Loading...
2018-402-Minutes for Meeting August 06,2018 Recorded 9/26/2018�v�ES CO BOARD OF � COMMISSIONERS 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon (5 41 ) 388-6570 10.00 AM Recorded in Deschutes County OJ2018-402 Nancy Blankenship. County Clerk 09/26/2018 9:39:28 AM commissioners' Journal 20 18-402' FOR RECORDING STAMP ONLY 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; and Sharon Keith, Board Executive Assistant. No identified 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: Jim Johnson: spoke on his concerns of the Baker Road Stop Signs and provided the Board with written documentation and evidence. He stated the signs are in violation of MUTCD standards. Commissioner Baney spoke on the request of a neutral third party review. The main concern is traffic congestion. Mr. Johnson commented he is taking this concern to court. BOCC BUSINESS MEETING AUGUST 6, 2018 PAGE 1 OF 5 CONSENT AGENDA: Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of the Consent Agenda. BAN EY: Move approval. HENDERSON: Second. VOTE: BAN EY: Yes. HENDERSON: Yes. DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried Consent A4gendo Items: 1. Consideration of Board Approval to Pay OPEEP Invoice for Excess General Liability Insurance 2. Approval of Minutes of the June 13, 2018 Work Session ACTION ITEMS 3. Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2018-517, Notice of Intent to Award Contract for the Deschutes Market Road / Dale Road Intersection Improvement Project to TO County Paving, Inc. Cody Smith, County Engineer reviewed the plans of the project. Three bids were received and Tri County Paving was the low qualified bidder. BAN EY: Move approval. HENDERSON: Second. VOTE: BAN EY: Yes. HENDERSON: Yes. DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried BOCC BUSINESS MEETING AUGUST 6, 2018 PAGE 2 OF 5 4. DELIBERATIONS: Marijuana Production Appeal, 6829 NW 66th Street, Redmond Nicole Mardell, Community Development Department presented the information on the subject application. The configuration of the interior of. the building was slightly altered from the original application. Commissioner Baney inquired whether the alternations would match the engineers report for odor and noise control. Commissioner Henderson commented on the size of the room change and whether there is demonstration of mitigation. Commissioner Baney noted on the final arguments the odor control system the County has asked for a certain level of detail and are clear on the information. Commissioner Henderson noted there is no technical knowledge provided for the record regarding carbon filters. Commissioner Henderson would like someone to present information to the Board regarding odor control systems that work. The Board reviewed the key issues of the application. Regarding key issue on Access, Commissioner DeBone noted there is no legal access to the property. Commissioner Baney noted there is enough information in the record regarding this and commented on a possible condition of approval. Commissioner Henderson noted he doesn't have issue denying this application based on the property not having legal access. Commissioner DeBone supports the access as a main issue. Adam Smith Assistant Legal Counsel noted the structure of the current code. Peter Russell Senior Transportation Manager commented on research done regarding legal access for that property and has been unable to locate any record of access. Commissioner Baney explained this is a land locked property and typical land use applications would cause concern. Mr. Smith noted there is information in the record from the federal government asking for this application to be denied as well due to the fact the access to the property would only have access over federal land. If the application relies on water hauling, there would need to be a legal access. Commissioner DeBone agrees to not set precedence to a parcel that does not have access. Commissioner Henderson supports denying the application in conjunction with lack of demonstration of legal access for water hauling. The applicant also stated they would use rainwater collection and water hauling. Nothing in the record supported the crop could be sustained by just rain water collection but was stated as a combined water source. Commissioner BOCC BUSINESS MEETING AUGUST 6, 2018 PAGE 3 OF 5 DeBone noted a support of denial based on no history of agricultural water and no legal access. The Board supported denying the application. The final decision will be drafted and presented to the Board. S. DELIBERATIONS: Marijuana Production and Processing Appeal at 21330 Young Avenue Kyle Collins, Community Development Department presented the information on the subject application. The decision matrix included five issues of Odor Control, Noise, Water, Marijuana Processing and Fire Safety, and Traffic. Commissioner Henderson noted his concern is receiving the new documents of technical evaluations and commented on the odor control system. Commissioner Baney spoke on the need to mitigate the impact on the neighboring properties and the need to have the detail information in the record. Commissioner DeBone commented on the applicant's ability to maintain the system. The Board reviewed the key issues of the application Regarding the issue of traffic and access requirements, Will Groves, Community Development Department spoke on trip analysis based on the number of employees. The Board would be well within the right of placing a condition of approval. If a violation of the number of employees, the site inspection is done annually and would provide opportunity of noting as well as any neighbor complaints. The Board supports a condition of approval. The Board supported approval of the application. Commissioner Henderson commented on the testimony received from neighbors and hopes the applicant does carry out the good neighbor policy. Commissioner Baney commented on concerns raised and the Board's responsibility of what is lawful. The final decision will be drafted and presented to the Board. BOCC BUSINESS MEETING AUGUST 6, 2018 PAGE 4 OF 5 OTHER ITEMS: Commissioner Baney reported she had received an invoice from the Eastern Oregon Counties Association for residual travel expenses in the amount of $244. The Board looks for clarification on the amount and purpose. Commissioner Baney will research. Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11:35 a.m. r DATED this Day of — 2018 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners ATTEST: 4 Y ' C LC—�2�0— RDING SECRETARY ANTHONY E® CHAIR Lds sPa "L4 - l BOCC BUSINESS MEETING AUGUST 6, 2018 PAGE 5 OF 5 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, AUGUST 6, 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.or /g meetings. Business Meetings are usually streamed live online and video recorded. Pursuant to ORS 992.640, 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 Approval to Pay OPEEP Invoice for Excess General Liability Insurance 2. Approval of Minutes of the June 13, 2018 Work Session Board of Commissioners Business Meeting Agenda Monday, August 6, 2018 Page 1 of 2 ACTION ITEMS 3. Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2018-517, Notice of Intent to Award Contract for the Deschutes Market Rd/Dale Rd Intersection Improvement Project to Tri County Paving, Inc. - Cody Smith, County Engineer 4. DELIBERATIONS: Marijuana Production Appeal, 6829 NW 66th Street, Redmond - Nicole Mardell, Associate Planner 5. DELIBERATIONS: Marijuana Production and Processing Appeal at 21330 Young Ave. - Kyle Collins, Assistant Planner OTHER ITEMS These can be any items not included on the agenda that the Commissioners wish to discuss as part of the meeting, pursuant to ORS 192.640. At any time during the meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2)(e), real property negotiations, ORS 192.660(2)(h), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor negotiations, ORS 192.660(2)(b), personnel issues, or other executive session categories. Executive sessions are closed to the public, however, with few exceptions and under specific guidelines, are open to the media. ADJOURN Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and activities. To request this information in an alternate format please call (541) 617-4747. FUTURE MEETINGS: Additional meeting dates available at www.deschutes.org/meetingcalendar Meeting dates and times are subject to change. If you have question, please call (541) 388-6572. Board of Commissioners Business Meeting Agenda Monday, August 6, 2018 Page 2 of 2 Baker Rd. Stop Signs At Brookswood Non -Compliance Evidence Attached August 6, 2018 1. Memo from Federal Highway Administration showing the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) "Standard statements shall not be compromised based on engineering judgment or engineering study." 2. Page 550 of the MUTCD Standard stating "All TTC devices shall be removed as soon as practical when they are no longer needed." TTC = Temporary Traffic Control = temporary detour and stop signs. 3. Deschutes County (Chris Doty) Memorandum showing study allowing stop signs to remain in place in direct conflict with MUTCD Standard regarding temporary signs. 4. Oregon State Supplement to the MUTCD confirming required adherence to the MUTCD. 5. "Peer review" email from Joel McCarroll ODOT Region 4 Traffic Manager stating "It would not be appropriate for my staff or me to second guess the conclusion that Chris and his staff reached." Conclusion: These stop signs are clearly in violation of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and should have been taken down at the same time the detour signs were taken down. They should be taken down now. Respectfully submitted �m Jo n 60674 River Bend Dr. Bend OR 97702 541-389-4511 tMemorandum llS:Caepariment of hcvuporfafion Federal Highway Administration Subject: INFORMATION: FHWA Official Date: OCT 1 2010 Interpretation ---Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices From: Je�;)Ai ;�-> In Rep Iy Refer To: Associate Administrator for Operations HOTO-1 To: Chief Counsel Directors of Field Services Federal Lands Highway Division Engineers Director of Technical Services Division Administrators The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is issuing this official interpretation in response to numerous letters of concern received from AASHTO, as well as a number of State departments of transportation, regarding the addition of a sentence to the definition of Standard in Section l A.13 and the removal of certain Guidance information in Section I A.09 of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). As a part of the 2009 MUTCD Final Rule, a statement, "Standard statements shall not be modified or compromised based on en ineering judgment or engineering stud'' was added in Me Section 1A.13 to the definition of Standards and the following text was deleted from the Section 1A.09: "The decision to use a particular device at a particular location should be made on the basis of either an engineering study or the application of engineering judgment._ Thus, while this Manual provides Standards, Guidance, and Options for design and application of traffic control devices, this Manual should not be considered a substitute for engineering judgment. Engineering judgment should, be exercised in the selection and application of traffic control devices..." The AASHTO Board of Directors and the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD) passed resolutions on this matter. These resolutions and letters requested that the changes in the 2009 MUTCD language described above be reverted back to the 2003 MUTCD language. Because the MUTCD is approved and incorporated by reference in a Federal regulation, it can only be revised through the formal Federal rulemaking process. However, we believe ° r Page. 550 2009 Nit90ti A. Adequate u-arning. delineation, arae' channeli,aticrtr should be provided to assist in guiding road users in advance of and through the TTG" woe or incident site b,v using proper pavement marking, signing, or other devices that are c f fec�tiver under varying c.-onditions, Providing inbrrraation that is in usable .forntats by pedestrians with visual disabilities should also be considered. B. TTC devices inconsistentwith intended travel paths- through TTC -ones should be removed or covered. However, in intertnediate-terra stationar, . slrcrrt-terra, an(] mobile operations, where visible permanent devices are inconsistent with intended travel paths, devices that highlight or emphasize the appropriate path should be used. Providing tre?ffic control devices that are accessible to and usable by pedestrians with disabilities should be considered. C. Flaggivag pr•ocedures, iallac_tr rrsed, ,ehoaald prof-icic- positive guidance to road users traversing the TTC: zona. 4, To provide acceptable levels of operations, routine day and might inspections of T7'C elerraents .should he performed cas,follovs: A. Individuals who are knowledgeable (for evantple, trained andlor cert�faed) in the principles of proper TTC should be assigned responsibility for safety in TTC Zones. The ntczst important duty of these individuals should be to check that all TR' det"ces of the project are consistent with the TTC;' plan and are effective fw motorists, bic iclists, pedestrians, and workers. E1. As the work progresses, terrtporar y trgffic controls andlor working conditions should be tnoti fieri. if appropriate, in order to provide mobility «nd positive guidance to the road suer and to provide worker sglf ty. The individual responsible./or TTC should have the atathority to halt work- until applicable or remedial safety measures ore taken. C. ITC' zones should be carefully monitored under vetr.ying cor ninon s• of road user volumes, light, and weather to check that applicable TTC devie es' care effective, clears, visible, clean, and in compliance with the TTC; plan. D. When war-ranteel, an engineering studs, should be made (in c~ooperaiion with law enforcetnent affic'ials) of reported crashes occurring within the TT(.,' ,.one. Crash records in TTC zones should be monitored to identify the needErrs c•httnges irr the TTC" , orze. 5. Attention should be givenn to the maintenance of roadside° safety during the life: of the TTC zone by applying the dlovving principles: A. 7o accotnnaodote run-off they -road incidents, disabled vehicles, or ernergenc v situations, unencumbered roadside recover ^' areas or clear zones should be provided where practical. 13. Cheanneai ertiern crf road rasc�rs should he ace orrtplishecl by the use ofpavenient markings, signing, and crashworthy, detectable channelizing devices. C:". Work equipinent, woAers' private vehicles, rnerterials, and debris should he stored in such a. manner to reduce the: probability of beim irrtlrac rerd by run-qj f he road relaic legis. b. Each parson whose actions c{ffcu t TTC" zone sqf ,(y, frons the topper -level ntanagentent through the,field evorkers, should rcce�ive trainingg approprTote to the job decisions each individual is required to snake. CJrrls those individuals who arca trained in prcaper TTC preaeticc.s carrel have a basic understanding ol'the principles (established lak applicable standards and guidelines, including those gfthis A2anuab shotald supervise the selection, plac•entent, and maintenance o 7TC" devices usedfor :ETC zones and for incident rnanagennent. Z Good pnblic relations should he nuaint ained by applying the following principles: A. The needs of all road users shonlcl be crsses.scd steels that alrpr-opr-iate aclrance notice is given and clearly do jirtc'd alternatis>c� !.rash. are pr"rn�irlcrd. B. The cooperation of the varions ne)vs media should be sought in publicizing the existence of and reasons far TT(. zones because crews releases can assist in keeping the road users well in wined. C. The needs of abutting property owners, residents, and businesses should be assessed and appropriate accommodations made. 1). the needs of eniergency serviee providers (law enforeetnent, fire, sand ntedical) should be assessed sand appropriate coordination and acconanaodations rncule. E. The steeds of railroads and transit should be assessed and appropriate coordination and acconnnodations made. T. The needs of operators of conantercial vehicles such as buses and large tracks should be assessed and appropriate accontntodations made. Standard: 066 Before any nese detour or temporary route is opened to traffic, all necessary signs shall be in place. na All TTC devices shall he removed as soon as practical when they are no longer needed. When work is suspcn e or short periods of time, TTC d viers Mat are n onger appropriate shall a removed or covered. ,Sot, 0,01 Dcccinhcr 2009 Road, �Department 61150 SE 27th St. Bend, Oregon 97702 ` "• �" (541) 388-6581 FAX (541) 38$-2719 MEMORANDUM / 3 -WAY STOP ANALYSIS Date: September 22, 2015 To: File From: Chris Doty, PE, Director RE: 3 -way stop analysis at Brookswood Boulevard/Baker Road The intersection of Brookswood Boulevard/Baker Road has been analyzed for installation of a 3 -way stop configuration following the opening of the Brookswood Boulevard to traffic at the conclusion of the Brookswood/Murphy Roundabout Project. To accommodate construction detour traffic associatedwith the Project, the intersection of Brookswood Boulevard/Baker'Road was converted to a 3 -way stop configuration at the onset of the Project (Spring, 2015). This analysis considers whether to leave the 3 -way stop in place or return the intersection to the original stop -controlled configuration. This analysis consists of an evaluation of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control devices (MUTCD) multi -way stop criteria, as follows: MUTCO Section 28.07 ,M,ulti-Way Stop Applications Support: 01 Multi -way stop control can be useful as a safety measure at intersections if certain traffic conditions exist. Safety concerns associated with multi -way stops include pedestrians,: bicyclists, and all road users expecting other road users to stop. Multi -way stop control is used where the volume of traffic on the intersecting roads is approximately equal. 02 The restrictions on the use of STOP signs described in Section 2B.04 also apply to multi -way stop applications. Guidance; 03 The decision to install multi -way stop control should be based on an engineering study.. 04 The following criteria should be considered in the engineering study for a multi -way STOP sign installation: A. Where traffic control signals are justified, the multi -way stop is an interim measure that can be installed quickly to control traffic while arrangements are being made for the installation of the traffic control signal. B. Five or more reported crashes in a 12 -month period that are susceptible to correction by a multi -:way stop installation. Such crashes include right -turn and left -turn collisions as well as right-angle collisions. C. Minimum volumes: (2001) E )regon Supplement to the MUTCD Page 2 INTRODUCTION Traffic control devices installed on highways within the State of Oregon are required to contbrin to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), published by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The list of highways that are required to conform to the MUTCD includes all state highways and public roadways under the, urisdiction of cities and counties within the State of Oregon. This requirement is established by Oregon Revised Statute {' ORS) (see ORS 91 Q.20,0) and Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) (sec OAR 734-020-0005). To promote uniforinity and understandability of traffic control devices. private property owners are also encouraged to conform to the MUTCD when installing devices on private property. Devices installed or replaced after the publication date of this document shall conform to the MUTCD upon installation. fation. _Unless noted otherwise, existing devices that do not confiorin to the current MUTCD shall be placed a-FTe re—end of their useful life. The intent of the MUTCD is to enhance road safety and operation by requiring uniform, understandable, and effective traffic control devices on Oregon highways. Purpose of the Oregon Supplement to the MUTCD Deviations to the MUTCD are published in the Oregon Supplement to the MUTCD and made for justifiable reasons such as instances where Oregon law deviates from the MUTCD. These deviations are adopted through the OAR process and by permission of the FHWA. ,How to Use the Oregon Supplement to the MUTCD This document supplements the 2009 Edition of the M.UTCD, dated December 2009, Both the Oregon Supplement and the MLJTCD need to be consulted when researching traffic control issues, The Oregon Supplement conforms to the organization and section numbering of the MUTCD. Instructions on whether text is deleted or inserted as part of the Oregon Supplement are noted by the bracketed text. The MUTCD language that is to be deleted is triarked with strikethrough font while inserted or replacement text is underlined. Users ofthe Oregon Supplement should familiarize themselves with how the MUTCD is organized and referenced by reading the Introduction of the 2009 Edition of the MUTCD. Obtaining the MUTCD The MUTCD is available online in electronic format Printed copies of the MUTCD 2009 Edition and cost information are available from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), and the American Traffic Safety Services Association (ATSSA). Other Related Documents Design details for signs and traffic signals are not included in the MUTCD. They are in the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Sign Policy and Guidelines, the ODOT Traffic Signal Policy and Guidelines, and the FHWA Standard Highway Signs manual, The ODOT Traffic Manual contains additional information oil traffic engineering policies and practices for state highways. Local agencies such as cities and counties may also have their own traffic engineering policies and practices that apply to city streets and county roads respectively. Obtaining the Oregon Supplement and Other ODOT Documents The Oregon Supplement to the MUTCD and other ODOT traffic control device documents are available online in electronic format (h1tp-//w-NvNv.otjc I)MKl�RAF-FIC-ROtkf�NVAY/MLJTCD.Stitml), The L Web site also provides information on the latest updates to the ODOT Sign Policy and Guidelines. December 2011 nitro duction Peer Review Baker Rd. Stop Signs On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 1:05 PM, MCCARROLL Joel R <Joel. R. MCCARROLLodot.state.or.us> wrote: Jim, Thank you for your e-mail. It may be helpful to understand the context of ODOT's review of Deschutes County's analysis of the Baker Road/Brookswood intersection as well as how we use the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and other engineering guidance documents in decision making. Chris Doty asked me to review the work that he and his staff did at the subject intersection. We agreed to do this as we often provide technical assistance to local jurisdictions. We do not regulate the County's decision making on their system. Mark Barrett reviewed the work and as he noted based on the information provided the County's work shows the intersection meets the criteria for an all -way stop. The MUTCD requires engineering judgement to apply. For instance, one aspect of the stop sign warrant is the approach speed. Where and when to take the spot speed measurements is a matter of engineering judgement. It is not unreasonable to take a spot speed a little bit away from the intersection to obtain vehicle free flow speeds before they are influenced by the upcoming intersection. One of the risk factors in crashes where motorists run stop signs is their speed when they don't have any idea the stop sign is there. To your last point about the signs adding to congestion, every agency that operates roads needs to balance trade-offs between congestion/delay and safety. The MUTCD helps provides guidance on how to evaluate those trade-offs, but it will not provide a specific answer. It would of be appropriate for my staff or me to second guess the conclusion that Chris and his staff reached. I hope this helps you understand the work we did and our role. Thanks, Joel McCarroll, P.E., P.T.O.E ODOT Region 4 Traffic Manager Note* When asked direct questions pertaining to the adherence to the MUTCD Mr. McCarroll could only use the words judgment and guidance. He would never say that Standards were met. "It would not be appropriate for my staff or me to second guess the conclusion that Chris and his staff reached." Standards were not met. Peer review was not conclusive. TES 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 August 6, 2018 DATE: July 31, 2018 FROM: Erik Kropp, Administrative Services, 541-388-6584 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of Board Approval to Pay OPEEP Invoice for Excess General Liability Insurance RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: Staff recommends Board approval to pay an invoice in the amount of $186,415 to the Oregon Public Entity Excess Pool (OPEEP) for Excess General Liability Insurance for FY 2018-19. CONTRACTOR: Oregon Public Entity Excess Pool (OPEEP) AGREEMENT TIMEFRAME: Starting Date: 7/1/18 Ending Date: 6/30/19 INSURANCE: Insurance Certificate Required: No Insurance Review Required by Risk Management: No BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Deschutes County is a member of the Oregon Public Entity Excess Pool (OPEEP). OPEEP is an ORS 190 organization established to purchase excess general liability insurance on behalf of its members. The excess general liability insurance coverage is for $9 million with a $1 million self-insured retention. The cost for Deschutes County for the excess general liability insurance for FY 2018-19 through OPEEP is $186,415. The cost for this insurance is less than FY 2017-18, which was $188,315. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: Funds are budgeted in the Risk Management Fund. ATTENDANCE: Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator/Risk Manager EM Ori o Public Excess Liability �2018-2019 Renewal Invoice Entity Exc(,,,ss Pool Named Member Deschutes County PO Box 6005 Bend, OR 97708 Member Number Invoice Date Invoice Number 20007 7/9/2018 DESC-12018-00 j Coverage Description Amount Total Excess Liability Contribution $186,415.00 $186,415.00 Balances are due by 8/23/2018. Late fees will accrue thereafter. Total Due: $186,415.00 Make Checks Payable To: OPEEP / 1212 Court St NE Salem, OR 97301 ACH Direct Payment. Please request Authorization form and instructions from accountir�a.cr cisoregc�n:org. or from Stephanie at 503-763-3834. ,TES 0 ❑ 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 August 6, 2018 DATE: July 24, 2018 FROM: Nicole Mardell, Community Development, TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: DELIBERATIONS: Marijuana Production Appeal, 6829 NW 66th Street, Redmond BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The Board will deliberate on the appeal of an administrative determination approving a marijuana production facility at 6829 NW 66th Street, Redmond (file nos. 247 -18 -000047 -AD, 452-A, 453-A). The 150th and final day for the County to issue a final local land use decision is August 31, 2018. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None. ATTENDANCE: Nicole Mardell, Associate Planner L IL) Wi NthI �VV1 h Y LYEVEnG.,r NA IE By H STAFF MEMORANDUM DATE: August 1, 2018 TO: Board of County Commissioners ("Board") FROM: Nicole Mardell, Associate Planner RE: Deliberations following a public hearing on the appeal of an Administrative Determination for Marijuana Production at 6829 NW 66th Street (File Nos: 247 -18 -000047 -AD, 452-A, 453-A). 1. BACKGROUND The applicant, Cascade Estate Farms, LLC, requests approval to establish a marijuana production facility at 6829 NW 66th Street, Redmond. The property is 20.0 acres in size and is located within the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) Zone. Staff issued an administrative decision approving the application on May 22, 2018, which was subsequently appealed. The first appeal was submitted by the Tetherow Crossing Homeowners Association and a second appeal was submitted by the Odin Falls Ranch Property Owners Association. The Board held a public hearing on July 2, 2018', and chose to close the oral record and leave the written record open for a total of 21 days. The open record timeline consisted of the following: 7 days for new evidence to be submitted to the record; 7 days to allow a response to the new information; and 7 days for the applicant's final legal argument. On July 20, the applicant submitted their final legal argument and asked to waive the final three days of the final legal argument period. Therefore, the record was open for a total of 18 days. The Board is tasked with determining if the proposal for a marijuana production facility complies with the applicable criteria within the Deschutes County Code (DCC) Title 18. Staff has provided two tables, one recapping oral and written testimony (Table 1) and a second (Table 2) that assists the Board in evaluating the record. The 150th and final day for the Board to take action on this application was previously stated as August 13, 2018. The applicant agreed to the open record period, tolling the clock for 18 days. Therefore the 150th and final day to take action is now August 31, 2018. t July 2, 2018 Staff Memo and record materials: http•//deschutescountyor igm2 com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Tvpe=1&ID=1882&Inline=True 117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005 Q\ (541) 388-6575 @a cdd@deschutes.org @ www.deschutes.org/cd III. TESTIMONY RECAP Table 1 below provides a summary of testimony received during the public hearing and open record period. The table is organized alphabetically and includes an analysis of the applicability to DCC Title 18. A detailed discussion is found following Table 1. Table 1 - Testimony Recap Topic Criteria within Deschutes County Code Yes No Access Character of applicant Criminal activity and safety ✓ Emergency Vehicle Access Federal legality of marijuana Financial impact of commercial use of roads to HOA/P OAs Fire risk to surrounding homes Groundwater Contamination/Depletion Noise Odor Overproduction of Marijuana in Oregon Property values Rural residential character of neighborhood Traffic Water 247 -18 -000015 -AD (452-A, 453-A) Page 2 of 4 Testimony Relating to Applicable Criteria Access Concerns were raised by several individuals regarding access to the property. Specifically, there was concern regarding legality of traveling over Bureau of Land Management land without an active access permit, and concern that the applicant does not have another option for access across other adjacent properties. The applicant stated an access easement was passed on with the title to the property, but was not able to find a record of the permit. The applicant also stated they were exploring other options for access to the property. Staff Comment: The access standards apply when an applicant proposes more than 5,000 square feet of mature canopy area. In this case, the access requirement would not apply as the applicant is proposing up to, but not exceeding, 5,000 square feet in mature canopy area. Odor and Noise Concerns were raised by individuals regarding noise from the proposed marijuana production facility. The Board asked for greater detail to be added to the mechanical engineer's report submitted in the application materials. The applicant stated in the Final Legal Response (dated July 20, 2018) that they were not able to obtain an updated mechanical engineer's report prior to the deadline for new evidence (July 9) and instead confirmed with ColeBreit Engineering that the mechanical engineer's report is sufficient to meet the code requirement. Staff Comment: The applicant provided two mechanical engineer's reports prior to the issuance of staff's administrative determination. The Board may choose to interpret this item for compliance. Water Concerns were raised by individuals regarding the amount and source of water to be used for the operation. The Board raised the question of legality of the collection of rainwater for marijuana production, as the applicant is proposing to use both hauled water and water collected from the building's roof. Staff Comment: An email from Kyle Gorman, Oregon Water Resources Department, dated July 3, 2018, confirmed the use of rainwater as not requiring a water permit and legal for marijuana production use. The applicant also provided a Marijuana Producer Exempt Water Form confirming their water hauler is delivering water from a quasi -municipal source. 247 -18 -000015 -AD (452-A, 453-A) Page 3 of 4 III. DELIBERATION The Key Decision Matrix (Attachment 1) provides a summary of the key issues before the board. Attachments: 1. Key Decision Matrix 2. Submittals from July 2, 2018 Public Hearing 3. Submittals from open record period for new materials (days 1-7) 4. Submittals from open record period for rebuttal (days 8-14) 5. Submittals from open record period for applicant's final legal argument (days 15-18) 247 -18 -000015 -AD (452-A, 453-A) Page 4 of 4 Attachment 1: Key Decision Matrix o Ln 0 CL O a ra m a_ c in O L-1 Ln � v 6 (I, Y ra ° 7 C: v o o � a o E v v a a) a >, v_ n N m nAn rp cy 4., U M U 4- O 4.1 M U U 4- O 4" N U 4- U O .a N c 4- r6 O a +_+ c 4- O O ° c m O v ' L y vim• v ,n u "rn m a E 'Li C a 40' E m M o ac) o o �_ a m o v Q aci o o v ai °- m Em � Em � m E m o y = v a ami t v� a ac) = a aa) w Q � 7 L 4 •'5 7 4 •'s 5 L to a) in N 0- VI N S O Ln m 0-7 O • • • • 4.1 a) v u a a) v c Gi - 3 a) a) a) ra i-+ >>M r6 N a) O i O i O J y p a) c a 4-' O Q V O V J a_ i O i ai O m a_ a) r0 O a) M pA E� M 3 V a) ar � a a) 4 a v 4- a v O o ro E o a`ai L a a .a i Q v a) t w a) ca o >, � E a) 4-1 v a) E a, E E = v -O a o u c E 'ao c E Q L o> o a— 0 ao a; — N a ao a) o m a m -a a vi '_n aj v_i O u aJ v V i0 c a) v v, V a) c a) v 4� ro '' = u° '- u Q m m o ai CL u ro o a) . O `a L a) ° m E o o �' E m o �— E �— rn v i H v- u �— tnL rco N > a O a 0- 0- (6 SaC Q C FA Lr .-L c0 > Y L Q c c Ln ' � a E ar a) v v E o E > v L v L v c E L ° ,� ra C o J_- c v v" v- a c— o a) s v s v c o v v� v° c m 3 a o ,, o Q o ra o N c v o -o o v v o c— 3 •L c v Ln a. v o Q. N � O a) � 'bO C a) N — v ?� O .c ao c v -p � O V a) a) � � E E u i a) a) a_ —_0 w a) a Q m v O 4- Ln ° (A N M U -Cu LA to U !n r6 r6 Ln 4.1 4-1 O rn 4.1 a) G c'UC N .0 c c a) c to v M @ v C a) V m L to 4.1 O O R U - M L v1 4. O O a V t6 -' a i O a a v a a O a E 4.1 - a N v � O v Q� j O a 0° CL Q E E O¢ Q O E a) E a O LO ao =¢ a O Q ro N 'C L t6 Attachment 2: Public Hearing Submittals From: Heather Siemens To: Nicole Mardelf Subject: FW: Date: Wednesday, June 27, 2018 8:55:54 AM Attachments: doc09946420180627085353.pdf Importance: High Hi Nicole, Attached is our letter for the July 2nd hearing. Thank you, Heather Siemens Medical Receptionist Redmond Internal Medicine Summit Medical Group Oregon/BMC 541-322-3500 Ext. 1137 June 27, 2018 To whom it may concern: RE: File #247 -18 -000047 -AD I am writing this letter in hopes that it will be used in your decision making process regarding the marijuana grow application at 6829 NW 66`h Redmond Oregon. I am a current home owner in the Odin Falls Ranch community and I am against the approval of said grow operation for the following reasons: 1. At this time Oregon already has more marijuana being produced than is being used, so adding another operation makes no sense. It can't be exported so it'Sa waste of time and resources to grow. 2. The location for this facility is next, to my neighborhood, if approved this will reduce home values and make it difficult for any of us In Odin Falls Ranch and, River Springs to sell our homes. The marijuana facility if approved would lower our home values significantly. 3. Then there will be the nasty smell that no one will be able to control and will offend many neighbors. 4. Also, there will be an increase in the amount of traffic and most likely more crime in our area as well. In closing, I feel that we as tax payers and residents of Deschutes County should not have this forced upon us by a greedy out of state interest that cares nothing about Central Oregon and just wants to profit off of our great peaceful area in a totally wrong and offensive way. So, please remember that we as tax payers and residents have to live with your decision. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. And if you have any questions please feel free to contact me. Bradley and Heather Siemens 7965 NW Grubstake Way Redmond, OR 97756 (541) 699-8707 Brad cell 800-320-7397— Brad work Email: Brad.Siemens@autowrecking.com or bandhsiemens@gmail.com Nicole Mardell From: Jeffrey Kitchens <jhkitche@blm.gov> Sent: Monday, July 02, 2018 6:26 AM To: Nicole Mardell Cc: Thomas Beaucage; dteitzel@blm.gov Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Public Hearing on Case #247-18-000047-80 Hello Nicole 1 wanted to follow-up from our discussions last week and provide you the information you requested for this morning's hearing. Here is background information to explain BLM's concerns regarding Case #247-18-000047-80. On October 27, 1970, President Nixon signed the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 into law. 'Title II of this Act is the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Marijuana was classified by Congress as a schedule 1 drug/controlled substance under this act. Under the CSA, it is "unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense a controlled substance." The BLM cannot permit activities on the public lands that will violate the CSA. This includes issuing Rights of Ways for commercial activities associated with illicit substances. Our Office sent Deschutes County a letter regarding the case which stated: Access across public lands for commercial purposes requires a right-of-way (ROW) grant issued by the Bureau of Land Management. Additionally, if the applicant chooses to access the project arca by travelling across Public lands, they may be transporting illicit substances across federal lands which is in violation of federal law. Based upon the information in the first three bullets, our agency was and is concerned about the location of the marijuana production facility. if it is approved by the county in the location originally indicated, this would be permitting an activity that could not receive the necessary l)ernlits/authorizations (itOW) from our agency to conduct commercial operations across public lands. Without a ROW the applicant would not be meeting federal requirements for permitting of a commercial activity. Furthermore, they would be transporting illicit substances across public lands. 1 hope this additional information is helpful. Please don't hesitate to call me if you have any questions. 'T'hank you. Jeff Kitchens. Jeff Kitchens Deschutes Field Office Manager USDOI - BLM - Prineville District 3050 NE 3rd Street Prineville, OR 97754 Phone: (541) 416-6766, vw r csa BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony Subject: Ids``` <�� -_ig.:'ay _ Date: Name OL Addressice' 1��o 2z'], Phone #s E-mail address I � ❑ In Favor F-] Neutral/Undecided ❑ Opposed .k Submitting written documents as part of testimony? VIJYes ❑ No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS File # 247 -18 -000047 -AD 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 this application meets all applicable criteria for approval, to wit: 1. 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 due to the following: (1) The road designated as NW 66`h ST from the border of Federal land administered by the BLM, a distance of approximately 0.6 miles, does not legally exist (2) County records in DIAL incorrectly identify the access road across public lands (BLM) as NW 66th ST.. (Appendices, page 6) (3) Deschutes County Code 16.16.030 (F) (1) states that the legal status of a road must be verified by the County Clerk and the Road Department before a road can be named. (Appendices, page 7-10) (4) In order for the road to have legal status, a grant of right of way across Federal land is required in favor of either a property owner or Deschutes County. BLM Regulation 2801.9 (a) states "...a grant under this part [is required] when you plan to use public lands for systems or facilities over, under, on, or through public lands..." BLM Regulation 2801.9 (a) (6) states "Transportation systems such as roads, [and] trails..." [are included]. (Appendices, page 11, 12) (5) The BLM has expressly stated in two separate communications that "...no legal access has been granted through public lands for the parcel in question..." See letter from BLM District Manager, Dennis C. Teitzel dated Feb 20, 2018, and email from Tom Beaucage; (Appendices, page 13, 14) (6) The applicant has posted signs in two locations declaring publicly owned BLM access roads to be private roads, which is illegal under Federal statute. (Appendices, page 15,16) 1 File # 247 -18 -000047 -AD (7) A legal road must exist in order for an address number to be issued. 2. Pre-emptive Federal Law The Planning Commission ignored pre-emptive 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 I, II, Ili, 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 ) (1) (c )(10) Marihuana. (sic) (c ) (28)" (8) Further,the BLM specifically states "The BLM cannot issue a right-of-way supporting an activity that is [Federally] illegal..." (Appendices, page 16) To state this plainly, the subject property does not even have a legal right of access for private purposes, let alone a commercial Schedule I drug growing operation. 3. Private Road Considerations and Fire Prevention (a) The Fire Department requires that "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", as well as providing for periodic turnouts. No road survey was completed to ensure these standards can be met. These fire code criteria apply to any commercial building. (See the Building Classification "Commercial' on the building and septic permits, page 19-21). File # 247 -18 -000047 -AD The illegal dirt access road currently in place clearly does not qualify, nor can it be made to qualify without BLM approval. (Appendices page 17) (b) The Planning Commission has not considered the financial impact on the property owners of Tetherow Crossing, Odin Fails 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, 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 these access roads. The Applicant would benefit financially from the commercial use thereof, to 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 an additional 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 as well as 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 roads. As these roads to be used are privately owned, and maintained at property owner's expense, the County will be profiting while the owners of the roads are left with the repair bills. At the very least this SDC fee should be paid to the property owners associations affected. 4. Ground Water Contamination (a) There is no provision for containment of wastewater or prevention of ground water contamination of the nearby residential water wells. The Bureau of Land Management states: (9) "BLM have concerns over the use of pesticides and herbicides and chemical residue migration onto public lands" . (Appendices, page 13) 5. 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. File # 247 -18 -000047 -AD 8. Deception? (a) According to Deschutes County property records, this parcel was purchased on October 10, 2017. (b) Deschutes County Development records show that on November 9, 2017 Mr. Babani applied for a building permit for a 5000 square foot pole barn, stating it's intended use was "Undecided Agricultural Use". Also, on the same date, an application for septic for this building was submitted. This application shows the building classification as "Commercial". (Appendices, pages 20-22) These applications were approved. (c) On January 7,2018 Mr Babani filed an application for Marijuana production. (d) Was this sequence a deliberate attempt to conceal from the County and the public the Applicant's true intent? (Appendices, page 18) 7. Deschutes County Criteria The Deschutes County Planning Commission states that there are no applicable DCC criteria regarding the following: (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 It would be in the County's best interest to consider all these pertinent points in the determination of marijuana grow site locations. The well-established communities these applications affect have grown and prospered here over many 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 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 needs to be applied when approving these applications. Further, we call your attention to the points made by US Attorney Billy J. 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? 4 File # 247 -18 -000047 -AD APPENDICES File # 247 -18 -000047 -AD File # 247 -18 -000047 -AD Chapter 16.16. ROAD NAMING 16.16.010. Road Naming Authority. 16.16.020. Unnamed Roads. 16.16.030. Procedures for Naming New Roads. 16.16.040. Procedures and Standards for Changing Existing Road Names. 16.16.010. Road Naming Authority. A. Deschutes County, through the Community Development Department, shall have the authority to and shall assign road names to roads requiring names as provided in DCC 16.16. B. The County, through its Community Development Department, shall have the authority to and shall change existing road names under the standards set forth in DCC 16.16. (Ord. 89-010 *1, 1989) 16.16.020. Unnamed Roads. All unnamed public and private roads and other roadways which provide access to three or more tax lots, or which are more than 1,320 feet in length, shall be assigned a name in accordance with the procedures in DCC 16.16.030. (Ord. 89-010 1989) 16.16.030. Procedures for Naming New Roads. A. Application. 1. The naming of a road may be initiated by the Community Development Department, Planning Commission, the Board, or by application of adjacent property owners, developers, or public agencies which may be affected by road names. 2. An application to name a road shall be submitted to the Community Development Department and shall include, at a minimum, the following: i. Name of applicant; ii. Location of road by description and/or map; iii. Legal status of road, if known; iv. Proposed road name, with two alternate proposed names; v. Reason for name request; vi. Petition(s) attached, if any, and vii. Fee, if any, as established by the Board. (g) Notice of a proposed name assignment shall be sent to all persons owning property abutting the affected road or having an address on the affected road. Such notice shall be sent within 10 days of the receipt of an application, if any, or other action initiating the proposed road name assignment. (h) Persons receiving notice under DCC 16.16.030(B) shall promptly notify any tenants or other occupants of the affected property of the proposed name assignment. (i) Any person receiving notice under DCC 16.16.030(B) above may comment in writing on the proposed name within 10 days from the date of the notice. E. Standards. a. General. The proposed road name shall: i. Be limited to a maximum of two words. File # 247 -18 -000047 -AD ii. Not duplicate existing road names, except for continuations of existing roads. iii. Not sound so similar to other roads as to be confusing. iv. Not use compass directions such as North, East, South, etc., as part of the road name. v. Not use designations such as Loop, Way, Place, etc., as part of the road name. vi. Improve or clarify the identification of the area. vii. Use historical names, when possible. viii. Reflect a consensus of sentiment of affected owners and occupants, when possible, subject to the other standards contained in DCC 16.16.030. 2. Particular Roads. The proposed road name shall also conform to the following standards: a. North/South roads shall be called "roads" or "streets." b. East/West roads shall be called "avenues." c. Roads dead -ending in a turnaround 1,000 feet or less from their beginning points shall be called "courts." d. Roads of reduced right of way or curving roads of less than 1,000 feet shall be tailed "lanes" or "terraces. " e. Curving roads longer than 1,000 feet shall be called "drives" or "trails." f. Roads that deviate slightly from the main course of a road with the same name, and are less than 1,000 feet in length, shall be called "places." g. Roads that are four lanes or more shall be called "boulevards. " h. Historical roads may be called "market" roads. i. Roads running at oblique angles to the four points of the compass, less than 1,000 feet in length, shall be called "ways." (See Appendix "D," attached hereto.) J. Roads that begin at and circle back onto the same road, or that are circular or semicircular, shall be called "circles" or "loops." F. Staff Review and Road Name Assignment. The Community Development Department shall review road name applications and shall assign road names under the following procedure: Verify legal status of road with the County Clerk's office and Road Department, 2. Check proposed road name(s) to avoid duplication or confusing similarity with other existing road names, with those on approved preliminary land divisions and with those approved for future use. 3. Perform a field check, when necessary. 4. Assist the applicant or other affected person(s) to find alternate names when required. 5. Notify appropriate persons, departments and agencies of the road name application, and request comments. 6. Review and consider all comments submitted. 7. Assign a road name in accordance with the standards set forth in DCC 16.16.030(E) above. 8 File # 247 -18 -000047 -AD G. Notice of Staff Decision. Following assignment of a road name by the Community Development Department, notice of the road name assignment shall be sent to all persons entitled to notice under DCC 16.16.030(6). H. Appeal. Affected property owners and occupants shall have the right to appeal the assignment of a road name by the Community Development Department. Such appeals shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance, except where the provisions of DCC 16.16.030 conflict with the procedures ordinance, in which case the provisions of DCC 16.16.030 shall apply. Affected property owners and occupants shall have 10 days from the date of the staff decision in which to file an appeal. Issues on appeal shall be limited to whether the Community Development Department correctly applied the criteria set forth herein. I. A road name assignment becomes final when no further right of appeal established herein is possible. Within 10 days of the road name assignment becoming final, the Board shall sign an order establishing the road name as assigned by the community Development Department, J. The affected property owners and occupants shall have 180 days from the date of the Board order of road name assignment to begin using the road name. K. Notice of Decision. Following the order of the Board naming a road, the Community Development Department shall: 1. Notify the applicant requesting the road name of the action; and 2. Send copies of the order naming the road to the following: a. Road Department. b. Assessor's Office and Tax Office. c. Postmaster. d. Planning Department. e. County Clerk's office. f. Affected telephone and other utilities. g. Affected fire department(s). h. Local school district(s). i. Emergency services, i.e., police, fire, 911, etc. 3. File the original order naming a road with the County Clerk. 4. On a monthly basis, the Community Development Department shall publish a list of changed road names in a newspaper of general circulation designated for the purpose by the Board. (Ord. 89-010 1989) 16.16.040. Procedures and Standards for Changing Existing Road Names. The following procedures and standards shall apply to the changing of existing road names: A. An existing road name may be changed by the Community Development Department if the existing name: 1. Duplicates a pre-existing road name within the same postal zip code or geographic area; 2. Sounds like or is spelled so similarly to a pre-existing road name in the same postal zip code or geographic area as to cause confusion between the two roads; 3. Is known by more than one name; 4. Is different than the name of the road of which it is a continuation; or 5. Is not consistent with County road naming standards set forth in DCC 16.16. r File # 247 -18 -000047 -AD B. In choosing which road name to change as between two or more roads with the same or similar names (affected roads), the department shall consider the following factors: 1. The number of properties, developed and undeveloped, abutting each affected road; 2. The length of time a name has been in use to designate each affected road and whether the name used to designate each road has any historic significance; 3. Whether one affected road as named is relatively better known by the general public than the other affected road or roads as named; 4. Any showing that a proposed road name change would be relatively more burdensome to abutting property owners than if another affected road name were changed. C. Proposed name changes shall proceed under the process specified under DCC 16.16.030. (Ord. 89- 010 *1, 1989) 10 File # 247 -18 -000047 -AD Bureau of Land Management, Interior 1761, and administering, amending, as- signing, renewing, and terminating them; (2) Grants to Federal departments or agencies for transporting by pipeline and related facilities oil, natural gas, synthetic liquid or gaseous fuels, and any refined products produced from them; and (3) Grants issued on or before October 21, 1976, under then existing statutory authority, unless application of these regulations would diminish or reduce any rights conferred by the original grant or the statute under which it was issued. Where there would be a dimin- ishment or reduction in any right, the grant or statute applies. (b) What don't these regulations apply to? The regulations in this part do not apply to: (1) Federal Aid Highways, for which Federal Highway Administration pro- cedures apply; (2) Roads constructed or used accord- ing to reciprocal and cost share road use agreement under subpart 2812 of this chapter; (3) Lands within designated wilder- ness areas, although BLM may author- ize some uses under parts 2920 and 6300 of this chapter; (4) Grants to holders other than Fed- eral departments or agencies for trans- porting by pipeline and related facili- ties oil, natural gas, synthetic liquid or gaseous fuels, or any refined product produced from them (see part 2880 of this chapter); (5) Public highways constructed under the authority of Revised Statute (R.S.) 2477 (43 U.S.C. 932, repealed Octo- ber 21, 1976); (6) Reservoirs, canals, and ditches constructed under the authority of R.S. 2339 and R.S. 2340 (43 U.S.C. 661, re- pealed in part, October 21, 1976); or (7)(i) Any project or portion of a project that, prior to October 24, 1992, was licensed under, or granted an ex- emption from, part I of the Federal Power Act (FPA) (16 U.S.C. 791a et seq.) which: (A) Is located on lands subject to a reservation under section 24 (16 U.S.C. 818) of the FPA; (B) Did not receive a grant under Title V of the Federal Land Policy and § 2801.9 Management Act (FLPMA) before Oc- tober 24, 1992; and (C) Includes continued operation of such project (license renewal) under section 15 (16 U.S.C. 808) of the FPA; (ii) Paragraph (b)(7)(i) of this section does not apply to any additional public lands the project uses that are not sub- ject to the reservation in paragraph (b)(7)(i)(A) of this section. § 2801.8 Severability. If a court holds any provisions of the regulations in this part or their appli- cability to any person or cir- cumstances invalid, the remainder of these rules and their applicability to other people or circumstances will not be affected. § 2801.9 When do I need a grant? (a) You must have a grant under this part when you plan to use public lands for systems or facilities over, under, on, or through public lands. These in- clude. but are not limited to: (1) Reservoirs, canals, ditches, flumes, laterals, pipelines, tunnels, and other systems which impound, store, transport, or distribute water; (2) Pipelines and other systems for transporting or distributing liquids and gases, other than water and other than oil, natural gas, synthetic liquid or gaseous fuels, or any refined products from them, or for storage and terminal facilities used in connection with them; (3) Pipelines, slurry and emulsion systems, and conveyor belts for trans- porting and distributing solid mate- rials and facilities for storing such ma- terials in connection with them; (4) Systems for generating, transmit- ting, and distributing electricity; (5) Systems for transmitting or re- ceiving electronic signals and other means of communication; (6) Transportation systems, such as roads, trails, highways, railroads, ca- nals, tunnels, tramways, airways, and livestock driveways; and (7) Such other necessary transpor- tation or other systems or facilities which are in the public interest and which require rights-of-way. (b) If ,you apply for a right-of-way grant for generating, transmitting, and distributing electricity, you must also 235 11 File # 247 -18 -000047 -AD §2801.10 comply with the applicable require- ments of the Federal Energy Regu- latory Commission under the Federal Power Act of 1935, 16 U.S.C. 791a et seq., and 18 CFR chapter I. (c) See part 2880 of this chapter for information about authorizations BLM issues under the Mineral Leasing Act for transporting oil and gas resources. § 2801.10 How do 1 appeal a BLM deci- sion issued under the regulations in this part? (a) You may appeal a BLM decision issued under the regulations in this part in accordance with part 4 of this title. (b) All BLM decisions under this part remain in effect pending appeal unless the Secretary of the Interior rules oth- erwise, or as noted in this part. You may petition for a stay of a BLM deci- sion under this part with the Office, of Hearings and Appeals, Department of the Interior. Unless otherwise noted in this part, BLM will take no action on your application while your appeal is pending. Subpart 2802—Lands Available for FLPMA Grants §2802.10 ghat lands are available for grants? (a) In its discretion, BLM may grant rights-of-way on any lands under its ju- risdiction except when: (1) A statute, regulation, or public land order specifically excludes rights- of-way: (2) The lands are specifically seg- regated or withdrawn from right-of- way uses; or (3) BLM identifies areas in its land use plans or in the analysis of an appli- cation as inappropriate for right-of- way uses. (b) BLM may require common use of a right-of-way and may require, to the extent practical, location of new rights-of-way within existing or des- ignated right-of-way corridors (see §2802.11 of this subpart,). Safety and other considerations may limit the ex- tent to which you may share a right-of- way. BLM will designate right-of-way corridors through land use plan deci- sions. 43 CFR Ch. H (10-1-11 Edition) (c) You should contact the BLM of- fice nearest the lands you seek to use to: (1) Determine whether or not the land you want to use is available for that use; and (2) Begin discussions about any appli- cation you may need to file. §2802.11 How does BLM designate cor- ridors? (a) BLM may determine the locations and boundaries of right-of-way cor- ridors during the land -use planning process described in part 1600 of this chapter. During this process BLM co- ordinates with other Federal agencies, state, local, and tribal governments, and the public to identify resource -re- lated issues, concerns, and needs. The process results in a resource manage- ment plan or plan amendment, which addresses to what extent you may use public lands and resources for specific purposes. (b) when determining which lands may be suitable for right-of-way cor- ridors, the factors BLM considers in- clude, but are not limited to, the fol- lowing: (1) Federal, state, and local land use plans, and applicable Federal, state, local, and tribal laws; (2) Environmental impacts on cul- tural resources and natural resources, including air, water, soil, fish, wildlife, and vegetation; (3) Physical effects and constraints on corridor placement due to geology, hydrology, meteorology, soil, or land forms; (4) Costs of construction, operation, and maintenance and costs of modi- fying or relocating existing facilities in a proposed right-of-way corridor (i.e., the economic efficiency of placing a right-of-way within a proposed cor- ridor); (5) Risks to national security; (6) Potential health and safety haz- ards imposed on the public by facilities or activities located within the pro- posed right-of-way corridor; (7) Social and economic impacts of the right-of-way corridor on public land users, adjacent landowners, and other groups or individuals; 236 12 File # 247 -18 -000047 -AD United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Prineville District Office 3050 NE 3 `d Street Prineville, Oregon 97754 FEB 2 0 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 66th 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 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-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, Dennis C. Teitzel District Manager 13 File # 247 -18 -000047 -AD Re: [EXTERNAL] Deschutes County Decision 6829 NW 66th Beaucage, Thomas <tbeaucage@blm.gov> Thu 5/31/2418 3:15 1'M TO:Casey Gibbs <dcaseygibbs@hotmail.com>; 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. 1 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. Tom Beaucage Assistant Field Manager, Lands and Minerals BLM, Prineville District Office 14 File # 247 -18 -000047 -AD PRIVATE ROAD SIGN AT BLM BOUNDARY LINE 15 File # 247 -18 -000047 -AD SECOND PRIVATE ROAD SIGN ON BLM LAND 16 File # 247 -18 -000047 -AD K b h TYPICAL ROAD CONDITION 17 File # 247 -18 -000047 -AD STA TEMENT OF INTENDED USE Job site: Project/Building Permit: Pole Barn Address: 6829 NW 66th Street Redmond, Or 97756 Property description: 20.0 Acre EFI1 Township 14 Range 12 Section 23 Tax Lot 300 I/we, as owner/s of the above-described property, do hereby certify that the proposed building will be used for: (Give specific details on the intended use of the building): Undecided Agricultural Farm Use 1 understand that any alternate use and non-compliance with this statement may result in the issuance of a citation. Property Owner's Signature*: Date: 11/09/2017 Please be advised that any statement will be used to determine consistency with all applicable land use regulations. Permits from the Building Division will be required for any electrical, mechanical or plumbing installations. 18 File # 247 -18 -000047 -AD Deschutes County Property Information Building Permit details for account #127580 The Deschutes County Community Development Department is responsible for land use and permits for properties in the County's jurisdiction. Contact this department if you need additional information or if you have questions. Account Information Mailing Name: BABANI, ISAAC Map and Taxlot: 1412230000300 Account: 127580 Situs Address: 6829 NW 66TH ST, REDMOND, OR 97756 Tax Status: Assessable Building Permit Details Permit Number: 247-17- Application Date: Status: Permit Issued 006689-STR 11/09/2017 Issue Date: 02/15/2018 Permit Name: BABANI, Final Date: ISAAC V Contractor Name: WALTON BUILDING INC Building Classification: On Sewer: Commercial Permit Valuation: $225,450 Class of Work: New - Square Feet: 5000 Bedrooms: Commercial Stories: 1 Building Use: BARN 50X100 Date: 05/23/2018 Initials: Chris 19 File # 247 -18 -000047 -AD Comments: 1999 Final Building**Date: 5/23/2018 Unable to locate property. Cell phone apps do not locate property correctly. Please leave detailed directions to site and a contact # when requesting inspection. -- Insp Cancelled : No Access Date: 05/23/2018 Initials: Randy Comments: 1999 Final Building"l, Provide level grade adjacent to landings within 4" to 7". 2. Complete truss bracing and gang nailing per roof truss documentation. 3. Provide permits for current T.I. underway in the structure. 4. Provide address numbers on building per code. See Conditions of Approval letter. 5. Provide proof of compliance with all RF&R requirements per the conditions of approval letter provided with the approved set of plans. See items # 4, 5, 6, & 7. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR 247- 17-006689-STR BABANI COMMERCIAL BARN 1. Any interior build -out; electrical, plumbing or mechanical work will require additional permits. Any public component will require accessibility upgrades and additional permits. 2. Provide building address numbers that are visible from the street fronting the structure with 4" minimum height and which contrast with their background. Section 501.2, 2014 OSSC. 3. Door locks and latches must meet the requirements of Section 1008.1.9, 2014 OSSC. 4. Coordinate water supply & location requirements as per Appendix B & C, 2014 OFC and acceptable to Redmond Fire & Rescue. 5. Coordinate type and location of all portable Fire Extinguishers with the County Building Inspector and Redmond Fire & Rescue per Section 906, 2014 OFC. 6. Coordinate location of Key Lock Box with Redmond Fire & Rescue per Section 506, 2014 OFC. 7. Provide required Fire Apparatus Access Roads as per Section 503 and Appendix D, 2014 OFC. If you have any questions regarding these conditions, please contact me at 541-385-1701. Respectfully, Krista Appleby. Deschutes County F&LS Plans Examiner -- Insp Cancelled : Denied Date: 03/28/2018 Initials: Rainer Comments: 1240 Reinforcing Steel -- Insp Completed : Approved Date: 03/21/2018 Initials: Rainer Comments: 1260 Framing -- Insp Completed : Approved Date: 02/21/2018 Initials: Rainer Comments: 1140 Post Holes -- Insp Completed : Approved INE INF04MAD.11D F{AIKAGCFSSED1i1 O`1IFOF—IF IE. -11N,1 11H 11fOH YOUJ CO NE :I.ri ENYRAAS'ONAFIf 111 0. 1AS JE'EN —IDE .1—II A - -StN.f .D (1EX Uf LS COU.VIY.—NO-F ANI, 1111IN"IFFTAODEN OR DDAN0. Ef AS {E CONI NI SE 001 tiff, ACOJNAl i1ML INL W (Wi 1ITFUMOf AW OF 71-[DATAII' - 'JNI:RE IN DMIDDIS COUNFYUFIECNINDMEMDEA Af ITINIMNTFDF6 H 1V HAHIIF$ NC llD VG W.N UI UNI91-b41 f'A FDW.W111,TIFS F tft NAfl LINA FSS FDRA ICUTAR FU"L DIS(IVifS 1, 1LASSU LkOI B ITCA1.11-11, OM. 1iNr N(.(.IAfu;!I�r MITI 1 tF..O.1:Ox �Al15f0 DFSCIIUifSMFIHFY ASS{IMFS NO HAOUiY FDR ANY DECISON5 MAUI WACNONSTAUNOil NOT TAEEN—Of I--0111{IS INK -MITE I. FMTA EIffil—E011ERIIII01R 0 2018 - )eukNltN, County. All rights reserved. 20 File # 247 -18 -000047 -AD Deschutes County Property Information Septic Permit details for account #127580 The Deschutes County Community Development Department is responsible for land use and permits for properties in the County's jutuliction Contact this department if you need additional information or if you have questions Account Information Mailing Name: BABANI, ISAAC V Map and Taxlot: 1412230000300 Account: 127580 Situs Address: 6829 NW 66TH ST, REDMOND, OR 97756 Tax Status: Assessable Septic Permit Details Permit Number: 247-17-001571-AUTH Application Date: 11/09/2017 Status: Authorization Approved Permit Name: BABANI, ISAAC V Issue Date: 12/07/2017 Connector Name: Final Date: Building Classification: Commercial Tank Material: Maximum Trench Depth: Class of Work: Authorization Building DEQ Approval Number: Trench Length: Use: LA FOR BARN 50X100 Linked Service Code: Tank Capacity: Feasibility Permit: System Type: Daily Flow Rate: Drainfleld Type: Special Instructions 'i11CIC't-Jd61PIUN..,oIt.SA4C.:S1'FA'YO(FOl!GO tI(F,lUA. Il ii rRC VD... VI""T Nlif A', van Ya..( \ 1 vLM1.i(,l :hY 11- Ani I H 11ST'I'll.RN"t 171(" e.l'R,_I1I lI Hit',Ai, 1111 111AIA CO Ik 1t 1.S 4hiVtl -Itltt "(�'(if UAi \II:I,A I<YJN-'�4lLY�_:AYt YI'�lhC!.r (fFIS ill i'if 't )�ID.i litrli�l flll 'S(lil loin Y)15C1 Ii t1' 111MUI 1 Nil AIIII,It" l .I1AE'l IYAll I". nrC .1,h Ill iil,_ft hilll,lll", 4n IVRII 1011 A,..1t-:[l,ll if}„Cli.nl} 1.1 1Stih.,1. A4CU�..r} tYti:,.G,(.I.n��(' 1'�(I.�IP.<IVYi)tn1.rLAI.tJ 1,:SOf HO\.tAl GI:IS DILL.l9tIMSG.01!N'C1'.1h5U41k3?JJ ldil):;,rfY T.,} "Akl.t\nti'f(fi!IR ..ta 1{(lIII Sl1U A,),i':1 I�Ult;.lfit ll�:ll 1I11t1LNilF3t 0 2018 - Deschutes County All rights reserved 21 File # 247 -18 -000047 -AD 2920.0-5 Definitions. As used in this part, the term: (a)Authorized officer means any employee of the Bureau of Land Management to whom has been delegated the authority to perform the duties described in this part. (b)Easement means an authorization for a non -possessory, non-exclusive interest in lands which specifies the rights of the holder and the obligation of the Bureau of Land Management to use and manage the lands in a manner consistent with the terms of the easement. (c)Lease means an authorization to possess and use public lands for a fixed period of time. (d)Permit means a short-term revocable authorization to use public lands for specified purposes. (e)Land use proposal means an informal statement, in WEilIM from anyep rson to the authorized officer requesting consideration of a specified use of the public lands. (f)Land use plan means resource management plans or management framework plans prepared by the Bureau of Land Management pursuant to its land use planning system. (g)Public lands means lands or interests in lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, except lands located on the Outer Continental Shelf and lands held for the benefit of Indians, Aleuts and Eskimos. (h)Person means any person or entity legally capable of conveying and holding lands or interests therein, under the laws of the State within which the lands or interests therein are located, who is a citizen of the United States, or in the case of a corporation, is subject to the laws of any State or of the United States. (i)Proponent means anyep rson who submits a land usera�Qgosai either on his/her own initiative or in response to a notice for submission of such proposals. O)Applicant means any person who submits an application for a land use authorization under this part. (k)Casual use means any short term non-commercial activity which does not cause appreciable damage or disturbance to the public lands, their resources or improvements, and which is not prohibited by closure of the lands to such activities. (])Land use authorization means any authorization to use the public lands issued under this part. (m)Knowing and willful means that a violation is knowingly and willfully committed if it constitutes the voluntary or conscious performance of an act which is prohibited or the voluntary or conscious failure to perform an act or duty that is required. The terms does not include performances or failures to perform which are honest mistakes or which are merely inadvertent. The term includes, but does not require, performances or failures to perform which result from a criminal or evil intent or from a specific intent to violate the law. The knowing or willful nature of conduct may be established by plain indifference to or reckless disregard of the requirements of law, regulations, orders, or terms of a lease. A consistent pattern of performance or failure to perform also may be sufficient to establish the knowing or willful nature of the conduct, where such consistent pattern is neither the result of honest mistake or mere inadvertency. Conduct which is otherwise regarded as being knowing or willful is rendered neither accidental nor mitigated in character by the belief that the conduct is reasonable or legal. [ 46 FR 5777, Jan. 19, 1981, as amended at 52 FR 49115, Dec. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING a { REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony ,gip Subject: kid< e- r��� � - C � �1 Dater Name�'� Address Phone #s C f E-mail address In Favor Neutral/Undecided ft . � Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony. ayes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS Board of Commissioners Deschutes County 1300 NW Wall Street Bend Oregon 97703 Re: File Number 247 -18 -000047 -AD. Brett Richwine, Cascade Estate Farms, LLC. Applicant. Isaac Babani, Owner Dear Commissioners, Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony at this hearing. Jamie Ross and I own 7123 NW 69th Place (Lot 1 in the Mary K. Falls subdivision), which directly adjoins the Applicant's property on the south side. The map of adjacent properties with dwellings submitted by the Applicant fails to disclose the presence of our house even though we are arguably the closest house to the proposed marijuana growing facility. We have owned our property for over 20 years and have watched the 69th Street neighborhood evolve from a very troubled area with meth labs, junkyards, etc. into a functioning neighborhood appropriate for families. We would like to raise four issues with respect to the proposed application: 1. Wastewater management is not explicitly addressed in the application. The Applicant has proposed using trucked in water to serve the very significant water demands of their facility. However, the Applicant has not committed to the manner in which wastewater from their indoor growing facility will be disposed of. This is of significant concern as indoor cultivation is known to produce both solid waste, (which the applicant does describe the storage of but, not the ultimate disposal of) and waste water with significant concentrations of nitrogen and other chemicals in concentrations potentially injurious to drinking water supplies. Indoor cannabis growing also, typically involves the use of pesticides and other industrial chemicals, the residue of which is carried by the wastewater. This issue is of particular concern because the Applicant's property is in an area of shallow wells, which sit atop a common water layer, located about 120-200 feet below the surface. Surface pooling of water also occurs in some locations due to the presence of low-lying lava rock shelves in many areas. Under these circumstances, pollution introduced by the disposal of wastewater from the facility runs a significant risk of causing damage to the wells of the adjacent property owners and potentially to the water table itself. We request that the Applicant's application be denied until an appropriate and comprehensive plan for wastewater disposal is provided. 2. Adjacent homes are not fully disclosed by the Applicant, rendering compliance with the setback requirements inconclusive. As previously noted our house is immediately adjacent is not disclosed on the maps provided by the Applicant. Our house sits approximately 150 feet from the Applicant properties southern property line and is perhaps the closest dwelling to the Applicant's proposed site. As the Applicant failed to disclose the presence of our house, the current Application fails to have demonstrated compliance with the set back requirements. The Application should be denied for failure to disclose the existence of our dwelling as this renders its compliance with setback requirements incomplete. 3. The Application is internally inconsistent regarding noise generation. The text of the application itself says "no noise" will be generated that is audible beyond the property lines. However, a careful reading of the exhibits attached to the application discloses that 6 condenser units will be located outside the building on the South side. The application fails to provide an opinion from an engineer that the condenser units, which commonly do produce noise, will be silenced in some way. The nighttime quiet is a cherished aspect of living in this remote region and any noise such as that of cycling condensers, which run all night would be detrimental to the quality of life on adjacent properties. We note that marijuana cultivation operations are not "farms" for purposes of the "right to farm" statutes and thus should be held strictly to controlling emitted noise, smell and impacts on adjacent property owners. 4. Applicant's ability to use the BLM road easement that provides access to the Applicant property has not been demonstrated. Road access to the Applicant property is via a road on located on BLM property. It has not been demonstrated that use of that easement for purposes of growing marijuana is allowable given the federal government's opposition to the cultivation of marijuana. We believe that that application should be denied until a credible legal opinion is provided stating that the ability of the Applicant to use the BLM easement for this purpose is not in question. Based on the foregoing four points, we respectfully request that the board of Commissioners deny the Applicants application. Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony during the hearing. It gives us no pleasure to oppose a neighbor's plans for their property ----but this is a situation where the property was bought expressly for the purpose of changing the use of the property from its traditional use as a rural residential horse property to a commercial cannabis production facility. Under these circumstances, we feel it is necessary to seek to hold the Applicant strictly to compliance with the regulations in this area so that the neighborhood does not suffer unduly from the Applicant's commercial endeavors. Respect61lly, n ii Bunnenberg `t Jamie F. Ross 7123 NW 69th St., Redmond Oregon BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING ,o REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony Subaec_t: f0 c' l? i7.. Date:41, Name j {' Address ZLVC>%�>/�. & l -r9 1 Phone #s E-mail address IL4 In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes No If sq, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS ,., BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING �a { REQUEST TO SPEAK_ Citizen Input or Testimony Subject: Date: —4-L)- Uri V Name ` Lr Address- < ci -cam D,_ Phone #s E-mail address �' 'i` -u . v;+ W3 _v ,,� 'C 0 V1" F In Favor Neutral/UndecidedOpposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? M Yes L No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO. RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS ES �q ?{ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen input or Testimony Subject: Dater Name ;-?T f eeo r ic'rv-e r t - Address '7 j L) A g��� Phone #s ` 5b E-mail address 5(a P V&, In Favor ❑ Neutral/Undecided �µ Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes F] No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS My name is Spencer Krueger. My wife and I live at 7940 NW Grubstake Way in the Odin Falls Ranch development. There are over 60 properties in our gated community, including River Springs Estates. We are zoned multi -use agricultural but there is nothing agricultural about any of the properties. No horses, nothing. It is a purely residential community. I agree with the proposed changes in the County's rules discussed in the Bulletin article of June 13th rejecting marijuana operations in multi -use areas. Also, this proposed grow operation is within 0.5 mile of public areas managed by the BLM, which is another reason new rules would disallow this 9W operation. Also of concern to us is the aquifer that provides our community with drinking water. What is the possibility that this operation will contribute to the depletion of this aquifer and also it's contamination with #effluent op omaZn These grow operations are huge users and wasters of our valuable water sources. Also, what about negative effects on the nearby Deschutes River? Can the applicant reassure us of these concerns? Crime. Our community has seen an up -tick in crime recently. The police believe that the perpetrators are coming from the BLM. We are concerned that this grow operation will further encourage criminal activity in the area. It is well known that there is a large excess of marijuana and that much of the excess ends up on the black market. The OLCC has been unable to successfully control this criminal activity. We do not need more criminals in our area! Please vote to disallow this grow operation. Thank you. DESCHUTES COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE L. Shane Nelson, Sherr Proudly Serving Our Community Comment from Sheriff L. Shane Nelson: 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. If this information is accurate, we should not deviate or make exceptions to any regulations on the books. • Marijuana production is against Federal Law • There are several rural residents who have issues with smell, sound and sight issues related to marijuana grows and how these affect quality of life. • According to U. S. Attorney Billy Williams and OSU Professor Seth Crawford, there is three times the amount of marijuana being produced in Oregon than the state can consume in the "legal" market. • According to the draft OSU Marijuana Analyst report, there is $4 billion to $9 billion worth of street value marijuana that is unaccounted for given the "legal" consumer market in the State of Oregon. It is highly probable this is being diverted to the black market industry. Main Office 63333 W. Highway 20 Bend, OR 97703 541-388-6655 sheriff.deschutes.org Adult Jail 63333 W. Highway 20 Bend, OR 97703 541-388-6661 p.-1 0- ` ES f Mailing Date: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 REVISED NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Deschutes County Board of Commissioners will hold a public hearing on Monday, duly 2, 2018, at 10:00 AM' in the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners Hearing Room at 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, to take testimony on the following item: FILE NUMBER: 247 -18 -000047 -AD (247-18-000452-A, 247-18-000453-A) APPLICANT: Brett Richwine, Cascade Estate Farms LLC OWNER: Isaac Babani AGENT: Michael Hughes, Hughes Law and the Hughes Companies SUBJECT: Appeal of an administrative determination to establish a marijuana production facility at 6829 NW 66"' Street, Redmond. The applicant is proposing to construct a 50' x 100' (5,000 square -foot) structure with a maximum mature canopy area of 5,000 square feet. HEARING PROCEDURES: Pursuant to DCC 22.24.070, the Board has determined the public hearing will be conducted as detailed below: The applicant, Cascade Estate Farms, will be given twenty (20) minutes for opening testimony; The appellants, Odin Falls Ranch Property Owners Association and Tetherow Crossing Homeowners Association, will each be given twenty (20) minutes for opening testimony; Public testimony will be limited to three (3) minutes for each individual STAFF CONTACT: Nicole Mardell, Associate Planner nicole mardellPdeschutes.org, 541-317-3157 DOCUMENTS: Can be viewed and downloaded from: www buildingpermits.oregon.g_ov and http://dial deschutes.grg Seven (7) days prior to the public hearing, copies of the proposed documents and attachments will be available for inspection at no cost at the Deschutes County Community Development Department at 117 NW Lafayette Avenue. Copies of the documents and attachments can be purchased at the office for (25) cents a page. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS MAY APPEAR, BE HEARD, BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, OR SEND WRITTEN SIGNED TESTIMONY. ALL WRITTEN REPLIES MUST BE RECEIVED BY THIS DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO THE HEARING DATE OR SUBMITTED AT THE HEARING. ANY PARTY TO THE APPLICATION IS ENTITLED TO A CONTINUANCE OF THE INITIAL EVIDENTIARY HEARING OR TO 1 This revised Notice of Public Hearing corrects a typo in the time of the hearing listed in the June 5, 2018 Notice of Public Hearing. 117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005 (S41) 388-6575rs ?a cddC@deschutes.org Q) www deschutes.org/cd Attachment 3: # en Record Period New Evidence From: Nicole Mardell To: "GORMAN Kyle G..* WRD" Cc: GIFFIN Jeremy T * WRD; VANLANINGHAM Sam J * WRD; NASHEM William D * WRD Subject: RE: Rainwater Collection for Marijuana Production Date: Tuesday, July 03, 2018 9:50:14 AM Attachments: image001.Dna image002.pna image003mna imaae004.Dna 20180515092420.Ddf Morning Kyle, Thank you for the prompt response and the information. To fill in some of the information gaps — the building is 5,000 square feet and the applicant said it has been designed with special gutters for rainwater capture. They've been in contact with Jeremey Giffin for sign off on the attached Marijuana Producer Exempt Water Form, their hauler is Bend Water Hauling. I'll share the information that rainwater collection does not require a water right although it may not be reasonable to assume the collection will yield a high volume of water in Central Oregon. Best, Nicole t Nicole Mardell Associate Planner 117 NW Lafayette Avenue I Bend, Oregon 97703 PO Box 6005 1 Bend, Oregon 97708 Tel: (541) 31.7-31571 www.deschutes.org/cd Disclaimer: Please note that the information in this email is an informal statement mode 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: GORMAN Kyle G * WRD <Kyle.G.Gorman@oregon.gov> Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2018 9:34 AM To: Nicole Mardell <Nicole.Mardell@deschutes.org> Cc: GIFFIN Jeremy T * WRD <Jeremy.T.Giffin@oregon.gov>, VANLANINGHAM Sam J * WRD <Sam.J.Vanlaningham@oregon.gov>; NASHEM William D * WRD <William.D.Nashem@oregon.gov> Subject: RE: Rainwater Collection for Marijuana Production Hello Nicole, The collection of rainwater from an impervious surface is allowed for use without the need for a water right, ORS 537.141(1)(h). However, it is highly unlikely there is enough precipitation in Central Oregon to fulfill a water use requiring daily watering for several months at a time. This could be done by having an enormous building for a small amount of water need and that will likely defeat the purpose of the operation I suspect. Do you know why they propose 15,000 gallons hauled to the property? It is important to know the source of this water as it is only legal to supply water from a Municipal or Quasi -municipal source to grow marijuana. Please call me if this doesn't make sense or you need more information. Kyle Kyle Gorman Manager, South Central Region Oregon Water Resources Department 231 SW Statehouse Loop, Suite 103 Bend, OR 97702 541.306.6885 e-mail : Kvle.G.Gorman@oregon.gov From: Nicole Mardell [ma iIto: Nicole MardelIOcleschutes.org] Sent: Monday, July 02, 2018 3:15 PM To: GORMAN Kyle G * WRD Subject: Rainwater Collection for Marijuana Production Good afternoon Kyle, This morning we held a public hearing for a marijuana production application and the Board of Commissioners had a question about water collection. The applicant is proposing to have 15,000 gallons of water hauled to the property and to supplement the hauled water by collecting rainwater (up to 200,000 gallons annually). This raised the question of whether or not the collection of rainwater for use in a marijuana production operation is legal. As our code requires us to receive approval from OWRD to confirm water to be used is from a source that does not require a water right, we thought we would look to you for any guidance that you can provide. Do you see any issue with the collection of rainwater for a marijuana production use, and any issues with the legality of this source? The board will need this information by next Monday, July 9 at 5 pm at the very latest. If you could get back to me as soon as possible to discuss the matter, I'd appreciate it. Thank you and I look forward to discussing this matter further, Nicole From our code: DCC 116.330 (13)(13)(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. Nicole Mardell I Associate Planner f 117 NW Lafayette Avenue I Bend, Oregon 97703 PO Box 6005 1 Bend, Oregon 97708 Tel: (541) 317-31571 www.deschutgs.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 a change in the status of o person's property or conferring any rights, including any reliance rights, on any person. Mariivana Producer Exempt Water Form This document is intended to fulfill the requirements in OAR 845-025-1030(4)(g)(D) and to serve as proof that the source of water described on this form intended for use in the cultivation of marijuana for commercial 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. Inconect or falsified information from a producer or a producer's representative shall invalidate this proof. OWRD makes no assurances about the sufficiency of the water source described on this form 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 the cultivation or processing of marijuana do not require a water right. N:mnc of Business: Cascade Estate Farms LLC Name of Representative: Michael Brett Richwine Contao Telephone Number. 773-263-3401 L-mait: bre-tt-@cascadeeStatefarms,com Premises Address: 6829 NW 66th st Redmond Or, 97756 :14 Range: 12 Section: 23 Quarter -Quarter. Tax Lot: 300 LandowncrlsaaC Babani How will water needs be met? Describe water source(s)and delivery system: Water needs will be met with both collected rain water from the roof of the 5000 sa ft pole barn Spring O If avadoble. ntchtde pr c vanity letter fivnt the rl'ater toaster verifying the spring 4s an exempt sonree of +voter. Note that changing circunr+tances can Iran a spring to he deemed non-exempt tut the JMarv. Name of Spring and GPS Coordinates, if knowm__ , ______________,_ _. Estimated Annual Volume of Water Required from this Source: _ Rainwater Hart•csting 0 t►'crier nu{v on(t• he col/crier! (tint ern itnp a ioat snt-line, such as o trtaf• Describe method for stoning rainwater collected (tanks. reservoir, ctc.) rainwater will be collected in 500_gallon cisterns Estimated Annual Volume Required from this Source: 25,000 gallons per year, on average Other Bend Water Hauling — Estinatcc Annual Volume Required from this Source: 15,000 gallons per month (up to 45k if needed) I hereby certify the information provided above is true. I understand that incorrect information will invalidate this proof. of Business Representative, M. Brett Richwine FOR OWRi) USr ON 1, w -- DO NOT WRiTE S'fVILOW THIS LINE, The information provided below is based on information provided by the producer or producer's representative. if you have additional information, contact the staff below for further review and consideration as this is not a Final Order. This proof expires one year after the date below. The producer's reported source of water does not require a water right permit or certificate: Exempt Spring Q Location: Rainwater Harvesting N�o� storage night necessary 0 Storage Method: Other S1l1�1�rC1k Watermaster or Authorized OWRD Staff Signature: w(4r o Printed Name:;4tt �L� .i h Phone li: Ettstil� ���•���Zr 6, r�Cleaki(fddirintnd/'age.ltutdtaf.Nrrmhraflragirnfanurltntans-- Notcs: Oregon Water Resources Department (22/32/202s) From: Spencer Krueaer To: Nicole Mardell Subject: Additional testimony 247 -18 -000047 -AD Date: Wednesday, July 04, 2018 6:08:56 AM Dear Ms. Mardell, Additional testimony: file 247 -18 -000047 -AD Cascade Farms marijuana production facility I was struck by the number of errors or deceptions made by Mr. Hughes and Mr. Richwine on Monday. Comparing overproduction of marijuana, an illegal crop in most states, to corn was ludicrous. It is common knowledge that the oversupply of the drug is in high demand, i.e. profitable, on the black market and, presumably, controlled by gangs and drug cartels. Secondly, the 200,000 gallons of water that they informed us as falling on a 5000 sq ft roof annually is also specious. 27,000 gallons is the correct figure and the vast majority falls during the winter/spring months. Richwine, I believe, will not be utilizing most, if any, of this precipitation. Storage is extremely expensive. Mr. Richwine may currently live in the county, but according to the real estate records, the owner, Isaac Babani, recently bought the property and lives in Florida. This is not a production facility surrounded by the agricultural land. This property is bordered on 2 sides by residential areas (multiuse agricultural), home to 100-125 people. Fire, as mentioned in the hearing, is a real concern. Also, I don't believe any mention was made of the County's proposal to not allow marijuana facilities within 0.5 mile of federal lands (The Bulletin June 13). Is this now not a factor? Spencer Krueger 7940 NW Grubstake Way Redmond, OR July 3, 2018 From: Peter Russell To: Nicole Mardell Cc: Peter Russell Subject: Access and previous dwellings at mj grow at 6829 NW 66th St (18-047-AD/452-A/453-A) Date: Thursday, July 05, 2018 5:09:29 PM Attachments: MT Plat 14-12.odf Historic index 14-12.pd cs00194.pdf Tetherow Crossing Phase VII.odf image001.pno image002.ono image003.png imaoe004.pna Nicole, During the July 2 appeal hearing of the approval of a 5,000 -square -foot marijuana production (grow) site at NW 6829 66th Street, the Board had asked staff about the previous permits for the property and if the question of access was addressed in the past. The site is 14-12-23, Tax Lot 300. Staff has worked with the Assessor's Office, the Road Department, and Coordinated Services, aka permitting, and can provide the following information. The applicant may have more detailed information as the burden of proof rests there. The information given below is the best staff has been able to discern via County records and preliminary research. Historic use of site The site apparently did not have a permitted structure in 1979; property tax records indicate there was a small residence in 1980 which was replaced by a manufactured home in 1989 and that manufactured home in turn was replaced in 1999. The Coordinated Services manager said under then -current County practice, legal determination did not include a review of access, but rather was based on whether the County had permitted activities on the property. The County had previously issued septic and building permits. The septic was finaled on 4/4/89 under 247-S26620; the replacement manufactured home was finaled on 1/22/99 under 247-MH13926. (The permit for the original manufactured home, 247-MH10364 was filed on 4/4/89, but never finaled.) Access to the site Based on Road Department research below, there is no dedicated right of way for NW 66th Street across the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land. Nor is there any record of an easement to serve this property. Based on County research and BLM correspondence in the record regarding the lack of any easement in the BLM's database, staff is doubtful the property has any legal access. Staff looks to the applicant for additional information to demonstrate how the property is legally accessed or whether it is landlocked. Peter Russell I Senior Transportation Planner 117 NW Lafayette Avenue I Bend, Oregon 97703 PO Box 6005 1 Bend, Oregon 97708 Tel: (541) 383-6718 1 www.deschutes.org/cd ffa Disclaimer Please note that the information in this email is an informal statement made in accordance with DCC 22.20. 0055 and shall not be deemed to constitute final County oction effecting a change in the status of a ;person's property or conferring any rights, including any relionce rights, on ony person. From: Mike Berry Sent: Tuesday, July 3, 2018 3:34 PM To: Peter Russell <Peter.Russel I@deschutes.org> Cc: Cody Smith <Cody.Smith@deschutes.org>; Gregg Rossi <Gregg.Rossi@deschutes.org>; Rachel Pinkston <Rachel.Pinkston@deschutes.org> Subject: NW 66th in 14-12-24 Peter, Regarding you question about NW 66th Street and access to tax lot 14-12-23 300, the sketch below summarizes my research of record public access via 66th: m isay�8 a road, it is C :.,mm.a, Approx. location of roads sharvn on Surveys CS00194 and CS00195 � BLM MT Plat 14-12-23 304 +•Mr r �. Bing o record of road easement BLIVI 1 or dedication in County Road Records or ELM MT Plat rr ryr � err err i J (Extent of CS00195 and CSOO196 surveys), SLM 24 Gil' wide public road dedicated in plat of TETHEROW CROSSING PHASE Ull (plat notes that 66TH has a 1' wide "STREET PLUG" at north end) 66th across BLM land is shown on the County GIS map as a 'BLM" Road. Road records on file at the Deschutes County Road Department indicate that this segment across BLM land is not a public road. • Road Department indexes indicate that no old Crook County or Deschutes County roads were ever established over this route. • Surveys on file at the Deschutes County Surveyors Office indicate that no subdivision or partition plats of record have dedicated a road along this route. Across BLM land in Section 24, the attached BLM Master Title Plat ("MT Plat:) for Township 14 South, Range 12 East indicates that the short segment highlighted above is grant "OR 18087": On Page 8 of the attached BLM Historic index for this township, grant OR 18087 is noted as being a "R/W Rd" dated 11/24/1980. In the survey records of the Deschutes County Surveyor's Office are two surveys for what appears to be this segment of road: CS00194 — Dated 10/3/1977 CS00195 — Dated 10/22/1977. This is apparently a duplicate of CS00194 with a "Surveyor's Statement" and "Applicant's Certificate" added to the top of the survey. There are signature lines under the "Applicant's Certificate", but no signatures. This may be a copy of a document submitted to the BLM for the 1980 grant OR 18087. The BLM would be the agency to contact about OR 18087 and any other easements that may have been granted across federal lands in Section 24. As regards 66th to the south in the plat of Tetherow Crossing Phase VII, all of the roads in this plat were dedicated to the public: DEDICATION: Be it kmwn that WS, willUst W. DurAk and Bernice G. Dards*, are the owners of the IAA& shown hereon aani4WV6 cauasd said lands to be sur")r d and platted into. ltrests and lots a; ishOW, and do hereby subVit this plat for approv*4 -wand record, bte 40 $oreby dsdicate to the WO of the public foz'e"r +9 streete on this j#st of "Tstherow Grasaia,& Phase 'SSC, henceforth to be so known. r However, sheet 3 has the following note about "street plugs": ALL STREET R/Ws ARE 60' ALL STREET SETBACKS ARE 50' ALL LOTS ARE 5.0 ACRES M/L UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED A STREET PLU&� IN WtDTH LYING A NT TO E DARY WIL.L. BE N gR01U g1lOvIg�DlEtT TAHNS N'W. I Oth R AVDSTVEAW AND AT TH FDN. 'j WE T V V HOESAO . VNMOST S GM 4T A, Sincerely, Mike Berry, PLS I County Surveyor 61150 SE 27?" Street I Bend, Oregon 97702 Tel: (541) 322-7112 1 Celli (541) 815-2352 0~ win ° m M UJ j W O - K a_ o¢ `O minimills 00 W'^ Aga$ 4LL nNW be q o U D 3W Z v/ Niglio I Icc, W W - . - Q Z tr• ° � °" F Q � 3 2 v ° Z O V NWN O a 8 - SI � W �ffi p. I of :E• W '3 r :r a .:.. 3 W 2 h� ooW. LL O CO g� Q M N N M W f- U } O p U W m W LLJ J CD Z ' W U off ° cr a W D O d' a ZLL 3 O I— , b «,01 Wil_ Q oma. �o It SI � z 'O V NW w O z Q CW G W CW G Q J J W x U- 0 H v! a w N VII pW V z NQ `x r pO R r a_ x W z O I-- E T � Z rn o c c c o - i= U U c U c U c v C- c v @ U v U c U v c v U c U U U U c U c C)0 c? U U w Ya E Q z C2 � Q, � O � E ' U rn N o N N N N n M v M o c z c r o `' P H cc'+' o F «� 0 0 o o o N O v a' w `o a `° 6 To - n Y d d of Df W W W J T W W W W W W J W W W_ W - W S O D D W S D 2W W S W S O D W S U 2 S S S O S O= i - o V o N o o N o o 6 o 6 o v a- 3 3 W - W W N O w � n y r - _ - C —oQ ¢ Q Q �2 ZDo W X X X X X X X X X X y X X XX 1 X I X X X X y W > y Z X X X X 1-1 1 m W Z X X X X W X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X N Z X X X X W z X X X X X X -1 1 X W X X XX X X X X X R:X X X X X X X Z XX 4t] $x -- X X X X X Z I I X X X L- IX X X X X X X X X X X W Z X X X X X W z X X X X X X WM y M o V r C M N o M ------------------------------------ N m 2 m — Mo o 0o - - - � c H m U N E-6 Q K U a O Uzz- - N r V V o - - - - a Z c p m m ur] C O N N O n f ------------------------ a' o Z6. a a w w a x a a a a d a a a w a w - w U O `m U w U w U 2 w U w U x LL w S w S w U w S w U w S w U w U w S w U 0 w U D a _ o rn 0 o d' o O v V o0 C O o 6 3 I 3 � o I m v v —<< O a ih X X X X X X X X X • Z O X X X X X X X X y W y X > D Z X X X X X X x x x x x x x x x w X X X X X X i�: X x x x X r3, x x x z x x z X X X X X X X X x w N x x x x x x x x x X X X X X Z Z X X XXXX 1-- z xX XXX X y X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X x X W Z Z X X X XX X X X X X UT X X X X X X X X X VI Z C a LL ik C al a w w w w w D S O S S c7 V � o o 7 N V f w w w w S S S O S T7-,-� I-; I � �v v z O V LU w O Z Q Ei Fe LU C w r L LI C Q J J_ LJJ LL Q ,� V/ Q LJJ --------------- E K N cNN N L3 Of of U U U U CO) U U U U U U H Fes- Or E N N IE E d ti Ws - Z z = 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o N o v m o 0 y O � O w .o � 3 3 Y � d E a w w w w o w w w w w o w o w w w w o w x x o x x x x x x x x x x x o x x o x x x v x 0 v v v v w x V Vo 3 3 O a w N W O v. 13 -------------- I W N X X X X z N X X X X X X O — W j N Z X X X X X X X X O w z X X X X X X X X X X X w N XX X X X X X X X X X X X ul 3:X X X X X X X X X Z w z X X X X X X X X X w X X X X X X X X N X X X X X X X X X X X Z z X X X X X X W z X X X X X W X X -1 1 X X X X X X X X X X X W z z XX X X z X X X WN N N N o c7 o r r P E a � m M � O O O d----------------------------------------- rn rn m r � N W a M K U O m E E a O N V1 -------------------- F- Os = N O O W � � � 3 3 16 .- .- i N 1«N a J a a 16 s .6 a a a a a a a w a a w a a a a w O w w I o x o x x U U x o x x x x x x x x o x x M x x I� x o x x x x x U M x o U x w x a Ili 0 IliQ m I � O O15 v. - d N I X X X X X X x x X Z\ O X X X X X X X .05 wN > y z X X X X X X X X D m h w z X X X N x-------------- X X X X X X X x X y X X X ,x z x x x x x x X � X X X x ti z 3: z x X X w z X X X X X X x X X X X Xi I X x I X II X X X X X X X X X X X X z z x XX X X z x X X x X x x X W M N N C M N NcL M o c� E K M O O N n N p ~ N a m O--------------------------------------------- d E m N m N N ONi m N � ------------------------------ N ------------------ lL � m 3 Y g a a a a a a a a s a s a a w o x x x x x p x x x x x x d x x x x w o I o x x x x x x d x x x x x 0 I a - 6 I I o 3 a o o 2 P m o O U � W x X X X x 2 x X X X X X O > N ti z X X X X X X X X 0 j N w Z x X X X X X X W X X X X X X x N x x x X x y X X X X X X z x W z x X X X X X X X X X X W N X X x X X X X X -X x X X X X XX X X X X Z x X X X Z x x x z X X X X X X X X X W X X X X X X X f x X X X I I X X X X X 2 z x X X X X X w z W a0 N x N N S N o 0 x x x x \\ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \}\ \ \\ \ \ \ \ -- ))}R )//G \( ) \ ) [ \ \ } ) C-) \ [ ) j} j a w )\( /§w »)E\ - \ - \ \ /§ / 7 & 2 y § 4c !ƒ -21 � /w\ \\ k\ g$I I I I I I-xI I-I IXxI I I Ix x x x -i I IXIx ixx \ \ / ) j \\ ) \ \ \ }} )\ \\ \ \\ \ \\ \\\\ Rj (j)(j() Elf \) \_ ' )\ 'I - ZQQ\ , 7 - /«$ x x- - Xi Ixxx x x x k\f (} }\w E E w U' O ` E N — O o z ` � N 2 M ` 1O Y `u0 o O o 0 0 0 � -------------- 2 � o aj R a u w m CD K 2 mi O M Elf Q o 3 3 M Z O W W W W W Wd Ld W M m a aNcn to�WwZ I 1 1 ------------------------ X X X X X X X X X X X D N X X X X X X -y W > N z X X X X X X X X X N z X X X X X X X X I- x X X X X X X X X T' X X X X X X X X X X y Z X X X X X X z X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Z z X X X X X z X X X X X X X X X X X X X X W X X X X X Z X X I X X X X WX X X X -Ai- � N N O V M jX 2 O 0 w Q� O z � O � w s w e e LU � « --------------- � ) \ \ 66 7 \\ \ \ \\\\ \ \\\ AR 3 5 5§K§ 3 K§§ iD /[/ i ) � \ . � J :\ ® \[ \} : z/ [z§\z{3 'f \( \\ z\}`j \/ § \) : !\ , 7 m x x x ----------------- k\ \ x {\ !y x x . �$ x x x ' N qui}cua h '. L, d I LLQ h 9 / iL_, I (V i �I W . �/ �___ --Y�5 _____.-__.__---_ ____--_ N L'LI y�tI,l'�Ll i 14 7i^i� ♦y� I .. C) L� CO a � O• _ � N� a a•\ L 3 P _ � / O Mei rstnoso '� : r 11 'O�� V) C6 0 MATCH SHEET 1 NORTR 7 t W Q a N 809.02 1 r 1110 m I•N � _ O < N 91°56' 32W �1Z �F– � �. 91].32• �m I 9]8.83 _ 45' 862.06 i/ss °tee / / I I I / / W n ft/ / \ ✓9� / �.t\\£ ,110291 3 „92 ,61 °0 N\ M O \\ �F29Ss e0 ~ \ 86692 ,LB Eft �� ,029£Z 90 SBS � ror 60 Fl��.ry O ib� I „ � _ — O 5° 1" 30'W \ 0 o11P. 4 ♦ e Sp / r Im o n 35269 23339 00 Oo pOY/r�C °S\N 0 9 h 6/ ceFC \ / osBFY N 809.02 1 r 1110 m I•N � _ O < N 91°56' 32W �1Z �F– � �. 91].32• �m I 9]8.83 _ 45' 862.06 i/ss °tee / / I I I / / W n ft/ / \ ✓9� / �.t\\£ ,110291 3 „92 ,61 °0 N\ M O \\ �F29Ss e0 ~ \ 86692 ,LB Eft �� ,029£Z 90 SBS � ror � Fl��.ry O ib� I „ � _ — O / � ry^'� \°♦ �\ 591 qb \ 0 o11P. / � ♦ e Sp / / 0 B // 11 45 o n 35269 23339 °S\N 0 9 h 6/ ceFC \ / osBFY ,OZ_Z6S _ _ — I— "– — -- — M „If HS o2 N �� � •SBF /9 bg elq% / / m 98 2og .O£ °o N A \ ° °B\\ 3Nf'\ N0V0139(9030 'o to ; °0 N n zD�/ 0 zz Ea .9!'111 09 LZ of N IF� 299ZS I N •[ ® M � 4o 099 I f I Ip 16 oc cl - I ml M „90 E2 00 N [ v \ 01'2SS / N 'meg 3Nil M0tl9135 '9018 _6 _O m ' 0 W I Z IL 6L'605 0 01'Z19 w W GZ'I£2 N N ,6£98£ _ _ 68f6S _ _ ,LI'91QI M ,99 ,91 00 6 w N N ,L9'0991 3 „90 ,91 °0 S N Jr p � CCCYYYY , o v w"w 3Sb/Id o rx o_a LLI MOa#m~ 3H� 31 ;g cog CL t2 1, - ?gi m. U) all 3LL00 �1 jm6 5 W Z F- V ra ~ LJ W U� Q orFs Cea �\ a0 \\9aS O p6 Y* \ 00 ��i\\��� -- _89`—DIEM— •a`� � N � � � / \tea ,641 O Z _ZZI££ _ p / OO OSb M „bS ,Zb o0 S 5 w 'o NI v a _ _59G45 M „10,05 °00 S bQBZp_ _,62'0£1 m Iz ,95'££9 M„10,£0 °00 S h I I f ell l, / �i �A U SF S N I II I ,6 B'61G ,99'992 I ^` ,10 ZB01 3 ,SO 91 °0 5 � Sf lii�l tit To: Tony DeBone Phil Henderson Tammy Baney RE: File # 247 -18 -000047 -AD (247-18-000452-A, 247-18-000453-A) Dear Commissioners, I attended and spoke at the hearing referenced above on Monday, July 2, 2018. During that meeting, Brett Richwine ( Cascade Estate Farms, LLC) stated in response to questions about the water supply needed for his marijuana grown, that he had his building(s) fitted with gutters to increase his water supply and the gutter installer indicated he would receive about 200,000 gallons of water per year. After the meeting, I used U.S. Climate Data to determine the average annual rainfall for Redmond, Oregon. It is 8.88 inches per year. Then I found a website that calculates rainfall catchment volume \�v7�w- ilctot}I ori j. I don't know what the roof surface area is that he had guttered but used the 5,000 square foot number from his grow site. It may be more or less than this number. Using these numbers, the annual rainfall volume is only 27,678 gallons per year, not 200,000 gallons. Far less than what he indicated. There are 3 other factors that would/could affect the total volume of rain collected: 1. The volume number does not take into consideration evaporation. 2. If 5,000 square feet is the correct number and the roof is sloped the catchment area would be less that this number. 3. I don't know if the average annual rainfall number includes snow. Maybe this information is not important for you to reach your final decision. With the applicant not currently having irrigation rights, rainfall catchment not being adequate to supply them with enough additional water for their grow, most likely having to drill their well deeper which may have a negative effect on surrounding wells and most likely having to transport water over the existing roads affecting others who pay to maintain it, I feel it is. Legal marijuana is now codified into Oregon law but this is just not the right place for this reason and the others stated at this week's hearing for a commercial marijuana grow. Thank you for your time and consideration, Regards, William and Tina Hinchliff iF / Volume of ralnfWl- From amount of rain and area. Catchment area: 5000 [spare feet Rainfall height: 18.88 inches _ _ Water volume: 27677.9 gallons (US) Calculate! I Add Spar / Save G Vy t - — C Andy & Steve Shipway 2008 Search Qthr�r su4caieaaries in ex Gtl a C ..'CG Index the cale The catchment Am is multiplied by the depth of rain that rails on it to give the total volume of water produced. Factors such as evaporation, wetting, and soaking into the ground are not considered here. 1=1 Although this calculation is simple in principle, the units can make it a headache. However, CalcTool's unit menus remove this issue, doing all the unit conversion for you. Here you can easily find how much rainwater you can collect from you roof, how much you need to remove from a co lrhrarrl or holy much runoff you can expect from an area of land. ` U G H E S i A W OFFICE 920 NW BOND STREET, SUITE 206 BEND, OREGON 97703 July 9, 2018 Ms. Nicole Mardell Associate Planner Deschutes County Community Development Department P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 1 G ':j P.O. sox 7619 BEND, OREGON 97708-7619 Re: File No. 247 -17 -000907 -AD (247-18-000452-A, 247-18-000453-A) Dear Ms. Mardell: I have enclosed the following materials as a supplement to the hearing and application: 1. "Understanding Air Purification and Activated Carbon Filters." Hugh McLaughlin 2. Proposed Interior Floor Plan showing approximately 2,248 square foot of mature canopy space. 3. Rain Water Harvesting System Estimate 4. Copy of BLM Easement for 7401 NW 66th Street (Property with shared access road with the applicant's property) 5. February 1, 2018 Letter from Redmond Fire and Rescue 6. Documents showing previous common ownership of the SE 1/4 Northeast 1/4 Section 23, Township 14 South, Range 12 East. Please let me know if there are other materials that are needed for deliberations. Sincerely, Michael R. Hughes Attorney at Law Attorney for the Applicant Understanding Air Purification and Activated Carbon Filters https://www.maximumyield.com/understanding-air-purification-and-a... ALERT Maximum Yield Reader Surve : Tell Us What You Think of Maximum ield.com htt s://docs.a000le.com /forms/d/ell FAIpQLSdoPVi9UliSLpRPxblhheyY1 MKP3WITK7gPpXCMumkuKuXLfci/viewform Understanding Air Purification and Activated Carbon Filters Hugh McLaughlin (/contributors/hugh-mclaughlin) I October 22, 2017 Takeaway: Activated carbon filters capture odor -causing vapors and take them out of circulation. Considering using these filters in your growroom? Here's what you need to know. Activated carbon filters are widely used to reduce odors and control emissions from greenhouses and other growing operations. The ambient air is circulated through the activated carbon filter and returned to the greenhouse or discharged outside. Understanding the basic guidelines of how activated carbon filters (hftos://www.maximumyield,com/definition/3031/carbon-fi work will help growers use the technology with greater reliability and lower overall cost. How Carbon Filters Work Inside a Grow Room For starters, activated carbon is basically a sponge that captures odor -causing vapors and takes them out of circulation. The level of odor -causing chemicals is lowered and thus the odor, which is the nose's detection and quantification of the presence of non -air molecules, is reduced. 1 of 5 7/3/2018, 2:06 PM Understanding Air Purification and Activated Carbon Filters https://www,maximumyield.com/understanding-air-purification-and-a... Email Newsletter Join thousands of other growers who are already receiving our monthly newsletter. M Enter your email address... Subscribe. At some level, called the odor threshold, a typical nose cannot detect the presence of the odor compound in the air and the odor is considered absent, although the chemical is likely still there at a reduced level. This can be a problem, since the slightest increase in the level of the odor compound in the air brings it above the odor threshold and suddenly the odor is detected. Odor Fatigue Furthermore, smelling most odors leads to odor fatigue, where the nose's sensitivity decreases with extended exposure. Someone entering the room can clearly smell the odor, but the person who has been there for a while cannot. If you want to check for the presence of an odor (https://www.maximumyield.com /definition/3297/odor-control-indoor-Qardeninp) in a grow space, you must leave and breathe some fresh air for long enough to clear the background sensitivity of your nose to the odor you are checking for. Adsorption vs. Absorption Activated carbon works by a phenomenon called adsorption, where the odor compound is trapped inside the activated carbon and retained, but the material doing the adsorption does not change size. Adsorption differs from absorption, which also removes things, but the result is swelling. 2 of 5 7/3/2018,2:06 PM Understanding Air Purification and Activated Carbon Filters https://www.maximumyield.com/understanding-air-purification-and-a... Both adsorption and absorption media have fixed capacities, meaning they hold just so much, since they are storing the material removed from the air, not destroying it. It is easier to tell what is going on with absorption, since the size increase equals the amount of material removed; with absorption, there is a weight gain, but it is hard to measure and we need to use other means to gauge the remaining life of a carbon filter (https://www.maximumyield..com/defin.ition/3031/carbon-filter). Activated carbon removes odors by offering the odor -causing compound (https://www maximumyield com/definition/3297/odor-control-indoor-gardening) a more attractive place to reside than circulating in the air. The adsorbed state— when the odor compound leaves the air and gets retained inside the activated carbon—is called a lower -energy state and it is as if the molecule falls into a hole and cannot get out. New activated carbon has lots of unoccupied holes and virtually every compound that passes through falls in a hole and is retained. Over time, the empty holes fill up. The molecules that are adsorbed with higher energy, sort of like weighing more, can displace the lower -energy molecules that are less tightly held, leading to molecular musical chairs. This phenomenon, called displacement, can basically drive one crazy, since odors seem to come out of nowhere when a lightly adsorbed odor compound is knocked off the carbon filter by a heavier compound, whether that compound smells or not. There is no way to program activated carbon to take out one compound and leave the rest alone. The technical term for the first time an adsorbable compound is sensed at the exit of a carbon filter is called breakthrough and when the filter is full, this is called saturation. When it comes to odors, and especially because of odor fatigue, these benchmarks are in the eye—or nose, I guess—of the beholder. How Much Can a Carbon Filter Hold? Activated carbon filters (https://www.maximumyield.com/definition/3031 /carbon - filter) are a bit like oil filters on a car—they remove a certain percentage each time through the filter until they get full, at which point they remove essentially nothing. Depending on the design of the filter, how fast air is passing through it, what is in the air and many other factors, the odor of the exiting air is determined. The end of the filter's usable life is the point where the amount of odor removed each time through the filter is too little to justify continued operation, at which point 3 of 5 7/3/2018, 2:06 PM Understanding Air Purification and Activated Carbon Filters the carbon filter should be replaced. https://www.maximumyield. com/understanding-air-purification-and-a... "Ultimately, the capacity in an activated carbon filter (haps//www maximumyield com/definition/3031/carbon-filter) is determined by how much carbon there is and the quality of that carbon. " The amount of odor removed by the filter is the difference between the entering level of odor compound and the level exiting. A lot of removal occurs after breakthrough and after the odor threshold is exceeded. The activated carbon filter continues to remove a portion of the odor compound all the way to saturation. How Long Do Carbon Filters Last? Depending on the acceptable level of odor thttr)s://www,maximumvield.com /definition/3297/odor-control-indoor-gardening) in the greenhouse or exiting air, it may be necessary to take a carbon filter offline well before saturation is reached. Filter manufacturers know this and strive to supply filters that approach the ideal filter performance. The sharper breakthrough and the more vertical the rise, the easier it is to use the entire capacity of the activated carbon filter. In general, the slower the flow rate through the filter, the closer the filter will operate to the limit of ideal performance. Thus, if odor is exiting the filter above the acceptable level, the recommended strategy is to slow the flow rate thorough a filter (using a fan speed controller) to cause the exiting concentration of odor compound to decrease to below the acceptable level. Read More: Eliminating Odor from a Grow Room (https://www.maximumyield.com /eliminating-odors-in-the-growroom/2/28631 Over the life of the filter, a series of flow reductions will allow the largest total amount of odor to be removed while maintaining an acceptable odor level in the growing space. Ultimately, the capacity in an activated carbon filter (https://www.maximumvield.com/definition/3031/carbon-filter) is determined by how much carbon there is and the quality of that carbon. It is relatively easy to make an activated carbon filter that looks good right out of the blocks—all the available holes are empty and they grab the first thing they encounter, but the ultimate value of an activated carbon filter is how long it provides ongoing improvement of the air passing through it. Activated carbon quality is like octane in gasoline; you can definitely pack more of it into a given amount of weight or space. Activated carbon quality is determined on a weight basis, per pound of material, through a number of tests, such as iodine number, BET surface area and butane activity. Activated carbons differ in density, or how much weight per unit volume. Thus, one can have a really high capacity (like octane) times a really low density (like popcorn), and one ends up with much less in the tank, so to speak. Carbon Filter Labels When selecting an activated carbon filter to purchase, look for quality 4 of 5 7/3/2018,2:06 PM Understanding Air Purification and Activated Carbon Filters https://www,maximumyield.com/understanding-air-purification-and-a... measurements, which go by names like CTC number, iodine number, butane activity and BET surface area. Note that different labels use different measures and how much of one equals how little of another is application specific. Truth be told, most of the metrics measure the wrong thing, but it is true that more is better, no matter what is counted. How Much Carbon Is in the Filter? The next stop is how much carbon is in the filter: too little of a good thing is, frankly, too little. On the label, carbon may be listed in either weight or volume. If the quality is in units of weight, one must hope that the quantity number is in similar units, or you know nothing. For example, simply stating that 10 gal. of some number of good stuff per ounce means you are lost if you don't know the density (ounces per volume). If the calculation has a favorable answer, it will be on the label. The volume available for activated carbon is how much media the filter will contain, but it is basically the weight of that media that matters. Weight is either how much the filter holds in activated carbon, or the available volume times the density or specific gravity of the carbon. The specific gravity—the ratio of the weight of a volume of carbon compared to the weight of the same volume of water—is a good indication of quality: the higher the specific gravity, the better. Good carbons have a specific gravity of 0.45 to 0.55. Specific gravity is easy to measure, just fill a container with the activated carbon, weigh it, then fill the same container with water and weigh that. The ratio of the two weights is the specific gravity. What Does It All Mean for Growers? At the end of the day, for a given amount of activated carbon of a given quality, there are few tricks that will make any difference. The flow rate through the filter should be adjusted to provide an acceptable level of odor exiting the filter, and being comfortably below that flow rate is better. Having more filters is better since they help each other keep the odor level below the acceptable level. Activated carbon does not go bad over time and there is no clever way to use it up faster that leads to increased capacity. Read More: Your Grow Room Stinks. Now What? (https://www.maximumyield.com /your -i ndoor-garden-stinks-now-what/2/2877) When one is buying an activated carbon filter, one is basically buying a certain amount of odor removal capacity and that capacity is directly related to the quality and quantity of activated carbon in the filter, not all the bells and whistles. Featured Q&A More of your questions answered by our Experts (/experts) 5 of 5 7/3/2018, 2:06 PM MaximumYield Contributors - Hugh McLaughlin https://www.maximumyield.com/contributors/hugh-mclaughlin ALERT I Maximum Yield Reader Survey• Tell Us What You Think of Maximumvield.com (https://docs.gooale.com /forms/d/e/1 FAIpQLSdoPVi9UliSLPRPxblhheyY1 MKP3WITK7gPpXCMumkuKuXLfg/viewform) Hugh McLaughlin Hugh McLaughlin is a practicing chemical engineer and the CTO of AC FOX, Inc. He is an expert on activated carbon and biochar, having been the Director of Biocarbon Research at Alterna Biocarbon, Inc. from 2009 to 2013. AC FOX has patented technology in the area of regeneration of spent activated carbon and has this technology available for licensing. In addition, AC FOX has patent pending technology for the production and upgrading of biochar from a wide variety of biomass feedstocks. ARTICLES BY HUGH MCLAUGHLIN (/understand i ng -ai r- purification-and-activated- carbon-filters/2/1169) Understanding Air Purification and Activated Carbon Filters (/understanding-air-purification-and-activated- carbon-filters/2/1169) Activated carbon filters capture odor -causing vapors and take them out of circulation. Considering using these filters in your growroom?... 1 of 1 7/3/2018, 2:07 PM D I $fAMLESS OUTTERS, I Lt U you have any queff"Ons feel fmo to CoEkwa W. Fmi EXLITf)rF "A" 3 9 6 • •2 4 3 lj,g- jj�grj�n_ to r4 UNITED STATES FlIgm•ot.Way Permit DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR or ©ram No eumeu of Limit Management Oregon Stale Oglce __......_.... Date Erpnac ASSIGNMENT OF RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMIT OR GRANT (Assignment, Acceptance, & Approval) 1. ASSIGNMENT Address (Street, city. slate, zip code) Name of Assignor . r•1r-it?I Nlr-�,'+'<t., 4JP.i_^V r"1 P tkt- r '1`ccl N'�^r.�l.p/ �' "•l`1 E:LaI� MPru c..r The purpose for which this rtghrol•wey was granted is tYtr•117E•'S A E.'�j Q.G:.� "r0 For and in consideration or the sum of ono dollar ($1.00) and nther v luable consideration, Assignor hereby assigns• transfers and eels over to p�tG}�g-`c- �r�orCs orgy e" --A KrMbew—c 4 ,{G.-�AG KSoN all of my right, title and interest to and to the road, buildings. structures or other improvements placed upon or across the area covered by the right-of-way permit or grant specified above and granted to me by the United States of America, lagelher with my duties. obligations, and rights of use of such area In accordance with the [arms of sold permit or gram and the fight to any credlt for ath,ance rentals paid !hereunder. Title, II corporate official Date 2. ACCEPTANCE L Name of Assigned tGirv�ta'�.rrr,�� t� • j'arx�o� a. Assignee is ❑ a corporation organized under the teen of the State of Address (Street, city, state, zip code) r14C>t t�v-abb�.8$, ® an Individual and a citizen of The United States by f bine L- naturalization f7 an association at C partnership composed of the undersigned Individuals each of whom Is a cillzen of the United States by C birth L naturalization b. The following documents are attached: G'OC-"7 coo I.0 P.RfLRM1�"'i �•8 r'1 COY,V Is psa C(xC•C'''i c, a nonre(undabfe payment is enclosed in the amount at S -- Imimmum payment is L261)0) Assignee hereby accepts the above assignment and agrees to comply with and be bound by the forms and conditions of the right-ot-way permit or grant and one applicable regulations or the Department of the interior in force as of the dale• Of approval of this assignment, Signatures) of Assrgnu Title, if corporate official Dale Sl \��1 d l 1``y —.•...\ ..-=- /�—LIi��L.l .t;�f pj 1�y1'it !i �.1 .. __ �.:_).±� .... .. No assignment will be recognized unlass and until approw d. 3. APPIS;OVAL Title Dole Approved Signature d Aulho ized Officer, Bureau of Land Management 71ite to U.S.C. section 1001. makes 11 a crime for any parson kho ply and wiltuny to make to any department or agency of the united Stales any Lattu. h4111o06, of fraudulent sl.lenlelts or rapreeaniouona as to any malt., want ae luned¢oDn STATE OP OREGON, count, o1......�schu tes FORM fiv, �z—aGeronvnmcarar. Sw.eZt, lo.• PoLL,hme Cv. Nr ronb„a• oR v>sar q) tan BEITREAfF.MBERED, That onthis .......,)S)t)1...........day of..—...n!PJ34!n y .. ....:........._........... IY-9,5i, before me, the undersigned, n Notary Public in and for the Stare of Oregon, perswmily appeared ilia within named....................!41! M5.LA4.r...Lls.>4'.K.t...irlckso>.i........ .......................................... ........................._..............,....._........................,..........._..................... known to me to he the identical hidividaal..S, described in nad who executed the witidn instrument and acknowledged to ma Met ............ .........A WY.,.....•.._..execured the. scene freely and voluntarily. IN TESTIMONY WIIEREOF,I9nnihereunto set nrytin fid and affixed err IAL SEAL t'aTnrG1A L. YANCCY (iinr�Ahll sY�) f� (fnfy+t f UDI it; - D1ipu�N 41)t%j ISSIDN ND. U'101J0 t.n�tllSSiNIE%t ltiE5if.0 ,10?1 my offfcinl seal (he day and year Iasi abdv. written. `. 1 (/ `,`;tr�t•ti_I'1'... t ... ar .......... •• N tYr; u! 1 Orrpun My mmmissian rxtbrrs .... -+ Redmond Fire & Rescue 341 NW Dogwood Ave Redmond, OR 97756 541-504-5000 Fax: 541-548.5512 www.redmondfireandrescue.org Redmond Fire and Rescue Commercial Comments: Areas Without Hydrants Date: February 1, 2018 Location: 6829 NW 661Ji 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 clara butler a redmondfireandrescue.ore . Note: Ifnrocessing 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 line(s). o If there are greater than 20 sprinkler heads, the system is required to have a fire alarm monitoring system. 0 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. 2/15/2018 Redmond Fire & Rescue 341 NW Dogwood Ave Redmond, OR 97756 541-504.5000 Fax: 541-548-5512 www.redmondfireandrescue.org 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. A E S° • 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 1 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 2115/2018 Redmond Fire & Rescue 341 NW Dogwood Ave Redmond, OR 97756 541-504-5000 Fax: 541-548-5512 www.redniondfireandrescue.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- IRe(firire .vpecial apl)rrn al, 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 tine at www.knoxbox.com, or contact Redmond Fire & Rescue for an order form. o Section 503.3: Install a sign on the gate "No Parking -Fire Lane" • Key Boxes — 2014 OFC Section 506.1 o An approved key box shall be installed on all structures equipped with a fire alann 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 o Buildings exceeding three stories or 30 feet in height shall have at least 2 means of fire apparatus access for each structure. o Where 2 access roads are required, they shall be placed not less than '/ the length of the overall diagonal dimension of the property or area to be served, measured in a straight line between accesses. 2/15/2018 6 ,v �`•1i r . M I L',pt w.,r Mr,)�I(y i.�•-a�., Ott •may � ry 19 - , ip\' '4r{ t SIC tht ti� tH`�r@ta VOL KNOW AIX MFN NY 7Y11i51a PRESENTS, That RONALD D. RO'f.ARTH and DARLP,NE 607ARTH, husband and wi.(n ., twreinalter carted grantor, for th, eonpidrr.,,M,n hrreirudtor <tanvl, circ:., herehy parol, bnrgg.vin, oat! and convoy unto ROOERT L. DAVISON and MYRTLE L, DAVISON, husband t, Irtia AND GEORGV If. W1RTI and LENA 0. NIRTH,huaband.,and wife hrrrinvfrrr called 1,Mnnh•r. and vaha l!nuurF's hrira, succes.nro and mvgru aft ar 1h.1 r thd, real pmprrly with the (enemanm, )r mhrarrrrrri, crud ap/nrnennnrv, thrlaunto Wonging or to anywhe appertaining, situated in if.. County 'd Aeachu Les , Si,,(, rd 0"', , rho.'cribe.f as fallowp, ro•wit• Section 23: The North 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of 'the Northeast 1/4 in Township 24 South, Range 12 Etist of the 'Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon /4- -/7 2-7oz THIS DEED IS GIVEN 1N FULI ILUTNT OF THE CONTRACT DATED JUNE 1, 1977, RECORDED JUNE 13, 1977 in took. 2,2, poke 32 of DEED RECORDS. ..., • , + +ala n,:u nL'/e•rl�cN rv, rr yr.5e vafl To Nava and ro Haid rhr earn+ unor tlfr said grantee Aruf grantees heirs, tuccomrs and assigns forever. And the torr+ntu, herehy ru r.u, to .incl with the said granter and grantee's twin, wcceeson and assigns that said r,ol property is I,,., In nnu n •q), nd,,anc- created or sutlered thereon by grantor and that grantor will war- rent and driend rhe soar and wear pall .incl patrol thereof against the lawful claim. and demands of all prnnns claiming by, fhn ukgh, ar upd,r I/.,: ;ro nba. The true an.l actual conpider.uarrr paid cur thio rranafer. zlawd in terms (4 dollms, is $ 18,500.00 nliowausc,.the-e•suat-✓awnrk,rat,,.rr-wK„i•w.<,t-nr•rr»terdry sxhr~r-n,.>twry-K,r-aelan'$iwrrr.sr-pra»i*eri +rh:eh-.s r/p+'+mnm eamidrrnrmn Tnrii+•arrwhn'h r l,rra.•.rn rh.san,t.nf,,,Il oar r•Pnllr,.h/r,.nwcdd t»dolnred. Son GRS".0a.) In constrain¢ This deed ant! a h,•rc the rnnrext .va regttires, rho singular includew the plural and all grarnrnatieat chaagew shelf b.-' implied to mak, th, or,, i.,un. h—ni apply equally . m,porelians and to itidividuale. In vvitne•• IVl,rreuf. th, g,o....+r b.,.... e..nh,d this imtrunwni Chip /yl day of Jtlnuery , 19 81; it a curtx,rnre grantor, ,r I-, cuu­a n n,rrm• fn hr .ipn,'d :dna ;i:d :dfixrd by its nlfi— , duly nurhanm3 rh.rrro by order n1 its Lxra+r/'d Aver tor. pr ....+,,.t nr. <.+v�+•+,+- Ronn}t� D. Hornrth j Aar7.eno L'ox�nrRl[h r STATE OF OREGON, STAT£; OF OREGON, Ceanly or )u- C ­of 1)s cchu Cas 19. January PerronatlY avr+car-d tl,r . �•toznrrh�•.md� •rlu�. L�' i ., rr r x imtru rtnQ,l,� ' r�++r t tYr 1. si%,a Prr.onwIN PM. d .. sad eh., b.ing duly aw•wn, e.ch tar himself ..d nor one for fhe .11-, did ray that the tor_, i. fh. w..id.al .,d that rh. rets, I. ft. -0 It," r! 1 .1a"d r f1 1 .pv1 ad Ml ar I th. rr r/x: r. t..I ad that /d a.hvaent ....id—d rd .../.d f h.. 'h •J a,•+(l hr e+,ehndrr et It. bn.,d ofd tm.; rtt ­j,e/ rhea ,C4rw l Jy d 114Inrn„n,.nr la f» IM s•o)unrp. Y cr .n/ 0—&'Mitac+ nom. (OFFICIAL SEAL) No." P.M, for r)relen OT D(i�5'a.,•, ir./ate,. P+rr, / k e G iirY My eommisti- e.Pir..: 1Snn;iT't1 D. and Ua dent 1;0-1 0. STA TE OFORe County of Ss, • • ,•., a „• „•, , 1 rertily that the within in.tru- i Rober[ L. & F(e rtle L. Uavi;:un and mant Wns rrceiv fur record on the /% War u/.-�0111.l George II. b Lena U, iti rt6 ,forded ffjY at (1:0) o clock M ,and rrrordrd in book r -P! olume No. 3.3 S. on `�:.._.�__�_.___....-....M..-.. Ano .•," •"y ,,,'a page Q� O ar as durumenL ler fite; +.,,,a:.. urw ..•-+•+.+� -., instrument/micmlilm No. , Robert L. Davison Rt,r,rd tad Deeds of .-id calmly, 810 N. id, Norumc Gresham, Orel�im 97030 Witnrss my hand and sral of rosemary P,tterson Robert L. Davison •••� 810N. W. Nornnn y/�j ,/� Gresham, Orta;;;on 97030 Ry J""""�rG h» -iC1puty -.:._ .. __ ...... P n F( -,X VA1 .. v.trc, ;r,iCL:tN ?ZM 491 FOWL. ""ARGAIN AND LUS 010 tindividual V Colponttfl. _.T%VrA..q LqAW PUN -CO.. 1PORTLAND, 0A.0404 OK BARGAIN AND SAME DM XNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, That ....... ............ ............... I ....... ...... .... for the consideration hereinafter stated, does harah!y grant, bargain, -11 and convey unto..........._...._.............._...u....._. SHIRLE.Y...a.-TWINER...........-............. - ........ ....... ............ ........... .... ...... . ..... hereinafter called grantee, and unto grantee's heire, successors and assigns all of that certain real property wfth the tenements, hereditamonts and appurtenances thereunto belonging or in anywise, appertaining, situated in the County of.. D;jP" �§_._ ........... _... State of Oregon, described as follows, fo-wit., South Halt (5j) of the Southeast Quarter(SEJ) Northeast Quarter (ME}), Uction Twentythroo (23)# Township Fourteen (14) Southp Range Twelve (12) East of the WilIewtte lieridien. SUBJECT TO savementag conditions and rights-of-way of necard. This Dead is for fullfil.1rant of Contract Dated March 13, 1976# recorded Much 22,, 1076 Lin Values 22.9, Page 456, Desolates County Records, betwoon Ronald Do A Darlene Bazarthp aw sellers and Shirley 3. =Wor. 3sass F. Turner .3ret of the survivor# as Purchasers IIF WACE INSUFFICIENT, COUTNUE DEZCAgrrIOt4 ON REVERSE SiDO To Have wW to Hold the same unto the said grantee and grantee's heirs, successors and aasigm forever. The true and actual consideration paid lot this transfer, stated in tam of dollars, is $-.1295MAR ........... of pantto. bj.een the xyzabohOi1riot applivaWshatild be deleted. Soo ORS93.030.) In construing thio dead and where the context so zsquirear, the sintdar includeff the plural and all granumatlaal changes shall he implied to make the provisions hwvof apply equally to corpmations and to individuals: In Witness Whereof, thagrantor has executed this instrument M18—Ifth-day Of" L ...... alll......................... if a corporate Arantor,'it has caused its name to be signed and affixed b its officjV,9, duly au orixed thereto by order of its board of directors. affixed by duly..aul... THIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DE. ............ ....... SCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND . . ........ ....... . .. ... ...... USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS, BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON ACOUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES, ..... ....... ...... ............... ...... . ........ fit **.4i6u, of on olom 14 a %*"wagon, rax " &— f .&nqw1*d9aa TORS 194,M) STATE OF OREGON, STATE OF OREGON, Comty of SN' T& foregging hotritment woo ackpaWled&d belom vm this ........ ........... __­') 19 ..... _ by ------- was acknowledged belore L presidantiod by ............. __ .... ...... ...... . ............. l♦h R3f .. . . .... .......... .... 13, R7, by .q 64d D 44 .......... ......... . ix ...... ........ . .. . ........ ..... corporation, an babalf of the corporation. .. ........ . to for Oregon Notary Ptdrllo for Oregon------- - ------- - ---------------- r fSEAL) 4. M, 0i'Woexpire".. /Z --C/ expires:ID t -,f V Daglene.-Dozarth . .... . ... . ..... . GnANTON R-6 NAME AND ADDAES ag g 5 Io, _1 _j ............ P=,tlwvdp,. to 'Di OFIANTEE'S NAmrAND ADORI:rS 54 /-/- /-;L- MAR 2 2 1976 G (JT` DF 90,2- ..——.__.--_-ca+rt�tt•-+uuax _� V01. 0,2- vm 22�9 fAv 456 TlllS CON7'RAC1', f , tho Rh e,ot 76 -d -11,d It. &I, 0 tlx ."t -i --oh 'g—, -d th, h,w, agar 1. p"'d— 1— 0,—IA-1 .11 W It. 10—h -t Ill.- —Ud )a tz, � LJI— Sumem TO zmmlks, COMMONS An laGM-WWAY OF jCopD. P'k. ft." it! j to Ih, vd" th, 'o."Wr r.:Id Ih, —d wdi, rani. Al! ,1 r all dd,—d l"k—& of lie P,i. 0,011". ;nt..... 101 w calif nnid, im,irw I. ;a rmitU-y - fill m—wz I,uf P'-- to, sbr ......I "N't Ild, as -zz ti— fSc ..... ... I. 1 5111 4 4, — ----- Retad W V"d. a aid Wil— C."'oy ilf.M. xmmo - ,a,a -Inti lana• I I• ' - AV ev, '. •. yt rrFpN�npl ,`{ `Y f 1rtCtX, viaaaxHty oten vol 335nu 219 KNOW ALL AfF.NRY711F`EPRESENrs,Tlwt BRYANT & MUSLIN, estate - _.. _in. Pan ni,nple .. 11 1 1 1 ..., hsminafier called grantor, lot thb cor"idty r +„ hrrrvnaftrr .rarr•d. dor. hrrrbY grant, bnrgnim reit and convey unto 110fAt:,.:D, f1IT.'.A.RT11 d 0ti0tCUF 0WART11, tivauand end wife . hernihatfrn Cafird grnntr. c., nod sun, prnafed'a I+rins, auuxzanrn and assigns Olt nt that retrain real prnp.rry with Ba, tenamantx, ti,rrdirzan and uppv,P,vuaio,,% thereunifo belonging of in anywi_ appertaining, shuntert in iiro County of Unschuten , Ston• u! Ur.•,}nn. ,leardhnd na t0loty.+. fo.wit: Southeast Wuarter (5E1) Nurrlwast Quarter (NE,), Section Twentythres (23)g Township rourteen (14) South, nenge Twulvo (12) East or the Willamatte Meridian. 14-i2 29oa 29Dfa This Deed is given in Puirillmont of an unrecorded contract dated March 15thg 1974. .,_ 1 CONIaan DIxllllN} " 9EVra,.,leh To Have and to Hold rhe same unn, the avid grantee and granree s heirs, successors and a sign, forerar. And the gr,mror hereby rovrnnnro to and with the said grantee and gronlee's fatim, succesal ra and aasigna that said real property is lrrn !roar Pocumbronrws created or sulfered thereon by grantor and that grantor will war- rant and defend Ilia some and every part and parcel thereof against the lawful claim. and demands of all persons claiminouun g by, flrrgh, or der rho gnmfor. Tin, true and actual comiderntun paid for thfe transfer, stated in terms of dollars, 4 1 12000.00 "011e i too 00w, '1NM'Ffth11, - !The mM.nw Wfwern rhr rym6o1.:0, if mt.npllabM, MeuM SM dsleld.Sr ORS SJ.e.H1J obi canstruing Phis deed and mherr rho context so requires, ilia singular int;/odea the plural and all grammatical change, shalt be implied to make rhe provisions hereof apply equally to corporations and to individuals. 1n Witness Whereof, the gronror has executed this instrument this 12th day of January .19 at ; It A corporate grantor, it has caused it, namr to he signed and seal affixed by its officers, duly surharissd themto by order of its htartl o! director,. .•r .t u,-.(— r" F:<�.tcl�e. rv....Y.c,. a:l .<.. STATE OF OREGON. ! aech tee County nt .....Q. 4 + _�BeflerY.... Tz is y1 th..have --l on, tpustoau �� v rho r a.',na ra,na Pa u.v,.. xnd dead (14d ST.A?T; 0V OREGON. 1—my e€......... _._..... . _...... ph.. MIM d.ly .was, Oath faf h1 u 11 amt cwt ars Per rho efhrr, dM .aY that the faamr 1. rgm ........... rmxd float sate that res !eller le. the d rh.< rh 1 atNrrd r rho farcy. iM 1ralranWar h rho awpaera rrwd i er! r on .frau .nd 1h.r ht hon,,—ot was .)deed wt TOP. fa I. - h.11 .1 wid c-a,norannn hr—1h.11y a hr beard at direetm.: and "CA Wahem •kmrmlartd.d urn imircmm�t rn be lu YaaeUry -I sM d.W, Ualara ma. (OFFICIAL . f U Nora.,' /tL-IiR q/ mdun Notary P.1,11. !a Oodnn .._ ... .. SEAL) My rommiaalon a,phq. ftyant if EricK6onp Truutoos W. Evergreen STATE OF ORJ�io�oi 'Redmond, Dr, 97756 ,.,oam«. na-1. a. , • Cooney of Within iurHl u•1 1 aRfly.. #her the .. _ Ronald 0. Dozerth utuir mint was tercirev{ n rccard on the /'1....day of .......... f9. P.Q. Bok 075 •--liedmonds „ at......o'cbclr. M.,andrecordsd .... br. 477�b in rwoklmellvofume No. 3;35 on oval. nrera,ro page aIq ....or as dncurtxnt: fee,BI./ RQn 8ozerth etua ..�o-ar•rs. os. instrum.nifmkralflm No. -- Dox831, Record of Deeds of said caunry. edmondr Ur. 9775E fiadm Dr. Witness my hand and seal Of CrwMy affixed, RvxemM, Patterson —Same Same es are being sent now, ...a _ urY nowt ..coot.., e.. DESCHUTES COUNTY TYLE Co. P 0. &OX 323 ......__._ .. ._�.. SEND, OREGON 97781 Nicole Mardell From: Odin Falls HOA <odinfallshoa@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2018 9:18 PM To: Nicole Mardell Subject: Additional Info File # 247 -18 -000047 -AD Attachments: Marijuana Farm Additional Info.pdf Nicole - Attached please find additional relevant information regarding the appeal of Cascade Farms recreational marijuana application; file # 247 -18 -000047 -AD, for consideration by the Deschutes Board of County Commissioners. Thank you. -Casey Gibbs Secretary, Odin Falls Ranch HOA File # 247 -18 -000047 -AD ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FOR THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IN THE MATTER OF FILE # 247 -18 -000047 -AD 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 66" 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 following information is relevant to a decision in this case: WATER RIGHTS AND USEAGE 1. Applicant stated in testimony that he has water rights to the subject property. A search of the water records in the Oregon Water Resources Department database shows that in Township 14S, Range 12E, Section 23, there are three (3) holders of water rights. None of them is appurtenant to the subject property, nor to Isaac Babani or Brett Richwine. (See water right holders of record, pg 3 ) 2. Applicant has appurtenant use of the Domestic Water Well drilled in September, 2016 for Domestic purposes; an exempt use. (See attached well log, pg 4, noting Domestic use only) The use of domestic groundwater for any commercial agricultural use, including growing of marijuana is NOT an exempt use, and is specifically prohibited by Oregon State law. (URS 537.545 (1) (b)) 3. Applicant stated in testimony that he will collect and use 200,000 gallons of rainwater for irrigation via his roof and gutter system. The average annual rainfall in Central Oregon is 8.88 inches per year, most of which accrues in the fall and winter months. A 5,000 square foot area (roof) would collect 27,678 gallons of water, assuming 100% efficiency. 4. Therefore, Applicant's only legal source of water is via heavy truck traffic over 2.3 miles of the privately maintained roads of Tetherow Crossing, causing undue wear and tear as testified to in the County Commissioner's hearing. 1 File # 247 -18 -000047 -AD ILLEGAL ACCESS ACROSS BLM LAND 1. Applicant testified that he was granted access to the subject property via the deed of purchase. The Statutory Warranty Deed on file shows this is not the case. There is no grant of easement for the driveway across the BLM land. This deed only warrants the property itself to be free and clear, except for "...rights of way and easements of record...". This does not grant an easement or right of way across Federal lands for the purpose of site access. (See Warranty Deed, pg 4,5) 2. The lack of a Grant of Easement across BLM land has been noted three (3) time by the BLM, and has been acknowledged by Nicole Mardell, Deschutes County Planning Department; as well as an exhaustive search of title transfer and easement records dated back to the original Patent Grant from the U S Government. There is no legal access to this lot, nor is it a legal county address. File # 247 -18 -000047 -AD r/f -wm Iain Clc? t)r�.r�.vn �til�teri�esi�att� i)artrrt it 1 Wates kights.lnfornimion Qocry Resull:` :cturrl Contact Lit Records/Page; j -0 _ WATER RIGHTS HOLDERS OF RECORD ("o tit AG t.s Ik>71t ca I lots Peril I It, 'Crt ific-me �hlI IT) t ci r.• 1(': L1.Sft„1 : a�t.lti,i'i OWNER: Sella p AVION WATER CO. INC G10617 G9982 NC 60813 PARRELL RD BEND, OR 97702 OWNER: Sslecip AVION WATER CO. INC G12757 G12330 NC. 60813 PARRELL RD BENT), OR 97702 OWNER: Select p ROBER"I MAYFIELD 610234 G9374 64246 NC 908 S CANYON DR REDMOND, OR 97756 WATER RIGHTS HOLDERS OF RECORD STATE OFORECON F� hh ��nn WATERquired �5 3 '. kT4 2 (as required r_' 3 ,, 4 6 (15-0211)) 9/6/2016 (1) Ownerl4'eIILD. First Name PAM Last Name FINDLFY Company ---- Addt"s 6829NVV 661II `+I' CaV Rf:L)AIUND State ttl: _ /.ip 0?7+6 _ 2 TYPE OFiVOR1: �{ New %Veli D.,p tun• l«ntustnn O_ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑Aliciauon (exunplcu til4 Illi ❑Abundonnwd(rurnpleic?.!i (29)11RE-ALTERATION D`iva i From I'm (um,,- Sill-111sle WId 'I'hrd Casing* 1 � �� _ .. _.__ __ LLL __S d ❑ ❑ Matcrial Flom To 1Aml acks'lhsl (3) DRILL, METIIOD F?�IRolmy An ElRoiol) "Orld F]Cllbla FlAligV1 ❑t d+lc Mild []I:"ouse Rotlll% ❑Olhrr (d) PROPOSED USE i,, .n.> ��Irrigation ._. Cornmmtity ❑htdustiial/Conmtericial.� Livestock ❑l3fewatering ❑Thermal ❑ Injection u Other __ ___.... _ (5) BORE HOLE CONSTRUCTION Special Standard (Attachorpy) Depth of Completed Well 258.00 ft DORS 1101,E SEAL: sacks! Dia From To Nlamlal Flom To Amt Ihs _ - 12 U _ )ft.d 13entanite_ � tl _ 18.5 hr Is 258 — falculnled I049 C'aEiuluted How was sent placed Method EA ❑13 ❑C ❑D 1 Jt Xk)llier TIE NTON11 I: DIZY Backfill placed from fl. to ft. Material Filter pack, floor fl, to fr n-iaterldl Stzc l:xplosivcs used', ❑ Yes T'}pc.___ Amount -- (5a) ABANDONMENT USING UNHYDRATED BENTONITE 'propo>ed .A,uoun! Actual Amount (6)CASING/Li ER 8 C aSille Ldltei' Dia + Rolm To (,aurae SII Plslc WId 'ihrd 30 41 - lava Orav Grav Sand slone 41 _.. 18.5 i;0-- Co-) 98 127 Fractured 13mlf 127 130 6 16 141 169 58 1.8$_ c> x ShoeIns de t)nlsidr 1-101her Locationofshoc(s) Tentp Casing Yes Dia Frum . - 10 (7) PERFORATIONS/SCREENS ,, l..t. 1 WELL I.D. LABFI.4 i.� 121057 START CARD N i 1032060 ORIGINAL LOG # (9) LOCATION OF WELL (legal description) Count)' tor-sttarrr� Iwp 1L00 S N/S I anwe 12.00 F _ EAV 1VM Scc 23 S.L: 114 ol'ihc NF 1/4 Tux Lot 3300 Tax Map Nlumber 1.01 hat " or DMS or DD Long . or DMS or DD (— Street address of well { Nearest address 820 NW 66'11 ST RI`DIM A) OR (10) STATIC WATER LEVFL Date SWLdLsit + SWI Ifll -. I - - LYtswia, WWII i ['rc-Altcrntiou omper�'Wil 915lZOIG � l36 Flowing; Amesian? ❑ Dr) Hole? h'_1TFR 13FAMNCi ZONES Depth water wa; first found .1:36.00 SWI- Date From lb 6stFlow' SWL(psi) + swig- ll) - 3-6 258 50 (iround Nevation Material From to "fop Sol) lava (,rlv ------- Lilt a hrl-9 lata Ola 8 ill lava with pink color 30 41 - lava Orav Grav Sand slone 41 74. 74 98 Durk l3rown Sand stone soli - _ 98 127 Fractured 13mlf 127 130 Fractured Lava Drink Brown Sots Sand Stone Conel 130 141 141 169 Fractured lava 13rntin Conal Red S utd Stone( un l ,Ill 169 187 187 - 258 Icrfarations fvicthod a 0 cu Screens Type . _.._.__ Malcriul . Date Started9is/2016 Completed 9/5/2016 I'erl7 Unstng/Screen Senuslol Slot ff of clef smocn I utir Diu Prom 'hr A1141i Nil till slr,t alta •a_r_c (unhonded) 1Y'ater Well Constructor Certification _ ..... Pcrf 1 mu T-]-118 2:iS 125 i 4r>8 � 1 cariify (hat (lie work 1 pertitrntcd on the construction. dcupening, alteration, or abmtdonntcot of this well is in compliance with Oreton wader supphwell I ttsln!ction standards. Materials used and information repotted above are true loIli — 1 c ties[ of !ray knowledge and belief. t I.icensc Number 1255 Dale 9/6/2014 (8) WELL "NESTS: Minimum testing time is I hour - _- _._. Sienc 1 11ILLIAM DOU(, AIKEN (F-filcd) (� Pump C Bailer O Ali O 1 lowin_ Artesian ----- __-- _— _ .. ._ _._ Yi, Id,50l'ouli_ blit+/" sn hull I illi, ilp d' -pill D111,01,11 Duj`dnnt til„ _ (boudtd) Water NVOt Construeutr Cvrtifrcalion a 2-10 1 aoa pt a spuns!bdns Io! file amstrucuon, deelm nag. alteralion, of abandonment �^ I^ y..._..,. work performed on fhrs well doling the construction dates reported above All stork I performed during, flits time is in compliance with Oregon tvatcr supply well I,-m,perakne 65 °F Lah analysis Yrs l3 construction stuntianls "Phis repo!1 is true to the best it1'nt}' knotvlcdra and hdieJ'. Vdatcr yualiit, conce!n�) ❑Yes (describe beton) T1)S 4unuunl Liconsc Number 19711 Date ,rq,:2t116 Flom In lttxnptiail lntiw7il I'nn.. — — - - --4 sirnud �!1a1. M r is r:r. tlInd) fnlo (option tl1 5'11 49-1 245 tiltl!il'�'A1—1'C;1tll�kl`�ri!!I:rl-`�Itll"�Itl:il`;1 1'I IIS RIiPOR"I %ItN1 131: SUBMI ITIMlO flit: WAJTR Rl:SOURCI-S L)LP;IR'fN1l;N1 Wl I Illh 30 DAYS 01 COMPIJ:'! ION Of; \VOl K Dorm Version File # 247 -18 -000047 -AD DESCHUTEs i j N COUNTY TITLE _OM After Recording Return to. Isaac V. Babani .11619 NW 48th Lane Doral, FL 33178 Until a change is requested all tax statements Shall be sent to the following address: (same as above) File No. DE3414 Deschutes County Official Records 2017-041106 10/13/2017 01 PM Stn=O BN $10.00 $21.00 $1 1 oo $10.00 $6.00 $58.00 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. The true and actual consideration for this transfer is $395,000.00. 5 File # 247 -18 -000047 -AD Return To Deschutes 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, CHAPTER 8, 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, CHAPTER 8, OREGON LAWS 2010. Dated: l0 12017 STATE 6f BREG'&N; C'OWntV bf 13esetrlfteg q SS. On 10/ 10 /2017, personally appeared the above named Pamela S. Findley and acknowledged foregoing instrument to be Her voluntary act and dee 1. Before e: m Notary P Oregon ,-- --v OFFICIALS STAM P �® My commission expires: O ( ( ��.. " MONtCA LEE SMITH NOTARY PUSLIG OREGON Official Sea! COMMISSION NO.933085 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES OCTOBER 14, 2018 On foregoing instrument to be Her voluntary act and de Official Seal N NVO SIR &! Area Map 6829 NW 66th Street, Redmond I 1 NW 67RANu CT Local EFLITE Attachment 4: Open Record Period - I - I- T. v7p I *: 2 -1 EN I From: Teitzel, Dennis To: Nicole Mardell Cc: Jeffrey Kitchens Subject: Fwd: Your Scanned Version Date: Tuesday, July 10, 2018 2:35:56 PM Attachments: 20180710 DeschutesCountvLetter Final.odf Nicole, Here is a scanned copy of the letter I mentioned in our earlier conversation, a hard copy will be in tomorrow's mail. Please ensure it is added to the record. Thank you Dennis Teitzel District Manager Prineville District Office: 541-416-6730 Cell: 541-460-2345 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Anderson, Donna <dandersonblm.gov> Date: Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 1:10 PM Subject: Your Scanned Version To: Dennis Teitzel <dteitzel&blm.gov> Cc: Jeffrey Kitchens <jhkitche&blm.gov> Here is the copy of the scanned letter. It will go out in tomorrow's mail. �o -,, n I r !"34 C e r r i t i \ e�,: P United States Department of the Interior . ` a BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Prineville District Office 3050 NE 31d Street Prineville, Oregon 97754 JUL 10 2018 In Reply Refer To: 2000/2800(ORP060) CERTIFIED MAIL — 7017 3380 0000 1219 6855 RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Anthony Raguine Deschutes County Planning Division 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, OR 97708 Dear Mr. Raguine: Since December 2017 our office has sent you two letters regarding applications filed with Deschutes County for marijuana production facilities. The two cases were application file numbers 247 -18 -000047 -AD (located at 6829 NW 6611' Street in Redmond) and 247 -17 -000833 -AD (located off Walker Road near the Juniper Woodlands Recreation area). In those letters, our office stated that, upon review of the applications, access to each of the proposed project areas would or could involve crossing federal public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). We further expressed our concern that, if either applicant chose to access its project area by travelling on or across BLM lands, in light of the nature of the proposed production facilities at issue, such activity would very likely involve transporting controlled substances across federal lands in violation of federal law. Given our concern in this regard, the BLM recommended that boundary surveys of portions of the project areas where they abutted public lands be conducted to ensure against this outcome as well as other unintentional future trespass. We also noted our concerns over the potential use of pesticides or herbicides in connection with the proposed production facilities, and asked that the County require protocols be adopted to ensure that chemical residue from such use be contained and not migrate onto public lands. In June of this year, Nicole Mardell from your office reached out to Jeff Kitchens, BLM Deschutes Field Manager, to gain additional clarification on our Agency's concerns related to access and proximity to public lands for a hearing on case 247 -18 -000047 -AD. in response, we sent the following information in an email to Nicole on July 2"d: Although BLM is aware that Oregon has enacted laws permitting various types of activities related to marijuana, it remains classified by Congress as a schedule I drug/controlled substance under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Under the CSA, it is "unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense a controlled substance." As a result, the BLM cannot permit activities on public lands that will violate, or pose a reasonable likelihood of violating, the CSA. This includes issuing a right-of-way (ROW) that would be used for commercial activities associated with federal -illicit substances such as marijuana. We also reiterated the following: Access across public lands for commercial purposes (which would include access for the proposed marijuana production facilities) requires a ROW grant issued by the BLM. Additionally, it is our understanding based on our review of the applications at issue that the nature of the proposed production facilities and the current routes that exist for access to them could very likely result in transportation of controlled substances across federal lands in violation of federal law, as explained above In conclusion, then, although we are not certain as to the actual route(s) (existing or otherwise) that either applicant intends to use to access their proposed production facilities, in the interest of fairness and transparency we want to put the County and both applicants on notice that, to the extent any such route(s) would traverse public lands, doing so would violate federal law and BLM would therefore be unable and unwilling to grant a ROW to legally permit such access. Furthermore, it is a standard for our agency to ensure all ROW holders comply with the regulations of State, Borough and Municipal laws, ordinances, or regulations, which are applicable to the area or operations covered by a grant. We respectfully ask the county to consider the same in regard to the federal regulations of the Department of the Interior when issuing a permit. We are now following up by submitting our views on these matters in a formal letter for the record, both for the hearing that occurred on July 2"d, 2018, on case 247 -18 -000047 -AD, as well as for the hearing occurring on July 1 I'll, 2018, on case 247 -17 -000833 -AD. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Jeff Kitchens, Field Manager, Deschutes Field Office at (541) 416-6766. Sincerely. �. � yam,' `)�..�- � •i�. _ ., .- Dennis C. Teitzei District Manager, Prineville District Office cc: CERIFIED MAIL — 7017 3380 0000 1219 6848 Brett Richwine Cascade Estate Farms, LLC. 6829 NW 66'h Street Redmond, OR 97756 CERTIFIED MAIL — 7017 3380 0000 1219 6831 Briteside Oregon, LLC, 832 Georgia Ave #510 Chattanooga, TN 37402 Nicole Mardell From: Michael Hughes <mrhughe»@mrhughedaw/com^ Sent: Monday, July 16 2018 1:15 PM To; Nicole Mardell Subject: Response Filing for File No. 247-l7'U80U07'AD(247-18'00D452-\Z47'l8-0004S3'A) Attachments: Water Source LTR Bend Water Hau|ing.pdtbrtoCounty 16UUL20I84df Nicole, Here is the letter and attached document in response to the filings from last week. This b\nresponse tothe DVVKD requesting information about the source of the water to be hauled to the property. Michael R.Hughes Trial Lawyer Minnesota / Nebraska /Oregon ^ PDUox7�l9 8end,UreQonU7708'7619 �4l-4O8'9884 �[onfid»nUa|hy Wohcc Thiswn�/i meunXe bcovered �y�hc Hec�ron`cCommunicadons P/�acyAct �8 U�[�S|0 252�'andix�e��|�ypr}vUc�ed UnaoU�o'�zpdreview.use^disc|nsu/ro.�istribuduniusthct!yproh/bi|ed |rynoar,nu� tha �ntended recipicn� p\ease contac� nendcra� 54� 4OD �804' or by rcp�yemoU, and destroyand recyde aU cop!a�of theor{Q(na|meoa�e t July 16, 2018 Ms. Nicole Mardell Associate Planner Deschutes County Community Development Department P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 Re: File No. 247 -17 -000907 -AD (247-18-000452-A, 247-18-000453-A) Dear Ms. Mardell: I have enclosed the following materials in response to the filings from last week: 1. Water Source Letter from Bend Water Hauling. This is in response to the OWRD inquiring in an email about the source of the water being hailed to the property. The water being hauled in to the property is either municipal or quasi -municipal water. Please let me know if there are other materials that are needed for deliberations. Sincerely, Michael R. Hughes Attorney at Law Attorney for the Applicant 02/06/2018 11:50 15413890721 BEND WATER HAULING PAGE 01/01 221,66 Nelson Road Bend, OR 97701-9790 (12/06/18 Dcar,Nlr -1-lughes: The wator Nve 11M)l as J)M-t C4-'0LlY delivery survice is I-,rom either IMMICTal or quasd- mulli,cipal sources. Our sources of water are Avion Water and City of Redmond. Sincerely, Kimber fee Nunez Managcr/Meni,ber Attachment 5: Open Record Period - Final Legal Argument Days 15-18 From: Michael Huahes To: Nicole Mardell Subject: 247 -18 -000047 -AD (247-18-000452-A & 247-18-000453-A) Date: Friday, July 20, 2018 3:20:32 PM Attachments: Final Written Arguments with Exhibits.Ddf Nicole, Here are the final written arguments for the above listed appeal. We would ask that they written record be closed at this time. Do you need me to bring down a hard copy? Michael R. Hughes Trial Lawyer Minnesota / Nebraska / Oregon mrhughes(@mrhugheslaw.com P.O. Box 7619 Pend, Oregon 97708-7619 541-408 9084 www.mrhugheslaw.com www.thehughescompanies.com *C'onfide''nhality Notice: This email rn ssage is coveted by the Flecti onic Comr-nimications Privacy Act, 18 USC 2510-2`21, and is legally privileged. Unauth oozed review, use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you arc not the intended recipient, please contact sender at 541-408-9884, or by reply email, and destroy and recycle all copi(>s of the original message. BEFORE THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS DESCHUTES COUNTY File Number: 247-18-000452-A & 247-18-000453-A (Appeal of 247 -18 -000047 -AD) Regarding the Land Use Application For OLCC Licensed Marijuana Production Applicant: Cascade Estate Farms, LLC — Brett Richwine Location: 6829 NW 66`h Street Redmond, Oregon APPLICANT'S FINAL ARGUMENTS The Applicant in the above entitled matter presents the following as their Final Written Arguments regarding the appeal of the Decision in the Land Use Application and administrative determination to engage in licensed marijuana production with the OLCC on their EFU property. The Applicant relies on the entire record, including their application, the Staff's Findings and Decision regarding the application, oral testimony at the appeal hearing, written submissions, and their Memorandum in Response to the Appellants Memorandum. The Applicant believes that the Staff Findings and Decision appropriately considered all the relevant facts and rules. The Appellants did not bring forth any legal or factual arguments that would compel the Board to deny the application or to overturn the Staff's initial Decision. The main issues raised on appeal and during the hearing involved access to the property, water and odor. The application detailed the most important information like the mechanical engineer's report on odor and noise and information on the water being used for the proposed operation. The application did not address the access issue, as that is not a criterion under the County's Ordinance. Under DCC 18.116.333 (B)(8) proof of access only applies to "Marijuana production over 5,000 square feet of canopy area for mature plants...". The Applicant's entire proposed building is 5,000 square feet. As shown in Exhibit 1 — Cascade Estate Farms Interior, the actual proposed mature canopy will be 2,250 square feet. Thus, the Applicant is not proposing to have more than 5,000 square feet of mature canopy space. The Applicant believed that they had legal access to the property when they purchased it. After the hearing, the Applicant tried to obtain additional information from their realtor and title company that was involved in the closing. The Applicant was able to determine that there is a legal easement for the parcel directly to the north of their property at 7401 NW 66th Street, Redmond, Oregon. See Exhibit 2 — Deed 7401 NW 66th Street, Redmond, Oregon. The Applicant also learned that their parcel and that parcel were once under common ownership before they were divided. See Exhibit 3 — Common Ownership Documents. The Applicant is still in the process of determining if the original BLM easement was granted during this common ownership. However, Applicant argues this issue should not be tied to the land use review in this instance because the Ordinance does not require the analysis unless the mature canopy is greater than 5,000 square feet and that is not the case in this proposal. The Applicant is proposing to haul water and store the water on the property to be used for production. The Applicant will use Bend Water Hauling and their water comes from municipal and quasi municipal sources. See Exhibit 4 -Water Source Letter. It should be noted that the Board has previously ruled in various cases that using hauled water in cannabis production was sufficient proof of a water source. Thus, even with water hauling, the Applicant has satisfied their requirement to show a legal source of water for the cannabis operation. Page 2 of 5 The Applicant is also proposing to harvest, and store rain and snow water melt in their operation. The Applicant believes they will get a minimum 30,000 gallons of rainwater just from the 5,000 square foot proposed building. See Exhibit 5 — Rainwater Harvest Estimate. This only includes rainwater collection and does not account for snow melt on this roof. It also does not account for the other buildings on the property that the applicant could harvest rain water and snow melt from. This could allow for another 30,000 gallons of harvested rain water alone. The Applicant will greatly reduce the amount of water hauled into the property by harvesting rain and snow melt water from the buildings on the property. This is also a legal source of water that can be used in the proposed operation. Regarding odor, the Applicant submitted a report that details how a carbon filtration odor control system will scrub all the air in each of the rooms used for cannabis production. This report demonstrates how this system will specifically work in the proposed rooms inside the existing buildings. The report uses the equation from the ordinance to explain how many CFM's the system will have to move in each room to be compliant with the Code. The report then details how this system will do that, and thus prevent any unreasonable infringement upon any neighbors' property due to odor from the cannabis operation. After the Appeal Hearing, the Mechanical Engineer was contacted concerning the original report. It was the 4t" of July week, so I was not able to directly talk to Mr. James, who did the report. I did receive a voicemail from the owner of the firm, Ms. Breit. In response to our request for an updated report, she indicated that she had reviewed the previous report. She believed the report that was submitted by Mr. James demonstrated compliance as required under the County's HUGHES! ',, Page 3 of 5 ordinance. She also believed the Board was trying to establish precedent beyond what is prescribed in the Ordinance for the odor control systems and that requiring applicants to amend reports that are uncontradicted by other scientific evidence is an undue expense and burden on applicants. It was clear that she was frustrated as an engineer about the constant questioning and minimization of their reports. The applicant was not able to obtain an updated mechanical engineer report prior to July 9, 2018. However, the applicant believes that the report submitted with the application is sufficient under the County's current ordinance to demonstrate compliance. The report details each room and the amount of CFM's that will need to be scrubbed with the carbon filters in each room. The applicant will be using five flower rooms instead of seven, as originally planned. See Exhibit 1 — Cascade Estate Farms Interior. The mechanical engineer's report details a greater amount of odor protection than will be required. Thus, the odor control plan submitted by the applicant, as demonstrated by the Mechanical Engineer's reports, will be in compliance with the County's Ordinance when the facilities are operating. The use of such an odor control system here by the applicant will mitigate the risk that marijuana related odor will be detectable immediately outside the building. The proposed system as demonstrated by the mechanical engineer would meet the requirements under the Code. There has been no evidence or argument presented that demonstrates or negates the report of the mechanical engineer regarding the proposed odor control system and as such the Applicant has provided sufficient proof that the odor control system meets the requirements of the Code. In addition, the Applicant submitted a detailed article about carbon filtration systems. See Exhibit 6- H E S Page 4 of 5 "Understanding Air Purification and Activated Carbon Filters", by Hugh McLaughlin. This article is a comprehensive breakdown on how properly operating carbon filter systems remove cannabis odor from grow facilities. This article is specific to cannabis. The Appellants have not presented any facts, evidence, or arguments that would be sufficient to reverse the Staff s decision regarding this Land Use Review application. The Decision to allow the use of the proposed building on this property for cannabis production fits into the policy of preserving farm land for farm use that is inherent in the County's Comprehensive Planning. The application and the Decision by the Staff to approve it sufficiently addresses the concerns raised in this appeal. The Applicant requests that the Board adopt the Staff s decision and approve the application. DATED: 20JUL2018 Respectfully Submitted, Michael R. Hughes, OSB #135942 Attorney for Applicant Page 5 of 5 EXHIBIT I Cascade Estate Farms Interior Fj) m ug � ` ` ` _ � . .' `. - ---` �L EXHIBIT 2 7401 NW 66th Street Redmond, Oregon d Q1 I'rr:Q170f it KSTI MN .TITLE & . ....,.1 CO. SIC -01C221 Tills Oidcr No. 301242-PY Escrow No. 301242 -Py -- Aft., PMVI-11ng slum W Ma. Jackson 71,01 NW 66th STREET Redmond OR 97756 Na.-, Address Y.ip - tlnliia cl+aage is m+luesled atl ta"'mt—ma 0a11 l+c unt to n+c mgaddw, s. Michaels. Jackson 7401 NW 66th STREET Redmond,OR 97756 Name, Address, Zip STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED Walt Mauls and Elsie Mault,Grantor,conveys and warranisit, michael S. Jackson and Kimberly K. Jackson, husband and wife, Grantee, [tic following descrihed read property free of encumbrances, except as sPC61-1cully set forth herein situated in DESCHUTES coanly, OREGON, Io will: east The North half of the Southw+ t Quarter of the Northeast Quarcer (NL/2 8E1/4 NE1/+4) of Section 'Twenty-three (23), Township Fourteen (14) South, Range Twelve (12) East of the Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon. Tax account no. 14-12-23-200 This property is free from encttmbrances, EXCEPT: Reguhitions turd assessments of Central Oregon irrigation District, t'he existence of roads, railroads, irrigation ditches and canals, telephone, telegraph and power Transmission facilities. Easement recorded lune 21, 1979 in vo€nue 301, page 575 for Central Electric Cooperative Inc. right of way. See Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a [Tart hereof. THIS INSTRUMENT W1f.l. NOT ALLOW USE OF TF 113 PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENTIN VIOLATION OFAPPLICABLE LAND LIME LAWS AND RE(;LJL.APIONS. BF..FORF SIGNING OR ACCE 111,1(1 I'1 E[S INSTRUMENT,T111- PERSON ACQUIRING PEE TITLE TO THE i'ROPI=R'1'Y 51 IUULD C'I )ECK \VI'I'I l 17 APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMEN'(" I'O VERIFY APPROVED USES ANL) TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930. The true consideration for this conveyance is $197 , 000. 00. (I sere comply with the requirements of ORS 93.030) Dated this 8 396 - 2435 aoz t a G K v _ _ Elsie Mault pp NOpW � tvTi t9V - STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED Walt Mauls and Elsie Mault,Grantor,conveys and warranisit, michael S. Jackson and Kimberly K. Jackson, husband and wife, Grantee, [tic following descrihed read property free of encumbrances, except as sPC61-1cully set forth herein situated in DESCHUTES coanly, OREGON, Io will: east The North half of the Southw+ t Quarter of the Northeast Quarcer (NL/2 8E1/4 NE1/+4) of Section 'Twenty-three (23), Township Fourteen (14) South, Range Twelve (12) East of the Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon. Tax account no. 14-12-23-200 This property is free from encttmbrances, EXCEPT: Reguhitions turd assessments of Central Oregon irrigation District, t'he existence of roads, railroads, irrigation ditches and canals, telephone, telegraph and power Transmission facilities. Easement recorded lune 21, 1979 in vo€nue 301, page 575 for Central Electric Cooperative Inc. right of way. See Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a [Tart hereof. THIS INSTRUMENT W1f.l. NOT ALLOW USE OF TF 113 PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENTIN VIOLATION OFAPPLICABLE LAND LIME LAWS AND RE(;LJL.APIONS. BF..FORF SIGNING OR ACCE 111,1(1 I'1 E[S INSTRUMENT,T111- PERSON ACQUIRING PEE TITLE TO THE i'ROPI=R'1'Y 51 IUULD C'I )ECK \VI'I'I l 17 APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMEN'(" I'O VERIFY APPROVED USES ANL) TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930. The true consideration for this conveyance is $197 , 000. 00. (I sere comply with the requirements of ORS 93.030) Dated this 8 day of January ,19 96 �l Walt Mault Elsie Mault STATGOHORISGON,Counryaf DESCHU'TES ).Ts. 79ti.r is.rlrllrrreet tvrrr uta?;rrmvicrlgcr! before me on _,LarluarY 1. Q 96� I1, WALT t4AULT AND ELSIE VAULT >r UFFIC IAL SEAL PATRICIA L. YANCEY N07AhY PIiBLIC - ORIiGON COMMISSION NO, tlanrNN ... 1i0'��MISSIr;!rvn1N(gF18 �. ) ..Notary P111171c fill Oregne Alycorrinlisrinaeopires 2'-9( rxIIT1317' "A" 396 - ct: UNITED STATES ti,gm•ol-way ?pima DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR or Grant No eureau of land Management Oregon State O1 -ice __,.�r_:.... __... Dae Exp,res ASSIGNMENT OF RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMIT OR GRANT (Assignment, Acceptance, & Approval) 1. ASSIGNMENT Address (Street city. stale, zip code) _ Name of Assignor . ElyL�1 ht� tc:Cn•'.h 1•�IALJZ' MPtLlT 'Y� cl rY'�ca r.r1.42 W`li� �L.SI� Mtkuc_'� The purpose for which this right-obway was granted is It1ctP�S tl r°�j1z.�ss 'tcr PO-At'�'� For and in consideration of the sum of one dollar ($1.00) and other valuable consideration, Assignor hereby assigns. transfers and sets over to Mtc}�,-ALJ `.. ar+.c.Ksotil ctnct hlMb'P_,ec.`7 _)C.-JftLK:.oN all of my right, title and interest in and to the mad, buildings, structures or other improvements placed upon or across the area covered by the right-of-way permit or grant specified above and granted to me by the United States of Ametica. together with my duties, obligations, and rights of use of such area in accordance with the terms or said permit or nront and the right to any credit for ad„ance rentals peed thereunder. Title, if corporate official Dale 2. ACCEPTANCE �, Address (Street, city, slate, zip code) Name of Assignee rlAc>I "t.-(ob-4, S'E• rJLXc(1a�2L.• ac�c�cp # Edrv�pnc�, c7t��i�`iS(a 1[t i— h �t,rz.l.t:�s K. • -fir .•01� . a. Assignee is a corporation organized under the laws o1 the State of _. an individual and a citizen. of [be United States by birth naturalization ❑ an association or E: partnership composed of the undersigned individuals each of whom is a citizen of the United States by [ birth L naturalization b. The following documents are attached: Qnpl?^ db t�r�•R f2.A f�'c^i 9so. ci ao'r-ve,. rte,rt 42.4(-�ear_'rY c. a nonrefundable payment Is enclosed in the amount of 5 -- (minimum payment. is $25.00). Assignee hereby accepts the above assignment and agrees to comply with and be bound by the terms and conditions of the right-of-way permit or grant and the applicable regulations of the Department of the interior in force as of the date.ol approval of this assignment. Signatures) of Assign Title. if corporate ollroial Date No assignment will be recognized unless and until approved. T - 3. API!Pll,VAL Title Dare Approved Signature of Authorized Officer Bureau of Land Management 7111e ie U.S.C. section 1001. makes it a enure for any person knowingly and willuRy to make to any department or agency OI the. United States any lalse. Iicllkous, or fraudulent statements or reprasanlat—s as tO any mane, will— it., 1—scilcoon STATE OF OREGON, css. County of........D.....es..............hutes............................. to Ni,. 2t—AGeNOKEGGMENr. ste�enrNrrr Lev Nbinhrng C. Nl e9dl—d, OR 972N © 1992 BE IT REAIEMBERED, That on this....... NL)t_.,.,,,,,,, day of...........:aanuary..._ .................._._........., 19...%, before nia, die undersigned, a Notary Public in anti for flip State of Oregau, personally appeared the n•ithin nanted....................(Jali..phult-„-,lits,e,.�iraulCA.,�ficlIAL' Jr.,.JaCR an and_; ilnber,ly..K._,lnckswi......... _............ ........_............._..._._....................._.........................._.._...................................................................-- known to me to be the identical individual..s, described it) and who executed the widen irmtrunient and acknowledged to nre Ilial .................... �!?qY- ....executed the same freely and voluntarily. IN TESTIMONY WIIEREOF, I Itnve hereunto set my hand and affixed Ori PATRiCIL. YANCEY I!,011FON TAR” • U „crt.�n!NISSINrAALSEALi ?.7fdISSIUN . UdU9 7XIFiTIES my official seal the day and year last above written. +�.\ Noy ub.l•.. ar forit A? commrssinn •. .... Oregun ...... EXHIBIT 3 Common Ownership Documents 01San) FA&- eL so'M Ne. 11—Se1 ,14, M'a11,1Nt [telfp {.,JvA or�rP [rc,[rs.rv,[, a.w ,r,ci,+,w[co. s [cfat3tnRi,(lh�b�ep VOLv335�eoE 220 � , KNOW ALL MEN 8V THESE PRESENTS. That RONALD D. BOZARTH and DARLENE BOZARTH, husband and wife .., hereinafter called grantor, for the consideration hereinafter slawd, does hereby, grant, bargain, sell and wavey unto ROBERT L, t)AVISoN end MYRTLE L. DAVISON, husband & wife AND GEORGE It. WIRTH and LENA 0. WIRTH,husband and wife hereinafter called grantee, and unl(l grymtee's heirs, successors and assigns all of that certain real property with the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining, situated in the County uf....Deschutes , State of Oregon, described as follows, to-wit.- Section o-wit:Section 23: The North 1/2 01 the Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 in Township 14 South, Range 12 East oC the Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon 14-17 290?_ :I THIS DEED IS GIVEN 1N FUI.i'1LLt•IENT OF THE CONTRACT DATED JUNE 1, 1977, RECORDED JUNE 13, 1977 in Boot: 252, pale 32 of DEED RECORDS. -•r • + ,1111, r. i ,tt "w R,t SID,) To Hove and to Hold file ..+cuurunit,, the said grantee and granter's heirs, successors and assigns forever. And the g -for hereby ours -nano to and with the said grantee and grantee's heirs, successors and assigns that said real property is It,-, I-- ,•nrrtmhrances treated or suflered thereon by grantor and that grantor will war- ranr and defend rhe same and ever r purr and parcel thereof agtinst the lawful claims and demands of all persnm claiming by. thn,IlCh, or under the 4- nt.-rhe true ana uctuu! consider.rnnn paid for this transier, stated in terms of dollars, is d 18, $00.00 nilourara+s.t4a.waua!-utlr wdNlNN•.N-w.rhiM�tl/-nr �ae/tldM r,filed-TtRMw•rIS`q-Mlitle•{i1'eRd-pr'oraMed•�Mhielr.N rhmrhrrfe ,.ortsider�rinn •rndirarrwhni; ,,, p p—t-the -i 7 • (Thr• cr hrn,xrn rhe evmhnls'r, it not opplleahle. should ao dnieted. See ORS OJ.OJa.) In construing this deed and a here the context so requires. the singular includes the plural and all grammatical changes shall be io,plied to nl®kc rh,- f-uri,ioos hereof apply t•yually to corporations and to individuals. In Witney WVllereuf. rhe grof,' r h,,, rsreured this instrument this /.I% day of January '19 81; it u corporate gr.urror. it I-, eau., d I....... bn be .ignrd :end it allixed by it. officers, duly euthorixed thereto by order of its board J dverrur•. �J�, ,J} <...,. ..C� 111 ,.,wr.d by o wres•u,.r.., Rona D. Bozarth efh..erpersi. ,.all � - Darlene Bozarth STATE OF ORECON, r STATE- OF OREGON. County o1.. s . County of . Ucschute19. s , .......January /Y Ir ;tI PrrsaaaIN P, .,.d .. ............ ...... .... and ...... .. .... who, being duty sworn, Person.fly opine -4 the .hare nJnr, .i sash for himself and not one tar the other, did say that the Coroner is the ._. Bap,Bozarth and 9—h—, ... president and that the hatter is the secretary of ............. .. .. ... nstnu_ ........... .. ............. .... ...... a corporation. rand fh,t tho Seel elfised to the foregoing insuument is the corporate seal ,�,Mhj'Iti 60 volonr:rr/' .0 r oral sed. of curd carpmafion and that said inefrument war stated and sealed in be. hall oea f sl cro'li—from by authority of Its board of directors; and each of the,,, eeFnmthvlgod as id instrument fo be its voluntary set and deed.. (OFFICIAL l}� N r;fi•uat' lo, Nptery SEAL) Pnhlie for Oregon 7 G�i%ice •� lfi Or O��y�110 n r[vir,s lr„r�k My commission erpirea. ,Ronald D. and Darlene hoz:n t6 Robert L. & flyrtie L. Davi .uu and George ll. & Lara 0. Wirth An. rs,ordt om,a - Robert L. Davison 810_N. W. Norman Gresham, Oregon 97030 STATE OF OREGIJN,� County of5s- I certify that the within in,tru- ment u'as receivefor re,-ord on the I day of . .. . r ,i . 19 8/, at (410.2 o'clock M., and recorded in hook -reel 'volume No. 3,d S> an met r,n page QQ0or as th—mew fee fit,' instrument microfilm No. Record n1 Deeds of said taunt•. Witness my hand and zeal of Cour y lli�xe�d e.r .I.,.., Patterson .b Robert L. Dnvi.son •,.Ne �J / /yL• 810 N. W. Norcutn gy f-ttc a/y rI/ ivDr u Gresham, Oregon 97030 p ty Pn Fit 82d. _... ..-_ -. •-:.—. ______._._...--___.._r, ' ktlC, ra I (�p,r,om t ?A-d_ML 491 sTZYKN.. . LA Nt O..PORTLAND, Oft t` OK / liJlfC�f� DARGAIN AND SAIF DIED KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, That ................ ........................ _.................................... ....... _................... ...... RONALD..LL--- ... .......................... hereinafter ,called grantor, for the consideration hereinafter stated, does hereby grant, bargain, sell and convey unto.. .............. ..................... . .. ......... ....... SHIRLE.Y...a.....T.UR11Ei ......................................------- ........ _......... ..................................... ................... ........ hereinafter called grantee, and unto grantee's heirs, successors and assigns all of that certain real property with the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining, situated in the County of., DESCHUTES ....__................ State of Oregon, described as follows, to -wit: South Half (SD of the Southeast Quartar(SE}) Northeast Quarter (NE}), Section Twentythres (23)t Township Fourteen (14) South# Range Twelve (12) East of the Willamette Meridian. SU83ECT TO assawntse conditions and rights -of -may of record. This Dead is for fullfillment of Contract Dated March 13t 1976# recorded March 220 1976 in Volume 229# Page 4569 Deschutes County Recordsp between Ronald D. 4 Darlene 8ozarth,, as Sellers and Shirley Se and/or 3sess F. Turner 3r.r of the aurvivorg as Purchaser. IIF SPACE INSUFFICIENT, CONTINUE DESCRIPTION ON REVERSE 51DEI To Have and to Hold the same unto the said grantee and grantee's heirs, successors and assigns forever. 1 The true and actual consideration paid for this transfer, stated in terms of dollars, is ............ WfiW1#.0 (The sentence between the symbols D. if not applicable, should be deleted. See ORS 93.030.) In construing this deed and where the context so requires; the singular includes the plural and all grammatical changes shall be implied to make the provisions hereof apply equally to corporations and to individuals. In Witness Whereof, the grantor has executed this instrument this_.itith.day of ......... 3uly .................... _,19.,8.7..; if a corporate grantor, it has caused its name to be signed and affixed by its offi s, duly aut orized thereto by order of its board of directors. THIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DE- •••. ........ •.. SCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND _ g - USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING N 0.iMA. THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEETITLE TO THE ... ....... .............................. PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES. ••-••-••••••••--•••--................................................................................. (If tha.sipsar; of the abora is a carp -11-, vas the farm of ochnowlademml eppodle.l (ORS 194.5701 STATE OF OREGON, ) STATE OF OREGON, County of _...__ -------- ................................. ._--------- _- )es. Courtr. Q DEltiCf'll{In8ss. ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this „•�I .i/tt.� .........._..........n.._ ......................— 3'l�o fo 19 .'Inptrument was acknowledged before -ip.._gZ _..._......_..._..._...... ......... 19........, by » _............. _................. ........... ................... 1)• by _------._....._.._.---• . president, and by ......_...........__... - ................. ___...... .. »....x_v _.,._ ._.......__....__, n- '1. n.; -a no ansrn*@Sa_ ------- ---................. secretary ot----•._---__.--•-•---.._._............. __...... _.... ............. p V 13-V1 u / Notary tic for a �IKy�6tnmheeAn expires: /' -.C/ %a AN.. wrnrrlina .+/u.n 1n. GRANTOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS GRANTEE'S NAME AND ADDRESS a _._._..... corporation, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public for Oregon (SEAL) My commission expires: (if axacWad a c.rpmalla affix ix sorpetaMaallll ..STATKOF„OREGON, 1. co ..►8 a W. 3 � N4�or.j_, PA",t--L_ MAR 22 1976 GU,T— 0,'::' --ago(S &Le24!_ voL Tri" CONTRACT, Made J176 3,?aRth_and,. Iklrlene„Dozarth husband and safe ............................. ..... ............. .......... ....... .... I ............................ �........ ........ hereinafter ,It,, -11,d the -tier. N;rwr_ ..... ..... ....iu��, I.............................. i�...... ....... . ... ................. ................... _..:..;.I_­­.I­ ..... ........ I -Urd he blsy,, IrNESSETJI: Thaf in onol,id-fi- of the anw-t ­­rtr and g__.fs herein oauj_d, 1. s,,fle ...... to sell unto file Wye, and file buyer 69'ers to purchase front the sailer all of the following de- scribed lands and premises situated jn. ........County, State of 0 , ............ South Half (S�) of the Southeaut Quarter (so') 11,rth .. t Q. -ter I Ear, Section E0.1mteen 11 South, �-�,Ive (�12) t . �ft SUWMT TO EASDMI.TS, COMITIONS AND MOMS-01WAy OF X-,XOIM. for file — of 12,50O.q0, -11,d the purchase price), or, account .1 which OnL'.TIlousmd.."lD LqAndrCd.Fjfty & no/00 Dollars (,' 1, -250.00_.) is paid all fha execution h,-r,..f (till receipt of which is he,!t3 acknowledged b y r/rc oer 01 file "Ole, in ­nUdy Pay-nis of net 1- d 1'. ?/.,s 100.00ailef .. ................ ........................... .. . .. . ................. . .. . . ......... .. ................ .............. ........ .......... ................. . ... payable on file day of an h n anth hereafter Lv9p..Ing -ith the he month of ............ 19 and continuing until said purchase Pri- is fully paid. Al! of said purchase price ney be paid at arly, time; all del -ed befens,s .1 said purchase prier ,1.01 b..r interest at the rate of_ par -.t per Ino., .......... i"4r.011.13-197.5 . .............. .,.fit paid, interest to be paid .......... rAIIIth?-% ............. . arld file minimumP.y.Int. b.,Ia rewind. ir said pren,,s !w rhe j_ ye it"int iwIw,,t .led file parties hereto as .1 file data .1 oonj­e, ar hall he P.- 3 .. . .. .. ...... . d mse '. ....... . . Z., 11 W iMl -I Irlp bI O,s .. ... . ... .... �dail . .... .V .I. h J, I d V '.6 ..',0 STATE OF ORE5�,V. County , L4521le -1 1 or"ify rhe, 'I. ..wnn int,- men ”­ It"i"%y1bl) -d P he 1P, ... err in b-... . at l'.. Af,. rd� )L Record of Deed, .1 mid —n,,. Wilnearfirs- a• my' )land ad -a 01Ir C..nn- ;:;14 ......... .. . .. ...... x_Ia:0 1; ling Office, . .. . . ............ ..... ............ ltwrnanl Owtie-p- fO1M N• r�—nlr.+l, >Y1Y.a Hlt U11U : ••�• u..,. i.C„e.roNl. `` 8`941.9 yXJAN. ] 9 19�� fHC1AE WAteANtY OHO a ,VOL V 5ptG.E /190 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, That BRYANT 8 ERICKSON,.,.Tnustees,_,.an estate .•• in. f.ae simple ........... ._..... , hereinafter called grantor, for the consideration hereinafter stated, does hereby grant, bargain, sell and convey unto..... . RDNALO..O. OOZARTH d UARLENE BOZARTH, husband. and wife .... ................ hereinafter called grantee, rued untu grantee's heirs, successors and assigns all of that certain real property with the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining, situated in the County - of Deschutes State of Oregon,described as to/lows, to -wit: Southeast Quarter blE4) flurtimast Quarter(NE;^^)� Section Twentythres (23), Township E-ourtsen (14) South, Range Twelve (12) East of the Willamette Meridien. 14-12 2902 ZW6 This Deed is given in fulfillment of an unrecorded contract dated March 15th, 1474. "`711 i,.IENI C -11-11E -M-1e110N UN REVERSE SIUE1 To Have and to Hold rhe +amt• unto the said grantee and grantee's heirs, successors and assigns forever. And the grantor hereby ruvr•nanre to and with the said grantee and grantee's heirs, successors and assigns that said real property is free friao .encumbrances created or suffered thereon by grantor and that grantor will war- rant and defend the, same and every parr and parcel thereof against the lawful claims and demands of all persons claiming by, through, or under the granh+r. The true and actual cunsidernhun paid for this transfer, stated in terms of dollars, is 1 12,000.00 (The sentence between the symbohi ;.-), it not applicable. should be deleted. See ORS 9.3.070,) In construing this decd and where the. context so requires, the singular intzfudes the plural and all grammatical changes shell be implied to make the. provisions hereof apply equally to corporations and to individuals. In Witness Whereof, the grnntur has executed this instrument this '12th day of. .....January.. .... , 19 81 ; if a corporate grantor, it has caused it, name to he signed and seal affixed by its officers, duly authorized thereto by order it its board of di ... for>. / Ill at.rvlW bvet.R„olon. � '_��—�"•� — STATE OF OREGON, ! STATE OF OREGON, County of........... .............. ........... .... ...... ...) u. ». County of ....�each4tee ) 19 � �� - ....., ............... ' �8f7,U911!......�? 19 81 Pa ..... ny appeared .. ............... .................. ............................. ....... mrd ....... .. ............................................. . who. being duly aurora, Personal) orad rhe `hove ..—d each fur himself cad not one tar the other, did say that rhe former is the e •6>:ickeon, trustuou Bry .. .......... ..... president and that the fatter ia.rha L. G sr., :. P ....F! ... .. ......... ................... definite- wtarr of ..._................. ,. \'a•����r•and•p/ ed rho fur.a'mrporaflen. a,.+ng +^°rtes •Ci'; xg3dt ni ufunrorr•. cut mld Jeed. 't� ... .................................................. a d that the sad affixed to the fore Corporate seal tesor instrument a Iha of said nup-noon and that ufit o fwtr1 It. b was deed std sold in be- hell of said corporation by authority or ffa board or dlreetors: ash 1_��',� • :t": each of them e.knolvlrr edQeit said inseruent to be its yoh-f-y act and deed. rE,/ .L-La.rcf GY/u!= k nater. ne: (OFFICIAL / \';••. Nomrl }55iGyi frq Omeon SEAL) Notary Public for Oregon . rn My, •,r�sn>LJSion*tt.spun. /Ijal(Jt� -99 1 My ---,ion exphq Bryant d Erickson, Truutuus 888 W. Evergreen STATE OF ORECfyN, County ....-,..-... 9775 Redmond Or. 97756 of „ oa r •+ .... ,,.I. — I f certify that rhe within irlstru- Ronald 0. Bozarth utuz - -P.O. ment was tereived refer record on the. of 19 r. / Box 035-/7 ....day .......... .ah.. .. at-JIV.6 ..o'clock. Af., and recorded Redmond, Dr. 977.6 , 5 in btwk!ree/• volume No. j3—' on page am. ..or as document. fee file% Ron 8o2 arth etus Ron ... a ust instrument/microfilm No. .. .. , oar re ----� � P.O. Box 835 � Record of Deeds of said county. _ Redmond, Ur. 97756 Witness my, hand and seal of ._... ..... ,:,Hr rn1111, .. County affixed. pole e.ann.. H .an..,.n "H.- -- — 1. Rosemary. Patterson Same as are being sent now. H•e• n //.,,:�,t" .......... BystF. ./,L/^rYa�•'a�el Y HSNr..nol,os. ,..• DESCHUTES COUNTY TETLE C6. P O. BOX 323 BEND, OREGON 97701 EXHIBIT 4 Water Source Letter 02/06/2018 11:50 15413890721 SEND WATER HAULING PAGE 01/01 221,GG .Nelson ..Road Bernd, OR 97701-9790 MILIMAN Dear NJ`r. Hughes: The water we haul as part of our delivery service is From either rnun..i.cipal or quasi- inu.nicipal. sources. Our sources of water are Avion Water and City of Redmond. Sincerely, Kitxiberlee Nunez Manager,/Member EXHIBIT 5 Rainwater Harvest Estimate PO BOX 2116 Terrebonne, OR 97760 1541.408.5325 1 resistalIguttersPmsn.conl Hello Brett, Jesse figured out what your Rain Water Harvest system could yield you for a year. You have a 5,000 square feet of roof on your barn with Redmond's average rain fall of 10 inches ( not including snow ) a year. You can harvest 31,150 gallons of water annually. If you have any questions feel free to contact us. Sincerely, W icheffe Wiclardson General Manager Resist -All Seamless Gutters NW, LLC 541.480.1518 cell resistallautters@msn.coni EXHIBIT 6 "Understanding Air Purification and Activated Carbon Filters" By Hugh McLaughlin. Understanding Air Purification and Activated Carbon Filters Hugh McLaughlin - October 22, 2017 Activated carbon filters are widely used to reduce odors and control emissions from greenhouses and other growing operations. The ambient air is circulated through the activated carbon filter and returned to the greenhouse or discharged outside. Understanding the basic guidelines of how activated carbon filters work will help growers use the technology with greater reliability and lower overall cost. How Carbon Filters Work Inside a Grow Room For starters, activated carbon is basically a sponge that captures odor -causing vapors and takes them out of circulation. The level of odor -causing chemicals is lowered and thus the odor, which is the nose's detection and quantification of the presence of non -air molecules, is reduced. At some level, called the odor threshold, a typical nose cannot detect the presence of the odor compound in the air and the odor is considered absent, although the chemical is likely still there at a reduced level. This can be a problem, since the slightest increase in the level of the odor compound in the air brings it above the odor threshold and suddenly the odor is detected. Odor Fatigue Furthermore, smelling most odors leads to odor fatigue, where the nose's sensitivity decreases with extended exposure. Someone entering the room can clearly smell the odor, but the person who has been there for a while cannot. If you want to check for the presence of an odor in a grow space, you must leave and breathe some fresh air for long enough to clear the background sensitivity of your nose to the odor you are checking for. Adsorption vs. Absorption Activated carbon works by a phenomenon called adsorption, where the odor compound is trapped inside the activated carbon and retained, but the material doing the adsorption does not change size. Adsorption differs from absorption, which also removes things, but the result is swelling. Both adsorption and absorption media have fixed capacities, meaning they hold just so much, since they are storing the material removed from the air, not destroying it. It is easier to tell what is going on with absorption, since the size increase equals the amount of material removed; with absorption, there is a weight gain, but it is hard to measure and we need to use other means to gauge the remaining life of a carbon filter. Activated carbon removes odors by offering the odor -causing compound a more attractive place to reside than circulating in the air. The adsorbed state—when the odor compound leaves the air and gets retained inside the activated carbon—is called a lower -energy state and it is as if the molecule falls into a hole and cannot get out. New activated carbon has lots of unoccupied holes and virtually every compound that passes through falls in a hole and is retained. Over time, the empty holes fill up. The molecules that are adsorbed with higher energy, sort of like weighing more, can displace the lower -energy molecules that are less tightly held, leading to molecular musical chairs. This phenomenon, called displacement, can basically drive one crazy, since odors seem to come out of nowhere when a lightly adsorbed odor compound is knocked off the carbon filter by a heavier compound, whether that compound smells or not. There is no way to program activated carbon to take out one compound and leave the rest alone. The technical term for the first time an adsorbable compound is sensed at the exit of a carbon filter is called breakthrough and when the filter is full, this is called saturation. When it comes to odors, and especially because of odor fatigue, these benchmarks are in the eye—or nose, I guess—of the beholder. How Much Can a Carbon Filter Hold? Activated carbon filters are a bit like oil filters on a car—they remove a certain percentage each time through the filter until they get full, at which point they remove essentially nothing. Depending on the design of the filter, how fast air is passing through it, what is in the air and many other factors, the odor of the exiting air is determined. The end of the filter's usable life is the point where the amount of odor removed each time through the filter is too little to justify continued operation, at which point the carbon filter should be replaced. "Ultimately, the capacity in an activated carbon filter is determined by how much carbon there is and the quality of that carbon. " The amount of odor removed by the filter is the difference between the entering level of odor compound and the level exiting. A lot of removal occurs after breakthrough and after the odor threshold is exceeded. The activated carbon filter continues to remove a portion of the odor compound all the way to saturation. How Long Do Carbon Filters Last? Depending on the acceptable level of odor in the greenhouse or exiting air, it may be necessary to take a carbon filter offline well before saturation is reached. Filter manufacturers know this and strive to supply filters that approach the ideal filter performance. The sharper breakthrough and the more vertical the rise, the easier it is to use the entire capacity of the activated carbon filter. In general, the slower the now rate through the filter, the closer the filter will operate to the limit of ideal performance. Thus, if odor is exiting the filter above the acceptable level, the recommended strategy is to slow the flow rate thorough a filter (using a fan speed controller) to cause the exiting concentration of odor compound to decrease to below the acceptable level. Over the life of the filter, a series of flow reductions will allow the largest total amount of odor to be removed while maintaining an acceptable odor level in the growing space. Ultimately, the capacity in an activated carbon filter is determined by how much carbon there is and the quality of that carbon. It is relatively easy to make an activated carbon filter that looks good right out of the blocks—all the available holes are empty and they grab the first thing they encounter, but the ultimate value of an activated carbon filter is how long it provides ongoing improvement of the air passing through it. Activated carbon quality is like octane in gasoline; you can definitely pack more of it into a given amount of weight or space. Activated carbon quality is determined on a weight basis, per pound of material, through a number of tests, such as iodine number, BET surface area and butane activity. Activated carbons differ in density, or how much weight per unit volume. Thus, one can have a really high capacity (like octane) times a really low density (like popcorn), and one ends up with much less in the tank, so to speak. Carbon Filter Labels When selecting an activated carbon filter to purchase, look for quality measurements, which go by names like CTC number, iodine number, butane activity and BET surface area. Note that different labels use different measures and how much of one equals how little of another is application specific. Truth be told, most of the metrics measure the wrong thing, but it is true that more is better, no matter what is counted. How Much Carbon Is in the Filter? The next stop is how much carbon is in the filter: too little of a good thing is, frankly, too little. On the label, carbon may be listed in either weight or volume. If the quality is in units of weight, one must hope that the quantity number is in similar units, or you know nothing. For example, simply stating that 10 gal. of some number of good stuff per ounce means you are lost if you don't know the density (ounces per volume). If the calculation has a favorable answer, it will be on the label. The volume available for activated carbon is how much media the filter will contain, but it is basically the weight of that media that matters. Weight is either how much the filter holds in activated carbon, or the available volume times the density or specific gravity of the carbon. The specific gravity—the ratio of the weight of a volume of carbon compared to the weight of the same volume of water—is a good indication of quality: the higher the specific gravity, the better. Good carbons have a specific gravity of 0.45 to 0.55. Specific gravity is easy to measure, just fill a container with the activated carbon, weigh it, then fill the same container with water and weigh that. The ratio of the two weights is the specific gravity. What Does It All Mean for Growers? At the end of the day, for a given amount of activated carbon of a given quality, there are few tricks that will make any difference. The flow rate through the filter should be adjusted to provide an acceptable level of odor exiting the filter, and being comfortably below that flow rate is better. Having more filters is better since they help each other keep the odor level below the acceptable level. Activated carbon does not go bad over time and there is no clever way to use it up faster that leads to increased capacity. When one is buying an activated carbon filter, one is basically buying a certain amount of odor removal capacity and that capacity is directly related to the quality and quantity of activated carbon in the filter, not all the bells and whistles. Hugh McLaughlin Hugh McLaughlin is a practicing chemical engineer and the CTO of AC FOX, Inc. He is an expert on activated carbon and biochar, having been the Director of Biocarbon Research at Alterna Biocarbon, Inc. from 2009 to 2013. AC FOX has patented technology in the area of regeneration of spent activated carbon and has this technology available for licensing. In addition, AC FOX has patent pending technology for the production and upgrading of biochar from a wide variety of biomass feedstocks. From: Daniel Terrell To: Nicole Mardell Cc: Peter Gutowskv; Adam Smith Subject: Rural Commercial/Rural Industrial Text Amendments Date: Monday, July 23, 2018 10:35:30 AM Attachments: Aceti-County Board Letter - 2018-07-23 Submitted.pd ATTOOOOI.htm Nicole: Attached please find a letter and attachment for entry into the record for the Rural Commercial/Rural Industrial Text Amendments to the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan that are going to the County Board next month. Please include them in the Commissioners' packet for the work session on the matter. To let you know, I am planning on attending the hearing on August 20th. Please let me know if you have any difficulties opening the attached document or other questions about the materials. Thank you for your assistance. Best, Dan LAW OFFICE OF BILL KLOOS, PC OREGON LAND USE LAW 375 W. 4`h AVENUE, SUITE 204 EUGENE, OR 97401 TEL: 541.343.8596 WEB: WWW.LANDUSEOREGON.COM July 23, 2018 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners c/o Nicole Mardell, Associate Planner Community Development Building 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, OR 97703 DAN TERRELL DANTERRELL@LANDUSEOREGON. COM BILL KLOOS BILLKLOOS@LANDUSEOREGON.COM Re: 247 -18 -000404 -PA / Rural Commercial and Rural Industrial Designation Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments Dear Chair and Commissioners: Our firm represents Tony Aceti, the applicant in the proceeding that led to the LUBA and Court of Appeals Central Oregon LandWatch v. Deschutes County' decisions that uncovered the issue that made these text amendments proposed by planning staff necessary. Mr. Aceti supports the amendments and encourages the Board of County Commissioners to adopt the amendments and to make them effective immediately upon adoption. The sole purpose of the amendments, as explained in the purpose statement in Section I of the findings, is to give the county the authority to approve site specific applications to plan designate and zone property to rural commercial or rural industrial uses so long as the application is consistent with all state and local land use regulations. The purpose statement also explains that these amendments do not change the plan designation or zoning for any property within Deschutes County or otherwise authorize any development in the county. Future plan/zone change applications will have to go through the application approval processes. While the proposed amendments are fairly straight -forward and only grant the County Commissioners the authority you thought you had prior to the recent Central Oregon LandWatch v. Deschutes County decisions, several questions were raised during the Planning Commission proceedings that warrant comment at the early stages of your deliberations. These comments are listed in bullet -points below. These amendments are lawful. • LUBA said the county can amend the comprehensive plan to give itself the authority granted by these amendments. See, Attachment 1, p. 15 (highlighted). ' Central Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes County, _ Or LUBA _ (LUBA No. 2017-009, June 15, 2017), aff'd 288 Or App 378, 405 P3d 197 (2017). Deschutes County Board of Commissioners July 23, 2018 Page 2 of 2 • Other counties have this authority. My submissions to the Planning Commission discuss examples from Lane County and Douglas County. There are others. • The findings explain why the amendments are consistent with the DCCP and with applicable Statewide Planning Goals and state -level land use regulations. Approval of these amendments will not result in a flood of development applications. • Under Oregon law there are only four ways to take property out of farmland or forest land designation. • Each approach has very high legal standards and require factually intensive inquiries. Very few properties can meet these requirements. • These amendments allow you to approve those few applications that can. COLW is wrong when it keeps asserting that all industrial uses are urban levels of use. • See, Columbia Riverkeeper v. Columbia County, 70 Or LUBA 171 (2014) and Shaffer v. Jackson County, 17 Or LUBA 922, 931 (1989)(rejecting the argument that industrial uses are inherently urban in nature). • Certainly, some industrial and commercial uses must locate in urban areas. Likewise, some industrial uses, primarily resource-based, must locate in rural areas. • The remaining range of industrial or commercial uses may constitute a rural level of use based on the nature and intensity of the use and development. That is what the comprehensive plan and land use regulations are intended to guarantee — that approved rural industrial and rural commercial uses keep the land as rural land. • The majority of industrial uses will still occur within urban growth boundaries. One final request. We encourage the County Commissioners to make these comprehensive plan amendments effective immediately upon adoption instead of after the exhaustion of all appeals (i.e., acknowledgment). Unfortunately, it appears as if these minor amendments will be appealed. The appeals process will take time. Implementing the amendments immediately will allow parties to prepare and submit applications for review (itself a time-consuming process). The appeals process will have either played itself out before an application decision is made, or any final decisions that implement the amendments can be made contingent upon the amendments becoming acknowledged. Thank you for your consideration. Best regards, (4jaJ4� Dan Terrell Attachments Attachment 1 Central Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes County, _ Or LUBA _ (LUBA No. 2017-009, June 15, 2017) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Attachment 1 BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON CENTRAL OREGON LANDWATCH, Petitioner, vs. DESCHUTES COUNTY, Respondent, ANTHONY ACETI, Intervenor -Respondent. LUBA No. 2017-009 FINAL OPINION AND ORDER Appeal from Deschutes County. Carol E. Macbeth, Bend, filed the petition for review and argued on behalf of petitioner. No Appearance by Deschutes County. Bill Kloos and Dan Terrell, Eugene, filed the response brief, and Bill Kloos argued on behalf of intervenor -respondent. With them on the brief was the Law Office of Bill Kloos, PC. HOLSTUN, Board Chair; BASSHAM, Board Member; RYAN, Board Member, participated in the decision. REVERSED 06/15/2017 You are entitled to judicial review of this Order. Judicial review is governed by the provisions of ORS 197.850. Page 1 I Opinion by Holstun. 2 NATURE OF THE DECISION 3 Petitioner appeals a decision by the board of county commissioners 4 concerning a 21.59 -acre property located next to Highway 97, between the 5 cities of Redmond and Bend, at Deschutes Junction. The decision changes the 6 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan (DCCP) map designation from 7 Agriculture to Rural Industrial and changes the zoning from Exclusive Farm 8 Use Tumalo/Bend Subzone (EFU) to Rural Industrial (RI). 9 FACTS 10 LUBA remanded the county's first decision in this matter. Central 11 Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes County, 74 Or LUBA 156 (2016) (COLW 12 Aced 1).1 In that decision LUBA rejected petitioner's assignment of error that 13 challenged the county's findings that the subject property's soils do not qualify 14 as agricultural land that must be protected under Goal 3 (Agricultural Lands). 15 But LUBA sustained petitioner's other assignment of error that challenged the 16 adequacy of the county's Statewide Planning Goal 14 (Urbanization) 17 exception. The county concluded that the requested Goal 14 exception was 18 justified because the subject property is irrevocably committed to urban uses. 19 In COL Aceti I, we concluded that the county failed to provide the required 1 There are a large number of appeals titled Central Oregon Landwatch v. Deschutes County. We insert the name of the applicant to help distinguish this case and its predecessor from the others. Page 2 I explanation for why the subject property, surrounded by relatively low intensity 2 uses, is irrevocably committed to urban uses: 3 "That the required explanation for why the property is irrevocably 4 committed to urban uses is entirely missing is hardly surprising. 5 The subject property is located in the vicinity of a variety of farm 6 and rural non-farm uses and is bordered by Highway 97 and 7 divided by Tumalo Road. In the abstract it is difficult to see how 8 being surrounded by rural uses and roadways could ever 9 irrevocably commit rural land to urban uses, since that requires a 10 finding that `all rural uses, are impracticable.' VinCEP v. Yamhill 11 County, 215 Or App 414, 425, 171 P3d 368 (2007), quoting 1000 12 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC (Curry County), 301 Or 447, 485, 724 13 P2d 268 (1986). We see no reason why at least some of the rural 14 uses in the vicinity of the subject property could not also be 15 developed on the subject property. In a similar vein, the 16 challenged decision applies the Rural Industrial Zone to the 17 property. As explained below, the Rural Industrial Zone was 18 adopted to allow rural industrial uses and ensure the uses allowed 19 in the Rural Industrial Zone are rural rather than urban in nature. 20 To approve a committed exception to Goal 14 to allow urban uses 21 of the property (because all rural uses are impracticable) and then 22 apply a zoning district that was adopted to limit industrial uses to 23 rural industrial uses would appear on its face to be inconsistent. 24 "Whether approving an irrevocably committed exception to Goal 25 14 to allow urban uses of rural land and then applying a zone that 26 was adopted to limit industrial uses to rural industrial uses is 27 inconsistent or not, if the county wants to approve an irrevocably 28 committed exception to Goal 14, it must supply the reasoning that 29 supports the conclusion that the rural use of the property is 30 impracticable, with the result that it is committed to urban uses. 31 That reasoning is missing, and remand is therefore required." 32 COLW Aceti 1, 74 Or LUBA at 170-71 (emphasis in original). 33 Following our remand, the applicant and county abandoned the Goal 14 34 exception, and the county again approved the requested comprehensive plan Page 3 I and zoning map amendments, and supported that decision with findings that 2 the challenged map amendments do not authorize urban uses and therefore do 3 not require an exception to Goal 14. 4 FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 5 The central issue presented in the first assignment of error is whether the 6 Rural Industrial DCCP map designation, and thus the corresponding RI zoning 7 designation, is limited to certain existing exception areas that are identified in 8 the DCCP. While one of the three Rural Industrial exception areas identified in 9 the DCCP (Deschutes Junction) is near the subject property, the subject 10 property is not included in any of the three exception areas identified in the 11 DCCP. Petitioner takes the position that the Rural Industrial plan map 12 designation is limited to those three exception areas; the county's decision 13 takes the position that it is not. 14 We note that this issue appears to us to be one that could have been 15 raised in COLW Aceti I, but was not raised in that appeal. However, intervenor 16 does not argue that this issue is one that could have and should have been 17 raised in COLW Aceti I, or that LUBA's consideration of that issue has been 18 waived under Beck v. City of Tillamook, 313 Or 148, 831 P2d 678 (1992). 19 Petitioner's first assignment of error also raises other issues, as do its remaining 20 assignments of error, but because the issue described above is dispositive, we Page 4 1 limit our consideration of the first assignment of error to that issue .2 Resolving 2 that issue requires that we set out relevant DCCP text at some length. 3 Chapter 3 of the DCCP is entitled "Rural Growth Management." Section 4 3.4 of the DCCP is entitled "Rural Economy," and includes text addressing the 5 Rural Commercial and Rural Industrial plan designations. We first set out 6 portions of the text addressing the Rural Commercial plan designation, before 7 turning to the Rural Industrial text, because the Rural Commercial text 8 provides context for understanding the Rural Industrial text: 9 "Rural Commercial and Rural Industrial 10 "In Deschutes County there are a handful of properties zoned 11 Rural Commercial and Rural Industrial. These designations 12 recognize uses that predated State land use laws. New commercial 13 or industrial sites are controlled by State regulation and additional 14 development is anticipated to be minimal and only for specific 15 sites, such as around the Bend Airport. 16 "Rural Commercial 17 "The Rural Commercial plan designation applies to specific 18 exception areas located outside unincorporated communities and 19 urban growth boundaries. The rural commercial uses and services 20 in these areas are limited in size and scope to those that are less 21 intensive than uses allowed in Unincorporated Communities. The 22 uses and densities are limited by the zoning, thereby maintaining 23 rural integrity. 2 For example petitioner argues under the current version of Goal 14, without an exception to Goal 14, all new industrial development is limited to urban growth boundaries, unincorporated communities, and the circumstances set out in ORS 197.713 and 197.714 for certain lands that were "planned and zoned for industrial use on January 1, 2004." Page 5 I "The Rural Commercial designation applies to the following 2 acknowledged exception areas: 3 Deschutes Junction 4 "• Deschutes River Woods Store 5 "• Pine Forest 6 Rosland 7 "• Spring River[.]" Id. (Italics and boldface in original; 8 underscoring added.) 9 DCCP Section 3.4 goes on to explain that Deschutes Junction, Deschutes 10 Woods Store and Spring River exception areas previously were designated as 11 "Rural Service Centers" in the DCCP, but when the Land Conservation and 12 Development Commission (LCDC) adopted the OAR chapter 660, division 22 13 "Unincorporated Communities" administrative rule, and defined "rural service 14 centers" in a way that disqualified these three areas, the three areas were 15 designated Rural Commercial in the DCCP (and zoned Rural Commercial) "to 16 ensure that they remain rural and that the uses allowed are less intensive than 17 those allowed in unincorporated communities as defined in OAR 660-022." Id. 18 DCCP Section 3.4 explains that the other two exception areas, Rosland and 19 Pine Forest, are "commercial centers which historically were committed to 20 commercial uses prior to the adoption of zoning regulations," and were 21 designated Rural Commercial in 2002 and 2007. Id. DCCP Section 3.4 then Page 6 I describes each of the five Rural Commercial designated areas and the 2 surrounding properties .3 3 Relevant text from DCCP Section 3.4 addressing the Rural Industrial 4 plan designation is set out next, below. The county follows the same approach 5 that it did with the Rural Commercial designation, by limiting that designation 6 to specifically identified exception areas. 7 "Rural -Industrial 8 "The Rural Industrial plan designation applies to specific 9 exception areas located outside unincorporated communities and 10 urban _growth boundaries. The Rural Industrial plan designation 11 and zoning brings these areas into compliance with state rules by 12 adopting zoning to ensure that they remain rural and that the uses 13 allowed are less intensive than those allowed in unincorporated 14 communities as defined in OAR 660-022. [4] 15 "The Rural Industrial designation applies to the following 16 acknowledged exception areas. 17 "❑ Redmond Military s We omit that description of the Rural Commercial areas for brevity, but include the exception area descriptions from the portion of DCCP Section 3.4 addressing the Rural Industrial designation below. 4 A significant area of disagreement between petitioner and the county is whether the RI zone actually limits the industrial uses allowed in the RI zone so that they are less intensive than the uses allowed in unincorporated communities under OAR chapter 660, division 22 and will not constitute "urban uses" that are generally prohibited on rural land by Goal 14. We need not and do not attempt to resolve that disagreement in this opinion. Page 7 I "❑ Deschutes Junction[,] 2 "❑ Bend Auto Recyclers 3 "Rural Industrial Designated Areas 4 "The Redmond Military site consists of tax lot 1513000000116 5 and is 35.42 acres, bounded by the Redmond Urban Growth 6 Boundary to the west and agricultural lands (EFU) surrounding the 7 remainder of the property. 8 "The Deschutes Junction site consists of the following tax lots: 9 161226C000107 (9.05 acres), 161260000106 (4.33 acres), 10 161226C000102 (1.41 acres), 161226C000114 (2.50 acres), 11 portions 161226C000300 (12.9 acres). 161226C000301 (8.93 12 acres), 161226A000203 (1.5 acres) and those portions of 13 161226C0001 I I located west of the Burlington Northern -Santa Fe 14 railroad tracks (16.45 acres). Generally, the Deschutes Junction 15 site is bordered on the west by Highway 97, on the east by the 16 Burlington Northern Railroad, on the north by Nichols Market 17 Road (except for a portion of 1612226A004111), and on the south 18 by EFU-zoned property owned by the City of Bend. 19 "Bend Auto Recyclers consists of tax lot 1712030000111 and is 20 13.41 acres, bounded by Highway 97 to the west, and Rural 21 Residential (MUA-10) lands to east, north and south." Id. (Italics 22 in original; underscoring added.) 23 Petitioner argued to the county that the subject property cannot be 24 designated Rural Industrial because it is not included in one of the three 25 "acknowledged exception areas" specifically identified above, i.e., the 26 Redmond Military, Deschutes Junction and Bend Auto Recyclers exception 5 As we noted earlier, the subject property is located on the west side of Highway 97, in an area generally referred to as Deschutes Junction. The subject property is located across from the Deschutes Junction Rural Industrial site, which is located on the east side of Highway 97. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 areas.6 The county adopted findings to reject that argument and interpreted DCCP Section 3.4 to permit the county to apply the Rural Industrial plan designation to any property, as long as it is located outside urban growth boundaries and outside designated unincorporated communities, and either: (1) does not qualify as agricultural or forest land or (2) is the subject of an exception to Goal 3 (Agricultural Lands) or Goal 4 (Forest Lands): "COLW also narrowly reads the following Comprehensive Plan statement: "`The Rural Industrial plan designation applies to specific exception areas located outside unincorporated communities and urban growth boundaries. The Rural Industrial plan designation and zoning brings these areas into compliance with state rules by adopting zoning to ensure that they remain rural and that the uses allowed are less intensive than those allowed in unincorporated communities as defined in OAR 660-022.' [7] "COLW focuses on the term `exception area' to contend that RI uses are permitted only in exception areas, despite also arguing that RI uses are permitted only in unincorporated communities. The County Board reads this provision more broadly, giving weight to the language that notes the role state rules have 6 Although the parties do not discuss these exceptions, we assume they were exceptions to Goal 3 (Agricultural Lands), rather than exceptions to Goal 14 (Urbanization), because the Rural Industrial plan designation and RI zone are intended to limit industrial uses to those that are rural in nature. Assuming the Rural Industrial plan designation and RI zone do so, an exception to Goal 14 would be unnecessary. This is the same DCCP language that we set out earlier, just before the detailed description in the DCCP of the three Rural Industrial exception areas. Page 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 regarding permitted uses. The County Board recognizes, as it did in the decision affirmed by LUBA in this proceeding, that the designation of land as not suitable for agricultural use does not lie solely through the exception process under state rules. The County Board interprets the use of the term exception area in this passage broadly to include any lands that have been lawfully deemed not subject to the resource goals (Goals 3 and 4) for whatever reason. Consequently, the County Board interprets the above comprehensive plan language as not prohibiting the designation of individual properties for rural industrial uses where those properties qualify for such designation because they have either received an exception to Goal 3, or because the provisions of Goal 3 do not apply to them because they do not meet the definition of `agricultural land' and are therefore nonresource land. "However, for such properties, [DCCP] Policies 3.4.28, 3.4.31, 3.4.32 and 3.4.33 provide standards, which have been incorporated into and implemented by DCC 18.100, that apply to rural industrial development to help ensure that such uses are developed at rural levels of intensity consistent with state rules. [8] While the 8 Those policies are set out below: "Policy 3.4.28 New industrial uses shall be limited in size to a maximum floor area of 7,500 square feet per use within a building, except for the primary processing of raw materials produced in rural areas, for which there is no floor area per use limitation. "Policy 3.4.31 Residential and industrial uses shall be served by [Department of Environmental Quality] approved on-site sewage disposal systems. "Policy 3.4.32 Residential and industrial uses shall be served by on-site wells or public water systems. Page 10 I [DCCP] permits industrial uses in unincorporated communities 2 and in urban areas, it does not prohibit rural industrial uses at rural 3 levels of intensity on rural lands. 4 "COLW's proposed interpretations ignore the plan language and 5 plan policies that most directly address the purpose and 6 application of the Rural Industrial designation to new properties. 7 As presented in the findings, the County Board concludes that the 8 RI designation and zoning is not limited to only unincorporated 9 communities and existing exception areas as COLW asserts." 10 Record 26-27. 11 The above findings mischaracterize some of the arguments petitioner 12 made to the county, and rely on several plan policies that have nothing to do 13 with identifying what properties may be eligible for the Rural Industrial plan 14 designation to conclude that the Rural Industrial plan designation may be 15 broadly applied to any rural lands that are not planned or zoned for resource 16 protection under Goals 3 or 4 and are located outside designated 17 unincorporated communities. 18 We are mindful that our standard of review under ORS 197.829(1) and 19 Siporen v. City of Medford, 349 Or 247, 243 P3d 776 (2010) is deferential, and 20 we generally must affirm a county governing body's plausible interpretations 21 of its land use legislation.9 Petitioner briefly mentions Goal 14 in its argument "Policy 3.4.33 Community sewer systems shall not be allowed in Rural Industrial zones." 9 ORS 197.829(1) provides: "The Land Use Board of Appeals shall affirm a local government's interpretation of its comprehensive plan and land Page 11 I under the first assignment of error and suggests the county's interpretation of 2 DCCP 3.4 is inconsistent with Goal 14, which petitioner contends DCCP 3.4 3 was adopted in part to implement. That may be an attempt by petitioner to 4 invoke ORS 197.829(1)(d). See n 9. But petitioner does not develop that 5 argument other than to argue that all industrial development is urban in nature 6 and requires a Goal 14 exception unless located within an urban growth 7 boundary or a designated unincorporated community. We reject that broad 8 argument. 9 As the arguments are presented under the first assignment of error, our 10 standard of review of the county's interpretation of DCCP Section 3.4 is set out 11 at ORS 197.829(1)(a), and the county's interpretation cannot be affirmed if it 12 "[i]s inconsistent with the express language of the comprehensive plan * * *." 13 For the reasons explained below, the county's interpretation of DCCP Section use regulations, unless the board determines that the local government's interpretation: "(a) Is inconsistent with the express language of the comprehensive plan or land use regulation; "(b) Is inconsistent with the purpose for the comprehensive plan or land use regulation; "(c) Is inconsistent with the underlying policy that provides the basis for the comprehensive plan or land use regulation; or "(d) Is contrary to a state statute, land use goal or rule that the comprehensive plan provision or land use regulation implements." Page 12 1 3.4 "[i]s inconsistent with the express language of DCCP Section 3.4 which 2 was quoted earlier.10 Given that DCCP language, the county's broad 3 interpretation of DCCP Section 3.4 to permit the Rural Industrial designation to 4 be applied to any rural lands outside an urban growth boundary or 5 unincorporated community, as long as that rural land is not agricultural or 6 forest land, is implausible and is not affirmable under ORS 197.829(1)(a). 7 It is the county's interpretation, not petitioner's interpretation, which 8 fails to give meaning to the only DCCP language that actually addresses what 9 properties are eligible for the Rural Commercial and Rural Industrial plan 10 designation. Petitioner emphasized the underscored language in the DCCP 11 language quoted above. See n 10. It may be that language does not expressly 12 foreclose the possibility that the county might be able to identify additional 13 areas that are built or committed to rural industrial development, take an 14 exception to the applicable resource goals, if any, and add those areas to DCCP 15 Section 3.4. However, unless and until that happens it is inconsistent with that 1OThat DCCP language is set out below: "The Rural Industrial plan designation applies to specific exception areas located outside unincorporated communities and urban growth boundaries." DCCP Section 3.4 at 11. "The Rural Industrial designation applies to the following [described] exception areas." Id. Page 13 I DCCP language for the county to apply the Rural Industrial plan designation to 2 sites other than the three identified exception areas. " 3 The county's reliance on Policies 3.4.28, 3.4.31, 3.4.32 and 3.4.33 as 4 authorizing application of the Rural Industrial plan designation to properties 5 other than the three identified exception areas is difficult to understand. Those 6 policies simply impose limits on development or redevelopment of uses on the 7 three Rural Industrial designated properties; they say nothing about whether the 8 Rural Industrial designation can be applied to properties other than the three 9 identified exception areas. See n 8. 10 We agree with the county that the Rural Industrial plan designation is not 11 limited to unincorporated communities, and in fact we do not understand I' To be clear, we do not mean to suggest that the county may simply and easily amend DCCP Section 3.4 to add the subject property to the list of eligible areas for the Rural Industrial plan designation. DCCP Section 3.4, as it is currently written, limits the Rural Industrial plan designation to three exception areas that were already developed or committed to industrial uses when the statewide planning program came into existence. It seems highly unlikely that the subject 21.59 -acre property qualifies as such a property. So in addition to adding the subject property to the list of areas eligible for Rural Industrial zoning, DCCP Section 3.4 would need to be amended to broaden the type of property that is eligible for the Rural Industrial designation. Those amendments would be post -acknowledgment plan amendments, subject to a number of legal challenges under the statewide planning goals and the Department of Land Conservation and Development's implementing administrative rules. Petitioner's remaining assignments of error, which we do not reach in this decision, raise a number of legal issues that petitioner likely would raise if the county approves such a post -acknowledgment plan amendment. Page 14 1 petitioner to argue that the Rural Industrial plan designation is appropriately 2 applied within unincorporated communities. Although we need not resolve the 3 issue, we also tend to agree with the county that the Rural Industrial 4 designation is not necessarily limited to the three exception areas listed in 5 DCCP Section 3.4, provided the county first amends DCCP Section 3.4 to 6 remove language that limits application of the Rural Industrial designation to 7 the three identified sites, or expressly broadens application of the Rural 8 Industrial designation to other sites deemed to be eligible under DCC Section 9 3.4 for the Rural Industrial plan designation. But as the DCCP Section 3.4 10 language quoted earlier makes clear, the Rural Industrial designation is a 11 limited purpose map designation, in the sense it is a plan designation that was 12 expressly applied only to three identified areas that had already been built or 13 committed to rural industrial development, and nothing in DCCP Section 3.4 14 purports to authorize its application to other properties in other circumstances. 15 The county's legal theory in this case was not that the 21.59 -acre subject 16 property is already committed to rural industrial use. The county's legal theory 17 in this case is that the Rural Industrial plan designation may be applied to the 18 subject property simply because it is not agricultural land, without regard to 19 whether an exception has been approved for the property because it is built or 20 committed to industrial use and without regard to whether the subject property 21 is identified as an area eligible for the Rural Industrial plan designation in 22 DCCP Section 3.4. That interpretation is inconsistent with the "express Page 15 I language of the comprehensive plan" that is underscored above and set out at n 2 10. Therefore the county's decision to apply the Rural Industrial designation to 3 the subject property "violates a provision of applicable law and is prohibited as 4 a matter of law." OAR 661-010-0071(1)(c). 5 The first assignment of error is sustained. 6 REMAINING ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR 7 As the proposal stands under our resolution of the first assignment of 8 error, the geographically limited DCCP Section 3.4 authorization for the Rural 9 Industrial plan designation does not include the subject property. Because our 10 resolution of the first assignment of error requires that the county's decision be 11 reversed, we need not and do not consider petitioner's remaining assignments 12 of error. 13 The county's decision is reversed. Page 16 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 977Q3 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - https://www.deschutes.org/ AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners Business Meeting of August 6, 2018 DATE: July 16, 2018 FROM: Kyle Collins, Community Development, 541-383-4427 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: DELIBERATIONS: for a Marijuana Production and Processing Appeal at 21330 Young Ave. DATE: August 6th, 2018: FROM: Kyle Collins, Community Development, 541-383-4427 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: DELIBERATIONS: for a Marijuana Production and Processing Appeal at 21330 Young Ave. RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: The Deschutes Board of County Comissioners ("Board") is tasked with determining if the subject proposal meets the requirements listed in the applicable sections of the Deschutes County Code. The Board held a public hearing to consider the appeal, filed by appellant Lee Casebeer et al, in response to an Administrative Determination and Site Plan Review that approved a marijuana production and processing operation proposed by Evolution Group LLC. The Board was provided with a memorandum from staff prior to the hearing that discussed the appellant's arguments and included 12 attachments consisting of all substantial materials from the entire record. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Deliberations following a public hearing for an appeal of a marijuana production and processing operation. The hearing was held on June 13th, 2018. File no. 247-18-000412-A (appeal of Aministrative Determination and Site Plan Review file nos. 247 -17 -000905 -AD, 17 -938 -LR, 17 -939 -AD, 17 -940 -SP). FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None ATTENDANCE: Kyle Collins, Assistant Planner STAFF MEMORANDUM Date: August 6th, 2018 To: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners From: Kyle Collins, Assistant Planner COMMUNffY DEVELOPMENT Re: Deliberations following a public hearing appeal of an Administrative Determination and Site Plan Review for Marijuana Production and Processing. File No. 247-18-000412-A (247 -17 -000905 -AD, 17-938-1-R, 17 -939 -AD, and 17- 940 -SP). BACKGROUND INFORMATION Applicant: Evolution Group, LLC Owner: ATP, LLC Applicant's Attorney: Karnopp Peterson LLP, c/o Ellen Grover Appellant: Lee Casebeer et al. Proposal: The applicant requested approval of an Administrative Determination and Site Plan Review to establish a marijuana production and processing facility in the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) Zone, as well as a Lot of Record Verification. Location: The subject property is located at 21330 Young Avenue and is identified on County Assessor Tax Map 16-12-11 as Tax Lot 800. Hearing Date: June 13th, 2018 Record Period: The record was closed for new evidence and rebuttal on July 5th, 2018. The applicant submitted final arguments by the July 5th, 2018, deadline. Review Period: The applications for 17 -905 -AD and 17-938-LR/17-939-AD/17-940-SP were submitted on November 3rd and November 21st, 2017, respectively. The application for 17 -905 -AD was deemed incomplete on November 21t", 2017. The applicant submitted supplemental materials and the application was deemed complete on November 27th, 2017. Additionally, on November 27tH 2017, the applicant requested the clock for file 17 -905 -AD be tolled until December 18th, 2017. Subsequently, on December 19th, 2017, the applicant requested that file 17 -905 -AD be placed on hold until files 17-938-LR/17-939- AD/17-940-SP were deemed complete. The application for 17-938-LR/17-939-AD/17-940-SP was deemed incomplete on December 19th, 2017. The applicant submitted supplemental materials and the application for 17-938-LR/17-939-AD/17-940-SP was accepted and deemed complete on December 26th, 2017. As a result of the above actions, day 1 of the 150 -day land use clock would have begun on December 27th, 2017 for all of the subject applications. However, as noted below, the applicant tolled the clock on December 27th to address a code enforcement issue. The following timeline addresses additional review actions for the subject applications: • December 27th, 2017: the applicant requested the clock be tolled on all the subject applications until a pending code enforcement issue at the subject property was resolved. • January 4th, 2018: the applicant submitted for building permit 18 -068 -AGE, which resolved pending code enforcement issues. At this time, the applicant also requested processing to continue on the subject land use applications. As a result, day 1 of the 150 -day land use clock began on January 4th, 2018. • January 29th, 2018: the applicant requested the clock be tolled on all subject land use applications in order to gather supplementary materials to address ensuing Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) decisions addressing similar marijuana production/processing applications elsewhere in the County. As a result, a total of 25 days elapsed on the clock from January 4th through January 28tH • March 15th, 2018: the applicant submitted all supplementary materials and requested processing continue on the above land use files. An administrative approval was issued on May 1St, 2018, and the appeal was filed on May 14th, 2018. The original 150th day on which the Countywas to take final action on this application was July 17th, 2018. To accommodate the open record period, the applicant agreed to place a 21 -day hold on the 150 -day decision timeline. Additionally, the applicant agreed to place a further 30 -day hold on the 150 -day decision timeline to sufficiently accommodate scheduling obligations from the Deschutes Board of County Commissioners. Based on 247-18-000412-A Page 2 of 10 these holds, the 150th day on which the County must take final action on this application is September 6th, 2018. PURPOSE The Deschutes Board of County Commissioners ("Board") is tasked with determining if the subject proposal meets the requirements listed in the applicable sections of the Deschutes County Code. The Board held a public hearing to consider the appeal, filed by appellant Lee Casebeer et al, in response to an Administrative Determination and Site Plan Review that approved a marijuana production and processing facility proposed by Evolution Group, LLC. The Board was provided with a memorandum from staff prior to the hearing (Attachment G) that discussed the appellant's arguments and included 11 attachments consisting of significant materials from the record. The matrix below is designed to assist the Board in their deliberations. Table 1 focuses on the contested aspects of the application which directly address approval criteria and which require Board interpretations and decisions. Attached to this memo are additional materials including testimony submitted at or after the hearing, rebuttals, the applicant's final arguments, and all other materials from the record that were not included as attachments to the previous staff memo. ISSUES RAISED IN TESTIMONY & SUBMITTED MATERIALS Numerous topics were raised in testimony at the public hearing and in the appeal materials themselves. In compliance with Deschutes County Code (DCC) 22.24.140, the following open record period was provided immediately following the public hearing: a 7 -day period ending on June 20th 2018, for new written evidence and testimony, and a 7 -day period ending on June 27th, 2018, for response to materials submitted in the previous period. After the record closed, the applicant was entitled to a 7 -day period to submit a final written argument, which ended on July 5th, 2018. Other than submissions from the applicant, staff notes that no additional evidence, written testimony, or rebuttals were provided by parties during the open record period. Table 1 provides a decision matrix for the Board to determine if the application will be approved, approved with modified conditions, or denied. These are the five key issues identified in testimony and materials that are applicable to the subject application. 247-18-000412-A Page 3 of 10 STAFF DISCUSSION FOR TABLE 1 1. Odor control Staff notes that during the public hearing, the Board requested more specificity regarding the originally proposed odor control system for the subject development. Based on this request, the applicant submitted a supplemental engineer's report and supporting literature during the first open record period (Attachment E, Exhibit 5). The submitted mechanical engineer's report states that the proposed odor control system will be effective to control odor. Specifically, the mechanical engineer's report states the applicant will use an odor control system that will recirculate airthrough 15 inline carbon filters distributed throughout the structures in a manner that exceeds the CFM requirements described in DCC 18.116.330(8)(10). Additionally, the engineer's report discusses that the entire system is designed so the buildings do not create any exhaust and no odors will escape the facility. Laura Breit, a certified engineer with the State of Oregon, provided testimony at the public hearing describing that the carbon filters they will use are effective and the applicants have submitted studies to the record discussing the effectiveness of carbon filters (Attachment E, Exhibit 5). Additionally, the applicant states that the carbon filters utilized in the odor control system will be inspected and replaced every 6 months, which exceeds the standard 12-18 month expected life of the proposed filters. The applicant states that should the carbon filters "breakdown" sooner (based on the presence of detectable odor), the maintenance schedule will be increased. Public testimony raised concerns that the engineer's report in inadequate because it does not demonstrate (in a legal definition) that the odor control system will be effective. No appellant or interested party has offered evidence to demonstrate the odor control technologies will be ineffective. For the Board's convenience, staff has outlined previous Board interpretations regarding odor control below. In the Administrative Determination, staff found the mechanical engineer's report met the requirements of this section and included an ongoing condition of approval: Odor. The proposed odor control system must at all times prevent unreasonable interference with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. The odor control system shall be maintained in working order and shall be in use. This is consistent with the Board's Rubio decision', where the Board found: The Board acknowledges that the criteria of this section are discretionary in terms of what constitutes 'unreasonable interference of neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property". The record includes two letters from Oregon -licensed Mechanical Engineer Robert James, PE, dated November 23 and November 29, 2096. The Board finds the applicant met these criteria. The Board also clarifies that odor control is an ongoing requirement and that the burden of compliance is on the applicant. The Board further clarifies that in subsequent applications, an engineer's letter should explicitly identify that the engineer signing the letter is a mechanical engineer. This is also consistent with the Board's Tewalt' decision, where the Board found: ' Rubio: BOCC Document Ns 2017-294, Planning Division File No 247-17-000036-A Z Tewolt: BOCC Document Ns 2017-718, Planning Division File No 247-17-000723-A 247-18-000412-A Page 4 of 10 The record contains two letters from Mechanical Engineer jay Castino addressing the mitigation of odor for the property. The initial letter submitted with the application (dated March 20, 2017) and a revised letter (dated September 6, 2017). Although one Board member disagreed, the remaining two Board members found that the applicant could meet the criteria with the ongoing condition of approval. • At all times, the proposed odor control system shall prevent unreasonable interference with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property, shall be maintained in working order, and shall be in use. The Board may wish to determine consistency with the Board's decision for Evolution Concepts LL C3 where the Board found: Although one Board member found the applicant could meet the criteria with an ongoing condition of approval, two Board members disagreed and found that the applicant did not provide enough specificity regarding odor control measures. The two commissioners found that the information submitted by the applicant does not demonstrate an ongoing capability to insure [sic] odor emissions will not unreasonably interfere with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. Staff defers to the Board to determine if the supplemental mechanical engineer's report and supporting literature sufficiently demonstrates compliance with the above criteria and previous Board interpretations. 2. Noise levels In the administrative decision, staff found the engineer's statements satisfied the requirements of DCC 18.116.330(B)(11), with a corresponding condition of approval to ensure ongoing compliance. In the Evolution Concepts LLC decision, the Board found: ... two Board members expressed a desire for additional details specific to the proposal and the property, especially concerning controlling sustained mechanical noise from the heating and ventilation equipment [... ] The Board finds that the applicant has not met its burden of demonstrating in a site-specific manner that sustained noise will not become a problem for this operation, relative to adjoining properties. Based on requests from the Board to provide more site specificity, the applicant included additional information in the mechanical engineer's report specifically related to noise abatement (Attachment E, Exhibit 5). The mechanical engineer's report includes site-specific analysis and measurements for the proposed mechanical equipment. Based on separation distances and intervening topography, the report calculated the sound pressure levels for the external equipment (TRANE 4TWA4 5 -ton heat pumps x26) to be greater than 30 dB at the south and east property lines. To mitigate these impacts, the applicant proposes two (2) 9.5 -foot tall sound barriers, separating each of the external equipment locations from the south property line. The engineer's report states that with these 3 Evolution Concepts LLC: BOCC Document Ns 2017-773, Planning Division File Ne 247-17-000803-A 247-18-000412-A Page 5 of 10 barriers in place and utilizing the production structures themselves as sounds barriers, the sound pressure levels will drop to 29.2 dBA at the south property line and 16.5 dBA at the east property line. Staff defers to the Board to determine if the supplemental mechanical engineer's report and supporting literature sufficiently demonstrates compliance with the above criteria and previous Board interpretations 3. Water sources There were several concerns raised regarding water in testimony and in written materials. For convenience, staff has summarized the issues below. COID Irrigation: Applicant proposes to use COID irrigation water during the irrigation season. The applicant included the water right certificates for this irrigation right and states the rights can be transferred on a temporary basis to structures not located on a mapped water right during irrigation season (April 1St to October 31St). COID's original "will serve" letter instructed the applicant that a transferwithin the property may be necessary and/or annual inspections by COID may be required. Domestic Water Uses: The appellant submitted information and concerns regarding a shared well agreement on the subject property (Attachment E, Exhibit 1). Specifically, the appellant was concerned that domestic water from the shared well would be utilized for marijuana production. The applicant stated that domestic water is currently used only for residential purposes and would continue to remain that way in the future. As the shared well is currently not metered, if necessary the applicant agrees to install a water meter on the well to ensure its exclusion from marijuana production activities (Attachment G). Staff defers to the Board to determine if the supplemental irrigation and domestic water information sufficiently demonstrates compliance with the above criteria and if the installation of a domestic well water meter should be included as a condition of approval. 4 Marijuana Processing and Fire Safety The appellant noted concerns around possible fire safety issues related to marijuana production activities on the subject property. The Board requested additional specificity on the type of marijuana processing operations on site and how these might contribute to fire risk. The applicant responded that the processing facilitywill utilize CO2 extraction technologies (Attachment C, Exhibit 2). The applicant states that this extraction technology is non-flammable and presents no increased explosion or fire hazard. Additionally, Clara Butler of Redmond Fire and Rescue stated that all fire code requirements must be met for the processing facility. Staff notes that these fire code requirements will be checked at the time of building permit issuance. 5. Traffic The appellant argues that the traffic impacts related to a commercial marijuana production and processing operation will have dramatic negative impacts to the surrounding community. The applicant supplied a Site Traffic Report (STR) from Transight Engineering which found that the proposed uses on site are expected to generate 41 daily trips and the subject property itself has no 247-18-000412-A Page 6 of 10 safety or transportation facility deficiencies (Attachment C, Exhibit 3). The applicant's STIR was reviewed by the Deschutes County Senior Transportation Planner who agreed with the methodology and conclusions. Additionally, staff notes that a condition of approval is included in the original administrative determination limiting the operation to a maximum of 10 employees on site at any given time, based on the parking and access proposals for the property. The applicant has stated that the proposed staffing arrangement will consist of five full-time production employees, 2 full-time processing employees, and approximately 10 part-time seasonal harvest employees, with no more than 10 employees working during any given shift (Attachment Q. The applicant states that any further traffic impacts will be related to delivery of products to retail facilities and seasonal water delivery consisting of 1-2 water truck trips per month. The applicant's STR finds that the proposed use would be equivalentto a 5,900 square -foot church, a 10,000 square - foot fire and rescue station, or a wholesale nursery with a 1,050 square -foot building. SUPPLEMENTARY OBJECTION POINTS Several additional points of opposition arose during the public testimony and through appellant comments. These points do not relate specifically to the County's approval criteria for marijuana production and processing. However, staff has summarized these areas of contention and the applicant's responses to provide the Board with greater clarity. 1. Marijuana Processing and Licensing Requirements The Board requested additional information on the types of products to be manufactured on site through the approval of a marijuana processing operation. The applicant states that all processing will consist of marijuana extracts and not the production of cannabis edibles or similar products. Additionally, staff notes that licensing of these operations is outside the County's jurisdiction. The Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) licenses laboratories that will conduct mandatory testing and analysis of goods produced on site to ensure compliance with health and safety regulations. Furthermore, should the applicant intend to produce edible products on site, staff notes this will require a modification of any previous land use approval as well as additional licensing from the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA). 2. COID Irrigation Requirements A stated above, the applicant has provided a "will serve" letter from COID regarding the use of irrigation water on site. Testimony provided at the hearing raised the issue of misused irrigation water on the subject property. Staff notes that the County does not have jurisdiction over the use of irrigation water on agricultural properties. However, the applicant responded by acknowledging that irrigation systems had not been properly utilized due to a recent transition in ownership and management of the site. The applicant states that the property's irrigation systems have since been reestablished and the irrigation water not utilized for marijuana production will continue to support grazing activities on site. The applicant submitted photographs from the subject property dated June 11th, 2018 (Attachment C, Exhibit 5) which appear to show irrigation systems on the subject property being utilized. Finally, the applicant states that reverse osmosis filters will be installed to ensure that all irrigation water can be safely utilized for production purposes and will not interfere with adjoining farm land or the irrigation water sources. (Attachment C, Exhibit 1). 247-18-000412-A Page 7 of 10 3 Company Profile and Transparency Comments presented by the appellant and elaborated on by the Board requested additional information concerning the establishment and membership of Evolution Group LLC, the limited liability company which is the applicant for this land use file. Staff notes that the applicant satisfied all application requirements, including providing the original signatures of the current property owner, ATP LLC. Additionally, staff notes that the County does not have jurisdiction over the composition and registration of limited liability companies in the State of Oregon. However, the applicant has provided current information from the Oregon Business Registry regarding the company and an additional company described as PV Group LLC (Attachment E, Exhibit 2). The applicant has also provided photographs regarding a separate, operational marijuana production facility in Deschutes County approved under a previous land use file to demonstrate the type of development proposed for the subject property (Attachment E, Exhibit 3). Additionally, the appellant included several references in the appeal materials to criminal activity on behalf of the applicant. Staff notes that criminal activity is not an approval criteria evaluated under land use applications. The applicant responded to these allegations in the following statement (Attachment E): The record includes some inaccurate references to the criminal record of one of Applicant's members, in particular relating to a conspiracy charge. The conspiracy charge was, in fact, a charge of conspiracy to sell marijuana, and not related to murder or treason, which are alternative bases for a conspiracy charge under the some statute ... In any event, the charge was dismissed and the charge and arrest are consequently eligible for expungement pursuant to ORS 137.225(1)(b). Finally, staff notes that while previous criminal activity is not an approval criteria evaluated during land use review, it is a component required during licensing approval under OLCC regulations. 4 Previous Agricultural Uses on Subject Property The Board requested additional information regarding the previous agricultural uses on site. Staff notes that previous agricultural uses on site are not a criteria evaluated in relation to the current marijuana production and processing application. However, the applicant stated that the subject property previously operated as a commercial dairy and the current proposal would likely produce similar impacts. The applicant was unable to locate historical information for the former dairy, however, its previous operation was confirmed in public testimony by the appellant. CONCLUSION & NEXT STEPS Staff respectfully requests that the Board specify if they intend to approve or deny the application and to provide any additional findings for Staff to include in their decision. The final local land use decision must be issued by September 6`h, 2018. At the conclusion of the business meeting, staff will draft a decision for Board signature. That decision will be placed on the agenda for one of the Board's future Business Meetings. 247-18-000412-A Page 8 of 10 TABLE 1: KEY ISSUES FOR BOARD DECISION 247-18-000412-A Page 9 of 10 X}9i`4.4� 4�nSa\�. Thea applicant submitted a pp Yes: See topic 3.1 below Has the applicant 1. Odor satisfied the odor mechanical engineer's control control requirements report, consistent with of DCC previous approvals. No: The application is denied 18.116.330(B)(10)? Has the applicant The mechanical engineer's Yes: The application may be satisfied the noise report identified the approved 2. Noise requirements of DCC mechanical noise would be No: The application is denied 18.116.330(B)(11)? less than 30 dB. Has the applicant The applicant submitted two Yes: The application may be satisfied the water sources of water that have approved been found to comply in 3. Water source requirements past decisions. The Board of DCC may condition any approval No: The application is denied 18.116.330(6)(13)? as well. 4. Marijuana Has the applicant satisfied the fire The applicant will provide all Yes: The applicant may be approved necessary fire protection for Processing protection processing of marijuana and Fire requirements of DCC extracts. No: The applicant is denied Safety 18.116.330(B)(14)? The applicant provided a Site Traffic Report from a certified traffic engineer, Yes: The applicant may be approved Has the applicant which was reviewed by the 5. Traffic satisfied traffic and Deschutes County access requirements Transportation Planner, and of DCC 18.124.060(x)? identified no infrastructure No: The applicant is denied deficiencies or improvements are needed. 247-18-000412-A Page 9 of 10 ATTACHMENTS FROM RECORD: NOTE: All of these attachments are in the written record. In the event the Board's decision is appealed, and by attaching these items to this memo, the following materials from the record have been properly presented before the Board. The complete digital written record is available on the Deschutes County Property Information website: http://dial.deschutes.org/Real/DevelopmentDocs/131792 and as well as the Oregon ePermitting website: https•//aca.oregon.accela.com/oregon/, and the physical record is available for inspection in the County's Community Development offices. From public hearing: A. Surrounding Area Map B. Final Site Plan C. Applicant's Response to Notice of Appeal (with Exhibits) D. Testimony Exhibits From open record period for new materials E. Applicant's comments After the close of the record: F. Applicant's Final Statement From previous record materials: G. Staff Memorandum prior to the hearing 1. Area Map 2. Administrative Determination (Findings and Decision) 3. Notice of Appeal (Lee Casebeer et al) 4. DCC 18.116.330 5. DCC 18.124 6. Mechanical Engineer's Report 7. Site Traffic Report 8. Site Plan 9. Agency Comments 10. Public Comments 11. Will Serve Letters H. Public comments submitted prior to the hearing I. Agency comments J. Application materials, Burden of Proof K. Letters re: incomplete application L. Notices of Application and Land Use Application Signs 247-18-000412-A Page 10 of 10 ATTACHMENT A Overview Map vlovx"01-0 -00 WMAX-OR -W ATTACHMENT 6 Final Site Plan wom'Aill - 0 1 1 riLl a rjAye I