Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2018-332-Minutes for Meeting July 02,2018 Recorded 8/10/2018
E 5 CnG� BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon (541 ) 388-6570 10.00 AM Recorded in Deschutes county CJ2018-332 Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk Commissioners' Journal 08/10/2018 10:57:05 AM p01l33lu������uuuu���u��� FOR RECORDING STAMP ONLY BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES MONDAY® July 2, 2018 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. Several citizens and representatives of the media were in attendance. CALL TO ORDER: Chair DeBone called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CITIZEN INPUT: None was offered. CONSENT AGENDA: Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Henderson requested additional time for review of Items 3 through 6. HENDERSON: Move approval of Consent Agenda Items 1 and 2 BAN EY: Second VOTE: HENDERSON: Yes BAN EY: Yes DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried BOCC BUSINESS MEETING JULY 2, 2018 PAGE 1 OF 8 Consent Agenda Items: 1. Consideration of Board Signature of Document No. 2018-508, a Bargain and Sale Deed to Troy Batson 2. Consideration of Board Signature of Purchase Agreement, Document No. 2018-503; Acceptance Deed of Dedication, Document No. 2018-505; and Temporary Construction Easement Document No. 2018-504 for Deschutes Market Road / Dale Road Intersection Improvement Project 3. Approval of the Minutes of the May 29 2018 Budget Hearing 4. Approval of the Minutes of the May 30 2018 Budget Hearing 5. Approval of the Minutes of the May 31 2018 Budget Hearing 6. Approval of the Minutes of the June 1 2018 Budget Hearing ACTION ITEMS 7. Consideration of Board Signature of Resolution No. 2018-030, Imposing Public Use Fire Restrictions on Unprotected Wildland Within Unincorporated Ed Keith County Forester presented the annual resolution to raise public awareness and prevent human caused fires. This resolution mirrors the annual fire restrictions set by Oregon Department of Forestry. Commissioner Baney commented we have a responsibility to protect our community. Commissioner DeBone noted the good reminder for property owners. HENDERSON: Move approval BAN EY: Second VOTE: HENDERSON: Yes BAN EY: Yes DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried BOCC BUSINESS MEETING JULY 2, 2018 PAGE 2 OF 8 8. Consideration of Board Signature of Order No. 2018-050, Pine Forest Development LLC Peter Gutowsky, Planning Manager presented this item for consideration of an Order to consider re -opening the record to allow the applicant to submit a revised development plan for the expansion of Caldera Springs. Mr. Gutowsky reviewed the history of the record. The Board agreed to serve as hearings body for the remand. BAN EY: Move Approval 2018-050. HENDERSON: Second VOTE: BAN EY: Yes HENDERSON: Yes DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 9. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal of Administrative Decision for Marijuana Production Facility, 6829 NW 66th Street, Redmond Nicole Mardell, Community Development Department reviewed the hearing procedures. No conflicts or challenges were declared. Ms. Mardell reported Cascade Estates Farm, LLC received an administrative approval to establish a marijuana production facility with up to 5,000 square feet of mature canopy area within a new 5,000 square foot structure. Two timely appeals were filed in opposition of the proposal. Ms. Mardell gave a summary of the appeal items and staff report. Commissioner DeBone opened the public hearing. The applicant's attorney Mr. Hughes gave testimony and response to items noted in the appeal. The intention of access is that the applicant has an easement from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and secondary BOCC BUSINESS MEETING JULY 2, 2018 PAGE 3 OF 8 access. The easement paperwork is not currently in the record. Mr. Hughes stated BLM is now making this easement an issue because marijuana breaks federal law. Mr. Hughes explained the applicant will not use groundwater. Mr. Hughes stated the operation will not cause increased criminal activity. Discussion held on overproduction of marijuana in the state of Oregon. Mr. Hughes feels this is a commercial enterprise and should not be denied. Commissioner Baney noted in the application, the access materials speak on the size of the grow. The application isn't clear of the intended size of mature canopy and it may be beneficial to the applicant to provide more clarification. The applicant is currently growing medical marijuana. Commissioner Baney recommended updated letters from Cole Breit should be included in the record. The existing medical marijuana operation is done inside of their home and will not be included in the new building. The appellant^Jeff Blackburn is the President of the Tetherow CrossingHome Owners Association. Mr. Blackburn acknowledges the access points are privately maintained roads by the home owners association and one of their concerns is access. Mr. Blackburn noted the estimate of 15,000 gallons of water used for a canopy of this size and feels there may be a greater amount of water used based on the information in the application. They are concerned on the truck wear and tear on the roads. The application does not include any type of financial contribution for road maintenance. Mr. Blackburn is concerned with the health and fire safety as well. A road survey has been recently completed for fire and rescue traffic and inquired how the County plans on enforcing the fire and rescue requirements for dirt roads. Mr. Blackburn asks the Board ask for burden of proof on the applicant that they have satisfied the access requirement from BLM. Casey Gibbs gave testimony on behalf of Odin Falls Ranch and River Springs Estate. Mr. Gibbs pointed out the area of concern on the map posted at the podium. Mr. Gibbs addressed concerns of the proposed grow operation and explained the road for access to this property is illegal. Regarding the fire code, Mr. Gibbs disagrees with interpretation regarding the business. Commissioner DeBone noted a letter from the BLM was submitted this morning and will be included in the record. BOCC BUSINESS MEETING JULY 2, 2018 PAGE 4 OF 8 Ann Blumenberg gave testimony as a neighboring property owner. She noted the information in the application doesn't even indicate the location of her house. She commented on the Mary Kay Falls properties and River Springs properties and they have no intention of granting access across their properties for the purpose of the application. Their concern is there is no showing of access to this property for a commercial property. Ms. Blumenberg noted the concerns with ground water and pesticides. Commissioner Henderson requested a map showing the neighboring properties along with a zoning map. William Hinchliff gave testimony and spoke on crime around marijuana and commented on recent articles in the Bend Bulletin. Mr. Hinchliff stated this is a neighborhood and doesn't want this type of criminal activity in their neighborhood. Richard Jensen gave testimony and is a neighboring property owner. The location of the facility is the biggest issue. Mr. Jensen reviewed the access points with the road systems in the area. They are concerned with this facility in the neighborhood and property values. Mr. Jensen is a retired environmental engineer and spoke on fire safety concerns not only in this location but any location. Peter Russell Senior Transportation Planner reported he will contact the County Surveyor regarding the roads and easement in that area. Mr. Hughes commented regarding the access issue and stated it would be unfair if the land use review process standards change. Mr. Hughes requested a copy of the testimony that came in this morning. The applicant will provide an updated mechanical engineer's report. The applicant stated water being hauled to the property will also be supplemented by water caught by gutters at their estimated 200,000 gallons per year. Commissioner Baney inquired on the odor control. The applicant noted the plants will be located within building. The applicant is in process of getting water rights. The Board requested keeping the record open. Upon no further testimony, Commissioner DeBone noted the oral portion of the hearing is closed. Ms. Mardell clarified the time frame for new evidence to be submitted by July 9, BOCC BUSINESS MEETING JULY 2, 2018 PACE 5 Or 8 response to new evidence to be submitted by July 16, and then fina arguments by applicant to be submitted byjuly 23. RECESS: At the time of 12:08 p.m. the Board took a recess and the meeting reconvened at 12:16 p.m. %DELIBERATION of Shepherd Church Peter Gutowsky, Community Development Department Planning Manager and Adam Smith, Assistant Legal Counsel presented in assist of Board deliberations. The matrix was followed for each area of issues. Regarding the Local Code on Modification of the Application, Mr. Gutowsky commented on the application including the rehearsal dinners. The applicant is no longer asking for camping or rehearsal dinners. The Board is in agreement there is no modification. Regarding the Local Code on Violation of Prior Decisions, Mr. Gutowsky commented on the compliance with the conditions of farm management plan and spoke on a hearings officer decision. The Board is in agreement the applicant has met this criteria. Regarding the Local Code on Prohibition of Churches in the Wildlife Area Combining Zone, Mr. Gutowsky reviewed the definition of churches in County Code. Regarding the Local Code on Withdrawn Applications, Mr. Gutowsky and Mr. Smith reviewed and noted the opponents present no case law or evidence they were harmed by the applicant. Commissioner Henderson encourages that staff clearly articulate within the findings the burdens to the county and the parties associated with no impact technical/procedural issues. Regarding the Local Code on Churches, Mr. Gutowsky and Mr. Smith reviewed the record around the definition of churches. The Board agrees with the staff recommendation. BOCC BUSINESS MEETING JULY 2, 2018 PAGE 6 OF 8 Regarding the Local Code on Who is the Applicant for this Proposal. Commissioner Baney noted there may be questions about the organization, payment for weddings, confusion of the applicant and who would be receiving funds and clarification should be a condition of approval. Mr. Smith reported on the entity that would be the recipient of the funds. Commissioner DeBone supports the condition of approval. Regarding the State Code on Non -Residential Places of Worship, Mr. Smith reviewed definitions of a church and use permitted. Staff recommend the Board relies on the definition of church. The Board agrees with staff's analysis. Regarding RLUIPA - Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person Act, Mr. Smith spoke on the Safe Harbor provision. After discussion, the Board on agrees to envoke the Safe Harbor. Mr. Smith commented on the equal terms provisions and staff recommends the Board rely on the ninth circuit court decisions. The Board agrees with staff recommendation. Mr. Smith commented on the substantial burden test which is looking at conditions of approval and asked if prohibiting church services inside and outside is a substantial burden on the applicant's fundamental rights. Discussion held on the scope of the commercial interest and whether this would be an event facility or a church service for the community. Discussion held on the number of events proposed. The Board discussed a potential cap on 18 events rather than the 30 events in the proposed application. Mr. Smith spoke on agri-tourism events. Mr. Smith recommends allowing 18 events due to concerns expressed by the Board. Mr. Smith recapped the argument of Safe Harbor and the provision would adopt the hearing's officer decision. The Board agrees. The Board considered the events in non -winter season and would consider 27 events. Mr. Smith will prepare the findings for the Board and will bring the decision for consideration to the July 11th Board Business Meeting. BOCC BUSINESS MEETING JULY 2, 2018 PAGE 7 OF 8 OTHER ITEMS: None were offered. Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 1;41 p.m. DATED thi _ i Day ofj 2018 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ANTHONY N g CHAIR BOCC BUSINESS MEETING JULY 2, 2018 PAGE 8 OF 8 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 - www.deschutes.org BUSINESS MEETING AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 10:00 AM, MONDAY, JULY 2, 2018 Barnes 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 Document 2018-508, a Bargain and Sale Deed to Troy Batson. Board of Commissioners Business Meeting Agenda Monday, July 2, 2018 Pagel of 3 2. Consideration of Board Signature of Purchase Agreement, Document No. 2018-503; Acceptance of Deed of Dedication, Document No. 2018-505; and Temporary Construction Easement, Document No. 2018-504 for Deschutes Market Rd / Dale Rd Intersection Improvement Project 3. Approval of the Minutes of the May 29 2018 Budget Hearing 4. Approval of the Minutes of the May 30 2018 Budget Hearing 5. Approval of the Minutes of the May 31 2018 Budget Hearing 6. Approval of the Minutes of the June 1 2018 Budget Hearing ACTION ITEMS 7. Consideration of Board Signature of Resolution No. 2018-030, Imposing Public Use Fire Restrictions on Unprotected Wildland Within Unincorporated Deschutes County and All Lands Owned by Deschutes County - Ed Keith, Forester 8. Consideration of Board Signature of Order No. 2018-050, Pine Forest Development, LLC - Peter Gutowsky, Planning Manager 9. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal of Administrative Decision for Marijuana Production Facility, 6829 NW 66Th Street, Redmond - Nicole Mardell, Associate Planner 10. Deliberation of Shepherd Church - Peter Gutowsky, Planning Manager OTHER ITEMS These can be any items not included on the agenda that the Commissioners wish to discuss as part of the meeting, pursuant to ORS 192.640. At any time during the meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2)(e), real property negotiations, ORS 192.660(2)(h), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor negotiations; ORS 192.660(2)(b), personnel issues, or other executive session categories. Executive sessions are closed to the public, however, with few exceptions and under specific guidelines, are open to the media. ADJOURN Board of Commissioners Business Meeting Agenda Monday, July 2, 2018 Page 2 of 3 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.or /g meetingcalendar Meeting dates and times are subject to change. If you have question, please call (541) 388-6572. Board of Commissioners Business Meeting Agenda Monday, July 2, 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 July 2, 2018 DATE: June 25, 2018 FROM: Nicole Mardell, Community Development, TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal of Administrative Decision for Marijuana Production Facility, 6829 NW 66Th Street, Redmond RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: Conduct a public hearing and render a decision to either: uphold the administrative decision, uphold the administrative decision with Board modifications, or deny the application. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Cascade Estates Farm, LLC received administrative approval to establish a marijuana production facility with up to 5,000 square feet of mature canopy area within a new 5,000 square foot structure. Two timely appeals were filed in opposition of the proposal. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None. ATTENDANCE: Nicole Mardell, Associate Planner ES STAFF MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners ("Board") FROM: Nicole Mardell, Associate Planner HEARING DATE: July 2, 2018 RE: Public Hearing on an appeal of an Administrative Determination for Marijuana Production in the Exclusive Farm Use Zone at 6829 NW 66th Street, Redmond (File Nos: 247 -18 -00047 -AD, 452-A, 453-A). APPLICANT: Brett Richwine, Cascade Estates Farms LLC OWNER: Isaac Babani AGENT: Michael Hughes, Attorney APPELLANTS: Tetherow Crossing Homeowners Association, Odin Falls Ranch Property Owners Association. 1. PURPOSE The Deschutes Board of County Commissioners will hold a public hearing to consider two appeals, filed by the Tetherow Crossing Homeowners Association and the Odin Falls Ranch Property Owners Association, in response to an Administrative Determination approving a marijuana production facility at 6829 NW 66th Street, Redmond. The applicant's request is to establish a marijuana production facility with up to 5,000 square feet of mature canopy area within a new 50'x 100'(5,000 - square -foot total) structure. The Board issued an order' on June 4, 2018 to call up the matter for review if an appeal was filed. Two timely appeals were filed before the deadline on June 4, 2018. This memorandum supplements the Administrative Determination for the above -referenced land use application (Attachment 2) and summarizes the concerns raised in the Notices of Appeal (Attachment 3). Applicable criteria of the DCC are included as Attachment 4 and are also detailed in the Administrative Determination with the associated findings. ' Order No. 2018-040 1 1 7 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005 Q, (541) 388-6575 @ cdd@deschutes.org @ www.deschutes.org/cd II. PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED The Planning Division mailed a written notice of public hearing on June 5, 2018 to parties who submitted comments or are within 750 feet of the subject property. Staff has not received any additional comments as of the date of this memorandum. Notice of the public hearing was also published in the Bend Bulletin on June 10, 2018. III. APPELLANT'S OBJECTIONS SUMMARY The two appeals are identical in content, but can be viewed individually within the Notices of Appeal (Attachment 3). The appellants' central arguments are summarized below: A. Legality of transporting federally controlled substances across public lands B. Road access to the property C. Groundwater contamination D. Increased crime E. Residential character of the area Legality of transporting federally controlled substances across public lands, groundwater contamination, crime, and the residential character of the area are not applicable criteria in the Title 18 or Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code in relation to this application. Staff has no comments regarding these concerns. IV. OBJECTIONS TO APPLICABLE CRITERIA & DISCUSSION Section 18.116.330. Marijuana Production, Processing, and Retailing B. Marijuana production and marijuana processing. Marijuana production and marijuana processing shall be subject to the following standards and criteria: 8. Access. Marijuana Production over 5,000 square feet of canopy area for mature marijuana plants shall comply with the following standards. a. Have frontage on and legal direct access from a constructed public, county, or state road, or b. Have access from a private road or easement serving only the subject property. C. If the property takes access via a private road or easement which also serves other properties, the applicant shall obtain written consent to utilize the easement or private road for marijuana production access from all owners who have access rights to the private road or easement. The written consent shall: i. Be on a form provided by the County and shall contain the following information; ii. Include notarized signatures of all owners, persons and properties holding a recorded interest in the private road or easement, 247 -18 -000015 -AD, 452-A, 453-A Page 2 of 4 iii. Include a description of the proposed marijuana production or marijuana processing operation; and iv. Include a legal description of the private road or easement. OBJECTION: The Notices of Appeal include four areas of concern relating to: road access to the property including legality of access, financial impact of road use on Homeowner's Association (HOA) and Property Owner's Associations (POA) members, System Development Charge (SDC) distribution, and fire department requirements for roads. Full text can be found in the Notices of Appeal (Attachment 3). Staff has attempted to capture a summary of the concerns below. Legality of Access The appellant is concerned that there is currently no legal access to the subject property and that legal access cannot be obtained in the future. The property gains access via a driveway across the property to the east, owned by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The BLM submitted comments in response to the notice of application regarding the absence of a permit granting access to the subject property across BLM land and included similar remarks in an email to the appellant included in the Notices of Appeal. The appellant stated concerns that access to the property could not be granted, as the access would be for a marijuana production facility, and marijuana is an illegal substance at the federal level. STAFF COMMENT: The applicant is proposing a marijuana production facility with a maximum mature canopy area of 5,000 square feet. As staff has interpreted the approval criterion related to the road access, this criterion does not apply unless the applicant proposes 5,001 square feet or more of mature canopy area. Staff invited members from the BLM-Prineville Field Office to attend the public hearing to provide information on this matter. Financial Impact of Road Use The appellants state in the Notices of Appeal that the roads surrounding the subject property are privately owned and maintained at the expense of the Tetherow Crossing and Odin Fall Ranch property owners. The appellants are concerned about the impact of commercial vehicles, including water trucks, travelling to the property on the privately owned roads and the lack of financial contribution for the maintenance of roads by the applicant. STAFF COMMENT: As stated previously, the application is for 5,000 square feet of mature canopy area. Therefore, access is not an applicable approval criterion. Senior Transportation Planner, Peter Russell, notes in Attachment 5 that the roads proposed to be used by the subject property are local access roads and are county owned, but privately maintained, therefore the applicant is legally allowed to use the roads. He also notes that no applicable road improvement standards are required as the application is for marijuana production only, and does not require a site plan review or a conditional use permit which may analyze road improvements. 247 -18 -000015 -AD, 452-A, 453-A Page 3 of 4 System Development Charges (SDCs) The appellants argue that the SDC required by the Deschutes County Transportation Planner should be paid to HOA and POA members as the roads surrounding the property are privately maintained. STAFF COMMENT: Per Peter Russell, Deschutes County Transportation Planner, the SDCs required by the County for this application are used to fund the network of County -maintained roads and would not fund the improvement of local access roads. Fire Department Road Standards The appellants raise concern that the Fire Department requirements for access roads to the subject property have not been met. STAFF COMMENT: The appellants are referring to comments from Redmond Fire and Rescue included in the Agency Comments (Section II(F)(5)) in the Findings and Decision. Staff has confirmed with Redmond Fire that these items are only required if processing occurs on the property. The proposed application is for marijuana production only, therefore these improvements are not required at this time. IV. CONCLUSION & NEXT STEPS This application was submitted on January 17, 2018 and was deemed incomplete on February 16, 2018. The applicant submitted additional information and the application was deemed complete and accepted for review on March 9, 2018. The applicant tolled the clock for 7 days to gather additional information. The 150th and final day for the County to issue a final local land use decision is August 13, 2018. As of the date of the public hearing (July 2), there are 42 days remaining before the 150th and final day. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Board can choose one of the following options: 1. The Board may choose to close both the oral and written record. 2. The Board may choose to close the oral record and leave the written record open. 3. The Board may choose to continue the Public Hearing to a time and date certain. Attachments: 1. Area Map and Site Plan 2. Administrative Determination (Findings and Decision) 3. Notices of Appeal 4. Senior Transportation Planner Comments, June 14, 2018 5. Application Materials 6. Revised Application Materials 7. Agency Comments 8. Public Comments 247 -18 -000015 -AD, 452-A, 453-A Page 4 of 4 Attachment 1: Area Map and Site Plan Area Map 6829 NW 66th Street, Redmond NN TEATERAVE IN CL 0 of Of NVe ROBERT5 CT 'ORI NW GRANGF CT W4 HOW S TEAD '440 S, ,I,S�, Sources: USG Deschutes County OAA 42P 'P- - Av NW GRANGF CT W4 HOW S TEAD '440 S, ,I,S�, Sources: USG Deschutes County OAA ABOVE GROUND POWER -- — — — —�— — — — — .— — _. — — — — — — _ — — 426' 109' HE 1356' i 12k311.5'� 1308' 160' PUMP 10817' 1343' 148' --p 256, 425 MO' GOSe IYC11:1 126' DRIVEWAY 665' 665' 6829 NW :6.6,11 St. Redmond, OR 97756 ISSAC BAANIProperty e: 14-12.23-300 IGNBOR Attachment 2: Administrative Determination (Findings and Decision) Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 Phone: (541) 388-6575 Fax: (541) 385-1764 http://vomv.deschutes,org/cd FINDINGS & DECISION FILE NUMBER: 247 -18 -000047 -AD APPLICANT: Brett Richwine, Cascade Estate Farms LLC 6829 NW 66th Street Redmond, OR 97756 OWNER: Isaac Babani 6829 NW 66th St Redmond, OR 97756 AGENT: Michael Hughes, Hughes Law and the Hughes Companies P.O. Box 7619 Bend, OR 97708 PROPOSAL: The applicant requests approval of an Administrative Determination to establish a marijuana production facility in the Exclusive Farm Use Zone with a maximum mature canopy area of 5,000 square feet. STAFF CONTACT: Nicole Mardell, Associate Planner I. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Title 18, Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use Zone Chapter 18.116, Supplementary Provisions Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance II. BASIC FINDINGS A. LOCATION: The subject property has an assigned address of 6829 NW 66th Street, Redmond and is identified on Deschutes County Assessor's Map 14-12-23 as Tax Lot 300. B. LOT OF RECORD: The property was verified as a legal lot of record per file no. 247-17- 000979-1-R. Quality Services Per twined With P)'ide C. ZONING: The property is zoned Exclusive Farm Use — Terrebonne Subzone (EFU-TE) and is designated Agriculture on the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. D. PROPOSAL: The applicant requests approval of an Administrative Determination to establish a marijuana production facility with a maximum mature plant canopy area of 5,000 square feet. The applicant proposes to construct a 50' x 100' (5,000 -square -foot) agricultural structure for the marijuana production use. E. SITE DESCRIPTION: The subject property is 20.0 acres in size and rectangular in shape. The property gains access from NW 66th Street via a private driveway through a Bureau of Land Management parcel to the east of the subject property. There is a small irrigated field on the western portion of the site, with juniper trees and rock outcroppings throughout. The property contains a single family dwelling and several accessory structures. F. PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENTS: The Planning Division mailed a Notice of Application and received comments from the following agencies: Deschutes County Building Division: Notice: The Deschutes County Building Safety Divisions code mandates that Access, Egress, Setbacks, Fire & Life Safety, Fire Fighting Water Supplies, etc. must be specifically addressed during the appropriate plan review process with regard to any proposed structures and occupancies. Accordingly, all Building Code required items will be addressed, when a specific structure, occupancy, and type of construction is proposed and submitted for plan review. 2. Deschutes County Transportation Planner: I have reviewed the transmittal materials for 247 -18 -000047 -AD for a marijuana production (growing) operation of 5,000 square feet of mature canopy in the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) zone at 6829 NW 66t`' Place, aka 14-12-23, Tax Lot 300. Deschutes County Code (DCC) at 18.116.330(B)(8) only requires proof of legal direct access to the property or access from a private easement for a grow of more than 5, 000 square feet of mature canopy. The proposal is for 5, 000 square feet of mature canopy, so the access requirement does not apply. The traffic study requirements of DCC 18.116.310 are not applicable for this marijuana production operation as the application is not going through site plan review and thus does not need to show compliance with DCC 18.24.080(J), which references the County's traffic study requirements. Board Resolution 2013-020 sets an SDC rate of $3,937 per p.m. peak hour trip. The Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) trip generation manual indicates Warehouse generates 0.32 p.m. peak hour trips per 1,000 square feet. The Board has made a policy decision in early 2017 to use the ITE Warehouse category for marjuana grow operations. The applicant's materials indicate one enclosed building of 5, 000 square feet (50'x 100) will be used. The County's SDC is based on the building's total square footage related to cannabis production and support and not the square footage of the mature canopy. The 5,000 -square -foot building 247 -18 -000047 -AD Cascade Estate Farms, LLC Page 2 of 20 would produce 1.6 p.m. peak hour trips (5 x 0.32). The resulting SDC is $6,299 (1.6 x $3,937). The SDC is due prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy; if a certificate of occupancy is not applicable, then the SDC is due within 60 days of the land use decision becoming final. 3. Deschutes County Sheriff Our concern lies in the odor, sights, sounds and setback of the property in this type of request and how it affects the livability of our community members; in conjunction with the issue that marijuana is illegal on a federal level. In addition, we are finding the calls for service related to marijuana grow operations are increasing. 4. Central Electric Cooperative, Inc. CEC requests the applicant apply for a new electric service by calling Bob Fowler at 541-312-7778 and provide the electrical load and demand requirements for this activity. CEC will determine if capacity is available. 5. Redmond Fire & Rescue If there are questions regarding Fire Code issues, please contact the Redmond Fire and Rescue Deputy Fire Marshal at 541-504-5016 or email at clara.butler@redmondfireandrescue.org. Note: If processing occurs, the following fire codes will be required to be met. WATER Area without Fire Hydrants NFPA 1142 Requirements • If the structure is being built in an area without a public water supply system, then the water flow requirements will come from NFPA 1142. • Note: The following information will need to be provided in order to determine accurate water flow requirements. o Building height, length and width o Use of the building o Type of construction o Whether the structure 100 sq ft or larger and within 50 feet of any other structures Structures with Automatic Sprinkler systems — 2012 NFPA 1142 Chapter 7 • The authority having jurisdiction shall be permitted to waive the water supply required by this standard when a structure is protected by an automatic sprinkler system that fully meets the requirements of NFPA 13 Fire Safety during Construction — 2014 OFC 501.4 • Approved fire department access roads, required water supply, fire hydrants, and safety precautions shall be installed and serviceable prior to and during the time of construction. Fire Sprinkler Systems shall be installed per NFPA 13 • Separate permits will be required for the aboveground sprinkler system and the underground sprinkler supply line(s). 247 -18 -000047 -AD Cascade Estate Farms, LLC Page 3 of 20 • If there are greater than 20 sprinkler heads, the system is required to have a fire alarm monitoring system. • 2014 OFC 903.3.7 Fire Department Connections: The location of fire department connections shall be approved by fire code official. The FDC/PIV shall not be under any combustible projections or overhangs. • NFPA 14 — 6.4.5.4 Fire department connections shall be located not more than 100 ft from the nearest fire hydrant connected to an approved water supply. • NOTE — If the Building is sprinklered, the sprinkler system will need to be designed to the specific use that will be occurring in the building. If the sprinkler system is not designed appropriately it will limit the types of businesses that can occupy the space. This also includes the height of storage in the building. In order to have high piled storage (greater than 12 ft), the sprinkler system shall be designed accordingly. ACCESS Premises Identification — 2014 OFC 505.1 • Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Said numbers shall contrast with their background and visible at night. Number/letter shall be a minimum of 4" high and a 0.5" stroke width. Fire Apparatus Access Roads — 2014 OFC Section 503 & Appendix D • Fire apparatus access roads shall extend to within 150 ft of all portions of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building. • Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. • Fire apparatus roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of 70,000 lbs and shall be surfaced so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. • The required turning radius of a fire apparatus access road shall be 30 feet inside and 50 feet outside. • The grade of the fire apparatus access roads shall be within the limits established by the fire code official (10%). Fire Lanes — 2014 OFC 503.3 & Appendix D • Approved signs or other approved notices shall be provided for fire apparatus access roads to identify such roads or prohibit the obstruction thereof. Such signs or notices shall be kept in legible conditions at all times. The stroke shall be 1 inch with letters 6 inches high and read "No Parking Fire Lane". Spacing for signage shall be every 50 feet. o Recommended to also (in addition to Fire lane signs) paint fire lane curbs in bright red paint with white letters. • Appendix D Section 103.6.1 Roads 20-26 Ft. Wide: Shall have Fire Lane signs posted on both sides of a fire lane. • Appendix D Section 103.6.2 Roads more than 26 Ft. Wide: Roads 26-32 ft wide shall have a Fire Lane signs posted on one side of the road as a fire lane. Aerial Access Roads — 2014 OFC Appendix D, Section 105 • Buildings or portions of buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet in height above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access shall be provided with approved fire apparatus access roads and capable of accommodating fire 247 -18 -000047 -AD Cascade Estate Farms, LLC Page 4 of 20 department aerial apparatus. Overhead utility and power lines shall not be located within the aerial fire apparatus access roadways. At least one of the required access routes meeting this condition shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the building, all access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 26 feet and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building. Dead -Ends — 2014 OFC Section 503.2.5 • Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with an approved area for turning around fire apparatus. Contact Redmond Fire & Rescue for requirements. • OFC Table D103.4 Dead Ends over 750 Feet- Require special approval. If approved, there shall be a turn -around no more than every 1000 feet with a bulb of 60 feet across and the width of the road shall be a minimum of 26 ft clear for fire apparatus. Additional Access — 2014 OFC Section 503.1.2 • The fire code official is authorize to require more than one fire apparatus access road based on the potential for impairment of a single road by vehicle congestion, conditions or terrain, climatic conditions or other factors that could limit access/ Emergency Access Road Gates — 2014 OFC Appendix D 103.5 • Minimum 20 feet wide. • Gates shall be swinging or sliding type. • Shall be able to be manually operated by one person. • Electric gates shall be equipped with a means of opening by emergency personnel & approved by fire official. • Locking devices shall be fire department Knox Key Switch purchased from A- 1 Lock, Safe Co., Curtis Safe & Lock, on line at www.knoxbox.com, or contact Redmond Fire & Rescue for an order form. • Section 503.3: Install a sign on the gate "No Parking -Fire Lane" Key Boxes — 2014 OFC Section 506.1 • An approved key box shall be installed on all structures equipped with a fire alarm system and /or sprinkler system. Approved key boxes can only be purchased at A-1 Lock Safe Co., Curtis Safe and Lock, on line at www.knoxbox.com, or contact Redmond Fire & Rescue for an order form. Commercial & Industrial Development — 2014 OFC Appendix D 104 • Buildings exceeding three stories or 30 feet in height shall have at least 2 means of fire apparatus access for each structure. • Where 2 access roads are required, they shall be placed not less than % the length of the overall diagonal dimension of the property or area to be served, measured in a straight line between accesses. 6. Bureau of Land Management (BLM)— Prineville Office Upon recent review of the project area, BLM does have concern on a number of issues regarding the location of this proposal. A recent review of the land status near the property indicates that the property is accessed by travel across BLM lands (via what is indicated as 66th Street on the map). The portion of the road indicated as 66th Street that passes through public lands does not have a right -of - 247 -18 -000047 -AD Cascade Estate Farms, LLC Page 5 of 20 way granted to Deschutes County for it to be a public road. Our records show that no legal access has been granted through public lands for the parcel in question. Our records also do not indicate that the applicant has applied for a right-of-way across public lands for commercial purposes. Access across public lands for commercial purposes requires a right-of-way grant issued by the BLM. The location of the project area abuts to Public Land. BLM recommends that the applicant have a boundary survey of the parcel conducted to ensure no unintentional future trespass onto public lands occurs. Additionally, the BLM has concerns over the use of pesticides and herbicides and chemical residue migration onto public lands. It is requested that if chemicals are used in the operation, that protocols are required to ensure that chemical residue is contained and does not migrate onto public lands. 7. The following agencies did not respond or had no comments: Deschutes County Assessor, Deschutes County Environmental Soils, Deschutes County Road Department, Oregon Water Resources Department. G. PUBLIC COMMENTS: The Planning Division mailed a written notice of these applications to property owners within 750 feet of the subject property on January 26, 2018. In addition, the applicant submitted a Land Use Action Sign Affidavit indicating a proposed land use action sign was posted on the property on January 24, 2018. Staff received several letters and a petition in opposition to the application. The concerns identified in those letters to date are summarized below. 1. Traffic 2. Crime and safety 3. Pesticide use 4. Decrease in property values 5. Overproduction of marijuana in Oregon 6. Rural residential character of the area 7. Recreational uses on BLM land near the property 8. Road access and maintenance 9. Water 10. Odor 11. Noise 12. Electricity use STAFF COMMENT: Applicable criteria of the DCC are addressed below. The Deschutes County Code (DCC) pertaining to marijuana production does not include approval criteria related to the issue areas listed in items 1-6 above. For this reason, staff does not address those issues in this decision. Items 7-12 are addressed in the findings below. H. REVIEW PERIOD: This application was submitted on January 17, 2018 and was deemed incomplete on February 16, 2018. The applicant submitted additional information and the application was deemed complete and accepted for review on March 9, 2018. The applicant tolled the clock for 7 days to gather additional information. The 1501h and final day for the County to issue a final local land use decision is August 13, 2018. 247 -18 -000047 -AD Cascade Estate Farms, LLC Page 6 of 20 Ill. FINDINGS: Title 18 DESCHUTES COUNTY CODE, COUNTY ZONING A. CHAPTER 18.16. EXCLUSIVE FARM ZONE Section 18.16.020. Uses Permitted Outright. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright. S. Marijuana production, subject to the provisions of DCC 18.116.330. FINDING: The applicant is proposing to establish a marijuana production facility on the subject property, a use permitted outright subject to compliance with the applicable provisions of DCC 18.116.330. Compliance with the provisions of DCC 18.116.330 is addressed below. 2. Section 18.16.060. Dimensional Standards. E. Building height. No building or structure shall be erected or enlarged to exceed 30 feet in height, except as allowed under DCC 18.120.040. FINDING: The applicant did not provide the height of the proposed agricultural structure in the application materials. The following condition of approval has been added to ensure compliance with this criterion. Building Height: No building or structure, including greenhouses, shall be erected or enlarged to exceed 30 feet in height, except as allowed under DCC 18.120.040. 3. Section 18.16.070. Yards. A. The front yard shall be a minimum of. 40 feet from a property line fronting on a local street, 60 feet from a property line fronting on a collector street, and 100 feet from a property line fronting on an arterial street. B. Each side yard shall be a minimum of 25 feet, except that for a nonfarm dwelling proposed on property with side yards adjacent to property currently employed in farm use, and receiving special assessment for farm use, the side yard shall be a minimum of 100 feet. C. Rear yards shall be a minimum of 25 feet, except that for a nonfarm dwelling proposed on property with a rear yard adjacent to property currently employed in farm use, and receiving special assessment for farm use, the rear yard shall be a minimum of 100 feet. D. In addition to the setbacks set forth herein, any greater setbacks required by applicable building or structural codes adopted by the State of Oregon and/or the County under DCC 15.04 shall be met. 247 -18 -000047 -AD Cascade Estate Farms, LLC Page 7 of 20 FINDING: The subject property does not have frontage on a roadway, therefore the front yard setback will be measured from the south property line'. To the south is NW 69th Place, which is classified as a rural local road. Therefore the required front yard setback is 40 feet. The proposal is not for a nonfarm dwelling, therefore, the required side and rear yard setbacks are 25 feet. The applicant is proposing a southern front yard setback of 272 feet, a northern rear yard setback of 293 feet, a western side yard setback of 545 feet, and an eastern side yard setback of 426 feet. This criterion will be met. B. CHAPTER 18.116. SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS Section 18 116.330 Marijuana Production, Processing, and Retailing. A. Applicability. Section 18.116.330 applies to: 1. Marijuana Production in the EFU, MUA-10, and RI zones. 2. Marijuana Processing in the EFU, MUA-10, TeC, TeCR, TuC, Tul, RI, and SUBP zones 3. Marijuana Retailing in the RSC, TeC, TeCR, TuC, Tul, RC, RI, SUC, SUTC, and SUBP zones. 4. Marijuana Wholesaling in the RSC, TeC, TeCR, TuC, RC, SUC, and SUBP zones. FINDING: The applicant is proposing to establish a Marijuana Production facility in the EFU Zone. This section applies. B. Marijuana production and marijuana processing. Marijuana production and marijuana processing shall be subject to the following standards and criteria: 1. Minimum Lot Area. a. In the EFU and MUA-10 zones, the subject legal lot of record shall have a minimum lot area of five (5) acres. FINDING: The subject property is 20.0 acres in size. This criterion is met. 2. Indoor Production and Processing. a. In the EFU zone, marijuana production and processing shall only be located in buildings, including greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar structures. b. In all zones, marijuana production and processing are prohibited in any outdoor area. FINDING: The applicant is proposing to construct an agricultural building for the marijuana production use. Staff has added the following ongoing condition of approval to ensure compliance with this criterion. Indoor Production: As an ongoing condition of approval, marijuana production is prohibited in any outdoor area. Any proposed marijuana processing will require additional land use review. 'DCC 18.04.030 Definitions: In the case of a lot that does not front directly on any street, the front lot line shall be that lot line parallel to and facing the same direction as the front lot lines of the majority of other properties in the immediate area. 247 -18 -000047 -AD Cascade Estate Farms, LLC Page 8 of 20 3. Maximum Mature Plant Canopy Size. In the EFU zone, the maximum canopy area for mature marijuana plants shall apply as follows: C. Parcels equal to or greater than 20 acres to less than 40 acres in lot area: 10,000 square feet. FINDING: The applicant is proposing 5,000 square feet of mature canopy area for the 20.0 -acre property. Staff has added the following condition of approval to ensure compliance with this criterion. Maximum Mature Plant Canopy Size: The maximum canopy area for mature marijuana plants shall not exceed 5,000 square feet at any time. 5. Limitation on License/Grow Site per Parcel. No more than one (1) Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) licensed marijuana production or Oregon Health Authority (OHA) registered medical marijuana grow site shall be allowed per legal parcel or lot. FINDING: The proposed use includes one (1) Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) licensed marijuana production site. The following ongoing condition of approval has been added to ensure compliance with this criterion. OLCC License: Only one OLCC license shall be allowed per legal parcel for the marijuana production use. 6. Setbacks. The following setbacks shall apply to all marijuana production and processing areas and buildings: a. Minimum Yard Setback/Distance from Lot Lines: 100 feet. FINDING: The applicant is proposing to construct a 5,000 -square -foot agricultural building for the marijuana production use. The applicant is proposing a southern front yard setback of 272 feet, a northern rear yard setback of 293 feet, a western side yard setback of 545 feet, and an eastern side yard setback of 426 feet. This criterion will be met. b. Setback from an off-site dwelling: 300 feet For the purposes of this criterion, an off-site dwelling includes those proposed off-site dwellings with a building permit application submitted to Deschutes County prior to submission of the marijuana production or processing application to Deschutes County. FINDING: The applicant's site plan shows the closest off-site dwelling, on Tax Lot 1700 to the south, to be 426 feet from the proposed marijuana production site. The applicant also stated in the application materials that no off-site dwelling is located within 300 feet of the proposed operation. Staff utilized the Dial property information system to confirm this distance. This criterion will be met. C. Exception: Any reduction to these setback requirements may be granted by the Planning Director or Hearings 247 -18 -000047 -AD Cascade Estate Farms, LLC Page 9 of 20 Body provided the applicant demonstrates the reduced setbacks afford equal or greater mitigation of visual, odor, noise, lighting, privacy, and access impacts. FINDING: The applicant is not requesting a setback exception. Staff finds this criterion does not apply. 7. Separation Distances. Minimum separation distances shall apply as follows: a. The use shall be located a minimum of 1000 feet from: i. A public elementary or secondary school for which attendance is compulsory under Oregon Revised Statutes 339.010, et seq., including any parking lot appurtenant thereto and any property used by the school; ii. A private or parochial elementary or secondary school, teaching children as described in ORS 339.030(1)(a), including any parking lot appurtenant thereto and any property used by the school, iii. A licensed child care center or licensed preschool, including any parking lot appurtenant thereto and any property used by the child care center or preschool. This does not include licensed or unlicensed child care which occurs at or in residential structures; iv. A youth activity center; and V. National monuments and state parks. b. For purposes of DCC 18.116.330(B)(7), all distances shall be measured from the lot line of the affected properties listed in DCC 18.116.330(B)(7)(a) to the closest point of the buildings and land area occupied by the marijuana producer or marijuana processor. C. A change in use of another property to those identified in DCC 18.116.330(B)(7) shall not result in the marijuana producer or marijuana processor being in violation of DCC 18.116.330(B)(7) if the use is: i. Pending a local land use decision; ii. Licensed or registered by the State of Oregon; or iii. Lawfully established. FINDING: In the burden of proof, the applicant stated there are no schools, licensed child care facilities, youth activity centers, national monuments, or state parks within 1,000 feet of the subject property. Letters of opposition cited recreation on neighboring BLM land to the east to be of concern. BLM land is not considered a national monument or state park, therefore the separation distance does not apply to the property. Staff utilized the Deschutes County Dial interactive property map to verify the uses of properties within 1,000 feet of the use. Staff found there are 10 properties wholly or partially within 1,000 247 -18 -000047 -AD Cascade Estate Farms, LLC Page 10 of 20 feet of the proposed marijuana production use, none of which have received approval for the uses listed above. This criterion will be met. 8. Access. Marijuana production over 5,000 square feet of canopy area for mature marijuana plants shall comply with the following standards. a. Have frontage on and legal direct access from a constructed public, county, or state road; or b. Have access from a private road or easement serving only the subject property. C. If the property takes access via a private road or easement which also serves other properties, the applicant shall obtain written consent to utilize the easement or private road for marijuana production access from all owners who have access rights to the private road or easement. The written consent shall. L Be on a form provided by the County and shall contain the following information; ii. Include notarized signatures of all owners, persons and properties holding a recorded interest in the private road or easement; iii. Include a description of the proposed marijuana production or marijuana processing operation; and iv. Include a legal description of the private road or easement. FINDING: Staff received comments regarding access from the BLM — Prineville District and from neighboring property owners. The applicant is proposing 5,000 square feet of mature canopy area. The above criterion relates to production of over 5,000 square feet of mature canopy area, and therefore is not applicable. 9. Lighting. Lighting shall be regulated as follows: a. Inside building lighting, including greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar structures, used for marijuana production shall not be visible outside the building from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. on the following day. b. Lighting fixtures shall be fully shielded in such a manner that all light emitted directly by the lamp or a diffusing element, or indirectly by reflection or refraction, is projected below the horizontal plane through the lowest light -emitting part. C. Light cast by exterior light fixtures other than marijuana grow lights shall comply with DCC 15.10, Outdoor Lighting Control. FINDING: The applicant is proposing to use a completely enclosed structure with no windows for the marijuana production operation. The applicant stated that the lights used in the operation will not be visible from the exterior of the structure. Staff has added the following condition of approval to ensure compliance with this criterion. 247 -18 -000047 -AD Cascade Estate Farms, LLC Page 11 of 20 Lighting: The following lighting standards shall be met. Inside building lighting used for marijuana production shall not be visible outside the building from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. on the following day. Lighting fixtures shall be fully shielded in such a manner that all light emitted directly by the lamp or a diffusing element, or indirectly by reflection or refraction, is projected below the horizontal plane through the lowest light -emitting part. The light cast by exterior light fixtures other than marijuana growing lights shall comply with DCC 15.10, Outdoor Lighting Control. 10. Odor. As used in DCC 18.116.330(6)(10), building means the building, including greenhouses, hoop houses, and other similar structures, used for marijuana production or marijuana processing. a. The building shall be equipped with an effective odor control system which must at all times prevent unreasonable interference of neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. b. An odor control system is deemed permitted only after the applicant submits a report by a mechanical engineer licensed in the State of Oregon demonstrating that the system will control odor so as not to unreasonably interfere with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. C. Private actions alleging nuisance or trespass associated with odor impacts are authorized, if at all, as provided in applicable state statute. d. The odor control system shall. i. Consist of one or more fans. The fan(s) shall be sized for cubic feet per minute (CFM) equivalent to the volume of the building (length multiplied by width multiplied by height) divided by three. The filter(s) shall be rated for the required CFM; or ii. Utilize an alternative method or technology to achieve equal to or greater odor mitigation than provided by (i) above. e. The system shall be maintained in working order and shall be in use. FINDING: The applicant submitted an odor report by Rob James, P.E. of Colebreit Engineering, a mechanical engineer licensed in the State of Oregon (#65108PE). The report provides the following description of the structure and equipment to be used: Building Description • The space considered in this letter, is a 100'x 50' building used for an indoor grow. • Within the building are seven flowering rooms, a drying room, two veg rooms, a clone room, and a trim room. • HVAC system 1. Temperature conditioning is controlled by six ductless mini -splits with two indoor heads each. The indoor heads will not contribute to outside noise. 2. The grow spaces will have circulation fans inside them. These will not contribute to outside noise. 3. There is no exhaust from the building. 4. Odor control will be accomplished with carbon filters and in-line fans inside each space that houses plant material. These fans will not contribute to outside noise. 247 -18 -000047 -AD Cascade Estate Farms, LLC Page 12 of 20 5. The in-line carbon (charcoal) filters will scrub and remove the odors from the grow room atmospheres. 6. The carbon filters will be maintained and replaced per the manufacturers suggested service intervals. 7. The only outdoor noise will be generated by six condensing units located on the west side of the building. The report goes on to say odor for the proposed structure will be mitigated as described below: The building will use carbon filtration for odor mitigation purposes in each room described below. This system is designed to manage any odor to not unreasonably interfere with neighbor's use and enjoyment of their property. This system consists of multiple in-line fans with attached carbon filters. 1. The 7 flower rooms and the drying room each have a volume of 3, 000 CF, which will require a carbon -filtered air flow of 1, 000 CFM. Each of these rooms will have (2) Can -Fan 12" HO (925 CFM @0.5') in-line fans, or similar, with an attached Can 150 carbon filter, or similar. The carbon -filtered air flow will be 1, 850 CFM in each space, thus meeting the code requirement. 2. The 2 veg rooms each have a volume of 2,600 CF, which will require a carbon - filtered air flow of 867 CFM. These rooms will have (1) Can -Fan 12" HO (925 CFM @ 0.5') in-line fans, or similar, with an attached Can 150 carbon filter, or similar. The carbon -filtered air flow will be 925 CFM, thus meeting the code requirement. 3. The clone and trim rooms each have a volume of 1, 700 CF, which will require a carbon -filtered air flow of 567 CFM. The drying room will have (1) Can -Fan 12" HO (925 CFM @0.5') in-line fans, or similar, with an attached Can 150 carbon filter, or similar. The carbon -filtered air flow will be 925 CFM, thus meeting the code requirement. Based on the report provided by Mr. James, if the system described above is constructed within the guidelines and maintained per the manufacturer's recommendations, the odor control system will control odor so as to not unreasonably interfere with neighbor's use and enjoyment of their property. The following ongoing condition of approval has been added to ensure compliance with this criterion. Odor: The proposed odor control system must at all times prevent unreasonable interference with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. The odor control system shall be maintained in working order and shall be in use. 11. Noise. Noise produced by marijuana production and marijuana processing shall comply with the following: a. Sustained noise from mechanical equipment used for heating, ventilation, air condition, odor control, fans and similar functions shall not exceed 30 dB(A) measured at any property line between 10:00 p.m. and 7.00 a.m. the following day. b. Sustained noise from marijuana production is exempt from protections of DCC 9.12 and ORS 30.395, Right to Farm. Intermittent noise for accepted farming practices is permitted. FINDING: The applicant submitted an engineer's report by Rob James, P.E. of Colebreit Engineering, a mechanical engineer licensed in the State of Oregon (#65108PE). The report states noise will be mitigated as follows for the proposed structure. 247 -18 -000047 -AD Cascade Estate Farms, LLC Page 13 of 20 • The structure is located approximately 293' from the north property line, 426' from the east property line, 272' from the south property line, and 545' from the west property line. Our calculations indicated that the sound level at the nearest (south) property line will be under 9 dBA with no special sound dampening measures. Therefore the building will comply with DCC 18.116.330(B)(11)(a). Based on the report provided by Mr. James, if the system described above is constructed within the guidelines and maintained per the manufacturer's recommendations, the noise control system will control noise so as to not unreasonably interfere with neighbor's use and enjoyment of their property. The following ongoing condition of approval has been added to ensure compliance with this criterion. Noise: Sustained noise from mechanical equipment used for heating, ventilation, air conditioning, odor control, fans and similar functions shall not exceed 30 dB(A) measured at any property line between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the following day. 12. Screening and Fencing. The following screening standards shall apply to greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar non -rigid structures and land areas used for marijuana production and processing: a. Subject to DCC 18.84, Landscape Management Combining Zone approval, if applicable. b. Fencing shall be finished in a muted earth tone that blends with the surrounding natural landscape and shall not be constructed of temporary materials such as plastic sheeting, hay bales, tarps, etc., and shall be subject to DCC 18.88, Wildlife Area Combining Zone, if applicable. C. Razor wire, or similar, shall be obscured from view or colored a muted earth tone that blends with the surrounding natural landscape. d. The existing tree . and shrub cover screening the development from the public right-of-way or adjacent properties shall be retained to the maximum extent possible. This provision does not prohibit maintenance of existing lawns, removal of dead, diseased or hazardous vegetation; the commercial harvest of forest products in accordance with the Oregon Forest Practices Act, or agricultural use of the land. FINDING: The subject property is not located in the Landscape Management Combining Zone. No new fencing is proposed. The applicant is not proposing to remove any existing trees or shrub cover as part of the proposal. The following ongoing conditions of approval have been added to ensure compliance. Fencing: Fencing shall be finished in a muted earth tone that blends with the surrounding natural landscape and shall not be constructed of temporary materials such as plastic sheeting, hay bales, tarps, etc. Razor wire, or similar, shall be obscured from view or colored a muted earth tone that blends with the surrounding natural landscape. Screening: The existing tree and shrub cover screening the development from the public right-of- way or adjacent properties shall be retained to the maximum extent possible. This provision does 247 -18 -000047 -AD Cascade Estate Farms, LLC Page 14 of 20 not prohibit the maintenance of existing lawns, removal of dead, diseased or hazardous vegetation; the commercial harvest of forest products in accordance with the Oregon Forest Practices Act; or agricultural use of the land. 13. Water. The applicant shall provide; a. A copy of a water right permit, certificate, or other water use authorization from the Oregon Water Resource Department; or b. A statement that water is supplied from a public or private water provider, along with the name and contact information of the water provider; or C. Proof from the Oregon Water Resources Department that the water to be used is from a source that does not require a water right. FINDING: The applicant initially stated in the burden of proof that they are in the process of obtaining water rights to use for the marijuana production use. The applicant stated in an email dated April 30, 2018, that they are no longer seeking water rights and will instead only use water hauled to the site by Bend Water Hauling LLC. The applicant provided two letters from Bend Water Hauling LLC. The first dated December 20, 2017 states the following: Cascade Estate Farms, LLC have requested that Bend Water Hauling, LLC deliver potable water to the address mentioned above. We have set up an account to deliver 15,000 gallons a month for agriculture. A second letter dated February 6, 2018 includes more detail on the source of the water: The water we have as part of our delivery service is from either municipal or quasi -municipal sources. Our sources of water are Avion Water and City of Redmond. On May 16, 2018, the applicant submitted a Marijuana Producer Exempt Water form from the Oregon Department of Water Resources. This form states that the water being provided via Bend Water Hauling is legal for the proposed use. Staff has added the following ongoing condition of approval to ensure compliance with this requirement. Water: The use of water from any source for marijuana production shall comply with all applicable state statutes and regulations including ORS 537.545 and OAR 690-340-0010. 14. Fire protection for processing of cannabinoid extracts. Processing of cannabinoid extracts shall only be permitted on properties located within the boundaries of or under contract with a fire protection district. FINDING: No processing is proposed. This criterion does not apply. 15. Utility Verification. A statement from each utility company proposed to serve the operation, stating that each such 247 -18 -000047 -AD Cascade Estate Farms, LLC Page 15 of 20 company is able and willing to serve the operation, shall be provided. FINDING: The applicant provided a "will serve" letter from Central Electric Cooperative (CEC), Inc. dated December 19, 2018. The letter states the following: Central Electric Cooperative has reviewed the provided load information (600 amp Single phase service) associated with the submitted Cannabis Grow Facility and is willing and able to serve this location in accordance with the rates and policies of Central Electric Cooperative. Staff finds this criterion will be met. 16. Security Cameras. If security cameras are used, they shall be directed to record only the subject property and public rights- of-way, except as required to comply with requirements of the OLCC or the OHA. FINDING: The applicant states the site will use security cameras that only record activity on the subject property as required by OLCC. The following condition of approval has been added to ensure compliance with this criterion. Security Cameras: Security cameras shall be directed to record only the subject property and public rights-of-way, except as required to comply with requirements of the OLCC. 17. Secure Waste Disposal. Marijuana waste shall be stored in a secured waste receptacle in the possession of and under the control of the OLCC licensee or OHA Person Responsible for the Grow Site (PRMG). FINDING: The applicant stated in the burden of proof that all waste will be stored in a secure receptacle, within a limited access area, and under the control of the OLCC licensee. The receptacle will be located within the proposed agriculture structure and any odor will be controlled by the system described in the aforementioned mechanical engineer's letter. Staff has added the following condition of approval to ensure compliance with this criterion. Waste: The marijuana waste receptacle shall be stored in a secured waste receptacle in the possession of and under the control of the OLCC licensee at all times. 18. Residency. In the MUA-10 zone, a minimum of one of the following shall reside in a dwelling unit on the subject property.- a. roperty.a. An owner of the subject property; b. A holder of an OLCC license for marijuana production, provided that the license applies to the subject property, or C. A person registered with the OHA as a person designated to produce marijuana by a registry identification cardholder, provided that the registration applies to the subject property. FINDING: The subject property is not in the MUA-10 Zone. This section does not apply. 247 -18 -000047 -AD Cascade Estate Farms, LLC Page 16 of 20 19. Nonconformance. All medical marijuana grow sites lawfully established prior to June 8, 2016 by the Oregon Health Authority shall comply with the provisions of DCC 18.116.330(B)(9) by September 8, 2016 and with the provisions of DCC 18.116.330(B)(10-12, 16, 17) by December 8, 2016. FINDING: The subject property was not a lawfully established medical marijuana grow site. This section does not apply. 20. Prohibited Uses. a. In the EFU zone, the following uses are prohibited. L A new dwelling used in conjunction with a marijuana crop; ii. A farm stand, as described in ORS 215.213(1)(r) or 215.283(1)(0), used in conjunction with a marijuana crop, iii. A commercial activity, as described in ORS 215.213(2)(c) or 215.283(2)(a), carried on in conjunction a marijuana crop; and iv. Agri -tourism and other commercial events and activities in conjunction with a marijuana crop. C. In the EFU, MUA-10, and Rural Industrial zones, the following uses are prohibited on the same property as marijuana production: i. Guest Lodge. ii. Guest Ranch. iii. Dude Ranch. iv. Destination Resort. V. Public Parks. vi. Private Parks. vii. Events, Mass Gatherings and Outdoor Mass Gatherings. viii. Bed and Breakfast. ix. Room and Board Arrangements. FINDING: The applicant stated that none of the above uses are proposed on the property. Staff has added the following condition of approval to ensure compliance with this criterion. Prohibited Uses: The uses listed in DCC 18.116.330(6)(20) shall be prohibited on the subject property so long as marijuana production is conducted on the site. D. Annual Reporting 1. An annual report shall be submitted to the Community Development Department by the real property owner or licensee, if different, each February 1, documenting all of the following as of December 31 of the previous year, including the applicable fee as adopted in the current County Fee Schedule and a fully executed Consent to Inspect Premises form: a. Documentation demonstrating compliance with the: i. Land use decision and permits. 247 -18 -000047 -AD Cascade Estate Farms, LLC Page 17 of 20 ii. Fire, health, safety, waste water, and building codes and laws. iii. State of Oregon licensing requirements. b. Failure to timely submit the annual report, fee, and Consent to Inspect Premises form or to demonstrate compliance with DCC 18.116.330(C)(1)(a) shall serve as acknowledgement by the real property owner and licensee that the otherwise allowed use is not in compliance with Deschutes County Code; authorizes permit revocation under DCC Title 22, and may be relied upon by the State of Oregon to deny new or license renewal(s) for the subject use. C. Other information as may be reasonably required by the Planning Director to ensure compliance with Deschutes County Code, applicable State regulations, and to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. d. Marijuana Control Plan to be established and maintained by the Community Development Department. e. Conditions of Approval Agreement to be established and maintained by the Community Development Department. f. This information shall be public record subject to ORS 192.502(17). FINDING: Compliance with the annual reporting obligation of this section is required. The following ongoing condition of approval has been added to ensure compliance with this criterion. Annual Reporting: The annual reporting requirements of DCC 18.116.330(D) shall be met. IV. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing findings, staff concludes that the proposed marijuana production facility can comply with the applicable standards and criteria of the Deschutes County zoning ordinance if conditions of approval are met. V. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES (SDCs): Board Resolution 2013-020 sets an SDC rate of $3,937 per p.m. peak hour trip. The Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) trip generation manual indicates Warehouse generates 0.32 p.m. peak hour trips per 1,000 square feet. The Board has made a policy decision in early 2017 to use the ITE Warehouse category for marijuana grow operations. The applicant's materials indicate one enclosed building of 5,000 square feet (50'x 100) will be used. The County's SDC is based on the building's total square footage related to cannabis production and support and not the square footage of the mature canopy. The 5,000 -square -foot building would produce 1.6 p.m. peak hour trips (5 x 0.32). The resulting SDC is $6,299 (1.6 x $3,937). The SDC is due prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, if a certificate of occupancy is not applicable, then the SDC is due within 60 days of the land use decision becoming final. 247 -18 -000047 -AD Cascade Estate Farms, LLC Page 18 of 20 VI. DECISION APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions of approval. VII. ONGOING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A. Use & Location: Marijuana production is conditionally approved inside the approved grow building. This approval is based upon the application, site plan, specifications, and supporting documentation submitted by the applicant. Any substantial change in this approved use will require review through a new land use application. B. Building Height: No building or structure, including greenhouses, shall be erected or enlarged to exceed 30 feet in height, except as allowed under DCC 18.120.040. C. Indoor Production: Marijuana production is prohibited in any outdoor area. D. Maximum Mature Plant Canopy Size: The maximum canopy area for mature marijuana plants shall not exceed 5,000 square feet at any time. E. OLCC Licensee: Only one OLCC license shall be allowed per legal parcel for the marijuana production use. F. Lighting: The following lighting standards shall be met. Inside building lighting used for marijuana production shall not be visible outside the building from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. on the following day. Lighting fixtures shall be fully shielded in such a manner that all light emitted directly by the lamp or a diffusing element, or indirectly by reflection or refraction, is projected below the horizontal plane through the lowest light -emitting part. The light cast by exterior light fixtures other than marijuana growing lights shall comply with DCC 15.10, Outdoor Lighting Control. G. Odor: The proposed odor control system must at all times prevent unreasonable interference with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. The odor control system shall be maintained in working order and shall be in use. H. Noise: Sustained noise from mechanical equipment used for heating, ventilation, air conditioning, odor control, fans and similar functions shall not exceed 30 dB(A) measured at any property line between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the following day. 1. Fencing: Fencing shall be finished in a muted earth tone that blends with the surrounding natural landscape and shall not be constructed of temporary materials such as plastic sheeting, hay bales, tarps, etc. Razor wire, or similar, shall be obscured from view or colored a muted earth tone that blends with the surrounding natural landscape. J. Screening: The existing tree and shrub cover screening the development from the public right-of-way or adjacent properties shall be retained to the maximum extent possible. This provision does not prohibit the maintenance of existing lawns, removal of dead, diseased or hazardous vegetation; the commercial harvest of forest products in accordance with the Oregon Forest Practices Act; or agricultural use of the land. 247 -18 -000047 -AD Cascade Estate Farms, LLC Page 19 of 20 K. Water: The use of water from any source for marijuana production shall comply with all applicable state statutes and regulations including ORS 537.545 and OAR 690-340-0010. L. Security Cameras: Security cameras shall be directed to record only the subject property and public rights-of-way, except as required to comply with requirements of the OLCC. M. Waste: The marijuana waste receptacle shall be stored in a secured waste receptacle in the possession of and under the control of the OLCC licensee at all times. N. Prohibited Uses: The uses listed in DCC 18.116.330(8)(20) shall be prohibited on the subject property so long as marijuana production is conducted on the site. O. Annual Reporting: The annual reporting requirements of DCC 18.116.330(D) shall be met. VII. DURATION OF APPROVAL: The applicant shall complete all conditions of approval and obtain building permits for the proposed use within two (2) years of the date this decision becomes final, or obtain an extension of time pursuant to Section 22.36.010 of the County Code, or this approval shall be void. This decision becomes final twelve (12) days after the date of mailing, unless appealed by a party of interest. DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION Written by: Nicole Mardell, Associate Planner Reviewed by: Peter Gutowsky, Planning Manager 247 -18 -000047 -AD Cascade Estate Farms, LLC Page 20 of 20 Attachment 3: Notices of Appeal ,01,Eo 1�-Li5z-A Community Development Department P S i Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental $00* Dlvislon P.O, Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708.6005 Phone: (541) 388-6575 Fax: (541) 385-1764 http://www.deschutes.org/cd' APPEAL APPLICATION FEE: OZ.5 "Dr EVERY NOTICE OF APPEAL SHALL INCLUDE: 1. A statement describing the specific reasons for the appeal. 2. If the Board of County Commissioners is the Hearings Body, a request for review by the Board stating the reasons the Board should review the lower decision. 3: If the Board of County. Commissioners is the Hearings Body and de novo review is desired, a request for de novo review by the Board, stating the reasons the Board should provide the de novo review as provided in Section 22.32.027 of Title 22. 4. If color exhibits are submitted, black and white copies with captions or shading delineating the color areas shall also be provided. 1t is the responsibility of the appellant to complete a Notice of Appeal as set forth in Chapter 22.32 of the County Code. The Notice of Appeal on the reverse side of this form must include the items listed above. Failure to complete all of the above may render an appeal invalid. Any additional comments should be included on the Notice of Appeal. Staff cannot advise a potential appellant as to whether the appellant is eligible to file an appeal (DCC Section 22.32.010) or whether an appeal is valid. Appellants should seek their own legal advice concerning those issueGs.6( t. I,- x 11"V Appellant's Name (print): ��1 1°/ (uC,5° Phone: ( ) Mailing Address: fY, 4o�- City/State/Zip: 9—n � Land Use Application Being Appealed: 24 r 0 () C) ® 4 -7 - Property Description: Townshi ,. A Range Section �� Tax Lot Appellant's Signatures -,-.- EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 22.32.024, APPELLANT SHALL PROVIDE A COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT OF ANY HEARING APPEALED, FROM RECORDED MAGNETIC TAPES PROVIDED BY THE PLANNING DIVISION UPON REQUEST (THERE IS A $5.00 FEE FOR EACH MAGNETIC TAPE RECORD). APPELLANT. SHALL SUBMIT THE TRANSCRIPT TO THE PLANNING DIVISION NO LATER THAN THE CLOSE OF THE DAY FIVE (5) DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE SET FOR THE DE NOVO HEARING OR, FOR ON -THE -RECORD APPEALS, THE DATE SET FOR RECEIPT OF WRITTEN RECORDS. (over) 10/15 Quality Services Performed with Pride NOTICE OF APPEAL OF DECISION OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners APPELLANT: Tetherow Crossing Property Owners Association P.O. Box 405, Redmond, Oregon 97756 CONTACT: Jeff Blackburn, President, TCPOA 541-598-4618 File Number: 247 -18 -000047 -AD SUBJECT PROPERTY: 6829 NW 66th Street, Redmond and is identified on Deschutes County Assessor's Map 14-12-23 as Tax Lot 300 APPLICANT: Brett Richwine, Cascade Estate Farms LLC OWNER: Isaac Babani Appellant's Signature: 1i The Appellant asserts that the Planning Commission erred in the determination that the application meets all applicable Federal, State, and County criteria for approval, to wit: 1. The Planning Commission ignored preemptive Federal law regarding the transportation of federally controlled substances across public lands, specifically: (a) Access to the subject property is partly over Federal Public Land administered by the Bureau of Land Management, and therefore subject to Federal regulations, and does not fall under the purview of Oregon State law nor Deschutes County regulations and guidelines. (b) Title 21 USC Section 13, Subchapter I Part D, Section 841(a) specifies "Except as authorized by this subchapter, it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally— (1) to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance (c ) Title 21 USC Section 13, Subchapter I Part B, Section 812 (C) states "Schedules I, II, III, IV, and V shall, unless and until amended pursuant to section 811 of this title, consist of the following drugs or other substances, by whatever official name, common or usual name, chemical name, or:brand name designated: Schedule I (c)(10) Marijuana. 2. Road Access to the Subject Property, (a) The staff finding that access criteria do not apply to this application due to the canopy size being equal to or less than 5600 square feet is in error. Federal statutes apply to a portion of the access route from NW 6e ST to the subject property, therefore the applicant has no legal means to transport marijuana seeds or seedlings onto the site, nor to transport the marijuana crop from the grow site to market. (b) The Bureau of Land Management has specifically stated that access to the subject property is via an illegal road across public lands. "Our records show that no legal access has been granted through public lands for the parcel in question. Our records also do not indicate that the applicant has applied for a right-of-way across public lands for commercial purposes. Access across public lands for commercial purposes requires a right-of-way grant issued by the BLM." (c) The Planning Commission has not considered the financial impact on the property owners of Tetherow Crossing, Odin Falls Ranch, and River Springs Estates regarding the private, paved roads over which the applicant must travel. These roads (a portion of NW Coyner Ave., all of NW Odin Falls Way, NW 62nd ST, and NW 66th ST) are privately maintained at the expense of the homeowners,who live in the neighborhoods. The applicant is not a member of any of the organizations, that pay for the maintenance of the access roads, and will benefit financially from the use thereof, to the extreme financial detriment of the neighbors. The applicant has stated there will be approximately 15,000 gals of water trucked over these roads monthly. Each truck will weigh in the neighborhood of 65 tons, for a total annual road wear tonnage of at least 780 tons. The access local roads are not constructed to Deschutes County standards and will be unduly worn by this heavy vehicle traffic and the crop haul traffic. (d) The Deschutes County Transportation planner has calculated a System Development Charge (SDC) amount of $6299 to be added to the county coffers for the applicant's use of these privately maintained roads._ This is clearly not equitable to the property owners who maintain these roads at their own expense! At the very least this SDC fee should be reimbursed to the property owners associations affected. (e) The Fire Department requires in part that the access roads to the subject property be constructed and maintained to certain standards. No road survey was completed to insure these standards can be met. The dirt access road currently in place clearly will not qualify. "Fire apparatus roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of 70,000 pounds and shall be surfaced so as to provide all-weather driving capability " 3. Ground Water Contamination (a) No provision for containment/prevention of groundwater contamination of nearby residential water wells. The Bureau of Land Management states, "BLM has concerns over the use of pesticides and herbicides and chemical residue migration onto public lands" 4. Increased Crime 1. (a) The Sheriff's department states "we are finding the calls for service related to marijuana grow operations are increasing". (b) The subject property is bordered by public lands on one side where frequent target shooting occurs, ATV/motorcycles riding/4-wheeling occurs, hiking and mountain biking occurs, camping, and access to the Deschutes river for sport fishing, all accessible by minors and adults alike. 5. The Deschutes County planning commission states that there are no DCC criteria for the following arguments: (a) Traffic (b) Crime and Safety (c) Pesticide Use (d) Decrease in Property values (e) Overproduction of marijuana in Oregon (f) Rural Residential Character of the Area While this may be true, it is illogical for the County not to consider all of those points in this determination. The well established communities that this application affects have grown and prospered here for over 25 years and are considered the jewel of the Redmond area with scenic settings along the beautiful Deschutes River and bordering on BLM land. Logically, it makes more sense for the applicants to secure a marijuana production facility in a more rural farming setting not near residential neighborhoods with children and not bordering public lands. A higher standard of care needs to be applied when approving these types of applications. We call your attention to the comments made by US Attorney, Billy 1. Williams, as well as the front page article published by the Bend Bulletin on Sunday, May 27th which went to great length describing "Overproduction of Marijuana Floods Market". Please ask yourself, do we really need another marijuana farm in central Oregon? And what really happens to the unsold surplus? In closing, the vast majority of property owners who have provided the TCPOA board with comments regarding marijuana grow operations in TCPOA are opposed to such operations. Although the applicants' property is not a part of Tetherow Crossing, it is adjacent to and as previously stated, requires access via Tetherow, Odin Falls and Mary Kay Estates and their privately maintained roads. In the future it would behoove Deschutes County to directly notify any affected homeowners associations of proposed land use impacting their associations as opposed to the associations having to discover these on their own. Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 Phone: (541) 388-6575 Fax: (541)385-1764 http://www.deschutes,org/cd APPEAL APPLICATION FEE: EVERY NOTICE OF APPEAL SHALL INCLUDE: 1. A statement describing the specific reasons for the appeal. 2. If the Board of County Commissioners is the Hearings Body, a request for review by the Board stating the reasons the Board should review the lower decision. 3. If the Board of County Commissioners is the Hearings Body and de novo review is desired, a request for de novo review by the Board, stating the reasons the Board should provide the de novo review as provided in Section 22.32.027 of Title 22. 4. If color exhibits are submitted, black and white copies with captions or shading delineating the color areas shall also be provided. It is the responsibility of the appellant to complete a Notice of Appeal as set forth in Chapter 22.32 of the County Code. The Notice of Appeal on the reverse side of this form must include the items listed above. Failure to complete all of the above may render an appeal invalid. Any additional comments should be included on the Notice of Appeal. Staff cannot advise a potential appellant as to whether the appellant is eligible to file an appeal (DCC Section 22.32.010) or whether an appeal is valid. Appellants should seek their own legal advice concerning those issues. Appellant's Name (print): '?D / N EP L C� KftV C 1+ -P d ;k Phone: (� -►1) G 6 -2 Mailing Address: RO B 0�+ 2.-2-1 City/State/Zip: ec"- M o t -W . OPL 9 7 Land Use Application Being Appealed; 2 •-1&--Z O c9 6 7 -- Property Description: Township Range �- Section Tax l-ot / UJ .2-- O dy b a0 a Appellant's Signature: EXCEPT AS PROVIDE16 IN S ION 22.32.024, APPELLANT SHALL PROVIDE A COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT OF ANY HEMWM APPEALED, FROM RECORDED MAGNETIC TAPES PROVIDED BY THE PLANNING DIVISION UPON REQUEST (THERE IS A $5.00 FEE FOR EACH MAGNETIC TAPE RECORD). APPELLANT SHALL SUBMIT THE TRANSCRIPT TO THE PLANNING DIVISION NO LATER THAN THE CLOSE OF THE DAY FIVE (5) DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE SET FOR THE DE NOVO HEARING OR, FOR ON -THE -RECORD APPEALS, THE DATE SET FOR RECEIPT OF WRITTEN RECORDS. (over) 10/15 Quality Services Perfonned with Pride NOTICE OF APPEAL OF DECISION OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners APPELLANT: Odin Falls Ranch Property Owners Association PO Box 2213, Redmond, Oregon 97756 CONTACT: D Casey Gibbs, Secretary, OFRPOA 541-316-1626 File Number: 247 -18 -000047 -AD SUBJECT PROPERTY: 6829 NW 66th Street, Redmond and is identified on Deschutes County Assessor's Map 14-12-23, Tax Lot 1412230000300 APPLICANT: Brett Richwine, Cascade Estate Farms LLC OWNER: Isaac Babani The APPELLANT asserts that the Planning Commission erred in the determination that the application meets all applicable criteria for approval, to wit: 1. The Planning Commission ignored preemptive Federal law regarding the transportation of federally controlled substances across public lands, specifically: (a) Access to the subject property is via 0.6 miles of Federal Public Land administered by the Bureau of Land Management, and therefore is subject to Federal regulations, and does not fall under the purview of Oregon State law nor Deschutes County Code and guidelines. (b) Title 21 USC Section 13, Subchapter I, Part D, Section 841(a) specifies: "Except as authorized by this subchapter, it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally— (1) to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance (c ) Title 21 USC Section 13, Subchapter I, Part B, Section 812 (C) states: "Schedules 1, 11, III, IV, and V shall, unless and until amended pursuant to section 811 of this title, consist of the following drugs or other substances, by whatever official name, common or usual name, chemical name, or brand name designated: Schedule 1 (c ) (1)... (c )(10) Marihuana. (sic) File # 247 -18 -000047 -AD 2. Road Access to the Subject Property (a) The staff finding that access criteria do not apply to this application due to the canopy size being equal to or less than 5000 square feet is in error. Federal statutes apply to the portion of the access route from NW 66th ST to the subject property, a distance of 0.6 miles. Therefore, the applicant has no legal means to transport marijuana in any form onto the site, nor to transport marijuana crop from the grow site to market. Note: County records in DIAL incorrectly identify the access road across public lands (BLM) as NW 66th ST. The Bureau of Land Management has specifically stated that access to the subject property is via an illegal road across public lands. (See photos falsely claiming 'private road') "Our records show that no legal access has been granted through public lands for the parcel in question. Our records also do not indicate that the applicant has applied for a right-of-way across public lands for commercial purposes. Access across public lands for commercial purposes requires a right-of-way grant issued by the BLM." A follow-up email from Tom Beaucage, BLM manager, Prineville (Attached) states: "Road access to the property is identified as being through BLM-managed land in the County's Finding and Decision. This appears to be the only road access. • There are no authorizations granting access to the property by the BLM. • A right-of-way authorization from the BLM (under 43 CFR 2800) would be required for the commercial use of this access across public land. Options to obtain legal access for a marijuana production facility may not include BLM- managed lands. The BLM can not issue a right-of-way supporting an activity that is illegal. Existing right- of-way grants may be terminated if they are determined to be aiding in the cultivation, production or distribution of a controlled substance as defined in Title 21 of the United States Code Chapter 13." To state this plainly, the subject property does not even have a legal right of access for private purposes, let alone commercial marijuana growing purposes. (b) The Planning Commission has not considered the financial impact on the property owners of Tetherow Crossing, Odin Falls Ranch, and River Springs Estates regarding the private, paved roads over which the applicant must travel. These roads (a portion of NW Coyner Ave, all of NW Odin Fails Way, NW 62nd ST, NW Homestead Way, and NW 66th ST) are privately owned and maintained at the expense of the homeowners who live in the neighborhoods. The applicant is not a member of any of the organizations that pay for the maintenance of the access roads. The Applicant would benefit financially from the commercial use thereof, to File # 247 -18 -000047 -AD the extreme financial detriment of the owners of the roads. The Applicant has stated there will be approximately 15,000 gals of water trucked over these roads monthly. Each truck will weigh approximately 65 tons, for a total annual road wear tonnage of at least 780 tons. These local access roads are not constructed to Deschutes County standards and would be unduly worn by this regular, heavy vehicle traffic and crop haul traffic. (c) The Deschutes County Transportation planner has calculated a Transportation System Development Charge (SDC) in the amount of $6299 to be added to the county coffers for the Applicant's use of these privately maintained roads. This is clearly a travesty, as the subject roads are privately owned and maintained at the property owner's expense, not Deschutes Countyl At the very least this SDC fee should be paid to the property owners associations affected. (d) The Fire Department requires in part that the access roads to the subject property be constructed and maintained to specific standards. No road survey was completed to ensure these standards can be met. The illegal dirt access road currently in place clearly will not qualify. (See photo of typical road condition) "Fire apparatus roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of 70,000 pounds and shall be surfaced so as to provide all-weather driving capability " 3. Ground Water Contamination (a) There is no provision for containment of wastewater or prevention of groundwater contamination of the nearby residential water wells. The Bureau of Land Management states: "BLM have concerns over the use of pesticides and herbicides and chemical residue migration onto public lands" 4. Increased Crime (a) The Sheriff's department states: "we are finding the calls for service related to marijuana grow operations are increasing". in other words, crime is increasing in areas where marijuana grow operations are allowed. (b) The subject property is bordered by public lands on one side, where daily uses include target shooting, ATV and motorcycle riding, 4 -wheeling, hiking, mountain biking, camping, and access to the Deschutes river for sport fishing. This entire area is readily accessible by minors as well as adults. 5. The Deschutes County Planning Commission states that there are no DCC criteria for the following arguments: (a) Traffic (b) Crime and Safety (c) Pesticide Use (d) Decrease in Property values File # 247 -18 -000047 -AD (e) Overproduction of marijuana in Oregon (f) Rural Residential Character of the Area While this is true, it is illogical for the County to arbitrarily decide to not consider all of these pertinent points in the determination of marijuana grow site locations. The well-established communities this application affects have grown and prospered here for over 25 years and are a jewel of the Redmond area with scenic settings along the beautiful Deschutes River and bordering on BLM land. Many residents of these communities do not subscribe to the marijuana legalization mindset and feel strongly that a marijuana grow operation would be detrimental to this area for all of the reasons listed. Logically, it makes more sense for the applicants to secure a marijuana production facility in a more rural farming setting which is not in a residential neighborhood, nor bordering public lands. In short, a higher standard of care needs to be applied when approving these applications. Further, we call your attention to the points made by US Attorney Billy 1, Williams, as well as the front-page article published by the Bend Bulletin on Sunday, May 27th which went into great detail describing the "Overproduction of Marijuana Floods Market". Please ask yourself, do we really need another marijuana farm in central Oregon? And what really happens to the unsold surplus? File # 247 -18 -000047 -AD SECTION 23 TJ4,S. R.12E. W.M. ?Cv1YD: Ifl:OV2-09 ' DESCHUTES COUNTY 400, 14 12 & 1 NDE SE( io' 14 12 t °nC k4 78 12 < a{ I F x1 t {err rt a7 at 'a �'b CpD 3 � t}lo rc 71 1.. 3a SEE MAP 14 12 238 r ...D���,}'` #.Ladd u:e {dna. X47.1&kRGf7•AO �1�'3"N ',a,°�;"J n aamr:. ':tF�.`.., } saahtwaamsi,nw.tteamam ort -Drr i.. 6&,. e.r+ t•1 e`y,�i/ �S a St 1 Drs -`.a ..t tq :i rt 1t T 71 .;1'! )'Vl o Vh 3 i ; ! SEE MAP, �= SEE MAP ,4 I 14 12 230 44 12 230 i 1� ,y,' ll '1412 ' & IND SS[ MW tt f2 iH r �WMI - � ", 41 r' 14, ." � 1-'t, " Deschutes County Property Information - Dial Overview Map PRO 5 NW Grutastake Way Sources: Esri, HERE, Garrnin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IKadasterNL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hon K ,?ng), swisstopo, OpenStreetMap contributors, and the G IS User13S"munity, Deschutes County GIS .1 { W 7 xeom^ testA - n.Ao till, !ttp4 k A w [EXTERNAL] Deschutes County Decision 6829 NW 66th 4 Beaucage, Thomas <tbeaucage@blm.gov> Reply Today, 3:15 PM You Hello Casey, I wanted to make sure that I got this response to you in a timely fashion due to your upcoming deadline. To answer your questions about 6829 NW 66th St, Redmond, Oregon: Road access to the property is identified as being through BLM-managed land in the County's Finding and Decision. This appears to be the only road access. • There are no authorizations granting access to the property by the BLM. • A right-of-way authorization from the BLM (under 43 CFR 2800) would be required for the commercial use of this access across public land. Options to obtain legal access for a marijuana production facility may not include BLM- managed lands. The BLM can not issue a right-of-way supporting an activity that is illegal. Existing right-of-way grants may be terminated if they are determined to be aiding in the cultivation, production or distribution of a controlled substance as defined in Title 21 of the United States Code Chapter 13. I am only addressing the land management issues here. There are, of course, criminal penalties involved with violating the Controlled Substances Act. Let me know if you have questions. W Mailing Date: Tuesday, May 22, 2018 w, a Community Development Department i Planning Divlsion Building Safety DiVdstms E~nviraitmental Sadie Divisino :A 13,0. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-fi005 Phone; (541) 388-6575 Fax: (541) 385-1764 http;/,f�rt���ft.desehutes.�art�,tcc1 NOTICE OF DECISION The Deschutes County Planning Division has approved the land use application(s) described below: FILE NUMBER: 247 -18 -000047 -AD LOCATION: The subject property has an assigned address of 6823 NW 6611 Street, Redmond and is identified on Deschutes County Assessor's Map 14-12-23 as Tax Lot 300. APPLICANT: Brett Richwine, Cascade Estate Farms LLC OWNER: Isaac Babani AGENT: Michael Hughes, Hughes Law and the Hughes Companies SUBJECT: The applicant requests approval of an Administrative Determination to establish a marijuana production facility in the Exclusive Farm Use Zone with a maximum mature canopy area of 5,000 square feet. STAFF CONTACT: Nicole Mardell, Associate Planner, 541-317-3157 Nicole. Mardell@deschutes.org DOCUMENTS: Can, be viewed and downloaded from: www.buildingpermits.o[gggn.gov and http://dial.deschutes.org APPLICABLE CRITERIA: The Planning Division reviewed this application for compliance against criteria contained in Chapters 18.16 and 18.116 in Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code (DCC), the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance, as well as against the procedural requirements of Title 22 of the DCC. DECISION: Staff finds that the application meets applicable criteria, and approval is being granted subject to the following conditions: Qu at l y Sey-a ices Perji-wnfed 71401 I'H&t ONGOING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A. Use & Location: Marijuana production is conditionally approved inside the approved grow building. This approval is based upon the application, site plan, specifications, and supporting documentation submitted by the applicant. Any substantial change in this approved use will require review through a new land use application. B. Building Heiqht: No building or structure, including greenhouses, shall be erected or enlarged to exceed 30 feet in height, except as allowed under DCC 18.120.040, C. Indoor Production: Marijuana production is prohibited in any outdoor area. D. Maximum Mature Plant Canopy Size: The maximum canopy area for mature marijuana plants shall not exceed 5,000 square feet at any time. E. OLCC Licensee: Only one OLCC license shall be allowed per legal parcel for the marijuana production use. F. Lighting: The following lighting standards shall be met. Inside building lighting used for marijuana production shall not be visible outside the building from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. on the following day. Lighting fixtures shall be fully shielded in such a manner that all light emitted directly by the lamp or a diffusing element, or indirectly by reflection or refraction, is projected below the horizontal plane through the lowest light -emitting part. The light cast by exterior light fixtures other than marijuana growing lights shall comply with DCC 15.10, Outdoor Lighting Control. G. Odor: The proposed odor control system must at all times prevent unreasonable interference with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. The odor control system shall be maintained in working order and shall be in use. H. Noise: Sustained noise from mechanical equipment used for heating, ventilation, air conditioning, odor control, fans and similar functions shall not exceed 30 dB(A) measured at any property line between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the following day. I. Fencing: Fencing shall be finished in a muted earth tone that blends with the surrounding natural landscape and shall not be constructed of temporary materials such as plastic sheeting, hay bales, tarps, etc. Razor wire, or similar, shall be obscured from view or colored a muted earth tone that blends with the surrounding natural landscape. J. Screening: The existing tree and shrub cover screening the development from the public right-of-way or adjacent properties shall be retained to the maximum extent possible. This provision does not prohibit the maintenance of existing lawns, removal of dead, diseased or hazardous vegetation; the commercial harvest of forest products in accordance with the Oregon Forest Practices Act; or agricultural use of the land. K. Water: The use of water from any source for marijuana production shall comply with all applicable state statutes and regulations including ORS 537.545 and OAR 690-340- 0010. L. Security Cameras: Security cameras shall be directed to record only the subject property and public rights-of-way, except as required to comply with requirements of the OLCC. 247 -18 -000047 -AD 2 M M. Waste: The marijuana waste receptacle shall be stored in a secured waste receptacle in the possession of and under the control of the OLCC licensee at all times. N. Prohibited Uses: The uses listed in DCC 18.116.330(8)(20) shall be prohibited on the subject property so long as marijuana production is conducted on the site. O. Annual Reporting: The annual reporting requirements of DCC 18.116.330(D) shall be met. This decision becomes final twelve (12) days after the date mailed, unless appealed by a party of interest. To appeal, it is necessary to submit a Notice of Appeal, the appeal fee of $250.00 and a statement raising any issue relied upon for appeal with sufficient specificity to afford the Hearings Body an adequate opportunity to respond to and resolve each issue. Copies -of the apPl-lintlOtT'-all-docur�e-nts-and evidence" aubmitCed-byor off behalf of -the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost. Copies can be purchased for 25 cents per page. NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE, LIEN HOLDER, VENDOR OR SELLER: ORS CHAPTER 215 REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE, IT MUST BE PROMPTLY FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER. This Notice was mailed pursuant to Deschutes County Code Chapter 22.24. 247 -18 -000047 -AD 3 'ivAW 3 r`f j zt P y . 9+R` a =i x,.'jkA t {a t} s rM u 4 *. i "a Y r t ' s t .o x x € �"yF��1 _k�� �N�?��+ ee���e�j{ � ".0 4 i � :i H ":l` N £�f � Fv'`�z.1. - .. f • � ` k- N r ; RM 10.9 st /• �.. ti .?�. k'"e A. a x N- § i^' ads r z�, I§ .*�,,�szy `" a }t > •'' c'"" f=.',a � � �--�• ��a% $ r ,y��.�.w-` '� ✓�+'. �sS o'�' Av JAM zo ka{ "t§•;sast N x�y 3 Y a of Y .�z ''71x �Si4�SSb Nut i S'F+!' xeAPPFY ,`gsF +TMs i,"•, i; AN { �,h..G .r..<s - x,. s 'v�' �NIP '� r1,:c i '�" �,��f � u. a-•�� �� �'`'." vY� �t � ,ry r3` �'�.� � "� -�� �.� � 1 � � v � ss '� "�.'�+_ r.ar�»�:F ��, t°3' l _ 4`s,nA ? Zi r`s tf �� x'�s� `'� ^�§``� � �`�§.�' � z �v ; .� � � ty <� �1�t� ��'r ��'� ;ih• �3.�z. �"� *.,�r���g�'�' �i` ✓��t Rr MOW �'�7ss y `3- 'iP 44+ 9S' t... �c R• ? ( .. { � '�,}-�,�-e-:w •. ?!"`4`t :,; $ =k g�. * s -`'s` aw r-, `�< y; 9.. rmm �. _� • � � ,, � z 'w• y f � xt�s{` �� --+ r �.`� M S Jai r� t � � t .� �: a z s x -ay ,x'• �'�' � r `•k ,��.:� z ir4�'.k 4 .�z�.�i�"t. � `;. S � S x�' �..a�, " } r r-�e �� ; t •� r s . 'bs`*.o-n, sx ,.'.x "i` s FG x �, sm �l fi a,�R `f ,'�F'a 7� ._ .+Ca s S• .{.k' , tt MEN m4z,,�,�. E Fy :&"' a•+F y r'�,. "t-# s �ri +k'•� O` r T y ✓ �� �`'� Fr-`��r � � '' g� "�.%,;� Y �, ;y � y'iY'��'�`�.. � �.s y��, i r �' y E i i'� t'�, t ,t st s r � .r' � � ;� nx. ���� �-� �i� 3•c�� � ��� �� .y � k Pats t � to { 'z:y deg " ✓ r a? r 1F '#F' ri•4 a,ri �� * t'"� -�. _ .�,.ti s'� oz .,ys.a - e zx d q 1 •4k .� �+ .,3• p4 :� t mss S 1. 'Ail S m $u sNi u r�2 �;`'�` 5s �. � ,� ��t� ��� a fix• � f le4 r - ,mom 44 Z 'ice' .mt ae .eye > C g +sWOOD Z� <&� � MAW »� \ �> �© d 10 . !. �\ � ^ %« * 311q� .R- b:. � f W N � y fin, �. Attachment 4: Senior Transportation Planner Comments -June 14,2018 From: Peter Russell To: Nicole Mardell Cc -Chris iris Doty; Cody Smith; Peter Russell Subject: RE: 18 -47 -AD (452-A. 453-A) SDCs Date: Thursday, June 14, 2018 11:31:53 AM Attachments: imaae001.ong imaae002.ona imaae003.wa imaae004.ona image005.ong imaae006.ona imaae007.Dna imaae008.Dno Hi, Nicole, I have talked with Cody Smith, County Engineer, regarding the transportation aspects and transportation system development charges (SDCs) of the appeal of a marijuana production site approved under 247 -18 -000047 -AD. The Tetherow Crossing HOA raises three major issues in its appeal (248 -18 -000452 -A/453 -A) for the site at 6829 NW 66th Street. These are 1) access; 2) adverse impacts to their HOA -maintained roads; and 3) the request that County SDCs collected for this land use be sent to their HOA. Access: The approved grow is less than 5,000 square feet of mature canopy and thus under the applicable code (DCC 18.116.330(8)) access is not even a review criterion. In other words, from a land use review perspective, it is irrelevant whether the property owner can use federal lands to reach the property. I'll defer to BLM on whether applicant has an easement to do so and whether MJ can be transported across federal lands. Adverse effects to public roads that privately maintained: While Tetherow Crossing HOA does maintain several roads, they are not private roads according to DIAL and Road Department records. The majority of the roads used to reach the property are in fact Local Access Roads, which means they are public and the applicant has a right to use them. There are several private roads to the west of the property, but the applicant does not need to use them to reach the County -maintained road system. The applicant is proposing to use commercial water haulers to deliver water several times a month to the site. Tetherow Crossing HOA is concerned that the Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) of commercial water haulers may exceed the road's physical ability to handle those loads. As this land use is permitted outright in the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) zone and thus is neither a site plan nor a conditional use, there are no applicable road standards that are triggered. SDCs: The County's SDC program is a funding source for the network of County -maintained roads. The County would not spend SDCs on Local Access Roads when there are needs on the County - maintained system of roads. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. } r Peter Russell I Senior Transportation Planner s 117 NW Lafayette Avenue I Bend, Oregon 97703 PO Box 6005 1 Bend, Oregon 97708 +� Tel: (541) 383-6718 1 www.deschutes.org/cd ULJLU Disclaimer: Please note that the information in this email is an informal statement made in accordance with DCC 22.20. 005 and shall not be deemed to constitute final County action effecting a change in the status of a person's property or conferring any rights, including any reliance rights, on any person. From: Nicole Mardell Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 3:20 PM To: Peter Russell <Peter.Russel I@deschutes.org> Subject: 18 -47 -AD (452-A. 453-A) SDCs Hi Peter, Please see the attached appeal for a marijuana production application over at 6829 NW 66th Street, Redmond. I think it would be valuable to the discussion if you could provide some insight on the SDCs, or anything else transportation related, as that is the main focus of the appeal. If you could get the info to me by next Wednesday 6/20 so I can include it in the staff memo, that would be great! Thanks! Nicole rt Nicole Mardell E Associate Planner 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97703 PO Box 6005 1 Bend, Oregon 97708 Tel: (541) 317-31571 www.deschutes.org/cd Disclaimer: Please note that the information in this email is on informal statement made in accordance with DCC 22.20.005 and shall not be deemed to constitute final County action effecting o change in the status of a person's property or conferring any rights, including any reliance rights, on any person. Attachment 5: Application Materials File No. 247- Community Development Department Planning Division Budding Safety Division Environmental Sods Division SCANNED Phone: G - -i 3-0'01-6573 Fax: k5--) ? ,8,- '6» http: ,';�, ;�; :<<.cleschutes.org;'ccl LAND USE APPLICATION INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED 1. Complete the application form and provide appropriate original signatures. To ensure timely processing of your application, all materials must be submitted on single -sided, 8.5" x 11" paper. Do not use binders, tabs/dividers, staples or tape. 2. This application shall include one full-sized plan set (to scale) and one plan set reduced to no larger than 11" x 17". Include a plot plan that shows all property lines and existing and proposed structures, parking, landscaping, lighting, etc. 3. Include a copy of the current deed showing the property owners. 4. Attach correct fee. 5. All applicable standards and criteria must be addressed in writing prior to acceptance of the application. Detailed descriptions, maps and other relevant information must be attached to the application. TYPE OF APPLICATION (check one): FEE; , $1537.96 so Administrative Determination (AD) X Partition (MP) — Site Plan (SP) _ Conditional Use (CU) _ Subdivision (TP) _ Variance (V) _ Declaratory Ruling (DR) _ Temporary Use (TU) — Setback Exception (SE) _ Other Applicant's Name (print): _✓,Brett Richwine (Cascade Estate Farms, LLC Phone: ( 773 ) 263-3401 Mailing Address: 6829 NW 66th Street City/State/Zip: Redmond, Oregon 97756 Applicant's Email Address: brettcascadeestatefarms.com Property Owner/s Name (if different)': Isaac Babani Phone:( 847 ) 561-4523 Mailing Address: 6829 NW 66th Street City/State/Zip: Redmond. Oregon 97756 1. Request: Land Use Approval for OLCC Marijuana Production 2. Property Description: Township 14 Range 12 —Section 23 Tax Lot_,300 N 3. Property Zone(s): EFU Property Size (acres or sq. ft.):_ 20 acres 4. Lot of Record? (State reason): See application file number 17 -000979 -LR 5. Property Address: 6829 NW 66th Street, Redmond, Oregon 97756 (over) mm* Quatilfl See -vices Perjirr•rned u41/1 1 ride X 6. Present Use of Property: Farm Use for horses and livestock 7. Existing Structures: Dwelling, barn and chickencoop 8. Property will be served by: Sewer Onsite Disposal System Septic System 9. Domestic Water Source: Well To the best of my knowledge, the proposal complies with all previous conditions of approval and all other applicable local, state, and federal laws. By signing this application, I acknowledge that Deschutes County planning staff may make a site visit(s) to the address(es) listed on this application in order to evaluate the property(ies) with the Deschutes County Code criteria applicable to the land use request(s) submitted. Please describe any special circumstances regarding a potential site visit: Applicant's Signature: Property Owner's Signature (if difforent)* Agent's Name (if applicable): See Attached Letter Date: Phone:(_) Mailing Address: City/State/Zip: Agent's Email *If this application is not signed by the property owner, a letter authorizing signature by the applicant must be attached. By signing this application, the applicant understands and agrees that Deschutes County may require a deposit for hearings officers' fees prior to the application being deemed complete. If the application is heard by a hearings officer, the applicant will be responsible for the actual costs of the hearings officer. 6/16 December 29, 2017 Deschutes County Community Development Department P.O. Box 6005 Bend, OR 97708-6005 Re: Land Use Review Application for Map and Tax lot 1412230000300, site address 6829 NW 66th Street Redmond, Oregon 97756. Attention Community Department: This letter is being sent as my authorization to allow my tenant at the above listed property to sign the land use review application and any other necessary documents required to obtain a Land Use Compatibility Statement for state licensed OLCC cannabis production at said property. The tenant is Cascade Estate Farms, LLC and the person authorized from the company to sign documents is Brett Richwine. Sincerely, 44-aa.G 3a.6aoz� Isaac Babani BEFORE THE DESCIIUTES COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BURDEN OF PROOF FILE NUMBERS: APPLICANT: Brett Richwine (Cascade Estate Farms) OWNER: Isaac Babani ATTORNEY: Michael R. Hughes, Hughes Law and The Hughes Companies PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: The subject property has an assigned address of 6829 NW 66th Street, Redmond, Oregon 97756 and is identified as on Assessor's Map and Tax lot 1412230000300. ZONING: EFU — TE PROPOSAL: Applicant requests an administrative determination and approval of the Land Use Review for a Land Use Compatibility Statement for state licensed marijuana/cannabis production under the Oregon Liquor Control Commission ("OLCC") and with a 5,000 -square foot mature canopy. I. APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA A. Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.04. Title, Purpose and Definitions * Section 18.04.030. Definitions Chapter I8.16. Exclusive Farm Use * Section 18.16.020. Uses Permitted Outright Chapter 18.116. Supplementary Provisions * Section 18.116.030, Off -Street Parking and Loading * section 18.116.330 Marijuana Production, processing, and Retailing 1 BURDEN OF PROOF II. INTRODUCTION A. Location: The subject property is located at 6829 NW 66`h Street, Redmond, Oregon 97756 and further identified as Map and Tax lot 1412230000300. B. Zoning and Plan Designation: The subject property is zoned Exclusive Farm Use (EFU - TE) . C. Lot of Record: Subject property is a legal lot of record, see application, County File No, 17 -000979 -LR. D. Site Description: The subject property is approximately 20 acres and is zoned for Exclusive Farm Use. The property currently has a permitted dwelling, established pasture, agricultural buildings, a well, and a septic system. E. Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses: The subject property is surrounded by EFU's and BLM lands. These properties are in a mix of farm dwellings and agricultural uses with most parcels being 20 acres or larger in size. F. Procedural History: The property has previous permits for a manufactured home, mechanical, electrical, and septic. The property has a permitted dwelling and horse barn. The applicant has building permit pending for an agricultural structure that will be built in the future. G. Proposal: Applicant requests administrative approval for marijuana production in the EFU zone with a 5,000 -square foot mature canopy. Specifically, applicant proposes to construct a building and operate a Tier Il licensed indoor marijuana production with the OLCC. III. EXHIBITS Applicant submits the following in support of this application: A. Deed B. Plot Plan C. Mechanical Engineers Report — Odor and Noise D. Will -Serve Letter from Bend Water Hauling E. Will -Serve letter from Letter from Central Electric Co -Op IV. PROPOSED FINDINGS/BURDEN OF PROOF Chapter 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use - EFU Zone 18.16,020. Uses Permitted Outright. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright. BURDEN OF PROOF 18.16.020 (s). Marijuana production, subject to the provisions of DCC 18.116.330, RESPONSE: The applicant requests approval to engage in marijuana production, which is an outright permitted use within the EFU-TE zone. Chapter 18.116. Supplementary Provisions 18.116.020. Clear Vision Areas. A. In all zones, clear vision area shall be maintained on the corners of all property at the intersection of two streets or a street and a railroad. A clear vision area shall contain no planting, fence, wall, structure, or temporary or permanent obstruction exceeding three and one-half feet In height, measured from the top of the curb or, where no curb exists, from the established street centerline grade, except that trees exceeding this height may tree located in this area provided all branches and foliage are removed to a height of eight feet above the grade. B. A clear vision area shall consist of a triangular area on the corners of a lot at the intersection of two streets or a street and a railroad. Two sides of the triangle are sections of the lot lines adjoining the street or railroad measured from the corner to a distance specified in DCC 18.116.020(B) p) and (2). Where lot lines have rounded corners, the specified distance is measured from a point determined by the extension of the lot lines to a point of intersection. The third side of the triangle is the Line connecting the ends of the measured sections of the street lot lines. The following measurements shall establish clear vision areas within the County. 1. In an agricultural, forestry or industrial zone, the minimum distance shall be 30 feet or at intersections including an alley, 10 feet. RESPONSE: The proposed production building is not located in a clear vision area. In fact, no structures on the subject property are within a clear vision area. Section 18.116.030, Off -Street Parking and Loading A. Compliance. No building or other permit shall be issued until plans and evidence are presented to show how the off-street parking and loading requirements are to be met and that property is and will be available for exclusive use as off-street parking and loading. The subsequent use of the property for which the permit is issued shall be conditional upon the unqualified continuance and availability of the amount of parking and loading space required by DCC Title 18. 3 BURDEN OF PROOF RESPONSE: To the extent off-street parking and loading criteria apply to the proposal, they are satisfied as shown below. Exhibit B - Plot Plan shows how the existing driveway and parking areas. B. Off -Street Loading. Every use for which a building is erected or structurally altered to the extent of increasing the floor area to equal a minimum floor area required to provide loading space and which will require the receipt or distribution of materials or merchandise by truck or similar vehicle, shall provide off-street loading space on the basis of minimum requirements as follows. 1. Commercial, industrial and public utility uses which have a gross floor area of 5,000 square feet or more shall provide truck loading and unloading berths subject to the following table: Sq. Ft. of Floor Area No. of Berths Required 5,000 -30,000 1 RESPONSE: Agricultural buildings are not listed in the chart under Section B. However, any agricultural buildings will have at least one (1) off-street loading berth consisting of an overhead door. C. Off -Street Parking. Off-street parking spaces shall be provided and maintained as set forth in DCC 18.116.030 for all uses in all zoning districts, such off-street parking spaces shall be provided at the time a new building is hereafter erected or enlarged or the use of a building existing on the effective date of DCC Title 18 is changed. D. Number of Spaces Required, Off-street parking shall be provided as follows 9. Other uses not specifically listed above shall be provided with adequate parking as required by the Planning Director or Hearings Body. The above list shall be used as a guide for determining requirements for said other uses. RESPONSE: Applicant's proposed agricultural building will be used for licensed OLCC marijuana production and as such is a "farm use". Farm uses are not required to provide parking. However, and to the extent such a farm use is comparable to a "manufacturing establishment," which requires 1 space per employee on the largest working shift. Applicant anticipates employing one full-time employee, who will live on the property. One or two seasonal employees may be hired as needed. At full capacity, this would require a maximum of four parking spaces. As shown on the Plot Plan, there will be at least four spaces available in the area marked for parking. E. General Provisions, Off -Street Parking. 4 BURDEN OF PROOF 3. Location of Parking Facilities. Off-street parking spaces for dwellings shall be located on the same lot with the dwelling" Other required parking spaces shall be located on the same parcel or another parcel not farther than 500 feet from the building or use they are intended to serve, measured in a straight line from the building in a commercial or industrial zone. Such parking shall be located in a safe and functional manner as determined during site plan approval. The burden of proving the existence of such off - premise parking Arrangements rests upon the applicant. 4. Use of Parking Facilities. Required parking space shall be available for the parking of operable passenger automobiles or residents, customers, patrons, and employees only and shall not be used for the storage of vehicles or materials or for the parking of trucks used in conducting the business or use. RESPONSE: Parking spaces will be located on the subject property and are configured in a manner to allow safe egress and ingress to the subject property. The required parking spaces will be reserved for parking and not used for storage. F. Development and Maintenance Standards for Off -Street Parking Areas. Every parcel of land hereafter used as a public or private parking area, including commercial parking lots, shall be developed as follows: 1. commercial or industrial zone. Such parking shall be located in a safe and functional manner as determined during site plan approval. The burden of proving the existence of such off - premise parking Arrangements rests upon the applicant. 2. Any lighting used to illuminate off-street parking areas shall be so arranged that it will not project light rays directly upon any adjoining property in a residential zone. RESPONSE: The parking area does not contain more than five spaces and no lighting is proposed in the parking areas. If lighting is used, it will not project any light onto adjoining properties. 3. Groups of more than two parking spaces shall be located and designed to prevent the need to back vehicles into a street or right of way other than an alley. RESPONSE: The proposed parking area is not adjacent to any street or right of way. In any event, the parking areas are laid out so as to minimize the need for backing and to allow ample space to turn around. BURDEN OF PROOF 4. Areas used for standing and maneuvering of vehicles shall be paved surfaces adequately maintained for any weather use and so drained as to contain any flow of water on the site. An exception may be made to the paving requirements by the Planning Director or Hearings Body upon finding that: a. A high-water table in the area necessitates a permeable surface to reduce surface water runoff problems or b. The subject use is located outside of an unincorporated community and the proposed surfacing will be maintained in n manner which will not create dust problems for neighboring properties; or C. The subject use will be in a Rural Industrial Zone or an Industrial District in an unincorporated community and dust control measures will occur on a continuous basis. RESPONSE: The parking area will be located on an existing gravel surface as shown on the Plot Plan. 5. Access aisles shall be of sufficient width for all vehicular turning and maneuvering. 6. Service drives to off-street parking areas shall be designed and constructed to facilitate the flow of traffic, provide maximum safety of traffic ingress and egress and maximum safety of pedestrians and vehicular traffic on the site. The number of service drives shall be limited to the minimum that will accommodate and serve the traffic anticipated. Service drives shall he clearly and permanently marked and defied through the use of rails, fences, walls or other barriers or markers. Service drives to drive in establishments shall be designed to avoid backing movements or other maneuvering within a street other than an alley. 7. Service drives shall have a minimum vision clearance area formed by the intersection of the driveway centerline, the street right of way line and a straight Line joining said lines through points 30 feet from their intersection. 8. Parking spaces along the outer boundaries of a parking areas shall be contained by a curb or bumper rail placed to prevent a motor vehicle from extending over an adjacent property line or a street right of way. BURDEN OF PROOF RESPONSE: The parking areas are accessed from an existing gravel driveway which is clearly marked and provides adequate access. The parking facilities are not adjacent to property lines or street right of ways so encroachment will not be an issue. The required parking spaces will be reserved for parking and not used for storage. 18.116.330. Marijuana Production, Processing, and Retailing A. Applicability. Section 18.116.330 applies to: I. Marijuana Production in the EFU, MUA-10, and RI zones. RESPONSE: Applicant is proposing to engage in the production of marijuana under an OLCC license in an EFU Zone. Section 18.116.330 applies. B. Marijuana production and marijuana processing. Marijuana production and marijuana processing shall be subject to the blowing standards and criteria: 1. Minimum Lot Area. a. In the EFU and MUA-I 0 zones, the subject legal lot of record shall have a minimum lot area five (5) acres. RESPONSE: The subject property is a legal lot of record as found in application and file number 17 -000979 -LR and the property exceeds five acres. Indoor Production and Processing, b. In the EFU zone, marijuana production and processing shall only be located in buildings, including greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar structures, c. In all zones, marijuana production and processing are prohibited in any outdoor area. RESPONSE: Applicant is proposing to engage in marijuana production in the EFU Zone within an agricultural building which will be constructed in the area as shown on the Plot Plan. Thus, the proposed operation will be for indoor production. This is allowed in EFU under the county code. The agricultural building will completely regulate the air coming into and out of the facility to control odor and mitigate any potential impact on neighbors. The area is very remote and the landscape features juniper trees and rock cropping's that serve as a natural buffer between the applicant property and their neighbors. 3. Maximum Mature Plant Canopy Size, In the EFU zone, the maximum canopy area for mature marijuana plants shall apply as follows: 7 BURDEN OF PROOF a. Parcels from 5 acres to less than 10 acres in lot area: 2,500 square feet, b. Parcels equal to or greater than 10 acres to less than 20 acres in lot area: 5,000 square feet. The maximum canopy area for mature marijuana plants may be increased to 10000 square feet upon demonstration by the applicant to the county that: i. The marijuana production operation was lawfully established prior to January 1, 2015; and ii. The increased mature marijuana plant canopy area will not generate adverse impact of visual, odor, noise, lighting, privacy or access greater than the impacts associated with a 5,000 square foot canopy area operation. c. Parcels equal to or greater than 20 acres to less than 40 acres in lot area: 10,000 square feet. RESPONSE: The subject property is 20 acres and applicant is proposing a 5,000 -square foot canopy space. 5. Limitation on License/Grow Site per Parcel. No more than one (1) Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) licensed marijuana production or Oregon Health Authority (OHA) registered medical marijuana grow site shall be allowed per legal parcel or lot. RESPONSE: Applicant is only proposing to associate one OLCC marijuana production license with the subject property. 6. Setbacks. The following setbacks shall apply to all marijuana production and processing areas and buildings: a. Minimum Yard Set Back distance from Lot Lines: 100 feet. b. Setback from an off-site dwelling: 300 feet. For the purposes of this criterion an off-site dwelling includes those proposed off-site dwellings with a building permit application submitted to Deschutes County prior to submission of the marijuana production or processing application to Deschutes County. c. Exception: Any reduction to these setbacks requirements may be granted by the Planning Director or Hearings Body provided the applicant demonstrates the reduced setbacks afford equal or greater mitigation of visual, odor, noise, lighting, privacy, and access impacts. 8 BURDEN OF PROOF RESPONSE: As shown on the Plot Plan - Exhibit B, the proposed agricultural building will be located more than 100 feet from any of the property lines. Also, the closest off-site dwelling is located more than 300 feet from the proposed structure. All property lines, off-site dwellings and their distances in relation to the proposed production area are marked on the Plot Plan. 7. Separation Distances. Minimum separation distances shall apply as follows: a. The use shall be located a minimum of 1,000 feet from: i. A public elementary or secondary school for which attendance is compulsory under Oregon Revised Statutes 339.010, et seq., including any parking lot appurtenant thereto and any property used by the school; ii. A private or parochial elementary or secondary school, teaching children as described in ORS 339.0300(a), including any parking lot appurtenant thereto and any property used by the school; iii. A licensed child care center or Licensed preschool, including any parking lot appurtenant thereto and any property used by the child care center or preschool, this does not include licensed or unlicensed child care which occur at or in residential structures iv. A youth activity center; and v. National monuments and state parks. b. For Purposes of DCC 18.116.330(B)(7), all distances shall be measured from the lot line of the affected properties listed in DCC 18.116.330(B)(7)(a) to the closest point of the buildings and land area occupied by the marijuana producer or marijuana processor. RESPONSE: There are no schools, licensed child care centers, youth activity centers, national monuments, or state parks within 1,000 feet of the subject property. 8. Access. Marijuana production over 5,000 square feet of canopy area for mature marijuana plants shall comply with the following standards. a. Have frontage on and legal access from a constructed public, county or state road. 9 BURDEN OF PROOF b. Have access from a private road or easement serving only the subject property. RESPONSE: The applicant is not proposing over 5,000 square feet of mature canopy area. 9. Lighting. Lighting shall be regulated as follows: a. Inside building lighting, including greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar structures, used for marijuana production shall not be visible outside the building from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. on the following day, b. Lighting fixtures shall be fully shielded in such a manner that all light emitted directly by the lamp or a diffusing element, or indirectly by reflection or refraction, is projected below the horizontal plane through the lowest light emitting point. c. Light cast by exterior light fixtures other than marijuana grow tights shall comply with DCC 15.10, Outdoor Lighting Control. RESPONSE: The applicant proposed to use a completely enclose agricultural building in the operation. No lights used in the operation will be visible from the outside of the structure. 10. Odor. As used in DCC 18.116.330(BXIO), building means the building, including greenhouses, hoop houses, and other similar structures, used for marijuana production or marijuana processing. a. The building shall be equipped with an effective odor control system which must at all times prevent unreasonable interference of neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. b. An odor control system is deemed permitted only after the applicant submits a report by a mechanical engineer licensed in the State of Oregon demonstrating that the system will control odor so as not to unreasonably interfere with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. c. Private actions alleging nuisance or trespass associated with odor impacts are authorized, if at all, as provided in applicable state statute. d. The odor control system shall: i. Consist of one or more fans. The fan(s) shall be sized for cubic feet per minute (CFNI) equivalent to the volume of the building (length multiplied by width multiplied by height) divided by three. The filter(s) shall be rated for the required CFM; or 10 BURDEN OF PROOF ii. Utilize an alternative method or technology to achieve equal to or greater odor mitigation than provided by (i) above. e. The system shall be maintained in working order and shall be in use. RESPONSE: The applicant has worked with a mechanical engineer to develop, design and implement and odor mitigation plan for agricultural building proposed in the application that satisfies the requirements under the county code. When this report is completed the applicant will supplement this application and file the report as Exhibit C — Mechanical Engineer Report - Odor and Noise Report. 11. Noise. Noise produced by marijuana production and marijuana processing shall comply with the following: a. Sustained noise from mechanical equipment used for heating, ventilation, air condition, odor control, fans and similar functions shall not exceed 30 dB(A) measured at any property line between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 am. the following day. b. Sustained noise from marijuana production is exempt from protections of DCC 9.12 and ORS 30.395, Right to Farm. Intermittent noise for accepted farming practices is permitted. RESPONSE: The proposed indoor operation of applicant will not produce any noise that will be audible from the property lines at any time. The applicant will supplement Exhibit C - Mechanical Engineer Report - Odor and Noise Report, as soon as it is available from the mechanical engineer. 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: RESPONSE: Applicant is not proposing fencing as part of his security plan. Existing barb -wire fencing is identified on the Plot Plan. Applicant is not in a Landscape Management Combining Zone. However, if fencing is utilized it will comply with the requirements that it be in a muted earth tone that blends with the surrounding natural landscape. No razor wired would be used for fencing. 13. Water, the applicant shall provide: a. A copy of u water right permit, certificate, or other water us authorization from the Oregon Water Resource Department; or b. A statement that water is supplied from a public or private water provider, along with the name and contact information of the water provider; or 11 BURDEN OF PROOF c. Proof from the Oregon Water Resources Department that the water to be used is from a source that does not require a water right. RESPONSE: The applicant and subject property have a domestic well that services the property. The applicant is in the process of obtaining nursery and other groundwater rights for the domestic well. The applicant will not use any well water prior to obtaining ground water rights for the well from the Oregon Water Resources Department. Prior to that time the applicant proposes to have water hauled to the property. The applicant has attached as Exhibit D - Will Serve letter from Bend Water Hauling indicating that they will deliver 15,000 gallons of potable water per month to the applicant for farm and agricultural uses. Their contact person is Ms. Nunez and they can confirm in person at 541-382-0759, the ability and willingness to deliver the water described in the letter for the applicant's OLCC marijuana production. 14. Fire protection for processing of cannabinoid extracts. Processing of cannabinoid extracts shall only be permitted on properties located within the boundaries of or under contract with a fire protection district. RESPONSE: Applicant is not proposing to process cannabinoid extracts. 15. Utility Verification. A statement from each utility company proposed to serve the operation, stating that each such company is able and willing to serve the operation, shall be provided. RESPONSE: Attached as Exhibit E is a will -serve letter from Central Electric Co -Op indicating the ability to service the property with sufficient electricity for the proposed operation. 16. Security Cameras. If security cameras are used, they shall be directed to record only the subject property and public rights-of-way, except as required to comply with requirements of the OLCC or the OHA. RESPONSE: Any and all security cameras installed on the subject property will comply with this requirement. 17. Secure Waste Disposal, Marijuana waste shall be stored in a secured waste receptacle in the possession of and under the control of the OLCC licensee or OHA Person Responsible for the Grow Site (PRMG). RESPONSE: All marijuana waste will be stored in a secure receptacle, within a limited access area on the property, and will thus always be under the control of the OLCC licensee. The secure receptacle will be located inside the building that is the subject of this proposal. Said building will contain the odor mitigation described in Exhibit C, which will also control any odor created by the waste storage. 12 BURDEN OF PROOF 19. Nonconformance, All medical marijuana grow sites lawfully established prior to June 8, 2016 by the Oregon Health Authority shall comply with the provisions of IDCC 18.116.330(BX9) by September 8, 2016 and with the provisions of DCC 18. I16.330(BX10-12, 16,17) by December 8, 2016. RESPONSE: The proposal does include a registered medical marijuana grow site, however because it is 12 mature plants or less, it is not regulated under the county ordinance. 20. Prohibited Uses. a. In the EFU zone, the following uses are prohibited: i. A new dwelling used in conjunction with a marijuana crop; ii. A farm stand, as described in ORS 215.2130Xr) or 215,283(1X0), used in conjunction with a marijuana crop; iii. A commercial activity, as described in ORS 215,213(2Xc) or 215.283(2)(a), carried on in conjunction a marijuana crop; and iv. Agri -tourism and other commercial events and activities in conjunction with a marijuana crop. b. In the EFU, MUA-10, and Rural Industrial zones, the following uses are prohibited on the same property is marijuana production i. Guest Lodge ii. Guest Ranch iii. Dude Ranch iv. Destination Resort v. Public Parks vi. Private Parks vii. Events, Mass Gatherings and Outdoor Mass Gatherings viii. Bed and Breakfast ix. Room and Board Arrangements 13 BURDEN OF PROOF RESPONSE: None of the above identified uses are currently authorized on the subject property and Applicant does not propose to engage in any of the above described uses, D. Annual Reporting 1. An Annual report shall be submitted to the Community Development Department by the real property owner or licensee, if different, each February 1, documenting all of the following as of December 31 of the previous year, including the applicable fee as adopted in the current County Fee Schedule and n fully executed Consent to Inspect Premises form: a. Documentation demonstrating compliance with the: i. Land use decision and permits ii. Fire, health, safety, waste water, and building codes and laws. iii. State of Oregon licensing requirements. b. Failure to timely submit the annual report, fee, and Consent to Inspect Premises form or to demonstrate compliance with DCC 18.116.330(C)(1) shall serve as acknowledgement by the real property owner and licensee that the otherwise allowed use is not in compliance with Deschutes County Code; authorizes permit revocation under DCC Title 22, and may be relied upon by the State of Oregon to deny new or license renewal(s) for the subject use. c. Other information as may be reasonably required by the Planning Director to ensure compliance with Deschutes County Code, applicable State regulations, and to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. d. Marijuana Control Plan to be established and maintained by the Community Development Department. e. Conditions of Approval Agreement to be established and maintained by the Community Development Department, f. This information shall be public record subject to ORS 192.502(17). RESPONSE: Applicant will perform annual reporting in compliance with this criterion and agrees to all the conditions and requirements of annual reporting. Y. CONCLUSION: The Applicant meets all applicable standards for the requested approval. 14 BURDEN OF PROOF Submitted 5th day of January, 2018 Hughes Law, Michael R. Hughes, OSB# 135942 Attorney for the Applicant 15 BURDEN OF PROOF EXHIBIT A DESCHUTES � � COUNTY TITLE-_ After Recording Return to: Isaac V. Babani -1161,9 NW 48th Lane Doral, FL 3.3178 Until a change is requested all tax statements Shall be sent to the following address: (same as above) Fite No. DE3414 Deschutes County Official Records 2017-041106 o-0 10/13/2017 01:03:00 PM Stn=O BN $10.00 $21.00 $11.00 $10.00 $6.00 $68.00 I, Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk for Deschutes County, Oregon, certify that the instrument Identified herein was recorded in the Clerk records. Nancy Blankenship - County Clerk STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED Pamela S. Findley herein called grantor, convey(s) and warrant(s) to Isaac V. Babani, herein called grantee, all that real property situated in the County of Deschutes, State of Oregon, described as: The South Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 23, Township 14 South, Range 12 East,of the Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon. (Map and Taxiot:1412230000300, Account: 127580) and covenant(s) that grantor is the owner of the above described property free of all encumbrances except covenants, conditions, restrictions, reservations, rights, rights of way and easements of record, if any, and apparent upon the land, contracts and/or liens for irrigation and/or drainage; and except any real property taxes due but not yet payable; and will warrant and defend the same against all persons who may lawfully claim the same, except as shown above. r The true and actual consideration for this transfer is $395,000.00. Return To Dewbute$ County Title �� BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON TRANSFERRING FEE TITLE SHOULD INQUIRE ABOUT THE PERSON'S RIGHTS, IF ANY, UNDER ORS 195.300, 195.301 AND 195.305 TO 195.336 AND SECTIONS 5 TO 11, CHAPTER 424, OREGON LAWS 2007, AND SECTIONS 2 TO 9 AND 17, CHAPTER 855, OREGON LAWS 2009, AND SECTIONS 2 TO 7, CHAPTERS, OREGON LAWS 2010. THIS INSTRUMENT DOES NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY THAT THE UNIT OF LAND BEING TRANSFERRED IS A LAWFULLY ESTABLISHED LOT OR PARCEL, AS DEFINED IN ORS 92.010 OR 215.010, TO VERIFY THE APPROVED USES OF THE LOT OR PARCEL, TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES, AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930, AND TO INQUIRE ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS, IF ANY, UNDER ORS 195.300, 195.301 AND 195.305 TO 195.336 AND SECTIONS 5 TO 11, CHAPTER 424, OREGON LAWS 2007, SECTIONS 2 TO 9 AND 17, CHAPTER 855, OREGON LAWS 2009, AND SECTIONS 2 TO 7, CHAPTERS, OREGON LAWS 2010. Dated: 10/ (e /2017 STATE OF OREGON, County of Deschutes ) ss. On io/-W /2017, personally appeared the above named Pamela S. Findley and acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be Her voluntary act and de UBefore e: Notary Pu Oregon OPAL STAMP My commission expires: I MONICA LEE SMITH NOTARY PUBLIC•OIaEaON Official Seal COMMISSION NO. 933085 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES OCTOBER 14, 2018 EXHIBIT B PLOT PLAN ABOVE GROUND POWER 665' 1'29' 21V, 1288 5il 308' P MAY LIMP 1017' 1343' 148' 425'L 545' 1356' 426' DRIVEWAY 109, . , 80, Im 665' F6029 NW66thSt Redmond, OR 97756 ISSAC BABANI Property Code: I 1442-23-300 , — RMR ENRIVAM, FRORL-RIBMWAAA JOHN C. BABY P.E. & ASSOCIATES 5y I all 13306 W V49WM Rd. �11—yllzl vwvy, Spokane WA- 99224 509-8+4-2668 n (60") 6111 :166 1'.", (6(v, w CZ (Z ----------------------------- x 1; X P0 fll 8� C71 I ul LA----------------------------- FRORL-RIBMWAAA JOHN C. BABY P.E. & ASSOCIATES 5y I all 13306 W V49WM Rd. �11—yllzl vwvy, Spokane WA- 99224 509-8+4-2668 n (60") 6111 :166 1'.", (6(v, w CZ EXHIBIT C MECHANICAL ENGINEER REPORT REGARDING ODOR AND SOUND January 12, 2018 RE: Odor and Noise Nuisance Letter Cascade Estate Farms 6829 NW 660 Street Redmond, Oregon Deschutes County To whom it may concern, Please see the following information regarding noise and odor mitigation for the project located at the above address. Qualifications: I am a licensed engineer in Oregon #65108PE. Building Description: • The space considered in this letter, is a 100' x 50' building used for indoor grow. • Within the building are seven flowering rooms, a drying room, two veg rooms, a clone room, and a trim room. • HVAC system o Temperature conditioning is controlled by a six ductless mini -splits with two indoor heads each. The indoor heads will not contribute to outside noise. o The grow spaces will have circulation fans inside them. These will not contribute to outside noise. o There is no exhaust from the building. o Odor control will be accomplished with carbon filters and in-line fans inside each space that houses plant material. These fans will not contribute to outside noise. o The in-line carbon (charcoal) filters will scrub and remove the odors from the grow room atmospheres. o The carbon filters will be maintained and replaced per the manufacturer's suggested service intervals. o The only outdoor noise will be generated by six condensing units located on the west side of thebuilding. Odor Control Methodology: The Deschutes County code DCC 18.116.330(B)(10) reads: a. The building shall be equipped with an effective odor control system which must at all times prevent unreasonable interference of neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. b. An odor control system is deemed permitted only after the applicant submits a report by a mechanical engineer licensed in the State of Oregon demonstrating that the system will control odor so as not to unreasonably interfere with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. c. Private actions alleging nuisance or trespass associated with odor impacts are authorized, if at all, as provided in applicable state statute. d. The odor control system shall: L Consist of one or more fans. The fan(s) shall be sized for cubic feet per minute (CFM) equivalent to the volume of the building (length multiplied by width multiplied by height) divided by three. The filter(s) shall be rated for the required CFM or ii. Utilize an alternative method or technology to achieve equal to or greater odor mitigation than provided by (i) above. e. The system shall be maintained in working order and shall be in use. The building will use carbon filtration for odor mitigation purposes in each room described below. This system is designed to manage any odor to not unreasonably interfere with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. This system consists of multiple in-line fans with attached carbon filters. 1. The 7 flower rooms and the drying room each have a volume of 3,000 CF, which will require a carbon - filtered air flow of 1,000 CFM. Each of these rooms will have (2) Can -Fan 12" HO (925 CFM @ 0.5") in- line fans, or similar, with an attached Can 150 carbon filter, or similar. The carbon -filtered air flow will be 1,850 CFM in each space, thus meeting the code requirement. 2. The 2 veg rooms each have a volume of 2,600 CF, which will require a carbon -filtered air flow of 867 CFM. These rooms will have (1) Can -Fan 12" HO (925 CFM @ 0.5") in-line fans, or similar, with an attached Can 150 carbon filter, or similar. The carbon -filtered air flow will be 925 CFM, thus meeting the code requirement. 3. The clone and trim rooms each have a volume of 1,700 CF, which will require a carbon -filtered air flow of 567 CFM. The drying room will have (1) Can -Fan 12" HO (925 CFM @ 0.5") in-line fans, or similar, with an attached Can 150 carbon filter, or similar. The carbon -filtered air flow will be 925 CFM, thus meeting the code requirement. Noise Control Methodology: The Deschutes County code DCC 18.116.330(B)(11)(a) reads: Noise. Noise produced by marijuana production and marijuana processing shall comply with the following: a. Sustained noise from mechanical equipment used for heating, ventilation, air condition, odor control, fans and similar functions shall not exceed 30 dB(A) measured at any property line between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the following day. from the south property line, and 545' from the west property line. Our calculations indicate that the sound level at the nearest (south) property line will under 9 dBA with no special sound dampening measures. Therefore, the building will comply with DCC 19.116.330(B)(11)(a). Sincerely, Rob James, P.E. 0 N a I N 5 5 it I N 0 PR I N 65108PE 0 E EXPIRES 6/30/19 BY DESDOMM Cole Breit Engineering LLC 1030 Bond St Suite 202 Bend, OR 97701 01/03/2018 SALE Visa xxxxxxxxxxxx9023 Exp. Date: xx / xx Name: M Brett Richwine Total: $1,500.00 Auth. Code: 033772 QuickBooks Trans. No: CC Trans. ID: PG0135112415 Merchant No.: 5247719925937535 Thank you for your business CUSTOMER COPY EXHIBIT D WILL -SERVE LETTER FROM BEND WATER HAULING 12/20/2017 11:32 1541389 _1 BEND WATER HAUL_ PAGE 01/01 i 22166 Nelson ,Road Bend, OR 97701-9790 Office (541) 382-0759 12/20/2017 Cascade Estate Parnas, LLC 6829 NW 661" St Redmond., Or. 97756 RE: Will Serve Letter Cascade Estate Farms, I..LC .have requested that Bend Water Hauling, LLC deliver potable water to the address mentioned. above:. We have set up a» account to deliver 1. 5,000 gallons a month :for agriculture. If you. have any questions or concerns please contact ens at the office. Kimberlee Nunez Manager/Member WILL -SERVE LETTER FROM CENTRAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE CENTRAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, www.cec.coop a P.O. Box 846, Redmond, OR 97756 a Office; 541.548,2144 a 0..« December 19, 2017 Brett Richwine 6829 NW 66" St MH Redmond, OR 97756 RE: Will Serve Letter for 6829 NW 661h St Redmond, OR. In response to your inquiry, please be advised that property located in T.14S., R.12E., W.M., Section 23, Tax Lot 300, Deschutes County, Oregon, is within the service area of Central Electric Cooperative, Inc. Central Electric Cooperative has reviewed the provided load information (600 amp Single phase service) associated with the submitted Cannabis Grow Facility and is willing and able to serve this location in accordance with the rates and policies and of Central Electric Cooperative Sincerely, Robert E Fowler Engineering Service Rep Attachment 6: Revised Application Materials Nicole Mardell r From: brett <brett@cascadeestatefarms.com> Sent: Monday, May 07, 2018 1:43 PM To: Nicole Mardell Subject: RE: 18 -47 -AD Dear Nicole, Please toll my application for Cascade Estate Farms for 7 days. Thanks, Brett Richwine Nicole Mardell From: brett <brett@cascadeestatefarms.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2018 10:03 AM To: Nicole Mardell Subject: Fwd: RE: Approval for Cascade Estate Farms LLC SCANNED Attachments: 20180515092420.pdf Hi Nicole, I just got the approval this morning!! See attached and let me know what else I can do!! Thanks, Brett Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S7, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: GIFFIN Jeremy T * WRD <Jeremy.T.Giffin@oregon.gov> Date: 5/15/18 9:32 AM (GMT -08:00) To: brett richwine <brett@caseadeestatefarms.com> Subject: RE: Approval for Cascade Estate Farms LLC Brett, Attached is the signed exempt form. Jeremy Giffin From: brett richwine[mailto:brett@cascadeestatefarms.com] Sent: Monday, May 07, 2018 10:04 AM To: GIFFIN Jeremy T * WRD Subject: Re: Approval for Cascade Estate Farms LLC Jeremy, So sorry. I made an error and am sending you the corrected form. I accidentally put SW (my bend Address) instead of NW (the farm address). My apologies. Please see attached form. On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 11:48 AM, brett richwine <brett cascadeestatefarms„ mcom> wrote: Jeremy, I am working with Nicole Mardell at Deschutes County Planning, and she requested that i send you the attached form for your approval. Please let me know if there is anything else that you need. Brett Rioln,�,ine CAsp„ dc' I'Sta e F'ar nls t,[,C` '773-263-3401 Brett Richwine Founding Partner Cascade Estate Farms LLC 773-263-3401 I •- Marijuana Producer Exempt Water Form T-,,/ This document is intended to fulfill the requirements in OAR 845-025-1030(4)(g)(1)) and to serve as proof that the source of water described on this form intended for use in the cultivation of marijuana for conunercial purposes is a source that does not require a water use permit or certificate from the Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD). This determination is based in part upon the information provided by the producer. OWRD staff may need to conduct a site visit to determine if the proposed water source is exempt. lncorlect or falsified information from a producer or a producer's representative shall invalidate this proof. OWRD makes no assurances about the sufficiency of lige water source described on this foray to meet the cultivation needs of the producer. Producers must ensure that they have a sufficient source of water to serve all of their operation's needs. This form does not constitute evidence that the producer is in compliance with Oregon's water laws nor provide any assurance that other sources of water as may be used by the producer in Ore cultivation or processing of marijuana do not require a water right. Infonrrntion to be Provided by ('roducer: gar„ of nnsincss: Cascade Estate Farms Lt C _„Name of Rcprescdt:tlive: Michael Brett Richwine t'aut:ret l ciclaln+nd�Numbcr; 773-6 _ A _ L•m:uChret@G�cpdegstatefarrns.com premises Addre• : 6820 NW 661h st. Redmond Or - 07756 Township:14 Range: 12 Section: 23 Quarter -Quarter:,__ _Tax t.c+r_ OOi ..._..___._. _. I.egul f_;tndowu,-rASaac Babani How will water needs be met? Describe water sourec(s) and dclivc,) sy^.tern, Water needs will be met, with both collected rain_ water from the roof of the 5000 sq ft pole barn, as ,wolf as havIng.,water provldetl by Bend, Writer Haulingg, We.,have Sei ufr an Inhfai wi1(sarve �a11ii= kliani for 1 x,000 c 11 ns_per month, and can get,as much as 45,000 a month if_needed in_the future.__. Spring C:) Yacuthrhle, inchidv pivwwi.t lodes fir+rn the II'u{crnrourr rayl/Ping t/h spring i, rm Note that c:hangiug cirt'JanrNnces cart l -art! a aprtag to he Jra°:rtei/ rrerr- zrcvnpt in the,fiavre. Naote of Spring and GPS Coordinates, if known: Estimated Annual Voluruc of Wider lraquitc 1 from thio Sourco: Rainwalcr NatY'coing rf Fuer coal, only 1 r ollecte'I front ou unpera'im's aurfuci..ru. h err a trrgf Describe method for storm, ramwarct collected parks, rcutvoir, do )rainwater will 13(3 Collected to 5O0 gallon cisterns — — _. Estimated Annual Volume Rcquircd from this Source: 25,000 gllilons per year on average Other Bend Water Hauling Estimatcc rinruud Volume Required from this Source 15,000 gallons per month (tip to 45k it needed) 1 hereby certify the information provided above is true. I understand that incorrect information will invalidate this proof. Name ofDusiness Rcprcaeowivc.. M. Brett Richwine Signature: 1)atc 5/7/2018 FOR OWRD USM: Oi LY - DO NOT WHITE f3"M.I.O'N` THIS LINK The mfoi nation provided below is basal on infonnation provided by the producer or prodtu:cr's representative. trying have additional information, contact the staffbelow for further review and consideration as this is not a Final Order. This proof expires one year after the date below. The producer' reptortcd source of water does not require a water right permit or certificate: liscmpt Spring Q Loe tion: _ _ Rainwater Harvesting Ngo sJtorage right uceer,�,ary Slocar Method: Other ® ItJrt df Y1{y({V.f��< rj'Suy,�.-_f�. 11wtit lir �-Va�,_Wtpftdil��tt�___ (11L.PL�° r..____ W:dctmastcr orAuthmizcd riWR13 StatTtii�nalure --��✓ �-1, -- Datc: 1U Si1 b 6 B S Printed Name.�Grt�, .__.�p t�-�'1 ti, Plwnc ri: Ftrmil �:,t 4 V&j j. (� Of tl n, bbtt C7ra A ri .t,iliuunal l eC =r anur7 Bad. Pyr nl v rrf puge3 OjolJucltmcv+!{_____ Not”! l Oregon water Resources Department (12/31/2015) Nicole Mardell From: brett <brett@cascadeestatefarms.com> Sent: Monday, April 30, 2018 5:52 PM To: Nicole Mardell Subject: Re: 18 -47 -AD No this has not changed and will not need water rights. We are also collecting rain water from our butter that will produce a substantial amount. Bend hauling said if needed they could deliver up to 45k gallons a month, but by my calculations, 15k should be plenty. Please let me know if you have any other questions! Brett Richwine Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S7, an A'T&'T' 4G 1,11smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Nicole Mardell <Nicole.Mardell@deschutes.org> Date: 4/30/18 4:19 PM (GMT -08:00) To: 'brett' <brett@cascadeestatefarms.com> Subject: 18 -47 -AD Hi Brett, I believe on Friday you mentioned you were no longer pursuing water rights to serve your proposed marijuana production operation and are instead pursuing hauled water. In the application materials you have an estimate of 15,000 gallons per month to be delivered to the property from Bend Water Hauling LLC. Has this number changed? Thanks, Nicole Nicolardell Assocm(e Marmcr I I N W I -edzl ' v,'(1e Avemic 1 13CI)d ll (Wpo) 7'7()',' I,() He,\ 60(1--) 1 lkji,13 Oic� ,mi 97708 31 5"I hDisclaimer: Please note that the information in this email is on informal statement made in accordance with DCC 22,20.00.5 and shall not be deemed to constitute final County action effecting a change in the status of a person's property or conferring any rights, including any reliance rights, on any person. Mailing Date: Friday, February 16, 2018 8 *. Community Development Department x Punning skm Ou"ng 30Wy Division Envirom"Wat so" Division } P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 07708-6W5 Phone; (541) 388-6575 Fax: (541) 385-1764 http:/, vw.desthut6s brg/cd Brett Richwine Cascade Estate Farms, LLC 6829 NW 661h Street Redmond, OR 97756 Re: File No. 247-18-000047-AD Dear Mr. Richwine: I am reviewing the Administrative Determination application to establish a marijuana production facility that was submitted on January 17, 2017. The application is not complete because it Tacks information related to land use approval criteria under the Deschutes County Code (DCC) sections identified below: Chapter 18.116, Supplementary Provisions Section 18.116.330. Mariivana Production; Processing, and Retailing: B. Marijuana production and marijuana processing. Marijuana production and marijuana processing shall be subject to the following standards and criteria: 10. Odor. As used in DCC 18.116.330(B)(10).,. STAFF COMMENT: The burden of proof includes an engineer's report detailing the proposed odor control system, including a breakdown of the fan/filter combinations proposed for each room type. Description #3 begins by detailing the volume of the clone and trim rooms. However, the next sentence makes a reference to the drying room, which is also referenced in Description #1. This appears to be scrivener's error, Please clarify the fan/filter combination for the clone and trim rooms. 11. Noise. Noise produced by marijuana production..: STAFF COMMENT: Please provide the known or anticipated noise level for the six condensing units that will be located on the west side of the building. Completeness Determination Your application will be determined to be complete in accordance with ORS 215.427 when you have submitted in writing one (1) of the following: 1. All of the missing information; 2. Some of the missing information and a written notice to the County that no other information will be provided; or 3. Notice that none of the missing information will be provided. Quality Styvires .Perfi)nned rwi"/tTri d If you submit one of the items noted in 1, 2 or 3, above, within 180 days from the date the application was first submitted, approval or denial of the application will be based upon the standards and criteria that were applicable at the time the application was first submitted. If you fail to respond within 180 days, the application will be void on the 181St day after being submitted, pursuant to ORS 215.427(4). No refund is available on applications which become void. As noted in ORS 215.427, the total period for the County to issue a final decision on your application may be extended for a specific period of time by submittal of a written request from you. However, the total extension of time approved for a final decision shall not exceed 215 days. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns about this matter at anthonv.raguine aC-deschutes.org or (541) 617-4739. Sincerely, DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION Anthony Raguine, Senior Planner File: 247 -18 -000047 -AD Page 2 of 2 From: Anthony Raauine To: Tracy Griffin Subject: PIs scan to 18 -047 -AD and print a copy for the file. Thx Date: Sunday, April 15, 2018 4:17:16 PM Attachments: Cascade Estate Farms County Letter.odf From: chicagorichwines <chicagorichwines@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, March 9, 2018 11:13 PM To: Anthony Raguine <Anthony.Raguine@deschutes.org> Subject: Cascade Estate Farms County Letter.pdf Anthony, Sorry I missed your call yesterday. Should I send this to you, or mail it? Please let me know as we just received the letter stating clarification on Monday. It was dated February 16th, so I don't want to delay things. Hope all is well. Brett Richwine 773-263-3401 dent via the sollisong (;al axy 7. an t�'!�&1 4(] i,i 1; srru)rif>k:o:� March 9, 2018 RE: Odor and Noise Nuisance Letter Cascade Estate Farms 6829 NW 661h Street Redmond, Oregon Deschutes County To whom it may concern, Please see the following information regarding noise and odor mitigation for the project located at the above address. Qualifications: I am a licensed engineer in Oregon #65108PE. Building Description: • The space considered in this letter, is a 100' x 50' building used for indoor grow. • Within the building are seven flowering rooms, a drying room, two veg rooms, a clone room, and a trim room. • HVAC system o Temperature conditioning is controlled by a six ductless mini -splits with two indoor heads each. The indoor heads will not contribute to outside noise. o The grow spaces will have circulation fans inside them. These will not contribute to outside noise. o There is no exhaust from the building. o Odor control will be accomplished with carbon filters and in-line fans inside each space that houses plant material. These fans will not contribute to outside noise. o The in-line carbon (charcoal) filters will scrub and remove the odors from the grow room atmospheres. o The carbon filters will be maintained and replaced per the manufacturer's suggested service intervals. o The only outdoor noise will be generated by six condensing units located on the west side of the building. Odor Control Methodology: The Deschutes County code DCC 18.116.330(6)(10) reads: Odor. As used in DCC 18.116.330(B)(10), building means the building, including greenhouses, hoop houses, and other similar structures, used for marijuana production or marijuana processing. q' R,y � ,,_L wI .# E N 6 1 N E E R I N 0 a. The building shall be equipped with an effective odor control system which must at all times prevent unreasonable interference of neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. b. An odor control system is deemed permitted only after the applicant submits a report by a mechanical engineer licensed in the State of Oregon demonstrating that the system will control odor so as not to unreasonably interfere with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. c. Private actions alleging nuisance or trespass associated with odor impacts are authorized, if at all, as provided in applicable state statute. d. The odor control system shall: L Consist of one or more fans. The fan(s) shall be sized for cubic feet per minute (CFM) equivalent to the volume of the building (length multiplied by width multiplied by height) divided by three. The filter(s) shall be rated for the required CFM or ii. Utilize an alternative method or technology to achieve equal to or greater odor mitigation than provided by (i) above. e. The system shall be maintained in working order and shall be in use. The building will use carbon filtration for odor mitigation purposes in each room described below. This system is designed to manage any odor to not unreasonably interfere with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. This system consists of multiple in-line fans with attached carbon filters. 1. The 7 flower rooms and the drying room each have a volume of 3,000 CF, which will require a carbon - filtered air flow of 1,000 CFM. Each of these rooms will have (2) Can -Fan 12" HO (925 CFM @ 0.5") in- line fans, or similar, with an attached Can 150 carbon filter, or similar. The carbon -filtered air flow will be 1,850 CFM in each space, thus meeting the code requirement. 2. The 2 veg rooms each have a volume of 2,600 CF, which will require a carbon -filtered air flow of 867 CFM. These rooms will each have (1) Can -Fan 12" HO (925 CFM @ 0.5") in-line fans, or similar, with an attached Can 150 carbon filter, or similar. The carbon -filtered air flow will be 925 CFM, thus meeting the code requirement. 3. The clone and trim rooms each have a volume of 1,700 CF, which will require a carbon -filtered air flow of 567 CFM. These rooms will each have (1) Can -Fan 12 HO (925 CFM @ 0.5) in-line fans, or similar, with an attached Can 150 carbon filter, or similar. The carbon -filtered air flow will be 925 CFM, thus meeting the code requirement. Noise Control Methodology: The Deschutes County code DCC 18.116.330(B)(11)(a) reads: Noise. Noise produced by marijuana production and marijuana processing shall comply with the following: a. Sustained noise from mechanical equipment used for heating, ventilation, air condition, odor control, fans and similar functions shall not exceed 30 dB(A) measured at any property line between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the following day. The structure is located approximately 293' from the north property line, 426' from the east property line, 272' E N G I N 9 E R I N G BY M ' from the south property line, and 545' from the west property line. The sound power from a single mini -split condensing unit is 47 dBA. With all six units operating simultaneously, the sound power is 55 dBA. Our calculations indicate that the sound level from the mechanical equipment at the nearest (south) property line will under 9 dBA with no special sound dampening measures. Therefore, the building will comply with DCC 18.116.330(B)(11)(a). Sincerely, Rob James, P.E. COLEBREIT E N 6 1 N 9 9 R I N 0 BY DESIGN"' Attachment 7: Agency Comments United States Department of the Interior �.�aTM, . W00~ 0TH9 ern BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT BONNE Prineville District Office 3050 NE 3" Street MAR 1 3 2018 Prineville, Oregon 97754 FEB 2 Q 2018 In Reply Refer To: �. 2000, 2800 (ORP006) CERTIFIED MAIL — 7017 3380 0000 1219 9894 RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Anthony Raguine Deschutes County Planning Division 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, OR 97708 Dear Mr. Raguine: On January 29, 2018, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Prineville District Office received notice of the application file number 247 -18 -000047 -AD from Deschutes County. This application proposes a marijuana production facility at 6829 NW 66" Street in Redmond. At the time we were unable to provide written comments on the proposed land use action within ten days of mailing. Upon recent review of the project area, BLM does have concern on a number of issues regarding the location of this proposal. A recent review of the land status near the property indicates that the property is accessed by travel across BLM lands (via what is indicated as 661" Street on the map). The portion of the road indicated as 66th Street that passes through public lands does not have a right-of-way granted to Deschutes County for it to be a County Road. Our records show that no legal access has been granted through public lands for the parcel in question. Our records also do not indicate that the applicant has applied for a right-of-way across public lands for commercial purposes. Access across public lands for commercial purposes requires a right-of-way grant issued by the BLM. The location of the project area abuts to Public Land. BLM recommends that the applicant have a boundary survey of the parcel conducted to ensure no unintentional future trespass onto public lands occurs. Additionally, the BLM has concerns over the use of pesticides and herbicides and chemical residue migration onto public lands. It is requested that if chemical are used in the operation, that protocols are required to ensure that chemical residue is contained and does not migrate onto public lands. If you have any questions, please contact Jeff Kitchens, Field Manager Deschutes Field Office at (541) 416-6766. Sincerely, Z&b:�O- -- Dennis C. Teitzel District Manager From: & tUL) r tic i 11.t To: 'i"rdc ri�l1 Subject: PIs scan to 18 -047 -AD (public comment) & print a copy for the file. Thx. Date: Monday, February 12, 2018 11:49:51 AM From: Perkins, Parneli [ma iIto: pperkins@cec,coop] Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 9:28 AM To: Anthony Raguine <Anthony.Rag uine@deschutes.org> Subject: File Number: 247 -18 -000047 -AQ Anthony, CEC requests the applicant apply for a new electrical service by calling Bob Fowler at 541-312-7778 and provide the electrical load and demand requirements for this activity. CEC will determine if capacity is available. Thank you arae i Perkins ®`€..�e tial mit ct`e: �,�i✓OP .°, Inc, C :. Lands Specialist PpQ kinl5((iceC.cc�c j Nti v' ->,7 i;{,.' 3; '3, ,+. 1.i;:;' ii OR r r.,..> WL1tW<rG� �Ca4�7 This e-mail message contains information that may be confidential. Use by parties other than the Intended recipient Is unauthorized and prohibited. From: tip I�,iry ftaratu To: R') [srif q Subject: PIs scan to 18 -047 -AD & print a copy for the file. Thx. Date: Saturday, February 10, 2018 2:55:40 PM Attachments: P 1Qll n . .'nnS L3uiidinn Saf<<l1 (7iy,jt,�1] S{s` .�wi�l�ir v1 �tsc; From: Randy Scheid Sent: Monday, January 29, 2018 10:25 AM To: Anthony Raguine <Anthony. Ragui ne @ deschutes.org> Subject: 247 -18 -000047 -AD Anthony, Please use my standard comments on the AD referenced above. Thanks, Randy. NOTICE: The Deschutes County Building Safety Divisions code mandates that Access, Egress, Setbacks, Fire & Life Safety, Fire Fighting Water Supplies, etc. must be specifically addressed during the appropriate plan review process with regard to any proposed structures and occupancies. Accordingly, all Building Code required items will be addressed, when a specific structure, occupancy, and type of construction is proposed and submitted for plan review. Randy 5cheid February 15, 2018 From: Anthony Rac uiaq To: �rira`<y (;rNo Subject: PIs scan to 18 -047 -AD & print a copy for the file. Thx. Date: Saturday, February 10, 2018 2:03:11 PM From: Peter Russell Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 2:41 PM To: Anthony Raguine<Anthony.Rag uine@deschutes.org>; Chris Doty <Chris.Doty@deschutes,org>; Cody Smith <Cody.Smith@deschutes.org> Cc: Peter Russell <Peter.Russell@deschutes.org> Subject: MJ grow by NW 66th PI (18 -047 -AD) Anthony, I have reviewed the transmittal materials for 247 -18 -000047 -AD for a marijuana production (growing) operation of 5,000 square feet of mature canopy in the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) zone at 6829 NW 66th Place, aka 14-12-23, Tax Lot 300. Deschutes County Code (DCC) at 18.116.330(B)(8) only requires proof of legal direct access to the property or access from a private easement for a grow of more than 5,000 square feet of mature canopy. The proposal is for 5,000 square feet of mature canopy, so the access requirement does not apply. The traffic study requirements of DCC 18.116.310 are not applicable for this marijuana production operation as the application is not going through site plan review and thus does not need to show compliance with DCC 18.124.080(J), which references the County's traffic study requirements. Board Resolution 2013-020 sets an SDC rate of $3,937 per p.m. peak hour trip. The Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) trip generation manual indicates Warehouse generates 0.32 p.m. peak hour trips per 1,000 square feet. The Board in a policy decision in early 2017 agreed to use Warehouse for marijuana production. The applicant's materials indicate one enclosed building of 5,000 square feet (50' X 100') will be used. The County's SDC is based on the building's total square footage related to cannabis production and support and not the square footage of the mature canopy. The 5,000 -square -foot building would produce 1.6 p.m. peak hour trips (5 X 0.32). The resulting SDC is $6,299 (1.6 X $3,937). The SDC is due prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy; if a certificate of occupancy is not applicable, then the SDC is due within 60 days of the land use decision becoming final. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. Peter Russell Senior Transportation Planner Deschutes County MLL r_r u'1se11(LJc 11rh .It t( -s LH -Q (541) 383-6718 From: 6UtILI QIW:P uru nne To: l ;r—If fiL Subject: PIs scan to 18 -047 -AD & print a copy for the record. Thx. Date: Saturday, February 10, 2018 1:55:07 PM Attachments: Itt)l_4 }t! t�1(Z(JQ'.}ICxjSit_} at�_(:.r�rn� l t ( 1 5[ tafi It rnar'i7n;t„roti f:t i' __.I l,l? ;i0l7tn23U�) lS rrt From: Clara Butler [mailto:Clara.Butler@redmondfireandrescue.org] Sent: Thursday, February 1, 2018 9:51 AM To: Anthony Raguine <Anthony.Raguine@deschutes.org> Subject: AD 247-18-000047 Hello Anthony, Here are the comments for the above project. Let me know if you have questions. Thanks! Clara Butler Deputy Fire Marshal Redmond Fire and Rescue 541-504-5016 Red mondfireandrescue. org Redmond Fire & Rescue 341 NW Dogwood Ave Redmond, OR 97756 541-504-5000 Fax: 541-548-5512 vwvw.redmondfireandrescue.org Redmond Fire and Rescue Commercial Comments: Areas Without Hydrants Date: February 1, 2018 Location: 6829 NW 661h St, 1412230000300 Subject: AD 247-18-000047, Cascade Estate Farm LLC, Establish marijuana grow facility From: Clara Butler, Deputy Fire Marshal If there are questions regarding Fire Code issues, please contact the Redmond Fire and Rescue Deputy Fire Marshal at 541-504-5016 or email at Mara.bull4ii«ii��In7t ncllirc ti7cl ...... Note: If processing occurs, the following fire codes will be required to be met. WATER: Area without Fire Hydrants: • NFPA 1142 Requirements o If the structure is being built in an area without a public water supply system, then the water flow requirements will come from NFPA 1142. o Note: The following information will need to be provided in order to determine accurate water flow requirements. ■ Building height, length and width • Use of the building ■ Type of construction • Whether the structure 100 sq ft or larger and within 50 feet of any other structures • Structures with Automatic Sprinkler systems— 2012 NFPA 1142 Chapter 7 o The authority having jurisdiction shall be permitted to waive the water supply required by this standard when a structure is protected by an automatic sprinkler system that fully meets the requirements of NFPA 13 • Fire Safety during Construction — 2014 OFC 501.4 o Approved fire department access roads, required water supply, fire hydrants, and safety precautions shall be installed and serviceable prior to and during the time of construction. Fire Sprinkler Systems shall be installed per NFPA 13. o Separate permits will be required for the aboveground sprinkler system and the underground sprinkler supply l ine(s). o If there are greater than 20 sprinkler heads, the system is required to have a fire alarm monitoring system. o 2014 OFC 903.3.7 Fire Department Connections: The location of fire department connections shall be approved by fire code official. The FDC/PTV shall not be under any combustible projections or overhangs. 2/15/2018 Redmond Fire & Rescue 341 NW Dogwood Ave Redmond, OR 97756 541-504-5000 Fax: 541-548-5512 www.redmondfireandrescue.org o NFPA 14 — 6.4.5.4 Fire department connections shall be located not more than 100 ft from the nearest fire hydrant connected to an approved water supply. o NOTE — If the Building is sprinklered, the sprinkler system will need to be designed to the specific use that will be occurring in the building. If the sprinkler system is not designed appropriately it will limit the types of businesses that can occupy the space. This also includes the height of storage in the building. In order to have high piled storage (greater than 12 ft), the sprinkler system shall be designed accordingly. ACCESS: • Premises Identification — 2014 OFC 505.1 o Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Said numbers shall contrast with their background and visible at night. Number/letter shall be a minimum of 4" high and a 0.5" stroke width. Fire Apparatus Access Roads — 2014 OFC Section 503 & Appendix D o Fire apparatus access roads shall extend to within 150 ft of all portions of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building. o Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. o Fire apparatus roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of 70,000 lbs and shall be surfaced so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. o The required turning radius of a fire apparatus access road shall be 30 feet inside and 50 feet outside. o The grade of the fire apparatus access roads shall be within the limits established by the fire code official (10%). Fire Lanes — 2014 OFC 503.3 & Appendix D o Approved signs or other approved notices shall be provided for fire apparatus access roads to identify such roads or prohibit the obstruction thereof. Such signs or notices shall be kept in legible conditions at all times. The stroke shall be l inch with letters 6 inches high and read "No Parking Fire Lane". Spacing for signage shall be every 50 feet. • Recommended to also (in addition to Fire lane signs) paint fire lane curbs in bright red paint with white letters. o Appendix D Section 103.6.1 Roads 20-26 Ft. Wide: Shall have Fire Lane signs posted on both sides of a fire lane. o Appendix D Section 103.6.2 Roads more than 26 Ft. Wide: Roads 26-32 ft wide shall have a Fire Lane signs posted on one side of the road as a fire lane. • Aerial Access Roads — 2014 OFC Appendix D, Section 105 o Buildings or portions of buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet in height above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access shall be provided with approved fire apparatus access roads and capable of accommodating fire department aerial apparatus. Overhead utility and 2/15/2018 Redmond Fire & Rescue 341 NW Dogwood Ave Redmond, OR 97756 541-504-5000 Fax: 541-548-5512 www.redmondfireandrescue.org power lines shall not be located within the aerial fire apparatus access roadways. At least one of the required access routes meeting this condition shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the building, all access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 26 feet and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building. Dead -Ends — 2014 OFC Section 503.2.5 o Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with an approved area for turning around fire apparatus. Contact Redmond Fire & Rescue for requirements. o OFC Table D103.4 Dead Ends over 750 Feet- Require special approval. If approved, there shall be a turn -around no more than every 1000 feet with a bulb of 60 feet across and the width of the road shall be a minimum of 26 ft clear for fire apparatus. • Additional Access — 2014 OFC Section 503.1.2 o The fire code official is authorized to require more than one fire apparatus access road based on the potential for impairment of a single road by vehicle congestion, conditions or terrain, climatic conditions or other factors that could limit access. Emergency Access Road Gates — 2014 OFC Appendix D 103.5 o Minimum 20 feet wide. o Gates shall be swinging or sliding type. o Shall be able to be manually operated by one person. o Electric gates shall be equipped with a means of opening by emergency personnel & approved by fire official. o Locking devices shall be fire department Knox Key Switch purchased from A-1 Lock, Safe Co., Curtis Safe & Lock, on line at wwW.I:noxl)()X.cont, or contact Redmond Fire & Rescue for an order form. o Section 503.3: Install a sign on the gate "No Parking -Fire Lane" • Key Boxes — 2014 OFC Section 506.1 o An approved key box shall be installed on all structures equipped with a fire alarm system and /or sprinkler system. Approved key boxes can only be purchased at A -I Lock Safe Co., Curtis Safe and Lock, on line at vvwyknoxbox o n, or contact Redmond Fire & Rescue for an order form. Commercial & Industrial Development — 2014 OFC Appendix D 104 o Buildings exceeding three stories or 30 feet in height shall have at least 2 means of fire apparatus access for each structure. o Where 2 access roads are required, they shall be placed not less than '/2 the length of the overall diagonal dimension of the property or area to be served, measu►-ed in a straight line between accesses. 2/15/2018 VESC :UTES 1...,OUNT k JI ERIFF"S OFFICE Comment from Sheriff L. Shane Nelson: NE Our concern lies in the odor, sights, sounds and set backs of the property in this type of request and how it affects the livability of our community members; in conjunction with the issue that marijuana is illegal on a federal level. In addition, we are finding the calls for service related to marijuana grow operations are increasing. From: Anthony Raguine MAY 15 2018 To: Tracy Griffin h Subject: PIs scan to 18 -047 -AD & print a copy for the file. Thx. Date: Sunday, April 15, 2018 4:22:02 PM Attachments: fit' i in EQ From: brett richwine <brett@cascadeestatefarms.com> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 12:18 PM To: Anthony Raguine <Anthony,Raguine @deschutes.org> Subject: Re: FW: File Number: 247 -18 -000047 -AD Anthony, We have already received our will serve letter from CEC. I have attached. Please let me know if this is not what is required. It was signed by Robert Fowler? On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 1:48 PM, Anthony Raguine <1.�Il�z�i�`.L �yf�i�4r�r cic c lituc4 c)I<<> wrote: I Ii Brett. Please see the email frons CEC; below and contact CEC regarding load S.,. demand requirements. In order to meet the approval criteria regarding utilities, yc:ni'll nec,d to submit correspondence from CEC; indicating they have the ability to serve your specific use. Anthony Raguine Senior Planner Deschutes County Community Development Department I1 17_ N t_� n�AtP /Z-Q!�_ �3��..t)IZ r)77Q1 l_7-1731 Please note that the information in this email is an informal statement In,sd ir1 accordance with DCC 22.20.005 and shall not be deemed to constitute filial County action effecting a change in the status of a person's property or confea ri>1g ally ><itihts, including any reliance rights, on any person. From: Perkins, Parneli [maiIto: l�.l�s t1 iliti r it e ss i,. ?lz] Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 9:28 AM To: Anthony Raguine Subject: File Number: 247 -18 -000047 -AD Anthony, CEC requests the applicant apply for a new electrical service by calling Bob Fowler at d-1 I - -7778 and provide the electrical load and demand requirements for this activity. CEC will determine if capacity is available. ']'hank you Parnelli Perkins • Comtral Elec_lli is CooperaV,,.,,,.-, lnc- Lands Specialist Of j\1 _11WY-_97 This e-mail message contains Information that may be confidential. Use by parties other than the intended recipient Is unauthorized and prohibited. Brett Richwine Founding Partner Cascade Estate Farms LLC 773-263-3401 CENTRAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, www.cec.coop m P.O. Box M, Redmond, OR 97756 * Office; 541.545.2144 � Fax: 541.548 0366 December 19, 2017 Brett Richwine 6829 NW 66" St MH Redmond, OR 97756 RE: Will Serve Letter for 6829 NW 6611 St Redmond, OR. In response to your inquiry, please be advised that property located in T, 14S., R. 12E., W.M., Section 23, Tax Lot 300, Deschutes County, Oregon, is within the service area of Central Electric Cooperative, Inc. Central Electric Cooperative has reviewed the provided load information (600 amp Single phase service) associated with the submitted Cannabis Grow Facility and is willing and able to serve this location in accordance with the rates and policies and of Central Electric Cooperative Sincerely, Robert E Fowler Engineering, Service Rep From: NAIJXX il�r To: Tracy Griffin Subject: PIs scan to 18 -047 -AD & print a copy for the File. Thx. Date: Monday, February 26, 2018 8:14:53 AM Attachments:W3Zts 0 r'e Tl3 i3end Water tl irling-- x f From: chicagorichwines [mailto:chicagorichwines@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2018 8:21 PM To: Anthony Raguine <Anthony.Raguine @deschutes.org> Subject: Re: FW: File Number: 247 -18 -000047 -AD Anthony, Finally snow.. Hope you are well. I have attached the letter from bend water hauling to our lawyer stating they are a quasi or muni water source. Thanks Brett tient via thcSamsung Gialaky S7, an A'F&T a(:; LTE srnGu• 1410ne -------- Original message -------- From: Anthony Raguine Date: 2/12/18 1:48 PM (GMT -06:00) To: "'bre@caseadeestatefarms.com"' �.l�t' 11 t?c s ri' ttt l tt:�tr: ;ori t Subject: FW: File Number: 247 -18 -000047 -AD I ti 13rctt. Please see the entail from CEC below and contact CEC; regarding load & demand requirements. In order to meet the approval criteria regarding utilities, you'll need to submit correspondence from CIC indicating they have the ability to serve your specific use. Anthony Ragttiae Senior Planner Deschutes County Community Development Department 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, OR 97701 (541) 617-4739 Please note that the information in this email is an informal: statement made ill accordance with .DCC 22.20.005 and shall not be deenxed to constitute final ("otanty action effecting a change in the status of a person's property or conferring any rights, including any reliance rights, on any person. From: Perkins, Parneli Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 9:28 AM "aG To: Anthony Raguine 1 "S tt tea ;y Subject: File Number: 247 -18 -000047 -AD Anthony, CEC requests the applicant apply for a new electrical service by calling Bob Fowler at 541- 312-7778 and provide the electrical load and demand requirements for this activity. CEC will determine if capacity is available. Thank you rn lli Perkin - Central ErIe ,ic, cooperative., Ipc,-, - Lands Specialist 11,3:11 1 X; !"i4I '.l , !> (I This e-mail message contains Information that may be confidential. Use by parties other than the intended recipient is unauthorized and prohibited. Attachment 8: Public Comments TO: Deschutes County Planning Divison : Director Nick Lelack, Zacheriah Heck, Matt Martin, Anthony Ragine Deschutes County Commissioners: Tony DeBone, Phil Henderson, Tammy Baney FROM: River Springs Estates Property Owners Association, Odin Falls Ranch HOA and residents of NW 69th and NW 66th Streets RE: Notice of Application for the establishment of a marijuana production (grow) facility. File # 247 -18 -000047 -AD at 6829 NW 66th Street, Redmond OR, 97756 The enclosed packet delineates in detail our concerns with the establishment of a marijuana grow facility in our neighborhood. Excerpts from the local papers are included as attachments. The final section is comprised of petitions. The major areas of our responses are: 1. The SAFETY to residents, their families, and children with a facility that needs strict security due to it "fueling" aspects of illegal crime and violence. (see attachments) 2. The need for an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY particularly evaluating the draw- down on the water aquifer already being stressed. 3. The establishment of a commercial enterprise in a residential area when historically the agriculture experienced in this Farm Use Zone was a cattle ranch. It was sold and developed as family hobby farms. 4. A commercial enterprise brings in heavy trucks, noise, -see details- dirt and increased traffic on privately owned roads not intended for commercial traffic. Does the applicant show a history of contributing to the maintenance of the private roads he uses and will use for the facility? 5. We are concerned with the danger of fire. This particular kind of commercial facility uses a great deal of electrical energy to power the equipment. We recently had overloads on our current power which started fires. 6. Lastly, do we really need another grow facility? There are no strict regulations in Oregon at the present. Overproduction has led to more crime and increased growth of the black market. 7. Most concerning, who is going to inspect regulations and who is going to enforce the regulations? 8. What is our recourse if the applicant does not follow all the precautions he states he will? The following pages elucidate our concerns. To: Commissioners Anthony DeBone, Phil Henderson, and Tammy Baney To: Deschutes County Planning Division Community Development Director, Nick Lelack, Planners: Anthony Raguine, Matt Martin, Zechariah Heck From: River Springs Estates Property Owners Association and Odin Falls Ranch HOA Re: Reference File # 247 -18 -000047 -AD Date: February 3 ,2018 We oppose approval of the proposed land use request of Cascades Estate Farms LLC to establish a commercial marijuana grow facility at 6829 NW 66th Street, Redmond, Oregon. We oppose this application for the following reasons: • We fear for the physical and mental safety of our children and residents, many of whom are retired. We selected this community for its safe and healthy environment. • Criminal activity dealing with black market marijuana is on the rise in Oregon as stated in The Oregonian, The Chicago Tribune and The Bend Bulletin. ( SEE HIGHLIGHTED ATTACHMENTS) • Security issues are of the greatest importance. Those involved in criminal activity and especially teens have easy access from BLM land to the proposed Marijuana Grow facility. Security is a concern to us whose properties lie adjacent and contiguous and to the Marijuana Grow Facility. According to the Bend Bulletin, this kind of facility gives "fuel' to theft and criminal activity. • What are the security measures that are monitored? Security lights turned off from 7 pm to lam when theft and criminal behavior are most prevalent are not good deterrents. We have children and families who want to walk our properties without fear of trespassers and thieves. • We fear for our safety. • It is not a remote area as declared by the applicant. The greatest number of homes are not on 66th Street but on 69th street which is much closer to the proposed grow facility. There are 297 homes in Tetherow Crossing, and 68 homes in the RSEPOA and Odin Fall Ranch HOAS. These homes and other residences surround and are contiguous to the proposed grow facility. • The area is not suited for this kind of commercial or agricultural use. No such use is in the surrounding area of family homes. It is an incongruent use of property. Historically, the land was originally used for cattle and then subdivided for small non- commercial family homes with backyard hobby farms. • It will reduce the value of homes surrounding the site and specifically the gated communities of Odin Falls Ranch and River Springs Estates. • The grow facility will, of necessity increase the use of privately owned roads not intended for heavy trucks,( wafer Lrucks, heavy farm equipment, commercial vehicles, transports etc.) • The roads this enterprise will use are privately owned and the maintenance is paid for by the surrounding HOAS and communities. There is no guarantee the Cascades Estate Farm is going to pay for an appropriate fair share of the wear and tear on the roads. • According to the regulations all residents on a privately owned road must be contacted personally to give approval for the use of business sponsored traffic. Has this been done? If yes, please provide the documentation. • Further, access to the recreational areas on the BLM land is off of NW 661'' Street. Horses, bikers, hikers, quads all use this access to BLM. • The BLM roads are filled with recreational hikers, off-road vehicles, equestrians, target shooters, bikers and children on bicycles. Any commercial use of the BLM road is a major conflict of use. It is Federal land. NW 661h Street splits and turns into a BLM road. We cannot be certain the BLM roads will not be used by this commercial enterprise. • There are only two means of ingress and egress for residents on 66th avenue: through Federal BLM land/ roads or the privatelyowned grave/dirt road. On the plot map it looks like the water trucks, supply trucks, transportation trucks etc. may need to use USA or BLM land to access the proposed property. Please provide documentation showing this is incorrect information. • We are concerned about the safety of our students waiting for the school bus in the morning and after school when they are dropped off at the corner of 66th street and Grubstake. A Marijuana Grow Facility will bring more consistent commercial traffic to that bus stop area. • The U.S. Attorney for Oregon, Bill J. Williams says the over production of Oregon's marijuana is attracting "drug violence, criminal activity and money laundering." This is an alarming possibility and we do not want our children in the vicinity of a business that might be susceptible to crime and violence .(SEE ATTACHMENTS from THE BEND BULLETIN, CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE OREGONIAN) • We all live in a desert environment and we have a major concern that this enterprise will increase fire hazards. This concern is based on the high electrical demand to operate the systems necessary for the production of marijuana. We have already experienced fires due to power shorts and overloads in our area. This would be another stress on our power loads. • Increase of noise is a real concern. The applicant states the rock out-croppings and the juniper trees will mask the noise. Not true. We can hear the horses neighing from the property next to the proposed Cascade Estates Farm. So, the constant use of six condensers on the outside of the building will be a noise irritant. Please know we all chose living in this community for its peace, quiet and security, (hence, a gated community). • This "business" is a major deterrent to our sense of home. It definitely reduces the quality and safety of our lives. • It seems to be the only agri- business that needs heightened security and has severe limitations as to its odor, and the need for a great deal of water. This is definitely not a normal or regular form of agriculture, i.e. growing potatoes, mint, alfalfa. • The agriculture we have in our communities are mini hobby farms that are benign to the environment and to the quality of our lives. • It will increase the dust from more heavy traffic and heavy trucks on gravel and dirt roads. • The strong and pungent odor of plants in bloom are a concern to many folks dealing with allergies and asthma. Who do we contact if the filters for the odor do not filter effectively? What is our recourse? Again, it can impact the health and quality of our environment- ie the air we breathe. We need to know our recourse. • This business will increase a draw down on our water aquifer if the applicant's well is used. The need of 14-15,000 gallons of water a month was stated in the application as necessary to grow the marijuana plant. If the applicant's well is not used, the applicant reports that heavy water trucks will be hauling the water over our gravel, dirt and paved roads. • The addition of this Grow Facility's need for 15,000 extra gallons of water monthly from what is now an aquifer that is not able to meet the needs of the present residents for their household needs. This presents a very critical environmental situation. We have had wells go dry in this area as a result of people needing to deepen their wells. The applicant has requested permission to use his well . He, may need to dig a deeper well in order to have enough water for his commercial facility. Who will monitor the water draw- down? And What and who is the enforcement? • The value of our homes is at stake here. We all worked hard to create and maintain well -tended properties, so we can sell them, when feasible, for a fair market price. This marijuana facility with all its detriments to safety, peace and quiet and environmental issues will definitely not enhance the value of our property. • The county will lose tax revenues as our properties recede in value. • To test our belief that a marijuana growing facility in the midst of one's residential community would devalue our homes, please ask anyone hoping to buy a home in our area if this would cause them not to buy the home and/or ask for a great reduction in price. We, the HOAs and residents, would be happy to poll perspective buyers. • We asked our realtor his opinion, and he said yes, he feared it would be a detriment. • We are a suburban residential community with families. This is not an appropriate area to place a marijuana growing business. We understand the need for medical marijuana growing facilities. However, in a residential family-oriented housing area it is not rational nor safe. • We did not carefully select and invest in our properties and their locations to have a commercial enterprise forced upon us. The time allotted for a rebuttal and the gathering of concerns as stated in the Notice of Application was ten days from January 26, a Friday. Our HOA President received this notice February 1. If one adds in weekends and not receiving the notice until one week had already passed, we did not have the stated time allowed to gather our petition and our responses. Commissioners, we voted for you to care about our safety and the safety of our natural resources. We recognize that business enterprises are essential for our country to function. Many of us have owned or been employees of private businesses. We support private enterprise. The LOCATION of this grow facility is the concern. It is a misfit. Please do not approve of the proposed Marijuana Grow Facility at 6829 NW 66' Street, File # 247- 000047 -AD. Let's put a moratorium on establishing such grow facilities until there is greater control of the production, sale and location requirements. If not regulated wisely, it is a product that can bring crime and violence into our communities. Sincerely, Sharon D Williams Secretary to RSEPOA : 7150 NW River Springs Rd. Redmond Robert Litmer, President, RSEPOA : 6900 NW River Springs Rd. Redmond Ray Jensen, Resident: 7150 River Springs Rd. Redmond Tina and Bill Hinchliff,: 5087 Woody Court, Redmond �a �")11N'ESS THE BULLETIN - SATURDAY, FEBAUARY 3, 2013 U.S. Attorney tar the Distrfat of t MOM 81Ny J. WIlliams, middle, uana summit In T as Goin. Kate Brown sits to the � of Wiland on liams. ,J�proseculor (AP ftxa/Don Rym)) �r • i 1 111114 1 LOGIN0 11 VIASFlacaue to Assoctoted Press PORTLAND- 0= ORTLAND — regon's toy► federal pros• ecutorsard TdayIhe state hasa"1'orm da - that be wants toworkwith q state and local Ieaders and the pot industry to do something about it. U.S. Attorney Billy Wil- liams convened the unprece- dented summit of influential federal law enforcement representatives,state officials and marijuana industrysci- ons afterAttorneyGeneral Jeff Sessions withdrew an Obama-administration memo that had guided stages with le- galized weed on how to avoid federal scrutiny. The meeting included repre- sentatives from 13 other U.S. attoKney's offices, the FBI, the U.S. Postal Inspection Ser- vice, the U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Customs and Border Protection. U.S. attorneys from California, Washington, Colorado, Idaho, Alaska and Montum attended in person. Gov. Kate Brown, a Demo- crat, told guests that Wiiliams has assured members of her administration that "lawful Oregon businesses remain stakeholders in this convert cation and not targets of law enforcement." Theuana industry has been w�ng federal prose- cutors in states with legalized weed like Oregon closely since Sessions rescinded the so-called Cole memo. U.S. attorneys in states where mar - quarts is legal under state law now Mee the delicate question ofhowto dotheirjobs and hew to the federal ban. Williams sought to calm fears among pot grrowens, but said the market has a problem that must be addressed. Ev- eryone needs a "bottom-line answer" on how much excess marijuana is being produced and how much of itwinds upp onthe black market, he said. See Swnmit /D4 PETITIONS 0— 9 uj 05A o E 0 �12 c .0 .0 D 0- 0. 0 2'8 0).0 Cc L- C: 0 c a) CD 0 �D- E C c d) E 2-0 CL Ec -2 :3 CD E 2 > E co :3 n c 'F- J M :3 COL E o E -(%D E 0 V5 0 0! LL W 0) cc 0 L) LU a) E > Of (D E O cE M 8 0 of OL -D m U) 216 a U- N o 0 c M CL -0 0? c: 00,0 0.000 70 0. C 0 (D 0 04 < -J R) m BALL 0 J02 E 0 E CL 0 IM c 0 9L m to CIO C-4 Vx kj- A47 "A C f J, 2. in J4 in V E ()D \�, 0 WQ Zli, 17Z Lm Lo 4) I AI— a) v (D V -65A (0) c 10- c 00. 0 a) Lij O -W CL 0 0. 3 2 ui (a .8 a) -C IT w -E c c m :3 -C 0 E 0) c E c 0 a) = z E (D > E d 8 C 0 c IT M w Eo E !00 U) %.J LL LU CD 0 :3 cu LU p (J U) 4) E 0 10 E C E (D U) CL =M -0 LTUo (D C 0. -0 -0 W c: 0) (D 0-0 0 0 (D 0 0.00 70 EQ 0 0 a) —J �c 00 -E �,com c 0 LLL Jo - 0 tp E c E o. ,J Olt Z7 \Y LD Ak It (A7 0 C) c N� L arr E E U 0 0.0 m .r W 0 N NNS mom 0 CL CL X oo m v o �- Uc E c c oQ o c co o� m 678 c m c � .O 0) o E cc` W Z c EE c O Eo > E CD 3� M J O O Q wE o m U U 2 U. W O N C p j W d. U '� ai CO U) M U c 0 E U D CO) E w Y U Q. N N $ C. LL CQ O c O .. o 8 CL o w O 0) C 4) d O 10 J N = O CO >u. ob � � O N v � a2iLa) c m U 4 � w� c Q o a o ° G Q 0 3 m �N zZ m �o a� m j s 1 L O •- :: m m E c Q _mS � — L C m J V r'7 > � L71 EE w �c o ui c L S fl a? ul U) E o 0 z r 0 U _ LL W V)o m 0 U, =°r ob ` ict w v � a2iLa) c m U E c Q o a o ° a� Q 0 3 m 0 0 m �o a� m j s :` o> O •- :: m m E c Lo m _mS amici — L C m pE O E a > m EE w �c o N� c L M fl a? ul U) E o 0 @ 0 U _ LL W V)o m 0 U, =°r U W o� -a (D >_ s `4) 0 E _ Q. cc m E 0 0� C 0-2 W. O m nil O 0a) c '5 N Cl O '�+ o U a �o c: D) L ® a)to O M p -8 ..0- .`♦n/;� 0.00 `. c C.) ' ii O Q J 0 p� L O CL .N O C O aI N LL 0 Mr. Anthony Raguine February 16, 2018 Community Development Department 117 Lafayette Ave. Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 Dear Mr. Raguine; MAR 13 ?_018 I am in opposition to the land use application for Cascade Estate Farms. LLC file # 247 -18 -000047 -AD. I would like to point out possible non-compliance issues regarding access and egress to the subject property. Issue #1—The roads to the subject property have been built and are maintained by dues collected from members of Thetherow Crossing Home Owners Association, Odin Falls Ranch Property Owners Association , River Springs Estates Property Owners Association, and other home owners within the community. These are private roads though use cannot be denied, however, is the subject property owner contributing toward the maintenance? Further, does he need to have written permission from owners to bring in 15,000 gallon water trucks over these roads as well as other commercial vehicles used in the growth of marijuana? County rules state subject property "have frontage on and legal direct access from a constructed public, county or state road", OR have access from a private road or easement serving only the subject property", OR "if the property takes access and egress via private roads or easements which also serves other properties, the applicant shall obtain written consent to utilize the easement or private road for marijuana production access from all owners who have rights to the private road or easement". Issue #2 — It appears access and egress to the subject property also crosses BLM Federally and publically owned land. Can the use of BLM land be allowed if the subject property is used for something the Federal Government deems illegal? Underground water supply: Regarding the applicant's intent to retrieve water from the aquifers in the community, we are concerned that the supply of underground water is adequate to support this heavy use of 15,000 gallons per month. The iast projections three (3) years ago forecasted enough, at that given time, for ten (10) years based on the existing community's use. This was a forecast by Avion Water Co. which serves OFRPOA and RSEPOA members. Perhaps a new survey of water supply is needed for approval. Please consider the above in your application process. Thanks you, Robert Litmer 6900 NW River Springs Rd. Redmond, OR 97756 541-923-2760 From: X11Lr2IAF3;:20M To: Tracy Griffin Subject: PIs scan to 18 -047 -AD & print a copy for the record. Thx. Date: Monday, February 12, 2018 9:19:56 AM From: William Hinchliff[mailto:wchinchliff@cbbmail.comj Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 9:12 AM To: Anthony Raguine <Anthony.Raguine@deschutes.org> Subject: Re: Proposed Marijuana Commercial Grow Faciity File 247 -18 -000047 -AD Thanks you for the quick response, Anthony. Our mailing address: Bill and Tina Hinchliff 5087 NW Woody Ct. Redmond, Or 97756 On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 8:37 AM, Anthony Raguine <A.tt 1 xmyJA !Jyig> wrote: I ii Bill. Attached is Deschutes County Code Section 18,116.330 which details the approval criteria for rnarijuana production. these are the criteria which I will address in my decision. Please sand me a mailing address so that I can add you and i ina to the list of parties who are entitled to notice of all decisions and public hearings. Let nye know if you have any other questions. Anthony Raguine Senior Planner Deschutes County Community Development Department 117 PIW Lafayette Avenue Bend, OR 97701 (11/110-66 —/413(3 Please note that the information in this email is an informal statement made in accordance with DCC 22.20.005 and shall not be deemed to constitute final County action effecting a change in the status of a person's property or conferring any rights, including any reliance rights, on any person. From: William Hinchliff[mailto:wchinrhlitf�ti�r{,i,ty�+il Cr,rtl] Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2018 7:15 PM To: Anthony Raguine <L�it,%tt<f!>rl—OgtUlls Subject: Proposed Marijuana Commercial Grow, aciity File 247 -18 -000047 -AD Dear Anthony, Thank you for contacting my wife, Tina, last week and discussing the proposed marijuana grow facility at 6829 66th St. in Redmond. Will you please forward to us the criteria for such a facility, notice of any meetings pertaining to this site and a copy of approval should that happen. Thanks in advance for your assistance. Regards, Bill and Tina Hnchliff From:ntl7onv Raduinx, To: Mysnn Subject: PIs scan to 18 -047 -AD & print a copy for the file. Thx. Date: Monday, February 12, 2018 8:39:57 AM ................................ _ .... . From: Sharon Williams[mailto:shrywilliams43@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2018 3:57 PM To: Anthony Raguine <Anthony.Raguine@deschutes.org> Subject: Re: File 247 -18 -000047 -AD Hi Anthony, Yes, we would love to receive information on the decisions and the hearing dates. ']'hank you. Our mailing address is : Sharon Williams -Jensen and Ray Jensen 7150 NW River springs Rd Redmond, OR. 97756 On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 8:57 AM, Anthony Raguine <���t.�I a���ir<<j�l�schl�tcs.crs wrote: [Ii Sherry. If you would like to receive noMe of the decision and any futtue public hearings_ Please: send me a Mling addrF:ys. Thanks, Anthony Raguine Senior Planner is eschi tes County Community DevOopment Depaiti-hent j 17 NW L i a_ye1le /\�/twrtut 13c d _iG I710.I Please note that the information in this email is an informal statement made in accordance with DCC 22.20.005 and shall not be deemed to constitute final County action effecting a change in the status of a person's property or conferring any rights, including any reliance rights, on any person. From: Sharon Williams Sent: Friday, February 9, 2018 4:13 PM To: Anthony Raguine Subject: File 247 -18 -000047 -AD Dear Anthony, Thank you for returning my call regarding the establishment of a marijuana production facility at 6829 66th street in Redmond. I understand that we need to request the criteria the county uses in determining approval or disapproval of such a facility and a sample decision to help us understand how the application will be apprised. Thank you for assisting us in better understanding the steps we need to take regarding this request for the marijuana grow facility. Please send us the criteria and a sample decision. Sincerely, Sherry Williams -Jensen From: &plhnr y R—Iff � To: Ra uY_` -Iffi 1 Subject: Pis scan to 18 -047 -AD & print a copy for the file. Thx. Date: Saturday, February 10, 2018 10:40:41 AM From: Odin Falls HOA [mailto:odinfallshoa@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2018 2:22 PM To: Anthony Raguine <Anthony.Raguine@deschutes.org> Subject: Re: File Number: 47 -18 -000047 -AD Anthony Here is the mailing address: Odin Falls HOA P.O. Box 2213, Redmond, OR 97756 Thank you, Terri On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 10:54 AM, Anthony Raguine<,�i1_i.(�t�t��. (��► viii rr cls:> I�_u14_.,r�t > wrote: Hi Terri . Gjsey. Can you send me -A mailing addres for the Odin Falls HOA? Per our Procedures Ordinance, notice of the decision must be mailed V..) all inter€�sted parties. Thanks. From: Anthony Raguine Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 8:28 AM To:'Odin Falls HOA' <t. lin ,all i�n,i <,?�ra tz�i! ��,>; Nick Lelack <N ! i��'ic[ ca3t c ci: ,ir�� «r >; Matt Martin <Nktt-kb-irl it .(atdr_S(=itut(n-r(rI?>; Zechariah Heck </4: �,h sir i,ah Iie—f k-,rard� r � ��s.�tia,.!?rr > Subject: RE: File Number: 47 -18 -000047 -AD Thank you for your cornrnents Terry & Casey. I will add your email to the record. Singe I'rri the assigned planner for Lias project, please direct all futur, con-�rnents solely to me. fhan s. Anthony Rapine, Senior Planner Deschutes County Community Development Department U1 1ZIA 1.1.a.Y-11 r> Avr nue ILe of C -`-04J161 / �l /2119 Please note that the information in this email is an informal statement made in accordance with DCC 22.20.005 and shall not be deemed to constitute final County action effecting a change in the status of a person's property or conferring any rights, including any reliance rights, on any person. From: Odin Falls HOA [nAiill;c� t,�lirtf,t31i4Ysc t1,{h�1;rn �il,!;tarr7.] Sent: Sunday, February 4, 2018 8:15 PM To: Anthony Raguine <6.!jthc�ry:,hrt Nick Lelack <Ni ;!c <.I_ i��ck 1)cle .hu �es �i��>; Matt Martin d�tt.M��rtiri(c7Ci�,r-rl_��.�><�.a�rp: Zechariah Heck <'�:,K.►3 irth.l erka?d�scf_i►cs._.�!k;> Subject: File Number: 47 -18 -000047 -AD File Number: 47 -18 -000047 -AD Applicant: Cascade Estate Farms, LLC Mr. Raguine: The Odin Falls Ranch Homeowner Association is filing notice of OPPOSITION to this application for a marijuana production facility in our neighborhood. There are many reasons why this application should not be approved. INCREASED RISK OF CRIME: Several houses in our neighborhoods have already been prowled and/or burglarized. This operation will only increase the draw of a criminal element accessing our area, potentially causing increased crime problems for the entire neighborhood. ODOR: Marijuana plants inherently have a distinctly unpleasant odor when growing due to the oils on the plants. This odor will permeate our neighborhoods, fouling the air and may even violate Oregon clean air standards, as well as Deschutes County regulations regarding grow operations. LOSS OF TAX REVENUE: If approved, our property values will be severely affected. This neighborhood is a major source of property tax revenue to the County; and it is unlikely the paltry tax revenue the County will receive from this production facility will offset the loss of revenue from our lowered property values. INCREASED TRAFFIC: The roads accessing this proposed operation are privately owned and maintained by the neighborhoods through which they pass. Approval of this application will cause increased traffic over these roads with no obligation on the part of the applicant to fix any damage, nor contribute in any way to the maintenance of these roads. This will negatively impact over 600 properties financially in Tetherow Crossing, Odin Falls Ranch, and River Springs Estates, pus other un -associated properties, benefiting no one but the applicant. GROUND WATER DEPLETION: Our members are served by a community well as our only source of water. Increased agricultural irrigation requirements of this grow facility will further contribute to the depletion of the aquifer from which we draw our household water needs, to our community's detriment. OVERPRODUCTION IN OREGON: Experts in the field agree that Oregon is already producing more than five times the amount of marijuana that can be consumed by Oregonians, with Deschutes County identified as one of six counties that are major contributors. They agree that much of this overproduction is going to the black market in other states, contributing to law enforcement problems in states where marijuana in not legal. Another grow operation will only worsen this problem. INCONGRUOUS USE: Even though the areas affected are zoned MUA-10, the primary use is 5-10 acre lots with one residence. In other words these are residential neighborhoods. A marijuana grow facility has no business in a residential neighborhood and should not be allowed. PLEASE DISAPPROVE, THIS APPLICATION. Odin Falls Ranch, Board of Directors Terri Timberman, President D Casey Gibbs, Secretary From: +r I Y 1—'090 0C To: Traf.V C jf Subject: Pis scan to 18-047-AD & print a copy for the flie. Thx. Date: Friday, February 9, 2018 3:20:00 PM From: Carolyn Horner [mailto:chorner19@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 2:00 PM To: Anthony Raguine <Anthony.Raguine@deschutes.org> Cc: inarc.horner8@gmail.com Subject: Concerns about proposed land use Good Afternoon Anthony, I'm contacting you regarding file number 247 -18 -000047 -AD. My mailing address is 7117 NW 69th Place, Redmond, 97756. My husband and I received communication that our neighbors at 6829 NW 66th Street are proposing to farm commercially on their land. We want to formally oppose this proposal. We have numerous concerns about our neighbors using their land to farm commercially. First, how will it affect our water use? We currently are on a shared well and we have limited water access as it is. We do not see how a well system could sustain a commercial -sized farm. Second, how will the farm be powered? Will there need to be more power lines established? Third, what types of pesticides will be used in such close proximity to our house and garden? Fourth, will the traffic increase due to their marijuana production and distribution? We currently share a fence line, and their driveway can be seen easily from our house and backyard. As it is, we hear their trucks leaving and arriving home; increased traffic would be noticeable on our end. We have 4 young kids who play outside everyday. We are concerned with many types of pollution that would increase with the presence of a commercial -sized farm in our neighborhood. Specifically, we are concerned with air pollution as the wind blows in our direction. Finally, we are very concerned with our overall property value. The side- effects of residing near a marijuana farm would be detrimental to our property value. This is concerning as we have invested a lot of time and money into our home; this is of great importance to us. We would be happy to speak with you over the phone about our concerns as well. It cannot be emphasized enough that we oppose this production facility. We appreciate you considering our opposition. Thank you for your tirne. Marc and Carolyn Horner 541-480-8579 7117 NW 69th Place Redmond, OR 97756 Tracy Griffin SCANNED FIB WON From: Anthony Raguine Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 4:28 PM To: Tracy Griffin Subject: PIs scan to 18 -047 -AD & print a copy for the record. Thx. -----Original Message ----- From: BRETT HODSON(mailto:hodgsonl@bendbroadband.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 3:54 PM To: Anthony Raguine <Anthony.Raguine @deschutes.org> Subject: file # 247 -18 -000047 -AD Hello Anthony, ,!,?4 Md a,�p "Co�rmew - ��6c1 We are writing to express our opposition to the proposed marijuana grow operation near our property in NW Redmond. The proposed operation is under Application File #247 -18 -000047 -AD submitted by Isaac Babani (Cascade Estate Farms, LLC). The location of the property is 6829 NW66th Street, Redmond, and is identified on County Assessor Tax Map 14- 12-23, as Tax Lot 300. Our property is located less than 1/4 mile away at 7024 NW 69th Place. The basis for my opposition is: 1) Water consumption. After visiting with the Water Resources Department it is our understanding it is unlawful to use a domestic well for the purposes of growing marijuana. Thus, the applicant would have to drill an additional groundwater well to support the grow operation. New (non domestic) groundwater wells are not authorized in the Deschutes basin due to the hydrologic connection with surface water. Even if the applicant were successful at purchasing mitigation credits, the addition of another nearby groundwater well will harm ours and the other neighbor's water supply. We have already had to redrill our well once to go deeper and access new water. The addition of another well consuming large volumes of water year round to grow marijuana will likely exacerbate this situation. 2) Odor. Living in close proximity to an operation of this magnitude (5000 square feet) will result in noxious fumes and odors throughout the year, and particularly during summer and fall months. 3) Light pollution. The grow operation will require high intensity security lighting. This will result in light pollution. One of the main attractions of living rurally in this area is the dark night skies and viewing the stars. This would be harmed if this application is approved. 4) Property values. If this application is approved and there is a 5000 square foot grow operation in close proximity to myself and neighbors it will harm everyone's property value (for all the above reasons). it is not equitable to harm the value of multiple residences for the financial benefit of a single individual. Taken in whole this proposed grow operation is inconsistent with the rural living that many Redmond residents in the Tetherow Crossing area enjoy. Again, it is inappropriate to harm a large group of residences for a single individual (who bought the property less than 6 months ago). We urge the Deschutes County Community Development Department and Planning Commission to deny this application. Respectfully submitted Brett and Michele Hodgson Tracy Griffin From: Anthony Raguine Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 11:03 AM To: Tracy Griffin Subject: PIs scan to 18 -047 -AD & print a copy for the record. Thx. -----Original Message ----- From: Judy Hansen [mailto:judybhansen@me.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 9:44 AM To: Anthony Raguine <Anthony.Rag uine@deschutes.org> Subject: Re: Marijuana Facility Application Thank you for your reply. Yes, my comments are in reference to land use file 247 -18 -000047 -AD. Please add my email to that record. I would also appreciate receiving notice of the decision for this project as well as any information regarding public hearings. My address is 8046 NW Grubstake Way, in Redmond. Regards, Judy > On Feb 6, 2018, at 9:08 AM, Anthony Raguine <Anthony.Raguine@deschutes.org> wrote: > Thank you for your comments Judy. Can you confirm that your comments are in reference to land use file 247 -18- 000047 -AD? If yes, I will add your email to that record. Since I'm the assigned planner for this project, please direct all future comments solely to me. Thanks. > > Anthony Raguine > Senior Planner > Deschutes County Community Development Department > 117 NW Lafayette Avenue > Bend, OR 97701 > (541) 617-4739 > Please note that the information in this email is an informal statement made in accordance with DCC 22.20.005 and shall not be deemed to constitute final County action effecting a change in the status of a person's property or conferring any rights, including any reliance rights, on any person. > -----Original Message----- • From: Judy Hansen [mailto:judybhansen@me.com] > Sent: Saturday, February 3, 2018 1:39 PM > To: Anthony Raguine <Anthony.Raguine@deschutes.org> > Cc: Nick Lelack <Nick.Lelack@deschutes.org>; Matt.Martin@deschutres.org; Zechariah Heck <Zechariah.Heck@deschutes.org> > Subject: Marijuana Facility Application > Mr. Raguine, > I am very disturbed to learn that an application has been filed to build a marijuana facility along the border to our gated neighborhood in Odin Falls Ranch. We moved here a year ago and the safety of the community was a major concern when we decided where to purchase a home. Although marijuana production has been legalized in Oregon, it needs to be kept out of residential areas. This type of "agriculture" is better suited to more remote, rural, areas than adjacent to residential communities. > With the introduction of marijuana farming in our community, there is certainly a risk of more crime in the area. I am aware that Oregon already has an overabundance of marijuana. Since marijuana is still illegal under federal law, this opens the gate to drug trafficking and the black market as growers try to sell their excess crops elsewhere. > I would also like to know more about what agencies in Deschutes County will be responsible for regulating this industry. Will our state and county law enforcement officers be dealing with marijuana issues at the expense of the needs of county residents? > Your attention to these concerns is appreciated. > Judy Hansen Tracy Griffin __ From: Anthony Raguine Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 9:25 AM To: Tracy Griffin Subject: PIs scan to 18 -047 -AD & print a copy for the record. Thx. -----Original Message ----- From: Joe Farmer[mailto:joe713farmer@icloud.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 9:23 AM To: Anthony Raguine <Anthony.Raguine@deschutes.org> Subject: Re: Marijuana Growing Facility Yes, we confirm that our comments are in reference to land use file 247 -18 -000047 -AD? Thanks for your follow up! Joe & Cindi Farmer Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 6, 2018, at 6:53 AM, Anthony Raguine <Anthony.Raguine@deschutes.org> wrote: > Hi Joe & Cindi. Can you confirm that your comments are in reference to land use file 247 -18 -000047 -AD? > Anthony Raguine > Senior Planner > Deschutes County Community Development Department > 117 NW Lafayette Avenue > Bend, OR 97701 > (541) 617-4739 > Please note that the information in this email is an informal statement made in accordance with DCC 22.20.005 and shall not be deemed to constitute final County action effecting a change in the status of a person's property or conferring any rights, including any reliance rights, on any person. > -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Farmer[mailto:joe713farmer@icloud.com] > Sent: Saturday, February 3, 2018 11:13 PM > To: Anthony Raguine <Anthony.Raguine@deschutes.org> > Subject: Marijuana Growing Facility > We live at 7985 NW Grubstake Way, Redmond, OR 97756 and we are totally against the application for a marijuana growing facility near our neighborhood. The smell and the possible influx of individuals that are involved with this type of product is not something we want to have to deal with! > Joe & Cindi Farmer > Sent from my iPad Tracy Griffin From: Anthony Raguine Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 9:19 AM To: Tracy Griffin Subject: Pls scan to 18 -047 -AD & print a copy for the record. Thx. From: Casey Gibbs [mailto:dcaseygibbs@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, February 3, 2018 10:17 AM To: Anthony Raguine <Anthony.Raguine @deschutes.org> Subject: File Number: 47 -18 -000047 -AD File Number: 47 -18 -000047 -AD Applicant: Cascade Estate Farms, LLC Mr. Raguine: I am filing my notice of OPPOSITION to this application for a marijuana production facility in our neighborhood. Below are reasons why this should not be approved. 1. INCREASED RISK OF CRIME: Several houses in our neighborhoods have already been prowled and/or burglarized. This operation will only increase the draw for persons with nefarious intent accessing our area, potentially causing increased crime problems for the entire neighborhood. 2. ODOR: Marijuana plants inherently have a distinctly unpleasant odor when growing due to the oils on the plants. This odor will permeate our neighborhoods, fouling the air and may even violate Oregon clean air standards. 3. LOSS OF TAX REVENUE: If approved, our property values will be severely affected negatively. This neighborhood is a major source of property tax revenue to the County; I highly doubt that the paltry tax revenue the County will receive from this production facility will offset the loss of revenue from our lowered property values. 4. INCREASED TRAFFIC: The roads accessing this proposed operation are privately owned, maintained by the neighborhoods through which they pass. Approval of this application will cause increased heavy traffic over these roads with no obligation on the part of the applicant to fix any damage, nor contribute in any way to the maintenance of these roads. This will negatively impact over 600 properties financially, benefiting no one but the applicant. PLEASE DISAPPROVE THIS APPLICATION. Sincerely, Dennis C Gibbs Laurilea Gibbs 7855 NW Grubstake Way Redmond, OR 97756 Tracy Griffin From: Anthony Raguine Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 9:18 AM To: Tracy Griffin Subject: PIs scan to 18 -047 -AD & print a copy for the record. Thx. From: terry bendix [mailto:bterry1057@centurylink.net] Sent: Saturday, February 3, 201811:29 AM To: Nick Lelack <Nick.Lelack@deschutes.org>; Matt Martin <Matt.Martin @deschutes.org>; Zechariah Heck <Zecharia h.Heck @deschutes.org>; Anthony Raguine <Anthony.Raguine@deschutes.org> Subject: Fwd: 247 -18 -000047 -AD Begin forwarded message: From: terry bendix <bterry1057 a�centurylink.net> Subject: 247 -18 -000047 -AD Date: February 3, 2018 at 11:25:16 AM PST To: Anthony. raquine[.)deschutes.org Dear Mr. Raguine, Please, NO Marijuana growing in our community!!! Please, please, please! Could this not be considered for a property somewhere OUT of a neighborhood. Meaning, an area where no families or neighbors are within 10 miles or so. I do not feel it it safe for families within our neighborhood. My thinking is, it would bring crime to our area with people trying to steal the product and lots of other negatives. Please say NO to this proposal for the safety of our BELOVED NEIGHBORHOOD! Sincerely, Linda Blohm Bendix 8059 NW Grubstake Way Redmond, OR 602 620 2214 Tracy Griffin From: Anthony Raguine Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 9:16 AM To: Tracy Griffin Subject: PIs scan to 18 -047 -AD & print a copy for the record. Thx. -----Original Message ----- From: Roger Hansen [mailto:rogerinredding@gmail.comj Sent: Saturday, February 3, 2018 12:45 PM To: Anthony Raguine <Anthony. Raguine@desch utes.o rg> Subject: Fwd: Oregon is producing three times more marijuana than it can consume I The Independent http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/oregon-marijuana-cannabis-weed-production-overproduction- legalise-surplus-problem-legal-black-market-a8192611.html Tracy Griffin __ From: Anthony Raguine Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 9:14 AM To: Tracy Griffin Subject: PIs scan to 18 -047 -AD & print a copy for the record. Thx. -----Original Message ----- From: runlarryrun@gmail.com [mailto:runlarryrun@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, February 3, 201812:47 PM To: Nick Lelack <Nick.Lelack@deschutes.org>; Matt Martin <Matt,Martin @deschutes.org>; Zechariah Heck <Zechariah.Heck@deschutes.org>; Anthony Raguine <Anthony.Raguine@deschutes.org> Subject: Marijuana Production Facility Dear Sirs, We are filling our notice of OPPOSITION for a marijuana production facility in our neighborhood. Please DISAPPROVE this application. 47 -18 -000047 -AD Applicant: Cascade Estate Farms, LLC. 69th Place Redmond, OR 97756 Sincerely, Lawrence W Heaston Rebecca L Heaston 8055 NW Grubstake Way Redmond, OR 97756 Sent from my iPhone Tracy Griffin From: Anthony Raguine Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 9:13 AM To: Tracy Griffin Subject: PIs scan to 18 -047 -AD & print a copy for the record. Thx. -----Original Message ----- From: Roger Hansen [mailto:rogerinredding@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, February 3, 2018 1:13 PM To: Anthony Raguine <Anthony.Raguine@deschutes.org> Subject: Ref. # 247 -18 -000047 -AD Sir, Moments ago I sent you an e-mailed article describing the bloated crop levels of weed being 3 times more than the current consumption rate of the state of Oregon and its black market sale outside of the state. I am sending this as a follow up to my voice mail left on your machine an hour or so earlier. As I indicated in the voice mail, my family moved to Odin Falls Ranch in July of 1976 to escape the crime of Northern California; much of which is driven legalized marijuana farms. The city of Shasta lake that we left, has folks being shot, stabbed, assaulted frequently due to this activity. Where it is allowed, crime follows. One of my sons is in law enforcement and has seen first hand the level of crime increase that occurs when such activity is allowed. While this activity may be state legal, it remains federally illegal and the federal government has recently declared its intent to prosecute jurisdictions which do not enforce federal law. This activity must not be allowed to occur in our neighborhood or any other neighborhood. Thankyou for an opportunity to voice my objection. Roger Hansen, 8046 NW Grubstake Way, Redmond, OR 97756. Tracy Griffin From: Anthony Raguine Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 9:09 AM To: Tracy Griffin Subject: PIs scan to 18 -047 -AD & print a copy for the record. Thx. -----Original Message ----- From: Judy Hansen [mailto:judybhansen@me.com] Sent: Saturday, February 3, 2018 1:39 PM To: Anthony Raguine <Anthony.Raguine@deschutes.org> Cc: Nick Lelack <Nick.Lelack@deschutes.org>; Matt.Martin@deschutres.org; Zechariah Heck <Zecharia h.Heck@deschutes.org> Subject: Marijuana Facility Application Mr. Raguine, I am very disturbed to learn that an application has been filed to build a marijuana facility along the border to our gated neighborhood in Odin Falls Ranch. We moved here a year ago and the safety of the community was a major concern when we decided where to purchase a home. Although marijuana production has been legalized in Oregon, it needs to be kept out of residential areas. This type of "agriculture" is better suited to more remote, rural, areas than adjacent to residential communities. With the introduction of marijuana farming in our community, there is certainly a risk of more crime in the area. I am aware that Oregon already has an overabundance of marijuana. Since marijuana is still illegal under federal law, this opens the gate to drug trafficking and the black market as growers try to sell their excess crops elsewhere. I would also like to know more about what agencies in Deschutes County will be responsible for regulating this industry. Will our state and county law enforcement officers be dealing with marijuana issues at the expense of the needs of county residents? Your attention to these concerns is appreciated. Judy Hansen Tracy Griffin From: Anthony Raguine Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 9:05 AM To: Tracy Griffin Subject: PIs scan to 18 -047 -AD & print a copy for the record. Thx. From: marjbishop [m ailto:marjbishop @gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, February 3, 2018 1:49 PM To: Anthony Raguine <Anthony.Raguine@deschutes.org> Subject: Fwd: OPPOSITION TO MARIJUANA GROW sem 6('111 Illy verizoir, &ams: ungCsalaxy sinarlphone -------- Original message -------- From: "marj.bishop" corn> Date: 2/3/18 11:50 AM (GMT -08:00) To: Subject: OPPOSITION TO MARIJUANA GROW File Number: 47 -18 -000047 -AD Applicant: Cascade Estates Farms, LLC To Mr. Raguine: I am writing to express my OPPOSITION to the above application for a marijuana grow facility in my neighborhood. There are numerous reasons that this should not be allowed to proceed. 1. INCREASED RISK OF CRIME: Several of our homes have already been prowled around and/or burglarized. This operation will only increase the draw for persons with criminal intent coming into our neighborhood causing problems. 2. LOSS OF TAX REVENUE: If approved, our property values will be severely reduced. This neighborhood is a major source of property tax revenue to the County. It is hard to imagine that the tax revenue received by the County for this production facility would offset the loss of revenue from our lowered property values. 3. INCREASED TRAFFIC: The roads accessing this proposed operation are privately owned and maintained by the neighborhoods through which they pass. Approval of this application will cause increased heavy traffic over these roads with no obligation on the part of the applicant to fix any damage, nor contribute in any way to the maintenance of these roads. This will negatively impact over 600 properties financially, benefitting no one but the applicant. 1—N, 4. ODOR: Marijuana plants inherently have a distinctly unpleasant odor when growing due to the oils on the plants. This odor will permeate our neighborhoods, fouling the air and MAY EVEN VIOLATE OREGON CLEAN AIR STANDARDS. 5. WATER DRAIN: Marijuana production requires a large amount of water. This would be a drain on the water supplies in rural communities such as ours. Furthermore, an article in the "Bend Bulletin" just today points out Oregon's problem with pot overproduction and how that overproduction winds up on the black market. We don't want the criminals, drug violence and money laundering associated with black market organized crime in our neighborhood. PLEASE DISAPPROVE THIS APPLICATION. WE DO NOT NEED OR WANT THIS. Sincerely, Marjorie A. Bishop 7165 NW River Springs Road Redmond, OR 97756 ,Ski,-gf'rorri 111y S,- n�stui (_i��lax} Ta��ii<; Tracy Griffin From: Anthony Raguine Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 9:01 AM To: Tracy Griffin Subject: PIs scan to 18 -047 -AD & print a copy for the record. Thx. From: Christy Higuera [mailto:cmhiguera@att.net] Sent: Saturday, February 3, 2018 2:36 PM To: Anthony Raguine<Anthony.Raguine@deschutes.org>; Nick.Lelak@deschutes.org; Matt Martin <Matt.Martin @deschutes.org>; Zechariah Heck <Zechariah.Heck@deschutes.org> Subject: Reference File Number: 247 -18 -000047 -AD To Whom It May Concern: My name is Christy Higuera. I live at 8030 NW Grubstake Way in the Odin Falls Ranch/River Springs community. I have been notified that there is an application in process for a marijuana grow facility to be built very close to our community. 1 adamantly OPPOSE this application and ask that you DENY THE APPLICATION based on the following: We here in the Odin Falls Ranch/River Springs community have chosen to live in this area for the quiet, low traffic, safe environment. We have paid significant prices for our homes and property to reside here in Odin Falls Ranch because it offers these things to the residents who live here. I am a retired police officer and chose to live here because it is a very nice area that offers privacy and low crime. If this application is approved it will definitely lead to more foot traffic and questionable individuals being attracted to the area. We have already had several burglaries in our community in the last two years and we do not need more trouble from undesirable people. Approving this application will also lead to an increase in vehicular traffic through the area which the private and privately maintained roads will not adapt to well. There is also the issue of bringing the value of our homes down if this application is approved and this facility is built so close to our homes. There are many, many other places where this facility could be built where it wouldn't be so close to other residents homes. I ask that you PLEASE DENY THIS APPLICATION and any other applications that are asking to build these types of facilities so close to other residences. It is just not safe for the residents who live nearby. Christy Higuera (541) 410-5114 Tracy Griffin From: Anthony Raguine Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 9:00 AM To: Tracy Griffin Subject: PIs scan to 18 -047 -AD & print a copy for the record. Thx. -----Original Message ----- From: Margaret Mckeown [mailto:mckeown614@bendbroadband.com] Sent: Saturday, February 3, 2018 3:16 PM To: Anthony Raguine <Anthony.Raguine@deschutes.org> Cc: Nick Lelack <Nick.Lelack@deschutes.org>; Matt Martin <Matt.Martin @deschutes.org>; Zechariah Heck <Zecharia h.Heck@deschutes.org> Subject: File number 247 -18 -000047 -AD, Cascade Estate Farms, LLC Gentlemen, We are writing to oppose the application for a marijuana production facility at 6829 NW 66th Street, Redmond. This a residential area accessed by private roads maintained by the residents. The proposed facility would add to the traffic on these roads with no requirement that they contribute to the maintenance and upkeep of the roads. There is a school bus stop at the intersection of NW 66th Street and NW Grubstake Way and children walking to their homes could be exposed to the marijuana production and additional traffic. Our neighborhood has already experienced break ins and trespassing which will probably increase with this facility. Our property values will be negatively affected by the proximity to the facility and the odor of marijuana. We urge you to deny this application. Sincerely, Margaret and Don McKeown 8040 NW Grubstake Way Redmond Sent from my iPad Tracy Griffin From: Anthony Raguine Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 8:58 AM To: Tracy Griffin Subject: PIs scan to 18 -047 -AD & print a copy for the record From: SHARON RUPERT [mailto:sharon_rupert@comcast.net] Sent: Saturday, February 3, 2018 6:07 PM To: Anthony Raguine <Anthony.Raguine@deschutes.org> Cc: dcaseygibbs@hotmail.com Subject: File # 47 -18000047 -AD Cascade Estate Farms, LLC Mr. Raguine, Re: File # 47 -18000047 -AD Cascade Estate Farms, LLC I own property on Grubstake Way and plan to sell it someday to fund my retirement. Even though I have an open mind to using cannibus for medicinal purposes there many people who are against it in every way. The growing of it nearby surely will be detrimental to all who own or live on properties in Odin Falls. Mr. Gibbs adequately spelled out many reasons in his letter and I concur. I oppose this request and ask that you do as well. If you need to talk with me further or would like to hear my pleading for the opposition, please don't hesitate to call, write or email. Respectfully, Sharon L. Rupert 52 Northview Ct Lake Oswego, OR 97035 PH 503 201-2939 Tracy Griffin From: Anthony Raguine Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 8:55 AM To: Tracy Griffin Subject: Pis scan to 18 -047 -AD & print a copy for the record. Thx. From: Karen Susac [mailto:klsusacl@gmail.comj Sent: Saturday, February 3, 2018 7:14 PM To: Anthony Raguine <Anthony.Raguine@deschutes.org> Cc: Nick Lelack <Nick.Lelack@deschutes.org>; Zechariah Heck <Zechariah.Heck@deschutes.org>; Matt Martin <Matt.Martin@deschutes.org> Subject: Opposition to the Proposal for a Marijuana Grow Facility at 6829 NW 66th St. Redmond, Oregon Community Development Department Deschutes County Planning Division Bend, Oregon 97708 Attention: Anthony Raguine - Reference file number 247 -18 -000047 -AD I write in opposition to allowing a cannabis growing operation at 6829 NW 66' street in rural Redmond,Oregon. A cannabis growing operation is fundamentally incompatible with favorable land use in the high desert environment. First, large amounts of organic compounds are left as waste from growing cannabis. There are finite methods to dispose of this waste. Burning the waste is one that could have a catastrophic impact to the area. Tax lot 300 abuts 4 residential lots in the River Spring HOA and a fire would not only level those homes but spread to homes in River Springs and Odin Falls resulting in millions of dollars of loss. Second, the source of water and the handling of waste water are problematic. There is no irrigation water access at this address nor is it likely to be available. One-eighth of an acre (50 feet by 100 feet with 50 cannabis plants) would use 24,000 gallons per season (about eight months or 240 days). This is the size of the canopy the applicant is proposing. A failure of any waste water system threatens the ground water and runoff would ultimately flow into the Deschutes River damaging a wild river and destroying an important fishery. Third, the fertilizers and pesticides used in a grow operation will be an existential threat to our native plants and animals. Additionally there will be a serious disruption to our nocturnal wildlife, especially the deer and the owls found in abundance in the area. Fourth, the added traffic on non- county maintained roads is a problem. The roads in the area are maintained by the residents. The area is an area of rural residences. The road fees assessed do not contemplate a business increasing the traffic load through employees, waste transfer and product shipment. Fifth, there are increased security concerns. Even if gated, this facility will be a very attractive target for petty and not so petty criminals. A quick look at Google Earth will show that access can be had through River Springs Estates. Those properties that abut the operation will more than likely experience increased security concerns. Sixth, the visual distraction, the odor, the noise and lighting will impinge on the solitude and the right of enjoyment that all the surrounding residents currently value. Furthermore, this operation is not bound to stay at the 5,000 square foot size; with business growth the issues outlined here will simply grow. Finally and on a more personal note, I currently hold 20 acres in The Dalles, Oregon. The property has been on the market for over 10 years. No one will consider purchasing the property because it is across the road from a marijuana grow operation. Allowing such a facility into this neighborhood in Redmond will devastate market values. The purpose of the Exclusive Farm Use is to preserve and maintain agricultural lands and to serve as a sanctuary for farm uses. Yes, under Chapter 18.16, marijuana growing is a permitted use but it is subject to many conditions and considerations. A 5000 square foot marijuana canopy is not the pastoral image of central Oregon agriculture. Our environment and an area filled with rural residences is simply not compatible with a cannabis grow operation and I urge the commission to so find. Thank you for your consideration, Karen L Susac JD Tracy Griffin From: Anthony Raguine Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 8:53 AM To: Tracy Griffin Subject: PIs scan to 18 -047 -AD & print a copy for the record From: Peggie and Joe Morley [mailto:jmorley236@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, February 4, 2018 5:48 AM To: Anthony Raguine<Anthony.Raguine@deschutes.org>; Nick Lelack <Nick.Lelack @deschutes.org> Subject: Fwd: Application 247 -18 -000047 -AD Marijuana Grow Facility Dear Sirs, my initial email was incorrect as I meant to emphasize "near" our River Springs HOA not "in" it. However, I still want to emphasize the safety, security and odor concerns I mentioned initially with an operation like this being so close to a residential area. Thanks, Joe Morley http://www,ci.redmotid.or.us/residents/`mariiLiana-fag- ----- Original Message ----- From: Peggie and Joe Morley <jmorley236(7a,aol.com> To: Anthony.Raguine<Anthony.RaguineQDeschutes.org>; Nick.Lelack <Nick.Lelack QDeschutes.org> Sent: Sat, Feb 3, 2018 3:51 pm Subject: Application 247 -18 -000047 -AD Marijuana Grow Facility Dear Sirs, I have recently become aware of this application in our River Springs HOA. I need to voice my concerns regarding the implications to our safety and security having this type of grow facility in a residential area. I have only owned a home in Redmond for about a year and a half and absolutely love the town and the area I live in. Although I am aware there have been several attempted intrusions and an actual break in during the time I have lived here. I am very concerned regarding the location of a facility like this and the increased number of people who will have access to our community. While I am supportive of small business ventures per se I do not think something this belongs in a residential community. If this business was located on 50 acres off the grid surae place I do not think I would raise as strong an objection but I really think extreme considerable consideration needs to be given to locating this in a residential area. Also although not well versed in Federal and State laws I believe this is still a pure cash sales venture which heightens my security concerns even more. I have also been told the growth and harvesting process emits strong odors which I would not find appealing in our neighborhood. Thank you very much for your consideration on rejecting this application. Joseph and Margaret Morley 7925 NW Grubstake Way Redmond, OR. 97756 Tracy Griffin From: Anthony Raguine Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 8:50 AM To: Tracy Griffin Subject: PIs scan to 18 -047 -AD & print a copy for the record. Thx. From: Peggie and Joe Morley [mailto:jmorley236@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, February 3, 2018 2:52 PM To: Anthony Raguine<Anthony.Raguine@deschutes.org>; Nick Lelack <Nick.Lelack@deschutes.org> Subject: Application 247 -18 -000047 -AD Marijuana Grow Facility Dear Sirs, I have recently become aware of this application in our River Springs HOA. I need to voice my concerns regarding the implications to our safety and security having this type of grow facility in a residential area. I have only owned a home in Redmond for about a year and a half and absolutely love the town and the area I live in. Although I am aware there have been several attempted intrusions and an actual break in during the time I have lived here. I am very concerned regarding the location of a facility like this and the increased number of people who will have access to our community. While I am supportive of small business ventures per se I do not think something this belongs in a residential community. If this business was located on 50 acres off the grid some place I do not think I would raise as strong an objection but I really think extreme considerable consideration needs to be given to locating this in a residential area. Also although not well versed in Federal and State laws I believe this is still a pure cash sales venture which heightens my security concerns even more. I have also been told the growth and harvesting process emits strong odors which I would not find appealing in our neighborhood. Thank you very much for your consideration on rejecting this application. Joseph and Margaret Morley 7925 NW Grubstake Way Redmond, OR. 97756 Tracy Griffin From: Anthony Raguine Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 8:49 AM To: Tracy Griffin Subject: PIs scan to 18 -047 -AD & print a copy for the record. Thx. From: Hal Campbell [mailto:halcampbell@live.com] Sent: Sunday, February 4, 2018 7:20 AM To: Anthony Raguine <Anthony.Raguine@deschutes.org> Cc: Nick Lelack <Nick.Lelack@deschutes.org>; Matt Martin <Matt.Martin@deschutes.org>; Zechariah Heck <Zechariah.Heck@deschutes.org>; Anthony Raguine<Anthony.Raguine @deschutes.org>; dcaseygibbs@hotmail.com; Robert <robertlitmer@hotmail.com>; shrywilliams43@gmail.com; klsusacl@gmail.com Subject: Addendum to Opposition Letter Dated February 3, 2018 February 4, 2018 Community Development Department Deschutes County Planning Division P.O. Box 6005 Bend, Oregon 97708 Attention: Anthony Raguine - Reference file number 247 -18 -000047 -AD Please accept this correspondence as an addendum to my initial letter dated February 3, 2018, which was directed to you and to the Deschutes County Planning Commission, entitled, "Opposition to the Proposal for a Marijuana Grow Facility at 6829 NW 66th Street, Redmond, Oregon". As the former Law Enforcement Planning Coordinator for the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, along with my decades of service as a law and justice professor for several national level universities, as well as a former member of the judiciary for the State of Montana, I thought it may prove helpful to you and the Commission to provide the following list of resources in support of your deliberations regarding the land use request submitted by Cascade Estate Farm, LLC., Reference file number 247 -18 -000047 -AD. As your review of the environmental impact reports and scientific studies contained within the URL's listed below will disclose there are innumerable reasons why such requests to allow marijuana grow operations in f �- rural residential neighborhoods should be denied. The information contained within these reports provides an articulation of the specific consequences pertaining to such public policy deliberations. I strongly recommend that prior to the Commission's decision regarding this specific matter; they review the included reference materials and require an "independent" environmental impact report be completed concerning the request made by Cascade Estate Farms, LLC. Independent review, in my judgment, could be of significant value to the Commission as it deliberates not only what course of action the Commission might deem appropriate regarding this specific request, but also in furthering their efforts to determine a countywide public policy regarding any future requests. Sincerely, Judge Hal Campbell, Ph.D. 6700 NW River Springs Road Redmond, Oregon 97756 Halcampbell@live.com 541.316.1615 Reference Listing of Environmental Impact Reports and Scientific Studies Concerning Marijuana Grow Operations and their Impact on Communities Marijuana's Impact on Communities and the Environment: http•//www yelm com/imagesZMarijuanas-Impact-to-Communities-and-the-Environment Updated04-8- 17.pdf Consequences and Impacts Include: Loss of neighborhood character. • Concerns about personal and family safety. • Increased criminal activity. • Large-scale land conversion such as deforestation and earth movement. • Pest infestations. Unpermitted construction of facilities. • Illegal marijuana production and processing. • Loss of neighboring property value. • Risks to children and pets. • Water, soil, light, noise, and air pollution. • Intolerable skunk -like odor. • Overuse of pesticides, rodenticides, and fertilizers. • Damage to wetland areas. • Detrimental impacts to habitat, species, and ecosystems. • Overconsumption of water and depleted aquifers. • Degraded road conditions. • Excessive noise from guard dogs, industrial fans, and generators. • Storm and industrial wastewater runoff. • Increased traffic. Inappropriate garbage and waste disposal. • Pollution from multiple generators in off -grid locations. « Misrepresentation of facts in Special Land Use Permit & WSLCB applications. Environmental Risks and Opportunities in Cannabis Cultivation https://Icb.wa.gov/publications/M.ariivana/SEPA/"`BOTEC Whitepaper Final,pdf Washington State Marijuana Impact Report http:Hwww riag ri gov/documents/NWHIDTAMariivanalmpactReportVolumel.pdf HIDTA Impact Report https•//Iearnaboutsam org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/CA-MJ-IMPACT-REPORT-FINALl.pdf Draft Environmental Impact Report - Kern County Cannabis Land Use https://www.kerncounty.com/pla.nning/pdfs/eirs/CLUO/`CLUO DEIR Vo12 Appendix A-J.pdf Opposition to Marijuana Grow in Rural Residential Clackamas County http;//www.clackamas us/planning/documents/meetings/pc/20151026exhibits.pdf Environmental Impact of Marijuana Cultivation in Nevada County http:/Inccourt net/documents/Eireports/1516-HEV-MarijuanaCultivation.pdf California Department of Food and Agriculture - State of California httt)s://www.cdfa.ca.goy/caIcannabis/documents/AppendixO Comments75-94. df Hood River County Community Development - Environmental Impact Report http://h rccd.co. hood - river or us/images/uploads documents/Web Page 1 Staff Reort Less Exhibits 8.29,216.pdf Land Development Code Revision - City of Phoenix Oregon http•//www phoenixoregon gov/sites/default/files/fileattachments/building/planning/page/352JIdcl5 01 stf fr rt h cc 061515d. df Staff Report for Board of Commissioners Public Hearing on Marijuana Operations - Polk County, Oregon http•//www co polk or us/sites/default/files/fileattachments/planning division/page/3086/staff report Ja15- 02 for boc - 1-6-15.0 Rand Corporation Study - The unintended consequences of drug policies: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/`pubsLtechnicaI reports/2009/RAND TR706. df Tracy Griffin From: Anthony Raguine Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 8:43 AM To: Tracy Griffin Subject: Pis scan to 18 -047 -AD & print a copy for the record. Thx. From: Hal Campbell [mailto:halcampbell@live.com] Sent: Saturday, February 3, 2018 12:22 PM To: Anthony Raguine <Anthony.Raguine@deschutes.org> Cc: Nick Lelack <Nick.Lelack@deschutes.org>; Matt Martin <Matt.Martin@deschutes.org>; Zechariah Heck <Zechariah.Heck@deschutes.org>; Anthony Raguine<Anthony.Raguine@deschutes.org>; dcaseygibbs@hotmail.com; Robert <robertlitmer@hotmail.com>; Jean Campbell <jean.campbel12@yahoo.com> Subject: Opposition to the Proposal for a Marijuana Grow Facility at 6829 NW 66th Street February 3, 2018 Community Development Department Deschutes County Planning Division P.O. Box 6005 Bend, Oregon 97708 Attention: Anthony Raguine - Reference file number 247 -18 -000047 -AD Please accept this correspondence as evidence of my stated opposition to the proposed land use request by Cascade Estate Farms, LLC to approve a marijuana grow facility to be located at 6829 NW 66th Street, Redmond, Oregon. There are innumerable reasons why such an incongruent business operation should be denied by the planning commission which include; • Public safety concerns and the potential for increased criminal activity, Environmental safety concerns including the potential impact such an operation might have on wildlife, ground water contamination, air quality, and soil contamination, • The potential for significant monetary damages to property owners of adjoining neighborhood parcels by values by making them less desirable, • The general incongruity and disregard that such a proposal has on other area residents in hopes of persuading planning officials to approve the location of a business enterprise within an area historically designated as a rural residential neighborhood, The potential civil liability and legal exposure to the County for damages incurred by individual property owners as a result of the County's actions to approve such a request. Violations of federal law and statutes regarding controlled substances, I appreciate your consideration of this letter of opposition and I formally request that it be included within the file for the Commission's review. Sincerely, Judge Hal Campbell, Ph.D. 6700 NW River Springs Road Redmond, Oregon 97756 halcampbell@live.com 541.316.1615 Tracy Griffin From: Anthony Raguine Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 8:39 AM To: Tracy Griffin Subject: PIs scan to 18 -047 -AD & print a copy for the record. Thx From: Nick Lelack Sent: Monday, February 5, 2018 10:16 PM To: Anthony Raguine <Anthony.Raguine@deschutes.org> Subject: Fwd: Proposal by Cascade Estates Farms Nick Lelack, AICP Deschutes County Community Development Director 541-639-5585 Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Alan Royse <jarspad(_i0endbroad band.com> Date: February 5, 2018 at 10:45:09 AM PST To: NIck.lxlackt"c}deschutes.ort; Subject: Proposal by Cascade Estates Farms Ref: 247 -18 -000047 -AD Sir, I live close to the proposed Cascade Estates farm marijuana grow facility and strongly oppose this proposed use. We live in a nice community, we have all worked had to make our properties a great place to live. I invite you to visit our community of Odin Falls Ranch and River Springs Estates and see for yourself. This facility will only decrease our property values, increase traffic and crime, and provide an. unpleasant odor for all neighbors to not enjoy. The roads that this facility would use are all privately owned and maintained and I see no relief for the added traffic and road use. This type of grow facility should be more remotely located and away from established residential areas. This also negatively affects residents in two other adjoining communities. Please deny this proposal. Alan & Debbie Royse 7185 NW River Springs Rd Redmond Tracy Griffin From: Anthony Raguine Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 8:37 AM To: Tracy Griffin Subject: PIs scan to 18 -047 -AD & print a copy for the record. Thx. From: Spencer Krueger [mailto:spencek@bendbroadband.com] Sent: Sunday, February 4, 2018 10:44 AM To: Anthony Raguine<Anthony.Raguine@deschutes.org>; Matt Martin <Matt.Martin@deschutes.org>; Zechariah Heck <Zechariah.Heck@deschutes.org>; Nick Lelack <Nick.Lelack@deschutes.org> Subject: Re: File Number: 47 -18 -000047 -AD Cascade Estate Farms, LLC Regarding Cascade Estate Farms, LLC application for a marijuana growing facility: This is NOT an agricultural area at all but zoned such by an antiquated zoning system. Although the site might at first glance appear fairly isolated, it is in reality very close to homes in the River Springs Estates and Mary K. Falls Estates subdivisions. Some of the homes are of "higher -end" and will be negatively affected tax -wise. In addition to the well-known noxious odors produced by these facilities, there is the negative impact this one will have on the limited water table of the area, as well as the probable negative impact it will have on safety in the area, where crime has been on the increase recently. A recent Bend Bulletin article discusses the overabundance of shops and grow operations which is leading to a black, i.e. illegal, market for the drug. Interesting, in this regard, there is an application for another grow operation at 5535 NW 62nd street in Tetherow Crossing about one mile from this site. Our roads are privately maintained for residential, not commercial, traffic and the applicant is under no obligation to contribute to their upkeep. Properties in River Springs, Odin Falls Ranch and Tetherow Crossing pay an annual road fee. This is a RESIDENTIAL, not an AGRICULTURAL, community. Please vote to save our neighborhood and disallow this highly negative addition to the area. Sincerely, Spencer M. Krueger & Mary Lefevre Odin Falls Ranch 7940 NW Grubstake Way Redmond, OR 97756 k Tracy Griffin From: Anthony Raguine Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 8:36 AM To: Tracy Griffin Subject: PIs scan to 18 -047 -AD & print a copy for the file. Thx. From: Karen Roberts [mailto:mkaren.roberts@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, February 4, 2018 11:25 AM To: Nick Lelack <Nick.Lelack@deschutes.org>; Matt Martin <Matt.Martin @deschutes.org>; Zechariah Heck <Zechariah.Heck@deschutes.org>; Anthony Raguine <Anthony.Raguine@deschutes.org> Subject: Marijuana Facility File Number: 47 -18 -000047 -AD Applicant: Cascade Estate Farms, LLC Mr. Raguine: I am filing my notice of OPPOSITION to this application for a marijuana production facility in our neighborhood. Below are reasons why this should not be approved. 1. INCREASED RISK OF CRIME: Several houses in our neighborhoods have already been prowled and/or burglarized. This operation will only increase the draw for persons with nefarious intent accessing our area, potentially causing increased crime problems for the entire neighborhood. 2. ODOR: Marijuana plants inherently have a distinctly unpleasant odor when growing due to the oils on the plants. This odor will permeate our neighborhoods, fouling the air and may even violate Oregon clean air standards. 3. LOSS OF TAX REVENUE: If approved, our property values will be severely affected negatively. This neighborhood is a major source of property tax revenue to the County; I highly doubt that the paltry tax revenue the County will receive from this production facility will offset the loss of revenue from our lowered property values. 4. INCREASED TRAFFIC: The roads accessing this proposed operation are privately owned, maintained by the neighborhoods through which they pass. Approval of this application will cause increased heavy traffic over these roads with no obligation on the part of the applicant to fix any damage, nor contribute in any way to the maintenance of these roads. This will negatively impact over 600 properties financially, benefiting no one but the applicant. PLEASE DISAPPROVE THIS APPLICATION. Sincerely, Art and Karen Roberts 7560 NW Grubstake Way Redmond, Oregon Tracy Griffin From: Anthony Raguine Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 8:30 AM To: Tracy Griffin Subject: Pls scan to 247 -18 -000047 -AD & print a copy for the record. Thx. From: Donald Sperling [mailto:spercrim@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, February 4, 2018 12:17 PM To: Anthony Raguine <Anthony.Raguine@deschutes.org> Cc: Nick Lelack <Nick.Lelack@deschutes.org>; Matt Martin <Matt.Martin@deschutes.org>; Zechariah Heck <Zechariah.Heck@deschutes.org> Subject: File No. 47 - 000047 -AD, Cascades Estate Farms LLC Dear Mr. Raguine, The purpose of this correspondence is to let you know that we STRONGLY OPPOSE the above mentioned application for a marijuana plant in our neighborhood, and needs to be DISAPPROVED for the following reasons: --The increased Traffic in our neighborhood would be on privately held roads that are maintained by all who live in the Tetherow area outside of Redmond which consists of some 600 plus properties. This increased traffic would greatly impair the roads which are paid for by these property owners. --Serious risk of INCREASED CRIME where some of us have already had prowlers and burglaries occur. A marijuana farm has the strong possibility of only increasing these crimes making our neighbors far less safe. The last thing we want are increased problems. --This plant will also SERIOUSLY DECREASE PROPERTY VALUES in our area which would result in less tax revenue for the county. We doubt the new facility would make up for that lost tax revenue because of lowered property valuations. --The possible HEALTH issues that could be caused by the odor that marijuana plants generate. We already have problems with unclean air in the area, particularly in the summer when we have serious problems with polluted air from the many forest fires in our state as well as other states. Research shows that such plants have a very distinctive odor that we are sure cannot be healthy for us, our families and pets. We do understand this property is zoned as farm property. However, any farming done is on a VERY small scale as most lots are not large enough to use as "farm" property. The only person/s benefiting from such a farm as this, would be the applicants. THEREFORE, we ask that you PLEASE DISAPPROVE THIS APPLICATION. Thank you for considering our remarks. We are sure you would not like to be living so close to such a facility. Sincerely, Donald L. Sperling Nita R. Crimins 8090 NW Grubstake Way Redmond OR 97756 Tracv Griffin From: Anthony Raguine Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 8:28 AM To: Tracy Griffin Subject: PIs scan to 247 -18 -000047 -AD & print a copy for the file. Thx. From: Odin Falls HOA [mailto:odinfallshoa@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, February 4, 2018 8:15 PM To: Anthony Raguine<Anthony.Raguine@deschutes.org>; Nick Lelack <Nick.Lelack@deschutes.org>; Matt Martin <Matt.Martin@deschutes.org>; Zechariah Heck <Zecharia h.Heck@deschutes.org> Subject: File Number: 47 -18 -000047 -AD File Number: 47 -18 -000047 -AD Applicant: Cascade Estate Farms, LLC Mr. Raguine: The Odin Falls Ranch Homeowner Association is filing notice of OPPOSITION to this application for a marijuana production facility in our neighborhood. There are many reasons why this application should not be approved. INCREASED RISK OF CRIME: Several houses in our neighborhoods have already been prowled and/or burglarized. This operation will only increase the draw of a criminal element accessing our area, potentially causing increased crime problems for the entire neighborhood. ODOR: Marijuana plants inherently have a distinctly unpleasant odor when growing due to the oils on the plants. This odor will permeate our neighborhoods, fouling the air and may even violate Oregon clean air standards, as well as Deschutes County regulations regarding grow operations. LOSS OF TAX REVENUE: If approved, our property values will be severely affected. This neighborhood is a major source of property tax revenue to the County; and it is unlikely the paltry tax revenue the County will receive from this production facility will offset the loss of revenue from our lowered property values. INCREASED TRAFFIC: The roads accessing this proposed operation are privately owned and maintained by the neighborhoods through which they pass. Approval of this application will cause increased traffic over these roads with no obligation on the part of the applicant to fix any damage, nor contribute in any way to the maintenance of these roads. This will negatively impact over 600 properties financially in Tetherow Crossing, Odin Falls Ranch, and River Springs Estates, pus other un -associated properties, benefiting no one but the applicant. GROUND WATER DEPLETION: Our members are served by a community well as our only source of water. Increased agricultural irrigation requirements of this grow facility will further contribute to the depletion of the aquifer from which we draw our household water needs, to our community's detriment. OVERPRODUCTION IN OREGON: Experts in the field agree that Oregon is already producing more than five times the amount of marijuana that can be consumed by Oregonians, with Deschutes County identified as one of six counties that are major contributors. They agree that much of this overproduction is going to the -- black market in other states, contributing to law enforcement problems in states where marijuana in not legal. Another grow operation will only worsen this problem. INCONGRUOUS USE: Even though the areas affected are zoned MUA-10, the primary use is 5-10 acre lots with one residence. In other words these are residential neighborhoods. A marijuana grow facility has no business in a residential neighborhood and should not be allowed. PLEASE DISAPPROVE THIS APPLICATION. Odin Falls Ranch, Board of Directors Terri Timberman, President D Casey Gibbs, Secretary Tracy Griffin From: Anthony Raguine Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 8:25 AM To: Tracy Griffin Subject: PIs scan to 247 -18 -000047 -AD & print a copy for the file. Thx. From: Gunther Hirschmann f mailto:ghirschmannjr@gmail.comj Sent: Sunday, February 4, 2018 9:03 PM To: Anthony Raguine <Anthony.Raguine @deschutes.org> Subject: File Number: 47 -18 -000047 -AD Cascade Estate Farms, LLC Mr. Raguine, I am filing my notice of OPPOSITION to this application for a marijuana production facility in our neighborhood. We are concerned about the increased risk of crime in our neighborhood. Loss of property values and the increased traffic. After reading the article on Saturday February 3, 2018 in the Bend Bulletin about the over production of Marijuana in this state. It appears that this state already has three times the amount of Marijuana that it can consume. So you can understand our concern. That being said, we do not need any more of these facilities. PLEASE DISAPPROVE THIS APPLICATION. Sincerely, Gunther Hirschmann Marisol Hirshchniann 7990 NW Grubstrake Way Redmond, OR. 97756 Tracy Griffin From: Anthony Raguine Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 8:04 AM To: Tracy Griffin Subject: pls scan to 247 -18 -000047 -AD & print a copy for the file. thx From: Brad Siemens[mailto:Brad.Siemens@autowrecking.com] Sent: Monday, February 5, 2018 9:29 AM To: Anthony Raguine <Anthony.Raguine@deschutes.org> Subject: FILE 247 -18 -000047 -AD Dear sir I live in oden falls ranch address 7965 nw grubstake way I am writing in reguards to cascade estate farms Ilc application for marijuana production facility please don't allow this to ruin the reason I moved here I am agaist this and will seek legal action if it is pushed forward this is not the proper place for this type of operation it will lower property values and increase traffic and crime this is a rural residencial area for families to live in peace and quiet not a place to grow drugs please use your better judgement and rule agaist this it's a bad idea and it will harm more people that it would ever help thank you if you have any questions my number is 541-699-8707 brad siemens Brad Siemens I Sales Professional B & R Auto Wrecking 64154 Hwy 97 Bend OR 97701 800-320-7397 (Office) 1541-526-1151 (Fax) Brad.Siemens@autowrecking.com ** CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE ** If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail please reply and notify the sender immediately and delete this e-mail. This e-mail message and any attachments is exclusively for the sole use of the intended recipient and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under state or federal laws. Distribution, duplication or disclosing the contents of this e-mail by someone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited and may result in legal action. From:r t1 nY-Rquvi,Ln To: '11� Subject: PIs scan to 18 -047 -AD & print a copy for the record. Thx. Date: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 8:56:30 AM Attachments: r7Ll t -L( -J -)', From: Bill Castillo and Marj Bishop [mailto:mbishbcast@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, February 3, 2018 5:03 PM To: Anthony Raguine<Antliony.Raguine@deschutes.org> Cc: nick.lelack@deshutes.org; matt.martin@deshutes.org; Zechariah Heck <Zechar iah.l-leck@deschutes.org> Subject: Comments on application File Number: 247 -18 -000047 -AD Attached are our comments for the application by Cascade Estate Farms, LLC for a marijuana production facility File number: 247 -18 -000047 -AD Sent from ail for Windows 10 February 3, 2018 Mr. Anthony Raguine Deschutes County Planning Division RE: File Number 247 -18 -000047 -AD Application for marijuana production facility Applicant: Cascade Estate Farm, LLC We are writing in opposition to this application for a marijuana production facility immediately adjacent to our River Springs Estates neighborhood. Since voters approved the sale of recreational marijuana in 2014 this new industry has grown out of control. According to a recent article in the Bend Bulletin, there are already 900 licensed recreational growers and over 1100 license applications awaiting approval in Oregon. This on top of the 25,600 growers of medical marijuana that Oregon has. According to Seth Crawford, a former OSU professor and cannabis policy and economics expert, Oregon's licensed growers already produce up to three times the marijuana demand within the state. The US Attorney for the District of Oregon, Billy J Williams, says that Oregon's growing overproduction of marijuana is attracting criminal networks, drug violence, money laundering and it is drawing down water supplies in rural communities. Approval of this application will degrade our neighborhood and contribute to the gross overproduction of marijuana that is already a significant and increasing problem in Oregon. We urge you to deny approval for this application. We believe a moratorium on approval of any new applications in Deschutes County should be adopted until better control over production can be implemented so that marijuana grown in Oregon is not being diverted to other states where it is not legal. Sincerely, William J Castillo and Marjorie Bishop 7165 NW River Springs Rd Redmond, OR 97756 From: 6nLl i Y-1 -)( iIM Subject: PIs scan to 247 -18 -000047 -AD & print a copy for the record. Thx. Date: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 8:31:46 AM Attachments: Mririj4,�� CC�rp4y �1I,i�ian t-SIe �: C4C?Ci4 From: David Standerwick [mailto:polarbeargw@gmail.com) Sent: Sunday, February 4, 2018 11:44 AM To: Anthony Raguine <Anthony.Raguine@deschutes.org> Cc: Nick Lelack <Nick.Lelack@deschutes.org>; Matt Martin <Matt.Martin @deschutes.org>; Zechariah Heck <Zechariah.Heck@deschutes.org> Subject: Opposition To Land Use (Marijuana Grow) Application No. 247 -18 -000047 -AD Please consider the attached in objection to the above -referenced Land Use Application File Number: 47 -18 -000047 -AD Applicant: Cascade Estate Farms, LLC Mr. Raguine: Please consider this letter as a statement of my opposition to the above referenced Land Use Application. As the owner of Tax Lot 500 on Tax Map 14-12-23, my property is separated by only 82 feet from Tax Lot 300; the proposed site for the marijuana production facility. My concerns and objections are the same as those identified and directed to your attention by many of my neighbors in Tetherow, Odin Falls and River Springs Estates. - Increased risk of crime Several of our neighbors have already been the victims of `breaking and entering' type crimes. Some even more violent... Commercial activities that require by law, 24 hour security measures, will only invite further criminal activity in the neighborhood. - Odor Of course, marijuana plants have a unique, pungent odor. Quite simply, I don't want my neighborhood to smell like pot... The argument has been made that the grow is required to be indoor and therefore the odor should not be an issue. My understanding is that the building will necessarily be vented to the outside atmosphere. - Impact on neighboring property values Property values of neighboring homeowners will be negatively impacted (likely significantly), by the establishment of the grow facility and all that comes with it. I don't feel it is fair to impact the many for the benefit of one. - Impact on water level I understand substantial amounts of water are required for the grow. Options to meet the required water needs are to drill a deeper well; therefore impacting the level at which neighboring properties must go to meet their water needs or trucking water to the grow facility; impacting wear and tear on the privately owned and maintained road accessing the property. Again, not fair to impact the many for the benefit of one. - Overproduction of marijuana in Oregon Oregon's top federal prosecutor has stated that Oregon has a "formidable" problem with overproduction of marijuana — fueling the black market in adjacent states where marijuana production and consumption remains in compliance with federal law — illegal! Enough is enough... Production currently far exceeds demand. Let's not kid ourselves where additional, new production is going. Please reject application number 47 -18 -000047 -AD for the above reasons. Respectfully submitted, David & Michelle Standervack 7170 NW River Springs Road To: Deschutes County Planning Division From: River Springs Estates Property Owners Association, Sharon Williams- Jensen, Secretary F' I.:: I '� 0 9 2018 Bob Litmer, President, RSEPOA 541-923- 2760, Ray Jensen, Sharon Williams: 541-548-9839 Re: Notice of Application File # 247 -18 -000047 -AD Date: February 1, 2018 Attn: Anthony Raguine We oppose approval of the proposed application by Cascades Estate Farms LLC to establish a marijuana production (grow) facility. We oppose this application for the following reasons: • It will reduce the value of homes surrounding the site and specifically the gated communities of Odin Falls Ranch and River Springs Estates. • The area is not suited for this kind of commercial or agricultural use. No such use is in the surrounding area of family homes. • It will increase the use of privately owned roads not intended for heavy trucks,( water trucks, heavy equipment, transports etc.) • The roads this enterprise will use are privately owned and the maintenance is paid for by the surrounding HOAS and communities. There is no guarantee the Cascades Estate Farm is going to pay for an appropriate fair share of the wear and tear on the roads. • There are only two means of ingress and egress for residents on 661h avenue: through Federal BLM land/ roads or the privately owned gravel road. • The BLM roads are filled with recreational hikers, off-road vehicles, target shooters, bikers and kids on bicyles. Any use of the BLM road is major conflict of use. 66th avenue turns into a BLM road. We cannot be certain the BLM roads will not be used by this commercial enterprise when there is heavy residential traffic and bad weather conditions on the roads leading to 661h St. • There is a major concern that this enterprise will increase fire hazards. • Increase of noise. • Increase of dust on gravel and dirt roads • Strong and repugnant odor of plants in bloom. • Increase draw down on existing water aquifer providing water to existing communities. • Security of adjoining properties. • We are a suburban residential community with families. This is not appropriate. We did not carefully select and invest in our properties, and their locations to have a commercial enterprise forced upon us. Additional information for these bulleted concerns will be supplied as well as a petition from the Homeowner Associations. The time allotted for rebuttal and the gathering of concerns was ten days from January 26, a Friday. Our HOA President received this notice today, February 1. If one adds in weekends and not receiving the notice until one week had already passed, we did not have the stated time allowed to gather our petition and our responses. ' Friday, January 26, 2018 ' Community Development Department Mar+Hing oivisio" auitding safety Division Env rartmN3�tat sails Divisiars P.C. Sox 6003 117 NW Lafayette A -venue bend. Oregon T778S-6005 Phone: (541) 388-6573 Fax: (54 11 385-1764 http ;rll,%gk,tt ,deschutes,cr-glcd NOTICE OF APPLICATION The Deschutes County Planning Division has received the proposed land use application described below: FILE NUMBER: 247 -18 -000047 -AD APPLICANT: Cascade Estate Farms, LLC OWNER: Isaac Babani PROPOSAL: The applicant requests approval to establish a marijuana production (grow) facility which will consist of a 50' x 100' building and up to 5,000 square feet of mature canopy area. LOCATION: The subject property has an assigned address of 6829 NW 66th Street, Redmond, and is identified on County Assessor Tax Map 14-12-23, as Tax Lot 300. STAFF CONTACT: Anthony Raguine, anthon .r.raguineO-deschutes.orci, (541) 617- 4739 DOCUMENTS: Can be viewed and downloaded from: www.buildingpermits.oreq_on.gov and http://dial.deschutess arcs STANDARDS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA Title 18, Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use Zone Chapter 18.116, Supplementary Provisions Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance Copies of the application, all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost. Copies can be purchased for 25 cents per page. The Planning Division is located in the Community Development Department Office at 117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon. Any interested person may submit written comments on the proposed land use action. Your input is important to us. ALL WRITTEN TESTIMONY MUST BE RECEIVED BY THE DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION NO LATER THAN TEN (10) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF MAILING. Notice of the decision will be provided by a separate mailing. For more information or to request copies of the findings and decision, contact the assigned planner. This Notice was mailed pursuant to Deschutes County Code Chapters 22.20 and 22.24. 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 July 2, 2018 DATE: June 27, 2018 FROM: Peter Gutowsky, Community Development, 541-385-1709 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Deliberation of Shepherd Church RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: Review the staff memorandum and conduct deliberations. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Board deliberation of the Applicant and Central Oregon LandWatch's appeal of an administrative decision for a Church and church events. File Nos. 247 -17 -000573 -AD and 574 -SP (247-18-000179- A and 182-A) Staff has prepared a memorandum to help the Board to prepare for these deliberations. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None ATTENDANCE: Peter Gutowsky, Legal MEMORANDUM DATE: June 19, 2018 TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Will Groves, Senior Planner RE: BOCC deliberation of the Applicant and Central Oregon Landwatch's appeal of an administrative decision. File Nos. 247 -17 -000573 -AD and 574 -SP (247-18- 000179-A and 182-A) Before the Board of County Commissioners (Board) is an appeal filed by applicant John Shepherd and opponent Central Oregon LandWatch. The appeal is submitted in response to a February 9, 2018 administrative approval for a proposed church and associated church events in the Exclusive Farm Use zone. I. BACKGROUND Both the property and the applicant's efforts to establish a church and associated events on the property have an extensive land use history. CU-00-65/MA-01-9/A-01-15 (Farm Dwelling) - Conditional use approval to establish a farm - related dwelling on the subject property and to site the dwelling more than 300 feet from a public or private road in the WA Zone (CU -00-65). This approval included a Wildlife and Farm Management Plan. CU -13-13/ MA -13-3 (Private Park) - Hearings Officer denial of conditional use approval to establish a private park on the subject property to be called "Shepherdsfield Park." The park would host weddings, wedding receptions, special events and recreational activities. Denial was based on several issues, including that the application did not include a site plan review application. 247 -14 -000401 -MC and 454-A (Modification of the Wildlife Management Plan) - The modification wholly removed the Wildlife Management Plan (WMP) required under the previous Farm Dwelling decision and replaced it with six conditions of approval designed to protect and enhance deer habitat on the property. 247 -14 -000228 -CU and 229 -SP (Private Park) - The applicant applied again for a second land use permit to establish a private park. Ultimately, the Court of Appeals (276 Or App 282 2016) affirmed LUBA's reversal of the County approval. The Court concluded that hosting weddings and similar events did not qualify as a private park. The court cited the determination by the County that not all events would have a ceremony and when there is a wedding ceremony, it would last for just a fraction of the time in which the event is held. 247 -16 -000159 -SP and 161 -AD (Church and Church Events) - The applicant tried again for a land use permit allowing a church on the subject property. LUBA reversed the Hearings Officer decision approving the use. LUBA found that the proposed church is a prohibited use in the Wildlife Area Combining Zone that governs the subject property. LUBA also found that intervenors arguments regarding the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) were undeveloped. The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed without opinion (Al 64877). Following the Court's decision, the County initiated a text amendment amending the Comprehensive Plan and Deschutes County Code (DCC) Chapter 18.88 to permit churches in the Wildlife Area Combining Zone for several reasons, including ensuring compliance with RLUIPA. The Board adopted amendments on January 3, 2018, which is the basis for the present application. Central Oregon LanclWatch appealed Ordinance No. 2018-002 to LUBA, where that ordinance was remanded back to the County and provided the County options on how to amend its ESEE Analysis underpinning the Amendments. (LUBA No. 2018-007). The County is appealing that decision to the Court of Appeals because it believes the remand is unnecessary. The Applicant elected to go forward with the application based on the argument that RLUIPA provides a basis for the County to approve the proposed land use. II. PROPOSAL The applicants are seeking permission to use their home for church services. The maximum attendance at any one service will be 25 persons. The church also plans to use the existing 1.6 -acre lawn area and gazebo near the church/residence for weddings and church functions allowed by ORS 215.441. The applicants agree to impose a limit on events to 30 per calendar year.' The events will conclude no later than 10:00 p.m. A limit of 250 event guests will be enforced by the applicants. The church also plans to use a 1.5 acre graveled parking area near the church/residence for guest parking. 1 This limitation is a change from the administrative approval and is self-imposed by the applicant to limit infrastructure impacts. -2- The Applicant clarified, in their final argument that they are seeking a permit from the County that would allow it to have thirty (30) wedding events on their property which consist of the following: • Friday. Set up for the wedding and the wedding rehearsal'. • Saturday. Host a wedding and wedding reception. • Sunday. Clean up the property from the wedding and the reception The applicant would pursue permits at a later date for: • The ability to have a rehearsal dinner on the day before a wedding for the wedding guest who attended the rehearsal and helped set up the wedding. • The ability to host wedding guests to stay overnight on the property in tents and camping trailers throughout the weekend. • No restriction on the number of wedding and wedding receptions per year. Staff recommends the Board adopt conditions of approval to implement this proposal as follows: The applicant has proposed the following use limitations in order to limit infrastructure improvement obligations and off-site impacts. As conditions of this approval: 1) Church events shall be limited to 30 one -day events per year. These events may include set-up/rehearsal the day prior and clean up the day after. Events shall: a. Be limited to 250 guests b. Not begin before 7:00 a.m. or end after 10:00 p.m. c. Limit set-up and take down of all temporary structures and facilities up to one day prior to the event and one day after the event between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. d. Not include food service on set-up/rehearsal or take down days. e. Not include overnight use of the property by the public 2) Church functions including less than 25 persons shall not count toward the 30 event limitation. 111. ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED IN DELIBERATION: In deliberation, the Board will need to resolve if the proposal complies with local code and state statute. To the extent the proposal does not comply, RLUIPA may provide a pathway to approval. This deliberation summary of party positions is largely composed of direct quotes. Some quotes have been edited for brevity, clarity, or issue focus. A. LOCAL CODE - Modification 2 The Applicant's final argument stated "reception" rather than "rehearsal", however, Staff believes this is a -3- Staff: The Board decided at the Hearing that inclusion of rehearsal dinners or camping would constitute a modification of the application under DCC 22.04.020, "Modification of application". Staff believes the Applicant's final argument makes the current proposal clear and confirms that the applicant walked -back the previous modification. B. LOCAL CODE - Violation of Prior Decisions Is the property in violation of a prior approval under DCC 22.20.15? Does the Shepherds' failure to establish the cattle and hog operation on the property as required under the 2001 farm management plan mean that the property is in violation of the 2001 conditions of approval for the dwelling in conjunction with farm use? Such a finding would preclude further development of the property until this violation are corrected. Condition #1 of CU -00-65 specified: 1. Approval is based upon the farm management plan and the plot plan. Anysubstantial alteration of the farm management plan or the plot plan shall require submittal of a new land use permit. Applicant: My property has NEVER been ruled out of compliance of my FMP and the review process has not determined this to be so either. My farming has been audited annually by the Deschutes Count Tax Assessors office and always found to be in compliance. I have also provided to the Commissioners a receipt of livestock sales for 2017 and photographic evidence of an active pasture. Opponents: Under DCC 22.20.15, additional land use approvals for the property must wait until the property comes into compliance with conditions of approval the County has already issued. The applicant is in violation of the farm management plan that was required for the dwelling. Staff. Staff concurs with the Hearing Officer in File No. 247-16-000159-SP/161-AD that Specifically, a "violation" may be found if a "substantial alteration of the farm management plan" has occurred. A property owner has reasonable latitude under an FMP to change the types and numbers of livestock to be raised on the property. Although the FMP has been altered via a change in farming operations, and there has been a period of time during which farming operations were not taking place on the subject property, there is no evidence that the applicant is currently out of compliance with the conditions of approval for the farm dwelling on the property. -4- Staff recommends the Board concur with the Hearings Officer and incorporate her findings by reference. C. LOCAL CODE - Prohibition of Churches in the Wildlife Area Combining Zone The Wildlife Area Combining Zone currently precludes churches. The County initiated a text amendment amending the Comprehensive Plan and Deschutes County Code (DCC) Chapter 18.88 to permit churches in the Wildlife Area Combining Zone for several reasons, including ensuring compliance with RLUIPA. The Board adopted amendments on January 3, 2018, which is the basis for the present application. Central Oregon LanclWatch appealed Ordinance No. 2018-002 to LUBA, where that ordinance was remanded back to the County and provided the County options on how to amend its ESEE Analysis underpinning the Amendments. (LUBA No. 2018-007). The County is appealing that decision to the Court of Appeals because it believes the remand is unnecessary. The Applicant elected to go forward with the application based on the argument that RLUIPA provides a basis for the County to approve the proposed land use. If the Board ultimately approves this application based on RLUIPA, Staff recommends the Board to direct staff to include alternative findings addressing the amended code provisions in case the Court of Appeals reverses LUBA or the County elects to amend its ESEE Analysis as directed by LUBA, this is discussed below. Deliberation points regarding RLUIPA are also presented below. D. LOCAL CODE - Withdrawn Applications Can the applicant change his/her/its mind and request that the County proceed with rendering a decision on the application after initially withdrawing per DCC 22.08.037. If not, what case law, DCC provisions, or ORS prevent the applicant from changing his/her/its mind? How are the opponents harmed by the applicant changing his/her/its mind? Applicant: Yes, the code does not preclude it. Opponents: This could be a matter of first impression for Deschutes County. LanclWatch recommended the County decline to allow the applicant to resubmit after withdrawal. We also recommended, and continue to recommend, that the County dismiss this application as res judicata under the County's acknowledged plan and code given LUBA's recent decision. Staff. Staff recommends that the Board find that nothing precludes County from proceeding with rendering a decision on the application after initially withdrawing per DCC 22.08.037. The Opponents present no case law nor evidence that they were harmed, despite being invited to do so. -5- E. LOCAL CODE - Churches DCC 18.04.030 defines a "church" as "an institution that has nonprofit status as a church established with the Internal Revenue Service." Is the entity operating the wedding center (1) an "institution," and does it (2) possess "nonprofit status as a church" as required by the DCC definition? Applicant: The County defines a "church" as a religious entity with IRS designation 501 C 3 status. Shepherdsfield qualifies as a church. Once permitted, Shepherdsfield Church will be paid for these services. Opponents: The applicants are not applying on behalf of the church as church officers, but on their own behalf as private citizens. The use that is allowed under DCC 18.16.025(C) is for churches to operate as churches on farmland: the code does not permit individuals to operate a for-profit event venue in the guise of a church on farmland. In its most recent decision regarding the requested use, LUBA stated: "In June 2011, John and Stephanie Shepherd began using their farm dwelling and property in the county's exclusive farm use (EFU) zone and Metolius Deer Winter Range to conduct commercial wedding events, a use that is not allowed in the EFU zone." LUBA No. 2018-007, May 16, 2018. This is a threshold issue, because RLUIPA does not apply to businesses or to for-profit uses, even by a non-profit entity. Staff: The definition of "church" in the DCC requires two separate inquires. First, is an applicant an "institution," and second, does that institution have "nonprofit status as a church established with the Internal Revenue Service." The record shows, however, that the second inquiry implicitly includes the first. Staff recommends that the Board thereby interprets the definition of "church" in DCC 18.04.030 to require only that an applicant provide applicable determination letter from the Internal Revenue Service. Chapter 3 of IRS Publication 557 states that"[t]o qualify [for exemption from federal income tax], the organization must be organized as a corporation (including a limited liability company,) unincorporated association, or trust. Sole proprietorships, partnerships, individuals, or loosely associated groups of individual won't qualify." Relying on the verbiage from the DCC, not all "institutions" may qualify for federal income tax exemptions, but only "institutions" may apply. Staff recommends that the Board thereby finds that providing documentation of "nonprofit status as a church established with the Internal Revenue Service thereby ensures that an applicant is an "institution." In this particular case, the applicant provided a determination letter from the Internal Revenue Service dated January 19, 2016 and addressed to Shepherdsfield Church. That letter states that "Organizations exempt under IRC Section 501(c)(3) are further classified as either public charities or private foundation. We determined you're a public charity under the IRC Section at the top of this letter." The top of the letter references 170(b)(1)(A)(i) under 0 "Public Charity Status." That references refers to 26 U.S.C. § 170(b)(1)(A)(i) which lists "a church or a convention of association of churches." Staff recommends that the Board finds that Shepherdsfield Church meets the definition of church in DCC 18.04.030 and ORS 215.441 thereby applies. By determining that Shepherdsfield Church is in fact a "church," it is not necessary to address Central Oregon LanclWatch's alternative argument that ORS 215.441 does not apply to a "residential place of worship." The past Hearings Officer decision and the Administrative decision included a condition that required the church to maintain its 501(c)(3) status. Staff recommends that the Board include this requirement as a condition of any approval. Staff notes that it is not relevant if Shepherdsfield Church was the institution that conducted weddings in the past, but it seems reasonable to make that a requirement going forward. Staff recommends conditions of any approval specifying that only the non-profit church institution is authorized to provide paid services and events under this approval. The church shall maintain records at all times demonstrating that the non-profit church institution is the entity conducting and being paid for any paid services and events under this approval. Such records shall be made available to Deschutes County upon request. F. LOCAL CODE - Who is the applicant for this proposal Who is the applicant for this proposal, and have the property owners consented to the application per DCC 22.08.010(B)(1)? Applicant: DCC 22.08.010 states "The term "property owner" shall mean the owner of record..." and B(1) states "Applications for land use actions shall be submitted by the property owner." John and Stephanie Shepherd are the owners of record and have consented to the application. When the "Cowboy Church" was permitted earlier this year to Ramona and Dave Hulick, their names were listed as the applicant and property owners. As per the application originally prepared by a local land use attorney, Liz Fancher, John and Stephanie Shepherd are listed as the property owners and applicant. Opponents: According to the application the applicant/owners are John and Stephanie Shepherd. Staff: Staff concurs that the applicant/owners are John and Stephanie Shepherd. Mr. Shepherd represented on the record on several occasions that he is applying both as the property owner and more specifically as pastor and president of Shepherdsfield Church. Staff notes that any party may apply for a land use approval, provided they have received the owner's consent to make the application. There is no requirement that a church make the application. -7- G. STATE CODE - Non Residential Places of Worship Does ORS 215.441 preclude weddings at a residential property? ORS 215.441 Use of real property for religious activity, county regulation of real property used for religious activity. (1) If a church, synagogue, temple, mosque, chapel, meeting house or other nonresidential place of worship is allowed on real property under state law and rules and local zoning ordinances and regulations, a county shall allow the reasonable use of the real property for activities customarily associated with the practices of the religious activity, including. (a) Worship services. (b) Religion classes. (c) Weddings. (d) Funerals... (2) A county may. Applicant: There is a big difference between a church that meets in a residence and a residential church, just as there is a difference between a business that meets in a residence and residential business. A business that meets in a residence is a home occupation, such as an accountant, a jeweler or a hair dresser. A residential business is a hotel or a group home, which may not be suitable in all neighborhoods. Similarly, a church that meets in a house is a house church, which is common throughout the world and totally legal if it meets site plan review. A residential church, as referred to in Oregon law, is a lodging or group home for clergy, such as a monastery or a clergy retirement home or a retreat center. This was a "nonresidential church" violation that LUBA ruled against. Thus, a house church, like any church, is a use permitted outright on EFU in Oregon. The Shepherd's beliefs are based on 2000 -year-old Biblical references acknowledged by billions of people around the world. They believe that hosting a wedding includes allowing the wedding party to set up, rehearse the ceremony, eat together at a rehearsal dinner, stay together in a group overnight, attend the wedding, celebrate the wedding at a reception, and clean up. Shepherdsfield Church only host ministry related events, such as weddings, wedding receptions, memorial services, church services, and on rare occasions, a youth drama ministry. Opponents: The [staff] decision misinterprets DCC 18.16.025 (C), which allows "churches and cemeteries in conjunction with churches consistent with ORS 215.441 and OAR 660-033- 0130(2) on high value farmland." ORS 215.441 provides for the reasonable use of real property for activities customarily associated with the practices of religious activity at nonresidential places of worship. ORS 215.441 and DCC 18.16.025 do not apply to the farm dwelling residence of the applicants. See Reed v. Jackson County, LUBA No. 2009-136 (2010) and Bechtold vJackson County, 42 Or LUBA 204, 211 (2002). The question of whether accessory uses are permitted in a residential place of worship is a matter of state law. ORS 215.441 concerns "nonresidential places of worship." While the applicant wants the Board to consider the second part of this phrase, that matter leads the Board into ecclesiastical matters that are not regulated by Deschutes County code. The Board should decline to consider the second part of this phrase and instead just look at the first part, which is a clear expression of state law ORS 215.441, concerning "nonresidential places of worship." Whatever else may be said about the requested use, it is not a nonresidential use. The applicants are requesting to use their residence, where they reside. Staff. Staff recommends the Board find that, by determining that Shepherdsfield Church is in fact a "church," it is not necessary to address Central Oregon LanclWatch's alternative argument that ORS 215.441 does not apply to a "residential place of worship." H. RLUIPA - Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person Act The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), Pub.L. 106-274, codified as 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq., is a United States federal law that prohibits the imposition of burdens on the ability of prisoners to worship as they please and gives churches and other religious institutions a way to avoid zoning law restrictions on their property use. It also defines the term "religious exercise" to include "any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief." Equal Terms Provision One provision of RLUIPA pertaining to land use is the Equal Terms Provision. The Equal Terms Provision states "No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that treats a religious assembly or institution on less than equal terms with a nonreligious assembly or institution." The Ninth Circuit has weighed in on the Equal Terms Provision in Centro Familiar Cristiano Buenas Nuevas v. City of Yuma. The test deals with the meaning of the word "equal" and stresses that it will mean different things in different situations. The Court goes on to state that a municipality can justify its treatment on different terms so long as it relates to a legitimate regulatory purpose and not the religious nature of the institution Safe Harbor Provision The RLUIPA "safe harbor" provision appears in the act as follows: A government may avoid the preemptive force of any provision of this chapter by changing the policy or practice that results in a substantial burden on religious exercise, by retaining the policy or practice and exempting the substantially burdened religious exercise, by providing exemptions from the policy or practice for applications that substantially burden religious exercise, or by any other means that eliminates the substantial burden. M The Board will need to determine if enforcement of our local code would result in a risk of a RLUIPA violation and whether to provide an exemption to our code. 1) What case law should Deschutes County use for the RLUIPA analysis? Applicant: There exists an inter -circuit split with respect to the proper "equal terms" test and the Ninth Circuit has adopted one of the tests with a modification. The split is fairly summarized in the case of Summit Church v. Randolph Cnty. Dev. Auth., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25665 at *5- 8 (N.D.W.V., March 2, 2016). As succinctly summarized in Summit, the other circuit tests "fall into three categories": 1. The "regulatory purpose" test. Lighthouse Institute for Evangelism, Inc. v. City of Long Branch, 510 F.3d 253, 266 (3d Cir. 2007). This test holds that a regulation violates the "Equal Terms" provision if it treats religious institutions less well than secular institutions that are similarly situated as to the "regulatory purpose." 2. The "accepted zoning criteria" test. River of Life Kingdom Ministries v. Vill. of Hazel Crest, 611 F.3d 367, 368-74 (7th Cir. 2010). This test looks at whether religious and non- religious uses are treated equally with respect to "accepted" zoning criteria. So, for example, if the criterion is "commercial" and "a municipality creates what purports to be a pure commercial district and then allows other [non-commercial] uses, a church would have an easy victory if the municipality kept it out." Id. at 373 (emphasis added). 3. The "functional intents and purposes" test. Midrash Sephardi, Inc. v. Town of Surfside, 366 F.3d 1214,1230-31 (11th Cir. 2004). This test applies the language of the equal- terms provision more literally and broadly to protect religious exercise (as RLUIPA requires). It plainly provides, for example, that an ordinance that allows any "assembly" to locate in a district must permit a religious assembly to locate in that district, unless the seemingly unequal treatment of religious uses can satisfy "strict scrutiny." Id. at 1232. The only case this panel need look at is the Ninth Circuit's decision of Centro Familiar Cristiano v. City of Yuma. 651 F 3rd 1163 (2011) where the Court added an additional modification by acknowledging that jurisdictions may still justify treatment of a religious organization on less than equal terms so long as the disparate treatment is pursuant to a legitimate regulatory purpose. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit addressed the four elements of the equal terms provision in RLUIPA: (1) there must be an imposition or implementation of a land use regulation, (2) by a government, (3) on a religious assembly or institution; and (4) the imposition must be "on less than equal terms with a nonreligious assembly or institution." The court determined that the city's express mandate that "religious organizations" needed a conditional use permit in order to operate in the Main Street district, while all other membership organizations did not -10- need such a permit, demonstrated that the city clearly treated religious organizations on less than equal terms. The court further explained that once the church established the city's "less than equal terms" treatment, RLUIPA shifted the burden to the city to demonstrate that it had a compelling government interest for such a discrepancy. The court further explained that once the church established the city's "less than equal terms" treatment, RLUIPA shifted the burden to the city to demonstrate that it had a compelling government interest for such a discrepancy. Like the Third Circuit, the Ninth Circuit declined to apply strict scrutiny but, significantly, decided that the city could still justify the less than equal treatment "on account of a legitimate regulatory purpose." This approach shifts the burden away from the religious organization to proffer a similarly situated secular organization onto the city to show that the treatment is not in effect unequal even when the letter of the law suggests otherwise. Opponents: Applicable cases include: Timberline Baptist. Church v. Washington County, 211 Or. App. 437,154 P.3d 759 (2007); River of Life Kingdom Ministries v. Vill. of Hazel Crest, 611 F.3d 367, 369 (7th Cir. 2010); Centro Familiar Cristiano Buenas Nuevas v. City of Yuma, 651 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 2011). The County should also consider Petra Presbyterian Church v. Vill. of Northbrook, 489 F.3d 846, 849 (7th Cir. 2007) or any of the numerous cases that rely on that case, and realize that the only action the County needs to take, if any, is to change the word "church" in DCC 18.88.040 to the phrase "church or assembly, institution, or membership organization similarly situated to a church." As we have strongly recommended in the past, this is the only step the County needs to take to neutralize the threat of an RLUIPA lawsuit. The County's laws are secular, and there is no basis in law for an RLUIPA lawsuit. Staff: Both parties cite to the 9th Circuit decision establishing its Equal Terms analysis - Centro Familiar Cristiano Buenas Nuevas v. City of Yuma. Staff recommends the Board defer to this case for analysis. Staff notes that Centro Familiar Cristiano Buenas Nuevas V. City of Yuma appears to contain a two prong test, which is addressed immediately below in questions 2 and 3. 2) Does the prohibition on churches in the Wildlife Area Combining Zone represent an equal terms violation where (1) there is an imposition or implementation of a land -use regulation U by a government U on a religious assembly or institution, (4) on less than equal terms with a nonreligious assembly or institution? Staff believes that the prohibition on churches in the Wildlife Area Combining Zone is plainly an imposition or implementation of a land -use regulation, by a government, on a religious assembly or institution. The question remains if this implementation of a land -use regulation is imposed on the church on less than equal terms with a nonreligious assembly or institution. -11- Applicant: Shepherdsfield's "equal terms" claim is likely to succeed under the 9th Circuit's test especially when the provision is "construed in favor of a broad protection of religious exercise, to the maximum extent permitted by law," as 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-(3)(g) requires. Simply put, Shepherdsfield is a religious institution, and its intended use of the property is akin to the religious and non -religious uses the Zoning Code already freely permits at the Property— namely ranches and other secular activities. This apparent unequal treatment of like uses is more than enough to satisfy Sheperdsfield's burden under RLUIPA, 42 U.S.C. 2000cc(4)(b), and to shift the burden to the County. Opponents: The applicants do not have a colorable claim under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). As LandWatch has maintained since 2016, the applicants' threats of an RLUIPA lawsuit are unfounded. There is no viable equal terms or substantial evidence claim. There are no similarly situated properties. Although the applicants' dwelling was approved as a farm dwelling, the applicants are not and never have been principally engaged in farming for the primary purpose of obtaining a profit in money. Their property is in no way comparable to the examples of a ranch and vineyard cited by the applicants in the June 4 hearing. Staff: Staff notes that in the EFU zone and in the Wildlife Area Combining Zone, allowed uses such as farm stands, wineries, and "Agri -Tourism and other Commercial Events or Activities" have substantially similar operating characteristics to churches, in that they would that would cause congregation of people. Staff recommends that the Board find that these uses, with substantially similar operating characteristics to the current proposal, present a significant risk of a RLUIPA violation for imposing a land -use regulation on the church on less than equal terms with a nonreligious assembly or institution. The Safe Harbor Provision's terms allow a government to "avoid the preemptive force of any provision of RLUIPA". However, that language does not seem to imply that the Board has to make a formal finding that the DCC violates RLUIPA before the Board can first approve the use. Staff recommends the Board find that the prohibition of churches in the Wildlife Area Combining Zone presents a risk of violating the RLUIPA "equal terms" provision and exempt the church from that prohibition. 3) Is the County able to justify some distinctions drawn with respect to churches, by demonstrating that the less than equal terms are on account of a legitimate regulatory purpose not the fact the institution is religious in nature?" Applicant: Shepherdsfield is a religious institution, and its intended use of the property is akin to the religious and non -religious uses the Zoning Code already freely permits at the Property— namely ranches and other secular activities. This apparent unequal treatment of like uses is more than enough to satisfy Sheperdsfield's burden under RLUIPA, 42 U.S.C. 2000cc(4)(b), and to shift the burden to the County. The County will be unable to meet its burden of adducing a legitimate "regulatory purpose" or "objective zoning criterion" upon -12- which it can justify the unequal treatment—let alone a justification that would satisfy strict scrutiny. Opponents: The County's comprehensive plan and code protect winter range for explicitly secular reasons and treat churches and nonreligious assemblies on equal terms. As the Oregon Court of Appeals held in Timberline Baptist Church v. Washington County, 211 Or. App. 437, 154 P.3d 759 (2007), RLUIPA does not excuse churches from compliance with zoning laws. Prohibiting uses that are inconsistent with protection of mule deer and critical winter range habitat, while allowing agritourism on EFU land, is rational and neither treats religious uses on unequal terms nor discriminates against uses on the basis of religion. 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Clackamas County, 46 Or. LUBA 375, 396 (2004). Staff: In the County's ESEE for Wildlife, the County found, "...that the identified deer winter range habitat and residential and other conflicting uses within the deer winter range are important relative to each other, and that the conflicts should be balanced by restricting or regulating certain uses and prohibiting others." Ord. 92-040. Consequently, the Wildlife Area Combining Zone prohibits a variety of uses that would cause congregation of people such as churches or schools. Some uses that would cause congregation of people, like farm stands, were not included in the prohibition from the beginning. Some uses, like wineries, were added to the EFU zone recently, but were not also added to the Wildlife Area Combining Zone prohibitions. Finally, "Agri -Tourism and other Commercial Events or Activities", were added to the EFU zone recently with seasonal restrictions included in the use standards to avoid conflicts with wildlife. The Safe Harbor Provision's terms allow a government to "avoid the preemptive force of any provision of RLUIPA'. However, that language does not seem to imply that the Board has to make a formal finding that the DCC violates RLUIPA before the Board can first approve the use. Staff recommends that the Board find that farm stands, wineries, and "Agri -Tourism and other Commercial Events or Activities" have substantially similar operating characteristics to churches, in that they would that would cause congregation of people. Therefore, there is a significant risk of a RLUIPA violation if the County imposes a land -use regulation on the church on less than equal terms with a nonreligious assembly or institution. Staff recommends the Board exempt churches from the current Wildlife Area Combining Zone prohibition. 4) Is the Substantial Burden prong of RLUIPA (42 USC 2000cc(1)) relevant to this matter? Applicant: The Supreme Court recently held in Holt, that RLUIPA prohibits the government from taking any action that substantially burdens the religious exercise of a person "unless the government demonstrates that the action constitutes the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest." 135 S. Ct. at 859. Since Shepherdsfield can satisfy its burden of demonstrating a prima facie "substantial burden" case, the County must, -13- but will be unable to, demonstrate that its prohibition of its use (A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. Opponents: The lands zoned for winter range in Deschutes County are a fraction of the County's hundreds of thousands of acres of land area. Where there is plenty of land on which religious organizations can build churches, the fact that they are not permitted to build everywhere does not create a substantial burden under RLUIPA. Merely classifying land into agricultural lands or winter range lands does not discriminate against churches. Hale 0 Kaula Church v. Maui Planning Commission, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1056, 1070 (D. Haw. 2002). The County values both wildlife and religion, and setting aside places for each is not discrimination. The County has the right and the power to do so, and compliance with the laws of the County is not a substantial burden. To permit compliance with the law to be a substantial burden on religion would be to make religion superior to the law. Id. Staff: Staff recommends that the Board find that the prohibition of churches in the Wildlife Area Combining Zone is a substantial burden on the religious exercise of the church. 5) Does the plain language of the Safe Harbor prong of RLUIPA (42 USC 2000cc-3(e)) provide the County an independent basis to approve the application? Applicant: A government may avoid the preemptive force of any provision of RLUIPA by changing the policy or practice that results in a substantial burden on religious exercise, by retaining the policy or practice and exempting the substantially burdened religious exercise, by providing exemptions from the policy or practice for applications that substantially burden religious exercise, or by any other means that eliminates the substantial burden under the Safe Harbor provision of RLUIPA. See, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-3(e). The Ninth Circuit has not had occasion to construe this provision, so we can look at the Seventh Circuit's interpretation in Civil Liberties for Urban Believers v. City of Chicago, 342 F.3d 752, 762 (7th Cir. 2003). Civil Liberties stands for the proposition that under RLUIPA's safe harbor provision, a government can avoid liability under RLUIPA by amending its land use regulations to remove the allegedly burdensome or discriminatory provisions, even after such provisions have caused harm. Civil Liberties, 342 F.3d at 762. Opponents: No, this isjust a means of achieving compliance with RLUIPA. The current plan and code do comply with RLUIPA. The applicant is a business. Businesses are not protected by RLUIPA. The plan and code provisions in question have been in place since 1992. Any church that did buy land would be unable to show harm under RLUIPA. There are hundreds of thousands of acres to locate a church. RLUIPA comes into play when a church owns land and the church begins to build, and then a county tries to change the law to say churches are not permitted there. -14- RLUIPA, as we have said from the beginning, is not relevant to Deschutes County. In Deschutes County citizens and government value wildlife. Wildlife contribute millions upon millions of dollars annually to the county's economy and form a large part of the county's quality of life. The County has laws that protect both religion and wildlife. The laws of Deschutes County are ostentatiously secular, and there is no credible argument to the contrary. Staff. Staff concurs with the applicant that the Safe Harbor prong of RLUIPA provides the County an independent basis to approve the application. Staff recommends the Board take advantage of the Safe Harbor prong above. I. ALTERNATIVE ARGUMENTS Staff recommends the Board direct staff to include two alternative methods of approving the present application. 1) In County File Nos. 247 -16 -000159 -SP and 161 -AD, the Hearings Officer approved the applicant's proposal for a church on the property based on the argument that churches are prohibited as conditional uses in the WA zone, but churches are not conditional uses in the EFU zone, and are, therefore, not subject to this prohibition. Although this analysis was previously denied by LUBA, the County can revisit this argument as a method of taking advantage of the RLUIPA "safe harbor" provision. 2) As discussed above, the County initiated a text amendment amending the Comprehensive Plan and Deschutes County Code (DCC) Chapter 18.88 to permit churches in the Wildlife Area Combining Zone for several reasons, including ensuring compliance with RLUIPA. The Board adopted amendments on January 3, 2018, which is the basis for the present application. Central Oregon LandWatch appealed Ordinance No. 2018-002 to LUBA, where that ordinance was remanded back to the County and provided the County options on how to amend its ESEE Analysis underpinning the Amendments. (LUBA No. 2018-007). The County is appealing that decision to the Court of Appeals because it believes the remand is unnecessary. In the event that the text amendment, which removes the prohibition on churches in the Wildlife Area Combining Zone, is approved on appeal or remand, the Board should consider including findings in this decision to make clear that the present application would also be approved in those circumstances. IV. SECTION 22.20.040 AND THE 150 -DAY CLOCK This application was submitted on July 12, 2017 and deemed complete by the County on August 11, 2017. The applicant tolled the clock for 161 days from August 24, 2017 through February 1, 2018. Because the applicant tolled the clock for 165 days and consented to post hearing open record periods of 21 and 15 days, the 150th day for the County to take final -15- action on this application is currently July 24, 2018. Staff notes however, that ORS 215.427 appears to limit the total processing time for an application to 365 days, which requires the County to take final action on this application by July 12, 2018. Attachments: 1. Decision Matrix 2. Post Hearing Record Materials -16- t �,y Shepherd Church u i Y Land Use File Nos. File Nos. 247 -17 -000573 -AD and 574 -SP (247-18-000179-A and 182-A) Issue Area Applicable Approval Criterion Applicant Response Opponents Staff Comment The Board decided at the Hearing that inclusion of rehearsal dinners or camping would constitute a modification of the application under LOCAL CODE - DCC 22.04.020, "Modification of DCC 22.04.020, "Modification of A Modification application" application". Staff believes the Applicant's final argument makes the -current proposal clear and confirms that the applicant walked -back the previous modification. Staff concurs with the Hearing Officer My property has NEVEM been ruled out in FileNo. 247-16-000159-SP/161-AD DCC 22.20.15 - Does the Shepherds of compliance of my FMP and the , thata violation may be found if.a failure to establish the cattle and hog review process has not determined this Under DCC 22.20.15, additional land "substantial alteration of the farm operation on the property as required to be so either,. My farming has been' use approvals for the property must management plan" has occurred. LOCAL CODE - under the 2001 farm management plan audited annually by the Deschutes wait until the property comes into Although the FMP has been altered via B Violation of Prior mean that the property is in violation of ` Count Tax Assessorsoffice always compliance with conditions of approval a change in farming operations, and Decisions the 2001 conditions of approval for the found to be in compliance. I have also the County has already issued. The there has been a period of time during dwelling in conjunction with farm use? provided to the Commissioners a applicant is in violation of the farm which farming operations were not Such a finding would preclude further receipt of livestock sales for 2017 and management plan that was required taking place on the subject property, development of the property until this photographic evidence of an active for the dwelling. there is no evidence that the applicant violation are corrected. is currently out of compliance with the pasture. conditions of approval for the farm dwelling on the property. The Applicant elected to go forward LOCAL CODE - with the application based on the Prohibition of DCC 18.88 - The Wildlife Area argument that RLUIPA provides a basis C Churches in the Combining Zone currently precludes for the County to approve the Wildlife Area churches. proposed land use. Deliberation points Combining Zone regarding RLUIPA are also presented below. Can the applicant change his/her/its This could be a matter of first mind and request that the County impression for Deschutes County. Staff recommends that the Board find proceed with rendering a decision on LanclWatch recommended the County that nothing precludes County from the application after initially decline to allow the applicant to proceeding with rendering a decision LOCAL CODE - withdrawing per DCC 22.08.037. If not, resubmit after withdrawal. We also on the application after initially D Withdrawn what case law, DCC provisions, or ORS Yes, the code does not preclude it. recommended, and continue to withdrawing per DCC 22.08,037. The .. Applications prevent the applicant from changing recommend, that the County dismiss Opponents present no case law nor his/her/its mind? How are the this application as res judicata under evidence that they were harmed, opponents harmed by the applicant the County's acknowledged plan and despite being invited to do so. changing his/her/its mind code given LUBA's recent decision. The definition of "church" in the DCC requires two separate inquires. First, is an applicant an "institution," and Thea applicants are notapplying onf DCC 18.04.030 defines a "church" as "an second, does that institution have behalff o the church as church officers, o institution that has nonprofit status as The County defines a "church" as a "nonprofit status as a church but on their own behalf as private a church established with the Internal religious entity with IRS designation 501 established with the Internal Revenue citizens. The use that is allowed under LOCAL CODE - Revenue Service." Is the entity C 3 status. Shepherdsfield qualifies as a Service." The record shows, however, E. DCC 18.16.025(C) is for churches to Churches operating the wedding center (1) an church. Once permitted, that the second inquiry implicitly operate as churches on farmland: the institution, and does it (2) possess Shepherdsfield Church will be paid for includes the first. Staff recommends code does not permit individuals to "nonprofit status as a church" as these services. that the Board thereby interprets the operate afor-profit event venue in the required by the DCC definition? definition of "church" in DCC 18.04.030 guise of a church on farmland. to require only that an applicant provide applicable determination letter from the internal Revenue Service. Staff concurs that the applicant/owners are John and Stephanie Shepherd. Mr. Shepherd DCC 22.08.010 states "The term "property represented on the record on several owner" shall mean the owner of record..." - occasions that he is applying both as the LOCAL CODE— Who is Who is the applicant for this proposal, and and 13(1) states "Applications for land use According to the application the property owner and more specifically as F. the applicant for this have the property owners consented to the actions shall be submitted by the property applicant/owners are John and Stephanie pastor and president of Shepherdsfield proposal application per DCC 22.08.010(8)(1)? owner." John and Stephanie Shepherd are Shepherd. Church. Staff notes that any party may apply the owners of record and have consented to for a land use approval, provided they have the application. received the owner's consent to make the application. There is no requirement that a church make the application. A church that meets in a house is.a house church, which is common throughout the world and totally legal if it meets site plan review. A residential church, as referred to in ORS 215.441 concerns "nonresidential Staff recommends the Board find that, by STATE CODE —Non Oregon law, is a lodging or group home for places of worship." Whatever else may be determining that Shepherdsfield Church is in G. Residential Places of Does ORS 215.441 preclude weddings at a clergy, such as a monastery or a clergy said about the requested use, it is not a fact a "church," it is not necessary to address Worship residential property? retirement home or a retreat center. This nonresidential use. The applicants are Central Oregon LandWatch's alternative was a "nonresidential church" violation that requesting to use their residence, where argument that ORS 215.441 does not apply LUBA ruled against. Thus, a house church, they reside. to a "residential place of worship." l like any church, is a use permitted outright on EFU in Oregon. The only case this panel need look at is the Ninth Circuit's decision of Centro Familiar Both parties cite to the 9th Circuit decision Cristiano v.. City of Yuma .On appeal, the establishing its Equal Terms analysis - Centro RLUIPA -Religious Land Ninth Circuit addressed the four elements of Familiar Cristiano Buenas Nuevas v. City of Use and What case law should Deschutes County use the equal terms provision in RLUIPA; (1) LandWatch Cited several cases, including Yum a. Staff recommends the Board defer to H1. Institutionalized Person for the RLUIPA analysis? there must be an imposition or Centro Familiar Cristiano Buenas Nuevas v. this case for analysis. Staff notes that Centro implementation of a land use regulation, (2) City of Yuma Familiar Cristiano Buenas Nuevas v. City of Act by a government, (3) on a religious assembly Yuma appears to contain a two prong test, or institution; and (4) the imposition must be which is addressed immediately below in "on less than equal terms with a nonreligious questions 2 and 3. assembly or institution." The applicants do not have a colorable claim Shepherdsfield's "equal terms" claim is likely under the Religious Land Use and Staff recommends that the Board find that to succeed under the 9th Circuit's test Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). As farm stands, wineries, and "Agri -Tourism and Does the prohibition on churches in the especially when the provision is „construed LandWatch has maintained since 2016, the other Commercial Events or Activities" have Wildlife Area Combining Zone represent an in favor of a broad protection of religious applicants' threats of an RLUIPA lawsuit are substantially similar operating characteristics ' RLUIPA - Religious Land equal terms violation where (1) there is an exercise, to the maximum extent permitted unfounded. There is no viable equal terms or to churches, in that they would that would Use and imposition or implementation of a land -use bylaw," as 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-(3)(g) requires. substantial evidence claim. There are no cause congregation of people.. Therefore, H2. Institutionalized Person regulation, (2) by a government, (3) on a Simply put, Shepherdsfield is a religious similarly situated properties. Although the there is a significant risk of a RLUIPA violation Act religious assembly or institution, (4) on less institution, and its intended use of the applicants' dwelling was approved as a farm if the County imposes gland -use regulation than equal terms with a nonreligious property is akin to the religious and non- dwelling, the applicants are not and never on the church on less than equal terms with assembly or institution? religious uses the Zoning Code already freely have been principally engaged in farming for a nonreligious assembly or institution. Staff permits at the Property— namely ranches. the primary purpose of obtaining a profit in recommends the Board exempt churches and other secular activities. money. Their property is in no way from the current Wildlife Area Combining comparable to the examples of a ranch and Zone prohibition. vineyard. The County's comprehensive plan and code Staff recommends that the Board find that protect winter range for explicitly secular farm stands, wineries, and "Agri -Tourism and Shepherdsfield is a religious institution, and reasons and treat churches and nonreligious other Commercial Events or Activities" have its intended use of the property is akin to the assemblies on equal terms. As the Oregon substantially similar operating characteristics Is the County able to justify some distinctions religious and non -religious uses the Zoning Court of Appeals held in Timberline Baptist to churches, in that they would that would RLUIPA - Religious Land drawn with respect to churches, by Code. already freely permits at the Church v. Washington County, RLUIPA does cause congregation of people. Therefore, H3. Use and demonstrating that the less than equal terms . Property- namely ranches and other secular not excuse churches from compliance with there is a significant risk of a RLUIPA violation Institutionalized Person are on account of a legitimate regulatory activities. This apparent unequal treatment zoning laws. Prohibiting uses that are if the County imposes gland -use regulation Act purpose, not the fact the institution is of like uses is more than enough to satisfy inconsistent with protection of mule deer on the. church on less than equal terms with religious in nature?" Sheperdsfield's burden under RLUIPA, and to while and critical winter range habitat, a nonreligious assembly or institution. Staff shift the burden to the County. allowing agritourism on EFU land, is rational recommends the Board exempt churches and neither treats religious uses on unequal from the current Wildlife Area Combining terms nor discriminates against uses on the Zone prohibition. basis of religion. The lands zoned for winter range in RLUIPA prohibits the government from Deschutes County are a fraction of the taking any action that substantially burdens RLUIPA - Religious Land County's hundreds of thousands of acres of the religious exercise of a person "unless the Staffrecommends that the Board find that Use and Is the Substantial Burden prong of RLUIPA land area. Where there is plenty of land on government demonstrates that the action the prohibition of churches in the Wildlife H4. Institutionalized Person (42 USC 2000cc(1)) relevant to this matter? which religious organizations can build constitutes the least restrictive means of Area Combining Zone is a substantial burden Act churches' the fact that they are not furthering a compelling governmental on the religious exercise of the church. permitted to build everywhere does not interest." Shepherdsfield can satisfy its create a substantial burden under RLUIPA. burden of demonstrating a prima facie "substantial burden" case. No, this is just a means of achieving A government may avoid the preemptive,- compliance with RLUIPA. The current plan force of any provision of RLUIPA by changing and code do comply with RLUIPA. The the policy or practice that results in a applicant is a business. Businesses are not substantial burden on religious exercise, by ' protected by RLUIPA. The plan and code Staff concurs with the applicant that the Safe RLUIPA -'Religious Land Does the plain language of the Safe Harbor retaining the policy or practice and provisions in question have been in place Harbor prong of RLUIPA provides the County Use and prong of RLUIPA (42 USC 2000cc-3(e)) exempting the substantially burdened since 1992. Any church that did buy land an independent basis to approve the H5. Institutionalized Person provide the County an independent basis to religious exercise, by providing exemptions would be unable to show harm under application. Staff recommends the Board Act approve the application? from the policy or practice for applications RLUIPA. There are hundreds of thousands of take advantage of the Safe Harbor prong that substantially burden religious exercise, acres to locate a church. RLUIPA comes into above. or by any other means that eliminates the play when a church owns land and the substantial burden under the Safe Harbor church begins to build, and then a county provision of RLUIPA. tries to change the law to say churches are not permitted there. [STAFF] 1) The Hearings Officer previously approved the church on the property based jSTAFF\ 2) In the event that the text on the argument that churches are amendment, which. removes the prohibition -..:prohibited as conditional uses in the WA Staff recommends the Board direct staff to zone, but churches are not conditional uses on churches in the Wildlife Area Combining L ALTERNATIVE include two alternative methods of - in the EFU zone, and are, therefore, not Zone, is approved -on -appeal or remand, the -- ARGUMENTS approving the present application. subject to this prohibition. Although this Board should consider including findings in analysis was previously denied by LUBA, the this decision to make clear that the present County can revisit this argument as a method application would also be approved in those of taking advantage of the RLUIPA "safe circumstances. harbor" provision William Groves From: Dan Dalton <ddalton@daltontomich.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 4:10 PM To: William Groves; Carol Macbeth (carol@colw.org); Adam Smith Cc: John Shepherd; Noel Sterett Subject: Re: John and Stephanie Shepherd and Shepherdsfield Church - Open record materials Attachments: Shepherdsfield 06 18 18.pdf Dear Will, Attached please find John & Stephanie Shepherd and Shepherdsfield Church's Final Argument with respect to the pending application. As always, please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions. Ityro Daniel P. Dalton Dalton & Tomich PLC The Chrysler House 719 Griswold Street, Suite 270 Detroit, Michigan 48226 T: 313.859.6000 Ext. 114 F: 313.859.8888 E: ddalton0daltontomich.com www.daltontomich.com www.attornevsforlanduse.com Notice from Dalton & Tomich PLC This internet message may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure. It is intended for use only by the person to whom it is addressed. If you have received this message in error, please (1) do not forward or use this information in any way, and (2) contact me immediately. Neither this information block, the typed name of the sender, nor anything else in this message is intended to constitute an electronic signature unless a specific statement to the contrary is included in this message. From: Dan Dalton <ddalton@daltontomich.com> Date: Friday, June 8, 2018 at 2:46 PM To: William Groves <WilIiam.Groves@deschutes.org>, "Carol Macbeth (carol@colw.org)" <carol@colw.org>, Adam Smith <Adam.Smith@deschutes.org> Cc: John Shepherd <shepherdsfield@gmail.com>, Noel Sterett <nsterett@daltontomich.com> Subject: John and Stephanie Shepherd and Shepherdsfield Church - Open record materials Dear Will, Attached please find John & Stephanie Shepherd and Shepherdsfield Church's response to the open written record, all materials accepted. Daniel P. Dalton Dalton & Tomich PLC The Chrysler House 719 Griswold Street, Suite 270 Detroit, Michigan 48226 T: 313.859.6000 Ext. 1 F: 313.859.8888 E: ddaltonPdaltontomich.com www.daltontomich.com www.attorneysforlanduse.com Notice from Dalton & Tomich PLC This internet message may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure. It is intended for use only by the person to whom it is addressed. If you have received this message in error, please (1) do not forward or use this information in any way, and (2) contact me immediately. Neither this information block, the typed name of the sender, nor anything else in this message is intended to constitute an electronic signature unless a specific statement to the contrary is included in this message. From: William Groves <William.Groves@deschutes.org> Date: Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 12:13 PM To: "Carol Macbeth (carol@colw.org)" <carol@colw.org> Cc: Dan Dalton <ddalton@daltontomich.com> Subject: File Dates - Shepherd Carol, You requested an email confirming the file dates for Shepherd. I have: 6/8 5pm —Open written record, all materials accepted 6/14 5pm — Rebuttal written record — all argument and testimony need to be directed to materials received in the prior open record period 6/19 5pm — Applicant's final written argument is due. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Will I S Will Groves I Sensor Planner, CFM 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97703 Y � g PO Box 6005 1 Bend, Oregon 97708 Tel: (541) 388.6518 1 www.deschutes.org/cd Disclaimer: Please note that the information in this email is an informal statement made in accordance with DCC 22.20.005 and shall not be deemed to constitute final County action effecting a change in the status of a person's property or conferring any rights, including any reliance rights, on any person. The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimeeast Ltd, an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security, archiving and compliance. To find out more Click Here. MEMORANDUM In support of Petitioner John & Stephanie Shepherd and Shepherdsfield Church To: Duschutes County Hearing Officer 117 NW Lafyette Ave. Bend, Oregon 97703 From: John & Stephanie Shepherd Shepherdsfield Church By: Daniel P. Dalton, Esq. Dalton & Tomich PLC The Chrysler House 719 Griswold Street, Suite 270 Detroit, Michigan 48226 (313) 859-6000 ddalton@daltontomich.com Date: June 18, 2018 Re: Case No. 247 -16 -000159 -SP, 161 -AD Application to use farm dwelling as a Church Please allow this memo to serve as the Applicants Final Argument for the pending application. To be clear, the applicants are seeking a permit from the County that would allow it have thirty (30) wedding events on their property which consist of the following: • Friday. Set up for the wedding and the wedding reception. • Saturday. Host a wedding and wedding reception. • Sunday. Clean up the property from the wedding and the reception Only later, and after the County presumably approves the reasonable request noted above, John and Stephanie Shepherd and Shepherdsfield Church will apply and seek permission from the County to include the following activities for their wedding guest: • The ability to have a rehearsal dinner on the day before a wedding for the wedding guest who attended the rehearsal and helped set up the wedding. • The ability to host wedding guest to stay overnight on the property in tents and camping trailers throughout the weekend. • No restriction on the number of wedding and wedding receptions per year. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, Dalton & Tomich, PLC By: /s/ Daniel P. Dalton_ Daniel P. Dalton Admitted to LUBA Pro Hac Vice Mich. Bar No. P 44056 The Chrysler House 719 Griswold Street, Suite 270 Detroit, Michigan 48226 313.859.6000 ddaltongdaltontomich. com