2018-179-Minutes for Meeting April 02,2018 Recorded 5/22/2018•
.!'''It OF
COMMISSIONERS
1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon
(541) 3 88-65 70
1:30 PM
Recorded in Deschutes County CJ2018-179
Nancy Blankenship, County ClelK
Comm! ssioners' Journal 05/22/2018 9:50:24 AM
2018-179
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. Many citizens and one representative of the
media were in attendance.
CALL TO ORDER: Chair DeBone called the meeting to order at 1:32 p.m.
ACTION ITEMS
1. Draft Marijuana Assessment Report Presentation
Community Development Department staff Matt Martin, Zechariah Heck,
Nick Lelack, and Peter Gutowsky presented. This item was both video and
audio recorded and is available on www.deschutes.org. They provided a
brief overview of the process and findings and conclusions. The report is
available through the agenda packet on line on www.deschutes.or as well as
within the Community Development Department webpages.
The process started in dune 2017 and the Board made a commitment at that
time to re-evaluate the regulations. Commissioner DeBone asked for
clarification of the adopted regulations in relation to land use. Mr. Martin
spoke on the state law land use regulations. The assessment process began
in October 2017. Mr. Martin reported on regulations regarding marijuana in
Oregon. Mr. Martin reviewed the Deschutes County statistics of recreational
marihuana.
Zechariah Heck reported 30 processing applications were approved over the
past year. Staff have received an annual report from all 30 applicants and
have completed a site visit to each. He noted most properties were not
operational during the time of the site visit. A checklist was required to
ensure the sites were in compliance. Commissioner Henderson inquires if
the sites should be inspected prior to plants being grown.
Sheriff Nelson arrived and stated that the Sheriff's Office has zero tolerance
for non-compliance. He spoke on the regulations and his belief that all
applicants must be held strictly accountable. The Sheriffs Office and
Community Development Department work close together on code
enforcement. Code Enforcement has multiple layers. There were three sites
that are up for interpretation whether they are in compliance. Mr. Gutowsky
noted those operating under the Oregon Liquor Control Commission
licensing they are required to video record their security system to have
available at any time as requested by OLCC.
Mr. Martin reviewed the findings and conclusions. Staff looks to the
enforcement and compliance efforts. Cannabis land uses that do not require
local approval (existing medical) are having the greatest impact. Mr. Martin
reported on the finding on the regulations. Three options were presented:
continue monitoring while implementing the Board's interpretations of the
marijuana regulations, revise and/or clarify current marijuana regulations
stemming from the Board's Decision(s), or revisit the prominent regulatory
themes that emerge through the public involvement process.
Sheriff Nelson referenced the request from the Sheriffs Office and District
Attorney's Office to OHA seeking a list of the medical marijuana grows in
Deschutes County. The request was denied. Sheriff Nelson suggested the
Board contact Salem as he is adamant about not allowing additional grows in
the County. The Sheriff stated that there is significant overproduction in
Oregon right now. Discussion held on black market grows and the medical
marijuana grows.
PAGE 2OF6
Commissioner Baney feels there is good data through our assessment that
raises concern on water usage and requests Oregon Water Resources look at
the well draw down data. Regarding the Oregon Health Authority,
Commissioner Baney suggests a voluntary registry for medical marijuana
licensees to have access for compliance for our law enforcement and District
Attorney for the medical marijuana operations. Commissioner Henderson
noted for law enforcement concerns it also ties into our issue for Community
Development to make sure they meet out regulations because it's not only
the DA and Sheriff but it's the legal side of it. Commissioner Henderson
commented maybe the legislature in Oregon could address that next year
and wonders if there is a legal remedy at this point to receive the registry.
Commissioner Baney also commented on asking OLCC and the Governor's
Office to provide confirmation and assurance that the current sites are not
overproducing.
Commissioner Baney suggested two positions that would be funded also
through the Sheriff's Office, City of Bend and Deschutes County to be added
to the Code Enforcement team. Commissioner Henderson suggested some
of the money from marijuana taxes could cover the expense of enforcement.
Commissioner Baney spoke of land use and hearing's officer fees as it is clear
we are struggling with the enforcement and would like to find a way to
withhold on approving any more applications at this time. Commissioner
Baney questioned whether a 30 -day freeze on processing MJ production
applications might be in order. The applications could be accepted but not
fully processed until the Board has further determined the regulations.
Sheriff Nelson agrees there should be no more grows and reminds the
County of the important aspect of people needing to live next to these grows.
Commissioner Baney would also like to consider recording of the license
because of the illegal market that is active and wants to make the statement
that operating illegally is not acceptable. Commissioner Henderson wonders
if we could also look at a density rule or advisory vote by the public whether
they want to consider policy. Commissioner Baney clarified and asked
County Counsel David Doyle for his input. Counsel Doyle explained the
applications could be on hold recognizing however that the 150 -day rule for
processing complete applications would still apply. Commissioner Baney
asked if we could cap the number of licenses in the County. Counsel Doyle
PAGE 30F6
commented that while an outright moratorium pursuant to ORS Chp 197
would likely run afoul of ORS 475B (and HB 3400), the County could attempt
to implement production license caps as a form of reasonable TPM
regulation.
Commissioner Baney noted continued discussion on additional code
enforcement staff partnerships could be held at the Joint Meeting with the
City of Bend on Thursday. The Board expressed support on the additional
code enforcement staff.
Commissioner Henderson also requested review at a Work Session of all of
the regulations and fee schedule for applications. Commissioner DeBone
also feels there could be refinement of the reasonable regulations and
additional conversation will be held at the Wednesday, April 11 Work Session.
Nick Lelack also pointed out the Planning Commission would need to be
involved in a public hearing if there are any changes to land use code.
RECESS: At the time of 3:11 p.m., the Board took a short recess and reconvened in
the Allen Conference Room at 3:23 p.m.
2. Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinic (CCBHC) Quarterly
Update April 2018
Health Services staff present for the discussion were George Conway, DeAnn
Carr, Daniel Emerson, Tyler Nass, and Shannon Vandegriff. Client and Visit
statistics were reviewed of the Behavioral Health Services. Graphs showing
visits and count by program demographics were reviewed including client
income levels. The numbers of veterans enrolled in services were reviewed.
County Administrator Anderson inquired whether any of the veterans are
those that are also served by our Veterans Services office. Ms. Carr
commented she could find out. Commissioner Baney inquired if there was
any data on Veterans Administration Clinic and Dr. Conway reported the data
could be compiled. Cancellation and No Show for appointments were
PAGE 40F6
reviewed since April 2017. Commissioner Baney inquired whether any of the
statistics were due to the department changing the schedule. At the next
presentation the staff will bring further data on appointments and programs.
CCBHC Employee Staffing shows 22.8 FTE filled with 6.2 FTE in process.
Commissioner Baney inquired where the hiring fits in the timeframe of the
limited duration of the grant. Ms. Carr noted the difficulties in recruiting
psychiatrists so they have opted with Telehealth services. Commissioner
DeBone inquired if there was any activity in legislation for the funding. Dr.
Conway commented on the complex services and the activity of each
program. Ms. Carr spoke on the positive response of having peer support
specialists on staff.
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
At the time of 4:04 p.m., the Board went into Executive Session under ORS 192.660
(2) (h) Litigation. The Board came out Executive Session at 4:34 p.m.
COMMISSIONERS UPDATES:
• Commissioner DeBone noted the recent invitations for the OSU Cascades
State of the University event that will be held on Monday, May 7. OSU is
offering seats for the Commissioners.
Commissioner DeBone went to Pendleton last Wednesday and followed-up
up on a smoke management letter he brought to Washington DC and asked
Greg Walden in person about the concept. Conversations were around SRS
and Eastern Oregon Counties.
• Commissioner DeBone commented on a meeting he was invited to from a
citizen about Tumalo Highway 20 plan.
• Commissioner Henderson inquired on a solution on applying an acreage
minimum for flood plain and FEMA surveys.
PAGE 50F6
Commissioner Henderson inquired on the EOCA bill for $1200.00.
Commissioner DeBone explained the total cost of the trip for two members
traveling to Washington DC was split between counties and sent out for
payment. The Board discussed what Deschutes County's portion should be
and asked to see a detailed report of the expense. Commissioner
Henderson will call asking for clarification.
County Administrator Anderson inquired on the Central Oregon
Intergovernmental Council membership bill. Commissioner Henderson
needs more time to review. This will be included on the agenda for
Wednesday.
OTHER ITEMS: None were presented.
Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 4:54 p.m.
DATED this _ Day of 2.018 for the Deschutes County Board of
Commissioners.
'M
TAMMY Yv ISSI
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703
(541) 388-6570 — Fax (541) 385-3202 — https://www.deschutes.org/
WORK SESSION AGENDA
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
1:30 PM, MONDAY, APRIL 2, 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 addressed at the
meeting. This notice does not limit the ability of the Board to address additional subjects. Meetings are subject to
cancellation without notice. This meeting is open to the public and interested citizens are invited to attend.
Work Sessions allow the Board to discuss items in a less formal setting. Citizen comment is not allowed,
although it may be permitted at the Board's discretion. If allowed, citizen comments regarding matters that are or
have been the subject of a public hearing process will NOT be included in the official record of that hearing. Work
Sessions are not normally video or audio recorded, but written minutes are taken for the record.
CALL TO ORDER
ACTION ITEMS
1. Draft Marijuana Assessment Report Presentation - Matthew Martin, Long Range
Planner
2. Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinic (CCBHC) Quarterly Update April 2018 -
DeAnn Carr, Health Services Deputy Director
COMMISSIONER'S UPDATES
EXECUTIVE SESSION
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 Work Session Agenda Monday, April 2, 2018 Page 1 of 2
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.
ADJOURN
Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and
activities. To request this information in an alternate format please call (541) 617-4747.
FUTURE MEETINGS:
Additional meeting dates available at www.deschutes.org/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 Work Session Agenda Monday, April 2, 2018 Page 2 of 2
v
V
Z
(�
W
Q
�
w
Z
m
u
w
N
u
u
ca
O
N
N
ui
m
O
Z
H
Y
cit
O
�
W
uj
w
a
w
a
LO
LO
a
Z_
LL
a
0
W
N
W
—1
V
w
2
Q
w
<
¢
Z
a
< Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703
(541) 388-6570 — Fax (541) 385-3202 — https://www.deschutes.org/
AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT
For Board of Commissioners Work Session of April 2, 2018
DATE: March 28, 2018
FROM: Matthew Martin, Community Development, 541-330-4620
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
Draft Marijuana Assessment Report Presentation
ATTENDANCE: Matthew Martin, AICP, Long Rang Planner; Zechariah Heck, Long Rang
Planner
SUMMARY: The purposes of this work session are to:
1. Present and discuss the Draft Marijuana Assessment Report.
2. Board discussion of marijuana panel (state and local agency) discussions.
3. Identify conceptual options to maintain and monitor or amend marijuana regulations.
(s�
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of Commissioners
FROM: Matt Martin, AICP, Long Range Planner
Zechariah Heck, Long Range Planner
Peter Gutowsky, AICP, Planning Manager
Nick Lelack, AICP, Director
DATE: April 2, 2018
SUBJECT: Draft Marijuana Assessment Report, Agency Panel Recap Discussion, Conceptual Options
The purposes of this work session are to:
1. Present and discuss the Draft Marijuana Assessment Report (attached), including the first annual inspections of
permitted marijuana businesses, and options for next steps. Staff seeks Board direction on any changes or
refinements to the Report.
2. Board discussion of marijuana panel (state and local agency) discussions. The draft Report summarizes the
prominent themes and comments discussed at each panel discussion.
3. Identify conceptual options to maintain and monitor or amend marijuana regulations, which include the following:
Option 1
Continue monitoring the marijuana program while implementing the Board's interpretations of the marijuana
regulations. Per the Board's direction, inspections will continue this fall to assess newly approved and OLCC
licensed recreational marijuana production and processing operations.
Option 2
Revise and/or clarify current marijuana regulations stemming from Board decisions. The Report summarizes issues
raised during the public comment period on the marijuana assessment and in quasi-judicial decisions.
Option 3
Revisit the prominent themes that emerged through the public involvement process. This option may also address
gaps or supplement state agency regulations and/or enforcement.
Staff is not seeking Board direction at this meeting on a preferred option, but the Board may decide to discuss
these and/or other options at this meeting pertaining to marijuana regulations, enforcement, etc.
Staff will schedule a follow-up Board work session to seek direction on the preferred option above or another option.
ES
:: pC
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of Commissioners
FROM: Matt Martin, AICP, Long Range Planner
Zechariah Heck, Long Range Planner
Peter Gutowsky, AICP, Planning Manager
Nick Lelack, AICP, Director
DATE: April 2, 2018
SUBJECT: Draft Marijuana Assessment Report, Agency Panel Recap Discussion, Conceptual Options
The purposes of this work session are to:
1. Present and discuss the Draft Marijuana Assessment Report (attached), including the first annual inspections of
permitted marijuana businesses, and options for next steps. Staff seeks Board direction on any changes or
refinements to the Report.
2. Board discussion of marijuana panel (state and local agency) discussions. The draft Report summarizes the
prominent themes and comments discussed at each panel discussion.
3. Identify conceptual options to maintain and monitor or amend marijuana regulations, which include the following:
Option 1
Continue monitoring the marijuana program while implementing the Board's interpretations of the marijuana
regulations. Per the Board's direction, inspections will continue this fall to assess newly approved and OLCC
licensed recreational marijuana production and processing operations.
Option 2
Revise and/or clarify current marijuana regulations stemming from Board decisions. The Report summarizes issues
raised during the public comment period on the marijuana assessment and in quasi-judicial decisions.
Option 3
Revisit the prominent themes that emerged through the public involvement process. This option may also address
gaps or supplement state agency regulations and/or enforcement.
Staff is not seeking Board direction at this meeting on a preferred option, but the Board may decide to discuss
these and/or other options at this meeting pertaining to marijuana regulations, enforcement, etc.
Staff will schedule a follow-up Board work session to seek direction on the preferred option above or another option.
Deschutes County Marijuana
Regulatory Assessment
E S
r�
. . . . . . . . . . . .
c v r
s
S �
3 t.
s
March 20, 2018
Community Development Department
117 NW Lafayette Avenue
Bend, OR 97703
I. Executive Summary.......................................................... 4
II. Background................................................................ 7
Implementation.............................................................. 7
Land Use Permitting History .......................................... 8
AnnualReporting........................................................... 9
III. Public Involvement Process ........................................ 12
FocusGroups................................................................. 12
Stakeholder Interviews .................................................. 13
Panel Discussions........................................................... 13
CitizenInput................................................................... 17
IV. Next Steps.................................................................. 20
APPENDICES
Appendix A - Industry Focus Group Summary
Appendix B - Nearby Property Owner Focus Group Summary
Appendix C - Stakeholder Interview Summary
Appendix D - Citizen Input Summary
Appendix E - Existing Conditions Report
2 ^ DESCHUTES COUNTY MARIJUANA REGULATORY ASSESSMENT
List of Figures
Figure 1. Type of Marijuana Use and Status ............................................... 8
Figure 2. Where Do You Live?.................................................................. 17
Figure 3. Do You Live Near a Licensed Marijuana Operation? ................. 17
Figure 4. What is Your Overall Impression of the Regulations? ................ 18
List of Tables
Table 1. Prominent Regulatory Themes .................................................... 5
Table 2. Regulatory Agencies Overseeing Marijuana ................................. 7
Table 3. Approved Marijuana Land Use Applications / Zoning .................. 8
Table 4. Approved Marijuana Land Use Applications / Decisions .............. 9
Table 5. Pending Marijuana Land Use Applications / Zoning ..................... 9
Table 6. Stakeholder Comments............................................................. 13
Table 7. Panelist Comments.................................................................... 14
Table 8. Prominent Issues Raised by Citizens .......................................... 19
DESCHUTES COUNTY MARIJUANA REGULATORY ASSESSMENT -3-
I. Executive Summary
In June 2016, the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners (Board) adopted eight ordinances to
regulate the marijuana production, processing, wholesaling, and retail industries. Recognizing the
unique development patterns in the rural county, regulations mitigate sight, sound, odor, water, waste
disposal, and access, among others. They are unique among Oregon counties in three ways:
1. Discretionary standards allow the industry to utilize emerging technologies for growing and
processing marijuana to demonstrate regulatory compliance;
2. Applications require notification to neighboring property owners which provides opportunities
for public involvement in land use proceedings; and,
3. Development standards take into consideration rural zoning, lot patterns, a high desert climate,
and agricultural practices.
After adopting the ordinances, the Board committed to reevaluating the marijuana regulations. The
purpose of the regulatory assessment is twofold:
• Summarize comments from stakeholder, residents, interested parties, and state agencies and
law enforcement regarding the effectiveness of the marijuana regulations; and
• Identify regulatory options.
Commencing in October 2017, the Community Development Department (CDD) prepared an Existing
Conditions Report (Appendix E). It described the marijuana applications submitted to Deschutes County
from September 2016 through September 2017. The document also summarized the County's marijuana
regulations and code enforcement philosophy. Upon its release, CDD initiated a public involvement
process to identify prevailing opinions among industry representatives, stakeholders, and residents.
Based on the assessment, CDD offers the following conclusions. Due to the limited number of approvals,
it is difficult to assess the effectiveness of Deschutes County's regulations. CDD approved 30 marijuana
production, processing and retail applications from September 2016 to September 2017. During this
time period, only 9 are licensed with the Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) for marijuana
production and processing operations. All of the operations inspected by staff were in compliance with
Deschutes County Code and their land use decision, with an exception to odor mitigation. Two sites that
were growing marijuana under an OLCC license did not have an odor mitigation system installed. In
addition, one site that was growing marijuana under an OHA license did not have odor mitigation
installed either. If a site was licensed by the OHA before June 2016, they must comply with lighting,
odor, noise, screening, water, security cameras and secure waste disposal regulations. Although these
sites did not have odor mitigation systems installed, staff could only smell marijuana at the entrance of
the buildings where marijuana was growing. Staff did not believe the odor, at the time of inspections,
would "unreasonably interfere with a neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property." Staff notes that
one site, which is converting from a medical grow to recreational, has an active code enforcement case
concerning marijuana odor. CDD staff is working with the licensee to ensure their proposed odor
mitigation system is operational in a timely manner.
The concerns expressed by opponents are likely directed at marijuana uses that were not permitted
under land use. Instead, these uses are probably personal cultivation; pre-existing or new medical
grows that do not comply with Deschutes County's standards; hemp; or illegal grows. Regarding
registered medical grow sites, due to confidentiality requirements in state law, the Oregon Health
ti 4 DESCHUTES COUNTY MARIJUANA REGULATORY ASSESSMENT
Authority (OHA) limits disclosure. This prevents CDD from verifying these operations comply with
Deschutes County's marijuana regulations.
CDD offers three options for reconsidering Deschutes County's marijuana regulations.
Option 1 - Continue monitoring while implementing the Board's interpretations of the marijuana
regulations. Per the Board's direction, inspections will continue this fall to assess newly approved and
OLCC licensed recreational marijuana production and processing operations.
Option 2 - Revise and/or clarify current marijuana regulations stemming from Board decisions.
• Noise Mitigation: Document expert qualifications, experience, methodology, and analysis that
noise is properly mitigated on a site specific basis.
• Odor Mitigation: Document expert qualifications, experience, methodology, and analysis that
odor is properly mitigated on a site specific basis.
• Setback Exception: Reduced setbacks must demonstrate that they will afford equal or greater
mitigation of the marijuana production facility to surrounding public and private properties.
• Site Plan Review: Proposed development shall relate harmoniously to the natural environment
and existing development. The purpose of the site plan review is to "promote functional, safe,
innovative and attractive site development compatible with the natural and man-made
environment."
• Utility Verification: Utility statements shall identify the proposed operation, or operational
characteristics such as required electrical load and timing of such electrical loads.
• Water Provider: Water use from any source for marijuana production shall comply with all
applicable state statutes and regulations including ORS 537.545 and OAR 690-340-0010.
Option 3 - Revisit the prominent regulatory themes that emerged through the public involvement
process as shown in Table 1. This option may also address gaps or supplement state agency regulations
and/or enforcement.
Table 1— Prominent Regulatory Themes
Category
Summary
• ` Clarify if consent from easement grantees is required if the subject
Access
property owner is the grantor of the easement.
• Specify when on-site inspections are completed.
• Require multiple on-site inspections.
Annual Reporting
. Allow unannounced inspections.
• Clarify County staff to conduct the inspections.
• Clarify prohibition of dwellings in conjunction with marijuana production
Dwellings
pertains to qualifying for a "farm -related dwelling."
DESCHUTES COUNTY MARIJUANA REGULATORY ASSESSMENT -5-
Category
Summary
• Require detail of engineer's qualifications, experience, methodology, or
analysis for the proposed site.
• Clarify what "sustained noise" associated with mechanical equipment
Noise
entails.
• Keep or modify the 30 dB(A) standard.
• Modify the 10:OOpm-7:OOam time period when noise standard is
applicable.
• Require detail of engineer's:: qualifications, experience, methodology, and
analysis for the proposed site.
• Clarify what detail from the mechanical engineer report is; required for
Odor
"demonstrating" the odor control system will control odor for the specific
purpose.
• Clarify intent or terms of "reasonable enjoyment of their property."
• Clarify/specify when an exception can be granted.
Setback Exceptions
• Remove exception option.
• Provide specificity to definition of "child care center."
Separation Distances
• Define "youth activity center."
• Modify standard(s).
Setbacks
• Modify standard(s).
• Require traffic study for marijuana production.
Traffic Impacts
• Reconsider using warehouse for trip generation rate for marijuana
production for System Development Charges (SDCs).
• Require more specificity on type of use, required electrical load, and any
Utility Verification
required system upgrades.
• Clarify when, if, or how composting can be used for disposal of plant
Waste Disposal
materials.
• Clarify water "provider" means source of water.
• Clarify when, how, or if delivered water can be used.
Water
• Require specificity on required volume or timing of water use and
confirmation the provider is willing and able to provide the needed
capacity.
•' Maintain or change where marijuana related uses are permitted outright
or conditionally.
Zoning
. Allow marijuana wholesale use in conjunction with marijuana production
in EFU zone.
-6- DESCHUTES COUNTY MARIJUANA REGULATORY ASSESSMENT
II. Background
The Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance, Section 18.116.330, establishes standards for marijuana
production, processing, wholesaling, and retail operations. These standards mitigate impacts associated
with lighting, noise, odor, water, waste disposal, and access, among others. They represent just one set
of standards that apply to medical and recreational marijuana. OLCC is the state agency responsible for
licensing and implementing the recreational marijuana program. OHA administers a similar program for
medical marijuana. In addition, as shown in Table 2, other agencies oversee aspects of this industry.
Table 2 — Regulatory Agencies Overseeing Marijuana
Local
State of Oregon
Deschutes County Building Division
Building Codes Division
Deschutes County Environmental Soils
Oregon Department of Agriculture
Deschutes County Planning Division
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
Fire Districts
Oregon Water Resource Department
Irrigation Districts
State Fire Marshal's Office
Implementation
Cultivating marijuana and hemp must abide by local and state regulations:
• Recreation and medical marijuana production operations.
o Subject to local land use regulations.
o Also subject to OLCC licensing for recreational marijuana or OHA registration for medical
marijuana.
• Pre-existing medical marijuana grow sites.
o If the site was established prior to June 2016, they are allowed to continue to operate
without land use review but are subject to specific local land use regulations.
o After June 2016, medical marijuana grow sites require land use approval by Deschutes
County.
• Personal grows.
o Up to four plants can be cultivated for personal uses. Personal marijuana grows are not
subject to local or state regulations.
• Industrial hemp.
o Regulated by the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA). Oregon's Right to Farm Law
prohibits counties from regulating hemp compared to medical and recreational marijuana.
o ODA requires a handler's permit.
• Illegal production operations.
o Such operations lack required land use permits, OLCC or ODA licensing, or OHA registration.
In many cases, there is no path to compliance because zoning or applicable local and state
land use regulations prohibit it.
Given the regulatory oversight noted above, the various types of marijuana and hemp cultivation often
complicate efforts to verify and ensure compliance. In particular, code enforcement staff must
substantiate violations before identifying the appropriate remedy. Verifying a violation can be
DESCHUTES COUNTY MARIJUANA REGULATORY ASSESSMENT —7—
challenging when one considers variable conditions such as wind, weather, and indoor growing
operations. The County's Code Enforcement Manual establishes the processes to correct the violation.
Land Use Permitting History
The Board adopted marijuana regulations in June 2016. They went into effect in September 2016.
Deschutes County has approved 32 marijuana production, 4 marijuana processing, 3 marijuana
wholesaling, and 1 marijuana retail operations as of March 9, 2018. Thirty are pending. According to
OLCC there are 14 active OLCC licenses as of March 9, 2018. There are 6 types of recreational marijuana
licenses: Producer (grower), Processor, Wholesaler, Retail, Laboratory, a Certificate for Research, and a
Hemp Certificate. An active OLCC license is required to participate in the Oregon recreational marijuana
market. Figure 1 shows the type of marijuana uses in Deschutes County and their status as of March 9,
2018.
35 32
30
25
20
15
10
5 4 3
ria � 1
0
Approved
Figure 1 -Type of Use and Status
27
3
0
Pending
® Production t Processing a Wholesaling im Retail
3 2 2
0 0 1 0 0
-
Denied Withdrawn
Tables 3 and 4 highlight, as of March 9, 2018, approved marijuana production facilities. A vast majority
of the decisions has been issued administratively. Table 5 summarizes pending marijuana production
and processing applications.
Table 3 — Approved Marijuana Production and Processing Operations / Zoning
Zoning District Approvals
Percentage
Exclusive Farm Use 34
94%
Multiple Use Agriculture 2
6%
Total 36
100%
—8— DESCHUTES COUNTY MARIJUANA REGULATORY ASSESSMENT
Table 4 — Approved Marijuana Land Use Decisions (includes retail and wholesaling)
Approval Body
Number
Percentage
Administrative
36
90%
Hearings Officer
2
5%
Board of County Commissioners
2
5%
Total
40
100%
Table 5 — Pending Marijuana Production and Processing Applications / Zoning
Zoning District Number
Percentage
Exclusive Farm Use 28
93%
Multiple Use Agriculture 2
7%
Total 30
100%
Annual Reporting
Marijuana production, processing, and retail permits issued by Deschutes County require submission of
annual reporting information to verify compliance with the required standards and conditions of
approval. Staff conducts an on-site inspection as part of this process. As stated previously, CDD
approved 30 marijuana production, processing and retail applications from September 2016 to
September 2017. In February 2018, a request for submission of an annual report was sent to these
operations.
Included in the annual report is request for confirmation if or when System Development Charges (SDCs)
will be paid. SDCs are a one-time fee imposed on new development to fund transportation
infrastructure. These fees are necessary to provide adequate funding for growth -related capital
improvement vital to maintaining County road services. The SDC is based on a trip rate from the
Institute for Transportation Engineers Manual. Deschutes County is assessing SDCs for new structures
developed in association with marijuana related uses, including greenhouses. One challenge with
assessing SDCs for marijuana production pertains to greenhouses. Many greenhouse do not require a
building permit. Without one, no final occupancy permit can be withheld until SDCs are paid. Because
of this, SDC collection requires staff to follow up with the permittee to ensure payment.
Staff received an annual report from all 30 operations and conducted a site visit on 28 of the operations.
One operation was not available for a site inspection due to a scheduling conflict, however a site
inspection is scheduled for early April 2018. Another operation submitted a letter to CDD stating they
are not moving forward on initiating the approved use. Thus, no site visit was conducted. As of March 9,
2018, there were 14 active OLCC-approved marijuana operations in Deschutes County. Two operations
have a wholesale license, which do not require an annual report or inspection under County Code. Nine
production sites were operational at time the time of site visit; one was not operational. Only one
processing site was operational. Staff notes there is one operation that did not receive local land use
approval, but apparently has an OLCC approval to grow recreational marijuana. It appears the operation
did not need a Land Use Compatibility Statement and that OLCC issued a recreational license without
coordinating with Deschutes County. Staff is following-up with OLCC.
DESCHUTES COUNTY MARIJUANA REGULATORY ASSESSMENT -9-
CDD staff inspected nine sites that received land use approval and an OLCC license. One site received
approval as both a production and processing facility. A total of nine operations were actively growing
marijuana during staff's site inspections. Three sites were growing marijuana in hoop houses, two sites
were growing in rigid -framed structures, and four sites were utilizing a combination of hoop houses and
conventional structures. The processing lab was in a commercial -grade structure.
Of the 20 remaining sites that were not operational, 16 sites have had structures built for the operation
or were approved to use an existing structure. Four sites had not begun construction. The sites that
had completed their structures were waiting on OLCC for final approval. The four sites that had not
begun construction, stated they were debating whether to act on their land use approval because of
market conditions.
Of the 30 operations that received land use approval, there are 14 sites converting from an OHA medical
license to an OLCC recreational license. The submitted annual reports indicated seven operations were
growing medical marijuana under an OHA permit until they receive their state recreational license.
Seven of the nine active recreational production operations were previously medical grows.
All of the operations inspected by staff were in compliance with Deschutes County Code and their land
use decision, with an exception to odor mitigation. Two sites that were growing marijuana under an
OLCC license did not have an odor mitigation system installed. In addition, one site that was growing
marijuana under an OHA license did not have odor mitigation installed either. If a site was licensed by
the OHA before June 2016, they must comply with lighting, odor, noise, screening, water, security
cameras and secure waste disposal regulations. Although these sites did not have odor mitigation
systems installed, staff could only smell marijuana at the entrance of the buildings where marijuana was
growing. Staff did not believe the odor, at the time of inspections, would "unreasonably interfere with a
neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property". Staff notes that one site, which is converting from a
medical grow to recreational, has an active code enforcement case concerning marijuana odor. CDD
staff is working with the licensee to ensure their proposed odor mitigation system is operational in a
timely manner.
Each site that was operational had mature canopies well below their allotted maximum. Staff did not
note any noise concerns from the property lines of active operations. The site inspections were
conducted during the day, so lighting requirements could not be verified. However, each operation that
was utilizing greenhouses had black -out curtains or did not have lights within the structure. Staff
reviewed the screening and fencing requirements specific to each operation and all were compliant.
Waste disposal was appropriately contained within secured structures. Security cameras were installed
and operational for all active production and processing sites. Staff did not see any cameras that were
directed toward neighboring properties.
Each site that received local land use approval welcomed staff onsite to conduct the inspections and
were transparent in their operations. There were three licensees concerned about the consent to
inspect language within the annual report. After staff explained to them that only land use planners
were conducting the site visits, concerns were alleviated and the inspections were carried out.
Staff learned through the annual report and site visit process that the initial investments for a marijuana
operation are at such a high rate that each licensee is dedicated to ensuring their operation is in
_10- DESCHUTES COUNTY MARIJUANA REGULATORY ASSESSMENT
compliance with local and state regulations. Furthermore, every operator stated that CDD staff and
elected officials are welcome to inspect their operations at any time.
Although only a few operations were active during the initial annual report, the reporting and site
inspection process itself is important to ensure compliance with County regulations and transparency
within this emerging industry. The process also provides decision makers an opportunity to understand
how land use decisions are implemented and what impacts are created from the decisions.
DESCHUTES COUNTY MARIJUANA REGULATORY ASSESSMENT -11-
III. Public Involvement Process
In June 2016, the Board adopted eight ordinances to regulate the marijuana production, processing,
wholesaling, and retail industries. Recognizing the unique development patterns in the rural county,
regulations mitigate sight, sound, smell, water, waste disposal, and access, among others. They are
unique among Oregon counties in three ways:
1. Discretionary standards allow the industry to utilize emerging technologies for growing and
processing marijuana to demonstrate regulatory compliance;
2. Applications require notification to neighboring property owners which provides opportunities
for public involvement in land use proceedings; and,
3. Development standards summarized above take into consideration rural zoning, lot patterns,
high desert climate, and agricultural practices.
After adopting the ordinances, the Board committed to reevaluating the marijuana regulations. The
purpose of the regulatory assessment is twofold:
• Summarize comments from stakeholder, residents, interested parties, and state agencies and
law enforcement regarding the effectiveness of the marijuana regulations; and
• Identify regulatory options.
In October 2017, CDD prepared an Existing Conditions Report (Appendix E). It describes the marijuana
applications submitted to Deschutes County from September 2016 through September 2017. The
document also summarizes the County's marijuana regulations and code enforcement approach. Upon
its release, CDD initiated a public involvement process to identify prevailing opinions among industry
representatives, focus groups, stakeholders, and the general public.
Focus Groups
Two focus groups were convened in November 2017. One consisted of representatives of the Deschutes
Chapter of the Oregon Farm Bureau (FB), Deschutes County Marijuana Advisory Committee (MAC) and
marijuana businesses that received County land use approval. The other was comprised of property
owners proximate to the same marijuana businesses represented in the other focus group. Participants
were selected because of their experiences implementing marijuana regulations and in the case of
neighbors, assessing their effectiveness in mitigating impacts primarily from marijuana production and
processing. A summary of both focus groups is included in Appendix A and B.
• industry Focus Group: Invitations were sent to the FB, representatives of the marijuana industry
that received both land use approval from Deschutes County and an active license with OLCC as
well as industry representatives that participated on the MAC. Many claim the County's
regulations go too far and effectively prohibit a farm use, particularly when applied to marijuana
production in the Exclusive Farm Use zone because it is defined as a farm use in state law.
• Neighbor Focus Group: Invitations were sent to property owners within 250 feet of marijuana
operations that received land use approval from Deschutes County and an active license with
the OLCC. Forty-five invitations were mailed and 6 replied. In addition, several members of the
public attended. At the conclusion of the focus group, an open forum was provided for those in
attendance to provide comments. Many felt the regulations are too lenient and ineffective at
-12- DESCHUTES COUNTY MARIJUANA REGULATORY ASSESSMENT
mitigating impacts. Some advocated that Deschutes County should stop permitting marijuana
related land uses all together. Others voiced concerns with enforcement if compliance is not
achieved.
Stakeholder Interviews
Staff conducted stakeholder interviews with agencies and service providers that are involved or
impacted by the marijuana industry (production, processing, or retailing). Members of the MAC were
also invited to participate. The interviews were uniquely tailored to the role and responsibilities of each
entity. Participants offered recommendations for improving coordination. Table 6 lists the
stakeholders. Their comments are summarized in Appendix C.
Table 6 — Stakeholder Comments
Invited Stakeholders
— Agency and Service Providers
Deschutes County Building Division
Deschutes County
Deschutes County Sheriff
Deschutes County Road Department
Alfalfa Fire District
Bend Fire District
Cloverdale Fire District
Fire Districts
La Pine Fire District
Redmond Fire District
Sisters Fire District
Arnold Irrigation District
Central Oregon Irrigation District
Irrigation Districts
Swalley Irrigation Districts
Three Sisters Irrigation District
Tumalo Irrigation District
Oregon Department of Agriculture
Oregon State Fire Marshal
State Agencies
Oregon Liquor Control Commission
Oregon Water Resource Department
Central Electric Co -Op
Utilities
Mid -state Electric Co -Op
Pacific Power
Panel Discussions
In January and February 2018, the Board also conducted a series of work sessions with state and local
agencies and service providers to understand their roles and responsibilities and to identify
opportunities for the County to assist in regulating or enforcing this new industry. Table 7 lists the
panelists and summarizes their respective comments. The panel discussions are available through Board
meeting minutes and video archives(http://deschutescountyor.igm2.com/Citizens/Default.aspx.).
DESCHUTES COUNTY MARIJUANA REGULATORY ASSESSMENT —13—
2
V
2
O
—
00
o
m
E
L
}%
m
O
c
m O a)
OD u
U
~ L
m L u
a) c
Ili
a,
N
O 03
N N
'p
L
COD N
cu
— Z
Y C a) O
Lco
cco
`, E
c M c
`° f° O c
O
to
o a
�n cD L -
Ln L Z
U to m*,
o
V L m W m
VI a) m
�'
a
c L]D
.c CD
aD
a)
O
Y U O
cu
�� U-
UD
ami
3
o
to
m
O
s
s
to
L
L
a)
m
"O
U
m
n
wE
L
Y
U
L
O
OD
L
to
a)
bo
a)
.
3
:3�o
3
C
a)
u
c
u
O
m
O
3
>
u
'L ++
LN
cu
O
aj
OL
tw cu
m
u
W
E
�-,`
O
s.
N
vii
m
>'
vmi
.c
a)
+J
`- OA
L
?
L
>
a)
E
C
U
L
.0
O u
m
a)
m .c
c
c
A
'03
L
a)
O
Ln
m L
n
O
m
°J
to
E
E
m+
OL
c
m
o
u
n u
*'' CU
>
? z
�`,
u
3
a3) o
cu
L ai
o
_o
m O
V+
u 'n
}
c
m m
4
n
�,
+ u
m 0
L
L
i
u
L
m
c
v ,,
L
+,
o
'
a)
E
L
+•
u
3 o
ate)
a,
a,
CL
O
c
3
m
_^
c
m
O m
3
m
a)
au
.a'
u m
c
a)
>
m
��+
3
>.a
v
_0
a
a�
v
O
�O
O
c a
O
o
(n
�
m cD
,m,
(n
� v
do
_
m
.�
O:
>
ami
p
c
c
c `o
Ln
c
m
o
u M
u
CU u
H
ra E
v
E
c
m
O c
.N
c o
o
O
CL
a�
Q m EL
E
0
c a)
L
O
o
C
�n
'O
a)
m
'O
Q m
L
�°
o
i,
v
-
-0 O
0) O
O
c
Q c
'�
-
a�
'o
c
E
v
a)
LA
m
c
C Ln
"
O
o
`—°
a�
c
m
u
w
3
u u
°) N
+U
L
3
u
a�
u
rr
i
„o
+ j
-C
au
L E
O L
•�
a)
a
a)
c
L
en
c
a)
c
m
m
O
*' ,�.,
s
a
O
u
a)
O O
v +
3
c,
v
.c
v
c
OD
cu u
m u
3
d m
E 3
a
m
O
m
3
CL
+�
aJ
m
m
L
v
L
6
m
v a
0
o
u
O o
m
�;
.� n
rn
a,
.�
3
M
�
Q
w
v v
+, L
+�
en
m
o
M E
t
CLD
r-
M�,
O
+,
m
`
-0
a)
u
a)
O
c
Q
fl
m
c
OD
O
m
c
m
LZ
c
a)
3
O
.O
m
`° n t
L
3
m
+. �,
`° m
v
o c
u
a)
+,
c
L
`L°
°
�
u I„
m
"O
E
3
L
c Q-
m
ami
O
3 mw
v m
ovn
c
`^ v
r��
r`o
Y
`,-
� `°
a)
�
L
a) m
•cL-°
m o
L
o
>
a
a)
a) L
a
m
0 .�
+,
c
c
vl
�
c
m
c
+'
O
0
w w v
Y a)
O m O
E>
u
3
O
a)
s
a
E
E u
s
m
E
m m
m
N
O U
O `n
a)
m
L]D
a) w
•
M N
H
O
3
0
L
m
L
>
a
�n
c m
i
0
to a)3
`-L°
m O
a�
c=a a) o
f°
a�
rq
c
L)
y
v
o
=> tA
v
E
°
c
s
L CL 'a
O_ a)
c
U
L +, +�
>
—
U
—
O
�
m
3
�"
:t ai
O.
a)
m c
z
L Q L
O Ln
>, O
m
u m ,.,
?�
" ,r-
c o
�=
3
3^
m
u
'v
o
E
u
a o
m
`° �,
'n
Q
L m
0)
0
of
m
m
a
o c
`°
c
`—°
3
v
mM
Cl.•
x
c
m
i,
m
is
m
u
o
v o n
co CU
N
v n
a)
v
L
a�
3
O
u
u
o
3
.�
a) L{-
O_ a�
Q
.5 c E
v
3 O
a�
c0
—
L
y
M
L-
m
v
v
Q1
N
E
+; o
U—
cu
v
aJ
a)
t
Ln +-,
Lt)
L L
O
VD
.O
O
c
3
p
m
cu
v-
O
a-+
N V7
Ln
O
M m
U
c U
v
L O
a�
u
°�
c
o
o
u
E c
c m
110 r-
a)
L
O 'O
a)
a)
=
v+
_Q
O
�,
t c
m
a)
L
O
c
v
en
m
+, O
L
m
m
m
c E
COC
10
cr
a
o
�'
�
m
a m o
cL-°
w m
m 3
`'
m
m
a) ' w
c>
m o
'-
> m
Ln
c
t
r cu
c _c
Q
=
U
cf° =
O
O
C—
Q
Q
z
5
U
c
Q L
0
s
1-
v
cD
+_,
U S
O
to
m
I-
H
en
G L
• •
•
•
•
• •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• •
•
•
•
• •
•
2
V
2
O
m
00
o
m
E
L
}%
m
O
c
m O a)
OD u
U
~ L
m L u
a) c
_
N
O 03
N N
'p
L
COD N
m UD O o c
— Z
Y C a) O
Lco
cco
`, E
c M c
`° f° O c
a
m
o a
�n cD L -
Ln L Z
U to m*,
V L m W m
VI a) m
W N L m
a
c L]D
.c CD
aD
a)
3
Y U O
U� —'
�� U-
+,
m
3
2
V
2
2
Ln
U
c6 c
C
I�-
'U a
00
m
W
'. a
r -I
_.
Q
O
E
m
(U>
++
t
E
=
a (6
_
U a
'-
a
0
m
*'
ai
L
C
E
f6
V
U C
ai
c
ro
m
m '^
— L
L o
a �,
p
m
E
v
tA
E
o
o
O u
� a
"
4
vi
u
CLL
LA L
a
O
twU
"Q
a
- O
m a)
j
>
in
v
C
i=
m
Ln
Y
O
a
s
in
a to
v""--::
V)p a
.�
>
i = : a
cmc
(D 4�
.. 0
a
+
S T ..�
y m �^ CL
- Q Q
r-
0
-0
C
C
4- m a
0 0
a 'C mOD
u
a 0
.CL c O
vi
_
�[
u
0
E
u
_�
c 3
W vi
OECL(
p
N
o Q
u a
u
�+ 0
0
in
N
L
a
a
c
O.
c
L
*'
Ln
a
.0
~
O
M
u
0
c. ++
� a r0
u
O
a
4D
a
p
a
u
L
c
0 =O O
O N >,
L
a
O
C
v
E
CL c
p fo
0
— a
�a 3 + `
U a c
++ n3
�n
O
u
O
oD
Ll u O
N
o �° u T
N D
N
3
LUO 0
v
CO
4A 0
3
cn 0 v
L
a
10 a
0)
O
�
_
•o-
�
.L ai >;
-C
•N N c
' M
H
4J
t=o
U
E
E
L a F- -0
°o
H
N m> U
-0 N
c 3
C
a
o
OL
a
`
`o o
4-
v
o o
T
u
m c
i3
v
u
3
a
a
a
E
o
�
,�
0
�,
Ln
U
CU
C o> a
°
0 3 i3 0 o
a„Ln
i
s
a
L
41
`—°
a..
Ou C y
>• W
O C a°
O
v c
ca
C m Y
0
E
-o L m 3
m E -Q
.�
=
0
`n
m o
cu
m rn L
-' W
a N— U
u
Ln
�L '.. a
O
O
s
+�
�
4-
�. m 0
m
u0
U O a
o m
L.
a
t
M w m F-
O iT+
" •� 1 wo
�
in
3
f6
a s=
E ►- ° 3
o a
a
a� Ln
C
3 af6i `6 ,�
a O' L Ln
a
o�
C
o
a
.�
L a
O O
m=
a
o
4D
++
in
m
m N
a s sn m CL
s
u
t
a
o
,�
Qroo,' m
a
o
a,
o.bo
o
f
un
w
Eo
3
ro
0
"
o u m> 5
O
o
t\
u_'
3
u a)-0 a
L a...
C
o
-0
in
0
u
> 0
p
m 1]D
,
C �.�
C CAo
a =' c '^ c>o
c
c
-0
'L
E E°
c
3...-0
E 4T U H c
a U u -O.T
O
'N
O
m
N .O
N
Q
to ;° -0 E u
m
'X
o a C C u
E
ctw m u m
m
m
U
a
Y
c
m
a
c
0 =-� ` H
= au a
U ++
ct o_
t N
a
a
UJ
c� v
�+
a
O
in
my
C 0) E 0 O
o
0..
0 4- u a 0
O m'-
` 0 c a 0
m
UD
�'
0
+�
ou
+� F-
3
0
m o a O�
`'
CL
+ O C O
0-0 0 0+
_ "'
m
in
a
u
C
C
C
c W
a
0
o t o
A m
a
^ Co E fl
O`
m +,
Ln m a '�
°; a`)
_
u
m
u
rCo
a
E
a
E
aci
u
w
C 3 a.
>
L
to
C m>
�^ v� O
i V m m
=
a°>
a
no
c
�'
a
L
a
L
a=
m C 0_ a
0 m
-c .t] }a,,
Vi • 1m CL
m
=
U a
++
V1
a)
N
N
uc
L
0
L
'n
"
'f+ 41 a Q=
S
".4
cu
E u E E i
ai c Q CU
0 p
LnO
t
m
N
u
c
u
0
O
c
4; O c
c 0
N
u
-0
a
.0 .i6 TS O
F -QO
C .0
s?.F-
p a" a a a X-C
rvSa o_= N1-UZl-O
0 t
It
� 3Ln
�p
W
�,
W Ems_
-m
`F"
0 CL
c
0 0
0 4+
4. c4
-a
a
o
u
C y
cu
E
al
O
m
y
0_
m S
O
>, J
u O
L '�
a L
c
p S
O
u
E
O' O
3
N
O
O ++ :.. C
a
O a
N
Y
N
N
N
a 0
O m
v
f�0
m
0
C
M f=6
CL CC m
C
0� E++
p .. 3
C
3
N
m
�_
=
O u
000 c
0
m
d.
:
C �'a
0
cu
m '_
y>
D:
L �cca
m
3 m
m
f`C lei
CL I:a
0"
d Q
3
3
N
>
C
u
•C
a
E
C `L°
m a
•L
m 0 to E
0
in m
0
v :�
C
+)
m
v a
u Q
E a
ca
V) U v d •
7 a 0
e`a
0
V
in
X
W
0
p J u
Q 0
Oti- 2
2
Ln
z
lD
r -I
0)
o
T
E
y
Q
O
t6
N
L
4D
c
L
C•
N
H
N
o
cu
c
O
u
0
0
Y3
O
N
Q
N
o
>
O
Ln
:3_
C
0
COLn
SF O
to ++
o_
CL
O
L
O
oG
C
_ -C
o
up
Ln
O
41
O
cr
v=
c
c 3
°
fl
p
�
N p
s) to
i
N
Y N
N
L
O
t+
p
!p
`^ O
O
O
CL
N
T
C
O
N
U
CLLO
+-
N
0 0
O
C
O
l6
OO
a)
O
fA
O
u ocr-
O
p
CL
w
Q
:3u
p
Ep
— N O
0-
O
C
a� +� p
in
_
C
to
u >•
v
bCA
u°
..�
S
o u
41
ia
fl@c
00
o
o.
'
C
�
a 0Q
L
-O
CN�M
O O
€
N
-O
�n
O w.
Oi
L O
O
C N
L N
.�..�
to 41
m
= N
Ln L
Mj
C'^
O
N
N
`)
N U
U
p z
CU
0
C
p—0 O
L N Y
L
4 U
aL.r vi
L i •-
N
M N
:400
d
O .T
L pD
L
•4 Q
O
3
N 3
W CU
L
3 C
CO
Y .�
U
L
u
N� +�-+
L �!
[0
L
N
-0 C
O (6
CCL
CO Q
(A
N C
L
L
Q) O
-6 �'
0
E
`° L
T
CL o'
@
3
-a
cu
00 ++
-
T
— u
�
>
OOLO
L
41
0
O
Q
{p
N
i -a
YO.
LLA
Q
"O -p
C O
U Ln
Q N
(O Y O
!O
f6 C u
N D-
C CL
4T O
p C
H
•L O
C
C , O
O d
N C C
H U
@>
MO
N
u O
O
•N
LSu
-' , N
•M
C
O (6
(L6 O
L s-
!_'
Vf F-
d
f0 t6
N
0
f6
M .-
C ==
N t0 U
t
fl- N
o
';C,- >0
O C O
N
p N
O O tw
C O
6
Fo v n
,4;
3 a N m"
'�
C
Y
o io
M.
u
u a�
m 3
o
a0i W
Qo
N
N C 1.A
_T m y
Q- o a)
O U
Q- a
u N N
N�
O 00
U v)
C d L L -c
0 M CLO t� H
n O C C
M Y _
U C C
u
C
•
a • •
•
• • •
•
• •
•
•
>.
C
++
0
N
L. C
�
a) c
c
M
7 3
N �
CL
a •5
E
'�
E "Cu
�^
t6
L
tw
m
n
U
C
CL
O
5 u
U
E
�a
aL
L
W
U
a
L
Q
•
z
lD
r -I
Citizen Input
An online qualitative survey and written comments provided opportunities for citizen input. CDD
received over 330 survey responses and 40 comments throughout November 2017. The online survey
results are shown graphically in Figures 2 through 4 below. Citizen input is summarized in Appendix D.
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Figure 2 - Online Survey Results
Where do You Live?
m Unincorporated Deschutes County
w Bend
Redmond
Sisters
® La Pine
Outside Deschutes County
Figure 3 - Online Survey Results
Do You Live Near a Licensed Marijuana Operation?
yes no I don't know
DESCHUTES COUNTY MARIJUANA REGULATORY ASSESSMENT —17—
Figure 4 - Online Survey Results
What is Your Overall Impression of the Regulations?
Other
, `
Zoning
N'SONNERMIERNMERNM
Waterer
Utility Verification
Setbacks
WTWNµ y <.
Separation Distancesu,
Security Cameras
F� �� Vri.
Secure Waste Disposal
MEQMmomm
On Site Residency
iWINN-Nffl-
Odor
N,
Noise
Minimum Lot Area
��-
Maximum Mature Plant Canopy Size
ORNMEN
Limitation on License/Grow Site Per Parcel
MENWE
Lighting
Indoor Production
Fire Protection��
Fencing and Screening
FORNMIN; . .
Annual Reporting
140ma" .
Access
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
In Adequate N Should be Less Restrictive Should be More Restrictive N/A
—18— DESCHUTES COUNTY MARIJUANA REGULATORY ASSESSMENT
Table 8 summarizes the most prominent issues raised by citizens.
Table 8 — Prominent Issues Raised by Citizens
Regulations are Too Restrictive
Based on the State of Oregon defining marijuana production as a farm use, many believe the regulations should
be relaxed as they pertain to:
• Mature Canopy Area
• Lighting
• Noise
• Odor
• Utility Verification
• Required Land Use Review Process
Regulations are Not Restrictive Enough
• Annual Reporting: Inspections should be more frequent, during plant maturity, and unannounced.
• Water Usage: Concern that water is being used illegally, excessively, and with limited enforcement.
• Noise: Drone of fans and equipment have as much impact as volume.
• Lighting: Need protection of dark skies.
• Odor: Odor control systems are ineffective at mitigating odor impacts on nearby properties.
• Setbacks and Separation Distances: Too close to dwellings and too many grows in a concentrated area.
• Traffic Impacts: Areas where marijuana related uses are operating have experienced increases in traffic.
Regulations that Need Clarification
• Utility Verification: Information provided by utility must be specific to the subject property and proposed
use.
• Odor Control: Plans must demonstrate effective odor control accounting for site specific conditions.
• Noise: Measurements must account for site specific conditions.
DESCHUTES COUNTY MARIJUANA REGULATORY ASSESSMENT —19—
IV. Next Steps
Marijuana remains a divisive issue in rural Deschutes County. There are strong opinions that marijuana
production, processing, and retailing should not be permitted because they are incompatible with
surrounding rural residential properties. Conversely, there are strong opinions that marijuana related
uses are legal in the State of Oregon and should be allowed. Further, marijuana production is
recognized as a farm use in Oregon and many argue that Deschutes County's marijuana land use
regulations are too restrictive in comparison to other farm activities.
Assessment Results
Based on the assessment, CDD offers the following conclusions. Due to the limited number of approvals,
it is difficult to assess the effectiveness of Deschutes County's regulations. CDD approved 30 marijuana
production, processing and retail applications from September 2016 to September 2017. During this
time period, only 9 are licensed with the Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) for marijuana
production and processing operations. All of the operations inspected by staff were in compliance with
Deschutes County Code and their land use decision, with an exception to odor mitigation. Two sites that
were growing marijuana under an OLCC license did not have an odor mitigation system installed. In
addition, one site that was growing marijuana under an OHA license did not have odor mitigation
installed either. If a site was licensed by the OHA before June 2016, they must comply with lighting,
odor, noise, screening, water, security cameras and secure waste disposal regulations. Although these
sites did not have odor mitigation systems installed, staff could only smell marijuana at the entrance of
the buildings where marijuana was growing. Staff did not believe the odor, at the time of inspections,
would "unreasonably interfere with a neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property." Staff notes that
one site, which is converting from a medical grow to recreational, has an active code enforcement case
concerning marijuana odor. CDD staff is working with the licensee to ensure their proposed odor
mitigation system is operational in a timely manner.
CDD offers three options for reconsidering Deschutes County's marijuana regulations.
Option 1 - Continue monitoring while implementing the Board's interpretations of the marijuana
regulations. Per the Board's direction, inspections will continue this fall to assess newly approved and
OLCC licensed recreational marijuana production and processing operations.
Option 2 - Revise and/or clarify current marijuana regulations stemming from Board decisions.
• Noise Mitigation: Document expert qualifications, experience, methodology, and analysis that
noise is properly mitigated on a site specific basis.
• Odor Mitigation: Document expert qualifications, experience, methodology, and analysis that
odor is properly mitigated on a site specific basis.
• Setback Exception: Reduced setbacks shall demonstrate that they will afford equal or greater
mitigation of the marijuana production facility to surrounding public and private properties.
• Site Plan Review: Proposed development shall relate harmoniously to the natural environment
and existing development. The purpose of the site plan review is to "promote functional, safe,
innovative and attractive site development compatible with the natural and man-made
environment."
-20- DESCHUTES COUNTY MARIJUANA REGULATORY ASSESSMENT
• Utility Verification: Utility statements shall identify the proposed operation, or operational
characteristics such as required electrical load and timing of such electrical loads.
• Water Provider: Water use from any source for marijuana production shall comply with all
applicable state statutes and regulations including ORS 537.545 and OAR 690-340-0010.
Option 3 - Revisit the prominent regulatory themes that emerged through the public involvement
process as shown in Table 1. This option may also address gaps or supplement state agency regulations
and/or enforcement.
DESCHUTES COUNTY MARIJUANA REGULATORY ASSESSMENT -21-
Marijuana Regulatory Assessment
APPENDIX A
22
Marijuana Regulatory Assessment MEMMMMEENMEM
Appendix A
Industry Focus Group Summary
23
Regulations
Too
Not
Marijuana
Comments
Criteria
Adequate
Restrictive
Restrictive
Enough
Access
X
• Criterion is a legal issue, not a land use issue.
• The regulation goes too far: a neighbor has
veto power over the use of one's property.
Annual Report
X
• Annual requirement should be at no cost to the
applicant.
• Creates opportunity for corruption because the
criteria are discretionary.
The annual report should be a self-report.
• Any reporting should be limited to state
renewal of license. County should not double
up. ,
Fencing and
X
• Confusion about requirements. Not an issue
Screening
once understood by applicants.
Fire Protection
X
0 Option should be allowed for property owner
to provide onsite protection measures.
• There should be no reason to regulate.
• If processing, standard is okay.
• Lots of disagreement amongst this topic.
• State requirements, are more restrictive, thus
county regulations shouldn't be required.
Indoor
X
• The focus group unanimously agreed this is too
Production
restrictive — unanimous approval. Standard
should be eliminated in EFU.
Lighting
X
• Right to farm rules are being violated
• Regulations are burdensome for typical
business practices
• Lighting standards should be aligned with same
standards as all crops.
• Lighting standards are in violation of state law.
• Lighting standards are basically a prohibition
and should be scaled back to a restriction. The
focus group unanimously agreed.
• Lighting standards shouldn't be required on
fFU zones.
• Dark sky ordinances should be supported.
• Restriction should be lifted during hours like
12am — 2am.
License
X
• Should be tax lot rather than parcel.
Limitation
• Default should be state statute.
Mature Plant
X
• Canopy size is too restrictive; should be
Canopy Size
increased.
• The parcel size categories are arbitrary, there is
no basis for these regulations.
23
Marijuana Regulatory Assessment
24
Regulations
Too
Not
Marijuana
Comments
Criteria
Adequate
Restrictive
Restrictive
Enough
•'l The code should be amended to allow an
owner of a 20 acre parcel or more, they are
able to ask county to allow canopy size of
40,000 square feet. Requires proof of no
impact and compliance with regulations.
• Requirement is intrusive to neighborhood
because growers will buy upland.
• Default should be state requirement.
• In an EFU zone, there should be no standard.
• In an EFU zone, and the parcel is greater than
20 acres, there should be no standard (there
will be a lot of pushback otherwise).
• If there is a limit on canopy size based on
acreage, the county should allow an exception. "
Minimum Lot
X
• There should be no standard in EFU zone. If it is
Area
too small to be a farm, then it shouldn't be
zoned EFU.
Noise
X
• Ambient noise is over 30 dba —the noise
restrictive is extremely too restrictive.
• The 30 dba standard is an arbitrary number —
what is the basis for it?
•- This regulation is an easy area for neighbors to
complaint.
* One suggestion was for SO dba, but was not a
unanimous supported by the focus group.
•_ In an EFU zone, there should not be any sound
limitations. Other farm operations that would
be allowed will definitely exceed the 30 dba
standard.
• Right to farm act is being violated under this
regulation as well.
• ` Unanimous support for no limitations on noise
in EFU zone.
• Some supported noise limit within MUA10
zone.
• The time of measurement is not much of a
factor.
Odor
X
• There should be no odor control in the EFU
zone.
• In other zones, e.g., MUA10, mitigation is
reasonable.
• The odor standard is a target to appeal for
those that do not want the plant grown at all.
• How can you target smell? Is it hemp, is it a
neighbor growing 4 plants, or is a commercial
grow operations?
• Odor from the plants is limited to several
weeks out of the year.
24
Marijuana Regulatory Assessment
25
Regulations
Too
Not
Marijuana
Comments
Criteria
Adequate
Restrictive
Restrictive
Enough
• Growing hemp around your cannabis grow is an
insurance because odor cannot be attributed to
cannabis versus hemp.
• Regulations increase energy usage by ten
times.
• Regulations support black market because of
costs.
Retaining standards in a mixed use zone is
okay.
Onsite
X
Residency
Secure Waste
• It is repetitive and is covered in statute.
Disposal
Security
X
Cameras
Separation
X
• It is more restrictive than statute.
Distances
• Defer to statute.
Setbacks
X
• Adequate because of exception process.
Utility
X
• There is a lot of discrepancy in this standard,
Verification
should be clear what the requirement is.
• County should not be involved in a regulation
when it is unnecessary.
• Creates a large barrier to start business; not
equivalent to standard for appeals.
• Requires a lot of resources from applicant,
utilities, and county staff.
• Criterion is an opportunity for neighbors to
appeal and deny the application.
• Utilities are in the business of selling power,
they just want a heads up that the use is
proposed and coming up. County should not be
involved.
• The specification on the use in the will serve
letter is too restrictive and not necessary.
• Criterion is adequate if it is nondiscretionary.
• The criterion is another example of the
regulations being too restrictive and thus
creating a black market. There are unintended
consequences.
Water
• Concerns about water from opposing parties
can increase costs.
• The criteria have been met and yet the process
is hijacked through this criterion.
• Water is only regulated by OWRD, the county
has no authority to regulate.
• The standard asking for a water right is okay,
but it goes too far when use of water is called
into question.
25
Marijuana Regulatory Assessment
91
Regulations
Too
Not
Marijuana
Comments
Criteria
Adequate
Restrictive
Restrictive
Enough
• OWRD has a strict review, which should be
sufficient in and of itself.
Zoning
X
• '' In the EFU zone, none of the requirements
should be imposed for both production and
processing.
• Varying degree regulations are acceptable
across other zones.
Review
X
• The review process is in violation against state
Process
statute. The land use process should not be
required in the EFU Zone.
• It is a resource intensive process; should be
removed.
• Could be improved by: floor/site plans should
not be public record, discretionary standards
should be involved, no public hearings (or at
least less subjective requirements).
• Neighbor notification should not be required.
• Process allows for neighbors to snoop.
• A middle road would be a clear and objective
standards review — no discretionary standards.
X
• Wholesale limitations is too restrictive.
Other
•- Preventing marijuana on site is not reasonable.
(Wholesaling)
• Code should be changed to match OLCC
regulations that allows producers to have a
wholesale license on same property.
Other
• Standards should be eliminated on EFU; general support for mitigation regulations on
(General)
mixed use/residential zones.
• The main issue the county allowing dwellings in the EFU Zone.
• In existing report, include breakdown of number of grows in size category.
• Regulations create a high price to begin business. Because of the high cost to begin
business, the black market is flourishing.
• Deschutes County is the only county in the state with such restrictive requirements.
• The allowance of hemp totally undermines standards on marijuana.
• The time it takes to process a land use application is prohibitive.
• General appreciation and support for staff.
91
Marijuana Regulatory Assessment
27
Marijuana Regulatory Assessment
Appendix B
Adjoining Property Owner Focus Group Summary
92
Regulations
Adequate
Too
Restrictive
Not
Restrictive
Marijuana
Criteria
Comments
Enough
Access
• All the impacted property owners should
have to approve the proposed use.
Annual Report
X
a Needs to be during time of harvest.
• Interval should be increased to at least
monthly.
• Reporting needs to include site visit from
county staff.
• Annual reporting should include OSHEA or
MSHA to ensure industrial safety protocols
are met.
• Annual reporting should include fine if in
noncompliance.
• Surprise visit should also be included.
Fencing and
X
• Screening should include impacts to
Screening
neighbors, not just landscape management
feature.
• Landscaping should be required.
• Total screening should be required for all
applications.
Fire Protection
X
• Fire suppression systems need to be
mandatory.
• Fire hydrant technology in place adjacent to
marijuana operations.
• Ensure fire access needs to be required.
Indoor
• The standard is not being complied with...
Production
enforcement needs to be addressed.
• Criteria needs to be enforced through
inspection.
Lighting
X
• The time restriction needs to be expanded.
Restriction should match sundown to sunrise
to include seasonal variations.
• Dark sky ordinances should be enforced.
• Unanimous agreement that standard is not
restrictive.
License
X
• Standard needs to be upheld, not more than
Limitation
one allowed per parcel.
Mature Plant
X
. Canopy should be reduced by at least 50%.
Canopy Size
Minimum Lot
X
• The minimum should be 10 acres.
Area
• The minimum should be 20 acres.
• If the minimum parcel size is increased, there
should be a cap on total size of operation.
Noise
X
• Time regulation limits on noise impacts odor
regulation.
92
Marijuana Regulatory Assessment
We
Regulation needs to be expanded.
• 30 dba is not sufficient.
• Animals and wildlife are being impacted as
well.
• Density of grow operations can further
impact neighbors.
• This standard does not take into
consideration varying topography, wind
direction.
• Determinations about the acceptable noise
level should be determined by neighbor.
• Noise review should be done by an
independent source.
• Regulation should be expanded 24 hours a
day.
• Traffic from operations generate significant
noise as well.
• The use is industrial and should be regulated
and zoned appropriately.
• Noise from processing needs to be controlled.
Associated noise is impactful as well.
Odor
X
• Odor regulation needs to be expanded.
• Annual inspections need to be conducted
during harvest season, if not once a month.
• The standard should speak to having
somebody from the state/county that
inspects or verifies the odor control system.
There are no checks and balances.
• There should be fines associated with
noncompliance regarding odor.
• Enforcement is challenging because winds
can change.
• Fans complying with the noise standard can
impact odor requirement.
Onsite
X
• Property owner needs to be onsite in all
Residency
zones.
• Age restriction on who can live on the
property.
Secure Waste
X
• Waste should be inspected by EPA to ensure
Disposal
no chemicals can leach into the ground or the
groundwater.
• Support for the standard, but it needs to be
inspected.
Security
X
• Supportive of standard.
Cameras
Separation
X
• The separation distance needs to include
Distances
neighboring properties with young children
living onsite.
• Distance should be increased.
• Separation needs to include official bus stops.
Setbacks
X
• Setbacks need to be increased across the
board.
We
Marijuana Regulatory Assessment
30
• Suggested a setback of 1,000 feet from
neighboring dwelling.
• There should be a graduated setback, .e.g., a
larger parcel should have a larger setback.
Utility
• The criterion needs to be clearer about the
Verification
BOCC interpretation on this specific
requirement.
• The will serve letters need to specify the use.
Water
X
• Standard is not restrictive enough.
• Commercial wells for MJ need to be metered.
OWRD needs to be more restrictive and the
county needs to work with them.
• There is a concern about ground water drying
up because of neighboring marijuana uses.
• Marijuana operations should not be allowed
to use groundwater.
• There should be a guarantee that residential
wells will not go dry after marijuana
operation starts up.
• There should be fines associated with
improper water uses.
• Property owners want a focus group meeting
with OWRD.
• The county shouldn't approve land use
applications for marijuana without more
verification about the local impact from
OWRD.
• Water usage goes toward plants, and not
landscaping which creates dust and impacts
neighbors.
Zoning
X
• Marijuana uses need to be limited to
industrial zones.
• If not production, then processing needs to
be limited to industrial zones as well.
Review Process
X
• Notice radius needs to be expanded to
include more neighbors — suggests at least a
mile, if not one mile.
• Supportive of the full land use process.
• Comment and appeal period needs to be
expanded.
• Notice of land use application needs to be
published similar to liquor stores.
Other
• A transportation study should be required for
(Transportation)
all grow applications.
• Regulation is sufficient and should be
expanded to address access from public road.
Other
• Regulations are at a minimum level. If they are rolled back, there will be further impacts.
(General)
. Energy consumption needs to be regulated and limited.
• Each property should have to apply for a separate license.
Traffic impacts...
• Density of grow operations can impact neighborhood. — Separation distances should be
include neighboring grows.
30
Marijuana Regulatory Assessment
• View corridors.
• Bed and breakfasts, events, etc. should not be allowed in association with marijuana
operations.
• Support prohibitive list of uses.
• Land use application should include requirement that use is only allowed as long as
county has not opted out.
• County should put moratorium on new applications during the review.
• Impact on rural lifestyles is significant.'
• Zoning should prohibit urban reserves areas.
• "Youth activity" needs to be defined in DCC.
• Separation distances need to include wildlife habitat areas.
• Code enforcement program on marijuana needs to be expanded.
• Separation distances need to include public property (BLM, USFS, etc.)
• Marijuana operations negatively impact tourism.
31
Marijuana Regulatory Assessment
APPENDIX C
32
Marijuana Regulatory Assessment
Appendix C
Table 1. Stakeholders - Deschutes County Departments
Sheriffs Office - Sherriff Shane Nelson
• Marijuana is illegal under Federal Law. That is our Sheriffs Office stance. We cannot condone the
disregard of federal law even though a state law has been passed.
• The Constitution holds that state law can be more restrictive than federal law. Not less restrictive. We are
seeing that federal funding is being affected as we were unable to apply for federal dollars in the form of a
$30,000 grant that had to do with compliance on federal immigration law.
• Our office continues to hear from residents angered over marijuana grow applications and operations that
are in existence. They have very real quality of life concerns. As a citizen of this county I would not want a
marijuana grow/manufacture/retail location in my neighborhood, near my house, or near areas I frequent.
• It is imperative the county ensure tight restrictions so there is no impact on neighbors around these
properties. I have received information on two grows where there is no "owner" who will be a resident at
the location. Only hired help will reside there. I have also received information that two properties are not
"local" as they have investor funding ties from out of the state and out of the country.
• Lighting from grows should not pollute outdoor lighting. Many people move to the country to enjoy their
surroundings without outside influence that resembles life in more populated areas.
• The odor must be controlled at all times. I have heard from many citizens who state there is no
"reasonable" marijuana odor and I agree.
• 1 have heard concerns from citizens regarding "constant noise" from generators, AC Units, fans that will
affect their quality of life. I know a decibel level is set but there should be mention that prohibits "constant
noise."
• Finally, I find the fact we have to discuss this at all very ironic. Marijuana is against federal law. Our office
has seen an increase on resources to go and investigate these grows. We will continue to see increased
demand on our resources as we respond to every call for service.
Road Department — Chris Doty
• Collecting System Development Charges has proven to be difficult because many of the uses do not require
a building permit.
Building Division - Chris Gracia
• Pre -applications are worthwhile. The information that is relayed during this meeting can save time down
the road.
• After land use approval an applicant may never need a building permit, if they are growing in green house.
This creates challenges for enforcement. Mechanical permits are required but do not necessarily require
inspections.
• The Building Dept. does not always know when a permit is tied to a marijuana land use. Thus, they do not
always verify if the building permit conforms with the land use decision.
• The marijuana regulations have not influenced the Building Divisions' standards operating procedures or
process. However, there has been an increase in questions and inquiries on what is required which impacts
work load.
• There is an additional cost for marijuana processing applicants because the Division requires a design
professional.
Code Enforcement - Staff
• Staff have received approximately 50 complaints related to marijuana operations.
• A majority of the received complaints are from presumed illegal or nonconforming production operations.
• The main complaints revolve around odor, noise, and lighting.
• Odor and noise requirements are challenging to enforce because there are too many variables and no
precise technology that allows CE staff to pinpoint who is in compliance and who is not.
• There should be an inspection or verification process to ensure odor control is operational before use is
initiated.
33
Mariivana Reeulatory Assessment
• If a complaint is received on a medical grow, licensed before June 2016, the use may be determined to be a
legal, nonconforming use. A lot of time goes into verifying medical grows are in compliance with standards.
• One of the approval criterion medical grows must show compliance with by December 2016 concerns
water. This standard is challenging to enforce because CE staff are not responsible to determine what
complies and what does not.
• There are no special procedures for code enforcement regarding marijuana operations. This means that CE
staff needs to substantiate complaints before any contact can be made. Often times, complaints cannot be
substantiated.
• Staff would like clarification on the waste disposal criterion.
• The exception allowances are difficult to interpret. The criterion is a difficult standard to meet, yet we have
several applications that have met the criterion. Was the criterion intended to address topographical
differences, heavily vegetated areas, etc., rather than a simple allowance for a lesser setback?
• Staff would like clarification on the "sustained" noise criterion. And clarification on how to address a
situation where the ambient noise is above the 30 dB(a) threshold.
• There needs to be greater clarification on the difference between processing of a "farm crop" and
marijuana.
• There needs to be more specificity of when an applicant is required to provide written consent to utilize an
easement for marijuana production.
• The waste criterion could be clearer. Does composting of marijuana waste need to comply with setback
standards and be in a secure container?
• Mature canopy should be defined and it would be helpful if there was a clear policy on how to measure
canopy.
• Greater specificity is needed to define "child care center".
• Utility verification letters are proving difficult to obtain the correct information. The code should specify
what is required.
• The code should specify the level of specificity requested by past decisions the Board has issued (utility
verification, water right certificate, engineer's letter).
• Staff recommends that appeals be heard by a Hearings Officer or that fees should be increased to cover
staff time involved with appeals that are heard by the Board.
• Pre -applications, counter inquiries and phone calls related to marijuana operations take up a significant
amount of time.
• The odor control should be installed and reviewed for compliance with the standards before LUCS is issued.
• The odor limitation requirement is challenging to meet because people have different thresholds for
"reasonable enjoyment of their property" when it pertains to odor.
• Staff agrees that site visits should be conducted during harvest seasons, when impacts upon a
neighborhood are the greatest.
• One idea expressed amongst the group is that pre-existing medical grows should receive a nonconforming
use verification before they can continue. This could be done by citing the exception rules.
34
Marijuana Regulatory Assessment
Table 2. Stakeholder — Agency & Service Providers
Oregon Dept. of Agriculture — John Harang
• ODA's interaction with marijuana land use operations is limited to processing (food safety).
• The Notice of Application is appreciated and allows the Dept. to contact applicants before they get too
far in the process.
• Harang would appreciate Notice of Decision as well. Once the use is approved, then ODA can step in
and work on the specific design of a facility to meet state code.
• A condition of approval stating applicant shall coordinate with ODA would be helpful.
Arnold Irrigation District
• Irrigation water cannot be used within a structure, although green houses are okay.
• If the District receives a Notice of Application, they can provide water right/certificate to staff.
• States that it is challenging to understand what is allowed by the County and what is not.
La Pine Fire Department - Chief Supkis
• There is a challenge to get water and fire access requirements met for almost all proposed land uses in
the EFU Zone.
• Process of Notice of Application, Notice of Decision, etc. seems to be working smoothly.
Three Sisters Irrigation District - Marc Thalacker
• Most grows the District is aware of are medical.
• Expressed concern about the District receiving federal money and the impact on marijuana grows.
• The District is only able to provide water March thru November.
• He has gathered that growers are looking at purchasing groundwater rights.
• Seems that hemp growers are pushing cannabis growers out because of difference in regulatory
environment.
• Recognizes the time involved in marijuana related applications and suggests that the application fee
be increased in an amount reflective of the time spent.
Kevin Sullivan, +Oregon State Fire Marshall Office
• There is confusion amongst fire officials regarding their involvement in the land use process.
• Regulations should be clear on review authority of fire official.
• Regulations need to be expanded to clarify requirements for ag-exempt and standard buildings.
• Suggests the land use decision incudes a requirement the building shall comply with applicable fire
codes.
• The process could improve through better coordination and communication between planning,
building and fire.
• Suggests the land use decision requires fire official approval prior to occupancy.
• Pre -application meetings should be required, which include participation by a fire official.
• Education must be improved. Sullivan suggests a matrix to help applicant understand who they need to
talk to and receive approval form prior to initiating the use.
Oregon Water Resource Department Sam Vanlaningham, Deputy Watermaster District 11
We suggest the following edits to the MARIJUANA PRODUCTION and MARIJUANA PROCESSING sections.
• PRODUCTION:
WATER
The State of Oregon requires a water right for commercial irrigation unless there is a legal public or
private water provider or an exempt source. The applicant shall provide Deschutes County CCD:
1. no change [to existing text]
2. no change [to existing text]
3. Keep existing text but add a link to our exempt water form
httr)://www.oregon.gov/owrd/"`docs/Marimuana Producer Exempt Water Form.pdf and our more
generic brochure
35
Marijuana Regulatory Assessment
36
http://www.oregon.gov/owrd/docs/Water Use and Mariivana Handout FINAL.pdf that you
already link.
•
PROCESSING:
We suggest removing what you have and inserting this:
WATER
The State of Oregon requires a water right for commercial irrigation unless there is a legal public or
private water provider or an exempt source. For non -irrigation commercial processing of up to 5,000
gallons per day, the law allows an exemption pursuant to ORS 537.545 (This exemption DOES NOT
include commercial irrigation).
Central Electric Cooperative — Brad Wilson, Director of operations & Engineering
•
My comments will only address utility notification and will serve letters sent to new applicants within
Central Electric Cooperative, Inc.'s (CEC's) service territory.
•
CEC serves many parts of rural Deschutes County that are currently zoned EFU which is now seeing an
increase in demand from this new industry.
•
CEC has an obligation, regulated by the Oregon Public Utility Commission (OPUC), to serve
customers/members within the territory assigned by the OPUC.
•
For years, CEC has issued a "Will Serve Letter" to accommodate a variety of needs from financing to
land use for development projects within the seven counties served.
•
It's important to understand that this new industry creates large loads not typically expected or
designed for in the past which will create challenges for some of the operations proposed.
•
CEC has chosen to include pertinent information in the will serve letter, when applicable, to alert the
potential applicant that some infrastructure may need upgraded to accommodate their request. This
information is for the applicant to make an informed decision, not as an obstacle to development.
•
Currently, Deschutes County is the only county requiring this very specific information to be included in
the will serve letter regarding these developments. CEC understands that we are working together to
develop a more streamlined process and does not wish to create confusion among the applicants and
planners. There has been some confusion regarding CEC's use of the word location in its "will serve"
letter. CEC uses the word location instead of operation due to OPUC territory allocations which are
geographical.
•
It is CEC's intention to serve all operations regardless of size, use, or type of service. CEC is willing and
able to serve these operations/locations in accordance with the rates and policies of Central Electric
Cooperative, Inc.
Midstate'Electric 'Cooperative -Steve Hess, Operations & Engineering Manager
•
Following legalization they began to see an increase in service requests for grow operations.
•
Grow sites existed previously but were smaller and unnoticed.
•
New requests included multiple 200 to 400 amp services to one acre residential lots. There are
believed to be grow sites.
•
New services have stressed existing services and will required costly system upgrades because of lack
of capacity.
•
Midstate Electric has a 10 year construction plan in place that we follow and budget for. With new
suspected grow sites being constructed in residential areas, it is becoming very difficult to plan and
follow our own construction plan.
•
In some cases, suspected grow sites operators are unwilling to share detailed information about load
and when this exceed expected load it causes outages and equipment failure. This cost for overtime
and equipment damage are passed on to all members.
•
Another issue is access. These properties are typically fenced and gated limited access to equipment.
This causes loss of valuable time in the event of fire or outage.
•
MEC believes that 95% of our suspected grow sites are located in residential neighborhoods and not
the zones that permit marijuana production.
•
Those operations proposed in zones where it is allowed have been upfront allowing MEC to planning
for new loads.
36
Marijuana Regulatory Assessment
• MEC strongly encourages Deschutes County to be proactive in enforeing the code prior to the
construction and operation of grow operations in the improper zones. Enforcement after the fact will
be costly to the MEC members and the detrimental to the neighborhood our members live in.
37
Marijuana Regulatory Assessment
APPENDIX D
38
Marijuana Regulatory Assessment
Appendix D
Table 1— Citizen Input — Existing Standards Summary
SUBJECT COMMENT
Fencing and Screening
• Must be required where structure is visible from neighboring homes and/or
local roads or highways, preferably with trees and hedges, especially along
scenic roads, but trees and buildings of a height not blocking neighbor's views
of area mountains.
• Fencing; disrupts wildlife migration.
• Poor non -secure fencing.
Fire Protection
• Processing to have strict fire codes.
• The "Alfalfa Fire District" is actually non-existent at this time. There is no actual
fire department, no fire station, and no fire trucks to service the area.
• Cannabis processing should only be permitted in areas that are serviced by
municipal fire hydrants. To allow processing in rural fire districts that do not
have a readily available pressurized water source to is just too dangerous. It
subjects the community to unnecessary risk that can be easily mitigated through
zoning regulation.
• Butane should not be used.
Indoor/Outdoor' Production
• outdoor greenhouse/hoop house cannabis production should be allowed on
MUA-10 zoned; properties.
• only in fully enclosed, non -nighttime -light emitting buildings
License Per Parcel
• One License Per Lot
• Limitations on grow sites per parcel really needs to happen.
Lighting
• Equipped with outside motion -sensor limited time security lights.
• federallaw requires specific'' ballasts on grow lights to prevent harmful `RFI
interference to Amateur (Ham) Radio operations.
• Inadequate restrictions on light.
• Light pollution.
• The regulations should be more restrictive to preserve our night skies, 10 p.m.
is too late, and 30 minutes after sundown to sunrise would be a reasonable
regulation.
• Excessive lighting past the regulated 7am - 7pm.
Lot Size
• RR10 - 11acre property should be allowed to have a licensed mid to small size
growing permit.
• Reduces minimum lot size to 2.5 for indoor operations.
• 20 acres or more is discriminatory. I have 5 acres and would like the opportunity
to participate in a legal commodity market.
• 60 acre minimum parcel size.
• 20 acres minimum.
• 40 acres for this use.
Mature Canopy Area/Plant
• How can the amount of land to be farmed be restricted in EFU zone.
Limits
• Need to limit plants per property.
Noise
• Noise standard of 30 decibels is unobtainable. Ambient noise outdoors is
already over that.
• Fans are still a problem.
• No test is done to determine how noise will travel in different environments.
• Noise impacts livestock as well as people.
• Noise from multiple fans that run 24 hours a day all summer and fall, almost half
the year.
39
Marijuana Regulatory Assessment
• We miss the peace and quiet and would like to be able to go outside and smell
the fresh air.
• Noise Studies in a specific location aren't going to be accurate for other
locations. They don't take into account varying elevations, topographies,
obstructions, temperature, wind direction variances in ambient noise from one
property to another or even from one spot to another within the same property.
• Excessive fan noise.
Odor
• Odor certainly can be a problem that affects property value.
• Animal waste is far more appalling to my nose. The people running livestock are
going to have a bias against marijuana just because of their demographic.
• Odor is really a non -issue and is really'a foolish argument. It can be controlled
but even outdoor it's not really that bad and no worse than a dairy or a road
kill skunk.
• Smell is gross, horrendous.
• Smell lingers and is a nuisance.
• The ability to use charcoal filters retard the skunk smell of marijuana be grown
has not been perfected.
• Inadequate restrictions on odor.
• Odor is an issue and night seems worse so not sure why.
• The smell is going to be one thing that will affect my way of life.
• Odor needs to be tested at harvest time, or the test is meaningless.
• NO ONE wants to smell that day in and day out. Even with regulations in place
IT IS GOING TO STINK.
• Smell is a huge issue, very real, very noticeable.
• Excessive odor.
The law on odor must be clearer, and is too ambiguous.
Onsite Residency
• Grow/property owner required to live on site.
• Growers should be the only people allowed to live on-site.
• More regulation or restrictions to people living on site.
Reporting
• Require quarterly reports of shipments.
Review Process
• Permit process is lengthy.
• Requirement to inform all Neighbors results in an unfair burden on parcels that
are larger with more neighbors.
• The review requirement gives neighbors the opportunity to have input and
applicants the opportunity to address neighbor concerns.
• Lack of proper notification to adjacent owners.
• Need better information on who the applicants are.
• Notice area not enough.
• Notifications should be extended at least 5,000 feet in all directions in order to
afford the potentially impacted properties an opportunity to participate in any
due process proceedings.
Security Cameras
• Require security cameras.
Separation Distances
• Should not be near local park district parks.
• 5 mile separation from other production sites.
• Do not permit in proximity to City of Redmond UH zone/UGB.
• Prevent adjacent operations so that a landowner could not become surrounded
by multiple growers.
• Unfair to flood an area with so many Marijuana farms in a small geographic area.
• This could still be produced further out of town on larger parcels, not in areas
where families have been living for decades.
• Too close to fire station.
40
Marijuana Regulatory Assessment
41
• The growers should be grouped together in a designated area. This would avoid
the many clandestine actions of the growers. This would provide appropriate
monitoring by the government for safety and to assure taxes are being paid.
• Limit number of grows in a given area
Setbacks
• We are talking about2500 square feet indoor grow, Not a mega farm. So
Setbacks should be more flexible.
+ The smaller parcel properties almost always need an exemption from the
setback regulations to utilize previously standing structures to produce
cannabis.
• 800 feet from neighboring residences.
• A minimum of 1,000 feet from an existing dwelling.
• At least a half mile from dwellings.
• The smell, sound, light and traffic can more easily be mitigated when there is
an adequate buffer (set -back) with neighboring properties. '
+ 100' from the property line and 300' from a dwelling is grossly insufficient. The
larger the lot, the further the setbacks should be. I don't think a graduated
setback model was ever considered and one should be incorporated. If
100/300 is the standard for a 5 acre lot with it's under canopy limit, maybe one
greenhouse, then a 40 acre parcel with its considerably larger canopy limit
should situated further away from other homes.
+
Utility Verification
• Utility verification needs to be more than a "will serve" notice.
Waste Disposal
• They burn the debris.
• The DCC are ambiguous and do not clearly define waste disposal methods.
• Specific waste mitigation measures
• Disposal and contamination.
Water
• Water usage and enforcement.
• Water use from both on-site wells and irrigation district water will become a
huge issue as this county grows to the population forecasted.
• The county and state must get aligned around policy and enforcement before
the area begins to run out of water.
• Water use monitoring must become an essential process for all residential and
agricultural users so that costs for enhancements can be passed on to the
people or businesses that are using the water.
• Let's be proactive and create a master plan for the county to manage water use.
• Water quality and safety.
• Central Oregon water district closely monitors the amount of water rights and
usage by traditional farming. That doesn't seem to be the case for the grow
operations.
• State monitoring of ground water.
• Many have drilled wells but have not provided mitigation water as is required
by the state. This needs to be addressed immediately because this use is illegal
without mitigation water credits. Contact Laura Wilke at Oregon Water
Resource Dept. for validation of this. All other well users have to comply and so
should growers of marijuana.
• DCC really missed the mark by not having any language specific to how waste
water is managed. We are threatening our ground water, irrigation canals, and
neighboring farmers by not having a code related to this.
• Water usage must be monitored better. Water resources board does an
inadequate job, so the county needs to protect the aquifer.
• Too many wells are going dry.
41
Marijuana Regulatory Assessment
• Wells should not be used for any crop, and should be metered. County needs to
do a better job at application and monitoring.
• Maximum aggregate water usage requirements for the entire industry.
• As you know, growers can't use irrigation district water, so they drill wells.
• No MJ application should be granted by the County without a full water
assessment/verification analysis.
• Well water should not be used for commercial purposes at the risk of drying up
surrounding wells.
• Our destination resorts, golf courses, and breweries already put a strain on our
water resources and we need to realize that we need to begin to conserve our
precious water.
• inappropriate for processing fa
residential and agricultural lands.
•
Grandfathered grows on RR10 w
• Processing should be in industri
controls.
• Should be a law against growing i
• Should only be grown in a commi
• Any grow operation allowed in
BANNED.
• Zoning should require no less that
EFU-20
• Odor, visual impacts of greenhoul
ighborhoods with children.
I land use facility.
area where there are homes should be
acres and not within areas zoned less than
• Commercial marijuana cultivation should not be allowed in 'residentia
neighborhoods. It should be limited to industrial parks.
• Should not be allowed in areas of mixed zoning (MUA-10/EFU) or areas o
properties of mixed sizes.
Marijuana Regulatory Assessment
Table 1— Public Input — Other Topic Summary
SUBJECT COMMENT
Crime/Safety
• Recognize and appreciate how legalization has lowered crime.
• Crime is increasing and the areas around grow operations are deteriorating.;
• Increased crime.
• Cartels are involved,
• Crime associated with these cash operations.
• Operators should have to pay a fee for the additional policing needed as a result
of any increased crime levels.
• Enact safeguards to ensure that organized crime is not behind, a given` operation.
• The number of plants allowed per household (4) encourages a black market.
• They are numerous safety issues, criminal element, explosions from oil, and
potential for crime relating to the theft of money and product.
• federally illegal
No security to the grow site.
Economics
• Local cannabis directly correlates to the welfare of economy.
• Some of the regulations seem designed to drive cannabis industry businesses
to other counties.
• Regulations are absurd and make operating almost impossible.
• Not so different that other farm uses.
• Deschutes County Ag industry is not in good economic health overall. It makes
sense to create opportunity for some economic success in the EFU areas. Our
county should promote more grow opportunities. At this beginning stage of the
cannabis market, this is our chance to produce an income and create a lifestyle
that is comparable to the industrial revolution.
• 1 don't really view marijuana industry/production as a threat, it seems like a big
moneymaker for the county.
• Cannabis has brought thousands of dollars to Deschutes County, not to mention
hundreds of jobs. Help boost our local economy with cannabis like craft brewing
has done!
• The regulations that are currently in place for marijuana land use are damaging
the industry. These restrictions make it difficult for small businesses to prosper
in Deschutes County.
• Provides living wage jobs.
• If the growers are only dealing in cash they should be audited every year by the
local government.
• The state should have these grow sites operated by the state, not individual
businesses.
• I hope it will not affect the selling of my house and property.
Enforcement/Inspections
• complaints about sight smell and sound do not address the issue that every
neighbor around a particular complainers property could easily have for
recreational plants growing with no requirement
• 'Code violations and nothing is; done.
• Enforcement on Illegal grows.
• The requirements on paper look adequate, but suggest either requiring some
sort of filtration system or it's a matter of enforcement,
• Proactive code enforcement.
• Enforcement of lighting standards needs to be consistent and without pause. A
strong escalation and penalty process for failure to comply or for repeat
offenders.
43
Marijuana Regulatory Assessment
• There needs to be an anonymous complaint form for these many illegal grows.
+ Grow should be shut down with repeated violations.
• Current rules seem to be working fairly well, but more monitoring is needed to
make certain that there is compliance.
• Need process to revoke permits for violations.
• illegal grows in Cimarron City.
• The county NEEDS TO ENFORCE regulations that they set' out. There is not
enough of that happening right now.
• Better application of homegrown rules in regards to backyard grows that are
obviously more than personal use but not large enough to be noticed,
• Better coordination is needed with sheriff department. They need to investigate
all complaints without exception.
• More inspections and enforcement. Unannounced inspections at maturity,
lighting restrictions, monitor/meter water, fund inspectors with tax revenue.
• Conduct random inspections.
+ Grows need to be inspected more than once a year, and like a restaurant,
unannounced.'
• Odor, noise, lighting and a complaint thereof can occur anytime, and inspection
might occur weeks later.
• Since our zoning is RR10 I have to assume it is an unlicensed recreational
operation or perhaps a licensed medical operation but there appear to be no
tools in place to ascertain the status. Perhaps at least adjacent property owners
should have a mechanism to determine the licensing status of a grow other than
blindly filing a land use complaint.
• There are no inspections to enforce restrictions.
Electricity
• Size of transformer increased to accommodate the additional electrical usage.
Esthetics
• it is ruining our views, our quality of life.
• Greenhouses are ugly.;
• Why do the grow operations attract so much garbage, abandoned vehicles and
make shift campers.
+ High fences, lights, noise, smell makes it feel like an industrial zone.
• Greenhouses/hoop houses are considered temporary when they are
permanent. The visual corridor is polluted with grows and containers.
• We are concerned about the adjacent aesthetics of the property, utilizing dirt
berms in their poor attempt to conceal the greenhouses.
• Green houses are an eye sore.'
Fear
• I am afraid that the employees will not be regulated (background check, drug
screenings, driving infractions).
• I am afraid that my property is at risk of damage, theft, when I am not home.
• Threat of retaliation and harassment if complaint filed.
General
• No problem with regulation however currently the County is not playing fair.
• Current regulations are working well.
• I live really near to one and it does not bother me at all.
• Over regulation is a setback. ;It prolongs the lack of education in the industry
and consumer.
• Cannabis can't be compared to alcohol, or any other industry because it is truly
unique and one of a kind. Company's need to have the ability to expand and
learn more about this plant so that everyone can have a better understanding.
• it seems nobody is in the middle, and if they are, they aren't speaking up. For
the most part, I think everyone is doing the best they can to tackle a less than
ideal scenario.' The sky is not falling like opponents say it is. Common sense
44
Marijuana Regulatory Assessment
45
regulations are necessary and the County ought to be commended for their
efforts thus far.
• Provide; opportunity to vote.
• Disregarded public safety, community values and livability, reduced property
valuations and rentability.
• Concerns with (Drone and Helicopteractivities that will occur above, on and
around these lands.
• Rules should not be relaxed.
• Concerns for safety.
• Should be treated as a'hazardous substance due to odor and potential security
issues.
• Rural county did not vote for legalization.
Limit Total # of Operations
• Cap the number of licenses issued in the county.
• Limited on the number of licenses for each (grow, processing, retail) that should
be allowed in the county.
• There are enough operations.
• Limit the number of grow operations that are allowed in each area of the
county.
• Marijuana Production within the County should be restricted in total production
acreage in the aggregate
Moratorium
• Stop to processing new applications until current pending and approved/not;yet
in production grow sites can be reviewed against regulations.
• Implement a pause on all present and future applications until proper
governmental enforcement can be set up and the county has a better handle on
all issues.
Ownership
• Growers and property owners should be full-time Oregon residents. Out-of-
state LLCs or LLPs or individual owners should not be allowed.
Prohibition
• Stop permits for marijuana grow and processing facilities.
• Opt out (2)
• Prohibit tastings and events.
• Outdoor hemp farms should not be allowed.
• Edibles need to be banned in most all forms.:
• Prohibit grow operations.
• The industry is disgusting. You need to shut down the industry through
regulations like you did with destination resorts.
• There needs to be an 'absolute ban on any events and/or guest lodging at MJ
production/processing sites.
• Please refrain from approving any more.
Property Rights
• I support the industry I don't support the people who think they deserve to have
a say so on how others choose to live or how they choose to feed their families.
Property; Values
• Decrease in property values.
Assessor should be re -assessing property; values of adjacent
properties/businesses affected by mj grows.
• Decrease in property values.
Right to Farm
• Oregon is a Right to Farm state and this should be respected on EFU property
as it pertains to cannabis as a crop.
• It is discriminating to treat one legal product from another. Which farm use is
next?
• EFU land was created for farming. Marijuana production is a farm use.
• Marijuana growing is legal farm use. Do not cave to the hysterical conservative
neighbor groups. Let the farmers grow their legal crops.
45
Marijuana Regulatory Assessment
• This is a unique crop it should be treated differently than other crops (hay,
livestock, etc.).
Quality of Life
• Regulations protect quality of life.
• Money and greed are trumping quality of life'.
• It has deterred our enjoyment of the rural community.
• The grow operations have a negative impact on neighborhoods due to the odor,
noise and increased traffic.
Transportation Impacts
• Traffic impacts.
• Trip generation rates should be based on Nursery not Warehouse.
• The increase in traffic is very noticeable, speed and noise are issues. We would
like to see traffic enforcement on a regular basis.
Temporary Housing
• Facilities are attracting several temporary housing structures to be erected
without apparent oversight.
• :RVs used as residences
Marijuana Regulatory Assessment
Appendix E
Marijuana Land Use
Existing Conditions Report
October 23, 2017
Prepared By:
Deschutes County
Community Development Department
117 NW Lafayette Ave
Bend, Oregon 97701
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Executive Summary.......................................................................................................................................................1
II. Overview
A. Purpose.....................................................................................................................................................2
B. Background...............................................................................................................................................2
III. Marijuana Land Use Activity
A. Rural County..............................................................................................................................................
3
B. Municipalities............................................................................................................................................4
C. Map of Approved Marijuana Uses.............................................................................................................5
D. Map of Pending Marijuana Uses................................................................................................................
6
E. Medical Marijuana....................................................................................................................................7
F. Industrial Hemp.........................................................................................................................................7
IV. Marijuana Regulations.....................................................................................................................................
8
V. Code Enforcement...........................................................................................................................................9
VI. Appendices — Standards for Marijuana Operations
Appendix1- Production Standards..............................................................................................................
11
Appendix 2 - Processing Standards...............................................................................................................
15
Appendix3 - Retail Standards.......................................................................................................................
19
Appendix4 - Wholesale Standards...............................................................................................................
21
Appendix 5 - Medical Marijuana Standards.................................................................................................
22
Appendix 6 — Code Enforcement Action Flow Chart....................................................................................
26
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Oregonians approved Ballot Measure 91 in 2014 to allow recreational marijuana. Deschutes County voters
supported the measure by a slim 51.8 percent. The Legislature adopted implementing laws in summer 2015. The
County began to address this issue later that year. It has been a divisive topic in the rural County ever since.
In 2016, the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners (Board) adopted carefully crafted ordinances to support
the emerging marijuana industry and to protect the high quality of rural life through regulations to mitigate
sight, sound, smell, water, waste disposal, access, and more. The regulations are unique among Oregon counties
in three ways, including:
1. Discretionary standards to provide flexibility that the industry requested to demonstrate regulatory
compliance;
2. Public involvement in the land use decision making process by:
a. Requiring public notification of submitted applications.
b. Providing opportunities for comments, hearings, and appeals.
3. Standards specifically designed to address Deschutes County's land use patterns, zoning challenges,
varied lot sizes, climate, diverse landscapes, rural communities, and agricultural practices.
Prior to, during, and since the process to develop and adopt the regulations, industry supporters have claimed
the regulations go too far and effectively prohibit the industry. Opponents disagree, arguing the regulations do
not go far enough or the County should opt out. The Board is committed to evaluating the regulations to ensure
standards are fair while protecting the quality of life of county residents.
Evaluating the regulations consists of two parts and separate reports:
1. Establishing a factual basis of existing marijuana operations in the County; and
2. Engaging neighbors of approved marijuana grows, marijuana growers and industry representatives, and
technical/agency staff in conversations about specific regulations and the overall permitting process. A
public comment period is also open and available to any County resident to provide input.
First, the Existing Conditions Report provides a factual basis of the number, types, and general locations of
marijuana applications submitted to the County from September 2016 through September 2017. The document
also summarizes the County's marijuana regulations and code enforcement approach.
Over the program's first year, the County has approved 32 marijuana land use applications and denied two. Two
applications were withdrawn. Industry representatives indicated 25-30 applications would be submitted to the
County within the first year following ordinance adoption. County staff publicly estimated that 25-50
applications would be submitted based on customer inquiries and contacts.
Second, the Community Involvement Report will summarize neighbor, public, industry, and agency comments
on the effectiveness of the regulations to both support the industry and mitigate any impacts to neighbors.
Both reports will be combined into one document to inform the Board's determination of the effectiveness of
the regulations, including the permitting process. The Board will then decide whether the County's marijuana
regulations should be amended.
Page 1
11. OVERVIEW
A. Purpose
The purpose of the Existing Conditions Report is to provide a summary of marijuana land use activity in rural
Deschutes County, in addition to the existing regulations and approach to code enforcement.
B. Background
In June 2016, the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners (Board) adopted several ordinances regulating
medical and recreational marijuana related uses. During adoption and as discussed with the Oregon Legislature
in 2017, the Board committed to reevaluating the effectiveness of the regulations and address changing
circumstances, interpretative matters, and amendments to state law. The following provides a general timeline
of marijuana law and regulation in Oregon and Deschutes County.
Oregon Medical Marijuana Act
In November 1998, Measure 67 was approved allowing cultivation, possession, and use of marijuana by doctor
recommendation for patients with certain medical conditions.
Recreational Marijuana
In November 2014, Measure 91 was approved legalizing marijuana for recreational use. Later, in 2015, the State
Legislature approved five bills related to recreational and medical marijuana. Two of those bills, HB 3400 and SB
1598, had provisions related to marijuana land use issues.
"Opt Out" Moratorium
In December 2015, after considering proposed regulations, the Board unanimously approved a moratorium
temporarily banning marijuana business. The Board expressed a desire to have more time to evaluate the impact
and convene a Marijuana Advisory Committee (MAC) to participate in this discussion.
Deschutes County MAC
In February 2016, the Board appointed 13 residents charged with developing and recommending reasonable
time, place and manner land use regulations intended to mitigate the impacts of medical and recreational
marijuana uses.
Regulations Adopted
In June 2016, the Board, after considering extensive public comments, MAC recommendations, and state law,
adopted regulations. These new standards reflected a compromise to support this emerging industry while
maintaining the county's rural character by mitigating sight, sound, odor, waste disposal, and more.
"Opt Out" Moratorium Lifted
In September 2016, the "Opt Out" moratorium was lifted allowing marijuana related uses to be established
subject to land use review and approval.
Page 2
III. MARIJUANA LAND USE ACTIVITY
A. RURAL COUNTY
Deschutes County accepted land use applications for marijuana operations in September 2016. As of September
25, 2017, the Community Development Department issued 32 decisions for marijuana operations including
production, processing, wholesale and retail. There are 16 pending applications. The graph below identifies the
number of land use applications and their status, i.e., approved, pending, denied, withdrawn.
30 27
25
20
15
10
11
Type of Use and Status*
5 3 2 3 2
0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1
0
Approved Pending Denied Withdrawn
Production Processing Wholesaling Retail
* Status as of September 25, 2017
The charts below highlight the zoning districts approved production facilities are located within, in addition to
the average parcel size, canopy size, and whether marijuana was grown in a greenhouse or an enclosed
structure. A vast majority of the decisions have been issued administratively; two have been issued by a Hearings
Officer and only one was decided by the Board of County Commissioners.
APPROVED LAND USE APPLICATION
Znnine District
EFU
93%
MUA-10
7%
Total
100%
Tvne of Structure
Greenhouses
44%
Enclosed Structures
44%
Utilizing Both
11%
Total
100%
Page 3
Average Parcel Size 24 Acres
Average Canopy Size 8,200 Square Feet
Approval Body
Administrative (Staff)
89%
Hearings Officer
7%
Board of County Commissioners
4%
Total
100%
PENDING LAND USE APPLICATIONS (As of September 25, 2017)
Zonine District
EFU
91%
MUA-10
9%
Total
100%
Tvne of Structure
Greenhouses
36%
Enclosed Structures
45%
Utilizing Both
18%
Total
100%
B. MUNICIPALITIES
Average Parcel Size 56 Acres
Average Canopy Size 6,300 Square Feet
There are four municipalities within Deschutes County: the cities of Bend, La Pine, Redmond and Sisters.
Marijuana land uses (retail, processing, production, wholesale and testing) currently exist only in Bend and La
Pine. The following tables identify the amount of various marijuana operations in both jurisdictions.
Citv of Bend
Operation
Permitted
Business Licenses
Retail
26
25
Processing
19
13
Production
15
11
Wholesale
9
7
Testing/Laboratory
1
1
Citv of La Pine
Operation
Permitted
Business Licenses
Retail
0
2
Processing
1
0
Production
6
1
Currently, Redmond and Sisters effectively prohibit marijuana uses because the operations require a business
license. Compliance with local, state and federal law is a prerequisite for a business license to be issued. Since
marijuana is considered an illegal controlled substance by the federal government, business licenses for a
marijuana related uses have not been issued within these municipalities.
Page 4
NEI
94
z
B
20
97
Sunriver
m Redmond
Marijuana Land Use
Approved Applications
2111111111111112w
® Processing
Wholesaling
Production
Applications Submitted Through 9/25/2017
Bend
97
Sunriver A
�y
f
f
La Pine
i
f
Marijuana Land Use
Pending Applications
Retail
® Processing
Wholesaling
Production
Applications Submitted Through 9/25/2017
Of]
C. MEDICAL MARIJUANA
The Oregon Medical Marijuana Act was established by Ballot Measure 67 in 1998. The Oregon Health Authority
(OHA) regulates the cultivation, possession and use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. Federal privacy
requirements preclude the state from sharing the locations and size of grow sites under the Oregon Medical
Marijuana Program. The table below identifies the number of grow sites within Deschutes County over the past
three calendar years. The data provided by OHA does not distinguish grow sites located in the rural county versus
cities.
Year
Grow Sites
2017
1,201
2016
1,383
2015
1,742
Source: Oregon Health Authority's "Medical Marijuana Program Statistical Snapshot" — www.oreson.gov/oha
Deschutes County did not have standards for medical marijuana uses prior to the adoption of marijuana
ordinances in June 2016. The adopted ordinances regulate medical grow sites applying for OHA licensing after
June 1, 2016. Furthermore, the ordinances require compliance with lighting, odor, noise and security standards
by December 2016 for medical grow sites licensed before June 1, 2016.
D. INDUSTRIAL HEMP OVERVIEW
The State Department of Agriculture (ODA) regulates industrial hemp. ODA requires a license for production,
possession and commerce of hemp. Deschutes County does not regulate hemp because it is defined by state
law as a farm crop. Industrial hemp is not marijuana. Industrial hemp and marijuana are regulated differently
under Oregon law. Oregon law prohibits hemp to have greater than a 0.3 percent concentration of
tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana. Citizens will occasionally ask Deschutes
County staff about hemp regulations. Because there are no county standards and the product is recognized as
a farm crop, staff directs inquiries to ODA.
For more information, contact the Oregon Department of Agriculture.
Phone: 503-986-4550
Email: info@oda.state.or.us
Website: www.oregon.gov/oda
Page 7
IV. MARIJUANA REGULATIONS
Deschutes County marijuana regulations are established to mitigate associated impacts while maintaining the
compatibility with surrounding uses. Standards are limited to unincorporated areas. Compliance with state
regulations are in addition to those set forth by the County.
Title 18, Section 18.116.330, Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance, lists the criteria for recreational marijuana
operations. Section 18.116.340 provides specific standards for medical marijuana production registered by the
Oregon Health Authority. Appendix 1 provides an overview of the standards for each use. This information is
also readily available on the County's website and in brochure format at the permit counter of the Community
Development Department.
Definitions of each permitted use are provided below.
Production —
The manufacture, planting, cultivation, growing, trimming, harvesting, or drying of marijuana,
provided that the marijuana producer is licensed by the Oregon Liquor Control Commission, or
registered with the Oregon Health Authority and a person designated to produce marijuana by a
registry identification cardholder.
Processing —
The processing, compounding, or conversion of marijuana into cannabinoid products,
cannabinoid concentrates, or cannabinoid extracts, provided that the marijuana processor is
licensed by the Oregon Liquor Control Commission or registered with the Oregon Health
Authority.
Retailing—
The
etailing—
The sale of marijuana items to a consumer, provided that the marijuana retailer is licensed by the
Oregon Liquor Control Commission for recreational marijuana sales or registered with the Oregon
Health Authority for medical marijuana sales.
Wholesaling —
The purchase of marijuana items for resale to a person other than a consumer, provided that the
marijuana wholesaler is licensed by the Oregon Liquor Control Commission.
Page 8
V. CODE ENFORCEMENT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
Deschutes County has a robust enforcement program for marijuana operations. The following points highlight
the County's approach toward code and law enforcement with respect to illegal/nonconforming marijuana
operations.
- CDD accepts anonymous complaints. The anonymous complaint form can be completed by a
citizen, county staff, or a code enforcement technician via a telephone call or email from the
complaining party.
- Information is provided on the CDD webpage that details the maximum number of legally
allowed marijuana plants — recreational and/or medical — on a property.
- CDD code enforcement has an internal tracking system to record the number of marijuana
complaints received. This system includes phone calls, customer contacts in the office and
complaints submitted.
- CDD prioritizes the initial investigation of a marijuana grow site to determine whether to refer
to law enforcement. If there is no referral to law enforcement (the site is permitted by OLCC
or registered with OHA, but violations of County Code exist on the property), then CDD will
follow the Code Enforcement Policy and Procedures Manual to correct the violation.
Violations involving public health or safety hazards will be high priority — the same as all other
health and/or safety violations, but others (i.e., lighting, odor) will not.
In Oregon, a person producing marijuana falls into one of five categories (listed below).
1. They are a business engaged in the recreational production of marijuana with Oregon Liquor
Control Commission (OLCC) approval;
2. They are a medical marijuana user with a medical marijuana card issued by the Oregon Health
Authority (OHA) and they produce/possess no more than the medical marijuana limit;
3. They produce medical marijuana for others with OHA approval and they produce/possess no
more than the medical marijuana limit;
4. They have neither OLCC nor OHA approval but the amount and manner of their production is
authorized by the recreational personal amount rules.
5. None of the above apply in which case the producer is committing a crime.
The County is dedicated to ensuring compliance is met for all permitted uses of marijuana operations. The uses
that are not in compliance with county code are addressed promptly and appropriately. Appendix two shows a
flow chart describing how the county processes a citizen's inquiry on the legality of a marijuana operation.
Page 9
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1- PRODUCTION STANDARDS
ZONING
Marijuana production is allowed in the following zones:
EFU Exclusive Farm Use
RI Rural Industrial (only near Deschutes Junction)
MUA-10 Multiple Use Agriculture
Marijuana Production is a permitted use in the EFU zone and a conditional use in the RI and MUA-10 zones.
Before a commercial marijuana production use is established, an applicant needs to receive approval from
Deschutes County and the Oregon Liquor Control Commission.
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.
MINIMUM LOT AREA
5 Acres in the EFU and MUA-10 zones.
INDOOR PRODUCTION
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.
In the EFU zone, marijuana production shall only be located in buildings, including greenhouses, hoop
houses, and similar structures.
In all zones, marijuana production is prohibited in any outdoor area.
MAXIMUM BUILDING FLOOR AREA
In the MUA-10 zone, the maximum building floor area used for all activities associated with marijuana
production on the subject property shall be:
2,500 square feet on parcels from 5-10 acres.
5,000 square feet on parcels +10 acres.
MAXIMUM MATURE PLANT CANOPY SIZE
In the EFU zone, the maximum canopy area for mature marijuana plants shall be:
• 2,500 square feet on parcels 5-10 acres.
5,000 square feet on parcels 10-20 acres. 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:
1. The marijuana production operation was lawfully established prior to January 1, 2015; and
2. 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.
• 10,000 square feet on parcels 20-40 acres.
• 20,000 square feet on parcels 40-60 acres.
• 40,000 square feet on parcels +60 acres.
ON SITE RESIDENCY
Page 11
In the MUA-10 zone, a minimum of one of the following shall reside in a dwelling unit on the subject property:
1. An owner of the subject property; or
2. A holder of an OLCC license for marijuana production, provided that the license applies to the subject
property; or
3. 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.
SETBACKS
The following setbacks apply to all marijuana production areas and buildings:
• 100 feet from lot lines.
• 300 feet from an off-site dwelling.
Exception: Reductions to these setback requirements may be granted provided the applicant demonstrates
that the reduced setbacks afford equal or greater mitigation of visual, odor, noise, lighting, privacy, and access
impacts.
SEPARATION DISTANCES
The use shall be located a minimum of 1000 feet from all of the following:
• A public, private, or parochial elementary or secondary school including any parking lot and property
used by the school.
• A licensed child care center or licensed preschool including any parking lot 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.
• A youth activity center.
• National monuments and state parks.
All distances shall be measured from the lot line of the affected properties to the closest point of the buildings
and land area occupied by the operation.
LIGHTING
Shall not be visible outside the building from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
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.
Light cast by exterior light fixtures other than marijuana grow lights shall comply with DCC 15.10, Outdoor
Lighting Control.
ODOR
• 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.
• 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.
• The odor control system shall:
Consist of one or more fans. The fan(s) shall be sized for cubic feet per minute (CFM) equivalent to
the volume of the building (length multiplied by width multiplied by height) divided by three. The
filter(s) shall be rated for the required CFM; or
Page 12
2. Utilize an alternative method or technology to achieve equal to or greater odor mitigation than
provided by 1. Above.
• The system shall be maintained in working order and shall be in use.
NOISE
• 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.
• Intermittent noise for accepted farming practices is permitted.
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:
• Subject to DCC 18.84, Landscape Management Combining Zone approval, if applicable.
• 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.
• Razor wire, or similar, shall be obscured from view or colored a muted earth tone that blends with the
surrounding natural landscape.
• 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.
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.
WATER
The applicant shall provide to Deschutes County Community Development Department:
A copy of a water right permit, certificate, or other water use authorization from the Oregon Water
Resource Department;
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
Proof from the Oregon Water Resources Department that the water to be used is from a source that does
not require a water right.
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 OHA.
SECURE WASTE DISPOSAL
Marijuana waste shall be stored in a secured waste receptacle in the possession of and under the control of the
OHA Person Responsible for the Grow Site (PRMG).
Page 13
ACCESS
Marijuana production over 5,000 square feet of canopy area for mature marijuana plants shall comply with the
following standards.
Have frontage on and legal direct access from a constructed public, county, or state road; or
Have access from a private road or easement serving only the subject property.
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.
ANNUAL REPORTING
An annual report shall be submitted to the Community Development Department, including the applicable fee,
and a fully executed Consent to Inspect Premises form that includes:
• Documentation demonstrating compliance with the:
1. Land use decision and permits.
2. Fire, health, safety, waste water, and building codes and laws.
3. State of Oregon licensing requirements.
• Other information as may be reasonably required to ensure compliance with Deschutes County Code,
applicable State regulations, and to protect the public health, safety, and welfare.
• Marijuana Control Plan to be established and maintained by the Community Development Department.
• Conditions of Approval Agreement to be established and maintained by the Community Development
Department.
Failure to timely submit the annual report, fee, and Consent to Inspect Premises form or to demonstrate
compliance shall serve as acknowledgement that the otherwise allowed use is not in compliance and may be
relied upon by the State of Oregon to deny new or license renewal(s) for the subject use.
Page 14
APPENDIX 2 - PROCESSING STANDARDS
ZONING
Marijuana processing is allowed in the following zones:
EFU
Exclusive Farm Use
MUA-10
Multiple Use Agricultural
TeC
Terrebonne Commercial
TeCR
Terrebonne Commercial Rural
TuC
Tumalo Commercial
Tull
Tumalo Industrial
RI
Rural Industrial
SUBP
Sunriver Business Park
Marijuana processing is a permitted use in the EFU (requiring land use review subject to special provision of DCC
Section 18.16.025) and RI (excluding extracts) zones. It is a conditional use in the MUA-10, TeC, TeCR, TuC, Tul,
RI (including extracts), and SUBP zones.
MINIMUM LOT AREA
5 Acres in the EFU and MUA-10 zones.
SETBACKS
The following setbacks apply to all marijuana processing areas and buildings:
• 100 feet from lot lines.
• 300 feet from an off-site dwelling.
Exception: Reductions to these setback requirements may be granted provided the applicant demonstrates
that the reduced setbacks afford equal or greater mitigation of visual, odor, noise, lighting, privacy, and access
impacts.
SEPARATION DISTANCES
The use shall be located a minimum of 1000 feet from all of the following:
• A public, private, or parochial elementary or secondary school including any parking lot and property
used by the school.
• A licensed child care center or licensed preschool including any parking lot 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.
• A youth activity center.
• National monuments and state parks.
All distances shall be measured from the lot line of the affected properties to the closest point of the buildings
and land area occupied by the operation.
ANNUAL REPORTING
An annual report shall be submitted to the Community Development Department, including the applicable fee,
and a fully executed Consent to Inspect Premises form that includes:
• Documentation demonstrating compliance with the:
1. Land use decision and permits.
Page 15
2. Fire, health, safety, waste water, and building codes and laws.
3. State of Oregon licensing requirements.
Other information as may be reasonably required to ensure compliance with Deschutes County Code,
applicable State regulations, and to protect the public health, safety, and welfare.
Marijuana Control Plan to be established and maintained by the Community Development Department.
Conditions of Approval Agreement to be established and maintained by the Community Development
Department.
Failure to timely submit the annual report, fee, and Consent to Inspect Premises form or to demonstrate
compliance shall serve as acknowledgement that the otherwise allowed use is not in compliance and may be
relied upon by the State of Oregon to deny new or license renewal(s) for the subject use and subject to
Deschutes County Code Enforcement.
MAXIMUM BUILDING FLOOR AREA
In the MUA-10 zone, the maximum building floor area used for all activities associated with marijuana
processing on the subject property shall be:
2,500 square feet on parcels from 5-10 acres.
5,000 square feet on parcels +10 acres.
INDOOR PROCESSING
In the MUA-10 zone, marijuana 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.
In the EFU zone, marijuana processing shall only be located in buildings, including greenhouses, hoop
houses, and similar structures.
ON SITE RESIDENCY
In the MUA-10 zone, a minimum of one of the following shall reside in a dwelling unit on the subject property:
2. An owner of the subject property; or
2. A holder of an OLCC license for marijuana processing, provided that the license applies to the subject
property; or
3. A person registered with the OHA as a person designated to process marijuana by a registry
identification cardholder, provided that the registration applies to the subject property.
LIGHTING
Shall not be visible outside the building from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
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.
Light cast by exterior light fixtures other than marijuana grow lights shall comply with DCC 15.10, Outdoor
Lighting Control.
NOISE
• 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.
• Intermittent noise for accepted farming practices is permitted.
Page 16
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.
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.
The odor control system shall:
1. Consist of one or more fans. The fan(s) shall be sized for cubic feet per minute (CFM) equivalent to
the volume of the building (length multiplied by width multiplied by height) divided by three. The
filter(s) shall be rated for the required CFM; or
2. Utilize an alternative method or technology to achieve equal to or greater odor mitigation than
provided by 1. above.
• The system shall be maintained in working order and shall be in use.
SCREENING AND FENCING
The following screening standards shall apply to greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar non -rigid structures
and land areas used for marijuana processing:
• Subject to DCC 18.84, Landscape Management Combining Zone approval, if applicable.
• 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.
• Razor wire, or similar, shall be obscured from view or colored a muted earth tone that blends with the
surrounding natural landscape.
• 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.
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.
WATER
The applicant shall provide:
1. A copy of a water right permit, certificate, or other water use authorization from the Oregon Water
Resource Department;
2. 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
3. Proof from the Oregon Water Resources Department that the water to be used is from a source that
does not require a water right.
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 OHA.
Page 17
SECURE WASTE DISPOSAL
Marijuana waste shall be stored in a secured waste receptacle in the possession of and under the control of the
OHA Person Responsible for the Grow Site (PRMG).
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.
Page 18
APPENDIX 3 - RETAIL STANDARDS
ZONING
Marijuana retailing is allowed the following zones as a conditional use:
RSC
Rural Service Center
TeC
Terrebonne Commercial
TeCR
Terrebonne Commercial Rural
TuC
Tumalo Commercial
Tul
Tumalo Industrial
RI
Rural Industrial
SUC
Sunrvier Commercial
SUTC
Sunriver Town Center
SUBP
Sunriver Business Park
SEPARATION DISTANCES
The building space occupied by the operation shall be located a minimum of 1000 feet from all of the
following:
• A public, private, or parochial elementary or secondary school including any parking lot and property
used by the school.
• A licensed child care center or licensed preschool including any parking lot 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.
• A youth activity center.
• National monuments and state parks.
• Any other marijuana retail facility licensed by the OLCC or marijuana dispensary registered with the OHA.
All distances shall be measured from the lot line of the affected properties to the closest point of the buildings
space occupied by the retailer, except distance between retailers. Distances between retailers 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.
HOURS
Hours of operation shall be 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on the same day.
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.
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.
ANNUAL REPORTING
An annual report shall be submitted to the Community Development Department, including the applicable fee,
and a fully executed Consent to Inspect Premises form that includes:
• Documentation demonstrating compliance with the:
1. Land use decision and permits.
2. Fire, health, safety, waste water, and building codes and laws.
Page 19
3. State of Oregon licensing requirements.
Other information as may be reasonably required to ensure compliance with Deschutes County Code,
applicable State regulations, and to protect the public health, safety, and welfare.
Marijuana Control Plan to be established and maintained by the Community Development Department.
Conditions of Approval Agreement to be established and maintained by the Community Development
Department.
Failure to timely submit the annual report, fee, and Consent to Inspect Premises form or to demonstrate
compliance shall serve as acknowledgement that the otherwise allowed use is not in compliance and may be
relied upon by the State of Oregon to deny new or license renewal(s) for the subject use and subject to
Deschutes County Code Enforcement.
Page 20
APPENDIX 4 - WHOLESALE STANDARDS
ZONING
Marijuana wholesaling is allowed in the following zones:
RSC
Rural Service Center
TeC
Terrebonne Commercial District
TeCR
Terrebonne Commercial -Rural District
TuC
Tumalo Commercial
RC
Rural Commercial
SUC
Sunriver Commercial
SUBP
Sunriver Business Park
Where marijuana wholesaling is allowed, the use is subject to site plan review. Marijuana wholesaling is strictly
an office use. No storage of marijuana items or products are permitted at the site of the wholesaling use.
Page 21
APPENDIX 5 - MEDICAL MARIJUANA STANDARDS
The following standards are requirements for existing medical grow sites licensed by the Oregon Health
Authority prior to June 1, 2016. When the county adopted regulations for recreational grow sites, standards
were also placed on existing (medical) grow sites. Medical growers had to comply with the following standards
by September 15, 2016 (for lighting) and December 15, 2016 (for odor, noise, water, security cameras, and
secure waste disposal).
LIGHTING
Shall not be visible outside the building from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
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.
Light cast by exterior light fixtures other than marijuana grow lights shall comply with Deschutes County
Code Chapter 15.10, Outdoor Lighting Control.
ODOR
• 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.
• 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.
The odor control system shall:
1. Consist of one or more fans. The fan(s) shall be sized for cubic feet per minute (CFM) equivalent
to the volume of the building (length multiplied by width multiplied by height) divided by three.
The filter(s) shall be rated for the required CFM; or
2. Utilize an alternative method or technology to achieve equal or greater odor mitigation than
provided by 1. above.
The system shall be maintained in working order and shall be in use.
NOISE
• 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.
• Intermittent noise for accepted farming practices is permitted.
WATER
The applicant shall provide to Deschutes County Community Development Department:
A copy of a water right permit, certificate, or other water use authorization from the Oregon Water
Resource Department;
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
Proof from the Oregon Water Resources Department that the water to be used is from a source that does
not require a water right.
Page 22
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 OHA.
SECURE WASTE DISPOSAL
Marijuana waste shall be stored in a secured waste receptacle in the possession of and under the control of the
OHA Person Responsible for the Grow Site (PRMG).
ADDITIONAL STANDARDS FOR NEW MEDICAL GROW SITES
In addition to the standards outlined above, new medical marijuana grow sites (licensed after June 1, 2016) are
subject to the following standards.
ZONING
New medical marijuana grow sites are allowed in the following zones:
EFU Exclusive Farm Use
RI Rural Industrial (only near Deschutes Junction)
MUA-10 Multiple Use Agricultural
Marijuana Production is a permitted use in the EFU zone and a conditional use in the RI and MUA-10 zones.
MINIMUM LOT AREA
5 Acres in the EFU and MUA-10 zones.
SETBACKS
The following setbacks apply to all marijuana production areas and buildings:
• 100 feet from lot lines.
• 300 feet from an off-site dwelling.
Exception: Reductions to these setback requirements may be granted provided the applicant demonstrates that
the reduced setbacks afford equal or greater mitigation of visual, odor, noise, lighting, privacy, and access
impacts.
INDOOR PRODUCTION
• 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.
• In the EFU zone, marijuana production shall only be located in buildings, including greenhouses, hoop
houses, and similar structures.
• In all zones, marijuana production is prohibited in any outdoor area.
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:
• 2,500 square feet on parcels from 5-10 acres.
• 5,000 square feet on parcels 10+ acres.
Page 23
MAXIMUM MATURE PLANT CANOPY SIZE
In the EFU zone, the maximum canopy area for mature marijuana plants shall be:
2,500 square feet on parcels 5-10 acres.
5,000 square feet on parcels 10-20 acres. 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:
1. The marijuana production operation was lawfully established prior to January 1, 2015; and
2. 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.
10,000 square feet on parcels 20-40 acres.
20,000 square feet on parcels 40-60 acres.
40,000 square feet on parcels 60+ acres.
SEPARATION DISTANCES
The buildings and land areas occupied by the operation shall be located a minimum of 1000 feet from all of the
following:
• A public, private, or parochial elementary or secondary school including any parking lot and property used
by the school.
• A licensed child care center or licensed preschool including any parking lot 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.
• A youth activity center.
• National monuments and state parks.
All distances shall be measured from the lot line of the affected properties to the closest point of the buildings
and land area occupied by the operation.
ACCESS
Marijuana production over 5,000 square feet of canopy area for mature marijuana plants shall comply with the
following standards.
1. Frontage on and legal direct access from a constructed public, county, or state road;
2. Access from a private road or easement serving only the subject property; or
3. 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.
ON SITE RESIDENCY
In the MUA-10 zone, a minimum of one of the following shall reside in a dwelling unit on the subject property:
An owner of the subject property; or
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.
ANNUAL REPORTING
An annual report shall be submitted to the Community Development Department, including the applicable fee,
and a fully executed Consent to Inspect Premises form that includes:
Page 24
• Documentation demonstrating compliance with the:
1. Land use decision and permits.
2. Fire, health, safety, waste water, and building codes and laws.
3. State of Oregon licensing requirements.
• Other information as may be reasonably required to ensure compliance with Deschutes County Code,
applicable State regulations, and to protect the public health, safety, and welfare.
• Marijuana Control Plan to be established and maintained by the Community Development Department.
• Conditions of Approval Agreement to be established and maintained by the Community Development
Department.
Failure to timely submit the annual report, fee, and Consent to Inspect Premises form or to demonstrate
compliance shall serve as acknowledgement that the otherwise allowed use is not in compliance and may be
relied upon by the State of Oregon to deny new or license renewal(s) for the subject use and subject to Deschutes
County Code Enforcement.
Page 25
APPENDIX 6 - CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION FLOW CHART
Page 26
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703
(541) 388-6570 — Fax (541) 385-3202 — https://www.deschutes.org/
AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT
For Board of Commissioners Work Session of April 2, 2018
DATE: March 23, 2018
FROM: DeAnn Carr, Health Services, 541-322-7633
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinic (CCBHC) Quarterly Update April 2018
RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED:
This is a status report for information only; there is no staff recommendation.
ATTENDANCE: Health Services Staff: Daniel Emerson, Management Analyst; Tyler Nass,
Management Analyst; DeAnn Carr, Behavioral Health Deputy Director; Shannon Vandegriff,
Systems Performance Program Manager; David Inbody, Administrative Services Deputy
Director; James Wood, Business Manager
SUMMARY: Health Services staff will provide a status report about CCBHC operations to
date.
\)
\
) }
( \
\
/
co\
«
cr- °
� `
co
§
\
\
\
\
^ 7
c\
\
\
\
Ell
Im
�"' lJ
• L
�a x
E*
of
as
❑ a)
s
-zz w
Q,
v
u�
.o
�a x
E*
s
s
-zz w
h v
�aI
N ;
S
N
E
0
h
U
LO
C5
In
C:)
to
0%,
0
CR
h
C5
0
§}
§
\}
%
G
\\
%
J
\\
CN
CD
E
Ln
LO
\\
r-
LO
4--j
O
OD
`7 00
4-0
0
75 -
OD
S
(\
)
(\
U')
f
\\
J.
\\
0:)
C)
U)
N
L
.�
p] to N fl- � O.
o
U
-o R-b
u C a! O
4✓ rp Ur N
4.1
LA
.0�. .
a
}J
0
/�
(Q
n
c
N a
S}—
co
O @ N
N L
4--J
n
U
���
//��O Ny
1i.
�
F
4-J
C]
-MEMO
N =0
V
v ^'
4L
:,
v
(2) c5Ln
K
ryO
U
]W
03
N
2
L.L.
b
y000
a
-f✓
o
n a n
+j
N
V,
GL
i
CL
vA
u-
G7 ';
R,
lj
V
`0c
S
S
c; ;
J
'
M h
to
a,
M
r;0
�
O
r�
n
■
LL�
C)`
C
CV
C N
y
�_.
cli
a
N
00W
r.
rill
4-J
ca
LO
V %
�
m
Ln
cn
U")
u M
V
M
V
u
Lr
U V --
Q)
W
M
W>
G
CL
4,
�,�
� t;q
�
5
kn
E_
V
N
bq
Co
n
4
O OOOO O O
N
Z
O
L y
O
O
O
O O O O
O O O O
O
O
O
O
Q
O
H r
't
m m N N
--i
.-I
^�
W
76
�
U
V
a
u
�✓
N
N
LU
X
a-+
is
p
n
CL
„�
a
V
N
�
�
n
E
LU
u°ME
�
I-
11V
V
^'
c
O
b
O O O
O O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
O`er
^S`�S_
•pi
V
m
V
Qi
O
O
V
O O O
O O 4
N O oo
O
O
to
O
O
V
O
O
ON
'°
a`
a
r4
�-i -1 ifs
vt
to
V
z
co
co
CL)
LZ
C)
co
... ..... .
O
... .... .
4-
.... ... .....
0
0 0 Co
C)
IT
N
r14 ID co
10 'IT
CY,
ry
o
0
0
co
o
10
co
- 7-6
O
cl
co
co
LO
co
co
o
J-1
cU
'o
OD
o
r4
Q)
co
62
62
.2 .2 0
0.2
Cl
CD
1�
�
co
ol 0 co co-
rl C) ID
ID C,
4�
u
C'.
(A
M
4--J
M
77>
4-4
U
u
Co L-
u 0
4-j
U
5
41
CiE
E
V)
in
a)
(D
u
0
u
0
'E
w
w
u
O
0
<
ca
-0
-
-C
0
-A
C:
O
LU
m
+1
75
E
0
0
Q
a
0
0
O
o
v,
tu
C
0
Vl
E
V)
to
+1
-0
<
41V)
E
C
-0
-C
u
a)
Q
u
0
tA
0
N
0
E
IY-
u
0
�o
ol
0
co
CD
Q0