2018-220-Minutes for Meeting May 09,2018 Recorded 6/18/2018•
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon
(541 ) 388-6570
9:00 AM
I 1 `.lP :J
Recorded in Deschutes County CJ2018-220
Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk
Commissioners' Journal 06/18/2018 9:51:59 AM
2018-220
BARNES SAWYER ROOMS
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 Keith, Board Executive Assistant. No representatives of the media were in
attendance.
CALL TO ORDER: Chair DeBone called the meeting to order at 9:02 a.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
CITIZEN INPUT: None was offered.
CONSENT AGENDA: Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of the
Consent Agenda. Commissioner Baney would like more time to review minutes
and bring back to this afternoon's Work Session for consideration.
BAN EY:
HENDERSON
Move approval of Consent Agenda Items 1, 2, and 3.
Second.
BOCC BUSINESS MEETING MAY 9, 2018 PAGE 1 OF 7
VOTE: BAN EY: Yes.
HENDERSON: Yes.
DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
Consent Agenda Items:
1. Consideration of Board Signature of Resolution No. 2018-007, to Acquire
Right of Way on Deschutes Market Road and Dale Road for Construction of
Road Improvements
2. Consideration of Board Signature on Letters of Reappointment to Nancy
Gilbert, Chuck Newport, Rick Wright, Clair Kunkel, Cris Converse, and Chuck
Arnold to Upper Deschutes Watershed Council
3. Consideration of Board Signature on Letter of Appointment to Wallis
Hathaway to the Dog Control Board of Supervisors
4. Approval of Minutes of the April 2, 2018 Work Session
5. Approval of Minutes of the April 11, 2018 Business Meeting
6. Approval of Minutes of the April 11, 2018 Work Session
7. Approval of Minutes of the April 12, 2018 Public Hearing
8. Approval of Minutes of the April 16, 2018 Business Meeting
9. Approval of Minutes of the April 16, 2018 Work Session
10.Approval of Minutes of the April 18, 2018 Work Session
11.Approval of Minutes of the April 23, 2018 Work Session
BOCC BUSINESS MEETING MAY 9, 2018 PAGE 2 OF 7
ACTION ITEMS
12. Consideration of Deschutes County Ambulance Service Area (ASA) 2018
Franchise Application Recommendations
Thomas Kuhn, Health Services and Doug Kelley, Division Chief Redmond Fire
presented this item for consideration. The Ambulance Service Area Advisory
Committee just completed a review process to provide ambulance service in
Deschutes County and recommend the area assignment as read into the
record and contained within Order No. 2018-035.
BAN EY: Move approval of Order No. 2018-035
HENDERSON: Yes
VOTE: BAN EY:
HENDERSON:
DEBONE:
Yes
Yes
Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
13. Consideration of Board Signature of Document No. 2018-245,
PacificSource Amendment #7
DeAnn Carr, Health Services Deputy Director was present to request
signature for the amendment to extend service with PacificSource.
HENDERSON: Move approval
BAN EY: Second
VOTE: HENDERSON: Yes
BAN EY: Yes
DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
BOCC BUSINESS MEETING MAY 9, 2018 PAGE 3 OF 7
14. Consideration of Board Signature of Document No. 2018-224,
Amendment to Oregon Health Authority Agreement 143484-2
Pamela Ferguson, Health Services Program Manager presented this item.
The amendment relates to an ongoing five year agreement; this will permit
public health to bill for otherwise non -billable services.
BAN EY: Move approval
HENDERSON: Second
VOTE: BAN EY: Yes
HENDERSON: Yes
DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
15. Consideration of Board Signature of Document No. 2018-213,
Intergovernmental Agreement with the Oregon Health Authority
Holly Harris and DeAnn Carr, Health Services presented this item for
consideration. This agreement outlines services and financing of the
community mental health, substance use disorders and problem gambling.
Discussion held on the mobile crisis team.
BAN EY: Move approval
HENDERSON: Second
VOTE: BAN EY: Yes
HENDERSON: Yes
DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
BOCC BUSINESS MEETING MAY 9, 2018 PAGE 4 OF 7
16. DELIBERATIONS: Following a Public Hearing Appeal of an Administrative
Determination for Marijuana Production
Commissioner Henderson inquired on the landscape management plan.
Isabella Liu, Associate Planner acknowledged the plan and submitted staff
report.
RECESS was taken at 9:35 a.m. for additional packet information; the meeting was
reconvened at 9:52 a.m. The Commissioners desired additional time to further
review the additional written material; recess was taken at 9:54 a.m. and
reconvened at 10:21 a.m.
Ms. Liu reviewed the key issues raised including the odor control issues.
Commissioner Henderson would like to see mechanical engineering reports
that are detailed and feels the odor control system does not meet the test.
Commissioner DeBone has observed the plastic sheet covered hoop houses
do not control odor well and the direction of the exhaust system is important
and would like to see a statement of a functioning odor control system.
Commissioner Baney spoke on other uses and benefits that this technology
could be used for. Commissioner Henderson feels someone within a
Deschutes County department, perhaps Environmental Health, should
conduct a study on odor control. Regarding the odor criteria, the Board
expressed support (2-1) that the applicant satisfied the criteria.
Ms. Liu reviewed the concern on noise. Commissioner Baney noted the
application does not call for 24 hour operations. Commissioner Henderson
has concerns from the information received from neighbors. Regarding the
noise criteria, the Board expressed support (2-1) that the applicant satisfied
the criteria.
Commissioner Baney noted she is not approving this based on the setback.
Commissioner Henderson commented he is not approving either based on
the second operation of this applicant and on the setback based on
testimony and the basis of the good neighbor approach.
BOCC BUSINESS MEETING MAY 9, 2018 PAGE 5 OF 7
Commissioner Baney does not see where a setback exception should be
granted and Commissioner Henderson agrees. Commissioner DeBone
commented that he is supportive of the requested setback exception.
Regarding the setback criteria, the Board expressed support (2-1) that the
applicant failed to satisfy the criteria.
Regarding the landscape management (LM) zone, Commissioner Baney does
agree that it should apply to marijuana related agricultural structures. Nick
Lelack, Community Development Department Director noted that with
regard to findings and decision of the Board in this hearing that applicability
would be limited to just marijuana cases. Discussion held on the code
regarding landscape management zone. Regarding the LM issue, the Board
expressed support (3-0) that the application does not satisfy the applicable
LM requirements and cannot be approved.
Regarding water, Commissioner Baney would have placed a condition of
approval to verify water source. Commissioner Henderson looks to Oregon
Water Resources to take a role in determining water source. Regarding the
water criteria, the Board expressed support (3-0) that the applicant satisfied
the criteria.
Based on the deliberations of the Board and associated findings, the Board
has denied this application.
Commissioner Henderson commented on a function he attended last
evening regarding the cannabis industry and his concern of regulations,
density, and compatibility of use and threat to rural areas of our county.
Discussion held on the law enforcement coverage increase and the lack of
medical grow information from the Oregon Health Authority. Commissioner
Baney commented on the possible need for legislative assistance.
OTHER ITEMS: None were offered.
BOCC BUSINESS MEETING MAY 9, 2018 PAGE 6 OF 7
Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:55 a.m.
DATED this 4 Day of -472- 2018 for the Deschutes County Board of
Commissioners.
4,ATTESTSECRETARY
BOCC BUSINESS MEETING MAY 9, 2018 PAGE 7 OF 7
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703
(541) 388-6570 — www.deschutes.om
BUSINESS MEETING AGENDA
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
9:00 AM, WEDNESDAY, MAY 9, 2018
Barnes and Sawyer Rooms - Deschutes Services Center — 1300 NW Wall Street — Bend
This meeting is open to the public. To watch it online, visit www.deschutes.org/meetings. Business Meetings are
usually streamed live online and video recorded.
Pursuant to ORS 192.640, this agenda includes a list of the main topics that are anticipated to be considered or
discussed. This notice does not limit the Board's ability to address other topics.
Meetings are subject to cancellation without notice.
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
CITIZEN INPUT
This is the time provided for individuals wishing to address the Board, at the Board's discretion, regarding issues
that are not already on the agenda. Please complete a sign-up card (provided), and give the card to the
Recording Secretary. Use the microphone and clearly state your name when the Board Chair calls on you to
speak. PLEASE NOTE: Citizen input regarding matters that are or have been the subject of a public hearing not
being conducted as a part of this meeting will NOT be included in the official record of that hearing.
If you offer or display to the Board any written documents, photographs or other printed matter as part of your
testimony during a public hearing, please be advised that staff is required to retain those documents as part of the
permanent record of that hearing.
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Consideration of Board Signature of Resolution No. 2018-007, to Acquire Right of Way
on Deschutes Market Road and Dale Road for Construction of Road Improvements
2. Consideration of Board Signature on Letters of Reappointment to Nancy Gilbert, Chuck
Newport, Rick Wright, Clair Kunkel, Cris Converse, and Chuck Arnold to the Upper
Deschutes Watershed Council
Board of Commissioners Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, May 9, 2018 Page 1 of 3
3. Consideration of Board Signature on Letter of Appointment to Wallis Hathaway to the
Dog Control Board of Supervisors
4. Approval of Minutes of the April 2, 2018 Work Session
5. Approval of Minutes of the April 11, 2018 Business Meeting
6. Approval of Minutes of the April 11, 2018 Work Session
7. Approval of Minutes of the April 12, 2018 Public Hearing
8. Approval of Minutes of the April 16, 2018 Business Meeting
9. Approval of Minutes of the April 16, 2018 Work Session
10. Approval of Minutes of the April 18, 2018 Work Session
11. Approval of Minutes of the April 23, 2018 Work Session
ACTION ITEMS
12. Consideration of Deschutes County Ambulance Service Area (ASA) 2018 Franchise
Application Recommendations - Thomas Kuhn, Health Services
13. Consideration of Board Signature of Document No. 2018-245, PacificSource
Amendment #7 - DeAnn Carr, Health Services Deputy Director
14. Consideration of Board Signature of Document No. 2018-224, Amendment to Oregon
Health Authority Agreement 143484-2 - Pamela Ferguson,
15. Consideration of Board Signature of Document No. 2018-213, Intergovernmental
Agreement with the Oregon Health Authority - Christopher Weiler, Health Services
Operations Manager
16. DELIBERATIONS: Following a Public Hearing Appeal of an Administrative
Determination for Marijuana Production - Isabella Liu, Associate Planner
OTHER ITEMS
These can be any items not included on the agenda that the Commissioners wish to discuss as part of
the meeting, pursuant to ORS 192.640.
At any time during the meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS
192.660(2)(e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2)(h), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor
negotiations; ORS 192.660(2)(b), personnel issues; or other executive session categories.
Board of Commissioners Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, May 9, 2018 Page 2 of 3
Executive sessions are closed to the public; however, with few exceptions and under specific
guidelines, are open to the media.
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/meetinpcalendar
Meeting dates and times are subject to change. All meetings take place in the Allen Room at 1300 NW Wall St.
Bend unless otherwise indicated. If you have question, please call (541) 388-6572.
Board of Commissioners Business Meeting Agenda Wednesday, May 9, 2018 Page 3 of 3
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703
(541) 388-6570 — Fax (541) 385-3202 — https://www.deschutes.org/
AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT
For Board of Commissioners Business Meeting of May 9, 2018
FROM: Thomas Kuhn, Health Services,
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
Consideration of Deschutes County Ambulance Service Area (ASA) 2018 Franchise
Application Recommendations
RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED:
The Ambulance Service Area Advisory Committee would like to recommend that the Board of
County Commissioners approve the applications for franchise status during a public hearing.
ATTENDANCE: Tom Kuhn, Community Health Program Manager and Ambulance Service
Area Administrator; Doug Kelly, Ambulance Service Area Chair; various Deschutes County
Ambulance Service Area franchise representatives
SUMMARY: On January 12, 2018, the Deschutes County Ambulance Service Area (ASA)
Advisory Committee posted notification on its county webpage that the application process to
provide emergency ambulance services within Deschutes County would open on January 30,
2018, and would close on February 28, 2018. Per Deschutes County Code 8.30, any person
desiring to provide emergency ambulance service within Deschutes County shall submit an
application.
ASA Franchise applications were received only from the seven existing emergency medical
services agencies that currently operate in Deschutes County; there are no competing
applications. On March 21, 2018, the ASA Committee convened to review the applications.
The committee, which had quorum during the review, approved all the applications which were
submitted.
The committee would like to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC)
approve the applications for franchise status during a public hearing. DC 8.30 states that the
the BOCC "shall publish notice of its intent to hold a public hearing on the application and
recommendations at least 10 days, but not later than 30 days following publication of notice."
Applications approved by the BOCC will be granted ASA Franchise status effective July 1,
2018.
April 24, 2018
Staff Report for May 9, 2018 Public Hearing:
Deschutes Countv Code 8.30 "Ambulance_ Service Area" Application Process
On January 12, 2018 the Deschutes County Ambulance Service Area (ASA) Committee posted
notification on its county webpage that the application process to provide emergency
ambulance services within Deschutes County would open on January 30, 2018, and would close
on February 28, 2018. Per Deschutes County Code 8.30, "any person desiring to provide
emergency ambulance service within Deschutes County shall submit an application."
ASA Franchise applications were received only from the seven existing EMS agencies that
currently operate in Deschutes County; there are no competing applications. On March 21,
2018, the ASA Committee convened to review the applications, which included individual
review form documentation and group discussion. The committee, which had quorum during
the review, approved all of the applications which were submitted.
The committee would like to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC)
approves the applications for franchise status during a public hearing. DC 8.30 states that the
the BOCC "shall publish notice of its intent to hold a public hearing on the application and
recommendations at least 10 days, but not later than 30 days following publication of notice."
Applications approved by the BOCC will be granted ASA Franchise status effective July 1, 2018
through June 30, 2028, pending good performance. Complete budgets and fiscal audits can be
provided upon request.
Applications received, reviewed and recommended from current ASA Franchises:
• City of Bend Fire Department
• Black Butte Ranch RFPD
• Crooked River Ranch Fire and Rescue
• La Pine Rural Fire Protection District
• Redmond Fire and Rescue
• Sisters -Camp Sherman Rural Fire Protection District
• Sunriver Fire Department
In Attendance on May 9, 2018: Tom Kuhn (ASA Administrator), Doug Kelly (ASA Chair), and
various other Deschutes County ASA Franchise representatives.
Submitted by: Tom Kuhn, Community Health Manager, ASA Administrator
DESCHUTES COUNTY
FRANCHISE APPLICATION TO PROVIDE ASA SERVICE (2018)
Agency: Contact Name(s):
rCity of Bend Fire Department Drew Norris
Mailing Address:
1212 SW Simpson Ave
Bend OR, 97702
Phone # _ Fax #: e-mail Address:
541-322-63871 541-3226321 dnorris@bendoregon.gov
1. Which ASA do you desire to serve? (Ex: Redwood ASA, SIR ASA)
2. What is the location from which atnbulance services will be provided?
F
12 SW Simpson Ave, 19850 4", St., 61080 Country Club Drive, 62420 Hamby, and 63377 Jamison.
ll locataion are in Bend OR.
3. What are the levels of service to be provided? (Check all that apply.)
BLS F] ILS I " ALS
4. Will you subcontract for any services to be provided? If so, attach a copy of that subcontract.
L] Yes a No Comments:
5. What is your ambulance service license number as issued by the Oregon Health Authority?
_ ...._........-
6. Below, list the ambulances to be used in providing emergency services or provide an
attached list:
VP;,r• %ike- Model: OIiA License Number:
_
See
Attachment
,._.__ ._......_
_....__..___. _
........._. __ ........ .
DC Franchise Application to Provide ASA Service Page I of 3 Pages
*Additional materials may be requested if needed.
Attach copies of all ambulance licenses issued by the Oregon Health Authority.
7. Write a statement, or provide documentation, that all equipment and supplies in each
ambulance conforms to Health Authority standards.
Each Ambulance carries an inventory of required equipment and supplies required by the Oregon Health
Authority. This list is checked once a month. Oregon Health Authority conducted a site survey on
September 21, 2017 with found no deficiencies.
List personnel to be used in providing emergency services, including paid & unpaid
personnel. (An attachment is acceptable.)
Name:
See Attachment
EMS Level:
License Number:
9. Write a statement of agency's experience in providing ambulance services.
The City of Bend Fire Dept. has been providing ambulance service since September 6, 1973 which is 45
years of d3fsS s r� ice t4ce- sre Dept. tivas-awarded-the-advaneed-life•suppvri provider fihe•yeartward
by Oregon State Emergency Medical Technician's Association in 1984. The Department has continued to
improve the ambulance service by improving the quality and quantity of equipment, ambulances and EMT's.
Annual records of service are available upon request.
In 2016 the City of Bend Fire Department responded to 9956 total calls for service, of which 8217 were EMS
in nature and, in 2017 the City of Bend Fire Department responded to 10,825 calls for service, of which 8803
were EMS in nature.
10. Write a statement of ability to comply with the rules and regulations of the ASA Plan and
any applicable County ordinances.
The Bend Fire Department has a Deputy Chief of Emergency Medical Services, who works with a full
time administrative assistant. This allows better compliance not only with the terms of the ASA plan, but
with all of the ministerial duties that are required by the Oregon Health Authority as well with other
agencies. The Deputy Chief of EMS is a direct report to the Fire Chief and is a member of the Management
Team.
The City of Bend Fire Dept. has expanded its EMS Division by implementing a tiered EMS response that
employs EMT's who respond to the low acuity calls, leaving the paramedics available to respond to life
threatening emergencies. The Dept. has hired a full time BLS Program Manager to administrate and operate
the tiered BLS Program and a full time EMS training captain to facility new and innovative training.
The Dept. has seen the total calls for service increase by 9% over the previous year, all while reducing
response time in the city (5:36) and Rural District (9:16), which continue to improve and are meeting our
performance goals.
DC
*Additional materials may be requested ifneeded.
11. Write a description of any prepaid ambulance plan, including the number of years of
operation, funding and term.
Please see the attached brochure which describes the FireMed program that is offered by the City of Bend
Fire Department.
The FireMed program has been offered to the citizens of the Bend ASA since August 1, 1992. The .FireMed
Membership program generated $135,566.50 in 2017.
12. In the case of an application to transfer or assume an already assigned franchise, please
provide the following if applicable:
A. Summarize how the proposed change will improve response time, and the quality of
level of services to the ASA. (Include an assessment of how the proposed change will
impact the existing first response system.)
N/A
B. Provide evidence that the call volume in the ASA is sufficient to financially or
..w.., -otherwise--;justi:fy-the---changes-itrserwice., -a'kease°include~-&frvt�,and,ten" year -business;
staff, operational and system deployment model. *contingent on whether franchise
term length increases to ten years.
N/A
13. Submit copies of your adopted Fiscal Year 2017-18 Budget, and an audit for Fiscal Year
2016-17 (an electronic link to this document will suffice).
Budget-htt�srj�www.bendQre�on. av��c�me[st owOocoment?id=33358
Audit- See Attached
14. Submit proof of public liability insurance.
See attached
DC Franchise Application to Provide ASA Service Page 3 of 3 Pages
*Additional materials may be requested if needed.
DESCHUTES COUNTY
FRANCHISE APPLICATION TO PROVIDE ASA SERVICE (2018)
Agency: Contact Name(s):
Black Butte Ranch RFPD Waalkes, Justin M.
Mailing Address:
PMB 8190, POB 8000
Black Butte Ranch, OR. 97759
Phone # Fax #: e-mail Address:
(Sd115Q5_77RR (Sd115Q5_rIRF7 ET;;o1-
1. Which ASA do you desire to serve? (Ex: Redwood ASA, SIR ASA)
Black Butte Ranch RFPD ASA
2. What is the location from which ambulance services will be provided?
Stn 801 (13511 Hawks Beard)
Black Butte Ranch. OR. 97759
3. What are the levels of service to be provided? (Check all that apply.)
0 BLS R ILS R ALS
4. Will you subcontract for any services to be provided? If so, attach a copy of that subcontract.
Yes [—,] No Comments: F_
5. What is your ambulance service license number as issued by the Oregon Health Authority?
6. Below, list the ambulances to be used in providing emergency services or provide an
attached list:
Year: Make: Model: OHA License Number:
2011
Ford
F-450
E256351
2015
Ford
F-450
E266684
DC Franchise Application to Provide ASA Service Page 1 of 3 Pages
*Additional materials may be requested if needed.
Attach copies of all ambulance licenses issued by the Oregon Health Authority.
7. Write a statement, or provide documentation, that all equipment and supplies in each
ambulance conforms to Health Authority standards.
Each ambulance carries an inventory of the required equipment and supplies to meet Oregon's ALS
standards. These units are checked after each activity, and a complete inventory of all equipment is
performed on a weekly basis.
8. List personnel to be used in providing emergency services, including paid & unpaid
personnel. (An attachment is acceptable.)
Name: EMS Level: License Number:
Reference Personnel Roster (pdf)
9. Write a statement of agency's experience in providing ambulance services.
Black Butte Ranch RFPD has been providing ambulance services since 1977. In the summer of 1982, Black
Butte Ranch RFPD became the first fire district West of Bend/Redmond to provide ALS. In 1988 we
entered an automatic aid agreement with Sisters/Camp Sherman RFPD to provide ALS coverage in Camp
Sherman as well as Mutual Aid ALS in their response areas along the Santiam pass. The district has
continued to improve the ambulance service by increasing personnel and quality of equipment.
10. Write a statement of ability to comply with the rules and regulations of the ASA Plan and
any applicable County ordinances.
Black Butte Ranch RFPD has a Captain assigned to supervise the District's EMS/Ambulance program and is
directly responsible to the Fire Chief. The duties of this position include; Training, certification compliance,
ambulance licensing, EMS records maintenance, and the acquisition of medical supplies/equipment. It is the
District's goal to always be in compliance with Federal, State and local rules, regulations and statutes.
DC Franchise Application to Provide ASA Service Page 2 of 3 Pages
*Additional materials may be requested if needed.
11. Write a description of any prepaid ambulance plan, including the number of years of
operation, funding and term.
Black Butte Ranch RFPD currently has a FireMed program in conjunction with the Life Flight network.
This particular partnership was established in 2012, replacing the previous partnership with Air Link
established in 2003. Funding is provided by the annual dues paid by the FireMed members and our contract
agreement with Life Flight is renewable every 3 years.
12. In the case of an application to transfer or assume an already assigned franchise, please
provide the following if applicable:
A. Summarize how the proposed change will improve response time, and the quality of
level of services to the ASA. (Include an assessment of how the proposed change will
impact the existing first response system.)
N/A
B. Provide evidence that the call volume in the ASA is sufficient to financially or
otherwise justify the changes in service. Please include a five and ten* year business,
staff, operational and system deployment model. *contingent on whether franchise
term length increases to ten years.
N/A
13. Submit copies of your adopted Fiscal Year 2017-18 Budget, and an audit for Fiscal Year
2016-17 (an electronic link to this document will suffice).
*Reference "Audit" & "Budget" documents (pdf)*
14. Submit proof of public liability insurance. *Reference Insurance document (pdf)*
DC Franchise Application to Provide ASA Service Page 3 of 3 Pages
*Additional materials may be requested if needed.
DESCHUTES COUNTY
FRANCHISE APPLICATION TO PROVIDE ASA SERVICE (2018)
Agency: Contact Name(s):
Crooked River Ranch Fire & Rescue Alysha Delorto
Mailing Address:
6971 SW Shad Rd
Terrebonne, OR 97760
Phone # Fax #: e-mail Address:
541-923-6776 1541-923-5247 alyshag@crrfire.org
1. Which ASA do you desire to serve? (Ex: Redwood ASA, SIR ASA)
Crooked River Ranch ASA
Approximately one square mile. ALL those portions of Crooked River Ranch lying within Deschutes
County.
2. What is the location from which ambulance services will be provided?
6971 SW Shad Rd
Terrebonne. OR 97760
3. What are the levels of service to be provided? Check all that apply)
BLS OILS LTJ ALS
4. Will you subcontract for any services to be provided? If so, attach a copy of that subcontract.
Yes I X] No Comments:
I-
5. What is your ambulance service license number as issued by the Oregon Health Authority?
6. Below, list the ambulances to be used in providing emergency services or provide an
attached list:
yPar• Make: Model: OHA License Number.
2009
Ford
F450
40255
1997
International
40127
DC Franchise Application to Provide ASA Service Page 1 of 3 Pages
*Additional materials may be requested if needed.
Attach copies of all ambulance licenses issued by the Oregon Health Authority.
7. Write a statement, or provide documentation, that all equipment and supplies in each
ambulance contorms to Health Authority standards.
Each ambulance carries an inventory of the required equipment and supplies to meet the ALS standard set by
the Oregon Health Authority. These units are checked after each activity and a complete inventory review is
performed at the end of each month. Further on September 19, 2017, Crooked River Ranch Fire & Rescue
completed and facilities and equipment inspection by the Oregon Health Authority. The completion of the
site visit revealed no deficiencies. Attached is a copy of the compliance letter.
List personnel to be used in providing emergency services, including paid & unpaid
personnel. (An attachment is acceptable.)
Name: EMS Level: License Number:
9. Write a statement of agency's experience in providing ambulance services.
Crooked River Ranch Fire & Rescue has been providing ambulance services for the community since 1978.
The Fire District employs a Fire Chief, Assistant Chief, Administrative Assistant, three Captain/Paramedics,
and 20 volunteer firefighters, of which two are EMT Paramedics and eleven are EMTs. There are two ALS
ambulances in the district. The District has continued to improve the ambulance service by increasing
personnel and quality of equipment. Our goal is to provide the highest quality emergency medical care to the
residents and guests in our ambulance service area.
10. Write a statement of ability to comply with the rules and regulations of the ASA Plan and
any applicable County ordinances.
Crooked River Ranch Fire & Rescue has the ability to comply with all ASA plan rules and regulations.
Crooked River Ranch Fire & Rescue also has the ability to comply with all state, county, and local
ordinances pertaining to ambulance services.
DC Franchise Application to Provide ASA Service Page 2 of 3 Pages
*Additional materials may be requested if needed.
11. Write a description of any prepaid ambulance plan, including the number of years of
operation, funding and term.
Crooked River Ranch Fire & Rescue participates in the FireMed Program and provides this service to our
customers. The cost is $45 per year and with a membership any cost that is incurred above that which is
covered by insurance is written off for the patient.
12. In the case of an application to transfer or assume an already assigned franchise, please
provide the following if applicable:
A. Summarize how the proposed change will improve response time, and the quality of
level of services to the ASA. (Include an assessment of how the proposed change will
impact the existing first response system.)
N/A
B. Provide evidence that the call volume in the ASA is sufficient to financially or
otherwise justify the changes in service. Please include a five and ten* year business,
staff, operational and system deployment model. *contingent on whether franchise
term length increases to ten years.
13. Submit copies of your adopted Fiscal Year 2017-18 Budget, and an audit for Fiscal Year
2016-17 (an electronic link to this document will suffice).
See Attachment.
14. Submit proof of public liability insurance.
DC Franchise Application to Provide ASA Service Page 3 of 3 Pages
*Additional materials may be requested if needed.
DESCHUTES COUNTY
FRANCHISE APPLICATION TO PROVIDE ASA SERVICE (2018)
Agency: Contact Name(s):
[:La:P:in:eRural FireProtection District Daniel Daugherty & Mike Supkis
Mailing Address:
P.O Box 10
I..a Pine, Oregon 97739
Phone # Fax #: e-mail Address:
541-536-2935 1541-536 2627 C;ltiefdauglret°tylapinetire.coni.
1., Which ASA do you desire to serve? (Ex: Redwood ASA, SIR ASA)
I..a Pine Rural Fire Protection District (ASA #5)
2
What is the location from which ambulance services will be provided?
La Pine Administration: 51590 Huntington Road, La Pine Oregon 97739
La Pine Station 101: 51550 Huntington Road, La Pine Oregon 97739
La Pine Station 102: 55785 South Century Drive, Sunriver Oregon 97707
La Pine Station 103: 15990 Burgess Road, La Pine Oregon 97739
3. What are the levels of service to be provided? (Check all that apply.)
E
BLS F] ILS �'Al .,S
4. Will you subcontract for any services to be provided? If so, attach a copy of that subcontract.
Yes ElNoComments:
5. What is your ambulance service license number as issued by the Oregon Health Authority?
6. Below, list the ambulances to be used in providing emergency services or provide an
attached list:
Year: .Make-, Mocie,l:UE to 11icense Number:
2013 Ford F-450 E238971
... _ . ...__ ...__ _. .. _._..._.._ .....
2013 Ford F-450 E238972
„I.........__....... �_m._ _-..__. — _- �__.._.................. . ........ ................ . ... ..... ...... _ —............_- .._------- � ...----..., _............. _........
._ ._..
2018 Dodge Vehicle Ordered and Pending
February 2018 Arrival
2018 Dodge Vehicle Ordered and Pending July
2018 Arrival
_.......- ,__ 1.....��......_....____._._.__......__..1................
_.............�.............. ..WW_ _...._ _... __. .
Attach copies of all ambulance licenses issued by the Oregon Health Authority,
IX: Franchise Application to Provide ASA Service Page l of 3 Pages
*Additional materials may be requested if needed.
7. Write a statement, or provide documentation, that all equipment and supplies in each
ambulance conforms to Health Authority standards.
Each Ambulance inventory complies with the required Oregon Health Authority mandate for equipment and
supplies. Monthly, Daily, and After Run checks are completed regularly to assure compliance and readiness.
8. List personnel to be used in providing emergency services, including paid & unpaid
personnel. (An attachment is acceptable.)
Name:
See Attached Listing
License Number:
9. Write a statement of agency's experience in providing ambulance services.
'rhe La Pine Rural Fire Protection District has been a respected leader in the delivery of ambulance services
in South Deschutes County since 1987. We strive to provide the highest quality of pre -hospital medical care
to those in need by displaying integrity, respect and outstanding service to our community. We are
continuously improving our services through innovation and constant quality assurance efforts.
With 30 years of experience in EMS, La Pine Fire District is confident of our abilities to continue providing
quality ambulance services to the communities and clients we serve.
10. Write a statement of ability to comply with the rules and regulations of the ASA flan and
any applicable County ordinances.
La Pine Rural Fire Protection District is committed to conducting business with high ethical standards and to
complying with the rules and regulations of the ASA Plan as well as Federal, State, and County rules,
regulations and laws.
DC: Franchise Application to Provide ASA Service Page 2 of 3 Pages
*Additional rnaterivis may be requested if needed.
11. Write a description of any prepaid ambulance plan, including the number of years of
operation, funding and term.
The La Pine Rural Fire Protection District has been a participant in the "FireMed Ambulance Membership
Program" since 1989.
The FireMed program provides coverage for emergency prehospital medical treatment and ground
transportation for members. Benefits cover participant, spouse or domestic partner, and dependents claimed
on income tax returns as well as elderly or disabled family members living in the household. When
transported, La Pine Fire bills insurance carrier. No deductible or copays are required. La Pine offers a,one or
two year membership.
12. In the case of an application to transfer or assume an already assigned franchise, please
provide the following if applicable:
A. Summarize how the proposed change will improve response time, and the quality of
level of services to the ASA. (Include an assessment of how the proposed change will
impact the existing first response system.)
B. Provide evidence that the call volume in the ASA is sufficient to financially or
otherwise justify the changes in service. Please include a five and ten* year business,
staff, operational and system deployment model. *contingent on whether franchise
term length increases to ten years.
13. Submit copies of your adopted Fiscal Year 2017-18 Budget, and an audit for Fiscal Year
2016-17 (an electronic link to this document will suffice).
14. Submit proof of public liability insurance.
DC Franchise Application to Provide ASA Service Page. 3 of'3 Pages
*Additional materials may be requested if needed.
DESCHUTES COUNTY
FRANCHISE APPLICATION TO PROVIDE ASA SERVICE (2018)
Agency: Contact Name(s):
Redmond Fire & Rescue Doug Kelly, Division Chief
Tim Moor, Fire Chief
Mailine Address:
341 NW Dogwood Ave
Redmond, OR 97756
Phone # Fax #: e-mail Address:
541-5 043010 — W541-526-5470 Doug.Kelly@redmondfireandrescue.org
2.
Which ASA do you desire to serve? (Ex: Redtivood ASA, SIR ASA)
Redmond ASA within Deschutes County
What is the location from which ambulance services will be provided?___)
One advanced life support (ALS) and one basic life support (BLS) ambulance are staffed and stationed at
341 NW Dogwood Ave, Redmond, OR 97756. Another ALS ambulance will be operational by July 2018.
One ALS ambulance is staffed and stationed at 100 SW 67th St, Redmond, OR 97756
One ALS ambulance is staffed and stationed at 1390 C Ave, Tenebonne, OR 97760
3. What are the levels of service to be provided? Check all that apply.)
Fil BLS F ILS L__l ALS
4. Will you subcontract for any services to be provided? If so, attach a copy of that subcontract.
aYes No Comments We will subcontract non -emergency transports that are
not dispatched by 911 and non -emergency overflow
interfacility transfers to Cascade Medical Transport. See
Attachment #1.
5. What is your ambulance service license number as issued by the Oregon Health Authority?
6. Below, list the ambulances to be used in providing emergency services or provide an
attached list:
Year: Make: Model: OHA RMMd and License Number:
1999
Freightliner A
Type I _
40126- License Plate E218903
2002
International
Type I
40164- License Plate E231640
2011
Ford
Type I
40256- License Plate E249898
2012
Ford
Type I
40288- License Plate E256369
2014
Ford
Type I
40303- License Plate E260569
2016 V
Ford
Type I
40347- License Plate E266692
DC Franchise Application to Provide ASA Service Page I of3 Pages
*Additional materials may be requested if needed.
Attach copies of all ambulance licenses issued by the Oregon Health Authority.
See Attachment #2
7. Write a statement, or provide documentation, that all equipment and supplies in each
ambulance contorms to Health Authority stanctaras.
The Oregon Health Authority (OHA) completed an ambulance service inspection on September 21, 2017.
Successful completion of the inspection is documented and attached. See Attachment 43 Since that date,
Redmond Fire & Rescue has continued to maintain all equipment and supplies as required by the Oregon
Health Authority. Since the OHA inspection the department has also maintained and upgraded certain
equipment on all ambulances and increased response staffing levels.
8. List personnel to be used in providing emergency services, including paid & unpaid
personnel. (An attachment is acceptable.)
Name: EMS Level: License Number:
I See Attachment ft4 J
9. Write a statement of agency's experience in providing ambulance services.
Redmond Fire & Rescue has provided the City of Redmond and the surrounding rural area ambulance
service since 1960. Five members of the department completed EMT training in early 1970. Service was
originally provided by one disaster car. Redmond Fire & Rescue now maintains five (5) Advanced Life
Support Ambulances and one (1) Basic Life Support ambulance. The ambulances are staffed by 39 career
Paramedics and 16 single role EMT's. Our command staff consists of three (3) Battalion Chiefs, three (3)
overhead staff, and a Fire Chief which supervise the daily operations. We added a Basic Life Support
ambulance in October of 2016 to assist with the 911 call volume. We have since added six single role
paramedics in December 2017 to operate an additional ALS ambulance in or around July 2018.
10. Write a statement of ability to comply with the lutes and regulations of the ASA Plan and
any applicable County ordinances.
Redmond Fire & Rescue continues to meet all rules and regulations set forth in the ASA plan and applicable
County ordinances. Four franchise applications ago, the department added six Firefighter/ Paramedic
positions. With these new positions, the department now provides staffing at the fire station on SW 671,
The station is staffed with Firefighter/ Paramedics, twenty-four hours a day seven days a week. This staffing
provides the residents west of Redmond with much quicker response times. The 671` street station houses
one ALS ambulance, one ALS fire engine, and two brush engines. Past budgets allowed the addition of three
more Firefighter/Paramedics in July 2003. This increase in personnel provides staffing for the Terrebonne
station, north of Redmond on C Avenue in Terrebonne, with Firefighter/Paramedics, twenty-four hours a day
seven days a week. The Terrebonne station is staffed with one ALS ambulance, one ALS fire engine, a
brush engine, and a rescue vehicle/raft(UTV for rescues at Smith Rock State Park. We also added 6 new
Firefighter/Paramedics in December 2012. The above staffing increases have greatly improved the service
we provide to the residents in the Redmond ASA. All required policies and procedures are followed and
current. Redmond Fire & Rescue has the necessary staff, equipment, and administration to meet, comply,
and exceed the rules and reeulations set forth in the ASA Plan and Countv Ordinances.
DC Franchise Application to Provide ASA Service Page 2 of 3 Pages
*Additional materials may be requested if needed.
11. Write a description of any prepaid ambulance plan, including the number of years of
operation, funding and term.
Redmond Fire & Rescue continues to offer our customers a FireMed membership program. The program
was initially offered in 1992. Lifeflight Network LLC provides management of our entire membership
program. Revenue for the 2017-2018 fiscal year is projected to total $45,000.
FireMed Memberships are offered on an annual basis. Annual ground membership fees are $50.00.
12. In the case of an application to transfer or assume an already assigned franchise, please
provide the following if applicable:
A. Summarize how the proposed change will improve response time, and the quality of
level of services to the ASA. (Include an assessment of how the proposed change will
impact the existing first response system.)
N/A
B. Provide evidence that the call volume in the ASA is sufficient to financially or
otherwise justify the changes in service. Please include a five and ten* year business,
staff, operational and system deployment model. *contingent on whether franchise
term length increases to ten years.
N/A
13. Submit copies of your adopted Fiscal Year 2017-18 Budget, and an audit for Fiscal Year
2016-17 (an electronic link to this document will suffice).
2017/2018 Budget:
http•//www redmondfireandrescue.oi eAbout%2OUs/Budget%20DOcument%2017-
18%20w%20cover%20fmal.pdf
2016/2017 Audit:
htto://www redmondfireandrescue org/About%2OUs/Financial%20Statements%2012-19-
2017.pdf
14. Submit proof of public liability insurance.
See Attachment #5,
DC Franchise Application to Provide ASA Service Page 3 of 3 Pages
*Additional materials may be requested if needed.
DESCHUTES COUNTY
FRANCHISE APPLICATION TO PROVIDE ASA SERVICE (2018)
Agency: Contact Name(s): =Chief=] Sisters -Camp Sherman Rural Fire Protection District Roger Johnson, Fire
Mailing Address:
PO Box 1509
Sisters, OR 97759
Phone # Fax #: e-mail Address:
(541) 549-0771 (541) 549-1343rjohnson a@sistersfire.com
Which ASA do you desire to serve? (Ex: Redwood ASA, SIR ASA)
ASA #7- Sisters
Within the boundaries, as described in the 2013 Ambulance Service Area Plan for
Deschutes County, Oregon and its revisions (see attached Exhibit #1 and ASA Map)
2. What is the location from which ambulance services will be provided?
301SElm St
Sisters, OR 97759
3. What are the levels of service to be provided? (Check all that apply.)
BLS I X] ILS RX
ALS
4. Will you subcontract for any services to be provided? If so, attach a copy of that subcontract.
1-1
Yes RX
No Comments:
5. What is your ambulance service license number as issued by the Oregon Health Authority?
OHA License Number: 0903 (copy of license included/attached with application)
6. List the ambulances to be used in providing emergency services:
VPara Make Model: OHA License Number:
2015
Ford/Braun NW
Type I
40334(E265271)
2006
Freightliner/Braun NW
Type I
40197(E239468)
1999
Freightliner/Lifeline
Type I
40115(E215954)
Attach copies of all ambulance licenses issued by the Oregon Health Authority.
DC Franchise Application to Provide ASA Service Page I of 6 Pages
*Additional materials may he requested if needed.
7. Write a statement, or provide documentation, that all equipment and supplies in each
ambulance conforms to Health Authority standards.
In accordance with Oregon Administrative Rules 333-255-0070, 333-255-0071 and 333-
255-0072, the ambulances that are owned and operated by the Sisters -Camp Sherman
R.F.P.D. conform to the Oregon Health Authority standards with regard to equipment
and supplies. A 2017 Ambulance Service Audit conducted by the Oregon Health
Authority verified this conformity, with no deficiencies noted.
8. List personnel to be used in providing emergency services, including paid & unpaid
personnel. (An attachment is acceptable.)
See attached Exhibit #2
9. Write a statement of agency's experience in providing ambulance services.
The Sisters -Camp Sherman R.F.P.D. is a tax -based district that is governed by a five -
member Board of Directors. it has been providing ambulance service to this area since
1976. The Fire District currently employs (as of January 2018) a Fire Chief/Paramedic,
Deputy Chief/Paramedic, three (3) Shift Commander/Paramedics, six (6)
Firefighter/Paramedics, Administrative Assistant, Fire Safety Manager, Finance
Manager, Volunteer Coordinator/EMT, thirty-one (31) Volunteer EMS Personnel (most
cross -trained in fire), three (3) Volunteer Firefighter/Ambulance Drivers, and nine (9)
Volunteer Firefighters.
There are three ambulances owned and operated by the Fire District, all of which are
ALS capable and respond from our main fire station located within the City of Sisters.
The Fire District also operates BLS capable Quick Response Vehicles out of our Camp
Sherman and Squaw Creek Canyon Recreational Estates Substations in order to provide
more prompt medical aid to some of the more remote areas of the district. The Fire
District also has established automatic and mutual aid agreements with our
neighboring agencies to provide closest force ambulance service for critical calls, as well
as ambulance move -ups when necessary.
The Fire District provides state of the art medical equipment and training for its
personnel. District paramedics complete Advanced Cardiac Life Support training,
Pediatric Advanced Life Support training and Pre Hospital Trauma Life Support training
on a regular basis. Personnel also participate in annual training with our regional air
ambulance providers. The Fire District also contracts for Physician Advisor/Medical
Director services with Dr. David Rosenberg, who is a practicing emergency room
physician at St. Charles Medical Center — Bend. Dr. Rosenberg provides regular QA/QI
reviews with EMS providers, verifies skill proficiency and provides oversight on EMS
Protocol updates to ensure that our EMS practices are in alignment with the industry's
current best practices.
Continued on next page...
DC Franchise Application to Provide ASA Service Page 2 of 6 Pages
Additional materials may be requested if needed.
Our goal of providing the highest quality emergency medical care to the residents and
guests of our Ambulance Service Area has been further enhanced by our increased
prevention and education efforts in the communities that we serve. In addition to
emergency ambulance response services, the Fire District provides a host of community
health and safety services designed to prevent illness and injuries within the
community. The Fire District, in partnership with the Sisters Park and Recreation
District and Council on Aging, sponsored a community Senior Health Fair for 148
residents age 60 and over. In 2017 the Fire District provided 416 free blood pressure
screenings, taught 106 people CPR and first aid, inspected 50 child safety seats,
installed 91 smoke alarms and 20 carbon monoxide alarms and installed 9 automated
external defibrillators in community businesses. The Fire District also provided
ambulance standby at several community events including: The Sisters Rodeo, Sisters
Outdoor Quilt Show and school and youth sporting events.
10. Write a statement of ability to comply with the rules and regulations of the ASA Plan and
any applicable County ordinances.
The Sisters -Camp Sherman R.F.P.D. has the ability to and will comply with the rules and
regulations of the Ambulance Service Area Plan of Deschutes County, Oregon, and any
applicable County ordinances.
11. Write a description of any prepaid ambulance plan, including the number of years of
operation, funding and term.
The Sisters -Camp Sherman R.F.P.D. participates in the FireMed Emergency Ambulance
membership program. Under this program, active members that are permanent
residents within our Ambulance Service Area are provided with no out-of-pocket
expenses associated with our Emergency Ambulance Services. In addition, we offer
reciprocal coverage with other FireMed membership programs from other areas. Our
FireMed program was established in 2003 and was renamed "Sisters Country FireMed"
in 2012.
The membership program is funded solely on the membership fees collected from the
members. Our current membership terms (as of January 2018) are offered in one-year
($50), two-year ($100) and lifetime ($1,000) increments. Each membership provides
coverage to the member and household*. The goal of the FireMed membership
program is to enhance our Ambulance Service funding, while providing an economical
membership to those who cannot afford medical insurance or the out-of-pocket
expenses associated with our Emergency Ambulance Services.
*exclusions apply
DC Franchise Application to Provide ASA Service Page 3 of 6 Pages
*Additional materials may be requested if needed.
12. In the case of an application to transfer or assume an already assigned franchise, please
provide the following if applicable:
A. Summarize how the proposed change will improve response time, and the quality of
level of services to the ASA. (Include an assessment of how the proposed change will
impact the existing first response system.)
N/A
B. Provide evidence that the call volume in the ASA is sufficient to financially or
otherwise justify the changes in service. Please include a five year business, staff,
operational and system deployment model.
N/A
1.3. Submit copies of your adopted Fiscal Year 201.7-18 Budget, and an audit for Fiscal Year
2016-17 (an electronic link to this document will suffice).
See enclosed copies and/or electronic attachments
14. Submit proof of public liability insurance.
See enclosed Certificate of Liability Insurance and/or electronic attachment
DC Franchise Application to Provide ASA Service Page 4 of 6 Pages
*Additional materials may be requested if needed.
DESCHUTES COUNTY
FRANCHISE APPLICATION TO PROVIDE ASA SERVICE (20M
Agency: Contact Name(s):
Sunriver Service District Fire Department Jared Jeffcott, EMS Coordinator
Mailing Address:
PO Box 2108
Sunriver, OR 97707
Phone # Fax #: e-mail Address:
F(541) 419-0703 (541) 593-2768 jaredj@sunriverfire.org
Which ASA do you desire to serve? (Ex: Redwood ASA, SIR ASA)
ASA #8 - Sunriver
2. What is the location from which ambulance services will be provided?
57475 Abbot DR Sunriver, OR 97707. This is the fire station in Sunriver proper.
3. What are the levels of service to be provided? (Check all that apply.)
BLS F] ILS I X] ALS
4. Will you subcontract for any services to be provided? If so, attach a copy of that subcontract.
Yes 1XI No Comments: N/A
5. What is your ambulance service license number as issued by the Oregon Health Authority?
6. Below, list the ambulances to be used in providing emergency services or provide an
attached list:
Year: Make: Model: OHA License Number:
2008
Ford, Lifeline
Type 1
E241156
2016
Ford, Lifeline
Type 1
E267529
DC Franchise Application to Provide ASA Service Page 1 of 3 Pages
*Additional materials may be requested if needed.
Attach copies of all ambulance licenses issued by the Oregon Health Authority.
7. Write a statement, or provide documentation, that all equipment and supplies in each
ambulance conforms to Health Authority standards.
Both Sunriver ambulances conform with the OHA required equipment and supplies required for ALS
ambulances. We conduct daily and weekly checks to insure compliance and yearly we conduct a OHA
approved "self inspection" to ensure compliance.
8. List personnel to be used in providing emergency services, including paid & unpaid
personnel. (An attachment is acceptable)
Name:
See the attached list
EMS Level:
License Number:
9. Write a statement of agency's experience in providing ambulance services.
The Sunriver Fire department has been the exclusive EMS providers for the Sunriver ASA since it's
inclusion and have provided 24/7 ALS ambulance coverage since.
10. Write a statement of ability to comply with the rules and regulations of the ASA Plan and
any applicable County ordinances.
We are fully able to comply with the rules and regulations of the ASA plan and participate on the ASA
committee that reports to the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners.
DC Franchise Application to Provide ASA Service Page 2 of 3 Pages
*Additional materials may be requested if needed.
11. Write a description of any prepaid ambulance plan, including the number of years of
operation, funding and term.
We participate in the Fire Med program which is a yearly ambulance membership. We have been a part of
Fire Med for over 20 years.
12. In the case of an application to transfer or assume an already assigned franchise, please
provide the following if applicable:
A. Summarize how the proposed change will improve response time, and the quality of
level of services to the ASA. (Include an assessment of how the proposed change will
impact the existing first response system.)
N/A
B. Provide evidence that the call volume in the ASA is sufficient to financially or
otherwise justify the changes in service. Please include a five and ten* year business,
staff, operational and system deployment model. *contingent on whether franchise
term length increases to ten years.
N/A
13. Submit copies of your adopted Fiscal Year 2017-18 Budget, and an audit for Fiscal Year
2016-17 (an electronic link to this document will suffice).
See attached
14. Submit proof of public liability insurance. See attached.
DC Franchise Application to Provide ASA Service Page 3 of 3 Pages
*Additional materials may be requested if needed.
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703
(541) 388-6570 — Fax (541) 385-3202 — https://www.deschutes.org/
AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT
For Board of Commissioners Business Meeting of May 9, 2018
DATE: May 3, 2018
FROM: Isabella Liu, Community Development,
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
DELIBERATIONS: Following a Public Hearing Appeal of an Administrative Determination for
Marijuana Production
RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED:
Staff respectfully requests that the Board specify if they intend to approve or deny the
application and to provide any additional findings for Staff to include in their decision.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The Deschutes Board of County Commissioners ("Board") is tasked with determining if the subject proposal
meets the requirements listed in the applicable sections of the Deschutes County Code. The Board held a public
hearing to consider the appeal, filed by appellant William McCormick, in response to an Administrative
Determination that approved a marijuana production facility proposed by Linda Hopmann.
ATTENDANCE: Izze Liu, Associate Planner
1
STAFF MEMORANDUM
Date: May 3, 2018
To: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
From: Izze Liu, Associate Planner
Re: Deliberations following a public hearing on the appeal of an Administrative
Determination for Marijuana Production. File No. 247-18-000205-A (247 -17 -000755 -
AD).
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Applicant/Owner: Linda Hopmann
Appellant: William McCormick
Appellant's
Attorney: Fitch Law Group, PC c/o Edward P. Fitch
Proposal: The applicant requested approval of an Administrative Determination to establish a
marijuana production facility in the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) Zone.
Location: The subject property is located at 65325 Highway 20, Bend; and is further identified on
County Assessor Tax Map 16-11-23 as tax lot 515.
Review Period: The application was deemed complete on November 14, 2017. The Administrative
Determination was issued on February 16, 2018, and the appeal was filed on February
27, 2018.
To accommodate the open record period, the applicant agreed to place a 21 -day hold
on the 150 -day decision timeline. The 1501h day on which the County must take final
action on this application is May 28, 2018.
Hearing Date: April 4, 2018
Record Period: In compliance with Deschutes County Code (DCC) 22.24.140, the following open record
period was provided immediately following the public hearing: a 7 -day period ending
on April 11, 2018, for new written evidence and testimony, and a 7 -day period ending
on April 18, 2018, for response to materials submitted in the previous period.
PURPOSE
The Deschutes Board of County Commissioners ("Board") is tasked with determining if the subject proposal
meets the requirements listed in the applicable sections of the Deschutes County Code. The Board held a
public hearing to consider the appeal, filed by appellant William McCormick, in response to an Administrative
Determination that approved a marijuana production facility proposed by Linda Hopmann. The Board was
provided with a memorandum from staff prior to the hearing that discussed the appellant's arguments and
included several attachments consisting of significant materials from the record.
The two matrices below are designed to assist the Board in their deliberations. Table 1 focuses on the
contested aspects of the application which directly address approval criteria and which require Board
interpretations and decisions. Table 2 summarizes comments and testimony received during the hearing and
the open record period, and identifies if those comments are directed toward applicable criteria. Attached to
this memo are additional materials including testimony submitted at or after the hearing, rebuttals, and all
other materials from the record that were not included as attachments to the previous staff memo.
ISSUES RAISED IN TESTIMONY Sc SUBMITTED MATERIALS
Table 1 provides a decision matrix for the Board to determine if the application will be approved, approved
with modified conditions, or denied. These are the five key issues identified in testimony and materials that
are applicable to the subject application.
Table 2 captures the majority of the impacts, comments, and topics of concern identified in the written
materials and testimony from the public hearing and open record period. The issues identified in Table 2 are
not applicable to an approval criterion. Staff grouped public comments by topic in no particular order other
than alphabetical.
247-18-000205-A Page 2 of 8
TABLE 1: KEY ISSUES FOR BOARD DECISION
STAFF DISCUSSION FOR TABLE 1
1. Odor control
The applicant has submitted a mechanical engineer's report verifying that the proposed odor control system
will be effective to control odor. The mechanical engineer's report states the applicant will use a high-pressure
fog system designed by Fogco. The report also states that the applicant will install the ring -type foggers at
each exhaust fan outlet and will operate when the fans are running, which will ensure that all exhaust air
leaving the greenhouses will be treated for odor control. Additionally, the applicant submitted new evidence
247-18-000205-A Page 3 of 8
Mgg "IM
Has the applicant
The applicant submitted a
Yes: The application may
1. Odor
satisfied the odor control
mechanical engineer's report,
be approved
Control
requirements of DCC
consistent with previous
No: The application is
18.116.330(B)(10)?
approvals.
denied
The mechanical engineer's
Yes: The application may
report states the exhaust fans
be approved
Has the applicant
will be installed with automatic
2. Noise
satisfied the noise
to turn off at specific
requirements of DCCcontrols
times, therefore, no noise will be
No: The application is
18.116.330(8)(11)?
generated from the greenhouses
denied
between 10 pm and 7 am.
A determination is required
Yes: The application is
regarding whether the proposed
approved
Does the applicant's
location of the greenhouses will
No: The applicant will
3. Setback
proposal provide
provide equal or greater
need to apply for a
Exception
sufficient mitigation of
mitigation when compared to a
modification
certain impacts?
location that meets the setback
No: The application is
standards.
denied
No: The application may
be approved
Are the standards of the
A determination whether LM
Yes: A condition of
4. Landscape
LM Combining Zone (DCC
approval is required for the
royal will be included
approval
Management
18.84) applicable for the
proposed greenhouses based on
to require LM review
(LM)
proposed greenhouses?
the intent of DCC 18.116.330.
Yes: The application is
denied
The applicant submitted a copy
Yes: The application may
of the water right certificates
be approved.
Has the applicant
and has stated that the grow
satisfied the water source
season will correlate with the
S. Water
requirements of DCC
q
irrigation season, therefore, an
g
No: The application is
18.116.330(8)(10)?
alternate source of water
denied.
outside of the irrigation season
will not be utilized.
STAFF DISCUSSION FOR TABLE 1
1. Odor control
The applicant has submitted a mechanical engineer's report verifying that the proposed odor control system
will be effective to control odor. The mechanical engineer's report states the applicant will use a high-pressure
fog system designed by Fogco. The report also states that the applicant will install the ring -type foggers at
each exhaust fan outlet and will operate when the fans are running, which will ensure that all exhaust air
leaving the greenhouses will be treated for odor control. Additionally, the applicant submitted new evidence
247-18-000205-A Page 3 of 8
to the record during the open record period to explain the effectiveness of the Fogco system (Attachment Q.
The appellant raised concerns that the engineer's report is inadequate because it provides a generalized
opinion that the odor control system will be effective. The appellant has not offered evidence to demonstrate
the odor control technologies will be ineffective. Staff defers to the Board to determine if the mechanical
engineer's report and additional evidence sufficiently demonstrates compliance with the above criteria.
For the Board's convenience, staff has outlined previous Board interpretations regarding odor control below.
In the Administrative Determination, staff found the mechanical engineer's report met the requirements of
this section and included an ongoing condition of approval:
Odor: An effective odor control system must at all times prevent unreasonable interference with neighbors'
use and enjoyment of their property. The odor control system shall be maintained in working order and
shall be in use.
This is consistent with the Board's Rubio decision', where the Board found:
The Board acknowledges that the criteria of this section are discretionary in terms of what constitutes
"unreasonable interference of neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property". The record includes two
letters from Oregon -licensed Mechanical Engineer Robert James, PE, dated November 23 and November
29, 2016. The Board finds the applicant met these criteria. The Board also clarifies that odor control is an
ongoing requirement and that the burden of compliance is on the applicant. The Board further clarifies that
in subsequent applications, an engineer's letter should explicitly identify that the engineer signing the letter
is a mechanical engineer.
This is also consistent with the Board's Tewalt2 decision, where the Board found:
The record contains two letters from Mechanical Engineer Jay Castino addressing the mitigation of odor
for the property. The initial letter submitted with the application (dated March 20, 2017) and a revised
letter (dated September 6, 2017). Although one Board member disagreed, the remaining two Board
members found that the applicant could meet the criteria with the ongoing condition of approval:
• At all times, the proposed odor control system shall prevent unreasonable interference with
neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property, shall be maintained in working order, and shall
be in use.
The Board may wish to determine consistency with the Board's decision for Evolution Concepts LLC3, where
the Board found:
Although one Board member found the applicant could meet the criteria with an ongoing condition of
approval, two Board members disagreed and found that the applicant did not provide enough specificity
regarding odor control measures. The two commissioners found that the information submitted by the
applicant does not demonstrate an ongoing capability to insure [sic] odor emissions will not unreasonably
interfere with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property.
Staff asks the Board to determine if the applicant has met their burden of proof with respect to odor control.
2. Noise levels
'Rubio: BOCC Document Ns 2017-294, Planning Division File N2 247-17-000036-A
Z Tewolt: BOCC Document Ns 2017-718, Planning Division File Ns 247-17-000723-A
3 Evolution Concepts LLC: BOCC Document Ns 2017-773, Planning Division File Ns 247-17-000803-A
247-18-000205-A Page 4 of 8
In the administrative decision, staff found the engineer's statements satisfied the requirements of this section,
with a corresponding condition of approval to ensure ongoing compliance.
In the recent Evolution Concepts LLC decision, the Board found:
... two Board members expressed a desire for additional details specific to the proposal and the property,
especially concerning controlling sustained mechanical noise from the heating and ventilation equipment
[... ] The Board finds that the applicant has not met its burden of demonstrating in a site-specific manner
that sustained noise will not become a problem for this operation, relative to adjoining properties.
The mechanical engineer's report states no noise will be generated from the fans associated with the proposed
marijuana production use because the fans will be equipped with automatic controls that prevent them from
operating at night between 10 pm and 7 am.
3. Setback exception to southern property line
The code section's plain language states that the applicant must show the location of the marijuana
production sites will provide equal or greater mitigation for certain impacts when compared to locations that
meet the standard setback requirements of 100 feet from property lines. The specific impacts are visual, odor,
noise, lighting, privacy, and access impacts (DCC 18.116.330(B)(6)). The applicant described several reasons
for how they will provide equal or greater mitigation for these impacts for their chosen location.
• Visual:
o The proposed location will be able to utilize existing mature vegetation that borders the southern
property boundary.
o The proposed location offers more screening from Highway 20 because of the mature vegetation
and existing structures.
• Odor:
o The odor control system is designed to eliminate all odor, therefore the proposed location will not
affect odor in any way.
• Noise:
o The mechanical engineer's report states that no noise will be generated from the exhaust fans or
split system HVAC unit during the hours of 10 pm and 7 am because the fans will be installed with
automatic controls that prevent them from operating during these hours.
• Lighting:
o There will be no artificial lighting in the greenhouses.
• Privacy:
o The closest dwelling to the subject property is to the north and the proposed location of the
greenhouses will be sited on the southern portion.
o Security cameras will be installed.
• Access:
o The subject property currently has a single driveway accessed off of Highway 20 and all of the
existing structures are accessed from this existing driveway. The proposed location of the
greenhouses will be able to utilize the existing driveway.
247-18-000205-A Page 5 of 8
In the Board's recent Baker4 decision (issued February 16, 2018, after the administrative decision for the
subject application was issued), the Board denied the setback exception to the property line standard. In that
the decision, the Board found:
The Board understands there may be unique situations that warrant a reduction of the setback
requirements. The exception should be an attempt to seek [a] balance between the proposal and the
surrounding area whether in public or private ownership. Moreover, some Board members believe granting
an exception may be optimal for neighboring private properties in order to mitigate impacts. [... ] Although
opinions vary regarding granting an exception to the setback adjacent to private property, the Board
collectively and generally agrees that the applicant did not demonstrate the reduced setbacks will afford
equal or greater mitigation of the marijuana production facility to the surrounding public and private
properties.
In the Findings & Decision, staff found the reduced setbacks could be approved because the application
materials indicated the locations could provide, at a minimum, equal mitigation of the listed impacts. In
regards to the Baker decision, staff defers to the Board for a determination.
4. Landscape Management Combining Zone
The proposed location for the greenhouses are within the Landscape Management (LM) Combining Zone
associated with Highway 20. The applicant did not apply for LM review in conjunction with the Administrative
Determination application because LM review is only required for a structure or substantial alteration
requiring a building permit, or an agricultural structure as defined in DCC 18.04.030. Non -rigid greenhouses
and hoop houses may not require a building permit and may not meet the definition of agricultural structure.
Staff included a memorandum submitted during the open record period addressing the intent of DCC
18.116.330(B)(12)(a) as related to DCC 18.84 (See Attachment F). Staff defers to the Board for a determination.
5. Water source
There were several concerns raised regarding water in testimony and in written materials. Many of the
concerns were in regards to the use of the domestic well.
The applicant has provided water right certificates showing that the property has 17 acres of appurtenant
water rights delivered by Tumalo Irrigation District. The applicant is proposing to exclusively grow during the
irrigation season (April 1St to October 31St). The applicant is not proposing to utilize a private water hauling
company the proposed marijuana production use. Staff found the use of irrigation water and evidence of
water certificates met the requirements of this section.
4 Baker: BOCC Document Ns 2018-083, Planning Division File Ne 247-17-000962-A
247-18-000205-A Page 6 of 8
TABLE 2: TOPICS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA
..,
=-I-
Appeal fee is a barrier
✓
Children reside in the neighborhood '
✓
Code Enforcement has failed to address issues on other grow sites
✓
Compatibility with surrounding farm uses
✓'
Concerns related to the applicant's "vertical integration" of production,
✓
processing and retail business
Concerns related to the marijuana production and processing facility
✓
owned by the applicant near the subject property (odor, noise, traffic,
etc.)
Density of marijuana production sites in Deschutes County
✓
Environmental effects of the odor control fog system
✓
Federal preemption of state law
✓
Illegal sales outside of Oregon
✓
Increased traffic impacts on Highway 20
✓
Lack of environmental studies on the proposed greenhouses
✓
Overproduction
✓
Property Values
RV and other accessory structures used as dwellings for employees
✓
Tumalo Irrigation District does not provide "conserved water" to keep
✓
vegetation along existing canals alive after the canals are piped
Vegetation along the existing canal will die and reduce screening
✓
Wells drying up in the neighborhood
✓
CONCLUSION & NEXT STEP
Staff respectfully requests that the Board specify if they intend to approve or deny the application and to
provide any additional findings for Staff to include in their decision. The final local land use decision must be
issued by May 28, 2018. At the conclusion of the business meeting, staff will draft a decision for Board
signature. That decision will be placed on the agenda for one of the Board's future Business Meetings.
ATTACHMENTS FROM RECORD:
NOTE: All of these attachments are in the written record. In the event the Board's decision is appealed, and
by attaching these items to this memo, the following materials from the record have been properly presented
before the Board. The complete digital written record is available on the Deschutes County Property
Information website: http://dial.deschutes.org/Real/DevelopmentDocs/131792 and as well as the Oregon
ePermitting website: https://aca.oregon.accela.com/oregon/, and the physical record is available for
inspection in the County's Community Development offices.
5 As identified in Findings & Decision for file 247 -17 -000755 -AD.
247-18-000205-A Page 7 of 8
From public hearing:
A. Area Map
B. Site Plan
From open record period for new materials
C. Applicant's Comments
D. Appellant's Comments
E. Public Comments
F. Staff's Comments
From open record period for rebuttal:
G. Applicant's Rebuttal
H. Appellant's Rebuttal
I. Public Rebuttal
247-18-000205-A Page 8 of
Attachment A —Area Map
This page intentionally left blank.
This page intentionally left blank.
Attachment 6 — Site Plan
This page intentionally left blank.
AW
0
m
46
FL
c
E
0
CL
E
0 CL
0
a. a. a a a. a.
a
32
�1
r�lil CJI
t� ci to a a`
N N
O C
�f
m
'S SI -a m m
•
' lj
fa
•tjj
i
l
I
J
l
t
j
I
�
Q
'z
ri
I
U
cQ
{
•
' lj
fa
•tjj
i
I
�o
j
�
44
'z
ri
I
U
cQ
{
10
_.
9
This page intentionally left blank.
Attachment C — Applicant's Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
April 11, 2018
Community Development Department
117 NW Lafayette Avenue
Bend, Oregon 97708
'1 �
Re: File Number 247 -17 -000755 -AD
APPLICANT RESPONSE TO APPELLANT REASONS FOR APPEAL PER NOTICE OF APPEAL
1. The application does not comply with the setback requirements under the code and there is no
reasonable basis for an exception.
l�J iCa-Resr�onse
The plot plan provided with the application materials indicates the proposed greenhouses will be
situated more than 100 feet from all property lines, except for the southern property line. The
greenhouses are to be located 60 feet from the southern property line placing they greenhouses and access
in a
location that provides equal or greater mitigation of visual, odor, noise, lighting, privacy,
impacts as demonstrated in the application and as summarized in the Community Development
Department Findings & Decision. The greenhouses will be approximately 545 feet from the northern
property line, 60 feet from the southern property line, 585 feet from the eastern property line, and
1,150 feet from the western property line. The proposed location of the greenhouses allows for the
improvement of 3.5 acres of agricultural land and provides for efficiencies in the use of certified water
rights on this property to be implemented.
The appellant has proposed locating the greenhouses in alternative locations. An alternative location #1
located north of the proposed location for the greenhouses and south of the agricultural pond has been
suggested by the appellant. Alternative location #1 is in not under a certified water right and it does not
offer the owner opportunity to restore impacted agricultural land as part of this project. This location is
to the north east of the Tumalo West Branch canal and it places the greenhouses in a high visibility
location as seen from Highway 20 within the LMZ. Alternative location #1 offers less mitigation
compared to the proposed location.
The appellant has proposed locating the greenhouses to the west where crop land is currently
productive. The alternative location #2 decommissions productive cropland, positions the greenhouses
closer to neighboring residential structures, and creates greater visual impacts within the LMZ due to
the topography and current landscaping. The landscaping of the crop land to the west is void of trees
and natural screens (see application maps). This location does not offer the owner an opportunity to
restore impacted agricultural land or address water efficiency issues on the farm as part of this proposal.
Alternative location #2 offers less mitigation compared to the proposed location.
The appellant has proposed an alternative location #3 locating the greenhouses between the Tumalo
West Branch canal and Highway 20. Alternative location #3 is in not under a certified water right and it
does not offer the owner opportunity to restore impacted agricultural land as part of the farm
management plan. This location is to the east of the Tumalo West Branch canal and it places the
greenhouses in a highly visibility location as seen from Highway 20. This location is partially within the
LMZ 100 foot setback (see application plot plan). Alternative location #3 offers less mitigation compared
to the proposed location.
The appellant wrongly ascertains that the reason for the proposed location of the greenhouses is to
locate the operation closer to the neighbor's residence and distal from the residence located onsite. As
described in the application and demonstrated by distance measurements on the site plan, the
proposed location for the greenhouses is best able to mitigate impacts on neighbors, conserve the LMZ
vistas, provide opportunity to the farm owner to restore agricultural lands invaded by noxious weeds
and implement water efficiencies, and increase the productive value of the farm by adding to crop
production rather than replacing current crop production.
It is discussed in the appellants memorandum and indicated by a photo that large boulders and RVs
have been placed close to Highway by the applicant. The large boulders have been naturalized into the
landscape and have been at this location many years prior to the applicant obtaining ownership of the
property. The RV area established by the previous owner, has been decommissioned by the current
property owner within hours of her discovering the compliance issue (Photo 1). There are several
established agricultural buildings on the farm as indicated on the plot pian, and these structures will not
be used in marijuana production operations.
The applicant cooperatively worked with the Tumalo Irrigation District and Deschutes County Planning
to strategically locate the greenhouses in a location that not only provides equal or greater mitigation of
visual, odor, noise, lighting, privacy, and access, but also allows for farm management improvements.
The applicant agrees with the Community Development Findings and Decisions that the application
complies with the setback requirements under the code if the Hearings Body approves the presented
reasonable basis for an exception as allowed under code. if the exception is not granted for the setback,
the applicant is willing to site the greenhouses at the alternative location #2 to meet the setback.
2. The applicant has failed to demonstrate sufficient control on both noise and odor.
Applicant Response
Specifications and schematics of the greenhouse buildings, doors, fans, and odor control fogging
systems are attached (Windjammer Series 5000). Environmental controls that maintain optimal
temperatures in the greenhouse setting will be employed so the fans will not be required at night to
adjust temperatures. HVAC equipment in combination with Fogco Systems climate control systems will
be used to provide environmental control and will allow the greenhouses to operate without the need
for fans at night (see Fogco Climate Control). The attached greenhouse schematics show that 6'x 7'
double doors (non -overhead doors) will be used to gain access to the interior of the greenhouses. The
greenhouse structures are not open at night and there are no overhead doors to leave open.
An effective odor control system is a critical component in complying with odor regulations governing
marijuana production. The marijuana industry has looked to other industries that have been successful
at obtaining odor compliance to address issues regarding Effective Farm Uses and Land Use
Compatibility. The odor control technology available to the marijuana industry traditionally consisted of
carbon filtration scrubbers to physically filter air. With increased demand for technology to address
odor from marijuana production, fogging systems that atomize the water in combination with a
neutralizing agent eliminates odor rather than masking it (see Fogco Climate Control and Odor Control)
(see Benzaco Scientific Subtractive Odor Control, Dell Tech Laboratories Odor ArmorThe applicant20S, and
install
ase
Study — Colorado Cannabis Grow Facility) (see St. Croix Sensory, Inc case study),
the Fogco Systems and utilize Benzaco Scientific Odor -Armor 420 neutralizing agent to meet Deschutes
County odor ordinance.
A letter from a mechanical engineer licensed with the State of Oregon is submitted along with this
application and certifies that noise will not be generated from the exhaust fans or split system HVAC
units during the hours of 10 pm and 7 am as the split system HVAC units and exhaust fans in each
greenhouse will have automatic controls that prevent them from operating during these hours (see
application Colebreit Engineering). When the split system HVAC units and exhaust fans are not
operating, there will be no noise from the greenhouses. The applicant agrees with the Community
Development Findings and Decisions that the application demonstrates sufficient control of noise and
understands that this is an ongoing condition of approval to ensure compliance.
The letter from the mechanical engineer licensed with the State of Oregon also certifies odor will be
mitigated using high pressure ring -type foggers designed by Fogco. Each greenhouse will be equipped
with foggers installed at the exhaust fan outlets and the pumps for the foggers will be interlocked with
the exhaust fans so the foggers are operating while the fans are running. This method ensures that all
exhaust air leaving the greenhouses will be treated for odor control. The applicant agrees with the
Community Development Findings and Decisions that the application demonstrates sufficient control of
odor and understands that this is an ongoing condition of approval to ensure compliance.
3. The applicant has dug a goo' well and there are insufficient measures to ensure that the well water
will not be used for marijuana production.
Applicant Response
The applicant purchased the property in 2017 and installed a domestic well as the water cistern on the
property was failing. The domestic well is located at the southeastern portion of the property to the
east of the Tumalo West Branch canal and proximal to the existing residential structure (see application
plot plan). The domestic well will not be used as a source of water for production of marijuana.
The property has 17 acres of water rights to be used for agricultural purposes and one agricultural pond
used to store irrigation water. The greenhouses will operate during the agricultural season of May
through October. Plants are started in the greenhouse in May and are harvested in October. The
greenhouses will use certified water rights as a water source. The property has an agricultural pond and
irrigation lines and the greenhouses will utilize these to source water. The greenhouses will not be
supporting plants during the non-agricultural season November through April.
The location of the greenhouses allows restoration and water efficiency improvements to be
implemented on 3.5 acres of agricultural land. The applicant identified this location of the property to
be inefficiently using water, dominated by invasive weeds, and displayed impacted soils by farm traffic.
The greenhouses proposed for this site would use less water than is currently spent on the 3.5 acres
allowing for the unused water right to be utilized in other ways (i.e. Water for established vegetation
along the to be piped Tumalo West Branch canal).
The Tumalo Irrigation District has an easement on the property and is able to perform without notice
on-site inspections of our agricultural water usage and to verify source as domestic or agriculture. (see
OLCC Understanding Water -Use Regulations).
4. The applicant will have a negative impact on adjoining properties and their values.
Applicant Response
The appellant states in the appeal, "it would seem inappropriate for the county to continue to approve
marijuana grow operations which ore 1) illegal under federal law and 2) possibly contributing to criminal
activity in other states or use in violation of the rules and regulations adopted by the state of Oregon".
The purpose of Measure 91 as enacted by the People of the State of Oregon include eliminating the
problems caused by the prohibition of marijuana and protecting the safety, welfare, health, and peace
of the people. The People of the State of Oregon intend that the provisions of Measure 91 will prevent
illegal diversion of marijuana from this state to other state, prevent criminal funding, prevent violence
and firearms use associated with prohibited marijuana. Measure 91 Section 7 places the powers and
duties of marijuana regulation with the Oregon Liquor Control Commission, and HB 3400 further
extended the authority of OLCC to include medical marijuana regulations. The authority of the county
to determine the legality of marijuana under federal law is defined under Measure 91 Section 13 that
states, "The production, delivery, and possession of marijuana items by a licensee or a licensee
representative incompliance with section 3 to 70 of this Act shall not constitute a criminal or civil
offense under Oregon law". Additionally, under Measure 91 Section 58 and Section 59, Marijuana laws
supersede and repeal inconsistent charters and ordinances and the cities and counties may adopt
reasonable time, place, and manner regulations of the nuisance aspects of marijuana.
Central Oregon Association of Realtors TrendVision report published April 2018 demonstrates the
continued increase in property values in Deschutes County. There is a 10% increase in median sold price
of a property currently as -compared -to the same twelve months one year ago. There is an 80.9%
increase in the median sold price of a property currently as compared to the same twelve months five
years ago. This is evidence that property values in Deschutes County continue to increase in tandem
with the establishment regulated marijuana. (see TrendVision)
Photo 1
olf"1 GI lu wtan a awa Ws ...+p«�+..+
owuMRG luua a.v.a..0 v.__.- v.........
Heavy-duty webbed truss option
4' TALL SIDEWALL HEIGHT 6' TAIL SIDEWALL HEIGHT
width
J
D
16'
3 4' n/a n/a 8'-6" 16' 3 6' n/a n/a
10'-6"
6
3 4' n/a 8' 9'-60 20' 3 6' n/a 10'
24' 3 6' 81-W 11'
111-6"
13'-0"
24'
30'
3 4' 6'-6" 9' 111-0"
3 4' 8'-0" 12' 14'-0" 30' 3 6* 10'-0" 14'
i
35'
D
18'-0"
B** Optional cross bar and "UW style truss C* Standard cross bar Custom Sidewall heights available
ACCESSORIES AND EQUIPMENT
C,
ROLL-IJPIDROP DOWN CURTAINS ® EXHAUST FANS * INLET LOUVERED VE S *
HEATING SYSTEMS e DOORS " EVAPORATIVE COOLING SYSTEMS • CIRCULATION FANS * ENVIRONMENTAL,
o
A
i
1
t
e
owuMRG luua a.v.a..0 v.__.- v.........
Heavy-duty webbed truss option
313 Jesse Way 13 Vine Sheet
Redlands, CA =74 Cincinnati, OH 45217
(909) 583-7955 G O I• D F `' PAC I F 1 C (513) 242-0130
STRUCTURES
ROU6111iR0I IiFKs ( OMPANY
Facilities in San Diego and Cincinnati
W W W.GPSTRUCTU RES.COM
4' TALL SIDEWALL HEIGHT 6' TAIL SIDEWALL HEIGHT
width
purlins A B** C* D width purlins A B** C"
D
16'
3 4' n/a n/a 8'-6" 16' 3 6' n/a n/a
10'-6"
20'
3 4' n/a 8' 9'-60 20' 3 6' n/a 10'
24' 3 6' 81-W 11'
111-6"
13'-0"
24'
30'
3 4' 6'-6" 9' 111-0"
3 4' 8'-0" 12' 14'-0" 30' 3 6* 10'-0" 14'
16'-0"
35'
5 4' 8'-0" 13' 16'-0" 35' 6 6' 10'-0" 15'
18'-0"
B** Optional cross bar and "UW style truss C* Standard cross bar Custom Sidewall heights available
ACCESSORIES AND EQUIPMENT
ROLL-IJPIDROP DOWN CURTAINS ® EXHAUST FANS * INLET LOUVERED VE S *
HEATING SYSTEMS e DOORS " EVAPORATIVE COOLING SYSTEMS • CIRCULATION FANS * ENVIRONMENTAL,
CONTROLS * BENCHES * IRRIGATION PACKAGES ® RACK AND PINION RIDGE VENTS
313 Jesse Way 13 Vine Sheet
Redlands, CA =74 Cincinnati, OH 45217
(909) 583-7955 G O I• D F `' PAC I F 1 C (513) 242-0130
STRUCTURES
ROU6111iR0I IiFKs ( OMPANY
Facilities in San Diego and Cincinnati
W W W.GPSTRUCTU RES.COM
�*l
-,
m
a
O
7
rt
The Integrated Climate Control system (ICC? is an all-inclusive fog system that monitors and controls humidity and
temperature levels based on programmable set points. The system incorporates Fogco's low -flow CAT pump; an integrated
2 zone FOGCOntroller microprocessor; and a combination of Revolution, Revolution 11, or Evolution fan units, These fan units
utilize 'air -assist technology to provide exceptional throw and distribution of the humidity. This technology improves
absorption of the moisture which provides precise and controllable humidity levels throughout the facility.
Although there are different methods of increasing humidity
levels, a quick calculation of annual energy costs indicates the
significant savings of using a fog based humidification system.
The ICG system provides better performance at a lower cost
than other alternatives. It is effective in any Industrial
humidification application including greenhouses, paper and
wood processing, printing facilities, textiles, wineries, and more.
Better Control. Better Results.
'yp $25K $50K $75K
Analysis for moisture output of t GPM (500 pounds per hour) 10 hours per day, 365 days
par year with a kW rate of $.13 per hour
_.. Fogco SysWM, Inc. T: +1 480 507 6478 �"
02013 Evolution, Fo Systeme, ioc. Mlstsceping Desert Fag, isered en, w c.
600 556th Skeet E Info9fagoo.am � � �, z � � � ,
tradears o f Fog Fog to s the spray paflem BIC registered Chandler, AZ 85716 W. www.fagco.com
trademarks of Fogco Systems, Inc.
Pictures—See attachments
ODOR CONTROL
A HIGHER STANDARD
Fogco has over 25 years of experience in the high pressure fog industry and its systems
are used worldwide to address and eliminate a variety of odor control concerns. Because
this issue is highly regulated with strict restrictions among the cannabis industry, it is
critical to obtain the most effective odor solution available. Fogco delivers.
.How and Why it works:
For effective open area odor control, two key elements are required: high pressure
fog and a scientifically developed essential oil mixture that performs as a true odor
neutralizer.
'l'lle high pressure log is achieved through an atomizing process involving our
high pressure og pL1111p and our specialty fogging nozzles. With this process, billions of
micron sized droplets are produced every minute. For most cannabis operations, a nozzle
ring is installed on the exterior of any vent or duct allowing the fog to mix with the
exhausting air. As the droplets are suspended and carried into the air flow, they
effectively encapsulate all airborne malodors.
Second, by injecting a specially formulated neutralizing solution into the high
pressure fog, it is able to completely mix with the airborne odors. Through a series of
chemical reactions (including antagonistic pairing, absorptioii and adsorption, and
pluralistic effects), the essential oils are able to 111oelil'y the chemical structure of the odor
molecule which in turn, neutralizes and eliminates the malodor.
----------
Chart—See attachment
Benefits
• Licensing and application process approvals
• Neutralizes odors; eliminating complaints, violations, and fines.
• Cost effective
• Maximum coverage with minimum investment compared to alternatives.
FOGCO
A - UT11
L I IN Ia, toleR L
An effective odor control system is a critical piece of any type of marijuana growing operation. Regardless
of size or complexity, escaping odors must be treated and neutralized before reaching public areas creating
community concerns and complaints. Since ventilation is a key ingredient to plant health, the pungent odor
from different strains can be smelled for miles without some form of odor control.
Fogco's diverse line of high pressure products allows for a customized odor system to be designed for a
variety of applications. When combining an injector with the high pressure fog system, a neutralizing agent
can be Introduced which will control and eliminate the odor rather than merely masking it. This technology
has been effectively used for years to eliminate odor concerns in industrial markets such as sewage facilities,
garbage transfer stations, farming, etc.
Better Control. Better Results.
02013 Fogco Systems, Inc. Mlstscsplq& Desert Fog. Revolution, Fogcv Systems, Inc. T: +1480 507 6478 6 t;
Evolution, FogStreet E Dedr, Fagoo, 6 the spray pattern are reofted GW S 56th StrinkOWco.com �. � C � 'CO `. '
trademarks of Fogw Systems, Inc. Chandler, AZ 85226 W: Wwwdogm.com
Feco
ODOR CONTROL
A HIGHER STANDARD
Fogco has over 25 years of experience in the high pressure fog industry and its systems are used worldwide to
address and eliminate a variety of odor control concerns. Because this issue is highly regulated within the
cannabis industry, it is critical to obtain the most effective odor solution available. Fogco delivers.
How and Why it works:
For effective open area odor control, two key elements are required. high pressure fog and a scientifically
developed essential oil mixture that performs as a true odor neutralizer.
The high pt assure trip; is achieved through an atomizing process involving our high pressure fog pump and
our specially lot�ing nozzles. With this process, billions of micron sized droplets are produced every minute.
For most cannabis <: perations, a nozzle ring is installed on the exterior of any vent or duct allowing the fog to
mix with the exhausting air. As the droplets are suspended and carried into the air flow, they effectively
encapsulate all airborne molecules.
Second, by injecting a specially formulatt.d nt�uh 111iin- 5Olutiofl urate, Utie lliv' t7'e sure fog it is ahle
to completely mix with the airborne odors. 1 Itrnut'h a <eues of (I lei, li(;ai I3 (including rflaForn'stic
pairing, absorption and adsorption, and plur".lEtic elfe ts), the oss ntial oils we able to modify the 0 herrtical
structure of the odor molecule which in turn, neutralizes and elirninates tyle m dOdor. `thiW �;Hbtractive, odor
eontrolrr"-processreduces odor -Intensity -by -over 90`4 _compared to anter vapor phase t_ectulnlorlies that
achieve up to 60%.
Benefits
• Licensing and application
process approvals
• Neutralizes odors,
eliminating complaints,
violations, and fines.
• Cost effective
• Maximum coverage with
minimum investment
compared to alternatives.
• Non toxic and biodegradable
with no contamination impact
Elimination of Terpenoids, Sulfide and Mercaptans Odors
100
80
60
40
20
0
Terpenoids Sulfide Mercaptans
62013 Fogco Systems, Inc Malsceping, Desert Fog, Revolution, Fogco Systems, Inc. 7:+1 480 507 6478 r
Evolution, Fogoeck, Fogco, & the spray pattern &e 00 are reted 6 S 56th Street E: into®rogco.corn {"f;�. ,'�'CO
trademarks of Fogco Systems, Inc. Chandler, A2 85226 W; ~.fogcoxorn
•Independent research conducted by 8anzaco Scientific.
Bonn
Engineered Solutions for Odor Control
R
TM
SUBTRACTIVE ODOR C
ONTOL
ODOR -ARMOR@
Many products, like masking agents, designed to control malodors using fragrances added to
the air to overwhelm the malodor, actually ADD to the intensity of the malodor — additive
masking technology. Many times the result is a fragrant version of the malodor AND a higher
level of odor intensity.
The principle is simple...
Masking agents are additive Odor intensity is increased
Benzaco Scientific Subtractive Odor ControlTM makes additive masking technologies obsolete.
By using scientific odor neutralization concepts developed over the last 20 years, Benzaco
Scientific is able to dramatically reduce or eliminate malodors completely.
Benzaco Scientific uses selected essential oils, intimately dispersed with the malodor in vapor
phase delivery and through a combined process of chemical reaction, odor opposites
(antagonistic pairs), absorption and adsorption, and pluralistic affects, the odor is neutralized and
eliminated.
ODOR -ARMOR® is subtractive -------------------------- odor intensity is decreased
Basically, Benzaco Scientific changes the way one smells the odor. The shape of the odor
molecule triggers odor perception, Odor molecules solubilize in mucous in the nasal cavities.
The solubilized molecule attaches to a protein in one of millions of olfactory sensory receptors.
This combined protein/molecule triggers a signal to the olfactory bulb, which acts like a switching
station, sending signals to the brain. These signals are received by various areas of the brain
including the temporal lobe, which houses memory. Memory plays a very significant role in odor
perception. Smells are remembered and emotions are triggered by them.
Benzaco Scientific chemists use a number of techniques to modify malodors:
1. Modify the shape (chemical structure) of the odor molecule BEFORE it reaches the nose.
2. Modify the number and intensity of the triggering molecules reaching the nose.
3. Modify the perception of the odor.
The chemical reactions between the molecules of malodour and the odor neutralizer creates a
different molecule. If the new molecule reaches the nose, a different mechanism is triggered.
Often, the reactions are catalyzed by other malodour molecules like hydrogen sulfide.
Subtractive 0dor
Control I/2
By selecting odor molecules which trigger an opposite signal to the malodor, both odors are
cancelled. This effect known as antagonistic pairs or odor opposites, has been well studied and
documented. The concept is used everyday in restaurants when lemon or orange is applied to
cooked fish in order to negate the strong amine odors that can emanate. Antagonistic pairs exist,
that work well outside of 1 to 1 stoichiometric chemistry. Benzaco Scientific chemists have
discovered many odor opposites that work at a fraction of the level of the malodor they
neutralize.
By correctly applying vapor phase technology; Benzaco Scientific is also able to take advantage
of certain essential oils that solubilize {absorb) malodorous molecules, thus reducing the
opportunity for these molecules to reach the sensory cells. Adsorption, a surface phenomena
where molecules attach with a temporary electrical bond which in effect changes the shape of
the molecules reaching odor receptors, is also used. Finally, many malodors have a dualistic or
pluralistic effect. They are only malodorous when present at certain concentrations but when
reduced in level, actually take on an acceptable odor.
Benzaco Scientific has many operational sites in the United States using Subtractive Odor
ControlTm Technology. The results are impressive. Analysis of air samples before and after
treatment show reductions in odor intensity of 90% plus. Comparative tests on other vapor
phase odor control technologies showed reductions of 40 to 60%
Benzaco Science chemists and engineers have combined to make Subtractive Odor ControlTM
an extremely effective method of odor management in municipal and industrial waste treatment
plants. The right chemistry and the right engineering make the difference between unsatisfactory
odor masking and complete odor reduction. Benzaco Scientific Subtractive Odor ControlTM
tested and proven for over 20 years.
0D 0R M! AS1i V`} syUf 7../ --,AC t !tl1;_ tjD 0 R C;°0N ,r1 01- ^r
{�,C Citi pc r1I"1g 0 doi` it?teiireslt.)'
O dor Intensity
Malodor /Odor Armor
O dor Arm or
M a 1 o d o r 1 M ask
M ask
Malodor
0 20 40 60 80 100
M alodor j M ask
Malodor l Mask
O do r A rm o r M a to d o r / 0 d o r A rm o r
For more information on Benzaco Scientific engineered solutions for odor control, visit our website
www.benzaeo.com or contact us at 888.413.5800
Subtractive Odor
Control 2/2
FAQ on Odor Control
1) What makes Odor Armor@ so different from other essential oil odor control products?
One of the critical things to understand about essential oil technology for odor control is that
not all essential oils are created equal. Essential oils used in odor control are extracts of
many different fruits, vegetables and other plant material. There are thousands of these oils
available and many find their way into perfumes and fragrances as well as solvents, flavor
enhancers, cooking oils and other uses. However, there are a very limited number of these
oils effective for the process of odor elimination.
The oils used in odor control display certain critical chemical properties that allow the oil to have
a physical or chemical effect on odorous compounds. The effectiveness of any odor control
product is directly dependent on how well the oils are chosen and blended to effect the correct
chemical or physical reaction on those odorous compounds. genzaco has spent years in pursuit
of the IDEAL formula for odor control using essential oil technology. We believe that Odor
Armor@ is the best technology on the market today.
Benzaco has developed a line of odor control products that is more effective, in terms of both
odor elimination and cost effectiveness, than any of our competitors' products.
2) How does essential oil technology work to eliminate odor?
Three simple reactions occur allowing Odor Armor@ to effectively and safely eliminate
odors.
1) chemical absorption of the malodor
2) chemical solubility of the odorous compounds
3) counteracting odor through antagonistic pairing
The chemistry involved utilizes the unique characteristics of each oil in the product to optimize
the simple reactions. The result is complete odor elimination without harmful byproducts or the
use of hazardous chemicals.
3) I've been told that essential oils are perfumes and fragrances; is Odor Armor® a
masking type of.product?
Many essential oils are indeed fragrances and are used in perfume formulations; however,
not all essential oils are fragrant or used as fragrances. Odor Armor@ is a blend of oils that
though having some fragrance is not suitable to mask an odor. It simply does not contain a
high enough level of fragrance to do so. Even at very high dosage without the presence of
odorous compounds Odor Armor@ is only mildly fragrant and the fragrance is nondescript. A
masking agent is usually made up of one distinct fragrance that is readily detectable and
FAQ
Pg 1/
B e n z a c o
t f
FAQ on Odor Control
1) What makes Odor Armor@ so different from other essential oil odor control products?
One of the critical things to understand about essential oil technology for odor control is that
not all essential oils are created equal. Essential oils used in odor control are extracts of
many different fruits, vegetables and other plant material. There are thousands of these oils
available and many find their way into perfumes and fragrances as well as solvents, flavor
enhancers, cooking oils and other uses. However, there are a very limited number of these
oils effective for the process of odor elimination.
The oils used in odor control display certain critical chemical properties that allow the oil to have
a physical or chemical effect on odorous compounds. The effectiveness of any odor control
product is directly dependent on how well the oils are chosen and blended to effect the correct
chemical or physical reaction on those odorous compounds. genzaco has spent years in pursuit
of the IDEAL formula for odor control using essential oil technology. We believe that Odor
Armor@ is the best technology on the market today.
Benzaco has developed a line of odor control products that is more effective, in terms of both
odor elimination and cost effectiveness, than any of our competitors' products.
2) How does essential oil technology work to eliminate odor?
Three simple reactions occur allowing Odor Armor@ to effectively and safely eliminate
odors.
1) chemical absorption of the malodor
2) chemical solubility of the odorous compounds
3) counteracting odor through antagonistic pairing
The chemistry involved utilizes the unique characteristics of each oil in the product to optimize
the simple reactions. The result is complete odor elimination without harmful byproducts or the
use of hazardous chemicals.
3) I've been told that essential oils are perfumes and fragrances; is Odor Armor® a
masking type of.product?
Many essential oils are indeed fragrances and are used in perfume formulations; however,
not all essential oils are fragrant or used as fragrances. Odor Armor@ is a blend of oils that
though having some fragrance is not suitable to mask an odor. It simply does not contain a
high enough level of fragrance to do so. Even at very high dosage without the presence of
odorous compounds Odor Armor@ is only mildly fragrant and the fragrance is nondescript. A
masking agent is usually made up of one distinct fragrance that is readily detectable and
FAQ
Pg 1/
increases in intensity as the dosage is elevated. Masking agents add to the overall odor
intensity by introducing an odor stronger than the offending malodor resulting in an even
greater odorous condition. ODOR ARMOR® IS TRUE NEUTRALIZING CHEMISTRY THAT
REDUCES AND ELIMINATES ODOR.
4) What is the [best way to determine if a product will work to eliminate my odor?
The best instrument yet devised for odor monitoring is still the human nose. A simple lab
test using a sample of the odor causing material and a dilution of Odor ArmorO at the
expected dosage for treatment is all that's needed to get a good notion of whether the
product will work. A simple testing procedure is available on request. Beyond that simple lab
test, an actual trial on the offending area of the plant or site can also be arranged and easily
accomplished with minimal expense. If the product is going to work either of the above
methods will easily determine that.
5) How many others offer vapor phase technology?
A number of companies operate in the odor control market. Those companies are scattered
throughout the U.S. and are generally regional in scope. We are aware of 15 to 20 small
companies offering limited products, equipment and expertise. Often their offering is not a
true neutralizing technology, but a combination of masking technology, perfume and some
degree of neutralizing capability. There are also a tremendous number of janitorial service
companies that dabble in odor control. The offerings are usually masking agents.
6) What do you mean "not a true neutralizer"?
Most companies offer a neutralizing product or line of products that are a blend of only a
handful of essential oils. Often the primary component is pine oil or some other commodity
essential oil. Though pine oil is effective in some cases, it falls far short of complete
effectiveness. Because the products are not effective at odor neutralization, the products
are blended to contain a fragrance to compensate for the shortfall. These products have
limited applications and are not effective on most odors. in addition, the products require
very high dosages to achieve even limited effectiveness, yet they often cost as much or
more as Odor Armor@.
7) Is Odor Armor(g) safe to use?
Odor Armor® is nontoxic, non -hazardous and absolutely safe to use.
8) How quickly will Odor Armorge work?
Lab data has shown that the reactions occur within seconds of contact with odorous gasses
and go to completion within seconds more. That means that you can be sure that the
product will neutralize odor before it leaves your site thus eliminating odor complaints.
Further, unlike masking agents, which can separate from the odor, the Odor Armor®
reactions are nonreversible and will not separate from the Odor Armor® and cause
problems downwind of the site.
FAQ
p9 2l
9) Is the same product good for all applications?
Odor Armor® is formulated to address a broad spectrum of odorous conditions because
odors are seldom -simple one or two component gasses. The design of the product is such
that it will effectively respond under changing odor intensity as well as changing odor
characteristics. Because of this, it is unusual to find an application where Odor Armor@ will
not work. This also insures that you will not need to purchase multiple products for multiple
odors.
10) Will Odor Armor@ work under all conditions?
As long as the conditions being treated do not change too dramatically from moment to
moment, Odor ArmorlD will work beautifully and without much attention to the dosage.
However, if there are large swings in odor causing conditions the product may need dosage
adjustment, as would any chemistry that works by neutralization.
11) Will Odor Armor@ work on all odors?
In tests and applications, Odor Armor® has worked on nearly all odors. Some applications
have required a different combination of ingredients because of a particular odorous
compound. Benzaco can formulate to any application needing a unique product for odor
control.
12) Can l test the treated air to determine effectiveness?
No. There are no easy or economical ways to quantify the treatment. However, the best test
is using your nose. If it works, you won't smell anything. If it doesn't work, you will smell the
odor. If it's overfed you may get a slight smell of a nondescript fragrance. it is very slight but
pleasant. If it's underfed, you will get odor that will be at a reduced level from before
treatment. In that case, all that's needed is some slight dosage adjustment.
13) What about winter operations, does the product freeze?
The product in its concentrated form freezes at about 25 degrees F but there is no
detrimental effect on the efficacy or stability of the product. In its diluted form, the solution
will freeze at about 30 degrees F. Since the diluted form is a water solution, it must be
freeze protected by heat tracing if freezing is a potential.
14) What references do you have and what have you treated with your products?
Benzaco has been in the odor control business for over twenty years. We have treated
everything from smoke odor in airplanes to rendering plants to solid waste and sewage. We
have extensive experience in odor control from every aspect - chemical, mechanical,
equipment and application. We CAN engineer a solution to your odor control problem.
References are available upon request.
15) Can I add Odor Armor® to my system water to affect odor control?
Though the product can be used in the water phase it is not the most effective or
economical method for its use. The chemistry of neutralization requires intimate contact of
the oils and odorous compounds in the vapor phase. The volatility of the oils changes
FAQ
--*I
dramatically when added to a water stream. More product would be required to effect the
same results as a fraction of product use in the vapor phase. It's just not economical.
16) Can I add Odor Armor® to my sludgelcompost/working face etc to affect odor
control at the surface?
Absolutely! Odor Armor@ is an exceptional odor control agent when added to surfaces
emitting odorous compounds. You would get excellent odor control as long as there was
Odor Armor@ present on the surface in question. Because the Odor Armor® would
evaporate along with the odorous compounds, a fresh dosage should be added when odor
returns.
17) Can I spray Odor Armor® on odorous equipment and containers?
Yesl Surfaces treated with Odor Armor@ remain odorless as long as the product remains on
the surface.
18) I am considering using a scrubber on my exhaust gasses; do I still need to treat?
Scrubbing is an excellent mechanical method of removing the bulk of the odorous gas
coming from a process. However, there are certain limitations to scrubbers that one needs
to consider before buying and utilizing a scrubber as a means of odor control.
1) Is the odorous gas water soluble to the levels that are below the odor detection limit
for that compound?
2) What will be required to establish and maintain the proper water chemistry to allow
efficient operation of the scrubber?
3) What are my ongoing operational and maintenance costs?
4) What will I need to do during scrubber downtime?
The use of scrubbing can indeed reduce the requirement for odor control but often it will not
eliminate it. The question then becomes which method is more economical and easier to
administer or is a combination of the two the best way to treat?
19) Can I use activated carbon as a means of odor control?
Activated Carbon can be a suitable means of mechanical odor control as long as the
limitations of the applications are considered. Activated carbon is really only suitable for the
elimination of hydrogen sulfide. Beyond that, the method either does not work at all or is
severely limited in its ability to adsorb odorous gases. Processes that may have high voc
content or are high in oils and greases also limit the carbon. Fouling of the carbon bed by
the oils or rapid use of the bed capacity by the volatile organics would require frequent
cleaning and regeneration of the carbon beds thus adding to the overall cost of the program
of odor control.
For more information on Benzaco Scientific engineered solutions for odor control, visit our website
www.benzaco.com or call 888.413.5800.
FAQ
pg 4/
Potential Applications
Solid Waste Disposal
• Liquid/Solid Separation
• Landfill Open Face
• Landfill Perimeter
• Transfer Stations
• Tipping Floors
• Composting
• Green Waste Processing
• Leachate Storage, Treatment &
Disposal
• Daily Cover Application
• Resource Recovery Systems
Waste Water Treatment
• Liquid/Solid Separation
• Sludge Lagoons
• Sludge Drying/Dewatering
• Aeration Lagoons
• Composting
• Green Waste Processing
• Dryer Stacks
• Bio -towers & Trickling Filters
• Digesters
Benzaco Scientific Can Engineer a Solution for Almost Any Odor Control Issue
Potential Applications
Food Processing
• Meat & Poultry
• Pet Food Processing
• Fruit & Vegetable Processing
• Bakeries
• Snack Food Mfg.
• Fermentation Processes
• Green Waste Processing
• Dairies
• Rendering Operations
Pulp & Paper
• Sludge Processes
• Aeration Lagoons
• Waste Treatment
• Settling Ponds
• Snack Food Mfg.
• Bio -towers & Trickling Filters
• Dryer Stacks
Chemical Processing & Mfg.
• Refining/Hydrocarbon Processing
• Organic Intermediates
• Fatty Acid Manufacturing
For more information about our comprehensive approach
to odor control, contact us at 888.413.5800
Jill III
L a b o r a t o r i e s L t d
October 5, 2002
Mr. John Ablon, President
Benzaco Scientific Inc.
5024 Garfield St. NW
Washington, DC
USA 20016
Dear Mr. Ablon:
You have requested that Dell Tech Laboratories provide additional information to that on the Material Safety Data
Sheet (MSDS) that we prepared for your product, Odor Armor. Specifically, you are asking about the toxicology
of the ingredients in your formulation beyond what is stated on the MSDS.
Our information is based on a search on the toxicology of the component materials. One important element of our
search is the presence or absence of any ingredient on lists provided by United States Federal and State regulators.
When chemical materials have demonstrated sufficient toxicology or environmental concerns, regulators will
place them on these lists. The lists serve to warn consumers about the use, shipping, handling and disposal
requirements of the chemical.
In our search, we have used a reference known as "the List of Lists" of regulated chemical materials in the USA.
After comparing these lists to the components in Odor Armor, Odor Armor does not contain any components of
concern that are listed on the following regulatory lists:
1. List of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Section 112 of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
2. List of Priority Pollutants of the National Permit Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit
Regulations (40 CFR 122) from the EPA Office of Water
3. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act materials List (includes F, K, P, U and D listings)
4. List of Extremely Hazardous Substances from Section 302 of the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization. Act of 1986 (SARA)
5. List of Toxic Chemicals from Section 313 of SARA
6. List of Hazardous Substances from the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA)
7. List of Ozone Depleting Substances from Section 602 of the Clean Air Act
8. List of Hazardous Substances under part 116 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA)
9. No component at a level subject to disclosure on the Hazardous Substance List of the Pennsylvania Right -
To -Know List
Together with the Material Safety Data Sheet that we previously provided, we feel that we have completely
covered the information that you requested. Should the regulatory agencies in the United States add any of the
components in your product to any list of toxicology or environmental concern. we will notify you immediately.
Yours very truly,
Dell Tech Laboratories Ltd.
Robert J. Dell
President
UWO Research Park,100 Collip Circle, London, ON N6G 4X8 TeL 519.858,5021 Fax: 519.858.5026 www.delitech.com
Product Name
Other Means of Identification
Product Type
Recommended Use of the chemical
Supplier Details
Emergency Telephone Information
r
za ;`� �,. "� rid I F ; ;
Engineered Dust and Odor Control
SAFETY DATA SHEET
Odor -Armor 4200
Not available
Liquid
Cannabis Odor Counteractant
(not meant for direct contact with food or plants)
Benzaco Scientific, Inc.
5024 Garfield Street NW
Washington, DC 20016
888-413-5800
...■ c.. If r. � r F. •. .�l.1_- _ r 1r. !'. 1Lll ..1'_
Physical Hazards Not classified.
Health Hazards Not classified.
Environmental Hazards Not classified.
OSHA Defined Hazards Not classified.
OSHA Hazard Communication Standard
This product is not a "Hazardous Chemical' as defined by the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard, 29 CFR 1910.1200.
GHS Label Elements
Hazard Symbol None
Signal Word None
Hazard Statement This mixture does not meet the criteria for classification.
Statemen
Prevention
Observe good industrial hygiene practices.
Response
Wash hands after handling.
Storage
Store away from Incompatible materials.
Disposal
Dispose of waste and residues in accordance with local authority requirements.
Hazards not 9ftWse
classified None known.
(HNOC)
SURDiemenUll Information
Eye Contact
May cause Irritation in sensitive individuals.
Skin Contact
May cause irritation in sensitive individuals.
Skin Absorption
Prolonged skin contact is unlikely to result in absorption of harmful amounts.
Inhalation
At room temperature, exposure to vapor is minimal due to low volatility.
Mist may cause irritation of upper respiratory tract (nose and throat).
Ingestion
May cause stomach distress or vomiting if ingested In great quantity.
Effects of Repeated Exposure None known.
— Odor -Armor 420`u pg 2
�:� � .___r__ "" �___ cann�oslTla�:riNi~aRnnArtci�i OhI,INGI�i�t3lEtdTs - _ _. aN
Chemical Name Common Name and Stirno =s ,C## Weight ole
Essential Oils No information available Mixture 1-50
Surfactant NP -9 No information available Mixture 1-50
Poly (Oxy-1,2-Ethanediyl), Alpha -Hydro -Omega -Hydroxy No information available 25322-68-3 .0079
*This product Is non-toxic, non -corrosive, non-flammable and bio -degradable.
*The specific chemical identities of the ingredients in this mixture are considered to be trade secrets and are withheld In
accordance with the provisions of 1910.1200 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
1_01 0 .�. ,
_..._�
FIRST -Alp i1�ERSURES _;
Jest aid measures for di
rent exRMUM rout"
Eye Contact
Flush eyes thoroughly with water for several minutes. Remove contact lenses after the initial
1-2 minutes and continue flushing for several additional minutes. If effects occur, consult a
physician, preferably an ophthalmologist.
Skin Contact
Wash skin with soap and plenty of water.
Inhalation
Not a normal route of exposure. If symptoms develop, move person to fresh air, If they
persist, obtain medical attention.
Ingestion
Do not induce vomiting. Rinse mouth with water and then drink one glass of water. Obtain
medical attention immediately. Never give anything by mouth if victim is unconscious, is
rapidly losing consciousness or is convulsing.
Most important svmntarns/gffects
acute Ana delayed
Long Term Effects
None known.
In ice io ofinamediat@
medical attend and spgdal,treatment needed if ecessa
Notes to Physician
No specific antidote. Treatment of exposure should be directed at the control of symptoms
and the clinical condition of the patient.
URS
Extinguishing Media This product Is non-flammable, however, treat for surrounding material.
Fire Fighting Procedures Non-flammable. This product is water based and water soluble.
Special Protective Equipment
for Firelighters As in any fire, wear self-contained breathing apparatus pressure -demand, MSHA/NIOSH
Hazardous Combustion (approved or equivalent) and full protective gear.
Products Combustion products may include and are not limited to: Oxides of Carbon
ACc►1�Nraz�,as>Ilsu>s _ _._._. _.
r i l e L771 ,LLE
Personal Precautions Use appropriate safety equipment. For additional information, refer to Section 8, Exposure
Controls and Personal Protection. Keep unnecessary and unprotected personnel from entering
the area. Spilled material may cause a slipping hazard.
Odor -Armor 42e pg 3
Methods and materials for containment and cleaning ug
Before attempting to dean up, refer to hazard data within this document. Contain spilled material If possible.
Small spills Absorb with non-reactive, non-flammable absorbent and place in suitable covered
and properly labeled containers. Wash the spill site with large quantities of water.
Large spills Prevent large spills from entering sewers or waterways. Contact emergency services
and supplier for advice. For larger quantities, review Federal, State / Provincial and
Local Governments prior to disposal. Product is highly biodegradable.
Environmental Precautions Prevent from entering into soil, ditches, sewers, waterways and/or groundwater.
See Section 12, Ecological Information.
Precautions fnr safe handling
Advice on safe handling Safety glasses and gloves recommended.
Conditions for safe storage, including any incomoatjbilities
Technical measures / Storage
conditions: Keep out of reach of children. Store away from direct sunlight or ultraviolet light.
Keep container tightly dosed when not in use and store in a dry place away from
incompatible materials, heat and sources of ignition.
Shelf life: Use within 12 months.
Maximum Storage Temperature: 40 - 95 OF
*May get cloudy at higher temperatures.
Control parameters
Biological Limit Values
No biological exposure limits noted for the ingredient(s).
Appropflift Engineering Controls
Ventilation
Provide general and/or local exhaust ventilation to control airborne levels below the
exposure guidelines.
Individual Protection Measures
Eye/ Face Protection
Safety glasses should be sufficient for most operations; however, for misty
operations wear chemical goggles. This product is non-toxic and non -corrosive.
Skin Protection
No precautions other than dean body -covering clothing should be needed.
Hand protection
Wear appropriate chemical resistant gloves when handling this material for prolonged
or repeated contact. Consistent with general hygienic practice for any material, skin
contact should be minimized. This product is non-toxic and non -corrosive.
Respiratory Protection
Not normally required if good ventilation is maintained.
Ingestion
Use good personal hygiene. Do not consume or store food in the work area. Wash
hands before smoking or eating.
Stability/Instability Stable under recommended storage conditions.
Conditions to Avoid Exposure to elevated temperatures can cause product to decompose. Generation of
gas during decomposition can cause pressure in closed systems. Avoid direct sunlight
or ultraviolet sources.
Incompatible Materials To avoid losing product integrity; mix this product only with water.
Hazardous Polymerization Will not occur.
Thermal Decomposition Decomposition products depend upon ternperature, air supply and the presence
of other materials. Decomposition products rncay Include but are not limited to
oxides of carbon when heated to decomposition,
• it • t • t _ _ - ►• • ��.
Ingestion
Skin Absorption
't'(?XiC?LOGie.tl fNOFiMATiGtfV'�
LD50, Rat 3,000 mg/kg.
May cause irritation in sensitive Individuals.
Information on toxicoiodicai
_ ei iVi1CAL PR0PERT1E8 _
"PHYSICAL-ANF3
Odor-Armor420� p9 4
T
Physical State
Liquid
Color
Clear, Colorless, Opaque
Reproductive Toxicity
Odor
Fragrant
No known significant effects or critical hazards.
Odor Threshold
No test data available
pH (100%)
6.5
Freezing Point
No test data available
Melting Point
No test data available
Boiling Point
>100 °C (212 °F)
Flash Point - Closed Cup
>200 °C
Evaporation Rate (H2o = i):
No test data available
Flammability Solid
Not flammable
Flammability Gas
Not flammable
Flammable Limits In Air Lower:
Not flammable
Upper
Not flammable
Vapor Pressure
No test data available
Vapor Density (air = 1)
No test data available
Specific Gravity (H2O = 1)
0.999
Solubility in Water (by weight)
100%
Auto Ignition Temperature
No test data available
Decomposition Temperature
No test data available
Viscosity
Water thin
Pour Point
No test data available
Stability/Instability Stable under recommended storage conditions.
Conditions to Avoid Exposure to elevated temperatures can cause product to decompose. Generation of
gas during decomposition can cause pressure in closed systems. Avoid direct sunlight
or ultraviolet sources.
Incompatible Materials To avoid losing product integrity; mix this product only with water.
Hazardous Polymerization Will not occur.
Thermal Decomposition Decomposition products depend upon ternperature, air supply and the presence
of other materials. Decomposition products rncay Include but are not limited to
oxides of carbon when heated to decomposition,
• it • t • t _ _ - ►• • ��.
Ingestion
Skin Absorption
't'(?XiC?LOGie.tl fNOFiMATiGtfV'�
LD50, Rat 3,000 mg/kg.
May cause irritation in sensitive Individuals.
Information on toxicoiodicai
1f&M
Repeated Dose Toxicity
None known.
Chronic Toxicity and
Carcinogenicity
Developmental Toxicity
No ingredients listed by IARC, ACGIH, NTP or OSHA.
No known significant effects or critical hazards.
Reproductive Toxicity
No known significant effects or critical hazards.
Genetic Toxicology
No known significant effects or critical hazards.
Odor -Armor 420 pg 5
=_
Ecotoxidty The product Is not classified as environmentally hazardous. However, this does not exclude
the possibility that large or frequent spills can have a harmful or damaging effect on the
environment.
Components
Poly (Oxy-1,2-Ethanedtyl), Alpha -Hydro -Omega -Hydroxy (CAS 25322-68-3)
Aquatic Species Test Results
Fish LC50 Atlantic Salmon (Salmo saiar) >1,000 mg/i, 96 hours
Persistence / degradability No data is available on the degradability of this product.
Bioaccumulative potential No data available.
Mobility In Soil No data available.
Other adverse effects No other adverse environmental effects (e.g. ozone depletion, photochemical ozone creation
potential, endocrine disruption, global warming potential) are expected from this product.
Waste disposal Methods
Contaminated Packaging
DOT Non -Bulk
DOT Bulk
IMDG
ICAO/IATA
DO NOT DUMP INTO ANY SEWERS, ON THE GROUND, OR INTO ANY BODY OF WATER. All
disposal practices must be in compliance with all Federal, State/Provincial and local laws and
regulations. Regulations may vary in different locations. Waste characterizations and
compliance with applicable laws are the responsibility solely of the waste generator.
Composition Information. FOR UNUSED & UNCONTAMINATED PRODUCT, the preferred
options include sending to a licensed, permitted recycler, sending to an Incinerator or other
thermal destruction device.
NOT REGULATED
NOT REGULATED
Non -Combustible Liquid.
Non -Combustible Liquid.
IATA.
Not regulated as dangerous goods for transport under IMDG.
Not regulated as dangerous goods for transport under ICAO and
This information Is not Intended to convey all specific regulatory or operational requirements/Information relating to this
product. Additional transportation system information can be obtained through an authorized sales or customer service
representative. It is the responsibility of the transporting organization to follow all applicable laws, regulations and rules relating
to the transportation of the material.
US (Federal Regulations
REGULATORY INFORMATION,
This product is not a "Hazardous Chemical" as defined by the OSHA Hazard
Communication Standard, 29 CFR 1910.1200.
Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA)12(b) Export Notification (40 CFR 707, Subpoint D)
Not regulated.
CERCLA Hazardous Substance List (40 CFR 302.4)
Not listed.
SARA 304 Emergency Release Notification
Not regulated.
OSHA Specifically Regulated Substances (29 CFR 1910.1001-1050)
Not listed.
Odor -Armor 420® pg 6
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 Title III (SARA)
Hazard Categories Immediate Hazard
NO
Delayed Hazard
NO
Fire Hazard
NO
Pressure Hazard
NO
Reactivity Hazard NO
To the best of our knowledge, this product does not contain chemicals at levels which require reporting under this statute.
SARA 302 Extremely hazardous substance
Not listed.
SARA 311/312 Hazardous Chemical
No
SARA 313 (TRI reporting)
Not regulated.
Other Federal Regulations
Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 112 Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP$) List
Not regulated.
Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 112 (r) Accidental Release Prevention (40 CFR 68.130)
Not regulated.
SARA 313 (TRI reporting)
Not regulated.
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
Not regulated.
US State Regulations
US California Controlled Substances. CA Dept of 3usuce California Health and Safety Code Section 11100
Not listed.
US Massachusetts RTK — Substance List
Not regulated.
US New Jersey Worker and Community Right -to -Know Act
Not listed.
US Pennsylvania Worker and Community Right -to -Know Law
Not listed.
US_ Rhode_ Island-RTK
Not regulated.
US California Proposition 65
This material is not known to contain any chemicals currently listed as carcinogens or reproductive toxins.
Canadian Domestic Substance List (DSL)
All ingredients are register on the DSL.
Canadian WHMIS regulations
SDS prepared pursuant to Canadian WHMIS regulations (Controlled Products Regulations under the Hazardous Product Act).
16:0. Ci HE INFQRII��4TIC}td;xlhiCl_UD1Nd liA'i"t bf P'R #�A) tT[Q f QR LAST R 1Il,
Date: May 12, 2017 SDS prepared by: Benzaco Scientific, Inc.
Revision: May 12, 2017 Telephone: 888-413-5800
Disclaimer
The information provided in this safety Data Sheet is correct to the best of our knowledge, information and belief at the date of its
publication. The information given is designed only as guidance, for safe handling,
and release and is not: to be considered a warranty or duality specification. e information processing,storage,
only oatheos aeon, disposal
designated and may not be valid for such material used in combination with any other materials or in an y unless
specific material
the text, y process, unless specified in
00OR-ARM " 0 R 0.
z
Case Study --Colorado Cannabis Grow Facility
COLORADO CANNABIS GROW FACILITY SAVED FROM
LICENSE REVOKE BY IMPLEMENTING AN
ODOR -ARMOR' 420 ODOR MANAGEMENT PLAN
The Problem
A licensed cannabis grow facility in the mountains of Colorado recently was saved from the immi-
nent inevitability of being shut -down for persistent nuisance odor complaints from the neighbors.
Although the owner had previously installed high-pressure fogging nozzles to treat odors from
the greenhouse exhaust fans, complaints began to flood in ... threatening the continued existence
of the business.
The Objective
For the purpose of optimizing the existing odor control system to operate as it completely should,
a thorough review of the system was conducted including:
• Nozzle placement
• Cross -wind affects
• Choice of odor counteractant,
• Feed -rate of the counteractant, and
• Contact -time of the counteractant with the
cannabis odors.
The Study
It was determined that Odor-Armor®420 should be
used to treat the nuisance odors. Odor -Armor -420
was specifically formulated to counteract the esters, terpenoids and reduced sulfur compounds
found in nuisance marijuana odor. In order to demonstrate the efficacy and performance, an in-
dependent, third -party environmental consultant was brought in to conduct a three-day odor sur-
vey. The purpose: measure strength and characteristics of nuisance odors at the property line
and the surrounding community utilizing Nasal Ranger® technology.
The Nasal Ranger® is a state-of-the-art portable, field olfactometer for confidently measuring and
quantifying odor strength in the ambient air. Since the detection of odors are mostly subjective
in nature, this devise provides odor detecting and measuring values which determines ambient
odor "Dilution -to -Threshold" (DIT) values objectively.
Continued on other side
Case Study—Colorado Cannabis Grow Facility (Pg. 2),
J�
The Solution
With a cooperative effort from both Fogco Systems and Benzaco Scientific, engineers
designed and constructed diversion hoods over each greenhouse exhaust fan to minimize the af-
fect of the strong cross -winds blowing across the fans. The hoods increased the contact time be-
tween the Odor-Armor®420 and the cannabis odor. As a result, the subsequent odor mapping
from the Nasal Ranger testing demonstrated "no discernable marijuana odor" at neither the facility
property boundary, nor in the surrounding community.
The Results
"Permit Granted"
Information concerning human and environmental exposure may be reviewed on the Safety Data Sheet for this product. For additional Information
regarding Incidents involving human and environmental exposure call 888.413.5800 and ask for Health and Environmental Affairs. For more information
concerning sales and service contact 888.413.5800 and ask for your local sales representative.
Write Benzaco Scientific Inc., 5024 Garfield St NW, Washington, DC 20016.
www.benzaco.com
Q
I CIL,- � I'@,- I "I"" I _<
Sensory,4, Croix
15 May 2017
Dana Pack
Fogco Systems, Inc.
600 S 56th St.
Chandler, AZ 85226
ii5o Stillwater Boulevard North
Stillwater, MN 55082
Re: Fogco-Benzaco Odor Management of Marijuana Grow Facility Air Emissions
1-800-879-9231
T: 651-439-0177
F: 651-439-io65
www.fivesenses.com
On April 6, 2017, St. Croix Sensory evaluated the efficacy of a high-pressure, hose -and -nozzle, water
fogging odor management system at CW Nevada medical marijuana grow facility in Pahrump,
Nevada.
For more than 35 years, St, Croix Sensory staff has been assisting facility owners, consulting
engineering firms, and regulatory agencies quantify odors from a variety of industrial, agricultural,
and municipal operations, including wastewater treatment, landfills, composting, and
manufacturing in both field and laboratory settings. St. Croix Sensory manufactures and markets
state-of-the-art odor sampling and measurement equipment. Our "ODOR SCHOOL"A is an
internationally recognized program to prepare inspectors to conduct field evaluations of ambient
odors. We are dedicated to providing and maintaining the highest standard of quality for all
laboratory services and manufactured products. St. Croix Sensory maintains a professional practice
that continually reviews ASTM International, CEN (European), and ISO Methods. Our quality
control practices ensure quality is met from receiving of materials and sample to the finished
products and final reports delivered to our customers.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of an odor management system provided by
Fogco Systems, Inc. (of Chandler, AZ) utilizing an odor counteractant specifically formulated for
cannabis growing operations by Benzaco Scientific, Inc. (ODOR -ARMOR 4206). Three screened
and trained assessors performed as an odor judge tribunal to evaluate at the fence line the
untreated and treated air emissions from the grow facility. The evaluation protocol accommodated
the guidelines of ASTM E1593 Standard Guide for Assessing the Efficacy of Air Care Products in
Reducing the Perception of Indoor Malodor. The growing facility's almost continuous exhaust fans
created the desirable "actual" conditions downwind at the facility fence line to be compliant with
the ASTM 1593 scope for quantitative odor assessment in determining efficacy.
The odor tribunal unanimously agreed the treated air emissions with the Fogco System utilizing the
Benzaco ODOR -ARMOR 4208 odor counteractant product demonstrated "no discernible odor" at
the fence line downwind of the facility continuous exhausts. Prior to the Fogco/Benzaco treatment,
the ambient air at the fence line downwind of the CW Nevada facility presented as pungent, earthy,
and marijuana -weed -like. The odor tribunal reported a consensus, "the marijuana odor
disappeared when the fogging system was operating".
St. Croix Sensory is ISO/IEC 17025:2005 Accredited
St. Croix Sensory, Inc.
Page 2 of 2
Downwind of the CW facility, from 1/8 to 1 -mile on public access roadways, the ambient air was
without a discernible odor. On the day of the evaluations, 4/6/2017, the weather conditions were
dry (20% relative humidity), mostly sunny (60 -deg F) with wind direction at the CW facility in
Pahrump, NV was from the south at moderate wind speeds of 10 -mph.
The Fogco System appeared to create a uniform evaporating fog -mist with no free -water droplets
observed in the air, nor upon the immediate ground area. The Benzaco Scientific odor
counteractant, when observed close to the immediate fog -mist, did not appear to have a strong,
specific top -note fragrance, other than slightly floral and/or sweet.
The evaluation of the Fogco high-pressure fogging system, treating the exhaust air with Benzaco's
ODOR -ARMOR. 420@ at the Pahrump, Nevada, CW Nevada marijuana grow facility demonstrated
efficacy -effectiveness in treating the facilities air emissions, yielding "no discernible marijuana
odor".
Respectively submitted,
Charles McGinley
Technical Director
St. Croix Sensory, Inc.
St. Croix Sensory is iSo/LEC 17025:2005 Accredited
TrendylslonTM- Published April 2018* Central Oregon cars
Association of REALTORS
Location: Deschutes County��`
x�cq tnce rt+rrxu sre.e-
Property Types: All Residential Prop - All Property Statuses - All Lot Sizes
Price Range: $0 - No Limit SOFT Range: 0 - No Limit Bedrooms: 0 -No Limit
Baths: 0 -No Limit Year Built: 0 - No Limit
Avg Prices & Median Price - Last 6 years (Quarterly)
fi Y0.Mediian .... Sold - For Sale
700
800
46-'
400
.74lU
e 3
1 t r�
00'�
€
�Fik-r
'hw5
10-
ga
d
��
!
a�
c ' s � `t
t'01 R r,
, ati
�r�
1V11
q
4 tis No
r
M
°� 1✓,
4 r t
�S i
2�1
YOffi
ON -A
✓�
11-111
l„
NO, "l1�",.
)�
�"J v'U roJ
r
. .
t
.,.,
,..
yi,: CF 5T';`
u. v_ v _ l .0
N
N
P7
t� M_
(7
V
�t {17 t['1 In 717 {Q (p r2 (O
n
Iti M1.
1`- 00
_N _N
i`Yl 4� a
N
M'
Z a
N
M
_O _O
Z 01 N M Z a N ray C1 N
M
t
N r C4
N
C4
4'1
4
4 r O L6 6 tlto
LO(LZ 6
ri
M rZ
ob
r 4 Z
O
�
@' N+.
ZZ
4 R � r- 'C M �^ r Q h �
.•-
a9• Pte.
� e-
Copyright 0Trendgrephix, Inc.
Cumt vs. Prev Or
Cumt vs, Same Qtr 1 Yr Apo
Cumt vs. Same Qtr 6 We Apo Cumt vs. Sams 12 Months 1
Yr Apo
Cumt vs.
Same 12 Months 5 Yrs Apo
Jam le to
oet.17 W
Jan. ie to Jan.17 to
Jan.18 to Jan.12 to A r.17 to Ar to to
Apr. 17 to
Apr 12 to
Mar, 10
Dec, 17 %Champs Mar, 18
Mar. 17
%Change
Mar. 18 Mar. 12 %Change Msr. 1s Mv. 17 %Change
Mar. 18
tar. 13
%Change
Media Sold 354
am 04%A
394
335
8.7%r<..
304 180 127.5%,, 360 327 10.1%
C�
Sao
199
60.9%A,
Avg. Aeevo 827
ce
598 4A% �
627
590
8.3%
627 385 82.9% 7 . 605 584"", "s
605
406
49% n
Avg. Bold Price 427
423 0.9% As,
427
390
6.5%
427 213 100.5%4 420 382 9.9% A,.
420
249
88.7% `a
10112
10113
10114 tolls
lame
10117
1112- 412-
712-
'1113-
4113-
713-
-
1114- 4114- 7114• 111& 4115- 7116- - 1118- 4116-
7118-
- 1117-
4117• 7117-
- 118-
Date
3112 Bf12
9112
12112
3113 6113
8113
12113
3114 814 9114 12/14 316 6115 9/76 12!15 31t8 ell$
SMe
12116 317
817 9f17
1217 318
for Safe (End of Qh)
1735 1098
1877
1432
1417 le98
2078
1723
1734 2181 2182 1525 1505 1915 1849 1400 1306 1655
1706
1201 1099
1675 1829
1345 1378
Now Listing
1342 1718
1393
924
1449 2078
1941
1024
1529 2210 1779 921 1549 2281 1951 1118 1564 2343
1911
1024 1361
2441 2056
ila2 1sel
New Listing (3Mo Avg)
447.3 572
484.3
308
483 692,7
647
341.3
509.7 736.7 583 307 516.3 760.3 8503 372.7 521.3 781
637
341.3 453,7
8137 685.3
394 580.3
Sold
877 1142
1146
1080
S68 1342
1406
1102
822 1388 1482 1189 937 1513 1627 1353 1038 1594
1628
1408 959
1540 1821
1352 1118
Sold (3Mo Avg)
282.3 3807
382
382
289.3 447.3
488.7
387,3
274 455.3 487.3 389.7 312.3 504.3 642.3 451 346 631.3
542.7
469.3 319.7
513.3 6404
450.7 372
Ponded
1088 1195
1187
893
1128 1389
1351
882
1145 1447 1397 979 1254 1619 1810 1114 1345 1735
1547
1134 1202
1607 1544
1139 1390
Pended (3Mo Avg)
362.7 398,3
305.7
2971
376 460.3
450.3
294
381.7 482.3 485.7 328.3 418 539.7 538.7 371.3 4483 578.3
516.7
378 400.7
535 7 514.7
$79.7 460
Months of inventory (Closed Soles) 5,9 5.2
4.9
4
4.9 4.2
4.4
4,7
8.3 4.8 4.4 3.9 4,8 3.8 3,4 3.1 3.8 3.1
3.1
2,6 3.4
3.3 3.4
3 3.7
Months of Inventory(Pended Sales) 4.8 5
4.7
4,8
3,8 4.1
4.6
5.9
4.5 4.5 4.6 4.7 3.9 3.5 3.4 3.8 2.9 29
3,3
3.2 2.7
3.1 3,6
as 3
Abeorptlon Rate (Closed Sales) % 168 19,1
20.4
25.3
20.4 23.9
22.8
21.3
15.8 20.9 22.5 25.6 28.8 28.3 29.3 32.2 28.5 32.1
31.8
39.1 29.1
30.6 29,5
33.5 27
Absorption Rate(Pended Sales)% 20,9 19.9
21.1
20,8
26.5 24.4
21.7
17.1
22 22.1 21.8 21A 27.8 28,2 29 26.5 341 34.9
302
31.5 38.5
32 28.1
282 33.4
Avg. Active Prise
385 414
410
387
408 430
429
417
430 486 473 Oil 504 513 531 535 551 582
584
583 590
812 5718
699 827
Avg. Sold Price
213 228
266
257
258 286
205
297
291 299 316 311 327 339 344 349 355 363
378
381 390
410 421
423 427
Avg. Sq. FL Price (Said)
112 120
130
131
133 148
164
166
155 158 187 164 170 175 182 182 185 199
199
199 201
212 218
218 219
SoldflJot OW. %
97 97
97
97
97 98
98
97
98 98 98 98 9e 98 98 98 98 99
08
98 98
99 99
97 98
Sold/Orig LP Diff. %
97 91
93
92
93 08
90
94
95 98 96 94 95 87 97 95 96 97
Se
95 95
87 97
95 95
Avg Days on Market
153 138
135
152
166 139
117
129
141 127 120 143 148 122 115 133 137 120
11l
123 137
111 103
113 124
Median Sold Price
160 180
205
203
209 238
242
249
240 260 ZBO 28l 275 288 297 298 209 323
328
321) 330
351 382
382 384
Aft ropats are published April 2016, based on dada evagatde at the end
of March 2015, AN mporls presented aro based an data eUpplied by the Canine! Oregon MtB. Nallbw the AmodeWn nor as MLS
guaranines oris In anyway responslbta for
6s somreoy
Dain manlaated
by the Association or ea MLS may not roaad all teal *"o adWAlea In theme A. Infmma8un deemed rseablo but not guamdeed.
Marijuana -related water use is subject to the same water -use regulations as any other irrigated crop. Under the Oregon
Water Code of 1909, all water belongs to the public. With a few exceptions, cities, irrigators, businesses, and other water
users must obtain a water right from the Water Resources Department to use water from any source — whether it is
underground, or from lakes or streams. Generally speaking, landowners with water flowing past, through, or under their
property do not automatically have the right to use that water without authorization from the Department.
New water permits are not available in many areas of Oregon, so individuals are strongly encouraged to investigate their
water -resources options before investing in a project that requires a water supply. Violations of Oregon Water laws can
011
result in civil penalties or prosecution for a class B misdemeanor.
T
The best way to identify your legal water resources options is to speak with your local watermaster (see next page). For
Fd
more information, you can contact the Department at 503-986-0900, or visit our website at http://www.oregon.gov/owrd.
r
What are the water -use authorization options?
q,
I . A water right may already be associated with your property; however, you will need to confirm that the right is still
valid, and that it can be used for your purposes. Similarly, water may be obtained from a water purveyor such as a;
city or a water district that delivers water under an existing water right.
2. If available, water may be acquired by obtaining a new water -right permit for surface water or groundwater.
T»
3. Certain water uses are authorized through Oregon law as "exempt" from the need for a water right. More information
about exempt uses is provided below. Check with your watermaster to make sure your use qualifies.
4. There can be other options to obtain water aside from obtaining a new right to surface water or groundwater. In sonic
cases, with Department approval, a water right from another property can be transferred to a new parcel, or stored
w
water that is captured during the winter and spring can help provide a supply. Talk to your watermaster about options.
What else should you know about the use of your water right?
eU
Once you have a water right, make sure that. you comply with the conditions on the right. It is always a good idea to
Y Y pYY
check with your watermaster to understand the conditions. Water rights are issued for a particular place of use, type of
use, and point of diversion. Water rights also have limitsontheamountof water that can be used, andmayinclude
u..
limitations on the season of use. Your watermaster can help you to understand the terms of use on your water right.
If you want to change how the water is being used (for example, from field irrigation to a greenhouse), check with your
E
watermaster to make sure that the change fits within your existing water right. In some instances you may need to obtain
approval from the Department through a process called a transfer. In addition, there may be limits on the months that the
00
water can be used. Water rights may be subject to forfeiture if not used for five consecutive years.
a
In addition, there may be times where there is not enough water for every water user who holds a water right. In times of
shortage, the senior user is entitled to receive all of his or her water, before a junior user. For example, a senior user with a
priority date of 1910 can make a call for water, and users with a junior date (after 1910 for this example) may be regulated
off in order to satisfy that senior right. You should talk with your local watermaster to understand how frequently
regulation is likely to occur, so that you can plan your operations accordingly. Note: Although exempt groundwater uses
do not require a permit, the well may be subject to regulation like an other water right in tines o water shortage,
9 p y J g Y 8 .f g
How do I obtain a water right permit in the State of Oregon?
Most water rights are obtained in a three-step process. The applicant first must apply to the Department for a permit to use
water. Once a permit is granted, the applicant must construct a water system and begin using water. After water is applied,
the permit holder must hire a certified water -right examiner to complete a survey of water use (a map and a report
detailing how and where water has been applied). If water has been used according to the provisions of the permit, the
Department will issue a water -right certificate.
10/09/2015
Packet _P9.190
S.a
What sources of water are exempt from the permitting process and how can the water be used?
• Natural springs: Use of a spring that, under natural conditions, does not form a natural channel and flow off the
property where it originates at any time of the year is considered exempt from the need to obtain a water right. Check
with your watermaster to determine if your spring qualifies for the exemption.
• Rainwater: Collection and use of rainwater from an artificial impervious surface, such as a roof, is considered
exempt from needing a water -right. For more information, refer to ORS 537.141. Check with your watermaster to
make sure that your rainwater system is properly set up to meet this exemption. You may also need to check on local
regulations with your county and/or city.
• Exempt use of groundwater for non4rrigation-related commercial/industrial purposes: Under the exemption, up
to 5,000 gallons per day could be used for commercial or industrial use without a water right. This would include
processing marijuana; however, this exemption does not include water to promote plant growth/cultivation.
• Exempt use of groundwater for one-half acre of non-commercial lawn
and garden: Water for cultivation/growth of marijuana, whether in a
greenhouse or not, does not require a water right permit provided that the
irrigation is no more than one-half acre in area AND the cultivation is non-
commercial. Use of groundwater to grow mar#uana plants where there is
intent to profit does not qualms for a groundwater exemption. Non-
commercial includes homegrown recreational marijuana and medical
marijuana for personal use, or where there is no intent to profit. Medical
growers that seek to make a profit from medical or recreational marijuana
are not eligible for this exemption. For example, an individual that grows
marijuana and donates it to patients and dispensaries could qualify for the
exemption. Conversely, an individual that grows marijuana and is
reimbursed for the costs of the production and labor — intending to make
money — would not qualify.
Can water be obtained from a federal water project?
NOTE: This is not a complete
list of exemptions, but rather
lists those most pertinent to
the growth and production of
marijuana. Like any crop, the
growth of marijuana for
commercial purposes, whether
medical or recreational, is not
eligible for groundwater
exemptions.
The federal government is responsible for determining whether water from their projects can be used to grow marijuana.
Previous statements by the federal government indicate that use of Bureau of Reclamation water for the purpose of
growing marijuana is prohibited. Contact the Bureau of Reclamation or your irrigation district for more information.
Who is my watermaster?
District I
Nikki Hendricks
503-815-1967
District 2
Michael M4.6clt
541-682-3620
District 3
R.Crbut ww d
541-506-2652
District
Enc l ii;Saucj
541-575-0119
District
Ga C g _SjI b c, rp ais�el
541-278-5456
District 6
`shad t rats n
541-963-1031
District 7
David B al.cs.
541-426-4464
District
Rico a.a.7s1
541-523-8224
District 9
Ron Jacobs
541-473-5130
District 10
111 3ohtrson
541-573-2591
District 11
Jcre;tny isi.ffiil
541-306-6885
District 12
Briantvytyq
541-947-6038
District 13
l rir a Ke.1.Jy
541-774-6880
District 14
i at -y. j1jL(q
541-479-2401
District 15
sus'an Doudli_f
541-4404255
District 16
Joe.) llfahri
503-986-0889
District 17
pyco� WIdte
541-883-4182
District 18
Jake Cogs ails
503-846-7780
District 19
(aeg Nra ker
541-396-1905
District 20
A1tLl
503-722-1410
District 21
E On This M110i1
541-384-4207
Mal) of Nwernuister Districts
CAt I1:0 it K IA
J
d�
.�6:1'T 11 C UNA RA 1.
itIG10N
t
n
O Oto.
10/09/2015
Packet Pg. 191
This page intentionally left blank.
Attachment D — Appellant's Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
Fitch Lav, Group, PC Edward P. Fitch
._ edGartchIaw"roup.com
"Con7rnittecl to Excellence"
Patricia Jane Roberts
Paralegal
patricia;ii titehlawgroup.com
April 11, 2018
VIA EMAIL ONLY
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
Deschutes County Administration Building
Re: Hopmann Appeal 247-18-000205-A
As you know, I represent Bill McCormick who resides just to the southwest of the Hopmann
property which is the subject matter of this appeal.
I. Noise and Odor Control.
As of 1:00 p.m. on April I I m no engineering report has been submitted. The engineering letter that
was previously submitted is woefully insufficient. It comprises merely a generalized opinion on a
system that might work. That opinion is not what the code requires. The code requires much more
than an opinion. In fact, that word is not even in the applicable code provision. The code requires
a report by a mechanical engineer licensed in the state of Oregon demonstrating that the system will
control odor so as not to unreasonably interfere with the average use and enjoyment of their property.
The code also notes that the system must be referenced into the building or in this case the buildings.
The Cole Breit opinion was originally submitted by Laura Bright on November 21 ", The second
opinion letter was provided by Rob James of the same firm. That letter is also deficient. It only
references a potential system. It does not described in any detailed report for this site a system that
will actually work. It provides an opinion but not a report that demonstrates odor control for this
specific site.
The same deficiency is true of noise. All the letter notes is that the noise will be controlled. There
is no information which ensures that noise will not be more than thirty decibels at the property line.
There is no definitive information provided as to what noise will be generated by all these
greenhouses. There is no definitive information as to what the difference will be between that situs
and the property line.
IL Setback.
Applicant has proposed a 60' setback on the southern property line. That is inconsistent with the
express requirement of the code to have a 100' setback. It should be noted at the outset that there
is ample room on the property to meet the 100' setback. There are no preexisting buildings or
medical marijuana operations which require a less setback. The sole purpose of the setback
210 SW 5°i Street, Suite 2 Redmond OR 97756
Phone: 541.316.1588 Fax: 541.316.1943
Fa Fitch LaNy (;roup, PC
Committcd to Excellence"
a
Page 2
exception is for convenience. There are just ample sites on the property in which these facilities can
be located that would meet the setback requirements. More troubling is the failure or refusal of the
applicant to demonstrate that the odor and noise control will be equal at 60' as opposed to 100'. No
mitigation measure were proposed. It is illogical to conclude that the noise and odor measurements
at the property line would be equal at 60' than it would be at 100'. Otherwise, why have a setback
at all. The application fails to meet the standards of the code regarding setback.
III. Landscape Management (LM) Zone.
The appellant agrees that some screening and fencing standards should be applied to these facilities
because they are within the LM Zone. The staff memorandum that was submitted on April 10"
illustrates the need for additional screening and fencing. As noted in the staff report, these
provisions in Section 116.330(12) would not make any sense unless they did apply to facilities such
as these within the LM Zone. Subsection (a) would be superfluous. If they were not there would
also be a fundamental inconsistency in the code of trying to meet the purpose of the LM Zone to
ensure quality development along Highway 20 together with appropriate screening and allowing
these types of facilities without any screening or fencing.
It is also fundamentally inconsistent that the applicants would have structures which would be
adequate to control odor and noise yet not require any building permit review. This approach
exacerbates the problem with the required demonstration of odor and noise control. At what stage
is that going to occur? Will it occur only on a code complaint basis or is it going to be confirmed
up front`? How is it confirmed unless you have that type of building review or detailed building plans
submitted in conjunction with the land use application.
IV. Miscellaneous Issues.
See attached emails from Arleigh Mooney and Nunzie Gould.
Very truly yours,
EDWARD P. FITCH
EPF:pjr
cc: Client
Isabella Liu
G:\Clients\FPF\McCormick, William\McCormick, William MDeschutes County ltr 04111 S.wpd
Fd Fitch
From: Arleigh Mooney <theone101567@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2018 11:16 PM
To: Isabella Liu; Ed Fitch
Subject: File #247-18-000205-A(Appeal of 247 -17 -000755 -AD)
Izze,
Thank you for letting me know I could reply via email.
I work during the time the hearing will take place on 4/4.
As I have told you before I have filed a complaint with code enforcement back in August 2017 pertaining to Ms.
Hopmann's facility residing at 65320 Hwy 20. This is the one she currently is running on the corner of Dayton Rd and
Hwy 20. My concern in August 2017 was the noise of her fans on her 7 greenhouses that she runs 24/7 during the
growing season and the putrid smell that renders my outdoor space useless. In January 2018 John Griley from Desch Co
Code enforcement called me and stated in fact she was told her fans were above the decibel level allowed and that she
would have to install appropriate odor suppression systems in her greenhouses.
As recent as last week they turned on their fans for 2 days then turned them off. They were give till May 1 st, 2018 to
become compliant. At this time no work has been done on the greenhouses. They have started to move in potting mix
and materials to start planting. But no work has been done on the fans or the greenhouses.
This alone tells me that if she has no regard to bring her current facility up to code, she will have no regard for those same
restrictions at her new facility. That in its self should be enough from keeping her from starting a new facility on a new
site. Her disregard for the rules let alone the impact on her neighbors should be enough.
My self and my family have had to deal with the impacts of her facility and her lack of following the rules for 3 seasons. I
am not going to hold my breath that she will get the facility she has up to code let alone care in the least whether her new
one is up to code. I think past practices need to be considered as far as she is concerned and deny her application for a
new facility. She already has the area smelling like a giant skunk farm, I say we don't give her the chance to add to the
pollution she is already creating.
One thing you can be sure of on May 1st, I will be contacting Code Enforcement again to do a spot check of her current
facility.
Sincerely,
Arleigh Mooney
65290 Hwy 20
Bend, Or 97703
Ed Fitch
From: Nunzie <nunzie@pacifier.com%
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 5:58 PM
To: Ed Fitch; wpmisl@gmail.com McCormick
Subject: Fwd: testimony regarding I-iopmann appeal
Attachments: Gould Exhibit, Hopmann appeal, TID water rights map dated 4-11.-2018.pdf
fyi
Begin forwarded message:
From: Nunzie <ni?nrc alcifiPr coni>
Date: April 10, 2018 5:05:54 PM PDT
To: Nick Lelack <Nick,Lc,f,3ck((idgachutcs.or�>
Subject: testimony regarding Hopmann appeal
testimony regarding Hopmann Appeal includes 3 attached COLOR IMAGES
1. the farm manager of both farms lives on subject property, obviously this farm manager will be driving
across Hwy 20 to reach the other Hopmann farm property
2. the question is how many employees will be working between these farms and crossing Hwy 20.
3. the dial map shown at the hearing is not from 2018
4, there is a portopottie on the property photo attached 101.1: this needs LM review
5, there is a metal shipping container on the property photo 1007: this needs LM review
6. Exhibit A shows where in green Trashed marks where the TID water rights are mapped on the subject
property outlined in red. There are no water rights over the existing ditches or where the trees are
located on the Easterly fence or the northerly fence or the westerly fence.
7. This appeal needs to overturn the approval: this particular application is a bad apple.
8. Property owners have not installed secure garbage at their property across Hwy 20, and property
owners have not installed security cameras (though the posted sign would fool you) at the property
across the Highway.
9. It would behoove the County to learn about this property owner's compliance with existing OHA,
OLCC and County Mj regulations in respect to this property owners mj operations across Hwy 20.
Respectfully,
Nunzie Gould
Attachment E — Public Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
From: Nick Lelack
To: Isabella Liu
Subject: FW: testimony regarding Hopmann appeal
Date: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 5:29:09 PM
Attachments: Gould Exhibit Hopmann appeal, TID water rights map dated 4-11-2018.pd
Nick Lelack, AICP I Director
DESCHUTES COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
117 NW Lafayette Avenue I Bend, Oregon 97703
Tel: (541) 385-1708 1 Cell: (541) 639-5585
Enhancing the lives of citizens by delivering quality services in a cost-effective manner.
-----Original Message -----
From: Nunzie [mailto:nunzie&12acifier.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 5:06 PM
To: Nick Lelack <Nick.Lelack@deschutes.org>
Subject: testimony regarding Hopmann appeal
testimony regarding Hopmann Appeal includes 3 attached COLOR IMAGES 1. the farm manager of both farms
lives on subject property, obviously this farm manager will be driving across Hwy 20 to reach the other Hopmann
farm property 2. the question is how many employees will be working between these farms and crossing Hwy 20.
3. the dial map shown at the hearing is not from 2018 4. there is a portopottie on the property photo attached 1011:
this needs LM review 5. there is a metal shipping container on the property photo 1007:
this needs LM review
6. Exhibit A shows where in green hashed marks where the TID water rights are mapped on the subject property
outlined in red. There are no water rights over the existing ditches or where the trees are located on the Easterly
fence or the northerly fence or the westerly fence.
7. This appeal needs to overturn the approval: this particular application is a bad apple.
8. Property owners have not installed secure garbage at their property across Hwy 20, and property owners have not
installed security cameras (though the posted sign would fool you) at the property across the Highway.
9. It would behoove the County to learn about this property owner's compliance with existing OHA, OLCC and
County Mj regulations in respect to this property owners mj operations across Hwy 20.
Respectfully,
Nunzie Gould
C
£ o
0
O
V
N_
0
C
O
Im
Hill
� � S
X",
n.
{$u
as F
A
� � S
X",
C
Richard and Linda Rode
65375 Highway 20
Bend, OR 97703
April 10, 2018
Isabella Liu
Assistant Planner
Deschutes County
117 NW Lafayette Ave.
Bend, OR 97708
RE: Proposed Land Use Application, File 247 -17 -000755 -AD,
Appeal File 247-18-000205-A
Dear Ms. Liu,
We are writing as part of the appeal process to the proposed grow next door to us
at 65325 Highway 20, Bend, OR 97703.
The Notice of Appeal listed above has 4 tenets listed, and the applicants at the
hearing held April 4, 2018 failed to satisfy any of the objections. First we will
address the setback exception request that also is in the landscape management
zone on Highway 20.
There is no valid reason to grant the set -back exception to place greenhouses 60
feet from the adjacent property. Another 40 feet would not make that much
difference. Further, the tree barrier that the applicants mention are a few
straggly Juniper trees that would minimally provide cover for the greenhouses
both from the road and the neighbors. While we agree this is the least obtrusive
place to have greenhouses, we feel the trees are not a sufficient visual barrier for
either tourist traffic or the neighbors on either side.
At the April 4 Appeal Hearing, you mentioned that you and the planning commission
decided that greenhouses did not come under the jurisdiction of buildings that
needed to conform to the landscape management zone. Our question is, then, why
do the applicants need 480 wattage to the greenhouses? If the greenhouses
require electricity, especially this much electricity, then they are surely
considered permanent structures, and thus should be considered under the
landscaping regulations. We feel that this decision is in direct conflict with the
spirit of the landscaping management zone on Highway 20.
The second reason stated for the appeal is that the applicant has failed to
demonstrate sufficient control on both noise and odor at the applicant's existing
site across the street. The applicant's spokeswoman admitted at the hearing that
they were waiting for their recreational marijuana OLCC license (they already were
a medical marijuana site) before implementing their odor control system on their
existing site. That means they have been out of compliance for odor and noise since
December 8, 2016 by the provisions of DCC18.116.330 (B) (10-12,16,17.) During the
harvest season, especially, the smell drifts across the highway so strongly that you
can smell it going down the road if your window is open. We can smell it at our
address north of the property, and the previous owner of the proposed grow could
not sit on her porch without being sickened. This was the previous owner's stated
reason for selling to both us, her neighbors, and to Bill McCormick, as stated at the
hearing by Bill McCormick.
This constitutes, at the very least, a no faith relationship with these applicants.
They were able to get away with not complying because there has been no county
or state oversight on medical marijuana compliance in over a year. Why, then,
should any of us believe what they so earnestly assure us on this new proposed
grow?
For example, at the hearing the spokeswoman stated that no artificial lighting
would be used on the greenhouses, so one would assume electricity is only needed
for the fans and odor control, a system they have only vaguely alluded to. This
amount of wattage would surely not be needed for odor control. If so, where is the
engineer's report on the exact system being implemented and why that much
electricity is needed?
And what about the noise? The spokeswoman said she can't show the Board of
Commissioners what hasn't been put in place yet. This is totally backwards. They
need to prove to the Board and the County Planning commission that the odor and
noise will be compliant BEFORE getting their land use permit. Whatever products
they intend to use are surely in place somewhere else, the manufacturers surely
have testimonials, engineers surely can be exact on the specifications and how the
mitigation will work. Back to the electricity, what guarantees do we have that the
applicants will not put grow lights in the greenhouses at a later date? With that
amount of electricity at their disposal, it would be an easy task.
Continuing on the no faith principle, and to the third appeal item, we have no
concrete assurances, other than the applicant's word, that the newly dug well, so
conveniently placed near the proposed greenhouse site, will not be used for the
grow. The applicant's spokeswoman stated that the well might be used for "washing
out pots and things like that." What is to prevent them from using it for irrigation
as well? Indeed, their initial land use application for this grow stated that adjacent
properties might need to drill their wells another 500 feet. Why would this be if
they are only using Tumalo Irrigation water rights? We need more than their word,
already compromised by their non-compliance with their existing grow facility
across the street, on the use of their well.
A couple of other inconsistencies are as follows. The applicant's spokeswoman
stated there was no bunkhouse. We have enclosed a picture of the bunkhouse,
along with the outhouse situated next to it. The prior owner had finished out this
building as an alternative place to sleep for her son and her husband's family to
stay when they visited, as the residence is a tiny one bedroom house. During the
harvest season there was evidence of a number of people staying in the structure
by the number of cars and lights inside the building. There appeared to be someone
staying in the trailer on site until today, which interestingly has been moved to
their property across the street. We don't really care if someone stays in the
trailer, or the bunkhouse for that matter, but the issue is the applicants lied about
it. This is yet another no faith/trust issue that is disturbing. The spokeswoman
also stated that they have 6 or so employees just like the prior owner did. Nancy
Vernon never had employees. She hired limited contract labor hay processors, as
ourselves, to plant and harvest her hay or fix her fences. At no time did she have
6 or more employees going in and out of her place, and living at her place, over an
extended period of time. The harvest season had an impact on the subject
property just for their existing site across the street in 2017. This impact would
be intensified if this proposed grow is permitted.
Finally we would like to address the county meeting held on April 2, 2018 at 1:30.
This supports the fourth tenant on the Notice of Appeal. At that meeting Tammy
Baney stated that she is in favor of instituting a "pause" on accepting applications
for grows. Phil Henderson seemed to agree. She also recommended a cap on the
number of grows allowed, especially in Tumalo and Alfalfa, the two areas that have
been most impacted by runaway grow sites. This proposed grow is clearly in Tumalo.
Please refer to the attached map that we included last September 27 in our initial
objection to this proposed grow. There are already a number of grows on Highway
20 in the immediate vicinity. Why on earth would there be approval of another
grow DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET to the same owner? It doesn't really
matter if each site has its own OLCC license. The offending sights, odors, and
noise will be doubled in a confined area comprising both sides of the landscaping
corridor coming into Bend. It is this scenario that we assume caused Tammy Baney
to consider an application pause, and caps on grows in Tumalo. With this kind of
grow density, the neighborhood (yes it is a neighborhood even on Highway 20) will
be overwhelmingly altered both in terms of quality of life and property values.
The County needs to seriously consider the direction it wants Deschutes County to
go. Do we want tourists to come over the mountains to see miles of hoop houses on
Highway 20, to have to roll up their windows to avoid the smell as they come into
Bend? To repeat the phrase we hapless residents continue to plead, "enough is
enough!"
To Izze Liu, Assistant Planner, Deschutes County
Re: File 247 -17 -000755 -AD, Appeal File 247-18-000205-A
65325 Hwy. 20
These comments relate to the Appeal filed by William McCormick for the above referenced
property, and are in addition to my previous comments in response to the application filed.
Please do not approve the Application for a marijuana production facility.
Setback — While applicant makes the argument for a setback to provide for the best location of
the greenhouses on the property, I believe an exception to the setback rules should only be
made for exceptional or unusual cases. I do not believe applicant has demonstrated this to be
the case and the application should be denied because of this. While a variance for the setback
would prevent the greenhouses from being as visible from neighboring properties, approval
without the variance would produce a lesser amount of screening from Highway 20 and
neighboring properties. As to the screening, it was brought up at the appeal hearing that some
of the screening vegetation could die with some site work to be done for the new greenhouses.
This would produce a lesser amount of screening in the LM Zone. If the Board decides to
approve the application, then I would favor approval with the setback, as that would produce a
lesser impact to neighboring properties.
Prior owner of property — At the appeal hearing, applicant stated that their operations would
have the same amount of traffic on the property, and coming to and from the property as existed
with the prior owner. Applicant stated that to be six employees. The prior owner did not have
any employees. She hired subcontractors on some occasions, but that was not typical. The
prior owner leased the operation of the field adjacent to the proposed grow site. In most years,
it was leased to the neighbor to the north. Such leasing only resulted in the lessee using his
tractor to tend the field, and did not result in the traffic that the applicant states.
The prior owner of the property had reduced enjoyment of her property prior to the sale of the
property. She told me on many occasions that was due to her smell of the marijuana grow
across Highway 20, which was owned and operated by this same applicant. The applicant did
not have proper equipment to alleviate odor and noise, even during the period she was supposed
to under the County regulations. I live over a half mile from that grow, and was able to smell
the product on certain days, not all days. As the applicant operated with a disregard for the
rules, and at the hearing misrepresented information regarding the prior owner, why should the
County take the word of the applicant that it will comply?
Bunkhouse and RV — The applicant stated at the appeal hearing that the bunkhouse and RV
were not used as additional residences. While I cannot be certain, I can tell you from personal
observation that such bunkhouse and RV had other vehicles parked near them and lights on
during nighttime hours. With respect to the one bedroom home on the property, while it may
not be a prohibition within the regulations, there is a very young child residing there. This type
of operation does not seem right with this situation. Has it been determined what the impact
of a grow operation will be on property with a young child, or if this is a public safety risk?
Integration with property owned and operated by applicant across Highway 20 — At the appeal
hearing, applicant stated the two operations would be separate in all operational aspects. This
does not seem to be realistic and applicant did not come across as convincing with its
arguments. As such, approval should not be granted, as if two operations are integrated, that
would mean there were multiple operations on multiple properties.
This also creates a public safety and traffic issue on Highway 20. As to Highway 20, both of
these properties are located in heavy traffic areas with relatively high speeds, and with two
Dayton Road intersections with Highway 20 that are not the best of intersections. Dayton road
has skewed alignments to Highway 20 making travel from Dayton Road onto Highway 20 and
travel from Highway 20 onto Dayton Road difficult and dangerous. Highway 20 is one of
Oregon's tourist transportation routes to Deschutes County's largest city. It is an emergency
route and freight route, and it is important that land uses approved adjacent to such important
transportation routes never place these routes in jeopardy of serving their purpose for safe
travel.
Water usage and waste — Applicant has drilled a well of 900 feet. This does not appear to be
consistent with the existing use of the property or the proposed use, and gives the appearance
of an intent to use the water to supplement the water obtained from Tumalo Irrigation, both
during and after the irrigation season. This will place an increased burden on the aquifer, and
may cause wells of neighboring properties to run dry or cause a need for a deeper well, all at a
cost to existing property owners. Contrary to what some might say, water is a finite and
precious resource, and in a year of low snowfall, significant burdens are placed on both water
in the aquifer, as well as irrigation water, in this case, Tumalo Irrigation District. It is well
documented that marijuana grows use significantly more water than more traditional crops.
Having this well can mitigate and supplement usage from Tumalo Irrigation in a year or years
where less irrigation water is available. With respect to the irrigation canal, the close proximity
of the proposed greenhouses could cause product waste and herbicide misuse and could cause
farmers downstream to suffer irreparable harm to their crops. There was no discussion by
applicant on this topic.
Noise and odor — This is a mandatory requirement and must be submitted and evaluated. I do
not believe applicant provided enough information on noise and odor mitigation. The burden
here should be on the applicant, not on the County. The public should have the right to
comment on this once the information is submitted by applicant.
Production — One owner of 12 greenhouses on two parcels separated by a major highway is not
consistent with livability in this community. There is no information provided for production
amounts on either of these two properties, but reasonable people can see that this is an excessive
amount of production, and a significant drain on our water and electric resources. While the
area of the greenhouses may present low fire risk, this is Central Oregon, and any activities can
cause a widespread fire. This was not addressed in the application. If the proposed grow is to
be vertically integrated with the existing facility on the east side of Hwy 20, has it been
determined if that facility's use as a processing facility means that this is one operation on two
land lots, rather than two separate operations?
Neighboring properties — Applicant mentioned at the appeal hearing that it was a good neighbor
and minimized the impact on existing properties. In operation, applicant does not demonstrate
this on its existing property. Applicant's disregard of noise and odor mitigation for a long
period of time and lack of screening to minimize the impact of greenhouses to neighboring
properties is apparent. The County should have reason to doubt future compliance.
While not in the regulations, I believe the Board has the ability to interpret its Code to deny the
application for some other pertinent reasons. These include the lack of prior compliance, the
density and close proximity of this grow with others, including the existing grow operation
owned by applicant, and the public safety issues related to traffic entering and exiting from
Highway 20. As marijuana is a controlled Schedule I substance under Federal law, its
production should not be allowed, until such time as Federal law changes to allow its
production, sale, distribution, etc.
Respectfully submitted,
Mark Murzin
Tumalo, Oregon
From, Lance Piatt
To: Isabella Liu
Subject: The file number is 247 -17 -000755 -AD address is 65325 Highway 20
Date: Friday, April 06, 2018 8:26:32 AM
With respect to the Hopmann application. This is as cut and dry as it gets. Set backs are set
backs. If they are so stupid as to infringe on this from the start, then to hell with the
application. It starts this way now... shit rolls down hill. They'll be a pain in the ass from
hereon out. No... 0 tolerance for this. Crap, I had to move my building plans 7' because of a
stupid 30 year old law... "solar set back"... for f#@$ 2 days a day.
NO NO NO on variances!!!! This shouldn't even be a question.
Lance Piatt
lanceipiatta-me.com
541 815 0332 Cell
Red Ibex Solutions Inc.
Rescue Respons Gear
Rigging Lab Academy
Raven Collective Media
Trails 2 The Sea
This page intentionally left blank.
Attachment F — Staff Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
Co
�-A
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Board of County Commissioners
Nick Lelack, AICP, Director
April 10, 2018
File No. 247-18-000205-A (appeal of 247 -17 -000755 -AD) — Landscape Management Zone
Interpretation —Applicability for Marijuana Applications
INTERPRETATION
The subject appeal raises an interpretation of Deschutes County Code (DCC) 18.116.330(12)(a) Marijuana
Production Processing, and Retailing, Screening and Fencing, Landscape Management Zone applicability.
The Board's interpretation will also be applied to DCC 18.116.340(C)(3)(a) Marijuana Production
Registered by the Oregon Health Authority, Screen and Fencing, Landscape Management Zone
applicability.
DCC 116.330(12)(a) is highlighted below.
12. Screening and Fencing. The following screening standards shall apply to greenhouses, hoop
houses, and similar non -rigid structures and land areas used for marijuana production and
processing:
a. Subject to DCC 18.84, Landscape Management Combining Zone approval, if applicable.
b. Fencing shall be finished in a muted earth tone that blends with the surrounding natural
landscape and shall not be constructed of temporary materials such as plastic sheeting, hay
bales, tarps, etc., and shall be subject to DCC 18.88, Wildlife Area Combining Zone, if
applicable.
c. Razor wire, or similar, shall be obscured from view or colored a muted earth tone that blends
with the surrounding natural landscape.
d. The existing tree and shrub cover screening the development from the public right-of-way or
adjacent properties shall be retained to the maximum extent possible. This provision does not
prohibit maintenance of existing lawns, removal of dead, diseased or hazardous vegetation;
the commercial harvest of forest products in accordance with the Oregon Forest Practices Act;
or agricultural use of the land.
The Board is asked to interpret the meaning of "if applicable" in this case?
Specifically, does this code provision require:
A. All greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar non -rigid structures and land areas used for
marijuana production and processing in the Landscape Management Zone to comply with DCC
18.84 Landscape Management Combining Zone; or
Only structures requiring a building permit or an agricultural structure in the Landscape
Management Zone to comply with DCC 18.84?
nISCINSION
A. Planners who drafted the code' recall the legislative intent was to require all greenhouses, hoop
houses, and similar non -rigid structures and land areas used for marijuana production and processing
in the Landscape Management (LM) Zone to comply with the applicable provisions of DCC 18.84
Landscape Management Combining Zone based on Board direction and public input.
They recall that this code section would be unnecessary if it only applied to structures requiring a
building permit or an agricultural structure, which is already required by code.
Therefore, "if applicable" was intended to differentiate marijuana production and processing
applications (greenhouses, hoop houses, and non -similar structures and land areas used) proposed in
LM Combining Zone (compliance with DCC 18.84 required) and those out of the LM Combining Zone
(not applicable).
B. Planners who apply the code interpret "if applicable" to be the general applicability of the LM Zone.
In sum, the LM Zone is only applicable to structures requiring a structural building permit or an
agricultural exemption from a structural permit.
The basis of LM Zone applicability to structures requiring a building permit or agricultural building is
the following:
DCC 18.84.050(A) LM Combining Zone Use Limitations, which states: "Any new structure or
substantial alteration of a structure requiring a building permit or an agricultural structure within
an -LM -Zone shall obtain site plan approval -in -accordance withDCC18.84 priorto-construction."
DCC 18.04.030 defines "Agricultural Structure" as "any structure considered to be an 'agricultural
building' under the State Building Code (Section 326) as referenced in DCC 15.04.0 102 ...
DCC 18.04.030 defines "Agricultural building" as "buildings and structures that are exempt from
the State of Oregon Structural Specialty Code as agricultural buildings and equine facilities as
described in ORS 455.315."
According to County Assistant Building Official Chris Gracia, State Building Code Section 326 does
not require building permits or exemptions for certain greenhouses and hoop house designs.
Planning staff generally understands that rigid structures (e.g. rigid polycarbonate roof) would
require a building permit or agricultural exemption, while non -rigid structures (e.g. PVC piping
covered with plastic sheeting) may not require a building permit or agricultural exemption.
Therefore, "if applicable" does not require certain greenhouses or hoop houses to comply with
' Nick Lelack, AICP, Director, and Matthew Martin, AICP, Long Range Planner.
2 DCC 15.04.010(A) references ORS 455
-2-
the LM Zone.
INTERPRETATION RESULTS FOR SUBJECT APPLICATION
Staff enters this memorandum in the record during the open record period on Tuesday, April 10 to allow
responses from all parties.
If the Board agrees with the interpretation that compliance with the LM Zone is required, the Board may
condition the decision on compliance with the LM Zone. If the Board's interpretation is that compliance
is not required for the greenhouses and hoop houses, then the application may be decided as proposed.
-3-
This page intentionally left blank.
Attachment G — Applicant's Rebuttal
This page intentionally left blank.
From:
Ms. Lesley Jones
To:
Isabella Liu
Subject:
FW: 247-18-000205-A
Date:
Wednesday, April 18, 2018 3:08:41 PM
Hello Izze,
Please find below a statement from Colebriet Engineering regarding the odor and noise engineering
report.
Thank you for submitting this to record.
Appreciatively,
Lesley Jones
Executive Director
Tumalo Living Organic Farms
From: Rob James <robjames@colebreit.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 2:58 PM
To: Ms. Lesley Jones <Ijones@tlofarms.com>
Subject:
Hi Leslie,
Per our phone conversation today, and in order to address the commissioner concerns, our letters
concerning odor and noise do serve as reports.
You also commented to me that additional materials concerning the Fogco odor control system have
already been submitted to the County.
In considering changes to the county code requirements, it would be very helpful if those
requirements could be spelled out specifically. For example, there is no quantifiable measurement
for odor control in the current code.
Rob James, P.E.
1030 NAN r-,Iond St., SOe, 202 i Bend, OR 97703 i rob'ames(cDcolebreit.com i o : 51l 728 3293 11 c: 6,41 21„ 1055
colebrelt.com
April 18, 2018 APR 18 2018
t?eschutes County
Deschutes County Community Development Department S "kWkkwa
117 NW Lafayette Avenue
Bend, Oregon 97708
RE: 247 -000755 -AD
The following is a response to false accusations made by individuals in opposition to the Administrative
Decision 247 -000755 -AD. In addition, the following details the aggressive harassment an individual that
has targeted TLO Farms.
Nunzie email April 10, 2018: "'rhe property owner's have not installed security cameras (though the
posted sign would fool you) at the property across the Highway."
RESPONSE: The property at 65320 Highway 20 is an OLCC licensed and inspected facility. As part of
obtaining this licensure, TLO Farms has a security system that includes approximately 100 FLIR Infrared
cameras, motion detectors, alarm and notification system.
Mark Murzin Tumalo, Oregon: "Some of the screening vegetation could die with some site work to be
done for the new greenhouses."
RESPONSE: The greenhouses are proposed to be sited on a 3.5 acre location that does not have any
trees and is considered agricultural land. The trees located along the canal may be impacted when TID
pipes the canal. TLO Farms is collaborating with TID to protect and maintain these trees considering the
piping project (many are beautiful and large ponderosa pines).
Richard and Linda Rode April 10-2018: "(The trailer) has been moved to their property across the
street."
RESPONSE: The owner of TLO Farms became aware that the trailer may be a concern of the neighbors
during the hearing. As a result, the trailers were sold to an adjacent neighbor to the north of 65320
Highway 20, and this neighbor has placed the trailers on there property. The trailers are not on either of
Linda Hopmann's properties.
Arleigh Mooney April 1-2018: They have started to move in potting mix and materials to start
planting (in the greenhouses)." r
RESPONSE: This is false. TLO Farms currently has seven empty greenhouses without potting soil or
plants. They are completely empty. TLO Farms is working with FogCo to install odor control for the
three greenhouses that will be used this summer. The upgraded odor control system is scheduled to be
installed in May 2018.
This page intentionally left blank.
Attachment H —Appellant's Rebuttal
This page intentionally left blank.
BEFORE THE DESCHUTES COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
In re the AI)I.Vication for° ca,Marijuana Gro>a, File No. 247-18-000205-A
Ol)eralion hy:
LINDA A. I-IOPMAN, 'hrustee of the Linda APPELLANT'S CLOSING
A. Hopman, Revocable Itiiving Trust, I MEMORANDUM
Applicant.
1.
Background
In the summer of 2016, Deschutes County adopted regulations requiring all medical
marijuana facilities to implement procedures to control odor and noise. The applicant in this case.
Linda I-lopman, has a medical marijuana facility across Highway 20 from the proposed recreational
marijuana grow site. For almost two years Hopman has failed to comply with those regulations.
As a result, there have been numerous complaints regarding the emissions of odors from that
property by adjoining neighbors.
At the hearing on April 4, 2018, the applicant indicated that she failed or refused to
implement those regulations through some type of consensual agreement with the Deschutes
County Planning Department. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is inconceivable that the
Planning Department would give the green light to any operator or owner to flagrantly disregard
regulations, particularly in light of the fact that there were numerous complaints regarding odor
frons the site.
Page I — Appellant's Closing Memorandum
P'rrcn LACY GROUP, Pc
G:AClients\BPP\McCormick, Wil liamAMcCormick, William LU�018-64-18 Appellant's Closing-
Suite 2
mo
t�4emo.docx
UO
Rd. K 97756
Redmond.
pl;one: 541-316-1588
Pax: 541-316-1943
This pattern of non-compliance is also evident in this application. "Phis application was
tiled on or about September 14, 2017. In that application, the applicants elected to disregard the
setback requirements in the Deschutes County Code. They did this solely for sake of convenience.
There is no physical impediment nor any historical use which would dictate a use of a site closer
to the property line than is clearly required under the regulations. The applicant has a fairly large
parcel of land. The applicant had numerous options in which to site the location of this marijuana
facility in compliance with the code. Further, the applicant has not submitted any evidence that
would meet the requirement for an exception. That is, there is no evidence in the record that the
effects of noise and odor from this site 40 feet closer to the property line then is required would be
equal to or less than if the buildings were 40 feet farther back from the property line.
II.
Modification
The applicant now proposes to possibly modify the application, although she has done that
in a very round -about way. The applicant has suggested that she would move the location as a
condition of approval. Any substantial change ill this application would, however, constitute a
modification under Chapter 22 of Deschutes County Code. Under Section 22.20.055, that
modification would require that the application be re -noticed, and additional hearings being held.
That is not what the applicant has proposed. If the applicant had does this correctly that would be
what should have occurred. Instead, after the record was closed, the applicant now wants to just
move the site to a completely different site without giving anyone an opportunity to analyze that
site and its effects regarding screening, operational characteristics, access, etc. Because of that the
application must be denied or withdrawn and a new or modified application submitted with a new
150 -day timeframe.
PITCH LAW GROUP, PC
Page 2 — Appellant's Closing Memorandum 210 SW 5"' St., suite 2
&\Clients\EPI'\MeCormick, William\McCormick, William L.0\2018-04-18 Appellant's Closing- Redmond, OR 97756
Memo.docx Phone: 541-316-1588
Fax: 541-316-1943
M.
Landscape Management ("LM") Zone
'The appellants agree with the staff that screening and fencing should apply to greenhouses,
hoop houses and similar non -rich structures for marijuana production that lie within the LM Zone.
That is what was contemplated in Deschutes County Code 116.330.12(a). The correct
interpretation of that section is that if there is a Landscape Management Zone applicable, then that
fencing, and screening would be required. In other words, if the applicant did ever submit a plan
that conforms to the setback requirements, that plan would have to include screening and fencing
as required under the marijuana provisions in the Deschutes County Code, since this property is
within the Landscape Management Zone.
For these reasons the application as presented must be denied.
Dated this % day of April 2018.
Respectfully submitted,
FITCH LAW GROUP P.C.
Edward P. Fitch, USB #782026
Attorney for Appellant
Page 3 — Appellant's Closing Memorandum rrrcn LANA' GRoup, PC
G:AClients\EPF\McCormick. William\McCormick, William LU\2015-04-18 Appellant's Closing- 210 SW 51" St., Suite 2
Memo.docx Redmond. OR 97750
Phone: 541-316-1588
Fax: 541-316-1943
This page intentionally left blank.
Attachment I — Public Rebuttal
This page intentionally left blank.
To whom it may concern:
In 2012 my wife and I purchased the above-mentioned farm on Dayton Rd with dreams of reviving the
farm and open a produce stand and bed and breakfast. As we were pursuing our dreams and goals,
when the property adjacent to our property - 65320 Highway 20 and across the street 65325 Highway
20 became marijuana farms. I will admit that I was very concerning how these changes would affect
your goals and dreams — especially our bed & breakfast. The smell, noise, the type of employees that a
pot farm would attract and security risks by producing medical or recreational marijuana to name a few
of my concerns.
I am 60 years old and have lived in various homes in three States over the years and I can honestly say
and happily convey that my fears and concerns have not manifested themselves for the past five years
and I do not see them occurring in the future.
Furthermore, I was presently surprised to watch these hardworking men and women transform the
rundown horse property into a well-groomed working farm. They work between 7:30 am to 5:00 pm.
Every employee I have encountered in the past five years have been respectful and courteous to my
wife, myself and our produce costumers and bed & breakfast guests. Being so close to the farm, the
odor concern has not transpired —yes there is on odor during harvest but it's not bad and have yet to
receive a negative comment from our bed & breakfast guests in five years (the odor is much better than
a pig or dairy farm which I have lived near both over the years). With the cameras, alarm and new
fences around the pot farm address my security risks. They appear to be doing all they can to protect
them and us from unwanted visitors. I cannot ask for them to do more to secure the property. Jacob
(the farm manager) and his family have been very helpful and kind to my family and have freely reached
out to help me on my farm — he is a great neighbor. I truly wish that all my neighbors were as nice,
polite and helpful as Jacob and his family have been over the years. Again, this is also true with every
employee from the pot from I have met over the years.
If you have any questions at all or would like further information concerning the pot farm next door,
please do not hesitate to contact me at 541-419-5770.
David & Donna Brehm
19189 Dayton Rd, Bend Or 97703
Taxlot 66325 ; Water Rights 65325 Domestic well
Streets Irrigation_pond
'Conifer
— — LMZ setback 100 Diversion
Neighbor—setback-300 Irrigation line -4 Side_yard_setback 35
TID_West Branch setback 30 Cropland Proposed_ Greenhouse
TID West Branch Current structures Proposed Greenhouse
Proposed—wash—station
Proposed veg Swale
Proposed utility power
Q Proposed_propane tanks
Proposed—access—drive—improvement
Proposed_parking
Parking_spaces v2
Proposed screening
Proposed_garbage recycling
Source Esd, DigitaaGlobe,
tGN, and the G18 User Cor
ew
thstar Geographics, 6NES/Airbus 1D.S, USDA, USGS,
0 87.5 175 350 Feet N
E I t t i Prepared by: L. Jones, 08!2512017
w e GCS WGS 1984.
Datum: D WGS 198x6
"MIN,
N ,
t
c
Proposed—wash—station
Proposed veg Swale
Proposed utility power
Q Proposed_propane tanks
Proposed—access—drive—improvement
Proposed_parking
Parking_spaces v2
Proposed screening
Proposed_garbage recycling
Source Esd, DigitaaGlobe,
tGN, and the G18 User Cor
ew
thstar Geographics, 6NES/Airbus 1D.S, USDA, USGS,
0 87.5 175 350 Feet N
E I t t i Prepared by: L. Jones, 08!2512017
w e GCS WGS 1984.
Datum: D WGS 198x6