information relative to one acre of plants what is the volume of water needed for the crop. Mr. Ye commented he is committed to being a good neighbor. Commissioner DeBone called up the appellant. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting January 10, 2018 Page 4 of 7 Liz Dickson representing the appellant William Tye presented the appeal to the Board. Ms. Dickson gave evidence of the current violations of growing outside of a greenhouse and reported on code enforcement violations. Ms. Dickson provided information to the Board on water use and cannabis and information including water well conditions in the Alfalfa area. Mr. Tye commented on permits for water rights. Ms. Dickson requested the record be kept open and also to see the letter provided by the applicant to the Board. Mr. Tye approached the Board not only as the appellant but as an engineer and gave comment on concerns on the subject property. RECESS: At the time of 11:55 a.m., a recess was taken. The meeting reconvened at 12:05 p.m. Commissioner DeBone opened the hearing for public testimony. Jean Nelson, neighbor of the subject property commented on her property well running dry and of the expense and submitted a copy of her bill to the Board. Ms. Nelson explained there were several grow operations in the area and has done research on the water usage in the area. She feels the aquifers are being run dry by the grow operations. Ms. Nelson suggested the Board consider including the requirement of water metering and asks for a moratorium in the Alfalfa area until achieving an understanding the impact. Tammy Threlkeld has concerns with the grow operations in Alfalfa and the unfair impact to local residents. She challenges the Board to just drive down Alfalfa Market Road and witness the smell of skunk. She also spoke on traffic and noise and physical safety. Monika Piatt lives on Alfalfa Market Road and asked the Board to listen to the good people about their livelihood and their concerns. Jen Kjellesvik concerned parent and business owner and works with kids of all ages. According to the conditions about a grow operation she is concerned with impact and devastation of marijuana. She started a group called Natural High Bend and educates youth about the facts. She encourages the Board to research the public safety and health of our youth. Hunter Neubauer commented on the legal industry of marijuana and has been licensed for a year. Mr. Neubauer reported he is very involved in work on regulatory framework for the industry. He spoke on the social and economic impacts as well as the benefits of the use of medical marijuana. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting January 10, 2018 Page 5 of 7 Lindsey Pate is a rural resident and cannabis farmer and has been following the cases. Would like to speak on the character of the owners and looks to them as mentors. Ms. Pate stated the subject property has been zoned for agriculture. Andrew Wachs owns the company that manages the farm on the subject property and explains they use organic processes and are dedicated to make the production environmentally friendly. He explained the photo taken of the outside plants (as shown by Ms. Dickson) was due to moving the plants outside during temporary pest spray process for spider mites. John Short commented on water uses and the data of water usage for the grow operation. Mr. Short buys, sells and transfers water rights and has a water resources business. Commissioner DeBone noted in County Code there shall be water rights but they do not have domain over water rights and asked Mr. Short for his input. Mr. Short replied he can't give someone a water right without a land use consent. Tom Moore lives on Alfalfa Market Road just west of the subject property. Mr. Moore commented on water levels in the area. He commented if the water levels for residents are being lowered then something needs to be done and requested a moratorium until a study can be done. Mr. Moore watched the traffic for a period of time and reported on the vehicles traveling the road. Mr. Moore submitted a complaint on noise and lighting. Mr. Bryson and Mr. Ye provided rebuttal and are open to keeping the record open. Mr. Bryson explained their application purpose and water rights are established. Mr. Bryson also commented on the photograph of the plants outside of the greenhouse and of their commitment for compliance. Commissioner Baney spoke on noise and odor and asks the applicant to strengthen the information to show the impact of adding three greenhouses to the property. Commissioner Henderson looks for specifications of the equipment. Commissioner DeBone closed the oral testimony. Commissioner Henderson commented on the information received today and asked for time to ask questions. Commissioner Baney commented on having a list of questions that would share with all parties for clarification. Commissioner Baney asked for clarification on the status of the maintenance and if County road. The calendar was reviewed for time frame for a two-week open record and Work Session on January 17 and first period closing January 24 and then final statement due by February 7. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting January 10, 2018 Page 6 of 7 OTHER ITEMS: None were offered. ADJOURN Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 1:26 pm AT R cording Secretary xlvv,, Tammy ba Y, Conibiissioner Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting January 10, 2018 Page 7 of 7 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 9:00 AM, WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 10, 2018 Barnes and Sawyer Rooms - Deschutes Services Center — 1300 NW Wall Street — Bend Pursuant to ORS 192.640, this agenda includes a list of the principal subjects anticipated to be considered or discussed at the meeting. This notice does not limit the ability of the Board to address additional subjects. Meetings are subject to cancellation without notice. This meeting is open to the public and interested citizens are invited to attend. Business Meetings are usually recorded on video and audio, and can be viewed by the public live or at a later date; and written minutes are taken for the record. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CITIZEN INPUT This is the time provided for individuals wishing to address the Board, at the Board's discretion, regarding issues that are not already on the agenda. Please complete a sign-up card (provided), and give the card to the Recording Secretary. Use the microphone and clearly state your name when the Board Chair calls on you to speak. PLEASE NOTE: Citizen input regarding matters that are or have been the subject of a public hearing not being conducted as a part of this meeting will NOT be included in the official record of that hearing. If you offer or display to the Board any written documents, photographs or other printed matter as part of your testimony during a public hearing, please be advised that staff is required to retain those documents as part of the permanent record of that hearing. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Consideration of Board Signature of Resolution No. 2018-001, Budget Adjustment - Community Development Department 2. Consideration of Signature of Letter of Appointment to Fred Turner, Marilyn Turner, and Mike Skjold to the Ponderosa Pines East Special Road District Board Board of Commissioners Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, January 10, 2018 Page 1 of 3 3. Consideration of Signature on Letter Thanking Dale Grinols, Debra Grinols, and Todd Christopherson for their Service on the Board of Ponderosa Pines East Special Road District 4. Approval of Minutes of the November 27, 2017 Work Session 5. Approval of Minutes of the December 6, 2017 Business Meeting 6. Approval of Minutes of the December 13, 2017 Business Meeting ACTION ITEMS 7. Consideration of Application for Homeland Security Grant - Nathan Garibay, Emergency Manager 8. Deschutes County -Jefferson County IGA Regarding Alternative Access to Crooked River Ranch: Discussion of Draft - Chris Doty, Public Works Director 9. Transportation Safety Action Plan (TSAP) Grant Application - Chris Doty, Public Works Director 10. Public Hearing: Appeal of an Administrative Determination Approving a Marijuana Production Facility at 25606 Alfalfa Market Road - Jacob Ripper, 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. Board of Commissioners Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, January 10, 2018 Page 2 of 3 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 Maactivities. To request this information in an alternate format please call (541) 617-4747. FUTURE MEETINGS: Additional meeting dates available at www.deschutes.ora/meetingcalendar (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 Wednesday, January 10, 2018 Page 3 of 3 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 Meetinq of January 10, 2018 DATE: January 5, 2018 FROM: Nathan Garibay, Sheriff's Office, TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of Application for Homeland Security Grant To: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners From: Sgt. Nathan Garibay Date: January 9, 2018 Subject: Proposed Grant Application for the Deschujtps County Sheriff ffice Commissioner/County Administrator Approval: z �- Date: 0—t 2� The Deschutes County Sheriff's Office is requesting the Board of Commissioners' approval to submit a grant application on behalf of the County. A summary of the grant opportunity follows. Program: FY 2018 State Homeland Security Program Central Oregon Community College and Oregon State University -Cascades are applying for funds to purchase radios that will function on the new county -wide radio system. These radios will all public safety agencies in Central Oregon to communicate with campus public safety during an emergency. As the county emergency management agency, the Sheriff's Office submits all State Homeland Security Program projects under one county application. The only identified project for FY 2018 is: 1. Central Oregon Higher Education/Public Safety Interoperable Communications — Provides 17 radios for Central Oregon Community College 6 radios for Oregon State University -Cascades. The Deschutes County Sheriff's Office has received support from Deschutes County 911, Bend Police Department, and the Redmond Police Department. As this project could also benefit Crook and Jefferson Counties, we will seek letters of support for the grant application. This is a competitive grant and funds are not guaranteed. This project will be scored and given a priority for funding along with all projects submitted around the state. Funding Agency: United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) through the Oregon Office of Emergency Management (OEM). Due Date: Application: January 19, 2018 Amount: Approximately $88,512 Matching Funds: No county matching funds are requested Duration: October 1, 2018 through September 30, 2019 Background: If funds are awarded, OEM will issue a formal grant document directly to Central Oregon Community College. Reporting: Central Oregon Community College will handle the administrative requirements of the grant. Please contact Sgt. Garibay at 541-617-3303 if you have questions concerning this request. COCC Project Title: Creation of Central Oregon Higher Education Public Safety Operational Communications COCC Project Point Person (Write, manage, and report on the grant): Donald Doughty and Chris March COCC Project Lead Administrator (Must be director/dean level or above.): Donald Doughty Foundation/Funding Agency: Oregon State Homeland Security Program Proposed Budget Request: $61,551 (COCC) and $26,961 (OSU Cascades) Application Deadline: Jan 19, 2018Proposed Funding Period: 12-24 months Allowable Indirect Cost Rate: N.A. Campus Departments Affected by the Project: Campus Public Safety, Informational Technology Brief Description of Project (Purpose, Rationale, Objectives, Projected Outcomes - attach additional space/pages, as necessary): NEED: Central Oregon Community College (COCC) and Oregon State University Cascades need interagency communication abilities with local law enforcement and emergency providers in order to be optimally prepared to respond to a. Threats of terrorism and b. Catastrophic events, including significant threats of danger caused by annual forest and rangeland fires, heavy snowfall and ice conditions. These event are associated with accidents that cause mass casualties and that have life threatening impacts on rescue operations and emergency responses APPLICANTS: To address these concerns, COCC is partnering with OSU Cascades in submitting this application for funds to support an Interagency Communication System to support COCC and OSU Cascades Campus Safety Operations on their campuses and properties in Bend, Redmond, Madras, and Prineville, Oregon. COCC will be the lead and OSU Cascades will be a sub -applicant on this project. COCC has served central Oregon students and residents for 69 years. It serves a geographic area larger than five states, encompassing all of Deschutes, Jefferson, and Crook Counties as well as the southern part of Wasco and northern portions of Klamath and Lake Counties. The current radio system does not adequately support communication between campuses and has no direct communication capability with first responder agencies in the COCC service area. OSU Cascades is a new higher education institution in Central Oregon with facilities in Bend and outlying areas. There is no radio system available for these locations. The institutional budgets for COCC and OSU Cascades are insufficient to institute an operational communication system that would put Campus Safety Officers in immediate contact with first responder/emergency service providers or even with officers on the different Higher Ed campuses. EVIDENCE -BASED CONCERN: In the event of a terrorist incident, natural disaster, or catastrophic event, there is currently no communication capabilities for COCC and OSU Cascade campuses and outlying properties to coordinate efforts with other response agencies. During a critical incident, time is of the essence nad lack of attention to this need puts students, staff, faculty, and visitors at risk and puts the institutions in a liable position. Dela of coordinated efforts may result in increased harm, injury, and casualties. Evidence for this projection was provided by a recent disaster drill held on the COCC Bend campus. This drill involved all local emergency service providers, including law enforcement, fire and EMS providers. The biggest difficulty identified was the lack of communications between all units on scene. In the drill, an active shooter was simulated in MODOC Hall and moved between other campus buildings. An observed called 911 and police were dispatched to the scene. COCC Campus Public Safety officers were also called to the scene to direct responding police officers to the incident area. The initial response included several local law enforcement agencies who were not able to communicate with each other. This is what caused the delay in response and resolution of the incident. Imagine the lack o coordination for directing responders to the correct location on a large and complex cmpus, Ick of coordination of building accesss in a situation where everything was locked down and no way to communicate except face to face. In a real situation, this could be a disaster. REQUEST: ig a. COCC seeks funding to purchase, install, and operate 12 dual band portable radios, 4 single band vehicle radios, and 1 single band base radio. b. OSU Cascades seeks funding to purchase, install, and operate 6 dual band portable radios. SUITABILITY FOR THIS FUNDING OPPORTUNITY: 1. 12-24 MONTH PERIOD TO COMPLETION 2. Self -sustainable once in operation 3. Equipment purchases will be made within 8 months of award 4. Extensions are not expected 5. Project meets requirement to have a terrorism or catastrophic event nexus 6. Core Capability: "needed by all jurisdictions to be fully prepared to prevent, protect, mitigate against, respond to, and recover from all hazards" 7. Operational communications is a high priority for this solicitation 8. Capability Target: By establishing an interagency communications protocol with agreements in place with interacting agencies (Deschutes County, Bend, other regional centers), emergency preparedness and security will be optimized to ensure the best possible and timely response for terrorism and catastrophic events. 9. COCC and OSU Cascades are NIMS compliant. Partners/Collaborators (institution, if not COCC): 1. OSU Cascades Campus Public Safety — Co -Applicant for funds to purchase radios for interoperability communications 2. Deschutes County Sheriff's Office — The Sherriff's Office is the applicant for the grant opportunity and submits the application on COCC's behalf 3. Deschutes County 911 Center - If funded, Deschutes County will be the main agency involved in coordinating radio interoperability communications 4. If funded, the radios will allow COCC Public Safety to communicate directly with the following agencies: a. Bend Police Department b. Bend Fire Department c. Redmond Police Department d. Redmond Fire and Rescue e. Madras Police Department f. Jefferson County Sherriff's Office 3 Dr. Shirley Metcalf President g. Jefferson County Fire and EMS h. Prineville Police Department L Crook County Sherriff's Office j. Crook County Fire Department CONSENT TO PROCEED Recorded in Grant Hub DataBase Grants Development Office (Mary Ann Asson-Batres): Date: 4 lD 00 d' w LD N 4.0 It lD w tD lD 00 V . 00 N Il M N r4 ri d: W M ii CF M In It Ict r- d Ln tD Il l0 r- Ol d l0 ri CL 00 n 0) O 00 Ch O M O M M 00 O w I� 1.0 00 O M Ln M Ln M Ln LA (A �p 0) N N �O ++ N O F- � M O lD lD W W Iq M N M O M O N M O O M N d lD Ol d aJ O M r-1 Iq M d 01 d tD W 0 W V-1 W u 3 W r-I r-i M r-1 M 00 Lf1 CL a`i O c O N :W m c nn U N J Q C O a1 cc C m c a) 0o � l0 l0 l0 lD lD lD lD lD l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 c m 3 Cf c ,Ln V O IA H d 3 a ai tx Q Z O O a 57- LU w Y � a -� oC LU Z 0 n 'C O Q Q u 2 E 'a h w C a U= v °�' M0 <, azo m D- W Z z OP ce w Z m > 1 W O Q mMa � w F- w~ pi Q J Q Q> 0 N W N= o_ p O U z C. z O Ln Lu La0 O W O O w F-: w Q F- Q S Ln w (7 (D d J N X LL 0 o_ Q Q Y Q= ]Z z X O R Q> H Q x w 0 Ln Ln Q Q O W ++ L of 0_ N d N d Lr)tL N V d o0 d J LL 2 J m z W W W LLI W W }' Q z wCL W < cr- 0_' d' w W J W W = �- F- i- f- i- i- Q t5 Q N OW Q Q Q W Q W Q W Q W Q W Q Z W p J W 2 O CL LL LL LL LL LL LL CD Q N co U FY2018 STATE HOMELAND SECURITY (see pages 6 & 7 of application instructions) Combine all sub -applicant requests within your county or tribe on this coversheet County or Tribe Applicant: Deschutes County Address: 1300 NW Wall St Bend OR 97703 Contact: Sgt. Nathan Garibay, Emergency Manager Phone number: (541) 617-3303 Total Federal Funds Requested e-mail: nathan.garibay(a)-deschutes.org $ 79,181.00 Amount Dedicated to Law Enforcement: $ Project #1 $79,181.00 Project #5 $ Project #2 $ Project #6 $ Project #3 $ Project #7 $ Project #4 $ Project #8 $ Project #9 $ Project #10 $ Total: $79,181.00 Sub -applicant Information: Agency Name: Central Oregon Community College Total Funds Requested $79,181.00 Agency Name: Total Funds Requested $ Agency Name: Total Funds Requested $ Agency Name: Total Funds Requested $ Agency Name: Total Funds Requested $ Agency Name: Total Funds Requested $ Agency Name: Total Funds Requested $ Agency Name: Total Funds Requested $ Agency Name: Total Funds Requested $ Agency Name: Total Funds Requested $ Total Requested $ Deschutes County/Tribe is in support of the four local projects identified in the State Program Guidance document being managed by Oregon Office of Emergency Management. Authorized Official for the Ageni Signature of Authorized Official: 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 January 10, 2018 DATE: December 22, 2017 FROM: Chris Doty, Road Department, 541-322-7105 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Deschutes County -Jefferson County IGA Regarding Alternative Access to Crooked River Ranch: Discussion of Draft RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: This is a discussion of the draft IGA and the potential for presentation to the Board for approval. ATTENDANCE: Chris Doty, Road Department Director SUMMARY: The Crooked River Ranch subdivision contains over 2,600 platted lots and an estimated 5,000 residents. Although 90% of the residents live in Jefferson County, access to the area is provided exclusively via Deschutes County's road network (43rd Street and Chinook Drive). This concentration of traffic poses concern for emergency services (evacuation) as well as operational difficulty for the Road Department during maintenance projects and other circumstances which disrupt traffic flow as there are no detour possibilities. Crooked River Ranch has been working for many years on alternative routes into the subdivision. CRR is governed by its Homeowners Association (HOA) and is also served by a separate Special Road District (SRD). Due to the significant population of its residents, Jefferson County is participating in the effort to provide alternative access to CRR. In consultation with Deschutes County, the CRR HOA and SRD have developed an alternative access concept via an extension of Quail Road (a local street within the subdivision) to Lower Bridge Way (Deschutes County arterial). The proposed Quail Road extension traverses through BLM property west of Steamboat Rock. At the request of the BLM, Deschutes County submitted an application for a right-of-way for Quail Road on behalf of CRR. Deschutes County's participation in securing the right-of-way did not commit future resources for construction or maintenance. The collective goal has been for the CRR HOA to obtain construction funding and for the CRR SRD to operate and maintain the road once constructed. As a homeowners association and road district, governmental infrastructure funding and financing opportunities are limited for CRR. Jefferson County will be considering a role as the financing entity for CRR via application of a loan from the Oregon Transportation Infrastructure Bank or possibly loaning CRR funds for construction from internal resources. Jefferson County has also committed $100,000 to the project from county funds. In consideration of the joint benefits provided to Jefferson County residents and the Deschutes County transportation system, an IGA has been developed for Deschutes County consideration to match Jefferson County's $100,000 contribution to the project. With passage of HB 2017, the Road Department's Capital Improvement Plan has obtained a primary source of stable funding for the foreseeable future. Per the draft IGA, Deschutes County participation would be predicated on CRR SRD annexation of Quail Road into their maintenance system. At the January 10th BOCC Work Session, the draft IGA will be discussed and potentially scheduled for consideration at a future business meeting. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT RELATED TO FUNDING AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE QUAIL ROAD EXTENSION PROJECT This agreement is made and entered into by and between DESCHUTES COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Oregon, hereinafter referred to as "Deschutes," and JEFFERSON COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Oregon, hereinafter referred to as "Jefferson". RECITALS: 1. By the authority granted in ORS 190. 010 et seq., a unit of local government may enter into a written agreement with any other unit or units of local government for the performance of any or all functions and activities that are party to the agreement, its officers or agencies have the authority to perform. 2. The Crooked River Ranch subdivision (2,646 platted lots), is located within both Jefferson County and Deschutes County, of which approximately 90% of the development is located within Jefferson County and 10% is located within Deschutes County. Crooked River Ranch is administratively operated via its Homeowners Association (HOA) as well as a separate Special Road District (SRD) for road operation and maintenance. 3. Access to the subdivision is provided exclusively via 43rd Street and Chinook Avenue — county roads located within Deschutes County. This single access route provides exclusive access to the 2,646 lot subdivision and an estimated population of 5,000 residents. 4. The single point of access to Crooked River Ranch has been'a significant concern for many years related to emergency services access and potential evacuation in the event of a wildfire. The existing high traffic volume ingressing/egressing Crooked River Ranch likely contributes to significant vehicle queuing and delay during Deschutes County road maintenance projects and traffic crashes resulting in road closure. 5. The Crooked River Ranch HOA and SRD have identified a secondary access to the subdivision via an extension of Quail Road to Lower Bridge Way (0.95 miles). The Quail Road extension is located within Deschutes County on BLM land, west of Steamboat Rock. The estimated cost of the Quail Road extension project is $800,000. 6. In 2015, at the request of the BLM and in partnership with the Crooked River Special Road District, Deschutes County, as the authorized local government road agency, submitted an application to BLM on behalf of the Special Road District for an easement to construct the Quail Road extension. The BLM subsequently approved the application in the summer of 2017. It has been the intention of Deschutes County to obtain approval through the BLM process and subsequently transfer road authority to the Crooked River Ranch Special Road District via BLM process or an IGA. The Crooked River Ranch Special Road District has committed to annexing the new alignment into the District, thereby allowing the District to maintain the new road segment. 7. Throughout this process, the Crooked River Ranch Alternative Access Committee (including HOA and SRD board members) has been evaluating funding options. An increase in HOA dues has been considered to finance loan repayment and the Special Road District is evaluating the use of road fund reserves to lower the financed portion of the project. Jefferson County has provided assistance via application to the Oregon Transportation Investment Board for a low interest loan on behalf of the HOA. Jefferson County has also pledged $100,000 for construction assistance to the HOA and has contracted for development of construction documents for the project. Jefferson County intends to deliver the project subject to a loan repayment plan agreement with the HOA. AGREEMENT: NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows: 1. In recognition of the benefit of the Quail Road extension to the Deschutes County transportation system, Deschutes County pledges to match the Jefferson County contribution to the project, up to $100,000, and subject to the following: 1.1 Jefferson County will obtain financing for the project and deliver the project per the conditions established by the BLM by June 30, 2021. 1.2 Deschutes County's contribution will occur upon completion of the project per Jefferson County's contract documents and upon proper annexation of the Quail Road extension into the Crooked River Ranch SRD or execution of another mechanism which absolves Deschutes County from maintenance, operation, obligations, and other liabilities associated with Quail Road. IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties have set their hands and affixed their seals as of the day and year hereinafter written. REVIEWED FOR JEFFERSON COUNTY JEFFERSON COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Oregon By: County Counsel Date: a Wayne Fording, Commissioner By: Mae Huston, Commissioner Mike Ahern, Commissioner REVIEWED FOR DESCHUTES COUNTY 0 County Counsel Date: DESCHUTES COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Oregon By: Anthony,DeBone, Chair By: Philip G. Henderson, Commissioner By: Tammy Baney, Commissioner Legend I I n ' 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Miles J Roads in Jefferson County Deschutes County Roads Other Roads in Deschutes County 4 u Rivers County Line .. , Federal land Printed: February 4, 2015 The information on this map was derived from digital databases on Deschutes County's G.I.S. Care was taken in the creation ofthis map. Deschutes County cannot accept arty responsibility for errors, ornissions, or positional accuracy and, therefore, there are no warranties which accompany this product. However, notification of any errors will be appreciated. rEs John Anderson, GIS Analyst ,jJ c,0 Phone: (541)'7"2-7102 fi vG r . �U 2 [mail. john anderson@deschutes.org 6ISAddress: 6111-0 SL 27th St p { Bend, OR 97702 Road Department P:WrcGIS_Projects\Area Map\Crooked River Ranch\Access 2015 Im ( § \ � § 0 2 U 0 m ( \ / \ \ \ \ \ f w 3- bLo 0 0 1r; C wi U -j I U- 0 ru c C: ro C: u 0tiA 0 ori - -0 4� 0 ro ro C: ro T- x -ru r; G) C) -z:; :E E ni C: 0 ro 0 Ln < V V l7 cc V)X (1) (3) Q)ru c Q ,a 4:" x 0 44 ca- -c- ru ru 0 V-1 Lna) 4�: o o T C 0- a 0 cv op LA CIO -0 ro c ro G) - 0 o mo 0 r -0 :3" ru >rCl W X J) 0 x U� > 0 Lu 0 V l7—M w 3- bLo 0 0 1r; wi -j I U- ru V) C: ro C: u 0tiA - -0 i5 0 L2 ro (1) q) x 0 C) ni Ln -C v) V)X (1) (3) Q)ru Q x 0- ca- -c- ru ru ::3 -0 W Lna) 4�: o o T C op LA Q- -0 ro c ro G) - 0 o mo 0 r -0 :3" ru J) 0 x m 0 cl,- 0 V l7—M U) U) Lf) > LA U) ro rip _0 Cl) a) fl Uo a) _0 m a) LA V) F CL kn v ) ao 0 U < ru 4- v) E cl) 4J C U rU k - a) x 0 0 c ro Evi < M rx 4J cv t ro 0- 4- u- v) 0 >% c C- cr 'n ::j Ln 0 v, ro - > Ln -0 CL o- M v) > ce L" u ED D 0 m u 0 > LU 0 LL 40 ru cl) 0 LL I- _3 Z LL w 3- 0 U- V) -0 L2 (1) q) x C) ni Ln -C v) (3) Q)ru 0 0- ca- -c- ru Q) -5� o o T 0 Ln Cl) a) q) Uo a) _0 m a) LA F CL kn v ) Ln U ru cl) LL U rU k - Evi a) v) t ro 0- Ujo u- v) 0 C- u ::j 0 v, ro - > Ln -0 c UjD 0 M v) V) (3) ED D 0 m u 0 > LU 0 LL � ru al cl) 14 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 January 10, 2018 DATE: January 4, 2018 FROM: Jacob Ripper, Community Development, 541-385-1759 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Public Hearing: Appeal of an Administrative Determination Approving a Marijuana Production Facility at 25606 Alfalfa Market Road RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: Conduct a public appeal hearing and render a decision to uphold the decision, uphold the decision with Board modifications, or to deny the application. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: S20 Dynamics LLC received approval to convert an existing medical marijuana production facility to a recreational medical marijuana facility in the EFU Zone. The applicant proposed a maximum mature plant canopy of 5,000 square feet within five greenhouses. Two greenhouses are existing and three greenhouses are proposed. A timely appeal was filed challenging several aspects of the proposal. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None. ATTENDANCE: Jacob Ripper, Associate Planner. Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division P.O. Box 6005 1417 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend; Oregon 97708-6805 Phone: (541) 388-6575 Fax: (541) 385-1764 http://mvw•.deschutes.org/cd STAFF MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Jacob Ripper, Associate Planner HEARING DATE: January 10, 2018 RE: Public Hearing on an appeal of an Administrative Determination for Marijuana Production. File Ng 247-17-000923-A (247 -17 -000612 -AD). OWNER: David House APPLICANT: S20 Dynamics LLC APPELLANT: William (Bill) Tye APPELLANT'S ATTORNEY: Elizabeth Dickson, Dickson Hatfield LLC PROPOSAL: An application for an Administrative Determination to convert a medical marijuana production facility to a recreational marijuana production facility within the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) zone. The applicant proposes a maximum mature plant canopy of 5,000 square feet within five greenhouses. Two of the greenhouses are existing and three greenhouses are proposed. STAFF COMMENT: This memorandum does not replace previous findings in the Administrative Determination (Findings and Decision), but only provides clarification from staff for the Board to consider in respect to the appellant's objections listed in the Notice of Appeal. I. PURPOSE The Deschutes Board of County Commissioners ("Board") will hold a public hearing to consider an appeal, filed by Appellant William (Bill) Tye, in response to an Administrative Determination approving a marijuana production facility proposed by S20 Dynamics LLC. The subject property is located at 25606 Alfalfa Market Road and is zoned Exclusive Farm Use (Attachment 1). The appeal materials identify numerous concerns regarding County regulations and impacts to the Quality Services Pcrjorn ed ivith Pride surrounding area. The Board issued an order' on November 6, 2017 to call up the matter for their review if an appeal was filed. The appeal was timely filed on November 13, 2017. This memorandum supplements the Administrative Determination for the above -referenced land use application (Attachment 2) and summarizes the concerns raised in the Notice of Appeal (Attachment 3). PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED The Planning Division mailed a written notice of this action to property owners within 750 feet of the subject property on August 2, 2017. The following concerns were expressed in two comment letters which staff received from the public. Staff attempted to capture the impacts, comments, requests, and concerns identified by the public in these written comments: 1) Residential uses are nearby. 2) Odor control. 3) Size (area measurement) of the mature plant canopy. 4) Size (area measurement) of the structures. 5) Unhealthy and unsafe environment concerns. 6) Commercial development on subject property may cause increased traffic. The Deschutes County Code (DCC) does not allow approval or denial of this application based on the concerns 4 through 6 above. Applicable criteria of the DCC (Attachment 4) were addressed in the Administrative Determination (Attachment 2) III. APPELLANT'S OBJECTIONS SUMMARY The appellant's attorney states numerous reasons for their appeal, which are fully described in the Notice of Appeal (Attachment 3). The appellant's central arguments are summarized below: A. Compliance with DCC related to preexisting medical grow. B. Applicability of the County's Transportation System Plan. C. Public health, safety, and general welfare. D. Odor control. E. Noise control. F. Water source. G. Electric utility verification letter. H. Waste disposal. IV. OBJECTIONS & DISCUSSION A. Compliance with DCC related to preexisting medical grow. DCC 18.116.340. Marijuana Production Registered by the Oregon Health Authority (OHA): A. Applicability. Section 18.116.340 applies to: 1. All marijuana production registered by OHA prior to June 1, 2016; and 2. All marijuana production registered by OHA on or after June 1 2016 until the effective date of Ordinances 2016-015, 2016-16, 2016-17, and ' Order N9 2017-046 247-17-000923-A (247 -17 -000612 -AD) Page 2 of 11 2016-18, at which time Ordinances 2016-015 through Ordinance 2016- 018 shall apply. OBJECTION: In the Notice of Appeal, the appellant's attorney states the existing OHA-registered medical marijuana grow is not compliant with applicable regulations because allegedly the odor is not controlled, noise is not controlled, lights are not shielded, plants are grown outside of structures, and water is from an illegal source. The appellant's attorney claims these code complaints verify code violations. STAFF COMMENT: The property currently contains a medical marijuana grow that was licensed by the Oregon Health Authority (OHA) before DCC 18.116.330 and .340 took effect. Staff performed a site visit during the review process when medical marijuana production was active, and did not observe any marijuana plants located outside of the two exisitng greenhouses. In an email from Code Enforcement Technician Daniel Smith (Attachment 5), Mr. Smith provides some background information for the three complaints received. Two complaints regarding noise and odor were unsubstantiated. A complaint about lighting was substantiated and quickly corrected, as detailed in Mr. Smith's summary: 09-11-17. Received complaint regarding odor and light coming from the registered grow site. Conducted site visit during the evening, observed greenhouses were lit to a perceptible level from the property line. Was not able to detect any odor at the property line. Pre -Enforcement notice was sent to the property owner of the marijuana grow. 09-25-17: Property owner contacted me and apologized for the lighting error, and informed me that he had corrected the problem. Contacted the complainant in this case, who informed me that the lights had not been on over the previous week and that the property owner for the marijuana grow had contacted him and was very respectful about this incident. Case was closed with compliance. B. Transportation. DCC 18.116.330(B)(8). Access: Access. Marijuana production over 5,000 square feet of canopy area for mature marijuana plants shall comply with the following standards. OBJECTION: The Notice of Appeal states: ... the instant application does not meet County and state codes regarding transportation impacts, though the County has thus far interpreted such criteria as inapplicable. We ask that the County reconsider this interpretation in light of the extreme degradation of the transportation system in the Alfalfa Community, where such degradation directly correlates to the increase of pot farms in the area. The appellant's attorney goes on to discuss requirements of ORS 47513.450 (Control and Regulation of Marijuana Act), and the Deschutes County Transportation System Plan Goal 1, Goal 4, Policy 4.6, and Goal 10, and how these should relate to the proposal. The appellant's attorney also indicates they believe considerable traffic and road damage will be generated by this proposal and by all marijuana uses generally, in the surrounding area of Alfalfa. 247-17-000923-A (247 -17 -000612 -AD) Page 3 of 11 STAFF COMMENT: The Deschutes County Senior Transportation Planner responded to the Notice of Application and indicated a transportation impact analysis was not required for the proposed use. In the recent Tewalt2 decision for marijuana production, the Board found the following: In deliberations, the Board discussed with staff when Traffic Impact Studies are required and when they are not. Staff clarified that Traffic Impact Studies are required when a use will cause 50 or more daily trips and is subject to a Conditional Use Permit and/or Site Plan Review. Only marijuana production in the MUA-10 zone, marijuana processing, and marijuana retail require a Conditional Use Permit or Site Plan Review. The Board finds that because marijuana production in the EFU zone is a use permitted outright, and does not require a Conditional Use or Site Plan Review, DCC 18.116.310 is not applicable. The Senior Transportation Planner has prepared a thorough memo for the Board (Attachment 6), which discusses in detail the issues raised by the appellant's attorney regarding transportation. C. Public health, safety, and general welfare. DCC 18.04.020. Purpose: A. The intent or purpose of DCC Title 18 is to promote the public health, safety and general welfare and to carry out the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, the provisions of ORS 215 and the Statewide Planning Goals adopted pursuant to ORS 197. DCC Title 18 is to establish zoning districts and regulations governing the development and use of land within portions of Deschutes County, Oregon; OBJECTION: The appellant's attorney referred to public forums where impacts and concerns were discussed relating to public health, safety, and general welfare. Due to the concerns listed, such as air quality, noise, security, heavy traffic, and dry wells, and how these impacts relate to public health, safety, and general welfare, the appellant's attorney requests denial of the application. STAFF COMMENT: The applicant has requested approval of marijuana production, a use permitted outright in the EFU Zone by DCC 18.16.020(S), subject to 18.166.330. The County Commissioners constitute the legislative branch of Deschutes County government and enact applicable law via ordinances, which then are codified in the Deschutes County Code. Staff notes that the phrase, "public health, safety and general welfare" is invoked where the County Commissioners are exercising their police power authority to regulate land uses. DCC 18.04.020(A) outlines the regulatory purpose of Title 18, which is to promote public health, safety and general welfare, carry out the Comprehensive Plan, the provisions of ORS 215 and the Statewide Planning Goals. Staff is required to consider whether any land use application satisfies the written standards set forth in the DCC, which have been adopted to promote the public health, safety and general welfare of the community. This provision of the DCC does not impose any substantive requirements on land use applications to make a separate showing of promotion of health, safety and welfare. 2 BOCC Document N2 2017-718, Planning Division File N2 247-17-000723-A 247-17-000923-A (247 -17 -000612 -AD) Page 4 of 11 It is entirely possible that the Board may amend the marijuana regulations of DCC 18.116.330 and .340 to reflect any changes the Board deems will better promote public health, safety, and welfare, but approval or denial of this application can only be based on the standards which applied at the time this application was submitted3. D. Odor control. DCC 18.16.330(B)(10). Odor. Odor. As used in DCC 18.116.330(B)(10), building means the building, including greenhouses, hoop houses, and other similar structures, used for marijuana production or marijuana processing. a. The building shall be equipped with an effective odor control system which must at all times prevent unreasonable interference of neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. b. An odor control system is deemed permitted only after the applicant submits a report by a mechanical engineer licensed in the State of Oregon demonstrating that the system will control odor so as not to unreasonably interfere with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. C. Private actions alleging nuisance or trespass associated with odor impacts are authorized, if at all, as provided in applicable state statute. d. The odor control system shall. i. Consist of one or more fans. The fan(s) shall be sized for cubic feet per minute (CFM) equivalent to the volume of the building (length multiplied by width multiplied by height) divided by three. The filter(s) shall be rated for the required CFM; or ii. Utilize an alternative method or technology to achieve equal to or greater odor mitigation than provided by (i) above. e. The system shall be maintained in working order and shall be in use. OBJECTION: The appellant's attorney hypothesizes that the above criteria is plausible to meet, but is not enforceable. Reasons given are that the County has no legal authority to check the installation of these systems, and that, as expressed in testimony provided at other public forums, neighbors can smell marijuana grows. A code enforcement complaint is offered as evidence that the existing medical grow is not in compliance. Adequacy of the Mechanical Engineer's report, prepared by Rob James, PE of ColeBreit Engineering, is also questioned based on the lack of specific information regarding the Engineer's education, his experience, and the extent of his personal integrity, as well as the report not demonstrating compliance with criteria of this section in regards to existing and proposed structures, different climate conditions, growing conditions, and growing immature plants in addition to mature plants. 3 ORS 215.427(3)(a): If the application was complete when first submitted or the applicant submits additional information, as described in subsection (2) of this section, within 180 days of the date the application was first submitted and the county has a comprehensive plan and land use regulations acknowledged under ORS 197.251 (Compliance acknowledgment), approval or denial of the application shall be based upon the standards and criteria that were applicable at the time the application was first submitted. 247-17-000923-A (247 -17 -000612 -AD) Page 5 of 11 STAFF COMMENT: As noted in Code Enforcement Technician Daniel Smith's email (Attachment 5), a code violation related to odor control was not substantiated. In the Administrative Decision, staff found the revised mechanical engineer's report (Attachment 7) met the requirements of this section and included an ongoing condition of approval: Odor: The proposed odor control system must at all times prevent unreasonable interference with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. The odor control system shall be maintained in working order and shall be in use. This is consistent with the Board's Rubio decision', where the Board found: The Board acknowledges that the criteria of this section are discretionary in terms of what constitutes " unreasonable interference of neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property". The record includes two letters from Oregon -licensed Mechanical Engineer Robert James, PE, dated November 23 and November 29, 2016. The Board finds the applicant met these criteria. The Board also clarifies that odor control is an ongoing requirement and that the burden of compliance is on the applicant. The Board further clarifies that in subsequent applications, an engineer's letter should explicitly identify that the engineer signing the letter is a mechanical engineer. This is also consistent with the Board's recent Tewalt decision, where the Board found: The record contains two letters from Mechanical Engineer Jay Castino addressing the mitigation of odor for the property. The initial letter submitted with the application (dated March 20, 2017) and a revised letter (dated September 6, 2017). Although one Board member disagreed, the remaining two Board members found that the applicant could meet the criteria with the ongoing condition of approval. • At all times, the proposed odor control system shall prevent unreasonable interference with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property, shall be maintained in working order, and shall be in use. The Board may wish to determine consistency with the most recent marijuana -related Board decision for Evolution Concepts LLC, where the Board found: Although one Board member found the applicant could meet the criteria with an ongoing condition of approval, two Board members disagreed and found that the applicant did not provide enough specificity regarding odor control measures. The two commissioners found that the information submitted by the applicant does not demonstrate an ongoing capability to insure [sic] odor emissions will not unreasonably interfere with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. The mechanical engineer's report describes the existing louver and fan ventilation system and that ring -type foggers attached to the exhaust fans will adequately control odor for existing and proposed structures. The foggers are required by the engineer to be wired into the exhaust fan control system so that whenever the exhaust fans are energized, the fogger will automatically be turned on. In regards to the Evolution Concepts LLC Board decision, staff is uncertain if the 4 BOCC Document Ns 2017-294, Planning Division File Ns 247-17-000036-A 5 No BOCC Document Ns as of the date of this memo, Planning Division File Ne 247-17-000803-A 247-17-000923-A (247 -17 -000612 -AD) Page 6 of 11 information submitted by the applicant sufficiently demonstrates compliance with the above criteria. Staff defers to the Board for a determination. E. Noise Control DCC 18.16.330(B)(11). Noise. 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. OBJECTION: In the Notice of Appeal the appellant's attorney identifies the following reasons for denial of this application based on the above standards: the current system is measured and the proposed system has not been measured; cloning plants versus mature production may have different impacts; the mechanical engineer never states that he has visited the property personally; the appellant can hear the existing system from his property, and; the analysis only measures ventilation equipment and not trucks, pumps, construction, or other noise -making activities. STAFF COMMENT: Staff notes that the above criterion relates to mechanical equipment used for heating, ventilation, air conditioning, odor control, fans, and similar functions only, and does not address construction, vehicles, pumps, or other noise -making activities. The applicant submitted a report dated September 13, 2017, from Registered Professional Engineer Robert James (Attachment 7). Staff found the engineer's statements satisfied the requirements of this section, with the ongoing condition of approval: Noise: Sustained noise from mechanical equipment used for heating, ventilation, air conditioning, odor control, fans and similar functions shall not exceed 30 dB(A) measured at any property line between 10:00 p.m. and 7.00 a.m. the following day. In the recent Evolution Concepts LLC decision, the Board found: ... two Board members expressed a desire for additional details specific to the proposal and the property, especially concerning controlling sustained mechanical noise from the heating and ventilation equipment [... ] The Board finds that the applicant has not met its burden of demonstrating in a site-specific manner that sustained noise will not become a problem for this operation, relative to adjoining properties. The mechanical engineer's report includes site-specific measurements for the existing cooling and exhaust equipment. Heating is provided by wall -hung space heaters within the rigid -walled greenhouses. The mechanical engineer found no areas on the property where ambient sound measured below 30 bBA. At the closest property line, the ambient sound pressure was measured at 42 dBA, and with the fans on was measured at 42.6 dBA. The report goes on to state that a difference of 3 dBA is barely perceptible to the human ear. The report states that the additional 247-17-000923-A (247 -17 -000612 -AD) Page 7 of 11 proposed structures constructed in the same manner using the same exhaust systems will comply with the above criterion. In regards to the Evolution Concepts LLC Board decision, staff is uncertain if the information submitted by the applicant sufficiently demonstrates site-specific compliance with the above criteria. Staff defers to the Board for a determination. F. Water source. DCC 18.116.330(B)(13). Water. 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. OBJECTION: The Notice of Appeal states: Alfalfa Water LLC's permit is not usable for nursery use or irrigation use, as required by state law. See Exhibit A[6], attached and incorporated by this reference. Because the water drawn from the Alfalfa Water LLC well may not be used for irrigation or nursery purposes, but only industrial or commercial, this source of water may not legally be relied upon to satisfy this criterion. The Notice of Appeal goes on to explain static water levels in the basin are dropping as a direct result of marijuana grows, and the OWRD Watermaster Kyle Gorman? has admitted that OWRD can't catch illegal water users. STAFF COMMENT: No evidence has been submitted by the appellant to support the claims regarding water levels and OWRD enforcement abilities. The applicant originally submitted a letter dated May 30, 2017, from Bend Water Hauling LLC stating water would be delivered to the subject property but did not identify the use. In the Rubio decision, the Board requested that future applications provide greater detail: The Board also notes that in subsequent applications, greater specificity in the water supply documentation is desired in terms of identifying the use associated with the water. As staff understands, Bend Water Hauling LLC was unwilling to provide greater specificity in the letter, as the Board had requested. The applicant submitted a letter dated October 6, 2017, from Alfalfa Water LLC (Attachment 8) stating: In response to your inquiry, please be advised that S20 Dynamics located at 25606 Alfalfa Market Rd is allowed to purchase water for commercial use from Alfalfa Water, LLC. Alfalfa Water is willing and able to provide this water for use with recreational cannabis. 6 The appellant's Exhibit A is within Attachment 3 of this memo. Staff notes that Kyle Gorman is OWRD's South Central Region Manager. Watermast District 11 is Jeremy Giffin. 247-17-000923-A (247 -17 -000612 -AD) Page 8 of 11 This Administrative Decision was issued prior to the Tewalt decision, where the Board clarified expectations regarding the source of water which water suppliers are providing: The record contains materials demonstrating the property may be served by Bend Water Hauling, LLC. The Board found that the application thereby met subpart b above. However, the record also contains materials questioning if Bend Water Hauling, LLC has the appropriate water rights to serve the proposed marijuana production use. The Board interpreted that the intention of verifying the public or private water provider as required by subpart b above is in part to ensure that applicant has access to a legal source of water that complies with all applicable state statutes and regulations. The Board thereby voted in favor of adding the following condition of approval to ensure ongoing compliance with DCC 18.116.330(6)(13): • As an ongoing condition of approval, the use of water from any source for marijuana production shall comply with all applicable state statutes and regulations including ORS 537.545 and OAR 690-340-0010. Because subsection (b) only speaks to who is providing the water, and not the water right appurtenant to the water provider, the Alfalfa Water LLC statement was accepted in the Administrative Determination as meeting the requirement of subsection (b). As the appellant's attorney discusses above, the water permit G-15616 (within Attachment 3) lists the purpose or use of the water right as "Commercial Use (Industrial)". In light of this new evidence, staff is unclear if a commercial water right can be legally used for a farm crop, or if the commercial use applies to the activity of selling the water itself and any use thereafter is irrelevant. The dispute over Alfalfa Water LLC's water right as it relates to this application may prove inconsequential as the applicant has submitted a valid year-round water right (Attachment 11) for the subject property. The newly -approved water right is a transfer from a different property and allows water to be used for "Nursery Operations", which includes both containerized nursery plants and in -ground nursery plants. The water right is available for use year-round, but includes conditions that limit the volume and rate of withdrawal during the irrigation season (March 1 to October 31), and requires a totalizing flow meter to be installed with access provided to the Watermaster. It appears to staff that subsection (a) of this criteria is met. G. Electric utility verification letter. DCC 18.116.330(B)(15). Utility Verification. 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. OBJECTION: The appellant's attorney claims the letter provided by CEC is insufficient because the "operation" is not identified in the letter, such as the number of foggers, fans, and lights. STAFF COMMENT: CEC provided the following in a letter dated June 1, 2017 (Attachment 9): Central Electric Cooperative has reviewed the provided load information (200 amp Single phase service) associated with the submitted Cannabis Grow Facility and is willing and able to serve this location in accordance with the rates and policies and of [sic] Central Electric Cooperative. 247-17-000923-A (247 -17 -000612 -AD) Page 9 of 11 Staff notes that this level of detail has been accepted by the Board as meeting the above criterion in the recent Tewalt decision, as well as numerous staff -issued Administrative Determinations under the Board's direction in the Rubio decision. In the Rubio decision, the Board found the CEC letters needed to identify the operation and the electrical load, which CEC now provides in all of their "will -serve" letters for marijuana -related uses. H. Waste disposal. DCC 18.116.330(B)(17). Secure Waste Disposal. 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). OBJECTION: In the Notice of Appeal and supplemental materials, the appellant's attorney states: Mr. James' letter briefly references what should be constructed. No proposal specifics are offered to show what [the] Applicant proposes will be constructed. This is insufficient information to meet the standard of this criterion. STAFF COMMENT: The applicant submitted a site plan (Attachment 10) showing the location of the fenced -in composting area. The mechanical engineer's report states: You have indicated that you plan to designate an area of your property for composting. The composting area must be enclosed and provided with prop fans for pass-thru ventilation. Staff found this criterion would be met and imposed an ongoing condition of approval to ensure compliance: Waste: The marijuana waste receptacle shall be stored within the secured and fenced composting area identified on the site plan, and shall be in the possession of and under the control of the OLCC licensee. If the Board desires, a decision could also be conditioned that these waste disposal improvements are in place prior to initiating the recreational marijuana use. V. CONCLUSION & NEXT STEPS This application was submitted on July 25, 2017, but not accepted and deemed complete until October 9, 2017. The 150th day on which the county must take final action on this application is March 8, 2018. As of the date of the public hearing (January 10), there will be 93 days on the required timeline. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Board can choose one of the following options: 1. Close the record and begin deliberations. 2. Leave the record open until a date certain for additional written evidence or testimony. 247-17-000923-A (247 -17 -000612 -AD) Page 10 of 11 Attachments: 1. Area Map 2. Administrative Determination (Findings and Decision) 3. Notice of Appeal 4. DCC 18.116.330 and .340 5. Email from Code Enforcement Technician Daniel Smith re: code complaints 6. Memorandum from Senior Transportation Planner Peter Russell re: Transportation Issues 7. Mechanical Engineer's Report 8. Alfalfa Water LLC's "will -serve" letter 9. CEC's "will -serve" letter 10. Site Plan 11. Water Right Final Order 247-17-000923-A (247 -17 -000612 -AD) Page 11 of 11 247-17-000923-A 25606 ALFALFA MARKET RD, BEND, OR X� Mailing Date: i Tuesday, October 31, 2017 Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Sods Division P.O. Box 6005 117 Nva' Lafayette Avenue Bend; Oregon 97708-6005 Phone: (541) 388-6575 Fax: (541) 385-1764 http://ywvw.deschLites.org/cd FINDINGS & DECISION FILE NUMBER: 247 -17 -000612 -AD APPLICANT: S20 Dynamics, LLC c/o Julyn Andrews 63028 Layton Avenue Bend, OR 97701 OWNER: David House 13 Lincoln Laurel Road Blairstown, NJ 07825 PROPOSAL: An application for an Administrative Determination to convert a medical marijuana production facility to a recreational marijuana production facility within the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) zone. The applicant proposes a maximum mature plant canopy of 5,000 square feet within five greenhouses. Two of the greenhouses are existing and three greenhouses are proposed. STAFF CONTACT: Jacob Ripper, Associate Planner APPLICABLE CRITERIA Title 18, Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use Zones Chapter 18.116, Supplementary Provisions Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance II. BASIC FINDINGS A. Location: The subject property has an assigned address of 25606 Alfalfa Market Road., Bend, and is identified on County Assessor Tax Map 17-14-22, as tax lot 1400. B. Lot of Record: The subject property is a legal lot of record pursuant to the Conditional Use Permit for a nonfarm dwelling (file no. 247 -15 -000135 -CU) and a Lot of Record determination (file no. LR -05-61). Quality Services Pcrliwined with Pride C. Zoning: The property is zoned Exclusive Farm Use — Alfalfa subzone (EFU-AL), and is designated Agriculture on the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. D. Proposal: An application for an Administrative Determination to convert a medical marijuana production facility to a recreational marijuana production facility within the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) zone. The applicant proposes a maximum mature plant canopy of 5,000 square feet within five greenhouses. Two of the greenhouses are existing and three greenhouses are proposed. E. Site Description: The subject property is 30 acres. The property has a varied topography of level areas and rock outcrop. The property is developed with a nonfarm dwelling and two greenhouses which currently are used for the production of medical marijuana. The property does not front a public road. Access is by an easement across properties to the south, leading from Alfalfa Market Road. The property contains several trees and brushy vegetation scattered throughout the property, as well as raised areas of natural and constructed berms, which provides some screening from adjacent properties. F. Land Use History: According to Deschutes County Community Development records, the property is associated with the following land use applications: • LR -05-61, Lot of record verification application. • D-06-26, Nonfarm dwelling deposit. • CU -07-27, Conditional use permit for a nonfarm dwelling, which expired. • 247 -15 -000064 -CU, Nonfarm dwelling deposit for the new conditional use permit. • 247 -15 -000135 -CU, Nonfarm dwelling application. G. Public Agency Comments: The Planning Division mailed a Notice of Application and received comments from the following agencies: Central Electric Cooperative: CEC requests the applicant apply for a new electrical service by calling 541-548-2144 and provide electrical load and demand requirements for this activity. CEC will determine if capacity is available. Deschutes County Buildinq Division: The Deschutes County Building Safety Divisions code required Access, Egress, Setback, Fire & Life Safety Fire Fighting Water Supplies, etc. will be specifically addressed during the plan review process for any proposed structures and occupancies. All Building Code required items will be addressed, when a specific structure, occupancy, and type of construction is proposed and submitted for plan review. Deschutes County Senior Transportation Planner, Peter Russell: I have reviewed the transmittal materials for 247 -17 -000612 -AD for a marijuana production (growing) operation in the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) zone at 25606 Alfalfa Market Road, aka 17-14-22, Tax Lot 1400. Deschutes County Code (DCC) at 18.116.330(6)(8) only requires proof of legal direct access to the property or access from a private easement, the traffic study requirements of DCC 18.116.310 are not applicable for a marijuana production application. Thus no traffic study can be required. 247 -17 -000612 -AD Page 2 of 17 Board Resolution 2013-020 sets an SDC rate of $3,937 per p.m. peak hour trip. The County uses the most recent edition of the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) trip generation manual to assess SDCs. The ITE manual 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. The ITE indicates Warehouse generates 0.32 p.m. peak hour trips per 1,000 square feet. The applicant is proposing three new greenhouses of 1,080 square feet each for a total of 3,240 square feet in cannabis production or support (1,080 X 3). The use would generate 1 p.m. peak hour trip (3,240 X 0.32). The resulting SDC would be $3,937 (1 X $3,937). 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 following agencies either had no comment or did not respond to the notice: Alfalfa Fire District, Central Oregon Irrigation District, Deputy State Fire Marshall, Deschutes County Assessor, Deschutes County Environmental Soils Division, Deschutes, County Sheriff, Oregon Liquor Control Commission. H. Public Comments: The Planning Division mailed a written notice of this action to property owners within 750 feet of the subject property on August 2, 2017. The following concerns were expressed in two comment letters which staff received from the public. In summary, staff has attempted to capture most impacts, comments, requests, and concerns identified by the public in written comments received prior to the date of this decision: 1. Residential subdivision nearby (identified as Cascades View Estates). 2. Odor control. 3. Size (area measurement) of mature plant canopy. 4. Size (area measurement) of structures. 5. Unhealthy and unsafe environment concerns. 6. Commercial development on subject property may cause increased traffic. Staff Comment: The Deschutes County Code (DCC) does not allow the Planning Division to approve or deny this application based on the concerns 4 through 6 above. Applicable criteria of the DCC are addressed in the findings below. Notice Requirement: The applicant submitted a Land Use Action Sign Affidavit, dated October 20, 2017, indicating the applicant posted notice of the land use action on October 20, 2017. This does not comply with the posted notice requirements of Section 22.24.030(6) of Deschutes County Code (DCC) Title 22. DCC 22.224.030(6)(1) requires that the sign be posted on the property for, "at least 10 continuous days prior to any date set for receipt of comments". Comments can be received and included in the record at any time prior to a decision being issued, therefore, staff postponed issuing a decision for at least 10 days after October 20, 2017, to allow for an adequate time period for the posted notice. No additional comments were received by the date of this decision. J. Review Period: This application was submitted on July 25, 2017. It was deemed incomplete on August 24, 2017. After the applicant submitted additional information, the application was accepted and deemed complete on October 9, 2017. The 150th day on which the county must take final action on this application is March 8, 2018. 247 -17 -000612 -AD Page 3 of 17 III. CONCLUSIONARY FINDINGS A. Chapter 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use Zones Section 18.16.020. Use Permitted Outright. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright. S. Marijuana production, subject to the provisions of DCC 18.116.330. FINDING: The proposed marijuana production facility is permitted outright in the EFU zones, subject to the provisions of DCC 18.116.330, which are reviewed below. 2. 18.16.060. Dimensional Standards. E. Building height. No building or structure shall be erected or enlarged to exceed 30 feet in height, except as allowed under DCC 18.120.040. FINDING: The applicant did not submit building elevations or a description of the height of the structures, however, this standard can be met through a condition of approval. The following condition of approval has been added to insure compliance with this standard. Building Height: No building or structure, including greenhouses, shall be erected or enlarged to exceed 30 feet in height, except as allowed under DCC 18.120.040. 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 subject property does not have road or street frontage and obtains access to Alfalfa Market Road via an access easement. When a lot does not front directly on any street, the front lot line is the lot line parallel to and facing the same direction as the front lot lines of the majority of other properties in the immediate area. Based on this information, the southern property line is the front lot line. Alfalfa Market Road is a county -maintained rural arterial road and the required front yard setback is 100 feet. The submitted revised plot plan indicates the proposed structures will be a minimum of 537 feet from the southern front property line. The proposal is not for a non- farm dwelling, therefore, the required side and rear yard setbacks are 25 feet. The submitted revised plot plan indicates an eastern side yard setback of 193.5 feet, an undefined western side 247 -17 -000612 -AD Page 4 of 17 yard setback of well over 500 feet (based on the site plan scale), and a northern rear yard setback of 537 feet. The required yard setbacks of subsections A, B, and C will be met. Any greater setbacks required by applicable building or structural codes will be addressed during building permit review. B. Chapter 18.116, Supplementary Provisions 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 RI zones. 2. Marijuana Processing in the EFU, MUA-10, TeC, TeCR, TuC, Tul, Rl, and SUBP zones 3. Marijuana Retailing in the RSC, TeC, TeCR, TuC, Tul, RC, Rl, SUC, SUTC, and SUBP zones. 4. Marijuana Wholesaling in the RSC, TeC, TeCR, TuC, RC, SUC, and SUBP zones. FINDING: The applicant has proposed Marijuana Production in the EFU zone. This section applies. B. Marijuana production and marijuana processing. Marijuana production and marijuana processing shall be subject to the following standards and criteria: 1. Minimum Lot Area. a. In the EFU and MUA-10 zones, the subject legal lot of record shall have a minimum lot area of five (5) acres. FINDING: The subject property is a legal lot of record and is 30 acres in size. This standard is met. 2. Indoor Production and Processing. b. In the EFU zone, marijuana production and processing shall only be located in buildings, including greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar structures. C. In all zones, marijuana production and processing are prohibited in any outdoor area. FINDING: The subject property is within the EFU zone. The applicant has proposed that all production will occur within the two existing and three proposed greenhouses, complying with these criteria. Staff includes the following condition of approval to ensure compliance with the requirements of this section. No Outdoor Production: Marijuana production is prohibited in any outdoor area. 247 -17 -000612 -AD Page 5 of 17 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. L 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: The applicant has proposed a maximum of 5,000 square feet in mature plant canopy area, as allowed under section (b) for properties equal to or greater than 10 acres in lot area. This is less than the maximum of section (c) allowed above for properties equal to or greater than 20 acres in size. The subject parcel is 30 acres in size. The Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) Division 25, 845-025-1015(23) defines immature marijuana as, "`Immature marijuana plant' means a marijuana plant that is not flowering". OAR 845-025-1015(38) defines mature marijuana as, "`Mature marijuana plant' means a marijuana plant that is not an immature marijuana plant". Based on these definitions and the DCC code section above, staff notes that mature plant canopy includes the square footage where flowering marijuana plants are located and does not include the square footage where non -flowing marijuana plants are located. An opposition letter challenged the approximate total of 17,000 square feet of greenhouse space for 5,000 square feet of mature plant canopy. Staff notes that the total square footage of all greenhouses is calculated to be 18,140 square feet. In a letter dated August 24, 2017, staff requested further information from the applicant as to why the added 13,140 square feet of greenhouse space is required in addition to the 5,000 square feet for mature plant canopy. In a response to staffs letter, the applicant submitted an operations plan. The plan states, in part: The two existing greenhouses will have walk ways and a 10 foot equipment space and working space at each end of the greenhouse limiting the square footage of canopy to 2400 sq. ft. in each greenhouse. This will ensure that no more than 5,000 square feet of canopy space will be dedicated to the mature flowering plants at any time. As well flowering plants will only be kept on rolling trays with a total square footage of 1800 ft. Most of this time this flowering greenhouses [sic] will be used for controlled seed breeding. The 13,140 square feet of greenhouse space that is not designated as flowering canopy will be used to cultivate a large variety of rare and highly desirable specific genetic cultivars and the development of new cultivars. Because of this we dedicate a large amount of space to cultivating "mother plants" and propagating them through the process of cloning. 247 -17 -000612 -AD Page 6 of 17 Because of this we do not utilize a staggered flowering and growing program in which we would have multiple stages of flowering and vegetative plants in each of their respective greenhouse spaces and harvested in small frequent amounts. These various stages of plant growth occupy different amounts of space due to the difference in plant sizes. In turn it lessens the space requirements for vegetative growth, but can create pest management issues. We flower the designated flowering canopy in each greenhouse through light deprivation systems. This creates a singular harvest date in each greenhouse. This monolithic harvest helps to control pests and plant diseases. We are more able to manage plants through their flowering cycle and plants can be treated for pest up to a certain point in flower and after that they cannot. Having a greenhouse with crops in various stages of flowering creates a risk of overspray and contamination of finished product. As well having a crop harvest all at the same time allows for the ability to sterilize each greenhouse after a harvest, and is key to proper pest control. The space occupied by plants in the vegetative stage will be lighted with lighting substantial enough to maintain the light duration and intensity requirements for vegetative cannabis. These greenhouse's [sic] designated for vegetative growth will also be equipped with automatic light deprivation systems to prevent light from escaping the greenhouses during night time hours. Staff understands this operation plan describes that the mature canopy will be limited to the existing greenhouses, mature and immature canopies will be controlled by lighting supplementation and deprivation, and considerable space within the greenhouses will be used for immature marijuana plants. The DCC does not limit to the size of immature plant canopy and the applicant has stated they will not exceed 5,000 square feet of mature plant canopy at any time, therefore, staff finds that the mature plant canopy criterion above will be met. Staff includes the following condition of approval to ensure ongoing compliance with the requirements of this section. Maximum Mature Plant Canopy Size: The maximum canopy area for mature marijuana plants shall not exceed 5,000 square feet at any time. 4. Maximum Building Floor Area. In the MUA-10 zone, the maximum building floor area used for all activities associated with marijuana production and processing on the subject property shall be: a. Parcels from 5 acres to less than 10 acres in lot area: 2,500 square feet. b. Parcels equal to or greater than 10 acres: 5,000 square feet. FINDING: The subject property is not located in the MUA-10 Zone. This criterion does not apply. 5. Limitation on License/Grow Site per Parcel. No more than one (1) Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) licensed marijuana production or Oregon Health Authority (OHA) registered medical marijuana grow site shall be allowed per legal parcel or lot. 247 -17 -000612 -AD Page 7 of 17 FINDING: The proposal includes only one (1) Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) licensed marijuana production site with no continued use of the OHA registered medical marijuana grow site. The applicant proposed to transition to the OLCC program. This criterion will be met. 6. Setbacks. The following setbacks shall apply to all marijuana production and processing areas and buildings: a. Minimum Yard Setback/Distance from Lot Lines: 100 feet. b. Setback from an off-site dwelling: 300 feet. For the purposes of this criterion, an off-site dwelling includes those proposed off-site dwellings with a building permit application submitted to Deschutes County prior to submission of the marijuana production or processing application to Deschutes County. C. Exception: Any reduction to these setback requirements may be granted by the Planning Director or Hearings Body provided the applicant demonstrates the reduced setbacks afford equal or greater mitigation of visual, odor, noise, lighting, privacy, and access impacts. FINDING: The revised plot plan indicates the marijuana production structures are at least 193.5 feet from all property lines. The submitted materials indicate that the closest off-site dwelling is approximately 537 feet from the marijuana production area. Based on review of the surrounding properties, staff finds that the closest off-site dwelling appears to be located to the west of the subject property and is approximately 860 feet from the production area. Either measurement exceeds the requirement under subsection (b) above. No setback exception has been requested. These criteria will met. 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(6)(7), all distances shall be measured from the lot line of the affected properties listed in DCC 18.116.330(B)(7)(a) to the closest point of the buildings and land area occupied by the marijuana producer or marijuana processor. 247 -17 -000612 -AD Page 8 of 17 C. A change in use of another property to those identified in DCC 18.116.330(B)(7) shall not result in the marijuana producer or marijuana processor being in violation of DCC 18.116.330(B)(7) if the use is: L Pending a local land use decision; ii. Licensed or registered by the State of Oregon; or iii. Lawfully established. FINDING: The applicant states the subject property is over 51,000 feet from any of the uses listed in this section. There are 14 tax lots wholly or partially within 1,000 feet of the subject property. According to staff review of Deschutes County records, none of these properties appear to be in a use described in this section or are subject to subsection (c). These criteria will be met. 8. Access. Marijuana production over 5,000 square feet of canopy area for mature marijuana plants shall comply with the following standards. a. Have frontage on and legal direct access from a constructed public, county, or state road; or b. Have access from a private road or easement serving only the subject property. C. If the property takes access via a private road or easement which also serves other properties, the applicant shall obtain written consent to utilize the easement or private road for marijuana production access from all owners who have access rights to the private road or easement. The written consent shall: 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: As discussed above, the applicant proposes a maximum mature plant canopy size of 5,000 square feet, therefore, these criteria do not apply. 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. 247 -17 -000612 -AD Page 9 of 17 FINDING: The applicant states, The buildings have automated shades that cover any translucent material on the buildings", and, "the lights are shielded and oriented towards the plants". The applicant further states in the operations plan that, "[the] greenhouses designated for vegetative growth will also be equipped with automatic light deprivation systems to prevent light from escaping the greenhouses during night time hours". Staff finds these criteria can be met and adds the following condition to ensure compliance with the requirements of this section. Lighting: The following lighting standards shall be met: (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; and (c) The light cast by exterior light fixtures other than marijuana growing lights shall comply with DCC 15.10, Outdoor Lighting Control. 10. Odor. As used in DCC 18.116.330(8)(10), building means the building, including greenhouses, hoop houses, and other similar structures, used for marijuana production or marijuana processing. a. The building shall be equipped with an effective odor control system which must at all times prevent unreasonable interference of neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. b. An odor control system is deemed permitted only after the applicant submits a report by a mechanical engineer licensed in the State of Oregon demonstrating that the system will control odor so as not to unreasonably interfere with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. C. Private actions alleging nuisance or trespass associated with odor impacts are authorized, if at all, as provided in applicable state statute. d. The odor control system shall: i. Consist of one or more fans. The fan(s) shall be sized for cubic feet per minute (CFM) equivalent to the volume of the building (length multiplied by width multiplied by height) divided by three. The filter(s) shall be rated for the required CFM; or ii. Utilize an alternative method or technology to achieve equal to or greater odor mitigation than provided by (i) above. e. The system shall be maintained in working order and shall be in use. FINDING: The applicant submitted a revised mechanical engineer's report prepared by licensed mechanical engineer Rob James, PE of ColeBreit Engineering. The report states the applicants will use a ring -type fogger in the greenhouses which eliminates odor from the air being expelled through the exhaust fans. The report states a fogger will need to supply each exhaust fan. In addition to the greenhouses, the applicant's revised site plan includes a fenced composting area and the engineer's report states the composting area must be enclosed and equipped with fans for pass through ventilation. Staff finds these criteria will be met and adds the following condition to ensure ongoing compliance with the requirements of this section. 247 -17 -000612 -AD Page 10 of 17 Odor: The proposed odor control system must at all times prevent unreasonable interference with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. The odor control system shall be maintained in working order and shall be in use. 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 applicant submitted a report from a licensed mechanical engineer, as referenced above, which states that cooling equipment will run intermittently when there is a call for cooling. The greenhouses will or already have "Typhoon" type exhaust fans installed within the wall of the structure for cooling purposes. The greenhouses will or already have wall -hung space heaters installed within the interior of the buildings, where the report states that the building walls provide adequate sounds insulation. The report goes on to state that mechanical sound levels at the nearest (eastern) property line were virtually imperceptible from ambient sound levels. The report states: Ambient sound pressure levels, with no equipment running, at the nearest East property line was measured at 7:00 a.m, at 42 dBA. With the fans running the sound pressure measurement at the same location was 42.6 dBA. The difference of 0.6 dBA is less than 3 dBA which (according to the US Department of Transportation) studies have shown is barely perceptible to the human ear. No sound pressure level readings on the property were measured below 30 dBA regardless of mechanical equipment operation. As no equipment runs continuously, additional growing buildings constructed in the same manner as the existing structure will comply with the code regarding noise mitigation. It is our opinion that since the mechanical equipment exterior to the building will operate intermittently upon call for cooling and since a difference of 0.6 dBA is not perceptible to the human ear, the property will comply with DCC 18.116.330(B)(11)(a). Based on the findings and conclusions in the registered mechanical engineer's report, staff finds this criterion will be met. Staff adds the following condition to ensure ongoing compliance with the requirements of this section. Noise: Sustained noise from mechanical equipment used for heating, ventilation, air conditioning, odor control, fans and similar functions shall not exceed 30 dB(A) measured at any property line between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the following day. 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. 247 -17 -000612 -AD Page 11 of 17 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. FINDING: The subject property is not in the Landscape Management or the Wildlife Area Combining Zone. No fencing or razor wire is proposed except for a small fenced area around the composting area. The property contains numerous trees, vegetated areas, and earthen berms that act to screen the proposed structures from view from the public right of way and adjacent properties. The applicant submitted a site plan identifying all vegetation to be retained and maintained, as well as where vegetation will be removed to accommodate the proposed structures. Furthermore, the structures exceeds setbacks from property lines required by DCC sections 18.16.070 and 18.116.330(B)(6). Staff finds these criteria can be met and adds the following condition to ensure compliance with the requirements of this section. Fencing: 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. Screening: The existing tree and shrub cover screening the development from the public right-of- way or adjacent properties shall be retained to the maximum extent possible. This provision does not prohibit the maintenance of existing lawns, removal of dead, diseased or hazardous vegetation; the commercial harvest of forest products in accordance with the Oregon Forest Practices Act; or agricultural use of the land. 13. Water. The applicant shall provide: a. A copy of a water right permit, certificate, or other water use authorization from the Oregon Water Resource Department; or b. A statement that water is supplied from a public or private water provider, along with the name and contact information of the water provider; or C. Proof from the Oregon Water Resources Department that the water to be used is from a source that does not require a water right. FINDING: The applicant submitted a letter dated May 30, 2017 from Bend Water Hauling, LLC, stating water will be delivered to the subject property and included contact information, however, 247 -17 -000612 -AD Page 12 of 17 the applicant informed staff that they will not be using this water source and will use a different water delivery company. This is because Bend Water Hauling was unwilling to identify a use in their letter, as staff had requested'. The applicant submitted a letter dated October 6, 2017 from Alfalfa Water, LLC, stating that water will be delivered to the subject property. This letter goes on to describe the use as marijuana production and that the applicant is allowed to purchase water from Alfalfa Water, LLC for commercial use. This criterion 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: No processing is proposed. This section does not apply. 15. Utility Verification. A statement from each utility company proposed to serve the operation, stating that each such company is able and willing to serve the operation, shall be provided. FINDING: The applicant submitted a "will serve" letter from the Central Electric Cooperative (CEC) dated June 1, 2017, including information identifying the use as marijuana production and that the electrical load can be provided for. The letter from CEC states: In response to your inquiry, please be advised that the property located UL T.l 7S., R. 14E, W.M., Section 22, Tax Lot 1400 in Deschutes County, Oregon, is within the service• area of Central Electric Cooperative, Inc. Central Electric Cooperative has reviewed the provided load information (200 amp Single phase service) associated with the submitted Cannabis Grow Facility and is willing and able to serve this location in accordance with the rates and policies and of Central Electric Cooperative. This is the only utility the proposal will utilize besides water, which is addressed above. 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 states that security cameras will be directed to record, "the licensed premises, which is located near the center of the property". This standard will be met. Staff adds the following condition to ensure compliance with the requirements of this section. 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. 17. Secure Waste Disposal. Marijuana waste shall be stored in a secured waste receptacle in the possession of and under the 1 The Board of County Commissioner's land use decision on Rubio (file 247 -16 -000600 -AD, 247-17- 000036-A) stated, "The Board also notes that in subsequent applications, greater specificity in the water supply documentation is desired in terms of identifying the use associated with the water". 247 -17 -000612 -AD Page 13 of 17 control of the OLCC licensee or OHA Person Responsible for the Grow Site (PRMG). FINDING: The applicant submitted a revised site plan identifying a secured and fenced waste disposal area, where plant waste will be composted. Staff finds this criterion can be met and adds the following condition to ensure ongoing compliance with the requirements of this section. Waste: The marijuana waste receptacle shall be stored within the secured and fenced composting area identified on the site plan, and shall be in the possession of and under the control of the OLCC licensee. 18. Residency. In the MUA-10 zone, a minimum of one of the following shall reside in a dwelling unit on the subject property. a. An owner of the subject property; b. A holder of an OLCC license for marijuana production, provided that the license applies to the subject property; or C. A person registered with the OHA as a person designated to produce marijuana by a registry identification cardholder, provided that the registration applies to the subject property. FINDING: The subject property is not in the MUA-10 zone. This section does not apply. 19. Nonconformance. All medical marijuana grow sites lawfully established prior to June 8, 2016 by the Oregon Health Authority shall comply with the provisions of DCC 18.116.330(B)(9) by September 8, 2016 and with the provisions of DCC 18.116.330(B)(10-12,16,17) by December 8, 2016. FINDING: The site is currently used as a medical grow site and is already subject to the above criteria. The current proposal is to transition from a medical marijuana grow site to a recreational marijuana grow site. 20. Prohibited Uses. a. In the EFU zone, the following uses are prohibited: L A new dwelling used in conjunction with a marijuana crop; ii. A farm stand, as described in ORS 215.213(1)(r) or 215.283(1)(o), used in conjunction with a marijuana crop; iii. A commercial activity, as described in ORS 215.213(2)(c) or 215.283(2)(a), carried on in conjunction a marijuana crop; and iv. Agri -tourism and other commercial events and activities in conjunction with a marijuana crop. C. In the EFU, MUA-10, and Rural Industrial zones, the following uses are prohibited on the same property as marijuana production: 247 -17 -000612 -AD Page 14 of 17 L 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: None of the prohibited uses have been proposed by the applicant. Staff adds the following condition to ensure ongoing compliance with the requirements of this section. Prohibited Uses: 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: L Land use decision and permits. ii. Fire, health, safety, waste water, and building codes and laws. iii. State of Oregon licensing requirements. b. Failure to timely submit the annual report, fee, and Consent to Inspect Premises form or to demonstrate compliance with DCC 18.116.330(C)(1)(a) shall serve as acknowledgement by the real property owner and licensee that the otherwise allowed use is not in compliance with Deschutes County Code; authorizes permit revocation under DCC Title 22, and may be relied upon by the State of Oregon to deny new or license renewal(s) for the subject use. C. Other information as may be reasonably required by the Planning Director to ensure compliance with Deschutes County Code, applicable State regulations, and to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. d. Marijuana Control Plan to be established and maintained by the Community Development Department. e. Conditions of Approval Agreement to be established and maintained by the Community Development Department. f. This information shall be public record subject to ORS 192.502(17). FINDING: Compliance with the annual reporting obligation of this section is required. The applicant has agreed to file the annual report each year in a timely manner. Staff adds the following condition to ensure compliance with the requirements of this section. 247 -17 -000612 -AD Page 15 of 17 Annual Reporting: The annual reporting requirements of DCC 18.116.330(D) shall be met. IV. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing Findings, staff finds that the proposed marijuana production facility appears to comply with the applicable standards and criteria of the Deschutes County zoning ordinance if conditions of approval are met. V. DECISION APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions of approval. VI. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Use & Location: Marijuana production is conditionally approved inside the approved structures. 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. 2. Building Height: No building or structure, including greenhouses, shall be erected or enlarged to exceed 30 feet in height, except as allowed under DCC 18.120.040. 3. No Outdoor Production: Marijuana production is prohibited in any outdoor area. 4. Maximum Mature Plant Canopy Size: The maximum canopy area for mature marijuana plants shall not exceed 5,000 square feet at any time. 5. Lighting: The following lighting standards shall be met. a. Inside building lighting used for marijuana production shall not be visible outside the building from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. on the following day. 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. The light cast by exterior light fixtures other than marijuana growing lights shall comply with DCC 15.10, Outdoor Lighting Control. 6. Odor: The proposed odor control system must at all times prevent unreasonable interference with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. The odor control system shall be maintained in working order and shall be in use. 7. Noise: Sustained noise from mechanical equipment used for heating, ventilation, air conditioning, odor control, fans and similar functions shall not exceed 30 dB(A) measured at any property line between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the following day. 8. Fencing: 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. 247 -17 -000612 -AD Page 16 of 17 9. Screening: The existing tree and shrub cover screening the development from the public right-of-way or adjacent properties shall be retained to the maximum extent possible. This provision does not prohibit the maintenance of existing lawns, removal of dead, diseased or hazardous vegetation; the commercial harvest of forest products in accordance with the Oregon Forest Practices Act; or agricultural use of the land. 10. 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. 11. Waste: The marijuana waste receptacle shall be stored within the secured and fenced composting area identified on the site plan, and shall be in the possession of and under the control of the OLCC licensee. 12. Prohibited Uses: 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. 13. Annual Reporting: The annual reporting requirements of DCC 18.116.330(D) shall be met. VII. DURATION OF APPROVAL: The applicant shall complete all conditions of approval and obtain placement permits the proposed use within two (2) years of the date this decision becomes final, or obtain an extension of time pursuant to Section 22.36.010 of the County Code, or this approval shall be void. This decision becomes final twelve (12) days after the date of mailing, unless appealed by a party of interest. DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION A /ritten: Jacob Ripper, Associate Planner Reviewed by: Peter Gutowsky, Planning Manager 247 -17 -000612 -AD Page 17 of 17 25606 ALFALFA MARKET RD, BEND 247 -17 -000612 -AD ALRNE LN .BACHELOR LN CUULIUS LN DEf. R LN ELK LN ALFALFA MARKET R0 p Q' Q G Q Deschutes County GIS, Sources: Esri, USGS, NOA4 `�ti L{, C:' n jJ � � r, ` { 247 -17 -000612 -AD 4 DESCHUTES COUNTY Land Use Application 117 NW Lafayette Avenue of PO Box 6005 Bend,OR 97703 Appeal - BOCC 541-388-6575 247-17-000923-A www,deschutes,0r9/cd cdd-Webmastet,@desclitites.or53 APPLICATION DESCRIPTION Type of Application: Appeal - BOCC Description of Work: Appeal of 247 -17 -000612 -AD LOCATION INFORMATION Property Address: Parcel: Owner: 25606 Alfalfa Market Rd, Bend, OR 97701 1714220001400 - Primary Address: APPLICANT INFORMATION Applicant: Business Name: Address: City: State: Zip Liz Dickson Dickson Hatfield LLC 400 SW Bluff Dr., Ste, 240 Bend OR 97702 S20 Dynamics LLC S20 Dynamics LLC 63028 Layton Ave, Bend OR 97701 William Tye 25840 Alfalfa Market Rd Bend OR 97701 APPLICATION FEES Ouantity Amount Fee Description Appeals - Administrative 1,00 Qty $250.00 Total Fees: $250,00 Printed on: 11)14{2017 u, -A Transaction Receipt 0 4 Record Number: 247-17-000923-A Receipt Number: 425145 www.deschutes.org/cd Address: 25606 ALFALFA MARKET RD, BEND, OR 97701 Parcel Number: 1714220001400 DESCHUTES COUNTY 117 NW Lafayette Avenue PO Box 6005 Bend,OR 97703 Phone: 541-388-6575 cdd-webmaster@deschutes. org Receipt Date: 11/13/17 Fee Items Paid DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT CODE AMOUNT PAID Appeals - Administrative 2956150 341301 $250.00 $250.00 Payment Summary PAYMENT METHOD PAYER COMMENTS AMOUNT PAID' Credit Card Authorization - Elizabeth A Dickson $250.00 813193 $250.00 Printed: 11/13/2017 Page 1 of 1 Community Development Department Planning Mvisim SuMinp Safety Division Enviromwntai Soils Oivision P.O. Box 5005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 Phone: (541) 388-6575 Fax: (541) 385-1764 RECEIVED http://www.deschutes.org/cd 13Y- � (L NOV 1 3 2017 DELIVERED BY.- EVERY Y: APPEAL APPLICATION EVERY NOTICE OF APPEAL SHALL INCLUDE: FEE: $250 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): Bill Tye, Trustee of the William R. Tye Revocable Living Trust Phone: ( 541) 408-3646 Mailing Address: 25840 Alfalfa Market Rd. Land Use Application Being Appealed: 247 -17 -000612 -AD Property Description: Township 17 Appellant's Signature: City/State/Zip: Bend, OR 97701 14 Section 22 Tax Lot 1400 (see attached Letter of Authorization) 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 Quality Services Performed with Pride NOTICE OF APPEAL See attached narrative. (This page may be photocopied if additional space is needed.) 440 SW Bluff Drive, Suite 240 Bend, OR 97702 (0) 541 -SOS -2224 - (0) S41 -SSS -2229 August 22, 2017 Jacob Ripper, Planner Deschutes County Community Development 117 NW Lafayette Ave. Bend, OR 97703 RE: letter of Authorization Dear Jacob, I hereby authorize Liz Dickson of Dickson Hatfield, LLC, to act on my behalf regarding all land use matters before Deschutes County to which myself and/or the William R. Tye Revocable Living Trust is a party. Sincerely, William R. Tye, Trustee William R. Tye Revocable Living Trust 25840 Alfalfa Market Rd. Bend, OR 97701 541-408-3646 BEFORE THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS NOTICE OF APPEAL NARRATIVE APPELLANT: Bill Tye, Trustee of the William R. Tye Revocable Living Trust 25840 Alfalfa Market Rd. Bend, OR 97701 541-408-3646 tycattleconyahooctn ATTORNEY: Elizabeth Dickson Dickson Hatfield, LLC Attorneys for Appellant 400 SW Bluff Drive, Suite 240 Bend, OR 97702 541-585-2229 eadicksoii(ci?dicksonhatlield.com STAFF REVIEWER: Jacob Ripper, Associate Planner Deschutes County Community Development Dept. 117 NW Lafayette Ave. Bend, OR 97701 REQUEST: Appellant requests a de novo Appeal of Deschutes County Administrative Determination, File No. 247 -17 -000612 -AD. SUBJECT PROPERTY: Assessor's Map Designation Township 17S, Range 14E, Section 22, Tax Lot 1400, commonly referenced as 25606 Alfalfa Market Rd., Bend, OR 97701. TYE, BILL - NOTICE OF APPEAL OF 247 -17 -000612 -AD Page 1 of 10 I. INTRODUCTION Applicant S20 Dynamics, LLC and property owner David House have requested approval to convert a non-compliant medical marijuana production facility to a recreational facility. Appellant Bill Tye states that because their existing facility is not built or operated according to applicable law, they should not be allowed to expand it. The application to expand the already illegal facility should be denied. The existing medical marijuana production facility is not compliant with the law in these ways: • Odor is not controlled; • Noise is not controlled; • Lights are not shielded; • Plants are grown outside of greenhouses; and • Water is tapped from an illegal source. County criteria applicable to the expansion application are also not satisfied by substantial evidence in the Record. Appellant Bill Tye personally has observed conditions on the neighboring site, and opposes expansion of the operation. The proposed recreational marijuana production facility does not satisfy the code in these areas: • Sufficient odor controls are not documented; • Satisfactory noise controls are not documented; • Sufficient light shielding is not proved; • Waste disposal is not compliant with code; and • Adequate legal water source is not documented. In addition, the instant application does not meet County and state codes regarding transportation impacts, though the County has thus far interpreted such criteria as inapplicable. We ask that the County reconsider this interpretation in light of the extreme degradation of the transportation system in the Alfalfa Community, where such degradation directly correlates to the increase of pot farms in the area. Applicant S20 Dynamics, LLC ("S20") has demonstrated it is not willing to comply with applicable law in its existing medical marijuana operation, and so should not be allowed to expand it. S20 proposes to build a significantly expanded facility without facilities or operations plans to comply with applicable criteria for its new recreational marijuana operation. This application is properly denied. II. APPLICABLE CRITERIA & STANDARDS QRS 475B.340 DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESCHUTES COUNTY TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN TYE, BILL - NOTICE OF APPEAL OF 247 -17 -000612 -AD Page 2 of 10 DESCHUTES COUNTY CODE TITLES 18 and 22 III. COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE CRITERIA & STANDARDS OREGON REVISED STATUTES ORS 47513.340 — CONTROL AND REGULATION OF MARIJUANA ACT ORS 475B.340(2) [T]he governing body of a ... county may adopt ordinances that impose reasonable regulations on the operations of businesses.... (3) Regulations adopted under this section must be consistent with ... county comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances and applicable provisions of public health and safety laws. RESPONSE: The Board of County Commissioners (the "Board") approved Ordinance No. 2016-015 to amend Title 18, and specifically added DCC 18.116.330 to allow the cultivation, processing and sale of marijuana products under specific conditions. In so doing, the Board presumably inadvertently allowed grows to be approved without analysis of traffic impacts. The County's Comprehensive Plan ("Comp Plan"), applying public health and safety laws, requires that traffic impacts be monitored and mitigated where necessary. Failure to assess the traffic impacts of a new land use is inconsistent with the County's Comp Plan, specifically that chapter addressing its transportation system. DESCHUTES COUNTY TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN Goal 1: Achieve an efficient, safe, convenient and economically viable transportation... system. RESPONSE: This application, as documented, does not contain information sufficient to assure the Board that this Goal will be met. The instant application will increase trips to and from the site. New trips will be generated by many activities, including but not limited to: • water haulers • material deliveries (plants, coir, pipes and hoses, nozzles, sheeting, frames, light fixtures and bulbs, chemicals, tools, packaging supplies and labels) • system maintenance and repair persons • workers to water, fertilize, provide insect and bacterial control, prune, harvest, package and prepare product shipments, • inspections by officials, • product inspection by buyers, • product transport Increased trips on rural roads, such as Alfalfa Market Road, via private easement will be caused directly by approval of the proposed use. Applicant, by promising to limit mature plants (those in full bloom) to 5,000 square feet, qualifies to use Appellant Mr. Tye's easement without his permission for an undetermined number of trips. The code, as written, allows a limitless amount of cultivation on site, so long as the mature plant canopy does not exceed 5,000 square feet. This TYE, BILL - NOTICE OF APPEAL OF 247 -17 -000612 -AD Page 3 of 10 creates a loophole in the code, such that trips generated by the many uses noted above, may still travel over Appellant Bill Tye's land, and despite the myriad effects he may suffer, no protection against such effects is offered by the County as it has interpreted the code in the staff administrative determination. The County's Comprehensive Plan must be adhered to, according to ORS 475B.340(2), as quoted above. The Comp Plan includes the Transportation System Plan ("TSP"), Goal 1, which requires an efficient, safe, convenient, and economically viable system. Allowing the existing use to increase in size by over double, without even bothering to ask for an estimate of the trips that will be generated, does not serve the efficient, safe, convenient, and economically viable system the Comp Plan, and thus state statute, mandate. The County's Comp Plan, TSP Goal 4, sets out another applicable rule by which this application is properly judged: Goal 4: Establish a transportation system supportive of a geographically distributed and diversified economic base, while also providing a safe, efficient network for residential mobility and tourism. RESPONSE: The S20 Application for expansion requests permission to allow a significantly expanded marijuana grow in an area of Deschutes County that is already the most densely developed for marijuana production in the County. This neighborhood is not exhibiting the desired "diversified economic base" called out in the above goal. Residents report daily truck deliveries and shipments through the Alfalfa area, traffic backups as workers report to grow sites for work, and speeding by drivers coming into the area solely to work on the grows. This does not create a safe, efficient network for residential mobility. Its effect on tourism is unknows to Appellant Bill Tye. The system built in the Alfalfa area is two-lane, soft shouldered, and without sidewalks, bike lanes, or crosswalks. It is not designed to accommodate the traffic already generated by the pot grow industry in the neighborhood and is causing significant hazards for residents, particularly children and pedestrians and bicyclists less able to defend themselves against heavy and speeding traffic. Any addition to this already congested and stressed transportation system violates Deschutes County's TSP Goal 4. The policies of the TSP specify how the development process will be managed. Specifically, Policy 4.6 requires improvements will match level and impact of development. It implements this by requiring new development to analyze the impact it will have before approval. Yet County Staff now tells the Board that the code implemented in June, 2016 does not allow the Board to ask for such an analysis in situations such as that posed by the current S20 application. This interpretation is in direct contradiction to TSP Gaal 4, and so is also in direct contraction to ORS 475B.340(2). The Policy reads as follows: Policy 4.6: Deschutes County shall manage the development process to obtain adequate street right-of-way and improvements commensurate with the level and impact of development. New development shall provide traffic impact analysis to assess these impacts and to help determine transportation system needs. TYE, BILL -NOTICE OF APPEAL OF 247 -17 -000612 -AD Page 4 of 10 RESPONSE: This application represents new development, which is why the application is required. Yet, no traffic impact analysis is required, despite what is now being learned in the Alfalfa Community about the trips such uses generate. The Board may interpret its Policy to require such analysis, and Appellant Bill Tye requests that the Board protect its citizens and require it. Approval without failure to do so sets the County on a course in contradiction to its Comp Plan and thus state law. The County's TSP also addresses degradation, separate from the analysis requirement above. It reads as follows: Goal 10: Maintain the current arterial and collector system in the County and prevent degradation of the capacity of the system. RESPONSE: Appellant Bill Tye and neighbors have witnesses significant traffic loads on Alfalfa Market Road. These loads are directly caused by the increase in marijuana grows in the immediate area. They have degraded the capacity of the system, to put the problem in transportation engineer terms. This degradation is a direct result of the new applications approved and built in Alfalfa, and it violates TSP Goal 10. Again, violation of the TSP is violation of the Comp Plan, which violates ORS 475B.340(2). The S20 application will create trips. No one knows how many. The County's current interpretation that no trip analysis is required has degraded the transportation system in the Alfalfa Community. This interpretation is no longer reasonable in light of increased traffic in the Alfalfa area and violates the County's Comprehensive plan, and so state law. The instant application should be required to comply with the County Comp Plan, or be denied for failure to mitigate impacts to the County's Traffic System. It is interesting to note that when Deschutes County adopted Ordinance No. 2016-015, the Findings adopted did not include any reference to these issues or their potential impacts. Perhaps this is because such impacts were not known. After 17 months of implementation of the Ordinance, we may now examine such impacts, and should interpret County Code accordingly. We turn now to that Code. DESCHUTES COUNTY CODE DCC TITLE 18- DESCHUTES COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE DCC Chapter 18.04 DEFINITIONS DCC Section 18.04.020 Purpose A. The intent or purpose of ACC Title 18 is to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare.... TYE, BILL - NOTICE OF APPEAL OF 247 -17 -000612 -AD Page 5 of 10 RESPONSE: Title 18, the land use/zoning code, is founded in the County's legal right to pass legislation to promote public health, safety, and welfare. This is well established in state and federal law as well. In this instance, the Board has decided to try allowing marijuana grows in Deschutes County, and watch for the effects of such use. Recent public forums held as part of the County's evaluation of marijuana production impacts in our communities revealed story after story of families unable to open windows to bring in fresh air, children restricted from playing outside, noise so loud that neighbors could not enjoy outdoor areas of their homes, and more serious impacts such as dry wells, heavy traffic, and threatening persons attracted to communities not accustomed to such persons. All of these concerns are examples of direct impacts on public health, safety, and welfare. Lack of clean air, inability to enjoy the outdoors, and the threats to clean water and safe roads are real and concrete challenges to these most basic concerns, and it is the community's right to enjoy clean wells and safe roads. We ask this Board to protect the general community's health, safety, and welfare, and deny this application. It does nothing to enhance these values, and only harms the community the Board serves. DCC Chapter 18.116 MARIJUANA PRODUCTION, PROCESSINGAND RETAILING DCC Section 18.116.330 Marijuana Production, Processing, and Retailing B. Marijuana production and marijuana processing. Marijuana production and marijuana processing shall be subject to the following standards and criteria: 10. Odor. As used in DCC 18.116.330(B)(10), building means the building, including greenhouses, hoop houses, and other similar structures, used for marijuana production or marijuana processing. a. The building shall be equipped with an effective odor control system which must at all times prevent unreasonable interference of neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. b. An odor control system is deemed permitted only after the applicant submits a report by a mechanical engineer licensed in the State of Oregon demonstrating that the system will control odor so as not to unreasonably interfere with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. c. Private actions alleging nuisance or trespass associated with odor impacts are authorized, if at all, as provided in applicable state statute. d. The odor control system shall: i. Consist of one or more fans. The fan(s) shall be sized for cubic feet per minute (CFM) equivalent to the volume of the building (length multiplied by width multiplied by height) divided by three. The filter(s) shall be treated for the required CFM; or ii. Utilize an alternative method or technology to achieve equal or to greater odor mitigation than provided by (1) above. e. The system shall be maintained in working order and shall be in use. RESPONSE: Over the course of the half dozen or so applications considered by the Board in the marijuana grow process, it has become clear that the intent of the above language, while plausible in concept, is unenforceable in reality. This explains why odor complaints have been TYE, BILL - NOTICE OF APPEAL OF 247 -17 -000612 -AD Page 6 of 10 expressed in code complaints, in public hearings, and even in the community focus group convened by the County on November 6, 2017. The County has asserted no legal authority to check installation of odor control systems, and growers claim entry without permission constitutes trespass. As a result, these high -maintenance systems may work or they may not, and the County's code provision is ineffective in practice. Neighbors have taken the guessing out of whether the systems work, merely by sniffing the air in proximity to the grow operations, and have testified uncounted times in public forums before this Board and its staff. See code enforcement complaints filed against this facility as it presently operates. Commissioner Henderson has questioned whether the detail required by the County in the application process is sufficient to assure satisfaction with this criterion. His questions have merit. 10.b., in particular, has been shown in practice to be ineffective. It requires, 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. This standard essentially relies on a mechanical engineer to have the education, the experience, and the integrity to assess a system in light of the facility it is to serve, and to be able to stand in the shoes of the Board to assure the public that the odor known to be produced by such grows will be controlled. So far, we have heard from engineers who merely mouth the words of the standard. This is not "a report." This is not "demonstrating." Odor is the single most common complaint of the many neighbors who've testified about living near grows. The Board will best serve its electorate by requiring a mechanical engineer to prove themselves knowledgeable and honest in their assessment of the proposed system. The instant application does not satisfy these requirements. Colebreit engineering's September 13, 2017 letter reiterates the code, and then notes that the applicant has installed louvers and prop fans, plans to compost and will need to contain and vent that, and future buildings will need "the same natural ventilation system as the existing building to comply with this letter. The exhaust air must be treated for odor control. You have indicated that you intend to utilize fogger technology for odor control at your growing facility." The Colebreit letter goes on to describe a generic type of "ring -type fogger." It states it "shall be adequate." It does not describe a specific type, model number, size, or model type that would be required to control odor in the 5 buildings proposed, or their size. It is not a report. It does not "demonstrate." It is inadequate and should be rejected as insufficient to meet the County's code requirement. The Colebreit letter does note that "we have observed" such a unit at a similar facility. The language used implies that the engineer author, Mr. James, or his associates have done so once. In conclusion, careful reading of the letter may reasonably lead one to conclude that Mr. James has never seen one of these units in operation, and furthermore, has made no demonstration that such generic type units would work: • In these 5 structures • With these climate conditions • Under these grow conditions TYE, BILL - NOTICE OF APPEAL OF 247 -17 -000612 -AD Page 7of10 • Growing these plants (applicant claims they will be highly specialized through 8,000 sf of cloning operations to serve the 5,000 sf of mature canopy plants). In conclusion, the Colebreit letter is not a report, does not demonstrate what's required, and should not be accepted for the truth of what's asserted therein. The Odor control requirements of the DCC are not satisfied. 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. RESPONSE: Colebreit Engineering's September 13, 2017 letter was also offered for compliance with the County's noise control requirement. Again, Mr. James restated the code provision called out above. He then argues that because the systems cycle on and off, they're not sustained. Appellant Bill Tye finds this mincing of words unpersuasive to prove compliance. Mr. James then discusses existing systems in the 2 greenhouses currently in operation for production of medical marijuana. He claims that the noise produced by the existing systems is "barely perceptible" at property lines after measuring ambient noise as background. He then concludes that "[a]s no equipment runs continuously, additional growing buildings constructed in the same manner as the existing structure will comply with the code regarding noise mitigation. It is our opinion that since the mechanical equipment exterior to the building will operate intermittently upon call for cooling and since a difference of 0.6 Dba is not perceitible to the human ear, the property will comply...." This analysis is insufficient for the following reasons: 1. He is measuring a current system, not the new system that is the subject of the application. 2. He is assuming that the new operation will work the sante as the existing, despite representations in the application that it will be significantly different, with focus on cloning. 3. Mr. James never states that he's personally visited the site, or observed the claims made in the letter. Actual personnel used to make the limited observations are unknown. 4. The existing system emits loud noise at many hours, according to neighbor and Appellant Bill Tye. Two greenhouses are easily heard at his property, let alone five in an expanded operation as proposed. Code compliance complaints filed verify these violations. 5. Such analysis only measures the fans. Such operations may include loud trucks, pumps, construction, and various other noise -making operations. None are considered in the engineer's letter. The engineer's letter provided does not satisfy the applicable criterion. Observations of the existing operation expressly contradict the conclusions Mr. James draws, making its probative TYE, BILL. - NOTICE OF APPEAL OF 247 -17 -000612 -AD Page 8 of 10 value questionable. The standard is not demonstrated as met. The application is properly denied. 13. Water. The applicant shall provide: 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.... RESPONSE: Applicant S20 relies on a statement of service from Alfalfa Water LLC. Alfalfa Water LLC's permit is not usable for nursery use or irrigation use, as required by state law. See Exhibit A, attached and incorporated by this reference. Because the water drawn from the Alfalfa Water LLC well may not be used for irrigation or nursery purposes, but only industrial or commercial, this source of water may not legally be relied upon to satisfy this criterion. Applicant has not provided a legal source of water for the proposed use, and such application is properly denied. This is particularly concerning in the Alfalfa area, where static water levels over 600 feet deep are dropping throughout the basin, in direct correlation to the addition of well use (under irrigation and nursery permits) for the recent influx of marijuana grows in the community. OWRD Water Master Kyle Gorman has admitted to local residents that OWRD can't catch illegal users because they can't go on site and check and wells are largely unmetered. This concern is becoming critical for neighbors having to drill deeper wells to chase water being taken illegally by growers. Water "will serve" statements should be supported by evidence of legal withdrawal. Alfalfa Water LLC does not hold a certificate for its well that allows the water to be used for this purpose. This application is properly denied. 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. RESPONSE: Offered "will serve" letters do not satisfy the requirement that the Applicant provide responses particular to "the operation." Here, significant expansion is proposed, complete with proposed ring-foggers and fans and a complex light system designed to serve the intensive clone operation. The letter provided is insufficient and should be disclaimed as not substantial evidence necessary to meet this requirement. 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 ORA Person Responsible for the Grow Site (PRMG). RESPONSE: Mr. James' letter briefly references what should be constructed. No proposal specifics are offered to show what Applicant proposes will be constructed. This is insufficient information to meet the standard of this criterion. TYE, BILL -NOTICE OF APPEAL OF 247 -17 -000612 -AD Page 9of10 IV. CONCLUSION The submitted application does not meet code requirements or larger public policy needs of our community. Appellant Bill Tye asks this Board to deny the subject S20 application. Submitted this 13th day of November, 2017, by: L lizflbe A. Dickson Attorney for Appellant EAD/mis Cc: Client Encl: Exhibit A attached as noted. TYE, BILL - NOTICE OF APPEAL OF 247 -17 -000612 -AD Page 10 of 10 EXHIBIT --L' STATE OF OREGON COUNTY OF DESCHUTES PERMIT TO APPROPRIATE THE PUBLIC WATERS THIS PERMIT IS HEREBY ISSUED TO ALFRED G AND CLAUDIA G GREEN 26161 WILLARD ROAD BEND, OR 97701 The specific limits and conditions of the use are listed below. APPLICATION FILE NUMBER: G-15635 SOURCE OF WATER: A WELL IN CROOKED RIVER BASIN PURPOSE OR USE: COMMERCIAL USE (INDUSTRIAL) MAXIMUM RATE: 0.045 CUBIC FOOT PER SECOND PERIOD OF USE: YEAR ROUND DATE OF PRIORITY: OCTOBER 19, 2001 WELL LOCATION: NE :�-4 NW 'i, SECTION 26, T17S, R14E, W.M.; 66 FEET SOUTH & 689 FEET WEST FROM N 1/4 CORNER, SECTION 26 THE PLACE OF USE IS LOCATED AS FOLLOWS: NE 144 NW 14 SECTION 26 TOWNSHIP 17 SOUTH, RANGE 14 EAST, W.M. Measurement, recording and reporting conditions: A. Before water use may begin under this permit, the permittee shall install a meter or other suitable measuring device as approved by the Director. The permittee shall maintain the meter or measuring device in good working order, shall keep a complete record of the amount of water used each month and shall submit a report which includes the recorded water use measurements to the Department annually or more frequently as may be required by the Director. Further, the Director may require the permittee to report Application G-15635 PERMIT G-15616 EXHIBIT --L' general water use information, including the place and nature of use of water under the permit. B. The permittee shall allow the watermaster access to the meter or measuring device; provided however, where the meter or measuring device is located within a private structure, the watermaster shall request access upon reasonable notice. Mitigation Obligation: 4.9 acre-feet in the General Zone of Impact (anywhere in the Deschutes River Basin above the Madras gage, located on the Deschutes River below Lake Billy Chinook.) Mitigation Source: Obtain 4.9 Mitigation Credits, or suitable replacement mitigation tht meets the requirements of OAR 690- 505-0610(2)-(5), within the General Zone of Impact. Mitigation water must be legally protected instream for instream use within the General Zone of Impact and committed for the life of the permit and subsequent certificate(s). Regulation of the use and/or cancellation of the permit, or subsequent certificate(s), will occur if the required mitigation is not maintained. The permittee shall provide additional mitigation if the Department determines that average annual consumptive use of the subject appropriation has increased beyond the originally mitigated amount. if mitigation is from a secondary right for stored water from a storage project not owned or operated by the permittee the use of water under this right is subject to the terms and conditions of a valid contract, a copy of which must be on file in the records of the Water Resources Department prior to use of water. Failure to comply with these mitigation conditions shall result in the Department regulating the ground water permit, or subsequent certificate(s), proposing to deny any permit extension application for the ground water permit, and proposing to cancel the ground water permit, or subsequent certificate(s). Use of water under authority of this permit may be regulated if analysis of data available after the permit is issued discloses Application G-15635 PERMIT G-15616 1'." i(iI;11 that the appropriation will measurably reduce the surface water flows necessary to maintain the free-flowing character of a scenic waterway in quantities necessary for recreation, fish and wildlife in effect as of the priority date of the right or as those quantities may be subsequently reduced. The use of ground water allowed under the terms of this permit will not be subject to regulation for Scenic Waterway flows so long as mitigation as required herein is maintained. STANDARD CONDITIONS If substantial interference with a senior water right occurs due to withdrawal of water from any well listed on this permit, then use of water from the well(s) shall be discontinued or reduced and/or the schedule of withdrawal shall be regulated until or unless the Department approves or implements an alternative administrative action to mitigate the interference. The Department encourages junior and senior appropriators to jointly develop plans to mitigate interferences. The wells shall be constructed in accordance with the General Standards for the Construction and Maintenance of Water Wells in Oregon. The works shall be equipped with a usable access port, and may also include an air line and pressure gauge adequate to determine water level elevation in the well at all times. Prior to receiving a certificate of water right, the permit holder shall submit the results of a pump test meeting the department's standards, to the Water Resources Department. The Director may require water level or pump test results every ten years thereafter. Failure to comply with any of the provisions of this permit may result in action including; but not limited to, restrictions on the use, civil penalties, or cancellation of the permit. This permit is for the beneficial use of water without waste. The water user is advised that new regulations may require the use of best practical technologies or conservation practices to achieve .this end. By law, the land use associated with this water use must be in compliance with statewide land -use goals and any local acknowledged land -use plan. The use of water shall be limited when it interferes with any prior surface or ground water rights. Application G-15635 PERMIT G-15616 Complete application of the water to the use shall be made on or before October 1, 2008. If the water is not completely applied before this date, and the permittee wishes to continue development under the permit, the permittee must submit an application for extension of time, which may be approved based upon the merit of the application. Within one year after complete application of water to the proposed use, the permittee shall submit a claim of beneficial use, which includes a map and report, prepared by a Certified Water Rights Examiner (CWRE). Issued Ma 6 , 2004 �— Paul- C.d y, Director WateResources Department ASSIGNMENT OF PERMIT: Pursuant to ORS 537.220, this permit may be assigned to a party other than the permittee named hereon, if the land the permit is associated with changes ownership, or if the permittee is an organization whose name changes as a result of sale or merger. Request for Assignment forms are available from 'the Oregon Water Resources Department web site at �http//www.wrd.state.or.us/, or may be requested from the Department at 503-986-0801 or Water Right Application Section, (Oregon Water Resources Department, 725 Summer St NE Ste A, Salem OR 97301-1271. MAILING ADDRESS CHANGES: If the mailing address of the permittee named hereon changes, it is important that the Oregon Water Resources Department be informed of the change. Address changes must be submitted in writing with the permittees signature to Water Right Application Section, Oregon Water Resources Department, 725 Summer St NE Ste A, Salem OR 97301-1271. REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS: Pursuant to ORS 537.330, in any transaction for the conveyance of real estate that includes any portion of the lands described in this permit, the seller of the real estate shall, upon accenting an offer to purchase that real Application G-15635 Water Resources Department PERMIT G-15616 Basin 5 District 11 huffmaam { estate, also inform the purchaser in writing whether any permit, transfer approval order, or certificate evidencing the water right is available and that the seller will deliver any permit, transfer approval order or certificate to the purchaser at closing, if the permit, transfer approval order or certificate is available. CULTURAL RESOURCES PROTECTION LAWS: Permittees involved in ground -disturbing activities should be aware of federal and state cultural resources protection laws. ORS 358.920 prohibits the excavation, injury, destruction or alteration of an archeological site or object, or removal of archeological objects from public and private lands without an archeological permit issued by the State Historic Preservation Office. 16 USC 470, Section 106, National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 requires a federal agency, prior to any undertaking to take into account the effect of the undertaking that is included on or eligible for inclusion in the National Register. For further information, contact the State Historic Preservation Office at 503-378-4168, extension 232. Application G-15635 Water Resources Department PERMIT G-15616 Basin 5 District 11 huffmaam ar Chapter 18.116. SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS 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 RI zones. 2, Marijuana Processing in the EFU, MUA-10, TeC, TeCR, TuC, TuI, RI, and SUBP zones 3. Marijuana Retailing in the RSC, TeC, TeCR, TuC, Tul, RC, RI, SUC, SUTC, and SUBP zones. 4. Marijuana Wholesaling in the RSC, TeC, TeCR, TuC, RC, SUC, and SUBP zones. 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. 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. 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. 4. Maximum Building Floor Area. In the MUA-10 zone, the maximum building floor area used for all activities associated with marijuana production and processing on the subject property shall be: a. Parcels from 5 acres to less than 10 acres in lot area: 2,500 square feet. b. Parcels equal to or greater than 10 acres: 5,000 square feet. 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 Chapter 18.116 (2/2017) parcel or lot. 5. Setbacks. The following setbacks shall apply to all marijuana production and processing areas and buildings: a. Minimum Yard Setback/Distance from Lot Lines: 100 feet. b. Setback from an off-site dwelling: 300 feet. For the purposes of this criterion, an off-site dwelling includes those proposed off-site dwellings with a building permit application submitted to Deschutes County prior to submission of the marijuana production or processing application to Deschutes County. c. Exception: Any reduction to these setback requirements may be granted by the Planning Director or Hearings Body provided the applicant demonstrates the reduced setbacks afford equal or greater mitigation of visual, odor, noise, lighting, privacy, and access impacts. 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(B)(7) shall not result in the marijuana producer or marijuana processor being in violation of DCC 18.116.330(B)(7) if the use is: i. Pending a local land use decision; ii. Licensed or registered by the State of Oregon; or iii. Lawfully established. 8. Access. Marijuana production over 5,000 square feet of canopy area for mature marijuana plants shall comply with the following standards. a. Have frontage on and legal direct access from a constructed public, county, or state road; or b. Have access from a private road or easement serving only the subject property. c. If the property takes access via a private road or easement which also serves other properties, the applicant shall obtain written consent to utilize the easement or private road for marijuana production access from all owners who have access rights to the private road or easement. The written consent shall: i. Be on a form provided by the County and shall contain the following information; ii. Include notarized signatures of all owners, persons and properties holding a recorded interest in the private road or easement; Chapter 18.116 (2/2017) 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. 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. 10. Odor. As used in DCC 18.116.330(B)(10), building means the building, including greenhouses, hoop houses, and other similar structures, used for marijuana production or marijuana processing. a. The building shall be equipped with an effective odor control system which must at all times prevent unreasonable interference of neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. b. An odor control system is deemed permitted only after the applicant submits a report by a mechanical engineer licensed in the State of Oregon demonstrating that the system will control odor so as not to unreasonably interfere with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. c. Private actions alleging nuisance or trespass associated with odor impacts are authorized, if at all, as provided in applicable state statute. d. The odor control system shall: i. Consist of one or more fans. The fan(s) shall be sized for cubic feet per minute (CFM) equivalent to the volume of the building (length multiplied by width multiplied by height) divided by three. The filter(s) shall be rated for the required CFM; or ii. Utilize an alternative method or technology to achieve equal to or greater odor mitigation than provided by (i) above. e. The system shall be maintained in working order and shall be in use. 11. Noise. Noise produced by marijuana production and marijuana processing shall comply with the following: a. Sustained noise from mechanical equipment used for heating, ventilation, air condition, odor control, fans and similar functions shall not exceed 30 dB(A) measured at any property line between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the following day. b. Sustained noise from marijuana production is exempt from protections of DCC 9.12 and ORS 30.395, Right to Farm. Intermittent noise for accepted farming practices is permitted. 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. Chapter 18.116 (2/2017) 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 ORA. 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). 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. 19. Nonconformance. All medical marijuana grow sites lawfully established prior to June 8, 2016 by the Oregon Health Authority shall comply with the provisions of DCC 18.116.330(B)(9) by September 8, 2016 and with the provisions of DCC 18.116.330(B)(10-12, 16, 17) by December 8, 2016. 20. Prohibited Uses. a. In the EFU zone, the following uses are prohibited: i. A new dwelling used in conjunction with a marijuana crop; Chapter 18.116 (2/2017) ii. A farm stand, as described in ORS 215.213(1)(r) or 215.283(1)(o), used in conjunction with a marijuana crop; iii. A commercial activity, as described in ORS 215.213(2)(c) or 215.283(2)(a), carried on in conjunction a marijuana crop; and iv. Agri -tourism and other commercial events and activities in conjunction with a manjuana 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. C. Marijuana Retailing. Marijuana retailing, including recreational and medical marijuana sales, shall be subject to the following standards and criteria: 1. Hours. Hours of operation shall be no earlier than 9:00 a.m. and no later than 7:00 p.m. on the same day. 2. Odor. The building, or portion thereof, used for marijuana retailing shall be designed or equipped to prevent detection of marijuana plant odor off premise by a person of normal sensitivity. 3. Window Service. The use shall not have a walk-up or drive-thru window service. 4. Secure Waste Disposal. Marijuana waste shall be stored in a secured waste receptacle in the possession of and under the control of the OLCC licensee or OHA registrant. 5. Minors. No person under the age of 21 shall be permitted to be present in the building, or portion thereof, occupied by the marijuana retailer, except as allowed by state law. 6. Co -Location of Related Activities and Uses. Marijuana and tobacco products shall not be smoked, ingested, or otherwise consumed in the building space occupied by the marijuana retailer. In addition, marijuana retailing shall not be co -located on the same lot or parcel or within the same building with any marijuana social club or marijuana smoking club. Separation Distances. Minimum separation distances shall apply as follows: a. The use shall be located a minimum of 1,000 feet from: i. A public elementary or secondary school for which attendance is compulsory under Oregon Revised Statutes 339.010, et seq., including any parking lot appurtenant thereto and any property used by the school; ii. A private or parochial elementary or secondary school, teaching children as described in ORS 339.030(1)(a), including any parking lot appurtenant thereto and any property used by the school; iii. A licensed child care center or licensed preschool, including any parking lot Chapter 18.116 (2/2017) appurtenant thereto and any property used by the child care center or preschool. This does not include licensed or unlicensed family child care which occurs at or in residential structures; iv. A youth activity center; v. National monuments and state parks; and vi. Any other marijuana retail facility licensed by the OLCC or marijuana dispensary registered with the OHA. b. For purposes of DCC 18.116.330(B)(7), distance shall be measured from the lot line of the affected property to the closest point of the building space occupied by the marijuana retailer. For purposes of DCC 18.116.330(B)(7)(a)( vi), distance shall be measured from the closest point of the building space occupied by one marijuana retailer to the closest point of the building space occupied by the other marijuana retailer. c. A change in use to another property to a use identified in DCC 18.116.330(B)(7), after a marijuana retailer has been licensed by or registered with the State of Oregon shall not result in the marijuana retailer being in violation of DCC 18.116.330(B)(7). 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). (Ord. 2016-015 § 10, 2016) 18.116.340. Marijuana Production Registered by the Oregon Health Authority (ORA) Chapter 18.116 (2/2017) A. Applicability. Section 18.116.340 applies to: 1. All marijuana production registered by OHA prior to June 1, 2016; and 2. All marijuana production registered by OHA on or after June 12016 until the effective date of Ordinances 2016-015, 2016-16, 2016-17, and 2016-18, at which time Ordinances 2016-015 through Ordinance 2016-018 shall apply. B. All marijuana production registered by OHA prior to June 1, 2016 shall comply with the following standards by September 15, 2016: 1. Lighting. Lighting shall be regulated as follows: d. 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. e. 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. f. Light cast by exterior light fixtures other than marijuana grow lights shall comply with DCC 15. 10, Outdoor Lighting Control. C. All marijuana production registered by OHA prior to June 1, 2016 shall comply with the following standards by December 15, 2016: 1. Odor. As used in DCC 18.116.330(B)(10), building means the building, including greenhouses, hoop houses, and other similar structures, used for marijuana production or marijuana processing. a. The building shall be equipped with an effective odor control system which must at all times prevent unreasonable interference of neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. b. An odor control system is deemed permitted only after the applicant submits a report by a mechanical engineer licensed in the State of Oregon demonstrating that the system will control odor so as not to unreasonably interfere with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. c. Private actions alleging nuisance or trespass associated with odor impacts are authorized, if at all, as provided in applicable state statute. d. The odor control system shall: i. Consist of one or more fans. The fan(s) shall be sized for cubic feet per minute (CFM) equivalent to the volume of the building (length multiplied by width multiplied by height) divided by three. The filter(s) shall be rated for the required CFM; or ii. Utilize an alternative method or technology to achieve equal to or greater odor mitigation than provided by i. above. e. The system shall be maintained in working order and shall be in use. 2. 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 not subject to the Right to Farm Chapter 18.116 (2/2017) protections in DCC 9.12 and ORS 30.395. Intermittent noise for accepted farming practices is however permitted. 3. 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: e. Subject to DCC 18.84, Landscape Management Combining Zone approval, if applicable. f. 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. g. Razor wire, or similar, shall be obscured from view or colored a muted earth tone that blends with the surrounding natural landscape. h. 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. 4. Water. The applicant shall provide: d. A copy of a water right permit, certificate, or other water use authorization from the Oregon Water Resource Department; or e. 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 f. Proof from the Oregon Water Resources Department that the water to be used is from a source that does not require a water right. 5. 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. 6. 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). D. All new marijuana production registered by OHA on or after June 1, 2016 shall comply DCC 18.116.340(A -C) and the following standards: 1. Shall only be located in the following zones a. EFU; b. NWA- 10; or c. Rural Industrial in the vicinity of Deschutes Junction. 2. Minimum Lot Area. b. In the EFU and MUA-10 zones, the subject property shall have a minimum lot area of five (5) acres. 3. Maximum Building Floor Area. In the MUA-10 zone, the maximum building floor area used for all activities associated with medical marijuana production on the subject property shall be: a. Parcels from 5 acres to less than 10 acres in area: 2,500 square feet. b. Parcels equal to or greater than 10 acres: 5,000 square feet. Chapter 18.116 (2/2017) 4.. Setbacks. The following setbacks shall apply to all marijuana production areas and buildings: c. Minimum Yard Setback/Distance from Lot Lines: 100 feet. d. Setback from an off-site dwelling: 300 feet. For the purposes of this criterion, an off-site dwelling includes those proposed off-site dwellings with a building permit application submitted to Deschutes County prior to submission of the marijuana production or processing application to Deschutes County. c. Exception: Reductions to these setback requirements may be granted at the discretion of the Planning Director or Hearings Body provided the applicant demonstrates that the reduced setbacks afford equal or greater mitigation of visual, odor, noise, lighting, privacy, and access impacts. 5. Indoor Production and Processing. d. In the MUA-10 zone, marijuana production 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. e. In the EFU zone, marijuana production shall only be located in buildings, including greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar structures. f. In all zones, marijuana production is prohibited in any outdoor area. 6. Maximum Mature Plant Canopy Size. In the EFU zone, the maximum canopy area for mature marijuana plants shall apply as follows: f. Parcels from 5 acres to less than 10 acres in lot area: 2,500 square feet. g. 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. h. Parcels equal to or greater than 20 acres to less than 40 acres in lot area: 10,000 square feet. i. Parcels equal to or greater than 40 acres to less than 60 acres in lot area: 20,000 square feet. j. Parcels equal to or greater than 60 acres in lot area: 40,000 square feet. 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. Chapter 18.116 (2/2017) 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(B)(7) shall not result in the marijuana producer or marijuana processor being in violation of DCC 18.116.330(B)(7) if the use is: iv. Pending a local land use decision; v. Registered by the State of Oregon; or vi. Lawfully established. 8. Access. Marijuana production over 5,000 square feet of canopy area for mature marijuana plants shall comply with the following standards. d. Have frontage on and legal direct access from a constructed public, county, or state road; or e. Have access from a private road or easement serving only the subject property. f. If the property takes access via a private road or easement which also serves other properties, the applicant shall obtain written consent to utilize the easement or private road for marijuana production access from all owners who have access rights to the private road or easement. The written consent shall: v. Be on a form provided by the County and shall contain the following information; vi. Include notarized signatures of all owners, persons and properties holding a recorded interest in the private road or easement; vii. Include a description of the proposed marijuana production or marijuana processing operation; and viii. Include a legal description of the private road or easement. 9. 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; or b. 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. 10. Annual Reporting. 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: iv. Land use decision and permits. v. Fire, health, safety, waste water, and building codes and laws. vi. 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. Chapter 18.116 (2/2017) 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). 1 l.Prohibited Uses. a. In the EFU zone, the following uses are prohibited: v. A new dwelling used in conjunction with a marijuana crop; vi. A farm stand, as described in ORS 215.213(1)(r) or 215.283(1)(o), used in conjunction with a marijuana crop; vii. A commercial activity, as described in ORS 215.213(2)(c) or 215.283(2)(a), carried on in conjunction a marijuana crop; and viii. 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. (Ord. 2016-019 §l, 2016) Chapter 18.116 (2/2017) Good afternoon Jacob, Here is the summary of code enforcement on the property, these are summaries of the case notes, if you have any questions let me know. 1: 08-15-17: Received noise violation complaint regarding fans operating in marijuana greenhouses on this property. Contacted the complainant, who stated that fans running at night were intermittent and daytime fan noise was usually constant. Complainant informed me that she felt that the property had been taken over by another group, as the fan noise had not been heard much lately. Complainant said that the fans were not running today, and that she would contact me again when she heard them. Checked the property on 8-22-17, no fan noise was heard over ambient noise and was able to see several greenhouses on the property. I have never received a call back from the complainant, and left her a message to follow up with me if the fan noise reoccurs. Case was closed after I was not contacted and was not able to establish a violation during site visit. 2: 09-11-17: Received complaint regarding odor and light coming from the registered grow site. Conducted site visit during the evening, observed greenhouses were lit to a perceptible level from the property line. Was not able to detect any odor at the property line. Pre -Enforcement notice was sent to the property owner of the marijuana grow. 09-25-17: Property owner contacted me and apologized for the lighting error, and informed me that he had corrected the problem. Contacted the complainant in this case, who informed me that the lights had not been on over the previous week and that the property owner for the marijuana grow had contacted him and was very respectful about this incident. Case was closed with compliance. 3: 10-10-17: Received complaint involving odor from the marijuana grow site, and the potential lack of an odor control system. Left a message with the RP to come out to the property and try to detect the odor myself. Observed that the land use application included an odor control system, but that no permits were pulled to install the system. 10-13-17: Received a call from the complainant informing me that there was no smell today and that he would call me early in the morning if he is able to smell it so I can come out and detect the odor. 11-14-17: Had been in contact with complainant over the previous weeks, no odor had been detected throughout that time. Complainant believed that the operation had shut down for winter and that there would be no additional odors. He advised he would contact me if he was able to smell it again. Case was closed as no violation was substantiated. Hope this helps! Thanks, -Dan Smith Deschutes County Code Enforcement Technician (541) 385-1710 is Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division P.O. Box 6005 1 t 7 NW Lafayette A%venue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 Phone: (541) 388-6575 Fax: (541) 385-1764 http://www.deschutes.org/cd MEMORANDUM To: Jacob Ripper, Associate Planner From: Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner Date: December 19, 2017 Re: Response to transportation issues raised in appeal of marijuana production site off of Alfalfa Market Road (File 247-17-000923-A which appeals 17 -612 -AD) The appellant in its November 13, 2017, appeal of a marijuana production (grow) operation at 25606 Alfalfa Market Road raised several transportation issues. The topics ranged from alleged inconsistencies with the Deschutes County Transportation System Plan (TSP) to trip generation rates for marijuana grow operations to the current operation of Alfalfa Market Road. Staff finds all these arguments are without merit. The identified issues are discussed below generally in the order presented by the appellant. 1. Traffic analysis requirements by Deschutes County or state On Page 2, the appellant claims the subject application "...does not meet County and state codes regarding transportation impacts..." and claims "extreme degradation of the transportation system in the Alfalfa Community, where such degradation directly correlates to the increase of pot farms in the area." Board Ordinance 2016-019 established the County's reasonable regulations for marijuana production, processing, and retailing operations at DCC 18.116.330. Deschutes County Code (DCC) at 18.116.330(B)(8) requires a marijuana production site to only prove it has legal access to a constructed public, County, or State road or has access from a private road or easement with written permission to use that private road or easement. Further, DCC 18.116.330(B)(8) only applies to marijuana production facilities of more than 5,000 square feet of mature canopy. The applicant's proposal is for a mature canopy of 5,000 square feet so the requirements of DCC 18.116.330(B)(8) are inapplicable. The traffic study requirements of DCC 18.116.310 are not applicable for this marijuana production as the application did not trigger site plan review and thus does not need to show compliance with DCC 18.124.080(J), which cross references the County's traffic study requirements of DCC 18.116.310. However, for purposes of discussion, staff would point out the subject application would not have met the threshold for the County's traffic studies requirements even if they were applicable. DCC 18.116.310(C)(3)(a) states no traffic analysis is required "if there are fewer than 50 trips per day Quality Services Pcrji)rfned ivith Pride generated during a weekday." The County, as a matter of Board -approved policy, uses the category Warehousing (Land Use 150) of the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) trip generation manual when assessing marijuana production sites for transportation system development charges (SDCs) or if the site does go through site plan review. Warehousing generates 3.56 weekday trips per 1,000 square feet. The applicant is proposing three new greenhouses of 4,080 square feet each (30' X 136') for a total of 12,240 square feet in cannabis production or support (4,080' X 3). The subject property would generate approximately 44 weekday trips.' Therefore no further traffic analysis would be required as the use is below the threshold of 50 weekday trips. Staff points out the County does not require traffic analysis from any other agricultural operation (alfalfa, vineyards, hops, specialty crops, or other plants grown indoors such as vegetables, flowers, spices, etc.) and thus is treating marijuana production consistent with other crops. Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) zoned properties such as this one are expected to produce agricultural -related trips from outright permitted uses. Finally, staff notes there is no state requirement for traffic analysis in the review of a land use permitted outright or conditionally in an existing zone. The state only requires traffic analysis under Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-012, aka the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR), for plan amendments and zone changes. Even that mandate is tempered by the criteria of 660- 012-0060 and adverse effects. The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) does have traffic requirements related to their approach road permitting process under OAR 734-051, but Alfalfa Market Road is a County road and not a state highway so those are inapplicable. The application was reviewed consistent with the traffic study section of the County's development code and complies with those requirements. 2. Consistency with TSP Goal 1 On Page 3, the appellant claims the proposed use is inconsistent with TSP Goal 1, which states "...to achieve an efficient, safe, convenient and economically viable transportation system... system."z The appellant claims the approval will also cause increased traffic along an easement that leads from the subject property to Alfalfa Market Road by crossing her client's property. (The subject property is roughly 1,320 feet north of Alfalfa Market Road.) The appellant errs regarding consistency with TSP Goal 1 for reasons stated below. Goal 1, Policy 1 concerns the protection of the transportation system via various techniques, including land use reviews and collection of SDCs. Policy 1.1(b) and Policy 1.1(c) call for review of large development projects and setting of conditions of approval to protect the transportation system.3 a These policies work in concert with DCC 18.116.310(C) for the County to determine the base level of generated trips that would require traffic analysis and possibly mitigation. The trip threshold is the basis for what it significant and less than 50 new weekday trips is deemed insignificant. The proposed use would generate 44 new weekday trips. Policy 1.1(d) refers to the ' 3.56 trips X 12.24 = 43.57 weekday trips 2 Goal 1 in full states "Achieve an efficient, safe, convenient and economically viable transportation and communication system. This system includes roads, rail lines, public transit, air, pipeline, pedestrian and bicycle facilities. The Deschutes County transportation system shall be designed to serve the existing and projected needs of the unincorporated communities and rural areas within the County. The system shall provide connections between different modes of transportation to reduce reliance on any one mode." 3 Policy 1.1(b) "Review of future large development and transportation projects that significantly affect the County's transportation system." a Policy l .1(c) "Requirements of conditions of approval on developments and transportation projects that have a significant effect on the County's transportation system." N collection of SDCs to protect the system.5 The subject application was assessed $15,478 in SDCs based on an SDC rate of $3,937 per p.m. peak hour and the site's 4 p.m. peak hour trips .6 Regarding the easement, staff points out that there is a private easement between private parties, but its terms are not a land use approval criterion. The Clerk's Office does indicate a private easement dated Aug. 3, 1983, and recorded as Document 83-13378 between the subject property's previous owner (Norman Perkins) and the appellant's property's previous owner (Bernice Teeter). The easement is for "roadway purposes" and does not appear to have any restrictive terms other than width; the easement is silent on amount of vehicle usage. Whether there is a limit to the number of vehicles that can use the easement is a matter between private parties, not the County's land use system. The application is consistent with and complies with TSP Goal 1 and its supporting review criteria of DCC 18.116.310. 3. Consistency with TSP Goal 4 On Page 4 the appellant claims the existing transportation network is insufficient and congested with the proposed use exacerbating Alfalfa Market Road. More specifically, the appellant claims TSP Goal 4 is not met as it requires developments to provide transportation improvements commensurate with the development's impacts.' Staff notes when the TSP modeled the County's road system for 2030 volumes, Alfalfa Market Road was not found to be over capacity or nearing capacity. The Ione exception was the intersection of Alfalfa Market -Neff roads/Powell Butte Highway. The County, however, constructed a rural roundabout there, which opened July 29, 2016, thus mitigating that intersection. The improved intersection now meets County standards. The County's performance standard for a roadway segment is Level of Service (LOS) D, which equates to up to 9,600 average daily traffic (ADT). Appellant claims Alfalfa Market Road is experiencing extreme congestion and residents are at significant hazard. Appellant provides no factual data to support this claim. Staff notes the most recent count of average daily traffic (ADT) for Alfalfa Market Road is 2,948 (ADT) in 2015 or roughly 31 percent capacity.8 Staff often drives this road for site visits and has not witnessed any congestion. The appellant cites the lack of bike lanes, sidewalks, or shoulders. The TSP classifies Alfalfa Market Road as a Rural Arterial. The road is built to County standards for its classification. The County does not require sidewalks on a Rural Arterial nor bike lanes. Instead, the County uses shared shoulder bikeways, meaning cyclists ride on the paved shoulder, which under DCC 17.48.050 and Table A can be 3 to 5 feet in width. Typically, Rural Arterials have higher running speeds due to basic rule and serve larger scale properties. They do not have sidewalks, marked crosswalks, or bike lanes. Those features are found when Rural Arterials transition into either cities or urban unincorporated communities. 5 Policy 1.1(d) "Collection of transportation System Development Charges (SDCs) for approved land uses as prescribed under BOCC Resolution 2008-059." 6 Warehousing generates 0.32 p.m. peak hour trips per 1,000 square feet. (0.32 X 12.24) = 3.9 p.m. peak hour trips 7 Goal 4 "Establish a transportation system supportive of a geographically distributed and diversified economic base, while also providing a safe, efficient network for residential mobility and tourism." 8 2,948/9,600 X 100 The appellant has not provided any factual information from a licensed engineer that demonstrates Alfalfa Market Road is severely congested. Land uses do add traffic to the system, however, that increase is allowable unless the development will cause the facility to exceed the applicable mobility standard. An addition of 4 (four) p.m. peak hour trips will not cause the intersection of the private easement/Alfalfa Market Road to exceed LOS D for an intersection or a roadway segment. Nor will 44 additional weekday trips nor 4 p.m. peak hour trips cause this segment of Alfalfa Market Road to exceed the County's performance standard. The appellant claims Goal 4 has not been met due to lack of traffic analysis related to marijuana. Appellant provides no factual data from a transportation professional that roadway segments serving marijuana production sites or driveways accessing marijuana sites have any crash history indicative of a systematic problem. Appellant misunderstands the intent of broad policy goals vs. site-specific operational analysis. One could argue marijuana production as a newly legalized crop is consistent with the goal of a diversified economic base. Finally, appellant makes much of the alleged adverse traffic effects upon the Alfalfa community. Alfalfa is a designated Rural Service Center (RSC), a type of unincorporated community, but it is critical to recognize this RSC lies more than a mile to the east of the subject property. The reason that direction is significant is under the traffic theory of retail gravitation and traffic modeling, the vast majority of traffic to the site can be expected to come from the largest population center. That would describe Bend, which is west of the site. In other words, the overwhelming majority of employees and delivery vehicles will not even reach Alfalfa as they will be going to and from Bend, a city of more than 90,000 rather than the settlement of Alfalfa, which has less than 500 people in the outlying area while the core of the RSC on Alfalfa Market Road has but a handful of houses and one convenience store. The application complies with and is consistent with TSP Goal 4. 4. Consistency with TSP Policy 4.6 Also on Page 4 the appellant claims the application is inconsistent with Policy 4.6 as the County requires a development to "require improvements will match level and impact of development".9 The County bases development mitigations on traffic analysis, which in turn is based on p.m. peak hour trips. Based on the calculations for SDCs, the proposed use would generate 4 (four) p.m. peak hour trips. As described above, the site would produce roughly 44 daily trips and 4 would be in the p.m. peak hour. Given the 2,948 ADT on Alfalfa Market Road in 2015, the road would not meet the warrants for any improvements such as left turn lanes or right turn lanes into the property. There simply is not enough traffic on Alfalfa Market Road to require separating turning vehicles from through traffic. In other words, the traffic effects of this land use are minimal. Appellant does not provide any factual data from a transportation professional demonstrating otherwise. The SDCs will mitigate the development's impact. The application is consistent with and complies with TSP Policy 4.6. 9 Policy 4.6: "Deschutes County shall manage the development process to obtain adequate street right-of-way improvements commensurate with the level and impact of development. New development shall provide traffic impact analysis to assess these impacts and to help determine transportation system needs. The guidelines for traffic impact analysis shall be located within Deschutes County Code ("DCC") Chapter 17.48, Deschutes County Road Design and Specification Standards." 4 5. Consistency with TSP Goal 10 Appellant on Page 5 claims the lack of traffic analysis is inconsistent with Goal 10 to "maintain the current arterial and collector system in the County and prevent degradation of the capacity of the system." Again, appellant misunderstands that degradation does not mean an absolute prohibition of any new trips onto the system. Land uses are allowed to generate new trips until they cause the affected roadway segment or intersection to not meet the applicable performance standard, which for a County facility is LOS D. See DCC 18.116.310(H)(1) and (1)(1). The application is consistent with and complies with TSP Goal 10. 6. Miscellaneous transportation issues Throughout the Nov. 13, 2017, memo the appellant ascribes increased traffic to marijuana operations. Yet, these are just assertions, the appellant has not provided any factual data from a professional traffic engineer or other transportation professional. The increased traffic on Alfalfa Market Road could be related to additional residential development in Deschutes and Crook counties, commuting traffic from Prineville and western Crook County as the route of Johnson Ranch Road to Alfalfa Market Road is a popular route to/from Bend (Johnson Ranch Road is a north -south collector about a mile east of the grow site and 1,278 feet west of Alfalfa Rural Service Center). Other sources of traffic on Alfalfa Market Road are visitors and workers to the various equine training facilities in the area or traffic to/from the Brasada Ranch, which is a destination resort in western Crook County accessed via Johnson Ranch Road. Finally, Alfalfa Market Road is the direct access to recreational areas on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) property as well as Prineville Reservoir. In other words, there are numerous other factors affecting traffic loads on Alfalfa Market Road. In the most recent traffic counts, the road in 2012 had 2,581 ADT and 2,948 ADT in 2015, an increase of 367 ADT. Yet, the County did not legalize marijuana operations until 2016. Thus, traffic increase predated the legalization of marijuana growing, processing, or retail operations. Lastly, the appellant on several pages references the lack of any traffic analysis being performed when Deschutes County adopted its marijuana regulations via Ord. 2016-015, which amended Title 18. Appellant claims this violates Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 475B.340. Staff rejects that argument for two reasons. First, Board Ordinance 2016-019 established the County's reasonable regulations. That ordinance was not appealed. The time to raise the argument of whether the Board's ordinance was inconsistent with ORS 47513.340 has passed. Appellant is making an unpermitted collateral attack on the County's adopted ordinance. Second, the permitted uses added to DCC 18.116.330 are defined by the state as agricultural uses. The County is not required to predict or analyze the trip generation aspect unique to any one particular crop. Again, the appellant has not entered any factual evidence into the record by a transportation engineer or transportation professional regarding the traffic characteristics specific to marijuana production, processing, and retailing and how they differ from other crops. Conclusion Staff finds no credible transportation arguments in the appellant's submitted nor is there any factual evidence demonstrating this application would adversely affect Alfalfa Market Road. Cameron Yee S20 Dynamics 25606 Alfalfa Market Road Bend, OR 97701 September 13, 2017 RE: S20 Dynamics cannabis odor and noise per Deschutes County Code DCC 18.116.330 Cameron, With respect to odor control methods and sound pressure levels at your cannabis growing facility at 25606 Alfalfa Market Road, Bend, OR 97701, located within Deschutes County: Cannabis Odor The Deschutes County code DCC 18.116.330(B)(10) reads: 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 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. We have verified that you have installed louvers and prop fans to be used for natural ventilation/cooling inside the building. You have indicated that you plan to designate an area of your property for composting. The composting area must be enclosed and provided with prop fans for pass-thru ventilation. If additional growing buildings are to be added at a future date they must have the same natural ventilation system as the existing building to comply with this letter. The exhaust air must be treated for odor control. You have indicated that you intend to utilize fogger technology for odor control at your growing facility. A ring -type fogger, (BioWorld Products, Fogco, or similar) shall be adequate to eliminate odor from the exhaust airstream from the growing building, compost building, and any future growing buildings. We have observed this COLEBREIT E N G 1 N E E R I N G unit in operation at a similar facility. The fogger injects an odor neutralizer directly into the exhaust airstream. With the fogger turned off, we could smell the growing plants in the exhaust airstream. With the fogger turned on, we could no longer smell the plants. The unit is CE listed. The fogger shall be wired into the exhaust fan control system such that whenever the exhaust fans are energized, the logger will also be turned on. Each exhaust fan must be supplied by a fogger. Providing odor control products via a logger in the exhaust airstream, as described above, will satisfy the requirements of DCC 18.116.330(B)(10)(d)(ii), and prevent unreasonable interference of neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. Noise The Deschutes County code DCC 18.116.330(B)(11)(a) reads: Noise. Noise produced by marijuana production and marijuana processing shall comply with the following: 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. The cooling equipment at the facility will run intermittently when there is a call for cooling. Therefore, the noise will not be sustained as we understand the intent of the code. Wall hung space heaters have been installed in the interior of the building. The walls of the building provide adequate noise mitigation to the exterior of the building. (2) J&D Manufacturing 50" Typhoon type exhaust fans have been installed on the East facing wall of each of the two growing structures for cooling purposes. The nearest East property line is approximately 500' away from the facility. The nearest West property line is approximately 450' away but the building will mitigate noise in that direction. The nearest South property line is over 700' away and the property has no neighbor to the North. Ambient sound pressure levels, with no equipment running, at the nearest East property line was measured at 7:00 a.m. at 42 dBA. With the fans running the sound pressure measurement at the same location was 42.6 dBA. The difference of 0.6 dBA is less than 3 dBA which (according to the US Department of Transportation) studies have shown is barely perceptible to the human ear. No sound pressure level readings on the property were measured below 30 dBA regardless of mechanical equipment operation. As no equipment runs continuously, additional growing buildings constructed in the same manner as the existing structure will comply with the code regarding noise mitigation. It is our opinion that since the mechanical equipment exterior to the building will operate intermittently upon call for cooling and since a difference of 0.6 dBA is not perceptible to the human ear, the property will comply with DCC 18.116.330(B)(11)(a). COLEBREIT E N 0 1 N E E R I N 0 PRn ENGINEER Best Regards, u 6"W:El OREG N 25, eRr E �P Rob James, P.E. ColeBreit Engineering EXPIRES 6/30/19 COLEBREIT E N 0 1 N E E R I N 0 10,16117 Cameron Yee S2O Dynamics 25606 Alfalfa Market Rd Bend, OR 97701 RE: Will Serve Letter In response to your inquiry, please be advised that S2O Dynamics located at 25606 Alfalfa Market Rd is allowed to purchase water for commercial use from Alfalfa Water, LLC. Alfalfa Water iswilling and able to provide this water for use with recreational cannabis. Best Regards, Loraine Green Alfalfa Water, LLC 26161 Willard Rd Bend, OR 97701 541-815-0964 David House C'O Cameron Yee 25606 Alfalfa Market Rd Bend, OR 97701 RE: Will Serve Letter for 25606 Alfalfa Market Rd/Greenhouse In response to your inquiry, please be advised that the property located at T,17S., RNE., W.M., Section 22, Tax Lot 1400 in Deschutes County, Oregon, is within the service area of Central Electric Cooperative, Inc. Central Electric Cooperative has reviewed the provided load information (200 amp Single phase service) associated with the submitted Cannabis Grow Facility and is willing; and able to serve this location in accordance with the rates and policies and of Central Electric Cooperative. 5incemiy, Robert E Fowler L-nginecrinb Service Representative mPOO P Cs _t \ FOR � ^O ffouST zi SHEET �\ 70 = w_a s +\W Bp AR 9770, ®°wz +> ee _ . z , .a. /_s mV BESOMITTS ORECO � -)=-- - § , . / \ / \ i ( - \ \\\\ \ �\\ \ ()\ �\\ \ mPOO P Cs _t FOR � ^O ffouST SHEET 70 = w_a s +\W Bp AR 9770, ®°wz +> ee _ . z , .a. /_s mV BESOMITTS ORECO BEFORE THE WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE OF OREGON In the Matter of Transfer Application ) FINAL ORDER APPROVING A T-12263, Deschutes County ) CHANGE IN POINT OF APPROPRIATION, A CHANGE IN PLACE OF USE, AND A CHANGE IN CHARACTER OF USE Authority Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 537.705 and 540.505 to 540.580 establish the process in which a water right holder may submit a request to transfer the point of appropriation, place of use, or character of use authorized under an existing water right. Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) Chapter 690, Division 3 80 implement the statutes and provides the Department's procedures and criteria for evaluating transfer applications. Applicant DAVID HOUSE 13 LINCOLN LAUREL ROAD BLAIRSTOWN, NJ 07825 Findings of Fact 1. On February 1, 2016, S20 DYNAMICS filed an application to change the point of appropriation and to change the place of use and to change the character of use under Certificate 90952. The Department assigned the application number T-12263. 2. Notice of the application for transfer was published on February 9, 2016, pursuant to OAR 690-380-4000. No comments were filed in response to the notice. 3. On August 31, 2016, the Department approved an assignment of Transfer Application T-12263 to David House. 4. On December 22, 2016, the Department contacted the applicant's agent to notify them of deficiencies in the application and map. On January 27, 2017, the applicant's agent submitted new maps and amended application pages resolving the deficiencies. 5. On December 8, 2015, Transfer Application T-12214 was filed, on December 10, 2015, Transfer Application T-12215 was filed, on January 11, 2016, Transfer Application T-12241 was filed, on February 1, 2016, Transfer Applications T-12264 and T-12265 were filed. These transfers all modify the same right, described by Certificate 90952, that has been This final order is subject to judicial review by the Court of Appeals under ORS 183.482. Any petition for judicial review must be filed within the 60 -day time period specified by ORS 183.482(1). Pursuant to ORS 536.075 and OAR 137-003-0675, you may petition for judicial review or petition the Director for reconsideration of this order. A petition for reconsideration may be granted or denied by the Director, and if no action is taken within 60 days following the date the petition was filed, the petition shall be deemed denied. T-12263.fo.approve.sah Page 1 of 5 Special Order Volume 107 Page bit% proposed to be modified in T-12263. Certificate 90952 shall be canceled after all transfer applications are processed. 6. On June 16, 2017, the Department mailed a copy of the draft Preliminary Determination proposing to approve Transfer Application T-12263 to the applicant. The draft Preliminary Determination cover letter set forth a deadline of July 16, 2017, for the applicant to respond. 7. On July 21, 2017, the Department received a request to extend the completion date to five years, the completion date will now be October 1, 2023. 8. On September 5, 2017, the applicant's agent provided the necessary information to demonstrate that the applicant is authorized to pursue the transfer. The applicant requested that the Department proceed with issuance of a Preliminary Determination. 9. On October 11, 2017, the Department issued a Preliminary Determination proposing to approve Transfer T-12263 and mailed a copy to the applicant. Additionally, notice of the Preliminary Determination for the transfer application was published on the Department's weekly notice on October 17, 2017, and in the Bend Bulletin newspaper on October 14, and 21, 2017, pursuant to ORS 540.520 and OAR 690-380-4020. No protests were filed in response to the notices. 10. The portion of the right to be transferred is as follows: Certificate: 90952 in the name of NIKKIA SUMMER RAIN MALLOY (perfected under Pen -nit G-11126) Use: IRRIGATION OF 1.9 ACRE-- Priority CREPriority Dates: OCTOBER 12, 1990 FOR IRRIGATION USE Rate: 0.04 CUBIC FOOT PER SECOND (CFS) FOR IRRIGATION Source: ONE WELL, within the DESCHUTES RIVER BASIN Authorized Point of Appropriation: Twp Rng Mer Sec Q -Q Measured Distances IRRIGATION 640 FEET NORTH AND 1400 FEET EAST FROM 17 S 13 E WM 16 SE NE THE C 1/4 CORNER OF SECTION 16 Authorized Place of Use: 11. Certificate 90952 does not specify the irrigation season, nor is an irrigation season specified by basin program or decree. Consistent with OAR 690-250, the irrigation season is March I through October 31. T-I2263.pd.approve, sah Page 2 of 5 Special Order Volume 107 Page 1\"k IRRIGATION T Rng Mer Sec Q -Q Acres 17S 13 E WM 16 NE NE 0.5 17S 13E WM 16 SW NE 0.1 17S 13 E WM 16 SE NE 1.3 11. Certificate 90952 does not specify the irrigation season, nor is an irrigation season specified by basin program or decree. Consistent with OAR 690-250, the irrigation season is March I through October 31. T-I2263.pd.approve, sah Page 2 of 5 Special Order Volume 107 Page 1\"k 12. Transfer Application T-12263 proposes to move the authorized point of appropriation approximately 10 miles from the existing point of appropriation to: TWP Rng Mer Sec Q -Q Measured Distances 17S 14 E WM ' 22 NW SW 1.9 680 FEET SOUTH AND 700 FEET EAST FROM 17S 14 E WM 22 NW SW THE W 1 /4 CORNER OF SECTION 22 13. Transfer Application T-12263 proposes to change the character of use to nursery use. 14. Transfer Application T-12263 also proposes to change the place of use of the right to: NURSERY USE T Rn Mer Sec Q -Q Acres 1 17S 14 E WM ' 22 NW SW 1.9 15. The amount of water used for NURSERY OPERATIONS is limited to a diversion of 0.15 cubic foot per second per acre and 5.0 acre feet per acre per year. For the irrigation of containerized nursery plants, the amount of water diverted is limited to ONE -FORTIETH of one cubic foot per second (or its equivalent) and 5.0 acre feet per acre per year. For the irrigation of in -ground nursery plants, the amount of water diverted is limited to ONE - EIGHTIETH of one cubic foot per second (or its equivalent) and 2.5 acre feet per acre per year. The use of water for NURSERY OPERATIONS may be made at any time of the year that the use is beneficial. For the irrigation of any other crop, the amount of water diverted is limited to ONE -EIGHTIETH of one cubic foot per second (or its equivalent) and 2.5 acre feet per acre during the irrigation season of each year. 16. Using the nursery rate and duty described in Finding of Fact No. 15 above, the rate of diversion, place of use, and quantity of water for the proposed nursery use under the portion of the right for irrigation use shall be limited to a maximum rate of diversion of 0.04 cubic foot per second (cfs) during the irrigation season of each year, a place of use of 0.266 acre in area (0.04 cfs . 0.15 cfs/acre = 0.266 acre), and a total volume diverted of not to exceed 1.33 acre foot (0.266 acre x 5.0 acre feet = 1.33 acre foot) during the irrigation season of March 1 through October 31, further limited to: Containerized nursery plants - A maximum rate of diversion of 0.04 cfs, a place of use of 1.6 acre (0.04 cfs - 0.025 cfs/acre), and a maximum total volume diverted of 8.0 acre feet (1.6 acre x 5.0 acre feet per acre) during the irrigation season of March 1 through October 31, or In -ground nursery plants- A maximum rate of diversion of 0..04 cfs, a place of use of 3.2 acres (0.04 cfs _ 0.0125 cfs/acre), and a maximum total volume diverted of 8.0 acre feet (3.2 acre x 2.5 acre feet per acre) during the irrigation season of March 1 through October 31. Transfer Review Criteria (OAR 694-380-4010) 17. Water has been used within the last five years according to the terms and conditions of the right. There is no information in the record that would demonstrate that the right is subject to forfeiture under ORS 540.610. T-12263.pd.approve.sah Page 3 of 5 Special Order Volume 107 Page 21S 18. A pump, pipeline, and sprinkler system sufficient to use the full amount of water allowed under the existing right were present within the five-year period prior to submittal of Transfer Application T-12263. 19. The proposed changes, as conditioned, would not result in enlargement of the right. 20. The proposed changes would not result in injury to other water rights. 21. All other application requirements are met. Conclusions of Law The change in point of appropriation, change in place of use, and change in character of use proposed in Transfer Application T-12263 are consistent with the requirements of ORS 537.705 and 540.505 to 540.580 and OAR 690-380-5000. Now, therefore, it is ORDERED: The change in point of appropriation, change in place of use, and change in character of use proposed in Transfer Application T-12263 are approved. 2. The right to the use of the water is restricted to beneficial use at the place of use described, and is subject to all other conditions and limitations contained in Certificate 90952 and any related decree. Water right Certificate 90952 is cancelled. A new certificate will be issued describing that portion of the right not affected by this transfer and transfers T-12214, T-12215, T-12241, T-12264 and T-12265. The quantity of water and place of use allowed for the proposed nursery use under the portion of the right for irrigation use shall not exceed a rate of diversion of 0.04 cubic foot per second (cfs), a place of use of 0.266 acre in area, and a total volume diverted of not to exceed 1.33 acre foot during the irrigation season of March 1 through October 31. Containerized nursery plant use shall be limited to a rate of diversion of 0.04 cfs and a place of use of 1.6 acre in area, further limited to a total volume of water diverted of 8.0 acre feet during the irrigation season of March I to October 31. In -ground nursery plant use shall be limited to a rate of diversion of 0.04 efs and a place of use of 3.2 acres in area, further limited to a total volume of water diverted of 8.0 acre feet during the irrigation season of March 1 through October 31. 5. The quantity of water diverted at the new point of appropriation shall not exceed the quantity of water lawfully available at the original point of appropriation. 6. Water shall be acquired from the same aquifer (water source) as the original point of appropriation. 7. The former place of use of the transferred right shall no longer receive water under the right. 8. Water use measurement conditions: T- 12263.pd.approve.sah Page 4 of 5 Special Order Volume 107 Page iA'O a. Before water use may begin under this order, the water user shall install a totalizing flow meter, or, with prior approval of the Director, another suitable measuring device at each new point of appropriation. b. The water user shall maintain the meter or measuring device in good working order. c. The water user shall allow the Watermaster access to the meter or measuring device; provided however, where the meter or measuring device is located within a private structure, the Watermaster shall request access upon reasonable notice. 9. Full beneficial use of the water shall be made, consistent with the terms of this order, on or before October 1, 2023. A Claim of Beneficial Use prepared by a Certified Water Right Examiner shall be submitted by the applicant to the Department within one year after the deadline for completion of the changes and full beneficial use of the water. 10. After satisfactory proof of beneficial use is received, a new certificate confirming the right transferred will be issued. Dated at Salem, Oregon this D day of November, 2017. Dight cervices Administrator, for Thomas N. fVler, Director Oregonate Resources Department Mailing date: NOVg� 92017 --- __ T- 12263.pd.approve.sah Page 5 of 5 Special Order Volume 107 Page'Zq P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6G05 (541) 388-6575 Fax (541) 385-1764 http://,A.rww.deschutes.org/cd January 4, 2017 Re: Larger format site plan for January 10th hearing, file 247-17-000923-A Dear Commissioners: Attached is a copped and enlarged version of the applicant's site plan for the appeal hearing next week. This is from Attachment 10 of the memo at yesterday's work session. Please let me know if you need anything else. Thank you, DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION Jacob Ripper, Associate Planner Quality Set,vices Petfi)t-medwith Pride Zs \ AIKEN Well Drilling, Inc. 53 NW Tumalo Ave Bend, OR 97703 Office: 541-548-1245 Cell: 541 -977 -WELL (9355) Fax: 541-388-1643 Email: aikendrilling@gmail.com gmail.com www.AikenWellDrilling.com Invoice# 26-281 Invoice Date 2/16/17 Terms Job Name Due on receipt Bill To Jean Nelsen 29329 Johnson Ranch RD Bend, OR 97701 541-420-3927 Jobsite Qty Description Rate Amount 1 Clean Well to Bottom 500.00 500.00 49 Well Deepening, per foot 30.00 1,470.00 1 Mobilization & Set-up Fee 1,500.00 1,500.00 120 5" Steel liner .188" per foot ( 5" casing maybe used or recommend after deepening the 13.50 1,620.00 well.) 1 Drive shoe may be used in conjunction with well Casing. 180.00 180.00 1 Permit Oregon Water Resources Department 225.00 225.00 Payment due according to terms above. Accounts 5 days past due are subject to late charges assessed at 24% APR. Your prompt payment is always appreciated... Thank you!! Total $5,495.00 Thompson 0 PUMP &Irrigation Inc. THOMPSON PUMP & IRRIGATION 63002 SHERMAN RD BEND OR 97703 (541) 382-1438 STATEMENT ACCOUNT PAGE DATE NUMBER NO 28 -Jun -17 5877 1 TO: JEAN NELSEN 62939 JOHNSON RANCH RD. BEND, OR 97701 Statement Of Account i p"RCgAcF5 AqF nnF AND PAYABLE BY 10th OF MONTH FOLLOWING PURCHASE DATE �- INVOICE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT BALANCE 27 -Jun -17 3894 OPENING BALANCE 0.00 REPLACE PUMP 5530.60 0.00 5530.60 CURRENT PAST DUE PAST DUE PAST DUE TOTAL AMT DUE 1 MONTH 2 MONTHS 3 MONTHS DUE 5530.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 5530.60 THOMPSON PUMP AND IRRIGATION CCB# - 56341 << CUT ALONG DASHED LINE THOMPSON PUMP & IRRIGATION 63002 SHERMAN RD BEND OR 97703 STATEMENT ACCOUNT DATE NUMBER 28 -Jun -17 5877 TO INSURE PROPER CREDIT TO YOUR ACCOUNT ALWAYS RETURN THIS PORTION OF THE STATEMENT WITH YOUR PAYMENT << CUT ALONG DASHED LINE AMOUNT REMITTED INVOICE AMOUNT X OPENING 3894 i i i i 1 i i i 0.00 5530.60 O O PLEASE PAY THIS AMT TOTAL > 5530.60 From: Jean Nelsen[mailto:JeanNelsen@johnlscott.com] Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 2:25 PM To: GIFFIN Jeremy T * WRD Subject: Alfalfa Jeremy, last night I spoke to a neighbor (whose name, I'm sorry to say escapes me) who works at your front desk. I asked her if there was anything weird with our aquafer in Alfalfa because in the last year, 4 of us within a'/z mile radius have had to deepen our wells and I'm fairly certain another one is about to. She said no, that it had been investigated and there's nothing wrong with the aquafer. Could you tell me the nature of that investigation and how we know? It seems odd to most of us that two large marijuana growers have drilled ag wells and now all the sudden the rest of us are having to drill deeper. q2717111 Licensed in the State of Oregon John L. Scott 50 SW Bond, Ste 1 Bend OR 97702 541-420-39279 Cell 541-317 0123, Office Please Review Orson Agency Disclosure Pamphlet Standing in your shoes, thlnkrng f °om your perspectrYe, meetingyour needs. Wonder what the house you drone by costs? My new GPS Mobile App will tell you! Download using this Irnk- lits—ZZilsaDD. com efsen 6 Jean Nelsen From: GIFFIN Jeremy T * WRD <Jeremy.T.Giffin@oregon.gov> Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 4:25 PM To: Jean Neisen Subject: RE: Alfalfa Jean, Here is an email from our OWRD hydrogeologist regarding the water levels in the alfalfa area. I do not know of any declining wells in the area and the observation wells in the area seem to back that up. Jeremy Hello Mr. Ghesley, Your observation that there are not current water -level measurements for wells within the vicinity of Alfalfa is accurate. In general, our water -level data in this area is sparse, with only 4 wells with a meaningful number of water -level measurements with the surrounding area (see hydrograph and map). One of these wells (DESC 5180) is located in the immediate vicinity of Alfalfa. Comparing the hydrograph for DESC 5180 with the hydrograph for a State Observation Well located in Bend (DESC 5045), we see a larger seasonal variation (approximately 13 feet) and no apparent annual water level decline over the period of record in the Alfalfa area whereas we see minimal seasonal variation approximately 35 feet of annual water level decline over the period of record in the Bend area. 3 27601--.__o...._. 2750 1 2740 0 Ate+ ,J M 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Date This has lead us to have minimal concerns in the Alfalfa area. However, the increase in use speaks to our need to pick up a well in the Alfalfa area for measurements. Ideally I will be able to pick up DESC 5180 again, although it appears ownership has changed. If you are aware of any property owners who may be willing to allow OWRD access to a well (ideally a well which is not in use) for water -level monitoring I would appreciate having my contact information passed to them. I will be in the area in late September and can be available to meet in the later part of the week of September 25th Cheers. Aurora Bouchier, R.G. Hydrogeologist Oregon Water Resources Department 725 Summer St., NE, Suite A Salem, OR 97301-1271 503.986.0841 Aurora.C.Bouchier aio�on.�ov "All the water that will ever be is, right now." —National Geographic, October 1993 "When the well is dry, we know the worth of water." —Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack,1746 5 Observation Well Data 59. a i 2700 r i 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Date 2 Observation Well Data 3360�- 4 CODE ENFORCEMENT COMPLAINT`FORM M16=11mum A 4"iflo) ("Y **** Continue on reverse side **** CE Corn olaini Form Rev, 09/16 Page i; 1 The top portion of this side is required and must be completed. [NOTICEPursuant to ORS 152.502(4) and, as applicable, ORS 192.501(1).identification of, and informaEion provide, . by the Complaining Partys) is kept confidential and is not subject to pubtic disclosure until such Time as the eodo:enforcement case is deemed closed:] Complaining P,`a4(s): (Your Name) Name: Vf) Y\ V\'k `i�(�.`�.{ `� :6 'o CityState - Zip: 6417(71 Daytlme:dhone#:. sir{ C) I State n violation be seen from the road? ( Ye No If not, what is the best inspection point? Is the Complainant a neighbor? ( ). es No The complainant gives_ t Code`EnforQ me "t Technician permission to use their property for viewing;the violation: "&A Yes ( ) No If not, why: Will you, the complainant, testify in court, should the need arise? Yes ( ) No (Note: your complaint may not be accepted without your being available to testify.) If you have photos, or other related information, that can be used as evidence of this violation, please submit them with this form. The submitted documentation will not be returned and will become part of the complaint file. '-.;. tinA :6't7u t- D Ilkh4• ; 2Y: By signing below, t declare, under penalty ;of perjury, that all information submitted on and with this form is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. COMPLAINANT DATE Thank you for assisting in making Deschutes County a better place to live. Your Code Enforcement Staff 0 3 7.057 ENT Wl'� PL, 0 Yff', NjUL MatiucHow In order furpur compAl'.0 zlcce,plmd, yaj raust OU in, rit f(-.-i',at 4:.h aqr.qrflv e1 ro"ll. h WE as POSM. wyw,f N,we , ny c,,-,,ffl ii,--,.,d,.��). -rilt at 644385AM7, MUMIMS! cow. HOMMO.II Q Clan 10V of MWIFYIS Z ta On wSpecynn EAZARDO AT 71-'!U� 1) vier 1111KNOWN . . . . . . I . . . . . I . CE Complaint Form Rev. 0g/16 Page 11 Coll' D,11h"Ws F, ENT Wl'� PL, 0 Yff', NjUL MatiucHow In order furpur compAl'.0 zlcce,plmd, yaj raust OU in, rit f(-.-i',at 4:.h aqr.qrflv e1 ro"ll. h WE as POSM. wyw,f N,we , ny c,,-,,ffl ii,--,.,d,.��). -rilt at 644385AM7, MUMIMS! cow. HOMMO.II Q Clan 10V of MWIFYIS Z ta On wSpecynn EAZARDO AT 71-'!U� 1) vier 1111KNOWN . . . . . . I . . . . . I . CE Complaint Form Rev. 0g/16 Page 11 Tlhe''UOQP F,� Drfituon of '0� an, 3�g aprpCocabOc`9 OGv"S 1 �'MGROJ 1 H) arc Mni'cor_iri]agoon prr@%Ad,,z by f -,ha' Comp- almET9 MamTV R� tiU ftapc CIA)" emilrW aimid cW Rvc)L zurcOcq �40 Pubfic ,bao unfi[ „u6`a iiome 2-2, ffRc, ,�;co}de 80WorcsnmrA e,nm: cs ddssmta: comedoj ti r J111ljp[l"").1GFl(you Vo: ill r� Mmrire ?I�7 br`1dl�,t'7ij[f+i.>'(1Cbso..,ikE�l1�S�Cv4a[i�n,. ! . �a �.•!CU) it (1 r �� ) r - } (°'1 7 i 4z <l , iy im"C'o Sf "o 4 h q Y r, s 7 F 4 7 rer tlri f? �.t r� [�_ �`, � P � �6��' Y� �. 1 l5 .. � � h �9 aVa �o�tuPO�au CcelpiilriliM 7(g','C-0wilrlc IJ6, 1) &o) u t� %til1eki'mvpvOcy� ftr rt II F � �� id nail, why. I^l �1L ali�� 11 �)aYi9 t1{f� B G1�i. t) Flt itiwl t� 4fi�ai Lf ��. t 134111�y l{!E 1A� ,�}�.. ' J'lt,. ��'� (A f f3-4 k�:tytE U�,.' `; a_v ywr cksr plY{n. iso;l�T.�3 ? l ;t. G.,� ],a i �ltz#s'1ti u-1 yoIfi3.b,SP'djg avi7lttz'bll I If you hwv photos, ,or other related 6r-ifori�; PaVcn, that carr € e used as 'evidence of � its vl.olaflon, please submit them with this- furfm `meas submjtLc,�d do'wrnent.aw-Hun vAli not be redlurned and. will becoRne par] y6r. the CornpicaoPl% file � o Uo6Ri � aleOcvw, P dlecOare, uRidev pefi 'diNq of pejury�-�� a10 onl�ornv�fciocl Rirucon ar`_ez1 2�4'RIfI}11 f(h , l'rom,vn W thole; and, alCcuara lio t&e I`mcbt;- co}% irr:» Cawou.Vcy:dlg*- u! nib e/�� Ir 1'Lr�ai '.Y= �c�� iris U :c✓a �ilL-'i]��rt�ll��; s1Ui'r a,�.c�.;v';,u:ft:`sji !�?iC�-, �'�i�i: C.�� i'(:ii!�::� L�� : ��;tt�`:C'(i ��,:.. ('> ✓ .I;''.?•.,�� %g7 rt;i('' � �f;,t.>; f:: Wit`',(✓"ugh �`I`iiY%w1'%?Jr Jfv�.�S'; is_`�.-,'r:r,i,, , ., f.':',:'•.'s:,+;a%�itk<`cit'3s.s:'.r'3'fia9 a.ktr�'Atr.,, ,.;cT.., ..„3.., ,., 1>A:S,s., a;. ,. f.�. ';,?z.::, ;.:; •Ir,S;c;S i:: '1, <r.. il. +cx°r;kZt::k';:.�1; .'r' t' s. �i. �.r' .-: 1isr: ;. �',Y.3'�f: ;:�1; ;. k�11 >;':k '',4:x5;;:'^s1�"r>sairk'sfr;.�.r P; si f.•f<x: Yku!"rs'rie t -.4h's4+,^:':h.zrkfk+ra':�'rs}?"rr, 1rA:°r•>'�:v;'a=lrsj'fss°;s`r-'r:Y.a �':,".rtki+sk �u•';;'r;i>r:. . �..,teikir.rsr hta'z+,tri•XYt"ri+trit:krVs'as,6r•<Yd:�i�'<rr:tc'.rA:;,'rfrtxr!'r:'zdr:hs'i'&Ys','rsY{z t? CE Complaint Form Rev. OOM Page 12 ,1 f4 A 2017 DESCHUTES COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DD 117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, OR 97703 �t`31sC,-!Jtltlfir� Telephone (541)388-6575, Fax (541)385-1764 Instructions: In order for your complaint to be accepted, you must fill in all questions Completely and is n t ae..sea t d . ta€ taf td is far aa: It is important that you supply as much detail as possible. If you have any questions,. call code. enforcement at 541-385-1707. Date: Sgptember 20. 2017 ****`Continue on next page **** The top portion of this page is required and must be completed. [NOTICE: Pursuant to ORS 152.502(4) and, as applicable, ORS 192.501(1) identification of, and information provided by the Complaining Party(s) is kept confidential and is not subject to public disclosure until such time as the code enforcement case is deemed closed.] Complaining arty(s): (Your Name) Name: Address: fig hdarkatRd City: Bend . Stag; OR ZIP: 97701 Daytime phone M 541-40JI-3646 Email: r.Jyeca9ledoPg X ahoO_rp[T7 Can violation be seen from the road? ( ) Yes (X) No If not, what is the best inspection point? Is the Complainant a neighbor? (X) Yes ( ) No The complainant gives the Code Enforcement Technician permission to use their property for viewing the violation: (X) Yes ( ) No If not, why: Will you, the complainant, testify in court, should the need arise? (X) Yes ( ) No (Note: your complaint may not be accepted without your being available to testify.) If you have photos, or other related information, that can be used as evidence of this violation, please submit them with this form. The submitted documentation will not be returned and will become part of the complaint file. By signing below, I declare, under penalty of perjury, that all Information submitted on and with this form is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. COMPLAINANT DATE Thank you for assisting in making Deschutes County a better place to live. Your Code Enforcement Staff FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Subdivision: Lot: Block: Attachment to CODE ENFORCEMENT COMPLAINT FORM dated 9/20/17, submitted by William Tye Details of Complaint (be specific): ODOR COMPLAINT FROM MARIJUANA OPERATION I own 40 acres (2 parcels) which are directly south of and adjacent to the subject property. I currently live there, and have lived there since 1979. In April 2017, 1 was contacted by and met with Burl Bryson, CEO, who wished to get a waiver from me for the easement across my property, which is used to access the subject parcel to my north. The property is evidently used to grow marijuana, and Mr. Bryson said they wanted to expand the operation up to 10,000 square feet in the future, but need an easement waiver to do so. He showed me the facilities on the property, and i saw two greenhouses and a small number of plants. Although I do not know very much about marijuana, I told him I was concerned about the odor because there is a large growing operation already in Alfalfa and the odor coming from it is very noticeable at times, Mr. Bryson told me their marijuana operation was only for growing medical marijuana, and that there would be no odor. He said there is only odor with recreational marijuana and not medical. I did not have very much information about their planned operation and did not feel it was in my best interest to sign the easement waiver at that time. The operation at that time was not bothersome to me, I had not noticed any odor, and I was not adversely impacted. However, recently and on a number of occasions, l have noticed an extremely unpleasant and pungent odor. This odor is very objectionable to me and impacts my daily activity. The odor makes my wife physically ill. It is my understanding that present county rules require an odor control system. Either there is not one in place, or if there is ane- it is not functioning. Further, I believe I was misled when Mr. Bryson told me there would be no odor from the medical marijuana plants. SEP 2 0 2017 N coag saooa N TYE ENGINEERING, INC. 725 NW HILL, BEND, OREGON 97703 (541) 389-6959 DATE: SEPT. 14, 2017 SCALE: DRAWN BY: P.A.T. AERIAL -3 9z l I v pF x: p �r TYE ENGINEERING, INC. 725 NW HILL, BEND, OREGON 97703 (541) 389-6959 DATE: SEPT. 14, 2017 SCALE: DRAWN BY: P.A.T. AERIAL -3 0 u N O*% O O O r***IW4 4—+ C c� cu a a 0 a) 0 +J a 0 N V 0 N W m zd �0 a Z v Q �CL u Cd L W cus.�n CL w �V a i— �0 a J ;r, 3' 5 ?� r A c Aar �m Zvi c a 181 =Ea.cc y Rua - E O V j'P •o O N b N O, N _ 3 ? ryry 3 m 9 TEM 3Y S N �Z•s�ro W� 0 3 m � � 0 �a• '� i E n« •� � � m � � g E a E a � .nc M �' 5 � a � Q 'Q � o � n og q' ? o i d m« s 9 �' c E = a O �dw0i DI lit /1 Vmiai d of 1p n '; T we `ial E a0o� o r_.. CoL 'q'�`�m'� qno d/ .�NIII :.;.0_. o QN to 21 � cm1Z 1111 mNE � aOv a`��rn E a � Q �;z �m1 EZ Nc 1S L1 ��B "INraO .¢�M�_ 1Q ev•-c�'H $ c� a 4c �m V • _cc� Wy �•E u o c Tn' All 'e °•{ n •g �IE o E E �''Q E p,wn�oirnN •� ERi• 0 1 b S O 0 u u J O 04 �.W O _j w0 F- LijN ua Z Z O Q u I e°k Z a,.a.o�t 9� ^ fi¢ -aq'� &' g•_a`.¢-«' N e8 �a Hl lii Q 44 5$ $ s:$_ `a i° i� § @! tr.I $ g s€ § d @� s•g �9 ;' a: e d ,�k U€ $%'� sE$@�•s a � �9s�s2n�• ° ill ��$FSS$.��d?�.��:ee'c�cAa�°e��$eaa�s�.5 �eso��.a�e�3�B N f� W F— O Q/� V y y •dg8� wa m ege a i p pb .� 'p 8 ;�u`e yfrEo ,, Q V °�: � s x � o= � N Al W 10. 0.Wis -<lz� $ipy 2x11�1 i� g @ aIn€ I y,. s S � 8a Ts v R:� So Ei. ka � by a $p; w i.erg `aI a`e�',��a M It ssgiiag �5x<szs $t;p��a�9 y°ex$ve ,�& �va 5�a1$` 8 eea a4M. � g9rieag U{y _�• � ..q �'_'$.��^„ g��v z�`' $ c $°d r@ fig' ,Is Lii W ep t sa 5 LA LR a w os.d o a' o1 3 $ $ k Rig 1 pf 3. E 6 tl 4 RL x ❑ �' £ .� aa$ aay yg,ab flit .4 fi }ooah:"$"a Wp11 t � a d1s.e1 pgg Ln A H ayae -?sa9s<. �S �r s� e a r�ga g asxe A � e -7, 0 Z 0 CL W X W W Q � Q � � � � Q � ! i ! \ ! ! \} !!!|/ !;!!d \ ] � � \ \ { ( ! ,Ii !!!f}! !;I}S I N � / z 0 ) Z \ � � \ � � r J ) � Q ; � � { 000 ` W W � � ! Qu ) -r W i u ) U { oU § _ f 0 ( ,{ �{ �[ ■ � | f N Q W Q W J Z Q Q 0 U- 0 W g Y w j `y pC E 46 � 3 v, �� 3 .R�° .c '`"� 6 •g c = �`�, a :c � ''°t m 0 vt a c e5 ro s h § •o" v G f W Z O a W Z^ � c2�sg 3 �3 A 4J'3o pp., 3 �� W O c� W •iy J Q m 'gCw3coi�von�,-• >m9v vet VI W co W o 3'i, iso oho c •a o w�� a.o o s mz 3.�•5c•' J i— ' _ E 0 5- �$ Ing � u3 Ul gs �o a aj�mvos;gc —g•sE m�3 `y U� adi a�_;QQa•C ��x�cc33.'�o�o .F�.. Q"a3 / Uj E o g � $ 5 _ p y q ^ o �p L U G T � 'G .O C rR- �g i Fi 1+. a� aacjii N O. 'O 0. ,tl n Tii y T O o �,e o `� E my Q° � a 3gi 41 E gb U3a?r,� � 3 T v d d ''@ ,S T.a1«3•o o. 3�a 9�n 3S 1.o m— o� o^ b a,� u ow N O J _Z Z LUW M J LL J 0 I 1 f � r� Y 1 O �OrA � O f" N C N G% N /VSMM I 1N W c cu l A S rwwH,, y,r W r {"z O j 1 00 00 O\ p 0 n Q� F p� T T N N ON in pto p v� G O v1 n o0 0o V\rn S s o� p� rn rn rn V LLJ Z V) V _Z Z LLJ a— L LI LiJ J L LI LLQ J LLQ J a LLI L/) D co z O CL G M LnZ O V arN —o Q Q LL a m 3 m a 2 CL tk fur c 0 m na 0 C V 6n aH N H O (D Ln Ln to In N ci —1 � Q 0 5 Q. � 61 1 E M N Z O O U V i- v ui m N O U N 0- f C 00 j, tlO E on _ O ++ In N U M N C O lD C N 7 L 2 ao `7 O CO' +LU N N O T y`p ti 'a V) E m" bO �, m m m Q J M M W V) Q a cq N m R 2 tk fur m V J J N Z 0 LL Z Q D CLOOQ 0 N 0 N W J M u N w w w dt ai d� 00 M N M W + 00' r Qt m s"" 4x _ y� rc � { E r E �Y i 4 c 3.. , 3 a a IJv m y ro m v � u $ P